How Does Palin Overcome These Issues To Win Presidency?

Vanity ^ | 11/24/2010 | Patrick1

[Patrick1]

Sarah Palin seems to be the favorite of the majority of Free Republic members. I still have not made up my mind about her. But if she is the consevative movement's choice to take on the disaster of Obama who has gone from The Messiah to the Mess then there are things that she will need to overcome to get 50% plus one of the American people's vote in 2012. I've listed the ones I hope her supporters can address here because failure to take these issues on will result in certain defeat.

[Wolfstar]

Those non-affiliated voters just swung over 20 percent from Obama to Republican in the 2010 election. Gov. Palin was a major factor in that election, endorsing candidates and appearing at tea party events.

Vast difference between midterm elections and a presidential election. Vast difference between being a presidential candidate and merely endorsing congressional candidates. As for Obama, I loathe him as much as most Republicans do, but it's a mistake to count him out with two years to go. Just sayin...and it's my last word on the subject since I'm headed off to work.

[excopconservative]

But because of the superiority of our belief that all people are ‘Created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

---

This is very much like what she has already said. Her campaign will center on American Exceptionalism, something in which Obama does not believe.

I’ll try to address some of the points you are concerned about.

1-Lack of REAL executive experience
— Executive experience is about making decisions. Mayors make decisions and get immediate feedback. They see their constituents on the street and she must have been effective as she was re-elected overwhelmingly. That experience also aided her to be successful as a governor with a high approval rating pre-McCain.
2-Extremist views on many things, life, etc.
— Simply untrue. She is conservative and believes in smaller government. She is pro-life as are a majority of Americans. She believes in God but does not belong to a church or attend church regularly. Charges of extremism are meant to separate a person from voters and are always made against conservatives. Gov. Palin passed her programs with much democrat support. She did not govern as an extremist and her office always was open to both sides of the aisle.
3-Ability to stand under the pressure
— Can you imagine the pressure she was under at the 2008 Republican convention? or at the debate with Biden? She is fearless under criticism.
4-Dysfunctional children
— The children seem normal enough to me. Most people won’t find them unusual.
5-A Tea Partier
— Most people identify with the tea party movement. Only a liberal would consider the tea party as a negative and they won’t vote for any Republican.
6-Inexperience in national economics
— She understands business much better than any of the democrats. She has run a business and made a payroll. Her response to Bernanke on monetary policy was applauded by conservative economists.
7-Inexperience in foreign affairs
— She understands that we should support our allies and oppose our enemies. Obama doesn’t. She knows that America should be a beacon of freedom to the world and Obama thinks we are just another nation among many.
8-Inexperience in defense issues
— Was Commander in Chief of Alaska Natl Guard and was given daily briefings due to Alaska’s strategic Air Defense manned by NG troops. She also knows that a nation’s borders must be defended. Obama sees the intruders as new voters.
9-Poor judgement in becoming a ‘reality show’ principal
— That was a great decision. She is rebuilding her bond with the American people that the media did their best to destroy. She can’t do that in a campaign as it would distract from policy, so she’s doing it now.
10-Another neophyte in national politics that wants to be the leader of the Free World. How’d the last one work?
— So we should only elect the same people? Reagan did OK.
11-Total animosity and disdain from the press
— She thrives on animosity and disdain. Turns it right back at them.
12-She is just not smart enough
— BS. She is too smart for her opponents. They can’t stop her. She has orchestrated herself to be in a position to decide on a run for the presidency and be the front runner, in spite of a losing VP race and resigning from office, and has gotten paid to be in that position. Her current Alaska TV series pays her big money for exposure that others would have to pay for. She and Todd are the architects of their own destiny and there’s no Karl Rove calling her shots.
13-Very little international experience
— No governor has international experience and no senator or House member has executive experience. Much easier to learn about international politics than it is to learn to be an effective executive. In Obama’s case, he hasn’t learned either.

So much for dealing with the negatives. How about the negatives for the other candidates?

1. Gov. Palin has a national cadre of dedicated supporters even before her campaign has started. Where are your supporters?
2. Gov. Palin endorsed over 80 candidates in the 2010 election, many in the primaries. Over 70% won. She targeted 20 House seats and 18 of her candidates won. How many new conservatives did you help get elected?
3. Gov. Palin went to Arizona to support Gov. Brewer after Obama brought the Justice Dept against their immigration law. Where were you?
4. On the matters of Obamacare, the Ground Zero Mosque, and monetary easing, why did you wait until after Gov. Palin took a position to voice an opinion? Is she just faster at coming to a decision, or did you have to consult polls or political advisors first?
5. Gov. Palin appeared at many tea party events this year. She has also given them legitimacy with her vocal support. Have you supported the tea party?
6. As Republican women have been attacked and called whores, witches, and worse, did you come to their defense, as Gov. Palin did, or did you stand by hoping as many establishment Republicans did, that they would fail?
7. Gov. Palin has been at the forefront of a movement to restore America. This movement involves the tea parties, the 9-12 groups, and religious organizations. What part have you taken in the effort to restore America?

