Sarah Palin takes the initiative

The Hill ^ | 08/22/12 08:23 AM ET | By Bernie Quigley

[onyx]

It was an error for the Republicans to bring in New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as the key speaker at their convention. While all of the excitement and adventure in politics in the last three years has been among conservatives, Christie is the great, faithless bet against conservatives’ future and a futile attempt to institutionalize the past. At CPAC events these last three years, up to 40 percent of young conservatives yearned for Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano; STATES’ RIGHTS, SOUND MONEY AND CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. The other 60 percent — the National Review crowd, the neocons, the Bush apparatus, the entire Eastern Conservative Establishment — could think only of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Christie is their front man, as animated and clownish as a carny barker at the Dixie Classic. Going into the future, conservatives hold all the cards. But they chose the past. Obviously, they should have chosen former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as their lead speaker.

Sarah Palin told Greta Van Susteren on Fox last night that she would support a third-party run in Missouri. Not by accident this announcement comes as the Republican convention opens in Tampa, Fla. Like Romney, she misses nothing. Since Palin — and she was the first — came to the aid of Doug Hoffman in NY-23 in 2009, there has been a positive division in conservatism, which will grow and mature in our century. She is the natural leader of this new direction. In time we will see current economic liberalism disappear entirely. It lost its essential economic purpose when large-scale manufacturing left America and America became a place of smaller businesses. It left Democrats with only the most ephemeral lifestyle and cultural issues.

This shift in economy brings a maturity of economic purpose and is a historic shift. If the last century and a half was represented as a proxy fight between Marx and Keynes, the next in America will be between Keynes and Hayek. Two or three years ago at the CPAC events, the Hayek direction — Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Sarah Palin — took the initiative. Chris Christie’s trickster dance in Tampa will not send it away. If Obama wins this year, Palin will lead (against Christie/Bush) in the Republican primary in 2016. If Romney wins and yields to the tradition (which he will because his life is stuck in 1972) Palin will bring a challenge.

Key here is we are at a generational shift as large and vital as that of the ’60s, but it is a conservative shift. They just didn’t get the memo yet in Tampa.

[onyx]

The got their last donation from me in ‘08 and only then because of Sarah Palin.

[onyx]

OKay, just for you, I’ll remember to do that!

[onyx]

OH, thanks very much for your take!

I want to hear from Sarah Palin too, but she might not comment on it.

All I know, is that she is not a prime time speaker, or a speaker AT ALL.

[onyx]

B T T T ! ! ! ©

[oldfart]

Didn’t Lisa Murkowski run a write-in campaign in Alaska? That seemed fairly successful.

[LibLieSlayer]

Mama Grizz will not let us down.

LLS

[DoughtyOne]

Palin didn’t say that third party was “the” solution. She was answering a hypothetical question of if Akin did not go just a few hours after the deadline, what were the possibilities. It was obvious she had not spoken to Steelman about it. If she had, she would have then known that any effort by Steelman at that time was not withing the law. She was throwing out hypothetical possibilities, not a definitive solution.

I see little difference if a person suggests a third party move is a way to fix this.  You want to be able to run from the suggestion, and I'm stating I don't agree with it period.  In this type of a situation a person who is well grounded says something like, "We'll have to study our options, and take whatever measures we can to win this seat."  Throwing out bad ideas isn't a leadership quality.

The main topic of the discussion was about Akin’s arrogance to think it was only the “legitimate rape” reference that got him in trouble. Sure it was the catalyst for all of the brouhaha but he went on digging the hole with his totally baseless claim of scientific and biological science. I’m sure the interviewers face took on a look of total surprise and Akin should have known he said something incorrectly but made no effort to correct his remarks then and only when it became a national issue did he finally say he made a mistake. The reality is that it took someone else to tell him that.

I do agree with that.  And Palin is right to call him on it.  I have myself.  I'm not even convinced he gets it yet.  As I understand it, he's still saying he's sorry, but what he was saying was actually a sound thing.  I disagree with him, and from what you've said, so do you.

Palin, like so many of us were pissed to no end that the Democrats knew something about this guy and mounted a campaign to have their voters cross over to insure he was their challenger instead of either Steelman or Brunner. Adding insult to injury, a number of voters in one county decided it was more important to cross over and vote the Democrat ballot because of a local Sheriff’s race. Those potential votes were lost to the Republican primary as well. Yep, those OPEN PRIMARIES are just a friggin good idea, aren’t they?

No, open primaries are not a good idea.  (Clarification: I understand we agee on that.)  Frankly it angers me that the GOPe doesn't seem to grasp it.  When the measure came up in California to approve/disprove open primaries, I didn't hear one single Republican voice in opposition, other than here.  I should have been bombarded with admonissions not to vote for it.  Perhaps it went down the same way in Missouri.  I wouldn't be surprised.  Why is the Republican party essentially surrendering to Leftists?  It's infuriating!

From states away, it's hard for me to know if I'm getting the straight scoop or not.  Just yesterday some guy listed Akin's voting record, and claimed he was 90%+ a staunch Conservative.  I have also heard that Steelman isn't that strident a Conservative.  So which is it?  The person saying these things yesterday claimed to be a Missourian.

So, when thinking out loud, faced with the immediate realization that this idiot was not going to quit and continue to dig the hole he was in, did the possibility of a third party effort not run through your mind to start shoveling the dirt in on this goof? It would have needed to be in order to find out the law does not permit it. I’m positive you did not drop everything in your life to rush out to read the statutes at that very moment.

I won't be able to participate in correcting this situation, so it's something I am going to allow Missourians to correct on their own.  I didn't offer up any suggestions, other than that Akin should step down.

