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

Con adds "rationality" to the list of attributes of a good president. Sure, but every normal person is rational about some things and not so rational about others. President Obama smokes cigarettes, and since we know cigarettes cause cancer, that's not rational. We shouldn't care, because it doesn't affect governing. No one gets the stamp of "total rationality." In politics, many equate "rational" with "has my viewpoint on most of the important issues." Con is searching for a reason why the doctrine of Palin's church ought to disqualify here from office. Con needs to show that the doctrine has an effect on her governing, and it does not. 1. How does Con claim to know Palin's religious beliefs? Has she said or written something that exposes religious beliefs more radical than other presidents? No. Did she inject religion into governing Alaska, so that we know her beliefs lead to radical practices? No, nothing there either. Con deduces her beliefs from the doctrine of the church she attended and from fellow congregants in the church. I pointed out that past presidents have had profound religious beliefs. Evangelical fundamentalist Jimmy Carter subscribed to doctrine every bit as radical as Palin's. The Quaker doctrine of Nixon, involving pacifism, was more radical than Palin's. Con's says that past president's are not comparable, because they turned out to govern without relying on the extreme church doctrine. Con claims that Palin would be affected by doctrine, whereas others were not. The only way that he "knows" it is because he doesn't like Palin. The only evidence is his reference to church doctrine, not anything that Palin has said or done in her career in government. Consequently, Palin is entirely comparable to past presidents. Note that Obama did not give his speech espousing secularism in government until well after his election. Palin may well do something similar. An historian studied past presidents and found that many had profound beliefs. FDR turns out to be one of the most dedicated to his religion: "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 .... During World War II, the president set aside three special days of prayer to "solemnly express our dependence on Almighty God." Roosevelt's most famous prayer was the one he composed and then read during the D-Day invasion on June 6, 1944." Dr. Gay Smith, "Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush" http://www.visandvals.org... Palin is not as overtly religious as FDR. Con has singled out Palin without evidence. 2. Con grants that Palin has enough intelligence to handle the job of president, her apparent IQ level being comparable to Washington or Truman. Con says that we should seek a president with the highest intelligence. I showed that among presidents, who all have IQs over 120, there is no correlation between intelligence and the quality of President, and he didn't refute that. Secondly, the debate is not whether Palin is the best President imaginable, but rather if she would be a good President. Further, being a good president is not accurately judged by being a slick campaigner. Palin certainly stumbled in her early campaign interviews, like the one with Couric. The small-statured depression-plagued wretched-speaking James Madison wouldn't have a chance in the media age. I agree that Palin need to know more about national issues, but the earliest she could be president is 2012, and she is learning the issues. Palin admits that she blew the Couric interview. She attributes it to an overloaded schedule in which she was "over managed" as to how to respond. Palin also admitted that Couric's condescending attitude and obsession with the abortion issue didn't help. Unaccustomed to national media attention, Palin froze up and stumbled through it. She does much better these days. President Obama usually gives polished performances, but Obama came off as surprisingly rambling and incoherent in his interview with Katie Couric http://www.cbsnews.com... "Well, you know … I think that … there are so many issues in which I am not an expert but require you to be an expert. That the most important job that I will have as president is choosing excellent people to help to shape policy and provide me with a clear set of decisions. So …I'll give you … a very clear example. ...I know quite a bit about health care, from a 4,000 to 40,000-foot level. But I'm not a doctor. I'm not a biochemist. You know, if you ask me about the human genome, I can vaguely describe it to you, but I don't know all the possibilities and potentials. So when I think about what I have to do as a president, my job is to be smart enough to choose really smart people, … " There are two points from this. Even media stars give poor performances, and the role of president is not to understand every issue in depth ahead of time, but rather to use executive skills to find answers. A1. Palin supported the "bridge to nowhere" before examining the matter in depth. It's not dishonest for a politician to change opinions. In fact, we should suspect those who never do. The best test of executive skill is being governor of a state. Con did not question that Palin as governor doggedly rooted out corruption, cut state spending, and ran an open and transparent administration. A2. The anonymous and untraceable criticisms by McCain staff are the rationalizations of aides who put together a losing campaign and want to blame the loss on Palin. The Campaign Manager has said the charges are unfounded. http://www.foxnews.com... The "top McCain adviser" who called Palin "a whack job" remains anonymous and never made any specific allegations, nor any that could be checked. It is unsubstantiated slander. Con is absolutely wrong that "loyalties run deep in politics." That doesn't apply to staffers taking responsibility for a losing campaign. The report accusing Palin of an ethical violation was issued by a partisan legislative committee. http://www.independent.co.uk... Later, the matter was investigated by the state personnel board, along with 13 other charges of ethics violations. Palin was cleared of all 14 complaints http://startthinkingright.wordpress.com... The charges were all over trivial issues http://www.juneauempire.com... and were designed to harass the governor. Con says that Palin's resignation demonstrated administrative incompetence, but he didn't say what it had to do with administration or why it was bad. He claimed she was about to be crushed by ethics charges, but that's clearly false. Palin's decision was not an administrative one. She had the problems of fighting the ethics charges that had drained her financially, the problem of responding to the endless slander flowing from the Left, and of staking out a new position in national politics. The opinion of pundits was virtual unanimous that resignation would but an end to her political career. It certainly did not. Moreover, she needed to study national issues, and being freed from the governorship has allowed that. Alaska did not suffer as a consequence of Palin's decision. She has brought needed attention to issues important to Alaskans. The best evidence that Palin would be a good president is her track record as a government executive. She governed honestly, transparently, and effectively. That is substance. There is no convincing evidence in the record to support Con's theory.