Skip to comments.The GOP can't be led by Sarah Palin. But can it live without her? (From Client #9's sidekick)
Posted on 11/09/2010 10:58:28 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Despite its considerable gains in the midterm elections, the GOP has a problem looming in the margins named Sarah Palin.
She who can rouse the base like none other is now She to Whom Respect Must Be Paid. Like it or not.
Many within the so-called party establishment don't quite know what to do about Palin. She's adored by Tea Partyers, to whom she conveniently attached herself as soon as she sensed a shift in the air. A rogue like Palin isn't going to let a rogue movement fill a stadium - or a desert - without her.
She also had some luck with her gambles on midterm endorsements, at least in the U.S. House and a couple of state elections, notably South Carolina Gov.-elect Nikki Haley. Palin's Mama Grizzly shtick, which followed her pit bull-with-lipstick shtick, apparently was effective. She had a less-stellar record in the Senate, with only six of her 11 anointed ones winning.
Thus, Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama recently had the audacity to assert what heretofore had been relegated to whispers behind closed doors: "Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate."
Bachus, who is likely to replace Barney Frank as chair of the House Financial Services Committee, noted that Palin endorsed some Senate candidates who couldn't possibly win, such as Christine O'Donnell in Delaware...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Thus, Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama recently had the audacity to assert what heretofore had been relegated to whispers behind closed doors: “Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate.”
maybe, maybe not. But she probably gave you the House and all these state legislatures.
Zactly. STHU Kathleen ‘wannabe MoDo’..dayum, what a skank.
Whomever wrote this tripe is jealous of Sarah. The writer is a complete wanker wannabe. Get lost.
Don’t jump so fast.
Mrs. Palin is a unique phenomenon — maybe ever! — in politics. I have labeled her “Firebrand” in other threads but upon more thought she is more than that.
She defies classification. Her “Everyday plain talk” side draws everyday people — what used to be called “the Silent Majority” — to her and her way of thinking.
There is no question in my mind she learned from her early mistakes and has become a very astute political analyst. And she has the pulse of the Joe Six-pack and Jane Soccer-Mom.
She is a new force of nature.
But no matter what her role is, she is NOT the next President. And a run by her would be a disaster for the Conservative Movement (instantiated by the Tea Party) and its cousin, the Republican Party.
I “conveniently attached” myself to the TEA Party as soon as I “sensed a shift in the air” too. All of us TEA Partiers did!
Won’t be led by WaPo. That’s for sure.
Sarah Palin is a bell-weather conservative. You can tell how liberals feel about everything just by listening to them describe their feelings for her.
She attached herself to the Tea Party? HAH! She has been a leading inspiration of the Tea Party IMHO. She is our voice.
They just don’t get it.
The Left loves to have “token conservatives” in their media organs. Far from being someone who sniffs the air and follows trends, Sarah Palin is someone with fixed values, who leads others she thinks are of similar intent. As usual, the Left and its wimpy running dogs can only understand things by projecting their own cynical motives on others.
Kathleen Parker, you ignorant slug.
Yes, we all know of the famous Santini rant that sparked the TEA Party movement in Spring of 2009.
Earlier, and more importantly, many millions of us were paying close attention on August 29, 2008, when Sarah Palin was introduced as the Republican VP nominee select.
What we saw that Labor Day weekend and the following week, and then months, and now two years later, has become the growing divide between evil and good in the USA populace, and Sarah Palin just happens to be the wedge selected by the evil left against which to define their (your) own putrid, spiritually dead, semi-existence. By default, the good people lined up behind Sarah Palin. The TEA Parties did come later, but most of them share the same positive vision of the USA as Sarah Palin.
And you, Kathleen Parker, along with Peggy Noonan and some other milquetoast RINOs, chose to come down on the wrong side of history, against good, and on the side of evil.
You chose poorly.
The men, excuse me... the “men” of the MSM will go after Palin with raised eyebrows while the women, ::sigh:: excuse me... the “women” will get meaner and meaner.
Palin endorsed Joe Miller in AK and Christine O’Donnell (last minute) in DE. She did not endorse Linda McMahon in CT or Ken Buck in CO. She endorsed Sharron Angle in NV, but only after Angle had won the primary. She made no endorsement in NV before the primary.
Miller is still trying to pull victory from the jaws of defeat. If he loses, he can blame the Republican senators (except DeMint) who refused to strip his opponent of her committee assignments and gave her legitimacy after she decided run against him as a write-in and he can blame himself for making some bad campaign mistakes. He can’t blame Sarah Palin.
You can blame Palin for O’Donnell if you want, but remember the alternative was a flaming RINO who would have voted more with Democrats than Republicans. Also, the exit polls showed that he too would have lost to Coons. Where was the NRSC in supporting their candidate in DE? Shouldn’t they take some blame for not backing the Republican who won the primary?
Then there’s Carly Fiorina in CA. Yes, many of us would have preferred a different candidate, but most now acknowledge that Fiorina stood the best chance to beat Boxer. With Democrats winning almost everything in CA this year, it’s doubtful that any Republican could have won.
Criticizing Gov. Palin for these losses is like bad mouthing Babe Ruth because he occasionally struck out. If Rep. Bauchus would like a perfect candidate, maybe he should seek out Jesus Christ.
****And a run by her would be a disaster for the Conservative Movement****
Why would it be a disaster ?
This is the broad that does a CNN opinion show with the john?
I remember suffering through the commercial for this crap.
The john- “Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree.”
Wow, that’s unheard of, John Spitzer. There’s a first for everything if you just wait long enough.
I’ll be sure not to miss it...
Her run for the Presidency would result in the middle thinking that Conservatives are a bunch of stereotypical yahoos.
It doesn’t mean that she hasn’t learned and and that she has become astute. But her being hamstringed out of the gate created a hill too far.
Don’t blame Mrs. Palin. Blame the freaking McCain people who should have kept her away from the limelight until she was well-seasoned and then SEASONED her.
Still today most of America doesn’t understand her and, sadly, her quitting the Governorship (if done for all the right reasons) was the final nail in her political coffin.
Worse, though, is that if she runs, she makes it look like Conservatives are all style and no substance — the very meme the libs would love to have at their disposal.
I now stand ready for the Palinbots to assail me for speaking blasphemy against Their Chosen One.
Would it be more of a disaster than, say oooh, running Mitch McConnel for president?
No, no it would not, in fact, it wouldn’t be a disaster at all when you compare her to ANY of the GOP leaders, which are whom...I can’t even remember, oh yeah, because there really aren’t any.
Perhaps you can name for me the republican who stands up against the internal enemies of this country in public, vocally. Perhaps you can point out to me the republican who inspires his/ her base. Point out to me the republican that fills events with potential voters.
Who is it?
Better pick someone right now, and get the EFF behind ‘em, because the race started on November 3, 2010 12:01 am, and there AIN’T NO ONE from our side even visible except the lady from Alaska, and the reason they aren’t visible is because they are scurrying crumb feeders living off whatever democrat scraps fall from the table, and they DO NOT deserve presidential support until they PROVE BY ACTION what it is that they stand for.
It’d fracture the conservatives. Palin followers would refuse to vote for a less conservative candidate should Sarah not take the primary. Just look at any thread on FR and you’ll see it already shaping up.
Of course worst case scenario is a Perot situation, (or more recently Murkowski or Crist)...but I think Palin is much too smart to go third party.
Palin could trigger a civil war in the Republican party and cause Obama to be easily re-elected. There are already tensions building in some of the state governments between Tea Party favorites and establishment Republicans.
The 2012 GOP primary is going to get ugly and dirty. The establishment will do anything it can to sabotage whoever the tea party supports, and then they would hope the RINO could ride the wave to win over Obama. That’s going to be the establishment’s plan.
There is also the question of whether or not independents would ever support someone like Palin. She’s very popular among the Tea Party and much of the GOP. But outside of that, a lot of people are not too sure about her.
Nothing like inviting flame wars. You posted your opinion. There was no need to insult or bait Sarah Palin supporters. Sheesh.
FWIW, election 2012 will likely be all about repealing obamacare, so have a look at this recent Rasmussen poll:
Take special note of the INDEPENDENTS.
>>Nothing like inviting flame wars. You posted your opinion. There was no need to insult or bait Sarah Palin supporters. Sheesh. <<
You are joking, right?
I invite you to attend any Palin thread and say the truth: she is unelectable and a problem.
Then suggest I have somehow “invited” flaming by speaking the bare bones truth.
No, I wasn't joking. You posted the above and that's flame bait.
You posted "your" opinion and I replied to you civilly and posted a Rasmussen poll that "refudiated" your opinion.
Your opinion, isn't the "bare bones truth." It's merely, "your" opinion.
Rasmussen polled a lot more people than you, for their opinions, but his poll is not set in cement either.
I couldn't agree with you more!
The best ever.
this “lady” has no clue
Kathleen Parker: "[I]t is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem." "Parker ... says something publicly that many of us have thought privately
but lacked the courage to say out loud - Palin should step down:"
"Parker: Romney raised bar on freedoms"
Kathleen Parker: "If Kennedy's speech was an important landmark in American political history,
Romney's was surpassing. With heartfelt humility and poetic eloquence,
he tracked the nation's struggle with and for freedom."
"Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers
have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election.
'Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won't be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012,'
says one former Romney aide
'The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney.
"Some former Romney aides were behind the recent leaks to media, including CNN, that Governor Sarah Palin was a 'diva' and was going off message intentionally."
The Palmetto Scoop reported:
"The sources said nearly 80 percent of Romneys former staff was absorbed by McCain and these individuals were responsible for what amounts to a premeditated, last-minute sabotage of Palin."
that Palin would be a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2012 or 2016, which made her a threat to another presidential quest by Romney.
Poor sport spoiler Romney doing what he does best:
"Despite outspending his rivals by huge margins throughout the primaries,
(Mitt Romney, Carpetbagger UT,CA,MA,NH,Mexico) lost Iowa, South Carolina, Florida and California.
The only primaries he won were in Michigan, where Dad was governor; LDS states;
and a few states on Super Tuesday in which his California-obsessed rivals
couldn't spare the cash to advertise.
Only John Connolly in 1968 had a worse cash-to-delegates ratio.
And John McCain rightly did not like Romney's tactics during the primaries.
(W)hen (Romney's early leads) started slipping away, he resorted to unfair,
distorted, scorched-earth negative ads, betting that his opponents couldn't
afford to spend enough for the truth to catch up to his charges."
[Romney: A Mistake for McCain, 7/23/2008, Dick Morris]
Sarah has already won.
The Republican Party and maybe the Conservatives may be finished politically when the Republican Party, with lots of Democrat help in the primaries, nominates Romney in 2012.
It would seem that you enjoy the give and take of a “flame war.” Sometimes it doesn’t happen naturally, though, and you have to write something deliberately provocative. That is a way to get sparks but does not contribute to any effort to convince anyone of anything other than your own penchant for getting a “yelling” match going.
I just wish the GOP would admit that Romney’s kind of “republicanism” went out 30 years ago.
Which Bachus actually said in the same speech, in which he PRAISED the tea party and Sarah Palin.
His comment about the Senate was in the form of a "yes-but" discussion. Like pointing out a couple of negatives while saying the result was overwhelmingly positive.
Nobody who reads Bachus' entire speech would think he was saying Palin and the tea party should have stayed out of the race. He was a strong supporter of what they did. He simply thinks we could have won the senate, and seems to think we need to do a better job picking conservative candidates who can win.
Not that the candidates were Palin's fault -- she didn't hand-pick the people and convince them to run, and so far as I can remember, she didn't endorse Buck or Angle before their primaries.
He didn’t criticise her; he was praising her and the tea party, and as an aside mentioned that there was a downside to the election, something I think we all agree on, since we don’t in fact have control of the senate.
I see the Wednesday installments of “Stop Sarah Palin Week” begin with the ever-reliable Kathleen Parker.........
Who’s due Thursday? I sometimes forget the columnists’ schedules.
“If Rep. Bauchus would like a perfect candidate, maybe he should seek out Jesus Christ.”
Well said my good sir
I can't quote the exact line (and I admit it wasn't quite this explicit) but in a 2008 anti-Palin column Parker came right out and admitted that Palin gives her husband...um...shall we say, evidence of arousal?
All you are proposing is that we give Obama his very own Ross Perot. No thanks. I stand with Reagan and will take the GOP back. We've already started.
>>It would seem that you enjoy the give and take of a flame war. Sometimes it doesnt happen naturally, though, and you have to write something deliberately provocative. That is a way to get sparks but does not contribute to any effort to convince anyone of anything other than your own penchant for getting a yelling match going.<<
In this case I am not looking for a flame war (although a rollicking one is always fun as long as no one takes it personally).
I want to note the following:
1) I have not suggested that supporters of Mrs. Palin are not smart, etc. I merely think their political calculus returns an incorrect result. Look back over my posts — you will see I have not insulted anyone (given point 2, below).
2) I (accurately) noted that anyone (such as, say, me) who criticizes Mrs. Palin gets flamed pretty badly.
3) I post this out of genuine concern for 2012. Yes, it is my opinion but I base it on some logic, which I post and is rarely refuted. Maybe Mrs. Palin can overcome the deficiencies I note, but no one has said HOW, other than to say “well, she just can.”
I do NOT want another 4 years of the TOTUS-reading fuhrer. It will take us 10 years to undo the damage he has done, domestically and internationally. If he has another 4 years it may take a generation.
Mrs. Palin is not the solution at this time.
It seems you haven’t recognized a standard formula for what it is.
By which I mean, one of the most common ways to to publicly criticize someone like Palin is to package the criticism in what appears to be praise.
The oldest trick in the book—talking out of two sides of one’s mouth. Progressives love to use this tactic. RINOs and the ruling class in general have also mastered it.
And one of the most common signs of a cult is the complete inability to think of anything at all that could possibly be wrong, and a knee-jerk dismissal of any comment that in any way questions the perfection that the cult perceives.
If I say “I love free republic, it’s still the best place for one-stop shopping for news and conservative commentary, although there are way too many vanity and blog posts and people repeating the same story a dozen times”, you think that I’m really trying to trash Free Republic?
Oddly, this is exactly how one describes something they really like but want to make better. We definitely need to do a better job of picking candidates in 2012. That people are upset about someone suggesting this is not a good thing.
I stand with Reagan but will not support Romney or any part of the Republican Party if he is the 2012 nominee. If he is the nominee then it’s We Are All Socialists Now! and I will not be part of that. If that happens then there will either be a third party which will probably lose it all or a replacement party which will collect up all the conservatives ans win. When the DNC and the Democrats-as-Republicans give us Romney then I will seriously take stock of my supplies and begin to do what one has to do.
“She is not electable” is not the truth, it’s just an opinion.
Stating one’s opinion as immutable truth is asking to be flamed.
Thanks for explaining. obviously i think you are wrong. shes going to be fine if she runs and gets the nomination.
America will get to know the real Sarah
‘Mrs. Palin is not the solution at this time.’
You can’t beat someone with no one. Arbitrarily comparing a candidate to a theoretical perfect candidate is meaningless. If you do not favor Palin, who is your candidate. I have not made up my mind, but have some negative criteria:
1) No Congresscritters
2) No one who served in the Bush administration
3) No one east of the Delaware River.
Charles, the floor is yours.
Pick a candidate already (Sheesh!) and let it stand up to the necessary scrutiny.
You cant beat someone with no one. Arbitrarily comparing a candidate to a theoretical perfect candidate is meaningless.
These "concerned" posters lecturing people about their Palin pick, yet they offer no alternative...
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.