« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Palin bashes Obama, defends TEA Party and doesn’t answer the question

By: Dan Spencer (Diary)  |  September 3rd, 2011 at 10:43 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

At her big speech in Iowa today Sarah Palin took it to President Obama again and again, defended the TEA Party, spoke about her “bonafide pro-working man plan,” and no, she did not answer that bothersome question — will Palin run?

On President Obama:

  • Palin reminded us that she warned in her vice-presidential acceptance speech that candidate Obama’s plan, after turning back the waters and healing the planet, was to make government bigger and take more of your money to give to others.
  • Palin said America is hurting and at a tipping point due to failed policies and incompetent leadership.

On the TEA Party:

  • Palin credited the TEA Party folk for rising up, going to the ballot box and winning an election victory of historic proportions.
  • The TEA Party rejected the Left’s big government agenda — we don’t want it, we can’t afford it and we are unwilling to pay for it.

Palin’s Plan:

  1. Stop expanding the federal government and devolve powers back local and state government.
  2. Repeal ObamaCare.
  3. No more runaway debt.
  4. Robust and responsible domestic energy production.
  5. Eliminate all corporate income tax and corporate welfare — no more loopholes and bailouts.

It was a good speech, not a great speech like her vice presidential acceptance speech or her terrific 2010 victory speech.

I continue to believe Palin will not run. Watch the speech and see what you think.

UPDATE: The transcript of Palin’s speech was finally made available this morning. I won’t post it here, it is too long, but I have posted it at Right Side Politics.

This is another reason I believe Palin will not join the race for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination — the organization capabilities needed are still lacking. The transcript should have been made available when she spoke, not 12 hours after the fact. This post was ready five hours before it was published because I was searching for an embed-able video or a transcript. If I ever see evidence that Palin is putting together a campaign organization I may change my mind. As for now I remain convinced Palin is not running.

 

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • californiagold

    Palin gave a pretty good speech, but the media played up the imaginary divisions between her and Rick Perry. It’s almost as if the media wants to use Palin as a surrogate attack dog to bring down Perry.

    Regarding the actual content of the speech…

    Conservatives such as Palin continue to say the federal government should give the power back to the states, and while that sounds nice, in reality, what does it mean ? In California, the government is run by a bunch of left wing extremists – do we really want the state of California to have even more power than it already has ? Transferring federal power to state power does little to increase liberty among the citizens. As an example, the state government of Massachusetts forced it’s citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. California could do the same thing if Obamacare is repealed.

    Intrusive government power that reduces individual liberty goes against what it means to be an American. And it makes no difference if that power comes from the federal or state level. Conservative politicians need to start discussing individual liberty more often….not the tranfer of power from the feds to the states.

    • mndasher

      The great thing about states rights is if you don’t like what your states politicians are doing you can; 1) vote them out, 2) influence legislation (easier than influencing federal legislation), and if all else fails you can move to a different state.

      But with the federal government there is no place to run, and little influence on legislation by the citizens.

      It was a very good speech by Sarah Palin. But it is hard to beat her acceptance speech in MN in 2008.

      • californiagold

        I’m not debating the merits of states rights vs. federal power. My point is that at this time in our nation’s history, the debate shouldn’t be federal power vs. state power. Rather, the debate should be big government vs. limited government, whether it be at the state level or federal level.

        Depending on which state you are referring to, some state governments have become every bit as intrusive as the federal government with little or no opportunity for the citizens to influence legislation. The state of California has more republicans and independents than any other state in the union, yet the left wing democrats run the government.

        Far too often political junkies concern themselves with national politics, but overlook state and local politics, which are every bit as important.

        • DerKrieger

          One of the great unwritten freedoms we have is the freedom of movement. To me that is one of the key features of federalism because it forces states to compete for productive citizens. If the tax and regulatory burden in one state become excessive then the productive citizens are free to move to escape them. This is happening to California today. Rational states will refrain from excess taxation and regulation in order to maintain their tax base. Unfortunately at the moment irresponsible states, like Cali, can rely on the federal government to supplement their coffers if they themselves don’t manage their budgets responsibly. If we get a states rights conservative in the WH then irresponsible states will be made to suffer the consequences of their policy choices and not have the rest of us available to bail them out. The “progressives” loathe federalism precisely because they know that productive citizens can escape the progressives’ role for them as indentured servant. It’s why they prefer a strong central government over strong state governments. Federalism is absolutely crucial to individual liberty.

          • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

            Or San Francisco’s, Or Los Angeles’s.

            Or, eventually, rehabilitate itself.

          • californiagold

            Regarding California, the state has a balanced budget amendment, and in spite of that, there are significant budget issues, primarily because of the severe loss of revenue as a result of the housing bust.

            As for states rights vs. federal power, I am in agreement with you that in theory, states rights is the preferred way to go. But we are long past the stage were theory can become a successful reality.

            Let’s use a hypothetical for a moment and imagine this scenario. A republican wins the White House in 2012 and along with congress passes huge cuts in social spending, and then gives the states the responsibility for providing health care, etc… to it’s citizens. What will the states then do ? And how will they pay for healthcare programs like medicaid, etc ? Most likely, the states will institute huge tax increases on their citizens, and/or pass legislation like Romneycare. I think you can see where this is going….

            The reality of the situation is this, when I hear politicians say “give the power back to the states”, all they’re really doing is promoting the cost shifting of expenses and power from the feds to the states without reducing the overall size of government in the lives of each citizen.

          • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

            Lots of people are already gettting out of California.

          • californiagold

            Big government in California….and if the feds give back power in the form of cost shifting of social programs like healthcare, every state in the union will face budgetary problems regardless of how big California’s fiscal problems are.

          • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

            Which it just did, as you know.

            States are already losing Federal dollars, and states that have brains enough to elect John Kasich or Scott Walker instead of Jerry Brown are dealing quite effectively with that.

          • After Seven

            Palin was correct today: Priority #1 is reestablishing basic 10th Amendment federalism with a Federal Government of Defined and Limited authority.

            Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as ?the foundation of the Constitution? and added, ?to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn ? is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.? Hence the Socialist Leviathan we call the Federal Government today.

            In today’s post FDR America I can understand a Conservative’s trepidation at the size and scope of the task of rolling back the Federal Onslaught….but to argue conversely that we should enshrine the Federal Leviathon in perpetuity because we fear that a State may get greedy with new powers is ASTOUNDING. It’s basically a sentiment that is anti-Constitutional, that is NOT Conservative and that is destined to lead totalitarianism.

            You argue that the Federal Government should remain omnipotent because State Governments might run hog-wild with California style governance. It reminds me of Mel Gibson in The Patriot “Why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away??”

            And the Answer is simple: The Constitution says so. There are 18 Federal Enumerated Powers, no more, no less and all other power is for the States and the People. Like the Founders, Palin realizes that Tyranny is easier to manage when it is CLOSER to your PHYSICAL proximity. That’s the KEY…when the people are in close proximity to their elected representatives, their reps are easier to control. Seriously, how can you have a Government “By the People” if the government is 3,000 miles away from the people…it’s basic geography.

            This is how we kept Small Limited Federal Government from 1787 – 1932. When FDR was elected and State Power began moving to DC…thats when the erosion of American Freedom began. The decision of Wickard v Filburn opened Pandora’s box…as you’ll see below. Today in the name of War, Health, Safety, Commerce, we have 1 size fits all governance that is simply not working, that is bankrupting us and is making us all less free every minute of every day.

            You State: “Transferring federal power to state power does little to increase liberty among the citizens. As an example, the state government of Massachusetts forced it?s citizens to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. California could do the same thing if Obamacare is repealed.”

            Response: So be it, at that juncture the citizens of Cali & Mass have a choices: Throw the bums out, Repeal the laws, Move or do nothing. At least they have choices. Better that 50 million Americans slumber under socialist rule than 310 million, No? Your statement simply makes no sense….You fear a transfer of power to the States because 38 million people might suffer an Obomneycare takeover in California, but you’re ok with 310 million being enslaved? What? Think for a second about your argument.

            You State: If the GOP wins in 2012 “and then gives the states the responsibility for providing health care, etc? to it?s citizens.”

            Response: The Federal Government does not “Give” the states responsibilities. Additionally states do not have a responsibility to provide Health Care. Again your statement is NOT Conservative…Conservatives believe in self-reliance…private solutions for health care…like getting a job and buying your own health insurance?

            There is one major historical consideration that undermines and in fact absolutely destroys your entire argument: If it were not for the Socialist Big Government ACTIVIST FEDERAL COURTS usurping power – California would NOT BE California: If the activist FEDERAL COURTS had not imposed liberalism on California….

            - 99% of all Abortions would still be illegal in California
            - Interest rates over 15% would be illegal in California (Art XV Cal Const)
            - All Govt. materials would be printed in English Only.
            - Public Schools would teach only in English.
            - Marriage would be between 1 man & 1 woman
            - State Programs would NOT be available to illegals.
            etc etc
            The Federal Courts are ENABLERS of Socialism at the State level…They mandate that States may not have Conservative solutions. They block and inhibit all conservative political plans wherever they can….Example SC – Boeing Plant; AL, GA, AZ – Immigration Laws.; Initial Blockade of Walker Agenda in WI by low level Fed Judge……. and you want more of this because you fear a State Government may become tyrannical???? No no no no ….it is BECAUSE of the Federal Leviathon and the usurpation of 10th Amendment Rights that Federal Courts are enabling Tyranny and Socialism at the State level. California as we know it today would not be a Socialist utopia were in not for 80 years of Constant Big Government One Size Fits All Federal Court Activism!

            Lastly a word on Wickard v Filburn…this is the case that broke the back of the 10th Amendment and Federalism and allowed Congress to call anything “Commerce”. Thus the Feds can legislate and more importantly “Regulate” any activity.

            So as John Boehner spouts platitudes that each bill will cite specific Constitutional authorization…of the 2800+ bills introduced all but like 10 of them cite the “Commerce Clause” as “Constitutional” authorization.

            Both Palin today and Perry in his book have it right. The 10th Amendment is the key. We need to take back power usurped by the Federal Govt. We need to empower the States and empower the People. Anyone who argues we need to keep an all powerful Federal Government at the expense of the States has no knowledge of History, hasn’t read the Constitution, knows nothing about the founding of this country and most certainly is not Conservative.

          • revivalrebel

            Im not trying to argue, I agree with most everything you said,FDR WAS a power-grab hungry socialist that single handidly pushed a leaning country over the brink, but States Power picked up and moved to DC in or around April-May 1865. When The Confederate States surrendered, that effectively ended States Rights and effectively killed the 10th Amendment.
            To hear all this debate about States Rights, and there are other sites besides this one talking it also, I wonder if those Southernors aren’t somewhere shaking their heads saying,”WE tried to tell you, and what do you think we were fighting for?’ Again, Im not trying to start some rant or argument about The War, Its fruitless, BUT the ULTIMATE issue underlying the causes, and there were MANY, was STATES rights. Yes, the right to slaves was at the top of the list, BUT it was also a different world with different beliefs and morals than today. Anyway my point is that States rights and or States power left on the victory train back to DC in 1865.

          • renl57

            The South was fighting against the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

            The Bill of Rights says that all persons have certain rights. Not Americans, PERSONS. The South didn’t like that, insofar as it applied to black people. Even after the Civil War ended, the Ku Klux Klan was against the Bill of Rights.

            I am absolutely in favor of states’ rights and federalism–with one big exception. And that exception is when said states violate the Bill of Rights and refuse to abide by the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which established the equality of all men (including black men) before God.

            The one thing that trumps states’ rights is individual rights.

            And when CA throttles productive citizens’ ability to earn a living or when the South throttles the rights of blacks, they have stepped over that line.

          • revivalrebel

            Lets look at the FIRST paragraph of The Declaration of Independence, by the way which was written by a slave owner…
            When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation
            This is BEFORE the whole “created equal” part that you were citing, and obviously held more weight.
            Before you go all “Battle Hym of The Republic” and start channeling ol’ honest abe, lets look at this lilly white United States record of the treatment of INDIVIDUAL rights. What about the Mexicans who lost everything to invading Anglos AFTER the Mexican-American War? Their sin was to be living in the land conquored. What about the way that the American Indians were and still are treated? where are their rights? What of the Japanese-Americans forced into Internment camps just 70 years ago, What of their rights? What of the gays and lesbians? Their rights. Come on man even the treatment of the African americans since slavery ended. Bigotry has been and is EVERYWHERE in this country.
            I was talking about a PEOPLE of America making decisions that were right within the bounds of the law. Secession was legal in that day. Nothing in the law in that day forbade it. It had been an effective threat used from the beggining of this country to negotiate. BUT They realized that diplomacy was done and that Secession was their only option to preserve the Freedoms that they held dear and true. I wasn’t talking racism and bigotry which has polluted this land from corner to corner from the first

          • Warrior

            “racism and bigotry” are human traits, not national ones. Besides, the Founding Fathers created the greatest country on the face of the earth, what have you ever created?

          • revivalrebel

            but I was speaking with a fellow conservative the other day and we were discussing how that Lierals throw out the few little tidbits that they have and then once their arguments have been refuted they resort to name calling or little tantrums that have absolutly no meaning or basis.
            I think YOU are there.
            Yes The founding Fathers created the greatest country on the planet WE AGREE on that. But do NOT forget that many of thost greatest founders were Southern. Never forget that in the early years there was great dispute over which form of government to establish. Men that were label Anti-Federalists feared that the potential for a runaway central government was too great in the earliest forms of this constitutional government. These men were right. The Anti Federalists were not only in the South but scattered throughout the great land. Finally, under pressure and through negotiation The Bill of Rights was added and so the needed votes for ratification was achieved.
            You are right bigotry and rascism are human traits and not national ones. That is why it has been scattered throughout this whole land not confined to one region. Thats why your statement that the South fought for rascism was ill founded if not foolish. They fought to protect their Constitutional rights to Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They didnt fight to keep the black race down.They fought to preserve their business and fortunes. Do we forget that first and foremost these men were business men who made a living from the land toiled by slaves. You cannot paint 19th century mindsets with 21st century values.
            Now let us be done with this and agree that this once great land has always had its problems BUT I fear that the plight facing it in this day is the greatest danger of all and that the scourge of obama needs to be cleansed from this great soil.

          • californiagold

            Nowhere in my post did I ever state that I support an omnipotent federal government,or that the feds should remain omnipotent. Rather than repost everything, I’ll make it easy for you to understand.

            Politicians like Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, etc, claim they support giving power back to the states. Fine. But if they really believe in what they are saying, then why hasn’t Palin or Perry publically supported for the elimination of federal entitlements such as medicare or social security? Unless states rights advocates are willing to go all the way to the natural conclusion of their beliefs, it’s nothing more than lip service.

          • revivalrebel

            So many talk “States Rights” when actually they just want a federal government more to their liking. In a fairy tale world we’d see the people rise up seize control and elect representatives that would head to DC with the express plan of chaining this monster down and then systematically shredding it. Dept of Energy, gone. Dept of Trans, gone. Dept of Education, gone. EPA, Homeland security, FDA, GONE!!! Then they would implement ironclad restrictions on Federal, State, and Local government along with MANY other needed plans then turn all these things back to the States. Go back to The early years of The Republic get a blueprint and start fresh. However, we dont live there and Im afraid that so many really dont care. They have an attitude of,”Give me my six pack and some Football and Im set.”

          • bs61

            But for some reason, Californian’s refuse to leave a state that is sucking them dry. I know Republican’s that live there and complain, but never move. There are other beaches in the great USA. So I do not feel sorry for them any more, they will go down with the ship.

          • californiagold

            Many Californians have moved to lower cost areas such as Texas, Oregon, Utah, Washington, etc…In fact, many natives of those states complain because of all the California transplants who have raised the price of real estate in those states.

            As for California, the fiscal problems won’t be resolved until the immigration problem is solved. If Rick Perry, Obama, or any other open borders type of guy is elected, don’t hold your breath waiting for tougher immigration enforcement.

          • gekster

            Got a link backing up that statement.

    • Warrior

      n/t

  • rinowatch

    This is now past obvious.

    • Getting_Back_to_Basics

      I don’t see a path for her to the nomination and I can’t imagine why she would throw her hat in the ring. As someone who has defended her and supports her (except for her position in favor the Libyan war), I wish she would say yes or no or at least a “I’m waiting to see how this field shakes out and whether they have the mettle.” She needs to get it over with because the teasing is wearing thin — the “question” overshadows her message. Her crony capitalism comments today were fantastic, but the headline was that she didn’t answer the “question.”

      • nohype

        She has said that she will tell whether she formally running or not at the end of the month. Why are people all bent out of shape because she is keeping her word and not announcing at the beginning of the month?

        People tend to see this in two ways. If you assume that she is not running, then her delay in announcing her plans is annoying and manipulative. If you assume that she is running, then what she is doing is tactical, trying to find the best time to formally enter the race. During the past month Obama has been imploding and his implosion may continue through September. She needs to stay out of the way of that implosion.

    • californiagold

      While Palin is a controversial figure, she is politically astute and knows her road to the nomination would be extremely difficult. Unfortunately, she has put herself into a tough spot. If Palin runs but fails to win the nomination, she becomes a footnote in history. If she wins the nomination, yet loses badly to Obama, she will be despised by republicans, and will lose her national status as a “player” in republican politics. At that point I doubt Fox News would renew her contract.

      In my opinion, there are only two choices for Palin which allow her to continue to be a national “player”. The first choice is obvious, yet very unlikely – she runs and wins the presidency. The second choice, and far more likely, is to be the “unofficial” leader of the Tea Party movement, and possibly run as an independent. Running as an independent would get her in the spotlight with a small, but significant following that would allow her to continue to be a “player”.

      • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

        would almost certainly assure 0bama another four years in office. Despite what the leftists think, Sarah is not stupid. If she can’t get the Republican nomination, she would not run as an independent. IMHO, she is going to do what she does best: keep thing stirred up so that Conservatives will get out and vote rather than staying home like they did in 2008 in droves.

        • californiagold

          If Romney is the republican nominee, I believe there is a possibility, (not probability) that Palin runs as an independent. And there exists an even more likely possibility that someone like Donald Trump runs. In an Obama vs. Romney race, millions of voters wouldn’t be represented…that leaves a huge opening for a third party candidate.

          • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

            Trump doesn’t care. He’s just a businessman who buys whatever he wants from whomever is in charge.

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            -nt-

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            if you have a Republican candidate (moderate, RINO, or otherwise) and a Conservative joins the race as an independent candidate, you split the center-right and conservative vote, and the liberal wins.

            Look at 1992 and Perot: Perot cost Bush the election.

      • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

        Do his negatives turn to positives? Is the GOP’s message so flimsy that someone we all agree is the figurehead of the Tea Party can’t deliver that message?

        • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

          of the Republican electorate do not consider Sarah electable. And it’s not a matter of someone switching his/her vote from Palin to 0bama–if that voter stays home, he/she might as well have voted for 0bama.

          We have to have a candidate that can win all the R’s and the plurality of the I’s.

          • After Seven

            Polls are for Strippers and Cross Country Skiers as Palin said today.

            1. This tells me she doesn’t care what the polls say about her negatives.
            2. She’s Going to run for the same reason Obama ran in 2008….which is: The incumbent President is so BAD and so UNPOPULAR that the GOP nominee has a gimme.
            3. Electability is an issue for rubes just as it was in 1976 and 1980 with Reagan which has been discussed here at Red State previously.
            4. Polls this far out, in fact polls in general, mean exactly Doodly Squat. Kerry was up on Bush throughout the summer of 04….heck, even exit polls had Kerry winning!
            5. The only questions that will matter in November of 2012 are as follows:
            - Can my family survive another 4 years of Obama?
            - Can anybody possibly do any worse with the economy?
            - Am I willing to vote 2 – 3 more liberal Activist Judges onto the Supreme Court?
            - Why not a woman? …and that will be the clincher for indies.

            If she gets the nomination – Palin wins…and it won’t be close…however, getting the nomination will be a much tougher test for her than the general.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Once you have to start telling yourself polls are meaningless, you’ve officially chosen to lose touch with reality and dive head-first into personality cult.

          • After Seven

            The only meaningful polls are internals and ones conducted the day before an election.

            - Polls are not predictions…they are Snapshots.
            - “Likely voters” do not have “undecided” as an option on election day.
            - A poll of 3,000 “Likely Voters” in the 10 -11 swing states is the only data that might be instructive on an Obama v (Fill in the blank ) match-up.
            - Of course if you believe all polls are gospel and that sampling, methodology and media bias play no role…good luck with that…I’m sure you’ll go far tiger.

          • Scope

            The unintended consequences of the kinder and gentler goal here. It keeps getting worse and worse.

          • After Seven

            to an asinine comment from an individual who seems to relish asinine comments. I take it you’re friends. That’s great. Cheers.

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            And that is to leave the section blank, and not choose ANY candidate.
            I have never voted in an election where I was forced to choose a candidate in every race.

          • After Seven

            I defy you to show me where 15% of the ballots in a presidential election fail to select a presidential candidate. 10% …5% ….4% …3% 2% …1%?

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            Why bother driving to the polling place if you’re not going to vote. I did not say that large groups of people do this, I simply said that there IS an “undecided” option on the ballot: don’t vote for anyone. Most undecided voters mark this option by staying home on election night.

          • After Seven

            I don’t have time to roll back the tape for you other than to say – The polls in question were of “LIKELY VOTERS” …. Likely Voters in a Presidential Election usually vote for the President, n’est pas? Ergo…as criteria for a Likely Voter varies month to month, polling org to polling org…it is the best estimate as to who is, and who is not, a likely voter for the Presidency….all I’m saying is that 15% undecided in a Likely Voter poll will not be an option on election day…If the pollsters assumptions are right… 14%+ of the 15% will in fact be voting for Pres.

          • acat

            Likely is someone who’s voted several times before. Likely could, however, be staying home this time for any number of reasons, including “dislike both candidates”.

            Mew

          • After Seven

            but my interest in people pretending to be cats has run its course. Your comment is incorrect factually at best and non sequitur at worst. Give it a rest while you’re behind.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            I suggest you take the last sentence of you comment above to heart.

            …particularly when passions are spilling over their banks already today.

            Feel free to have the last word; I’ve no interest in adding further to the conflagration, just advising civility.

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            so I have walked into the middle of a lot of movies in my time. However, there is a reason why they poll “likely” voters–there’s no such thing as a “definite” voter before the election, and they call them “exit polls.” when the voter is a “definite.”

          • acat

            Any voter who stays home reduces the “coattails” of his or her party.

            ‘s why I want Obama on their ticket… gets us better results downticket.

            ‘s why I’m not convinced Palin is the best we can do .. she reduces our downticket results.

            Mew

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            ..

    • onemovoter

      I wrote about this a few days ago. She is doing a “cheerleading” part for the upcoming election. The reason she hasn’t come out with her decision is to keep as much press coverage as possible.

      Her 5ish point plan is basically the same as several other GOP candidates. In fact it follows rather closely to Perry’s announced positions. Perry hasn’t come out with a tax policy yet but I bet it will probably be the same as what she mentioned.

      Check my posts for the Palin post to see what she has coming up that will make you think.

      • easyb

        She’s keeping the base warm, and she’s ready to play kingmaker. I’d be real surprised if she doesn’t endorse Perry sooner or later.

        • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

          won’t turn 180 degrees and make her a kingmaker. Dream on. They’ll expect her to disappear.

          It’s a false alternative. A booby prize. If she’s toxic now she’s doesn’t become less so (in their eyes) just because she decides to not run.

          • acat

            Then tell me how “the same people” you tar broadly could prevent her from being one.

            Seriously.

            Public toxicity does not play into the role of kingmaker.

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            While I will give you the “kingmaker” point, because she was never going to be able to select the candidate, she can be useful if used sparingly and in a targeted manner.

            You really know nothing about organizing and running a political campaign do you. And that wasn’t a question.

      • trutexan

        She is doing incredible things for the GOP. She’s getting out that conservative message like no one ever has. Those who don’t turn on FoxNews or just catch the local ?big 3? will come see her because 1) they are curious to see what all the hubbub is about; 2) ?What the heck? We were going to town anyway?; and 3) she?s easy on the eyes. Men like looking at her and she inspires women to be the best they can be. She?s incredibly dynamic and her team building qualities have been lacking in the GOP for decades. So those who don?t know the message show up and are immediately drawn in first by what they see and 2nd by what they hear. And they like what they hear. They think, ?Hey yeah, I am sick of this or that and this lady is talking about what I feel too.? They talk about her speech in the car on the way home and then they tell their neighbors over the back fence, at church, at the high school football game, and in the bars and feed stores. I may be simplifying this but it?s truly what happens. I do the same thing about Ted Cruz and none of my neighbors know who he is.

        Palin is playing the media with the tease. If she says ?no?, she won?t get another reporter to show up. They will assume she?s just some kind of cheerleader and won?t give her a moments coverage. But as a potential contender, none of the media want to be the one that wasn?t there when she announced. They?d be fired over it. So she?s giving back now what they did to her in 08. They deserve it and we should play along.

        Maybe as late as November she should definitely say one way or the other. Personally, I hope she doesn?t run. She?s doing so much right now and once she says No and gets fully behind Rick Perry the way she did when he ran for gov, there will be no stopping him.

        • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

          Which is precisely the reason that I love Dick Chaney, too.

        • easyb

          If she says no she’s not relevant to the media anymore. The candidate she eventually endorses will gain a good portion of her fans. They’re not going to Romney, so that’s either Perry or Bachman. Hence my point, she’s going to endorse Perry, and that will solidify his front-runner status.

  • smitch61

    She is going to announce when she is ready , and not when Karl Rove tells her to. She will announce with her plan, her staff in tow, and be so darn busy the candidates and the media will not have time to thrwart her. Palin has not even touched on crooked oil execs yet… and what an interesting debate that will be….. oh, and she will announce in MI this month.

    The last sentence in Rougue is that she is showing Piper the way to Michigan. Here in MI we are absolute professionals at living in a recession, we have been in one non stop for 10 years… We have seen the strangle hold of government, what a perfect place for an announcement.

    • Change Jar Conservative

      Even though I wish she wasn’t.

      You don’t use the line “it’s not a matter of just replacing Obama, but who you replace him with if you are going to sit it out.”

      And Palin winning the nomination WILL give the election to Obama.

  • freemanja1991

    for the Organize for Palin people to start crying in the audience after she walked off the stage!

  • romeg

    in 2016 or 2020. She is laying the groundwork, building alliances and supporting the Conservative/Tea Party movement/s. And she is keeping pundits in a dither over “the question”. The moment she announces, one way or the other, the focus will turn either to her or to whomever the presumptive front runner is at the moment. This way she keeps them off balance and engaging in pretty much meaningless debates over “the question”. Bravo for her.

    In the unlikely event that Obama is re-elected and assuming I’m correct in my belief that she is NOT running this time around, she will be in the cat bird’s seat in 2016. She will have lots of friends and supporters and will have done her best to build the party.

    If Perry or Romney or some other Republican wins she may be put into a position of influence in that administration or she may continue her party-building activities until 2020.

    She is not the dumb-ass airhead flake that the left wishes she were nor the flighty, fickle incompetent failed governor that too many of our side tries to paint her.

    She’s a very smart and capable campaigner and future candidate and, quite possibly, future President of The United States.

    • acat

      and that her assumption is the Dems win in 2012 and she runs in 2016, then .. when will she start to change how the Squishy Middle think of her?

      Mew

      • onemovoter

        and the 70% of the GOPer’s, and the 74% of the rest?

      • romeg

        going to find or invent new things to hate about her. They will take their lead from the pundits and talking heads on the left. They are the squishy middle because they are unoriginal, incapable of thinking for themselves. The squishy middle, like so many demographic categorizations, changes over time. Some wake up and take a stand for conservatism and some change sides and others enter to fill the void created the departure of those who go one way or the other. The very essence of “moderate” is the absence of any core philosophy for which the moderate is willing to take a firm stand.

        That is not to say that Hating Sarah defines and delineates one as a member of the squish middle. Some have what they believe is a legitimate reason for hating her, as a candidate, not personally, of course.

        She and her candidacy, such as it is, reminds me of Ronald Reagan during the ’70′s. It took the utterly disastrous, in the fullest sense of the word, of Jimmy Carter to make him acceptable to enough voters to give him the nomination. My sense of things is that Governor Palin is on a similar trajectory as Governor Reagan.

        • acat

          her image among the squishy middle – where elections, even Reagan’s, are won and lost?

          Mew

          • romeg

            That she will work like hell for the success of Conservatism and the movements that drive it forward, especially the Tea Party movement. Perceptions of her will evolve over time and people will wonder what was so objectionable about her. After all, her great crime was to resign her position as Governor but Alaska doesn’t seem to have suffered for that and I don’t think she would have been any better off had she stayed on, given the relentless assaults on her by both Republicans and the left.

            She will mature as a public figure and speaker, by 2016 and certainly by 2020 she will have, for the most part, raised her family and have accumulated enough wealth that she won’t have any financial worries.

            The parallel between her and Reagan is interesting as is the parallel between her and Margaret Thatcher. He was a TV personality for quite some time before entering politics. Palin was a governor before becoming a TV personality. Thatcher was the voice of conservatism in Great Britain as she rose in the ranks of her party there, eventually becoming the leader of the party and, ultimately, Prime Minister.

            By working, as she now is, to get Republicans elected, even to the consternation of the Party leadership, she helping to reshape the Republican Party into a much more conservative entity that will have a clearer message going forward.

            The squishy middle will become smaller and less squishy because the electorate will have clearer choices: Ever expanding central government or devolution of power back to the states and the people due, in no small part, to her efforts.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Everything else is wrong. There is no parallel between Palin and Reagan. None. Never has been, never will be.

            He was a successful conservative governor of a liberal state who got reelected and then won the state twice in Presidential elections. She is a failed fairly liberal governor of a libertarian state who couldn’t finish her first term because she’s a political coward. Like Obama, she reads her speeches well but has absolutely zero experience actually doing what she’s talking about (governing in a conservative manner).

            People like Reagan personally and were willing to listen to him present political ideas that they were initially uncomfortable with. People dislike Palin personally and could care less what she is saying because they understand her to be a self-serving twit. (With the exception of the Shriners who are incapable of understanding anything.)

          • romeg

            and she isn’t a TV personality.

            I stand corrected.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            expect from those who worship at the Shrine.

          • romeg

            We Shriners as always happy to oblige those, such as yourself, whose piercing insights and and rapier wit add so much to the discussion at hand.

          • JSobieski

            Palin used 2.5 years of governorship to launch a career as a TV personality. These details matter, as do the trajectories of what they were seeking forth to do.

            Reagan never shied away from a hostile press (he didn’t have the safe harbor of Fox News and talk radio like Palin has) and he never gave his adversaries a win by quiting.

            Nobody on the current scene compares favorable to RR. Palin is hardly unique in that. What is unique is that her supporters seem to have lost all reasonable perspective on the fact that comparisons to RR leave Palin being found wanting.

          • Scope

            and if she ever wants to have any place in American politics, she will also have to expand her knowledge and post far more than soundbites, and give speeches where she just has some serious policy issues, or positions, far beyond the same old same old that she talked about yesterday. It’s as though she took the positions that have already been proposed by one candidate or another and married them into a Palin canned speech.

            I am so tired of her supporters giving her, and her alone credit for the Republican gains in 2010. It’s as though no one else, even Jim DeMint existed in supporting good candidates. She in fact has a very sketchy record with her 2010 endorsements. Claiming to be the top Tea Party conservative, she in fact endorsed Fiorina over Busc. She endorsed Ayotte over Ovide L. The interesting thing about some of her endorsements is that they came late in the game, when she already knew that who she would be endorsing was already leading in those races. Can’t wreck the kingmaker record by endorsing someone who has less of a chance, even though they are clearly the better conservative choice. Christine O’Donnell is a perplexity. She endorsed her in 2010, but, at the Iowa Tea Party event, she would not speak on the same stage as her, hence her it’s on again, it’s now off, now it’s on again. Is Palin really a control freak, rather than hey everyone who is on our side is welcome.

      • Scope

        If her sights were on 2016, and there is a Republican sitting in the WH, it would assume that whoever it is will be a loser, and one termer. Despite the fact that she has managed to keep herself in the news for these past 3 years or so, she is seemingly losing much of her appeal and interest, according to the Fox poll anyway. I don’t know what she will say in NH today, but, probably much of what she said yesterday.

        I think my biggest problem with Palin right now is that by keeping her self out there, with no commitments, she is hurting the other candidates, particularly Perry. The beginning of anyone’s race is critical with fundraising and gaining name recognition, getting to know their policies and positions, and in garnering a strong grassroots volunteer group of boots on the ground. When she plays her cat and mouse games, as Ace said with not only the media, but with everyone, she keeps many from getting behind a candidate that many can unite behind, and can make Obama a one termer.

        Her comments on Friday night, with saying that there is room for more candidates in the field means that if she, or any other conservatives enter the race, they split the conservative votes, and we wind up with Romney. There was room for as many candidates who wanted to run through the past few months, before we have been able to start whittling down those that aren’t up to the game. Now, when the window of opportunity is closing, she decides to inject her personality into the race once again, just so we all remember she is still there.

        Palin has had almost 3 years to build her foreign policy bona fides, but, I’m unaware that she has done much international traveling. Yet, she is going to the World Knowledge conference? in October, and will be missing another debate. She obviously won’t be participating in the Sept. debates as she has not declared. Does she think that any candidate can skip most of the debates, as meaningless as some have been, and still have any chance at the nomination? I doubt it.

        • acat

          and proves as disappointing as I expect him to be.

          Mew

          • bs61

            that our country still exists in 2016!

          • acat

            Which doom is your money on?

            Mew

          • bs61

            More like total financial collapse!

        • romeg

          Then Palin will not run in 2016. She will continue to wait and work to build the party in the meantime. She may have a job in the administration if a Republican wins in 2012; Interior or EPA? talk about heads exploding. Perhaps she will be the last Secretary of the Department of Energy; her job will be to turn out the lights when it gets shut down.

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            I, personally, cannot think of a greater irony, unless it would be planting the Dept. of Agriculture under six feet of fertile soil.

  • rbdwiggins

    The transcript of Sarah Palin’s Iowa speech.

    My conclusion… Sarah Palin will not seek, nor will she be, the Republican nominee for 2012.

    2020 ??? Maybe… That will be wholly dependent on 45′s vice-president. If it’s Marco Rubio, she has no chance of winning the nomination.

    • carolina

      I really like her take on “crony capitalism” including this section:
      “I propose to eliminate all federal corporate income tax. And hear me out on this. This is how we create millions of high-paying jobs. This is how we increase opportunity and prosperity for all.

      But here?s the best part: To balance out any loss of federal revenue from this tax cut, we eliminate corporate welfare and all the loopholes and we eliminate bailouts. This is how we break the back of crony capitalism because it feeds off corporate welfare, which is just socialism for the very rich. We can change all of that. The message then to job-creating corporations is: We?ll unshackle you from the world?s highest federal corporate income tax rate, but you will stand or fall on your own, just like all the rest of us out on main street.”

      • rbdwiggins

        The GOP should rip the pages out of the dem’s playbook, clearly identify the enemy and cement the narrative in the minds of the electorate…

        The Democrats, primal screams of protest and gnashing of teeth notwithstanding, are beyond a shadow of doubt the Party of Murder, Hate, Racism, Corruption and Crony Capitalism. Their Progressive social agenda and Keynesian redistributive theory… Abject failures.

        It took less than five minutes to read the thirty-nine minute speech, and rewind was not necessary.

  • romeg

    I believe he will need some executive experience before he can win the nomination. Of course, it depends upon who is on deck between now and then; the depth of our bench, to strain the metaphor.

    • Ausonius

      Placing her at e.g. the Department of Education with the intention of stripping it down to a very small operation of under 500 accountants to oversee disbursement of funds would be appropriate.

      Or at the Department of Education with the purpose of shutting it down completely! :)

      Yes, I know: nice fantasies!

      I have heard a few people wonder whether Palin would receive the nomination, should the convention somehow end up deadlocked.

      Still too many RINO’s involved for that to happen.

      Perry/Rubio would seemingly be a strong ticket, but many (bad) things can happen to sabotage Perry (e.g. his trips on a private jet owned by a businessman now being investigated for fraud: the MSM is already cranking that one up for all its worth).

  • Whacker77

    I preface by saying I’m not a fan of Sarah Palin. I listened to portions of her speech and found a lot to like Unfortunately, I can’t get past who is saying it and how it is being said.

    Palin has spent the last two years cultivating a grassroots brand that appeals to a specific portion of the base. She’s done it well, but 74% of Republicans don’t want her to run. Clearly she has failed to branch as Perry has been able to do.

    By running, Palin all but ensures she becomes an afterthought because she will lose the nomination fight. More importantly, by entering, she splits the conservative vote and makes Romney the nominee. How does that further her conservative goals?

    Palin won’t run because she wants to remain important. Running and losing casts her aside to the junk yard with Santorum and Gingrich. She doesn’t want that. She wants to have influence.

    If she does run, it will show me she’s only interested in herself because there is no path for her to the nomination or to the presidency in the general election.

    • Scope

      Here is the logic I saw posted by one of her fans on another site. Palin may have 74% against her running, but Perry is only getting 26% of the vote, so he has 74% against him also. Did you get that brilliant logic? Following that logic, I responded that in the poll that included Perry and all of the other candidates, Palin only gets 8% of the vote, so she really has 92% against her. Some of her supporters are seriously brainwashed, or madly in love with an image of celebrity.

      I seriously don’t believe she will get in, but, I think she will not give any indication one way or another until she absolutely has to. I am convinced that Palin is doing what she is doing for the fame and riches that follow that fame, and once she says it’s a no go, much of that all dries up. Then everyone turns their focus on the declared candidates, and Palin is out of the limelight so to speak.

      Whether Palin runs or not to me is moot at this point. She will not be participating in most of the debates, or any of them perhaps. After the next few debates a true front runner will start to stand out, and people will start getting behind that candidate. I have to believe that it is the most important goal to most or all of the Republicans/conservatives to get rid of the Marxist in the WH. If Palin wants to help that process along by getting behind the front runner, and helping to get him to the finish line, than she will retain a spot in the limelight of politics. If she keeps playing her cat and mouse games, she will relegate herself very quickly to the political dust heap, and most will see what her real agenda has been.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    Some of you may have met Peter Singleton at the Redstate Gathering in Austin. He’s been working his fanny off in Iowa trying to convince Sarah Palin that, if she runs for Prez, there’ll be plenty of grass roots conservatives to help Get Out The Vote for her.

    Here’s a video of Peter speaking directly to Sarah Palin and some of her supporters at a restaurant the night before her Sep. 3 speech in Iowa.

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

  • dmacleo

    IMO she does a better job on the outside holding peoples feet to the fire.

    • http://www.neomodernism.net Huan

      How so?
      Like Rush you mean? How has he affected policies?

      • dmacleo

        like her or not shes gotten people who normally sit back and bitch to actually vote.

  • aesthete

    Whether she decides to run or not, Palin is a non-factor at this point. Besides the fact that Palin has a real image problem even among the conservative base (to say nothing of independents and moderate/conservative Dems), most conservatives who like her do not feel strongly or act on this like of Palin. For her part, Palin appears to believe that doing the same ol’, same ol’ — speaking in generalities, attacking the media and other conservative bugaboos, being a conservative media darling, and retaining her image as a hard-right personality — is in her best interest. This tells me that she is either a) not going to run, and continue in her current role, or b) that she’s acting on terrible advice.

    There is a motivated cadre equivalent to Ron Paul’s supporters in group size and intensity, it is true. For the most part though? The conservative movement has passed her by. They’re past the point of being tired of the schtick: at this point, they’re unaware of the schtick. The death knell of her prospects for the sort of mainstream influence that the Presidency confers was lost not when people where passionately arguing her merit; it is now, when rather than scream about Palin, people of all political persuasions are for the most part politely declining to talk about her.

    • aesthete

      nt

  • Warrior

    to ask a liberal why he is afraid of having a strong, independent woman as president.

    After Obama, I believe most women of all political stripes will line up to cheer for Palin.

    And I, as a staunch conservative male, would love to finally beat the Dems to the PC punch. It would be HISTORIC !!

    Palin in ’12

  • rightwingmom52

    2 out of 3 is more than a lot of Republicans have done, and I’m thankful for her. And I’m not an idiot or a shriner.

  • airecare33

    Sarah Palin, the half term Governor is pretending to be a Politician.