Skip to comments.Four Reasons Why Sarah Palin Will Win
Posted on 08/20/2011 11:45:34 PM PDT by Windflier
Ive been approached several times today by doubters who advance arguments as to why Sarah Palin cannot win the nomination, or if she secures it, why she cant defeat Barack Obama.
All of the theories Ive had pitched in my direction today share a couple common faults, and its important to point them out here. The most common reason Ive heard today is the belief that the Media will destroy her. Thats silly. Is there a single Republican, never mind conservative, who the media will not seek to destroy to defend their darling, Barack Obama?
Anybody who watched the media in action after McCains nomination in 2008 should by now be thoroughly disabused of that shoddy notion. The Lame-Stream Media has been trying for three years running to destroy Sarah Palin, and there is no chance, having failed thus far, that they will improve results on their limited success.
The problem is that if the media narrative about a person is based on lies, in the longer run, those lies lose effectiveness as people learn the truth from other sources, and worse yet, the lies come back to haunt their purveyors because once the audience, having originally believed them, in the second instance realizes theyve been scammed, they will thereafter no longer be inclined to believe another pronouncement given voice by that source.
The second most common flaw in the arguments Ive been hearing and reading today is the dubious assumption that shes an intellectual lightweight. Truthfully, there couldnt be a more ridiculous claim upon which to base ones criticisms, and yet this is the default argument of those who wish to suggest that Sarah Palin isnt qualified.
Its the constant harangue of the elite media types, and it has been a failure repeatedly. They tried to paint a similar picture of Ronald Reagan, and in fact, every Republican in my memory.
Its a claim that falls on deaf ears in most quarters, because in the final analysis, its simply not believable given all she has already accompished. Having covered what critics have said, let me move on to my own list of reasons in opposition to these notions.
I firmly believe that Sarah Palin will run, win the nomination, and ultimately the Presidency.
I want Palin to enter the race.
Great and sobering observation, which also touches on the essence of her problem.
Palin's strongest supporters hear someone say "But she quit" and unleash the "Democrats were hunting her down and she had bills to pay and" etc.
They do not realize that the game is lost before they get to the end of that explanation.
If anyone we disliked could be labelled a quitter, we would shut down any explanation that followed, too. This is my problem with the celebrity status of Palin--she isn't praised for her excellence (I'm not saying she doesn't have this in her--read exactly what i wrote), she's praised because she 'drives the libs crazy.' She isn't discussed for her amazing successes in Alaska, she's discussed because she's a colorful character who says things that drive people like Chris Matthews crazy.
Some folks can't seem to grasp that most voters DO NOT CARE about any of this. They pay attention to the news and read the paper around the rest of their busy lives. Come a year from October, they will sit down and think, "Well, what about this Palin?" And if they think "She's a quitter," you can have phonebook-sized stacks of explanations that will show how she was right, she was wronged, everyone else was the villain and she was the hero...and it DOES NOT MATTER.
When she was smeared by Couric and company, the response here was "Look what Katie Couric did!" That's a legitimate response to Couric's bias. But back in the day, no one said "Look what Mondale said about Reagan!" They were too busy laughing about how Reagan dismissed the entire age question by casually saying, "I won't hold my opponent's youth and inexperience against him" (paraphrasing from memory).
These things just are or they are not. And the reality is, Palin is capable of blowing off stupid reporters like the one at that event last week (she was more interested in seeing a calf or something than talking to the incredulous reporter). But the stage has already been set, so every Reagan-like dismissal is seen not as coming from strength and experience (as Reagan was able to do) but because Palin is some hick.
That's the burden she's under, and as much as we root for her and want her to turn the tables on them, if that were possible, I don't think we'd have Obama in the White House and more than a handful of Dems in DC in the first place.
First, too bad you can't find someone whose posts you enjoy as much as I enjoy nathanbedford's. If you can't handle someone giving someone a compliment, poor you. He's a good poster. His and my political beliefs are very different, but that doesn't matter, except that he doesn't deserve to be compared to lowly me in terms of writing ability.
Responding with "Ahem" and "Ummm" doesn't help, btw, it just makes you look too emotionally involved in an intellectual discussion.
The section quoted above is as far as I got in terms of reading your post. If that's really what you're thinking--and that you can say 'forever' about anything in politics--there's really no point in going on. Have a nice day.
NB, normally I would agree with this, but if nominating Palin is suicide, do we have time for any more slow-motion suicide (i.e, more years with a RINO prez)? There are only a few more years, at best, to turn this economic train wreck around. Hear you about Goldwater, but with the internet, maybe the MSM spin can be overcome. Maybe the grassroots will work the a** more than they did with Goldwater. One can only hope.
For me right now, it is Palin. If I go down with that ship, so be it.
My actual comment:
"Good to see you post. You are on-target, as usual."
No need to be a drama queen. Saying hello to a fellow FReeper is simply good manners. Saying "Good post" doesn't involve all kinds of conspiracy theories.
I added this P.S. because some of the snarkiness around here just doesn't sit well. I can be as snarky or snarkier than anyone, but not over something as simple as "Good post." I was brought up with manners and the ability to give a compliment, and it's disappointing how even something so small is considered suspicious behavior around here.
More like a hemorrhoidal burn.
CBS (Couric Bull Shoot) - when she asked Palin to name Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with, didn’t Palin say “Roe v. Wade and Kelo v. New London”? That’s what Sarah said, right? And then Fightin’ Sarah gave a really great take-down of how Stephens’ majority Kelo opinion was an anti-Consitutional treason, right? I remember it well.
It is quite another thing to accuse a fellow Freeper of fraud, that is, posting clandestinely under 2 different names to generate counterfeit praise.
I am asking you to withdraw that charge.
[ Sarah Palin praised Orrin Hatch for his long time support of a Balanced Budget Amendment. She did NOT endorse Orrin Hatch. ]
She endorsed him for being against the balanced budget amendment..
Didn’t I say that?...
She takes the Reagan concept of unifying seriously..
Of not displaying negatives against other republicans...
But he said that before RINO became a well known symbol...
Back in Reagan political days..
RINOs were needed since any republican was really needed in Congress..
Reagan used to be a democrat himself..
Currently a RINO is a stealth democrat ALL OF THEM...
Actually even then it was so.. in my view..
I thought and still think Now Ronaldus Maximus WAS A RINO...
Better than a democrat then but not NOW...
RINOs NOW are traitors.. stealth traitors.. AND literally every democrat is..
I am not amused by democrats.. and RINOs are boot lickers..
I don’t call a republican a RINO easily.. as some do...
Some RINOs are not really RINOs..
I have no problem with a freeper that RINOAtes another republican.. they could just be pissed off..
Happens to me all the time.. Rinos however are hard to piss off..
Politics to them is just entertainment.. licking boots is not horrendous to them..
I wish a certain President of the United States would QUIT !
Sometimes it takes a brave person to realize when it’s time to retreat for the good of your nation. Sarah saw that the frivolous law suits were destroying her and the state of Alaska.
For Pete’s sake, every politician that runs for office “quits” another position. I’d rather they quit than campaign on the tax payers’ dime, (i.e., Bachman, R. Paul, Perry).
And if McCain had won, would she still be a quitter?
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, ELVIS!
("If he doesn't finish first or second in primary XYZ, he's dropping out...")
Thanks for the warning; I'll pass it on.
BTW, if anyone is ever tempted to trust Rove again on anything whatsoever, read the following which I posted in the aftermath of the November 2010 elections:
Let's look again at the races, and about recent history. We can look at the performances of the Establishment Republicans (say, in recent elections), and drill down a bit on this election.
In past elections, (say 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008) we had the following:
2002 -- a year after the 9-11 attacks, and Americans want security, dammit! The GOP gains 8 seats in the House and 2 in the Senate.
2004 -- Presidential Election; the first one after the "Sore Loserman" debacle in Florida in 2000, and the first one after 9-11.
The GOP picks up 3 seats in the House, the Donks lose 2.
The GOP picks up 4 Senate seats, the Donks lose 4.
Bush wins 31 states, but a mere 286 electoral votes, with a bare 50.7% of the popular vote.
2006 -- the Midterm elections for Bush's second term.
The Dems pick up the House, gaining 31 seats, while the GOP loses 30.
The Dems get the Senate, too, winning 6 seats.
This despite the presence of "The Architect" Karl Rove who brags about his detailed knowledge of the ground game.
But (as we will see) he learned his lesson, after a fashion.
2008 -- the annointing of Teh One.
Obama wins 365 electoral votes in 28 states + a single Congressional district in Nebraska. (Nebraska??!!)
The Donks extend their lead in the House, gaining 21 seats.
And in the Senate, they run the table, gaining 8 seats.
The election is marked by numerous unchallenged shenanigans, including voter fraud (voting by felons, votes found in car trunks) in Minnesota, and infamous re-counts in Washington State.
The only thing preventing a total rout is Sarah Palin, who is roundly condemned by the establishment, but targeted by the Dems, after being trashed by advisors lent by the Rockefeller wing of the GOP (as detailed later in Going Rogue).
So, let's look at the record of the Establishment GOP since the first election of George W. Bush (where the victory was so narrow that the Dems complained he was "selected, not elected." (And that, over Clinton's hand-picked successor.)
House: +8 +3 -30 -21 net --> -40
Senate: +2 +4 -6 -8 net --> -8
Heckuva job, Karl.
Compare that to the Tea Parties:
The lessons of the 2010 elections have clearly been lost on the liberal side, as they continue to provide the electorate that repudiated them even more reasons to turn out against them in 2012. But should we on the right not heed the sea-change that occurred, relative to the media's ability to persuade? I am not advocating complacency here, but we're about to choose a candidate in arguably the most important election in our young history.
Both the 2010 elections and recent polls show that independents have come our way in droves, despite being the target audience of the media, despite the lies proffered on a daily basis, since the 2010's.
The main-stream media sold us a monumental bill of goods in Barack Obama. This is now recognized fact by most sentient beings on both sides of the divide, and in the politically apathetic middle. Liberal governance has been exposed by events on the ground, despite the shilling by the MSMers, as completely bankrupt. The more they shill in the run-up to the 2012 elections, the more credibility they will lose.
Thus the candidate that the media loves the least may be the candidate that voters will instictively favor, especially the young and apathetic fence-sitters.
We need to pick the most conservative candidate we can find, and put "electability" much, much lower on the priority list of attributes our candidate must possess. The fact that yes, the media will mobilize against our candidate, no matter who he or she happens to be or represent, is a given. We even defeated the media in New Jersey, for Christ sakes. The meme of "electability" is a completely media-created, now objectively refuted myth.
The media sold us Obama. Who has reason to listen to them now?
[ HAPPY BIRTHDAY, ELVIS! ]
Today is my UNbirthday.... ALice...
Never liked Elvis..
I believe Perry will take more votes from Romney than he will from Palin.
IF YOU LIKE AMNESTY AND THE DREAM ACT, YOU WILL LOVE-LOVE-LOVE PERRY !
He's just as much of a RINO as the *last* Texan in the White House.
Only Perry is even stupider: what kind of American government official goes around making speeches where he *quotes* from the Koran?
And more of a big government troll: he tried to force underaged girls to get an unproven vaccination for a cancer triggered by sexually transmitted viruses, with only the fig leaf of an "opt out": which would have required a lot of red tape on the part of parents, and weakened parents' moral authority.
And when the legislature tried to check him on it, like the swaggering Texan he is, he tried to declare that the legislature had no authority in Texas to reverse an executive order. He only backed down when he was broken down to size.
And then lied through his teeth that he had "listened" all along.
And he ran a conservative off from making it to the Texas Supreme Court (probably payback for the guy's opposition to affirmative action).
Perry blows, *he* should drop out.
Where do you live?