Palin Hitting Campaign Trail
What The Washington Times calls an “exclusive,” I call a blinding flash of the obvious: “EXCLUSIVE: Palin plans to stay in politics.”
Brushing aside the criticisms of pundits and politicos, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said she plans to jump immediately back into the national political fray — stumping for conservative issues and even Democrats — after she prematurely vacates her elected post at month’s end.
The former Republican vice-presidential nominee and heroine to much of the GOP’s base said in an interview she views the electorate as embattled and fatigued by nonstop partisanship, and she is eager to campaign for Republicans, independents and even Democrats who share her values on limited government, strong defense and “energy independence.”
“I will go around the country on behalf of candidates who believe in the right things, regardless of their party label or affiliation,” she said over lunch in her downtown office, 40 miles from her now-famous hometown of Wasilla — population 7,000 — where she began her political career.
“People are so tired of the partisan stuff — even my own son is not a Republican,” said Mrs. Palin, who stunned the political world earlier this month with her decision to step down as governor July 26 with 18 months left in her term. Both her son, Track, 20, an enlisted soldier serving in Iraq, and her husband, Todd, are registered as “nonpartisan” in Alaska.
I, for one, am getting mighty tired of people constantly dragging Sarah Palin’s children into the political arena. They’re not politicians and their privacy should be respected. It’s especially unseemly when we’re talking about a young soldier in harm’s way.
Otherwise, I wish Sarah Palin good luck in finding conservative Democrats who support limited government, strong defense, and energy independence.
Weird, I read that paragraph as sourced by the Palin team, as reason to believe her non-partisanship.
Considering that Republicans don’t actually support those things, but instead use them as code words for different underlying adgendas, maybe not.
limited government: cut social programs, while expanding defense
strong defense: overrides limited gov, see above. defense spending is currently 20% of the federal budget
energy independence: actually do nothing for energy independence. the game is to consume as much oil as possible all the time, but to also make sure that we drain America as soon as possible
I agree. I did not and never would endorse or vote for Obama but, I certainly would not say anything about his children
As Obama’s approval numbers continue to drop, she will pick up some. I think the key is swiping some registered Democrats and gaining support of Independents who voted for Obama in the last election.
“Hope and Change” of 2008 could become the “Macarena” of 2009.
Including, among those people, Sarah Palin herself?
And you really think Sarah Palin is the person who can do this? Oh, have fun making that work…
The limited government is why she had to go her own way. The Beltway Republicans are not for limited government other then as a platitude. Not surprising, most people won’t vote to put themselves out of a job. A citizen-politician can be for limited government since they have a life outside politics but the professional politicians and operatives have a vested interest in growing government to grow their own income.
This was really Palin’s only way since she was never going to get past the gatekeepers again. As posted on before, she didn’t go the right school, doesn’t speak with the right accent, doesn’t owe allegiance to the right people. But she’s popular with the silent majority who are finding their voice.
Beware of the hockey/soccer moms and dads, the economy has gotten so bad they are paying attention. Talk about waking a sleeping giant.
Well, if you’re gonna strap an albatross to your party’s neck you might as well pick an attractive one.
And kudos to James for calling out Palin’s pathetic use of her children for political purposes.
That was what you were doing, right James?
I think Frank Rich answers that pretty well (before over-doing it a bit). It is fair to say that Palin’s appeal is to a minority who wish to think of themselves as a silent minority.
See also this survey of the next conservative thinkers.
There is a fork in the road.
I think James is measuring the realpolitik that Palin is his party’s future and is trying to make peace with it.
Oh, how I wish Sarah Palin appealed to a silent anything… majority, minority, whatever, just silent.
Ok, cheap joke aside, the personality cult around Palin is something that I will never understand. She’s like a social conservative Ross Perot that looks good in a swim suit.
This was really Palin’s only way since she was never going to get past the gatekeepers again.
This just seems like an imprecise way of viewing the matter. If Sarah Palin wanted to run for the Republican nomination in 2012, gatekeepers would have no say whatsoever in the matter. The only people whose opinions would count would be Republican primary voters, and contributors to the campaigns, to the extent that they are capable of influencing those voters.
If Republican primary voters (RPVs?) choose to heed the sneers of Katie Couric or David Letterman, or the advertising financed by, say, Mitt Romney’s corporate supporters, that doesn’t make Couric or Letterman or BP “gatekeepers”, a sloppiness of usage one usually associates with Democratic supporters of restrictions on campaign contributions.
In particular, one can’t really be a populist believer in “silent majorities”, and then, when those majorities fail to materialize for your candidate, blame that failure on the media or the fat-cats.
Oh, didn’t you know? It’s all one big, grand conspiracy to silence Sister Sarah…and all the evil people in the world are in on it…
No one in mainstream media or mainstream politics has attacked Palin’s children. That’s bullshit.
Palin put her children front and center. She keeps them front and center. She uses them as props. Despite this, I’ve yet to actually witness one of these “attacks” on Palin’s children.
