palin for senate

that is all we need....more bad reality shows. It would bring politics down to a whole new low.

I can't discount the idea entirely. We just elected a professional politician president. Like our democrat president he hasn't held a normal job in his life. From community organizer working for political groups to political representative as state senator and US Senator. Like so many serving in elected office the man has no idea what it is like to live like normal folks. Our founding fathers envisioned a citizen legislature of working men and women who chose to serve their community for a few years then return to private life. What we got was a bunch of professional politicians who aimed for office from high school onward, perhaps spent some time as a lawyer, got into office and served as a representative, appointee or lobbyist for the rest of their lives. The fact that someone isn't well versed in the geopolitical situation outside the US means nothing to me as long as they understand the country they choose to serve and represent. I'd rather have a president who can't find Chad on a globe than have one who announces that he has visited 57 of the states and has one more to go. If they think that South Africa lives under a monarchy, OK, someone will make it clear before they have to deal with them directly. That is what the secretary of state is for. If they don't understand the constitution, or worse, think it should be rewritten to suit their views, that is something I consider a big problem.

We do need conservative leadership in the legislature and we need representiatives who will fight corruption and the waste of tax dollars. It is said that no ones serves more than one term in the senate without thinking of running for president but, history shows us that Senators rarely get elected to that office. Governors, are elected most of the time.

The current Republican Leadership is made up of the same country club blue bloods who called Ford a perfect choice and Reagan unelectable. Ford went down in flames and Reagan garnered 2 landslide victories. I there is one thing the leaders hate it's solid conservatives. They find the Christian values, pro life, pro second amendment crowd embarrassing. The Blue Bloods in the GOP are "fiscal conservatives" who tend to be politically correct. "Social conservative" are just as bad since they tend to favor big government fixes and lot's of government spending. They tend to be in the minority of the leadership but they are in the leadership. The grass roots people who make the party work are simply conservatives. They subscribe to the whole enchilada of traditional views that the GOP was founded on and only by promoting their Ideas do presidents get elected. The whigs were fiscal conservatives who couldn't care less about the slavery issue and after the Republicans were formed they became virtually extinct. There are plenty of social conservatives in both parties but Democrats sneer at their values and ideals. This is why a true conservative always wins when they run. Reagan democrats are nothing but social conservative that realized only one party was backing them. Fiscal conservatives already favor Republicans. By playing to both Reagan won two electoral landslides and Bush gained the largest popular vote landslide in the country's history. Fiscal conservatives like Ford, GHW Bush, McCain and Dole simply cannot inspire the base or convert the opposition sufficiently to win. The Recounts in Alaska and other states won't be finished for quite some time and the interference by ACORN volunteers who were caught cheating is going to complicate things. Some states are readying for run-off elections where the law requires a clear majority winner. In the mean time I really think folks need to get some perspective. The 2012 election is a long way off. A Lot can change in the meantime. just think about the dramatic change in 1994.

George H W Bush and Ronald Reagen both lost primary battles only to be elected in later elections. Former VP candidate can be found running for the top spot in almost every election and even Al Gore, who lost every primary from 1975 until he became VP came close to winning the White House. Being chosen by McCain got Palin into the mainstream spotlight where conservative around the country could learn what people who study politics already knew. This woman is a staunch conservative with the message that could re energize the conservative base. Whether or not she runs for President(and so far she shows no interest in the job)she will be a force in the republican party for a long time to come. If she isn't interested in the presidency I would love to see her go for the legislature when she is finished being governor. I just don't think the senate is a good job for anyone who aspires to be President of the United States.

I wasn't talking primary battles, heck, that's common practice, at least for the GOP - the Dems seem to like having canidates come out of nowhere! Carter, Clinton, Obama.... I agree that the Senate may not be that great a place for her, but.... well, it remains to be seen what she decides to do

I believe she would be useful as a conservative leader in any elected position. I'm just looking at the historic precedent that Senators rarely make successful presidential candidates and governors are often most successful. So far she has stated that she and her advisers are looking toward the future and that the future is not 2012. She seems quite focused on her current job as Governor. I just think ti's silly for an "informed commentator" to state that a term in the senate would help her chances in a presidential election. Quite frankly I was far more shocked that a well known talk host on an even better known program with a reputation for intelligent analysis would make such a rediculous comment. historically speaking his opinion is nuts.

I'm not from Alaska so I don't know when her term is up. It may end in January making her a candidate for the position. If it isn't over in January then the discussion is moot. Legally and constitutionally the Governor cannot take over for a senator or anyone else. She could accept appointment to a federal post from the president but, cannot move to another post within her own state and the Senate position represents her state. The race is close and there may be nothing to discuss in the coming weeks but, it's certain, that if he wins, he will be run out of the senate and Alaska will be looking for another representative. Under the 17th amendment the state government decides whether the replacement is appointed or elected in a special election. If they go with election they could still ask the governor to appoint someone in the interim and the next opportunity for a special election would probably be in the spring. Around here I think we have an vote in April which is mostly ballot initiatives and tax levies but can include election of replacement representatives. Due to the cost of setting up an election it is unlikely they would set the date for a time when they weren't already scheduled to vote anyway.

As it stands right now she is the governor. Her role is to start a special election for his replacement once he is gone and in some cases the governor can appoint someone to take that role until the end of the term if the next election is close enough. The verdict on him came down at a time in which it would have left the district with a one party uncontested election because there was no longer time to replace him on the ballot. The people of that district fought hard to get a Republican in that seat rather than concede the election to the democrats. I don't think there are many people, even among those who voted for him who actually want him to hold the seat but, the tactic has given that district a chance for a fair choice. I have no doubt that Palin would do great in the senate and would happily take the job if it were assigned to her. As to helping her resume, I simply think it would hurt her chances to consider running for president later. Senators have only been elected president a couple of times and most of the rest of our former presidents were governors. (Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc)