Don't Underestimate Sarah Palin
I haven't yet read Sarah Palin's (or, more accurately, Sarah Palin's ghostwriter's) new book, nor do I intend to. Just wanted to say that, right up front. But I have heard one piece of very disturbing information from her book, if Maureen Dowd can be trusted. Dowd, in her signature Extra-Snarky™ style, takes on Palin's book this week in her column. The relevant bit:
We both [Palin and Dowd] came from families that loved Ronald Reagan, drove Ramblers and watched "The Lawrence Welk Show" and "The Wonderful World of Disney" on Sunday nights.
Palin's family owned a Rambler? Shoot, now I have to be nice to her, I guess [Full disclosure: I am a big Rambler fan]. Well, she'll never beat Mitt Romney for Rambler credentials by anyone's measure, seeing as how Mitt's dad George was the head of American Motors Corporation at the time the Rambler was introduced, and was duly called the "Father of the Rambler." But still, the thought of a young Palin rambling around certainly does give her a connection to American families everywhere (of a certain age).
OK, relax, I am kidding. I am not going to be nice to Sarah Palin just because of her parents' automobiling tastes. But neither am I going to be intentionally mean to her for her book either -- which is apparently de rigueur in certain circles and on certain websites these days. Because I respect Sarah Palin as a politician more than that. I do not respect her views, nor her positions, but I do have a healthy amount of respect for her ability to campaign. And I think others are underestimating her, as they gleefully howl in laughter over the thought of Palin ever being a successful politician again.
I keep coming back to the thought: everyone laughed at Ronald Reagan, too.
Now, keep in mind I am not playing the game "who will be the 'next Reagan'?" here, since that is a game only Republicans really love to play. Consider it, rather, as learning one thing from history about Reagan's rise -- that he was a joke, until he won. The man was an actor, for Pete's sake, and was in no way qualified to run the country. He represented the insurrectionist ultra-conservative wing of his party, which could never win in a general election (is any of this starting to sound familiar?), since everyone knew they were too extreme. And he killed any chances he may have had the first time he ran, by challenging a sitting president of his own party and coming in a close second by the time of the convention. In 1976.
But the man had charisma. Even a fierce critic of just about everything Reagan stood for such as myself (the ballistic airplane idea was about the only thing I recall ever agreeing with the man about) could see that the man had charisma.
Democrats have discounted charisma as a factor in presidential elections far too many times in my lifetime. OK, it's a given that Bill Clinton practically oozed charisma. But he was the exception. Until Obama, pretty much every other Democratic candidate back to Reagan was a charisma-free zone. Forgotten them already? That's because Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry had about as much charisma between them as Sarah Palin's got in her little pinky.
I know, I know, the common response to this is that she is all surface and no depth -- there's nothing underneath the charismatic sheen she gives off. But, again, that's what people said about Reagan.
All week long, the Palin media barrage has broken down into three camps: strongly supportive (people who love Sarah); neutral yet bemused (most of the mainstream media); and laughing-our-asses-off ridicule (people who think Palin's a joke). But the most interesting article I read this week pointed out one of those wonky facts that everyone will be talking about in approximately two years' time -- Republicans have winner-take-all primaries.
From this article:
More than two years before the 2012 Iowa caucuses, presidential speculation should come with a soothsayer's money-back guarantee. But what all the discussions of Palin's future miss is the way that Republican Party rules are made-to-order for a well-funded insurgent named Sarah to sweep the primaries before anyone figures out how to stop her. If Palin can maintain, say, 35-percent support in a multi-candidate presidential field, then she is the odds-on favorite for the GOP nomination.
The secret of Palin's presidential potential is the Republican Party's affection for winner-take-all primaries. According to my friend Elaine Kamarck's invaluable new book, "Primary Politics," 43 percent of the 2008 Republican delegates were selected in primaries where the winner corralled all the delegates by winning a state or congressional district. As a result of the Republicans' to-the-victor-go-the-spoils method of picking convention delegates, Mike Huckabee finished second in 16 states and won a paltry 74 delegates for his trouble.
If you'll remember, speculation about two years ago (right before the first primaries for the 2008 presidential election) was running that the Republicans were the ones who would have a long, drawn-out battle for their party's nomination. I myself recall joining in such speculation at the time. It is fairly easy to see why -- the Republicans had numerous formidable candidates. There was no clear "front runner" -- there were at least three, and some even counted as many as five. But, with the exception of Huckabee, they were all swept from the field by mid-February. The reason for this (and the difference from what happened on the Democratic side) was the winner-take-all primary system Republicans use. Democrats largely have a proportional system of awarding delegates, which gave us a seemingly-unending race between Clinton and Obama. But the Republican system is designed to anoint a winner early, so the party can all get behind him. Or her.
If Palin, in a multi-candidate field, takes Iowa, loses New Hampshire, but then wins South Carolina, she may wind up being the front-runner heading into Super Tuesday. And if two strong candidates remain in the Republican field at this point (in other words, the "anti-Palin" faction fails to unify behind one candidate), then she could win the nomination with some very small vote percentages. And a three way 35-30-33 split (for instance) would mean Palin captures all (or almost all) of the delegates.
If this scenario plays out, she could become the Republican Party's candidate for president in 2012. Now, I know this suggestion is also met with glee by Democrats, since many see this as the easiest possible road to re-election for President Obama.
Me, I'm not so sanguine. It's not like the American people haven't elected some awfully bad choices previously on the "who you'd like to have a beer with" test. And who knows where Obama will be in the approval polls two years from now? If the economy tanks again, it may not matter who he's running against, he may have to run an "underdog" campaign.
Of course, all of this is the sheerest of idle speculation. But since it seems to be obligatory to write a Sarah Palin column this week, I thought I'd just offer up my view. And my view is that while Sarah Palin is so easy for lefties to mock (there's just such a wealth of material to do so, even before she "wrote" a book), and while it's so easy to pat each other on the back and say "Sarah Palin would be the easiest to beat in 2012," all I can think of is "that's what everyone said from 1976 to 1980 about Ronald Reagan."
So I will continue to caution everyone not to underestimate Sarah Palin. Do not underestimate her appeal, do not underestimate the positive boost she gives to her base, and -- most importantly -- do not underestimate the depths of stupidity the American electorate reaches, at times.
[Blast-from-the-past Note: Newsweek is apparently getting some grief over using a particular Sarah Palin photo on their cover this week. I thought I'd point out that I not only deconstructed this photo, back when it originally ran, but was also just about the only one at the time who bothered to analyze the accompanying Runner's World article on Palin. Enjoy!]
-- Chris Weigant
NEW! Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Good and scary point, Chris.
The Reagan comparison can be walked back further than 1976. From 1971 on, when I first started really getting into U.S. politics; Reagan was considered to be a Palin-like joke by most of the political writers I followed. My beloved Hunter S. had many brilliant descriptions of Reagan that almost matched his descriptions of Hubert Humphrey. The job Garry Trudeau did on "St. Reagan" during his presidency was one of the highpoints of the strip. I wish he'd do an update of the "search for Reagan's brain" series for Palin. Even though Roland Hedley was a joke back then, his character would run rings around most of today's "investigative" reporters.
Kevin.
(sorry if this is more incoherent than usual, I'm knocking off a bottle of red wine having had a bad past two days..:-) )
Chris, no less an authority than Nate Silver is saying the same thing about Sarah. But I'm not so worried about her electability anymore: she's got strong negatives everywhere but the Republican base. 2012 may turn into a "default" nomination for Palin that winds up in electoral disaster for the GOP.
Ramblers? I remember Ramblers! My high school Driver Training class got a deal on some Rambler Ambassadors because there was a dealer a couple blocks away. We had a yellow-line practice course in the school car park with a longish straightaway leading up to a hairpin turn 10 feet short of the chain link gate across the driveway. The hairpin was at the middle of the course, and when we went into the straight we were supposed to keep our speed below 10 mph, brake at the hairpin, turn and go back the other way. The trick was that the automatic transmission would kick into 2d at 11 mph! So just as you reached the turn and the chain link gate!! the car suddenly lurched forward at 15 mph and you had to jump on the brake to keep from slamming into the gate. If you didn't have an empty bladder before the session, you did after.
I also remember what happened to American Motors. Chrysler (remember Chrysler?) bought the company out because Lee Iaccoca (his most recent book: Where Have All the Leaders Gone? They've All Been Outsourced to Calcutta As a Cost-Cutting Measure) wanted Chrysler to be the leader in off-road vehicles and figured the cheapest way to do it was to acquire Jeep. The UAW workers at the Jeep plant in Kenosha WI were concerned that Chrysler would do something sneaky like shut down their plant or something, but Iaccoca assured them that he would do everything he could to keep the Kenosha plant running. So the union bit the bullet, OKed the buyout, and no sooner had the ink dried on the agreement than he announced that the plant would shut down right after Christmas and Jeep production would move to Canada.
I'm sure the former Jeep assemblers got really sweet Christmas cards.
Welcome back, ChicagoMolly...we've missed you.
Kevin
The difference is Ronald Reagen was a two term governor who chose to not try for a third term before running for president rather than a half a term governor who quit when the going got tough.
I think if there are any republicans who have a chance to give Obama a run for his money they will shred Palin early. Palin was never really tested as the VP candidate. They sheltered her from the press and negotiated a softball debate with Biden. The Couric interview is a perfect example of what is going to happen in the early primary debates. She will get shredded in those debates and be forced to quit early. At least that's my prediction...
Chris,
As soon as I first caught a glimpse of that latest Newsweek cover, I immediately thought of you and your excellent piece on the Palin interview in Runners World.
I could only roll my eyes at Newsweek coming so late to the party. I didn't read their story - it doesn't interest me in the least and it wouldn't come close to demonstrating the journalistic standards set here at chrisweigant.com
It may be interesting to consider, given Sarah Palin’s obvious though limited assets for engagement in the political arena, how formidable an opponent she could conceivably become if she could just go away for a considerable period of time and completely immerse herself in policy matters and surround herself with top-notch advisors and stay away from the cameras and crowds until she can speak with some semblance of authority on the issues. That is not to say that I think Palin's new and improved stance on any important issue wouldn't still be both extreme and flat out wrong.
I thought that kind of fast-track learning process might be precisely what she planned to do after her shortened stint as Governor of Alaska. While that kind of behavior may not be in her DNA, it could, if followed, alter her political prospects in future election cycles … and give us all something else to worry about. :(
Kevin -
Actually, the Doonesbury I had in mind when writing this was the one where a guy comes out of a coma in the early 80s, which he's been in for five years or so. He asks who is president, and when told Reagan, erupts in laughter. The "punchline" panel is him saying, "No, really, stop kidding me, who's president?!?"
Osborne -
I gotta check that Nate Silver link out. I'm doing this from gut, not from numbers. Also, I think Stephen King's "The Dead Zone" (the book, not the TV or movie adaptation) influenced my thinking a bit as well... the politician King describes is still one of the scariest characters he's ever come up with... "Hot dogs! Free hot dogs!"... shudder...
ChicagoMolly -
I have actually made the pilgrimmage to Kenosha. At a swap meet there (the center of the Rambler swap meet universe), I bought a brand-new still-in-the-box grille for a 1965 Rambler American. For ten bucks. Heaven!
An Ambassador's a pretty big car to learn to drive on! I learned on a 1968 American (three-on-the-tree).
As for Lee Iacocca, he will burn in hell for -- after taking over the factory and shutting it down -- BULLDOZING all the spare parts INTO THE EARTH. It was cheaper than inventorying them. There's a certain pit in hell with his name on it, I firmly believe.
BashiBazouk -
You make a good point, however I must point out that to the rest of the country, "Governor of California" is really just a glorified movie role. Exhibit A... our current Governator...
As for Palin's fan base, they seem to regard her getting shredded in a debate as a victory somehow, so I'm not convinced. I could still see her taking Iowa and SC, although probably not NH. But FL is a definite possibility. I hope you're right, I really do.
Elizabeth -
That photo just cracks me up, because (1) it is so obviously staged, (2) that flag has been out of its box for no more than six minutes, tops, and finally (3) because it was taken by such an inept photographer (the booties growing out of her hip, for instance).
-CW
Osborne -
To Nate's 10 reasons, I would add the winner-take-all thing as #11 -- she doesn't have to win a majority of the Republican primary voters, she just has to eke out a plurality, and she goes home with all that state's marbles.
I encourage everyone to follow Osborne's link. He's really just shooting from the gut, too, no heavy stats or anything, but it's a good companion piece to what I've written. He goes into a lot more detail as to his reasoning.
-CW
If Obama has proven ANYTHING in his disastrous first year of office, it is that leadership experience DOES matter.
On the other hand, Palin DOES have leadership experience, being one of the highest rated governor in the country.
Those who say that Palin is not a threat whatsoever are the same ones who said that the GOP was "dead" and "irrelevant"...
I think Palin is going to come back and bite them on the arse in 2012...
Michale.....
I see very few other Republicans with the celebrity power to really challenge her in the primaries. She will glide to the nomination unless someone else steps up or the powers that be in the Republican party decide not to support her.
Tina Fey may have plenty of work ahead of her!
-David
Tina Fey may have plenty of work ahead of her!
Very true...
Presidential impersonators are always busy when they impersonate the person in office.
:D
Michale.....
If Obama has proven ANYTHING in his disastrous first year of office, it is that leadership experience DOES matter.
On the other hand, Palin DOES have leadership experience, being one of the highest rated governor in the country.
Dam, for about last month your posts have taken a serious turn to the Hysterical. I think you should be officially branded the Hysterical anti-left.
Tina Fey may have plenty of work ahead of her!
My theory on Palin is her only chance to be President is to kidnap her and replace her with Fey for the entire campaign...
Dam, for about last month your posts have taken a serious turn to the Hysterical. I think you should be officially branded the Hysterical anti-left.
Do you refute the statements??
Palin DID have leadership experience as the governor of Alaska.
Before the Hysterical Left and misogynists entered the picture with all the BS and Hysterical accusations, all of which have been proven false, Palin was the top-ranked governor in the country.
And Obama has proven beyond any doubt whatsoever (save the afore mentioned kool-aid guzzlers) that SOME sort of leadership experience is a definite requirement for the White House.
These are the facts. And they are indisputable...
Michale.....
Chris-
I'd like to nominate Alan Grayson for the most impressive Democrat of the week award. His amendment (together with Ron Paul) to increase transparency of the Federal Reserve passed a key Congressional committee this week.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/11/19/paul-grayson-audit-the-fed-bill-passes-financial-services-committee/
It doesn't look like there's been much mainstream press on this, but thought it's worthy of note. Did a quick search, but could not find more details on the bill. If you know more, would love to hear it.
-David
Do you refute the statements??
Many of them are too silly to refute. As an example:
Palin DID have leadership experience as the governor of Alaska.
She quit half way through. She hired someone to do her job as mayor before that. Not exactly what I would call the leadership required to be president.
As too Obama: You realize he is President and not king right? He has a constitutionally dictated job and if parts of congress want to impede his legislative plans he can not wave a wand and make it go away. The Republicans have made the post 2000 election Democrats look like amateurs in the sore looser department and have become serious obstructionists. That's government. Also many of his "fails" in your book are works in progress according to more impartial sources: Obameter. In my book he has a 4 year term to do all he said he would, not wave a magic wand and turn the US into an instant utopia as the Hysterical anti-left would evidently have it...
That photo just cracks me up, because (1) it is so obviously staged, (2) that flag has been out of its box for no more than six minutes, tops, and finally (3) because it was taken by such an inept photographer (the booties growing out of her hip, for instance).
Aw com'on, CW... :D
If we're gonna start slamming politicians for "staged" photos, it's gonna be a 24/7 job!! :D
Obama's staged photo-op at Dover AFB recently, comes to mind...
David,
While I will concede that Grayson deserves an "atta-boy" pat on the back for this, I think he should be permanently banned from a Most Impressive award for his ludicrous "Holocaust" comparison... :D
Michale.....
Obameter
She quit half way through. She hired someone to do her job as mayor before that. Not exactly what I would call the leadership required to be president.
She stepped down because of all the ridiculous attacks from the Hysterical Left was inhibiting her ability to faithfully serve her position.
In other words, she resigned for the good of the people. Something Democrats apparently have a hard time seeing....
You realize he is President
He is!???
When is he going to start acting like it??
In my book he has a 4 year term to do all he said he would,
Actually, he has about 1 more year left to accomplish anything effective. After 2010, he is going to have a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress..
Obama can't accomplish dick with a Super Majority in Congress right now.
How do you think he is going to fare when he has a GOP majority to contend with??
Michale.....
Obameter
As I pointed out to CW, the PROMISES KEPT are in the category of "I PROMISE TO WEAR PANTS AT EVERY PRESS CONFERENCE"...
Whilst the PROMISES BROKEN are of the "I PROMISE TO HAVE A TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT" variety.
In other words, the issue here is not quantity, but rather quality..
Obama has broken the REAL and IMPORTANT promises (Gitmo, Transparency, Climate Change etc etc etc) and kept the promises that a trained chimpanzee could keep...
Michale......
In other words, she resigned for the good of the people. Something Democrats apparently have a hard time seeing….
She resigned for the good of herself. When the going got tough, she ran for it. "These are the facts. And they are indisputable…" as you would say...
As to promises kept and broken: I see no pants in the kept and nothing on Gitmo, a minor one on transparency, nothing on climate change in the broken. Me thinks the Hysterical anti-left is lumping everything not in the kept category in to broken...
Nothing on Gitmo??
Then Obama DID NOT say the other day that he will miss the deadline set for the closing of Gitmo?
Come to think of it, Obama seems to miss deadline after deadline after deadline..
Why do you think that is?? Why doesn't Obama have the self-discipline to meet his own deadlines?? You can't blame the GOP, because they are "dead" and "irrelevant"...
Everything ya'all have hysterically bashed Bush about is true in Obama..
And yet, you still blindly believe in the "hope" and the "change"...
How'ze that workin' out for ya?? :D
Michale....
Nothing on Gitmo??
Then Obama DID NOT say the other day that he will miss the deadline set for the closing of Gitmo?
Come to think of it, Obama seems to miss deadline after deadline after deadline..
In The Works
He probably will miss the deadline, but he hasn't yet. Again he is President, not King. He can try but if Congress says no, thus is our system.
Everything ya'all have hysterically bashed Bush about is true in Obama..
And yet, you still blindly believe in the "hope" and the "change"…
I don't remember ever hysterically bashing Bush or blindly believing in anything...
Me thinks the Hysterical anti-left is lumping everyone to the left of Bush into one homogeneous bunch with much assumption as to how they think...
He probably will miss the deadline, but he hasn't yet. Again he is President, not King. He can try but if Congress says no, thus is our system.
He campaigned on CHANGING that system.
Obama failed in his biggest campaign promise. That is to CHANGE the status quo.
And, as you just admitted, he has failed to do so...
That's my whole point.
Me thinks the Hysterical anti-left is lumping everyone to the left of Bush into one homogeneous bunch with much assumption as to how they think…
With very good reason..
Or are you claiming now that Bush wasn't the evil Satan that the Left tries to make him out to be??
Are you actually claiming now that Bush did some things right with regards to the war against terrorism???
Michale.....
And, as you just admitted, he has failed to do so…
Is it 2012 already? Or was he really supposed to use a magic wand?
Or are you claiming now that Bush wasn't the evil Satan that the Left tries to make him out to be??
Are you actually claiming now that Bush did some things right with regards to the war against terrorism???
I'm sorry, I do not fit your dichotomy. But then most people don't fit your dichotomy.
Is it 2012 already? Or was he really supposed to use a magic wand?
He needs 4 years to change things???
That wasn't what he said on the campaign trail..
I'm sorry, I do not fit your dichotomy. But then most people don't fit your dichotomy.
So what is your opinion? Do you think Bush is Lucifer incarnate (and not the Mark Pelligrino version from Supernatural) or just a guy who did the best he can in very trying circumstances??
If you don't like the little cubby I am putting you in (apparently mistakenly) then declare yerself... If you dare... :D
Michale.....
Ya know, I would much rather discuss Obama's AG's bonehead and hypocritical play of putting terrorist war-criminals thru civilian courts...
Come'on...
Chime in below!! :D
Michale.....
He needs 4 years to change things???
He probably needs 40 years to change things considering how entrenched everything is, but personally I'll give him 4. Well, probably 8 as I doubt the republicans would come up with a candidate in 2012 I would vote for :-)
Outside of 911, I think Bush did exactly what those who helped fund and elect him wanted him to do. Most of which I generally disagree with. As to 911 specifically, I think he was given a chance by the world to change things and make a serious dent in terrorism and he threw it all away. He thought it more important to fight the symptoms than the root cause and in a way that alienated a lot of other nations. I think if his campaign rhetoric was true, he would have been looked at in a much better light if he had had solid democratic control in at least one branch of congress and therefore required to wheel and deal like his idol, Ronald Reagen.