The Sad Fate of Sarah Palin

If John McCain loses his bid for the presidency on November 4th, Sarah Palin will probably follow the path of Katherine Harris. Having sold her soul to the Republican Party leaders, she will be dumped and turned into a laughing stock, the butt of jokes about an ambitious female politician more concerned with her appearance than with real issues.

But what if McCain wins and Palin is sworn in as vice president of the United States? There is one school of thought that Palin, supported by the hard-right evangelical branch of the Republican Party, will seize effective power from the increasingly weakened McCain. I'm not so sure. What if it turns out that McCain was much cleverer in choosing Palin than he is being given credit for?

When I picture Sarah Palin as vice president, I don't see a younger version of Dick Cheney; I see a new Spiro Agnew.

For those who are too young to know about Spiro Agnew, here's a brief summary. Agnew had served less than two years as governor of Maryland (sound familiar?), and was unknown nationally (ditto), when Richard Nixon chose him to be his vice-presidential running mate. Agnew made a name for himself as Nixon's anti-media, anti-intellectual attacking bulldog. Nixon and Agnew won the 1968 election. But after they were reelected in 1972, Agnew was forced to resign after pleading no contest to charges of tax evasion and money laundering dating back to his days as governor. Following the procedure set out in the 25th Amendment, Nixon then nominated Gerald Ford to succeed Agnew, and Ford was quickly confirmed by both houses of Congress.

To get back to McCain and Palin, the conventional wisdom seems to be that McCain wanted to choose as his running mate one of two good friends, Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge. However, the Republican Party establishment revolted against these pro-choice moderates and convinced McCain that if he wanted to win the election, he had to appease the conservative wing of the party by choosing one of their own. Thus, Sarah Palin.

What if it turns out that McCain was actually well aware of Palin's "Troopergate" problems? What if McCain accepted the fact that he needed Palin to win the election, but reckoned that he could deal with her later, after they were inaugurated? So here's the scenario: on January 20, 2009, Palin is sworn in as vice president of the United States. But soon thereafter, with McCain's behind-the-scenes support, the Troopergate investigation explodes and Palin, forced to cop a plea, resigns as vice president. McCain then gains his revenge on the conservative wing of his party and appoints Lieberman or Ridge to the vice presidency. Like Gerald Ford 35 years earlier, either of these gentlemen would be likely to receive bipartisan support from Congress.

Mind you, there is another devious possibility. What if the leaders of the conservative wing of the Republican Party were familiar enough with Sarah Palin to know that she would ultimately damage the ticket? They then tricked or bullied McCain into choosing her, and are now waiting for him to lose in a landslide so that they can retake control of the party.

Of course, these scenarios are pure speculation. But if I was Sarah Palin, I wouldn't just be taking a crash course in foreign policy, I'd be taking some time to learn about Katherine Harris and Spiro Agnew.

Comments

[martymartymarty]

I read awhile back someone speculating that the Repulican party, because they know this election will go to the change party (no 3rd term), has trotted McCain out as the candidate to exact revenge for his alienation of them through the decades. His temper and his ego ruffled many feathers (which he is so proud of) and The Establishment brought him in so he could assert his delusions of grandeur and fall flat on his face. That same person also appraised their choice of Palin for VP as being simply for her utter disposability on the national stage once this thing is over. I am still not sure if I agree with this assessment or not, but on some level in some way it almost makes sense. With McCain defeated and out of the way, they can go back to being the party they want to be, unchallenged while Palin disappears back to Alaska.

[CatoTheCensor]

Funny; I've batted around the same theory. Roughly every seventy-five years in American politics, at least one of the two dominant parties undergoes a sea change. The Republicans are due. My theory is that they're playing McCain and Palin, both of whom are fundamentally naive, brash and blind to the subtler forms of political maneuvering. Obama will be allowed to win this election, McCain and Palin will take the fall for losing, and the Republicans will reshape their party into something rather more frightening than it is now. The Democrats will struggle with insurmountable problems for the next four years, will fail to solve most of them, as ours are not problems of the easily solved variety, and the New Republicans will come back with a roar in 2012.

[jferguson]

David,
The concept of dumping the "fountain of ignorance" after the election is brilliant. I can't remember for certain, but suppose the senate has to confirm. Given a Democratic controlled senate, i can easily see confirmation for either Ridge or Lieberman if the choice was leaving Sarah where she would, by then, be.

[mema01]

The Agnew connection is brilliant. I hope Sarah reads this article, although I doubt it. I am sure the McCain campain is trying to shield her from all the negative press that they possibly can. Her confidence is already being deflated like yesterdays birthday baloon.

[ericdondero]

Maybe conservatives will abandon her, but not us libertarians. Sarah is a libertarian anyway. It's been amazing to watch conservatives so eager to support one of our libertarian Republicans. We appreciate it. It's about time. Since we libertarians are always doing the leg work to support their candidates. But I suspect, after the election if McCain/Palin loses, she will begin to win back the reputation as a libertarian, like she had before. And that's a great thing.

[penelopepunditwatcher]

Libertarian? I don't think so. Libertarians are against any and all forms of censorship. Sarah's all for it (think books, library). Libertarians believe there should be no laws concerning sex between consenting adults. (I don't think there is such an animal as a Christian Fundamentalist Libertarian. It's an oxymoron.) Libertarians think all laws outlawing drug posession and use by adults should be repealed. (See above.) Libertarians think corporate welfare is downright criminal and certainly unpatriotic. (nuff said).

Ron Paul is a Republican libertarian. Sarah baby has a looooong way to go to fit the bill.

[wm1066]

Palin a Libertarian??? hahahahahah... boy are you confused!

[gaja]

I agree Sarah is a HARD right winger - she's no libertarian. But I was baffled when Ralph Nadar went on Mahar right after the debates and tried to "defend" Palin. He is one crazy mixed up selfish som-beach if you ask me... I will be livid if he takes votes away from the Democrats AGAIN with all his gibberish...