My Problem with Sarah Palin

With Sarah Palin once again hinting at a presidential run, pundits and politics wonks are all the more aflutter with 2016 talk. The predictable slings and arrows of the surly left are coming her way, while her excited fans are firing up the troops. Then there are those who say that while they like the ex-governor, they don’t believe she could win the presidency. My focus, however, is a bit different: I have an objection to Palin -- one relating to something of which most are unaware.

Before getting to that, please indulge me as I ask a few questions that establish where we all stand. Are you adamantly pro-life, or might your position change if (as in polling) the question is framed as a woman’s “right to choose”? Do you stand foursquare against amnesty, or could you be persuaded to accept a “path to citizenship” for illegals? Do you uphold the proper and only definition of marriage, or have the unrelenting attacks on tradition worn you down to a point where you might conclude, “Well, none of this affects me, anyway”?

If you’re unwavering on all those issues, as I am, you’re a real Sarah Palin conservative.

Or are you?

You see, I’m pretty sure how Palin would answer those questions -- and one answer is a real problem.

On October 26, 2008, Palin had an interview with Jorge Ramos of Spanish-language network Univision. She was asked about amnesty: “So you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?”

Her answer: “I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here.

I’ve looked over that Constitution Party fairly closely. No, they don’t have a name and perhaps a name-Republican is what is needed to start a 3rd party but I do believe I agree with most of the platform of the Constitution Party. Maybe the Constitution Party needs to court a big-name and try to make a difference.

Let’s see, Scott Walker is balancing budgets and destroying unions in Wisconsin. Ted Cruz has been leading the conservatives in the Senate. Rand Paul has been making the case for less international involvement in the Senate. Surely we can find a conservative who has done more than quit her job as Governor to become a professional speaker and media personality to lead the right-wing of the GOP.

Surely we can find a conservative who has done more than quit her job as Governor to become a professional speaker and media personality to lead the right-wing of the GOP.

If that's all you have, you have nothing.

I don't come to FR to look for an argument but for rational discussion. Your posts have betrayed an emotional response to Palin. You've left your rational side. One cannot reason themselves into your position. That's PDS.

Care to discuss?

Can’t we aspire to more than Obama?

I fear the intelligence of the electorate has been too thoroughly watered down.

That Hillary or Warren is even being considered for the position argues that we cannot. I think we reached our Apex under Reagan and it has been down hill ever since.

Using the term “of all stripes” covers anyone who votes.

Men “of all stripes” will vote for the first female candidate.

Voters “of all stripes” voted for Romney.

Therefore you were correct-—I apologize for my comment.

BUT-—Women of all stripes will not vote for the first female candidate.

Palin has always been unreliable on the amnesty issue, sadly.

So am I. I have wavered between "send everyone back where they came from, NOW!" and "finish building the wall, then we'll talk about who stays and who goes". Full amnesty is out of the question, but there are illegals here who are worthy of consideration. IIUC, Sarah said pretty much the same.

I have no beef with Sarah Palin. I think she’s a fairly solid conservative, though I found her support for bailing out the auto industry disturbing. All I’ve suggested is that she doesn’t have enough experience to be the next President.

You want a rational argument I’ll give you one. We elected Obama, who had eight years of doing nothing in the Illinois State Senate and four years in the US Senate under his belt. His lack of executive experience and his lack of understanding of how government actually works has been a complete disaster. Obama being a disaster has actually worked out well for conservatives. For as bad as he’s been he would have been much, much worse had he been a competent and skilled negotiator and politician.

Sarah Palin has all of two years of experience under her belt as Governor of a very small state. We conservatives need to make sure the GOP nominates not just a conservative but a skilled conservative politician if we want to even dream about turning this country around. Sarah Palin is great for getting conservatives excited and she’s great at tipping over liberal sacred cows. Being President is more than having a pretty face, giving good speeches and having lofty ideas. It takes political skill and experience, of which Palin has neither.

If Palin was serious about running for President she would have run for the Alaska Senate seat last year. Instead she sat out, probably because she would have lost.

If Palin was so intent on clearing out corruption in Alaska then she had no business resigning. In fact, in order to stop corruption she should have served her term and run for re-election. She didn’t and we’ve never gotten a clear reason why from her. I think the answer is that Palin comes from humble roots and she had an opportunity to make millions giving speeches and being a media personality. I don’t fault her for that but it means that she really wasn’t serious about learning how to govern. That’s straight talk. We need someone who knows what they’re doing not just someone who has the right views.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.