philbymon wrote:
If she did actually "sacrifice herself for the common good" in her actions in Alaska, well, I would be impressed. But I find that hard to believe when her message to us all is simply "hate Obama the teleprompter-reading guy with the moslem name & the terrorist affilliations who's such an elitist."
Yeah, I am unaware of her accusing Obama of terrorist affiliations, other than his friendship with a former Weather Underground leader who actually DID bomb police stations and other places. But those are facts, not speculations or false accusations. I don't even know if she commented on that directly, but she should have if she didn't. Obama is an unsavory character where his ambitions are concerned. He comes from the Chicago school of politics, so we shouldn't be surprised I suppose.
Her main accusations against him though, continue to be that he is instituting socialist like policies, he is tripling our national debt, and still has done little to nothing about job creation. He wants to toy with 1/6th or 1/5th of our national economy, by altering health care without a bipartisan approach (although lately, he began to accept some Republican measures as part of his newest effort at getting something passed)
philbymon wrote:The Tea-Party movement is based on that very message. It has had nothing to do with making anything better, it's just been to STOP THIS MAN WHO'S TRYING TO DO SOMETHING!!!!
Well, that's not accurate at all. The Tea Party movement is based on uniting voters around the restoration of true conservative principles. Many of them, if not most, believe that Bush himself abandoned true conservative philosophy. They believe in limited government, low taxes, freedom for small business (the main job creators) to thrive with less bureaucratic obstacles, based on the power of free market principles. They are not as concerned with voting current members of congress out of office, as they are, in holding ALL MEMBERS of BOTH PARTIES accountable for their actions. They want to stop wasteful spending in Washington D.C. that is suffocating our economy, devaluing the dollar, and burdening their children and grandchildren with record debt.
As one Tea Party leader put it...
"The Tea Party doesn't endorse candidates... candidates endorse the Tea Party!"
philbymon wrote:
Yeah, she likes to use all the conservative buzz-words & -phrases, like "conservative principles and common-sense solutions," but she fails at every turn to tell us exactly what they are, or how we may apply them to solve our problems.
That argument has "some" merit.
She believes in traditional conservative values, of low taxes, less government intrusion, free market based solutions, opening up new energy alternatives, like building nuclear power plants, domestic drilling for oil, natural gas and coal, particularly in Alaska where there is an abundance of resources, but much of it is in protected lands, where quite frankly, no one goes, and is a relatively small area of this protected land anyway. She believes in calling a war, a war, and doing what is necessary to win, and keep Americans safe. She believes in putting the brakes on any further bailouts. Companies should fly or fail, based on their own merits and business models. She believes in reducing taxes on businesses, one of the main reasons they relocate to more favorable places for tax purposes. She believes in a balanced budget, that the government should not SPEND more than it TAKES IN.
But you are right, in that these are BROAD generalities, and not specific plans.
If you want to say that, currently, Palin does not have a definitive PLATFORM on which to run for President, then I would agree with that. We have her former record in office to judge by, and her embracing of conservative values and positions, but not concrete measures.
That's what a policy team is there for. Professionals in each of their fields, who bring the ideas, and which are then embraced and conveyed by a political leader, who promises to do everything they can to enact them.
She would need a political team, as ANYONE running for President would, to assist in developing an actual platform.
She has honestly stated that she is researching the broader issues, things that affect the nation as a whole and the globe. She has her basic philosophies, but I don't see anything wrong in the fact that for the last 14 years she has been enmeshed in ALASKA issues, since that was her constituency.
But remember... so far... she is not running for any office. She is trying to be a force for conservatism, to rally it, and focus it, particularly for the upcoming congressional elections. She states quite succinctly that she doesn't need to hold any title, to fight for her values, and encourage the revival of conservative values nationwide.
It makes sense that she wouldn't have an election team of policy wanks in place, when she hasn't decided to run yet. And I believe that she is sincere about getting up to speed on national and world issues, and will arrive at her own conclusions FIRST, and THEN she would assemble a policy team around those ideals that she agrees with, who would craft, the specifics, of how it could be accomplished.
We'll see what happens.
But right now, she is not running for anything. She is working to get conservatives into elected office, and encouraging regular citizens to run themselves, and fight the establishment, and bring some common sense back to Washington D.C..
