PDA

View Full Version : Newt's advice for Palin comeback



ducks
08-14-2009, 11:42 PM
Sarah Palin wants to make a 2012 political comeback, she’ll need three types of speeches, some serious television face time, a credible organization and a bucket load of sheer determination.

Oh, and she might want to get a place outside of Alaska, somewhere in the lower 48.

That’s some of the advice former House Speaker Newt Gingrich offered when POLITICO asked him what Palin needs to do to keep her presidential options open.

Since he’s among the few to come close to pulling off what Palin, the ex-governor of Alaska, may ultimately seek to do, Gingrich is uniquely qualified to comment.

The former Georgia congressman has been out of elected office for more than decade, yet he’s a perennial on the Republican Party’s presidential watch lists, and he is regularly consulted by party insiders for strategic and policy advice.

It’s a feat of political levitation that wasn’t achieved by accident or through some natural political order.

In politics, power and influence are fluid assets, won and lost in a perpetual competition between rising newcomers, established players and fading stars.

Operating at the pinnacle of power requires a strategy for getting there and staying there. Gingrich had such a plan — and it’s one that he says could be tweaked to work for Palin, too.

Essentially there are six elements to his approach:

1. Write a book. Palin is already set to do that, which Gingrich applauds. A book, he said, helps a politician lay out his or her philosophy and experiences in their own unhurried words. It also helps score TV time, which in turn helps sell books, he added.

2. Land a regular commentator slot on television. It’s a sure way for an outsider to stay inside the national dialogue and in touch with the incumbents, activists and strategists who can help launch a comeback.

3. Consider getting a condominium in New York or Washington. An East Coast base of operations would ease what could become an onerous travel schedule from Alaska.

4. Write and master three types of speeches. One speech “is to make money,” he said, and should be something smart and entertaining.

The second set of speeches includes what Gingrich calls “high-value” addresses designed to be delivered before major interest groups and universities, enabling Palin to “project her brand.”

The third speech, of course, is a campaign stump speech that she can take on the road in 2010 to help Republican candidates raise money and gain attention.

5. Create some sort of national project or center. This can serve as a base for her political return and an incubator for ideas and action on issues. A National Energy Project, Gingrich said, would be a natural for Palin.

6. Plan on working really, really hard. Many ex-politicians confuse being a celebrity with being a serious political player, Gingrich said. “She can be a personality for a long time,” he said. “But that is very different from becoming a national leader.”

Of course, even if Palin follows such a path, there are no guarantees.

Gingrich has cut a high profile through speeches, books and a campaign-style organization and website that regularly issues updates on his activities and constantly refreshes his list of donors and supporters.
His policy analysis on energy, health care and other issues are respected — although maybe not embraced — by both conservatives and liberals.

Just last week, Gingrich was stopped in a Capitol hallway by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a member of the bipartisan team of senators working on health care reform legislation. “I’ve read everything you’ve got,” said Grassley, clutching Gingrich’s hand.

Despite all that, Gingrich has yet to see the kind of “Draft Newt” movement that could lure him onto the presidential field.

In fact, the last Oval Office aspirant to dust himself off after a national defeat, stay in the game, and go on to win the White House was Ronald Reagan — and that was 30 years ago.

Many have tried to replicate that magic, including Dan Quayle, John Edwards and Jack Kemp, to name a few. But, despite all their promises that they’d be back, they all fell far short of Reagan’s comeback.

Some of them lost because they overestimated their star power, some turned out to lack the requisite skill set, and others failed to build the type of machine that Gingrich describes, a vehicle that can command attention in the wilderness years.

Reagan’s political recovery plan, which was relatively innovative for its time, included regular radio addresses and newspaper columns. The disciplined writing schedule helped Reagan refine his thinking on policy and spread his message between 1976 and the launch of his second presidential campaign in 1979.

Palin, like Reagan, is a galvanizing figure for conservatives. (She also drives liberals crazy, like he did.) And she exhibited plenty of raw political talent last year running beside John McCain on the Republican ticket.

But first and foremost, Gingrich said, Palin “has to be clear in her own head what she wants to do.”

Palin has said she is still mulling her options. Her rambling farewell speech in Alaska seemed to suggest a fair amount of ambivalence about what course she’ll take.

