Posted on 09/06/2011 8:53:08 PM PDT by teg_76
"Run, Sarah, run!" the Manchester crowd chanted, forcing Palin to pause her speech and say, "I appreciate your encouragement. I do." Will that encouragement be enough to bring Palin into the 2012 campaign as the bearer of the populist banner? The mere possibility is enough to give the "permanent political class" nightmares, and to inspire pleasant dreams for the people whose prayers her campaign would answer.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
You assume the McCain-straight-jacketed over-"handled" Palin of 2008 is the REAL Sarah? The Sarah of today? Bad assumption, my friend.
You think the left wing media has ANY punches left to throw at her they haven't already thrown? What are they going to smear her with THIS time? What?
You think Trump will spend his own precious money to run 3rd party after he repeatedly went on record ripping Obama and praising Palin? That's quite an assumption.
“I believe that none of the other declared candidates will end up as Sarah’s VP choice. I think it will be an outsider.”
I agree!
To be sure they don’t like the substance. And to bring up Lincoln again, it is not well known that Lincoln’s speeches were taken down and by Horace Greeley’s reporter. Before publlishing them, Greeley redacted them, so what we read today is not what Lincoln said in detail. He was speaking extemporaneously, from notes. But it was substantially the same. And that captured Greeley;s attention: here was a diamond in the rough, and since he was opposed to Seward, he was looking for an alternate. So Lincoln was brought east to deliver his Coopersunion speech. His look and manner were awkward, and he had this stemwinding style that is quite different from the poses affected by the actor Raymond Massey on stage and in the movies. But he was on fire with his message and the audience was completely won over. Palin has the kind of fire that sets an orator apart. Rubio has the same thing, but a different style. So does Christie. I think she belongs in the big leagues, if they will just let her play.
Independents are not a coherent group. What you mean are the suburban types and the Democrats in all but name. I am not sure that Palin is running, but do take a look at the woman as she is. Firdst of all, while she is a beautiful woman, she is now a grandmother and nearly fifty years old. She has been in politics for twenty years, and since 2008 she has learned a lot. About policy, she probably has as much in her head as Rick Perry. Intellectually she and he are about on the same level. Perry likes to live more lavishly than Palin, although she is not exactly wearing rags these days. She can dress up or dress down. So can he. He is much more used to exercising power, and she never has got onto the inner circles. That is a real handicap, if you want to govern. But she has an authenticity—still has it— that gives her a different kind of advantage, at least during the campaign.
Yawn. Same old tired propaganda and fearful projection. It's almost like some GOP voters want to impose some sort of political prior restraint policy, which is utterly absurd.
The pundits and hand-wringers of the time said that Independents wouldn't vote for Reagan, either. Then the election happened and Reagan won, and he won by getting plenty of Independent and even Democratic votes.
You see, ultimately, people will have to choose between Obama and the GOP nominee. And if that nominee is anybody besides the indistinguishable Romney, then the People will elect the GOP candidate.
It is abject hysteria to parrot the "Palin can't win" meme, when the election is still so far away, and the primary season is not yet even here.
There is time enough so that if, after Sarah announces her candidacy, enough Republican primary voters really believe such hand-wringing, then perhaps they will select a different nominee.
But your ilk seems to fear Sarah even running for the nomination. You seem to uncritically accept the LSM talking point that Sarah is unelectable.
If Sarah is so unelectable, then why is the LSM so intent on convincing everyone of that, instead of promoting her candidacy? Because, on the contrary, she is eminently electable, that's why.
I have an idea. Why don't we let the GOP voters decide for themselves? I honestly don't need to be told who should or shouldn't enter the GOP race at this point. Do you? It's that simple.
For instance, I know that Romney would be an awful, disastrous choice for the GOP, but since he's a Republican, I certainly am not going to try to tell him he can't try to win the nomination. Any and all comers are welcome, as far as I'm concerned, and let the chips fall where they may.
The fact is, just like Reagan did, Sarah can convert enough skeptical voters to win the general election, including voters such as yourself.
Ideologically, and in terms of passion, heart, leadership, and integrity, Sarah Palin is the best choice, albeit she is not perfect, just like anybody else.
So, I say, bring it on. Bring on this "unelectable" woman, Sarah Palin.
Faced between choosing Obama or Sarah Palin, the American people will elect Palin.
This is a fight for the heart and soul of the country, and I'm all for putting forth our best candidates. And to me, that best candidate is Sarah Palin, hands down.
