Two years to the day before America either inaugurates a new president or re-inaugurates the current one (or, you know, fails to inaugurate anybody due to the declaration of martial law amid the post-apocalyptic nightmare following the End of the World in 2012), Larry Sabato offers some political junkie porn in the form of 19 — count ’em, 19 — breakdowns of potential GOP candidates. (And I decided to call it “political junkie porn” even before I read this statement: “The GOP field is not set. The contenders are in various stages of undress as the strip tease proceeds.” Um, #PANIC?!)
Anyway, Sabato says: “No one can be rated as having an ‘excellent’ chance at winning the nomination (yet someone will eventually win). Mitt Romney, widely considered to be leading the early pack, starts out as a weak frontrunner. Six actual or possible contenders are placed in the First Tier; four more in the Second Tier: four in the Third Tier; and five in the Fourth Tier. Obviously, the nominee is likely to be found in Tiers 1 and 2.” The first-tier contenders are Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin (#PANIC!!!), Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, and Mitch Daniels (described as “everybody’s second or third choice”; my tentative first choice, for what little it’s worth). Money quote: “One of the most famous pre-candidates in recent presidential history, Sarah Palin continues to dominate a campaign she has not entered and may never enter.” The second-tier contenders are Newt Gingrich, Mike Pence, John Thune and Marco Rubio (who would have half the Senate experience Obama did in ’08; more likely to be a VP candidate, Sabato says). Among those in the third tier is Michelle Bachmann (#PANIC!!!!!). Among those in the fourth tier are Ron Paul and John Bolton.
Anyway, enjoy!
Newt Gingrich is the clear nominee.
Although there is still a lot of voting (and mistress hiding) to be done.
Why do Conservative women panic you Lefties so much?
It has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with the fact that Sarah Palin is an unqualified, anti-intellectual, intentionally divisive culture warrior, and Michelle Bachmann is a batshit-crazy conspiracy theorist. If anything, the #PANIC!!!! level is related to their gender only in the sense that they wouldn’t have any base of support in the GOP (and thus there’d be no cause to #PANIC!!! about their prospects) if you righties hadn’t long ago lost your way on identity politics, and become precisely what you used to loathe in terms of venerating victimhood and elevating unqualified individuals to undeserved positions purely because of their “identity” (gender, race, whatever). *cough*MichaelSteele*cough*
The correct question is not why “us Lefties” panic at the notion of unqualified, unserious Righty women potentially attaining high office, but rather, why do you Righties support totally unqualified, unserious female politicians in such numbers that we have to worry about them gaining actual power, when you wouldn’t give equivalent, similarly unqualified and unserious male candidates so much as a second look? (Or do you actually believe that Sarah Palin would be “one of the most famous pre-candidates in recent presidential history” if she were a man with exactly the same resumé? Because if you think that, I have this bridge in Brooklyn I’m looking to unload.)
By the way, for the record, I do not appreciate the insinuation that I’m a sexist. But, again, way to play the identity politics / victim card. Want me to hook you up with a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton rally, or maybe a Gloria Steinem speaking event? Because you have become them.
Brendan has a point — Righties who support Palin wouldn’t give Obama a second look.
gahrie @ #2, James Taranto addressed this yesterday. I don’t think his rationale applies so much to Brendan and Becky per se; I take him at his word that what irks him is that Palin is “an unqualified, anti-intellectual, intentionally divisive culture warrior”. The problem is, why does that elevate his level of hysteria? Obama was unqualified, and most libs consider most conservatives to be “anti-intellectual” and/or “divisive culture warriors”. So, while I am not inclined to apply Taranto’s rationale to Brendan (maybe to Becky — not sure), I also have a hard time taking Brendan’s explanation at face value. What he cites might be necessary to despise Palin, but is hardly sufficient.
P.S. It’s also hard to take seriously claims of “losing your way on identity politics” from supporters of a President elected primarily, perhaps even solely, because of his race.
I freely acknowledge that Obama’s race is a part of the reason he was elected (how big a part is debatable — I certainly don’t think his race accounted for the entirety of his 7.2% popular margin and 192-vote electoral margin — but it was definitely a part). But his race is not why I personally supported him, so I’m sure why the fact that other people were motivated by race to support someone I supported for other reasons, renders me incapable of accusing Republicans of becoming just as bad as, well, those very people who supported “my” candidate due to identity politics. It’s not like I’m denying that liberals do this. On the contrary, I’m acknowledging that they do it, and saying conservatives are becoming just as bad.
As for AML’s comment, I dispute that my reaction is Palin is “hysterical,” and I would simply respond that I believe Palin is a uniquely repugnant and dangerous figure in American politics today, far worse than any other mainstream conservative (Bachmann is probably worse, but not really mainstream), by virtue of the combination of her total lack of credentials, her complete unfitness for office, her fervent base of totally unwarranted support, her utterly unapologetic anti-intellectualism, her penchant for dishonest demagoguery, and both her commitment to and effectiveness at being extremely divisive in deeply harmful ways. If you think there’s another conservative figure who I should similarly condemn but am failing to do so, I’m all ears, but I believe Palin is pretty damn unique, and my fervent-yet-rational opposition to her is based on that uniqueness.
1) I will freely admit that Palin was nominated as VP because of her gender. (rember I am no fan of McCain as a politician) However the main reason for her popularity today on the Right is not her gender, but because of the Left’s reaction to her.
2) Michael Steele’s choice as head of the RNC was not undeserved. He had in fact earned the right to be considered for the position. He simply proved to be unsuited for it.
3) I am eagerly awaiting your next attack on a Lefty for using the race/gender/victim card.
Brendan: The fundamental point you and the Left either miss or ignore is that Palin is only popular (or mainly popular) precisely because of the way the Left overreacts to her.
Brendan, where we depart is: I don’t see how being a governor of Alaska is any less credentialed than Senator from Illinois; a judgment on her being unfit for office is almost completely colored / determined by ideology; the idea that her “fervent base” is “unwarranted” makes little sense — what is the metric for determining whether any politician’s following is “warranted”?; what you call “anti-intellectual”, is merely “anti-elitist” to most of the rest of us; complaining about a politician for demagoguery is like complaining about a rooster for crowing; and her reputation as divisive is based on almost completely circular logic: “I and a lot of other people on my side hate her, therefore she is divisive”. In sum, what I hear through all that noise you are spewing is, I don’t like Sarah Palin because she’s a particular stripe of conservative that particularly gets under my nerves — and thus I don’t get any real, substantive answer to the question, “Why does Brendan hate Sarah Palin so much?”
1) Being Governor of Alaska is quit possibly the easiest job in politics
2) She couldn’t even finish her term in that job
3) Its about more than just the job you get/are elected to but how you do in that job
4) Its about more than just that one job but also past history as well
For example look at Obama’s academic history compared to Sarah Palin’s.
Also, listen to what Obama says when asked a question compared to Sarah Palin.
Setting their political views aside, if you honestly think that Sarah Palin is even remotely as qualified to lead this country as Obama, then you are either a partisan hack or just plain nuts. If you wanted to argue with a serious candidate who held some of the same political views as Sarah Palin, then fine, but its not just about what positions she claims to support. And idiot and a genius can hold similar political views, that doesn’t make them equal qualified to lead.
For example look at Obama’s academic history compared to Sarah Palin’s
How? President Obama has never released anything to do with his academic history.
David, I don’t give a crap about academic history. I did quite well in school, TYVM, and IMO that has zero bearing on how well I am able to do my current job. James Taranto never graduated from college, and he is unarguably one of the most influential conservative pundits right now. Bill Gates dropped out of college. And so on and so on.
Similarly, Obama’s supposed erudition signifies nothing. This has as much value as the test applied to Kerry and Dubya: Who would you rather have a beer with? That is, the answer to the question implies certain positive and negative traits about a candidate, but it’s borderline useless when adjudging who is the more qualified leader.
Setting their political views aside, if you honestly think that Barack Obama was more substantially more qualified in 2008 to lead this country than Sarah Palin, then you are either a partisan hack or just plain nuts.
gahrie @ 13 FTW!
What do you think the Left’s reactions to President Obama and Gov. Palin would have been if their party affiliation had been switched?
I wouldn’t vote for Palin regardless of party affiliation. There are Republicans I’d consider reasonable choices as leader whom I disagree with. Bobby Jindal or Mitt Romney strike me as reasonable choices. George H.W. Bush was also a good leader.
As for Academics, um, he went to Harvard Law and was editor and then President of the Harvard Law Review, he graduated Magna Cum Laude. We know he did well academically even if we don’t know the specific grades. Seriously, a little critical thinking eh?
And Andrew, grades are not everything, but they are one thing you can take into consideration. If grades, employment, achievements, and ability to answer basic sentences in a coherent matter aren’t what you are looking for, what DO You consider valid qualifications to judge fitness on?
Based on what you’re saying here it seems you judge fitness solely on political positions held period. You wouldn’t consider ANY non conservative fit to hold office. Thats basically a non-starter.
“Setting their political views aside, if you honestly think that Barack Obama was more substantially more qualified in 2008 to lead this country than Sarah Palin, then you are either a partisan hack or just plain nuts.”
Sorry but no, its not even close. Palin isn’t even remotely qualified to be President, there are entire orders of magnitude of difference between Obama and Palin. To refuse to see that, even if you don’t think that Obama was the right choice, is to refuse to acknowledge reality. I used to think, based on Brendan, Dane, etc’s assertions of you that you were at least an intelligent jerk Andrew, now I can’t even believe that you are anything more than purely partisan. There’s really no point in continuing when you have such an unsupportable view.
David, let me make this as simple as possible for you: Holding an executive-level position prepares one better than holding a legislative position. Sarah Palin was a governor and a mayor prior to that; Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator and a state senator prior to that. Based purely on their job experience, Palin in 2008 was arguably more qualified to be president than Obama. I do not see how you can credibly argue otherwise.
There might be a number of reasons why Obama was nevertheless more preferable a candidate than Palin to you and others, but there was literally nothing on Obama’s CV pointing to probable experience and success in an executive-type role. As flimsy as Palin’s CV was, she could at least point to executive roles being governor and mayor.
…what DO You consider valid qualifications to judge fitness on?
Three main lines of judgment, with a floating weight on each:
First, have they shown effectiveness in an executive-type position? Have they shown an ability to lead, and to get things done?
Second, what are their political positions? What is their weltanschauung and how do they approach problem solving and challenges?
Third, do they have integrity and principles that guide their behavior and treatment of people? Do they exhibit behavior that inspires and builds trust, or do they come off as a back-stabber or a power-hungry egotist?
As a short-form read on all of these things, I often make broader judgments on a specific set of observations related to how they operate in various settings and who they surround themselves with. So far I’ve had pretty good results with this method.
Wow, I was really surprised to read Joe Mama’s comment that people voted for Obama “primarily, or soley” because he was black, and much more surprised, maybe offended, that Brendan agreed with that. What an ignorant statement and asinine conclusion. With such a proud tradition of black presidents it’s practically a shoe in that the president will be black every year. I mean, remember how many times Jesse Jackson won because of his black advantage. and how many times, throughout American history that black candidates gained unfair advantages because most people like blacks more than whites. Why all you have to do is open your text books and see that defeating black presidentail candidates is almost an impossibility because of their built in automatic appeal, mostly from Southern voters of course.
I think my head will explode if I actually address the 2nd most idiotic suggestion on this board that Sarah Palin was/is more (or equally) qualified to be president as Obama. Sarah Palin attended 4 different colleges and JC’s in 5 years to get her bachelors from Idaho to Alaska and back and Obama graduates top of his class from Harvard. As an executive, making a decision on who I want to work for me… and as a voter making a decision on who I want to lead the nation– It’s not even a close.
What exactly were President Obama’s accomplishments that qualified him to be president?
Seriously…maybe I missed them….Community organizer, professor, state legislator for 7 years and US senator for less than 4 years, 2 of which he spent running for president. No experience running a business or as an executive.
Gov. Palin owned and ran successful private businesses, She was a city councilman for 4 years, mayor for 6 years, member of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. and Governor of Alaska. That means she had experience in private business, legislating, regulating an industry, and executive experience.
Sandy:
We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”
I believe you and David are projecting onto the blank canvas Obama provided you.
AMLTrojan #23 – only the first 7 words are needed, up to and including the word “projecting” …
Agreed with gahrie at #10.
Palin is pure provocateur. The scorn of intellectuals is to her what oats are to Zenyatta. Even the crafty Jon Stewart, with his ingenious coinage “Palin”drome to vilify her victimizations, has only served to sustain that which he disdains.
The only way Brendan’s criticisms could sting her is if he did nothing but sniff glue and watch NASCAR for at least 6 months (no offense intended to those who sniff glue). And the irony is that then, at the culmination of his Faustian quest for critical power — he would start to love Palin.
In fairness to Brendan’s fulminations, I offer the following as consolation: while many commenters here defend Palin, I believe none prefer her for President. As His High Mightiness would say, there is “hope”.
Casey alludes to a very compelling point: How in the world is it worth getting worked up over a political figure who by and large is not the preferred candidate of just about of everyone here who defends her? I suppose one could fear that she will somehow commandeer a significant enough base with the tea party folk to be difficult to knock off in the primaries, but honestly, it’s just way too early in the process to worry about tactical challenges like that.
#26 – I suspect it’s way easier to take potshots at Palin than it is to do actual journalism …
After all, given the state of most of current main stream ‘journalism’, can you see MSM coverage being given to :-
“Palin is a threat to Democracy” or A Threat to Democracy ? ?
“Palin Is A Fascist” or Israel Incorrectly Accused Of Becoming Fascist ?
Every column inch occupied by palin Derangement Syndrome is one less column inch to have to fill with actual journalism about actual reality …
AML23– Obama is a Harvard grad, top of his class, an eloquent speaker and great communicator, outside the Washington insiders, he’s not a Clinton, he’s not a Bush.
Those are the reasons I voted for Obama. The other choice was a senile 80 year old man who’s been in Washington since the 70s. It’s a no-brainer… as in you would have to have no brain to vote for McCain.
Gahrie– Obama is a Harvard grad, top of his class, an eloquent speaker and great communicator, outside the Washington insiders, His views reflected those of mine; end the war with Iraq, focus on domestic issues (for the first time in 7 years), attempt to get rid of insurance companies and give all americans healthcare, pursue alternative energy sources to replace fossil fuels and other ideas, ending Bush tax cuts and beliefs that don’t spring to mind at this moment. He seems to be a person who represents America well across the globe and can have a dialogue, formulate thoughts and ideas and negotiate with other world leaders face to face and in public forums, unlike the last president.
Palin’s expressed views are 100% contrary to mine (oil-drilling, relying on antiquated energy fuels, continuing the war with Iraq, favoring military aggression with Iran, lax gun laws, extending Bush tax cuts). Palin quit 18 months into her term after Alaskans voted her into power with the expectation that she would serve them. Her reason for resigning was to protect her family and lead a more quiet life away from the public eye. She says a lot of words and terms that she shows no knowledge of actually comprehending and was totally destroyed in the debate with doofy Joe Biden. If you look like a nincompoop debating a nincompoop, that’s pretty bad.