Changing My Mind On A Sarah Palin Presidential Run (Must read!)

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.

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

____________________________________

Don't you feel a bit small when you have to make stuff up?

Tell you what...instead of making stuff up how about you post a link to any of my posts that support romney for potus...I'll wait while you look.

Do not try to put words in my mouth. I am always clear...but for the lesser minds among you I'll say it again...imo palin does not have the experience to handle the toughest job on the planet. Two terms as mayor of a town smaller than most colleges and half a term as governor of a state smaller in population than many cities and even more counties doesn't cut it.

And, nothing she has done since quitting her last elected position has contributed to the skills needed to run this country.

[Me] He/she means that Sarah doesn't have as much time-in-office as Mitt Romney, .....

[Thee] I'll say it again...imo palin does not have the experience to handle the toughest job on the planet.

Awww, c'mon .... how's that different from what I "put in your mouth"? You're knocking Palin for time-in-office, as mayor or governor or whatever. Admit it. You're zeroing in on the Romney metric, the One Reason Why Mitt Would Be a Better Choice Than Palin.

You support Mittens, don't you? Admit it.

...how about you post a link to any of my posts that support romney for potus.....

How about you just tell us how you really feel, instead of dancing all around and trying to be clever and oblique and subtle and stuff?

And, nothing she has done since quitting her last elected position has contributed to the skills needed to run this country.

There, you err. She's been grappling quite effectively in a death-match with a hydra-headed Enemy of the People of the United States in the form of the left-wing MSM and their corpocratic sponsors. How would that be different from what the next Republican President will have to do? You know that, whoever it is, the 'Ratmedia will try to tiger him down relentlessly. They have shown that they will leave nothing undestroyed in the GOP if they have their way.

...but for the lesser minds among you .....

Hey, low blow. Both my minds are equally brilliant!

You support Mittens, don't you? Admit it.

______________________________________

You're a cross dresser, aren't you? Admit it.

There as much evidence of that as there is that I support romney for potus.

Here an opportunity for you to grow as a person...deal with that which has been written rather than that which you want to have been written.

Do not try to put words in my mouth. I am always clear...but for the lesser minds among you I’ll say it again...imo palin does not have the experience to handle the toughest job on the planet. Two terms as mayor of a town smaller than most colleges and half a term as governor of a state smaller in population than many cities and even more counties doesn’t cut it.

And, nothing she has done since quitting her last elected position has contributed to the skills needed to run this country.

Tell ya what — YOU tell us (apparently we’re not bright enough to judge for ourselves) who YOU think might be a better candidate among the dozen or so in the Republican stable right now? Surely, if Sarah ISN’T the one, you have some udeas as to one or two who MIGHT be...?

Did you read what I wrote? For the record, I despise Mitt Romney and, coincidentally, I think he would be the worst possible 2012 GOP nominee. Only John McCain could have been worse in 2008.

My point was that there is no percentage in trying to nominate the conservative candidate least objectionable to the left. More than 40% of the electorate won't vote for any conservative. For that group all the fine distinctions we make between a Tim Pawlenty, a Sarah Palin and a Mike Pence make no difference. Elections are fought over about 15% of the electorate which is composed of people who have no ideological orientation and blow with the prevailing wind. Appealing too those people is a simple matter of speaking forcefully and making sense. If they're dissatisfied with the status quo they'll vote for any challenger with a coherent message. If they're satisfied they'll vote for the incumbent pretty much no matter what. Splitting differences with the left, the kind of politics Reagan derided as “pale pastels,” doesn't net you anything, either from your hard core opponents or from bewildered swing voters.

The point of this discussion of election dynamics was to observe that no Republican will crack the hardcore anti-conservative vote and that nobody is more likely to bring swing voters our way than Sarah Palin. Polling at midterm is always discouraging for a visible and vilified Republican because the crucial 15% of the electorate tends to gravitate toward the lowest common denominator of media opinion between presidential elections. But good campaigns change all that.

Nobody on our side speaks more forcefully and makes more sense than Sarah. It follows that she is probably our best bet for making the conservative case to the only voters who count. If they're happy come 11/’12 she'll lose, but so would any other Republican. If they aren't happy she'll win, which is more than you can say for some of her GOP rivals.

I hope my meaning is clear now.

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.

