Home › Blogs › Patrick Ruffini's blog ›

Is Sarah Palin the Right's Howard Dean?

Submitted by Patrick Ruffini on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 18:56
in

The title of this post is provocative and it's meant to be. But it's not a knock on Sarah Palin. I'm still firmly a Palinista, and I hope this post shows you why. Everyone remembers Howard Dean for the "scream" but I think his example provides a context in which Sarah Palin could lose the election, but ultimately win the party and pave the way for a conservative victory in the future more meaningful than McCain-Palin '08 would be.

I'm rooting for Sarah Palin, and in temperament she is nothing like Dean. But she is situated similarly politically, and this is worth exploring further. 

Howard Dean emerged when the Demcoratic Party was in full capitulation mode. Dean was the only semi-sorta-mainsteam candidate who said "no" on Iraq. This in-your-face style galvanized the Democratic base, but party mandarins gasped. Dean couldn't have been more different in style than the "seven dwarves" running against him.

The party elite seemed vindicated when Dean self-destructed. But a little over a year later, Dean was elected DNC Chairman with surprisingly little fuss.

How was this comeback even possible? Whatever Dean's faults, there was a sense that the party elite had bankrupted itself by running a series of poll-tested me-too triangulators. Dean's easy victory at the DNC was the precursor of the grassroots' long-term victory over the elite, culminating in the evisceration of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Does any of this sound familiar?

And who seems to be the flashpoint in this elite-grassroots war currently raging in the GOP? Like Dean, it's Sarah Palin.

Yet, there is a big risk coming up in 15 days. If McCain-Palin loses, and the conventional wisdom hardens that Palin was a big part of the reason for it, the GOP could will learn the wrong lessons from 2008. It will be said that McCain should have picked an uninspiring establishment VP. If we listen to Brooks, Noonan, and Frum, the next time out, the establishment will be emboldened in its natural distrust of happy warrior populists like Palin who bring their own political base to the table. And if the establishment wins this argument, get ready for a 2012 candidate who will be even more incentivized to engage in elite-pleasing, base-enraging behavior on spending, immigration, and stuff like the bailout.

Never mind that many people believe this was precisely the problem with the top of the ticket in 2008. (And the top of the ticket is kind of more relevant to what happens than the bottom half.)

Sarah Palin's legacy as the VP nominee will matter inordinately in defining the Next Right. If the experience is seen as a constructive one (much like Dean), reminding us that it's possible to get regular activists excited about being Republicans again, that Barack Obama ain't the only one who can pack the arenas, and injecting a positive vibe into the GOP at the grassroots level, then I am optimistic about the GOP bouncing back. If instead the lesson of Palin is that we need to pick safe, uninspiring candidates (who will get utterly clobbered by Obama's $1 billion+ re-election campaign, btw) who don't offend Christopher Buckley, then I fear we are in for a long winter indeed. 

Right now, with the small donor and grassroots eruption for Obama, and vibrant progressive institutions that depend on the creativity of an energized base, the Right needs a broad-based movement more than it needs the approval of elites. That means making Palin's brand of politics -- even if she isn't the one who ultimately gets us there -- a permanent fixture in the conservative ecosystem.

2.6
Your rating: None Average: 2.6 (5 votes)

Comments

Lloyd Bentsen

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 19:30.

...to Dan Quayle:

"... Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy!"

 

Ruffini, as a Deaniac, I suffered with Howard Dean, I knew Howard Dean, Howard Dean was my candidate.

Sarah Palin is no Howard Dean.  She has neither the intelligence, nor the integrity, nor the political skill and leadership of Howard Dean.

You want to place all your hopes and dreams for the NextRight on Sarah Palin?   Go ahead.

She will break your heart.

 

Liberal jerk doesnt get it

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 19:49.

It's a fine reminder that we are on the good side when the liberals act like egotistical jerks with their heads up where the sun dont shine.

It was a relief to know from Lloyd that Qualye wasnt an adulterous drug-addled faker (see Garry Wills book) who offed heads of state (Ngo Diem) and wiretapped civil rights leaders (MLK) like JFK.

