Sarah Palin 2012... Really?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA

As an independent conservative I am amused at the possibility of Sarah Palin running for president in 2012. In fact if one just listens to the talking points (approved of course by the Republican establishment) she comes across as a strong and well spoken candidate.

Sarah is attractive, if not down right sexy. She is articulate in a folksy sort of way. She actually has more executive experience than Barrack Hussein Obama. She plays well to the evangelical Christian base of the Republican party. And she can claim the mantle of spokesperson for Tea Party movement.

She energizes the most vocal in the limited government and liberty movement.  And she is all for taking back America. So what could possibly give conservatives (real conservatives) pause?

Perhaps the answer is... regardless of her popularity and star quality (remember Obama) she lacks the experience and gravitas that one occupying the oval office should posses. I personally like Sarah Palin and admittedly would enjoy sharing conversation, dinner, and a glass of wine with her, but that does not influence my perspective that she is not, at least yet, qualified to be president of these United States. Perhaps twenty years from now, but definitely not now. Presumably with time comes experience and wisdom. Sarah, as likable as she is needs more of both.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Mona Charen


  1. No...

    I simply am possessed with a bit of an analytical mind,

    It can sometimes be a curse Or in this case a blessing.

    Neither Rove nor Palin are real conservatives. At least IMHO.

  2. I agree with you completely.

    I adore Sarah Palin and think she is a solid contributor to politics, but she simply doesn't have the chops to be President of the United States. The fact that she has more experience than a tyro like My Hero, Zero, doesn't mean she is qualified.

    What this country really needs is a truly exceptional person to be president - a proven leader, a courageous soldier, a well-educated business person or academic.

    Basically, we need someone who is too comfortable in his place in the world to really want the job.

  3. Then who can raise as much money as Palin and who can get more traction in the primary?

  4. I agree but for different reasons. I think she would be no better than Obama only in the other direction. She's just nearly as inexperience, and after the "retard" incident, she proved to me to be just as narcasstic as BO, so she frghtens me that she would be too extreamist. Remember BO galvanized his core base and talked a good game as well, but in the end, got way over his head. Palin vs. Obama, I fear she would scare enough women and independents to give BO a 2nd term and that's a prospect the country can't survived (assuming Hilary doesn't eat him for lunch).

  5. Well, I'll give you one thing that's not to like about Palin trying to run in 2012. There are several scenarios in which Obama will not get a second term, and probably a few in which he wouldn't even win the Democratic nomination. However, Palin running is one of the few which would virtually guarantee a second term for the Dear Leader, Chairman Obama. Personally, I'd rather have a lot of things than another 4 years of Obama (eg: a libertarian who isn't hated or feared by other 50% of the population, a RINO, a pet rock, etc.).

    Of course, at the level at which one seriously contemplates running for national office, it's usually way more about personal ego than what would be good for the country, so I wouldn't doubt Palin will try to run. I can only hope she's not successful at gaining the Republican nomination, because I shutter to think what a US in 2016 with Obama still in office would look like.

  6. I couldn't agree more. Though I agree with her on most issues, and I like her personally, she disapointed me when she abandoned the voters of Alaska halfway through her first term as Governor . In my way of thinking, if you make a commitment in a campaign, barring extreme exceptions, you ought to finish out that commitment. To quit mid-way through a term, without good reason, is concerning to me. If she couldn't handle being Governor of Alaska, being president is going to crush her.

    Right now I am keeping my mind open, but I think that the OBama has proven once again that legislators do not make good presidents. The GOP needs someone with extensive executive experience either in the private sector or as a Governor. If a Governor they must have a history of working to shrink the size of their state government and a history of supporting free enterprise and lower taxes. I also think this person must be a new face not seen in 2008.

  7. I have read about opinions of why this person or the other is not who they feel should be our next president.
    Why not tell us who you think is "best" qualified... IMHO she would do far better than the turd we have now or some RINO...

  8. I agree that she would be a vast improvement over Obama. Hell my two year old would make a better president than this clown. Right now I am looking at Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. I like him because he is an experienced executive, he is a new face, he has fought successfully to reduce the size of state government and to lower taxes. This year Pawlenty was given an "A" rating by the libertarian CATO Institute for his support of smaller government and free enterprise. You can read about this hear.

  9. Sorry about the typo. I meant to say "here" in that last sentence.

  10. She's as ready to be president as anyone else in the country.

    She would certainly be a different kind of candidate, in that she doesn't try to parse everything she says in order to hide what she really thinks.

    I'd vote for her in a heartbeat, and hope I get the opportunity to do so.

  11. Bollocks. Utter bollocks. I am so tired of hearing so-called conservatives running around doing the left's job for them, yammering about how Sarah Palin doesn't have "gravitas". She has guided and defined the course of national political debate for an entire election cycle, without even running for something herself, and yet we still hear that she doesn't have "gravitas". She has endured the worst kind of partisan, personal attacks with a smile, and still, she has no "gravitas". If you'd been paying any attention, you'd have noticed that her public speaches and writings lately have been increasingly loaded with facts, while at the same time outlining specific policy goals that she advocates forcefully, intellegently and reasonably, yet she lacks "gravitas". Give. It. Up. The facts in your face put lie to the words from your pen. No, I take that back. Keep doing what you're doing. As time goes by you keep looking sillier and sillier clinging to your establishment talking points as they become more and more outdated and obviously false.

    Then we have LastAsylum, trotting out the tired old "she quit her job!" whine. Frankly, when she did that, she showed me that she has the character and guts to be a great leader. Abandoned financially by the very people who had caused her to be targeted, AFTER they promised that she had their financial support, handcuffed in her job, unable to do what Alaskans had elected her to do, the easy thing to do would be to hunker down, ride out the remainder of her term as an ineffective figurehead and then walk away. She had the guts, brains and the integrity to realize that she would be hurting the people of Alaska by remaining in a job that she would be unable to perform because of baseless, partisan, harassing attacks. So, she changed the rules and walked away, allowing Sean Parnell to do the job she couldn't, through no fault of her own, do any longer. Man, that took guts. That took LEADERSHIP. Not only is your criticism outdated Mr. Asylum, it's 180 degrees wrong.

    Finally, nobody seems to be stepping up to the plate to say why she would be so much worse than any of the other choices. I mean, it's great to wish that Jesus Christ would return to Earth and run for president on the Republican ticket, but he's not going to do that. Who else then? Who is this perfect candidate that Palin is going to ruin the chances of?

    Mittens? Please, if we want the next squishy RINO in line, let's just give McCain another shot. Huck? Good choice. His experties is social conservatism. That outta be really useful in a financial crisis. Newt? He'll have federal agencies on our backs all 24/7 by folding like a dollar store kite to the lefties in the name of "bipartisanship" that we'll never recover any freedom at all. Bolton? He'd be my choice for Sarah's Veep, as I really don't see him as electable on his own, he's too unknown. T-Paw? Good man, very qualified, has the charisma of bread. You wanna run him against Zero, who for all his faults is a brilliant campaigner? Good luck. Mitch? I don't trust Mitch because he's a big supporter of the Orwellian named "merit" process for nominating judges, which is nothing more than a Judas goat for the trial lawyers to get their liberal, activist judges appointed. We need that nationally like we need a shotgun blast to the head. Christy? I love what he's doing in NJ, but other than his fiscal stance, he's not really a conservative at all. West? Brilliant, way too soon. That's not to say that one these men couldn't do the job, but all of the criticisms I've listed are much, much more disqualifying than Sarah Palin's lack of "gravitas" or supposed unelectability. Tell me, since Palin is so unqualified, what's your alternative?


    Governor Palin is a courageous person, no doubt. In view of her massive following, if she would simply, briefly, tweet about the upcoming case before the US Supreme Court next week, it would change the course of American history.

    November 23, 2010 marks a fork in the road for the future of America of more than historic proportions — perhaps on par with events leading to the Civil War. To date, virtually all federal and state courts where actions have been brought seeking decision on the meaning of the Constitution’s Article 2 “natural born citizen” clause as a prerequisite for Barack Obama to be a lawful President and Commander in Chief of the United States (Mr. Obama having been born to a father of British/Kenyan nationality and father not a citizen of the United States), have been shut down, never getting beyond the issue of standing. To date, courts have very strategically (narrowly if not artfully) characterized and applied law and legal procedure steadfastly to prevent the question from ever rising to the merits — this on a host of different types and classes of plaintiffs, causes and defendants — admittedly under the most intensely implicit (if not more) pressure to do the same.

