Posted on 08/26/2011 10:21:29 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
There is some evidence that while waiting for a potential Sarah Palin presidential run, her potential voters have moved on and now support other tea party-backed candidates, such as Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann.
Has Sarah Palin waited too long to announce she’s running for president?
(...) So if she does throw her snow machine helmet into the ring, she might start a White House race closer to the back of the pack than the front.
First, let’s address the waiting part. The former Alaska governor on Tuesday denied that she intends to announce a White House bid on September 3, (...)
(snip)
Palin might use the September 3 address to endorse another candidate. She might use it to make it clear she will announce at some point – Governor Perry used that same sort of slow-unveiling strategy as he edged into the race.
But the problem is at this point she may be exhausting the patience of potential Palinites.
(snip)
“I think Palin could get back a number of voters should she get into the race – people who gave up on her running and moved on to someone else. But, I do not think it would put her in a strong enough position to get into first or second place,” writes Erickson.
Some other analysts are less negative. In an opinion piece for CNN, political scientist Paul Sracic of Youngstown State University in Ohio writes that Palin’s on-camera optimism about America seems natural and akin to that of GOP icon Ronald Reagan.
“This offers at least the possibility that, despite her current low standing in the polls, she will be able to leap-frog over the more negative sounding Bachmann and Perry, and compete head-to-head with Romney,” writes Sracic.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
I think that’s a good assessment. Palin does nothing brashly or impulsively. She has mentioned “people on my team” which leads me to believe that she has people in place should she decide to run.
Here come the excuses!!!
Fine. Have it your way: "A successful economy has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of private sector jobs."
Happy now?
Since you believe that, why don't you apply to be Obama's Press Secretary so that you can get paid for claiming that a successful economy has nothing to do with creating private sector jobs?
The Obama Administration will be absolutely thrilled with you when you go on to claim that a successful economy depends on raising taxes so that the Government ends up with twice as many tax dollars as it can spend.
(2X Taxes) + (X Spending) = (Better Economy)
Who do you think ended up paying those higher taxes?
Big Oil?
No. Big Oil just passed along the cost so that all of us had to pay higher prices at the gas pump.
But, there you are, bragging about how higher taxes (twice what the Government actually needed) means a "successful economy".
I am not just a Perry supporter. I am also a Palin supporter.
I posted this article as a Palin supporter who is frustrated by the waiting. There was nothing provocative about the title unless you attempt my Perry support into the discussion.
Yes, my intentions were honorable. I’d like to have a discussion with other Palin supporters who may feel as I do.
Palin tossed out the corruption-ridden, structurally-flawed Petroleum Profits Tax of the Murkowski administration and put forth ACES (Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share), which incentivized development while seeing to it that Alaskans — resource owners as per the Alaska Constitution — would receive “A CLEAR and EQUITABLE SHARE (ACES) of the value of their commonly-owned oil and gas.” The result? Alaska was left with a $12 billion surplus. Also, as reported at Big Government, “The number of oil companies filing with the Alaska Department of Revenue has doubled, indicating that competition has indeed increased. Alaska has the second most business friendly tax set-up — up two spots since the passage of ACES. Additionally, a report from Governor Parnell’s Department of Revenue indicated that 2009 yielded a record high in oil jobs.”
The subject of Perry came up on this thread because I was specifically asked, “Who do you support, Polybius?”
I replied that my candidate is not a "who" but a "what", and that my "what" is: "The most conservative candidate that can actually defeat Obama in the general election".
Gov_bean_ counter, a Palin supporter, then replied that he thought it was a “solid answer” and Palin was also discussed.
In a “horse race” thread, it is difficult to discuss only one horse to the exclusion of all other horses. But, as it is your thread, I will leave it.
Regards, Polybius
No, please don’t leave. If you were asked by a Palin supporter for you opinion, then you have a right to respond.
My beef is with gov_bean_counter’s 6 - 7 posts directly slamming Perry supporters on this thread. They’re disruptive IMO because they’re irrelevant to the subject of this article.
Any detailed discussion about Perry should be moved to a Perry thread so as not to disrupt this Palin thread.
Oh please. I did no such thing.
LOL!!! No. Checkbook in hand.
Great Pic! I love it!
Thanks for the kind reply.
As I alluded to, this thread deals with Palin getting into the race, the race involves other horses, discussion turns to what another horse did to prepare for the race, somebody responds to that preparation and mentions a third horse and then ..... you have a herd of horses on the thread. :-).
It is easier keeping "Secretariat Was a Good Looking Horse" as one horse thread.
Now, I want to go on record that gov_bean_ counter had a very cordial exchange with me.
Then your mind is made up and principle doesn't matter.
My mind is made up too, and it won't be changing, so I don't have to worry about who I am going to support.
If I had my way she would announce already, but whether she does or not it won't change my vote. See how simple that was?
I take it you mean you will write her in if she isn’t the nominee. I thought about that. Doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.
Unless Romney’s the nomney. Then — yeah. :)
Wow! What happens if your preferred candidate implodes or something? What if he/she decides to leave the race for whatever reason? Besides Palin and maybe Romney who else has been thoroughly vetted (well the press/dem version of a prostrate exam) yet? There’s a lot of time to learn things both pro and con about most of the candidates running. I’m not that desperate that I have to choose anybody in the field now, especially since only political junkies are paying attention right now. Palin is playing it pretty smart. People already know her name. The press follow her around like groupies. Unlike her last campaign (which she had absolutely no control over) everywhere she goes they stick a mike in her face. They don’t have time to doctor or distort her words (there’s too many people around her for that to happen anyway). She’s getting the same mileage as everyone else and hasn’t even used a dime of campaign funds. Most politically savage person I’ve ever seen.
Cindie
As I understand it she gored your Ox, so you are not necessarily the most unbiased detractor, are you?
It is not as insane as it sounds, I just moved to Oregon, there is no way a Republican will win here, so the write in would be a message to whatever RINO in charge cares, if there actually was one. I would have done the same thing last elect while I lived in California, but she joined the ticket. Same thing I guess.
I'm with you. She has kept the media in knots, not knowing whether to attack or back off and leave her alone.
In the meantime, virtually every possible angle they can use to attack her is old news.
Why get in a scrap with either the media or the declared candidates when she can keep them tied up without even declaring? The MSM keep her in the news, so it isn't as if she has faded away.
The left-wing attack dogs will vett the declared candidates they feel are a philosophical threat, and praise the ones who are idealogically aligned with the liberals' agendae, and that will help sort it out for those who are paying attention.
In the meantime, it gives those on the right a moment to look at the crop of candidates out there and declared, examine their positions and pasts, and decide who among them is worthy and which ideas are the most likely to achieve what America needs.
In the meantime, there is time: Her positions are a matter of record, her name is a household word, and she can draw a crowd wherever she goes. She can say what she pleases, where she pleases, when she pleases. She really needs no introduction, and has a grassroots campaign staff unparalleled in history the moment she declares.
The moment will get closer before she has to do so. For those who are starting to panic in the ranks, remember the Battle of Bunker Hill and the Battle of New Orleans were fought by folks who quietly stood their ground until the time for battle was right..
Sarah would bring fiscal sanity to the Fed, and would unleash those forces in the economy that do best with the least regulation. IE creating jobs. Those things that stand in the way of a robust economy should be scared- real scared.
She is a fighter with winning for America tops on her mind. A vote for Sarah is a vote for yourself, as it is us, and only us, that can fix what's wrong with our country.
Yes, it's We, the People and our time has come once again. Let us step forward and do our duty as our ancestors before us did.
I meant slamming Perry, not his supporters.
Huh?
I made it clear that I have no sentimental attachment whatsoever to any particular Ox.
I expect my Ox to defeat the Obama Ox. Period.
If any Ox in my stable is not up to the job, I send that particular Ox to the slaughterhouse and go with my best available WINNING Ox.
You are trying to frame this in terms of my emotions about "my Ox being gored" when I simply see any gored Ox as the loser in a contest of the survival of the fittest that deserves to die.
I deal with unemotional performance data, not with an emotional attachment to any particular Ox like you have.
Since the Ox you like will get slaughtered by Obama, I sent it to the slaughterhouse before Obama could.
If my current Ox is not up the the job of defeating Obama in the future, I will send him to the slaughterhouse too and move onto the best available Ox.
Rasmussen Poll: Obama Does Best Against Palin, 50% to 33%
Huh?
I made it clear that I have no sentimental attachment whatsoever to any particular Ox.
I expect my Ox to defeat the Obama Ox. Period.
If any Ox in my stable is not up to the job, I send that particular Ox to the slaughterhouse and go with my best available WINNING Ox.
You are trying to frame this in terms of my emotions about "my Ox being gored" when I simply see any gored Ox as the loser in a contest of the survival of the fittest that deserves to die.
I deal with unemotional performance data, not with an emotional attachment to any particular Ox like you have.
Since the Ox you like will get slaughtered by Obama, I sent it to the slaughterhouse before Obama could.
If my current Ox is not up the the job of defeating Obama in the future, I will send him to the slaughterhouse too and move onto the best available Ox.
Rasmussen Poll: Obama Does Best Against Palin, 50% to 33%
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.