The Problem With Palin

American Spectator ^ | April 19, 2010 | Quin Hillyer

[The Shrew]

I always get a good chuckle out of these pieces.

People cry that they're tired of the same ol' establishment candidates, yet, when one comes along who has executive experience, tried and true conservative values, and an actual backbone and kahunas to challenge the President enough that she's under his skin... and they say no?

Conservatives are their own worst enemy.

GREAT POINT!

I saw this exact same thing at my county cauci this last month. The Tea Party types, new comers, firebrands all, didn't get the votes to go on to state. It was predominantly the old hands who knew the system and spoke in smooth moderated tones.

Amazing.

Regards,

TS

[Behind Liberal Lines]

I agree with Hillyer and the majority of the American people that Palin is not qualified to be president I would much prefer Palin in a Cabinet post.

Palin should be running the RNC. She's conservative, she's got a good TV presence and she's a natural born fundraiser.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Perhaps if the Palin bashers made a fact based arguments, instead of engaging in Leftist style personal attack politics, they might be taken seriously....Odd how every one of these Palin hit pieces involves the author telling us what they personally feel about Palin, not any reasoned argument against her.

The posted article makes a lot of good, fact based, arguments about why the author feels that Palin is currently not ready for the presidency. I can't say I agree with all of them but they are there.

I like Palin. I think she's a valuable voice for conservatism. I think the media and McCain treated her terribly unfairly.

At the same time, I don't think she is doing what's necessary to win the presidency. She seems to be working towards being a TV personality/commentator not a chief executive.

[onedoug]

If she’s as stupid as islamodemocommucrats claim, what’s the problem?

[newfreep]

From C4P

TIME magazine: Can Palin Be Elected?

For several decades, it has been an article of faith among politicians and political analysts that no candidate can win a U.S. presidential election unless he can dominate the broad center of the spectrum, that all candidates on the edges of the left or right are doomed. Barry Goldwater's "extremism . . . is no vice" campaign of 1964 provides the classic evidence, reinforced by George McGovern's 1972 defeat in 49 out of 50 states. And since G.O.P. Front Runner Sarah Palin relies upon a base of support that is on the far right wing of the Republican Party, some experts have long declared that if she wins the nomination, the G.O.P. would simply be repeating the suicidal Goldwater campaign.

(...)

National opinion polls continue to show Obama leading Palin by an apparently comfortable margin of about 25%. They also show that more moderate Republicans like Romney would run better against the President. This suggests that Palin is not the strongest G.O.P. choice for the 2012 election and that she clearly faces an uphill battle.

(...)

If popular unhappiness with domestic and world problems finally comes to rest at Obama's doorstep, voters may begin to see all sorts of previously invisible virtues in Sarah Palin.

(...)

Palin cannot hope to win, however, unless she moves beyond the hard-line conservative base that has sustained her since she first appeared on the national political scene as a spokesman for McCain himself. She has no experience in Washington politics or foreign affairs. Both Congress and the federal bureaucracy are as unfathomable to her as they were to Obama. Indeed one of Palin's major supporters in the Senate notes that the Alaskan is uncomfortable even visiting Washington.

(...)

Worse perhaps than the verbal gaffe is Palin's relentlessly simple-minded discussion of complex problems.

Full disclosure:
I may have changed a few names here and there. It's not actually Gov. Palin this Time Magazine article's talking about here, but Ronald Reagan. Yes, the Gipper was really running 25 points behind Carter as late as March 1980 - a mere eight months before the election. Simple statements, no experience in DC politics or foreign affairs, supported only by the rightwing fringe - completely unelectable, that Reagan fellow, wasn't he?

[Lion Den Dan]

The only way you could get 55% unfavorable for Palin would be to poll 100 national socialists (democrats). This woman is fully as qualified as Bush, Reagan, or Clintoon. I think that those finding her lacking are nothing more than pure statists.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

are there ANY of you who doubt that she would be a better President than obama?

I think my dog would be a better president than Obama but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking old Rover is going to get elected.

[Sudetenland]

It is an excellent and balanced examination of Palin. Problem is, the Palin-Aid drinkers around here are intolerant of any criticism of their goddess. [Most of the folks here that are attacking you and the article probably didn't even read it.]

