Posted on 06/06/2011 8:24:59 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I would repeat what someone observed the last couple weeks, that the normal rules do not apply to Palin.
Hah!!!
Oh, I don't know...I can think of worse things than Palin running and losing...another RINO nominee like Romney, for example.
We may have to take the party back before we can take the country back...and I have no illusion the GOP DC Princes will go willingly.
I think you miss the point. Sarah has taken on the GOP establishment before. She is quickly becoming the third rail of GOP politics.
As David Horowitz has said, the attacks on Palin are actually attacks on conservatives.
Any conservative allowing himself to be swayed or disheartened by these media tactics needs to sit down, shut up and get out of the way.
We'll do the heavy lifting. Quit adding to the load with this inane naysaying...
WELL SAID!!!
While I do not agree with your viewpoint, I recognized your concerns as legitimate points. Until this line.
What hasn't registered with too many observers on the GOP side is that different rules apply to Palin.
Thank you for at least acknowledging that people who are not yet sold on Palin have legitimate reasons for their concerns even though you don’t agree with them. You seem like a reasonable person, so I’m sorry to have to disagree with you in any way. But different rules, as you put it, do not apply to Sarah Palin.
The theme of my posts about her the last few days has been that she is a human being, subject to all the same potential strengths and weaknesses as anyone else. Some of us choose to see only her strengths. Others of us observe troubling weaknesses in addition to her gifts.
These next few weeks and months will tell us much about her. She has four choices: run or not for the Republican nomination, or act the spoiler by running an independent campaign, or sit it out, but try to play the kingmaker from the sidelines. She can either help defeat Obama, or help ensure his reelection. We shall soon see.
Whatever path she chooses, political and human realities are what they are, and they apply to her just as much as to anyone else. If she decides to run, she needs a national campaign organization, and needs to show skills in managing it. No one can simply waltz to the nomination without working for it. That’s what I’m waiting to see. Is she a Pat Buchanan in a skirt, or a Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush (as far as running a campaign is concerned). If you understand my analogy, then you’ll understand what I’m waiting to see from her.
I guess we'll see, won't we?
I can't speak for all Palin supporters, just as you can't speak for all who have doubts. I have no doubt there are some Palin supporters who are koolaid drinkers.
Similarly, there are thoughtful people who have doubts...and there are some people who have doubts who are simply full of cr@p.
There's no reason you should have any qualms about disagreeing with me. We're here to exchange ideas, right?
There's no doubt Sarah is a human being. She will make mistakes and exhibit poor judgment at times.
Compare and contrast...I think Michele Bachmann just shot herself in the foot by hiring Rollins. Yet hiring Rollins was the conventionally smart thing to do, a way to show you are a serious candidate.
My gut says Palin will never hire a Rollins; she believes she and her inner circle are the best spokespeople and strategists. There's great advantage in that; they know the candidate's strengths and weaknesses, and their loyalty is unquestioned.
The disadvantage to that? No one in her inner circle has ever run a national campaign.
She's (IMO) going to run an untraditional campaign, one designed to bypass and undermine the establishment, be they RATs, RINOs or house media. She won't need the structure a traditional candidate would.
The disadvantage? The only president to successfully do so, even in part, was Reagan. There's no manual on how to do so; that will be written after the campaign, for better or worse.
She's not yet announced. Really, there's no point in having a campaign organization yet. Again, for the non-traditional campaign she would run, what's needed and what's superfluous?
They'll make mistakes there too.
In any case, if she runs (again, IMO) she intends to be a transformational figure, not a caretaker or a placeholder.
Compare and contrast again with Romney. Romney will run a traditional campaign, and will undoubtedly do it as well as it can be done. I have no doubt he has the management skills required to run a campaign and a country.
Unfortunately, his nomination and election would be only somewhat less disasterous for the country than Obama's reelection at best...possibly more so.
If Obama has Tea Party House and Senate to deal with, he's effectively neutered. Romney? Not so much.
Just as with Scott Brown...I supported him for Senate in Massachusetts, but I could never support him for President. No person who could win statewide office in Massachusetts would ever be a suitable candidate.
I think his judgment is flawed. I listen to his thrashing about on Romneycare and I shake my head. I fear the damage a guy with an (R) behind his name can do to the party and the country. Flawed policies, flawlessly executed...no thank you.
I see the campaigns of RR and W as being fundamentally different.
So let's provide some context. She will undoubtedly be a flawed candidate, but there's no other kind; flawless is not an option.
She's not yet declared, and may not run.
There's a lot of decisions and speeches to be made and work to do before the convention. She may bomb.
She's fearless. That means she will make mistakes at full volume and full speed.
I believe if she runs her campaign will be the template for conservatives going forward...and I believe if she runs she will fundamentally change the relationship between government, politicians and the press, even if she loses.
I'm rooting for her to pull it off for everyone's sake. There are plenty of reasons she could fail.
I think we all acknowledge what we're dong now isn't working.
Thank you also for your thoughtful reply. I found it interesting and challenging and, for me, that’s the best kind of reply to receive. :)
Just to reiterate, my doubts about Palin do not have anything to do with her conservative positions, with which I mostly agree. They have to do with those very qualities you, and others, characterize as “unconventional,” and I characterize as (for want of better adjectives) shallow and disorganized. If she runs, my hope is that those who see better qualities in her than I do at present are right, because we can’t afford a catastrophic mistake.
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.