Posted on 07/02/2009 9:30:03 PM PDT by 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.
You take empty suit Romney, I’ll take Thune. :)
Rejected her? How can you say that? There has never been a Presidential election in the history of this nation where the public elected a President based on who the V.P. was.
If anything, it was Sarah who gathered up a hopelessly fragmented base and made a close election out of it, based on her merit alone. McCain was the reason we lost the election and for that reason only.
The press feared her and attacked her mercilessly and she handled it quite well. McCain was by far, the very worst candidate the GOP has ever made the mistake of running.
Just by looking at Palin's record as Governor of Alaska, she is more than qualified to be President. And, given her additional time and experience before the next 2012 election, she will be more than ready to take charge of this pathetic party and pick it back up like Reagan did.
No one could have pushed McCain over the finish line.
McCain was seriously damaged goods - and still is.
“National Security has nothing to do with Conservatism”
Of course it does! I’m sorry but that’s a laughable statement. The Constitution has some strong things to say on the subject, if you notice. And notice it is mostly the Democrat Party which compromises national security.
Oh Deanna. Please do not split hairs like that and if you believe everything was going to collapse because of the financial markets it shows you just don’t understand them. There would’ve been pain but those who would’ve felt it the most are those who screwed things up the most the politicians and those running their institutions into the ground with bad debt. The percentage of banks that have needed bailouts is very small. The size of the banks involved are large but there is no reason to think we could not have survived and weathered the mess. What they did was scare Bush and everyone to death just like they did with the second stimulus and the Cap and Trade and as they will try with the Health Care. We need to quit trying to defend Bush. He made a mistake in pushing for the stimulus Obama is not just making a mistake he is compounding it a 1000x times over. President Bush was a mixed bag. We got 2 great justices from him and he’ll go down in history for succeeding on that point and also keeping America safe but his compassionate conservative spending and polarizing position on immigration and then pushing through that bailout. It killed us last election. How can people expect to trust you if you say you hold certain principles and then you throw them out the window in an emergency? It is exactly having principles that keeps one from making grave mistakes.
“National Security” does have nothing to do with Conservatism. It’s an issue not a principle. Conservatives have strong principles on taxes just like they do for National Security. But Conservatism is no more about taxes than it is National Security. Because they are issues not principles.
I read enough of your posting history to see that you really just post largely for reactions and interactions, many of your posts directly contradict each other from thread to thread, kind of how your home page is printed as an announcement but is contradicted in your posting habits.
Home loan interest rates were hitting 21%.
There was massive economic chaos.
Carter got tossed because people were in line to get gas, inflation was rampant and you couldn't buy or sell a house.
You’re wrong. Preservation of the security of the Nation from its enemies, foreign and domestic, is the obligation of government and one of the foremost reasons for government to exist.
If a nation’s economy collapses it loses its national security.
A newbie is a recent sign-up who is rude and trollish in behavior. Just like you.
Reagan was the first one I voted for BTW.
When you're the VP running mate, you have to hold the line to the boss' agenda. It's a hard, tough reality of presidential politics. But, VPs have been known to hint around the edges that they have somewhat differing views than their bosses.
Sarah is no different. It was clear in her many speeches where her considerations lay. I think that the McCain campaign even had to temper ITS agenda, based on the strongly conservative statements that Sarah was making on the campaign trail.
It would be almost impossible to match two running mates together who have identical political views, even though they're of the same party. Humans are all unique, and all have their unique views. As long as the two can see eye to eye on most things, they'll at least not damage each other in the race.
It's the cat at the top of the ticket that calls the shots and gets to formulate the platform and agenda - not the running mate.
I was in my twenties. I agree the economy was stressed then but that’s not what the MSM was harping on every night for months and months. It was the Iranian Hostage Crisis. They’d even begin their nightly broadcasts by counting the days 100 - 200 - 300 - 400 - 410 - 420 - 430 - 444 —
I’ve addressed the issue of a candidate not getting picked to be their party’s nominee, and pointed out how most candidates have unsuccessful runs for the nomination before being picked.
Not being chosen to be the guy the party runs in a presidential election is just that. It’s not a loss in the same sense as losing once they’re up to bat. It just means they weren’t picked this round to take a swing at the ball.
You may take note, regarding Nixon, that a) he came a few stuffed ballot boxes in Chicago shy of being president in 1960. b) he waited until neither candidate who had defeated him were running on the Democrat ticket. Unlike the other races I cite that were back to back with candidates from 4 years earlier facing off again, Nixon’s race against Humphrey-Muskie was not a rematch.
In a Palin 2012 scenario, she would be in a rematch against a candidate her ticket lost to just 4 years earlier by 10 million votes. That amounts to political suicide for the GOP.
It is quite a different situation than a candidate who lost by only 100,000 votes waiting 8 years to run against a totally different non-incumbant ticket. It would have been more like if Al Gore had run against John McCain in 2008. He could have won that race, too.
Thune should have voted against TARP just like the libs voted down the House Republican Bill.
Not only was TARP unconstitutional, it didn't work. In fact a large part of TARP funds went to overseas banks which did nothing to open up the credit markets here.
Thune thought TARP would be good for SD. And as their Senator it was his call. But that doesn't make it Conservative either.
deannadurbin has a good point. What kind of ‘principled conservative’ accepts the invitation to be a RINO’s running mate?
This does point to her willingness to discard whatever conservative principles she may have.
You mean the “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system” didn’t work for you?
Didn’t work for me either...
In fact in abandoning it he did a lot to destroy what he was trying to “save”. Obama followed his lead 100x over...
The anal retentive, Christian wannaBees made it to this
thread and reeked out the hatred for Gov. Palin.
“When you’re the VP running mate, you have to hold the line to the boss’ agenda.”
If Todd as her husband had done something that was unConstitutional should she have “held the line to her husband’s agenda?”
Here’s a thought: what if Sarah had said to John McCain, “I am a solid conservative. I can’t run with you because of your stands on illegal immigration, stem cell research, etc.” What if Sarah had kept her anonymity for another 4 years? She could have burst onto the scene when she was really ready: when her Down Syndrome child was a little older, when she was more prepared to run for President after several more years of governing Alaska?
She wouldn’t have had the baggage of McCain to hold her down.
A Democrat was in office, of course the media didn’t have much to say about it. The people though, had a lot to say about it.
Yeah it’s a firework of anklebiters.
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.