Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03
    Announcement
     
    Announcement
     

    Mega-Trolling: Sarah Palin for Energy Secretary Under Trump?

    Mega-Trolling: Sarah Palin for Energy Secretary Under Trump?

    Vows to eliminate the Department of Energy if appointed.

    Some classic cable news was created this weekend when CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Sarah Palin what role she thought she could fill in a Donald Trump administration.

    Palin volunteered for the role of energy secretary but said that she’d close down the department.

    Even the Washington Post took notice. Vanessa Williams reported:

    Sarah Palin would like to be energy secretary — but not for long

    Sarah Palin thinks she would make a great secretary of the U.S. Energy Department because as a former governor of Alaska she knows a thing or two about “oil and gas and minerals.”

    But she would not stay in the job for long if Republican candidate Donald Trump won the presidency and asked her to serve. The businessman and reality TV show star has said that he would “love” to have Palin in his administration “because she really is somebody that knows what’s happening. And she’s a special person.”

    Palin, during an interview Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” said: “I think a lot about the Department of Energy, because energy is my baby … And if I were head of that, I would get rid of it. And I would let the states start having more control over the lands that are within their boundaries and the people who are affected by the developments within their space.”

    “So, you know, if I were in charge of that, it would be a short-term job. But it would be — it would be really great to have someone who knows energy and is pro-responsible development to be in charge,” she said.

    Here’s the video:

    Back in 2010, Professor Jacobson wrote about a Rhode Island Lt. Governor candidate who vowed to do the same type of thing. Ironically, he was a member of the “Cool Moose” party:

    Rhode Island Lt. Gov. Candidate Promises To Eliminate The Office If Elected

    Robert Healey of the Cool Moose Party is running for the third time for Lt. Governor in Rhode Island.

    Healey has been on a mission to eliminate the office of Lt. Governor, which he views as a wasteful and useless bureaucracy costing a million dollars a year.

    Healey’s campaign platform was and is that if elected, he will eliminate the office (the formal elimination of the position of Lt. Governor would require a constitutional change).  Which, over the course of the 4-year term, will save taxpayers $4 million.

    Healey was interviewed by former Providence Mayor and now talk show host Buddy Cianci.

    Healey reiterated his plan to eliminate the office pursuant to a deal hatched with the RI Republican Party, which is on board with eliminating the office, whereby the Republican primary winner would drop out after the primaries to improve Healey’s chances.

    Featured image via YouTube.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     6
    Henry Hawkins | September 7, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    Fourteen months out from an election and before the primaries have even begun, it is important to note that when 34%, or 36%, or 40%, whatever the poll number supporting Trump means that 66%, or 64%, or 60% do not support Trump. This is a factor of having such a large GOP field. However, eventually it will come down to two, maybe three, main competitors, and supporters of the candidates who’ve dropped out will realign with one of the surviving candidates.

    The question then is what would make voters currently unwilling to support Trump move to Trump once their first choice is out? Some will go to Trump despite not wanting him now, but many will not, for the same reasons they can’t support him now.

    A plurality of support this early in a presidential campaign is very common, and more often than not, that candidate goes on to lose.

    Let’s say it comes down to Trump or Cruz for the GOP nomination, meaning Walker, Perry, Carson, Fiorina, Bush, Rubio, etc., are all out. Are those voters more likely to move to Trump or Cruz (or Walker, or Perry, whatever)? Are current supporters of Walker, Perry, Carson, Fiorina, Bush, Rubio, etc., going to find Cruz (in this example) their best second choice, the one most like their first choice, now out of it, or will most of them go to Trump?

    Not a rhetorical question. That is the question – to whom will losing supporters move their support?

      Well written, well thought out and very on pointpoint, Henry, N my view.

      There is a clear division between the four outsider candidates: trump cruz fiorina & carson vs the rest of the candidates.

      These four, according to a new poll, garner 60% of GOP primary voters.

      Do the math and it says 60% to 40% in favor of one of the gang of four.

      If one of them wins nomination, who will that 40% vote for in the general election?


       
       0 
       
       0
      JoAnne in reply to Henry Hawkins. | September 7, 2015 at 6:59 pm

      My fear is that they will sit home and do nothing.


         
         0 
         
         3
        Henry Hawkins in reply to JoAnne. | September 7, 2015 at 10:38 pm

        Currently, the GOP either takes total control – and puts up the wrong guy, repeatedly – or it loses control of its own party to a Trump.

        Had a talk with a neighbor, sitting on our lawn mowers, and he mentioned his support for Trump. Why, I asked. He said he liked Trump’s tough stand on illegal immigration. Huh? I said Trump says tough words on illegal immigration, talk being cheap, but that Trump supports a form of back door amnesty called the ‘touchback’ plan, where illegals go back to their home countries, pick up a visa, and can come right back and take up residency in America. He said, WHAT? I pointed out that Democrats first introduced the touchback plan as legislation back in ’07. No shit, he said, I’ll be danged (he’s from Texas). And that Trump was a registered Democrat at the time, would be for a couple years further. He got vulgar in language at that point.

        My poll sample was small – one neighbor – but he admitted he has no real idea what Trump stands for, but at least he’s saying stuff none of the others are, dadgummit. Is that enough to win your support, I asked, to talk tough while your proposals are actually kind of liberish? I didn’t dare tell him Trump supported banning ‘assault rifles’ back in the day, as well as abortion. My neighbor says he’s a conservative, you see.

          Thanks for the reply, Henry. There has to be confirmed citations that Trump is planning what you are characterizing and in the way you characterize it.

          What I have citations for is different than that.

          Here’s why… existing law is being overidden. Those in elected office facilating that are the last I would believe anything from regarding the Trump policy as I have read it.

          GOP & Dem upper eschilon have billions in control and hard cash to lose if Trump is who and what he purports to be.

          It’s a slimy corrupt ruthless Political cesspool.


     
     3 
     
     0
    snapper451 | September 7, 2015 at 5:36 pm

    Wouldn’t it be cool if she showed up in January 2017 and shut it down by April 15 (an appropriate date)!
    Further, Trump could bring in someone to head Treasury and lay off thousands of IRS employees and announce the prosecution of Lois Lerner, John Koskinen, and Valerie Jarrett in his inaugural address.

    As of 9/8/2015, at 1258 CDT, Rags, your comment count on this article is: 11. what may be posted afterwards is not included in this summary. Wow, maybe not a world record, yet quite an effort by itself!

    But, to what end, Sir, for what reason, to achieve what goal, Sir? What would you do if LI were not here? Would you take over a different blog? Just asking. Peace! Out.


       
       0 
       
       2
      Barry in reply to Doug Wright. | September 8, 2015 at 2:31 pm

      If you are so worried about the “count’ of comments, perhaps you would like to count others, like 17 in this thread. Are you bothered by it?

        Hi Barry,

        This will be my 18th comment to this blogpost.

        I have made more comments than anyone else as best I can casually determine. That only happened because I was cast as a protagonist by high volume assertions challenging my POVs.

        I wasn’t going to post again unless I came up as the subject of a comment, either directly or obliquely which you have just done.

        Now that you opened that door, I will share new information just out today.

        This is the new information from a leading national conservative news & opinion site Brietbart.com regarding the RINO-GOP/RNC’s war to keep them in control and examining whom/what in the media are their political attack dogs.

        Hugh Hewitt’s GOP/RNC Establishment upper echelon role is discussed in detail, and it is *damning,* imo.

        I urge everyone who agrees or disagrees with my POVs to read it… it’s just that damning.

        Hugh Hewitt, GOP Debate Questioner, Sides with Establishment, Not Voters

        http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/08/hugh-hewitt-gop-debate-questioner-sides-with-establishment-not-voters/

        Excerpt:

        Hewitt is going to be asking the questions in the Sept. 16 debate, and he’s already made clear he doesn’t like Trump—he doesn’t like his populist priorities, and he prefers establishment candidates, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who has tried since 2012 to boost the migration of lower-wage, profit-boosting foreign workers into the United States.

        “No. no, he doesn’t” have the “temperament” to be president, Hewitt said about Trump, to NBC host Chuck Todd Aug. 9.

        The next debate takes place Sept. 16 at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, but Hewitt is already doing his best to rough-up Trump.

