Free Republic

You do realize that Palun cut a 25 point lead by Obama into 5 in a recent Maris poll? She actually leads him among independents.

Really? Do you not remember Carlton’s milfistan tweet about Palin and his non-apology apology after he got slammed for it?

No gentleman ever refers to any woman as such in private or public.

First, the only POTUS to have announced earlier than Palin’s stated deadline of the end of September is Obama. So why are you giving her a false deadline?

Second, she has more than enough time to participate in the debates by her stated deadline. There’s like 10+ more debates; furthermore, only political junkies are paying attention now. The 80/20 definitely comes into play.

Third, announcing early has not shown any advantage for Tim Pawlenty and Bachmann.

Fourth, why should she subject herself to FEC rules so early when she can make stealth preparations now? Moreover, she knows she isn’t going to get big donors because of her stance on Crony Capitalism and the Permanent Political Class. She is going to run an insurgent campaign, so she has to be careful with her money.

Fifth, she knows her campaign is going to be bottoms-up and grassroots. We’re already organizing for her on the ground. She’s even acknowledged us in her speeches. The people she wants to know that she’s running already know.

Or perhaps its because Palin has been discussing these issues nationally, longer than Perry has.

Palin’s rhetoric on entitlement reform has always been consistent.

December 2010 Support for Paul Ryan’s Plan

On Social Security, as with Medicare, the Roadmap honors our commitments to those who are already receiving benefits by guaranteeing all existing rights to people over the age of 55. Those below that age are offered a choice: They can remain in the traditional government-run system or direct a portion of their payroll taxes to personal accounts, owned by them, managed by the Social Security Administration and guaranteed by the federal government. Under the Roadmap’s proposals, they can pass these savings onto their heirs.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009322838245628.html

2/17/11 Q&A Session with the Long Island Association (In this case you can’t accuse her of havin “prep” time)

Certainly with Social Security, things have to change. A pension is a promise though. And those retirees who are now reliant upon what it was that they invested in the system over the years – I think of my dad as a retired school teacher – you don’t take that away from them, those who have already been made that promise. But for new enrollees, everything has to change. We can’t not change the system. We’re going to go bankrupt.

http://www.wnyc.org/articles/its-free-country/2011/feb/17/palin-fuels-2012-talk-long-island-appearance/

4/16/11 Madison Tea Party Speech

Palin, who stems from “a family of schoolteachers,” reached out to Wisconsin’s union members: “I’m here today as a patriot, as a taxpayer, as a former union member, and as the wife of a union member … A pension is a promise that must be kept. Now your Governor, Scott Walker, understands this. He understands that states must be solvent in order to keep their promises. And that’s what he’s trying to do. He’s not trying to hurt union members. Hey, folks — he’s trying to save your jobs and your pensions.”

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/17/sarah-palin-rocks-madison/#ixzz1Xa4wz1bp

Last Week’s Iowa Speech
The status quo is no longer an option. Entitlement reform is our duty now, and it must be done in a way that honors our commitment to our esteemed elders today, while keeping faith with future generations.

http://www.sarahpac.com/posts/governor-palins-speech-at-the-restoring-america-tea-party-of-america-rally-in-indianola-iowa-video-and-transcript

Of course, I already know that. You don’t have to tell me.

Perry doubled down on the Ponzi scheme rhetoric that made it an easy soundbite that could be used against him.

I just happen to think that Palin’s rhetoric on the matter has been more skilled than Perry’s so far.

First, that’s Megyn Kelly, not Ingraham.

Second, why are you trying to bait Palin supporters? That’s not the way to win favor from them to your chosen candidate.

Third, this just shows that Palin’s rhetorical instincts are better than Perry’s on Social Security. He shouldn’t have to need “the Chill Billy was Wasilly” to clarify for him.

She’s never served, but her son has so she shares the concerns many of us have.

Here’s an excerpt of speech where Palin lays out some of her foreign policy views. You’ll find that it was with this speech that some of the neocons like Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin started to abandon her:

A lesson here then for effective use of force, as opposed to sending our troops on missions that are ill-defined. And it can be argued that our involvement elsewhere, say, in Libya, is an example of a lack of clarity.

See, these are deadly serious questions that we must ask ourselves when we contemplate sending Americans into harm’s way. Our men and women in uniform deserve a clear understanding of U.S. positions on such a crucial decision.

I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women, America’s finest, into harm’s way, I believe that our criteria should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be. I can tell you what it should be in five points:

First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake, period.

Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not send our military and stretch out the mission with an open-ended and ill-defined mission. Nation-building, a nice idea in theory, but it’s not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending our troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly, concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent to battle. Period.

Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side by our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and command of the American officers.

And fifth, sending our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual.

When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we’ll provide them with support and help them win their own freedom. We’re not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We’re always on the side of both. But we can’t fight every war. We can’t undo every injustice around the world.

But with strength, and clarity in those five points, we’ll make for a safer, more prosperous, more peaceful world. Because as the U.S. leads by example, as we support freedom across the globe, we’re gonna prove that free and healthy countries, they don’t wage war on other free and healthy countries.

The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf-GZPKqOqI

Nice strawmen.

The thread creator, nor I brought up any of those aspects of Perry’s record. The topic was about his fiscal record, which can be questioned and analyzed just as Palin’s could.

Also you will see that I did not defend the quitter meme by fiat like you do with the “don’t question his record” attitude you have toward Perry. I actually discuss why the quitter meme doesn’t work.

Nice to see you prefer unvetted candidates to be the leader of the free world. BTW, it’s not a hit piece to analyze and debate someone’s record. When someone starts insinuating that Perry faked the birth of one of his kids, then you might have something to complain about.

Not this nonsense again. Either stop being ignorant of the facts or stop being intellectually dishonest. I’m just going to be charitable and assume you simply don’t understand the circumstances behind her resignation.

I’d would rather elect someone willing to relinquish power over a title-clinging politician (i.e. Blagovich, Sanford, Chavez) who refuses to surrender power under any circumstances short of being indicted or ousted in a military coup.

“Quitting” isn’t inherently bad, if done for the right reasons. In fact, let’s look at her history. Did you know Palin “quit” another six figure job, her oil & gas ethics commissioner job before she became governor? She resigned to protest corruption when the sitting Republican governor wouldn’t investigate the state party chair for sharing confidential state documents with an oil lobbyist. She quit because by law as a commissioner she couldn’t go public with her concerns because of confidentiality rules. So she quit to be able to blow the whistle on collusion knowing it would probably kill any chance she had to succeed in state politics as a Republican. And you know what happened to that state party chair? He was later given the largest ethics fine in Alaska history, largely because Palin had the courage to put pressure on the governor’s office and the Republican party. And what happened to Palin? She became Governor of Alaska.

Now let’s look at her situation as governor.

Palin was paid roughly 337,500 in 32 months as governor. After 19 bogus ethics charges against her, she owed around 500,000 in legal fees to her attorney. The current laws of Alaska required that every single filed ethics complaint to be investigated no matter how ridiculous (being photographed with a fish, wearing a jacket with a logo, receiving choclates and hockey sticks as bribes) and all at the personal cost of the defendant. Had she stayed in office another 16 months, she likely would have been forced into bankruptcy because Alaska law does not automatically cover the legal defense of its governors nor was the Attorney General of the state or someone else designated by the state to defend her like all other states. If you were working in a job that was costing you almost twice as much to go into work everyday than you were making would you stay there?

Even her set up of a legal defense fund like other politicians have was deemed unethical (It was arguably the strictest legal defense fund in history with all the restrictions it had for those who could donate) wherein a politically motivated investigator suggested Palin should just let Alaska taxpayers pay for her legal defense. They wanted Alaskans to take the bullet for the political malice of Palin’s enemies.. In less than a year, she racked up half-a-million (to put this in perspective, her salary as Governor was only 125,000 a year and she had even declined a 25,000 raise by the legislature) in legal charges with much more to come.

Has any politician at the state level attracted the volume of attacks directed at Palin? Is it normal for a governor to go personally bankrupt defending themselves against bogus ethics complaints? Palin incurred almost twice as much legal debt as the salary she drew as governor. Every day she spent in office she was one day closer to personal bankruptcy.

One can argue that she should have just fought her enemies instead of letting them win.

These frivolous lawsuits effectively paralyzed her administration wasting time and money; moreover, her office was bombarded with countless Freedom of Information Act requests.
The research and paperwork needed to address the lawsuits and FOIA requests, had an estimated cost of State time of 2 million and rising.

If you decide to continue fighting your enemies at the expense of the people you serve is that even ethical? If your presence in office is causing heavy collateral damage to your state, is it smart and ethical to remain in office no matter the cost?

By resigning, Palin effectively took the circus out of Alaska.

It is not a defect to relinquish power for the good of all. When politicians or members of the media criticize Governor Palin for resigning office, remember why she did so. Then ask yourselves, who are these people criticizing her for making that move? What would they have done if they were in her shoes, and why? This move on her part was what a good leader and a true public servant should do, given the circumstances. If only all of our elected leaders put the public good above their own ambition, perhaps this country would be better off.

Never entrust power to those unwilling to surrender it.

I think you’ll find that her local ground teams in each state will be quite good, but not composed from the permanent political class from each state.

Her ad team is PassCode Creative. Their videos have been much better than anything the declared candidates have come out with.

Not really. I was taken aback by the number of people who didn’t know her maiden name considering how much scrutiny she has been under. Considering we’re a selection of the population more like than not to know her middle name, I don’t think she has to worry about using that tactic.

That’s what I’ve been telling people! I’ve watched her personal appearance or the past few months and she has steadily been getting fitter and fitter (mind you, she’s always been in great shape). For what purpose is she doing this? She could have simply maintained her shape if she just wanted to keep healthy, but instead she increased her fitness. [Improving from her 9 min/mile (Humpy’s Marathon 2006) to 8min/mile (Storm Lake 1/2 marathon) is a very significant improvement especially at her age] Most people don’t do that unless they are preparing for a major undertaking.

Maiden name. She registered under it to avoid attention.

Heath is her maiden name. She avoided attention by registering under it.