Posts Tagged ‘Election’

AttackWatch: Obama’s Opposition Research Snitch Site

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

Campaign of Intimidation

The site implores you “Get the facts. Fight the smears.”  This ominous application of intelligence gathering suggests Obama’s campaign will be creating a sort of Web-Enemies List.  The site promises to provide information with which to oppose any negative stories or narratives aimed at Obama.  One wonders if it will address the following narrative, being put in play by me:

“Barack Obama’s Campaign is involved in desperate information-gathering on its enemies in the blogosphere and on social networking sites, while pushing its own Marxist propaganda.” – MarkAmerica

Go ahead AttackWatch! Refute it!  Oh, wait…

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what must be the ultimate result of three years of failure: The President is reduced to gathering information on his critics, doubtless for the sake of the inevitable personal attacks they intend to conduct.  You want big government run wild?  Obama is set to deliver it, and this part of his campaign is an attempt to extend the Obama take-over of the economy onto the Internet.

This entire venture is intended to frighten and intimidate.  If you want to know what the Obama talking points will be, check out their “Attack Files” page.  It’s a mini-compendium of easily refuted responses to criticisms Barack Obama is sure to  face whomever his eventual general election opponent may be.

Go check the site and make yourself familiar with the talking points. Over the coming weeks and months, they will be refuted.  In the mean time, rather than feeling intimidated by Obama’s little website, you should laugh.  This is how desperate Obama and his drones have become.  At present, they’re just trying to stave off a primary challenge.  The grumbling deep within the bowels of the Democrat Party indicate he’s in serious trouble, and Tuesday night’s loss in NY District 9 demonstrate the serious trouble he and his party now face for 2012.

This crew is certifiable.


Rick Perry’s Immigration Surrender

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

More Insincerity?

Let me start by saying that I know a little about immigration.  My wife is an immigrant, and even married to a soldier, the hoops through which we were forced to leap and the fees we paid seemed outlandish as we prepared to move to Texas from Germany.  It was simply another brief hardship we happily faced together in our young marriage.  After I left the Army, we concluded that Texas would make a great home, and it was here in Texas where we came face-to-face with our national crisis in illegal immigration.  In the time we’ve lived here, what we have learned is that both parties tend to ignore the problem and downplay enforcement.   On the Democrat side, there is a tendency to see illegals as more votes, since Democrats aren’t picky if even the dead vote, so non-citizens voting isn’t really a problem in their view.  Some Republicans turn a blind eye for another reason, and it’s simply this:  Illegals are frequently paid in cash, under-the-table, and for jobs in agriculture and construction, they thereby hold down the cost of labor.  This increases profits on any job, and it’s on this basis that many otherwise law-and-order conservatives refuse to rock the boat or challenge the status quo.

This has been true with Democrats and Republicans in the White House, and in charge of Congress.  It’s been true whether Texas had a Republican or Democrat governor and legislature.  Nothing seems to make much difference, and many Texans in either party are in a hurry to sweep the issue under the carpet.  As Texas has grown and its illegal immigrant population has ballooned, is it also true that our economy here has continued along better than most, in part due to our competitive advantage with other states.  Part of that competitive advantage owes to illegal immigrants.  Rick Perry enjoys pointing out how many jobs have been created during his tenure as governor, but the truth is that many of them are low-skilled, low-wage jobs, and many of those are filled by illegals with stolen social security numbers.  Everything has a cost in the real world, and while you may gain an advantage one area, somewhere, somehow, the cost are being borne by somebody.

Let me state plainly that I don’t blame anybody born elsewhere who concludes that their best bet for prosperity lies here in the United States, particularly when measured against the conditions of their home countries.  I understand, because I’ve been abroad to places where I wouldn’t have wanted to raise my child, or build much of anything, because freedom is so sparse and opportunity is so rare.   Let none misunderstand what I’m saying to be some sort of anti-immigrant bias.  Often, I think immigrants more readily appreciate the opportunities this country represents more thoroughly than some fair number who were lucky to have been born here.  It was certainly true of my mother’s grandparents.  For them, America was the greatest opportunity they had dared ever to imagine, and they set out to make the most of it.

With this in mind, let me state it quite bluntly:  You cannot build a nation that provides such freedom and opportunity without defending the rule of law on which these precious commodities had been based.  This means that we must require people to enter legally, and to obtain legal documentation to work.  Who can claim that it’s too much to ask?  If a nation is defined by geographical boundaries, and a common base of governance and law, who can argue that it may be maintained by ignoring its laws or its geographical boundaries?

My first personal experience with illegal immigration consisted of rescuing a young Mexican fellow who had been treed by a neighbor’s young bull.  Clinging to the trunk of an old Live Oak, standing on a stout limb some ten feet from the ground, he was in this predicament because he had wandered into our secluded property, and when he saw our dogs, he flung himself over the barbed-wire fence that separated our property from our neighbor’s pasture.  Landing in that pasture, the young bull came to investigate the barking dogs, and upon spying the young man, gave chase, with the poor fellow seeking refuge in the tree.  I managed to move the bull away, long enough to get the terrified young man down, which was difficult because he understood almost no English.  Once down, I led him to the gate and tried to discover what he had been doing there.

Another neighbor, having spied the goings-on, had called our local constable who was a fluent Spanish-speaker.  The constable arrived, and asked him a question, and all I could make out was that he’d asked for a green card.  The young man lowered his head, and shook it signaling “no,” and the constable loaded him in his car, and thanked me for rescuing the young man from his predicament before departing.  He explained that the young man was working his way north, looking for work, staying off the highway where he might be picked up by law enforcement.  I couldn’t help but feel bad for him.  He looked to be no older than 18 or 19, and he surely had experienced hard times well before he walked into my yard and then leaped from the frying pan into the fire.  My dogs might have scared him, but the young bull would have hurt him.  All this, he risked for work.  Being in Central Texas, if he had walked any part of the distance from Mexico, he’d been on foot a long while.  The term “economic refugee” played in my mind, and I knew what it must mean to people who come here from Mexico and elsewhere.

The next experience we had with illegal immigrants came when we had an occasion to go to the emergency room.  An incident with a bucking horse resulted in a trip to the ER, where Mrs. America was diagnosed with a broken hand.  While we were in the waiting area, a broken hand being relatively lower priority, we encountered a number of illegal immigrants who were there for everything from early labor to children with fever, to more serious conditions.  In short, the place was swamped with them.  You might wonder how I could know their status, but it’s really as simple as this: The lady who was checking us in and verifying financial responsibility took my wife’s insurance card, and said “Praise the Lord! A paying customer!”  Naive as I was in those days, I asked her what she meant, and as she shoved forms in front of me to complete, she explained that most of the people in the crowded waiting area were people who would never pay.  I commented on the fact that it seemed terribly busy for a Tuesday evening, and she remarked that this was turning out to be a slow day.  I asked her bluntly: “If they’re not paying, who does?”  She laughed at me and said: “Dear boy, that’s Medicaid. Most of them are illegals, and we’ll wind up filing for payments from the State. It’s called Indigent Care.”

As I returned to where my wife was seated, cradling her hand, I pondered what all of this must cost us each year.  As I looked around the room at the scale of the problem, I became dizzy with the implications.  My education had only just begun.  Next came the schools.  This is where I learned that in my daughter’s classroom would be children who were receiving an education for which we all pay, but whose parents don’t pay any taxes beyond those unavoidable ones on sales.  Slowly but surely, this all began to add up to something, and then one day, years later, I saw two people walking across my back horse pasture.  I wondered what they might be doing, when one of them inadvertently made contact with one of the electrical strands.  There was an eruption of cursing in Spanish, and I walked out to see who they were and what they were doing.  Like the young fellow of more than a decade before, these two didn’t speak much English.  They seemed harmless enough, but they asked me if I had any work.  “Work” was approximately the extent of their English.  I told them I hadn’t, but I could see they had been walking many miles.

What I realized as they left my property and onto the next was that they probably would avoid detection, and so large is the problem that even a law-and-order conservative like me had no particular concern about it, and had shrugged at the futility of it all, simply returning to the task at hand.  I too had become thoroughly desensitized to it.  Of course, if you live for any time in Texas, particularly in rural areas, you become accustomed to all this as an ordinary part of life, and therein lies a serious problem:  We’ve become accustomed to law-breaking on a wide scale, and no politician here or in Washington seems the least bit interested in addressing it.  Their answer seems to be to simply legalize the former illegality.

Rick Perry is just one more in a long parade of politicians who have done little – virtually nothing really – to discourage all of this, and the problem is that so long as we shut up and pay, that’s how it’s going to be.  Don’t misunderstand: I don’t blame only Rick Perry, not by a long-shot, but the truth is that every time somebody in our legislature has raised a ruckus and offered a bill on the subject, Perry has been there to shoot it down.  More, he’s been happy to sign things into law that effectively act as encouragement, and I can’t endorse any part of that, including the bill that gave in-state tuition rates to the children of illegals.  I realize that politicians also feel stuck between a rock and a hard place on this issue, but after all, for whom do they work?  The answer to this question may contain the key to a larger  universe of issues in which our government is intransigent in the face of our demands.  In too many cases, the answer may well be that they’re not working for us, but for other interests upon whom they rely in order to maintain their power, and as a result, we pay, often in more ways than one.

What Limbaugh Missed About Perry and Gardasil

Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

Hurting His Accuracy Rating?

It’s not often that Rush Limbaugh fails to recognize the salient point in a political story, but in the first hour of Tuesday’s broadcast, he missed it completely.  I hate to take Rush to task, because his errors are vastly outnumbered by the times he’s ahead of the media curve, but in his defense of Rick Perry on the Gardasil flap, I believe Rush got it wrong. It may well come down to a lack of perspective.  As a Texan parent of a minor daughter when the Gardasil issue surfaced, I can tell you that from my perspective, the issue can be understood in a different light.  This wasn’t his only error about Rick Perry, but my focus is on this one for a critical reason:  While Perry has admitted his order on the HPV vaccine may have been a mistake in the way it was implemented, he hasn’t retracted the underlying problem:  A real conservative untainted by crony capitalism would never have implemented this at all.   Rush tells us this is a distraction from the fiscal issues.  I submit to you that Perry’s Gardasil mandate is a fiscal issue, and a matter of his core conservatism.  Rather than a distraction, it cuts to the heart of what remains broken in our politics, and why we must hold candidates’ feet to the fire.

First, let’s consider this from the point of view of a conservative parent.  What Michele Bachmann was implying about “innocent daughters” is very much the point.  It isn’t a matter of criminal guilt or innocence, as the bizarre Mark Davis seemed to suggest today, but the matter of a different sort of innocence most conservative parents would like to see preserved in our daughters until adulthood and marriage.  What Bachmann was clumsily trying to imply while stating it in gentler terms is that the innocence of these girls was very much on the line.  When I heard the announcement of Rick Perry’s intended policy, I went ballistic, and began placing calls to every Texas politician who I could contact.  There were many busy phone lines, so I left voice-mails or called back as need be, but the other parents I spoke with were incensed because the implication of Perry’s policy was that our 6th-grade(or older) daughters must be promiscuous, or at least have inattentive parents.  After all, HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. For our daughters to be “at risk,” they would first need to be sexually active.  The implication of this policy caused many Texas parents to express outrage on this basis alone.

