Just So’s You Know…

…not all the contributors here are willing to write Palin off.

I respect geoff more than words can say, and ND is a powerhouse, but I think I have to respectfully disagree.

It seems to me that it was seriously intended that people of good character and strong principle would stand for office here in the republic. While it is reasonable to expect that these candidates should be able to speak intelligently about the issues that they will face if elected, policy is only part of the picture. For the Framers to establish the government they did, they necessarily understood that it meant that our elected officials would not be drawn from the same class or group of “experts”. They understood that if it was going to work, than it wasn’t always going to be led by leaders of such stature as they; it is implicit in the lack of such qualifications for the offices set forth in the Constitution. They didn’t say that the candidate must have attended a certain school, or be from a certain professional background. Age, and in the case of the President, a natural-born citizen. That’s it.

Either by habit, or by subtle design, it seems to me that we have fallen into the pattern of only looking to either candidates with the “right” pedigree for a leader (such as an Ivy League education) or some sort of “policy” expertise or professional background, that by its very nature, hampers flexibility and a fresh approach to issues, because the candidate starts any analysis with the premises that have already been in use for decades inside the beltway. These premises tend to all lead to the same place, with the traditional distinction being either the fast track to ruin, or a slower path to the same destination, based on which lever you pull in the voting booth. I am at a loss to understand why this is acceptable. We wouldn’t accept this in any other part of American life.

New technologies and new advances come because we accept the input from people in different settings and walks of life, and the different backgrounds and the fresh perspectives are what drive ingenuity. So why do we accept the limits that others would place on us, by telling us that this woman is too dumb, or too inexperienced, or too provincial to possibly perform the duties of President? If these were legitimate limits, than Abe Lincoln would have been an impossibly irredeemable candidate, and while he did some things that do not set well with me as a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar, I don’t see how that takes away from his character or leadership ability. Was he polarizing? Yes. Was his candidacy divisive? Hell yes. But he refused to let others define him, and I see that in Governor Palin, as well. What ever definition the media places on her, it is the consumer who decides if that means anything.

In my short life, I have never seen any political figure treated the way she has been. And I have never witnessed anyone so relentlessly pursued in private life. And it seems to me that it isn’t because they want us to pick her because they think they can beat her. I think it is because she is the opposite of everything they hold dear, and they know it, and that she represents the best chance we will have in a long time to break their hold on power.

There is a real opportunity here. For the first time, maybe in years, we, the poor saps who actually cast the votes, have the chance to actually vote for character and conservatism as a clear alternative to a mediocre candidate with all the right credentials and all the same answers that have been applied before. It requires us to have the courage to vote for that candidate, rather than seeking the safe choice with the candidate who is ‘electible’. ‘Electible’ means someone who fits someone else’s criteria, and not our own. Yes, you might get that coveted “w” in the column on election day, but that is playing checkers against opponents who are playing chess. They’ll sacrifice pawns, if it helps to get them to the greater goal. (see Clinton, Hillary.) I think the fact that a community organizer with two (TWO!) biographies by 40 and a paper-thin resume’ and history of voting “present” in the White House is evidence of that.

I don’t want regimented thinking in the Oval Office anymore. I don’t want any more Ivy League lawyers who believe that nothing is beyond their expertise. I want someone who has integrity. I want someone who doesn’t shy away from a fight, and refuses to have other people tell them HOW to think. I want someone who is willing to lead not one segment of society, but our entire nation. If Sarah is the best candidate to do this, then she gets my vote, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to just let the self-appointed cognoscenti decide for me, nor am I willing to let myself be bullied by the self-appointed deciders on our side of the aisle either.

About these ads

18 Responses to “Just So’s You Know…”

  1. geoff Says:

    Oh – now it’s on like Donkey Kong!

    But seriously, this is a perfectly reasonable position – I’ve known some very academically-smart people who were a disaster at getting anything accomplished, or even making a decent decision. But I’d still rather have someone who is like Chris Christie on the New Jersey budget – both absolutely conversant with the facts and capable of taking a firm stand.

    I should add one more advantage to your non-Ivy Leaguer approach: people like Sarah Palin are a lot less likely to talk down to the people and lecture them at every opportunity.

