pageok
pageok
pageok
Palin in 2012?

This is pure speculation, but if I had to guess, I'd predict Sarah Palin will not run for President in 2012. For personal reasons. Let's face it--a person with 5 kids, including a special-needs child, can take off two months of her life and run for Vice-President. And let's further face it--Vice-President is not that hard of a job. But taking off two years away from home to trudge around Iowa and New Hampshire? Honestly, I don't know why anyone would want to do that--I read that Chris Dodd actually enrolled his kids in Iowa schools when he was running for President. That's pretty weird, if you ask me. You have to be relatively unusual person (ok, "sick" is the word I'm really thinking of) to undertake the project of running for President.

As for Palin, of course I don't know that much about her or what makes her tick. But for all her quirks and controversy, she seems like a basically sane, balanced person and a dedicated and fulfilled mother. And she and her family appear to really like living in Alaska (Tina Fey's jokes beside the point). So it seems to me that going through this maelstrom for 2 months as a Vice-Presidential candidate traveling with her family in the high style of a national presidential campaign is one thing. But for two years on the rubber-chicken circuit? It is hard for me to believe that she'd put herself and her family through that. But that's just a guess.

If McCain had won, that might be a different story. She could presumably could have balanced a campaign for the presidency with her duties as VP. But I don't see it happening otherwise. Although perhaps when her kids are older, especially if she ends up in the Senate at some point.

Since it is never too early to start the next campaign, I'm guessing Romney's the Republican front-runner for 2012 at this point barring some unforeseen new face on the scene. My sense is that a lot of Republicans already had buyers-remorse that they didn't rally behind him this time, especially once the economy emerged as the major issue. And Eugene's post on the Georgia run-off suggests that Romney is already committed to traveling the country building up support between now and then. Republicans are going to get used to him and trust him more between now and then. Talk radio and grassroots conservatives warmed to him a lot when he remained as the conservative alternative to McCain. Finally, unlike Guiliani and Thompson, Republicans seemed to become more attracted to Romney the more they saw of him. Huckabee will probably be around, but I can't see him as being more than a spoiler again.

Who might be a possible new face on the scene? The most likely candidate, I think, would be Jeb Bush. He's generally regarded as the more able of the two brothers anyway. And one could imagine him have the organization and fund-raising potential to emerge four years from now. And, obviously he is from an important state and has the potential to recapture some Hispanic support for the Republicans. And every conservative intellectual I've met who has met Jeb has really been impressed by the guy's smarts and commitment to conservative ideas--much more than his brother and his father. The drawbacks of being another Bush are pretty obvious as well.

And as a courtesy, I'll even start the Comment thread. "Jeez, we just finished the last election--do we have to start talking about the next one already?" My defense--I'm blaming it on Eugune for his 2010 post!

Hoosier:
Romney, Pawlenty, or Jindal
11.7.2008 4:04pm
CDU (mail) (www):
Any chance we can actually get some fresh faces in 2012 instead of another Bush and rejected 2008 primary contenders?
11.7.2008 4:05pm
Mark Jones:
Aw, c'mon, CDU. What could be better than a Clinton (Hilary) vs Bush (Jeb) cage match for 2012?
11.7.2008 4:10pm
NickM (mail) (www):
Mark Sanford is a serious possibility. After his convincing win, Mitch Daniels now gets consideration too.

Nick
11.7.2008 4:11pm
Jindal fan:
At this point, all the runner up Republicans look like bad bets. Is there one that you can make an argument would have done better than McCain's 47 (or so) percent?

Faults: (These are presented as how they are perceived, not how they actually are.)

Romney: Joe Isuzu. Politically convenient flip flopper.

Huckabee: religious nutjob.

Guiliani: too old. Too NY.

Fred Thompson: Too old. No fire.

Who else?

Palin: Damaged goods.

Pawlenty: ok guy, but not a huge political talent.

My hope: Bobby Jindal. Possible will have a genuine record of conservative achievement as a reform governor by then.

Other than him, however, who else is there?
11.7.2008 4:12pm
Jindal fan:
Forgot one. David Petraus.
11.7.2008 4:12pm
flyerhawk:
Pawlenty and Jindal seem the most obvious choices.

Unless Obama really tanks, the Republicans are going to want to run someone pretty young against him. Romney will be a 66 year primary loser. He will also have 4 more years of doing nothing under his belt.

Palin is going to have a very hard time rehabilitating her image if she is back up in Alaska for 4 more years, or 2 years for that matter.
11.7.2008 4:13pm
kdonovan:
The papers in MN are already touting Palwenty. Jindal gets lots of good mentions from a variety of conservative and he'll have 6 years as gov of LA under his belt by then. A few months ago there was a bit of whispering about Gen. David Patreus - if Obama is seen as doing poorly on national security Paterus' stock might go way up.
11.7.2008 4:14pm
Jindal-Palin (mail):
Interesting post. I believe the combination of Jindal and Palin would be formidable.
11.7.2008 4:15pm
Ugh (mail):

He's generally regarded as the more able of the two brothers anyway.


High, high praise.

Though I do wonder what would have happened had Jeb not screwed up and lost his first run for Florida governor and he ended up getting pushed for the Presidency by Poppy. Probably the last eight years look a lot different (e.g., no Cheney for veep).
11.7.2008 4:17pm
darrenm:

Any chance we can actually get some fresh faces in 2012 instead of another Bush and rejected 2008 primary contenders?


Jeb Bush is a fresh face. He was just unfortunate enough to have the same last name as the current incumbent.
11.7.2008 4:17pm
William Van Alstyne (mail):
Among other things, you said--
"This is pure speculation, but if I had to guess, I'd predict Sarah Palin will not run for President in 2012."
--But you don't, i.e have to guess...so please desist from such prattle (and stick with topics somewhat more pertinent to this particular blog)....
11.7.2008 4:18pm
Crunchy Frog:

Huckabee will probably be around, but I can't see him as being more than a spoiler again.

God I hope not. It was his presence in the primaries that split the conservative vote and led to McCain stealing the nomination (along with crossover Dem voting in NH and other early states).


Romney, Pawlenty, or Jindal

or Kasich.
11.7.2008 4:18pm
Hoosier:
You guys can't have Mitch Daniel. He's ours.

Besides, he's dull. Bald. And 5' 7".

Any questions?
11.7.2008 4:20pm
Hoosier:
Daniels.

(Jaysusmaryanjoesph!)
11.7.2008 4:21pm
josh:
Jindal will be the nominee in 2012. Palin will not have a future in national politics. Just my prediction.
11.7.2008 4:22pm
Reg (mail):
Jindal/Petraus '12!

though I'd take Kasich/Daniels in a heartbeat.
11.7.2008 4:24pm
wph (mail):
I like what I've seen of Mitch Daniels. He may be a little dull, but if there is an opening, it will be because Obama's rock star charm has not worn well. People may be looking for something differnt.
11.7.2008 4:27pm
sarcastro homage (mail):
"Forgot one. David Petraus."

Are you crazy? He has a PhD from Princeton, and *shudder* in the liberal arts! Obviously he must be some sort of pointy headed liberal academic fascist. We Republicans can never surrender our principles and nominate someone with an elite education.
11.7.2008 4:28pm
Loophole1998 (mail):
All but the right wing base think Palin was a huge mistake. Electability will be a big issue for Republicans in 4 years. That ought to disqualify Palin.

