Roberts: A Huckabee withdrawal could put Sarah Pailin in the race

"I think she is back in with a real chance to win."
*
Irish Central columnist Patrick Roberts seems pretty sure that Mike Huckabee will announce on his Fox Program (at 7PM Central Time) tonight that he will not run for president this election cycle. Such a decision, Roberts opines, opens the door wider for Sarah Palin to walk through right into the thick of the 2012 race:

Palin has gone quiet after the media sizzle around her died and transferred to Donald Trump.

But with Trump fading faster than a losing 'Apprentice' competitor and Huckabee now looking like he will drop out, Palin is suddenly back in this race if she wants.

Huckabee, with his strong evangelical roots, was a natural to win Iowa and Palin enjoys a comparable level of support among those voters.

Contrast that with Mitt Romney who is held in deep suspicion in the first caucus state, not only because of his moderate politics but also his Mormon religion.

That only leaves Palin as the evangelical choice as none of the other contenders have seriosu traction with those voters.

A win in Iowa could galvanize the Palin campaign heading into New Hampshire in January.

[More]

Roberts argues that Mitt Romney will not be the clear front runner if Huckabee opts out because Mitt's core of support is too soft. The columnist also doesn't put much stock in Mitch Daniels or any of the other "single digit" potential candidates. He's still intrigued with Gov. Palin and points to her clear differentiation from her potential rivals and a sizable "hard core" support base which none of the others, save Huckabee, can really boast of. Though Ron Paul's supporters are truly "hard core," there just aren't enough of them to make the Texas Congressman competitive. That's why Roberts believes that the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate "is back in with a real chance to win" in 2012, this time at the top of the ticket.

Unlike Roberts, many of his pundit colleagues, and some of our blogging counterparts, we're not so sure Huckabee will not run. Yes, there are many arguments for him not to give up the income he's currently enjoying from his radio and television work, and yes, he's building an expensive new house down in Florida. Although the former Arkansas governor's own 2008 national campaign chairman seems convinced that Huckabee's not going to run, predicting what a politician's next move will be is pure speculation. They will often defy even the seemingly clearest crystal ball vision. We're talking about enormous egos at play here, even among many pols who project an aura of humility. Some are convinced that the country just can't get by without their steady hand at the helm of the ship of state. Also, the Fox News weekend show host might just get a big kick out of leaving egg on the faces of all those "experts" who have declared him a non-candidate. Who wouldn't in his place?

Even if Huckabee does decline to run, he could do something totally unexpected tonight, such as endorse another candidate, declared or undeclared. Perhaps he will throw his support to Newt Gingrich or Michele Bachmann. No, it's not likely that he will do anything like that, but stranger things have happened in politics. The fact is, no one really knows what Huckabee is going to do except Huckabee and perhaps now his closest family members. Anyone who tells you otherwise is just guessing, no matter how solid the evidence they believe their speculation is built upon.

Roberts is correct about one thing, however. If Huckabee stays out of the race, it has to make getting into it seem a lot more attractive to Sarah Palin than before. Who knows, after tonight we might just start to hear from any number of county GOP organizations in Iowa that the keynote speaker for their next events will be Governor Palin. Then the game will definitely be on.

- JP

Patrick Roberts: Palin takes another important step toward 2012

Instead of pining for Chris Christie the GOP may want to look North to Alaska
*
In his "People and Politics" column at Irish Central, Patrick Roberts notes that Gov. Palin's Q&A in Long Island last week marks "a new phase in her campaign for president." The large crowd at the Long Island Association event was composed of business people from both sides of the political aisle, Roberts notes, and our Sarah "won them over-- big":

She took questions on all topics and displayed what ' Newsday' called an impressive knowledge on a range of subjects.

This is the real Sarah Palin, the one you can hardly find behind the media image and the sneering stuff of late night comedians.

Given how undistinguished this Republican presidential field is, Palin looks more and more like an option for the GOP.

Instead of pining for Chris Christie they may want to look North to Alaska for their best hope.

She brings excitement, commitment and a sense of something new to a very staid political party.

[More]

Roberts has consistently pointed out that Sarah Palin is being underestimated by the punditocracy and the Beltway elite: "As she proved in Long Island she's as smart as a whip, looks great, is confident and has a plan whether you like it or not." His prediction that she will be the Republican nominee is on the record, and Roberts says he has no reason to alter that forecast.

- JP

Quote of the Day (December 25, 2010)

"I think she deserves Person of the Year for 2010"
*
Patrick Roberts at Irish Central:

"My person of the year 2011 is Sarah Palin. No one has played the media at their own game and defeated them as handily as the former Governor of Alaska... She has the virtue that everyone continues to underestimate her, believing she has no chance at the Republican nomination in 2012. I beg to differ as I have said here on numerous occasions. I think 2011 will be another banner year for Palin at the end of which she will be poised to win Iowa and New Hampshire and sweep the Republican nomination."

- JP

The log in the left's eye: Why liberals can't see straight

Behold the hypocrisy of the "religious left"
*

"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:5)

The "religious left" (now there's the mother of all oxymorons!) is now attacking Sarah Palin as "anti-Catholic." At Irish Central, Patrick Roberts shamelessly slammed Gov. Palin twice for criticizing two famous Catholics. Roberts went after her in his Nov. 27 column for her criticism in her new book America by Heart of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former president John F. Kennedy, and with his knickers still in a twist, he followed up a week later in his Dec. 4 column.

Gov. Palin used Pelosi as an example of liberal hypocrisy for invoking faith in the public square, but by their actions betraying that same faith:

"Witness House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisting that she will pursue public policies consistent with the 'Word" of the Gospel, even as she votes against banning partial birth abortion." (Page 216)

She commented about JFK's famous 1960 speech to a gathering of clergy in Houston:

"Unlike JFK, who essentially declared religion to be such a private matter that it was irrelevant to the kind of country we are, Romney declared that our religious liberty is 'fundamental to America's greatness.' And he spoke openly of 'how my faith would inform my presidency, if elected.'" (Page 185)

From this, Roberts hysterically concludes that Gov. Palin is "anti-Catholic":

"Attacking two prominent Catholics should send its own signal to Catholics everywhere what the real game is about here with the once-Catholic Ms Palin."

Roberts had already written in his November column:

"She has some cheek, given that Palin is a failed Catholic herself, having given up on the religion of her Irish forefathers and encompassed one of those hip born-again evangelical identities-- you know the ones where Jesus appears in your rear view mirror and converts you."

Your editor, as a Catholic, has a right to respond in defense of the governor. Unlike "cradle" Catholics who were raised in the faith, I am a convert to the Mother Church. Now this does not make me any more or less a Catholic than those who have been Catholics their entire lives. It simply means that I chose to be a Catholic.

And this leads to a very important point: Although Gov. Palin's mom, Sally Heath, had Sarah baptized by a Catholic Priest, she took her children with her when she began attending an Assembly of God church. Sarah was still a young girl at that time and had not been confirmed in the Catholic faith. How then, could she have "given up" on the Catholic Church, as Roberts asserts, when her initiation into the Catholic faith community had never been completed? It was Sally Heath who, for whatever reasons, left the Church of Rome. At the ripe old age of eight years, Sarah Palin can hardly be condemned by any Catholic of good conscience for her mother's decisions. Also, Roberts' mocking of evangelicals is way over the top and at odds with the ecumenical efforts of the Holy See to foster mutual respect and a fruitful dialog between the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations.

Further, Gov. Palin was well within her rights to criticize Speaker Pelosi for her support of partial birth (and every other form of) abortion in defiance of the core beliefs of the Catholic Church. Rome has always condemned abortion as a grave evil. Christian writers from the first-century author of The Didache to Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) have maintained that the Bible forbids abortion, just as it forbids murder. It is apparent to all who "judge with righteous judgment," as we are taught to do in John 7:24, that it was not the child Sarah Palin who turned her back on the Catholic faith, but rather the adult Nancy Pelosi, who hypocritically professes that she's "a devout Catholic," yet acts contrary to one of the foundations of Catholic belief, i.e., reverence for, and defense of, innocent human life.

As to her criticism of JFK, it is relatively mild compared to what Gov. Palin had to say about Pelosi. As a man who cheated on his wife and cavorted with movie starlets and mob molls, Kennedy was anything but a shining example of living by the teachings of the Catholic Church. We are all sinners in the sight of God, but Roberts and others on the "religious left" are overreacting to what Gov. Palin wrote. She simply said, without making a value judgment of Catholicism itself, that Kennedy should have embraced his faith like Romney embraced his own. This was neither a dismissal of Catholicism, not an acclamation of Mormonism, as Roberts implies. Roberts also rather conveniently neglects to mention that elsewhere in her book, Gov. Palin actually offers words of praise for JFK -- many more words of praise, in fact, than her few words of criticism:

"I recently reread for the first time in a long time President John F. Kennedy's inspiring inauguration speech. When you read the speech, the fact that Kennedy believed America is a nation unlike any other jumps off the page at you. President Kennedy never uses the term American exceptionalism, but his view of America as a place with a meaning and a mission of redemption is unmistakable..." (Pages 70 & 71)

And again:

"How far our leaders have come in the past 110 years - and not always in a good way. when I was growing up, nothing demonstrated the American ethic of innovation, enterprise and striving - the "strenuous life" - more than the American space program. I wasn't yet born when President John F. Kennedy pledged in 1961 to land a man on the moon within the decade. But I have early memories of when that ambitious goal was accomplished in 1969... JFK's ambition to put a man on the moon captured a nation that feared neither hard work nor failure.

[...]

But fast-forward almost fifty years, and our national leaders seem to have lost all of Kennedy's confidence and brio..." (Pages 163 & 164)

Finally, Roberts should be ashamed of himself for going after Gov. Palin with one particular disingenuous slur. Citing her argument that Kennedy "seemed to run away from his religion," Roberts snarkily retorted:

"That is complete nonsense, right up there with her defense of our 'ally' North Korea."

Roberts knows full well that Gov. Palin did not defend North Korea, but rather made a slip of the tongue which she corrected only seconds later. But this is just a prime example of how the "religious left" always attacks Sarah Palin. For these "Cafeteria Christians," politics always trumps faith. Always.

Christianity, whether it be the Catholic faith or the Protestant, tries to teach us what our Savior taught: that we should love our brothers and sisters as ourselves. It is one of the two Great Commandments, upon which "depend the whole Law and the Prophets." And from the Old Testament, we were taught ten other great commandments, including one which admonishes us not to bear false witness.

Sarah Palin was in no way attacking the Catholic faith in her new book. On the contrary, she clearly stated her agreement with one of the foundational articles of the faith, the defense of the innocent unborn. For Roberts to lie about Gov. Palin and condemn her in the same two columns is to reach the rarefied air of high hypocrisy which, we have long argued, is a prerequisite for liberalism.

- JP

Roberts: O'Donnell victory opens door for Palin White House run

*
Irish Central columnist Patrick Roberts sees Christine O'Donnell's victory in Delaware as another sign that Sarah Palin will charge to the GOP presidential nomination in two years if the grass(roots) fire continues to burn:

Who will stop Palin now with the Republican right in such a fired up, throw the bums out mood?

Mitt Romney, not on your Nellie?

Newt Gingrich? Last century's man.

O'Donnell's victory is far more significant than that of Joe Miller in Alaska. It occurred in a blue state where moderate Republicans long held sway.

[...]

Back home in Alaska Sarah Palin may well be measuring her prospects for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if this continues.

More at Irish Central.

- JP

Roberts: Sarah Palin's Iowa visit is a clear sign of a 2012 run

*
Patrick Roberts at Irish Central, has received "a number of disparaging comments" for writing articles which treat Gov. Palin favorably. His latest column about the first woman to be the vice presidential candidate of the Republican party is sure to generate a flurry of Haterade-fueled remarks from the PDS-afflicted. In his piece, he notes that the leftist Guardian newspaper in London is leading with the news that "Irish American Sarah Palin" will headline the Ronald Reagan dinner in Iowa this week. The Guardian's reporter on the ground in Des Moines, Ewen MacAskill, says it's her opening salvo in the race for the 2012 nomination. That comes as no0 surprise to Roberts:

The Iowa diner will solidify her bond with grassroots Iowans, who remember, vote in a caucus system, not a primary.

I can very easily see her winning Iowa and heading for New Hampshire like a runaway train.

Who will stop her? Mitt Romney who has never appealed to the grassroots? Newt Gingrich with his three marriages and decades old shtick?

[...]

Larry Sabato, director of the political centre at the University of Virginia says Palin will win Iowa if she runs but thinks she will be a poor general election candidate.

"You are looking at a landslide to the Democrats. There is no one the Democrats want more. Obama would expect to win, even if the economy was bad. She is popular among Republicans but in the country as a whole she is unpopular."

I think Larry has it wrong. If Palin prevails she will be a very powerful contender. And many women will be drawn to her, for the historic nature of her run alone.

Who said after Hillary Clinton failed that we'd never see a woman president.

President Palin has a nice ring to it.

Read Roberts' full Irish Central op-ed here. The Guardian piece he references is here.

- JP

Quote of the Day (August 14, 2010)

*
Patrick Roberts at Irish Central:

"Yes, children Sarah Palin really can become president of the United States. Take a look at yesterday's CNN poll. It shows Mitt Romney just three points ahead of Irish American Palin right before the kickoff for the 2012 republican nomination which begins the day after the November mid-terms. That three points is within the margin of error... That is bad news indeed, for Mitt Romney who is the anointed one... By right he should be the front runner. But he's stuck in neutral, not ever drawing the kind of love from the grassroots that Palin can engender just by showing up."

- JP