Interesting Gallup Poll… without former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in the race, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich are considered the leaders of the current/prospective GOP field. Comparing those three, Frank Newport of Gallup writes that while there is no clear front-runner, Sarah Palin looks strong:
Palin, who has given no indication of whether she will run for the nomination, has very high name identification, is near the top of Republicans’ nomination preferences, and has a higher Positive Intensity Score than any other well-known candidate. Palin thus must be considered one of the GOP leaders at this point.
She leads with name recognition with 96% name ID, she only trails Mitt Romney by 2% with nomination preferences (within the margin of error), but she leads with the “positive intensity score.” All of this without campaigning or visiting primary states, now the burning question – will she run?
Shane Vander Hart
Latest posts by Shane Vander Hart (see all)
- Watch and Recap: Kim Reynolds and Fred Hubbell Meet for 2nd Debate - October 17, 2018
- Pediatricians Group: Comprehensive Sex Education Is a Failure - October 17, 2018
- Iowa’s Revenue Projected to Grow in FY 19 and FY 20 - October 17, 2018
I remember a couple of moments of dissatisfaction with Palin (not counting her previous running mate, that is).
One was what struck me as misstatements about the Bridge to Nowhere. She said she turned down the federal money. It seems she took the money and did something else with it. Not quite what I expected based upon her bold remarks.
Second is her appointment of known pro-abortion folks to key positions in Alaska when she was still governor. That is more that a little troubling to a pro-lifer like me. This information was featured on Deace In the Afternoon, oh, maybe a year or so ago.
Since you are one of CT’s biggest Palin fans and fairly highly ranking in the CT contributor list, can your point me to clear answers to these issues? This is not how blogs are supposed to work, I know; but maybe others besides me would like help, too.
Good questions… no she halted Bridge to Nowhere program, I’ve not heard criticism that she took the money and used it for something else. I’ll check into that… so I owe you an answer.
Regarding the “pro-abortion folks to key positions.” One person that I know of – her appointment of Judge Morgan Christian to the Alaska Supreme Court. Alaska has the Missouri plan, similar to Iowa so she had to choose between the candidates forwarded to her by the Alaska Judicial Council. She was given two options, both were pro-choice. She had zero constitutional authority to turn both down as Steve likes to opine, Steve is also notorious for not presenting all of the facts… anyway I did a post on this awhile back – http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2009/03/the-facts-behind-palins-judicial-pick/, I hope you find it helpful. If she picked a pro-abortion candidate over a pro-life one I’d be there with you, but that wasn’t the case.
Here are some more troubling things about Palin:
1) She has endorsed pro-choice candidates in the past. In the Georgia governor’s race, she endorsed Karen Handel, who, as an elected official, had voted to give Planned Parenthood over a million dollars. She could have endorsed the more conservative Nathan Deal (the eventual winner, who was endorsed by Huckabee), but she did not.
2) She failed to utter a peep about the repeal of DADT when it occurred. Granted, the other frontrunners didn’t either, but that still doesn’t make it right.
3) She was involved in the infamous “Tammy Bruce retweet” incident in early January, which seemed to portray her as sympathetic to the homosexual cause. If that initial impression was incorrect, she could have easily clarified her position on the matter, and many waited expectantly for her to do so. AFAIK, she never did. The only logical conclusion is that her position on this issue is exactly as it appeared to be from the “retweet.”
I do not consider Palin a strong social conservative. Beyond that, there are many other things about her as well than I am less than impressed with. However, I do think she is attractive and a charismatic speaker.
Would I vote for her over Romney and Gingrich? Yes, but that’s really not saying much. 🙂
SJ,
Oh Nathan Deal who had ethics issues? I don’t think either candidate was wonderful, Palin and Huckabee probably should have stayed out of it. I’ve seen the RT interpreted many different ways and get blown out of proportion, the simple fact is this – she’s never indicated she’s in favor of special rights for homosexuals, she’s on the record for being against gay marriage, and with DADT being repealed unless Congress passes a law reinstating whoever is President won’t deal with it – with the exception of how the changes are implemented. Being pro-military and on the record as a defender of religious liberty I know she would work to ensure it doesn’t impact morale or impact religious liberty. She did come out and say that it wasn’t appropriate to repeal it at this time. I have to say, and I’ve talked with others about this… beyond potential morale and religious liberty problems (for chaplains, etc.) what real basis do we have for keeping it? I wouldn’t advocate for it’s repeal, but I also don’t think the sky’s going to fall either.
Let’s just say I’m way, way more concerned about hate crime legislation, ENDA, and gay marriage than I am about DADT’s repeal.
Regarding moderation, the only thing I can think of is if you included a link, then it automatically goes to moderation. I get all comments in my inbox (at least I’m supposed to). I don’t recall seeing yours. Sorry!
“Oh Nathan Deal who had ethics issues? I don’t think either candidate was wonderful,”
Yes, Deal had his problems as well. But there were lots of other Republican candidates, all of whom were endorsed by Georgia Right to Life, except for Handel. Palin could have endorsed any one of them instead of her.
“I’ve seen the RT interpreted many different ways and get blown out of proportion”
I honestly can’t think of any other way to interpret it.
“I have to say, and I’ve talked with others about this… beyond potential morale and religious liberty problems (for chaplains, etc.) what real basis do we have for keeping it? I wouldn’t advocate for it’s repeal, but I also don’t think the sky’s going to fall either.Let’s just say I’m way, way more concerned about hate crime legislation, ENDA, and gay marriage than I am about DADT’s repeal.”
Wow, I’m shocked. Are you serious? Just the potential morale and religious-liberty problems are a huge deal. And can you imagine having to shower with homosexuals and getting hit on? If you tried to resist them, we all know who the “superiors” would sympathize with. The repeal of DADT is just another step in the social engineering of America, as with the other 3 issues you mentioned. The goal isn’t tolerance, but the eventual censorship of all thought condemning homosexual behavior.
“Regarding moderation, the only thing I can think of is if you included a link, then it automatically goes to moderation. I get all comments in my inbox (at least I’m supposed to). I don’t recall seeing yours. Sorry!”
Thanks, that would explain it. So, comment went to file 13, huh? Well, at least I won’t take it personally.
BTW, I don’t think repealing DADT is a good idea, and having served I can think of a plethora of problems… which is why I was against it. I agree the push to “tolerance” is the primary problem. Where I have a problem with the opposition is when some people seemed to put military service on par with qualifications for church leadership. We’ve got plenty of unrighteous people serving, and there is no biblical basis to keep homosexuals from serving – unless we’re going to address other sinful, but non-criminal behavior. Anyway, I just wanted to be clear that I do not support it’s repeal. I do however have greater concerns with some of the other legislation and/or things courts are shoving down our throats.
With the comment, if it got stuck in file 13, it was Disqus, not me who put it there 🙂
BTW, I don’t think repealing DADT is a good idea, and having served I can think of a plethora of problems… which is why I was against it. I agree the push to “tolerance” is the primary problem. Where I have a problem with the opposition is when some people seemed to put military service on par with qualifications for church leadership. We’ve got plenty of unrighteous people serving, and there is no biblical basis to keep homosexuals from serving – unless we’re going to address other sinful, but non-criminal behavior. Anyway, I just wanted to be clear that I do not support it’s repeal. I do however have greater concerns with some of the other legislation and/or things courts are shoving down our throats.
With the comment, if it got stuck in file 13, it was Disqus, not me who put it there 🙂
“Where I have a problem with the opposition is when some people seemed to put military service on par with qualifications for church leadership. We’ve got plenty of unrighteous people serving, and there is no biblical basis to keep homosexuals from serving – unless we’re going to address other sinful, but non-criminal behavior.”
I agree with that. My reasons to keep homosexuals out are the same reasons they have always been kept out–that the military is intended for a very specific purpose, and not to be used as a social laboratory. That’s the same reason I do not believe women should be in combat–not because I feel they’re inferior in any way to men. And that’s true, the Bible doesn’t speak directly to this matter. It all boils down mainly to logistics and good common sense IMO.
“Anyway, I just wanted to be clear that I do not support it’s repeal.”
OK, that’s good.
“With the comment, if it got stuck in file 13, it was Disqus, not me who put it there :)”
Well, the Disqus event should be taken out of the Olympics then. LOL.
One of your bloggers once said (maybe verbally, maybe here in the blog) that endorsements say more about the endorser than the person endorsed.
You said, “Palin and Huckabee probably should have stayed out of it”. That’s probably pretty good advice all around. It’s a shame that so many folks seem compelled to make a pick every time there is a choice presented. And the political class are not the only ones to do so.
Question. Which is your favorite beverage?
A) Coke.
B) Pepsi.
Vote now!
Your link to the judicial appointment blog entry is broken. I will try to hunt up the entry using whatever search facility you have here.
I agreed with Deace’s position on the executive branch’s responsibility to disregard the marriage ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court. But I disagreed with his inclination to condemn as fake and hypocritical every office holder who saw things differently. (If that is not quite an accurate portrayal of Deace’s position, I hope folks will overlook my imprecision.) I suspect, therefore, that I would have agreed with much of his position on the Alaska appointment; but I was not able to hear his entire presentation.
I voted for Palin the last time around. I generally do not vote for the “lesser of two evils”, though, so she had better pick a better running mate this time. 😛
Found some info on the Bridge to Nowhere – http://www.c4parchive.com/2009/09/media-blathers-governor-palin-earmarks.html