Posted on 07/05/2009 2:08:00 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I don’t think a person has to be one or the other.
I even said as much. It’s not about having socially conservative values, you need to understand. The problem is with those who place all the emphasis there, to the detriment of the other legs of the stool.
I think the problem is that when Bush came in, he brought in an agenda that was heavily culturally conservative and also Big Government. He called it ‘Compassionate Conservatism’.
It isn’t that social conservatives can’t be fiscally conservative, but when the entire political movement discards fiscal conservatism and focuses almost exclusively on cultural issues, then it should come as no surprise that fiscal restraint fell by the wayside.
I am not trying to make social conservatives the enemy. But there is a certain faction of social conservatives who don’t hold hold cultural issues as their one and only priority. To them, anyone who doesn’t focus on the culture war and wear religion on their sleeve is a ‘RINO’ and the enemy to them.
These are the people who want to drag the GOP into a cultural war to the detriment of serious fiscal policy. They have chosen Palin as their champion, seeing her as the ultimate victim of the liberal culture they despise, giving absolutely no consideration to anything else. They don’t want an articulate messenger to develop and advance conservative policies. They want a symbol to rally around.
This is the distillation of everything that has brought the GOP to its low point. We cannot win nationally like this. We need to expand the base, not stagnate it. We don’t need to compromise our principles in pursuit of a ‘Big Tent’. We can instead expand the base by doing what Rush says — win people over to our side by articulating superior policies and arguments. Sarah Palin and the cultural warriors aren’t going to do that, and this is our fundamental disagreement.
that should have said “But there is a certain faction of social conservatives who hold cultural issues as their one and only priority.”
Using traditional “move up the ladder” political moves as a guide says this is a big mistake. She is a quitter, she won’t have the experience, etc.
Her entire career has gotten her to the national scene in non-traditional steps. By normal standards she should be moving from a member of the board of education to being mayor right about now. All politicians serve because of God. I see her career has ordained and especially blessed by God, nothing else can explain her rapid rise. Others may attribute it to luck or her own political savy.
This recent move on her part by traditional standards is easily seen as a big mistake. For Sarah’s past it is part of her pattern. She is following God’s will for her life and this almost always happens in unusual ways.
In any case, do not judge the outcome of this decision using past standards. We are definitely in a new political world where the objective is met in new ways. Sarah may understand this or she may simply be following God.
You have an excellent take on the matter.
I get your point, but at the same time. When’s the last time a Senator got in front of a camera and talked about all the backroom dealing corruption and lies coming out of the Senate? She could blow that whole box wide open and air all the dirty laundry out for the whole country to see what’s going on. I think it would be amazing.
Fight corruption in Alaska, fight corruption in the Senate, move on up the chain.
I heard a Fox News commentator actually say she can’t run for POTUS or anything because of her resume. LMAO what about slick Willy Clinton’s resume as gov or 0Bama as a community organizer?
Senate? Would that be Murkowski’s seat?
She beat Murhowski's father for governor. Make it a two'fer.
Sarah sat around for 3 years? Or is going to sit around?
There are 3 years before the next presidential election, so if she were to get in it (and she won’t) then she will have been out of elected office for 3 years. When 0bama resigned midterm, it was to move into the White House. He didn’t need to worry about getting elected, he already had been.
ROFL. Still at it, huh?
Question: as a governor, Leftist hatemongers could say anything they wanted about her. As a private citizen, can she sue said hatemongers saying the same about her?
If she runs for that outhouse Senate I’m done with her.
I suppose it depends on what she does.
If she goes around giving speeches, being interviewed, doing press conferences, issuing press releases and such, she’s going to have a hard time claiming she’s not a public figure.
I think I heard that on FR that she could sue as a private citizen. Without thinking about it too much, I was brought up not to sue folks. I suppose that it would depend on the circumstances. But I think some of that is “turn the other cheek” type of thing. Of course it they are dragging you into court, you have costs to incur, etc. - that is a different deal.
I was thinking about how sometimes bad things that happen to you aren’t so bad in the big picture. Sometimes I even realize it while it is happening. (When I got laid off years ago I said - “this is one of the best days of my life”. It still was - it got me motivated to go on my own.)
I think the slanders, the lies, and the lousy press may have been a silver lining. It gave her an excuse to quit the Governorship to fulfill what is to be a bigger calling. And she could do it with honor, as she WAS being sidetracked from her duties to her state while fighting these frivolous lawsuits.
Then you obviously think you have better judgment, are more pragmatic and have more political knowledge than she does.
She may have more to consider than what YOU want in making these decisions.
Whatever.
If she runs for Senate I won't have to think it, I'll know it. Thanks.
I’m afraid that what happens in Alaska stays in Alaska.
The reason I think Hillary would be strong against her is because she would position herself as a moderate rat, an alternative to the leftwing excesses of ostammer but “....without returning to the errors and bad decisions of the Bush administration .”
As for ostammer beating Hillary, well, we know why ostammer won. There was less than a dime’s difference between their platforms. It was all about skin color, and making decisions based on skin color is always a hideous mistake. Further, with the media’s relentless onslaught against Sarah, Sarah would have a tough time beating Bozo the Clown, no matter how accomplished and successful she’s been. I’m sure you’re aware that the average American’s decision about whom to vote for is often just a barometer of how convincing the media spin is. A barrage of negative newspaper headlines, more Tina Faye, and negative commentary from TV news anchors, and she’s done. We all know how much they hate and fear Sarah.
That’s how Hillary beats her.
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.