Jindal would seem to make the most sense at this point in time. But, for God's sake, please keep Palin off of the ticket!

How about Jindal-Patreus?
11.7.2008 4:29pm
DNL (mail):
I expect Mike Bloomberg to seriously revisit the idea of running. He's going to (still) be the sitting mayor of NYC. The shine of Obama will have waned and maybe greatly, especially if this downturn is so bad that people are or have family members with 18++ months of unemployment. The GOP will have a lot of people fighting for their chalice. And the amount of money available for political donations will probably be a fraction of what it was this year.

It's very much a Bush/Clinton/Perot opportunity, with the big difference being that Bloomberg will have a decade of significant political executive experience. He'll be 70... so there is that one big problem.
11.7.2008 4:29pm
Sid Finkel (mail):
Todd

A very good analysis, and not too early given what it now takes to run for President.

Lindsey Graham would make a very attractive candidate should he run.

We will know Palin's intentions if and when Ted Stevens voluntarily or involuntarily leaves the Senate, just as we will know Gov. Jindal's intentions when he has to decide on running for re-election. Don't underestimate Stevens's staying power, Democrats may be content to leave him in the Senate to thwart Palin's move to Washington.

Historically, the losing VP travels a road to nowhere (see Ed Muskie, Sargent Shriver, Walter Mondale, Lloyd Bentsen, Dan Quayle, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards etc)

Romney would fulfill the Republican tradition of nominating the next in line. Given 2006 and 2008 results, maybe it's a good time for Republicans to change their traditions.

Jeb Bush will have the Bush problem. The reputation of George Bush will get worse before it gets better, if it ever does.

Like the Democrats who have to tack left to get the nomination, then move center for the general election, the problem the Republicans will have is whether they can balance moving to the right to capture the nomination with moving to the center in order to become a viable candidate.

The U.S. is not the culture wars country it was just 4 years ago, as the terribly underreported results of the South Dakota abortion ban will testify to. Gay marriage is just about done as an issue. McCain lost, for one reason, because he strangely moved right after the nomination was secured. If you violate the political rules and then snub Lettermen, you suffer the consequences
11.7.2008 4:33pm
SMatthewStolte (mail):
The Palin/Jindal folks are right. The Petraus idea is nice, if we want somebody who is probably a moderate (but who knows).

I think Palin can turn her political fortunes around. Four years is a darned long time.
11.7.2008 4:35pm
Constantin:
Romney will not ever win anything again. A lot of righties hold his people within the McCain campaign responsible for the mishandling and now slander of Palin. It wasn't an accident. And he wasn't conservatives' favorite guy to begin with.

Jeb Bush was a great governer, and would be a great candidate and a great president. I know that, and I wouldn't vote for him for money. If the saying goes "once bitten, twice shy," what happens when you're twice bitten? Reggie Bush will get the GOP nomination before Jeb Bush.

It'll be Palin. GOP always nominates the next guy (!) in line. And it's her. Look at the Rasmussen survey on her today. 91% approval rating from Republicans.

GOP will realize that we've entered a new age, and it's not just, or even mostly, about politics anymore. They'll need to run a celebrity of their own, someone to compete with Obama in the culture. Palin does that. And let's face it, with Obama elected there is one more group (women) that feels like they're owed their turn.
11.7.2008 4:36pm
Dave3L (mail) (www):
Palin will have to do something dramatic about her 46% favorable, 51% unfavorable ratings if she even wants to dream about running for president. It's pretty hard to convince people who dislike you to vote for you. And those numbers are before we learned the full story of how utterly incompetent and greedy she is. If one thing is true about Palin: the more the country has gotten to know her, the more it has come to dislike her. If she persists in keeping herself in the national public eye for four years, the rest of the country will be ready to join the Alaska Independence Party, too.

In four years she'll be hanging out with John Stockdale and Jack Kemp on the scrapheap of history. Her 15 minutes are up. Oh well... at least she got some nice clothes out of the deal.
11.7.2008 4:38pm
CS2:
What about the possibility that Obama is such a popular president that Jindal/Pawlenty/Petraeus/whoever else don't want to have anything to do with running against him in a hopeless election.

I'm bracing myself for 8 years of Obama, and probably 8 years of a solidly Democratic congress as well.
11.7.2008 4:39pm
Asher (mail):
Palin won't win the nomination if she runs*, but this argument Zywicki's putting forward is very puzzling. She won't be willing, you say, to undergo the stresses of a presidential campaign, but she was willing to move her whole family to DC if they won? I don't understand. I think she's a very ambitious person. Unless Obama's incredibly popular in 2012, she'll run.

* Everyone would attack her for being stupid, she and Huck would split the evangelical vote, debates would be disastrous, etc.
11.7.2008 4:42pm
Kevin R (mail):
Jindal? So, a youngish, popular, anti-corruption, conservative governor representing a demographic not traditionally associated with presidential politics? What could go wrong?
11.7.2008 4:45pm
calmom:
If the stock market is still below 11,000...if unemployment is above 6%...if home prices haven't rebounded....if the Big 3 U. S. automakers go out of business...

Obama won't have a second term.

Bobby Jindal is the front runner. Petraeus - only if there is another terror attack or the war in Afghanistan is still ongoing and going badly.
11.7.2008 4:47pm
Steve:
Romney will be a 66 year primary loser. He will also have 4 more years of doing nothing under his belt.

You just described Ronald Reagan in 1980!
11.7.2008 4:49pm
Elliot123 (mail):
Can we consider Jonathan Adler's post, eight minutes after this one, a response?
11.7.2008 4:49pm
DiversityHire:
The Kulturkampf continues on; alas poor Palin, your gambols and gibes are going to get cold up there. My hope for '10 and '12 is for the emergence of a solid libertarian silent majority; failing that, I'll settle for a kind of Mad Max armageddon where we all drive around looking for gas—there will still be internet access, right?
11.7.2008 4:49pm
David Warner:
"My sense is that a lot of Republicans already had buyers-remorse that they didn't rally behind him this time, especially once the economy emerged as the major issue"

Yeah, I'm sure the CEO-looking guy would have won in a landslide...
11.7.2008 4:53pm
ObeliskToucher:
For personal reasons. Let's face it--a person with 5 kids, including a special-needs child, can take off two months of her life and run for Vice-President. And let's further face it--Vice-President is not that hard of a job. But taking off two years away from home to trudge around Iowa and New Hampshire?

Robert Kennedy had 10.33 children at the time when he ran for President. Palin will only have 3 young children to worry about (Trig, Piper, and Willow) by 2010 when she has to start campaigning in earnest.

(forestalling someone doing a Lloyd Benson on me -- I'm only comparing number of children, not trying to say that she is Bobby Kennedy)
11.7.2008 5:00pm
Asher (mail):
Jindal? So, a youngish, popular, anti-corruption, conservative governor representing a demographic not traditionally associated with presidential politics? What could go wrong?

I know, maybe he won't know which countries are in NAFTA. He's only a Rhodes Scholar.
11.7.2008 5:04pm
Gregory Conen (mail):
@Kevin R:
That's the point. If people want Palin 2.0, Jindal has all the same advantages, and doesn't have the damage of a failed campaign.

