Wednesday, November 05, 2008
The first step to a new GOP: Palin for Senate
A longtime reader emailed me with her wish for the first step to a new GOP. If Ted Stevens pulls it out in Alaska notwithstanding his recent conviction for old-school corruption, he should resign and Sarah Palin should appoint herself to his seat. The gesture would all at once signal a break from the GOP's pork-barrel past and a nod to its reformist future. The Senate would be the perfect platform from which Palin can dispel the media-fed doubts about her brains and experience, and her charisma and exciting eloquence would be a huge boon to the Republican party in opposition. So why would Stevens do it? Because only an act of public and partisan self-sacrifice can restore his honor and secure his stature as one of Alaska's great citizens.
Senator Stevens, do it for Alaska, America, and the Republican Party.
MORE: Another smart commenter says that the Murkowski precedent does not apply:
Can't happen. After the former Rep Gov (Frank Murkoski(?) appointed his daughter to the US Senate, the Alaskans got smart and changed the rules. If Stevens gets kicked out of the Senate a special election will be held in 90 days.
Maybe. Apparently the Alaska law is at least a little confused on the subject:
But what's even more unclear is what would happen if Stevens wins re-election.
"If Stevens were to resign from his seat or be expelled, how would a replacement be chosen? Nobody can say for sure," the Anchorage Daily News wrote, saying that the state's law on senatorial succession was modified twice in 2004, "once by the Legislature, and once by ballot initiative. Both laws call for a special election within 60 to 90 days of the vacancy. But they disagree on whether the governor appoints an interim senator in the meantime."
All of this is a detail that adds risk for Palin, but does not change the point. If Stevens steps down, she should run in the special election to replace him. If 84 year-old Stevens can win re-election, Sarah Palin should be able to win the special election in his aftermath.
38 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Nov 05, 09:44:00 AM:
Can't happen. After the former Rep Gov (Frank Murkoski(?) appointed his daughter to the US Senate, the Alaskans got smart and changed the rules. If Stevens gets kicked out of the Senate a special election will be held in 90 days.
Bob from Jersey
By , at
Wed Nov 05, 10:00:00 AM:
thebest would be if the people of Alaska wrote her in to the ballot. That would be a real referendum.
Although personally I think she should stay in Alaska and finish her term.
By 
davod, at
Wed Nov 05, 10:04:00 AM:
Traditionally the Senate has been the burial ground for presidential aspirarions.
By Anthony, at
Wed Nov 05, 10:21:00 AM:
I would rather see her finish her term and win reelection to burnish her executive credentials. There's will be plenty of speaking opportunities between now and 2012 (and especially in 2010) for her to make a good impression on the national stage.
But, if she does run to replace Stevens, there will be a check going from me to her campaign committee.
By Elise, at
Wed Nov 05, 10:26:00 AM:
At the beginning of this Presidential campaign a lot of pundits were saying neither party would put a Senator at the top of the Presidential ticket because he or she would have too much of a national paper trail. They were wrong this year but I wouldn't bet on them being wrong 4 years from now.
I'd rather see Governor Palin finish out her term and run for re-election in 2010. That will give her all the executive experience anyone could ask for and allow her to hang onto her Washington outsider brand.
Along the way she should be able to parlay her name recognition into a higher national profile - Sunday talk shows and so on if she wants - especially if energy becomes a huge issue. This will give her a chance to rebuild her image and hone her message. Then she'll be in good shape if she wants to run for the Presidency in 2012.
At which point some people are already predicting she'll be fighting Romney and Jindal for the nomination. Sheesh. Didn't we just finish a Presidential election?
By Anthony, at
Wed Nov 05, 10:29:00 AM:
Romney had no ability to connect with the voters: his return on investment in terms of votes was awful. I like the guy, but I can't see him being a serious candidate in 2012.
By Elise, at
Wed Nov 05, 10:49:00 AM:
I think Romney sounds good to some on the right now because they think, "If only we'd had Romney when the economic crisis hit." I think whether he looks viable four years from now probably depends a lot on what kind of financial shape the country is in.
(I have got to learn to comment faster. After I posted my comment, I saw yours, Anthony, and thought I'd double-posted.)
By Anthony, at
Wed Nov 05, 11:07:00 AM:
By Charlottesvillain, at
Wed Nov 05, 11:35:00 AM:
I don't know why you are so high on Palin. I don't think she comes out of this looking good at all. She certainly meets the standard of the senate, but so what? The GOP has enough problems without making her the face of the party. there's just no there there.
