(Video) Must-viewing: Sarah Palin at CPAC 2012

February 15, 2012

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) seems like such a natural venue for former Governor Sarah Palin that I’ve often wondered why she didn’t appear there in 2009-2011. It’s not as if she’d have encountered anything other than a rapturous audience.

Well, she fixed that in 2012, and the crowd loved her, as you’ll see especially when some hecklers tried to cut her off. Dopes.

Just under 40 minutes. Grab a coke and some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy:

PS: It’s no secret that I’m a big fan of Sarah Palin, and that I hope some day to cast a vote for her for president. I don’t think she’s perfect –we’re all human, after all– but she matches my beliefs regarding politics and the nature of American greatness more closely than any pol I’ve come across in recent years. And I think she has the right character for high office.

PPS: In case you missed it, I’m sure you’ll also enjoy MEP Daniel Hannan’s speech before CPAC.

PPPS: Sorry for the light posting of late. Things have just been hectic.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Dear GOP Establishment: BOOM! Taste her nightstick!

January 27, 2012

The last few days have erupted in controversy as former Reagan-era politicians and bureaucrats have come forth to question hack with a meat axe at Newt Gingrich’s claims to have been a leading figure in the “Reagan Revolution” of the 1980s. Among the most hard-hitting was former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams’ broadside. (Rebutted by Jeffrey Lord, also a former Reaganite.)

To say the rhetoric has become angry and bitter would be like characterizing the Civil War as a “family argument.”

Enter Sarah Palin, who knows a thing or two about being the victim of a coordinated hatchet-job. Flawed as Newt is, Momma Grizzly is mad and breaks out her nightstick.

Boom.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future. But this week a few handpicked and selectively edited comments which Newt made during his 40-year career were used to claim that Newt was somehow anti-Reagan and isn’t conservative enough to go against the accepted moderate in the primary race. (I know, it makes no sense, and the GOP establishment hopes you won’t stop and think about this nonsense. Mark Levin and others have shown the ridiculousness of this.) To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan. He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days. You can’t change history. We know that Newt Gingrich brought the Reagan Revolution into the 1990s. We know it because none other than Nancy Reagan herself announced this when she presented Newt with an award, telling us, “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century.  Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.” As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque rewriting of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

Emphasis added. Read it all.

If there’s one person outside the candidates themselves who has sufficient respect and influence among the base to significantly influence the primary race, it’s Sarah Palin.

And she just shot a bullet at the feet of the GOP establishment.

Go, ‘Cuda.

RELATED: My blog-buddy ST has a long piece about this controversy, the dread charge of “RINO-ism,” and pols who try to manipulate voters. Legal Insurrection calls it a “thousand points of fright” for the GOP establishment.


Clueless editorial

October 6, 2011

Normally I like the Washington Examiner; it’s a great center-right paper and they feature some excellent columnists. I highly recommend it.

But, in an editorial saying Sarah Palin was right not to run, the editorial writer showed himself to be intellectually lazy and shallow:

As he bowed out of next year’s race, Christie said President Obama “has failed the leadership test.” Christie added: “Everything else you can be taught. You can’t be taught how to lead and how to make decisions.” The reality is that by resigning her post as governor of Alaska — citing as her reason an ethics law that she had championed — Palin failed the same leadership test as Obama. It does not matter how deeply unfair the press was toward her during the 2008 presidential cycle, when John McCain chose her as his running mate. By quitting the job she was elected to do, Palin essentially acknowledged her critics’ most essential contention — that she was not ready for higher office. Nothing she has done since then has changed this.

Oh, boy. Here we go.  It’s the “quitter” argument, again, the favorite of people who look at one fact –“She quit!”– and then shut off their brains. They only look at it from a national perspective, not recognizing or acknowledging or perhaps even caring about differences between states and their laws.

To whomever wrote this editorial: it wasn’t the 2008 press coverage that made her quit. It was the campaign of unending and baseless ethics charges that were aimed at her political paralysis and financial ruin. As I wrote to a friend when we were discussing this yesterday:

The law in question was the Alaska ethics statute. Under it:

  • All complaints and charges had to be investigated. There was no preliminary vetting.
  • The accused had to pay for their own defense, no state resources. In other words, the state AG couldn’t lift a finger, unlike other states.
  • All document requests had to be honored. Given the number of requests filed, this ate up an enormous amount of staff time and public money.

By the time she resigned, the Palins had accumulated $700k of legal debt at least on a combined salary of (roughly) $200k. Again, there would be no reimbursement from the state, nor anything paid by losing complainants. I think asking someone to continue as governor and take bankruptcy on the chin is a bit much. (Regarding some sort of a legal defense fund, they tried that, a predecessor to SarahPac, and it was challenged under the ethics law, too. The money was locked up. I donated to it and was eventually given a refund.)

The ethics law was well-intentioned but (as is so often the case) poorly designed and fraught with unintended consequences. Not surprisingly (as I understand it), it was changed under her successor.

So I ask the editorial’s author: How would it be passing a test of leadership to hang on to an office at the price of it being paralyzed by the complaints (thus being unable to do “the job she was elected to do”) and her family being bankrupted? Would you seriously call that leadership? Honestly?

Sure, the rest of the editorial is largely complimentary, but the heart is in the quoted paragraph. This editorial wasn’t even a backhanded compliment; it was a thinly-disguised patronizing slap to Sarah Palin’s face from a mouthpiece for the Beltway Establishment.

Bah.

AFTERWORD: My understanding of the Alaska ethics law is based on several years hashing over this topic. My apologies for not having a link handy. If I’m wrong in my summary, I’ll gladly stand corrected if someone can cite the relevant text from the law as it existed during Palin’s administration.

RELATED: Stacy McCain has a good article on Palin’s decision at The American Spectator.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


So, did you hear Sarah isn’t running?

October 6, 2011

Let me be upfront about this: I’m disappointed Sarah Palin decided not to run for president in 2012. She’s been my preferred candidate since she was introduced to the nation in 2008 by John McCain and then made her brilliant (and I do not use that word lightly) acceptance speech at the Republican convention. I thought then and I think now she has “it” — what it takes to be a great president: strength of character, the right understanding of what this nation is about, of the proper role of the government, of our unique place in the world, and what it would take to make us great, again. If she had run this year, I would have crawled over broken glass and through a nuclear holocaust to vote for her.

So my disappointment is with her decision, not with her. Just so we’re clear.

Meanwhile, this provides me with a good chance to get a few things off my chest:

(Sleeps on it)

Nah. I was going to go into a long rant and diatribe about Palin-fanatics and Palin-bashers, but what’s the point? I’ll just leave it at what I wrote on Twitter last night:

One thing I’ve learned: among both Palin-critics and Palin-fans, there is an incredible number of self-righteous jerks.

And then there’s the mainstream media, which has spent the last three years largely successfully destroying the reputation of a good person, and large swathes of the Republican establishment, which let them get away with it or even joined in. You both have my contempt.

As for what Sarah Palin will do in the future, I don’t know. One of Jim Geraghty‘s correspondents, a Palin fan, thinks this is the end:

I still admire and respect her, and still think she is one of the most potent natural political talents in the country, but I think this starts the decline of her influence in American politics. She no longer has an obvious platform. I would be very surprised if she starts appearing more on Fox News and would be shocked if her contract is renewed. It’s pretty clear that she’s pissed at them, and Ailes made it equally clear in his interview with Howard Kurtz that he considers her a “branding problem,” and FNC appears to have turned against her. I would also be very surprised if her speaking engagements continue at anywhere near the pace of the last two years, and she can’t believe that she will continue to get the media coverage she has been getting. The media hates her and covered her primarily because she had a chance, no matter how improbable they considered it, of being the GOP nominee for President or even winning. Same for her Facebook postings. I can’t believe anyone in the media, liberal or conservative, will pay any attention to her now, nor do I think she will be that much in demand as a stump speaker for other candidates.

Maybe, but maybe not. After defeats in 1960 and 1962, most people thought Nixon was finished (1). Six years later, it was “hail to the chief!” Sarah Palin may vanish into Quayle and Ferraro-land, or she may refresh, reload, and come back in a few years stronger than ever (2). We’ll see, and I hope it’s the latter.

Meanwhile, we have a candidate to decide on and an election to win. Sitting out or third party is not an option; the nation cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama, even if the Republicans take control of Congress. Here’s my take on the current serious candidates:

Mitt Romney: I want to like Mitt, but he has so many moments that make me slap my hand to my forehead that I’m developing a welt. Steven Hayward brings up a couple of Mitt’s recent clueless moments. As president, I don’t doubt that he’d try to “reach across the aisle,” McCain-like, on key issues, and that he’d need a conservative Congress and an active base to keep him on the reservation. I do think, however, he’d be solid on foreign and defense issues.

Rick Perry: My second choice after Palin, probably the closest of the serious candidates to me ideologically. Yes, he does have serious questions to answer about immigration and the Texas Dream Act, and I think his position is defensible, but he’s handled it wretchedly and now has to dig himself out of a large hole. He also needs to show he really wants the job and isn’t another Fred Thompson, running because everyone else told him it would be a great idea. And we need to see better debate prep, if only because the nominee will have to dismantle Obama at some point.

Herman Cain: I want to warm up to him, but I’m having hard time. His answers on foreign affairs have been awful, his 9-9-9 plan, while interesting, is seriously flawed (you do not want a national sales tax and an income tax both), and I can’t escape a nagging feeling that he has the wrong temperament for dealing with a more assertive Congress. I get a “my way or the highway” vibe. Still, I’m open to being convinced.

The rest of the field is just window-dressing.

What do the rest of you think? Since we have to deal with what is, rather than what we’d (well, I’d) like it to be, which candidate floats your boat?

