Sarah Palin = Dan Quayle (There's no way she will be president)

Slate ^ | Tuesday, Nov. 17, 2009 | David Greenberg

[presidio9]

John F. Kennedy believed that being passed over for vice president by the Democratic convention in 1956 saved his political career. That year, Adlai Stevenson, the presidential nominee, had left the selection of his running mate to the convention delegates—the last time a nominee did so. The choice came down to Kennedy and his Senate colleague Estes Kefauver of Tennessee, who had lined up too much early support even for the attractive young war hero to overcome. In the end, Kennedy had it both ways. He benefited from the television exposure and was spared the blame—which as a Catholic, he would have shared—for Stevenson's walloping by President Eisenhower that November. As for Estes, except for crossword puzzlers, nobody much remembers him.

Running and losing for vice president has never been a promising route to the Oval Office. Yet Sarah Palin, even before this week's book tour mediathon, has been touted by some as the heir apparent of the Republican Party, if not its de facto leader. Right-wing devotees cheer her on, liberals writhe in fear lest she come within 3,000 miles of the White House, and the news media lavish her with attention that's out of proportion to her actual chances of a political future. In fact, only one defeated vice presidential candidate ever achieved the feat that Palin would like to duplicate, and to date she shows no signs of resembling Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

FDR, as a young assistant secretary of the Navy, ran in 1920 as running mate to Ohio Gov. James Cox,

[rintense]

Hey spaceman, why don’t you explain to everyone why Sarah Palin isn’t a real conservative? We’re waiting.

[Wonder Warthog]

"The argument made was that Sarah Palin would make a great President because she has charisma.

This is a ludicrous comment. NOBODY has said Palin would be a great president because she "has charisma". What was said is that Palin is the one most likely to win the nomination and election. I personally think that Bobby Jindal is far and away the most qualified of the entire Republican field, but he has minimal charisma. Palin "oozes" charisma. Which is why I would like to see a "Palin/Jindal" ticket as the best combination of charisma, brainpower, and experience.

Like Obama shows, for any politician the ‘charisma’ factor may make one a great *candidate* but not a great President."

Jindal aside, who do you think would be a better CONSERVATIVE president??? Palin's heart and head are in the right place, and she has good sense enough to choose the "right" advisers. At this point, Palin has the best combination of charisma, credentials, and conservatism of all the Republican possibilities.

[ansel12]

As far as Governors go (best presidential rehearsal) Governor Palin seemed to be the best in the land, I live under failed Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, I know about Governor Mitt Romney being a failed Governor, no one that I know stood out more than Palin as Governor, if you can think of one or two that did, then name five more.

The most important thing in a President is to represent America in a way that actually represents the United States of America, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, H. W. Bush, Clinton, I lived under them all and I would prefer Palin over any of them. Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, Kerry, McGovern etc., same thing.

[WOSG]

She may be better than the 2 you mention, but there are Jindhal, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, and few others like Bill Owens and Jeb Bush who have been and are good as well. Also, I hope and expect the new Gov of Virginia McDonnell to also be a solid “A” level Governor. There are some that are almost-as-good: Pawlenty a B+, but still good. Huntsmann of Utah also good and v sharp, but a bit on the squish/corporate side (aka another Romney-type in multiple ways).

Of these, I think several are no-go for 2012, but Palin, Jindhal, Daniels and Pawlenty are possible contenders.

“I lived under them all and I would prefer Palin over any of them.”

Well, I prefer a bubble bath to getting splinters under my fingernails too (the only decent ones in that list were Ford and GHWBush, egads, what a sad record).

[ansel12]

None of them are as good for President, although I hope that Jindal turns out to be the guy that I have been so enthusiastic for , for several years. I can link you to my posts that prove that I am a fierce defender of Jindal (stuff that you should keep for your pro-Jindal files).

If Jindal proves to have the ability to move people that Palin has then he gets on the list, the others although I either do or have liked them are not the leaders or world shakers that Governor Palin is.

[ansel12]

“I lived under them all and I would prefer Palin over any of them.” Well, I prefer a bubble bath to getting splinters under my fingernails too (the only decent ones in that list were Ford and GHWBush, egads, what a sad record).

That is a 40 year history of modern Presidents and the opposition candidates, so you do agree that Governor Palin is ready to be President then.

[WOSG]

“Reagan was quite imperfect - being a conservative does not necessarily equal massive intellect...”

Look, you are underestimating Reagan big-time if you think he had some defective intellect. Of course being a conservative doesnt require intellect, but being a conservative *leader* does, and Reagan was steeped in the conservative intellectual movement; from his Goldwater speech, to running in 1976, to having debated on Panama Canal Treaty on Buckley’s Firing Line, to giving CPAC speeches, writing Op-Eds for *years*, etc.

It is a simple fact that Palin does not have the depth or track record today that Reagan had in 1980. Reagan was the conservative leader for *years*.

Also, getting the best on board is indeed something Reagan did and is a good thing to emulate, but claims that Palin “would do” the same can be made of other politicians before the fact. we’ll have to see some proof in pudding on some of these executive leadership claims. how do we know she wont be more like GWB?

In the end, we dont need to compare Palin to Reagan, they are different individuals. Nor do you need to diss other candidates to build her up. If Palin does good, she will stand on her own and it will fall into place as you predict.

[WOSG]

Quayle deserves our apologies. There is one and ONLY ONE reason that Quayle got “Quayled” and that is: WE ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN.

This was back in the day when the mainstream media had a monopoly on our information... I don't think it would be as easy these days.

[kcvl]

David Greenberg is associate professor of History and of Journalism & Media Studies at Rutgers University , New Brunswick .

He was widely reviewed and featured on CNN, NPR’s “All Things Considered,” and CBS’s “Sunday Morning.”

Before pursuing his PhD, he served as Acting Editor and Managing Editor of The New Republic magazine and, early in his career, as the assistant to author Bob Woodward, on The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House.

David Greenberg: "Fox has a right-wing agenda, and that's why people watch it. If Fox newscasters were to start conducting themselves like CNN -- with reporters trying hard to correct for bias, with right-wing views evenly balanced against left-wing views -- no one would watch. There is no left-wing equivalent of Fox, except maybe on the far reaches of the FM dial, where you have some left-wing types railing against the system but purporting to be just relaying the news."

[ansel12]

Nor do you need to diss other candidates to build her up.

Then quit dissing her.

[WOSG]

“What was said is that Palin is the one most likely to win the nomination and election” the latter claim defies polls that showed higher negatives for Palin than for others, so its premature at best to make that claim.

“Palin “oozes” charisma.” - To base voters yes, but certain parts of the electorate (eg urban yuppies who think Alaska is another continent), she’s a turnoff. It’s a dichotomy.

“Jindal aside, who do you think would be a better CONSERVATIVE president???”

Previous post mentioned a few others, such as Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, etc. Mike Pence would make a good conservative President. I could live with Jim DeMint, George Allen, and a few others.

I am not saying any would necessarily be better, but as of today, we have not gotten from Palin (or many other folks) the in-depth domestic policy prescriptions and agenda that we need for possible post-Obama era. The next President will have to have a clear and specific agenda for cutting spending, taxes and regs and rolling back the incremental socialist Obama agenda items. It would be better to know ‘where’s the beef?’ on the critical agenda items for 2013-2016. Right now, its too early to know. She is a conservative, true, but so was GWB claiming in 1999. one concern I have is immigration, where she has said nothing except a few parrotted McCain-lite things in 2008.

In between the time I wrote my original post on this thread asking some of those questions and this post, I watched her Hannity interview. She did well and might be an appealling candidate, but she wisely deflected the 2012 stuff, and I frankly come away with as many questions on those as I did prior. It may be best to not assume anything good or bad just yet, and see how things shake out in 2010 first.