I have really tremendous respect for John Ziegler; I listened to his show on KFI pretty regularly and thought him right up there with my top picks: Rush, Levin, and Elder. And while I was disappointed when I heard him voice his opinion that she shouldn't run, I once again found myself REALLY respecting and admiring his candor. In fact, my regard for Ziegler is so high that knowing he felt that way (back then) about Palin made me seriously re-assess my own take on her, though it remained the same (I think she's a gift to the GOP and America and that she has as good a chance, if not better, of winning than any other potential GOP candidate I can think of).

THANKS, 2DV, for posting this. THANK YOU very much! FReepers like you make this site what it is.

You throw around terms like an Obama-Enabiling Freeper at those of us who understand that ROMNEY is an enabler of the same principles that make Obama so bad! Exhibit #1: RomneyCare; Exhibit #2: embracing the agenda of forcing Americans to embrace and support open homosexuality in virtually every aspect of life, from public schools to private companies. Those are just two that spring to mind; I know there are many others.

What few advantages Romney would bring are outweighed in big measure by the harm and damage he would do long term to the true limited government conservatism that is America's only path to success and freedom. Romney has a long track record of betraying limited government conservative principles; with him representing what being a Republican means, Americans seeking an antidote to big government Democrat party politics will reject the Republican party and scatter their votes to the wind on sundry "third" parties.

YOU are the enabler of damage and harm, Once-Ler. Not 668, not me, not any of us who reject Romney because we understand that the long-term sabotage he would wreak on the GOP would have at least as bad, and probably worse, consequences than an Obama presidency, especially one hindered by a GOP majority in Congress.

You are extremely short-sighted, Once-Ler, and that's only human. But you are also extremely hostile and intellectually deceitful when you conclude that anyone who refuses to vote for Romney is therefore an Obama "enabler."

I'll tell you what "enabled" Obama -- decades of Republicans, and I did my share of it, voting ever and ever further left, left, left, for moderates big-government Republicans out of fear that the Democrat would be worse. It pushed the "center" so far left that it made Obama possible.

Voting FOR the likes of Mitt is what enabled Obama, buddy. Some of us have woken up. It's time you did, too.

we understand that the long-term sabotage he would wreak on the GOP would have at least as bad, and probably worse, consequences than an Obama presidency

I don't disagree that Mitt sucks. He is my last choice, just like McCain in 08. Based on the 2008, 2000, 1996, and 1992 primaries, conservatives don't appeal to a national electorate. We may have to choose between Mitt and Obama in 2012. Either the GOP nominee, or Obama will be President. If the GOP nominates Mitt, I will vote for Mitt. I prefer Mitt over Obama. I believe no President could be worse than Obama. You prefer Obama to Mitt, and you admit it in your post with the word "worse." I don't know why you are getting so hostile. Look in the mirror and embrace your Obama lovin' self.

rat - It's the new conservatism.

I'm trying, I'm trying to get away from that language. I've covered politics for a long time, but I'm trying to get away from that kind of language. Thanx for taking the time responding with a passionate, well written, and thoughtful defense of your opinion. We disagree.

Based on the 2008, 2000, 1996, and 1992 primaries, conservatives don't appeal to a national electorate.

Enlighten me, please. Who were the conservatives who ran in the 1992, '96, '00 and '08 primaries?

Hint: Pat Buchanan doesn't count. There was never a chance he would win the nomination -- he was running as a gadfly.

Fred Thompson doesn't count either -- since he obviously didn't want the job enough to work for it.

Fact is, a credible conservative hasn't competed for the GOP nomination since Ronaldus Magnus.

Fact is, a credible conservative hasn't competed for the GOP nomination since Ronaldus Magnus.

That's because there are so few to compete. You can probably count the number of conservatives in the US Senate on one hand. Conservatives are not attractive to a national electorate. We can barely muster a few statewide elections.

We need a farm team to build a pro team. Conservatives need more Governors and Senators that can be seen as viable Presidents. Conservatives for the most part don't win statewide races, we win tiny little gerrymandered congressional seats. A winning conservative has to be charismatic to attract moderates, without sin to meet conservative voter standards, and politically savvy to navigate the MSM minefields. A rare combination.

My strategy is incrementalism, which has worked well for the liberals. My strategy is a partial victory is preferable to abdication to the whims of the rats. Move to the right when you can without alienating the moderates needed to win re-election.

A US Senator represents a whole state. A conservative Senator must vote in line with his constituency or he will be replaced next election. That is not a strategy, it's the truth. You want a strategy? Convince a majority of voters to your point of view, and they will elect a Senator or President of your liking. Finding the right candidate to make your unpopular views palatable is not a strategy that will win often.

rats and moderates outnumber conservatives. A conservative candidate must appeal to enough moderates to get a majority of voters. The rats are harder to persuade than moderates. The moderate voters have already rejected conservative ideology. If they agreed with conservatives, they would be conservatives, not moderates. Moderates are motivated by greed and fear among other things. Moderates desire liberal handouts, but they fear rat military surrender and economic incompetence. Each moderate vote picked up by the GOP is worth 2 conservative votes. A DINO will often become a RINO (+1 GOP vote -1 rat vote=net+2). Fighting for a conservative vote will often cost a few RINO votes when the GOP is forced to vote on a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, instead of fixing a pressing problem in the eyes of the voters.

I am to the right of a majority of voters. I supported B1 Bob Dornan and Alan Keyes in 96 and shook both their hand at the 95 GOP state convention in '95, but I've moderated my views over the years of conservative election failures. I'm assuming you are to the right of 95% of the voters, you may even admit it...lots of Freepers proudly proclaim it. From your perspective, I am a ProLife ProGun ProGod ProSoldier ProBusiness RINO for Palin...meaning liberal. From my perspective(If you would let Obama be re-elected) the GOP is wasting its time courting your vote.

Thanx for your reply and an opportunity clarify my opinion.

I'm assuming you are to the right of 95% of the voters, you may even admit it...lots of Freepers proudly proclaim it. From your perspective, I am a ProLife ProGun ProGod ProSoldier ProBusiness RINO for Palin...meaning liberal. From my perspective(If you would let Obama be re-elected) the GOP is wasting its time courting your vote.

You assume too much.

Yes, I might be to the right of 95% of the voters.

But I would never accuse a Palin supporter of being a RINO.

Moreover, I actually voted for McCain. Hated doing it. But did it, nonetheless. And I would vote for Romney -- if he were the GOP nominee. Would hate it. But do it, nonetheless. Because, as with McCain, he would be the better option.

I voted for Perot in '92. Learned my lesson. A "protest vote" doesn't accomplish squat.

Plus, I'm all in favor of incrementalism -- edging to the right whenever you can. If that's all you can do...

But what about "stealing a march"...when you can?

'Rats and moderates may outnumber Republicans. But I'd contend they don't outnumber conservatives. In fact, a majority of people self-identify as conservatives. Only about 20% self-identify as liberals. Reagan's success effectively confirms this construction.

As a political philosophy, conservatism is actually constrained by its association with the Republican Party. The party itself has to be dragged kicking and screaming toward a conservative candidacy. Don't misunderstand. I'm not arguing third party. Instead, I'm arguing a conservative ascendancy in the GOP -- a goal we've been working toward since '64.

You want a strategy? Convince a majority of voters to your point of view, and they will elect a Senator or President of your liking. Finding the right candidate to make your unpopular views palatable is not a strategy that will win often.

Oh my, yes. Couldn't agree more. It's essential that we convince a majority of voters to "our" point of view. And, based on their own self-identification, they represent a fertile field.

What about the MSM? Yes, they've been a problem -- a major problem in propagating conservatism. But their influence on public opinion shrivels daily. The time may now be ripe for a conservative candidate to actually run against the media -- to use them as a foil.

A winning conservative has to be charismatic to attract moderates, without sin to meet conservative voter standards, and politically savvy to navigate the MSM minefields. A rare combination.

And, at long last, we have such a candidate in hand. For the first time in over thirty years.

Let's take advantage of the opportunity...and steal a march.

A couple of things. First, this guy had a very similar attitude to mine about her running. And, like the author, I told her that, although I’d vote for her if she ran, I think she shouldn’t and could do more good in the role she currently plays.

Secondly, also similarly to the author, I am coming around to the idea that I think she SHOULD run.

There is one thing he and I disagree on, however. He says, “Would she win? Probably not,...”. I am beginning to think she would win. And the reason is due to things like what I see in this thread:
Systemic global crisis - 2011: The ruthless year, at the crossroads of three roads of global chaos http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2659926/posts

IOW, by the end of this year, I don’t think we’ll recognize this country. Urkel will be performing in a completely different world, and one much worse than the one we are in today, just as the world today is worse than it was last year, only the difference will be far greater.

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.