Barack Obama

Karl Rove recently wrote a widely circulated op-ed titled
                      “Why Obama Is Likely to Lose in 2012.”  Here is the opening paragraph:

President Barack Obama is likely to be defeated in 2012. The reason is that he faces four serious threats. The economy is very weak and unlikely to experience a robust recovery by Election Day. Key voter groups have soured on him. He’s defending unpopular policies. And he’s made bad strategic decisions.

Yes, it’s all true, and Rove backs up each reason with relevant data. However, he fails to emphasize the one overwhelming advantage President Obama has against his 2012 opponent: the power, glory, and respect that is accorded the person who holds the title “president of the United States.”

Historically, holders of this esteemed title have a 67.7% chance of re-election. As a co-writer and I noted earlier this year, and as was mentioned later by CBS News, “in the last 56 U.S. presidential elections, 31 have involved incumbents; 21 of those candidates have won more than one term.”

Since Karl Rove knows well the reverence accorded the president, he does mention incumbency once in this context:

While he needs to raise money and organize, he decided to be a candidate this year rather than president. He has thus unnecessarily abandoned one of incumbency’s great strengths, which is the opportunity to govern and distance himself from partisan politics until next spring.

It is Rove’s belief that President Obama’s decision to act less presidential and more like a candidate, while governing as a partisan in 2011, will help thwart his re-election chances.

This is where I respectfully disagree with Mr. Rove.

In fact, I believe Obama’s carefully calculated partisan behavior will actually increase his chances of winning a second term.

Since he took office in January 2009, President Obama has never stopped campaigning. He derives his energy, his very life blood, from being out on the trail, speaking to crowds large or small, and “pressing the flesh.”

During his entire presidency thus far, Obama has wanted us to think all those visits to factories, schools, campuses, town halls, and military bases were 100% official. The truth is the backdrop and especially the choice of state were always political. This was Obama’s way of keeping the campaign going.

Having been a “spy” since 2008 on Obama’s infamous campaign e-mail list “Organizing for America,” I have seen firsthand, sometimes on a daily basis during key moments of his presidency, how the campaign truly never ended.

“Organizing for America,” supposedly 13 million strong, has officially re-tooled for the 2012 campaign and is now called Obama for America.

Like a good salesman, Obama can not stop selling his product — himself — long after the sale is finalized. It’s as if he knows his God-given talents are more suited to “campaigner in chief” than the expected chief executive/commander in chief.

As Rove suggests, Obama should, as an incumbent, distance himself from partisan politics.” But President Obama has never distanced himself from partisan politics. Obama has always been and continues to be a bitter partisan Democrat.

So why should he stop now with 2012 around the corner?

All Obama will continue to do up until November 6, 2012, is recite the same old red-meat rhetoric about how those scary Republicans messed things up so bad; thus, why on earth would you let them back into the White House?

Besides, if Republicans do manage to win, all they will do is cut your government benefits and throw granny off the cliff.

With Obama, it is always us vs. them.

Look for our non-stop campaigning president to repeat this mantra daily to his loyal base of African-Americans, Hispanics, under 30 voters, die-hard liberals, college educated women, public/ private sector union members, Hollywood, the LGBT community, teachers, and titans who run influential new media companies extremely important to his campaign like Google and Facebook.

(Remember how Mark Zuckerberg famously donned a tie to meet Obama?)

These century-old Democratic talking points, delivered with Obama’s charm, humor, and updated spin, are what his base wants and expects to hear.

So Obama, ever the crowd pleaser, will give them what they want, regardless of the fact that he was elected president of all the people in these United States.

After the aforementioned groups in key states, Obama will set his sights on his weakest link: independent voters. He desperately needs to make up for the possible drop-off in base voters, for all the reasons cited by Rove.

Thus, President Obama will woo independents by exaggerating his record and planting false fears about Republicans in the minds of just enough wishy-washy independents to successfully knit together a winning map of 270 electoral votes.

He will ask in various ways: How can you trust those Republicans?

Get ready to hear that message almost 24/7 closer to 2012.

Now, couple all that partisan fear strategy with the office of the presidency.

Obama will have the trappings of power, the White House and Air Force One, all harnessed to raise more money than any political campaign in the history of the world, while on “official business” by day and as “fundraiser in chief” at night — usually in the same town, of course.

Already eyebrows have been raised about how Obama has used the White House to court well-heeled 2008 donors. Remember, it is only mid- 2011 and he is in full campaign fundraising mode on the way to his realistic goal of $1 billion — beating his own record of $750 million in 2008.