    I have never seen any political figure treated the way she has been.

    I absolutely agree. Charles Manson wasn’t treated the way she was.

    Like

  2. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:

    I should add one more advantage to your non-Ivy Leaguer approach: people like Sarah Palin are a lot less likely to talk down to the people and lecture them at every opportunity.

    You noticed that about the Lecturer-In-Chief too?

    Like

  3. Lily Says:

    I want to thank you BIC for writing this post. I agree with you. “If Sarah is the best candidate to do this, then she gets my vote, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to just let the self-appointed cognoscenti decide for me, nor am I willing to LET MYSELF BE BULLIED BY THE SELF-APPOINTED DECIDERS ON OUR SIDE OF THE AISLE EITHER.”
    I have never been so scared for my country, children, grandchildren and the freedoms I have known and cherish in my life. I see Sarah Palin standing strong and fighting back and I take hope and courage to keep fighting too.

    Like

  4. Ron Hontanosas Says:

    This is an excellent insight. Sarah holds strong to all the lies and accusations thrown against her.

    Like

  5. R. J. Sterling Says:

    What kind of damned fool are you? You natter on about $$$arah and then you say you want to elect a person of integrity? You have read nothing of her history if you can say that; she’s thoroughly corrupt as well as ignorant.

    Like

  6. Brian Spotswood Says:

    It does not follow that somebody will talk down to people merely because they are educated. This is more to do with attitude than it is intellect and education.

    President Clinton, for example, came from very humble beginnings and I don’t believe he ever forgot that.

    This idea of the intelligentsia is a ruse, a notion of dismissing the intelligentsia. But it comes straight out of Mao Tse Dong’s playbook, so take note of who you’re emulating when you castigate the intelligentsia.

    Dictators are afraid of academics and others of high intelligence because these are the groups most likely to dissent.

    Palin certainly does not represent the intelligentsia. In her lack of education and worldly knowledge, she could be said to represent the proletariat. In some respects one might say she bears a resemblance to President Lech Walesa of Poland. He was a charismatic leader with no higher education, who struggled against communism. Yet she lacks the scope of his vision, and her incendiary style is more suited to a revolution than a peacetime democracy. Winston Churchill would never have made it into power if not for the World War II. If things really blow up in Egypt maybe Palin will have her day yet.

    But as president of a normal, well-adjusted society? No I just don’t see that.

    Like

  7. Tweets that mention Just So’s You Know… « Nice Deb -- Topsy.com Says:

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by R. J. Sterling and Avalon Light, Sarah Storm Report. Sarah Storm Report said: BLOG: #tcot #nra Just So's You Know… http://dlvr.it/FX7QY #teaparty #tlot #rs #palin12 #spwbt #sgp [...]

    Like

  8. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:

    What kind of damned fool are you?

    The kind who who views empty allegations like yours with pity, because you haven’t even demonstrated yourself worthy of contempt.

    Like

  9. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:

    This is more to do with attitude than it is intellect and education.

    True, and more often than not, I see demonstrated by politicians, pundits, and reporters on the left. (see Obama, Barack, any speech on “civility”)

    This idea of the intelligentsia is a ruse, a notion of dismissing the intelligentsia.

    Not really. One need only randomly chose a lecture at most of our institutions of higher indoctrination or peruse Slate magazine to find the condescending, chin-stroking “I’m an expert so you have to listen to me, you ignorant peasants” attitude that so aptly illustrates what I’m referring to.

    But as president of a normal, well-adjusted society? No I just don’t see that.

    Brian, I think we’ve told you before, this isn’t Europe. The people here don’t fit into your nice pidgeon-holed classifications. And I thank God for it every day. This is a place that put an emphasis on government by the citizenry, not by nobility. The result has been horrifying to the rest of the world. I get it. I also wouldn’t live anywhere else, because I would rather elect someone like me than be subject to rule by someone who thinks they are my better. If that doesn’t sound like a well-adjusted society to you, then you still don’t understand the society we have.

    Like

  10. veeshir Says:

    In her lack of education and worldly knowledge,

    She’s plenty educated, just not at the right schools.

    As for worldly knowledge, yeah, we hear that all the time about Republicans.
    “Worldly knowledge” seems to be code words for, “Doesn’t think EUnuchs and commies are superior”, like, oh…say… our almost first French POTUS in 2004.

    Our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country on the face of this Earth for a reason.
    Those countries suck and their masters think that the Constitution is a quaint document that keeps gov’t from doing what it should be doing.

    I’d prefer an American-centric outlook from an American president.

    Like

  11. warlord Says:

    I’d crawl over broken glass to hear Sarah speak. She is the
    bravest politician I have ever seen, with an aura of normalcy
    missing in the male objects presented to us as possible
    presidential contenders. Together with Michelle Bachmann,
    I’d mail them my pension in a heart beat. Never mind the disaster of the first black president, vote for the woman who would become Madame President. Sarah Palin.

    Like

  12. T D Says:

    “If Sarah is the best candidate to do this, then she gets my vote, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to just let the self-appointed cognoscenti decide for me, nor am I willing to let myself be bullied by the self-appointed deciders on our side of the aisle either.”

    Pure nectar. Thank you.

    There were voices against Reagan in 1980. They said he was not good at details or policy, had been out of office and not done anything substantial for five years, was too conservative and too old to be elected, and we needed to look for a candidate with a real chance. However, the “inside” attacks were nothing like the attacks today against Palin. But, we had William F. Buckley, Jr., then, and his support was a buffer against the worst of untoward sniping That’s why Buckley’s personal welcoming of Rush Limbaugh to the leadership circle of the conservative movement kept Limbaugh from being hurt much by friendly fire from first or second tier conservative pundits.

    A real chance at election happens when a real campaign is waged. And, if you believe the polls, sometimes only won in the last days before an election (with a surprising 8% gain in 1980).

    People become presidential when they become president. Whether it’s uneducated, duelist Jackson; back woods story teller Lincoln or “Give ‘em hell” Harry, they redefine the office rather than being pre-molded for it.

    In terms of courage, clear convictions, and the ability to act in the face of withering opposition, I think Palin already stands up well in the company of some of the great presidents.

    Like

  13. miguel cervantes Says:

    It really does get tiring, when one only read’s one portion of her long discussions on ‘death panels’ and then chides us for not knowing the basic facts on such an issue,

    Like

  14. nicedeb Says:

    Looks like Ace has the exact same take on Palin that I have:

    http://minx.cc/?post=311581


    The winner of an election will always be a figure who can unite both his base, with at least a fair amount of enthusiasm, and the persuadable independents and moderates. Always. Any candidate whose appeal is to only one side or another is going to lose. Period. Always. (Barring a very weird situation where his rival also has the exact same limitation, in which case I guess it’s a toss-up, advantage Democrats, because they control the media.)

    My problem with Sarah Palin is not and has never been that she’s a strong conservative. My problem with her is that she seems to have no ability to persuade those critical swing voters we can get in a winning year.

    That’s why I was big on Pence, before he announced he wasn’t running; in theory, on paper, he seemed like he could get the conservative base and maybe also get the right-leaning independent voters too.

    Any winning candidate has to do both. I grow frustrated by conservatives who encourage candidates to continue pitching their message only to the base. Why? To what end? So that Barack Obama can be reelected?

    Like

  15. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:

    I wasn’t aware that Ace’s position on Palin was in doubt.

    Like

  16. nicedeb Says:

    In doubt by whom?

    I for one didn’t realize he had virtually the same take on her as me.

    Like

  17. alwaysfiredup Says:

    “in theory, on paper, he seemed like he could get the conservative base and maybe also get the right-leaning independent voters too.”

    In theory, on paper, Palin can get independents. Nate Silver put up a post this week labeling Huckabee as more moderate than Palin. This is lunacy; social issues are how the Left evaluate the Right, and Palin is much more socially moderate than Huck. But people by and large don’t know this yet; instead Palin is teh Ultra-rightwinger. Let the campaign happen; her actual positions, once known, should be able to attract moderates and possibly some more women.

    Like

  18. alwaysfiredup Says:

    I need to stop using so many semicolons…

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Blog Stats

    • 4,709,906 hits
  • free counters
  • Is your cat plotting to kill you?
  • Follow Nice Deb on WordPress.com
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 554 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: