Thursday, November 13, 2008

Don't do it Sarah!!

A move to the Senate would be disasterous to Palin.

In spite of all the negative press she's received, she's a star right now. She's getting interviewed all over the place. Even in a state as distant as Alaska, she would maintain a higher profile by remaining governor (and gaining further executive experience) than she would serving as a junior senator for the minority party.

7 comments:

  1. A Senate seat would give her more foreign policy experience though. Something she was criticized for heavily in the election.

    ReplyDelete
  2. She has two years to bone up on foreign policy (maybe a little less since the election cycle seems to start earlier all the time).

    If she were part of a GOP majority, then I could possibly see it, but with the Dems approaching a super-majority, I think it would be tough for her to get the exposure to anything that would help.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's regretable that "serving as a junior senator for the minority party" wouldn't be enough, since that describes exactly our current president-elect.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Governor is a better position to move from to the Presidency than Senator, statistically speaking, the President-elect notwithstanding.

    That's assuming you want Palin as President. I can think of several others I'd prefer, though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Senator Obama was elected to a 50/50 split which then became a 50/49 Dem advantage when Jim Jeffords (VT) became an independent.

    Two years later when the presidential campaigns rolled underway, he was a member of the majority.

    Even so, he is the first sitting senator to win election in a LONG time. Unless I'm mistaken, he's the first since JFK. He was also running against another sitting senator, so either one would have broken that string.

    The path to the presidency has almost always been via the governor's chair.

    ReplyDelete
  6. My bad--at any rate, his very brief senatorial term is still worth pause. And I agree that governorship is not only a statistically more common pre-presidential position, but a better one in general. The states are supposed to operate as a microcosm of the rest of the world--originally, anyway, when the individual states were more self-sufficient and not subjected to massive federal control.

    What about heads of bureaus? George H.W. Bush was head of the CIA, which guaranteed a grasp of foreign policy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not only foreign policy, being head of any agency (much less the CIA) cultivates executive experience.

    ReplyDelete