Posted on 09/29/2011 7:51:00 AM PDT by Brices Crossroads
In her recent interview, Sarah Palin has raised a bit of a kerfuffle among her supporters by referring once again to the "title" thing, as I call it. All she did was pose the question, "Is a title worth it?", and "Will a campaign shackle someone like me from effecting positive change?"
She never answered the questions. She articulated some of the arguments against running. She also said she could make a difference without a title. Once again, nothing but a proven historical fact, based upon her ability thus far to drive the political debate and to influence, in a major way, the outcome of the 2010 elections...all without a title.
Not one jot or tittle of this now well worn soliloquy of hers will have to be "walked back" when she announces. Everything she said about holding a title and the shackles of a campaign are accurate. The same arguments had equal, if not greater, resonance when she ran for Mayor, Lieutenant Governor and Governor. In each case, her calculus led her to the conclusion that, in spite of the shackles, the power that went with the title made the endeavor worthwhile. And the stakes for her city and state were nowhere near as high as they are for the United States in 2012.
She did, however, choose not to emphasize the much stronger arguments in favor of running, that is: with the title, comes enormous power which, held in the hands of a resolute executive like Reagan in the 1980s and Palin herself in Alaska, can achieve enormous, unprecedented good. Without the title and the power that accompanies it, the ability to make a difference will not disappear entirely, but it will be intermittent and sporadic. In the perilous four years that lie ahead of us, "intermittent and sporadic" won't cut the mustard, and she knows it.
Palin's constant harping on the "title" thing (as I call it) may be a diversion. She will allow her enemies to hear what they want to hear from her comments and if it causes them to miscalculate, oh well... However, I do not believe her repeated, almost pejorative, allusions to title are designed principally to mislead her enemies. I believe she is throwing down a marker to separate herself from every GOP candidate since Reagan, in effect calling them out for trying to BE President, rather than to USE the Presidency (as did Reagan) to effect positive change. Both Bushes sought the Presidency principally in order to be President, that is: to HOLD the title. Dole and McCain similarly sought it because it was their turn, and they too craved the title. None of the four, card carrying members of the Establishment one and all, had any real agenda or plans to use the power that goes with the title to "make a real difference". They were willing to "go with the flow" in order to hold the title. Similarly, her two principal Establishment challengers--Romney and Perry-- are bereft of any real convictions. One of these two will almost certainly be the nominee should Palin not run. Their records bespeak politicians HUNGRY for a title who are willing to "go with the flow" to get it, whether that flow takes them in the direction of statism (Romney) or crony capitalism (Perry). Palin is unwilling to "go with the flow" to hold a title or for any other reason. Rather, she sees the title as an instrument to CHANGE the flow. Period.
In sum, Palin will not be running for President to hold a title. I think her deep personal humility, as well as her political orientation as a conservative populist, recoils from titles, especially those which are purely honorary. But she has never recoiled from power when there was a crying need that it be held in the hands of a resolute and principled leader. That time, like never before, is now.
To paraphrase the words of an old 1980 campaign commercial, linked below, "The time is now for Palin. Palin for President."
Ping!
I like it.
As always great perspective BC!
So the question is? Announce right before the Seoul speech for maximum free worldwide coverage? It makes sense.
i saw the interview and i thought she confused the issue.
Great treatise as always. I watch for your writings with pleasure.
On purpose maybe??? The Wizard of Wasilla with another headfake! You know she was a damn good basketball player in HS. Good basketball players know how to throw a good headfake.
All I know is this comment had anyone near Chris Matthews needing a face shield on Hardball yesterday.
I think they’re going to throw Christie or Jeb Bush at her if she jumps in and she knows it. It seems to me that her plans require her to be the last one in the race. Probably to capitalize on the ‘instant front-runner’ status that new blood seems to bring to the race. They know this and want to take the wind our of her sails with a ‘big name’ candidate.
Once the first filing deadline has passed, the threat of throwing another candidate at her is gone.
I brought up a theory that was shot down instantly by a couple of people here the other day, but I think it might well come into play: Sarah may just wait silently until the first filing deadline and file for it very late on the last day possible without announcing anything to anyone.
Someone told me that she’d never give up ‘her moment’ by doing such a thing, but remember when she said you wouldn’t be able to miss her announcement? Well, if she files without announcing, it’ll be front page news everywhere within hours. And the quieter she is, the more they’ll go insane over it. When she makes a statement, it would be something along the lines of “I still haven’t made my final decision, but I wanted to keep my options open. Why should I be forced to announce or not announce based on some artificial deadline??”
Either that or she’s decided not to run and is just throwing cold water on supporters. Frankly, that was my initial impression from the interview, though reflection after the fact makes me wonder what the motive would be to do that at this point. Who knows...we’ll find out soon enough, I guess.
Wouldn’t it be nice to see some true humility in our politicians? Someone who knows it’s not about them, but about our country & keeping our gifts of freedoms...for future generations. When Michelle Bachmann went after Perry so harshly, she lost me. Yes, she believes in the Constitution, but gave bullets for the liberals to use against one of our candidates. I am NOT a Perry supporter at all, but I thought she was fighting for herself and not our values and principals.
“So the question is? Announce right before the Seoul speech for maximum free worldwide coverage? It makes sense.”
I agree. The time is drawing nigh.
Yesterday, Bachmann was on local radio here in SC telling us about how the Iowa straw poll that she won was a ‘real’ straw poll and the one that Herman Cain won wasn’t. She’s a joke.
I love Sarah Palin...But if she doesn’t announce by mid mite Sept 30th...Her Presidential Aspirations are going to quickly turn into a pumpkin and mice. If she doesn’t, the spotlight she has, is going to leave her in a heartbeat, and no one will care what she gas to say any more. No one will take her seriously again, if she does not enter now, gird her loins and earnestly enter the fray. No “Make ups” or “do overs” for missed primaries or to build any political machines. The time is now or never. Does she really think many will care whose lance she puts her favor on, if she remains in the stands?
Is their some magic about midnight September 30?
Respectfully, I think you’re applying “strategery” where it didn’t exist. Palin is still clearly undecided and talking through her issues with running.
In her last appearance with Greta, she responded that she was tired of giving the same dopey answer about whether or not she is running but that that was all she had at this point because she’s still thinking about it and talking about it with her family. It spoke volumes to me when she referred to her indecision as a “dopey answer.”
I expect her to go the route of Glenn Beck to try to effect change that way. I think she saw how GB was shackled by Fox News and is now free to say what he really thinks and tell the whole truth. She wants that level of freedom. She doesn’t want the verbal restraints that inherently come with being a candidate or the leader of the free world.
I don’t think she knows how to let us down easy. JMHO
I believe the opposite. Announce afterward. She was invited to this economic forum and is on the world stage as a private citizen not as a candidate for public office. Her message of tools for economic recovery will resonate best if it is not confused with a presidential run which Obama did in his speech in Germany in 2008. HOWEVER, she will use it after she announces which will be before October 31.
Here are the details as I posted earlier today:
She is going speak at a world economic forum in South Korea on October 11 (The New Economic Crisis: Reforming Global Leadership & Asia's Challenge) and shares the program with some heavy hitters (and libs) such as Larry Summers, Strobe Tallbot, Gordon Brown and others whose affiliation I don't know. She's the second speaker after the introduction and is scheduled for an hour. Very, very prestigious and I suspect she does not want her message there to be taken as a political campaign speech, which it would be if she was an announced candidate.
.............your reading my mind!
..........I think Utah is October 14 and the first deadline. Some freeper will correct me if I’m wrong. In the big scheme of things, Utah is un-important. So, as you say, just file and say nothing and let the establishment pubbie pukes and the press twist some more. I’m to the point where I hate the establishment pubbies almost as bad as the Dims.
She asked in the interview if a title would be shackling. I answered honestly, “In your case, I don’t think it would.” She said that that’s the question she asks herself. Perhaps it’s presumptuous, but I suspect that she’s coming up with the same answer as I am.
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.