@Steve:
Romney is no Ronald Reagan. I seriously doubt he can pull off the inspirational visionary thing like Reagan (or Obama, for that matter). Not to say he can't win the nomination, or even the election (especially if the economy is still in the tank).
11.7.2008 5:06pm
calmom:
I'll take long odds and suggest Congressman Adam Putnam from Florida. The Republican leadership put him front and center during the bailout crisis. He's from the important I-4 corridor, has a degree in Economics and is a young, fresh face, reasonably good looking. (And let's not kid ourselves. In this media age, a candidate has to be good looking.)
11.7.2008 5:10pm
Vermando (mail) (www):
"Republicans seemed to become more attracted to Romney the more they saw of him"

Really? I thought that what sunk him was that the more people saw of him in Iowa and New Hampshire the less they liked him.
11.7.2008 5:11pm
Jason Evans (mail) (www):
I'd like to see someone new in the Republican spotlight. Like a younger more articulate version of Ron Paul. Not that Ron's bad by any means but he's not a very good speaker. In this day it's hard to get behind someone based on issues alone if you can't make them fall in love with you at the same time. Yes, he's a radical conservative but he's sincere and he doesn't flipflop and that goes a long way.
11.7.2008 5:14pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
Palin in 2012?

This is pure speculation, but if I had to guess, I'd predict Sarah Palin will not run for President in 2012. For personal reasons. Let's face it--a person with 5 kids, including a special-needs child, can take off two months of her life and run for Vice-President.


There'll only be three kids at home in 2012, one of which will be 14 and one of which 11. Trig will be four, and it would be hard on him, but still, we don't hold men to this standard, why should we hold a woman?
11.7.2008 5:17pm
David W:
I couldn't see voting for Jeb Bush - one political dynasty (Kennedys) in this country is already more than enough for me. Even if he turned out to be an awesome president, I'm not sure that could overcome the damage set by the precedent of three presidents from the same family. Two's bad enough as it is.
11.7.2008 5:17pm
calmom:
And yeah, the point about not running because of the young kids...pure sexism.
11.7.2008 5:20pm
transfer student (mail):
it's obviously going to be Jindal.

Palin is loved because she has the right enemies, but that won't be enough, and it isn't clear she wants it anyway. Thompson is too old, Huckabee a poor fit for the coalition that is the party, and Romney will still be a Mormon and thus unelectable in both a primary and general election. (for those of you who think that Republican primary voters are somehow unusually anti-mormon, please refer to the no-on-proposition-8 campaign.) Jindal pleases everyone, including those anti-palinites who worry that the Republican party is antiintellectual.

and the Dems will say he's not smart enough, that his religion is strange, that he's got a weird name, that foreigners will react poorly to his winning, and that he's too young and inexperienced.

the nomination is his if he wants it, and the presidency is his if the recession is as long as many expect.
11.7.2008 5:20pm
calmom:
After all, Obama ran for two years and look how young his kids are...

People really need to adjust their double standards.
11.7.2008 5:21pm
calmom:
Come to think of it...Jindal has young children. Women will never get ahead if this double standard that women have to take care of the kids so they can't run for President attitude persists.
11.7.2008 5:28pm
Nathan:
Arnold Schwarzenegger has a better chance than Jeb Bush of becoming president in 2012, constitutional requirements or no.
11.7.2008 5:29pm
Kazinski:
I got a laugh out of this one:

Lindsey Graham would make a very attractive candidate should he run.

Lindsey Graham is John McCain without the charisma.

I like Sarah Palin, but she brings noting to table that Bobby Jindal doesn't have a lot more of. What we need are young conservative candidates that want low taxes, lower spending, good government and aren't afraid to take on the old guard that are addicted to pork and patronage. Anybody that meets that criteria are going to warrant a look.
11.7.2008 5:34pm
transfer student (mail):
calmom, yes, there are double standards. Obama ran overtly sexist primary and general election campaigns, and he won. What makes you think that will change in four years? The Republican party won't take a chance on it.
11.7.2008 5:37pm
A.S.:
Palin will have to do something dramatic about her 46% favorable, 51% unfavorable ratings if she even wants to dream about running for president.

I don't see that as a huge problem. Hillary Clinton had worse favorables than Palin does, and she came within a hair of the Presidency.
11.7.2008 5:40pm
commontheme (mail):

Lindsey Graham would make a very attractive candidate should he run.

Running for president would be sure to out Graham.
11.7.2008 5:42pm
A.S.:
BTW, I agree that the sexist double standard is a big, big problem for Palin. Sexism is still acceptable in this country - just look at the incredibly sexist campaign that Obama ran against Hillary Clinton. And Palin doesn't have the sympathetic press corps that Hillary did.
11.7.2008 5:42pm
TangoMan (mail) (www):
If we learned anything in this election cycle it's that a candidate's image can be controlled and/or modified by press attention, via commission or omission.

Palin and Obama represent the two sides of that coin.

There is a lot of curiosity surrounding Palin and she is a ratings magnet. If, over the next year or two, she manages to control the image the press presents, then much of the negative baggage she's accumulated in these last two months will be erased.

Unfamiliarity with policy details is something that is easily remedied over time. She's got time.

If she runs in 2012 she will run on the narrative of her choosing (her executive experience, her governing philosophy, her anti-corruption efforts, etc) rather than having to contort to fit the narrative of someone else's campaign.

Look, even Obama would have stumbled badly if he was plunked down into the minutia of an Alaskan gubernatorial race with no preparation. Obama had years to perfect his pitch for his run at the Presidency, and even then his flubs during the primaries were sometimes hard to stomach. Point being, having the inclination to run, the time to prepare and the time to put perfect the jabber works to the advantage of a politician.

Palin was handed a huge advantage, name recognition, enthusiasm of a significant base of supporters, but she is also saddled with some negatives. Do the negatives outweigh the positives? Time will tell.

I'm pretty confident that she can erode the negatives down to tolerable levels by presenting, over time, a different media image of herself, her positions, and her political style. In fact, if you read the commentary that is coming out of Alaska media, you see that many there are wondering what happened to the Sarah that they had elected to be Governor, for she's hardly discernible in the Sarah seen by the lower 48. McCain brought Palin on to energize the Conservative base - that was her mission and she accomplished that mission beyond question.

The mission of a VP candidate is different from the mission of a Presidential candidate. Palin's job, if she aspires to run in 2012, is to present a different image of herself to the public. High levels of media exposure and the ability to be herself and advance the message she deems important are the primary levers needed. These worked for Hilary since leaving the White House, they worked for Obama since leaving Illinois politics, and there's no reason that they can't work for Palin.
11.7.2008 5:43pm
Greg Q (mail) (www):
Kazinski,

You just described Sarah Palin, to a T.

I expect Todd is right. My guess is that she'll win re-election in 2010, serve out her second term and finish raising the kids (at least get Piper off to college) while hitting the rubber chicken circuit and accumulating lots of chits by campaigning for Republicans. Hopefully she'll get herself involved in a fair number of primary races, working with the Club for Growth to improve the Republican Party.

