.jpg)
Strangely familiar looking (AP)
Sarah Palin isn't qualified to be president
. That's the word in a new CNN poll where 71 percent felt she wasn't presidential timber, including 47 percent of Republicans.
Of the three in 10 who do feel she's qualified, 52 percent are Republicans.
CNN Polling Director Keating Holland noted that Palin's numbers "are similar to what Dan Quayle got in 1993 after losing on the Republican ticket with George HW Bush. Back then, only 23 percent thought Quayle was qualified to be president. He never returned to the national stage.
This news comes on the heels of two things: In the wake of Levi Johnston's CBS "Early Show" interview (which rehashes his print interview in Vanity Fair), in which he slams Sarah Palin as phony.
And the poll numbers come out on the eve of her book release, Going Rogue, which hits stores next month, just a few days before a fundraiser at the Iowa Family Policy Center in Des Moines in which she "could be the featured speaker." Book tour, yes, but any trip to Iowa is de rigueur for anyone thinking about a presidential run.
This raises an interesting question. There is lots of passion about Sarah Palin. She is dynamic and likable, two characteristics that can make a politician a "rock star." Criticizing Sarah Palin because she is inexperienced is a pointless exercise. No one has enough experience to prepare them for the job of president, and we don't seem all that interested in experienced candidates anyway considering the last truly experienced person we elected to the Oval Office was George HW Bush in 1988.
Indeed, criticizing Sarah Palin during the presidential campaign because she was inexperienced was a pointless exercise. Naming her as the GOP nominee for vice president was designed to do one thing: Play to the conservative base of the Republican Party. She was the missing link for the McCain campaign, to give John McCain street credentials with far right conservatives (and perhaps evangelical voters) who were not prepared to vote for him. The strategy worked, but it wasn't enough to overcome a larger voting block in the November election, and perhaps in this poll as well.
I wonder if there isn't a lesson there that some conservatives just aren't getting: That being too conservative isn't what the majority of Americans want any more than being too liberal. Republican power-brokers are pushing to make the GOP more moderate in order to compete with Democrats on fundraising and in swing states, but Bill Kristol, who it's fair enough to say represents the conservative wing of the party, argues that the GOP's best bet is to remain "unapologetically conservative."
Kristol says polls, which show that 72 percent of Republicans identify as conservative, mesh with conservative momentum in next week's elections for Virginia governor and New York's 23rd congressional district.
He also sees in the 2012 presidential race another big shift away from the Republican elite. None of the four leading candidates --Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich-- is a current officeholder. "So a party that has over the past two decades nominated a vice president (George HW Bush), a senator (Bob Dole), a governor (George W Bush) and another senator (John McCain), now has as its front-runners four public figures who are, to one degree or another, outsiders."
In short, he sees few moderates in the GOP's future.
That sounds like suicide to me. Extremism has never gained a dominant toehold in American politics and I don't see any reason for that to start. If it does, it could well be the end of America as we know it.
Extremists, of course, will disagree. That is, those on the far left or the far right --they're passionate in their certitude but unapologetic in their attitude, particularly on the subject of Sarah Palin.
Frankly, I don't get it. I don't dislike Ms. Palin but I don't believe for a minute that she's even remotely capable of being president, let alone that she would make decisions that are healthy for the country. But that's just me.
So the real question is: If, according to the CNN poll, nearly a third of Americans and just over half of Republicans think Sarah Palin is ready to be president, why?
If you respond, and I hope you do, I also hope that you don't resort to tired name-calling and boiler-plate rhetoric. Words like "socialism" and "Marxism" are not useful, and there are plenty of people who wouldn't agree with such bomb-throwing. Some in a previous thread about Sarah Palin wrote about her as if she were a rock star --even referred to her as one. Sorry, we're not electing celebrities; we're electing people whom we hope can govern wisely. Without the childish name-calling and hate-mongering, can you offer an intelligent and thoughtful answer: Would Sarah Palin make for a good chief executive of the United States? Why or why not?
Levi Johnston goes rogue on Sarah Palin
Comments
Would Sarah Palin make for a good president? Who knows? Nixon would have gone down in history as one of the greatest presidents of all time except for some pesky misunderstandings about Watergate. Clinton was supposed to be a great pres but he gave us GATT, NAFTA, the biggest tax increase in history (retroactive to boot), dismantled all the banking laws that were supposed to protect us from another depression, sex scandals, etc. We just elected a pres that had almost NO experience whatsoever and boy does it show. Almost every group that supported him is ticked off at him. Good presidents? These guys are politicians. They hire people who tell them what to say, how to dress, how to comb their hair, ad nauseam. The last thirty years have brought us a pathetic pack of losers, but remember, the people get exactly what they deserve. Palin can't do any worse, and probably won't do any better.
Levi Johnston your fifteen minutes fame needs to end. Obama is unqualified to be president. Robb has a good point.
Robb - What exactly do you mean by "Nixon would have gone down in history as one of the greatest presidents of all time except for some pesky misunderstandings about Watergate."? What misunderstandings?
"Clinton... dismantled all the banking laws that were supposed to protect us from another depression."
You DO know how that law was sponsored by Phil Graham (R-TX) and slipped into a defense spending bill that had overwhelming support of Congress. Clinton should've vetoed but it wouldn't have mattered, so blame Graham for that piece of business. FYI: Graham retired from Congress after 2000 and guess where he landed? With USB, as a VP in the Swiss banking firm, which just happened to be one of the institutions at the center of the housing meltdown that brought us where we are now. Go figure.
NoName says: "Levi Johnston your fifteen minutes fame needs to end."
He reminds me of that loser Britney Spears married --I don't even remember his name. That's what I think of. It really bugged me that the GOP shammed that whole relationship strictly for appearances. I wish Palin had just owned up and admitted that teenagers do dumb things, and lived or died on that. God forbid she offend the moral values crowd. S*** happens, even to the most moral people.
I'm more interested in why you don't think she is 'remotely capable.' I could understand "I have strong reservations;' or 'I don't think at this stage she is qualified' -and I get that you perhaps don't agree with her politics - fair enough - but not 'remotely capable' given her executive and political leadership? That seems a bit extreme. I wonder if she is going to be more effective by never running for president. I find it interesting that over half of those polled thought she was honest and trustworthy. These are qualities we often say are lacking in our politicians. She seems authentic and principled. Maybe being considered 'not qualified to be president' isn't really such an insult if many of those who believe that also think she is honest and a good role model. Strange results that seem to say more about the respondents than the subject.
I'm more interested in why you don't think she is 'remotely capable.'
It's easy to say she's not bright. I wouldn't say that; I'd say it's something worse: She's incurious, unaware or at best naive about the complexities of the world around her. In my view, she's not a deep thinker, which leads me to believe her decisions would be unwise, haphazard, or they'd be made by influential advisors who might have their own agendas. I'm not impressed with her governance in Alaska. She seems fairly well-versed about energy issues, but only as they relate to Alaska. The world is a far bigger and more complex place. I don't want celebrities running for office; I don't care if the people running for office are likable or photogenic. I want thinkers, people with a world view, who measure carefully and not belligerantly or patriotically. That's not Palin. Note this isn't a political argument, but I suspect some will retort in quite the partisan manner.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!