Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 10/28/2008 7:29 am

Sarah Palin for President in 2012?

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© Getty Images

There’s more than just a few rumors out there that conservatives and Sarah Palin fans are planning for a Sarah Palin Presidential run in 2012.  The thinking among these "Saranistas" is, if McCain loses this year’s election, Palin not only could emerge as the party’s 2012 nominee, but she could be the GOP’s next Ronald Reagan.

In fact, one Republican even called Palin "the new Ronald Reagan."

There’s also a grassroots effort cropping up on the Web to put Palin in the White House in 2012.

A Google search of "Sarah Palin for president" turns up pages of results. Many sites like Palintology.com and palinforpresidentblog.com are championing her candidacy, and there are even some YouTube "ads" out there promoting her 2012 candidacy.

Among the chattering class, the positioning of Sarah as the Republican Party’s standard bearer for the future has already started:

"Win or lose, there is a ready-made conservative candidate waiting in the wings. Sarah Palin is not the new Iain Duncan Smith, she is the new Ronald Reagan," Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, told the U.K.’s Sunday Telegraph

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, has said Palin isn’t ready to be president now or then, but he still acknowledged that she likely could be the nominee four years from now. Palin "emerges from this election as the probable frontrunner for the 2012 nomination," he told the Telegraph. "Her supporters vastly outnumber her critics. But it will be extremely difficult for her to win the presidency."

Frum also told New York magazine in an article for this week’s issue that, "The people who criticize her do so because we have some hope that we could be in contention in 2012, and there’s some risk that she could be the party’s nominee, and she’d probably lose – and even if by some miracle she won, she’d be a terrible president."

Not everyone is so pessimistic about her chances, however.

One key Republican promoting a Palin run in 2012 tells USA Today: "As of today, Palin is the top contender. She clearly has the potential to be a winning top-of-the-ticket candidate: solid character, solid values, fire in the belly, etc. But four years is a long time. Neither [Mitt] Romney, [Mike] Huckabee, or others have the complete package. If Palin spends a bit more time traveling overseas and domestically, broadening her horizons, and wins re-election in Alaska in 2010, she will be the nominee in 2012."

Greg Mueller, who was a senior aide in the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes, told Politico that if John McCain loses the general election to Barack Obama next week, Palin "has absolutely earned a right to run in 2012." He said Palin has given conservatives "hope" and "something to believe in."

But even if McCain only serves one term – Palin could also try for her own bid. By then, she would have had four years of experience as a vice president and would be much more knowledgeable of not just Washington, but the world. If McCain loses, Palin could win re-election in Alaska, raise her national profile by, perhaps, take a leadership position in the Republican Governors Association or the National Governors Association, and better prepare herself in the next four years.

Palin is now trying to break free of her campaign handlers’ constraints that have restricted what she talks about, when, and to whom, since McCain announced his vice presidential pick. Even one McCain insider said the Alaska governor is "playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party.”

Palin has repeatedly stated that she would be more aggressive in making the case against Obama that the McCain campaign has – which has made many conservatives who say McCain has been too soft on Obama even more wild about her future role in the party - while she’s also distanced herself from campaign tactics such as robocalls.

One National Review post written after Palin’s much-anticipated debate against Sen. Joe Biden, said: "She’s a natural saleswoman. She certainly saved her prospects for national office in 2012, if she so chooses. She certainly, my guess is, reenergized the GOP base and independents, centrists, and undecided, if they’re honest with themselves, will conclude that they witnessed an impressive woman tonight."



234 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Tee Zee
Best wishes to the new Mrs. Hardy!
By Tee Zee on 10/28/2008 10:02 pm
eleanor roche
Dear CO—I’ll add my congrats as well—hope you have many, many happy years as Mrs. Hardy!!!
By eleanor roche on 10/29/2008 6:10 pm
gulliver fourmyle
we’ve been a totalitarian state from Lincoln on—-Kucinich seems the only sane one around—-the war on drugs? a fraud to fill prisons—-and ya think DEA agents aren’t rolling in loot? meanwhile, the blitz on ‘home-growers’ is intense—-obviously only fostering importation, that feeds DEA crooks, a rotten prison system, and the ‘outside’ cartels—-what madness!—-as for communism? you are so wrong on that—-fascism? yeah—-opposite of ‘commie’—-but kudos on Mr. K.—-best of the bunch—-Obama’s a good second, and ‘do-able’—-‘Sing the War Song’ for him—-
By gulliver fourmyle on 10/28/2008 9:49 pm
Frannie Em
yada yada yada
By Frannie Em on 10/28/2008 11:24 pm
Tee Zee
I agree Sarah Palin isn’t fit now or ever to be president of anything. I’m ashamed of such a divisive personality who can’t answer questions of what she reads or believes in is so easily spewing such vile as truth can be considered a leader of any type. I would not follow her lead walking a dog.
By Tee Zee on 10/28/2008 9:45 am
Ms. Dee
Y’know what? They still have buildings named after Wendell Willkie here and there around the country. Most people don’t know why. I, for one, sincerely hope the absence of Sarah Palin will be a big part of the change we experience in the next four years. She’s a worn out model of womanhood, in my opinion.
By Ms. Dee on 10/28/2008 9:50 am
John G
Well, it appears we’ve finally hit rock bottom… 100% SEX APPEAL is the only requirement to be president of the United States… chirstallmighty!
By John G on 10/28/2008 10:29 am
Marjorie C.
John G What do think caused that tingle up Chris Matthews leg?
By Marjorie C. on 10/28/2008 12:02 pm
Frannie Em
Marjorie LOL. I wondered how he kept his job after that. I heard an interview of a female journalist, a democrat, who was at a political speech back in January, and she said that to describe these journalists, not Op Ed writers, but journalists talking about Obama, she said to describe it as swooning, was putting it lightly. The bias from the beginning has been appalling. Anyway, sorry, but I don’t think Palin is another Reagan, Palin is Palin, she can stand on her own. Nor do I think, after Biden’s gaffe of Obama “being tested” just like John Kennedy, I don’t think Obama is another Pres Kennedy. Obama is Obama and can stand on his own. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=3 Here is an interesting article I think you will like.
By Frannie Em on 10/28/2008 2:43 pm
Marjorie C.
Frannie Em, Thanks for pointing towards the abc article. I’m surprised abc admits to the bias, although if I suspect they are doing so only to potentially help their ratings. Of course, it’s a little late and damage has been done. From the article: (Dems) are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press. This I find a quite laughable. The Dems sure took a long time to feel remorse (which I don’t believe for one minute they do). They just don’t want to possibly face an angry electorate, should the Dems win. The 45% who will vote for McCain will always suspect the Dem. candidate, and he’ll end up in the same place as GWBush finds himself, today. I agree with you, Palin is her own person and not a bit like Reagan, likewise Obama is not JFK.
By Marjorie C. on 10/28/2008 3:15 pm
Frannie Em
Marjorie Here is another article by Politico that talks about bias. Maybe they are all just covering themselves, malpractice insurance or something like that. Covering themselves so that when the public finally takes them to task they can shrug and say, “we told you so.” One of the reasons I have resisted Obama is because of the incredible bias in the news, first with Hillary, and now with McCain. I always liked Politico because they were pretty bipartisan, but not anymore. They have examined themselves and gave a lot of excuses. Don’t they know what this does for the transparency in our political process? It destroys it. They are destroying their own industry because people are not taking them seriously. Wall Street destroyed itself and now the media is destroying itself. Maybe that is the only way we get transparency and a few honest facts. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14982.html
By Frannie Em on 10/28/2008 5:42 pm
Marjorie C.
Frannie Em: Politico To me, Politico has been right up there among the worst in their biased reporting, first with Hillary and now McCain. Clearly they were being financially supported by the Obama group — that’s the only thing that made any sense. The influx of cash at a time when print media is struggling to continue, has altered their perspective. The article you mention hasn’t changed my mind. They are destroying their own industry because people are not taking them seriously. Exactly. The Dems have bought this election in many ways… we’ll see how long the winning streak lasts. I still think, if Obama wins, we’ll have four more years of a puppet and his handlers. I truly have no confidence in Obama as a leader. Not at all.
By Marjorie C. on 10/29/2008 6:48 am
Frannie Em
Marjorie Come to think about it, I think you are correct about Politico. I used to go there more, and I think I was so used to everyone being negative about Hillary, that I didn’t zero in so much. I used to go there to check up on congress and the lobbies. I didn’t always read the headlines. If you go to the politico website there is almost always an Obama ad, so maybe that is why they have given him somewhat of a pass. Or is it that people are so bored of their own lives they need someone else they think can change them, instead of having to do it for themselves? I don’t have any confidence in Obama’s economic policies. They are based on mathematical formulas, just like the risk figuring for loans made by fannie and freddie that contributed to bringing down the financial markets. Greed was the motivation but fannie and freddie were the tools. Franklin Raines - the ceo of fannie who made $90million while fannie and freddie lost $9billion is (or was) an informal financial advisor to Obama. If it had been the other side, that would have been one of the biggest scandals of the decade. One or two stories may come out, but are essentially ignored. It is easier to blame things on the republicans. The republicans deserve a lot of criticism for many things, but people should not let that blind them from terrible behavior by some democrats. Although, I guess that is why there are more and more Independents.
By Frannie Em on 10/30/2008 12:15 pm
Brooklyn Gal
Frannie, While I agree with you about the bias, I do not agree based on that, it is a good idea to resist a candidate. Other TV and media outlets have attacked Obama daily. However, when a majoriity of newspapers that always backed Republicans now endorse Obama, I wouldn’t call that bias. I would call that objective.
By Brooklyn Gal on 10/29/2008 9:57 am
Marjorie C.
Carol L: I would call that objective. Of course you would.
By Marjorie C. on 10/29/2008 12:27 pm