Thanks to Morgen for his sharp response and very kind words towards myself and my fellow co-blogging members of the League of Gentlemen (though I assure you we are quite ordinary).

I agree with Morgen’s argument that Sarah Palin can not run a national campaign from Alaska so it makes sense for a number of reasons for her to roll the dice and attempt to claim territory in the now wide open leadership void within the GOP.  I also agree with his analysis of campaigns (particularly post-Obama but preceding him) as built around celebrity-hood and personality issues.  In comparison to a Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, whatever else is to be said about her, has wattage. It can be argued that the media loves to hate her, but that attitude still involves love.  By media standards a Romney or Pawlenty is a nothing-burger (again fair or unfair, that’s the harsh truth of the media-age politics).

I don’t think however that she has a strong chance of moving that personality politics movement into an elected position going forward.  So perhaps we arguing over our sense of the meaning of success/failure.  If she continues on, let’s imagine gets the GOP nomination (which I still think is a fairly outside shot), then loses (maybe big-time) to Obama, did she fail?  Did she succeed?  Did she ever really have a chance?

Whatever the answers to those question, she needs to find some concrete outlet or the same media technologies and fascination that has fueled interest in her will quickly dissipate (out beyond her core following). I doubt she will want to go for a Alaskan Congressional seat.  She could perhaps find some place on a board at a political advocacy group like American Enterprise or something.  Morgen mentions new media technologies as a possible outlet and that certainly is a possibility (maybe a talk radio show, webepisodes of political commentary, and the like, I don’t know).

Morgen is right that I did think (and continue to think) that Sarah Palin was unqualified for a job of Vice President and therefore of President.  But I don’t agree with his characterization of my position as expressing the  most “stridently liberal interpretation of these types of issues”.  On the specific Letterman point, Letterman made an awful completely out of line joke–which he himself admitted and apologized for, genuinely apologized for I believe and offered a hand for reconciliation and she came back continuing to (as I said) pick the fight.  She could have accepted his apology and appeared magnanimous.  Instead to me it showed a kind of subordination of everything to her belief in being persecuted by the media.  It became a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy and that has only left her open to more criticism which again I think hurts.

As she (in)famously said you can’t blink.  You can’t back down.  That attitude that earned her the nickname Barrucuda endears her to some, but turns her off to others she desperately needs if she ever wants to fulfill the higher ambitions for which I think she feels herself destined.  One thing to be a fighter; another to be unwilling to admit you have ever goofed.  I’m not sure it’s a guaranteed dealbreaker (few things in politics are), but on balance I believe they hurt.

For some perspective, I actually thought some of the coverage of her during the campaign (and since) has been very unfair.  I don’t think she is in anyway some special breed of specifically horrible politician.  I think of her as pretty much a normal politician in our contemporary US age:  probably a little thin-skinned, highly ambitious, not entirely clear on their governing philosophies or how to concretely effect change, and generally more interested in winning than in governing.  That might be considered a cynical view, but it’s not singling her out for special approbation.  I’ve never understood this kind of special animus towards her.  Her persona is certainly unique in it’s way, but it doesn’t strike me as fundamentally different from the rest.  In fact, I think she’s pretty normal…for a US politician.  That’s hardly the most stridently liberal position on Sarah Palin.

And to be even fairer to Sarah Palin, the fact that I thought her at the time unqualified for the job of Vice President was really a criticism of John McCain not Sarah Palin.  He picked her without it seems to me adequately having assessed her past, her person, her capacity for the job, etc.  That reflected poorly on McCain and his campaign.

Now that Sarah Palin is wanting to move out into her own, however, that political albatross is around her neck.  Protestations of unfair treatment from the media are not going to endear her long term to the kinds of people she needs to move to her side.  That kind of rhetoric I believe only appeals to those already within that politico-linguistic worldspace.  In what I will call a reverse Nixon, she’s not going have the media to kick around forever–at least in a way that will win her expanding support.

To be clear, it isn’t only the drama/potential scandal elements that float around Palin alone that hurt her image with the broader public in my mind but events like the Katie Couric interview, the “I can see Russia from my house” comment, as well as the cultural warrior stance that is the real problem for her.  Morgen I don’t think adequately responded to those criticisms, instead focusing alone on the scandal tabloidish/liberal media bias angle, usually a deflecting defensive ploy by Palin herself and her supporters.

When even Bill Kristol says that she needs to work hard studying for issues in order to win over skeptics, then you know she needs some work.  When Peggy Noonan writes this, you got problems.  Like Lucy, Sarah’s got some ’splaining (not blaming) to do.

–

Afterthought:

Re: the poll Morgen cited concerning the Upper Midwest, those numbers could support an alternate theory as well.

While it’s true conservative identification has risen slightly in those states, the analysis of that poll reads:

A plurality of residents in each of the three Upper Midwestern states view themselves as politically moderate – averaging 45.3 percent in Minnesota, 42.4 percent in Iowa, and 41.1 percent in Wisconsin during this five-year span.

My central point is that Palin has a very negative image with moderates.  We already know she has stratospheric uber-negatives among liberals. I think this negative press hurts because it can give credence to the prime vulnerability to Palin (esp. among moderates/independents):  her perceived lack of readiness.  The only bad press that really hurts is the stuff that re-confirms the negative storyline.

That fact–not the negative press itself–is what is really hurting her with the party GOP establishment.  For her to capitalize on her grassroots support will require donors, funding, and some support from the bigwigs in the party.  If this GOP uptick Morgen points to is going to be leveraged by Palin she is going to have to have some party support.  Acting in the manner she has been of late (again not even really the decision itself but the poorly, shoddily way it’s been handled) is really closing some doors she needs to stay open.

During campaigns one, sometimes two, issues/concerns/events come to override the rest and the election often becomes a ratification or nullification of various candidates’ responses to those events.  In 2008 it was the economic crisis, which McCain handled very poorly and as a result lost.

Sarah Palin will need to work on a number of issues so that when something does break in a campaign, she will be able to respond. Otherwise those moderates will remember the VP candidate who turned them off in ‘08, assuming she even gets that far.

Thank you Chris for getting this kicked off. Prior to starting this debate, I had a chance to review some of your work over at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen blog. And I must commend you and your co-bloggers for generally staying true to your moniker. (The “Gentleman” part, not the “Ordinary”). You run a very thought-provoking site with a respectful tone towards your audience and commenters. Which is a relative rarity in the blogging arena – so kudos. And on to the debate!

I guess I have to open by saying that it seems it would not be all that unreasonable for me to declare victory on the basis of your opening statement alone. For if the primary subject of this debate is whether Sarah Palin’s resignation will end, or even just be detrimental, to her political career, it seems we may be generally in agreement. I am referring of course to the fact that you seem to have readily conceded that she will continue to be a major factor in conservative politics moving forward, and in fact go so far as to say that you could see her “making a serious run (maybe even winning) the GOP nomination”. (Granted, you qualified this statement by saying “with luck” you could see her doing so).

Of course you also seem to indicate by your statements that you personally feel she is unqualified for office at a national level. While you are certainly entitled to hold this opinion, and are one of many who do so, I would like to take issue with a couple of the statements you made in relation to this.

In particular, I take exception to your statement that the “demographic population of [Palin's] base is shrinking”. Recent poll results indicate that this is clearly not the case. For example, there is this recent analysis of poll results in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin which demonstrates that there has been a significant upswing in conservatism in these states over the past 2 years. I think this sampling is very significant as these are all states which Obama handily won, yet also represent the type of middle America sort of states where Palin is likely to have the broadest appeal.  And furthermore, at a national level this Gallup poll from just last month clearly demonstrates that far from being on the wane, the self-identification of voters as “conservative” is in the midst of a significant upswing. A trend which I think will only be accelerated by the failed policies and massive deficit spending of the Obama Administration.

I also think you greatly overstate the impact Palin’s various personal “scandals” have had on the broader electorate’s perception of her. To a large extent these scandals have been generated and/or perpetuated by the tabloid-like media focus on her and her family. A reader need look no further than your comment that Palin was “picking fights with David Letterman” to pick up on the biased angle in which you have personally evaluated these events. Letterman was completely out of order in his comments about Palin’s daughter, and what mother of any decency would not take issue with this…much less a public figure of Palin’s stature. Frankly, I find it somewhere between surprising and disappointing that you seem to have adopted the most stridently liberal interpretation of these types of issues surrounding Palin. (Although far from the blatantly dishonest and insane level of fixation that someone like Andrew Sullivan has demonstrated). I am confident that the average non-partisan, American voter has a far more balanced impression of Palin, and sees most of these faux-controversies as the tabloid fodder they are.

(I believe recent poll data from after Palin’s resignation was announced corroborates this claim, but in the interest of moving this discussion along I will save a look at this for a future post.)

Let me quickly run through what I think is the most significant point regarding Palin’s resignation, and the impact it will have on her career going forward. First of all, I do not believe stepping down as Governor of AK was a calculated move on her part to further her political career. However, as I noted in my post on this topic at Verum Serum, I do think that her resignation will ultimately prove to have been a good move towards this end. (If a national political career of some sort is her objective, which certainly seems to be the case.) The reason is simple. The dynamics of national level politics are changing rapidly, with the concentration of power, influence, and money shifting from national party structures to focused, popularity-based campaigns centered around individual candidates and issues-based groups. (I called this the “era of politician as celebrity” on my blog). The proliferation of internet access/usage and the advent of social networking tools such as Facebook, Twitter, etc. has hastened this along, and frankly I think we are still in the relatively early stages of this revolution. In other words, the success of the Obama campaign was only a preview of the impact this celebrity-based approach and use of internet technology will have going forward.

Sticking around governing the State of AK (which most in the Lower 48 pay no attention to), while dealing with an endless stream of frivolous ethical complaints, and unfair personal attacks on her and her family, would have afforded Palin very little time and energy to further advance her agenda and base of support amongst a broader national audience. While personally I think it may be best for her to get out of the spotlight for a while, and remove herself from the line of fire (including “friendly” fire), she will now have plenty of time to regain the enthusiasm and sense of purpose which attracted so many to her to begin with. And in the process I believe she can get a head start on leveraging all the new media technologies to expound on her vision/agenda and expand her base of support.

I am in full agreement with Chris that it will be key for Palin to do so in order to be a serious candidate for national office in 2012…or 2016. However, as noted above, we seem to have some serious disagreements about the challenges she may face in the process. But what fun would a debate be without some disagreement? Personally, I think Sarah Palin has an incredible future ahead of her. She is a rare talent who possesses the combination of character and ability necessary to inspire and garner support amongst a diverse group of Americans. And there is no question that if it’s her desire to do so, she will be a significant factor in conservative politics and the movement at large going forward.

This is a very difficult topic to discuss.  Sarah Palin evokes all kinds of reactions from all sides of the political spectrum. Most of which (in my mind) not of the calm reasoned well-thought out variety–either in favor or opposed.

Furthermore it’s challenging to discuss the question of her future political career (or lack thereof)  post-resignation because we frankly still don’t know why exactly she resigned and/or what she is aiming to do as she leaves the Governor’s office.  There are many hypotheses as to why she resigned, but no one really knows for sure. At this point it’s all very much speculation.

In addition, there is no way anyone can know either way how this will all turn out.  The future is not already written on this one.  It’s open to all kinds of choices yet to be made as well potential outside events that could affect how this develops.  What I do know is that however it plays out for Sarah Palin, pundits will deploy 20/20 hindsight ‘it was all inevitable’ reason to argue that her downfall (or potential comeback) was set in stone.  That this decision was either the biggest bonehead move ever or the cagiest most genius political maneuver ever.

With that said, allow me to speculate. 

The only thing it seems to me we do know with certainty is what Palin has said concerning her intentions.  Namely that she desires to speak to the issues that matter to her: limited government, strong defense/security, and energy independence.  She would like I think to be a central figure in the upcoming 2010 midterm elections, campaigning on behalf of GOP candidates, using that as forum to test the waters for a possible 2012 run and establish herself as the de facto leading voice/head of the GOP.

And this is where I think the execution of her decision–if not the decision itself–has been really destructive to any future plans she has.  Word is out that a number of GOP candidates in swing districts would like her to stay home–or at least campaign for somebody else.  We know Sarah Palin is very popular with the right-wing base of the Republican Party.  But she has burned bridges (to nowhere?) with a large swath of centrists and independents.

The longer she is in the news picking fights with David Letterman, having the father of her grandchild speak to the media, seen to have forced her daughter into reversing her position on abstinence teaching, the more tabloid/reality TV-like the family drama continues to be, the more this really hurts her across the board except in the minds of those who are already on her side. For them, this is just proof of liberal media bias and a campaign to discredit Sarah Palin because she represents the true voice of ‘real’ America.

She doesn’t need to convince that latter group however.  She needs the former to be more open to her, and this kind of stuff is corrosive to her political image in the minds of those she most needs to persuade.

If Republicans in swing districts fear her polarizing tendencies, where does she go from here?  She wants to run (I think) an insurgent campaign for the 2012 GOP nomination.  She has no choice really.  The GOP party establishment has largely abandoned her and would like to see her go away (preferably quietly).  I think she is trying to re-run her somewhat improbable victory in the Alaska Governor’s Race. She starts with a fairly small, ultra-loyal, right-wing base and then uses that as a launchpad to run as a more moderate/centrist reformer/good governance figure in the general election.

However in that case, she was a political newcomer to much of the State.  She is now extremely well known–or more importantly people think they know her and have formed strong images/perceptions of her.  She evokes strong reactions on both sides which explains both her high favorability ratings within the party and her high unfavorability ratings outside the GOP base.

Three years is a near eternity in our contemporary 24/7 cable news political cycle.  Nevertheless, strong gut opinions formed on a candidate tend to stick.  And her rambling quasi-incoherent slapdash speech at her press conference announcing her resignation, her followup bizarre less than grammatically precise Tweets, etc. all play into the negative image of her as unprepared and un-reflective.  Contrary to some consenus views, I don’t think the charge of being a quitter is the one Palin really has to worry about, but rather the charge that she can’t hack it when  the pressure is on.   To that end, Mike Huckabee, her prime rival for the social conservative vote, came out and said she might not be able to handle the pressure–implying without saying that she is unbalanced.  That’s a brutal label she does not want sticking to her.  Especially if she were to ever run against the ultra-calm, ultra-cool Obama.

Still even with her big following in the GOP base, the GOP nomination process will work against her.  It will work against an insurgent candidacy.  Obama’s insurgent campaign, was both brilliantly conceived and the beneficiary of A)Hillary Clinton’s poor campaign strategy and B)The Democratic nominating process.  [Remember the GOP nomination process is winner take all (not proportional delegates as Democrats do].  I have to think that most of the GOP candidates we imagine running in 2012 (e.g. Huckabee, Romney) ran last time and will have learned those lessons.  If she can not get some early wins she will sink like lead.

Lastly and perhaps most distressingly for her chances, the demographic population of her base is shrinking.  Obama won in 2008 by offering an alternative vision for 21st century–it was on display at the Democratic Convention in Denver.  It was multi-racial, multi-ethnic, it was young, old, crossed class lines.  How will Sarah Palin expand beyond her base on the national level? What does Sarah represent as a future vision?  A throwback to a nostalgic imagined past of small town ‘real’  America?

At their absolute worst her campaigns during the 2008 election evoked extremely nasty protestations against “them”, “the others”.  If she were to run for President, those would only be even more magnified by the national media.

Not only does Sarah Palin add fuel to the fire of the culture wars (with her stances on abortion and so forth) but also stokes a potential racial/ethnic divide.  The US writ-large is not Alaska.  The country is trending Democratic and to overcome that built-in advantage, she (any Republican actually) will have to overcome.  Her Nixonian crusade against the elites may not have the pull it once did.  We’ll see–maybe there’s a silent majority out there for her.   I’m quite skeptical.

She will have to thread the needle of stoking her base without stoking fires.  This is the media age. All politics occurs through the medium of medias.  Any such outbursts, whether fairly or unfairly will really hurt her chances.  Such negative videos, confirming negative stereotypes, would only further and further alienate and turn other voters outside her base against her.

I could see her with some luck potentially making a serious run (maybe even winning) the GOP nomination.  But I don’t see any way she can win out in a larger setting.  If the 2012 election is going to be a referendum on President Obama’s first term–as re-election campaigns usually are–and let’s imagine things are going very badly for the country and for him politically at that point, a Sarah Palin nomination takes the focus off turning down Obama for re-election and puts it squarely back on Sarah herself and perceptions about her readiness (mentally especially) for the job.

That is needless to say, a lot to ask.  And given her stormy political career so far and the unimaginable pressure of a national campaign in this age, I don’t see how it happens.  Do we imagine that all the same kinds of problems–political infighting, gut decisions made before thinking through the ramifications or how to proceed with the decision, lacking a real clear policy agenda, and a perceived lack of interest in world events–is going to do anything but be magnified by a factor of 100 in a national campaign?

She would really need to convince a large swath of very skeptical/pretty much already made up their minds voters, that she has changed…that she has boned up on world events, that she has a sense of perspective on the various different strands that make up America (and all of them rightly being considered American, hers being but one version thereof), and a whole host of other things.

It’s a tall order. A very tall order.