Posted on 07/15/2012 6:34:16 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
[T]he Romney campaign has not asked Palin to speak at the convention nor contacted her about even attending the party’s marquee event in Tampa. Queries to the Romney camp about any possible Palin role at the convention meet with a stony silence. Palin does not seem surprised. “What can I say?” she responded in an email from Alaska, when asked by Newsweek about the convention, just before heading to Michigan to deliver an Obama-thumping speech. “I’m sure I’m not the only one accepting consequences for calling out both sides of the aisle for spending too much money, putting us on the road to bankruptcy, and engaging in crony capitalism.”
Romney was the choice of the party’s elites, whom Palin has regarded with open disdain ever since her rough treatment during the 2008 campaign. They are some of the same people who anonymously disparaged Palin as a clueless bumpkin, and some of them are now helping to run Romney’s campaign. When unnamed Romney aides tell reporters that Romney will likely go with a “safe” choice for vice president because of the 2008 “disaster,” Palin notices.
[....]
The Romney camp will not comment on Palin, or on plans for the convention, but one adviser associated with the campaign suggested that Palin would be prohibited from speaking at the Republican convention by her contract with Fox News. “It’s true I’m prohibited from doing some things,” Palin says, “but this is the first I’ve heard anyone suggest that as an excuse, er, reason to stay away from engaging in the presidential race. I’m quite confident Fox’s top brass would never strip anyone of their First Amendment rights in this regard.” (Fox says her contract would not prohibit speaking at the convention if she sought permission.)
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Rent out a place nearby and have Sarah and others speak. Put it on the net.
LOL!
I can’t stand the thought of sitting through a Romney convention speech. My husband will probably be watching but I won’t be wasting my time doing the same.
I won’t be watching...I’ve heard plenty of Romney’s bullsh*t here in New England.
They don’t want her because she scares the pee out of them. They’re also scared of the peoples’ postitive opinion of her, all media lies to the contrary. They’re scared of exactly what many of us want:
A REVOLUTION AT THE CONVENTION!
Okay. That is the more rational thing to do. I will do what you recommend. But Romney is already such a disappointment.
Pray tell then why am I getting four 'romneyGrams' a week, phone calls and emails too? It's almost like being stalked! I have received enough 8x10 glossies of "The Man" to paper my bathroom.
I told a RNC caller that I could hardly stand the thought of supporting this snake and what we really needed was a good bare knuckles street fighter (Newt comes to mind). She tried to say that she agreed that he was a poor choice but what can we do about it. I find cold comfort in the thought that romney as president would be better then obama. My question is "by what measure and by how much?" Going up against an incumbent is always an uphill fight, does romney have the stones for it?
Regards,
GtG
[i]He’s confident we’ll come around. We have no other choice. People backed into a corner usually see reason and accept the inevitable.[/i]
Romney is stupid to ignore Conservatives. I remember Perot. Apparently Romney has forgotten that year.
To them I paraphrase, "Let the courageous cast the first stone" but then, I know who the courageous would cast that stone against and it isn't Sarah Palin.
The rest just cast their stones at the mirror.
Wow. I just realized that I have to wash my hair on November 6, 2012, and will be unable to make the polls!
I could send in an absentee ballot, but I are ill iterut cousin' I votid fer Palin, an' cain't rite mi oan naim...
I'm not staying home out of choice.
I change my furnace air filter every year on November 6. It's like a religion with me.
Yes.
Please explain. My take is simply that there is no need for two leftwing, big government, small liberty parties. Unrepresented people will go elsewhere. Obviously your analysis is more complex and I would like to understand it.
Hi Psalm144, sorry for taking so long to respond.
Sure thing - what I'm referring to comes from chaos theory, which despite the term, doesn't actually mean you are creating chaos. Rather, chaos theory deals with dynamic systems that are extremely complex - systems where you can have millions, billions, or more units all engaged in activity at the same time, and which results in interactions that are simply too complex to model individually. Chaos theory (or complex dynamics) applies to systems as widely disparate as the onset of turbulence in a flowing liquid to the interaction of air masses that generate weather to the growth of biological populations in a real-world setting to the economic decisions made by millions in a free market. There is an underlying universality to dynamic systems that makes them behave in similar ways (but ones in which they never quite repeat themselves, hece they display aperiodicity), so that the same sets of equations can apply to them all. These systems can begin to display patterns of near-repetition that follow various numeric patterns.
