Palin gives keynote speech at 'tea party' gathering

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I think that whatever she chose to do, she was screwed. Naturally people saw her leaving office as a political nosedive, but the alternative was to stay in a state that is clearly a VERY good distance from Washington, DC (and the rest of the continental United States). Running a presidential campaign while in Alaska would have been EXTREMELY difficult.

Well, that's life. Part of being a Presidential contender is that the circumstances have to be right, and there are certain things that you can't change. If you're in an area where it's tough to run a campaign, or where you don't get a lot of national attention...well, that's life.

If being in Alaska cost her a chance to be President...so be it. That's the way things worked out. But, I think it did her a lot more harm to leave office the way she did than it would have for her to just serve out the term and deal with the logistics.

I wouldn't have blamed her if she served out her term and declined to run for re-election. That would have been a completely different story.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'd take the Tea Party seriously if they didn't have Sarah Palin as a keynote speaker. Maybe she's a nice lady and all, but she's not Commander in Chief material. I mean, she's just fine at giving speeches and making folksy statements, but running a country requires a different skill set.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the lady's electable. Does anyone think she actually has the skill set or organizational ability to follow through with making any of her stated policies into reality?

This is my thing. I just don't have a lot of confidence in her skill set, organizational ability, or her intelligence to be President. There's something to be said for surrounding yourself with the right people, but I don't even think she could do that.

I think her best role is what she's doing now: political commentator and conservative "activist." (I also think it's Mike Huckabee's best role as well) I hope that's the role she chooses going into the election. I just don't think she's good for the Republican party, and she represents some issues I as a Republican have with certain factions of the party.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

This is my thing. I just don't have a lot of confidence in her skill set, organizational ability, or her intelligence to be President. There's something to be said for surrounding yourself with the right people, but I don't even think she could do that.

I think her best role is what she's doing now: political commentator and conservative "activist." (I also think it's Mike Huckabee's best role as well) I hope that's the role she chooses going into the election. I just don't think she's good for the Republican party, and she represents some issues I as a Republican have with certain factions of the party.

Trouble is, the folks they surround themselves with these days are probably nothing more than a chorus of yes-men. And in some places, vapid campaigns based upon platitude and being folksy is enough to get you elected.

Here in Oklahoma, where we tend to be a lot more conservative and a lot less educated than most other electorates [that's the only way I can understand someone like her having any sort of success], we recently had a U.S. Rep (Mary Fallin) run commercials saying she stood for "Faith, family and freedom," and based on the fact that she had some name recognition (was Lt. Gov. for a long time) and the mere fact that she was a Republican, she ran away with the election. Now she's about to do the same thing, but this time, she'll be in a position to do some real damage -- she's running for Governor.

My observation as to local politics (and I think it translates nationally) is this -- politics has become less and less about ideas and more and more about name brand promotion. The key is not to actually have ideas people agree with, it's to make people think you have the same ideas they do without ever directly communicating anything. This is accomplished by making folksy common-sense statements, running on platitudes, and above all else, making oneself look like the least-bad choice.

I think the Tea Party concept in itself is meritorious, but it's inevitable that it'll be completely hijacked by special interests at some point. Look for an announcement very soon that 'true conservatism' really means tort reform, increased military spending and deregulation of securities (actually, I think the Heritage Foundation probably beat me to the punch there).

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Trouble is, the folks they surround themselves with these days are probably nothing more than a chorus of yes-men. And in some places, vapid campaigns based upon platitude and being folksy is enough to get you elected.

I don't know if I'd go that far. To be sure there are going to be some "yes-men" in the crowd. But, there are politicians who surround themselves with smart, capable people. There are some good people working on campaigns, both national and local.

Originally Posted by Kevin

My observation as to local politics (and I think it translates nationally) is this -- politics has become less and less about ideas and more and more about name brand promotion. The key is not to actually have ideas people agree with, it's to make people think you have the same ideas they do without ever directly communicating anything. This is accomplished by making folksy common-sense statements, running on platitudes, and above all else, making oneself look like the least-bad choice.

I think that could go for any local or national election around the country. It takes so much money to run a campaign these days, let alone a successful one, that candidates have to appeal to those areas of the electorate where 1) they could get votes and 2) they could raise money. If that means focusing on one or two issues and glossing over the others, that's what they'll do.

There's such a thin margin of error with the process, especially in the day of the 24 hour news cycle. If you make a mistake of fact, or you go too far one way or the other, you're done. Look at Howard Dean - he had a lot of momentum, got too excited after a primary, and his campaign was finished. (that may be oversimplifying things, but you get my point)

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Well, that's life. Part of being a Presidential contender is that the circumstances have to be right, and there are certain things that you can't change. If you're in an area where it's tough to run a campaign, or where you don't get a lot of national attention...well, that's life.

If being in Alaska cost her a chance to be President...so be it. That's the way things worked out. But, I think it did her a lot more harm to leave office the way she did than it would have for her to just serve out the term and deal with the logistics.

I wouldn't have blamed her if she served out her term and declined to run for re-election. That would have been a completely different story.

Trust me, I'm not upset or complaing, "It's not fair!" regarding Palin's chances to be president. I was simply stating that, for the most part, it was a Catch 22 for her. Either decision would probably have helped and hurt her equally.

And no matter what, she doesn't have what it takes to be president.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Trust me, I'm not upset or complaing, "It's not fair!" regarding Palin's chances to be president. I was simply stating that, for the most part, it was a Catch 22 for her. Either decision would probably have helped and hurt her equally.

I don't think so, though. Even if you allow for the fact that Alaska is removed from the national political scene, I think she would have been better off staying in office. There is no positive way to spin the fact that she left office, and the fact that she blamed political gridlock made it even worse.