Posted on 04/19/2010 5:52:15 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Sarah Palin, 55 percent unfavorable poll ratings notwithstanding, is a political phenomenon the likes of which American public life rarely has seen. There's something distinctive, something deeply personal, about the way her legions of strong supporters rush not just to defend her but to counter-attack any and all of her critics. Palin has a way of establishing a sense of connectedness with her backers -- such a strong, attitudinal sense that she is not just like them but one of them -- that she has created what amounts to a one-woman, conservative "identity politics" writ very, very large.
Yet if conservatives are to continue a political love affair with this admirable and galvanizing woman, we need to insist on more than mere identity. And more than mere attitude.
We know that Sarah Palin shares our conservative values. But is she the leader conservatives need?
IN HER RECENTLY RELEASED memoir, Going Rogue, Palin tells a story about how she approached the first state budget she handled as governor. It sounds like something right out of the 1993 Kevin Kline movie, Dave, except that Palin's tale is fact instead of fiction.
We worked late into the night with the warm midnight sun still pouring through my office windows....Pens in hand, we combed through the budget, line by line, page by page -- my inner nerd coming out again, just like Wasilla City Council days....I had to know what was in there, or I wasn't doing my job. We spent days trying to decipher who put in what and why. Late one night, I looked up from the table and asked our veteran staffers, "What did past governors do? How did they get through these budgets with so little detail?" "They didn't," was the response.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
All this “she’s more qualified than Obama” reminds me of what we’ve all said to our kid’s when they’ve used the argument “everybody’s doing it” on us.
“Well if your friends decided to jump off a cliff, would you jump too?”
She needs to move away from McCain, IMO
— Jane Reinheimer
Oh, and what’s the “anti belligerence” senate bill that McCain is sponsoring? Who gets to decide what and who is belligerent? On its face, it sounds like a convenient way to get rid of anyone who disagrees with the powers that be. Deeper down, about a half a notch or so, it sounds extremely unconstitutional, as in loss of freedom of speech.
Good for you...now all you need is 69,999,999 American voters to agree.
Anyone who runs for president is going to put their family in the ringer. Sarah Palin was running for VICE PRESIDENT (probably the most useless job on the planet). By the time the crap hit the fan, her pregnant daughter was an ADULT.
You have pretty high standards. Who on this planet would you be willing to support? Maybe some gay guy with no kids?
I noticed Reaganaut made his quick little comment and ran...he is not defending his comments.
Yet Sarah Palin is still here and bigger and better than she ever was.
And she’s going to be around. And she can run in 2012 if she wants to. And she will get the nomination if she beats everyone else running. And that is entirely possible.
Now some on FR may not like it. They may predict that she can’t do it for this or that reason. But nothing is off the table. They would serve the conservative cause better if they would spend more time trying to convince us why their favorite candidate is the best choice, and less time being a tool for the progressives who, using the Saul Alinsky playbook, are trying to divide and concur.
It's not Reaganaut, it was reaganaut1.
Obviously a MittBot.
It is not similar to “everyone’s doing it.”
To compare yourself to an unqualified person does not say that you are qualified. However, in the case of Palin, she does have executive experience.
“Sarah was on my radar long before McCain chose her.”
Mine too. I cheered when he picked her even as most of the media professionals were saying, “Sarah who?” And if I’m not mistaken, I first read about her here on Free Republic.
While I think Hillyer went out of his way to be a little petty, I do share his and others concerns about Palin’s lack of experience. If it’s a choice between her and Obama, well naturally there is no choice. But I would like to see more of what she could do in a capacity such as a senator. Remember, she not only has to convince many Pubbies, she has to convince many indys.
the founders didn’t have to deal with nuclear weapons.
Awesome. A good post is a delight to the eyes and mind. You clearly have this guy's range.
One thing that “experience” won’t rub off is the
“stink” of Christianity (2 Corinthian 2:14-16).
The “scent of Christ” is as much the stench of death to the perishing as it is the sweet perfume of life to the saved.
This explains a lot of the vehement hatred we’re seeing.
Hey Dawn, whom do you want? SP is not perfect but she is the best we have and she has demonstrated a spine of steel the last year or two. Are you comparing her to a mythical candidate who doesnt exist? She can beat Mitt and Huck easily. Your best hope is deMint. Get him to run and MAYBE you have game on. I will still vote SP but he would be a good back up choice.
She has common sense , true (as opposed faked RINO) conservative values, and integrity. She has withstood a firestorm of MSM propaganda that bodes well for actually governing.
Oh I thought I put the 1 after...sorry!
They would make Saul Alinsky proud, wouldn't they? Most of these serial Palin Bashers we see on FR are Paulbots, and scorched-Earth Libertarians who see RINOs around every tree, but throw in a few Mitt, Hunter, Huckabee supporters and a few leftist Trolls as well. But all together they are still a minority here.
They do not like Palin because they haven’t found a way to compromise her thus control her from the computer keyboard. In DC everyone is compromised, someone has power or leverage over someone. Because Palin’s Identity is internal and eternal they cant take that. No one is comfortable if they know someone in the room is actually free... it reminds them that they sold our so long ago.
91% popularity as a governor. spot on right on all major issues including defense, oil drilling, common sense approach to government that made good ole boys both demo and repubs cringe. deliver a speech from the heart without a teleprompter. worked her way through college. a confident outdoorsman, yes, she’s not qualified like the present buch of politicians!
“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.”
When Patrick Henry wrote that in 1775 there was no such thing as “government experience” as the term is understood today.
Here’s the difference: In 1775 people had experience in self-government. In 2010 they have experience in the “governance” of others. I have no problem chosing which kind of experience I would prefer in a leader.
The senate is no place for executive leaders. Would have also been nice for Reagan to have come to the presidency with a little less experience (age)—but times choose our leaders rather than the other way around. And, as has been asked here, who better for 2012?
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.