Why a Palin Run is Imminent or at Least Ineluctable

Tweets and Retweets from RAMansour/SarahPAC | Vanity

[NavyCanDo]

“I love Sarah Palin, but I don’t think she is electable (right now) for President.”

Not many giving Obama much of a chance in April 2007.

FLASHBACK APRIL 3 2007 Iowa Polls

http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2007/april/040307poll-data.pdf

DEMS
Clinton 25.5
Edwards 23.2
Obama 16.3

[curth]

Nope, she’s on the record. She loves this country too much to guarantee us four more years of Ødumbo.

[MichaelCorleone]

“This will truly be a reform movement by, for and of The People.”

Sounds like fun.

[SamAdams76]

In 1979, they were saying the same thing about Ronald Reagan. That he was unelectable, that he was too polarizing, that he was too "right-wing" to win a nationwide election with an electorate that was clearly leaning liberal (referencing the 1976 elections).

Sarah Palin may not be as great as Ronald Reagan but Barack Obama is even worse than Jimmy Carter and so that levels the playing field. Thus, we are setting the stage for the 2012 election to be a repeat of 1980. In which a true conservative absolutely crushes a weak and ineffective incumbent Democrat.

[Polybius]

She shored up her foreign policy credentials with her trip to India and Israel. That was one of the primary arguments against a Palin Presidency.

How pathetically low can you set your standards in regards to Sarah Palin?

A single "trip" to India and Israel and a meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister "shored up her foreign policy credentials"?

Well, in that case, Madonna for President!

Madonna Celebrates Jewish Sabbath with Prime Minister

Madonna tours India with Australian author

The average FReeper is a foreign policy genius compared to Sarah Palin. The average FReeper knows that Obama's rush to overthrow Gadhafi played into al Qaeda's hands because the "rebels" in Libya and al Qaeda are joined at the hip.

The average FReeper knows that but Sarah Palin, despite her recent tourist trip to Israel, was totally clueless on that point.

A few weeks ago, many FReepers were wondering how Obama put the U.S. into the situation that we were providing tactical air support for a likely al Qaeda takerover of Libya. Imagine Libya's multi-Billion dollar oil wealth being used to finance al Qaeda terrorism.

Many FReepers though that Obama must be in bed with al Qaeda. What other explanation could there possible be?

Here was my reply:

***********

In regards to U.S. airstrikes in Libya helping al Qarda

Obama will be pleased. ...... Comment from FReeper Number 1

Why do you think he acted so quickly ...... Comment from FReeper Number 2

Because of stupidity. Because, in foreign affairs, Barack Obama is totally clueless. Because Barack Obama never bothered to do his homework and educate himself. Because Barack Obama was an Affirmative Action candidate that too many irrational people gushed over because of the way he looked and sounded instead of what he knew and you can't realistically expect anything but FUBAR's from such a President.

Barack Obama got into the "Let's overthrow Gadhafi" chess game without ever bothering to study what would happen beyond the first move of "Pawn to King 4".

Barack Obama had not thought out the chess game beyond the extremely naïve notion that you can:

1.) Topple Gadhafi so that

2.) America can then Cut & Run so that

3.) The Democracy Fairy can wave her Magic Wand and everybody lives happily ever after

The three major problems with that childishly naïve lunacy are that:

1.) There is no such thing as a Democarcy Fairy

2.) In all of military history, air power has never, ever, secured a single square mile of territory. To secure territorry, you need "boots on the ground". The 8th Air Force may have flattened East Berlin in World War II but East Berlin became Communist because, after the bombing, it was the Soviets with "boots on the ground" there.

3.) The one warring faction that is pouring fighters into Libya in order to have "boots on the ground" to secure the final Victory in Libya is al Qaeda. ("Thank you, U.S. air power, for giving us the future Billions of dollars of Libyan oil revenues that we will use to kill Americans!")

