For someone judged as not ready for prime time as short a time ago as the fall of 2008, Sarah Palin has proved to possess political acumen in abundance.
Labor Day marks the unofficial beginning of the 2010 general campaign season. While there has been much already published by political pundits regarding the drubbing that liberal Democrats are expected to absorb in November; we should note that one of the most remarkable stories of this recently completed primary season was the endorsement track record of one Sarah Palin, the former Governor of Alaska.
Counted among her successful primary endorsements are eight candidates she specifically endorsed in their respective primaries. These include; John McCain for Senate in Arizona, Susana Martinez in the New Mexico Governor’s race, Adam Kinzinger for Congress in Illinois's 11th District, Rob Portman for Senate in Ohio, Rand Paul for Senate in Kentucky, Representative Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Carly Fiornia in California, and former Governor Terry Branstad in Iowa.
She has also endorsed eleven incumbents who lacked any opposition in their respective primaries. One can only assume these endorsements will stand in place for the general election as well. Her Senate endorsements include Richard Burr in North Carolina, Tom Cobern in Oklahoma, Jim DeMint in South Carolina, Charles Grassley in Iowa, and John Thune in South Dakota.
On the Congressional side of the ledger there are Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota, Jeannette Schmidt of Ohio, Tom Rooney of Florida, and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Allen West in Florida, and Joe Miller in Alaska who was just received the concession of incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski.
Alas; she is only human, as she also endorsed Vaughn Ward who lost his May congressional primary, Angela McGlowan who lost her primary in Mississippi, and Tim Burns who lost his special election to replace the Late Rep John Murtha to Mark Critz in Pennsylvania. However; her endorsement record for this primary season is an astonishing 19 for 22 or 86%! Not a shabby record for any political player, let alone one who is constantly being undermined in the mainstream press as not possessing the political intellect to compete effectively.
These successful endorsements are important for three reasons:
* Political endorsements are like a gambler's marker. They may be called in at any time. These successful endorsements will translate into either monetary support, personal support, or both should Sarah Palin ever decide to seek political office once again.
* They have served, and will continue to serve to keep her in the political limelight as the 2010 campaign season continues to ramp up; maintaining her visibility all the way up to the unofficial kickoff of the 2012 presidential campaign season next February.
* They prove that her political instincts are much more highly developed that any liberal political pundit has been willing to give her credit for up until now.
Any way you care to look at it, this combination of successful candidate endorsements has allowed Sarah Palin to accumulate sufficient political clout to make her a real force to be reckoned with in 2012 should she so desire.
Excellent points. I’m a big fan of Sarah Palin – a great role model.
It’s good that we are able to learn more about her. The spin will continue, but seeing her in action and hearing her words is good.
Clearly Palin has become a serious player in conservative Republican politics. She will remain visible to the general public through her savvy use of the media, and she will be a force among conservative insiders. I think her actions make reasonably clear that she is going to be in the hunt for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. She will duke it out with Romney and, I think, ultimately defeat him in the primaries. She will get the nomination and has an extremely good chance at winning the presidency. As a liberal Democrat, I find all of this dismaying, but as a political scientist I’m going to call it as I see it. Obama combines the vices of being unpopular and ineffective. He will have to fight very hard just to keep his party’s nomination.
Gestell,
You say; “He will have to fight very hard just to keep his party’s nomination.” Is there precedent for such a thing? I know that in the past, there have been sitting presidents that have, for one reason or another, declined to run for a second term: But I must admit that I cannot recall of a time when the party, either party, said “Thanks, but no thanks.” And ‘fired’ a sitting president in favor of running new primaries to elect a new candidate. If such a thing has happened, it must have been generations ago.
reply to Mr. Wavering:
We only have one episode of this in American history. Franklin Pierce served one term (1853-1857). He was right up your alley–a Northern politician with Southern sympathies. He lost popularity among his fellow Democrats when he supported the Kansas-Nebraska Act. He fought with Stephen Douglas and James Buchanan for the nomination at the party’s 1857 convention. The Democrats were deeply divided between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions. After 14 ballots failed to produce a winner, Pierce withdrew his name. Douglas withdrew after the 16th ballot, and Buchanan was nominated by acclamation. Buchanan won the election. So, if you want to be accurate, even Pierce was not asked by his party’s leaders not to run; he bowed out because he knew he couldn’t win the nomination. If the Democrats ask Obama not to run again, it will be a first. I do think it could happen, however.
Perhaps even more likely is a strong challenge from Hillary that might prompt Obama to withdraw.
Interesting discussion, if a bit OT.
I humbly make my prediction: Obama will run for president on the democratic ticket. The democrats cannot and will not toss the first black president overboard.
Obama himself will never second guess the decision to run for re-election. He doesn’t appear to be capable of that level of introspection. He pursues his agenda with a single-minded determination seldom seen in politics.
When you know you are right, no amount of evidence to the contrary will dissuade you. Have you seen him bristle when challenged? He’s a true believer.
Hillary?
She’s a bigger commie ho than Anna Chapman. She proved that by giving up a plum job to be SOS. Ambition should be made of sterner stuff.
Besides Obama has ruined it for all affirmative action candidates. The guilt vote is over.
Go Sarah !
reply to Mountain Man,
The last president I recall who was almost as unable to take criticism as Obama is was Richard Nixon. Like Obama, Nixon bristled when challenged, and as as ungracious as Obama as well. But even Nixon did not have one thing Obama has in abundance: Obama positively radiates his condescension. At NRO, Charles Krauthammer wrote a few days back that Obama acts like the presidency is beneath him. Very well put.
Nixon was almost as bad a president as Carter, in a different way, of course. In particular, he imposed wage and price controls.
Nixon bristled not at being challenged, but by the press in general. He was never comfortable with them. That I can agree with him about.
Nixon was almost the flip side of Obama. If Obama thinks the presidency is beneath him and loves to talk “game” wherever there’s a camera, then Nixon relished the daily grind of the presidency and hated the spotlight.
I’d rank Nixon above Carter, and Obama right about even with Carter–and I’m a liberal Democrat. There is a difference between Carter and Obama. Carter was afraid of the office, fearful of its power, unwilling to develop some backbone. Obama is serenely detached from the office; he is, in this respect, unlike any other president I can think of. I was suspicious of him when I learned that he had already written two autobiographies, an appalling expression of self-centeredness.
[...] The Intellectual Conservative [...]