Posted on 09/21/2011 9:34:47 PM PDT by bd476
Lets see:
FOREMAN: Hi, John. Representative Bachmann, I have a question for you. Governor Pawlenty says he opposes abortion rights except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is at stake. Do you have any problem with that position? And if so, why?
Not exactly inane!
KING: Mr. Speaker, if you look at a poll in the Boston Globe just the other day, 54 percent of Republican voters in this state say they're willing to have higher taxes on the wealthy to help bring down the deficit. Are they wrong?
Not inane.
QUESTION: Yes. As a journalist who's written frequently about health care and medicine for both newspapers and for corporate publications, I'm very concerned about the overreach of the massive health care legislation that was passed last year. My question is, what would each candidate do? What three steps would they take to de- fund Obamacare and repeal it as soon as possible? Thank you.
Not inane. I could post most questions that weren't inane but you've already been discredited.
These debates, with the possible exception of the Tea-party based event, were Inane, no doubt about it. You asked for an inanity, in the singular. I gave you one, as well as its related inanities. Its the epitome of inanity. But MOST of the other questions, while appearing to be relevant, were leftist questions by folks that know what they are doing to shape the discourse in favor of their deity, and it Aint any of the republican candidates. They are designed to steer the public discussion AWAY from zer0, and towards cutting up the republican side (as Newt so aptly has sensed and commented on).
And for the future, I trust you will Enjoy further the remaining INANE debates.
Its not a bad thing to see how candidates handle all questions, whether they are ‘inane’ or not. Sometimes the facade falls off and you get different perspective on them.
“If it’s OK for Sarah, it’s OK for Rick, right?”
Yep. RR changed his mind BIG TIME, didn’t he?
As the old military adage attributed to Omar Bradley goes, "Amateurs talk about strategy and professionals talk about logistics."
The “logistics” of a serious Presidential campaign designed to actually WIN consists of organization and massive fund-raising.
Serious Presidential runs cost tens of millions of dollars. Even with all the donations raked in by the Clinton political machine and even with $11.4 million of her own money that Hillary lent to her own campaign, Hillary's campaign had $9.5 million in unpaid bills at the end of April, 2008.
When Reagan announced in 1979, his professional logistical infrastructure had been in place since his 1976 run and had been enhanced since then.
By contrast, Palin has teased (and teased and teased) about “strategy” but has done absolutely NOTHING about logistics.
Palin fund-raising infrastructure muscle?
Here is a dose of reality:
“The Undefeated” (the 1969 movie) grossed $8 million in theaters. (Equivalent to $47 million in 2010 dollars.)
This year's foreign language film "Sarah's Key" grossed $6.8 million in theaters.
By stark contrast, “The Undefeated” (the Sarah Palin movie) grossed $116,000 in theaters.
If Palin does announce a “run”, without any logistics, all she will be able to offer you will be a Donald Trump-style or Newt Gingrich-style "phony campaign” which requires no spending.
"Phony campaigns” are run, every four years, by Ralph Nader and Ron Paul. The purpose of such a “phony campaign” is not to actually win but to attract the TV cameras. No staff is hired. No advertising is bought. The only expenses are travel expenses to where the TV cameras will be at the next debate or photo-op.
Donald Trump ran an “unannounced phony campaign” earlier this year just as Palin has been doing for months.
Without any logistics preparation, all that a Palin announcement will mean is that she will then be running an “unannounced phony campaign” like Newt Gingrich is running right now.
Nothing so unnerves the enemy as deception and unpredictability. Nothing is more important to victory. Napoleon, Hannibal, Ulysses S. Grant, Norman Schwarzkopf and others used the technique masterfully.
The difference between Napoleon, Hannibal, Grant and Schwarzkopf is that the target of the "unpredictability" was the enemy but, in Palin’s case, the target is YOU and your wallet.
Palin’s supporters are being strung along in order to maintain Palin’s celebrity status as long as possible in order to keep her from being “yesterday’s news” and drying up her celebrity earning potential.
That is the only “strategy” in play and it is working extremely well.
The cost is that the media gleefully focuses on the latest weekly episode of the “Sarah Drama” to boost their own ratings just like they focused on the “Charlie Sheen Drama” to boost their own ratings. That diverts attention from Obama’s failures. This past week, instead of focusing on the Obama/Solyndra scandal, the media attention was focused on the latest episode of the “Sarah Drama”.
The cost is also that Palin’s loyal followers have gotten into a mindset that does nothing but help Obama. As has been posted by Palin followers on FR:
- “If Sarah does not get it, Obama can have it.”
- “No Palin, no peace.” (Post 23 of this thread)
- “If Sarah is not on the ballot in November, I will write in her name.”
For whatever reason, perhaps due to the endless coverage of political events thanks to technological advances, states have moved up their primaries. IA has a law that no state in the nation can do their caucus or primary before theirs. Three states considered December, 2011 for caucus/primaries. The early states seem to like the media attention they don’t get otherwise.
If multiple posts on this site are to be trusted, Nov 13 is 2 weeks beyond the deadline for filing in FL. That date wouldn’t be very helpful to anyone seeking to run, be it Palin, Christie, Bolton or any of the others who are still being spoken of as possible entrants. Going ONLY for the FL primary doesn’t work out very well as Giuliani proved. By the time the contest leaves FL, it is going to be all but over, or certainly winnowed down to no more than two serious contenders.
I’d be all in favor of a six month primary period, but that’s not going to happen any time soon. The various states and their political machinery seem to like this long, drawn out process.
Giving paid speeches to Tea Party crowds isn't entering the debate, and if some of you can't see how this silly waffling by Palin is turning some people off to her as a candidate, then I question your political acumen and instincts.
Congratulations for posting the dumbest smear of Perry I've heard yet.
uh oh, now you’ve done it.
I posted facts about Palin. If you can't handle people posting facts about her, and feel the need to question my integrity, I imagine your head will explode when people start smearing her with lies, like Michelle Bachmann did to Rick Perry.
1) She quit as governor two years into her first term
2) She had a reality show
3) Her favorite hair salon now will have a reality show
These are facts. Don't get mad at me for posting facts. What I find the most funny about the Palin-only faction of FR is how they whine about how the media was unfair to Palin, yet they turn around and smear any GOP candidate that gets in their way. The ignorance on the side effects of Gardasil last week was shameful, and it really did make me question the collective IQ of those posting anecdotes and propaganda about the vaccine.
When she was first introduced to the national stage by John McCain's selection, Palin was an unknown and the majority of American voters were willing to learn about her. McCain even got a boost in the polls.
Then came the disastrous prime time interview with Katie Couric where an "inane" question left Sarah Palin tap dancing like Ginger Rodgers because she could, literally, not name a single specific news publication.
VIDEO: Sarah Palin can't name one magazine or newspaper she read
Palin's poll numbers began their free fall that night and have never recovered.
That is how most American voters remember Sarah Palin.
Since then, hiding in the safe haven of cream puff questions tossed to her by Sean and Greta on FOX, Palin has done nothing to convince the majority of American voters that she has what it takes to successfully take on Katie Couric, let alone Vladimir Putin.
You win. Your crony support for Perry has convinced me that I will never under any circumstance vote for him and will in fact fight against him just as much as against Romney. Chalk one up for your approach, I’m sure there will be more “successes” coming.
Was she quoted as saying that when she made her decision, it would be at a time when we couldn't miss it... I would just like to confirm both items, if possible...
August 12, 2011
Q: So by next month?
Gov. Palin... After another month or two goes by,
This has been posted again and again.
David Brody / Gov. Palin and a direct question on the time-frame.
David Brody: Is that short order by the end of September? October?
Palin: I think that that is a fair time line for people, because Fall time, they can start getting engaged with different campaigns, but still thinking about it, and really, really desiring to be a participant in the positive change that needs to happen in this country.
So...
Dang! I have posted this at LEAST six times...
.
I'm sure Palin will quit or be fired from her job if she does run.
Now that Perry is running, I call on him to quit his full time full pay job as governor.
Will he?
LOL!
Did Palin quit her governship when she accepted the VP nod a year into her first term as governor?
Alright, lets think about the revolutionary war. The Brits marched openly in row after row of redcoats. The colonials shot at will from behind every rock and tree and bush. Was it fair? No. Was it effective? You betcha. They did what they had to do to win, given their limited resources.
Likewise, Palin, whatever else you may think of her, has a remarkable intuition for game theory. She knows what the objective is, what the barriers are to reaching that objective, and most importantly, how she can best play the limited cards she’s been dealt to get past those barriers and reach the objective. If you watch everything she is doing from that perspective, there is nothing disingenuous about her behavior at all.
With that in mind, lets look at the “game" she is attempting to win (BTW, entrepreneurs take note, this might make a fun computer simulation):
The objective? Become President.
The Barriers? There are many possible barriers, so I will list only those that I think make my case:
The first of these is money. She doesn’t have the natural wealth of Romney, or the good old boy access to wealth of Perry, but she does have a remarkable and unique opportunity to earn what she needs to do what she wants to do. So that’s what she does. But not so as to interfere with gaining the objective. Did you know she turned down a second season of her Alaska show, forfeiting about 10 Million dollars, so she would be free to pursue her political objectives? Be honest with yourself. If her game is just money, for herself, why walk away from that? It makes no sense, unless the objective is not money.
The second of these is name recognition. No action necessary here, other than periodic maintenance, to prevent a falloff. You know, nothing over the top, just an occasional public appearance, do some bus tours, do some voiceovers on Fox, etc. Sound familiar?
The third is thought leadership. Reagan crushed Carter, not because he was eloquent, or because he was a tough guy, but because he understood conservatism well enough to set the terms of the debate, thereby showing up his opponents as followers, not leaders. True thought leadership is no longer coming from the left. Their whole movement is a form of denial wrapped around the death spiral going on within their ideological core.
But the GOP has been playing defense for so long they have allowed themselves to become entangled in that death spiral. Palin understands this, and is offering, through those venues you find so un-candidate-like (Tea Party speeches, Facebook posts, etc.), real thought leadership, which is why she’s begun to get attention from outside the camp of the usual faithful. And while it may seem unfair to you, all she is really doing is firing from behind good cover, and as any good modern soldier will tell you that’s way better that premature exposure to enemy fire. She will not be able to keep that up once she declares, so she needed to mow down a few rows of redcoats just to give herself and her leading edge ideas a chance to survive on the open field, when that time does finally come. Not fair, but effective, and this is war.
I also don't like her stringing along the base, and basically causing divisions in that base, by playing some “will I or won't I” game
There are only a relative few in the base who are really unable to take her at her word and imagine that she is taunting them. I deem it a kind of unconscious projection of adolescent impatience, a willful rejection of the clear expression of her intention to remain steadfastly ambiguous until it was to her tactical advantage to remove the ambiguity.
If she believes that Obama must be defeated, then she should give up her media job, enter the debates, and tell the GOP base why she is the woman to defeat Obama and get America back on track.
Should she do that in a manner that actually defeats her game objective? If she gave up a serious tactical advantage prematurely, just because a few whiners wanted to see her in the race sooner than later, couldn’t you correctly charge she was not a good tactician, and therefore unworthy to lead?
if some of you can't see how this silly waffling by Palin is turning some people off to her as a candidate, then I question your political acumen and instincts.
Yawn. As I’ve pointed out above. She’s not waffling at all. We’re just squirming with impatience. She clearly has her eyes on the prize and is being very disciplined in executing her plan, some of which requires a calculated ambiguity.
As for my own “political acumen,” I am pleased you thought I had any to begin with. I don’t try to do anything fancy, but I just try be honest about what I am observing. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. I have found that life goes on even when I’m wrong. So I try to avoid making unnecessary enemies among those with whom I really have a great deal in common, because to beat our real enemies, at some point we will need to pull together. Please accept this voluminous response in that spirit.
Peace,
SR
In my post she didn’t say October. I also saw her on Greta say September without the hedge. In any case this was on 12th of August so two months would still be by the 12th of October, not the end of October. However, at this point, she is stringing people along exactly as she described. After the debate tonight you will probably see some of the hopeless candiates drop out. People who might support Sarah need to know if they should wait or pick a candidate. The perception is that she is stringing people along, and it will hurt her chances if she does decide to run. I don’t see any reason for her to wait any longer. Why should anyone wait around for a candidate who doesn’t even know if she wants the job?
Thanks, I wish you could have pinged me to.
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.