At the macro level, when you add "energy" to a system, you can get a linear system to cross a threshold into being a non-linear dynamic (chaos) system. If you push the flow of a liquid to a fast enough point, your smooth and even flow begins to generate turbulent behaviour. If you increase the rate at which a biological population reproduces, you begin to get non-linear chaotic behaviour in the rise and fall of this population. You can begin to get bifurcations and bifurcations upon bifurcations that can actually be graphed out - bounded regions where within one region, one dynamic of behaviour takes place, but when you cross a boundary, another set of dynamic behaviours are displayed. If you graph out the underlying equations themselves and run them versus time, you will get situations where the results will continually move and circle between two or more "strange" attractors, while never quite completely replicate their former paths. Nevertheless, the results can begin to attach themselves to these attractors, which act as "wells" into which the system sorta-kinda wants to fall, but doesn't as long as it remains non-linear and dynamic.
My theory that I expressed above is that our political system is, or could be made to be, a non-linear dynamic system, since it is the sum total of billions of political decisions being made by millions of individual actors acting in aggregate. If this were to happen, our system might be able to "jump" from its current attractor to a new one - the idea being that we can "jump" from the current New Deal-era "big government can solve all our problems" assumption type of system (which both major parties implicitly accept, even if not every member of them does)
I pointed out that there seems to be a numerical pattern attached to the American political system that is moving on a 1-3-5-7-9 pattern, starting at the point in the colonial period where we were really and truly beginning to be a self-governing, self-directing political entity (which was before the Revolution). At each point, there has been "energy" (in the form of political anger, the shock of external events, etc. that has caused our system to "jump" to a new attractor.
Starting around the mid-1760s, we saw the end of the French and Indian War, which relieved the colonies of the necessity of looking to the British army and government for our immediate protection. As such, we could begin to more easily contemplate an independent political existence.
~10 years later, in the mid-1770s, our issues with the British came to a head (Boston Tea Party, the Boston massacre, etc.), and we fought a revolution, resulting in a very different attractor - that of independent existence as a representative Republic.
~30 years later, in the early-to-mid 1800s (the decade), the shock of the Federalist efforts to sustain the Alien and Sedition Act ended up more or less destroying that party, and Jefferson's Republicans took power, which was really a new political order that lasted throughout the Era of Good Feelings, as we had a virtual uniparty rule for over a decade.
~50 years later, in the mid-to-late 1850s, we saw the issue of slavery come to a head, and the massive shock of the Civil War.
~70 later, in the mid-1930s, we saw the shock of the Great Depression and the rise of the New Deal state.
Here it is, ~90 years after, and we find ourselves in a massive social and especially fiscal crisis (debt, spending, bankruptcy) and the political "energy" is building once again.
After each previous bifurcation and "jump," elements of the previous political reality disappeared or were severely weakened. After the Revolution, British authority in America was swept away. During the Era of Good Feelings, the Federalists were wiped out and they only slowly recoalesced. In the time right before the Civil War, the Whigs disappeared as a Party. In the 1930s, the GOP *almost* disappeared, and was so weakened that in many cases it was practically a regional party.
After each shock, the system gradually re-establishes itself in a new equilibrium, and trucks on to the next break point.
I contend that we're seeing energy build that is going to put us into a non-linear dynamic system, and conservatives need to act to make sure that we can get it to drop into a more liberty-friendly attractor. We better get it right, because if I'm right, we won't have another chance for ~110 after it happens this time!
I hope this adequately explains my view!
Forgot to clarify - I realise that we’re not quite to 90 years after the 1930s...I would expect that our upcoming breakpoint would take place more around 2016 or 2020 than it will now. However, the pattern doesn’t seem to have to be *strictly* 10-30-50-70-90. Because it’s a dynamic system, there can be a little “play” involved.
There is a common assumption that there are no progressives among the Republicans. The progressives have invested over one hundred years in taking over both political parties. The Democrat party take over is nearly complete, 90% plus. The Republican party has been a little more resistant, about 45% take over. The progressives within the Republican party are generally referred to as rinos. McCain, Graham, Collins, Snow, Romney, all progressives and way too many more. They would more accurately be described as Fabian socialists. They, that is progressives are terrified of Palin, West, Gingrich, Cain or anyone they can not control. They go into a full court press of slander and lies in a desperate maneuver to stop anyone like them becoming president. The elite progressives know that if one of them where to win the presidency, their political philosophy will end on a library shelve labeled “ failed forms of government”. Their ideas will no longer be studied nor will there be new adherents. This is why they have not invited Palin to the convention.
This is relevant in that Mitt is sending the clear message that the Republican party will be held hostage by the Fabian socialist wing and the Tea Party Conservatives can go phuq themselves.
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.