Timing is (almost) everything in politics, which is why I find
myself in disagreement
with
John O'Sullivan, Philip
Klein and Jennifer
Rubin over the question of whether Sarah Palin can afford to
skip the 2012 presidential campaign.
As I said in a comment on Phil's post, Jack Kemp might have been
president if he had been willing to challenge Bush 41 in either
the 1988 or '92 primaries, but instead waited until '96, by which
time his star had faded. I would also cite the case of Bill
Clinton, who was smart to launch a bid for the Democratic primary
in 1991, when Bush 41 looked unbeatable, thus allowing Clinton to
run against a relatively weak primary field. For that matter,
when
Barack Obama announced in January 2007 he would challenge
Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, a lot of people
(including me) thought he was nuts.
If Obama has a successful two-term presidency -- almost by
definition, including national health care -- I don't see where
there's much point in conservatives caring who wins the White
House in 2016. The only real hope for the preservation of
economic freedom is for the Obama presidency to be a one-term
political debacle of Carteresque proportions, followed by a
Republican president with the kind of political charm necessary
to push for real free-market reforms.
Sorry to be so obstinate about this, and granting all caveats
about Palin's shortcomings, I really think she needs to be in a
full-immersion cram course to be ready to announce by January
2011. Otherwise, it may be too late for her -- and too late for
freedom. As Palin herself put it, "Don't let
me miss an open door."
