Sarah Palin, Mrs. Independent?

NRO ^ | June 9, 2011 | Daniel Foster

[sforkjoe57]

Sarah Palin’s favorite president, George Washington, opposed allowing political parties significant influence over our federal government because of their tendency to distract government from it’s duties, create unfounded jealousies between groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrections, and would open doors to foreign influence and corruption.

It’s hard to call the U.S. a democracy when the party bosses in Washington, District of Corruption, get to give small communities in Iowa a thousand times more power in selecting the next president as a small community in Alabama or Idaho. That’s why we end up with stupid policies like burning food in our cars when people all over the world are starving.

Since the ruling aristocracy in Washington, District of Corruption, has so much animosity for Sarah Palin, she would seem well positioned to run against the culture of corruption that dominates our national capital. By calling for all elections at all levels be non-partisan, as George Washington would surely do given our current situation, Sarah Palin could effectively run as a pro democracy, drain the swamp independent. And win.

[ilgipper]

I am always enthusiastic about Palin, but not necessarily for a presidential run in 2012. I believe she would have a difficult time in the general....and personally, I want 2012 to be about Obama’s failures, not a rehash of 2008. With Palin, voters’ starting point will be November 2008, whereas this campaign needs to be about spring 2009 forward - failed policy after failed policy.

I do not discount Palin, and consider her a possibility....I firmly believe she would take the primaries with ease with a good campaign. She is simply heads and above the rest of the field in supporters, money, and campaign skills. She’d destroy Romney and Pawlenty in a debate.

[Oztrich Boy]

Palin’s Populist rhetoric sounds good to the extreme fringe but repels the general population like chalk on a blackboard.

In those political attitude tests, I flicker around the libertarian-conservative-moderate corner (a single different answer would put me into another sector).

Her rhetoric has always sounded good to me. For it to sound bad, you would have to be in the statist-progressive-extreme area.

[jpsb]

After the empty suit Bush, one would think yall would learn your lesson about Texas RINOs. There are a lot of good conservatives in Texas but Perry is not one of them.

[Once-Ler]

I saw the media tell me Reagan was stupid. I saw the media tell me Bush Sr (head of the CIA) was stupid. I saw the media tell me Dubya was stupid. I looked at those men with my own eyes and found the media lied. Now they tell me Palin is stupid. They may have convinced Polybius, but I see a woman with common sense, and a love for her country.

I see a media that is scared to death of Sarah, even though they tell me she can't win and Obama just wishes Sarah would run. I see throngs of excited supporters that can't wait to vote for her. I see no other candidate that gets GOP voters excited and I don't trust the weighted media polls of ACORN-"registered voters".

Can you explain why the leftist media is beating up Palin when she is a sure win for Obama?

Bill Clinton did not announce his first winning candidacy until October of the year before the election. There is still time for a conservative candidate that can WIN can emerge.

So you admit there is no "conservative candidate that can WIN" now. I'll stick with Sarah until that candidate emerges.

[wku man]

Lieberman was definitely an Independent, after losing the 'Rat primary. That he had Republican support is immaterial; he ran as an independent and won. Period.

As a write-in candidate, Murkowski (unfortunately) beat Joe Miller, the GOP primary winner. Again, who supported her doesn't matter one bit; she won as a write-in candidate, so in essence she was an independent.

So what if Thurmond was a party switcher? He won a write-in campaign, which again, made him an independent for all intents and purposes. So what if he did it as a 'Rat? He did it.

But all that aside,

"No “Independent” accomplishes anything in American politics",

in addition to being wrong, is merely a different way of saying "it's never been done before", which is a coward's cop-out. Just because something's never been done doesn't mean it never will, and/or it shouldn't be attempted.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[driftless2]

I seriously doubt the great majority of those sixty percent (if the poll can believed) have the first clue about Palin’s politics. Most are only going by the mocking she gets from the media about other matters. What do you want to bet most of them believe she actually said she saw Russia from her home? If Palin were the nominee, and the public saw her explain her positions, those numbers would change dramatically. The fact is, besides her being in the spotlight for other matters, the general public knows little about her politics and vision for America.

[driftless2]

If this were 1964 ( I was too young to vote) and I had the choice of voting for a squishy liberal Nelson Rockefeller or a Barry Goldwater, I’d be voting for Goldwater. Rockefeller probably wouldn’t have gotten beaten as bad as Goldwater, but I still think the decision to go with Goldwater was the best for the GOP. They stood on principle. Goldwater, despite his failure to support the 1964 Civils Rights bill, best represented the ideals of conservatism. Even his non-support for the bill was based on his principles and not racism. I go with the person I like the best, not who some egghead tells me I should support.

[Mr. Lucky]

You, sir, have hit the nail on the head.