Well played, JN 
Posted on 09/17/2011 1:03:44 PM PDT by SamAdams76
Much speculation going on the past few weeks with regard to Sarah Palin and whether or not she will be a presidential candidate for 2012. As we move through mid-September, the majority of those speculating have decided that she is not going to run. Even among those who remain hopeful that she will run, they seem to have given up on the prospects of a Palin candidacy, many of them holding the opinion that even should she enter the race at this point, it will be "too late".
Three questions for those who are convinced that Palin is not going to run:
If you can answer YES to any of the above questions, then you can make the case that Palin is not running for president. However, as the facts stand today, the answers to all of the above are an unequivocal NO.
I also have a multiple choice question for those who feel that it is now too late for Palin to get into this race:
Which of the following presidents announced their candidates prior to October of the year before their election?
a) Bill Clinton
b) Richard Nixon
c) Ronald Reagan
d) None of the above
If you answered: d) None of the above; you would be CORRECT! All three of those presidents announced their candidacies relatively late in the process. To be precise, Bill Clinton announced his candidacy on October 3, 1991. Ronald Reagan announced his on November 13, 1979. And then we have Richard Nixon…he of the high negatives, who waited until January 31, 1968 to announce his candidacy. All three of these candidates not only won their elections handily, but were re-elected four years later. Another interesting factoid: All three of these presidents were considered divisive and had relatively high negative approval ratings throughout their presidencies. They were mostly beloved by those who supported them but were loathed by the opposite party. Yet in the case of Nixon and Reagan (easily the two Republican presidents who are most despised by the political Left), they were both re-elected in two of the largest landslides in presidential history.
Enter Sarah Palin. Like Clinton, Reagan and Nixon before her, there is not much middle ground with respect to where people stand on her. They either love her or hate her. Yes, she is divisive and her entry into the race is going to generate some very strong emotions on both sides of the political fence. But she is a game-changer and perhaps just the person we need at this point in our history to lead our nation out of the abyss that it is currently in. Can she win if she get in? Yes, you bet she can! It probably won't even be close.
The stakes are very high this coming election year. Our nation simply cannot endure another four years under a corrupt and incompetent president who has reduced our standing in the world, degraded the health of our nation and is now in the process of destroying our future prospects. As Ronald Reagan said of the Carter Administration during the 1980 campaign, an "unprecedented calamity has befallen us." Only this time, under the Obama Administration, the calamity is far, far worse. We are now suffering under a chief executive who is not only the most unprepared and unable man to ever hold the office, but one who holds un-American socialist views and surrounds himself with others who feel the same way and who are looting our tax dollars right under our noses to reward themselves and their cronies. Our current president got himself elected with the empty slogan of "hope and change" and once he got into office, he proceeded to destroy all hope and while he brought plenty of change, none of it is good. His supposed solution to our failing economy is to tax working Americans out of more of their money so that it can be flushed away on socialist government programs that are doomed to failure and transferred to people who are either unable or unwilling to work.
It is for these reasons that many Republicans want to play it safe again this election year. Rather than getting behind somebody who can advance the conservative cause, many feel it is more prudent to elect somebody that they believe can more easily beat Obama. Which basically means a watered down Republican who supposedly has appeal to "moderates" and "right-leaning Democrats" (such as those who crossed over and voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984). This has proven to be a FAILED strategy time and time again.
It is that very line of thinking that has saddled us with weak "RINO" nominees in the past like John McCain, Bob Dole and George Bush (both of them). I simply do not understand why so many conservatives feel that we need a watered-down RINO in order to win a general election. RINOs tend to LOSE general elections, and even when they win, it is usually in a squeaker that produces no mandate for change and with little coattails so that we end up with a mixed Congress. The result is that very little changes - even in the best case scenario, the conservative cause does NOT get advanced using this strategy. The end result is we have a weak president that usually gets replaced by a Democrat.
Ronald Reagan was the last "true" conservative that represented the Republicans in the White House. Yes, he was divisive and polarizing. His negatives were always high because liberals and Democrats did not like him one bit! His approval rating in his first term rarely went over 50% and his negative approval ratings were consistently in the 40s - peaking at 53% negative in January 1983 (just before the recovery started building steam). For those old enough to remember Reagan's first term, it was a very exciting time to be an American. We were transformed from the malaise of the Carter years to a respected world superpower once more with a roaring economy to go with it. This was all brought about not because Reagan tinkered with the economy like Obama and his henchman are trying to do. It was brought about because Reagan did the best he could to lessen the tax burden on both citizens and corporations and to move federal government OUT OF THE WAY as much as possible. Reagan succeeded because he allowed capitalism to actually work. Reagan truly believed that a rising tide could lift all boats while on the other hand, Obama's administration seems intent on draining our economic system so that our corporations and businesses are all run aground or stuck on sandbars.
Now back in the early days of the 1980 campaign, there were whispers in Republican circles that Reagan "can't win the general" and that his nomination would result in another four years of Carter. The knock on Reagan was that he was too extreme, too divisive, too polarizing. Many Republicans of the day felt that we would be better off with George H.W. Bush (with whom much of the establishment got behind early on) and even when Reagan sewed up the nomination, the anti-Reagan feelings were still so strong that moderate John Anderson was encouraged to break from the Republicans and run an Independent campaign.
So lets circle back to Sarah Palin. Now it is not my intention to state that Sarah Palin is another Ronald Reagan. But I think I can state with confidence that Sarah Palin is the best conservative candidate the Republicans have had on a national level SINCE Ronald Reagan. It is apparent that the liberal mainstream media and the Democrats feel the same way because how else could you explain their non-stop three-year crusade to absolutely destroy and marginalize her? I am sad to say that many conservatives have sat on their hands while allowing the other side to "Dan Quayle" Sarah Palin and even sadder to say, some of those conservatives are going right along with the program, by themselves hurling the same arrows at her.
If we sit idly by and allow a fine American like Sarah Palin to be destroyed, simply because she poses a threat to the establishment status quo, then we might as well just turn in our conservative card now and move on over to the other side. Because if we allow Sarah to be destroyed, we have just given the Democrats the necessary blueprint to ensure that another Ronald Reagan is never allowed to emerge again. They will simply destroy any good candidate that we have early on, thereby ensuring that only the John McCains and the Mitt Romneys will ever represent us at the national level again.
Also, I am sick and tired of hearing about how Sarah has waited too long to get into this race and that she is playing her followers for fools. Listen up people, we are still MONTHS away from the Iowa caucus and as mentioned at the top of this article, Sarah has not missed any of the filing deadlines. So why all the hand-wringing that it's "too late…too late"? So why the rush to embrace Rick Perry because he is our "only hope." Now as a Palin backer, I'm not saying that I'm not going to support Rick Perry should he get the nomination. But it's too darn early to be rallying around Perry and settling for second best now when we have other announced candidates still in the race that better represent the conservative cause such as Herman Cain, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann? Yet before the first meaningful vote is cast and before the first delegate is assigned, many of us are already saying those three (in addition to Palin) have no chance to win!
Why are we allowing the mainstream media and a few polling outfits decide for us who should be in the running for the Republican nomination? It's too early to be looking at polls. Let's focus on the candidates who will best advance the conservative cause and support them while they are still in the race. It appears that mainstream media want to shove Romney and Perry down our throats - why do you think that is? It is because those two represent less of a threat to liberalism and the entrenched establishment in Washington. Even if one of those two beat Obama, not too much will change. Neither of those two candidates have the coattails that will result in taking back the Senate and perhaps creating a super-majority in the House. Yet a Tea Party conservative like Sarah Palin can definitely achieve that and that is what has the liberals scared to death - especially after the shocker of the 9th Congressional district election last Tuesday. We've got the liberals on the run - why stop the momentum now? I have no doubt that Palin will get into this thing and when she does, we just might be able to secure a massive mandates a year from November and get ourselves out of the mess that we are in.
I will end this column with the following lines from Ronald Reagan's acceptance speech at the 1980 Republican convention:
"The major issues of this campaign are the direct political, personal and moral responsibilities of Democratic Party leadership - in the White House and in Congress -- [who are responsible] for this unprecedented calamity which has befallen us. They tell us they have done the most that humanly could be done. They say that the United States has had its day in the sun; that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities.My fellow citizens, I utterly reject that view. The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves. Those who believe we can have no business leading the nation.
I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose. We have come together here because the American people deserve better from those to whom they entrust our nation's highest offices, and we stand united in our resolve to do something about it…(snip)
Can anyone look at the record of this administration and say, "Well done?" Can anyone compare the state of our economy when the Carter Administration took office with where we are today and say, "Keep up the good work?" Can anyone look at our reduced standing in the world today and say, "Let's have four more years of this?"
I believe the American people are going to answer these questions the first week of November and their answer will be, "No--we've had enough." And, then it will be up to us -- beginning next January 20th -- to offer an administration and congressional leadership of competence and more than a little courage.
Ronald Reagan - July 17, 1980 at the Republican National Convention
Well played, JN
Blah, blah, blah...
Four more years of 0bama and we may not have a republic but go ahead and sit out the election. If he wins do not whine when even more of our freedoms are taken away.
Palin is a lovely person. She’s not a perfect conservative, nobody is. But she is pretty good.
If the race comes down to Palin vs Romney, I’d be for Palin. But she has to run first and there is a very strong case for Perry and some of the other candidates.
What are “syncopats”?
We cannot allow Obama another term. No matter what. Are you willing to put the country at risk to stand by your principles?
We all would love to have a true conservative as president. But we have to fight the enemy first!
“She missed two Presidential debates...That in itself is not very presidential. “
didn’t hurt Perry
But even back in the low '00s this place could turn into a barroom brawl at the drop of an innuendo or an ugly hat.
There's been a lotta ZOT 'tween then and now .. it's my impression that things have calmed considerably the last couple/few years.
But I'm gettin' older and tending toward sometimer's, so who knows !
lol
ps: for those waxing nostalgic, there's still Religion and the Smokey Backroom !
There is an error in your calculations. You have failed to consider the Palin quotient.
“Well that opportunity is ours for the taking in 2012 if we stick with Tea Party conservatism.”
I’m for freeper conservatism. Yes, we do have to deal with abortion, gay marriage and Iran. Not everything is about cutting the govt to the bone.
I think I will need to calculate the square root of the standard output of dilithium to derive that factor.
But I do stand corrected.
>>What are “syncopats”?<<
Patriots with RHYTHM, baby!
“We WANT to believe. So what is wrong with that?”
Those who believed in Fred Thompson split the conservative votes, didn’t let any Republican to get traction and we ended up with McCain, and as a result of that, Obama.
Those who are “waiting for Sarah” are trying to stop Perry’s momentum and may end up giving us Romney, who will be beaten by Obama. Your game is NOT harmless, it may give Obama 4 more years.
It’s time to grow up, face reality and work on defeating Obama, not sitting in your fantasy dream world, while Obama destroys the country.
I’ll see your three questions and anti-raise you two questions.
1 question to you:
1. Has Sarah Palin said she is running?
If you cannot answer YES to any of the above questions — well, actually, just one question ... then you cannot say Sarah is running.
Also, regarding the Reagan and Nixon examples ... they may be invalid. May I presume the filing deadlines might be different, 42 and 32 years later, respectively?
Regardless, what’s the point of worrying about it, yea or nay, until the deadline passes or Palin provides a definitive answer.
All I know is Palin would be better than Obama. And so would Perry, Romney, Bachman, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum and every declared GOP candidate — with the exception of Paul.
-George
I'd be interested to hear how things would have turned out otherwise. The only other major candidates to vote for at the time would have been McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee. If not for Fred Thompson "splitting the vote", who is the conservative in that race that we could have rallied around to beat Obama?
IOW, you’ll be voting for Obama as well.
-George
Great graphic. I’ll be stealing that.
No problem at all as there was no error. Nit pickers always figure out how to talk from the bottom side with no big picture thoughts. The dumb bastards especially think that way. I hope you’re not one of them.
Agree with you that all the candidates (aside from Paul) would be better than Obama. Actually I want to say that Paul would be better than Obama too but I can't get around his position that all the countries in the Middle East should be allowed to develop and possess nuclear weapons and implying that Bin Laden had valid reasons for 9/11 attacks (because U.S. was occupying Middle East nations).
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.