« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Palin…

By: Josh LeGuern (Diary)  |  September 7th, 2011 at 07:08 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

will run or she won’t run.

It doesn’t matter what Ann Coulter thinks.

It doesn’t matter what Jedidiah Bila thinks.

It doesn’t matter what Laura Ingram or RedState’s own Erick Erickson thinks.

It doesn’t matter what Michelle Malkin, Tammy Bruce, or Mark Levin thinks.

Palin will decide one way or another. If she announces and gets into the race she’ll be a significant force in the primary. I would lean towards supporting her because she has the experience, character, and perseverance I think is necessary for the next President.

But then again, it doesn’t matter what I think either. She’s gonna run or she’s not gonna run.

And if she runs, she’ll be in a race with some good candidates and she’ll either convince enough Republicans to vote for her or she won’t. Afraid she’ll split the conservative vote? Well, if someone like say, Rick Perry is such a great candidate why aren’t conservatives coalescing around someone like him? The only reason I’ve seen conservatives reluctant to vote for Palin is electability based on polls, which is, well, nonsense. If she believes she can win in an unconventional way, why not let her try?

If she doesn’t run, she’ll endorse a conservative and bring legions of her supporters to a conservative candidate for the Republican nomination.

So what the hell is everyone fussing about? We’ll know by next summer who the Republican nominee is. Why don’t we all just chill out.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • azaeroprof

    You’ve helped restore my faith in RedState.

    And with regards to electability, both Rasmussen and WaPo have released polls this week showing Palin down 12 to Obama. Granted, this is worse than Perry, Romney and Bachmann are polling. But considering Palin is probably at her nadir in popularity right now, it is silly to think that, if she were able to run a successful enough campaign to beat out Perry/Romney/Bachmann/et al, she couldn’t convince at least 1 out of every 16 voters to switch to her.

    • aesthete

      this strikes me as fantastical when applied to someone who’s been a known commodity in the public eye for 2 years, now. The numbers have been hovering around that mark for quite a while, so I would be surprised if they move much based on more exposure for Palin. While she’d probably get more than 38% of the vote, I don’t think the outcome would be difficult to predict. I will say this: if Palin had a successful image makeover between now and the election, it would be positively miraculous on the part of whatever agencies would be involved in such a makeover, as well as an absolute coup rivaling any other in American Presidential politics.

      To back you up on something that you wrote elsewhere, I think the notion that Palin is being “disrespectful” to the process is absolute nonsense: the process itself is an assault on the intellect, and encourages candidates to indulge in the worst sort of platitudinous, patronizing, and preposterous dreck. I don’t know what actions Palin or anyone else could undertake that would “disrespect” the carnival that is laughingly called our primary process — and if I did, I would heartily recommend those actions to her and anyone else who’s willing to hear me out. (That said, I do think that her current course of action is imprudent and potentially destructive if one goes by the assumption that she is running for President.)

      • azaeroprof

        Reagan swung 10 points in the final weekend of 1980 alone. Ford came back from over 25 points down and nearly won in 1976. I believe Dukakis actually led Bush 41 at one point. And there are many other examples. I’m not saying it would be easy for Palin. She’d have to do very well. But 1 voter in 16 isn’t all that much, especially given the difference between Palin now and where she would have to be to have won the nomination.

    • Scope

      remember when you were doing the unscientific polls here at RS, and then you would come back and give the information on those polls? How about you do that once again?

      • azaeroprof

        I probably won’t have time to do that anytime soon, though. And given the current environment on RS, reinforced by the front-pagers today, I’m afraid I wouldn’t like the answer much this time around! ;)

    • gregorysstewart

      You are right, of course.

      We can count on the main stream press to present her policies fairly and without rolling their eyes.

      We know that no one will bring up the fact that she quit the last governmental job she had.

      The late night comics will leave her alone, proclaiming “there is just nothing funny there.”

      Feminists will no longer misrepresent her positions, and they will stop questioning her gender.

      The cultural divide between her and the East Coast Elite will become a thing of the past and she will be allowed to compete unfettered in the marketplace of ideas.

