Posted on 07/05/2011 5:16:45 PM PDT by The Bronze Titan
Governor Sarah Palin endorsed 67 winning candidates in last year’s historic midterm election, a nearly 70% winning ratio.
So, yeah, she knows how to pick candidates.
And now the Anyone But Palin crowd would like her to keep on picking candidates, including endorsing someone other than herself for president in next year’s primaries. That’s why they use the following bizarre political terms to describe her:
“Kingmaker”
“Coronator” (Is that even a word?)
“Cheerleader”
But this isn’t really out of any deep respect for her endorsement power. (Believe us, if she didn’t run, they would completely diminish her attempt to endorse someone else.) It’s because deep down they know Sarah Palin would defeat their favorite candidate for the nomination.
Oh, they’ll tell you it’s because she’s weak and that’s why they don’t want her to run, but notice how they’re not asking Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain or any of the actual weak candidates to drop out of the race and “king make”?
(By the way, I think Mitt Romney would make a lovely queenmaker. He tried once already to become president and failed so why not cheerlead for a change? Lord knows we would welcome his endorsement. But whatever he decides, it’s cool.)
These Anyone But Palin types may also tell you they’re worried that Palin would win the nomination but lose embarrassingly to Obama in the general election. Which basically tells you right there that they have no faith in their own party to nominate the “right” person (kind of like the editors of Hot Air have no faith in their readers to vote for the right candidate in their online polls), and begs the question:
Who is the right person to defeat President Obama?
And, isn’t that what primaries are supposed to be all about deciding? In the absence of a primary, would the party elders simply convene in their undisclosed villa and hand-select their favorite guy for the job of unseating a sitting president whose favorability ratings are sliding faster than melted butter off a hot waffle?
I mean, really, primaries are about deciding who can best represent the party and defeat the other party’s nominee. It’s supposed to be like, a competition, isn’t it?
For party poo bahs or others in the conservative media (yes you Hot Air) to suggest that a former VP candidate and accomplished governor (with her own independent documentary to prove it) shouldn’t even run? It’s horse manure.
They’re telling the grassroots Tea Party activist and the average conservative voter that one of the most popular leaders in the conservative movement, a woman who leads the field in favorability in her own party, shouldn’t even compete for the nomination?
Ah, but Herman Cain can run. No problem.
Sarah Palin received 60 million votes for vice president just three years ago. (By comparison, Mitt Romney got four million votes in the last cycle.) Her electrifying convention speech and massive campaign rallies were the Tea Party in utero.
She rightly is credited along with CNBC’s Rick Santelli with helping inspire a spontaneous grassroots movement across the country that led to an historic 69-seat pick-up for Republicans last fall, and a visible refudiation of President Obama’s agenda.
After the party of Bush was left for dead in 2008, Palin and the grassroots Tea Party movement restored it to relevance and gave weeping John Boehner back the speakership.
And this inspiring figure should not run for president? (Or will choose not to run because she’s just a mindless celebrity, after all, who is too damaged to win. Right … )
But others without that impressive resume should run?
(I’m sorry, I missed where Michelle Bachmann had her own midterm endorsement tracker on the Washington Post. Maybe they only do that for celebrity kingmakers who shouldn’t run for president.)
It’s kinda backward, ain’t it? Oh, well, we know the real reason they want Palin out. It’s because they can’t beat her.
If you’re Sarah Palin, what’s the down side of running? Not much. As Bristol let slip in a recent interview, even if the family decided to relocate permanently to an igloo in the North Pole, only to surface every other leap year, they would still be criticized by the media, and never left alone, so why not try to make a difference?
And if you’re Sarah Palin, what are your possibilities in 2012? (Hat tip to a C4P commenter for pointing this out. I forget who exactly so please raise your hand in the comments if this was you, so I can give you credit for the idea.)
Possibility A: Run and lose the primary, and be like Ronald Reagan in 1976, primed for another potential run at the White House.
Possibility B: Run and win the primary, lose the general election, and be like Barry Goldwater, laying the groundwork for Ronald Reagan and a generation of staunch conservatives who followed, not to mention becoming the first ever woman nominated by a major party, and an inspiration for conservative women everywhere. (Update: She could also pull a Nixon, and lose the general only to come back at a later date and win the presidency. Call it Possibility B-2)
Possiblity C: Run, win the primary, and win the general election, becoming the first woman president, and the first Tea Party president, with a mandate to drastically reduce the size of the federal government, and restore the Constitutional limits on government’s power.
Possibility D: Don’t run, make some winning endorsements, write a few more books, and be forever like Geraldine Ferraro, God rest her soul, while watching your country slide further into the socialist abyss, knowing you could have been president, and fixed it.
Facing those possibilities, what would you choose?
Run, make history and save your country, or sit around the Fox studios providing commentary on less inspiring candidates?
I think it’s pretty obvious which way Governor Palin is leaning. Because she’s saying things that a presidential candidate would say.
When she directly addressed President Obama in Madison, Wisc., in a snowstorm, in a union town, with the words, “Game On” what else was that if not a direct challenge? In fact, she’s been issuing ‘Game On’-like direct challenges to Obama since Sept. 3, 2008 (an unbroken string of direct challenges that no other candidate in the Republican Party can match.)
You can probably quote most of her best zingers by heart:
Excellent piece.
I’ll be voting for Sarah Palin, Liberty, our Constitution and American Exceptionalism.
First of all, she did not "pick winners." She threw her strong endorsement behind Tea Party-style conservatives, many of whom were trailing badly in the polls prior to her endorsement. Hence the title "Kingmaker," not "odds layer."
Second, to assume that voters trust her wisdom and judgement enough to back her recommended choice of candidates, but not enough to back her is a contradictoty oxymoron and deviantly strained at best, and simply stupid agenda-driven slop at worst.
In fact, the only thing missing from your logic... is logic.
Feeble rumpsuck.
;^\/
Being able to pick “winning horses” is not a reason given that she would win a race. It was but one positive characteristic of a popular potential candidate.
Coulter points this out in her normal, sarcastic manner as she ridicules the PDSers for trying to prevent her from running.... because she has all these good characteristics [one of which being picking “winning horses”.]
I’m not on one side or the other, but IMO the logic escaped you.
> She threw her strong endorsement behind Tea Party-style conservatives, many of whom were trailing badly in the polls prior to her endorsement.
Except for the fact that that is at best a distortion, at worst a lie.
Ask Witchy O’Donnell how she’s doing in her new, shiny Senate seat.
Oh. wait...
The simple question I have for these motley fools is....
Name me SOMEONE, just ONE, who has performed this role in the selection of a President of this country?
Geeee. She has this unbelievable power over the electorate to 'coronate' a candidate, but has no power to win an election against a fraud in the WH. Yep, I see the logic.
I think they burnt someone at the stake in France a few centuries back when she was accused of having similar 'powers'.
“Feeble rumpsuck”....thanks, took the words right outta my mouth!
“contradictoty oxymoron”
Shouldn’t that have been “contradictoty oxymototn”?
Just trying to be funny. I agree with your post.
Spot on. Great post.
“Feeble Rumpsuck”....
I got to remember that one , make a great screen name.
No, but all the urinalists are libs so they can't bring themselves to say "archbishop"! ;-)
No, but all the urinalists are libs so they can't bring themselves to say "archbishop"! ;-)
Besides, what else would you get when you beat the 'ell out of a chlorinator?
The author didn't say it was. It was a nod to those who feel she should stay out and king-make, and then he went on to explain why he disagrees with their reasoning.
What are you doing posting now? The NAMBLA convention isn’t over yet...
8^D
That’s funny. I don’t remember reading that Gov. Palin endorsed 100% winning candidates. As for the O’Donnell example, she was not a great candidate, but the GOP elitist snobs sabotaged her. They couldn’t accept that left-wing goof Mike Castle was defeated, and they took it out on Christine. Real team players!
Great post!
Yes they did sabotage her, didn’t they?
When will TEA Party followers learn, the GOP establishment has little regard for you? They will always disappoint conservatives at the end of the day.
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.