« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rethinking Palin’s General Election Prospects

By: Curt Levey (Diary)  |  September 20th, 2010 at 01:35 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The conventional wisdom has been that, while Sarah Palin will be a leading contender for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination if she wants it, her chances in the general election would be less rosy because she is reportedly viewed unfavorably by most independents.  That’s persuasive logic if you don’t think about it too much. But today’s Rasmussen poll makes me realize that the relevant question for electability is not how independents view the GOP nominee.  Instead, it’s how independents view the GOP nominee relative to the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.

On that score, Palin’s general election chances looks good. Rasmussen reports today that 59% of voters not affiliated with either party say their views are closer to Sarah Palin’s than to President Obama’s.  Overall, 52% of American voters feel ideologically closer to Palin, while only 40% feel closer to the President.

An additional finding from the poll should surprise no one.  Among the political class, 68% of voters have views more like Obama’s, while 63% of mainstream voters – those outside the political class – are closer to Palin.  Rasmussen classifies voters according to his Political Class Index, which is based on three survey questions.

Tags: , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • romeg

    in the races she’s backed so far I’d have to say that she has a heckuva lot of drag at this moment in history. But as Liz Cheney is wont to say, “…it is a geological age between today and November 2012.”

    Suffice it to say that between now and then the Democraps will expend at least as much effort to destroy her as they spend against Dubya and the Republican party in the last half of his term in office, the Truth be damned.

    • Crowe

      Mon Dieu! I wonder what they’ll find! I wonder what if they’ll think to descend upon Wasilla (a small town not to far from Anchorage where she reportedly was mayor). I wonder if they’ll discover that she *only* has a journalism degree (aside: can you imagine the media criticizing someone for *only* having a journalism degree? sweet, sweet irony!)

      I do hope she’s able to handle whatever they may dig up from her past, whatever it may be!

      /snark

      • romeg

        bbbbaby

  • powertothepeople

    whether or not most in the repubs, independents, or dems like her or dislike her, the issue that will be the most important is she capable of being president. Will she cut and run again, will she see Russia again, etc.

    I am def not anti Palin, as some of my replies show here. I think she has been a God sent blessing when it comes to getting good folks elected. And in that role she is brilliant. But I would not vote for her to be president unless she won the primary.

    When we elect the next president, we must, and I repeat must, make sure they are a person who loves this country to the max, respects the constitution, believes in smaller government, and one who has the moral fortitude to stand in the gap for us all. They have to be as strong or stronger mentally than any president to date. Palin does not fit this mold.

    If we elect anyone other than the right person, we are in trouble. And I just can not see where Palin would be the right person. Plus we would lose her brilliant work in the public arena and that would be disaster.

    We do not need to be as worried about matching the first black president of the dems with the first woman. If one is capable, by all means. But this election and the big one in 2012 is about fixing all that was broken. And the right person will be a warrior conservative, anything less and we are boned!

    • powertothepeople

      need to stop, slow down, proof read, not type in the office with all the noise, as to not look so deficient in common education and english.

    • conservativemusician

      This Rasmussen poll speaks volumes. Even if Obama drops out and Hillary becomes the Dem nominee in 2012, the country is not going to stomach another left-wing socialist liberal in the White House who is going to do even further damage to this country with these disstrous policies. Hillary would just be an extension of Obama, so I just don’t see how she will get elected.

      You don’t think Palin loves this country? You don’t think Palin believes in smaller government? Please! Have you listened to her on the stump lately? She would be a quantum leap in the right direction – far better than any liberal who would run against her.

      Palin is conservative. How else can you explain all the negative press she gets all the time? Rush is correct in that the liberals will always tell you who they are most afraid of by telling who they do not want to run from our side. The libs are most afraid of Palin, so this should tell you something.

      Glad at least you mentioned you would vote for her in the primary.

      • powertothepeople

        are not afraid of her in general. They read the news an keep up with the polls just as much as we do. They know how she is perceived by folks, they know snoopy could beat Obama right now so her being in the race would not make the much of a difference to them as far as to being “afraid” of her running.

        Anyone to the right of Obama would be an improvement right now, that is a given. And I would agree that Palin is a conservative/loves this country. But as to the entire mold, she does not fit enough criteria for being a good candidate. When the pressure top blows, and it will, the next president can not and will not have the option to quit.

        She is best suited and does a great job at getting conservatives elected. But when it comes to who will be the next president, way too many top notch conservatives out there who are better presidential candidates.

    • http://www.incredibleco.ning.com Incredible

      This paragraph left me perplexed. Especially in light of your acknowledgement that she gets “good folks elected”.

      “When we elect the next president, we must, and I repeat must, make sure they are a person who loves this country to the max, respects the constitution, believes in smaller government, and one who has the moral fortitude to stand in the gap for us all. They have to be as strong or stronger mentally than any president to date. Palin does not fit this mold.”

      • powertothepeople

        She does love this country, but she does not fit the whole paragraph.

        Her spending in Alaska was absurd

        When it got tough, she quit hence bringing into question he fortitude.

        Her belief in smaller government would be valid based on her words, but her actions in Alaska show otherwise.

        She is a class act deserving of the credit she gets. She has fought tirelessly for the cause in multiple states for multiple candidates, but that does not mean she is ready to be president at a time when we are on the brink of disaster. For now, and maybe for good, she needs to stay where she is and keep doing what she is great at.

    • JSobieski

      “They have to be as strong or stronger mentally than any president to date.”

      Whatever standard you are trying to articulate, I think you need to try again.

      • powertothepeople

        the trials facing the next president will be greater than at any other time in this country. Whoever gets elected to president from our side will face a dismal outlook when it comes to jobs and the economy, a housing market that is in shambles, immigration reform, taxation that will be through the roof, the effects of the socialist HC plan soon coming as most will not take affect until 2016, etc etc etc.

        The above does not even include what will be the worst attacks from the left they have ever used or their complete intent on stopping anything we do.

        The person who has to face this will have to be strong, very strong. They will to stand up and fight back like their very lives depend on it, hence the strong mentally remark.

        • http://www.incredibleco.ning.com Incredible

          I, for one, do not look forward to your dystopian future. It’s apparently going to be the worse than the Great Depression, World Wars I & II, and a Civil War all at once.

          You remain upersuasive. And unclear. Your hyperbole about this country’s future and inabilty to articulate SP’s specific shortcomings are not the makings of a strong argument.

        • JSobieski

          What is mental strength to you?

          No offense, but its a very generic comment. Is Palin somehow mentally weaker than other potential candidates?

          Are you talking strength of will? Intelligence? Book learning? IQ? Wisdom? Neurological energy levels at detected in a CAT scan?

          Or are you coming out with an early endorsement of Professor X?

          • SoulEspresso

            Seeing her kids treated like the media treated them, and still fighting, says a lot about her. I don’t think there’s a lot more that can be said to/about her that hasn’t already.

            This by itself doesn’t make her qualified for the Presidency, but she does have a lot of personal fortitude.

          • JSobieski

            I do however think Professor X would be a great President.

    • blooch

      Tina Fey is not running.

      Will Barry see dead soldiers and 57 states again? You Betcha!

      • NHConservative0227

        of Palin that she isn’t smart enough, is too radical, or does not have enough experience seem to be the same old tired liberal talking points to me.

        There are legitimate criticisms of her, but these are not it.

        • SteveLA

          Limited Executive level experience, and the one job at CEO level she left early instead of finishing the job the people of Alaska hired her to do.

          No written record of her thinking on issues in the form of papers or speeches, Twitter don’t count.

          No Military experience

          No Foreign policy experience

          Has not proven that she can handle an interview by anything other than “Tame Media”.

          Before you go there, GW Bush and Obama were light in many of these areas too, and you can form your own opinion on how well each has done.

          Real issues which those who support Governor Palin seem to not to want to deal honestly with.

          • JSobieski

            GWB was the governor of a large dynamic state for 8 years, a state with an international border. GWB also had the benefit of seeing a pretty professional WH operate (GHWB). GWB also had military experience.

            Obama was the least experienced President this country ever had. Palin would be the second least experienced President should she run and win in 2012. GWB, given his various experience through his dad, probably comes out above average when you consider all of the personal contacts he had ready at the get go.

          • SteveLA

            GWB was governor of Texas, and he did the full 8 years running a large state. Also as a son of an ex-CIA head, VP and President he obviously knew a bit about the world, had a hard time pronouncing some of the places with stan in them, but hey that’s why I liked him.

            I was just cutting off at the pass the usual comparisons that Palin supports love to throw out.

            Obama was a State Senator and a US Senator before becoming President, and I think he was in both jobs screwing up for longer than Governor Palin’s three years which was more like 2 years as one year was spent running for VP.

          • JSobieski

            The guy had no legislative accomplishments. If you want to compare apples to apples:

            Palin spent a couple years as governor, 4 years as mayor, and spent a few years as a state energy commissioner (pseudo-executive/pseudo-legislative)

            Obama spent 1 year as the editor-in-chief of Harvard Law Review and sat on a board with a domestic terrorist

            Not a big Palin fan, but comparing Obama to Palin is an insult to Palin.

          • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

            GWB reconstituted much of his pop’s team.

            And it’s unfair to compare the Constitutional broadside we now face to almost any other time in history. Would you trust someone with GWB’s spotty commitment to Constitutional Conservatism, in spite of his executive experience?

            How about Colin Powell? He passes muster in the military command department. How did he do this weekend to inspre confidence that he is down for the struggle?

            Honestly, Palin’s warts are not “real issues” as you declare them. We need someone willing to play smashmouth with, yeah, even people in her own party.

            That is something she *has* done.

          • SteveLA

            Then Governor Palin is your person to back.

            For those of us who actually want to know if a person has the background, temperament, knowledge and skills to have their finger on the button and the ability to be be running this country, Governor Palin has many real flaws. Or at best many unanswered questions on her ability to govern.

          • JSobieski

            Not saying executive experience makes a President great (see Jimmy Carter, former governor).

            Am saying that in modern times, a President without executive experience is a problem (see Kennedy, Johnson, and Obama).

            When a person makes a statement for example that it helps to have tall people on a basketball team. They are not saying that height is the ONLY desirable attribute. Nor are they saying that EVERYONE playing has to be over 6’10″.

            I don’t understand why some folks insist on all or nothing interpretations of so many things.

            Executive experience? It matters.
            Ideology? It matters
            Communicatin skills? It matters
            Character? It matters

            Particularly when it comes to Presidents, its more than just ideology.

            Being President is more than about being smashmouth. Obama is smashmouth, but he bites at being President.

            Being President is different than being a talk show host on the radio.

          • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

            And don’t have big gaps in the principles department.

            Obama got a good deal of his agenda done. He did not have to abandon much principle. He dragged the opposition along for some of it.

            So, above all else, it’s the ideology.

          • JSobieski

            Even leftists aren’t happy with Obama.

            In terms of sitting governors, how about . . .
            Haley Barbour?
            Mitch Daniels?
            Rick Perry
            Tim Pawlenty?

            There is also a list of former governors we could go into.

            If you want the conservative version of Obama, be my guest. I have different criteria.

          • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

            as are all governors.

            You need to drill down and look for charismatic conservatives. Everyone on that list fails.

            A hell hole, yes, because Obama got done much of what he wanted to. You’re confusing the efficacy of his passing his initiatives with the disastrous ideals they represented, which makes my point. If you want to call Obama a failure, you need to qualify that by admitting it has more to do with the latter.

            And even Karl Rove says Reagan was not a Reagan Republican.

          • JSobieski

            Also, it depends on what you find charismatic. I find people implementing budget turnarounds to be pretty impressive and charismatic.

            If you just want to hear “CONSERVATIVE hope and change” then you already know what you want.

            Reagan was charismatic because he was sincere, accomplished, confident, competent and trustworthy.

            Charisma is inherently a contextual trait.

            If you don’t thing running the largest organization in the history of manking requires some executive skills, then I wish you would become the HR director of my business competition.

          • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

            Is that the end game here?

          • JSobieski

            Palin is lacking in accomplishment, which in my eyes makes her less charismatic.

            Reagan 2 full terms of governor of the largest state
            Union leader who took on communism
            Years giving thoughtful analyses and speaches

            Palin served 2 years as governor and quit.
            She served one term as mayor.

            Besides Obama, she would have less executive experience than any other President since Truman.

            Its amazing how the pro-Palin people argue with me and the anti-Palin people argue with me. I make very specific points, but you prefer to argue against the straw man in your head than the arguments I actually make.

          • Mary Beth

            Palin served TWO terms as Mayor and was term limited out.

            She was on the City Council from 1992-1996 then served two terms as mayor…from 1996 through 2002.

          • acat

            but unless we’re talking NYC, or LA, or Chicago, the scale and viciousness of the entrenched interests are significantly different.

            Mew

          • Mary Beth

            she stomped on a popular, entrenched political dynasty. She ripped apart the good ol’ boys club and stood up for the voters against corruption. She beat a popular governor in a primary and won a three way race with over 50 percent of the vote.

            That takes courage and tenacity.

            If Palin runs in 2012, she will be doing so knowing she’ll be savaged by not only the left and the media (BIRM), but also by establishment GOPers who think it’s someone else’s turn. And if the other took courage and tenacity, this will take even more.

            She a fighter that way though.

