Posted on 09/25/2011 12:42:05 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
It is hard to argue that Sarah Palin's delay in formally announcing her candidacy has been anything other than a smashing success. I have been among a minority who have contended from the outset that Governor Palin's delay in announcing was prudent strategy both for financial as well as political reasons. She has been able to campaign both in Iowa and New Hampshire within the last month, garnering huge amounts of publicity and the largest crowds of the campaign season. Her crony capitalism speech in Indianola on September 3 has driven the debate (as well as the GOP debates) even in her absence from the stage. It exposed the first chink in the armor of James Richard Perry, who has continued to bumble his chances, as some of us predicted he would. Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann has virtually disappeared from the radar screen, and is rumored to be broke, having poured every resource she had into winning the meaningless Ames Straw poll and paying the likes of Ed Rollins. And Mitt Romney remains in the low twenties, unable to put any daylight between himself and the weak field he faces. Romney's weakness--in the face of his opponents' implosion--has led the Establishment to begin to trot out what must be its last reserves, to wit: Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, a liberal Establishment Republican to the left even of Romney.
Sarah Palin has positioned herself beautifully, as events have unfolded in the last month, by not formally announcing. And she has spent not one dime doing it. On August 14, I argued here that the principal reason for her to delay is financial. The Establishment is already funding two major candidates, Romney and Perry. They are trying to launch a third, Chris Christie. Well heeled to be sure, the GOP Establishment does not have limitless funds, and the burn rate for Romney and Perry (plus Christie, if he gets in) will stretch its resources to the limit.
Sarah Palin will, I argue, have adequate funds, but she will not be able to match the Establishment dollar for dollar. By waiting, she spends nothing while the Establishment spear carriers flit from straw poll to straw poll to fundraiser, spending cash by the boatload, to so little effect that a third major Establishment candidate is now poised to enter.
Sarah Palin is husbanding her resources while the Establishment is spending hand over fist, while dividing its admittedly much larger warchest several ways. In effect, Palin--who will be the insurgent candidate--is evening the odds. She is learning from some of the mistakes of the 1976 and 1980 Reagan campaigns, which overspent early in both cycles and ran out of money both times, costing the Gipper the nomination in 1976 and very nearly derailing him in 1980. Her delaying game, coupled with the multiplication of Establishment candidacies (a divide and conquer strategy, so to speak), has put her in the catbird seat.
Moreover, her delay is forcing the Establishment to play its cards first...to put its candidates out front first for the public to scrutinize. Palin knows that her formal announcement would take the spotlight and scrutiny, as well as the pressure, off the Establishment candidates since all eyes would then turn to her. And she is not about to give her Establishment opponents such a break. The vetting process has been very hard on the new candidates so far, and Palin is wisely allowing it to continue.
Meanwhile, under the radar screen, she is better organized than any of the declared candidates, with her O4P legions in nearly every state, particularly Iowa, quietly assembling names of volunteers and positioning themselves to strike as soon as she gives the word.
A Civil War analogy comes to mind. At Second Manassas in August 1862, Robert E. Lee was confronted with two Union Armies, whose combined strength was far greater than his own. He realized that he had to prevent them from uniting in order to defeat them separately. Understanding that the first Army--commanded by the timid George B. McClellan---would move slowly, Lee turned his attention to the other, commanded by the impetuous John Pope. Lee sent half his Army under Stonewall Jackson, perhaps 25,000 men, to lure Pope into battle, while keeping the other half, under James Longstreet, with him. Jackson mounted a lightning strike on the federals at Cedar Mountain, driving Pope back to the Rappahanock River, and then old Stonewall vanished into the Bull Run Mountains. Jeb Stuart hit him next, raiding Pope's headquarters and making off with $350,000 in cash and Pope's dress coat. Pope, enraged, took off after Jackson. When he finally found him two weeks later, Jackson was dug in on the railroad cut at the old Bull Run Battlefield from a year earlier.
Pope hurled his army of 62,000 against Jackson, trying to dislodge the stubborn rebels. At the end of the first day, Jackson's lines had wavered but held. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to Pope, Lee had brought up the second half of his Army under Longstreet and positioned it on the federal left, concealed by the dense foliage. The next day, Pope renewed his attack on a two mile front, stretching Jackson's line to the breaking point. Civil War historian Bruce Catton sets the scene:
"The Yankees drove against Jackson on a two mile front stretching his line to the breaking point. His men threw rocks at the attackers when their ammunition ran out. Still Longstreet waited. Not until the last Yankee reserves had been thrown against Jackson did he take action. Then he launched his counterattack. An artillery barrage smashed the left side of the Union forces. Rebel infantry, 'screaming like demons emerging from the earth', fell upon the surprised Yankees as Longstreet's five divisions rolled against the Union flank.... As Pope tried to halt Longstreet on his left, Jackson hit him on the right. The whole Union line bent like a horseshoe."
Palin's hit and run tactics of last summer in Iowa and New Hampshire are reminiscent of Jackson's and Stuart's tactics in August 1862. She continues to live rent free in the heads of the permanent political class, and her lightning strikes have forced them to react to HER, rather than forcing her to react to THEM. Just when the Establishment begins to hope it is rid of her, she pops up unexpectedly, and strikes it a blow that sends it reeling. At the same time, she manages to keep her intentions (and especially her timing) obscure enough to deny her enemies an easy fix on her as a target.
The huge vacuum in the current field, coupled with the many hints she has dropped over the last four months, suggest that Palin will enter the fray, but at the last possible moment, when the maximum amount of the Establishment's reserves, both financial and political, have been exhausted, or at least committed. Her entry will generate a tidal wave of excitement and energy, a political feu d'enfer reminiscent of the artillery barrage at Second Manassas, through which her legions of supporters will pour to vanquish the tattered, dispirited Hessian hirelings of the Establishment.
To those who are pleading "Run, Sarah, run", my rejoinder is "Wait, Sarah, wait." Strike when the maximum advantage has been gained. Not before.
You obviously don’t listen to her much. Again, I support your right to prefer whoever you like, but obvious misstatements of fact concerning easily observed facts such as the quality of her voice will only hurt your persuasive effect in this forum (shrug).
[Really? So, you haven’t been bothered by all of the nasty, snarling posts by PDSers on the Palin threads over the last two and a half years?]
I have defended Sarah from the beginning, always, and I still do. I have also defended other candidates so I don’t know what double standard you are talking about. I think it is a mistake for conservatives to be doing the liberals dirty work for them.
[Or the attacks that are routinely leveled against anyone who dares to disagree with Perry on the Perry threads?]
I try to shutout all the negative posters who have an obvious agenda. I like to have an open, honest discussion about the candidates and issues. I think some of the attacks on Perry have been unfair. I also think that he was awful in the debate the other night, which makes me question whether he can beat Obama. I have always had some issues with Perry’s record, but none that I thought were disqualifying from the Presidency.
[Sounds to me like you’re harboring some double standards.]
Nope, I can support Sarah, but have my doubts about whether she can actually win. I also have my doubts about other candidates. I appreciate open and honest discussion so we can get the best candidate possible.
My goal is to nominate the most conservative candidate possible who can beat Obama. Romney is not an option.
I'm curious...on what basis do you make that argument?
Thirty days hath September, April, June and November.....
The high pitched voice of Palin is of a woman, get over it,
I love women Voices!!!!
“And we need Rubio for veep.”
If Rubio ever does become the “veep”, I hope he’ll be content with that because he is not a natural born citizen and does not qualify to be President of the U.S at the moment.
The issue needs to be openly discussed and resolved because he may very well make a good President or V.P.
Just curious....I know that you don't like Palin, and that you've been haunting the Palin threads crusading against her for years now - but have you taken the time to watch The Undefeated yourself?
Er..wrong one to reply to..I was defending her :-)
And, what EXACTLY is your problem with any of what she said in that interview?? Huh??
Btw, she was misdiagnosed and was stage 4 by the time they found it was cancer. Her death could have been prevented had she been diagnosed correctly.
Then he said that Americans who can't feed their families are heartless if they don't want to pay to educate illegals.
When a candidate starts sounding like the left, and writes EO's , like Obama, he's done.
Sounds like someone needs his pacifier, and a diaper change.
No matter whom she endorses, if she’s not in, it’s going to be Romney. If she announces she’s sitting it out in 2012, she will have said in effect, “Romney’s The One.”
I know she would not endorse him in the primaries. But if she doesn’t run she gives him the win, because nobody else is capable of knocking him out.
Right on the money. Hypotheticals are permissible if questioning an expert witness, and only in the area of expertise. Otherwise, speculation fails, too open-ended. Besides, Palin’s been carefully avoiding “establishment” merit badges. She’s not playing their game, so the hypothetical is an unlikely occurance to begin with.
No, because anyone can have a person make a movie and only point out the good things while leaving out the non positive things. I am also not going to pay for a political commercial.
That movie is the past, remote from what is going on now.
I am very familiar with her whole record. Sarah has some good qualities, but she appears to be unsure of her plans.
She is as good as the rest, but I will call her The Unproven, because she has yet to jump in and convince me to vote for her. Not participating in the debates and speaking from the safety of the sidelines is not convincing.
I already know that Perry is not a person I would vote for. So the debates are important.
I don’t care about the past except when it concerns policy, I care about what a person will do from here forward.
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
The Supreme court case of 1875 Minor V Happersett, 88,U.S. 162 set precedent that has not been overturned that natural born citizen is defined as born on U.S. soil to two citizen parents. Rubio does not meet that requirement like it or not.
http://www.youtube.com/user/82009pol#p/f/40/aIUSSWJSeV4
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.