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.
The first debates were between Kennedy and Nixon. It was Kennedy’s idea. Johnson did not debate Goldwater. He knew he’d lose. Debates are a lefty idea. That’s why they run them and use them AGAINST the right. Get it?
By Katie Couric. Yeah. You convinced me.
Yes. It is. And no matter how much some claim to be conservative, and they don't buy into the MSM bias, they actually do.
My guess and I could be wrong is that Sarah and Herman would reflect the beliefs of most Freepers. So it is really about who would win, I think either could win so the rest is not important. I think Sarah would have an easier time so I choose Sarah.
“Did Mr Gibson, or any other MSM a-hole, ever ask candidate Obama a similar question? I don’t remember it - what I remember is them filling in the answers for him i.e. “my Muslim....errr...Christian faith”.”
The MSM is unfair but the only thing we can do about it is pick a candidate that can outsmart them. If we pick someone like Perry or Palin then they’ll be creamed. If we pick a Romney, he may be able to hold his own for a while but his lack of consistency will be very apparent after showing just a few clips.
That’s why we need a very sharp conservative and especially good with economic data. Cain has already demonstrated that he could do this when he took on Bill Clinton and hillarycare.
A talented VP is only wasted if the president decides to waste him/her. By definition the president is an executive who picks the right people, sets policy goals and listens and evaluates all points of view before making a decision. a president who tries to take on everything and micromanage everything will doom themselves to ultimate failure. Any president can give the VP immense authority and powers to get things done, but only if the president is willing to act as a real executive and delegate some of that authority. I think that a Cain or a Palin would both have the sense to take that approach.
And your point is? Because she is correct about Russia, both technically and philosophically. There is land in Alaska from which you can see Russia.
But I suspect that is not your issue. You probably don’t get how she was transitioning from a physical reality to a political reality. Somewhere there is an unedited transcript of that very dialogue, in which she fleshes out her meaning quite well, having to do with special security and economic issues she had to deal with due to her proximity to Russia, including missile defense. Gibson maliciously hacked it down to support a narrative being crafted by the left to defend Obama from a serious threat to his victory.
BTW, I looked at your home page, and we are on the same page on every issue you list. Every one. So I don’t understand your willingness to use propaganda materials designed by the left to take down one of our own. Support Cain if you like, and object to Palin if you must, but objections not well grounded in truth will only cost you credibility here. Your choice, of course.
Peace,
SR
Well, that’s your opinion. I see vast improvement. Both our positions are valid and we’ll just have to see how things shake out.
Cindie
Well debates showed me what Perry believes and I am not heartless so he will do get my vote or support.
Big difference between talking to people sitting around a table in a small studio and speaking to a crowd in large venues, indoor and outdoor.
Although laudable, degrees in math and science, do not an effective president make.
What Sarah Palin has - courage, allegiance to our Constitution, determination, political savvy, proven executive capacity - cannot be learned in a university.
“I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. “
What’s wrong with that?
>> “This election will be about one thing and one thing only. Jobs” <<
.
No government has ever created even one economy expanding job; only investment risk can do that.
Knowing how to shut down the parts of government that inhibit risk taking is the skill that is in demand WRT jobs. Palin knows how to do that; Cain hasn’t the slightest idea.
Step one will be returning monitary control to the House of Representatives by pulling the plug on that socialist good ol boys club known as the Fed.
Step two will put lots of criminals that are used to being addressed as “the Honorable” into bright orange one piece tuxedos.
There’s nothing wrong with that part. It’s the part about states being able to pass their own laws on gun control. The Bill of Rights apply to everyone, not just certain states.
Cindie
No she didn't. She has indicated in several statements to the press, that late September - early October would be the time frame in which she'd inform everyone of her intentions.
She's never once named a specific date for that announcement.
I understand the VP’s constitutional obligations and duties but beyond that what CAN or COULD he do to play a more active role in a given admin?
If he has not had brain surgery twice that is.
Cain was very articulate when he contradicted Clinton. And actually Clinton surprised me, he had answers and questions for Cain that Obama would never be able to think of.
Read further down.
CAIN: Yes
BLITZER: So the answer is yes?
CAIN: Yes. The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.
Based on what. The fact that he turned around failing businesses as a career and put actual paychecks in people pockets?
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.