I have to admit I don't know enough about the climate of Alaska politics to assess the longterm damage this national run may have made. I did see a story about a week or so ago that suggested her state numbers had dipped a bit.

But what is the state of Democratic party strength there? Palin's the leader but is she even the dominant party leader in statehouse politics? Is she term limited?

I'd also guess that Alaskans, like other Americans, tend to rally around their own when they're up on a national stage. Depending how the McCain effort ends (high note, or more intra-campaign acrimony) she might recover some of the "dip" the earlier story says she suffered. ...she might come home "conquering barracuda." who really knows?


...I still can not figure out why "barracuda" was supposed to be an enduring term?

Damn, that sounds familiar....

Look at it like this...remember she pissed off a lot of GOPers there when she 'cleaned house' of the corruption and then she pissed off the Dems with what she is doing during this run, so no matter how you cut it, there will be some axes ready to grind should she lose and have to return home.

Yes, but intra-party fighting and statehouse rangling are a long way from the perceptions of the rank-and-file voters, particularly when you have the type of engaging personality Palin presents.

it'll be interesting to look at her in-state poll approval numbers year-to-date, at the start of this campaign (August) and now.

But as they say...don't let the fine-ness fool you, if people didn't pay attention to Alaska...a lot of people will now.

Matter of fact...peep this article out....go underneath the surface on this one...

http://www.adn.com/ted-stevens/story/570995.html

Thank you for this.

Even this story suggest acrimony between Palin (resign) and the state party (stay so the party can appoint the seat). Clearly, nobody is falling in line and speaking with one, unified voice. It sort of speaks to the point an earlier poster in the thread made about political currents within parties, what factors help which currents emerge.

I just still don't have a sense of how "dominant" a politica figure (if at all) Palin was/is in Alaska.

agreed...or how dominant she will be should she return.

I do understand what you mean about the party. I've been troubled by the image of conservatives in public life and this was one of the reasons that WF Buckley dying bummed me out so much.

But I don't think Palin herself should necessarily be the center of your fears. I'm not sure that Palin is truly anti-intellect. If you are running against an academic and maybe overly-cerebral seeming ticket (although Biden does his best to mitigate this with some of the dumb stuff he says), you may want to emphasize your common touch, but I don't see in her past governance any anti-intellectual behavior.

Sure, the image the party projects is important and Palin may be overplaying g-dropping-everyman. She also may have debuted on the national stage before she was ready, but I think she's intelligent enough to grow and recognize what the party needs to have as its foundation and I don't see her espoused beliefs about policy being very different than Romney's on the issues that appeal to the base that you fear. And honestly, Jindal is further to the right of Palin if you look at "evangelical" issues.

Personally, I hope that we get more Fred Thompson type conservatism and I was reading some righty blog that was discussing his maybe taking a leadership role in the RNC. But Palin can play a successful role in the party and I don't think it's an anti-intellectual one.

ETA: I don't think most republicans are saying it's bad to be intelligent; I think they are trying to suggests it's bad to be overly academic. And you know this is one of those recurring issues that plays well at the image based level: define yourself as plain spoken vs. nuanced. (Think about the Romantic poets resolution to express themselves in the language of the common man. Was it anti-intellectual or a recognition that artificial and elevated expression only takes you so far to the truth?) I want some smart Republicans to take the stage, but I don't accept that academic accolades are necessarily what matters.

So youre saying shes more qualified than Obama?

Haha.

I'm not a big fan of her, but it's not just her that's bothered me. The "dumb" wing of the Republican party has grown too much. I realize that its the voting block that has carried us, but uh, they weren't actually supposed to run for things. The Republican party used to be the intelligent small-government guys, but now we have Palin and big-government social conservatives like Huckabee. The small government low taxes side of the Republican party may be taking a back seat to the "oh my god abortion and gay marriage!" portion, which quite frankly I don't care about at all since being opposed to gun-control is about the only social position the Republican party takes that is material to me.

So, basically, you're going with a social conservatives are dumb position?

ETA: http://www.reason.com/news/show/129703.html
Have libertarians been driven out?

Social conservatives aren't necessarily dumb, but they are the part of the party who's views don't align with mine. If they are also fiscal conservatives I am fine with them, because social things really aren't "voting issues" for me. People who vote only because of "ohmygod the gays!"? Yeah, they're dumb. The only reason you vote is over concern about an issue that in all likelihood you can't do anything about and that doesn't affect you anyways? Not entirely rational.

And I don't know that libertarians have been driven out, but if it goes to people like Huck and Palin, conservatives are going to be driven out. Conservatism had nothing to do with putting god in everything and stifling science, or with having a government big enough to tell people what they can't do. We're at an inflection point where we can either go back to being a party of small government conservatives who don't like big government and big rapid changes, or go ahead and fully make the switch to being a party of anti-intellectual idealogues.

And I think it's clear which direction I hope that inflection point goes. :cool:

Why are you saying that Palin isn't a fiscal conservative? And what evidence do you have of her advancing a particularly socially conservative agenda in office? Huckabee, I'm with you.

We know that she's opposed to abortion. We know that she's personally religious. But she vetoed some kind of anti-gay legislation because if conflicted with the Alaska constitution and she's made no efforts to promote creationism or suppress sex ed.

So although she appeals to a socially conservative base, are you really sure that you are categorizing her correctly? Palin and Huckabee? I think the evidence is that she is small government and maybe more libertarian than you think.

Of course she is small gov't minded...she RUNS a small gov't!