It's been said that Democrats shoot their electoral mistakes (i.e. wounded) while Republicans simply run them again. Obviously, that's not always true, Adlai Stevenson got two chances to lose to Eisenhower in the general election and Al Gore probably could have gotten the 2004 nomination. Still, the respective examples of Dukakis and Nixon seem to tell the broader tales for those parties.
Against that backdrop, the divide within the GOP surrounding the prospect of Sarah Palin running for President in 2012 shows that Democrats don't have a total monopoly on an aversion to damaged goods. While Palin was not the top of the GOP ticket in 2008, it's hard to dispute that she ultimately became its focal point, certainly generating far more buzz than Obama's VP pick. Under typical circumstances, Palin would seem to be a natural front-runner for the nomination and in some circles she is. To many, though, she is a worrying wild-card who's seen as having cost the party one election and poised to lose them another.
A lively example of this friction can be found in a recent editorial by conservative columnist and former Nancy Reagan speech-writer Mona Charen on the conservative "journalism" site townhall.com (http://townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2010/11/19/why_sarah_palin_shouldnt_run/page/1) and the posted reactions of readers. Charen criticized Palin for seeking the path of celebrity rather than building up her qualifications for higher office by studying up on policy issues and devoting herself to the governorship of Alaska. In Charen' view, Americans will be tired of political rock stars like Barack Obama and eager for basic managerial competence in 2012. Had Palin stayed in office, rather than resigning midway through her term to exert her influence on the 2010 election to mixed effect, Charen feels she would have been well positioned to be the GOP nominee. Instead, Palin has diminished herself by picking fights with the "lamestream media", joining the reality show circuit and otherwise undercutting the proposition that she can convince the independent voters who are crucial to winning the general election, that she offers competent, stable leadership.
Like many Americans across the political spectrum, I'm troubled by the idea of President Palin. Though I concede that the current occupant of the White House entered with a relatively thin resume, Barack Obama offset that deficiency with a sober temperament and a thoughtful mindset. Whether or not you approve of Obama's handling of certain issues, Palin's resume as a small-state governor and smaller-town mayor doesn't stand up to two years as President for anyone but the fiercest partisans. Throw in her attack-dog tendencies the moment she perceives someone (usually someone in "the media") has done her and/or her family wrong and you're left with a potential candidate who seems unelectable to most Democrats and independent voters.
While Charen probably sees Obama's performance as POTUS in a harsher light than I do, her critique of Palin seems (pardon the expression) fair and balanced. It's a telling sign of how hyper-partisan the current climate is, though, when questioning the presidential qualifications of your party's biggest star is enough to get you branded a Republican on Name Only. RINO seems to be the worst insult imaginable in today's GOP, and it gets thrown around quite a bit in the comments section for Charen's article. I haven't yet seen the reaction to Barbara Bush's comments about a Palin run, but I can imagine she's inflamed the tempers of a number of "real conservatives"
First off, there's an answer to the question your title provides; but since this is a family blog, I'll not speak its name. It still involves a circle, and also what people would call the guy who pulled sodas at the drugstore lunch counter.
ReplyDeleteI'm still skeptical of the prospect of Palin running for President. I think she sees herself as more a kingmaker. With her LONG history of quitting everything she's ever started, dating back to college, she simply does not have the temperament to withstand a full term as President. She's much more influential (and, most importantly, profitable) when she can devote her attention 24/7 to promoting other witless wonders for office. All o' that foreign policy yakkin' would just stand in the way of her devotin' her time to findin' people who kin solve the problems that Real Americans are facin' across this great nation of ours. Mama grizzlies. Also.