The Sage of Wasilla is back in the news...oh, who am I kidding? She's always in the news. From last week, there's the estimates that she's made around $12M since leaving office...I sure hope she's using serious professional help to handle the taxes on that. I don't think it's in her nature to be a deliberate crook, but I totally would be concerned that she could wind up like some of those sports figures who come into serious money and don't know how to handle it. At any rate, it's nice that her self-interest now corresponds to her issue positions: no dupe of the wealthy she!
Meanwhile, (also) via Goddard comes today's news. Remember that flap about the Democrats she targeted with what some considered overly literal targets (yeah, I thought it was a stretch of a complaint, too)? Well, it turns out that Palin's PAC didn't give any money at all to the candidates in those races. She did give some donations to candidates, but in all under $10K, compared to her $400K in PAC receipts in first quarter 2010, and $900K cash-in-hand.
Mostly, SarahPAC is a windfall, Politics Daily's Sandra Fish reports, for political consultants, who received about $250K over the first three months of the year. Nice work if you can get it! Political consultants are known to consider self-funding candidates to be pigeons ripe for the plucking; I suspect that SarahPAC is much the same. The requisite fun detail (from Fish -- good reporting) is that she spend more on de-icing private planes for travel than she did on candidate contributions...gee, I do hope SarahPAC has good lawyers who are making sure that it's not just a slush fund for Palin's personal enrichment. Or, you know, if it is, that it isn't in any legal jeopardy for being a slush fund for Palin's personal enrichment. Fortunately, it's perfectly legal to run a PAC that's a slush fund for political consultants.
For a normal candidate in a healthy party, Palin's cashing in would be a pretty strong indication that she will ultimately pull back from contesting the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2012. Since neither applies, here, I recommend Andrew Sullivan's comments; he thinks she's a formidable candidate for the nomination (see also Chris Bowers). I'm not convinced, but I also disagree with those who count her completely out. Party leaders, whatever their ideological positions, would have to be nuts or completely cut off from reality to allow her to walk away with the nomination -- but of course there's a serious debate on whether that's the case (the latter, not the former). And as I've said Palin is an excellent test. Meanwhile, most people who wanted to be president would hesitate to wring every dollar out of their celebrity, but I think we all know that Palin isn't most people.
One thing on which I am certain: the Boston Herald's fantasies notwithstanding, there's no way that any GOP nominee would voluntarily put Sarah Palin on the bottom half of the ticket. Fool me once, Dr. Crane, indeed.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Last election cycle people were saying 'don't count Giuliani out'.
ReplyDeleteI won't be surprised if Palin, like Giuliani, fails to win a single primary or caucus. At most she may do about as well as Huckabee did last time, if Huckabee himself doesn't run.
I don't understand why people seem to think Palin would make more money by not running. Is she going to 'write' a book about sitting out the primaries? Would it sell better than the one blaming the loss on everyone but her, and especially the 'lamestream media'?
David,
ReplyDeleteShe's not similar to Giuliani, though. He was pro-choice, and had other issue position problems...she has no such problems. He was up against the Iron Rule of Politics that NYC Mayor is a dead-end job; she's a former Veep nominee. I don't think that makes her a shoe-in by any means, but it makes it plausible in a way that Giuliani wasn't.
As for making money...presumably, she would have to give up plenty of big $$ appearances if she was out campaigning. And it's risky; if she does get blown out -- which probably involves Republicans taking shots at her -- maybe her crowd sticks with her, but maybe it doesn't. OTOH, if she doesn't run, she risks being old news. I have no idea which is better.
Polls of Republicans -- even Tea Partiers -- show that most don't see her as as qualified for the presidency. She also polls against Obama significantly worse than other potential GOP candidates. Given that both elites and primary voters seem to care about electability, the obstacles to her nomination seem pretty formidable.
ReplyDeleteMostly, she seems to be pursuing a career as a full-time political celebrity.
I definitely lean toward thinking she has a good chance of being nominated. The elephant in the room is that she's the GOP's biggest star in a long, long time. In that (limited) sense, thinking she is unlikely to be nominated demonstrates a shortsightedness similar to that of the many commentators who once thought Obama had no serious shot at the Democratic nomination.
ReplyDeleteThough her polling is bad, Palin's defenders have a habit of dismissing the importance of polls. There is one candidate in the past who had just that quality: Barry Goldwater. If she is nominated, it will have to be in a Goldwater type of year. That is, the Republicans are much more likely to nominate her if they think they don't have much of a chance of winning.
Jonathan Bernstein:
ReplyDeleteShe's not similar to Giuliani, though.
I disagree. Palin is similar to Giuliani, on a level of abstraction a bit higher than you are looking at.
Giuliani's problems were with issues. Palin's are with gravitas and electability. The problem sets are different in kind, but in my opinion equally severe.
I think NYC Mayor beats half-term quitter. When was the last time a failed VP candidate got the presidential nomination in the next cycle? Bob Dole served twenty years in the Senate between his VP nomination (1976) and his presidential nomination (1996).
Google 'Sarah Palin 2012 - 2014 1/2' and you'll find posters, T-shirts, and bumper stickers.
>I think NYC Mayor beats half-term quitter. When was the last time a failed VP candidate got the presidential nomination in the next cycle?
