Sarah Palin: Why I support her or do not support her (I may not be the typical Palinista)

Many folks who do NOT support Sarah Palin may wonder in silence or aloud what constitutes a Palinista or why one become a Palinista. I am going to tell you why I am Sarah Palin supporter. And many of these reasons are NOT the usual reasons you might hear. In addition I am going to provide you the reasons that did NOT lead me in the direction of becoming a Palinista.

1)It will take a political aggressive superstar to knock off Obama in 2012; mediocre milquetoast will NOT cut it while Obama demagogs our side on a daily basis during the campaign with frequent charges of insensitivity and racism causing our RINO nominee to pull his punches and not land telling blows on Obama, similar to McCain in 2008.

In addition Palin is by far Obama's #1 nemesis. Palin has the unique ability to get under the Messiah's skin and will put Obama constantly on the defensive. There is nobody a close second.

2)I despise Barack Obama more than I love Sarah Palin. He is a Marxist, extremely dangerous and evil. I hate communism with a passion. Sarah Palin is an American patriot who is fully aware of how dangerous Obama is. The RINO's aren't.

3)Palin is a fiscal conservative who happens to be a social conservative and not primarily a hardcore so-con who is too radical to be nominated or elected; only 25% of the overall electorate are comprised of evangelical Christian voters.

4)Her relative youth and energy; 2012 will be about match-ups; Obama vs McCain in terms of this element was really a joke; with Sarah Palin the GOP nominee at least it will be a fair fight (In 2012 Palin 48 vs Obama 51)

5)Palin is an expert in Sun Tzu tactical warfare and in OODA (observe, orient, decide, act)and can match up with and thwart the Alinsky tactics of Obama and the Left; in addition she will fight back against the unfair and inaccurate things that the MSM has said and written about her. She will not be like Bush 43 and refuse to fight back. And finally Palin is an expert in the new social media (Facebook, Twitter etc) which will allow her to circumvent the MSM.

6)Palin is a conservative; 1976 (Ford) 1996 (Dole) and 2008 (McCain) prove that squishy moderates cannot win elections under the GOP banner; with Palin at least the GOP has a decent shot of winning back the Presidency.

7)Palin has already been fully vetted after 3 years of constant MSM attacks, smears, ridicule and vituperation.

8)Palin is or will be strong in the South, the Midwest and the Rocky Mountain west (Republican strongholds) while the other prominent candidates cannot boast strength in all three of these regions.

9)Palin will maximize the turnout of the WHITE vote in 2012; critics will argue that these WHITE voters may instead vote for Obama. I'll take my chances. In 2010, the GOP won 60% of the WHITE vote and the Democrats 37%. n addition the GOP won the white working class vote (non-college grads) by 30 points. I'll place my faith in the angry WHITE male and female that they will march to the polls with the same anger at Obama and his radical agenda as they did in 2010 under the leadership of Sarah Palin.

By the way on March 28, 2011 Rasmussen released a poll revealing that overall 69% of the electorate is somewhat angry and that includes about 90% of those who self-identify as conservative.

By the way one of the main reasons why McCain lost in 2008 was millions of WHITE voters stayed home.

"The greatest favor the white race did for Obama this year may have been to stay home."

"I think absolutely white Republicans did not show up. They were turned off, disillusioned. They did not turn out. Democratic voters did come out. They couldn't wait to vote."

With Palin at the helm stoking and galvanizing the "anger" of our side and marshaling the troops I am confident that we will again win the "enthusiasm gap" as our side did in 2010.

10)Sarah Palin is the only GOP prominent presidential candidate who can bridge any divide that exists between libertarians, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, evangelicals, conservative independents, Reagan Democrats, and Tea Party supporters. A divided party cannot defeat Obama in 2012.

If you notice most of my reasons for supporting Sarah Palin have to do with Obama and NOT Sarah Palin.

Now here are 10 reasons commonly given why some Palinistas support Sarah Palin which I do NOT include myself in:

Frankly I couldn't care less how many children Sarah Palin has or if she never had any children. Sure I care she has a loving supportive spouse but only for political reasons. Notice how many GOP "prospects" did not run because of a lack of support from their spouse.

By any objective standard as revealed in The Undefeated it is a sound record with accomplishment. Frankly I am more concerned about getting rid of Obama and fixing the economy and reducing govt spending than to paying homage to Sarah Palin for the job she did as governor.

I call myself an iconoclastic conservative. No cult would want me as a member. I do not consider Sarah Palin as a high priestess.

As an iconoclast you would think I would embrace unorthodox methods. Quite frankly, there is a limit to everything including being unconventional. Frankly I would support Sarah Palin if she ran a high-tempo conventional campaign that consistently hit the mark.

Like many freepers I gave her a mulligan for endorsing McCain. Every candidate should get one mulligan.

I am not a Tea Party member or supporter and frankly Palin will have to win over more GOP primary voters than just TP supporters to win the nomination.

