*********************************
What's weird about supporting Sarah?
Run Sarah, run!
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 ...
Your Post 137 is full of irrational accusations.
*********************************
What's weird about supporting Sarah?
Run Sarah, run!
LOL @ “Perrywinkles” - LOVE IT! :)
I perfer the team “Perrykrishnas” ;)
Put me down as a ‘no’ on this one.
Palin quit because she couldn’t take the political heat and she sidestepped inevitable bankruptcy deliberately intended by Democrat opponents who were using a law she’d lobbied for (”championed”) and signed, which was so full of obvious abusable loopholes that her Democrat opponents thanked her for it. No other of the current crop of Repub candidates has had the unfortunate experience of seeing a policy he pushed turn, almost immediately, into such a “weapon of choice” for the opposition. Once bitten, twice shy, the Sarahphiles may say, but that didn’t seem to be the case for her in the Gibson/Couric interviews in 2008, when she, apparently having seen how polite and sweet G&C were to various affirmative action/minority liberals in the recent past, seemed to somehow expect similar sugar from our all-Dem all-the-time TV people.
And “resigned in tears”? She cried. Maybe not during the speech, but she’s a woman. She cried.
You blame her when even lawyers didn't see that there may be abuse. That's a lib strategy. Alinsky at it's best.
Then you make statements that you can't back up as fact, insisting that she cried. Well I have a response for ya.
Alright, she didn’t cry in the speech. You’re right. I was wrong. You just rewatched the speech, and have my sympathies; I can never stand more than about 2 minutes of any politician’s speech, even Reagan’s or Churchill’s. Lincoln knew what he was doing when he kept the Gettysburg address so short. But did she sniffle, or did her voice quaver? It was Patricia Schroeder, D-Denver, Colorado, who set the bar for bawling, capitulating women pols.
But Sarah still resigned. Because of the unforseen treachery inside a law she rooted for and signed, she re-signed. Her lawyers shudda caught the garage-door loophole in the new law she “championed”; the Democrat lawyers certainly did. But she was Governor, her lawyer wasn’t. She helped push that law along and decided to sign it, her lawyers didn’t. She was in charge. She was leading. And where did she lead Alaska to? Into court, into an impossible snarl of insignificant-yet-incredibly-expensive Democrat pettiness. Sarah apparently trusted her Alaskan opposition the way Carter trusted Soviet Premier Brezhnev in the late 70s, the same way she seemed to trust Gibson/Couric’s intentions on two seperate occasions in 2008. You call my info straw-man derangement, I call my info obvious, and my conclusions common sense. And I call your references to Jim Robinson a childish threat to tattle.
So if you load a gun, it’s your fault if someone shoots you with it?
So if you load a gun, it’s your fault if someone shoots you with it?
Not at all, but if you help build the gun, load it, and naively hand it to your worst enemies, is it your enemies’ fault if the gun goes off while pointed in your general direction?
aaah, NOPE! Elections are over a year away. And I want the others vetted to the max at the same time.
aaah, NOPE! Elections are over a year away.
Nope, the primary election process is well underway and the first elections occur in early 2012. In about six months we’ll know who the GOP nominee will be to take on the democrat in the election that will be held over a year away.
Late Oct. 2011 begins the drop dead dates to apply for a position on the primary ballots in some states. Example: Oct. 31, Florida: Nov. 1, South Carolina: New Hampshire, a couple of weeks later....
RE: your”blame her when even lawyers didn’t see that there may be abuse. That’s a lib strategy. Alinsky at it’s best.”, this from gusopol3 in response to one of my threads seems somewhat apt.
‘Still suffering’ (PM Naoto Kan ousted, tsunami survivors still personally overwhelmed)
Sunday, August 28, 2011 10:11:56 AM · 3 of 3
gusopol3 to flowerplough
Just like baseball, you can’t blame your problems on the previous manager; that’s the message for the failure Obama.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2769970/posts
Complete nonsense.
I call both your info and conclusions bullcrap.
Oh, yeah, she looks like she's really crying, doesn't she...
The day reckoning is soon approaching for these PDS’ers, who seem to think that JimRob is bluffing..
Politically-motivated legal and financial heat generated directly from an ethics law she championed, then?
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.
