Response to PoliGazette

Michael van der Galien has penned a post on PoliGazette titled "Cons4Palin Don't Like Me." Michael states that he is not a "Palin trasher," and I do not believe he is. He makes his argument as to why Palin may not be ready for a Presidential run, and states that as of right now, Mitt Romney is his choice.

In the spirit of debate, I have responded to his argument point by point below:

Conservatives4Palin, a reasonably big website by and for conservatives who support Governor Sarah Palin (for president in 2012), doesn’t like me very much. They took my post of yesterday a bit too serious, thinking I had joined their side. As it is, however, that’s certainly not the case. I’m not a Palin “trasher,” but I’m also not overwhelmed by her performance last year. She has talent, sure, but she displayed a serious lack of knowledge, especially about foreign affairs.

Team McCain mishandled Palin. That’s clear. If she would’ve been allowed to be herself, and to determine the steps she’s take, she would’ve impressed me more, of that I’m sure. But this isn’t a politician with only strengths. She has weaknesses, and they are rather obvious.

I would like to point out that Conservatives4Palin has never officially stated that we are pushing for a Palin run for the presidency in 2012 or any other year. Constant debate occurs in the comment sections of our posts on whether or not Palin should run for President in 2012, 2016 or even 2020. We also debate how she should approach other future options, such as running for re-election as governor or taking a shot at the U.S. Senate. The focus of this website is to support Governor Palin and fight the smears that have been thrown against her. I have been a Palin supporter since February of 2008, when I stumbled across Adam Brickley's "Draft Palin for Vice President" blog. The goal of this site is not only to defend Palin against unfair attacks and smears but to research her record in Alaska and keep people up to date on what she is doing in the Far North. The McCain campaign did little to flaunt Palin's impressive record, which means that the voters have a lot more to learn about Governor Palin, and that is the chief mission of this site. If Governor Palin decides to run for President in 2012, she will have our full support. But I will make this clear: Conservatives4Palin is not a "draft Palin" website, and we do not intend to pressure Governor Palin into running for the highest office in the land.

First and foremost: Palin has been successfully portrayed as a religious fanatic. Whether this is a correct image (it’s not) or not is irrelevant. What matters is what voters think. Her approval ratings were less than stellar last year, except for with the conservative base, who loved her. Having the support of this base is a necessity for a Republican candidate for president, but it’s also vital to have broader appeal. As of yet, Palin doesn’t have that.

I will agree with Michael on this. Palin is no religious fanatic. I will disagree that she is only supported by the "base" of the Republican party. Not only is Palin gaining with independents and even some Democrats (some of our most loyal readers have labeled themselves, "Palin Democrats"), she is also constantly ranked near the top of Republican contenders for 2012. The Republicans who respond these polls are not just conservatives but simply Republicans. The portrayal of Palin as right-wing religious whacko may be the biggest lie thrown at her. Palin can be described as a religious person, but she has never governed by her religious beliefs. Governor Palin's other bible is the Constitution of the State of Alaska, which guides her decisions more than her religious beliefs. When it comes to religion, Governor Palin keeps her views to herself. Governor Palin once vetoed a bill that would have denied homosexual couples the same benefits received by others because she deemed it unconstitutional. Would Mike Huckabee have taken this action? Probably not.

Second, Palin may be a good governor, but she has no business experience. I’m one of those who believe that America’s president should have at least some experience in this field, especially considering the times - massive budget deficits and debts will be a drain on the American economy for years even decades to come. Mitt Romney, yes his name pops up again, is one of the most successful entrepreneurs in America today. Palin’s not.

For one to claim that Governor Palin has no "business experience," shows little research has been done into her career. Aside from her private experience in commercial fishing, her job as governor also qualifies as "business experience." Governor Palin's "business experience" comes with the negotiations and dealings she has had with one of the most powerful industries in the world: the energy industry. This includes the negotiations on what will be the largest private infrastructure project in North American history. Governor Palin has successfully negotiated new tax structures, lease deals and other issues that arise in the Alaska energy industry. It is also important to remember that the Alaska oil industry is the dominant force in the Alaskan economy. The Alaska constitution, for all necessary purposes, declares the governor of Alaska as the Chief Executive Officer of the state. When she enters into meetings with the oil industry, she is representing the citizens of Alaska, who are commonly referred to as Alaska's shareholders. At the end of the day, Governor Palin negotiates billion dollar deals with one of the toughest industries in the world. At the end of the day, the livelihood of the citizens of Alaska depends on her actions. If this can not be considered "business experience," I don't know what is.

