Palin doctrine?

New York Sun ^ | March 16, 2011 | BENYAMIN KORN

[Andy from Chapel Hill]

The call by the Arab League for Western military intervention in an Arab state — in this case asking that a UN “no-fly zone” be imposed over Libya – is not only without precedent but it puts in formal terms what Governor Palin stated three weeks ago should have been America’s response to the political and humanitarian crisis now unfolding there.

The former GOP vice presidential candidate was being interviewed on February 23rd on national television by Sean Hannity on a range of issues. On the Libya crisis, she proposed a no-fly-zone to protect the armed and un-armed opposition to the Qaddafi regime.

...

In a critique of Mr. Obama’s energy policies published yesterday at about the same time the Arab League was adopting her prescription for a Libya no-fly-zone, Mrs. Palin laid out how the president’s “war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security.” Nor is Gov. Palin’s insight into complex international issues limited to areas of her immediate expertise.

The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin — certainly no knee-jerk advocate for Sarah Palin — wrote just a few weeks ago that Palin turns out to have been correct in the prediction she made to Barbara Walters, in a much-noted November 2009 interview. Palin stated she was opposed to Obama’s opposition to Israel’s settlement policies because “[m]ore and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead.” Now, as Rubin noted, Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics confirms that the pace of immigration to Israel rose 14% to 16,633 from the level in 2009, most coming from Russia or America.

[Andy from Chapel Hill]

Do you think the Palin Doctrine will catch on?

[BenLurkin]

The “rebellion” in Libya is not worth the life of even a single American soldier, Marine or Airman.

[Pollster1]

The problem is that three weeks ago, when Obama voted “present” and Palin gave her view, the no-fly zone would have made all teh difference immediately. Today, with the rebels nearing defeat, it will accomplish far less. I’m not convinced that it’s the right answer today, but I am sure that the long wait dramatically reduces any potential for benefit to our interests or to humanitarian interests.

[HMS Surprise]

Leaders lead... Obama putts.

[vbmoneyspender]

helping to kill scum who blew up Americans should be considered a good thing.

[2ndDivisionVet]

The “rebellion” "civil war" in Libya Korea is not worth the life of even a single American soldier, Marine or Airman.

The “rebellion” in Libya the British Americas is not worth the life of even a single American French soldier., Marine or Airman.

[Polybius]

Do you think the Palin Doctrine will catch on?

What exactly is the Palin Doctrine?

Repeating whatever she has been told to say by her handlers?

"No-Fly Zones" are not a new idea. They were enforced by George H.W. Bush, by Bill Clinton and by George W. Bush.

When Palin is not specifically given talking points by her handlers about an international situation before an interview, the results are not pretty.

This was Sarah Palin's response when she was asked by a friendly interviewer on the Christian Broadcasting Network "What would YOU have done differently in handling Egypt:

“It’s a difficult situation, this is that 3am White House phone call and it seems for many of us trying to get that information from our leader in the White House it it seems that that call went right to um the answering machine. And nobody yet has, no body yet has explained to the American public what they know, and surely they know more than the rest of us know who it is who will be taking the place of Mubarak and I’m not real enthused about what it is that that’s being done on a national level and from DC in regards to understanding all the situation there in Egypt. And in these areas that are so volatile right now because obviously it’s not just Egypt but the other countries too where we are seeing uprisings, we know that now more than ever, we need strength and sound mind there in the White House. We need to know what it is that America stands for so we know who it is that America will stand with. And we do not have all that information yet."

Can you imagine Ronald Reagan ever giving such a non-answer in regards to a foreign policy question where he was asked what HE would do?

If there is a "Palin Doctrine" in there somewhere and anyone can decipher what Sarah Palin would have done about the Egyptian crisis, feel free to spell it out.

[BenLurkin]

Some historical context, my FRiends.

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/timeline/18century.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_French_history#18th_century

[PaleoBob]

I can disagree with Palin on a single issue and still fully support her otherwise.

Plus, I would add that a unilaterally applied no-fly zone would be far more preferrable to me than one first “ordained” by the odious UN.

How’s this spose to work now? The UN says ‘jump” and we say ‘how high?”

No.

But I’m still for Palin. By a country mile.

