Posted on 08/02/2010 8:51:06 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Will Sarah Palin get a second chance at the presidency?
Palin for president? An ambitious woman in the quest for the ultimate position of power. McCaines bid for the white house in the 2008 election was an eye opener for the former Governor of Alaska. McCaine lured Palin to the tree of the knowledge of power, She tasted of the possibility to be first in her gender to occupy the vice presidency of the United States. Unfortunately the Republicans suffered an overwhelming defeat at the hands of the Democratic party.
Sarah, an unknown in the political world flourished as a celebrity, with overnight success. The pit-bull with lipstick is now the potential alpha of the republican and tea party movement. Sarah has proved herself a worthy opponent. Her image as the caring, down to earth mother figure used in McCaines campaign has proven to be affective. Adding that special touch of feminism to the recipe, may just be what the GOP doctor called for.
Palin's stand on major issues reflect the majority view (republican). As a potential presidential candidate she must excel above her fellow politicians . Ignoring ruthless tactics adopted by the party, and stale political views, blaming the present administration for the ill decisions of the past. Instead Sarah should focus on a remedy to the problems facing America and an antidote to counter act the mishaps of the past administration.
Time will judge as to palin's political future. Perhaps she will be able to pull the rabbit from the hat and be successful in her party's nomination . The American people have had to bare the burden of over rated politicians and empty political promises for a decade. Sarah's approach to the white house must reflect a different image then conventional politics. So far she has made no attempt to such a resolution, and seems content with politics as usual. In the famous words of Abraham Lincoln"you may fool all the people some of the time: you can even fool some of the people all of the time: but you cant fool all the people all of the time" Palin's most fearful opponent stands valiantly awaiting her challenge. History is there to bring to memory the sins of the G.O.P.A ghost that haunts the chambers of the republican party, whose only remedy is exorcism of the memory of eight years .
Is Sarah Palin capable of erasing the past from the memory of the American people? The Republican party has come up with some solutions such as illegal immigration and health care to induce amnesia on the nation. Will this be sufficient to ensure victory to Sarah Palin and the G.O.P. in the coming elections is yet to be seen.
What’s the point? Please remove me from your ping list.
Calm down: You’re not on my “ping list” in any way, shape or form. I pinged you this once since you’re one of the most vocal critics here of Governor Sarah Palin and I wanted your take on that article to see if you agreed with the author’s points. Well?
No thanks.
This comment of yours, while strong, is, as I see it, totally legitimate, and not bashing of Palin or her supporters. I do not think you will run into any problems posting in this tone.
The author is a deaf, dumb and blind racist.
Not to mention a socialistmarxistlyingliberaldemocrat....
Other than that...I've nothing to add.
If that's true, why doesn't the polling reflect that? According to Rasmussen, 61% of likely voters do not believe her to be qualified for the presidency. If you can't even get to 50%, you're losing A LOT of independents and moderates - and by extrapolation - Reagan Democrats.
Felix...can’t spell either. The guy is a racist ass......
Si'?
Dole, McCain come quickly to mind.
FWIW-
So we have a conservative candidate that can actually win the primary (not a 1%er), but now we don't want that and so we need to stop that from happening, weird.
Since when did STRIVING to stop a main stream conservative and fighting for another Ford, HW Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, or a Mitt Romney become the GOAL of conservatives?
It's not the delegate's fault as many are legally obligated to vote for the candidate that they are initially "loyal" to. It's is not until after the first ballot, are the delegates free to cast their vote for someone else. McCain won on the first ballot, because he had secured enough loyal delegates to guarantee the nomination.
The Democrat party relies HEAVILY on what has come to be known as Superdelegates - these are delegates who attend the convention and may vote, yet they're "free agents" of sorts. They are not bound by any earlier primary or caucus vote. The Republicans have only a handful of these kinds of delegates - not enough in any way to come close to swaying the result, unlike the Dems who VERY much can ignore their popular result.
If Hilary Clinton could have persuaded enough of the Superdelegats to vote for her, she would have been the nominee - there is that many at play. However, even if Romney or Huckabee would have been without 10 or 20 of McCain in the delegate count, there aren't enough Republican "superdelegates" (that's not what the GOP calls them), to swing the election.
If you want to blame anyone for McCain or Dole, you can blame the primary and caucus voters of America.
Those "loyal" delegates are dumbasses, and then the other delegates just compound the first dumbasses.
How's that? : )
Another thing...that I hate...is how the primaries are held. By the time it get's to my state...and other states..the outcome is generally known. That needs to change.............
FWIW-
The mushy middles may be “hardly-cognizant”, but the vast majority of them have already formed an opinion on Palin, and that opinion appears to be generally negative. Her “don’t know/never heard of her” numbers are much lower than any other potential Republican candidate other than Gingrich.
She has already established herself among the mushy middle. She has established herself as one of the few national political figures less popular than Obama. She may be able to change that, but it’s a lot harder to win over someone who already doesn’t like you than it is to win over someone who has never heard of you.
It’s early, and a lot can happen, but it would be a mistake to say that she is in a strong position for 2012 right now. Name recognition is as much a liability as a strength for her right now.
What you say about the mushy middles is true, as is your observation that it is still early. Is she in a strong position? You say no and I say yes, but she still certainly has work to do. Are you old enough to remember where Reagan was after 1976?
I’m not old enough to remember it personally, but I am familiar with it historically.
First, I think Palin is closer to where Reagan was in 1968 than 1976, both in terms of experience and in terms of national stature. Reagan in ‘68 and Palin now both share the fact that they have emerged as the leading voices of a fairly young political movement - the Buckley/Goldwater conservatives and the Tea Parties, respectively - but it is hard to compare the vitality of the two movements right now.
If she is where Reagan was in 1976, then that still doesn’t bode terribly well for her. Reagan, of course, was still 4 years away from nomination and election in 1976. Also, even if Reagan was nominated in 1976, I personally doubt whether any Republican was going to win that election so soon after Watergate.
She does have three of the same problems that kept Reagan from being nominated in 1976. The party establishment doesn’t want her, the moderates don’t want her, and she has enemies among some prominent conservatives as well. Remember, it was Jesse Helms who drove the final nail in the coffin of Reagan’s 1976 bid.
If the best case scenario is that she is where Reagan was in ‘76, then it doesn’t look very good for her in 2012.
“It was a dark and stormy night, suddenly a shot rang out. Elsewhere at the same exact moment Pierre sat in a small cafe on the Left bank drinking strong coffee and thinking.
Oddly at the same time, a carriage made it's way across the darkened French countryside totally empty.
Your posting history is odd.
You don’t sound like a knucklehead, but you sound like you’re trying to be one to miss my analogy. What I meant by Reagan in ‘76 is where Palin was in ‘08, of course, by which she’d be on track in ‘12 for where he 2qas in ‘80.
1968 really wasn’t about Reagan at all. It was about the VN War and the Democrats’ implosion. Reagan was then a minor figure on the national stage, not the phenom that Palin is. (Though yes, he was older with more experience.)
I hear what you're saying, but given the opportunity to either keep the procedures the GOP has, or adopt the method the DNC uses, I'll vote to keep it the way it is.
If there were a large - unwieldy - number of "Superdelagates", what happens when the voters nominate the orthodox conservative and the the Superdelegates move to subvert that popular vote - which ABSOLUTELY could have been done in Hillary's case. Because of the Superdelegates, Obama didn't technically have the nomination sewn up until after the first ballot. That's a lot of power to give the "DC power brokers", IMHO.
But seriously, I don't think Palin supporters want an honest discussion about her record or her chances, they just want to wrap themselves in the warm and fuzzy image and perception they have of Palin and ignore the warning signs.
If supporters can't challenge, much less overcome, the concerns and criticisms people have of their candidate on a forum like FR, how will they, or Sarah, do it in the ugly venue of a campaign where questions and criticisms can't be deflected with the non sequitur “you're just a hater!”.
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.