Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Redefining Sarah Palin
American Thinker ^ | 9-28-09 | James Lewis

Posted on 09/27/2009 10:56:34 PM PDT by smoothsailing


Return to the Article


September 28, 2009

Redefining Sarah Palin

By James Lewis

As President Obama fumbled badly at the UN and G-8 last week, Sarah Palin began redefining herself as presidential timber.

When seasoned chess watchers see a game in progress, they can often pinpoint a critical moment when the players go from maneuvering for position, to a fast end-game of kill or be killed. In the shadow battle between Obama and Ahmadinejad I believe we just saw the transition to the end game at the United Nations. Obama skeptics (as opposed to his media butt-kissers) came to pretty much the same judgment: His UN performance was "sophomoric." Obama looked like dead meat talking to all the vultures who roost and caw on the craggy peaks of world politics. Sarkozy openly ridiculed him, and Obama didn't even notice. His nose got in the way.

In the US battle with Ahmadinejad, the most dangerous maniac in the world, we can now see the likely winner. Obama has foolishly put himself into a position of unprecedented weakness, where he can no longer stop Ahmadinejad's systematic march to nuclear weapons. For the first time in history, nukes will be in the hands of a fanatical Armageddon regime that is determined to use them.  In such a contest it is will power that matters.

When asked what a Muslim should want most in this world, Ahmadinejad is reported to have said, "To kill or be killed." That leaves Barack H. Obama back in Hawaii showing off his aloha to all the girls on Waikiki beach. The Israelis can be as aggressive as the mullahs when their survival is at stake, as Netanyahu made clear at the UN. It is only the Americans and Europeans who cannot cope with reality at this critical juncture in history. They are just dithering, and Obama is now the Ditherer-in-Chief.

In his strategic challenge to the world's lone superpower Ahmadinejad is now set to checkmate the United States, and I do not see how Obama can escape the trap that is even now opening up for his feet. He will either be defeated in 2012, as the American people panic at our helplessness in the face of a suicidal nuclear enemy, or as an outside chance, he may be rescued by some unforeseeable miracle; perhaps the Israelis will decapitate the Tehran regime, perhaps Moussavi will overthrow the mullahcracy, or perhaps Obama will flip from his submissive Jimmy Carter Crouch to a ferocious  Ronald Reagan posture; anything is possible, but those options look less and less likely. If war comes, it will be Israel or the mullahs who will make the first move. The United States has resigned as the lone superpower, and can only react to events as they spin out of our control.

That is why I believe that Sarah Palin just gave her first presidential address in Hong Kong, just as Obama gave his first big speech in 2004, four years before he beat Hillary Clinton. Political odds-makers must have noticed that Obama's speech in 2004 made him a strong favorite to win in 2008 -- in spite of his amazing lack of readiness for the presidency, which we can now see playing out in every stumbling move he makes. Given another eight years of seasoning Obama might have made a skilled presidential player, but he won election prematurely, as he himself told the press two years ago. He simply was not ready. He was right about that, but he could not stop himself from seizing the big moment.

So we are seeing a president who is way over his head. Obama has great political talent, but not nearly as great as his overweening pride. So he keeps over-reaching, and there is a good chance that we will see him hit the first massive brick wall in his health-care power-grab in the coming weeks. The Democrats may pass a symbolic medical package to save face for Obama --- but then watch American seniors turn out in the tens of millions next year to throw the bums out of the House and part of the Senate. Seniors see their Medicare being stolen from them and they are not going to forget that by election time 2010. 

Obama seems to be incapable of controlling his own egomania, and that means further humiliations in the years ahead. Remember that Bill Clinton looked unbeatable in 1992 and was impeached by a Republican House in 1998. No president since Richard Nixon has been brought lower than Clinton was ten years ago. Today we may be seeing Obama at the very peak of his ballistic orbit, and just beginning to curve down.

But you can't beat a strong candidate with a weak one, and the GOP notoriously nominates some real duds. Palin has scared the Left into mass hysteria  because of her star quality on the campaign trail with a visibly creaking John McCain. Sarah Palin is our only charismatic leader at this profoundly dangerous time. That is why her actions are so important to the fate of the GOP, and to the future of this country and the world. Her use of Facebook to make public policy statements has been both effective and smart. Palin is using the web just as Reagan used radio and TV, to get around the murderous filter of the media.

Sarah Palin gave an extraordinarily well-crafted speech in Hong Kong, a real Reagan speech. It almost sounds as if Henry Kissinger is advising her.

"I am a Commonsense Conservative ...