      …And even if all the above didn’t happen, the disaffected Democrats, and the true Independants and the middle of the Road, Rockefeller Republicans would not be swayed in the slightest by all the vile and venom that will be pumped out of the left wing attack machine.

      Good Luck with that.

  • ruexperienced

    for the same reasons that Palin did not want to be seen on stage with Christine O’Donnell.

    Because both of them could do more harm than good.

    • APA Guy

      Perry is establishing conservative credentials and already beating Obama head-to-head by 3 pts (which according to Dick Morris translates to a large Election Day victory for the non-incumbent). Once Perry’s lead grows, the media will scream for Palin to enter the race as a chance to save Obama’s presidency…bank on it.

    • J. Leg

      At the end of the day it’s the message not the messenger that wins the day.

      If it were the messenger that won the day, Obama would be a shoe in for re-election. Let’s get real, he speaks eloquently (from a teleprompter), he IS the president, and it makes Americans feel good to know they’ve put an African American in the White House. But Obama’s message, at this stage, sucks.

      The problem with a lot of the analysis on Palin like this is that it assumes the general public is as active in their consumption of political media as those of us who are super active in it. The fact is, most of the general public remembers Tina Fey from SNL, they aren’t aware of the REAL Sarah Palin.

      Which is why comments like the ones from Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter bother me (as does Erick Erickson’s analysis that it is the best discussion on Palin he’s ever seen.). By saying that Palin “lacks substance”, it shows that Coulter and Ingraham haven’t really taken the time to read any of her policy statements, or watch any of her speeches or see “The Undefeated.” I know Erick has done all three which is why his statement on the discussion is disappointing.

      Everyday Americans start paying attention to the race the summer before the election. It’s why Reagan went from a 30 point deficit in March of 1980 to a 10 point victory in November. Things change when ideas are exchanged, compared and contrasted. Palin’s got a shot.

      • ruexperienced

        Take her last Iowa speech…

        Palin suggested that we eliminate corporate income taxes. Was this a comprehensive plan? Did she ever project how much money that would cost? Where the revenues would come from to make up for the loss? The specific impact on jobs?

        Did Palin release that plan and then offer herself for an in depth interview to have it cross examined and questioned by knowledgeable people?

        No. She just threw out that idea and by the next day she was off on another idea.

        I thought that it would take weeks or a month for her to move on to something else. In reality, it took less than 24 hours.

        • conservativecurmudgeon

          …we know more about Governor Palin’s broader policy world-view than we ever knew about, say, George W. Bush at similar points along the campaign. Her Facebook postings alone are a trove of insights into her political viewpoint. And the very nature of these political hustings is that each day new ideas, new questions, new proposals are tossed off like tootsie rolls at a 4th of July parade. So what?

          As for “paying” for tax cuts: Why are we adopting the lexicon of the left? Tax cuts don’t have to be “paid for”. Tax INCREASES, maybe. A corporate tax cut can stand, or fall, based on the moral merits alone, Remember: Corporations, pace Mitt Romney, are just people (“corpus”, i.e. the people, = “the body”), and Arthur Laffer long ago was proven correct about the fact that there exist a perfect intersection of tax RATE to reported incomes that results in ever-higher tax revenue collections.

          I’m nowhere near selecting a primary candidate; but, I must say: Sarah Palin has crossed some sort of bizarre frontier where she is criticized for nearly everything, and most of the criticisms would never be brought up about other candidates: She moves onto the next topic!?? Oh, my! Next it will be: Can you believe the way Sarah Palin breathes oxygen?

          I find her voice a little screechy for my tastes. But then, I think Mitt Romney’s hair is better suited for a member of DEVO. And Rick Santorum’s eyes are too close together. But, so what? This is some sort of indication of “substance”?

        • J. Leg

          … Is that the best venue to get down in the nitty gritty with all of the figures and pie charts? Probably not. It was a policy proposal that will probably be fleshed out in more detail should she run. She did say that closing all loopholes and ending corporate welfare would be the first step in making up the lost revenues.

          I’d argue, from a legal standpoint, that taxation on corporations is unfair. Corporations are a legal entity made up of a group of people who are already paying income and capital gains taxes on money they make from their stocks and dividends. So when a corporation is taxed it’s actually being taxed twice.

          It would also make America THE most attractive place to do business for people who truly believe in a sink or swim, honest to goodness free market. TONS of jobs would be created resulting in more revenues for the government.

          Personally, I would love it if one of the Republican candidates would start talking about a flat tax. I met a guy from one of the Scandinavian countries that have adopted a flat tax that has said it has literally changed the economic climate of their country over night.

      • azaeroprof

        I’m still cleaning the Cheerios off my monitor after seeing this article this morning.

        • acat

          (fair use and all that)

          • azaeroprof

            Go to Drudge. He’s got a link to it. Here’s a brief excerpt from it:

            Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it.
            …
            But something curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa. Along with her familiar and predictable swipes at President Barack Obama and the ?far left,? she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment ? left, right and center ? and pointed toward a way of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide.
            …
            No one knows yet whether Ms. Palin will actually run for president. But she did just get more interesting.

          • Scope

            for not only going after the left and Obama, but also what is supposed to be her own party (the right) and the middle (the independents) and that is something to be honored? To me it sounds like another Alaskan bridge to nowhere. If she is finding fault with her own side, what has been considered as an attack on Perry for his crony capitalism and career politicians, and to watch who the candidates get their donations from as that is who they will be beholding to, who is she supposed to be building a bridge between?

          • J. Leg

            She’s likely running for president and wants to contrast herself with Perry, Romney and ultimately Obama.

        • Aaron Gardner

          ;)

          But really, this is exactly what Dan McLaughlin said it was on twitter:

          the sound of NYT deciding Palin’s not running & can safely be used as a club vs other Republicans.

          • azaeroprof

            Never trust the NYT, I say. But in their attempt to use her as a club, they may inadvertently help the long-term rehabilitation of her image.

            I’ve always thought that if people actually learned more about her history and background in Alaska, she might have a tougher time with conservatives and be more appealing to the middle.

            I’m not ruling out that this is a deliberate effort on her part to begin developing that appeal to the center that so many have accused her of not doing. We’ll see.

          • Scope

            on this article. If Palin is in fact trying to move to the center, to appeal to the center/independent voters, that she has gained much support from, would you consider being in favor of Big Labor and Unions to be anything but a leftist position?

          • J. Leg

            and a bit bothersome, but less so than Perry’s abuse of executive power or Romney’s health mandate.

            And Palin has repeatedly (and rightfully) pointed out that the problem isn’t unions or union-members, but the thuggish tactics of union bosses. There are a lot of conservatives out there that are apart of unions (Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and many of your favorite radio hosts included), it’s the morons like Hoffa that need to be called to the carpet.

            And the last line of that article pretty much sums up what that guy thinks of Palin anyway.

          • Scope

            That Perry’s Guardasil flap is more worrisome than Palin’s support for Big Labor. This is why it is difficult to debate with some of the most die hard supporters of a candidate. They give their guy/gal a pass on some of the most serious non-conservative positions, while blowing less serious positions of other candidates out of proportion. By the way, did you read that what Palin did with the unions was by “executive order.” Isn’t that abuse of executive power?

            I don’t care what the author’s personal sentiments are about Palin. I only care about the provable evidence he supplies that Palin is a Big Labor supporter.

            If the situation were reversed, and Palin signed the Guardasil executive order, and Perry supported Big Labor, you’d be screaming about Perry being for Big Labor, and giving a pass to Palin on the Gardasil executive order.

          • azaeroprof

            I find it very difficult to use gubernatorial records in general as being too much of a barometer of conservatism, especially comparing one state to another. There are always state-to-state variations in the role of the governor, the relationship between governor and legislature, the nature of the state and its economy, etc. There are often good reasons for governor (or a mayor for that matter) to do things that we may not consider “conservative”. It’s much easier to define conservative with regards to the federal government and its role. And I say all this on a global level, it has nothing to do with Palin. I’ve always felt this way.

            As far as Palin is concerned, it is very difficult to really evaluate her record. Alaska is, as near as I can tell, a libertarian/socialist hybrid of a state. And I don’t understand well enough it’s whole state of being to know whether increased spending is good or bad. It’s easy to say that lowering spending is good, but not if you represent a state (or city) that is infrastructure-poor, or has some other reason to need more spending. And it’s one thing to increase taxes on an oil company developing on their land and resources, and another thing to increase taxes on one who is working on resources owned by the taxpayers. I don’t pretend to understand the whole situation, so I take all with a grain salt, both giving credit to her and criticizing her.

            Palin also put herself in a tricky situation politically. Since she had made her name in Alaska as a reformer taking on her own party (and yes, you can interpret this cynically as shameless self-promotion, but it makes no difference to my point), she could not govern effectively by being partisan and relying on the GOP. She needed to work with the Dems and assemble some kind of working majority, or she would have been completely ineffective. This does make her record less “conservative”, but it can also be seen as politically quite astute, and ought to be a sign to the political center nationally that she has a record of bring folks together to get things done.

            Again, there is a lot of wiggle room in her record (as in anybody’s, but maybe a little more so), and people’s interpretations are likely to fit whatever mold they are predisposed in their feelings towards her (or to whatever extent they’ve been exposed to other people’s biases).

          • Vegas_Rick

            Anyone living in the real world knows there is a significant difference between rank and file union members and their thug bosses and enforcers. That’s what Palin was referring to. I work with trade union members every day who are rightly ashamed of people Like Hoffa and Trumpka.

            And no, before you try to connect dots, I am not a union member.

          • Scope

            members that Christie was having to fight tooth and nail were just your usual innocent union members. So those innocent WI union members that created such a backlash against Walker are just the usual rank and file members. So the longshoreman who threatened to harm news reporters today is just your rank and file innocent citizens.

            Trumka’s SOB speech was a call to arms for those innocent rank and file union members to go out and fight those evil Tea Party members. Wasn’t it the SEIU innocent rank and file members that Obama told to “get in their faces”?

            Actually Vegas Rick, your argument is the weak sauce. I guess that it depends on who you are supporting, and what they stand for, that gets the easy pass. What ever happened to all the arguments about Mitch Daniels having an opportunity to possibly pass right to work laws for his state, and those many here supporting that effort. What about Nikki Haley, the Governor of a right to work state, having to deal with the NLRB who is pushing for card check legislation in her state.

            Finally, Perry is the governor of a right to work state, as well as Republican McDonnell the Governor here in VA, having a right to work state, and they keep exchanging first place finishes on business and job creation first place positions.

            So, if Palin ran and won the presidency, would we be ushering through card check, that the conservatives have been fighting successfully in Wash.?

          • azaeroprof

            I’d bet my left arm (and yes, I’m left-handed) that she would NOT support card check!

          • Finrod

            So, if Palin ran and won the presidency, would we be ushering through card check, that the conservatives have been fighting successfully in Wash.?

            This is so absurd and funny that it deserves an award.

          • Scope

            I’ve noticed that no Palin supporter will touch the Palin support of Big Labor issue with any sincerity. Typical for the Palin supporters that would rather hide her record than honestly talk about the fact that there may be some blemishes there. No worry, no problem, she isn’t running anyway, so I’ll go back to my position that I really couldn’t care less what Palin does, says, supports, or promotes. Life is a whole lot easier to ignore her and her supporters.

          • Finrod

            Ridiculing the ridiculous has been a common political tactic since Roman times. Just because Alinsky picked it up doesn’t make it an exclusively leftist tactic, and the fact that you see it as such simply shows to me how shallow your knowledge pool is.

            Tell you what, go ask any Big Labor leader what they think of Sarah Palin, and if you can get any of them to call Palin a Big Labor supporter, I will take it all back and personally apologize to you. Good luck with that one.

