« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Sarah Palin in 2016 Presidential Race is no laughing matter

The presidential campaign of 2016 was launched as soon as the last light dimmed on the stage after Mitt Romney gave his concession speech, in losing his presidential bid to Barack Obama. With the new battle now warming up amongst the GOP hierarchy there are many Republican leaders who want to point the party leftward, away from Ronald Reagan and his heir apparent Sarah Palin.

That is correct. There is no stuttering here. Sarah Palin may appear to liberals, leftwing pundits as well as GOP Washington leaders as yesterday’s news. Yet Mitt Romney’s loss was not due to conservative steel in his campaign. What is clear is that nearly two million conservatives did not embrace Romney’s attempt to skedaddle to the middle road by running away from conservative positions and values. They simply stayed home.

Consider the results of Palin’s steadfast 2012 primary season effort as she crisscrossed the nation campaigning on behalf of conservative congressional, senatorial officials. The results of Palin’s efforts are notable, beginning with backing Texas U.S. Senator-elect Ted Cruz. Combine that with eight congressional candidates being elected to congress out of 14, due to Palin’s endorsement.

Now examine Romney’s results. In a general election where Republicans were expected to be more competitive in U.S. Senate races. Republicans actually lost two U.S. Senate seats. There are many who have engaged in a lot of finger pointing in order to place blame for the loss. But the buck does stop at the top with Mitt Romney.

To refresh everyone’s memory, it was Romney and his Boston campaign brain-trust, who said to Palin back in July, “Thanks but no thanks.” They denied her a prime time speaking role before the GOP National Convention and the nation. Mitt was bound and determined to place both Palin and the Tea Party organization supporters on the sidelines and go it alone to seek more moderate political pastures.

Romney may have listened to comedians like Bill Maher and political pundits like Chris Matthew who found no end in skewering the non-candidate Palin during the campaign year. There is a lesson in Romney’s loss that reminds conservatives that Ronald Reagan was the 1976 version of Sarah Palin. He too had his many detractors as well as liberal and Republican pundits who scoffed at Reagan’s notion of a new conservative under current building in America.

Ronald Reagan was held at arm’s length by Washington GOP insiders and derided in liberal circles as a joke. Many in the mainstream media poked fun of his film character that played opposite a Chimpanzee in the 1951 “Bedtime for Bonzo” movie. While the democrats and the Washington insider pundits laughed, Reagan beat President Jimmy Carter with nearly 51 percent of the vote to Carter’s 41 percent in the 1980 presidential election.

Now no one is laughing, including President Barack Obama, who saddles up to Reagan-like comparisons when he’s feeling a little light in the accomplishment department.

It is far more important for Americans who are earnestly concerned about the direction of the nation and its drift away from conservative values. They want to support a true bona fide conservative leader like Reagan.

Sarah Palin like Ronald Reagan understands that presidential elections are won in the grassroots campaign trenches found in Ohio counties and Pennsylvania coal fields. Conservative leadership is nourished in the farmlands of Iowa, Indiana and Illinois and in the kitchens of homes in Nevada and Colorado. Presidential elections are solidified with the commitment of Reagan Democrats in Macomb County, Michigan and Tea Party patriot all over this nation!

It is the power and strength of conservative ideals that when fully embraced will see a repeat of the 2010 elections, where the Tea Party grass roots movement resulted in Republicans gaining 63 congressional seats. Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi loss the Speaker’s gavel to Sarah Palin’s tireless effort to create a new conservative history which is still being made in America.

The keys to the White House Oval Office do not lie in the hands of the political power elite in Washington. They instead belong squarely in the firm grasp of Americans in the Heartland. There, with conservative families in states all over this nation the fate of America will be determined.

In 1980 America no longer wanted to be trapped in what President Carter called a “crisis of confidence” in his now famous July 1979 “Malaise Speech,” Instead, Reagan determined that America wanted to be freed up from government. He firmly gripped the reins away from moderation and liberalism. He grabbed the American microphone and said, “I paid for this microphone.”

America’s conservatives know full well that Sarah Palin also knows how to use a microphone. Much like, Reagan, Palin is committed to let millions across the nation speak through it in 2016!

( Click – Let me know what you think )

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • revtm

    First I’d like to give you credit for a well written piece, thats where the compliments end.
    Yes Palin endorsed Cruz, Flake and Fischer but also Steelman, Mourdock, Bongino…
    She also failed to endorse any house candidate in a really competitive race, its cool she endorsed republicans in R+16s like AZ 4.

    Finally on the Palin and Reagan stuff, oh god. please no. Palin and reagan comparisons? please stop.

    • Freiheit

      We need to stop comparing every modern Republican politician to Reagan in general. It’s too high of a complement for every X&Y politician to be called ‘just like Reagan’. It dilutes his brand.

      • revtm

        no one is like reagan, he was a one of a kind politician

  • Sir Aaron

    Well written, but I can’t get onboard with Palin being our best next move.

  • Viet71

    Agree. Many, including some here, regard Palin as a fool. The question is, how would she play as the Republican nominee for president?

    1. She’d turn out a lot of conservatives who stayed home.

    2. She’d capture a bigger chunk of women’s votes, simply because she’s a woman.

    3. She’d be different from the same old.

    Sure, the press and the Left would use her as a pinata. But she’s got lots of experience in front of the camera and is a magnet for attention.

    Sure she lacks experience. But what experience did Obama have in 2008? Or Jimmy Carter in 1976? And besides, what good is experience if the person having it — e.g., Lyndon Johnson — is deeply flawed?

    Sure she has said some silly things. But she’s no dummy, and she can be prepped.

    If conservatives (not to mention Republicans generally) want a comfortable, sure bet — all I can say is, good luck finding the perfect-on-paper candidate who can rouse the base and not turn off women and minority voters.

    • revtm

      you want to know what the election would look like with Palin as a GOP nominee?
      Goldwater Johnson. It will be one of the biggest ass kickings of all time.

      Sarah Palin wont win women voters, Moderates hate her, liberals hate her, blue collar men hate her.

      The only worse candidate we could possibly run is Newt Gingrich

    • Sir Aaron

      #1) I’m dubious that she’d turn out any more voters than somebody equally as conservative. That she’d turn out more conservatives than Romney is possible.
      #2) She would not capture more of female demographic. Women are harder on other women and she hasn’t done well in that demographic. Much of that is due to the liberal media painting her as an idiot.
      #3)How is running John McCain’s former running mate different than the old? We’d have to relive portions of that election all over again.
      #4) She has lots of experience and frankly, hasn’t improved much. She still cannot answer a question even with softballs from Hannity.
      #5) She lacks experience. We make the case that Obama lacked experienced and as a result was terrible. So then we run somebody without experience and say what? It’s ok because it worked out well with Obama?
      #6) It remains to be seen that she can be prepped. Lots of smart people refuse to be advised by others and reports from the 2008 campaign don’t lend themselves to optimism.
      The problem isn’t the racial or gender makeup of our candidate. The problem is that the general populace is ignorant about the basic facts of life. Too much of the population believes that money grows on trees in rich people’s backyard and that the government can have unbridled spending if we just force the wealthy to prune their trees a bit. We must face the fact that personal liberty and responsibility just aren’t as popular a message as giving everybody everything their hearts desire.

  • commonsenseobserver

    So, keep her where she’s doing a good job.

  • tngal

    Agreed that Romney distanced himself from Palin, and that was truly a stupid a move as she has many followers. He also p.o.’d the the Ron Paul supporters, which problably wasn’t the wisest decision either. So, that was two large chunks that not only did he not embrace or work to bring into the fold, he actually alienated them. Someone, somewhere assumed all republicans and most indies would back him once he became nominee because they had no alternative. Alienating and then assuming are not effective strategies. They did strategize with Paul Ryan, but not sure that did much good. His big claim to fame was his wicked budget skills, and I never got the impression Romney was totally on board with Ryan’s budget. Ah well. I’d go for Palin. Rather Palin than Christie. Palin can kill a moose. Christie would just yell it.

    • commonsenseobserver

      The election wasn’t about Palin, so I don’t know what you mean by “distanced himself” given that no sane person who vote based on that.

    • revtm

      they didnt really strategize with Ryan, Ryan was the safest pick of all the conservatives, it provided nothing to the campaign.

      • commonsenseobserver

        Um, being a safe Conservative?

        The first rule has always been to do no harm, and Ryan fulfilled that perfectly. Rubio and McDonnell were inexperienced. Rice, Portman or Pawlenty would have frustrated Conservatives. That left Ryan and Jindal.

        We can credit Paul Ryan for the greater focus on the big issues of curbing the debt to preserve free enterprise and build the Opportunity Society.

        • revtm

          most fellow campaign consultants will tell you “do no harm” doesn’t win you elections against incumbants.
          Rubio gives you Florida, McDonnell puts virginia over the top, Portman wins ohio (this Portman frustrating conservatives things need to stop, if some of the fringe of the far right of this party cant realize how conservative Rob Portman is the light of our party falls dimmer and dimmer) Now its true none of these give us the election, but thats the kind of stuff you play for when you are trying to beat a sitting president. I can tell you the word on the street among the pros who werent on the romney camp (and some who were) was WTF are they doing?

          Paul Ryan provided absolutely nothing to this campaign (except that cool R squared logo the CRs were pimping out)he was supposed to elevate the financial discussion, never happened. He was supposed to put Wisconsin in play, not even close. He was supposed to bring some appeal to younger voters, nope zilch.Christ he couldnt even beat Joe Biden in a debate. We had a club soda candidate for president and we didn’t even pick a Tonic water VP let alone the shot of bourbon we needed

          • commonsenseobserver

            I continue to be glad that Mitt Romney made an excellent choice in Paul Ryan, signifying his commitment to campaigning on big issues instead of petty politics and silly antics, even if he ultimately failed to move the discussion to this due to flaws in his messaging and strategy. It is not clear that the loss would have been avoided just with a change in VP pick.

            Of course no one can beat a rude, guffawing crazy old man in “debate”. And I seriously doubt that contributed that much to Obama’s victory either.

            Choosing someone other than Paul Ryan, who probably wouldn’t have been a Conservative, was favored by establishment consultants.

          • Bill S

            I agree with this 100%. The reason he didn’t have more impact is that after the first week or two, he seemed to get gagged by the Romney campaign. Personally, I suspect that he was so popular that Mitt got jealous and told him to tone it down.

            Joe Biden didn’t win that debate, either. revtm is smoking crack if he thinks otherwise.

          • revtm

            Common-I’m glad you were happy with the choice and the reasoning behind the choice, the problem was it didnt work, and it wouldnt work, and everyone whos been intimately involved in politics knew it wouldnt work. Campaigning on big ideas is great, its especially great in an open seat, not so much when you are trying to pry a vulnerable incumbent out, because its not about Ideas with a vulnerable incumbent because they are going to put you on the ground. Romney didnt play politics and lost in part because of it (also due to poor targeting efforts by his staff, and an abysmal showing from 4 state parties, 3 of whom inexplicably changed chairman after big 2010 wins)

            I am in NO WAY saying Romney would have won with a different VP, but I can tell you Ryan brought nothing to the table that would have brought a Romney win. Nothing. The other candidates would have at least brought something

            Bill, Romney campaign didn’t gag Ryan, Ryan just couldnt move the needle, there was absolutely nothing there from him.

            “Choosing someone other than Paul Ryan, who probably wouldn’t have been a Conservative, was favored by establishment consultants.”
            such as whom? This myth that Rob Portman isn’t a conservative needs to end, Period.
            You know who the “establishment” consultants wanted? Rubio (although apparently his vetting didnt go all that well) McDonnell, Portman or Susana Martinez. Allegedly the romney staff nixed Martinez off the bat. You can holler until you are blue in the face but none of these people isnt a conservative and all were better choices than Ryan.

            Paul Ryan lost the debate against Joe Biden, Biden was a hot mess and looked like a buffoon BUT Ryan lost. I dont know if any one is a boxing fan besides me, but in a really bad fight the judges always award it to the guy who was most active. That was a bad fight and the majority of people awarded it to the aggressor (even with how nuts as he came across). Did Ryan losing the debate hurt the campaign? no. If Ryan had won the debate would it have helped the campaign? absolutely.

          • Freiheit

            I agree with you too Bill. Paul Ryan was kept on the backhand, doing most of the low-attention campaign work. But I don’t think it was Mitt being jealous of Ryan, rather I think it was Mitt’s campaign thinking Ryan would distract from the top of the ticket.

            Oh well though – it boosted Ryan’s national profile quite a bit. It’ll be much easier for him to take a step into national/presidential politics in his future career. Which is certainly a win for sound, conservative fiscal policy.

          • Bill S

            I can buy that as well.

          • commonsenseobserver

            Romney isn’t the kind of person to get jealous over such things. And it’s not like Ryan was that much of a rock star.

            Rather, I think it was a trade-off Mitt and the Romney family had to make with the consultants. In exchange for picking Paul Ryan, which had the backing of Tagg and Ann Romney, and quite a few in “old” Boston, but the fierce opposition of the national Beltway “professionals”, Mitt agreed to keep him on a leash to satisfy the strategists and pollsters and consultants. Would be typical of the cautious, but also clumsy, person we all know.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Why did the Paris Ex-Pat scene flourish during the days of Picasso, and Gertrude Stein and Ezra Pound and Aubrey Beardsley, et al?

