« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Romney vs. Palin

By: Josh LeGuern (Diary)  |  March 13th, 2009 at 09:50 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Yes, yes, yes, I know, we need to focus on 2010, blah, blah, blah. I get it. Humor me though for a second, I want to see where conservatives stand in 2012 right now.

I’ll make no secret of my love for Sarah Palin, I LOVE that she’s not tainted by the system. She’s a genuine conservative because that’s the way she lives her life. Plus, she’s someone whom all three branches of the conservative movement (fiscal, social, defense) like or at least have a respect for her because of what she endured from the media. The social conservative branch probably agrees with Romney but remains skeptical because of his support for abortion rights until late 2006 (right before he announced his presidential ambitions) and as much as I like Romney (and I do) I can’t help but shake his lack of authenticity. I’d probably trust Romney with the economy much more than I would trust Palin, but I just don’t know if I would trust Romney overall.

So put me in camp Palin for now, but we’ll have to see where the 2012 primaries lead us? Please reply “Romney” for Mitt Romney and “Palin” for Sarah Palin, leave any comments you would like.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    you could have avoided writing the rest and turning it into a diary (which is really an open thread comment rather than a diary). Yes it’s far too early to start picking favorite candidates for 2012.

  • Illinicon

    I mean he was the first one to start proposing baling out Detroit during the Michigan Primary and was a vocal supporter of TARP.

    • AceInTX
  • azaeroprof

    I like Romney ok, but he really didn’t resonate in ’08. And that was against Mr. Squishy Republican himself. And even though I personally wouldn’t hesitate to vote for him despite my disagreement with his religion, there are enough people who would to make him, IMHO, unelectable. Maybe as veep, though.

    • AceInTX

      Romney is Wrong and a phony…aything about his Religion is just noise!

  • Deskpilot

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.
    One of my great “political potential” tests is the introduction. As in a business or social situation, when you are FIRST introduced to someone, that’s when your first impression forms. In mere moments, your gut tells you whether this new individual in your circle if worthy of your time and energy to further develop a realtionship with. You know it to your core.
    Some whom you meet, your gut says, “I’m not judging this one quite yet, let’s see where it goes.”
    Then, thankfully, there are this few who force you to run to say your prayers to the porcelain god. you want NO part of them, and then you go around looking for someone or something to make you feel better.

    Palin: Warmth eminates from every pore os her inner AND outer beuaty and strength. Stick with her, WELL worth the investment, Even if it doesn’t work out, you’re the better person for the experience of meeting her.

    McCain, Romney, Huckabee, and the like: It may not have been the ideal first date, but with a little effort on the part of me and them, there’s some potential.

    Obama, Biden, Clinton(s) et al: I would rather drive in a NASCAR race in shorts and a T-shirt. At least there’s a doctor that can heal me form that kind of exposure. There is no greater risk of involvement that LIBERALS.

    RS’ers and RSSF, I’ll share a cold adult beveragewith you ANYTIME, ANYPLACE.

  • AceInTX

    Of course she could change it by some particularly egregious misstep or going off the deep end for some left wing cause…but I don’t see anyone currently in Republican circles who can change my mind!

  • Rod_Patrick

    But……… I don’t think so………………….

    still, I go for Palin.

    Jindal made it clear that he wouldn’t run for POTUS by 2012.

  • alanh

    Nominating Sarah Palin would be disastrous for GOP.

    Yes, I know, the media attacks on her were vicious and unfair. And yes, she may be more genuine in her conservative beliefs than Mitt Romney. But folks, we’re talking about the leader of our party, and potentially, that of the country. Both as a businessman and executive Romney has proven to be a highly competent leader. This is the man who could’ve gotten us out of the recession which will only deepen under Obama. Romney is the kind of president, who, while not Lincoln or Washington, would keep America safe and strong.

    Sarah Palin is energetic, appealing and strong. But quite simply, she does not have the experience or the intellectual foundation that are necessary for leading the free world. Katie Couric and Gibson staged ugly ambushes for her during the interviews. But I truly wish she was able to name a SINGLE NEWSPAPER which she read on a daily basis. No, our presidents do not have to be book worms or college professors. But Palin’s lack of knowledge was obvious to anyone who watched her painfully struggle with even some of the pedestrian questions that came her way. Without palpable intellectual foundation, Palin cannot and will not be ready to make hard decisions on the issues that will come accross her desk. She will inevitably rely on advisors who may or may not make the right call. At the end, the majority of the American people (mostly, independents) saw that Palin was woefully unprepared and turned away from McCain.

    Let me be abundandtly clear: I believe Obama is a Manchurian candidate whose policies will undermine American security and prsoperity. A person of his caliber should have never been the president of the United States. The only way we will send him packing in 2012 is by presenting an anti-Obama alternative. And with her plethora of family problems, accomplishment shortages, and obvious lack of intellectual curiosity, Palin is not it.

    She’s a good conservative. But not a presidential material. There is a difference!

    • Jack_Savage

      Please, once and for all, I pray.
      Amen.

      • janis

        Something along the lines of :

        “We acknowledge your submission but find we do not need another lame-brained rant about Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. We find your newsletter dull and repetitive and we are not interested in being on your mailing list.

        With no regards whatsoever–Happy Bunny”

        • Mike gamecock DeVine

          later

          smile

          but seriously, God has provided the way to be spared from such

          ignore it

          and if you want to be able to reply without much effort, simply link to a previous refutation

          return later when I send the lad or lass into a corner crying in the fetal position….

          • janis

            on this subject. It’s boring to keep doing it, particularly when the poster here uses nothing new and interesting to argue with, just the same old tripe about how ignorant Sarah Palin must be.

            I’ll be interested to see if you find something new to say in response to the usual stupid remarks from the poster above.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            http://www.redstate.com/joshleguern/2009/03/13/romney-vs-palin/#comment-329

          • janis

            above, alanh, are not interested in having their view of Gov. Palin changed, they are looking to have them endorsed, or they are trying to get a fight started. Have seen both, not in interested in seeing them again, particularly not at this point.

            What I AM interested in at this point is figuring out a way to still have a free and sovereign nation under my feet when the next POTUS election comes around. Besides copious amounts of prayer, you got anything for that endeavor?

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            I can’t count the times I have engaged libs in public and had people come up to me afterwards, either than day or days or weeks later and tell me that I helped change their mind as they followed the arguments.

            There are many “theys” out there.

            Janis, Cain’t never could do nothing.

            I was one over by seeing conservatives refute lib arguments.

            The Founders figured out a way to have a free country. Free speech followed by elections.

            My free speech has won over many voters for our positions and your can too.

          • janis

            Because you sound ineffably cheerful and optimistic. :-) I’m usually optimistic, too. Remember that I’m the one who thought without a doubt that the voters could see Fred Thompson’s obvious qualifications for the job and would do the right thing? And I truly believed that the American electorate would be able to see right through Obama’s bs and elect a man who, while full of his own brand of bs, would be a lot better for America than Captain Hooey.

            The guy who posted above about Gov. Palin is not a lib, at least not according to the only other comment he has posted in the short time he’s been on RedState. I’m more than willing to stand up and argue with the other side, but I’m tired of fighting with my own side, particularly about who’s going to be the standard bearer in 2012. We are only 50 something days out from the inauguration and I don’t recognize my country, Mike. That’s the fight I want to have right now.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            ginger ale!
            But yes, despite the woeful recent play of the Gamecocks that may well cost them a berth in March Madness, I am quite cheerful and optimistic. Why?

            My legal business has been up for several weeks now and the prospects are good for the foreseeable future. I have landed a 5-column/year gig for the AJC in addition to my two other paid writing gigs.

            Also, I am confident that the public displays of incompetence and advocacy of policies anathema to American values by democrats is educating a recession inspired attentiveness by voters that bodes well not only for 2010, but also for actually defeating some of Obama’s initiatives this year, esp the carbon tax fronts.

            I see dems in congress moving against Obama on the carbon issue; global warming becoming a national joke and vindication of my 6-week old assertions that Bank of America was a strong company that will make it.

            Opening Day of baseball season is only 3 weeks away.

            I do understand your disdain for tiresome debates over 2012 in 2009. I agree. But I am on one of my manic depressive highs! And I do think that its useful to refute lib arguments even when made by non-libs when we can, to try and persuade onlookers if not the opponent in debate.

            Now, I may have a Southern Comfort Whiskey Sour on you!

        • Jack_Savage

          It’s like hitting your thumb with a hammer for the tenth time.

    • Rod_Patrick

      Palin disastrous.

      Jindal not ready yet for primetime.

      Romney couldn’t even make his speech standout in CPAC (over Rush.)*

      Cornyn …..

      Newt ….

      Sanford …..

      Cantor ….

      Christ ….

      .
      .
      .
      .

      .
      .
      .

      Spectre ….

      and

      Snowe …..

      “….” = = Blah blah blah blah

      *My bad. I forgot Romney topped the CPAC’s straw poll in 3 straight years.

      • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

        but I don’t think he’s interested considering he has a whole world to concern him. ;-)

        • Rod_Patrick

          And you got it right, girl.

          Even Chr*st won’t be READY for the job based on the reason that you have just given.

          And that’s my whole point.

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            If you had meant Crist, I would have been telling you to get that soap out again,

            :-)

          • Rod_Patrick

            At least, I’ve saved myself from another mouthwashing with soap.

            I was really thinking of him., you know. (And yeah. I couldn’t swallow him. either. LOL!)

            But common, lady! Crist is not really that bad.

            He’s just trying to look like bipartisan in order to win the election for the republicans ….. you know…. the Steele thing…. a hip hop GOP!

            Bwa ha ha ha!

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            Is one who says that he or she is for returning states their rights that have been usurped by the federal government.

            I don’t think we have one who is interested in that.

          • Rod_Patrick

            But unlike you, I already have an idea of that “he or she”.

            I just hope that “he or she” will become MORE VOCAL in the next few months about it.

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            However, poliltics being what they are, I’m still waiting for one to rise to the top in spite of the machinations of the RINOS.

          • Rod_Patrick

            You can ask him if you want to.

          • randy streu

            n/t

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            but he wasn’t sufficiently interested in the job. Unlike during Washington’s time, the electoral process is not conducive to saying, “Yes, you will serve as president because you are the only one who can lead us at this time.” ( yes, I know that’s an exaggeration, but who cares when it’s close to what we would have had to do?)

          • janis

            to think of what could have been, isn’t it? Obama isn’t the anti-Christ, but he sure qualifies as the anti-Fred!

          • randy streu

            Good Lord… all this stuff with Russia and Iran… China owning our debt… our utterly feeble foreign relations — not to mention the cabinet disaster. It does become a challenge, at times, not to dwell on it. Sometimes, I think about how differently everything could be going — how it could be handled Oh, so differently, and I confess, it does put a bittersweet smile on my face. *sigh*

            But enough about that. Steph is quite right, at least in one major respect: we need to find the guy/lady with those principles, and who has the will and charisma to raise an army of us to fight with him.

          • Achance

            America post-Civil War is to America pre-Civil War as the Roman Empire was to the Roman Republic. From the end of The War onward you had a nationalization of Government. First, it cemented federal ownership and control over vast expanses of territory in The West, territory the US still largely controls and owns. Nationalization of “internal improvements” in the states beginning with the TransContinental Railroad and continuing today with the proposed Super Grid dramatically changed the way resources, revenue and wealth were distributed.

            The die was cast with the nationalization of much of the Country’s productive capacity in WWI which was then realized as a permanent state with the New Deal. Fast forward to the War on Poverty which had equality of outcome as its primary goal in the guise of ending the underclass status of Blacks. Throw in a little federally mandated environmentalism and some federally controlled educational content and so forth and that federal republic that the Founders envisioned is really only the stuff of misty-eyed romantics. We can strive for more localism and fight the encroachments, but we have a National government and despite the Founders and the Constitution, states are in practice mere political subdivisions of the federal government.

    • Mike gamecock DeVine

      “experience”.

      Palin’s “lack of knowledge” was not obvious but your resort to pedestrian, sophomoric conclusions without foundation is obvious.

      Would an anti-Obama alternative be pro-life, strong on defense, for oil drilling and nuclear power, for lower taxes, for less spending? Would it help if they had been a governor that negotiated a pipeline treaty with a foreign nation? How about a history of exposing corruption in both parties?

      And how about a candidate whose entry onto a national ticket in a prior race coincided with a rise in the polls and into the lead just before her ticket partner blew the election by favoring a $750 billion bailout that she opposed?

      Would a previously divorced candidate estranged from some of his children be disqualified? (see Reagan)

      more later

      • randy streu

        Thing of beauty, GC.

        • Mike gamecock DeVine

          I was disappointed with her having her child go on TV to play Jerry Springer games. But, I really resent these anti-intellectual claims as I see them as the same as was said about Reagan, Bush and Ike and also often the result of anti-Southern, or anti-accent and/or elitist bigotry. I had seen palin on CSpan several times before 2008 and found her to bequite informed and correct on most issues.

          She is well qualified lead us. She shares the right values, is rightn on the issues and understands good and evil in the world and what we must do to keep it.

          • randy streu

            even if they don’t number into the astronomic digits they do in the Dem party. Evidently, if you don’t use four syllables where one would suffice, you just don’t ‘cut the mustard.’

            To them I say, my vocabulary probably outshines their own on their best day, but why use large and unnecessary words, when a simple “bite me” will get the job done?

          • David Hinz

            I wish I had a dollar for every time that phrase has been used on me. Or, for that matter, for the number of times I have used it in return.

            It has a certain succinct satisfaction in its use…

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            You’d be a very rich man indeed. :-)

          • Doc Holliday

            In fact, all you need is to not be in love with Palin. I think we are putting the cart before an entire string of horses. Are we trying to turn Palin into the next Thompson? Is she to be the ONLY choice for a percentage of our party long before there is a primary?

            Call me elitist, anti-elitist, or just Doc, but I am focused on 2010 and halting the socialist leviathan.

          • randy streu

            but in order to have the sort of elitist attitude toward her we were referring to here, you do. That attitude that she’s somehow unintelligent, based solely on the fact that she doesn’t speak like a law student.

            The point I’m personally trying to make is that we certainly shouldn’t be out aiming at our own people right now. Whether you want them to run for POTUS or not.

          • Doc Holliday

            and since liberals have called all modern Republican presidents dumb we will never get the “intellectual” vote anyway. I have nothing against Palin, I hope she is in the mix and competes well. Right now our party needs fixing imo.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • Doc Holliday

            before posting. I was just throwing my 2 cents in at what a thought was an appropriate place, next time I will read the directions first lol. :)

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            that is just wrong! I speak of the one above that is denegrating Palin though it appears they are a repub and conservative. I so closely associate liberals with being wrong that I have made it a synonym.

          • Doc Holliday

            nt

          • redneck_hippie

            and we call them wrong. Wrong trumps stupid in my book. Forrest Gump could do a better job running the country than The Novelty President because Forrest would listen to reason and use common sense.

      • ocleverone

        Spot on!

        • Mike gamecock DeVine
    • David Hinz

      Ya know what? I get sick and tired of people denigrating Conservative leaders, and telling us how THEIR candidates are the smartest people in the room.

      President Carter was a nuclear engineer and President Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. President BHO was editor of the Harvard Law Review. Brilliant all — total failures in policy!

      Ya know what? Tell us all about how qualifies YOUR guy is, without attacking other Republicans. If you can make your case — great! If you can’t do it without attacking other Republicans — you don’t have much of a case, now do you?

      • David123

        nt

  • redneck_hippie

    the only candidate I know who leaves me wanting more.

    Good as gold, indeed.

    • Rod_Patrick
  • alanh

    Whoah! I didn?t realize I?d be kicking up such a storm and so many people would be offended by what I thought was only a slightly bold message. I apologize to fellow RedStaters who were offended by my post. Starting an intra-fight was the farthest from my intentions. But I do think it?s important that we come up with a sound strategy to defeat socialists on the opposing camp. To be concise, I want our side to win!

    Now, I have enormous respect for Governor Palin. I was quite impressed when she gave her opening speech standing next to McCain. I also adored her speech at RNC. But as the subsequent events proved, while she gave a significant boost early in the game to McCain, ultimately, the ticket went down in defeat. Of course, several factors, independent of Palin, contributed to that defeat. But one must admit, in times of severe economic crisis, her impromptu interviews and the deer in headlight moments didn?t exactly instill confidence in the electorate. Of course, she?d be a million times better president than Barack Obama, even if she didn?t do anything, but many voters don?t look at elections through our right-left prism. That is unfortunate, but it is the reality. Which is why a fraud like Obama was able to talk his way to presidency. Radical underneath, Obama came through as an unflappable, confident, and YES, moderate, person. At some point over 50 percent of the Americans concluded that he looked presidential enough. And that is the hardest hurdle for most candidates ? the ability to convince voters that he or she is made out of presidential material.

    The next four years will bring many changes ? most quite negative. Along with these developments, the internal Republican dynamics will also change. It is entirely possible that some new candidates will emerge out of nowhere, just as Sarah Palin did. But what will not change is the economic state of affairs. Under Obama, the stock market will not substantially recover. His war against capitalism will ensure that America will continue to experience high unemployment, bear markets and probably, inflation, given the amount of money that is about to be injected into the economy. By then, the American people will be tired of Obama shenanigans and will likely regret for having taken a chance on someone with shaky record and no experience. All GOP needs to do at that point is to nominate someone who looks capable and competent enough to fix things. Some in this forum believe Sarah Palin is such person. I respectfully disagree. I believe that person is Mitt Romney. He possesses most of the right ingredients for successful presidency, even if not all the ideological credentials.

    One more thing: Let?s take it easy with calls for censorship in this forum. Drowning out dissent is not the best way to move forward. It?s not the Republican way. And certainly not the American way.

    • Mike gamecock DeVine
    • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

      McCain went down in defeat. So why is Mitt Romney a better choice? And why do you blame McCain’s defeat on Palin when she is all that boosted McCain in the days before the election? McCain defeated McCain, and not because of Palin. McCain also defeated Romney and everybody else.

      It may be Palin in 2012. It may be somebody else. The problem is not really who at the moment but what do we want in the one who does come forward? Talking about a particular person at this point is like putting the cart before the horse. With the right message, we’ll get the right person. So, how about we concentrate on the message and what is expected to have conservative backing than who the candidate will be?

    • davo119

      If it is then Palin is going to be the odds on favorite. Four years of lies treachery and deceit combined with absolute and utter incompetence capped by rampant corruption will fundamentally change the face of the electorate. I really hope conservatives are ready for what’s coming.

  • KCarpenter

    This is about leadership and making good decisions. Decisions that will be good decisions 10 years from now. I see that happening for Governor Palin. Decisions such as the gas line that will feed America’s energy needs for the next 50,60,70 years. She also forward funded education to ensure that many of Alaska children will get the quality education they need for the future. Stashing 5 billion dollars into a savings account will get the state of Alaska through this horribly economy.

    Our leaders need not only to be able to deal with the problems we are facing on a daily basis but still be able to look into the future and make sure the decisions they are making will still be good decisions 10 years from now.

    Mitt Romney? See RomneyCare. It has been only three years since the signing of universal health care in Massachusetts and they system is in severe trouble. It is hundreds of millions of dollars over budget and is not yet three years old.

  • http://www.theotherworsham.blogspot.com toddworsham

    She is not ready now to be president and she wont be ready when 2012 rolls around. The fact is she needs to get more experience under her belt. Its nice to run as vice president and be able to say you are currently the most popular governor in America but there needs to be more to her resume. How bout in 2020? More over how bout she runs in 2020 from the position of the most popular Senator in Alaskan history, and maybe while shes in the senate she can get a seat on a committee to help her beef up her foreign policy experience.

    I agree run Sarah run, but when shes ready. What we don?t need is for Sarah Palin to become the candidate that makes a run of it all to often only to be faced with failure again and again. We criticized P-bo for not having adequate experience to be POTUS and yes Sarah Palin had more experience than he did, but would you really be comfortable with Sarah Palin as POTUS?

    I wouldn?t, not in 2012 at least, she needs to hold onto the things that make her great not, i.e. her lack of all the qualities that make me consider nearly EVERY politician a prostitute, and at the same time become more of a Washington insider. Now most people would read that sentence and say that?s impossible, but nothing is impossible especially for a great leader. Sarah Palin needs to bide her time beef up her resume, stay above the fray in Washington, and then chose the right moment to strike while the iron is hot.

    Id bet my entire life savings, in gold, that if Sarah runs in 2012 she will lose, I don?t consider myself a pessimist I am a realist. If you don?t like it, let me know.

  • Achance
  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    Biden has a lot of the senate version of such experience and is wrong on most issues. Reagan had none and was right. Same with Bush. Would Kerry have been better? no

    see the point

  • David123

    And I would be very comfortable with President Sarah Palin.

    Sarah Palin would know enough to avoid insulting the British prime minister. And she knows Alaska history; and if you know Alaska history, you know the importance of peace through strengh. In 1942, Alaska was invaded and Alaskans were dragged out of their houses to perform forced labor. Sarah Palin knows history. And she knows that “victory” must be a word in your vocabulary when you’re discussing war.

    Neville Chamberlain had a vast and distinguished government career prior to becoming prime minister. He looked like he was READY, but he really wasn’t READY to be prime minister; he didn’t have the temperment for it.

  • Rod_Patrick

    We all know that even Lincoln was inexperienced too when he started.

    But what we need is a quick-learner and somebody who can make his/her decisions stand out from all the ‘whispers’ of consultants, lobbyists, the Congress, etc.

    I think Sarah has that special ability. And she has shown a strong moral responsibility of owning the outcome of her own decisions, whether good or bad.

    This video is just an example of what I really love from Sarah: Enthusiasm and Optimism that I only found from Prez. Ronnie..

    Go Sarah!