Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Gargantua

“That’s all. Oh, and she did this in half a term as Governor during which she also ran for VP and had a baby.”

None of us is disputing her qualifications, which you rattle off in this response to me. Many of us saw The Undefeated, and we know she’s more than qualified to be President. The issue isn’t whether she’s qualified. The issue is whether she’s going to commit to the fight and run, or to sit on the sidelines. You seem to be bristling with defensiveness, and your recitation of her qualifications is a conflation of two separate issues. No one has forced Sarah Palin to do what she has done all year: act the role of candidate without actually committing to the course as a candidate. No one forced her to go on her Harley Rides with the cameras rolling; no one forced her to go on her bus tour; no one forced her to show up on Straw Poll Day in Iowa; no one forced her to continually visit states on her tour where Primaries are to be held; no one forced her to hire Steve Bannon to create a documentary of her political career. She did all of this electively, on her own. Many of us worked for some of her grass roots groups over the spring and summer. She’s been in the spotlight since 2008, mostly because she embodies the Conservative Spirit of the greatest leaders Conservatism ever had - and she knows it.

If she decides not to run - after orchestrating what amounts to a 3 year stealth campaign - she loses everything she’s worked hard to build. There will be ample criticism of her. “Why” all the posturing for years, then then cut bait at crunch time? Much of the criticism will be justified towards her if she sits out now, after everything she’s done to keep herself relevant, and part of the discussion. She’ll be seen as cashing in on her 2008 fame for 3 years, and then deciding the “fire in her belly” she told Hannity she had in Iowa a mere 30 days ago has now morphed into scrutinizing whether a “title” of “GOP Presidential Nominee” is now necessary for her to keep up her business as usual agenda of “leading” from the sideline. If her own words mean anything, this isn’t the kind of talk that’s inspiring. It sounds like she’s pulling up from the marathon about 100 yards from the finish. Her decision to opt out now justifies some of the criticism she will get, and render any of her opinions on what transpires going forward as just background noise. Her own actions for 3 years say “I’m in”. Her appearance with Greta says “eh, well, maybe not so much that ‘I’m in’, but I still want to be relevant if I sit out”. She’s just not going to be able to have it both ways. Sitting out does more damage to her; but she also is damaged by running for the nomination and losing it. Maybe less damaged by the latter. But definitely damaged by the former.

So this isn’t about whether she’s qualified. It seems she’s been on a 3 year quest - most likely for financial backing of the big dollar donor kind - to fund her aspirations. And those Big Dollar donors are the only way anyone will ever become the nominee for either party. It’s looking like no one stepped up to back her. And that might be the most tragic thing for those of us who want to vote for and work to get her elected.


57 posted on 09/29/2011 10:36:15 AM PDT by antonico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: antonico
"You seem to be bristling with defensiveness, and your recitation of her qualifications is a conflation of two separate issues..."

Apparently you forgot your own quote, which I re-posted at the top of my reply to you, and which my answer was in direct response to. You had made the (incorrect, I believe) assertion that her current newsworthiness derived from the "mystery" surrounding her status as a candidate.

My reply was that her newsworthiness began well before, and will continue long after, the 2012 elections. I also listed the inarguable justification for my position.

I apologize if you misunderstood why I replied the way I did... people, it seems, sometimes forget that the responses they engender are the direct result of statements they made. Or, they want to divert attention from their error. A popular tact is to accuse your debator of being "defensive" or some other subconsciously ginned-up obfuscation. Absent the melodrama, we call it "carrying on a discussion," and one need not feel defensive to want to enjoin. Nor did I.

There you are. As you were, then.

:^)

61 posted on 09/29/2011 11:01:09 AM PDT by Gargantua (Mess with the 'Cuda, you get the teeth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson