Posted on 11/28/2011 2:52:59 PM PST by Bigtigermike
The last sentence in the article says it all.
I would love this, but haven’t the filing deadlines passed already?
....just when you think that Sarah’s gone permanently.....
Hmmmm. Still got a long, long time before anything’s cast in stone, no matter what’s said or written about it.
...including this post.
I still think it.
I think she planing to shape the debate without running...it free her to make the message the focus
Yes, well we’ve now “vetted” all of the alternative candidates (okay, Gingrich is still a work in progress) and there’s really no one left standing.
Cain: Fading fast before the revelations today of a 13-year affair; now done for.
Bachmann: Too weird to be President, and precious little experience at governing besides.
Gingrich: More baggage than a fully-loaded 747, all of it well-deserved; he earned it.
Perry: Actually I like him, but not enough others do apparently.
Huntsman: Romney-lite, and he knows it.
Paul: Go ahead nominate him; give the election to Obama.
Santorum: He’d be doing better if he would get that lemon out of his mouth when he talks, but he didn’t and he isn’t.
Johnson: Who?
By the time they’re done “vetting” Gingrich, he’s going to think a colonoscopy is something to look forward to, and we’re going to be out of “anyone-but-Romney” candidates.
So, what the hey? Write in Palin, Iowans. Might as well give her a shot. At least we know all of her faults by now, and won’t have to endure another public colonoscopy of a candidate. Besides, she’s the only anti-crony-capitalist of the bunch, and with a track record that proves it.
As a loyal Tea Party member who was hoping to fix the system in 2012, the two leaders in the polls -- Newt and Mitt -- are unacceptable.
Newt and Mitt are poster children for crony capitalism and politics as usual.
The presidential options for the Tea Party are bleak.
.
I'm actually taking another look at Bachmann.
I was previously against her because she had a campaign manager who was denegrating Palin, but Ed Rollins was kicked out long ago. Bachmann might be the best of the field. She is principled, intelligent and has given the best answers, imo, in the last few debates.
I will absolutely will support Mitt or Rick -- and surely not Newt. They stand for everything the Tea Party is against.
Why is Bachmann weird? You might be falling for the tactics of the MSM, who often try to paint their opponents as weird or crazy. The sad part is that many FR members fall for these smear jobs (like Bachmann's crazy eyes on Newsweek.)
Too little experience in governing? That means she is not ingrained in the utterly corrupt system that controls today's politics. That's a good thing.
.
Dittos, the problem is very simple. the cronies on both sides attack relentlessly from all quarters anyone who will not play the game.
These cronies have no moral compass, the end (power) justifies the means and if this is not enough then it is “by any means necessary”.
Every RINO must be primaried and every candidate that doesn’t support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic must be challenged in every race in both parties by candidates that will live up to their oath of office. The problem is the political construct since Reagan is so poisonous the candidates we need will not enter the fray (Palin - they attacked her newborn child). These candidates will not come forward on their own, they must be sought after and then “we the people” must step out publicly and support them. Without this, next November will be a disaster.
If it isn't TOO offensive (i.e., I've been clueless), welcome back!
Cheers!
That’s it! I’m not coming back!
Lol, kidding.
Yeah, I’ve been on full lurker mode for quite a while now. Life gets in the way (I’m married now)...my time spent on-line is limited. But I still read FR a lot.
I’m wanting to post more with election season heating up, but the race is getting nasty. I was fully supporting Cain, but I see him fizzling out now. Taking a closer look at Gingrich, who I would accept as the nominee. But I see a lot of negative comments about him here that makes me think I’d best stay out of it.
Oh, good to be back. Hope all is well with you. :)
The White House, Axelrod, etc, are salivating on the dirt and attack plans for both Mitt and Newt. Sarah is fully vetted and as Joel Pollack said in A Late Candidate Whose Chances May be Improving:
"Let’s consider the criteria that a late entrant would have to meet.
1.Well-known. Given that filing deadlines have passed in many states, a new entrant would have to run as a write-in candidate, or even a third-party candidate. That means, in turn, that any new candidate would have to be someone already familiar to Republican primary voters.
2. Thoroughly vetted. After more than a week of angst over Cain’s past, conservative voters may want someone who has already been through the mainstream media wringer. Voters will forgive a few flaws, as long as they are not surprises.
3. Experienced in government. Though conservatives want to make government smaller, Republicans also want someone who will make government better at performing its core functions. Private sector experience is a plus, but experience in government itself might be necessary for a late entrant to compete with the field.
4. Committed to conservative principles. The Obama administration and its radical allies in Washington and beyond have ignited a debate about the role of government in our society. A late entrant must be able to lead the conservative charge against statism in a way some candidates, like Romney, have struggled to do until recently.
5. Traditional, yet tolerant. A candidate who can defend social conservatives without alienating socially liberal Republicans could resolve divisions other candidates have not yet bridged.
6. Strong on security. Few Republican candidates have had the courage to stand up for a strong America abroad. Even Romney appeared to back away from Afghanistan early in the campaign. A new, hawkish candidate could fill the foreign policy gap.
7. Tough on corruption. With complaints about corruption becoming a common theme on the left and the right, but few Republican presidential candidates taking up the issue, a late entrant with a record of corruption-busting on both sides of the aisle could make a big splash among conservative voters–and attract independent voters as well.
8. Connected. Republicans want a Washington outsider, but also want a candidate who is connected well enough in official circles to build a capable campaign and administration. A new candidate with feet in both worlds could bring that kind of balance to the field.
9. Charismatic. Cain’s candidacy has demonstrated the hunger among Republicans for a candidate who can bring energy and personality to the 2012 contest.
10. Ready to fight. Above all, Republicans yearn for a candidate who is not only eager to stand up to Obama, but who also knows how to beat the mainstream media at their own game.
Do these criteria describe anyone familiar?
Someone who the establishment of both parties seemed eager to dismiss?
Someone who may once have been thought “unelectable,” but who may possess the winning formula that has eluded Republican candidates thus far?
Someone who declined to run, but who might, in these circumstances, reconsider?"
Sarah, you said it recently with Glenn Beck (Here): "What we need to seek . . is a candidate . . almost reluctant to serve . . A person The People find and ask: Will you sacrifice? Will you do this for our country to get us back on the right track?"
We have found you and you have found us. Please reconsider.
And she has made it clear that it won’t be her. Big sideline talker. Armchair quarterback. Quitter...
I have a gut feeling this next election will be one for the history books.
We.
The.
People.
Not Karl Rove, or Huckabee telling us who we have to vote or else situations.
What does the “gut” of America say?
When under attack, ALWAYS trust your inner instincts, thats why God gave it to us.
Haha, General Twitter strikes again! More directives from the hunkered down lodge in Wasilla! Painful, isn’t it?
Palin isn’t running. She isn’t running because she knows what will be done to her and she doesn’t want the job.
If she did, she would have run.
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.