As if Sarah Palin's failures at the polls weren't bad enough, the former GOP VP candidate keeps the hits coming. Her book has been widely panned...
In her $1.25 million memoir "Going Rogue" (Harper, $28.99), Sarah Palin introduces a new voice, and it’s that of a chronic complainer. So much so you want to shout at the pages, "Man up, woman!"
The news from the book has already spilled, and it is essentially this: John McCain’s senior aides were mean to her. Katie Couric was mean to her. Her critics, who are by definition supposed to be mean, were mean to her.
But rather than come back swinging, she comes back whining.
...and now the father of her daughter's out-of-wedlock child is in a spread for PlayGirl...
"People are going to see more of Levi than they thought," his manager Tank Jones told Usmagazine.com. "He's ready to shock the world. The hell with 15 minutes."
Playgirl rep Daniel Nardicio seconded that sentiment, telling the Daily News, "We're thrilled with the photos we got, and are confident people will love them."
Johnston had said that he hopes the shoot, for which he reportedly is getting paid more than $100,000 to do, will be classy.
...yeah, "Classy." I'm sure it will be. And although we certainly can't blame the former Governor of Alaska for what this kid is doing in public view, the GOP can start to evaluate how worth all of this aggravation Mrs. Palin's presence in the political arena is. In my view, it's time for us to dump this train wreck...
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 1049
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (36)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Stephanie , November 17, 2009
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=9103116
I concur.
Sarah Palin: I Want to Play a Major Role in National Politics, 'If People Will Have Me'
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jonathan J. Judge , November 17, 2009
most Republican men are comfortable to admit.
Jay, I'm a little surprised at how your downing Palin. She's the only Republican that does anything to excite both the base and Americans in general. If you notice, no other Republican is doing that, and many of them aren't capable of doing that.
Her book was a bestseller before it even hit the bookshelves. What other Republican is providing that kind of media attention to the principles of the party?
And listen, Obama's books of self-discovery and all that jazz were partly responsible for catapulting him into the White House. Why shouldn't a Republican give that a shot if it convinces more people to support Republican principles at the ballot box?
This is a spectacular success for Republicans that everyone's so interested in what she has to say. Whether she runs for President, or Senate, or nothing at all really doesn't matter--Republican voters will get to have their pick among others at the right time to decide who would be best to stand on the Republican ticket.
But for now, instead of feeding into the Palin-bashing that's indicative of the liberal media and the contemporary self-hating Republican, let's embrace the fact that she scares the crap out of socialists and emboldens many disheartened Republicans, even in blue New York.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
written by Jay Golub , November 18, 2009
http://www.urbanelephants.com/...k-her.html
Mr. Judge, it seems I have this disagreement once every year with a Brooklyn Republican...
My comment from the link above are just about the same as my present criticisms of Mrs. Palin...
"As predicted, she's been hurting the ticket - eventhough McCain recieved a small bounce after the convention. Since then, Palin's been a drag.
This weekend on SNL - as has been the case since she got the nod - the media continue to have a field day on her.
Sadly, it's the ultimate in snobbery for the media/Left to portray her in such a negative light, but it seems to be working.
McCain should have never picked her for this and because if he had picked Romney, McCain's performance during this economic crisis would have been better AND he might have more than half of the amount of resources to fight against Obama in the home stretch."
...she continues to be a "drag" on the GOP these days. We should dump her as, even though it is unfair snobbery to some degree, she is the wrong image to help rebuild the Republican Party - especially here in NYC...
"She's the only Republican that does anything to excite both the base and Americans in general"
Jonathan, she exites the "old" base of the GOP - the one that lost just about every election over the last three years. We need a "new" GOP base built not on social conservatism, but on fiscal conservatism - something she knows little about.
And as far as American - sure she "excites" them. She excites them to hate the GOP more than they already did. Not what we're looking for.
Palin has no political future as "we won't have her" again. It was wrong for McCain and the GOP to push her as the VP nominee and she is only out there making a few bucks - which I don't fault her for.
We need to go in a different direction...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Stephanie , November 18, 2009
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/...jour_3.php
Even the lefty Village Voice thinks Sarah Palin is bad for the GOP!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Frank Ammendolea , November 18, 2009
Sorry, Jay. Have to disagree with you on this one.
Palin's not the problem and we shouldn't be letting the media choose our candidates for us. I will agree that she needs some polish and she needs to become a better communicator on fiscal conservatism - but we are not going to be successful as a party if we show social conservatives the door.
Now I happen to be a social conservative and a fiscal libertarian. What does that mean? In a nutshell, I believe that there are certain moral values that have served society well over the years and that those values should be protected. As such, I am pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. On economics, I believe in free market capitalism and aside from some very limited government regulation to police corruption and abuse - I believe the government should stay out of my wallet and my business.
Palin appears to subscribe to this same worldview and I would have no problem voting for her for President. I think the trap that a lot of Republicans are falling into is this notion that she is "unelectable." But any Republican is "unelectable" to the Left. In fact, if you look at history, the Left always wants to counsel the GOP to pick the worst candidate possible. In 1996, the media was clamoring for Colin Powell to run for President. Once that failed, we kept hearing how Bob Dole was such a statesman and a moderate voice for the party. Once he got the nomination he became a radical right winger to all of them.
Remember 2000? The media was in love with John McCain. Couldn't get enough of him. Then they rooted for him to get the nomination in 2008...just in time to bury him in the Fall against Obama.
And while there were many reasons that McCain (Mr. Moderate Republican) lost that election, Sarah Palin was not one of them. Go back and look at the numbers. McCain was in a free fall before he picked Palin. Obama had just given his coronation speech in Denver in front of the Greek columns and it was looking grim. Then he picks Palin, she wows the country at the Republican convention, and McCain vaults into the lead!
Then the financial crisis hits (no fault of Palin's). That dope McCain "suspends" his campaign in order to go to D.C. and vote for a billion dollar bailout WITH Obama and he starts free-falling again. Palin then debates Biden and cleans his clock. The campaign's numbers tick back up again.
With the exception of the Couric interview (which was bad) and the Gibson interview (which was not terrible, but spun by the media as terrible), whenever Palin was front and center the ticket prospered. When McCain was front and center, they floundered.
I don't follow your logic that this so-called "old" base lost every election over the last three years. Our presidential failures are littered with the corpses of "moderate" Republicans. Ford, Bush I, Dole, McCain - all were supposed to be the type of Republicans that could appeal to us sophisticated New Yorkers. Yet not one of them won New York State. Not one!
The last Republican to win New York State? Ronald Wilson Reagan in 1980 and 1984. It just so happens that Sarah Palin is the closest thing to Ronald Reagan that we have on the national stage at the present time. I'll take my chances with that brand of Republican any day of the week.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Luke Vander Linden , November 19, 2009
And what a great response, Frank!
I could never understand the vitriolic anger directed at Sarah Palin by Jay. He mocked my prediction last year and then mocked her when she ran. 2008 was going to be a horrible year for Republicans no matter who was on the ticket, but Palin did nothing but boost McCain and add excitement to the ticket -- certainly not something boring Romney would have done (he may be right about things, but he's booooring).
What I love best about her book release is that every morning when I turn on the TV and every night on all the talk shows all they can talk about is Sarah Palin. And not just Fox -- every channel.
You can abuse her all you like, Jay, but she draws more attention than any Republican out there -- by far. And that's a good thing for the GOP.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Quickjustice , November 19, 2009
Prior to selecting Palin as his VP candidate, McCain's campaign was flat-lining at 44%. Palin gave him a 4% boost on election day, which was fantastic for a VP selection.
It wasn't enough to get McCain over the top, but it spared him a humiliating defeat. McCain's campaign reminded me of Bob Dole's-- listless, low-energy, and unfocused. His refusals to attack Obama on genuine issues, such as Reverend Wright, coupled with a tanking economy and Paulson's bailouts of Wall Street fat cats, finished him off.
Palin is a huge celebrity within the GOP. That star power is rare indeed. We should be cheering Palin on as she enriches herself on her book tour and fills party coffers. Whether she runs again is a different issue for a different day.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Stephanie , November 19, 2009
Sarah Palin helped John McCain loose the election.
Many voters didn't think she was/is qualified to be 2nd in line to become President if something should happen to the President.
If John McCain had picked Minnesota Gov. Tom Pawlenty or Pete Wilson (former CA governor), John McCian might have been elected president.
Sarah Palin is not Vice-presidential or Presidential quality.
Palin was elected to one (1) single term as Alaska governor, a term she resigned by choice and thus didn't finish honorobly.
Go ahead..... support Palin for President. That will help elect Obama to a 2nd term. ;-(
I dare you....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 19, 2009
"...but we are not going to be successful as a party if we show social conservatives the door."
I never said that, Frank. But candidates like Palin and Huckabee are one issue candidates. They only are social conservatives - they have no good input on fiscal conservatism and, in Huckabee's case, are to the Left on fiscal issues.
All I'm saying is that the GOP should have pro-life and pro-choice candidates. The only consistent factor in our candidates should be their dislike for big government, taxes, central control and unions. From that point, all other issues can be on the table...
I agree that Palin wasn't the reason why McCain lost - but she did not help him in the long run and she's a joke right now. She has a better chance at starting a new talk show in competition with Oprah than running for elective office...
"I don't follow your logic that this so-called "old" base lost every election over the last three years."
The "logic" is what Rove and Bush did to win in 2000 and 2004, which was to pander to social conservatives. In doing so, they were able to win by delivering the solid 25% of the voting community around the country who supports those issues. The short run gain of such a tactic backfired on the GOP when both Bush and the GOP congress abandoned fiscal conservatism for the power of patronage and special interest guided spending. Essentially, the Republicans "logically" realized they didn't need to be the party of small government any more as long as they held onto the powerful minority of social conservative voters.
For people like me, who are true-blue anti-federalists, the GOP lost it's way.
The same is true for NY State Republican activity - Pataki/bruno et al all abandoned fiscal conservatism and clung to power by feigning conservative social values.
And, btw, neither Bush or Pataki EVER did anything positive for the social conservative in legislation. Both just used those voters to win and never delivered on any of their promises....
"It just so happens that Sarah Palin is the closest thing to Ronald Reagan that we have on the national stage at the present time."
Oh, please! Frank, I'm sorry to say but that is a ridiculous statement.
