In more than one article this yar, I have stated that Sarah Palin should not run for President for the 2012 electioni. I bet you thought I could never be PROVEN to be on the "cutting edge" with that statement, if not quite proven correct. Shows how much you know. It further shows how much more I know than Rush Limbaugh, including on logical thinking.
Rasmussen did an actual POLL of prospective Repubican primary voters, and found that 45% of them AGREE WITH THIS BLOG that Sarah Palin should ont run for President this time, even though many of those same people LOVE her (as I do). Rush Limmbaugh ridiculed this seeming contradictioni--only to shallow thinkers, which is only occasionally true of Rush. Now I would have no problem with Rush ridiculing the POLL, because polls are evil lthings,--with this kind of poll question being especailly meaningless (even though the poll supports me). This is naother area on which Rush is a SHALLOW thinker (or maybe "solely a partisan thinker is more accurate). Rush will criticize polls often, including on the grounds that I use to show they are evil things, but then Rush will turn around and attempt to USE polls as real "news". This polll NUMBER is totally meaningless, except that it shows that there is a CORRECT mode of thinking out there amuong conservatives (not surprising, considering how smart we conservatives are). Rush ridiculed the IDEA that Sarah Palin should not run for President this time, rather than the poll. Rush argued that it is absurd to say: "Palin is great, but she should not run for President this time". Rush is wrong. Rush even TWISTED the poll--I think--by suggesting that this 45% did not want Palin to be the nominee of the party. That is not my understanding of the poll, although I admit I am not interested enough in the poll to investigate the question. My understanding is, as Rulsh initially said before going off on his rant, that the poll question was whehter Palin SHOULD RUN--not whether she should be the nominee if she did run (where I think, without being sure, that more than 45% would at least express doubts).
Why is Rush wrong, and why is this blog right? If Palin is so great, as she is, why should she not run? I have said that IF Sarah Palin runs, I will likely support her, but that I advise her not to run. How can that be? I will explain it to Rush and youo. (As to whether I would actually support Palin if she runs, that would depend on the total PERFROMANCE of palin, and the other candidates, although my initial inclination would be to support her.)
I would have problem if Palin were ANOINTED the nominee of the Repubican Party (which may or may not be true of that 45%, or whatever is the correct number, but which I think many of them would agree, on reflectioin). And much of that 45% has no problem with someone running who thinks exactly like Palin (Michelle Bockman?--even though it is unfair to say any person thinks exctly like any other person. The main problem is that Sarah Palin has to RUN for the Republlican nomination.
Rush Limbaugh and I--along with almost every thinking conservative--believe that this electon needs to be ABOUT BARACK OBAMA--a referundum on his POLICIES. Yes, you have to have a candidate who the public is willing to believe will do BETTER than Barack Obama. But what happens if Sarah Palin enter THIS RACE? It is obvious. What happens is that the Repubican race becomes ALL ABOUT SARAH PLIN. That is certainly what the mainstreaqm media will make it. That means that Obama will get a FREE PASS until the Republican nominee is determined. Even if Sarah Palin wins the nomination, I think that is a VERY BAD thing. And what if she LOSES (which is more likely than not, for this election, although hardly a sure thing)? If sarah Palin runs for the Republican nominatioin, and loses, it is going to really hurt the eventual Republican nominee. This is NOT because Sarah Palin makes it impossible for other Republicans to get any attentioin. It is because Sarah Palin RUNNING takes the focus offf of Barack Obama.
Now the mainsttream media WANTS to take the focus off of Barack Obama. That is why CNN was so DESPEWRATE to get Tim Pawlenty to "call names" with regard to Mitt Romney. Repubicans fall into a TRAP if they let the mainstream media lure lthem into this mistake. Nope. You are wrong if you think I am telling Tim Pawlenty to "pull his punches." Or any candidate. It is just obvious that the Republican candidates need to convince Republicans that they can TAKE ON Barack Obama, and not that they can take on eack other. Thus, if Tim Pawlenty believes that he can do a better job on health care than BOTH Romney and Obama have done (Romney on a state level), then he can and should say so (while saying that Romney is right to say that RomneyCare on a state level is not nearly as bad as ObamaCare on a national level. In other words, Pawlenty is perfectly right to point out any problems that Pawlenty has with Romney's record in Massachuseetts, so long as lPawlenty does not take the focus off Obama as the REAL culprit here. It was a mistake for Pawlnety to refer to "Obamneycare", because he is taking the focus off of Obama--making Obama's case for him that ObamaCare is not really so bad because Romney bought (not true, whateverf Romney did in Massachusetts). Merely be RUNNING, Sarah Plain takes more foucs off of Barack Obama than Tim Pawlenty could ever do.
