Posted on 11/19/2010 6:50:35 AM PST by WebFocus
By telling Barbara Walters that she thinks she can defeat President Obama, Sarah Palin has dimmed hopes cherished by sensible Republicans that she might decide against a run for the White House in 2012. Here are just some of the reasons she should not run.
The Republican nominee should be someone with a vast and impressive record in government and the private sector. 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.
After the 2008 campaign revealed her substantive weaknesses, Palin was advised by those who admired her natural gifts to bone up on policy and devote herself to governing Alaska successfully. Instead, she quit her job as governor after two and a half years, published a book (another is due next week), and seemed to chase money and empty celebrity. Now, rather than being able to highlight the accomplishments of Sarah Palin’s Alaska, we get Sarah Palin’s Alaska, another cheesy entrant in the reality-show genre. She’d so much rather be out dog sledding than in some “dull political office,” she tells the audience. File that.
It’s true. She is wildly popular with a swath of the Republican electorate. And, as a conservative woman politician told me, political consultants (who get paid the big bucks, win or lose) will doubtless descend upon her with game plans showing how she can win in Iowa and then cruise to the nomination. Maybe. But the general election would be a problem, since 53 percent of independent voters view Palin unfavorably along with 81 percent of Democrats, according to a recent Gallup poll.
There is no denying that Sarah Palin has been harshly, sometimes even brutally, treated by the press and the entertainment gaggle. But any prominent Republican must expect and be able to transcend that. Palin compares herself to Reagan. But Reagan didn’t mud-wrestle with the press. Palin seems consumed and obsessed by it, as her rapid Twitter finger attests, and thus she encourages the sniping. She should be presiding over meetings on oil and gas leases in the North Slope, or devising alternatives to Obamacare. Every public spat with Dave Letterman or Politico, or the “lamestream media,” or (God help us) Levi Johnston, diminishes her.
Speaking of television, have you watched “Dancing with the Stars”? Calling the show cheesy would be too generous. Perhaps the former governor should not be blamed for the decisions of her adult daughter. Yet there in the audience we see Sarah and Todd Palin, mugging for the camera and cheering on their unwed-mother daughter as she bumps and grinds to the tune of “Mamma Told Me Not To Come.” Her parents had advised her, the 20-year-old Bristol told an interviewer, that she had to stay “in character” if she expected to win. Being “in character” evidently meant descending to the vulgarity that DWTS peddles on a weekly basis. The mama grizzly was apparently unfazed by, or — equally disturbingly — unaware of, the indignity. And she is supposed to be a conservative culture warrior?
Voters prize judgment, above all, in a presidential candidate. Some of Sarah Palin’s 2010 endorsements were sound and arguably helpful. Others betrayed flightiness and recklessness. Tom Tancredo, Palin’s choice for governor of Colorado, has ridden his anti-immigration hobby-horse in a style perfectly suited to alienate Hispanic voters (describing Miami, for example, as a “Third World city”). Her endorsement of Christine O’Donnell was irresponsible and damaging, losing a seat that would otherwise have been a Republican pick-up. Of course, O’Donnell received an absurdly disproportionate amount of ink and attention during the race (the liberal press naturally seizes upon any opportunity to make conservatives look kooky), but Palin should have anticipated that. Besides, this one cannot be laid at the feet of the biased media. O’Donnell was a thoroughly unqualified candidate.
Palin has many strengths. I admire her fortitude and her principles. Her ability to connect with a crowd is something most politicians can only dream of. I will always remember her 2008 convention speech as a rollicking star turn. She would be terrific as a talk-show host — the new Oprah.
But a presidential candidate? Someone to convince critical independent voters that Republicans can govern successfully? Absolutely not.
— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Looks like the "Stop Sarah" campaign is still in full swing!
He’s physically in the state of Washington. No other meaning intended.
Where is Moana’s article about the usurper commie obama not running in 2012? I musta missed it.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’d definitely vote for her. BUt the maina rgument is going to be, if she couldn’t handle it while governor, she can’t handle it as President. And the stupid masses will believe it.
Pence and Thune - Indiana and SoDak - great men, waste of time. Presidential elections are like product marketing, unfortunately. Obama’s inaugural party will be bigger than the 2008 one.
Don’t you get it? If you don’t support Palin around here, you support Mitt Romney, John McCain and Lisa Murkowski. It doesn’t matter if you want Thune or Pence - because deep down inside, you secretly want Romney to win. /s
It’s the same tired old stuff, this time from Charen.
I know that she wrote an article, I think in 2008, praising Romney.
Right, Mona! Like who?
All the folks in Government are lawyers and part of the problem.
People in the private sector who have impressive records usually have too much sense to run.
You folks in the chattering class, liberal AND conservative, have made politics a beauty contest. Who cares is a candidate is not photogenic or cannot debate well.
Does the candidate have wisdom and integrity?
Can they choose experienced, knowledgeable advisers & staff?
Do they UNDERSTAND and revere the US Constitution?
Do they know that they are accountable to the American people and to God?
I agree. All political decision-making should be organized around what the stupid masses will like best. Let’s just make Zero Dictator for Life. That will please quite a few stupid people, until La Raza (the new majority-minority) takes him out and puts in Hugo Chavez Parte Dos.
Anything but a conservative, right?
.... but I think it would be BEST for America, the Republic and Democracy — if the lame-stream media, dems, RINOs and certain “patriots” would just shut up and allow the long-established presidential primary process to unfold, and take it's natural course - with the best candidates emerging from the herd.
Sad what’s happened to National Review. God, when I was a kid in the 1960s I LIVED for its every utterance. Now...
Wonder why these folks REALLY don’t want her to run? Savage says she cannot win.
Mona is entitled to her opinion. It’s wrong. But she is entitled to it.
Sarah isn’t going to get the nomination.
Too many people think just like you and me.
WE WANT A WINNER!
Palin might win against Obama; I would certainly vote for her given that choice. But I don’t want “mights” rather I want Obama out and while that motivation may well be a dominate feeling amongst the electorate come 2012, it does not mean they will vote for a candidate that many dislike as much or more than they do Obama. These voters may stay home and Obama continues to destroy the country. I agree with Charen, Palin can do much more as a spokesman, exemplar and public opinion leader than she can do as a candidate that might damn well lose. The country cannot afford that.
I agree. I also like Sarah Palin, but with the amount of vilification and bad press that's she's received, although unfair, it is the way it is, a good many voters are turned off to her.
The role she's playing now suits her fine.
I want a conservative to win. What are the odds that the RNC will nominate a real conservative. By the way, please tell me we don’t have to deal with that McLaim again.
I dont know who it will be, but they would be smart to get
PAUL RYAN ON THE TICKET! NOW HE’S A WINNER!
Mona Charen, serious crush on Romney:
In National Review she wrote a column titled:
“A Second Look at Romney”
Just a sample of the quotes:
“But no one running is more impressive than Mitt Romney....
But then Romney has been masterful in everything he has attempted...
It is difficult to find any significant weakness in Romney. He is refreshingly articulate, exceedingly well prepared and self-disciplined, clearly an excellent manager with both private and government experience, happily married with a large, supportive family, and well within the mainstream of conservatism on every major issue. His nomination would not divide the base....
He is just the sort of candidate people complain that they never get.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223108/second-look-romney/mona-charen
Had enough? Reading her column on Romney made me want to spit up. It was worse than being groped by the TSA.
Diogenesis, quick...the Gold tooth
Keep it up, Mona. Your readership diminishes with each koolaid-laced eruption.
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.