Is Palin causing a schism in the GOP?
 

(CNN) -- Election Day is still days away, but Republicans are already caught up in a heated debate about Sarah Palin's future role in the party should the GOP ticket fail to win the White House.

In one corner are some conservatives who believe the Alaska governor has been a detriment to John McCain's presidential bid and threatens to lead the party astray for the foreseeable future.

Another faction says Palin's core-conservative beliefs, demonstrated political acumen, and compelling frontier biography position her to reshape the face of a party now viewed by many voters as out of touch.

It's a debate, somewhat ugly at times, that is beginning to play out in public view as Republicans brace themselves for the possibility of losing the White House and a significant number of seats in Congress come Election Day. And that may leave the party in shambles with drastically reduced influence in Washington. iReport.com: Share your thoughts on Palin

Should that happen, political observers say, the party will face its biggest identity crisis in more than a generation, and Palin may well be caught squarely in the middle of it.

"A civil war that is simmering will break out into the open if McCain loses, and the party will have to decide what they want to be in the post-Reagan world," said Gloria Borger, a senior political analyst for CNN.


"She is such a compelling figure, and she has helped, without a doubt, with the Republican base," CNN Chief National Correspondent John King said. "But she's also hurting with key constituencies, like suburban women and independents, and there's a big question that, if McCain loses, does she try to emerge as the leader of the party heading into the 2012 cycle?"

Should Palin ultimately decide to launch her own presidential bid, she will face a massive headwind from an influential group of conservatives who believe the Alaska governor represents the very reasons why the Republican Party finds itself in retreat.

"She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for? It's unclear whether she is Bushian or Reaganite. She doesn't think aloud. She just ... says things," conservative columnist Peggy Noonan wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal column.

It's an argument that has been echoed by a string of conservatives -- including David Brooks, George Will, Kathleen Parker, and David Frum -- who believe Palin exhibits a poisonous anti-intellectual instinct of the party that threatens to ultimately destroy its foundations.

"Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices," said Brooks, a conservative columnist for the New York Times.

Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush who has written that Palin is woefully inexperienced to be president, told CNN the Alaska governor's chances might be slim in a general election matchup.

Palin, whose campaign rally crowds have been noticeably larger than McCain's, will certainly have legitimacy to run for president in four years should she want to. Some McCain operatives, claiming Palin repeatedly veers off script and often disregards the campaign's advice, already believe she is more interested in positioning herself for the future than helping the party win this year.

There is MUCH more to be found here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...gop/index.html

Talk about a game changer, I think Palin sees the writing on the wall and if this works this to her advantage, she will have 4 years to prepare and come out a strong candidate. Why be second billing when the people see you as first rate?

I hope not. She is VERY qualified to be VP. I may not agree with her on everything, but I like her overall. And she stands behind her values.

No, she's not. Not. At. All. :rolleyes:

And yes, it's looking like she's trying to make sure her own future doesn't go down with the McCain campaign. Can't say I blame her on that.

Agreed...hell...I am as qualified as she is...heh...but...what's even scarier is the thought that there are GOPers who will get on her side....not because they don't have any one experienced (there are at least 4 women better qualified than Palin)enough to lead the party but they need a fresh face to mold and corrupt.

But, I too agree, it's time for her to save her own skin and for her to hope that she can salvage something of a political career out of this.


....altho something tells me that the road back home should she lose will be a rough one...I think her constituents on both sides of the aisle may tell her to take a long hike off of a short Bridge to Nowhere

I'm not even a big conservative and I believe she has been a detriment. I DO NOT see Palin winning a 2012 presidential election, shoot I don't see her winning any presidential election. She'd have to make drastice changes to get people to forget all the goof-ups she's had this election.

If you're saying she's qualified because she's a U.S. citizen and "of age" to be VP, then fine she's qualified. Otherwise, no she's definitely not.

yeah...like at least naming one newspaper she can read or stop lying about seeing Moscow from her house...LOL

I wouldn't say she's causing a schism, but Palin is fighting back in the perception war regarding her role in the campaign.

Going forward, Palin's political relevance will likely be determined by what she does with the intervening 4 years. To many, including a raft of conservative columnists, she comes off as intellectually incurious. Does she build a coalition (on energy? or some other issue). Does she develop intellectual/policy depth on a range of issues? Does she join a think tank and lead opposition and present viable policy alternatives? Does she run for Senate, building a visible national platform?

I don't expect Palin to take an master's degree Harvard, but given her introduction to the American public (i.e. the Gibson, Couric interviews, et al.), I think all but her most partisan supporters would agree she has some image rehabilitation work to do if she wants a national future in politics.

