Palin vs. Obama in 2012. How to argue for Palin

I've been asked before, you would seriously vote Palin over Obama in 2012? I imagine if Palin gets the nomination, you'll hear this question a lot from Obama sycophants. They will, as they did in 2008, try to destroy her by smear and ridicule.

I've thought extensively how to handle this scenario (before and after) she gets the nomination. Here are a few thoughts on the matter:

1) Unlike Obama she has had formal executive experience (as Mayor and Governor). So, she's had to learn how to balance a budget. Given the explosion of debt under Obama this cannot be stressed enough.

2) They compare Obama's education with hers and say she is lacking.

• Obama hasn't released his records so we don't really know for sure his educational background. She has does have a B.S. in Communication from the University of Idaho.
  
• Stipulate that technically his might be better on paper, but note that Lincoln had no formal college, yet he is considered a giant. Likewise, Truman did not have a college degree,college education and is now considered a good POTUS. Conversely, Carter was in the top of his class at the U.S. Navel Academy and is widely considered one of the worst modern POTUS.
  

3) Indicate that she'd have to work hard to go through an $800+ billion 'stimulus' package with little discernible results. Indicate that it wouldn't take much effort to improve upon Obama's disaster response to protect the Gulf coastlines. Furthermore, indicate that anyone could, using unrealistic assumptions, could claim that healthcare reform will mean greater coverage for more people at a cost that "will not add one dime to the debt". In foreign policy, indicate that anyone with any sense could have seen that his "engagement" of a tyrannical fundamentalist Iranian regime would be result in nothing but ridicule from them and do nothing to slow down their nuclear weapon development. In other words, attack the credibility of his accomplishments and indicate that any executive with common sense would be able to get better results using the tools available.

 4) Indicate that Obama cannot be trusted. He has made little effort to keep his promises. i.e., unlike Obama you much more likely to get what you see with her. In other words, can we trust Obama to run this country for another four years?

 5) Unlike Obama, she doesn't have a history of extremists in her background.

 6) Unlike Obama, she is unlikely to ignore contract law and favor her constituency at the expense of the American people.


Do I know if Palin would make a good POTUS? Do I want her to be the one to get the nomination? Not sure on both counts. I am sure of this however. We cannot trust Obama to another term. He has been wasteful with what he has been given, unresponsive to the public opinion, more concerned with "fairness/social justice" than what is in the best interest of the nation, geared towards consolidating power in the Executive Branch at the expense of Democracy and generally seen as weak by opponents and unreliable by our allies. If it's her vs. Obama, we have little choice but to vote him out. What little we know about her indicates that she is not bought and paid for like Obama has been.

  Sara Palin Wiki
  List of Presidents by Education

The "Birther" Issue - perspectives

What is "BIRTHER" and why it persists

Most people see the "Birther" issue as this: was Obama born in the U.S. or Kenya or whether he had dual citizenship because his father was a British natural or some other aspect like that.

In reality, the "Birther" issue is really part of a larger question. Specifically, who is this man we elected to be POTUS. What do we know about him? What do we know about his background and what shaped him.

Little or nothing about these aspects of his background is known or has been released:

Occidental College Records
Columbia University Records
Harvard University Records
     Harvard Law School Record
     Havard Law Review Articles
University of Chicago Records
Chicago Annenberg Challenge

We know only bits and pieces of his formative years.

In essence, we are left with little to go on regarding who he is and unanswered questions about why the need for secrecy. In such an environment, it's hardly surprising that the "Birther" idea would thrive.

Here's my logical (and political) take on the matter
1) Politically speaking, unless you have irrefutable evidence which d*mn them, you are risking being pegged as a nut when going against a leftist establishment figure. This case is no different. So, regardless of any legitimacy of this claim, it's more than likely a loser. Besides there is so much other to oppose Obama on.

2) On the off chance there is a shred of truth to the whole matter, what do you expect will happen if it is properly aired? My guess is nothing. If something did happen like attempting to remove him from office, we'd have a constitutional crisis and unprecedented social unrest.

-----

So, in my opinion, instead of focusing on "Birther", focus on the things we can better likely affect. i.e., decreasing Obama's power base and keeping the heat on him such that he does not get reelected in 2012. Believe me, I'm frustrated with the situation, knowing that everyday we are led by someone who is either undermining the U.S. unintentionally due to naivity or intentionally so as to reorder the U.S. in the left's image (social justice). Either way, it is frustrating. Either way, we feel the good things about this country, the freedoms, the traditions, the economics, the leadership, ect. are under assault on a daily basis. But, we've got to be smart about this.

Ultimately, we (as conservatives) are vying to convince those who are on the fence or are true independents. Focusing too much on a hard to prove thing such as "Birther" can be counterproductive in that regard.