| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Palin's future |
| 2008-11-05 |
| Jim Geraghty, National Review A few readers have asked whether I think Sarah Palin will run for the Senate in the future. I think that would be a mistake, for several reasons, not the least of which is that, if successful, the decision would take an unique and popular outside-the-beltway executive and put her inside the Beltway as one of 100 legislators voting on every bill that comes down the pike. For now, I hope Sarah Palin gets to take a vacation and spend some much-deserved time with that beautiful family. Her experience these past four months must have been simultaneously exhilarating, supremely frustrating, and thoroughly exhausting. I hope Palin runs for a second term as governor and is reelected. This seems like a likely scenario. Beyond that, her future is a blank slate. If she decided, after this rollercoaster experience, that she was no longer all that interested in national office, I could not blame her. But I suspect that she realizes the strengths she has and the opportunities that will await her. The Republican base loves Sarah Palin. Many Democrats instantly loathed her, at least partially because they sensed an almost unparalleled threat; a few couldn't help but like her even if they disagreed with her. Independents concluded she wasn't ready -- not that she wasn't likeable, and not that she wasn't an impressive person, but that she wasn't ready. Yet. In four or eight years, after a full term or two of governing and involving herself in the conservative movement, . . . especially after the Obambi has gotten his fans all nicely disillusioned. This flaw can be overcome with time and useful experience. If Palin wants a future in national office, I hope she takes some time to deeply contemplate where she wants to take the country. I suspect she'll write a book about her experience on the campaign trail; I hope she writes a separate one, when she's ready, about her vision for the country. She indeed could be the next Reagan; the challenge this time was that she was running as the Ronald Reagan of about 1969, after about two years as governor. It's easy to forget how much time Reagan spent touring and speaking at General Electric plants, a thousand radio addresses, newspaper columns, etc. He familiarized himself with every major economic, social, and foreign policy topic under the sun, and figured out what he wanted American policy to do and how it should go about doing it. Very, very few political figures think through these key questions so thoroughly. A lot of the Palin criticism was unfair, but the Peggy Noonans of the world have something of a point when they say she has as-yet incomplete political philosophy. Until the end of August, Sarah Palin didn't really need one; her natural instincts were sufficient to successfully navigate the treacherous world of Alaskan politics. And there is really no deadline for her interest in national office. Palin is a strikingly young 44 years old. If she runs at Hillary's age, she will be running in 2024. You're going to hear a lot of buzz about her as a 2012 candidate, but I don't think that she needs to run in four years. (For now, life will keep her busy -- she has an infant to take care of, a son in Iraq, a grandchild on the way and a day job.) I don't think that love from the Republican base is going to dissipate in four years. She stepped up to the plate and hit the ball as far as she could this time around, and for about two weeks, she helped achieve the near-impossible: putting McCain ahead in a Democratic year. Every once in a while I think about working on a political campaign, and almost always conclude that I like what I do on the outside too much to ever want to accept the inherent limits of working on the inside. But after the joy of offering a line that ended up in her convention speech, Governor, I'll make clear the exception. I'll answer that call anytime. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #28 Demographics... Like us Catholics who voted for it? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-11-05 23:57 |
| #27 And ed, your answer sounds suspiciously like the typical liberal presupposition of ignorant bigotry Call it what you want. I call it my observations and experience while growing up and into my 20's. If you check the demographics of those who voted for the Defense of Marriage laws, I believe you will find I am right. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-11-05 22:42 |
| #26 The referendums may have been worded to be more pro traditional marriage than anti gay. But growing up in heavily minority communities (primarily Hispanic w/ black minorities) leaves no doubt that the openly expressed anti gay sentiments are not because they are pro marriage. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-11-05 22:39 |
| #25 And ed, your answer sounds suspiciously like the typical liberal presupposition of ignorant bigotry on the part of people who have socially conservative viewpoints. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-11-05 22:35 |
| #24 And I believe McCain and Palin's chances were doomed when they and the entire Republican leadership failed to respond to Democrats and media (I'm being redundant) slamming them for the subprime mortgage market collapse. Until then they were doing quite well and had even taken the lead in polls. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-11-05 22:34 |
| #23 Actually, its not anti-gay, its pro-traditional-marriage. There are a lot of church-going Hispanics and Blacks. The GOP never reached out to them where they had significant common cause. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-11-05 22:34 |
| #22 Oldspook, the anti gay marriage referendums passed due to anti gay sentiments of blacks and Hispanics, not to some social conservatism on their part. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-11-05 22:29 |
| #21 If Sarah had Thompson's knowledge, or Thompson her fire, we probably would be looking to a Republican inauguration. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-11-05 22:25 |
| #20 For thsoe that say Gov Palin cost McCain the election.. Exit polls prove you dead wrong. Go read at Michelle Malkin, she has hard numbers. This is my argument - and it is solid: Had McCain won CA and FL he would have won the election, we can agree on that. McCain lost by a HUGE margin in California. He also lost Florida. We can agree on that. Yet in CA Prop 8 *PASSED*. And in FL the ban on gay marriage passed, not only by majority, but by 62%. Those are FACTS, and not open to negotiation. Those measures won where McCain lost - and they won by getting FAR more votes than McCain got in either state. That's the truth, the facts of the matter. Explain then, if social conservatives are so unpopular, how they managed to get their laws enacted? Did Sarah Palin drive off those people? NO! She was in line with the measures, which allowed for social contracts and legal protections for gays, but reserved marriage for 1 man and 1 woman. In fact she attracted support from Social Conservatives that had abandoned McCain and the GOP prior to her nomination. Poll show it, as to fundraisers, and crowds at rallies. So Sarah Palin did nto cost McCain the votes of social conservatives. Then whats that leave you? It leaves McCain. If those social conservatives got 62% of the vote in Florida, and a majority of votes in California, then how many socially conservative voters abandoned McCain for Obama? Do the math - its ugly. Here's the final undeniable answer: If McCain had simply run as well as Prop 8 in CA and the Gay Marriage amendment in FL, he would have been elected president. Put that in your pipe and smoke it you social conservative and Palin bashers. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-11-05 22:18 |
| #19 I agree w/2k. She needs to do like Reagan - learn every facet of the game and all the issues. Then handle business on all the nay sayers next cycle. I wish her well. A lot of supposed professional women & definite lib feminists hate her, partly out of jealousy and partly because she has accomplished through sheer force of will more then they ever will. Let's face it, as a red blooded American male I dig that chick - She's NRA, knows how to hunt, ride an ATV, knows sports, has a sense of humor and is quite a looker. Batting damn near 1000 methinx. Of course all the clog wearing denim skirt fixated femi-trolls hate her - most of them either secretly want her or want to be her. Kind of like when I hear people that are extreme homophobes. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2008-11-05 21:59 |
| #18 The chances of her gaining any sort of national office is as unlikely as, say a former Hollywood actor / ex-governor becoming president. Who lost the primary against the 'bi-partisan' party frump and acting president Ford. We got four years of Carter and are still cleaning up on aisle |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-11-05 21:50 |
| #17 NRO pointed out that in 2024 Mrs. Palin will be the same age as Sen. Clinton is today. I wonder if she can accomplish anything in the next 16 years? Be prepared Lumpy - she will be. |
| Posted by: Don Vito Omeling5062 2008-11-05 21:07 |
| #16 Yeah, Palin is definitely an outsider, far away from the major players in the center of power. The chances of her gaining any sort of national office is as unlikely as, say a former Hollywood actor / ex-governor becoming president. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2008-11-05 18:23 |
| #15 Lumpy: At least Sarah didn't cut here political teeth in the corrupt Chicago Machine, hobnobbing with crooks, black racist and terrorist and voting present. Mayor Daley for Secretary of the Treasury |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2008-11-05 17:46 |
| #14 thank you steve |
| Posted by: bman 2008-11-05 17:40 |
| #13 Lumpy, I thought you Obama-campaign blog trolls had a contract only through November 4th. Am I mistaken? For your information (not that you care or will even be back), Gov. Palin is the reason why McCain got 46% and not 36% of the vote. In early August McCain had a dispirited base, slack fund raising and little clear sense of direction. Palin fixed the first two of those, but Mac couldn't fix that last one. Or the economy. Palin was never supposed to be Cheney. Had McCain found another Cheney-type, he would have lost badly. Palin has real promise. She has to do her homework, win re-election as governor, and see where the party is in 2011. In the meantime, the party has to rally for 2010, work on its ideas and ideals, clean house, and find good candidates for the federal and state legislatures. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-11-05 16:29 |