Now on to Mitt Romney, who as of right now is Michael's favorite Republican. Romney has "business experience" from his time at Bain Capital. However, "business experience" rarely translates into governmental success. Romney's greatest "accomplishment" from his time as the Governor of Massachusetts is RomneyCare. RomneyCare is effectively government mandated health care, which the Wall Street Journal has claimed has caused a crisis in the Bay State. The Journal also portrays RomneyCare as a warning against nationalized health care. Being a Wall Street powerhouse and running a venture capital business is not the same as running a government. Romney often claims that the state legislature twisted his original health-care proposal and that this has led to the problems facing Massachusetts. It seems that Romney's experience in dealing with a board of directors and shareholders at Bain Capital were little help to him in dealing with the group of politicians known as the Massachusetts legislature.

If the American people truly valued "business experience" in the way Michael contends that they do, Steve Forbes would have been elected President in 1996 or 2000. I am sure that Michael would support somebody like Steve Forbes because Forbes is experienced in the business world. Therefore, somebody who supports Forbes would have an interest in business experience. Governor Palin was a supporter of Steve Forbes during the 2000 GOP primaries, so using Michael's standards, it is safe to say that Governor Palin knows a thing or two about business. The point remains that the American people do not specifically value "business experience" as a necessity for being President. Michael writes that Romney's experience will help combat the economic climate facing the United States today and in the future. I think the point should be made that Ronald Reagan led the greatest peacetime expansion of the economy in the history of the United States, and he was no Wall Street titan. The handling of deficits, GDP, tax policy, tariffs, inflation/deflation and special interests have little to do with boardroom meetings at Bain Capital or Goldman Sachs. If governmental success rested on "business experience," New Jersey would have a great governor. After all, Jon Corzine is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs.

Third, and this is of major concern to me, it struck me last year that Palin didn’t have a lot of original thoughts on foreign policy. Now, a president doesn’t have to be a grand intellectual, foreign policy experts (he or she has advisers for that). But (s)he must have thought about this subject for longer than a few hours, and have developed a personal, realist view. Advisers are important, but a president has to have his / her own general take on complex issues.

Funny, I didn't get that impression, nor was I "struck" by Palin's "lack of foreign policy experience." Hopefully Michael will respond to this post by citing the foreign policy experience of governors who have run for an office in the nation's executive branch. First of all, governors rarely have "foreign policy experience." How much experience in this realm did George W. Bush have? Bill Clinton? Ronald Reagan? Jimmy Carter? The answer is none because they are governors. It is also important to remember that these men all ran for president and not the second ranking job known as vice president. The last vice presidential nominee that met the requirements of "foreign policy experience" as defined by beltway think tanks and the media was Dick Cheney. John Edwards? Jack Kemp? Al Gore? Dan Quayle? Spiro Agnew? Richard Nixon? and so on and so on. The facts of this past election remain clear: Governor Palin was held to different standards than most, if not all, previous VP contenders.

And what is "foreign policy experience"? The media and the beltway tell you that Joe Biden is a "foreign policy expert." Why is this the case? Well, he has sat on some Senate committee for the last 35 years, so this make him an expert. Here is some of the expertise of Joe Biden:

-Opposed President Reagan's plan to fund and aid anti-Communists in Central America
-Opposed President Reagan's overall strategy in dealing the Soviet Union
(Now remember, according to this Michael's standards, Reagan is the one without the "foreign policy experience.")
-Voted against the first Gulf War
-Voted for the Iraq War in 2003, and then became one of the biggest critics against the war in Congress. If Biden had known the war would be such a mistake, why did he vote for it? Where was his "foreign policy expertise" at the moment of the initial vote?
-Biden's plan for Iraq: Divide Iraq into three districts based on ethnic lines. This idea is so ridiculous that I am not even going to discuss it.

I also think that it is safe to say that Governor Palin more than held her own against Joe Biden in the vice presidential debate. The so-called foreign policy expert was making up stories about a French-U.S. alliance that had driven Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Biden is also called a "law expert," yet he did not know which article of the U.S. Constitution established the executive branch. Not only did Governor Palin keep up with Biden, she wiped the floor with his hair plugs. For every "gaffe" made by Palin on the campaign trail, Biden made about five. Biden was unaware that television did not exist in 1929, and he did not know who the President of the United States was at that time. Biden told stores about visiting a restaurant that had been closed for nearly 20 years. On his first day on the campaign trail with Barack Obama, he referred to his running-mate as "Barack America." Biden then went on to ask a man in a wheelchair to "stand up."

Biden is definitely an expert in something all right, maybe plagiarism or lying about his college grades. Energy is a matter of foreign policy. Governor Palin is an expert on energy issues. She sees energy independence in the same light as Ronald Reagan viewed the Cold War. Reagan wondered why the West attempted to defeat the Soviets in public, but too often indirectly propped them up in private. Reagan knew that the Soviet Union had to be destroyed outright, and he was committed to using all means available to do it. Governor Palin also wonders why we are indirectly propping up hostile regimes and terrorist organizations by our continued dependence on foreign sources of energy. In Palin's eyes the United States will be a much more secure nation if we develop our own sources of energy. Governor Palin also recognizes the economic impact of sending hundreds of billions of dollars out of the United States every year. Reagan's efforts to defeat the Soviets has now been called "Reagan's War." Perhaps someday we will refer to Palin's quest for energy independence as "Palin's War."

Michael states that "foreign policy experience" is important to him, and yet he is a Romney supporter. Hopefully, one day, he can explain Romney's "foreign policy experience." I just can't see where Romney is more qualified than Palin in that realm. The argument can actually be made that Palin is more qualified than Romney in this regard. Palin's state is critical to the energy security of the United States and the world. She is the commander of the Alaska National Guard, which contains a unit devoted to protecting the United States from ballistic missile attacks. Her state's natural resources are a huge target for potential terrorist attacks. Governor Palin has some of the highest national security clearance privileges in the nation. As with "business experience," the idea that "foreign policy" is critical to the voters is also a misnomer. We have elected plenty of presidents who have "little foreign policy" experience. Barack Obama is the most inexperienced president in this history of the nation. During the Russia-Georgia conflict, he released a statement calling for "both sides to end their aggression."

Governor Palin also has one thing Romney does not, a devotion to conservative values that does not change with the political winds. Romney has constantly changed his positions depending on when he is running for office. In 1994, Romney was running to the left of Ted Kennedy in his U.S. Senate bid. He declared that he did not "want to go back to Reagan-Bush." Romney was also pro-choice at this time, but must have had a "road to Damascus" moment when establishing his run for the Republican nomination in 2007-2008. Around the time that Romney was trashing Ronald Reagan's presidency, Governor Palin was writing letters to the Anchorage Daily News calling them a "liberal rag":

"How can you justify your restraint in slamming the Clintons, Kennedys, Marion Barrys and other philandering, chauvinistic left-wingers of the world?" Palin wrote at the time. "Your yellow, liberal rag is so obvious. I pray we will someday have a choice in newspapers again."

So Palin is calling the Kennedys "left-wingers," while Romney is running to the left of them to become a U.S. Senator. Palin's views have not changed. She is a rock. Romney is dust drifting with the political winds. Many former Romney supports from the primary season are now Palin supporters. I firmly believe that Romney's support is overstated. I am a former Romney supporter. I donated some of the little money I have to his campaign, put out a lawn sign and voted for him on Super Tuesday. I was a Romney supporter because he was the only viable option left for me during the Republican primaries. Romney was the closest person on the stage who reflected my beliefs, even if he suddenly adopted them to run for the nomination. You may even say that Romney supporters were just desperate for somebody. I know I was.

I have noticed, however, that Romney appears to be the candidate of choice among the establishment wing of the GOP, in much the same way that George H. W. Bush was their candidate in 1980. Ronald Reagan was the candidate of the grassroots, and he made an excellent gesture to unify the party in 1980 by choosing George H. W. Bush as his running mate. History could very well repeat itself with Palin and Romney. We shall see.