Everyone has an idea of what “gone rogue” REALLY means. But there’s a lot of folks out there who would spin it to glamorize what they THINK they want to see in a leader.
Basically, to go rogue is to be your own boss. No rules. No tie downs. No strings attached. Behavior you would find in unattached people who are not accountable to others and whose success or failure falls on him/herself alone. Self Employed. Not a team player. No supervision. No commitment. Not bound by constituents <—- does this sound familiar?
Personally, I can only speak for myself. But a person “gone rogue” don’t make good leaders. And they certainly don’t make good employees in organizations. “Gone rogue” is something you’ll find in “lone” hunters, gamblers, political fix-it men like Carl Rove or Carville. There is a place for them in this world, but again, NOT in leadership roles. What would become of our military if its LEADERS were to go rogue?
Regardless if folks who follow Sarah Palin try to spin the positives of “going rogue” as befitting of a president, they need to realize that “gone rogue” means just what it says “gone rogue”. No matter if its Palin or anybody else. A person who “goes rogue” does it w/out authorization or consent from anyone. Last time I checked, the presidency of the United States has strings attached. The President has a boss and is checked & balanced by Congress. Which is something that Obama still fails to realize.
Yes, we already have a person in the White House who has “gone rogue”. Going rogue may be a cute label to identity some people, but its not flattering for a “Leader”. BUT check out where Im going with this:
Sarah Palin, a self-admitted “going rogue” person has already gave the caveat. She readily admits that if you hire her, that she WILL go rogue. She went rogue when she endorsed John McCain for his senate re-election bid. And she did this against the blessing of the tea party, who propped her up as the tea party darling. But “going rogue” don’t need no blessing from anybody. A “going roguer” just “do”. Is that so hard to understand? Again, she gave us the caveat, disclaimer, duly notified or what ever you want to call it.
The same with Obama, when he was straight up when he TOLD US he was 5 days away from “Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America” . But there are many folks EVEN TODAY who deny they heard him say it or that they didn’t think he meant it literally. Some say that they were deceived because he didn’t clarify what that statement meant. Obama didn’t lie about it. It’s that people were too mesmerized and caught up in the euphoria at the time he said it. But again, he did give us the caveat, disclaimer, duly notified or what ever you want to call it.
You nailed it, Arlene. He has gone rogue and anyone who was listening realized that “fundamentally changing American” was not a good thing. Our fundamentals are our constitution, our judeo-Christian based systems of government and traditions and he said up-front those fundamentals would be transformed. He’s playing by his playbook. And the silly sheep followed. We have to get this train back on the right track as quickly as possible.
To tell you the truth, I still dont think some people have woke up yet. Its like they want to be mesmerized.
Hi Arlene!
Context is everything.
When the Founding Fathers decided that living under a British King who was sucking the lifeblood out of America was no longer in the best interests of Americans… America Went Rogue in 1776
The context of Sarah’s “Going Rogue” is to oppose *both* A) creeping Socialism within the Republican Party and B) Oppose Socialism within the Democrat Party.
Sarah is not an Elitist GOP Blue-Blood “go along with the crowd” who puts party ahead of the Country by pandering to left of center moderates, rather to convert left of center moderates to the ideals which founded this country.
Sarah repaid a favor to McCain for having chosen her as his VP running mate and standing by her during the last three years.
It is true that no man or woman is an island and that without McCain, Sarah would not have a voice in National Politics.
She has many bones to pick with McCain, as do many of us.
I don’t like McCain and he is one of my state’s senators. Frequently it comes down to the choice of the lesser of two evils… and McCain’s seniority and his support for Sarah’s anti-RINO messages trumped what his competition brought to the table.
Now I realize you are pro-Perry and understand why you are pro-Perry.
It has to do with Perry’s soft-heartedness for Illegal aliens in the United States which directly benefits you as a person who needs workers who will do the work… that Oklahoma “ran off the illegal migrants” making it near impossible for you to get workers to actually get the work done.
Rick Perry is better than Mitt Romney by a mile, and like all candidates, Perry has negatives, one of which is not being in alignment with the sentiment of the majority of the conservative base when it comes to an open doors for illegals in this country.
Rick Perry also has a serious weakness… he finds it difficult to articulate… to speak. The ability of a politician to speak separates Statesmen from the rest, regardless of whether folks agree or disagree. Obama’s primary strength is his ability to speak.
I believe Sarah Palin would chose Perry over Romney, but Perry supporters attacking Palin is not going to encourage her nor her millions of supporters endorsement of Perry. If anything it has the reverse effect.