And it's a relief to know that popular, graceful yet down-to-earth Governor Sarah Palin isn't a screaming extremist hyper-partisan nutcase like Howard Dean.

As a reminder to all: We dont need a cult of personality to place our hopes and dreams. Our ideas and ideals are the right ones, and that gives us the sure knowledge that we will prevail.  The leaders we need will emerge when the time comes. Whether it is Palin or someone else,  we know that a genuine conservative leader will resonate hugely with the American people.

The liberals know it too. and that's why they scream like banshees when it comes to real conservative leaders. 

The gOP seems to be crying out for a "Cult of personality"

Submitted by Caroline on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 07:39.

Witness the desperate attempts to make Palin appear credible.

Nah

Submitted by Sean Oxendine on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 08:43.

When we start ritualistically chanting her name and coming up with hand signs to display at rallies, you'll know that we've signed up for the whole personality cult thingie.

There is nothing wrong with cultivating a cult of personality...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 09:55.

...as long as you first realize the need before the fact to convert the COP into a stable political platform that will allow others to address its excesses and carry it forward in a positive and constructive way. 

What is also new in this matrix that will help facilitate such a transformation, indeed, may even make this transformation possible, is the vast communicative power of the Internet and its application to the task at hand.

If we here on the right can help bring these two political aspects together to and for the benefit of our party and the country, then we will have rightfully earned the title: The New Right.

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

"Whatever Is, Is Right" (revision 20.08.2)

Submitted by jhmccloskey on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 13:52.

"Our ideas and ideals are the right ones, and that gives us the sure knowledge that we will prevail.  The leaders we need will emerge when the time comes."

Is that gem from Mary Baker Pangloss?

Probably not, since there is no guarantee that The Time™ is comin’ immediately.  Or even soon.  Perhaps not for years ... decades ... aeons .....

Meanwhile, since Governess Paling of Alaska has actually emerged in the present time, she must meet its needs, which is not, of course, to make any rash predictions about winnin’ or losin’ particular elections.

 

Let them not SARAH imperfection name;
Their proper bliss depends on whom they blame.
They know their druthers, of themselves are sure,
Are guided by the fittest officer.
Submissive to whate'er emergent creeps
Upmarket from the blind unfathomed deeps,
Safe in the Hand invisible, they wait
Their destined hour of sway o'er Church and State.
Delay apparent is but Providence
Preparin’ monarchs for the Reign of Sense,
Fit mistresses to call the Do-Si-Do
That dancers come ’round right, exactly so.
In spite of Deans, in errin’ Howards' spite,
One truth is clear.  (&c. &c.)

Happy days.

 

 

 

 

 

thanx for gibbering

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 14:13.

gibbering like a fool and blathering and missing the point 100%.

 

 

 

That is reassuring!

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 20:23.

I would hate to think Sarah Palin is egotistical, northeastern left-wing lunatic with elitist pretensions to moral and intellectual superiorty.  Then she would be no better than your average Democrat partisan hack like How-wierd Dean, just in the wrong party.

Honestly, though if she does become the de facto leader of conservative movement, I think it will be your leftist heart that will be broken. 

Great post, Ben

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 20:42.

I love it.

I am sure he does too:

 

 

 

 

 

ex animo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

davidfarrar

 

Focus

Submitted by Publius26 on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 19:37.

Of course Palin is the future of the party, but lets try and focus on getting her elected VP before we start moving on. It sure seems like some unwarranted pessimism from some on the Right about this election recently, and with the media already writing McCain off, we sure could use some optimism from the bloggers on this site. Lets not downplay the importance of keeping Obama out of the White House, alright Mr. Ruffini?

Dittos - election is winnable

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 19:59.

On the one hand, Obama has more money, has the liberal MSM on his side, etc.

On the other hand, Obama is an inexperienced left-liberal socialist who is truly outside the mainstream of what America really wants, and whose economic policy will make us poorer, whose foreign policy wil endanger us, and whose judicial appointments will install judicial tyrants.

I can see why the undecideds are so high. Giving up now is NOT the right thing to do.

The right thing to do is make a yard sign "Obama is a socialist" or bumpersticker "Got socialism?" with the obama O in the socialism, and be ready to explain why Obama's so-called tax cut is really the biggest expansion in cash welfare in US history.

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/10/exposing-obamas-tax-cut-lie.html

 Some eyes will surely be opened.

With all due respect:

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 20:50.

The name of this website is TheNextRight not TheNextPresident.

But more than that, as I stated earlier, any action taken in support of Sarah Palin as the RNC Chair prior to the election will not necessarily have a negative effect on the McCain/Palin campaign. It could very well help increase Palin's "silent majority" turnout at the polls on election day.

And while I would never suggest Gov. Palin be the VP and the RNC chair should McCain be victorious, our efforts here will simply strengthen Gov. Palin's hand in picking the next RNC Chairperson in such an event.

So relax.

The process of choosing the next RHC Chair is all ready well underway, we can't change its timing.  What we can do is act now to help the party move forward in any eventuality.

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

All right then...that makes two -- not counting the troll.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 20:46.

The motion has been duly made and seconded.

The title of this website is:

Home

It is now time for the discussion of the motion:

By the way, what's a quorum here? 

ex animo

 

davidfarrar

 

Question is, will she?...

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 19:58.

...There will could be a battle, a fierce and bloody one, for the heart and soul of the GOP.  And it matters little whether McCain/Palin win or not.  There must be a battle if the GOP is to survive. The globalists/elites, the U.S. Chamber/WSJ crowd must be ousted.  But the $64K question is, will Sarah wage that battle?  Or will she take the path of least resistance.  The easy way out.  The base is wanting action soon.  Not 4 years from now.  And they are behind her.  Solid.  Loyal.  And numerous.  If Sarah opts to "take" a seat at the bargaining table,  she'll have a loaded pistol, cocked and at the ready, metaphorically speaking. 

I think the 1st clue we'll have as to whether she'll display this leadership will be at the selection of this new RNC chair [one of y'all wrote about the other day].  If they win she should use all of her charm to try and convince McCain that "she" should make this selection.  And if he balks then she can turn up the heat, as I've heard she is quite able to do.  If they lose, then McCain is out of the way and she will have a free hand.  And she should make demands & let her plans be known for 2012.  Her wresting control of the GOP could take less time.  

She could possibly have a significant amount of control of the GOP by the 2010 midterms if she'll start now.  But then there's that nagging question - will she?  DD

No faction needs to be ousted if we lose

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 20:41.

The nice thing about being a minority party is all the power-money suck-up fair-weather friends desert you.

That's what Colin Powell did. That's what plenty of opportunists are doing. Like the RINO Congresscritter Swartz of Michigan, who supports the Democrat in a fit of pique. Good riddance to them all, dont let the door hit you on the way out.

You'll be left with the people who are here because they believe in the core values of the party.

BTW, I dont think it is wise nor necessary for Palin to have control of RNC. She has a more important role as Governor and/or VP. The GRASSROOTS needs to control the party, via whoever stands up and articulates a clear and consistent vision for the country basing our governance on principles of freedom, limited govt, responsibility, fiscal conservatism and law&order.

 

Hmmmm....

Submitted by Lynn on Mon, 10/20/2008 - 21:44.

Some odd comments here for such an interesting starting post.

It's time to bump the elites out of the way. They chose McCain and we all see that it was the wrong choice. They will try to blame Sarah but that's not going to fly with the grassroots. We have to move past whose turn it is, close the primaries and change the primary calendar to allow an equal voice for all.

For the first time in my life I'm seriously considering leaving the party to the elites if we cannot wrest control away from them.

America has serious days ahead regardless of who wins this election and we must move back to teaching and living conservative principles within the party, or if we can't gain control, without it.

It's time to stop going along to get along and stand up for what we believe. If we can't win elections by doing that then we won't be any worse off than we are now.

 

 

Biden vs. Palin

Submitted by Joe C. on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 04:35.

All the evidence suggests that Biden is much dumber than Democrats think Palin is; and Palin much smarter than they think Biden is. If Palin had said 1/10 the crap that’s come out of Biden’s head, I’d be leading the charge to drop her from the ticket.

If you recall, we said that Biden was at the bottom of the list of VP candidates that worried Republicans, below Osama bin Laden and Hannah Montana — now you know why.

If I didn’t know better, I’d think Biden was a Republican, or more likely, a Clinton plant. Biden makes Palin seem like Margaret Thatcher by the day.

Colin Powell was Obama’s last trump, and it got jumped by Biden’s warning to the world. Any Powell bump - minimal at best - is done despite the Media trying desperately to make it and him relevant; but Biden’s a lodestone around Obama’s neck - just like we knew he would be - which all goes back to B. Hussein’s judgment.

absolutely, Joe..

Submitted by Darvin Dowdy on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 07:25.

...if McCain/Palin don't take this latest gaffe from Biden and run with it, starting today, then they don't deserve to win.  Biden is completely right!   An inexperienced Obama will be a target for the world.  Not just a terrorist attack only but we'll have countries all over the world con'ing us out of our wealth.  People all over the world are smacking their lips.  No wonder all this money has come from outside the US into the Obama campaign coffers. Which is illegal, I might add.  DD

A few points

Submitted by cr on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 09:21.

The original post has a very interesting point. It will be interesting to see who is next up in the leadership at RNC. I think neither Palin nor Romney. Both will want (although I can't say they won't be talked out of it) to run again in 2012 or 2016.

McCain hasn't run a very good campaign, but Palin hasn't helped outside the base. Period.

Don't kid yourselves. Obama will go to the center like Bill did. Cry socialism all you want, but if he wins, he'll rule from the middle and stay 8yrs. He's just as shrewed as Bill without the zipper problem.

There's too much analysis for Nixon style campaign antics. Dismiss the MSM, but the middle doesn't hing on FOX or NatRev. Or TheNextRight .  . . sorry. Reps will have to embrace the MSM, not fight it. Because it fights back and the numbers are on their side.

I actually disagree. Obama will be the man in a hurry

Submitted by section9 on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 10:59.

 Barack, should he win, will be forced by the ultramontaine left to move on Socialism in One Country Health Care, Union Thug Card Check, and of course, free speech killing moves such as reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine because he will understand that politics moves in waves and he'll want to move before the backlash takes effect.

He will buy off the Center Right on these moves by looking "tough" in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, much to the consternation of the Kos Kiddies and the Code Pinkies. But they'll wink because they are getting Socialism. I always figured he was lying about his antiwar positions anyway.

Eventually, he will move to the Center, as you say, which is why any Republican Critique must be centrist and policy based. However, your analysis of the media, I think, is somewhat dated-it's a dying institution. 

It'll be interesting . .

Submitted by cr on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 12:28.

I agree he'll have to move fast on certain things. It will be interesting what those things will be. It'd be interesting if somewhat got a betting pool going.  He'll try to keep it balanced, and I bet he doesn't break the bank. It's issue #1 in the U.S. right now.  

But as far as MSM, unless people stop watching TV, there will be a MSM. People are essentially lazy about their info. And even with the internet, most people are multi-channel consummers. I'm a media/news junky, but I keep it to a small few . . . each channel representing a different angle.

OBAMA'S SOCIALISM WONT WAIT

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 14:11.

Obama cant wait for 2010 to solidify his gains, for all he knows he will have lost 'the moment'.

 Thus, we can very much expect an ambitious plan for 2009 should Obama win.

Bigger Govt, power to the union, pro-abortion legislation, give more to the UN, amnesty for illegals. ... the whole 9 yards in one mother-of-all-socialist-Congresses.

Why? Because they will KNOW that this time is the high water mark, they cant do better in 2010.

Our mantra will then be - STOP OBAMA'S SOCIALISM!

 

Socialism

Submitted by cr on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 14:34.

What's better than socialism . . .  staying in power. The U.S. isn't a socialist country. If Obama et. al push through a overt socialist agenda, they'll get voted out. Health care may be as close as they get. And I know this is somewhat blaphemous here, but our health care sucks. I rather someone try something and fail, then our current status quo.

