“Not only does Palin have the correct ideological orientation for most conservatives, she has honestly lived and governed by those concepts. Her twenty year track record of public service is replete with examples of her dogged determination to actually live up to her conservative ideals, despite what it might cost her, both personally, and professionally.”
There is NO doubt in my mind whatsoever that she has “personally” lived by correct concepts...her giving birth to Downs Syndrome child being a prime example. However, I keep hearing (yes I am talking “hearsay”) things about her governance in Alaska that I am not so sure about....NOT in fiscal matters but moral issues. For instance...DID she really sign legislation extending marital benefits to homosexuals in State employment? IF that hearsay is correct, she does not sound like someone that is not necessarily morally consistent in her governance. I hope the calumny about her is false, but I would like to get to the bottom on it. IF she is “homosexual” friendly (even moderately), then she is not someone I can vote for. I do not think homosexuals require special law protections (hate crimes) or any recognition of their status by the government to include domestic partnership....or health benefits as if they were married.
With regard to civil unions, etc., Palin believes in traditional heterosexual marriage, and does not support extending marriage or marriage-like benefits to any but traditional heterosexual marriage partners.
However,it is a pattern with her that she will not use executive power to overrule the judiciary. Some good, conservative evangelicals think she should, but our current administration demonstrates why certain other good, conservative evangelicals might think that is a bad idea. I once entertained the idea of dueling branches as a way to rein in a wayward judiciary, but if you get an executive like the Obama administration, where neither the judiciary nor his own view of the Constitution provide any check on his dictatorial inclinations, you are inviting despotism.
Bottom line, the Alaska Supreme Court said Alaska’s constitution required same-sex partner benefits, so she held her nose and vetoed a bill that would have banned such benefits in defiance of the Court’s ruling and thus, in her view, in defiance of Alaska’s constitution. The remedy, she said, was to amend the constitution, which would be the only way to solve the problem without creating a constitutional crisis. Clearly, it is one of her highest recommendations that she understands and honors with integrity our constitutional form of government, even when it sometimes leads to less than perfect outcomes.
Shouldn't be hard to track down the answer to that. If indeed she did sign such legislation, it may be a deal breaker for some. It's unfortunate that some would turn away from someone of Sarah's great worth and caliber over a single wart, but there are those for whom a single issue is the only barometer of a candidate's acceptability.