Posted on 11/19/2010 6:50:35 AM PST by WebFocus
By telling Barbara Walters that she thinks she can defeat President Obama, Sarah Palin has dimmed hopes cherished by sensible Republicans that she might decide against a run for the White House in 2012. Here are just some of the reasons she should not run.
The Republican nominee should be someone with a vast and impressive record in government and the private sector. Voters chose a novice with plenty of star power in 2008 and will be inclined to swing strongly in the other direction in 2012. Americans will be looking for sober competence, managerial skill, and maturity — not sizzle and flash.
After the 2008 campaign revealed her substantive weaknesses, Palin was advised by those who admired her natural gifts to bone up on policy and devote herself to governing Alaska successfully. Instead, she quit her job as governor after two and a half years, published a book (another is due next week), and seemed to chase money and empty celebrity. Now, rather than being able to highlight the accomplishments of Sarah Palin’s Alaska, we get Sarah Palin’s Alaska, another cheesy entrant in the reality-show genre. She’d so much rather be out dog sledding than in some “dull political office,” she tells the audience. File that.
It’s true. She is wildly popular with a swath of the Republican electorate. And, as a conservative woman politician told me, political consultants (who get paid the big bucks, win or lose) will doubtless descend upon her with game plans showing how she can win in Iowa and then cruise to the nomination. Maybe. But the general election would be a problem, since 53 percent of independent voters view Palin unfavorably along with 81 percent of Democrats, according to a recent Gallup poll.
There is no denying that Sarah Palin has been harshly, sometimes even brutally, treated by the press and the entertainment gaggle. But any prominent Republican must expect and be able to transcend that. Palin compares herself to Reagan. But Reagan didn’t mud-wrestle with the press. Palin seems consumed and obsessed by it, as her rapid Twitter finger attests, and thus she encourages the sniping. She should be presiding over meetings on oil and gas leases in the North Slope, or devising alternatives to Obamacare. Every public spat with Dave Letterman or Politico, or the “lamestream media,” or (God help us) Levi Johnston, diminishes her.
Speaking of television, have you watched “Dancing with the Stars”? Calling the show cheesy would be too generous. Perhaps the former governor should not be blamed for the decisions of her adult daughter. Yet there in the audience we see Sarah and Todd Palin, mugging for the camera and cheering on their unwed-mother daughter as she bumps and grinds to the tune of “Mamma Told Me Not To Come.” Her parents had advised her, the 20-year-old Bristol told an interviewer, that she had to stay “in character” if she expected to win. Being “in character” evidently meant descending to the vulgarity that DWTS peddles on a weekly basis. The mama grizzly was apparently unfazed by, or — equally disturbingly — unaware of, the indignity. And she is supposed to be a conservative culture warrior?
Voters prize judgment, above all, in a presidential candidate. Some of Sarah Palin’s 2010 endorsements were sound and arguably helpful. Others betrayed flightiness and recklessness. Tom Tancredo, Palin’s choice for governor of Colorado, has ridden his anti-immigration hobby-horse in a style perfectly suited to alienate Hispanic voters (describing Miami, for example, as a “Third World city”). Her endorsement of Christine O’Donnell was irresponsible and damaging, losing a seat that would otherwise have been a Republican pick-up. Of course, O’Donnell received an absurdly disproportionate amount of ink and attention during the race (the liberal press naturally seizes upon any opportunity to make conservatives look kooky), but Palin should have anticipated that. Besides, this one cannot be laid at the feet of the biased media. O’Donnell was a thoroughly unqualified candidate.
Palin has many strengths. I admire her fortitude and her principles. Her ability to connect with a crowd is something most politicians can only dream of. I will always remember her 2008 convention speech as a rollicking star turn. She would be terrific as a talk-show host — the new Oprah.
But a presidential candidate? Someone to convince critical independent voters that Republicans can govern successfully? Absolutely not.
— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.
And that, my FRiend, is one of the best posts I have read in a long time. It speaks WISDOM. I think Thomas Sowell would be proud of you.
I think the biggest problem for Romney this time around will be Romneycare.
“I like Sarah Palin, a lot. But she won’t be getting my vote in the primary.”
I agree 100%. I like her but I don’t want to spend 2012 defending her.
Charen is right, Palin would be a disaster for the GOP in 2012.
Palin thinks she can beat Obama in 2012 based on what?
Palin’s record sucks.
As Governor, she QUIT after 2 1/2 years.
As a member of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, she QUIT after just a year.
As mayor of Wasilla, the only elected job she has managed to complete a term in office and run for and win re-election.
During her second term as mayor (a lame-duck term), Palin proposed and promoted the construction of a municipal sports center to be financed by a 0.5% sales tax increase and $14.7 million bond issue. Voters approved the measure by a 20 vote margin and the Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex was built on time and under budget. However, the city spent an additional $1.3 million because of an eminent domain lawsuit caused by the failure to obtain clear title to the property before beginning construction. The city’s long-term debt grew from about $1 million to $25 million due to $15 million for the sports complex, $5.5 million for street projects, and $3 million for water improvement projects.
Palin’s tenure as mayor saw the city’s long-term debt increase by 2,500%, that’s a record any conservitave can be proud of.
Other bits of Palin’s “record”
Yes, she sold the governon’s jet, at a loss of $600,000.
Yes, she cancelled the “bridge to nowhere” but kept the $442 million in federal funding for other projects.
Look at Palin’s endorsements,
O’Donnell was completely unqualified (granted Castle was a RINO and was no better than Coons or Biden).
McCain the Senate’s #1 RINO, thanks for that one Sarah.
Whitman, Angle & Fiorina were all qualified but generally ran poor campaigns (failed to go after their opp for their record).
Will Palin run? I hope not, I don’t want 4 more years of Obama. There are many Republicians with more qualifications than Palin, several of them have can beat Obama and do not have the quitter record & other baggage that Palin has.
As a life-long Conservative and Republician, will I vote for Palin, not in the primary, in the GE, I don’t know.
I have Zero confidence that Palin can/will serve out a term as POTUS, Palin’s record of “I QUIT” when the going gets tough does not inspire confidence.
Then you’ll be voting for Romney...those will be the choices, Palin or Romney.
The reason I don't want her to run is she is so darned effective in transforming the Republican party from the outside.
Your post contents have been refuted a multitude of times on FR.
Who do you support Noob?
“She has become a “natural” in the public eye.”
You are absolutely right. She has tremendous natural political gifts. She is great at delivering a speech. She can connect with a substantial segment of the Republican base. But she can’t give a substantive answer to a substantive question. Compare her to, say, Liz Cheney, in a policy discussion.
That is what Mona Charen is pointing out. Sarah’s popularity peaked when she gave that incredible speech and the Republican convention, then began to decline when, in interview after interview, she answered questions with non sequitur platitudes showing that she didn’t have a clue. And, instead of doing things that would dispel the perception that she lacks substance, she has been content to play to her base, and cultivate a more populist image.
Maybe that will work. I would love to be wrong, and admit that I tend to view things differently than a lot of Americans. But I doubt it will work.
It would be great if we here on FR could agree that a FReeper can be an honest, decent, intelligent, well-informed person as conservative as Jim Thompson and still prefer a candidate for the GOP nomination other than Sarah Palin. Or they might support Sarah for that matter. My point is that conservatives can have different preferences (within a range of candidates that neither consists exclusively of, nor excludes, Sarah Palin) without any of them being bad people.
Isn’t it amazing that in 90% of the cases, when you asked the PDS’rs who they support...they won’t answer.
This is due to the fact that they know their answer is an inferior candidate to Palin.
The silence is telling.
So do you, miss marmelstein! I think there’s absolutely no benefit to saying, “So-and-so shouldn’t run.” We have elections to decide these matters, not “Rule by syndicated columnist.”
If Sarah Palin runs for President, I don’t know if I’ll vote for her in the primary. It depends on who the other candidates are when my state’s primary *finally* arrives. However, I fully support her running if she wants to. I support *anyone* running, if they meet the legal guidelines and pay the fee.
Being the last one standing and getting very lucky like McCain did is not a great winning strategy.
Your attitude sounds like surrender, to me, and I don't find that useful at all.
I agree with what you have written here. Sarah has good instincts and good values. I believe that as President she would make decisions I agree with almost all of the time. But her appeal as a candidate is limited by her poor ability to discuss public policy clearly and substantively in the face of hostile and dishonest questioning.
Some will compare her intellect and experience favorably to those of Obama, Kerry, or Gore. It is true that Sarah is at least the equal to any of these men. But these men are all cynical, evil liars who have the media and the leftist establishment propping them up. Sarah is honest and forthright and will continue to have the leftists at her throat. We need a candidate who can win over independents in the face of this leftist onslaught.
Mitt who? Is he the one hiding behind Sarah’s skirt while she daily battles with liberal morons? IMHO, Romney was finished as a Presidential candidate the moment Obammycare was passed.
Mitt has his Romneycare in Massachusetts, which has been an expensive, unmitigated disaster.
Watching him drive around in a pickup for votes reminds me of him getting a Life Membership to the NRA after lambasting them for years, just to appeal to the conservative Republican base - something only a RINO would do.
He doesn’t get it, but his ambition causes him to linger on.
The “substantive” Republicans have, along with the Democrats, bankrupted this nation.
We can’t afford any more “substantive” leadership.
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.