One other factor that very few consider when contemplating the “what ifs” provided he actually can be granted a miracle and win against McCaskill. That is someone knew about his stances to the detail of having the interviewer ask the question and the Democrats to make an all out push to cross over to insure his victory which was not seen in any polls. Surely as there were these two that slipped out somewhere else, what else has this scientific expert uttered in the House Cloak Room that can be used to blackmail him into voting a certain way, totally counter to his record? How many will just make things up just to put him on the defensive and sway his vote as well?

I don't necessarilty see this guy as a Leftist.  I see him as a person who opened his mouth and inserted both feet.  Good people can make huge mistakes.  Once you do, you need to fix it.  And if fixing it means you have to step down, then step down you must.  I'm not getting into the idea of blackmail.  He's been in Congress and seemed to do okay.  I think he could do it again.  The problem is, he must end the Democrats ability to capitalize on this.  That means he has to go.

Palin is a big picture thinker. Her anger at Akin was on only partial display and its effects shown as she was asked a hypothetical question at which she answered in a hypothetical way. I am sure she did what I did the next day and researched the laws of Missouri to realize, as we all did, that it was not going to happen for her chosen candidate in the race no matter what tact was considered.

Perhaps so, but don't get out front with a bad idea.  That's not productive.  And if Steelman isn't as Conservative, I wish Sarah would take a pass on the idea of, "I told you so."  It is reasoned to vote for the person with the best record, and as I understand it, what was Akin at the time of the election.

Please tell me what Akin had been up to, that caused you to think Steelman was better?  Perhaps you have some good reasons.

To counter your assertion that Steelman is very squishy is a gross mischaraterization. She was just as “conservative” as Akin on the right to life issues and many other bedrock issues. Where she got into trouble was her voting record on tort reform where she voted against it while many believe she did so because her husband is a trial lawyer. By saying Palin supported a squishy it implies that you think Palin is supportive of squishy as well. Therein lies your true biaes not supported by fact and in essence just makes you another one of those PDSers.

Okay, well you've just told me that Steelman voted against tort reform.  That, to me, is squishy.  I'm not trying to be mean here, but Conservatives are for tort reform.  You can't just pass that off because someone is married to an attorney.  In fact that makes it a conflict of interest, which Conservatives should try to avoid.  Either vote for tort reform, or vote present, if you can't.

I do not agree with Palin on her fix to illegal immigration.  I do not agree with some of the candidates she has opted to support around the nation.  I've seen people explain that she was backing the wrong person in their district.  I did not agree with her trying to pass off John McCain as a fellow traveler with the Tea Party.  If John is going to be a fellow traveler with Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, George Soros, and members of the Tides Foundation, he's not a fellow traveler of mine or you.

I have reasons for not appreciating Sarah Palin.  I am not shy about explaining them to people.  So dismissing my objections to her actions as if it's just PDS, is as misguided as dismissing objections to Obama policy on the grounds it has to be racist.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you W. W. Smith. I appreciate the point. I was unaware of that until yesterday when I read it on the forum.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you for your comments.

[LibLieSlayer]

You are welcome. One way or another we have to make it through this election... what a horrible time this is... but somehow we will make it.

LLS

[mazda77]

Don’t get me wrong, I at first gave Steelman a look when I was researching all of the Senate races across the country and then wanted to know more about the others. Frankly, Brunner impressed me the most because he was not a politician much in the same way as Johnson in Wisconsin. When I saw that Akin polled the worst against McCaskill of the three, that was telling me something. Then I saw the ad McCaskill did that gave Akin a glowing referral for a Rock Ribbed Conservative and I knew something was wrong. Did a little checking and saw Missouri was an open primary state and an awful feeling came over me. It was affirmed when the results came in counter to the latest polling before the election. I knew what had happened and wondered when the next shoe would drop. It certainly didn’t take long.

The Dems knew more about this guy that the Republicans did and just waited to push that button.

[Starstruck]

Jim, I was an ABO when I realized Romney was going to wrap this thing up. Being from Kansas, I don't really have to vote for him because he will take the state. But I will.

However, if Sarah was to come out and say she was never invited to speak at the GOP convention, I will not vote for Romney and never again will I contribute to the GOP as it stands.

[DoughtyOne]

Leaving out the personalities mentioned, one of the problems with backing some folks that would fit into this group, is that you don’t really know what their beliefs are. You’ve got to be careful, or you wind up with a mess like Schwarzenegger.

Sure they may be a great sports star, but are they a great prospect for office?

I do appreciate the mention. Later...

[onyx]

Yep! She’s ours!

[onyx]

May we always be happy and our enemies know it.

[mkjessup]

Well, see ya Saturday.

[KC_Lion]

Bikkuri may I please, please, please, please use that?

Such High resolution! Really shows off Sarah's eyes.

Her quote is the Antithesis of Ubama's "U didn biuld Dhat!" comment.

[onyx]

As you know, I’m not on board with Romney. Not yet anyway, and it’s almost entirely possible he’ll not get my vote. After all, he “won’ his primary without my vote, so I think he can win election without my vote too.

I’m not bitter about the nasty primary. I just don’t like or trust Romney, but God forgive me, I “hate” Obama and know he will destroy America if he’s reelected.

I remain praying for miracles and for His guidance. God bless and keep you, dear Finny.

GO SARAH. God bless and protect her always.

[onyx]

I'm so far behind on this thread. Post #98
God bless and keep you and everyone you love and cherish.

[onyx]

I “LOVE” your post other post on this thread with Sarah’s picture!

Thanks very much. God bless you, dearest jimsin!!!!