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.
“People had to opportunity to choose her over 0bama, and they passed by the millions.”
No they didn’t. They had a chance to vote for McCain over Obama, not Sara.
Nevertheless, many voted for Sarah in spite of McCain.
I was one.
I say Piper is the future.
The deportation line is nothing but hogwash. You make it uninviting for illegals and they will do what Reagan said every time.
They vote with their feet.
20 million? No, but in case you haven’t been paying attention, many already have.
Enforcement of our laws would change the cycle. But there’s no will to enforce the law. Obama is now looking to cease law enforcement on the issue. And he and the marxist Rat leadership want those votes to create a permanent Soviet elitist structure in America.
What do you think happens to the Republic then?
Live free or die.
Those were not her words. There were McCain’s. She was following the nominee’s position on Shamnesty.
There’s little likelihood she holds the same view on Shamnesty as McCain.
We may find out soon enough.
She symbolizes a female Ronald Reagan. But Reagan had years of policy experience and writing that he utilized on national speaking tours and on radio.
Reagan was never the idiot the leftists and liberals tried to portray him to be.
Sarah doesn’t have the knowledge Reagan had. But she has time.
To somehow pass the responsibility of this last election loss on Sarah Palin is downright ignorant of you. McCain LOST, not Palin. Palin was the only thing that kept McNasty from losing by double digits.
I realize that you will continue to argue the facts, but kindly refrain from responding to this post. For some reason, you see yourself as the ultimate authority on the subject and all other opinions are superseded by your self appointed clarification or analysis.
So, have a great day and see what happens a year or so down the road. Arguing about it so disingenuously here and now is a complete waste of time.
You can’t have it both ways.
Either Sarah Palin had supporters who came out to vote for her, or she was as irrelevant as Joe Biden.
Which is it?
There is no rule that says you can’t cast a vote in support of a VP candidate.
Usually people pay more attention to the candidates at the top of the ticket, but that wasn’t the case for the Republican ticket in 2008. Sarah generated enough support to win at first, and that is why the McCain-Palin ticket pulled ahead. But then the public soured on her once they got to know her better and decided they were unimpressed with her as a candidate.
If Sarah Palin had more people like yourself ready to come out and vote for her than 0bama had on election day, then the McCain-Palin ticket would have won. Lots of people who were excited at first by Sarah Palin changed their minds after seeing her in action, and most of the excitement had evaporated by election day. That lack of enthusiasm for the McCain-Palin ticket is why fewer people voted Republican than had 4 years earlier, and by the smallest margin since Bob Dole.
People who still think Sarah Palin is some kind of juggernaut are stuck in September of last year. The rest of America moved on long ago.
While having dinner with a couple of friends after the election, one started to tear into Sarah. (He’s honest enough with me to admit he thinks Sarah should be a school teacher. That’s his attitude toward women candidates.)
My other friend said Sarah was the only reason he voted for McCain. I concurred.
+2
Since you don’t have any comprehensive statistics nationally to prove otherwise, all I can do is look at my experience, speak for myself and recount this true story. I doubt I was alone.
That’s not a prediction for the future. I’m not choosing a candidate in 2012. I’m fighting right now against Obama and his socialist friends.
As for my friend, I advised him to keep quiet about his feelings. His new wife is a schoolteacher. And of course follows the Obama/NEA line.
Speaking of “odd ways of analyzing elections”, there has NEVER been an election where the voters chose a President based on who was the V.P. choice. If that were the case, ObaMao would have lost in a landslide.You're still turning reality inside out.
To somehow pass the responsibility of this last election loss on Sarah Palin is downright ignorant of you. McCain LOST, not Palin. Palin was the only thing that kept McNasty from losing by double digits.So you admit that the people who voted for the GOP ticket did so because they were Palin supporters, and yet you still can't make the connection that there just weren't as many of them as there were 0bama supporters. Why is that, and why do you think there would magically be more of them 3 years from now?
Look, I totally agree with you.
Everyone who voted for McCain-Palin were voting for Sarah Palin.
And yet she didn’t get enough votes to beat Barack 0bama. Support for her just wasn’t there in the numbers we needed to win.
So why do some Republicans want a rematch, exactly?
I’m not dissing her at all. I have the upmost respect for her. I just said with over half of the voters out their not buying into what she’s selling makes it pretty hard to get elected.
Now if she were able to get ACORN on board...(sarc)
Give what up? If she doesn’t have the backing, how is she supposed to get elected?
Good points, but she still can’t win. See post 530.
Sarah still said them......did she sell out for the VP slot? difficult to tell. She hasn’t cared enough about the subject to speak out on this since then.
The best a VP can do is sure up a Candidates base and not hurt them in the General.
You admit that she is basically the only reason most Republicans voted for McCain. And you have yet to provide any statistics that show Palin cost McCain net votes.
So she fulfilled her part of the Bargain as VP. It was John “The Fundamentals are strong” McCain who could not pull his ass over the finish line.
It’s way beyond removing government shackles. The workers are at their desks in DC and elsewhere whether they have laws to enforce or not, they are still there. No change until you change building security codes and start a little stuff outside. Reagan understood it is the bureaucracy that is the enemy. Politicians come and go (although in DC them seem to come and stay) but the bureaucracy grinds on, administration after administration.
That's an excellent reason to like her, one of the best, in fact.
But you DO have to do the analysis, in the primary season, with her campaigning and under fire, of whether or not she is the best candidate to put up against the Democratic nominee in 2012 (assuming there are elections in 2012, and assuming that the Democratic Party has not been outlawed by then).
In order to win today you will need to pit the people against the bureaucracy, unions and special interest minority groups. It’s not going to happen by being nice. You are going to have to push back in some tough areas or it’s lost forever.
You have to explain clearly to the people how the bureaucracy, unions and special interest minority groups have been busy using the government to feather their nests while leaving you with NOTHING. They have the lifetime pensions after 30 years of service. They have the perks.
Envy, jealousy and anger may not be desirable in Church but they are essential in political movements. I understand this. Until the pubes get it, we are dead in the water.
I never said she cost McCain net votes.
I never even implied it.
I just said that whatever she brought to the table against 0bama, it wasn’t enough.
It wasn’t enough in 2008 and it won’t be enough in 2012.
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.