Mitt Romney Is Not Running In 2016

Mitt Romney appeared at the University of Utah today to meet with students at the University of Utah David Eccles School of Business and stated that he would not be running again in 2016.

Romney also made it clear to the overflow crowd of students, faculty and business leaders gathered to hear his 45-minute speech that he was done running for the White House after two unsuccessful tries.

"I've had two bites at the apple. Three strikes and you're out," he said.
Romney, who received hearty applause after a questioner thanked him for his 2008 and 2012 presidential races, jokingly suggested his wife, Ann, or son Josh — who lives in Utah — would be better candidates next time around.

Before the speech, Romney said he was "feeling bad I'm not in the White House," calling it a "great thrill to run for president" and an honor to have had the support of Utahns.

"The country faces real challenges, which unfortunately are not being addressed in the way I'd hope they'd be. A lot of people are hurting. A lot of people across the country can't find work," he said, including new college graduates.

I knew that Mitt Romney would not be running again in 2016. Its not that I had any inside information but I knew that he just wasn't going to run. I don't think he wants to become like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul who have ran for President in multiple presidential elections. I also think he wants to move on and do other things whether it be in business or politics. 

There are many people (I am not one of them) who want Mitt Romney to run in 2016. There's even a Facebook group called Mitt Romney for President 2016 that has already been set up to promote that idea. Even though I am deeply saddened that Mitt Romney lost and I believe he would have made a great president, he made the right choice not to run again. 

As far as 2016 goes, I would like to see the following people throw their hats into the ring for that Presidential election: Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Robert McDonnell, Scott Walker, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Jan Brewer, Senator Jeff Sessions, Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Kelly Ayotte, former Oklahoma representative J.C. Watts, Former Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Dr. Benjamin Carson, Former U.S. Representative Artur Davis, Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, and Former U.S. Representative Allen West and former Mitt Romney running mate Paul Ryan. 

I also don't want the following people to run in 2016: Senator Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Alan Keyes, John Huntsman Jr., and Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Mitch Daniels, and Mike Huckabee.
 

Do you think it was right for Mitt Romney to decide not to run in 2016? Who do you think should run in 2016?

Investigating Sarah Palin's Mysterious Delegate Packages At The GOP Convention

I have received numerous messages from various people asking me if I could verify a claim made by a Ron Paul blogger named "wincap" that supporters of Sarah Palin are going around at the Ron Paul events in Tampa Florida and passing out or mailing packages attempting to woo Paul supporters/delegates into voting for Sarah Palin in the event that a brokered convention occurs:

Sara Palin is in town and playing games, she is trying to steal the nomination, she sent out packets to all of the delegates asking them to vote for her if there is a brokered convention and she is trying to cause a brokered convention. I spoke to delegates at my booth who said they received the packet. None of our delegates will vote for her, putting my dislike for her aside, if she helps with a brokered convention I am fine with it because I think we could win a brokered convention.

I can confirm the source of where these packets might be coming from. There is a news report of a pro-Palin group called The Earthquake Movement who appear to be the source of these delegate packets: 

According to an email from a representative of The Earthquake Movement, the group has sent informational packets to delegates around the country, asking them to be one of the five required majority state delegations needed to nominate Palin in the first round of voting at the Republican National Convention. The packets also ask for delegates to nominate Palin in the second round if presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney does not receive the required number of delegates in the first round.

The Earthquake Movement has also distributed information on Palin's "record, accomplishments and why we think she is the person who can excite the base and defeat President Obama in November."

"We are finding a lot of unhappy Republican voters," the email said. "They feel like the RNC is not listening to them and based on voter turn out in the primaries and what we are hearing from Conservative Americans, they want her to emerge from the convention as the nominee. They are also very angry that she was not given a prime time speaking spot at the convention and are wondering if the RNC is attempting to shut her out because her message resonates with so many of us fly-overs. Are they afraid if she speaks prior to the vote or at all, we will have an averted Reagan experience?" 

One California Ron Paul supporter who is a delegate has claimed that he received the package in the mail:

In fact, if you look at one of the pages of The Earthquake Movement's website, you can see them making a pitch to delegates on the legality of nominating Sarah Palin as the GOP nominee and encouraging them to take a stand to nominate her. They also encourage the delegates to buck the system and they support an "open convention" (brokered convention). They also have a blog called A Servant's Heart which puts up much of the information found on the website on the blog.

On the The Earthquake Movement's facebook page, you can see a post of them discussing the packages and their strategy for making a brokered convention happen:  

Thus, it is highly likely that members of this group may have been at the GOP Convention distributing these packets to potential delegates who are supporters of Ron Paul. Given that the existence of these packages, it may be a matter of time before the contents of these packages show up on the news or on a blog site. I know that contents of the packages are somewhere on line since I have seen people talk about reading the documents and watching a DVD on the the Internet. Perhaps someone can put the entire contents of the package on a blog or send it to me.

What I find interesting is that there are two kinds of politicians. First, there those those who put party above themselves such as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum who both have released their delegates to Mitt Romney. Then there are politicians who put themselves above the party such as Sarah Palin and Ron Paul who have no delegates yet have said nothing or done nothing to stop their supporters who wish to circumvent the nomination process by attempting to engineer a brokered convention to nominate someone other than candidate who legitimately and successfully obtained the GOP nomination.

Sarah Palin Warns That A Third Party Could Form If The GOP Doesn't Get The Platform Right

Today, in the same interview where Sarah Palin told viewers on Fox News to vote for Mitt Romney, she also warned that a third party could form if the Republican party doesn't articulate conservative principles on the GOP platform:  

When asked if she would consider creating a third party if neither Gov. Romney nor President Obama would budge from their current positions on a variety of issues, Palin left open the door.

"Look what happened in the mid 1800's. The Wig party went away and the Republican Party surfaced. Because the electorate got sick and tired of the party fighting for power and not doing the will of the people."

Palin went on to say history could repeat itself.

"If history is an indication it is a possibility," she said. "If the Republicans don't remember what the planks in the platform represent ... that is opportunity to prosper and thrive in the most exceptional nation in the world. We do that through a free market. If the Republicans become like the liberal left and democrats, I wouldn't be surprised if history didn't repeat itself."

Her statement could be be interpreted in two different ways. On one hand, she could be issuing the same warning that Senator Rick Santorum did a few months ago about not allowing Ron Paul or his supporters to mess with the GOP platform. 

Yet, her statements could be interpreted differently when you take into account the recent news that Sarah Palin maybe trying to engineer a brokered convention so that she can get herself nominated as the GOP nominee. She may be trying to take the same approach as the Ron Paul supporters by attempting to get a brokered convention to happen so that Ron Paul will become the GOP nominee. The supporters of Ron Paul are also trying to change the GOP platform and its possible that Sarah Palin is trying to do the same thing here as well. In fact, in browsing through blogs that support either Ron Paul or Sarah Palin, there have been repeated statements of mutual admiration and support for such tactics. 

I'm not sure which way to interpret her statement. I have no problems with her statement if she means to warn people about the consequences of diluting the GOP platform and I actually agree with her on that. However, if her statement is part of her rumored strategy to get a brokered convention going, I have strong objections to it. For now, I will simply just wait and see which interpretation is correct.

The Two Faces Of Sarah Palin At The 2012 National Republican Convention

Today, Sarah Palin was on Fox News and she answered a question posed to her on twitter of "whether the viewer should vote at all if she doesn't like the candidates" by telling the person to vote for Mitt Romney. 

However, Sarah Palin doesn't seem to be following her own advice since there is evidence that she is trying to make a brokered convention. In fact, there is a new report coming out today from the Ron Paul Delegates at the GOP Convention that Sarah Palin is trying to pull Ron Paul supporters into voting for her in the event that the desired brokered convention occurs:

Sara Palin is in town and playing games, she is trying to steal the nomination, she sent out packets to all of the delegates asking them to vote for her if there is a brokered convention and she is trying to cause a brokered convention. I spoke to delegates at my booth who said they received the packet. None of our delegates will vote for her, putting my dislike for her aside, if she helps with a brokered convention I am fine with it because I think we could win a brokered convention.

Sarah Palin just exposed herself as two faced politician since she's advocating people to vote for Mitt Romney on television but apparently working to make a brokered convention happen. That's why its not surprising that why Sarah Palin not being invited to the GOP convention or why she hasn't been allowed to have an opportunity to speak at the convention. You can't expect to be invited to an event if you intend to undermine that event and have not been supportive of the GOP nominee.  

I call on everyone from simple voters to news reporters to conservative commentators to RNC chairmen to call her out on her duplicitous behavior and speech. Is she really loyal to the GOP party? Does she really want Mitt to win in 2012? If so, why is she trying to engineer a brokered convention? If she's not trying to engineer a brokered convention, why are there reports that she is?  

I'd love to see her answer those questions live on television or on the radio.

There Will Be No Brokered GOP Convention

With the Republican National Convention in Tampa Florida coming up next week, there are still those who yearn for a brokered convention. Many of Ron Paul's supporters were hoping that he would push for it but it appeared that Ron Paul did not agree with his supporters that it was a good idea. Moreover, even if he wanted to get a brokered convention, it would not have worked since he hasn't won any delegates in any of the 2012 primaries including Louisiana. Ron Paul will provide a different kind of excitement at the GOP convention since he will be rocking the GOP convention by hosting a fun rally and after party.

However, that is not to say that Ron Paul won't have an impact on the GOP convention. Despite the fact that people like Rick Santorum strongly warned against any attempt by Ron Paul and his supporters to not mess with the GOP platform, the old rumors that Mitt Romney might be adding Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" campaign to the GOP platform might be coming true as Mitt ponders including it this year's platform. Ron Paul's idea is the only good idea he's ever had and the idea of auditing the Fed is currently making its way though congress.  I'm open to adding that to the GOP platform but any other request from Ron Paul supporters to add more items on the platform is asking too much.

