Palin as the face of the republican party
 

Ok, so palin has pretty much polarized the country..i've seen more people register to vote than ever bc they either LOVE her or hate her....


so i'm thinking...obama is 90% likely to win the presidency according to any and all polls i'm seeing...will palin fade back into alaskan obscurity (i'd never heard of her before mccain announced her, honestly) or will she continue to stump and be 'the' face of the republican party. I mean, she was brought on to 'mobilize the base' so to speak, she's a bit right of cheney from what i've heard from her, and she incites people to fervors...

soo..what are your thoughts?

I hope that she'll be best known by her character on SNL. Tina Fey deserves a lot of credit for her fantastic performance. I suspect that SNL Palin will outlive real Palin in media and history.

After the McCain/Palin loss, she will remain famous and will be subjected to intense scrutiny in her governing of Alaska. Alaskan politics will be in the national news continuously. She will soon begin to regret a lot of the things she has done and said in the presidential race, as they will backfire on her.

She will remain a darling of the ultra-conservative press and be a regular on Hannity & Combs and the like.

Maybe she'll try a senate run in the future. Once she learns some stuff.

She's John McCain's Hurricane Katrina. She'll be USHERED QUICKLY into the background.

After the Katie Couric interviews, I think her chance for the 'face of the Republican party' is out. I'm voting for 'retreats to obscurity' with a dose of willravel's 'SNL Palin will outlive her'.

I think that she'll go back Alaska, help stage an Alaskan secession, and set in motion an Alaskan version of the Handmaiden's Tale.

Unless she and McCain pull out of this nose dive she'll be sent packing backing to Alaska. Too many GOP leaders and pundits recognize her as what she is- window dressing. Nonsensical window dressing at that.

I think she'll go back to Alaska, and pop up during the next few elections to fire up the GOP base. She may pop back up for the Alaska Senate in 6 years, if Stevens loses his seat, or maybe run for a House seat. She's young enough they could have her on the ticket in 8-12 years.

She won't be going away anytime soon and I believe she will continue to move up in the party.

Remember that it's her wedge standing and cult of personality that makes her so attractive to the GOP. Assuming they do lose (I'm still sleeping with one eye open) she will become the party's most public and reliable critic of the Obama administration. As Docbungle said, she'll be a top draw as a pundit on talk shows and 24hour news channels, dogging the new government every step of the way.

How well she succeeds in this new role over the next few years will determine her future electability. That's no given, but she'll definitely be a populist presence for the forseeable future.

It's amazing how disgraced politicians pop up as as re-born on that show.

I think the Brody thing will not end well. If there's a marriage, it will be shotgun du jour. I think Sarah was just practicing on the wolves.

It depends on how the GOP proceeds from here, it's looking like it's headed for a split. If that happens, she'll be able to run as president on a populist ticket. I don't see her as too dissimilar to Bush. I think if that happens, the fiscal conservatives will pull the Democratic party more toward the right until it looks more like the old school Republican party. I don't see her as going away any time soon, that's for sure. I doubt the interviews will have any dent on any future campaign, they haven't really this time around. I don't believe there is this huge undecided electorate, though. The only people I've ever seen claim Independent always vote republican and tell me that they don't always vote republican and then follow it up with the fact that they didn't vote for Goldwater (their last non-republican vote). McCain always struck me as the type who would be aiming for disgruntled Democrats and Palin is very much in the Bush/Cheney mold, in my opinion.

i'm not sure i see an explicit fracturing of the republican party, but it seems that there will be and to some extent already is a refiguring of the demographic/political coalition that the republicans had built starting in the late 1970s. and like others have said, what happens to palin is a function of how that plays out.

things are still in pretty heavy registers of flux out there in the big wide world at the moment, so it's hard to see what might happen.
my guess is that the fracturing of neoliberalism is going to shift political discourse in general away from conservative identity politics and it's multi-hued reworking of the basic tenants of neo-fascism. so i see the populist dimension of the right coalition as becoming increasingly separated from the economic conservatives, more moderate types, social conservatives whose motivations are not those of the religious right. if obama wins, and wins by a considerable margin, this shake-out will probably happen very quickly.

the problem is the size and power of the machinery assembled by the christian coalition and the dependence on that machinery the republicans have developed. there's no rehab for this sort of problem, no doctor drew, no cameras in the clinic that will let us watch. this is a real organizational Problem for the republicans and i do not know how they are going to deal with it. if the scenario i outline above comes to pass, then you'll see a split coming out of the inability of the gop to extricate itself from this grass-roots level machinery the dependence upon which comes with the price--and that price is poujadiste style far-right identity politics.

this could be very bad indeed for the right.
but i suspect i'm being overly optimistic.

it will be interesting to see how the GOP rebrands itself in the next few years. Clearly the ideals of neo-conservatism are no long popular, so what tact will they take next?

I think most people (including myself) do not understand the economic collapse and how a 15% or so drop in real estate prices can cause the failure of so many financial institutions. People are beginning to think that CEOs are wildly gambling and risking our futures on highly leveraged bets at the roulette table. This is causing many to demand more government control and less free markets since when they fail we all pay the price while they walk away with more money than most of us could make in 50 lifetimes.

This could be the catalyst that causes a new progressive majority in politics which does not bode well for Palin and other conservatives who advocate free markets with less restrictions.

how do you conclude that it's no longer popular? this is a close election, and if Obama wins it's not going to be because people defected from the Republican party so much as registering 100s of thousands of new voters.

well, the fact that the voters didn't nominate a Neo-Con (although he's turning out to be more like one than I thought) points in that direction

Oh how I hope that happens with Ron Paul leading the way!

she'll work for the evil media and deliver her own gotcha questions

She'll try to run for Prez in four years.



And the key word in that sentence is TRY.

I like Palin more and more. Positions on the issues aside for now, one thing I like about Hillery Clinton is I think she is a tough person willing to standing up for what she believes in, not afraid to take risks (Obama is the opposite to me, which is the primary reason I personally don't like him). Palin has the same trait as Clinton, but she does it with a bubbly smile. I think Palin is underestimated.

I think McCain/Palin will lose the general election. I expect Palin to become a leader in the party, a star fundraiser. She will serve her term, and get elected to the Senate. I don't expect her to run for President in the next 16 years.

Palin may have "people" appeal among the party base, but her appeal within the RNC (and even among many of the national conservative press) is diminishing rapidly.

She is not the person they want ss the "face" of the party to attract swing voters in the future....and without swing voters, the Republican party will continue to lose elections.

thing is dc that the republicans have been running pretty far to the right for a while now---what seems to be happening is the traction of their populist discourse is coming undone, which is reflected in the unmooring of the center from the right within the republican coalition. that's why it seems to me that the republicans are in such trouble----to continue being viable, they have to shift center in a context where they no longer are setting the terms of the grid (you know, folk aren't repeating republican imaginary geography of the political spectrum) but they're locked into a politics that pitches them quite far to the right---within that there's the organizational problem that i think is going to hurt them to their right.

but maybe i'm just optimistic.
i don't mind conservatives, btw--i really don't---but i have alot of trouble with the particular kind of poujadiste conservatism that the republicans have been in bed with since the clinton period.

For better or worse....my guess is that we will be seeing alot of Newt Gingrich over the next few years.

to my horror, i think you're right.
the resurfacing of newt in the context of the conservative torpedo of the initial paulsen package was a sign of things to come.

but what an appalling schmuck that guy is.
surely the gop can do better than that.

Newt & Rush... I want to see them run for office. See all the dirt on them. Those two and Carl Rove are the reasons why I can't vote for the Republicans. Even if some of their ideas are ok, I have that big of a problem with them.

But I think Palin would get my vote before a bunch of other GOP members. I think the mistake the McCain camp made was to not pick their VP a day or two after they won the nomination. They could have kept it a secret for 8 months, but be training her and prepping her on a whole bunch of stuff.

It looks that way on the surface, but Bush comes from an East coast old money family. He had the connections & money to win the presidency. Sarah Palin has them so long as the party thinks she's a marketable commodity. She's popular with people who vote Republican every time no matter what, but not so popular outside of that demographic. Being able to play to the christian right and having your power base in the christian right are two different things. Just ask Mike Huckabee.

I suspect there are more skeletons in her & Todd's closet. She'd be more useful to the right on TV.

The GOP would be fools to pick Palin as the face of their party. I think 2012 is aligning up to be either Huckabee or Romney yet again.

Palin could get her feet wet and take a stab at it, but it's just going to be laughable.

I find it incredible every day to think that there are Alaskan citizens out there who thought it was rational to vote for her.

yellow...i know..i know. I've only known a few alaskans and they were kinda in hte todd palin "fuck america" model. They could learn something from oldskool SC about how to secede, doncha know...

oh god, i still have "you betcha' and "goshdarnit" and "god bless their hearts" in my head.....

Seriously, though, when i think about how she got elected, i look to bush..an think "half the country' elected him, too...

Over half the country sees Palin as a joke and even many conservatives in the media have chastised McCain for picking her. As someone who doesn't agree with the Republicans on much, I sure hope she becomes the face of the party because that would equate to Republicans losing more elections and respectability.

The party needs some fresh faces, rehashing Newt Gingrich, Romney or Huckabee just won't cut it. Although we'll have to see how the first Obama administration pans out.

IMO, Newt will be force in the party, despite his schmukiness (I agree, rb) because he is the only one who I see who knows how to frame the issues in a way that can generate broad appeal.

His "Contract with America" was a brilliant political policy document/strategy - middle class tax cuts, balanced budget amendment, personal responsibility (welfare reform), anti-crime, anti-UN, legal reform, etc. On the surface, these have broad appeal...its when you dig deeper, that the extremist positions were exposed.

Palin's greatest shortcoming is that she cannot articulate a thoughtful policy position beyond the talking points on her cue cards.

As a Washington insider I would think you would recognize that the VP on the ticket does what they are told to do, hence talking points. Palin was able to "articulate thoughtful policy position(s)" well enough to get elected governor. It is absurd the way the left will talk about people who are smart enough to get elected governor of a state, like Palin and Bush, but are too stupid to do anything else. Let's have a reality check here. Do you really believe what you wrote or is it a bit of hyperbole?

ace...having listened to Palin stumble through the few (unscripted) press conference she has held or the one debate...and as more of her record in Alaska (both state and local) is revealed, yes, I believe she is an empty suit....an ethically challenged empty suit.

That opinion is shared by a growing number of Republican party insiders and conservative media types.

But the problem for the Republicans goes beyond McCain and Palin.

The republican "brand" has lost the battle of ideas and offers nothing new.

Tax cuts targeted to the wealthy (supply side, trickle down voodoo) have failed.

A de-regulated "free market" has failed and extending it to health care is not what most voters believe is the solution to access to affordable health care.

Invading a sovereign nation that posed no direct threat to the US has not made the country more secure.

Bullying and belligerence is not a foreign policy that has widespread support.

Constitutional amendments to regulate behavior or enforce a set of values (abortion, gay marriage) have no broad appeal.

They simply cant win the battle of ideas so the only option left is to go negative.

dc, i love the way you articulated those points...but i'm wondering why this took an additional 4 yrs of bush..

http://fast.livecrunch.com/wp-conten.../dztob9jpg.gif

Made me laugh.

Sums up many people's idea of her credibility...

Biden has made a few gaffs. But, he is a Democrat. I get it.

Palin has been put into a position of having the pressure of McCain winning or losing based on something she says. When she is asked a question that she has not been briefed on she stumbles because of her lack of knowing how the campaign wants certain issues handled, i.e. - Supreme Court cases. In, addition, she needs to come across as the number two person on the ticket as does Biden. We know Biden has had to eat some crow to not take the spot light from Obama. Palin is not speaking for herself, I would have thought you would recognize that.

Everyone has an opinion. How about the Clinton folks and the number of Clinton 2012 websites up and running. These kinds of arguments are meaningless.

Here is a discussion stopper. How have the tax cuts failed, by what objective measure?:thumbsup:

There are gaffs and there is the depth of knowledge of national issues. And I dont see how by any objective measure, you can compare Palin to Biden.

ace...you and I just cant have a rational discussion on the Bush tax cuts.

I've tried...I've offered government studies (CBO), independent studies, economic reports....and I get a response that "democrats dont get it..they are either liars or ignorant" or "Supply side works and if you dont believe it...you are wrong".

Or on other issues (health care, minimum wage, tuition assistance)...I present studies from independent credible sources and you respond "smoke and mirrors" and "scams"

[quote=dc_dux;2545575]There are gaffs and there is the depth of knowledge of national issues. And I dont see how by any objective measure, you can compare Palin to Biden.[quote]

There are differences, I would expect a sitting Senator to have more knowledge of the issues handled in Washington and under their control so to speak.



I know... my views have been baseless, without merit, no facts, etc, etc...told you it was a discussion stopper.

No ace...I have never said that.

I have probably said that I think your view or position on a particular issue is wrong IMO but I have never suggested that you a liar or ignorant.

I have repeatedly said there are two sides (or more) to most policy issues and that we will just have to agree to disagree.

You cant seem to accept that it is ok to agree to disagree...so yes, it is a discussion stopper.

Isnt that what the democratic process and elections are supposed to be all about.....candidates offer their positions and qualifications and the voters chose to agree or disagree. The "Rove' strategy which seems to have become the Republican strategy of choice (not just for McCain, but congressional candidates as well) is not to ask the voters to "agree or disagree" with their positions and qualifications, but to attack and disparage the opposing candidate and supporters who disagree.
-----Added 15/10/2008 at 05 : 48 : 47-----
I would attribute it, in part, to Kerry running the worst campaign in my memory.....until now. McCain has surpassed Kerry in ineptness, poor judgement, and an unfathomable lack of focus and coherent message.....other than negative.

Not qualities I want to see in a president.

I can understand Palin not being able to name a Supreme Court case off the top of her head; I was a law student and I'm not sure I could do it. But not being able to name a single newspaper or magazine she reads? She seriously gave off the impression in those Couric interview that, not only was she on the wrong side of the conversation, she didn't even know what the conversation was. That's not a matter of not being up on what the candidate wants you to say.

Marbury vs. Madison
Plessy vs. Ferguson
Brown vs. Board of Education
Buckley vs. Vallejo
BushPutsch 2000

There i did it. I have never been to law school.