LINKS: Michelle Malkin had some nice things to say about Sarah Palin in the wake of her announcement. Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection is both more concise and more eloquent than I, and I agree with everything he wrote about this.

PS: You can bet Palin’s phone is ringing off the hook with candidates seeking her endorsement for the nomination. I would suggest to these political suitors, if you want to please those of us who looked to her for intelligent leadership on energy policy and who are aghast at the policies of the Obama administration, keeping her in mind for the Energy or Interior chairs in the Cabinet would be a very good idea.

Footnotes:
(1) No, I’m not saying she’s another Nixon. That’s Obama, if anyone. But Tricky Dick is a prime example of someone resurrecting a political career thought to be ruined.
(2) If she’s willing to do the work. I honestly wouldn’t blame her for walking away forever.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Hope for our energy future, but first we need Change

September 10, 2011

Via Walter Russell Mead, news of a big oil strike off the coast of French Guiana:

A consortium of energy companies Friday reported a large oil discovery off the coast of French Guiana, opening up a potentially massive frontier of petroleum development along the northern coast of South America.

The discovery, made by Tullow Oil PLC, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Total SA, could buoy hopes about the extent of the world’s untapped crude-oil reserves. Most of the barrels still underground are believed to be in the hands of a few countries that restrict access or are trapped in hard-to-exploit regions like the Arctic.

It’s estimated that 3.5 billion barrel of oil lie untapped at the site, though how much can be recovered remains to be seen. Nonetheless, this is a big find, comparable to estimates to the Bakken formation in the US. And its location makes it a double-boon for America, as Mead explains:

America’s geopolitical good luck seems to be continuing in the 21st century.  With very large deposits in Canada, the Gulf, Mexico, Venezuela and offshore Brazil, the US looks to have the most stable and secure oil supplies of any major world power.  Throw in new reserves here and the vast natural gas resources we keep finding, and the US energy picture seems to be getting brighter all the time.

And let’s not forget that estimates of oil and gas reserves within the US are growing, perhaps as high as 145 billion barrels of oil (Source in PDF):

U.S. proved reserves of oil total 19.1 billion barrels, reserves of natural gas total 244.7 trillion cubic feet, and natural gas liquids reserves of 9.3 billion barrels. Undiscovered technically recoverable oil in the United States is 145.5 billion barrels, and undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas is 1,162.7 trillion cubic feet. The demonstrated reserve base for coal is 488 billion short tons, of which 261 billion short tons are considered technically recoverable. …

Proved reserves are those amounts of oil, natural gas, or coal that have been discovered and defined, typically by drilling wells or other exploratory measures, and which can be economically recovered. In the United States, proved reserves are typically measured by private companies, who report their findings to the Securities and Exchange Commission because they are considered capital assets. In addition to the volumes of proved reserves are deposits of oil and gas that have not yet been discovered, which are called undiscovered resources. The term has a specific meaning: undiscovered resources are amounts of oil and gas estimated to exist in unexplored areas. If they are considered to be recoverable using existing production technologies, they are referred to as undiscovered technically recoverable resources (UTRR). In-place resources are intended to represent all of the oil, natural gas, or coal contained in a formation or basin without regard to technical or economic recoverability.

If those UTRR estimates become “proved reserves,” then we vault into the top-ten oil producers in the world — and bear in mind that those estimates could be too low, as well as too high.

Which brings us to fly in the ointment, that which makes Mead’s brightening picture something to look for several years down the road, not right now: we have to get rid of the Obama administration and all the anti-exploration and anti-drilling ideologues it’s put in positions of power. We could have all the oil in the world, and it would do us no good because of the Obama’s administration’s hostility toward responsible exploration and exploitation, both on- and offshore.

Let’s face it, the situation won’t improve until a new administration is in power that is not a slave to the Green Statist, eco-Socialist agenda and that will put an end to the administration’s insane permitorium. One that stops trying to strongarm the nation into “green technology” that isn’t yet economically viable and is a breeding ground for corruption.

Which, of course, means we need a new president. Someone with a commitment to free markets, limited government, and responsible energy development.

Gee, I wonder who comes to mind?

RELATED: Taking the brakes off exploration and development would do wonders for our jobs situation, too.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Sarah Palin: Sure, she’s not running. Yep. You betcha.

August 20, 2011

And to prove that, SarahPac released a video of her visit to the Iowa state fair that looks every bit like a campaign ad. Because, well, political professionals, pundits, would-be pundits, and candidates hoping not to compete against her all say so, silly! So there.

Judge for yourself:

And apparently she survived the fried butter on a stick. (1)

The September 3rd date referred to at the end is for something called the “Restoring America” rally. Originally scheduled for Waukee, Iowa, it’s been moved to the Indianola Balloon Grounds near Des Moines, because of a larger than first-planned crowd.

For someone who, we’re told, isn’t running.

Now, it’s possible that she will endorse another candidate at Indianola (if so, I would expect it to be Governor Perry), and it’s even possible that she would announce she’s not running at all. There are good reasons not to throw her hat in the ring.

But, that very, very slick video does not look to me like something put out by someone who is not running for higher office. Perhaps I’m projecting my hopes (2), but I’d say she’s running and the announcement comes on the 3rd at Indianola.

Go, ‘Cuda.

UPDATE: Glad to see Karl Rove agrees with me.

LINKS: Stacy McCain asks: “If she isn’t running, why’d she release this video?” Good question, dude. Legal Insurrection says “Nobody does it better.” Radio host Mark Levin believes she will run (via Hot Air).

Footnotes:
(1) They also had deep-fried cheesecake?? I hope they also had a cardiologist in attendance!
(2) For those who don’t know me, she’s my preferred candidate, though there are several Republicans I could easily vote for in November ’12. The point is to get the current Schmuck-in-Chief out.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Perry-Fallin 2012?

August 18, 2011

Sure, I’m being facetious in the headline (“Fallin who?”), but in one sense I’m not; freshman Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin is presiding over a economic mini-boom in her state. Check out this interview on Fox & Friends:

Now don’t you think Obama would give his last piece of arugula to have Oklahoma’s 5.3% unemployment rate? (1) But that would require him to give up his fallacious Keynesian dogmas and abandon his Socialist intellectual framework. I think I’ll see the sun rise in the West before that happens.

What Fallin and the Oklahoma legislature have done is what other states, such as Texas, are doing: establish a competitive tax burden, set out reasonable and predictable regulations, keep government spending within its means, and institute legal reform to prevent frivolous lawsuits. Oklahoma has followed this path and is reaping the benefits. The United States as a whole can, too.

If we elect the right man or woman.

Footnotes:
(1) As would my beloved California, where the official unemployment rate is a nauseating 11.8%. Governor Brown and the Oligarchs of the State Legislature, take note.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Palin, Pappas, and different accounts — an update

August 16, 2011

This is a follow-on to this morning’s post about a misleading headline and Governor Palin’s phone call to a reporter in the mistaken belief that he was responsible. While really an addendum to that post, the passage of time and the number of posts since then make me think this should be its own entry.

Anyway, reporter Robert Stacy McCain (aka, “The Other McCain”) did some digging during the day and turned up some information contrary to the original report. Here are the key points:

  • Governor Palin did not personally dial up Pappas’s number. She asked around among her aides if anyone knew how to get in touch with Pappas. One member of her advance team, Jason Recher, had Pappas’s number, called him and then handed the phone to the governor.
  • Governor Palin did not summon a Politico reporter to listen in on the call. Palin was in the middle of a gigantic crowd of people at the Iowa State Fair, and her half of the conversation may have been overheard by others. There was no way, amid the press of the throng, that anyone outside that swarm could have been summoned at all, and the idea that Palin would be doing favors for a Politico reporter is ridiculous.
  • Governor Palin wasn’t screaming angrily at Pappas. Again, Palin was in the middle of a crowd, which was quite noisy, and if her voice was loud, it was because she was trying to make herself heard amid the hubub.

Stacey’s a good journalist, and I recommend reading the whole post and following his site. One interesting observation he makes, a bit of “political news” that he’s amazed no one else has picked up on, is the inference to be drawn from Palin herself making the call: that if she felt that strongly about the need to deny any hint that she was endorsing Mitt Romney, it’s a strong indication she really is planning to run.

As they say, “intriguing.”

(My guess is still that she’ll announce at Waukee on September 3rd.)

Finally, on a more personal note, I took a fair amount of heat in the comments (at ST’s blog and mine) and on Twitter for that post. Fair enough; if you’re willing to say what you think in public, you have to expect some folks won’t be happy. But I don’t believe I was out of line, hasty, unfair, or injudicious, having qualified it with enough cautions to choke a horse. Believe it or not, I am glad later information is coming out that apparently clears things up.

UPDATE: My blog-buddy chimes in with a comment. (Scroll down to the bottom of the original post.)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#Palin: This is disappointing, if true

August 16, 2011

Anyone who knows me or who has read my posts for any length of time knows I’m a fan of Sarah Palin. A big fan. I like her politics, I like her outlook, I like her record, and I think she has the makings of a good president.

Which makes this news both disturbing and disappointing:

What happened was that Alex Pappas of The Daily Caller, one of the rising stars among political scribes and a meticulously careful and wonderfully polite, fair-minded young man (an aside: I’ve known him since he was in junior high school), wrote a perfectly fine story about Palin’s current stances vis-a-vis the presidential race. In it, one of the things she said was that if Mitt Romney is the nominee, well, of course she would endorse him over Barack Obama.

Fox Nation picked up the story and, in its own headline (not Pappas’, not the Daily Caller’s, but its own headline completely apart from anything Pappas ever wrote) played up the “Romney endorse” angle in a way that apparently did not make it clear that the endorsement might be in the general election, rather than the primary campaign. (The headline is no longer available at Fox Nation, so I can’t say exactly what the wording was.)

