Posted on 07/27/2010 12:15:40 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah Palin may be more unpopular than ever before, but if she chooses to run for the Republican nomination in the 2012 presidential race, she can at least count on bipartisan support. In fact, according to a straw poll at this year’s Netroots Nation -- the massive progressive bacchanal held last weekend in Las Vegas -- a substantial plurality of conference attendees wants the half-term Alaskan governor to be President Obama’s general election opponent.
It’s not hard to figure out why: Even Obama’s harshest critics on the left almost unanimously favor him against any possible Republican challenger, and Palin’s candidacy would make 2012 look less like an election than a massacre. It’s not just Obama who would profit, either; his opponent would be such a drag on down-ticket Republican candidates that one could say she represents the Democratic Party’s best hope of undoing the damage they’re sure to incur this November.
Palin allies such as Rush Limbaugh often claim that liberals vilify Palin because they’re afraid of her, but there’s really no way to reconcile that assertion with the outcome of the N.N. straw poll. If anything, the numbers tell us, liberals aren't afraid enough.
I don’t mean to suggest that liberals underestimate Palin’s electoral fortunes; they are, truly, quite grim. The true danger is not that Palin would ever seize the White House, but rather what her nomination would mean for political discourse and basic stability in this country.
A democracy, after all, must be founded on broad consensus regarding certain social norms. That does not mean there is no room for disagreement over policy and philosophy within that broad framework -- indeed, that is an obvious feature, not a bug, of representative democracy -- but that these disagreements, no matter how fervent and profound they may become, must take place between parties that share a mutual commitment to the liberal democratic system (as in the system stemming from the philosophical tradition of classical liberalism, not modern political liberalism).
To try to enforce this sort of ideological commitment through law would, paradoxically, undermine liberal democracy itself, which is why enforcement is instead left to social taboo and the electoral process itself. So candidates for office who hold distinctly illiberal, anti-democratic views -- such as those who, for example, call for armed overthrow of their government, or the assassination of their political opponents -- are expected to be voted into unemployment, thereby providing a strong incentive for career politicians to all behave more or less like reasonable adults, regardless of their differences.
This is the sort of ideal theory that’s never functioned perfectly, but recently it’s been particularly bad. The tendency of the Republican Party under President Bush (and sadly, more recently, the DNC under Obama) to equate reasonable criticism of the administration’s war effort with treason pales in comparison with the remarks of Sharron Angle, Republican nominee from Nevada in this cycle’s most prominent Senate race: This is a woman who was nominated by a major party to run for the upper chamber of Congress despite having winked heavily and repeatedly at the possibility of armed insurrection and the assassination of her opponent.
Of course, if Angle loses (and she probably will), no one thinks she’s going to follow through on her violent rhetoric. That’s not really the point; rather, the true fear here is that someone else might. When veiled incitements to violence become mainstream, it’s statistically inevitable that a handful of unhinged loners will attempt to follow through on them. There is, after all, a reason why right-wing violence trended upward after Obama’s election.
But if you think it’s bad now, wait until you see what happens if the plurality of N.N. attendees see their wish granted. Palin has already demonstrated a disturbing willingness to frame even minor political squabbles in terms of "tyranny" versus "liberty," and to make her a major party’s presidential candidate would only do more to throw the spotlight on that sort of incitement. Perhaps, as Kevin Drum prays, the GOP would then "go down to such an epic defeat that they finally get some sense knocked into them." But in the meantime, we would be facing a long, protracted campaign in which both a major political party and the mainstream press would treat violently anti-democratic positions as existing within the confines of reasonable political discourse. We’ve already had quite a bit of that over the past few years; accommodating and encouraging it could potentially make things much, much worse.
******
Ned Resnikoff is a blogger and NYU student. He lives in New York City.
Did you see Obama’s drawing crowd as an indication that he could win an national election?
I have to disagree with you on this, as I think evidence could be made that large crowds were fairly indicative of current occupant of the White House’s popularity in ‘08.
They are? Where's the evidence of that?
I'm sure most of them are, but again, it doesn't impress me--they don't indicate votes in any meaningful way. These are partisan crowds, the same with the Obama crowds, and that's a nice TV visual, but I don't see where that works as an indicator of voting success. Where were all those voters on election day? (I guess they were enthusiastic enough to travel long distances and/or stand outside for hours to see her, but they couldn't be bothered to vote for her becauser she was only VP nominee?)
Seeing how Romney and others seem to always win the polls at this point, the "who else is there?" isn't any more "concrete" than anything else. I'm not looking for unassailable proof, just indicators, and old pictures of big crowds and "Who else is there?' don't fill me with enthusiam.
When Mitt pays for a poll, he expects to win it, wouldn’t you?
According to whom?? The leftists she TERRIFIES!!?????
LOL! Ugh, that's depressing.
Unfortunately, these polls add to the stupid "well, he's a viable candidate" crap that gave us McCain.
Great list!
Plus she is out there punching back against the Kenyan and the state run media every chance she gets.
Not a bad answer, is it?
Nothing on that addresses why you think she CAN win, only why you WANT her to win. And frankly, not only am I not impressed by much of her record (some of it, yes, very impressed), but if she were a dem most of us would be dismissing much of her record.
I agree with all but 3. I don’t believe that at all. She was a bumbling fool....couldn’t get the name correct. Otherwise your points are good.
Here’s a thread on the 60,000 Sarah got in FL.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2087434/posts
I thought her line “tell me ain’t so Joe” eclipsed that minor stutter. Given all the public speaking she does I’m amazed she makes so few mistakes.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. When it comes to Sarah Palin and The Left. Watch what they DO not what they SAY. They will tell us who they truly fear by their ACTIONS. Not their WORDS.
Give us your best answer.
Your post makes no sense--you say nothing satisfies me, then follow that with a quote from me saying I'm very impressed with something.
Now why don't you tell us why she can't win?
You are the one that thinks she can't win , no?
Heck, even PPP, a Democratic Party polling outfit that has been known to be rabidly anti-Palin came out with their poll this month, which showed Palin is running neck and neck with 0bama. And 0bama keeps hitting new lows every month. Palin on the other hand, has nowhere to go but up.:
PPP: Obama, Palin tied 46/46 in 2012 polling
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2553190/posts
Another idiotic, wet behind the ears member of the notorious journoLIST cabal, spews out coordinated, loony left talking points. So what's new?
Reality:
PPP: Obama, Palin tied 46/46 in 2012 polling
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2553190/posts
July 17, 2010
Sarah Rising [76% of Republicans find her favorable].
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2554518/posts
My position is clearly posted already, and I won't be drawn into a pointless attempt to sidetrack what is a simple question so many Palin fan's cannot answer--odd how you folks are always quoting polls you used to claim are unreliable, but they're suddenly reliable indicators when they go your way.
If this poll next shows Palin behind, will you be pointing people to it as evidence?
So is my position. Your position is not particularly relevant.
“I won't be drawn into a pointless attempt to sidetrack what is a simple question so many Palin fan's cannot answer”
In other words, you have no anwesr to my question, and instead, insist on your “right” to troll Palin threads with impunity.
“odd how you folks are always quoting polls you used to claim are unreliable, but they're suddenly reliable indicators when they go your way. “
Odd how you totally avoided the question, and instead veer off on a tangent with yet another mindless attack on those who back Palin.
“If this poll next shows Palin behind, will you be pointing people to it as evidence?”
Ummmmm... I made it clear in my post that PPP is a Democratic Party, anti-Palin outfit. More reason to expect their polls to be biased against Palin. Which is why even PPP, having Palin neck and neck with 0bama is pretty remarkable.
Plus Gallup just came out with their own poll which has Palin ahead of anyone else in favourability ratings amongst Republicans:
Sarah Rising [76% of Republicans find her favorable].
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2554518/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.