Conor Rogers, Editor-In-Chief
Ideology: Republican | Writing From: Nantucket, MA
Sarah Palin is not the same brand of Republican as I – nor would she be my pick for President in 2012. However, Democrats brand her as irrelevant and inconsequential at their own risk. The ‘Palin factor’ on the 2010 midterms is something to be watched.
Her detractors painted her supposedly erratic resignation as further evidence that she had fallen into irrelevancy. Her supporters claimed that she was now free to campaign across the country. Conservatives see her as the next Reagan; Moderate Republicans, as the next Dan Quayle and Democrats either find her electorally intimidating or electorally laughable. Sarah Palin may be the most polarizing figure in American politics. Snares like ‘backwoods’ and ‘folksy’ are volleyed with the same zeal that ‘socialism’ is hurled at town halls. Only time will tell whether or not she is the new Reagan that conservatives hope – or the irrelevant future of the GOP that Democrats have painted her as. Among all the accusations and predictions thrown at the former Alaskan Governor, there is only one claim that can be definitively examined: Irrelevancy
Since her selection as John McCain’s running-mate and her rise as a darling of conservatives, this word has not, and will not ever apply to former Governor Palin. As controversial and sometimes negative as she may be viewed, she commands a following of principled conservative volunteers that has not been lead by any politician in decades. She has the ability to fundraise and command attention in ways that would make any aspiring politician jealous – and indeed it has. Wherever she goes, she steals the show, the attention, and the money. Her popularity does not resonate among conservatives alone – she still gains the sympathy of many American families that believe her own family to have been brutally harassed by the media.
The word irrelevant simply cannot be applied to a political leader capable of raising millions of dollars in a matter of weeks – after hardly even asking for it. Nor can it be applied to a leader that posses a brand of politics capable of galvanizing entire sections of the nation in support of her cause of choice. On top of all this, since when has the word irrelevant been applied to a politician that runs neck-and-neck in a hypothetical Presidential primary? Never. One wonders the motive of those who dismiss Sarah Palin as irrelevant – the fact the punditry are talking about her supposed irrelevance serves only to prove that she is indeed quite relevant.
2010 & The Palin Factor 
If there was such a storm as a Nor’wester, Sarah Palin’s descent from Alaskan politics to the lower 48 would certainly describe the storm that stands ready to hit American politics. Sarah Palin’s position as de-facto ringleader of the socially conservative Republican base cannot be underestimated as the nation approaches the 2010 midterm elections. As is the case with most midterm elections, it is rarely about who can win the moderates, but rather who can turn out their ideological base.
Forget 2012 - Sarah Palin stands to make her biggest political impact difference only months from now in the 2010 midterms. As Republicans look to knock off vulnerable newly-minted first and second term Democrats across the south and mid-west, the Palin power that liberals scoff at should be viewed as a clear and present danger to all things Congressional Democrat. A single fundraiser from Palin could bring in millions for any campaign, rev up local headlines about any GOP candidate and energize the Republican base in ways comparable perhaps only to Obama’s campaign power. Most of these democrats targeted by the GOP for 2010 are not Nancy Pelosi’s favorite dems – in fact they most often are conservative ‘blue dogs’. More importantly, the voters responsible for electing these conservative democrats are the type of voter that favors Sarah Palin more than they will ever take to someone like Barbara Boxer. Like Palin, they value patriotism above all else and often fear big government as much as most right-wing Republicans do. In 2010, as the GOP looks to paint even the doggest of blue dogs as liberal Washington insiders – who better to do the painting than Governor Palin? Midterm election fights over seats held by blue dogs are a battle not of liberal vs. conservative (a liberal base hardly exists in these races) but rather who can best represent the conservative traditionalist. A simple outsider in her own right Mrs. Palin garners support among not just conservative Republicans, but traditionalists on all sides of the aisle. Her family-first and nationalistic brand of politics that falls on deaf ears in New England and California works in these rural blue dog states – and Democrats should stand weary. She is a Republican, yes, but she can identify with traditional values voters across the rust belt, the south and the Midwest regardless of party affiliation. There is no question as to whether or not she’d engage in such a campaign – look no further than her trek from Alaska to Atlanta to support fellow conservative Saxby Chambliss in his runoff Senate election. She has the image and power to make even southern moderate democrats look like members of her often-admonished ‘liberal elites’, and is not hesitant to do so.
Yes, she’s been successfully branded as irrelevant and too conservative by moderates and liberals alike – but she’s not going to be campaigning in areas where these voters make up the electorate. Her campaign power lies mostly in the mid-west and south and other less metropolitan areas of the US, and like any politician she’s going to go where her star power is best utilized.
She’s controversial, yes, but she’s front page headlines for your local Republican. She’s conservative and divisive – but she’s a top-tier fundraiser. She’s folksy and makes cosmopolitans cringe – but she draws Obama-size campaign crowds for that very reason. Her speeches may be erratic, but the tone hits home with millions of Americans. As the 2010 approaches, and Sarah Palin begins to play a pivotal role in deadlocked congressional races in Middle America – her ‘erratic resignation that pushed her towards irrelevancy’ may suddenly realize itself a brilliant political stroke that can be described as anything but erratic and everything but irrelevant.
Liberal, Conservative, or Moderate: get ready – here comes Sarah.
She’s not so much irrelevant as terrifying.
Astute observation, Conor!
I agree that Democrats underestimate Palin’s star power at their peril. Nonetheless, to say that her presence on the campaign trail will cut into the more culturally conservative Democratic House seats is to overstate the influence of a single political figure. If Republicans would start recruiting candidates that enthuse voters in the same way that Palin does, I’ll start feeling worried about another 1994. Thus far, though, those recruitments are not materializing.
Tyler, I think that what Republicans need is not, as you suggested, small scale Palins – but a few surrogates.
- Romney & Rudy to hone the economic message in the northeast
- Palin to push traditional values in the South & Midwest
- Up-and-comers like Fiorina and M. Whitman in California.
Who exactly is saying that she’s irrelevant? WHO?! Can you produce any substantial evidence of this?
I agree that she has the charisma and the ideology to reap some funds for potential Republican candidates, but ultimately this fundraising strategy will be nulled by the fact that the people who donate to her are hardcore supporters anyway and their numbers are shrinking at a consecutive rate. As time progresses you’ll find her making more and more discredited nut-job observations, such as Obama’s “Death Panel,” that will surely make even the most loyal supporters shirk. The South and the Sun-Belt States are turning more blue and the Republican party is contracting, becoming more conservative and exclusive in the process. Let’s not forget that Republicans use tacit racism to get elected (which explains the southern switch from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican after Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964), and lets remember that America is becoming less “white.” Don’t be fooled by the recent town hall demonstrations as representative of any Republican preponderance.
Finally, the amount she raises is not a show-stopping figure. And it’s less money than that raised by the political action committee of former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. His committee, the Free and Strong PAC, recorded more than $1.6 million by the end of May.
I agree with Noah, she’s terrifying.
I agree with Alex. I’d definitely like to know of any prominent political folks that have declared Sarah Palin irrelevant.
Conor, I was only referring to the culturally conservative House districts where Democrats have made significant inroads since the 2006 midterms. Take a guy like Bobby Bright, a Democrat who captured a previously Republican-held seat in Southern Alabama. In 2004, Bush carried this district with 67% of the vote (compared to Kerry’s 33%). McCain, a candidate who could not excite the conservative base like Bush (particularly the religious conservatives), dropped to 63% compared to an increase of 3% for Obama. Bobby Bright ended up winning that seat by less than 2,000 votes. I’d argue that had McCain presented a more socially conservative image, his margin of victory would have increased enough for those votes to trickle down to his party’s nominee in the House race that they ended up losing.
Tyler and Alex:
Arianna Huffington
Keith Olbermann
Rachel Maddow
Peggy Noonan
Jack Cafferty
Howard Dean
DNC Spokesmen
The Daily Kos
Just to name a few people/places that have declared Sarah Palin to be irrelevant.
I wonder why you’d question such a description of Sarah Palin, it was pretty widely expressed by many in the punditry following her resignation.
I couldn’t have put it any better than Alex did — as the GOP, and Palin and other GOP leaders in particular, continues to embrace counterfactual conspiracy theories as part of the party orthodoxy, more and more Americans will begin to view them as a joke. Right now, however, the truly frightening part is that many people haven’t already begun to do so.
Conor, when the vast majority of the pundit class deemed her irrelevent following her announcement, they were referring to her 2012 aspirations. I’m yet to hear anyone vocally address your analysis of her impact in culturally conservative districts in 2010. No one denies Palin’s relevance on the campaign trail in such areas. Those who do are rightfully marginalized.
Conor,
To repeat myself, can you give me tangible evidence (links to articles or video) that supports your claim that pundits were/are calling her irrelevant? You can’t just list a bunch a liberals, libertarians, or even conservatives and say “these people said it.” Not to be rude, but it sounds like you either a.) misunderstood what these pundits were talking about (if they indeed used “Palin” and “irrelevant” in the same sentence), or b.) made it all up, especially when you wrap up your comment with this:
“I wonder why you’d question such a description of Sarah Palin, it was pretty widely expressed by many in the punditry following her resignation.”
Well, I wonder why you can’t produce any evidence of it. If it’s so ubiquitous then why can’t I find any substantiating evidence of it?
I agree with what Tyler said, that if the word ‘irrelevant’ was thrown around it was in reference to any 2012 aspirations. I don’t think that any prominent pundit or eminent detractor would be stupid enough to make the claim that she’s now “irrelevant.”
Finally, to counter your entire argument, and to add upon what Noah was saying, CNN released a poll yesterday that revealed that Palin’s favorability has been sinking, especially, and this is the important part, among Republicans and conservatives.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/12/cnn-poll-favorable-view-of-palin-dipping/