Would Sarah Palin be an effective President of the United States?

Regardless of my feelings about her qualifications, I cannot see any path by which she could be elected President. While her supporters absolutely love her, as the poll points out, a great many people absolutely loathe her. Still, by being VP (as she nearly was), she could become President without being elected.

Could she govern effectively? Well, at this point, I'm not certain that ANYBODY can govern "effectively". The past two Presidents have both been the subject of intense, virulent bitterness, and the President before that was literally impeached.(A procedure which could not possibly have removed him from office, and which existed only to embarrass and harass him.) Given her expressed distaste for the considerable number of Americans who consider themselves left-of-center (and even many who think of themselves as centrist), regardless of her intelligence or the soundness of her ideas, she'd be a very divisive President.

It would be essentially impossible for her to interact well with that part of Congress, which even in the minority would be able to obstruct any agenda she may have.(Much as we are seeing right now. ) She may well be able to let the executive branch function as it always has. The real purpose of the President is not to advance a legislative agenda but to mind the store of the branches of government which execute the laws.

Those branches go on largely on their own; their top leadership has usually seen four or more Presidents come and go. This is arguably a problem, since it makes an entrenched position that's immune to reform, but it also means that function is maintained regardless of who holds the top job.(Usually.) Palin may well be worse at that than most; I've tried to be neutral thus far but her many actions have led me to concur with the 4/5th of the country who believe she would be incompetent. (And given that past surveys have found a consistent 20% or so who reliably take up the most extreme right-wing position offered to them on any poll, that 4 out of 5 is effectively "everybody else".

) From giving up the governor's job to her poor grasp of issues whenever confronted live by a reporter or in a debate, I think she'd be an awful President. But at this point, I think it may not matter much. The country is too bound in partisan fighting, and too subject to the buffeting winds of international economics and foreign actions, to really significantly change its course when we change the leadership.

€ Obligation to support our troops, even if criticizing war Promote from within, in Alaska’s National Guard Let military personnel know how much we support them 18) Strongly Favors topic 16: Stricter limits on political campaign funds McCain: She’s a soul-mate who implemented ethics reform VECO scandal & Stevens indictment shows need for GOP cleanup Comprehensive ethics reform: change politics as usual Presented comprehensive ethics bill in early 2007 Unions should get member permission for political donations 19) Opposes topic 14: The Patriot Act harms civil liberties Focus on fighting Al-Qaeda terrorists, not on reading rights Gang members on probation must wear electronic monitors Proclaim “Loyalty Day” to reaffirm loyalty to America 20) Strongly Opposes topic 17: US out of Iraq No white flag of surrender on Iraq Retreat is defeat in Iraq McCain: She has right judgment on Iran and the surge Visited Alaska National Guard troops in Kuwait Generally supportive of America’s presence in Iraq We don’t know what the plan is to ever end the war Armed forces, including my son, give us security and freedom Wants exit plan; also assurances to keep our troops safe: We have not been attacked since 2001; so support our troops I support the mission of our troops in Iraq Our troops in Iraq keep us safe at home I support President Bush’s efforts to stop terrorism.

No, and she destroyed McCain as well. I personally am a Democrat, but since I had not chosen which future president I wanted to go with I was only to happy to check out both sides. To me it is about the lesser of two evils and who is best qualified to run.

McCain was certainly not my first choice but he was in the running. I was angry because I felt the only reason he chose her is because he though Obama was going to choose lary Clinton as his running mate. I think he thought that if Obama chose he would be a powerhouse, he would have the minority vote and the vote of the women, so I think he though he stood a better chance if he could split the votes of women.

The way he thought he could do it was to find a Republican woman, being that there is not all that many, he chose Palin, combined with the fact that she was pretty, and people love beautiful people, he probably thought he was a shoe in. However, certainly not the case, she was unprepared, undereducated in what it takes to run the country, and more concerned over what she wore than the running of this country. She would not have made even a competent vice president, she definitely would not make a good president.

Ba ha ha ha... ha ha ha HAAHHHHAAA ha... hahaha hehe Sorry, I don't mean to laugh at your question, budda. I am laughing at the concept. My answer: No.No.No.

Lets forget that first interview with Katie Couric that I couldn't find, where she botched questions left and right and wasn't coherent at all. Let's forget that she couldn't remember ONE newspaper to lie about reading when she was asked what newspaper she read...lets forget...wait I think you get the picture. To be an effective anything, one must complete their tasks and weather the storm, regardless of how troublesome it may be.

She couldn't finish her term of Govenor, for what ever reason it may be. How reliable can she be in a higher office, if she couldn't even complete her term? All that aside, 22% of the population (which is still WAAAY to high) support her.78% of the population, don't.

Where is she going to get if only 22% of the population like her, or support her? She was a mayor of only 5500, and a govenor of under 700,000 people. These are the only two public offices she's had.

She is not qualified, because she doesn't know about anything outside of Alaska. She only knows about being a Maverick, and I don't want a Maverick for President. I want someone calm, cool headed, and smart.

In the words of one of the great writers of our time..... Not on a boat, Not with a goat Not in the rain Not on a train Not in the dark Not in a tree Not in a box Not with a fox Not in a house Not with a mouse Not here Not there Not anywhere........

All I could hear was a ringing in my ears followed by the sound of an arriving Apocalypse to a world not unlike our own. A world only 2-3% dumber than this one... Let me give her appropriate attention: this is the clever respond of another idiot about Sarah Palin. Sorry, I can sully my hands with addressing this one... there's just too much to say.

Matt Damon, take it awey...

So, without being deliberately contrarian, I'll gladly be the first to say YES. The president is not a king, so the power of this position should be very limited to begin with. The white house shouldn't be run by a group of technocrats, that actually doesn't have a good effect on the economy.

Most of the things said about this woman are non-sense (vanity fare article as an example). Abortion: She is pro-life. Because if your on the right, abortion is the right of the child, not the women.So, it doesn't make any difference if the child is created by a rape or act of incest, because its not about the sex act the woman had.

Its amazing how the conservation always hits upon gay marriage. Our country is bankrupt due to large entitlements and overspending, and islamic fanatics occasionally kill some of us, but we can't get beyond gay marriage in the debate. Free Market capitalism is the greatest economic system ever invented by man, and has done more to lift people out of poverty then government intervention, so anyone who will role that back is fine by me.

Finally, I'm a proud atheist who doesn't fear that this women will force creationism to be taught in public schools. Number one, because in a ideas battle between creationism and evolution, evolution will always win. Number two, I hope she defunds and attempts to privatize public schools as much as possible, because no matter who is in charge or how much money it gets public schools will never work.

I think anyone could be an effective President of the United States. If a person is President, absent some highly unusual circumstances, they were elected to popular office, and have a fair amount of voter support. That is sufficient for legislators to at least give her a chance.

I have no reason to believe that a Palin administration would be significantly different from any other administration over the past 20 years. The majority of government employees are not changed out when a new executive is elected, and those people provide enough inertia to prevent really massive overhauls in government policy, even if the President herself would be interested. She would still have to work with the millions of government employees and thousands of high level bureaucrats on a day-to-day basis.

Alienating that many people would mean that the few, limited changes a President actually could push through would be thwarted.

No. The USA Presidency needs to maintain a dignified, Head of State status. Sarah Palin brings energy and a down-to-earth-grass-roots essence, but there has been too much faux pas publicity and parady (Saturday Night Live where most Americans couldn't tell it wasn't really Sarah Palin) for her to overcome to really be perceived as having the appropriate amount of dignity that being President of the United States commands.

I think being President requires a tremendous amount of finess. I think Sarah Palin is an excellent strategist and promoter, attributes that are necessary to a successful Presidency, but I think the lack of subtle finess would undermine much of what she would try to accomplish.(Maybe finess is the wrong word, but hopefully you can envision that certain quality that a President has whereby the subtlest movement conveys an entire command.) If anything, I think she may be the most qualified in these particular times. Not because she has a lot of political experience or great wisdom, but because she is grass-roots.

Sometimes that's the most important qualification.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.