Posted on 01/29/2015 7:25:39 AM PST by SeekAndFind
See also: Sarah Palin is Right: Go on Offense, Tout Conservatism
With Sarah Palin once again hinting at a presidential run, pundits and politics wonks are all the more aflutter with 2016 talk. The predictable slings and arrows of the surly left are coming her way, while her excited fans are firing up the troops. Then there are those who say that while they like the ex-governor, they don’t believe she could win the presidency. My focus, however, is a bit different: I have an objection to Palin -- one relating to something of which most are unaware.
Before getting to that, please indulge me as I ask a few questions that establish where we all stand. Are you adamantly pro-life, or might your position change if (as in polling) the question is framed as a woman’s “right to choose”? Do you stand foursquare against amnesty, or could you be persuaded to accept a “path to citizenship” for illegals? Do you uphold the proper and only definition of marriage, or have the unrelenting attacks on tradition worn you down to a point where you might conclude, “Well, none of this affects me, anyway”?
If you’re unwavering on all those issues, as I am, you’re a real Sarah Palin conservative.
Or are you?
You see, I’m pretty sure how Palin would answer those questions -- and one answer is a real problem.
On October 26, 2008, Palin had an interview with Jorge Ramos of Spanish-language network Univision. She was asked about amnesty: “So you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?”
Her answer: “I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
One need not try hard to exceed Obama. I do not currently favor Palin for President, but not because I don't think she is capable. Indeed, I think she would be better than most of the field because she fights, but I believe the enemy (and our Rino Country club elite) has done too thorough of a job damaging her to be effectively refuted in absence of a conservative takeover of the enemy media industry.
I currently favor Walker, Cruz, and then Perry. Regarding Bush, Rubio, Romney, Huckabee, Cristie and any of the other dwarfs, a warm bucket of piss I do not give.
You sound like a “volunteer”.
Sounds to me like she was basically fence sitting-trying to give a answer that would not offend either side. It’s probably not uncommon among politicians.
That’s hogwash, she was also a mayor for eight years. I believe that she was voted chairman or something of the local mayors there in AK.
I don’t think that she can use much money fromSarahPac to run for president.
Sarah Palin has been fighting in the sun longer than any of them. I would argue that it was Palin that breathed fire back into the conservatives after 2008. Cruz himself has said that he would not be in the senate without Palin.
She was mayor of a tiny town, the sort where there’s a meeting once a month and no one really does anything.
I’m not suggesting that Palin has been of no value to conservatives or the Tea Party. In fact, she’s been vitally important. That doesn’t mean conservatives should support her running for President though.
If Palin had wanted to run for President, she would have run for Senate? No one would run for the Senate to run for the Presidency. That's criticism for the sake of criticism.
If I wanted a skilled executive I would have supported Mitt. I do not want all the government I'm paying for. The only thing worse than paying for a lot of government is actually getting it. I want someone who understands they are being sent there to shrink government, not run it better.
You argue that Obama and his method of governance have been failures. I would argue they've been spectacularly successful. That all depends, of course, upon what one wishes to achieve.
Obama wanted to fundamentally change the government. Who can deny he was successful?
How? By going around the institutional structures. Working within the system would have slowed him down. To some degree he worked with a hostile/divided Congress. He was more radical than his party. That's why the tsunami like losses for the RATs.
One need only see that the newly empowered eGOP is debating how much spending should go up to contemplate that a fiscally conservative president will face a hostile eGOP Congress.
The world has changed. To the degree your assumptions stay the same, you will be increasingly powerless to understand politics.
Thank you for an awesome list of Sarah’s accomplishments!
She would be GREAT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.