Want Sarah Palin to Speak to Your Group?
November 19, 2009You might want to start saving up, now.
According to Time’s Mark Halperin, the going price to have the former Governor come and speak to groups is $100,000, plus travel expenses. Halperin quotes one unnamed Granite State organization that attempted to secure the former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential nominee for an event. In addition to the $100,000 speaking fee, there were also a few other conditions that may not sit well with Granite Staters who are used to free unfettered access to politicians and candidates who come calling for the First in the Nation Primary.
–$100,000, plus first class travel for 2; coach for one and lodging expense.
–No media allowed to cover the speech.
–No taping for archival purposes unless Palin herself personally approved it.
I have an odd feeling that this went over real with the group that inquired about securing Palin for their event. Seeing as other national political leaders, including fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney, Gov. Haley Barbour, Rep. John Boehner, and Gov. Tim Pawlenty have all come to the state, seemingly for free, and to help raise money or help campaign for NH Republicans, it seems odd that such an ask would be made or even considered by any group in NH.
What is also telling, is that normally these visits are usually encouraged to be covered by the media. Yet, if an event were to be held it would be closed press. Makes you wonder if she is looking at a future run or not, and if she does if New Hampshire will even be part of her campaign strategy. The post by Halperin also notes that she has not scheduled any events in the Northeast, instead keeping to the South and Midwest for her book tour and other public events since resigning from office abruptly this past summer.
Tweets that mention RedHampshire.com » Want Sarah Palin to Speak to Your Group? -- Topsy.com
Nov 19, 2009
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Red Hampshire, Matt Suermann. Matt Suermann said: Just posted: "RedHampshire.com » Want Sarah Palin to Speak to Your Group?" (http://twitthis.com/rqt9t2) [...]
TimothyHorrigan
Nov 19, 2009
The No Press rule is bad for the group as well. In many cases, the sponsor wants publicity— and Sarah Palin has a knack for getting free media. Of course, oftentimes she gets the free media because she says or does something really dumb.
Her gaffes are made even worse at the moment because she is still being marketed as a strong woman qwith extensive executive experience, whom the liberal media is afraid of, the straight shootin’ gal from the frozen tundra, the proverbial Pit Bull with Lipstick. It would be a different situation altogether if she was being marketed as a loveable goofball whose heart is in the right place (e.g., ex-President Bill Clinton, who is starring at a NH Democratic Party fundraiser on December 2nd, and who as far as I know not be excluding the press from his speech.)
She is a straight shooter who can’t actually shoot straight, and it is understandable why she might not want to have cameras recording her failure to hit her target.
dbnh77
Nov 21, 2009
Do I want Sarah Palin to speak to my group?
No but I have some leaves in my yard that need raking.
As a conservative Republican I didn’t vote John McAmnesty in 2008 and I sure as hell won’t be voting for Caribou Barbie or that Arkansas fried goober Huckabee in 2012.
Mitt Romney has forgotten more about economics, business, job creation and finance than Huckabee and Palin combined will ever know.
Mitt Romney was so freakin successful in the private sector his resume glows in the dark.
Palin should stick to writing books I’ll never read and Huckabee should be doing subway commercials with Jared, telling everyone how he’s not a fatass anymore, not running for president.
If Romney is not the GOP nominee in 2012 I will vote for the constitution party candidate again and the GOP can kiss anther election goodbye. Many of my friends family feel the same way.
It’s Romney or bust. The GOP better get it right this time or I will abandon them faster than you can say “you betcha.”
Thom Simmons
Nov 22, 2009
Guess you’re behind Romney, huh? Well, I guess we oughtta all buy stock in companies making Teflon….
I’m siding early with Gary Johnson. He – unlike Romney – has been consistent on his issues and hasn’t changed his mind with each successive poll….
dbnh77
Nov 22, 2009
You know Thom, Chuck Baldwin was a really decent and honest guy. He didn’t come close though.
You may not agree with me but I believe Mitt Romney is as decent as it gets in a big name mainstream politician.
My dog has more insight into the issues than Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee is the GOP’s Bill Clinton, as slimy as they come.
In politics, as with pretty much everything in life, you must pick and choose your battles. In 2008 I was given the option of voting for the Democrat, an Marxist narcissist, or the Repub, an crotchety old political schizoprhenic who had committed the unforgivable sin of supporting amnesty for illegals. I did not, as Mcamnesty’s mom said I would, hold my nose and vote for him. I vote for a sure loser with integrity when I wrote in Chuck Baldwin.
In 2012 Romney is the only mainstream GOP candidate I could bring myself to vote for. If it’s not him I vote third party again.
That;s where I’m at right now.
Thom Simmons
Nov 22, 2009
Mitt’s inability to utter a consistent, coherent policy regarding Don’t Ask Dont Tell, DOMA, and State’s Rights is well documented. The word “snake” comes to mind, although most snakes aren’t as slippery…:
http://tullyspage.blogspot.com/2007/02/mitt-romney-like-nailing-jello-to-wall.html
TimothyHorrigan
Nov 23, 2009
Mitt’s a handsome guy with lots of money, and he seems like a decent person— but his 2008 Presidential campaign did not go that well. He did great in the early phases of the 2008 election cycle: he raised lots of money, he gained the support of the punditocracy, he led many polls, and he sounded good in the debates. But then, beginning in NH on January 8, 2008, the voters started voting— for candidates other than Romney.
steve vaillancourt
Nov 23, 2009
Put me down in the Romney camp as well (competence will matter more than ever after four years of the Great One’s incompetence)….unless of course Ron Paul runs again and then, I’d support him. Wholeheartedly.
I though McCain’s choice of Palin was the hail mary he needed, and as veep candidate, she was okay, but really, do any of us on the red side think she’s qualified to be Pres from day one. There are a lot of people I like but would never support for Pres. She’s among them.
dbnh77
Nov 23, 2009
Romney’s certainly not the most charismatic guy. There’s no doubting that. But he’s succeeded at pretty much everything he’s done in his life. Not winning the GOP nomination is probably the first major thing he’s failed at.
Besides Obama is allegedly very charismatic and likable and he’s……well we all know about him don’t we.
Timothy…..Romney was second only to Mccain when he dropped out and this time around Mitt will be more prepared for Huckabee’s immature, underhanded, sleazy ways. Did I mention I don’t like Mike Huckabee?
I agree with you Steve. I appreciate that Palin drives the moonbats and other assorted leftist whackadoos crazy but beyond that she holds no appeal for me.
I’m sorry to hear that more of you aren’t going to be supporting Romney. I believe he has much much more appeal to moderates and independents than either Huckabee or Palin and we all know, if we’re being honest, that we cannot win in 2012 without appealing to these groups to some degreee. National elections are won on the 50 yard line. Reagan knew it.
john williams
Nov 24, 2009
I see Huckabee running again and carrying the Bible belt types again. Palin, I understsnd does very well with that group. That Mormon business hurt Romney early on with those voters. Then of course Governor Crist going McCain at the last minute in Florida was the end for Romney. Palin is very young and can obviously call her own shots right now and hopefully infuriate the sneering East and West Coast culture police. I think I read somewhere Romney-Palin or was it Palin-Romney. Isn’t this fun? I read a piece in the LA Times comparing the popularity of Palin vs Obama and some of the comments are just priceless.By the way is there a possibility of NH going back to closed primaries? I don’t like the idea of Democrats picking my candidates.
dbnh77
Nov 24, 2009
I don’t like the idea of moonbats being allowed to vote in a GOP primary either John.
Romney would have won NH if it had been a closed primary in 2008.
There’s no doubt that in 2012 as in 2010, Huckabee will try to scare the bible belt types away from Romney. Maybe he’ll tell them about all the Joseph Smith statues that Romney erected in downtown Boston when he was governor…..The fact is that if we should be wary of anyone because of their religion or the way they use it, it’s Huckabee. I seem to recall him using Christianity as a rationalization for supporting in state tuition for illegals and raising taxes in 2008. He’s a scumbag. There’s really nothing else to say about the guy.