And if we wanted to get rid of socialism, we could get rid of the public school system, medicare/medicade, and of course retirement. It's really a line in the sand. Particularly if you consider the last eight years. Remember, Clinton balanced the budget and made major overhauls to welfare. So . . . I don't necesarily believe in the 20 year old socialist charge.

Pelosi/Reid/Schumer incumbents

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 15:31.

 

"What's better than socialism . . .  staying in power. The U.S. isn't a socialist country. If Obama et. al push through a overt socialist agenda, they'll get voted out."

Democrats have a majority in Congress and are cultivating power-hungry moves to cement power.  That is actually PART of why it is socialism - socialistic giveaways for college student is a means of increasing govt control on the economy, and by making people more dependent on govt, they get the 'voters loyalty' who are now govt dependents. socialism increases dependency.

It's always harder to extract incumbents than put them in there in the first place. It's not clear that once they rejigger laws to benefit themselves, they will get booted out right quick.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the “community organizer” left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress — Democratic, naturally.

And if we wanted to get rid of socialism, we could get rid of the public school system, medicare/medicade, and of course retirement. It's really a line in the sand. Particularly if you consider the last eight years.

Thanks for the strawman argument... There is nothing that justifies a govt taking over more of our economy.

Remember, Clinton balanced the budget and made major overhauls to welfare.

Gingrich Congress did that. Obama wont have Gingrich, he'll have liberals Pelosi and Reid.

"So . . . I don't necesarily believe in the 20 year old socialist charge."

You only have to believe Obama's $800 billion in spending promises, his promise to mandate health insurance and move us to govt-run single-payer style healthcare, etc. The #1 thing is Obama's phony 'tax cut' which is actually a socialist redistribution of wealth - Obama dishonestly redefines a welfare check from the Government as a 'tax cut' since the agency sending the welfare checks is the IRS.

It is a very feeble and very dishonest way of presenting the biggest expansion in the welfare state since the great society. There is more that Obama and Democrats in Congress want to do:

  • Special interest giveaways to groups like ACORN
  • Government takeover of health-care, shifting as many a 50 million more people into a Government run plan (See below, Obama ultimately wants single payer aka 100% Socialized medicine!)
  • pork barrel-overspending, like the $200 billion farm bill the Pelosi Congress passed, and the $1+ TRILLION in bailouts this year; Pelosi wants another bailout for $300 billion, on top of the $700 billion for wall street, $300 billion housing bailout and $100 billion govt check giveaway - when will it end?
  • Pro-abortion extremism, including taxpayer funded abortions and ‘Freedom of Choice’ Act, which will override state desires to protect unborn life
  • Amnesty for illegal aliens, and drivers licenses for illegal aliens, which Obama supports
  • No drilling in ANWR or offshore, and an anti-energy policy that won’t allow full exploration offshore; it means higher energy prices
  • Trade policies that are the worst since Herbert Hoover (who created a depression out of similar policies)
  • Higher taxes that will kill jobs; Obama in the past year proposed higher payroll taxes, higher income taxes, and raising the capital gains taxes from 15% to 25%. Now in the general election, Obama has flipflopped on it, but he will surely flipflop back in order to make taxpayers pay for his $800 billion in spending promises that he can’t keep without higher taxes.
  • Job-killing ‘cap-and-trade’ CO2 regulations
  • Attacks on free speech, with “fairness doctrine” attacks on talk radio, and political correctness attacks on free speech( Missouri DAs investigating people who say bad things about Obama)
  • Attacks on the ballot box, by ending the secret ballot for union elections, and by opposing voter ID laws

 

Wow, you've just created quite alundry list of far-left

Submitted by Big Ben 4 liberty on Tue, 10/21/2008 - 18:23.

politicial goals.  All of which make me want to vomet at the very thoughts of what this will do to personal and economic freedom in this country.  The worsdt part willl be the sheeple and the O-bots that will be convinced that when the economy goes completely down the shitter that it is somehow the GOP and "big business" fault and that more work needs to be done.  I fear greatly for the future of this country and I am not reassured when Obama supporters deny they are socialist (just like the Soviets were simply misunderstood progressives).