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
If that is your first principle, you are no friend of liberty and no friend of the Constitution. roamer is right: this country needs a reboot.
"Defeat Candidate X" cannot ever be a first principle.
Junk like this, and most of the last 202 posts, is why I haven't posted in a Palin thread in months.
>>You mean like “she can’t win” as an example, right?
Corollary: Palin’s fans are strong minded, since it isn’t working on them.
Cheers!<<
I have pretty much stuck to “she won’t run” — predictions not platitudes.
Y cheers ustedes tambien! :)
I am not impressed with Perry as a true conservative, but he would be better than Obama.
First, I did not say I was impressed by Perry - What I said was that Perry was the closest thing to a Reagan (true) Conservative in the field, in that he possesses the record and ability to serve all conservative factions. It is the quality of that service that I would question, not the service itself. You may recall that I said that quality was not sufficient for me to vote for him.
As to his being better than Obama - What does that matter? A ham sandwich would be a better president that any of them, in that it, like a true Conservative, would be incapable of destroying any part of our Constitutional Republic, and would by nature be unable to subvert the Constitution itself. A ham sandwich would not sign away any sovereignty, and would by virtue of it's inanimate state, be guaranteed to sign no bill increasing spending, and would in fact, by that same nature, cut off all spending for it's entire term. By that predicted method, such a sandwich would be a federalist too, since the states would be forced to pick up the slack. That's one helluva lot more gravitas than we can expect from anyone in the current field.
And if you aren't casting a vote against Obama, you are wasting your civic duty to support and defend our country and its constitution.
That is a scurrilous and tiresome charge, which is wholly without merit. One who votes *for* Obama votes for Obama. All others lend him nothing, even those who vote 3rd party or object by abstention. In fact, abstaining from a vote for a lesser evil is more honorable, more principled, than the vote of expediency or popularity. Our fathers clearly desired our people to vote their conscience, knowing they will sleep well, having voted for the capable statesman whose honor and committed nature cause him to be worthy of the office.
And in withholding their votes, they better guarantee the next pass will be more to their liking, as the party who wishes to win will court them with a qualified suitor. Otherwise, they will always be faced with an unqualified field of suitors, and be faced with a whore's choice - even as we have right now.
I don't get the whole banana thing, but I will feel very good about sending Obama and his puppet masters into retirement.
I can say that if one replaces him with a globalist Republican, that good feeling will be short lived, and that within a very short while, you will certainly rue the day. What good to settle for a candidate who will grant general amnesty to illegal aliens, or sign the "Law of the Sea" treaty, or push forward the NAU, not to mention mere (however dire) finances?
So who is your candidate? Who is a true conservative, and can win the primaries and defeat Obama? Please, I'd love to find that person and get on board. We all would.
I currently support no candidate, though I am leaning heavily toward that ham sandwich. As it is now, *none of the above* are satisfactory (to include Palin, btw). If the criteria for a Conservative are met in a late comer, or third party (which will almost certainly happen), I will cast my vote there - else-wise I will concentrate on the down ticket.
Absolutely agree. That's why my first principle is to defeat Obama. It's the right thing to do. It's just my opinion based on my analysis.
LOL! While I appreciate the sentiment, that is not a principle at all. Principles are found in the founder's documents, the Judeo-Christian Ethic, the immovable basic 'first things' of the various conservative factions, and etc... Things to vote *for*. Yours is a vote of expediency if you will think about it.
I never asked for compromise. Maybe that's where you misunderstand me. Getting rid of Obama is job one at this point in America. He is the enemy coming over the wall. He and his little group are eroding our chances of ever rebuilding our country back to the founding fathers' vision.
I quite fervently disagree (all the way around). Obama is a declared enemy in the field. He is nowhere near as dangerous as the turncoats in our midst, who are already past the gate, and who speak in whispers to itching ears. Again, it is the lack of opposition that gives liberalism any foothold at all. And you do ask me to compromise - I vote in a principled manner, finding a candidate to vote *for*. 'ABO' flies directly in the face of that.
I also believe the Obama presidency is creating and fortifying conservatives all across this great country. This tipping point on which we find ourselves may prove to be a great moment for conservative Americans and for the country. We may well be thanking him like we thanked Carter for giving us President Reagan.
You may well be right - Obama is very comparable to Carter. But Reagan brought us the Bushes, and the eventual betrayal of the 94 congress. That is not Reagan's fault - but our own for becoming comfortable and eschewing vigilance... And in better than 20 years, the Conservative cause has seen very little advancement, and has suffered defeat and apathy at the hands of... (wait for it)... REPUBLICANS! Reaganism, with the exception of a small band of merry men in the House, left with Reagan. It is the populist vote and the vote of expedience which has wrought this bitter fruit. Baker necons dressed as 'conservatives' fooled us all for a while. But there is really no excuse. Let's endeavor to fill our elected houses with Conservatives this time, as we have no time left to lose.
Thanks, roamer. I look forward to reading more of your posts on other threads.
Likewise, and have a good day.
Maybe..maybe not. ROTFL! Snicker...:)~
Just as soon as you run FR, you can try telling me what to do. Until then, shut your mouth.
Any further explanation needed?
‘and we’ll have to find another candidate to support.’
The problem is that many of you Palin supporters have openly said that you don’t intend to support anyone else. And that means by staying home, you are indirectly voting for Obama...the next SCOTUS judge is too important to ‘stay home’. It is shallow and short sided.
What if we do..it's still a free county..or is it? :)
Augustine defined freedom, not as the power to do what you want, but the power to do what you should. Voting cannot and should not be legally enforced, but it is still an obligation, an act necessary to the preservation of our freedom. Abdication of a central duty of American citizenship is not how you preserve freedom for either your posterity or mine. Like Red Green says, “we’re all in this together.” Just sayin ...
“Sarah has become a caracature of herself and painfully buffoonery is not now too far off. -rita”
“I laugh every time I see these statements from the PDSers, herein. There may be less than air among their brains, or less than honor within their breasts.-WVKayaker”
Maybe I’m reading that wrong, but when did Rita’s breasts become part of this debate????
(All right, bad joke, but someone had to lighten the mood)
Okay, roamer, support your ham sandwich or vote third party or don't vote at all for president. That course may help you sleep at night, but it is not going to help the republic.
I believe we have a federal emergency, one that is unique in our history and will determine the future for the US and indeed the world.
You want to wait for the top surgeon to arrive before administering first aid. I want to stop the bleeding and give the country a fighting chance.
Totally agree. I was a candidate myself last year, briefly, and went through the sticker shock of what it takes to feed those folks. No wonder so many people get sucked into obligations other than their electoral constituency, and thus so often fall short of their duty to represent those who voted for them.
It's also one of the best arguments for why Palin really is running despite being grossly misunderstood by "industry professionals." She's bypassing those "professionals" with malice aforethought. She's using her grassroots support, the people who will actually vote for her, precisely because that way she remains free to fulfill her duty to represent them and always do the right thing ... for them. She's living her platform.
In fact, she made comments in one of the books that would have shed light on this to open-minded persons, but it has been widely overlooked due to the industry bias. I believe she was in the car with her family, not long into her term, and she commented that to get any sleep at night as politician, you'd have to be either corrupt or rich. She was just a hockey mom, and now she was for the first time seeing just how bad the political process had become.
BTW, that right there should give a clue why she has forged a unique combination of high income activity with candidate-like activity. That is a combination so off-template to the industry regulars it's creating mass confusion among them. Those who cannot think outside the current, corrupt process can only see the high income activity and the lack of genuflecting to industry “overlords” as an indication of insincerity, hence the pervasive belief within the industry she’s not really running.
But those of us without those expectations of "standard candidate behavior" are having a much easier time reading her as running, because the signal is clearly there, if you can get outside the box.
I completely agree with you.
Yep, free country to even exhibit stupidity. It seems to be quite the epidemic these days.
Great article
Well...if you are going to be stupid, do it in a grand way and quit messing around. JMHO.
and for the vermin major corporations (benefits of crony capitalism, tax-code games, lead-fullback-blocking by the government in their favor in the form of onerous and destructive regulation, etc. etc. etc), and other vested interests, to have their asses kicked into the next hemisphere, so that the "Washington-New York-Boston axis" does not poison the atmosphere merely to preserve their own gravy train at the cost of the Republic's very survival (survival=not being taken over by Muslims, African / South American immigrants, not being maneuvered into geopolitical or economic insignificance by the Saudis and / or the Red Chinese, not getting in a war, thermonuclear or otherwise, with China or Russia, not getting in a Nuclear War with a resurgent Caliphate, and restoring our lost Constitutional freedoms to what they once were).
Cheers!
Palin actually laid out her whole campaign strategy and blueprint for governing as President in Going Rogue, but few even of the Palin fans here on FR seem to have caught on.
(Limbaugh once said that with any "real" political book, the elite insiders don't actually READ the thing, that'd take too much time: they flip to the index to see where their name is mentioned, and read that section only...I guess they then look up a couple of reviews to see what the approved opinion on the book is supposed to be, so they can parrot THAT to show their own intellect and independence.)
Cheers! Cheers!
And Sarah hasn’t? No eriously, Reagan didn’t officially announce until “late”, and there was great speculation as to whether he would run. So thats not an answer.
Look, I know from working inside a campaign that there are many details that affect a wide variety of decisions. Not the least of which are personal decisions we the people will not know about until the Memoir’s come out years later.
Just because Sarah isn’t in the race yet, does not mean that she isn’t running for President in 2012. It means she hasn’t announced, and until at least one filing deadline passes, you cannot assume that she isn’t going to run. Well you can make the assumption if you want to, but you stand a pretty good chance of being wrong - given the nature of assumptions....
Good Lord! Yet another attack by one of the “Killer Palinistas.” AIEEEEE! Chomp! Chomp! Chomp!
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.