Anyway, the Palin team pounced. Specifically inviting over reporter Kasie Hunt from Politico so she could hear the exchange, Palin called Pappas’ cell phone and began berating him in a very scolding manner for writing a headline suggesting she supports Romney. Pappas didn’t even know what she was talking about. When he tried to say that neither he nor his editors had written such a headline, she said she didn’t have time for this, that she needed to go back to the “real people” at the State Fair, and hung up on him.

Later, when it became clear that Fox Nation, not Pappas or The Daily Caller, had written the semi-offending headline, a Palin press aide called Pappas back not to apologize but to say that they now realized it was Fox and that the headline had been taken down. “No,” Pappas said, far more bemused than angry or upset, “he didn’t come close to apologizing.”

Be sure to read the whole thing.

Let’s set some context here. The article’s author, Quinn Hillyer, is a solid conservative. American Spectator is an old-line conservative magazine. Both Hillyer and the magazine have defended Sarah Palin in the past. And, while The Daily Caller tends toward the tabloid style, it’s well to the Right, too.

This was not a Lefty hit-job.

What jumps out at me is not that the former Alaska governor blew her stack at a reporter. We know how miserably she’s been treated by the press and, well, everyone can have a bad moment. (Even I’ve been known to have one from time to time. Ahem…) That I can write off.  In this modern age of flip cams and 24-by-7 coverage, every politician will at some time or another reveal their warts.

No, I’m bothered by two other items: first, that Mrs. Palin apparently called over another journalist to witness her reaming of Pappas — what was the point? It reeks of pettiness and unprofessionalism. She is a serious contender for President of the United States. This kind of “Watch me burn this guy” behavior should be beneath any candidate.

Second, once it became clear that Pappas and The Daily Caller were not at fault, Governor Palin owed him a personal call to apologize. Not a non-apology call from an aide.

Not only is that simple courtesy and the decent thing to do, but it’s smart politics. Once you, a contender for high office, have been shown to be wrong, admit it, apologize, and defuse the issue immediately. In the process you show yourself to be a good person and you disarm your opponents’ talking points. To do what Sarah Palin is accused of doing, however, is to compound boorish, childish behavior with poor political judgement.

In a candidate with ambitions for high office, that’s a bad combination.

Again, that’s if this is true. I say “if” because we all know the dangers of first reports and how there can be many wildly different viewpoints regarding the same set of facts. (Ever see Rashomon?) And it just doesn’t sound like Sarah Palin, for several reasons. But here we have witnesses, and I suspect what was reported is at least close to what happened.

And if that’s the case, then Sarah Palin owes Mr. Pappas a sincere apology.

PS: In case you’re wondering, no, this does not change my support for her. Not by itself, at least. However, it does go into the “Hmmm… File” as something that bears watching for signs of a trend.

PPS: I won’t at all be surprised to be fired at by both Palin-haters shouting “SEE? WE TOLD YOU SO!!!” and Palin-bots who go into attack-badger mode at even the least criticism. To the latter I suggest looking at my prior posts to see what kind of a supporter I’ve been.

PPPS: Rick Perry also had a serious unforced error moment in Iowa. Like I said, it’s going to happen to every candidate. Perhaps both should blame the deep-fried butter on a stick.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Quote of the day: Sarah Palin edition

July 10, 2011

From her Facebook page:

It’s a matter of public record that I did not go to Harvard Law School, but I can add.

That’ll leave a mark.

Be sure to read the whole thing to see how she tears into Obama for his incompetent leadership, his refusal to face facts, and his blind devotion to Keynesianism: The Sugar Daddy Has Run Out of Sugar.

Nightstick. Boom.

UPDATE: And take a look at the forthcoming cover of Newsweek. (h/t Melissa Clouthier)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


John Ziegler can take his phony, self-serving concern and shove it

June 13, 2011

The Internet brouhaha of the day is for once not about Anthony Weiner’s peccadilloes. (For the latest on that…) Instead, we get a long article at The Daily Caller from John Ziegler announcing that Palin cannot win, decrying the “bunker mentality” that’s supposedly set in at the Palin camp and declaring that her candidacy, should she run, would be a disaster for the Republican party.

This, mind you, came from someone who counts himself as a friend and supporter.

I was planning to write a rebuttal dealing with the lack of any evidence for Ziegler’s assertions and his evident overwhelming self-regard, but William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection beat me to it, so I’ll refer you to his post. I do want to quote one portion, though:

Ziegler is a complete narcissist.  His article is all about him, his feelings, and his imagined facts.  There is little substance, in fact almost no substance, to many of the negative conclusions he reaches.  Here is a good example, in one of the sure-to-be quoted passages from the article:

  • There’s also the fact that Sarah’s entire operation is increasingly managed like a CIA field office; that she’s adopted a bunker mentality; that she’s trusting the wrong people, some of whom I know are simply exploiting her.

Yet what actual evidence does Ziegler cite; what quotes from people are included; what substance is there in the article other than the fact that Ziegler himself is offended that his opinions that Palin should not run may not be resonating with Palin (in fact, that’s not even clear).

Be sure to read the whole thing.

As I said in a comment there, I couldn’t escape the impression while reading Ziegler’s article this morning that I was reading something by a “creepy fan” or “spurned courtier,” the kind of person who knows the best interests of the object of his fascination better than that person does, herself. Unable to influence her to do what he thinks is best for her, he becomes a large-scale version of a “concern troll,” the commenter who shows up on blogs pretending sympathy, yet all the while spreading doubts and defeatism.

I may be wrong, but that’s the strong impression I get from Ziegler.

Then there is his declaration that she cannot win and therefore should not run; my only reply is that he may be right about winning, but it is her right to run and the voters’ right to decide — not John Ziegler’s, nor any other pundit or would-be pundit in the MSM or the blogosphere. I’m getting darned sick and tired of self-proclaimed gatekeepers who keep trying to pick my candidates for me.

Let’s turn this away from Palin for a moment and consider another example: I don’t like Mike Huckabee. I don’t think he would be a good president and I would not vote for him, unless I had no other realistic choice than Obama. But I would never say to him, “Governor, don’t you dare run. You can’t win, I just know it, and I’d hate to see you go through all that.” On the contrary, were Huckabee to change his mind and get in the race, I’d say “Fine. Welcome in, and let the competition begin,” because we the voters benefit from a broad choice much more than we do from a few “anointed ones.”

So, even if I weren’t already a Palin supporter, I’d want her in the race because I believe she has something of substance to offer the electorate, and I as a voter want that broad range of choices. (1)

No matter what the John Zieglers of the world say.

LINKS: More from Hot Air. Patterico at the end of a post presents evidence that backs up my spurned courtier observation.

Footnotes:

(1) Really, all you in the MSM and other media elites: We’re not children, and we’re quite capable of choosing our candidates on our own, thank you.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Sarah Palin’s Magic Bus

May 27, 2011

You may have heard that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin is about to embark on a “One Nation” (1) bus tour of historic sites in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions. Here’s the roll-out video:

Many are speculating that this may be a prelude to announcing her candidacy for president. I don’t think there’s any “may be” about it: I think she’s 95% in and this plus her documentary (which, contrary to the MSM slander, she neither commissioned nor paid for) are the final “testing the waters’ to gauge reaction. Jim Geraghty in his Morning Jolt newsletter thinks the only thing that could change her mind would be the effect on her family and that this bus tour might be a way to measure that:

My first reaction was that the book tour wasn’t ipso facto evidence that Palin was running for president; in her Greta Van Susteren interview, Palin suggested that concerns over her family were what was holding her back. Does a bus tour mean that issue has been resolved? Maybe. But I think only Palin and her family know for sure. As I speculated, maybe this is a “dress rehearsal” — if the family goes through the experience of the bus tour and emerges unscathed, then the campaign is a go.

As I’ve made clear in the past, I greatly admire her (2) and think she’d be a fine president — and not just by comparison to the low bar set by the current occupant of the office. She’s my preferred candidate (3). Whether she can win the nomination and the general election is another thing, and that’s for the voters to decide, not pundits and would-be pundits — including me.

Meanwhile, we’ll keep you posted on how the tour goes.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: Go, ‘Cuda!

(1) Take that, John Edwards.

(2) Yes, even after “The Resignation.” As I’ve said, that’s a non-issue for me until someone can convince me otherwise by explaining in detail and with facts what she should have done given the Alaska ethics law at the time and the concerted campaign to destroy her that exploited that law.

(3) But, if she doesn’t run or does but loses the nomination, there are others I could easily support: Tim Pawlenty for one, who not only has a good record as governor but also is showing more feistiness than I ever expected.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Sarah Palin: We deserve an explanation about Libya

April 26, 2011

I’m having cognitive dissonance here. On  the one hand, I’m assured by the Left and the major media (but I repeat myself), and by many on the Establishment Right, that Sarah Palin is a chillbilly airhead who has no idea what she is talking about and would be a disaster as president.

But then, after expressing puzzlement over the administration’s conflicting reasons for going to war (kinda-sorta) in Libya,  she goes and writes something like this:

At this point, to avoid further mission creep and involvement in a third war – one we certainly can’t afford – you need to step up and justify our Libyan involvement, or Americans are going to demand you pull out. Simply put, what are we doing there? You’ve put us in a strategic no man’s land. If Gaddafi’s got to go, then tell NATO our continued participation hinges on this: We strike hard and Gaddafi will be gone. If, as you and your spokesmen suggest, we’re not to tell Libya what to do when it comes to that country’s leadership, and if you can’t explain to Americans why we’re willing to protect Libyan resources and civilians but not Syria’s, Yemen’s, Bahrain’s, Egypt’s, Israel’s, etc., then there is no justification for U.S. human and fiscal resources to be spent.

I would also ask you to better explain your thinking on Libya. We can’t afford any actions that don’t take care of crucial U.S. needs and meet our own interests at this point. You are the Commander in Chief, so please explain what you believe is our “interest” there and not elsewhere.

Mr. President, your hesitation and vacillation in the Middle East breed uncertainty. It’s symptomatic of the puzzling way you govern. See, uncertainty is one of the factors over which you have control, and I would think you’d want to eliminate that additional element that helps breed problems like higher oil prices. Higher oil means exorbitant gas prices weighing down our economy.  Consistency and strength – and greater domestic energy production – will help fix higher gas prices and help heal the economy. But only with leadership. These sorts of problems don’t fix themselves.

Uncertainty breeds higher prices because those who thought themselves our allies suddenly find that may not be true(1), they may not be as secure as they thought and their oil supplies may not be as safe, all of which leads more risk being associated with Mideast oil, and contributes to higher costs passed on to us at the pump. Basic economics and common sense, both of which are alien to our president.

It seems to me the woman dismissed as a “Caribou Barbie” and a quitter(2) has a better grip on our national interests than the Smartest President in History ever will.

Darn her for confusing me by being right when our Cultural Elites (all bow) insist she’s wrong.

Go, ‘Cuda!

TANGENTS:

(1) Hey, if we unceremoniously dumped Mubarak, who, while a bloated dictator, at least often served our interests and wasn’t as bad as a lot of them, then who’s next? You can bet a lot are worried.

(2) An argument I no longer treat as serious, unless it can be made in the context of the Alaskan ethics law as it existed at the time of her resignation.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Dear Facebook: you have a problem with hypocrisy

April 12, 2011

This blog was banned for “abusive content,” but a page promoting Sarah Palin’s death is still up after repeated complaints? (Click to enlarge)

Really, Facebook?


Palin on Libya and how one uses armed force

March 24, 2011

She was interviewed by Greta van Susteren last night; it’s worth watching.

Part One:

Part Two:

As we can see, the not-a-serious-and-can’t-win* potential candidate from Alaska has a far more coherent view on Libya and the employment of military force than anyone in the White House†.

But she’s the dummy.

via Ed Morrissey, who has some analysis.

*I’m being a wee bit sarcastic.

†She also has more intestinal fortitude than anyone at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.


Of Reagan, Palin, and “she can’t win”

March 22, 2011

It’s become something of a hobby –even an article of faith for some– on the Left and part of the Right to declare that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has no chance to win the Republican nomination. Or, if she does win the nomination, then she has no chance to win the presidency, itself.

At Lowdown Central, my friend Lance Thompson thinks back to 1980, when another polarizing conservative, Ronald Reagan, was the candidate all the wise said “couldn’t win.” Recounting the many difficulties on Reagan’s path to office, he looks at the common wisdom surrounding a possible Palin candidacy and says “wait a minute:”

The point is that at no time was the nomination of Ronald Reagan certain. In fact, a more common theme, even as Reagan won primary after primary, was the impossibility of a Reagan presidency. This view was held by the media, the opposition, and many in his own party.

Sarah Palin faces the same doubts and predictions of failure. Like Reagan, she is plainspoken and unapologetic in her beliefs–American exceptionalism, energy independence, traditional morals and individual freedom. She has also been called too simplistic and too extreme, and in terms much harsher than those applied to Ronald Reagan. But she has not wavered in her principles, and her positions which seemed extreme at first–opposing Obamacare, tapping America’s energy resources, keeping faith with our allies and standing up to our enemies–resonate with an increasing number of Americans.

Ronald Reagan’s election and eight year presidency altered the direction and fate of this country in profound ways no one could have predicted. Sarah Palin has at least the potential to do the same. Those who dismiss or discount her have either forgotten their history, or wish they could.

It’s no secret that I favor Palin for the presidency. That bias admitted, I recommend reading the whole article as a cure for the common assumption.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Palin 2012 campaign poster?

February 7, 2011

I can dig it:

Go to Andrew Coffin’s article at Big Government for a full report and many more pictures of Palin’s visit to the ranch and her speech before the Young America’s Foundation. I watched her live on CSPAN; it was a good speech, not her best (Her delivery struck me as a little off.), but still a very good, heartfelt tribute to Reagan’s famous 1964 address “A Time for Choosing.” (If you haven’t ever seen that, go now and watch. It is impressive. Don’t worry, I’ll be here when you get back.) What it most definitely wasn’t was the content and proposal-free speech the hack at the New York Times thought it was. Conservatives for Palin has the definitive rebuttal, while I’m left wondering if the Times’ Jeff Zeleny and I were watching the same program — or were even in the same dimension. But then, this is typical of the hatchet job the MSM regularly hits the former governor with.