    The national media (some say our 4th branch of government) has aided and abetted the avoidance by mischaracterizing this as a “Hawaii birth” a/k/a “birther” issue which is nothing more than a “red herring” in that the issue for Article 2 “natural born citizen” is Mr. Obama’s father. Moreover, the legal community has aided and abetted the avoidance by mischaracterizing the 1898 Supreme Court Case, Wong Kim Arc, which dealt with the meaning of “citizenship”, not the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article 2.

    November 23, 2010 may very well be the last chance for the Judicial Branch realistically to take up the issue, this on a case of legal standing solidly presented by Attorney Apuzzo and Commander Kerchner. If the Court finds no standing here, by a narrow interpretation of the same or otherwise, coming after all the rest of the “no standing” cases, it is doubtfull this important Constitutional issue can and will be resolved in any court of law. The question will nevertheless continue to fester, at tremendous national cost, never to abate, potentially to reach crisis stage, and in any event to undermine the structure of our Constitutional Republic.

    It is more than chilling and says volumes that NOT ONE member of Congress will publicly speak on this or, better yet, since the Congress of the United States has more than a vested interest, opine if not as a “friend of the court” at the Supreme Court, in the court of public opinion — BEFORE the Supreme Court convenes on November 23, 2010.

    The world is (should be) watching!

  13. @ wasdave... You can call my arguments dated, but it doesn't change the fact that they are true. Your argument that she was right to quit her job because she would have been a "handcuffed" "figurehead" unable to do what the voters of Alaska elected her to do, directly contradicts your argument that she is a great leader with gravitas. A great leader would have been able to overcome the adversity facing her and would have triumphed. This, along with her inability to pull out a win for Joe Miller in her own state of Alaska, demonstrates to me a lack of gravitas outside of a segment of the conservative movement.

    Please don't get me wrong. I would vote for Palin over Obama or any other candidate put up by the left. I just think that there are better options out there.

  14. A reader left a comment on RN USA that is balanced an worth considering.

    Tom the Redhunter said...

    "Talk about Palin's qualifications is irrelevant, and here's why:

    Polls measure politicians are measured in two ways; their positive rating and their negative rating. A politician can be high in one and low in the other, or both high or low in both.

    Bottom line is that high negatives trump high positives. If a politician polls high in the negative side, the only way they can win re/election is if the other side commits a serious unforced error.

    For example, in 1994 Virginia Republicans nominated Oliver North to run for U.S. Senate against incumbent Democrat Chuck Robb. Robb was a very weak senator ripe for the picking. And of course 1994 was a big year for the GOP. Yet North lost. The reason is that North had such high negatives that people came out of the woodwork just to vote AGAINST him.

    Palin has negatives (polling, I mean) that are sky high. She's divisive even within the GOP.

    Look, I love Sarah Palin for a lot of things. A week before the 2008 election she came to my home town of Leesburg VA for a rally, and it was one of the thrills of my life.

    But if we nominate her as our presidential candidate in 2012 we lose the election, period."

    A strong argument for those who wish to see Obama lose his bid for re-election.

    Personally I remain a huge supporter of Ron Paul. But that ain't gonna happen either.

  15. A great leader would have been able to overcome the adversity facing her and would have triumphed. Which is exactly what she did, and that's what you're ignoring, because she did so in an unconventional manner. Miller didn't win (which honestly, personally, boggles my mind, considering the alternative that did win). So what? 70% of the candidates she endorsed did win, that's a pretty descent track record. Finally, I ask again, Who? You keep calling for a better option. Who is this pristine, perfect candidate?

    WRT Tom's comments: If it was October 15,2012, he'd have a point. 2 years out positives and negatives are meaningless. Tom also ignores the fact that Palin's negatives are shrinking and more importantly, her negatives will never be as high as they have been, for the simple reason that she has been the subject of a constant, unrelenting obsession on the left, looking for dirt (real or imagined) on Palin. It's all been discovered. Do you imagine that there's something left? Every other candidate is vulnerable to the sudden revelation of that skeleton in their closet (remember Bush in 2000? "Out of the blue" the story that he had a DWI in the past surfaced, just days before the election (funny that, no?), and a small but comfortable lead vanished overnight)at a strategic time. Palin's immune to that, which is a pretty comfortable place to be. That means she has the unique opportunity to rehabilitate her image over the next year, and if she does, that rehabilitation will stick, because the worse has already been thrown at her. If she can't, then she won't even be able to win the Republican nomination.

    Look, I'm not saying that Palin is the one for us next election, but I don't believe that she's not either, and I most especially don't like to see us doing the left's job for them. If they want to run around yammering that Sarah lacks gravitas, or that she's unelectable or divisive or mean or whatever, let them. We shouldn't be helping them sell their narrative. They are slavishly following their guide book like the good little toadys they are. Well, we've read that book too, and when we see them following it's precepts ("Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." is the most famous quote, but there are others: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." and "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.", for example), we need to push back against the narrative, not help them push it forward.

    Finally, consider this: The left is terrified of Sarah Palin. They spend an inordinate amount of time and energy attacking her. When they throw their friendly hail-fellow-well-met arm over our shoulder and tell us "Listen brother, for you own good, you should consider ditching this Palin, she's....whatever", do you really think they're concerned for our welfare? Hell no! Palin scares the pants off the left because she's the undoing of everything they believe in and everything they've worked so hard to achieve. She's the anti-elite, anti-big government, anti-establishment, pro-liberty, pro-freedom, pro-individual populist steamroller headed their way. They keep pushing the meme that she's divisive and unelectable, not because she is, but because she's not. Ron Paul is a wacky fringe candidate, do you see them saying anything about him? They could care less, because he's not a threat to them. Palin is, a big one, and maybe you should consider that before blithely repeating the memes started by the left to advance their cause. Maybe you should think about that a lot.

    Finally, I'll go back to what I asked before and above. Who else better? Make your case for an alternative. If it's a good case, I'm open to conversion, but make the case, damnit!

  16. First off I am not blithely repeating the left's arguments. My concern over her resigning as Governor of Alaska were formed the day that she announced it. These are my thoughts and they are very legitimate. Yes, Palin has gone on to be successful, but that does not change the fact that she had a commitment that she did not fulfill. This is very concerning to me.

    Second, I made an argument for Tim Pawlenty in my 11/21 post so I will do it again.

    Tim Pawlenty was not only able to win the Governor's seat in the loony left land of Walter Mondale and Al Franken, but he succeeded at getting re-elected there after governing as a conservative. This shows that he is able to appeal to a majority of people without abandoning his conservative values.

    As I mentioned in my 11/21 post, Governor Pawlenty was given an "A" rating by the Cato Institute this year for his work on cutting spending and keeping taxes low. Only four Governors received this rating, so that says a lot.

    The argument has been made that Pawlenty doesn't have the "sizzle" needed to run for president. Yes, he may not be the most dazzling candidate but he is smart, experienced, and solid. The American people have now seen how sizzle governs so they will likely be looking for more substance in 2012.

    I understand your point on not helping the left with their narrative. I will take that to heart, but at the same time the 2012 race is now underway. If I disagree with Palin being the GOP nominee, now is the time to speak up. If I have legitimate concerns about a particular candidate, as I do with Palin, Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, and others, I am going to speak up now before candidates start to consolidate support and views are set in stone.

  17. Couldn't agree more! I was on the bandwagon right at the beginning, there, but jumped off when she left office. It became apparent that she was making the leap from a doing-it-because-I-care fighter to a capital "P" Politician. Looking forward to a Credible, Reliable Leader to make himself known for 2012.

  18. Fair enough TLA.
    Yes, he may not be the most dazzling candidate but he is smart, experienced, and solid. The American people have now seen how sizzle governs so they will likely be looking for more substance in 2012.

    I am having difficulty believing this part. I agree with everything else about Pawlenty, but I remember that Al Gore in 2000 was "smart, experienced, and solid". Clinton's negatives were personal, not professional, Gore was the Veep of a team that had governed in a time of real prosperity, with an (imaginary) budget surplus on the books.

    Yet he lost to dumb ole cowboy moron George W. Bush.

    Why? Because he had the personal magnetism of glue and the engendered all the excitement of painting your house.

    Pawlenty is infinitely more capable than Gore, but I still see this as being a big problem for him if he is nominated, as sad a commentary on this country as that is.

  19. @Wasdave: We are on the same team here. We just disagree on our messenger right now. Rest assured I will be wholeheartedly behind any candidate that is put up against Obama as I am sure you will be.


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.