Skip to comments.Palin4President 2016
Posted on 11/08/2012 1:25:42 PM PST by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at palin4president2016.blogspot.co.nz ...
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the ping :) Sarah still inspires, and we could use some inspiration right now.
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.
Count me in.
This fight’s for my grandkids’ future....
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.
Number 1: Governor Sarah Palin 40.91% (2,513 votes)
Number 2: Senator Marco Rubio 16.55% (1,017 votes)
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?
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.
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.
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.
God bless and keep you, dearest el_texicano!!!!
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?
I dont have PDS I have.. If you cant take the heat of the Alaska Gov.. please do not try to be President syndrome
Ah. So she quit because she couldn’t take the heat. Gotcha. [rolls eyes, shakes head]
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?
“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.