Sarah Palin appearance at Freedom Summit was a total crowd-pleaser: FULL SPEECH

The Right Scoop via CSPAN ^ | 1/24/2015 | soopermexican

[sheikdetailfeather]

While Scoop has done a good job of debunking the rumor that Palin said she was interested in running for the presidency in 2016 already, some are saying she hinted at it in this speech. Whether she did or not, she packed it full of puns and zingers and really pumped up the crowd.

[I want the USA back]

Yeah, she’s good, but not as presidential material.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Well said.

Palin needs a new approach this time.

She needs to jump into the race, early and without any question.

Early, because that will allow everyone to decide she really wants it this time. And do so without any question.

We all got our hopes up in 2012. Some of us, pretty darn high.

I’m for you 100% but even I will admit, you need to jump right in this time.

Early.

[dfwgator]

It needs to either be Palin or Cruz, not both.

I say Cruz.

[bray]

The theme was she is kicking off her campaign and she laid out the path to victory. The ending was inspiring. She is the only one who can win.

[gov_bean_ counter]

I agree, but either would be savaged by Establishment Republicans.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

I partly disagree.

I do agree we need one champion for this race. However that does NOT mean we need to choose who it is, early.

I think we get them both to enter. Both of them. Gear up 100% and get everyone enthused.

Then after the first couple of races, one of the two of them steps down.

That is the thing. Palin or Cruz. I don’t care which one does, and I’m not ready to make that decision. Let the voters decide.

But once a stronger candidate appears, then the other one, either Palin or Cruz, needs to stand down. Completely stand down, and throw their support completely to the one who remains in the race.

Then when the final decision is reached, if it is the other one who wins...

Pick the first candidate who stood down earlier, as the Vice Presidential candidate.

[Gritty]

I have always liked Sara Palin. But it is obvious to me (my wife too) her presentation is getting worse and worse (too screechy and theatrical) and her message is getting too muddled (by her attempts at zingers and humor, many of which fall flat).

I don't know what has happened in the past few years, but this is not the same old Sarah Palin that rocked everybody at the '08 Convention and energized so much of the base for that loser, McCain. Maybe she is just trying too hard to rock the crowd and maybe trying too hard to be funny?

She isn't going to attract a lot of voters she already doesn't have by what she says and how she is saying it. She needs to hire a good speech coach, right away, if she is going to compete with anybody - including that accomplished screechaholic and certified harpy, Hitlery.

[exit82]

I watched the entire Palin speech.

She hit on every theme we believe in here on FreeRepublic.

It was not incoherent, she was not drunk, she did not ramble.

It was entertaining, and that is her informal style of speech.

I would rather have that level of reality and honesty than trained speakers who are polished but say nothing that they actually believe in.

And let us not forget—a large part of the GOP victory in 2010 and 2014 was due to her early adoption of primary candidates, more so than any other single Republican.

Even McConnell and Boehner dod not get their @sses in 2014 and push for GOP wins-—but Palin sure did.

She is the next Ronald Reagan.

I would love to see a Palin/Cruz ticket in 2016, even if we have to start a new party to run them.

After all, the GOP-E has already telegraphed that their choice is Bush with a side helping of Romney.

MY view of that is uncontrolled projectile vomiting.

[Sola Veritas]

You wrote: “That is the thing. Palin or Cruz. I don’t care which one does, and I’m not ready to make that decision. Let the voters decide....But once a stronger candidate appears, then the other one, either Palin or Cruz, needs to stand down. Completely stand down, and throw their support completely to the one who remains in the race.”

I am afraid you “may” be somewhat naïve. Only a really rare individual would totally put country ahead of their ego. Typically, those types that “seriously” (meaning to win) run for POTUS are NOT going to shelve their egos and “stand down” unless it is to save face (which is to save their ego). I truly like both Senator Cruz and Governor Palin (and would be happy with either as the eventually POTUS), but I don’t think either is humble enough to “stand down.”

I have been open in my current support for Governor Huckabee because MY primary concern are social/moral conservative ones. I believe him to be the purest (in focus) social/moral conservative in the pack. However, should he lose, I would not be distraught. Although not as socially/morally focused as Huckabee, I consider both Cruz and Palin good enough.

Now, what I am really getting improper enjoyment from concerning the possibility of a Palin run IS how much it - appears to me - to put 2ndDivisionVet in a conflict of interests. He LOVES Sarah, but has been pushing Ted as best I read him. Whatever will he do? ;-) Sarah is NOT going to ever be anyone’s VP again, and Cruz does not strike me as someone to be a VP to Palin - he is more powerful/influential as a senator. Besides....Sarah did run a VP to a confirmed RINO (McCain). Ted has never yielded like that.....even when it made him very unpopular.

[Resettozero]

I don't know what has happened in the past few years, but this is not the same old Sarah Palin that rocked everybody at the '08 Convention and energized so much of the base for that loser, McCain. Maybe she is just trying too hard to rock the crowd and maybe trying too hard to be funny?

At the Freedom Summit, she was not playing to the crowd. Not everyone there was an SP supporter. She was laying out a potential gameplan that was designed for closer examination IN PRINT LATER. This particular speech was not a typical stump speech. It seem to be designed, to some extent, to inform her potential staff and team members to get ready...it's coming down.

Her new speech pattern with her SINCERE gestures in this presentation was tailored to deliver specific information to specific people and not just to persuade potential voters and supporters who were in attendance there. I'm a voice coach. I pay attention to how she's doing. She nailed it Saturday in Iowa.

[EveningStar]

If she really throws her hat into the ring for POTUS, I’ll be very surprised.

[CatherineofAragon]

"You’ve never lost the (real and true) women’s support"

Well, it's good to know that any female who supports Cruz isn't a real woman.

"Many if not most of these men felt you might have jilted them personally in 2011 by not running and that you’re leading them on again. "

"Make the announcement definitely and sooner rather than later, and the jilted men will fall in line again, one by one by one."

What? Seriously?

You don't give Freeper men more credit than that?

[seekthetruth]

Per usual, I agree with you totally!!

I for one will back with everything that is in me the Republican candidate who wins the Republican nomination! NO MATTER WHO IT IS! YES, no matter who it is!

My sweet hubby and I were sitting just 20 feet in front of Andrew Breitbart when he said the following in 2012, before the Republican nominee was known for the 2012 election:
“Anyone that’s willing to stand next to me to fight the Progressive left, I will be in that bunker, and if you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you’re on the other side.”
Andrew passed away before the 2012 election, but as he looked down from heaven I know he was dissapointed in those conservatives who stayed home and/or refused to vote for the 2012 Republican Nominee. They did not help us fight the Progressive/Marxist/Left!

I think many who profess to want another Reagan, are not quite familiar with the “all” of Reagan.

Reagan’s 11th Commandment:
“Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican”

[Resettozero]

Well, it's good to know that any female who supports Cruz isn't a real woman.

Palin's and Cruz's suporters are and have been mostly the same people. That you would make such a sexist inference from what I posted shows some sort of improper bias of your interpretation of what was posted. What gives?

You don't give Freeper men more credit than that?

I am saying that many, if not most, of the jilted Palin male supporters (not nearly all of whom post on FR) will eventually come back on board if she declares definitively to run and fight hard for the win. Previous supporters were on board with her at some time in the past and can be persuaded again fairly easily as soon as each one is convinced she WILL to run TO WIN this time.

[MinuteGal]

Excellent post...spot on!

Leni

[CatherineofAragon]

"Palin's and Cruz's suporters are and have been mostly the same people. That you would make such a sexist inference from what I posted shows some sort of improper bias of your interpretation of what was posted. What gives?"

Sexist, schmexist.

Again, you said:

"You’ve never lost the (real and true) women’s support."

So please spare me the stuff about "interpretation."

[Gritty]

Her new speech pattern with her SINCERE gestures... I'm a voice coach. I pay attention to how she's doing. She nailed it.

You could be right from a technical standpoint but from our personal standpoint (and we like and would support her) it fell short. The question is, will she be able to appeal far beyond her loyal base? After all, she has been thoroughly demonized by the media since 2008. She has a huge hill to climb from that angle alone and her screechy voice grates.

From a persuasion and speechifying standpoint, I think Cruz is much better. But that is just my uninformed gut opinion. Your mileage no doubt varies.

[Resettozero]

So please spare me the stuff about "interpretation."

I posted in a memo to SP "You've never lost the (real and true) women's support" and you interpreted that as sexist somehow against the women who support Ted Cruz. The meaning is clear and made specifically clear by referring to real true women who have been Palin supporters in the past and not the grouchy sexist screwed-up lib feminists who are only malfunctional females and NEVER DID SUPPORT PALIN.

Is there truly that much of a problem with understanding my posted statements other than you just want to be contrary today?

(See what can happen when you mess around too long with Henry...?)

[onyx]

PLEASE Make YOUR Donation!
Go Monthly if you possibly and reliably can!


You Can Help Drastically Shorten FReepathons by Donating Monthly!
VERY Generous FReeper Sponsors are donating $10 for every New Monthly Donor!
Please Sign Up to Donate Monthly!

[Resettozero]

From a persuasion and speechifying standpoint, I think Cruz is much better. But that is just my uninformed gut opinion. Your mileage no doubt varies.

HOW has my posting on this thread about Palin's speech on Saturday been TWISTED into an anti-Cruz comparison?!

Well, it wasn't. SP's and TC's supporters greatly overlap. I know that SP and TC have supported EACH OTHER in the past and have indicated their mutual admiration continues to this day.

I also know that I support both SP and TC and will vote for one of them when both their names are on a ballot.

As I said in an earlier post, SP's speech Saturday was NOT a typical stump speech designed to persuade just the voters in the auditorium or watching on video. It was an informational and directional speech for her team looking ahead to the coming campaign, whether she runs on her own or in support of another conservative.

She packed a ton of information into that one speech and no, it wasn't the former style of Palin stump speech.