Posted on 11/25/2010 9:10:56 AM PST by roses of sharon
I spent only a few hours with the former governor, helping to prepare her for the vice presidential debate in October 2008. And during that brief window, I saw Palin at one of her most vulnerable moments, when any result other than a complete train wreck seemed impossible. And yet I also saw a determined woman buckle down, recover her confidence and then storm the national stage where she more than held her own against a seven-term senator.
Did she face some tough slogging to reach her remarkable perch? Sure, you betcha. I admire her tenacity, her verve, her moxie, and her pluck. As she releases what’s sure to be another bestseller, America by Heart, I think it’s phenomenal how Palin has been able to leverage her moment in the spotlight. I marvel at her masterful manipulation of the media, and her ability to redirect the national debate with merely a tweet. Most of all, I like the way she defies conventional wisdom and does things her own way: She doesn’t retreat, she reloads. And without Palin and the Tea Party backing Republican candidates, I doubt the crimson tide would have risen so high Nov. 2.
Palin’s appeal completely befuddles metro-intellectuals. They scoff at her “experience,” holding the one-time city manager, mayor, oil and gas commission chair, governor, and vice presidential nominee to a different standard than candidate Obama. A marathon runner, mother of five, and grandmother to one, she has no qualms about smacking a slimy halibut—or an oil and gas company—upside the head. And don’t be fooled, underneath that “prom hair” is a brilliant populist.
Yet I find myself continually goaded into denigrating her, saying things like “she’s reached her sell-by date,” “her stock is going down,” and “if she’s smart, she won’t run for president.” And I was going to go on TV recently and say, “It’s rare you hear quantitative easing and Sarah Palin in the same sentence,” until I realized that she did a hell of a lot better job explaining the complex concept than I could.
Though she is rightfully suspicious of advice from outside Team Palin, and she certainly doesn't care what I think, it is my strong opinion that she should not run. Not just because I don’t agree with her positions or her politics, but because the coming political fight is about more than the future of Sarah Palin. It’s about the future of the country.
All the fun, the money, the power will only be diminished if she runs. Because I don’t care how you cut it, in the end she will lose.
President Obama’s approval rating is now just 39 percent, and he is statistically tied in a direct matchup with Palin according to a new Zogby poll. And according to Quinnipiac, American voters believe that Obama does not deserve a second term by a margin of 49 to 43 percent. But Palin is viewed unfavorable by 51 percent of voters. And among independents, the key swing voting bloc, her negative is at 54 percent. She is not the right candidate right now.
Framing the presidential contest ahead, Mona Charen put it well: “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.”
If Palin runs, I think the entire Republican primary process will be hijacked. With ardent fans and a rabid media, it will become Palin-palooza. A celebrity fest will follow with even more amplitude than the adulation and adoration that surrounded Barack Obama, who was so revered he was sometimes referred to in biblical proportions as “The One.” An all-consuming super nova, Palin will suck the oxygen out of every room, everywhere she goes. And one of two things will happen. Discerning conservative voters in early primary states will be offended by the circus-like atmosphere and the presumption that they could so easily fall for a “cult of personality.” And they will vote against her. And she will lose. Or, Republican voters will be completely swept up in the mania and nominate her as the GOP standard bearer to go up against President Obama. And she will lose—perhaps the only Republican nominee who could lose in 2012.
But I also think she shouldn’t run for her sake. How could life get any better? She has more power, money, control, and influence than she could have ever possibly imagined. Two bestselling books, almost 2.5 million Facebook fans, a record-breaking cable TV show, and a daughter who made it to the finals on another TV show—not because of her abilities, but because she’s Sarah Palin’s daughter, and by god, the Palinistas out there defiantly come to her rescue week after week.
Palin is having fun. She decided governing Alaska was, well, just a pain. Too much work. A hassle. Whatever. Next. There I go again, denigrating. See, it’s just a reflex. It’s easy to discount her accomplishments, and to ignore the ludicrous opposition Palin faced in the courts and in the press on her return to office from the campaign trail. But my point is, all the fun, the money, the power will only be diminished if she runs. Because, I don’t care how you cut it, in the end she will lose. She is just too polarizing a figure at this point in her career to win a general election. And if the Republicans lose to a weakened President Obama, she will forever be blamed for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
But I know how these things go. First of all, as James Carville said, running for president is like sex. Once you’ve done it, it’s hard to stop. Second, once the drum beat starts, and all your friends and admirers start telling you, “For the sake of the Republic, it’s your duty to run,” it’s awfully hard not to let your ego get filled with a lot of helium. Next thing you know, you’re shivering at a diner in January in Iowa.
I know there are millions of conservative women and young grizzlettes out there who admire Sarah Palin. She inspires them; she is them. They know that beneath the sequined lapel pin roars the heart of a Mama Grizzly wronged. And they are offended when elites, the media, and smart asses like me dismiss her infectious optimism, her pitch-fork populism, and her love of family, faith and the flag.
In my view, it would have been interesting to see what would have happened to her as a political figure had she not been plucked too soon from obscurity, if she had been allowed to ripen on the vine for a couple of terms as governor of Alaska before emerging on the national scene. Alas, she was thrown onto the rocket sled of celebrity and has ridden to heights never before seen.
And if Palin doesn't run for the top slot, she will very likely be on the short list again for vice president. Or certainly for a cabinet slot if the Republicans win.
Only one thing is for sure. Sarah Palin is going to be around for a very long time. She’s already had a few last laughs, and she’s likely to have a whole lot more before the closing credits roll. ’Cause life as America’s sweetheart—and siren for the left—is “flippin’ fun.”
No matter what happens, whether she runs for president or not, Palin is going to be Pot Stirrer-in-Chief.
Better without the definition.
rats lie. Run Sarah.
Romney is a lying abortionist like George Tiller.
When Mitch Daniels calls for a unilateral “truce”, a surrender, on “social issues”, he is announcing that he is no conservative.
“...Accomplishments that garnished her a whopping...”
Garnered, not garnished.
“The squishy middle is the prime target of the MSM’s attacks on Sarah.”
Yes, but the demonrats can easily overdo attacks on a woman. A woman is heir to sympathy from men because...well, because she’s a woman, and from women because...well because she’s a woman. And because these attacks are not “civil,” the squishtards are likely to resent them on those grounds alone.
If the demonrats “take the gloves off,” they could generate a lot of sympathy for the ‘Cuda in the squishy middle.
“the very fact that there are so many here who bash her (despite subscribing to her views) should be of great concern regarding her viability as a candidate.”
(When I allege the following, I get about the same response that I got in the early 1980s when I accused the lamestream misleadia of a leftist bias.)
I think that it is possible to hack the FR software and either create an account with whatever “member since” date you want, or at least to hack the “member since” date on existing accounts.
I think that a lot of the stuff we see here—such as Palin-bashing—comes from moles with fake “member since” dates. I also think there are more moles than practically anyone imagines.
The lamestream misleadia is now acknowledged to be grotesquely biased, and if events play out, I expect my claims about moles to be vindicated as well.
“people have blinders on about Mitt and underestimate his appeal while overestimating Palin’s appeal to non-ideologues.”
1. I don’t think so. I think that many here correctly understand that a failure to deny Comrade Romney the nomination and get Governor Palin elected would be disastrous. The effort must be made, even if the odds look slim (Which they don’t, to me).
2. What are an idealogue and a non-idealogue? Does that mean something other than “person of principle” and “person who will get in bed with Evil, perhaps out of ignorance, perhaps out of weakness, or perhaps because corrupt”?
“Many MANY of us are tired of the Elites and RINOs calling ALL the shots for the GOP since 1988.”
I’ll have a keg of that, please. I’m not voting for any more RINO candidates that the GOP elite hand-picks. EVER.
Throw away my vote, they say? As though a vote for Bob Dole wasn’t wasted? As though a vote for President George H. W. Bush in 1992 wasn’t wasted? As though a vote for John McCainiac wasn’t wasted?
I think the only votes I ever wasted were for annointed GOP candidates.
I’ll be voting for the person I prefer from now on, thank you, and if the GOP doesn’t nominate that person, they won’t have my vote.
Don’t LISTEN TO YOUR ENEMIES; Run Sarah
(Fixed it)
Second, to always put every discussion into the evil-non-evil category is just ridiculous. Sarah Palin is no more "goodness" than Romney is "evil." I'd trust either with my children, and (with the right checks-and-balances) I'd trust either with the government. Romney's inclinations are much further left than I like---but so were McCain's and the question is still up in the air as to whether we're better off with Obama than McCain (in some ways, yes, because he demonstrated the end result of Marxism). But in other ways, the NORKs could launch something at us immediately and I'd rather have Juan in there than Barry. So you can make an argument either way.
The big difference is NOT between Palin or DeMint and Romney or Huckabee (whom I really don't like), but between those who inherently love America (even when they have policies I don't agree with) and those who don't. And I'd put all four on one side and Barry on the other.
Palin seems to do better in polls that don't actually have her as a candidate. Certainly the conservative blogosphere loves her, and they hate Romney---although Ann Coulter, as I recall, endorsed Mitt in 2008.
In most head-to-head polls between Palin and Obama, she comes off worse than anyone else. Now, that's NO reason to reject her, but it is something to note. In 2008, McCain came off better against all Dems, and look at what happened there.
Palin can win in 2012---indeed, as I keep saying, it's possible that Obama will become Herbert Hoover by 2012 and any Republican can win. But I'm not ready yet to just hand her the nomination. I still don't think we've seen the 2012 candidate on our side yet.
They keep saying she's a polarizing figure. If liberals agree with that, it's only because SNL ridiculed her week after week after week. NBC was on a relentlessly planned mission to destroy her credibility.
Thanks
“No, and your very questions suggest you still have blinders on.”
Buncombe.
“Comrade” ... really? Do you think there are 20% of REPUBLICANS (let along Americans) who think Mitt is a communist?”
Don’t know, don’t care. Don’t see why you thought that question was worth asking. Oh, wait, now I see: you were trying to discredit me personally by stretching for the worst interpretation imaginable.
Romneycare is certainly far enough to the left to justify a bit of hyperbole.
“If so, you’re beyond help.”
Bite me. Who the hell do you think you are to be passing such judgments?
“Second, to always put every discussion into the evil-non-evil category is just ridiculous.”
And to fail to see the eternal conflict between good and evil is stupid as a sack of dirt.
“Sarah Palin is no more “goodness” than Romney is “evil.”
Well, I see why blinders were on your mind. Here’s a clue: All leftist thought, from the limousine liberalism of a George Clooney to the mass murders of Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot, is of and from Satan.
Governor Palin is much further to the side of good than Romney. Socialized medicine, as with all socialist thought, is Evil. Capital “E” Evil.
“I’d trust either with my children, and (with the right checks-and-balances) I’d trust either with the government.”
Trust Romney? Trust a man who implemented socialized medicine? Hmmm, what’s worse than folly? The total absence of judgment, perhaps?
“Romney’s inclinations are much further left than I like”
And yet you would support him in a run for the presidency. Amazing.
“but so were McCain’s and the question is still up in the air as to whether we’re better off with Obama than McCain”
Staggering. Just staggering.
“So you can make an argument either way.”
Not while remaining within the bounds of sanity, you can’t.
“And I’d put all four on one side and Barry on the other.”
The apparent fact that Romney is to some degree less evil than the Kenyan Commie in no way puts him in the same ball park with Governor Palin.
It’s too bad that you can’t see what we have in Governor Palin. You might want to be less outspoken about that, though, because it could be really embarrassing if at some point you did get it.
“They keep saying she’s a polarizing figure.”
The use of the phrase “polarizing figure” just means that the left really, really hates her.
I don’t agree with Mark McKinnon here. He seems to have first made up his mind he didn’t want Sarah Palin to be President, and then thought up excuses for his opinion.
I didn’t read one good reason she shouldn’t run.
“I bet if you go ask 10 people on the street whom they’d prefer, they’d say Mitt.”
Sure they would /sarc/ and if you tell them a little about Mitt (like RomneyCare), then nine out of those tem will say no.
You know as well as I do that, even without the knowledge of Romney’s odious record in Massachusetts, he is still behind Palin . (and those head to head national polls mean nothing now.) Bob Dole was ahead of Clinton 50-45 in early 1996 and lost quite badly.
Romney is a sure loser. Palin is a sure winner. Look at the electoral college. And realize this election will be about turnout. it is not about reaching for the middle. That kind of logic produced losers like Ford, Bush and Dole. The reverse of that logic gave us landislides in 1980, 1984 and 1988.
The GOP has not had a landslide since Regan’s third term. The Dems have had three (1992, 1996 and 2008). Your “nominate the mushy moderate strategy” is empirically flawed. We are not going to follow it this time.
“I still don’t think we’ve seen the 2012 candidate on our side yet.”
Well, you are dreaming then. The GOP never nominates darkhorses. Hasn’t happened since 1940.
It will be one of the frontrunners, Palin, Romney, Gingrich or Huckabee. On that you can count. It will only be one of the “darkhorses” if none of these run, which is nextto impossible.
“Palin can win in 2012-—indeed, as I keep saying, it’s possible that Obama will become Herbert Hoover by 2012 and any Republican can win.”
Can win? Right now, Obama is the only behind the eight ball, not Palin. His numbers in Ohio are in the toilet. Indiana, North Carlina and Virginia have already returned to their red “roots” based on 2010 and past electoral history.
Wisconsin is moving hard red with a liberal icon liike Feingold upended.
How about you chart us a path for victory for Obama against Palin state by state. Which states will he take from those carried by McCain in 2008?
And in light of 2010, how is he going to protect states like Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, New Hampshire, among others, all of which went bright red in 2010?
All the pre-campaign national polls in the world are not going to save him from the Electoral college arithmetic, which will be even grimmer for him (and better for Palin) after the 2010 census).
Tell us how he gets to 270 because I am having a hard time seeing it.
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.