Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Sarah Palin setting herself up for 2012 run?


88Comrade2000

Recommended Posts

You have definitely not heard the last of Sarah Palin. I don't think she could run in 2012 but maybe 2016. By then she would have national experience and she could face Hillary.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081028/pl_politico/14997

>>>Is Sarah Palin preparing for 2012?

Sarah Palin may soon be free. Soon, she may not have the millstone of John McCain around her neck. And she can begin her race for president in 2012.

Some are already talking about it. In careful terms. If John McCain loses next week, Sarah Palin “has absolutely earned a right to run in 2012,” says Greg Mueller, who was a senior aide in the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes. Mueller says Palin has given conservatives “hope” and “something to believe in.”

And even if the McCain-Palin ticket does win on Nov. 4 — and Mueller says it could — “if McCain decides to serve for just one term, Sarah Palin as the economic populist and traditional American values candidates will be very appealing by the time we get to 2012.”

It is clear that while trying to bond with voters, John McCain and Sarah Palin have not managed to bond with each other. Perhaps we should not be surprised. They barely know one another.

When McCain appeared on the “Late Show With David Letterman” on Oct. 16, McCain praised Palin but went out of his way to point out how little he knew about her before he chose her as his running mate. “I didn’t know her real well,” McCain said. “I knew her reputation. I didn’t know her well at all. I didn’t know her well at all.”

The discomfort between the two can be palpable. Chuck Todd, the NBC News political director, was in the room when Brian Williams interviewed Palin and McCain recently. “There was a tenseness,” Todd said later. “When you see the two of them together, the chemistry is just not there. You do wonder, is John McCain starting to blame her for things? Blaming himself? Is she blaming him?”

I am guessing one and three. John McCain is blaming Palin for demonstrating her inexperience and lack of knowledge. And Palin is blaming McCain for running what she views as a bad campaign — a campaign that did not go after Barack Obama over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and did not exploit Obama’s statement about how small-town people “cling” to guns and religion — and for never picking a clear message that had any traction with voters.

But here’s the difference: If McCain loses, he doesn’t get to run again, and Palin does.

All that negative stuff about her? Charging Alaska taxpayers a per diem allowance for 300 nights she spent at home, flying her kids at state expense to events they were not invited to, accepting wildly expensive clothes from the Republican National Committee and, according to one ethics panel, having abused her office as governor?

Not only will all that have faded by the 2012 campaign, Palin already has her defense ready: Some of these accusations are part of a double standard that is applied to women and not to men.

She says Hillary Clinton ran into the same problem.

“I think Hillary Clinton was held to a different standard in her primary race,” Palin told Jill Zuckman of the Chicago Tribune recently. “Do you remember the conversations that took place about her — say, superficial things that they don’t talk about with men, like her wardrobe and her hairstyles, all of that, that’s a bit of that double standard. Certainly there’s a double standard.”

Palin went on: “But I’m not going to complain about it, I’m not going to whine about it, I’m going to plow through that because we are embarking on something greater than that, than allowing that double standard to adversely affect us.”

If she runs in 2012, Palin will run to shatter the glass ceiling. By then, Americans may have shown they are willing to vote for an African-American for president, but how about a woman?

Mueller thinks Palin would make a strong candidate. There certainly will be others jockeying for the job. And Mueller named Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

But Mueller thinks that, while some conservative intellectuals have deserted and derided Sarah Palin, the Republican base likes her and could stick with her.

“She would run in 2012 as the populist, conservative reformer that she was originally introduced to the country as,” Mueller said. “If Obama wins, you will see him moving the country to a sort of Euro-socialism. That will fail, and she can target an economic-populist message to the country.”

Mueller also argues that Palin could run a more convincing campaign on traditional conservative issues in 2012 than McCain has in 2008

“One weakness in McCain’s campaign is not campaigning on strong, pro-life, traditional values issues,” Mueller said. “There has been a certain level of discomfort over the years by McCain over guns, God and life issues.”

Mueller says McCain and Palin could still win next week. But if that happens, Mueller thinks Palin should get a lot of the credit. “A lot of conservatives are not excited by John McCain, even though I think he has been saying some good things,” Mueller said. “If they vote, they will vote for Sarah.”

And if not in 2008, maybe in 2012.<<<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She has no chance.

Lets see -

How did Ferraro of 88 go?

Bentson of 92?

How about the Dan Quayle run of 1996 go?

Jack kemp of 2000?

Joe Liberman of 2004?

John Edwards of 2008?

Every 4 years the talking heads say that the VP candidate of the losing Ticket is the "Prime" front runner the next election cycle.

yet - That has not been true for over 20 years....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She has no chance.

Lets see -

How did Ferraro of 88 go?

Bentson of 92?

How about the Dan Quayle run of 1996 go?

Jack kemp of 2000?

Joe Liberman of 2004?

John Edwards of 2008?

Every 4 years the talking heads say that the VP candidate of the losing Ticket is the "Prime" front runner the next election cycle.

yet - That has not been true for over 20 years....

Excellent point there

She has a long ways to go. While she is very ambitious and actually does connect with people (she has the 'you may hate her but you'd love to hang out with her' thing going) she needs to do something on a national level, and prove that she is actually as smart as she really is

We'll see what direction the Republican party goes in. I think 2012 is out of the question, and I think most serious contenders will avoid 2012 and just let Romney be the sacrifice. 2016 could be very interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She has no chance.

Lets see -

How did Ferraro of 88 go?

Bentson of 92?

How about the Dan Quayle run of 1996 go?

Jack kemp of 2000?

Joe Liberman of 2004?

John Edwards of 2008?

Every 4 years the talking heads say that the VP candidate of the losing Ticket is the "Prime" front runner the next election cycle.

yet - That has not been true for over 20 years....

No chance at all ?

Using that logic, then Barack has zero chance as well, based on history.

There's a first for everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that Obama wins and the House and Senate are wipeouts (which I anticipate but still need to see happen), the Republicans need to sit down and figure out what kind of party they want to be before they decide on a standard bearer.

I think the RNC is at the place the DNC was around 1988 or so. The Dems still had majorities in the House and Senate then, but it was obvious the party was dying in the South, in the Southwest, and in the MidWest. It had become too urban and too stuck in the models of the 1960s. It had not kept up with the changing demographics and beliefs of the US and needed to reconfigure itself. And no one chose Bill Clinton as the person to fix that; he emerged out of the DLC, which was created to - in part - reboot the Democratic Party.

The Repubs at the moment don't seem interested in this type of self-reflection, but they need it. They are rapidly becoming the party of Christian Evangelicals and nothing else. This means that they are going to be nothing but a rural Southern Party, which is a way to become utterly irrelevant over the next 20 years. And making Palin their standard beare is a good way to secure that decline.

Sure, she fires up "the base." But the base is probably the smallest it has been since the 70s and now utterly terrifies half the country. With Palin, you get an impassioned "Party" but you ostracize 60 percent of the country in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's the same....

In today zero sum politics - No one wants to be associated with a loser.

2 years from now, it will become conventional wisdom that Palin cost McCain the election

(Just like it's conventional wisdom that Willie Horton won it for Bush in 88, and Clintons BJ's cost Gore the election in 2000). Might, or might not be true. But it is what everyone will believe.

No one will want to tie themselves to the candidate thought to have cost their party the election....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think she is. The question is can she re-create herself in the intermediary. She's got four years to do the PR and damage control. She's very popular amongst conservatives and hated by everyone else.

it is important for the democratic machine to continuously discredit her, she has idiot label firmly attached to her, it's best to not let it slip off. It'll probably be good to attach a few more. The conservatives were right about that, the democrats did have to put her political career down, and do it quickly. They have largely succeeded. And the country is better off for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Sarah Palin is ever given the Republican nomination for President you'll know when they've jumped the shark. It would certainly mean the death of the Republican party as we know it.

If this view makes me an elitist then so be it. I can't even put in to words how disappointed I would be with the Repubs. That would be the ultimate example of pandering to the least intelligent of their base.

I won't make the case that putting her up for the veep nominee was the exact same thing, because at first glance it seemed like a smart move. Now that we know so much about her, it would be a disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She has no chance.

Lets see -

How did Ferraro of 88 go?

Bentson of 92?

How about the Dan Quayle run of 1996 go?

Jack kemp of 2000?

Joe Liberman of 2004?

John Edwards of 2008?

Every 4 years the talking heads say that the VP candidate of the losing Ticket is the "Prime" front runner the next election cycle.

yet - That has not been true for over 20 years....

did you post something similar to this in another thread? because i know i read it and when i did it made total sense to me. i hope she isnt moving away from this campaign in hopes of being her own "maverick"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way she has a serious chance in 2012 is if she somehow gets elected to an Alaskan congressional seat. That means she would have to challenge incumbent Republicans for their seats as their will be no incumbent Dems (except for the seat they're about to take this year). No one is going to take her seriously unless she gets some serious experience in federal matters. Being governor in Alaska isn't going to make people forget those awful interviews and Tina Fey's pitch-perfect performance: there will be too many resemblances to Dubya.

Of course, I'm assuming that foreign policy will be a huge issue in the next election, and that the Dems don't knock her out in the 2010 gubernatorial election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Repubs at the moment don't seem interested in this type of self-reflection' date=' but they need it. They are rapidly becoming the party of Christian Evangelicals and nothing else. This means that they are going to be nothing but a rural Southern Party, which is a way to become utterly irrelevant over the next 20 years. And making Palin their standard beare is a good way to secure that decline.

Sure, she fires up "the base." But the base is probably the smallest it has been since the 70s and now utterly terrifies half the country. With Palin, you get an impassioned "Party" but you ostracize 60 percent of the country in the process.[/quote']

This is a dead on assessment in my eyes. I agree 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way she has a serious chance in 2012 is if she somehow gets elected to an Alaskan congressional seat. That means she would have to challenge incumbent Republicans for their seats as their will be no incumbent Dems (except for the seat they're about to take this year). No one is going to take her seriously unless she gets some serious experience in federal matters. Being governor in Alaska isn't going to make people forget those awful interviews and Tina Fey's pitch-perfect performance: there will be too many resemblances to Dubya.

Of course, I'm assuming that foreign policy will be a huge issue in the next election, and that the Dems don't knock her out in the 2010 gubernatorial election.

The issue with her is not experience at the federal level or foreign policy experience.

The issue is the Far-Right, Christian, Anti-Intellectual, borderline McCartyist worldview that she has. If she takes a Congressional seat, she just becomes a prettier Michelle Bachmann.

You can't just repackage her and sell her to the American people. And she is not the type to go for that anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2012 is too early.

Palin will be re-elected governor of Alaska in 2010. In 2014, Ted Stevens's seat will be available (either because he's about to lose next week, he's in jail, or he's just 90 years old). Palin can then run for Senator in 2014, and she can run for President in 2020, at the age of 56. She could even wait longer, for 2024 or 2028.

She has at least another 12 years to get more experience an build more contacts in the political world. I think we definitely haven't seen that last of her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2012 is too early.

Palin will be re-elected governor of Alaska in 2010. In 2014, Ted Stevens's seat will be available (either because he's about to lose next week, he's in jail, or he's just 90 years old). Palin can then run for Senator in 2014, and she can run for President in 2020, at the age of 56. She could even wait longer, for 2024 or 2028.

She has at least another 12 years to get more experience an build more contacts in the political world. I think we definitely haven't seen that last of her.

In 2020, she's just another middle-aged career politician looking for a promotion. Her star power will be long gone by then.

People here are misjudging what Palin is and what she represents. She is pretty much everything the Christian Right wants in a candidate (Baby making, non-easterner, folksy, Jesus-loving, rapture-waiting, pro life, anti-gay, anti-media, anti-Washington, low in experience) in a pretty little package.

She is special because she has no record. She can literally say any damn thing she wants about any issue, because no one can contradict her.

After 10 or 12 years, she will have a record.

And it is easier to run on an idea than a record - as this current race is proving.

She needs to strike while she is still undefinable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...