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)

Advertisements

California: Judge suspends implementation of job-killing “greenhouse gas” law

March 22, 2011

A rare victory for commonsense in the Golden State:

Judge places California’s global warming program on hold

A San Francisco superior court judge has put California’s sweeping plan to curb greenhouse gas pollution on hold, saying the state did not adequately evaluate alternatives to its cap-and-trade program.

In a 35-page decision, Judge Ernest H. Goldsmith said the Air Resources Board had failed to consider public comments on the proposed measures before adopting the plan, which affects a broad swath of the state’s economy.

In particular, the judge noted, officials gave short shrift to analyzing a carbon fee, or carbon tax, devoting a “scant two paragraphs to this important alternative” to a market-based trading system in their December 2008 plan.

The air board said it would appeal the judge’s decision, which was filed late Friday and released Monday.

Sure, the judge wasn’t rejecting anthropogenic global warming per se, but instead objecting to the board’s lack of attention to public comment and consideration of alternative means to fight a problem that does not exist*. But, still, this functions as a temporary restraining order on a bill that would only do further damage to this state’s already gut-shot economy. The judge may be doing the right thing for the wrong reason, but it’s still the right thing.

*Okay, I may have editorialized a bit with those last few words.

ADDENDUM: Even if one thinks there’s some validity to the theory of AGW, the idea that California by itself can make a significant impact in the face of gross polluters such as China is laughable. AB32 is patent medicine meant only to make the Green Statists feel good about themselves, even though it’s laced with poison.

via Watt’s Up With That?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


I like the BBC, but not enough to pay them

March 22, 2011

I admit it: this conservative likes the BBC, in spite of its self-confessed left-liberal bias. Maybe it’s a nostalgic attachment to the Beeb’s role in World War II, when their overseas radio broadcasts would begin “This is London calling,” bringing a message of liberty, hope, and resistance to people trapped in the Nazis’ empire. Or maybe it’s just a natural reaction to the reassuring aura of authority that comes from a posh London accent — at least for the Anglophilic among us. (Another confession.)

But, much as I like Auntie Beeb, I don’t want to give her US taxpayer dollars:

BBC World Service to sign funding deal with US state department

The BBC World Service is to receive a “significant” sum of money from the US government to help combat the blocking of TV and internet services in countries including Iran and China.

In what the BBC said is the first deal of its kind, an agreement is expected to be signed later this month that will see US state department money – understood to be a low six-figure sum – given to the World Service to invest in developing anti-jamming technology and software.

The funding is also expected to be used to educate people in countries with state censorship in how to circumnavigate the blocking of internet and TV services.

It is understood the US government has decided the reach of the World Service is such that it makes investment worthwhile.

In other words, we’re in a fiscal crisis with a looming entitlement crash and a massive deficit, we’re seriously thinking of defunding our own quasi-national broadcaster, and yet Foggy Bottom thinks it’s a good idea to give money to the British Broadcasting Corporation? Six figures may be chicken feed in DC, but spending even a dime of our money on this is nonsensical. Granted, London is massively cutting defense spending and is imposing what amounts to (for them) an austerity budget (including cuts to the BBC), but they can fund their own darned radio service, if they think it’s so worthwhile.

And may I remind State that we ourselves have a pretty well-respected overseas news service, the Voice of America? Sending the money their way would accomplish the same goal while directly serving American interests.

Oh, wait. I forgot. It’s the State Department we’re talking about. Never mind.

I’ll give Fausta the final word on this mini-farce:

Let me get this straight, the US is broke, borrowing money from China, and will be funding the BBC to broadcast in China?

I’m sure it makes perfect sense inside the Beltway.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)