In that speech, Palin cast herself as both a victim of the national media and Hollywood and a fighter tough enough to stay in the political fray and stand up for conservative values.

Her lack of clarity left Alaskans in a muddle, too. A statewide poll conducted after the speech showed a steep drop in her favorability ratings, with 48 percent viewing her negatively and 46 percent viewing her positively.

The negative perception at home is even more pronounced on the national level, which raises one of the biggest hurdles to a Reagan-like comeback for Palin.

Where Reagan used humor to disarm his opponents and win new converts, Palin uses it to eviscerate adversaries, an approach that can intimidate and alienate the unconverted.

Reagan’s good-guy roles from his Hollywood days helped make him a familiar and likable figure, whereas the television parodies of Palin diminished her.

A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 67 percent of Americans, including 43 percent of Republicans, would not like to see her as president someday.

Still, Gingrich believes she can overcome the caricatures and the poll numbers but that “she has to decide how serious she wants to be about becoming a national leader.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090814/pl_politico/26018/print

SonOfAGun
08-14-2009, 11:45 PM
Basically do the things Newt has been doing the past few years :lol

whottt
08-15-2009, 12:50 AM
I wish Newt would give himself a 12 gauge enema. The Republican Party would be better off if he did. IMO, it is he that typifies all the negatives about the Republicans. He is the Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank of the Republicans. Extremely repellent politician to moderate voters.

Def Rowe
08-15-2009, 01:07 AM
^^^ Now that was pretty funny. :lol

boutons_deux
08-15-2009, 08:57 AM
"typifies all the negatives about the Repugs"

Which is why he will be a leading contender for the nomination in 2012.

Gingrich/Limbaugh for WH, Palin at State, Beck runnning DoD, Savage HHS, Malkin as WH spokesbitch, Let's Roll! :lol

SonOfAGun
08-15-2009, 10:21 AM
lmao @ the thought of Savage with any sort of power.

Talk about change!

Wild Cobra
08-15-2009, 10:59 AM
I think the best strategy is:

Let Sarah be Sarah.

People love her. Newt doesn't know what he's talking about because he's been a politician too long. The pnly arsenal she needs is a band of lawyers that will find facts and discredit the slander that follows her from petty liberal pundits.

I wish it was illegal to slander public figures. I would love to see so many liberals in jail that are slanderers.

boutons_deux
08-15-2009, 11:18 AM
"Let Sarah be Sarah."

YES! ignorant, unethical, freaky religion/creationist/etc, hypocrite, rural asshole of a quitter and voter betrayer.

"people love her" if they share the same characteristics. While there are millions, eg WC, there aren't enough them to win national elections.

DarrinS
08-15-2009, 11:28 AM
"Let Sarah be Sarah."

YES! ignorant, unethical, freaky religion/creationist/etc, hypocrite, rural asshole of a quitter and voter betrayer.

"people love her" if they share the same characteristics. While there are millions, eg WC, there aren't enough them to win national elections.



Strangely enough, most blacks and hispanics that are huge part of the Democratic base have the same freaky religious beliefs. It's always been odd to me that white secular libs constantly slam Christianity and these people continue to blindly vote blue. Other than the entitlement society that's always promised and never delivered, what to the Dems have to offer them?

clambake
08-15-2009, 12:36 PM
you guys have missed the mark, again.

we absolutely love sarah palin.

boutons_deux
08-15-2009, 02:26 PM
"have the same freaky religious beliefs"

true. Many poor, uneducated, uncultured people are targets for "religious" hucksters, and suckers for all kinds of superstitions, like the Irish famously were arriving in the 19th century from that benighted, oppressed country.

"always been odd to me"

because you're pretty stupid.

The Repugs are the part of and the conservatives are philosopy the Haves, conspiring to maintain and increase their wealth and privilege, conserve the status quo with them eternally on top.

Dems are the party of Have-Nots, people who want a progressive, open, equal-opportunity society where they can benefit from upward social and economic mobility, both of which have declined since the conservative got their hate and lying machine into full top gear under St Ronnie.

Yonivore
08-15-2009, 05:01 PM
Many poor, uneducated, uncultured people are targets for "religious" hucksters, and suckers for all kinds of superstitions,...
You mean like Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ?


The Repugs are the part of and the conservatives are philosopy the Haves, conspiring to maintain and increase their wealth and privilege, conserve the status quo with them eternally on top.

Dems are the party of Have-Nots, people who want a progressive, open, equal-opportunity society where they can benefit from upward social and economic mobility, both of which have declined since the conservative got their hate and lying machine into full top gear under St Ronnie.
:lmao That's rich. (no pun intended).

Here, let me try.

Republicans are the party of individual liberty and self-determination.

Democrats are the party of wealth redistribution and government dependency.

LnGrrrR
08-15-2009, 05:30 PM
A question on the 'individual liberty' standpoint:

If that were the case, then why install democracy in other countries? Surely, the people in those countries should use their own liberty to overthrow their government if a poor one?

Are we not giving a 'hand-out' to those in other countries by performing their revolutions for them?

Yonivore
08-15-2009, 05:35 PM
A question on the 'individual liberty' standpoint:

If that were the case, then why install democracy in other countries? Surely, the people in those countries should use their own liberty to overthrow their government if a poor one?
And, the French helped us. Further, I believe their reasons weren't so different than our's are now...foreign policy and national security concerns.


Are we not giving a 'hand-out' to those in other countries by performing their revolutions for them?
We didn't perform our's on our own, we had help.

LnGrrrR
08-15-2009, 05:51 PM
And, the French helped us. Further, I believe their reasons weren't so different than our's are now...foreign policy and national security concerns.


We didn't perform our's on our own, we had help.

Yes, because the French hated the British, and taking them a step down was useful to them.

However, the French were not the primary force fighting off the British. (At least not on land, their navy certainly helped a great deal in fighting off blockades.)

Additionally, there is a difference in going to war with a declared ally, and occupying a territory. Would you consider Iraq an "ally"? After all, it's not like France occupied our country and were the primary police force. Heck, they certainly weren't the initiators of the conflict, at the least.

Yonivore
08-15-2009, 05:53 PM
...was useful to them.
Equals national interest.


However, the French were not the primary force fighting off the British. (At least not on land, their navy certainly helped a great deal in fighting off blockades.)

Additionally, there is a difference in going to war with a declared ally, and occupying a territory. Would you consider Iraq an "ally"? After all, it's not like France occupied our country and were the primary police force. Heck, they certainly weren't the initiators of the conflict, at the least.
Doesn't negate the principal reason being our own national interests.

Otherwise, we'd be in Sudan.

DMX7
08-15-2009, 06:40 PM
I for one, welcome Sarah Palin back into the national spotlight.

I loved her farewell "thing".

"In the winter time it's the frozen road that is competing with the view of ice fogged frigid beauty, the cold though, doesn't it split the Cheechakos from the Sourdoughs? :lmao And then in the summertime such extreme summertime about a hundred and fifty degrees hotter than just some months ago, than just some months from now, with fireweed blooming along the frost heaves and merciless rivers that are rushing and carving and reminding us that here, Mother Nature wins."

LnGrrrR
08-15-2009, 07:46 PM
Equals national interest.


Doesn't negate the principal reason being our own national interests.

Otherwise, we'd be in Sudan.

See, I think our national interest is better served by staying out of the majority of countries. I think we encourage terrorist sympathizers by occupying countries. I can see where people would think opposite.

My opinion is that our country would be better served by putting money/time/blood into our social services as opposed to overseas ventures.

Yonivore
08-15-2009, 07:53 PM
See, I think our national interest is better served by staying out of the majority of countries. I think we encourage terrorist sympathizers by occupying countries. I can see where people would think opposite.

My opinion is that our country would be better served by putting money/time/blood into our social services as opposed to overseas ventures.
And, as you point out, reasonable people can disagree.

I think one counter point would be that terrorists don't seemed to be deterred or inflamed by anything we do. They have their ideology and will fit (or fabricate) the facts to support their atrocities.

Rodriguez
08-15-2009, 08:01 PM
you guys have missed the mark, again.

we absolutely love sarah palin.
Sarah Palin is a beauty in comparison to other females around Barack Hussein.