Posted on 03/17/2011 1:34:12 PM PDT by USSR Didnt Fall
As a conservative, I am having a very difficult time finding one major issue where I disagree with Sarah Palin.
She seems rock solid, and one of the few that could defeat Obama and turn this country back in the right direction.
Personal smears all over the place, but I have yet found ONE of her critics attacking her on policy.
Funny thing is that these so called intellectuals attack her on the way she delivers the message but refuse to engage her ideology.
If they were such deep thinkers they would look deep into her policy stances and how it would effect the country and economy.
How can they be considered anything but hitmen for the big bloated bureaucracy that is Washington DC?
I mean Romney has Romneycare, Newt has voting for Dept Of Education, Support of GAT, UN, federalization of private lands in the West, Christie has support of Obamacare(NJ big beneficiary of federal funds), Cap and Tax and Michele O's food policies.
Please help me find one or two issues, the fact that its so difficult tells me that she is the one for 2012.
You can criticize Palin on issues because she has taken positions on issues. The Paulites will not like her stance on Israel and on foreign policy. The establishment Republicans will not like that she doesn’t waffle or equivocate. Liberals won’t like her position on abortion or amnesty or on much of anything. But they don’t criticize her positions. They are using Alinsky tactics.
Identify the target. Freeze it. Destroy it. Ridicule and lies are their primary weapons. They identified Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign when they saw the crowds and the reaction to her. They thought they had frozen her in place in Alaska with phoney law suits. They proceeded to destroy with lies and ridicule but she knew what they were doing and she escaped being frozen. They kept repeating the same words, stupid, inexperienced etc. and many people still have them stuck in their minds. Gradually they are being dislodged by the evidence of her survival. Eventually even her record will be known and it is substantial. The establishment, left and right, have a nightmare awaiting them, the loss of political power and they aren’t going down quietly.
LOL or me either.
I’m assuming by the cartoon included with your posting that you’re being sarcastic when you mention “experience”.
If having government experience was necessary to be President then I suppose our founders would have included such in their eligibility requirements in the U.S.Constitution. They did not do so.
From that I conclude the job of President wasn’t to be as complicated or involved as it has developed over the past two hundred years. Having common sense and the ability to judge other’s abilities, skills, and knowledge are important traits of a chief executive, whether in government or out in the broader world of business and our President would have to possess those in abundance.
Delegation of authority is a large part of being President. Therefore choosing the right people to head the various Federal Departments is imperative, as it is impossible for one person to understand the minutiae of all government departments.
Who heads the government of Baluchistan isn’t as important as trusting that the Secretary of State knows who it is, what is happening there, and is expert at handling foreign relations and attendant responsibilities. Same goes for Defense, Treasury, Interior, Justice. As to the other departments, well, I’m sure we don’t really need them all that much and can eliminate most as being redundant or actually the responsibility of the several states.
Have there been any more nuisance ethics lawsuits filed, which tied up hours of worktime for state employees and wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars, since she resigned? The answer is NO, and that's why she left the job, so the State would be spared the defense of the Governor's office, because she knew that as long as she occupied the office the false charges would continue.
Nope, can’t think of one substitive matter on which I could criticize her. Now, on substantive matters, well, there I’d have to think a while. . . :-)
“Can you link me to a place that shows her official stance on policies? I mostly just hear her criticisms of Obama.”
___________
I’m certain that you can run down a list of conservative stances and she can honestly say, “I agree”. Is that leadership?
To me that’s not a good enough reason.
Palin is so popular she could have raised tens of millions, and looked like a hero for helping fund the state’s defense costs.
She should have fought every one of these to the bitter end.
Just my view.
“We are in a time that requires a savvy foreign policy.”
Willard is out I guess too.
Wasn't it worse than that? I recall reading that under Alaska's ethics laws, she was responsible for hiring and paying for her defense attorneys, not the state, and that there was a problem even opening a legal defense fund that would accept donations to defray her legal expenses.
So, she was faced with a difficult choice. Continue in office and reduce her family to penury from the cost of defending herself against bogus claims or resign. And, if she stayed in office and somehow found a way to pay her legal costs, then when running for the presidency, the Democrats would point to the hundreds of ethic complaints filed against her as evidence she was not qualified for higher office.
Given that set of choices, she probably made the right one.
Jack
We’ll see.
I find her lacking in experience.
Being a governor for 4 full years would have helped that.
And I facking HATE the Westboro punks.
The First Amendment makes no exceptions for a$$holes.
Sarah agreed with me. Again.
I have the hot tub on, 2 bottles of Silver Oak and some Miles Davis on the stereo and she will not return my calls...
The best thing we can do about the Westboro folks, IMO, is to pray for them. If fact, there ought to be a national day of prayer for redemption directed against them. They would HATE that.
Her Facebook page or http://conservatives4palin.com
My problem is not so much her positions as her ability to communicate those positions in a persuasive manner. The successful conservative candidate for president must be able to grab the undecided voter’s attention and convince him or her that the candidate’s position on a given issue is logical, practical, and good for the voter individually and the nation as a whole. In two minutes or less. That is a really difficult thing to do. It requires deep understanding of conservative principles and how to apply them to any issue that may be thrown at you by a hostile press corps. Maybe Palin can handle that, I don’t know. I have never seen or read about her doing it. Then again I have only watched her on the tube speaking to adoring audiences on the campaign trail. Firing up the base is relatively easy. On the other hand, there was a thread about Herman Cain the other day where he was talking about funding for Planned Parenthood. That was only about the second time I read about Cain, yet he was meeting my “great communicator” standard. It sounded like he was talking to the press and extemporaneously making a great conservative case for cutting off federal funding for PP. I imagine Palin would have agreed with every word he said but I need to see something like that from her before I get behind her candidacy.
..... nuisance ethics lawsuits...... tied up hours of worktime for state employees and wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars....... and that’s why she left the job, so the State would be spared the defense of the Governor’s office, because she knew that as long as she occupied the office the false charges would continue.
.........and THE INESTIMABLE SUZIQ wins first prize for straightening out the ‘she’s a quitter, bozos’
THANK YOU SUZIE....AND you might have added ...SARAH WAS FORCED OUT of office...that ALASKA LAW STATES THAT THE GOV. IS PERSONALLY FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE those nuisance suits the ones which drove the Palin family into debt to the tune of ONE HALF A MILLION DOLLARS...! i don’t think the ‘quitter’ folks on board here would/could have stayed either. bwhaaahh
I’ll take it you mean “substantive.”
1. She is pro-choice for states on abortion. This violates the cornerstone principles of our Declaration of Independence and the explicit requirements of the U.S. Constitution. It is also at odds with her own party’s longstanding Reagan personhood, Fourteenth Amendment platform.
2. She has consistently taken John McCain’s positions vis a vis amnesty for illegal aliens.
3. She believes in judicial supremacy, a fallacy which more than anything I can think of is destroying our free republic.
4. She supports the sovereignty-destroying Law of the Sea Treaty, which for the first time gives the UN taxing authority and control over a majority of the Earth’s surface.
5. Her top foreign policy adviser, Randy Schuenemann, is on George Soros’ payroll as a lobbyist as well.
I totally agree on her policy of not leaving Todd for you. On the other hand, I strongly disagree with her policy of not leaving Todd for ME.
I am also troubled by her policy against wearing tight, form-fitting clothing.
Her positions of Affirmative Action and Title IX are two of the most problematic positions for me (she is for them by the way) as well as her recent pronouncements on what we should do in the middle east (for getting involved in yet another middle east tar baby called Libya). Also the fact that she cut and ran from her gig as Governor of Alaska doesn’t sit too well with me as it shows that she doesn’t really have what it takes to stick out a tough situation without bailing.
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.