Posted on 07/06/2009 12:15:12 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah Palin's decision to resign as governor of Alaska was greeted with doubts, criticism and downright derision -- not just from Democrats or the media or bloggers, but from Republicans.
Critical responses to her decision came from many Republican insiders -- not just people who have an axe to grind such as Mike Huckabee and Lisa Murkowski, but others such as Karl Rove.
That followed criticism of Palin just before her announcement from Charles Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg. When talking off the record, Republican insiders are even harsher toward Palin, as Marc Ambinder notes:
With a few exceptions, almost every Republican I talk to in Washington quakes at the thought of her being their presidential nominee in 2012 (although a few wonder slyly if she'll go away if she's offered up as a sacrifice that year.)
If Palin does want to run for president, having so many top members of her own party doubt her, dislike her and pretty much hope for her disappearance from the political scene is probably a bad thing. But, there's at least a slight chance that, if she's smart, she could use it to her advantage.
Palin has a message with fairly limited appeal at this point. Maybe it's just because I'm a blogger and member of the media, but her lines about bloggers and members of the media are pretty tired. Her complaints might (or might not) win her sympathy, but sympathy is a not a rationale for someone to be president of the United States. Her policy views are predictably conservative.
Here's a fresher message: I'm running against the complacent, corrupt forces within the Republican Party -- the people who take social conservatives for granted and who, when they happen to get a majority, spend like Democrats.
A lot of Americans don't like the Republican Party. In fact, a lot of Republicans are frustrated with the Republican Party too. Could Palin win by running against her own party?
There's a precedent for this sort of message. Palin used a variant of it to win the 2006 Republican primary for governor in Alaska against Frank Murkowski.
There's also a precedent for this message in presidential politics. Howard Dean was nearly the Democratic Party's presidential nominee with a message that centered on criticizing the Democratic Party. Dean earned some of his biggest applause when he criticized his own party's support for the Iraq War and claimed to represent "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."
Still, I have two big questions with this strategy for Palin. One is whether this message will be right for 2012. Ahead of 2004, Dean shared a real policy grievance with the rank-and-file members of his party, as Democrats objected to their party's representatives in Congress backing the war. With Republicans generally staying united in opposition to Obama, Palin may not have the opening that Dean did.
The other question is whether Palin is the right messenger. Dean, it's worth remembering, was a well-respected governor of his own small state for 12 years. Nonetheless, his bid ultimately collapsed amid questions about whether he had the discipline, temperament and depth of experience to be president. No one would be especially surprised if a Palin presidential bid failed for the exact same reasons.
Some of the worst comments against Sarah Palin have been from “Republicans.” At least the Dems don’t throw their own under the bus.
However, she must scare the daylights out of the liberals, otherwise they would not be making fun of her and her family, downgrading, trying to humiliate, questioning her sanity, etc., etc., if she wasn’t a threat because so many of us in “fly-over country” can relate to her. And, the liberal-elite women have been toughest on her. Why? I believe because she did not abort her Down’s Snydrome baby and her oldest daughter did not abort her baby when she found out she was pregnant.
She was also the object of numerous frivolous lawsuits which she had to defend and 99% of them were ultimately dismissed; however, the attorney fees are now in the area of $500,000.
How many other potential vice-presidential candidates can people actually remember and why are people still so against Palin? For heaven’s sake the election is over. She is a threat otherwise why would they try to destroy her.
And, what particularly gets my goat is that so many pundits opine that she is “clearly not qualitified to serve as vice-president.” Well, my friends, take a look at Joe Biden. The guys a nutcase and some of the things he says are just plain crazy. Now if Palin would have made some of his remarks...!
“Can Sarah Palin Win by Running Against the Republican Party?”
Is there any other choice? It’s not like people equate “GOP” with anything good these days.
Didn’t Palin belong to the “Alaska Independence Party” at one time?
There’s no hatred here. It is quite the opposite.
In fact, it is becoming more apparent by the day that Sarah has become little more than the vehicle for the angry right. Every single Palin fan seems to want to use her as some sort of tool of punishment and revenge against which ever enemies they perceive. But you don’t win on anger, you don’t win on division. You don’t win by attacking any part of the coalition you need, be it conservatives or moderates or independents. You don’t win people over to your way of thinking like this. You only drive potential allies away. This is a destructive path that is unfit for a thinking conservative to take. It is not the path of a happy warrior. It is the path the Democrats took in 2004. And unlike the Democrats, Republicans cannot survive being branded with that kind of hate.
You win by uniting people around a positive message of reform they can get behind. Yes, there will be opposition, but you dispatch them with facts, not insults. This is how Reagan and Gingrich won.
NOPE...YOU brought us Bill Clinton...You knew from the poll numbers Bush didn't have a chance...
And you also knew the Ross Perot voters were not going to back down...
You had the choice of Ross Perot or Bill Clinton...You chose Clinton by not voting for Perot...
Bush was a non starter...
And a majority party needs both. Get used to it.
Sarah gonna go to New Jersey this summer and help win over the Bubba vote to put a GOPer in he Gov mansion.
Ames Iowa straw poll is 25 months from now.
Don’t mistake criticism with insults.
It’s not an insult just because you don’t like what you’re hearing.
However, we were of course talking about the failed McCain-Palin campaign strategy, not the discussion of Palin’s merits or lack thereof.
