Sarah Palin would be a good president of the United States.

Con begins with the false assertion that there is "simply no reason to think that Palin would even be an average president, let alone a good president." Palin was a superb governor of Alaska, rooting out corruption, soundly administering the laws of the state, and garnering unprecedented support of Alaskans. I introduced evidence of that early in the debate, and Con never disputed her track record as an executive. Instead, Con focused on the flurry of ethics charges filed to harass her when she became a national figure. Every one of the ethics charges ended up being dismissed. Con also argued that Palin's religious beliefs would make her a poor president, but he could not cite a single incident of her beliefs playing any role in her governing. Past presidents had far more radical beliefs, with FDR believing he was the chosen agent of God, but those radical beliefs has no role in those presidents' governing, and Con claimed none. Anyone who graduates from an accredited four year college and is elected and serves successfully as governor has the intellectual capacity to be president. Historical analysis of the IQs of past presidents shows no correlation between IQ and performance, with the threshold of about 120 having been met in all past cases. Above the threshold, other factors dominate, and research shows that true for virtually all professions. For presidents, a key ability is "situational intelligence," which is the ability to sort out complex situations. Palin has demonstrated that ability, especially in her decision to resign as governor in order to resolve her finances and to allow her to fight critics. Virtually everyone thought the strategy would fail, but it has worked well. During the 2008 campaign, Palin was not adequately spun up on all the national issues. However, she is now spending much time on those issues, and will be fully prepared before she could possibly be president, in 2012. Below, I cite the chief foreign policy adviser for the McCain campaign, who said, "She is among the smartest, toughest, most capable politicians I've ever dealt with. She has a photographic memory." Con cites unidentified campaign aides willing to trash Palin so that she gets the blame rather them. They have no credibility because they won't be named or be cross-examined on specifics. We have not had a president in modern times who was knowledgeable in science, and that is not a realistic prospect. Con said that the fact she resigned proved she was an incompetent administrator. I challenged Con to connect it with Administration ability, and he claimed it was under the crush of ethics charges. She was cleared of all charges. She resolved a very difficult personal situation by resigning, Defending against false ethics charges had put her $500,000 in debt. Her analysis of the complex situation proved correct, although almost no one agreed with her decision at the time. She got out of debt, cleared her name, and restored her political career. Con's clam that she is dishonest rests upon the onslaught of ethics charges lodged by critics. The Alaska personnel board that is officially charged with investigating the complaints cleared her of each and every charge. It turns out that the exact number of complaints is not made public. There may have been more than 20. However, all of them were dismissed. http://www.newsmax.com... The board that cleared her was appointed by the previous governor. Con restated the old charges from the legislative report, of which she was cleared by the personnel board. I relied upon the date of Obama's "secular" speech as 2010 that Con gave in his reference; I guess that was his download date rather the speech date. In any case the text of the speech seems to be talking about Con: "At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, ..." The sense of the speech was that religion in America is nothing to fear, which is my point. Palin had said "country" rather than "continent" referring to Africa. Campaign aide Meg Stapleton responded to the ridiculous charges lodged against Palin, "she knows [Africa is] a continent," Stapleton said. "It was just a human mistake, just like Obama saying 57 states. I don't think anyone ever doubted that Obama knows there are 50 states." http://abcnews.go.com... The ABC News article goes on: "Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top foreign policy adviser, who helped prepare Palin for her vice presidential debate, praised Palin's campaign effort and intelligence. "I've been working over 20 years in Washington and I've been around literally dozens and dozens of politicians. She is among the smartest, toughest, most capable politicians I've ever dealt with," Scheunemann said. "She has a photographic memory." Con quotes an aide as saying that Palin said things that were "not accurate," and he cites that as evidence that she was "duplicitous." But "not accurate" means "factually incorrect," not duplicitous. It is not unusual for vice presidential candidates to make factual errors. Joe Biden told us that FDR immediately went on television to explain the the 1929 market crash; the errors being that FDR wasn't president then, and mass-media television hadn't been invented. http://purplepeoplevote.com... Palin's flubs were less egregious, but Palin sent opponents into a tailspin, while Biden's were merely amusing. It's not the candidate, it's the spin. The pattern is that anonymous McCain campaign sources, who have the motive of wanting to blame the election loss on Palin, trash her, while those willing to put their name on their opinion praise her. Con asserts, "My opponent's attempt to compare FDR's religiosity with Palin's is simply fatuous..." Really? The evidence is that "Franklin Roosevelt ... frequently asserted that God directed history, considered himself to be God's agent, and insisted that the United States would prosper only if its citizens sought divine guidance and followed biblical principles ..." Con says Palin "urged her fellow religionists to pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God; that's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan." I don't see anything wrong with praying that leaders are following a plan from God. That means that she is not certain that they are, but is praying that they are. A positive effect of prayer is contemplation. Roosevelt, on the other hand, was certain he was acting as God's agent. Roosevelt's position is more extreme. But is there any evidence that Roosevelt's belief that he acted as an agent of God made Roosevelt a poor president? There is not. Con is virulently anti-religious, so he believes that religious belief ought to produce terrible consequences, but the evidence is that the American varieties of religion produce no such results. That applies to Roosevelt, Obama, Nixon, JFK, and Jimmy Carter, all belonging to churches as "extreme" as Palin's. A slick campaigner makes speeches in which middle-of-the-road voters always find what they want to hear. Obama is the master of that skill, and certainly Reagan scored high as well. Palin doesn't have that skill. I think we are due for a president who is not so slick. Palin would be a good president because he would say what people need to hear, not what they want to hear. Palin would be a good president because of her exemplary performance as governor of Alaska. She rooted out corruption, demonstrated fiscal responsibility, and showed administrative skill. Con has only cited groundless ethics charges, unwarranted fear of religion, and nameless disaffected campaign staff. The resolution is affirmed.