Posted on 02/08/2011 11:27:35 AM PST by Hawk720
When John McCain announced his choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate on August 29, 2008, the only foreign policy experience or expertise the Republican vice presidential candidate could point to was her 20 months as Governor of the only state between Canada and Russia.
But the former Governor and potential 2012 presidential candidate has come a long way in the little more than two years since the enormously successful “hockey mom” speech she delivered at the Republican National Convention. In an op-ed piece in USA Today last December 21, Palin sounded like an old foreign policy hand from inside the Washington beltway.
In the article, headlined “Time to Get Tough With Iran,” the leader of the “Mama Grizzlies” warned of the potential danger to Israel, America, and other nations if the Iranian government should develop a nuclear bomb. Existing sanctions are not severe enough, she insisted, since they are not, in her words, capable of “crippling” Iran economically:
Much more can be done, such as banning insurance for shipments to Iran, banning all military sales to Iran, ending all trade credits, banning all financial dealings with Iranian banks, limiting Iran’s access to international capital markets and banking services, closing air space and waters to Iran’s national air and shipping lines, and, especially, ending Iran’s ability to import refined petroleum. These would be truly “crippling” sanctions. They would work if implemented.
But just how are these crippling measures, particularly the closing of air space and waters to Iran’s commerce, to be implemented? With an air and naval blockade? Palin didn’t say.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
I suppose you object to the word “choice†even when the moral choice is made and supported. Palin deserves credit for being among the ten percent of Americans with Downs pregnancies who bring a Downs baby to term. Her pro-life principles are indisputable. To jump on her even mentioning the pressure of the choice is like jumping on Sergeant Alvin C. York for not capturing another platoon of Germans.
Your claim is based on the idea that she has a chance of winning, and that other more conservative candidates did not. Goldwater was probably the most Conservaitve GOP nominee of my life. He was trounced.
I think one of the big questions is whether she is really electable. The polls say no, but the supporters say those polls don't matter, give her time.
The most conservative GOPer who won was Reagan, but, whatever his inner beliefs, externally he didn't accomplish much on the Conservative agenda - other than winning the Cold War. As far as the domestic agenda, America was run with liberal ideas when he came and when he left.
So yes there were symbolic victories, there were military victories (and some losses too, like the pull out in Beirut after the barracks bombing), and their was the Cold War, his stunning triumph.
But America looked like liberal-land when he left, with none of the New Deal assumptions challenged or ended.
Which is why most Democrats today (perhaps reluctantly) embrace him. In the end he kept the Welfare State on track for another 40 years.
Maybe no real conservative can be elected. America is not a conservative country, most people believe in the Welfare State, they want us to be more like Europe. Obama may have over-reached, but even the great Reagan couldn't actually roll back the Welfare State and return us to a nation of individual freedom.
I don't see Palin even articulating those positions that would make me believe she can roll back liberalism. I think she might actually be "like Reagan", and I'm sort of non-plussed.
I think we're past the point that "better" than bad is good enough.
Either we elect a REAL conservative who cuts, and slashes, and ends, and privatizes, and downsizes, and returns power to the states and individuals -- or we fail.
If we're going to fail, I prefer Obama as the man at the wheel.
Which is why I'm OK with Palin. She runs, probably gets in some fun zingers, looses, and Obama wins a second term. The USA slide into banana republic status continues, and we all can see who's driving the country into the ditch.
To me - anyone not voting GOP in 2012 against obama, whether the nominee is Palin, Romney, Madoff, OJ, Scott Peterson, etc is as bad as the worst RAT and far left commie who does vote for Obama.
Signed up just for that reason, no doubt.
Reagan signed record deficit budgets, raised taxes (significantly) and granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. He wasn't as perfect as you, but he was the best we had at the time.
Gotta decode what you just said for plain folk like me.
I’m not voting for Mitt nor Huck - that’s a given! Up till now (after Reagan) we haven’t had a conservative candidate, IMO. We have one now - if she’s not the choice, I’m not voting. No RINO will get my vote - they brought us where we are. Let those Palin conservative haters wallow in a barry win - they are too clueless to realize that - they more absorbed with their hangups.
And I’m not alone in this - I know many who will NOT fall for this game, again. Push your RINO, then eat the ‘rat.
But I challenge him to explain what he meant.
Who has the popcorn?
That's kinda funny considering your screen name and its implications.
Ah - if you click on any user’s name at the bottom of their own post, it takes you to their homepage. One of the links in that homepage is “In Forum” which lists all the posts they have made that are still in existence on the forum servers. Looking over the ones that Padams has made, many of his comments are bashing the Palins, so the probability that he is an Anti-Palin troll is high.
Believe me I send him five articles a day from here or other places, but he's just a classic middle of the road swing voter. It's millions of guys like Bill and his wife Cathy who will decide the next election.
Look at that list again, he's always voted for the winner.
Can Sarah Palin convince Bill and Cathy, who voted for Obama last time, that she's not a far-right, crazy, not-very-bright joke of a reality TV candidate from Alaska?
The last candidate who got tagged half this hard by the media was Gore. He lost because of it.
I don't think Palin can ever win over the Bill and Cathy's of the world, so I don't think she has a chance of being POTUS.
I think she has a good chance of winning the nomination thought. If she does I'll vote for her, but I don't think my mom or Bill and Cathy or millions of other Obama supporters from 2008 will.
Do you, really?
Best we had at least since the 1920s. Top 3 of all time. You can keep your talking points, BTW. Eventhough I know it’s fun to compare Reagan’s amnesty for 1.5 million illegals to Palin’s plan for minimum 12 million.
Precisely. Voting for a fake consevative is just as bad as voting for a real liberal. Either way, you shoot yourself in the foot.
Good job! Thank you.
I love popcorn. :)
I smell Ozone.
IBTZ
You're not too far from a fool, are you?
What a horrible thing to write.
As if it's ANY OF YOUR F'N BUSINESS!
Are their more hardcore conservatives who feel that way or swing voters who can't be convinced on Palin? That's a tough question.
And, are you quite sure that among the 16 or 17 OTHER candidates besides Huck, Mitt and Palin that no one has either strong enough conservative bona-fides for you or the ability to win. Mitch Daniels? Jim DeMint? Michelle Bachman? Ron Paul? All more LIBERAL than Palin? Really?? (There are a bunch I don't know that much about yet.)
I think we need to give the season a while to develop. Mitt and Huck were unkowns at this time in 2006 and yet ended as second and third place in the primary.
Do you think Hitlery will try to oust Obummer to secure the Dim nomination, or will she sit back and let him try to fight a surging conservative base?
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.