"Two weeks ago, America commemorated the 8th anniversary of the savagery of September 11, 2001. The vicious terrorist attacks of that day made clear that what happened in lands far distant from American shores directly affect our security. We came to learn, if we did not know before, that there were violent fanatics who sought not just to kill innocents, but to end our way of life."

"Their attacks have not been limited to the United States. They attacked targets in Europe, North Africa and throughout the Middle East. Here in Asia, they killed more than 200 in a single attack in Bali. They bombed the Marriott Hotel and the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. Last year in Mumbai, more than 170 were killed in coordinated attacks in the heart of India's financial capital. In this struggle with radical Islamic extremists, no part of the world is safe from those who bomb, maim and kill in the service of their twisted vision."

"This war -- and that is what it is, a war -- is not, as some have said, a clash of civilizations. We are not at war with Islam. This is a war within Islam, where a small minority of violent killers seeks to impose their view on the vast majority of Muslims who want the same things all of us want: economic opportunity, education, and the chance to build a better life for themselves and their families."

"The reality is that al Qaeda and its affiliates have killed scores of innocent Muslim men, women and children. The reality is that Muslims from Algeria, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries are fighting al Qaeda and their allies today. But this will be a long war, and it will require far more than just military power to prevail. Just as we did in the Cold War, we will need to use all the tools at our disposal -- hard and soft power. Economic development, public diplomacy, educational exchanges, and foreign assistance will be just as important as the instruments of military power."

"During the election campaign in the U.S. last year, you might have noticed we had some differences over Iraq. John McCain and I believed in the strength of the surge strategy -- because of its success, Iraq is no longer the central front in the war on terrorism. Afghanistan is. Afghanistan is where the 9/11 attacks were planned and if we are not successful in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will once again find safe haven there."

"As a candidate and in office, President Obama called Afghanistan the "necessary war" and pledged to provide the resources needed to prevail. However, prominent voices in the Democratic Party are opposing the additional U.S. ground forces that are clearly needed. Speaker of the House Pelosi, Defense Subcommittee Chairman Murtha, the Senate Armed Services Committee Chair, and many others, recently expressed doubts about sending additional forces! President Obama will face a decision soon when the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan requests additional forces to implement his new counterinsurgency strategy."

It's well worth reading the whole thing. Palin showed Reagan's classic simplicity and directness, and like the Gipper's best talks, she went straight to the heart of today's political battle. Unlike Mitt Romney, who is extremely sharp but much too stiff and patrician, Palin is an American  conservative in the classic mold, a populist in her natural style, but extremely bright, thoughtful, and increasingly sophisticated. Foreign policy speeches should have careful phrasing and nuances, and then hit a few big ones out of the ballpark.  This one was a winner.

Palin spoke in Hong Kong, the most cosmopolitan city in China. By addressing China in both a fair and a tough-minded way she is likely to make a favorable impression. I would think that the Chinese and Japanese are more impressed by clarity and honesty than by flattery and evasions. So you can be sure it is being read all over Asia.

Since the election campaign, it seems that Sarah Palin recruited a top-notch team of advisors and political talent. The Hong Kong speech goes straight to her alleged weakness in foreign affairs, and it is a very good first step toward re-making her media image to be more substantive. The truth is that most of our media heads would not recognize foreign policy substance if it hit them right between the eyes. But they know the image of substance, and the Hong Kong speech was good on both appearance and reality. She demonstrated "gravitas" -- in the pop slogan of the early Bush years. We need more of the same, but she has now shown convincingly that she can do it.

Obama is in for real competition in 2012; since world peace and our national well-being are clearly at stake, the more strong conservatives emerge, the better off we will be. Obama is the very worst president for these times. It is important to defeat him in a fair fight. Palin can do it; so can some others, but she is exceptionally talented.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/redefining_sarah_palin_1.html at September 28, 2009 - 01:54:59 AM EDT


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: education; elections; glennbeck; government; healthcare; islam; israel; military; nothingtodowithbeck; obama; obamacare; palin; politics; sarahpalin; veterans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

1 posted on 09/27/2009 10:56:34 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

While much of the article is good, Ahmadinejad and Khameini won’t be the first whackos to have nukes. Ahmadinejad probably won’t even be Preisdent as his 2nd term will end before Iran has a real nuclear arsenal.

Guys much worse or certainly as bad have had nukes. I mean, Mao had nukes and he Ahmadinejad has nothing on him. Google “The Great Leap Forward”, “Hundred Flowers” and “Cultural Revolution”. Mao was a killer of the first order who’s death totals would make even Hitler blush. He was surpassed in the 20th century possibly only by Stalin, who also had nukes. As did Khruschev who famously banged his show and said “we will bury you”.

