TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
24.10.2008
Palin in 2012? No Way

On Wednesday, Jon Chait predicted that Palin would be the GOP nominee for president in 2012. That’s a bet I’ll gladly take, since I happen to think there’s zero chance of it happening.

My confidence is based on five things:

1.) Infrastructure. Yes, Palin is “wildly popular with the Republican base,” as Jon says. But there’s a big difference between being popular and translating popularity into money and votes. To do the latter, you need an organization of loyal, experienced operatives willing to devote themselves fulltime to a multi-year effort. Without that stuff, you’re just Fred Thompson—a popular idea that never pans out in reality. (I’d emphasize here that Jon thought Thompson had a "very strong" shot at the GOP nomination.)

Unfortunately for Palin, the only organization she can claim outside the McCain campaign is her husband Todd and a gang of Wasilla cronies—not exactly a Lincoln-esque team of rivals. And, while it’s possible that she’ll attract some interest from veteran Washington hands rooting around for the next big thing, I doubt the likes of Bill Kristol and Grover Norquist are going to ship off to Alaska to lay the groundwork for Palin ’12. As Thompson proved, it’s not enough to have a few opportunistic wiseguys occasionally phoning in advice. You need real loyalists.

2.) Jon concedes that “some conservative commentators have attacked her,” but adds that “these are a small minority and almost all of them work for publications aimed at mainstream readers, not the conservative subculture.” I’m not sure this is right. Yes, David Brooks works for a mainstream outlet. But Kathleen Parker lacerated Palin in National Review, while Peggy Noonan did the same in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages. If there’s a better way to influence conservative opinion (at least in print), I’m not aware of it.

Anyway, I'm not so sure that the distinction between mainstream and conservative publications matters much these days. Former Bush speechwriter and conservative-in-good-standing David Frum laid into Palin in the National Post--not exactly the house organ of the conservative movement. But I doubt it passed into the ether without right-wing blog-readers hearing about it first. (Likewise, I'd guess Kristol's pronouncements in the Times get as much play on conservative blogs as his pronouncements in The Weekly Standard.)

More importantly, while I agree that Palin's critics are a minority on the right, that can hardly be reassuring to her. Partisans are loath to criticize their own in the closing weeks of a campaign. Surely numerous conservative Palin skeptics are keeping quiet till after the election, when there's no risk of hurting their party. Which is to say, we’re clearly looking at the floor for Palin criticism, not the ceiling. It’ll get much worse from here on out.

3.) The McCain campaign has expertly exploited two grievances to deflect criticism from Palin: They either dismiss it as sexism or liberal media bias. The problem in a GOP primary is that it'll be fellow Republicans--that is, Palin's rivals for the nomination--who do the criticizing, rendering the media-bias charge inoperative. And while she can try to play the gender card, it’s not a charge that typically resonates with conservatives (that is, unless they can use it to bash Democrats and the media).

4.) There will be plenty of other candidates to fill Palin’s niche in 2012--except much, much more competently. Mike Huckabee, for one, has demonstrated both an appeal to populist-minded social conservatives and an ability to speak coherently without notes or a teleprompter. Bobby Jindal has done the same. I have a hard time seeing Palin as much of a match-up for either of them.

5.) As I’ve argued before, Palin doesn’t wear well over any extended length of time—the reason being that her chief asset is novelty, which fades by definition. I’d venture that one reason she remains so popular among working-class conservatives is that they follow politics less closely than the rest of us, meaning they’ve had less time to get burnt out on her. (Though I’d concede that her appeal to this group is based on more than novelty alone.) Unfortunately, a presidential primary is one of the most drawn-out, grueling selection processes ever devised. If Palin didn’t wear well in a two-month campaign, I have a hard time believing she’ll wear well over an 18-month primary season.

Having said all that, Palin will clearly have enough residual support to mount some sort of campaign. Given her willingness to knee-cap former allies, I’m as eager as Chait for the next primary season to get here.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:13 AM with 49 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

JEFF FREY said:

Solidly argued, Noam. I think you are correct on all 5 points. I think the knives are going to come out on the day after the election, and she is going to be carved up by enough prominent Republicans to leave some lasting scars.

Her biggest problem is that she really is as ignorant as she seems. Apparently she descended into full BS-mode and word salad in an interview with James Dobson, of all people. The gotcha question? What did she think about the Republican platform? She just didn't know enough to give a coherent answer.