| #12 And yet, ten times more qualified than Obama. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-11-05 16:13 |
| #11 comparing Cheney ( an industry insider and long time DC op ) to Palin the one time mayor of a microscopic little town in the far reaches of the Empire and the short time Govener of the same way the hell out there state of Alaska ( Though she must be very familiar with the oil industry ) is like comparing beauty queens to Really Hard Core Washington Insiders. |
| Posted by: Lumpy Claque7564 2008-11-05 16:08 |
| #10 Palin is supremely unqualified, McCain would have won had he made a wiser choice of running mate. |
| Posted by: Lumpy Claque7564 2008-11-05 16:04 |
| #9 Alan, the only guy w/ any brains was Cheney |
| Posted by: Lumpy Claque7564 2008-11-05 16:03 |
| #8 The left studies political SCIENCE. The right dabbles in it like a hobby. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-11-05 14:09 |
| #7 The problem of leadership on the right goes much deeper. Palin is interesting and her positions on economic development and personal freedom is good, but she is not the strongest candidate that could be put forward. The talk of putting forth a Petraeus signals the underlying problem that there is no leadership development in the Republican party. Part of it is the disdain on the right for maximum leaders on white horses. Part of it is the belief in laissez faire. Laissez faire does not and did not cut it. Right now, we get a crop mostly of the moneyed, ambitious and self serving who claim to lead but mostly dip into the public treasury. The military recognizes this and develops promising candidates for command positions. The problem with relying on them for leadership (other than scaring the shit out of leftists, which is good in my opinion), is that you are as likely to wind up with a Colin Powell or Wesley Clark than Eisenhower. Even Eisenhower, the last general to be elected president and rather bipartisan, would be eaten alive in today's political environment. The Marxist elements and the billionaire backers of the Democratic party have been grooming Obama for years and their support has paid off beyond their wildest dreams. The right needs a similar, though better program. That means identifying at a young age a cadre of the top 1% in intelligence, integrity, common sense, core beliefs, personality and looks (yes, that's important in a TV dominated world), exposing and mentoring them for 20-30 years in increasingly complex, powerful and public private positions. The most successful of these are then put forward for national elective offices. Let them loose to compete with and trounce the Bloombergs, Bushes, Pelosis, Murthas and Obamas. But this requires a smart, disciplined and strong party, not the county club drunk fest that currently controls the helm. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-11-05 14:01 |
| #6 Already onboard. I was contacting my local GOP org on this very subject. Palin needs to stay out of the senate, and build on her executive experience and run a tight ship. She's already been vetted by the worst the dems and media could throw at her and she came out pretty darn clean. Another run as Gov and she's GTG - if that's her choice. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2008-11-05 13:41 |
| #5 It also requires that other egos among the Trunks be told to sit down and take a number. When you can draw the crowds that she could, you have someone who can rally the base. That is more important than all the good o'boys messing around jockeying for position to just tank another opportunity. Get behind this one early to remove that stupid game. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-11-05 13:30 |
| #4 Geraghty is correct about what Palin needs to do. The Senate would be a killer for her. She should be a two-term governor, work very hard to soak up knowledge and ideas about our country and the world, and spend the time doing the intellectual heavy-lifting to ensure she has herself organized. Then decide what to do, and go do it. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-11-05 13:14 |
| #3 Alan: If all you do is change out the VP and everything else stays the same, I don't see Bush's VP doing any better than McCain. |
| Posted by: Mike 2008-11-05 13:09 |
| #2 One of the things I hold against Bush is his sticking to Cheney in 04. I've nothing against the man, but, that last term needed to be spent in grooming a new power. I don't know who it should have been, but, by sticking with Cheney the 'pubs were left with noone for this run. What do you think? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-11-05 13:04 |
| #1 I'd stay right where she is. This is the first time since 1960 that a senator has advanced to the presidency. Senators are good at photo ops. Governors actually have to accomplish something. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-11-05 12:49 |