[dforest]

Sounds like the Bush Doctrine to me.

[fantail 1952]

You do make a fairly reasonable argumentt, pissant.....oh wait......

[DaxtonBrown]

“The “rebellion” in Libya is not worth the life of even a single American soldier, Marine or Airman.”

So you mean when Moamar or his sons take down the next airliner in retribution, it will not have been worth any effort to stop him from retaining power?

[grey_whiskers]

The Palin doctrine right now is simple: point out what a loser Obama is.

She's not President yet -- but when she is, the Palin doctrine will be the same as the Reagan doctrine: "We win, they lose."

Cheers!

[Polybius]

You do make a fairly reasonable argument, pissant.....oh wait......

I certainly hope that reasonable arguments, and not a focus on personalities, will decide who is best qualified to be the Republican nominee to defeat Barack Obama in 2012 and then be a competent President of the United States.

The liberal film critic, Pauline Kael, was reported to have said, "How can Nixon have won the election? Nobody I know voted for him."

Pauline Kael lived in a liberal Echo Chamber where the liberal choir members only heard other liberal choir members preaching to themselves.

A lot of FReepers have formed a Sarah Palin Echo Chamber where they endlessly sing her praises and tolerate nothing short of praise. Such self delusion can be very dangerous when the stakes are four more years of Barack Hussein Obama as President.

I don't want to hear how cute Sarah is or how wonderful she is or how much everybody in the Echo Chamber adores her.

If I am wrong about her, I want her to prove it to me and everybody else. I want to hear her kick @ss and take names in a hostile interview in regards to a complex international situation. I want her to show her stuff.....if she actually has any "stuff" to show.

But there is no "stuff" to hear. Outside of friendly interviews where she is tossed softballs, Sarah Palin simply has no idea what to say.

Even the simple softball question tossed by a friendly interviewer at the Christian Broadcasting Network regarding what SHE would have done differently in Egypt was beyond her capabilities. That simple question and her tortured non-answer is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

We do not live in the fantasy world of a children's Peter Pan play where, if we believe hard enough, Tinker Bell won't die and Sarah Palin will be elected President.

We live in the real world and according to one of the latest FOX News polls, 56% of all Republican voters and 72% of ALL voters have the same opinion of Sarah Palin as I do. (Below)

I'm sorry to be injecting a dose of reality into the Echo Chamber but nobody gets elected President of the United States when 72% of ALL voters believe that such a person would NOT be a good President.

FOX News Poll (February 7-9, 2011)

Question 3: I am going to read you a list of names. Tell me if you think that person would make a good President or not.

Sarah Palin:

.................YES.........NO.......DK.....Never heard of

ALL...........23%.......72%.........4%.......1%

Dem ...........7%........87%........5%.......1%

Rep ...........40%.......56%.......3%.......1%

Ind ...........25%........69%.......3%.......1%

[ModelBreaker]

Palin was wrong on this issue.

[Polybius]

The Palin doctrine right now is simple: point out what a loser Obama is.

By that criteria, every single one of us on Free Republic can claim a Doctrine. The difference is that many of us on Free Republic can articulate just HOW Obama messes up. By contrast, look at Sarah Palin's answer regarding Egypt. She could not articulate either her own position (she did not seem to have one) or articulate Obama's position. When asked to specifically explain HOW Obama handled it wrong and HOW she would have handled it it differently, she was totally lost and spent a lot of words saying absolutely nothing.

She's not President yet -- but when she is, the Palin doctrine will be the same as the Reagan doctrine: "We win, they lose."

I voted for Ronald Reagan twice. I spent the entire Reagan Administration on active duty in the U.S. Navy.

Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan:

From 1975 to 1979 Ronald Reagan gave more than 1,000 daily radio broadcasts, the great majority of which he wrote himself. .... These addresses .... revise our understanding of the late 1970s - a time when Reagan held no political office, but was nonetheless mapping out a strategy to transform the economy, end the Cold War, and create a vision of America that would propel him to the presidency. These radio programs demonstrate that Reagan had carefully considered nearly every issue he would face as president.

Sarah Palin:

"Palin couldn't explain why North Korea and South Korea were separate nations. ..... Asked to identify the enemy that her son would be fighting in Iraq, she drew a blank. Later, on the plane, Palin said to her team: 'I wish I'd paid more attention to this stuff'."