I’ll give Palin kudos for following Fred Thompson and being out front on the Hoffman endorsement. As she speaks out on issues one by one, it will shape her platform and persona in a more complete way.

[walden]

You are right. And, she’ll have to fight the big-wigs in her own party— a bunch of losers. But, she could actually do it. And, if she won, I think she has enough humility to bring in stellar talents to fill the cabinet— I can definitely see Condi Rice back there, for instance.

A strong, charismatic, humble President with the right principles would be unstoppable. I can see it!

[WOSG]

wow. If putting Palin in the same league as other great Republican governors with long records and serious accomplishments, and arguing that Reagan was an intellectual conservative leader and thus leadership is more than delegating decisions, if that is ‘dissing’ Palin then we have gotten way too thin-skinned and warped.

[ICCtheWay]

Oh blah blah blah blah blah... I did not say Reagan was defective in any way... YOU SAID THAT — you are attempting to put words in my mouth and I will not allow it...

You my friend are an antagonist - who wishes to argue for the sake of arguing ... I’ll have none of it - do you understand... Go find something else to do ...

Reagan was a pragmatic man who sought and took wise counsel to fill in the gaps of his total range of abilities — as any smart man would do ... That is the hallmark of Reagan’s wisdom... surrounding himself with good men and women — aides of maturity holding traditions true to Americans and America ...

Reagan was a diametric opposite of Obama - as is Palin...

Go beat you head against some other wall...

Palin will prevail in 2012 because she has the unbridled ability to ATTRACT - to AROUSE the public...

And the others - mostly RINOs DO NOT HAVE THAT ABILITY...

Go bother someone else...

[WOSG]

A previous comment I said: “The next President will have to have a clear and specific agenda for cutting spending, taxes and regs and rolling back the incremental socialist Obama agenda items. It would be better to know ‘where’s the beef?’ on the critical agenda items for 2013-2016. Right now, its too early to know.”

NO candidate is ‘ready to be President’ unless and until they are ready to answer that question and show they will be able to accomplish what they claim they want. It’s too early to know if ANY particular candidate is ready to be President, since nobody has given that answer.

[WOSG]

“I did not say Reagan was defective in any way... YOU SAID THAT”

False! I defended Reagan. YOU are the one who said ... “If you want a person who is imperfect as Reagan was” ... as if Reagan shared flaws of Palin, trying to compare the two and in the process denigrating Reagan’s capabilities.

blahblahblah yourself. I knew Reagan. Reagan was a great President. There is much depth to him you seem not to recognize. Trying to shape a completely different person into a Reagan-shape hurts both of them. I don’t want to pick fights either, so quit making arguments with me over your flawed analogies. Defend Palin on her own merits and let Reagan be!

[ansel12]

wow. If putting Palin in the same league as other great Republican governors with long records and serious accomplishments, and arguing that Reagan was an intellectual conservative leader and thus leadership is more than delegating decisions, if that is ‘dissing’ Palin then we have gotten way too thin-skinned and warped.

Don't go Romney on us, it was your earlier posts dissing Palin that got people posting to you and then I mocked you for telling another poster not to diss other candidates while you diss Palin, don't play these stupid games.

[grey_whiskers]

Read the first half of the question -- "can she deeply analyze, understand issues" .

Nice try, though.

[lentulusgracchus]

Sarah Palin is destined to be a talk show host, not president. She isn’t presidential material.

People said the same thing about Harry Truman and Teddy Roosevelt. Leftists said the same about Dick Nixon, and they hate him to this day, but even they can't make that old lie come out of their mouths any more.

"Dollar Mark" Hanna called Theodore Roosevelt "that damned cowboy" -- now Hanna's in hell and Teddy's on Rushmore. That's all anyone needs to know about presidential handicapping, without even scratching what contemporaries thought about Abraham Lincoln's capabilities.

[lentulusgracchus]

Tell me again why you don't like Fred, apart from his legal consulting work.