LEE’S SUMMIT, August 23, 2011 – It seems that everyone has an opinion as to whether Sarah Palin will or won’t run for the office of the President of the United States. Personally I hope she runs, but that has nothing to do with my opinion on why so many keep pushing one way or the other.
The Iowa Caucuses aren’t for another 5 or 6 months. There is plenty of time for someone with her name recognition and fundraising capabilities to enter the race. She can have a strong grass-roots movement in place very quickly, and she’s shown to be a capable manager and leader of people.
The thing I find interesting is that so many of us look at the current field and then look to see what Sarah Palin is going to do: I keep asking myself, why?
I have been accused by friends of over-thinking some things and in this case I think the answer is too simple to easily accept.
MITT ROMNEY: Is a good candidate, but too much of a centrist for the current situation in Washington and I hear too many compare him unkindly to John McCain. McCain was the media darling till the actual election campaign and then it was all about Obama, and McCain failed miserably to show leadership in the 2008 run-up to the election. I think Romney is far better than that, but I am still not sure I can get past his explanation of why it is OK for the State of Massachusetts to force its citizens to buy insurance, but ObamaCare is not.
RICK PERRY: Is a good candidate as well. His record in Texas is enviable. He has created jobs (at one point 37% of all the jobs created in America since January of 2009). He actively campaigns to bring industry from other States to Texas and has a firm grasp on fiscal conservative values. But he is from Texas where George Bush came from and he could be a motivating factor for the demoralized Democrats and bring them out in droves to vote against him, rather than Obama. Having said that, of the Governors currently in the race he’s probably the leader of the pack: in a Newsmax report talking about a recent poll by Public Policy Polling Romney trails Perry by double digits (see story here).
NEWT GINGRICH: One of my early favorites truly has had difficulty gaining traction. He once led the Republicans into leadership of the Congress, but he lacks – in my mind – the experience of a Governor and running a business while important is not enough. Businesses are autocracies in the end. The CEO sets the direction, his Directors lead the teams, and middle management has only local latitude. It is not the same as bringing the Senate and the House along; as Governors have experience doing.
HERMAN CAIN: Is a solid citizen, a proven leader, a capable manager that has faced difficult business situations and has some government job experience. Personally, I’d like to have a drink and discuss business issues with him. I think he has some of the most innovative and practical ideas based on his business experience, and he does not get rattled by his occasional gaffes. Yet, he lacks Government leadership experience, and as I learned over the years, Reagan’s strength came from motivating political machines in the right direction for the right reasons.
RON PAUL: He certainly brings the conservative, libertarian side of the issues with tremendous knowledge of the Constitution of the United States. Some of his ideas may be offensive to some; but in the end he is fiscally very conservative, and you cannot argue that he stands for smaller government. Yet he lacks the ability to form political alliances that will move things forward. Ron Paul is truly, like Herman Cain, and important part of the debate. His points of view will force us all to discuss things we have always considered political taboo. Through that someone will come out the victor, but I do not believe Ron Paul will be the person; yet his opinions will have influenced the discourse.
MICHELLE BACKMAN: Is a powerful campaigner and has shown the most important ability: she can learn on the fly. Early on her comments caused her great difficulty, but her post Iowa Straw Poll victory speech was one of the best campaign speeches I’ve heard. She was focused. She was factual. She has a plan and does not mind laying it out for all of us to see. She’s for small government, and understands that fiscally our country is truly broke and needs to be fixed right now. Her reliance on her small business experience to give her credibility is a bit of a push. From a business stand point only, Herman Cain is better qualified.
Gallup Poll today, of “registered voters” showed that Obama is behind Mitt Romney 48 to 46%, Perry and Obama are tied at 47%, Obama edges out Ron Paul 47 to 45%, and Bachman 48 to 44%, with no mention of Cain or Gingrich (see story here).
Yet with all of that analysis, one thing is clear to me: people in the Republican Party and the Tea Party are not happy with this group as the totality of the debate that will lead to the Republican Party Nomination. It is that very thought that drives my opinion that Sarah Palin is needed in the race if for no other reason than to complete the debate.
It remains to be seen whether she will run, and if she does whether or not the media will focus all their efforts on trying once again to destroy her reputation, and most importantly whether she can explain away her reasons for leaving the Governorship of Alaska and her late entry into the race. These are too many unknowns; yet when she speaks about the future of America, she draws a strong crowd among Republicans, Tea Party members, and some of the independents.
I think the Palin Factor is more about what is lacking in the current candidates, than it is about Sarah Palin herself.
Respectfully Submitted,
The Lee’s Summit Conservative
August 30, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Nice article, LSC.
Just to answer your question about Romney justifying why the state of Mass. can force its people to buy insurance but Obamacare cannot…. the simple fact is that the Constitution of the US restricts what the FEDERAL government can do, not the states.
Take the wall of separation of Church and State (which is found in a Jefferson letter, not in the actual constitution) for instance. Thomas Jefferson did not believe that a national religion would be fine; however, there were states at the time who had a State religion, Mass. is one such example. Jefferson, did not want his own state of Virginia to adopt an official religion, but he did not begrudge any other state who did.
I’m not a Romney fan by any means but that is one way that he would be able to explain it….. 🙂