there is a lack of that “decision making” process that goes with the Presidency. (Sorry Sarah...just my opinion)
As chairman of the Alaska Oil & Gas Commission, she saw corruption. She chose not to take part in it. She couldn’t expose it while a member due to confidentiality rules, so she had to resign. She then decided to go public and accuse the chairman of the Alaska Republican Party of misuse of his office. She could have retained her office and a rather good salary and remained quiet. She chose to be out of work and have a clear conscience. A good decision and one that only an honest person would make.
She made a decision to challenge the sitting Republican governor. No one thought she had a chance to get the nomination, but she beat him and then went on to beat the former Democrat governor to win the seat.
When she was isolated, frozen, and attacked with Alinsky tactics in Alaska, she resigned. She was not able to be effective after her VP run due to these tactics. She was no good to Alaska or to the Republican Party as a result of what the democrats were doing. By resigning she changed the game. She was no longer frozen in place and as a result she was able to be a big part of the 2010 Republican victory. Good decision at great political risk.
Gov. Palin criticized Obamacare and its “death panels”. She was soundly ridiculed and called a liar. She understood that the bill could only be afforded by rationing care, that boards were created in the bill to do just that, and that they were death panels regardless of what they called them. Without her outspoken criticism, Obamacare would have sailed through with little public outcry. She made a great decision to speak out. TEA Party groups formed around the country to oppose Obamacare and overspending by the administration. Palin decided to whole-heartedly support the TEA Party groups while establishment Republicans were fearful of them. Another good decision.
Gov. Palin endorsed candidates in 2010 and most of them won. She mapped out 20 districts won by McCain-Palin in 2008 where democrat representatives were in office as targets. Yes, in politics, that’s what we do, target districts. 18 out of those 20 democrats were unseated. Good decisions.
Let’s look at a current foreign policy matter, Libya. On Feb. 22nd the rebels were gaining and Ghaddafy was threatening to use his air force against them. On Feb 22nd, Gov. Palin reacted to the rebellion in Libya by saying that Ghaddafy needed to be replaced and that the people of Libya needed protection from his thuggery and aerial assault by imposition of a no-fly zone by NATO. During the following week some of the European leaders also came out for a no-fly zone. Huckabee and Gingrich also later endorsed it. (Some others remained silent). It wasn’t until March 18th that Obama agreed to a UN no-fly zone after the Arab League endorsed the idea. It’s very unlikely that a no-fly zone will work now without much more military action as the rebels have already been defeated. Timing is everything in a military action. Gov. Palin analyzed the situation, saw a course of action that might encourage Ghaddafy to leave and made her decision. You can argue if that was the best thing to do, but she was decisive. Our President takes nearly a month to decide an issue where the facts are changing daily and then his staff tries to say that really Hillary was the one pushing him toward a no-fly zone, so that he has a scape goat if the policy fails. Palin again was leading the issue and was decisive.
If we look at other candidates, during the 2010 election, Romney often waited until after the primary to endorse the Republican winner. You don’t make enemies that way, but you are also assured of being ineffective in changing outcomes. Huckabee made endorsements but didn’t have a coherent methodology. His results were spotty. Gingrich was gun shy after endorsing Dede Scozzafava in NY. Of the other possible candidates only Jim DeMint made endorsements of conservatives. On policy matters, Palin is usually first out with an opinion and one that stands up to scrutiny. Others may follow, but some almost never offer an opinion on anything that is controversial yet it is said in the media that she doesn’t have much of a staff and that she lacks organization. If the others have a staff and an organization, why can’t they opine on the issues indicating the course of action they would take.
I’ll take Palin and her small staff and no organization over those others any day. She is the only Republican who has proven that they can make a good decision.
Let’s look at a current foreign policy matter, Libya. On Feb. 22nd the rebels were gaining and Ghaddafy was threatening to use his air force against them. On Feb 22nd, Gov. Palin reacted to the rebellion in Libya by saying that Ghaddafy needed to be replaced and that the people of Libya needed protection from his thuggery and aerial assault by imposition of a no-fly zone by NATO. ...excopconservative
Repalced by whom?
Does she know?
In 2008, Sarah Palin did not even know what the al Sadr militia was:
On Drudge, her comments about the No-Fly Zone are being hyped as "The Palin Doctrine".
A No-Fly Zone is not a "Doctrine". It is merely a single tool in the military arsenal which was used by George H. W. Bush, by George W. Bush prior to 9/11 and even embraced by Bill Clinton as a fig leaf that he was actually doing something about Saddam Hussein during his entire 8 years in office.
To describe the mere mention of the No-Fly Zone tool as a "Doctrine" is analogous to labeling a surgical operation "The Smith Procedure" because Dr. Smith suggested starting the operation by cutting the patient's skin with a scalpel.
The term "Doctrine" means "A principle or body of principles". The term "Procedure" means "A series of steps taken to accomplish an end".
The use of those terms implies a coherent series of principles and steps that say, "In situations such as X, we will use the tools at our disposal to accomplish Y goal because of Z reasons"
Neither one of those terms just simply means "Let's use Tool X."
"Okay, (Doctor/Governor), after using the (scalpel to cut the skin/No-Fly Zone in Libya), then what? Why are we entering (the patient's abdomen/Libya) in the first place? Why are we doing it at all? What, exactly, are we hoping to accomplish and why? What are the stakes involved if we succeed or fail or stay out of (the patient's abdomen/Libya) altogether? What, exactly, are the issues and potential problems involved? What are we doing beyond that first step? "
In regards to the idea of a No-Fly Zone in Lybia which Palin mentioned on Hannity on 23 February, if such a thing is going to be inaccurately called a "Doctrine", it should be called the "Ibrahim Dabbashi Doctrine".
Ibrahim Dabbashi was the Libyan deputy Permanent Representative to UN and he called for the implementation of the No-Fly Zone on 21 February, two days before Palin repeated his suggestion:
What this means is that Sarah Palin, or at least one of her staffers, was actually bothering to read the daily news in regards to foreign affairs before that Hannity interview. This, at least, is a great improvement in comparison to 2008:
Unfortunately, that did not appear to be the case before her Christian Broadcasting Network interview.
When asked by David Brody, "What would YOU have DONE DIFFERENTLY in the Egyptian Crisis?", here is Sarah Palin's evasive, rambling answer that TOTALLY dodged the question, "What YOU would have DONE DIFFERENTLY in the Egyptian Crisis?":
“It’s a difficult situation, this is that 3 AM 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."
If you can find a "Palin Doctrine" in there somewhere and can explain what Sarah Palin would have "done differently" in regards to Egypt, feel free to point it out.
All I see is an unprepared politician totally blind-sided by a simple, softball question tossed by a friendly interviewer. All I see is that politician furiously tap-dancing to avoid actually answering the question of what she would have "done differently". All I see is a politician killing time until the interviewer says, "Thank you. Next question ...."
That is not a politician articulating a "Doctrine". That is just Obama without a TelePrompter. That is just an "Empty Suit".
You want an example of somebody who was NOT an "Empty Suit"?
Here he is: