Screw The Establishment Gauntlet! Sarah Palin is Presidential Material

I've heard from several of my fellow Republicans and some famous Republicans like Karl Rove say that Sarah Palin doesn't have the "gravitas" to be President. Why is that? Why is it that we've all been conditioned to believe that our President has to go to Harvard or Yale? President Obama's college records and SAT scores are a mystery and he's refused to release them. John Kerry who had an unsuccessful run at beating President Bush and whom was presumed by the mainstream media to be more "intellectual" than George W. Bush actually had lower grades than Bush. John Kerry had a cumulative average of 76, and includes four D's his freshman year - a 61 in geology, a 63 and a 68 in two history courses, and a 69 in political science (politics - the irony!).

I told some of my Republican friends (all Honors students) that any one of us has the "intelligence" to be President. All a President does is read legislation (except of course Obama, Nancy Pelosi "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" and other Democrats), consult Presidential advisers and then make a decision. It's not as hard as the establishment in Washington D.C. makes it seem. The President doesn't do calculus or differential equations for cripes sake!

Let's examine the education of some of our greatest Presidents. George Washington had an elementary school education. Lincoln's formal education consisted of approximately 18 months of classes from several itinerant teachers. He was mostly self-educated and was an avid reader. Andrew Jackson and Harry Truman both did not graduate from college and are in the Top 10 Greatest Presidents list. Ben Franklin, although he never ran for President, was one of our Forefathers and a brilliant man that could have easily become President. Yet, Franklin had no formal education beyond the age of 10. Ronald Reagan, arguably the greatest President of the last 30 years went to Eureka College, which most of us have never heard of. So where in the hell did we get this idea that to be President you have to go through the Establishment gauntlet? That your main hurdle to becoming President some day is graduating from an Ivy League school? Screw these obstacles and hurdles that the mainstream media says we must jump over in order to become part of an elite class "qualified" to be President.

Did our forefathers reject English "royal blood" to earn a crown in exchange for for a "blue blood" aristocracy? Do we reject the Declaration of Independence which says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Are some (wo)men more "equal" than others? I don't think so.

Our forefather's rejected an "elite" royal privileged class. Though we seem to have forgotten that. Just look at the last 4 Presidents' education. Obama (Columbia & Harvard), Bush (Yale & Harvard), Clinton (Georgetown, Yale), Bush Sr. (Yale). It isn't until Reagan that we have a non-Ivy League school graduate that became President. Of all of these Presidents, Reagan was our greatest President with the most popularity and with the greatest economic growth. Also, he was the most optimistic and patriotic (not apologizing for America like Obama) and he was the greatest cause of freedom by ending the Cold War and reducing tax burdens on the American people.

The liberal elitist mainstream media called Reagan dumb, lazy and educationally challenged. One even called him "dumb as a stump", while others called him a "dumb cowboy" and a "B actor". He beat Walter Mondale in the greatest landslide victory in American history by taking every state but one on election night for a 525-13 electoral vote victory. Talk about a red wave (dawn?)!

Forget Reagan's college of choice or Sarah Palin's (University of Idaho) for that matter. It's like William Buckley said - "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University".

Look at Reagan's accomplishments:

20 million new jobs were created
Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
Real gross national product rose 26%
The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988
Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.

I explained to my friends, "Now granted, none of us could ever be President since we haven't gone through the Establishment gauntlet. We'd have to become a state representative or local mayor, then state Senator, then be Governor to have a shot. But even then, none of us have a law degree from Harvard or Yale, so we're immediately disqualified by the mainstream media propaganda. Obama on the other hand had zero executive experience. He wasn't even a mayor from a small town like Wasilla. He wasn't a Governor (best possible executive experience) of a state where we often get our Presidents. At least Palin has 2 years executive experience."

I then told my Republican friends, "Change your thinking. Stop believing only the elite class is smart enough to be President. Any one of us is just as smart if not smarter than President Obama." We have millions of brilliant college students and not all can afford to attend Yale ($38,300/year) or Harvard ($47,000/year) and there aren't enough full scholarships to go around. In essence, if all we ever elect are people from these expensive schools, then all we will elect is an elite wealthy class that has no understanding of how the average American middle class family lives. In that sense, Presidents that come from a privileged upper class have less intelligence than those that experience life in the "real world" where you have to balance a checkbook, clip coupons, prioritize on what things to spend money on, save up for a vacation, etc.

Now, the other aspect of a President is his leadership and speaking skills. President Obama *has* the oratory to be a great speaker, but he is now seen as too divisive and he lied about being a centrist. He campaigned as a centrist, but governed as a left winger, which resulting in the formation of the tea parties, the 2010 election "shellacking", and the start of the 2nd American Revolution.

Sarah Palin on the other hand has equally good oratory skills, if not better, since unlike Obama, she's a straight shooter - kind of like Chris Christie. However, she does turn some people off with her rhetoric and straight talking. Chris Christie is a straight talker, but he's also funny. So even if you're a Democrat and disagree with everything he says, he makes you laugh so you can't be mad at him for his opposing views. He even brings some Democrats to his side with his disarming humor and persuasion. Sarah doesn't have quite that level of charm.

Personally, my dream ticket would be Palin/Christie. Christie could help deflect some of the attacks on Palin with his witty charm. He would crush any MSM unfair attacks on Palin and would get awesome soundbites on TV/newspapers every night (See his viral Youtube videos for examples). It would look very gentlemanly too for him to stick up for Sarah for unfair media attacks and I think the American people would respond to that.

Can you imagine if a Palin/Christie ticket won in 2012? Keith Olbermann's veins would pop out of his head resulting in a brain aneurysm. Rachel Maddow would be put into a catatonic state mumbling to herself "Why? Why? Why?". Bill Maher would be so pissed off he'd rant "F--k America. F--k all you rednecks. F--k this country. I hate this country! Bunch of morons" thus resulting in HBO dropping him. Ok, maybe that's a bit of wishful thinking and some hyperbole. I really don't dislike liberals, I just dislike the propaganda they spew. Unfortunately, it does convince some Americans that don't follow politics closely (Jersey Shore fans anyone?) to be swayed by their nonsense.

If Ronald Reagan can win the hearts of Americans with his oratory without the "gravitas" of attending an Ivy League school, then surely Sarah Palin can do the same. We just have to stop believing the

mainstream media that she's can't win. Let me quote Braveheart and tell you how I look at the 2012 election should Tea Party-supported candidate Sarah "William Wallace" Palin win the Republican primary and must do battle against Obama "Longshanks":

"We can. And we will. We (tea partiers) won at Stirling (2010 election), and still you quibble. We won at York and you would not support us (Republican establishment). If you will not stand up with us now then I say you're a coward. And if you are Scotsmen (American patriot), I am ashamed to call myself one."

In other words, "should" Palin win the primary, your choice is between the Harvard "elitist" big government/big spending/high taxing Alinky-supporting leftist radical who rams Obamacare down out throats with a forced mandate and the University of Idaho "conservative" who is "down to earth & folsky", who believes in American exceptionalism, individual liberty, and small government / lower taxes. The choice seems pretty clear to me, but if you're too snobbish to think that only royal blue bloods can rule over us, then our country is lost already.

The opinions and views expressed in comments, blogs, etc. are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of TMC, TMCnet, or its editors. TMCnet reserves the right to edit, delete, or otherwise make changes to the content that appears on these pages at its own discretion and as it deems necessary.

November 8, 2010 2:20 PM | 0 TrackBacks