By Anthony, at
Wed Nov 05, 11:39:00 AM:
there's just no there there.
Other than for sharp intelligence, good character, the right political philosophy, a successful political and governing track record, and the will to see her goals met, yeah, I guess there's nothing there.
By , at
Wed Nov 05, 11:51:00 AM:
Palin is the only rock star in the Republican party and is already the front runner for 2012 ... she could be Reagan meets Thatcher ... and may the only one capable of uniting a fractured Republican party.
But she needs to establish her gravitas ...
By Charlottesvillain, at
Wed Nov 05, 12:00:00 PM:
"But she needs to establish her gravitas"
I'll say. I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Anthony, if Palin is the candidate in 2012 get ready to hear a lot of the "four more years" chant and to see a lot of blue on the map. I don't think she'll ever be a national candidate.
By , at
Wed Nov 05, 12:11:00 PM:
I don't know if Palin has gravitas ... but she may. I wouldn't judge her by the Rose and Couric interviews. It was a deliberate Axelrod strategy to attack her on the internet aided and abbetted by journalists who couldn't abide a woman candidate from the sticks who didn't have an Ivy League degree.
It took years before Reagan succeeded on the national stage ... for the longest time, many were dismissive of a B-movie actor. There's obvious parallels between Palin and Reagan, including that they both started out as sportscasters.
Palin had to jump from doing regional dinner theater to Broadway. She was partly successful. She's got natural talent at "connecting."
Hillary developed into a strong stage figure ... but it took her years. Recall illary's "listening tour" when she first ran to be New York's junior Senator ... she and her handlers knew she wasn't ready to handle questions, even after her eight years as supposed co-President. Palin did it inside a month.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Wed Nov 05, 12:20:00 PM:
Ok, I'll buy the Regan analogy in theory, and maybe it will turn out that Palin has a political philosophy that can be compared to Reagan. But it certainly didn't come through in the campaign. I didn't see much beyond ambition (and I usually lean towards GOP candidates).
I think comparisons with Thatcher, however, are absurd.
By , at
Wed Nov 05, 12:22:00 PM:
I'm amazed by the incredible amount of public interest in Sarah Palin. Good or bad, she's become somewhat of a pop icon. People are dressing like her to be and/or mock her all at the same time.
For instance, I found this video on dressing like Palin:
http://www.mindbites.com/lesson/668-how-to-dress-like-sarah-palin
By apex, at
Wed Nov 05, 12:25:00 PM:
There's talkers and there's doers. Don't put a doer into a talker's job.
apex
By , at
Wed Nov 05, 12:34:00 PM:
Obama won because he was the anti-Bush. The strongest political force over the last few years has been hatred of W. That's what we saw in yesterday's numbers. So we elected the Joker in the deck ... we don't know what we'll get with Obama ... but a lot of people felt good yesterday at rejecting W.
If the next four years lead to a bigger nanny state, stagflation, little or no economic growth ... all the indicia of Britain in the 1970s ... then Palin can run as the "anti-Obama" ... she'll sound a lot like Thatcher ... there's the comparison. Palin is a throwback ... a genuine frontier woman ... it's an interesting archetype for a leader.
By Elise, at
Wed Nov 05, 01:57:00 PM:
Palin may turn out to be a flash in the pan or she may develop into a solid candidate. I don't think we can know which right now because she was subjected to an amazing hatchet job.
I find her a mystery. The interview with Gibson was not great (although that was partly the way it was chopped up) and what little I saw of the interview with Couric was worse. But I've watched and listened to clips of her doing "smaller" interviews and she sounds at least as coherent and knowledgeable as the Senators who are strewn all over the Sunday morning talk shows. She lit up the crowd at the Convention, she sounds good in her stump speeches, and she certainly didn't tank the VP debate.
Thatcher? Maybe. It's possible Palin has Thatcher-ish qualities that show up when she's running her own campaign but not when she's being run by someone else's campaign.
Plus she did manage to win the governorship of Alaska and to hang onto some pretty high approval ratings. So there must be some there there.
By , at
Wed Nov 05, 02:22:00 PM:
Palin is still a mystery to me too. There is there there ... but I don't know if it's enough for the Presidency.
