Palin 'Would Be Willing' to Take On Obama in 2012

By Judson Berger - FOXNews.com Sarah Palin has President Obama in her sights, telling FoxNews.com she "would be willing" to challenge him in the 2012 presidential race. Sarah Palin has President Obama in her sights, telling FoxNews.com she "would be willing" to challenge him in the 2012 presidential race.

The former Alaska governor, in an interview Saturday on the sidelines of the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, said President Obama's "lack of experience" has held him back his first year in office and that she would put her credentials up against his any day.

"I would be willing to if I believe that it's right for the country," Palin said when asked if she would run for president in 2012. She qualified the statement, adding that she sees "many" other potential candidates who are "in as strong or stronger position than I am to take on the White House and if they're in a better position than I in three years, I'll support them."

But the former GOP vice presidential nominee told "Fox News Sunday": "I won't close the door that perhaps could be open for me in the future."

She delivered the keynote address Saturday at the tea party convention, using it to hammer Obama as soft on terrorism. When convention organizer Judson Phillips mentioned the idea of "President Palin" in a question-and-answer session afterward, audience members leapt to their feet and burst into a chant of "Run, Sarah, Run."

1) Her detractors in Alaska were bipartisan. She had disrupted both the machines, and the resistance to her was focused like a laser beam on a non-stop series of frivolous ethics complaints based on an ethics law she had help put in place. It was pure Alynski. She had two choices: Let the clock run out on a governorship that was doomed to paralysis due to the attack of a novel weapon, or unexpectedly take an immediate evasive maneuver, regroup, and come at the problem on an even grander scale, the national political stage. She chose the latter, perhaps wiser, approach. It’s what her dad said. She isn’t retreating; she’s just reloading.

As to whether it will be an issue, not to her base. Furthermore, to the extent she gets out there early, helping people not in her base understand through her book what she did and why, she is laying the groundwork to both advance her conservative message and to mitigate the damage done by the battle of Alaska.

Will it work? It’s a good strategy, and if the numbers work out, if she can get to enough people quickly enough, it may well carry the day (hence her new role on Fox, where a significant demographic is the independent). If it works, she will join the ranks of only a very few in American presidential politics who have demonstrated the kind of superior generalship that can systematically overcome a serious disadvantage. Let her enemies tread carefully.

2) As for Reagan, I was there, and I hold that Reagan was berated abut as badly as the media culture of that time would allow. I still remember his being derided for his role in the Bonzo movies, implying an intellect little better than a chimpanzee. It was a low-level, but cruel and continuous assault, but the left was not so deeply entrenched as it is now, and the attacks on Sarah reflect that increase in bravado and firepower. If we are to win, we will need someone, like Sarah, who just keeps on getting up and taking the next round of flak. She appears unstoppable at the moment, and that is what puts the left in such dread of her. One of their best weapons, ridicule, is ineffective against her. That, and the fact that she can honestly carry the flag for conservative values and genuinely unite the conservative front, makes her perhaps their worst nightmare come true.

3) I have one thing against her. I disagree with the states rights approach to rolling back abortion. I understand it as an incremental strategy. Fight the battle one state at a time. And I accept that in her thoughts and intents she is pro-life to the core. But I think she should go the way that Reagan was willing to go back in 1981, the signing of a personhood amendment if presented, a federal solution that recognizes the inalienable right to life is not a state issue, but a federal constitutional issue. But who knows. Three years is a long time. I hope someone gets to her before she assumes office and persuades her to rethink that approach. Time will tell.

This thread makes me sick. Not everyone is a Palin worshiper. I kind of liked her until her Rino tendencies started to out themselves. You might as well call this Palin/McCain. We need someone who stands hard for the principles that can save this nation. Not more of the same crap that got us in this mess.

Now I understand how there can still be people who like her, and people who don’t. She has a good side too. But throwing out the “Troll” crap at the first person who doesn’t is just sickening. It reminds me so much of a time on FR when Conservatives were swept away by the deception of the Rino’s. If you get fooled again. Then Shame on you! Palin could still pan out, but it does not look so good to me anymore.

You people still have a long time to pick who you want to run in 2012. You better pick carefully this time. If we even make it that long. Don’t get caught up in the follow the Mob mentality. Think for yourselves.

“so you are against conservative principles of:

1) balanced budgets
2) limited/just government
3) free/rational society
4) free markets
5) pro-God
6) God-given natural individual rights
7) pro-life
8) national security
9) pride in and love for America”

I am for all of those principles and for Sarah, and will vote for her if she’s the candidate, but that’s not the issue. The issue is that 51% of the electorate has to vote that way. When someone expresses concerns about her electability, it doesn’t mean that they should be attacked. They’re simply expressing concern about getting to that 51%. If it’s not, Sarah so be it - to me, that’s not nearly as important as getting the Flap-Eared socialist the hell out of the WH in 2012.

If resigning was going w/the flow - it wouldn’t be a big deal! It would be what the libs, media and you expect.

So you see - Sarah goes AGAINST the flow and what the media and you expect. Their heads, and yours, are still spinning from it! Dead fish can’t handle ANYONE going against the tide.

She resigned, oh my, bad political move, how could she, politicians just don’t do that, this will hurt her and blah, blah - dead fish talking points. And ONCE AGAIN, Sarah proved them wrong!

You rock, Sarah, way cool!

Palin appoints former Planned Parenthood board member to Alaska Supreme Court

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2200773/posts

I would never vote for anyone who was pro-abortion. Never. This article linked is something that has always made me question who Sarah really is. Personally I need her to explain why she did this. And I need to know without question what her position is on abortion, and the Gay agenda(I have reason to question her on that too), and a few other things- Like why she thinks McCain is so great(And Brown-another pro abortionist). I can’t tell you how much I wanted to Like Sarah. But I feel a grave sense of caution. I don’t want to get fooled again. I can’t help feeling that way. Sorry. I think conservatives should look for someone who has unquestionable principles. Don’t you?

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.