            We’ll see what happens…but I suspect a lot of people are underestimating her. If/when she throws in, and she wears the hat of a candidate rather than a conservative spokesperson and candidate endorser, she’ll do so with the full knowledge that she’ll be enemy numero uno on many people’s lists.

            I can’t imagine she’d do this if she didn’t make sure she was as prepared as possible and had the best, most knowledgeable advisors to help her out.

          • acat

            totally missing the point. She can be a great president, but .. not yet.

            I would be happy to support her in the general election, and would be very pleased to be proven wrong on this. I just don’t expect to be.

            Mew

          • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

            and didn’t put words in your mouth, because you said, “Reagan was charismatic because he was sincere, accomplished, confident, competent and trustworthy.”

            But at least we can winnow that list down to “accomplished,” or your definition of it, which is a necessary and sufficient condition for being charismatic, according to your logic. Can we get a “sincere, confident, competent, and trustworthy” in Sarah Palin’s column, then?

            And it’s not “putting words in your mouth.” It’s usually my deconstructing what you say, then waiting for you to walk it back.

          • JSobieski

            I am very specific in what I say.

            If I say Reagan had certain traits, what I mean is that Reagan had cetain traits.

            You are the person talking about holy grails, and then denying you were the first person to use the phrase.

            I am a Palin fan. I think she is great in so many ways. However, a 1/2 term as governor does not a President make.

            You don’t care about experience. Thats great. You can vote on whatever criteria you want. To me, executive experience matters. Its not the only thing that matters, but it matters.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            To me the most important factors are:

            1-Ideology – life has taught one that conservative policies work

            2-Courage – Will not wilt because of the lib media

            Palin passes those tests with flying colors and to me, that’s 80%.

            more later

          • JSobieski

            ;) If we were talking legislator, I would agree with you 90% (have to add something for communication skills)

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            I’m just saying that the first two factors are paramount, but after those, yes exec exp matters, and Palin was a mayor and a governor, and effective in each position. I think that we probably need a different nominee, but before exec exp comes into play, I want a person that is right on the issues, has the instincts to lead and has courage. Palin passes.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            to be President that is in govt today, I would pick Jeff Sessions.

          • JSobieski

            Important does not mean paramount. Prerequisite does not mean sufficient. I say its an important factor, and next thing you know I’m getting the competent liberal exec thing.

            We are talking about President of the United States. Do we not have ideologically strong candidates with records of executive accomplishment?

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            once a candidaye crosses the ideology, right on the issues and courage thresholds, that only then would I differentiate re exec experience.

          • acat

            A competent Obama would never have let Pelosi and Reid dink around with his flagship issue for so long.

            A competent Obama would have seeded a number of wedges to divide fiscal, religious, and libertarian conservatives into the flagship bill. A break for “not for profits” that clearly applies to religious health care organizations. A mandate for government access to records, with an opt out for libertarians. Clear and believable time tables and cost estimates for the fiscal types.

            A competent Obama would be getting ready for a victory lap. I am very thankful that the Obama we got didn’t have enough experience… and I’m happy to learn from my opponents’ folly.

            Mew

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • aesthete

            Clinton managed his base like a fiddle, while still using pointless non-issues to pretend to be “conservative” (i.e., Sister Souljah). That said, I’m not so sure how effective the two examples you listed would have been at dividing said groups: libertarians (both the sane and crazy ones) tend to get hugely ticked off at any moves towards national databases and government expansion, even if they’re opt-out. Likewise, anything short of religious institutions being allowed not to perform certain procedures (abortion, euthanasia, contraceptive care for some) would be a highly ineffective sop.

            But yes, I bet that if Clinton had had the majority Obama has now, and if he had been as progressive, he would have been far more damaging than Obama has proved to be thus far.

          • acat

            which was a handicap until he “learned the moves”, so to speak, he was much more effective.

            Palin won’t be given the time to “learn the moves”, she’ll have to be ready to go from November, not January.

            Mew

          • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

            Castle, Murkowski, Bennett, Crist. Can Mitt say that? Newt? Huck?

            Don’t those battles count in your world?

            *and Sarah Palin, to an extent.

          • acat
          • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

            But Palin does have some, and in a rather hostile (to women) enviroment like Alaska and oil. A political machine not unlike Chicago’s, for its size.

            Did Obama’s lack of executive experience cost him Obamacare? Stimulus? Bank deform? Again, we can agree on the disastrous consequences of his policies, but not the charismatic (and sometimes) brutal ways in which he got them done.

            Heck, you still have “Republicans” who refuse to commit to repealing any of that stuff.

          • JSobieski

            I never said it was the holy grail. I said it was a material factor.

            Are you capable of actually following what is said, or do you always insist on putting words in other peoples mouths?

            Where does holy grail appear in anything I have written. To the contrary, I have written that a variety of factors are important.

            It is far easier for you to argue with what you think I am saying than what I am actually saying. Its called beating a “straw man”.

          • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

            It was a reply to someone else.

            Sarah Palin got her hands dirty in a lot of primaries in which there was no payback to her. She’s not in office and may never be again. She backed a lot of unknowns and didn’t win them all. Most of the lists of definite maybes for 2012 here didn’t jump in until some of these races was a done deal, or they backed the NRSC/establishment candidate, or none at all.

            You can tell a lot about someone’s principles when they do and say things when nobody, or nobody in the other 49 states, is looking, and there is no visible means of a short term payback.

            Did endorsements of people like relative unknowns like Hayley, Ayotte, or O’Donnell smack of “I wanna be a rock star” syndrome? The rock star path would have been to vet candidates who were not going to embarrass her.

            I think you have Sarah Palin confused with Karl Rove.

          • JSobieski

            So its pretty clear you are fighting a straw man constructed in your own head.

            I am not questioning her motives or intentions. Never said Palin sought out the role of a rock star. She is nonetheless a political rock start whether she wants to be or not at this point.

            In other threads, I argue with people saying that she is way above being Secretary of Energy or UN Ambassador–why don’t you argue with those folks.

            I agree that she is a force to be reckoned with. Her endorsements are sincere. I believe that she in sincere.

            Doesn’t mean she has a lot of executive experience. Karl Rove measures his success in the endorsements of successfull candidates. Its a measure for political consultants, not Presidents.

          • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

            The underlying theme of the skepticism of Sarah Palin is the position that she lacks executive experience.

            You said it, acat, said it, we all said it, we all scream for ice cream.

          • acat

            Palin is a very talented politician. She’s picked more winners than Michael Steele. She’s picked more winners earlier than DeMint. And that’s great. Again, I voted for her in 2008. I am not anti-Palin.

            That said, what’s best for the country is for Palin to be able to start to govern the moment her hand comes off the bible, as Art Chance would put it, and for her to be able to do that, she needs either her own insider experience in D.C., or a mentor who has insider experience.

            Failing this, she will spend the first two years working out friend vs. foe, leaving lots of uncertainty, and tarnishing both conservatism and Palin herself.

            I do not see what’s so hard about this. She. Is. Not. Ready.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            One of you thinksthat Palin needs to work her way up before she is ready to become UN ambassador, and the other thinks that executive experience and accomplishment is irrelevant to the Presidency of the United States

            Have it at. Let lose with the straw men, since in this case, you both represent the extreme view.

          • acat

            the one who thinks that learning more about the systems she wants to run is a waste of time.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            Being at the UN is a lot like being in Congress, except that the President and SofS tell you how to vote. You aren’t running anything.

            I share your respect for Achance, but you attempt to channel him to directly. I don’t see you saying that other candidates should start as UN Ambassadors before progressing forward.

            You are singling out Palin, whether you admit it or not. Until you start demanding that these other folks start off cleaning toilets in the WH kitchen, you are clearly imposing a harsher standard on Palin because you perceive her to be dry kindling.

          • acat

            There’s a difference.

            Romney split down the middle. Not presidential timber at this point.
            Huck is seriously warped. Not presidential timber.
            Newt is not actually a tree, but a very tall shrub artfully pruned. Not presidential timber.

            How am I requiring a different standard, here? None of them could be president – Palin could grow into the job .. but she’s currently too short.

            Daniels, Pawlenty, Barbour .. all *currently* meet the height requirements that Palin doesn’t. Whole terms completed, Daniels has a good social conservative record, Pawlenty knows from fighting Dems in the legislature, Barbour knows how D.C. works and is a tremendous fundraiser.

            How am I requiring a different standard here? Palin hasn’t completed a term – yet. Palin hasn’t succeeded against a hostile Dem legislature – yet. She’s a better bomb-thrower than Barbour, and may have edged him in fundraising, but he’s known the hypothetical “guy to call for that” for over a decade while Palin only first met the guy in 2008…

            It’s not a double-standard, as much as you may like to make it about that.

            She. Lacks. Experience.

            Spending time at any position that lets her be “inside” the administration but also using her flair for the dramatic and ability to fight for the benefit of the country at large improves both Palin and the country, while a premature president does neither.

            Also, and I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but Hillary is about the weakest Secretary of State in recent history, while Susan Rice is the most powerful U.N. Ambassador – so these things are relative, and it’s rather up to the sitting president to decide where the centers of power are.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            My only beef with you is the idea that Palin somehow has to work her way up to dog catcher (being sarcastic).

            If Daniels is competent to be President, then Palin is competent to be Secretary of State. We can argue whether either person is well suited for those particular positions, but the idea that Palin has to go through a bunch of lesser positions to become a senior cabinet person is what my beef with you was.

            Rice is also the lamest UN Ambassador in decades, and her name is not mentioned as a potential Presidential candidate or King Maker. Palin is on that short list, and people on the list don’t take jobs more than one level down.

            So Senator? Sure. Secretary of State? Yeah. Energy? Uh uh, Interior? No freaking way. UN? Nobody would dare offer her the gig because it would be an insult to her political stature.

          • acat

            That’s why the next Senator from Alaska will be named Miller, not Palin. The Senate rarely produces Presidents for a reason.

            Also, I think you misunderstood me. She’d make a great U.N. Ambassador on day one of the next administration. Do that for a year, 18 months, throw bombs at the corruption there, make lots of statements, get the U.S. – which pays a lot of the freight for the U.N. to see how deep the corruption runs. It’s tailor-made for a bomb-thrower and corruption-fighter who wants to play on the world stage. 18 months at the outside, then move to State. Do that for the rest of the term, then run for POTUS.

            I don’t think she should be in a lower cabinet position, but I don’t think State is the best fit. Otherwise, I don’t see where we’re that far apart.

            Mew

          • NHConservative0227

            How do you really know this? Honestly who does? I don’t know if she does or doesn’t get it.

            Like I said before, having DC experience and contacts can be a good or a bad thing, more often than not it’s a bad thing. Too many get exposed to lobbyists, special interests, and become obessesd with their own power. This is a very important factor that shouldn’t be overlooked.

            I don’t know alot about Daniels, Barbour, or Pawlenty. We’ll see who declares and how the campaigns turn out.

            I do think Palin knows exactly what NOT to do in terms of expanding gov’t. I think she has the cajones to repeal Obamacare and cut many programs that many of these established pols with DC experience would not do.

            She is a principled conservative who will stick to her beliefs and not bend like Bush and the GOP congress did.

            I’m leaning in her favor, but I’m not completely sold on her. I will do alot more homework and see who’s running. I think you should do the same and not write her off due to lacking DC experience.

          • acat

            I didn’t say she doesn’t know the constitution, or she doesn’t know the roles or the powers or the elected or appointed officials. The official structure is the easy part.

            I said she doesn’t know how government works, as in how it really operates, day to day. Who are some of the key senior people who have been there for decades, and how do they do things?

            Political appointee agency heads come and go, but career bureaucrats are in D.C. for, well, their whole careers, and the agencies they run for the political appointees will run about the same way for the next appointee. Same rivalries with other agencies, same responsibilities to the taxpayer. Different name on the agency letterhead, maybe different featherbedding contractors, that’s about it.

            She needs to know who these people are, who are friends, who are foes, and how to work with them. This is the real skill of the executive, how to get the most out of a group of people who are only nominally going in the same direction, how to make sure she doesn’t get stabbed in the back.

            Advisers can only go so far here because, unless they’re inner-circle of Obama’s or George W’s white house, they’ve never met these people – the former can’t be trusted, and the latter are getting further and further out of touch.

            That’s the D.C. experience I think she needs – how to get the most out of the agencies and bureaucracies, who to fire on the first day (well, whose resignations to accept is the polite phrasing) who to keep, who to promote, etc.

            This isn’t “the house of representatives writes a budget”, this is “who over at OMB don’t have their heads so far up their collective {rectum} that they can still hear without a q-tip”…

            Mew

          • NHConservative0227

            You just said that she can’t rely on Obama advisors for obvious reasons and can’t rely on Bush advisors because they’re becoming more out of touch.

            You already agreed that Palin is more qualified than Newt, Huckabee, and Romney.

            Of the other three you mentioned in Barbour, Daniels, and Pawlenty how do any of them know the relevant contacts who are in the know about the DC bureaucrats?

            Seems like the scenario you painted is a no win situation, unless you know some trustworth Obama advisors!

            I think you’re way overestimating the DC experience thing.

          • acat

            Head of the GOP?

            He’s got the D.C. experience.

            Pawlenty doesn’t have D.C. experience, I’d expect him to pick a southern or southwestern running mate who’s been in D.C. either as a representative or an agency head to get some of that experience. He does, however, have several completed terms against a hostile legislature and against strong unions, neither of which Palin has. Yet.

            Daniels ran OMB under George W, he’s done the D.C. thing, and won the governors mansion twice.

            Palin doesn’t measure up *yet*.

            Mew

          • Mary Beth

            You honestly think that if/when Palin decides to run that she won’t have the best advisors and team possible? She knows the score and she knows how important it would be to make the tough decisions quickly as possible.

            She has the ability to learn and absorb obscene amounts of data quickly and she can make the hard choices one expects of a leader.

            Plus…she fights for us…unlike pretty much any other of the “first tier” candidates…on every major issue that’s come across our paths. The oil spill. Illegal immigration. Cap and trade. Health care reform. Arizona. The GZM.

            So I have no doubt that if/when she decides to run, she’ll make sure she has the best of the best advising her.

            I also believe that if/when she decides to run, it won’t be in the manner everyone assumes it should be done.

          • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

            And the plantation mentality around here when it comes to “independents” makes me sick.

            Every two to four years “independents” break their old rules. On that you can depend. This year is that axiom on steriods.

          • JSobieski

            which means it will be enforced in 2012.

          • NHConservative0227

            Especially this part:

            “She has the ability to learn and absorb obscene amounts of data quickly and she can make the hard choices one expects of a leader”

            That makes my point for me. I’ve been saying all along that she has valuable executive experience from being both mayor of Wasilla and governor. People have argued that being mayor of a small town doesn’t count. I disagree. As your quote above states, she was utlimately responsible for processing alot of information and was held accountable for her decisions.

            That’s why she’s much more qualified in terms of executive experience than senators and congressmen. Instead of being just one of many, she was the leader who had the final say.

          • acat

            Advisers are great, but they don’t complete the picture. They *can’t*, unless you’re proposing that Palin bring back enough of the George W Bush team to raise some pointed questions about how different she really is….

            Mew

          • Mary Beth

            Take a look at who surrounds him. David Axelturf. Seedy Rahm. Valerie Jarrett. And what did they know of DC (beyond Rahmbo of course).

            Sure…they got a bunch of the “best” as far as intellectuals go…but that means zero as far as actually solving problems.

            Look at the oil spill for exhibit 1. All sorts of super smart people but no practical wisdom or will to make the calls.

            Palin suggested using people from Alaska who she knew had that kind of experience … people who could go in there and actually get it done. Obama used people who thought about things. Mulled over things. But all in all didn’t do a whole lot.

            So in having a team around you, you have to have the wisdom to have the RIGHT kind of team. Not just one that people say is smart. And you have to have the ability to listen to the various bits of information and make the call.

            Obama does not have any of this…and nor does he want it. He doesn’t know how to delegate or how to decide on a course of action. Palin does.

          • acat

            Palin needs to go see the elephant, get the experience for herself.

            Any advisers she brings in will be able, like Obama’s advisers, to tell her about one or two parts of the elephant, but they cannot paint a true picture of how things get done.

            Ability to delegate is, for me, one of those executive skills that I expect any presidential candidate to have. (apparently, the Dems have different standards) It doesn’t distinguish Palin from the field. And that’s a good thing.

            Mew

          • NHConservative0227

            In alot of cases its a bad thing! You know the phase: they’ve been in Washington for too long. So many of these insiders that you fault Palin for not being, are nothing but a bunch of corruptocrats who only care about their own power.

          • acat
          • aesthete

            If being in DC as an agency head would corrupt her, how long do you think she’d last as President before getting corrupted?

            It’s like saying that Boromir should be the ringbearer… but that he shouldn’t be tested by having Frodo carry it for a while, because then he’d be corrupted by its power for sure *facepalm*

          • eggcorn

            I agree. She. Is.Not. Ready.

            Not sure if I would go to the even calling her Mama Grizzly yet.

            Mama Grizzly is more like she, well maybe smells like something grizzly left in the middle of the trail that she stepped in. Ever seen that stuff? For real? It’s exactly why they call roofing tar “Bear sh8.” It’s black and sticky and doesn’t wash off. Like Alaska Politics.

            Not like I think she is WORSE than any candidate there is, And don’t get me wrong, She sent Christmas cards from the governor’s office to me before any of you guys ever heard of her. For someone who doesn’t get many cards, I think it was a nice gesture, And now, or soon perhaps it will an e-bay collectible. But I don’t let me ignore she has some common sense things to learn that she’s not getting from elsewhere.

            Your buddy Art might or might not have information that could doom her campaign, they were in on the same cabinet meltdown . One thing is certain is that he vacillates extremely, conspires, creates a world of untruths, conjecture, and ill will could be his middle name, and can strangely be extremely loyal to his adversaries at times. And he’s a Murky not Palin,

            But that is where Sarah Palin comes from, too

          • JSobieski

            I realize that you are not capable of understanding the idea of a multi-factor test. You are strictly all or nothing. Either something is the only thing, or it doesn’t matter.

            Look at what I wrote above.

            Ideology matters.
            Executive experience matters.
            Communication skills matter
            Character matters.

            This is the point where you say, are you saying Palin doesn’t have communication skills? Doesn’t have character?

            Then I say, I never said those things.

            Then you say, “hey, you are walking it back again”

            Then I say “time for your meds”

          • acat
          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • JSobieski

            So many on our side seem to want to imitate certain aspects of the Obama left. . .

  • Mary Beth

    If/when she runs, it’ll be up to her to make the case for why she would be the best choice. But that’s the point of a campaign. To let people see what your ideas are and give them a chance to think beyond what the media tells them to think. IE, hearts and minds and opinions about her will change.

    If she makes that case successfully, she’ll win. If she doesn’t, she won’t.

    • conservativemusician

      And let’s not forget that Reagan didn’t make it as the GOP nominee the first time around and yet he came back after this defeat to become one of our greatest presidents. Not saying this will happen to Palin, but there is historic prededent.

      To those of you who are saying Palin should serve in another cabinet position first before running for President, we may not have the luxury of having her spend time in the bullpen first as time is fleeting on saving our country. She is an articulate voice who is not afraid to take it to Obama and the libs.

      • JSobieski

        So is he on your short list as well?

        Reagan was governor of the largest state in the US for 8 years. Many people put at least some value on executive experience.

        • conservativemusician

          I have no bone of contention with you on the executive experience issue you keep pounding on. The snark about your dad is also out of line, so lighten up.

          I agree with many others here that think Palin has enough executive experience to do the job and that she has far more experience than Obama had at this point when he was deciding whether to run or not. There are others on our side of the fence that have more executive experience than Palin, like Romney and Huckabee, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they would make a better president than Palin.,,and frankly, I don’t like either one of them. Carter also had more executive experience than Palin does and look at the disaster he turned out to be.

          I agree that we have to look at the total picture when assessing candidates, but I still maintain that ideology and principle is the starting point from which we should measure all candidates and then we move forward from there to examine their records while they were in office. Is that reasonable to you?

          • JSobieski

            So if test X means that my Dad should run for President, I would posit that the test is too permissive.

            Whatever the appropriate X is, it shouldn’t be so broad as to encompass everyone. So if being a diehard conservative is all it takes to run for President, my point is simply that there must be more to it, or the list is long.

            I would vote for Palin over Romney or Huckabee. I never said executive experience was SUFFICIENT to be president just that it was an important factor.

            What’s with me is simple? I think we may be starting to lose the sense that not everybody voting in a Presidential election is particularly ideological, and that in the glories of our tea party successes, we may be building the foundation for failure.

          • conservativemusician

            to ideology being considered a more important factor in the screening our candidates because people are saying so in the primaries with their votes. I don’t fully agree with you that people are not ideological when they vote. I mean, look at all the RINOs who have been kicked to the curb in this election cycle alone because people are sick of business as usual from our leaders. I’ve never seen this kind of nationwide movement to return to core principles in my lifetime, including the 94′ elections, so I’m very optimistic that better days are ahead as we continue the refocussing of our priorities in this and future election cyles.

            I really don’t think our differences on this issue are that wide, really. Both factors are important and you’re right that ideology alone will not get someone elected. All I’m trying to stress to you is that ideology is the most important factor to me because I believe strongly that it is the guide for how all future policy will be crafted. If our leaders have the right conservative priorities as their core beliefs, then I also believe over time that this can overcome a lack of executive experience if they are humble enough to take their cues first from the American people who are far wiser than the dimwits and political consultants in DC.

            We’ve had far too much compromising of our conservative principles for far too long from the leaders on our side. As a result, they have gone along with the Dems on terrible legislation that will have a catastrophic effect on our country. We need leaders who are once again guided by integrity and principle and this can only happen as we return to our conservative roots as a nation so that our values will be reflected properly in our elected leadership.

            Glad that you and I are on the same side of the aisle fighting this battle together with the other great people that post on this site.

            God bless, CM

          • JSobieski

            In many instances, the arguments here are really more of articulation than anything else.

  • partyof1

    the relevant question for electability is not how independents view the GOP nominee. Instead, it?s how independents view the GOP nominee relative to the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.

    And when Obama is no longer around…?

    • deano64

      Sheesh.

  • deano64

    so called “front runners” yet. And I do think we need to rethink the whole concept of deciding prior to primaries who is electable and who is not. Sure we as conservatives have our favorites, but I truly think the paradigm has shifted in the whole electable and non electable prediciton by so called “politcal experts and consultants” etc. We need to trust Republican voters will choose the right person-as long as we don’t give weight to open primary states and states that allow party switching to vote in primaries that is.

    • Scope

      No one knows who all will be on the stage as R pres. candidates at this time. Some have made noises, but, to date, I have not heard that anyone has already declared their run for sure. I believe that it is those that have not given any indication, that are the smartest. Why give the Libs a chance to smash and trash them early and often, starting now. I choose to wait to see all of the choices before I eliminate one, but, consider another. I think for anyone to already disqualify Palin, for any reason, is foolish. Suppose it wound up being her against Castle, Murkowski or Bennett, is she still disqualified? Again, until you know who all will be standing on the stage is foolish.

      I also agree that having early primaries in states where voters can cross over, will result in another McCain disaster. The Dems knew he would be the easiest R to beat, and, they helped to assure his win. We keep saying the same thing every presidential election cycle, that the way it’s done must change, yet, nothing ever changes.

  • chihank

    Assuming Palin wants to live in the White House, I think being Secretary of Energy first would be good for her. It would give her what DC is like and plus it gives her an opportunity to show competence on a national level.

    I noticed when Palin is on Fox News, she most comfortable talking about energy issues. Her best Fox news performance was last month, when she and Todd took Greta Van Sustern on a tour of AK resources.

    • NHConservative0227

      Why do we need DC insider instead???

      How are Romney, Huckabee, or Newt more qualified?

      • acat

        Palin outshines them, but Daniels outshines Palin, and Cain is easily her equal.

        Just for one example.

        Mew

    • deano64

      be good? If you wanted to make her irrelavant and no longer a power in the Conservative movement I guess that’s the job for her. It’s just another government bureaucracy we don’t need. I could maybe agree if her job as directed by the President was to totally dismantle that agency but then any old bureaucrat would do fine if that was the goal.

      • NHConservative0227

        Palin is not smart enough. She needs more experience. She is too extreme.

        Feel free to add anymore ridiculous claims that have been common leftist talking points.

        The GOP elite does not like Palin because she’s not one of them. She didn’t go to a Northeastern elitist school. She hasn’t been corrupted by being in DC for over 30 years, so clearly she’s not qualified to be president!

        • acat

          how the systems of government you want her to run actually work.

          So she’s not walking in blind.

          Your reaction to a factual question – how is she currently qualified – is telling.

          Mew

          • JSobieski

            He has NO foreign policy experience. So do you consider him differently than Palin.

            What about Pawlenty?

            Its interesting how only Palin gets the unqualified ruling from you.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            thought to be more qualified due to his experience, yet all that experience taught him to be a lib dem appeaser who knew how to produce meaningless sound bites the MSM liked on Face the Nation…whereas

            Palin understood good and evil and American exceptionalism and that we had to kick butt in Iraq and Afghanistan.

          • JSobieski

            However, EXECUTIVE experience means something.

            You don’t think Reagan’s time as a governor and as Union President didn’t come in handy when he was President. You honestly believe that he would be just as successful without that skill set?

            Otherwise, heck why have military generals when we can just appoint politicians to command posts since we all know actual executive experience is meaningless?

            One of the reasons why DC is so screwed up is that you have a bunch of lawyers running organizations. Lawyers are smart, but as a general rule, are absolute duds as managers/executives.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • acat

            Daniels could probably swing SecState. I’d like him more at HUD or Homeland Security, but that’s more personal preference.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            and Alaska has no domestic border.

          • acat

            Unlike … Palin.

            Daniels won two terms unlike .. Palin.

            Daniels is far from perfect, but at this time, he’s got better credentials.

            Credentials aren’t everything – I’ve worked with quite a few oxygen wasters who could point to their credentials, but couldn’t *do* anything – but it does count for something.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            I like Daniels, but he is short on foreign policy acumen. Not sure if State would be the place for him.

      • reaganauh2o

        If she held this position and embarked on developing America’s abundant resources, we would see the greenies (reds) go absolutely bananas. The left has too much invested in trashing her, although Christine O’Donnell is taking some of the heat off her now that they have a new conservative woman to try to destroy.

      • kestrel

        At first glance, it seems an insignificant role, but think about it. Not only does Palin’s experience perfectly suit her for this, but at the present point in history, this could be an intrinsically rewarding and possibly even high-profile job. Achieving energy independence would:

        – free us from dependence on potentially hostile nations, even as we seem to be on a collision course with Islam.

        – put our energy $ back into our own economy instead of funding other nations’ growth and/or armies.

        – create new jobs and revitalize energy-related industries at a time when we desperately need jobs.

        And Palin the Bomb-Thrower would have plenty of targets in the whole ill-conceived, taxpayer-subsidized “green energy industry,” which at the very least needs a firey cauterization to stop bleeding tax dollars. (It’s funny how this redistributive industry moves money from the middle class up to the Algore class rather than down to the poor. Kind of like how the Left-controlled banking industry moved money from the middle class up to the AIG class while the poor ended up foreclosed and with nothing. Kind of like…)

        In the process of discrediting some of the “green” ideas, or maybe just in making known the discredit they’ve already incurred and which the MSM keeps under wraps, Palin might even slay the “climate change” dragon once and for all.

        The more I think about this, the more I like it. Ordinary people trust Palin, so she could sell the nation on a whole new energy policy.

        (h/t Peter Ferrara. I think the Palin as Energy Secretary idea originated with him, and I think I know where to find it.)

        • kestrel

          Is it possible? Here’s Ferrara, on 1/20/10:

          “I predict a long future for Sarah Palin, and her clan, in national public life. But I think she needs to prove herself first to the great numbers of dismissive skeptics misled by our openly dishonest national media. So let me make another prediction: Sarah Palin will be serving in the President’s Cabinet in 2013 as the Secretary of Energy. There she will lead the revival of a robust, world leading, American energy industry.

          “In this post, she will so prove herself that by 2017 she will be at the top of the Cabinet as Secretary of State or Treasury, or maybe she will be serving the U.S. Senate by then. In 2021, the ultimately glass ceiling will shatter as Sarah Palin becomes the first woman President of the United States at the age of 56. ”

          http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/20/here-comes-the-sun/2

          • JSobieski

            No VP nominee or other form of political rock star is going to take a cabinet position unless its Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. The cost benefit analysis for her wouldn’t make sense for her, or for the President either.

            She would be better served running for Senate. The problem with being a rock star, a former VP nominee, and a governor who quit half way in her term, is that most jobs are below where she was and would involve tying her down in a way that she isn’t currently tied down.

            Thats why quitting was such a bad idea. In my mind, it really makes it easy for her skeptics to say, not enough experience. If she tries to get the experience, she would have to lower herself to do it.

            Her best bet might be to head an organization like the Club for Growth and enhance her mastery of the issues and the popular perception of her competence.

          • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

            Ever notice who the people are who criticize her leaving office? Where they EVER in her corner? Could they EVER be won back or won over?

            Nothing will serve her better than continuing to keep slamming the message home.

          • acat

            I was, and am, a Palin supporter.

            I would rather she be a successful two term president.

            For that to happen, she needs to have an unusually successful first term – and just because she’s Sarah from Wasilla, she’ll have to do it under fire from the media – so she needs to know exactly what she wants to do, and how to do it.

            And for that to happen, she has to know how the government really works. Or she’s going to go through the same rough first year or two figuring out where the problems are that George W and Obama and Clinton went through – and without the press on her side, the Dems will easily win a “referendum on Saracuda” in 2014.

            I don’t want Palin to win in 2012 – I want conservatism to win in 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016 and beyond – and Palin can be a part of that…

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            I was a big time time supporter of hers, and still am. I just think her quiting really complicates things in terms of a Presidential run.

          • chihank

            I agree with your link. Most people in the lower 48 don’t give a crud about what Palin did in AK. They want to see her display a level of competence on the national level. Serving as Energy Secretary would give her a chance. If she does a good job, then she can run for Senator or Veep, or President.

          • JSobieski

            Wow, I didn’t realize that Palin was uniquely obligated to take her career backwards.

            People don’t “give a crud” about the energy secretary. They don’t. So if you plan is to give Palin a chance to display competence as the invisible energy secretary, I would say your consulting skills are quite rusty.

            Energy secretary is a low level position that either goes to a politician who lost a re-election bid, someone in the business community, or a political hack with DC ties.

            Palin is supposed to lower herself in that way? Next you will be suggesting that Mitt Romney accept as position as deputy treasury secretary.

          • acat

            Just what post or posts, other than POTUS, do you consider Palin both qualified for and sufficiently “visible” ?

            SecState – but I think Bolton is a better fit.

            U.N. Ambassador – but with Bolton at SecState, a medium-rare T-bone could do that job.

            SecEnergy, SecInterior, no, and no. Does she have enough experience for SecDefense?

            Treasury?

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            She would drive all the right people absolutely crazy. Heck, I’ll bet half the department would quit within a week.

            I don’t consider Palin to be desirable as a Presidential candidate. I have repeated that numerous times, but you nonetheless imply that I consier her qualified for that post.

            “Just what post or posts, other than POTUS, do you consider Palin both qualified for and sufficiently ?visible? ?”

            I don’t consider Palin to be qualified to be President.

            How many ways can I say this?

            I don’t want Palin to run for President in 2012.

            Do you understand what I am saying?

            Or do you just want to argue with a straw man in your own head?

            What was Hillary’s experience that qualified her to be S of State?
            How about Powell’s?

            The primary requirements for a Secretary of State are someone who can follow the instructions of the President and convey a sense of strength on behalf of the interests of the US. Bolton was a lawyer before taking a job in the State Department . ..as a lawyer.

            Don’t get me wrong, I love Bolton—but the primary skill required to be S of S is the ability negotiate, make an impression, convey forcefullness, etc. Palin can do all of those things.

          • acat

            isn’t that she’d be incompetent, it’s that the job is one of the most vicious in D.C. More backstabbing bureaucrats at State than anywhere else. Remember Condi?

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            nt

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            she was a VP candidate. I think she would be good at energy or State. and as President.

          • chihank

            Taking a cabinet position and doing well in it could enhance political careers.

            Case 1 ) Look at Rob Portman. He served in the G W Bush administration. Now he is poised to be a OH Senator.

            Case 2) Bill Richardson served in a variety of cabinet positions under Clinton. He went on to be NM Governor.

            Case 3) Hillary Clinton accepted the SoS job as a consolation prize for losing to Obama. Now her approval ratings are bettern than Obama’s.

          • JSobieski

            As would be Secretary of Defense. That is why I specifically suggested on of those two positions. Anything lower would be going backwards.

            Palin already was a governer, to taking a lower position to work her way up to governor is silly—she could just run for governor again. Why she would go through a bunch of hoops to establish the ability to run for governor is like getting a college degree to help you apply for college.

            Palin could run for Senator (and maintain her independence) without taking a bottom level cabinet position. Partman needed an admin position to raise his profile, Palin already has a profile that is larger than anyone elses.

            If the goal is to run for President someday, name me one person (in the last 100 years) that catapulted from a low level cabinet position to the Presidency? It doesn’t work that way. Energy and Interior are 3trd tier jobs.

            Bottom Line: I think a smart candidate would offer her the SoS position.

          • chihank

            Didn’t George Herbert Walker Bush work in the CIA, then elevated to Veep and finally President.

            Unlike Romney, Newt, Haley Barbour, and others, Palin has time to wait.

          • JSobieski

            Actually it kind of proves my point. GHWB took the CIA job after he lost an election.

          • acat
          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            gets it

          • kestrel

            She surely doesn’t need me.

            I do think people living on the Gulf might be giving a crud about energy policy right about now.

            BTW, I think Mitt Romney would make a good deputy treasury secretary. :)

          • reaganauh2o

            You are correct that it is a low level hack position. But if she were the occupant, it would be no longer. Her talent and experience are suited toward a leadership position. I couldn’t imagine her being a legislator; that would reduce her to an insignificant hack. Can you imagine her having to kiss Mitch McConnell’s ass?

            Her son is in the military. She would take the lead towards energy independence and get our boys out of the middle east, mama grizzly that she is. If she could severely reduce the rate of new gold star moms in doing so, she could do it with overwhelming national support.

            A Congressional Research Service report concerning fossil fuel resources (oil, natural gas, & coal) shows that the United States sits on the most reserves in the world. Russia is number 2. She could drive a stake in the heart of the man-caused climate change global wealth redistribution hoax.

          • deano64

            she should go become a DC bureacrat is silly. Sorry, it’s just not who she is.

          • acat

            The fact is, she has no national scale executive experience, and she quit a state scale executive job to .. throw bombs and campaign.

            Don’t misunderstand, I don’t dislike Palin. Despite numerous accusations to the contrary, I am not channeling Art Chance.

            I don’t think she’s ready, I don’t think she has enough executive experience, or enough national scale experience.

            Running an agency for three years would do two things – first, it would give her a much higher position from which to throw bombs, and second it would give her the insider view of D.C. that she’s going to need to understand the changes that need to happen.

            You say “it’s just not who she is”. If true, then she’s just not president material, any more than George W was presidential material when he beat Gore. He grew into the job, despite a grumbling media and a war he didn’t want.

            If she runs in 2012 and wins, Palin would have an openly hostile media, the end of a war, a crappy economy, and a very hostile group of Dems in congress – maybe with a majority, maybe not. She won’t have the time Bush got* to grow into the job.

            Mew

            * and yes, Bush was given grumbling but relative respect for at least the first few weeks, and again after 9/11. After Katrina, the press went all in against.

          • deano64

            Secretary of State is a platform to springboard to the presidency. I also don’t think government executive experience at any level makes you a better candidate. I think real world experience running a business makes you a better candidate than experience as some government bureaucrat.

            Seeing her run again as our VP candidate would be interesting…

            And as I said earlier in this thread I really don’t see any of our so called Republican front runners making the cut. I may be proven wrong and if so I think Palin will probably the one to prove me wrong. Say what you will about her, but don’t underestimate her.

            Dubya was smart enough to surround himself with the “A” Team if you will of the best, brightest and DC experienced.. No reason Palin couldn’t do that too and be successful. Dubya had the likeability factor and so does Palin. That often plays a huge role in a presidential election like it or not (primaries too).

          • acat

            Almost any cabinet position can be a springboard to the presidency, it mostly depends on the ability of the person in the position, and the good will (or obliviousness) of the president. Energy for 1 year, then – if there’s no major problems, State. Gives someone else a year to do some housecleaning over there, prep the ground.

            I think executive experience is the best kind to be POTUS – and Palin has … some. Daniels, Barbour, Pawlenty … all have more than she does. Daniels and Barbour have plenty in D.C.

            Palin as veep again actually makes sense – I’m kind of hoping that’s what she’s angling for. Tickets like Cain-Palin or Barbour-Palin make a lot of sense to me. Time will tell.

            Weren’t most of Dubya’s “A” team re-treads from Bush 1.0? Are any of ‘em not in wheelchairs at this point? I don’t see Harriet Miers being much help to Sarah, eh?

            Mew

          • deano64

            Presidents who got elected after serving in a cabinet position? I’m sure there must be a few but I just can’t think of any.

            Barbour, Daniels, Pawlenty…I just don’t see it. Not that there isn’t a lot to like about these guys.

            Governement Executive experience doesn’t impress me much. There is a long line of Jacka**** with Exectutive experience who got us where we are today.

            Harriet Miers? Huh? I didn’t know Whitehouse Counsel was high level cabinet position.

          • acat

            Again, you seem to be misunderstanding why I want Palin to work inside the beltway for a term before running for the top seat. It’s not to pad her resume, although it will also have that effect, helping to mitigate the “quitter” label.

            It’s so she can raise her profile, throwing bombs from higher places, while at the same time learning to tell the wolves from the grizzlies from the lemmings so, when her hand comes off the bible on inauguration day, she can shoot with precision.

            I’m a conservative first, a Palin supporter second. I see a scenario where Palin wins in 2012 and starts taking semi-random shots with a 12 gauge because she’s not got a good idea of who’s a friend and who’s a foe. That would be worse for both Palin and the conservative cause than a Palin who wins in 2016 and starts making precision shots with a rifle.

            In short, Palin cannot afford a “travelgate” or similar problem – she has to hit the ground ready to go, and the best way I see for her to do that is to have spent four years learning the ground.

            Mew

          • deano64

            list of past Presidents who used a top cabinet position as a platform to go on to become President.

            1) Zero
            2) Zip
            3) Nada

            There just is no evidence to support your idea.

            The last thing we need is a DC insider bureaucrat as our next President. The less experience she has as a DC bureaucrat the better. She hasn’t “quit” on the conservative cause and getting conservative candidates elected so far this cycle. That works for me.

            Your bomb thrower from a higher postition argument falls flat too. So you are saying a Republican President elected in 2012 should appoint Palin, give her a platform so she can run in 2016 to kick their butt?? Ummm…yeah sure. This all goes back to my original point that Palin becoming a top cabinet member is silly. But, just the thought of Palin running makes people say the silliest things.

            That being said none of these Republican front runners get me excited including her. I’m sure that will change by 2012.

