I posted this comment on another thread but it fits on this one too:
You know, I don’t understand this love affair with Sarah Palin as a potential GOP Prez candidate. She was willing to go on a ticket headed by John McCain. She says she is just like him, a maverick. I never liked McCain, why should I want as a Prez someone who says she has the same values as McCain? That she enjoys going up against members of her own Party, that she is eager to work with the other Party (the Dems), and that she doesn’t adhere to Party ideology but wants to work with everyone “to get the job done”. I don’t want a John McCain clone, not anyone who is even vaguely like him. I don’t want someone who is eager to stab his/her own Party in the back. Someone that frequently seeks out making deals with the other side (the Dems), especially since those deals always seem to end up favoring the Dems’ point of view. I don’t want someone who doesn’t have a strong set of conservative principles to fall back on.
The reason many of the Pub base like Palin is because they think she is an Evangelical and because of her stance on abortion. I’m not even sure what her stance is on gays. Sounded like she wanted to work with them too from some of her comments. In other words, too many of the base back her, once again, on a single issue over all others, her abortion stance. No wonder those Pubs who want other issues to have equal prominence when it comes to affairs of the Nation are wary of her. Plus Evangelicals seem to want to dominate the Pub base way too much. There are other religions in the Pub base, Catholics, Lutherans, Protestants in general, Jews, etc. But it appears Evangelicals only want someone like them in as Prez. A natural inclination I suppose, but not good for the Party as a whole.
All good candidates need consideration. I don’t want any one group to take over the base of our Party. I want fiscal and national security interests as well as foreign affairs to hold equal sway along with social issues. They are all important. I don’t want a Party that is seen by too many as a fundamentalist Party. Not a good image.
That’s a lot of words to say that you don’t like Christians.
She is, in fact, a proven fiscal conservative. And she is a social conservative; yet, she has governed as a libertarian on social issues in keeping with the sentiments of the people of her state. The idea that she doesn't appeal to a broad base is belied by her astronomical approval ratings. As I noted, Alaska is a very libertarian state. She could not have garnered 90% approval ratings if she governed as a theocrat. And she did not get those approval ratings by handing out blank checks either. They like fiscal conservatism up there and they recognized her as a genuine fiscal conservative because she has proven it over and over by dramatically cutting spending and halting the growth of government. Those are the facts.
To be fair, and I have already asserted that I am no Palin supporter, but she is far more reliable and conservative leaning than MccAin't- Although, if that were a litmus test, it really would not be much of one. Personally, I won't hold her sojourn with the traitorous bastard against her, with the exception, naturally, of every word that came out of her mouth. If she is a Conservative, she will not trade her principles in for anyone or anything, so what she says, she means.
That she enjoys going up against members of her own Party, that she is eager to work with the other Party (the Dems), and that she doesn’t adhere to Party ideology but wants to work with everyone “to get the job done”
Again, none of this bothers me, providing the outcome is Conservative (by definition). We are about to see such a thing, with the Reaganites and Blue Dog Dems in the House teaming up to block the designs of the Liberals in both parties, and stymie the One in the worst of his actions (it is my fervent hope and prediction)... That is a GOOD thing. Unfortunately, Palins record does not hold up to the scrutiny of a Reagan Conservative, although to be fair, it is not long enough to say what she is for certain.
But it appears Evangelicals only want someone like them in as Prez. A natural inclination I suppose, but not good for the Party as a whole.
My roots are in the Evangelical Protestant community (though I vote and support Reagan Conservatism only). I am as Christian Right, Pro-Life as you can get, and one of my main objections to Palin is her abortion stance.
Your comment is incorrect. She does not support the mainstream Pro-life cause, but rather the lesser libertarian Pro-life position. It is my contention that she cannot bring in the SoCon pillar because of that primary deficit.
All good candidates need consideration.
Any candidate who cannot pass the very basic test of being able to fully embrace all three pillars of Conservatism should not have a single minute's worth of time. It is the primary test for any candidate desiring Conservative support. That is the very basic definition of a "good" candidate, because without all three pillars addressed, the Conservatives will divide into their factions, and everyone will lose.
This is the beauty of Reagan's philosophy and his coalition. No conservative faction should be made to compromise their deeply held principles. It is our duty to support each of the factions' principles as we do our own, because united, we are the most powerful force in America... and divided, we are nothing.
That is why I will not support any of the candidates who are mentioned in the OP, including Romney (whom I believe is your fav), because I remain wholly unconvinced that my fellows can support them without sacrificing principle. That is always defeat, or Pyrrhic victory at best. We have had enough of that.