Posted on 09/27/2011 10:33:16 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Sheila Marikar
September 28, 2011
A Palin presidency: Too “shackle-y?”
That’s what Sarah Palin suggested on Fox News’ “On The Record with Greta VanSusteren” tonight, saying that she’s concerned jumping into the 2012 presidential race will muffle her message.
“Is a title worth it?” she asked, rhetorically. “Does a title shackle a person? Are they someone like me who’s maverick? I do go rogue and I call it like I see it and I don’t mind stirring it up in order to get people to think and debate aggressively.”
“Is a title and a campaign too shackle-y?,” she continued. “Does that prohibit me from being out there, out of a box, not allowing handlers to shape me and to force my message to be what donors or what contributors or what pundits want it to be? Does a title take away my freedom to call it like I see it and to affect positive change that we need in this country? That’s the biggest contemplation piece in my process.”
Palin expressed a concern about “being caricatured” if she runs, and asked again “whether a title is needed to make a difference or someone can be rogue, can be maverick, can be passionate about issues and can get people to think very wisely about issues.”...
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I think what she’s doing is encouraging people to get involved. Everyone can have an impact. It’s inspiring.
Cindie
LOL! Hang in there, true believer, if Sarah gets in I’ll be the first to applaud you! :)
She has been using that “you dont need a title to be a leader” theme for quite awhile apparently - although I first noticed it at the Iowa speech.
Interestingly - when I was searching for that quote - it turns out, there is some self-help/leadership book by the same name.
http://www.youdontneedatitle.com/
I cant see her use of that phrase as anything but a round about way of announcing that she is not going to run. How else could you interpret it?
I bet you were a band member on the Titanic in a past life.
From a Perry supporter, that’s pure comedy. Thanks for the laugh.
You're Welcome! People do tell me I have a great sense of humour. :)
And coming from exactly the sort of poster I had in mind, that’s even purer comedy.
I can answer her question. NO, she could influence the issues little more than any other former governor or senator if she bows out of the Presidential sweepstakes now. Her fall from influence would be steep and hard. Ronald Reagan could be a player from the outside b/c he had served two successful terms as Ca. governor. AND, he hung like a Sword OF Damocles over the liberal establishment b/c they KNEW that he had the nerve to run for President one day.
In Reagan’s time, issues were pressing, but in 1976, no one thought that the nation would be imperiled if Reagan didn’t win that time. There was always 1980.
This year, there is no 2016. We don’t have four more years to wait. She MUST run, and she MUST win *now*. I hope that she doesn’t lose her nerve. Bob
She has a marriage and a family to protect.
I think the situation is tougher than we know.
Didn’t Huckabee end up second overall in the ‘08 GOP primaries, if only because he refused to quit after it was clear that McCain had the nomination? IIRC he won the IA caucuses.
My observation from her comments is: that during the 2008 campaign, the knives in the back she received from the McCain staff went in deeper, and left more serious scars on her, than maybe any of us realize.
I don't think she has any problem whatsoever battling her political enemies. It's her political "friends"--past, present, and future--that have her wondering whether or not it's going to be worth making the effort.
I have to say, judging from the comments of many here, she possibly has a very good point--people who might otherwise be inclined to support her, go way, way, WAY out of their way to toss more knives at her at every single opportunity.
So, is it worth it? Is even sacrificing your family and everything else you have built and lived for, in order to run for President, in order to try to save the country--is it worth it, when so many of your putative "allies" have, and continue to undermine you so viciously?
It's easy to say "Yes, absolutely it is" when you're not the one who actually has to make that decision.
For the first time since she came on the national political scene, I have the feeling that (if I were a close friend of hers) I might not be telling her to yes, go for it, make the run.
And so, the character assassins would, in the end, win.
If she doesn't run, I'll be regretful. But if she does run, I think I'll wince a little bit, too.
The Eurozone is within weeks of total economic collapse.
The U.N. is seriously thinking about declaring "Palestine" statehood.
Iran WILL have a nuclear weapon during the next administration.
And you want to give a guy who has never held elective office, and whose previous biggest decision has been "Let's give them three toppings for the price of two!" the Presidency of The United States of America?
Really???
I am well aware that she has family to consider. Todd supports her run fully, as do her kids. And SHE has the steely resolve to do what is necessary. The time to declare that she is NOT a candidate has passed long ago, however. Bob
"Herb" 3X is classic, but I shuddered upon learning she actually uttered "shackle-y". If one is willing to remove the blinders, one sees that she has a lot of warts.
...and don't reprimand me for my tag line, lad. I know Perry isn't high on your favorites list.
Actually I was hoping to get behind Perry but that hope has somewhat dimmed....
“Is a title and a campaign too shackle-y?”
Did she ACTUALLY SAY THIS? Please say it’s a hoax.
It looks to me like Sarah has played a LOT of people for fools.
>>Who knows? I agree that she risks her fortune if she actually lays her cards down.<<
Yep the gravy train ends soon.
Seeing how much we see Karl Rove’s face everywhere, she will probably be a perpetual talking head, however.
If she DOESN’T run, she sure played a lot of people for chumps.
“Does that prohibit me from being out there, out of a box, not allowing handlers to shape me and to force my message to be what donors or what contributors or what pundits want it to be? Does a title take away my freedom to call it like I see it and to affect positive change that we need in this country? “
It didn’t stop Reagan. But then, if you even have to ASK this, it proves you’re no Reagan.
The more I read this, the more I realize what a load of horse manure it really is.
She is suggesting that if she doesn't run for President, it will be because she fears that AS President, she will be shaped by her handlers, and that her message will be what contributors and pundits want it to be?
And she is afraid that she won't call it like she sees it, and that she won't affect positive change in the country?
"That’s the biggest contemplation piece in my process.”
Then the White House is the LAST place this insecure and uncertain person needs to be.
Nope, she's just making another excuse for "quitting."
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.