In order to accomplish the Reagan doctrine: "We win, they lose" in 2008, a minimum requirement was to have a clue who this guy was.

If the 1980 Reagan had been alive in 2008 and running for President, he could have told you everything there was to know about Sayyid Muqtadā al-Ṣadr and then some.

By contrast, Sarah Palin had absolutely no clue who was killing Americans in Iraq in 2008 even though her own son was headed to that war zone.

That is the difference between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

What exactly is the Palin Doctrine?

"madam president.....how far should we pursue them once they cut and run"?......

Sarah: "all the way into the hanger".

[exit82]

Polybius—thou doth protest too much.

Reagan used radio; Sarah uses Facebook.

Reagan prepared the playing field for 1980.

Sarah is preparing the battlefield for 2012.

Reagan did not get a Republican House elected in 1980.

Sarah got a Republican House majority put in power elected in 2010.

That’s the difference between Reagan and Palin.

So far.

After Obama’s complete lack of experience in becoming President, I find that completely discounting a woman who has been a small time mayor and a Governor of a State, who has taken on the corrupt GOP in Alaska( see Murkowski), and who loves this country, to be ludicrous.

The entire Obama Administration could not articulate an Egypt policy.

But who led the way with the suggestion of a “no-fly zone” over Libya to give the Libyans a chance to overthrow Kaddafi?

Oh yeah, that would be.....Sarah Plain.

[grey_whiskers]

By contrast, look at Sarah Palin's answer regarding Egypt. She could not articulate either her own position (she did not seem to have one) or articulate Obama's position. When asked to specifically explain HOW Obama handled it wrong and HOW she would have handled it it differently, she was totally lost and spent a lot of words saying absolutely nothing.

You're lying through your teeth -- only a couple of posts after your own Palin quote in link #7.

Let's revisit what you pasted in as a quote from Sarah Palin, mmmkay?

You quoted :

"And nobody yet has, no body yet has explained to the American public what they know, and surely they know more than the rest of us know who it is who will be taking the place of Mubarak and I’m not real enthused about what it is that that’s being done on a national level and from DC in regards to understanding all the situation there in Egypt."

Which is EXPLICITLY explaining how Obama messed up --> presumably he knew more than the rest of us what the situation was, but didn't explain it.

She goes on to explain how Obama's position and actions are lacking:

"And in these areas that are so volatile right now because obviously it’s not just Egypt but the other countries too where we are seeing uprisings, we know that now more than ever, we need strength and sound mind there in the White House. We need to know what it is that America stands for so we know who it is that America will stand with. And we do not have all that information yet."

OBAMA NEVER EXPLAINED WHAT HE (AS PRESIDENT) STOOD FOR.

Nice try, troll-boy.

I voted for Ronald Reagan twice. I spent the entire Reagan Administration on active duty in the U.S. Navy.

Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.

Oh, I get it. You're trying the Lloyd Bentsen gambit.

Won't work. Why? Look at the people who are in the military NOW. Look how they react when Palin visits, even though she's an ex-governor without any official role, and not yet commander-in-chief.

They respect and honor her, even though you don't.

Oh, and your quote from Palin? Is from (again!) at Times U.K. hit piece on her, quoting from Steve Schmidt.

Makes me wonder...Polybius was an admitted Quisling in favor of the Romans, so to speak.

Who's your *real* boss?

(Finally, "we win, they lose" does NOT require any detailed biographical knowledge of one's adversaries: one simply has to identify those whose interests are inimical to those of the United States. And yes, Palin herself quotes "We win, they lose" from Reagan, and adopts it as her own, in Going Rogue. But if you were an honest critic you'd have known that.)

Cheers!

[fantail 1952]

Ah, the ever popular polls!

Altho I support her, it’s not really 100%. I certainly do not see anyone currently—or on the horizon to compare. Yes, there are issues she needs help with. But, her history as governor shows that she can select good people to fill the gaps.

That, my FRiend, is one of the first principles of being a good leader. Combine the right ideas and ideals with a determination to do th right things, reinforced with the right people in the right places, and BINGO!you have a great presidency....Worked for Ronald Reagan!