Posted on 01/18/2011 9:34:34 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
In a guest column, John Ziegler, radio host, Palin confidante, and the filmmaker behind Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted, offers his unique perspective on Sarah Palin’s interview with Sean Hannity, and its specific implications towards a potential presidential run in 2012. The views expressed in this guest column are those of John Ziegler alone.
*******
As dangerous, counterproductive, and pointless as it can be to try and predict whether Sarah Palin will run for president in 2012, I found myself changing my mind last night about what she likely will, and should, do regarding the largest political decision one can make.
As an outspoken and dedicated defender of Palin against a mountain of unfair media attacks over the past couple of years, I have often been amused that many of my detractors presume that I have been a strong proponent of a Palin candidacy. The reality is that I am probably one of the few people to tell her to her face (after our January 2009 interview) that she can’t win in 2012, and, in act of even greater stupidity, I have most certainly harmed my last movie among Palin supporters by publicly stating the same opinion.
Aside from whether it would be a good idea, when I was asked on CNN recently whether she would run, I put the odds at 60-40 that she would not make the big plunge. But, thanks to the bizarre events of the past week, I have experienced a rather strong epiphany on both fronts.
Before I explain myself, let me make it clear that I have no special information, have not had a direct conversation with Sarah Palin about this topic since she resigned as Governor, and strongly believe that anyone other than Palin’s incredibly small inner circle who pretends to know for sure what she is doing is either lying or delusional. With that said, I may have some insight here that will elude the many media watchers who simply don’t understand Palin.
During the final segment of her interview on Fox News last night with Sean Hannity, I became convinced that it is now significantly more likely that she will run than pass. I came to this conclusion based at least as much on what she didn’t say as what she did. At the center of this perception is the core conviction that being blamed by huge portions of the media for facilitating mass murder, and then being roundly scorned for just defending herself, simply has to drive a person on the verge of such a decision in one direction or the other. Based on her answer to Hannity, it very clear which way she has been pushed.
If Palin really has been playing a game in order just to keep her profile high (an article of faith among Palin critics), the insane reaction to this tragedy and the irrational implication of her in it would have provided her with the perfect out. After all, not even her most fervent supporter could possibly begrudge her the right to beg off a presidential run in the name of protecting her family from all of the lunacy (and potentially worse) which will be sure to come their way if they are all subjected to another campaign. But even after being given an opening to “go there” larger than FNC’s rating dominance over its competitors, Palin would have none of it.
Instead, she came closer than ever before to declaring that she will be a candidate, defiantly stating that, while she has no announcement to make right now, she is not going to sit down, and will not be told to shut up.
Technically, this is not a new statement from Palin, but given the timing, context and juxtaposition of her pronouncements, I think there is potentially great significance to what she said. For her to dramatically declare that she will not “sit down or shut up” immediately after the caveat that she is not yet “ready” to make an “announcement” and just after the word “but,” seemed to send a message only slightly more subtle than Ricky Gervais taking a swipe at an obnoxious celebrity.
Palin then went one giant step further by raising the flag in defense of free speech and those who strongly believe that our nation is imperiled by our current lack of regard for the founding principles. Once again, when given the perfect opportunity to seek cover and protect herself Sarah Palin has instead chosen to fight back and protect what she thinks is right.
This leads me to my second change of heart. Ever since I witnessed her 2008 convention speech in person, I have had admiration for Sarah Palin, but I had also (almost out of a desire to not see her and her family unnecessarily harassed) come to the conclusion that it was not a good idea for her to run for president in 2012. I figured that, thanks largely to the same media who has targeted her for over two years, Obama was unlikely to lose to anyone and that blowing her one chance to run wouldn’t be good for her or her cause. But now I not only think she will run, but I really hope she does.
I still believe baring a disaster Obama will be reelected, but I now see nothing to lose and lots to gain by a Palin candidacy. She is the only candidate who has the ultimate freedom of having already faced her political death head on. As Winston Churchill famously said, “There is nothing more exhilarating than being shot without result,” and while thankfully Palin only knows this truth metaphorically, all that she has endured gives her incredible independence. Everyone else will inevitably melt (like even grizzled veteran John McCain did) when they get close to the blast furnace that will be going up against the Obama juggernaut. Far more than anyone else in conservative history, Palin has been forced to prove just how fireproof her convictions are and how deep her resolve is.
Quite simply, no one else in the potential Republican field will be as trustworthy to conservatives on the issues, and less likely to back down, than Sarah Palin. She has shown beyond any doubt that she can literally handle anything that the pressure of running for president could possibly present.
Would she win? Probably not, but there is no Republican who would be close to being favored today against Obama. Instead, a Palin candidacy would guarantee, by far, the best chance to have true conservative principles articulated in a fearless fashion on the grandest of stages, which hasn’t really happened (with apologies to Ronald Reagan) since 1964.
While that losing Barry Goldwater campaign is not one which is likely to be emulated politically anytime soon, with Palin such an outcome (a spirited, non-politically correct defense of conservatism followed by likely temporary defeat) is the absolutely worst case scenario. Considering that such a campaign ended up directly leading to Republican victories in five of the next six presidential elections, such a potentiality is one that should be embraced by conservatives and not feared.
While many events can and likely will occur before we know the real landscape of the 2012 presidential campaign, as of today it appears that Sarah Palin will be a large part of that equation, and that conservatives may have much to be proud of. Hopefully, they will be smart enough to realize and appreciate it.
Begad! The Palin Offense!
You initiated this contact, and started with insult at that. People address me, I respond. Nevertheless, I hereby give you the last word, under the policy of noblesse oblige. I shall mercifully ignore you hereafter.
bfl
It sounds like you're suggesting that her prospects would improve if more people met her, or otherwise got to know her.
Respectfully, I disagree. Palin is red meat for the conservative base - she shores up other pols credentials with them, while any negatives that she brings to the table only count with people who wouldn't vote Republican, anyway.
In a real election? She do a great job of firing up the base (just look at FR to see that). Unfortunately, that's only about 40% of the vote. I don't know this, but I'd guess that her negatives with liberals are pretty high. Not going to be many crossover voters for her - unlike with RINOs in 2008.
So, she's got to carry independents - people who, more or less, swing with the breeze. Can she do that, with a constant littany of hatred being spewed at her by the MSM? I don't think so.
If the vote was held next week, I think that she'd get 46, maybe 48%. BO (even as battered as he is right now) takes the election.
Now later on? 2016? 2020? You betcha. Voters have short memories. Especially if she rehabilitates herself, has most of her viewes proven "right" - "I told you we needed to repeal Obamacare, and look how bad things are!" or "I told you we needed to repeal Obamacare. You voters did (cheers) and look how GREAT things are (louder cheers). It's a great day in America! (bedlam, standing ovation)"
Frankly, I think that Palin is doing a great job right where she is for now - a lightning rod for the left's attacks.
But, that's just my opinion. Everybody has one. :-)
I love Sarah Palin you cluless blockhead
Palin 2012: when the student is ready, the teacher appears.
Source, please?
Yeah...like I'm going to fall for the "HAND" for the 3rd time...You can't help it.
And if I don't hear from you in 5 minutes...thank you for mercifully ignoring me yet again, instead of explaining why you prefer Obama to Romney, on a thread about Palin.
fnord
I can tell you who is the worst - Mitt Romney abd his boy-mongering amen corner.
Please refrain from pinging us to posts that you don’t agree with.
Especially when it involves posters who have 8 years seniority over you and a clean record.
Not me and I live in Santa Cruz - I am the ONLY one here that’s pro Palin. Sure is fun.
I’ll bet there’s more support for Gov. Palin there than you can imagine, but everyone knows better than to talk about it.
No, you’re not. My bff lives in Santa Cruz and is a huge Palin supporter. Has a bumper sticker on her car, is a FB friend of the Governor’s, etc.
Hey... there’s quite a few of us Cali’s who do support Sarah.
McGovern's floor was significantly lower than usual, at least in part, because his opponent was no conservative. There were any number of progressively inclined voters who voted for Nixon but could not vote for Ronald Reagan eight years later. Nixon (Mr. wage and price controls, affirmative action and detente) was part of the progressive Republican tradition and he had a broader potential constituency than any candidate contemporary conservatives would tolerate. Carter would have done better without John Anderson who got 6% by drawing people who loathed Carter but couldn't stomach a conservative. Mondale lagged a bit behind the normal rock bottom because of special circumstances (he was a hopeless politician and RR was himself).
All in all 42% is a pretty good estimate of the proportion of voters no conservative can reach barring truly extraordinary circumstances.
By the economy alone, we live in interesting times. Thanks for replying.
No, indeed not. Most FReepers .... know that she was the Mayor of a town and the Governor of a State. And, if that isn’t “enough,” most FReepers take into account that she has FAR more executive experience than the current occupant.......
Well, that kinda isn't what wtc was slyly hinting at. (wtc, please grow a backbone and tell us what you really mean, instead of all this slicker-than-pond-scum hint-dropping and arch allusion. I mean, it really gets old, okay?)
He/she means that Sarah doesn't have as much time-in-office as Mitt Romney, who is wtc's and the Bush family's favorite Judas horse who'll bring the conservatives back to the RNC Aristocracy stable.
Then Mittens will stab them all in the back, again and again, like Poppy Bush did ...... "rising above" principles, to apply the vision of a "statesman" in a "leaderly" and "pragmatic" way, to "meet the practical challenges of the real (="us big, you little") world".
Want a Bilderberg/Bohemian Grove/CFR Goodfella, vote for Mittens. And don't talk about Sarah, she'll just spoil Mittens's chances by making him look like the soiled, shopworn, counterfeit goods he is.
She can run and do it all from Alaska, and she wins in a walk.
Well, anyone with enough Senate experience to look like a good VP choice is going to be "old" to you, maybe even "used-up".
Personally, I favor a Fred Thompson/Sarah Palin ticket, on the theory that people know they'd get one real President ready to go for now, and another who'll be ready in four years. It'd be a 12-year ticket, IOW. Maybe Sarah can do it by herself at the top of the ticket, she certainly has the moxie, but she'll need help, and Fred could help her a lot on the bottom of the ticket, because as a VP candidate he'd be game-day ready from the git.
VP candidates? Lugar too associated with the Bush crowd, too compromised, ACU ratings slumping. Other GOP senators? Not enough name recognition, except ex-senator Rick Santorum, who brings the hatefest liabilities with him that Sarah also suffers from (gays hate his guts for having morals; after they beat him by throwing San Francisco bathhouse money at his opponent [better use gloves with that, buddy], the scumbags gloated in real time on the Net over his little girl's crying while daddy made his concession speech).
Who else we got? John Kyl's certainly conservative enough, but he's been in McCain's shadow and hasn't enough name recognition. Bill Frist? Compromiser. Rick Perry? God save us from that phony-talkin' light-loafered RiNO goobernor! Richard Shelby? I dunno, does anyone know him outside Alabama? Ditto the Virginia and Carolina Republicans. Mel Martinez is bright green. Mitch McConnell, old, tired, and sold-out, the very emblem of K Street.
Who else?
Tim Pawlenty? Who's he? Michelle? Too much like Sarah, we need balance. J.C. Watts? I dunno, kick his name around a bit. How conservative is he?
She will be in Reno on Jan 29 at a big function, but it’s probably too early...
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.