          • acat

            You’re remarkably good at it.

            I hope that Palin has a better grade of adviser than her supporters.

            Mew

          • deano64

            for her? Silly ideas are silly ideas. If I disagree with a silly idea that doesn’t mean anything but just that.

  • expatuae

    Based on the 3 questions asked seems silly and not useful in predicting.

    Obviously Washington is an interest group that 1) watches out for itself and 2) teams up with business to extract money from the rest of society. And yes, 3) I trust American people more than elected pols.

    What % of the population would fit into the non-populist categy. Then again, I have difficulty understanding how anyone wouldn’t score at least 2/3
    Yes on this question.

  • crosley

    I believe America as a whole is a center-right country, yet Republicans don’t win every election. There’s more to winning elections than just the issues, as shallow as that sounds.

    The voters that decide elections often times vote for the person, not the ideology. Bush’s main problem (despite winning two elections) was he came off to many voters that he was in over his head, despite that fact that he was generally liked and most voters agreed with him on the issues.

    I’m in the camp of agreeing with Sarah Palin on the issues, but having real doubts about her ability as a leader. I just don’t think she’s ready for Prime Time, and quitting he job as Governor in the middle of her first term sealed it for me. I understand she had a rough tenure, but if you can’t handle the pressures of being Governor of Alaska, being leader of the Free World is a bridge too far.

    I know too many Republican voters that strongly dislike her (usually women), that alone is a cause for concern whether she can attract enough independent voters if she’s having problems with people in her own party.
    I also don’t want to deal with all the Palin family drama (like her daughter being on Dancing with the Stars, Palin’s TV show, the idiot son-in-law, etc.) That may be unfair, but I really see this as a huge distraction in what could turn out to be a tight election.

    Palin would be the riskiest candidate to put up against Obama. We can find a better nominee that easily answers the competence question. I’d rather go after Obama on the issues instead of playing defense.

    • SoulEspresso

      Palin is the right’s closest analogue to Obama in terms of media presence, but that isn’t necessarily a good thing. Americans elected a “pop star” in 2008. I can’t help but wonder if they’ll want someone they perceive to be a little more boring and serious.

      But she is by far better than all other known possibilities as NHConservative listed above.

      • NHConservative0227

        I wish she would’ve talked some sense into Bristol over this, especially since I think she’s going to run. I don’t know why Bristol feels the need to do this, these people will never like her, they’re just using her to get more ammunition to attack Sarah.

        It’s a fair point to mention that she quit as governor, but you at least need to mention her reasons for why:

        That it was costing both the taxpayers of Alaska and her a ton of money to defend against the frivolous ethics charges. Dealing with them made it next to impossible to focus on doing any real work.

        Before she quit, she did have a near 70% approval rating.

        • cwilson

          Bristol’s baby-daddy is a deadbeat, and she can’t sponge off of Mom and Dad her entire life. She needs income — but has no skills, and an infant to support.

          Better this than a tell-all article in Vanity Fair.

    • cactusjack

      likeablity was way higher than Gore’s. It may be the one deciding factor that put him in vote-getting striking range to capture the EC. It is very very hard for any candidate to win in the presidential without a strong likeabiliity factor. And it can take edge off some perceived weaknesses. Prime example RWR.

  • ericc

    I want to be first in line to vote for her. I have had concerns that her truncated tenure as governor would be a major obstacle for her to get over with voters, and it may yet. But in the current environment, who knows. There is no doubt in my mind that she has what it takes to do that job.

    But how about this scenario – after Sens. Angle and O’Donnell are sworn into office, along with most of the rest of the Palin/DeMint endorsed Senate candidates, DeMint announces he is running for president. Palin immediately endorses him, guaranteeing him the lion’s share of Tea Party support, and making him the prohibitive front-runner. After winning the nomination, DeMint makes Palin his running mate. What a ticket.

    • JSobieski

      Not sure DeMit is #1 on my list, but he definitely is worthy of consideration.

      • SoulEspresso

        Beyond that, I like this scenario best, too.

      • Scope

        Jim DeMint would not be your first choice. What in particular has he done/supported that would give you cause?

        • Scope

          what about DeMint has given you pause.

          • aesthete

            We need him, or someone like him, in Congress to corral the ‘critters.

          • JSobieski

            DeMint is great, but there is something to be said for executive experience. Ideologically speaking, the guy is great. Aesthete’s comment about keeping strong leadership in the Senate also applies.

            Let me be clear I would vote for DeMint over anyone who wan in 2008. My preference would however be for a governor. If Daniels can walk back his “truce” comment to the point where large numbers of social conservatives aren’t asking for his hide, Daniels would likely be my first choice.

            With budgetary issues being so prominent, his record in Indiana is awesome, and he knows the federal stuff from his time in the Bush administration.

            Barbour would also be great, although I suspect some parts of the country are tired of R’s with southern accents.

          • kestrel

            I don’t know if this has been mentioned in all the Daniels discussions, but didn’t Paul Ryan do some damage control after the “truce” comment? Around that time, Ryan said that Daniels was the only high-ranking person up to that point who had read and really understood Ryan’s Roadmap. Whether this was intended as damage control or not, it had that effect on me. I don’t know a lot about Daniels, but if Ryan thinks well of him, I will give him a serious look. These two men seem to respect each other.

          • JSobieski

            Even someone like Krugman can’t say they aren’t serious.

            Now if they are candidates for President, they will get smeared nonetheless—-but either could clean Obama’s clock on economics in a debate. Obama never goes deeper than a sound bite.

          • aesthete

            Krugman, however, is not, and he has actually made fraudulent statements to the effect that they are not serious players.

            @ kestrel: Yes, I remember that comment. Both Ryan and Daniels are on the same footing regarding these issues.

          • JSobieski

            Anyway, I shouldn’t have brough Krugman into this, the man is a toad.

            I am hoping for a Daniels-Ryan ticket with Palin as Secretary of State. That is my dream team and I am sticking with it.

          • aesthete

            that his plan was drenched in “flimflam sauce” (available only at Wendys!), and that he was “unserious”.

          • Scope

            raising taxes bother you? He said it may be necessary for the government to raise taxes, and, that it would be fiscally responsible.

            http://www.alan.com/2010/08/24/government/

            It seems to me that we are in a period where a majority of voters want the government to shrink. If you eliminate all the waste alone in DC, and the redundant departments, you could save enough dollars to not find it necessary to raise taxes. From Daniels comment, it sounds to me like he is saying that all of the big spending bills, passed by the Progressives, will still remain in place if he was President.

            I agree we don’t need a rock star for our candidate, but, some people get that title without trying to. Before the VA Gov elections Ken Cuccinelli, our new Atty. Gen. was called a Rock Star by many, and, he never sought that title. As to Daniels, I see him as being about as dry and unexciting as they get. I prefer the next president to appear to be awake, and willing to stand before the public with more than a little mousy voice. Just my opinion.

            It’s interesting that you have already chosen your “dream team” before you even know who all will be running.

          • aesthete

            can be cut without cost or backroom deals, that person is flat out lying to you. If someone tells you that it will be easy to cut govenrment after the Tea Party candidates are seated in 2010, or in 2012, that person is either lying or grossly ignorant. If someone tells you that you can cut enough “waste” or “redundant departments” to shrink government to the point where we have a surplus, that person is either on drugs or lying to you. Even with the positive examples of Canada and New Zealand (two English-speaking social democracies that cut their government), the process for shinking government was incredibly difficult and came with some costs. For that matter, your statement that Mitch will just let entitlements stand as they are is either a lie or grossly ignorant, given his past statements on those issues.

            Does Mitch’s statement bother me? Yes, it does: the whole situation up in DC bothers me, and there are no easy solutions to any of the problems up there. It is quite possible that they are intractable. Daniels is on the record for entitlement reform, and if part of the deal he hammers out requires tax increases to placate the balanced budgets folks, it should not be rejected out of hand, just as Reagan’s deals (which required increased taxes and spending many times) should not necessarily have been in the 80s.

            Here’s the deal: unlike your hero Palin and those oleaginous slugs Romney and Huckabee, Mitch Daniels has cut government in absolute and relative terms, and has cut taxes and regulation, to boot. Those three may talk a good game, but so far, none of them has come even close to cutting government as Barbour, Daniels, and Johnson have all done. All three of those talk very cautiously about cutting government, because all three know from experience how hard it is to do so. It would be nice to live in True Conservative World, where we can get a surplus just by cutting Obamacare and “waste”, but that’s not how the world works.

          • JSobieski

            so clearly a RECORD of cutting government in absolute terms, cutting taxes, and cutting regulations pale in comparison. I mean, its not like the country is at risk or anything, right?

            I mean seriously, the guy has a bad voice and is a total nerd. There is absolutely no lowering of sea levels with Daniels. None at all. We need substance! We need hope and change! Er, conservative hope and change!

          • aesthete

            it feels weird to have a post from you to one of mine where we’re on the same page :)

            Good to have you on my side (or maybe I’m on you’re side… :) )

          • Scope

            and you have not heard me ever say that Palin was my choice for 2012, or at any time. I’ve said, more than once, on this diary, that no one yet knows who the 2012 R choices will be. There are some that seem to be sticking their big toe in the water, and seeing if the temperature is right for them to make the dive, but, no one has yet declared. There will be some surprises without doubt. I’ve said I will make my choice when I know who populates the stage.

            I agree that shrinking government will not be easy or quick, but, if someone/someones don’t start making those moves, the Republican party can say goodbye. That is not just my opinion, it is the loud scream from the Tea Party people, and, the majority of voters, who are running away from the Progressives, but, are not totally sold on the Republicans either. My reference to redundant government was in reference to Fred Thompson’s White Papers. He put much effort into that study, but, it was ignored by the Bush administration. It has been wildly expanded by the Obama administration. Why talk about defunding the Progressives passed legislation, if it is such an impossible task?

          • aesthete

            I said it may be intractable in the short and medium term, given the powerful interests joined to government at the hip. However, the absolute statement that I made was that restricting government spending is not costless: political chits have to be called in order to get politicians to cut expenditures, and politicians (even “conservative” ones) aren’t motivated by what is most conducive to liberty, even if we would like them to be. Therefore, we can be sure that some costs will be extracted, as they were in New Zealand and Canada when both governments undertook their successful efforts to comprehensively cut, privatize, and deregulate government. That cost, even if it involves tax hikes, is in all likelyhood worth it: taxes have been cut several times in the past 30 years, but spending? Not one time. We should cut government spending and all those other things, but with the understanding that it is costly, will require real sacrifices for the citizenry (and not just the political class), and cannot be cut simply by cutting waste. There is not a giant pile of money being sent to the incinerator in Washington (though it sure feels that way sometimes): by and large, “waste” is not divorceable from government entitlements*. IOW, government entitlements, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, *are* the waste.

            This, and other cliches, will be available to you for the duration of my stay at RedState.

            *That is, in fact, the topic of Thompson’s paper, which argues that waste is endemic to government enterprises, and that efforts to control for waste often simply cause waste to not be included in the formal budget. Here’s the abstract:

            “In this essay, we try to get beyond the mantra of waste, fraud, and abuse to deal seriously and constructively with the question of government waste. We offer a logical taxonomy of nine types of waste, which we use to examine the question from several directions. One of the main conclusions we draw is that much of the waste created by government is not included in the budget. Indeed, efforts to reduce budgetary waste all too often cause substantial spillovers elsewhere.”

          • Scope

            “intellectual” rant? You have been all over the place with your posts. You don’t seem to be tethered to any political position, or ideology, even though you have commented on your support of Libertarianism. It seems to me that you can change your ideas on a dime, depending on the candidate in question, any principles be damned.

          • aesthete

            I’m generally, and reflexively, libertarian (not Libertarian) on the overwhelming majority of domestic issues (sans the border, monetary policy, abortion, and some others), and a realist hawk on defense. My ideal government is one where an adult’s right to choose is protected by government, and where said adult reaps the benefits (or the whirlwind) from his own decisions. If an adult deviates from this standard, the government takes the appropriate action (jail, execution, etc). Children, the handicapped, and a few other groups are somewhat exempt from the category of “adult”, and thus should be treated differently from the standard set forth depending on circumstances. Children especially should have a baseline standard of living, education, etc., for obvious reasons. Where possible, their rights should exist, but should be entrusted to a responsible adult proxy where possible. In practical terms, this means that I believe strongly in parental rights, and the right to guardianship of the mentally handicapped (as well as some other implications). American foreign policy should be self-interested, and expend taxpayer money and American blood only in situations where America’s interests are sufficiently advanced. It should, likewise, only involve itself in international institutions to the extent that its interests are furthered (you get the picture).

            Realizing that I cannot get my utopian world where pot and guns are sold in vending machines at kindergartens everywhere, I am an incrementalist when it comes to government policy. I also appreciate the stability that comes with an incrementalist approach, rather than an all-or-nothing approach. I’ll take what I can get, and so long as it’s in the direction I want, I’m fine with it being less than what I would settle for.

            I am also realistic when it comes to the real world implementation and effects of my preferred policies: in some cases, it works marvelously (basically, the entirety of the free market) from a utilitarian effect. Other times, it’s more or less a wash (ending the War on Drugs, for example). Other times, real world effects kind of suck (allowing the GZM to be built and letting the nut in FL burn Korans, for example). Being honest with myself and others concerning the good, bad and ugly of my policy preferences is a part of who I am. Facts are, if you haven’t noticed, a big deal with me: while emotions and intuition are great for when you’re crafting a ballad or out on a date, they’re not so great when it comes to politics. Spin is highly distasteful to me, and I prefer to have as accurate a picture of the world as possible, even if it isn’t the picture that I want to see.

            Those three things broadly describe my views on politics. I’m sure you can find something distasteful in there to fixate on and attack me for, but if you didn’t, please feel free to let me know. ;)

          • JSobieski

            Others may catch him. Others may surpass him. I note that LA, NJ, and VA have prominent governors who may surpass Mitch’s accomplishments who are still in their first terms. Mitch is in his second term.

            Talk is cheap. Actions are what we want.

            Nobody has a better RECORD of shrinking government and lowering taxes than Mitch Daniels. If you want to support people who are better at TALKING about shrinking government and lowering taxes, go ahead. Count me as part of the action wing of conservatism.

            If you want to make a decision about the President of the US based on a “little mousy voice” that is fine. I am actually concerned about the future of the country, and the fact that we are about to enter a fiscal black whole.

            The ratio of Debt to GDP is about to get to a point of no return, But feel free to support someone without a “little mousy voice”. We all have different criteria, and you are welcome to yours.

          • Scope

            but many, on our own side labeled him lazy, he really didn’t want to win, he thought it was his to have with no effort etc. I was a Fredhead, but I am willing to say he didn’t put the effort into winning that he could/should have. Mitch Daniels may have a very accomplished record, but, he is lacking in the connection and charisma category. No, do not call me one who is into the cult of personality. I don’t want another Obama, who has people fainting and hyperventilating because “Thank you precious God for taking time out of your busy day” crap. Your idea of your ideal candidate is one who has “executive experience.” That’s your opinion, and you have a perfect right to that opinion, but, it is opinion, not fact. There are others, posting here, that DO believe she has the experience required, and, they have the right to their opinion, as much as you do. You seem to be very thin skinned, and it seemed to be obvious when you took some of Rush’s statements personally. You have commented that if you post something anti-Palin that you are singled out as a Palin hater. You put much stock in “words”, yet you label yourself something that I have not seen anyone here call you. You need to get a grip, and, understand that this is not all about you, your opinions, or ideas, and begin to realize that there are other valid arguments that don’t match your ideals.

          • aesthete

            not your own facts. It is a *fact*, not an *opinion*, that Daniels and Barbour have more executive experience than Palin. It is a *fact*, not an *opinion*, that both have actually cut government as executives, and that Palin has not. It is an *opinion* that this implies that Palin will never be able to cut government, or that she will be able to do so. Lots of people on here, pro- and anti- Palin people alike, are conflating opinion with fact, and demanding that they be treated equivalently. That’s just dumb, and it has nothing to do with my like and dislike of Palin. Saying “she just seems kind of dumb” or “she’s a real American” is fine, but treating either sentiment (and that’s all they really are) equal or superior to facts indicated by statements like “government expenditures rose under her tenure” or “Palin signed X bill” is to give undue credit to emotion as a valid decision-making apparatus.

          • Scope

            Please, by all means come forward with “facts” as to why you support who you do. I expect dollar figures, how your guys have shrunk the government, and your expose on why they are the “best candidates.” You are correct that people have a right to their own opinion, but, do not have a right to their own facts. So, I expect you to back up your choices with “facts.” If you are not willing to do that, then your opinions, are nothing more than your opinions.

          • aesthete

            Use Google. Here’s the thing, Scope: this has nothing to do with me or you. If you see me making an argument for a person based exclusively, or almost wholly, on emotion, feel free to call me on it. I’m sure JSob, acat, azaeroprof, and the various people commenting on this thread feel exactly the same way. I appreciated it when azaeroprof corrected me on Palin’s resignation speech; I was wrong, he was right. I will never restate that factual error on RS, or anywhere else, again, and for that, I am grateful to azaeroprof. Both of us being mature, serious individuals, we were able to resolve that factual issue without namecalling or ad hominem. Getting huffy about it and demanding that some other person submit to a ridiculously time-consuming exercise to appease your annoyance is the wrong way to go about it, and the fact (there’s that word again) that you went that route instead of addressing my contention that facts are both exclusive and superior to opinion, reveals much.

          • acat

            talk of raising taxes doesn’t bother me a bit.

            If it’s done right, that is.

            Mew

          • Scope

            as long as everyone is contributing. That’s an interesting argument when unemployment is near 10%, and not contributing, and, the poverty level is at the highest in 50 years or so. I think the argument may have more weight, if the excessive spending were curtailed first, and then re-evaluate where we are then. Until the spending is controlled, tax raises should be off the table.

          • acat

            When 100% of the cost is shouldered by less than 50% of the population, the situation is fundamentally unstable.

            I see no reason to argue with raising taxes so that 75% of the population are shouldering the burden.

            Mew

          • Scope

            I would agree. We are not in any thing near normal. The O has put many into a position where so very many are unemployed. How do you propose to get blood out of a stone? Again, your argument would have merit if we can walk back the country to much higher employment rates, but, we are not there at this point.

          • acat

            We’re all talking hypothetical at this point.

            The main reason I can find that jobs suck right now isn’t “fundamentals”, it’s fear and uncertainty on the part of entrepreneurs. That is, Atlas is shrugging.

            Mew

  • mikerazar

    I think the key to 2012 will be the ability of the new conservatives we elect in 2012 to keep public support. Her reputation and ability to govern depend on whether the electorate sees a positive change from the Obama-Pelosi agenda. That and the economy.

    Experience or lack thereof are less important than philosophy and courage. If the public felt differently, why did they elect Mr. Teleprompter.

    • emaberk

      Taking only the House in November will result in just a halt to the Obama madness but not a reversal or any headway at all towards a conservative agenda. It’ll be a stalemate. Come 2012 that might not look great for Obama but the narrative can easily become Palin’s picks got elected and then did nothing, very risky.

  • Common_Cents

    What new stuff could they dig up w/out looking stupid for recycling the old worn out worthless crap?

    I’m not endorsing anyone at this point but it may be an advantage for her.

    I would also advise Republican strategists to be prepared do a parallel plan to possibly running against Hillary instead of Teleprompter in chief. I think this is a strong possibility. Hillary would reinvigorate the left. I think in many ways she’d be more ruthless than Obama. Hillary is NOT Bill. She is much more radical especially if she was let loose in the WH. She would confuse strangulation with triangulation.

    • SoulEspresso

      She would have been a far more effective from the left’s perspective.

      Her personal positives would probably be lower but I shudder to think what might have been passed beyond all the disasters we’ve seen over the last year and a half.

      If she runs in 2012 she’d have to position herself well to the right of where the current administration is, to convince the electorate–which is tough because she’s a part of it.

      • cwilson

        As ugly as it was, Obama got HealthCare Deform (17% of the economy) and the Bank Regulation Bill (that extends financial regulations to any “entity that engages in financial transactions”).

        Uhmm…what? Name one business that doesn’t!

        He’s also appointed like 40 czars with plenipotentiary powers to override the actual, Senate-confirmed cabinet puppets.

        Then, there’s all the regulations spewing from the regulatory bureaucracy (e.g. the deep-water oil drilling ban, and the de facto shallow water oil drilling ban).

        He allowed the repurposing of TARP $800B (originally for “buying toxic assets”) as a generic slush fund, to buy stakes in publicly traded companies — the definition of fascism is government control of the means of production; socialism is government ownership of the means of production. TARP is both.

        Then we have TARP Jr and miniTARP. And the Goverment Moters thing — where the government decided which dealerships nationwide to close. And the union bailout.

        Now, in the Mad Duck session, they want to add the DREAM Act to the Defense Appropriations bill, pass Cap-n-trade (goodbye energy sector), and pass the Card Check bill (goodbye jobs).

        I honestly don’t see how Hillary could have been worse…for all the whining, Obama has pretty much gotten everything he wanted — or set the table to get it down the road, under the table.

    • cactusjack

      quite a switch of focus from where we have been, in the Repub primaries. The national turns on much different things. For example, some media pundits time the current free fall of Obama, from exactly the point where Snooki on Jersey Shore dissed him for his tanning salon tax. And now, Sarah’s telegenic, positive-vibes daughter is dancing with the stars on prime time. In the MSM, Sarah’s stock is going up. They – they – have, themselves, turned her and her family from the Evil Destroyers from the North, into a common household b rand name like Tide, Pepsi or Doritos.

      • cactusjack
    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      and it wasn’t just the democrat left, but the republican left as well.

      But yeah, I get your point, there is not much more they can do to lie about her.

  • azaeroprof

    I’ve made no bones about my support for Palin here. But I’m not going to argue one way or the other about her philosophy, executive experience, etc. There is no doubt that her resigning as Governor opens her up for criticism from all sides as being a “quitter”. OK, I get it, and I fully understand why people make that argument.

    But think about it. Given all that has happened since July 4, 2009, I really don’t see how any objective observer could make an argument other than that her resignation as governor was a stroke of political genius. Yes, it gives her an obstacle she will have to overcome to convince people she is the right candidate in 2012 or down the road. But imagine where she would be, where the GOP would be, where the conservative movement would be, where Joe Miller and 24 other candidates would be, if she were still stuck in Juneau fighting a hostile legislature and inane ethics charges.

    So frankly, playing the ‘Palin as quitter’ meme is just parroting Dem talking points. I think it’s more accurate to say that she “quit at Fredericksburg to fight Lee in Pennsylvania”. The Union Army would have been much better off if Gen. Burnside had been a “quitter”. To mix metaphors, sometimes you have to recognize a “bad lie” and take the penalty stroke and drop your ball somewhere else.

    Time will tell if she has what it takes to run a solid campaign and win the nomination. But, please, saying that she would quit the Presidency because she quit the Governorship is a grossly unfair and baseless argument that I would expect to hear more from goobers like Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, or David Letterman.

    • JSobieski

      She quit at Fredericksburg and gave up her command of her army.

      If you don’t think independents care about the quitting thing, then I don’t think you are looking at the situation objectively.

      Every criticism of a candidate cannot be addressed by simply characterizing it as talking points.

      Oh, come now–the unemployment rate under Obama–thats just talking points. Pure conservative talking points.

      Jimmy Carter being ineffective against Iran in terms of the hostage crisis? Those are just right wing talking points.

      When people don’t have an answer to the charge, they say “talking points.”

      • azaeroprof

        Absurd comparisons that completely miss my point?

        There is no doubt that independents care about the quitting thing. I acknowledged that this is a hurdle for her. It was the point of my entire first paragraph! But I also expect conservatives who don’t have an inherent bias against her to at least acknowledge the point of my second paragraph.

        She quit at Fredericksburg rather than sacrifice her army against an unbeatable position and now commands a much more powerful army. I’m definitely on her side, but I really don’t see how one could objectively see that any other way. And that’s completely independent of one’s opinion on her suitability for higher office.

        • JSobieski

          She abandoned her forces in Alaska because unlike your analogy, she was the target of the other sides forces (i.e. her army was not the target of the attack).

          The attacks on her were personal, not an attack on her army. She abandoned her army because once she left it , she knew her forces would not be attacked.

          Your analogy is rough at best. Its not crazy to say so.

          Her side would have been stronger had she fought and prevailed. Look at Rudy. He was persecuted in NYC constantly, but he always fought back. In the end, people respective him for it.

          • azaeroprof

            Yeah, no analogy is perfect.

            You’re second paragraph makes my point better than I could. She protected her army by removing the target. She left the army in decent hands, and moved on to a different (bigger) command.

            Your last paragraph is a good one, but assumes that it was possible to prevail. I’m not at all convinced that it was a winnable position. Given the situation she was in, staying and fighting could well have been as fruitful as Burnside pressing a bad position in F-burg no matter what she did.

          • JSobieski

            His ability to make executive decisions on behalf of NYC while being constantly attacked by the MSM and the dems ( you don’t think they challenged the ethics and legality of his administration) was impressive.

            He not only held is own, but he fought back while doing his job. The media war and the task of governing were combined in a way that I have not seen since Reagan. It is precisely that executive talent that I am looking for. Clinton unfortunately also had that same talent,

            None of those 3 individuals ever quit anything. All three turned moments of weakness into moments of strength.

          • mom2oneson

            nt

          • mom2oneson

            JS You articulated what I couldn’t. I said before people trust Rudy, he has that masculine quality like your favorite uncle of being able to take care of things that need to be taken care of. What you said is what I could never articulate.

          • JSobieski

            am honored to be of service. It is a leadership quality that we should want in a President. Kind of like when Reagan said “I paid for that microphone.”

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        esp for one that wants a higher exec job. I have been persuaded by Rush that it was justified given the stance of her opposition in the state, but still….

    • acat

      Because that’s the way the media will play it if she runs in 2012.

      A period of time in D.C. as a cabinet member would wash that right out. “Yes, she left the governorship when it became apparent she was costing the state quite a lot in legal fees” will sound better in 2016 if she has a successful tenure at any cabinet-level agency.

      Mew

      • azaeroprof

        I do expect that from the liberal media, but not from fellow conservatives. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Palin’s qualifications for higher office without mischaracterizing her resignation. If she were “hounded out of office and driven out of town”, she would have written her memoir, made her millions and quietly settled down to enjoy her family and her wealth. But she has opened herself up to an even higher level of national scrutiny and criticism many times over since 7/4/09. I just think it is grossly inaccurate to portray her as thin-skinned for resigning. Immediately after the resignation, that would have made a rational argument, but events since have exposed that as a rather invalid point.

        • azaeroprof

          arf!!

          (Sorry, I hate cats! Nothing personal.)

        • aesthete

          Palin’s quitting can be characterized as one of a number of things:

          1) She was being honest in her speech, and she quit because of ethics charges and because of the stress it caused her family. That’s fine, but as President, both of those issues will in large part be exacerbated.

          2) She lied in her speech, and quit to help conservatives around the country. That’s not so swell, because of the obvious ethical issues involved. But hey, I guess that depends on whether you’re Kantian, utilitarian, or what moral system you subscribe to.

          3) She lied in her speech, and quit to further her own personal goals. There is nothing about this that should appeal to conservatives, and it’s an option that is unfortunately backed by at least some evidence.

          None of these three options, IMO, are particularly good indicators for how well Palin would do as President.

          • azaeroprof

            How about she said exactly what she was quitting to do and everyone chose to ignore it.

            And there is such a need to BUILD up and FIGHT for our state and our country. I choose to FIGHT for it! And I’ll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and LIFE… I’ll work for and campaign for those PROUD to be American, and those who are INSPIRED by our ideals and won’t deride them.

            I WILL support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don’t care what party they’re in or no party at all. Inside Alaska – or Outside Alaska.

            But I won’t do it from the Governor’s desk.

            Seems to me she was pretty darned honest and, frankly, pretty smart.

          • JSobieski

            I think Palin is great, but leaving early did have some negative consequences as well. Just like Rush is a great talk show host who moves lots of people in a rightward direction. However, by choosing that path, he closes other potential paths, such as that of the Presidency.

            Different skill set for different roles. Need to go to med school to be a doctor. Not to say we don’t need fighter pilots, but flight training school isn’t med school.

          • azaeroprof

            If you want to argue that Palin doesn’t have the right skill set to be POTUS, I would love to read your arguments. I may not agree, but it’s a legitimate tack.
            If you want to argue that she’s better suited for a different role (i.e. activist), I would be in more agreement than you think (I just would argue she’s sufficiently well-suited for both).
            But I stand by my original comment that using the ‘quitter’ meme to disqualify her is just doing the liberal media’s job for them. I still stand by my argument that she, our movement, and our nation are all better off for her having resigned.

          • JSobieski

            with her political activism. It was a noble sacrifice in many ways, she helped us but hurt her own personal chances at being President (if at that time it was something that interested her).

            So we are better off that she resigned, but her Presidential chances are not better off. No contradiction there.

          • azaeroprof

            Since we don’t know what would’ve happened had she stayed as Gov, you may well be correct. Certainly, if she had remained a popular governor and been elected to a second term handily, she would be in a better position. I’m personally skeptical, though, and think it is more likely she would’ve been hounded and ineffectual throughout the remainder of her term. In that case, her Presidential chances, while maybe not stellar, are better now than they would have been. But we’ll never know!

          • Scope

            and I agree with your original post in this thread. Before Palin was chosen as the VP candidate, she had high approval ratings in her role as AK Governor. As soon as she made the first speech, which was very successful, the Obamabots descended on AK with a vengence, and they have never left. The personal attacks started immediately, not only on her, but against every member of her family as well. She has weathered the storm, and, has actually proven that she has the guts to withstand anything.

            I agree that what she has done for the Republican party, since resigning her Gov. role has been far more beneficial for the party, than anything she may have been able to accomplish by remaining as Gov. I also agree that keeping the meme of “quitter” alive, by Republicans is very detrimental. It is clearly keeping the tag alive and well, which is exactly what the Democrats want. It is playing right into their hands and aiding and abetting their agendas. It’s destructive, not only to Palin, but, to the entire party.

          • JSobieski

            Two years of being governor of an extremely remote and underpopulated state. When Clinton came out of Arkansas, conservatives discounted his experience because Arkansas was small, poor, and rural. Well what exactly is Alaska?

            I don’t put that much stock in her mayoral experiences, although they count for something. Its simply not a Presidential resume in the post WWII world. Neither was Obama’s (who has NO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE), but he shouldn’t be the new low standard for our side.

          • acat
          • aesthete

            Option 4 it is. I still don’t think that the skills of a political activist are the same as those of an executive, but at least she isn’t being fraudulent.

    • kestrel

      Especially your last line. Palin would never quit the presidency over something as simple as being smeared or harassed. Good grief, look at all the flak she willingly takes day in and day out. As you point out, that was not the whole story in AK either.

      I also think people might be surprised at her willingness to take an “unexpected” position if it suited her abilities and she thought she could do some good in it. She’ll do the right thing, whatever it is.

      I’m signing off now to go watch the Bearded Marxist channel.
      h/t IzoneGuy, I think.

      • NHConservative0227

        Is that these bogus ethics charges were costing the taxpayers of Alaska.

        It was also wasting time on investigating them.

        Finally, if what Palin really wanted to do was campaign for consevatives and prepare for a presidential run then she did the right thing by resigning unlike McCain, Obama, and almost every else who spends all their time campaigning while ignore their responsibilities in their current position.

        • JSobieski

          which is by definition at the expense of the taxpayers and she will what?

          Your last point gets to the heart of the matter–she would rather be a political force than a governing force. Nothing wrong with that, but its a different career track than the Presidency.

          • NHConservative0227

            at the Presidential level.

            It’d be alot more difficult for any Joe Schmoe to file a bunch of BS charges against her as a sitting president than as Governor of Alaska.

            Plus there won’t be much support for that with a GOP Congress and Senate!

            As for the last point I made, she gets no credit for that?? Almost every every candidate that runs for office neglects their current responsibilites and the best she gets from you is that it means she’s on a different career track?

            How about an ounce of credit?

          • JSobieski

            Every President since Reagan has had to deal with special prosecutors. Bush had a Republican House and Senate, but he still had to deal with it.

            She gets credit, sure. But being President is more than being a community organizer.

  • Tbone

    for every BS charge that could be thrown her way. Because, had she not, we would have the slut Lisa running in Alaska, the old liberal fool Castle running in DE, and about 24 other jerks running instead of good conservatives.

    Anyone who beats the dead horse that she resigned a dead end job in Alaska to be a lightening rod, standard bearer for conservatives is a fool.

    Good lord, you people sound inane.

    • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

      based on everything the opposition throws our way. Because that’s all they have, and they’ll keep throwing it at our collective wall until it sticks.

      When their talking points become our talking points, that’s a “recruitment tool” for more of their talking points.

      It’s a dead end street.

    • SteveLA

      Tbone

      Lisa Lisa Murkowski is a sitting US Republican Senator and will remain so until January. You really don’t need to sink to the level of Democrats with the name calling do you now?

    • JSobieski

      If she wanted to run for President in 2012, then yeah, she should have stayed and duked it out. Heck, playing rope a dope with the media and ethics charges is probably the most important job of a US President. If you can’t pull it off, your presidency starts to sink.

      If she wanted to help the 2010 races, then year, she made the right move.

      If you don’t think independents will find her presidential resume thin–2 years of being governor of a small remote state, then we simply disagree.

      After having Obama run the show for 4 years, I suspect many Americans want a significantly more accomplished President.

      • http://www.libertytreehugger.com reverelth

        rock “independents’” world?

        Or would it just be a jobs program for the DNC’s mercenary lawyers parachuting in to dig up dirt on her?

        I mean, as opposed to being the undisputed franchise player for the conservative ascendency of 2010?

        Obama has accomplished plenty, but he has accomplished all the wrong things. Therein lies theh disaster.

        So it’s more about ideology than accomplishment.

        • JSobieski

          I know you keep dreaming about the right’s version of Obama, but I have different standards.

          I don’t think “Obama was inexperienced, so how about we try a right-wing inexperienced candidate to even things up” is the best selling point for 2012.

          Palin is going to be a target if she runs for President, VP, or if she does nothing. Might as well duke it out and make them pay.

          They hounded Rudy in NYC. He stayed, fought back, and cleaned their clocks.

          • Mary Beth

            Palin is not the right’s Obama.

            Obama never led anything. Never accomplished anything. Never was in charge or forced to make decisions. Never owned or operated a business. Obama was always accepted because it was the politically correct thing to do.

            Palin has run things. She’s made executive decisions. She can make tough calls…even when they cost her. She does it because it’s the right thing to do.

            And comparing her situation to Rudy’s or any other figure is not really reasonable. Alaska’s unique rules were specifically strangling her and her family so as to make it impossible for her to run her administration or fight the ridiculous and false ethics violations. To my knowledge, Rudy didn’t face those kinds of restrictions or limitations.

          • SteveLA

            More like the Right’s Chauncey Gardner.

          • azaeroprof

            In the very same thread where you (rightly) called out Tbone for calling Murkowski and Castle names, you pull out this gem?

          • SteveLA

            Calling a sitting US Senator a “slut” is not quite the same.

            But if you actually think a bit about the movie “Being There”, Chauncey Gardener was a pretty good and decent but simple person. It’s all the folks that projected onto Chauncey attributes that weren’t really him that were the issue. In some ways, Governor Palin is a creature of the projections of others expectations on a less than one term Governor with little record and little real accomplishment. Well besides being nominated for VP by John McCain that is.

          • azaeroprof

            The projection bit has some validity, but comparing a 2-term city councilman, 2-term mayor, elected governor, etc. to a sub-60 IQ simpleton may be funny (hey, that’s one of my favorite movies!), but hardly fair to Palin. Yes, it’s better than “slut”, but no less insulting.

          • SteveLA

            Shirley you jest, fair and a discussion with PalinBots in the same sentence?

            Fair and a discussion with HuckaBots?

            Fair and a discussion with RomenyBots?

            Bots by definition are not rational beings. You pretty much have illustrated that point by your litany of weak and laughable qualifications of Governor Palin in regards to running this country and not some 20K population town in the outback of Alaska or an abandoned Governorship of a state with a tiny population.

          • JSobieski

            and his time on the board with that domestic terrorist as his executive experience. Thinnest presidential resume EVER!

            How long before we get to, organized a really successfull book drive for the local library and led an effort to wash the cars of senior citizens for free behind the local Diary Queen?

            The country is truly sliding down the toilet . ..

          • azaeroprof

            If you read my post carefully, you’ll note that I was NOT making an argument for her city council/mayor/etc qualifications to be president but rather was making that argument that she has a much thicker resume than Chauncey Gardner.

            A simple reading of my posting history should inform you that I am quite rational and reasonable when it comes to Palin. I just reach a different conclusion than you. I was able to reach a “agree to disagree” truce with Art, not something that a “bot” could hope to accomplish.

            And frankly, anti-Palin-bots have no more claim to rational arguments than Palin-bots. And there are plenty of both around these parts, too.

          • aesthete

            Azaeroprof, I’ve always appreciated your levelheaded posts on Palin. Though I don’t share your conclusions, I at least don’t feel like I’m responding to someone who lives in that alternate universe where Dr Mrs Prof Madame President Palin has solved world hunger, cured the lame, and made the blind to see :) Thanks for your eminently rational take on the subject, and for your willingness to engage reasonably.

          • Scope

            I also appreciate your reasonable and rational arguments, that are not just a repetition of your last comment. One may agree with you or not, but, you argue in a way that doesn’t incite anger or animosity in the minds of the readers.

            According to this person, sitting in the jury-

            Palin Prosecutors- 0

            azaeroprof Defense- 10

            The arguments against Palin are hilarious, as no one yet knows who will be populating the Republican Presidential candidate stage. I like what Tbone said- “it could be Snow White and the seven dwarfs.”

          • azaeroprof

            for the kind words. As you might guess, I am emotionally in synch with the “Palinbots” and it is a deliberate (and very enjoyable) intellectual exercise to argue rationally that she remains both a player on the national stage and a potentially successful presidential candidate. I don’t dispute that it may be otherwise, but to say one way or the other with any certainty at this point is to give away one’s own bias.
            As a Palin fan, it has dismayed me to see the Palin well poisoned here at RS by Art’s obvious hatred of her. He may have some valid arguments against her, but I have watched the trend over the last year or so to the point where anyone who has anything good to say about her get jumped on by the same cast of characters. I just want to see an open and reasonable dialogue on matters Palin.

          • JSobieski

            As someone agnostic on Palin (favorable, but not necessarily favorable for 2012 Presidential run), I can tell you that I get a lot of heat for being some kind of irrational Palinphobe because I bring up the points that might matter to some voters.

            However, it seems like just bringing up the fact that she didn’t fulfill her term gets someone labeled a hater. I’m no Palin hater. If it came down to Palin v. Romney v. Huckabee, I would be enthusiastically pro-Palin. I do find it troubling however that there seems to be an increasing willingness in the conservative movement to personally condemn those who disagree with you,

          • azaeroprof

            I completely respect your opinion on Palin’s resignation. It no doubt makes the hill steeper for her. For me, it’s not as big a deal. I enjoy a low-volume discussion of the pros and cons of her decision and what it means. What bugs me is when folks on our side of the spectrum reduce the complexities of her decision and its effects into “Palin’s a quitter” name-calling. I would expect that from the left, but not at RS. Yes, she truncated her executive experience by resigning, but she has made it very clear in the time since that she is anything but a quitter. But I’ll be the first to admit that her high-level executive experience is less than some other candidates (Daniels, Barbour, etc). I just don’t place as much importance on that aspect as some do.
            Thanks for your reasonable approach!