        Trump sat for a Sept. 3 interview on Hewitt’s radio show. While the title of the audio file posted on Hewitt’s website suggests that the interview was presented to Trump as an opportunity to answer why he “took the [GOP] pledge,” yet Hewitt’s first mention of Trump’s GOP pledge did not come until 20 minutes and 32 seconds into the interview—an interview which was a grand total of 20 minutes at 47 seconds long.
        .
        .
        .
        Hewitt is the media darling of establishment Republicans and GOP leadership. For instance, in June of this year both Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)and House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)separately appeared on Hewitt’s show to sell the Republican plan to grant Obama authority to pass globalist wage-reducing trade deals, and earlier this year, Mitt Romney decided to allow Hewitt to be the first to report that Romney would not be running for president.

        Thus the talk radio host, who was handpicked to participate in the debates as part of the Republican National Committee’s plan to provide balance to “Establishment” media outlets, is himself an establishment media figure in an election where outsiders and voters are jointly slashing at the bipartisan establishment that has run Washington since at least 1988.

        ——

        The above excerpt is only a part of a comprehensive evaluation of Hugh Hewitt’s activities supporting the GOP/RNC Establishment’s agenda and particular websites steered by them which runs opposite of the best interests of most voters.


           
           1 
           
           0
          Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 8, 2015 at 5:10 pm

          Yah, that smear-piece is why so many Conservatives have given up on “Breitbart” (the infamous things that use his name).

          Take, for instance, this lie…

          “Hewitt’s support for open borders would accelerate the decline in schools’ SAT scores and would impose additional burdens on already-strained educational resources, but would also fill the ranks of Democrats with millions of additional government-dependent migrants.”

          But, from 2013…

          Broadcasting locally on Philadelphia’s 990 AM WNTP, Hewitt reacted with Mark Steyn that evening, remarking, “You know, Mark, I’m not sure if I should be proud of this or not, but some people were saying if they’ve lost Hugh Hewitt, they’ve lost the ability to trick anybody, because all I wanted was a fence. I mean, I was a pretty easy sale. I had low sales resistance, and they went and they screwed up the easiest thing in the world to do, which is to order a fence be built.”

          “…I feel like the guy who walks onto the car lot with cash, and all he wants to do is buy a blue car, and there are lots of blue cars, and they refuse to sell him the blue car.” the radio host later added.
          http://www.examiner.com/article/hugh-hewitt-fenced-on-immigration

          Or this slimy trick…

          **NBC’s Chuck Todd later described the mugging as the “Hugh Hewitt pop quiz of Donald Trump.”

          Trump’s enemies in the GOP and in the GOP-leaning media seized on the interview to claim that Trump is unprepared for the job. His answers are “very concerning,” said Hewitt’s favorite candidate, Rubio. Politico, a pro-establishment website, called the interview a “gaffe” for Trump.**

          As though Hewitt is responsible for what others say about T-rump.

          You cannot commit heresy against the little yellow god, Mr. Establishment! OR even allow OTHERS to say things!

          Next, there’s this…

          “Hewitt is the media darling of establishment Republicans and GOP leadership. For instance, in June of this year both Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) separately appeared on Hewitt’s show to sell the Republican plan to grant Obama authority to pass globalist wage-reducing trade deals, and earlier this year, Mitt Romney decided to allow Hewitt to be the first to report that Romney would not be running for president.”

          He’s a “media darling” for having new-makers on to interview? Now, THERE’S a tour d’force in ThoughtPolicing!

          The author even dragoons Ezra Klein into he smear-fest:
          “On free trade deals, Trump shares a skepticism held by about half of Republican voters, but that’s usually suppressed by the party’s powerful business wing,” writes Ezra Klein from liberal-leaning website Vox.

          So. Which is it? Free trade good, or free trade “establishment”? I know what Milton Friedman said. And http://www.friesian.com/hayek.htm

          What you see here is a slime attack on the messenger…not a defense of the T-rump interview and its aftermath, which featured his common (now) bizarre attack on a guy he wrote a personal note to in his own handwriting AFTER the interview, saying it was an “honor”. It’s like there’s a little voice in his head that can’t abide any notion of criticism or his own failure, even so small a one as his performance on an interview.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend