Actually, it seems that I jumped the gun and dropped the ball. Basketball courts do indeed sometimes have a bow. Who's to say that a football field couldn't have one too?
Posted on 09/03/2011 2:14:54 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
INDIANOLA, Iowa -- Sarah Palin still isn't a candidate, but in an aggressive bid to lay down her marker in the 2012 Republican presidential race, she delivered a speech here Saturday that was as confrontational toward the Republican establishment as it was aimed at President Obama.
Despite her high-profile endorsement of Rick Perry during his 2010 gubernatorial primary fight, Palin used thinly veiled language to leave little doubt that she sees the Texas governor and national front-runner for the Republican nomination as part of the problem.
“Some GOP candidates, they also raise mammoth amounts of cash,” Palin said. “We need to ask them, too: What, if anything, do their donors expect from their investments? We need to know this because our country can’t afford more trillion-dollar thank-you notes to campaign backers.”
Again and again, Palin urged her audience to confront “the permanent political class,” “crony capitalism” and “the good ol’ boys,” whom she said she took on as governor of Alaska.
[.....]
“They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed, a lot of corporate lobbyists, a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along,” Palin said. “It doesn’t surprise me. I’ve seen this kind of crony capitalism before.”
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Tell that to my mother who waited on the path and had to go through the process after she married my father who met and married her while serving in occupation forces after WWII. Knee jerk statements like that do no service to whatever intelligence you profess to speak from.
Legal immigration is a pathway no matter how you may not want to acknowledge it.
“Now lets say that Sarah can get one million people to donate the $25/month. That is $25m a month or $350m for the campaign. Now I’m thinking she’ll actually get more around 3 or 4 million people to do this.”
Wow, that’s....unrealistic. I think you’ve even outdone the guy on C4P who thought there would be 100K people in Indianola today.
Taking money from fat cats and people who have ties to interest groups is compromising one even if you claim that you are not going to compromise.....but there are plenty of people with money who are not corporate or government shills
well, the most interesting question in politics in a long time still lingers. Is she running? Or is she going to be a forceful critic?
The interesting thing is that everything she said could be said by a Beck or a Limbaugh.
Or a candidate.
With regards to that second category, however, there is a calendar moving forward and it will continue to do so, with or without her. If she runs, she is going to have to make some concrete moves in the next 2-3 moves (organizationally, legally, ballot wise, Fox wise).
If she is going to be a pundit/critic, she doesn’t have to rush a darn thing.
Fascinating to behold.
“Sounds to me like Palin’s position of illegal immigration is about the same as Perry’s.”
Then you’re not paying attention.
Palin supports AZ illegal immigration law; Perry opposes it.
Palin for is for a border fence. Perry says we don’t need it.
Just for openers...
Have you taken note to how long FReepathons take? This sounds good on paper, but I really have doubts at a real world application of it.
I don’t thnk she neeeds as much money. No candidate since Eisenhower hasbeen aswell-known. BUT could she rule even if she won?
Perry operates two tax payer funded slush funds in Texas right now and has for years. He rewards his campaign donors with money from theses funds.
He may have learned this from that other three term southern governor who ran for president back in the day, Bill Clinton.
He too ran the same kind of scam.
The one thing you missed is she has no expectations of running a spending campaign, and even said so in presenting she was outspent five times and nmore in the campaigns she won. It was the centerpoint of her argument when discussing the issue.
Just like the 2010 elections, so many put all of their clout in the amount of money they raised. Go ask Charlie Crist about that line of thinking against an opponent who had the natural ability to communicate with We The People..
He did that after Tancredo had been doing it, and he used Tancredo’s issue to run for president.
Shes simply tating the truth, the current path is far too hard and complicated. It needs to be made simpler with background checks and yearly limits.
Presidents don’t rule - despite what the current group is trying to do.
Exactly! You CANNOT be a candidate and make that statement at the same time. Every single serious GOP candidate needs millions in campaign contributions.
Sure you can be a candidate and make that statement. Given her real platform, going in with no strings attached to really-no-kidding clean up the mess, she would have no choice but to take the exact position she did, because the big contributions are indeed part of the problem.
But your response to her is instructive. In every generation, real innovation sweeps into some stale, conventional area and turns everything upside down. But the owners of the conventional wisdom seldom see the innovation coming until it is too late.
Nevertheless, innovate she will, because real cleanup is what she really means to do, and there is just no way to do it without real independence. Can she pull it off? That's a fair and open question. Personally, I’m betting she can. It’s one of the main reasons I’m backing her over Perry.
And I also know she’s not alone in the quest to solve this problem. This idea, or some variation of it, is being kicked around by other reform-minded pols. I ran for office myself back in 2010 (and lost), but I ran into people who were trying to solve the exact same problem. There's a lot of energy in that effort, because the dependency issue big money creates is severely debilitating to the would-be reformer.
But she has some unique advantages in attempting a pioneering solution. She has significant creative intelligence, and has already practiced to some extent running campaigns in which she was outspent by as much as 10 to 1, and yet was able to win. Assuming BO gets his Billion, she'll probably be targeting 100 Million. There are some who think she can do that without big money helpers. I'll venture to say she'll have 10-20% of that amount within four weeks of declaration.
I don't claim to know her whole formula, and I don’t know if she’ll succeed, but I am watching this very closely, as it could become a model for the rest of us, a way to wage political warfare in the future on a much more level playing field. That alone would be well worth the anxiety caused by the risk of trying something new.
There was an earlier thread about a Texas homebuilder named Bob Perry who donated one million dollars to the Republican Governors Association and the RGA donated the money to Perry. This helps explain why Perry is pro illegal alien, open borders and opposes e-verify.
Oddly enough, Mitt Romney was head on the RGA and funneled the money to Perry.
Then there is the historic fact that businessmen have always opposed immigration restrictions. They went along with the restrictions in the 1920s because of a fear of radical communism.
It was an inspiring speech. I’m always inspired by Sarah Palin’s speeches. But I’ve learned through hard experience that no matter how inspired I am, Palin’s unpopularity among the electorate remains un-dented post-speech.
I’m a Perry supporter(even though I know he has flaws, some of them possibly severe), but I have no problem with Palin holding Perry’s feet to the fire. In fact, I hope she does run. She needs to repair her image, and that’s going to take diligent work in the most serious of forums(such as Republican debates) and in places where less politically inclined voters will see her(which for a lot of people *is* a Republican debate.) I think it’s too high a hill for her to climb in 2012, but I’ll be very happy if I’m wrong about that. If she gains traction among independents and not just the conservative faithful, I’ll more than likely(actually almost certainly) switch my support to her.
Palin actually was one of few - perhaps the only - Republican to publicly support Jan Brewer after she signed SB1070 into law. In fact, she even went to Arizona and attended a Diamondback's game with Brewer the day after the signing. Palin supports e-verify, Perry does not.
Of all the GOP candidates, Perry has the worst record on supporting illegal immigrants.
The numbers are pretty objective, and they show Palin performs the worst against Obama despite 100% name recognition.
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.