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.
So the resident GOP troll finally makes an appearance...
“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.”
I agree. But, I believe you are losing sight of the fact that Palin is attacked on an hourly basis on FR, News, Culture, Tv, etc.
*I don’t see this great support of other conservatives you are talking about...I see redundant attacks on Palin. Period.
Agreed, "kingmaker" is a good role for her in 2012.
Demint, Pence, Barbour, Christie, Gingrich, Thune or Jindal.
sorry that I don’t get “weak in the knees” whenever the former gov of AK (cause she quit) speaks.
So I guess all of those other Tea Party candidates she endorsed throughout the country, helped, and who won don't count...
Excellent post. Your view is my view.
In the upper middle class red area where I live, there were few McCain yard signs or bumper stickers prior to the Republican convention. After McCain nominated Palin and she gave her speech, McCain/Palin yard signs and bumper stickers suddenly appeared all over the place. However, as Palin gave her interviews and campaigned, those signs and stickers disappeared. Those signs and stickers rose and fell due to Palin.
I was excited when McCain selected her because I feared he would pick Graham or Lieberman. However, her populist mantra does not appeal to me as more than Huck’s populism does.
BTW, I have listened to Liz Cheney speak in person. Her knowledge of foreign policy is exceptional. She fielded random questions from the audience on a wide range of topics, and every answer was clear, concise, coherent and conservative. No teleprompter, note cards or writing on her hands.
That is your template response, but you didn’t answer the question...who do you support?
NRO still shilling for the Mittster.
Sorry, when I see NRO as the source, I no longer bother to read the article. They are only too predictable.
Next thing you know, they will merge with Politico.
In case you haven’t noticed, it’s not just a freeper thing - it’s a country thing. Unless you live in a cave, whenever she speaks, everyone listens, she’s invited to speak because she sells out the place, people travel and line up for hours to meet her - that’s just for starters.
No one says Sarah who? Just say SARAH and everyone knows.
I have no problem voting for Sarah Palin in 2012 IF she fights for and wins the Republican Party nomination. To me, Sarah’s biggest quality is her love of country AND how she drives the loons even loonier. Can you imagine if she’d win?
I think she would have a good chance especially if the idiot Left runs a challenger to Obama. Nor do I believe Obama’s favorability polling is 47%. I’m convinced all the polls give him a 10% affirmative action edge before they even start making the calls - mostly to democrats.
Even if Obama would be re-elected the man has no coattails, and I don’t see democrats being swept back into power.
I know Obama’s constituency will be back to vote for him in 2012, but I doubt that the Independents who just voted the democrats out will go back to Obama. Obama will not win Indiana, Ohio, Florida,and North Carolina in 2012. That reduces Obama’s 2008 electoral tally to 290. And remember we got a lot of Republican governors next time around.
Should we still lose, we will still have subpoena power, and I don’t mind gridlock one bit.
But if Sarah is ever going to run for president, she will never have a better chance than 2012 with the continuing ascendancy of the Tea Party.
The big question is how many of us would stay home rather than vote for Palin or Obama?
Most of the pundits and commentators start with similar preambles, then proceed with their "insight." They all ignore the elephant in the room:What exactly was the experience of the current resident of the WH?
“However, as Palin gave her interviews and campaigned, those signs and stickers disappeared. Those signs and stickers rose and fell due to Palin.”
Your histrionics is total BS.
Palin kept that ticket afloat and saved it from a total Landslide. Even Palin haters will admit this.
I didn’t read the article either, just the headline. After two years of this - I’ve heard all the ‘excuses’!
*I don’t see this great support of other conservatives you are talking about...I see redundant attacks on Palin. Period.
I have not lost sight of attacks on Palin. Neither have I lost sight of attacks on conservative Palin doubters. And it is nonsense for you to say that I have spoken of "great support of other conservatives". Such support has not yet come and why should it have? No conservatives have declared their candidacy yet.
ijrazz
Since Apr 14, 2010
Troll.
Sarah is meant to be where she is. It was inevitable. Now.....if she runs, she will win the nomination because of all the hard work she has done in the states and for the party. As for the election, who can say? Who has more name recognition? Americans love an underdog and as a candidate, Sarah will be the underdog who is being attacked from every side. Unfair, but a powerful weapon and Sarah knows how to use everything to her advantage.
If Sarah does not run for President, all the attacks will stop and she will cease to be a story. She will fade into the Alaska wilderness and only occasionally will she even be remembered. The key point is: the reason for all the vitriol and attention generated by Sarah Palin is ONLY because she has been considered a candidate for president ever since she set foot on the stage at the GOP Convention. The question is: Why has she been considered a candidate? Ordained.
I like and respect Palin but her high poll negatives are a major impediment to winning a general election, as is her sometimes chirpy voice, which many people find offputting. On the other hand, as a conservative Oprah type media figure, with a sideline in conservative activism, Palin would have an assured and substantial positive impact.
“And it is nonsense for you to say that I have spoken of “great support of other conservatives”. Such support has not yet come and why should it have? No conservatives have declared their candidacy yet.”
Your post is disingenuous. By your very logic of “not declaring”, the attacks on Palin are non-sensical.
Yet, you yourself attack her non candidacy in your second post on here.
Make no mistake about the concern trolls...what they demand is unfettered ability to attack Palin. You will not attain that.
Look - If by the record, the MOST liberal, leftist Senator in U.S. history was considered electable and not "divisive," then why isn't a conservative Sarah Palin?
Should by chance Palin wins the GOP primary (liberals' worst nightmare), what are mushy Republicans and "Independents" going to do? Sulk, sit home, or let 0bama win?
If by 2012 the economy is in worse shambles, there is NO way 0bama would beat even Ron Paul.
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.