She's a doer, more than a talker. I find it fascinating that many who criticize Palin will give high marks to Biden, who's nothing more than a windbag.
Palin starts the run to 2012 with star power and the potential to unite fractious parts of the Republican party, but with a tarnished image.
Developing ....
By Charlottesvillain, at
Wed Nov 05, 02:54:00 PM:
While I criticize Palin, I definitely do NOT give high marks to Biden, except as potential blog fodder. Actually, I can think of few politicians I can give high marks to at the moment. So maybe I've just gotten too cyncial to contribute much to the conversation.
By , at
Wed Nov 05, 04:12:00 PM:
Palin has already been "Quayled" by the media. The media has told us she is not smart, therefore the people believe that. No amount of effort on her part to disprove that will work.
There was a time when the average American was bright enough to discern the truth. Publk edukashun and MTV has resulted in that being a skill set no longer attributable to the average American.
By clint, at
Wed Nov 05, 04:21:00 PM:
The Senate is exactly the wrong place for Governor Palin --- especially right now.
Republican Senators are going to spend the next two years, to paraphrase, standing astride "history" shouting, "NO!" It's vitally important, but it's not something that plays to Palin's huge strengths, and it's not a position that will lend itself to the kind of accomlishments which will advance her career.
I'd rather see her stay in Anchorage for another two years at least.
Surely the Republican GOP can find someone to run for Stevens' Senate seat -- and Palin can hit the trail hard campaigning for him or her.
She might want to think about running for Alaska's seat in Congress in two years, if she's dead set on a Presidential run in 2012 --- though I think that might be a short-sighted ambition.
By , at
Wed Nov 05, 04:38:00 PM:
"Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those that are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy to help, uhhh, it's gotta be all about job creation, too." -- Sarah-cuda Palin
If I were Margaret Thatcher being compared to this woman, I would need to be medicated. Good grief.
Let her ride off into the Alaskan sunset and be glad she didn't get into any more trouble than giggling through prank phone calls from Pepe le Pew posing as Sarkozy. "C'est la vie" indeed.
By , at
Wed Nov 05, 05:27:00 PM:
Just what the Senate needs, a another unthinking, narrow minded, loud mouth. Great, the spirits of the Founding Fathers wait with breathless anticipation for her arrival.
By Anthony, at
Wed Nov 05, 05:40:00 PM:
Just what the Senate needs, a another unthinking, narrow minded, loud mouth.
Oh? You're running?
By , at
Wed Nov 05, 11:16:00 PM:
If Sarah Palin could be an ally of Tom Coburn in the name of fiscal restraint and responsibility, that would be an immense help. She has the charisma that he lacks to publicly generate the heat to get control of spending.
I find it interesting that the banal masters of pop culture recognized her as a potential threat to the usual bread and circuses and attacked her so quickly.
-David
By , at
Thu Nov 06, 12:18:00 AM:
Palin was awful in her interview with Couric, I grant, but Couric's questions were gotchas. The quote cited above was Palin's awkward response to Couric snarkily asking about the bank bailout ... "why not just send $700B to the people." In that same time frame back in September, Treasury Secretary Paulson ... former Goldman Sachs Master of the Universe and author of the bailout ... was doing an awful job of explaining his three page plan to Congress ... which helped melt a trillion or two from our equity markets in the span of a week. The bailout itself has since morphed, and many experts still can't get their heads around it. I challenge the commenter above to answer Couric's question to Palin ... even with the benefits of hindsight and with the time to craft a careful answer ... and to do so in a soundbite.
Picking prospective Presidential talent is not unlike picking prospective NFL quarterback talent. High draft choices from big name schools often don't pan out. Low ranked prospects from places like Idaho sometimes do. Until late last year, many thought Eli Manning could never put it together ... look at him now.
Palin is a rookie in the Show ... and was jumped up to being a starter ... but she has some real talent. She is world class at "connecting." In time, she could rank with Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan at "connecting." That would top Obama ... who's good. Don't think this doesn't matter ... Gore was poor at this ... Kerry worse still. There's a reason they didn't get elected. "Connecting" is a rare skill and a critical element of political leadership.
When she was first picked I said that Palin's biggest issue would be her inexperience at working MSM. Obama's good at this obviously ... but it's one of the few things he's had to concentrate on in the last few years. Biden's great at blowing smoke up journalist's asses, but that's all he's done for 35 years ... I wouldn't trust Biden to valet park my Ford Escort, but the media gives him a pass on any hard questions. Neither Obama nor Biden has had to deal with a MSM intent on burning his ass ... at least not yet. I find that interesting and provocative.
