Palin: “Not a serious contender”

[UPDATE: 10/28/09 appx. 9:45 p.m. CST: The Kansas City Star Prime Buzz notes the results of a new CNN poll indicating that “more than seven in 10 Americans think Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president.” On the positive side of things for her, “nearly two-thirds of those questioned say Palin’s not a typical politician, and feel she’s a good role model for women.”  ]

Might as well continue with the theme of the 2012 GOP field – specifically, potential candidates we need to look beyond. In my last post, I explained why Gingrich should not and probably will not run. Then, reading an interview in Der Spiegel, I came across this statement by the brilliant and highly respected conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer:

SPIEGEL: Who will be the next leader of the Republican Party?

Krauthammer: Some presidential candidates from last year will return in 2012. Sarah Palin is not a serious contender, but somebody like Mitt Romney will be. He is a serious guy, he understands the economy. There will also be some young people many haven’t yet heard about, such as Rep. Paul Ryan or Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Or outsiders like the mastermind behind the surge in Iraq, General David Petraeus, who might retire from the military and run for President on the Republican ticket.

“Sarah Palin is not a serious contender…”

Just let that sink in, folks.

Not a serious contender.

I’ve written about Palin before….as with Newt, I also like Palin and think she has a lot going for her. But if you think Palin is qualified to seriously lead both a national party and national conservative movement, it’s time to get real. She has simply never demonstrated that she has what it takes to do so.

Furthermore, I don’t know that she’s ever seriously demonstrated any willingness or ability to stake out grounded and nuanced conervative positions on issues that either didn’t rev up the base at a campaign rally or have some streak of populist appeal. In contrast, the ideal leader – the ideal candidate – will be able to assertively and articulately put forward a credible platform on a host of issues, and know those issues as well as any one person could.

I think Palin can remain a relevant national voice on certain issues, and in certain circles. But if she really wants to take a shot at the title, so to speak, she’ll need to do some serious training before getting back in the ring.

Regarding the other names Krauthammer mentioned: Paul Ryan is a rising star, but may not yet be seasoned enough….I’d like to see him continue to do good things in the House or maybe move into the Senate at some point. Pawlenty might be a good possibility…need to learn more about him. Ditto with David Petraeus…that could be an intriguing scenario. Mitt Romney is the early front-runner in my book, and also my top choice.

Post Script: It’s great that Palin is coming out with some Facebook posts on hot topic….and while the “death panel” comment was not necessarily a precise criticism of current health care nationalization plans, it certainly pointed to an essential reality of such systems while managing to positively impact the debate (or negatively, depending on your view). Yet, has anyone asked Palin if she’s actually writing these things herself? Or at least, closely directing their composition?



Filed under General & Miscellaneous

3 responses to “Palin: “Not a serious contender”

  1. Brian Johnson

    Well said, Marque. Thanks, Katie!

  2. Couldn’t agree more with your thoughts, Brian, as well as the comment above. Keep up the great work here!

  3. Different people have different roles to play in the conservative movement. Palin’s role, at least right now, isn’t as a candidate. It’s as a voice for the true believers, and as someone who, regardless of how eloquent she might be, can remind the party establishment of where its bread is buttered. The Doug Hoffman race is a perfect example. Palin’s voice was the rallying cry that brought a lot of other conservatives to Hoffman’s side. She made it safe for other folks to coalesce around the conservative, rather than hold their nose and vote (liberal) Republican. As one who thinks too many noses have been held for too long, that’s a valuable role for the party, and for the movement.

    Politics often mistakes a successful roleplayer as one who is deserving elected office. Newt is a great example of that — great rabble-rouser, terrific policy mind, but not necessarily a great Speaker of the House. Democrats made a similar mistake with Pelosi — in fact, I’d argue she is the liberal equivalent of Palin (poor speaker, true believer, incapable of seeing her own flaws, and thrust into a position she’s not suited for). In neither her case nor Palin’s can one say that the person has no place in politics, or that she’s not bright or capable. They just aren’t women for all seasons, and to be a viable national leader, you should be.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s