Likewise, FRiend. Don't take this as me "callin' you out" by any means...
[...] how is her record NOT Conservative?
I base my opinion on the time-tested formula: "How is the candidate able to embrace the principles of all three pillars of Conservatism?" As you are no doubt aware, this is the definition of a Conservative, and has been since the Reagan reformation, and has nearly always been so, even before Reagan.
To vote for, or support, a candidate who does not fully embrace the basic principles of all three factions is to encourage factionalism - Factional opposition and infighting in the primaries is nearly guaranteed.
So, kindly put away infatuation and limelight, as those can be manufactured for any candidate, and focus upon her actual record and her quotes critically, just as you would for any other candidate, and answer how she DOES embrace the principles of all of the factions.
For the SoCons, arguably her strongest suit, The primary issue is Pro-Life. Does she support the main-line Pro-Life position that Life is a Constitutional matter? No, she does not. She believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the issue should be returned to the states.
So right away, Life becomes a wedge issue, dividing the Christian Right in the primary. Do you suppose the Value Voters, whom the Republicans ignored the last time around, are going to give her a pass?
For the FiCons/libertarians, Her record does indeed show her cutting taxes, but like any moderate, she also likes big projects, and cutting spending does not follow the tax cutting. Wherever she has officiated, when she leaves, somebody is paying for more than when she left.
In Wasilla, she certainly took an axe to the local bureaucracy, but followed those savings with a civic center which cost more than what she had saved, at least for several outgoing years.
As governor, any "cuts" she made were completely offset (and more) by the dastardly pro-rated windfall profits tax (oops, I mean fees) she exacted from oil companies.
To any true Conservative (not to mention libertarian), who has been fighting the liberals' insistence of this exact scheme on a national level, to hear her touting this as one of her great victories is rankling to say the very least.
Her budget this year is quite conservative, but a good bit of that, I'd reckon, is because most of those windfall profits taxes (oops, I mean fees), gouged from the oil companies, were subsequently lost in the market crash, and if my friends in the oil patch are to be trusted, that big time money she got out of the oil companies will never occur again, as they will just shift their AK work onto federal lands if profits get close to the mark.
Again, this drives a wedge into the FiCon and libertarian camp on this issue alone, not to mention her advocacy *for* "immigration reform", another hot-button libertarian issue.
For the DefCon/Foreign policy wing, one must admit that this is a very weak faction for her generally. She does have a boy in the service, and that is a good thing, but that is not the sort of thing that warriors will bend a knee to.
They would prefer one of their own. Battle tested. If not that, they would at least have some regard for one who is experienced enough in foreign policy to be able to control the State Dept effectively and keep their a$$es out of hot zones unless there is a good reason for it.
If the choice is between a Palin and a Petraeus in the primary, I would bet good money that the DefCons would drop Palin like a hot rock, and rightfully so. Her "Iron Lady" persona, unlike Maggie Thatcher, is completely untested. No one knows if she has the cajones to do what must be done or not.
Lastly, I find it extremely uncomfortable that she keeps returning to the moderates/liberals to lend her fame to them and give them credence. If she is indeed the Conservative you yearn for, why doesn't she use her fame to join with the House Conservatives to lift them up?
Why does she surround herself with Bakerites and liberals when a Conservative would naturally gravitate toward Reaganites and libertarians?
These are generalities which are well known. I can give you links if you'd like, but I will have to wait till I am on my server tomorrow, as I don't keep a "Palin Truth file" or anything close to hand... I can probably dig links out of my backups though.
As a Reaganite, I will gladly extend the same challenge on this thread that I have on others- Defend her on the 3 pillars and I will defend against her. On the record ONLY, attributable quotes and actual articles/record/reference are acceptable, not commentary/blogs/editorial sunshine crap.
So far, that challenge remains without takers. I think that is because folks know in their hearts that it can't be done.
So right away, Life becomes a wedge issue, dividing the Christian Right in the primary. Do you suppose the Value Voters, whom the Republicans ignored the last time around, are going to give her a pass?
But does it? I know many independents and moderates who believe that it should be a state issue and it's a way to win both sides. You may have your opinion but that's all it is. I think the mere fact that Palin chose life over abortion speaks to more people along the lines of constitutional right to life than anything else. People will put example and real life choices over words anyday.
For the FiCons/libertarians, Her record does indeed show her cutting taxes, but like any moderate, she also likes big projects, and cutting spending does not follow the tax cutting. Wherever she has officiated, when she leaves, somebody is paying for more than when she left.
Please site somewhere specific that, that is the case. She cut taxes and unfortunately I think you are able to sit in the lower 48 and judge what it is that Alaska has to go through in a legislative process. Unfortunately, for Alaska, it is so far behind the times in comparison to the rest of the union that it requires a lot of funding and projects to build infrastructure, etc - to make it more independent which is what they signed up to in the first place when they were purchased from Russia. You can't compare that state to any other - it's apples to oranges and I'm sure I will have to refer to this again in your other comments.
In Wasilla, she certainly took an axe to the local bureaucracy, but followed those savings with a civic center which cost more than what she had saved, at least for several outgoing years.
I personally found this report from a nonpartisan site when describing in a general manner what she did as mayor to Wasilla:
Prior to her election as governor, Palin served two terms on the Wasilla City Council and two terms as the mayor/manager of Wasilla. During her tenure, she reduced property tax levels while increasing services and made Wasilla a business friendly environment, drawing in new industry.
Then there is this
http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=43
The economy has boomed since Palin in Wasilla and continues to do so
There there was this - and it's not a civics center but rather a Sports Complex which has been used for hockey, soccer, meetings, weddings etc.
The voters, not Sarah Palin herself, voted for a sales tax increase on their city (imagine that - people voting!?)
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=Wasilla+sports+complex&page=1&qsrc=2417&ab=3&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adn.com%2Fsarah-palin%2Fbackground%2Fstory%2F168047.html
Wasilla voters agreed in 2002 to a half-percent increase in the city sales tax to pay off a $14.7 million bond to build the multi-use facility. The project "was completed on schedule and under budget," Mayor Dianne Keller said, and the complex opened its doors March 6, 2004.
Sales tax revenue, which can only be used to pay the bond, is coming in faster than expected. Keller said she believes the facility will be paid off at least two years ahead of the 10-year schedule.
As governor, any "cuts" she made were completely offset (and more) by the dastardly pro-rated windfall profits tax (oops, I mean fees) she exacted from oil companies.
Again, you make another fallacious statement that doesn't take into consideration the fact that this "windfall tax" was created prior to Palin even being elected as Governor. This was instituted by the constitution and other governors as far as owning resources and applying royalty fees to companies on the land. The money that was taken from these "royalty fees" (since you liked to put them into quotes) went to the state in the first place to grow government. She took the fiscal conservative approach to stop government growth and gave that money that would have otherwise just gone to the government, no matter what, back to the citizens. Please explain to me how and why that is not conservative. I would also like to hear what other states do that share resources and require royalty payments. This resource sharing provision in the constitution was created back in the 70's along with the trust fund.
§ 15. Alaska Permanent Fund
At least twenty-five per cent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal mineral revenue sharing payments and bonuses received by the State shall be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which shall be used only for those income-producing investments specifically designated by law as eligible for permanent fund investments. All income from the permanent fund shall be deposited in the general fund unless otherwise provided by law. [Amended 1976]
and
§ 16. Appropriation Limit
Except for appropriations for Alaska permanent fund dividends, appropriations of revenue bond proceeds, appropriations required to pay the principal and interest on general obligation bonds, and appropriations of money received from a non-State source in trust for a specific purpose, including revenues of a public enterprise or public corporation of the State that issues revenue bonds, appropriations from the treasury made for a fiscal year shall not exceed $2,500,000,000 by more than the cumulative change, derived from federal indices as prescribed by law, in population and inflation since July 1, 1981. Within this limit, at least one-third shall be reserved for capital projects and loan appropriations. The legislature may exceed this limit in bills for appropriations to the Alaska permanent fund and in bills for appropriations for capital projects, whether of bond proceeds or otherwise, if each bill is approved by the governor, or passed by affirmative vote of three-fourths of the membership of the legislature over a veto or item veto, or becomes law without signature, and is also approved by the voters as prescribed by law. Each bill for appropriations for capital projects in excess of the limit shall be confined to capital projects of the same type, and the voters shall, as provided by law, be informed of the cost of operations and maintenance of the capital projects. No other appropriation in excess of this limit may be made except to meet a state of disaster declared by the governor as prescribed by law. The governor shall cause any unexpended and unappropriated balance to be invested so as to yield competitive market rates to the treasury. [Amended 1982]
§ 17. Budget Reserve Fund
(a) There is established as a separate fund in the State treasury the budget reserve fund. Except for money deposited into the permanent fund under section 15 of this article, all money received by the State after July 1, 1990, as a result of the termination, through settlement or otherwise, of an administrative proceeding or of litigation in a State or federal court involving mineral lease bonuses, rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal mineral revenue sharing payments or bonuses, or involving taxes imposed on mineral income, production, or property, shall be deposited in the budget reserve fund. Money in the budget reserve fund shall be invested so as to yield competitive market rates to the fund. Income of the fund shall be retained in the fund. section 7 of this article does not apply to deposits made to the fund under this subsection. Money may be appropriated from the fund only as authorized under (b) or (c) of this section.
