Posted on 08/22/2012 11:35:56 PM PDT by onyx
It was an error for the Republicans to bring in New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as the key speaker at their convention. While all of the excitement and adventure in politics in the last three years has been among conservatives, Christie is the great, faithless bet against conservatives’ future and a futile attempt to institutionalize the past. At CPAC events these last three years, up to 40 percent of young conservatives yearned for Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano; STATES’ RIGHTS, SOUND MONEY AND CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. The other 60 percent — the National Review crowd, the neocons, the Bush apparatus, the entire Eastern Conservative Establishment — could think only of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Christie is their front man, as animated and clownish as a carny barker at the Dixie Classic. Going into the future, conservatives hold all the cards. But they chose the past. Obviously, they should have chosen former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as their lead speaker.
Sarah Palin told Greta Van Susteren on Fox last night that she would support a third-party run in Missouri. Not by accident this announcement comes as the Republican convention opens in Tampa, Fla. Like Romney, she misses nothing. Since Palin — and she was the first — came to the aid of Doug Hoffman in NY-23 in 2009, there has been a positive division in conservatism, which will grow and mature in our century. She is the natural leader of this new direction. In time we will see current economic liberalism disappear entirely. It lost its essential economic purpose when large-scale manufacturing left America and America became a place of smaller businesses. It left Democrats with only the most ephemeral lifestyle and cultural issues.
This shift in economy brings a maturity of economic purpose and is a historic shift. If the last century and a half was represented as a proxy fight between Marx and Keynes, the next in America will be between Keynes and Hayek. Two or three years ago at the CPAC events, the Hayek direction — Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Sarah Palin — took the initiative. Chris Christie’s trickster dance in Tampa will not send it away. If Obama wins this year, Palin will lead (against Christie/Bush) in the Republican primary in 2016. If Romney wins and yields to the tradition (which he will because his life is stuck in 1972) Palin will bring a challenge.
Key here is we are at a generational shift as large and vital as that of the ’60s, but it is a conservative shift. They just didn’t get the memo yet in Tampa.
Dearest D-1, you’re hung up on an interview she did when she was McCain’s VP. She’s talked several times since then and each time she’s been emphatic: deport illegals. She’s backs AZ Governor Brewer entirely and serves with her on a dual committee they both started together. I’m sure you know she owns a home in AZ.
Thank you very much for your faithful reminders for our FReepathon. God bless and keep you.
Is there a person in Missouri that is similar to Lisa Murkowski? Murkowski had high visibility going in. If I remember accurately, she’s not exactly our first choice either.
I’m not on board with Romney. Not yet anyway. I remain praying for His guidance, so I’m not the proper person to talk to about sunshine and rosy outlooks, no matter which liar wins the election. All I’m certain about is that the Marxist hates America and if he’s reelected, he will destroy it whereas Romney doesn’t hate America, he just despises us TEA Party patriots, but “maybe” Paul Ryan can change his mind.
Should Romney win and turn out to be a big spending, over-reaching, government mandating RINO, I think he’ll be met with TEA Party challengers. Maybe a viable Third Party might be born.
It’s late here, so this has to be my final post.
I’ve heard three names tossed about: Ann Wagner, the former Senator Kit Bond, and now David Limbaugh, (Rush’s brother).
This interview was with Bill O’Reilly in July of 2010.
I just read you’ve left, so I’ll hold off on further comments to you until you return and respond.
http://bejohngalt.com/2010/07/gloom-sarah-palin-supports-amnesty-for-current-illegals/
Okay, good. I will state I am somewhat leery of third party efforts though. IMO, it would be best if done within the Republican party for it to work.
Good night.
Taking him at his word, there was a genuine desire to accommodate her.
Shouldn’t we be talking about a SECOND party? The Democans and Republicrats are merely two factions of the one party system that prevails today. Conservatives are treated by the Republicrats in much the same way that Democans treat Jews and blacks - loyal voters who you ignore after the election.
You doubt that we have a one party system? In 2008, we got McLaim because it was his turn. He agreed with 0bambi on everything from immigration to the wars to not being Bush. OK, good Conservatives, hold your nose and vote for McLaim.
Now we have Romney because it is his turn. He agrees with 0bambi on health care, immigration, abortion yet he’s not 0bambi. OK, good Conservatives, hold your nose and vote for Romney.
Where does it end? If we continue to hold our noses and compromise our principles, it will end in totalitarianism. Once again, Sarah is correct. We need a Conservative SECOND party if we are to survive as a republic.
>> Sarah Palin told Greta Van Susteren on Fox last night that she would support a third-party run in Missouri.
I have a lot of respect for Sarah. I think this is a bad idea. Whatever happens must happen with cooperation from Akin.
Unless there’s some preexisting, underlying resentment, I would expect Palin to be more empathetic to Akin’s situation. Maybe women feel slighted by his remarks. If so, I’d like an explanation as to why.
“The idiots have yet to realize they need her voters, like us.”
I’m not so sure they’re idiots. Look at the push here at FR to get conservatives onto the willard wagon. The gop-e is doubling down on what has always been a safe bet in the past: that conservatives will slink back to vote for whatever crummy candidate the gop nominates. There will be a few holdouts like myself, but by and large I think it’ll hold true once again.
Palin didn’t say that third party was “the” solution. She was answering a hypothetical question of if Akin did not go just a few hours after the deadline, what were the possibilities. It was obvious she had not spoken to Steelman about it. If she had, she would have then known that any effort by Steelman at that time was not withing the law. She was throwing out hypothetical possibilities, not a definitive solution.
The main topic of the discussion was about Akin’s arrogance to think it was only the “legitimate rape” reference that got him in trouble. Sure it was the catalyst for all of the brouhaha but he went on digging the hole with his totally baseless claim of scientific and biological science. I’m sure the interviewers face took on a look of total surprise and Akin should have known he said something incorrectly but made no effort to correct his remarks then and only when it became a national issue did he finally say he made a mistake. The reality is that it took someone else to tell him that.
Palin, like so many of us were pissed to no end that the Democrats knew something about this guy and mounted a campaign to have their voters cross over to insure he was their challenger instead of either Steelman or Brunner. Adding insult to injury, a number of voters in one county decided it was more important to cross over and vote the Democrat ballot because of a local Sheriff’s race. Those potential votes were lost to the Republican primary as well. Yep, those OPEN PRIMARIES are just a friggin good idea, aren’t they?
So, when thinking out loud, faced with the immediate realization that this idiot was not going to quit and continue to dig the hole he was in, did the possibility of a third party effort not run through your mind to start shoveling the dirt in on this goof? It would have needed to be in order to find out the law does not permit it. I’m positive you did not drop everything in your life to rush out to read the statutes at that very moment.
One other factor that very few consider when contemplating the “what ifs” provided he actually can be granted a miracle and win against McCaskill. That is someone knew about his stances to the detail of having the interviewer ask the question and the Democrats to make an all out push to cross over to insure his victory which was not seen in any polls. Surely as there were these two that slipped out somewhere else, what else has this scientific expert uttered in the House Cloak Room that can be used to blackmail him into voting a certain way, totally counter to his record? How many will just make things up just to put him on the defensive and sway his vote as well?
Palin is a big picture thinker. Her anger at Akin was on only partial display and its effects shown as she was asked a hypothetical question at which she answered in a hypothetical way. I am sure she did what I did the next day and researched the laws of Missouri to realize, as we all did, that it was not going to happen for her chosen candidate in the race no matter what tact was considered.
To counter your assertion that Steelman is very squishy is a gross mischaraterization. She was just as “conservative” as Akin on the right to life issues and many other bedrock issues. Where she got into trouble was her voting record on tort reform where she voted against it while many believe she did so because her husband is a trial lawyer. By saying Palin supported a squishy it implies that you think Palin is supportive of squishy as well. Therein lies your true biaes not supported by fact and in essence just makes you another one of those PDSers.
Apparently you are unaware that in order to win you have to get people to vote for you. People did just that with McCain and Romney.
With McCain conservatives could not unite on an alternative same story with Romney. No conspiracies or plots were necessary.
Ronald Reagan did, twice.
So did Ted Kennedy.
So did Ross Perot, on the "You're a Rabbit" ticket.
And by the way, it wasn't an "open race" ..... huge efforts were exerted to keep her out (by lying to, and luring in, other conservatives who had no chance, to dry up the funding pool) ...... and they worked. Karl Rove must be very pleased with himself. Mitt Romney, too.
I didn't know that, FRiend. I knew McCaskill has made it clear she wants to continue to run against Akin -- not that he was a designated 'Rat fall guy.
And a Karl Rove potted plant to boot. Found that on a news show early yesterday morning. Hadn't heard it before, that Rove is Akin's money tree (so they said).
Reporters say a lot of things trying to stir the pot, the reality is McCaskill did mount a media campaign aimed specifically at getting conservatives to vote for Akin who was polling well behind Steelman and Brunner before election day ballots were counted. As McCaskill was essentially unopposed she was not worried about getting Democrats not in critical local elections to cross over and support his winning as well. It is a reality in open primary states.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YDJdcb3i_M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYYBGa3o8Xs&feature=related
Ping ping ping for later. So glad others can see this.
LLS
State law in MO forbids a third party or write in bid by a looser of the party primary election.
LLS
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.