Palin lacks “gravitas”, says Rove

Former Bush strategist questions if Sarah Palin is suitable to stand for president.

The senior party strategist Karl Rove has suggested that the former Republican vice-presidential candidate and Alaskan governor Sarah Palin lacks the "gravitas" needed to win the American people's votes, reports the Telegraph.

In an interview, Rove stresses the importance of candidates giving voters the confidence that "they are up to the most demanding job in the world" and argues that Palin needs to prove she is up to the job.

In relation to Palin's upcoming Discovery Channel reality-TV show, in which she is to explore the Alaskan wilderness, Rove says he is "not certain how that fits in the American calculus of 'that helps me see you in the Oval Office' ". He points out that the programme's promotional material, which features Palin saying she "would rather be doing this than in some stuffy old political office", could be particularly problematic for any presidential campaign.

Rove, who was deputy chief of staff under George W Bush, also implies that Palin may struggle in the presidential primaries, which begin in the new year, noting: "It's going to be blood, it's going to be sweat and tears and it's going to be hard effort."

Palin is a divisive figure for Americans, and Rove suggests that, despite strong grass-roots support for her, the race for the Republican primaries is wide open. "Outside of the true believers", he says, most Republican primary voters are still undecided and open to persuasion.

Early indications are that Palin does indeed intend to run for the presidency. She has recently given a speech in Iowa, site of the first caucuses, and is reported to have been gathering both money and staff.

As the race for the Republican presidential nomination tightens, more heavyweights will weigh in on the contest, with potential dividing lines emerging between established figures such as Rove and newer, more divisive candidates with substantial popular support.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Here's something the political class has completely missed about Brexit

As Hillary Clinton could tell them, arguments about trade have a long, long afterlife. 

I frequently hear the same thing at Westminster, regardless of whether or not the person in question voted to leave the European Union or not: that, after March 2019, Brexit will be “over”.

It’s true that on 30 March 2019, the United Kingdom will leave the EU whether the government has reached a deal with the EU27 on its future relationship or not. But as a political issue, Brexit will never be over, regardless of whether it is seen as a success or a failure.

You don’t need to have a crystal ball to know this, you just need to have read a history book, or, failing that, paid any attention to current affairs. The Democratic primaries and presidential election of 2016 hinged, at least in part, on the consequences of the North American Free Trade Association (Nafta). Hillary Clinton defeated a primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, who opposed the deal, and lost to Donald Trump, who also opposed the measure.

Negotiations on Nafta began in 1990 and the agreement was fully ratified by 1993. Economists generally agree that it has, overall, benefited the nations that participate in it. Yet it was still contentious enough to move at least some votes in a presidential election 26 years later.

Even if Brexit turns out to be a tremendous success, which feels like a bold call at this point, not everyone will experience it as one. (A good example of this is the collapse in the value of the pound after Britain’s Leave vote. It has been great news for manufacturers, domestic tourist destinations and businesses who sell to the European Union. It has been bad news for domestic households and businesses who buy from the European Union.)

Bluntly, even a successful Brexit is going to create some losers and an unsuccessful one will create many more. The arguments over it, and the political fissure it creates, will not end on 30 March 2019 or anything like it. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.