Roamer, you're right in that we rarely disagree and you have my respect and FRiendship. However, can you please back up this statement and tell me why you think she's not Conservative? Her record as governor of Alaska suggests otherwise...how is her record NOT Conservative?
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.