What Sarah Palin Needs To Win The Republican Nomination

UK Telegraph ^ | November 22nd, 2010 | Alex Spillius

[meadsjn]

Palin needs the Independents and they HATE her.

Absolute hogwash.

[Ruth C]

Right, but I just wanted poster to be more specific as to the meaning of populist. It’s kind of necessary to know that to interpret what is being said :)

[steve8714]

The Fifth amendment only limits the government from the taking of life, without due process. I find it shocking that one who frequents this website finds emanations and penumbra in the amendments, or puts the Fourteenth in the Bill of Rights.

[EternalVigilance]

How is Sarah Palin not conservative?

1. Pro-choice for states on abortion, in opposition to the Reagan personhood Fourteenth Amendment pro-life plank that has been in the GOP platform for 26 years.

2. She is a judicial supremacist, ie believes that at the end of the day it's the judges who decide what is constitutional and "legal."

3. Agrees with John McCain on immigration. Supports a "pathway to citizenship" for illegal aliens.

4. Supports the Law of the Sea Treaty, which Reagan rejected. This sovereignty-destroying agreement gives the UN taxing authority for the first time (by a committee made up of unelected international bureaucrats), and gives them control over a large majority of the Earth's surface and its resources.

I have also been unable to find any government agency or program that she has advocated for elimination. (How'd she get to be a "TEA Party leader" again?) If someone has heard of one I'd be happy to hear of it.

[EternalVigilance]

The right to life, the first right, the supreme right, is an “emanation” or a “penumbra”? That’s just nuts.

[zeestephen]

If Palin is nominated I will vote for her, but it will be a vote without conviction.

The standard I hold Palin to is Margaret Thatcher.

And, frankly, there is no comparison at all.

[EternalVigilance]

The subject of the Fifth Amendment is the right of the individual person.

[zeestephen]

If Palin is nominated I will vote for her, but it will be a vote without conviction.

The standard I hold Palin to is Margaret Thatcher.

And, frankly, there is no comparison at all.

[WVKayaker]

Wrong. The stated ultimate purpose the Constitution gives for itself is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty TO POSTERITY,” and the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments clearly and succinctly protect the unalienable right to life of every person. It’s an imperative. -EV

*************

5th- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

***********

14th-

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[meadsjn]

Obviously, you want some sort of religious fruitcake dictatorship, which you are not going to get. And you most surely won’t get it with a Democrat or RINO as president.

[The Pack Knight]

The country is more partisan than it was in the 1980s, but there are also arguably (depending on how you define and count them) more independents now than ever before. By some measures, they now constitute a plurality of the electorate. While a Republican candidate is less likely to pick up Democrat votes than he was in the early 80s, he also has less need of them so long as he can capture a large enough portion of the independent vote.

Also, I would hypothesize that we are in the midst of a realignment on a scale not seen since the 1960s - when blacks went moved to the Democrat party and southern whites began going Republican - and perhaps more similar to what happened in the 1890s. There seems to be a large and growing constituency that is dissatisfied with both major parties. This constituency has swung heavily between the two parties in the last four years, fueling a degree of electoral volatility we haven't seen since the 1940s.

Now, whether we're seeing a realignment depends on whether the dissatisfaction with the two parties is based on perceived corruption and ineffectiveness of the elected officials in those parties or whether it is the result of an emerging constituency that is ideologically incompatible with the two parties. If it's the former, then the result could be the same as the last "realignment" in 1994, where we saw a retrenchment of the coalitions which developed between the mid 60s and the mid 80s. If it's the latter, then we could see a dramatic shakeup of the demographic and ideological makeup of the two parties.

I don't think we really know yet. I don't think anyone in either major party really understands the "Tea Party" phenomenon (except maybe Rick Santorum). Also, while there are certainly issues which cut across party lines (trade, immigration, and financial regulation come immediately to mind), it remains to be seen whether voters will consider those issues important enough to defect over.

If we are in a realignment, it could be years or even decades before we know it for sure and before we know how the parties are going to shake out. One big sign, though, could be a strong third-party candidate in 2012. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that 31% of Republican primary voters would consider voting third party if Palin is the nominee, with 17% saying they would be very likely to do so. The numbers aren't much better with Romney or Huckabee as the nominee - 28%/12% and 24%/11%, respectively.

What does all this mean? I think it means that any Republican candidate (and for that matter Republican voters) needs to avoid two things: (1) confusing anti-Obama independents with "moderates" and (2) mistaking the Tea Party phenomenon as a blanket endorsement of the orthodox Republican platform. I think we're seeing the emergence of a large independent constituency that is neither "moderate" nor orthodox conservative. I don't think they'll be won over by a candidate who "runs to the middle" in order to "capture the center", nor by a candidate who serves up "red meat" to "shore up the base". This is going to take intelligence, creativity, and a shrewd political sense - qualities that have been sorely lacking in the senior ranks of the GOP for some time. Unfortunately, I am hard pressed to come up with a potential candidate who both "gets it" and who can put together the support needed to win in the primaries.

[steve8714]

It is not expressly stated in the Constitution that private citizens may not take the lives of others.

[steve8714]

Which shall not be taken away by the Federal Government. Trust me, if the founders had dreamed the American people would become so debased as to want gay marriage or abortion on demand, lawyers and judges so foul and corrupt as to encourage same, I think we’d have had a radically different constitution. They did not, however. In the case of slavery it was left to the States until it became such a blot on the Nation’s conscience that the Republicans gained power and we fought a bloody Civl War. Why do you think wishing will make it so for abortion?

[EternalVigilance]

It is not expressly stated in the Constitution that private citizens may not take the lives of others.

That's insane. What else can I say. The entire purpose of the Constitution, the very raison d'etre of government, according to the founders of this free republic, is to protect and secure the unalienable God-given rights to life and liberty of the people, all of the people, equally.

[EternalVigilance]

Obviously, you want some sort of religious fruitcake dictatorship, which you are not going to get.

How do you get that out of a simple demand that our politicians protect life, liberty, and our national security and sovereignty, as they have sworn to do?

[OldDeckHand]

"What does all this mean?"

I think you described it correctly when you used the word "volatile". That's absolutely what it's going to be. And yes, I think there are clearly more unaffiliated voters as a percentage of the electorate than there was in the 1980s, perhaps ever.

I have said for a while now that if we are ever going to see a brokered convention, 2012 is probably our best opportunity. Although, Huckabee was on the View last week and he seemed to indicate that he wouldn't repeat his 2008 performance, where he stayed in the race knowing full-well that he couldn't get the nomination. With Huckabee in the race, it makes it much more difficult for Palin to win the nomination. With him out of the race, I think it's possible for Palin to secure enough delegates before the convention.

I would say that it will all come down to the debates, but let's face it - die hard social conservatives couldn't care less about the debates. They're going to vote for whomever they think is the best social conservative, even if that person is only barely functionally literate.

To your point, I think the chances of a 3rd party ticket increases dramatically with Palin, but with also Romney. SoCons and libertarians (rightly and oddly, what a weird paring that is) aren't going to be too excited about a Romney nomination.

I used "brokered convention", if for no other reason than a little wishful thinking on my part. I think Palin or Romney would be a disaster, both guaranteeing Obama another 4-years. But, I don't think any of the "less polarizing" (read: vanilla) candidates are going to have near the ground game, enthusiasm or money to unseat the "giants". In a brokered convention, perhaps some cooler heads would prevail, and a traditional conservative could be nominated, but one that isn't nearly as divisive as either Romney or Palin.

Let me wrap up by saying, Huckabee REALLY scares me. If Palin would somehow implode early on - which isn't impossible to imagine, and Huckabee runs, he's going to be formidable. Going back to his appearance on the The View, a show with an incredibly liberal studio audience, Huckabee did great. He managed to get a number of big-applause lines, that are virtually impossible to get for anyone who is right of center when appearing on that show. Giuliani got booed a few weeks ago - that's how leftist that audience is. And, that is what scares me. Huckabee is a GREAT campaigner, one of the best I've seen. He's also a semi-closeted government Big Foot Nanny-stater. No Thanks!

The only upside to Huckabee is I do think he would be judicious with his Supreme Court picks, and would be VERY unlikely to pick a Souter or even a Kennedy. I think he'd give us guys at least as conservative as Roberts. But, that's where the upside ends. He'd be WAY too eager to partner with dems on social programs and the like. He's never seen a tax that didn't need raising.

[upcountryhorseman]

Palin is great for inspiring the conservative base, but I
cannot see her as a Presidential leader.

[glennaro]

Agreed. She would truly excel as RNC Chair to lead the GOTV effort that will be critical to conservatives in 2012.

[steve8714]

Making your assertion again without the quotation is not an enhancement of your argument.

[EternalVigilance]

Even if you were correct - which you aren't...the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments explicitly and imperatively protect the life and liberty of the individual person - you would still be wrong because of your fundamental misunderstanding of our Constitution, its purpose, and its basis.

You may want to ponder the meaning of the Ninth Amendment n the context of this discussion:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.