Whatta ya scared of a girl?
Posted on 09/17/2011 1:03:44 PM PDT by SamAdams76
Much speculation going on the past few weeks with regard to Sarah Palin and whether or not she will be a presidential candidate for 2012. As we move through mid-September, the majority of those speculating have decided that she is not going to run. Even among those who remain hopeful that she will run, they seem to have given up on the prospects of a Palin candidacy, many of them holding the opinion that even should she enter the race at this point, it will be "too late".
Three questions for those who are convinced that Palin is not going to run:
If you can answer YES to any of the above questions, then you can make the case that Palin is not running for president. However, as the facts stand today, the answers to all of the above are an unequivocal NO.
I also have a multiple choice question for those who feel that it is now too late for Palin to get into this race:
Which of the following presidents announced their candidates prior to October of the year before their election?
a) Bill Clinton
b) Richard Nixon
c) Ronald Reagan
d) None of the above
If you answered: d) None of the above; you would be CORRECT! All three of those presidents announced their candidacies relatively late in the process. To be precise, Bill Clinton announced his candidacy on October 3, 1991. Ronald Reagan announced his on November 13, 1979. And then we have Richard Nixon…he of the high negatives, who waited until January 31, 1968 to announce his candidacy. All three of these candidates not only won their elections handily, but were re-elected four years later. Another interesting factoid: All three of these presidents were considered divisive and had relatively high negative approval ratings throughout their presidencies. They were mostly beloved by those who supported them but were loathed by the opposite party. Yet in the case of Nixon and Reagan (easily the two Republican presidents who are most despised by the political Left), they were both re-elected in two of the largest landslides in presidential history.
Enter Sarah Palin. Like Clinton, Reagan and Nixon before her, there is not much middle ground with respect to where people stand on her. They either love her or hate her. Yes, she is divisive and her entry into the race is going to generate some very strong emotions on both sides of the political fence. But she is a game-changer and perhaps just the person we need at this point in our history to lead our nation out of the abyss that it is currently in. Can she win if she get in? Yes, you bet she can! It probably won't even be close.
The stakes are very high this coming election year. Our nation simply cannot endure another four years under a corrupt and incompetent president who has reduced our standing in the world, degraded the health of our nation and is now in the process of destroying our future prospects. As Ronald Reagan said of the Carter Administration during the 1980 campaign, an "unprecedented calamity has befallen us." Only this time, under the Obama Administration, the calamity is far, far worse. We are now suffering under a chief executive who is not only the most unprepared and unable man to ever hold the office, but one who holds un-American socialist views and surrounds himself with others who feel the same way and who are looting our tax dollars right under our noses to reward themselves and their cronies. Our current president got himself elected with the empty slogan of "hope and change" and once he got into office, he proceeded to destroy all hope and while he brought plenty of change, none of it is good. His supposed solution to our failing economy is to tax working Americans out of more of their money so that it can be flushed away on socialist government programs that are doomed to failure and transferred to people who are either unable or unwilling to work.
It is for these reasons that many Republicans want to play it safe again this election year. Rather than getting behind somebody who can advance the conservative cause, many feel it is more prudent to elect somebody that they believe can more easily beat Obama. Which basically means a watered down Republican who supposedly has appeal to "moderates" and "right-leaning Democrats" (such as those who crossed over and voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984). This has proven to be a FAILED strategy time and time again.
It is that very line of thinking that has saddled us with weak "RINO" nominees in the past like John McCain, Bob Dole and George Bush (both of them). I simply do not understand why so many conservatives feel that we need a watered-down RINO in order to win a general election. RINOs tend to LOSE general elections, and even when they win, it is usually in a squeaker that produces no mandate for change and with little coattails so that we end up with a mixed Congress. The result is that very little changes - even in the best case scenario, the conservative cause does NOT get advanced using this strategy. The end result is we have a weak president that usually gets replaced by a Democrat.
Ronald Reagan was the last "true" conservative that represented the Republicans in the White House. Yes, he was divisive and polarizing. His negatives were always high because liberals and Democrats did not like him one bit! His approval rating in his first term rarely went over 50% and his negative approval ratings were consistently in the 40s - peaking at 53% negative in January 1983 (just before the recovery started building steam). For those old enough to remember Reagan's first term, it was a very exciting time to be an American. We were transformed from the malaise of the Carter years to a respected world superpower once more with a roaring economy to go with it. This was all brought about not because Reagan tinkered with the economy like Obama and his henchman are trying to do. It was brought about because Reagan did the best he could to lessen the tax burden on both citizens and corporations and to move federal government OUT OF THE WAY as much as possible. Reagan succeeded because he allowed capitalism to actually work. Reagan truly believed that a rising tide could lift all boats while on the other hand, Obama's administration seems intent on draining our economic system so that our corporations and businesses are all run aground or stuck on sandbars.
Now back in the early days of the 1980 campaign, there were whispers in Republican circles that Reagan "can't win the general" and that his nomination would result in another four years of Carter. The knock on Reagan was that he was too extreme, too divisive, too polarizing. Many Republicans of the day felt that we would be better off with George H.W. Bush (with whom much of the establishment got behind early on) and even when Reagan sewed up the nomination, the anti-Reagan feelings were still so strong that moderate John Anderson was encouraged to break from the Republicans and run an Independent campaign.
So lets circle back to Sarah Palin. Now it is not my intention to state that Sarah Palin is another Ronald Reagan. But I think I can state with confidence that Sarah Palin is the best conservative candidate the Republicans have had on a national level SINCE Ronald Reagan. It is apparent that the liberal mainstream media and the Democrats feel the same way because how else could you explain their non-stop three-year crusade to absolutely destroy and marginalize her? I am sad to say that many conservatives have sat on their hands while allowing the other side to "Dan Quayle" Sarah Palin and even sadder to say, some of those conservatives are going right along with the program, by themselves hurling the same arrows at her.
If we sit idly by and allow a fine American like Sarah Palin to be destroyed, simply because she poses a threat to the establishment status quo, then we might as well just turn in our conservative card now and move on over to the other side. Because if we allow Sarah to be destroyed, we have just given the Democrats the necessary blueprint to ensure that another Ronald Reagan is never allowed to emerge again. They will simply destroy any good candidate that we have early on, thereby ensuring that only the John McCains and the Mitt Romneys will ever represent us at the national level again.
Also, I am sick and tired of hearing about how Sarah has waited too long to get into this race and that she is playing her followers for fools. Listen up people, we are still MONTHS away from the Iowa caucus and as mentioned at the top of this article, Sarah has not missed any of the filing deadlines. So why all the hand-wringing that it's "too late…too late"? So why the rush to embrace Rick Perry because he is our "only hope." Now as a Palin backer, I'm not saying that I'm not going to support Rick Perry should he get the nomination. But it's too darn early to be rallying around Perry and settling for second best now when we have other announced candidates still in the race that better represent the conservative cause such as Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann? Yet before the first meaningful vote is cast and before the first delegate is assigned, many of us are already saying those three (in addition to Palin) have no chance to win!
Why are we allowing the mainstream media and a few polling outfits decide for us who should be in the running for the Republican nomination? It's too early to be looking at polls. Let's focus on the candidates who will best advance the conservative cause and support them while they are still in the race. It appears that mainstream media want to shove Romney and Perry down our throats - why do you think that is? It is because those two represent less of a threat to liberalism and the entrenched establishment in Washington. Even if one of those two beat Obama, not too much will change. Neither of those two candidates have the coattails that will result in taking back the Senate and perhaps creating a super-majority in the House. Yet a Tea Party conservative like Sarah Palin can definitely achieve that and that is what has the liberals scared to death - especially after the shocker of the 9th Congressional district election last Tuesday. We've got the liberals on the run - why stop the momentum now? I have no doubt that Palin will get into this thing and when she does, we just might be able to secure a massive mandates a year from November and get ourselves out of the mess that we are in.
I will end this column with the following lines from Ronald Reagan's acceptance speech at the 1980 Republican convention:
"The major issues of this campaign are the direct political, personal and moral responsibilities of Democratic Party leadership - in the White House and in Congress -- [who are responsible] for this unprecedented calamity which has befallen us. They tell us they have done the most that humanly could be done. They say that the United States has had its day in the sun; that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities.My fellow citizens, I utterly reject that view. The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves. Those who believe we can have no business leading the nation.
I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose. We have come together here because the American people deserve better from those to whom they entrust our nation's highest offices, and we stand united in our resolve to do something about it…(snip)
Can anyone look at the record of this administration and say, "Well done?" Can anyone compare the state of our economy when the Carter Administration took office with where we are today and say, "Keep up the good work?" Can anyone look at our reduced standing in the world today and say, "Let's have four more years of this?"
I believe the American people are going to answer these questions the first week of November and their answer will be, "No--we've had enough." And, then it will be up to us -- beginning next January 20th -- to offer an administration and congressional leadership of competence and more than a little courage.
Ronald Reagan - July 17, 1980 at the Republican National Convention
This was a good article thanks for posting.