            You seem to be unable to distinguish being a labor union rank-and-file member (like Sarah was and her husband still is) with supporting the SEIU and other labor parasites. Well, I have some bad news for you: Ronald Reagan was the LEADER of a labor union (President of the Screen Actors Guild) before he entered politics. By your standards, that should have made him a permanent union goon for life.

          • Vegas_Rick

            as if they are the same thing. But your rabid anti-Palinism is what mostly shines through.

          • Scope

            Palin supported the “public” sector unions. How do I know that, because she signed the executive order, as the Governor, in support of “public” sector unions.

          • Vegas_Rick

            Like it or not. See comment below.

          • aesthete

            Does it mean that the state of AK will favor union-based labor when it contracts its services, or is it more like “black history month” — i.e., completely symbolic? If it’s the latter, then it’s a non-issue, IMO.

          • Vegas_Rick

            of exactly what azaeroprof writes about in his excellent diary “What’s Up with Sarah Palin”. Putting words in her mouth. You are really susceptible to the code words and dog whistles aren’t you? You saw/heard something about card check in her comments?

            Is it just remotely possible that what she means is that, just like we try to do with blacks and hispanics, we should try to convince union members that the liberal progressive Democrats and their union lap dog leaderss do not serve the union members individual interest? That, maybe instead of demonizing them we should try to convert them?

            Maybe? Just maybe?

            No, that doesn’t fit your preconceived notions of the woman.

          • Scope

            even linking an article backing it up has absolutely nothing to do with preconceived notions. You are really stretching, and looking more and more biased by your own preconceived notions about the candidate.

          • Vegas_Rick

            How evasive.

          • Scope

            By stating that you choose to “convert” the union members, are you saying they are wrong, or that unions are wrong? Who or what are you trying to convert? The rank and file that you supported as they are?

          • Scope

            clouds your opinions and positions, as much as my non-support for Palin as a presidential candidate.

          • Vegas_Rick

            dipstick. Can you read? You skirt every comment and question. I’m done with you. HAGN

          • Vegas_Rick

            hardly “backs it up.” It’s an opinion piece full of links that don’t work.

          • powertothepeople

            but by the same token, you are wrong. While I would agree that a large portion of your rank and file members are not extremist like Hoffa or Trumpka, they are still a problem.

            They are the ones who support these fools, vote them into power, scream at anyone who does not bow to the union, vote in the dems election after election, are the ones crowding around some poor smuks private home, charging the statehouse, and as we saw in the paper today, storming the port.

            There are some union members who have no choice in being a member, there are some who disagree with much of the union they belong to, and there are some who are conservative and vote accordingly, but there are few and far between. The main difference between most rank and file members and the like of Hoffa is rhetoric. But past rhetoric differences, they support the ultimate goals of the union and its leaders like Hoffa.

          • JSobieski

            “I?ve always thought that if people actually learned more about her history and background in Alaska, she might have a tougher time with conservatives and be more appealing to the middle.”

            Palin’s record as governor seems more in the populist reformer mold than people think and less of the conservative mold than they hope.The glee with which monies from oil taxes were raised to me seems inconsistent with “true conservative” mindset.

            There is a reason why McCain liked her. She is a true maverick, who truly enjoys taking on entrenched power (one of the reasons that I do like her, and supported her at the time). If you heard her speak before the 2008 campaign, she didn’t hit all the conservative buttons that she does now. Part of that may be that Alaska is already center-right (with an unhealthy dose of oil socialism thrown in), but part of it may be that Palin was simply less ideological until recent years.

            Anyway, I am happy to see that I am not the only one making the observation.

          • rightwingmom52

            or perhaps McCain was just lucky enough to recognize Palin had the spark that would energize the party. In any event, with regard to her positions now vs. then, don’t we want all moderates, independents, centrists, populists or what have you to evolve to more, or the most, conservative positions? Seems to me that’s not much different from what Perry (who is currently one of my top choices) has done throughout his political career. I recognize Perry’s record, for the most part backs him up, and Palin’s has to be taken with a little more faith (but hers, in my opinion, has the ring of truth while Romney’s doesn’t). Another observation is that a governor most likely would, at least in some instances, govern his state (or hers as the case may be) a little differently than the country as President. I’m not defending Paln’s record as gov. Just making an observation.

          • JSobieski

            rather it was an implicit criticism of SOME Palin supporters who in my view, project all sorts of things onto Palin. A lot of people relate to her at a deeply emotional level.

            While I am not comparing Palin in any way to Obama, I have to say that the emotional attachment SOME people have with her reminds of something in the same ballpark as SOME people have with Obama.

            The point is that the reality of a person can’t possibly live up to that type of hype and emotional commitment unless we are talking about the son of a carpenter born in Bethlehem more than 2000 years ago.

          • azaeroprof

            I have always had that same emotional attachment to The Gipper, and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone here!

          • J. Leg

            …give it to ‘em.

            Let’s get real, Palin probably deserves some as well for some of her positions. If she gets in the race I’m SURE she’ll get hers too. Apparently, according to some folks, NOT announcing deserves some “clubbing”

            This is what a primary is all about, vetting ALL of these candidates. Making sure they’re rhetoric matches their record.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Just a thought.

  • http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Loren Heal

    right now so well I could have written it.

    Thanks, J. Leg.

    • Finrod

      Except that it’s probably better-written than what I would have written.

      • Vegas_Rick

        nt

  • mdw9661

    Despite the crowing by the media and well-known pundits, the primary season has just begun. No, we are not down to 2 contestants.

    At this time during the last primary election cycle, 2007, per Rasmussen:

    Thompson – 26%
    Giuliani – 22%
    McCain – 14%
    Romney – 11%

    As for Palin, the polls indicate anywhere between 55-71% don’t want Palin to announce.

    Yet, with the GOP electorate allocated between 9 announced and at least one unannounced, would you expect anything different?

    What will happen:

    I is possible that by the time Palin announces, Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Johnson, Huntsman, Gingrich drop out of the race. They will certainly be on their last gasp.

    In such eventuality, Palin will pick up many of the votes from Bachmann, Cain, and Santorum in particular. She will also dip into the percentage Perry currently has.

    Of course, Fred and Rudy went on to discontinue their campaigns in the ensuing weeks.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Do I ever wish I’d written this.

    …And, I would recommend this little bit of elegant truth until the server farm caught fire, if I could.

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    If this is all it takes to bring down a rising star among her own party, you all need to get a different hobby besides politics.

    • J. Leg

      Which is why I think this actually works in Palin’s favor. Expectations for her are bare bottom at this point, it can’t get much more desperate for her than it already is.

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    especially since they same crap was pulled on Nikki Haley,

    This really cheapens the cause.

    • Scope

      They always have the C4P website to get their shot of Palin love. Same with the Paul supporters, there is a website devoted to Paul love, the Daily Paul. It is so interesting that if RedState doesn’t follow suit, and talk her/him up all day every day, they are remiss in their duties to honor the Palin/Paul. Why exactly is RedState expected to honor and adore particular candidates? Heck RedState hosted the Perry announcement, and even he is honestly critiqued. Some need to just get over themselves, and their candidates as being the only ones needing talked about.

      • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

        But I think it’s a shame the management here validates snark like this.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      That’s the point.

      Why would we keep our seats warm for a non-candidate? If the shows not playing, why stay? If she’s not a candidate, yes, it doesnt matter what anyone thinks. or does.

      if in fact she really is a candidate, then she might as well let everyone in on the secret and make it real. It does matter what people think if she is a candidate because she needs the good opinion of lots of people to become the next President.

  • http://www.usdebateboard.com usdebateboard

    She has said she’ll announce, or not by the end of September.

    But that hasn’t stopped anyone one from handicapping her as a flake.

  • benko

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us/10iht-currents10.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1315569719-RpR5AuX40tZqZl8xOiUg7g

    I’m not familiar with Anand Giridharadas

    She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a ?permanent political class,? drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called ?corporate crony capitalism.? Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private). ,,,

    Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism.