Stopping Sarah Palin

[Pangloss]

Last week Sarah Palin confirmed her interest in the 2012 GOP nomination, and probably did more to sway independents to move back to the Democratic party in that statement than anything Democrats have done in the last 18 months.

 

Palin this week told "Entertainment Tonight" that if a candidate she feels is sufficiently conservative does not emerge, she would feel moved to run. "If there's nobody else to do it, then of course I would believe that we should do this."

 

The comments came the same week as an ABC News/Washington Post poll that showed 39 percent of registered voters view her favorably and only 27 percent believe she is qualified to be president.

 

This article at Politico has some interesting angles on how various interests in the Republican party want to stop her.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44449.html

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Right now Sarah Palin is the one thing that would stop me from voting Republican in 2012 and bring me back into the Obama camp. I am always open-minded right up to election day, but I'm pretty steamed at Democrats right now, and I'm not alone.

 

What do you all think? Is this new Palin threat for real? Is she going to cause trouble for the GOP? Can she win?

[mississippichem]

I always thought that Sarah Palin totally negated the "lack of experience" argument that was often directed toward Obama. Its a shame, because I thought the "lack of experience" argument carried real weight, until Palin showed up to make Obama look like a veteran. I hope Palin doesn't run. She would split the Republicans right down the middle, as she is definitely a polarizing candidate. Many of the younger, "new school" conservatives [i guess I fit in this category?!] hate her, while the "family-values vote" can't get enough of her.

 

 

P.S. - I'm not traditionally a republican, but I'm voting "right" tomorrow in the name of fiscal responsibility.

[John Cuthber]

Is it true that Sarah Palin wears plain glasses just to look clever and, if so, has she asked for her money back?

 

BTW,

"I'm not traditionally a republican, but I'm voting "right" tomorrow in the name of fiscal responsibility."

I thought they started it.

Edited November 1, 2010 by John Cuthber

[padren]

She's made some pretty shrewd business moves, in terms of how much money she's come out with, considering that politically she doesn't exactly have a list of accomplishment. She could play the angle just hard enough to squeeze some things she wants out of the GOP and try to bring the "crazies endorsement" behind whomever Republicans do kick into the fray. The more she plays the radically-traditional card (or whatever you would call it) the more she could bring her followers into the fold for "such an important election" as 2012, with the Communist-Kenyan power-play all riding on it to forever erase this country from history itself.

 

If she tries to run, she'll find herself destroyed by the GOP. If she thinks the "mean liberal media" was hard on her, she hasn't seen anything yet.

 

 

I think she knows this, and is playing the staring contest for leverage.

[Mr Skeptic]

This is yet another example of how broken our election system is. Having an additional candidate join a race (but lose) should not affect the outcome at all, and in a proper election system it wouldn't. But noooo, we have to use the election system where your vote counts for nothing if your candidate loses.[/rant]

 

Personally, I view Sarah Palin with a mixture of glee and terror. Just gotta give her enough rope to hang herself. I'm pretty sure the general population will stop her, but if the Republicans don't want her among them then they'll have to find some way to stop her themselves. The problem, of course, is that a lot of the Republicans do want her.

[jackson33]

Last week Sarah Palin confirmed her interest in the 2012 GOP nomination, and probably did more to sway independents to move back to the Democratic party in that statement than anything Democrats have done in the last 18 months.[/Quote]

 

Pangloss, in addition to what your posted link declared, in other interviews she has acknowledged several "him or her's" (not naming any) that she would support and NOT run. I believes she knows where she stands in the political arena and where her influence can be most productive, not to mention the media scrutiny she would have to put up with. Also I believe if interested in a Political Career (other than a pundit) she is being advised to hold off, hoping for a Republican victory in 2012 or 2016, then becoming part of that administration, even possible as VP, to establish the apparently unseen experience.

 

As for turning Moderates/Independents against this years movement, don't you think she may just be THE REASON, there is a movement. I think for the first time in American Polling History, more woman this year claim they will vote Republican than for Democrats.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Right now Sarah Palin is the one thing that would stop me from voting Republican in 2012 and bring me back into the Obama camp. I am always open-minded right up to election day, but I'm pretty steamed at Democrats right now, and I'm not alone. [/Quote]

 

I wasn't aware or don't remember your distaste for Palin before, but this does fall in line with our last discussion. Anyway, Palin has directly or indirectly been responsible for helping to get Rubio, O'Donnell, Rand Paul, Angle, Miller and at least five others a competitively good shot of winning in tomorrows elections. Certainly there are some mentioned you do like or would vote for. Then if you would vote for Obama in 2012, even if Palin were on the ticket, your indicating Palin, would take the Country too far right or since "bring me back to the Obama Camp" (wasn't aware of that either) his policies have been okay with you. I'll ask you this; Give me three Republican Names, you (or anybody reading this) would vote for over Obama? To be honest, in hind sight, I'd have voted for McCain, whomever was the VP. For some reason, maybe not accounting for mixing moderating duties and discussion (difficult), that you favored family traditional value, Individualism and protecting the Constitution...

[mississippichem]

Is it true that Sarah Palin wears plain glasses just to look clever and, if so, has she asked for her money back?

 

BTW,

"I'm not traditionally a republican, but I'm voting "right" tomorrow in the name of fiscal responsibility."

I thought they started it.

 

The republicans aren't fiscally responsible by my definition. But I'm sad to say this is the closest I can get without wasting a vote on a libertarian and effectively voting democrat.

[Pangloss]

your indicating Palin, would take the Country too far right or since "bring me back to the Obama Camp" (wasn't aware of that either) his policies have been okay with you.

 

I'm saying that given a choice between the two I'd take what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils in Obama. If the election were held tomorrow... well I'd probably demand to know why the election had been moved up. But then I'd vote for Obama. But if anybody but Palin were on the GOP ticket, I'd probably have to vote for them.

 

I'll ask you this; Give me three Republican Names, you (or anybody reading this) would vote for over Obama? To be honest, in hind sight, I'd have voted for McCain, whomever was the VP. For some reason, maybe not accounting for mixing moderating duties and discussion (difficult), that you favored family traditional value, Individualism and protecting the Constitution...

 

Romney, Crist, Jeb, maybe some of the Republican governors.

[jackson33]

The republicans aren't fiscally responsible by my definition. But I'm sad to say this is the closest I can get without wasting a vote on a libertarian and effectively voting democrat.[/Quote]

 

mississippi; After about 2000, I would agree "Compassionate Conservative" became another word for "Progressive"...Well this years election are local, but you never know by 2012, you might have something closer to Libertarian than your thinking. If Republican do win the House and agree to ANY unnecessary spending or compromise to ANY increase in the Federal Government period, there may be no Republican Base left.

 

I'm saying that given a choice between the two I'd take what I perceive to be the lesser of two evils in Obama. If the election were held tomorrow... well I'd probably demand to know why the election had been moved up. But then I'd vote for Obama. But if anybody but Palin were on the GOP ticket, I'd probably have to vote for them. [/Quote]

 

Pangloss; I really don't feel Palin, will run although is she did and things were not much different by September 2012, she would walk away with 60% of the vote. If things have picked up, arguable, unemployment down to 4%, no inflation and the War on Terror is basically over, no one will beat Obama, that's the unfortunate nature of the game.

 

Romney, Crist, Jeb, maybe some of the Republican governors.[/Quote]

 

Fair enough, but; Romney would be currently, actually is my favorite, if I thought he could win the primaries, IMO he cannot and yes it's the public perception of Mormons. Jeb Bush, also speaks fluent Spanish and would receive 70% of the Latino vote, probably winning California, but all you would hear from the opposition or media is the Bush 43 legacy. Crist is toast, sorry, but my opinion. Gov Christie (NJ) is currently my number one on my radar, as is Rubio in my focus, but in both cases for 2016 or 2020 and I agree there are several Governors that might gain name recognition by 2012. A long shot may be another of your Floridians, Allen West (now running in the 22nd district), who has a very interesting personal life. Not only his Military history but he has a Masters Degree in Political Science. Of course tomorrows elections can change many things...

[Pangloss]

I didn't say I would vote for those people over all other candidates. Every one of those names is either too wishy-washy or too connected with the religious right for my taste. But I'd vote for them over Obama right now -- that's the only question I was answering.

 

Just wanted to be clear. It's annoying enough to be accused of being a partisan for the right with my voting record, but you asked a comparison question and I wanted to answer it.

[bascule]

What do you all think? Is this new Palin threat for real? Is she going to cause trouble for the GOP? Can she win?

 

A 2012 run by Sarah Palin is the best thing Obama could ever ask for

[CaptainPanic]

A 2012 run by Sarah Palin is the best thing Obama could ever ask for

That's what I was thinking too, at first. Sarah Palin talks a lot of nonsense... which seems ideal for campaigning against.

 

However, the last thing you want to do in a campaign is to respond to all her plans... Even though Sarah Palin will make it incredibly tempting to respond to her plans. She will say completely outrageous things, and just generate a lot of attention. The media will demand an answer from the other candidates (Obama). She will probably deliberately provoke the other candidates... and she will win.

If she is a typical populist politician (I think she is), her focus will change often. She will respond to incidents. She will make empty promises which sound good.

 

Populism can create statements faster than anyone can refute them, so these must be ignored. If you base a campaign on responding to all the nonsense that these types of politicians say, you will lose... Their whole aim is to generate some emotions, not to make sense in every sentence they say.

 

Also, by responding to their outrageous plans, you admit that you take it serious (even though you try to point out how stupid it is). Populists will win that discussion, because they will find a tiny little flaw in your massive attack against their stupid plan, and expand on that little flaw. All the time, their original idiot plan keeps getting the main headlines, and the discussion will be about something irrelevant. Or they can also just call you a left-wing socialist (which logically implies that you're wrong), and win the discussion by calling names. There is no defense. Such a battle must be avoided at all cost. Problem however is: the populists will deliberately and continuously provoke the other side.

 

I know that it's very tempting to show the general public that populist politicians talk crap... but by the time you've refuted one statement, they've made 2 new ones. To refute the populist plans, you will need to use long and complicated phrases, and you need to explain ethical concepts, while they just come up with dumb (but popular) plans. And those simple statements generate just as much media attention as your proper argument against it. In short: they win the headlines in the media.

 

If Obama sticks to his own plans, and if he makes the populists respond to his plans, it should be no problem. The populists will try to come up with some plans that are so outrageous that Obama feels that he must respond. And then they he will lose the initiative. He cannot allow that to happen. He must stick to his own game plans. He must stand above the schoolkid bullying that will try to undermine his plans.

Edited November 2, 2010 by CaptainPanic

[mississippichem]

I didn't say I would vote for those people over all other candidates. Every one of those names is either too wishy-washy or too connected with the religious right for my taste. But I'd vote for them over Obama right now -- that's the only question I was answering.

 

I feel your pain Pangloss, secular conservatives have no real options in this country. I'm a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. I always get forced into voting for some religious rightwing nutbag or some big government lefty.

[lemur]

If Obama sticks to his own plans, and if he makes the populists respond to his plans, it should be no problem. The populists will try to come up with some plans that are so outrageous that Obama feels that he must respond. And then they he will lose the initiative. He cannot allow that to happen. He must stick to his own game plans. He must stand above the schoolkid bullying that will try to undermine his plans.

 

All Obama would really have to do to look very good would be to come up with plans about how to achieve goals while reducing spending. If he and the left generally would do this, ppl would not trust them immediately but if they demonstrated that it was possible in practice, they could impress people.

 

The problem is that fiscal budgeting is a catch-22. On the one hand, many people want to see government-spending cut but only because they think it will mean more money in their pockets because of lower taxes. What people don't seem to get is that government-spending cuts have a trickle-down effect that stimulates everyone to tighten their budgets. If people were true fiscal conservatives, public and private, they would be happy with this effect. But in practice, people get grumpy when their own money supply gets cut down, even though they wanted the government to constrict the flow of spending.

 

Ideally, people would vote for levels and types of spending that would be both fiscally conservative and responsibly conducive to qualitative economic goals, but no one can really agree to what such economic goals should entail other than increasing their own income. So politics continues in this odd holding pattern of arguing over spending-levels while talking about policy-goals that are only really pursued in theory and only get implemented in practice to the extent they can be made to fill people's pockets with money.

Edited November 2, 2010 by lemur