Why I support Sarah Palin

Ted Belman. I was half way through writing Sarah Palin is electable when I came across this fabulous well researched ode to Sarah Palin. I have left out the attacks on her particularly by the GOP trying to shut her out and focused on her outstanding qualities. Don’t miss the part on Israel and Iran at the end..

Vetting Sarah Palin—The Assignment of a Lifetime
By Christopher Massie, Canada Free Press

[..] There is a wave now clearly rising. There is a movement very definable now fully exposing itself to America. The Tea Party now has more successful wins to its credit within a condensed timeframe than any other American political movement can rightfully claim. This movement is alive, palpable, real, not to be ignored and poised to return America to its position as that Shining City Upon the Hill. And one individual is responsible for this momentum.

That person is Sarah Louise Palin—and this is her vetting.


Sarah Palin, a 46 year old, self-described “Bible-believing Christian”, born in Sandpoint, Idaho, the United States of America, has represented Conservative Constitutionalism, small business entrepreneurs, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, non-partisanship, pro-life advocacy, the Amendments (as a staunch Constitutionalist), but in particular the 2nd, and political term limits (among her most prominent platforms) her entire political career. She abhors wasteful government spending—a cause Palin is so deeply passionate towards it would launch her Mayoral career in 1995—and Palin considers the current administration the bane of current as well as future generations to come.

Governmental corruption goes against every core belief inherent to Palin’s persona—her programs to vet those within her administration are well documented. Inter-departmental deceit and immorality have been dealt with through patience and diplomacy, but dealt with they have been. In Palin’s nearly 20 year political career, she has positioned herself as a fresh and rejuvenating force for positive upward mobility in the Republican Party, and her current influence is instantly perceptible.

At the age of 18, when most American teenagers were deciding on far less important issues, Sarah Palin officially registered as a Republican, a decision no doubt based on values deeply entrenched within Palin throughout her upbringing. By the age of 28, that decision would prompt Sarah to enter politics for the first time, pitting her against a local telephone company worker. That election would mirror many in Palin’s future political career; voters in Wasilla questioned her ability to defeat a man, much less her ability to have a serious affect on the City Council.

She would win that election to the City Council of Wasilla, Alaska—an election she was encouraged to enter by fellow classmates of hers at a local step aerobics center. Also members of this class were two gentlemen who would later play a central role in Palin’s advancing career. Three years later, after shocking voters by not allowing her personal religious convictions to interfere with her role on the Council—as it related to small business owner’s rights—she would be elected again; this time by an overwhelming majority.

Upon completion of her first term on the City Council, midway through satisfying her second, Palin would set her sights on higher office, electing to run for Mayor of Wasilla. Her bold decision to seek the office of Mayor was based on her fears that the local government was wastefully spending revenues generated by a new sales tax increase. The city’s coffers were expanding, the then-current administration had drawn up plans requiring unnecessary, frivolous spending, and Palin—reflecting her classic Conservative ideals—announced her campaign.

This would be the first real test of Sarah Palin’s mettle as a Conservative politician—and as a woman running against the good old boys. That race would match Palin against her one time aerobics class partner—one of the men pivotal to her ascension into politics—then-Mayor of Wasilla John Stein.

Then-Mayor Stein never knew what hit him. Then 32 year old Sarah Palin was a formidable foe. Exposing Stein’s proposed spending and record of high taxes, as well as sharing her other campaign platforms with the voters of Wasilla—a voting majority comprised, by the time of Palin’s rise, of Conservative Christians—that included her pro-life and pro gun-rights stances, Sarah defeated Mayor Stein handily. Her platforms, campaign strategies and overall ideology caught the attention of the state GOP as well. The Party would endorse Palin over the three-term incumbent Stein, running television ads on her behalf—cementing a political relationship for better or worse. By the conclusion of the campaign, Palin’s political reputation had begun to take shape.