Now Sarah Palin COULD WIN against Barack Obama, even though she has been demonized by the mainstream media. I have no problem with that, even if the media will try to put the focus on Palin (even in the genral election). Palin has some CONATROL over the general election. She can--if she does it right--put the focus on Obama, even as the mainstream media and Democrats froth at the muth. That could even BACKFIRE against the mainstream media, and Obama, in the general election. Sure, Palin is going to face obstacles in the general election that other Republicans will not face, but she will have ADVANTAGES as well. But Palin has NO CONTROL in the nomination fight. No matter how hard she tries, she is not gong to be able to take the focus off of her. To me, that is a conclusive reason Palin shoud not run--why it will be bad for the Republican Party if she runs THIS TIME> It has nothing to do with whether Palin would make a good President, or even whether she would make a good nominee.
And Palin has not laid the groundwork for a Presidential run THIS TIME> She is coming off of a LOSS as the Vice Presidential nominee, even though that was McCain's fault rather than hers. She is coming off of resigning the Alaskan governorship, which I agree she HAD to do (because of the WITCH HUNT against her--something like what she will face running for the Republican nomination, with little ability to fight back unless and until she gets the nomination). Palin has not PREPARED for a Persidential run (organization, etc.). In my opinion, she needed to announce EARLY, or else she needs to wait until LATE to see whether she can come in as a SAVIOR on a white charger. Palin would be much better positioned if she had been appointed to some post, or won some election, SINCE becoming such a lightning rod for unfair demonization. Palin has taken the ARROWS for us conservatives, which is one reason we LOVE her. She is a charismatic figure. It is simply not THE TIME for her best run. She will likely have ONE GOOD CHANCE to be President of the United States. She should not squaner that at a time when that chance is not nearly as good as it might be at a future time. A slightly more mature Sarah Palin, with a ruther record behind her (even if only a record of "king making" and influence on policy) will be a FORMIDABLE candidate. Yes, the chance MIGHT never come again (which explains so many Presidential runs at premature times), but (like a racehorse jockey deciding when the time is right for that ONE BIG RUN) Palin needs to be careful not to throw away her future.
Palin, herself, is MAKING MONEY. She is MAKING POLICY. She is MAKING KINGS (figuratively). She faces an uphill fight for the Republican nomination. And she will throw away a good part of what she has, including probably any future she might have as a Presidential candiate, if she runs THIS TIME. To me, it is a no brainer. Rush Limbaugh is WRONG--bouth logically, and if he has the interest of either the Republican Party or Sarah Palin at heat (and is thinking clearly).
I LIKE Sarah Palin, and would probably support her for the Republican nomination IF she makes lthe MISTAKE of running. I do NOT much like Rick Perry (governor of Texas). Yet, I think Perry SHOULD run, even though I do not expect to support him for the nomination How can this be? It is because I think CLEARLY. Maybe Perry can surprise me, and become the most formidable candidate against Obama. But that is not the main point. Perry will HELP focus the election on Obama, even during the Repubican nomination process. Perry can only hope to win the nomination by contrasting the record of TEXAS against the RECORD of Obama. That HELPS the eventual Republican nominee, whoever that nominee is. And Perry is much less likely to have another opportunity. Further, Perry does not have the kind of assured golden future that Palin has, if Palin chooses NOT to run (this time). Perry is NOT a STAR (now). His best chance of becoming a STAR is to run for President THIS TIME.
Thus, myu strong advice to Sarah Palin is NOT to tun, THIS TIME. My strong advice to Rick Perry IS to run this time, even though I will not surrport you (except probably against Obama). I am right on this, and Rush Limbuagh is wrong. It is only if Sarah Palin had an easy, assured path to the Republican nomination that she should run this time, and what she faces instead is an uphill battle just to get the nomination that holds little propect of being worth the risks to her future. A no brainer for me. Too bad Rush is not quite this smart. (Yes, it is my firm opinion that Sarah Palin would make a better PRESIDENT than Rick Perry, but that does not affect my opinion of whether either should run.)
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment