Posted on 07/05/2009 2:08:00 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Even for a nonconformist, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin defies political logic with her sudden, stunning announcement to leave office more than a year early.
Supporters and critics alike say the former GOP vice presidential candidate’s resignation, announced Friday afternoon and effective July 26, is an inexplicable move for a high profile Republican widely seen as a contender for a White House run in 2012. A half-term governor campaigning for president?
--snip--
Pam Pryor, a spokeswoman for Palin’s political action committee, said the group continues to accept donations on its Web site, which saw an uptick in contributions Friday afternoon.(continued at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at timesleader.com ...
Next thing you know, you'll have half-term Senators campaigning for president.
Obama... a 140 day Senator. Ha!
Haha! Great point.
There is a slight difference, though, that must be considered.
Sarah could have completed her full term and got re-elected before the 2012 race, where she would have entered as a two-term sitting governor, which would have been a very strong position to be in.
0bama didn’t resign midterm and then sit around for 3 years.
All of this tells me that she is not really seriously considering a run for president.
I think her shot is 2016 or 2020. 2010 should be the senate.
>Abrupt resignation may suggest a run for Senate or president <
I hope thats some kind of bad humor
Is it hot this summer in Chicago?
I hope she doesn’t run for the senate. I think Obama is one of the VERY few senators to ever win the presidency. But, the main reason is - she can use her “outsider” status to greater effect as she stands now.
I would like to see her go on her book tour, speechifying, and getting out there to support Real Conservatives in 2010, all the while building a base for 2012 - or perhaps even 2016. (Although I’m not sure this great Republic will make it to 2011.)
She set them up....this is great!
I disagree. Alaska is just too far off the beaten path, just as HI is. There hasn’t been a highly placed person from HI in my lifetime that I’m aware of. Inouye probably has more pull than any other, and he’s in the senate. Sarah had more executive experience than ostammer had, but what good did it do her? None, because the experience is in Alaska. It’s a great state to be sure, but it’s just too removed/remote from the lower 48.
Further, there’s a chance that Hillary will be the rat candidate in ‘12. Sadly, she would beat Sarah. Voters would think they can get rat policies but not extremist policy like ostammer’s. It’d be sort of like Goldilocks and the three bears. Hillary will appear much more moderate than ostammer, and they will support her if ostammer is tanking.
I think it’s just too soon to say what’s best, but I think a senate term would do her image a world of good. You know she’d be bringing one popular, common sense bill after another. She could really build herself a reputation in the senate.
You’re right. ostammer is one of a very few senators to win the presidency. But a senator had to win because both the candidates were senators.
Anyway, whatever she decides to do, she can count on my support.
“0bama didn’t resign midterm and then sit around for 3 years.”
That’s correct. He campaigned for the Presidency full time as a Senator, putting forth nearly no legislation his short time as a Senator.
You can’t campaign from Alaska. Now she is free to raise money for our midterm candidates, even RINOs. That must make you happy.
Is she going to move to a different state to run for an open Senate seat?
Locals don’t usually take too kindly to ‘carpetbaggers’, especially in the kind of state where she would need to go.
Hillary could get away with it because she’s a liberal Democrat and a Clinton, and it was New York.
I would be surprised if Sarah ran for Murkowski’s seat.
Murkowski is more moderate, but she has not been a problem vote in the Senate, and she is not unpopular among Republicans or Alaskans in general. Murkowski’s statewide popularity is around 70%, which is far higher than Palin’s, which has dropped to the mid to low 50s.
Get back under your bridge TROLL. Then, hide and watch for a change instead of spewing your defeatist rhetoric. That would be the biggest break this forum could get from the likes of you.
By the way, you are not going to like what Sarah has in store for the RINO infested GOP in the coming months and years. Not one bit.
My first prediction is, she will take serious legal action against those who have slandered her, which will get her incredible media attention and shut up demagogues like you, in the press. Then, she will gather a union of Conservatives to take the country back, much like Reagan did.
If Hillary couldn’t beat a neophyte rookie Senator last year, how is she going to win in a contest with Sarah, who beat her own party and the Democrats to become governor?
What is your definition of a RINO, exactly, why do you think Sarah Palin is going to be raising money for them, and why do you think that would make me happy?
You’re really earn the PSYCHO in PSYCHO-FREEP.
“What is your definition of a RINO,”
Self explanatory to Freepers.
“why do you think Sarah Palin is going to be raising money for them”
Palin will support GOP midterm candidates and raise money and attract large crowds in 2010...some GOP candidates in Northeastern and Western states will be RINOs
“and why do you think that would make me happy?”
Because you are a long time supporter of RINOs such as Giulliani and Romney.
I am extremely proud of it and use it with great honor. Probably something you could not even begin to understand.
You may have thought it was some sort of insult to probe me with to get a reaction. I know your type well. But hear this TROLL; Your negative noise is getting far more press than you bargained for and the big guns are about to unload on your DZ.
You’ve been reading the lies, slander, and distortions from ansel12, I see. You aren’t jealous that you don’t have your own personal stalker on FR, are you?
I’d really like to know what you consider a RINO to be though, really.
Is a RINO someone who prioritizes fiscal conservatism and smaller government over social and cultural issues?
Would you consider Ron Paul a RINO? What about Dick Armey?
Barry Goldwater?
Is there some particular litmus test you have for determining a RINO?
Do you think Republicans should run the most conservative candidate they can in every state regardless of the electorate, or the most conservative candidate that can win in every state? Would you rather have a liberal Democrat elected in a blue state if the only other option is one of these RINOs?
Negative noise?
It’s called a dose of reality.
Oooooh, “Big Guns”!
Haha, yeah, the sane FReepers have been battling the unappeasables, Keyesters, Hunterites, HuckaBots and other 2-percenters in general for years.
I’m pretty used to your “Big Guns.”
Does this mean more of your Cloward-Piven tactics of overwhelming all of my posts with responses from your cabal?
“lies, slander, and distortions from ansel12,”
It’s etiquette to ping somebody that you accuse.
That’s not my fight, but from what I’ve seen he merely quoted you in your support for Guilliani and Romney.
“Is a RINO someone who prioritizes fiscal conservatism and smaller government over social and cultural issues?”
A RINO to me is someone who attempts to claim to be Republican, yet they don’t support the core conservative principles of the Republican Party: This includes all three legs of the conservative movement, economic, social, and national security.
No, even a blue dog Democrat could do that.
A rino is a registered Republican who will put anything on the negotiating table to extend his stay in office.
The whole reason we are in this mess in the first place is because of RINOs like you who think the Republican party is just a big happy tent open for all you Moderates and Liberals to use for Socialist experiments.
Conservative principles have been discarded for Megan/John McCain RINO politics.
Your logic won't win wars, it only sets you up for accepting what ever they decide to give you. Your sole purpose is to stalk Palin threads and disrupt those who support Conservative values and principles for your illogical theories about what a “Republican” is.
That gives you the label of a TROLL. So enjoy it while you can. You earned it.
You misspelled half-assed.
No, he’s been digging up my past analysis of the 2008 GOP horserace going as far back as November 2004, and taking them out of context, misrepresenting things like how I said back then that I thought Romney and Giuliani were the people to watch emerge as prominent candidates in the field. He’s been on a 24/7 smear mission because he doesn’t like my assessment that Palin would ensure an 0bama reelection if she was the 2012 candidate.
So what about libertarian Republicans whose emphasis is on limiting the size and power of Government rather than social issues?
Are they RINOs by your definition?
What about Dick Cheney?
He supports gay unions. Is Dick Cheney a RINO now too?
“So what about libertarian Republicans whose emphasis is on limiting the size and power of Government rather than social issues? Are they RINOs by your definition? “
They’re not conservatives, they are libertarians.
“Is Dick Cheney a RINO now too?”
You won’t find too many people who consider Cheney a RINO. Do You?
Well you’ve got me all wrong there.
My concern is promoting articulate, intelligent charismatic conservatives who can develop common sense conservative policies and sell them to the American people. People like Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, and Jin DeMint.
The real reason why the GOP is in the mess it is in right now is because the party hasn’t had an articulate messenger or thinker since Newt Gingrich left 10 years ago. We’ve had no one advancing the cause intellectually. It’s been a vacuum. Instead, we’ve had a bunch of culture warriors who haven’t given a damn about fiscal restraint, and when they got kicked out of office, they left behind the biggest, most intrusive government in history.
It’s funny that all the big spenders like Bush and Tom DeLay who ran up the taxpayers’ tab never get called RINOs by people like you.
No, but Cheney is supportive of gay unions and even thinks it’s OK for states like Iowa to decide to legalize gay marriage.
That’s the sort of thing that could get a person labeled a RINO by most people who like to label people RINOs.
And then there’s Ronald Reagan, who signed abortion into law in my state back in the late 60s. Was Reagan a RINO too?
Mitt Romney’s a RINO because of a past position on abortion, even though he made it more restrictive in Massachusetts, not less.
So apparently, the label ‘RINO’ is really just used selectively to target anyone the user doesn’t like in the Republican party for whatever personal reasons that may be.
“we’ve had a bunch of culture warriors who haven’t given a damn about fiscal restraint, and when they got kicked out of office, they left behind the biggest, most intrusive government in history.”
To the contrary, the group of Republicans from 94 claimed both economic and social conservatism. So, there is no correllation between your opinion that it was social conservatives who ramped up spending.
Further, I’d say it goes to another level of descriptors. It was the Establishment/Country Clubbers who have directed the Party to the failure of accepting the DC culture of increased government spending and Political Correctness. This was capped off by a nominating process that favors liberal/moderate Republicans like John McCain.
We elected our moderate and we were stomped by an ineffectual and inexperienced candidate who is taking us down a long and serious road of socialism.
Thank you Establishment Republicans.
The issue now is that we have come so far down the road, that it's time for us to get the act together and pull America back.
“So apparently, the label ‘RINO’ is really just used selectively to target anyone the user doesn’t like in the Republican party for whatever personal reasons that may be.”
Faulty conclusion based on insupportable premises.
Now if you really really want to make tha case that Cheney and Reagan are RINOs, make it. But use the whole body of their political careers. Let’s try to remember where we were with that asswipe Carter and where Reagan led us.
I think the Establishment Rockefeller country-clubbers were also part of the problem. But you can’t blame McCain for the spending, at least.
The Class of ‘94 were both economically and socially conservative, yes. But they ran on spending and ethics almost exclusively. Not on social issues.
But the Gingrich Revolution isn’t at fault.
It’s the people since he left left.
It’s the people that Bush brought in.
While Gingrich’s people were both fiscally and socially conservative, Bush’s people were just socially conservative.
They don’t have to be either or, but in this case, they happened to be.
I don’t have a problem with social conservatism. I support socially conservative issues when they come up, like Proposition 8 when it was on the ballot here. What I have a problem with is putting all the emphasis on it, at the expense of everything else. We’ve got a lot of people now running around so concerned with these cultural issues, meanwhile they’re letting the Left destroy the middle class, seize private industry, turn our backs on our allies while embracing our enemies, and turn America into a socialist nation. Now tell me, where should our top priorities be right now?
Well, isn’t what you’re asking for similar to keeping my past statements in the context of the discussion they were made?
See, a lot of overblown accusations can be made when you don’t...
The issue now is that we have come so far down the road, that it's time for us to get the act together and pull America back.I agree.
A lot of people think we need to emphasis culture wars more, become more socially conservative, more small-town in our focus, champion people like Sarah Palin over people like Mike Pence and Paul Ryan, mix more religion with politics.
I disagree. I think we should get back to the Gingrich Revolution instead. Make it about common sense solutions, become the party of ideas again, get mainstream, articulate happy warriors who can take the message of fiscal responsibility to a public hungry for restraint and sanity in Washington.
But for this, I have attracted a small group of stalkers who jump on every thread I post in to call me a ‘troll’ and a ‘RINO’. I can't help what they do. But it says more of them than it does me.
Punch, I believe that the mistake you are making is that you think just because a person happens to be a social conservative that they are not a fiscal/economic conservative.
I can tell you that I have met almost no rank and file Republicans who are social conservatives and not at the same time, economic conservatives.
You problem on this site, and you are free to do what you will, is that you seem to be preoccupied with making social conservatives the enemy. As a matter of fact, why am I and others, labeled as social conservatives only? My take is that this is a misperception that has been created by the media with their overemphasis on demonizing social conservtives and people of faith.
If a politician has strong Pro Life convictions, the media automatically attempts to label them, as if their low tax and property ownership beliefs don’t matter.
You could accomplish alot more by explaining your beliefs as to why the economic issues are a priority to you, than ostracizing social conservatives who probably agree with you on economic matters.
jmo and just a thought.
No idea, never been there
I’d rather not see her in the Senate. That’s nothing more .than a cesspool of corrupt, morally compromised, self-serving blowhards. She’s too good for them. Traveling throughout the country, articulating the conservative vision for America and supporting conservative candidates would be a great role for her. As for running for President, there’s no need to hurry. As she’s only 45, she can conceivably hold off for another 15 years if she wants.
I don’t think a person has to be one or the other.
I even said as much. It’s not about having socially conservative values, you need to understand. The problem is with those who place all the emphasis there, to the detriment of the other legs of the stool.
I think the problem is that when Bush came in, he brought in an agenda that was heavily culturally conservative and also Big Government. He called it ‘Compassionate Conservatism’.
It isn’t that social conservatives can’t be fiscally conservative, but when the entire political movement discards fiscal conservatism and focuses almost exclusively on cultural issues, then it should come as no surprise that fiscal restraint fell by the wayside.
I am not trying to make social conservatives the enemy. But there is a certain faction of social conservatives who don’t hold hold cultural issues as their one and only priority. To them, anyone who doesn’t focus on the culture war and wear religion on their sleeve is a ‘RINO’ and the enemy to them.
These are the people who want to drag the GOP into a cultural war to the detriment of serious fiscal policy. They have chosen Palin as their champion, seeing her as the ultimate victim of the liberal culture they despise, giving absolutely no consideration to anything else. They don’t want an articulate messenger to develop and advance conservative policies. They want a symbol to rally around.
This is the distillation of everything that has brought the GOP to its low point. We cannot win nationally like this. We need to expand the base, not stagnate it. We don’t need to compromise our principles in pursuit of a ‘Big Tent’. We can instead expand the base by doing what Rush says — win people over to our side by articulating superior policies and arguments. Sarah Palin and the cultural warriors aren’t going to do that, and this is our fundamental disagreement.
that should have said “But there is a certain faction of social conservatives who hold cultural issues as their one and only priority.”
Using traditional “move up the ladder” political moves as a guide says this is a big mistake. She is a quitter, she won’t have the experience, etc.
Her entire career has gotten her to the national scene in non-traditional steps. By normal standards she should be moving from a member of the board of education to being mayor right about now. All politicians serve because of God. I see her career has ordained and especially blessed by God, nothing else can explain her rapid rise. Others may attribute it to luck or her own political savy.
This recent move on her part by traditional standards is easily seen as a big mistake. For Sarah’s past it is part of her pattern. She is following God’s will for her life and this almost always happens in unusual ways.
In any case, do not judge the outcome of this decision using past standards. We are definitely in a new political world where the objective is met in new ways. Sarah may understand this or she may simply be following God.
You have an excellent take on the matter.
I get your point, but at the same time. When’s the last time a Senator got in front of a camera and talked about all the backroom dealing corruption and lies coming out of the Senate? She could blow that whole box wide open and air all the dirty laundry out for the whole country to see what’s going on. I think it would be amazing.
Fight corruption in Alaska, fight corruption in the Senate, move on up the chain.
I heard a Fox News commentator actually say she can’t run for POTUS or anything because of her resume. LMAO what about slick Willy Clinton’s resume as gov or 0Bama as a community organizer?
Senate? Would that be Murkowski’s seat?
She beat Murhowski's father for governor. Make it a two'fer.
Sarah sat around for 3 years? Or is going to sit around?
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.