Home / Culture and Society / Run, Sarah, Run

Run, Sarah, Run

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Sarah Palin’s running for president. The best political news I’ve heard in a while, it should be enough to put a smile back on any sullen Democrat’s face.

You might have guessed, as I did, that when the former vice-presidential nominee resigned halfway through her single term as Alaska governor, she had traded elected office for the world of media celebrity.  But we, apparently, were wrong.  Proof of Palin’s presidential intention is no further than the shock-and-awe campaign she recently undertook against veteran political reporters Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei for their Oct. 31 Politico story.

Allen and VandeHei reported unnamed Washington Republicans want to block Palin from becoming their 2012 nominee.  The tea party princess responded by calling Allen and VandeHei “jokes,” and telling the pair to “man up.”

That Palin went to such extraordinary, and fierce, lengths to knock down that story during the final week of what was a hectic season of campaigning for her endorsed candidates in the midterm elections, well, it doesn’t take an expert to see that perhaps the story hit just a bit too close to home.  There should now be no doubt that Palin very much intends to be the one to try to knock Barack Obama out of the Oval Office.  To which I say, “Bring it on.”

The reasons for Democrats to warmly embrace a Palin candidacy are myriad, both politically and substantively.  The most obvious argument of course, is the simple horse race analysis.  Even as Obama has begun to trail other potential rivals in recent polling, the president continues to trounce Palin in head-to-head contests.  This is the essential worry expressed in that Allen/VandeHei piece that Palin savaged.  While she is wildly popular among the tea party crowd, Palin is dramatically less revered elsewhere among the electorate. Her unfavorability continues to poll higher than her favorability.

To Palin supporters who argue their heroine can rehabilitate her image, such as via her upcoming TLC cable series, I have two words: Tina Fey.  Every time Palin appears to be coming off as serious, her comedic doppleganger will be right there on the following Saturday night to knock her back down for laughs, and don’t think Fey’s satire doesn’t matter; it does.  A poll at the end of the 2008 race very much found an “SNL effect” in how Palin came to be perceived by voters.  Let’s just say Fey’s schtick didn’t do Palin any favors then, and it won’t two years from now, either. 

My enthusiasm for Palin in 2012 isn’t merely confined to base political considerations, however.  Previously, I had been rooting for Newt Gingrich to take the GOP nomination. As he is often credited as the “idea factory” of the Republican Party, I would have enjoyed watching the former House speaker debate the president.

But, after what we just experienced in the 2010 midterms, I think a Palin candidacy would be the best thing for our country.  If the tea party wants to demonstrate its ascendancy, and the superiority of its ideas, let its standard-bearer become the GOP standard-bearer, and let’s have that fight.  To be sure, debating Palin could present potential pitfalls for Obama, a la “lipstick on a pig.”

In the end, though, the president would come off the 2012 election with a much stronger mandate for a second term, having just faced down the personification of the tea party movement.  Heck, an Obama victory over Palin could be so overwhelming as to push Democrats back to the majority in the House of Representatives.

See, there’s that smile I promised.


Powered by

About Scott Nance

  • Baronius

    I don’t know if Palin will run. I wouldn’t vote for her, as I’ve explained many times before on BC. Dems are right to hope for her candidacy, although Scott might want to remember the lesson Republicans learned a couple of years ago: sometimes the laughably inexperienced opponent beats your candidate in the general election.

  • Mr. Nance, I understand what you’re saying, but I’d suggest that this is a likely possible case where you should be careful what you wish for. Baronius was on point with his comment – except that Palin is actually considerably more experienced and now more proven in the public arena than Senator Obama was.

    Just for a little reality check, we just had an election a few days ago where her people whooped the tar out Democrats. It mostly was not mealy mouthed establishment Republicans, but hardcore tea partiers.

    Also, Palin has some image problems, in that not everyone likes her. No one worth having would be universally loved. Her unfavorable ratings somewhat outflank her favorable ratings, but those ratings can edge a few points the other way.

    Your mistake is thinking that because you and your people hate her, almost everybody else does. That’s human nature. I myself had a hard time getting my mind around the possibility that my fellow citizens would actually elect this Marxist college professor we’ve got now. A lot of the opposition to her is a half-inch thick. Plus, you give Tina Fey WAY too much credit.

    Buddy up to the idea of President Palin. I’m looking forward to it. God bless and protect our future president. After four years of Obama’s crazy amateur hour, President Palin may be looking awfully good to very many people.

  • Ruvy

    I have to agree with Brother Al on all this. But Scott, you and others here need to take a look at the world around you. I know it’s hard pulling your head out of your belly-button but if you do, you will learn that China is liable to overtake you in purchasing power in a couple of years, you will learn that your government has been spinning like a top over a Chinese ICBM spotted near LA a few days ago. AND you will learn that your sovereign debt has been downgraded from AA to A-. In addition, you will find out that a Chinese sub was shadowing a Pacific Ocean exercise a while ago, and popped up right within torpedo range of the USS Kittyhawk.

    All this is considerably more important than what Sister Sarah does or doesn’t do. The Chinese dragon has finally awakened, and it would do you well to PAY ATTENTION.

  • zingzing

    “Just for a little reality check, we just had an election a few days ago where her people whooped the tar out Democrats. It mostly was not mealy mouthed establishment Republicans, but hardcore tea partiers.”

    i’m pretty sure it was mostly establishment republicans that got in. a lot of the tea partiers lost. how many true tea partiers actually won?

  • zingzing

    ruvy, you posted a link by a conspiracy theorist. that wasn’t a goddamn chinese missile.

  • zingzing

    just so you know, you’re author there is also anti-israel, and thinks the jews run cnn and he wants them fired.

  • Here is a little thought experiment. Imagine that ten or fifteen years ago, Mr. Obama was transformed miraculously into an attractive young female and did not revert to his original state but otherwise proceeded as far as he could with his notions and contacts.

    Would he have been considered for the Democratic Party presidential nomination? Would he have secured it and gone on to win the presidential election.

    It’s just a thought experiment, but I would be interested in learning the results.


  • Well, Dan, if he kept his skin color, he could have been Condi Rice, and geopolitically speaking, the results would’ve been pretty much the same.

  • Just ask John Podhortetz.

    Hope all is well with all the pets. Have been enjoying reading more Temple Grandin since we last talked. Good to run into you.

  • Baronius

    Al, I’ve always been a stickler about presidential resumes. My hunch is that, despite the Tea Party’s successes in this election, a lot more people will demand experience from a presidential candidate by 2012. Two years in the Alaska governor’s mansion won’t be enough. Neither will three years running New Jersey, or four years running Louisiana. I don’t even think a full term as governor and running an Olympics is enough for me. I’ll tell you what, though: being Commander of CENTCOM is enough of a resume to get my attention.

  • John Podhoretz on election day 2012, looking from Left to Right like a kid who doesn’t know which Christmas present to open first.

  • Am I get annoying yet? Because if I’m getting annoying, I’ll just stop. But somebody has to tell me, “Irene Athena, you’re getting annoying.”

  • Re Comments 8 and 9 — The pups are fine but I guess I can blame them for causing me not to notice that I had omitted the word “white” from this: Imagine that ten or fifteen years ago, Mr. Obama was transformed miraculously into an attractive young [white] female and did not revert to his original state but otherwise proceeded as far as he could with his notions and contacts. That omission does probably make a bit of difference.

    My article about Temple Grandin, the pups and the horses is here.


  • Condi Rice fits the bill of young and attractive female better than Petraeus does, anyway. I could imagine a race between Petraeus in drag running on the Democratic ticket and Condi Rice in whiteface vaudeville makeup running on the Republican ticket. Again, no significant difference in the geopolitical outcome longterm. Contacts, schmontacts. People can become old friends in five minutes in a smoke filled back-room.

  • NOW, if we could morph McChrystal into Ru Paul –not Ron Paul–and THEN morph Ru Paul into Hillary Clinton, so’s he/she’d be white and have notions and contacts similar to Obama’s, except he/she’d also have McChrytal’s notions and contacts–and then the RESULTING ENTITY had a campaign debate with General Petraeus, who was running on the Whatever Party Ticket…
    …what insights into what is REALLY going on in the Fight Between Good and Evil in Afghanistan might we glean?

    Well, I’ve officially annoyed even myself now, and as long as I’ve ANNOYED someone, ANYONE, even if its just me, I will consider my work here finished. Til next time.

  • Cannonshop

    I don’t think Sarah Palin’s going to run-she’s having too much fun doing television and speaking tours, and what sells her books (the rabid dislike of the Left and their Media Servants) and is filling that bank-account would be significantly reduced if she did.

    OTOH, Condi Rice would, I think, make a superb candidate (if not President)-she was able to make foreign leaders her bitch on a regular basis, and she scares our enemies-and unlike Sister Sarah, nobody can claim Condi’s an ignorant redneck. (and she’s not got “Nixon Face”=so even the “SCAAARY” advertising style wouldn’t work on her…)

  • Clavos

    I agree with you, Cannon. I think Condi is an excellent candidate and a probable winner if she runs.

  • Baronius

    It’s funny. When Rice’s name came up, I thought about how she doesn’t have a tax policy or a domestic policy. That didn’t seem like such a barrier for Petraeus, though. It’s my pro-military bias. I think you need to be a more flexible thinker to succeed as an officer than you do as a diplomat.

  • Cannonshop

    #19 Possibly, Baronius, depending on the role the officer is filling-there are many a chairborne “Ranger” out there who’re career hydebound pencil-and-button-pusher, and anything BUT flexible on the mental front (part of Petreus’ problem was dealing with such Brassholes at the Pentagon both before, and during, his most famous tour in the sandbox.)

    Upshot being, Petraeus was a superb general officer, but…

    That doesn’t mean he’s necessarily viable as a civilian politician running for office.

    That said, I’d probably vote for him…at least in the primary elections, assuming he is not a Democrat or a pale version of Colin Powell.

    Professor Rice has, at least, a body of work to look upon in ‘doping out’ her beliefs in terms of policy-one’s foreign policy proposals tend to require some squaring with domestic policy realities-at least, the reality as percieved by the one making the proposal, and one can not discount her academic works in terms of basic research to determine her less-publicized views on domestic and economic issues.

  • Mike

    Palin would never stand a chance in any nationwide election. She is a joke and always will be.

  • I’d prefer a candidate who can give me a morally satisfying answer to this question I have about US foreign policy. Maybe one of you can.

    Compare the U.S. military’s response to the genocide Darfur. Here is footage sent backUS Marine Captain Brian Steidl, who was ordered to do nothing but observe from the sidelines the slaughter of men, women and children.

    We’re “doing something” in Afghanistan, because if we don’t…something worse than the genocide we ignored in Darfur is going to happen in Afghanistan?

    YES, when the Taliban take over after the US leaves, there will be horrible repercussions for the Afghans who joined forces with the US military; but, even if the primary motivation for the US remaining there WERE human rights, which I suspect it is NOT, could it be possible that the US presence is deterring, in fact PREVENTING, a resolution to the civil war in Afghanistan?

    The 6-years-long genocide in Sudan ended in February of this year WITHOUT U.S. military involvement.

    Maybe the ability to give morally satisfying answers is not a prerequisite for candidacy. Historically speaking of course, it hasn’t been…but SHOULDN’T it be?

  • Irene, you’re living in a dream world. US foreign policy hasn’t changed since John Foster Dulles and it ain’t about to change now, not for as long as there are statehoods. One can hope for moral relations between individuals but between states … That would be a category mistake. Only the primacy of international law could introduce morality into international relations. But if and when we ever reach that point, the very notion of statehood will have become extinct.

  • Thanks,Rog but I’m hoping for an answer from people who DO try to act according to a moral, and who, unlike you, believe those who live in a dreamworld are those who believe that government can be abolished.

  • a moral ^[compass]

  • I did;t say it can be abolished, only addressed your expectations.

  • I haven’t hitched my wagon to the star of the dissolution of nations.

    I do believe that nations, the US in particular, have become so used to the idea that justice has to take a back seat to the goal of security against aggressors, that we are no longer able to take seriously alternatives that are more effective AND sustainable.

    An aggressive foreign policy has been in effect in the US for less time than other practices that were considered standard operating procedure at one time, but are now considered to be evil, and have been abandoned.

  • I’ll go and come back later, to see if some of the others can help me out with the question I asked in #22.

  • Furthermore, I’d like to distance myself from the promotion of the primacy of an international court of law. I absolutely reject that idea on bases that I do not have to explain to the others I’m hoping will answer when they have time.

  • Well, we didn’t consider ourselves evil at that time, and perhaps we weren’t seen in quite that way by others. But time has a way of catching up and now we’re reaping the rewards. And since we’re being desperate, we resort to desperate measures. But good luck from other respondents. Didn’t mean to disturb your longing for peace and security.

  • #29 stands in direct contradiction to what the Kingdom of God would look like, whether in heaven or on earth. But then again, why should a little inconsistency stand in the way of a true believer unless of course they also believe that America is the promised land?

    I was hoping for a reasonable conversation, Irene,but I see that you’re in your schizoid state. Next time perhaps.

  • I don’t expect there will be any responses from the others now, Roger.

  • Apparently, I have a far greater faith in human genius, Irene, to ever think that my little quip would estrange fine women and men of sharp intellect and wit. As to those who would shy away, who cares?

  • And I’d advise you not to wait for a “next time perhaps,” and not because of any propensity to “schizoid states.”

  • I apologize for the descriptor, it was just too good not to make use of it. Poetic justice demanded it. In all fairness, however, I tried to appeal to your sense of integrity. Personal beliefs shouldn’t be willy-nilly but ought to translate to social and political action. That’s the schizoid state I was talking about.

  • I didn’t come here to talk about my views on the Kingdom of God, certainly not to be given the back of YOUR hand about them, Roger. I came back here to listen to people discuss Darfur and Afghanistan. Baronius was one of the people whose opinion on #22 I would have liked to have had. Your presence here made it unlikely that he would respond, because you do the same thing to him. He could be talking about…potatoes…and you’d cast his religion up to him, and I’ve noticed he avoids you now.

    Apology accepted.

  • Sorry, Irene. Didn’t realize your question was directed at Baronius. I’ll be mindful of that in the future and stay out of private conversations.

  • Or, you could apologize to Baronius, and join in.

  • zingzing

    ah, public boards, eh, roger?

  • Irene can have her space. I’m noy going to be following her with my two-cents worth.

  • zingzing

    just joshin, roger. lighten up.

  • But I wasn’t. Irene knows that I’m not going to pester her. Although with respect to Baronius, I must admit he’s been my special project, so Irene wasn’t altogether off and I can understand her reservations.

  • If Palin doesn’t run, I’ll eat my hat.

    [Note to self: go to Amazon, order hat made of bacon.]

  • Ruvy


    Nobody can give you an intelligent answer to what is going on in Pakistan/Afghanistan because they do not know or do not care. As for a moral answer, do not expect any acts of morality from the régime that refused to bomb tracks to concentration camps and daily tries to destroy the only Jewish state on the planet.

    Let’s try for a different approach – the facts.

    Nobody (other than black people) really cares about the killing of black people. For most of the world they do not really count as human beings. Arabs call blacks “abeed” – slave. And the “Islam” hustled in Africa has a powerful tinge of the Arab mentality to it. In Afghanistan and Pakistan both, we are seeing a civil war with several sides fighting. There is the puppet regime in Kabul, which will last only if it can make the appropriate deals with tribal chieftains. There is a war amongst the Pashtun over the Taliban, who are mostly Pashtun. The Taliban tries to hustle Sharia law (or the Wahhabi version of it), and most Pashtun prefer their traditions of the Pashtunwali, which is analogous to many of the rules of the Books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. These are, after all the descendants of the Northern Tribes of our people, Israel.

    The Americans will leave – because at some point, they will not have the money to stay. In the meantime, Pakistan disintegrates, with local warlords fighting and the Pakistanis plagued with terrible disasters, both natural and man-made.

    The upshot? The Americans will leave. The Afghani state will hold together only as long as the leaders in Kabul can make the deals that will save their asses. Pakistan will slowly disintegrate under the pressure of disasters. The Remnant of the Children of Israel in Central Asia, the Pashtun will fight the Taliban, and either the Taliban will abandon its Wahhabi slant or die. The Pashtun will grow stronger with time. The other ethnic groups will not.

    Your nation has lost the moral fiber to act morally. Looking back, one has to wonder if it ever really had it in the first place, Irene.

  • zingzing

    just the facts, ma’am. the unsubstantiated, future facts.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Woo-hoo! Ms. Mama Grizzly/Hockey Mom of 2008 says she can beat Obama in 2012!

    Oh, puhLEEEZE run, Sarah, run! And have Michelle Bachmann as your VP, too!

    One small victory for the Dems, one giant leap towards eventual marginalization for the Republicans….

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irene –

    The president doesn’t dare go into Darfur. Why? Because even if we wanted to – and many of us wish we could – our military is simply too stretched, thanks to Dubya’s desire to (1) do what no military commander since before Alexander the Great was able to do – take, hold, and civilize Afghanistan, and (2) do what his daddy knew better than to do, namely, to invade Iraq…an illegal invasion waged on false pretenses (and YES, he should be on trial in the Hague!).

    If we weren’t in Afghanistan and Iraq, then we might actually have the opportunity to go into Darfur to stop the genocide. But thanks to Dubya, we can’t even if we wanted to.

    And does race have something to do with it? Probably – witness how little news we’re now getting out of Haiti – but the two primary factors are our stretched-too-far military and a memory of a place called Mogadishu.

  • And Obama is just an innocent spectator? Ir’s been almost two years into this administration, and you’re still blaming Bush?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    Did you really read what I said?

    but the two primary factors are our stretched-too-far military and a memory of a place called Mogadishu.

  • I don’t buy the first-mentioned factor. It’s not as though it were beyond our means to do anything about it.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Rog –

    Our military IS stretched too far to be able to take on another major mission with any sensible expectation of real success. Do you remember how back in the 1990’s the military was structured to be able to simultaneously fight a major war in one theater and a minor conflict somewhere else? Dubya put us in two major conflicts halfway around the world…and you want to put us in a third?

    And do you remember the news two or three years back how our Army divisions were so worn down by years of war in Southwest Asia that most of them were no longer considered combat-ready?

    The factors involved are legion, but there two major considerations: One is that we are wearing our experienced soldiers down by repeated deployments – and some have served four or more deployments in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. This has a HUGE effect on unit effectiveness and cohesion…and morale.

    The other major factor is the military maxim that has been true since before Roman times: “Amateurs talk firepower; professionals talk logistics”. This has been proven time and time and time again – extend or complicate your lines of communication by too much…and you’re setting yourself up for certain failure even before a much weaker force. FYI, in the two defeats of the Persians by the Greeks led by Sparta and Athens, logistics played a bigger role than Spartan valor ever did.

    So could we still go into Darfur? If we really, truly felt we must, we certainly could…but we’d be setting our troops up for failure just as we did in Lebanon back in the early 80’s.

  • “The 6-years-long genocide in Sudan ended in February of this year WITHOUT U.S. military involvement,” that’s what I said in #22, Glenn. I wasn’t asking for the US military to get involved in any more conflicts. I was asking that we, as a nation, get honest with ourselves about the “humanitarian” justification for our troops continued involvement in Afghanistan.

    I need to add, although the genodide in Darfur is officially over, violence against Darfuris by the Sudan-government backed Janjaweed has started again.