SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Lord Help Us, Palin Is Running For President

JONATHAN CHAIT SEPTEMBER 16, 2010

Lord Help Us, Palin Is Running For President

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Some nice reporting from Shushannah Walshe:

If Palin has made any final, official decision to run, she’s kept it from her inner circle of advisers; no doubt she’s mulling her next move with her closest confidant, her husband Todd. But lately, alongside the personal tweets that have been a primary means of communicating with the outside world in recent months, Team Palin has begun issuing press releases. The smoke signals indicate her staff has begun working in earnest on a White House run.

“No one has been told directly, but staffers are working under the assumption that she’s running," says one former aide who has knowledge of the inner workings of the PAC, who requested anonymity talking about his ex-boss’ plans. "It has become very apparent to everyone on her staff that she is preparing to run for president. The staff is now working. They are writing speeches, preparing talking points, picking congressmen to endorse all under the umbrella of what you would do two years out before running for president and that’s their understanding. It’s a 2012 ball game, and they should plan on that basis.”

Powerline's Paul Mirengoff calls her the front runner. David Frum agrees. So do I.

The Obama administration thinks this is good news, because Palin is supposedly "unelectable."  But here's the thing: nobody is "unelectable." It all depends on conditions and events, mainly the state of the economy. To be sure, Palin is almost certainly less electable than many other Republicans, and it would take very bad economic conditions for her to win. But we may have very bad economic conditions.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 32 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

32 comments

It would take "very bad economic conditions." Why, does Sarah Palin have an economic program?

- LawrenceGulotta

September 16, 2010 at 2:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ai yai yai.

- Sophia

September 16, 2010 at 2:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I question whether she has the stamina for a two-year campaign. Or the attention span.

- zardoz67

September 16, 2010 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Louise: It's for sure a white man's world in America. Look here: I raised that boy since he was the size of a piss-ant. And I'll say right now, he never learned to read and write. No, sir. Had no brains at all. Was stuffed with rice pudding between th' ears. Shortchanged by the Lord, and dumb as a jackass. Look at him now! Yes, sir, all you've gotta be is white in America, to get whatever you want. Gobbledy-gook!"

- icarusr

September 16, 2010 at 2:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, will THIS be what it takes to get Democrats fired up for November?

- zardoz67

September 16, 2010 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...Ai yai yai.... I'll see your "Ai yai yai" and raise you two "Oy Veys" and one "Say it ain't so!"

- basman

September 16, 2010 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In 2007 the Republican front-runner for the nomination was a man named Rudolph Giuliani.

- austinexpat

September 16, 2010 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have been predicting all along that Sarah Palin will run for president. Her fifteen minutes aren't up yet.

- liberal reformer

September 16, 2010 at 2:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wonder how she's going to get out of those three debates?

- ironyroad

September 16, 2010 at 2:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I really don't want her that close to the nuclear launch codes. With any other Republican, I would at least not fear for the immediate future of the Republic.

- flynnb_az

September 16, 2010 at 3:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, I think she is going to delegate the foreign policy one to Bill Kristol and the other two to her Facebook ghostwriter. Nothing wrong with that, right?

- wildboy

September 16, 2010 at 3:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can someone tell me the case of another "politician" - at least in a Democracy -- whose main source of support is derived from being so unbelievably bad

- NR027810

September 16, 2010 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Should we laugh or cry

- NR027810

September 16, 2010 at 3:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- ...and Favre will be her VP? This is simple: She has nothing to lose and everything to gain by not saying no. No one in the GOP, with a tiniest chance, can take a pass until '16. It will be a last chance for some or no worse than a must show play-off for others. Few have regretted trying too soon, many have regretted procrastinating. Who was the last president who played it smart by sitting out a previous contest? A win by any contender ices most of the current field (or gives one them the best shot if the winner chokes in their first term). Ten or twelve people have to ask, "Even if Obama wins a second term, is it better for me to stay in the shadows for nearly six more years?". Regardless, Democrats need to quit watching because waiting for the right to screw up is the best way to keep getting rolled on the way not to winning. Only losers quit fighting.

- michaelg

September 16, 2010 at 3:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess she wants to prove the old axiom that, in America, anyone can grow up to be President. Absolutely anyone.

- zardoz67

September 16, 2010 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is news? I, like libref, have been predicting this for ages. My only regret is that she didn't announce this last year, and it doesn't appear likely that she'll get it together to have a formal campaign committee this year, so the total amount I'll probably be able to donate to her campaign will be $4600.

- janus

September 16, 2010 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, let's not gloat like the Democrats in 1980 who rubbed their hands at the thought of that crazy, extremist, careless-with-the-facts Reagan fellow running for President.

- mgorvine

September 16, 2010 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- One thing Palin understands: This is about her. And that's a great lesson for us and we have enough to keep us busy. We should care less about her, care less about FOX, Rush, Glenn, care less about the TP and the daily assaults that are predictable. A good defense is necessary but it is not sufficient. The worst team will always win, if their opposition doesn't show up.

