The Selling of Sarah Palin: Why the Effort?

While it's easy to get distracted by the Presidental primary process, we often over look the power of the vice-presidental in the general election. Sarah Palin sounds like a great choice, although it would be a shame for Alaska to lose her, we almost certainly would benefit from her being on the ticket.

Christopher, I'll take as a yes okay? You have a different perspective on issues, but I like your passion. We're taking a big tent approach with Sarah. Anybody who supports her is fine with us.

steve

Steve
and I meant what I said about not putting the Christian Pro-lifers in the same category as the "extreme elements." They are priests that would normally vote Democrat and Christians who believe in social programs.

They have crossed the political line for 30 years Steve; do not expect them to help in a choice between two pro-abortionist; both who have donated to "the great evil" Planned Parenthood.

The National Rifle Association is large, well funded, and influential...if given a choice between an old war hero who will protect their rights and America's mayor who couldn't care less...they will choose McCain.

In the end both groups WILL vote for Rudy if he wins the Primary...IF...and after all, that is what primaries are for.

I think you misunderstand my reasons for supporting Palin. I don't care about the way she looks or talks...I'm not a big American Idol fan. But I am aware of what sells. Palin WILL sell and she can be that extra something that puts Rudy or McCain over the top.

People seem to hate the idea of voting AGAINST someone...but the fact is that most people do exactly that. Very few politicians are honest Abe or keep his word no matter what the polls say Bush2. The popular leaders (like Reagan and Clinton) win on charm and smooth idealistic rhetoric.

I don't particularly like either Rudy or McCain but I REALLY fear a Clinton presidency in time of war.

Unfortunately neither man has the glitz to win against a real female contender for the top spot. Palin does. I couldn't cast the woman and her family better if I tried.

In other words, Palin represents a win.

It's as simple--and as practical--as that.

**

And Steve, don't push it. You've got all kinds of people either on or coming aboard Palin's "boat"...one who supports Ron Paul...others that might be for Tancredo or Hunter.

The problem the Right has is that there is NO united front to face the Left and we have too many fractions. Let everyone decide what their main issue is and which presidential candidate they want to support.

Palin should be the ONE thing we can agree on--and if we can at least START to agree on ONE thing...maybe we'll find enough common ground to actual make a stand.

Sanity, as usual, you're a fount of common sense. My main efforts this summer will focus on getting Sarah Palin front-and-center in the national political mix. My own dislike for Tancredo will go to the back-burner. It now appears likely the eventual Republican nominee for President will be one of the following three individuals (in alphabetical order): Giuliani, McCain, or Fred Thompson. Romney has a very outside chance of getting the nomination.

One of my main points is that there are sea changes going on in American politics. The old types of ticket-balancing no longer work. In a way, the Democratic ticket looks as if it should be Clinton-Obama. I doubt that will happen. It's too much of a shock to the system. I don't look for the North-South tradition (Kennedy-Johnson type ticket) to hold anymore. We have to offer something new, different, and very appealing (Palin). If we go the "two old white guys in gray suits" road, we will lose. (We might lose anyway!)

What I'm trying to do is to get you, me, and everyone else in the world to think: what is the most practical way to get to the end we want? What I mean specifically here is: does the fact that someone (say Huckabee) is pro-life make him worthy of support? Or is he an almost certain loser at the nominee? Also, is a candidate's pro-life stance something shaped to appeal to the Republican base? I do believe that's the case with at least two of the candidates (Romney and Thompson, both of whom traditionally were pro-choice)?

Which Republican candidate is likely to reduce the number of abortions and increase the number of adoptions? The answer to this question is more complicated than many people might imagine, because even the overturning of Roe v. Wade would have a lot less effect than people imagine -- it would send the question back to the states, many of whom would have liberal positions on abortion.

I agree with you (slight sob from me) that I have to avoid my tendency to take shots at candidates I don't like. The key thing right now is getting Sarah Palin on the ticket. And then getting her elected President in 2012 or 2016.

If Giuliani, a Northerner, is nominated for President, the GOP faithful are going to demand that the ticket be balanced with a running mate from the Sun Belt. That's NOT just the Christian right who will demand that. The southern and southwestern states are the center of gravity of the entire GOP, their most loyal states.

I just don't see the GOP being comfortable with nominating two Northerners, since that's not where the GOP's strength is. It doesn't matter that Ms. Palin is a conservative. She's not a favorite son (or favorite daughter) of any Sun Belt state.

Sanity explained patiently to you why you were wrong, and you ignored it. Your argument doesn't hold anymore, sorry. The GOP is stupid at times, but not that stupid.

The problem with the North/South idea is that with the advent of the internet, the lines are being drawn between "big city" folks and the fly over, sun belt states...the latter being everyone else.

Palin is a favorite "daughter" of Hawaii, farm country Indiana, and small town Nebraska. She is Oregan's mom and Michigan's aunt. And she can hold her own against a senator from New York or a speaker of the House from California.

In 2000, Al Gore, a former Senator from TN and the son of a Tennessee Senator, lost . . . Tennessee. In 2004, John Edwards who was on the ticket expressly to allow Kerry to carry NC lost . . . North Carolina. George H. W. Bush, supposedly from TX, actually was born in CT (where his father was a Senator) and went to Yale. He once said that, like TR, he was "an Oyster Bay (L.I.) kind of guy." The former governor of CO, Richard Lamm, actually was born and grew up in Mt. Lebanon, PA. Good old Southerner Newt Gingrich was an Army brat actually born in PA. Mitt Romney of "Massachusetts" actually spent all his early life in MI and UT (at BYU).

A VERY Southern friend of mine (novelist Marion Montgomery) once said, "Just about everybody in Atlanta is from Illinois." He was speaking hyperbolically but he had a point.

One reason Rudy Giuliani is so popular in FL is that about one-third of the people there are from NY.

SteveL is like the guy in the Frost poem who "could not go beyond his father's saying . . . (that) good fences make good neighbors." This is not the America of 1952, where regional identities were quite important. "Something there is that doesn't love a wall," as Frost also said.

See my column today on this.

Sanity has a great screen name, because she's a model of, well, sanity.

I think working for Sarah Palin, a tough and demanding individual who's toughest of all on herself, would be a challenge. I'd do it in a minute.

steve