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

DeBúrca obj
No… I meant the next 16 years could be the Golden Age of the US… 8 years of Barack followed by 8 years of Hillary!
By DeBúrca obj on 10/28/2008 4:30 pm
mary lou s
frannie em, i’m with you. hillary’s chance was 2008. she will be senator but eschew running for president hereafter due to age. i also thought barack should gather experience for eight years. 2008 + 4 = 2012.
By mary lou s on 10/28/2008 11:06 pm
Star Lawrence
Eight years? You better be back in eight minutes—you will be ‘splaining all the way along if Sen Obama gets elected!
By Star Lawrence on 10/31/2008 10:22 am
Marjorie C.
Joan, I voted for Hillary in the primaries, but if she were to run against Gov. Palin, I would vote for Gov. Palin. In a matchup, I sincerely think Hillary would have a battle on her hands. In another four years, Sarah Palin will have learned an awful lot.
By Marjorie C. on 10/28/2008 2:50 pm
Frannie Em
Marjorie, Are they talking about 2012 because they already believe Obama has won? I think the repubs need to clear a few things up.
By Frannie Em on 10/28/2008 3:06 pm
Marjorie C.
Frannie Em, The way I see it… A McCain win: The guy will be 76 or so in 2012. I can envision that he might make it a one-term run and hand it over to his V.P. Hence, Hillary vs Palin, if the Dems would allow Clinton to be the nominee. Obama might run again, himself. An Obama win: Possibly Palin would try for the Republican nomination on her own in 2012. Hillary wouldn’t be involved, and in 2016, I think she’d be out of the running due to her age. Unfair, but when women are involved there is a lot of unfairness. Of course, the Dems think they’ve won, they have the inauguration speech already written, haven’t they? Can’t let that good speechwriting go to waste. LOL. McCain’s closing in though as the undecideds decide, so it’s still not a done deal.
By Marjorie C. on 10/28/2008 3:40 pm
DeBúrca obj
Don’t worry, if Obama wins (and it’s looking good as long as there are no ‘hanging chad’ problems), you get to enjoy the next 8 years along with the rest of us! Because he won’t govern in the same partisan manner that Bush did. Obama will govern as President of the US, unlike Bush who spent the last 8 years giving campaign speeches and governing as though he were merely President of the GOP.
By DeBúrca obj on 10/28/2008 4:39 pm
Frannie Em
DeBurca He won’t govern the way Bush governed. You have got to be kidding. With the secrecy surrounding what goes on in his campaign, just like Bush’s campaign. Not doing interviews, although he is the frontrunner, and Bush was behind in his election, so wouldn’t do interviews. Everything Obama has done is very partisan, because it is your party, you are not able to see it. Obama may say there is only one America, but he doesn’t believe it, why would he have stayed in Rev Wright’s church for 20 years? If he believed there is one America, why does he believe it necessary to take from some and give to others? Do you honestly believe that after what has happened to our economy, he is going to be able to lower taxes? NO WAY is that going to happen. If it does we will be in worse trouble. There will be less tax revenue for the gov to pay for the bailout. The bailout is borrowed from future budgets. Clinton said he wanted to lower taxes, got in and had to raise taxes in the beginning, and then he lowered them. I didn’t like it, but it worked to get the economy back on straight. He also came in as Bush 1’s tax increases were filling the coffers. The budget didn’t get balanced until the Contract for America. That took hold because Clinton was struggling and low in the polls. If he is so sure that he could work in a bi-partisan way, instead of overtaxing one group, who, by the way already pays more than lower income taxpayers, why doesn’t he really work hard and find another way to bring jobs back to the US, instead of making one group of citizens pay for a government’s mistake (NAFTA Clinton and Gore pushed that) that let the jobs disappear? Isn’t he taking the easy way out by not having to come up with a definitive way to bring jobs back to the US. OH, was it all those corporations that gave him money that he has to answer to? They want cheap labor, so don’t change the status quo? It is like everyone has swallowed a big fantasy pill. The campaigns present whatever illusion they think the American public will accept.
By Frannie Em on 10/28/2008 5:17 pm
DeBúrca obj
NOT doing interviews? For God’s sake the guy even let O’Reilly interview him! There is no secrecy, just GOP spin… keep saying you don’t know the answer to some question… he answers the question… don’t accept his answer and repeat the process. There is nothing secret about Obama or his campaign and he has been interviewed up the ying yang.
By DeBúrca obj on 10/28/2008 8:45 pm
Frannie Em
Deburca Not anymore. They haven’t given an real interview in a long time. What do you know about his campaign? What do you know about his advisors? There are some we know, but they keep pretty tight lips about the campaign. I am not criticizing. I guess it is what they believe they have to do. Actually, I don’t blame them, but it is what Rove did re: Pres Bush campaign. He has taken plays from both the Pres Clinton and the Pres Bush book. Those were both winning campaigns.
By Frannie Em on 10/28/2008 10:51 pm
DeBúrca obj
I couldn’t disagree with you more, but I suppose that is why I voted yesterday for Obama and you will be voting for McCain.
By DeBúrca obj on 10/29/2008 8:07 am
DeBúrca obj
Also, turning the tax rates back to Clinton era rates is not “over taxing one group” no matter how many times the GOP repeats that claim.