Her budget this year is quite conservative, but a good bit of that, I'd reckon, is because most of those windfall profits taxes (oops, I mean fees), gouged from the oil companies, were subsequently lost in the market crash, and if my friends in the oil patch are to be trusted, that big time money she got out of the oil companies will never occur again, as they will just shift their AK work onto federal lands if profits get close to the mark.
Another fallacy. The AK companies on the land actually have one of the best deals. They will not move and they have been taxing those companies or shall I say charging a royalty fee for years and I haven't seen them move to this day... Let's look at what she has been able to do with budgets and earmarks:
They whine about her increased spending between the 2008 and 2009 budget, claiming that this proves she is not a fiscal conservative. Yes, spending did go up. Of course, state revenue almost doubled in her state at that time.
But look at the comparison between her operating budget in 2008 to Mirkowski's in 2007:
FY2007 Operating budget(Murkowski's budget)
$11,697,400,000
FY2008 Operating Budget(Palin's budget)
$9,813,000,000
When revenue sky rockets in your state, it is important to not only put money in the bank and save it for a rainy day, which she did to the tune of $5 billion, but there is nothing wrong with increasing spending. The increased revenue needs to make it back into the hands of the people via services or a check. Governor Palin did both. The people of Alaska received an extra $1200 in addition to their Permanent fund checks, plus she increased spending on education and infrastructure projects. This is a good use of the extra revenue, in spite what the goof balls who call themselves “real conservatives” will tell you.
Did Governor Palin increase spending?
Absolutely not!
FY 2009 Operating Budget: $11,200,000,000 ($11.2B)
FY 2010 Operating Budget: $9,700,000,000 ($9.7B)
Net Cut in Operating Budget: $1,500,000,000
Total Percentage Cut in Operating Budget: 13.4%
FY 2009 Capital Budget: $2,632,000,000 (after Governor Palin vetoed $268 million)
FY 2010 Capital Budget: $1,800,000,000
Net Cut in the Capital Budget: $832,000,000
Total Percentage Cut in Capital Budget: 31.7%
Overall FY 2009 Budget: $13,832,000,000
Overall Proposed FY 2010 Budget: $11,500,000,000
Net Reduction in the Overall Budget: $2,332,000,000
Total Percentage Cut in Overall Budget: 16.8%
When it comes to budgets, this is a huge number. HUGE!
Earmark reform:
And, it would seem that not only has she talked the talk on this issue, she's walked the walk. In former Gov. Frank Murkowski's final year in office, he requested 63 earmarks worth about $350 million. In Gov. Palin's first year in office, she requested 52 earmarks worth about $256 million dollars. Last year, she requested 31 earmarks worth about $197 million. Her office has not yet released the total number of earmarks she requested this year.
Not like Ron Paul would know since he likes to talk the talk but still bring home the bacon w/ over $96M.
Again, this drives a wedge into the FiCon and libertarian camp on this issue alone, not to mention her advocacy *for* "immigration reform", another hot-button libertarian issue.
I love this "go-to" argument from the purists or those who are rooting for someone else. To be honest, she has never made a statement one way or the other and time will tell and she will be required to put her foot in the sand on that issue. She lives in a state that does not have immigration issues so during these next coming years she better read up and take a stand on it. She carried McCain's line about "reform" because that's what you do when selected as the 2nd in command... He was running for the top of the ticket - not her.
For the DefCon/Foreign policy wing, one must admit that this is a very weak faction for her generally. She does have a boy in the service, and that is a good thing, but that is not the sort of thing that warriors will bend a knee to.
They would prefer one of their own. Battle tested. If not that, they would at least have some regard for one who is experienced enough in foreign policy to be able to control the State Dept effectively and keep their a$$es out of hot zones unless there is a good reason for it.
McCain this past election may have served his country but I'm not quite sure who else that is a potential primary contender in 2012 would be in the same boat either. Sanford didn't serve as far as I know, Romeny certainly didn't serve, nor does he have the foreign policy credentials besides running a business, Huckabee, well - whatever. Bobby Jindal is a youngin' and hasn't served his country nor does he have foreign policy credentials and neither do many of the other names being touted as 2012 contenders out of congress. Sarah Palin, as a governor works with foreign countries for trade purposes, something that governors rarely have the ability to do. She works with Canada on a daily basis, conducts trade with Japan and speaks with Russian diplomats and trades with Chile. She is also the CIC of the only National Guard that is on duty 24/7. That national guard mind you is the first line of defense for missile attacks - as was just evidenced by North Korea's outburst. After that incident Palin immediately released a statement about missile defense and lambasted Obama for cutting it out of the budget. I believe this lady is just as Iron as the other one from across the Pond thank you very much.
On the Petraeus note, what concerns me with your statement and anyone else who just wants some military general like Eisenhower to serve should think again. First off, do we even know where that man stands politically? Secondly, he may know about national defense but that's about it... what other experience does he have with legislation and actual governing or running a budget? He can lead on a battle field which is great and quite commendable/admirable but there is a lot more experience required than just that. He may also be pro-amnesty for all you know.
Lastly, I find it extremely uncomfortable that she keeps returning to the moderates/liberals to lend her fame to them and give them credence. If she is indeed the Conservative you yearn for, why doesn't she use her fame to join with the House Conservatives to lift them up?
Why does she surround herself with Bakerites and liberals when a Conservative would naturally gravitate toward Reaganites and libertarians?
Your statement above is just absolutely ridiculous - please show me where (and I mean a link from a reliable source) - where has she done this? She has been up in Alaska since she got back and only went out of state for the Alfalfa dinner to discuss state issues in regards to the stimulus (which she lobbied against and spoke clearly and concisely multiple times on the concern for our national debt and the strings attached and got harpooned up in Alaska for) a Governor's conference and the Right to Life banquet. She hasn't appeared on any talk shows, she hasn't given interviews since November and the election ended - so your statements are completely unfounded. You appear to have read too many tabloids or have been sucked into the media blitz on the woman and actually think that she is sitting there wanting to be talked about while she has left the state a total of 3 times since December!
I don't see her giving any credence to any moderates or to liberals for that matter. I think you want to believe that but honestly don't see that she is who she is and doesn't give a crap what anyone else has to say. if anything - she is the one who is shunned from the elite inner circles of the media and the moderates. Meg Stapleton came out and said she is part of the NCNA but has not scheduled any listening or speaking engagements with the group. They will want her to be more active once they see what her PAC raised is my best guess - but by all means continue to think that this woman kowtows to the moderates...
Some on here are so ideologically pure or at least they think they are that they do not realize that there must be a time and a place for spending. You may as well have no government at all if you don't plan on spending anything or always cutting... what good does that do.
Or we could look at some of the politicians that are being touted as these huge fiscal conservatives like Sanford - however, even in his own words he states that he increased his budgets:
2006 spending 19,348,722,000
2007 spending 20,568,337,000
2008 spending 20,858,215,743
So as you can see, spending has gone up year after year, but it is really not extravagant.
Sanford has been governor since 2002, his first budget 2003.
I found this interesting- Mark Sanford basically admitted last year in his budget release that state spending had gone up by 40% in the previous three years (2005, 2006,2007).
http://www.scgovernor.com/news/releases/jan_7_2008.htm
Or Romney:
Taxes went up under Romney 10.75% from 2002 to 2006 according to this webpage.
http://www.american-election.com/2008/01/26/the-romney-reality-mitt-romney-raised-taxes-2/
But who is keeping score right? If we choose to do our homework on one candidate - we need to make sure we do it on all of them. And nobody will ever be 100% - that was true of Reagan as well - if he were around today some of you on here wouldn't even support him because he was more moderate governing California than running the country.