Reagan was a Hollywood liberal early in his life. An athelete as well. He was charming to both rural and urban people - including here in NY.
Palin has nothing in common with Reagan and Reagan, although a social conservative, didn't spend much of his political capital on that collective cause. His experiences in California made him focus on a completely different issue set than Palin had in Alaska.
Palin will NEVER win NY in any election. there are no and will never be "Palin-Democrats."
I'd like you to expand on how they are similar, Frank...
"You can abuse her all you like, Jay, but she draws more attention than any Republican out there -- by far. And that's a good thing for the GOP."
Good to have you drop in Luke, but were wrong in wanting her on the ticket last year and you're wrong now.
Sure Palin gets attention - she's mocked by everyone. IN my view, she's hungry for attention even if it's bad attention. Whining about how she was treated last year will not make her a political star and will not enable her to help the GOP cause.
Again, I don't fault her for her social views. Although I'm on the other side of that issue to a large degree, I welcome pro-lifers in to the GOP. For far too long we've shunned pro-choicers and social moderates/liberals.
The Republican Party must be the party of small government first. That is where the litmus test should be appliend. We should have a big tent on the social issues.
Mrs. Palin has had her chance to demonstrate knowledge on the fiscal issues and has offered very little in that regard. From a PR point of view, she's toxic.
And, Luke, if for just one reason, Romney was always the better choice for VP as he would have at least made sure McCain had enough resources to run a full campaign. QJ, you may be forgetting, but Palin also was a big failure in helping fundraise and I have yet to see that situation change. She's not filling any "coffers" that I know of.
Let's profile a few of our GOP Congressman who are fighting against the healthcare bill or the stimulus plan instead of this person who has already showed she's not ready for prime-time. We need new leaders. The "old" ones using the "old" issues will not lead us out of these political lows...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Quickjustice , November 19, 2009
In the red states, Palin is a rock star. Like her or not, that's the reality. Was she ready to be President? Just as much as the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois, and probably more so.
Ten years ago, I would have conceded she wasn't ready-- if matched against a seasoned, experienced Democrat with years of national experience. On the issue of "experience", McCain was better off with her as his VP candidate than the Democrats were with Obama as their Presidential candidate. "Experience" clearly wasn't what voters cared about in 2008-- so why are you repeating this Democrat shibboleth?
Pawlenty is a drooling creationist without any future in the national GOP-- and you attack social conservatives? At least most of them believe in science.
I agree that the GOP should be a "big tent", Jay, but social conservatives are an important part of that tent.
Palin comes from the middle class, and plenty of middle class Americans understand that the elites in the GOP and Democrat Parties despise her for that.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by GOPNYC , November 19, 2009
She's not my choice and, yes, she badly hurt the McCain campaign.
But not all of that was her fault. A lot of it was a media that makes sport of creating cariciatures of Republican VP candidates in an effort to steamroll their future careers.
Dan Quayle, anyone?
Or how about George H. W. Bush -- at 18, the youngest naval aviator in history -- being a "wimp"?
Sarah Palin had been a mayor, a governor, and a civic leader. Sure, she said stuff that was pretty goofy and that Northwest/Central States "twang" made her sound like a cartoon character, but did anyone ever listen to some of the stuff Joe Biden says???
Joe Biden is a MORON! Nice guy, likeablle guy, nice family, but he's dumber than a bag of hammers. The only reason he's stayed in the Senate so long is that everybody in Delaware likes him personally. I doubt he's read five books in the last 25 years -- incluidng "trash" reads on his AmTrak commute.
Sarah Palin may not have been in line for any Phi Beta Kappa key, and she's not the most worldly person, probably not by a long-shot. But she does have some great instincts and she has draws a base.
The media's shred of her, her kids, and her very ordinary way of life was despicable and may boomerang. People in fly over country get sick and tired of being told what their opinions "should be" by the elites in New York, LA, and Washington.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by osher g. , November 19, 2009
Anyone who says that they can't support Palin because she doesn't have enough experience, and therefore chooses to vote for Obama, can't be take serious. Their problem isn't experience; it's that she doesn't have enough experience promoting a liberal agenda. Palin has served more years in public office than Obama and has actually been a chief executive.
Did she loose votes for McCain? Absolutely, (as I’m sure many VP candidates have done to their tickets, winning or losing,) but she probably got him more votes than she lost him. Without her McCain would have lost states like North Dakota and Montana and would have done much worse in other states. Romney would have been a disaster. Every time he opens his mouth, I want to vomit a little. He looks so artificial, and he doesn't even try to hide the bull crap. He'll say anything to get elected. He is like the republican version of John Kerry, (I voted for it before I voted against it....) He ran as something he wasn't, and I don't think Americans will stand for that.
From what I read in her book so far, it seems like the principals of fiscal conservatism is what guided her philosophy on government. That free people can make their own decisions better than government can, and that the job of government is to get out of the way, and not to tax, regulate, and mandate, so that business can prosper.
On another note, I’m not sure what makes you think that Huckabee is a single issue candidate. Is it repealing the income tax so the biggest burden on American business will be lifted, or was it his plan to secure the border, (I strongly disagreed with his position on in-state tuition grants for children of illegal immigrants, but he was the only candidate with a plan for the border.) So he's pro-life (as is the most of America) or he's pro-traditional marriage (as is most of America) is that so terrible?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Jay Golub , November 20, 2009
"Was she ready to be President? Just as much as the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois, and probably more so."
