Posted on 07/09/2010 5:10:03 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
Sarah Palin cranked up her 2012 presidential campaign another notch today, with the release of a campaign video aimed directly at women. The basic math is simple. If she gets half of the female primary voters and caucus attenders to support her, then she standing starts at roughly 25% of the total vote. Throw in a third of the male vote and she's at roughly 40%. Forty percent wins the Iowa caucuses, handily.
Which then sets up New Hampshire as the place where the not-Sarah candidate emerges. In all likelihood, that will be former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who finished second in NH in 2008 and who will spend whatever it takes to win there in 2012.
Assuming that the race is then reduced to Palin and Romney, the next critical state primary is South Carolina. At that point, I don't think the specifics really matter. The fact is that the Republican Party of 2012 is not going to nominate a Mormon as its standard bearer. And the more important fact is that the base of the Republican Party doesn't just favor Sarah Palin, they love her. She is their standard bearer. And they will not -- this time around -- be denied.
As the Republican avalanche of 2010 builds -- and I saw a poll the other day of a Democratic-leaning state Senate district on Long Island where the "right track" (8%)/"wrong direction" (83%) was unlike anything I had ever seen -- Palin has smartly positioned herself as the champion of the conservative counter-revolution. By December, she will almost certainly be the de facto front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination.
By the time the Establishment GOP wakes up to this reality, it may be too late for them to do anything about it. Their view of Palin is that she's useful to the party because she can help keep "the Tea Party types inside the tent." And maybe she can serve coffee while she's at it. Palin's view is that (1) "the Tea Party types" are the party, (2) she is their standard bearer and (3) anyone who thinks "the Tea Party types" are there to lick envelopes and knock on doors should think again. They're there, she asserts, to take back their party and to take back their country.
"She's too stupid" is what the Establishment GOP really thinks about Sarah Palin. "Good-looking," but a "ditz." This is unfertile ground, since Palin can turn the argument on a dime and say: "They drive the country into bankruptcy, they underwrite Fannie and Freddie, they bail out Goldman Sachs, they fight wars they don't want to win, they say enforcing the immigration laws is silly and they call me stupid! I'll give you a choice: you can have their smarts or my stupidity, which one do you want?" A large number of GOP presidential primary voters will take Palin's "stupidity" in a heartbeat.
What this means is two things: (1) the pressure on former Florida Governor Jeb Bush to run for the GOP presidential nomination will increase as the year moves along, and (2) the likelihood of a strong independent party candidacy increases as Palin's support within the GOP broadens. Oh, and it also means one other thing: President Obama is not doomed.
“You give me a couple silly excerpts from one book, quoting even more silly comments from CBS/MSM types about Reagan”
And you give me...nothing but your talking points. Weak.
What do you know of Regan’s “body of work” in 1978-79? Exactly nothing. Reagan had a radio program and he was traveling the country campaigning for GOP candidates. Again, I have no idea what you mean by “showing intellect on various topics”.
The reason you are not specific is that you don’t really know what Reagan’s history was between is that you are too lazy to learn it or you are afraid it will closely resemble the current activities of a conservative former governor whom you happen to dislike.
I assume this is the best that you and your ilk can do. If this is the caliber of the opposition she faces, I can start humming ruffles and flourishes and looking forward to her inauguration.
Yep...I figured as much.
Wrong.
The only way your argument works is if Palin had campaigned “nonstop” for McCain.
But she didn’t.
“we’re all Reaganites now”
They have tried along with the MSM to so dumb down the definition of Reagan that they can all claim his mantle. How many of them actually say, We are all Bushies now or we are all Fordites now. None. Because they were abject failures.
Most of these creepers will not declare a preference, which is curious. They are either lying and on the payroll of some Establishment candidate like Mittens or Huckster or Paultards who are bewitched by his sorcery. Or they just hate Palin because they don’t want to see a girl in charge. Or they are Democrat trolls sent to conservative sites to sow discord. I imagine there are a few with policy differences or other misgivings, although they rarely identify anything but the quitter/ intelligence/ “she’s not qualified” memes that were for the most part hurled Reagan’s way.
I would love to hear Lyn Nofziger’s take on 2012. I have a pretty good idea what it would have been. He was able to call a spade a spade and he detested the elites. Where do you think he would have stood?
“The only way your argument works is if Palin had campaigned “nonstop” for McCain.
But she didn’t.
What the hell do you call this ? “
http://www.johnmccain.com/newsroom/audio-clip/sarah-palin-radio-ad/
You have it exactly wrong.
Palin stepped down in order to fulfill her obligations to the people of Alaska.
Political psychopaths bringing false ethics charges perpetrated a state of dysfunction on her governorship (something that can’t happen on a federal executive level), so the only way she could uphold her sworn duties as governor was by stepping down and allowing Sean Parnell to continue service to the people of Alaska.
I don’t think you would be foolish enough to argue that the lieutenant governorship is not a valid political office.
Not the same.
You are indeed pathetic. Have a nice day.
Thanks for the good wishes.
Not for the “pathetic” part though. It’s clear you have nothing on me.
“Most of these creepers will not declare a preference, which is curious. They are either lying and on the payroll of some Establishment candidate”
Ain’t that the truth.
Correction....not ‘we can’t” ...’we won’t”.
Having said that I have always said ( on Fr also in the past) ....If ONE nuke gets through the Mexican border, the border will be sealed in 48 hours with shoot to kill orders.
You may think from YOUR vantage point, that the rank and file Americans want the illegals DEPORTED...but once it actually begins and the wialing starts at least ALL the Obama voters and some extra ( that’s a LOT) will scream “stop”
I have not attacked Mrs. Plain, simply stated she is not ready to be POUTS/CinC in my opinion.
My vantage point is I don't spend time with the garbage that favors illegal alien criminal scum. Are honest and decent people in the minority now?
I agree with your nuke assessment I just don't see why more Americans must be murdered before something is done about a huge and obvious problem.
Furthermore, R. Reagan served in the Military, was at TWO-term Governor of CA, he was from the early-mid 60s one of the Conservative intellects of this great Nation. Mrs. Plain has achieved none of that. We aren't talking R. Reagan in 1968...R. Reagan became the leader he was more than a dozen years after that.
The notion that Mrs. Plain is ready to be POUTS/CinC after barely 4 years on the national scene is just silly and not serious. It is exactly what we have in the current fool Obama (only her politics are better). People have to start understanding, politics matter, of course, but so does sound leadership experience and years of tuning in ones intellect.
I will say this for Mrs. Palin. I think she is going to be the one to admit this to her "base" of fans. That she is not ready to run for POTUS in 2012. She sees another avenue for her to be a major credit to helping this Nation. In another fashion, that is not POTUS/CinC.
A desire to serve defines McCain
Sarah Palin
Mar. 26, 2010
Special for the Arizona Republic
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/
I posted that letter on FR in March and got flamed by the Palinistas for doing so.
It’s fairly clear from her own words in that letter that she’s a McCainiac.
Because we now have the almost majority of those who pay no taxes, a large group of them on welfare or some undeserving disability payments....these people DO NOT care about illegals..no skin off their nose...they don’t care about anything except VOTING IN DEMS WHO GIVE THEM MORE FREE $$ AND GOODIES.
We are becomming Greece.....yes, honest and decent people ARE in the minority now!
Besides, all the states who are not on the border...those citizens are busy with American Idol and golf and football.
She is an airhead, and 100% under McCain’s thumb.
“We aren’t talking R. Reagan in 1968...R. Reagan became the leader he was more than a dozen years after that.”
Again, you don’t know your history. Ronald Reagan WAS the leader of the conservative movement in 1968, in the same way that Sarah Palin is its leader today. Reagan came within a hair’s breadth of snatching the nomination away from Richard Nixon in 1968 after a mere 18 months as Governor of California. He was a candidate at the 1968 GOP convention in Miami. He was just as well qualified to be President in 1968 as he was in 1976 or 1980. Mixing it up with Jess Unruh in the California Assembly for another six years prepared him not one bit for the Oval Office. And Reagan was ready to go for the brass ring in 1968. He just waited too long to begin actively campaigning for it.
Question for you: It is 1968. Your choice is Richard Nixon who has been in the U.S. House for 4 years, U.S. Senate for two years and Vice President for eight years or Ronald Reagan who has been Governor of California since January 1967, 18 months. Who was better qualified?
Strom Thurmond, who held the southern delegations for Nixon when they were ready to bolt to Reagan, thought that Nixon was better qualified because he had more years in public office, and that Reagan’s turn would come. Reagan had not campaigned actively for the 1968 nomination, yet he had won more popular votes in the GOP primaries than any other candidate. His critical mistake was the he failed to lobby the southern and western delegations hard, and one reason for that was Thurmond’s rock solid backing of the “more experienced” Nixon:
“Critically, Reagan did not seek caucus delegates in the South, where he was wildly popular, or in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast states, where he was the regional favorite. Had Reagan run hard, there is an excellent chance that he would have won the Republican presidential nomination in 1968.”
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0303/0303reagan68.htm
In 1968, I was for Reagan and it was a huge disappointment that he failed to get the nomination. But Thurmond held the south for Nixon and Nixon won on the first ballot.
In 1968, I thought Reagan was the best qualified candidate for President. My question to you is where would you have stood in 1968? With Reagan or with the more experienced Nixon?
Nixon had undeniably been in office much longer and had held a variety of positions in the government. If that is your measuring stick, you have an easy choice. It would be Nixon.
But being qualified for President is more than just parking your butt in a public office(s), as far as I am concerned.
Who had the courage of his convictions? Who inspired conservatives like no one else? Who was the real leader? Who was the the person whose goodness of character suggested the potential to be both a good and a great President? That person was Ronald Reagan, in my estimation. It was as true in 1968 as it was in 1976 or 1980.
Use whichever standard for “qualification” you wish but tell us who was better qualified for President in 1968, Reagan or Nixon?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.