Another theory I saw on another thread concerned the "book" that McSlimeus is releasing...she wanted it to come out when she was a non-candidate, get it discredited and out of the way. IF it had come out when she was a candidate it would have been the first "subject" of her campaign and would have been taken much more seriously by the press. Strategery.
She missed two Presidential debates...That in itself is not very presidential.
She missed two primary debates, she won’t miss
the Presidential ones. She’ll win those.
Whatta ya scared of a girl?
Dittos, and the fact that she quit as gov. Yes there were reasons but winners never quit and quitters never win.
Not only that she has already been vetted. Everybody that thinks she has waited too long is really fooling themselves. The minute she declares I have set aside $1,000 to send to SarahPac with monthly follow up at some level.
I know at least 10-20 others that feel the same way. So, if in my little world we do the math and multiply it out to the four million of her Facebook followers, Palin will explode on the scene immediately.
We want to once again invite her to the picnic in Southern Utah in July. We hope Jim Robinson can make it as well.
She is for real...
Believe me FRiends!
nattering nabobs of negativism,
Penned by speechwriter William Safire, the "nattering nabobs of negativity" was the phrase used by former Vice President, Spiro Agnew, to refer to the "liberal" media. Agnew had reason to discourage press scrutiny: not only was he in the Nixon administration, but he would later be convicted of tax evasion and money laundering in connection to bribes he took as governor of Maryland.
Ironically, the "nattering nabobs of negativity" more appropriately describes Nixon's vice president and his political progeny. Agnew's brand of rhetoric was shrill and aggressive. He questioned the patriotism of any who opposed the Nixon administration's Vietnam policy. He constantly and consistently defined GOP enemies as "communists" and "hippies" and saved his harshest words for those that opposed the war. In short, he was a pioneer of the rhetoric that the Republican Party and their conservative allies perfected in the 1990s through talk radio and the 1994 campaign, rhetoric that would later permeate all things conservative. Rhetoric that was bitter, fantastic, and divisive. ...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa... PDS is a terrible affliction of many perrysites! You love to repeat the Lamestream media propaganda points!
Perrysites...
That’s how I remember it. Us 70 year olds can remember a few things...Wait...What did I just say?
I remember reading an article at the time of the speech which claimed that a little know woman from Baltimore was the originator of a number of these phrases. I do not believe she wrote speeches but was a clever wordsmith. Cannot remember who she was. The historical record is, I think, inaccurate.
I hope you are enjoying rubbing mine and others noses in your scatology because it will be my extreme pleasure to reciprocate.
Obviously, LOL!
It’s more than the POTUS that is at stake, think judges
Same old argument. Look at the court now. It's also why the conservative movement needs to have the foundation of local and state government. The power flows up.
Also, 4 more years of zer0 and the entire middle east will be run by the radicals. It’s just about there now.
Yup. So let's reach across the aisle, negoitate and work with them instead of standing up to them.
Getting most of your agenda through is better than zero percent.
Most? How about RINOs tossing me a bone and telling me to sit down and shut up? No more!
>>I hope you are enjoying rubbing mine and others noses in your scatology because it will be my extreme pleasure to reciprocate.<<
I see you argue as well as the rest of your ilk.
Anyone who uses political calculus that ends up with a different result than yours is guilty of “scatology.”
You can’t argue the conclusion so you just fling poo like a chimpanzee.
Sarah gambled on getting in as late as possible, and she lost.
Almost everyone i know who supported her in the past has lst inteest.
I am fencesitting about her now.
>> The minute she declares I have set aside $1,000 to send to SarahPac with monthly follow up at some level.<<
Why? She can’t use SarahPac money in her campaign (should one actually occur).
OMG...Then I’ll have to give her the cash in person I guess. I wonder if Obambi might be able to help me figure out how to do that... That dumb bastard knows all the angles. Maybe you do too?
She missed debates that were moderated by left-wing media outlets (MSNBC/Politico/CNN). I think that's pretty smart. As for the Republicans that allowed themselves to be used as tools, what were they thinking?
Can you imagine FoxNews or Free Republic moderating a Democratic debate?
I thrill at the prospect, feeling, as it were, a tingle.
Well, isn't "communists" and "hippies" exactly who they were?
After all, we do have the Venona Intercepts to prove exactly who was recruiting for and directing the anti-war movement.
Hey, it was your statement. Sorry if I pointed out your error. You True Believers / Worshippers seem to have a problem with that sort of thing...
I will! The minute she steps up she has my undivided and inalienable support. I want my country back. Perry is, in my opinion, second best. The rest of the field, while well meaning, trail far behind in terms of putting us back on our feet as a country. We've had all the second best we can take and still survive.
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.