So, Iran getting nukes will not be worse than others who have had them. We were very lucky they never used them, but the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the entire Cold War, the Cuban crisis, Castro, Pol Pot, etc... all of that happened because of the communist nuclear umbrella so ther is much to fear from a nuclear Iran


2 posted on 09/27/2009 11:02:28 PM PDT by jeltz25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeltz25
So, Iran getting nukes will not be worse than others who have had them.

Try selling that BS to Israel.

3 posted on 09/27/2009 11:07:50 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Sorry...don’t even need to read the article...

GO Sarah!! heh...


4 posted on 09/27/2009 11:12:20 PM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeltz25
Mao had nukes...

So did Stalin and Kruschev...

Yes they did, but they were not believers in a fatalistic doomsday cult wherein the only hope for salvation was to bring on the end of the world.

Ahmadinejad is dangerous. Nukes make would him more so.
5 posted on 09/27/2009 11:22:16 PM PDT by tpmintx (Liberalism: Solving problems caused by Jealousy - with solutions based on Lies. (Think Green!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

I didn’t say it wouldn’t be as bad, but I don’t think it would be worse.

Iran has had chem weapons and long range missiles for years and hasn’t launched them at Tel Aviv. I don’t think they’d be sending nukes that way either.

But, they would likely hold up the nukes as their ultimate trump card and just have Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorists step up attacks secure in the knowledge that Iran’s nuclear umbrella protects them from any serious reprisal. A Hamas backed by a nuclear armed Iran in Gaza and the West Bank(and possibly Fatah in the West Bank would ally with Iran as well) and a Hezbollah backed by a uclear armed Iran in Lebanon would be very dangerous.

They’d use them to give themselves leeway to conduct a way more agressive foreign policy and to dominate the Gulf. Gain sway over Iraq, Syria and the Gulf States.

My only point was that the writer was making it seem like a nuclear Iran would be the worst thing ever and my point was that a nuclear armed Mao and Stalin were pretty bad, too.


6 posted on 09/27/2009 11:25:13 PM PDT by jeltz25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jeltz25; smoothsailing
Guys much worse or certainly as bad have had nukes. I mean, Mao had nukes and he Ahmadinejad has nothing on him. Google “The Great Leap Forward”, “Hundred Flowers” and “Cultural Revolution”. Mao was a killer of the first order who’s death totals would make even Hitler blush. He was surpassed in the 20th century possibly only by Stalin, who also had nukes. As did Khruschev who famously banged his show and said “we will bury you”.

You are totally wrong in your assessment and you took what he said out of context, the part you left out was,"The williness to use them".

In fact Imanutjob WANTS to use them and if you think he won't be elected again, he used voter fraud this time, I am sure he will use it again.

Muslims will use Nukes, the Chinese won't unless attacked, ditto the old USSR. Muslims don't care about MADD, the Chinese and the Russians do, in fact all other nuke armed nations do. Muslims WANT start a nuclear war, they want to blow Israel off the map, they don't care how many of them die to do it.

19 Muslims died just to blow up the World Trade Center, part of the Pentagon and an empty field(not their intended target). Suicide bombers too numerous to count have killed themselves for Allah and the Koran. Thousands have died in attacks against American troops they knew they couldn't win and ditto for when the Russians were in Afghanistan. Yet, somehow you think China and Russia are worse than this insane SOB that can't wait to set off a Nuke, amazing.

7 posted on 09/27/2009 11:25:25 PM PDT by calex59 (FUBO, we want our constitution back and we intend to get it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jeltz25

The point of the article, other than recognizing the presidential potential of Sarah Palin, was the weakness of Obama. The combination of a weak U.S. President with growing ambitions and power elsewhere is what makes the situation perilous.


8 posted on 09/27/2009 11:37:20 PM PDT by AZLiberty (Yes, Mr. Lennon, I do want a revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jeltz25
When Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung acquired nuclear weapons, the United States was already in possession of far more and stronger weapons with better delivery systems. Also, neither Stalin nor Mao were suicidal. The Iranians, on the other hand, are members of a cult that glorifies martyrdom. Therein lies the difference.
9 posted on 09/27/2009 11:42:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2 million for Sarah Palin if she runs; What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jeltz25

Stalin and Mao and Krushchev were rational men, not into the idea that suicide of their own countries was worth destroyng the West. Ahmadinejad has presented the face of a religious fanatic in a religion whose holy book and commentaries glorify death if it is in the cause of killing incidels.Wiping out Jerusalem or New York would be just dandy for someone of that mindset if it meant his entire society being obliterated n return. But that is not necessarily the choice for A’jad. There is the ooption of EMP fired from freighters near our coasts and Hussein has shut down the airborne laser development that was close to deployability and could have protected from that eventuality.


10 posted on 09/28/2009 12:05:14 AM PDT by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

It is a crimw that the POTUS is a weak yellow bellied coward.


11 posted on 09/28/2009 12:13:49 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Wow..Great article on Sarah Palin, i agree completely that she is a natural for the Presidency in 2012-if the Republicans don’t nominate a frozen Neanderthal from 2 million BC that they dug up...The foreigner sitting in the WH right now won’t even be a factor in 2012 as Iran will have tried to bomb Israel way before then- i believe it will be in a matter of months, not years...

O has given up the ship and thrown away the life vests and lifeboats and practically given a green light to Achoonutjob. Israel will have to go it alone but she can get the job done..The American voters will take care of the foreigner and the Dimrats in 2010 and 2012...


12 posted on 09/28/2009 12:27:11 AM PDT by billmor (As another Freeper said- the lines are drawn, choose your side !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Palin is using the web just as Reagan used radio and TV, to get around the murderous filter of the media.

The amiable dunce is back, wearing a skirt and high heels.

13 posted on 09/28/2009 12:31:22 AM PDT by norge (The amiable dunce is back, wearing a skirt and high heels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
A barnstorming speech.

"I am a Commonsense Conservative...." will be the measure in 2010 and 2012,

Well done Governor Palin, well done!!!

14 posted on 09/28/2009 12:45:12 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Qui non intelligit aut discat aut taceat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert Drobot

Go, Sarah!!!!


15 posted on 09/28/2009 1:38:11 AM PDT by Bigg Red (Palin/Hunter 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

I guess what he might’ve meant is Iran getting nukes will not be worse for the US than others who have had them.


16 posted on 09/28/2009 1:39:55 AM PDT by truthfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

What she offers as "an excerpt" I estimated at five thousand words, and it does in fact count at 4617.

She finishes with a statement from her essence, speaking of when America comes roaring back to life, and "why shouldn't we; we're Americans".

She covers the necessary history and geography.

An overlooked point is that the fall of the Wall, the end of the Cold War was thought by some to be the end of history--it was not.

It was thought to be the end of conflict, of war, of nation states--it was not.

It was seen by China as cause for rigidity and repression--that she sees this in China while Obama can only gush effusively (and naively) over the Potemkin Olympic production speaks worlds.

I give her top marks for noting only Gates must tighten his belt; the stimulus gives not even half a percent to defense.

She cites the cut in the F-22, the C-17, the missile defense as counter to what we must do.

She has a masterful phrase and concept in hard and soft power; Obama the metro leg-shaver wouldn't know hard power if it executed a coup in Maryland and Virginia during his Wednesday night Karaoke Bash.

She is very wise to see the need of India and Japan as countervailing power to that of China.

She is very solidly conservative to harp on the spending of Obama, the debt, the deficit, the taxing, rinse, repeat.

She is a realist in recognizing the challenge of China.

She is also realistic in her assessment of Afghanistan and the need for the same surge now to prevent its reversion to the Al Qaeda haven it was for 911.

And she got this out there ahead of Condi Rice, and in stark contrast to Obama's fake-o mimicry of Hamlet on this vital issue.

The American Thinker author says the GOP is starved for charisma.

I don't think we want charisma.

I think we want Sarah.

Mitt and Barack can debate how many health care perogatives can fit on the head of a pin.

Sarah can keep Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il from blowing up the world while creating the tax cuts and deregulation to get us roaring back.


17 posted on 09/28/2009 1:46:12 AM PDT by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Kenya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo

bttt


18 posted on 09/28/2009 2:22:32 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: calex59

You forgot to mention the sacrifice of over one million children by the Iranians in the Iran Iraq war used as mine sweepers or to launch suicide attacks against Iraqi positions with the object of making the Iraqis expend all their ammunition so the real soldiers could then overrun them. That alone tells me all I need to know about the Iranian willingness to martyr themselves.


19 posted on 09/28/2009 3:41:10 AM PDT by saganite (What would Sully do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jeltz25

I don’t think Ahmadinejad and Khameini have any intention of waiting until they have a real nuclear arsenal. They are religious fanatics dedicated to furthering their vision of Islam and believe that anything they do has divine sanction.

Once they get a working bomb, they will use it.


20 posted on 09/28/2009 3:54:34 AM PDT by Ronin (Nemo me impune lacesset)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson