Hope is Not a Foreign Policy » Sarah Palin

Why Sarah Palin Can’t Win the Presidency

Tom Skypek — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:06:00 +0000

I’m going to catch some slack from my conservative brethren for writing this, but I don’t believe that Sarah Palin can win the 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. If you’re trying to analyze objectively a candidate’s presidential prospects, you need to think in terms of electoral votes. More specifically, ask yourself, “Which states does the candidate need to win in order to get to the magic number of 270?” But Sarah Palin isn’t the only potential candidate who would have trouble getting to 270. Like Palin, conservative favorites Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul don’t seem to have a viable path to 270, either. To beat Obama we will need to win a number of independent voters and both Palin and Gingrich are absolutely toxic with independent voters. The real question for conservatives is: who is the most conservative candidate with the most viable path to 270?

Below is a map of the 2008 presidential election. As we all painfully recall, Obama captured several states that voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 including Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina, Nevada, Virginia, and, of course, Florida. Obama also captured Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio which voted for Bush in 2004. At the end of the day, Obama captured 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173.

To defeat Obama in 2012, the Republican candidate will need 270 electoral votes. This will require the Republican candidate to hold every state McCain won in 2008 and pick up Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Nebraska, and win either Colorado, Nevada, or Iowa. This is certainly not any easy task but it is very possible and reinforces the fact that, with the right candidate, Obama is beatable. Republicans have a good shot of picking up Colorado, Nevada, or Iowa; New Hampshire may even be in play based on Obama’s margin of victory in 2008. Here are a few plausible scenarios in which the Republican candidate would defeat Obama in 2012 (I used the great site 270toWin.com to explore these ”what-if” scenarios).

Win all of McCain’s states plus Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Nebraska, and Colorado = 275/263
Win all of McCain’s states plus Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Nebraska, and Nevada = 272/266
Win all of McCain’s states plus Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Nebraska, and Iowa =272/266
Win all of McCain’s states plus Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Nebraska, and New Hampshire =270/268

The good news for Republicans and conservatives is that Obama will be playing defense in 2012, especially considering the largely favorable reapportionment figures. The bad news is that Obama can hemorrhage 95 electoral votes from his 2008 totals and still win a second term. So the question for conservatives is which candidate can hold the states McCain won in 2008 and pick up Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Nebraska, and either Colorado, Nevada, Iowa or New Hampshire? This is the question conservatives need to ask themselves as the Republican nominating process begins. It makes no sense to nominate a candidate who has no chance of getting to 270 electoral votes in the general election.

Sarah Palin is an incredibly effective fundraiser and has an impressive ability to rally conservatives. However, as I mentioned earlier, when it comes to independent voters her numbers are not favorable, and you absoutely need to win independents in order to win the presidency. Unfortunately, the media has done such a number on her favorability ratings that a major reversal is no longer realistic at this point. Looking at the electoral map it is unclear to me how she could win enough states to get to 270. I think there are several prospective candidates who have a realistic path to 270 including Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, and possibly Haley Barbour. Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul do not seem to have viable paths to 270.

Palin could, however, do well in some of the early Republican primary and caucus states. While I don’t believe that she has a clear path to the nomination, she could win or do very well in some of the early states including Iowa and South Carolina. The objective of this article is to prompt conservatives to think about the general election now. Nomination contests are ugly as passions always run high. Everyone believes that their candidate is the one. We can’t lose focus, though, of our ultimate objective: to make sure that Barack Obama is a one-term president. To realize this objective, we need to put up a candidate who can get to 270. This doesn’t mean that we have to compromise our principles of limited government, but it does mean that we need to nominate a candidate who is conservative and electable at a national level.

2012 Republican Primary Poll Analysis: Which Republican are you most likely to support in 2012?

Tom Skypek — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 23:35:31 +0000

It might be hard to imagine but after Tuesday’s midterm elections, the 2012 presidential election will start to gear up. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if several candidates announce the formation of exploratory committees as early as December of this year, though most will try to wait until at least January. Remember: disgraced Democratic Senator John Edwards announced his plans to seek the nomination in December 2006. Other major candidates from both parties announced plans to run in January 2007.

We had a total of 284 respondents answer the following question–Which Republican are you most likely to support in 2012? There were seventeen potential candidates on the ballot–some obvious Republican choices and some less obvious choices. Sarah Palin won by a landslide garnering 52% of the votes cast. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels took second place with 13% of the vote while New Jersey Governor Chris Cristie took third place with 11% of the vote. The other fourteen candidates were either in single digits or captured no votes at all. While this poll wasn’t scientifically conducted, a sample of 284 isn’t anything to sneeze at. There are some trends that emerge when we look at the results.

Sarah Palin will likely be a force in the 2012 Republican primaries–either as a presidential candidate or as a high-powered conservative activist and fundraiser. If Sarah Palin chooses to run for president, she could certainly be competitive in some early primary states like Iowa and South Carolina. She has a die-hard following and she is capable of raising a lot of money. What is more, the mainstream media–who can’t stand her–also can’t get enough of her. Having resigned her post as governor of Alaska before the completion of her first term, I think she significantly weakened her presidential position. Plus, while many conservatives love Sarah Palin, some Republican voters may conclude that she is unlikely to capture the independent votes required to win a general election. Nonetheless, she could cause significant problems for other candidates should she choose to run.
2012 won’t be a good year for “establishment” candidates. It is interesting how poorly certain candidates, like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Tim Pawlenty, fared in the poll. Romney, who is most likely running for president again, only received 2% of the vote–along with Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum. To his credit, though, Romney has a tremendous campaign network and impressive fundraising potential. If he can’t get the grassroots fired up, though, none of that will matter. Mike Huckabee, who may indeed run again, received just 1% of the vote. And while all signs seem to indicate that Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty will make a run for the White House he received not a single vote. I doubt the anti-establishment furor will diminish too much by 2012.
The top three finishers currently are/or have been governors. The presidency is a difficult job to prepare for but I think one important prerequisite is executive experience and governors have that experience. Senators and Representatives do not manage anything–except for their staffs (and the chief of staff and/or office manager really have that responsibility). Americans have learned the hard way what it is like to have a president with absolutely no management experience (read: Barack Obama).
It is a wide-open Republican field. While Sarah Palin demolished every other candidate in this poll, it is really anyone’s guess as to who will actually end up with the nomination. Her popularity among the grassroots is undeniable but her mistreatment by the mainstream media, coupled with her decisions following the 2008 election (chiefly her decision to step down as governor), have weakened her from an electability standpoint.

I cast my vote for Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. Daniels is a fiscal conservative who really seems to understand the gravity of the financial situation this country has gotten into. Some Republicans talk about it, but I get the sense that they’re merely reciting talking points. Daniels understands that in order to fix the problem difficult public policy decisions will have to be made, including significant changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I like that Daniels has actually run something (Indiana) and he understands that America cannot, and should not, live beyond its means at home or abroad.

The Best of Maureen Dowd

Tom Skypek — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:47:43 +0000

It amazes me that Charles Krauthammer and Maureen Dowd are in the same profession–they’re both pundits who write for major national newspapers but the the similarities really end there. This point struck me today as I was reading Dowd’s latest piece in the New York Times, “Making Ignorance Chic,” where she ridicules the likes of Christine O’Donnell, Joe Miller, Carl Paladino, Michele Bachmann, and, of course her favorite target, Sarah Palin. Really, what would be a Maureen Dowd column without a cheap shot aimed at Sarah Palin?

Maureen Dowd never talks seriously about public policy issues or recommends any interesting or creative approaches to solving problems. I know she’s a liberal columnist but unemployment is at 10.1%, the national debt is $13 trillion, and we’re fighting two wars–and she wastes her time ridiculing the verbal gaffes of a handful of conservative candidates. Her columns are generally nothing more than ad hominem attacks and arguments (contrast this to Krauthammer who offers interesting policy prescriptions and makes cogent arguments). Maybe it is the latent idealist in me that thinks opinion writers should do more than throw mud–they should actually contribute to the public discourse. Isn’t that what intellectuals are supposed to do? I know the media is a business and it’s all about selling newspapers but clearly the name-calling isn’t really helping the New York Times increase its circulation.

Coulter Asks Palin to Endorse Simmons in CT Senate Race

Tom Skypek — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 01:13:24 +0000

Ann Coulter writes in Human Events,

“Sarah Palin endorsed three dark-horse candidates in Republican match-ups this year, and all three won their primaries yesterday: Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Carly Fiorina in California. No wonder Sarah’s being stalked by Joe McGinniss.

Now, she’s got to endorse Rob Simmons for U.S. Senate. Otherwise, Republicans can kiss the possibility of a major upset in Connecticut goodbye.”

Not too sure if this will go anywhere, but it’s interesting, nonetheless.

Governors, Foreign Policy and Modern American History

Christine Willett — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:49:31 +0000

“I can see Russia from my house.” So spoke comedienne Tina Fey impersonating Governor Sarah Palin in a recent Saturday Night Live skit poking fun at the Governor’s foreign policy acumen among other perceived foibles. This skit reflects the actual criticism of Governor Palin’s foreign policy credentials by the Obama campaign and various political and media pundits. Much of this disparagement is based on the extent of her political experience – Mayor of a small Alaskan city and Governor of a state with a population of approximately 670,000 (according to the US Census Bureau estimate of 2006). Do they have a point? Just how important is wider foreign policy experience to a person who would be the proverbial “heartbeat away from the presidency?” The foreign policy results of four men who went from governorships to our nation’s highest office show a mixture of success and failure.

President James Carter’s (Governor of Georgia) assistance in negotiating the 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel, which led to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty of 1979, is his great foreign policy success. His ineffectual negotiations with Iran during the Iran Hostage Crisis (Americans in captivity for 444 days) accompanied by the rescue attempt debacle of Desert One are his greatest failures.

President Ronald Reagan (Governor of California) decided to face the Soviet Union from a position of strength by building up American’s military forces after their stagnation in the post-Vietnam drawdown of the 1970s while engaging in diplomatic efforts to keep the Cold War from become hot. These efforts paid off in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) of 1987 and the President’s visit to Moscow in 1988. They also played to General Secretary Mikhail Gorbechev’s policies of perestroika and glasnost – reforms within the USSR itself which led to its dissolution in 1991 and the end of the Cold War. Not all of President Reagan’s efforts succeeded so well, however. In 1983, 241 US servicemembers died when terrorists attacked the Marine barracks in Beirut during US participation in a multinational peacekeeping mission in Lebanon during its civil war. US forces withdrew soon after.

The Dayton Agreement of 1995 ending the war between the various factions in the former Yugoslavia is a foreign policy highlight of President William Clinton’s (Governor of Arkansas) administration. Less successful efforts include humanitarian interventions in Somalia (the Battle of Mogadishu related in the book Black Hawk Down) and Rwanda. President Clinton’s term also encompassed the beginning of more overt terrorist acts against the United States with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The embassy incidents led to President Clinton ordering cruise missile attacks on terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan resulting in the controversial bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum.

The foreign policy of the present administration of President George W. Bush (Governor of Texas) is dominated by the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq. President Bush rightly blamed the terrorists for the attacks; Americans should not be asking themselves “Why do they hate us?” American foreign policy over the decades has not been perfect, but it does not merit the deaths of thousands of innocent people by fanatics. As for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the initial military campaign succeeded superbly. The administration’s mistake was inadequate planning for the governing and rebuilding of Iraq after the campaign’s completion.

The brief descriptions of the foreign policies of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush related above contain both high and low lights of their respective efforts in the international arena. They are by no means comprehensive evaluations of each President’s policies and accomplishments. They illustrate that former governors from different political parties are capable of making both effective and ineffective foreign policy decisions. In essence, they are human beings who weigh options and make decisions that result in success or failure. Governor Palin’s opponents thus should not completely discount her suitability for the Vice Presidency because she is “only” a state governor with limited foreign policy experience.

“Troopergate”: Wooten Himself Thinks Palin is “Fantastic” Choice

Shannon Skypek — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:43:09 +0000

I was recently provided with a link to this post from the female bloggers of Slate Magazine. Generally, I try not to respond to these types of attacks as my arguments aren’t likely to change any minds. However, I found this post to be incredibly offensive and as it seems to summarize the worst bits of the left’s attacks on Gov. Palin, so just this once, I’ll bite.

First, let’s look at this piece as a whole. A quick search provides us with this guide from Roane State Community College on how to write an effective argument. The most relevant suggestion (and the one most clearly ignored by Rosa Brooks in her blog post) is this:

“3. A convincing argument. An argumentative essay does not merely assert an opinion; it presents an argument, and that argument must be backed up by data that persuades readers that the opinion is valid. This data consists of facts, statistics, the testimony of others through personal interviews and questionnaires or through articles and books, and examples. The writer of an argumentative essay should seek to use educated sources that are nonbiased, and to use them fairly.”

The articles Brooks links to in her post all consist of the media’s view of events – where are the clear facts? Numbers, dates, timelines? Argumentative essays should also address the counterpoints to their data points. Clearly Brooks skipped this day in English 101.

For the sake of not turning this entry into a novel, I will only address the part of Brooks’s post which I find to be the most offensive – the allegation that Palin disparaged (to the point of emotional abuse) her nephew’s father. This is the same father who admitted to using a Taser on his child. Where I come from, physical abuse from your father generally trumps your aunt discussing said father in a negative light. Personally, I’d hope that any governor of mine would apply pressure to fire state troopers using their weapons on their children. But that’s just my opinion.

Speaking of opinions, did you happen to see what Michael Wooten, Mr. Trooper himself, had to say about Palin’s vice presidential nomination? “…I think her candidacy is exciting for the family, and it’s fantastic for Alaska.”

Guess Palin couldn’t have been too harsh.

Oprah Plays Politics, Angers Viewers

Tom Skypek — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:51:47 +0000

Andrew Breitbart has an interesting piece in The Washington Times on Oprah Winfrey’s refusal to have Gov. Sarah Palin on her day-time talk show. Here’s an excerpt:

If ever there were a candidate destined to shine on “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” Sarah Palin would be that woman.

In less than a week, the Alaska governor, former PTA member and 44-year-old mother of five – including an infant with Down syndrome – survived a vicious press assault on her family only to win over the majority of Americans with her brave and unapologetic speech at the Republican National Convention last week.

In a media instant, Sarah Palin went from an unknown moose hunter to a mass phenomenon on the precipice of becoming the vice president of the United States.

She is the Oprah audience personified – an unlikely feminist icon that braved the storm while deftly protecting her children. Many already are saying she has the inside track for the top slot in 2012.

Mrs. Palin is history in a dress. And her script is straight out of Hollywood – like those teen movies with the cliched ending featuring the female valedictorian delivering the speech of a lifetime projecting a bold and transformative future with an independent-minded woman in charge.

That future is now.

Women want to get to know Sarah Palin. And they want to meet her family.

Yet Oprah Winfrey, the high priestess of the female empowerment movement and America’s most adored television host, denies her massive and loyal audience’s most obvious wishes because of her single-minded drive to put Barack Obama in the White House.

On Friday under scrutiny for this decision Oprah Winfrey released a statement:

“At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over.”

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton can certainly relate to the Palin shut-out. Oprah helped annihilate the candidacy of the first female major party presidential candidate by failing to humanize her the way only the Queen of Daytime Talk could.

Surely, Hillary will forgive and forget.

Given that in previous election cycles Miss Winfrey famously gave both sides equal time, many of her adoring throngs are drawing the conclusion that in the media titan’s mind – and in the Democratic Party’s identity politics playbook – race trumps gender.

The entrance of another historic woman into the election only reinforces this idea.

“She supports Obama because he is black, which is just as bad as NOT supporting him because he is black,” voiced an anonymous woman (perhaps Geraldine Ferraro) at Oprah.com. That sentiment – the elephant in the middle of the media spin room – is commonly repeated throughout Oprah’s highly trafficked message boards. A small band of defenders ignores the charge and blames Karl Rove for the mess.

“After more than 20 years of interviews, you do not have the capability to handle asking her questions about her life rather than her platform?” writes another angry fan. “Just be honest that you don’t want her on the show because her popularity may detract from your personal political candidate. I’m very disappointed and you have lost a lot of credibility.”

The cozy relationship between Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama predates the endorsement she gave him in May 2007. First of all, both were members of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s controversial church (though Oprah left over a decade ago). Of course, that topic is off limits.

Oprah purports to be an advocate for women, which makes her refusal to invite Gov. Palin on her show quite odd.

“…the surge has succeeded…”

Tom Skypek — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:25:22 +0000

Sen. Obama finally-finally-acknowledged that the troop surge in Iraq has helped to reduce violence. Yesterday, Obama told Bill O’Reilly, “I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated. I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” In “way that nobody anticipated”? Are you kidding me? What about John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham?

Today, Gov. Sarah Palin aptly noted,

Just last night Senator Obama finally broke and brought himself to admit what all the rest of us have known for quite some time, and that’s: thanks to the skill and valor of our troops, the surge in Iraq has succeeded. Senator Obama said that the surge, quote, “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. I think,” said Senator Obama, “that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated.” I guess when you turn out to be profoundly wrong on a vital national security issue, maybe it’s comforting to pretend that everyone else was wrong, too.

Well said, Governor. Well said.

Governor Palin’s Remarks

Tom Skypek — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:08:28 +0000

“Alaska Maverick”

Tom Skypek — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:14:10 +0000

Though the mainstream media is trying to push a different narrative, the reality is that Gov. Palin is more experienced and has done more than Sen. Obama.

Gov. Palin has an actual record of reform. Sen. Obama does not.