During a break from the fighting, Abu Sultan explained that he is no stranger to bloody battles. He traveled to Iraq in 2003, incensed by the U.S.-led invasion.His brother Hassan blew himself up near a U.S. Marine vehicle, killing the Americans. Abu Sultan called home to tell his mother, and Hassan was celebrated as a martyr in the eastern Libyan city of Ajdabiya. Another brother, Abu Sultan said, has become a top commander of al-Qaeda, and is based in Afghanistan.

After his intial blunder, saner heads at the Pentagon pointed out to Obama:

"Mr. President, what about the fact that al Qaeda has been flooding Libya with radical Islamist fighters in order to be the only warring faction with the necessary "boots on the ground" to secure the final control over Libya? You specifically expect to "get out" and leave a power vacuum in Libya that al Qaeda is already mobilized to fill? It will turn over Libya and it's oil wealth over to the Islamic radicals just as surely as Jimmy Carter's blundering with another dictator turned Iran over to the Islamist fanatics."

Then, Obama realized what an idiot he has been.

"What should I do now? How can I fix this?"

"Stalemate, Mr. President. We will claim a stalemate. With Gadhafi still in power, we can use him as a proxy to keep the radical Islamists in check just like George H. W. Bush used Saddam to keep the Iranian-backed, radical Islamists in southern Iraq in check in 1991 after the Gulf War."

So, the Pentagon starts making statements about "Stalemate".

This is the Charlie Foxtrot that happens when voters support a ridiculously unprepared and unqualified Affirmative Action candidate just because they absolutely adore how that candidate looks and sounds without ever bothering to figure out if that candiate would lead America into FUBAR after FUBAR through sheer ignorance and incompetence.

You do not have to be a secret al Qaeda supporter to get America into such a FUBAR and hand Billions of dollars of future oil revenue over to al Qaeda.

You just have to be so utterly unqualified to be Commander-in-Chief that you actually have the extremely naïve notion that you can:

1.) Topple Gadhafi so that

2.) America can then Cut & Run so that

3.) The Democracy Fairy can wave her Magic Wand and everybody lives happily ever after

Case in point:

"So what our president said at first, that our mission is to see Qaddafi go, he's got to go, but then we're told by one of his top advisers, the president's top advisers, saying, Well, no, really, Qaddafi is probably going to prevail on this. He's probably going to prevail over the opposition. And then our president changes the tune again, saying, Well, it's not our mission to oust Qaddafi. A lot of confusion. I would like to see, of course, as long as we're in it -- we better be in it to win it. And if there's doubt, we get out. Win it means Qaddafi goes and America gets to get on out of there and let the people of Libya create their own government" .... Sarah Palin in interview with Greta van Sustern

"But, Governor Palin, what about the fact that al Qaeda has been flooding Libya with radical Islamist fighters in order to be the only warring faction with the necessary "boots on the ground" to secure the final control over Libya? You specifically expect to "get out" and leave a power vacuum in Libya that al Qaeda is already mobilized to fill? It will turn over Libya and it's oil wealth over to the Islamic radicals just as surely as Jimmy Carter's blundering with another dictator turned Iran over to the Islamist fanatics."

"Umm ... What do you mean by "boots on the ground"? What's an "Islamist"? What does al Qaeda have to do with any of this and the Democracy Fairy?"

[GlockLady]

Sarah didn’t mess up with that Couric interview. The McCain team did. It was falsly portrayed to Palin by Nichole Wallace. Sarah did a 3 hour interview which was edited down to the few minutes the public saw. Couric had repeatedly asked her the same questions during the 3 hours [intentionally irritating Palin], then they edited it to show what they wanted.

[curth]

Second, I don’t think Sarah is ready for the White House too. Seems like she cannot handle interviews with the Rats in the media and press. For instance, the interview with Katie Couric was disastrous. It’s not so important what the Rats say during the interview, but how Sarah responds. All they need is one bad answer (I know it’s B.S.) to just beat Sarah with it endlessly. For example, reading books or about Russia, etc..

---

That interview was done three years ago. She is much more skilled and prepared for anything they throw at her in 2011. She also was trying to be careful not to stray from the party line.Couric also had some of Øbamas people coach her to ask her questions they were pretty sure Sarah would not know the answer to. Besides that, that interview actually used 6 hours of film and was pared down to 10 minutes, the ten minutes which would show her in the worst light it could. They have never released the raw video.

I have seen just about every interview she’s done and haven’t seen anything that she didn’t handle well. She whipped O’Reilly’s ass so bad that he turned against her and bad mouths her every chance he gets. Yes it was on Fox, but O’Reilly is more friendly to Øbama than he is to Governor Palin.

About the only thing I might complain about is that she is too nice sometimes and doesn’t blow off the bullshit questions about Kathy Griffin and Levi and other nonsense like that.

[curth]

Don’t forget to get your children involved, after all it is there future that Øbama is determined to destroy. Check out Youth For Palin on Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/home.php?sk=group_144741688925106

[Polybius]

In 1979, they were saying the same thing about Ronald Reagan. That he was unelectable, that he was too polarizing, that he was too "right-wing" to win a nationwide election .....

First of all, Ronald Reagan never, ever, had polls this utterly toxic.

FOX News Poll (February 7-9, 2011)

Question 3: I am going to read you a list of names. Tell me if you think that person would make a good President or not.

Sarah Palin:

.................YES.........NO.......DK.....Never heard of

ALL...........23%.......72%.........4%.......1%

Dem ...........7%........87%........5%.......1%

Rep ...........40%.......56%.......3%.......1%

Ind ...........25%........69%.......3%.......1%

Secondly, Ronald Reagan knew his foreign policy and showed it:

From 1975 to 1979 Ronald Reagan gave more than 1,000 daily radio broadcasts, the great majority of which he wrote himself. .... These addresses .... revise our understanding of the late 1970s - a time when Reagan held no political office, but was nonetheless mapping out a strategy to transform the economy, end the Cold War, and create a vision of America that would propel him to the presidency. These radio programs demonstrate that Reagan had carefully considered nearly every issue he would face as president.

In regards to foreign policy, Sarah Palin is totally clueless and painfully shows it.

See Post 45.

Sarah Palin: "In Libya, the U.S. should overthrow Gadhafi and then get out."

What about the fact that that would hand Libya over to the rebels that are highly infiltrated by al Qaeda?

Sarah Palin is not educated enough in the very basics of foreign affairs to have thought that far ahead.

"So what our president said at first, that our mission is to see Qaddafi go, he's got to go, but then we're told by one of his top advisers, the president's top advisers, saying, Well, no, really, Qaddafi is probably going to prevail on this. He's probably going to prevail over the opposition. And then our president changes the tune again, saying, Well, it's not our mission to oust Qaddafi. A lot of confusion. I would like to see, of course, as long as we're in it -- we better be in it to win it. And if there's doubt, we get out. Win it means Qaddafi goes and America gets to get on out of there and let the people of Libya create their own government" .... Sarah Palin in interview with Greta van Sustern

[Chunga]

Let me ask you this. If the Republican Party promotes and is successful in nominating Romney, what are our options?

The Republican Party is people. If you don't want Romney, join the party and get your candidate nominated.

[Chunga]

Second, I don’t think Sarah is ready for the White House too.

Take your RINO-abetting, Democrat-enabling, intentionally strained and poorly punctuated mainstream media talking points elsewhere, troll.

[gunsmithkat]

I agree 100%. In fact, I’m calling The Madison Speech her unofficial announcement for 2012 run for the Presidency.

[allmendream]

Hopefully by “sitting out the first presidential election...” you mean forgoing marking your ballot for President.

There are, you may or may not be aware, or care; OTHER races that are going to be decided that day.

Staying home/sitting out is NOT an option for anyone who is serious.

[Republic]

That’s what I was asking about...didn’t even know RA was a female. Thanks for the answer. Conspiratorial mode /off.

[Gargantua]

People who puke this kind of retarded garbage don’t deserve a hero like Palin for President. O’Bunghole’s more your speed.

[Gargantua]

Palin is more than ready to be president, it's just that poor Sprite isn't ready to be a voter yet.

;-\

[erod]

Well, in that case, Madonna for President!

Hey genius, Madonna never held office or accomplished half the things Governor Palin did, and your troll posts aren’t going to dissuade our support for her so why do you even bother posting that crap here?

[grey_whiskers]

This is just my 2 cents about it, but I maybe wrong?

Definitely wrong, and it's not even worth two cents.

Let me ask it this way. How old are you? What is the first Presidential Election you were eligible to vote in?

Cheers!

[Art in Idaho]

Madison speech on Friday, totally revamped and expanded Sarahpac website on Monday, officially announce on Thursday? : )

[grey_whiskers]

Hey, troll-boy.

Good to hear from you.

The poll you've quoted (and have been relentlessly thumping, promulgating, posting, and generally shamelessly plugging for close to a couple of months now) is a sham.

Speaking of which, you seem to post the same stuff a lot.

I already debunked the poll here.

With respect to foreign policy? Palin has already explicitly modeled her foreign policy after Reagan's foreign policy, as she indicated in Going Rogue>. Furthermore, foreign policy has changed somewhat since Reagan's day: Russia is no longer an active existential threat in the way it was, but China is trying to become one. And Palin is right on the mark, as opposed to the educated enlightened auto-fellating globalists who sold out the US manufacturing base and defense industry to China for short-term gain. This is from the Wall Street Journal:

Sarah Palin was pounded by the media as a foreign-policy novice during last year's presidential campaign. But when it comes to the U.S. approach toward China, she has ideas worth listening to.

"Twenty years ago, many believed that as China liberalized its economy, greater political freedom would naturally follow," the former Alaska governor and Republican nominee for the vice presidency told a Hong Kong audience yesterday. "Unfortunately that has not come to pass."

Mrs. Palin sees China's authoritarian nature as a security concern for the U.S. and its allies in Asia-Pacific, and she has a point. North Korea, Burma and other rogue regimes couldn't sustain themselves without Chinese support. Not to mention the hundreds of missiles Beijing has pointed at Taiwan and its navy's increasingly muscular attitude in the South China Sea. "How many books and articles have been written about the dangers of India's rise?" she asked.

It's funny how you systematically misrepresent her qualifications by comparing her to Reagan: as though if you can make her seem inferior to Reagan in any one respect, everyone is obligated to go into a PDS trance and reject her candidacy out of hand immediately; upon pain of being labeled a "CULT MEMBER".

Those aren't the only two choices: merely the false horns of a dilemma on which you want to skewer supporters of Palin, in order to gain ground without any substance of your own.

Rational thought is not your strong suit; or else you are a mere shill, whore, and propagandist for parties unknown.

As for Libya? The entire hue and cry among everyone is that we cannot get bogged down in yet another war, that Bush's "nation-building" (with associated expense of an occupying force, and large numbers of troops maimed or killed by various guerilla tactics) is no longer tenable.

And of course, your argument is begging the question -- hasn't it been bandied about on FR that the entire round of uprisings (beginning in Egypt) was instigated by Obama's cronies? In other words, the comparison isn't valid, since under Palin, the uprisings wouldn't have happened.

Incidentally -- have you noticed that Palin's response largely agrees with John Bolton?

"Had we acted in those early days, we could have tipped the balance conclusively against Kadafi and this whole thing might be over," Bolton told hundreds of delegates over dinner in the ballroom of a downtown hotel. "Instead the president dithered, and he watched, and he waited, and he temporized." "In the course of his ruminations, he said Kadafi has got to go — and then he still didn't do anything about it — thus exposing the United States to an enormous credibility problem with our friends and allies, as well as our adversaries."

And hasn't he been one of Palin's main advisors?

Good luck calling *him* a dolt.

Nice try, though, troll.

Cheers!