But don't get me wrong. I don't oppose the Tea Party. It's just not my cup of tea. Different strokes for different folks.

Frankly if Palin were not quite as nice, more ruthless, not as forthcoming or did NOT strictly play according to the rules, I could live with that.

In conclusion, Palinistas come in all shapes and sizes and I am only speaking for myself.

Paultards call everyone who doesn't worship Ron Paul a "neocon." I snoop in their silly little ronpaulforums for entertainment every now and then and they just love that word.

I can't remember who coined this, but someone came up with "Decepticon" to describe Ron Paul and his little cult members. Rather apropos, yes?

She's not an old boy Rino in any way, shape or form.

I do not believe I've ever read a more true statement than this one here on FR!!!

Or as H. Ross Johnson would have said (with a smile on his face), it is "a blinding glimpse of the obvious!"

". . . the only way he wins, is if the GOP nominates a candidate, that people really can't get up for, hating Obama is not going to be enough to win the white house, no matter what, we'll have to have someone that we can actually like."

While I don't have any substantive facts for this statement, let me pose it then as a question: Out of every 100 voters who voted for the stain in the last election, how many voted for the stain due to his liberal, islamic, socialist blackness....and how many voted for the stain out of a viceral hatred of GW Bush and anyone like him?

How many times have we all read words to the effect of "I'd vote for anyone other than candidate X" or "I'll hold my nose and vote for candidate X rather than the other candidate."??

Hatred is a very powerful and long lasting reason to vote in a certain way. If we can use it....we most certainly should.

The first time I ever heard it was about the time we attacked Saddam and it was alleged that it had something to do with the philosophy of Leo Strauss. So I started to read his works and could find nothing objectionable in them. Very heavy sledding however. So I put it down as just another media lie with nothing to back it. I have seen nothing to change that opinion.

I am surprised at how quickly Palin supporters took on the derogatory term “Palinistas” as a way to describe themselves.

It was created as a dig at Palin, and used extensively by the PDSers here at FR.

From the Urban Dictionary:

palinista
A palinista is a severe loyalist who still supports the failed 2008 VP candidate, denying all evidence and logic that she was a complete fool and humiliating disaster. They are mostly evangelical supporters of creationism and refuse all proven scientific knowledge. Their philosophy is "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up".

Accepting the term Palinista is no different than accepting the term hung on the Tea Party people, teabaggers.

That was put out there by actual literal teabaggers: Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, poofter Anderson Cooper et al.

I'm sure it was alot, but it wouldn't have been enough, if it had been enough, John Kerry would have won in 2004.....That said, the stain had developed a weird bizarre cult of personality that was freakish in its intensity. I remember a reporter, who considered himself a independent moderate (he wasn't) who stated that "those on the left consider him the messiah, and those on the right consider him a socialist, the truth is somewhere in between"......The fact that there were people who seriously thought that Obama was anything like a messiah, or even half way to the messiah, always alarmed me, and still is frightening......In almost all dictatorships, cult of personality, is a hallmark.

Hate is powerful but it isn't enough, hence why Bush Sr and Bob Dole wound up losing to Clinton, and why Gore and Kerry lost to Bush....You need, at the presidential level more then just pure hatred, you need some kind of "love".

I’m saying that Palin has done the right thing by moving away from Neocon.

Someone proposed that Palin was not tied to any intellectual political movement.

I pointed out that Palin was tied to neocons, and then I pointed out that she fired her neocons, and hired realists.

And I praise her for doing that.

I’m not debating what is, and what is not neocon.

Randy S. is considered neocon. And Randy S. is no longer on team Palin.

You seem to want to discuss something else.

I’m just pointing out that Randy S. is considered neocon. That is what people believe.

And her new advisors are considered realist. That is what people believe.

You aren’t arguing with me, you’re arguing with everybody.

I like how Paultards claim that “photos don’t mean anything” when photos of Paul and the Storm Front crew are shown, and they claim that his association with Alex Jones doesn’t mean anything.
And then they post images of the kook with President Reagan...
They fail to see the implicit double standard of their statements.

There is NO such thing as a neo-con. It is a Treason Media MYTH. Nor was Palin ever any such thing. I do not care what that silly little article claims it is irrelevant to anything real.

Of course, I am not interesting in discussing this MYTH particularly when neo-con is not defined.

No, “everybody” is not using this fraudulent title which NEVER applied to Palin or anyone anyone ever heard of. Palin has changed NOTHING about her philosophy.

A “realist” is not a school of thought opposed to a “neo-con” either. Why are you insisting on pushing this crap? Why do you refuse to discuss what it is supposed to mean? If you bring up something you have to be able to discuss and tell people what it is supposed to mean. Just quoting some obscure hack is not sufficient.

Where did your erroneous idea that she was “tied” to neo-cons come from?

Randy S. has never been of interest to anyone not even the tiny number who has heard of him. The cleaning lady is more significant. His leaving is as important as her getting rid of the old cleaning lady and hiring another.

You’re arguing against the common understanding.

