What Is Sarah Palin? (A Paulestinian's View)

The American Conservative ^ | November 27, 2009 | Jack Hunter

[2ndDivisionVet]

Why do so many people love Sarah Palin? Why do so many hate her? I cannot recall a politician in recent memory that has been both so loved and so reviled for no discernible reason.

When Palin was announced as John McCain’s running mate on the 2008 Republican presidential ticket many conservatives were intrigued, including me. It was reported that the Alaskan governor had been a member of Pat Buchanan’s “Buchanan Brigades” during the commentator’s presidential bids in 1996 and 2000 and that Palin had ties to the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party. An “America First” states rights’ radical on a major political ticket? Palin did not sound like the average Republican.

And yet today, even removed from the constraints of the McCain campaign, Palin sounds fairly conventional. Asks Antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo: “Where and when has Palin ever articulated a coherent alternative to the orthodox Republican doctrines of supply-side economics and endless war?” Raimondo is right. What, exactly, differentiates Palin from the average Republican bear?

Or should that be “moose?” It seems that Palin– the attractive, outdoors-loving “hockey mom”-is popular solely because of her personality, not any specific policy positions. Notes columnist Steve Chapman “Who needs policy? In her world - and the world of legions of conservatives who revere her - the persona is the policy. Palin is beloved because she’s (supposedly) just like ordinary people, which (supposedly) gives her a profound understanding of their needs.” When dissecting political cults of personality, it would seem that Palin has become the Republicans’ Obama–handsome, charming and a human comfort blanket for partisans.

It is also true that Palin is hated because of her personality. The venom spewed at Palin by the mainstream and liberal media sounds like a bunch of catty women slandering another on a drunken Saturday night. Once again, policy-wise, why should Palin be any more despised than, say, Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner? Where do they differ ideologically? Catty women have never needed a specific reason to trash talk the prettiest girl in the room. Similarly, Palin’s mere existence is all that is needed to earn the continued scorn of the Left.

This is not to say that Palin’s presence has been completely insignificant. A hero to the Tea Party set, Palin has quickly come to represent anti-government, grassroots outrage. But using sporadic, nominally-conservative rhetoric with no ideological platform or voting record to back it up is not exactly a firm foundation for any would-be “conservative champion.”

Raimondo notes the major difference between the personality-driven Palin and more serious, policy-driven leaders like Texas Congressman Ron Paul: “What is especially irksome, however, is that there is indeed a populist champion of the Tea Party grassroots, someone with the knowledge, the organization, the proven fundraising ability, and the principles to lead the GOP out of its ideological and political morass: Ron Paul… ‘Palinism’ is a hairstyle. Paulism is a bona fide movement. The first has no future — no, she won’t be a major contender, come the presidential sweepstakes, as George Will predicted on the Stephanopoulos program. The second IS the future, if the GOP is to have a future.”

When conservatives have been dubbed “Paulite” or “Buchananite” it has always been meant to describe someone with libertarian or traditional conservative leanings. Being a “Goldwaterite” had similar, specific conservative policy implications in the 1960’s, as did “Reaganite” in the 80’s. But what is a “Palinite?” I’m not sure anyone knows. I’m not even sure she knows.

And it’s a problem. As Raimondo notes, when it comes to addressing the grievances of Tea Party conservatives, that Paul’s platform is far more ideologically sound does not change the fact that the Congressman is not exactly Mr. Personality. Even Paul admits this. And yet his brand of libertarian conservatism has found a sizeable audience based purely on the power of his ideas.

Palin has found a sizeable audience based purely on the power of her personality. In fact, Palin’s most rabid fans don’t seem too concerned about her policy positions, if at all. Perhaps the best definition of a “Palinite” is one who emotionally invests himself in Republican identity politics. For Paul’s fans, the man is a philosopher. For Palin fans-she’s Oprah. Whereas Paul represents a political platform in need of more personality, Palin is a personality desperately in need of a political platform. The title of her new book is “Going Rogue,” but where, exactly, has Palin gone off the Republican plantation ideologically? Simply wrapping up the same old Bush Republicanism in a prettier package is not “going rogue”–it’s going wrong.

Only time will tell if Palin will turn out to be just another Bush Republican. But when judging political figures, it is only logical that we first look at their politics. What are Sarah Palin’s? What is Sarah Palin? We may never know.

[fkabuckeyesrule]

This “writer” lost credibility with the second paragraph. She has no ties to a seccession movement and as for the 2000 campaign she supported Steve Forbes not Pat Buchanan. She merely welcomed Buchanan to Alaska on a campaign visit. Finally concerning this “what’s her policy” trip these dungerheads have been on lately. What part of cut taxes, cut the capital gains taxes do these people not get. She supports tax cuts to grow the economy. It worked when Kennedy did. It worked when Reagan did it and you could argue it helped when Clinton agreed with the republican congress to cut taxes in the mid 90’s.

[GrouchoTex]

“Other than the right to live, what other unalienable rights would you like “the states to be able to decide”?

The right to keep and bear arms?

Free speech?

Freedom of the press?

The right to peaceably assemble?

The right to petition government for redress of grievances?

The right to a jury trial?”

These are rights gauranteed be the constitution.

The 10 amendment states (paraphrasing) that those rights not specifically grated by the constitution are left to the states.

Abortion is not a right granted by the constitution and therefore is an issue for states to decide.

Sarah Palin is correct.

[SoCalPol]

What Levi who is not a member of the Palin family does hasno more connection than he does with your family.

I worked for Reagan in his first campaign for gov.
Have met him, saw him many time in person as Gov. and President.
Sarah Palin is the closest to Reagan in views and drawing and energizing crowds.

Huckabee who is a shyster keeps his extra size sons out of the picture expscially the one who was kicked out of the boy scouts for killing a dog.

Then there is MittWitt with his 5 sons who never served in the military.
Sarah Palin’s son just returned from serving a year in Iraq.

None of the Wanna-Bes stand a chance over Palin.

[SmokingJoe]

“Jack Hunter is anti war, for legalizing marajuana, 9/11 truther and the usual fringe beliefs.”

Ahhhh.
That explains it.
He is a certifiable lunatic.

[SoCalPol]

The Couric interview was over several
Hrs. and bits were hacked and edited.
It has been explained over and over for those who want to know what really went on.
Also read the book.
Nickol Wallace, a McCain staffer along with a few others did’t want a conservative on the ticket and set Sarah up
with Wallace’s friend Katie Couric.

too bad the drip drip of the liberals hate machine
is bought by conservatives who can’t think for themselves.

Scandals, every left wing legal suit against her was thrown out in court. also if you want to believe newsstand tabloids, I have a bridge to sell you.

[EternalVigilance]

That makes absolutely no sense. The Tenth Amendment says that anything not prohibited by the Constitution to the states is reserved to the states and TO THE PEOPLE RESPECTIVELY. The right to life is an individual right, one which is unalienable, according to the founders of the United States of America.

The right to life was given by God, not any man or any constitution anyway. The founders knew this, and asserted it as self-evident truth, stating that the protection of it is the purpose of government, all government.

Including state governments.

But, just to make it easy for simpletons who have never given a thought to God’s law, or the natural law, or God-given unalienable rights, the Fourteenth Amendment makes it clear that all states must protect the life of all innocent persons and provide for the equal protection of the laws.

Even Blackmun, the author of Roe vs Wade, admitted as much in the decision itself. He said that if the “fetus” is a person, they are “of course” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

By the way, the Republican platform has asserted this exact thing since Ronald Reagan put it there 25 years ago.

[Hugin]

The states are required by the Constitution to protect the life of all innocent persons, and to provide for the equal protection of the laws.

So you want the courts to "interpret" a ban on abortion based on the 14th Amendment? Abortion ultimately comes down to a belief as to when an unborn baby is legally and morally a person. I believe the pro-life side is making progress in convicing the public on that account, so I don't fear leaving it up to the political process to determine. I do fear a black robed dictatorship. Whether soveriegnty rests with the people or not is IMHO a more importatnt moral question than even abortion.

[GrouchoTex]

The “scandals” were the “Chicago-izing” of Sarah Palin.

No ethics charges stuck.All were frivolous, design to be “death by a thousand (paper) cuts”.

Now, out of office, there will be no more charges to defend,
all at her own expense, I might add.
Quirky thing about Alaskan law; the governor MUST answer all ethics complaints and paid for all legal defense out of the Governor’s own pocket. The state AG can’t be involved.

The opposition found a way to make her administration grind to a halt, and unfortunately, both side will probably now use this as a tactic until the state law changes their.

[EternalVigilance]

so I don't fear leaving it up to the political process to determine.

Unalienable rights are not up for a majority vote. Sorry. That is the recipe for destruction of the basis for the form of republican self-government our forebears risked their lives, honor and fortunes to deliver to us.

