Sarah Palin won’t run either

Yet another potential Republican candidate that some people were hoping might enter the fray has said, “no.”  Sarah Palin has announced that she will not run.  On top of that, Florida governor Marco Rubio has he won’t even accept a nomination for Vice-President.

Over 300 million people in this country and the Republicans can’t find anyone they like to run against Obama?

Ed Driscoll » Palin’s Not Running. Update: Marco Rubio Out As Veep?.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Random Lutheran

    Does anyone really want the job (including the current president), especially with the economy as it is (and looks to be)? Odds are not so good for things to be significantly better in 2016, and the incumbent usually catches the blame for a bad economy, even if they inherited it. If things turn around there’s the chance of a huge reward — but the risk likely looks far too great.

  • Random Lutheran

    Does anyone really want the job (including the current president), especially with the economy as it is (and looks to be)? Odds are not so good for things to be significantly better in 2016, and the incumbent usually catches the blame for a bad economy, even if they inherited it. If things turn around there’s the chance of a huge reward — but the risk likely looks far too great.

  • Eric Brown

    Nominate Hilary Clinton – she campaigned for Goldwater, and as the Republicans like to spend money like mad (at least when it’s not the other party in the White House) she’d fit right in.

  • Eric Brown

    Nominate Hilary Clinton – she campaigned for Goldwater, and as the Republicans like to spend money like mad (at least when it’s not the other party in the White House) she’d fit right in.

  • Joe

    “Over 300 million people in this country and the Republicans can’t find anyone they like to run against Obama?”

    What you really mean is the Republicans have not found anyone YOU like. Plenty of people seem happy with the choices. I could be happier but we have plenty of time for these folks to figure it out and get the right message.

    At this point in the 92 election cycle the dems didn’t have a candidate anyone really like either. The fan favorites Mario Cuomo and Al Gore stayed out of the race and the field was wide open with several candidates winning various primaries until the field settled and they rallied around Clinton. (Before anyone says but Perot was the key to Clinton’s success – the data says no, Bush was the key to Clinton’s victory.)

  • Joe

    “Over 300 million people in this country and the Republicans can’t find anyone they like to run against Obama?”

    What you really mean is the Republicans have not found anyone YOU like. Plenty of people seem happy with the choices. I could be happier but we have plenty of time for these folks to figure it out and get the right message.

    At this point in the 92 election cycle the dems didn’t have a candidate anyone really like either. The fan favorites Mario Cuomo and Al Gore stayed out of the race and the field was wide open with several candidates winning various primaries until the field settled and they rallied around Clinton. (Before anyone says but Perot was the key to Clinton’s success – the data says no, Bush was the key to Clinton’s victory.)

  • MarkB

    I am much more happy with the choices we have for the Republican presidential candidates this time over having another McCain. All of these major candidates stand in sharp contrast to what the Democrats have to offer.

  • MarkB

    I am much more happy with the choices we have for the Republican presidential candidates this time over having another McCain. All of these major candidates stand in sharp contrast to what the Democrats have to offer.

  • Kirk

    Curses! That’s one less grossly under-qualified potential nominee! Less competition for Herman Cain

  • Kirk

    Curses! That’s one less grossly under-qualified potential nominee! Less competition for Herman Cain

  • Joe

    btw – the real story is that she also said she will not run as a third party candidate.

  • Joe

    btw – the real story is that she also said she will not run as a third party candidate.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Random Lutheran’s comment (@1) is not the first time I’ve heard someone attempt to explain the situation by asking, in apparent sincerity, why anyone would want to be President in 2012, given the conditions.

    I think this dramatically misses the point of why people want to be President.

    But, more to the point, it reminds me ever so much of talk on the Democratic side in 2004. “Why would anyone want to inherit Bush’s messed-up wars?” went the questioning then.

    I suspect — then as now — that this is just a way of preparing yourself for your team to lose. “Eh, it’s a lousy job at this point. Let Obama have it.”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Random Lutheran’s comment (@1) is not the first time I’ve heard someone attempt to explain the situation by asking, in apparent sincerity, why anyone would want to be President in 2012, given the conditions.

    I think this dramatically misses the point of why people want to be President.

    But, more to the point, it reminds me ever so much of talk on the Democratic side in 2004. “Why would anyone want to inherit Bush’s messed-up wars?” went the questioning then.

    I suspect — then as now — that this is just a way of preparing yourself for your team to lose. “Eh, it’s a lousy job at this point. Let Obama have it.”

  • Random Lutheran

    tODD: That might be the case if I had a “team”. Today I’m wishing we just had a national lottery for office — the results would probably be better than what we’re liable to end up with next year.

    This election could well resemble (in the past 25+ years) ’84, ’88, ’96, ’04, and ’08. Neither losing side in any of those elections really wanted to win; had they wanted to, they would have put actual, serious contenders on the ballot.

  • Random Lutheran

    tODD: That might be the case if I had a “team”. Today I’m wishing we just had a national lottery for office — the results would probably be better than what we’re liable to end up with next year.

    This election could well resemble (in the past 25+ years) ’84, ’88, ’96, ’04, and ’08. Neither losing side in any of those elections really wanted to win; had they wanted to, they would have put actual, serious contenders on the ballot.

  • steve

    Good!

    To address the question posed in post #1, I don’t know who would want the job, but then again, I think there’s a certain dysfunction in the desire to actually want to be a modern-day president. So, I personally distrustful of anyone who would want to be one. I just vote for whomever I’m least distrustful.

  • steve

    Good!

    To address the question posed in post #1, I don’t know who would want the job, but then again, I think there’s a certain dysfunction in the desire to actually want to be a modern-day president. So, I personally distrustful of anyone who would want to be one. I just vote for whomever I’m least distrustful.

  • DonS

    Random @ 8: “Neither losing side in any of those elections really wanted to win; had they wanted to, they would have put actual, serious contenders on the ballot.”

    I don’t think you’re right about this. Look at the effort that was made by Republican kingmakers to cajole Christie into running. Republicans need to want to win in 2012 for a couple of key reasons — any chance of repealing Obamacare, absent the probably unlikely chance of the Supreme Court throwing the whole package out, is keyed to having a Republican president in 2013, before it comes fully into effect in 2014. 2016 will be too late. Also, Obama is appointing some of the most radical judges ever to sit on the federal judiciary, as a group. Four more years of Obama judges, including probably two or more additional Supreme Court justices, will have a profound effect on American jurisprudence far beyond any other impact of his Administration. Americans consistently fail to take this factor into account, to the great detriment of the protection of our liberties.

    As for the field of candidates, it’s not bad. They’re never going to be perfect, and it is a much stronger field than either party put up in 2008.

  • DonS

    Random @ 8: “Neither losing side in any of those elections really wanted to win; had they wanted to, they would have put actual, serious contenders on the ballot.”

    I don’t think you’re right about this. Look at the effort that was made by Republican kingmakers to cajole Christie into running. Republicans need to want to win in 2012 for a couple of key reasons — any chance of repealing Obamacare, absent the probably unlikely chance of the Supreme Court throwing the whole package out, is keyed to having a Republican president in 2013, before it comes fully into effect in 2014. 2016 will be too late. Also, Obama is appointing some of the most radical judges ever to sit on the federal judiciary, as a group. Four more years of Obama judges, including probably two or more additional Supreme Court justices, will have a profound effect on American jurisprudence far beyond any other impact of his Administration. Americans consistently fail to take this factor into account, to the great detriment of the protection of our liberties.

    As for the field of candidates, it’s not bad. They’re never going to be perfect, and it is a much stronger field than either party put up in 2008.

  • DonS

    As for Sarah Palin — ho hum. When she didn’t announce, as rumored, in early September it was obvious she wasn’t running. She’s just toying with the press, mostly to secure her family’s financial future, in my opinion. As Joe said, the more significant news is that she denied the possibility of running third party.

  • DonS

    As for Sarah Palin — ho hum. When she didn’t announce, as rumored, in early September it was obvious she wasn’t running. She’s just toying with the press, mostly to secure her family’s financial future, in my opinion. As Joe said, the more significant news is that she denied the possibility of running third party.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Joe and MarkB, I posted a request a few days ago for ANYONE who was enthusiastic about ANY of the candidates. NO ONE emerged. So if the two of you are excited about a particular candidate, I’m glad to hear it. Tell me who it is and why. Maybe you’ll convince me and the rest of the Republican party.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Joe and MarkB, I posted a request a few days ago for ANYONE who was enthusiastic about ANY of the candidates. NO ONE emerged. So if the two of you are excited about a particular candidate, I’m glad to hear it. Tell me who it is and why. Maybe you’ll convince me and the rest of the Republican party.

  • Random Lutheran

    DonS: you could well be right that the Republicans want to win this next year. The whole Christie thing, however, looks like panic to me. We’ll see how things play out one way or the other.

  • Random Lutheran

    DonS: you could well be right that the Republicans want to win this next year. The whole Christie thing, however, looks like panic to me. We’ll see how things play out one way or the other.

  • Cincinnatus

    tODD, I’m a bit late to the party here, but you’ve rather undermined yourself @7 in reference to 2004. Who was the stellar candidate the Democrats were able to sift from a veritable league of progressive heroes in those primaries? Oh right. John Kerry. One of the least compelling candidates in recent history. I guess John Edwards was around, but in retrospect he would have been a disaster. But hey, the Democrats could have sprung instead for Dennis Kucinich or Carol Mosely Braun or Al Sharpton or Howard Dean–definitely no fringe loonies or inexperienced extremists in that bunch! Meanwhile, in 2008, the Democrats boasted a deep bench of fairly strong candidates: Obama (strong popular appeal, anyway), Clinton, Bill Richardson (I’ve always been a tentative fan), and, again, John Edwards, etc. Any one of those four probably could have defeated McCain. The Republican brand was soured, and it was the Democratic race to lose.

    So I reiterate: Since I flatter myself to think you’re implicitly referencing me @7, I maintain my belief that the truly strong Republican candidates are sitting it out until 2016. The Republicans have an odd, if not detestable, brand right now in the eyes of the general electorate thanks largely to Tea Party intransigence in Congress, and a Republican victory in 2012 will be, for most, a choice between two evils–with Obama in that case being the greater evil. Christie, Jindal, Rubio, et al. are waiting, as I said, until 2016 when the Democratic brand has been soiled completely (as it likely will be due to the continuing soggy economy and a general absence of constructive, coherent ideas regarding what to do about it) and Republicans might be able to offer actual alternatives.

    That said, I actually think Romney and probably even Perry could mount a successful campaign against Obama this year. I won’t be voting for them, as I generally detest the Republican party, but I think reports of Obama’s impending victory are greatly exaggerated. He is one of the weakest incumbents in recent history.

  • Cincinnatus

    tODD, I’m a bit late to the party here, but you’ve rather undermined yourself @7 in reference to 2004. Who was the stellar candidate the Democrats were able to sift from a veritable league of progressive heroes in those primaries? Oh right. John Kerry. One of the least compelling candidates in recent history. I guess John Edwards was around, but in retrospect he would have been a disaster. But hey, the Democrats could have sprung instead for Dennis Kucinich or Carol Mosely Braun or Al Sharpton or Howard Dean–definitely no fringe loonies or inexperienced extremists in that bunch! Meanwhile, in 2008, the Democrats boasted a deep bench of fairly strong candidates: Obama (strong popular appeal, anyway), Clinton, Bill Richardson (I’ve always been a tentative fan), and, again, John Edwards, etc. Any one of those four probably could have defeated McCain. The Republican brand was soured, and it was the Democratic race to lose.

    So I reiterate: Since I flatter myself to think you’re implicitly referencing me @7, I maintain my belief that the truly strong Republican candidates are sitting it out until 2016. The Republicans have an odd, if not detestable, brand right now in the eyes of the general electorate thanks largely to Tea Party intransigence in Congress, and a Republican victory in 2012 will be, for most, a choice between two evils–with Obama in that case being the greater evil. Christie, Jindal, Rubio, et al. are waiting, as I said, until 2016 when the Democratic brand has been soiled completely (as it likely will be due to the continuing soggy economy and a general absence of constructive, coherent ideas regarding what to do about it) and Republicans might be able to offer actual alternatives.

    That said, I actually think Romney and probably even Perry could mount a successful campaign against Obama this year. I won’t be voting for them, as I generally detest the Republican party, but I think reports of Obama’s impending victory are greatly exaggerated. He is one of the weakest incumbents in recent history.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@14), I’m afraid I’m a bit confused as to what you think you’re replying to. This could be my fault — maybe I’m just confused, period. Let me try to work it out, though.

    You’ve rather undermined yourself @7 in reference to 2004. Who was the stellar candidate the Democrats were able to sift from a veritable league of progressive heroes in those primaries? Oh right. John Kerry.

    Right so … just like there wasn’t a “stellar” collection of people running on the D side in 2004, there likewise isn’t a “stellar” collection running on the R side in 2012. What point, exactly, is being “undermined” here?

    I maintain my belief that the truly strong Republican candidates are sitting it out until 2016.

    But I don’t dispute this. What I believe we’re disputing is why they’re “sitting it out”.

    You seem to believe that it’s because, while lots of people want to be President, they’d rather be President when the skies are sunnier … hopefully … in 2016.

    I, on the other hand, believe that you rarely get a good crop of candidates running against an incumbent presidential candidate: Mondale, Dole, Kerry, … and whoever the Republicans select this year. No matter who the incumbent is, that’s a hard race to run, you’re likely to lose, and if you do, your political future is shot.

    I’m not saying this because I think Obama is great, or even has a good chance of winning.

    Still, I’m not sure I get what you think my point is, given your reply to me.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@14), I’m afraid I’m a bit confused as to what you think you’re replying to. This could be my fault — maybe I’m just confused, period. Let me try to work it out, though.

    You’ve rather undermined yourself @7 in reference to 2004. Who was the stellar candidate the Democrats were able to sift from a veritable league of progressive heroes in those primaries? Oh right. John Kerry.

    Right so … just like there wasn’t a “stellar” collection of people running on the D side in 2004, there likewise isn’t a “stellar” collection running on the R side in 2012. What point, exactly, is being “undermined” here?

    I maintain my belief that the truly strong Republican candidates are sitting it out until 2016.

    But I don’t dispute this. What I believe we’re disputing is why they’re “sitting it out”.

    You seem to believe that it’s because, while lots of people want to be President, they’d rather be President when the skies are sunnier … hopefully … in 2016.

    I, on the other hand, believe that you rarely get a good crop of candidates running against an incumbent presidential candidate: Mondale, Dole, Kerry, … and whoever the Republicans select this year. No matter who the incumbent is, that’s a hard race to run, you’re likely to lose, and if you do, your political future is shot.

    I’m not saying this because I think Obama is great, or even has a good chance of winning.

    Still, I’m not sure I get what you think my point is, given your reply to me.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X