ReplyDeleteWhen was the last time a former mayor with no higher offices in his resume got the presidential nomination?
Like...never?
The point is, you can't judge based on what hasn't happened yet, when the current situation is unique. Edwards, Lieberman, Quayle, Kemp, and other failed vp candidates couldn't get their party's nomination for president, but none of them were big stars like Palin has become. And as I said, her electability problems may not be such a hindrance if the GOP sees little chance of winning in 2012 anyway. There's a tradition of the opposing party nominating someone unelectable (Goldwater, McGovern, etc.) in shoe-in reelection years.
Jonathan Bernstein:
ReplyDeleteAs for making money...presumably, she would have to give up plenty of big $$ appearances if she was out campaigning.
I think most of the fabled 'excitement' around Palin is fueled by one core idea: the fantasy of President Palin naming the fifth justice for overturning Roe v. Wade. The moment she admits to giving up on the presidency, her bubble pops. I don't doubt she could still draw crowds and get substantial speaking fees, but I would think at a much lower level.
If Palin runs in the 2012 primaries, she will have a good chance of keeping the circus going for another four years, and at the very least get material for another book.
On what she needs to do to maximize her earnings...I think we're all just speculating, here. I'll stick to what I said, but David T. could be right.
ReplyDeleteOn her chances at the nomination...
I think David T. is wrong to just say that she has weaknesses, Rudy had weaknesses, so she has no chance. A pro-choice position isn't a weakness; it's an absolute disqualification for the GOP nomination. Her lack of experience is a weakness. Her poor reputation is a weakness. Her terrible polling numbers is a weakness. I do think that the enthusiasm of her supporters is a strength. Now, what we need to know is (1) can she add strengths and work on the weaknesses over the next couple years (so far, I'm not seeing much), and (2) what are the strengths and weaknesses of the rest of the field? Here, I think Kylopod is headed in the right direction: if the nomination isn't worth much, the strongest candidates may not run, and (if she stays in) that helps her.
As far as her paper qualifications: no, losing VP candidate hasn't been a great path to winning, but it is a good path to getting Taken Seriously (Muskie and Dole are the examples, and even Shriver managed to have a bit of a presidential campaign). It's a plus. I think Richard S. is probably correct...but more because I find it hard to picture her doing the sorts of things that it takes to win the nomination, not because people don't think she's qualified. Even now, there's plenty of time for her to improve that dramatically, if she wanted to.
Last thing -- David T. -- I'm willing to bet heavily that practically no one buying junk that mocks Palin is a potential GOP voter in the Iowa caucuses or the NH primary, which makes that stuff mostly irrelevant.
I think John McCain only became interested in Sarah Palin after he knew his opponent was Barack Obama. And in every conceivable way Palin's appeal is as nothing more than an anti-Obama: white, female, anything-but-elite, anything-but-intellectual, fundamentalist-not-nuanced, focused only on the short game, willing to say/do anything for the next news cycle.
ReplyDeleteI can't see her running in 2012. If Obama's popularity recovers in 2011 she won't have any traction, and if it declines further the Republicans will be queuing up to stand against him.
>I think John McCain only became interested in Sarah Palin after he knew his opponent was Barack Obama
ReplyDeleteThe inside reports have told a somewhat different story. Palin was discovered by activists in 2007 when they were looking for an anti-Hillary, and was since promoted as a vp candidate, msot prominently by William Kristol. McCain had wanted Lieberman for veep, but was talked out of it. Palin (whom McCain had only spoken with once or twice) was less of a McCain choice than a Republican choice that was thrust upon him, though he grabbed it eagerly, figuring it was his only shot at changing the dynamic of a race where he seemed headed for defeat.
In case you haven't seen this yet
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/apr/20/sarahpalin-christian-nation
The underlying problem with Palin's perspective:she's un-American!!
You are missing a K. Should be $400K
ReplyDelete>>>
She did give some donations to candidates, but in all under $10K, compared to her $400 in PAC receipts in first quarter 2010, and $900K cash-in-hand.
>>>
eConsultant:
ReplyDeleteThanks! Corrected.
Jonathan Bernstein:
ReplyDeleteA pro-choice position isn't a weakness; it's an absolute disqualification for the GOP nomination.
That may be so. But lack of gravitas, if severe enough, may also be an absolute disqualification. In Palin's case I believe it is.
I don't think Palin is underestimated. On the contrary, even her critics often overestimate her. I'm amazed that so many Palin critics concede that she is an 'expert' on energy.
Listen to Palin talk about energy, and it's obvious she is as out of her depth as on any other topic. Her 'expertise' is a handful of statistics that mostly turn out to be bogus.
I hear Iowa and New Hampshire voters take pride in exercising their unusual opportunity to examine presidential candidates closely. I don't think they're going to be impressed when Palin insists on taking only pre-screened questions. But dropping that requirement could make things even worse for her.
I'm willing to bet heavily that practically no one buying junk that mocks Palin is a potential GOP voter in the Iowa caucuses or the NH primary . . .
I'd take that bet.
Richard Skinner has already alluded to polls on Palin's qualifications. Even among self-identified conservatives and Tea Partiers, majorities aren't convinced she is qualified and pluralities are convinced she isn't.
I read an article yesterday arguing that the Tea Party movement is split between Palinites and Paulistas. (I'm in the latter camp myself.)