Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

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

But Palin was NOT speaking about a “Trump administration” alone.

She was speaking generally about any role she might play in any NOT Deemocrat administration.

Because she’s not stupid.

    I concur because I can. (No one-eyed cats were used for this reply.)

    DOE DOA? Sounds like a plan! Go for it Scott Walker. And don’t forget ACA, another acronym for Big Brother on speed.

      You rang?

      “It will be fascinating if Trump does end up getting it, or, for that matter, Carson or Fiorina,” he said of the GOP’s presidential nomination next election cycle, also noting retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina.

      “The four of them have to be seen as a team, in a sense,” he said of the trio and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

      Gingrich additionally dismissed criticism of Trump’s foreign policy credentials during his interview Sunday morning.

      “This is not presidential stuff,” he said. “He’s going to hire a secretary of State.”

      Gingrich’s remarks follow Trump’s awkward exchange with radio host Hugh Hewitt last week.

      Trump accused Hewitt of asking him “gotcha” questions last Thursday evening.

      http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/trump-is-running-to-win

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 7, 2015 at 2:14 pm

        How did it work out the last time a know-nothing mystery-meat POTUS “hired” a SecState?

        But let’s say for chuckles T-rump had the smarts to appoint someone like John Bolton as SecState. How long before Bolton quit because he’s not a fan of Collectivist protectionism? And would T-rump lie about “firing him” like he did Mr. Stone?

        All legitimate questions.

          Comparing Obama, a spoon fed politician socialist-marxist/Islam hugger from childhood with no leadership track record at all hiring an extremist socialist butterball turkey for SoS, to a successful tycoon with a long track record of accomplishments supported by a plularity of core conservatives who is tucking to the establishment on both sides which is totally responsible for the sad ugly state of this nation, is a stretch of the imagination.

          See… My view (until Trump himself changes it) is Trump is the first Tea Party candidate. He’s not perfect but then, who is perfect?

          He will curtail his knee jerk reactions to criticism as soon as those trying to undermine his right to run for office have been paddled publicly.

          The above is commentary, my views… Only Trump’s actions can change my views of him and no one can lie to all the people all the time.

          I don’t give a fig what criticism these views garner… From anyone.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 7, 2015 at 2:44 pm

          Passionate…and indeed fawning…as all that was it didn’t address my questions.

          “…those trying to undermine his right to run for office…”

          I am unaware of anyone who is challenging his “right to run”. Perhaps you could provides some links, because I can’t imagine anyone stopping an oligarch from doing much of anything marginally legal.

          mariner in reply to Ragspierre. | September 7, 2015 at 3:02 pm

          They’re premature questions, to which you presume without evidence to have the answers.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 7, 2015 at 3:13 pm

          That’s clearly not true.

          The first is retrospective.

          The rest are predicated on T-rump’s stated positions and conduct.

          If you don’t ask PROSPECTIVE questions when you CAN, all you’re left with is “we’re screwed”.

        Yeah, I rang!

        “DOE DOA? Sounds like a plan! Go for it Scott Walker. And don’t forget ACA, another acronym for Big Brother on speed.”

        TRUMP’s acronym: Time Recalls Unfinanced Multiple Projects.

    “But Palin was NOT speaking about a “Trump administration” alone.”

    True, but it doesn’t matter. That is the next one. Trump is close to hitting 40% of registered R’s, a “magical” number.

    https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/09/06/trumps-gop-dominance-continues/

    I also concur, Rags, one-eyed cat avatar and all.

She’d be a great choice. I’d also select Greg Lukianoff (CEO of FIRE) for Education Secretary. Both would have elimination of their departments as their primary objective.

When Palin gets done with the Energy Dept., maybe Trump could send her over to the EPA. There’s a lot of trashing that needs to be done there.

    Appoint her first to the DOE; next, appoint her to the other DOE; next appoint her to the Dept. of Homeland Security (get this back to where it was). All for the same purpose – to give our Nation that much needed enema to flush the crap out of the system.

I would rather see Palin at EPA, or anyone else with some common sense and a chainsaw (to be taken to the budget). Or even at Justice, which needs a very thorough house cleaning. Or at Commerce, where crony capitalism (read: corruption) is considered the mission. There’s a department that needs torn down and rebuilt on a much much smaller scale.

The thought of Sarah Palin heading up the DOE and shutting it down puts a smile on my lips and a song in my heart 🙂

If I were elected President, I would make Sarah Palin Secretary of State. Imagine how many of our enemies that would piss off.

Excuse me but did LI just call Sarah Palin a Mega-Troll?

If so, this is a far cry from the LI 2008 stance.

And I agree with Rags… Sarah stressed she would accept the DOE role from any other admin but… Spinners Gotta Spin.

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 7, 2015 at 2:08 pm

    Quoth Miss Centrifuge, Queen of the “Undecided Voters”…!!!

    BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA…

    healthguyfsu in reply to VotingFemale. | September 7, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    Please tell me you aren’t one of those people that just reads a title and not the article’s content.

    In today’s internet, troll can be a subjective compliment or insult. It really depends on the artistry with which the act is delivered and of course the perspective of the audience.

    “Excuse me but did LI just call Sarah Palin a Mega-Troll?”

    Both Instapundit and Iowahawk are masters at the art of trolling, and so was Breitbart (RIP). What a weird thing for you to take offense at. Anyone who’s been around social media for more than five minutes gets that trolling the enemy can be a good thing.

At the very least, the title is click bait.

Could said ‘Mega-Fishing’ could it not?

Ted Cruz invites Trump & Palin to his Anti-Iran Deal Rally.

There’s a subj and title for a new blog post.

    Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 7, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    Like I said, Cruz is gonna wax T-rump’s back and ride him like a surfboard…!!!

      If he does, then the best man wins. If he doesn’t, then the best man wins.

      I am a huge Ted Cruz fan & a huge Sarah Palin fan.

      Never, in the past, was a Trump fan.

      I see what all who are polling favorably for Trump sees.

      As a matter of public record, Ted Cruz follows me on Twitter.
      I had a convo with him on twitter and he followed.

      Sarah Palin is the first person I followed after getting my twitter acnt.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | September 7, 2015 at 3:51 pm

        “I am a huge Ted Cruz fan”.

        And…yet, I think that would be hard to prove by the relative volume of your posts.

        Jes’ sayin’…

          When LI starts publishing articles on candidate Cruz I will be there as his fan just like you. Like Gringrich, I view the outsider gang of four as a team against the GOP establishment. I think of them as America’s Team.

          In the meantime, all/most sites are swamped with candidate Trump articles.

          If you go back in the LI archives you will undoubtedly find my fan girl comments on Ted Cruz articles when he ran for the Senate. I was a Cruz booster. Same with my twitter timeline.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 7, 2015 at 4:59 pm

          Strange. I find no difficultly in boosting Cruz or Walker.

          Telling, no?

          You gonna start the ankle-biting sh!t again? Buzz Off Rags, you bore the hell out of me .

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 7, 2015 at 5:38 pm

          Awww…

          Baby! I thought you were doing so well. Now you’ve gone all “personal attack” on me. Does this mean you can’t deal with my questions?

          Look. Rags… you obviously have some alpha-male issues over folks not agreeing you. Stop your incessant targeted ankle-biting.

          I boost Carly, Cruz, Walker, Carson, Trump on twitter, my main venue for political commentary.

          Lately it has been more Trump than the other four combined b/c GOP forces are trying to deny Trump his Constitutional Right To GOP Candidacy & I like his platform. Trump has a right not to be targeted by the GOP/RNC for removal.

          Here is a new report of GOP targeting:

          http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/report-gop-elites-plan-to-take-down-trump-with-deluge-of-anti-trump-ads-after-labor-day/

          Candidates’ ads are one thing… GOP/RNC funding any ads directed against any candidate is entirely another.

          The RINOs have been at it since Trump polls showed promise and I, for one, call that for what it is… douchbaggery.

          The more the GOP/RINOs try to do that to him, the more stubbornly I push back and I am farrrrrr farrrrr from the only one.

          The RINO-GOP will be doing the same exact thing to Cruz when he is the front runner, should Trump fade.

          GOP Establishment RINOs *hate* Cruz as much, or even more, than they hate Trump, Sarah Palin, and a list of many others.

          I will also call it out when it happens to Cruz… no amount of badgering by trolls will dissuade me.

          When it becomes Cruz’s turn in the RINOs barrel, stand back… I will go on the flippin’ conservative warpath like you have never seen.

          Now, buzz off Rags and stop acting like a creepy.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 7, 2015 at 9:06 pm

          Well, no, I won’t do what you tell me.

          Just to be clear; it’s OK for you to call me names? For the record.

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?

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

      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.

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.

    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.

        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.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend