Palin Wades Into Republican Midterm Primaries

The reason why you never hear liberals say Palin shouldn’t run because she was on the losing ticket in 2008 is because of FDR. It is not well known that FDR was the VP candidate for the 1920 presidential election. And Cox and FDR were so completely trounced. How could a failed VP candidate like FDR come back in 1932 and realign the country?

We no longer live in 1920.

We live in the age of television and Sarah Palin looked like an unread, clueless idiot on nation-wide television trying to cover up the fact that she could not name a single news source that she read.

Any regular Freeper can rattle off at least a dozen news sources that we routinely post and read on Free Republic.

Sarah Palin cannot and that is scary.

Palin: I Read All the News

In 2012, American voters will have learned the very painful lesson of the folly of electing Presidents with very little experience.

In 2012, Barack Obama is toast.

So is Sarah Palin.

A white, male candidate wants to be President of the United States because:

He has spent his whole adult life as a nutless, gutless, RINO, capitulating to the communist left on legislation, and selling out the taxpaying citizens of the USA to foreign and domestic enemies, selling out his neighbors to multi-national corporate interests, and on, and on, and on.

... that ~~would~~ should get a white, male laughed off the political stage ... and hanged for treason.

A white, male candidate wants to be President of the United States because: He has spent his whole adult life as a nutless, gutless, RINO, capitulating to the communist left on legislation, and selling out the taxpaying citizens of the USA to foreign and domestic enemies, selling out his neighbors to multi-national corporate interests, and on, and on, and on. ... that would should get a white, male laughed off the political stage ... and hanged for treason

What are you?

A Black Panther that wants to kill cracker babies?

Those mindless rants will win you applause from the extreme fringe in the Echo Chamber but it will only bring you defeat of Biblical proportions in a Real World Presidential election.

In a country of over 300 million persons, there must be at least one candidate to your liking that has not quit in the middle of her first term of office ...... being Mayor of a town of less than 7,000 not included.

“What you are saying is absolutely wrong.”

Thank you slipstream.

It seems Polybius has bought the media’s false image.

“And most importantly, as the article above indicates, in 1978 – 2 years before the election - Ronald Reagan had a negative rating of 45%, close to Palin’s current negative rating. Like Palin, Ronald Reagan’s negatives were also the product of media biases and distortions, but he was able to convince the voting public to have confidence in him and made a positive and inspiring case for himself.”

Thanks, Victoria, for posting this reply to the “unelectability” canard . There are numerous polls from the late 1970s that show Reagan with astronomically high “negatives” which are the result of disengaged, tuned out voters who did not know much about him except what they heard on TV. As he began to win primaries, the negatives went down. But his negatives were always higher than those for Ford or some mushy moderate candidate like McCain. And so are Sarah’s. One reason is that there are many liberals who say they have a positive impression of McCain (or any moderate)but that does not mean they will vote for the moderate over a true liberal. So the candidate with higher negatives actually does better at the polls if his support is more intense.

Another deeper reason for the higher, more intense negatives directed toward Reagan and Palin by the left is the old saying, “One always hates what one fears.”(Reagan was feared, and Palin is feared, becasue the left knows that they are serous about their beliefs) The left’s hatred will continue unabated. But persuadable independents (a larger group than the left), whose fear of the conservative is based upon a a lie, are ripe for the picking, if the conservative has the skills to persuade them. Reagan had that skill. Palin has it too. And she has it in spades.

Having higher negative ratings in the general electorate does not make a candidate less electable as long as that candidate can make up any deficit with intensity of support among his or her base. Reagan did that. He was ALWAYS despised with white hot hatred by the left. But he was loved by conservatives and by independents (who according to all the polls are conservative leaners as well). As you point out Reagan’s negatives went below 40% but unless I am very wrong, they always stayed about there. (note that Reagan never rose to the stratospheric approval ratings of the Bushes) but he always got his partisans to the polls and that meant a couple of landslides.

Palin is following the same playbook as Reagan. Her support like Reagan’s is intense. She is, as he was, the most popular with conservatives and Republicans. And her negatives are going down. They will always be higher but this is no disability for her at the polls. There will be a huge turnout of conservatives and the “persuadables” whom she will bring around. She is in very, very good shape. And the enemy knows it.

Bump!

You and the lamestream media are stuck on the same tune.

I take about a three day break from FR.

I come back. And my teeth are already grinding and I already want to reach through the computer screen and...

You just hate Sarah Palin because you are just another Palin hater. There is no reasoning behind you.

Thanks for the compliment, Polybius - and yes, those are my own pics. I must also say that back in the day when I was a new FR member, I used to read your posts and admired your depth of knowledge and analysis about many subjects, and that's why when I read your post on this thread I was flabbergast at your sentiments towards Sarah Palin.

Your analysis about Reagan is correct, but you have to also consider that in 1978 Reagan was 68 years old, and Sarah is 23 years younger than Reagan was at the time, so I can't expect her to have comparable life and political experience as Reagan. Yet, Sarah has demonstrated during her brief political career that she has an extraordinary capacity to lead and motivate, which helped Alaska improve on her watch. During that time she did more for Alaska than many prior governors had done in full terms.

Sarah may not have all the experience that Reagan had, but she has the wisdom, charisma, and conservative values of Ronald Reagan. And more importantly, she believes in them. She has a fighting spirit and the tenacity to follow her ideals in a way I haven't seen recently in American politics. I can't think of a Republican politician besides Palin that points out Obama's policies of destruction day in and day out. Yet no matter how much ridicule she endures from each end of the political spectrum, Sarah maintains the same passion for advancing her political values as Reagan did.

Though your post aims to ridicule Sarah and belittle her accomplishments, the fact is that she is an accomplished politician and woman, that has a large, dedicated following. You can try to diminish her, but the fact is she has accomplished a lot more than other politicians that have been successful - indeed, she is more accomplished and experienced than Obama who won with 53% of the vote.

If you think such strengths (which are present in true leaders such as Reagan and now Palin) have less weight than the innuendo and hateful comments the mainstream media peddles, or the conventional wisdom voiced by the Sarah haters, then you really underestimate Americans. It is true that Americans made a mistake when they elected Obama, and it is true that every time they elect a democrat they make a mistake, but something tells me that the USA would not have risen to its status in the world if the American people only continued to make mistakes. When push comes to shove, Americans come through.

That's why, I believe that after the mistake of electing Obama, we as a country will vote for a true conservative reformer the next time around. And if Sarah decides to run, she has what it takes to build on her public persona (much like Reagan did when he had comparable negatives at a similar point before the 1980 election) and win people over.

Even if everything you wrote was true and valid, the voters managed to elect a guy like Obama to the presidency. If an Obama can rise to the most powerful position in the world, there's no reason Sarah Palin can't.

Outstanding post, BC, thanks.

I'm bookmarking this thread!

Sarah may not have all the experience that Reagan had, but she has the wisdom, charisma, and conservative values of Ronald Reagan.

It's not her values or conservatism that many of us doubt, Victoria. It's her intelligence. All the heart-felt values in the world are useless when presented with a problem beyond one's ability to comprehend. The presidency comes with a load of problems that demand a keen mind, and I'm sorry, I haven't seen a shred of evidence that she possesses one.

Someone else mentioned that FR is an echo chamber, and it's a true statement. So, the fact even here, amongst people who fall to the right of any conventional definition of conservative, she has so many detractors should tell any thinking person that she's not going to be president. She's not going to win the nomination even if she runs.

If by some Perotish quirk she does win the nomination, you can bet that many otherwise faithful Republicans, myself included, will not vote for her. Not because we'd prefer Obama, but because in the event of a Palin nomination, the message must be sent that it is unacceptable lest it happen again. We'd rather deal with four more years than open the door to future Palins. That way, when we do take back the presidency, we'll do so with a candidate who'll do us proud and not embarrass us for the next four years as Carter embarrassed the Democrats.

We must have grown up in parallel universes. Where I lived, Reagan was so popular that we were forced to coin the term “Reagan Democrat”. I’ll make you a list of congressional votes during his term if you wish, but no president in history enjoyed as much across the aisle support as Ronald Reagan. Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan, and personally I think it’s downright insulting to Ronald Reagan to even make the comparison unless there is a punchline at the end.

I think you're overstating it. I think you have fallen for the dominant mainstream media depiction of Sarah Palin as a simple minded person. They tried the same thing with Reagan back in the day. It's not necessarily true. As for evidence of her intelligence, she is a successful and accomplished person. She speaks well and gets her message across - an unintelligent person tends to have difficulty with communication.

She isn't an elite, for sure. She wasn't educated in top schools. She doesn't have a graduate degree. She doesn't read the newspapers and magazines that the intellectual elite devours to get their news. But none of that makes her unintelligent. None of that suggests she isn't intelligent enough to be a national leader.

You're connecting dots that aren't there. Maybe there are questions about Palin. Maybe she doesn't have what it takes. Maybe she does. We don't find out the answer to those questions if we listen to you. We will find out by listening to her and seeing if voters react well.

If she decides to run and loses, you will be right. If she decides to run and wins, you will be wrong. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're in no position to announce her as a sure loser should she run. That's remarkably presumptuous.

I think she can do it - maybe I'm wrong. But I won't be so obnoxious as to anoint her a winner or a loser of an election over two years away. Indeed, speaking of intelligence, that would be compelling evidence of a lack of intelligence and wisdom.

Your reasoning regarding why a second Obama term is preferable to a Palin presidency isn't particularly compelling to me. All the talk of opening doors is silly - if everything you say is true, that door may already be wide open, after all, by the Obama presidency.

You're in no position to condemn her as a losing candidate at this point in the game. If she wins, fine. If she fails, well, we have failed before. But taking losses today for some imagined big win tomorrow isn't a particularly intelligent or persuasive message to most people.

You're in no position to condemn her as a losing candidate at this point in the game.

I'm giving you my opinion, as others are doing in this very thread. However, I doubt you'll be as quick to call those who are saying she'll emerge victorious on their prognostication.

I guess my only real question to you, given what you posted is: Do you honestly believe she speaks well? In answer to your statement that I've bought into the media take on Palin, it isn't so. You'll have to forgive my lack of eloquence here, but my opinion is largely based on her hillbilly speech. Sure it's hillbilly with a Fargo accent instead of the typical Southern drawl, but hillbilly none the less. Don't even get me started on her tweets, which I follow religiously just for the belly laughs.

“If by some Perotish quirk she does win the nomination, you can bet that many otherwise faithful Republicans, myself included, will not vote for her. Not because we’d prefer Obama, but because in the event of a Palin nomination, the message must be sent that it is unacceptable lest it happen again.”

You would have undoubtedly been in the ranks of Mary Dent Crisp in 1980 in leaving the GOP to support John Anderson. I have only one message for you. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out. You never supported Reagan, and your post to me proves it. You are no more a “faithful Republican” than Arlen Specter.

“We must have grown up in parallel universes. Where I lived, Reagan was so popular that we were forced to coin the term “Reagan Democrat”.”

We obviously did. You have no memories of Reagan until AFTER he was already President. The term “Reagan Democrat” did not exist until AFTER he was elected. This further suggests to me that your “talking points” are bullet points that don’t give you sufficient historical background to engage with someone who actually lived through the history.

In your post to Victoria DelSoul, you wrote:

“I guess my only real question to you, given what you posted is: Do you honestly believe she speaks well?”

My question to you is: Do you honestly believe you write well? On a thread just last week, you delivered the following clumsy, grammatically incorrect “sentence” :

“This woman is not presidential caliber material.”

“Caliber” and “material” are both nouns in the sentence (if you can call it that) that you constructed. But there is only one adjective. Of the several options you could have chosen to express a coherent thought, you overlooked them all and chose the one only a (what was the word your lordship used?) a hillbilly would have employed. You could have written:

“This woman is not presidential.”
“This woman is not presidential material.”
“This woman is not presidential caliber.”

Instead you chose a line that could have been delivered by Forrest Gump or Gomer Pyle.

If you are going to try to insult Palin’s intelligence, it would be well to brush up on your own grammar. It is quite enough to educate one such as yourself, a budding faux elitist, on things historical and political. I haven’t got time to go through the Guth book with you.

You can't really be that stupid. I'm not running for president or asking you to look up to me. I'm just a guy who isn't claiming to be anything special, yet you are choosing to insult me. If you can't see the difference between me, just a guy, and a wannabe leader of the free world, then I can't help you. If you don't expect higher standards from your leaders than working stiffs like me, then you are even dumber than I thought.

“I’m just a guy who isn’t claiming to be anything special, yet you are choosing to insult me.”

You level insults at her and look down you nose at her grammar (”I...religiously follow her tweets...for belly laughs”), and then you claim to be “just a working stiff.”

You may find her tweets to be worthy of “belly laughs”, but they seem to generate tremendous attention and “move the needle” for the likes of Nikki Haley,Karen Handel and Susanna Martinez. I doubt if your posts generate that much attention.

“If you can’t see the difference between me, just a guy, and a wannabe leader of the free world, then I can’t help you.”

Based on your comments on this forum, I can see a vast difference between you and the “wannabe leader of the free world”, as you put it. Her arguments are cogent and conservative and, based upon the last two years of observing her career and the quarter century I observed Reagan, I can tell you that she has a much better understanding of Reagan than you do. Comparing Sarah Palin to Jimmy Carter, as you did earlier in this thread would be insulting, if it were not so ignorant. You obviously know nothing about Carter and you know next to nothing about Palin’s record as Governor of Alaska.

If you want to educate yourself about Reagan and his 1976 and 1980 campaigns, I suggest you read “Reagan’s Revolution” and “Rendezvous with Destiny” both by Craig Shirley. You will quickly see the similarities between what Reagan faced from the GOP Establishment and what Palin faces now...the insults to his intelligence, his competence, the numerous gaffes that the MSM identified and spotlighted. He was smeared as a warmonger and a racist, both by the GOP Establishment and by Carter. If you seriously want to engage in a dialogue about Palin and Reagan, read the books.

On the other hand, if you just want to engage in serial posting against her with no facts in support, don’t bother reading the books. You are already qualified to do that.

You may find her tweets to be worthy of “belly laughs”, but they seem to generate tremendous attention and “move the needle” for the likes of Nikki Haley,Karen Handel and Susanna Martinez. I doubt if your posts generate that much attention.

There you go again...saying stupid things. Of course my posts aren't generating any appreciable level of attention. I don't know of any posters at all who are garnering much attention outside of FR itself, and that includes you. I speak to others here with the same level of comfort that I'd speak to someone in my living room. I don't know about you, but I don't have any illusions of self-importance. The sum total of my political power lies in my single vote, and really, I'm ok with that.

Now you can either accept that I'm offering my opinion of Sarah Palin to those I consider friends, or not. Either way, I'll continue speaking my mind. You don't have to like the fact that she strikes me as slow and dim witted, but you are going to have to live with the fact that she strikes me as being slow and dim witted. If I claimed that I thought she was remarkably intelligent, I'd be lying through my teeth. I call'em like I see'em, and that's not going to change. Live with it. God only knows I have to live with everyone who worships her as the second coming, those who have schoolboy crushes on her and everyone in between.

If I claimed that I thought she was remarkably intelligent, I'd be lying through my teeth. I call'em like I see'em, and that's not going to change. Live with it. God only knows I have to live with everyone who worships her as the second coming, those who have schoolboy crushes on her and everyone in between.

I have news for you, Melas, I don't see her as the second coming, or have a crush on her or anything of that sort. So your simplistic and misogynist reference to those who admire her for superficial reasons is just as ridiculous as your belly laughs at Sarah's comments about Obama's policies of destruction.

A lot of Americans are suffering due to unemployment, a bad economy, and hard times, and while Sarah is exposing Obama for what he is doing (even if she uses outlets like Twitter and Facebook), you only focus on her accent and enjoy a hearty good belly laugh.

Hope you also enjoy fiddling with your violin while ~~Rome~~ America goes down the tubes.

I have news for you, Melas, I don't see her as the second coming, or have a crush on her or anything of that sort. So your simplistic and misogynist reference to those who admire her for superficial reasons is just as ridiculous as your belly laughs at Sarah's comments about Obama's policies of destruction.
A lot of Americans are suffering due to unemployment, a bad economy, and hard times, and while Sarah is exposing Obama for what he is doing (even if she uses outlets like Twitter and Facebook), you only focus on her accent and enjoy a hearty good belly laugh. Hope you also enjoy fiddling with your violin while ~~Rome~~ America goes down the tubes.

Melas, you just expressed admiration for Ronald Reagan. Why is that? Do you worship him as the second coming or have a schoolboy crush on him?

I support Sarah Palin because I consider her an intelligent and articulate advocate for her views, with which I am almost entirely in agreement.