Sarah Palin For President

Macleans ^ | July 2, 2009 | John Parisella

[2ndDivisionVet]

Sounds far-fetched and, to some, totally implausible. But the Republicans are losing potential candidates at a pace that is downright alarming if you believe in a healthy two-party system. The demise of John Ensign’s political career a few weeks ago and the surreal downfall of Mark Sanford last week is enough to send chills through the even the most optimistic Republican strategist. We know that of the 2008 crop, only Mitt Romney seems likely to stay on as a contender. The old stalwarts like Newt Gingrich may get a lot of press, but it is unlikely they can mount a real challenge to Obama in 2012. Yet, the presidential election of 2012 will be more than a simple coronation of Barack Obama if the economy stalls and there is no progress in two important areas: national security and healthcare.

Ballooning deficits and a sluggish economy could alter the mood of America by the time the 2010 mid-terms come up, giving hope to the GOP for the next presidential primary season. This is why Sarah Palin is maintaining a persistent media presence, whether it is debating David Letterman or being the biggest Republican draw on the lecture circuit. She clearly has her eyes set on the presidency.

The latest edition of Vanity Fair brings this possibility forward, though not in a favourable light. Journalist Todd Purdhom paints a picture of a woman with a narcissistic personality, who’s short on knowledge, disinterested in policy discussion, and not ready for primetime. In the end, the story says more about John McCain’s competence and character than it does about Palin, simply because he flubbed his most important decision as a presidential candidate. That said, Palin brought much needed energy to an otherwise lackluster campaign and, to this day, she energizes the base as no other candidate can. Could it be possible she may someday be a candidate for the presidency?

My experience tells me that no one should be written off in a hypothetical context. Barack Obama is proof positive of this. I still maintain that, without Bush, there is no Obama nomination. Palin is a street smart politician who has benefited from being underestimated most of her career. McCain’s disastrous choice may have been fatal to his electoral chances, but it brought Palin to the forefront of national attention. Since then, she has become a celebrity that transcends her party. However, if she is to be taken seriously and considered a viable contender, she needs to change the negative perceptions of her and develop a political profile that appeals to those outside her narrow base.

To do this, she must gradually reduce her exposure and begin to educate herself on the issues. She will not be ready for 2012 by remaining governor of Alaska and playing the celebrity. The GOP has too proud a tradition to have a re-run of the 2008 vice-presidential candidate. Also, the base Palin relies on for support no longer holds the sway it once did. Social conservatism is losing steam as a political movement thanks to the dubious habits of people like Gingrich, Ensign and Sanford, and the election of an African-American president as well as the increased attention paid to gay rights issues shows that Americans have begun to cast their old divisions aside. The future for the GOP lies with fiscal conservatism and strong national security policy—not with turning back the clock. Palin must embrace the values that created the Republican party in the first place—a belief in the individual, a belief in a limited role for the state, and a commitment to equality. The party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and (the pragmatic version of) Reagan is the path to a Republican resurgence. Palin is nowhere on that radar. She is all about celebrity status and controversy.

In the lead-up to July 4, Americans usually reflect on their great democracy. Overall, it is healthy and has shown resilience through the decades. But the Republicans have to become a viable alternative for this democracy to remain vibrant. So is Palin a real possibility for 2012 or 2016? Will she someday be a formal candidate for the presidency? Most definitely. But can she ever win? Based on what we have observed so far, I would say definitely not, though politics has been known to produce some strange developments.

[deannadurbin]

Actually, politics aside, I thought McCain showed incredible energy for a 72 year old man who lived with chronic pain from being tortured by commies. It wasn’t physical weakness that made McCain stumble, he seems to be like the energizer bunny, he keeps going and going and going and going ...

It was that he was connected in most peoples’ minds with Bush and the election had everything to do with “change”.

[counterpunch]

We can’t rely on 0bama screwing up to win with an “anybody by 0bama” vote.
That was the Democrat’s strategy in 2004, and it failed.
We need someone that can attract more votes than 0bama, not simply a receptacle for protest votes.

And by the way, as much as 0bama turns people off, Sarah Palin does so even more, particularly among moderates and independents, where 0bama is particularly vulnerable.

We ought not nominate the one candidate that turns off independents even more than 0bama.
That would result in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[counterpunch]

We’ll have to wait and see what the GOP primary debates turn up for that.

[Niteflyr]

there isnt a conservative on the planet who didnt vote for palin the first time around.

What???? I knew many who stayed home as they were so angry at McCain RHINO policies...and geez how many times do I have to state the obvious that Obama is totally screwing the country over as we speak....don't you think that will make ANY difference in '012????

[SoCalPol]

Your thinking is run by theory not facts and reality.