It has been estimated that he is on track to raise $60 million this quarter ending June 30. So with fundraising in mind, here is a recent video I received from Obama for America about entering a raffle with the winning prize a dinner with the president at the White House. Does anyone else think this is disgraceful?

Money can’t buy elections per se, but it can buy months of television time; radio, print, and internet ads; “volunteers”; campaign offices; legions of bloggers; and truckloads of campaign paraphernalia. Money can also buy slick messages that will counter the newly formulated 2012 Republican message that Obama’s policies have made the economic downturn longer, deeper, and generally worse.

But Obama will have so much money that he and his message will continuously be in our faces, surrounding us in every medium. We will have no choice but to listen as he spins his tale about what he inherited, how much progress he has made, and how he just needs more time to make it all better.

Remember we are a partisan nation and we have a partisan president who has and will continue to use that partisanship to his full advantage.

Unfortunately for our nation’s future, this is Obama’s winning strategy and not a “strategic blunder” as Rove suggests.

Americans must recognize by the fall of 2012 that Obama is a partisan showman and then elect a leader who does not confuse campaigning with governing.

Currently Intrade, the respected online prediction market, gives Obama a 57% chance of re-election. That, coupled with the fact that 67.7% of incumbents wins re-election as mentioned earlier, means that President Obama will likely win a second term.

I pray Karl Rove is right and I am wrong.


A visit to a therapist might be necessary to help conservatives work through their issues with the current frontrunner.

May 10, 2011 – 12:00 am – by Myra Adams

What if Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination for president in 2012?

A vast majority of conservatives become anxiety-ridden at the mere posing of this question, and many go ballistic at the thought of it actually happening.

So a quick visit to a therapist may be helpful.

Imagine yourself lying on a couch in the spring of 2012 with soothing music playing in the background. News breaks that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has clinched the Republican nomination for president.

Your therapist, knowing that as a true conservative you worked against Romney by supporting (fill in the blank), asks in a soft comforting voice, “How does this news make you feel — angry, betrayed, confused?”

The therapist is insisting that you anticipate your feelings and mentally prepare yourself because Intrade, the respected online prediction market operating outside of polls and politics, is betting on Romney with a 23.9% chance of him winning the GOP nomination. (By comparison, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is second at 15.3% and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is third at 9.5%. The rest of the GOP field is in single digits. Note: Intrade is a fluid prediction market, therefore percentages change frequently, but Romney has consistently led the GOP field. )

Intrade also pegs Obama’s re-election prospects at 58.6%, but your therapist says she will address those negative feelings in a future session.

This hour she wants you to work through the stress associated with accepting Romney as the GOP nominee.

So in an empathetic tone she asks you to think about the following questions:

Are you going to pick up your signs for Candidate X and go home?

Could you work for and support Romney’s campaign?

Will you vote for Romney in the 2012 election?

What if the polls show that Romney is running neck and neck with Obama?

Do you resent that squishy independent swing vote that is fueling Romney?

Finally, the therapy session is over and you leave her office with a huge headache. You realize you would have real problems supporting Romney as the nominee and even imagining these questions makes you angry.

Can you relate to this scenario?

Since the defeat of John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, I have heard numerous conservatives admit they held their nose and supported him. They say that in 2012 they will not support anyone but a “true conservative.”

Which begs the question, what is a “true conservative” these days?

Would President Reagan have even qualified, considering he granted amnesty to three million illegal aliens in 1986?

The following week the therapist works through your behavioral options if Romney wins the nomination:

You can support Romney 100% because as the nominee he will be your only chance of making Obama a one-term president. You can break away from the GOP and start a third party with Candidate X. (Although this ensures Obama will win re-election, you can feel good because you stuck by your principles.)

You can insist that Romney select a “true conservative” as his vice-presidential running mate. (This is similar to what McCain did with his selection of Sarah Palin.) But if Romney doesn’t select a running mate conservative enough for you, will you “punish” him by staying home and not helping the campaign at any level?

Then your wise therapist reads you a quote from Ronald Reagan.

On February 9, 1983, when asked about people who said he was “moving away from the policies and principles that got you elected,” Reagan responded by explaining that compromise is not retreat: “I’m not retreating an inch from where I was. But I also recognize this: There are some people who would have you so stand on principle that if you don’t get all that you’ve asked for from the legislature, why, you jump off the cliff with the flag flying. I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you’re not going to always get everything you want. So, I think what they’ve misread is times in which I have compromised.”

Ah … the wisdom of Ronald Reagan: “half a loaf is better than none.”

Good advice all Republicans should remember. For if Romney does manage to win the 2012 nomination, conservatives must admit that he would be a “half loaf” better than another full loaf of Obama.

The truth is the Republican Party is fractured. However, someone has to be the nominee and chances are it will be someone that a good chunk of the party did not initially support — or still might not support after the nomination process is over.

That would be a huge mistake.

Republicans must unite and together build a massive 50 state national campaign and the fundraising apparatus to support it. And the sooner the better, because besides the obvious advantage of incumbency, the opposing team will be well managed and organized on the ground, the airwaves, and in cyberspace.

President Obama will have close to a billion dollars in his campaign war chest. This will buy him millions of dollars of air time, including 30-minute infomercials. He will have the funds to hire thousands of staff, pay “volunteers” to stand for hours at the local mall, and bloggers to flood the internet with favorable content. Perhaps he’ll even have a few thousand left over to “buy” some new voter registrations.

But Obama can not buy down our national right-track, wrong-track number: 67.5% of Americans think our nation is on the wrong track. He can not buy down the official unemployment rate, which just climbed back up to 9%. He can’t buy down the real unemployment rate, which some experts estimate to be closer to 18%.

President Obama can be defeated because his vision for America’s economic future vastly differs from that of Republicans and the all important independent swing voters who helped forge those historic wins in the 2010 midterm elections.

A Republican victory in 2012 will hinge on getting those voters back again. Therefore, grassroots Republicans participating in the primary process must keep their eye on the general election and ask themselves: could my candidate attract independent voters in key battleground states like Virginia or Florida?

Romney as the GOP nominee might just wind up representing that “half loaf is better than none” philosophy for many Republicans. If that is the eventual outcome, and as a “true conservative” you find yourself still demanding a “full loaf,” please consult a therapist and Ronald Reagan.

Myra Adams is a media producer, writer and political observer, who served on the McCain Ad Council during the 2008 McCain campaign, and on the 2004 Bush campaign creative team. Her columns have appeared on The Daily Caller and as a co-writer on The Daily Beast. Myra’s web site contributes all profits to Christian charity. Follow @MyraKAdams on Twitter.

Despite the jubilation over the death of Osama Bin Laden, our nation’s overstretched and under-appreciated military will continue to be actively engaged in three undeclared wars — Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya.

Perhaps Bin Laden’s demise will usher in new questions for President Obama about the present and future of our international entanglements.

In the meantime while casualties and costs continue to escalate, and public opinion is running against all three wars there is virtually no anti-war movement targeted at President Obama compared to what was waged against President Bush.

What are the reasons for this anti-war silence from the people and the press?

Here are three possible ones: the absence of a draft, George W. Bush is no longer in office, and the main stream media’s conscious decision to downplay the wars while Obama is president.

No Draft

Imagine if every able bodied 18 year old male (females are excluded from this imaginary draft) from all economic strata lived in fear of being yanked out of civilian life and sent to fight in the treacherous mountains of Afghanistan?

Or, sent to relieve the 50,000 troops still serving, fighting and dying in Iraq?

Or possibly sent to fight along side the rebels in Libya? (Not totally unlikely considering US Marines and warships are now deployed off Libya’s coast.)

Then when you consider the majority of Americans (49%) disapprove of how Obama is handling the Afghan war (47% approve) — and only 27% approve of Obama’s Libyan intervention — if a draft were in effect today there would likely be 1970’s style Vietnam era demonstrations on college campuses and frequent marches upon Washington.

(It will be interesting to note going forward if these poll numbers become more favorable toward Obama now that Bin Laden has been killed by our special forces.)

With a draft, wars would be front and center in the national consciousness especially if 20 year old “Justin” from an upper middle class family dropped out of Yale, lost his student deferment and was heading toward Kabul.

However, the absence of a draft allows for a major disconnect between the all volunteer military comprised of less than 1% of the US population.

It’s human nature that if your family is not threatened with joining the fight, you have the option of not paying attention to the wars or the politics behind them.

Then before you know it complacency sets in, nearly invisible wars are 10 years old and the same troops have done three, four, or five tours of duty.

“Hell no, we won’t go,” has been replaced with “Not my problem.”

A draft keeps wars closer to the pulse of ALL the people and tends to hold elected leaders more accountable.  Even the anti-war movement during President George W. Bush’s tenure was tame compared to what it would have been if there had been a draft after September 11, 2001.

No President George W. Bush to kick around any more 

Why has the steady anti-war drumbeat ever present under President Bush become virtually silent?  A strange phenomenon indeed considering President Obama has continued President Bush’s policies in Iraq, then tripled Bush’s troop levels in Afghanistan, ratcheted up predator drone attacks in Pakistan, and got us involved in Libya without congressional authorization; all this from a President who received the Nobel Peace Prize upon taking office in early 2009.

What could explain the silence of someone like Cindy Sheehan (remember her?) the grieving mother and poster child of the anti-war movement under President Bush?

It is now obvious that all or most of the anti-war sediment was a by-product of Bush Derangement Syndrome because like magic, once Bush was gone from the White House the anti-war movement virtually disappeared.

A case could easily be made that most of the anti-war movement from 2002 – 2008 was fueled by the media and then conveniently used by Bush haters everywhere to wage war against the presidency of George W. Bush.   Anti-War = Anti-Bush, which brings us around to the third and final reason:

The media’s downplaying of the wars under President Obama

There is a certain irony that in 2011 our three wars are being lead by Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama, who was the Iraq anti-war candidate, first in 2002 as an Illinois State Senator, and then as a US Senator in his 2007 presidential launch speech.

During the 2008 primary campaign Senator Obama said to Senator Hillary Clinton when speaking about Iraq, “I was opposed to this war in 2002…I have been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5,6,7,8 and I will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don’t be confused.”

Well, perhaps Obama should be confused now and asked why April 2011 was the deadliest month in Iraq since 2009 with the loss of 11 American soldiers.

Richard Benedetto, writing on opined recently in a piece entitled “Why Is Obama So Silent On Afghanistan — And Why Are the Media Letting Him Get Away With It?” Benedetto observed that Obama avoids talking about Afghanistan publically as much as he can, letting others do the talking.

Obama’s strategy of avoiding speeches and discussion on wars that are not going well and that the American people are increasing against, seems to be working for him — otherwise the anti-war movement would spring back to life, whipped up in part by the media.

That said, with the death of Bin Laden, it will be interesting to see if Obama becomes more publicly engaged with the wars especially if he senses some political gain.

However, as long as the main stream media that helped elect Obama and has a vested interest in his success, is not hounding him for answers about the wars while running screaming negative headlines like what occurred almost daily during the Bush years – it is a safe bet that people will not be marching in the streets with anti-war signs reading “Obama lied — people died.”

Consider April 27th when 8 US service members were killed by an Afghan pilot, Obama was busy releasing his birth certificate, flying off for a taping of Oprah and then attending three fundraisers to help fill his re-election campaign coffers.

The media barely mentioned the tragic incident.

With no draft, no George W. Bush, and a main stream media that does not hold Obama accountable to the same standards as President Bush on any issue, is it any wonder these three wars have been largely out of sight and out of mind for 99% of Americans?

At least ABC’s This Week broadcasts the names, ages and hometowns of our brave service members who have made the ultimate sacrifice. For the record, there were 25 names on the Sunday, May 1st  morning show while 12 hours later the news broke about Bin Laden. Too bad those 25 will not be celebrating.

Now with Osama Bin Laden gone and if there are no major changes in any of our three wars will the anti-war movement be revived over mounting casualties and costs?

The answer is probably no because the media will most likely elevate Obama to hero status over Bin Laden’s death. And with his new status, the silence of the anti-war movement will continue as a by product of Barack Obama’s presidency with the media’s complicity.

Meanwhile next Sunday on This Week there will be more young soldiers in Memoriam.

Watching President Obama’s 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina outline his re-election strategy left me as a patriotic American outraged, offended and confused.

First the outrage.

This feeling can be attributed to Messina’s use of the word “insurgent” to describe Obama’s re-election campaign.

“We have to act like an insurgent campaign that wakes up every single day trying to get every single vote we can.”

Does Mr. Messina actually realize the message he is sending by using the phrase “act like an insurgent campaign?”

Apparently not.

Perhaps he should have consulted Webster’s for the definition of “insurgent,” and since he didn’t, I did.

Definition of INSURGENT

1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established
government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one’s own political party

Then, I was offended.

For according to the definition of insurgent, President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign will be revolting against civil authority or an established government, because that is what insurgents do, or at least what Mr. Webster said they do in order to proudly call themselves insurgents.

So one must ask the question, does “acting like an insurgent campaign” mean President
Obama plans on taking over Congress, the Supreme Court, state governments, the
press, and the military?

He already controls the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, so as an insurgent
doesn’t his team need to lead a revolt against an “established government” or
those parts of government they do not already control?

Then, as part of revolting against civil authority does Obama plan on canceling the 2012 election and declaring himself a dictator or king?

After all, insurgents are known for acting unpredictably that is why they call themselves
insurgents as opposed to president, prime minister or senator.

Now here comes the confusion.

As stated in Webster’s definition #2, insurgent means Obama must act contrary to the policies and decisions of one’s own political party.