Once if office, Palin’s inaugural actions included the lowering of her personal salary by 10%—a move most voters (while appreciating the gesture) probably doubted would come to fruition. From there, the internal vetting of the previous administration would begin. Palin required updated resumes from every official, going so far as to demand resignation letters from particular department leaders most loyal to the former Mayor. Her moves, while unconventional, proved beneficial towards ferreting out true team players from those whose personal goals and biases would prove to undermine the role of government—that role, for Palin, being a small unified body working to effectively service the voting community. Palin’s successful process to unify or dismiss resulted in a first term staff turnover of nearly 100%—but the voters remained quite pleased. Palin listened to her constituency; and the voters elected her again—by a landslide!

Palin’s second term would witness her contributions to this once sleepy little town of Wasilla resulting in an expansion that brought business revenue and improvements to the city as never before. And while growth most certainly has the potential to come at a price (Wasilla’s long term debt would increase to $25 million as a result of expansion under Palin, leading her to secure the first of $10 million in earmarks for the government before her term would expire), today, Wasilla is a thriving community.

The current mayor attributes Wasilla’s 50,000 daily shoppers directly to Palin’s 75% reduction in property taxes and infrastructure improvements. “This is no longer a little strip town you can blow through in a heartbeat”. Wasilla, strong, proud, and now home to more than 6,000 people, remembers well the ways in which Sarah Palin heard their voice, listened to their demands, and bettered their lives. The old boys’ club was forever changed in Wasilla, and the GOP took notice.


Sarah Palin’s next move, at the age of 38 (in 2002), was a bid for Lieutenant Governor of Alaska—running against 4 other Republicans in a primary in which she came in second. This loss would expose Sarah to what was possibly the most extreme case of political nepotism she had yet witnessed in her career. After her defeat for Lieutenant Governor of Alaska, Palin campaigned intensely throughout the state of Alaska for Frank Murkowski and Loren Leman—the team running for Governor-Lieutenant Governor of Alaska. Sarah Palin would spend countless hours rallying for Frank Murkowski, befriending the man, cheering him on—hoping his win would secure for her his vacated seat in the Senate. Murkowski won. Palin was on the short list for his vacated Senate seat—everyone said she was a shoe in.

In what continues to this day to be called one of the most flagrant displays of unwarranted nepotism, Frank Murkowski—in typical old boys’ school demeanor—selected his daughter, State Representative Lisa Murkowski, to be his successor in the Senate. Palin would instead be offered and accept an appointment to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she would expose myriad ethics violations. The old boys’ networks would continue to be served notice, and Murkowski and Palin would be set on an inevitable collision course that would collide just a few years later.

In 2006, at the age of 42, against all odds, first facing down Murkowski’s formidable war chest of funds, and later defeating Democrat Knowles by a margin of 48 to 40 percent, Sarah Palin became the youngest Governor of Alaska in history—as well as the State’s first female to ever hold the position.

Understanding the voice of the voters, she ran on a platform of education first, followed by public safety and transportation. Her long-standing role as a pro-life proponent gained her the endorsement of the Alaska Right to Life group while her concerns with the environment combined with her continued advocacy for Alaska’s oil industry garnered her support from former Alaska Governor Walker Hickel. An additional endorsement, based on Palin’s recognized position on second amendment rights, would come from the Alaska Correctional Officers Association; indeed, through endorsements, Palin would succeed in winning the Governorship even while being outspent throughout the campaign.

Naturally, as with any position of such great importance and responsibility, attacks upon the one in office are inevitable—and Sarah Palin was no exception. For the record, Troopergate was finally concluded in 2008 with a final report from Tim Petumenos: “There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters.”

While ethics issues certainly weigh heavy in every politician’s career, other more important issues have been, and continue to be, placed center stage by Palin’s opponents. Since her days as Governor, Sarah Palin has strongly pleaded the case for America’s independence from its reliance on foreign oil suppliers. To that end, Palin supports drilling for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). And while this controversy has been one of deep concern that continues to provide contentious discourse between conservationists and economists, Palin remains firmly planted on the side of job creation, revenue procurement, and American energy independence.

Palin remains a committed environmentalist, as evidenced by her establishing of the gubernatorial executive order number 238 which, among several other key provisions, calls for “developing recommendations on the opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Alaska sources, including the expanded use of alternative fuels, energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, land use management, and transportation planning.” Palin’s ANWR stance, combined with this order, clearly demonstrates Palin’s ability to balance a fiscal need for energy independence against a respect for “green” initiatives—truly a rare trait in today’s old boys’ networks.


Throughout her career, Sarah Palin has witnessed and battled cronyism, nepotism, old boys’ networks, corruption, and political deceit of every size, shape and description. Her wars raged have been born from Conservative ideals, Christian values, the fundamentals found in the words of America’s Founding Fathers as written in the Constitution, and a plain old sense of knowing right from wrong. These ideals, shockingly—not surprisingly—have rendered her the target of great condemnation from socialists, Liberals, Democrats and even certain members from within the GOP—that party once so eager to embrace her in the days of Wasilla.

As the GOP has ungraciously turned its back on Sarah Palin—as particularly evidenced through the actions of one of the most glaring examples of the old boys’ network, John McCain—she has continued along the path of adhering to the voters; ever cognizant of the true Conservatives requiring support. She has been the driving force unifying the Tea Party movement in America—a once loose knit group of a few hundred people that now counts hundreds of thousands of well organized members in practically every state of the union. This movement draws inspiration from a unified mission: lower taxes; smaller government that interferes less with the population’s private lives; state’s rights; and an overall belief in American Exceptionalism. These are core, fundamental issues Sarah Palin has stood for her entire career.

Sarah Palin—through her support of and involvement with the Tea Party in general—has in one way or another had a positive effect on the campaigns of several Tea Party-backed Conservatives this election cycle. Some of the candidates who have included Palin in their projects or discussed her influence as having a positive upshot on their drives this year include Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, and others. And those candidates who have succeeded in their bids for office as a direct result of Palin’s endorsements include Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, and, of course, Christine O’Donnell. Sarah Palin’s clout is more than influential—for many in the truly Conservative camp, it is the most powerful weapon in politics since that witnessed by Ronald Reagan’s allies in the days of the Gipper’s reign.

The ability to galvanize on Palin’s part—the ability to bring together the voice of the voters and the electable candidates proven to answer the call of those voters—is a powerful magnet in a politician. It is also a fantastically rare commodity. One truly believes Palin’s honesty; her words—humble and forever unassuming—consistently come from the heart. When she speaks to a crowd, it’s as if she is talking to her family; never scripted, oft-times with a slip or a twist of the tongue, and genuinely caring.

Remembering speeches given by Ronald Reagan—when he would pause, almost coming to tears contemplating the severity of his words—one cannot help but catch glimpses of these mannerisms in moments of Palin on stage. She is captivating in her simplicity, powerful in her convictions, Reagan-esque in her Conservatism, Constitutionalism and belief in American Exceptionalism.


As this nation heads towards November, a crucial turning point in American history, Palin’s foes are making hay. Political strategists the likes of Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer have emerged from the old boys’ network closet. The most infamous, nepotistically-influenced, former Palin competitor Lisa Murkowski has announced she will run again this November—as a write in. In these days, it is wise to recall the actions of Harry Reid in 2006 when he summoned then-Senator Obama, instructing Barack it was the Party’s intentions to have him run for the Presidency (even though it would not be until the summer of 2008 that Reid would publicly endorse the Senator from Illinois).

The Democrats (led by Reid) would have done anything to defeat Hillary—and they did it stealthily. The GOP is taking a page from that book. There is an all too familiar episode re-playing itself for voters to witness this season. The GOP loathes Sarah Palin. And the Party is now setting about to deeply unsettle those successful candidates she has promoted. The evidence is glaringly obvious. Murkowski has been unleashed; Rove and Krauthammer are doing their bidding. The events unfolding are towards one goal: the destruction of Palin’s bid for the Presidency.

Beginning with Sarah Palin’s first mayoral bid in Wasilla, and her refusal to kowtow to the GOP in the aftermath of her ascension to city office—a position she rightly earned regardless of Party politics being played out on the local airwaves—to her days as Governor of Alaska and her patriotic decision to place more emphasis on the needs of the voters of her state than the bureaucratic strong-arming of the Bush administration and its political blackmail as it related to the Alaska pipeline contracts, Palin has steadfastly remained a true person of character—and a life-long politician representing “We the People”. Now, in what has become America’s deadliest fight against tyranny since its founding, this nation’s leader in waiting listens for her constituency’s demands once more.


There can be no doubting Sarah Palin’s longstanding, steadfast commitment to a strong, stable, secure and Exceptional America at home. Also without question is the importance of America’s safety abroad and its allegiance to our allies. Since the days of this nation’s founding, freedom has come at great costs; never has security from tyranny been free.

Allowing for the rise of injustice, murder, torture, attack or any other form of degradation to another nation, be that persecution in the name of political gain, religious dominance and expansion, or sheer bigotry and ideology, it is the moral responsibility of the nation of the United States to stand up for the rights of the less fortunate and oppressed. Never in the history of man has the allowed suffering of another nation, creed, race or religion resulted in anything other than millions of deaths and suffering; likewise neither has the ignored spread of hatred, socialism, Marxism, Nazism, Trotskyism or other form of sociopathic ideology or sociological theory left any positive remains in its wake.

Sarah Palin has vowed, in her own words, that there will be: “no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel,” further swearing, “Israel is our strongest and best ally in the Middle East. We have got to assure them that we will never allow a second Holocaust, despite, again, warnings from Iran and any other country that would seek to destroy Israel that that is what they would like to see. We will support Israel. A two-state solution, building our embassy, also, in Jerusalem, those things that we look forward to being able to accomplish, with this peace-seeking nation, and they have a track record of being able to forge these peace agreements.” Palin will immediately look to mend the relations so quickly crushed and thrown to the wind by the current administration.

Palin also will not allow for an unchecked, nuclear Iran. Considering the flaccidity of the current administration as it pertains to the Bushehr reactor debacle, in fact, Palin should have been in control of that issue from the beginning: “A leader like Ahmadinejad, who is not sane or stable when he says things like that, is not one whom we can allow to acquire nuclear energy, nuclear weapons… [Ahmadinejad] is downright dangerous because leaders like [him], who would seek to acquire nuclear weapons and wipe off the face of the Earth an ally like we have in Israel, should not be met with without preconditions and diplomatic efforts being undertaken first.” (WIKIPEDIA)

In closing it is fantastically imperative to reiterate one fundamental element of Sarah Palin’s political and personal persona: she is first and foremost a Christian. Second, and equally as important, she is a Constitutionalist. Defining those terms in the context of how she will lead a country requires one simple review of the Founding Fathers. She has never allowed religion to interfere with her duties as a servant to the people—ever. She has forever listened to the voice of the people—always. She has in all public duties eschewed obfuscation—consistently. She is the one true voice of the people—and so too have her soldiers, her armies, always been.

This city on the hill has grown dim. Sarah Louise Palin is the lantern to light that torch for the world to once again turn towards.

September 19, 2010 | 25 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

25 Comments / 25 Comments

  1. Felix is right.

    But of course, after Israel gets rid of the Americans they will have to get rid of the Irish.

    But with the Islamic Crusader in the White House and ashes in the wind, a little Palin Applaudin couldn’t hurt.

  2. There are so so many questions to answer there, for example how firm is this Shas party, as just one example.

    As long as they are paid well they are firm! Does that answer your question?

    For once Felix I tend to agree with you. See what happens when you leave Trotsky out of your comments?

  3. To me as an Irish man who supports Israel this is the strangest debate

    Why should Israel, supporters of Israel, and jewish people, look at all to the US power elites for a solution totheir problems.

    Madness is keeping on doing the same thing etc.

    in the time I have read israpundit and people like Ted, before it was Bush, before Reagan, then Sharon the great soldier came along.

    Now Ted is plugging Palin every chance.

    I have not studied Palin all that much nor am I going to.

    The interests of the US Government are totally separate from the interests of Israel. When people like Ted, Laura, Randy pick up onthese American personalities, then they are adding to the problem

    Which is:

    How can Israel become ideologically free from this American political game.

    Or Russian game, or Chinese game, or Cuban game.

    Think instead of this:

    If Israel, and the Netanyahu clique in Israeli politics, do what I believe they have to do and will do, that is at some point fairly soon strike Iran in Iran, then I think (???) the world changes.

    If I am wrong in that then it is also a world changer but one with dire consequences firstly for Israel, secondly for humanity.

    It is like 1933. The longer this direct military action (it always comes down to military) is put off then the more people die, and not just Jews either

    Many of these antisemitic Europeans who say to themselves iran is not SO bad, well they will die horrible deaths also

    As regards Palin, and this discussion on Palin, I just do not want to follow you. I really do not give a flying fucks rats ass about this. Is that plain enough.

    I think that Obama is the equivalent of having the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in the White House.

    But that is a good thing, a very good thing indeed.

    We do know the score and the 99 per cent of the Israeli people do know the score.

    Now if Palin was there, then there would be all this OSLO peace crap dredged up again and would Palin in those conditions ever criticize our “Peace partners”, that I doubt.

    It is better the way it is actually. Obama cannot move because the Israeli people have swung in large measure against OSLO.

    That is a great gain.

    the longer Obama is in power, the longer and more determined will be the opposition of Israelis to OSLO.

    That is decisive.

    The Serbs were never as united as are the Israeli people now and that is why they lost.

    I just wish Ted and yamit, who have good knowledge, would tell us more about these real issues that are happening inside Israel, and how these are reflected in Israeli politics.

    There are so so many questions to answer there, for example how firm is this Shas party, as just one example.

  4. ayn reagan said Palin had good instincts. Maybe she does but we can’t know till after the fact can we?

    Considering the facts as they are now, I’m willing to take a chance on an, ‘after the fact’. It can’t get any worse. At least I can believe Palin loves America and will try to strengthen the nation. Obama seems to hate everything that is good and is clearly working to destroy America.

    I’ll vote for her if she runs unless someone else throws in their hat that drives the media madder. I’m not stuck on Palin for president; gauge media hysteria, they will give away the best candidate.

  5. If you accept what the author writes would she not be a very capable president. Whether she is electable is another story.

    An anonymous 3rd party source? If you were not addicted to Palin would accept that information at face value as truth?

    I don’t reject it but do reserve some skepticism. Be that as it may there are others who fit that same description and none of it is evidence that he or she would make a good president. To tell the truth I don’t know who would make a good president knowing today the challenges they would face but I think I can tell who wouldn’t make a good president. I have said often here that were Palin nominated I would vote for her but I would add with a lot of trepidation.

  6. I tell everyone who writes to me to comment instead.

    Yamit. That article that I sent out confirms everything I have learned about Palin’s qualities and accomplishments. There’s not a false word there. That should be our starting point to factor in your facts. Reconcile the two but not by dismissing the former.

    If you accept what the author writes would she not be a very capable president. Whether she is electable is another story.

  7. Yamit. Aside from sexism, what do u think was driving her choices. You see it only on the level with whether they agree on all things. How much do you have to agree on to make the endorsement acceptable. Then there is the quesion of what her game plan is. Isn’t that the over riding consideration.

    One might expect a real conservative to stick to principles over personal expediency for gain. Compromising on those principles begs the question if she really is a conservative or just a political opportunist riding and even leading the conservative wave against the Liberal Democrats? O’Donnell was one of her few digresses from what the Republican party elite had chosen. You can’t for instance support Israel then turn around and support a bunch of anti Israel/anti-Semites. Against illegal immigration but supporting candidates pro illegal immigration. Against Iran getting the bomb but supporting a Female who is friends with Jesse Jackson and Ahmadinejad and is no conservative no less a Republican.

    In the end I always take pleasant to the ear statements by politicians with a large grain of salt and look deeply into their past actions as well as the present. As Charles Martel says sometimes what you really see is what you really get or a cigar can just be a cigar.

    ayn reagan said Palin had good instincts. Maybe she does but we can’t know till after the fact can we? We can though vet them by exposing everything we know or can find out about them before we need to make a final choice. Most of the Republican candidates that will declare have yet to do so. What’s your hurry?

  8. Yamit. Aside from sexism, what do u think was driving her choices. You see it only on the level with whether they agree on all things. How much do you have to agree on to make the endorsement acceptable. Then there is the quesion of what her game plan is. Isn’t that the over riding consideration.

    I received the following emails from the same person that you will agree with.

    Those are pretty words but I prefer to look at what people have DONE rather than what they SAY they’re going to do. It’s curious how she can endorse Lindsey Grahamnesty and John Flip Flop McCain. How can a person get behind Rand Paul with those beliefs? How can she donate to the Susan B. Anthony list which is headed by anti-Israel, Islamist sympathizer Jane Abraham?

    Newt Gingrich plays that game. If you look at his record, it doesn’t match his words. His actions have been liberal rather than conservative.

    Although he calls for banning shari’ah and purging “radical” Islam, Gingrich knows from his close friend Abu Grover Norquist that it is ISLAM that is the problem. Heck, he’s running for president. Got to talk the talk and walk the walk.

    Gingrich has always been more about smoke and mirrors. He pretends to be a conservative and sounds like a good one. But look at what he has DONE and NOT what he SAYS he is GOING TO DO.

    Is this a conservative?

    In 1979, Gingrich joined then-president Jimmy Carter in successfully working for the establishment of the U.S. Department of Education, a cabinet level department. The Department of Education was charged with generating funds for education and enforcing privacy and civil rights laws. In 1980, President Reagan fought against this government control of education and tried unsuccessfully to eliminate the DOE.

    Gingrich voted in favor of most favored nation status for Communist China.

    Gingrich is characterized as an internationalist who pushed for GATT and NAFTA.

    He has been a member of the Center for Foreign Relations since 1990. The CFR’s goal is to push the U.S. into world government by creating a world government and abolishing national independence.

    Gingrich recently appeared in a commercial with Nancy Pelosi decrying climate change (a.k.a. global warming).

    In 1995, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Gorbachev invited a number of global elitists, including Newt Gingrich, to his offices at the Presidio to “discuss the state of the world” and “new directions” for the “future of the nation state.”

    Gingrich has a very uneven record on illegal immigration, border control and amnesty.

    The donation to the Susan B. Anthony list, which is headed by anti-Israel Islamist sympathizer Jane Hershey Abraham (co-founder of “Team Sarah”) is concerning. Abraham is married to Lebanese Christian Spencer Abraham, the infamous Hizbollah enabler and CAIR supporter who defended Yasir Arafat.

    Essentially my response was why is Team Sarah and the Anthony List supporting her?

  9. You still did not address all the negatives I listed which are just a few of many I didn’t research. She may be everything you say but you are still ignoring the negatives so there is no balance in your support for her. Fox news gives her that level playing field. They also give Huckabee, Gingrich, Bolton, Brachmann and many others a public window. We should be in my opinion more critical and vet our choices as carefully as the time allows us.

    I am not happy with her choices and picks of candidates to support in the Nov. elections. You ignore it. You go for the sizzle and ignore the steak. That is disturbing.

    How can you state she was a great governor? Less than two years in office and 4 months campaigning then quitting? Would she quit the Presidency if things got too tough for her personally? I don’t have an answer but you don’t even address the question no less ask it.

    You were also a big Bush supporter and a BB advocate and you did the same shtick with them till the evidence was so damming you couldn’t any longer but I can’t remember you ever repudiating them personally. Policies yes but not the policy maker or executor.

    From Israels point of view based on all she has said she is still supporting Oslo and a two state solution. Everything else is fluff or amounts in the end to fluff. We here can’t take them to the Bank?

  10. Not quite Yamit. The key question we all must answer is who has best chance of defeating Obama. On the otherhand if the probable choice is anybody but Obama, then the question becomes, who will do what is best for the country.

    There are candidates in the Republican party such as Pence who might fit the bill best. I grant you that.

    But what I am trying to do is level the playing field. Palin isn’t the charactiture that is painted. We must give her an even chance to compete.

    From what I have read she is a natural leader and uncorruptable. She is also a quick study. She more than held her own with the oil execs. All the things she is fighting for now are mainsream. A poll was recently done with Independents who now by a big margin favour the Republicans. The policies that attract them are exactly the ones Palin has articulated.

    Palin is also the one best suited to lead the revolution. I think she will be as great a president as she was a governor.

  11. I see little difference between the blind adoration gushing, fawning of Palin than those on the left who did the same thing with Obama. The exact same criticisms that many if not most of you had with those who blindly supported Obama are doing much the same with Palin. You accept no criticisms of her and rationalize away any criticisms of her actions and positions to date, You emphasize always what you think and believe are her positives and suppress all negatives. Some even Cheer lead as if she were a pop idol or a sports team. This seems to me behavior in the religious revivalism genre and even if one did like Palin and might even support her this type of cheering and activism this early in the political cycle is not only to my mind premature it is a big turn off.

    I can imagine that there are many others who feel the same way. My gut tells me that rather than gain more support for Palin this excessive over the top Ra Ra, for Palin at this stage is more harmful to her than helpful.

  12. email

    I like Palin a lot, but she would sink the party and the opposition to Obama if she runs. There are a lot of really smart candidates available who have actually had experience in legislating….betting on Palin now is premature….especially if Hillary decides to challenge Obama in 2012…alas, as a debater Hillary would slam dunk Palin…..regards,

  13. email

    I’m not too excited about Sarah Palin.She will not answer clearly the Amnesty question.She says she does not believe in amnesty but believes in a “path to citizenship,”thats amnesty.She refuse to talk about her 2 sancurary cities(anchorage and fairbanks.She has endorsed the UN Sea Treaty.There are too many questions.We have to remember,it was John McCain who picke her as running mate.Don’t forget NAFTA.The CFR is current commemting on Palins speeches.
    I do agree with may of he on the issues you have mentioned.But most of the republicans seem to be right on the Isreal and social issues but not so strong on the Constitution.

  14. Ted Belman says:
    September 19, 2010 at 9:04 pm

    From someone who knew someone who worked with her over the years

    This is pretty much my personal assessment.

    yamit82 says:
    September 19, 2010 at 11:47 pm

    She backed McCain and Rand Paul which should have sent alarm bells across the bows of her most ardent supporters but they all flubbed it off. Look At who she supports rather than what she says. I think if she isn’t a phony she is hypocritical.

    I think she’s expedient, which is not always good. I also think she has the intelligence to correct course from past errors.

    I also think she did the right thing resigning as governor of Alaska in mid-term. Not only was she legally hounded and numbingly attacked by the left, she saw the big picture ahead of exactly what she’s doing now. All of this is highly interruptive to running a State in the Union.

    She has a tremendous potential to fix many things right, for all her faults. Usually we talk about the lesser of 2 evils. McCain versus Obama was a case in point. There was nothing good about the potential of McCain being president. I can’t say the same thing about Sarah Palin. She is not a lesser evil. She is a greater good than most of the other names you could throw out there as the next runners for the presidency. I would possibly prefer John Bolton but even he has tremendous faults and ignorance in foreign policy. Yes, mostly in his (lack of) understanding of Islam.

    No one is perfect. Not every one is evil. There are sides to take. Palin is someone on our side. The enemy are the idiots over there. Scroll to the extreme left to find them.

  15. The only problem I see is we don’t have enough Sara Palin’s. She represents what is good and the liberal left bastards in this country hate her for it.

  16. I thought only leftists make a big deal out of her quitting. I think it was the right move considering all the lawsuis and her ability to make a bigger national copntribution.

  17. Nevertheless she quit as governor halfway through her term. I think that does say something about her character. And it’s a terrific liability in the political arena.

    Have to agree with Andy.

    Who endorsed: Carly Fiorina? who is friends with Jesse Jackson, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a Barbra Boxer donor.. Etc. PALIN!! She abandoned conservative Devore for the Republican Party choice. Then there was Sarah Palin’s support for Ayotte, and that should be telling,LaMontagne was the real conservative who actually worked for a living as opposed to Ayotte a career politician. Ayotte is pro illegal immigration and is in favor of amnesty.

    Is Palin also sexist as she seems to favor women candidates no matter whether they are conservative or not?

    She backed McCain and Rand Paul which should have sent alarm bells across the bows of her most ardent supporters but they all flubbed it off. Look At who she supports rather than what she says. I think if she isn’t a phony she is hypocritical.

  18. Rove and Krauthammer are doing their bidding.

    Two absolutely loathsome individuals. They would prefer obama and the dems win then have a principled conservative Republican win. They are sell-outs, entrenched Washington insiders who were never true conservatives.

  19. From someone who knew someone who worked with her over the years

    CO. Hoosier, I’m not even sure that I can be classified as a “Palin fan”, but I am kind of an observer. An old school buddy of mine has worked within the Alaska legislature for the last twenty years or so. He’s a registered Democrat and has worked on projects that allowed him to cross paths with her going back when she was a city commissioner, as the mayor, and as the governor.

    He told me that the picture painted of her as a mindless ideologue is about 180 degrees off base. He said that over the years, he’d probably dealt with her a couple of dozen times and that her input and/or decisions were always supported by law and not by personal beliefs.

    The thing he told me about her that really peaked my interest of her was her ability to process information and then to quickly forge a plan with the information she was given. He said she was a living, breathing CPM chart. He said he had seen her on multiple occasions on a variety of subjects instantly absorb input from others and then respond with cogent solutions to problems. He said if you put her in a room with a bunch of people, the chances would be great that she’d be the smartest one in the room.

    He told me that when he saw her debacle with Katie Couric, his first thought was, “who is that Sarah Palin imposter?” He said that was not the Sarah Palin he had worked with for years. He was sure that the interview was highly edited. It came out later that there was almost six hours of the interview that people didn’t see.

    He told me that if I really wanted to get a feel of who she is and how she dealt with powerful people, I should read the book, “Sarah Takes On Big Oil”. It was released in October, 2008 and written by two of the state’s top oil & gas editors. The lady they described had no fear to stand toe-to-toe with heavyweights and leave them slinking away with their tales between their legs. She told them that she was the advocate of the citizens of Alaska and there would be no deal making that would adversely affect them. The big boys at Exxon-Mobile and BP folded like a cheap suit.

    One other thing he told me that still amazes him was how she managed to get people to work together. According to him, she could take two people with opposing opinions, sit down with them, listen to them, offer her solutions, and both guys would leave happy and not feeling that they had compromised their position at all.

    He laughed at the “she doesn’t read” meme. He said it is well known in the capitol that she was a voracious reader. She truly did read most of the national mags and newspapers, mostly on line, as well as a dozen or so energy trade magazines. According to him, there were stories about how she would take home stacks of papers and reports to prepare for a next-morning meeting and it was as if every word of those reports were stamped into her brain when she sat down at the meeting.

    He told me not to be fooled by her syntax or her colloquialisms because they were not a fair barometer of her smarts. He said if people would just listen and not try to read between the lines, she was easy to understand. He said he’d love to see her and Obama in a debate about energy or even healthcare. He said she’d clean his clock. He even said that if she were given a day or two to prepare for a debate on foreign affairs, his money would still be on her.

    He said she was the epitome of a leader. She assembled her staff, listened to their advice, allowed opposing ideas to be heard, and then acted accordingly. As a manager, she advocated making a plan based on the best info available, budgeting the plan, working the plan, measuring results, and quickly adjusting the plan if it was determined it wasn’t working as expected. She believed in the First Law of Holes.

    He thought her biggest struggles in the 2008 campaign were the product of trying to endorse McCain’s positions on issues. She was able to voice her dissenting opinion on ANWR because her views were known, but on everything else she was expected to toe the McCain line. He said that she lacked the ability to shovel crap and sell it as perfume.

    He reminded me that anyone who denies the accuracy of her “death panel” metaphor should go back and read her exact words, both her initial FB post and her rebuttal of Obama’s attack on her words. He said “read what she wrote, not what someone wrote or said what she wrote”. Her words in those posts have already been proven to be true.

    He said that “divisive” is not a word that should be used to describe her. He said that was just a simple use of Alinsky’s rule #13. He said, “look at all the issues. Her position is in line with the majority on virtually all of them”.

    He told me she wasn’t perfect, but if I read something or heard something that was negative, I should check it out a little closer. He shared a lot more, but I’m afraid I’ve already rambled on for too long.

    Should she run in 2012? I really don’t know. Would I vote for her? It depends who she’s running against. Will she drive the agenda if she doesn’t run? Yes, for a long time.