I know I’m new on the scene and I’m not the Harvard college graduate or even have the privilege of people reading my columns at a regular basis because this is from my first articles posted. I nevertheless leap into the stormy debate or so called civil war in the Republican Party, namely, whether Palin is so radioactive as to be deemed unelectable.
Erick Erickson from Red State whom I greatly admire posted an article recently on Palin’s lack of electability. It is indeed very sad to see someone who would’ve supported a candidate completely, raise the white flag and surrender to the media. What shocked me most about Erickson’s post is the fact that at the ’10 primaries, when Palin endorsed Fiorina in California in a three way race between Carly Fiorina, Chuck DeVore, and Tom Campbell, Erickson did not see eye to eye with Palin on her endorsement. Okay Erick, I understand that although you share the same values and agreed with most of her endorsements you felt she was wrong at that time, but here’s how I see it. Palin’s reasoning was simple. Tom Campbell, a true liberal with ties to radical Palestinians, would’ve been another Barbara Boxer code pinker, and would only tarnish the Republican name even more. Fiorina and DeVore are both more conservative, true-to different degrees, but Fiorina was the one that with a small push forward was able to beat Tom Campbell in the primaries. If Palin would’ve endorsed DeVore, who was trailing Campell by 20% the conservative vote would’ve been split between the two and led to a Tom Campbell victory.
Erickson however wrote the following: I’m not abandoning Chuck just because Sarah Palin had decided to go elsewhere. He then explained that he stuck with Chuck because he was the more conservative of the two. Why are you now abandoning Palin, the most conservative candidate, just because a few elitists have decided that the main issue is electability? Let’s face it. Whoever the Republican nominee will be, the media will pounce upon them and seek to destroy them with every truth and untruth they will unearth against them, and the base will have to unite in support of their candidate to debunk the baseless claims. If a candidate fits all your criteria for president and the only problem is media bashing from liberals and beltways, won’t that happen to whoever wins? Why not stick with the one that’s already gone through all that? Otherwise, you’ll be back to square one with the media defaming them and the public buying into it while the minority of us will fight for the truth. It’s like going one step forward and two steps back. My father taught me that a glass that has been shattered once can’t be broken again. The media already threw at Palin everything they found and didn’t find on her and her family. Playing Tina Fey’s “I can see Russia from my house” again won’t create any additional haters. Informing and educating ignorant folks who believe such and other lies, can and will increase her supporters.
Erick, as someone who has always fought for conservative values and the candidates supporting those values, how can you suddenly take a true conservative and dump her just because Krauthammer, Will, and the likes have decided she’s unelectable? You have written a great article in the past criticizing those who tried to proclaim themselves as the leaders with of the tea party movement saying it should be by and for the people, shouldn’t we use here the same standard? Why should a select few determine who should or shouldn’t run in a primary? How can they decide for an entire movement with millions of voters if a candidate is unelectable before a single campaign ad or message has been released? How can they (may I use this word?) label her as unelectable if, as you wrote, things can still change? I know you support her as and are ready to go down together with her as you very clearly highlighted, but why are you buying into this unelectability crap? This is America with its unlimited potential! (I’m no fan of Hillary and don’t buy into the victimhood mentality of the left, but with her presidential launch she said she made 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling! Can one person accomplish such a tremendous feat in any other country on this planet? UPDATE: my liberal friend just told me that theirs is no glass ceiling in any countries besides for here.) In your article you brought a comparison of Goldwater’s loss to Johnson. Bear in mind however that that election was before the social networking and internet blogosphere which minimizes the absolute control the mainstream media had at previous elections. Another point to ponder is that Goldwater lost 38.5-61.1%. That’s a landslide loss! He needed an additional 12% to tide the election in his favor. If the 2012 election would be in a month or two a 12% gain is almost nearly impossible (although Reagan and others have breached it). However, with close to two years to the elections and a primary that has not yet begun, 12% is an insignificant number that will shift upwards and downwards many times following debates, ads, and campaigning both in the primary and general election. In truth, history has proven that regardless of whoever wins the primaries they will get the parties support which amounts to 37%-40% of the country. All you truly need is to convince an additional 10%-15% of the public and the focus lies mostly on several battleground states.
Here’s one last point. After Obama has rammed through healthcare, repealed DADT, Stimulus I & II, and a whole bunch of other radically liberal bills, no one dares to predict Obama reaching close to 60% of the votes. The worst polls cited against Palin, has media endorsed incumbent Obama at 55 vs. 40 and in most polls Obama doesn’t even hit the fifty percent mark. All this is before even one shot was fired at him and his outstandingly liberal record. Oh, and don’t forget that most the voters in the Republican primary aren’t the close minded liberals who fall for style and rhetoric rather than content.
This Article was originally posted on C4P’s website on Jan. 7 2011
