Posted on 11/23/2010 10:14:59 PM PST by Patrick1
Sarah Palin seems to be the favorite of the majority of Free Republic members. I still have not made up my mind about her. But if she is the consevative movement's choice to take on the disaster of Obama who has gone from The Messiah to the Mess then there are things that she will need to overcome to get 50% plus one of the American people's vote in 2012. I've listed the ones I hope her supporters can address here because failure to take these issues on will result in certain defeat.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
An unbroken string of big government Republicans helping to lead us down the path to national economic depression and ultimately collapse.
Are you including Reagan in that?
Maybe because they are not a woman and under 50. I dunno...
Posts like this are why the Palin critics who bash Palin supporters end up being the mirror image (and beyond) of the traits they say they dislike in Palin supporters. Your cynicism drives you to deny what is obvious and to state what is blatant bulls***.
What trait did I say I disliked in Palin supporters? Granted you are doing a good job displaying them. You are projecting your own anger onto me because people have dared to raise legitimate concerns. Where's the crime in this? I suppose it should be lockstep.
As an old Romneybot warhorse, you should recognize yourself, and as far as the Senate race, you seem to be siding with the establishment again, you seem gleeful that Murkowski and Senate Republicans overcame the GOP nominee in the race with the help of Democrat voters, you are enjoying a defeat of conservatism, and conservatives.
A conservative you definitely are not.
As for the first part I have no idea what you are talking about.
As for the Senate race, of course I wanted Joe Miller to win. DUH. You think I’m happy that an angry, party-jilted, primaried moderate (soon to be liberal) is going to return to the Senate? Sarah and Joe blew it.
The first part is about the fact that you are a long term Mitt Romney fan and supporter, and if you wanted Miller to win, then how did Miller and Palin “blow it” by challenging the Senator and winning the Republican primary?
Perhaps not on this thread but on another ...
I took up McCain’s cause because no one else was doing it. He was a vet, a war hero, and a moderately conservative with lots of governmental experience. It’s over and I’m not doing it again. I like Mitt and see him as a fine presidential candidate for 2012 (especially the way the economy and budgetary affairs are). While I haven’t officially settled on him: 1) I will defend what I see as excessive attacks on him, 2) I will celebrate his successes, and 3) all this whining is driving me closer to him. Afterall - I love an underdog.
143 posted on Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:46:06 PM by Norman Bates
Thanks for the work to find this.
The problem with numbers is that they are a raw measure of something but just what that is and what it means is open to interpretation.
The squishy 40% in the middle, most of whom make up their mind in the last 30 days, do not know how to come to an intelligent political decision. There is a disconnect between their values and how they vote. That's why you regularly have poll results with most Americans saying they have conservative values but also find many of those same people voting for liberal Democrats. Heck in polling prior to the election of 2008, you even had about 10% of self identified conservatives saying the were going to vote for Obama. Talk about a values to vote disconnect!
Therefore, in terms of any given election I pay little attention to whether a voter group says they have conservative values or not. In the short term it doesn't matter.
In the long run, however, what Conservative leaders should be taking from this information, is motivation to discover how to communicate with the squishy 40 that we are the party that represents their values and to translate that into votes. But alas, I think they also, are focused more on retaining individual power and only secondarily on what's good for the country.
Running for the American presidency is like stepping into a white-hot crucible. No other national head faces the two-year-long grind our presidential candidates do to win the job. Well, Obama got away without much scrutiny, what with the wealthy Left both in and out of media greasing his way. But that's the very rare exception which proves the rule.
Once the campaign gets going in earnest, Palin will have to demonstrate that she is presidential material. She will have to formulate policy statements on a range if issues. She will have to articulate her vision for the country. She will have to show some solid grasp of foreign policy. It won't be enough for her to appeal to people typified by FReepers. It won't be enough for her to simply be a celebrity. Glib one-liners, a lovely smile, a sparkly demeanor, and shallow pronouncements will only take her so far.
Her present "job," as you put it, is to prepare for the campaign. It would help her if she traveled abroad. She needs to begin assembling a solid team of advisors. She needs to think through the rationale for her candidacy. Why is she running? Where does she want to take the country? What would be some of her key goals. It will not help her if all she continues to be is a gadfly celebrity. Kind of the Arianna Huffington of the Right.
Sarah and Joe blew it.
I am not specifically a Palin supporter, at least not yet. She is the best we have out there at the moment and the reasons many conservatives don’t like her are unnerving coming from people who claim to be conservatives.
Her present “job,” as you put it, is to prepare for the campaign. It would help her if she traveled abroad. She needs to begin assembling a solid team of advisors. She needs to think through the rationale for her candidacy. Why is she running? Where does she want to take the country? What would be some of her key goals. It will not help her if all she continues to be is a gadfly celebrity. Kind of the Arianna Huffington of the Right.
The goal - Renew, Revive, Restore - “renew our optimistic, pioneering spirit, revive our free market system and restore constitutional limits and our standing in the world, as that abiding beacon of freedom. … Not transformation but restoration with a ‘Great Awakening’ that we already feel emerging across America.”
She has been making policy statements for the past year and a half. She challenged Bernanke on QEII. She stood with Gov. Brewer (literally) on the Arizona immigration law while others cowered in fear. And who was it that first opposed the health care bill for its rationing (death panels) which they now admit to. She has said that her first priority is to repeal the healthcare bill. Her policy on energy independence is well known. She believes in supporting our friends and opposing our enemies and she knows which is which. She stands with the tea party groups for a return to constitutional government and fiscal responsibility. If you don’t know this, you must have recently awakened from a lengthy hibernation.
>Since those men were nominated by the Republican Party to be the party standard-bearer for the nation’s highest office, they cannot be “RINOs.”
>
>>An unbroken string of big government Republicans helping to lead us down the path to national economic depression and ultimately collapse.
>
>Are you including Reagan in that?
Given that I’m a member of the “under 30” crowd I have no recollection of Reagan and the Republican party, for as long as I have known it, has been big-government, semi-gun-rights, and though claiming to be pro-life {repealing/overturning Roe v. Wade is a stated & official party plank} have done very little towards that ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER THEY WERE IN-CONTROL/MAJORITY FOR [virtually] THE PAST DECADE.
I almost clarified my comment to say that I didn’t think you were the type who want to prematurely dissuade her from going for it and I’m sorry I didn’t because I don’t get that sense from you.
I don’t respect those who regurgitate media talking points or don’t think beyond the spin being pushed out there by those from the GOP establishment who are threatened by her and what she represents. But I don’t think that’s you.
I think you legitimately have questions about her...and I think that’s fair and I respect it.
I suppose I’ll take the opportunity now to answer the questions from the original poster and assume they were asked in good faith. I’ll start by saying while Palin has responded to these questions and issues already numerous times, that yes, each of these will be questions and issues that Palin will have to re-address and re-address and re-address because that’s just the nature of politics.
1) Quitting as governor after only two years. (Ronald Reagan served eight)
Many on this thread have covered this already. I’ll add that my initial complaint regarding Palin’s initial response to the resignation episode was that it was not as tight of an answer as it needed to be. Thankfully, she’s gotten better at explaining what happened and why. And in fact, this very thing was brought up today during an interview with Dennis Miller. Her response was tight, crisp and easy to understand. I recommend you listen to it for yourself and if you or others still don’t understand the hows and whys of it all, there’s not really all that much I can tell ya:
http://www.palintv.com/2010/11/24/governor-palin-talks-to-dennis-miller-november-24-2010/
2) The normal perception of any conservative by the MSM that she is stupid.
The only thing I can say here is that any conservative will be billed as stupid. This does not mean that we back down from this idiocy otherwise we’re letting the left set the terms by which we choose who we support.
Our response must be to fight back with facts. Palin’s response must be to continue doing what she’s doing. Her getting out there on the issues contradicts their meme about what a dunce she is. It also contradicts the quitter meme. Anyone who willingly thrusts themselves into the arena like she does all the time is no quitter.
3) No history of statements on public policy issues prior to 2008.
Well again...like others have stated, she was a governor, not a national figure. That being said, there is a record of her opinions on energy independence that stretch out from before she was chosen by McCain.
4) Overexposure that often appears unpresidential.
By whom? The wizards of smart? Just because there are some political junkies who watch her like a hawk doesn’t mean everyone follows every move she makes.
That being said...I don’t agree with this. Palin explained why the TLC thing. She said we cannot cede the popular culture to the left. We cannot influence opinion by staying on our side of the fence and talking just within our circles of influence.
5) No political base either regionally or politically. (Obama had blacks and college kids for example, Reagan had men. Obama had Illinois and California, Reagan had California, the West and South)
I’m sorry but this is just silly. Her political base is the conservatives within the GOP and the Tea Party. That you don’t recognize this seems kind of bizarre.
6) Appeal to independents, in 2010 independents left Obama for anyone else, will they do the same in 2012 if Palin is the nominee?
Palin’s job will be to make the same case that Reagan did. He reached out to them, not by watering down his message, but by making them see that conservatism works and that a government’s role is to get off our backs and let us live our lives with as little intrusion from them as possible. This resonates with people across the country regardless of party affiliation or no affiliation.
7) What is her big issue and how does she explain it? (I don’t think the I’m not Obama will work for her or anyone else all by itself.)
Again. This is a silly question. Her message has been very, very clear. Smaller, smarter, less intrusive government. Energy independence. Fiscal responsibility. Patient centric health care. A robust private sector economy. A government on the side of the people not a government of self-entitled hacks.
//
Here’s my deal. The reason I support Palin to the exclusion of everyone else is that I believe she is the only one who will truly fight for us and not pay lip service. Why? She’s doing that already, while the “acceptable” candidates sit on the sidelines and let her do the dirty work.
We need someone to go in there with a machete and drastically cut spending. We need someone who will free up our energy resources. We need someone who can and has stood up to the entitlement club within the political parties. We need someone who doesn’t care about what the left and the media (BIRM) says about them...someone who will do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do and let the chips fall where they may.
Is she perfect? No of course not. But then no one is. Each of the potential candidates have problems associated with them. The difference here is that my problems with Palin are superficial. My problems with the others are based on principle and policy.
I can hope that she tones down the colloquialisms and work with a voice coach to soften her tone...but neither of these things make her unpalatable.
Mitt’s flip flopping and RomneyCare, Huck’s social programs...etc. are not things I can set aside.
We need a real, serious, roll up your sleeves and get down to business work horse not a preener or someone who bears the mantle of conservatism for the sake of getting elected but then goes along to get along for the sake of maintaining the status quo.
And I see so far only one real fighter. I see only one person willing to do the hard, dirty work. Faults and all, that person is Sarah Heath Palin.
So if/when she announces, I’ll crawl over the proverbial glass to back her up and help her win the nomination.
I will no longer take the path of least resistance and let the media and the political elites decide who I should support.
PS...does anyone really believe that if for whatever reason Palin doesn’t run and we end up with someone like Romney, that his negatives will stay as they are and the media won’t savage him too? Any candidate we pick will be ripped to shreds because that’s how the left operates.
So then, at what point do we take a stand and tell them that they do not get to decide for us who we should support?
With all due respect, you are missing my point -- and the point of the person who started this thread. The topic is how Palin will appeal to independents, not to her base. It's a long-standing fact of American life that the broad public pays scant attention to in-depth politics until election day draws near. Elections are typically won or lost between Labor Day and the weekend before the election.
All of what she's done politically this year has been to help elect Republicans in the midterms. If she does want to run for president, now is the time for her to begin. In starting this thread, Patrick1 asked how she could appeal to independents. I've been attempting to address that in all of my posts on this thread.
If you don’t know this, you must have recently awakened from a lengthy hibernation.
Why do so many FReepers feel compelled to behave in this manner? Sorry if I'm not as intimately familiar with all things Palin as you appear to be, but my time is limited. I work a graveyard shift, 10:00pm to 6:00am. I get home about 6:30am, then try to sleep for up to 8 hours. When I get up there's scant time to do household chores, eat, run errands, etc., before having to go back to work by 9:45pm for the handover from the person I'm relieving. My "weekend" starts when I get off on Monday morning at 6:00am and ends on Wednesdays when I have to go back by 9:45pm again.
This being my "weekend," I took some interest in a couple of threads here and commented on them. Pretty pointless excercise when all is said and done.
Ancient history.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You are correct. I do NOT want to disuade Palin from running. I like her. I said earlier on another thread that when McLame announced her as his running mate I sent in the largest campaign contribution I had ever sent and it wasn't because of him.
I agree she SEEMS to be a fighter for principle. But I have been disappointed before. Her recent endorsement of McLame was one of those. I understand the loyalty thing and how failure to support him could have hurt her by branding her disloyal. But loyalty to principle is more important.
She could have said something like," While I appreciate Senator McCain's choice of me to be his running mate in 2008 and I thank him for it, everyone knows he chose me to balance the ticket with a conservative philosophy to his moderate to liberal philosophy. I believe that loyalty to principle is more important than loyalty to an individual. Senator McCain has drifted leftward in his past two terms evidenced by McCain-Finegold and his support of amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens. While I thank Senator McCain for his many years of service, I now find that Congressman Hayworth holds positions of principle that are more closely in line with my own and I endorse his candidacy to be the next Arizona senator."
