Back when Barack Obama began publicly flirting with the idea of
running in the fall of 2008, I wrestled with both sides of the
argument, and noted that the downside of not running would be the
Matt
Leinart (not striking while the iron is hot) syndrome. So I
don't necessarily disagree with Stacy, though I think challenging
Lisa Murkowski in 2010, while it would be a risk, would have
upside in terms of staying in the national spotlight via the
Senate and gaining more understanding of policy, should she wait
until 2016. But whenever she runs, she'd have to do the following
to become a viable conservative leader:
-- Show that she's a conservative on more than social issues and
gun rights, and actually convey an appreciation for conservative
economic philosophy (empty platitudes about "putting government
back on the side of the people" that could easily be uttered by
John Edwards, do not count).
-- Get through a tough interview without embarassing herself.
-- Display a grasp of important foreign and domestic issues.
-- Demonstrate governing competence and accomplishments (without
having to lie about the "Bridge to Nowhere" or exaggerate her
record as Mayor of Wassila).
If she can do that by 2012 and combine it with her star power,
she'll be a great asset to the conservative cause. Otherwise,
let's hold off on the Reagan and Thatcher comparisons.
