Is Sarah Palin gambler or prophet?

*
At SC-based blog The Garnet Spy, C. Speight muses over Sarah Palin's endorsement of Nikki Haley, wondering whether it is an indication that the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate is a gambler or a prophet:

Why... would Palin pick an underdog? Some have tried the argument that it was a “woman thing,” that Sarah Palin endorsed Nikki Haley because of her gender. But that doesn’t work for me. She’s endorsed Tom Emmer for Governor of Minnesota and Rand Paul for Senator in Kentucky, so, clearly, gender isn’t a litmus test for Palin’s endorsements. Besides, if this is to be taken as a purely political choice, winning trumps chromosomes.

What does Palin know? She and her advisers all smart people – they know how to read the tea leaves of a campaign. The professionals don’t get distracted by news articles or perceptions of debate performances (and they sure as Hell don’t pay attention to bloggers!). Is this a gamble by Palin, thinking her star power will propel Haley to a runoff and, ultimately, a win in November? That, too, is reasonable though politics is hardly prone to reason.

It does seem that Sarah Palin chose to endorse Nikki Haley on philosophical principles rather than political expediency. That’s admirable and certainly the kind of action we want in our politicians.

The primary is three weeks away. That’s a millenium in campaign time. We’ll find out then if Sarah Palin is a gambler or a prophet.

Our own opinion, regardless of the outcome of the SC primary, is that Sarah Palin is neither gambler nor prophetess. She has remarkable political instincts, but she's not afraid to sometimes back a long shot, as she has demonstrated with her endorsements of Doug Hoffman in New York and Tim Burns in Pennsylvania in two special elections. But backing neither candidate was that much of a gamble for Gov. Palin. Though each faced long odds for victory, in neither case was there a preferable alternative candidate. And though both of these candidates lost their races, they will each have the opportunity to run again in just a matter of a few months when the unexpired terms their opponents are filling elapse in November.

C. Speight (read his full post here) is correct in the assessment that Sarah Palin's endorsement of Nikki Haley was based on philosophical principles instead of political expediency. But Gov. Palin wants to back candidates who can win. Otherwise, why bother to endorse at all? So her political calculus will always use a Reagan equation to determine which candidate is sufficiently conservative, but at the same time also has the best prospects of winning both in the primary and in the general election.

This is neither gambling, nor is it political prophesy. It is applied political savvy while remaing committed to conservative and libertarian principles. In short, it is applied Reagan conservative politics.

- JP