I’ve followed your posts on Palin for awhile and I have to come to your defense. I love Sarah Palin. She is a beautiful woman with tremendous integrity, but she can’t win a general election. You are exactly right when you say that she didn’t have as many supporters as Obama in this past election. My only argument with your logic I might have is that you underestimate the effect McCain’s response to the financial crisis had on the election. I also don’t think Palin would look like a patient in an Alzheimer’s unit at a nursing home during the debates as McCain did. However, your basic premise is correct. Palin can’t win a general election. For the record, I don’t think Romney, Huckabee, or Gingrich can either. Our best chance in 2012 is that Obama is in the toilet and someone like Thune, Ryan, or Pence can catch fire.
Thanks.
You’re right that McCain did not help himself, but ultimately he didn’t seem to dissuade many of Sarah’s supporters from voting for the Republican ticket anyways. All these people who think they’re demonstrating how electable Palin is by stating that they only voted for McCain because of her, or that he would have lost by some greater unknown number are actually only making my point. Regardless of how many people voted for McCain only because of Palin, it was still 10 million people fewer than voter for 0bama, and that’s a hard figure to get around. It doesn’t matter if Palin helped McCain lose by less votes, she still failed in bringing in more votes than 0bama. Sarah won’t pick up an additional 10 million votes if she runs against 0bama again.
I take issue when you say Romney, Huckabee or Gingrich couldn’t attract more votes than 0bama, however. We just don’t know. Unlike Palin, none of them have been tested against 0bama. I do not claim to know who can beat 0bama, I only point to empirical evidence of who can’t. There just is no evidence one way or another for any candidate other than McCain, Palin, or Keyes
I think Newt Gingrich has real potential to defeat 0bama, perhaps better than anyone. We can’t just look at who has the biggest following or who has the highest favorability ratings, because there is no one on our side who could beat 0bama according to those right now. But elections follow campaigns, and campaigns tend to be equalizers. They give the candidates a momentary chance to make their case to the American people. If we nominate the right person, that person has the opportunity to inspire more confidence in their vision for America than 0bama’s. They have an opportunity to address 0bama’s weaknesses and focus the public’s attention on them. I think no one would be more capable in this endeavor than Newt Gingrich. If he stands on stage as the only adult in the race, then he can win. I don’t think Sarah Palin could marshal the facts and arguments needed to unseat 0bama. I think she inspires a certain segment of the population, but not by her boilerplate platitudes. I don’t think she has the ability to move public opinion, or inspire Americans in her abilities more than 0bama. Unlike Gingrich, she couldn’t hold 0bama accountable for monetizing the debt, or devaluing the dollar. She could only call him a ‘socialist’. Palin can get an ‘amen’ from the choir. Gingrich could actually educate Americans on why 0bama’s policies are bad, and inspire the public’s confidence in himself at the same time. 0bama screwing up isn’t going to be enough. That’s only half of it. The other half is then nominating someone who will rise above him.
You raise some good points, but my gut tells me these three can’t beat Obama unless his approval rating drops fifteen to twenty points in the next three years. The holy war Huckabee and Romney waged during the primary killed their chances at winning a general election. The fact that they weren’t able to knock off McCain tells me something as well. When Reagan lost his primary bid, it was to the sitting President. When Bush lost his primary bid, it was to Reagan. Romney would simply be too easy to label as a flip-flopper and there are still too many people who won’t vote for a Mormon.
As for Gingrich, I fear that he has too much baggage. Between his affairs and the image the media has constructed of him, it would be very difficult for him. I still think that our best bet might be to find someone with Newt’s ideas and intellect (or at least close to Newt’s intellect)but without his baggage. However, that still might not be enough because I don’t believe Americans respond to facts and logic like they used to. The election of Obama is evidence of that.
A few points on the issues you raised.
the election of 0bama happened for a number of reasons, first among them because people wanted to cast a ‘feel good vote’ for the first black man running for president, to be “part of history” and to ‘prove’ they aren’t racist. It was primarily the product of years of race hustling. Neither McCain nor Palin could mount a good campaign against him, and more importantly for themselves. I do not believe it was a case of people ignoring facts and logic to vote for 0bama as much as it was a case of McCain-Palin presenting voters with so little of either.
I don’t blame Romney for the ‘holy war’ in the GOP primary. That was 100% Huckabee’s doing. Romney could have stopped McCain had he and Huckabee not stalemated each other. Primary elections are quite different than general elections, though, and success or failure is not a good indication of how a candidate would fair in the other. Primaries are internal battles among the most partisan of partisans for who will carry the party’s banner. General elections are won or lost among the undecideds: moderates and independents. The best candidate is the one who can win the most of them over, not by being one of them, but by presenting the most convincing case. Undecideds can be swayed to one side or the other with a good argument. It is folly to think the way to win their vote is to be like them. They’re looking to be convinced, not looking for someone just as confused and indecisive as themselves.
Regarding Newt, one thing you can say about Americans is they love a good comeback. I think it has been enough time that Newt would get a fresh look, and the benefit of the doubt. I do think the power of his intellect and his common sense arguments would overcome his obstacles, which are really rather soft and superficial.
You are right that Obama won in large part because of the ‘feel good vote’ factor. However, casting a vote for that reason means they threw facts and logic out the window. All Obama did was speak in platitudes. He appealed to emotion, not logic. He told the American people that 95% of Americans would get a tax cut, even though 95% don’t pay taxes. The fact is that Obama won a landslide with the least substantive general election campaign in modern times. I’m convinced the voters have become so dumbed-down and brainwashed that they don’t understand logic.
As for Gingrich, I’m not sure I would say cheating on your wife while she had cancer is a superficial obstacle. Democrats can get away with that because they don’t have morals and don’t claim to, but Republicans can’t. Another problem I have with Newt is that he didn’t play hardball with Clinton enough. If he had played his cards right, he may have been able to destroy Clinton. Instead, he made mistakes like the government shutdown.
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.