A Republican Future for Sarah Palin

November 6th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

In the weeks and especially days before the presidential election, many observers expressed the belief that they expected Governor Sarah Palin to play an important role in the Republican Party in the coming years, regardless of the results of the election.

The day after the election, it is time to look at Palin’s future and to wonder whether she could indeed play a big role in the coming years, and especially with regards to a possible conservative reformation.

Although many independent and moderate voters told pollsters they were not particularly positively impressed by Palin, the social conservative base embraced her from the moment she gave a much praised speech at the Republican National Convention during which she accepted the offer to be John McCain’s running mate.

Many conservative activists and thinkers, including the greatly respected guys at The Next Right, made clear that they believed Palin should play a key role in the Republican Party in the years ahead, and could become the leader of the conservative movement.

Others, especially ‘elite’ or ‘intellectual conservatives’ such as Peggy Noonan, on the other hand, were highly negative of Palin, arguing that she represented all that was wrong with the GOP. She was considered anti-intellectual, overly religious, and uninformed. A hockey mom who should have stayed home in Alaska.

Additionally, these conservatives argued that she was hurting McCain’s chances of winning, and perhaps willingly so. The Republican Party would be better and stronger without her, the message was.

One day after the election, this battle has become fiercer. The British Ambassador in Washington D.C. was reported as informing his superiors in London that John McCain greatly disliked Palin, privately making jokes about her like: “you know the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? The pit bull eventually lets go.”

McCain aides also took aim at Palin shortly after the election. Newsweek reported today that aides to McCain said that Palin spent more on clothes than the $150,000 reported earlier, and that no one but she was to blame for the reports in the press that did tremendous damage to her image as a hockey mom. According to sources, Palin went on tremendous shopping sprees, buying clothes for herself, her husband and their children. ‘

One angry aide described the shopping sprees as “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast.”

Meanwhile, Palin was asked to speak at CPAC in 2009, whereas McCain was not. Not yet, anyway, and it certainly is likely he will not be invited either. During this year’s CPAC, Mitt Romney beat McCain in a poll whom attendees supported. This while Romney had already withdrawn from the race.

Furthermore, polls conducted yesterday show Palin to be the third most popular possible future leader of the GOP. The most popular future Republican conservative according to the poll? Former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney.

And then there is the advise of one of the most popular conservative bloggers around, Hot Air’s AP, who argues that Palin is a darling of the base, and will be the base’s darling no matter what. She should now, AP writes, reach out to independents and moderates, study hard, and show America that she is more than ‘just a hockey mom.’

In short, it seems likely that Palin will continue to play an important role in the Republican Party in the coming year. She may not become the party’s standard bearer, there are other possibly more talented politicians out there who could truly become the face of the party Bobby Jindal and Mitt Romney being two of them, but that she will continue to be a national conservative leader seems clear.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. C Stanley
    November 6th, 2008 at 16:39
    Reply | Quote | #1

    I think she had the misfortune of being thrust onto the national scene:
    a) before she was ready (she’s clearly intelligent when you hear her without the media filter, but she was also clearly vastly unprepared on the issues and
    b) at a time when social conservatism is getting a bum rap. Being a plain spoken mother of five from a small rural town isn’t exactly in fashion right now, despite these being the reasons that she caught on with the base.

    And part (b) explains why part (a) made her especially vulnerable to the attacks. When you are a plain spoken, folksy person, it’s even more important to prove the media elite wrong by showing that you know your stuff.

    It’s really sad though the way McCain campaign staffers are smearing her as CYA for their own fumbles. As one pundit noted this morning, not only are they potentially preventing Palin from making a comeback but they’re also being disrespectful to McCain since he made the decision to pick her and he defended her. Pathetic that they’re putting their own career futures ahead of all of that.

  2. Dan Chisholm
    November 6th, 2008 at 17:57
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Mitt Romney is the man to Bring America Back in 2012! His Free & Strong America Political Action Committee worked so hard to help conservatives across the country and that help stopped the Democrats from getting to 60 votes in the Senate and from getting the 30-40 vote increase in the house. Just wait until Republicans see what has happened with Democrats controlling the house, senate, presidency, governorships, and with supreme court nominations coming up. There will be a grassroots effort like this country hasn’t seen since 1980 to support Mitt Romney!

  3. Roy Adams
    November 6th, 2008 at 18:43
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Amen to that Dan Chisholm.

    Romney 2012 (the ticket that actually would have won ‘08)

  4. S. Mac
    November 6th, 2008 at 19:34
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Amen to Roy Adams

  5. C Stanley
    November 6th, 2008 at 20:23
    Reply | Quote | #5

    If Romney couldn’t win the GOP nomination, what makes you think he could have won the election?

    His supporters ought to be glad that he didn’t end up as the nominee; there’s every chance that the GOP candidates who ran this time will end up as sacrificial lambs, and at least Romney emerges unscathed to fight again another day.

  6. TJCL
    November 6th, 2008 at 20:59
    Reply | Quote | #6

    The McCain camp blames Palin for their loss – the aides are a reflection of the man McCain is. I voted for him but I was holding my nose because he has proven himself to be hateful on more than one occasion! The blame is squarely on his shoulders, Sarah Palin was the only bright spot on the ticket. I don’t think she was ready for the Presidency but I think she would have learned quickly.

    Romney didn’t get the nomination because Huckabee played to the fears of the ignorant evangelicals. Not all evangelicals bought his distortions of the Mormon church or of Romney’s record, nor did they appreciate his “Christian” card play. Not all evangelicals believe that religion should make a difference – Romney wouldn’t have forced Mormonism on everyone, while it appeared that Huckabee tried to force his brand of Christianity down our throats. Many paid attention to Hucks record and his questionable ethics. Romney lost in those southern states by 1% – Huckabee wasn’t a landslide winner! Huckabee and McCain teamed up against Romney and Romney didn’t play their game. They accused Romney of negative campaign ads – ads that only pointed out records…apparently even they knew they had negative records! Romney has shown more class than these two could muster together. When Palin became the nominee Romney said, “let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin” in response to the fact McCain camp tried to hide her. She would have been much better on her own. I pray that Obama isn’t the thug I think he is -I pray he will do well for this country, we have got to unite behind him. Still, we have to watch and prepare for a nightmare. Part of that preparation is finding someone to lead this country four years from now – Mitt Romney!

  7. Ann
    November 7th, 2008 at 22:17
    Reply | Quote | #7

    Mitt Romney 2012! I voted for him in the primaries and I’ll vote for him in 2012. Once Obama has brought this country down to her knees we will unite once again and vote for a true countryman that will bring this great country back to where she belongs in this world. Romney 2012!

  8. geldhai
    November 9th, 2008 at 21:45
    Reply | Quote | #8

    Now she has more time for her family, maybe she will walk her way in politics later.

  9. Delellis
    December 1st, 2008 at 17:34
    Reply | Quote | #9

    @Dan Chisholm
    ..well… the world will ends in 2012.. here’s not enough time…

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.