A very nice piece was posted by Race 4 2008 about how the author and people are realizing the media played a fast one on us about Sarah Palin. Obama was a complete fabricated fantasy presented to us by the media and so was The Governor. She is actually the person we new before McCain introduced her which was a popular and good Governor. In my view, she says what she means and means what she says, no games or ulterior motives. Her latest description of Obama is amazingly simple and insightful: “Obama is making the poor poorer.”
Again I come to you with an article about Sarah Palin. My turnaround regarding the former governor is perhaps as perplexing to you as it is to me. It is certainly so that the paradigm shift in the national dialogue and the sudden urgency that has arisen in the conservative base about the proper role of government has produced something of a change in what I perceive as a proper strategy. It has forced me to reassess what the practical should and could be — and the question of ends and means. But it is more than this, I think. It was certainly Palin’s Hong Kong speech that served as the catalyst for my soul-searching, but it is not that speech alone that has swayed my opinion. Upon evaluating her actions in the calendar year of 2009, I have come to the conclusion that I was honestly wrong about certain aspects of Palin.
When Sarah Palin resigned as governor, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal contended that her resignation had to do with how effective she could really be as governor while dealing with a barrage of frivolous ethics complaints. She essentially, in Fund’s words, was being paid to show up to work to defend herself. The state of Alaska was being drained of its time, money, and energy, and Palin determined that the overall costs of staying to fight outweighed the benefits of simply handing over the reins to now-Governor Parnell. For this, she was maligned as a quitter: if you’re a real fighter, then why don’t you stay around and, you know, fight? And the money wasn’t much, after all, in the grand scheme of things.
Doctor Zero at Hot Air provides the rebuttal that planted the seed within me to start warming up to Palin:
I don’t blame her for refusing to take any more personal or financial pounding from political operatives using Alaska’s odd government ethics system as a weapon. Some have said she was foolish to cite the cost to Alaskan taxpayers as a reason for her resignation, since it was a paltry two million dollars. To me, that doesn’t sound like a criticism – it’s a campaign slogan. Sarah Palin: She Still Thinks A Million Bucks Is A Lot of Money. If she runs for president in 2012, it will be against an incumbent who thinks a billion dollars of graft or waste is a rounding error in one of his big-government schemes. A lot of people will like the idea of voting for someone who doesn’t use rolls of taxpayer dollars to wipe the ink off their hands after signing legislation.
Indeed. Moreover, her newfound status as a national lightning rod made her a chief target for Alaska Democrats who wanted to earn a killing by taking her down. The maverick politician who once boasted a 90% approval rating was no more — and she could never come back in such an atmosphere. I have no reason to believe that Palin desired to govern as anything other than a pragmatic center-right Republican, and it’s rather, well, refreshing, in hindsight, to realize that there is actually a politician out there who would rather just get out of a system in which she can’t do anything productive.
Only a knave or a fool would think that she didn’t realize she’d be branded as a quitter. And yet, she decided that it wasn’t worth her blessed, almighty title to be ineffective. She stated in her resignation address that she could be more effective elsewhere: “Only dead fish go with the flow.”
She seems to have been vindicated. Her decision to leave certainly wasn’t nonsensical, in hindsight: she’s had a lot more of an impact on the national debate from behind her computer chair than she would have from the governor’s mansion. Just like she had more of an impact by resigning from the Oil and Gas Commission than by staying on it, the tool of resignation once again came in handy. From Facebook to Hong Kong, Palin’s words have echoed with force matched only by the president himself.
When Sarah Palin contends in her Hong Kong speech that we don’t want fixes, but rather freedom, it sends my classically liberal heart a-flutter. When she has the audacity to go after the third rail that is the Federal Reserve, my eyebrow raises, and not in a bad way. When she simultaneously condemns protectionism and the human rights record of China, I can’t help but clap my hands. Yeah, yeah, she had a speechwriter. Just like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Mr. Intellectual himself, President Obama. Is Sarah necessarily, strictly speaking, as intelligent as any of the three? Probably not. But what’s her ideology like? It seems to be a lot more like Barry Goldwater’s than Richard Nixon’s. If it turns out that we can’t beat Barack Obama, I’d rather send a message with Sarah Palin than with Mitt Romney.
Now, I’m not turning into John Ziegler or Kristofer Lorelli, here, but my opinion of Sarah Palin is now officially positive. Freed of the McCain campaign’s fumbling and often bizarre calculations, Sarah, I believe, can be set loose to do what she really wants to do. I eagerly await her next speech and her upcoming book. If she can sway me, she can sway others. Go get ‘em, Sarah!
Full Article At:
The author Alex Knepper can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org