Posted on 11/15/2012 10:48:44 AM PST by Bratch
But this is the “party of stupid” we’re talking about, so I won’t hold my breath.
In the wake of the disastrous 2012 election results, there has been a lot of discussion on the right regarding the GOP’s apparent “message” problem. Much of the conversations has focused on immigration issues as a way to bring in new voters. Recently, Charles Krauthammer wrote:
I’ve always been of the “enforcement first” school, with the subsequent promise of legalization. I still think it’s the better policy. But many Hispanics fear that there will be nothing beyond enforcement. So, promise amnesty right up front. Secure the border with guaranteed legalization to follow on the day the four border-state governors affirm that illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle.
Imagine Marco Rubio advancing such a policy on the road to 2016. It would transform the landscape. He’d win the Hispanic vote. Yes, win it. A problem fixable with a single policy initiative is not structural. It is solvable.
It’s going to take much more than that to solve the current issues the GOP has with voters. You can’t pander to one racial demographic and think that will solve all of your problems. The predicament that they find themselves in goes much deeper than a single issue, and it’s based primarily on trust. According to an election night survey released by Breitbart News, Judicial Watch, and Public Opinion Strategies:
Voters’ responses suggest that the American public agrees with conservative policies–but does not trust the Republican Party to implement them.
For example, voters dislike big government, with 71% agreeing (and 49% strongly agreeing) that: “The larger the size of government the more opportunities it creates for possible corruption.” In addition, 85% of voters said they were concerned about corruption in Washington, and 53% described themselves as “very concerned.”
Yet voters do not trust Republicans more than Democrats to deal with corruption. Only 34% said Republicans would do a better job of cleaning up corruption; 37% said Democrats would. That is an indictment of the permanent political class, regardless of party. And despite the President’s talk of cleaning up Washington, his party is not viewed as better able to do so.
So, the Democrats share much of the same issue with voters regarding corruption, but they’re able to squeak enough votes each cycle because they have more credibility on other matters. Here’s a thought. How about for starters, the GOP stop selling out their principles and try to gain some trust back with that 71% who dislike big government? And how does either party address the 85% of voters who are concerned about corruption in Washington, when both of them are compromised in that area? Considering all of the money wasted in Washington on cronies and corruption, these concerns by the vast majority are extremely legitimate.
As I watched the debate go back and forth on the GOP’s message problem after the election, an article written by Anand Giridharadas back in 2011 titled “Some of Sarah Palin’s Ideas Cross the Political Divide” came to mind. In it, he wrote:
[S]omething curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa…
She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).
In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.
Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.
“Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?” she said, referring to politicians. “It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”
Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.
Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks
and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs...“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”
Keep in mind that Sarah Palin was told to “leave the room” by none other than Charles Krauthammer, back in 2009. Yet now he tells the Republican Party that in order for it to save it’s hide, they must reward lawbreakers and anoint a man as leader who has engaged in illegally soliciting foreign donations, just as President Obama has also done.
That is not the answer. The answer for the GOP is to clean up its own act and address the real concerns of the majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation. They can start by not shunning the members of their own party who have the credibility to speak on such matters. Reform in Washington is a winning message and has the potential to bring in voters from nearly every racial, gender, and economic demographic in the country. It isn’t too late for the Republican Party to jump on board, but time is ticking. American voters need a true opposition party to the big-government, tax and spend, corruption plagued Democrats. The GOP establishment would do themselves and the country a favor by allowing people into the room who can credibly push for reform, and by ceasing their own practices of big-government corruption.
Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
The cost of defending herself against all the frivolous lawsuits. Your ignorance is showing.
Did she ask the GOP for help?
Your ignorance is really showing. You mean the corrupt GOP she exposed? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122057381593001741.html
How Palin Beat Alaska's Establishment
Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people
And how does that justify her quitting-answer-it doesn't.
[ Did she ask the GOP for help?]
Your ignorance is really showing. You mean the corrupt GOP she exposed?
No, I was referring to the National GOP.
So, it is your own blind stupidity that is exposed.
Yes, and what does that have to do with Palin?
Palin has picked some good candidates and also supported some very bad ones, like McCain.
So, Palin doesn't qualify for sainthood.
She also supported Lugar in the Ind. Primary.
Yep she made her case for why she supported Lugar, and it was a good case.
Palin also led us to victory with Deb Fischer in replacing democrat Ben Nelson and defeating Senator Bob Kerry.
Palin had another good election in regards to her personal efforts.
Actually, you can keep trying to hammer at the conservative leader for reasons unknown, but Ted Cruz has a different opinion from yours, of why he won that difficult race.
“Ted Cruz says Sarah Palin’s endorsement was ‘game-changing’ in his Senate win”
“”Sarah Palin might have been sitting out this year’s Republican National Convention, but that does not mean that she has been forgotten by the party faithful in Tampa.
Especially not by Ted Cruz, who credits her endorsement with helping him beat Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the race for the Texas GOP Senate nomination.
While speaking with POLITICO’s Mike Allen this morning, the Texas Republican Senate nominee called Palin’s endorsement “game-changing.”
“If you look at the senate races across the country this cycle and last cycle, Governor Palin has had a game changing impact one after the other,” explained Cruz.
Palin endorsed Cruz, a Tea Party favorite who shares her philosophy of liberty and limited government, just days before a wide-open May 29 primary, helping to propel Cruz into a strong second place showing. The Cruz surge provided momentum for his runoff battle with Dewhurst.
“Fighters like Ted Cruz can lead the charge for us,” former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said in July when she came to Texas to campaign with Cruz, calling him a “a proven, common-sense constitutional conservative.”
The Tea Party favorite admitted that many have referred to his victory as “improbable.” He told Allen that the reason why Palin’s endorsement has had such an enormous impact is because voters consider her a true barometer of conservatism.
“In a Republican primary, everyone claims to be conservative and voters are pretty cynical. They are tired of these candidates that sounds great on the stump. They say they are going to cut spending, they get into the office and they become spineless jellyfish,” Cruz said. “I think conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is a real deal.”””
I understand Palin’s ethics complaints (not lawsuits) cost her..... $600,000?
Three months before she quit she signed a book deal worth approximately $7 million.... plus she was getting $100,000 per speech.
I can see if she thought the hassle of being governor was not worth the trouble. But lets be serious. She didn’t quit because she was going broke.
And yes, she did ask for and receive help from the GOP. She was paid $250,000 from the RNC to cover her legal expenses from the ethics probe.
The reason Palin was so active in the 2010 elections was because the RNC agreed to pay half of her legal bills in exchange for her campaigning for Republicans.
So yes, the Republican Party DID help her... did defend her... did support her. Regardless of how many times her supporters deny it.
________________________________________________________
“He said the RNC has committed to sending the Anchorage law firm a second check of an equal amount, which would bring the total to $257,037.70.
Asked about Mrs. Palin’s role with the RNC this fall, spokesman Doug Heye declined to say whether her fundraising help was the purpose of the check. He said only that “the disbursement relates to legal fees incurred during the summer and fall of 2008, when Democrats engaged in a partisan witch hunt against Gov. Palin. Based on conversations in 2008, the RNC decided to step in to help.”
Read more: RNC pays some Palin legal bills in exchange for help - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/22/rnc-pays-some-palin-legal-bills-in-exchange-for-he/#ixzz2CVmggETz
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Cruz was helped by her, but the TeaParty, as well as Dewhurst's own ineptness, helped as well.
She supported two winners, but also supported McCain, who did probably survive because of her support, and Lugar who thankfully lost.
How did Lugar repay her, did he endorse the winner of the primary, a Teaparty candidate, I believe he didn't.
Thanks to Palin we also have McCain for another term as well.
Thank you for your post!
You are trying to destroy perspective, and lie.
Senator Ted Cruz disagrees with you and frankly, he knows better than some anti-conservative troll, when it comes to who put him over the top.
With Palin’s endorsements exceeding 80 over the last 4 years, and with her extraordinary success of moving the Congress, Senate, and Governorships to the right, your agenda is pretty clear, stop Palin, stop the tea party, stop conservatism.
You have shown incredible passion and dedication to that agenda of “stop Palin, stop the tea party, stop conservatism”, days worth of it, there isn’t much else of yourself to reveal to us.
Conservatives want more Palins, and more Palin influence, and many more Palin successes for years to come, not less and fewer, but the left sure wants what you want.
Sarah Palin Lawsuit Thrown Out Due To Lack Of Evidence Juneau, Alaska — A lawsuit against former Alaska governor Sarah Palin was struck down on Thursday by a federal judge. The suit, brought against Palin by activist Chip Thoma, alleged that the politician had attempted to silence Thoma when he complained about traffic around the governor's mansion
inquisitr.com/347452/sarah-palin-lawsuit-thrown-out-d...
Three months before she quit she signed a book deal worth approximately $7 million.
Are you sure it wasn't 11 million or 1.25 million? Do you have a copy of the contract or are you just repeating what you read in TPM, HuffPo or some other rag?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/22/rnc-pays-some-palin-legal-bills-in-exchange-for-he/#ixzz2CVmggETz
"RNC Treasurer Randy Pullen, who co-signed the check with RNC Chief Administrative Officer Boyd Rutherford, said Mr. Rutherford told him the check was in exchange for Mrs. Palin’s help with RNC Chairman Michael S. Steele to raise money for midterm election campaigns"
Read more: RNC pays some Palin legal bills in exchange for help - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/22/rnc-pays-some-palin-legal-bills-in-exchange-for-he/#ixzz2CW5RHAOz Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Her defense of candidates isn't very ideologically consistent.
Frivolous, yes. But for the record, they were not lawsuits. They were ethics complaints being investigated by a commission appointed by Sarah Palin. Correct?
And if she could pay for her entire legal bill with a few weekends of speeches, why did she really resign?
Reading comprehension a problem for you?????
Sarah Palin Lawsuit Thrown Out Due To Lack Of Evidence Juneau, Alaska — A lawsuit against former Alaska governor Sarah Palin was struck down on Thursday by a federal judge. The suit, brought against Palin by activist Chip Thoma, alleged that the politician had attempted to silence Thoma when he complained about traffic around the governor's mansion
inquisitr.com/347452/sarah-palin-lawsuit-thrown-out-d...
You stated that the cost of “frivolous lawsuits” was a reason she quit.
In Palin’s resignation speech, she called them “ethics complaints.” She never mentioned that she quit because of lawsuits.
By the way, the “lawsuit” you cite was filed almost two years AFTER Palin quit. Right?
So how could you claim that it was a reason why she quit?
Other Frivolous Lawsuits
1- Gregory Charles Royal vs Sarah Palin (failure to issue Juneteenth proclamation)
2- PsychRights vs Sarah Palin et al (forceful drugging of children in care and state institutions)
3- Andree McLeod vs Sarah Palin (secret e-mails)
Who cares why she left Alaska to come down here and devote herself to saving conservatism.
What really matters is her accomplishments, of course that is also the reason that anti-Conservative hate her with such passion and devotion.
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.