New York Times: Did Sarah Palin really say that? Wow.

New York Times via The American Conservative ^ | September 9, 2011 | Rod Dreher

[2ndDivisionVet]

Sarah Palin said some amazing and terrific things the other day

[wardaddy]

populism even though it sure has always had fans on FR...class resentment here is rather frequent

But it....populism... has historically been bad for America and worse for conservatism

She makes good points but it’s a quick drive to Huey Long world if one is not careful
I realize many here never criticize Palin ever ever ever and give her special exceptions of behavior but populist talk much like her girl power admonitions do nothing for me

And I find it inconsistent with conservatism....big bad corporations doesn’t ring for me

Crony political sameness yes...good point

[wardaddy]

Quite a liberty with metaphors

[AHerald]

But SHE was PRO-McCain. She even endorsed his senate primary 2 years later.

And Perry was PRO-Guliani. He endorsed his presidential run in 2008.

Palin endorsed the man who put her on the national stage by making her his running mate. She has a legit excuse. What's Perry's excuse for endorsing a pro-choice, pro-same sex unions supporter of partial birth abortion for president?

[56newblog]

Old and concerned about the future for my children and grandchildren.

Today is the first I have read about her labor-day speech.

I agree with her comments on the “permanent” politcal hacks in both parties and the crony-capitalism practices.

She has been my first pick for POTUS since 2009..
Then with the delay I was starting to line-up my alternate wish-list (Currently - Perry - Bachman -Cain - Romney *NO OBA nor PAUL)..

I am thinking along the same lines as “munin”..

I will NOT be surprised at the time of her choosing she would announce a 3rd Party Run..

My vote will go that way.. I hope she will bring along running mate that will be needed in this day and time —WEST; CAIN; RUBIO — would be a nice VP and cabinet members to handle todays problems.

I believe many current American Dems and Republicans will along with the Tea-Party will go that way also..

IMHO

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

[PLEASE don’t waste your time with these broken records... Not only are they anti-Palin..]

Not at all Anti-Palin, just realistic. Palin would do our side much good by helping get our best candidates elected, like she did in 2010. We support her contribution a great deal. Besides, she is most comfortable being to pick and choose her appearances. She is also quite comfortable as an adviser/celebrity. Why else would she have her name trademarked? No other Presidential candidate or candidate of any kind, for that matter, has ever done that before.

[P-Marlowe]

And Perry was PRO-Guliani. He endorsed his presidential run in 2008.

I know a lot of people who endorsed him early in 2008 who later either lost interest or decided to move to another candidate. When it became clear that the only way to head off a McCain victory was for Romney to win the California Primary, I voted for Romney in the hopes of trying to push the nomination to the convention floor. Unfortunately Romney lost and McCain grabbed the nomination.

Does that mean I supported every Romney position? No, I didn't support any of them. I just wanted him to win California.

The fact of the matter is that other than Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, there weren't any serious conservatives running in 2008. This year's line up is one in which everyone is vying to be seen as the most conservative. The only candidate I would not support is Romney.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

palin is way too smart to go third party. That would guarantee Obama another term to destroy this country and she above all others, knows that. Are you really that obsessed with her running, that you would throw this country down the tubes to satisfy your own self interests?

[meadsjn]

I'd like to see her run for Senate. Then she can run for president when she is ready, say ...

That right there is the epitaph of political stupidity.

Anyone who thinks the US Senate is good preparation for US President is smoking crack.

[wardaddy]

I disagree

She may get a few pissed off Jews and a handful of independents but very little Democrats....this is not 1980 and most moral majority democrats are taking dirt naps now

Sarah can only win with a hyper motivated conservative base.... But first she has to get thru the primaries which means she will have to stay alive till the southern primaries

A tall order but not impossible if the planets align

And on debates....Newt, Cain, Perry and even Mitt are not exactly rollovers in debates....Sarah speaks great and without a teleprompter but her debate skills are not as good as her speeches

She cannot get the nomination and skip all debates...and I think first of November is end of filing date for first primaries....some only 45 days later....her time is closing....don't kid yourself....(rhetorical)

[P-Marlowe]

Anyone who thinks the US Senate is good preparation for US President is smoking crack.

Being a governor is the best preparation..... and Palin quit that job.

[P-Marlowe]

She'll pull in the same Democrats that Reagan attracted...

Those democrats no longer exist. They are either Republicans now or they are dead.

[56newblog]

My posted “own selfish interests”???

My Children and Grandchildren future??

YOU ARE DAMN RIGHT - YOU PSYCHO DIP-SH!T..

[Paul R.]

You’re creating a straw man (woman) and then throwing punches. “Didn’t have a clue” is a long way from having a bunch of information, some of it contradictory, some of it arousing suspicion, but mostly your boss and his (now your) advisers are saying it’s the lesser of evils, and you (Palin) are way the heck too busy with the campaign to conduct your own personal investigation.

Now, I’m not saying that’s what happened, but it seems to fit.

But even if not... This boss / subordinate thing seems to elude you. I once held a moderately important position in a medium size company, and in that position I had many contacts with vendors, customers, and people in the industry, many of whom I counted as friends. Plus, I had interactions with many others in the company, to one degree or another. As one might expect, on a few occaisions I had anywhere from reservations to quite strong disagreements with my boss about how certain things were done. Did I “go public” with my views on those, when asked? Heck no!

Yet, one of those contacts has since said I am “the most honorable person he knows”, and he knows both from insight and other sources about some of those disagreements I mention above, of which some were issues that affected his company’s interactions with ours. Some of those came up between us at the time.

Of course, if the company had been doing something illegal, or was endangering someone, my behavior would have been different. But, such was not the case.

Sometimes a VP candidate can disagree with their boss. ANWAR was one such issue, and Palin did (disagree with McCain.) TARP? No way. At most she could have said: “We really need to watch where this money is going.” (I wish she had!) Any more would have blown up the campaign then and there. Is that what she should have done?

Generally, of course, “Honesty is the best policy”, but, there is more to honor and character than apparent honesty in every situation to everyone.

[P-Marlowe]

Generally, of course, “Honesty is the best policy”, but, there is more to honor and character than apparent honesty in every situation to everyone.

When you can't be honest, be quiet.

[Paul R.]

When you can't be honest, be quiet.

If only it was that easy. Sometimes that's the worst option of all. :-( (Spoken by someone who's more than once been accused of being "too honest a person".)

[P-Marlowe]

But even if not... This boss / subordinate thing seems to elude you.

The Vice President is not subordinate to the President. Constitutionally the Vice President is not a member of the executive branch, but is a member of the legislative branch. There is no reason why a vice presidential candidate and a presidential candidate must have the same policy views.

In fact, Palin was chosen because McCain needed support from conservatives, so her policy positions were naturally different from his. She had no obligation to mirror his positions. He chose her and that was his prerogative. She should have stayed true to her beliefs and let the chips fall where they may.

McCain didn't want the job anyway, so her disagreeing with him wouldn't have mattered anyway.

[antceecee]

I call BS on that. You know dang well that a Veep has to tow the line so cut the crap.

[AHerald]

I know a lot of people who endorsed him early in 2008 who later either lost interest or decided to move to another candidate ... The fact of the matter is that other than Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, there weren't any serious conservatives running in 2008.

Perry endorsed Rudy in October of 2007. Fred Thompson announced on Sept. 5, 2007.

We're talking about a major early endorsement by a sitting governor, not some schmoe like you or me working to stave off McCain in the late-in-the-game California primary.

All the other major candidates in 2008--Huckabee, McCain, and Romney--as well as all the backbenchers were pro-life.

So again, what's Perry's excuse for endorsing a pro-choice, pro-same sex unions supporter of partial birth abortion for president?

I mean, come on now, if you're gonna hold McCain against Palin, then be consistent in the standards you set. Unless, of course, you don't happen to believe that being pro-life is a fundamental position for the nominee of a pro-life party.

[semaj]

Palin is absolutely correct in her assessment of the problem. Both the DNC and GOP are to blame for the mess we are in, but laying blame will not solve the issue. Crony-Capitalism should be labeled what it is, Corporate Fascist Socialism. The "too-big-to-fail" institutions don't want to play by the rules, and only play when their profits are guaranteed, completely leaving the citizens and small businesses of "Main Street with the bill.

[Just mythoughts]

The Vice President is not subordinate to the President. Constitutionally the Vice President is not a member of the executive branch, but is a member of the legislative branch. There is no reason why a vice presidential candidate and a presidential candidate must have the same policy views. In fact, Palin was chosen because McCain needed support from conservatives, so her policy positions were naturally different from his. She had no obligation to mirror his positions. He chose her and that was his prerogative. She should have stayed true to her beliefs and let the chips fall where they may. McCain didn't want the job anyway, so her disagreeing with him wouldn't have mattered anyway.

Ah if lord McCain did not want the job, then maybe he was just using Sarah to take her out of politics??? She was not all that easy on establishment GOP in Alaskan politics, 'you know' 'DRILL baby DRILL'. Most especially when the political wisdom seemed to be advancing to a 'green' man-made climate change protection ponzi scheme.