Commenter “elaine” has a point
From one of the Palingate posts:
Can you imagine a Reaganesque reformer as president in the internet age? When that President can pretty safely ignore the bitter mewling of the MSM, because citizens have other ways of getting the truth? I think that’s the real reason they’re scared witless over a Palin presidency; because it’ll mean reform of everything they’ve worked for and built, without any concern for the MSM tearing down that reform.
ALSO READ: Palin, Paul Revere, and Republicanism.
Right on. I had my doubts about Palin’s ability to deal with a tough international crisis. I partially agreed with Krauthammer that she needed to form and inform herself in some areas. Then I remember how Reagan was belittled by the media (now the legacy media,) and presented like a moron that could not read a map nor new any history. Ironically he turned out to be a man with an excellent grasp of history in all of those areas where he had to be. His choice of Secretary of State was pretty good. If there was something that Reagan did not get George Schultz surely got it.
I am in Palin’s camp now. The media is terrified of her because I think in their heart of hearts they know she can unleash an era of Conservative effectiveness that will turn America around.
I hope that “unsophisticated” Palin does to Liberalism what that “bumpkin” Reagan did to the Soviet Union.
Come on Charlie!
[..."because it’ll mean reform of everything they’ve worked for and built, without any concern for the MSM tearing down that reform."]
You seem to have a lot of idle time
so maybe you can begin to counts the number of assumptions being made in that short portion of the comment. What ever happened to reality?
Actually, TT, I’ve got a full time day job as a senior engineer and I’m writing a book. Free time is for sissies.
I can relate Charlie. I’m a senior retiree and babysit 150 head of critters and six hoss’s, makin them breakfast, and dinner along with fix’in their playpens and cleaning their rooms and doctor’n the sick ones day and night. No sissies round here.
Point one: Palin worked as a tireless reformer in Alaska, sometimes standing against the corruption in her own party. And won.
That, to me, isn’t the action of someone who can’t handle matters.
Palin has stated her positions against Obamacare, against Obama’s energy policy (such as it is, with moratoriums on deep water drilling and placing a reliance on green energy which we can’t yet produce to any great degree), and against Obama’s anti-capitalist policies. If she were to be elected, I think it can safely be assumed she’d be working tirelessly to overturn these policies and more. Granted, she’d have to work along with Congress to achieve any reforms, but she’s also done that in Alaska, enjoying bipartisan support from the legislature there.
You’re free to disagree…
Point 2: After three years of constant hounding from the media, she’s figured out how to play them like a fine Stradivarius. She doesn’t need to rely on them to get out her message; she’s completely comfortable using other means. So it hardly matters — even now — what the media says about her; she can do as she pleases without any worries about negative coverage.
Again, you’re free to disagree. Frankly, I don’t care, since all you brought to the table in your comment was nay-saying. Where’s any support for your assumptions and assertions? At least I can back mine up with facts.
BTW, Charlie: thanks for the post!
You’re welcome, Elaine. Congratulations on the Instalink.
Elaine…let me back up my assertions with something more than supericial rhetoric.
Take the name ‘Palin’ out of the context of the comment for a moment. A president cannot do jack outside of their constitutional authorities. The congress is the Borad of Directors and the president is their CEO. EVERYTHING a President overseas in the Executive is either mandated through the constitution OR constitutionaly mandated to the Executive THROUGH the congress.
Presidents CANNOT legislate! One political party alone CANNOT legislate unless in the instance of a rare super majority that votes in lock-step.
Anythings that effect budgetary issues requires a 2/3 majority vote.
Presidents that have a divided congress MUST have a personality and bearing that is not divsive. They MUST have the skills to unite a majority of a divided congress to have any chance of passing budgetary or policy bills they may suggest.
Since 2001 Washington has been a literal bloody battleground between the two parties. They’re now truly ideological enemies…party enemies….personal enemies!
Now lets re-attach the name “Palin’ as President, as you suggest.
Are you assuming a super majority GOP congress for her, should she run and win? Historically, not likely! GOP putting social security, Medicare and Medicaid on the table…makes it not likely! GOP putting budget cuts that effect employment and pay checks…makes it not likely!
Palin is not liked by the majority of the nation much less a good number inside the GOP. For certain, she is disliked…in fact ‘hated’ inside the Democrat hierarchy, congressional members and potential members.
In the face of reality, how pray tell, do you find her being an effective president should she run and win without a super majority GOP congress?
Would you care to attempt to justify that, T.T., or will you admit that you overstepped?
Actually, overriding a presidential veto requires a 2/3 majority vote. Therefore, if President Palin ever vetoes something she wants, she will need a supermajority to force her to accept it.
(or something)
@ T.T. Thomas – “Palin is not liked by the majority of the nation much less a good number inside the GOP. For certain, she is disliked…in fact ‘hated’ inside the Democrat hierarchy, congressional members and potential members.”
Like many, you’ve erroneously conflated the media and political geekdom with “the majority of the nation.” Recall if you will, how much we heard that Germany, France, Canada, et al, absolutely hated America’s rightward shift under Bush. Imagine our collective surprise when pro-Bush conservatives Merkel, Sarkozy and Harper got elected. Don’t assume the media reflects reality, if you do, you’ll believe in hacked twitter accounts.
I’ll suggest that both GOP and Dem pols fear Palin more than they hate her, but that’s a debate for another day.
However, as to your notion that said fear/hate of Palin would preclude her effectiveness as a president, you seem to forget that she not only came to power in Alaska as an outsider, virulently hated by establish pols on both sides of the fence, but still managed to effect major positive changes in virtually every post in her political career. It’s called “leadership.”
Any idiot can manage a campaign and teleprompt to the choir, but it takes a real leader to convince one’s opponents to work together to get things done. Absent the 2008-2010 Dem super-majority, Obama would have been a lame-duck president for his entire term. Even with the super-majority, the Pelosi-Reid Congress still had to resort to scams, schemes, accounting fraud and waivers to get Obama’s signature issues passed, because they couldn’t rely on him to lead.
Personally, instead of president, I think Palin would be far more valuable as a party leader, whether that party is a re-made GOP or a hybrid of the TEA and Libertarian parties. In the White House, there are limits to what she can say and do, but as a party leader, she can get a kindred spirit elected president, and still work on driving the DNC to extinction.
“Bearing that is not divisive.”
Obama the uniter isn’t divisive, it’s his detractors who are.
Palin the divider isn’t a uniter, her detractors are.
The rules are so simple!
I’ve always thought “divisive” was one of the most silly labels in existence. The term really means simply that someone who disagrees with her believes she should not be in disagreement, and therefore she’s the one causing the problem because she won’t roll over and pee. The fact that her detractors hold a contrary view does not make THEM “divisive,” of course…
It’s just ridiculous. If people have different points of view, those points of view divide them. Either side is diviDED, not diviSIVE.
A divisive person would be one who tries to divide people who actually agree on things. “No, you should consider the issues THIS, way, and then you’ll see that actually you’re three cohorts who differ, not one in unanimity.”
For a party to a division to call the other side exclusively “divisive” is clearly arbitrary but also kind of . . . stupid.
It’s just lame demagoguery with a target audience, apparently, of bozos — which means such folk have a cynical view of anyone who would listen to them. “My audience is bozos!” would be the Liar, Liar version of their pronouncements.
One party can legislate if they weakly hold both houses and have the Oval office, or strongly hold both houses alone. The GOP will hold both houses weakly and the Presidency by the Jan. 20 swearing in.
I’m not surprised you are ignorant of the most basic aspects of what is constitutionally required to pass a bill into law.
President Palin will find a way, probably after a lot of prayer, from those of us who trust in God.
“The congress is the Borad of Directors and the president is their CEO”
LOL. Take a civics class. You just totally discredited yourself. And using caps for emphasis – I imagine you poke people with your finger when you talk to make sure they understand who’s in charge?
It’s “Board”, btw. And “Congress, and “President”. I didn’t bother with the rest.
I’m pretty notorious as an editor for seeing misspellings, and have certainly made enough of my own; let’s agree to put spelling flames aside, eh?
TT, I suspect Elaine can quite handle herself here, but after questioning her “assumptions”, you’ve enumerated a series of bald assertions that turn out to be counterfactual.
[Augh, horrible editing accident. Fixed the redundant copy of TT's post.]
Palin is not liked by the majority of the nation much less a good number inside the GOP. For certain, she is disliked…in fact ‘hated’ inside the Democrat hierarchy, congressional members and potential members.
Granted, but considering the examples of Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson, Truman, Roosevelt the younger, Roosevelt the elder, Johnson, Lincoln, and Jackson — and I’ve probably missed some — I’m not sure I see you with much basis for an argument here.
Take the name ‘Palin’ out of the context of the comment for a moment. A president cannot do jack outside of their constitutional authorities. The congress is the Borad of Directors and the president is their CEO. EVERYTHING a President overseas in the Executive is either mandated through the constitution OR constitutionaly mandated to the Executive THROUGH the congress.
Okay. That dgree of direct authority and control seems to be quite substantial, however.
Presidents CANNOT legislate! One political party alone CANNOT legislate unless in the instance of a rare super majority that votes in lock-step.
Again granted, but two hundred odd years of history suggest that even divisive presidents (see list above) have succeeded in obtaining desired legislation.
Anythings that effect budgetary issues requires a 2/3 majority vote.
This is, of course, incorrect. Budgetary items require a majority vote in both houses, constitutionally; by custom and Senate rule, passage through the senate requires a 3/5th (60 vote) majority.
Presidents that have a divided congress MUST have a personality and bearing that is not divsive. They MUST have the skills to unite a majority of a divided congress to have any chance of passing budgetary or policy bills they may suggest.
See list above. Factually false.
Since 2001 Washington has been a literal bloody battleground between the two parties. They’re now truly ideological enemies…party enemies….personal enemies!
Yeah, unlike the 30s with Roosevelt, the 60s with Johnson and Nixon, and so forth.
[snip]
In the face of reality, how pray tell, do you find her being an effective president should she run and win without a super majority GOP congress?
Here, you erect a strawman: Elaine didn’t say she thought Palin could be elected; she spoke in the subjunctive (“Can you imagine?”) saying that the reason the notion of Palin as President so frightened the legacy media and political establishment in both parties is that someone who is charismatic, principled, and has shown that she is capable of suborning media both old and new to her own ends is too great a threat.