I’m starting to get a major case of Palin fatigue.
Romney’s playing it smart by laying low.
Vis Unita Fortior
Nov 24, 2009
Doesn’t the fact that it’s a primary, as opposed to a caucus, mean that it’s a government-supported activity carried out with public funds in public venues as opposed to being a private affair? I’m an independent and as far as I’m concerned if tax dollars and public facilities are going to go to support them I ought to get to vote in the primaries for both parties – it ought to be more open, not more closed.
Grant Bosse
Nov 24, 2009
Vis,
You make a valid argument. That doesn’t mean the state has to open the primary, but as long as its hosting the primary, it gets to set the rules. If either party wanted to administer a primary on its own dime, they could limit it to registered party members. But between the expense and the optics of looking like you’re excluding independents, who’s going to do that?
steve vaillancourt
Nov 24, 2009
State law could be changed to go to a closed primary, but I doubt that would pass at this time. The argument could be made that it would endanger our first in the nation primary status. As it is now, Republicans must vote in Republican primary and Dems in Dem primary. Only undeclared voters get to choose which one to vote in. Does anyone really want to suggest that we disenfranchise the largest voting block in the state? Unds are about 40 percent as I recall. The mischief you refer to is more myth than reality. I’d prefer to go to a totally open primary, but the parties would never accept that, so I assume we’ll leave things as they are now. Okay by me. It’s one of the few advantages and Und voter has.
Matt Suermann
Nov 24, 2009
Steve,
For the sake of argument lets say the state closes the primary to only registered partisans, with a deadline to change party registration several weeks before the primary-similar to what it is now-and also have the ability to . Wouldn’t a new part of the campaign’s responsibilities/tactics be to convince their voters to make sure they have the proper registration?
Already U’s cease to be U’s once they pull an R or D ballot and in the eyes of the checklist become a “member” of that party. Granted many revert back to being a U before they exit the polls, and many do take the extra step to go back to being an Undeclared voter. Many however don’t and I would argue these people may be helping the NHDP in padding their registration edge in the state to some extent.
Would this be something that could work, in the end they aren’t being disenfranchised just know that they have to make a choice, like the partisans in the state? Yes I understand that part of the mystique of the Undeclared voter is that they often pick their candidate, and which ballot to pull while standing in line to vote.
Grant,
I’m also pretty sure states, I think including SC, which have the parties run their primaries also charge fairly steep ballot access fees to pay for the right to appear on the ballots. Think tens of thousands of dollars per candidate.
steve vaillancourt
Nov 24, 2009
Matt,what you say is true in the ideal world, but we don’t live in the ideal world. We live in the world where it’s difficult enough to get independents to turn out to vote now; this would add needless complications, and lead to absolute gridlock at polling places with mass confusion come January 2012 (or December 2011). We should be in the business of making it easier for voters, not for parties! Especially when, despite Rush Limbaugh’s best efforts to screw the Dems last time, there’s virtually no evidence that the screwing held.
The arguments you make have been made before the Election Law Committee often and only a few partisans in either party so far have thought the benefits outweight the problems. I agree with Vis. All voters are paying for primaries, and it’s multo dollars–parties don’t pay for these primaries, so they have no right to close them off from all the people, and this jiggering things around by constantly going in and out of parties is just too cumbersome for the minimal good it would do. Conservatives who want less govt spending should be concerned about the cost to local cities and towns in employing clerks to do all this totally unnecessary work with voter checklists.
Thom Simmons
Nov 24, 2009
Matt, a closed primary could put the GOP on life support in this state. Closed primaries mean, realistically, that the far right would control the process, un’bothered’ by moderates. The resulting candidates would be too extreme to elect in a state-wide election, and republican moderates would be forced into the ‘other’ party or into the great independent wasteland.
steve vaillancourt
Nov 24, 2009
Be careful what you wish for…the oldest and wisest admonition known to man or beast.
TimothyHorrigan
Nov 24, 2009
I am not saying Romney might not win the nomination. I’m just saying his status as a frontrunner has nothing to do with his appeal to the voters. The voters were profoundly immune to his charms last time. It was the media, the pundits, and the party apparatchiks who anointed him as a frontrunner. It wasn’t the general public. He has not shown much curb appeal to the voters: he has only won one election in his whole life, and once he was finally elected he proved to be a fairly unpopular and highly ineffective governor of a certain northeastern state whose name he scrupulously never mentions (even though he still lives there.)
I would say that neither Huckabee nor Romney has much chance of winning in 2012, although Romney is somewhat less unlikely than Huckabee.
Bob
Nov 24, 2009
Yea how could Huckabee win, he only polls better against Obama than any other candidate.
http://www.gop12.com/2009/11/paul-surprises-in-poll-against-obama.html
and he polls best in the primary, has the lowest un-favorability and the highest favorability
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124097/huckabee-romney-palin-see-most-republican-support-12.aspx
He is actively supporting candidates in SC (Bauer the next Governor), IA(Vander Plaats the next Governor), and FL(Rubio) even the club for growth is playing catch up to Huck in FL
Hey but nobody can win with high poll numbers and friends in high places.
Dennis Acton
Nov 24, 2009
I’d say the first change made to our primary should be to move it to June instead of September. Thats gives candidates plenty of time in the winter and spring win over the party leading up to a mid-june primary. Winning candidate then have the summer to reunite the party and build a fall campaign.
Right now every primary candidate must endure a long, expensive summer burning through cash that would have much more value in the general election.
dbnh77
Nov 25, 2009
Screw Huckabee. He’s a dirty Arkansas sleazeball just like another guy we all know and hate.
I’ve seen my share of polls too and most of them show Romney as being the best chance the GOP has against Bowing Barry in 2012. Romney has an even longer list of endorsements from fellow GOPers.
Huckabee and Palin need to do us all a favor and get the f— out of Mitt Romney’s way.
TimothyHorrigan
Nov 25, 2009
I seriously doubt that any major changes will be made to the primary election process. Both parties have a vested interest in maximizing participation in both the state and presidential primaries.
The way I read the election laws (and this is just my personal opinion and not anyone else’s & please hire a lawyer and/or consult the NH elections division before taking any action) RSA 659:14 allows any party to close its primary. Actually the statute technically allows parties to OPEN their primaries to undeclared voters: a closed primary is the default (which explains why only Undeclareds can switch their party affiliation on primary election day.) Both parties have opted to open their primaries.
RSA 652:11 states that a party can only hold a primary if their candidates gt 4% of the vote for Governor and/or US Senator at the last biennial General Election. Otherwise, the party and its candidates has to file petitions (I won’t cite all the RSA’s related to that process) to get on the ballot.
It is a little unclear whether or not an eligible party MUST participate in the state primary, or whether its candidates can file petitions instead. I doubt that this well ever be cleared up, since the primary is a hell of a good deal for the parties: the taxpayers pay for the whole election process, saving the cost of holding a nominating convention.
It is actually to the candidates’ interest to have the official nomination later rather than earlier, thanks to campaign finance laws. If the nomination comes later, you can use non-General election moneys (which have less stringent restrictions attached to them) later in the election cycle. That is one reason why the two major parties hold their conventions around Labor Day to crown Presidential nominees who were actually chosen in the spring, or even earlier if possible. (Even Obama vs. Clinton II, which was an exceptionally close race with an unusually stubborn and well-financed second-place finisher, was wrapped up by mid-June— which was technically still during springtime.)
steve vaillancourt
Nov 30, 2009
Tim is right about primaries; either party could opt to close it but what kind of message would that send to 40 percent of UND voters?
We don’t want you in our party!
A sure losing strategy.
Which is why Tim is right again. Expect no changes in the system. The one change I’d like to see is allowing parties to fill vacant positions…that smacks of Big Brotherism and takes away power of individuals in favor of the collective.
But neither party wants to see that changed, FOR SURE.