By DeBúrca obj on 10/28/2008 8:47 pm
Frannie Em
DeBurca Were you living here or in Ireland at the time? I felt very overtaxed.
By Frannie Em on 10/28/2008 11:31 pm
DeBúrca obj
No, I was living here experiencing the good years of Clinton… now people can’t sleep at night because of the shape this country and this world is in. And as far as the wealthy pay most of the taxes, that is BS. The wealthy are controlling MOST of the wealth in this country and paying a much smaller percentage in taxes. The fact that the whole rest of the 95% put together pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes yet the actually monetary amount is LESS than the top 2%… only shows is how little the rest of us have to divide amongst ourselves and how the wealth has been systematically redistributed to the very top. Check this out, and if you are really interested you can google Ralph Nader and “distribution of wealth” and read more: Comrade Obama? The Right’s “Wealth Redistribution” Straw Man In attempting to persuade voters that Obama is not American enough to be president, the right has renewed charges that he is a socialist in sheep’s clothing. Their newest claim that an Obama presidency would usher in an era of “wealth redistribution” seems a thinly veiled attempt to associate Obama with history’s socialist revolutionaries and communist dictators. But before you start worrying that Obama will take your money and impose socialist redistribution mandates, it’s worth taking a moment to scrutinize the basis for the right’s hackneyed accusations. According to an analysis by the technically non-partisan Tax Foundation, which has been called out in the past for propagating misleading information, Obama’s income-tax plan would “redistribute more than $131 billion per year from the top 1% of taxpayers to all other taxpayers.” They conclude by asking if such policies were enacted, what would be the “consequences for our democratic system”?—a not-so-subtle insinuation that an Obama presidency could be ruinous for America’s cherished democracy. Similarly, an op-ed in this week’s Wall Street Journal asserts that IRS data due out in a few weeks will likely show that “the richest 1% of tax filers will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden.” The WSJ argues that unfair tax increases on the wealthy will dampen economic growth as it leads to “reduced work and investment,” and the “redeployment of money into tax shelters” (something McCain adviser Phil Gramm may know something about). Yet, upon closer inspection, these analyses prove deceptive. “Focusing on income taxes alone is cheating,” explains UT economics professor James K. Galbraith, a featured writer in our current issue and author of the upcoming book The Predator State. “The very rich shoulder a very small proportion of the payroll tax,” Galbraith told me, “and their share of sales taxes and property taxes is much smaller, as a share of income, than it is for poorer people.” “Why are the very rich shouldering such a large part of the income tax burden?” Galbraith rhetorically asks. “Easy—they are very much richer than they ever were before. The income tax merely evens things out a bit.” Galbraith also refutes the WSJ’s argument that increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans will hinder economic growth, insisting that “there is absolutely no serious evidence that higher tax rates on the wealthy has adverse effects on investment or work effort.” As we face skyrocketing fuel costs, plunging housing prices, and a stuttering job market, it’s not the ordinary American’s who deserve to be called “whiners.” But, quips Galbraith as he considers those complaining about Obama’s so-called “wealth redistribution” plans, “the word certainly describes the McCain chorus at the Wall Street Journal.”
By DeBúrca obj on 10/29/2008 8:14 am
Frannie Em
DeBurca Great article by the way, but you are missing the point. You can argue it any way you want to. You think we are talking about the super rich (who Nadar hates, and I could care less). No, I want the super rich idiots that preyed on our economy in jail, get the money back from them and give it back to the retirement funds in the companies they CEO’d. That is not who this is about. I think I left the link for you before regarding the Tax Blog. It is not the one that the Tax Foundation data that I am going on. It is the Tax Law Blog’s blog. Whew! It is a group of tax lawyers that litigate with the IRS. This is their evidence on their year end findings that I have linked. Included in the article is the fact that payroll taxes are paid by everyone, but the top % get out of them. Like John Edwards did. As of 2007 (last tax year completed), there were 138 million taxpayers in the US. Our population was close to 300million at that time. At this point in time our population is larger. So less than half the population pays taxes. That is understandable because of children, the aged, and some disabled and welfare recipients Okay of that the top 5% of the earners, grossing $137,056 or above earn 33.4% of income in the US, but pay 57.1% of the Federal Income taxes. Now, the bottom 50% of the earners, grossing $30,122 per year or less and earn 13.4% of the income in the US, but pay only 3.3% of the Federal Income taxes. Everyone who works (except those with great tax loopholes) pay payroll taxes. Social security is paid at .062% and medcare is ,0145%. This is the same for all. So if you make $25,000 per year your soc sec tax for the year would be $1550.00 Medicare would be 362.50 If you made $30,122 per year your soc sec tax wd be $1867.57 Medicare wd be $ 436.77 If you made $137,056 per year Soc sec tax wd be $8497.48 Medicare $1987.32 The employer matches those contributions to your Soc Sed and Med accounts held with the government. Now mind you, since I am self-employed making $137,056, my Soc Sec tax would be $16,994.95 Medicare tax $ 3,974.64 because the self-employed have to pay the employers contribution as well as the employee contribution, So if my taxes went up, along with my hefty payroll taxes, I am screwed. That is what this is all about. It is about the little guy trying to get ahead. Pardon me, but I could give a flying f^** about those rich thieves. http://www.taxlitigation.net/taxlaw/united-states-tax-distribution/
By Frannie Em on 10/29/2008 2:58 pm