[SoConPubbie]

Palin is less qualified than Bush was, far less. It may give you satisfaction to pretend that only “kool-aid drinkers” and “dupes” would find fault with Sarah Palin. Knock yourself out. But the reality is, Palin, because she doesn’t have Bush’s family tree, is not only far less qualified than he was, she’s also far less electable. I’m not at all worried that she’ll make it to the White House, a luxury I didn’t have with George Bush. She has no shot whatsoever.

Your prognostication skills notwithstanding, you have given no proof to support your assertions.

Just your unqualifed opinion.

BTW, as for myself, I could care less if Palin has less qualifications then Bush. That is a matter of relativity.

What I am looking for is a conservative leader unashamed of her/his conservative positions willing to fight back with everything they have.

She has proven here capabilities and continues to do so on a daily basis with the exemplary manner in which she performs her responsibilities as the Chief Executive of Alaska (aka Governor).

She has shown her experience and fiscal conservatism by fighting to keep government smaller and living within it's means in Alaska.

She has shown her experience, and her fighting spirit, by how she handled the Alaska Supreme Court nomination process.

She has shown her fiscal conservatism and her National Security abilities by her successfully negotiating multiple oil pipeline contracts.

She has shown her ability to effectively communicate by her speech at the Nominating convention and myriad of other speeches and interviews only marred by one or two less than stellar interviews one of which was edited to make her look bad.

Care to share in detail why you think she is not experienced enough or are you going to continue to throw out generalities?

[Windflier]

Care to back up that unsubstantiated opinion with some facts?

Your answer to that question is summed up in the last statement of your reply, below:

>> She is not qualified.

What happened to backing up your unsubstantiated attack on Sarah with some facts?

[Maelstorm]

I disagree. I think Palin has vastly improved now that she is not sidled with the McCain crowd. If everyone who wants to get Obama out stops the nitpicking and supports her she can and will win. She has the fight necessary. I don’t know of any one else that is better right now. Certainly not Mitt Romney. Saying she would lose is premature and stupid. It is like saying you are ceding the race before it is run. George Bush won twice when he was up against major opposition, they called him stupid, they derided him, they beat him down. Sarah Palin is an order of magnitude better than Bush and I believe with the right team she would blow Obama out of the water.

There is no ease win. Whoever gets the nomination will have to fight the minions of Obama and it is better to have someone who has faced them and survived than to have some great unknown. Also Palin could easily boost her measure with a solid running mate. The amount of hate focused on her is going to wear thing. It already has to a large degree and as bad as Obama and as bad as the economy will be Palin will be able to take him apart.

[Niteflyr]

We can’t rely on 0bama screwing up to win with an “anybody by 0bama” vote.

I didn't say that ..well I kinda did but only to exaggerate the obvious...but it will be a major factor....when socialist policies fail which they always do people will look at Palin with fresh eyes...IMHO

[fabian]

yeah, this author seems full of it...

[Niteflyr]

well anyone who stayed home and got us obama is a coward and a traitor.

Yeah and I let them know it too....I even posted it on my Myspace page..."Thanks a lot....I hope you are all happy..."

[SoConPubbie]

And by the way, as much as 0bama turns people off, Sarah Palin does so even more, particularly among moderates and independents, where 0bama is particularly vulnerable.

We ought not nominate the one candidate that turns off independents even more than 0bama. That would result in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Once again your logic is flawed, as well as your stated evidence.

The turn-off of the moderates and independents is not as universal as you paint it.

Furthermore, it is a creation of a media that hates conservatives and conservatism.

So logically, if the candidate is a conservative and holds true to conservative positions on the issues, they are going to receive the same treatment.

So you my friend, are either going to have to settle for a moderate, that will have the same chances as winning as McCain always had, or you are going to settle for a real conservative who is going to recieve the EXACT SAME TREATMENT as Sarah.

Which will it be?

A moderate or a conservative?

[Cobra Scott]

I’m glad someone saw the same reference. And yes, sad.

Although, he never arrogantly denied his relationship, he didn’t burden a metropolitan police force with hiding trysts, he didn’t father a child and then get some other married man to claim it was his. In a judgement of character alone I have to concede him some points. There was no “Smoked but didn’t inhale” moment.

But the world is full of heterophobes who are for some reason obsessed with what goes on in the bedrooms of conservatives...

[Niteflyr]

The turn-off of the moderates and independents is not as universal as you paint it.

Look at the trend from last week...

[counterpunch]

You sound like a Republican talking up Alf Landon or Wendell Willkie in the 1930s. This is deja vu all over again.
Republicans swore up and down FDR was “too socialist” to win reelection, that his economic policies had made things worse — much worse — not better.
And yet FDR kept getting reelected — 3 times.

[Niteflyr]

in the 1930s.

This isn't the 1930's....uh like there is this internet thing that Al Gore invented and other newfangled ways for information to get to the masses.... apples and freightcars....

[ansel12]

No from your troll posting history you seem to be pro-abortion, anti-Christian, pro-homosexual marriage, pro-drugs, pro prostitution and every other liberal position except for money related issues, are you involved your self in a “gay marriage”?