Posted on 12/06/2010 8:42:50 PM PST by Bigtigermike
Sarah Palin has presented substantial policy on a varied of issues than most if not any potential 2012 GOP candidate have in the past 15 months. Don't believe it? Check this out for example:
A Strong U.S. Dollar - October 7, 2009:
(Reuters) - Leading Republicans echoed Sarah Palin on Thursday in attacking President Barack Obama over the weakness of the U.S. dollar.
Sarah Palin written comments on the dollar made the front-page lead story of the Financial Times on Thursday....Palin, the former Republican vice presidential candidate and ex-governor of Alaska, launched her dollar criticism on her Facebook page. She linked dollar weakness to U.S. dependence on foreign oil, large U.S. deficits and questions about whether the dollar deserves to retain its vaunted status of reserve currency.
"We can see the effect of this in the price of gold, which hit a record high today in response to fears about the weakened dollar," Palin wrote on Facebook this week.
"All of this is a result of our out-of-control debt. This is why we need to rein in spending, and this is also why we need energy independence. A weakened dollar means higher commodity prices. This will make it more difficult to pay our bills – including the bill to import oil.
GOP Plays Follow the Leader – Sarah Palin – on Weak Dollar
Palin's remarks brought the dollar back to the center of the American political debate, not to mention of the GOP economic platform. Republican economic reformers of the 1970s and 1980s — especially Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp—understood the importance of stable money to U.S. prosperity.Not through, Sarah Palin stepped out again in November to criticize the Federal Reserve controversial move of Quantitative Easing 2
Palin to Bernanke: ‘Cease and Desist’
November 7, 2010 - NRO
As President Obama prepares for the G20 summit in South Korea this week, Sarah Palin is challenging the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, which will likely be a key issue at the talks. On Monday, in a keynote address at a trade-association convention in Phoenix, Palin will urge Fed chairman Ben Bernanke to “cease and desist” his “pump priming.” The United States, she says, “shouldn’t be playing around with inflation.”
Here are snippets from Palin’s prepared remarks obtained by National Review Online:
I’m deeply concerned about the Federal Reserve’s plans to buy up anywhere from $600 billion to as much as $1 trillion of government securities. The technical term for it is “quantitative easing.” It means our government is pumping money into the banking system by buying up treasury bonds. And where, you may ask, are we getting the money to pay for all this? We’re printing it out of thin air.
The Fed hopes doing this may buy us a little temporary economic growth by supplying banks with extra cash which they could then lend out to businesses. But it’s far from certain this will even work.
All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher. And it’s not just groceries. Oil recently hit a six month high, at more than $87 a barrel. The weak dollar – a direct result of the Fed’s decision to dump more dollars onto the market – is pushing oil prices upwards. That’s like an extra tax on earnings. And the worst part of it: because the Obama White House refuses to open up our offshore and onshore oil reserves for exploration, most of that money will go directly to foreign regimes who don’t have America’s best interests at heart. We shouldn’t be playing around with inflation. It’s not for nothing Reagan called it “as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber, and as deadly as a hit man.” The Fed’s pump priming addiction has got our small businesses running scared, and our allies worried.
Has any potential candidate come out against such polices which may lead to a even more weaker dollar which by the results may effect our economy negatively? Or is the Federal Reserve policies something that is not politicized per the inside the beltway crowd?
Palin to bernanke "cease and desist"
Energy Policy
Palin tied the weakening of the U.S. dollar to a failed Energy Policy which if ignored may result in a looming crisis caused by the U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Because being dependent on foreign nations for oil puts the U.S. at the mercy of other countries if they decide to dump the dollar as their trade currency. We are allowing ourselves to be vulnerable to the whims of foreign nations. That’s why we must develop our own domestic supplies of oil and gas...In just one of her many statements on a sound Energy Policy which she has been on the forefront - Palin noted:
Drill, Baby, Drill and Mine, Baby, Mine; Serious Consequences
"Although the Left chooses to mock the mantra of “drill, baby, drill,” and they ignorantly argue against the facts pertaining to the need for America to responsibly develop her domestic supply of natural resources, surely they can’t argue the national security implications of relying on foreign countries to extract supplies that America desperately needs for industry, jobs, and security. Some of the countries we’re now reliant upon and will soon be beholden to can easily use energy and mineral supplies as a weapon against us".....
Palin also discussed the dangers of Cap and Tax in a WSJ article about Energy Independence
The 'Cap And Tax' Dead End - WSJ July 14, 2009
There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.
Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.
In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.....
....We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today........Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama's plan will result in the latter.
For so many reasons, we can't afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.
Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?
Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama's energy cap-and-tax plan.
Military Policy
Sarah Palin spoke in late April of this year at the Freedom Fest in Norfolk, Virginia and talked about the Military in a speech titled: Peace Through Strength and American Pride vs.“Enemy-Centric” Policy
It takes a lot of resources to maintain the best fighting force in the world – especially at a time when we face financial uncertainty and a mountain of debt that threatens all of our futures.....
We have a federal government that is spending trillions, and that has nationalized whole sections of our economy: the auto industry, the insurance industry, health care, student loans, the list goes on – all of it at enormous cost to the tax payer. The cost of Obamacare alone is likely to exceed $2.5 trillion dollars.
We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose the ability to deter adversaries, if we lose the ability to provide security for ourselves and for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great! That is a price we cannot afford to pay.
Our Defense Secretary recently stated the “gusher” of defense spending was over and that it was time for the Department of Defense to tighten its belt. There’s a gusher of spending alright, but it’s not on defense. Did you know the US actually only ranks 25th worldwide on defense spending as a percentage of GDP? We spend three times more on entitlements and debt services than we do on defense.
Now don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with preaching fiscal conservatism. I want the federal government to balance its budget right now! And not the Washington way – which is raising your taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending habits. I want it done the American way: by cutting spending, reducing the size of government, and letting people keep more of their hard-earned cash.
THE U.S. NAVY
Secretary Gates recently spoke about the future of the US Navy. He said we have to “ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers.” He went on to ask, “Do we really need... more strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?”
Well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can and, yes, we do because we must. Our Navy has global responsibilities. It patrols sea lanes and safeguards the freedoms of our allies – and ourselves. The Navy right now only has 286 ships, and that number may decrease. That will limit our options, extend tours for Navy personnel, lessen our ability to secure our allies and deter our adversaries. The Obama administration seems strangely unconcerned about this prospect.
ALIENATING OUR ALLIES
It’s not the only area where the Obama administration has failed our allies. They escalated a minor zoning issue in Jerusalem into a major dispute with our most important ally in the Middle East, Israel. They treated the Israeli Prime Minister shabbily in Washington. When a Turkish sponsored flotilla threatened to violate a legal Israeli blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, the Obama Administration was silent. When Israeli commandos were assaulted as they sought to prevent unmonitored cargoes from being delivered to Hamas terrorists, the Obama Administration sent signals it might allow a UN investigation into the matter – an investigation that would be sure to condemn our ally Israel and bemoan the plight of Hamas. Loyal NATO allies in central Europe were undermined by the cancellation of a missile defense program with virtually no warning. At the same time, Russia and China are given preferential treatment, while remaining silent on their human rights violations.
CODDLING ADVERSARIES
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes. They shake hands with dictators like Hugo Chavez, send letters to the Iranian mullahs and envoys to North Korea, ease sanctions on Cuba and talk about doing the same with Burma. That’s when they’re not on one of their worldwide apology tours.
Do we get anything in return for all this bowing and apologizing? No, we don’t. Yes, Russia voted for a weak sanctions resolution on Iran, but it immediately stated it could sell advanced anti-aircraft missile to Iran anyway, and would not end its nuclear cooperation. In response to North Korea’s unprovoked sinking of a South Korean Navy ship, China warned us not to take part in military exercises with our ally.
And while President Obama lets America get pushed around by the likes of Russia and China, our allies are left to wonder about the value of an alliance with the U.S. They have to be wondering if it’s worth it.
It has led one prominent Czech official to call Obama’s foreign policy “enemy-centric.” And this “enemy-centric” approach has real consequences. It not only baffles our allies, it worries them. When coupled with less defense spending, it signals to the world that maybe we can no longer be counted on, and that we have other priorities than being the world leader that keeps the peace and provides security in Europe, in Asia and throughout the world.
Together with this enemy-centric foreign policy, we see a lessening of the long, bipartisan tradition of speaking out for human rights and democracy. The Secretary of State said she would not raise human rights with China because “we pretty much know what they are going to say.” Democracy promotion programs have been cut. Support for the brave Iranians protesting their government was not forthcoming because President Obama would rather try to cut a deal with their oppressors.
When the world’s dictators see the United States unconcerned with human rights and political freedom, they breathe a sigh of relief, because they know they have a free hand to repress their own people.
This goes against the very ideals on which our republic was founded. There is a long bipartisan tradition of speaking out in favor of freedom – from FDR to Ronald Reagan. America loses something very important when its President consigns human rights and freedom to the back burner of its international priorities.
A DIFFERENT VIEW OF AMERICA
We have a President, perhaps for the very first time since the founding of our republic, who doesn’t appear to believe that America is the greatest earthly force for good the world has ever known.
When asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama answered, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Amazing. Amazing.
I think this statement speaks volumes about his world view. He sees nothing unique in the American experience? Really? Our founding, and our founding mothers and fathers? Really? And our history over the past two and half centuries?
Really? He sees nothing unique in an America that fought and won two world wars and in victory sought not one inch of territory or one dollar of plunder? He sees nothing unique in an America that, though exhausted by conflict, still laid the foundation for security in Europe and Asia after World War II? He sees nothing unique in an America that prevailed against an evil ideology in the Cold War? Does he just see a country that has to be apologized for around the world, especially to dictators?
President Obama actually seems reluctant to even embrace American power. Earlier this year when he was asked about his faltering Middle East peace process, he said “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.” Whether we like it or not?! Really? Mr. President, this may come as news to you, but most Americans actually do like it. And so do our allies. They know it was our military might that liberated countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. Yes, we do like it. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom and kept authoritarian powers in check.
It is in America’s and the world’s best interests for our country to remain the dominant military superpower, but under President Obama’s leadership that dominance may be slipping away. It’s the result of an agenda that reeks of complacency and defeatism.
Peace Through Strength and American Pride vs.“Enemy-Centric” Policy by Sarah Palin
We can also present excerpts of one of Sarah Palin major international speech outside North America in Hong Kong at an investor conference which further explain her philosophy and substantial policy issue feelings in multiple areas:
Sarah Palin, Hong Kong, CLSA Asia Pacific Markets Conference, Sept. 23, 2009 Speech
In conclusion other than maybe Mitt Romney book “No Apology", No other potential 2012 politician has consistently laid out policy issue after policy issue in details that are linked together as Sarah Palin has. Although Mitt Romney did hide for the most part during the fight and debate over the Health Care debate last year and has been cautious to speak out on a varied of issues recently. Oh, by the way - time would not be enough to remind people of the Palin's explanation of the ills of ObamaCare [Death Panels?] in details and the Obama administration faults in the Gulf Oil Crisis which was one of her great speeches...here are the excerpts:
Sarah Palin - Tyler, Texas - June 26, 2010
Our founding mothers? LOL
this woman knows what she is talking about!
I think that God has given us a woman (a Deborah) to rise up because our men do not have chests (C.S. Lewis)
“Sarah Palin has presented substantial policy on a varied of issues than most if not any potential 2012 GOP candidate have in the past 15 months”
Is this a sentence?
none of them speak on immigration.pisses me off....
Palinese
I was going to ask the same question! “...a varied of issues?”
Why don’t you put up or shut up? of those you push as FWIW candidates other than Palin, name their policy issues that they have talked about in details?
Policy is different from run of the mill GOP talking points. Palin has the latter mastered. IF you want policy, look to Jim DeMint’s efforts in the Senate to keep the US from pushing Honduras into accepting a Hugo Chavez wannabee dictator. Not sure Palin even made a peep on the subject.
Don’t forget, Sarah was right about the Obama death panels, for which she was ridiculed at the time.
I’m not sure Palin is even aware of the subject.
Yeah!! And in coherent sentences, too. You hater, you!!!
Are you more worried about a couple of words, like a honking liber, than about the issue? Mind boggling, really!
Good post and good question.
And for those who question Palin’s “intelligence” or “wisdom” - tell us, where are the great thoughts and ideas from say, Mitt Romney? Are you impressed by the books Hillary Clinton has read? Or the amount of foreign travel that Tim Pawlenty has done? Or how articulate Joe Biden is?
Those seem to be the standards by which some want to judge Palin.
There's no substantial policy there. There's lots of discussion of problems, but it's stuff that has been said by a lot of people for a long time.
As to the stuff you've bolded, I presume you're offering those as "policy statments," but they're little more than stump speech lines. They're not "policy" in the sense that you get an idea of how Sarah Palin would actually try to make things happen.
Just to pick one, the "policy" part of Palin's discussion of Cap and Trade -- the part that follows her complaint about the program -- reads as follows:
For so many reasons, we can't afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices. Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation? Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama's energy cap-and-tax plan.
Yes we can .... how, exactly? Note that she doesn't define "responsible" energy production, nor does she say what comprises a "strategic investment," nor does she state how she'd trade off between environmental protection and "reviving the economy," which is code for "produce a lot of oil."
Those are some pretty big holes on a topic about which some people claim she's an expert. A "substantial" policy statement would attempt to address those sorts of things.
And a slick politician relies on his or her listeners to fill in the gaps according to their own hopes and wishes. It worked for Obama .... why not Palin, too?
More!...It needs the word "more".
Not really - lighten up.
Number, it needs the word “number” in it.
Out of hundreds of words of well-thought-out policy on some of the most important issues facing our country, that's the only thing that you thought worthy enough to comment on.
Pissant, your hatred and unreasoning bias against this outstanding public figure is as certain as it is disturbing.
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.