Posted on 06/02/2011 2:47:07 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
GOP megastar Sarah Palin’s bus tour rumbled toward the Hub last night, driving into a Republican Party furor as her headline-grabbing East Coast trip threatened to overshadow today’s presidential announcement by party front-runner Mitt Romney.
“She will certainly be in New Hampshire to rain on Mitt’s parade,” wrote Massachusetts GOP spokesman Tim Buckley in an e-mail obtained by the Herald. Bay State GOP officials confirmed yesterday that Buckley wrote the e-mail, but said it was a private exchange and not an official communication.
“I guess she blew in with the storm,” sniffed state House minority leader Bradley H. Jones (R-North Reading) yesterday, a longtime Romney supporter. “She may generate a lot of attention, but given the choice between seeing Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, I’d much rather see Romney.”
[snip]
“It is becoming more and more clear to people that this is about Sarah and her brand and not a presidential campaign,” said one Romney consultant, who added, “She’s not making any friends within the political communities. If you cared about things like delegates and primaries, I think you’d be a little more attentive.”
Still, the rogue road trip put Palin back in the national spotlight, said Steve Duprey, a national Republican committeeman in New Hampshire whose wife volunteers for Romney but who said he is neutral in the race.
“Simply by putting her family in a bus and touring around the country she’s generating more media attention than most candidates,” Duprey said. “All the discussions before were about other candidates. She’s changed the conversation just by getting on a bus.”
Meanwhile, Romney kept a relatively low profile yesterday, quietly tweeting last night: “Big day tomorrow. Join my @livestream event as I announce my candidacy for President in New Hampshire.”
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
Anyone have the picture of Bush in his campaign bus about to run down the haughty John Kerry on his bike? classic!
True.
Riddle me this: was this a change imposed upon Wisconsin, even influenced on a national level...or organic, rooted in the state?
The states influence the national party, not the other way around.
Best the GOP elitists tread lightly, there is only one person who can completely destroy the GOP with two words, And that is Sarah Palin, saying THIRD PARTY.
Best the GOP elitists tread lightly, there is only one person who can completely destroy the GOP with two words, And that is Sarah Palin, saying THIRD PARTY.
I do believe so.
My answer?
I say, getting this fighting chance is actually quite a miracle. We must embrace it.
That seeing how desperate the situation has become (the shape-shifting, the atrophying of conservative principles) should rightfully scare the hell out of us. I listen to Charles Krauthammer and I want to shake him. How can he see some things so clearly and then put his nose in the air like some elite?
But we’re dealing with POLITICIANS for the most part in the GOP. The Left is composed of die-hard ideologues and why we need a natural conservative ideologue (Palin has it from head to toe) to head the party.
The house cleaning will follow. Some districts will be harder to scrub down.
We can’t expect people crippled by the evil of dependency and socialism to come around — most are hopelessly lost to the carnage left by progressive “caring.” We change our party and then we will save their grandchildren from a life of poverty and lost potential.
Yeah, like it’s Palin’s fault Romney isn’t running away with the battleground state right next freaking door to his own. I think that’s a bigger problem for him (and his supporters) than Mama Griz’s travel plans.
News flash, chief. This just in. Massachusetts is going to vote for Barack Obama. Who cares what you prefer out of a GOP candidate?
Mitt's a great candidate. He's got a lot of money, very nice hair, and a record that should be the envy of any Democrat out there. I'd love to see him run against Sarah Palin, but at least do the right thing and do it in the Democrat primaries, huh?
Look at Florida. It's happening and the states (voters) are going to take it to the national level.
Coincidentally, this is the exact phrase being parroted by the Fox News people, and then by the rest of the MSM.
They all sound like Romney consultants.
Bill O'Really, Fox News Romney consultant said today ....
Karl Rove, Fox News Romney consultant said today ....
Charles Krauthammer, Fox News Romney consultant said today ....
Dick Morris, Fox News Romney consultant said today ....
Only if Obama accuses Sarah of trying to kill old people which no one would believe. How would Obama arguing that he’s trying to save old people while cutting all their services through Obama-care?
Plus, a congressional election in an off year is not a national election.
“I can’t spare this [wo]man; [s]he fights!” (Apologies to Abraham Lincoln)
I believe any third party candidate I envision would lose in 2012. It could not be otherwise.
Note, though, that a GOP candidate could lose in 2012, even with no third party candidate.
