Amid media circus, Palin lays out policy positions

From the Washington Examiner:

In the last week Sarah Palin has commanded the attention of the national press corps simply by taking in a few tourist sites on the East Coast. Whenever she stops her "One Nation" bus, reporters lucky or canny enough to keep up with her have asked about her political intentions. Will she run for president? Is she thinking about running for president? If she ran for president, how would she campaign?

One thing many viewers have probably missed in all the horse-race speculation is that Palin is perfectly willing to discuss her positions on key issues, if anyone wants to ask. In fact, in recent days, weeks, and months, we've seen a lot of policy commentary from the former Alaska governor.

For example, during the bus trip, Palin took a stand on an issue that is crucial for candidates considering a run in the Iowa caucuses. "I think that all of our energy subsidies need to be re-looked at today and eliminated," Palin told RealClearPolitics. "We've got to allow the free market to dictate what's most efficient and economical for our nation's economy." What that means is Palin opposes the infamous ethanol subsidy that some presidential aspirants are afraid to question, lest they lose support in heavily agricultural Iowa.

Palin has also been speaking out in support of Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan --

{click HERE to read the rest]

What frustrates me about most of the “Wise Men” of the Right on the subject of Palin – men like Krauthammer and Will, to give two examples – is that they simply will not acknowledge that Palin has expressed policy positions that are mainstream conservative, make sense and are in line with the majority of the country. Yet these self-identified solons seem to have a mental block, not being able to get past the Katie Couric interview so that nothing that Palin has said subsequently about national issues registers.

Krauthammer seems to take an aggressive position on this subject, reminiscent of the kind of snark that Anthony Weiner is best known for.

Will is talking up former Utah governor Huntsman as if that darkest of dark horses has a chance.

It’s only the regular people outside the beltway who are not paid by the word who flock to Palin as she tours the country … and talks policy that makes sense.

For those interested in her positions on issues, Palin's Facebook page is filled with notes and commentary. Recent entries include titles like "New Afghanistan Development Dangerous to NATO," "Obama's Strange Strategy: Borrow Foreign Money to Give to Foreign Countries," "Barack Obama's Disregard for [Israel's] Security Begs Clarity," "Obama's Failed Energy Policy," and "Removing the Boot from the Throat of American Businesses." They're not think-tank white papers, but they are substantive statements on key issues.

Beyond the cultural chasm that divides Palin and the Beltway Boys, there is another issue. I think most of them don’t like the bold, black and white way that Palin addresses the issues she discusses. They like “nuance” - or shades of gray - which gives them and the people who use them the escape hatch that they can use if their policy positions fail. A lot of America’s issues require compromise; if the Presidential decisions were easy, we would have no need of a President. But the most important thing in a President is his or her worldview. Reagan was famous for saying, in the middle of the Cold War with the USSR, “we win, they lose.” That’s a position that the “wise men” ridiculed. Getting along was the obvious answer. But it wasn’t the right answer. His answer was inconceivable to them because their minds were so filled with shades of gray. After all, they were not pure evil and we were not pure good, right? Reagan was right, they were wrong. Palin is right, her critics are wrong.