Sarah Palin, Superstar

[Bando]

Nov 23, 2009 11:38:28 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Nov 23, 2009 11:32:40 GMT -5 Bando said:

I don't think anyone doubts her support, just that it's enough to win a federal election. Her favorable/unfavorables are horrible. And while she might be able to win the GOP nomination in 2012, polling now is saying she'd be killed in the general.

I think you have to realize that like Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin has become an extremely polarizing figure. If Obama is weak in 2012, I think it would be a mistake for the GOP to nominate someone who would energize liberals, like Palin would.

Bando, thanks for your concern for the Republican Party.

You know, one reason I post here is because we often discuss political strategy in addition to the normal liberal/conservative (and libertarian, jgalt) backbiting. When we discuss political strategy, we're generally not so strident ideologically, because we're being political junkies and not partisans. So I'm not trying to fifth column the GOP or anything, and you, as always, are an ass.

Secondly, I'd one day like to vote Republican more often (the last one I voted for was for at-large city council in 2008). It would be better for me to vote for the politician I actually liked, rather than against the one I feared. Sarah Palin not becoming the conservative standard bearer would hasten that day, so I don't think my opinion is so irrelevant.

[theexorcist]

Best to put this one here as anywhere else.

www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29786.html

"The shorthand: run on economic policy, downplay divisive cultural issues, present an upbeat tone, target independent voters and focus on Democratic-controlled Washington—all without attacking President Barack Obama personally."

Aside from the fact that they forgot "run against a bozo", this seems like a good generic platform. It also seems like a strategy which Palin could use.

[strummer8526]

Nov 23, 2009 15:50:56 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Best to put this one here as anywhere else.

www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29786.html

"The shorthand: run on economic policy, downplay divisive cultural issues, present an upbeat tone, target independent voters and focus on Democratic-controlled Washington—all without attacking President Barack Obama personally."

Aside from the fact that they forgot "run against a bozo", this seems like a good generic platform. It also seems like a strategy which Palin could use.

First, I know several staunch Republicans who would commit today to voting for literally any Democratic candidate rather than Sarah Palin. Personally, if she were the nominee, I would officially relinquish any sense of "Independent" still left in me, register as a Democrat, and never consider voting for another Republican unless and until the party officially rebukes her.

As far as this platform. I do think it is exactly what a Republican could do to win. I think Romney—governor Romney, not presidential candidate Romney—could do this excellently. Get past the cultural nonsense, talk economics, appeal to independents, and have a respectful debate about fiscal policy (a debate I think Romney would win against Obama).

I think there is literally 0 potential for Palin to accomplish any of these:

1. Run on economic policy: "Government is bad" is not an economic policy. She's never exhibited any firm grasp of economics.

2. Downplay divisive cultural issues: Really? You think she could do this? This is a woman who props up her handicapped child that she chose not to abort like a hood ornament on the pro-life station wagon. A lot of women of all political stripes choose to have babies despite handicaps. It takes a special woman—a Sarah Palin kind of woman—to turn such an act into a political "culture war" statement.

3. Present an upbeat tone: She's arguably the most doom-and-gloom politician in a decade. At least GWB and Cheney, for all their fear-mongering, had a "We're gonna kick their ass" attitude (at least w/ regard to foreign policy).

4. Target independent voters: Never in a million years.

5. Focus on Democratic-controlled Washington: Yeah she does this ok. I'll give her that. But she does it with the least "upbeat tone" anyone's ever heard. She never talking about what kind of good can come from Washington or how a Republican White House could make the country better. It's always just about fear and anger towards what we have now.

6. All without attacking President Barack Obama personally: Again, really?

[nychoya3]

I think the biggest problem for Palin is that she just won't hold up to the rigors of the campaign season. Her "foot in mouth" and "what the hell is she talking about" rates make George W. Bush look like Henry Clay. Outside of a controlled setting, she's a train wreck.

She may run, but I am not highly concerned about her candidacy, if I'm Obama.

[jerseyhoya34]

I would echo Bando. I have voted for Republicans in the past, admittedly mostly for the dog catcher kinds of positions on the ballot. I would like to vote for them more often because, as a NJ voter, there is a certain entrenched machinery that is not healthy necessarily. McGreevey and Torch come to mind in those respects.

I do not sense the same independence among some voters on this board - some of whom strangely attack me as a partisan, which, absent responsible policy on the other side, I unapologetically am. It is refreshing, however, that Republicans have solved the world's problems during the Obama presidency but forgot those duties while in power. Long story short, I'm in the spot where strummer does not want to end up.

For what it is worth, my hope for the Republican Party is that it examines its roots both in domestically and in foreign policy and fashions something that is faithful to both as opposed to what the party's de facto leaders - Liz Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, et al. - think the tradition is. The tradition is far more proud than that which these undistinguished demagogues and their adherents seek to hijack.

[Boz]

Hmmm, OK, I'm going to have to take issue with some of the recent posts in this thread.

I'll start with the idea of the "independents" who have been driven away from the Republican party. Now no offense, I don't know anyone's voting record, but I'd have to say that most of the conservatives on this board would probably not come to the conclusion that your participation here is all that reflective of "independent" thought. I don't mean that as an insult, I'm not saying you're not thoughtful, you are, but it's fairly well clear that you lean a lot more left than right, even if you're definition of right is not Sarah Palin's. Would any of you vote for Ronald Reagan right now if 1980 Ronald Reagan ran against Barack Obama? Or Barry Goldwater, updated for 2009?

Further, I'd argue that the party that is driving independents away right now is the Democratic party. I sure don't see any evidence going in the other direction.

Now, as to "what Sarah Palin can and can't do," I would say that she is not there now ('there' meaning someone who is nationally electable), but if you don't think her support is growing, and growing beyond just hardcore conservatives, I think that's a bit myopic. Sarah Palin is going to be a fairly unique experiment in American politics over the next couple of years. People who are hardcore political junkies are pretty set on her and won't change, particularly on the left. I grant that. That's not who she is going to try to reach. She may fail miserably, but recent evidence (post-election, I mean) does not support that outcome. Her numbers among Democrats and Republicans are hard and fast, that is true. Her numbers among independents are not great, but they are MUCH more malleable and soft, and they are shifting in her favor. If she continues along the lines she is going, she could very well have strong independent support in a couple of years.

Again, I'm not saying it WILL happen (or even necessarily that I want it to). I'm saying it could and it's shortsighted not to consider that.

Finally, some quick (I use that term ironically) hit points:

- I am not exactly seeing "responsible policy" out of the Democrats, nor am I seeing them take care of many things they complained about now that they are in power. I'd rank government transparency and accountability at the top of this list (Yes, I am speaking to you mostly, Harry and Nancy, but also to the President). That happens to every political party when they gain power. It is not a Republican phenomenon.

- If the Republican party examines its roots, they are going to come out a lot more on the side of a Doug Hoffman than a Dede Scozzafava, so I'm not sure that this is something that would win you back. But as I said before, I don't think you are winnable in any case. Again that's just my opinion. If you feel it is disrespectful of me to offer that opinion, I will apologize in advance.

- If you think that Sarah Palin's economic message is "government is bad," then I'm sorry, but in that case you're just not listening to anyone except those who hate her. You're certainly not listening to her. I am not nominating her for the Adam Smith prize by any stretch, but she is speaking about economics in a little more detail than that. But, like everything else she does, she is sending a populist message. It is not complicated or wonkish. But it is in line with conservative -- yes, traditional conservative -- principles.

- Traditional conservative foreign policy may be more isolationist -- or at least more non-interventionist -- than the current version, but traditional conservative foreign policy is not at all what Barack Obama is doing. If you support his approach, I'd have a difficult time figuring out how you could be swayed by a more conservative approach.


Now, if you all will excuse me, I am going to go drool over Emily Haines up in Baltimore as she entertains me over the next few hours.

(If Emily Haines ever became a Republican and ran for office, I know she could count on bando's support. ;D )

[The Stig]

One Republican to keep an eye on: Jon Huntsman. Moderate, very popular governor of Utah, now Ambassador to China. Obama may have been using the age old tactic of getting promising opponents out of the country, bit it could backfire because Huntsman will come back with some very nice foreign policy cred.

Huntsman's the kind of guy who could win an election against Obama, but since he's moderate and Mormon, I'm not sure he could win the GOP primary. On the flip side, Palin could probably win the GOP primary, but she'd get blown away in the general election. She's a superstar for sure, but with a very select group of people who would vote Republican anyways. I think Bando's correct - she's the Hillary Clinton of the right.

[TC]

Nov 23, 2009 18:14:14 GMT -5 Boz said:

(If Emily Haines ever became a Republican and ran for office, I know she could count on bando's support. ;D )

I want to see her birth certificate!

[jerseyhoya34]

My intent was not to suggest that acts of independence create an independent. I unapologetically am not an independent, but I'd like to think that I am not an irreconcilable voter who is opposed to any Republican as a matter of course. In any event, the example I would throw out there is a McCain/Gore race in 2000. I would have unhesitatingly voted for McCain based on the candidates as they presented themselves then. I don't think it would have been a close election either.

We can agree to disagree as to the issue of responsibility, but I would throw out there that the Democrats have not been able to do what they've set out to do in part because of reflexive intransigence on the right. It is hard for one to complain when he has asked for more time to offer proposals, waited until a week or so before votes to get behind something/gather support for it, then wonder why more has not been done or why the other party has not been able to do anything. Inaction is a function of the 2 party system in that sense for better or worse.

As to foreign policy, I do not necessarily disagree that the tradition is isolationist, but we may disagree as to whether that is a good/bad thing. I think it may have some value, even if only as a point of debate. The George W. Bush era essentially took isolationism off the table for the better part of 8 years, for better or for worse, and I would say for worse, particularly as "intervention" (and to a lesser extent internationalism) is associated with the War Against Iraq.

[TBird41]

Nov 23, 2009 18:29:27 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

My intent was not to suggest that acts of independence create an independent. I unapologetically am not an independent, but I'd like to think that I am not an irreconcilable voter who is opposed to any Republican as a matter of course. In any event, the example I would throw out there is a McCain/Gore race in 2000. I would have unhesitatingly voted for McCain based on the candidates as they presented themselves then. I don't think it would have been a close election either.

We can agree to disagree as to the issue of responsibility, but I would throw out there that the Democrats have not been able to do what they've set out to do in part because of reflexive intransigence on the right. It is hard for one to complain when he has asked for more time to offer proposals, waited until a week or so before votes to get behind something/gather support for it, then wonder why more has not been done or why the other party has not been able to do anything. Inaction is a function of the 2 party system in that sense.

As to foreign policy, I do not necessarily disagree that the tradition is isolationist, but we may disagree as to whether that is a good/bad thing. I think it may have some value, even if only as a point of debate. The George W. Bush era essentially took isolationism off the table for the better part of 8 years, for better or for worse.

I would say that "intransigence of the right" is the least of the reasons that the Democrats have been unable to accomplish their goals despite their complete control of the House and a filibuster proof Senate. If the Republicans had some way to block the Democrats, I'd be more open to the argument, but it's really not the right's fault that Obama, Reid and Pelosi haven't been able to keep their own party together.

[jerseyhoya34]

That is a fair explanation IMO as well for the current state of affairs. I am not much of a fan of Landrieu (or John Breaux of earlier vintage from LA), for example. A couple of minor quibbles -

1. There is a filibuster-proof majority on paper, but we've had the Kennedy death, Byrd's illness, Coleman litigation of the MN result, etc. that have made the Senate 59-40 or 58-40 for most of Obama's presidency or roughly 50% at worst. (On edit: My guess is that it really is closer to 60 or 70%).

2. The votes/approach of these Blue Dogs are inextricably linked to Republican partisanship. To the extent that the Tea Party protestors rile up voters in Arkansas, Louisiana, and so forth, then there are problems for the Blanche Lincolns, Claire McCaskills, and Mary Landrieus of the Senate. It took hundreds of millions of dollars in pork/guarantees for Landrieu to overcome this hurdle (on a cloture vote no less), which I feel comfortable in saying was not a personal political belief hurdle. Were there a healthier debate on particular policy objectives, which I would argue has simply not occurred here (see death panels, not in HCR bill), I don't think you'd see the same division.

In any event, there would be an argument as to whether a lockstep Democratic Congress would create good policy, and the outcome of that would probably fall on partisan lines. I think it is refreshing to see some of these procedures become important when, quite frankly, they weren't all that powerful during the headier days of the Bush Presidency. A filibuster of the Iraq War Resolution, in hindsight, was not even on the table, although I think some would have supported it (as I would have).

[AustinHoya03]

Nov 23, 2009 15:50:56 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Best to put this one here as anywhere else.

www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29786.html

"The shorthand: run on economic policy, downplay divisive cultural issues, present an upbeat tone, target independent voters and focus on Democratic-controlled Washington—all without attacking President Barack Obama personally."

Aside from the fact that they forgot "run against a bozo", this seems like a good generic platform. It also seems like a strategy which Palin could use.

Although I agree with strummer to a certain degree that many independents are not going to buy whatever Sarah Palin is selling, her move to the center is not a question of "if," but "when." If she's going to move towards the center, McDonnell's strategy is a good one which is likely to be used by a lot of national GOP candidates in 2010, so it would make sense for her to use it as well. She's not going to lose the GOP base, ever.

(FWIW, I think Obama and the Democratic Party are going to move to the center before 2012 as well, for obvious reasons. So I expect the 2012 election to be one great big ol' party in the middle. The last time we had an election like that was in 2000, and it sucked so badly I voted for Nader.)

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Nov 23, 2009 18:14:14 GMT -5 Boz said:

Hmmm, OK, I'm going to have to take issue with some of the recent posts in this thread.

I'll start with the idea of the "independents" who have been driven away from the Republican party. Now no offense, I don't know anyone's voting record, but I'd have to say that most of the conservatives on this board would probably not come to the conclusion that your participation here is all that reflective of "independent" thought. I don't mean that as an insult, I'm not saying you're not thoughtful, you are, but it's fairly well clear that you lean a lot more left than right, even if you're definition of right is not Sarah Palin's. Would any of you vote for Ronald Reagan right now if 1980 Ronald Reagan ran against Barack Obama? Or Barry Goldwater, updated for 2009?

Maybe that's because the "conservative" label has come to mean REALLY conservative? You implied it yourself: if indies are being driven away from the Republican party, they're not independent enough, therefore they're "a lot more left than right." I mean, I really resent the idea that being opposed to most of what it means to be a Republican=conservative today means you're necessarily liberal. What if I vote based on the individual, how they stand on the issues of the day, and the evidence they have to back it up, and just happen to think that the way most Republican ideas--and some are very good--- come out and the candidates they produce kinda stink? Or, that the package the good ideas come in is unstomachable? I.e., analogously and relatedly, basing my opinions/votes on a posteriori knowledge as opposed to a priori knowledge? Too philosophical?

Nov 23, 2009 18:14:14 GMT -5 Boz said:

- I am not exactly seeing "responsible policy" out of the Democrats, nor am I seeing them take care of many things they complained about now that they are in power. I'd rank government transparency and accountability at the top of this list (Yes, I am speaking to you mostly, Harry and Nancy, but also to the President). That happens to every political party when they gain power. It is not a Republican phenomenon.

Maybe because I'm in government & deal with budgets I see this differently. To put it bluntly, people are no longer afraid for their jobs and good names if they don't toe the party line, know that their expertise (especially in science and law) will be listened to as opposed to politicized, and are actually hard-pressed to provide the kind of transparency and accountability that the admin is asking for because the mechanisms to do so had so been dismantled over the last 8 years or power handed over to OMB (which is most definitely not transparent, I'll concede). If you think it's that easy to just "provide transparency" you have no idea how federal budgets work---the info is public and it's there for the asking; unfortunately under the current system you have to know where to look, which is an arduous process. If we want better accountability and transparency, sorry but we have to hire more people, simple as that. Is that what you want? Obama's people are working literally as fast as they can to do this; it takes a while. As for Congress, I have much less knowledge, so I'll leave that for others to shed light on. I'd agree that the House and Senate leadership could be doing a better job.

Nov 23, 2009 18:14:14 GMT -5 Boz said:

- If the Republican party examines its roots, they are going to come out a lot more on the side of a Doug Hoffman than a Dede Scozzafava, so I'm not sure that this is something that would win you back. But as I said before, I don't think you are winnable in any case. Again that's just my opinion. If you feel it is disrespectful of me to offer that opinion, I will apologize in advance.

Their "roots" eh? So would that mean the spoils system of the Gilded Age when "GOP" became the party's nickname? Or opposition to slavery, emphasis on higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, free-market labor, and free homesteads to farmers? Or some parts thereof? Or a Reagan-inspired Purity Test: GOP Considers "Purity Resolution".

Nov 23, 2009 18:14:14 GMT -5 Boz said:

- Traditional conservative foreign policy may be more isolationist -- or at least more non-interventionist -- than the current version, but traditional conservative foreign policy is not at all what Barack Obama is doing. If you support his approach, I'd have a difficult time figuring out how you could be swayed by a more conservative approach.

I see this a little differently. I see the Republican approach as unilateral, whether that means isolationist or interventionist, and the Democratic approach as multilateral, again whether that means isolationist or interventionist.

[GIGAFAN99]

Nov 23, 2009 18:18:47 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I think Bando's correct - she's the Hillary Clinton of the right.

I have to say, there is ton of revisionist history here on Hillary Clinton. Obama beat her by essentially caucus states only, and when he was down in the general election got held up at Cabinet point to get her and Bill's support. For a "polarizing figure" she got half the votes in her party and a sweet sweet gig in this administration despite the fact everyone in Obama's campaign clearly despises her.

Palin has nowhere near this kind of juice. She has an everyman appeal but I hate to say it, that doesn't work when you're a woman. She won't get out of the primaries. Some "Hi I'm Lyle" looking dude will.

[TC]

Nov 23, 2009 21:06:05 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

Or a Reagan-inspired Purity Test: GOP Considers "Purity Resolution".

How is that at all Reagan inspired? Isn't that sort of thing anti-big-tent, and the direct opposite of what Reagan talked about?

[The Stig]

Nov 23, 2009 21:13:21 GMT -5 GIGAFAN99 said:

Nov 23, 2009 18:18:47 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I think Bando's correct - she's the Hillary Clinton of the right.

I have to say, there is ton of revisionist history here on Hillary Clinton. Obama beat her by essentially caucus states only, and when he was down in the general election got held up at Cabinet point to get her and Bill's support. For a "polarizing figure" she got half the votes in her party and a sweet sweet gig in this administration despite the fact everyone in Obama's campaign clearly despises her.

Palin has nowhere near this kind of juice. She has an everyman appeal but I hate to say it, that doesn't work when you're a woman. She won't get out of the primaries. Some "Hi I'm Lyle" looking dude will.

Palin's the Hillary of the Right in the sense that she's a polarizing figure. She has reasonable popularity in her own party, but she's basically despised by everybody outside it. The people inside the party don't quite understand how others view her, so they see her as a savior, when in reality she could cripple the party. If Hillary had won the nomination in 2008 we could be talking about President McCain right now.

In terms of charisma and intelligence, Hillary and Palin are on opposite ends of the spectrum, which isn't good news for either of them.

[Cambridge]

Nov 23, 2009 21:13:21 GMT -5 GIGAFAN99 said:

Nov 23, 2009 18:18:47 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I think Bando's correct - she's the Hillary Clinton of the right.

I have to say, there is ton of revisionist history here on Hillary Clinton. Obama beat her by essentially caucus states only, and when he was down in the general election got held up at Cabinet point to get her and Bill's support. For a "polarizing figure" she got half the votes in her party and a sweet sweet gig in this administration despite the fact everyone in Obama's campaign clearly despises her.

Palin has nowhere near this kind of juice. She has an everyman appeal but I hate to say it, that doesn't work when you're a woman. She won't get out of the primaries. Some "Hi I'm Lyle" looking dude will.

I think the point was not that she did well in a party primary -- one where she is basically royalty -- it's that she would have had a much tougher time in a national election due to the level of animosity she manages to generate just by being Hillary.

[Boz]

Nov 23, 2009 18:27:41 GMT -5 TC said:

Nov 23, 2009 18:14:14 GMT -5 Boz said:

(If Emily Haines ever became a Republican and ran for office, I know she could count on bando's support. ;D )

I want to see her birth certificate!

Hey, I never said run for President.

But here's all that matters:

Emily looked* and pointed at me tonight....

....Maybe tomorrow I'll respond on the subject of this thread, but I could really care less about anything else at the moment.

(*she did not, however, "look at me eleven ways.")

;D

[rosslynhoya]

The more I think about it, the more likely this prediction from September is likely to hold true: Sarah Palin will be the GOP's Ted Kennedy. Will never be President, will be widely caricatured by the opposing party, will be the source of lots of campaign loot for both sides, and will be able to have a soapbox totally out of proportion to his/her actual contributions to the debate.

spectator.org/archives/2009/09/01/is-sarah-palin-the-next-ted-ke

[theexorcist]

Nov 24, 2009 8:37:31 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

The more I think about it, the more likely this prediction from September is likely to hold true: Sarah Palin will be the GOP's Ted Kennedy. Will never be President, will be widely caricatured by the opposing party, will be the source of lots of campaign loot for both sides, and will be able to have a soapbox totally out of proportion to his/her actual contributions to the debate.

spectator.org/archives/2009/09/01/is-sarah-palin-the-next-ted-ke

RH:

I was originally thinking that, too. The problem I have is what job she has. I really can't see her as a senator. Maybe running her own think tank/PAC?