• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

I love Sarah Palin! That’s the good news. The bad news is that I, and millions of others who love the ex-governor of Alaska, have been greatly disappointed by her recent interviews.

In my previous article, I pointed out how Palin missed many golden opportunities to put her libertarian-centered conservative principles on display in her interview with Sean Hannity. Then, shortly into the first segment of her interview with Bill O’Reilly, it was obvious that she was going to offer more make-nice filibustering. She was a bit stronger on Greta, but the bold truth people are looking for still wasn’t there.

I received a lot of feedback from readers who share my concern about Palin’s unwillingness to speak out boldly. Two examples:

I am a very hopeful advocate for Sarah Palin. Your article was spot-on. Sarah must take the gloves off and bare her fangs. If she does not do this she will follow the hapless John McCain into oblivion. How can this message reach Sarah Palin? It must happen.

– Patrick A.

Great article! I love Sarah, and I hope she reads this! I really believed she’d be a lot gutsier. We need a fearless firebrand!

– Susan N.

It appears that Sarah Palin has presidential aspirations. But it also appears that she learned little from her experience with John McMush and his “handlers.”

The be-careful-what-you-say strategy apparently is contagious. Why else would Palin be so cautious when she has the opportunity to show the world who she really is? Just as BHO can no longer blame the depression on George Bush, neither can Sarah Palin continue to blame her lack of interview effectiveness on McMush’s handlers.

When O’Reilly asked her what she would do about Putin and Russia, Palin mumbled something about “working with our allies.” Say what? How about, “I would immediately install an antiballistic-missile-shield system in Eastern Europe – without discussing it with Putin.”

O’Reilly then asked her what she would do about Iran’s drive to build a nuclear bomb. Palin mumbled something about “imposing sanctions.” Gosh, I never heard that one before. Alert the media: Russia, China, et al. don’t cooperate when it comes to sanctions, and the rulers of sanctioned countries don’t give a hoot if their own people suffer. “Imposing sanctions” is right out of the Politico Babble Bible – right along with “Mideast Peace Process,” “eliminate fraud and abuse” and “get the economy moving.”

I’ve given the Palin matter a lot of thought, and can come up with only three possibilities for her disappointing play-it-down-the-middle approach in the interviews she’s done thus far on her book tour:

Possibility No. 1: Finally free of the constraints that were placed on her during the presidential campaign, she may have fallen into the hands of a new group of inside-the-Beltway handlers who are taking her down the same losing road – a road that, until the advent of the tea parties, gave a power seeker the best chance of getting into Washington’s elite political criminal club.

Possibility No. 2: The second possibility is that Palin is making her own decisions, which is scary to think about because it would mean that her judgment is lousy. The only way she could so badly misjudge the mood of a majority of Americans is if she is either ignorant or woefully lacking when it comes to accurately perceiving the world around her.

Possibility No. 3: Lastly is the possibility that I hate to even consider: What if Sarah Palin is not a fearless, gun-toting, corruption-fighting, in-your-face libertarian-centered conservative? What if she’s just another politician? Let us not forget that last March she appointed former Planned Parenthood board member Morgan Christen to the Alaska State Supreme Court, which assured that the Court would lean left on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

The first two possibilities are correctible mistakes, so let’s focus on No. 3. Is it possible that we’re all trying desperately to make Sarah Palin into something she is not? Let’s hope that isn’t the case. After all, it hasn’t been that long ago that she called the Democratic health-care bill “evil.” That is the fresh voice Americans hunger for.

More likely, some establishment types got to her and convinced her that moderation was the road to the White House. Sure worked well for John McMush, didn’t it?

As I said in my previous article, if Sarah Palin has presidential ambitions, she should do the exact same thing she would do if she were focusing only on money: Speak out boldly and without fear.

If Palin wants to learn how to do that, she might study some ultra-knowledgeable females who aren’t shy about speaking the truth – say, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham and Monica Crowley, for starters. Even Rep. Michele Bachmann doesn’t worry about offending people when she speaks out – which is often.

Here’s today’s free message to Sarah Palin: If you’re really serious about running for high office, I suggest you step back and reassess the playing field. Americans are mad! And the last thing in the world they want to hear are long-winded verbal meanderings filled with clichés like “the average, everyday, hard-working American.” We already have the world’s biggest B.S. artist in the White House, and he gives us all the verbal fluff we can handle.

Palin, like millions of other Americans, I want to believe that you’re for real. But if you’re not willing to step up to the plate like the heavy-hitting gals I named above, I, along with millions of others, are eventually going to give up on you. If you’re trying to play to the so-called moderate crowd (read moderate liberals), your political career is over.

Wouldn’t it be irritating to watch the prim and proper Peggy Noonan clique gloating and saying, “I told you so?” Please, Sarah, say what you mean and mean what you say … and leave the make-nice stuff to your pal, John McMush.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.