Palin’s opportunities to do something great that will separate her from competition in a national election is indignantly great in a governor position than as a senator.

This is the worst idea ever. Why would we want to take a popular, successful, and extremely promising governor and turn her into a member of a nearly neutered minority in a body that will probably do little to improve on the 17% approval ratings it has had of late?

The Senate is not going to be a place for a Republican to shine during the next 4 years (and it will be 4 years – there is no way that the 2010 elections will result in a 6-8 seat gain for us) – the GOP is in the minority and faces a far-left liberal president. No GOP Senator will be campaigning for President in 2012 on all the wonderfully conservative things he got enacted into law. It is also the Senate – and the Senate has rarely produced presidents, mainly because the skills and instincts needed to be a good legislator are not the same skills needed to be a successful executive.

The Senate would be the ruination of Sarah Palin and would poison her future as a future leader among conservatives and Republicans.

If you want someone who thinks kinda like Palin without ruining the actually Palin, we’d probably be best off with Sean Parnell – her Lt. Gov.

This is exactly what will happen if Palin has national aspirations. She needs the time inside the Beltway to establish her abilities with the Establishment.

She will have the national podium anytime she wishes and has 4 years to policy wonk around the various parts of Government. She will have a great opportunity stand for the Right on the upcoming SCOTUS appointments.

She will be regular on the Sunday shows and cable news.

None of this will be available to her in Alaska.

Sarah Palin needs to continue to be the governor of Alaska and run for re-election in 2010. Being outside of the beltway is where the conservative movement needs to be right now because all of the inside the beltway types are the ones who delivered yesterday’s spectacular performance.

Her appeal is that she is not of Washington. She should definitely stay engaged with the “lower 48″ through giving speeches, being on the Sunday/political shows, etc., but appointing herself to the Senate would be political malpractice, if not suicide — just as Frank Murkowski how well appointing a relative to the Senate went for his popularity in the state.

I don’t understand the appeal of Palin. Most of what she had to say either made no sense, was wrong, was offensive or was pure hypocrisy. One example: if socialism/marxism are so weird, why did she say that Alaska’s resources were collectively owned? Smarter heads will prevail if she attempts to run in 2012.

If she goes to the Senate, she gets her experience bona fides. In the end, it’s a decision her and the the first dude will have to make.

I hope we see her lots, and that’s not just cuz she’s hot as hell.

As Governor she can best a conservative record and competent administration. And I mean that as a sincere and honest compliment to her.

Whatever happens, the party needs to find a way to keep Sarah front and center (if that’s what she wants to do, of course).

She can’t go back to Alaska and then just re-appear in 4 years. MSM will then just start trotting out the Couric interview from this election, and she’ll be fighting against that unfair image from the start.

Whether she remains as governor but becomes a regular spokesperson for the party (doing the Sunday morning news circuit, etc), or whether she does it from a Senate seat, she needs to be highly visible.

I can see the whole Senate thing working, but first we need a clearer picture of where we stand. First Stevens (AK), Coleman (MN), Smith (OR), and Chambliss (GA) all need to survive recounts, or in Chambliss’ case, a runoff. If all of these fall into place, then things aren’t going to be all that bad in the Senate. You would actually be looking at a pretty formidable firewall. I think it would be a bad idea for her to go into the Senate and take up membership as part of a weak minority if these seats aren’t retained. It’s simply too early to say right now.

Secondly, let’s see how this Stevens thing pans out. If he loses a recount, forget about this idea. If he’s in, the Senate would need to oust him. Knowing that his replacement would be chosen by Palin, and also the fact that the Republicans would be both keeping a seat and losing such damaging guy at the same time, the Democrats may not be that keen on ousting him. Put succintly, what benefit could it bring to the Democrats to oust Stevens? They wouldn’t be gaining a seat. I’d think they’d want to keep such a washed up guy where he is than allow a fresh face Republican to build a Senate career. Whoever replaced him would be an automatic favorite to win the special election. If the Democrats couldn’t beat Stevens in AK, how would they beat anyone else?

Finally, for this whole “Palin for Senate” thing to work out, you’d need the direct cooperation of the Republican Senate leadership. Furthermore, she would need to be placed in an important committee position as the ranking Republican, and have a definite agenda. I’m not so sure that these Senate guys would be so willing to step aside and let her use this as a springboard to the presidency. If they were her willing accomplices, then this plan would be a foolproof plan. Again, I just don’t see this kind of thing happening. If Palin went to the Senate right now, she’d be a back bencher and novelty.