Sarah Palin, Leader of The Pack

The American Thinker ^ | May 21, 2011 | Lloyd Marcus

[onyx]

Return to the Article

May 21, 2011

Sarah Palin, Leader of The Pack

By Lloyd Marcus

So, who do I like as our Republican presidential candidate in 2012?  Parodying the song recorded by The Shangri-Las: "The liberal media is always putting her down (down,down). They said, she came from the wrong said of town. They told us she was bad. Then I knew she was the best we had. That's when I fell for the leader of the pack." Who am I singing about? Obviously, the one and only Sarah Palin.

Folks, it is a bit too early to go all in on any presidential candidate.  I really like Herman Cain.  But when I think of the one person who appears to be uncontrolled by liberal media attacks; who epitomizes the kind of "in your face" no holds barred approach to attacking Obama's horrific record, we Tea Party patriots are so desperately longing for, hands down, it is Sarah Palin.

I know. I know. Republican elites and conventional wisdom says, "Be reasonable. Palin is too toxic. She could never win. Pick an electable candidate like Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney."

When ObamaCare first became law, Huckabee said repealing it would be difficult. He suggested that we try to find some good in it. My mental buzzer went off, "Wrong answer".

On Rush Limbaugh's radio program, Donald Trump cautioned Paul Ryan to work with the Democrats and not be too aggressive about moving forward with his budget proposal. Again, Trump set off my buzzer, "Wrong answer."

"Working with Democrats" always means compromising our values, principles and desires. We want conservative representatives with backbone in Washington fighting on our behalf.  Yes, the liberal media will portray them as Satan incarnate.  But, there's a new sheriff in town called the Tea Party and we have our representatives' backs.

As for Romney, I do not sense a fire in the belly of this man about standing up for conservatism or the Tea Party.

The liberal media is planning a sequel to the McCain/Obama race in which they picked our "moderate" losing candidate.

Once again, the liberal media is telling us who is "too Tea Party" to win and why we should pick a moderate to run against Obama in 2012.  The title of the liberal media's sequel is, "Sucker the Conservatives Two: This Time We Really Think You're Stupid".

Let me tell you what I think about moderates.  Even Jesus had a problem with moderates.  He said, "You are lukewarm -- neither hot nor cold, I will spew you out of my mouth."   In other words, for crying out loud, have the backbone, character and conviction to take a stand for something.  The liberal media wants to set us up with another moderate linguine spine to lose again!

The 2012 presidential election is going to be all about Obama.  Thus, we need a candidate who understands this reality and will boldly go after Obama politically; someone with all American John Wayne true grit committed to Tea Party principles.  So far, our John Wayne is a Momma Grizzly.

As I said, it is a bit too early to formally endorse anyone.  Palin may or may not throw her hat into the ring.

Now, regarding the issues, Palin is pretty much on the same page as most of us tea party patriots; drill baby drill, smaller government and no new taxes.

And once again, I must cite her boldness and confidence when espousing her conservative beliefs.  You never see Palin dancing around questions from liberal media hacks trying to make her conservative ideas sound mean, heartless, stupid and racist.  It is extremely refreshing and encouraging to see someone on our side fearlessly challenging the liberal media!

And what about presidential charisma? In my nationwide travels on four Tea Party Express tours, in which Palin participated, nobody sparked excitement nor struck a stronger emotional chord with audiences at the rallies than Sarah Palin.  She is a rock star.  The people love her.

I pray that whomever we select as our presidential candidate will grasp the seriousness of the situation in which we find our country. Various potential Republican presidential candidates are good people with great conservative ideas to get our country back on track.  The most important critereon for a candidate to win my support is a willingness to launch a shock and awe all out assault on Obama's horrific record and terrifying agenda.

Obama has the bully pulpit of the Oval Office, his Democrat minions, racist black so-called civil rights groups and a sycophant liberal mainstream media, all working in concert for him to be reelected in 2012. America cannot survive another Republican presidential candidate committed to "playing nice" for fear of being called racist. As they say in AA, "Half measures avail us nothing".

If Obama is reelected in 2012, America as we know it is over. King Obama must be politically dethroned.

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American

"Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama 2012". Please join us!

Please sign and encourage your friends to sign this petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/1milliontodefeatbarackobama/

LloydMarcus.com
Spokesperson & Entertainer of Tea Party Movement & Tea Party Express.
The American Tea  Party Anthem cd/album.
Confessions of a Black Conservative, written by Lloyd Marcus & foreword by Michelle Malkin
President, NAACPC (National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of ALL Colors)
Join Lloyd Marcus Facebook Page
Tea Are The World, "Taking Back America" The Making of Documentary... The MUST SEE Tea Party Historic Conservative Music Event!

[truthfreedom]

I left out the “positive intensity score” because I think that it pointlessly emphasizes “strongly unfavorable”.

If you’re going to look at numbers to try to guess what the outcome of the republican primary is going to be, it would be nice to look at the most relevant numbers.

When there are 10 candidates, and there pretty much are now, does it matter, really, if your opinion of a candidate is negative or strongly negative? Whether it’s negative, or strongly negative, you’re not likely to be getting your votes from people with a negative opinion of you, especially when you’re measuring for the Republican Primary.

What are the numbers that are going to be relevant to Republican Primary votes? Name recognition and strongly favorable are the key. With 10 candidates, you should be able to find someone you have a strongly favorable opinion of to vote for.

Palin has by far the highest name recognition x strongly favorable of any of the candidates. Best known, and best liked of the most well known.

The strongly disfavors might be useful in a general, but since we’re measuring Primary, they’re much less relevant.

The reason we have these numbers, and poorly explained numbers, is to present a number where Palin is not at the top. And then, instead of pointing out that Palin is well known and well liked, much more so than any of the other front runners, they can talk about a made up, irrelevant for Primary, number, where candidates who aren’t well known at all can out perform Palin.

They want to write a story where Palin isn’t winning. The useful numbers all point to Palin. But Palin’s Positive Intensity score (although higher that the well known front runners) is below less known candidates.

[lonevoice]

What do you make of that, onyx? I was looking forward to seeing her be one of the first and most articulate responders to Ozero’s outrageous offense towards Israel. Her silence has been unsettling.

[sand88]

What do you make of that, onyx? I was looking forward to seeing her be one of the first and most articulate responders to Ozero’s outrageous offense towards Israel. Her silence has been unsettling.

Patience. You will hear from Sarah today, we will all hear from Sarah today! She will take the Marxist and put him in his place.

[FreeReign]

In early August of 2008, less than 1% of the US knew the name Sarah Palin. Name recognition is meaningless at this stage of the game.

Certainly somebody with low name recognition could come on to the scene.

That said, where has such a person been over the last two years while Obama and the Democrats in Congress have been destroying our country?

Potential candidates such as Palin and Bachmann have been out front putting their necks on the line. That's why they have high name recognition. Meanwhile, the low name recognition types have been hiding from the fight.

Tea Party types and Republicans won't forget that come primary time.

[Morgan in Denver]

There are a lot of people who would be great as VP. Still, the reasons on who to choose are not based on who we like but on what they bring to the ticket.

Someone who:
1. Can deliver a state or a constituency group. For example, Cain and the black vote, Rubio and the Hispanic vote or Daniels to solidify Indiana.
2. To shore up perceived areas of inexperience. Ryan would give major credentials for the economy and budgets. Romney or Cain for their business background. This could also include a senator to help her deal with the insiders in DC.
3. The person being groomed to follow in 8 years. Christie to give him federal executive experience. Bachmann or Pence to overcome the lower name recognition and to skip the needed executive experience.

[trisham]

Cain has no political experience that can be used to evaluate him. I am looking for a candidate who has been a governor.

Daniels is pro-choice and a bit too friendly with muslims.

Rubio looks good, except for his mixed record regarding illegal immigration.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Marco_Rubio.htm

I still have some interest in Bachmann, but I’m not sure how much she would add to the ticket.

[trisham]

Sarah is Patriotic

[FreeReign]

2. At least as important, no natoinal poll, survey, or questionairre places her among the top 5 actual or potential candidates. Not even conservative polls.

We are 10 months away from the primaries and 18 months away from the general election. I wouldn't put much value in the so-called polls.

In early 1980, at the start of the primaries, and 9 months before the general election, Reagan was behind Bush in the polls by a lot for the nomination and he was behind Carter by 32 points in the polls for the general election.

I believe in 1976, Carter lead Ford by about 30 or more points in the polls only months before the election. Carter won by ~ 2 points.

The 1996 polls showed Clinton beating Bush by between about 10 and 18 points on election eve.

You may choose to hug the polls. I won't.

[trisham]

I wouldn't put much value in the so-called polls.

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

Agreed.

[Captain Kirk]

The 1996 polls showed Clinton beating Bush by between about 10 and 18 points on election eve.

Dole was the GOP candidate in 1996, not Bush. Also, the polls before that election did not show Dole (or anyone else) ahead of Clinton, much less by 10 points though they did show some erosion in Clinton's lead.

[Morgan in Denver]

I was using examples to make the point. I’m sure there are other people who would add to the ticket just as well if not better.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “GWB afforded him SS protection from the get-go.” <<

.
He did everything he could do to get Obama elected.

Do not forget it!

W and Laura will work overtime to obstruct Palin’s election.

[Logic n' Reason]

You may choose to hug the polls. I won't.

I neither "hug" them, nor disregard them.

A question: if not polls, where do you obtain your sense of Mrs. Palin's "populartity" or "electability" throughout this land?

[trisham]

No problem. I’m sure I have opinions about them, too. :)

[FreeReign]

The 1996 polls showed Clinton beating Bush by between about 10 and 18 points on election eve.

Dole was the GOP candidate in 1996, not Bush. Also, the polls before that election did not show Dole (or anyone else) ahead of Clinton, much less by 10 points though they did show some erosion in Clinton's lead.

I meant 1992.

[trisham]

Sarah Is Dedicated

[Morgan in Denver]

It appears the real deadline for Sarah to join the fray will be in January or February of 2012.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c

[FreeReign]

I neither "hug" them, nor disregard them. A question: if not polls, where do you obtain your sense of Mrs. Palin's "populartity" or "electability" throughout this land?

I have no definitive sense, one way or the other, Palin's popularity.

I would guess that right off the bat, Palin would probably have at least 43% of the vote in the general election and that there a plenty of additional voters who don't like Obama's policies and would be available for the taking.

[Logic n' Reason]

I would guess that right off the bat, Palin would probably have at least 43% of the vote in the general election

OK....since we're talking about "guessing"....I'll guess that if she is the candidate for the republican ticket, and indeed runs in the national campaign, come election morning, she'll garner not over 23% of the popular vote, and about 10 or fewer electoral votes.

[Morgan in Denver]

We all do which is why I rarely talk about the candidate de jour Freepers jump for.

An interesting and fun exercise is to envision who a President Palin could choose for the various cabinet positions. For example, I’d love to see John Bolton as Sec. of State. Or, Herman Cain at Commerce. I’d love to see all the departments shaken up by a President Palin demanding something like a 10% reduction of federal workers in every department. That includes every 0bama sycophant who tries to switch to some agency once 0 loses.