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 are so right on that one!
But he is a useful idiot for our side...ha.
I think saying “deport them all” is not very pollitically savy and is raising an issue that is unneeded and counter productive.
it will end up that a large group will be deported because of their criminal status. then many will leave because of the various employers curtailing their hiring of illegals.
As more aliens are documented or registered, we can enact more restrictive laws about their working here..and many will leave.
the “mess’ resulting from forced deportation will NOT go well with Americans and the reality is we can’t handle the illegals now, why would anyone think we could handle a mass deportation of them?
Loyalty. After all, Sen. McCain brought Gov. Palin onto the ticket.
Loyalty is something a soreloser RomneyBOT only has to his/her Master.
Sort of like with ObamaBOTs, is it not?
” Yeah, yeah, yeah - and Reagan was a dunce, too. “
Reagan was the best POTUS of the 20th century, all things taken into consideration. I worked for him twice when I was a young man, and living in Los Angeles. I attended his funeral in Simi Valley.
For a refresher course, go read your home page, or at least the first few paragraphs.
That the U.S. failed to regain control of the border — making the 1986 law’s amnesty provision an incentive for others to come to America illegally — would have infuriated Reagan. It’s important to understand why previous generations of immigrants succeeded in America, how they helped the country grow, and how today’s immigration differs. Today, when success in our economy requires ever more skills and education, the vast majority of immigrants arrive without the skills or the education to fit in easily anywhere except at the lowest economic rung. The other half of a sound immigration policy is to eliminate the magnet effect of modern welfare programs. Developed countries uniformly prohibit illegal aliens from receiving social benefits, and many restrict those benefits for legals, too. - Immigrants in Canada who qualify for a skilled-worker visa must show a bank account of at least $9,420 (Canadian) before entering the country, to ensure that they won’t become an immediate burden on the welfare system. http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_4_immigration_policy.html
Which ones?....please do tell...most that I know eventually wilt under the spotlight.
Craig Shirley pulled no punches in this book, or in his book on the 1976 campaign. Yet his accounts were obviously a labor of love for him and fabulously researched, as well as a brutally honest assessment of Reagan's performance. That's why they've been so universally praised and will stand the historical test of time.
I can't believe you are parroting that stupid number. They have been saying 12 million for as long as I can recall. ...and why don't you deport 12 million people? Why the hell not?
If you read my description of the process...instead of reacting.
We can’t deport 12 million cause we
1. Can’t even handle LEGAL immigration effectively. that is a total mess with years of wait times.
2. We can’t even get our borders closed.
3. We can’t even NOW enforce employers not hiring illegals.
4. We can’t even cut off welfare and medical benefits to illegals, or their buying housing for that matter.
5. We are so in debt we don’t HAVE THE MONEY TO DEPORT MILLIONS( YOU PICK A NUMBER) of illegals...it is a government process that requires manpower, structures all of which require MONEY we don’t have.
6. We do NOT have Americans en mass accepting massive deportations...Just look at the reaction at one whiny illegal and thier kids story in the media!
Get realistic in terms of money, manpower and govt structures...WE just don’t have the capacity or the money to do this now.
Too bad taglines can’t be clickable links. That would be a great one. Thanks for the Sarah page Jeff.
There was an article recently about all the new stuff for illegals to enjoy while they await deportation. Cooking classes, more hanging plants, art rooms, counselling, I can’t remembal what all, oh - more healthy snacks, ethnic food more to their liking, etc.
Pare down every bit of nicey nice luxury, round ‘em up, put them on buses and take ‘em back over the border. That will cost much less.
Second, make it so they wont’ want to stay here. Demand proof of legal residence for anything. Everything. Plus NO MORE EFFING WELFARE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.
For starters.
Imagine someone who goes up to an insane person and says “you have mental problems.” It really doesn’t happen, even if the person is very mean.
Because telling an insane person they’re crazy won’t make sense to the insane person anyway. Unless the person telling him is not especially bright.
So we can make a solid conclusion that your statement in post #156 is only a cover for having no argument.
you are absolutely right on all your points.
This ridiculous juvenile screaming “Deport them all!” is just not realistic, its the flip side of those who are getting a benefit from having the illegals here..the employers who hire them, and the Dems who want their votes.
That’s why we won’t look at reality.WE invited these people to come here since before Reagen! It is hypocritical to now say “Go back immediately..you are a criminal.” At the same time, we are dealing with Libs who have this bleeding hearts , enabling , welfare state mentality that now just so happens to encompass not just lazy Americans but also illegals.
this deportation areas are no different than the DEMANDS of the WELFARE ENTITLED class that has held this country hostage by threatneing to RIOT if they don’t get their goodies and the Dems who cater to illegals or welfare queens for their votes!
On items 1,2,3 and 4. Can’t should be replaced with WON’T.
” So we can make a solid conclusion that your statement in post #156 is only a cover for having no argument.
Palin doesn’t know the difference between a RINO and a conservative, and neither do you.
Palin favorites.
McCain(actually, a destructive progressive)
Fiorina (RINO)
Steele(RINO)
Graham (super RINO)
“” PALIN: Then let’s keep it — then we won’t complicate it anymore. Let’s keep it simple. And let’s say no, if you are here illegally, AND IF YOU DON’T FOLLOW THE STEPS THAT AT SOME POINT THROUGH IMMIGRATION REFORM WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE, and that is to somehow allow to you work. If you’re not going to do that, then you will be deported. You will be gone.””
AMNESTY
There is MY argument, and you have none.
Take your RINO Palin, and go home.
Reagan was the greatest President of the 20th Century. I could make a strong case that he achieved more success than any other President both foreign and domestic and that the Country did not pay a high price for it.
What I object to is the obtuse trolls who try to use him against the first viable conservative populist to come along since Reagan. They attempt to idealize candidate Reagan and how he was perceived before he was President, assuming he was always the avuncular hero. we both know that is hogwash.
And to the argument that he served two full terms as Governor of California, let me also remind them that he was a candidate for President at the Convention in Miami in 1968, after only 18 months as Governor, and very nearly took the nomination away from Nixon. If Nixon had lost to Humphrey, I would be surprised if Reagan would not have run in 1972. Are any of these alleged Reagan fans willing to say that they would have supported Nixon over the “inexperienced” Reagan in 1968? How much better prepared was Reagan for the Presidency by duking it out with Jesse Unruh for 6 more years? The answer is not one bit. He was as ready in 1968 as he was in 1980. And the earlier he would have won, the better off the Country would have been.
I will, today, and I will ping you to it so you and VirginiaRidgeRunner and others can ping it out there to everyone.
You are soooooo correct!!!!~!
Part of the “can’t “ is the total inadequacy of Government to actually DO ANYTHING! HA.
But the “won’t” is operative also!!
Thanks for the input.
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.