Now, I myself am not sure Palin wants to run for President — becoming President would inevitably mean being co-opted to some extent by the Establishment. She can’t fire everyone and start over. But I’ll say what I’ve said before: if she wants to run, I think only a fool would bet against her.
Charlie…Thanks! I certainly did mispeak in regards to ["Anythings that effect budgetary issues requires a 2/3 majority vote."] My point was more to the rules that have now become the custom of abuse that can continue to escalate especially should there be a dem minority in the senate….as you correct me.
As to my CEO remarks. I stand by it. Maybe some are lacking corporate backgrounds to understand the annalogy.
As for your history of personalities. Granted! However, those were quite different times and ‘statesmanship’ skills existed in the end.
The whole discussion over Palin is a “straw man” discussion…at this point. IF Palin throws her hat in the kettle then we all can be a bit more factually opinionated.
TT, “sure there are lots of counter-examples but things are different now” isn’t much of an argument.
T. T. Thomas: “A president cannot do jack outside of their constitutional authorities. The congress is the Borad of Directors and the president is their CEO. EVERYTHING a President overseas in the Executive is either mandated through the constitution OR constitutionaly mandated to the Executive THROUGH the congress.”
Such as Obama’s purchasing GM, and screwing its creditors out of their legal rights?
T.T., you’ve really got to catch up on the real world. The presidency you’re dreaming of is not the presidency we have now, nor has it been for several years. Your cattle and horses might be real, but your view of DC politics is sure foggy.
The part of the picture you’re not seeing is that there will likely be another slew of brand new representatives, and possibly new senators, taking office at the same time, and if the GOP wants to continue to exist the old guard is gonna hafta get on the Tea Party bus or get thrown out on their butts. I think next year we’ll see an even bigger switcheroo in national mood and politics than we did in 1984. IMO. But I could be wrong. After all, I did vote for Goldwater.
I was just out of the army and voted for goldwater also. As I remember, that election was the last one where there was a real choice. Unfortunately, the county’s choice was a poor one. It’s been 48 years so maybe this is the time for another stand at bat.
T.T. wrote: “Presidents that have a divided congress MUST have a personality and bearing that is not divsive. They MUST have the skills to unite a majority of a divided congress to have any chance of passing budgetary or policy bills they may suggest.”
The best example of a non-progressive President in a highly disputed situation was Ronald Reagan. Why was Reagan as successful as he was? For my money, a huge amount of it was one contrast with his predecessor, *besides* ideology. That was that Ronald Reagan spent more hours on the phone to Congressmen and Senators in the first 4 weeks of his first term than Carter had spent in his entire 4 years. He continued that throughout his Presidency. It had the best results in the first 4 years, and slowly declined as his opponents realized what his simple straightforward communication with them was doing to the progressive agenda. He needed a parallel path, and had it in his ability as an orator, to both Congress and the public. That way Congressmen could not afford to always refuse the President’s calls, since their constituents were listening, and wanted to hear that their representatives were as well.
If Palin is willing to do the equivalent in 2013 of what Reagan was doing in 1981, and continue it for 8 years, she also can have a effective presidency. Of course, she will be at *least* as despised by progressives as was Reagan during his day, but she already has many venues of communication he never had. The real question is whether she can make strategically successful use of them, even along with the numerous phone calls she will still need to make.
obama seems to be operating outside of his constitutional authority pretty well with his czars and executive orders and private sector takeovers.
T T:
Junk Science Skeptic hit most of the points I would make, but I’ll add my own thoughts here.
True leadership is about building consensus. Most anyone (with the exception of Obama) can pass legislation when their party owns both houses and the WH; that’s easy. (Well, like I said, except for Obama.) What requires more skill — both in the ability to present an argument and persuade listeners to come to your side — is creating a situation where everyone feels like they’ve won when they walk away from the negotiating table. They’ve won because they were treated with respect, were listened to, and their ideas were incorporated into the final plan.
You’re right, T.T. that politics today has become a divisive bloodsport, but whose fault is that? I’d maintain that when our president — you know, the guy who’s the president of the whole United States, not just president of those who voted for him — is calling his opponents “enemies,” accusing small business owners of stingily sitting on capital rather than putting Americans to work, talking about how the fatcat rich need to pay their fair share (as if they’re currently using their bazillions of dollars for money-baths) — he’s fostering the hostile climate we all believe is detrimental to our nation’s best interest.
We could get past much of the partisan bickering going on today if only the guy in the WH would stop treating most of the country as the enemy. Until he does, or until we have someone with true leadership ability in office, then we’re doomed to remain as we are, a divided nation, and an unhappy people.
Which brings us to Palin…
The reason I mentioned Reagan in my comment which sparked this post is that I remember Reagan, and the way he filled people with a certain optimism about the rightness of our cause, and the can-do spirit which is uniquely American. Back during his presidency, I was a liberal and I absolutely loathed Reagan. But the one thing I had to grudgingly give him was that he made me feel good about my country and my neighbors. He brought us all together and led by his own example.
When I saw Palin at the 2008 convention, I sensed that same spirit. The way she spoke, she made it plain that in spite of the struggles we currently face, we can be better. Not in some fake hopey-changey way, but in a way which stressed we need to dig down within ourselves to rebuild this nation. We need to clasp hands with our neighbors and work together.
I think the left saw it, too… and they decided they needed to destroy her. Because they don’t want a nation reborn to be thrifty, hard-working, diligent, kind, optimistic, and hopeful. No… what they want it a nation which encourages envy, greed, despair, snark, and apathy. Obama never seems to talk about what we can do to help our neighbors; instead he and his surrogates talk about what we should do to help him.
Much of what “most Americans” believe about Sarah Palin is fabrications of a caricature the MSM created. And, I’d wager, most Americans are fast becoming aware of the way the MSM has played fast and loose with the truth. They see it every day, in the way the MSM covers (or strives to ignore) most of the events of the day. Van Jones quitting… heck, when did the NYT even mention Van Jones in their pages during the two weeks leading up to his resignation? They didn’t… not a word until the day after he quit.
I could go on and on, but we all know how the MSM have betrayed their duty as watchdog.
The point, though, is that now that most Americans not only know but understand the manipulation they’ve endured, they’re not very likely to accept it any longer. And they’re possibly even likely to begin to question the “facts” they’ve heard from the MSM. Facts like how stupid Palin is. I’m sorry, but for an idiot, she sure can outsmart the MSM any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. She’s already put together a cogent energy policy, which is more than I can say for Obama, who’s had benefit of 2.5 years in office, and access to the best minds in the world.
Again, I could go on and on.
But I’ll add one last point: you’re right that there’s a separation of powers, which, over the years has become very blurred. So the President — whoever that may be — can’t necessarily do everything. But it’s the job of the President to serve as a leader — to lead by example, to encourage, to excite, to uplift. The President’s job is to be above the partisan fray, and to halt the fighting when it devolves from useful debate into useless, petty bickering. I believe Sarah Palin is that person, but will admit that’s my supposition, based on her performance as Governor of Alaska, not some media hack’s caricature of a hated enemy.
Elaine…thanks for a mature adult response! I’ll not disclose relationships but I think I knew Reagan pretty well from a point in time preceeding his governorship but admittantly less as president. However I can vividly remember, while standing in the peripheral, a long discussion over Tip O’Neill. Long story short, there was a rather ‘deep’ mutual admiration and statemanship between the two. It has been said that the legacy of Reagan as President, would not have been what it remains today had it not been for that relationship.
["You’re right, T.T. that politics today has become a divisive bloodsport, but whose fault is that?"] My candid response to your question would be the events cirrounding the 2000 election.
As to the term of “enemies,” sadly, the operatives of the GOP was first to start using that term. Even more sad, is that Obama once into office did not rise above returning such language.
As to Palin I will only address a couple things. I’m thinking you may be discounting that millions of Americans formed independent opinions of her before the press actually started the mud slinging. Next, I’m thinking you might be disillusioned at how many Americans really do continue to follow the Palin saga in the media…or even politics of the moment. I think the audience numbers of the cable news prime folks may give one a reasonable idea of the number that are diehard political junkies following every move. The rest of America (the overwhelming majority) are most likey (maybe) tuned into snippets from the evening news or ‘headlines’ on their internet travels.
As you’ve no doubt figured out, I’m an independent old cuss and don’t let the media, political pundits and operatives influence my capacity to independently think and reason….not that lends to my always being correct.
My point is, that the nation is facing some potentially serious, serious times never truly encountered in our history. And what are the media types on both sides engaging in? Personalized mudsling at each other and among themselves on the GOP side, like two East LA gangs puffed up in front of their turf groupies. Thats a losing strategy for the nation in my book.
The democrats are proposing little in the way of any plans. The GOP has only a couple of truly relative plans. No matter who has real plans to address the nations problems, there will be some potentially serious consequences to the people of the nation…some class or classes more than others. Nobody is focused either on any plans to date and certainly not on any consequences to real human beings. That disturbs me! Most everybody that is remotely paying attention to the real issues, is locked down in that superficial, short sighted mode.
Probably a good time, given the nature of the nations problems, to start focusing on the tough relevant issues and questions to those who have or will throw their hats into the kettle…is it not?
Thanks again for your mature and focused response.
“Presidents CANNOT legislate!”
No need to. They just need to appoint new czars and directors of the various government departments and instruct them on what policies to pursue. The EPA, FTA, Justice, Labor, Interior, Homeland Security can do what they want, and write their own legislation. Presidents can also issue executive orders, such as from who to buy fleet vehicles, such as the Chevy Volt. They can also go to war without Congressional approval, Libya being a good example. Presidents don’t need Congress to promote their political agenda; just put a moratorium on drilling, as an example. Who needs legislation?
I just feel she’s a little too celebrity-ish, and pushing – rather than being pulled – into the Presidency.
Is this a relevant concern? Are her high negatives possible to overcome as Reagan did?
Wow. “Pushing” her way into the presidency.
Thank God none of the other candidates do that.
I don’t think she’s running for the Presidency at this time. I think she’s gone out in front of the country/media as a lightning rod…to push the conversation, instead of the media being able to do so.
If MSM is focused upon her, then they won’t be focused upon the rest of the GOP candidates. She wants to control the direction and topic matter of what is being covered. After all, on pretty much everything she’s done, the MSM has tried to push the “she’s so stupid” meme…and failed miserably.
Addtionally, she’s smart enough that she’s forcing them to cover her on her terms, not on their terms. That’s the mistake the McCain campaign made…allowing media control over the message sank his campaign like a brick.
Them darned uppity women conservatives. They’re supposed to leave the pushing to gender-neutral centrists like the celebrated Hillary Clinton, I guess.
If Obama had to undergo the intellectual cavity search that Sarah has had to endure, he would be in a maximum security detention facility right now instead of the Oval Office.
Todd, if the media hadn’t have been hounding her relentlessly since the 2008 election, she might not be as prominent as she is today. When the media is out to destroy you, it is entirely appropriate to defend yourself in the media. She has never been a publicity grabber. All the publicity came to her via her enemies.
It’s possible that in the next few years it would be very important to have a President whose political survival is dependent on a free and robust internet. No one would embody that more than Palin right now.
Problem is, the legacy media has done its job on the good governor: she’s not electable precisely because they’ve spent the past three years tearing her down. The salivating (pleading, almost) about the email release in Alaska is just the latest evidence of this. They WANT to find something on her.
Yes, she’s learned to play the media pretty well. But her negatives in all the polls — put there by the Democrats and the media (yes, I repeat myself) — guarantee that she isn’t going to be President anytime soon. I don’t know how you get around negatives that are 50 to 60%.
Reagan didn’t quite have all that going against him. Indeed, the fact that there was no internet meant that there was also no Journolist, no Media Matters, no Daily Kos, no reverberation chamber on the Left, etc. Reagan only had to deal with the big three networks and the NYT. That he knew how to do.
Don’t get me wrong: I like and respect Governor Palin. If she were on the ballot I’d giver a serious, careful, sober look. If it were her versus Obama then it’s no question that I vote for her. My vote won’t be enough.
When Reagan entered the race he was polling 30% lower than Carter; Reagan began in the negative and won in the landslide positive.
Never underestimate the power of a skilled campaigner; Palin has acquired 20 years of serious campaigning experience, so much so, that she defeated a well-oiled incumbent in her own party and did so without big money or party backing.
Actually, in Reagan’s time, the MSM had not yet taken its gloves off.
I wonder if Reagan would be electable now. You’ll remember that they gave us McCain the last time around, and then demolished him. We elected an obviously unvetted, petulant socialist without experience for crying out loud. Anyone watching for even 10 minutes knew that.
Actually, in Reagan’s time, the MSM had not yet taken its gloves off.
You are joking.
Uh… yeah. Anyone here remember “Bonzo goes to Washington”?
If you talk to people who say they do not like Palin and see what their reasons are, you will learn that most of the dislike is based on the misinformation that her enemies have been spreading for three years. It would be interesting to see what percentage of those who say they would never vote for her believe that she said that she could see Russia from her house. My guess is that it would be much higher than 50%. She has high negatives because the many people have bought the line that she is not very intelligent. Negatives based on misinformation can be changed by showing people that what they believe is wrong. That is what a campaign does.
If the Republicans can make the election in 2012 a referendum on Obama, they will win in a landslide. Obama is a disaster as a president, easily the worst since the Great Depression.
Steve, I don’t know how much of the Reagan era you experienced, but what you’re saying doesn’t jibe with what happened. The internet is great. Powerful. No doubt about it. But to think things are that much different is to learn nothing from history. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Reagan was fought with every dirty trick in the book, and still won.
Actually, the internet gives today’s candidate more available and faster acting tools than it did Ron. It’s an advantage, not a drawback. IMO
In 1979-80, the conventional wisdom about Reagan was that he was, at best, an “amiable dunce,” and was generally regarded by opinion leaders of both parties as unelectible. Indeed, there was more than a little cheerleading on the other side as he fought for the GOP nomination.
It was only the catastrophic final 18 months of the Carter administration that brought the electorate to a point where it was willing to take a gamble on the cowboy.
Can anyone realistically say that this won’t be a possibility in 2012?
Exactly!
Remember that National Review cover story on Howard Dean, “Please, PLEASE Nominate This Man!”? Democrats sure said those prayers back in 1980.
And of course, their prayers were answered.
I figure the people who have negative opinions on SP are the dishonest ones who self herd to the left. Independents can make up their own mind, and tend to do it late. The patriots will vote for a syphilitic camel over Obama. The decision will be made by the center.
There was only a 5 million vote difference between the 2008 election and the 2010 election-Independents do not exist in the manner to which we have been dictated by established political pundits.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/04/5_million_swing_voters
THe GOP is notoriously known for being exceptionally lousy at the art of getting out the vote; they rely so much on idealistic policy wonking that they forget the necessary task of GOTV. In 2010 election it was Tea Party activism that was primarily responsible for voter turnout for Conservative candidates.
The most notable of successful Tea Party activists was Sarah Palin who “during the 2010 midterms, Palin endorsed, campaigned, and did significant fundraising for a whopping 31 GOP primary and 20 general election candidates. In many cases she was instrumental to that candidate’s success, like in South Carolina, where her endorsement of then little known State Rep. Nikki Haley single helped drive her to the top of the polls. Other Palin-backed candidates swept into office included:
•NM Governor Susana Martinez, whose rally with Palin drew nearly 1,300 supporters despite only 24 hours notice and is credited with bolstering Republican turnout in the close general election in this traditionally blue state.
•Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who, with Palin’s help, scored a big upset over establishment candidate Trey Grayson.
•WI Representative Sean Duffy, who used Palin’s endorsement to raise some much needed cash in his fight against 42-year veteran House Democrat David Obey.” (by Michael Alan from Legal Insurrection)
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/06/ed-rollins-is-hardly-spokesman-for.html
Then, if that’s the case, let’s nominate the syphilitic camel!
Exactly. For decades the media has controlled the message and messenger. Public figures have had to kowtow to the media in order to get their message out.
The Obama campaign was the harbinger of this by using YouTube etc. to appeal to the young early adapters.
Who many times have we hear from the media about how Palin doesn’t play ball with them but puts her message out on Facebook? Many times.
How many times did the media complain about having to catch up with Sarah during the family bus tour? Many times.
They hate Sarah Palin because they fear her.
As for her alleged negatives; it’s the media that touts those…I would have NO problem casting my vote for President Palin. As elaine posted above, “Palin worked as a tireless reformer in Alaska, sometimes standing against the corruption in her own party. And won.” She’s her own person, who walks the walk, as opposed to merely talking the talk…
The Progs and MSM hate Palin because she is both competent and pretty.
It’s ain’t any more complicated than that.
I was one of those liberal useful idiots who voted for Carter and lived to regret it. The Carter years permanently cured me of liberalism, just as the Obama regime is curing hundreds of thousands of socialism today. I remember hearing Reagan’s speeches and thinking there just may be some hope left for America, despite the caterwauling on the left. Don’t write off Sarah too quickly, friends. America is despairing but she is not defeated. Like Queen Esther who saved her people from the Persians, Sarah may have been born for just such a time as this.
“elaine” has an interesting point, but I don’t think it’s necessarily limited to Gov. Palin. She’s demonstrated ways to work around the MSM, but she certainly hasn’t been the only one to do so. She has, I’d stipulate, had the most need to do so, because the MSM’s treatment of her has been particularly relentless and unbalanced. She’s sometimes made missteps too, though, that have fed those problems rather than solving them.
Beldar, even with the missteps — and the weren’t-missteps-but-the-MSM-doesn’t-cares. like the Paul Revere thing — I think the most striking thing is not that she’s the only one who needed to work around the MSM, as much as it is that she seems to have such a talent for doing so.
Pity the Reds. They spent generations penetrating the media, only to have their hegemony there obviated (at least partially) by the Internet.
You have to laugh.
Yes, Americans have always found a way to get out from under the oppressive thumb and around the rigged system. We can’t help it, freedom in our blood.
Yes! Thank you! I hope these Leftist totalitarian types will find it’s like trying to herd cats. Freedom is in our blood. I suspect every human feels the same way. Thank you, Susan.
Everything is pure speculation at this point; and there is no shortage of that. I guess it is entertaining, but it is meaningless.
Still, I will play. The media set out to destroy SP, but in the long run may be her greatest asset. This latest boondoggle with her emails is dangerously close to blowing up in their faces. When it does, what numbskull will say that SP set out to boost herself by this circus? No, I think more than a few people will start to realize that the nasty trick crowd have played their hand, and she has not only survived, but thrived. A lot of people will like that.
I frankly prefer that she not run in ’12 if there is a viable GOP candidate when the primaries finally get started. Energy Secretary the first four years; Sec of State, or Defense, the next, and unbeatable candidate in her mid-50s in ’20.
Sarah’s viable now. She’s for real. We need her now.
Two phrases – or thoughts – will dictate the 2012 election. Primarily “It’s the economy, stupid” as it will be further in the toilet by then. Secondarily: “It’s the Tea Party, stupid”. By then, the TP will have become even more influential in vetting and promoting candidates at every level. Sarah will run, wipe the floor with any GOP rival and will win in a landslide against Chairman Zero. The MSM and other leftie shouters will do all they can to prevent this, but despite the vitriol and nastiness the TP influence will prevail. Basically because it has to…
The one question that should dominate Election 2012: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”
If Sarah Palin is the GOP nominee (which is a big “If” at this point) and reprises this famous Reagan question in a Presidential debate… game over! It’s hers!
By forcing the establishment media to chase her or have no story, Palin is showing them that “I don’t need you, you need me.” The Republican establishment haven’t quite yet grasped that the message is aimed at them, too.
The Republican establishment haven’t quite yet grasped that the message is aimed at them, too.
An excellent point. Can’t promise you an instalink, but an excellent point.
Hear, hear! Though lately it seems that the thought is crossing their collective minds, but they’re doing their best to try to dispel the thought. Amusing!
Real Americans, patriotic Americans shame anyone they know that lets Lame Stram Media into their mind. Nobody worthy of the name citizen have the luxury of inviting treason and deception into their mind just because 50 years ago there were some people in the media trying to shoot straight with the public.
It is your responsibility to not allow the traitors an opportunity to use you to break America. Don’t watch/read the MSM in an ironic fashion, or on a lark, or for the comedy value. Recognize it for what it is and avoid it and use social stigma to get others to stop this poisonous addiction.
I can’t believe the SP love here.
She isn’t about to run for any office. Not right now, anyway. She is enjoying her money and her fame. She might run later, but only to keep the interest up on her. That was obvious as soon as she quit the governor’s office. Quitting will be a very big black mark on her record for anybody that might think about voting for her, for 2012, or down the road.
Comparisons to Reagan are laughable. Reagan was called the Teflon President for a reason. SP isn’t Teflon anything, it’s quite obvious that she doesn’t have the ability nor the ability to pull a team together to provide the capability either. If she were Teflon, she would have stayed in the governor’s office.
I also would hope that SP wouldn’t be tripling the federal deficit either.
Indeed, it does appear that “It’s The Economy, Stupid” is going to be a factor. It also appears that 2012 is going to be the election where being an incumbent isn’t going to give a candidate much of an advantage. There’s also the redistricting that’s going on. I saw something about how the lines look it will give California and increase of five Democrat seats. I know nothing about California, so I can’t say anything for or against. It was somebody spouting off. And since some states don’t even appear to be even thinking about redistricting, I can’t wait for the lawsuits then. I haven’t heard word one about in my home state. Although it appears that my representative will most likely be voted out regardless of how that goes. And probably should be.
I also suspect that this will be the last hurrah for the Tea Party. Too many of the candidates that they elected are getting a lot of guff because they aren’t exactly what the Tea Party thought they were. They seem to be compromising too much. There’s also the possibility of recall elections being done on some of the Tea Party winners, especially with some of the governors that seem to be in the thirty something percentage range in the polls of voter satisfaction. If August comes up without an increase in the debt ceiling, the stock market WILL tank. Recovery for anybody will be impossible by Nov ’12, and I wouldn’t be surprised if every congressman who voted “no” previously on raising the limit even once gets thrown out of office. And if that happens, expect the Tea Party to be the sacrificial goat, regardless if you think they deserve to be or not. Besides that, the Tea Party has been subsumed just like the Religious Right. There might be some lip service, but actual hard core Tea Party candidate will start to fade away after 2012, if they aren’t already.
One other thing on SP is the fact that she needs to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars to run a campaign. Obama raised 3/4 of a billion in 2010. I wouldn’t be surprised if he raises close to a billion this time. SP is going to have raise similar money. It would have been interesting to see if she could pull it off.
And no, I am not a Democrat lover. Too much spending. I am also not a Republican lover. Too much spending AND a reluctance to actually do anything positive on increasing revenue. The time to have the credit cards cut was at least Reagan’s time, if not before. A pox on both their houses.
You’re not an idiot. Simply too married to “conventional wisdom”. Which is often indistinguishable from foolishness.
Try thinking for yourself on occasion.
“He ran openly and honestly on social justice issues [...]”
Please, don’t dare to say that with a straight face to anyone who witnessed the shenanigans during the TX Democrat primary (in which Hillary won, fair and square) and the caucus on that same night – where all the Obama-bots let out their knives and slashed everything in sight to make Obama the winner. Don’t make me laugh!
I would not use the word “love” to describe admiration for a public servant who-upon taking the oath of office- had the opportunity to demand her palms be greased by a well-oiled corrupt system yet resisted the temptation.
What most distinguishes Palin from the massive pack of political/business vampires is that she chose to not make more money demanding her palms be eternally greased by the corrupt Ruling Class.
I’ve found the argument ‘she won’t run for President because she is making millions as a private citizen’ to be shortsighted; she would have made more had she played the corrupt palm-greasing game so accustomed to today’s political and business environment.
I do not know whether she is running for President though I must profess that at times I think we are undeserving of such an honest public servant who values integrity and ethics above palm-greasing and back-stabbing.
No, she didn’t grease her hands with corporate money, she greased her hands with taxpayer money. I’ve never heard of a governor taking so many trips back home, and on such a regular basis, than other governors.
I do not begrudge her what she’s made. I also have no idea of where her income comes from, although I think Fox News has been a good chunk of it, so I really wouldn’t say that she has taken in zero corporate dollars. I also think that it would be foolish for any corporation to put any money up since she has been known to shoot from the hip, regardless of what others thinks she should say. So I don’t think she could maximize her income much anyway.
But if she DOES want to run, guess what? She is certainly going to have go after and directly ask for all that corporate money in her greasy little hands. Maybe that’s what she is waiting for. I don’t know.
“I do not know whether she is running for President though I must profess that at times I think we are undeserving of such an honest public servant who values integrity and ethics above palm-greasing and back-stabbing.”
For starters, I would consider some of her campaign remarks in 2008 to be back-stabbing of McCain. As far as integrity and ethics goes, how many ethics violations was she under at the end? Which all came to naught because she quit? I’ve seen some sleazy governors come and go, the number confounds me. And even if she is everything you seem to think she is, she’ll never be that once she gets elected.
“…. enjoying her money and her fame.”
Whenever I hear such comments, it makes me think they come from another Palin-basher. “Enjoying her money”, a stab in the back, insinuating greedy. It immediately shuts me off to the rest of the message. I like SP because she is spunky, certainly not dumb, and I agree with her political philosophy. But I’m not sure she can be elected because I think many independent voters have been propagandized by the MSM. The new message they are promoting is “she’s making lots of money”. As if Bill Clinton’s up to $300K per speaking engagement is peanuts.
‘”Enjoying her money”, a stab in the back, insinuating greedy.’
So I guess Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are greedy as well?
I really don’t care how much Sarah Palin makes, nor do I care what the guy down the street makes.
But there is little doubt that without running in 2008, she wouldn’t have the money she has today. But then again, why would anybody actually care? She has written her books and made her personal appearances and parlayed it into a capitalist’s wet dream.
Junk Science Skeptic…enjoyed reading your response! Everybody is placing their bets based upon their own subjective rational for a race thats not even scheduled yet. If Palin isn’t running the derby its all meaningless discussion. On the other side of the coin, the current GOP split isn’t their first rodeo….Ross who?
The risk facing the GOP is that it is represented by the religious right who now have themselves labeled as the conservative, the anarchists now popularly labeled as libertarians, the moderates and now the Tea Party who…… all strugling among themselves with different platform agenda’s for superiority. The Democrats, as usual, have only two factions that, in most instances, are unified and by unified, I mean unified around a single ideological platform thats not changed much in 80 years.
All political campaign rhetoric eventually has to face reality…reality of the constitutional processes. Obama was a fortunate man in timing! He ran openly and honestly on social justice issues, comfortably specualating that he would have a super majority allied congress behind him…and he did! That is historically, a rare occasion! He could leave office tomorrow having accomplished his major intended and promised agenda’s. Fortifying union labor might well be the only agenda he lacks in legislative action. Agree or disagree, the nation hasn’t slipped into a depression on his watch….yet. He got a ton of anti-capitalist regulatory legislation passed. The Big Three auto makers are still in business. Another big step towards government health care passed and remains, at least for now. He has followed much of the Bush doctrine and policies in terms of national security and foreign relations and actually ‘pending’ economic recovery policy. Bottom line? He’s did his social justice thing and followed many of the Bush policies otherwise.
What does all that mean? To me it means the 2012 elections will come down to these things. 1) social justice issues. 2) the economy. 3) and in a distant third will be foreign afffairs/national security. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, the GOP have put themselves in a very tough corner on the social issues and the economy.
Superficial, moderate or deep government cuts will have real consequences. Whose going to be designated to suffer such consequences and ‘what’ are they to suffer is going to be the ‘real’ poltical fodder to come soon. Nobody on the GOP side wants to touch those issues with a ten foot pole and the dems are lying in wait. Some very serious times and consequences lie ahead! Do we suffer more jobs and paychecks from subsidy entitlements? Do we sacrifice those under the current system of social security, medicare and medicaid? If our liabilities were only $14 trillion dollars that would be one thing. However, that is fractional compared to the real unfunded liablities facing the nation.
Are these not the issues that should be, being discussed rather than all the if’s somebody is going to run, Wieners weenie or rock chucking at candidates? Should we not be asking the relevent questions to see who best can address a plan AND the real, no BS consequences of their plans?
Charlie….["“sure there are lots of counter-examples but things are different now” isn’t much of an argument."]
Try selling that to any marketing pro worth their salt.
Things do change! I have less hair and more gray, can’t do eight straight hours of hard physical labor anymore, can’t see and hear like I use to though, for durn sure see things more realistically. Hang in there Charlie, you may go through some changes yourself one day.
So you’re getting old! So am I. Some of my friends have died. Things really change!
Sorry, TT, I was using “argument” in the formal sense. Didn’t mean to confuse you.
I just cannot see how Palin ever wins election with so many people downright hating her so intensely.
A shame, because she seems to me to be the smartest of the bunch (leaders of BOTH parties specifically including the empty suit in the WH) and certainly is the only one with the brass balls it would take to start fixing the mess.
T.T. As to my CEO remarks. I stand by it. Maybe some are lacking corporate backgrounds to understand the annalogy.
If Congress selected and hired somebody to be President (as a BoD does with a CEO) I’d go along with your analogy, but they don’t, so I won’t. Once the Board of Directors puts their CEO (and other officers) in place, they typically don’t take an active role in running a company. They put their people in place for that purpose. This is very different than the relationship between a President and Congress. A Board of Directors and the Companies officers don’t have divided powers so that they provide checks and balances to each other, our government was designed to do so.
President’s can legislate. They do this by actually drafting bills, and getting somebody in their party to propose the legislation. The President then goes to the American people and sells the benefits of the legislation. If the President is successful in selling the bill to the people, The people’s representatives generally pass it.
It involves Leadership and effective use of the bully pulpit. Obama doesn’t do this, he let’s Congress run amuck, and bills end up getting drafted in a back room by lobbists.
Oh, good Lord! But thanks for the constitutional and procedural rules lessons. I get it now! The congress simplistically legislates based on polling. Thats obviously the piece I was missing. Thanks again!
The people are sovereign, not the government; but if the people will not stand up to government, they will become its servants. Sarah is of we, the people, who will not become anyone’s servant.
“It’s a Republic, if you can keep it.” Ben Franklin
We expect the House to be filled with half corrupt, totlly incompetant office seekers (and mostly lawyers). That’s why we get the chance to turn them out after only two years.
The Senate we expected more from, but when the 17th ammendment made their election to be by popular vote, they just became longer serving, and even more currupted than the congresscritters. I give you Ted Kennedy, and any number of progressive senators since the turn of the last century to make my case.
The President is supposed to be elected by the Electoral College, and not directly. When the Democrats finally are able to subvert that last barrier to the then fashinable tyranny of the then fashinable majority, then we will become Venezuela.
Democracy only works until the parasites and thieves realize they can vote themselves the treasure of their neighbors.