    It is a complex story with important implications for Sarah Palin.

    By the end of the first decade of the 20th century, most people looked at the globe and saw a civilized stasis– that is, most of the great thinking had been done, most of the great religions of the West had reached their zenith. Early “excesses” in capitalism in America had been leashed. Civilization seemed assured.

    Then, in what seemed a trivial thing happened in the backwaters of the Hapsburg empire. Archduke Ferdinand was shot, and the dominoes started falling. Soon, all the existing norms were up for grabs, and where once the moral underpinnings of what the West held dear, and which gave a sense of eternal security, were flushed away in a bloody ocean of carnage known as World War One.

    What good was all this supposed “civilization” if it just ended up in the most bloody war men had ever known? All this advanced living simply ended in advanced dying. Everybody was questioning everything, if it only led to a Great War.

    Picasso started his painterly life in a very conventional way, painting very conventional, representational art– sometimes experimenting with a Matisse-style of wild colorization. But, after the war, what good was ANY of this? What was his viewpoint really representing? It had all fallen down into a heap of War.This viewpoint found it’s way into the evolution of his art, and, just as importantly, in the way the public viewed it.

    Things will go to hell in the next four years. All of our political posturing today will seem as quaint as the Archduke did to Ho Chi Minh, and the landscape will look nothing like it does right now. I happen to think that the most articulate, full-throated politicians on both sides of the divide will capture the attention of voters, who will be demanding a fix.

    Sarah Palin means what she says– even if the syntax gets a little tangled. She will be a force to be reckoned with, as will ALL passionate, solid conservatives. I, too, for these reasons, look forward to what path she takes in the next couple of years, and would welcome her voice in the debate.

    • GremlinJones

      Well written, bravo!

    • gflyer3364qt

      Nothing would be more satisfying than seeing Sarah win an election against Hillary Clinton. It’s also a widely known fact across the astrological community that people born in the year of the Dragon 1940/1952/1964/1976/1988 whether they be men or women are as tough as nails, are very masculine, blunt, make great leaders, and are always ready to tear down oppositoin according to a friend I have who studies Chinese astrology. If she runs I will vote for her. She is the real deal.

  • eltuba

    Does she even want to run for president?? From what I’ve seen she seems very happy in her role of entertainer/rabble rouser. She has a core of fans who treat her like a star and who hang on her every word. She gets to pass her blessing on any candidate she pleases without getting any oooky electioneering dirt on her, and she doesn’t have to deal with the lamestream media meanies who are always out to get her. I don’t see her giving any of that up.

  • exitsfunnel

    She would be a disastrously bad candidate. The country is polarized enough that her opponent wouldn’t be able to run the electoral college like Reagan (almost) did, but he or she would do even better in the popular vote. Her 15 minutes are up and in event, I can’t imagine she’s even interested in making herself accountable for anything again.

  • http://gardenslegal.com morstar150

    I can’t even read this post! Are we going to wait 4 years before we have someone step up and change this mess we are in? It’s too late then! Palin won’t matter at that point. There is a mid term election in 2014. The pattern has developed that the nuckleheads vote in the Presidential election whether by absentee ballots that are filled out by union workers or leftist activists but in the off year elections the nuts stay at home. 2014 must be better than 2010. Start working NOW!

    • plumely

      I think what we need to focus on is the quality of canidates we are running. It is one thing gain control in both the House and Senate. But it is another thing to have people in those positions who have the courage to wield their power and advance a Conservative/Republican agenda.

      • revtm

        there is something to that, but we have to run winnable more moderate people in certain races to win. Every Senator in texas, wyoming, mississippi etc. should be as far right as we can get. I have no problem with a challenge to Lindsay Graham (who sure has lost his way since 94) but people like Capito need to be allowed to knock off liberals like Rockefeller, We need Mark Kirks Scott Brown and Mike Castles in Illinois Massachusetts and Delaware, if we dont get to 50 in the senate it doesnt matter who we run…

        • plumely

          well eventually you have to replace those moderates with conservatives or we’ll get another Pyrric victory as it seems we did in 2010 with the house(Ala Boehner).

          • revtm

            Boehner is not some flaming moderate as people suggest (neither is Rob Portman)

            But no we need Moderates or we will never get our majority in the senate. We cannot win a senate majority with all far right candidates.

  • GremlinJones

    Run, Sarah, Run!

  • redeleven

    she has my full support

  • mikeymike143

    demint in 2016!!!