A Conservative’s Three-Point Case Against Sarah Palin

“Palin is an “agent of intolerance,” as misguided and mean-spirited, it seems, as Rev. Wright.”

Pete,

Perhaps your bosses looked beyond “Salon” for their information.

I couldn't even look at Salon, as it is a 'premium' link. Is there an open link available that has whatever information you want us to see?

Dan Larison addresses these points, and he's no Salon liberal.
1. http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/05/chro...
2. http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/08/this...
3. http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/06/a-re...
4. http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/08/all-...

Rudi,

Apparently Sarah Palin doesn’t fit the American Conservative’s idea of a perfect tax cutter nor do they like the fact she supported some spending.

I’m certain that Obama will be much more acceptable to their way of thinking.

The "earmarks" issue is an interesting one. Palin - in contrast to McCain - seems to be one of those GOPers who are pro-pork.

I note, from one of the Larison articles Rudi links to: "Nothing says that the GOP has been in power too long better than its insistence that its main failing was attaching too many pork projects to its legislation."

A number of conservatives HAVE been outraged by the debt and the pork of the Hastert regime. It certainly played a role in depressing their support in 2006.

It seems fiscal responsibility is not one of Palin's concerns. Interestingly, one of the first smears of Palin to go down in flames was her "brutal" cutting of govt. spending.

Pete...you say nothing in your post about Palin's qualifications for being commander-in-chief. I note, for example, that Sec. Rice baulked at praising Palin's foreign policy creds.

Here is what Newsweek is saying.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986

Pete,

I think you have to go beyond Salon and Andrew Sullivan (who is pretty biased towards Obama) if you want to find some dirt on Palin. In regards to the Agents of Intolerance charge, you might want to see this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexe...

and this:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3W...

This isn't to say that I like her views. But she hasn't pushed a social agenda while governor.

I doubt that this will sway you, but I think the vision of Palin as a mean-spirited person is not so clear.

Wow . . . "Newsweek" - at least online - is actually acknowledging and debunking the smears of Palin.

Incredible, when one can actually observe shifts in the zeitgeist while they are underway.

A collective "walking back" from some of the most absurd smears of Palin is occurring, as we write, across the MSM.

Palin is no Reverend Wright.

As for startling media retreats, maybe they realize what they're doing, and how if they are excessively vicious they cannot claim to be surprised if McCain-Palin win this November (which they already have a decent chance to do, given Palin's widespread appeal). I also wonder if the media doesn't want to be tarnished with guilt by association, their lefties with the worst lefties in the land of blog madness.

Thanks to those who have challenged me on the "Palin-as-agent-of-intolerence" point -- and provided links backing up your challenge. I have listened and modified that point in my post accordingly.

I've now deleted the agent-of-intolerance point entirely; see my end-note in the revised post.

Pete,

As long as we’re getting you straighten out, let’s deal with this “Massive Tax Hike” fallacy.

It appears that our gal Sarah raised the royalties on oil from 22.5% to 25%. This was done to reverse a tax break that was given by the previous administration under the taint of scandal and bribery.

Here is an excerpt from a contemporaneous article (before she was a target of the left).

"ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Dec 19 (Reuters) - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was expected later Wednesday to sign a tax bill that boosts taxes on the state's oil producers despite warnings from the industry that the measure will hurt future investment.
The measure replaces legislation passed in 2006 that many Alaskans believe was tainted by a corruption scandal that has engulfed the state's largest oil services company and resulted in the conviction of three former legislators as part of a widening federal bribery probe."

http://www.reuters.com/article/OILPRD/idUSN1962...

Additional information from an unbiased source:

"The tax raises when oil prices are high, and falls when oil prices are low. This give amazing incentive for the oil companies to produce more oil, which increases supply, and lowers prices for everyone including the taxes they themselves pay the state. When oil prices are low the tax moves to a 10 percent tax on the gross, instead of the net tax of 25 percent when prices are high. Instead of, not in addition to. The oil companies in Alaska with the Palin proposal pay the state minus their operating expenses along with pipeline and tanker charges. In this way, the oil companies are not taxed for the cost of doing business."

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/20...

Pete,

When Excitable Andy is the conduit for information, it’s best to dig a little deeper.

Number 2 on the (revised) hit parade is “Stifling Debt”.

Naturally, Sullivan doesn’t want to quote any of the article that might bode well for Sarah Palin, such as:

[The McCain-Palin campaign referred questions about the sports complex to Mr. Leonard, the former city finance chief. He blamed the Nature Conservancy for dealing with two different potential buyers at one time. "That's what caused the confusion," he said.

"At the time, with the information she had, [Ms. Palin] made the right decision," Mr. Leonard said. "But you know what? Litigation happens."

The sports facility is finished, set against forest and mountain ranges. Inside, locals kick soccer balls and skate laps on the rink. Last year, it hosted a statewide wrestling tournament.

"All I can say about the sports complex is that it was done on time and under budget," said Donald Moore, a Palin ally who managed the construction. "It was done legally, and for someone else to say it could have been done differently in a better way, that's strictly their opinion."]

As things progress, more of the facts will surface. However, there seems to be little dispute that Palin acted in the interest of her community and was honest. You might want to cut her some slack.

Let’s finish this off with #3 – Earmarks.

I could cut and paste, but it’s best for you to go to this link for a well written, comprehensive look at the facts. Reference links are provided in the article.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/31/palins-b...

The floppingaces link is not persuasive. Palin told the nation "I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' on the bridge to nowhere." This is untrue, the type of statement formerly referred to as "a lie". She was not yet governor when Congress stripped the earmark, hence she didn't say ANYTHING to Congress. She was a small town mayor at the time and made no statement whatsoever to Congress nor was she invited to. The bridge had become a huge embarrassment, the poster child of pork before she was sworn in. Plus, there's no fiscal restraint in what she did do. She kept the money. She always keeps the money. So don't expect any fiscal restraint from her on a national level.

Republicans have controlled the White House for twenty of the last twenty-eight years. Reagan took us from creditor nation status to debtor nation status. The bulk of the nine trillion dollars in debt that we owe was run up under Republican control. Conservative patronage has created a level of wealth in the D.C. suburbs that would astonish most Americans. Conservatives did not shrink the size of government—they outsourced and grew it!

Now, would someone please tell me were they put all of the fiscal conservatives in the GOP?

Does anyone believe that McCain and Palin will be any better than their predecessors?