Posted on 05/19/2011 7:15:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Jimmy Carter never said “malaise,” Humphrey Bogart never said, “play it again Sam,” and Sarah Palin never said, “I can see Russia from my front porch.” But most people are convinced they did. As Yogi Berra quipped, “I never said most of the things I said.”
The caricaturing of Palin has led many political observers to cavalierly dismiss her chances of entering the 2012 GOP field — and winning. My question is…why?
At least one pundit sees the opportunity. Appearing on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell” show Monday, Time magazine’s Mark Halperin noted that Mike Huckabee’s decision to skip the 2012 GOP primary, “leaves a big hole for Sarah Palin who can come in and take over that space that Huckabee left.”
A new Gallup poll seems to confirm his analysis. As The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza writes,
the field remains decidedly muddled with no clear frontrunner. (Gallup doled out the past support for Huckabee/Trump based on the second place preferences of those voters.) Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney takes 20 percent to 18 percent for former Alaska governor Sarah Palin …
Putting this in context, we now know that: 1). Mike Huckabee, a populist social conservative who won Iowa in 2008, isn’t running, and 2). Gallup has Sarah Palin in second place — just two points behind Mitt Romney. It is frankly stunning that — this late in the game — Palin still has a golden opportunity to win the nomination. (We also know, as the polling implies, the weak GOP field lacks a clear front runner to rally behind.)
And yet…conventional wisdom seems to hold that Palin will not run — and even if she does — she can’t win. The assumption is that Palin isn’t serious enough. Once again, I think she is being underestimated.
These assumptions continue to inform the way news stories about Palin are framed. For example, media observers recently began noticing that Palin wasn’t garnering quite as much press attention as before. This was largely portrayed as a sign that her influence may finally be waning — but was that necessarily the right conclusion?
Controversy often generates attention, and while the media were busy covering Donald Trump’s ridiculous antics this spring, Palin was delivering serious speeches in places like Wisconsin – and visiting vitally important nations like Israel and India. This was under-reported.
Also worth noting is that Palin was recently the “star” guest at Tammy Haddad’s garden brunch (for those outside the Beltway, this is the “who’s who” gathering of political insiders and muckety-mucks, held annually to coincide with the White House Correspondents Dinner). Palin’s attendance was reminiscent of another outsider, Ronald Reagan, who railed against DC elites, but attended dinner parties at Washington Post publisher Kay Graham’s house. The old Palin would probably not have attended this “lamestream” media event – the new Palin did.
Of course, it’s too early to know whether any of this foreshadows a presidential run, but consider this: If Palin were serious about running for president, isn’t buttressing her foreign policy credentials by traveling and building bridges with at least some media elites — precisely what she ought to be doing? Keep in mind, going back to Alaska, she has never run a conventional campaign — she always started late and was the underdog. And the good news for Palin is that she has more room for reinvention and growth than most people might realize.
Her supporters raise a good point when they argue she is “the most known, unknown” figure in politics. What they mean is that, despite how ubiquitous she became, she never really had a chance to craft her own image. (During the campaign, Palin was second to Sen. John McCain and, by necessity, had to adopt his campaign’s policies. And by the time the campaign ended, the media had already created the next iteration of the Palin brand.)
Don’t discount the possibility that Palin may indeed be on the verge of launching her second (or is it third?) act. It is entirely plausible to believe that Palin could seize this opportunity, win Iowa and South Carolina, and then make a real run for it. Don’t be surprised if she runs for president, and if she does, she can win.
Untrue... people reply to you all the time. You big silly. At least you're honest about your inability to meaningfully articulate any coherent position.
Tool.
8^D
You don't need to sign off every post with a projection.
What are you - 17? What sort of childish response is that?
On second thought, don’t bother. I think I already know the answer.
Considering the fact that you are a known liar and, through a bizarre string of contorted conclusions, you've come to the conclusion that a staunch conservative and tea party supporter like Bachmann doesn't even know which side of the isle the MSM is on, I'm guessing that your answers lack credibility.
Sarah can and will.
This is the problem when trying to debate with an intransigent imbecile. I make the "either-or" "if-then" posit above, and you accuse me of making an assumption, despite that the as-stated position clearly left it up to you to say which was the case, making no assumption in the process.
"Lie much?"
The Liberal Imbecile lies every time he establishes a false and arbitrary set of criteria for the definition of "a lie." As you have just done.
Admit it, at least to yourself if not to the Freeper community at large. My logic is unassailable. My facts don't change. Your inability to slow this battleship with your spitballs frustrates you, so you resort to florid verba incognita, sonum excitantis omnes nihil significans.
There remains no point to this charâde, for what was started as an enjoyably insulting dialogue between us has become a monotonous soliloquy with me trying to educate a nekulturniy schmuck bent on sophomoric gainsaying and peurile one-downsmanship.
