« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

If Gov. Palin is the Nominee, Will “Moderate Republicans” Support Her?

..And, of course, the answer is “No, they won’t”.

The internecine struggle inside the bowels of the Republican ectoplasm is becoming increasingly fascinating to me. The taproot of the struggle would make for a jolly good Broadway play, entitled: “What Do We do With Sarah?”: Sarah Palin strides onto the stage, into Victorian Drawing Room, the patriarchs in tuxes, and white-goateed grandees stroke their beards and break into song, something along the lines of:

“Yes, she’s pretty,

Yes, we read the things she wrote

Yes, she’s exciting, gets the crowd going

Bun NO! she can’t bring in the vote!”

…or something like that.

The opinion that seems to hold much sway in many venues, (at RedState, for example), is that IF Sarah Palin doesn’t run — or runs and doesn’t win the nomination– is that the “Shriners” (-the derisive term bandied about for Pro-Palin folks who, evidently, light incense and candles in front of their eight-by-ten glossies of Sarah Palin) will sit home and pout in darkness the day of the election, and not help elect the eventual GOP nominee, thus contributing to their loss, and Barack Obama’s win. This, at least according to countless thread debates, is the overwhelming concern of the anti-Palin Right.

But, what if the shoe is on the other foot? What if the Republicans actually nominate Sarah Palin?

I think we all know the answer to that: The Republican “moderates”, the “FiCon/SocLibs” and so forth, will bolt, and support an independent run by a Huntsman or a Giuliani. Certainly Jon Huntsman can self-finance such a campaign. This is precisely what happened in 1980, when Ronald Reagan was nominated, and the Lowell Weicker wing of the Republican party blanched, and egged on the Independent run of John Anderson.

It is always thus. Moderate Republicans, in this sense, have historically done more damage to conservatives than they have ever done to Democrats. John McCain and his merry Gang of 14, for example, was designed to block the nomination of solid conservative Jurists, and now, we have to crawl over the carcasses of the radical leftists subsequently jammed onto the courts to help in the repeal of Obamacare.

Moderate Republicans HATE (and I mean HATE) Sarah Palin. She is cyptonite to them. She is the bucket of water splashed on the Wicked Witch of the West. She is the cross shown to Dracula. She brings out a visceral loathing one hopes is only reserved for child rapists and terrorists, but, sadly, no: Moderate Republican absolutely detest Sarah Palin, and many would stuff a ballot box for Barack Obama to keep her out of the White House.

Moderate Republicans like to sit in the locker room of the Country Club, while loudly jangling the keys to their Lexus, and make it clear that they vote THE PERSON, not the party, and Sarah Palin is a grossly uneducated, white-trash poseur that will ruin the country with her primitive Christianity, her simpleton’s mind, and her black-and-white worldview. They put “Republicans for Obama” stickers on their BMW’s.

Why? I have my theories, but, for the nonce, I will chest my cards.

The problem isn’t that Sarah Palin supporters won’t stump for the eventual GOP nominee if she isn’t the standard-bearer; No, these people are more animated by the removal of Barack Obama from office than Popeye was motivated by spinach. It won’t matter WHO the  Republicans nominate, the Palin supporters will vote for him or her, no matter who it is. The problem is the “Moderate Republicans” . They won’t support Palin if she IS the nominee. They will sabotage her, they will lay snares at her feet, they will impugn her, they will destroy her, if they can.

And John Anderson took six percent of the vote from Ronald Reagan. No plausible argument can be made that he took it from Carter. These people will do the same thing to Sarah Palin.

COMMENTS

  • AceInTX

    I’ve stayed neutral on her for the longest time seing but pluses and minuses on her being a candidate…but this labor day and the weeks leading up the it made up my mind…

    She’s officially jumped the shark…No longer is it about an enormously popular candidate bucking the establishment…now it’s about a sycophantic, self absorbed glory hound that can’t stand to have the spotlight on anyone but herself. Her stunt acting like she was going to announce and tease everyone leading up to the Iowa Straw poll only to tease us and leave us wondering was the last straw for me.

    She had a good run but it’s time for Sarah to hang it up…if she’d have announced then…either that she was or was not running…she’d have had a real shot and I’d still be willing to consider her…

    but as it is…She’s dead to me and I’m no longer interested..In fact…not only am I not interested…I’m out right opposed to being used and played for a sucker so Sarah can feed her own unending ego.

    Face/Palm

    • AceInTX

      I

      • conservativecurmudgeon

        It’s a simple exercise, really. And the answers will be elucidating.

        By the way, I am aware of Fonzie “Jumping the Shark”. My eyebrows are a little arched trying to apply this mind-picture to Sarah Palin. If you have an inclination, please elaborate.

        And for the record: I have no position, either, on candidates that haven’t announced.

        • Ann_W

          I’m as conservative as they come (not a moderate) and I don’t like her. I like her less and less with the silly games she’s playing.

          • conservativecurmudgeon

            –announced or otherwise, You may interpret it otherwise, and that’s fine; But, at this point, I am honestly very pleased with the slate of Presidential contenders that have already joined the fray (Huntsman and Paul excepted). I would (and will be) ecstatic when any one of them takes the oath of office in January of 2013.

            Imagine that day, and the breathing becomes easier.

    • Goldwater_Conservative

      are you going to take back all those bad things you said about me because called her out a long time ago when she was still dangerous to our chance at defeating Obama?

    • Finrod

      .

  • Change Jar Conservative

    simply because he doesn’t think she’s smart enough to be President.

    And this is a refrain that I’ve heard from other conservatives as well. Will I support her? Absolutely, but I can tell you it will be a very hard sell to other people.

  • acat

    Do you mean “vote for in the general?” The only current candidate I will not vote for is Ron Paul. I think I’ve been clear on that. I’ll vote Green Party before I’ll vote for Ron Paul in the general.

    If you mean more than “vote for”, then .. I will currently support – financially, persuasively – a handful of candidates. Bachmann, Cain, Perry… and of those only Perry is getting any traction.

    I would hold my nose and vote for Huntsman or Romney in the general.

    I would hold my nose and vote for Palin in the general as well. I will not “support” her beyond that.

    Now, to your little punch-list.

    I do not belong to a country club.
    I do not drive a Lexus.
    The vehicles I do drive do not have any bumper stickers.
    I do not jangle my keys. (are you saying that’s the country club version of ring-knocking?)

    In short, you appear to be constructing a false version of the “moderate” who won’t support Palin .. with the insinuation that because Red State doesn’t support her, we’re somehow “moderates” .. signalling to one another with our key rings.

    I’m quite conservative, and I won’t support her because I do not believe that she’s the best candidate available at this time.

    Mew

    • AceInTX

      There was an element of the Republican Party who backed and pushed Anderson to run in 1980….and that same element lives today…they are the ones who formed a group called “Republicans for Ried” to help harry Ried defeat Sharon Angle.

      There were similar swine and vermin who openly campaigned for Coons over Donnell and backed Christs independent run rather than support Rubio.

      There were other examples in 2010 that I can’t remember…

      In that, CC has a good point though and I have little doubt if Perry or Bachman defeats Romney in the Primaries the same element will be out there pushing Huntsman, Bloomburg, Trump or some other left wing Republicrat to go third party

      • AceInTX

        because I think she’s burned to many bridges to be anything other than an annoyance and a distraction at this point and if she were to run…the only change she might make in this election would be to divide the Conservative vote three ways and nominate Romney in the end.

        if she ever want to run she needs to stay out at this point and try again in 16 or 18

        • acat

          Those who want to tinker with and drive the big machine, not trade it in for something smaller, more efficient, and easier to get parts for.

          Trying an analogy. It’s easy to see a difference between a mechanic tinkering with a ’74 Chevy Chaprice (statist) and a kid with a molotov cocktail burning a ’74 Chevy Caprice (anarchist) … so why it’s so hard to understand the guy who wants to trade in the ’74 Chevy Caprice for a newer Toyota…. Is it the libertarian who wants the Scion and the conservative who wants the Camry? Maybe the Reagan Democrat wants a 4×4 Tundra?

          Eh. Take this analogy back to the shop, needs more work.

          As for Palin, I agree with your assertion – she’ll divide the vote and Romney will get the nomination….

          Mew

          • AceInTX

            When subjects like this are brought up.

            Not all Libertarians are the same….and you aren’t of the same ilk CC is hammering here….there is a group of liberal/libertine Fiscons who have pushed candidates like Anderson, Perot, and gone so far as to back Coons and Ried rather than back the Party’s nominees because they’d rather back a Dem than see a social issues, small government conservative elected to office.

            and when you all jump in and take offense at us for pointing it out, you end up lumping yourselves in with the party poopers

          • JSobieski

            I presume that focusing on such a small sub-group sample of people in discussing conservatism won’t cause you to rise in defense?

            How is what you are doing different from the MSM when they pick out a bad egg and use it in discussion as if that particularly sub-population was statistically meaningful?

            A great example of this is when people bring up the anarch-capitalists. Those folks could barely fill up a Volt.

          • AceInTX

            rising to their defense would imply that I count myself among them…there are hypocrites on all sides…

            I don’t think CC is painting with a brush anywhere near as broad you imply…

            Neither am I…unless you were one of those backing Ried, Coons, etc.

            You weren’t one of them…were you?

          • JSobieski

            I don’t wait for my particular sub-group to be impacted before I rise to defend what I believe to be true and good.

            Libertarian support for Anderson was less than 0.5%. Libertarians by and large supported Reagan, who actively courted them.

            Not sure about Perot, but his support came largely from non-libertarians—and not a few vengeful conservatives. People were mad about the “read my lips” breach, and Perot did get a lot of those voters.

            The idea that libertarians outside the Republican party represent any significant % of voters is empirically untrue. Truthers make up a far larger portion of the electorate than the sub-species of libertarians being discussed.

            Call me silly, but I kind of want to keep the center-right coalition on speaking terms with each other so that we can defeat Obama.

          • AceInTX

            If I say Sub group A and B are jerks…you insist I am calling sub set C jerks when I said nothing of the kind….

            If we can’t have an honest debate on terms we both agree on…why debate?

          • acat

            Helps to name names, sometimes.

            Mew

          • AceInTX

            Hear we are. CC makes a comment about

          • acat

            I think there’s some preconception on your part coloring what you’re seeing. I know you lean natural-law. I tilt very heavily small-government / personal-responsibility, as I’m sure you know.

            I never thought you were calling me a country clubber, and I certainly feel no need to defend them! I’d rather they just admit they’re limousine liberals with MBAs so they can go take over the DNC and return it to sanity…

            In short, overall I agree with what you’ve written. Read it again, with that in mind and see if you can identify what I’m saying that pushes your buttons.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            there are plenty of corrupt party elites who lean more towards the traditionalist side — Santorum and Frist, for example. IMO, discussing the party elites and flakes as if they are located on one part of the political spectrum in the Republican party not only damages party unity, but also makes it that much harder to identify all of the threats.

          • acat

            I mentioned libertarians once in this thread, Ace, and then only in passing. Go look.

            Yes, the country club GOPers ‘mudgeon defined do exist, but .. they’re quite far from the only GOP segments who do not support Palin.

            I don’t think, in this case, that I’m the one being overly sensitive to “libertarians”.

            Mew

          • AceInTX

            I just think sometimes you lump yourselves in by leaping to the defense of certain groups I and CC tend to criticize by attaching something we’ve meant to apply to a narrow group and cloaking yourself in it so you can argue a point that isn’t being made…

            I encountered this the other day when I was discussing…and I emphasized the term…”A certain segment of libertarians” and I described who I was talking about…only to have to define, redefine and finally quit the discussion all together because some wanted to wrap themselves up with the group I was criticizing when they weren’t by definition a part of that group.

        • cwfoster

          I ALMOST misunderstood in your earlier post and thought you were a Romey supporter (sorry man!) You said you would vote the green party if Palin won the nomination, and That I WILL take you to task for! I ‘held my nose’ and voted for McCain in 2008, and I get aggravated every time I hear someone say that they wrote in Ron Paul, or voted libertarian, because that pulled votes away from McCain (probably not enough to offset the voter fraud, much less the vast unwashed majority who were simply conned and misled.) The Unwashed Majority have discovered, now they’ve graduated college, they need jobs, and there are none!So we just need to ensure enough turnout to make sure that ACORN and the New Black Panthers intimidation tactics don’t win for Obama again. I’ve said I won’t hold my nose again, but if it comes down to it, yes I will. If Palin get’s the nomination (quite possibly a moot point as she STILL hasn’t said she’s running) I’ll vote for her. I was excited about her in 2008, not so much since she resigned as Governor of Alaska. I fear that rendered her ‘damaged goods’. Does she think that the EXACT same types of personal legal attacks she was subjected to as Governor wouldn’t come at her times TEN as President? (Cheney has to avoid certain countries where leftists have charged him as a war criminal!) But I’d vote for anyone to get the Marxist out of office!

          • AceInTX

            nor would I.

            I think you have me confused with someone else.

            This is the first time I’ve said anything about not supporting Palin if she decides to run…I’ve stayed neutral up till today and I’ve decided to say what I think about her beclowning herself the way she has.

            You would do better at Red State if you followed two simple rules:

            1)

            Don’t attribute quotes to long time posters with a history of honesty and integrity in the positions they take.

            2)

            stick to what the commenter said and don’t go off on something that isn’t even a part of the discussion at hand.

            If Palin runs and gets the nomination…she’ll have my enthusiastic support….and I won’t be holding back a stomach full of bile voting for her as I did McCain in 08

            But as for the rest of it…it is irrelevant and totally off the subject of what I said…

            Palin had a chance it get in last month and she had a chance to win me over for the nomination battles to come…but as it is now…she’s totally blown that chance…she’s jumped the shark…she’s sucked up all the oxygen and taken attention away from those running…and she’s still playing with us like some kid pulling the wings off a fly…and I don’t appreciate it one bit.

            so…I will restate my position without apology…I do not think she should get in now and I am actively opposed to her entering the race. Her actions have taken me from neutral to active opposition and I’ll do everything in my power to prevent her getting the nomination over any other candidate currently running with the exceptions of Romney, Paul, and Huntsman.

            Don’t like it?

            Sucks to be you I guess

          • acat

            I’m not sure what it means that cwfoster can’t tell us apart. Perhaps it’s that we both have pictures at the bottom of our posts?

            Anyway, and for the record, I plan to vote Green for POTUS if and only if Ron Paul is the nominee. I will not vote for that .. person. Period.

            Mew

          • AceInTX

            I don’t know what I’d do…but voting for Nader and his acolytes isn’t it…that much is certain…

            I think…if Paule were the nominee that Mickey Mouse would suddenly become the most popular write in candidate in History

          • acat

            I’m in Illinois.

            My vote will not matter if the GOP candidate is a foldable suit like Romney, or a loony-toon like Ron Paul. Neither of them could energize the Illinois GOP so, for the POTUS race, I don’t make any difference in voting for.

            I can, however, vote for the Greens, and maybe persuade the Dems and the Greens that there’s more support for their positions than actually exists, “Operation Chaos” style.

            And I refuse to vote for the man who as done more to discredit Libertarian thought than any other …

            Mew

          • AceInTX

            ;

          • acat

            (cheshire grin)

      • JSobieski

        You are always going to have the type of sideshows you describe. Anderson was probably the high point of such tribbles although Nader did give Florida to George W.

        I don’t think the outlier will be large in 2012. We are probably best to ignore them.

      • conservativecurmudgeon

        n/t.

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      …and the point of this Diary Entry isn’t Sarah Palin (whom I don’t know I could vote for, either) so much as what I perceive to be an intransigence on the part of many “moderate” Republicans, who oftentimes like to be viewed as thoughtful and “open minded” but are actually rather doctrinaire upon further examination. Many I know have NEVER supported a conservative for the Presidency (unless it was for Reagan’s second term), and never WILL give such support.

      And they are the ones that this addresses, and that we need to educate –not persuade, so much, as educate. One such way to do it is to expose their own lack of even-mindedness.

      I think my “version” of a moderate Republican is wholly accurate. Their “moderation” never flows toward conservatism, but only toward liberalism. Period. And I have three folks in my life upon whom the characterization is based: Clanging Lexus keys and all.

      • AceInTX

        I have ALWAYS fussed about the fact that there is an element of this party that will not play ball when we put forth truly conservative candidates and will leave the reservation and support as well as vote for Democrats when they don’t get their way yet will shriek like Screaming Banshees if conservatives threaten to stay home if one of their chosen candidates is nominated…2008 being a prime example. I still carry the battle scars around here for daring to voice my opinions when it comes to McLame in 2008.

        • conservativecurmudgeon

          and I appreciate the criticisms. Hopefully, over time, we can illustrate this biased fact with many tools… Including narrative, argumentation and, well, parable.

          And maybe we can at least SHAME some of these liberal Republicans to consider their biases. And grab a bucket and help out for once.

          • AceInTX

  • lineholder

    I have to admit that even as a staunch conservative, these repetitive conversations about Ms. Palin are starting to get on “my last nerve”. She isn’t a declared candidate in the race. Until such time as she does declare, all conversations about her prospects as a potential candidate are merely speculation. And I’m not sure that I understand why we are spending so much time in these speculative conversations when there are so many other things that we could be focusing on instead.

    It just seems to go on and on and on, with a never-ending pick-and-poke cycle that doesn’t accomplish anything positive to speak of.

    • Scope

      So much oxygen is being wasted on someone who probably will never run in 2012 anyway. There are declared candidates, working their butts off for money, votes, and who need our attention much more than a non-candidate. I also wish the pollsters would take her name off the polling list until such time as she declares or says she won’t run.

      • lineholder

        It has absolutely nothing to do with like vs. dislike Ms. Palin. At this point, she isn’t a declared candidate.

        It’s like looking at a situation and identifying all the possible options that exist, then recognizing which options are viable and which ones aren’t. When a potential candidate hasn’t even declared yet, then is he or she actually a viable option? Not really.

        Regardless of all the speculation to the contrary, until the candidate declares, considering that person’s chances of winning/losing make no sense to me at all. None. It’s an exercise in futility, and around RS, it’s become an exercise in futility that only ends up alienating people who should be on the same side of this battle.

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      As I’ve said, this Diary isn’t so much about Palin as it is what I perceive to be the destructive elements in Liberal (moderate) Republicanism, and how it is not nearly as “open minded” as it portrays itself. It is, in fact, extremely elitist and narrow-minded, as the broad swath of history shows (which is why I bring up Lowell Weicker and John Anderson)

      I am very satisfied that a thoroughgoing number of these folks will bolt the party if a true “movement” conservative (such as Palin) gets the nomination. I chose to highlight Palin because it is the best test of the supposition on the part of these “moderate” Republicans that they look at each candidate on an “individual basis”. They do no such thing: They immediately dismiss conservatives out-of-hand, and always do.

      …and yet, they simutaneiously knit wool over whether or not “shriners” would support the nominee if it ended up being a squishy moderate-type, when there is NO historical evidence for this, other than the fact that evangelicals didn’t donate much to McCain, at least until he picked Palin as his running mate.

      They might be subdued, but Movement Conservatives will ALWAYS support a Moderate over a liberal democrat. Not true of Moderate Republicans. They’ll throw and election, if they have to, to deny a true, moderate conservative a victory.

      …I will also point out that Governor Palin hasn’t said yet she ISN”T a candidate, either– for what it’s worth. Which is why this discussion might be more timely than not.

  • Scope

    I believe it was a Palin supporter who said that if Palin did get into the race, and got a proper vetting on her time in politics in AK, including her time as Governor, she will no doubt disappoint those believing she is a true conservative, whatever that is. It has been Palin herself that has critiqued, analyzed and spun her own record, and her supporters heard her, and spit out what she said as her real record. Problem is that when people start looking at things like her increased taxes on the oil companies operating in AK has actually slowed the production, and therefore hurt the revenues coming into the state. She is for Big Labor and the unions that everyone is currently fighting against, see WI and NJ for starters. Palin has said that she wants to secure the boirders, but then provide a pathway to citizenship for the 12 million illegals already here. I’m sure she has other positions that would come out in a vetting of her record, rather than a vetting of what she said on facebook, or in tweets, or on Fox, or in her self-promoting movies and books about herself. Palin has attempted to define herself, in the light she wants to be seen in, while ignoring the parts of her record that she wants to hide. Palin has promoted herself as the only one who got rid of the “good ole boys” in AK, and while she did get rid of some, she didn’t get rid of them all, and, she in fact left many Democrats in her administration, and worked closely with them, until they turned on her at the end. I believe that a majority here believe that there is no such thing as a good Democrat.

    If Palin did get in, and her record proved her to be more moderate, she would be competing with Romney, his base, and his fundraisers. That wouldn’t work very well for Palin.

    I still believe firmly that Palin isn’t running, she’s just taking advantage of being in the spotlight for as long as she can, and the money isn’t bad either.

  • ruexperienced

    It is becoming more and more clear that she is not running.

    Sept 3 was for “a big announcement.” Supporters from around the nation purchased plane tickets, bus fare, rented hotel rooms so they could be part of history. All they did was to go back home with a suitcase full of Palin t shirts, coffee mugs, key chains and bumper stickers.

    October 4, Palin is SHARING a Tea Party event with Glenn Beck. What person who is trying to demonstrate they have the gravitas to be on the world stage with Putin, Merkel, etc. would share an event with Glenn Beck?

    The other posters are correct. Why should anybody have to say they support Palin when Palin will not even say she is running?

    Does Sarah Palin need everyone to endorse her before she decides to run? Kind of backwards, don’t you think?

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

    I’ll say again, if Palin gets the nomination, I’ll vote for her in the general election. And, I’ll batten down the hatches for four more years of Obama, a filibuster proof Senate and Nancy as Speaker, again.

    The “problem” cc, is most certainly NOT Republican “moderates”. It’s unaffiliated voters, known as Independents. It was they who elected Obama and while they may not be enthusiastic supporters of Obama this time, they will find Palin absolutely 100% nuclear waste.

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

      I suspect the percentage of “moderate” Republicans who support Palin will be factors of ten greater than the percentage of “progressive” Democrats who support Obama.

      • conservativecurmudgeon

        They always are.

        And, I wasn’t addressing the practicality of a Palin campaign. I’m just wondering about the capability of some who proclaim themselves “open minded” and “fair” and ” objective about the candidate, not the party” (-i.e., liberal or “moderate” Republicans) to accept a movement conservative as a Presidential candidate. Especially one that’s been as demonized as Governor Palin has been, vis-a-vis a second Obama term.

        These people will likely burn down the house rather than vote for Palin. The point is this: When the chips are down, they are LIBERALS. There is nothing “moderate” about them. There is, however, a bit of genuine “moderation” in you, Becker, by virtue of the fact that you will support the NOMINEE, which is great (and I mean that).

        Many “moderate” Republicans won’t. Just look to the Anderson campaign.

        • JSobieski

          I know its wiki, but

          “Polls found Anderson voters NEARLY as likely to list Reagan as their second choice as Carter.”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Anderson

          The Republican party has changed since 1980. Now, even the RINO’s feel pressure to talk conservative. Back in 1980, it was the opposite.

  • aesthete

    This could have been written about any of the candidates perceived to be from “flyover country” — Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Paul, Gingrich, and Santorum. What makes Palin special? It seems to me that references to “moderate Republicans” in such contexts are intended to scare conservatives into falling in line with one’s preferred candidate — what other reason would there be to bring up the bugaboo of “moderate Republicans”? In truth, there are any number of reasons to support or oppose any of the candidates I listed above that has nothing to do with moderate Republicans. Palin’s problems in particular have little to do with the castrati; she’s done a fine job of wearing out her welcome among many conservatives all on her own.

    • Finrod

      ..

  • Tbone

    to watch the somewhat deranged Palin lovers and the equally deranged Palin haters continue to debate her merits as though it matters.

    • conservativecurmudgeon

      I am trying to smoke out the “moderate” side as not being so “moderate” after all. Their minds are oftentimes as snapped shut as the most doctrinaire liberal you can mention, and it needs to be pointed out. And Sarah Palin is a good foil in this exercise.

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    Not naming names, but that person could easily sway moderate Republicans.

    So far we have two candidates giving Obama cover on government heath care and immigration.

    We can do better.

    • acat

      And if the name you’re avoiding is Palin then .. yeah. Same answer.

      Mew

  • Veronica

    “The problem is the

  • SirGladiator

    Whoever wins the GOP Nomination will have the support of virtually 100% of Republicans, from Conservative to Liberal, because their opponent will then be Obama. For all the “I’d never vote for XYZ” talk now, it doesnt mean the slightest bit of anything, as anyone who’s been around for more than one or two primary seasons knows. The only time people abandon their party in the fall in significant numbers is when something like Obama vs Clinton happens, months and months of personal back and forth attacks to the point where some of the losing side’s supporters just cant bring themselves to vote for the winner. Most of the time, and most likely this will be one of those times, the supporters of losing candidates get over it, and support the nominee. Certainly we as Conservatives have had to suck it up and support more moderate folks all too often, including last go round. If indeed Governor Palin does run she will probably win the nomination, and it will be the moderate folks turn, to hold their nose if they have to, and vote for Governor Palin, as the rest of America will be doing.

  • DonPMitchell

    No.

    And fiscal conservatives or libertarians are not “moderate republicans”, we just are not social conservatives necessarily. Or we are social conservatives who believe in minding our own business.

    The new Republican Party is a big disappointment to a lot of people who remember men like Eisenhower and Goldwater. We remember republican politicians who were men of accomplishment and intellect and experience. We remember when the Republicans stood for individual responsibility and freedom and opportunity. They didn’t start unnecessary wars, and they didn’t undermine our liberty to create a security state, and they didn’t believe in using the power of government to teach fundamentalist ideas like creationism to everyone’s children. But we are not “moderate”.

  • jkines

    As a libertarian republican, I can’t support Sarah Palin, despite the fact that I sought common ground with her and defended her when she arrived on the scene. Palin, like Bachmann has descended into populist demagoguery of the Huey Long variety.