She's 44 years old. She's got plenty of time to shoot for the top job.
11.7.2008 5:48pm
Russ (mail):
No way is it Romney. He only had a chance originally b/c he was against McCain.

Jindal has my vote in 2012 if he keeps doing as well as he is now. But whether or not he runs will depend on whether or not he sees a chance of winning. Otherwise, he'll wait until 2016.
11.7.2008 5:50pm
LM (mail):
Constantin,

Jeb Bush was a great governer, and would be a great candidate and a great president.

You can just imagine when GWB was nominated, Bush Sr. and Barb screaming at the TV, "No, the other one." (At least it wasn't Neil.)

I know that, and I wouldn't vote for him for money. If the saying goes "once bitten, twice shy," what happens when you're twice bitten?

Actually, under the circumstances the pertinent saying goes, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...." But I understand why you'd shy away from that one.

Reggie Bush will get the GOP nomination before Jeb Bush.

Amen. Maybe even literally (what's Reggie's affiliation?).
11.7.2008 5:50pm
IRPI (mail):
Anyone notice that Gov. Jindal is speaking in Iowa on November 22. Has the campaign started already?
11.7.2008 5:51pm
TangoMan (mail) (www):
I like Sarah Palin, but she brings noting to table that Bobby Jindal doesn't have a lot more of.

Charisma? The first job of a politician is to get a potential voter to listen to them. I think Jindal can present an appealing message, just like Palin can, but I don't think that Jindal can match Palin in getting people interested enough in listening.

There is something quite visceral about Palin. We saw it in the reactions she garnered in her first week in the national spotlight. Those reactions, pro and con, were not based on substantive policy positions.
11.7.2008 5:53pm
CDU (mail) (www):
Anyone notice that Gov. Jindal is speaking in Iowa on November 22. Has the campaign started already?


Early? The way Presidential campaigns are these days are that's 17 days late!
11.7.2008 5:54pm
Witness (mail):
Palin's a disgrace. It better be Jindal, though I think Russ is right -- if he doesn't think he can win, he'll wait until 2016.
11.7.2008 5:57pm
joe1616 (mail):
Palin will run and will do about as well as Leiberman in 2004. I like the idea of Jindal and he at least seems to know that Africa is a continent, but his recent appearance on Hannity &Colmes made me a little nervous. He talks too fast and he needs to work on being more genuine as opposed to trying to quickly blurt all his talking points out as if they were memorized.
11.7.2008 6:02pm
A.S.:
(what's Reggie's affiliation?)

I believe he's affiliated to Kim Kardashian.
11.7.2008 6:09pm
A.S.:
BTW, I think that one important factor in all of this is the imperitive to seize the moment. Obama had his moment at the 2004 DNC, and he seized it. I'd bet Palin will too.

Maybe I missed it above, but a Rasmussen poll out today put Palin WAAAAAAAY out in front in a potential 2012 primary. Nobody else was even close. Don't mean she has a lock, but it does provide her a moment to seize.
11.7.2008 6:13pm
DensityDuck (mail):
One other thing: Given the outpouring of misogynism that she faced, I don't think I could blame her for saying "tellwidallaya" and staying home in 2012.
11.7.2008 6:18pm
Thomas_Holsinger:
Bobby Jindal is compiling an amazing record as Governor of Louisiana. Sarah Palin did a great job in fighting corruption in Alaska, but corruption there is a cooing dove compared to the real hairy, sweaty McCoy in Louisiana. Jindal's record to date is better than Palin's. The guy oozes administrative ability. Palin is a better campaigner.

And they are both young enough that both can become President.
11.7.2008 6:19pm
Vishnu (mail):
Given that Jindal only converted to Christianity in high school and went to (gasp!) Brown University, I assume that Talk Radio will brand him a closet Hindu Marxist who will force all first-graders to take feminist theory classes. Or at least they would do this if he were running for the dem. nomination.
11.7.2008 6:20pm
Sarah (mail) (www):
People are still buying stuff on CafePress with Palin's name on it (also, sales of "I already have a Savior, what I need is a President" have been picking up.) Romney sends me an email every other week, and in half of them he manages to sneak in something about how he doesn't ever want to run for anything again -- if someone with his name shows up on a national ballot anytime soon, I'd be expecting it to be one of his five sons. Or his former sister-in-law, who has tried to use it to her advantage before. In any case, it seems like one Romney runs every generation, and then Latter-day Saints are reminded of how much people don't like us, and then we take a few decades off. The Romneys would do well to follow the Udall model and just get elected in the six states they can compete in.

I'm guessing that the Libertarians will run someone who is astonishingly unelectable, after the Republicans pick someone who's mind-numbingly bad (Huckabee) to run against a ridiculously popular Obama, after the Republican 2010 Congress squanders every last drop of goodwill it could possibly get its hands on by mid-2012. Palin and Jindal will sit it out till 2016 or even 2020, but they'll handle that contest between themselves far, far better than Hillary and Obama did. Whoever runs against whichever one gets the nod, won't lose close to a fifth of their support to the other party just due to spite.

But my political memory is limited, really, to the Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/Bush years -- this competes with the fact that every time I see Obama I think of Herbert "Community Organizer/Let's All Volunteer/Single-family homes for all/Progress-is-my-other-middle-name" Hoover, who managed to get a profoundly incompetent statist elected to succeed him.

Either way, my future hypothetical children are probably looking at a world war or two.
11.7.2008 6:25pm
VincentPaul (mail):
If the media is still in the tank for Obama, it won't matter who the Republicans nominate.
11.7.2008 6:34pm
CDR D (mail):
NO MORE BUSHES! I don't care what their given name is.

And no more Clintons, either.

As for Palin, she has time to overcome the smears, although the left will be all over her for the remainder of her political career. That tells me that she scares them. Let's see how she finishes out her first term as governor, and if she runs/wins re-election in '10.

Right now I'm looking at Jindal.

(oh, sh*t! shouldn't say it! The filthy maggots on the left will start trying to smear him now).
11.7.2008 6:36pm
Charles Chapman (mail) (www):
Maybe I missed it above, but a Rasmussen poll out today put Palin WAAAAAAAY out in front in a potential 2012 primary. Nobody else was even close.
Two years ago a polling company did a head to head match up of McCain vs. Obama. Obama won Hawaii, Illinois and the District of Columbia. McCain won everything else.

And how out in front was Rudy Giuliani?
11.7.2008 6:43pm
Light Hearted (mail):
Best choice from a libertarian perspective (I'm surprised his name hasn't come up yet) is Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico: Self-made businessman and triathelete. Good on fiscal conservatism; good on drug war; good on tolerance; good on tax cuts. Good for America. Plus he seems potentially interested, and when he sets his mind on something, past experience suggests he achieves it.

Sort of a younger, less crazed Ron Paul. But good on free trade and not particularly concerned about the Trilateral Commission.
11.7.2008 6:47pm
D.R.M.:
Hey, how about a Hispanic as Jindal's VP? George P. Bush will be 36, and accordingly constitutionally eligible . . .

(Sound of heads exploding.)
11.7.2008 6:54pm
movie fan (www):
If Palin runs for President in 2012, at least she has name recognition going for her... but that may not work in her favor
11.7.2008 6:57pm
Angus:
Jindal needs to get some accomplishments under his belt. Right now his resume lists a lot of positions, but he's never done any job for more than 2 years. Usually he come in, makes a splash by changing everything around, then jumps for the next higher position before the results are felt (usually chaos).

For example, while President of the U of Louisiana system, one of the campuses nearly got its accreditation revoked. He left right when it happened.

As head of Louisiana's hospital system several years back, he wanted to be seen as a "cost cutter," so he slashed and burned, gutting mental health services in particular. Then he left 18 months into his term. Interesting to see that one of the main issues in his run for Governor last year was the sorry state of mental health services in Louisiana.
11.7.2008 7:02pm
TangoMan (mail) (www):
If Palin runs for President in 2012, at least she has name recognition going for her... but that may not work in her favor

Quite true. Here's a question for you - Is the Hillary of 2008 the same Hillary we got to know with the HillaryCare fiasco?
11.7.2008 7:06pm
Mikey:

Jindal? So, a youngish, popular, anti-corruption, conservative governor representing a demographic not traditionally associated with presidential politics? What could go wrong?


OK, I just laughed so hard I passed Coca-Cola through my nose.

Ouch.
11.7.2008 7:17pm
Eli Rabett (www):
One beer at Belga Cafe, Colonel Brooks or similar says she runs (she may not win the nomination, but right now she is the closest thing the Republican Party has to a money machine)
11.7.2008 7:30pm
byomtov (mail):
Jindal? So, a youngish, popular, anti-corruption, conservative governor representing a demographic not traditionally associated with presidential politics? What could go wrong?

Well, lots could. But he won't look like an idiot the first (or second) time he gives a TV interview, because he's an actually very intelligent guy.
11.7.2008 7:41pm
The River Temoc (mail):
Best choice from a libertarian perspective (I'm surprised his name hasn't come up yet) is Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico

April Fool's Day isn't for another six months, Light Hearted.
11.7.2008 7:54pm
TangoMan (mail) (www):
Well, lots could. But he won't look like an idiot the first (or second) time he gives a TV interview, because he's an actually very intelligent guy.

Did you see Palin's CNBC interview prior to her nomination? Is that the first or second interview that you're referring to? I certainly didn't think that her substantive discussion on energy policy within that interview made her look like an idiot. If you disagree, please share with us why she looked like an idiot talking about energy policy.
11.7.2008 8:00pm
Thomas_Holsinger:
byomtov,

The MSM will edit any video of Jindal down to all the umms, aahs, and nose-pickings. They can make anyone look like an idiot with selective editing, and did to Sarah Palin. So they'll do it to Jindal too.

McCain's campaign knew this with Palin and let it happen anyway.
11.7.2008 8:19pm
Arkady:

...[I]f I had to guess, I'd predict Sarah Palin will not run for President in 2012.


The barracuda, having once tasted blood, is not easily sated.
11.7.2008 8:26pm
KL (mail):

Maybe I missed it above, but a Rasmussen poll out today put Palin WAAAAAAAY out in front in a potential 2012 primary. Nobody else was even close.



The Rasmussen poll is worthless information!

We had Palin on our TV screens almost daily for the last couple of months, of course she's WAAAAAAAAY out in front, no other candidate has had even 1% of that media coverage!

A poll taken in about 3 or 4 years time is likely to give a much more balanced and more accurate picture of who is the more popular candidate.
Only Palin herself could possibly read too much into the Rasmussen poll!
11.7.2008 8:46pm
VirginiaHarris (mail) (www):
Now that the 2008 election and its historic high turnout is history, there is much greater appreciation for the privilege of voting.

But most people don't realize that out of 44 American presidents, only the last 15 were elected in a truly democratic fashion by all of our citizens -- men AND women.

Until 1920 women were denied the vote, and few people have any idea of the struggle our suffragettes had to go through to right this wrong. It's an amazing, awe-inspiring story!

Now you can subscribe FREE to my exciting historical e-mail series that reveals HOW the suffragettes won votes for women. Believe me, it wasn't easy!

"The Privilege of Voting" is drawing rave reviews from readers all over the world. Dramatic, sequential short-story episodes follow the lives of eight of the world's most famous women to tell the true stories of the courage of the suffragettes. Read this FREE e-mail series on your coffeebreaks and fall in love with these amazing women!

Subscribe free at

www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html
11.7.2008 9:05pm
Allan (mail):
Palin will be four years older and therefore less hot. Lieberman?
11.7.2008 9:22pm
byomtov (mail):
They can make anyone look like an idiot with selective editing, and did to Sarah Palin. So they'll do it to Jindal too.

Well, they can. But they didn't have to with Palin.

I'm very tired of these claims about "gotcha questions" and so on. Palin couldn't answer very straightforward questions about topics in the news.

"What are the pros and cons of the bailout?" "What papaers do you read regularly?" If these are your idea of an unfair question to ask a VP candidate you're nuts.

Look. If Jindal is the Republican nominee in 2012 I'm very unlikely to vote for him. But if he wins I won't be terrified for the country, as I would be if Palin were President.

Did you see Palin's CNBC interview prior to her nomination? Is that the first or second interview that you're referring to?

I didn't see the interview, and it's not one I was referring to. Since she is, per McCain, the country's leading energy expert, (do you agree?) that was an oversight on my part. Sorry.
11.7.2008 9:36pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):
Romney is not going to be the nominee. His political base are Mormons and Beltway/NYC conservative pundits. Nobody else cares for him.

Huckabee might have a chance if Palin and Jindal do not run. With either of them, his populist social conservative base is gone.

Jindal is 37. Unless O is really unpopular by 2010, he'd be crazy to waste himself against an incumbent.

Same with Palin.
11.7.2008 9:39pm
Hoosier:
Allan
"Palin will be four years older and therefore less hot. Lieberman?"

Even less hot.
11.7.2008 9:39pm
Hoosier:
Sid Finkle:

"The U.S. is not the culture wars country it was just 4 years ago, as the terribly underreported results of the South Dakota abortion ban will testify to."

Good catch! The "East Coast Cities" in SD went Democratic. For those who don't follow Dakotas politics, that's a significant change. But perhaps one-off, given the ban vote?
11.7.2008 9:43pm
KL (mail):

Did you see Palin's CNBC interview prior to her nomination? Is that the first or second interview that you're referring to? I certainly didn't think that her substantive discussion on energy policy within that interview made her look like an idiot. If you disagree, please share with us why she looked like an idiot talking about energy policy.



TangoMan,

I just watched an interview of Palin discussing the merits of drilling for oil and gas in Alaska.
She states that 20% of domestic supply is produced up in ANWR.
This seems to be a grosse exaggeration, the real figure is more like 3-4%.
Also Palin is not so much discussing "energy" policy of the US, but more concentrating on drilling in Alaska.
Now obviously any, Governor of a State would love to make their own states richer not only in oil and gas revenues but in jobs and employment,now what better way to do that than to keep advertising the fact to the national media that oil and gas are abundant in Alaska just waiting to be dug up.

To truely understand enegy policy, Palin needs to understand the Middle East,its geography and its people.
Now I think I can safely say Palin knows very little about the Middle East, or about its oil supply, given that Palin didn't know that Africa is a continent, not a country!

Let's face it,Palin is no expert in energy policy,despite John McCain saying that she knew more about energy than anyone else in the country.....yeah right!

Heres the interview:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jAYPxIJSDg0
11.7.2008 9:45pm
Hoosier:
Angus:
"Jindal needs to get some accomplishments under his belt."

The Democrats just demonstrated that a candidate with no accomplishments of any kind in public life can play the role of mirror for the voter: They see themselves and their beliefs in him.

Actually DO something in office--rather than win, pivot on your heels, and start chasing the next office--and you might not win.
11.7.2008 9:48pm
MarkField (mail):

Even less hot.


Putting him into the Orc class.
11.7.2008 9:59pm
TangoMan (mail) (www):
I didn't see the interview, and it's not one I was referring to. Since she is, per McCain, the country's leading energy expert, (do you agree?) that was an oversight on my part. Sorry.

She's clearly not the nation's leading energy expert, but I wouldn't be find it outlandish to list her as the most knowledgeable, or at least near the top, on the subject when placed into a group of 50 Governors, 100 Senators, and 435 Congressmen and a handful of Presidential candidates.

She's demonstrated mastery of the esoterics of energy policy, can speak intelligently and in detail, on television, about arcane points dealing with Alaskan oil and natural gas, so I don't see why the same level of mastery can't be accomplished on policy issues that have more pertinence in the lower 48.

Time will cure Palin's deficit on policy issues that have greater resonance with non-Alaskans. If her approach to these issues is similar to what I've seen of her energy knowledge base and communication skills, then she doesn't have to fear being underprepared. As I noted above, if Obama was parachuted into the minutia of an Alaskan Gubernatorial race, then he'd probably suffer an image meltdown just as we've seen with Palin. If Obama was given sufficient time to get up to speed on the issues, then he'd probably do fine, and the same goes for Palin.
11.7.2008 10:01pm
Thomas_Holsinger:
TangoMan,

Palin is the most knowledgeable about energy of all 50 governors. Probably only Jindal of Lousiana comes close. There are probably more than few Congressmen, and possibly a Senator or two, who are better than Palin on the subject.

Most of Alaska's budget is based on oil production so its governors simply have to be conversant with the subject. I.e., it goes with the territory, and Palin's expertise here is due to that plus her having served on Alaska's state Energy Commission. It's simply part of her job.
11.7.2008 10:16pm
TangoMan (mail) (www):
She states that 20% of domestic supply is produced up in ANWR.

This seems to be a grosse exaggeration, the real figure is more like 3-4%.


I'd love to know when drilling for oil started up in ANWR.

As for your figures, here's a double check for you. The Energy Information Administration figures for 2007 report total US oil production of 1,848,450,000 barrels, of which Alaska produced 505,423,000 (down from past performance) which, by my calculation, works out to 27.34% of annual US oil production.

To truely understand enegy policy, Palin needs to understand the Middle East,its geography and its people.

You need to make a case for your argument rather than simply asserting it. Her position is that oil pumped from Alaska replaces imported oil. An energy policy focused on increasing domestic production reduces the need to involve ourselves as intimately in Middle Eastern affairs as we currently find ourselves, reduces the military protection premium that is implicit in every barrel of oil we import, and makes us safer as a nation. There is nothing inherent to energy policy which ties it to Middle Eastern affairs, rather, the overlap and the significance of that overlap, is a policy choice.
11.7.2008 10:17pm
KL (mail):

She's demonstrated mastery of the esoterics of energy policy, can speak intelligently and in detail, on television, about arcane points dealing with Alaskan oil and natural gas



Can she?

It might help if she gets her facts right!
Palin has been govenor of the State of Alaska for 2 years so you would expect her to be more familiar with Alaskan oil and gas issues than most.
That doesn't mean that she understands the oil and gas issues of America, or even of the Middle East.

I could give you an intelligent and detail talk on the finer points of keeping aquarium fish, but that doesn't qualify me to run for president of the National Aquarium Fish Society does it?
11.7.2008 10:18pm
TangoMan (mail) (www):
Thomas,

Most of Alaska's budget is based on oil production so its governors simply have to be conversant with the subject. I.e., it goes with the territory, and Palin's expertise here is due to that plus her having served on Alaska's state Energy Commission. It's simply part of her job.

I don't disagree with you. My point is to contest the impression that Palin is a congenital idiot incapable of mastering policy. If she can master the technical and engineering details of oil drilling and shipping, the financial details of royalty rates, the business details of negotiating the continent's largest infrastructure project, can manage a state budget that is larger than the State Budget that President Bill Clinton managed as he developed his executive experience in Arkansas, then I see no reason why those skills are just flukes that can't be transferred over to other policy areas.
11.7.2008 10:22pm
KL (mail):

As for your figures, here's a double check for you. The Energy Information Administration figures for 2007 report total US oil production of 1,848,450,000 barrels, of which Alaska produced 505,423,000 (down from past performance) which, by my calculation, works out to 27.34% of annual US oil production.



Tango Man, firstly we aren't actually talking of solely oil her it was "energy" that Palin said was 20% of domestic supply.

However this is what FactCheck.org states:

"Palin claims Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." That's not true.

Alaska did produce 14 percent of all the oil from U.S. wells last year, but that's a far cry from all the "energy" produced in the U.S.

Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

And if by "supply" Palin meant all the energy consumed in the U.S., and not just produced here, then Alaska's production accounted for only 2.4 percent."
11.7.2008 10:28pm
Adam B. (www):
I did a piece on Palin's impending Wilderness Years for DailyKos today -- some here might enjoy.
11.7.2008 10:30pm
KL (mail):

The Energy Information Administration figures for 2007 report total US oil production of 1,848,450,000 barrels, of which Alaska produced 505,423,000



Tango Man,

You seem to have misread the table in the report the figure for Alaska is 270,486 NOT 505,423,000.

This would make it tally to 14% not 27.34%.
11.7.2008 10:45pm
TangoMan (mail) (www):
Adam,

I did a piece on Palin's impending Wilderness Years

Nice play on words, her Wilderness Years coinciding with her being governor of a state dominated by wilderness.

I do think you make a good point with this statement:
And she will gain over time the one thing she was missing this cycle, and it isn't "experience" but what experience is often a proxy for -- mastery. What Gov. Palin needs to do if she is to return to national politics is to find ways to convince people that she knows what she's talking about, and this can be done. She can develop her own views on the role of government and America's role in the world.


Her mission this go-around, as the 2nd fiddle, wasn't to articulate her vision (if she wanted to do that she could have run in the primaries) but to advance Senator McCain's vision.

What we discovered about her can fill many pages of commentary, good and bad, but I'd think that fans and critics would be hard pressed to deny her political abilities in connecting with people. For a politician, that's a very valuable skill set. History is filled with policy wonks who run for office but drop by the wayside because they can't get voters interested in a.) listening to them and b.) working to advance the candidacy of the politician. I don't think that Governor Palin is every going to have that problem. Her task will be to develop the right policy message and if she does that, and can defend it, then many of the negatives she developed over the last two months will diminish as her new image develops.
11.7.2008 10:49pm
David Warner:
Sarcastro Homage,

"Are you crazy? He has a PhD from Princeton, and *shudder* in the liberal arts! Obviously he must be some sort of pointy headed liberal academic fascist. We Republicans can never surrender our principles and nominate someone with an elite education."

Here's the deal. Regular Repubs don't hate elites, even intellectual elites. They hate intellectual elites who disdain them, especially those with little experience upon which to base said disdainment and little self-awareness that might have prevented it.

Petraeus is not a problem on either count.

Again, the ticket is Petraeus/Volokh in '12. There's a good 2 months to get the amendment passed between the election and the inauguration.
11.7.2008 10:52pm
TangoMan (mail) (www):
You seem to have misread the table in the report the figure for Alaska is 270,486 NOT 505,423,000.

This would make it tally to 14% not 27.34%.


Good catch. What we've neglected to calculate is the natural gas production, of which Alaska produces nearly 8% of the US total. I've read that this figure is lower than it could be because of limited pipeline capacity.
11.7.2008 10:53pm
Thomas_Holsinger:
TangoMan,

I am a lot more impressed by the way Palin broke the 30 year-old logjam on the Canadian pipeline than her nominal expertise on energy. She showed executive ability of a high order in doing that, plus more than a little ruthlessness.
11.7.2008 11:05pm
KL (mail):

Good catch. What we've neglected to calculate is the natural gas production, of which Alaska produces nearly 8% of the US total. I've read that this figure is lower than it could be because of limited pipeline capacity.



Even if you include the Gas production from Alaska according to fact check:

Alaska's share of domestic energy production was 3.5 percent, according to the official figures kept by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

At the end of the day it appears that Palin seems to have either been misinformed,or simply got her facts wrong.

In my book though, all this seems immaterial as I doubt that she will be the Republican candidate in 2012, as she will struggle to win over independents or Democrats despite being popular amongst the Conservative base.
11.7.2008 11:13pm
David Warner:
byomtov,

"Palin couldn't answer very straightforward questions about topics in the news."

My Palin-defending days are nearing their end, but one word of wisdom to help you grok the "not an idiot" theory:

Couldn't is not the same as didn't.
11.7.2008 11:14pm
TangoMan (mail) (www):
Even if you include the Gas production from Alaska according to fact check:

Total US natural gas production = 24,536,309 mcf
Alaska natural gas production = 3,205,751 mcf.

Now I get to correct myself: 13%
11.7.2008 11:19pm
Hoosier:
David Warner

You said "grok".

Were you also in college in the '80s?
11.7.2008 11:41pm
Hoosier:
David (Again)

"Here's the deal. Regular Repubs don't hate elites, even intellectual elites. They hate intellectual elites who disdain them, especially those with little experience upon which to base said disdainment and little self-awareness that might have prevented it."

I like intellectuals. What I don't like intelligentsias. They are scary. And they have no place in our national conversation, if we respect pluralism of opinion.
11.7.2008 11:44pm
Doc W (mail):
Palin can get in the Senate and bide her time. Even in 2024, she'd still be only 60. And a few years in the Senate will certainly make her a known quantity. If she's a bimbo, she goes nowhere. If she's pretty sharp, as I suspect, she's got a very good shot at the presidency.

I don't think anybody mentioned Condi Rice. Can she distance herself from Bush? Does she want to?
11.8.2008 12:13am
RPT (mail):
"Bobby Jindal is compiling an amazing record as Governor of Louisiana."

What has he done? What is his position on David Vitter?
11.8.2008 12:19am
LM (mail):
Jindal has no chance. I like him. And my approval is an almost infallible contrary indicator of a Republican's electability. I liked Ford, Bush Sr., Dole and McCain. I didn't like Nixon, Reagan and Bush, Jr.

Don't say I didn't warn you.
11.8.2008 1:05am
David Warner:
Hoosier,

"I like intellectuals. What I don't like intelligentsias. They are scary. And they have no place in our national conversation, if we respect pluralism of opinion."

If we respect pluralism of opinion, there is no place in our conversation for the phrase "no place in our conversation".
11.8.2008 1:08am
David Warner:
DocW,

"I don't think anybody mentioned Condi Rice. Can she distance herself from Bush? Does she want to?"

In eight years, she won't need to. No way she runs against Obama.
11.8.2008 1:20am
theobromophile (www):
My question: does Obama keep Biden on for a second term, or does he jump out of the box and replace him with someone like Bill Richardson? Strategically, he would be best off anointing his successor (or, if his presidency is in the tank during a second term, anointing a whipping boy who can get smoked during the primaries and purge the party of the taint of the maligned administration), and, let's be honest, no one is going to want Joe Biden in 2016.

While VP nominees almost never make it to the Pres. spot, there hasn't been a VP nominee like Palin in quite some time. People said that they were voting for her, and the guy who happened to also be on the ticket. An Ohio GOP group made up yard signs that said, "Sarah!", charged $5 for them, and still ran out of them. (No mention of the guy on the top of the ticket.) Speaking of Ohio, someone plowed under his corn field to make a likeness of her face in it. Maybe I'm not long enough in the tooth to have seen the elections in the '70s, but I can't believe that VP nominees have EVER inspired that kind of passion and excitement.
11.8.2008 2:17am
JB:
Palin energized the base, but she also energized the Democrats. If she runs for President, it will be like Hillary--a complete circus, turnout on both sides, huge distractions from all substantive issues.

Jindal is actually pretty good--he's done some crazy stuff, but any Democrat attacks on the exorcism issue can be deflected like Obama deflected Wright--"That was a while ago, I wasn't at the center of the craziness, now can we talk about substantive issues?" He's got time to show managerial competence, and to pick which parts of the Republican Party to get behind. If Obama is unsuccessful, he can start early, but if Obama is successful and reelected in 2012 Jindal would have a very strong position should he wish to ride in to the GOP's rescue. A Republican Clinton to follow Obama's Democrat Reagan.
11.8.2008 2:17am
Kraorh (mail) (www):
Oh, maybe there's a Republican in a state legislature somewhere that can get the nomination. Or a city council. I say, one-up the Democrats with someone even less experienced!
11.8.2008 5:22am
LM (mail):
David Warner:

My Palin-defending days are nearing their end

Why?
11.8.2008 6:13am
Aleks:
Re: The most likely candidate, I think, would be Jeb Bush.

No way.
Jeb Bush is alraedy a has-been in Florida. His eight years in office are looking increasingly like a failure as Florida now deals with the consequences of numerous problems that Bush ignored. Worse for his record, Bush was utterly incapable of dealing with his (GOP-controlled) legislature, which became an utter laughingstock, renowned mainly for endless spoecial sessions (since nothing ever got done in the normal term) and pranks worthy of animal-house (state senate tied one on and toilet-papered the state house chamber-- I am not joking!)
Bush's successor Charlie Crist has far surpassed hi malready in accomplishments. His approval ratings are stratospheric-- rare for any Republican right now. If he is reelected in a landslide in 2010 (as I expect) he will become the GOP's greatest success story. He combines traditional (not Bush-style) GOP conservatism with a strong dose of middle clas populism. He's the Florida pol to watch for 2012.
11.8.2008 7:52am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Petraeus looks too good.
The media will have to Westmoreland him, as they did Stockdale.
IOW, lie their little asses off.