          • aesthete

            to say that she was a “quitter”: from a factual point of view, she was. OTOH, one could also, under that same reasoning, say that Palin was a “retiree”: whatever else you can say about her, the implications behind that word aren’t particularly applicable to her life after Governorship! I see both sides on that particular quibble. I’ll also admit that I’m not a huge fan of her in an executive role (my opinion of her somewhat matches JSob’s, though tilting towards unfavorable), but reiterate that if we’re going to have a sane, low-key discussion about Palin, I want you in the pro-Palin box. Thanks again for engaging intellectually and reasonably.

          • Tbone

            That what makes your inane posts so enjoyable. It is what you bring to RedState and, I for one, appreciate your willingness to share. Thank you.

          • SteveLA

            Nothing like trying to serve up rational thought to you Uber True Conservatives, it’s a mission.

          • JSobieski

            but the willingness of so many people to ignore executive experience is unsettling to me. From my corporate life I can say that executive experience matters. A CEO without that experience can really paralyze the entire organization.

            I think Palin has talent in that area (in contrast to McCain and Obama). I just think 2 years as governor is very thin.

          • acat
        • azaeroprof

          I’m sure four years as Alaska Governor would make all the difference in the world. Why, even once and future RedStater Art Chance would be a huge fan if she had just served out that all-important term! (end snark)

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            doesn’t cut and run under very light fire. Palin is a political coward. All she had to do was have the AG certify that her actions were within the scope of her job and she wouldn’t have paid a nickle in attorney’s fees and the whole mess would have blown over. Instead, she ran south so she could build her worship team with idiots like Tbone.

          • Tbone

            You are like the 2 inch perch that always show up to steal the bait. Doesn’t your lip ever get sore. LOL

            Now go take your Avodart and have another beer.

          • JSobieski

            is a big deal. Everybody who argues with you isn’t Achance. Everybody who makes a point that is not 100% Palin isn’t automatically some political RINO hack.

            Look at my past comments on Palin before quitting, and you will see that I was a pretty big fan. I still am, but not for President.

    • aesthete

      Palin’s advantages are her mobility and her ability to stay away from the partisan bickering and deal-making that consumes politics. Which is exactly why she was a middling-to-bad governor, and why she would be an awful President.

      On the plus side, she’s against the War on Drugs, so there’s that.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908
      • cactusjack

        by laying on all these expectations that a candidate for Pres has to have all these capabilities and experience – as though Obama had any? When, really, the key essential of a chief executive is to put quality people in the right positions around him/her, and use their smarts and filtering to make good, fast decisions. Speaking of management style and not politics per se, didn’t FDR, Ike and Reagan, especially, achieve what success they had in being good choosers and managers of the cabinet and officers around them? The Dems still have this kind of template or expectation that the President must be a walking talking demi-god. It just will never work, especially over the long haul of 4 or 8 years. So…..does Sarah know how to get good people and putthem in the right place – that’s the test in my book.

        • JSobieski

          If democrats say tax cuts are good, we have to say tax cuts are bad?

          If democrats say deficits are bad, we have to say deficits are good?

          Democrats are the folks who underestimate the value of executive experience, just look at Obama for heaven’s sakes. To base our judgments on what they say, or the reverse of what they say is silly.

        • aesthete

          We’re playing into *our* expectations that the leader of the free world have more than charisma to buttress their claims that they are worthy of our votes. Obama is not and should not be a positive role model for conservative candidates going forward.

          • JSobieski

            Its a bit disappointing.

          • conservativemusician

            People are now seeing through all the phony God-child BS this guy has been shoveling out the last 2 years. The electorate wants substance over style, not meaningless drivel and platitudes that can’t be delivered. Surely our next candidate for the GOP in many ways will be the anit-Obama.

          • JSobieski

            Obama this and Obama that.

            I want anti-Obama in more than just an ideological sense, I want anti-Obama in a competence sense. A communication sense. A leadership sense.

          • conservativemusician

            But you have to start with ideology first. Principal always should come first. In my view, this is why the GOP took such a spanking in 08′. They forgot their core principles and sacrificed them on the altar of political expediency just to get along with the other side and in the process, lost their way and became part of the problem.

            Since the thread is talking about Palin, I think you’ll have to admit that she is already a fabulous communicator and also has the ability to inspire people the way great leaders do. How this will play out when it comes to applying her core principals to policy is anyone’s guess now, but I do believe over time that she will get more competent as she assembles the right team around her.

          • JSobieski

            I would vote Palin for any other office in a heartbeat, and actually hope that she will be in the VP spot again. Or take a position like Secretary of State.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    IMO all it means is that BO has higher negatives right now than Palin. Factor in that BO’s warts are evident for all to see and Palin isn’t campaigning on any platform.

    It’s too far out to read much of anything into polling. I seem to recall last November when there was joy in Mudville hosted by some of the same folks who are all fired up about Palin when Ras put out a poll showing JD Hayworth was within two points of McCain. And we all know how that came out.

    There’s plenty of time to discuss POTUS candidates and their platforms and really shouldn’t start until we actually have some declared candidates who will delineate what they actually stand for. Like after November.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      PPP is out today with the following (which I don’t put any more stock in than the Ras)…

      This month’s look at the 2012 Republican Presidential field shows the same basic four way tie at the top that we see every month- but looking inside the numbers it also shows an unusual potential path to his party’s nomination for Mitt Romney.

      Romney’s in first place with 22% followed by Mike Huckabee at 21%, Newt Gingrich at 18%, Sarah Palin at 17%, and Ron Paul at 6%.

      What’s fascinating about Romney’s lead, as small as it is, is that it comes despite finishing fourth among conservatives. He gets 18% with them, lagging Gingrich at 22% and Huckabee and Palin at 21%. But he wins moderates by such a wide margin- getting 33% with Huckabee at 22% and the rest in single digits- that it propels him to the overall lead.

  • aesthete

    One of the complaints about Palin was precisely that her family seemed very scripted on the campaign trail. Though I’m not a fan of Palin for governor, and though I’d appreciate less family drama on the national stage, I do appreciate that Palin’s family is apparently not tethered to Mama Palin’s career choice.

    • aesthete

      to NHConservative.

  • mikerazar

    I’m an expert on judging competence and ideological commitment and I AM TELLING YOU yokels to defer to us experts. She is smart, and tough and would be a superb president. The voters won’t care about her quitting as governor or any of the other crap you intellectual inferiors throw at her.

    So get out of the way or be crushed by the steamroller.

    Oh sorry…I was channeling the anti Art Chance spirit up there. True experts don’t have to rely on dissing their opponents and in politics there are damn few true experts.

    • Tbone

      The nomination is hers if she wants it. The primaries would look like Snow White and the 7 dwarfs.

    • Scope

      that the one you mentioned sure did leave his mark on some here. It could easily be his name on some of the comments above. I was relieved that now we could have some reasonable and rational debates about Palin. Rather, what we have are still some preaching from the Achance bible, as though everything he said was the gospel truth.

      • acat
        • JSobieski

          Its never about the argument, its about the person making the argument. Its actually a classic marxist technique that goes back more than a century.

          • acat

            Also, you were right yesterday, and I thank you for the lesson – it appears that including a comparison of other potential candidates causes Palin bots to quiet down.

            I notice once I started doing that, they stopped replying…. do you suppose their heads exploded?

            Mew

          • Jack_Savage

            Sort of like “teabagger” and “racist” has really helped me lean more left.

          • JSobieski

            Its pretty easy to get labeled a Palin-hater around these parts.

          • Jack_Savage

            And believe I came up with the term “Smear-bots” first. If SteveLA ever figures out where I live and when the garbage is picked up, I firmly believe I will find myself in a dumpster shortly thereafter.

          • JSobieski
          • acat

            to a percentage of my peers, I’m a Palin-bot, but when I try to suggest that Palin 2016 makes more sense than Palin 2012 here, I get labeled a Palin-hater.

            Eh. You humans are a tough bunch.

            Mew

    • JSobieski

      I mean I realize that anything said on this site that is not 100% positive about Palin is just “crap” thrown out by “intellectual inferiors” but is it allowed for me to ask the question? Must I apologize in advance and beg for forgiveness? Are we allowed to ask questions or is asking this question just too much of a smear?

      • Tbone

        destroyed our economy, indentured my offspring to China, smokes and can’t throw a baseball 60 feet.

        On the other hand I have Sarah Palin who talks like I do, loves my Country, has an RR type upbeat attitude, has spent 3 years getting fiscal conservatives like me elected all across the Country.

        I sure wish she hadn’t quit being Governor of that Alaska place to do all that. I guess I’ll vote for Obama so that he can continue to improve his golf game on my nickle. My last nickle.

        Yes, you do sound this dumb.

        • JSobieski

          Given the Presidential elections of 1992, 1996, 200, and 2008, we can safely assume that at on some occassions, the aggregate voting public won’t necessarily see things the way you.

          So no, polling TBone in a sample of 1 is hardly evidence that the statement is correct.

          • Tbone

            And, no, I don’t assume everyone thinks like I do. I assume most don’t even think at all. The postings here about Palin quitting the governorship prove that.

          • JSobieski

            I think its probably hard to get an accurate poll on Palin one way or the other because she is such a “larger than life” political figure. She is a political rock star, no arguing that.

            And for the record, I would vote for Palin over any of the 2008 retreads, including Fred (whom I voted for). Palin is worth more than Huckabee, Romney, and McCain together.

        • acat

          Funny, I think Drudge or Erick or The Daily Caller would have mentioned that story…

          Mew

        • aesthete

          All choices in life, especially what will be a highly contested Republican primary, can be reduced to a binary. Tell us, are you going to mug someone or pickpocket them today? Come now, you can be honest! It’s not like there’s anything else to do in a day, is there?

          • Tbone

            In between I agonize over whether you are dumb or stupid. You’re right, it is a binary thing.

      • mikerazar

        Surely, you of all people caught the irony in my post. I was not really attacking the anti Palins, nor do I consider myself an expert on anything political. I was mocking the self styled experts (like Art) who try to stifle serious discussions. This is a society-wide problem. Whether it be global warming, medical care, or the economy, we are expected to entrust all decisions to experts. I try very hard to disregard the source of any claim and to judge it on its merits.

        So please don’t apologize in advance or afterwards for asking any question in good faith. Challenge, question, object to, even disrespect pompous experts who try to diminish your concerns with a wave of the hand.

  • Tbone

    frozen by choice.

  • http://www.downstateiladvocate.com anacreon

    wasn’t Giuliani the front runner about this time in 2006 or early 2007?

  • NHConservative0227

    I’ve been a big supporter for a long time. However, I’ve been a bit upset with her lately over her endorsements of Ayotte, McCain, and Fiorina.

    That being said, she’s still better than the other contenders at this point:

    Romney- Romney care

    Huckabee – Mr. Clemency, raised taxes at Ark governor, and actually had kids get weighed in schools. I think he’s been soft on illegal immigration too.

    Newt- Supported Scozzfavva. Palin supported Doug Hoffman. Also, I still can’t get that picture of Newt and Pelosi sitting together on that couch.

    Overall, Palin has by far been the most active in criticizing Obama. That says alot. I can’t think of anyone who generates more crowds and support. That was a great point by conservativemusician above in that liberals will always show you how they’re afraid of the most.

  • Alberta

    Can we start pumping Ms. Angle for President?

  • callawyn

    Obama’s already spoken about being a ‘successful one-term president’ (I know, no such thing).

    At this point, who is the most likely Democrat nominee for president in 2012? Hillary or Obama, or someone else? Is there, now, a >50% chance Obama does an LBJ and doesn’t seek the nomination?

    If its glaringly apparent to everyone, as seems likely, that 2012 will be an “anyone but Obama” year, he may not be the candidate.

  • cwilson

    Before Ovide Lamontagne got into the race, she was good enough — Pro-Life Hero, here, here, here, and here.

    The first one is especially ironic, as it details how Ayotte was hailed for winning “the most important Supreme Court decision on abortion in recent years” — Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England paved the way for all state parental notification laws. IOW, without Ayotte fighting this fight, the law of the land would be that your minor daughter has a constitutional right to get an abortion — a major surgical procedure — without your knowledge. But she’ll get expelled for taking Midol in school.

  • NHConservative0227

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/09/06/ovide-lamontagne-rising-in-new-hampshire/

    To me supporting Sotomayor automatically disqualifies her. Ayotte’s reasons for not supporting Kagan was not because of her radical views and desire to trash the Constitution but only because she lacked experience.

    This is why I fault Palin for supporting Ayotte and for calling Ayotte the true conservative in the race. Especially when Ovide made a 15 point pledge of what he would do, among them to support only constitutional judges.

    I still like Palin and think she’s better than her main competitors at this point in Romney, Newt, and Huckbee. However, I am not blindly supporting her by any means. I will keep an open mind and be doing alot of research during the primary season.