My Speculation on Sarah's "Confirmation" Not to Run

Most of you have moved on from the Sarah Story and that's great.  Only in this cable, twitter, facebook, instant message age would 36 hours be "old" news.  In reading the blogs of a number of Palin supporters, news articles from pundits and the comments from numerous people who both loved and hated Palin, I see a theme of simply accepting her decision without wondering what it really was.  My mind doesn't work that way.  So those of you foolish enough to read on, will get my speculation as to why Wednesday and what this "confirmation" was all about.



In my evaluation of the candidates, Palin is the closest on all facets of executive track record, policy and integrity a conservative could want.  True, it would take away a couple of arguments against her if she served a full term or was still in office but that argument is easily dismissed.  People love Perry's Texas job record as well they should.  But he increased state debt 140% over that time and 40% of the jobs created went to both legal and illegal immigrants.  Palin is the only governor who actually decreased debt and it only took her 2.5 years.  I think she could have played that argument to a stalemate.  (I like Perry by the way and I feel the immigration study is somewhat unfair to him.)


I personally have the conviction she did the right moral thing, but not the right political thing in leaving office early.  It took the viewing of the UNDEFEATED for me to truly grasp her situation.  If enough voters saw the DVD or got the message that SisterToldja expressed today, it also COULD be the correct political move taking that argument off of the table. 


Perceiving her personal integrity, i found it difficult to believe that she had made the decision in August as Bristol had said (and Sarah didn't directly deny) and not inform her followers. I don't see the capacity to overtly lie in her.  She wasn't getting money from the DVD and I'm not sure what was different this week than last.


I'm convinced of one of two things:

• Either she HAD made the decision to run and something changed that, or,
• Her decision was based on indicators that had not fully manifest.

Despite no organization, she was in fairly good shape for an unannounced candidate. Money wouldn't be a problem, awareness was fine and by polling 3rd or 4th, she was in a position to jump among the leaders early.  


The idea that she was tired of the attacks also doesn't seem logical.  No new attacks had surfaced and she has been fearless when the rest of the world actually thought they had "the goods" on her.  In fact, as the MOST vetted candidate out there, she was least likely to suffer a drop in the polls like Perry since there is little new news the entire world hasn't already heard.


And from a family front, the only real development we are aware of is the Hollywood episode with Bristol and that guy was forced to apologize.  Hardly a fear or threat that seemed any greater this week than what she went through in the past.


She used the refrain "you don't need a title to make a change," and that she could be "more effective outside of the political ring."  Can you think of anything different on those thoughts 6 weeks ago until now?  Follow me on this: To make a change you have to have a voice.  To have a voice you have to have a platform.  To have a platform SOME MEDIA VEHICLE must be available to you.  By announcing she would have assigned reporters ready to follow her everywhere until she was elected or dropped in the polls.  Do you really think people would have seen her movie, started blogs, spiked viewership on FOX and made headlines, if she was just a former politician?  Who else gets heard without a position?  If you have a paid analyst roll on a network, if you are the head of the GOP party, THOSE things bring you attention, which gives you a foundation from which to reach eyeballs and eardrums.


I don't see practically how you maintain a grow an audience (and thus a movement) without it.


The only things I can imagine that were different this week from Iowa could be:

• Perhaps waiting to see 1st day sales of the DVD to confirm she could get her message out.  Greta mentioned that Todd and she kept chanting, "See the movie.  See the movie," as a pat answer to many questions thrown at her the past 2 months.  Why if she's not running?  I'm sure she heard what Pay Per View sales were (they aren't published like normal DVD or Box Office).  If the scan data confirms weak sales this week, it would give us a clue.  I could see them speculating that IF DVD sales exploded and her story was widely known, it would effectively be a wave she could ride until the organization and money were put together. 

• She said early on she was looking to see if there was a true candidate to represent Tea Party values.  In Iowa she said she was still watching them.  Perhaps she was waiting to see if Cain or Santorum or Bachmann would rise to that level in the polls, feeling she didn't need to.  The CBS poll came out yesterday which could also have been her "confirmation" that Cain was in good position to lead the Tea Party.  I could buy not waiting to see if Cain would survive the scrutiny because of her "fairness" to her followers she mentioned in Iowa.  But personally, I only give Cain a 50/50 shot at maintaining his momentum after the spotlight is turned up on him and he is tossed foreign policy grenades in the upcoming debates.  As @gary4205 said on his blog, I don't see any candidate as complete in all facets as she is.
  
• I am certain there is some personal family issue that either was waiting to be resolved, or dovetailed with the above issues.  I'm not sure many of us could have handled the responsibility of a family as Governor - much less President - with all the restrictions that puts on those children.  And she does have a young son that needs attention as well.  But unless a health issue came up I can't imagine what might again be different over these past weeks that wasn't obvious before.
  
• Or, it could be, she was simply waiting for clarification from God.  For some that is a peace in the heart, for some that is an opening from resistance in a particular direction and some other way - but people DO hear from God.  (What kind of a God would he be to call us his children and NOT communicate with us after all.)

To me, the last is the most logical but of course none of us know.  And to a large degree it isn't our life, it isn't our decision and it isn't any of our business.  Like many of said, if you respected her ability to make decisions as a President, how hypocritical would you be to not respect a personal decision of this magnitude.


As for me, as I've said before, I don't believe political office is over.  I could easily see a VP scenario in 2012 (no I'm not getting into why she would do that here), or certainly in 2016 or 2020 if the GOP President wasn't succeeding in cutting government.   But if she felt she was "called for such a time as this"  I don't see the position changing, perhaps only a reading of the "time."

As one of the newscasters said last night (I can't remember who), no one has impacted the conservative political landscape as she has since Reagan.

*****************************
UPDATE - Texans for Sarah Palin has an excellent analysis of why "family reasons" doesn't cut it.  They add:

You do not produce quality campaign ads like "One Nation" and "Together" simply to raise money for your leadership PAC or to build your image for public relations purposes. You don't cancel the southern leg of a bus tour that was to have included the early primary state of South Carolina because of family considerations, either. You don't have your lawyers make calls to early primary states to verify presidential filing deadlines unless you are still seriously considering a run. Likewise, you don't convene a round table with your closest advisors to map out strategy for a presidential run, unconventional as it may have been, if your aim is just to string people along.

Their speculation is that Romney and Rubio have a deal (from Stacy McCain's newsflash last week of many revolving doors between Rubio/Romney), but McCain's update from a direct interview with Rubio as well as Rubio's flat out assertion he will NOT be VP this cycle discounts this idea for me.

Posted in: 2012,election,PALIN,politics