Might not work this time.
11.8.2008 9:30am
Randy R. (mail):
"Palin will have to do something dramatic about her 46% favorable, 51% unfavorable ratings if she even wants to dream about running for president."

She can start by learning the names of the continents.
11.8.2008 10:02am
Hoosier:
Kraorh
Oh, maybe there's a Republican in a state legislature somewhere that can get the nomination. Or a city council. I say, one-up the Democrats with someone even less experienced!

But someone in city council or state legislature might have had to make a controversial vote. That could hurt in the project-all-our-dreams-on-an-unknown candidacy.

Maybe no experience at all is best. Just start running.
11.8.2008 10:17am
BrockLanders (mail):
Some of the above posters have hinted at it. You really can't speculate too much about who the GOP nominee will be at this point. The smart ones will get the lay of the land in late 2010 and give it some hard thought. Obama inherits a giant steaming pile. If things are turning around by then - and they may very well be - the real GOP heavyweights may sit it out and wait for what will almost certainly be a better shot in 2016. Obama's a political talent on par with Bill Clinton (Full disclosure: I supported him big time) and if he can take credit for the turnaround that probably happens in '10 or '11, the GOP will put up a sacrificial lamb in 2012 - if they've managed to get over the infighting that us Dems will enjoy watching so much.
11.8.2008 11:33am
Sam H (mail):
Are you sure that there will be an real election in 2012, or will have Acorn completed their mission?
11.8.2008 12:30pm
Anon1111:
Petraus is most likely a conservative Democrat or liberal Republican (if he identifies in that way), based on Rick Atkinson's book on his command of the 101st in Iraq.
11.8.2008 1:05pm
David Warner:
LM,

"My Palin-defending days are nearing their end

Why?"

My argument all along was against prejudice, i.e. judging her prematurely. Innocent until proven guilty is a core value of this country (perhaps the core value), so I argued against those who assumed she was guilty then went seeking validation of their prejudice.

There's a lot more data out there to work with at this point, so judgments rendered now are less likely to be premature. Personally, I judge aspirants for the Presidency on their capacity to function as an effective Head of State, specifically on their ability to inspire confidence and (shared) hope.

I wasn't so inspired. If she manages to show me something in the next eight years, I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
11.8.2008 1:16pm
David Warner:
Anon1111,

"Petraus is most likely a conservative Democrat or liberal Republican (if he identifies in that way), based on Rick Atkinson's book on his command of the 101st in Iraq."

With the Lefts abandoning "liberal" finally for "progressive", perhaps by 2012 enough Republicans will have figured out what liberal means by then (most conservatives are about conserving the liberal values of our founding, and resisting the threat of overweening corporatist government power to those values), then being a liberal Republican might be more feature than bug.

My guess is that this takes until (at least) 2016.
11.8.2008 1:22pm
wb (mail):
"Usually he come in, makes a splash by changing everything around, then jumps for the next higher position before the results are felt (usually chaos)"

It worked for Obama; why not for Jindal
11.8.2008 5:15pm
KL (mail):
While VP nominees almost never make it to the Pres. spot, there hasn't been a VP nominee like Palin in quite some time. People said that they were voting for her, and the guy who happened to also be on the ticket. An Ohio GOP group made up yard signs that said, "Sarah!", charged $5 for them, and still ran out of them. (No mention of the guy on the top of the ticket.) Speaking of Ohio, someone plowed under his corn field to make a likeness of her face in it. Maybe I'm not long enough in the tooth to have seen the elections in the '70s, but I can't believe that VP nominees have EVER inspired that kind of passion and excitement.


Whilst your statement is indeed true, it also is true to say that no other Vice President pick has ever horrified voters into NOT voting for the ticket quite as much as Palin has.

Let's face it, even with all these extra votes that Palin secured for McCain, it still fell way short of even coming close to Obama, who secured 52.5% of the popular vote against McCain's 46.2%, winning Obama 364 Electoral college votes against McCain's 162.

So which ever way you look at it Palin is no "vote winner", despite being able to excite those that were going to vote Republican anyway.
In my view Palin in the final analysis is most likely to have caused the Republicans to lose more votes than they actually gained by her running for VP.

If the Republicans are serious, they need someone that excites the independents and undecideds,and potential swing voters and NOT just the Conservative base.
Palin wasn't that candidate, nor do I expect her to be in 2012, and the chances of her running for president are minimal.
11.8.2008 6:29pm
KL (mail):

Palin can get in the Senate and bide her time. Even in 2024, she'd still be only 60. And a few years in the Senate will certainly make her a known quantity.


Won't Palin need to show knowledge and interest in affairs occuring outside Alaska to become a senator?
11.8.2008 6:35pm
LM (mail):
David Warner:

I wasn't so inspired. If she manages to show me something in the next eight years, I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

I suspected as much. Nobody's a cartoon, so I'm skeptical of all two dimensional impressions. It took my seeing the weaknesses in Obama's process in real time before I was willing to fully credit my positive early impressions. I doubt we saw anything resembling the best of Palin in this campaign, so my mind's still open. But I'd be lying if I said the early signals disposed me positively.
11.8.2008 7:35pm
Hoosier:
Won't Palin need to show knowledge and interest in affairs occuring outside Alaska to become a senator?

No.
11.8.2008 11:14pm
Ken Mitchell (mail):
I have written repeatedly since 1980 that George H. W. Bush was a deep-penetration mole from the far left, on a mission to utterly destroy the Conservative movement. His son has now apparently succeeded where the father had failed.

THE LAST THING IN THE WORLD THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NEEDS IS ANOTHER SHRUB RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY!

I was originally prepared to trust that George <i>fils </i>did not share George <i>pere's</i> goal, but he proved me wrong repeatedly. "Big government conservatism" is oxymoronic; can we all finally agree on this? I do not believe that Jeb would be able to resist the call from the Dark Side from his father and brother.

Find someone new. Jindal, Palin, Pawlenty; any one of the three would be far superior to Jeb Bush.
11.8.2008 11:35pm
David Warner:
One last Palin defense:

I don't give much credence to the present "leaking."

If you recall, I predicted that when she was announced as the VP candidate that K-Street would do what they could to bring her down, given her record in Alaska. This stuff smells like that.

Apologies for the fascist links, but this is a hit within the family.
11.8.2008 11:37pm
Hoosier:
David Warner:

National Review is fascist to the same degree that Barack Obama is a lesbian.

Key quote: The stories against her are being "fed by an unnamed source who is allowed by the press to make ad hominem attacks on background." Biegun, who spent dozens and dozens of hours briefing Palin on these issues, is happy to defend her, on the record, under his own name.


Keep the links coming!
11.9.2008 8:34am
David Warner:
Hoosier,

"National Review is fascist to the same degree that Barack Obama is a lesbian."

Yeah, I had to say that to get the KosKidz to read it so the Newsweek writers will see it on Kos so that my family will read it in Newsweek.
11.9.2008 7:21pm
glangston (mail):
Africa comment a hoax
11.13.2008 1:28pm
glangston (mail):
"Palin will have to do something dramatic about her 46% favorable, 51% unfavorable ratings if she even wants to dream about running for president."

She can start by learning the names of the continents.

This was a hoax....
11.13.2008 1:34pm