Palin’s Non-Candidacy and “Anyone but Obama”

Oliver North on Thursday’s Hannity said he is supporting “ABO” (Anyone but Obama) for the 2012 GOP nomination.  This seems to be the dominating narrative among many conservatives these days.

Of course, many in the grassroots have been making this point since 2009.  Conservatives articulated it by pointing out many of Obama’s failures.  With truth on our side, we transcended the message to independents.  This helped us win a sweeping victory in the House of Representatives for 2010’s midterm elections.

Today, we still understand it’s important to replace Obama.  Yet, many of us who have been commenting and writing for the last couple of years have graduated from “anyone but Obama” to “a real conservative who inspires us.”  Conservatives had the luxury of doing it after Carter.  We have earned the right to do it now.

We’ve endured a failed stimulus and watched our government print money out of thin air.  We saw the massive hike of unemployment and energy prices.  In addition, we had ObamaCare rammed down our throats.  As such, our message continues to resonate with independents.  This is why someone needs to tell Fox News we can do better than “ABO.”  Don’t get me wrong, “anyone but Obama” is a great one-liner for a chuckle.  Our country is hurting and part of pulling ourselves up by the boot straps involves the philosophical need for a sense of humor.

But amidst the chuckling last week from what seems to be an overly-confident GOP-establishment, Sarah Palin announced on Wednesday that she would not seek the GOP nomination for President in 2012.

As Mark Levin spoke to the former-Governor right after her announcement, Matt Drudge e-mailed him in response to her decision saying it was “a sad day for America.”  He wasn’t kidding.

As I have stated before, I support the fact that it was her decision and understand the efforts it would take to step up and begin the onerous task of putting our country back on the right track.  But for many of us, not only did Palin seem like the only one who truly understood the steps needed, she also had the track record of taking those steps previously in her career and executing them with success.

Not that a track record matters with the media.  In fact, Palin could take the easy road to the White House by taking Kyl’s Senate seat.  As a Junior Senator, she could vote present 100 times and rest easy.  Aside from erasing her executive experience and love of country, it’s apparently all that is needed these days to get the media’s blessing to be president.  Of course, a few heavy-hitting Wall Street backers wouldn’t hurt either.

These unpleasant realities to our electoral process have been challenged by Palin during her tenures as mayor of Wasilla, head of the AOGCC, and Governor of Alaska.  Further, she became a powerful advocate without the title she claims she never needed and made a difference via speeches, Facebook postings, and commentaries on Fox News since the 2008 campaign.

After months of suggesting she’d get in the race if she felt nobody else was prepared to step up and take on the Obama machine (along with the GOP establishment), she inspired many of us to sign on which we did willingly as we understood her “fire in the belly” spirit.

In truth, it was easy for Palin to proclaim she never needed a title when for three years it was highly probable that she would be a potential 2012 frontrunner.  With that momentum, the media continued to obsess and her critics continued to rant.

So what happens to that power now?  Now that she is no longer perceived as a political threat to the establishment since she was thought to be as a potential 2012 contender, can we expect the media to suddenly rally behind her?  Where is her influence going to come from?

While many of us will continue to support Governor Palin’s ideology and efforts, it’s hard to not question the consequences of her decision.

Additionally, we are all aware of the worst case scenario if she chose a run.  She could have lost the primary.  Even so, her voice would have been vital alongside the remaining candidates by holding each and every one of them accountable to the tough issues that are difficult to talk about such as crony capitalism and track records – in lieu of cordially agreeing that “anyone but Obama” is the answer.

Also, Ronald Reagan lost the Republican primary to Gerald Ford in 1976.  At the time, the establishment believed that Reagan was just a little too conservative to win over independents.  They were wrong and our nation got four years of Jimmy Carter.  Of course, his second try in 1980 carried weight and experience from his first go-around and he emerged victorious in two consecutive landslide wins.

Even candidates like Mitt Romney prove that it’s possible to lose a primary and come back four years later with more political weight.

Similarly, Palin would have kept her core constituency of supporters who are now left feeling frustrated at their remaining choices.

Yes, all candidates in the GOP field are better than Obama.  But it shouldn’t have taken the remaining candidates throughout the course of debates and the politicos over at Fox News to waste our time attempting to inform us of something we already knew.  It shouldn’t be the platform.  The platform should exist to reward us for our contributions as conservatives and voters who come together to make a real difference.

Palin is not required to step up to fill that void in 2012.  But the fact remains, it would have helped considerably.  Especially since many of us patiently waited until October of 2011 for her to make filling the void a non-reality.

And while we’ll all have to wait and see what she does in the future, it remains our responsibility as grassroots conservatives to ensure that the “anyone but Obama” narrative-cliché doesn’t become official campaign policy for the duration of the 2012 primary process.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Palin’s Non-Candidacy and “Anyone but Obama”

  1. Sorry Ben, but you we’ve already been “screwed” in more ways that one by a President whose answer to every problem has been to print money out of thin air.

    Under his presidency, unemployment, energy prices, and gas prices have soared.

    To the contrary, the value of our dollar is plummeting and well on its way to no longer enjoying the luxury of being the world’s currency.

    NOW he wants to authorize printing MORE money when he hasn’t even printed all of valueless paper from the first stimulus.

    I guess you have to be a politician to get away with counterfeiting.

  2. Under his presidency, unemployment, energy prices, and gas prices have soared.

    When Obama took office, the economy was shedding thousands of jobs a month (800 thousand in Jan 2009 when he took office). The economy has slowly been rebounding. Gas prices are lower than they were in 2008.

    Conservatives hate openly gay men. How can you be in a party where you’re hated?

  3. Ben, there was a financial crisis in 2008 that happened because of government sponsoring bad mortgages. You can blame Bush for it, and I can acknowledge his hand in it. But, while we’re at it, let’s point out that liberals controlled Congress for the last two years of his presidency, shall we?

    IF the 2008 financial crisis proved anything, it was that government has no business running industries.

    By the end of the Bush presidency, energy prices had gone down. Gas Price’s national average was 1.61. http://www.GasBuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=USA Average&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=36&units=us

    Today it’s just under 3.50. It peaked at an all time high during Bush’s presidency but for a very short period. The key part of the information which the data reveals is the slow rise since Obama took office.

    We were promised unemployment would not go above 8% if we allowed a liberal Congress and President to squander a trillion bucks. That didn’t happen! Nor has the president even spent all of it yet and wants to pass another bill to add to the cushion.

    I don’t mean to taunt or to sound condescending but you guys are stuck in total “mommy” mode with this guy. He hadn’t even been president for 8 seconds and he was given a Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely NOTHING but giving a speech in Germany. You spent the last three years blaming all of his failures on his predecessor. Independents are tired of it and it’s lost its luster.

    As Charles Krauthammer said, there should be a statute of limitations on blaming your predecessor. Even Reagan who had right to simply got to work and took the focus of Carter and began moving forward.

    As to why I am a conservative, I believe we explain this fully on the homepage.

  4. You can blame Bush for it, and I can acknowledge his hand in it. But, while we’re at it, let’s point out that liberals controlled Congress for the last two years of his presidency, shall we?

    You’re just repeating right-wing talking points. Democrats took control of Congress because it was obvious our country was on the verge of collapse under Republicans. If it was the Democrat’s fault, they must have passed some legislation to cause the problems. So what was it? There was none.

    A big part of the problem was the little known Consolidated Supervised Entities Program implemented in 2004 that allowed banks to police themselves. That didn’t work out so well, now did it?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27sec.html

  5. Yes the Democrats not only rallied for the legislation dating all the way back to the Carter and Clinton era, they indeed passed it. It is not a right-wing talking point to discuss the clarity one should have by now. Big spending exists on both sides of the aisle just as corporate cronyism does.

    The only problem is, the liberal’s way of fixing it is to amplify the problem.

    It is not a right-wing talking point to point out that Democrats were in Congress for two years ending Bush’s presidency — it’s a fact.

    In fact, during the financial crisis, liberals held the majority of Government. All we had was the White House.

    During the credit downgrade, once again, liberals held the majority of Government. They held the White House and the Senate.

    Miraculously on both occasions, you folks managed to blame Republicans.

    You cannot have it both ways. You cannot choose to hold the president accountable when your leaders were in Congress just because he’s a Republican. You must hold a president accountable all the time.

    This is Obama’s economy. And if you think that fact is not going to transcend to independents (as it already has), you’re sadly mistaken.

  6. Oh, good grief…here we go with the accusations of “right-wing talking points” again…why not admit the truth, Ben?

    Fact: in 2003, George W. Bush warned Congress in a speech that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were headed toward a proverbial cliff. Fact: Barney Frank openly blew him off, then went home to blow his boy-toy, who, at the time, happened to be the head of Freddie Mac. Fact: when liberals took control in 2006, they did NOTHING. Not a damn thing. Two years later they blamed it all on Bush.

    FACT: since taking office in 2009, Obama has only made things vastly worse. Unemployment has jumped. Jobs are still disappearing. Those corporations that ARE hiring – including banks and automakers who accepted Obama’s expanded bailouts – are typically hiring overseas. India has seen fantastic job growth!

    FACT: the only way to allow this mess to sort itself out properly would have been to let those idiots fail. Let the businesses collapse. They didn’t learn a single worthwhile lesson from being bailed out, nor did those who will come after them. If they’d been allowed to fail in the first place, it would have stung like hell for a couple of years, but we would have recovered a lot faster. We would not still be languishing in remission, hoping the cancer didn’t metastasize while we weren’t looking, listening to Obama talk about a proverbial chemotherapy that isn’t meant to treat this kind of disease the right way.

  7. Things don’t happen because of something someone says in Congress; they happen because of legislation, and you girls can’t cite any legislation that Democrats are responsible for unless you go all the way back to Carter, which had nothing to do with our current economic situation.

    Here are some facts: the Stimulus was more than one-third tax cuts to get a few Republicans on board, which did very little to stimulate the economy. 1/3 was unemployment benefits that wouldn’t have been necessary if the Republicans didn’t destroy our economy. Only 1/3 was discretionary spending, which was fairly effective in creating jobs and making our country better.

  8. But Ben, think about this. One stimulus cost a trillion bucks. As a result, we printed money out of thin air. That stimulus funded some Government jobs and bailed out some auto makers. Then, it “gave” 95% of Americans a tax cut.

    So, we got 10.00 a week extra in our paycheck. Yet, we see everything rising in costs because of the inflationary factor. We are now in the red about -50.00 a week to -200.00 depending on the size of the family.

    They are purposely trying to set up a society which is NOT excited to create the American Dream through hard work and effort, but waiting patiently to see what the Government is going to give them.

  9. They are purposely trying to set up a society which is NOT excited to create the American Dream through hard work and effort, but waiting patiently to see what the Government is going to give them.

    That’s a crazy conspiracy theory. You can’t achieve the American dream through hard work any more. You were able to do that when America was the manufacturing hub of the world. Now, due to our crazy tax system, most of those jobs have gone overseas, and Republicans have blocked all efforts to bring some of them back.

    It’s also harder to achieve the American dream through education since tuition costs have gone through the roof while financial aid has decreased.

  10. YOU JUST ILLUSTRATED what I said.

    You say it’s impossible to achieve through hard work. I can factually refute that with many individual cases.

    Then you blame the lowering of financial aid (government money).

    Translation: I won’t work hard because I am too smart for it so throw me a bone!

    Why don’t you find out this guy’s number? You two seem destined for one another:

  11. And if you want manufacturers to come back, then I assume you support Palin’s plan:

    1.) Eliminate corporate taxes.
    2.) Decrease regulations.
    3.) Make it attractive to do business here.

  12. 1.) Eliminate corporate taxes.
    That’s silly because most large corporations pay little to no taxes already.

    2.) Decrease regulations.
    That’s silly because our economy was destroyed by deregulation. And most of us don’t want to see our country become a polluted shit-hole.

    3.) Make it attractive to do business here.
    That’s just silly. We’re the number one economic superpower.

  13. 1.) That’s true because they pay to play in the world of corporate cronyism. The honest corporations either pay taxes or they go away to another country. The idea of eliminating it would erase the need for corporate cronyism and would bring businesses back.

    2.) Our economy was destroyed by deregulation DUE to corporate cronyism. Ask Chris Dodd. Ask Barney Frank. Like Corporate income tax, regulations only create a higher demand for lobbyists and corporate cronyism.

    3.) We are the economic super power. It’s because of the framework on which our country rests. Lately, it does not look good. But we’re working to change that. Don’t worry.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s