Palin4President 2016

Palin4President 2016 ^ | November 8, 2012 | M. Joseph Shepard

[Art in Idaho]

A lot of Buzz already about Sarah running in 2016. From Palin4President comes a wealth of information. Some snippets:

"Romney lost because he simply couldn't turn out the vote. McCain/Palin turned out 6.2 Million more voters than Romney/Ryan did and that is all it would have taken to beat Obama this time around if you look at the numbers. Perhaps Romney should put some thought into what is was that McCain had that helped produce an extra 6.2 million votes, that helped create the tidal wave of the 2010 mid-term victories... here's a hint... she wears lipstick."

"A team of Palin and Martinez or Rubio or even Cruz would have tremendous possibilities in gaining the votes of women and Hispanics."

"But it is a very good day for Palin too, who will now, as she said clearly last month, challenge the very existence of the Republican Party and the Eastern establishment as she has been doing from the first."

"GOP Doomed Forever By Demographics Is Rubbish; 3 Key States Lost By Under 2%.There is a clear Path to a 2016 Win."

[Windflier]

Palin needs to rebuild her image by bypassing the MSM, and becoming familiar and comfortable with Americans.

Again - Palin doesn't need to 'rebuild her image' with Americans who truly love this country and wish for its restoration.

If she so chooses, she can go about 'rebuilding her image' with those Americans who are part of the 47% Gimme Class, and those shallow conservatives who've succumbed to the lies and slanders of the MSM and the left.

But I'm going to tell you right here and now that she doesn't need them. There are already enough Americans who would vote her into office, should she run in 2016. If a hard-core constitutionalist conservative like myself could be persuaded to vote for Mitt, you can bet that more than enough moderates and independents would line up behind Sarah.

If she starts running in earnest after the 2014 midterm elections, she will be president in 2016.

[roamer_1]

So, in other words, she's not as perfect as Jesus, and that fact dooms her chances to ever be elected. Crickey.....here we go again.

I ain't looking for JESUS. I AM looking for folks who toe the Conservative line, which, btw, is not that hard to do.

Show me one other politician who's 'walked the walk' like she has, on the pro-life issue. You're splitting hairs about her position.

It isn't splitting hairs. LIFE is an IMMOVABLE PRINCIPLE for the Social Conservatives. What I think about the matter doesn't matter in the least. What upwards of 60m Christian Right thinks about it is what matters. In the aggregate, they have NEVER compromised on Constitutional Life, and they never will. That is what PRINCIPLE means. First things... without exception. What you will be asking them to do with Palin is to throw away that uncompromisable truth.

They won't do it, and you should not support asking them to.

Reagan Conservatism STARTS with no Conservative faction being asked to compromise their immovable principles. Nobody but the RINOs in the back of the bus... After those principles (all of them/ all factions) have been met, there is PLENTY of room for compromising.

But don't listen to me and the other rock-ribbed Conservatives around here... Do what you want... and keep losing - Because that is exactly what will happen.

[Windflier]

It isn't splitting hairs. LIFE is an IMMOVABLE PRINCIPLE for the Social Conservatives. What I think about the matter doesn't matter in the least. What upwards of 60m Christian Right thinks about it is what matters. In the aggregate, they have NEVER compromised on Constitutional Life, and they never will. That is what PRINCIPLE means.

Friend, I must be missing something here. Sarah Palin unequivocally supports the right to life of the unborn. She does not support abortion. She has even proven that by example in her own life.

You're attempting to make the argument that Sarah Palin's pro-life views are at variance with those of Evangelical Christians, but so far, you're failing to make that case. She says that she wants to see Roe vs Wade overturned, and the question of abortion be turned back to the states. That's simply the constitutional conservative choice in the matter, and is entirely consistent with our founding charter.

What would you have her do? Advocate for a federal law banning all abortion? Are you telling me that that's the litmus test for all Evangelical Christians? If so, they'll never vote in a presidential election again, because no candidate running for president is going to advocate such a measure. Ever.

Now, between you, me, and the fencepost, I believe abortion is murder. So does Sarah. And murder is a capital offense. I think before we can get to passing a federal law banning abortion, we're going to have to get the vast majority of Americans to see that this is so. Until then, the faster route is to overturn Roe vs Wade and send the question of abortion back to the states.

[chickpundit]

Thanks for the ping :) Sarah still inspires, and we could use some inspiration right now.

[roamer_1]

That's simply the constitutional conservative choice in the matter, and is entirely consistent with our founding charter.

THAT is precisely the point. It is *NOT* Constitutional. It is *NOT* consistent with our founding charter.

I will only believe that when you can show me even ONE state in this union that can sanction YOUR death with the exception of 'Due Process' and 'Just cause'. Constitutionally, the state does not have the right to sanction YOUR death in any other way. And neither does the Fed. This is a massively important principle, cutting right to the heart of our very first enumerated right (as granted us by GOD).

You go ahead though. Knock yourself out. Things like this are why I am no longer a Republican.

[Unrepentant VN Vet]

Count me in.

This fight’s for my grandkids’ future....

[Windflier]

THAT is precisely the point. It is *NOT* Constitutional. It is *NOT* consistent with our founding charter. ...show me even ONE state in this union that can sanction YOUR death with the exception of 'Due Process' and 'Just cause'.

I guess you missed the part of my last reply where I said "abortion is murder".

Maybe you're an attorney. Perhaps that's why you think I'm disagreeing with you, even when I'm strongly agreeing with your fundamental principles.

I never said that states have a right to make the killing of unborn children legal. You dubbed that into my comment, just like you're dubbing it into Sarah Palin's political stance on the issue.

Seeing as how you think like an attorney, I'd expect you to understand the over-riding strategy here. It's not to ultimately create 50 Roe vs Wade laws. It's to take that power away from the feds, and give it back to the states, where the battle to protect the unborn can be more effectively won.

As you say, ultimately, no governing body has the power to condemn an innocent, unborn human to death by fiat or decree. But, it's a fight that will go on, and it shouldn't happen at the federal level. If the question is to be fought at all, who says the feds should have any say in it? I say they shouldn't, and so does the 10th Amendment.

[Art in Idaho]

Greta's poll: Who is today - one day after the election - the leader of the Republican party?

Number 1: Governor Sarah Palin 40.91% (2,513 votes)

Number 2: Senator Marco Rubio 16.55% (1,017 votes)

[johnthebaptistmoore]

How can a MAJORITY of voters, willingly, vote for ANY GOP candidate for POTUS in ‘16? I’m talking about a majority of general election voters, as opposed to the majority of non-leftist voters. Sarah Palin’s years of MSM “beatings” are an, obvious, barrier to Sarah’s serious chances for victory (And, the MSM would start “beating her up”, yet again, anyways.) as are the majority of U.S. voters now being “takers”, instead of being “givers”. How can the GOP win again? How can U.S. conservatism win again?

[sand88]

How can the GOP win again? How can U.S. conservatism win again?

That my friend is indeed the $64 Trillion dollar question.

I have no doubt that if Sarah put her heart into it, she could win. She is more fearless than any leader on the scene today. With regards to the MSM, she will just work past them.

[MortMan]

I’m not going to argue with you.

After further reflection on it, though, I would like to rephrase the way I expressed myself to better state my point:

Palin needs to build her own narrative, and reintroduce herself to those who have been led astray by the MSM by going around the MSM. She does not need to change who she is, but only to find a way to get the message of who she is out to the masses.

If we still disagree after this rephrasing, then so be it.

[el_texicano]

Count me in my dear!!!

I do wish all these air headed naysayers with all their old tired worn out negativity would quit their b*tching about Sarah and offer up some positive alternatives.

Reagan was consistently conservative in his speeches and governing practice and that is what drew people to rally around him. Sarah has demonstrated that consistency.

Romney for all his good efforts in the election (first debate), made the same RINO mistates, still smelled of his RINOism and that is what made people stay home.

I am still...Palinista to the core.

[onyx]

WOW! 40.91% !!!!

[onyx]

God bless and keep you, dearest el_texicano!!!!

[KC_Lion]

[kevkrom]

But “frivolous ethics complaints from ‘Rat operatives that were hamstringing her ability to govern and threatening to personally bankrupt her and her family with legal fee” you see that changing some how in a run for Pres ?

Yes. She's now free of the specific law that, while in the Governor's office, was abused to harass her into bankruptcy (even setting up a legal defense fund was deemed an "ethics violation"). Additionally, the personal wealth she's accumulated on the speaker's circuit would insulate her and her family from any additional baseless legal challenges.

I don't know if she's planning on running. Either way, she does need to avoid the "in-or-out" tap dance and make her intentions clear up-front. If she's running, give her a fair evaluation based on the campaign she runs, and not the media caricature she's currently made out to be.

We're the side the evaluates on merit, right? If she runs, and if she puts together a strong organization, and if she effectively addresses her assumed negatives, then she would likely be a very strong candidate. If she doesn't, then the question kind of answers itself, does it not?

But what is wrong is to outright dismiss someone who has the potential of making an impact because of current assumptions about their "viability". Why the rush to judgement?

[Bidimus1]

I dont have PDS I have.. If you cant take the heat of the Alaska Gov.. please do not try to be President syndrome

[COBOL2Java]

Ah. So she quit because she couldn’t take the heat. Gotcha. [rolls eyes, shakes head]

[Art in Idaho]

How can the GOP win again? How can U.S. conservatism win again?

Education is the key. Teach conservative principles to family, friends, in your local community and let the MSM continue to meltdown. Sarah has already been through the ringer. . I know, they will keep trying. . but what other options do we have. Third party? The R word?

[ifinnegan]

“And where did I argue that Romney was a winning candidate?”

Fair enough and the point was not about you, but the idea of putting forth a “winning candidate” which is the main reason Romney was the nominee.

So I will change the line: “Your argument he was electable is proven wrong” to The argument he was electable is proven wrong.

I was not trying to criticize you personally at all and meant only to address the issue of “winning candidate” and how the “winning candidate” approach sure didn’t work.

[roamer_1]

[roamer_1:] THAT is precisely the point. It is *NOT* Constitutional. It is *NOT* consistent with our founding charter. ...show me even ONE state in this union that can sanction YOUR death with the exception of 'Due Process' and 'Just cause'.

I guess you missed the part of my last reply where I said "abortion is murder".

I did not miss it.

Maybe you're an attorney.

Nope.

Perhaps that's why you think I'm disagreeing with you, even when I'm strongly agreeing with your fundamental principles.

No, I realize that we agree on the fundamental principles... all but one.

I never said that states have a right to make the killing of unborn children legal. You dubbed that into my comment, just like you're dubbing it into Sarah Palin's political stance on the issue.

I believe you DID say it when you said the decision should revert back to the states. And Palin believes the same thing. If the decision reverts to the states, what else does that mean except that the states get to decide whether abortion is legal within their repective borders? And what is that,. if not the states being empowered to sanction death? Your thinking is decidedly flawed here.

Seeing as how you think like an attorney, I'd expect you to understand the over-riding strategy here. It's not to ultimately create 50 Roe vs Wade laws. It's to take that power away from the feds, and give it back to the states, where the battle to protect the unborn can be more effectively won.

But in practice, your strategy must ultimately create 50 Roe v Wade laws. The battle is not more effectively waged in the many states for the same reason that lobbying becomes ineffective if it is banned at the federal level (which I am *FOR*, btw)... it just takes too many resources to maintain all 50 states. And in fact, the first 'equal protection under the law' case sends it back to the feds anyway.

More importantly, 'The Next Step: Euthanasia' becomes far more likely to become enacted 'one state at a time', in the same way that abortion was enacted... only far, far quicker... because it will be settled law that the state DOES have the right to sanction death. And the 'useless eaters' will begin to be eliminated - first in the liberal states, but eventually being adopted into every state in the very same way that abortion was entrenched... By a fiat decision in the court.

As you say, ultimately, no governing body has the power to condemn an innocent, unborn human to death by fiat or decree. But, it's a fight that will go on, and it shouldn't happen at the federal level. If the question is to be fought at all, who says the feds should have any say in it? I say they shouldn't, and so does the 10th Amendment.

There you go again... Not 'ultimately'... PERFECTLY. PERIOD. Since the Constitution binds itself to all agreements and contracts previously enacted, the Constitution is BOUND to and by the Declaration of Independence. The reason for the establishment of our government (federally) is to protect our God-given rights. And FIRST among them, and FIRST enumerated among them particularly, is LIFE... More important (by enumeration) than liberty. So it is clearly the fed's to PROTECT primarily (as in primacy), and your suggestion that the 10th holds sway is patently false, else the purpose for the union in the first place is annulled.

Now, that does not mean that the states have no duty to do the very same - As they are bound by the very same. I applaud efforts by the states to protect life, as they are bound to do. And if the states had the balls to stand up to that, and forgo federal funding in order to PROTECT life, ignoring the unconstitutional edicts of the federal gov, that would be profound in it's impact. But the states can do that NOW, ALREADY... regardless of the pretended power of Roe v Wade. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. If they do not have the courage to do so now, what makes you think they will have the courage then?

Contrary to what most folks say, it does not require an amendment to change it federally... it requires only a law defining life @ conception, and a Conservative congress with balls enough to impeach a Supreme or two for writing law from the bench... And with more than twenty years in power, The Republican party has utterly failed to do that simple task... Which means that they really ain't trying.

And the Christian Right is painfully aware of that fact - which is why the Republicans are struggling now... And why 'social justice' issues are becoming more powerful. The Christians were happy to bind themselves to Reagan's promise, which gave them their important issues while binding them to federalism and civil libertarianism... Without their important issues being served and served well, they will move on to lesser things to get what they can... And without federalism and civil libertarianism to temper them, what you get is 'social justice'.

That is the main reason I think the Republicans will no longer prevail. That is why I removed myself from among them and began advocating for a Conservative party. And I think that is where it needs to go. That even Conservatives such as yourself are not willing to adhere to Reagan means that Reagan's coalition cannot be maintained any longer. It has already devolved into a contest of popularity and pragmatism, rather than a defining set of principles that we all admire and fight for with passion.

[Bidimus1]

10 Input “did she quit Y/N”; A$
20 If A$= “Y” then = PR$ = “NO”
30 If A$= “N” then = PR$ run = “YES”
print “Sara Palin should run for President “; PR
40 END

Thats my B.A.S.I.C. view. ;)

[Windflier]

Roamer, it takes two to tango, and I’m done with this dance. You’re drilling down far deeper into this issue than I have the patience or inclination to go, hence my comment about you being an attorney.

I’m comfortable with Sarah Palin’s views on the sanctity of life. As I sad before, she’s ‘walked the walk’ on the issue by carrying a Down’s Syndrome baby to full term. I’m sorry, but unless one has done the same, they’re just ‘talking the talk’ on this issue.

[roamer_1]

Roamer, it takes two to tango, and I’m done with this dance. You’re drilling down far deeper into this issue than I have the patience or inclination to go, hence my comment about you being an attorney.

No problemo.

I’m comfortable with Sarah Palin’s views on the sanctity of life. As I sad before, she’s ‘walked the walk’ on the issue by carrying a Down’s Syndrome baby to full term. I’m sorry, but unless one has done the same, they’re just ‘talking the talk’ on this issue.

I am fine with that, But like I said, what you or I think really isn't the point. It is the aggregate of the Christian Right that matters - And IMHO, if Palin runs with her libertarian record on Life, she will lose. Mark my words.

And I want to add, before I leave, that this isn't about ill will toward Palin... It really isn't emotional at all. It is about what it takes to turn out the unstoppable Conservative juggernaut. That begins with a candidate that is able to provide experience and support for ALL of the principles of Conservatism, and especially the Christian Right (as it is the largest voting block of all)...

Any Conservative deserving support must be able to harness together the social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, defense conservatives, and the civil-libertarians/libertarians OR there will be no win, regardless of what candidate the liberals field, as this election, once again, plainly exemplifies.

Getting caught up in populism or pragmatism will not win the day. Serve the principles of Conservatism, or all will be lost.

Have a nice day.

[Windflier]

My, you do like to hear yourself talk, don’t you? I told you I was done dancing with you.

[roamer_1]

My, you do like to hear yourself talk, don’t you? I told you I was done dancing with you.

That's why I said "[...] And I want to add, before I leave [...]"

That should have been a clue that it was intended as my final missive to you, and acknowledging your desire to be done with it...

Do you have comprehension problems, or did you just need to throw that insult at me?

[Windflier]

That's why I said "[...] And I want to add, before I leave [...]"

That should have been a clue that it was intended as my final missive to you, and acknowledging your desire to be done with it...

Oh, I understood you, alright. I just couldn't help tweaking your self-righteous, overbearing sensibilities.

I really do think you're an attorney. If not, you ought to be. I don't know, though. You're a might obsessive about getting in the last word, and awfully insistent that people digest the most arcane minutia in every point you make.

That bores me, Roamer. I'm done dancing now.