You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Sarah's future
2008-11-06
Christopher Beam, Slate
Slate is not exactly friendly to conservatives, but I think this guy's advice is spot-on, so I've restrained myself to one minor bit of snark.

. . . as her former running mate would say, the fundamentals of Sarah Palin are strong. Her conservative detractors—Colin Powell, David Brooks, and Christopher Buckley among them—were put off not by her personality but rather by the fact that she didn't have an Ivy League degree and she had all those kids and she's just so freakin' normal like those blasted peasants in flyover country and besides all the other cool kids hate her too, and one wouldn't want to be uncool or stand out from the crowd her lack of knowledge about certain national and foreign-policy issues. Such deficiencies can be addressed easily. Meanwhile, to use another McCainism, Palin was a surge for the ticket. Rally attendance skyrocketed. Approval ratings went up. Palin's convention speech attracted more viewers than Obama's. "I'll take it," said McCain adviser Mark Salter, looking back.

Moreover, those who called Palin an embarrassment fail to consider the alternatives. If McCain had picked Mitt Romney, the narrative would have been how much they hated each other;
(Well, that and the fact that Romney's a good guy but he's about as exciting as semi-gloss interior latex.)
Tim Pawlenty, and crowds would have remained in the low hundreds.
(Again, a good guy, but not a thriller.)
"If we picked [Joe] Lieberman, that convention would have been a disaster," says McCain spokesman and blogger Michael Goldfarb.
(It would have, shall we say, failed to engage the base.)
Once these alternate-reality scenarios become clear, aides say, Palin's candidacy will look better.

And anyhow, four years is plenty of time. Remember that Palin had all of two days' notice (if that) about her nomination, and less than a month to prepare for her first debate. Even the best politicians have trouble shifting gears that fast. "Take John McCain and put him into the last 60 days of a governor's race in Alaska," says Republican strategist Stuart Stevens. "He wouldn't know the nuances of the North Slope vs. the suburbs of Anchorage."

From that perspective, Palin's unpreparedness wasn't her fault—if she really thought she was ready to be commander in chief, she could have run in the primaries. (Then again, she accepted McCain's offer.) Over the next four years, though, she'll have plenty of time to bone up on Russo-Georgian relations, missile defense, and her least favorite Supreme Court decisions.

But the best thing Palin can do is go home and get back to work. Stevens calls it the Hillary Clinton model: Take a big personality, dial it back, and roll up your sleeves. That means tackling Alaska-specific issues—see through to completion the pipeline she has been championing; fix the ailing state budget; and introduce other energy initiatives. Some suggest she might run for Senate once Republican Lisa Murkowski's term is up in 2010, or in a special election if Ted Stevens gets booted from the Senate in 2009. But she's probably better off running for re-election as governor in 2010, says Stuart Stevens (no relation to Ted). "If she's a wildly successful governor, she can claim credit for what she does, instead of being one of 100."

None of this will happen in a vacuum. Over the next four years, Palin will get more national scrutiny than any Alaska governor ever has. (She's already received more invitations to appear on SNL than any sitting governor.) Her best strategy may be to ignore it all and focus on the mundane, essential, and below-freezing details of her home state.
Posted by:Mike

#17  BTW, this election was lost because REPUBLICANS STAYED HOME.

I can't agree. While some did stay home, Obama was able to get a higher total vote than Bush in 2004. With 12 million more citizens, turnout was:
2004: 122 million, Bush 62 million, Kerry 59 million
2008: 123 million, Obama 65 million, McCain 57 million

The Dems were able to sway more female voters to their side. In addition, black and hispanic voter turnout increased significantly and were even more lopsided for Obama (95% B, 66% H)
Posted by: ed   2008-11-06 23:07  

#16  OS is right. Moreover, any stupid son of a bitch who tries to lay this loss on Palin deserves a kick right in the balls. Palin is the ONLY reason there aren't twenty more Dems in the house and a 60+ Dem Senate.

McCain represented Republicans only slightly better than Obama did. It was PALIN who got the base excited and who gave the Trunks what little chance they had of winning. BTW, this election was lost because REPUBLICANS STAYED HOME.

Check the figures. The ONLY thing that got Republicans enthused this year was Palin. Without her it would have been the huge blowout all the Dems/MSM were hoping for.

Anyone blaming this on Palin would be wise to keep that opinion quiet in my presence.
Posted by: Jolutch Mussolini7800   2008-11-06 22:35  

#15  McCain needs to Man-Up and step in to stop this, and say its all LIES.

