Right now...I feel that while she has certainly supported the highest moral concepts of the party, there is a lack of that "decision making" process that goes with the Presidency. (Sorry Sarah...just my opinion)
I do think she's good for the party...but I'd rather get behind someone who has an unwavering loyalty of "wisemen". I think Bush chose the best....It was the beginning of the anti Bush rhetoric...which goes on and on and on....because the Dems just don't know when to quit.
I think 2012 is a good time to send them their pink slips.
Before Palin was on the ticket, McCain was lucky to draw “crowds” of 500 at rallies. If you check Rasmussen's 2008 daily polling, you'll discover the ONLY time McCain was ahead was the days between Palin joining the ticket and the TARP bailing.
If you believe Palin was the reason McCain lost, you are incredibly ignorant.
Better adjust your tin foil hat.
I think there’s also the aspect that people will be looking for the anti-Obama, in particular, someone who is not all that young, untried, unknown. The nation just “tried” that option and it was a disaster.
Ok Sac, let’s have a list of all the freepers that are running, we can start with your name at the top.
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.