Marc Ambinder seems to me to be on target with his observations.
And if she wants the job, she’s easily the frontrunner to become THE voice of the angry Right in the Wilderness. She is a favorite of talk radio and Fox News conservatives, and speaks their language as only a true member of the club can. (Her recent Limbaugh interview was full of dog whistles that any Dittohead would recognize. Including her actual use of the word ditto.)
Palin will have plenty of time to become fluent on national issues. She will easily benefit from the low expectations threshhold, and will probably even garner positive reviews from the MSM types who disparage her today.
Palin will be judged to be “ready” in four years. George Will and David Brooks and Peggy Noonan will all swoon over her once more. Ok, maybe not George Will.
Yikes. President Palin? Thanks a lot, John!
Somehow I suspect that President Obama in 2008 will make it that much easier to imagine Palin in 2012. Sure hope not, as she is not exactly my type of conservative.
Unless the Obama administration is a colossal failure, I don’t see Palin winning on her own, uh, merits. She’s too divisive, with all her talk of Real Americans and pro-America parts of the country. If the Republican party is ever going to recover, it will need to back off on notions of ideological and demographic purity. On the other hand, if the Obama admin does fail, a short-sighted and angry electorate will vote in any clown who opposes him. Feel free to draw any historical parallels you like. I support Obama, but I know a lot of his support comes from people who really only hate Bush.At the risk of treading close to the sexist line, Palin will also be 4 years older in 2012. Not a good thing for a female candidate who leans so heavily on personal charm and shooting starbursts through TV screensSo where are the conservatives with cross-party appeal? Someone like Bush 41, who gets a certain amount of respect even from people who disagree with him?
“Yikes. President Palin?”Well, that’s just speculative. President Obama is much more likely, and much scarier.”Unless the Obama administration is a colossal failure, I don’t see Palin winning on her own, uh, merits.”Who knows? It would not surprise me if she became the first female president, for various reasons. To me at this point her views on policy are pretty much unknown, except for a few issues. It’s hard to say how she would be positioned in four years. ” it will need to back off on notions of ideological and demographic purity.”That’s highly debatable. Most conservatives strongly disagree, and they have a good argument. Adherence to conservative principles hasn’t hurt the party, because it hasn’t been adhering to them.”On the other hand, if the Obama admin does fail, a short-sighted and angry electorate”A short-sighted and angry electorate will be one big reason why Obama wins in the first place, if he does. “At the risk of treading close to the sexist line, Palin will also be 4 years older in 2012.”I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Palin will still be very attractive in only four years.”So where are the conservatives with cross-party appeal? Someone like Bush 41, who gets a certain amount of respect even from people who disagree with him?”One is running now, named McCain — maybe you’ve heard of him? If he loses, it is going to reinforce conservative arguments that the party needs to run a “real” conservative, and not someone even squishier than McCain.
I'm only thinking as far as the GOP nomination.We can't really tell how an Obama first term might go. Re-elections can be tough. Ford, Carter, & Bush41 all lost. Clinton famously had to argue that he was "still relevant" 1995; a weak opponent let him through to re-election.
It could have been McCain, if he had run 4 years ago. He used to have a fair amount of bipartisan respect. Facing off against a charismatic Democrat with 8 years of Bush behind him, I don’t think any Republican could win, and McCain’s scorched earth campaign has blown his bipartisan credentials sky-high. So who gets bipartisan respect who can run in 2012? I must admit, I’m amused by the theory that Palin will get the nod so that the big money conservatives can finally bring the social conservatives to heel after a massive electoral thumping.
“McCain’s scorched earth campaign”McCain hasn’t run anything that could remotely be described as a “scorched earth campaign.” And no one is bipartisan during a presidential campaign. His record is the same as it always was, with one exception — nominating Palin to solidify the base instead of picking another moderate, or at least someone less polarizing.”the theory that Palin will get the nod so that the big money conservatives can finally bring the social conservatives to heel after a massive electoral thumping.”That sounds pretty crazy. If Republicans lose big as expected this year, they are hardly going to want to lose again in 2012. If moderate Republicans support Palin in 2012 it will be because they think she can win.
Palin in 2012?NFW. You heard it first here.
redhand,It's all speculation but I wouldn't rule it out. She may not be too popular with party intellectuals & the GOP establishment, but the base loves her. And the base votes in primaries. It was split between different candidates this year, and McCain got the nomination with heavy independent support. But if the base unites around Palin, her nomination could happen. If McCain loses they are going to blame him for the loss this year, not her. After 4 years of Democratic control, Republicans of all types are going to want to win. She'll get broad GOP support if she appears to be the best chance of victory.
After 4 years of Democratic control, Republicans of all types are going to want to win. She’ll get broad GOP support if she appears to be the best chance of victory.I’m trying to be respectful, but IMHO the Repub “base” will be so repudiated by the coming Dem LANDSLIDE that there’s not going to be anything of substance to build on. After this election, fuggedabout “small town, religious, real America” as a foundation for the GOP. I think it’s going to have to reinvent itself from the ground up.Plus, frankly, I don’t think Palin’s got the intelligence to rebrand and reposition herself for 2012. As a FOX news commentator, maybe, but as a serious national candidate I think she’s permanently damaged, as in “a laughingstock.”Just my opinion, but made without trying to let my clear biases cloud my thinking.Incidentally, I hope that arrogant blowhard John Murtha gets defeated for his obnoxious Western PA “racist” and “redneck” remarks. When a pol thinks he can get away with mocking his own constituency, it’s past time for him to go.
Sometimes the base wants someone so extreme the establishment steps in and overrules it. That’s how Bush won in 1988 – the Republican establishment basically stole the Michigan pre-primary from Robertson, who had a stronger ground game than Bush.
" but IMHO the Repub "base" will be so repudiated by the coming Dem LANDSLIDE that there's not going to be anything of substance to build on."That makes no sense at all. John McCain is not a candidate of the Republican base. If anything the base will be stronger than ever. The argument will be that the GOP needs to return to its core principles and stop trying to be Democrat-lite. It won't be the only post-mortem, but it will be one of the strongest ones. "After this election, fuggedabout "small town, religious, real America" as a foundation for the GOP. I think it's going to have to reinvent itself from the ground up."I think that's complete wishful thinking on your part, and on the part of much of the left. The appeal of those themes will be as strong as ever. Not to mention that an Obama administration combined with a Democratic Congress is likely to overreach and cause a backlash."Plus, frankly, I don't think Palin's got the intelligence to rebrand and reposition herself for 2012. As a FOX news commentator, maybe, but as a serious national candidate I think she's permanently damaged, as in "a laughingstock.""I strongly disagree with this, also. She has political skills and just lacks experience & knowledge. If she chooses to remain on the national scene, she'll have four years to prepare and become much more polished.
Adherence to conservative principles hasn’t hurt the party, because it hasn’t been adhering to them.David,What do you mean by “conservative principles”? That makes no sense at all. John McCain is not a candidate of the Republican base. If anything the base will be stronger than ever. The argument will be that the GOP needs to return to its core principles and stop trying to be Democrat-lite. It won’t be the only post-mortem, but it will be one of the strongest ones. Um – I cant tell if you are just putting forward the argument others will make or actually making it.1) Its true that McCain is not a “base” guy but there is no way he is going to ignore them when he governs. He has too much loyalty to the party to do that and cripple the entire party for near future. So we can expect that a President McCain, despite not being “of” the base, will pursue some of their priorities if for no other reason than to maintain the party.I think a lot of people who like McCain are not voting for him because they don’t like the GOP base. 2) I agree with you, however, that the inner-party argument will probably be won by the “he wasn’t conservative enough” faction. I think they are wrong and will put up a candidate who will lose even worse than McCain, but they will win the short-term argument.
todd,”What do you mean by “conservative principles”?”Well, that depends which conservatives you ask. For this topic I’m referring to conservative principles as defined by the Republican activist base.”Um – I cant tell if you are just putting forward the argument others will make or actually making it.”I’m already hearing those arguments from others. For myself, i’m not sure what the best GOP strategy will be in 2012. If Obama wins, alot will depend on what actually happens in the next four years.”1) Its true that McCain is not a “base” guy but there is no way he is going to ignore them when he governs. “Why not? He ignored the base on all sorts of issues, and he’s been mostly ignoring them during the campaign. If he’s elected he’ll have to work with a Democratic Congress if he wants to get anything accomplished. It would be different if he had a Republican majority.”So we can expect that a President McCain, despite not being “of” the base, will pursue some of their priorities if for no other reason than to maintain the party.”Do you read any right-wing sites where Republican activist types hang out? They don’t think McCain is going to pursue their priorities if he wins. “I think a lot of people who like McCain are not voting for him because they don’t like the GOP base.”That may be, but if so it would be yet another example of why many people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. The Republican base despises John McCain. Most are holding their noses and voting for him only because a) they think Obama is a lot worse, and b) they like Palin. As to whether a hard-core conservative candidate can win in 2012, a lot of things can happen over the next four years. Back in 2000 no one would have given a liberal Democrat junior senator like Obama the slightest chance of ever becoming president — let alone the possibility that he might win a landslide.
“That may be, but if so it would be yet another example of why many people shouldn’t be allowed to vote .”Complaining about suffrage is the last resort of the political sourpuss, guy.
Back in 2000 no one would have given a liberal Democrat junior senator like Obama the slightest chance of ever becoming president — let alone the possibility that he might win a landslide.Yeah, and Obama is winning despite his liberal record, not because of it. Back in the summer, Obama’s inability to cite controversial issues on which he disagrees with his party unraveled much of his bipartisan image, and reduced his early lead to statistical insignificance by the time of the conventions.No candidate has ever lost an election for being too moderate. Many have lost for qualities like waffling and lack of principle, which are sometimes associated with centrism, but it was never the centrism itself that led to defeat.The last non-moderate who won was Reagan, and that was because he was facing an unpopular Democrat (Bush Jr. ran as a moderate in 2000). At the time, all the Democratic issues – health, education, poverty – were under control; the Republican issues – crime, welfare, taxes, the Cold War – were out of control. Nowadays, this situation is more or less the reverse, as it was in the 1930s; of course a liberal Democrat will have an opening.
“Complaining about suffrage is the last resort of the political sourpuss, guy.”I was joking, mostly. But I am pretty cynical about politics.Alon,”Yeah, and Obama is winning despite his liberal record, not because of it.”True, and because he’s running as a moderate. That’s the other factor. A liberal or conservative has to sound like a moderate to win in most general elections. Obama is particularly good at that. On the other hand, if the Democrats were running an actual moderate, I think his lead would be much larger than Obama’s. I pretty much agree with everything else you wrote.
“What do you mean by “conservative principles”?”Well, that depends which conservatives you ask.DavidC, he’s asking YOU, as in, “What to YOU personally think? What type of conservative are YOU?”There’s a link to a Newsweek poll over at TPM showing Palin’s current prospects as a national candidate in 2012:First BaseLooking forward to 2012, it seems Palin ain’t quite the darling of the base some imagine.If Republicans had to pick for 2012 today, it’d be: Romney 35%, Huckabee 26%, Palin 20%.
redhand,I'm wasn't including myself. Republicans like me who are in favor of amnesty, expanded immigration from Mexico, gay marriage, drug legalization, and above all who are pro-choice, have zero influence with the base. I'm a RINO to them, if not a liberal. Being an atheist doesn't help either. Like I said, I don't know what the best strategy would be in 2012. Palin is hardly my ideal candidate. If I had to pick one right now out of the Palin/Huckabee/Romney trio, I'd go with Romney just like in the Newsweek poll. The conservative principles I care most about are limited/small government (which includes a whole host of things), personal freedom (especially gun/weapon rights & free speech), free market economics, a strong national defense, U.S. exceptionalism (vs. internationalism), and a foreign policy based on U.S. interests. And I favor strict constructionists & originalists for judiciary. Those aren't in any particular order. For president, I normally consider the candidates foreign policy/defense positions to be most important, since that's where they have the most power. As for the Newsweek poll, I'm not talking about people who identify as Republican in general, just about the hardcore activists. Palin is much more popular among them.
Palin vs. Science:Doin’ my bit to get this going viral.http://tinyurl.com/5lowwr(orhttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/sarah_palin_ignorant_and_antis.php)
The reaction of the Myers at Pharyngula is hilarious. He takes a politician’s throwaway line and completely flips out over it. She uses French fruit fly research as an example of wasteful government spending, and from that he concludes that she’s anti-science and represents “Dark Age inanity.” And he’s actually serious. That’s why most of the left’s criticism of Palin is just laughable — it’s literally hysterical.I guarantee that if you asked most politicians about whether French fruit-fly research whould be a priority, or something that probably should be cut, most would choose the latter — because they wouldn’t have the slightest idea about it. Instead of just pointing out that Palin used a bad example, and explaining why, Myers goes wild and builds an entire narrative based on his own prejudiced view of Palin.Myers should stick to shooting down creationist nonsense, which he does very effectively at Panda’s Thumb.
Oops, that should be “Myers,” not “the Myers,” above.
I agree with Myers. When she mocks basic research without understanding it, or even understanding the purpose of it, she shows herself to be an ignorant know-nothing. Basic research is an important issue, and when she throws it under the bus for a cheap rhetorical point, she makes it clear how much she values science. This is the logical conclusion of the Republican attacks on “elites” and “intellectuals” – a rump of a party that is ignorant and proud of it, as anyone with any pretense to thought is purged or flees.
bhcanuckistani,You can’t be serious. Do you actually think a vice-presidential candidate does her own research as to which specific examples to include in campaign speeches? It was a throwaway line to illustrate a point, nothing more. Some staffer probably thought insect research was a great example of wasteful government spending, and the fact that it was French was a bonus. It sounds like a line that would go over well. Do you think the average person gives a damn about fruit fly research in Paris, or thinks it should be something the government spends money on?”she makes it clear how much she values science.”Complete nonsense. It was a single comment about wasteful spending, that was almost certainly written by someone else. It demonstrates exactly nothing about what she thinks of science. ” This is the logical conclusion of the Republican attacks on “elites” and “intellectuals” “It’s nothing of the kind, and wouldn’t be even if she really knew what she was talking about and was against government spending on that type of research. And you obviously don’t understand what Republican attacks on elitism mean. Populism is used by both parties and has been for ages. When Democrats attack corporations does that mean they are against jobs?”a rump of a party that is ignorant and proud of it, as anyone with any pretense to thought is purged or flees”Yeah, that’s a real rational assessment. All you have to do is read the commenters on that post on Pharnygula. Look at the lunatic hysteria based on nothing more than one line in a politician’s speech, and their blind, bigoted hatred of Palin. And these clowns pride themselves on their reasoning abilities. The fact that such utterly clueless people are voting for Obama is yet another reason to stay with the GOP.Let me ask you something. If Joe Biden had said the exact same thing as Palin, word for word, would it have produced a similar reaction? We all know Biden is capable of saying completely idiotic things.
I think no matter who runs, the GOP will make their candidate the next “Great White Hope”. Whether the message will be blatant or not depends on how well Obama does.
“I think no matter who runs, the GOP will make their candidate the next “Great White Hope”.”What we can expect, is that any GOP criticism or attack on Obama while in office will be met with cries of racism — from many of the same people that regularly use racist attacks against any minority Republican. Oh wait, that’s already happening, and he’s not even in office yet.
If you say Obama’s tax plans are flawed, or his Iraq strategy is unsound, no one will call you a racist. If you say that you’re happy in pro-America parts of the country, and that Obama doesn’t think like us, or understand Real Americans, then people will start to wonder about your mindset.And “Palin reading someone elses speech” cuts no ice with me. When you take someone who believes dinosaurs and man walked together, and that libraries should be censorable by the mayor, and then she comes out with a comment like this, then you have a pattern that suggests a mind that does not respect science or education. She’s a grown-up. If she doesn’t believe the words she says, she shouldn’t be saying them. If she does say them and she doesn’t believe them or care, she’s even more unfit for public office than I ever imagined.I haven’t read the Pharyngula comments yet, so what they say is irrelevant to me. But between this and McCain calling a planetarium projector a 3-million dollar overhead projector, I know which party I would support if I cared about science and education.
“f you say that you’re happy in pro-America parts of the country, and that Obama doesn’t think like us, or understand Real Americans,”I’m not endorsing those comments, but they have nothing to do with race.”And “Palin reading someone elses speech” cuts no ice with me.”Again, that makes no sense. It’s not even a speech, it’s one line. She didn’t give a speech saying we should cut all government funding for research. And my point earlier stands. It’s something that was probably given to her by staff research as an example to use. “someone who believes dinosaurs and man walked together, and that libraries should be censorable by the mayor,”Are these things even true? The second one is not, from what I’ve seen. And I’m not sure she’s a YEC. And even if they are, they have no bearing on the points I made. Pretending that she’s anti-science because of her religious beliefs is anti-religious bigotry, plain and simple. Did she try to get creationism into public schools in Alaska? Did she try to stop the teaching of evolution? “She’s a grown-up. If she doesn’t believe the words she says, she shouldn’t be saying them. If she does say them and she doesn’t believe them or care, she’s even more unfit for public office than I ever imagined.”Again, you aren’t even looking at it as a single line in a political speech. You are reading everything you assume about Palin into one little comment. It’s not a matter her believing anything. It was an example to illustrate her point about government spending.” But between this and McCain calling a planetarium projector a 3-million dollar overhead projector, I know which party I would support if I cared about science and education.”I know this is difficult for liberals to believe, but it isn’t necessary to support government funding of every individual science and education project in order to be pro-science & education. And both McCain & Palin were talking about wasteful federal spending, not about science.This situation is like Obama talking about cutting wasteful spending and mentioning some defense research project that sounds unnecessary to the average person, but is actually a crucial factor in advancing military technology. If I started howling that Obama was anti-military based on that one line, would you think I was making a reasonable argument? Or would you think I was reading way too much into that one comment, based on my preconceived negative notions about him?
Last year, I heard a story about a Congressional hearing, in which one member of Congress suggested axing funding for research in complex analysis, saying, “Why not do simple analysis instead?”.I’m not even sure he was someone with an anti-science record, like Coburn or Inhofe. From the description, he sounded like Stevens, taking a position on an issue he has no clue about.
Again, you aren’t even looking at it as a single line in a political speech. You are reading everything you assume about Palin into one little comment.This was her first major policy speech. Nothing is in there by accident. What she said here is what she wanted to say, and it is fair to judge her on it, especially given that she won’t do press conferences to clarify her statements.