Otherwise he's a shriveled shell of a former war hero, that has become a gutless bum.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-11-06 22:15  

#14  well, for one if the GOP wants to avoid another fiasco like the latest trouncing, they might as a first point, run a republican.
Posted by: Abu do you love   2008-11-06 19:14  

#13  Her conservative detractors—Colin Powell, David Brooks, and Christopher Buckley among them

Not a true conservative among them. Sarah, I wouldn't worry too much about these pseudo conservatives. Powell ended up endorsing BO. Chris Buckley is not his dad and ended up writing an article about why he was voting for BO. Brooks works for the NYTs-enough said.
Posted by: JohnQC   2008-11-06 18:46  

#12  and Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley, David Brooks, David Frum, and George Will can bite my ass. They are neither conservatives nor conservative supporters and I will not read nor distribute their fifth-column pablum. F*ck em
Posted by: Frank G   2008-11-06 17:33  

#11  Actually the MSM sent an army of 'reporters and investigators' to Alaska to search the Palin's garbage and interview all of her enemies.

But nary a ghost of a person to Obama's neighborhood....
Posted by: CrazyFool   2008-11-06 15:22  

#10  the msm seemed to do ok writting hit pieces on her from new york. Only Greta went to Alaska.
Posted by: bman   2008-11-06 15:15  

#9  Her conservative detractors—Colin Powell, David Brooks, and Christopher Buckley among them

Except that Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley, at least are neither Republican nor Conservative. General Powell, ret'd, is a political opportunist who'd apparently been quietly talking to Barack Obama since he left the State Department, and young Mr. Buckley is no more than a dinner party raconteur cruising on his father's coattails. I'm more Republican/Conservative than either one, and I freely admit to being ideologically neither R nor C.

The 2010 election will be very interesting,especially if there really are as many military retirements as is being speculated. Warmongers of America, unite! ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife    2008-11-06 14:52  

#8  McCain (Charlie Brown) reached across the aisle and got Obama's (Lucy) assurance he would use public campaign matching funds.

He also reached across the aisle and built the McCain/Feingold law. Now, he's had it placed in rectal defilade.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2008-11-06 14:51  

#7  She should stay in Alaska and be governor. At least if these media assholes wanna do another hit piece on her, they'll have to go up there and freeze their asses off
Posted by: tu3031   2008-11-06 14:47  

#6  I too am predisposed to support Palin in the future. But the advice here, as Mike notes, is good. Prepare. Do a good job as governor. Learn the issues. Find ways to remain visible without being obnoxious or cloying. Help Republicans in other states and build up some political IOUs. Become a leader in the National Governors Association. Continue being bipartisan without forsaking the base.
Posted by: Steve White   2008-11-06 14:41  

#5  In June I disliked McCain (campaign finance, borders, etc.) and was very impressed by Palin (yes, in June) though I did not think she was ready for prime time.
Two years ago I thought Obama was a rising star, not ready for prime time, but he seemed like a reasonable guy, for a Democrat. Biden always seemed like a loser.
As the campaign progressed I quickly becamse concerned about Obama - too little substance and too much unknown about whoever's hand was up his butt moving his mouth. Biden unchanged.
More and more impressed with McCain - I think he always did what he thought was best for the USA, not what might be best for John McCain, and that is a rarity in politics. Not a good campaigner, and 'damaged goods' from years of real activity in the Senate, and maybe not real bright, but an ok pick.
Palin is a real quick study. A lot brighter than given any credit for (so is Bush, in his own way). So far seems reasonably honest for a politician, and to have that killer instinct McCain lacks. And a fantastic speaker - far better than the much-vaunted Obama when off teleprompter.
The next Republican candidate has to be free of scandal. She has to be able to convince people that her personal beliefs are separate from her professional practice (a big problem for Bush) in this secular humanist society. And she has to assemble a concise, clear alternative program for addrssing the key issues in national politics (like the Contract for America). No small order, but that's what it is going to take.
Posted by: Glenmore   2008-11-06 14:38  

#4  I was very concerned that Palin's brand would become tainted by her association with McCain.

I expected the MSM to try to take her down (so far without succes best I can tell).

I have to admit to being surprised to see factions within the McCain campaign engaging in the tainting process.

Then again, that goes to prove the concerns I expressed in the first paragraph above were well founded.

I voted Palin. Against Obama. No regrets. I look forward to her return to national politics and to lead the charge against the socialist party.
Posted by: MarkZ   2008-11-06 14:31  

#3  Out of the 4 candidates for Pres & VP, Palin was the only Republican. I'd vote for her again.
Posted by: Iblis   2008-11-06 14:15  

#2  "Tim Pawlenty, and crowds would have remained in the low hundreds."

Tim would have also had to explain why the bridge fell on his watch.

Posted by: Frozen Al   2008-11-06 13:41  

#1  Palin made it palatable for many Republicans to pull the R lever instead of just voting against Obama. McCain was the Republican that the independents and crossover Dems picked to run against. He never appealed to the base that he had made a career of opposing.

I would vote for Sarah Palin for president before I would vote for almost any of the Republicans and Democrats on the national stage.
Posted by: RWV   2008-11-06 13:08  

00:00