Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Palin's 2012 Strategy: Move by the Right Flank
Vanity | 11/6/2010 | Brices Crossroads

Posted on 11/06/2010 1:35:51 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last
To: bereanway
“that there is an element within the GOP that is every bit as dangerous to the conservative movement as the avowed Marxists in the dim party”

Yeah it's called the Bush wing of the GOP. As we speak they are on the attack against Palin using their minions Of Rove and others to try to destroy her. the Bush wing hated Reagan and they hate Palin.

61 posted on 11/06/2010 8:22:35 PM PDT by unseen1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads
We must get the narrative out on how Palin and the Tea party made this a historic win. how without Palin the GOP would have been lucky to retake the house. We must push back on the false narrative that the establishment is trying to make. Yes we know it a lie they are pushing but lies have a way of dragging down the truth. The first battle of the primary season is going on as we speak. the establishment is trying to paint Palin and the Tea party as part of the problem. Instead we must show how we won 63 seats INPITE of the establishment.

the Renee ellmers story is a good case to use. the story by Watts on how the establishment failed to support Col west in FL ans Tim Scott in SC. How the establishment directed resources to the wrong races, how they used friendly fire on COD, Miller and Angle to suppress the vote in those races and nationally.

Yes it is inside baseball stuff but it is like I said the first battle in the primary.

The establishment is out of touch, they had no narrative for the race, they failed to promote and defend gogg candidates because they fell to the media lies of which were extreme and which were not. they failed to use their star power correctly having many people campaign in CA but not enough in states like NC or NY because they considered them lost causes. how the establishment failed to use new media and old media to push back on the smears of extreme candidates, racist Tea partiers. How they had no national narrative, how they were afraid to take on Obama directly because they though the was too popular. How they lost us CO race, how they did not rebuke the SC GOP for its nasty attacks on Haley or the DE gop for its attacks on COD.

How they failed to strip Lisa of her posts. how they invested $8million in CA instead of GOTV efforts in NV.

The establishment cost us the 100+ seats and they need to be publicly blamed for it. We need facts, figures, voter turnouts, campaign figures and donations. Who did the NRCC help who did they not. Which candidates won despite of them national party.

how did the state GOP win so many house and senate state seats without the establishment. How the national establishment never even saw the trends within the state races. How they failed to target key 2012.

62 posted on 11/06/2010 8:37:09 PM PDT by unseen1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

That works for me, no worries!


63 posted on 11/06/2010 9:19:39 PM PDT by wizard61 (Hack the Narrative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

Excellent analogy and marvelous piece of writing. General Grizzly, hmmmmmm...


64 posted on 11/06/2010 9:59:10 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have just two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
No, I don’t really eat at 1st-class restaurants, being conservative with my money I tend to eat at low-budget fast-food places.

You did realize I was speaking in a figurative manner, right?

I thought since this was something to be shared that fixing an error would be helpful. then when it was suggested it wasn’t an error, I overreacted to explain why it was an error, rather than letting the matter drop.

The point is that this was a terrific article, yet your only comment was some imagined error. We know you don't like Palin, which is why you somehow managed to find something negative to say about the article. You evidently can't dispute the tenor or message of the article, so you tried to find fault with some minor detail as if it had anything at all to do with what the overall point of the article is.
65 posted on 11/07/2010 12:45:10 AM PDT by GLDNGUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

BTTT


66 posted on 11/07/2010 3:21:37 AM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

Brilliant article.

OKAY. NOW that we’re finally talking tactics and strategy in war terms, ask yourself: When we go into a battle, what is among the first targets?

It is time to take out the media, as they are an integral part of the opponent’s communications and coordination. Yes? Start filing FEC lawsuits maybe? Start buying them up and firing all the leftists? Quit buying the papers, and call your cable channels to complain about news channel content?


67 posted on 11/07/2010 4:24:41 AM PST by Big Giant Head (Two years no AV, no viruses, computer runs great!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion; Brices Crossroads; All

Thanks for the ping. Very good article, BC. BTTT!


68 posted on 11/07/2010 5:31:56 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Big Giant Head

“It is time to take out the media, as they are an integral part of the opponent’s communications and coordination. Yes? Start filing FEC lawsuits maybe? Start buying them up and firing all the leftists? Quit buying the papers, and call your cable channels to complain about news channel content?”

Thanks. The media seems to be the equivalent of an army’s communications corps. In the case of the LSM, it is actually much more like a Propaganda Ministry.


69 posted on 11/07/2010 6:52:36 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

Excellent read, and thanks for your permission. Already
posted to my list and it will probably go viral on conservative sites.


70 posted on 11/07/2010 7:24:15 AM PST by OregonRancher (Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Brices Crossroads

Not bad for a warm-up to the revolution...TEA-force is just getting started. :)~


71 posted on 11/07/2010 7:51:43 AM PST by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......? Embrace a ruler today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OregonRancher

Glad you enjoyed it.

I think it gives the lie to the notion that Palin was somehow a drag or impediment for us in 2010. This is the lie that is being pushed by the Establishment, and it has to be met and refuted over and over again.

The Establishment GOP like Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Romney and Haley Barbour did very little other than steer money and take credit. They didn’t generate the first GOP turnout advantage in a primaries since the 1930s.

That was Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. We have to keep countering their revisionist propaganda.


72 posted on 11/07/2010 10:10:00 AM PST by Brices Crossroads
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: GLDNGUN
We know you don't like Palin

Wrong again. Or was this more of your "figurative" speaking?

I've made substantive comments about the article as well, and I don't share your opinion on it.

I also don't believe Palin was as much of a factor in the last election as some people here think; that's not about liking or not liking Palin, it's about figuring out exactly why people are motivated to vote, and what brings them out and determines who they vote for.

I think there are some people who are so driven to try to build up Palin that they look to credit her for all sorts of things; this goes along with times when they try to dismiss things she does that they disagree with, and sometimes contributes to attititudes about her that seem insulting to me, but are supposedly meant to build her up -- like those who claimed that she lied about endorsing some people out of a sense of loyalty, or that she simply didn't "understand" how her endorsements "hurt" her.

I prefer to take her at her word, and when she does things, I assume it's because she knows what she is doing.

As to the article, I don't really know what her strategy is for 2012, or if she is even planning to run for election in 2012. But she clearly has supported candidates across the republican political spectrum, which should build good will necessary. And she has apparently worked to smooth over any rough spots between her and the establishment, to the point where some suggest she could be the next RNC chair (I don't think that is in the cards).

I do think the cult of personality set up by some of her more avid supporters does a disservice to her.

73 posted on 11/07/2010 11:54:03 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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