I don't think Ron Paul was ever serious about making a brokered convention happen. However, there is evidence that Sarah Palin wants it to happen. Ann Coulter explains why having her lead a brokered convention is a bad idea: 

Coulter, who was asked about the prospects of a brokered Republican convention, hinted — as she has done in the past – that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is promoting the idea because she would like to be considered for the GOP nomination should a brokered convention occur. Coulter warned that selecting a candidate that way would void the vetting process that has weeded out inferior candidates.

“One of the ones promoting that [a brokered convention] is Sarah Palin, who has suggested herself as the choice,” Coulter said. “I think as long as it’s between us girls — I’ve been observing something about her. I don’t think it’s likely to happen. I don’t know what these people are cheering for. As I wrote in a column a few weeks back, who is this dream candidate we’re hoping to get from the convention, because Rick Perry used to be the dream candidate. Can we see them in a debate first?”

As a result, it should be clear why Sarah Palin not being invited to the GOP convention or why she hasn't been allowed to have an opportunity to speak at the convention. You can't expect to be invited to an event if you intend to undermine that event and have not been supportive of the GOP nominee. 

Presidential conventions in both parties are highly scripted and highly managed events. With regards to the 2012 GOP Convention, its possible that anything could happen but the Republican Party will ensure that everything will go as planned.

Was Sarah Palin Properly Vetted By The McCain Team?

Right Wingnut, a blogger who writes for Right Speak, has initiated a debate with me claims that the liberal media started pushing the meme that Sarah Palin wasn't properly vetted and that meme is now being pushed by bitter Romney supporters such as myself: 

A few weeks ago, I started to notice a theme developing - designed to discredit Sarah Palin and the amount of vetting that was done prior to adding her to the ticket in 2008. Nearly every MSM article about the topic suggested that the GOP nominee would be more cautious in their vetting process to avoid making the same "mistake" the McCain campaign made.

Initially, the propagation of this false meme was mostly limited to left-wing journalists with an axe to grind. Lately, it seems that some on the right (mostly Romney supporters who are still bitter that McCain picked her over Mitt) are seizing on the opportunity to pile on.

This claim is false. 

The claim that Sarah Palin wasn't properly vetted was mentioned almost immediately after John McCain announced her as his running mate and it was an observation that was made by people both on the left and the right during the 2008 campaign. For example, Jazz Shaw, a well known conservative blogger who writes articles for the popular conservative website, Hot Air, said back in 2008 that he suspects that Sarah Palin wasn't properly vetted:

Ok, team, we clearly need to address this a bit more. First, let’s start with a bit of background. The original intent of this post, as a follow-on to a previous one, was to express not only my personal dissatisfaction with McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as the running mate, but to highlight my suspicions that Ms. Palin had not been vetted as fully as some of the other potential nominees.  

Back in 2008, Allahpundit, writing for Hot Air had an article that had links to other articles that raised questions over whether or not she was properly vetted. Other conservative websites such as Townhall.com,  Little Green Football, Right Wing News and Red State all discussed the issue of whether or not Palin was properly vetted during the 2008 Presidential election. Conservatives during the 2008 election had every right to be concerned about whether or not Sarah Palin was properly vetted.

John Aravosis, a blogger, carried a short little article in 2008 on his blog, AmericaBlog about how Sarah Palin wasn't vetted.

Let us review the facts why so many people on the left, right and center who were in the media, in the political trenches and at home were concerned about the vetting of Sarah Palin.

There were news reports that John McCain deliberately chose not to involve some of his top senior campaign advisors when they were deciding who to pick as his running mate. For example, McCain spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer didn't even know how McCain and Palin knew  each other:

"You're running flat into the wall of my ignorance here," she said. "I truly have no indication whatsoever the extent of a relationship that exists with the Governor of Alaska."

There are also reports that the McCain team did not contact state political leaders or business leaders about Sarah Palin. Moreover, it appears that the McCain team didn't even look at the local newspaper archives to see what they had to say about Palin.  They didn't even contact Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, a man that Palin tried to fire after he refused to fire a family member from the Alaskan police force. Even more surprisingly, there is a report by Marc Ambinder that the McCain team didn't even conduct an FBI background check on the governor.

In fact, it appears that a intensive vetting of Sarah Palin didn't occur until shortly before it was announced she was McCain's running mate:

Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin.

It appears to conservatives and liberals and reporters that the McCain team was trying to close the barn door after the horse has already bolted.

Lets not forget that experienced Conservative campaign advisors have always believed that she was not properly vetted. For example, Sara Fagen, a former political director for President George W. Bush.had this to say about the vetting process of Sarah Palin:

"There's one thing the people in the Republican establishment agree on: There was clearly not a thorough thought process or vetting that went into the vetting of Sarah Palin. They didn't ask the fundamental questions or spend enough time with her,"

Finally, McCain advisor, A.B. Culvahouse, who says that the vetting process was fully conducted. In contrast, we have at least two McCain staffers who say she wasn't vetted. For example, Nicolle Wallace, one of the ’08 campaign’s top advisors, said that the HBO movie, Game Change, was too close to the truth as to make it uncomfortable. to watch. We also have Steve Schmidt who also says Sarah Palin wasn't vetted:

“It’s a story of when cynicism and idealism collide, when you have to do the things that are necessary to win to try to get in office to do the great things you want to do for the country,” Schmidt said. “And I think it showed a process of vetting that was debilitated by secrecy, that was compartmentalized, that failed, that led to a result that was reckless for the country. And I think when you look back at that race, you see this person who is just so phenomenally talented at so many levels, an ability to connect. But also someone who had a lot of flaws as someone running to be in the national command authority who clearly wasn’t prepared.”

Its clear to me that the McCain team is still in disagreement on the issue of whether she was properly vetted or not. Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace have been vilified for reporting their observation about what they saw and as controversial as their testimony may be, we still have to take it into consideration given what we know of the facts as reviewed above. 

In the end, the debate over whether or not Sarah Palin was properly vetted or not will go on for a very long time. Historians, journalists, academics, politicians, bloggers, activists and people will debate this issue for many years to come. However, there are enough facts, individually and collectively, to give a reasonable person a legitimate and rational basis for their belief that Sarah Palin wasn't properly vetted. This belief isn't some fringe conspiracy but a belief held by a lot of people on a wide range of the political spectrum. More importantly, conservatives of all stripes and in various levels of power and influence in the Republican party such as Dick Cheney and Ann Coulter believe she wasn't properly vetted. 

In conclusion, it isn't just some blogger such as myself that believes she wasn't properly vetted. This belief isn't just some meme that is being pushed by people on the left or the right because they don't like Sarah Paln and have some sort of axe to grind against her. There are plenty of facts and evidence from a wide range of sources and people that are independent of each other that gives people reasonable doubt that she was vetted. As a result, I stand by my belief that the McCain team did a shoddy job vetting Sarah Palin.

2012: What The GOP Race Looks Like Right Now

When the 2012 campaign first started, there were a lot of Republicans that were thinking about throwing thier hat into the ring. As time went on, the field started to shape up as candidates were announcing that they were either in the race or not.

This is what the 2012 GOP race looks like right now:

Currently Running

Mitt Rommey, former Governor of Massachusetts 

Rick Santorum, former Senator for Pennsylvania 

Newt Gingrich, former Reprsenative of Georgia's 6th district

Ron Paul, current Reprsenative of Texas' 14th district

Buddy Roemer, former Governor of Louisiana 

Fred Karger, Gay Rights activist

Dropped Out 

Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota

Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico

Herman Cain, business executive and talk radio show host

Michelle Bachmann, U.S. Representative Minnesota's 6th district

Jon Huntsman, former Governor of Utah and Ambassador to China

Rick Perry, current Governor of Texas 

Decided Not To Run

Donald Trump, real estate magnate

Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas Governor

Haley Barbour, current Governor of Mississippi.

Mitch Daniels, current Indiana Governor

Chris Christie, current New Jersey Governor

Paul Ryan, U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district

Mike Pence, U.S. Representative for Indiana's 6^th district

John Thune,  U.S. Senator, South Dakota

Jim DeMint,  U.S. Senator, South Carolina

Sarah Palin, Former Governor of Alaska

Donald Trump, business executive

New Sarah Palin Documentary To Be Released Soon: Is It A Sign She Will Run In 2012?

Sarah Palin knows how to keep the public guessing about whether or not she will run. Some people, such as myself, think that she will not run in 2012. However, other people do think she will.  Here are the list of indicators that make people think she is running: 

1. The Movie After last fall's midterm elections, Palin contacted conservative director Stephen K. Bannon to make a movie highlighting her accomplishments as Alaska governor. Palin screened the movie last week.
2. Arizona Home Palin bought a house in Scottsdale, Arizona for $1.7 million through a shell company to keep her identity secret. The new home would make a far more conventient place to HQ a presidential campaign.
3. Public Appearances Palin will begin showing up at more public events "as early as this weekend."
4. New Staff Palin has hired two people to manage her schedule. This comes after hiring a former adviser to Bob Dole as chief of staff and dismissing two neoconservative advisers, Randy Scheunemann and Michael Goldfarb. The duo were replaced them with an adviser, Peter Schweizer, who is more skeptical of the American intervention in Libya.
5. Cultivating Supporters California lawyer Peter Singleton has been contacting Iowan Tea Party activists and Republicans to build support for a Palin candidacy, though he says he's acting alone.

According to some people, this soon to be released documentary about Sarah Palin is a significant indicator that she will run in 2012:

In the strongest sign yet of a possible Sarah Palin run at the presidency, filmmaker Stephen Bannon this week announced a $1 million documentary, "The Undefeated," about her term as Alaska's governor.

Scott Conroy, a reporter at RealClearPolitics.com and co-author of "Sarah from Alaska," got a sneak peek at the documentary and said on "The Early Show" Thursday he's heard from "several reliable sources" that, over the next couple of days, another "major indicator" is going to surface that she's ready to run in 2012.

Of the documentary, Conroy said, "This is really the biggest news that we've had in a while about Sarah Palin in terms of her presidential prospects. It's suggests strongly that she's been planning something all along. She's been kind of quiet."

So far, Sarah Palin's poll numbers don't look too good for her: 

* The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed her running in fifth place — with 10 percent — in a hypothetical Republican presidential primary race.

* A March Washington Post/ABC News poll showed Palin’s approval rating among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents had dipped below 60 percent — a far cry from her stratospheric near-90 percent approval ratings when she was named John McCain’s running mate in 2008.

* A February Des Moines Register poll of likely Republican voters in Iowa showed Palin’s favorable rating at 65 percent, down from 71 percent in a November 2009 survey. As importantly, those viewing Palin “very favorably” dropped from 27 percent in 2009 to 19 percent in 2011.

Not all poll numbers are bad news for Sarah Palin.Gallup released a poll today showing Sarah Palin tied with Mitt Romney as the top Republican contender if she were to become a candidate for 2012. However, despite the recent Gallop poll results, the evidence points to the fact that Republican support for her has declined.  

Not only does she not fare well with Republicans in the polls, but its the nation wide poll numbers that is  also hurting her as well: 

However you feel about Sarah Palin and regardless of what you think about her poll numbers, Sarah Palin has an public perception problem. As a result, this soon to be released documentary is designed to rehabilitate her image and boost her poll numbers among Republican voters: 

Whether the documentary is successful at rebuilding Palin's image remains to be seen, but it premieres in Iowa next month.

The documentary, Conroy said, covers Palin's years as governor in Alaska.

Conroy said, "A lot of people, even Sarah Palin's biggest fans, don't really know anything about her record in Alaska. And that's really what the film focuses on. Her record in Alaska as governor for the first two--and-a-half years that she was in office, the only two-and-a-half years, was very impressive for the most part. She accomplished a lot on oil and gas issues. She really was the kind of maverick that's now become sort of a cliche. But that's what attracted her to the McCain campaign. She had approval ratings that were consistently above 80 percent. And she accomplished a lot for the state. She was really a transformative governor in a lot of ways."

He continued, "So I think what the movie tries to do is it tries to reintroduce her to people who may have already written her off. You know, she became sort of a firebrand for conservatives in the campaign in 2008 and afterwards. But this is really going to try to recapture her independent streak."

This film will be a biased documentary about Sarah Palin. She commissioned this film. As a result, you will learn alot about her by what she chooses to reveal and not reveal about herself: 

The movie will not mention Palin's notorious reaction to criticism of her reaction to the January shooting of Democratic congresswoman Gabriel Giffords. She responded to suggestions that a now infamous campaign map showing Giffords's electoral district in the crosshairs of a gun had influenced the shooter Jared Lee Loughner by accusing her opponents of manufacturing a "blood libel", a phrase which refers to the false accusation that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals. Palin's use of language was widely criticised, and her reaction to the shooting compared unfavourably to the more statesmanlike response of President Barack Obama. Subsequently, her chances of building enough momentum to secure the Republican nomination for the 2012 race have appeared to dwindle.

Bannon's two-hour movie features interviews with Palin supporters in Alaska and conservative bloggers such as Andrew Breitbart. The politician does not appear on camera, but her voice is used for narration via clips from the audiobook version of Going Rogue. RealClearPolitics reports that the film makes "unmistakable allusions to Palin as a Joan of Arc-like figure".

You can watch a brief preview of the documentary "The Undefeated" over at TheRightScoop.com

I am still not convinced that Sarah Palin will run. I don't think that this film serves as good evidence that reveals her intent for 2012. And I'm not the only person who remains skeptical about the significance of this documentary: 

However, Palin choosing to actually launch a presidential bid is a different thing entirely. Neither Bannon's intentions, nor the film, serve as evidence for a genuine Palin campaign -- another publicity stunt is just as likely.

Even if she does run, the film may not have the effect Palin wants if how her reality television show is any indicator of how this documentary will turn out:

However, if Palin's TLC reality show, "Sarah Palin's Alaska," is anything to go by, the interest is unlikely to last (5 million people tuned in for the show's premiere; 2 million fewer watched Episode 2).

In the end, I could be entirely wrong about my prediction that she won't run. 

However, If she does run, it won't be an easy campaign for her. She has participated in a national campaign as John McCain's running mate but this is her first presidential campaign. Moreover, she will have to face well organized campaigns like Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney's. Finally, she will have to compete against TEA party favorites like Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain.