By , at
Thu Nov 06, 07:34:00 AM:
She didn't know Africa was a continent? Whay am I not surprised? What say you know about Ms. Palin?
By , at
Thu Nov 06, 09:07:00 AM:
Do your really take as true what the ex-Bush McCain advisors are now leaking about Palin? These are statements made to the press without attribution. No one is saying these things on the record with their names attached.
They need a scapegoat to excuse that they lost.
Palin isn't dumb, but I can't tell how smart she is. If she had an Ivy League law degree these rumors wouldn't get traction.
By , at
Thu Nov 06, 09:26:00 AM:
Q: "why not just send $700B to the people."
A: "Because our financial firms, despite their recent lack of discipline, finance our economy. They provide access to capital for businesses -- large and small. This is the engine of job creation. Many of them hold deposits of individuals who depend on having a safe place to keep and grow their financial reserves. We need to stabilize our financial institutions so that they can get back to doing their essential work. Unfortunately, sending $700 B to individuals, as attractive as that may sound in the abstract, won't do this."
See, and there's not even a three-dollar word in there. And, hey, I'm a girl.
By , at
Thu Nov 06, 10:28:00 AM:
Nice job, Anonymous. You're better than Paulson.
I still stand by the following
1) I can't tell if Palin has the brains to be President, but she may and she gets high marks on other skills. I think I'm smart, but I can be inarticulate at times ... especially away from my comfort zone ... so I wouldn't want to be judged on a few gotcha questions from a snarky Katie Couric. Biden is a good example of someone who's developed polish for the MSM, but who just blows smoke. I thought Palin more than held her own in the VP debate with Biden ... so go figure.
2) I don't trust MSM to vet Palin. There's been a vitriolic smear campaign against Palin that started the day she was announced as the VP pick. It transcends party lines, as the "inside the beltway" establishment sees her a threat ... women like Couric, Noonan and Dowd especially. There's a bad high school popularity vibe going on ... the "mean girls" are attacking the new girl who moved into town from the sticks. The Bush crowd is now jumping in as they need a scapegoat to deflect attention from their own failings.
3) That's why I'm intrigued with Palin as a future candidate. I'm a small "l" libertarian. Our federal government keeps getting bigger, and we lose our liberties, and both parties are complicit in this. I expect this will only accelerate with Obama and Pelosi. In 2012 we'll need a genuine outsider running.
4) Palin is a polarizing figure right now, but this doesn't have to be. Mike Huckakbee became a politician because of his religion ... that's not the case with Palin. As far as I can tell, Palin has a record of not letting her religion get in the way of her being a pragmatic executive. This is a story line I didn't see MSM pursue. It would give Palin an ability to forge consensus among splintered Republican factions.
By , at
Thu Nov 06, 11:20:00 AM:
I think it is totally disingenuous to call Couric's questions "gotchas." Or to call her "snarky."
John McCain's campaign put this woman up as its idea of the second most qualified person to run the country.
She should have, at that point, been able to handle herself in an interview. And, as I mentioned before, be able to distinguish calls from heads of state from those of cartoon skunks. (Or at least give some indication -- in six minutes of air time -- that she knew something didn't smell right.)
I stand by my earlier assertion that Margaret Thatcher would not appreciate the comparison.
By , at
Thu Nov 06, 12:56:00 PM:
Having just elected an empty suit on a free pass this criticism of Sarah Palin as "dumb" makes me puke. Get back to me when you geniuses have worked your way to a state governorship. Then let's see you get one-thousandth of the scrutiny she has received and watch if you put a foot wrong.
By Anthony, at
Thu Nov 06, 01:11:00 PM:
By Elise, at
Thu Nov 06, 02:52:00 PM:
as I mentioned before, be able to distinguish calls from heads of state from those of cartoon skunks.
In fact, the comedians who tricked Sarah Palin have tricked a number of other people including convincing Jaques Chirac that he was talking to Stephen Harper. Yes, Palin let a lot of mistakes made by “Sarkozy” go by but what was she supposed to do? Tell the President of France that he was wrong about the name of his own advisor and other world leaders? Of course not, anymore than Chirac pointed out “Harper’s” misnaming of Canada's new ambassador to France. The comedians who do these pranks rely on the fact that people don’t expect to be lied to and so their victims assume the caller is stupid rather than malicious.
I listened to the phone call on YouTube and to me Palin sounds surprised and nervous at the beginning and kind of leery at the end. By the time the comedian gets to the “documentary” she’s definitely uncomfortable. In fact Palin sounds to me exactly like a woman who’s been cornered at an office Christmas party by her boss’ boss, has discovered he’s a total jerk, and is trying to be polite so she doesn’t destroy her own and her boss’ career path. She keeps trying to steer the conversation back to business issues, her boss’ boss keeps making stupid and inappropriate remarks, and all the time that little voice in the back of her head is saying, “How did this jerk get as far as he has and how long before I can politely ditch him and go get another drink?”
I think Palin is pretty quick at the end: “Sarkozy” tells Palin she’s been pranked by comedians from Montreal and she immediately asks which radio station he’s from. I imagine she was actually relieved at that point to discover the doofus on the phone wasn’t Sarkozy. She certainly doesn’t sound surprised.
I have to agree with Lawrence O’Donnell that Palin handled herself pretty well given the circumstances and that her staff takes the hit for this one because the staff took the call and handed the phone to Palin telling her it was Sarkozy on the line. Given this plus the clothing fiasco plus the odd handling of her appearances before the debate, I’d say O’Donnell may also be quite correct in saying that Palin’s staff was a disaster.
As far as I know, her staff was not staff she picked herself but staff that she was “assigned” by either those running the McCain campaign or by the Republican National Committee. Considering the abysmal job they did, it’s not surprising some members of the staff are now going out of their way to convince everyone that it would have been impossible for anyone to do a better job working with Palin. After all, if Palin is as stupid, ignorant, uncooperative, temperamental, and unreasonable as they claim, how could any of her staff possibly be blamed for not doing a better job with her?
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 12:09:00 PM:
Never said she was "dumb."
Do believe she was unqualified for the job and insufficiently vetted.
Am absolutely certain she is no Margaret Thatcher.
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 04:13:00 PM:
Dear Anonymous ... you did come close to literally saying Palin was dumb.
I've sensed class and gender bias in our collective reaction to Palin. I'm a guy from the Bronx who grew up working class ... but have an Ivy law degree. I'm usually the last guy to care about "bias."
I have some working class acquaintances who are very sharp ... even compared to Ivy grads ... but they wouldn't pass MSM's tests, nor yours. Lawdy, some of them never even went to college. I want to think Palin's like them.
As to qualifications, Palin's been a successful governor. She obviously could use some seasoning, but I sense potential. I can't tell how "smart" Palin is because she hasn't been handled well by McCain's staffers nor MSM. There's a disconnect between her public performances and the Couric interview. The latest leaks are despicable character assassination.
As to vetting, MSM sent an army to Wasilla. If they'd investigated Obama like that we might have learned what favors Obama did for Rezko and the Chicago machine to warrant Rezko helping Obama buy a $2.2 million mansion for $1.4 million. There had to be "quo" to go with this "quid."
Don't even get me going on Biden. Sarah did more good as the Mayor of Wasilla than Joe did in 35 years as Senate.
Link
By , at
Fri Nov 07, 06:34:00 PM:
harp on Palin because she's a key characters in the story of how the media handed the election to Obama.
The media refused to call Obama on his liberal record, and how he'd moved away so much in 2008 from things he'd been saying for a lifetime. Obama's middle class tax cut was just a way to buy votes and sets a dangerous precedent, but again the media wouldn't discuss this. Becasue of this, McCain had difficulty engaging Obama in honest debate. McCain could only try to drag Obama down personally ... he was half-hearted about it ... and the media wouldn't let him.
Had the media played it fair from the start, Hillary may well have been the nominee. Had she been, with the economic meltdown, she would have won by over 10% and carried over 45 states, and we wouldn't be worried that we'd just elected a closet socialist.
Palin was switfboated to hurt McCain, and the media played right along. Now members of her own party are doing it.
I'm intrigued with Palin because she has the potential to unite disparate factions of the Republican party, and she's far from the Beltway. I'm not religious, but respect those who are. If Palin can be a pragmatist about her religious values she could be a great unifier.
The little I know about Bobby Jindal is also intriguing. He might even be better than Palin ... there's nothing wrong with being a Rhodes Scholar, or a convert to Catholicism.
