November 22, 2008

Gallup says Republicans want to see Sarah Palin run in 2012.

Sarah, first, followed by Mitt and Mike.

67 comments:

dualdiagnosis said...

Palin will be President Jan. 2013.

Pastafarian said...

If I could pick one and elect him/her with just my one vote, I'd pick Palin. But she might be unelectable by then -- it depends on how radioactive she is by then, thanks to SNL and the relentless liberal media.

At this point, I think that Mitt or Newt might be more viable choices.

Simon said...

I was thinking Galvatron/Cyclonus 2012, myself, but a Palin/Gingrich ticket would work well, too.

The difficulty for candidates thinking about it is that you need to start running really early on - probably right after the 2010 election - but it's probably not going to be clear by then whether Obama's first term has been a failure. If he doesn't fail - at least, if the bloom doesn't come off the rose - he seems destined to crush any comer, and who wants to be a sacrificial lamb?

Pastafarian said...

I'm shocked that Huckabee still garners any support from actual Republicans, after he almost singlehandedly and singlemindedly drove Romney, our one best hope to win the general election, out of the primaries.

And from where I sit, it seemed as though Huckabee considered Romney unfit for office because he was a Mormon. He's an ignorant religious bigot. Who can forget his quote re. Mormonism: "Don't Mormons think that Jesus and Satan are brothers?"

What an asshole.

ron st.amant said...

We Democrats want her to run too...good luck with that GOP...you guys are totally clueless if you think she's a viable nominee.

fivewheels said...

Why is the "Huckabee" tag just one word, but Romney is "Mitt Romney"? Have there been many George Romney posts?

I love blogging minutiae.

Quayle said...

Huckabee, if nominated, will have the distinction of being the first Republican to lose Utah in a long time.

That alone might be a good reason to see him lead the party.

Cedarford said...

Interesting poll, though too early to matter much. I was struck by how damaged Jeb Bush was by his family name, the early indifference to Petraeus and Jindal.

Palin seems strong in the "real America" states McCain took, along with her evangelical cultural war supporters...not so hot elsewhere.

Romney has a solid lead in moderate-Centrist Republicans (Gallup calls centrist Reps liberal, an odd term).

Rose said...

I'll be supporting her. No question. And it has nothing to do with religion.

Darcy said...

I echo Rose's comment, and add that Palin is definitely a match for the MSM. I doubt very much that the continual interest is going to hurt her.

Theo Boehm said...

...it depends on how radioactive she is by then, thanks to SNL and the relentless liberal media.

Pastafarian: That's quite true. SNL may have done with her, but everyone else certainly isn't. She is a classic example of someone who peaked too soon. The media and liberals who would naturally be her opposition now have a clear target. She has been fatally defined for a large segment of opinion, no matter what she does or how brilliantly she handles herself going forward.

If she had had a few more years as Governor, and had prepared herself better for national exposure, she might have emerged as a kind of stealth candidate in '12, with a following among Republicans, but basically ignored by the MSM and the public in general.

She does have the advantage of a constituency from all this, but I think her prefabricated negatives will prevent her from ever becoming a serious candidate for President. She MIGHT be that sacrificial lamb in 2012, after which Romney can look forward to finally gratifying his ego and finally buying the nomination in '16.

At the rate Romney's going, he will indeed be another Ronald Reagan by the time he has a clear shot at the Presidency—at least in terms of being very old. On the other hand, all that clean living may have given him a Dick Clark-like old age, and he might continue to look 48 forever.

Republicans should just make sure he doesn't have an old portrait stuck in his attic.

LonewackoDotCom said...

I'm surprised that 31% picked Jeb, but I guess that's the Bell Curve in action.

As for Palin, I seem to recall Althouse helping in at least one smear of her.

Meanwhile, I was spending valuable time trying to push back and not getting much help from others. In fact, many of the Palin smears could have been nipped in the bud if others hadn't kept doing stupid things.

Eric said...

We Democrats want her to run too...good luck with that GOP...you guys are totally clueless if you think she's a viable nominee.

I remember thinking exactly the same thing about Obama two years ago. Who would run a crooked pol from the Chicago machine with no useful experience, a guy with a head so big he wrote two autobiographies about a life in which nothing of note was accomplished?

I hope Palin is similarly non-viable.

laura said...

But she might be unelectable by then -- it depends on how radioactive she is by then, thanks to SNL and the relentless liberal media.

I dunno, there's a lot of water to go under the bridge, regarding, her the next few years. The siren call of her exploding celebrity may overcome her further political ambitions. It'll be more on her than SNL and the 'relentless liberal' media. She's got more control of this than you're giving her credit for.

Matt Eckert said...

Be careful what you wish for my little young communists. Our Sarah will be feeding the media and the liberal elitist into the turkey shredder just like in the latest video that you enjoy cackling about at Whole foods. There is a whole big country out there that she can turn around with a real populist campaign. Us against them. And you Volvo driving, carbon footprint fearing, polar bear blowing elitist assholes are them. People who work for a living are us. Let’s go to war. Culture war.

HULK SMASH!!!!!

SteveR said...

From 2004 thru 2007, a somewhat underqualified but very political Hillary Clinton was tops on the list only to be replaced by a very underqualified but very charismatic, sort of, one term senator.

Place your bets

Paddy O. said...

Palin certainly has the chance. Yeah, she had a bit of a bad run there, a combination of her thrust into the spotlight without enough time to prepare and the media choosing who they wanted to win this election.

She has a mixed reputation now. However, if she is as smart and capable as some of us think she is, then all this time can be used extremely well. When the spotlight comes shining again all it will take is a couple of absolutely superb interviews to knock out the negatives.

She has a lot of time to prepare. As much time as Obama did after his coming out party at the 2004 convention.

It'll be interesting to see if she rises to the occasion.

John Stodder said...

Fascinating, the amount of utter contempt and disrespect Palin gets from virtually all Democrats, with the exception of a few beyond-political feminist cultural observers like Camille Paglia. You think she can overcome it? She can wear it like a badge of honor and use it to deprive Obama of a second term?

I kind of like her, actually, but I don't think God's opening the door for her (to use her phrase) in 2012.

If Obama's successful, then she is, at best, a sacrificial lamb. Will she want to play that role, having already played it, in her mind, once? And will the party view her as a boost to any down-ticket candidates' survival amid what would likely be an LBJ-sized landslide.

If Obama's not successful, then will the GOP see Palin as the best candidate to seize the opportunity? It depends.

If Obama's failed on the economy, then there might be a call for a candidate with more intellectual depth who can turn things around. Romney, who has already started positioning himself as a clear thinker on the auto industry, is the kind of candidate who might fill the bill, or maybe an outside-the-beltway corporate hero, like whoever takes over GM after the bankruptcy judge kicks Wagoner's sorry butt to the curb.

If Obama's failed in terms of foreign policy, then the nod will probably go to someone with more national security stature. Facing off against a nuclear Iran doesn't sound like something the American voters are ready to assign Palin.

Her best-case scenario is if energy resurfaces as the primary issue, and if Obama is seen to have mucked it up such that energy costs are high, exploration is stalled by appeasing the environmentalists and the public starts to become convinced that global warming is overstated. That's a lot of ifs, but it could happen.

If I were Sarah Palin's political guru -- and I don't think she has one -- I would focus on making Alaska an example of her overall governmental and political skill, win re-election in part by pledging to serve her full second term, get attached to a think-tank to buff up her intellectual credentials, raise a ton of money for Republican candidates, and get ready to run in 2016 when she will still be only 52 years old and will have outlasted her critics. Assuming Biden stays on Obama's ticket for his second term, there will likely be no Democratic heir apparent.

If she can do that, she can be the first woman president. But it takes a lot of patience and I'm not sure patience is her strong suit.

The other route she could take is an unusual one, but it might fit her. In the scenario of a weakened Obama, she endorses a leading GOP candidate early, and helps him get the nomination. Then she runs again as the vice-presidential nominee, only this time, prepared. She could possibly help elect a Republican president in a close race. Then she's next in line if that president is successful.

I don't know, though. From reading all these conservative intellectually lately, I think the GOP is seriously dead for awhile. They don't have the ingredients of a winning coalition. You could see the outlines of Obama's victory in Kerry's performance in 2004. Bad as he was. You can't see anything like that for the GOP from the 2008 results. The Republicans are hemorrhaging support in regions they need. A Democratic "lock" to rival the Republicans' from '68-'92 might have formed. And there would something shameful in rooting for Obama to fail, which is really the only credible scenario for the Republicans to come back in four years.

Matt Eckert said...

There is a different scenario other than a complete failure by Obama. He can be merely mediocre with the economy muddling through as he is protected by his cheerleaders in the mainstream media. Meanwhile the left wing idiots who are in control in Congress will pass the kind of legislation like the fairness doctrine, carbon footprint taxes, huge gasoline taxes and a general encroachment on the rights of regular people based on the fact that they "know better" than the people in Kansas. You know outlawing turkey farming for instance. Don't think that they won't overreach because people always do. Our Sarah can lead a populist revolt against these nanny state elitist who are sure to overplay their hand.

Plus she will not be impressed by the hatred and scorn of the establishment both of the press and the pundit class because she has already been scorched by their scorn and contempt. So she can just tell them to go screw and go off the grid to the alternative media. That will be her road to victory.

SMASH THEM!!!!

Pastafarian said...

Matt, Laura, Darcy -- I share your enthusiasm for Palin. I'd love to see someone elected who has actually lived and worked in the wide, wide world beyond government and academia; someone who's not a lawyer or a law professor; someone whose blind ambition and lust for power hasn't been metastasizing since age 5.

But let's just make damned sure this time that we nominate someone who's electable, and who wants to win more than they want to preserve their "place in history" or their image as a kindly elder statesman.

And let's see if we can nominate someone who Althouse can vote for, without fear of being ridiculed by the womyn's studies majors on her way across the quad to the coffee house.

Because if we can't win over Althouse, a fairly reasonable and rational liberal, then we can't win any of them over; and we can't win period without a few liberals jumping ship. Not against Obama, with his 200,000 fraudulent votes in Ohio.

Now, at the same time, we can't allow the Country-club wing of the Republican Party to willow away good candidates because they lack the proper "education" (they're not a Harvard legacy, like them, Bush, or even Obama) or "experience" (they're not lifetime bureaucrats).

However, if we allow what I'll call the "Shithead wing" of the Republican Party to veto strong candidates because they wear the wrong sort of underwear to church, then the odds are really against us. I've put up with these same idiots, who think that dinosaurs are the dragons in children's fables, preventing atheists from ever running as Republican candidates; and I've held my nose and voted for my share of these cavemen, because we happen to agree on tax and foreign policy. To see them now reject viable candidates because these candidates belong to the wrong sect of the same religion is truly sickening.

Darcy said...

And there would something shameful in rooting for Obama to fail, which is really the only credible scenario for the Republicans to come back in four years.

I agree, John Stodder. I think the people who believe in conservative principles and government are more grown up than that, to be honest. Thank goodness.

Darcy said...

Good thoughts, Pastafarian. I hope we choose wisely the next time, too.

John Stodder said...

So she can just tell them to go screw and go off the grid to the alternative media. That will be her road to victory.

Maybe to the nomination, but not victory. While the MSM is certainly collapsing as a business model, the alternative media as we know it now is probably not going to just move into place to replace them. Your typical low-information voter who gets his or her news from ABC isn't going to start reading Michele Malkin all of a sudden. It'll be something as easy to consume as the MSM, and it won't all be Sarah-friendly.

John Stodder said...

Just to continue the thought, I'm seeing Palin '12, if she runs, as akin to Goldwater '64. What she might call the "progress-maker." A candidate who loses in such a way that another person who shares her ideas but can express them better will succeed down the road.

rcocean said...

I wonder how many in the poll confused Jeb Bush with George Bush?

Also, remember most Republicans are stupid. 40 percent wanted George Bush I in 1980 - NOT Reagan. 40 percent wanted McCain in 2000. 60 percent LOVED Bob Dole in 1996. Most of them still can't believe we didn't elect "Where's the outrage?" Bob Dole.

Probably 35 percent of Repubs would vote for Colin Powell or Joe Lieberman as the Republican Nominee.

I read 25 percent of SC Repubs thought McCain was against Amnesty and wanted to deport all the illegals.

John Stodder said...

Just looked at the link. Interesting how Mitt Romney has become the clear preference of moderate/liberal Republicans, fewer than half of whom even want Palin or Huckabee to run. I don't think he had much support among that segment in '08, so what's he done to gain traction in the meanwhile? Not be Palin or Huckabee, I guess.

SteveR said...

John,

I think your insight about the potential for the republicans to struggle is well taken. One factor that I see is the migration of large numbers of Californians into states like New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Colorado. States that have been swing but are going blue.

So unless they aggregate their feces, they could spend their time wandering in the desert. Of course they could recover quickly if they do some things right and hopefully not because of some Carteresque foreign policy nightmare and economic malaise.

As we have seen too many big egos going after the same piece of pie can bring any party down.

Revenant said...

The country is heading into a nasty recession, possibly even a repeat of the Great Depression. An empty suit like Obama would have a rough time establishing a successful Presidency even when times were good. Times aren't good; Obama is fucked.

Even if Palin were a bad choice for the nominee -- and she certainly isn't -- she'd still have an easy time winning in 2012.

John Stodder said...

There's always an underlying irony to a party realignment. FDR and the New Deal turned a lot of poor, working-class families into middle-class families who eventually started voting like the middle class -- for lower taxes.

Now, like you pointed out, you've got people who lived in blue states with higher state taxes, like California and Illinois, moving into lower-tax states like Nevada and Indiana -- and even North Carolina -- and bringing their liberalism with them.

I wonder what will happen politically after California goes bankrupt? California is the GM of state governments. The recession has already hit here, but Arnold and the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature are talking about all kinds of tax increases to deal with a $28 billion deficit, including tripling the tax on car purchases -- which I'm sure has Detroit just thrilled. But obviously, raising taxes in that scenario will just make things much worse, and worsen the deficit instead of repairing it. Eventually -- kaboom!

downtownlad said...

Notice how both of the gay candidates, Charlie Crist and Lindsay Graham, are at the end of the list? Proves the GOP is anti-gay.

Simon said...

John Stodder said...
"Just to continue the thought, I'm seeing Palin '12, if she runs, as akin to Goldwater '64. What she might call the 'progress-maker.' A candidate who loses in such a way that another person who shares her ideas but can express them better will succeed down the road."

Goldwater was no slouch himself - Conscience of a Conservative is a period piece, and jarring in places, but it remains for the most part a useful and intelligent exposition of conservative ideas in the context of the time. I would really like to see Palin write (or stamp her imprimatur on a ghostwritten effort to the same effect) something in the same sort of vein: a book elaborating on her worldview and how she there. We have seen glimpses of that worldview through the windows of specific policies and speeches, but it would be helpful for her to open up the dinner party so that we can get a more comprehensive picture. I also think that writing would be healthy for her because she may never have tried to set these matters out in a systematic manner on the page, and there's a discipline that goes with writing that helps clarify one's own thinking.

Synova said...

I think that Romney is popular now because a lot of people see him as the best person *now* to deal with financial issues in a way that inspires confidence.

Four years from now?

Four years from now we'll have different problems.

A lot of the prognosticating going on strikes me as a little bit unrealistic. If Obama is doing well he'll be expected to win in 2012, so the stigma attached to someone who runs against him and looses won't be much greater, if any, than those who lost to Obama this year when every one pretty much figured that it was the Democrats race to lose. The benefits of running in 2012, even if a loss is most likely, is to gain public exposure and maybe help to get Senators and Congress-persons elected.

Part of why people are excited about Palin, still, is that they don't know who else to be excited about. Jindal? Political junkies know who he is. Pawlenty? I've heard names of people who I know nothing about and wouldn't recognize if I saw them. Name (and face) recognition is huge in politics, for better or worse.

In any case, losing in 2012 is only a career disaster if Obama is terrible and whoever runs against him can't win. (Think Kerry.)

As for Palin being radioactive due to relentless attacks... that's one possibility. The other is that it will fade into noise or even start to work in her favor. Being sure about which it will be is being sure without any basis for it.

It's one thing to gasp and clasp your hand over your mouth in horror at hearing something new. It's another to get that reaction over something that's four year old news.

It used to be that Palin was horrible because she *gasp* faked her own pregnancy. Now it's an outrage that she gave an interview at a turkey farm. What next? Shall we be horrified that she bunched her hair up on her head again?

Yawn.

While the usual suspects were chortling over how stupid she was to do an interview in front of turkey murder, how many people all over the country watched a You-Tube video of the outrage, went "meh," and listened as a perfectly ordinary politician said perfectly predictable political sorts of things, including her trademark "Thankful to be in this Great State of Alaska", and a couple very practical statements about how the state would be dealing with an expected loss of revenue due to falling oil prices?

Original George said...

She took me half the way there.

Teaser.

downtownlad said...

Palin's horrible, because she can't name one newspaper or magazine she reads.

That's pathetic.

downtownlad said...

I would NEVER vote for a Mormon for President. I wouldn't vote for a Mormon for dog-catcher. I'm sure many good Americans feel exactly the way I do about that. We need REAL Americans to hold office, not some cultist Mormon.

Revenant said...

I wonder what will happen politically after California goes bankrupt?

California's "bankruptcy" is, in effect, caused by progressive federal taxation -- if Californians paid only their proportionate share of federal taxes, and paid the excess we are CURRENTLY paying to the state instead, we wouldn't have a state deficit.

So I have a vague hope that state bankruptcy might convince the local lefties to finally sign on to the idea of a federal flat tax. But, eh, I'm not too optimistic about it.

OldGrouchy said...

Strongly disagree with the BDS and PDS symptoms expressed above but that's their choice! However, the three years, or perhaps two years, to the start of the new presidential election cycle is a lifetime and who really knows what the future holds for us and for any potential GOP candidate. Personally, I'd like to see Gov. Palin run for president in '12 and will wait to see how things progress. Perhaps she'll gain politically from having more interviews done at that turkey ranch way up north and from MSNBC's snarky and snarly smirks.

Meanwhile, all those silly Socialists above should rant and rave all they can, it makes for excitement while we wait for the campaigns to begin.

Cedarford said...

John Stodder said...
"Just to continue the thought, I'm seeing Palin '12, if she runs, as akin to Goldwater '64. What she might call the 'progress-maker.' A candidate who loses in such a way that another person who shares her ideas but can express them better will succeed down the road."


My sense is that America is in major trouble, and the people the Republicans will go to in 2012 will be the ones seen as helping in some way to repair America's economic and foreign policy messes.
That would be the ideas people or those seen as making a direct contribution to the country in the next 3 years in turning a State around (Jindal), or working with Obama's team on matters like Detroit, Health care...or staging a principled and elequant opposition to something disastrous like Waxman, Reid gearing our whole energy future towards impossible goals for wind and solar..
I don't think we can create a good Republican from someone who does nothing constructive, from now until 2012 - but instead indulges in the luxury of waging the same old 30-year cultural war.

As for Goldwater, he was a Major General in the AF Reserves who flew 165 different sort of aircraft in his life and was a deep thinker with a very facile mind who had written numerous essays and two books on the conservative philosophy. With contributions to the fields of aircraft design, photography, and amateur radio.
Sarah Palin is, for now, someone that got an undergrad journalism degree after 5 years, knows the cultural warrior talking points, and is 2 years in executive office.

Don't forget, if Palin runs in 2012, she may very well duplicate Goldwater's election results. Capture the Home State, and lose everywhere but a small band of 5 deeply evangelical Southern states going from Louisiana over to South Carolina, skipping Florida.

Also don't forget that Goldwater was quite different than Palin in being a libertarian that despised the Religious Right and their pet cultural wars and wrote emphatically that religion had no place in a secular political movement - be it conservatism, Christians & Jews saying religion guided them to the Left.

Goldwater supported gay rights, said Republicans should drop the whole Right to Life wing and the "abortion is murder" line. When he heard Falwell going on about "All good Christians should oppose....." he said "All good Christians ought to kick that fat idiot's ass"

*************
Good comments by Pastfarian and Stodder. If time permits I might write something on their thoughts....

TMink said...

Right now, the presidency is Senator Obama's to win or lose. I certainly have my fears, but the bottom line will be whether people are better or worse off in 3 years.

Right now, aging boomers will have to earn back a LOT of their 401Ks to be better off.

Good luck to our next President, I feel he may need it.

Trey

rcocean said...

Yeah, Goldwater was a real winner. First, he was defeated by LBJ in the biggest landslide in American History. Then supported Nixon, and then Ford. Finally, (Thank God) Reagan became POTUS and he faded into Senility.

I read his autobiography, & confirmed what I always though. HE was a moron and a small man. Jealous of Reagan, trusted Nixon till '74, supported Ford in '76, and was a hawk on Vietnam from start to finish.

LBJ said Goldwater was so stupid he couldn't fart and chew Gum at the same time - sounds about right.

Eric said...

Right now, the presidency is Senator Obama's to win or lose. I certainly have my fears, but the bottom line will be whether people are better or worse off in 3 years.

If that's the case then he's screwed. A more realistic bottom line is whether he's able to blame Bush for the terrible times almost certain to occur on his watch.

Paul said...

Of all the potential calamities facing the nation and the new prez mentioned in the preceding comments what is the one glaring omission?

A terrorist attack.

It's unbelievable that it's hardly even a concern anymore. It just goes to show that George Bush really did do an amazing job in defeating and discrediting the global Jihad movement, and it's as if nobody even noticed. It's as if nobody even remembers how legitimately frightened we were.

LoafingOaf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LoafingOaf said...

Hey, Simon, in case you're not up on things, the American people are not waiting with baited breath for Sarah Palin to pen a book filled with all her deep thoughts and wisom. We just laughed her off the stage as the biggest moron to ever run for national office in American history.

The Republican Party will either find new names and new blood for the 2012 campaign or they are fucked. Not just in that camaign but as a major political party. But the right-wingers around here are still jerking off to Sarah Palin on a regular basis, and for some reason are unconcerned that she was a laughing-stock ignoramous of a candidate. But, you can look forward to reading the forthcoming book from the idiot who doesn't know jack squat about anything. I think she'd be better off spending the time getting her kids off Oxy Contin.

Oh, she performed well in the convention speech, a speech Matthew Scully started writing before Palin was even selected and he had to finish despite the fact that he couldn't stand her.

BTW: MEMO TO RIGHT WING BLOGGERS: Palin's interview in front of the turkey slaughtering was laughed at not because we are "nancy boys" but because Sarah Palin is quite obviously a WACKO. Nice to see she could do an interview outside of her kitchen, but she only made it even NUTTIER.

LoafingOaf said...

Paul: It's unbelievable that it's hardly even a concern anymore. It just goes to show that George Bush really did do an amazing job in defeating and discrediting the global Jihad movement, and it's as if nobody even noticed. It's as if nobody even remembers how legitimately frightened we were.

One of the reasons I voted for Obama was because of Obama's strong statements about Pakistan and actually hunting down Osama bin Laden. Republicans laughed at Obama when he stated what some of his policies will be towards PAkistan, and Republicans long-ago stopped wanted us to smoke bin Laden out dead or alive.

LoafingOaf said...

Well, what do ya expect from a bunch of people who think this lying piece of garbage, Michelle Malin, is one of the most brilliant thinkers of our time (but a poor victim of MSNBC!).

LoafingOaf said...

Malin=Malkin

LoafingOaf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LoafingOaf said...

You Palin people still pretending we are supposed to take Sarah Palin seriously think we're gonna forget what we've seen from this phoney, wacko, ignoramous of a candidate?

We will not forget this, for example: Some of Sarah Palin's complete idioicy. You Palin people still pretending we are supposed to take Sarah Palin seem to think we're gonna forget what we've seen from this phoney, wacko, ignoramous of a candidate.

Stop trying to pass this horrendous candidate off as serious. You hold the American people in contempt if you think we're that stupid.

Revenant said...

Oaf's really getting desperate. Obama's not even President yet and he's already made three major screwups (his VP, State and AG picks). Now he's suffering from Palin Derangement Syndrome a good four years before Obama's scheduled to lose to the woman.

It is amusing to watch.

Deirdre Mundy said...

I think Jindal would be more popular if more people actually knew who he IS.

I'm fine with either Palin or Jindal, but I only want them running in 2012 if Obama/Pelosi/Reid have screwed up enough to make a Republican win highly possible.

If not, I'd rather the carefully shepherd their political capital until 2016, and let Huck or Romney be the Bob Dole of 2012......

knox said...

5 scattershot comments in a row. Loafing Oaf really has lost it.

Freeman Hunt said...

Huckabee?! Argh! Why? I take it his support comes from the conservative identity wing, otherwise known as people who like to call themselves conservatives while having no idea what "conservative" means. Religious populism does not equate with conservatism. I can't believe that there are people who actually want him to run again.

knox said...

I don't think Palin should run in four years. She needs to be more seasoned and the haters need a little time to forget why they despise her so much. I'd be happy with Romney or Gingrich. I don't get Huckabee's appeal either. And lately he's been sort of snottily badmouthing Palin and Romney. Supposedly he's for the Fair Tax, but that's like being for I don't know, a unicorn in every pot.

Eric said...

Hey Oaf, that much drinking isn't good for you.

Freeman Hunt said...

... but that's like being for I don't know, a unicorn in every pot.


Heh.

Plus, his Fair Tax conversion was recent. He certainly didn't see things that way when he was still in Arkansas. I think his claim to support the Fair Tax is just a gimmick. He holds to no underlying conservative principles of limited government. The badmouthing of late only makes him look petty and impinges on his peraonal appeal, the only thing he has going for him.

Freeman Hunt said...

The Fair Tax thing also smacks of "Hey, I just read this book, and it sounds great!" He'll be into the Fair Tax right up until he reads another book, and it recommends something else.

Eric said...

Huck is only conservative on the social axis. When it comes to taxes and spending he's definitely a liberal.

Darcy said...

Huckabee is creepy to me. I don't understand why the media liked him so much, but they did. Could it be that they loved that he fit so many of their stereotypes of Christians and Republicans?

Ugh.

Jon said...

Darcy:

The media liked Huckabee because they wanted McCain to win, and the Huckster was acting as McCain's wingman vs. Romney.

Darcy said...

Oh, right! Of course that was it, Jon. It's all becoming a big blur to me, fortunately. Those bastards, though.

Jack said...

Palin is attractive to much of the base, but that doesn't win elections. It is just preaching to the choir.

To millions of others she is inexperienced in critical areas. She hasn't demonstrated any expertise in key areas. When questioned about what books/magazines/newspapers she reads she was unable to answer.

That is a sign of intellectual laziness.

I don't want an ordinary Joe to be POTUS. I want extraordinary and she just isn't it.

Lionheart said...

Oaf: With what do you bait your breath?

AlphaLiberal said...

Based on this year's results I'm all for it!

She's "the gift that keeps on giving"!

Synova said...

To millions of others she is inexperienced in critical areas. She hasn't demonstrated any expertise in key areas. When questioned about what books/magazines/newspapers she reads she was unable to answer.

That is a sign of intellectual laziness.


Jack, I want you to think about this statement you made.

First, is she inexperienced in critical areas and does she have expertise in key areas? That argument can be legitimately made one way or another and we could identify what are "key" areas (as can the argument be made that she has more experience in critical and key areas than Obama has). As governor of Alaska she's concentrated on issues that relate particularly to Alaska. That's her job and she should do that.

But how does this relate to how she didn't answer a question about what magazines and newspapers she reads?

Is not answering that question smoothly a sign of intellectual acuity? If she'd rattled off "Well, Katie, you know Alaska has some fine newspapers there in Juneau we've got the Alaska Sun and of course I have the Anchorage Journal delivered to my office there, also." would you be oooing and awing over her awe inspiring intellect?

(She'd give the real newspaper names, of course... I made them up.)

Freeman Hunt said...

I think most people would be smarter if they read fewer newspapers and magazines. Most of that stuff is awful.

TMink said...

Freeman Hunt wrote: "I take it his support comes from the conservative identity wing, otherwise known as people who like to call themselves conservatives while having no idea what "conservative" means."

Yep, I think really they were people who identified with his spiritual background. Me, I already have a pastor, I look for someone who will make government smaller.

"Religious populism does not equate with conservatism. I can't believe that there are people who actually want him to run again."

Sgt. Ted calls him a Christian Socialist. I call Sgt Ted the man.

Trey