So can we either link to some of those attacks, demonstrate the case, or stop buying into Palin’s victim act?
Michael, I read that line of JJ’s (if I may) ironically, seeing that in this particular instance, Palin herself had mentioned the son, and there can’t possibly be a reasonable objection to a reporter fact-checking a politician’s claims.
In this case, the reporter confirmed Palin’s assertion. If there’s a negative implication, it’s that if Palin says the sky is blue, the reporter is going to look out the window just to make sure. But that isn’t an aspersion on her kids at all.
You know, Palin supposedly appeals only to a minority but yet, unlike others who have a minority support, like say Nader, she headlines the news. If Palin is so inconsequential why the rush to declare her done and gone?
Seth Godin had a post showing a dance tribe forming at a music festival. His point was about the 3rd guy who was the tipping point. Guy #1 got up seemingly out of place as he danced alone. Then guy #2 joined in, but it was still just two guys out of place. But then guy #3 joined in and suddenly the crowd rushes to join. Almost frantic not to be left out.
Palin inadvertently became guy #1 when she was selected for VP. People sat around commenting about the crazy broad dancing alone. Guy #2 is probably the Tea Parties. Lots of comments about how out of step they are. What those of you on the Left and others who want to stop this have to worry about is guy #3. If Palin focuses the message, guy #3 may join in and then cause a rush to be part of the movement.
Or this may be all bunk. But then why so much mental energy being spent on Palin?
JKB, I disagree with the premise that Dems want Palin gone. High-minded (some would say supercilious) right-of-center types like David Brooks don’t like her, and moonbats of my faction like to throw food at her at places like firedoglake.com. But a Machiavellian Dem, say of the kind that Rahm Emanuel is alleged to be, not especially high-minded and having bigger fish to fry than throwing food on blogs–it wouldn’t surprise me if Emanuel is one of Palin’s biggest fans, and prays nightly to Beelzebub for her continued success.
Earlier in the year, it was alleged that Democratic operatives were, behind the scenes, pushing the meme that Rush Limbaugh was the de facto leader of the GOP, thus placing elected Republicans in a difficult position regarding a man beloved by their base of voters, but seen as both ridiculous and loathsome by the rest of the country. If it were conceivable that Dems would benefit from such machinations wrt Limbaugh, that holds just as much for Palin, probably more so.
The strange saga of Sarah Victim continues…
Agree with kth. Also, the media would love to keep her going as long as possible. Her base is rabid for her and there are a lot on the left who are appalled. She sells news. Given how divided the right is now, she very well could win the nomination, especially with the winner take all Republican primaries.
I wasn’t ranting at Joyner but at the world more generally. You know, as we cranky old men do.
Now get off my lawn.
I’m mostly bemused at the gall of Palin constantly using her children as political props and then feigning outrage when others mention them negatively.
As a general point, politician’s children should be left out of the public discussion unless they’re 1) adults and 2) have themselves entered the fray by virtue of actively campaigning for their parents or the like.
There have certainly been instances of Palin’s eldest daughter, just barely 18, being savaged in the national media, notably Letterman, HuffPo, and The Atlantic. I’m marginally of the view that she’s fair game given the out-of-wedlock pregnancy and her having become a spokeswoman for abstinence. I don’t like it but don’t see how it’s fair for her to have an unopposed platform.
Sarah Palin imagines that she’s Kathy Selden but she’s really Lina Lamont.
re: kth July 12, 2009 14:43
That’s exactly right…far from fearing her or even being worried about her, liberals and Democrats look at her as a very, very easy opponent for the president to beat in 2012…I’m sure many of them (not just Rahm Emanuel) are praying that she’s the GOP nominee in 2012, as that will all but guarantee (short of a total economic meltdown) the president’s reelection…as for why the media gives her so much attention, that’s easy…look at the soap opera aspects of her life, look at the “aw shucks” mixed with the pit bull in lipstick…of course she sells…but selling and actually getting votes are two very different things…
So, are the Republicans defining their base down?
We started in 2004, with the Bush girls showing up in casual pantsuits at what I would call a best-dressed occasion. Their mother was certainly dressed.
This convention we have an unwed mother. Her mom was dressed to the nines, if you didn’t already know.
(There is no forgiveness for Ms. Obama’s dress at the Democratic convention. Good Lord. And for the record, I have no knowledge of Bristol acting less than a lady in public.)
So what next?
Heh. The problem is, of course, when you raise the curtain, you find what — another Lina Lamont. There ain’t no there, there.
lol……I don’t know if you noticed but the economy went into reactor breach when the people with brains out there figured this empty shirtless moron of a pitchman was going to be elected…..
re: G.A.Phillips | July 13, 2009 | 09:05 am
Yes of course…the recession is all the president’s fault…only people like you believe such nonsense…
When did I say that,lol…….making it a 14 trillion times worse……..well…..He has an aura about him….