Sarah Palin Will Probably Not Run In 2012

There a lot of signs indicating that Sarah Palin may not be running in 2012. With Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, Paul Ryan and other 2012 candidates out of the race, all eyes are on Sarah Palin now. The big question among journalists, commentators, politicians and political junkies is this: will she run or not?

Despite the fact that many people have been speculating for a very long time on whether she will run in 2012 or not, everything appears to indicate she will not be running. There are rumors that she is considering running to become a U.S. Senator to replace Senator Jon Kyl and that those rummors appear to have some credibility since she recently bought a house in Arizona:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a possible 2012 presidential contender, may have purchased a luxury home in north Scottsdale, the Arizona Republic reports.

Safari Investments LLC reportedly paid $1.695 million for the 8,000-square-foot home in what appears to have been a deal on behalf of a secret high-profile buyer.

The purchase comes after talk in some Arizona political circles that Palin was shopping for homes in the Scottsdale area, according to the newspaper. 

Another piece of evidence comes from an e-mail that Sarah Palin's PAC recently sent out to her supporters: 

“Taking back control of the House last year was only the first step,” Palin says in the mailer from SarahPac, sent out nationwide. “Now you and I must fix our eyes on 2012. Our goal is to take back the White House and the Senate.”

The e-mail is clever since she is still trying to keep people guessing about whether or not she will run in 2012. However, the last few words in that e-mail is ambiguous. It could just mean that after taking back the house in a huge landslide, Republicans are ready to continue their sweep of the senate. It could also mean she's gearing up for a run in the Senate. The e-mail shrewdly reveals nothing but it might be a subtle signal that she's shifting her political ambitions away from the White House to the Senate. 

There are other reasons why she probably won't run. Her poll numbers don't look too good for her: 

* The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed her running in fifth place — with 10 percent — in a hypothetical Republican presidential primary race.

* A March Washington Post/ABC News poll showed Palin’s approval rating among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents had dipped below 60 percent — a far cry from her stratospheric near-90 percent approval ratings when she was named John McCain’s running mate in 2008.

* A February Des Moines Register poll of likely Republican voters in Iowa showed Palin’s favorable rating at 65 percent, down from 71 percent in a November 2009 survey. As importantly, those viewing Palin “very favorably” dropped from 27 percent in 2009 to 19 percent in 2011.

Another reason why she will not run in 2012 is because she may not be up for another grueling political campaign: 

She has little appetite for the nitty-gritty hardcore campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire that the genuinely committed candidates – like Romney, Tim Pawlenty, New Gingrich and Rick Santorum – are already doing and which lasts for months on end. Palin also knows from her own experience how brutal the scrutiny of the media will be for any leading Republican candidate and, perhaps, especially for her. But if she runs, she won't be able to avoid it. The national press will camp out in Wasilla, yet again. She will not want that.

Like Huckabee, she has became rich and famous on the back of the failed 2008 campaign. Books, speeches and TV shows seem to offer a lot of power without any of the tiresome reality of running for office. Especially in a race that looks so hard to win.

Also, if she loses – either the nomination race or against Obama – she will seriously tarnish her credibility. America will forgive many things, but a two-time loser? Not so much. Better to be a might-have-been than a never-was.

There's also one other reason why Sarah Palin may not run: Michelle Bachmann. She has the star power that Sarah Palin has but she doesn't have the kind of baggage that the former governor of Alaska has. Even liberal journalist and commentators think that Bachmann has a real shot at defeating Obama and becoming the first female president of the United States.

I won't be surprised if Palin doesn't run. For those of us who follow her closely, all the signs point to her not jumping in the race. Of course, Palin could surprise us all and run. However, I'm almost positive she's not going to run.

Did Sarah Palin Just Announce Her Candidacy For 2012?

Sarah Palin gave a rousing speech to Tea Party members in Madison, Wisconsin this afternoon at a tax day rally. You can watch the entire speech in the clip below. 

Not only did she draw conservatives but also drew Union protesters as well who were reported to have surrounded the Tea party members during her speech. 

In her speech, she took on President Obama, Unions and Republicans who didn't push for more spending cuts. A lot of people are talking about her speech and the clash of Union and Tea Party protesters at the event. However, her speech has jump started another round of speculation of whether or not she will be running in 2012 when she concluded her speech with these lines:

"The 2012 election begins here. We will fight for America and it starts here in Madison, Wisconsin. Mr. President, game on!” 

Do you think this speech is her announcement that she's running in 2012?

Sarah Palin & The Political Cost of Ignoring Good Advice

There are a few politicians who love jumping into the limelight at every major event. One of those politicians is Sarah Palin. She interjects her self in to every major story whenever possible. 

However, there was a moment when she shouldn't have stepped into the limelight. That was when the Tuscon shooting hit the news and people were blaming her as the cause of the shooting. We are just now learning that she was advised to lay low by the owner of Fox News, Roger Ailes. She was told the same thing by other people. However, she decided to ignore thier advice: 

Before Sarah Palin posted her infamous “Blood Libel” video on Facebook on January 12, she placed a call to Fox News chairman Roger Ailes. In the wake of the Tucson massacre, Palin was fuming that the media was blaming her heated rhetoric for the actions of a madman that left six people dead and thirteen others injured, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Palin told Ailes she wanted to respond, according to a person with knowledge of the call. It wasn’t fair the media was making this about her. Ailes told Palin that she should stay quiet.

“Lie low,” he said. “There’s no need to inject yourself into the story.”

Palin told Ailes that other people had given her that same advice. Her lawyer Bob Barnett is said to have cautioned her about getting involved. The consensus in some corners of Palin's camp was that she faced considerable risks if she spoke out.

But, this being Sarah Palin, she did it anyway.

Ailes was not pleased with her decision, which turned out to be a political debacle for Palin, especially her use of the historically loaded term "blood libel" to describe the actions of the media. “The Tucson thing was horrible,” said a person familiar with Ailes’s thinking. "Before she responded, she was making herself look like a victim. She was winning. She went out and did the blood libel thing, and Roger is thinking, 'Why did you call me for advice?'”

It doesn't matter that the accusations that she was responsible for the shootings was false. She choose to speak out when many people advised her not to respond to the baseless accusations. 

What's even more jaw dropping about the whole affair was that many Palin supporters were angry that other politicians didn't come to her defense after being wrongfully accused:

Even before we learn that Sarah Palin ignored the advise to lay low, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Haley Barbour were wise not to rise to her defense. First of all, they had no obligations to do so. Secondly, unlike Sarah Palin, these guys knew that laying low and saying nothing was a good idea. They choose to ignore the baseless accusations against her and knew that any attempt to defend her would have resulted in the same backlash she faced when she attempted to defend herself. The public already knew she was being unfairly accused and there was no need to point out that obvious fact. 

Had she followed other people's advice, the public would have supported her because they already knew the charges were false. She could have stayed out of the limelight and gone through that incident unscathed. However, she choose to defend herself, despite being told not to, and whatever public support she had began to evaporate. Not only that, but she made the situation worse because her statements about "blood libel" opened her up to another round of attacks. 

But Sarah Palin made her choice not to lay low. Not only did she choose to fight this battle even when she told she shouldn't, but as one one blogger noted, Sarah Palin portrayed herself as a Mamma Grizzly and as result, she should be able to handle herself:

"Frankly, I don’t see any reason why Romney would come to Palin’s defense on the whole ‘targeting’ issue. Surely, he recognizes that acknowledging the left-wing’s attempt to turn the tragedy into political gain would, in the end, only give them credibility. In my honest opinion, Palin herself should have just disregarded the smears, continued on with her normal life, and watched the left’s frustration peak as she refused to lend credence to their accusations. The ‘Mama Grizzly’, to my understanding, is a big girl who can fight her own battles."

Now that we know what kind of advice she got before making her statements to the media, why should people like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Haley Barbour be labeled as cowards when she disregarded wise advise from several different people to lay low?

Roger Ailes asked a very good question: Why did she go to him for advise and then disregard his advice? Perhaps she loved the limelight too much and thought she could increase her public support against the false accusations against her. After all, her facebook messages, appear on Fox News as a guest commentator, her reality television show and her books all do have an impact on what goes on in society. 

Whatever her reasons for inserting herself into the story when told not to, it backfired on her.

And the public is starting to get tired of her. Her desire to make her opinions known on every major political event is starting to hurt, rather than help, Sarah Palin. One conservative who works as a writer for the Weekly Standard, Matt Labash, has compared her to a well known liberal activist who loves to insert himself into every story as well. Matt says that “She’s becoming Al Sharpton, Alaska edition.”

Ouch. 

Barak Obama & Sarah Palin: Both Are Too Inexperienced To Be President

I have nothing against Sarah Palin. I'm just opposed to her running for office right now. She can run sometime in the future after she gets more experience under her belt. Noemie Emery's Washington Examiner article, "Obama, Palin Met Fame Before They Could Grow" explains how Obama and Palin are alike: 

"Two years ago, two superstars lit up a dazzled political universe -- young, stunning, lissome, and bursting with talent -- and were propelled ahead of their time into prominence, after a minimal time on the national scene. Two years later, it seems as if this has done them no favors: President Obama is widely seen as "overwhelmed" by his office, and Sarah Palin is meeting resistance establishing her credentials as a possible candidate against rivals with rather more seasoning.

On election day 2008, Obama had been in the Senate for less than four years, two of which he had spent running for president, and Palin had spent less than three years as governor of one of the country's most remote and least typical states."

It is true that Obama and Palin are both inexperienced politicians who peaked too soon. The only difference is that Obama is President and Palin is not. However, I think that if Palin becomes President in 2012, she too will be overwhelmed with the position of being the President of the United States just as Obama is currently in over his head with his current job.

Palin supporters think that despite her short resume, she won't face the same outcome as Obama. That is wishful thinking. Many Palin supporters state that she is surrounded by talented and intelligent people and that she's doing all she can to study and learn the issues. I'm sorry...but "studying" will never give you the knowledge you need that only experience can provide.  It is not a substitute for experience. Neither  is  it  the equivalent to experience. And it never will be.

Obama is the perfect example of what happens when you let someone who is not qualified for the position obtain the job. Barak Obama getting "on the job training" has been a political disaster for the Democratic party and for America as well. We cannot have a president who is learning how to be president while working as the President. Neither can we afford to have some one who is "studying" up on the issues in order to appear qualified for the White House.

Noemie Emery points out that some of the greatest presidents needed time to grow and get experience before they became leaders of America: 

"Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy were younger than they (42 and 43) when they became president, but their records of service were longer, and deep. Roosevelt was a state representative, police commissioner, governor of New York, and vice president; Kennedy spent 14 years in Congress, eight of them in the Senate, and been observing diplomacy at the highest of levels since he was 19."

The same principle is true for Republicans such as Ronald Reagan: 

"Eight years of this sort of semi-obscurity was what Ronald Reagan had in his two terms as governor, in the last stage of his transition from Hollywood-actor-plus-activist into full-bore political star.

Like Kennedy, he had 14 years from his first run to the White House, and the first 10 were spent finding his feet. Like Kennedy, they were spent in semi-obscurity, mildly famous -- as a former film star; as a celebrity's son who was a war hero -- but hardly the object of media frenzies."

If Palin and Obama were ever to be truly successful politiicans, they needed to earn time on the slope before going down steep black diamond courses. Noemie Emery feels that for both of them, its too late for that now to obtain the experience needed for the job:

"Obama and Palin needed the six years or so of semi-obscurity they were about to embark on before ambition -- and John McCain -- intervened. Instead, their growth was checked at a critical moment, and, as it seems now, won't be resumed quickly -- not in the presidency as Obama is learning, or in a media frenzy, as Palin has found. 

They are famous for life; they will always have money; what they can never have back are the years washed out by destructive celebrity. "She's been microwaved, she needs now to marinate," somebody once said of Palin. But the time for slow-cooking is gone."

I disagree. For Obama its too late. For Palin, she has plenty of time to gain the experience she needs if she doesn't run in 2012.  I am not saying she should never run again. I'm just saying that if Palin wants to be in the White House, it would be prudent for her to run in 2016, 2020 or 2024. Then she will be ready. And she will have my support if she wins the Republican nomination.

During the 2008 campaign, many people pointed out that Obama was not qualified for the job. Obama even addressed that issue himself and admitted he wasn't ready to be President:

Despite Obama's own words and criticism from Republicans, Democrats and news columnists; the Democratic party scoffed at the complaint. But looking back, I think Democrats wished that they took that criticism seriously. I fear that Republicans, who were correct to point out Obama's inexperience, will forget their own criticisms of Obama and make the same mistake with Palin as Democrats did with Obama. 

Thanks to Obama, we know know what happens when an inexperienced person attempts to work in a position that is way of their league. Lets not make that same mistake with Palin in 2012.

Sarah Palin: Running For RNC Chair Or POTUS?

Sarah Palin's speech at the Iowa Republican Party’s annual Ronald Reagan Dinner has some people wondering what her plans are for 2012. On one hand, it seems like she is working to take Michael Steele's job as the Republican National Committee Chair since she outlined what she would do if she was in charge of the Republican party: 

She would tell Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, a major player in Tea Party movement as she is, "You're awesome. We need you down south."

She'd tell Mitt Romney to go campaigning in the West, George W. Bush to raise money and Rush Limbaugh to "go deep, go anywhere, everywhere, people are listening."

But on the other hand, if her speech was meant to indicate she has higher aspirations to become the next President of the United States, then Iowans have mixed feelings about that. In fact, the response to her speech was less than enthusiastic:

Republican activists who attended the event said Palin stoked party enthusiasm, but they voiced mixed reaction on whether the speech signals Palin will be a candidate for president.

"I'd say she sounded less like a candidate and more like someone trying to fire up the base prior to a very important mid-term election," said Andrew Dorr, a Des Moines Republican who ran Fred Thompson's 2008 Iowa caucus campaign.

Ann Trimble-Ray, Sac County Republican vice chairwoman, said it sounded as if Palin were leaving the door open.
"It sounded an awful lot like a campaign speech for someone who isn't running for office," said Trimble-Ray, a campaign adviser to Iowa Rep. Steve King.

Do you think Sarah Palin would be better for the Republican Party as the next RNC Chairperson or the President of the United States in 2012? Please leave a comment and tell us what you think.

UPDATE (12.7.10): The leader of the TEA Party Nation thinks Sarah Palin ought to run for the RNC chair. Palin rejects the idea. I think its a clear indication Palin intends to run in 2012.