October 24, 2008 12:51 AM

Crock1701 said:

Also, don't forget the history factor: Only two failed Vice Presidential Candidates have won their party's nomination.  FDR, after losing on the Cox ticket in 1920, ran and won in 1932, and Dole, losing with Ford in '76, got the nomination to lose in '96.  The two common factors here?  Both ran several cycles after their previous effort, and both greatly deepened their resumes in the interim.  FDR served four years as Gov. of New York and beat Polio, Dole ended up becoming Senate Leader for the GOP.  The road, however, is littered with former Veep nominees who crash and burn four  years later, should they run.  Edwards in 2008, Lieberman in 2004, Muskie in 1972.  Dole himself was wiped out in his 1980 attempt, getting all of 597 votes in the New Hampshire primary.  History suggests Palin '12 won't be successful.  However, if the GOP wants to get Goldwatered again, more power to 'em.

October 24, 2008 1:03 AM

AlanSP said:

With regard to point 1, it's worth noting that Obama didn't exactly have a huge apparatus in place as of 4 years ago either.

October 24, 2008 1:33 AM

psantillana said:

Alan, Obama four years ago had that speech at the convention, and a book that everyone loved. And a brain in his head. Palin has insanely high negatives, which increase the more people see of her. This "energized base" everyone talks about - how many people is that actually? And then how many people will crawl across broken glass to vote against her? The only Republicans in my family jumped the McCain ship because of the Palin pick. I don't want to call them rats, but hey.

Is Chait some kind of paranoid masochist? I just do not get this at all. Honestly, I don't even see her running.

October 24, 2008 2:00 AM

tomeg said:

Noam loses a screw or two:

"Having said all that, Palin will clearly have enough residual support to mount some sort of campaign. Given her willingness to knee-cap former allies, I’m as eager as Chait for the next primary season to get here."

Are you out of your friggin' minds??? You guys need a vacation. Seriously.

October 24, 2008 2:41 AM

epicciuto said:

I hate to be crude here, but looks are a factor. Note the difference in poll numbers for her between men and women. Note that the percentage of women among the conservative pundits who have come out against her. I'm guessing that has a lot to do with her looks. Men are more liable than women to go gaga for her and overlook her lack of preparedness, etc.

And she will be 48 in 2012. She's a really good-looking 44, and I'm sure she'll be a very attractive 48. But still. Less attractive. Men might not go so weak-kneed at the sight of her, and she'll lose some of her starburst power. Winks and adorable nose wrinkles don't work as well from women of a certain age. Unfortunate (indeed, one of the cruel truths of the world), but true.

October 24, 2008 7:20 AM

Nusholtz said:

I think fair is fair.  Tina Fey should run and then Sarah Palin can do impressions of her.  

October 24, 2008 7:52 AM

janus said:

Krauthammer has a column out this morning in which he explains his vote for McCain while bemoaning what he sees as the primary mistake of the campaign: what he calls "extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness," that being that "McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright." Conservative commentators are finally coming around to doing the pre-mortems that others in the media started weeks ago, but I think you'll find that most are already blaming not Palin, but McCain. Those that blame Palin are being shown the door, and in the rage-filled environment that will be the Republican party after November 4th, I don't think the scapegoating is likely to die down. I think we can expect a witch-hunt, and the self-proclaimed proud maverick who they never really trusted to begin with and ran a campaign they decry as not vile enough looks like the most likely victim.

Noam is correct to note that Palin doesn't have a strong national infrastructure as yet, but (much as I hate to do this) we do have to be conscious of the fact that despite being a scintillating intellect on par with the brightest of rocks, when it comes to campaigning, she's got game. Two years ago, she didn't just win a gubernatorial election; she took down an incumbent governor of her own party. Today, she's the Vice-Presidential nominee that outshines the Presidential. She draws rallies of tens of thousands in deep blue states.

Buckley and Noonan and the rest might be being intellectually honest, but they don't sway the opinion of the Republican party any more than E.J. Dionne or Eugene Robinson drive the opinions of the Democratic. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are the opinion drivers of this modern Republican party. These guys thrive on anger and hate, , and they love Palin.

The next four years are going to see the Republican party purging itself of the impure. Who better to carry the banner of a newly immaculate Republican party, cleansed of even the slightest comingling of moderate blood, than a woman who's unabashedly pro-gun, against abortion in all cases, for an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment, for teaching creationism, for continuing the Republican war on science, AND stands ready to decry the hated liberal for what he is-a socialist, terrorist, anti-American OTHER that hates your marriage, your children, and your belief in God?

Mike Huckabee doesn't have the inner core of awfulness necessary to appeal to what the Republican party will be after four years of mindless fury. And Jindal...well...let's face it. Voters can overlook many sins, but to take up the mantle of the war against the Other, you can't look too different. Besides, Jindal is 37 and smart. Biden isn't going to run for President in 2016 at the age of 73, so Jindal can wait 'til then, run against a non-incumbent, and still be the candidate of youth and vigor at 45.

Palin doesn't have what it would take to bring down a popular incumbent President, but if she wants to be the nominee, I think it'll be hers for the taking. And I'll toss some money her way to make sure it happens. (I've seen others on these boards with the same intention-we should form a committee.)

October 24, 2008 7:53 AM

sdemuth said:

"I'm guessing that has a lot to do with her looks. Men are more liable than women to go gaga for her and overlook her lack of preparedness, etc."

She looks good?  After how many drinks?

And come on - most men learn to stop thinking with their balls by the time they're in their 30s and likely to vote.

Don't they?

October 24, 2008 8:09 AM

raylward said:

Janus, great post.  I would add only one other point.  Palin, as GWB before her, was picked by the Republican Party elite, namely Bill Kristol and the othes at the WS and the NR.   She did not rise spontaneously from the rank and file.  See Jane Mayer's article in this month's New Yorker.  I do not doubt Palin's sincerity.  As with another time and another political movement, she is the "useful idiot" of the elite.  

October 24, 2008 8:22 AM

Mozier said:

I personally predict that Palin will get her own show on FOX News and be a sensational hit.  Seriously.  A beautiful, folksy-yet-stylish stirrer of hate-filled lies in the ongoing culture war -- it's a perfect fit for her.  Passionate misinformation and baseless generalizations abound on FOX and naturally flow from Palin's telegenic lips.  No doubt FOX has already approached her...

October 24, 2008 8:37 AM

Nusholtz said:

About Gov. Palin's power of appearance as a candidate.  Years ago Al Franken and Deborah Norville were on Politically Incorrect discussing how the shallow electorate is taken in by appearances.  Deborah Norville argued that "the babe might work now, but pretty soon the babe will wear off."  Franken looked at her and said, "I guess that's what happened to Shirley Chisolm."

October 24, 2008 8:57 AM

Wasatcher said:

Palin is presently a candidate whose popularity does not extend beyond the Repuclican right wing base. The energy in the next four years among the Republican camp is going to go into figuring out what the hell happened and how to rebuild. Frum and others have already begun the process. This is not just one lost election, this appears to be a real sea change. I doubt the new Republican party will be built on the same foundation of refighting the sixties culture war that worked for half a century but now smells so badly of defeat.

The reactionary far right has never been the source of real intellectual energy for building the Republican party. The party has used them, taken them for granted as the Dems have taken African Americans for granted, and eventually handed over power to them and watched them squander it. But the reactionary far right has never been the real fuel of the party when it came to ideas or governing. In their hubris, they came believe that because they brought in money and got out the vote, they were the wellspring of American conservatism. They aren't and they never were. They were just money and votes energized by hatred, and the party used them because it got them power. But that trophy wife has aged and all the botox in the world -- not to mention lipstick -- isn't going to make the pig look pretty.

The Republican party will not be looking to Palin as the new Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan or Gingrich.If she is able to organize as Obama did (right!) and gain a large following in the GOP, then I would not be surprised to see a third party arise in reaction to that. The brains of the right are not going to sit idly by for years as she leads the party toward empty-headed fascism. Look what she's done for party unity in two months, then imagine smart people on the right looking to her for leadership for periods of years. Palin's worse enemies are the intellectual right. Instead of defending Palin did as they did Reagan when he was attacked for being vacuous, they will be her most ferocious attackers. In this scenario Palin could truly be the end of the Republican party. I'll say it agian -- this is a sea change, the new conservative wine will not be put in the old bottle of the sixties culture war. That, I believe we can say now, is a battle that is over. It energized the right for a long time, but it's not working now and it will probably never work again. Screaming "Commie! Hippie! Ni**er!" no longer has the magic power it once had. Not with the new generation. The right must find new ideas and new enemies.

October 24, 2008 8:58 AM

satyendra said:

Epiciutto, Sdemuth, LOL.  It seems as though people have as strong opinions on her looks as they do her mind.  For what this is worth I think she's attractive, and her $150K wardrobe looks good on her.  But I have a hard time separating people's looks from their personality, so whenever I see freeze frames of Palin's pinched nose snarl her physical attractiveness is for me diminished.  I'm thinking maybe that's why people react viscerally to the idea of her being a "sex kitten," here and in the previous thread.

October 24, 2008 9:17 AM

dbhuff said:

I'm afraid it isn't so simple:

1) She IS wildly popular, AND their most successful fund raiser. This is an opportunity that someone will take. Maybe like Rove, they will be her Henry Higgins and 'coach' her through to the nomination. She also has some skills, speechifying, a connection with 'average joe's', etc. The GOP will be in complete disarray after the Nov 4 meltdown, and there will be all sorts of internecine fighting, but remember the Dems in '04, it doesn't take that long to stage a comeback.

2) It depends a lot on how the GOP breaks up and reforms. This is the knife edge issue. Will they pursue the social conservative, culture war route one more time or will they go back to Reagan roots in a more traditional conservatism. I can't tell right now, but Palin's chances clearly lie in one of those directions and are near zero in another. This is really also a function of how well and truly Obama splits the evangelical vote, if he does get a fairly large share, Palin is done. There will be those who blame Palin for the loss, and there will be those who say Palin didn't get there in time to save the nomination. I really hope, for the level of discourse in this country and so that we don't have any more Bush presidencies, that the GOP takes this opportunity to look at the issues, the ideology, and the platform and kick the culture warriors out. But it really will be between the Rovian win at any cost crowd and the Frum/Brooks/Sullivan thoughtful conservative crowd (who would pose a much more serious threat I think)

3) Palin and the gender card? It will be played no matter what unless she's up against another woman. Rmember the Obama/Clinton race? What's ironic is the 'startburst' Palin is not at all above using her feminine wiles, and has apparently seduced a lot of men on the Right, but god forbid you actually make some comment about her being a women. Lib bias will still be there too; "the press wants liberal women to carry the torch, not a conservative hockey mom, bear shooter, etc."

4) Competence. Here's hoping, it really would be nice to have a good debate between competent politicians. However, that's not the road the GOP has been following. Competence = elitism. Education = feeling superior, etc. I hope you are right, it depends on which faction wins after Nov 4.

5) I'm not convinced of this either. The Alaskans still have very high regard for her. After a pretty public negative thrashing even by her home newspaper and now nearly 2 years in office.

No, and I hate to be sexist here, but time is her enemy. Conservative men especially consider her 'perfect': beautiful, strong woman, hunting partner, take care of children (although one wonders given how they are turning out...), salt of the earth, prairie mom. In 2012, the clock won't have hindered her much, but assuming a reasonable level of competence on Obama's part, we are really talking about 2016. Eight years will dim some of her appeal on this level. I've not seen any evidence yet that she can make up for it with, you know, competence.

I agree with Mazier, excellent punditry potential, can out Rush Rush or paired with Hanity for a 1-2 punch of intellectually empty gotcha journalism. She would be great at it, but it would kill her career in politics as she would be seen as too partisan (e.g. Alan Keyes). Same time problem though. She's going to have to see if she would rather grab the money now, or take a shot in 8 years. Janus too, but it depends on which faction wins. After all, if the intellectuals get kicked out, they'll have to come to our side! And the virulent Rushites will diminish to a 30% Party I think. But you are right, there will be those who blame the Maverick's 'moderateness' for the loss. But I might throw her a few bucks too, to continue the meltdown!

And before I get flamed by the gender card here, this is the game SHE's playing. I know women like this in business, who use feminine wiles, not that they sleep around or anything, just they know they can take advantage of men because of their looks. She's a good enough clothes horse not to overdo it. A little flattery, nice clothes, $400 hair, some nicely turned leg (did you see her skirt in the CNN interview?) and you've got an introduction that would be hard to get any other way. And most of these women I know are competent, aggressive, professionals just using their talents. I just have seen no evidence of that from Palin yet. But no wonder she can really work the fundraising circuit.

October 24, 2008 9:21 AM

janus said:

Wasatcher - You are absolutely correct that Palin's popularity does not extend beyond the Republican right-wing base. She is horrifying to Democrats, merely repulsive to Independents. However, after November 4th, the Republican party won't care anymore. Their sense of anger at wrongfully being forced from power (witness the rage at ACORN already) will be all-consuming, and it willl shrink the party, almost down to only that right-wing base.

It's like a nuclear fusion reaction - implosion, followed by explosion.

For a while, the Republican party IS going to be about screaming "Commie! Hippie! Ni**er!" But you are also right that it no longer has the magic power it once had.

People who are talking about November 4th as the end of the Republican party are wrong. It will take another four years and Governor Palin as the Republican Presidential Nominee to end the party, and I think they're gearing up to give us just that.

October 24, 2008 9:27 AM

drozenson said:

As a man who is not afraid of women with IQs in three digits,  I find Michelle Obama a lot more attractive than Sarah Palin by every measure.  (And no less qualified to be VP.)

October 24, 2008 9:34 AM

Wasatcher said:

Janus, all your points are well made. In addition to the question of ideology, where Palin does energize the far right, there is the issue of competence. Now being a national political super-star, Palin will never be able to operate as she did before in Alaska. She was running her big state with the teeny population like it was a small town. Now everything she does will be done under the microscope of national media. Let's see who runs against her in 2010, what arguments they use against her and how effective they are. There's a good chance that in 2012 Sarah Palin will be as well remembered as, say, Thomas Eagleton or Ed Muskie.

I'm also one of those who expect her to get her own show on Fox.

October 24, 2008 9:54 AM

dbhuff said:

drozenson, ditto that. She's hot between the ears too!

October 24, 2008 10:03 AM

michael said:

The demographic core of the generation that carried the GOP for forty years is dying. In 2012 how many people will hold an attachment to a party that has been failing for two decades? They needed an infusion of new blood in the past eight years and since '92 they weren't making enough sales to people born after 1960.

A Palinesque person is their best hope because the line-up from their last primary may have an impossible task to repudiate their ties to the past. But she has only proved she lacks any substance to support the package that first attracted. However, the new and improved GOP can't rely, emerge or depend on Obama's failure. They can't spend the next four years as they spent the past months because they won't inspire the center with negativism. A GOP without a message of hope will only appeal to a shrinking population and a narrow base who wishes to cling to nostalgia and I don't think they have the numbers with a long enough memory.

They might find their answers in Beinart's and Judis' recent books who showed us where the battles will be won. But Palin seems the least likely of the known names to find comfort in that foreign territory we know as the left side of the right or even the center. Her best chance has already expired and without a radical transformation she'll appear more shrill and mean. As a pre-Bush candidate she might have succeeded but her current rant will find little appeal with people who are alive in four more years.

October 24, 2008 10:07 AM

Wasatcher said:

Dionne has an interesting take on it.

www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008102302869.html

October 24, 2008 10:08 AM

Wasatcher said:

Remember also, that if this discussion about the future of conservatism were taking place two months ago, the name Palin would likely not come up. In other words, if there was one game-changer hidden out there, who's to say there aren't more. I expect there will be new names emerge. Jindal and Pawlenty aren't the only possibilities. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, we don't know whom we don't know. But I expect the new names will be those not carrying the baggage of the sixties.

October 24, 2008 10:14 AM

satyendra said:

Drozenson, yes, I've also wondered if Ms. Obama could have a political future, following Sen. Clinton's route.

October 24, 2008 10:20 AM

timteeter said:

1. I have seen zero evidence to date that Palin could handle her own television of talk radio show.  Reading a script and fielding questions even from friendly listeners are two quite different things.

2.  Palin will need to get past a challenge in Alaska in two years.  I do not believe that this is a foregone conclusion.

3. Palin is an attractive woman.  She will still be an attractive woman in four, or even eight, years.  So what?  Once the "bimbo" label gets attached, it is very, very hard to take it off.  Moreover, the requirements for women candidates in the GOP are likely to suffer from the same unfairness as those for racial minorities generally--just being as smart or capable as your opponents will not be enough.  Instead, the first successful woman candidate will need to show that she is significantly *smarter* and works *harder* than her male opponents.  Al Sharpton was never going to get the Democratic nomination, and Sarah Palin will never come close to the Republican nomination either.

October 24, 2008 10:21 AM

Lundell said:

As I posted late on Chait's entry, I think Palin's future in the electoral side of the business might be ending and I basically agree with your assessment Noam.  The "Passed Over Boy's Club" of 2008 currently headed by Minnesota Governor Pawlenty and soon to include Jindal and Cantor among its membership are going to try to tar Palin as the reason McCain went down and will point to her relatively high negatives as a reason she cannot ever become POTUS.  I am sure they will try to do this as politely as possible, but it will be ironic in a sad way when the dissemble Palin and in the process show what the Republican base reallly thinks about women.

Plus, I expect Jindal and Pawlenty to propose all kinds of "Cato-branded new ideas" (oxymoron if I've ever written one) in their upcoming legislative sessions and face it, there is only so much you can do in Alaska that will sell as a "big idea" in the rest of the US due to Alaska's oil wealth.

I go back and forth on Palin.  Having watched Michelle Bachmann up close in Minnesota, I think if you scratch Palin's surface, you pretty much find the same content and unfortunately for Palin, that platform quickly turns to poison as it's relatively easy to draw it across a line that makes the mass populace shake its collective head.  

That being said, I watched the Palin skits from SNL and I thought she performed admirably and in a perfect world for her, she could be a sort of "happy warrior" for the conservative movement.  The problem is that the conservative movement has become so angry that resurrecting Reagan probably doesn't work anymore.

In my understatement of the week, I'll just say watching her activities in the next year or two will be interesting.

October 24, 2008 10:21 AM

blackton said:

epic, thanks for saying it. As a guy if I were to say it I would be labeled sexist. I would never be able to get beyond her winking at the camera during the VP debate. Has any serious candidate in a serious situation (which the Debate most surely is) ever flirted with the camera? How dumb does she think most of America is to be swayed by that?

No one here is thinking like a Conservative Fundie. They won't vote for a woman at the top of the ticket. The Bible forbids it. As VP, absolutely because the VP is a wife in a way, but for President, no way. I am not saying it is all fundies, many people will rationalize it, but a very high percentage, especially in Iowa won't go for her at all. Don't forget, none of them went for Mormon Mitt based soley on his religion, the same will apply to Sarah and her sex.

I am with others here that she will have a Fox show. I doubt she herself has the wherewithal to campaign for years at a time, she would be missing out on the lives of her children for months at a time. Maybe she thinks it will be handed to her, but it certainly won't.

Noam is right, there is absolutely no chance she will be the nominee.

By the way, tomeg is right, I sure as hell can wait for 2012.

October 24, 2008 10:23 AM

kbecker said:

It's very hard to predict GOP's actions in four years since the lost this year will force some sort of change: the Republicans are going to have to tranform and it's hard to predict what they're going to tranform into. That being said, Mike Huckabee is pretty much Palin but without the negatives. In fact, he's already playing nice with all the different splintered groups of the GOP.

October 24, 2008 10:33 AM

satyendra said:

"As a guy if I were to say it I would be labeled sexist." Blackton, on yesterday's Palin 2012 thread you did say it and I labeled you sexist.  My issue wasn't so much your observation about how Palin's act will get tired the older she gets.  Observations about individuals' attractiveness are fair game, and I happened to agree with you on Sarah Palin.  My problem was your generalization to all womankind that they get only old, whereas men get distinguished first.  That reminded me of a conversation I had years ago with a guy in his '50s, so around 20 years older than I.  He was divorced and looking to date (not me, by the way).  He talked about how he wanted a younger woman because women his age are so bitter.  Men roll with the punches better.  He wants someone with soft skin.  I felt some sharp but fleeting indignation that was replaced by incredulity at his lack of reality. This wasn't a man offering anything like what he was asking.  I simply asked him, "do you have soft skin?"

Also, I think he had some money from various restaurant or entertainment ventures / venues, so perhaps he'd attract the sort of trophy that would only feel bitter once he discarded her.

Your comment yesterday reminded me of this man, but based on your other posts I'd like to think better of you than that.

October 24, 2008 10:58 AM

JEFF FREY said:

Despite some good arguments to the contrary posted here, I still think Noam is right. Yes, she will have some supporters on the afar right, and yes, I think she could make a run. But even though many on the right will blame McCain, enough of them are going to blame McCain for picking Palin that she is not going to come out scot-free. Several more thoughts, bullet-style in honor of my gun-lovin' Governor:

- To have a chance, she has to be reasonably successful in her next two years as Governor. Not a given at all. Her popularity has dropped 20 points already, and that was before the clothes and the latest AP story on her kids travel (the detail that will resonate is that she retroactively added justifications to make the kids travel seem official). Plus, there are multiple ongoing investigations now, and negative results will trickle in over time, even if there are no bombshells. Her image has been tarnished, and the image and huge popularity was what allowed her to step on the Legislature. Now they are on more equal terms, and she will have trouble (and she will be facing payback from people she stepped on during the rise). The dynamics have changed in another critical way. If the price of oil stays where it is, the state faces a budget deficit rather than a surplus, and she has to deal with that and also keep the gas line project moving forward.

- She does have to finish out her term. Unless there is a miracle McCain comeback, there is no national job that would be offered to her that would make her regretfully leave Alaska before she is done. That means 2 years in obscurity, and when she is done it will be the start of the 2012 race already (ugh).

- A punditry position? Get real! To do that she has to show the ability to perform in unscripted situations. She can barely form complete sentences when she has to diverge from prepared talking points. She would be a disaster. She needs a teleprompter, period. Limbaugh is a BS machine, but he speaks coherent English. Palin was weak on specifics and policy even in her run in Alaska. She has always been weak on content, strong on style.

- Yes, age is going to dim her star in a way that it would not for a male politician, or a female politician who rose based on brains. If she is forced to compete on her ideas instead of her "charm", she loses.

October 24, 2008 11:47 AM

JEFF FREY said:

Satyendra, your story is not surprising, and I think we both agree that what he was offering in lieu of soft skin was described in your second-to-last paragraph.

October 24, 2008 11:54 AM

kikiduck said:

Liks GWB, Palin is the perfect example of the "Peter Principle," and that being said, she will be a likely candidate for the GOP in 2012. Let's face it, they probably want to run a woman and if another "attractive"  (of course, it took $150,000 to bring it about) woman doesn't surface, Palin's a good bet. Also, we have to face the fact that part of the reason McCain is behind in the polls is because he just isn't bulldog enough for his party. Palin is. Those and other irrational factors could make her the next GOP candidate - if she can stay out of jail!

October 24, 2008 12:06 PM

debbrodie@optonline.net said:

God forbid, smething tragic happens to President Obama in the next 4 years. President Biden steps up and continues his over the top- type rants and gaffe-prone  moments and has a 38% approval rate going into the next election cycle. How does a Clinton vs Palin election sound to everyone?

October 24, 2008 12:12 PM

PeteBeck said:

There is very little chance that Palin will be the GOP nominee in 2012.  Here's why:

1)  Republicans want to win, do not want to be a permanently minority right wing party.  The Palin we know cannot possibly win a general election.  Her ideology and her competence are not admired by a majority of the voters.

2)  Even if she moves to the center and, with substantial coaching, improves her perceived competence, four years is not enough time to change.

3)  In 2012 she will be running against Obama or, if something happens to him, against Biden.  Since almost anything they will do will  most likelyresult in an improvement over the current situation, they will be seen as successful and henc relatively unbeatable.  If things do get worse, none but the hard core right wingers would possibly trust Palin to turn things around or, even, to appear to be able to turn things around.

October 24, 2008 12:14 PM

Daily Intel said:

In a party and campaign already splitting its seams, many people think Palin will come out of this campaign clean, and emerge as the Republican front-runner for 2012.

October 24, 2008 12:17 PM

Wasatcher said:

A lot can happen in four years.

As to Palin's prospects in entertainment, the Hollywood Reporter today leads with "Sarah Plain: future media star?"

www.hollywoodreporter.com/.../e3icc3b73373ecfd4eb935ddcc53cb38f27

October 24, 2008 12:20 PM

blackton said:

satyendra, you are absolutely right, the jerk you are talking about is what I see over and over again myself. I badly phrased it, I meant more that Handsome men are viewed in society as becoming more distinguished first, then old, whereas beauty queens shelf life is shorter. I simply can not see Palin as anything more than a beauty queen. Her flirting to the camera during the debate was horrendous, she freaking winked! How she is not viewed as a laughingstock by everyone for that is, well I won't say surprising, but still I think it will go down in the annals of history as an embarrasment for both sexes.

As to thinking better of me, I strongly warn you against it as I am a horrid misanthrope.

October 24, 2008 12:24 PM

stgla said:

Long thread! In case it hasn't been said before, I think Palin will be blamed for McCain's loss and will be banished from national politics forever.  Dukakis went, undeservedly in my opinion, from superstar (sorta) technocrat to has-been loser almost overnight. I expect the same fate for Ms. Palin. She is D-U-M-B and cannot possibly hold a real job.  Maybe she could do infomercials or host an exercise program.

October 24, 2008 1:42 PM

sportdoc62 said:

I was just thinking that the better analogy might be to rudy giuliani, who had "star power" and fox news as his own personal promotion vehicle, but who tanked so fast it is hard to recall how powerful a celebrity he once was.  Too much time had passed between his "accomplishments" as a mayor, and his status as a symbol of post-911 America faded with the protraction of the war, the revelations about its wisdom, and the absence of new attacks.  Of course, it did not help that rudi's campaign made a series of colossal errors (though, true to the naught era, his ego has remained inversely proportional to his actual successes).  GWB will be this same sort of figure in short order.  I imagine that the problems to which sarah palin might be seen as a "solution" now will be a distant memory very quickly.  I also don't imagine her return to Alaska is going to be pleasant.

October 24, 2008 2:33 PM

rlranger said:

As a former Alaskan who has actually met Sarah Palin and who is familiar with her political achievements in the 49th state, I will simply observe that there is a tremendous amount of wis-is-the-father-to-the-thought going on in this thread. No, she's not a Rhodes Scholar. But she does not fit easily into the Toys-'r-Us right wing social issue box that many here have fabricated for her. She is not dumb -- she possesses a considerable amount of political street smarts, thus far demonstrated only in an Alaskan context, that earned her a decisive primary victory over a sitting governor and former senator, and a solid win against a man who was at the time Alaska's favorite Democrat. She is also resilient, an attribute of no inconsiderable value in politics.  She ran for lieutenant governor about four years earlier than she should have, narrowly lost to a more seasoned, more experienced and more well-known legislator, accepted a political appointment from former Governor Murkowski, and used that appointment to learn a good deal about one of the central subjects in the Alaskan political economy -- oil and gas. I do agree with those who suggest that she is going to have her hands full on return to Alaska, and that any next steps for her on the national stage will depend upon her performance as governor and as a politician in the remaining years of her term.  Outcomes there are far from clear.  I also agree that if she chooses to harbor ambitions for a return engagement on the natinoal stage, she is going to have to find both a brain trust and a circle of loyal advisers of national vision and scope that she does not now have -- and they're going to have to find ways to work with her in Alaska.  Those are long supply lines, and there will be many other bidders for their talent, such as it may be. Coming from a more or less libertarian leaning state, she will understand that she has to campaign as more than the poster girl for the social issue base -- particularly if (as it appears) the numbers from this election pencil out as a repudiation of that constituency. That may or may not be easy for her, and she may or may not be convincing if she adapts to a different political paradigm. But do not underestimate her resourcefulness or her savvy. There are an awful llot of politicians of national scope now who started out as essentially local dinner theatre acts, many of whom skinned their knees on local kerfluffles that it would take a reporter with a historian's bent to ferret out. I'm not saying "buy" Sarah Palin stock.  Nor am I saying she's the next right wing A-Rod. What I am saying is that those who disagree with her may wish to rest content with their disagreement, and not assume that because they disagree with her she must be an idiot.  That's liberal arrogance at its two-dimensional best.  Anyone who can go on SNL after having her caricature become a national YouTube phenomenon has balls -- even if they're hidden under some very fetching skirts. I'd make fewer predictions about Sarah palin and do more watching -- even if my money right now is on Jindal in '12.

October 24, 2008 2:58 PM

lightburn said:

Palin had some ambition to be a sportscaster, remember?  I think the talk of her getting into politics overlooks the fact that she'd be perfect as a commentator on Fox, say.  The appearance issue is natural there, and while she may not be a deep thinker, I'm not sure that any one else in the news biz is much deeper, and she can be just as articulate.

My money is on her going for the money, which doesn't lead to electoral office, but rather to the tube.  We'll have her to kick around for a while yet (alas).

October 24, 2008 4:12 PM

kikiduck said:

Meant to add in my first post that those of us who were living in Texas when GWB beat Governor Richards remember saying to one another, "Oh, no. You don't suppose they'll run him for president, and if they do, will he win?" They did and he did (twice!). So, we who sit around and think a lot know that presidents are elected by those who do not sit around and think. They are elected by folks who go with their gut and mine just can't stand the thought of Palin in 2012.

October 24, 2008 4:16 PM

psantillana said:

rlranger, you can get away with the kind of smarts she has in AK* - what an elitist might call "peasant cunning" - but it's not going to fly nationwide. We already know and hate her. Those of us not blinded by her looks.

*I lived there for awhile, so I get to say that.

October 24, 2008 4:57 PM

satyendra said:

rlanger, "What I am saying is that those who disagree with her may wish to rest content with their disagreement, and not assume that because they disagree with her she must be an idiot.  That's liberal arrogance at its two-dimensional best. " The problem is almost more that she doesn't seem to have any opinions to agree or disagree with, at least none that she can articulate in English. True, before the V. P. debate I saw a 3+ min. YouTube amalgamation of her various AK debate performances where I thought she spoke OK, but she hasn't this time.

So, I'm left with looking at her Wasilla record, her Troopergate problems, her petty put-downs of community organizers, and not agree with that.

October 24, 2008 5:04 PM

blackton said:

rlranger, it is Alaska after all. Big fish, small pond. If you live in a pond, she seems big, put her in the ocean, well, you see the results. Her unfavorables are higher than her favorables. All of this in 2 months.

October 24, 2008 6:32 PM

The Plank said:

Not a good week for Republicans, beginning with Colin Powell's moving endorsement of Obama (although

October 24, 2008 7:09 PM

frilz1 said:

I see Palin finishing out her term as governor of Alaska and then signing a multi-year, multi-million dollar a year contract with Fox News & becoming a sort of hybrid version of Pat Buchanan, where she can go on TV and shoot off her big mouth. I don't think she has that much interest in actually running for office, as she didn't even bother to ask anyone exactly what a vice president DOES.

October 25, 2008 3:03 PM

moran@sbc.edu said:

What is Anne Coulter doing these days? A couple of years ago she had some media life as an attractive (if you like anorexics) Repub. Thing is, tho, she had a vicious wit and some knowledge of politics. La Palin on the other hand shd kiss politics good-bye and take that spot that Fox is surely offering her for a talky-talk show. Martha Stewart's brush with the law only enhanced her career, after all. I see Sarah as the guru for moms with problem kids and dude-y hubbies. Add make-up tips and fashion advice. The world of superficiality is hers to conquer. And she will.

The Republican party will examine seriously where they went wrong this time around. Their solution will not include re-running Palin. No way in hell.

If we Dems think we can depend on a Repub party that will repeat the mistakes of the McCain/Palin candidacy, we're tragically mistaken.

October 27, 2008 10:48 AM

The Stump said:

Both The New York Times and Politico have stories today previewing conservatives' plans to meet shortly

October 29, 2008 11:38 AM

The Stump said:

I've generally avoided commenting on Sarah Palin since the election--I'm of the view that she's

November 12, 2008 5:39 PM