Why is Sarah Palin considered the de facto leader of the Republican party?

I have found it interesting this week as the media reports on the political responses to the tragic shooting in Tuscon last Saturday, and the plethora of threads here in GD, IMHO, and the Pit, they all seem to position Sarah Palin on one side and Obama on the other.

There was even an OpEd piece in the Washington Post that compared Obama’s speech to past presidential speeches by recent POTUS’ during tragic events (Challenger explosion, 9/11, OKC bombing, etc.) Obama was rightly praised for his speech. The article goes onto say that Palin fell short in her video that she released. :rolleyes:

Since when do we compare speeches made by Presidents to a video press release from a retired governor who happened to be the VP candidate on failed presidential campaign ticket?

The past republican nominee for President is a current seated Senator from the state where the current tragedy happened. I have heard nary a peep from him this week nor have I seen where the media has sought out his point of view.

I have said this in other threads:

She currently holds no office.
She has not been appointed a leadership position within the Republican party.
And most polls indicate that she doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of winning the Republican nomination much less the Presidential election in 2012.

So why all the focus on her? And don’t say she puts her self there. The mainstream media gives her the platform from which she speaks.

I just don’t get it. Can some of you please enlighten me?

Sarah Palin is manna from heaven for media of all varieties. Ask her a question about anything and she’ll give you an off the cuff, out-there answer that will roil up people on all sides of any issue, and thus drive people to your tv station/website/radio show, etc in order to respond. If she didn’t exist they’d have to make her and her wacko family up.

I didn’t know she was. I don’t even think my dad takes her seriously, and he IS a card carrying member of the Republican Party (plus, he’s been flirting with joining the Tea Party faction lately).

If she IS the defacto leader of the RP…well, that just means it will be that much easier for Obama to get re-elected.

-XT

Your premise is false. Sarah Palin wasn’t brought into this discussion because of her relative standing in the Republican Party (although I’m not arguing about whether she is a leader of the party or not).

Sarah Palin was brought into the discussion because she previously put crosshairs over a map representing Giffords and Giffords name on a list below it.

She was brought into the discussion by one of the victims of the shooting herself.

Who could have known it would lead to violence? I’m sure if Giffords would have pointed out the potential inflammatory nature of the rhetoric before the attack, Palin would have removed the gunsights.

Bringing up the completely unexpected consequences this late in the game is just blood libel on Giffords part.

Are you serious or being sarcastic?

Palin loves the spotlight. She will blab on and on without end, about any subject, no matter how little she knows about it. She says some of the most stupid and potentially inflammatory things possible. In short, the news probably (it’s just a sneaking suspicion) loves her because she is such an easy mark. “Let’s see what the village idiot comes up with this time”.

As for the tea party and the Republicans, I don’t know. I can easily believe many Repubs wish she would just go away. She is an embarrassment and a liability. They could easily make the case that she helped sabotage McCain’s bid for the White House. Who knows what passes for thought among the Tea Party. Maybe there is some gravity or magnetic thing about idiots attracting other idiots.

So why does she get the spotlight? I guess because she truly is the Low Hanging Fruit.

That’s what all the ladies call me…wait, I’ll come in again.

Badump bump :smiley:

Okay, but no one has provided an explanation as to WHY the media and posters on this board continue to put her in the spotlight. I’d wager that after the 2000 election that the media didn’t look to Joe Lieberman’s reaction on 9/11 as compared to Bush’s. Or after the 2004 election, did they look to John Edward’s reaction on Hurricane Katrina.

I saw this comment on another board: “Palin is nothing but a strawman with a nice rack!”

Well she is a lot better looking than they are. That counts for something I guess. :smiley:

She is the loudest monkey in the cage.

I’ll repeat what I said to Bricker when he claimed Palin was a nobody. She is de facto leader mostly because there is a power vacuum. The usual leader is the past president of the party, but Bush is now a non-person for screwing the pooch so effectively. Cheney is old and hated. McCain is an embarrassment, and was not trusted or liked by the part of the party with energy in any case. Romney and Huckabee are losers, with little following. It sure isn’t Steele! Palin, rightly or wrongly, is associated with those making noise, and she has been pretty effective at putting herself out there. It’s not like the media has to hunt her down for a soundbite.
This has nothing to do with the shootings - anything I’ve just said would be just as correct two weeks ago.
People look for a leader - and if not her, who?

She’s making piles of money, has a limitless forum to spout every ignorant thought that pops into her head, and can’t be voted out of office. She’s reached the Republican nirvana.

Because, at the last Fox staff meeting, Rush Limbaugh said he was tired of being the GOP’s leader and asked if somebody else wanted to do it. Huckabee turned it down, but Palin accepted. Or maybe Ailes just issued the order for some reason.

She has written two books, one of which sold very well and the other seems to be kind of a flop. She has very strongly aligned herself with the Tea Party, which is the most active political movement in the country over the last year or so. She is a constant presence on social media, saying all kinds of… Interesting things.

None of those factors applied to Lieberman, Edwards, Kemp or Quayle when they lost in their VP bids. I can’t think of any other politician in the last few decades than maybe Ross Perot who so successfully spun losing into greater personal attention.

Wait, wait! I know this one. Oooo, Ooo Uh, because Michael Steele pissed everyone off, and no one else wants the job!

Did I get it right? Huh?

Tris

Ted Nugent.

Or George Bush.

What are you not getting about this? WHY she is in the spotlight right now is because she posted a hit list with Congresswoman Giffords on it, which Giffords specifically commented on, and Giffords was subsequently shot in the head.

I’m not sure why you keep leaving that out of your equation here.