Sarah Palin Appeal: What It Is And What It Isn't?

Via Dan at GP:

If, in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 election, you had asked me to put together a broad-based panel on reviving the right, I would surely have chosen to include David Frum. Yeah, I know he had been strongly critical of John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate, but, at the time, he seemed to have based his objections on rational arguments, notably her lack of experience on the national stage.

Comments

[Joe]

I have no problem with David Frum's criticism of Sarah Palin. His points were not much different than Charles Krauthammer's--she killed McCain's experience argument.

Even if I disagreed, that was a legitimate point. I do not have any problems with that. What I have problems with is witch hunts led by Andrew Sullivan.

In hindsight, would have McCain done better with Mitt Romney (who certainly had business experience to deal with the financial crisis that hit)? Maybe. I think they still would have lost to Obama-Biden. If you go back with what McCain was facing in losing his own base, Sarah Palin was a good choice. Unfortunately, there were just not a lot of options. Unfortunately Romney, Huckabee, or McCain could not have won in 2008.

Back to Frum. I do not disagree that attacking the Susan Collins and other liberal to moderate Republicans in the Northeast is short sighted and dumb. Each race has to be treated as a unique event. You look at the political realities of the race and choose the most conservative candidate WHO CAN WIN (the William F. Buckley formula).

But I absolutely and totally disagree that the Republican party should be Democrat-Lite or Democrat-Fiscal Conservative or Socially Liberal-Fiscal Conservative. That will not cut it. There can certainly be social liberals in the GOP, but that does not reflect the mean of the party.

What the party should be (on a national level) is socially libertarian/federalist (in leaving social issues to the states mostly to resolve) and fiscally conservative. That makes much more sense. Is more democratic. It addresses regional differences. And it is a sound formula for winning elections.

[Miklo]

SP is darling, and it drives them all bird-cray-zee!

[Huey]

McCain's "experience argument" was such a compelling argument that he moved to just under 10 points below Obama! How could he add such an anchor on his campaign! Why, she only changed the dynamic of the campaign so that McCain was actually winning until McCain's extraordinary sense of political timing caused him to suspend his campaign to get to work in Washington and then leave Washington with nothing to show for it!

[Dick Stanley]

Frum's right, she is sexy, and he's hardly the first to note it. Course that's not the only reason for her popularity, else all those women (many of them moms) would not be interested. She certainly had more experience than Barry. Her biggest flaw was having to run with McCain who even kept her out of Michigan, of all places.

[4rc]

Very true, Mccain's "experienced argument" was not enough to tip him over. Nor was it a winning tag for Hillary. He way way behind in the polls. To win, you have to attack your opponents strong point. "Hope And Change" and "Celebrity" status. You go for the all in kill instead of attacking on the fringes

[syn]

Palin appeal?

She has INTEGRITY.

A concept lost among the Ivy-Inbred and those who dwell in Obama's 57th State.

[emergency ration packs]

As a former governor Palin does retian the title of Governor; always will unless she is elected to a higher post. Both anonymous comments are cowardly.