No, I'm looking to 2014 and 2016.
But also, let me make one thing perfectly clear (was there an echo in here?)
I do not advocate starting a third party today. I think there's a good chance that is where we're headed, but I don't advocate it today.
The Tea Party delivered an unambiguous result and message for the 2010 elections. Next move is up to the Empire.
Btw, if the primary were today, I would support Palin (if a candidate) but I recognize that's not the case.
So I'm keeping an open mind, but applying a filter...is there a candidate who can bring something close to the table that she does, that would not also bring the entrenched hatred she does?
As for the GOP, I'm applying another filter...can the party be reformed and reclaimed? I don't assume so any more...so as the process to 2012 unfolds I'm viewing events in that context...keeping in mind most recognize the process of reform is a marathon, not a sprint.
~70 new seats in Congress suggests it can be done. Is Boehner a conservative or a chameleon? Time will tell...I'll just say that being conservative is like being a lady. If someone has to ask, then the answer is probably no. That speaks against reform.
If the response of the Empire to date is any indication, the backbiting, the undercutting of Palin I see, suggests not.
And Romney? He would be only slightly less disasterous short term for the country than Obama, more so for the long term...he's the establishment's favorite candidate, as were McCain and Dole. I would expect the same results, four more years of Obama, only this time claiming validation of his policies.
If I see that Palin has to run against the GOP establishment as well as the RATS and the house media, and the process produces a Romney as the candidate...then I, as a lifelong GOP voter and supporter (I supported Reagan against Ford in '76) am probably done.
Would rather see the Mittwit... state House minority "leader."
Got it.
.
Also available: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niPi-jrZ2aA&NR=1
That triggered something I've been mulling over for awhile, so I'll toss it out.
I think the evil of socialism has made possible the evil of dependency, and vice versa...they are mutually enabling...and I think the word "evil" fits well. I think a destructive cycle (the opposite of a virtuous cycle, if you will) exists.
How do we try to deal with that, which we must if we are to survive as a republic?
If we roll the tape backward, we can see the welfare state created the conditions that make dependency not only possible, but for many a logical choice. While they are mutually enabling, it seems to me we have much greater odds of success if we tackle one...especially if it undermines the other.
I think declaring war on the welfare state/big government is the way we get there. IOW, winning the fiscal war makes the culture war much more winnable.
Dependancy and the personal decay that produces it are not possible if the check doesn't come every month.
That's why I have no problem that Mitch Daniels said we should put social issues on a back burner in favor of fiscal issues...you fight both by doing so, and create the fertile soil for personal reclamation.
There's no doubt in my mind that a sizeable, perhaps majority constituency exists inside the GOP establishment for big government. They are RAT lite.
I'm not an optimist on our chances of uprooting them or changing them because of the nature of their positions.
That's why I apply a filter to candidates...are they big government enablers? Romneycare should remove all doubt that he is.
Exactly...but that's fundamentally different than what you said here:
But we’re dealing with POLITICIANS for the most part in the GOP. The Left is composed of die-hard ideologues and why we need a natural conservative ideologue (Palin has it from head to toe) to head the party.
The house cleaning will follow. Some districts will be harder to scrub down.
Influence flows upward, not downward...the national GOP does not help. It can just get out of the way of state reform; it cannot cause it.
Romney would actually be worse for America than Obama, in that regard. With ObamaCare, there's an ideological battle between government control and private sector run. With RomneyCare vs ObamaCare, the argument becomes one of degrees with the same ideology. That's already a losing position.
It goes from arguing over ice cream or vegetables for dinner, to arguing over what flavor of ice cream.
I know Mitt is trying to fulfill decades worth of Daddy issues by his permanent run for the Oval Office, but for the good of the country, he needs to be defeated. It's better to let Obama run America into the ground and let he and his ideals take the blame for it, then let Romney (and his ideal-less opportunism) do it and destroy 'conservatism' along with it.
I agree. When you see your mother watching for the check, the benefits, the Christmas turkey -- you believe that is how it is supposed to work. If the money coming in was brought home by way of mother AND father (replace Dad in the family) another dynamic happens -- in many ways, to all touched by that independence and control over their lives -- they get their pride back.
I’ll take it from wherever it flows. If Sarah Palin is waving the flag, it could speed up the process. Her Supreme Court oversight and other legal appointments is vital. The courts have taken too much power away from the voters — so there you have a loop back around to the states.
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.