May the candidate who is the “least of evils” win.
God Bless you, Arlene, I love you like a sister.
Hey VF
Seems like the nation is in a frenzy from observing the news & social networking sites. It looks like everybody wants his or her guy to get the (GOP) nomination. But every GOP candidate seem to have their sites on Obama, when I dont think he’s the target. Not many folks are thinking “Hillary”. I still think Obama will step aside & Hillary will step in.
Now about Palin:
One day I got knocked up side the head while I was strolling along twitter fat.. dumb.. & happy. Not knowing that there was a twitter war within the conservative twitter hub, a group of staunch Palin supporters publicly announced they would mass un-follow & block anybody who they thought was no longer her supporter; and vice versa. And they also started attacking. Never seen nothing like it since the days of Obama vs. Hillary. Obviously, I was Palin supporter, but switched to Bachmann when she got into the race. I couldn’t wait on Palin. At 1st I thought there would be no problem with that decision. Just when I was about to donate to Bachmann, Palin scheduled her rally in Iowa. So I held off donating to Bachmann, thinking Palin would announce her candidacy. When Palin, at the Iowa event, failed to announce, I decided to re-direct my focus back on Bachmann. That’s when life in twitter-ville went really south. During the knock down drag out twitter fight over Palin vs. Bachmann, all of sudden Rick Perry jumped in. This caused Bachmann folks to jump ship & back Perry. Meanwhile Palin supporters wanted other conservative followers to hold the line & they continued to assert Palin was still going to run.
Where I took issue w/Palin was when she attacked Perry. I believe it was over the vaccine incident that Bachmann attacked him on. 1stly, my instinct was to defend the candidate that Im backing to the best of my ability. 2ndly, I went after her, not as a presidential candidate or a politician, but as a news analyst / pundit (which is what she actually is). Sort of like in the same way I would go after Rove, Dick Morris & another pundit. Some folks, can’t separate the two. Also, I felt that if Palin wanted to weigh in on anything negative – or – positive about any GOP candidate, then she would of had to choose btwn her Fox news job or announce her candidacy. She can’t do both & still work for a major news outlet that was actually covering the race. Thus is the reason why Pawlenty was turned down by foxnews when he asked them for a job (he’s actually employed by Mitt).
Arlene,
I also want to point out another “rogue” who did not go along with the flow…. YOU. You went Rogue as a Conservative member of a 90% plus Democrat voting block. To them and the Democrat Party, you Arlene, are a Rogue.
Yeah, Im a rogue. That trait is the story my life. Sometimes to my detriment. But it has its advantages too.
Dont get me wrong, going rogue is not a bad thing. But I just think it make good leaders, especially for a large population of people who have diverse ideas of what the mission should be.
I also thought Ralph Nader would had been a great president. But I guess he just was’nt cut out for that sort of thing.
Take for example, a great man (IMO) – Ju Don Bonnie (probably not spelling his name right). That man accomplished so much when he was only a community activist in Houston, TX. City of Houston feared him like the plague. Low & behold, they recruited him to run for city council. At 1st he didnt want to do it. But they kept pressuring him. Well, he ran. Obviously he won handily with his enormous constituency. But he was far less effective as a city council member. City Council in Houston has rules that SHACKLED him to ineffectiveness. It ruined him. He was better off staying rogue. Now that I think of it, Im wondering what ever became of Ju Don. He’s hardly ever heard of nowadays, except as a legend in the 3rd ward district of Houston.
Here is an interesting article…
from: http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/10/08/romney-perry-trying-to-recruit-christie-palin-fans/
Romney, Perry trying to recruit Christie, Palin fans
It’s not clear whether Romney or Perry have been more successful at courting Christie supporters, including Wall Street donors. And it’s equally unclear where Palin supporters — many from the party’s conservative and tea party wings — will end up. Many turned to social networks to blast her decision not to run for president but they also didn’t indicate who they would back instead.
Of the two candidates, Perry may have the better shot at picking up Palin backers, given his links to evangelical voters and tea party activists. Those constituencies aren’t a natural fit for Romney, a Mormon who has switched positions on issues social conservatives hold dear. To that end, Perry’s central challenge is to convince social and religious conservatives to unite behind him in places like South Carolina and Iowa instead of splintering among other candidates like Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Sen. Rick Santorum.
In South Carolina, Perry’s campaign has been checking in regularly with the more than fifty local tea party groups to gauge their support. And they’ve been in touch with the state’s pastors and religious leaders. He also plans to meet with social conservatives including some pastors when he travels Saturday through northwest Iowa, the geographic center of Iowa’s evangelical conservative movement.
Read the Article here: http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111007/ap_on_el_pr/us_republicans_chase_is_on
If I were Perry, I wouldn’t recruit Christie fans. Christie has no NATIONAL rank-in-file fans. Christie’s fans are WallStreet, Carl Rove, bankers, etc. I agree, that it’s Palin’s “constituency” that has to be wooed. But Palin needs to do this prior to primary voting, because her fans are wavering between Ron Paul & Perry. Some are also waffling over whether to go w/Cain. If she waits too long, the supporters she still have that are not committed, will choice 1 of the GOP candidates. And when that happens, the supporter becomes comfortable & invested in that candidate.
The more folks becomes invested in a candidate, its harder to pry them from it.
But 1 of the MAIN problems that I see that shackles Palin at this point is Foxnews.
She is a foxnews contributor, just like Rove, Dick Morris, Beckel & certain others. But nobody hardly ever sees her doing foxnews work.. except for her going on Greta show (every now & then). She is not being fully utilized as a journalist like those 3 men I spoke of.
I also noticed that she’s never on Hannity’s “Great American All Star” panel. And my big question is why?
Palin is better off doing what Glen Beck has done. Set up her own show on internet – just like Beck has GBT. Or she can set up a radio show like Hannity or even Limbaugh. But Foxnews is not the place for her to be. It looks like foxnews does not want her there anymore. You’ll notice that Foxnews on several occasions, had Tucker Carlson at round table w/political big wigs AFTER the Tyson/Greta/Palin fiasco. This should be a wake up call for Palin. Its time for her to do a Glen Beck-like exit. She would be far more effective.
What makes this worst for Palin, is that her working for foxnews has hog tied her to the point that she can’t legally be televised by other networks when she tries to campaign for others or give speeches. In other words, if foxnews don’t televise her off the set, then no other network can cover it w/out foxnews authorization. & we both know Roger Ailes will not permit it because we are in a high stakes presidential race. And foxnews dont want her to be part of it. If she otherwise allows this to happen, then her contract would be voided. This is not the same as a suspended contract as in the case of Newt & Santorum.
If she can get out from under that foxnews contract, then she will be truly free.
I don’t believe Herman Cain, despite his current popularity, is presidential material and thus I don’t believe folks in the majority will select Cain as the nominee. Same thing with Michele Bachmann.
The last, and only, sitting US Representative who ever won a presidential election was James A. Garfield in 1880, over 130 years ago.
The reasons for there being only one sitting Representative ever elected President pretty much rules out Michele Bachmann as an electable candidate.
The same reasons also rules out Herman Cain… lack of political executive experience. Thus it is from Governors and Senators, presidents are elected… primarily governors who have a track record of governance. Herman Cain has no such experience thus the wisdom gained by such experience.
Obama is living vivid contemporary proof that Senators without a track record of governance is also a poor bet.
I believe the most serious challenge Rick Perry will face for nomination when all the chips are on the table and all the cards are face up is from Newt Gingrich.
So yes, Sarah smacked Perry for mandating all school girls 11 years and old are to be given a shot to prevent venereal disease… and there is a smoking gun that makes it look like Perry was subject to crony-capitalism in that whole deal.
If Sarah did that same thing, I would expect folks to smack her for that also.
That does not mean she will not endorse Perry… that Perry is at odds with the conservative base over giving state collage tuition aid to Illegals deserves a good smack also. Smart Politicians take their lumps and learn from it… no one is perfect, including Sarah.
Herman Cain is entertainment in my eyes. Not a serious candidate & makes a mockery of the process. But Ive seen some strange unbelievable things happen these past few yrs. From what Ive been hearing lately, Cain may not make the nomination mainly due to his lack of organization & money to go the distance from Iowa to Florida. If folks think Cain is getting too close by the time to vote in primaries, they just might go scorch earth. Meaning, they’ll vote Ron Paul, even though Paul is viewed as “way out there on the fringe”. At least that’s what Ive hearing on the down low. And I say on the down low because most folks dont want others to brand them as a Paul supporter, out of fear of not being taken serious.
Oh, and I love you like a sister too
Kisses to my long time friend whom Ive known for yrs. & fought many battles w/on I-cry.
The Primary Race and the battle between RINOs and Conservatives is going to get real interesting as time goes on, Arlene.
Sarah will endorse… I just dont know who. She endorsed Rick Perry for reelection as governor.