To paraphrase President Reagan: “Well, there they go again.”

Meanwhile, back to the subject of this post, while Palin wisely said in her speech that the hunt for another Reagan was futile and, by implication, an unfair comparison for any modern candidate, images such as the one above make them inevitable. Though Sarah Palin may be no Ronald Reagan*, it’s my opinion that she, among all the likely 2012 candidates, best “gets” what he meant and what he was about. And the photo above conveys that.

But, I’ll leave the last words to unabashed Palinista and radio talk-show host Tammy Bruce:

Liberals, Islamists and Globalists take note: She’ll always look this good, even when ruining your plans. …the Mayans were right–your world is coming to an end in 2012. Have a Happy Sunday, I certainly am.

Heh.

*Let’s face it: as good and significant a president as he was, even the historical Reagan couldn’t live up to the “golden age” image memory and time have cloaked him in. It’s one thing to admire great men and women; it’s another to engage in hagiography. It’s unfair both to the real person and those who come after him.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


I thought she was supposed to be just a dumb chillbilly?

January 27, 2011

Sarah Palin has posted a response to President Obama’s State of the Union address on her Facebook page. Rather than the vapid ramblings of a baby-making airhead, she demonstrates she has a better idea of what ails the nation and what it needs than the man who made the speech. An excerpt:

Perhaps the most nonsensical bit of double-speak we heard last night was when the President said that hitting job-creators with a tax increase isn’t “punishing their success. It’s about promoting America’s success.” But government taking more money from the small business entrepreneurs who create up to 70% of all jobs in this country is not “promoting America’s success.” It’s a disincentive that will result in less job creation. It is, in fact, punishing the success of the very people who created the innovation that the President has supposedly been praising.

Despite the flowery rhetoric, the President doesn’t seem to understand that individuals make America great, not the federal government. American greatness lies in the courage and hard work of individual innovators and entrepreneurs. America is an exceptional nation in part because we have historically been a country that rewards and affirms individual initiative and offers people the freedom to invest and create as they see fit – not as a government bureaucrat does. Yes, government can play an appropriate role in our free market by ensuring a level playing field to encourage honest competition without picking winners and losers. But by and large, government should get out of the way. Unfortunately, under President Obama’s leadership, government growth is in our way, and his “big government greatness” will not help matters.

Consider what his “big government greatness” really amounts to. It’s basically a corporatist agenda – it’s the collaboration between big government and the big businesses that have powerful friends in D.C. and can afford to hire big lobbyists. This collaboration works in a manner that distorts and corrupts true free market capitalism. This isn’t just old-fashioned big government liberalism; this is crony capitalism on steroids. In the interests of big business, we’re “investing” in technologies and industries that venture capitalists tell us are non-starters, but which will provide lucrative returns for some corporate interests who have major investments in these areas. In the interests of big government, we’re not reducing the size of our bloated government or cutting spending, we’re told the President will freeze it – at unsustainable, historic levels! In practice, this means that public sector employees (big government’s staunchest defenders) may not lose jobs, but millions of Americans in the private sector face lay offs because the ever-expanding government has squeezed out and crippled our economy under the weight of unsustainable debt.

Read the whole thing and just try to square it with the liberal media-political complex’s narrative of a shallow dummy and a bubbleheaded runner-up beauty queen. Her discussion of Obama’s corporatist agenda could have come straight out of Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism.”

Go, ‘Cuda!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The Battle Hymn of Sarah

January 19, 2011

Cute. After the week she’s been through, I imagine this would put a smile on Sarah Palin’s face:

The old guy’s got a pretty good voice, too!

Via Hillbuzz

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow up: how to react to libel?

January 18, 2011

A few days ago, I argued that Sarah Palin was right to respond to the blood libel hurled at her and at the Right in general, that it was not the usual criticisms one could ignore or “rise above.”

At Legal Insurrection, William Jacobson agrees with me, but puts it much better and less heatedly than I:

Palin cannot just ignore the obvious libel against her.  That is the strategy pursued by the Bush administration in the face of false accusations that Bush “lied us into war.”  We saw how that strategy of silence worked.

There is not a shred of evidence to date that Loughner ever saw Palin’s electoral map, yet 56% of Democrats (and 35% of people overall) believe that the map was connected to the Tucson shooting.

This puts Palin in an impossible position, one faced by many people who are falsely accused.

If Palin does not defend herself vigorously, the silence is taken as acquiescence and an implicit admission of guilt.  If she does defend herself, she is criticized for making the issue about her and she further spreads the defamatory accusations (so-called “self-publication”).

(…)

Palin is correct to fight back forcefully against people for whom the truth about the Tucson shooting is just a set of inconvenient facts to be ignored for a false political narrative.

If Palin did not fight back, the slanderers and defamers surely would win.  The truth may not prevail here because of the strength of the Democratic message machine, but it is worth fighting for.

And if you’re not following Legal Insurrection, you really need to fix that oversight, now.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,853 other followers