On the Western Banks of the Shenandoah

Man, that was exhausting. My MacBook struggled through, but I think an update is going to be in order once I get some money flowing in…..but that could be a while (and yes, when it happens, it may even be a PC). For now, you’ll have to settle for my C-List punditry as I can do it. But right now, I didn’t win debate coverage by any stretch

10:29–Cain and Pawlenty had really canned statements, but for some reasons, Cain’s was alot more soaring. Could be something to his gift of oratory.

10:29: Santorum just pointed to DeMint, a guy who should probably be up on the stage.

10:24–Each candidate is being asked about one other candidate. TPaw on Huck, Paul on Bachmann, Cain on Romney, Santorum on Gingrich, and well, we ran out, so Johnson on Trump.

10:18–Johnson–I’m of the belief that only Republicans can solve our current economic situation. But on all the other issues, well……

10:17–Santorum: I know how to beat Democratic incumbents. Yes, and you also know how to get beaten big.

10:17–Cain is coming off this well.

10:13–Shoot, I think I just missed the most compelling part of this debate. Did Fox News make a weed joke at Johnson’s expense?

10:08–Santorum asked about “It Takes A Family” and his views on working outside the home.

10:06–Chris Wallace pulls out an ad Pawlenty made for the Environmental Defense Fund re: cap and trade. Pawlenty says he was just studying it and the study showed it was a bad idea. Booing first, though, but Pawlenty says he’s made a mistake. He says if anyone’s perfect they should be running–gets strange reaction from crowd.

10:06–Chris Wallace pretty much just announced this is the “gotcha” round–wherein they specifically ask questions that could cause problems down the line.

10:05–Did Pawlenty really want to tout his union credentials or to get away from the creationism issue?

10:03–Paul and Cain scoring well on the Unions issue, though I’m afraid their appeal will be stuck to the managerial class.

9:59–Santorum is asked about Mitch Daniel’s call for a truce on social issues, and says any candidate who calls for that doesn’t “get” America and goes on to preach

9:58–Pawlenty says he backs adult stem cell research only.

9:56–Johnson questioned on abortion–supports abortion up to viability, gets boos, explains that he opposed partial birth abortion, supported counseling….pretty much conceded pro-life vote.

9:55–Paul started with saying that government should be out of marriage completely, then says the states should have their say. Huh?

9:39–Santorum on immigration and his opposition to path to citizenship and bilingualism. Santorum points to his own roots, saying his father never taught him his native tounge because “he was an American.” Interesting take, but is that too old school for some?

9:39: Oooo, this could be fun: Immigration. Cain vs. Paul. Another tweeter was right–crap, scratch that, Cain likes Rules of Three, but he added four this time. Still, he likes lists and “pointed plans”

9:37–I’m a few minutes behind, but highlights: Ron Paul getting EVERYTHING he stands for it one answer (nonintervention, gold standard, constitutionalism), Gary Johnson complaining about being left out, Cain defending fairtax

9:23–Going back a bit, I think the opposite of what we expected is happening. Instead of Paul and Johnson ganging up on these guys, the other three are putting baby in a corner.

9:22–I think Pawlenty and Cain are pulling off the best soundbites, but the substance, I’m afraid, may be going to Santorum. Santorum defends Medicare expansion as underbudget and driven by the private sector.

9:21–Ok, NOW is Cain’s time to shine. He gets his first applause on having a real energy independence plan. Could he take the wind out of Gingrich’s sails by being the first to hit this?

9:19–Pawlenty is going for “I’m one of you” on economics. Asked about Bush Tax Cuts and why unemployment is still up, but now he’s berating the NRLB.

9:18–Moving onto economics. Johnson asked about his ideas to remove a ton of programs. Pretty rational answer, but dry.

9:18–First bit of contention with waterboarding. Cain uses the moment to say he’d protect Americans. o….k…..still dramatic, though, and that’s what counts

9:14–Mr. Baier, don’t get flustered. You should’ve known.

9:13–First real battle between candidates–Paul asked about Pawlenty’s weakness quote, says that openness is key and we should expect for others what we would.

9:12–Santorum asked about Islam in context of the Middle Eastern Spring. I was at UVA when he drew sharp criticism for a speech he made re: radical Islam. Points that we can’t leave the ideological battle in the background.

9:08–Johnson’s up. He seems alot clearer than Paul on this, and goes back to his opposition to Iraq. Says he believed in Afghanistan at first but that our mission was pretty much done in the first six months. Also opposes Libya.