[SmokingJoe]

“Yes, Palin draws “big” crowds at book signing. We are a large country and a small percentage of a large population seems “large”. Even the lowly Detroit Lions managed to draw 67,000 fans to the stadium when they played in Seattle.
Palin is currently an entertainment personality raking in Big Bucks from adoring fans that make up a small percentage of the total American electorate. She is not a viable candidate in a general Presidential election”

Yeah?
Now why don’t you chew on these numbers from Rasmussen?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/dobbs_

And these:
She is currently running neck and neck with 0bama amongst independents:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2390124/posts

And I quote:
“Among the critical segment of independent voters, they are virtually even (Obama at 50 percent; Palin at 49 percent).”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/19/fox-news-poll-palin-going-rogue/

Let’s see anyone from your Detriot Lions ccome even close to that.

And hey? You can send the picture of your rather gay looking poofter and his stupid antics back to Daily Kos where he belongs.

[SoCalPol]

and Sarah being innocent of the fake charges still had to pay legal fees of over half a million,
another reason she resigned, the Left Wing cabal up there
being paid by one can only guess kept this up with false charges.

[EternalVigilance]

I do fear a black robed dictatorship.

Defending innocent human life is not a dictatorial act. It is an act of justice.

Our Constitution was established in order to "establish Justice," and states as its ultimate purpose "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY."

The word "POSTERITY" has a very specific meaning, one that is completely ignored by those who take your position.

By the way, the sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, including the obligation to protect innocent human life, is not just taken by judges. It is sworn before God by all officers of government, in every branch, and at every level.

[Hugin]

Unalienable rights are not up for a majority vote. Sorry.

History shows the founders themselves disagreed with you. They agreed to deprive slaves of their inalienable rights because the majority in those states did not agree that they should be considered persons under the law. They chose to allow states to determine the issue, and trusted the political process to correct it over time.

[GrouchoTex]

With all do respect to you and God, who I also believe is the ultimate authority the constitution does not specifically mention things such as:

1) the death penalty

2) abortion

They both end life and neither are specifically mentioned and therefore fall under the 10 amendment.

The states do have the right to choose whether to have the death penalty or not.

Abortion should fall under that same guidline, if the constitution allows one, (or not) must allow the other (or not.)

I still say, Constitutionally, Sarah Palin is correct.

[SmokingJoe]

“One being having to see the Couric interview replayed 10,000 times in 2012.”

No worries.
We will play tapes Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, 0bama’s Green Czar Van “I Hate Republicans” Jones, Anita “ Chairman Mao is my Favorite Philosopher” Dunn, and literally tons of outrageous 0bama tapes on TV to go toe to toe with these vermin and clobber them but good.

“Second is as you allude, a scandal at every turn.”

Who has more scandals than 0bama?
Heck he never even wrote his own book
Bill Ayers did.
His brother just go arrested in Kenya for drug dealing. I say bring it on.

[EternalVigilance]

So you want the courts to "interpret" a ban on abortion based on the 14th Amendment?

That's exactly what Blackmun did, explicitly. He knew that the Fourteenth Amendment protects ALL innocent persons, and so he did the only thing her could do: he dehumanized the child. He knew, and admitted in the decision itself, that this was the only way they could put a fig leaf over their decision.

Do you believe a child in utero is a person?

If you say "yes," you can't get around the fact that they are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

If you say "no," you're taking the exact same position as Judge Blackmun.

Those who admit the child is a person, and still assert that states can allow their killing, are, in fact, WORSE THAN BLACKMUN.

[EternalVigilance]

So you want the courts to "interpret" a ban on abortion based on the 14th Amendment?

That's exactly what Blackmun did, explicitly. He knew that the Fourteenth Amendment protects ALL innocent persons, and so he did the only thing he could do: he dehumanized the child. He knew, and admitted in the decision itself, that this was the only way they could put a fig leaf over their decision.

Do you believe a child in utero is a person?

If you say "yes," you can't get around the fact that they are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

If you say "no," you're taking the exact same position as Judge Blackmun.

Those who admit the child is a person, and still assert that states can allow their killing, are, in fact, WORSE THAN BLACKMUN.

[Hugin]

Actually the Constitution does address the death penalty. It requires it as punishment for treason, so it certainly is allowed for the states to impose it, if they choose to do so.

[EternalVigilance]

I guess you've never read the Ninth Amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the right to life is the ultimate right. No other right is superior to it. None.

[GrouchoTex]

Yes, you are correct about the punishment for treason.

Does it allow for the punishment of murder?

I contend that it is the states right to determine that.

I contend that it is the states right to determine law concerning abortion as well.

Honestly, I am pro-life. I feel that if such a thing were actually put to a vote, it would end. I think it would turn the voting public’s stomach to decide that. I think part of the issue is that it is now convienent, the public doesn’t ever have to think about, unless they want to.

Now, if they HAD to think about it, by way of the ballot box......Hmmm..... I wonder.........