Utter claptrap. Republicans would be saying "We are nominating a conservative candidate this time".
Folks, I remember the Carter years, I remember the Reagan years, and I remember Walter Mondale. Walter Mondale, in style and substance, is so much not Sarah Palin (and Sarah Palin so much not Walter Mondale) that the comparison is pure comedy.
Daniel Larison is one massively deluded nutball if he really believes that above statement. He could not be more wrong.
Sarah Palin does not represent the establishment RINO face of the party; in fact does not even resemble it. She actually represents the GOP Platform, which the RINOs obviously have never bothered to read.
Palin won’t run in 2012
Christie is green and is mature enough to recognize his immaturity at the present time. He has a bright future in the party.
DeMint? Strong possibilities.
Jindal? Though he has exercised strong leadership in the face of the recent Gulf disaster, the bad taste from his SOTU response 18 months ago yet lingers.
Huckabee? No thanks; enough compassion, enough politicians. We need principle and leadership.
Newt Gingrich is perhaps the biggest bat we have on our bench. The man knows the law, knows the political landscape, is a genius.
Good points but his article is way off base. The dems didn’t lose in 1984 because they picked Mondale. Any dem would have lost just as handily. Just as the GOP didn’t lose in 2008 because of McCain or Palin, any Republican would have lost once the economy and the markets collapsed in September.
If the economy recovers by 2012 and Obama’s #s are near where Reagan’s were in 1984 he’ll win easily just like Reagan did, no matter who runs against him. Palin would lose in that scenario, as would anyone else. But, if his numbers remain low and the economy stagnates, unemployment remains high(above 8%), Afghanistan doesn’t improve, he’ll be very vulnerable. Popular and succesful incumbents don’t lose. Period. Unpopular and failed ones do.
For example, unemployment went from 10.1 in June of 83 to 7.2 in June of 84. If it drops 3 pts between June of 2011 and June of 2012 the GOP will have no shot, just as the dems had no shot in 84.
Palin would actually have an edge because she’d be seen and rightly so as someone who was against Obama from the start and warned people of what would happen. VOters who realize they made the wrong choice in Obama will have antural place to turn to correc their mistake.
The big difference between the two of them though is that unlike Palin, Mondale actually served as VP for a reviled and depsised administration. He was actually responsible for policies. He was actually part of an administration that was turned out of office in a 489-49 EV landslide, 44 states to 6. The better analogy to Mondale would be if the GOP nominated Cheney in 2012. Or the CA Dems renominating Jerry Brown.
Palin was already part of a ticket that got 46% and won 22 states, compared to the 41% and 6 states that Carter/Mondale lost by in 1980. She starts from a much better position than Mondale did. Plus, against a failed Obama andminisration(the only chance the GOP has)
Palin had nothing to do with the Bush administration. Wasn’t part of it in any way. Nothing to do with the economy, the Iraq War, anything. I don’t think most voters will link her to the Bush/Cheney Administration. It was very easy(for obvious reasons) for voters to link Mondale to the Carter/Mondale Administration. He was the #2 man in it!
Moreso if she is the nominee. That will mean she’ll have campaigned for over a year on her own platform and policies. Have participated in numerous debates, events, etc... Have picked her own VP. I don’t see how a Palin/Romney ticket or a Palin/Barbour ticket or a Palin/whoever ticket will be seen as Bush redux.
Especially running against a failed Obama administration. Mondale ran against a hugely succesful Reagan administration.
The far better analogy for Kornacki to use would be with Gerald Ford. He lost to Carter in 76, yet by 1980 every poll showed him beating Carter easily. He’d have won in 80 if he was the nominee instead of Reagan. Or Nixon in 68. Or Rudy Giuliani in NYC in 1993. He lost to David Dinkins in 1989. By 1993 voters had had enough of Dinkins and Rudy won because they realized they should have picked him in 89 and he was the right choice.. And the comparison between Obama and Dinkins is plain for anyone to see.
Boy, I can’t cease to be amazed at how freightened of Palin they are. There is a massive propaganda push to try and keep her from becoming a candidate. All that because she is a true conservative, and that scares the pants off them. Well guess what! Like the Democrat tactic of doing anything to keep getting their name mentioned in the media, the forces opposed to Palin are giving her free campaign coverage. I think she’s going to nail it.
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Larison&fname=Daniel
Boy, liberals LOVE them some Romney. Just like they LOVED them some President McCain.
Dude, Romney? Get off the pipe.
There are those who think mitt is the only answer but his mittcare alone should rule him out.