Posted on 09/29/2011 12:43:50 AM PDT by Wolfstar
Sarah Palin certainly didn't sound interested in running for president last night.
"Is a title worth it-- does a title shackle a person?" the former Alaska governor asked during a discussion of her 2012 plans with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren. "Someone like me, who's maverick--you know I do 'go rogue' and I call it like I see it and I don't mind stirring it up ... [for] somebody like me, is a title and is a campaign too shackling?"
"Does a title take away my freedom to call it like I see it and to effect positive change that we need in this country? That's the biggest contemplation piece in my [decision] process," Palin said.
Palin said Tuesday that time is running out. Filing deadlines, requiring candidates to register to appear on state presidential primary ballots, are approaching in several states.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
And unbelievably, I still want to jump in on these lets-throw-rocks-at-Gov. Palin threads but being a bit analytical I still don't see a single reason to give any of the rock tossers the time of day. Same goes with all the jerks in the media that have such short memories. If she gets in and goes the distance it will be more effort from Gov. Palin than they deserve.
After seeing the crap written in this one I would not blame her a bit if she decides they and all the others like them are not worth the sacrifice. If they wind up finding out the hard way about Gov. Perry or watching the election go to Mittwitt they will be the ones crying the loudest.
But that would be just too bad because we will all lose out without her and they, the "conservatives" in the media and the GOP had the answer right there in their hand.
.
After seeing the crap written in this one I would not blame her a bit if she decides they and all the others like them are not worth the sacrifice. If they wind up finding out the hard way about Gov. Perry or watching the election go to Mittwitt they will be the ones crying the loudest.
Agree, and surprise, surprise, surprise, who will they blame? Surely not their poor pick in candidates, but instead the conservatives. LOL
one more thing I would like to throw in real quick.
I could never understand how some democrats could so hate republicans. If these are the types of republicans they are running into, I understand it for the first time.
The "Anybody But Obama" folks are playing defense, which by definition means they are putting themselves in a place where they're manipulated by the opposition, letting the opposition set the terms and then negotiating on "our" behalf. The "Anybody but Obama" mindset is short-sighted. Last time around, it was "Anybody But Hillary." Well, they got their wish.
Tea Party folks want to take back the party and take back America, and they ARE PLAYING OFFENSE. I think that's one reason Palin is so appealing: her political approach is to go OFFENSE, to work things so OUR SIDE does the manipulating of the opposition and OUR SIDE sets the terms.
She's the only one on the horizon as potential Republican president I see with a HISTORY of doing that. I'd sure like to see her as President.
I won't flame you, but I will point out that if Palin has made the decision to run for President and is delaying for tactical reasons, "hurting other people in the race" is probably one of her goals, don't you think? If she get's in, it will be to win. You can't win unless you take out your competition or create conditions where they take themselves out.
I beg to differ. There most certainly is. In fact, I can think of two valid reasons -- "valid," that is, in terms of doing damage to the forces promoting limited government conservatism.
1. To demoralize Palin supporters in order to push them toward a different candidate. Reading the posting history of FR's most vocal Palin critics, I see that in most cases, about HALF of their posts are dedicated to trying to convince people they shouldn't support Palin. The balance of their posts are to support their own candidate (Perry, mostly) and miscellaneous topics. It's interesting that most Palin supporters' posts are directed toward boosting Palin and criticizing her critics, while a relatively small percentage are directed at tearing down other candidates; Perry's most vocal supporters, on the other hand, dedicate about half their posts to knocking Palin. You can confirm this easily by looking at the most vitriolic Palin bashers' "in forum" record. They spend about half their time on FR attacking Palin as opposed to promoting their own candidate.
2. To foster enmity among we limited government Tea Party conservatives in order to create bad blood that will rile when it's time for us ALL to band together, after the nominee is chosen. I think there's a pretty good chance that several posters on here, BOTH Perry AND Palin supporters, whose posts are heavy in vitriol, have one purpose: to sow seeds of discord and anger between friends. For them, it doesn't matter who wins the nomination; their purpose is to foment hard feelings between all of us, who must unite after the primaries.
Paranoid? I used to think that it was a myth that some FR posters were paid operatives. I have since become disillusioned and know otherwise. So I say to ALL of us who are sincere in our wish for limited government conservatism to win: be suspicious of vitriol when you see it, no matter WHICH candidate it supports.
Finny, I agree with your analysis in post # 106.
It certainly describes the most persistent of the PDS sufferers.
The myth of paid operatives statements rings true as well.
I find myself checking soigning on dates more than I ever have here.
I agree too with both of you. I know I will never be able to change the minds of the PDS’s here, but there are always lurkers who may be on the fence. Should we just ignore the remarks?
Your milage may vary. My opinion is that we should ignore gratuitous insults, as responding to them means nothing to folks reading this forum in order to be informed. If I tell a Palin detractor that I think he's delusional, or that she has "PDS," it is wholly subjective and of zero value.
On the other hand, posts attempting to convince people not to support Palin that rely on a) lies ("oil windfall profits tax"); b) disingenuous half-truths ("she quit when the going got rough"); and c) assigned motivations that contradict her past ("she's only in it for the money") should and can be refuted with cool-headed posts that convey hard info and links. Readers/lurkers who are on the fence become INFORMED, and see that many of we Palin supporters support her because our opinions are INFORMED.
I personally avoid (usually!) calling folks "trolls" or "PDSers" or "haters" or "sycophants" or any other subjective, emotion-based term of insult. I WILL out-and-out accuse a poster of lying if I can prove it, or of saying I don't believe him/her if he says something that conflicts with his overall position -- "I think Palin's great but ..." after a long posting history of attacking Palin, is a clear sign he's trying to placate me and lurkers, and I'll call him on it.
I do my best to avoid anger in my responses, yet I'm always happy if, by being scrupulously civil and respectful (and yes, it can be done even when telling someone, "You're lying" or "I don't believe you when you say you think ..."), I can get a Palin detractor to loose his temper and be reduced to rage. In my opinion, it's a service to everyone, because it separates the wheat from the chaff -- the sincere Palin detractors who express valid (at least in their eyes, or within the confines of their knowledge of Palin) concerns, from Palin detractors whose "concerns" are emotional at their foundation, based on things they KNOW are falsehoods or half-truths.
The behavior of a candidate's supporters speaks volumes about that candidate, and so does the behavior of a candidate's detractors. The more times that Palin detractors are made to reveal that they are emotional, hot-headed, and have weak arguments, while Palin supporters keep their cool and respond with solid, informed arguments, the better the chance that those on the fence will figure out that the resaon Palin detractors have to be deceptive and devious in their arguments against Palin, is because they're on the wrong side.
Those are my personal guidelines for posting. As I said, YMMV.
Lieberman was McCain’s first choice. He was argued down. If he’d had his way, the only women he’d have chosen were Christy Todd Whitmann and Carly Fiorina! Palin was the only hope he had for Conservative bona fides tied up in a female, and praise the Lord cooler minds than his prevailed. That choice had everything to do with McCain, nothing to negligible with Obama.
Thank you for that well thought out reply. I have read your reasoned responses to posters before and have been very impressed. Thanks for all the good work you put in on Free Republic.
Wow, what kind words! Thank you so much! The feeling is mutual. :^)
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?
"Thats the biggest contemplation piece in my process.
Then the White House is the LAST place this insecure and uncertain person needs to be.
Yes, Sarah, the Presidency is "shackle-y." It is hard and stuff. There's stuff you gotta do. Its more than some stupid "reality show."
The fact that she even USED such a word, which is loaded with doubt in her own ability to rise to the occasion and be dedicated to the task, reveals her true character.
Sarah, you have had all the time in the world to decide whether or not the Presidency is too "shackle-y" for you.
If you don't know by now, maybe you are not cut out for the job.
>>Voters could write her in :-)
<<
They won’t, at least not those people who are realists.
They will throw away their vote, and we’ll have 4 more years of Obama.
PLEASE don’t do that.
Keep the faith, sillsfan.
The “Great Pumpkin” will be here. LOL
If she DOES run (doubtful) she’s given her opponents PLENTY of ammo.
“Sarah thinks it amy be too ‘Shackle-y’ for her.”
>>Sarah Palin could be the next resistance leader to organize America to remove any dictator. Her and or Cain.<<
That’s quite an imagination you’ve got there.
I’m good, thanks for your concern.
Your point is well taken and it is not something I really gave any thought to, so it is a good point. However, if she isn’t getting in......
I am ready to do what I can to aid her in becomeing the next president of the US, everything but wait, I don’ wait very well....lol
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.