On a daily basis, with her effective statements and responses, Sarah continues to shame the other GOP candidates in terms of leadership and proactivity. Who has shown MORE national conservative leadership since the 2008 election than Palin?
If Sarah doesn't run (or even if she does, and loses) I may have to "settle" for Perry, but only if I have to.
In any event, the bigger the field of candidates, the better, I say. This concept of artificial, premature exclusion serves no constructive purpose whatsoever.
Independents would not vote for Sarah Palin-—TODAY. By next November, they’ll flock to her in droves. They will not vote for continuation of the catastrophe. That’s why we must choose the BEST, not who the left, Ann Coulter and Karl Rove select for us.
I use Karl Rove as a guide. Anyone he’s backing gets struck off of my list. I may not know yet what the problem is, but if Rove’s backing them it can’t be good.
If Karl Rove was a guide dog, his master would get run over.
+1
.... sez the polling data, more than a year out, long before many Americans know much about her.
But sez my formerly liberal sister-in-law, who went with my brother to see Palin when she was in Nevada during the Reid fiasco:
1. There were a lot more people there than what the media reported. A LOT more.
2. There were a LOT of younger folks there, all colors, all types (my SIL had been expecting to see more boomer-age and older type folks).
3. "There were a lot of liberals there," she said. And being a former liberal herself, she knew them when she saw them.
I think the opposite of what you say is true. I think Independents will vote for her IN DROVES. Why? Because she's making it clear that it's only secondarily about Republican vs. Democrat; first and foremost, it's about We the People vs. the entrenched political class. As another FReeper (I've forgotten who) pointed out, whereas Obama and liberals try to foment class and race warfare based on haves vs. have-nots, Palin is naming the REAL class war here -- the minority corrupt political class who use government to suppress freedom and steal our money and prosperity, Democrat and Republican, vs. The Rest of Us.
Palin presents huge appeal for independents.
You're right. Look at the twenty-three year disaster that's unfolded from the result of Reagan's VP pick.
Presidents like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson moved this country in a direction (the wrong one) and they were stubborn and determined about it.
Its about time we got a president who will move this country in the right direction and be stubborn about it.
I think that president would be Sarah Palin.
The question we need to ask about the Perry party switch is did he do it out of conviction like Ronald Reagan or did he do it to benefit himself politically (keep getting elected)?
I believe that most elected officials who switch parties are of the latter stripe....
You are not alone, 2ndDivisionVet. I don’t appreciate his remarks either. NOT funny.
We are all children of GOD so Sarah and Jesus have more in common than your low class joke would suggest.
There will be more jerkwagons agreeing with your sick "humor" and some will even take you "series".
Your pea brain is FUBAR.
On her facebook account, she's reaching out to rank and file union members, and condemning union leadership, mentioning Hoffa by name.
moonhawk wrote:
Glad to hear Sarah condemned the Hoffa rant...Do you have a link?
Thanks!
From Welcome, Union Brothers and Sisters on Sarah's Facebook notes:I encourage you to click through and read the whole piece.
“So, now these union bosses are desperately trying to cast the grassroots Tea Party Movement as being ‘against the workingman.’ How outrageously wrong this unapologetic Jim Hoffa is, for the people’s movement is the real movement for working class men and women. It’s rooted in real solidarity, and not special interests and corporate kickbacks. It represents the needed reform that will empower workers and job creators. We stand with the little guy against the corruption and influence peddling of those who collude to grease the wheels of government power.”
From Welcome, Union Brothers and Sisters on Sarah's Facebook notes:
“In my speech on Saturday in Iowa, I said: ‘Between bailouts for Wall Street cronies and stimulus projects for union bosses’ security and ‘green energy’ giveaways, [Barack Obama] took care of his friends. And now they’re on course to raise a billion dollars for his re-election bid so that they can do it all over again.’ This was shamefully on display yesterday at President Obama’s taxpayer-funded campaign rally in Detroit. In introducing the President, Teamsters President James Hoffa represented precisely what I was talking about as he declared war on concerned independent Americans and on the freshman members we sent to Congress last November by saying, ‘Let’s take these son-of-a-bitches out!’”
I think someone like West would offer more as VP,and on the purely political side, might even bring the black vote up to the 20 something %...JMHO
I don’t like it, but it’s fairly obvious Perry would beat Palin in the primaries. Likely all of them if it went that far, though it never would.
She’s not going to run. She’ll endorse Perry.
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.