When the attacks came afterwards, she could use the situation as a teaching tool about her character and being true to her beliefs. "You can count on the consistency of my beliefs even when the decisions are difficult. I believe in Life and would not abort my Downs Syndrome son. I believe in conservatism and will support the most conservative candidates."
Anyway, I'm interested in the most conservative and electable person as the Republican nominee. It seems right now 2 years out, that she is the most conservative. I mostly have questions about her electability. It's not that these can't be overcome. Reagan was too old and too stupid. W was stupid. Yet they won.
What I was looking for from this thread was a list of cogent reasons why she is electable. She will be attacked for:
1-Lack of REAL executive experience
2-Extremist views on many things, life, etc.
3-Ability to stand under the pressure
4-Dysfunctional children
5-A Tea Partier
6-Inexperience in national economics
7-Inexperience in foreign affairs
8-Inexperience in defense issues
9-Poor judgement in becoming a 'reality show' principal
10-Another neophyte in national politics that wants to be the leader of the Free World. How'd the last one work?
11-Total animosity and disdain from the press
12-She is just not smart enough
13-Very little international experience
Before the flames start:
READ THIS !!!
I don't believe this stuff.
But the attacks will come.
It's not gonna be good enough to say she has as much as this guy or that guy had. She has to articulate a positive electability persona of her own. Not in comparison to past candidates or office holders. Not because shes better than this or equal to that. She also has a higher bar because she is a woman. She has to present a vision of the what the future of America can be. Like Reagan's "Morning in America".
Perhaps something like," People have stated that the 20th century was the American century and that the 21st belongs to China. Well I'm here to say that not only was the 20th century America's but so is the 21st, and the 22nd and all the centuries to come. Not because we are somehow superior genetically. Not because we are somehow superior technologically. But because of the superiority of our belief that all people are 'Created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That no one can be truly free any where until all are free everywhere. And that all people have the God given right to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and for their posterity for the infinate number of generations to come."
She's got about a year of craziness before the real insanity begins. I'm looking for FReeper input before it begins with complete ferocity.
Nevertheless ...
I agree with a lot of what you said. And indeed she will be criticized for the list of things you presented...rightly or wrongly...but then like I said, that’s what a campaign is for.
Her record shows she’s an accomplished executive. Her record shows she’s not a demagogue...but actually governs based on what the law says. Her record shows she has experience negotiating with international influences. Her record shows that she’s principled and savvy.
It’ll be up to her to make people aware of who she is and what she’s done and what she can do if elected.
As for the McCain thing... I didn’t love it either but I understand it.
Like Palin said though, we’re not always going to like what a political figure does or all of the endorsements they make. And that’s fine. I agree with most of them and a few ones I don’t care for aren’t enough to turn me off on her. In fact, the only thing that would have turned me off was if she had attacked a conservative in order to forward a moderate or liberal republican.
Fortunately that’s just now how she rolls. So we’re all good there.
As for the rest of it...it’s important that we don’t get to a point where we worship or follow a political figure blindly. I don’t and I know you don’t either. It’s also important to recognize that if elected, she WILL let us down at some time or another. Hopefully it won’t be on a matter of principle. But it’s a foregone conclusion that she’s just not capable of pleasing us 100% of the time. No one is.
We need to accept that we won’t always agree with everything she says and does and that it’s okay. We can still support her while disagreeing with this move or that move.
But she can stay true to her principles... and it’ll be our job to help her stay on that path and to hold her feet to the fire should she be the nominee.
Agreed.
Patrick1 asked how she could appeal to independents. I’ve been attempting to address that in all of my posts on this thread. ...I took some interest in a couple of threads here and commented on them. Pretty pointless excercise when all is said and done.
Those non-affiliated voters just swung over 20 percent from Obama to Republican in the 2010 election. Gov. Palin was a major factor in that election, endorsing candidates and appearing at tea party events. If Obama continues as he has in the last 20 months, it will not matter who our candidate is, the Republican will win. That’s why it’s so important to get someone elected who will actually do as they say, who isn’t afraid to say and do the right thing even if it’s not politically advantageous. The last thing we need is another big government Republican like Romney.
Now if, in the next 20 months, Obama is able to demonstrate some evidence of competence, then we will need a candidate who will take the fight to him, and thus far, only Palin has shown an ability to do that.
Your post was an unstated negative, inferring by saying that she needed to take policy positions, that she hadn’t done so which was incorrect. I was simply correcting your unstated negative. It’s understandable that you did not know her positions because the MSM would prefer to talk about Dancing with the Stars.
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.