The GOP can't be led by Sarah Palin. But can it live without her? (From Client #9's sidekick)

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...

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.

I now stand ready for the Palinbots to assail me for speaking blasphemy against Their Chosen One.

- - - - - - - - -

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:

RASMUSSEN'S POLL: 52% of Voters Say Their Views Are More Like Palin’s Than Obama’s

Whose views are closer to your own? Palin/Obama

Overall: 52/40

Male: 55/37
Female: 48/43
White: 58/35
Black: 5/87
GOP: 84/9
DEM: 14/81
INDY: 59/27
Conservative: 80/12
Moderate: 28/61
Liberal: 14/85

>>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.

I now stand ready for the Palinbots to assail me for speaking blasphemy against Their Chosen One.

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.

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.

I couldn't agree with you more!

Team Romney attacked in 2008 ... and 2010 ... for Obama.

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:"

"Kathleen Parker: After Interviews, Palin Should Bow Out"

Kathleen Parker: "Romney would bring more than squeaky clean qualifications
and youthful good looks to the ticket.
Romney would seem a logical choice."

"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."

Staggering bigotry of Kathleen Parker - UPDATED"

“Rove is pushing Romney so aggressively some folks are beginning to wonder what's going on,” grumbled one veteran Republican strategist.”

“Rove has made no secret of his support for Romney as McCain’s VP. ”

"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 Romney’s 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.

"Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney"

"Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?"

"Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?"

"Romney Supporters Trashing Palin"

"Romney advisors sniping at Palin?"

Poor sport spoiler Romney doing what he does best:

Novak: "Fred Thompson drop-out rumors traced to Romney campaign"

Said Novak: "The rumors were traced in part to Mitt Romney's campaign,
trying to stir up strife between McCain and Thompson."

"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]

maybe, maybe not. But she probably gave you the House and all these state legislatures.

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.

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.