9:07–Cain asked about his lack of Plan on Afghanistan. He says the mission is not clear and that we need to ask ourselves just why we’re there and how we would win. Pushed on what winning means, he goes back to saying that the Generals would be his source of decision. Spoken like a true businessman–this highlights why businessmen make weak candidates on FoPo.

9:05–Paul is asked about his troop withdrawal policy on Afghanistan. Answers that Bin Laden wasn’t even found there and now we’re still engaged in nation building there. Big applause, despite requests to do so. Still, he didn’t really answer if he would’ve continued the mission to capture Bin Laden.

9:04–Santorum says Obama’s best FoPo decisions have simply been

9:03–Ah, the classic hand raise. Cain would NOT release photos of Obama.

9:02–Starting out with FoPo. Hitting Pawlenty with q regarding his comments that Obama was weak in light of Osama killing. Pawlenty answers with Libya.

9:01–Juan Williams, Chris Wallace, and Shannon Bream are the panel. Bret Baier is the lead.

Unpublished update: I wrote part of this article on Friday, with Ron Paul still “thinking.” Then boom, Monday he gets in. So some of this should be taken with that in mind–I’ve edited it since, but in my mind Paul is just “getting” in, so I haven’t completely made the transition. So I must say something I would have never said in 2008: Paulistas, I apologize.

It’s official: Gary Johnson will be seeking the Republican nomination in the 2012 primaries.

Gary who?

Gary Johnson, the former Governor of New Mexico. It’s alright if you don’t remember him–his term ended in 2003. You may recall, though, a governor of a smaller western state being one of the highest ranking Republicans (and indeed, official of either party) to call for the decriminalization of marijuana. Yeah, that was him. So why am I getting excited over a candidate that would seem, at face value, to be little more than a historical footnote?

Well, for starters, I see Johnson as the first serious candidate to officially enter the race. Now now, I know what you’re thinking–don’t Tpaw, Mittens, even the Donald have a better chance at this point? Perhaps, but as you’ll hear me belabor over the next six months while I continue to write on the ebb and flow of the race, because, hey, even an unpaid blogger seeks good copy, things change. Nobody could beat George H.W. Bush in the early part of 1991. Nobody.

But when I say serious, I don’t mean an attitude of a candidate that’s “in it to win it.” What I mean is a candidate that is serious about their ideology and has put forth or presents real solutions to the problems facing America. Newt may have once stood on the edge of being that candidate, but nowadays, he’s more “anti” than anything else. Romney, well, we’ve already discussed Romney’s issues–in that there are really few he hasn’t flipped or flopped on. Huckabee, too, is largely a Tea Party cheerleader these days. And although I’ll admit that I’m anxiously awaiting Pawlenty’s alternative budget, right now, he seems more focused on shaking the perception that he’s just too dull to take on the One.

Read more…

Right now, there’s plenty of ink and binary characters being spilled on both parties chances in 2012. Some are comparing this to 1992, others to 1996 in terms of the incumbent’s chances. Some have the Republicans on an unstoppable comeback, others have the GOP nearing implosion. However, we all know that few elections are an exact replay of the one before it. What exactly constitutes a swing or marginal state can change from election to election. Why, in 1980 Hawaii was thought to be winnable for the GOP, as it was in 2004, if only momentarily. Same with Maine in other elections. With that in mind, 2010 did at least give us an idea of which states may still be marginal, given Republicans winning it last year but the Democrats in 2008, often by similarly large margins. And so we present to you Dr. Larry Sabato of UVA’s first projection for 2012.

There’s plenty for both sides to take exception to–Republicans would say New Mexico is much closer to being a marginal state and two straight landslides (thanks to VA’s unique position on the electoral cycle) should put the Old Dominion in the leaners category, while Democrats would argue that Montana at least leans a little closer to them and that there’s no way they lose Maine.

Regardless, however, the map shows just how tricky the math is for Republicans. The fact that New York and California are almost completely out of Republican reach means that Democrats start with a big built in advantage. If you give each party their “leaning” states, Democrats start with 247, while Republicans have just 180. One interesting way to digest these results is to input them into 270towin.com, a fun site that presents an electoral college calculator. Color each state the way you think it will go, and the site will calculate the number of ways, if you give both parties less than 270 votes, the number of ways to get to the magic 270.

The big problem for Republicans? If you input this map into the site, giving both parties their leaning states, there are 14 different combinations that lead to a Republican victory. The problem? All of them require Florida. Again, both sides will have their talking points. Republicans will point to congressional pickups and Rubio’s win in 2010, while Democrats will point to Rick Scott’s cratering approval ratings in the state. However, the fact of the matter is that Republicans just don’t have the same sort of EC base built in that the Democrats do, largely due to the fact that their safest states are amongst the largest. In fact, Texas is the only red or “reddish” state that has more than 12 electoral votes.

That said, 2010 was a positive movement in that Republicans made important gains in PA, WI and MI, as well as North Carolina and New Mexico. The last two aren’t as important–if you give both to the GOP, FL is still a neccesity. However, take any of the first three out of the Democratic column, and a Floridaless path to victory emerges. Again, this is all just the analytical talk of shooting the breeze for the time being. We have quite some time to go in this cycle–more than a year, in fact. However, it should point to the importance of a) nominating a ticket that has a wide personal appeal to a large swath of Americas, both suburban and rural, and b) running on issues that appeal to pragmatic, more centrist voters that do not betray our core principles.

But, until we have a better idea of who those candidates might be, kill some time and come up with your own path to victory. For the record, I’m not 100% on the above, so if you can find a Floridaless path to victory that does not involve MI, WI or PA, by all means, please share! But do note that the the site won’t calculate scenarios where there are more than 12 states in play, as the number of possibilities increases exponentially. Again, many of these are far fetched, but hey, welcome to life with the electoral college!

Today’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley saw the start of the showdown we’ve been waiting ag….well, weeks for: the GOP’s moderate-cum-conservative businessman with a thin political resume (Romney) versus the the GOP’s more moderate-cum-even more conservative businessman with a even thinner political resume (Trump). Granted, it was Ms. Crowley who started the action, but the Donald took up the challenge with his usual gusto.

Highlights include Trump calling Romney “essentially a small businessman.” I consider myself a small businessman, and I need to check my accounts to be sure, but I’m not sure that its all that close to Romney’s estimated $200 million in net worth. However, when you get to Trump’s heights, perspectives change, so really I suppose I’m arguing over semantics here…..

Also amusing: Trump responding to Crowley’s question if he considers himself a “better” businessman, he replied that he’s a “much bigger businessman.” Of course, as we all know, bigger does not always equal better. Wikipedia has a pretty good overview of Trump’s various legal and business woes throughout the course of his career. I admire business success, but I also admire consistency and good judgment. The fact that Trump decided first to go after Romney on the scale of business activities highlights the tone we’ve seen throughout Trump’s nascent campaign so far: rather than go after Romney’s political positions, Trump went for style. That’s, ultimately, my biggest fear of a Trump candidacy: Style trumping (God save me) Substance.

Of course, I really shouldn’t be troubled by Trump’s views on Romney. In fact, Trump, so far, really hasn’t made his business experience the centerpiece of his campaign–he’s far more focused on the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate. That’s all well and good, and I suppose one way to unseat the President, but in the event that strategy just doesn’t work, shouldn’t we want a candidate talking about their ability to lead in a more substantive way than just saying they’re “bigger”?

I will say, though, that Trump had some good points near the end of the interview about America’s current “backseat” view of foreign policy, taking orders from other countries on when to take moral action. But then I’m reminded of Trump’s views on China and Iran, vowing pretty drastic unilateral action. I agree we need to be strong, but I also understand that we’re dealing with two sides here, and even if we’re going to make a stand, we have to understand that foreign policy actions have consequences for both sides. Overall, when Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter, not exactly noted moderates, are doubting the man’s tactics, well……I think we may have a problem.

All this said, this should not be read as an endorsement of Romney. I remain skeptical of Romney for the same reasons as I did in 2008 (guns, abortion, health care), and on probably the biggest issue so far in the campaign, health care, Romney just keeps digging himself a bigger and bigger hole. However, I’m still waiting for a candidate that matches my views on the direction the Republican party needs to take and yet shows they have the leadership to turn politics into policy. I’m looking for a candidate of principle, not opportunity.

Romney’s switches on the issues trouble me on that front. He couldn’t escape it in 2008, and it may be even harder to escape in 2012 given that Democrats passed a federal law largely based on one he passed in the state he led (and indeed, trumpeted by some of the very same people that advised on his). Even more troubling, though, is that Trump has already flirted with running once….in a different party, has already said he’d be willing to exploit sore loser laws to run as an independent if he doesn’t get the nod, and has not even donated to a plurality of Republicans in federal elections. In fact, only 23% of the federal candidates he’s backed have been Republicans. I understand the desire for a new face, but….does loyalty have no virtue these days?

But that could be a whole other series of posts, or even a book, on the virtue of parties in American democracy. Perhaps a simpler way to frame Trump’s integrity. The nearly billion dollars in debt he ran up in the 1990s.

UPDATE:

Looks like the Donald may have a healthcare problem of his own. From Political Wire:

Dave Weigel digs up this quote from Trump’s 2000 book, The America We Deserve: “We must have universal healthcare. I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses.”

Trump added that the goal of health care reform should be a system that looks a lot like Canada. “Doctors might be paid less than they are now, as is the case in Canada, but they would be able to treat more patients because of the reduction in their paperwork.”

I find the tea parties that sprung up around the country last spring an absolutely fascinating exercise in political involvement. Though the media and left-wingers are quick to denounce it as “astroturf,” but the fact of the matter is that, regardless of who came up with the term and who puts what events together, run-of-the-mill activists across the country have made it into something much bigger than anyone could imagine. Right now, many groups are getting involved in congressional primaries to turn out a candidate close to their values. Indeed, in our own backyard tea partiers are promising to have a series of debates in Virginia’s Fifth District.

“Our intent is to make the process fair and accessible to all viable candidates and give them the opportunity to prove themselves to the citizens of the 5th District,” Lynchburg TEA Party leader Mark Lloyd said in the release.

Lloyd noted that many TEA party members are independent from the GOP. “…Nevertheless, as Americans we intend to make our voices heard and we intend to be part of the political process.”

Lloyd points out correctly that the are a number of independent conservatives in the effort–however, in speaking to some of these people I find that many are former Republicans who just couldn’t tolerate the party’s full fledged support for certain types of candidates. However, these people appear to have still come out in droves for Bob McDonnell this past year. Therefore, they are drawn to the Tea Parties first as a way to get involved then jettison again if they get burned. The label is so potent that Rasmussen did a poll that discovered that an actual Tea Party would beat the Republican Party in a congressional match-up:

In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.
Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.
Among Republican voters, 39% say they’d vote for the GOP candidate, but 33% favor the Tea Party option.

Obviously, dissatisfaction with the Republican label remains so high that nearly a third of people who call themselves Republicans would consider a third-party. No wonder state Republican parties, such as Colorado and Virginia’s, have taken great care to listen to the tea party movement and co-opt its focus on individual liberty and fiscal issues.

I still maintain that the Tea Party is more of a re-branding and re-ignition of a staid conservative movement that became unprincipled early in the decade. The Republican Party can defuse the threat of conservative independents bolting or staying home by a) keeping leaders like Sarah Palin from seeing hope in a third party and b) by not only promising but delivering on issues key to the identity of tea party activists.

As Norm pointed out over at TQ:

It may indicate that Republicans, if they hope to be successful in 2010, would be wise to pay attention to the activists back home who are protesting, organizing, forming PACs, lobbying for legislation and more under any number of tea party banners.

Or they could ignore it. In which case, they had best hope they packed along an extra pair of socks…because it gets mighty cold and damp in the political wilderness.

I take a great interest in primary fights and how they help define our party. This is certainly the case with the 2012 fight. However, not every little thing I read is going to lend itself to a full post, and sometimes I’ll post a compendium of recent news from the various contenders. This is one of those times.

–Former PA Senator Rick Santorum told ABC News yesterday that he is “absolutely” looking at running in 2012. I still believe that Santorum is not the candidate we need right now, but he will certainly shake the race up for social conservatives if he gets in. However, he also mentioned fiscal issues as part of his “traditional values” platform:

“I think I’ve been very clear that you know, we need to stand foursquare on the traditional values. When I say traditional values people think, ‘Oh that means, you know, social conservatism and the family. It also means the free enterprise system and that government shouldn’t be large and controlling things — I mean, those are all core Republican principle.

–Sarah Palin signed books in Fairfax (a county where she and Senator McCain were clobbered in 2008), and the enthusiasm that has been noted at previous stops continued in full force. From the WaPo:

Palin fan Greg Williams, 46, of Springfield said he hasn’t felt so strongly about a politician since Ronald Reagan. He spent Friday night in a tent rigged with a tarp to keep out the rain, to make sure he got his chance to see her Saturday. He joined several other campers until about 7:30 a.m., when Fairfax County police made them break down their tents so people near the front of the line could cross the street and stand closer to the store entrance.

One has to wonder how Palin would have been received at the Advance. As Chairman Mullins pointed out, though, this past weekend was for Virginia, though two names that have been floated for 2012 spoke: Minority Whip Eric Cantor (and as even he’ll say, far too prematurely) Bob McDonnell. However, I expect we’ll see her raising money for a Virginia politico very soon. Palin also experienced a good weekend in the polls. CNN has Palin at 46% favorable to 46% unfavorable. This is up from 42% in mid-October.

–Mitch Daniels was in Chicago raising money for Indiana pols. That prompted Race42012 to right this about the burgouning My Man Mitch movement:

While Public Policy Polling has yet to post the results of its online poll of second-tier Republican candidates from earlier this week, Daniels was coming in a strong second just before the polls closed, beating better-known Republicans like Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani while only Pawlenty edged out Mitch for the top spot. Daniels’ assumed, effortless conservatism combined with his ability to apply his philosophy to the issues of the day, all packaged in a personality that provides voters with a stark contrast with President Obama, may mean that Mitch Daniels is in the perfect position to re-assemble the Fred ‘08 movement, only this time led by a candidate who can actually go the distance.

–Finally, outgoing Minnesota Governor and 08 Veep mention Tim Pawlenty has hired a finance director. Pawlenty would certainly make for a solid choice policy wise, but does he really have the charisma for the national stage? One can make a case that Daniels would make it because of his down to earth nature and modesty that real people can relate to. Pawlenty, though, seems to have the ambition and policy chops without a real defining character trait–probably the reason he was passed over for Palin in 2008.

–Finally, Race for 2012 has a chilling recount of Huckabee’s clemencies as governor, including an unusual 12 murderers. In his time in office Huckabee granted more clemencies more than every surrounding state combined.

So change of plans–fried shrimp (yum yum) but I’ll still be here live-blogging Steele and Cantor’s remarks. The feed is below for those of you like me who are observing from afar The recorded video should be up now below. My comments should roughly correspond to the time into the video beginning at two minutes past seven:

Liveblog with comments about the event below.

Read more…

For someone who recently has begun making sport out of saying no to a possible presidential bid, Mitch Daniels sure is making a heck of alot of sense whenever he does speak (though some may argue that commonsense’s natural momentum is away from those seeking higher office). From the Washington Times (h/t Brothers Judd), Daniels of fiscal conservatism as a moral issue:

“The essence of our nation is the protection of individual liberties,” he says in an interview with The Washington Times. “That means, for example, never take a dollar from a free citizen through the coercion of taxation without a very legitimate purpose.

“And then we have a solemn duty to spend that dollar as carefully as possible, because when we took it we diminished that person’s freedom. Otherwise, that citizen could spend that dollar on something he or she chose. This is an obligation of everybody who serves in government.”

On the issues any 2012 contender will need to address:

For one thing, “a colossally unsustainable [national] debt load — an unfair, even immoral burden we’ve deposited on our young people,” he says.

“The threat of Islamic fundamentalism coupled with its ability to take advantage of modern technology,” for another.

And then there’s “our reliance on energy purchased from people who use the money in ways contrary to American interests.”

And perhaps most refreshing–modesty and austerity (a topic he gave an entire commencement address on this past spring):

A Princeton graduate from a modest family background, he conveys in conversation the image of the quiet-spoken libertarian-populist for whom braggadocio is simply unthinkable. Getting him to talk about his accomplishments isn’t easy. “I want to look to the future,” he says.

….

Ask him to crow about his gubernatorial accomplishments, and he flatly refuses. Press him by asking if there’s anything he’s proud of having done in office, and you learn he is “pleased” he took a state that was in bankruptcy when he came into office “and put it in the best fiscal position ever,” though he acknowledges that holding on to that status is tough in this economy.

The article goes on to cite some of his accomplishments as Governor. He has been able to govern the way Bob McDonnell promises to–conservative principles guiding real results. Through initatives such as privatizing the state’s toll roads and keeping an eye on state payroll (actually managing to REDUCE it, of all things), Daniels has been able to cut property taxes by a third statewide and affect the largest tax cut in state history.

Perhaps his biggest watchword? Accountability. The state’s DMV went from being a joke to winning an award for the best in the nation. The average time spent in an office is SEVEN MINUTES. How was this accomplished? By rewarding good employees and punishing or removing bad ones. Sorta sounds like a business, no? Yet Mitch Daniels seems to be the only one with the courage to do it.

I encourage any conscientious conservative serious about cutting government size and scope to look into this man.  I will admit he has one mark against him–in his first year in office he proposed a 1% income tax hike. But when the state legislature balked, he simply took out his scissors and not only made state government work with less but work better. His humility may prevent him from talking about higher office, but one things for sure: I’d rather spend the next two years convincing him to run only to see him decline than to jump on the Cheney 2012 bandwagon.

Another addition to the hospitality suites at the Advance. Americans for Prosperity will be in Suite J with former Senator George Allen. The suite is hosted by Delegates Brenda Pogge and Ben Cline.

Americans For Prosperity has been a unique force in Virginia politics over the past few years. One of their biggest initiatives was to get recorded subcommittee votes. They’ve also been pushing hard for a comprehensive energy policy for the state as well as a generally business friendly climate. Phil Cox, campaign manager for Bob McDonnell, is a former employee, and Tim Phillips continues to have alot of street cred. Allen was honored earlier this year at a dinner by the group, and in his speech he touched on a number of issues that became core points behind McDonnell’s platform.

This, combined with the fact that Allen’s wife is speaking at the Saturday luncheon, indicates that the Allen’s aren’t finished yet. I find it hard to believe that George Allen would ever be satisfied with the title of party elder. Might he smell blood in the water for a 2012 rematch against Jim Webb? And Cline–with Saxman out of the way (for now) Cline is increasing his already sizable presence in the 6th District as a pragmatic conservative. Observers will recall that he was Goodlatte’s Chief of Staff in the 90′s. With several terms in the House, a law degree and wife to his name, might Ben Cline be looking to the stars? If there’s a group with a ready made base to mobilize in a place like the 6th once Bob Goodlatte retires, its AFP.

In one respect, Sarah is riding very high. Her book has broken the million mark and the print run has been increased all the way to 2.8 million according to the Washington Post. It’s also garnering glowing reviews from conservatives nationally and locally (SWACGirl and James Atticus Bowden both enjoyed it). The media continues to pooh pooh the book, but hey, what do you expect from a gaggle that so thoroughly railroaded her last year? The biggest mark of success–her book is #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. This is rather unusual for a politician–she joins the Clintons and Colin Powell in that territory.

However, that can’t stop the criticism. The Hill ran a hit piece on her internet strategy. It critiqued her for an over-reliance on Facebook:

“She is a political celebrity,” said Florida-based Republican new-media consultant Jordan Raynor. “She has built a significant new media space in the last year.”

……

“What I don’t like about as far as an online strategy is that she puts most of her eggs in the Facebook basket. She should be extending her online cachet into other strategy,” he said.

Not using email well enough:

“Even with this web 2.0 and social networking, we still see that one of the most powerful tools is a really good e-mail list,” said a former campaign co-manager for former Sen. Fred Thompson’s (R-Tenn.) 2008 presidential bid who declined to be named.

……..

“Building up a good e-mail list would be a good tool to influence 2010,” the former co-director said of next year’s midterm elections.

And for starting a new Twitter account rather than keep her old one:

Others, such as Alabama-based GOP new-media consultant Jeff Vreeland, lamented Palin’s decision to create a new Twitter account instead of changing the name of her gubernatorial account to keep her follower base of over 150,000, though it’s not clear that she was allowed to keep her old one.

……..

Palin’s new Twitter account has almost 30,000 followers.

I agree with comments in the article that right now, Sarah’s focus is on moving a TON of books….first get the message out there and try to salvage her image, then move on to the dialogue. It’s a smart strategy. The big question is will she have an audience to speak to once the glamour and glitter of the book tour is gone? I think her Facebook-oriented strategy is actually fairly sound, but again, she needs to move more towards that two way street, always cognizant that on a platform like facebook there will ocassionally be cars headed straight towards her. I remain on the fence about her other efforts, though I will say this: I just joined her email list for SarahPAC the other day and have yet to receive a welcome message, or any others at that rate. I got emails at least once a week during the Virginia election cycle from HuckPAC, and even the Romney camp puts out something once a month.

The real test of her star power is yet to come: the primary season and the ensuing general elections in 2010. Like I said, if she’s collecting emails at every stop good on her. If she’s not (and she may not be allowed to be too political by her publisher), then she needs to figure out a way to energize and speak to all the Palin fans out there who will hang on to her every word.