Let's just agree that, if you decide to learn something in the near or distant future, you'll get a job, save some money, and then go back and finish school. Until then, keep navel-gazing and fantasizing incredible scenarios where you're really bright, people like you, and there is a reason why others should listen to what you have to say.
Seeya. Nice to have pwned you.
;^\
You know, that's the second time you've called me that in this conversation. You need to knock it off.
Actually, you stopped conversing with me some posts back, and have been doing nothing but throwing crap at me, since. I'm sorry that my purely analytical comments are causing you to have an emotional meltdown, but it's not my fault if you can't deal with someone being critical of your chosen candidate.
I dedicate the merit of all my positive actions to the unsurpassable omniscience of all sentient beings throughout space without exception. May we all obtain liberation together.
Wow. Get professional help. Please.
:^O
You don’t even own the common sense to see that your adolescent insults are the nadir of your intellect.
Not surprising.
Don't bother seeking help. There isn't any for a pathological narcissist. LOL
Maybe if you didn't falsely attribute quotes to people, you wouldn't have this problem.
I'm sorry that my purely analytical comments
You are mindlessly smearing Bachmann. Hardly analytical.
but it's not my fault if you can't deal with someone being critical of your chosen candidate
My chosen candidate is Palin. But I also think highly of Michele Bachmann. I'll defend either one of them when I see them being smeared. Neither one of them have declared yet, and you are already trying to create a circular firing sqaud with your nonsense.
Be specific. What quote did I falsely attribute to whom?
You are mindlessly smearing Bachmann.
That's ridiculous. I like and admire Michele Bachmann a great deal, but it's a fact that she handled that interview with Stephanopoulis poorly. She just did, and it's something that I'm unwilling to overlook.
My personal viewpoint, is that she isn't up to the task of being our president, and that she won't win the Republican nomination.
On the other hand, I feel that Palin has the right experience, aptitude, skills, and the courage to handle the job of CIC. She also has the requisite level of grass roots support to win.
I don't dislike Michele Bachmann, but I would rather that she weren't running for president. In my opinion, her presence in the race will only draw votes away from Palin, and help Romney to win the nomination.
I don't dislike Michele Bachmann
Then don't smear her by claiming she's too stupid to realize what side of the isle the MSM is on.
To me.
Oh, for crying out loud, is that what all this is about?
Why didn't you just tell me from the outset that I mis-attributed TMMT's statement to you? Geeez Louise, it was a simple mistake that anyone could have made.
Oh, for crying out loud, is that what all this is about?
Yep, and let that be a lesson to you. lol
All that drama for so little gain. Don’t do that to me again.
I considered voting for Perot in 92. A lot of Republicans did vote for Perot...and I didn't know I could pull the lever for McCain in 08. It got much easier when Palin was picked as VP. I'm pretty certain Palin will try to persuade wayward conservatives and moderate Republicans she is up to the task. I hope she doesn't just say..."Who are they gonna vote for?...Obama?"
Neither is someone (who supports her) going to vote against Sarah just because, as you so aptly cite, people feel badly for the truly pitiable Magical Mischief Tour bonehead.
I think your arguments are diminished by personal insults. If you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.
This election isn't about personalities, in case you missed it. It's about saving our Republic from total destruction. Only the truly numb-domed are so vapid as to assume that another might throw away a vote to save their country over some adolescent peeing contest they saw on FreeRepublic.
It looks as if you are incapable of making an argument without hurling insults. Good luck Saving our Republic by yourself.
So save your stern, avuncular admonitions and phony crocodile tears for some vastly more gullible chump. I don't doubt you both know plenty of them.
We don't deserve a Palin supporter like you.
Now there is a nice, objective, restrained, "lead by example" approach to genteel, non-insulting political discourse. LMAO!!!!
With that one sentence, you forever forfeit any soapbox on which to stand, any firm leg with which to stand, and any credibility with which you might otherwise have succeeded in setting yourself up as some lucid, rational arbiter of political sensitivity, not to mention someone even capable of simple rational thought.
Calling someone a "delusional fruitcake" is not just an "insult" if that person is indeed a "delusional fruitcake." What might have in other circumstances been just an insult is automatically elevated to being "the truth."
And you, pally, are a delusional fruitcake. SO, you can take all your phony "why can't we all just get along" up-chuck, and transparently disingenuous "Kumbaya" bullsnot, and go suck rocks, you freaking psycho!
I really love these sociopathic pundits who insist that the Palin supporters must employ calm constraint when responding to those same imbeciles as they sling their lies, insults, barbs and arrows of every despicable description at a classy and morally upright leader like Sarah Palin.
If you can't take the heat, then crawl back under that slimey, rancid rock; just don't tell me that I have to live there with you. Fruitcake.
8^D
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.