Posted on 11/18/2012 7:06:26 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
No, this is jot a joke. Not kidding, not joshing ya, not The Onion. Esto no es un chiste y yo se que Vd. no puede creerlo. As the GOP is now reeling from an election campaign where it’s clear failed Presidential candidate and increasingly self-discredited-by-mouth Mitt Romney ignored, turned off, or neglected to woo key growing groups the GOP needs to survive….as the GOP is soul searching about ways to offer a more affirmative and positive form of politics that offers solid specifics rather than warmed over talk radio riffs or lines seemingly grabbed from blogs… Charlotte Allen in the L.A. Times suggests what it really needs is: Sarah Palin as its 2016 nominee.
"The Republican Party has been doing a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing since the presidential election. Half the conservative columnists and bloggers say the GOP lost because it overemphasized social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. The other half says the party didn’t emphasize them enough. And everyone denounces Project ORCA, the campaign’s attempt to turn out voters via technology.
But I’ve got a suggestion for cutting short the GOP angst: Sarah Palin for president in 2016.
You think I’m joking? Think again."
She makes her case in detail and says:
"Some Republicans will say Palin has too much baggage from 2008, and we need to look for a new Sarah Palin."
Sarah Palin has so much baggage TSA is opening a new office to inspect it.
"But I don’t see what’s wrong with the one we’ve got. Ever since the 1990s, Republicans have been looking for the next Ronald Reagan. Reagan is now revered in bipartisan circles, but during his presidency he was, like Palin, ridiculed by liberals. They cited “Bedtime for Bonzo” and sneered at his no-name college degree.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at themoderatevoice.com ...
Sarah Palin for 2016? No way! She can’t compete with a man. Women like need to stay home and take care of the family. Women hate her because she does not like the killing of babies in the womb. And the have-nots hate her because she is going to take away their welfare money. No way. We can’t have her!
All solved, with an appropriate VP candidate.
:D
It’s her or no one next time!
I refuse to vote for a moderate again for anything!
Isnt that the truth.But you watch as that is exactly who the stupid party will try to nominate.
What is a H8er?
I like it except for the GOP part but could learn to live with it.
So what is the difference between the media’s reaction to Palin and the media’s reaction to any other republican nominee?
The difference is that, unlike Bushdolebushmccainromney, Palin will eviscerate her attackers.
If Palin were to run, in earnest, it would truly begin the process of winnowing (look that word up) out the RINOs from the Republican Party.
Palin woud instantly polarize The Washington Political Establishment of both parties. They fear her more than anything else, and despise her with a passion.
BUT, if she went to the people first and by-passed the party, she would mobilize the base like no one since Ronald Reagan.
IMO, we need her to run in order for the GOP to finally face its trial-by-fire. The choice would be stark and clear. The GOP Elite would finally have to take their stand.
Just like Ronald Reagan said in 1964, it would be ‘A Time For Choosing’.
Just WHAT is her “baggage”? The fact that she wouldn’t take crap off of the RINOs in her state?
Hey, I voted for HER the first time around; but, she won’t get MY vote until she addresses THIS with the country (IF she knows about it.) :
“Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud”
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2012/11/why-gop-wont-challenge-vote-fraud.html
I won’t. Sarah has no baggage - that’s propaganda and I can tell the easily deceived when they repeat it. That’s their angst because she has NONE and she can’t be bought. They leaves her beholding to no one! The GOP trashed her for four years and they lost.
One more important point: when you compare Palin to Teddy Roosevelt, it drives liberals absolutely nuts.
I mean, more nuts than they already are.
Palin 2016!
We’ll get Jeb or some other jellyfish Republican. If they pass amnesty...game over.
In 1992 the Democrats didn't really put any big candidates up against George H. W. Bush because they believed that Bush was a shoo-in. If it wasn't for Perot, Clinton, an unknown governor from a relatively unimportant state, would most likely have lost.
So if Palin does run in 2016 it's because she probably figured that Obama would win and wanted to wait until she had a better chance. This most likely explains her active support of local candidates with nominal support of Romney.
Reagan went up against Ford even though his chances were slim. If Palin were really the next Reagan she would have gone up against Obama even if she figured she would lose in the end.
But she didn't.
I’m all in for Sarah; she’s why I voted for McCain in that election. She’s a breath of fresh air, solidly conservative—and I’d make long-distance calls, donate, whatever would help.
She was so trashed by the “consensus media” as Ezra Levant calls it, that she had no chance.
The media sorted through her emails—but they haven’t seem to cover the real story about Benghazi. It borders on criminal.
She may have personal reasons for not running, but is the path is clear, “Run, Sarah, run!”—you’ll have a lot of support. :)
I’m good with Sarah Palin, win or lose. Conservative lite hasn’t worked out so well. At least we’ll have somebody that will take on the media, the left and the slide into shithole status.
I would like to see her head the RNC.
Another guarenteed loss. No thanks.
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.