Peter Heck - columns - Madame President?

Archive

Subscribe to this blog's feed

2009 Articles

Sunday, July 12 2009

Madame President?

As pundits around the country debate what the political future will be of Alaska's soon-to-be former Governor, I can't help becoming increasingly convinced of the prediction I texted to my brother after watching her Vice-Presidential acceptance speech last summer: Sarah Palin will be the first woman president of the United States.

Don't be fooled - that condescending laughter you hear from Palin-despising liberals is a lot less about them thinking it could never happen, and a lot more about them fearing that it will.

Why else would that Democrat propaganda machine called the New York Times dump so much ink over the fourth of July weekend attempting to convince Americans Palin was a lunatic? Back-to-back columns by those queens of incoherence, Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd, lambasted Palin for being a, "disjointed, garbled, scandalous, underachieving, nutty, batty, erratic, egoistic, solipsistic, reckless, crazy quitter," who "deserted Juneau with her tanning bed." Methinks they doth protest too much.

But the Times wasn't alone. Network morning shows and evening newscasts informed us that her resignation amounted to political suicide and undoubtedly took her out of contention for the presidency in 2012. Evidently it didn't dawn on them that their rush to diminish the notion of her chances only demonstrated how strong they really are.

Consider the left's narrative ever since John McCain introduced Governor Palin to the national scene: she was supposedly an inexperienced, uneducated, quirky mayor of a podunk town that simply was not ready for prime time. She lacked concentration, was unnecessarily divisive, mean to animals, and lacked any foreign policy savvy. This, they said, sunk McCain's chances of winning the presidency. No matter how demonstrably false, this was exactly the template the left pretended to believe. But if they truly did - if they were truly convinced of her incompetence and un-electability - then why are they so obsessed with talking about her?

Why not focus on the real threats to their power like Republican Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, or the increasingly impressive representative Mike Pence? Why not spend the valuable pages of the Times ripping Newt Gingrich's strategy for real change, or Mitt Romney's perpetual candidacy? Why focus on a loony that apparently no one would vote for anyway? Why work so neurotically to convince Americans of what they say we already think?

The obvious answer is that they know Americans don't think those things about Governor Palin, and they are scared to death of her.

Regardless of what the talking heads postulate, any conscious observer of the 2008 election knows that McCain's margin of loss would have been staggering without the presence of Sarah Palin on his ticket.

Regardless of what left-wing demagogues deride as her lack of experience and knowledge, remember that this is a woman who had more executive experience in 2008 than Obama, Biden, and McCain combined. Further, the position she took on Israel during the campaign that was mocked by liberal journalists is now being parroted by the Obama administration. And Palin's statements on personal responsibility and the foolishness of the Obama stimulus monstrosity now seem prescient given the bill's epic failure.

Regardless of the "quitter" nonsense, the fact remains that politicians leave their posts to take on new, greater challenges and opportunities on a regular basis. An example would be the man who "quit" on the people of Illinois to become president. The truth is Palin had become such a target for the demented left that the good people of Alaska were being forced to pay millions of dollars of legal fees to fight frivolous lawsuits brought against their Governor for purely political reasons. Her decision spares them that, plus it allows a staunch conservative lieutenant governor to carry on the successes of her administration and run in 2010 as an incumbent.

Regardless of what the Democratic spokesmen on MSNBC pontificate about Palin being an embarrassment to the Party, just ask any 2010 Republican congressional candidate which national figure they want to come and help campaign for them. I'll give you a hint...it's not going to be Mike Huckabee.

The primary source of the left's angst over her decision is that as long as she was confined to the Great North, she had limited ability to grow her political base. Now, she is free to tour, speak, study, raise money, and rejuvenate the country's defense, economic, and social conservatives. That is what has the liberals worked up into a lather.

Many of the high-priced political thinkers are suggesting that if Palin is eyeing the presidency at all, it won't be until 2016 or 2020. I don't buy it. In three years, she will be the most well known, articulate, charismatic conservative in America with a boatload of cash, an energized base, and a solid team of advisers around her. Palin in 2012? You betcha.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:27 pm | Permalink | 21 Comments | Email

Comments:

And let's not forget that she will be running against a president that will make Jimmy Carter look great. Within three years, this nation will be taxed to death, with a large number of unemployed, and a defense that will be decimated. If you think people where ready to get rid of "the failed policies of George W Bush", wait until the nation is tired of the Pres. Obama. "Palin 2012" sounds great!!!

Posted by vcamatt on 07/13/2009 09:11:57

"Any conscious observer of the 2008 election knows that McCain's margin of loss would have been staggering without the presence of Sarah Palin on his ticket." C'mon Pete. Stating idle speculation with utter certitude does not lend it credibility, but it may detract from your own. Sure, Palin rallied the Republican base, but the majority of said base would've voted against Obama regardless. Moreover, Palin alienated a lot of Republicans especially here in New England where science and education are of paramount importance. I won't dress up my speculation as anything more than what it is, but I was right about Obama well over a year ago, and I'd bet 50 bucks Palin runs hard and faceplants harder in 2012.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/13/2009 15:44:06

Talk of her political death is certainly premature. The critics who are laughing her off better realize that they held the same opinion of Reagan (both in '76 and '80). That having been said, I believe it is a bit premature to assert that she's definitely running in 2012, much less to be the nominee. My personal feeling is that she's not, but I could very well be wrong on this. What I do know is that for all of her strengths, she has some pretty glaring weaknesses as well that she will have to address. If she's running in 2012, she will have three years to do it. It's not impossible, but it will take some work.

Posted by Asburystrider on 07/13/2009 17:25:04

I didn't realize you were from New England, NGav! No big deal, just didn't know that. Not that I'm writing you folks off or anything, but I'm not sure that Republicans looking for someone who will attract New England voters is going to get the job done. Do you? Trying to pick up a New England state by going left...when the New England states will vote Democrat anyway...but in the process losing southern states... I guess I don't see the strategy there. When Republicans run someone that fires up the conservative base, they win. When they try to play center/left they lose. At the presidential level, that is. Local politics is a different animal.

Posted by peterheck on 07/14/2009 00:06:46

Peter, your observation is right on the money. I totally believe Palin's resignation is a move to the mainland to challenge the stupid leftists, the so called UNeducated journalists and at the same time, to shore up her support base in the main battleground. Whoever (or herself) advised her for this move is a genius because if Sarah confines herself in Alaska, then indeed she will have no chance in 2012! Go Sarah! Go!

Posted by Albert Sung on 07/14/2009 00:18:02

Good point about New England Pete, but I'm not sure that firing up the conservative base will be enough in 2012. Consider that the conservative base is dying faster than it's growing - America's young voters are increasingly liberal. This country is experiencing a sea change in geo-politics and we should adjust our predictions accordingly. Yet more speculation on my part, but I just don't think someone as conservative as Sarah Palin could win the next presidential election unless the Obama of 2012 is as universally hated as the Bush of 2008, or unless the aforementioned trend reverses. Both scenarios seem improbable to me.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/14/2009 13:43:41

"Consider that the conservative base is dying faster than it's growing - America's young voters are increasingly liberal." Be careful about jumping to this conclusion, NG. Ask yourself this: is conservatism/liberalism a generational thing or a stage of life thing? If it is generational, then I believe your conclusion is valid. However, if people become more conservative as they get older, your conclusion is flawed. I believe that there is an idealistic streak that is associated with liberalism, and as people mature they tend to drop their idealistic view of the world. If what you are saying is true, then you would see people increasingly calling themselves liberal, but all of the polling data I've seen says otherwise.

Posted by Asburystrider on 07/14/2009 19:34:03

It's definitely true that some people become conservative with age, probably more so than become liberal, but I don't think that's as significant as the GOP would like to believe. Merely anecdotal, but the opposite was true of my parents. Also consider the rise of Hispanics, who also tend to vote Dem. But I think the issue here is not what people call themselves, but their actual values and outlooks. "Liberal" has a verbal stigma that "conservative" doesn't. Consequently many people who could be described as liberal refuse to identify as such. For instance, I usually call myself progressive. I could also be called a liberal with reservations, those being affirmative action, gun control, and a few other liberal items I oppose.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/15/2009 12:12:54

You say "I think the issue here is not what people call themselves, but their actual values and outlooks." On some level it's both. While it may be true that some who hold liberal values may identify themselves as moderate, there aren't many who are liberal who would identify themselves as conservative. There's really no getting around the fact that roughly 40% of people identify themselves as conservative. Some may hold the term "liberal" in a negative light, but to be statistically significant you would have to argue that half of all liberals are running from their label. I would agree that an influx in the Hispanic community may mean an increase in those following liberal values on most key issue excluding social values.

Posted by Asburystrider on 07/15/2009 16:53:52

By the way, would you consider yourself a liberal with a few libertarian tendencies? Just curious.

Posted by Asburystrider on 07/15/2009 16:54:53

What do you value about liberalism (w/reservations as noted)?

Posted by ChucksChants on 07/15/2009 18:21:12

Strider, I used to consider myself libertarian and yes I do still have a few libertarian tendencies. I respect libertarianism - it seems to be what the Founders stood for - but I don't think it has a chance in gov't. (When would politicians ever voluntarily scale back their own powers?)

Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/16/2009 13:34:25

At Chuck, there's nothing I value about liberalism per se. I don't see liberalism as a monolithic philosophy or entity, but rather as the umbrella label on a set of discrete positions regarding various issues. For instance, I support gay rights; protection of the 1st amendment; an end to the drug war (but I suppose that's more libertarian); diplomacy; sex ed, birth control, and abortion when necessary; and taxes in proportion to one's means. I have separate reasons for these separate positions - the only common rationale is supporting what seems right for the American individual and American society. For instance, my reason for opposing the federal drug war is that I sincerely believe it has done more harm than good.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/16/2009 13:40:00

I should add that the federal government has no business telling people what they can/cannot put in their bodies. (If that's not a precedent for complete government control of our lives, I don't know what is!) I basically have 3 priorities: (1) national security, (2) personal freedom, and (3) social welfare, in roughly that order. I only value liberalism to the degree that it conduces those ends. Democrats and Republicans do a comparably bad job, in my opinion, probably because they are comparably corrupt.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/16/2009 13:55:09

Might it also be determined that you value conservatism to the degree that it conduces those ends?

Posted by ChucksChants on 07/17/2009 08:59:49

I agree that politicians are unlikely to voluntarily scale back their power, which is a solid reason why we have to stop providing them with the permission to establish the means for them to accumulate more power.

Posted by ChucksChants on 07/17/2009 09:03:11

I value any political philosophy to the degree that it brings about security, freedom, and wellbeing. That both major parties have worked to increase gov't power in one way or another seems to be a trend. The difference is that Dems generally aren't ashamed or dishonest about this intention, whereas the GOP covers it up with insincere libertarian rhetoric. I'm not opposed to expanding government power as long as we commensurately expand citizen power over government. Mike Gravel unsuccessfully ran on the idea of direct democracy in forms such as state propositions. Citizens deserve to have a direct and a dramatic impact on government, but neither McCain nor Obama campaigned on that idea.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/20/2009 15:19:02

I would agree that the both parties have embraced big government over the greater part of the last decade. Any Republican who says the party has been for small government is delusional. I would disagree with your assertion, though, that the Democrats don't hide the fact that they are for big government. We have the most leftist, pro-government president in American history in office right now and when asked if he was for big government flat out denied it and asserted the opposite. I agree that the people aren't being represented, but I don't feel democracy is the answer. The founders didn't feel this way. They felt that pure democracy would lead to mob rule. We need a republic where those elected are accountable to the people.

Posted by Asburystrider on 07/20/2009 21:03:02

Interestingly, I find the best and easiest solution to be a return to the political philosophies expressed by the Founders. The more I read from their documents, the more amazed I grow at their astonishing prescience. Fallible humans? Sure. But almost to aperson, they shirked replacing an old monarchy with a new form of central authority. In that respect, they displayed saint-like attributes. Primarily they avoided centralized federal power with a Constitutional Republic. Worked then & would work now - with the right foundation.

Posted by ChucksChants on 07/22/2009 19:57:50

Is that possible, Chuck? U.S. history has witnessed a progressive increase in the power of federal government basically since its inception. How do we reverse a seemingly inexorable trend like this, especially in light of all the precedents of statism that have already been set? Is there any realistic way to minimize the federal government short of a bloody populist revolution? There is no way that enough Republican or Democratic politicians would support the notion of relinquishing their own power, and neither party is going away anytime soon.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/24/2009 16:58:42

Is it so impossible? It happened before. Your solutions? Step aside and allow collectivism to consume us? For those who respect the foundation upon which American liberty and freedom was constructed, then many things are possible. Well, forgive me for being a bit idealistic.

Posted by ChucksChants on 07/28/2009 07:39:08