I almost clarified my comment to say that I didn’t think you were the type who want to prematurely dissuade her from going for it and I’m sorry I didn’t because I don’t get that sense from you.
I don’t respect those who regurgitate media talking points or don’t think beyond the spin being pushed out there by those from the GOP establishment who are threatened by her and what she represents. But I don’t think that’s you.
I think you legitimately have questions about her...and I think that’s fair and I respect it.
I suppose I’ll take the opportunity now to answer the questions from the original poster and assume they were asked in good faith. I’ll start by saying while Palin has responded to these questions and issues already numerous times, that yes, each of these will be questions and issues that Palin will have to re-address and re-address and re-address because that’s just the nature of politics.
1) Quitting as governor after only two years. (Ronald Reagan served eight)
Many on this thread have covered this already. I’ll add that my initial complaint regarding Palin’s initial response to the resignation episode was that it was not as tight of an answer as it needed to be. Thankfully, she’s gotten better at explaining what happened and why. And in fact, this very thing was brought up today during an interview with Dennis Miller. Her response was tight, crisp and easy to understand. I recommend you listen to it for yourself and if you or others still don’t understand the hows and whys of it all, there’s not really all that much I can tell ya:
http://www.palintv.com/2010/11/24/governor-palin-talks-to-dennis-miller-november-24-2010/
2) The normal perception of any conservative by the MSM that she is stupid.
The only thing I can say here is that any conservative will be billed as stupid. This does not mean that we back down from this idiocy otherwise we’re letting the left set the terms by which we choose who we support.
Our response must be to fight back with facts. Palin’s response must be to continue doing what she’s doing. Her getting out there on the issues contradicts their meme about what a dunce she is. It also contradicts the quitter meme. Anyone who willingly thrusts themselves into the arena like she does all the time is no quitter.
3) No history of statements on public policy issues prior to 2008.
Well again...like others have stated, she was a governor, not a national figure. That being said, there is a record of her opinions on energy independence that stretch out from before she was chosen by McCain.
4) Overexposure that often appears unpresidential.
By whom? The wizards of smart? Just because there are some political junkies who watch her like a hawk doesn’t mean everyone follows every move she makes.
That being said...I don’t agree with this. Palin explained why the TLC thing. She said we cannot cede the popular culture to the left. We cannot influence opinion by staying on our side of the fence and talking just within our circles of influence.
5) No political base either regionally or politically. (Obama had blacks and college kids for example, Reagan had men. Obama had Illinois and California, Reagan had California, the West and South)
I’m sorry but this is just silly. Her political base is the conservatives within the GOP and the Tea Party. That you don’t recognize this seems kind of bizarre.
6) Appeal to independents, in 2010 independents left Obama for anyone else, will they do the same in 2012 if Palin is the nominee?
Palin’s job will be to make the same case that Reagan did. He reached out to them, not by watering down his message, but by making them see that conservatism works and that a government’s role is to get off our backs and let us live our lives with as little intrusion from them as possible. This resonates with people across the country regardless of party affiliation or no affiliation.
7) What is her big issue and how does she explain it? (I don’t think the I’m not Obama will work for her or anyone else all by itself.)
Again. This is a silly question. Her message has been very, very clear. Smaller, smarter, less intrusive government. Energy independence. Fiscal responsibility. Patient centric health care. A robust private sector economy. A government on the side of the people not a government of self-entitled hacks.
//
Here’s my deal. The reason I support Palin to the exclusion of everyone else is that I believe she is the only one who will truly fight for us and not pay lip service. Why? She’s doing that already, while the “acceptable” candidates sit on the sidelines and let her do the dirty work.
We need someone to go in there with a machete and drastically cut spending. We need someone who will free up our energy resources. We need someone who can and has stood up to the entitlement club within the political parties. We need someone who doesn’t care about what the left and the media (BIRM) says about them...someone who will do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do and let the chips fall where they may.
Is she perfect? No of course not. But then no one is. Each of the potential candidates have problems associated with them. The difference here is that my problems with Palin are superficial. My problems with the others are based on principle and policy.
I can hope that she tones down the colloquialisms and work with a voice coach to soften her tone...but neither of these things make her unpalatable.
Mitt’s flip flopping and RomneyCare, Huck’s social programs...etc. are not things I can set aside.
We need a real, serious, roll up your sleeves and get down to business work horse not a preener or someone who bears the mantle of conservatism for the sake of getting elected but then goes along to get along for the sake of maintaining the status quo.
And I see so far only one real fighter. I see only one person willing to do the hard, dirty work. Faults and all, that person is Sarah Heath Palin.
So if/when she announces, I’ll crawl over the proverbial glass to back her up and help her win the nomination.
I will no longer take the path of least resistance and let the media and the political elites decide who I should support.
PS...does anyone really believe that if for whatever reason Palin doesn’t run and we end up with someone like Romney, that his negatives will stay as they are and the media won’t savage him too? Any candidate we pick will be ripped to shreds because that’s how the left operates.
So then, at what point do we take a stand and tell them that they do not get to decide for us who we should support?
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You are correct. I do NOT want to disuade Palin from running. I like her. I said earlier on another thread that when McLame announced her as his running mate I sent in the largest campaign contribution I had ever sent and it wasn't because of him.
I agree she SEEMS to be a fighter for principle. But I have been disappointed before. Her recent endorsement of McLame was one of those. I understand the loyalty thing and how failure to support him could have hurt her by branding her disloyal. But loyalty to principle is more important.
She could have said something like," While I appreciate Senator McCain's choice of me to be his running mate in 2008 and I thank him for it, everyone knows he chose me to balance the ticket with a conservative philosophy to his moderate to liberal philosophy. I believe that loyalty to principle is more important than loyalty to an individual. Senator McCain has drifted leftward in his past two terms evidenced by McCain-Finegold and his support of amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens. While I thank Senator McCain for his many years of service, I now find that Congressman Hayworth holds positions of principle that are more closely in line with my own and I endorse his candidacy to be the next Arizona senator."
When the attacks came afterwards, she could use the situation as a teaching tool about her character and being true to her beliefs. "You can count on the consistency of my beliefs even when the decisions are difficult. I believe in Life and would not abort my Downs Syndrome son. I believe in conservatism and will support the most conservative candidates."
Anyway, I'm interested in the most conservative and electable person as the Republican nominee. It seems right now 2 years out, that she is the most conservative. I mostly have questions about her electability. It's not that these can't be overcome. Reagan was too old and too stupid. W was stupid. Yet they won.
What I was looking for from this thread was a list of cogent reasons why she is electable. She will be attacked for:
1-Lack of REAL executive experience
2-Extremist views on many things, life, etc.
3-Ability to stand under the pressure
4-Dysfunctional children
5-A Tea Partier
6-Inexperience in national economics
7-Inexperience in foreign affairs
8-Inexperience in defense issues
9-Poor judgement in becoming a 'reality show' principal
10-Another neophyte in national politics that wants to be the leader of the Free World. How'd the last one work?
11-Total animosity and disdain from the press
12-She is just not smart enough
13-Very little international experience
Before the flames start:
READ THIS !!!
I don't believe this stuff.
But the attacks will come.
It's not gonna be good enough to say she has as much as this guy or that guy had. She has to articulate a positive electability persona of her own. Not in comparison to past candidates or office holders. Not because shes better than this or equal to that. She also has a higher bar because she is a woman. She has to present a vision of the what the future of America can be. Like Reagan's "Morning in America".
Perhaps something like," People have stated that the 20th century was the American century and that the 21st belongs to China. Well I'm here to say that not only was the 20th century America's but so is the 21st, and the 22nd and all the centuries to come. Not because we are somehow superior genetically. Not because we are somehow superior technologically. 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. That no one can be truly free any where until all are free everywhere. And that all people have the God given right to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and for their posterity for the infinate number of generations to come."
She's got about a year of craziness before the real insanity begins. I'm looking for FReeper input before it begins with complete ferocity.