- michaelg

September 16, 2010 at 4:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

when can i start reading about her negatives? or do I only get to hear about hillary clinton's negatives, even though palin's negatives are like 20 points higher. also, do people mind it when someone resigns from one elected post and then runs for another one?

- mmathog

September 16, 2010 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good god, if the me of 15 years ago could see this now, he'd never believe it. Reagan was...as agonizingly painful as it is to say...superior to Sarah Palin. I hate and loathe Reagan, but he did actually Govern a state with some complexity to it, rather than Quitter Palin's pathetic half-term mismanaging a state with barely more people in it than the city of Memphis. He also had the discipline to almost unseat a sitting President in the nomination fight, ensuring that he was taken seriously the next time around. By contrast, Palin dragged down a Presidential ticket that she wasn't even the head of, and responded by bitterly blaming everyone around her. And yes, Reagan's failing grasp of reality inspired terror when one realized that he controlled the nuclear launch codes, and Palin's dementia would inspire a similar terror if she actually had any decisionmaking power, but his came on in his 70s, while Palin's is just getting started in her 40s. I'd still say advantage: Reagan. In short, she really is so bad that's she's unelectable, and she'll take down the Republican party with her. Defending Reagan...Christ, I need a shower.

- janus

September 16, 2010 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, Palin had resigned after really one year -- not one term even- of running Alaska before risking probable non-reelection, profits from notoriety, then runs for President. Messed up or what

- NR027810

September 16, 2010 at 5:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Palin like many in the talk radio/Fox bubble that keeps the outside world out truly believe that there is a vast majority of America that supports the most reactionary economic programs. The reality is that a very fired up and utterly confused older white group, that is dying off is supporting this stuff. Palin will wake up to a world that doesn't follow her exact script, and she won't know what to do.

- MikeB.

September 16, 2010 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Palin will wait until the last possible minute to hang onto her influence, then announce she is not running. And in the unlikely event that she does, she will be beaten in the Republican primaries. I guarantee it. You can't run a presidential campaign on Twitter. People need to get over this. The plain truth is, Palin only wows her followers, who are numerous enough to keep her name in the news, but not enough to get her past an even remotely qualified Republican challenger.

- timteeter

September 16, 2010 at 6:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While not a fan of Palin -- she is clearly more qualified than O. Most of the people I know are more qualified than O. If a career politician with no executive or leadership experience can be elected, a former Gov can. O wouldn't be qualified to run a Gas station based on resume and skills. However, unlike O, who essentially lied to every independent and moderate republican about being a left-of-center Dem --- Palin is who she is.

- mr_rationale

September 16, 2010 at 6:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very good point Jonathan, (almost) no one is unelectable if the economy is bad enough. It's amazing how many pundits grossly underestimate this. Reagan was long thought of as unelectable by many, then came an oil price explosion at the same time the Fed. engineered a huge recession to cut inflation in 1980. The economy gets bad enough, BRISTOL Palin could get elected.

- RHSerlin

September 16, 2010 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You just keep getting stupider, rationale, if that is even possible. The woman who knows nothing is more qualified to be president than is a policy wonk, than is someone who has spent a good deal of time studying the world. The only possible reason that a cretin like you - who lives in a hermetically sealed world - would say that is out of ideological reasons. And oh, even though Alvin Michael Greene is not my cup of tea, he is more qualified to be a US Senator than James Warren DeMint is. How is that you are even able to get dressed in the morning, rationale?

- liberal reformer

September 16, 2010 at 7:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't wait to see the Tina Fey skits!

- nacnud1

September 16, 2010 at 7:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"[i]t would takes very bad economic conditions for her to win. But we may have very bad economic conditions". Some would say this administration is doing all it can to ensure that bad economic conditions persist. Not all of them are Republicans. Ask Dr Krugman. Maybe Sarah was just born lucky.

- lsernoff

September 16, 2010 at 8:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

mr_rationale. i noticed a typo in your name. you are missing the ir

- lisap1999

September 17, 2010 at 8:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

everybody loved rudy.....until they had to actually think about him running the country. if they are smart enough to leave him behind....just maybe they will be smart enough to realize what a big mistake Palin would be

- lisap1999

September 17, 2010 at 8:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

mr_rationale(?) you are a serious nitwit but you do have lots of company. The economy is not that bad to elect a Palin. If GOTP gets Congress and has internal war over Social Security/Medicare then Obama should get re-elected

- NR027810

September 17, 2010 at 9:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that there is no way that Sarah Palin can be elected President (in 2012 or ever), regardless of economic conditions. If the economy is improved in 2012, then Obama should be in good shape to be re-elected regardless of the identity of his GOP opponent, so she won't win (and likely won't run). On the other hand, if the economy is bad in 2012, then Obama would be perceived as weak and presumably lots of people will be seeking the GOP nomination to run against him. In this group, Palin will get kicked around and her appeal will get diluted by her enemies in the GOP. To date, she has shown no particular skill in handling negative coverage or attacks by her political opponents, and I would not expect the GOP establishment to favor her in 2012 over other politicians who are less hated than she is and do less to bring out the Democratic base than she does. What am I missing here?

- wildboy

September 17, 2010 at 2:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close