“If Palin Had Become President”
Saturday, June 15th, 2013
How’s that for flame-bait? From The Virginian.
Hat tip to Gerard.

Palin would not have dismissed the Black Panther intimidation lawsuit that the government had already won.
Palin would not have seized two auto companies and give them to her cronies in and out of the UAW.
Palin and her supporters would not be claiming that her opponents were racists for disagreeing with her policies.
Palin would not have tried to block Boeing from building a factory in South Carolina as a gift to her union buddies in Washington state.
Palin would not have toured the world apologizing for America.

If Palin Were President
Palin’s Homeland Security Department would not have classified patriots as security threats.
Palin would have expanded oil and gas exploration on federal lands instead of reducing it, make the US even less dependent on foreign oil.
Palin would not have allowed the Pigford suit to be settled that gives billions of dollars to “farmers” that never farmed.
Palin would not have shipped thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels so that they could be found next to the bodies of murdered Mexicans and American agents.
Palin would not have encouraged the IRS to harass Tea Party groups.
Palin would not have encouraged the IRS to illegally reveal the names of contributors to conservative groups to Liberal organizations so that contributors could be harassed.
Palin’s IRS would not ask groups seeking 501(c)4 status about their prayer life.
Palin would not have passed a national health care bill that is a 2000 page “train wreck” and that threatens to destroy America’s health care system.
Palin would have focused on reducing unemployment as it skyrocketed instead of wasting a trillion dollars on green boondoggles.
Palin would have known that in today’s regulatory state there is not such thing as a “shovel ready jobs” program.
Palin would not have spent a trillion dollars to prop up state and local government employees when private sector employees were losing millions of jobs.
Palin would not have handed out “Palin phones” to welfare recipients.
Palin would not have attacked Libya, without congressional approval, turning it into a rogue state.
Palin would not have allowed her ambassador to Libya to be slaughtered, along with three US service members, and told would-be rescuers to stand down.
Palin would not have blamed a demonstration that did not occur caused by a video that no one saw for the attack by terrorist in Benghazi.
Palin’s UN ambassador would not have gone on national TV to lie about the terrorist attacks in Benghazi because she would not have broken Libya in the first place.
Palin would not have been stupid enough – or naive enough – to support the Islamist take-over of the Egyptian government.
Palin would have given encouragement to demonstrators in Iran when they went to the streets to protest a fraudulent election.
Palin would not be giving the Islamist regime in Egypt billions of dollars to keep it in power.
Palin would not have told Putin to wait till after she was re-elected because then she would have more flexibility.
Palin’s appointed officials would not be lying to congress and the American people when they are not invoking the Fifth Amendment against incrimination.
Palin would not be sending Secret Service agent to her critics’ homes demanding to do a search, go through his medical records, his computer, his cell phone and pretty much anything else, and then threaten to come back and confiscate his guns if he “stepped over the line.”
Finally, Palin would have taken responsibility for the things that happened while she was President instead of telling us that she only read about it in this morning’s newspaper.

The toughest question that never got answered is, “Just what are these ‘extreme policies’ of Sarah Palin?” Her critics, be they Obama fans or be they something else, can’t field that one.

But more important than that, I see a lot of people are missing the point: Many potential presidents right about now, would not have done these things. Much of the problem is partisan, in that it is in the nature of democrats to obsess much about what’s being said when it’s all over, how loud each voice is, and who has the last word. It’s worked well for them, so why should they stop. But the real issue is this “transparency” thing. We can’t really have any with a democrat in charge. Implicit in all of these bullets is the unstated extra, “If President Palin ever made any movement in any of these directions, the media would light her up like a fucking Christmas tree.”

But, Obama gets to do what Obama wants to do. For now…

http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/if-pal...come-president/

Zitat

---

If Palin Had Become President

---

Tina Fey would still be relevant . . .

Zitat

---

The toughest question that never got answered is, “Just what are these ‘extreme policies’ of Sarah Palin?” Her critics, be they Obama fans or be they something else, can’t field that one.

---

Disclaimer: Individuals that believe that Sarah Palin is like Mary Poppins ("Practically perfect in every way") will hate the following analysis.

My little sister is a fantastic mother, a very nice person and has no "extreme policies". However, my little sister is in no way, shape or form qualified to be President of the United States. Neither was Barack Obama. Neither was Sarah Palin.

Comparing how Barak Obama and Sarah Palin would handle the Presidency is like arguing whether Barack Obama or Sarah Palin would do a better job landing a Boeing 747.

Zitat

---

Palin would not have attacked Libya, without congressional approval, turning it into a rogue state.
Palin’s UN ambassador would not have gone on national TV to lie about the terrorist attacks in Benghazi because she would not have broken Libya in the first place.

---

An "extreme policy" does not have to be deliberate. Disaster can also come about as a result of ignorance and inexperience. The author of this article appears to have attributed a Libyan stance to Sarah Palin while remaining ignorant of what Sarah Palin's position statements actually were in the Spring of 2011.

When it came to Libya, Sarah Palin was as absolutely clueless as Barack Obama was in Libya and as clueless as Barack Obama now is in Syria.

1.) Qaddafi is a bad guy that needs to be “held accountable”
2.) Get rid of the bad guy, Qaddafi.
2.) “We get out.”
3.) The Democracy Fairy will wave her magic wand and everybody will live happily ever after.

Zitat

---

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-rec...mpted039-run-20

"On the Record, with Greta van Susteren", March 23, 2011.