I find it very disturbing that her history is one of quitting.

She resigned in protest after fewer than 11 months in the job. Chalk up a point for Palin's integrity...but...but resigning again cut short her experience, and her record, in the actual substance of governing.

NOt just the governorship after only two years, but her position on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and her history of FOUR institutions before earning her degree.

It is also clear that she wrote the invitation for her own demise as governor in implementing the ethics reporting reforms that led to her resignation . . . she invited the very complaints that she says drove her out of office. Not very wise.

It is also clear from her record that she is no fiscal conservative if as he reports:

The first two general-fund budgets for which she was responsible showed spending hikes of 16.4 percent (from fiscal year 2007 to '08) and a mind-boggling 21.8 percent the next year. Total government expenditures (a slightly different measure) grew 38.6 percent in those two years combined.

On the other hand he stretches it a bit when he suggest that East St. Louis or south Mobile are in anyway representative of typical America.

Good thoughtful article.

[driftless2]

The senate is the best place for her to get back on the national scene and support conservative causes. She can hardly go back to being the governor of Alaska. Being a promoter of conservative causes and speaking at conservative events will only take her so far. Being a senator will thrust her back onto the national political scene and dismiss arguments that she is a quitter. Big Media will be unable to avoid or shun her since she will be front and center in the national spotlight.

[wagglebee]

LMAO!

[9YearLurker]

She’s already so far ahead in terms of political talent and power than anyone in the senate—and so needed for the presidency in 2012 that that would be ridiculous. If we think Mitch Daniels or Mitt Romney or Haley Barbour is defeating Obama, we’re sorely kidding ourselves.

[Little Ray]

So who is? Jindal? Juan McCain?

[9YearLurker]

BTW—how much does an accordian weigh?

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

And it was no doubt admirable for Palin to take her own responsibility so seriously. But at some point a chief executive can't personally handle such details herself.

Well, we can't have a detail oriented leader who actually pays attention to the budget now can we?

[MNJohnnie]

Sorry but this article is based wholly on feeling, it is completely vacant of a rational factual argument.

Basically this author argument boils down to: I believe the Washington Post poll and ignore all other Palin polls because the WP poll validate my personal feelings. Then the rest of the article amounts to the author saying "Idon't like the way Palin conducts herself. Because of those feelings, I feel she should not be President".

Well glad you Palin haters are in touch with your feelings. Good for you.

Unfortunately for you all, no one else care what you all feel.

Then the author simply makes up numbers to validate their feelings.

For example, This claim The first two general-fund budgets for which she was responsible showed spending hikes of 16.4 percent (from fiscal year 2007 to '08) and a mind-boggling 21.8 percent the next year. Total government expenditures (a slightly different measure) grew 38.6 percent in those two years combined. This record is to fiscal discipline as the Grateful Dead was to sobriety.

The only problem is the only source this author's has for this claim is a blogger at the far left wing Huffington Post blog who ADMITS in his original article that he could not accurately assess the Palin budget because of the variety of ways Alaska splits up it's budget.

The Huff po blogger merely guessed based on his own subjective opinion of what parts of the budget Palin was accountable for. The Spectator author virtually plagerizd the numbers for the Huff post column. He merely accepted them as valid with no independet research.

So once again you Palin haters have simply made up data to give a false air of validity to your feelings about her

[Al B.]

Thanks for the ping. The Beltway panic increases over Sarah Palin.

[sarah fan UK]

“she would however be better suited for the time being as a US Senator for about six years”

mmmm - former Governor of the largest state in the Union to junior senator from Alaska. Lisa Murkowski would really enjoy that I’m sure! Just doesn’t seem like a resume enhancer to me. Cabinet post - maybe but I don’t get the impression that’s where her interests lie. Fact is absolutely no-one “knows” what she has got planned so all we can do is guess and speculate in the blogosphere.

[JApost]

they were paid by romney to do it. paid substantially.

[Puppage]

Palin should be running the RNC.

I never thought of that. Good call. I think she'd be great!

[RichInOC]

Clinton and Obama, huh? Great examples there. I know I really want to wait and see who pops up at the last minute.