You might want to argue that the sun rises in the West. It doesn’t.

There is such a thing as neocon and such a thing as realist.

I don’t really want to explain these things to you. Try doing a google search or something.

Bill Kristol, a neocon, was tied to Palin. I’m not sure exactly how close a tie that really was, or is.

It’s not like Bill Kristol was Palin’s Campaign Manager when she ran for Mayor of Wasilla.

When people try to figure out what Palin what Palin’s going to do, Palin isn’t that tied to one school of thought, but if any, she’s more associated with neocon than anything. But she seems to be moving away from neocon.

So you're admitting that you don't know what a Neo-con actually is. That is what I thought.

Little Billy never had much to do with Palin at all. She would listen to an Eskimo dogsled driver before him.

The “common understanding” as to what the term means is like the “common understanding” that the GOP wants to starve old people, a myth created by the lying media. Why are you perpetuating it?

NO, I’m saying you should look Neocon up on the internet.

Bill Kristol is most certainly a Neocon.

Bill Kristol is tied to Palin, to some or another degree, and that will hurt Palin to some degree.

By distancing herself from Kristol, and Randy S., she is distancing herself from neocons, which will help Palin.

I have a bunch of “cut and paste” material on Irving Kristol. But this is a Palin thread, not a “let’s define neocon” thread.

Here’s one for you: where did the word “neoconservative” as applied to today’s neoconservatives come from?

I have already explained where neo-con came from.

I want to know what YOU think it is not what someone else thinks. You brought it up. What do you mean with it.

Kristol is nothing and has no influence on Sarah and never did. He is NOT “tied” to her in any way.

She has not “distanced” herself from either of them. NO one pays any attention to a “neo-con” since it means nothing and never did. What politician is a “neo-con”.

If you are going to bring up terms you need to define them and not take refuge in a “common” view or understanding. Your refusal to do so shows that it has NO real meaning and you have been caught using a media generated term.

Irving Kristol was Billy’s father and he has as little influence on her as his son.

Moynihan was a neocon, not jewish.

Neocons are all ex Democrats, named “neocons” by the socialist Michael Harrington. Irving Kristol is the most famous “founder” of neocon. He was on Humphreys task force in 1968.

Neocons are not Republicans, not Conservatives, and do not belong in the Republicans party.

A better name for neocons is “neotrotskyites” because Irving Kristol was not influenced by conservative thought, but by Trotskyism.

Moynihan was a democrat.

Being a Trotskyite in one’s past has little or nothing to do with anything in the American political scene.

The term has no meaning and was not used much until the media started attacking Bush II.

It has no relation to Palin IN ANY WAY.

Bill Kristol does seem to want to take some credit for discovering Palin.

But whatever “discovering” seems to have taken place in 2007, after she became Governor, so that’s not really hard. If Bill Kristol was there telling Palin to enter the Miss Wasilla contest, I’d be impressed.

Bill Kristol is a neocon.

I will agree that RINO and neocon are not synonymous.
Neocon is a political philosophy. A RINO can agree with a neocon on foreign policy, and then simply dump the neocon philosophy when it becomes too unpopular (like it has been since 2006).

Right, Moynihan was a Democrat.

Neocons were ALL DEMOCRATS. Irving Kristol, was a DEMOCRAT

Then they infiltrated, infected, the Republican Party with their Democrat - not conservative ideas. It’s time for all of them to put Democrat hats on again.

The Conservative Republican Foreign Policy is Taft’s.

“A Foreign Policy For Americans”
“If we are foolish in our use of our strength, we shall not survive” - Robert Taft “Mr. Republican”
http://mises.org/books/taft.pdf

Phil Gramm was once a democrat.

Ronald Reagan was once a democrat.

Lots of democrats switched when the RAT party turned hard Left particularly in the South.

The greatest Republican president other than Lincoln was an ex-Democrat. Was he a “neo-con” too?

Moynihan had no influence on the GOP and he was not a conservative either. At best he was a moderate democrat.

Irving Kristol had little if any influence on the GOP.

Taft was pretty much a clueless fool in many respects particularly being blind to the danger that Hitler posed to the entire world. Had he gotten the bomb no oceans or armies would have prevented the death of millions more Americans than actually died because of WWII. FDR’s step to prepare for war (over Taft’s kicking and squalling) showed far more statesmanship than Taft ever showed.

Insolationists have no leg to stand on and it is a myth that Washington (Hamilton actually) proposed anything like the modern interpretation. The Farewell Address (written by Hamilton) was a warning about secession recommending staying out of European war when we had NO military forces and when it would have split the Union because of the Slavers pro-French bias. It was not intended as a policy of pretending the rest of the world does not exist.

Bill Kristol has little influence on the GOP and in no way “discovered” Palin. She was being boosted here before McCain choose her. She has nothing to do with “neo-cons”.

It isn’t an upopular philosophy since the VAST majority of Republicans have no idea that it even exists if it exists. What politician calls himself a “neo-con”? NONE.

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.