VAN SUSTEREN: I'm very well. All right, Governor, 20/20 hindsight -- should we have led this, participated in these air strikes over Libya?

PALIN: Well, I think the point is that we're not leading with the air strikes, and I think this is turning into much more than just allowing a no-fly zone to be enacted. I think there's a lot of confusion as it pertains to our foreign policy in Libya right now, and that's a frustrating for Americans, certainly frustrating thing for our troops. Our troops deserve better.

We've received different messages from our president and from his advisers as to what it is that we are doing there and what the mission is. And I think Americans are ready to hear, really, what's the mission. And are we really going to turn over command and control to the Arab League and to the British and to the French? And when do we reclaim our command and our control over our troops? So that's just one of the big questions.

VAN SUSTEREN: What would you say or what would you like to see as the mission, the mission statement, so that we can work, you know, from there? What should we be doing?

PALIN: Well, Qaddafi has the blood of innocent Americans on his hands. As we understand it, he's sanctioning the killing of so many Americans with the Lockerbie bombing. And he needs to be held accountable for that. So what happened all those years ago, well, now is our opportunity to make sure that he is held accountable.

So what our president said at first, that our mission is to see Qaddafi go, he's got to go, but then we're told by one of his top advisers, the president's top advisers, saying, Well, no, really, Qaddafi is probably going to prevail on this. He's probably going to prevail over the opposition. And then our president changes the tune again, saying, Well, it's not our mission to oust Qaddafi. A lot of confusion.

I would like to see, of course, as long as we're in it -- we better be in it to win it. And if there's doubt, we get out. Win it means Qaddafi goes and America gets to get on out of there and let the people of Libya create their own government, choose their own leader. And America, no nation building. We get out. We take care of our affairs elsewhere.

---

The disastrous destabilization of Libya that Sarah Palin advocated on the Greta van Susteren show on March 23, 2011 is EXACTLY the same disastrous destabilization of Libya that Obama actually ended up carrying out.

Read it again:
1.) Qaddafi is a bad guy that needs to be “held accountable”
2.) Get rid of the bad guy, Qaddafi.
2.) “We get out.”
3.) The Democracy Fairy will wave her magic wand and everybody will live happily ever after.

In March of 2011, was Sarah Palin concerned about Congressional approval?

No.

Sarah Palin was thinking that “Now is our opportunity to make sure that he (Qaddafi) is held accountable” for a bombing that occurred in 1988 and for which Libya had already paid out $2.7 billion in damages “for the actions of its officials”. All accounts with Libya had been settled during the George W. Bush Administration as the both the U.S. and Libya had compensated each other for bombing attacks against each other. Yet, in 20011, Sarah Palin was gung ho to eliminate Qaddafi.

Sometimes, in History, you just have to let what happened 23 years ago stay in the History books. The British dealt with Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin, from 1977 to 1983, even though Begin was the leader of the Irgun militia that carried out the terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 with the loss of 91 lives. The problem with Sarah Palin is that she would have no clue what the King David Hotel Bombing was.

Sarah Palin was also concerned about whether Qaddafi would be deposed under U.S. leadership or French or British leadership. If somedody was going to leave a power vacuum in Libya, by golly, Sarah Palin wanted to ensure that it was under U.S. leadership and not French or British leadership.

Was Sarah Palin concerned about the fact that, in March of 2011, al Qaeda was pouring men and arms into Libya?

No. Palin was totally clueless about that. Palin had a child-like belief that, as soon as the “bad guy” was gone, the Democracy Fairy would take care of the country that she had just destabilized.

Qaddafi was an SOB and, right now, Assad in Syria is an SOB. However, it is better to have a Muslim-in-name-only secular SOB such as Assad or Qaddai keeping the al Qaeda religious fanatics in check than creating a power vacuum that al Qaeda will eagerly fill. Neither Sarah Palin nor Barack Obama understood that in Libya in March of 2011.

If Sarah Palin had been a fat, bald, 61 year old man named Sam Palin in 2008, would anybody have considered his experience as the Mayor of a small town of less than 10,000 and half a term as Governor of a state with a population half the size of San Diego, CA as making him qualified to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency?

Not any more than they would have considered Obama to be qualified for the Presidency if his father had been a white, blonde, blue-eyed Norwegian international student rather a black Kenyan one.

Both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are Affirmative Action individuals who have been held to much lower standards than a white male candidate would have been held to.

The same thing went for Marco Rubio in regards to the talk in 2012 about choosing him as a VP candidate. My fellow Cuban Americans are not impressed with a Spanish surname. We all have one. When visiting Miami in 2012, among the Cuban Americans of my generation, the consensus opinion about Marco Rubio was that he was so inexperienced that he had no business being considered for being a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Unlike us, he had never built a business, never run a business and never served in the military. Except for being a smooth-talker with a Spanish surname (saying the same things we had been saying for decades), what did Marco Rubio have? Rubio had extremely little national experience and no foreign policy experience. Our consensus was that it would be nice to someday have a U.S. President of Cuban descent but certainly not one that was selected for Affirmative Action reasons.

Once upon a time in America, candidates for the Presidency were judged by their years and breadth of experience. Today, on both the Democrat and the Republican side, they are judged by gender, their skin color and the ethnicity of their name:

“OMG! I elected a black man as President of the United States!”

“Sarah is soooo cute! Let’s post another picture of her changing her shoes and showing her great legs.”

“Rubio has a Spanish surname. Who cares that he is barely out of his 30’s and has no more national or foreign policy experience than Obama?”

@Polybius