If we ask the negative questions about Gov. Palin shouldn’t we also ask the others?

[DWar]

Nice answers, all. Thank you very much for you work here. Here's the challenge. The media will dismiss or ridicule her at every opportunity. For example point #1. This is probably one of the criticisms of her that she has an oportunity for a powerful rebuttal. The media makes a big deal out of how small Wasilla is and how small Alaska is in terms of everything but geography.

I think she has a great opportunity to get more detailed on the size of the government she has administered, number of people, number of dollars, number and size of projects, her actual involvement in those endeavors and get the word out about this.

The perception is that she is a light weight in terms of her experience with administrative responsibility. This is what the media will drum beat. This is what the MSM watchers will believe. And this is probably her strongest area of all that she will be criticized for.

I think to be successful one of the keys will be to forecast the future criticism and begin now to create the refutation of it in both word and deed.

[dixiechick2000]

I could not agree with you more.

I don’t know if it will be Sarah, but I know for a fact that we need someone like her.

[dixiechick2000]

Not just the AP, but the rest of the LSM, have been Obama’s press secretaries.

I wonder if the LSM even wants to get their credibility back?

[DrewsMum]

I think Freeper, Anamnesis, answer the “quitting” question the best....

“I’d would rather elect someone willing to relinquish power over a title-clinging politician (i.e. Blagovich, Sanford, Chavez) who refuses to surrender power under any circumstances short of being indicted or ousted in a military coup.

“Quitting” isn’t inherently bad, if done for the right reasons. In fact, let’s look at her history. Did you know Palin “quit” another six figure job, her oil & gas ethics commissioner job before she became governor? She resigned to protest corruption when the sitting Republican governor wouldn’t investigate the state party chair for sharing confidential state documents with an oil lobbyist. She quit because by law as a commissioner she couldn’t go public with her concerns because of confidentiality rules. So she quit to be able to blow the whistle on collusion knowing it would probably kill any chance she had to succeed in state politics as a Republican. And you know what happened to that state party chair? He was later given the largest ethics fine in Alaska history, largely because Palin had the courage to put pressure on the governor’s office and the Republican party. And what happened to Palin? She became Governor of Alaska. For a more in-depth look I suggest you look at this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2630320/posts

Now let’s look at her situation as governor.

Palin was paid roughly 337,500 in 32 months as governor. After 19 bogus ethics charges against her, she owed around 500,000 in legal fees to her attorney. The current laws of Alaska required that every single filed ethics complaint to be investigated no matter how ridiculous (being photographed with a fish, wearing a jacket with a logo, receiving “cookie” bribes) and all at the personal cost of the defendant. Had she stayed in office another 16 months, she likely would have been forced into bankruptcy because Alaska law does not automatically cover the legal defense of its governors nor was the Attorney General of the state or someone else designated by the state to defend her like all other states. If you were working in a job that was costing you almost twice as much to go into work everyday than you were making would you stay there?

Even her set up of a legal defense fund like other politicians have was deemed unethical (It was arguably the strictest legal defense fund in history with all the restrictions it had for those who could donate) wherein a politically motivated investigator suggested Palin should just let Alaska taxpayers pay for her legal defense. They wanted Alaskans to take the bullet for the political malice of Palin’s enemies.. In less than a year, she racked up half-a-million (to put this in perspective, her salary as Governor was only 125,000 a year and she had even declined a 25,000 raise by the legislature) in legal charges with much more to come.

One can argue that she should have just fought her enemies instead of letting them win.

If you decide to continue fighting your enemies at the expense of the people you serve is that even ethical? If your presence in office is causing heavy collateral damage to your state, is it smart and ethical to remain in office no matter the cost? Has any politician at the state level attracted the volume of attacks directed at Palin? Is it normal for a governor to go personally bankrupt defending themselves against bogus ethics complaints? Palin incurred almost twice as much legal debt as the salary she drew as governor. Every day she spent in office she was one day closer to personal bankruptcy.

These frivolous lawsuits effectively paralyzed her administration by wasting time and money doing research for countless Freedom of Information Act requests and addressing the ethics charges. The estimated cost of wasted time for the State of Alaska was 2 million and rising. By resigning she effectively took the circus out of Alaska.”

From thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2630162/posts?page=62#62

[DrewsMum]

2) The normal perception of any conservative by the MSM that she is stupid.

?????????????????????????????????????????????

“normal” well, maybe only for people who get their breaking news from Saturday night live......

those “normal” people, I guarantee you can’t tell the difference in what Palin actually said and what Tina Fey said.

[DrewsMum]

4) Overexposure that often appears unpresidential

---

“unpresidential”.... please tell me what constitutes “unpresidential” behavior....??? Could it be...

*ignoring the Constitution, having a hissy fit over field commanders = Lincoln

*Multiple affairs with mulitiple women = Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton

*DUI conviction = GWB,

*Cheated on their wives with at least one other woman = McCain, Gingrich

outbursts and more hissy fit throwing, using the *N* word = Truman

Teddy Roosevelt was called by a newspaper “The strangest creature the White House ever held”.....he was also deemed “theatrical”....check out cartoons about him from his era....there are ones of him dressed like a cowboy wildly shooting his gun at his opponents...

One president, I can’t remember harding, hoover, coolidge...one of them road a mechanical horse all the time in the white house...

Nixon and his “enemies” list...

I could go on all day....note that I haven’t even started on Carter and Obama yet....

So WHAT was it about Palin that is so “unpresidential”???

[LowOiL]

I really don’t want her to run for President this cycle! She is much more needed in her current role - pushing the Republicans into Conservative positions.

Bingo. Thanks for taking the words out of my mouth.

[DrewsMum]

Wow, I’m sorry I attempted to respond with my pathetic little answers......your response was brilliant!! I will be saving it and memorizing it for when I combat the palin haters..........which is EVERYDAY! Beware: you will be plagiarized, over and over....LOL...

[November 2010]

I wrote in full: Plenty of RINO’s in a row. Only broken in modern times by Goldwater and Reagan. After Reagan it was Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain. An unbroken string of big government Republicans helping to lead us down the path to national economic depression and ultimately collapse. Guess the end date for our great economy . . .

You wrote: Are you including Reagan in that?

I think you are a mentally challenged troll.

[roamer_1]

I don’t see questioning Palin as a conservative.

Me neither, because she isn't one. She is a neo-conservative populist with a libertarian bend. That is not my opinion, but a fact. Look her up on ACU. her chart graphic is more like McCain't than Demint. Compare her to Romney and Thompson...

As I said, what she DOES is more important that the image she has built.

You can look at the 60 some odd candidates she supported. Conservatives almost all, and many of them long shots.

If that is the case, it is to make Conservatism out to have no difference from Noe-conservatism. No, her choices were often pragmatic, but not often CONSERVATIVE.

Regarding immigration, at the beginning of her 1st Alaska show she says she supports the fence.

So did/does McCain, Bush, and KBH (who actually gutted Hunter's fence). It is disingenuous to give Palin credit where we do not give credit to others - We all know what "path to citizenship" means, and those words have passed her lips. And the fence is far less an issue than those who are already here - THERE is where you will find the "path to citizenship" crowd.

[November 2010]

Post the link of Sarah Palin’s ACU rating. I googled it and it didn’t come up. I did see that the head of the ACU donated $2,000 to Arlen Specter in the search I did though. Palin, clear as day, said build the fence to an audience of 5 million on her own show.

[roamer_1]

Post the link of Sarah Palin’s ACU rating.

Sorry, my bad. I meant "OnTheIssues.org", not ACU:

Sarah Palin:

OnTheIssues.org: Sarah Palin

John "the Traitorous Bastard" McCain:
OnTheIssues.org: John McCain

Mitt Romney:

OnTheIssues.org: Mitt Romney

Now, Just for sh*ts and giggles, lets look at what REAL Conservatives rate:

Mike Pence:

OnTheIssues.org: Mike Pence

Tom Tancredo:

OnTheIssues.org: Tom Tancredo

Duncan Hunter:
OnTheIssues.org: Duncan Hunter

Jim DeMint:
OnTheIssues.org: Jim Demint

Palin, clear as day, said build the fence to an audience of 5 million on her own show.

SO WHAT? So does John McFriggin McCain.

[November 2010]

“OntheIssues.org” not the ACU. Ontheissues.org, run by Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg out of Cambridge Mass? Not a conservative organization. Think for yourself please. Taking any intellectual crap fed to you by anyone offering it makes you an easy dupe for the left.

[November 2010]

Regarding your comment “So did John McCain” the only time Palin said anything about a path to citizenship was when she was McCain’s running mate in Oct. 2008. You are getting suckered in my opinion; ignoring Palin’s actions on her own and focusing on the McCain campaign when she was restricted. She’s learned her lesson for sure . . . she’s ignoring the establishment and doing what she thinks is right, to huge effect.

[roamer_1]

“OntheIssues.org” not the ACU. Ontheissues.org, run by Dr. Naomi Lichtenberg out of Cambridge Mass? Not a conservative organization.

LOL!! Those "OnTheIssues" graphs have been used as a resource by everyone ever since I have been on FR... and they jibe perfectly with what I see going on with Palin (same thing as all the other neocons).

Odd, how the criteria used can generally identify easily recognizable rock-ribbed Conservatives(the ones that everyone will recognize as such), and equally demonstrate the close relationship of Bakerite neocons - If it were not for Palin's obvious shortcomings, I am sure you would agree with the rest.

Just like Value Voters (supposedly) being suddenly in the sack for Romney, and Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin being defamed and derided because they dare to speak crossly about Palin. Just as anyone here is slapped down as a troll or RomneyBot.

Every poll is false, and anyone who doesn't see Palin as the queen of the Conservatives (which she most definitely is *not*) must be part of the great conspiracy against her. PUULEASE!

Think for yourself please. [...]

How very condescending of you. I AM thinking for myself. Because of that, I am able to remain firmly outside of the Palinite echo chamber.

For instance, it takes no great amount of thought to realize that *no* financial conservative/ business conservative is going to vote for Palin after her collusion with democrats to foist a windfall profits tax (Oops, there I go again... *fees*) upon corporations in AK.

FICONS have been fighting this very beast as long as I have been politically aware. It is an unmovable principle among FICONS that she has sullied (and then brags about).

Palinites like to gloss that over, but it is an *insurmountable* mistake which tears at the very heart of the Reagan Coalition. She is no Reaganite, or she would *never* have done such a thing. it is unconscionable.

And more to the point, she cannot win without the fiscal conservatives.

The very same can be said for her position on abortion, which is sure to split the Christian Right. And *nobody* wins without the Christian Right.

[...] Taking any intellectual crap fed to you by anyone offering it makes you an easy dupe for the left.

LOL! This is Fred Thompson all over again, only worse. I am only judging her by her record (what little of it there is), as all true (Reagan) Conservatives are bound to do. Where record does not exist, I judge the words out of her mouth.

The "dupe" in this conversation doesn't realize that asking any conservative faction to compromise first principles will only lead to failure: Either a Pyrrhic victory (see GHWBush, GWBush), or a split in Conservatism as factional conservatives rally to candidates of their own. One of the two will happen invariably.

The "dupe" allows the Republican neocons to usurp the Conservative mantle by fragmenting the far right. The enemy within the gates is far more dangerous than the liberal left. When the Republicans win by compromise, that is also how they govern.

Regarding your comment “So did John McCain” the only time Palin said anything about a path to citizenship was when she was McCain’s running mate in Oct. 2008. You are getting suckered in my opinion; ignoring Palin’s actions on her own and focusing on the McCain campaign when she was restricted. [...] #376

You miss the point: A true Conservative would never have let such statements pass her lips. She certainly had no problem diverging from McCain't on ANWR drilling - she dissembled politely, but she spoke her mind. Since she *didn't* depart from McCain't on immigration, and was capable of speaking the words she did (without any real dissembling or nuance), I will continue to believe that she meant what she said, and that her words came from the heart.

[...] She’s learned her lesson for sure . . . she’s ignoring the establishment and doing what she thinks is right, to huge effect. #376

Your statement is based upon nothing more than faith in promises made with election in mind. Ambition is an exacting mistress.

The only way I would believe her (or respect her) is if she remained what she is now - an excellent foil- and used her popularity to lift up a qualified Reaganite candidate from media induced obscurity. As a kingmaker, she is in an unique and powerful position. As a candidate, she will bring nothing but division... Exactly like Fred.

[Patrick1]

My ‘perfect’ Conservative candidate is dead. Currently I haven’t made up my mind because I’m not sure who is running.

What I want in a candidate is a smart conservative who can articulate and state the conservative position on all the issues in front of any audience or forum at anytime without apology.

They need to have conservative solutions ready for the top issues today. The debt, the big government expansion, economic growth and the death match with islamo fascism. I’m not asking for much, eh?

[November 2010]

Roamer1, when a person is nominated for Vice President, part of the deal is that they don't speak against the positions of the Presidential candidate without getting the go ahead first. Palin as Governor of Alaska had already set out her positions on ANWAR. She has walked the walk on abortion with a Downs syndrome baby, and her daughter did as well. Immigration was McCain's leftism, not Palins.

Regarding the charting of conservatism, first you claimed it was one organization, then when I called you on that you switched to a site out of Cambridge Mass. likely run by a liberal. You sure haven't investigated it. Your faith in the site is because you've seen other Freepers use it.

The worst of your comments is regarding the “windfall profits tax.” You are being used if you do not know you are wrong in the terminology and that the terminology makes all the difference in this case, because it is different. Palin imposed a severance tax, which is common, almost ubiquitous among states heavy in nonrenewable natural resources.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/severance+tax

Once again, check your facts and quit thinking you are independent because you buy into left wing attacks.

[roamer_1]

Roamer1, when a person is nominated for Vice President, part of the deal is that they don't speak against the positions of the Presidential candidate without getting the go ahead first.

Baloney. A Conservative speaks conservatively. PERIOD. Lying about principles in order to receive a nomination just wouldn't even occur to one who was raised to defend those principles.

She has walked the walk on abortion with a Downs syndrome baby, and her daughter did as well.

Her position is that abortion should be a right of the state's to decide. While that is better than nothing, the vast majority of the RTL folks (and the movement) is that Life is Constitutionally protected and/or enumerated within the DoI.

While it is fair to say that I welcome the view of Libertarians (her view), as allied, there are a great, great many who will refuse to embrace one who holds that view as the ultimate standard bearer. That she "walks the walk at a personal level is immaterial.

Life must naturally be protected, even as YOUR life is protected - ABOVE the federal level.

Immigration was McCain's leftism, not Palins.

Pure baloney - chapter and verse. She is a "Path to Citizenship" type, the very same as McCain, Bush, and the rest of the neocons at the worst. At the best, She is a populist "triangulating" the proper response. In either case, there is *no* affirmative record (what she has actually DONE) to prove which way she will go on the issue, unlike Conservative stalwarts.

Regarding the charting of conservatism, first you claimed it was one organization, then when I called you on that you switched to a site out of Cambridge Mass. likely run by a liberal.

LOL! When one cannot defend one's position, discredit the source.

If you have a bone to pick, it is against the criteria used and the data applied against the criteria. WRT Palin, that is all prominently displayed or linked to this page:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm

I will grant you that there isn't much to work with - but that is simply because Palin just doesn't have much of a record to begin with. That is not the fault of OnTheIssues, but rather a deficit that is wholly a part of Palin.

However, your supposition that one cannot use liberal sites (if OnTheIssues is indeed in that group) is nothing but a cop-out. Most of the so called "conservative" media was in the tank for Giuliani and later Romney in the last election, and almost wholly supported McCain... So the entire edifice of the press can be considered as liberal, to include the conservative media: Thus, your cry of "liberal" can be used pretty much across the board, whenever the "feeling" grabs you.

[...] You sure haven't investigated it. Your faith in the site is because you've seen other Freepers use it.

To be sure, OnTheIssues has a long history here, and that stands in it's defense... If it were as whacko-left as WaPo or NYT, it would have long ago been discredited.

But be that as it may, it only jibes with my position, and the graphic is handy. My opinion is based upon her RECORD, as I have said many times before.

The worst of your comments is regarding the “windfall profits tax.” You are being used if you do not know you are wrong in the terminology and that the terminology makes all the difference in this case, because it is different. Palin imposed a severance tax, which is common, almost ubiquitous among states heavy in nonrenewable natural resources.

No, she did not impose a severance tax - the tax existed before her. What she did do, in collusion with nearly every democrat (and almost no Republicans) in the state houses, was to index that severance tax to ppB (price per barrel) on the market value at any given moment, rather than a fixed cost...

To wit: Not only did she raise the base fee, but then tied that fee exponentially to the price per barrel on the open market.

Nevermind the fact that it was made retroactive to the tune of $6 BILLION dollars... When the value of oil is high, the barrel is taxed to the tune of %75, taking virtually all of the profit out of it. But when oil prices are low, the risk belongs to the oil companies, and the state is immune.

That is, in all and every effect, a windfall profits tax, levied upon producers in the state.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/palin-backed-alaskan-windfall-profits-tax/

Once again, check your facts and quit thinking you are independent because you buy into left wing attacks.

Ignore the truth at your peril. Remember: Once she is elected, she will have to govern. That will be determined by what she DOES, not what she SAYS. This subject alone (windfall profits) should be enough to prove her to be singularly unqualified. Even Romney wouldn't try to pull that off, and he is a big, big spender...

But come to think of it, Obama tried... He campaigned on a promise to do a very similar thing at the federal level - But of course Palin was against that, somehow. It seems that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.