PRAIRIE EDITOR: IS SARAH PALIN THE ONE TO WATCH?
With three years to go for the next Republican national convention, where
presumably Barack Obama’s next opponent will be nominated, it might be
considered a trifle premature to speculate about who that nominee might be.
On the other hand, the nation’s traditionally conservative party is leaderless, or
more accurately, rudderless in a sea of political turmoil, and any sign of an
authentic direction for the GOP is worth talking about even now.
Governor Palin’s surprise announcement of her early retirement on July 27 has
provoked an avalanche of reactions among politicos and in the media. Her
political enemies, most of whom are in the Democratic Party (but a noticeable
number are in her own party), have denounced the move, citing it as one more
piece of evidence that the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee is over her
head in national politics and not worthy of consideration as a candidate for
president. Her political friends and supporters have predictably defended the
move, but lacking specific information about what will come next, have been
mostly limited to generic explanations of what she is doing and why she is doing it.
Liberal media rumormongers have once again implied and insinuated dark motives
behind her announcement, piously citing so-called sources that imminent legal and
personal disasters are behind her move. Of course, anything is possible, but it is
important to note that all such political gossip about Palin has been wrong in the past,
and has proven to be examples of a mean-spirited and recurrent campaign to
discredit her.
In fact, I think that Sarah Palin is the Republican that the Left and the Democrats
fear most today. There is an intensity in the campaign of ridicule and rumor
against her, since her emergence less than a year ago as John McCain’s surprise
choice as his running mate, that is reminiscent of the prolonged campaign by many
of the same ilk to discredit Ronald Reagan as a political lightweight, a mere film
actor, and a tool of the entourage around him. None of the latter turned out to be
true, and so far, none of the malignity about Palin has been confirmed.
One of the myths about the 2008 presidential campaign is that Sarah Palin cost
John McCain the election. Post-election polling, however shows the opposite to be
true. Governor Palin struck an instant chord with many blue collar and working class
Americans when she came on the national scene. It was she, and not John McCain,
who drew some of the biggest and most intense crowds before election day, and most
revealing, she is still doing it. Even though the McCain staff clearly ill-used Mrs. Palin
during much of the final weeks of the campaign, and the media became a transparent
conspirator in the effort to ridicule her, any serious analyst of the 2008 presidential
contest knows that the 2008 campaign effectively ended with the banking and
mortgage meltdown.
That John McCain came as close as he did only illustrates the risk that Democrats took
in nominating Senator Obama over Senator Hillary Clinton, but there was no reasonable
chance, given the unpopularity of President George W. Bush and his Republican
administration, to win the presidential race once the financial crisis took over the news
headlines.
My own evidence of Mrs. Palin’s appeal to Republicans was reinforced at a rally for the
McCain/Palin in ticket in Blaine, Minnesota, a suburb north of Minneapolis, a few weeks
after the GOP national convention in the Twin Cities. By this time, the media and
political analysts were telling us, the novelty about Governor Palin had worn off and
she was already being ridiculed for her manner of speaking and her apparent lack of
experience in national affairs. The rally was to be held inside a regional airport
hangar with a capacity of about 10,000, and I remember how difficult it was to get
there and find parking, even with its proximity to the city. I was forewarned by
McCain staffers that the crowd may not be as big a one as originally predicted.
By the time the plane landed carrying the two candidates, their spouses, and their
entourage, however, the hangar was packed, and a few thousand had to stand
outside. But that was not the most remarkable fact. What amazed me was that such
a large part of the crowd was made up of young working class women, and I knew
this was so because prior to the event, I circulated in the crowd and asked many
why they were there. Even in his own remarks, Senator McCain acknowledged that
to a major degree the crowds there, and elsewhere, were motivated to come out to
see his running mate.
All of that, of course, was in the past. We are now looking forward to the kind of
Republican party we will see in the years ahead. The Party no longer controls either
house of the Congress. A very liberal Democrat resides in the White House. The
national agenda, foreign and domestic, is now a liberal agenda based on liberal
assumptions. The 2012 presidential campaign, now in its formative stages, is
mostly dominated by names from 2008. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee
and Sarah Palin are the names we hear most often. Even some of the new names
such as Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, host of the 2008 convention and
finalist for the McCain vice presidential nomination, have resonances from the last
election. Only a very few new names have yet surfaced. Governor Mark Sanford
of South Carolina, thanks to recent events, is out of the race. A very promising
newcomer, Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana, has declared himself not only out
of the presidential race, but out of electoral politics totally. Others may yet
emerge, and like Barack Obama only a year ago, one of them might win the
nomination in an upset against more well-known names, but time is beginning to
run out for truly new entrants.
It is a fact that the Republican Party’s demographics have changed significantly in
the past three decades. Since Reagan’s election, more and more GOP voters are
coming from working class and blue collar constituencies, reversing the
conventional wisdom that Republicans are the party of the rich. If this trend
continues, which of the candidates we know about would appeal to this new party
base? Perhaps it will be Pawlenty, the “Sam’s Club” Republican, or Huckabee,
the appealing blue collar southerner. It might even be Newt Gingrich, who
continues to dominate the discussion of policy issues in his party.
But I think it is fair to say that, at the present time, the name most talked about,
the person most in the news and most attacked by opponents, is the soon-to-be
retiring governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin.
Her next political destination is unknown, but rich with tantalizing and promising
mystery.
Copyright (c) 2009 by Barry Casselman
All rights reserved.
Thank you, Barry: truly arresting, thought provoking. Albeit strikingly fresh and yet generally more measured and restrained, this piece has impressed me as reminiscent, in its tone and clairvoyant implications, of some of your your mid-1970s vintage “Many Corners” columns.
[In light of the sheer fact of Senator Al Franken, I sense a long term question stalking Sarah Palin:
what's to stop Tina Fey? Wait. A Palin-Fey GOP presidential-VP ticket.]
Sir:
With all due respect, comparing Sarah Palin with Ronald Reagan is a bit of an insult to Reaganites everywhere. If she is the future of the GOP, I’m afraid the Republicans are going to be wandering in the political wilderness for a very long time. And I would venture to wager that the Obama campaign machine would like nothing better than to face the prodigal governor in 2012.
The Boss
Dear Mr Casselman,
I learned never to discount your prognostications after the election that catapulted a former California Governor into the White House. I believe there is a striking set of differences between that former Governor from a huge, complex, populous state on the far West coast of the United States and the soon-to-be-former Governor Sarah Palin.
But I cannot quibble with your analysis about Sarah Palin’s appeal. Will it translate into a viable candidacy? As a centrist Democrat, I would welcome Palin’s success in getting the nomination because it will create a great deal of room in the center for Obama to appeal to the majority of voters. It also can put to rest the idea that Obama is an ultra-liberal bent on ruining the nation to benefit his extreme ideology.
Scare tactics aside, Sarah Palin would make a Presidential more fun to watch…and easier to decide.
[...] resignation is required reading for obsessive 2012 watchers. You can find this essay over at The Prairie Editor Blog. by Kavon W. Nikrad @ 10:38 am. Filed under Sarah Palin [Comments [...]
With all due respect, Reagan would have adored Sarah Palin and instantly taken to her. She’s of his mold.
There is an old joke that says “just because no one understands you doesn’t make you an artist.” Similarly, being underestimated doesn’t make you the next Ronald Reagan. Reagan led the world’s sixth largest economy and could handle the media with poise. Palin just walked away from the job of running a much less significant state and, more telling, she is a cautionary tale in how NOT to handle the press. She is a disaster, and she will continue to turn off American voters outside that closeted coterie of conservatives. See this blog post from months ago http://tinyurl.com/SPalinPress
Quitting is not same as “retiring”
President Reagan & Lincoln would not approve
Of course Palin and Reagan are not the same person.
But as the P.E. so eloquently put it to me last eve, after a meal of Chinese shrimp: A real original is one who does something that defies logic; and it works. We rationalize it later.
We have no shortage of voices pontificating; most are remarkably uncreative. This piece gives me pause.
Interesting. Roger Stone, Charlie Cook and now Mr. Casselman have joined Pat Buchanan, Tony Blankley and Bill Kristol in providing positive remarks about Palin’s future status. It seems that not everyone thinks she’s an idiot. I remember people were afraid Ronnie was going to push the nuclear bomb button. Maybe the same people are afraid Palin will push the idiot button.
Please, please, stop this cult of personality nonsense. Palin is nothing. If she weighed three hundred pounds, with the same “qualificatiions”, no one would give her a minute of time. She is a failure in every measureable way; her state has the highest rate of welfare, and the highest rape rate, her family is a disaster, (imagine if Al Franken’s family life was even close to hers, would would this blog be saying now?), and she’s at least as lacking in curiousity and smarts as GWB. Again, please, I’m getting nauseous, stop it. No wait…..on second thought, please, please, please run her on the republican ticket in 2012. That’ll get you (maybe), the old confederacy….please?
The simplest explanation is usually the best. The left ridicule Palin not because they fear her but because they know that any figure that gets ridiculed by the left has their stock go up on the right. The left would absolutely love to run against Palin, she’d make a horrid candidate for national office, and they are betting that going after candidate will cause the right to circle the wagons around her.
Clearly, Republican sympathizers are excited if Palin draws crowds, and construe it as an ability to strike a chord with a constituency of voters. Yet, Obama’s ability to draw crowds — much bigger crowds — was never perceived as anything nearly as crucial…
Charlie Cook’s article is spot on as to why stepping down as Gov was the best move for Palin. The cost of the bogus ethics alone was bankrupting her but the fact that she was facing dems that were more interested now in stonewalling then helping Alaska move forward would only make the next year a painfull one with very little if any positive work for her to take as credit.
I am a huge admirer of Sarah Palin, and certainly hope she decides to run in 2012. She is authentic, like Ronald Reagan, and tough times like these deserve a leader of her character.
It is always nice to see an article that doesn’t follow the typical punditry prose. Demonstrates the author is thinking rather than just following the crowd. Same thing with Sarah Palin. She is anything but typical and is not politically correct. And that is refreshing in this pc gone crazy world.
I disagree that her family is a disaster. They are loving and supportive in the midst of trial and tribulation. In fact, they are ‘functional’ in a way few families are these days.
Sarah and Todd Palin have the character that counts.
To Barry: Great article, and I really agree with your analysis. Certainly there is a long way to go, and there are many things that Sarah must do to put herself in a position to win in 2012, but I can definitely see that scenario happening.
To Randall Davidson: Obama’s appeal to centrists? What news are you watching these days? Obama is as far to the left as one can get and Americans are finally waking up to this fact, explaining why his poll numbers are falling.
I find it interesting that so many women like Katie Couric and Maureen Dowd can’t help themselves and have turned on Sarah Palin. is it jealousy or fear that a person not of their making could actually make a difference. But then again…these same sycophants boosted Hillary Clinton up, only to run slobberingly to the feet of Mr. Obama, despite his and their shabby treatment of our current Secretary of State. I am a true believer in Sarah not because she is from outside the chattering laboratories of the East. I am a true beleiver because she represents the best of America. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Color me old fashioned, but this foundation works for me.
Very interesting BUT Sarah Palin is no Reagan!!!
-GP
Palin is both authentic and a charismatic presence. And I believe she has a common sense instinct that would serve her well if she were ever to serve as president (as it did with Reagan). And she is NOT as dim-witted as the press has made her out to be (with more than an occassional assist from Sarah herself).
But she is no Ronald Reagan. Those of us who worked for Reagan in the mid-70s remember that contrary to his media image, Regan was not only NOT stupid, he was actually an intellectual, a voracious reader, and a skilled debater long before he took apart Jimmy Carter in the 1980 debates. I have a question for those of you who think Sarah Palin is Reagan for this generation of conservatives: Could you honestly imagine Sarah Palin going toe-to-to in a debate with William F. Buckley in his prime?? No, I can’t either.
Dear Steve from Wisconsin:
Centrists vote for an incumbent Obama if Sarah Palin is running for President. It won’t matter what the polls say today.