This has been something I've thought about quite a bit, and I briefly posted on it in another thread. As most people on the board know, I'm a Republican with many conservative beliefs (mostly economics) and some liberal leanings (pro-choice, anti-death penalty).

My biggest fear coming out of this election, besides the issues I have with Obama's platform, is that Palin will somehow take center stage within the party. I've had an inkling that the anti-intellectual wing of the party has grown; it hasn't just been Palin, but if you listen to commentators like Hannity, it's suddenly become a bad thing to be intelligent. There seems to be a feeling among many within the party that education does not equal conservatism. Never mind people like Romney, Jindal, Scalia, etc...

I'll make no bones about it - my ideal ticket in 2012 would be Romney-Jindal, as I'm a big fan of both. While my interest in Jindal may fade in 4 years, whatever happens, I want Romney to be the 2012 nominee. I'm afraid, though, that there will be enough support among the far right and the "base," so to speak for Palin, and that she will gain so much steam in that time, that she could be the presumptive nominee. Again, it's 4 years, and 4 years is a long time, but I still am afraid of that possibility.

I think there is a place for intellectuals within the Republican party. I think it is possible to have boatloads of education and still be a tried and true Conservative. I believe the party can overcome this loss and come back stronger than ever. But, I have a fear that Palin and others will lead the party down the wrong road.

LOL. To be fair, though, that was Tina Fey, not Sarah Palin.

While Republican orthodoxy/strategy may be shaped out of whatever new convictions emerge, some weight has to be given to what happens in the initial 18-month window of an Obama Administration (being presumptious for a monent.)

(I say 18 months because the partisan posturing leading up to the 2010 midterms will probably render any serious policy advancement moot after that.) An effective 18 months (health care reform, or signals of an economic recovery) will likely point to which Republican faction takes charge of the party.


Right now, Palin is clearly a stalking horse for the social conservatives, even ahead of Huckabee. Whether she wants to be anything more than that will be shown by her actions and what steps she takes to "emerge" as it were. I agree, Romney, et. al. won't just let her have the stage to herself, either.

You do realize that she doesn't do cosplay, right?

i have to disagree with Scandia as well....qualified can mean SO much. like Daemon said, most of us are "qualified" to run as VP. hell, the green party has a hip-hop activist running for VP, so that doesnt bode well for Palin, does it?

I think you have good company in David Brooks, George Will and David Frum.

Speaking of rehab...she is going to have a lot of rehabbing of her image in Alaska before she goes national again...if this campaign fails I would say watch her approval numbers in Alaska for the remainder of her term before this convo pops back up

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!

Well, I'll retract that comparison. But I still strongly dislike her. I just think she's dumb (and possibly very much so) and because of that her running would have the same effect on the fiscal minded, better educated part of the party as running someone who is purely a social conservative. On the other hand I think Huckabee is essentially a big government democrat who just also happens to be a fundamentalist baptist. The big plus is that I think she and Huck will both run for president in 2012 and hopefully split the same part of the base and make room for Romney (who would have been a winning candidate this year and still will in 2012) to get the nomination.

I think her first interviews were crappy, but I don't think she's dumb.

Once Fred dropped out, I voted for Romney in the primary. Maybe a Romney-Palin ticket wouldn't be so bad, assuming that Palin is ever viable again.

I've got no problem with Jindal either, for that matter, but what Jindal would bring in terms of intellect I think Palin surpasses in terms of charisma. But then again, I don't think she's dumb so I don't think she only brings charisma.

ETA: I think you may be kidding yourself that Romney would be a winning candidate this year. I think that Obama would have beaten him. I still hold out some hope that McCain will pull off a miracle, but I don't really think Obama was beatable by anyone with the level of support he had financially and with the press.

My thought is that with Romney's background the economy becomes a winning issue rather than one that drove the campaign into the ground. And Obama can't go on and on about healthcare, because Romney would have the simple response of "As governor I led Massachusetts to become the only state in the nation which guaranteed healthcare to all of its citizens."

Maybe, but I don't know that it would have mattered. As I said, I voted for him in the primary, so I thought he was the best candidate in the race at that point, but Obama. . .

I'm not sure, and again, I'm pretty biased. But, I think that a lot of the attacks leveled at McCain could be answered by Romney. I think Romney's a better debater than McCain, and with the economy in the current position, his background fits. Plus, I think Romney would have surrounded himself with better people (but, again, I'm biased, so take that with a grain of salt).