Could this mean that Obama is planning on switching parties and running for re-election in 2012 as a Republican?

Perhaps this is good news because the Republicans right now don’t seem to have anybody
who can defeat him according to the latest polls.

And, if Obama acts like an insurgent according to the definition which is contrary to the policies and decisions of one’s own political party, that means for 2012 he plans on accepting Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget plan for reducing the deficit, lifting all the oil drilling moratoriums, reducing government regulations and thus throwing this nation a life preserver so we can continue as the greatest nation on earth, as opposed to a nation
drowning in its debt.

So now if the Republicans have a surprise candidate for 2012, that means the Democrats
need to find someone who can run on and defend the Obama administration’s
record with the highest deficits in our history, high unemployment, slow
growth, high gas and food prices, and an additional war that Obama did not

Can you think of anyone in the Democrat Party who is willing to defend that record?

No wonder President Obama wants to run as an insurgent in 2012.

This column was edited and posted on

Here is my original more humorous version.


During the last month since Donald Trump has completely dominated the media with his potential 2012 run for the Republican presidential nomination, the question most often raised is, “Can you imagine a debate between Donald Trump and President Obama?”

Well, imagine no more because here is a future “transcript” from what will be called the Debate of the Century.  

This possible future presidential debate is based on segments from actual interview transcripts, each in two parts involving President Obama and ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on April 14, 2011 and Donald Trump and Stephanopoulos on April 18, 2011.

Just like a Hollywoodmovie based on a true story, the interview segments used in this “debate” have been repositioned slightly but without the altering of any real content. However, the debate questions from the moderator are fictionalized.

So after all the hype – here are some highlights from the Debate of the Century.

 Moderator: Mr. President, do you believe America is on the decline?

Obama:  You know countries used to look up to America as an example of a modern, well functioning society, and now it seems like they have bigger plans then we do. That’s not the America I want to live in.

 Moderator: And Mr. Trump, do you believe America is on the decline?

Trump: I look at what’s going on with our country. We’re like a third world nation.

This country is in such trouble. If you look at what China’s doing to us. If you look –look at—I mean, look at what’s going on with gasoline prices. They’re going to go to $5, $6, $7 a gallon and we don’t have anybody in Washington that calls OPEC and says, “Fellas, it’s time. It’s over. You’re not going to do it anymore.”  They’re not our friends.  They wouldn’t even be there if it wasn’t for us.

 Moderator: President Obama why should the people vote to re-elect you?

Obama: Ultimately the American people understand this is a serious, sober time. They want an optimistic vision. That’s what this election is going to be about.

 Moderator: Mr. Trump, why should the American people vote to elect you and do you think you will win?

Trump: Oh, I’m sure I will. You know what they get with me? They get a guy that’s not going to let the world rip off the United StatesThe world is ripping us off. I hate it.

 Moderator: Mr. President, are you concerned about the strength of your opponent on the other side?

Obama:  Right now I have such a big day job that I am not yet focused on what’s happening on the other side.

 Moderator: Mr. Trump, how would you describe the state of our nation?

Trump:  Ripped off by everybody because we have poor leadership. Because we have people that don’t know what they’re doing.

(The Donald with eyes squinted looks at Obama and sneers.)

Moderator: Mr. President, how do you think the American people envision their ideal president?

Obama: They want one that unifies the country and more important than anything else, they want some answers to how we’re going to get the economy moving.

Moderator: Isn’t that what you have been trying to do for almost 4 years?

Obama: My suspicion is that anybody who is not addressing those questions is going to be in trouble.

Moderator: Mr. Trump: Do you think you would have any difficulty going from private businessman to President of the United States?

Trump: You know, unlike other people I’ve really been public all my life.  I’ve done a good job. I’ve built a great company. I mean it’s magnificent. I’m going to disclose all this stuff. And they will be amazed at how big it is, how strong it is, how much cash there is. It’s a great company. I’d love to show my tax returns. I may tie the release of my tax returns to Obama releasing his birth certificate.

I think that people see me as somebody that loves this country. But maybe even more importantly I will not let our great nation be ripped off by so many others. I think they see that. They think I am a smart guy.

(Obama rolls his eyes and looks at his watch)

 Moderator:  Mr. President does criticism bother you?

Obama: Some of it will be settled by the America people in the election. That is how democracy should work.

 Moderator: Mr. Trump does criticism bother you?

Trump: Next question.  You’re not doing your job very well.  You’ve been co-opted by Obama.

 Moderator: Finally, what would you like to say to the American people?

Obama: To make very clear to the American people that we have a choice.

 Moderator: Mr. Trump any final words to the American people?

Trump: I had two divorces. And they were very good women.  And I always say about that—they were excellent women, terrific women.  But you know what?  I work so hard and so long that it’s almost unfair to women.  But isn’t what this county wants—don’t– you think the country wants somebody that works long and hard and smart, maybe above all smart.  So I think the reason I am doing so well in all the polls, where I am leading most of ‘em is that they see me stopping this onslaught from other people taking advantage of the county. ‘Cause I’ll tell you something, if I win, people will not be ripping off the United States any longer.

Moderator: Thank you both.  The American people are the real winners tonight being able to choose between two such outstanding leaders.

 President Obama and Donald Trump come forward to shake hands when Obama whispers into Trumps ear: “I found your pompadour comb-over most distracting.”

 That evening the pundits universally agreed that Trump was victorious because of his “with me we won’t get ripped off any more” bravado which struck a chord in the heartland of America.

 All the cable channels except MSNBC, showed continuous footage of Obama looking at his watch which they ran concurrently with President George H.W. Bush famously looking at his watch in a 1992 debate with Governor Bill Clinton. 

 The next day Drudge posted a large image of Obama’s watch glance with a screaming headline declaring Time for a Change.

If Palin is to have a long career in the public eye she needs to take a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook.

April 20, 2011 – by Myra Adams

According to the latest polls, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s political popularity trajectory is heading south. It was inevitable given our 24/7 fame-obsessed culture which feeds on new personalities and controversy to fuel the celebrity media machine.

Once Sarah Palin resigned from her office as Alaska governor, she left that respected “higher platform” reserved for our elected leaders and crossed over into celebrity jungle.

There, she willingly subjected herself to the unforgiving forces of media pop culture, where the masses are easily bored. And now, without a new hit show, movie, book, clothing line, charity cause, or fragrance, Palin is vying for the same celebrity space as Lady Gaga and Charlie Sheen. And worse for her, according to the Washington Post, Palin “rarely seems to break through into the national dialogue.”

Since her successful 2009 launch into the media pop culture, Palin’s “brand” has remained essentially the same and her fan base has not widened. Now after two years in the celebrity maelstrom, as her star is starting to flicker, she must do what all celebrities need do to stay on top: re-invent herself. Otherwise, Sarah Palin appears destined for a twirl on Dancing with the Stars during the 2013 season.

There is no doubt that in these past two years former Palin has had a good run. Consider her list of accomplishments: Fox News contributor, best-selling author, a reality TV show, success as a political fundraiser, champion of conservative causes, Tea Party leader, a bold critic of President Obama, a master of social media, and a “kingmaker” in the 2010 midterm elections — while the question of will she or won’t she run for president swirled around her like an Iowa tornado.

Certainly Palin’s bank account is the ultimate beneficiary, with a ripple effect reaching daughter Bristol’s account as well.

But the question remains: is Sarah Palin’s expiration date about up?

Surely there is that potential, not only from a read of the latest polls but because the media has now glommed onto Sarah Palin 2.0 — otherwise known as Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

Unlike Palin, Bachmann is actively running for president, not just hinting, flirting, and teasing. She says she will decide officially in June.

But even more than Bachmann, Palin is being pushed aside by “The Donald,” who has earned a PhD in fame and self-promotion.

Donald Trump is a case study for celebrity staying power as he enters his fourth decade in the public eye. Trump is a master of the art of re-invention — and Sarah Palin should take notes.

Now that Trump is full throttle into “thinking about running for president,” the press is going along for the ride with all Donald, all the time coverage.

Besides his declaration about seizing Iraqi oil to pay us back for the war, Trump has given the “birther” issue new life.

This issue has the capacity to drive the mainstream media over the edge and potentially set up the celebrity smackdown of the 21st century: Obama vs. Trump.

Donald Trump, unlike Sarah Palin, is an established American brand on par with Coke or Goodyear. So there is only so much the press can do to denigrate him without looking foolish themselves. But Trump knows how to use the media; he barks, they bite, he bites back, then barks louder and makes more headlines.

All the recent coverage he has generated about Obama’s birth certificate is a perfect example of Trump’s media savvy, demonstrating just how well he plays the press.

Trump also has the advantage of not giving a hoot what the media says about him. He has an almost uncanny ability to rise above the media. He’s got the power. He knows it and so does the media.

Palin, on the other hand, is more sensitive about her media image since she is still trying to shore up her brand, being relatively new to the pop culture scene.

Like Palin, Trump has many critics in and outside of the media, but the difference between them is Trump will not fade away. He is a master of the game.

Staying power is part of the personal power he wields as a billionaire businessman, A-list celebrity, and overall American idol.

America loves watching Trump because we all know, win or lose, “The Donald” will find a way to always come out on top. He has the will to succeed at all costs with the muscle to back it up.

One could say he represents all of us (or at least what some of us wish we could be). And we are confident that if Trump decides not to run for president he will carve out a new role, or create a new show, or find a new issue to keep him front and center.

Meanwhile, Palin had been relegated to the sidelines by Trump-mania. Exhibit A was Palin’s response to all of Trump’s birther publicity.

Palin only managed to gain press attention by saying she “appreciates” Trump weighing in on this issue, a toxic topic from which she had previously steered clear.

Then, as if she realized her influence was fading, Palin this past weekend made what looked like a comeback attempt, giving a “feisty anti-establishment speech” at a rally in Wisconsin. Will this appearance and all the subsequent media coverage be enough to thrust her back into the national dialogue?

Sarah Palin’s decline in the polls as a political figure is not due to the last two years of media over-exposure. Instead, as many political strategists believe, she has neglected to educate herself and become a leading expert on the boring issues of the day (à la Hillary).

Because Palin has failed to do so, Palin herself has become the issue.Moving forward, the most important career decision Sarah Palin needs to make is to decide whether she is going to be a political figure or a media celebrity.

If Palin is to have a long career in the public eye, she needs to take a page out of Donald Trump’s playbook: re-invent herself now and decide who she wants to be in the future.

Perhaps she should work with Trump and develop a hit TV talk/game show, or go back to Alaska and run for the U.S. Senate. Now is the time to choose because she cannot be both political leader and media celebrity much longer.

Taking either of these paths ensures that Palin will have a safe platform as an elected office holder or in a reliable 4:00pm daily time slot.

Then she could leave the pop culture jungle to masters like Donald Trump.

Myra Adams is a media producer, writer and political observer, who served on the McCain Ad Council during the 2008 McCain campaign, and on the 2004 Bush campaign creative team. Her columns have appeared on The Daily Caller and as a co-writer on The Daily Beast. Myra’s web site contributes all profits to Christian charity. Follow @MyraKAdams on Twitter.

Candidates who are chosen for high office largely based on their gender, ethnicity, age, or race (GEAR) usually ruin their careers.
March 28, 2011 – by Myra Adams

It seems not a day goes by without Florida Senator Marco Rubio being mentioned as the favorite choice for vice president among Republicans in Washington. Even talk radio’s Rush Limbaugh weighed in when he said Senator Rubio should run for president in 2012.

It is true that Senator Rubio has certain political assets, including his ability to “attract” Latino voters due to his Cuban heritage. He also is conservative, smart, and a good speaker. And he hails from a state that is considered the mother of all battleground states for 2012. What’s not to like if you are a Republican looking toward the future?

Nothing — except for the fact that the 39-year-old Rubio was just sworn into the United States Senate on January 3, 2011.

Is the Republican Party so devoid of leadership that a newbie senator with no previous national or gubernatorial experience would even be considered presidential or VP material after only four months in Washington?

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Worse, Rubio is about to be entangled in a political phenomenon I call GEAR, which stands for Gender-Ethnicity-Age-Race.

The GEAR phenomenon is when a candidate is chosen to be on a presidential ticket because he or she possesses one or more of the Gender-Ethnicity-Age-Race factors that are considered politically advantageous at the time of selection.

Let’s examine the history of GEAR on recent presidential tickets and see if there are any “teachable moments” for Senator Rubio in 2012.

The GEAR factor of “G” for gender first appeared on the 1984 presidential ticket with the selection of New York Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro as the first female vice-presidential candidate. (Ferraro passed away on Saturday at 75.) She was chosen by the Democrat presidential nominee, Walter Mondale, to spruce up the ticket, make history, and attract women voters. Granted, she did make history, but not with women voters, who in 1984 went for Reagan by 59% vs. 42% for Mondale.

One could say riding the big “G” in GEAR turned into a big flop for Ferraro.

She was unknown nationally, never caught fire on the ticket and, after giving up her congressional seat to run for VP, never held elective office again. (Although she tried in 1992 and 1998 for a New York Senate seat, she lost both races at the primary level.)

Four years later, in 1988, the GEAR factor of “A” for age surfaced when the Republican presidential nominee, Vice President George H.W. Bush, selected Indiana Senator Dan Quayle as his running mate.

Vice President Bush thought his ticket needed a little less gray hair so he plucked a handsome, unknown 41 year old out of the Senate and basically ruined Quayle’s career. Quayle’s candidacy provided a great addition to the political lexicon through that famous line from Senator Lloyd Bentsen in the 1988 VP debate — “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy” — after Quayle compared his Washington experience to Senator Kennedy’s in 1960.

Nevertheless, Bush/Quayle won the White House in 1988 and Quayle served as VP. But he soon became the butt of national jokes — many self-inflicted.

Since everyone knew the GEAR factor of age was the key reason for Quayle’s selection as VP in 1988 and because Quayle was generally seen as a poor choice, President Bush was urged to drop Quayle from the 1992 ticket.

However, Bush refused, Bush/Quayle was defeated by Clinton/Gore, and Dan Quayle was practically never heard from again. (Although his son Ben was elected to Congress in 2010 and is trying to “restore” the family name.)

After the Dan Quayle fiasco, it took 20 years, from 1988 to 2008, for the GEAR phenomenon to surface again and surface it did on both national tickets.

On the Democrat side in the 2008 presidential election, the “R” factor of race was front and center after Barack Obama, who was sworn in as a United States senator on January 4, 2005, declared on February 10, 2007, that he was running for president of the United States.

Obama definitely wins the GEAR factor gold medal.

For if Obama’s father had been Caucasian instead of African, it would have been nearly impossible for a sophomore senator from Illinois to have wrestled the democratic nomination away from iconic front-runner Hillary Clinton, and then go on to win the presidency.

(Note that Hillary Clinton also had a “G” for gender factor but was not considered a GEAR candidate due to her years of political experience.)

But Obama, as a GEAR candidate with the historic “R” factor combined with the “A” for age factor, was compelling enough for the media to act as his biggest cheerleader, thus propelling him to victory in 2008.

Only time will tell if his presidency will be a success or a failure. Certainly at this juncture Republicans think it has been a disaster, with Obama’s lack of executive and foreign policy experience being key reasons. The question remains if the GEAR factor of “R” will loom as large and generate similar favorable media coverage for Obama’s 2012 re-election bid.

For the Republicans in 2008, Senator McCain wanted a game-changing VP pick (“high-risk, high-reward”) so he selected unknown (at the time) Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who had been in office less than two years. Palin brought the “G” for gender factor and the “A” for age factor (she was 44) and along with her conservative credentials helped energize the conservative base for the fall election.

Unfortunately, like Mondale’s false thinking that Ferraro would bring him women voters in 1984, McCain had the same illusions with Palin and the ticket went on to lose the women’s vote to Obama by a whopping 57% to 43%.

GEAR factors may have played a huge role in Palin’s selection as VP, but she later propelled herself into national prominence. As of this writing, Palin’s future in elective office is unknown but her bank account is definitely a winner.

Now with the GEAR phenomenon in historical context, let’s swing back to Senator Marco Rubio’s prospects for 2012.

The newly minted Florida senator of Cuban descent brings the GEAR factor of “E” for ethnicity to a party that is desperately trying to win Latino and Hispanic voters.

Also, in 2012 Rubio will be 41 years old, thus helping bring the “A” for age factor to a party that lost the under 30 vote to Obama in 2008 by 61% to 39% and the 30-49 year old vote by 53% to 47%.

Certainly, there is no disputing that Senator Rubio is an attractive conservative candidate with a very bright future. That is why Washington collective wisdom thinks Rubio will be offered the VP slot no matter who tops the ticket.

But the question is: should Rubio accept a VP slot in 2012 as a GEAR candidate with its high-risk, high-reward, and sometimes unhappy career-ending scenarios?

By August of 2012 he will have served in the U.S. Senate less than two years. Obama ran for president after serving just two years, so using the Obama Senate time table Senator Rubio is just about ripe for the VP ticket.

You can almost hear the arguments that will be waged on cable and talk radio.

Rubio’s decision will be made even more difficult and tempting by the Republican National Convention being hosted in his home state of Florida, in the city of Tampa.

So will Rubio be able to resist the gravitational power pull, wait until he has completed at least one full term in the Senate, and become better known nationally?

Some Republican strategists believe Rubio should wait until he has more seasoning and is in a position to win the top spot on a future presidential ticket.

Since Rubio has all the makings of a terrific non-GEAR candidate and time is on his side, I hope he refuses that siren call from the top of the Republican ticket in 2012.

For becoming a GEAR candidate can be risky and unforgiving whether you win or lose.

Myra Adams is a media producer, writer and political observer, who served on the McCain Ad Council during the 2008 McCain campaign, and on the 2004 Bush campaign creative team. Her columns have appeared on The Daily Caller and as a co-writer on The Daily Beast. Myra’s web site contributes all profits to Christian charity. Follow @MyraKAdams on Twitter.