Posted on 06/11/2011 1:36:32 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
While I freely concede that both Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry have a right to run for President, it is impossible to overlook the fact that their recent benefactress, Sarah Palin, is rolling out her own Presidential campaign at the same time. This would not generally be extraordinary. In politics, alliances are sometimes (although not regularly) forged and broken. However, in my forty years or so of close political observation, I cannot remember an analogous situation in which the beneficiaries of one politician turn on their benefactor (especially a benefactor as conspicuous as Palin) so shortly after having obtained and used the benefactor's endorsement and appearances to secure both campaign cash and votes. In fact, not since Judas hustled away to the Chief Priests from the Last Supper has there been such a propinquity between the favor and the betrayal. I predict that this disloyalty, spotlighted by the freshness of the favors spent upon these two by Palin, will sour the stomachs of GOP primary voters who tend to place more emphasis on character, which is to say: loyalty. Americans despise disloyalty. Disloyalty and its associated character flaws are a tragedy in a human being, but they are a catastrophe in a President. The association, in the American psyche, of disloyalty and the traitor, Benedict Arnold, bespeaks the level of national revulsion with this particularly poisonous character flaw.
Michele Bachmann, by all accounts, faced a tough reelection fight against State Senator Tarryl Clark, a more attractive and far better financed ($4 million war chest) candidate than she had faced in in 2008, when she narrowly beat lightly regarded and under-financed lobbyist Elwyn Tinkenberg by less than 3% of the vote. At Bachmann's request, Palin rode to her rescue early, appearing on her behalf at a packed rally of over 10,000 in Minneapolis on April 8, 2010, which was nationally televised on Sean Hannity's FOX program. Bachmann parlayed Palin's endorsement and high profile support into a fund raising bonanza of $13.4 million, which she used to swamp Clark. Indeed, the lopsided money advantage freed her to travel around the country campaigning for others and posing as the real TEA party heavyweight. Armed with this Palin-generated largesse, she easily beat Clark by 12%, the largest margin of victory in her career, including her two state Senate Races. Now she is using the balance of these "thirty pieces of silver" to pay odious characters like Ed Rollins to smear Sarah Palin as "not serious" and too lazy to "gain substance" in contrast to Bachmann, who "ha[s] worked hard" and been "a leader of the TEA party". Such treachery, which is both frank and fresh, makes me and every fair-minded person (whether pro- Palin or neutral) sick to our collective stomachs.
Rick Perry similarly faced a very competitive GOP primary against a sitting U.S. Senator, who is more liberal than he, and a solid conservative, Deb Medina, who was very popular with conservatives in Texas and nationally. In essence, he was squeezed from both directions, a challenge on the left and on the right. As she did with Bachmann, Palin went to Perry's aid early and often, endorsing him in the summer of 2009, ahead of the March 2010 primary. The first poll of Perry (by Rasmussen on September 16, 2009), which included both Hutchison and Medina, showed Hutchison pulling ahead of Perry 40-38, with Medina in single digits at 3%.
Perry crowed ad nauseam about Palin's endorsement in order to prevent Medina from gaining real traction and eclipsing him among conservatives. At the time of the endorsement, Perry had this to say about the value of Governor Palin's endorsement and their warm personal friendship:
'Facing a tough Republican primary fight next year in his bid for a third term, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is brandishing the heavy artillery: Sarah Palin's endorsement of his campaign."If there's a bigger endorsement in the Republican universe, I don't know who it is than Sarah," he declared in a telephone interview over the weekend. He described the Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee as a "close personal friend" who knows my heart."'
As Matt Lewis observed in the article, "Palin's nod is indeed an asset for Perry, helping him cement his appeal to social conservatives in the Lone Star State." While Perry never again fell behind, even Palin's endorsement could not totally blunt the momentum for Deb Medina, who continued to rise in the polls, reaching a high point of 24% on February 7, 2010, three weeks before the primary, and reducing Perry's showing to 39% (Hutchison had 28%). Enter Palin again. She appeared at a nationally televised rally in Houston that drew over 8000 people on Super Bowl Sunday, February 8, 2010. After the rally, Medina never again broke 20 in a poll.
With Palin's conspicuous and staunch support, Perry barely beat back the challengers in March 2 primary, winning 51% to 30% for Hutchison and 19% for Medina. Even with Palin's support, Medina nearly forced a runoff, so great was conservative revulsion with Perry in Texas. Had Palin backed Medina as strongly as she backed Perry, it is quite possible that Medina and Hutchison would have been in a run off, and Perry would have been odd man out. Had Palin done nothing for Perry, it is a foregone conclusion that he would have faced a tough runoff. In other words, Perry owes Palin his political hide.
As I said at the outset of this article, both Perry and Bachmann are free to run for President or any other office for which they are constitutionally qualified. The First Amendment however also grants observers the right to express themselves on both the timing and the circumstances of their putative candidacies as well as their previous interaction with "close personal friends" who come to their aid. In assessing both Perry and Bachmann, conservative voters should ask themselves the following question: "In light of how these two have conducted themselves toward Sarah Palin in the last year or so, do you trust either of them---should they be elected--not to double cross you?"
I believe that question answers itself.
LOL!!
O.
M.
G.
The Perry shills this time around will come close to the Paulbots of ‘07 and ‘08... get ready.
” I assume they based this on SOMETHING.”
Yes, idle speculation, just like most of the “She’s not running” threads.
LOLOLOLOL!
“Moreover, if she lets us down, she lets her country and the military she loves, down. I do not believe it is in her DNA to do this.”
And that sir, is the money quote.
Disunity on the same team in the public venue?
LOL
You must have been a hoot as a boss.
I accept your position and have seen bosses stick it to their employees in public and very publicly.
I handle things differently and we don’t have the conversation twice.
For starters, by helping Perry win re-election, she prevented a Governor Kay Bailey Hutchinson from vetoing the ED legislation... /g
BTW, in addition to Perry, as a result of the tremendous aid she gave to conservative candidates all across the country in the last election cycle, she's a major reason why Nancy Pelosi is no longer Speaker of the House, and new Gov. Nikki Haley in South Carolina could probably give you a clue, too, if you bothered to check with her... /vbg
WOAI was likely basing their report on news reports, such as Politico, from several days ago specifically saying that Perry wouldn’t run if Palin did.
There have been other reports saying otherwise. Perry himself has been fairly consistent that he has no plans to run. All the frenzied speculation has come from “advisors”.
FWIW, which isn’t much.
The SRM is already starting to reverse course on Sarah. Watch for more obots to defend her starting yesterday.
The GOP-E (thanks, onyx!) has chosen him officially, and now the lamestreams will butter up Sarah like nothing you could imagine.
zero does NOT want to run against Perry. He’s hoping for a third-party Perot split redux, and it’s our job to deny him that.
We need to pressure Perry to embrace Sarah, and insist he give her at least energy oversight.
That is, if she doesn’t run.
If your post made the slightest bit of sense, I’d respond.
It doesn’t, so I won’t.
Thaaaatttssss Kool!
We need a conservative cartel to form and announce very clear plan on restoring America and the US Constitution. A focus on dismantling the “big gov’t” machine that has been created since the creation of the Bull-Moose party (AKA freakin progressives).
It would be great to have the Paul’s, Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Col West, Jim DeMint, Tim Pawlenty, Michelle Bachman to name a few all join together and commit themselves to saving the country stating we are ALL in for the GOP primary and whomever the two top vote getters are during the primary will be the ticket for the WH but we will all be working together to restore America and be part of the administration, etc...
BTTT!
HalfFull, I regret that I missed your most excellent post!
Fire Rollins.
LOL You must have been a hoot as a boss. I accept your position and have seen bosses stick it to their employees in public and very publicly. I handle things differently and we don’t have the conversation twice.
What nonsense. I would never just "stick it" to one of my employees publically without good reason.
An employee, who inappropriately and publicaly degrades another person, as he speaks for the company, needs to publically apologize to that person.
That's basic common sense.
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.