Monday, November 29, 2010

The “Palin is Too Polarizing & Unelectable” Myth: They Also Said That About Another GOP Candidate

Now that 2010 is behind us, and the most important Presidential election in our lifetime is on the horizon in 2012, and the focus is on who the Republican Party will nominate to take on the Worst President in US History, Barack Hussein Obama.

Among the possibilities mentioned is 2008 Vice Presidential nominee and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Do I think she is electable, not just as GOP nominee, but as President? You betcha!

However, I’ve seen some conservatives voicing their doubts online and in conversations. Not helping matters among potential voters is the Obama lapdog media, who rise from their sleep every morning asking how they can best help President Obama that day. Part of that job is to attack the Palin mystique. And they have a lot of willing helpers among Republicans.

Michael Reagan, the son of the greatest President of the 20th Century, Ronald Reagan, stated recently his observation that Palin was “polarizing,” never mind that the younger Reagan welcomed her arrival in 2008 as his father coming back in a dress. It doesn’t help matters that the country club, good old boy wing of the Republican Party—in the form of George H.W. and Barbara Bush, Karl Rove, and others, scoff at the notion of a Palin candidacy and feel she should “stay in Alaska.”

What these observations are based on, I have no idea. With all respect to many conservative/Republican friends, I’d like to make the following arguments. Governor Palin certainly has the executive experience to be President—she was governor of America’s largest state and also the mayor of her hometown. Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t have that kind of experience. In fact, his resume for his candidacy was thin compared to Palin’s. Being a governor or mayor means you cannot vote “present.” You have to be decisive.

Which begs the question…if Sarah Palin really is that much of a horrible candidate for President, then why is the Obama Lapdog Media obsessed with her? Why have liberals connected to Obama been so intent on destroying this woman for the past two years if she’s so “unelectable” and the worst person the GOP could nominate in 2012? Furthermore, who are these liberals and their media allies to tell us conservatives who to select as our candidate?

It’s all because liberals and the Country Club Republicans are scared to death of Sarah Palin, because she is a threat to both of them. Thus, because both these groups hate her, she is discounted as “unelectable” and “polarizing,” in the hopes that primary voters will walk away from her. Never mind that Obama, Pelosi and Reid have polarized this nation like no other politicians in American history by pitting one group against another.

Liberals fear Palin because she is the one GOP candidate who has appeal and can draw a crowd. People are attracted to her because she is one of them and speaks their language. If you met her on her 2009 book tour, more than likely, you also met her father, her husband Todd, some of her children and other relatives. As a political observer and commentator, this told me a lot about her as a person and it raised her stock even more in my eyes.

As a politician, Sarah Palin owes her place to no one but herself. She did not get to be Governor of Alaska or Vice Presidential nominee because of who her father was, or the man she married. She got there on her own merits. There is no doubt this is a threat to the Democrat Party’s stranglehold on the women vote.

The Country Club Republicans cannot stand Palin because they’ve been in her sights several times, as Governor of Alaska and during the 2010 mid terms. She endorsed several candidates (some of whom I didn’t agree with) who took on the establishment, “business as usual” crowd. That didn’t sit well with those in the good old boy network like Murkowski family or Karl Rove, but then again, it was people like Rove who nearly destroyed the GOP with the vision of “compassionate conservatism,” which is the kind of thinking that Ronald Reagan railed against in a 1975 CPAC speech:
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
It’s those “blue bloods” today, who pushed oxymoronic “big government conservatism” while claiming the era of Reagan was over, that dismiss the idea of a Palin candidacy. It’s somewhat funny, because the “blue blood” country club types were the same ones who also dismissed the idea of a Ronald Reagan candidacy for President.

Yes, it’s true. Despite the great love and reverence for our 40th President, Ronald Wilson Reagan put up with the same pessimism in the late 1970s and 1980s that Sarah Palin now faces. For proof, I recommend you buy (or check out at the library) Craig Shirley’s in-depth look at the 1980 campaign, Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign that Changed America.

Shirley noted that Reagan, in the spring of 1979, was not the candidate of choice of the establishment GOP. It was former Texas Governor John Connolly, followed by Tennessee Senator Howard Baker and then former Ambassador George H.W. Bush. Reagan’s poll numbers weren’t very high during 1979. In fact, that Thanksgiving, polls showed Reagan losing the Presidential election to not only incumbent (and second worst President to Obama) Jimmy Carter, but the Hero of Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy. One-termer Gerald Ford preferred Bush or anyone else for the 1980 GOP nominee over Reagan, much like one-term Bush 41 recently stated he liked Mitt Romney as the 2012 nominee. Reagan was also seen as too right wing, as well as too old.

OK, you might reply, but several of Palin’s favored candidates lost in 2010. True. But Reagan has his downfalls in between 1976 and 1980. He led the unsuccessful campaign against Carter’s Panama Canal Treaty in 1977-78. One unsuccessful 1978 congressional GOP primary candidates Reagan supported is known only because he was defeated by a young George W. Bush.

Who will run in 2012 is anybody’s guess. Perhaps Sarah Palin may decide that her political future doesn’t include a run for the White House. All I know is that the GOP needs someone in 2012 who offers “bold colors” instead of the “pale pastels” of establishment favorites. Maybe it won’t be Sarah Palin, but shouldn’t she be afforded the chance to make her case, if she decides to be a candidate?

Perhaps it’s a “Mama Grizzly” who America needs to undo the damage that has been done over the last 21 months of the Obama Regime.

No comments: