There are four reasons Sarah Palin will seek the GOP nomination in 2012.
Will she or won't she?
As Sarah Palin proceeds apace with her book tour there is one question on the mind of friend and foe alike. Will she make a bid for the White House in 2012?
Kathleen O'Brien, a blogger for The Star-Ledger, predicts Sarah Palin will not throw her hat into the ring:
The reason she isn't going to run for president is the process would bore her. That's the conclusion I've reached after reading her memoir, "Going Rogue." In it, she routinely describes a deeply rooted restlessness, a propelling engine that always seeks the next challenge.
That means the endless slog of campaigning would grow tiresome, the fundraising would grow really tiresome and the need to muzzle herself would be excruciating. (It was hard enough being muzzled by the McCain people.)
O'Brien goes on to write that Palin isn't going away and that she'll probably end up with a television show. Well, there will be a vacancy on weekday afternoons once Oprah is going.
Yet I think O'Brien has misread Palin. If O'Brien thinks the process of running for the White House would bore Palin then why has she spent nearly the last two decades of her life seeking public office? Palin has sought five different elected offices – Wasilla City Council, Mayor of Wasilla, Lieutenant Governor of Alaska, Governor of Alaska and Vice-President of the United States. This is hardly an indication of someone who is easily bored with the political process.
Now it's certainly true that Palin felt severely constricted by McCain officials during the 2008 presidential election. Unlike her previous bids for elected office, Palin had very little say in how the McCain campaign would be run. But how would Palin be "muzzled" if she were at the top of the GOP ticket in 2012? It would be her campaign. To be sure she might have advisers who might caution here and there but those advisers would be people she trusts. She would not be stuck with advisers who weren't sympathetic to her populist ideas and temperament. In the event she found herself in an uncomfortable situation with campaign staff she would be in a position to rectify it in a way she couldn't in 2008.
The bottom line is that I think Sarah Palin will seek the Republican nomination for President of the United States. There are four reasons I think why she will do so.
First, Palin has something to prove to herself and to the country. Sadly, she is perceived by many as dull and dimwitted. David Brooks, the token conservative at The New York Times, recently characterized her as "a joke." Yet here is a woman who attained elected office before her 30th birthday. At 35, she was seeking her second term as Mayor of Wasilla. She was the Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission before she turned 40.
At 42, Palin was the youngest person ever elected as Governor of Alaska. To become Governor, Palin had to wrest the Republican nomination from incumbent Governor Frank Murkowski, a man first elected to the U.S. Senate when she was a teenager. Palin then went on to defeat Tony Knowles, a man who was twice elected as Governor of Alaska, in the general election. Yet despite these accomplishments she is looked upon with derision and disdain. Palin is even blamed for costing John McCain the election — as if the worst economic collapse in decades never happened. Under the circumstances one cannot help but think Palin wants to prove her critics wrong. The only way she can do that is to be elected President in her own right.
Now some might scoff at the possibility of Sarah Palin in the White House. Yet Palin has something going for her that other Republican contenders can only dream of. She has a dedicated following of people who are prepared to run through a brick wall for her. Naturally, liberal elites and some condescending conservatives dismiss Palin's supporters out of hand. This is a mistake. Indeed, the one thing Palin and President Obama have in common is the devotion of their supporters. While such a thing can lead to a cult of personality let us not forget that a presidential candidate needs people who are ready to stand in pouring rain or a blizzard to find other supporters. It is the sort of diligence that is the difference between winning and losing elections. One cannot underestimate the strength of Palin's supporters.
One must also not underestimate Palin herself. The David Brooks of the world can call her a joke all they want. Alan Colmes can wish she becomes the Republican nominee to his heart's content. Yet when Palin speaks people listen. If President Obama is unsuccessful in bringing about health care reform the person most responsible for its defeat will be Sarah Palin. Her use of the term "death panel" was crucial in galvanizing and mobilizing people against this albatross of debt and assault on individual freedom. Of course, those who support Obamacare like Howard Dean were aghast and vented their outrage on the pages of The Huffington Post. But if there is no such thing as "death panels" then why is there now an article on The Huffington Post which asks, "What's So Wrong With Death Panels?" Like it or not, Sarah Palin has left an indelible imprint on the health care debate.
Finally, we must also consider the political fortunes of President Obama. Assuming they should continue to decline — resulting in legislative defeats in 2010 and a possible challenge to Obama for the Democrat nomination — then Palin would be crazy not to take the chance and run. Of course, the liberal media would be so deep in the tank for Obama that they would have to report from Sea World. The odds won't be in Sarah Palin's favor. But since when has that stopped her.
Of course she’ll run.
While I don’t see her as well-qualified, Palin has one advantage over her potential rivals. I believe Romney or Huckabee would end Obama’s excesses. I don’t believe either would have the nerve to actually slash those excesses and return to a status quo ante. Palin would. All the talk we on the Right offer about how “Once liberal entitlements get int government, they’re politically impossible to remove”? Not with Palin in the White House.
We are watching the “misunderestimation” phenomenon that consistently aided W. happen all over again. All Palin needs to do is demonstrate that she isn’t, actually, a blithering moron, and the public (independents especially) will be breathtaken.
I tend to be a conservative and at times a moderate. I thoroughly enjoy this website and read it frequently. With Palin, I have mixed feelings. Like Obama who was born in Hawaii (my bias as I am from and live in Hawaii), a black individual (my bias as I am Chinese and felt proud that we were able to nominate a black candidate for the high office of the presidency), and a seemingly good thinker (articulate, so I thought at first, did more than re-phase his sentences as sometimes past administations did), I have my own reasons to “like” Sarah Palin. I am a Christian, I understand that she is one too. I like some of her political ideology. She is a woman and I find that to be a great thing to have a female president one day. She is also somewhat less strapped with the political style that sometimes causes me and perhaps others to look at Washington D.C. and the federal government with some degree of mistrust or suspicion. Palin seems like a nice person.
However, however, however. . .
Although she may be a nice change from the “usual,” I know that the complexity of global events, the challenges within domestic concersn requiring decisive actionn (Obama is not good on decisive to me, although the liberal spin him as thoughtful, introspective, etc. . . . smile, lol, is that a joke?) and so many things happening at such a critical level that no matter how much I personally like Sarah Palin, it’s really not what I like, it’s what we all need.
Obama’s rhetoric so far has not made the world a safer place, although it has changed some of dialogue, if we were to speak to those who are pro-Obama, but in reality, we need more than rhetoric.
I think it makes for a good psychological discussion to compare the Obama rise and the Palin challenge in the movement, momentum, and popularity factors, but, we need more than ICONS.
I see our President as an icon. I think Sarah has a great future in politics on the national and federal level and I commend her if she pursues political office on that level, but to no offense to her or to those who like Obama, I find it difficult to follow the thinking process of Sarah Palin, even when I agree on some of her viewpoints on the issues. And while I need more than rhetoric, I like to observe, analyze, and listen carefully to the way an individual thinks, processes, and reasons and the variations of his or her logic and rationale which lead to informative policy, decision, and action in a TIMELY MANNER.
One can like someone but not be impressed with him or her for the office he or she may seek. If she were to run in 2012, I would not be able to fully endorse her at my level of expectation regarding the kind of intellectual and experiential leader we need for the complexity of our times and the way a leader is able to communicate that complexitity to a diverse and global audience when it comes to international negotiations and global influence/impact.
Time may change my opinion of Mrs. Sarah Palin. I wish her well and I pray for her that she will continue to withstand the unfair treatment that she and her family are experiencing by the liberals.
Adrian Yuen, Ph.D.
Just because leftists think she is stupid doesn’t make it so. I am an automatic fan of any person hated by the Left.
According to the Left there are these types of conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians:
1) stupid (Palin, Bush II, Reagan)
2) evil (Rush, Rove, Cheney, Coulter)
3) Principled (McCain, Snowe, David Brooks; but only when they agree with leftists or diss conservatives)
There is a fourth category which is the dumping ground for conservatives who cannot be fit into the above three. This is the “ignore” category, which includes: William F. Buckley, George Will, Alan Keyes, Ron Paul.
Sometimes conservatives are moved from one category to another in order to explain away occurences that disprove the category. Other times, a temporary category called “crazies” is invoked.
In any case, the intent is to dismiss or demonize conservatives in order to avoid entirely the need to create an argument in response to the issues they raise.
I only count three, but maybe I misread.
Here’s another reason she’ll run: Narcissistic personality disorder. Same as Bill Clinton, G. W. Bush, Obama.
Definition of an alcoholic: someone you don’t like who drinks as much as you do.
Definition of narcissistic personality disorder: a charismatic politician from the other party.
Mountain: Palin crosses over into the 2nd category for her ruthless competitiveness. I would also put her in category #3, seriously.
Ruminator,
According to the Left there are these types of conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians:
1) stupid (Palin, Bush II, Reagan)
2) evil (Rush, Rove, Cheney, Coulter)
3) Principled (McCain, Snowe, David Brooks; but only when they agree with leftists or diss conservatives)
There is a fourth category which is the dumping ground for conservatives who cannot be fit into the above three. This is the “ignore” category
“Stupid”, “Evil”, “Principled”, “Ignore”. Looks like 4 to me. To just categorize Palin as “Evil” and “Principled” is really quite flattering by comparison to most other liberal commentators. And thank you for dutifully perpetuating the stereotype Mountain Man has created.