Even if Obama were still ahead right now, I don't think it would be nearly the runaway that it is. Part of me is glad that Romney didn't end up as the VP candidate, as I'd rather have him in a position of strength for 2012 (as opposed to having the John Edwards "Losing VP Candidate" burden to carry with him).

Also, and again, this may be just me, but someone who is extremely intelligent is also able to explain things in terms that people could understand. A sign of high intelligence, in my mind, is to explain a concept to people who wouldn't otherwise be able to understand the concept. For example, my tax professor is brilliant (near top of his class at Harvard Law, one of the premier state tax experts, etc.); he is able to walk into a room of liberal arts types, and within a couple of hours can have them understand large portions of the tax code.

Yeah, I don't think this run has helped Palin long term really and that's why I find the 2012 talk for her so peculiar. I'd like to see her again, but now that she's debuted nationally, it's going to be hard to pull off. I don't think she could win a presidential nomination outright.

My skepticism about Romney having been a "winning candidate" isn't about my having a problem with Romney or believing that McCain was a better candidate; I just don't think the Obama momentum was really stoppable. My doubt isn't really about lack of merit.

ETA: Maybe my liking Palin is coloring my judgment, but as popular as Obama has been, McCain's closing the gap as much as he has is really less of a failure that it really seems. I know it's a loss and the party obviously needs to regroup, mainly because of how poorly it governed when it had the chance. The Presidential loss is as good a catalyst as any to rediscover core principles, but McCain/Palin isn't in Mondale sized loss territory (or even Dukakis sized loss), I don't think, and yet, the Democratic party survived and gave us eight years of Clinton. Sorry for how rambling this got. My point in this last paragraph is just that while this sucks and I hope the GOP cleans itself up, I don't think the GOP is going the way of the Whigs or anything.

Well I think it will also give us the political benefit of having the country/economy get worse and the Democrats not having anyone to blame it on (what with controlling Congress and the White House). That gives the Republican party - if they can find an identity and decent candidates - a chance to come sweeping in and clean house in the next elections.

In the short term, I think things will get better. A small part of the economic problems could be somewhat self-healing, consumer confidence, some stock buying behavior, etc. I expect the media to start selling those aspects hard as soon as Obama clinches. I expect them to being to minimize the scale of the crisis and to report more positively on small gains.

I also expect to see positive coverage of any Bush policies the Obama intends to carry over, and I think there will be more of them that Obama is presently claiming. For instance, I don't think he will be in any hurry to get out of Iraq if the perception was that things were improving when he won the election. Small changes will be played up, large similarities played down.

So, because most people won't perceive the county as being in crisis or will perceive this as improving because that's the news they will get, it will be harder for Republicans to do what you are suggesting.

And some of that will be great. I'm all about economic recovery. I don't want the country to suffer because it helps the GOP.

To the original question, many of the political shows this weekend addressed the schism in the party as have several articles in the news. I don't think Palin is causing the schism. I think it's being highlighted because of the combined ticket. When a lot of independents and moderate Democrats wanted McCain in 2000, the Republican party really wanted Bush and therefore, they got Bush. I think McCain would have won easily in 2000. Instead of embracing the fact that many declared Democrats voted for McCain in primaries (like in Michigan), they accused those Dems of trying to throw the race by voting for someone who couldn't win. They never considered that those Dems would have really voted for him. The schism has been there, it's just growing. This year, the Republicans seem to be realizing that the extreme conservative right is not the popular opinion and they need to move to a more moderate stance to get the independents and the "Reagan Democrats" that they talked so much about in 2000, but couldn't win over.

It's the same basic issue that the Democrats have had in the previous elections. If Bush hadn't done so miserably in the past 4 years, I'm not sure the Dems would be doing as well as they are now.

ETA: They've already predicted on Meet the Press that the economy has nowhere to go but up so whoever wins would be able to claim that success.

I think you're from MI too, aren't you?

I actually know many people who voted for Romney just to split the ticket so that it would be harder to pick a candidate, since Obama wasn't on the ticket. I was not one of them...but I know many.

My biggest problem with Palin rests in the fact that for absolutely no reason, people seem to think she's some sort of ideal role model for women my age. Sorry - I'm not inspired by someone who refused to pay for rape kits because they provided emergency contraception. And to call her a "role model for all women" during a debate is generalizing and insulting, Sen. McCain, because I agree with those above who says she is not particularly bright.

UGAalum94: Do you really think Palin has charisma? She's been slammed in the media for such stints as winking at the public during debates (what a dreadful move, Palin...), her terrible interviews with a variety of people and her lack of an ability to think on her feet. When has she ever shown any serious charisma??