Posted on 07/06/2011 6:08:47 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
As Governor Sarah Palin prepares to launch her campaign for the Presidency, and the waves of disinformation about her intentions begin to subside, the next predictable narrative, as night follows day, is: “She’s a quitter.” How will she handle this charge? In a sense, she already has, with the statement at the time of her resignation, which provided cogent reasons for anyone fair minded enough to consider them. But in our popular culture of sound bite journalism, a pithier response is no doubt appropriate, a reply that can be employed within the context of a thirty second answer in a debate or interview.
Nearly 150 years ago, the great Union General William Tecumseh Sherman confronted a military conundrum not unlike the political conundrum presented to Sarah Palin in early 2009. In August 1864, Sherman had just captured the Confederacy’s last great city, Atlanta, providing President Lincoln and the Republicans with the only good news of that bleak year in which Abraham Lincoln’s re-election prospects did not seem bright. However, the Army of Tennessee, commanded by the hyper aggressive John Bell Hood, had positioned itself behind Sherman in North Georgia, where it threatened his communications and supply lines as well as the Union strongholds of East Tennessee, such as Nashville and the vital rail link at Chattanooga. Many hidebound conventional thinkers in the War Department wanted Sherman to pull back and pursue Hood to keep him from recapturing Chattanooga or Nashville. Had Sherman been compelled to withdraw from Atlanta to defend East Tennessee, or at least to halt his March through Georgia to do so, it would have been very bad for Northern morale and for Lincoln’s re-election prospects. Sherman appealed to Grant, who overruled the naysayers and, in an unprecedented and bold move, permitted Sherman to detach himself from his supply and communications lines deep in enemy territory in order to plunge deep into heart of the Confederacy’s breadbasket and to “make Georgia howl.” Grant himself was stuck in the trenches outside Petersburg, unable to dislodge the stubborn Rebels. It was Sherman’s aggressive, but risky gambit, that proved to be the sole piece of good news in the fall of 1864, but it was enough to save Lincoln from defeat at the polls, assuring that the War would be won and the Union preserved.
145 years after Sherman “went rogue” in the red clay hills of north Georgia, Sarah Palin approached a similar fork in the road. The GOP was stuck in the trenches, battling Obama’s agenda, but making little headway. Republican prospects in the 2010 midterms seemed dim indeed in that spring of 2009. GOP “heavyweights” such as Jeb Bush were counseling a retrenchment, suggesting that the party could actually learn from Obama and even advising us to get over our love affair with Reagan. Having noted Palin’s star power and her ability to attract crowds of over 60,000 during the campaign, as well as her ability to drag GOP candidates over the finish line (as she did for Saxby Chambliss in a December 2008 Georgia runoff), the Obama White House decided to launch a preemptive strike, dispatching dozens of opposition researchers to Alaska and sponsoring a score of bogus ethics complaints aimed at Governor Palin. These moves were designed both to damage her stature for 2012 and to pin her down in Alaska so that she would have a minimal impact on the 2010 elections.
Like Sherman, however, in a surprising and unconventional move, Palin detached herself from the Governorship with full knowledge of the consequent risk (at the time, she quoted Esther, “Politically speaking if I die, I die”). Having cut that cord, leaving the Governorship in the hands of her capable lieutenant, she plunged into the lower 48 and the 2010 maelstrom, making not Georgia but the Beltway, howl, and leading the GOP and the nascent TEA party (which she, more than anyone else birthed and nurtured) to the biggest electoral victory in 75 years. In so doing she cut Obama’s term in two, freezing his legislative agenda and putting him on the defensive until 2012 when she would be able to finish the job.
Of course there was a brouhaha over her resignation, much of it in the form of crocodile tears from Democrats who were about to feel her electoral lash. No doubt much of the criticisms of Sherman’s daring move in 1864 came from Democrats who feared that his success would doom the Democrat peace candidate, George McClellan, which, in fact, it did. Palin’s great success did much to dim Obama’s political star as well.
When one of Sherman’s critics accused him of leaving Tennessee and parts north undefended from the dangers Hood posed, Sherman was dismissive, almost daring the Confederates to take their best shot. Alluding to the Rebels’ seemingly perpetual shortage of provisions, he shot back, “If he [Hood] will go to the Ohio River, I’ll give him rations...my business is down south.”
Palin was similarly unconcerned about the personal political consequences of her resignation. According to her lights, and apparently Sherman’s as well, some risk, even grave risk, is to be expected when the fate of a great nation hangs in the balance. Sarah Palin loves Alaska, but she loves America more. The decision she made was right for her state. But with the fate of her country hanging in the balance, she took the only course a conscientious patriot could pursue. She didn't abandon her state; she rode to the rescue of the Republic.
Make no mistake about it. Like Sherman, Palin’s business, her unfinished business, is “down south” as well.
Ping!
Nice distillation.
I’ve really been enjoying your Palin posts—nice work.
Quitting was more honest than most politicians (obama/hilary) who keep their seats while campaigning.
Thanks..and cheers.
Why should she give up her strategic advantage?
To make it "fair" for the RINOs and 'Rats?
If they were any smarter than dirt, they would have never done anything that would get Sarah Palin to notice 'em.
The name Sherman is spat to this day in the south. Maybe you could find a figure less freighted with historic animosity with whom to compare. Tin-eared and poor judgment, imho.
Very insightful. Thanks
Excellent sir. Your deconstruction of Palin’s motives leave little to debate. She no doubt knew that her decision was unconventional, ergo easily lampooned. I too have watched her moves closely since the ‘08 election, and I would classify her as a political genius without equal in American history. How do you win? It is exactly as you intimate above... YOU FIGHT!
Thin-skinned and poorly understood... IMHO.
Similar note: We’re talking about Sun Tzu and Palin’s tactics over at
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/gop/2744750/posts?page=82
Let me add, if I may... Palin is a quitter in the same sense that Sherman quit the North... in order to lay waste to the South. The Dems are no doubt hoping that she does a little less “quitting” in the future.
Blunder into an historically offensive comparison out of regional naiveté, don’t be surprised to get hooted out of the room.
There is no excuse for making an unnecessary and inflammatory comparison. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that William Tecumseh Sherman is regarded more as a nut and a war criminal than anything else, among native southerners.
Why don’t you compare Sarah Palin glowingly to Henry Tudor in an attempt to woo Catholics next? Same thing.
I like the way you put that. A few more “quits” like that and there won’t be any Dems left.
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.