Wait a minute Pops. I wasn’t saying I believed that about Palin. I was saying that some people say this about her. I have no opinion on that one. Well, OK I expressed myself poorly. Wouldn’t be the first time.
There may be such a thing as competitiveness that is a bit outrageous in its zeal and methods (think Ty Cobb) but that’s not what evil is.
“I only count three, but maybe I misread.” I was referring to the reasons in A. Goldstein’s article.
Seriously though I think she fits in category three, but not because she has sided with liberals on anything that I know of. More because she’s kind of like Reagan. She’s so up front with her views that I doubt she could conceal them if she tried. For example she could never say to the voters of Massachusetts (as Romney did) “I have no intention of changing laws about abortion if I am governor.” Which really meant “I couldn’t change them if I tried so I’m not going to.”
Re: “ruthless competitiveness/evil” brouhaha: many times on this site people use terms that (I don’t know the word for this) are intended to convey not necessarily the writer’s point of view, but a point of view that is stereotyped or attributed to a group, to convey a point about that group. And since there’s no vocal intonation, body language, etc. it may take longer to find out exactly what was meant. I was (at least in my thoughts) agreeing with Mountain, and adding that Palin is put in the evil category by some.
Either that or I’ve been put into one of the categories for liberals, rather than listened to. In any case, no hard feelings. It’s an interesting thing to study, and fun to speculate about.
If we resent it every time someone misunderstands us, maybe we are being puerile.
“And thank you for dutifully perpetuating the stereotype Mountain Man has created.”
Mr. Mulligan, this is an example of what I meant the other day with the guy who had the “James Bond-Ronnie’s stinger missiles in Afghanistan” theory. When you informed him that he would be “welcome” on the site if and when he had better ideas to contribute, I noted that the “welcome” or withholding of same is superfluous. Even in the most agreeable setting it may come off as high-handed. To play down the awkwardness inherent in having the host of the site be also one of the de facto participants in the debate, why not bypass the cumbersome “welcome” question.
In addition, when you opined that I had confirmed Mountain man’s stereotype of air-headed liberals, you thanked me. This comes very close to suggesting that the person not worthy of serious debate is welcome, as a negative example.
I am less certain of a second Palin run.
As much as I like Palin (I’d like her even more had she Fred Thompson’s intellect) and want her in the running, 2012 is too far off to prognosticate. I seriously doubt if even Sarah knows the answer to this question yet. Too much can happen, and it may well be she’ll take too many punches in the interim to remain viable. Certainly, she is way over-exposed to liberal hammering at this juncture that by ’08 she’ll be the most battered candidate we can field. Of course, that can also work to her advantage if she has the stamina to take it.
Who knows if she’ll even have a following by then? The public is fickle and tends to desert ‘also-rans’ and ‘perennial candidates’ (e.g., Biden, LaRoche, Nader, Keyes), regardless how great they are or how well they’ve performed. Historically, we look to fresh faces to energize flagging campaigns. While Sarah has the face and personality to re-energize any campaign, will that be sufficient to reinvigorate to a greater level than 2008? If not, her campaign may quickly fizzle, and we’d be left with a double debacle. Probably, she’d have more than enough to outdistance Republican primary contenders, but if she can’t sustain it once the real onslaught begins then all we’ve accomplished is to hand them a second martyr. Much depends on prevailing mood and how that much impugns Democrat motives.
An awful lot is up to the RNC, and right now they are not pushing Sarah. Michael Steele, says he likes Palin, but his endorsement seems guarded and less than enthusiastic. Some are even less friendly and may have a greater interest in derailing than supporting her.
Kathleen Parker gave Palin low ratings, and not all of her criticisms are without merit, though I disagree she’s as inept as painted (I was framed, Ma!). No one with her accomplishments could be. If nothing else, Palin’s got some perception mending to get done between now and 2012. But, even if Parker is right Palin is not quite ready to handle a market meltdown as she’d like, she couldn’t be any worse than a second dose of Obama. Parker’s trouble may be she (like the rest of us) compares everyone since Reagan to Reagan, and that just ain’t fair.
On the positive side, Palin’s got an impressive record as an reform governor and national presence from the 2008 VP run to guarantee her a candidate slot. Her conservatism is sufficiently genuine (as genuine as any viable candidate since Reagan, a little wobbly on environmentalism perhaps, but otherwise fairly solid). She’s also got a favorability-rating in excess of her 2008 running mate. Finally, she is savvy enough to learn from past mistakes.
In sum, while she’s got some real pluses, she’s also acquired the unenviable baggage that comes of national exposure. This being the case, Sarah might do well to fade out for a time, maintaining just enough visibility as reminds us she’s a contender.