Wait, Sarah, Wait (Delay Continues to be Palin's Ally)

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.

Indy what you don't realize perhaps is that Sarah isn't “Waiting for a miracle”, far from it.

Rather it is we who are waiting for the miracle, It's name is Sarah, and it will come, in her time not ours.

She knows what she is doing, she's known all along. Those who are getting all uptight due to her refusal to march to the beat of the “that's not how we always used to do it” drummer, for the most part, just have their collective panties in a wad because she learned a priceless lesson from the McCain fiasco; Those who refuse to walk boldly into the future and do what “needs” to be done, rather then what has always been done in the past, but is clearly NOT going to be effective in the future are dummed to failure before they ever begin.

She is not just marching into the future, she is running full out into it, daring it to try and stop the force her astonishing momentum creates everywhere she goes.

Welcome to the future, get on board and buckle up cuz it's going to be one heck of a ride!

Indy, you say people aren’t seeing Undefeated. I happen to know that’s not right. The Palin hive on FB is all abuzz with excitement over the availability of the movie. People are throwing viewing parties, inviting nonsupporters.

So you are factually wrong. Perhaps your being embedded in the GOP apparatus has put you in social circles that prevent you from seeing the broader picture, but this movie is being seen and is having an impact.

Will it be enough to reverse all the misinformation floating around out there? Not by itself, of course. Many other modalities of messaging are and will be used. But it is a potent and helpful weapon that will make a significant difference.

As for paying to see “propaganda,” why not? I would think if you had given full consideration to Palin as a candidate, you would know so much about her you would be able to see through any misrepresentations. In fact, wouldn’t it make your position stronger if you could say you saw the movie and thus and such is wrong with it, etc.? After all, serious opinion shapers have to go to primary sources to be taken seriously. So why else could you possibly want to avoid seeing the movie? If you like, I’ll buy you a copy and send it to you, free of charge. Game on?

so it’s not a surprise that she also has a poor academic record.

Transferring in and of itself does not mean a poor academic record. It was probably better than Biden's and Gore's, and on par with Reagan's (albeit Eureka College in the 30's was likely tougher academically than Harvard, U of Idaho or U of Wyoming).

Christie hasn't even completed half a term, and a lot of the same people who dislike Palin are begging for Christie. Personally, I believe that she's playing a bigger game, just as she did when she quit the Energy board so she could better take it on. Unless she's angling for SCOTUS, Sec. Gen. of the U.N., or maybe Chairman of the Federal Resrve, I don't see her bailing out of the presidency. I'm being facetious, as I don't see her moves aimed slowly at ascending the ladder, though some ego is necessary in any pres candidate.

You can try to explain away one thing, but it’s the general pattern that counts.

I agree, and a lot of our differences will come from our own priorities and also our feel for the demeanor of a candidate. Ross Perot's policy positions didn't really square up well, with the positions of most of his voters, but people liked his approach and outsider status, and his ability to make things work and be plain spoken about it. He could have gotten well over his 17% if he was serious about it. I find her Facebook postings plenty readable and intelligent, and yes I do believe that she writes those, and does better when she can sit and formulate.

Many of us who have a similar set of principles and beliefs prioritize them differently. For some it is 2nd Amendment, others pro-life issues, others illegal immigration, others general government intrusion, others fiscal policy and others foreign policy.

Palin is not even particularly more conservative than Bachmann, Santorum or Cain on most of these key issues. I would like to think that you could vote for any of them (including Palin)in a general just as I would. So, I suspect that her demeanor, her populist approach sets you off more than her positions themselves. She just rubs you the wrong way. To me, I understand her as a natural executive who gets things done, and knows which dragons to slay. I also believe that she can cause a permanent realignment in the Republican Party where we lose some white shoe trust fund folks, but gain a lot more Reagan Democrat types.

I have no problem with Cain, though I feared that either his candidacy was simply a bad attempt to blunt Obama's appeal to America's blacks which would be seen as phony (it sure didn't work for Keyes here in Illinois!) or that it would be perceived as such. I feel less so these days, because of the way he has conducted himself. I also believe that the combination of Palin, Bachmann and Cain has taken the meme of the Republican Party being only for middle-aged rich white men off of the table completely. Cain's win in the Florida straw poll makes him a lot harder for the MSM to ignore.

My main beefs with Cain are minor. I do believe that it is extra hard to have credibility with the voting populace as a whole without having won office. Only exceptions being generals (numerous) or a true cabinet level appointment (Hoover). I also believe that Cain has been spotty in some areas of policy. He's a quick study, and that's what well-picked advisors are for, so that is not a deal-breaker for me. Finally, I do NOT buy into the idea that business is exceptionally good training for govt., or that one ought to run government like a business. There are important differences between the two, and a skilled man can do either, but business acumen in and of itself does not make for good policy or for good execution. Most of these business candidates (Mike Huffington, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Linda McMahon, Brooks Johnson, De Vos) have difficulty selling their message. A disproportionate number are proud of being fiscally conservative/socially 'moderate.' Cain certainly does not have that problem.

I do believe that Palin is uniquely suited for this particular election cycle, just as Reagan was in 1980's. She owes the MSM NOTHING, she is remarkably free of big corporate (in bed with government, eg GE) influence, and knows what it is having been in Alaska in offices dealing directly with it. I also believe that she forces errors from her opponents, and the media to over-pursue, making for long-term shifts in the way the public at large sees both of them. She stays on offense, and isn't stuck using 1988 political tactics in a 2012 world.

I understand that your perception of the "whole Palin" is what drives you. What I find remarkable is that she did not cave and has managed to use the MSM's own eagerness against them. You are well-read enough to know how many "made up things" she has caught them in.

In these threads, a lot of the same themes come up, as they do with Perry and Bachmann. I don't especially expect you to change your mind. Your general snarkiness has been well within FR specifications, and you stick around to return fire without escalating into the personal. The fact that Cain, and not Paul or Huntsman or Gingrich is your candidate tells me that we really are on the same team. These same candidates all have been saying the more the merrier. We will not know until the afterlife which ones meant it. I do hope that we can have a good solid squabble now, and put aside our differences when a conservative to challenge the establishment candidate emerges, probably after a half-dozen primaries at most. If Cain can win Georgia and Florida, that's a great start.

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.