We tried that angle, QJ. It didn't work as Obama got elected anyway. I have no problem with Palin's level of "experience." I'm sure she's as qualified as anyone else to delegate authority, like a President truly does.
"I agree that the GOP should be a "big tent", Jay, but social conservatives are an important part of that tent."
Then we are in full agreement. It's just that the social conservatives don't agree with having a "big tent" on that particular issue...
"People in fly over country get sick and tired of being told what their opinions "should be" by the elites in New York, LA, and Washington."
That's true, GOPNYC and I agree with QJ that Palin has appeal in the rural middle-class, but as we have already learned, that group has become politically irrelevent.
The old states that used to have that population are replacing their double-wides with starter homes and their neighbors are increasingly middle-class northeasterner liberals or moderates. The days of holding onto South Carolina with a Palin-type are over.
We need candidates who can appeal to the suburban vote that is growing nationwide and Palin is NOT the person to do that going forward. She may be young, but she's showed up on the political landscape a decade too late.
Osher, whether or not either Huckabee or Palin support lower taxes or smaller government, etc...is not the issue, really. My reason for calling them "one issue" candidates is that they speak most often of those issues. Maybe they are both conversent in the limited government debate, but we had more than a year for both of them to express those views effectively and they didn't.
We need people who speak of small government first and their social conservative beliefs later on...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by Luke Vander Linden , November 20, 2009
New Rasmussen poll out this morning shows that McCain's in a virtual tie with a primary opponent in Arizona.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...p_primary
You going to blame Palin for this too?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Sopra , November 25, 2009
No wonder the Republicans have such a small presence in this area. You folks are ossified!
Are you really not interested in adding disgruntled independents to your numbers? Can't you see beyond the status quo "principles" and prissy checklist that you hold to so rigidly? It's a death grip. The party (or with luck just its purist prigs) is doomed.
Either the GOP will be out of the game for the next decade or it will let in some fresh air, new realities, and creative thinkers and the country will be much the better for it. You'd do well to pay attention to what's going on across the country now and--novel idea!--try to connect with real live voters and learn their concerns and wishes, instead of spending time writing paeans to your own pure-minded virtue. (Tip: Read the conservative political blogs--many of which are linked on Real Clear Politics--instead of Playgirl.)
And incidentally, your Terms & Conditions link doesn't work and your Rego Hills website has been hacked and appears dangerous. Neither is an appropriate welcome to potential new members.
Clearly the NY GOP is not for me or any forward-looking problem-solving citizen. What a damned shame. You have a golden opportunity to grow a base, and you'd rather strike poses in a old cracked clouded mirror.
The train in the wreck won't have Palin written on it unless you fools manage to derail her.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 25, 2009
"New Rasmussen poll out this morning shows that McCain's in a virtual tie with a primary opponent in Arizona....You going to blame Palin for this too?"
I don't know why we keep talking about 2008's election. Luke, even if McCain had WON the election last year, I'd be saying that we need to move away from the Sarah Palin mold of Republican...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , November 25, 2009
"Clearly the NY GOP is not for me or any forward-looking problem-solving citizen."
I have no idea where you were intending to go with all of this, Sopra, and the line above is a perfect example.
How does following the path to victory, outlined by GOP leaders two decades ago, make us "forward looking?" To the contrary, I'm asking us to go in a different direction.
Palin is not a "problem solver," nor does she appeal to any.
Palin is the Queen of double-wide politics and her use is a gimmick to get votes - just like Bush's use of "faith based initiatives" in 2000 and "the defense of marriage act" was in 2004. Her presence rallies millions of dedicated voters, but shuts the GOP out of being able to appeal to the other 200 million Americans who live in urban/suburban environments.
If the GOP wants to be "forward looking" we'd move past the gimmicks of the past and into a world where we run candidates who address the critical issues of the day effectively...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
written by Jay Golub , February 11, 2010
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...1/2010-02- 11_poll_reads_palins_palm_no_chance_in_2012_71_of_ameri
cans_dont_think_shes_qualifi.html
(I apologize, in advance, to one of my good friends who asked me to stop this stuff, but...)
"More than half the nation - 55% - see Sarah Palin unfavorably, and 71% believe the "Going Rogue" author is not qualified to be President, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll Thursday."
...If those numbers are true, she is a drag to the party. When a polarizing figure like her gets labeled as something like "unqualified," there is no rehabilitation possible.
Again, nothing against her or her politics (much of which I agree with), but her delivery and style is not what will get the GOP back in Control of Congress or the White House.
The political audience is changing. The GOP needs to change its delivery style to go along with those changes...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Behold a Pale Horse , February 11, 2010
Remember who she is.
She was the Republican VP candidate. Republican VP candidates have always gotten attacked. Who was the last Republican VP candidate the press liked and who was respected? Maybe it was Henry Cabot Lodge (1960) since he was somewhat liberal. And before him, it was Nixon.
Whoever the Republican VP candidate is in 2012 will be attacked, ridiculed, and demonized.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Frank Ammendolea , February 12, 2010
Admittedly, I am a Palin supporter and admire both her performance as a VP candidate and think she would be a viable choice for president. Based on the projected field as of today (Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Barbour, Thune) she would still probably be my first choice - though I have not committed to anyone and would like to see other strong "movement conservatives" look at the race.
However, I continue to be baffled by the level of criticism that Palin gets from good Republicans on this site (like Jay). Jay admits that he shares many of her political views, yet he routinely criticizes her as the wrong face for the GOP. But why is that? Because the mainstream media types and NYT op-ed page say so? Since when do they have the best interests of the Republican Party (or the country) in mind? I would think that if Sarah Palin was such a slam dunk, sure thing for an Obama second term, they would be building her up and practically begging the GOP to nominate her. Yet it is just the opposite. Why is that?
I am assuming that this thread was revived largely due to her speech to the Tea Party convention, and then the ensuing controversy over the "hand notes." Has there ever been a more phony and non-sensical controversy over a public appearance in history? Lest we forget, the woman spoke at length for about 40 minutes (not counting Q&A) without a teleprompter or prepared text. Her remarks were thoughtful and substantive - and well received by a key conservative constituency which is likely to dominate the next round of presidential primaries. Was she playing to the tenor of the crowd a bit and throwing out some "red meat"? Sure she was. But what good politician doesn't know their audience?
As for the hand notes. Again, what's the big deal? Ronald Reagan - who she does remind me of both in her demeanor and her treatment by the press - used to write notes on 3X5 index cards and use them when speaking. Perhaps she forgot to get them, or maybe she thought of some key points at the last moment and decided to improvise. Does it really matter? The resulting "controversy" is a transparent attempt by the media to divert attention from the strength of her performance. I am astonished that right thinking people can't see this immediately.
My larger point is that Jay and other nervous Republicans need to stop allowing the media to frame the terms of the debate when it comes to Sarah Palin. They are operating on the assumption that because Katie Couric thinks Sarah Palin is an idiot, that it must be true. We cannot succeed as a party if we do that, because the media is never going to support our candidates. The only Republicans they tolerate are the liberal ones like Colin Powell, Dede Scozzafava, the "Bobsey Twins" from Maine and folks like them.
I believe in a big tent and I think there is room for the aforementioned even though they would not be my favored candidates in a primary, but I don't subscribe to the theory that Palin is unelectable. Jay is partially correct in saying that Palin probably cannot appeal to an urban Republican electorate. However, folks that get elected as urban Republicans likely can't appeal to the larger Republican electorate nationwide, so the door swings both ways. It eventually comes down to numbers. For better or worse, there are probably more Republicans like Sarah Palin nationwide than there are Republicans that get elected on the Upper East Side. Therefore, that opinion is likely to win out when choosing a nominee.
At the end of this process, if the economy is coming back, if unemployment is down to a generally acceptable level and Americans feel safe and secure with Barack Obama - he will likely be re-elected no matter who runs against him. If the economy is still weak, if unemployment is in double digits or close to it and we are embarrassed abroad (or attacked at home), the public will give Sarah Palin the benefit of the doubt. Almost the same scenario happened in 1980. Many Americans gave Reagan mixed or low poll results leading right up to election day (on much of the same grounds as Palin - not intelligent, not qualified, too conservative, but when push came to shove, they decided to take a chance with Reagan rather than suffer four more years of Carter.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by swmirsky , February 12, 2010
Sarah Palin made a dramatic debut on the national scene with a powerfully delivered speech at the GOP convention where she accepted the VP nomination but, unfortunately, it has been downhill for her since. She has done poorly in one on one interviews, sounds too perky and not a little dopey in her way of speaking and she is too obviously in over her head on substantive issues. Whatever any of us feel about her positions, Jay is right. She is NOT the right person to lead and represent the GOP going forward.
Never mind the media and Democratic attacks to which she has supplied plenty of fuel for her own pyre! George W. Bush was someone whose policies many of us found congenial but his time in office demonstrated, among other things, that a political party can't pitch its hopes on congenial policies alone! Bush was simply unable to stand up to the ongoing attacks, the vicious, unrelenting sniping and name-calling. He wasn't sufficiently articulate, comfortable in the public spotlight or inspiring. Most Republicans liked him because he was one of them and espoused most of the policies they wanted to see (though he dropped the ball on smaller government and fiscal constraint). But the point is NOT to have someone at the top most Republicans like but someone most voters like.
Ronald Reagan was despised and demeaned by the liberal media and the Democrats but he found resonance in the general electorate. He wasn't as great a communicator as the media made him out to be (both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, it seems to me, are better and Obama is way better!) but he could inspire warm feelings in voters beyond his base. If Republicans are going to beat the Obama camp in 2012 they need a candidate who can take him on in the public spotlight, go head to head with him or substance and the capacity to articulate and connect with voters.
McCain was a complete disaster on these measures during his campaign and Palin shows no evidence that she has outgrown her awkward amateurish mannerisms and lack of gravitas in the time she has been in the public spotlight since. She remains a little silly sounding and lightweight on matters of moment. Obama would make mincemeat of her and Republicans who pull for her to be the nominee are fooling themselves if they think otherwise -- and condemning the GOP to continued minority status in the electoral game.
Sarah Palin has shown no real growth since her run as the VP nominee and the worst thing she ever did was walk away from her one real job, as governor of Alaska, in the face of continuing fire, rather than see it through and make her governing a success. I think she and others are sorely mistaken if they think the road to the presidency is via punditry alone.
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , February 12, 2010
"But why is that?"
she got caught writing on her hand, Frank. What more do we need to ask?
Why didn't she write notes or cue cards or a teleprompter? and the amazing part about this is that she criticized Obama for over-using teleprompters and then writes her notes (like a school child) on her hand.
Again, style, NOT substance is her fundamental problem. If you don't see that Frank, you are truly avoiding the obvious.
And, btw, I don't care what the MSM has to say about her. That's not the point, but when you are a public figure that just keeps giving and giving and giving GREAT material to mock her, one has to wonder whether it's the MSM's fault or the fault of Mrs. Palin herself...
"For better or worse, there are probably more Republicans like Sarah Palin nationwide than there are Republicans that get elected on the Upper East Side."
And that's a good point, Frank and something the GOP desperately needs to change. We NEED more registered and voting Upper-East Side Republicans. We need more Republicans on Long Island and Westchester and Staten Island and Philly and Boston and LA and San Francisco and etc...
Until we do have all those numbers and areas covered, we will continue to be a one-note party that can't deal with the important problems facing the country.
Your point of view, Frank, should be reversed - meaning that if we just consistently offered the voters of these critical areas, more Urban-Elephant-style candidates, we'd see an increase in GOP registration and an increase in Republican representation and, eventually, an environment in Albany and DC and on the City Council that supported smaller government, lower taxes and a more free America.
Forget what worked in the past - it took us nowhere. In my view, Palin's demographic appeal - as powerful as it may be in some parts of the country as you accurately say - will not lead us where we need to go...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Frank Ammendolea , February 12, 2010
Jay, I think we need to reconcile ourselves to the fact that we have to have different brands of Republicanism in different regions. Scott Brown might be the perfect Republican for Massachusetts, but he might not survive a primary in South Carolina or Alaska. The two factions don't necessarily have to be at war with one another for each one to succeed. I totally agree with you that we need more Urban Elephant style Republicans in NYC, Philly, Chicago, etc. And we need Suburban Elephant style ones in the outer boroughs and the 'burbs. But the fact that the Republican Party has essentially ignored the cities for 70 years isn't the fault of Sarah Palin.
As for Palin, I'm sorry but I just don't see how the hand note thing is that big a deal. You ask why she did not simply write the notes on cue cards or use a teleprompter? Well, the teleprompter has almost become anathema to Republicans at this point due to BHO's maniacal use of it, so for her to use one while criticizing him would have been hypocritical. As for the cue cards, like I said, perhaps it was a spur of the moment situation and there were none available. To characterize it as "she got caught writing on her hand" is a bit severe. She wasn't cheating on the SAT's. She was giving a speech. IMHO, it's a phony issue and distracts from the fact that she gave a very strong speech. What are your thoughts on the substance of what she said?
I am not saying that Sarah Palin should be coronated as the our nominee for 2012, but I also don't believe that she is the radioactive loser that she is being portrayed as here. If she has insurmountable weaknesses, they will soon be layed bare in Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond.
She has her negatives - many of which were well detailed by Stu Mirsky - but those can also be repaired and strengthened during the next few years. As of right now, the other candidates who are most often mentioned for the Republican nomination (Romney and Huckabee) have huge negatives - Romney is seen as being a fake flip flopper who rubs many people the wrong way, and Huckabee is seen as an articulate version of George W. Bush, a big government Republican. Both have also already been rejected by the Republican primary electorate. If a better candidate than Sarah Palin comes along, I will be the first to admit it. But as of right now, I have yet to see him or her.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , February 12, 2010
"Scott Brown might be the perfect Republican for Massachusetts, but he might not survive a primary in South Carolina or Alaska."
...and I dare say, Frank, that I don't care what Alaska's Republican Party thinks of what matters to New York Republicans.
For far too long, we've gone along with the national GOP and for what? A $50 billion dollar a year balance of payments deficit? A tax burden that forces NYC taxpayers to pay for the "bridge to no-where?"
I'm sorry, Frank, but I'm a New Yorker and, to coin a phrase, an URBAN ELEPHANT!
Palin's presense on the GOP scene makes it difficult for those of us in this part of the County to grow the Republican Party. All of those independant people who voted for Brown do not want anything to do with Mrs. Palin or her image or what she represents to the rest of the Country's Republican base.
So many large groups of voters and citizens are alientated by the GOP's insistence on looking to turn out Palin's base - the traditional (at least for the last two decades) base of the GOP.
I say let's go in another direction and make the party open for business with a wider group of people who support issues that most Americans support - lower taxes, smaller government and freedom.
Scott Brown's supporters may not be supporters of Mrs. Palin, but his supporters are a base that the GOP should be capitalizing on. It's time to move away from the double-wide politics of the past and into the new age of American politics where the soccer mom is really more important that the pig with lipstick...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by The Isle Magee , February 13, 2010
The presidential election is determined by only a handful of states, of which New York and Massachusetts are not a part.
So the national GOP, rightly, cares not a whit what NY Republicans have to say about anything.
Unless the question is "how to suck, get in bed with the unions, or sell your party line to the highest paying liberal billionaire". Get over yourselves. The NY GOP is a joke and a laughingstock, and will be for the long foreseeable future.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , February 13, 2010
"The presidential election is determined by only a handful of states, of which New York and Massachusetts are not a part."
Again, you guys always speak as if this has to be the case forever. The only reason why the above statement is true is because we are not running candidates who would appeal to these areas. Palin and her prominence in the GOP will make changing that equation nearly impossible...
"Unless the question is "how to suck, get in bed with the unions, or sell your party line to the highest paying liberal billionaire""
WWWAAAAAAHHHHHH....
I would argue that, for the national party, the question is "who can yuck it up with the Double-Wide crowd, disingenuously pander to the religious right and open up the gun-rack to every loon in town."
(which, btw, has led to a GOP at the national level that stood by and passed the largest increase in the Federal government since Social Security...)
The door can swing both ways, Magee...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by insider , February 13, 2010
Washington Post political columnist David Broder, Feb. 11.
Her lengthy Saturday night keynote address to the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville and her debut on the Sunday morning talk show circuit with Fox News' Chris Wallace showed off a public figure at the top of her game—a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself, even with notes on her palm. . . .
This is a pitch-perfect recital of the populist message that has worked in campaigns past. There are times when the American people are looking for something more: for an Eisenhower, who liberated Europe; an FDR or a Kennedy or a Bush, all unashamed aristocrats; or an Obama, with eloquence and brains.
But in the present mood of the country, Palin is by all odds a threat to the more uptight Republican aspirants such as Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty—and potentially, to Obama as well. . . .
Those who want to stop her will need more ammunition than deriding her habit of writing on her hand. The lady is good.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by insider , February 13, 2010
David Broder is spot-on. The lady is good.
Her critics on the left and right are usually urban, elitist, and pop culture sophisticates (which is to say, they know everything about trends, but are essentially callow).
I think everyone, Palen included, wishes she were better read and more experienced, but that doesn't take away from her unsurpassed political skills. She is a wunderkind on the stump, and that wins elections.
If I were counseling her I'd tell her to sign on for VP again with someone she likes, help him win, and run for the Oval in 8 years.
With that experience under her belt, she would likely be a great president.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , February 13, 2010
"Her critics on the left and right are usually urban, elitist, and pop culture sophisticates (which is to say, they know everything about trends, but are essentially callow)."
Ouch! I resemble only two of those qualities...I'll let you decide with ones...LOL!
For the rest of your sentiment, I disagree completely.
To grow the GOP, we need to throw out the formulas of the past. Otherwise we'll have another shallow victory based upon the old methods, which led Mr. Bush and the last GOP controlled Congress to spend our country into near oblivion...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Frank Ammendolea , February 13, 2010
Jay, you keep saying that we need to rid ourselves of the old methods and run candidates who appeal to urban areas. OK, I am not in disagreement with that, but I need you to elaborate on that in greater detail. What constitutes the Jay Golub formula for the ideal national candidate? And is there currently a Republican that exemplifies that standard for you?
I happen to believe that we need to get rid of the Southern-centric, good old boy image of the GOP (something we likely agree on) and embrace a more western, Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan, small government model. By this, I mean we should be talking about deficit and debt reduction and shrinking the size of the federal bureaucracy and entitlements (which Palin is doing), I believe we need to embrace pro-growth across the board tax cuts (which Palin is doing), we need to talk about an aggressive war on terror that distinguishes between terrorists and domestic criminals (which Palin is doing). I do believe in the right to bear arms, so I don't know if that constitutes "opening up the gun rack to every loon in town." I just believe - as do most conservatives and libertarians - that the government should keep out of my gun rack as long as I'm not threatening public safety.
On social issues, I believe that we should continue to embrace pro-lifers, while not slamming the door on Republicans who are pro-choice (I would have no problem with a Rudy Giuliani or a Scott Brown on a national ticket based on their overall philosophy - any Republican should have the opportunity to make their case to the Republican electorate and be judged on their total record without a litmus test). On gay marriage, I believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, but that we should provide legal protections and legal benefits to homosexual couples (civil unions, if you will), effectively giving the same rights without the label of "marriage." I know it may be a game of semantics, but it is a good compromise, and one that would appeal to voters in New York.
While Sarah Palin is culturally conservative, she is not a one trick pony who constantly hammers those themes. For the most part she talks about the dangerous rise of big government, deficits and national security issues, and only gets into abortion and gay marriage if she's asked about it.
I may be wrong, Jay. But it seems by your commentary that your main problem with Palin is that she is pro-life and appeals to cultural conservatives. But a small majority of the country now describes themselves as "pro-life" in some form, and a rather sizable majority of the country supports traditional marriage. Should Sarah Palin and the rest of the Republican Party abandon those positions simply to court moderate/liberal voters in NYC who are turned off by them? I have always maintained - and will always maintain - that any voter who makes the right to gay marriage and legal abortion their main issues when judging a candidate, are probably not voting Republican anyway.
As I said, I am all for big tent - as I know you are as well. But there has to be some basic tenets of a platform upon which the Party stands so that we're not simply Democrat-lite. And we don't need to jettison our social conservative allies to appease social liberals who are not going to vote for us anyway.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , February 13, 2010
"What constitutes the Jay Golub formula for the ideal national candidate?"
A libertarian, pro-economic growth social moderate is the model for success nationally. And no we as Republicans don't have a viable one of those types of candidates.
This is solely because we keep looking at the Huckabees, Palins and Romneys for our national candidates. If we end this obsession with the past and embrace some firmly small government socially moderate candidates, we'll see them come up out of the woodwork.
Besides, my concern is not to find a solid national candidate but to see the New York GOP run these types of candidates regularly. Right now they see the Republican Party as the party of Bush and the social cons, which makes them stay out of politics or get involved with the Dems.
And regarding "supporting pro-lifers," I agree. We should, but we need to loudly remove the litmus test on those issues if we want solid Goldwater, Reagan-like candidates to come forward regularly...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , February 13, 2010
An interesting discussion, but what are we really debating here? Is Palin a player in the Party? Yes, clearly she is. She represents a constituency. In many ways the one that Huckabee began to develop and then left when he left politics for TV.
If the question is, will she ever be our nominee for president, the answer is clearly no. Nor will she be the VP candidate in 2012. She wasn't ready for prime time in 08 and has not done much to develop her skill set since. If she wants to grow beyond a fringe cult political figure then she should run for US Senate and really build her resume.
Her current credentials, as an unmemorable former Alaska gov who didn't even complete her first term, will not catapult her to the top, no matter how good she becomes as retail politics or delivering a good speech. Right now she is on track to fill the void left by Alan Keyes.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , February 14, 2010
http://www.time.com/time/polit...64,00.html
This type of story (titled It's Her Party: The Brilliance of Sarah Palin) from the likes of Joe Klein is exactly what is wrong with Palin: the Left LOVES to say she's our gal...
"It was classic Palin, a brilliant line, brilliantly delivered: she does folksy far better than George W. Bush or any of the other Republican focus-group populists ever did. It was the signature line of her speech, which rocked the joint — and then, slowly, began to rock the national political community. The speech was inspired drivel, a series of distortions and oversimplifications, totally bereft of nourishing policy proposals — the sort of thing calculated, carefully calculated, to drive lamestream media types like me frothing to their keyboards. Palin is a big fat target, eminently available for derision. But I will not deride. Because brilliance must be respected, especially when it involves marketing in an era when image almost always passes for substance."
...and that is her fundamental problem summed up perfectly.
Klein, first, "will not deride" because he knows she's the gift to the Left that just keeps on giving - alienating critical suburban and urban voters with every sound.
Second, he perfectly acknowledges what her problem is, as far as I'm concerned: "Palin is a big fat target."
Just as the GOP always pushed for Hillary as the opponent in this past Presidential race knowing she was a "big fat target," so is Palin. She can be made into caricatures easily, labeled anything the Left needs and, in the end, has an impression and public persona that is eminently beatable by the political Left and Center.
i would, therefore, add one more part to Klein's line: "She's a big fat TOXIC target."
I wish she would just move on already....
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Quickjustice , February 14, 2010
I get it, Jay. You don't like Sarah Palin. Lots of other people, most of them outside New York, disagree with you.
I know people who voted against McCain solely because of Palin. Single-issue voters ("we hate Palin" voters) aren't going to change their minds about a political party based upon a broad overview of the issues or personalities. If you're voting Democrat because of Palin, you're just looking for an excuse.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , February 14, 2010
I still voted for the McCain-Palin ticket, QJ. i'm not crazy.
But the logic that brought her to the ticket is the logic that we need to dump as it guaranteed that the Republican Party wouldn't win the White House.
Besides, as you know QJ, I care more about local politics than national. New York State and City have suffered because of the type of logic that selected a Palin as VP candidate. We can't grow the Party here locally with candidates like her being the face of the Party...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Daniel Peterson , February 14, 2010
I don't understand the obsession for this former Alaskan Governor. Is it the red blazer? The fact that she's an attractive 40 year old that likes to shoot a rifle?
Anyway, how many comments have been made before I'm finally chiming in? Count and tell me, because I have that much interest in this topic to read and count everything people have been saying pro-and anti-Palin.
A few points I'd like to make.
1. Blue States will not like Sarah Palin and more than they already do. Which is not much.
2. Palin really didn't hurt the McCain ticket. McCain was a dead fish. He was getting the votes of the anti-Obama no matter what. If Palin did anything she gave him a boost. What she failed to gain was a mass-wave of voters that would be considered Palin-Democrats or Palin-Independents. So she helped, but not enough, so everyone says she hurt the ticket in the end. I'll leave it at, She didn't help the ticket enough to win.
3. Oh right, that Electoral College thing. Current polls taken on presidential candidates is, 400 people surveyed top five candidates on the board, who do you want for president? Presidents aren't voted by popular vote, yet polls done right now are not done presidentially enough
4. Tea Partyers are gonna really beat up on the GOP if it doesn't get its act focused on this year. As far as I know, the GOP has to give Americans a message and take back the House. Who cares about 2012? IF we continue to worry about who is gonna challenge Obama in 2012, we're gonna drop the ball this year.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
