Posted on 07/01/2010 2:51:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah Palin is often cast as a reincarnation of Pat Buchanan, who tapped into the nationalist, even nativist, sentiment that's always been a strand of American political life.
But in one important respect, as Josh Rogin points out today, Palin is the anti-Buchanan: She's emerged as the spokeswoman for a hawkish, confrontational, Cheneyite foreign policy that would make Buchanan shudder. She just posted a rather long foreign policy speech to Facebook, and it's worth a read.
And she's fighting an important battle inside the loosely organized conservative grass roots to head off calls from some tea party types and fiscal conservatives like Mitch Daniels to shrink government in part by cutting defense spending:
Palin's drive to lead the charge against defense cuts on the right was on display in a June 27 speech at "Freedom Fest," a conservative gathering in Norfolk, VA, where she sent a clear message to Republicans that deficit reduction can't come at the expense of the military.
"Something has to be done urgently to stop the out of control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, and no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny," she said. "We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Only by those who can't read.
Who can’t read, don’t pay attention to politics, and think that Pat had breast implants, that is!
She is a better described as a rabidly Wilsonian neocon in foreign policy (Billy Kristol was her debate coach) and a fairly standard free market conservative in domestic policy. Unfortunately, the two don’t mix. A budget-busting world empire only services to undermine small government at home.
Imagine that, Politico trying to cast a conservative as an extremist........
You make a mistake I see many make as it pertains to Governor Palin. You assume that she has done no reading or thinking on the military, therefore she'll do as Bill Kristol tells her. Is that misogyny or buying in to the media's "she's an idiot!" meme? How would you have described Presidents Reagan, Bush41 and Nixon as regards their foreign policy stances?
I’ve never heard or read anyone compare Sarah to pitchfork pat.
The Left has lost the battle to make her go away. They don’t like that and try to take the pill with a sweetener. That’s all.
Bookmark, with Popcorn
Sarah Palin is a Reagan Conservative Republican.
She understands we have enemies and hiding in our homes
like the Hitler enablers of the 1930s only creat a more
serious problem in the end including the loss of our Country and life.
Because no one on the left who is currently living has ever had an original thought. Their ideas (all proven failures) come from people have been long, long dead.
Some of the newer collectivists have new methods to steal and redistribute wealth, new methods to lie about their true agenda, new methods to control, manipulate, and exterminate people. But no new ideas.
They exist to deceive, destroy, steal, and kill.
>Is that misogyny or buying in to the media's "she's an idiot!" meme?
Sounds like an astute judgment based on her record so far.
It also fits Bush43 very well.
Anybody who's been through the 2000 knows that politicians make noises about opposing nation building and calling for a "more modest" foreign policy while they're getting intensively schooled by people whose vision is exactly the opposite.
So far Palin fits the pattern. That's because the people who want to give those foreign policy lessons are usually the ones who want a more active foreign policy. That's not good, but if she were in conversation with Lew Rockwell it could be worse.
That's not to say that Palin or Bush43 are idiots, but people who want more foreign intervention pushed their buttons. They shaped their appeal in terms of what Sarah or W. valued. That happens to a lot of people.
You might want to lose the "rabidly," though, as that always says more about the person who's talking than the one he's talking about.
Anyone else find it ironic that Smith says she has a Cheneyite foreign policy and uses her unwillingness to cut defense spending as an example?
It was Cheney as SecDef who began cutting defense spending after the Cold War. Clinton gets rightly blamed for his role as well. But he was just continuing what Bush41 and Cheney started.
In 1990 defense spending was 5.2% of GDP, by 1992 it was down to 4.4%. In terms of discretionary spending it dropped from 60 to 54.2%. In real terms it went from 410B in his first defense budget to 359B in his last.
I also didn’t see anywhere where she said we shouldn’t cut defense spending, just that we shouldn’t do any cuts that would decrease effectiveness. I’m sure there are plenty of defense programs that could be cut or reduced without doing that.
As for being a rabid neocon, I doubt it. She’s not a neocon. She was never a liberal to begin with. And she’s conservative on social issues which most neocons aren’t. I don’t even know what her foreign policy views are outside a few areas. She’s clearly pro-Israel(so were W, Clinton and Reagan), and seems hawkish when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan. She’s for being tougher on Iran. If that makes one a rabid neocon, so be it. So are most Republicans and conservatives.
But I have no idea what her views are on Asia, China, Japan, India, Europe, NATO, Latin America, Africa, etc... outside of a few things here and there.
Anyone who has ever thought seriously about OiI realizes that it is a world-wide industry, that control of it is essential to our national welfare. On reason why she was picked by McCain was that the woman has real knowledge of how things fit together. World industry changed radically after oil replaced coal as a fuel and as a source of synthetic materials, specially after Henry Ford began to mass produce the horseless carriage. Palin “gets” it. Hitler got it. No strategic thinker is worth a damn who doesn’t get. it. It may be that Obama sees that the only way to reduce the United States to a second rate power is to revolutionize the oil industry as as to keep the United States from sharing in the wealth it creates.
Anyone who has ever thought seriously about OiI realizes that it is a world-wide industry, that control of it is essential to our national welfare. On reason why she was picked by McCain was that the woman has real knowledge of how things fit together. World industry changed radically after oil replaced coal as a fuel and as a source of synthetic materials, specially after Henry Ford began to mass produce the horseless carriage. Palin “gets” it. Hitler got it. No strategic thinker is worth a damn who doesn’t get. it. It may be that Obama sees that the only way to reduce the United States to a second rate power is to revolutionize the oil industry as as to keep the United States from sharing in the wealth it creates.
“She’s emerged as the spokeswoman for a hawkish, confrontational, Cheneyite foreign policy that would make Buchanan shudder. She just posted a rather long foreign policy speech to Facebook, and it’s worth a read.”
Which is what our country needs, someone willing to confront and face the problems of our nation. No more pussy-footing around the issues.
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.