Perry ought to have known better, so why didn’t he?  Michele Bachmann may have offered the answer in the discussion during Monday’s debate: Crony-capitalism.  While Perry scoffed at the notion that he’s for sale for a mere five-thousand dollars, it’s important to recognize that there was much more at stake than the direct contributions from Merck to Perry, and that’s all the small amount addresses.  It doesn’t do anything about the insider-trading and all the other potential instances of corruption that grow from one of these crony-capitalist adventures.  In talking about Perry’s response, Rush missed this.  I wish he’d apply the same investigative standard to Perry that he once applied to another southern governor. In 1992, Rush spared no digging in finding the connections and the back-channels through which the Clinton machine operated its crony-capitalism operation.  Rick Perry, and indeed every candidate for President, needs this sort of thorough examination.

Rush maintained that all of this is really just a distraction intended to throw the Republican party off-track from discussions of fiscal issues and Obamacare.  I thoroughly disagree, because crony capitalism is a problem that affects fiscal issues, and is an entrenched part of the Obamacare debate.  For instance, explain Obama’s situation with respect to crony capitalism in the “Green Jobs” scam.  Is this not a fiscal problem, with billions of dollars of tax-payer money being diverted to these dubious boondoggles?  If this isn’t a fiscal problem, what is it?  When dollars are diverted to some program or initiative, these are tax-payer dollars.  Yes, it’s a cultural issue, but the simple fact is that fiscal issues encompass virtually everything, so that there is very little distinction between budgetary and  moral issues.

At the same time, to pretend that the Gardasil issue is a distraction from Obamacare is another canard.  Gardasil is one small instance of what Obamacare will ultimately be, though the reach of the latter spans the macroeconomic landscape.  Rush has pointed out repeatedly how the pharmaceutical companies have been a part of formulating Obamacare to their advantage, and if that’s wrong(and it clearly is,) then it must also be wrong for Perry to use Gardasil for similar purposes at the state level.   Perhaps more importantly, what the Gardasil decision by Perry demonstrates is a reflex to statist answers to problems.  Such a tendency always results in fiscal blow-back, as can be witnessed in some of the programs concocted under the last Texas republican to have become President.

Rush is a great commentator, and I don’t criticize him often because I’ve derived so much enjoyment from his show over the years, but every once in a long while, Limbaugh clearly blows it, and his failure to understand how bad Perry’s Gardasil order really had been is one of those rare occasions.  Eventually, Rush will discover his error, and he’ll likely re-think it when he considers other perspectives.  I understand.  I really do.  Rush desperately wants the Republicans to win back the White House and reverse Obamacare, but it won’t be done unless we’re willing to examine our own candidates under the same microscope.  You can bet the media will begin doing so from the moment we choose a nominee.  Let us do this difficult, sometimes disappointing work ourselves.  Republicans deserve the best candidate to be found within their ranks .  We won’t find the best by sweeping our own candidates’ flaws under the rug on the dubious pretense of political distractions.  Neither should Rush.

Only One Republican is Shaping the Debate

Tuesday, September 13th, 2011

Dominating the Debate

I watched some of the Republican Presidential Debate on Monday night, and was led to one unmistakable conclusion: There is really only one candidate shaping the ongoing debate, and she’s not even officially in the race[yet.]  Sarah Palin’s influence on these debates is clear, and you can see it in the topics of the questions, and the way in which the candidates respond.  As candidates attempted to find a way to talk about Social Security without either frightening seniors unnecessarily as Governor Perry may have done, or by pretending there’s no serious problem, as Mitt Romney has done, it was Sarah Palin’s own much more moderate and cautious tone that came to dominate the debate.

When the whole field of candidates began to go after Rick Perry on the Gardasil question, it was in answer to national discussion Sarah Palin has initiated on the role of crony capitalism in the governance of our nation.  In a post-debate interview with Van Susteren, Sarah Palin made it clear who she saw as the debate’s real victor:

“I was very pleased with the debate. It was a validation of the Tea Party movement by CNN….The real winner was the Tea Party movement”

While it is true to say the Tea Party won the debate, it’s likewise clear that the themes Governor Palin has been discussing since 2008 are really the foundation of the ongoing Republican discussion.  Who raised the issue of energy production?  Who was the first to openly and harshly criticize QE2 and predict the effects we’ve all  now witnessed?  Which Republican is the only one to take on the whole of the Republican establishment in her state, and lately, in Washington DC?  What all of the candidates on the debate stage Monday night hoped to do was capture the ground already occupied by Sarah Palin.  Battle as they might, none of them ever reach that high footing because in fact, they’re all turning out to be poor imitators.  They’re mostly good people, to be sure, but they’re trying to be that which they cannot:  Washington DC outsiders.

These are people, with the lone exception of Herman Cain, who are really outsiders in only one respect:  They are outside the federal executive branch, but all of them, particularly the front-runners, have extensive ties to the DC cocktail party circuit.  Perry and Romney seem most determined to try to occupy the ground held by Sarah Palin, but the truth is that neither can be considered a genuine Tea Party candidate, and both have thorough ties to DC elites, and both have proven reflexes to big government solutions, as the Gardasil and Romney-care examples demonstrate respectively.

If you wonder who the invisible elephant in this room may be, there’s really only one answer: Governor Palin stands head-and-shoulders above the lot without being present.  What has been particularly entertaining over the last few months is the concerted operations by the campaigns of several of these to convince Palin supporters that she would imminently endorse their preferred candidate.  As her interview with Van Susteren on FNC after the debate demonstrates, she’s not interested at present in endorsing any of these.  Instead, she continues to express her interest in seeing a lively debate in which the records of these candidates are thoroughly considered, and with good reason: Look what we got in 2008 when we didn’t examine a particular candidate closely.  We might have avoided three or four years of pain if we had.

Of course, there’s a good deal more wisdom to this thinking than may immediately meet the eye, but what’s most interesting about the current situation is that while none will mention it, everybody knows who the real front-runner is and has been since November 5th, 2008.  These candidates clearly know it, the establishment clearly knows it, and suddenly, the electorate is discovering it too.  While she hasn’t officially declared her candidacy, every one of the analysts and media pundits spend much of their time trying to guess her strategy, while spending inordinate amounts of intellectual capital trying to devise ways in which to sabotage or prevent her entry.

What becomes clear as one watches any of these debates is that something is sorely lacking in the group, and what that seems to be is a sincere conservative who has the common-sense approach to problem-solving that our nation now requires.  It’s not so much that any of these are truly awful as it is that the lot of them aren’t really all that energizing or unique.  Their rhetoric sounds plastic and rehearsed to the extent that there’s little spontaneity in any of it.  You can see the jabs coming and it’s all so thoroughly telegraphed that it’s impossible to become too terribly enthusiastic about any of them.  Add to this the fact that Sarah Palin is notable by her absence, but also by her heavy influence, and what you realize is that until she makes her final decision, this race is going to lack the fire and the heart that will be needed to defeat Barack Obama in 2012.

When the story of this rapidly accelerating primary season is finally written, these debates will likely be considered the pre-game show, or the warm-up act for the real debates certain to ensue after a Palin entry.  What this debate has demonstrated, like all those previous, is how sorely lacking in focus and energy the contest has been thus far.  Romney and Perry seem to be the front-runners but only so long as Sarah Palin stays out.  As their jabbing and counter-punching continues, the spectacle of the two smiling men begins to look rather plastic and phony.  Nobody much believes either one cares for the other, but debate after debate, there they are, smiling and carrying on like the best of friends.  That image, considered in the abstract, presents such a contradiction that supporters of either man are sure to catch on: This is all perfectly fake. They can make pretenses to collegial respect and comity all they like, but voters aren’t fooled, and they aren’t really impressed.  After all, if they can so easily smile at one another despite the seething rancor that lies just beneath the surface of the narrow creek between them, what else do their smiles conceal?

As we sprint towards Autumn, the issues are becoming clear, and the person who is continuing to shape the priorities of this debate is Sarah Palin.  Her power in shaping the debate owes to the fact that she is the standard-bearer for conservative, grass-roots, Tea Party patriots, and she communicates the ideas about which they are most concerned.  It seems the electorate is beginning to catch on.

So You Say You’re a Conservative

Saturday, September 10th, 2011

Remembering Our Purpose

Many politicians come along who claim to be conservative.  Some of them really pitch it well, and sell the notion to their political supporters, but once they get in office, it’s another matter.  Suddenly, it seems at every turn, they shrug their shoulders and continue building big government.  We must begin to ask them to explain their alleged conservatism as a strategy to help us spot those who may not be so conservative as their campaign literature claims.  Many people ask me how I can differentiate between the charlatans and the real thing, so as a conservative, I’d like to present those vital notions I believe must be the hallmarks of conservatism.

A conservative believes that our Constitution established what it specifies:  A constitutional, representative republic.   Notice that nowhere does the constitution mention democracy.  If a politician is so sloppy as to routinely use the term “democracy” to describe our form of government, there are generally two reasons.  Either they are talking in shorthand, or they are expressing a fundamental ignorance that may be entirely accidental.  More often, it’s a willful substitution aimed at following the program on which they’ve embarked, which is to substitute the cheap and tawdry notion of democracy for the much more elegant and enduring notion of our form of government.  Even under a century of assaults, they’ve not yet completely destroyed it, and that is more a testament to the nature of what had been founded than it is to their incompetence.  To replace our form of government with democracy would substantially destroy the country.  A real conservative knows this, knows why it’s important, and fights to maintain that critical distinction.

A conservative believes in federalism, which is to say that our federal government ought to have only such powers as are necessary in fulfilling its mandate to keep the nation secure, attend to foreign affairs, administer justice, prosecute criminals, mint and coin our money, and resolve disputes between and among the several states.  As the 10th Amendment specifies, anything not in the short list of items over which the federal government ought to have control are reserved to the states, and the people, respectively.  Unfortunately, the tendency has been to reinterpret the meaning of the constitution in the name of destroying federalism, and our federal judiciary has long been a tool of the progressives in this end.  Any candidate who doesn’t support federalist principles is not a conservative.

A conservative believes in strictly constructionist views of the constitution.  This means that a plain reading of the text as understood in the language of the time of its adoption along with the common law precedents of antiquity are the only rightful basis for weighing the constitutionality of an act of government.   It is the job of legislators to author law, but not the role of the judiciary to re-write its meaning to suit their own policy preferences.  A conservative candidate will know this and act accordingly.

A conservative believes in the irrelevancy of the question “What can governments do?” Governments can do many things, but most of them are not within the scope of legitimate government powers.  The question isn’t whether government can do a thing, but whether it ought to do it.  Those candidates whose first reflex is to find ways to employ government power as the solution to perceived problems are dangerous because they’re suggesting government authority as a surrogate for private choices.

A conservative believes in capitalism.  Neither crony capitalism, nor some form of “mixed economy” will satisfy conservatives.  The only restrictions a conservative places on free markets are those that seek to punish fraud and theft, or other actions which violate the rights of real persons.  Any conservative who wishes to raise your taxes isn’t one.  If they speak in terms of “fair shares,” you can know this is not a conservative in the traditional sense.  Conservatives generally abhor taxes greater than those needed to satisfy the mandates of government specified above.  There’s nothing wrong with a candidate who wishes to substitute a different system of taxation, but few have done that.

A conservative believes in a strong and vigorous national defense, but not in global adventurism in pursuit of vague notions of the vital national interest.  A conservative who steps back from wholesale global engagement is frequently derided as an “isolationist.”  The conservative is neither isolationist, nor adventurist, but instead focuses on the security of the nation.  This defense orientation is important to understanding how we’ve gotten into so much trouble globally.  In recent decades, it’s become much to fashionable to deploy American forces around the globe, and into theaters in which we have no real interests except the maintenance of some treaty.  At some point, some enterprising politician might note that these treaties seldom serve the US, but instead act to embroil us in wars where we really have very little interest.  A conservative candidate realizes that to deploy the troops is a solemn privilege of leadership, and should never be undertaken lightly.

A conservative believes in individual rights that are a prerequisite for human existence, granted not by governments or men, but by the Laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God, as the Declaration of Independence affirms.  The reason for this usage was and remains simple:  To place the rights of people above the reaching, grasping hands of power and to rightfully forbid their abuse by others.   In this context, the Bill of Rights takes on a new and largely misunderstood meaning: Intended to restrain government in its predations upon us, these rights were to be enjoyed without fear of mobs.  It’s clear that a conservative must understand the critical importance of this concept.

A conservative does not regard fellow citizens as a means to and end.  Instead, a conservative must hold that each person is an end in and of themselves, and ought not be subjected to the whimsy of others.  A conservative believes in actual justice, and not some petty pretense meant to defile it.  If you’re a conservative, you cannot accept notions of social or economic or even racial justice without negating the concept of  an actual, objective standard of justice.

A conservative believes in balancing budgets and paying down debt.  A conservative does not believe in incessant borrowing and a never-ending spending spree.  A conservative knows it is prudent to maintain a small surplus for the pay-down of debts in good times, enabling one’s government to keep things afloat in the case of a down-turn.

A conservative believes in the exceptional nature of America.  A conservative believes the first duty of a politician is to put the country first, and to set aside one’s personal interests while in office.

This list is not exhaustive, but it should provide a general baseline when considering candidates.  Some will add other things to their own lists, and some will wish to re-prioritize the list according to their own personal beliefs.  That’s healthy, and normal, and you should ignore anybody who tells you otherwise.  By the same token, if you find a candidate is crossing several of these lines, you may wish to consider that candidate as something else, but not as a conservative.  Of course, there are no perfect candidates, but some are more perfect than others.  The important thing to remember is that if you want to restore the nation, it’s going to required elected officials who are inclined to adopt these ideas.  Anything less won’t save the country.  At this point in our history, being careful in our selections has never been more important.

The Battle on the Right

Tuesday, August 30th, 2011

There Can Be Only One

We’ve witnessed the opening salvos in the battle for the nomination.  The punditry has lined up to take shots at GOP candidates, including those not yet in the race.  Each declared candidate is scrambling to establish a niche with the primary electorate, and as they do, there exists not only a whispering dissatisfaction with the current choices, but also an increasing friction between them as they attempt to consolidate their support.  In the most recent polling, Governor Perry has the clear lead, at the moment, with Governor Romney tailing off.   More significantly, Michele Bachmann has fallen to fourth place behind an undeclared Sarah Palin. As the battle lines are drawn, we’re witnessing a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party.

Rick Perry is the present beneficiary of a largely unknown record outside his home state, Texas, but this too is beginning to change as more and more people are beginning to notice that apart from the swagger and bronc-busting style, Perry hasn’t always been a conservative, and it leads to some doubts about his sincerity.  Some have described him as a RINO with a drawl, but the truth is that he hasn’t been substantially vetted on the national stage, and as his record become more widely known, he’s likely to experience a decline when his record  as a lifelong politician with too many corporate friends becomes known.  This is the truth of what caused him to see a strong primary challenge from upstart Debra Medina in the 2010 Texas gubernatorial race.  While Medina never attained the name recognition, it’s important to remember that the main cause of her defeat was one self-destructive interview that caused her implosion.  This is instructive, and actually serves to demonstrate Perry’s true weakness among Texas conservatives and Tea Party members:  It’s not so much that he won in 2010, as it is the case that his primary opponent, whose entrance into the race already demonstrated Perry’s troubles, essentially disqualified herself.  This weakness of Perry’s is going to become more obvious as his record is examined.

Mitt Romney is the great establishment hope of the left-most edge of the GOP, and the current favorite of the establishment.  He’s been hurt by Perry’s entry precisely because some of his support didn’t see another strong conservative candidate in the race, and Romney isn’t interested in ideological consistency. Instead, the notion of “who can win,”  focusing on Independents and the swing vote has come to dominate his appeal.  For this reason, Romney has adopted the position of mostly ignoring the conservative base, and seems not only uninterested in courting Tea Party folks, but also in avoiding them in order to appeal to his niche.  Romney’s gamble is simple: If he can get the nomination, conservatives will vote for him anyway.  We may be seeing the first signs that Romney is abandoning this strategy, as he traveled to Texas on Monday.   Whether he shifts his approach, or sticks with his moderate positions is yet to be determined, but he ought to remember who he’s slighting in the hunt for the nomination, as it may come back to haunt him in the primary even if he succeeds.  Democrats slavishly vote for whomever their party puts up.  Conservatives are much more apt to stay home.  If this brings to mind images of another McCain or Dole style defeat, you’re probably on target.

Michele Bachmann is a fine candidate, but she’s fading fast for a number of reasons.  One is that her theoretical support from the Tea Party is based on a fallacious notion of substitution many of her supporters (and perhaps the candidate herself) wrongly believed:  She’s not Sarah Palin.  Slowly, grudgingly, some of her supporters are discovering this too.  It’s not to say Representative Bachmann has no appeal, but instead that her appeal has been largely augmented by the imaginings of her early supporters.  Her tendency to make gaffes of one sort or another is taking its toll, whether serious or largely manufactured or inflated by the media.  Some have discovered that she’s not quite so close to the average people as may have been thought, and it that factor is inflicting a cost too.  Lastly, many within her campaign, and frankly, within the media, bought the media-born notion that there’s only room in the campaign for one Republican woman, and while I reject that notion, it’s turning out that may be true in some sense, but sadly for her, Michele Bachmann isn’t that woman.

This leaves us to consider Sarah Palin.  Will she run?  Many observers think so, and to some, it’s clear that she’s already running in the sense that she’s largely conducting herself like a candidate, despite the lack of a campaign.  Others insist that she won’t run, but when you examine who they are, they tend to be supporters of another candidate.  That’s telling, given the assault from media pundits she recently endured over the matter of whether she would announce on September 3rd during her speech to the Tea Party of America in Indianola, Iowa.  Part of Palin’s strategy, if she’s to enter, may be to wait for the field to settle some.  We’re now seeing that begin, as all but Romney and Perry (as well as Palin) have fallen to single-digit support among Republicans.  At the same time, there’s still a wide body of undecided voters, many of whom are effectively waiting for the field to settle out before committing.   Perry’s numbers are likely to stabilize, and begin to trail off.  There’s some evidence that this has already begun.   If it continues, there’s a chance that Palin will be able to announce a campaign and emerge as a nearly instantaneous front-runner for the nomination.  If this happens, it will effectively close off Bachmann and those currently below her current standing at 9%.  This will also begin to shut down some of the less successful campaigns.  The real question becomes whether she holds off a bit longer, toward the end of September, not only to await the likely Perry decline, but also to close off later entries.

It’s clear that the politicos know this, which is why they’ve gone on with a flurry of rumor-mongering, trying to goad her into a Labor Day weekend entry, or dissuade her entry altogether.   Worse are the attempts to undermine her by suggesting that she’s not going to run, and will promptly endorse the preferred candidate of whichever person is speaking.  The thing to watch is how much Bachmann may be able to cut back into the Perry support, where she watched much of her own flee after his announcement.  If Palin enters, Bachmann is likely to begin her fall, as many of her supporters move on to the candidate some of them already quietly acknowledge as the “real deal.”  Still, between the three announced candidates among the leading four, they achieve only half of the party’s support.  This implies that the race is wide open for somebody else, and with 10% of the support already leaning to her despite the lack of an official campaign, it doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to notice that  Sarah Palin may well be that somebody.

The Central Issue of 2012: Obama

Sunday, August 28th, 2011

Winning The Future?

The country is in a terrible condition.  Unemployment is high, inflation is moving upward, and record numbers now rely on government assistance in one form or another.  Worse, the GDP growth has slowed to around 1%, or less, and there’s no sign anywhere that this will improve.  With all of this, you might think a President would seek to improve conditions, but as time goes on, it’s clear that President Obama is making war against much of “fly-over country.”  His EPA is forcing the shutdown of coal-fired power plants, and since those provide more than half of the electrical power produced on an already strained grid, you can expect energy to become more scarce and much more costly.

None of these things bode well for the country, and you would think this would doom Barack Obama, but while many now accuse him of being less than intelligent, and less than diligent, I submit to you that our Marxist-in-Chief is playing it exactly as he must if he wishes to win re-election, because he knows the platitudes are not true:  We do not all want the same things.  We do not all share the same vision of freedom or prosperity.

Some might wonder if I’ve lost my mind:  The condition of the country is self-evident, and on that basis alone, surely he will be thrown out of office in the 2012 election.  How could anyone draw the conclusion that he’s making it easier on himself in his bid to retain power?  If you examine who is hurting, but more importantly, who is not, you begin to see a different picture of next year’s election taking shape.  Instead of worrying about those votes he will never capture, he is going to become the great dispenser of relief.

One of the keys to Democrat victory is that the core of the party shows up and votes.  These are the reliable Democrats, who would vote for the mythical yellow dog, so long as he’s a Democrat.  You can call them “Kool-aid drinkers,” or “drones,” or anything you like, but the sad fact is that they represent the core of the Democrat vote.  Despite a few moments here and there of voiced displeasure, they will show up in massive numbers to re-elect Barack Obama.  This will account for 35-40% of the total vote.  From there, it’s not really very hard to imagine him being able to raise another 10-15%.

Obama understands that part of the manner in which Roosevelt was able to be re-elected in 1936 owed not to an improved economic picture, but because under the auspices of the alphabet soup of new agencies and programs, FDR had become the great dispenser of relief.   In fact, we now know that many of those programs were used to coerce or extort votes.  “So you want your relief?  Then vote for FDR.”  Millions of men who had never relied upon government for anything suddenly found themselves between the rock and the hard place constituted by the choice between voting for a President about whom they were ambivalent, at best, and the prospect of losing their various relief jobs.  In yielding to Obama on the debt ceiling, our Congress has provided Obama just the funding he needed to do precisely that.

You see, he needs only move a small percentage of the remainder of the populace his direction.  Of that 10-15% he must garner among independents and moderates, he knows he may frighten senior citizens, parents, and any other person who is in some way dependent upon the system.  As the current approval numbers bear out, his core support is fairly intractable.  Many of those closer to him now saying they disapprove can be counted upon to return and vote for him in any case, because they will not  likely vote for a Republican.  Ever.

This is the same phenomenon by which the GOP establishment manages to squeeze conservatives unhappy with their choices into supporting a candidate who is not of their choosing.  Most conservatives I know were dissatisfied with John McCain in 2008, but at the end of the day, most still went to the polls to vote for him.  What they lost, however, was the winning margin: Too many conservatives simply refused to support McCain.  The introduction of Sarah Palin as his running mate certainly helped his case with conservatives, but in truth, most people know that a Vice President is mostly impotent, and only becomes relevant in the case of the worst possible circumstances.  This is, by the way, why I remind Republicans that if they nominate anybody who is not a true conservative, there is a great chance of failure in 2012.  The chant “Anybody but Obama” may sound good in theory, but people don’t generally become motivated to vote on the basis of a negative proposition like that. Smugly planning his next round of golf in his bunker at the White House, President Obama knows it too.

While it would seem on the surface that President Obama faces almost certain defeat, anybody who believes that is underestimating the scope of the problem and the size of his advantage.  With record numbers now receiving government assistance, it has strengthened his position not among the dwindling productive class, but instead among the burgeoning dependent class.  As you struggle to make ends meet, the government continues to redistribute your wealth to the purchase of more votes for Obama.  Worse, Congress has given him another $2 Trillion in credit.  How do you think this will be spent, as we await his speech on some sort of jobs program?   You and I know that such a program will likely be counter-productive, and so does he.  The difference is, he’s after an object to which you won’t relate, as instead you regard it as just one more looming failure.  He’s after the temporary boost creating nonsensical, non-productive jobs will provide, not so much to the economy, but to his electoral prospects in 2012.

That’s his game-plan.  There’s really nothing else he can do if he hopes to win re-election.  While there is some remote possibility that the economy could rebound, all the indicators are that such is unlikely.  He knows it, and all of his flunkies know it too. Rather than worrying about stimulating the general economy, he is going to focus more sharply on the economic condition of those he expects to vote for him.  Tax the rich?  No problem.  That’s more redistribution.  Watch and see how low the threshold for what is rich will ultimately go.

This leaves you with a single issue to consider, and it is this: If we are to elect any Republican, it will be a tough fight, but the fight must begin in Congress.  They’ve already retreated from the first battle, and it will cost the country dearly.  The downgrade resulted from a failure to get an agreement on the debt ceiling that would have substantially promoted budgetary sanity. Your own money, your own labor, but more, your future labor, is going to be used against you.  Congress must be made to fight, because while Republicans and Conservatives spend their time arguing over who we will put forth for election in 2012,  Obama is making other plans that will moot that choice.   While we must have those arguments, and must make the right choice, we mustn’t lose focus on the fact that the House of Representatives is still our best tool in this fight, and we must deny to the President, to whatever degree possible, from using his new spending authority to purchase more votes.

It’s true that President Obama’s performance against a rational standard should be the central issue of 2012, but if we fail to fight all along the way, he’ll be able to turn that to his distinct advantage.  What Barack Obama wants and needs to finish his agenda is another four years.  If Republicans, Conservatives, and Tea Party Patriots lose sight of the battles being waged in Congress, they may resolve who to nominate, but that nomination will have become that against which I’ve cautioned you before: “…a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”(Macbeth-William Shakespeare)

Let us not permit that.

The Fallacy of the “Who Can Win” Argument

Saturday, August 27th, 2011

Who Can't Win?

One of the most despicable arguments used to deter candidates from entering a campaign is the old standard: “You can’t win.”  By now, this argument should finally be put to rest.  Let me state it bluntly: While highly unlikely, it is possible for any eligible person to launch a campaign for President and win.  I could do it. You could do it.  Will I win? Will you? Probably not, but it is possible.  When I see this argument pulled out, it’s usually in the context of somebody or other deriding one candidate in favor of another.  I’ll admit, I may have used it a time or two because it’s an argument that seems on its face to have power to persuade, but should it?  In truth, I don’t think so.  In 1776, there were people dis-inclined to revolt against England who said: “But you can’t win.”  Nevertheless, the war ensued, and in the end, lo and behold, the revolutionaries had won.

I think the same is true in every political election, where the stakes are generally not so directly life and death, but perhaps for this same reason, many are willing to accept that tired and false argument in frustration and despair.  The current media theme is that Sarah Palin shouldn’t run, because “she can’t win anyway.”  Balderdash.

As I’ve explained recently, the polling numbers used to assert Sarah Palin’s lack of viability as a Presidential candidate have revolved around the notion that she has too many Republicans or Republican-leaning detractors.  Do you think this would still be the case if she were the nominee?  Certainly not.  If Mrs. Palin were the alternative to Obama today, she would draw enough of the vote, at a minimum, to make the Obama machine tremble.  The truth is, however, that the election won’t be held today, but instead, in 14 months, when the economy is likely to have remained flat, or worsened.  That is the scenario that keeps the White House awake nights. On the other hand, if by some miraculous machinations, the economy suddenly rebounds, and we see job growth exceeding a half-million per month, Obama will be difficult to defeat.  While unlikely, it is possible.  This is why I argue that whatever candidate the Republicans offer, he or she should be as strong in all other issues as they may be in economics.

There’s another problem with the argument about “who can win.”  It ignores something vital: Whose record best establishes the merit required to get our nomination?  Once you consider this, it’s clear that the “who can win” business becomes irrelevant.  There are those who argue Donald Trump should run, in part because they believe he can win.  Do you think him qualified?  Why? Because he says “You’re fired” with such flair?  I’m really not inclined to accept the “who can win” argument as superseding the “who is best qualified or suited” argument.  Roughly half the registered voters in the country are inclined to agree with Republicans, and roughly half with Democrats.  Anybody who can capture half plus a few more can win.  I want somebody to seek the office who can not merely win, but will be depended upon to carry out their campaign promises, and the only way you and I can know that with any sense of certitude is to examine their records. I’m sure the devil can win any election, but is that what we want?

I think it’s fair to say with all the media hammering home the idea that Palin can’t win, or worse, dropping the hint that she’ll endorse some other candidate, it’s fairly obvious what their intention must be: They want to deter her from a presidential candidacy, and the only possible reason is because they fear she can win it.  As I’ve explained above, she most certainly can.

This Is a “No-Crony-Capitalists-Zone”

Saturday, August 27th, 2011

One Has a Drawl

I believe that capitialism is the only economic system under which a free people can thrive. I don’t believe in “too big to fail,” and bail-outs, hand-outs, or other subsidies for anybody.   Have I been clear enough?  I believe in the form of capitalism best expressed in the writings of author Ayn Rand.  For those of you familiar with the book Atlas Shrugged, I would like to remind you of three characters you ought to consider when deciding who to nominate as the GOP’s candidate for President in 2012.   Those characters are Orren Boyle James Taggart and Wesley Mouch.  If you’re not familiar with the book, I’ll try to help you along.  These three are important characters because they define the problem we have with the establishment Republican Party in Washington, DC, and elsewhere.  By understanding the flaws of these characters, it may help to understand what is wrong with the current front-runners in the Republican primary race.

Orren Boyle fancied himself a steel magnate, but he was not interested in competition.  He wanted controls placed on his competition that would favor his interests, investments, and incompetence.  Boyle was one of those captains of industry who prefers to make social statements than to produce goods for the market, so the quality and production output of his steel mills showed it.  Reduced to the state of a scavenger by his incompetence in his own industry, Boyle came to rely upon government to boost his sales and fill his coffers via regulations on his competitor.

James Taggart was the President of Taggart Transcontinental Railroads, and his connections to Washington were his main source of power.  His sister, Dagny, was actually responsible for keeping the company afloat, because James had never troubled himself to learn from his father what makes a railroad go.  James fancied himself a cultured man, and enjoyed using his political connections to destroy his competitors.  He had no competency for business, and instead spent his time plotting how to ruin his own sister even if it meant destroying the railroad over which he presided.  Not satisfied to ruin businesses, he also took a bride in order to destroy her.

Wesley Mouch began as a lobbyist for Orren Boyle’s main competitor, Hank Rearden, and while Rearden didn’t know much about what his lobbyist was doing for him, everybody told Rearden he needed a lobbyist to defend his interests in Washington.  Mouch double-crossed Rearden and set him up, eventually becoming the chief adviser to the President on economic matters, and essentially the economic dictator of the country.  Wesley Mouch was the perfect government man, using the power of government and law to extract money from people and businesses to the detriment of a few wealthy interests, particularly Orren Boyle and James Taggart. He also used his power to destroy his former employer’s business.

Now that you have some familiarity with these three characters, let me explain to you that they were all quite obviously villains.  They exhibited all the traits of the crony capitalism I despise, and believe you ought to also.  It should be noted that among the various people now entered in the race for the GOP nomination, nearly all of them have these sorts of skeletons in their closet.

Mitt Romney is a fake capitalist.  There’s really nothing more to say about it than that.  The moment you consider his Romneycare law in Massachusetts, there’s really damn little else to say.  A government, at any level, that mandates you buy a product or service, for any purpose whatever is a tyrannical fascist machine.  As an actual capitalist, I know that such mandates serve only four purposes:

  • To enrich politicians via lobbying and political contributions
  • To establish and maintain a captive market
  • To drive up costs for every customer, on average
  • To enable politicians to disclaim future responsibility with a claim of “It couldn’t be helped…” when things go wrong

That’s it. That’s all there really is, and it’s all you should need to know to understand why Mitt Romney is wrong for America.

Rick Perry has many of the same attributes, as I’ve covered at length in other posts. There are those who do not like my willingness to point out these problems with Rick Perry’s actual record, but I won’t retreat.  His record is one of repeated dips into the barrel of crony capitalism if we inspect only two notorious issues: The TransTexas Corridor and the Gardasil flap. There are many, many more.

You’re free to tell me you’ll support him anyway, but you’re not free to pretend his record has been anything but filled with such instances.  You lose all credibility to suggest otherwise, and you can bet that just as I am pointing it out now, the Democrats in 2012 will shove it down his throat(and yours) with glee.  Rick Perry has been a government guy almost the entirety of his adult life, trading favors and peddling pull all along the way.

You can pretend to yourself that Mitt Romney and Rick Perry aren’t really modern day, real life versions of Wesley Mouch, but you’re only pretending, and the only person you’re likely to fool with all this is you.  If you’re happy with this sort of fake capitalism, and aren’t worried about its implications, and if it doesn’t bother you enough to reject either of these, how can you be upset by Obama’s use of similar tactics?  Jeffrey Immelt? (Orren Boyle?)  George Soros? (James Taggart?)  If you can look at these things when done by Barack Obama and consider them a travesty, why can’t you see the timber in your own eye?

My conservative friends, I’d ask you to consider that rather than worrying about “who can win,” or other such nonsense at this early stage, you should instead take great care to vet your own candidates based on their records.  If you put up a nominee who is compromised by the same ethical troubles, and therefore indistinct from Obama, how do you intend to defeat him?  Will you suggest to me that you’d be happy to have somebody to run who can pretend not to be a statist?  Will you offer to me that this is good enough because Obama must go at any cost?  Any cost?  What about the cost of your intellectual integrity? Your soul?  Your sense of right and wrong?

Ladies and gentlemen, I stand prepared to vote for any plausibly capitalist candidate who is not part of the problem we’re already experiencing so bitterly and thoroughly. Neither of these fit that criteria.   The country cannot be saved by Wesley Mouch.  You’d better learn to identify the fakes in your midst, and your time is running out.

Establishment Punditry Misjudges Palin’s Appeal

Friday, August 26th, 2011

Don't Count Her Out

Friday,  in an article on Politico, the argument is advanced that Palin cannot win.  This narrative has long been the snide assertion of the left, but it’s also become an increasing mantra being put forward by Republican pundits and strategists who are generally supporting other candidates, or are thoroughly in bed with one. Bearing in mind this bias against objectivity in editorializing and reporting, it would probably be a worthwhile exercise to assess how accurate these predictions are likely to be.  If Politico’s writer Alexander Burns is correct, Sarah Palin might as well quit, in line with the position of Rove and Morris, but if he’s wrong, and I’m inclined to believe he is, then Palin remains not only a viable candidate but also a candidate with a number of advantages to be considered along our path to the elections of  November 2012.

The first thing that Burns points out is that among Republicans, and Republican-leaning independents, Palin is regarded by two-fifths as unelectable.  To this, I would respond simply: First, throw out the Republican-leaners.  They don’t vote in primaries in most states, or they wouldn’t be independents.  Second, the reliable likely Republican primary voters is apt to be a good deal more conservative than the polling data’s fuzzy delineation represents.  The data reveals that some movement is actually possible, at least enough to win the GOP nomination, and this is the first object of any campaign.  One’s inability to get all the Republican votes in a primary really isn’t a valid test of one’s suitability for a general campaign.  As a counterpoint to the conclusions Burns has reached, one might do well to take a look instead at what Gary P. Jackson has to say on the matter.  His is an excellent analysis of Palin’s real electoral prospects.  Like Reagan, Palin enjoys a substantial lead in favorability in the key swing state of Ohio.  Looking at the way Reagan won in the 1980 primary season, it’s easier to understand how it could be true that Palin is just as apt as any to win not only the nomination, but also a general election campaign.

If we admit that there is a path for Palin to the nomination, then the question of her electability suddenly loses its punch.  This is because the electorate will find itself faced with the probability of a continuing stagnation or decline, and the prospect of choosing between a Sarah Palin presidency and that of another four years of what has been a largely failed presidency.  Under continued or increasing economic duress, you might well expect the former Alaska governor to begin knocking down questions of her suitability for office, and general election voters, considering their available alternatives to begin to agree.  More, Palin has matured as a national figure, and has made herself much more familiar with the intricacies of issues of national import on a level of detail many candidates simply don’t possess. In all probability, it would ride in large measure on her performance in Presidential debates late in 2012. If she substantially holds her own, or is viewed even marginally as the victor, it’s very likely that she would find herself victorious in November.

One of the other themes being covered widely, but particularly on Politico, is that late entries are faced with a number of obstacles.  While this is true, the late entry is also a frequently successful approach to Presidential victory.  Reagan, Clinton, and Bush were all late entrants.  There is a definite advantage in being last, with significant name recognition, and this is another way in which Palin is well-placed for victory.

Setting aside Burns’ previously demonstrated preference for Romney among the current candidates, it’s easy to see why he’s concerned, because while Palin is a principled conservative, she is not unaccustomed to working with Democrats and independents in pursuit of common sense solutions to pressing problems. That’s her actual record, and if she’s able to demonstrate that, it not only makes a general election campaign winnable, but increases the chances that she will capture some significant portion of Romney’s voters as he continues to fade.  As the GOP nomination campaign consolidates, it would likely come down to just two candidates, as Michele Bachmann is sliding now with the entry of Perry.  This presents a great opportunity for Palin, and one she will likely have known in withholding an announcement as long as she has.

If one listens to the punditry in DC media, one would think the campaign is all but over, but common sense and a little closer examination of the polling data definitely suggests otherwise.  Palin is known for running underfunded campaigns to great success, and she also has the ability to raise money, as much is still being withheld as people wait for the Republican field to settle.  Some of it would certainly settle out in her campaign coffers, and some would go to the anti-Palin vote, but if voters begin to consolidate around a common sense conservative, none will be surprised.  Part of the narrative since 2008 has been to paint Palin as a radical right winger, and while it is certainly true to say that she is conservative, she is no more conservative than Ronald Reagan, a president who is still revered in the Republican electorate, and among voters in general.  While not a perfect analogy, it’s accurate to say that she has history on her side, even if it’s not something the establishment pundits wish to tell you as they struggle to understand the Tea Party phenomenon.  What causes them confusion with that political development is the same thing that causes them to misjudge Sarah Palin’s appeal.  Much as in the closing months of 1979 and into 1980, it’s nearly time for the establishment to learn.

Rick Perry Shows His True Nature

Wednesday, August 24th, 2011

How Dare You Ask Me That?

I’ve told you before what I think of Rick Perry.  As a Texan, I really don’t think all that much of him, and as a governor, the only thing that has stopped him from making a complete mess is a legislature that is more conservative than he.  His pandering to La Raza and ACORN along with his tendency to govern as a statist has always caused me heartburn.   Combine that with his crony-capitalist ways, and no, I don’t think he should be allowed anywhere near the White House unless he’s on a tour as a member of the public. In this instance, a student at the University of Iowa, Drew Hjelm, tries to ask him a question about the debt problem in Texas, and Perry cuts the guy off, lies, and says the kid doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  Nonsense!  The young man had it right.  I also wonder about the bullying implied by poking his finger on the young man’s chest.

I don’t know what they do about such behavior out in Paint Creek, but that’s a sure-fire way to start a fight in many parts of Texas.  One wouldn’t want to try that for fear that you might well pull back a stump.  What’s next? Is he going to pull off his boot and pound it on the lectern? This sort of tactic simply isn’t acceptable in a modern campaign.  Pointing would have been sufficient, but this reaction was more than Perry should have permitted himself, especially since he was trying to evade answering the young man’s question. Under pressure, in front of the cameras, Perry reverted to bullying and obfuscation. Nobody needs a President like that.

Check out this  excellent article for full coverage on this incident during which Rick Perry was trying to dodge the student’s question at Conservatives4Palin.

Why Would I Believe Karl Rove Now?

Monday, August 22nd, 2011

Who? Me?

You know what I think of Karl Rove, and it isn’t pleasant.  He doesn’t say anything without some ulterior motive, and he seldom throws air-time away on loose, unfocused talk.  He even makes up his own small white-boards for television interviews so he can make his points visually.  No, a guy like this never says or does anything without a purpose in mind.  Over the last several days, since he made his statements regarding Sarah Palin’s potential official entry into the GOP field, something hasn’t felt right about it.  Two things I know about Rove are that he hates to be seen as having been wrong, and what he really hates is to lose.  His value to the establishment as a political strategist isn’t based on the accuracy of his political prognostications in public, but instead on his ability to manipulate results by the disinformation he spreads in the media.   Often times, the analysis he offers on TV are aimed at some purpose other than that which would seem apparent.  Due to this, I’ve begun to wonder what his mention of Sarah Palin is really intended to accomplish. It’s the reason I included a question mark in my coverage of Natalie Nichols’ article from yesterday.  I simply don’t trust the guy.  There’s always an angle to what he’s doing, and he’s effective.  Now, with Dick Morris tweeting that he thinks she’ll announce September 3rd, I can’t help but smell a rat.

I went back to the original article in which I read the account, and I was even able to scare up a portion of the video, and so I took a look at what Rove said, and considered what it might be intended to accomplish, apart from what he seemed to be saying.  In my view, here is the critical nugget:

“This is her last chance,” Rove said.  “She either gets in or gets out [after the Iowa visit].  I think she gets in.”

Who says it’s her last chance?  Why would any of us assume that Governor Palin would choose this moment to begin complying with the narrative of the media’s pet political analysts?  It’s not as though any of us actually believe either that Karl Rove wants Sarah Palin to succeed, or that he’s some sort of detached, objective source of political wisdom.  What Rove’s statement proposes is a ridiculous premise:  It’s then, or never.  Why would Rove wish to deliver such a message?  He certainly isn’t saying it to help Sarah Palin.  I think he wants to paint the picture of a candidate who must get in over Labor Day weekend, or just as well stay home.  Could this be because Rove is trying to push her to a premature declaration, or to push us into a false belief based on his dubious assertions?

Why would Rove do that? Rove’s interests lie with some other agenda, but not in advancing a Palin candidacy. What if he could score a substantial knock on her via an expectation game he’s now helped foment among us, knowing that she’s better served to wait a while longer?

Would I enjoy it if she did announce on the 3rd?  Sure, since I plan on being there, but then again, I am not so worried about the particular date of her announcement that the lack of one on that day would throw me into a tail-spin of despair or send me scurrying off to some other campaign.  I’m a grown-up, and I’ve waited longer for things of much less importance.  Truth is, if that’s not the best day for Sarah Palin to announce, in her own judgment, and by her own criteria, I don’t want her to announce just to suit me.  I want her to announce on the day she believes will make for the best effect in pursuit of victory.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I am prepared to wait until hell freezes over, or she herself tells us otherwise, and if she ultimately decides not to run, I’ll be fine with that too, because I support Sarah Palin, candidate for President or no.

Right now, there’s a lot of “huff and puff” over Rick Perry, and as I mentioned before, this Savior-of-the-Day mentality isn’t something we Palin supporters have ever accepted, so why go with the talking heads’ claims of their prescribed dates and times now?  No, I’m not falling for it.  If she announces that day, or any other day, I will be equally thrilled at the prospect.  There isn’t a time limit on my support, and in truth, my support of Governor Palin isn’t limited to Presidential politics, so I’m not inclined to get too attached to what Karl Rove asserts, one way or the other.  I’m done buying the premises such people try to lay out for us, knowing that all too frequently, it’s intended to push us in a direction we would not otherwise knowingly or willingly go.

I’ve said it before, and at some length a month ago today, and I’ll say it this one last time:  Leave the strategy to Governor Palin. Why am I supposed to feel hurried anyway?  I know who I support, and all the other people already in this race will still be there a month from now even if Governor Palin should decide not to run.  While I don’t view that as likely, so what if she did?  Two things would remain true even in that case:  I would still support her as a tremendous advocate for our values, and I would still be able to decide whether to support (or not support) one of the other numerous candidates.   What I won’t do is talk myself into arbitrary, dubious, artificial deadlines for which there is no actual basis in fact, never mind letting Karl Rove talk me into one.  That’s just silly.  The real deadlines are a good bit later, and for me, my deadline is that day on which Texans go to vote in the primaries, next March.  That’s the only deadline I’m worried about, and Karl Rove’s claim of some nonsensical cut-off date is just more typical DC-insider political garbage, and media manipulation.   No, I am prepared to wait.  Sarah Palin has said it herself:  There will be no mistaking her decision on the day she announces it.  I expect Iowa on September 3rd to be one thoroughly enriching event, and I am going there to enjoy the fellowship of others like me, and to listen to whatever Governor Palin has to say.  I’m not going there expecting to hear an official campaign launch.  I’m going there to support her and the Tea Party folks who are hosting the event.  She said the time-frame of the end of September should cover the range of dates during which we could expect some sort of announcement.  I believe her, and it’s as simple as that. There’s no sense in falling prey to some well-laid Karl Rove narrative.

A Time For Self-Discipline

Monday, August 22nd, 2011

Looking Ahead!

One of the things that happens in any political season is that supporters of candidates can become overly confident and lose their edge.  My preferred candidate is, as you all know by now, Governor Sarah Palin.  As you also know, she has not yet made her entry into the race for the GOP nomination official.  Many people have been tempted to talk about how she’s going to beat Obama, myself included, and while that’s important, I’d urge my friends to temper their enthusiasm with the reminder that while we know she can win, the rest of the GOP doesn’t yet understand it, and it’s going to take our tireless efforts to make that happen.  It is not my intention to be a wet blanket, as I am as thoroughly enthusiastic at the notion of Sarah Palin’s imminent entry as any, but let me say this clearly: We who wish to see her inaugurated in January of 2013 must remember that this will be a long and difficult fight.  We have an uphill battle in all ways but one:  Ours  is the superior candidate, and we know it.  Let us now begin to show the rest of the GOP, and indeed the rest of America, why this is true.

I am certain that upon an announcement, Governor Palin will in some way begin immediately to coordinate her supporters.  There’s been no official campaign structure to link her to all the groups who have supported her for so long, but the rudiments are already in place with the great work of people who’ve been coordinating in their own states and regions for quite some time now.  It’s now time for you to begin building those contacts back up, and staying in touch more closely so that those who have waited for so long in expectation of this moment are able to take that stored enthusiasm and turn it into boots on the ground in every state in the union.  You want to win, don’t you?

There will be those who will hesitate at the notion of any formalization of their efforts, but to succeed, we must reaffirm our commitment in the candid and well-mannered self-discipline that has really been the calling card of Sarah Palin’s supporters all along.  I had one young person ask me recently how to help.  I said without hesitation that we must lead, but as we all know by now, to lead is to serve.  Let us serve our chosen candidate first by being there for her.  On September 3rd, whether that is the date of the announcement we all hope for, or not, we must be there for her, as many as we can, in such dedication as the moment will deserve.  Remember, by entering the race, Governor Palin will signify her own willingness to serve you, and the country, first by being there.  The truth is, she’s been there right along.  We must do the same.

The other thing I told this youngster was that we must remember that by association with her through our support, we must conduct ourselves at all times as her ambassadors.  This can be difficult at times, because there will surely be some ne’er-do-wells you will encounter who will try to rattle you or provoke you into words that you might later regret.  Remember, the world is sadly overstocked with some nasty provocateurs who would love nothing better than to goad supporters of Governor Palin into embarrassing themselves or even worse, the Governor.  Let the better angels of our nature be our guide.  We all find instances in our daily lives when we must deal gently with obnoxious people who don’t deserve the kind treatment prudence demands we afford them. I’m not asking you to be a pushover, as I don’t think that’s what Governor Palin would want, but just remember: As her supporters, we’re out there on her behalf.  Let’s do her proud!

If this seems a bit burdensome, it’s really not.  We need only to remember our goal.  What is our goal?  Is it that Sarah Palin runs for the nomination, or that she wins it?  If she wins the nomination, is that the end? Of course not, as we intend to see her win the nomination, and then the presidency, and even then, our task will have only gotten off to a rousing start.  Then we will set about restoring the nation, and that will be a long and difficult task, but I’m sure you will agree that it’s the mission for which we’ve volunteered to lead and to serve.

My point to you is not to dampen your enthusiasm, but to remind you for a moment of why we fight, and what we’re fighting to achieve.  I hope you will be heartened as am I by the things you have already accomplished.  We’re going to have tremendous fun doing it, and it’s going to the source of great pride in our lives.  We’ll make many more new friends, we’ll do all that which we are now assembling to do, and more you may not yet imagine.  All of this we can do, and have a start at repairing what is broken, but let us remember that is what we gather now to accomplish.

I have told you that I am prepared to wait so long as Governor Palin sees fit to wait.  That remains true. I have told you all the basic reasons I support Sarah Palin, and many of you have written to say you agree with me in most ways.  It seems that we’ve formed a sort of family, and I am proud of that too, but as I have told you before, things are getting bad here on the farm, and our pastures are now dust-bowls.  I am betting what remains of the farm on this effort because I love it, and I know this is our last chance too.  Some arrogant politicians will spout about having “skin in the game,” but I am here to say to you that I know how many of you also face hard times, and that you, like me, have more than some “skin in this game,” but instead our necks on the block.  I know it, because you’ve told me.  We face much worse if we don’t restore this nation, and you and I know there’s only one way that’s likely to happen.  Remember that for which we fight.  Lead.  Serve.  Do it with the same fervor for which you would fight for your very lives.  I know you will, because the character of those who email and message me daily aren’t the sort to wilt in the face of adversity.

Now is the time for that self-discipline that it took to build a nation.  What must drive us is the love we feel for the ideal that is America, strengthened in the knowledge that we have found our champion after too many years without one.  For what it’s worth, I want you to know I am proud of my association with you.  I haven’t felt this sort of kinship to such a large group since I was in the Army, where we were all brothers and sisters in one cause.  Isn’t it funny that now, when the country needs us most, we assemble again, some of you younger, and some of you older, but among you some familiar faces from my youth when I learned about real self-discipline, leadership and service?  So it is now for me, once again.  Thank you!

Today, I will send another contribution to SarahPac.  I have decided to do all I can for one last chance to save this country.  Yesterday, I talked to some fine folks who look at our future prospects as things are and tremble at what it will mean.  We can’t permit it. We mustn’t, and so I ask you to find all that is good in yourselves, all within you that still wants to fight for the future, and prepare.  On the day that Sarah Palin announces, whatever the date, I will find some way to be there.  It’s easy to make excuses and to claim a thing too hard.  Leave the excuses to Obama.  Leave them to the rest of the GOP field.  We won’t need them.

Palin Announcement on September 3rd More Likely?

Sunday, August 21st, 2011

Keeping the Media Guessing

With a big H/T to, the following article by Natalie Nichols was filed:

A Palin Announcement on September 3rd Looks More Likely

While none know for sure, as Governor Palin has been very careful to avoid misleading anyone, Nichols’ theory seems as plausible as any.  Still others have speculated about other dates, including the 26th of August(commemorating the ratification of the 19th Amendment,) or September the 16th(in observance of Constitution Day.)

For all I know, she could announce in five minutes, though it seems unlikely.  The problem with all of this speculation is that nobody but Governor Palin seems to know, and I expect that’s the way she prefers to keep it.

As ever, I’m content to wait and see, but I’ve already made my trip plans for Iowa, and we’ll find out…

Four Reasons Why Sarah Palin Will Win

Saturday, August 20th, 2011


I’ve been approached several times today by doubters who advance arguments as to why Sarah Palin cannot win the nomination, or if she secures  it, why she can’t defeat Barack Obama.  All of the theories I’ve had pitched in my direction today share a couple common faults, and it’s important to point them out here.  The most common reason I’ve heard today is the belief that the Media will destroy her.  That’s silly. Is there a single Republican, never mind conservative, who the media will not seek to destroy to defend their darling, Barack Obama?  Anybody who watched the media in action after McCain’s nomination in 2008 should by now be thoroughly disabused of that shoddy notion.   The Lame-Stream Media has been trying for three years running to destroy Sarah Palin, and there is no chance, having failed thus far, that they will improve results on their limited success.

The problem is that if the media narrative about a person is based on lies, in the longer run, those lies lose effectiveness as people learn the truth from other sources, and worse yet, the lies come back to haunt their purveyors because once the audience, having originally believed them, in the second instance realizes they’ve been scammed, they will thereafter no longer be inclined to believe another pronouncement given voice by that source.  The second most common flaw in the arguments I’ve been hearing and reading today is the dubious assumption that she’s an intellectual lightweight.  Truthfully, there couldn’t be a more ridiculous claim upon which to base one’s criticisms, and yet this is the default argument of those who wish to suggest that Sarah Palin isn’t qualified.  It’s the constant harangue of the elite media types, and it has been a failure repeatedly.  They tried to paint a similar picture of Ronald Reagan, and in fact, every Republican in my memory.  It’s a claim that falls on deaf ears in most quarters, because in the final analysis, it’s simply not believable given all she has already accompished.  Having covered what critics have said, let me move on to my own list of reasons in opposition to these notions.  I firmly believe that Sarah Palin will run, win the nomination, and ultimately the Presidency.

1. Nobody on the Republican side has the ability to raise money like Sarah Palin.  Her numerous supporters are the most rigidly determined of the bunch, and yet they remain more inclined than any to eschew distortions or outright lies in criticisms of the other candidates.  That natural constituency remains one of Governor Palin’s most  precious assets.  Her supporters are leaders unto themselves, needing no prompting or pushing to engage in the contest.  Instead, they’re busily preparing for the campaign they now conclude(and have regarded for some time) as inevitable and right.  One can discern a good deal about a candidate by the quality of leaders that develop and rise in their midst.  In Mrs. Palin’s case, all evidence would support the notion that by her own thoughtful seeding, she’s now harvesting a superior crop.  The media and their political analysts all seem to assert that she has no ground-game and no organization.  To anybody who has been following her for any period of time, this is a laughable misstatement of the facts on par with the storied headline “Dewey Wins!”  Outside her control or direction, Palin supporters have already formed their own grass-roots structure, and that means Governor Palin will put her campaign together in days or hours, rather than weeks or months.

2. The primary election is going to come down to an assessment by Republican primary voters as to who they believe will best represent their interests in the general election.  Considering the candidates on a case-by-case basis, it’s hard to conclude that any have a better understanding of the issues at stake than Governor Palin, and it’s even more difficult to conceive of that Republican candidate who is more closely tied to the conservative base of the party.  Mrs. Palin’s support in the Republican party will come from Main Street, and Anytown, USA, where the values they share meet the reality of the Obama disaster.  This natural affinity for localized concerns magnified and multiplied by replication on a national scale spells doom for other GOP hopefuls.  Nobody gets a warmer welcome from the greater heart of American productivity than the lady from Alaska who has fought on that same field as both a business owner and a politician.  It shows in the crowds she attracts.  She is main-stream America’s real political rock-star, and this is why the remainder of the field now works through distortions and disinformation to dissuade her from the race: They know if she gets rolling, she’ll be almost unstoppable.  Their strategy remains to stop her from starting.

3. Victory for any Republican in the general election of 2012 is going to require the sharpest possible contrast between Barack Obama and his opponent.  As the economy continues to swerve like a drunken driver, curb to curb, and as Obama continues to demonstrate his incompetence for the job, the optics on that side of the scales will be measured against a woman who understands the heart of the trouble in America, and what concrete steps will be required to repair and restore the country.  Obama will have a vault of money, most analysts speculating an amount in excess of a billion dollars, but let’s be honest for a moment and admit that if just ten million of Sarah Palin’s supporters would send in just $100 dollars, she would also eclipse that number. If just her 3 million Facebook fans send in just $300, she would approach that number.  Times are tough, and many of her supporters find themselves on hard times, but as with me, I see each dollar invested in electing Sarah Palin as hastening the day of the country’s restoration and the recovery our economy, and with it, my own farm and prospects.  Many Americans agree, and it is on this point that the matter of money will turn.  It’s also worth noting that her so far unannounced campaign is costing nothing, while most of the remainder of the field has been spending for months.  One of the sharpest points of contrast between Barack Obama and Sarah Palin will be the clear difference between their respective understandings of the importance of energy in the growth and prosperity of the economy, and indeed the country.  As I detailed earlier this week, this difference alone will redound to Governor Palin’s distinct advantage, because people know that life requires energy.  Only death and decay attend its absence.

4. The last reason is the most important: Sarah Palin.  She’s a true patriot, and a real conservative.  It’s not a campaign suit she puts on for the crowds, changing it daily for the sake of a particular audience.  This makes for a consistency that has no real rival, and it also means that her supporters can more easily defend her against frivolous, shrill attacks.  If a candidate believes the same thing today as yesterday, and tomorrow as today, it’s really not hard to respond to critics with facts about the candidate.  This kind of principled consistency is born of knowing what you believe, and why you believe it.  She’s a diligent student of issues great and small, and quickly masters new subjects as they arise.  This makes for an adaptive, flexible campaign.  Mrs. Palin also knows how to capture and hold the attention of people, and it’s an open secret about her success:  She actually listens.  This connects her to any audience, whether one-by-one, or in larger groups and crowds.  Unlike others, she doesn’t see a mass of people as one moving organism, but instead sees people on the personal scale of the individuals who comprise it.  The temptation for most politicians is to see the crowd, and become consumed by the size of the forest while overlooking its trees.  That’s part of the problem in our government too, and her ability to narrow her attention is as precious as it is rare. This is how a politician must connect with a country: One heart, and one mind at a time.

I contend that all of these are reasons that Sarah Palin will run, win the nomination, and defeat Barack Obama in 2012.  When combined with his record of miserable performance, it’s quite possible she’ll do so in epic fashion.  It is true that he has the advantages that every sitting President enjoys, but he also suffers from the overwhelming sense that he’s disconnected, and on a tragically wrong course for the country.  As bad as that is, what’s worse is that it’s unlikely to get substantially better, and instead looks likely to worsen.  With the inflationary policies being adopted by the Federal Reserve, and the debt-piling tendencies of a President and a party addicted to spending, Governor Sarah Palin may well appear on the presidential stage at just the right time to press her advantage and make good on her words: “Mr. President: Game On!

Mindless Hate Begins to Escalate

Saturday, August 20th, 2011

Let 'em Hear it!

I’m not too proud to admit that I enjoy a good debate on Facebook, or other sites, and sure, I’ve been known to get pretty worked up on occasion, but few things get my dander up like the mindless, hate-filled attacks on Sarah Palin and her family.  Since it has become clearer to most that she may well actually enter the race for the GOP nomination, the frequency of hate-filled spew-fests has begun to accelerate in some venues.  What I’ve noticed is that among certain other GOP campaigns, there has been an attempt to dissuade her from running by joining in the hate-fest.   Apparently, these folks weren’t listening when Ronald Reagan explained the 11th commandment he observed, refraining from making personal attacks on fellow Republicans.

The talking points are always the same, and they take nasty stabs at her as a mother, a wife, and a politician, but none of them ever seem to focus on what makes Sarah Palin superior to all the rest: She’s a genuine, sincere leader who has committed to a terrible struggle to preserve our liberties and our nation.  I will always defend that position, and any such leader who takes it.

You can always detect when you’re dealing with another “troll.”  They’re numerous, and seem to multiply whenever conservatives gather.  Some of them will simply be the garden-variety pot-stirring lefty, and you’ll detect them quickly enough, because at least half their number can’t form a cogent line of argumentation that doesn’t condense to: “BECAUSE!”  On the other hand, there’s another brand of troll that sneaks in under the wire pretending to be among your number.  They feign sympathy until they see the opportunity to begin unloading their garbage. It usually takes no more than a post or two to see the first signs.  It will come in the form of “doubts” or “questions” about the intended target’s character, or ability to raise a family.  It’s always some nasty smear, at its root, and it is generally dismissed with ease once you’ve identified them.  They tend to realize they’ve been caught, and beat a hasty retreat, and you can nearly see them saying in Snidely form: “Curses, foiled again.”

The last sort are the obvious shills for some other candidate, who they will do their best not to name for as long as possible, until by their policy preferences, they reveal who it is they must really support.  You can detect them quickly by focusing on a single issue or two of distinction.  In one case this morning, I dealt with one troll who thought he could simply say “Sarah Palin has horrendous policies.”

I immediately responded: “Name one.”   Then came the endless game of back-peddling to avoid the question.  Eventually, it came around to her support of Israel.  I then pointed out the naïveté  of the proposition that we can simply abandon Israel.  This ended the cat-and-mouse game and defined the battle.  After all, if you’re going to attack Sarah Palin’s relative intelligence, you really ought not do so while pretending to yourself  that Ron Paul’s position on Iranian nuclear ambitions or his willingness to abandon Israel signifies “wisdom.”  This same genius suggested she couldn’t win because of her “horrendous policies.”  Sadly for him, 67% of the American people at large likewise support Israel, and more  than 80% view Israel as an important ally.  That says nothing of the even greater support for Israel in the Republican Party.  This fellow was actually suggesting, at least in part, that Sarah Palin could not win, and her policies are horrendous because of her position on Israel, while he offered up Ron Paul as a better substitute(?)  Yet, this guy questions Sarah Palin’s intelligence?

In the end, what was most laughable about one of these incidents was that the thread in question started out with mockery aimed at Sarah Palin being the least substantial candidate, but within two hours, a quick review of the other threads on the page showed all the activity centered around just one thread: The one focusing on Sarah Palin.  That’s a telling anecdote that should hearten Palin supporters, because what it implies is that Governor Palin evokes passion.  Her adversaries and enemies know it, too, and like her, we should take every opportunity to revel in it, because what it all reveals is what we who support her have known all along: She’s real, and she’s a true danger to the establishment.  Their every response or reaction to her makes it unavoidably clear.  Ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to begin dusting off your war-paints.  I think I can hear the first echos of the call coming from away North, quietly now, but growing in the distance, like a faint rumble still… Ssshhh.. Like a train approaching from a way down the track, you can see it in the distance, you can feel its first vibrations, and you might detect just a bit of the sound of the wake it’s plowing through the air, but you don’t get much sense of its speed or inertia until it’s almost too late.  Listen for it. I can almost make it out now: “Game on!”

In the weeks ahead, I expect the rumble to become a full-throated roar, and the naysayers will retreat a bit in awe if we let them hear it.  As they pick up the pace of their hate-filled disinformation, we must answer it, loudly, and at once.  That’s what it’s going to take, from each of us, who have so patiently waited, defending her as needed, but biding our time with her.  The battle cry is coming, and you won’t doubt or wonder when it’s been spoken. I will report it here, but you’ll already know.

New, Awesome SarahPac Video!

Friday, August 19th, 2011

What else can I say? What else needs to be said?

Awesome! Go to SarahPac to learn more!

Making One Nation From Two Americas

Monday, August 15th, 2011

It's Not Over!

The sad truth is that we’ve become two distinct Americas.  One is still the land of opportunity, with a strong constitution to restrain its central government, and preserve the liberties of its people, and the other is a nation in which the Constitution means nothing, and the Federal government grows ever-larger and increasingly uncontrollable.  Whether we re-elect Barack Obama, or instead place into that office a person of substantially different character is now the matter at hand.   Looking over the field of officially-entered Republican candidates, it’s difficult to imagine how any of these will make any substantial difference.

We need the sort of leader who understands that  to erase the chasm between the two vastly disparate countries, and to re-unify this country, it is going to require a consistent, driving effort by an honest and trustworthy servant as well as the people of that nation.  At present, we are embarked on a collision course with some sort of civil unrest.  The differences between the two Americas has triggered the acceleration of collapse for one, and ascendancy of the other.  To set this country on its proper course, and to repair the America we had known, it’s going to take a person of courage to say to the American people that the right must be done at the expense of the easy.  At present, there is only one potential candidate for president who has experience in managing such reform, and turning a government away from corruption.  Sarah Palin may represent this country’s last real chance at restorative rather than transformative change for at least a generation.

Barack Obama was elected president in a time when Americans were disgusted with his predecessor, George W. Bush, who gave lip service to our America while servicing the other.  Obama arrived after two years of his own party’s control of Congress, and the usual big spending had become colossal spending in a very short time.  His party’s vision of America is one of a nation in decline, with government waiting to catch everybody who falls, or prop up those who had never stood on their own at all.  History assures us that if government grows in this way, it eventually squeezes dry the heart of the private sector, leaving that engine of our prosperity to feed from an ever-shrinking lifeblood of wealth(formerly born of production,) since they are prevented from creating any anew.  Between Federal, State and local governments, nearly 50% of the amount of the private sector’s annual production is devoured.  Worse, if you consider how much the Federal government spends, that number grows to something near 60% of the GDP.

That’s an unconscionable amount of spending, but the borrowing also has negative effects on the private sector, which is you.  Every dollar borrowed by the Federal government is unavailable for businesses and individuals to finance their own growth.  Worse, since the borrowed dollars are printed into existence, each one created from nothing diminishes the value of all those already in circulation.  This sickening spiral of spending can have only one ultimate result: The complete bankruptcy of the nation.  First, they will cut defense, leaving you open to attack from foreign enemies.  Next, they’ll begin to cut the administration of justice at and the prosecution and incarceration of criminals here at home, leaving you subject to an increasing crime rate that will savage you further.  Eventually, they will have no choice but to begin cutting expenditures to their various constituencies and special interest groups, and this will cause mayhem and rioting as people unaccustomed to being told “No, get a job!” will begin to revolt at the notion that after all these years on some dole or other, they will finally have no choice but join the rest of us at work. When we hit this stage, and make no mistake, we’re nearing it, there will be virtually nothing and no one who will revive the nation’s too-cold corpse.  That is where one of the two Americas exists, and it’s the one on the rise.  The problem is that in destroying the other America, the one we’ve loved, their version also destroys itself.  This is Barack Obama’s America, in vision, and as is becoming all too apparent, quite sadly also in fact.

The other America, the one you had known(and the older you are, the more fully you had known it,) is on a steep decline.  The land of opportunity and production is rapidly being replaced by an all-encompassing welfare state.  You had once known the ability to start a new business, or set out on a new venture, or go for broke and return to the land and try your hand at farming.  There were inventors and innovators in every direction you looked, producing marvelous new things, and more importantly, new ideas on how to improve the lives of not only Americans, but people in all nations.  Some of you may remember the first televised “Superman” and the “Truth, Justice and the American way” for which he nobly stood.  50 years of big government’s Kryptonitic bombardment have reduced that former hero and the country for which he once stood, to a devolving, dilapidated remnant.  It was once said that “In America, anything is possible.”  Now it may be properly stated that anything government permits may be possible, provided one has submitted the proper forms, and greased the right governmental palms.

Now comes an opportunity for restoration under the leadership of a person who has endured the attempts of big government’s minions to destroy her.  Sarah Palin is unlike other politicians precisely because she possesses the strength of character not only to identify these problems, but also to begin doing something about them.  Much of what you’ve come to know about her, that could lead you to doubt her, has been created by the campaign against her.  How is it, you may ask, that one woman from a distant state, remote in nearly all ways, could come to be such a threat that she must be destroyed at any and all costs?  The answer is really quite simple:  It’s a matter of ethics.

Sarah Palin rose to preside over the government of the State of Alaska.  The state’s greatest resource, apart from its people, has been the natural wealth of energy trapped beneath its vast, frozen expanses.  That wealth of resources didn’t attract only those who wished to earn a living, and were willing to do without luxuries to do so, but also a class of people who made their wealth in managing these resources on behalf of well-heeled interests.  The resources of the state were largely at the mercy of these interests until the lady from Wasilla arrived to begin asking some tough questions.  Sarah Palin realized that the state was being stolen from its people, who were suffering at the hands of those who had no real interest in the state or its people, but were instead creatures of Washington DC, and of corporate lobbyists who haunt the corridors of Alaska’s capital, and our Capitol.

She went to war against what had been termed the “Corrupt Bastards Club,” and set out to ruin them.  Her ascendancy as Governor was a victory for Alaskans over those who had come to dominate the state, at one point, prior to her involvement in the McCain campaign, garnering her an almost incomprehensible 88% approval among Alaskans.  Not Republicans. Not Democrats… Alaskans. Period.

After the rough-and-tumble of a national campaign in which she was endlessly restrained by Senator McCain’s campaign team, she went home to Alaska, to return to governing, but she was in for a surprise.  The Washington version of the “CBC” had decided she couldn’t be left to continue her work, and to this very day, they continue to rail against her.  She represents the greatest living threat to the big government paradigm that pervades all of Washington DC, and its slick media packaging.  I believe she saw the hand-writing on the wall, when in July of 2009, she resigned her post, as a matter of tactical retreat, but not surrender, not to leave the field of battle, but to turn and attack in another direction.

One thing I’ve observed about Governor Palin is that she’s always been the sort to run toward danger, and confront it once she sees it.  She’s a natural leader and a disciplined politician, and what guides her is a sense of ethics not normally associated with politicians.  She does things because, well, simply, they’re right.  Most politicians like to tell you that’s how they will behave, but they quickly reveal another side once you’ve rewarded them with high office.  Suddenly, none of their promises to be ‘different’ or to ‘change’ things seem so important.  Instead, they quickly become what you’ve so recently replaced.  Sarah Palin isn’t that kind of politician, and while that’s something that’s been said a thousand times before, in this case, all the evidence demonstrates that it’s true.

Every politician promises that he or she will be different.  It’s almost as certain to be claimed in any campaign as the usual promises to ‘shake up the status quo’ right before adopting it. Very few of them ever mean it.  In stark contrast, none who have known Sarah Palin, in government or out, would tell you that she’s the sort to abandon her principles.  Chief among these is the idea, seemingly lost in American politics, that a leader must serve.  More, she’s an optimist who sees the woes now heaped high upon our nation by big government and its rapidly-building  oppressive burdens on its people, and knows this must be stopped, and it can be stopped. She knows that the two Americas can be one nation, again.  What she also knows is that if the people who see their America fading don’t step up and stay committed to restoration, neither politician nor super hero will be able to mend all that which has been devastated.  She knows that it starts with us.  All of us.

Why do you suppose she loves the Tea Party?  While some call it her natural constituency, it’s more that she’s one of their number.  She doesn’t seek to lead the Tea Party so much as she exhorts them to continue and grow and restore the nation.  She tells them to lead, but also reminds them to serve.   Tea Party patriots are accustomed to serving.  Many of them are veterans, or their spouses, and many of them have simply done what has become almost unnatural in contemporary Obama-America:  Lead clean and ordinary lives, providing for themselves, and their families, without government assistance or intrusion, while contributing time and effort to their communities. It wasn’t so long ago that this was the norm in America.

Governor Palin’s message is one of freedom.  Liberty is under perpetual assault by big government and its flacks in the media, but it’s a salable message now, just as it has been since the first Tea Party.  You may have read recently that the Obama administration wants to require a commercial driver’s license to operate a tractor on your own farm.  How long before they demand a degree in agricultural sciences before you can mow your own lawn or obtain an ASE certification before you can change the wiper blades on your own car?  Hell, how long before they tell you “No cars?”  No.  I’m thoroughly disgusted by big government, and I believe Sarah Palin is too.  It’s clear that she looks at its encroachments on our lives as a source of misery, and for those of us in her America, it most certainly is, and it’s worsening daily.

The coming election will be a competition between two distinct visions of America.  Obama’s version is a land of diminishing wealth and innovation, with constant unemployment in the double digits.  Sarah Palin’s vision is something else entirely, and it’s an America most of us have known, If you want to see it again, you’re going to need to fight for it, and that starts with the task of selecting your champion, to lead the charge, not from the rear, as is now the norm in politics, but at the front, where the battle turns, not around weaponry, but ideas and principles.  After all, both of the Americas I’ve addressed are really only ideas, brought into existence by the efforts of those people committed to them.  Sarah Palin is committed to our America, because it is her America too, but if it’s to prevail, and to become again the “one nation” it had been before, it’s going to take your commitment, and your leadership.  Don’t yield.  Don’t surrender.  She’s not finished, and neither are we.

It’s not over.

Sarah Palin Mystifies Media

Sunday, August 14th, 2011

What's She Thinking?

In a continual state of panic over the fact that they can’t seem to nail down what Sarah Palin is doing, they’ve taken to creating their own narratives and odd explanations for what she’s doing.  The explanations range from the purely silly to the outright nefarious and conspiratorial, but none of the media’s grand minds seem to be able to figure out what Governor Palin is doing.  It’s ridiculous to think that after all this time, they still seem to feel the need to make up stories, or impute motives, but in no way rely upon what she’s saying or doing as evidence of what she might do.  No, the journalists enjoy making it up, but most of us out here in flyover country liked the press a good deal better when they were known simply as reporters.

Among the theories are:

She’s just stringing along her poor, deluded supporters, milking them of their money in book sales and so on, but has no intention of running.

She’s really after the VP slot.  She knows she can’t be elected on her own, and this is her best shot at making it inside the halls of DC power. 

She’s just a tawdry attention hound.

If you find these amusing, there are many more, and you can find them on news and political sites all over the web.  One writer at Glenn Beck’s The Blaze actually argues that she’s out. Period.  When you see these kinds of ‘news’ stories, you and I must wonder: “What’s going on inside their heads?”

Well, as I’ve told you before, I have no special insights.  Like you, I am just an observer of these events, watching from afar, and forming my own conclusions.  That said, I’d like to address some of the more ridiculous of these various assertions:

She isn’t of the character to needlessly string people along.  If she says she’s still thinking about it, you can believe it, and given the nature of her own beliefs as expressed all over the media, it is impossible to conclude that she’s playing people for some crass profit motive.  She wouldn’t spend money on a bus and all that accompanies her bus tours if some sort of nefarious money-making scheme was her aim.  It’s not as though the bus is covered in corporate sponsor logos and she’s somehow being paid in advertising dollars.

Other than 2008, she’s never really been satisfied to play second fiddle to anybody.  Truth be told, I think she would have liked a more aggressive campaign, even then. Earlier in her political career  in Alaska, there were those who urged her to run for Lieutenant Governor, but in her own way, as always, she determined it would be better to just go for it all.  This sort of daring has been the staple of Palin’s political career that makes journalists crazy.  She simply won’t accept the premises they lay out, and one by one, she demolishes them, time after time.  She’s unconventional in most every way, and when she criticizes “politics as usual,” she may be one of the very few who can say it and actually mean it.  More, it’s unlikely that Mrs. Palin is enamored of Washington Beltway politics. If she went there at all, it would be as the driver so as to change all of that. I simply can’t imagine her along for the ride as some lesser figure’s VP.

If Sarah Palin were an attention addict, one could think of a thousand ways in which she could better fulfill her need.  She’s essentially a ‘rock-star’ wherever she goes, and it smashes the limits of credulity to think that Mrs. Palin is just doing this all for her own personal kicks.

Part of the problem with the journalists who cover her is that they’re all trying to guess at the secret mystery they assert constitutes the mind of Sarah Palin.  Very few of them seem inclined to simply take her at her word.  They inevitably describe her as “unpredictable” or otherwise imply that she’s flighty and this is the reason for their incapacity to guess her next move.  Of course, none of this squares with what you and I know about Governor Palin.

What are we to conclude?  If you’re like me, you will take the lady at her word.  When has Sarah Palin ever mislead us?  Ignore what the press tries so hard to intimate in shaded words and craftily constructed smears.  Skip that, and focus on what you know.  There’s absolutely no reason on earth to conclude that she’s doing anything other than she has said she will do, which is to continue to evaluate the situation and make her decision when she’s ready.

She’s stated repeatedly that the end of September would probably be as late as she would go without coming to a conclusion on the matter.  She hasn’t been shy about taking on President Obama, and even the Republicans in Congress, and she’s been very kind to most of her fellow Republicans who are already officially seeking the nomination, but on occasion, she has chastised them when she thought they weren’t doing all they could, including famously, Mitt Romney’s tepid and tardy remarks on the Debt Ceiling.

On the 3rd of September, she will deliver the keynote address to a large audience at a Tea Party event in Waukee, Iowa.  She must know, of course, that there are people coming from all over Iowa, and indeed all over the country, just to hear her speak.  Every place she goes, she is mobbed by adoring crowds, or the media, but usually both.  What should be increasingly clear to all who watch is that she has a very large following that looks a good deal like a ready-made grassroots operation at the first indication it will be needed.

Considering all this, I can’t imagine that Mr. Santarelli at The Blaze is correct.  After a moment’s contemplation, one begins to wonder who the real attention hounds may be.  Still, it’s entertaining to watch them all flail in typical journalistic fashion. No story? No news?  No matter. Just make it up. Add one opinion; shaken but not stirred, et voila: Journalism!

Fiscal Conservative, Social “Moderate”?

Saturday, August 13th, 2011

Which Way, Which Day?

One of the worst lies told by so-called “moderate” Republicans in each election year is that while they are “fiscally conservative,” they are also “socially liberal” or “moderate.” This attempt to ignore reality is perhaps less excusable than the constant delusion of the left, because these people aren’t insane. They’re simply wrong, and they know it. Part of it stems from a desire to avoid seeming “judgmental,” but if truth be told, only the worst possible judgment can originate in the minds of those who accept this shoddy idea. Attempting to walk the fine line between the political left and right, they’re not capable of energizing their base or even capturing a substantial portion of the squishy middle. The reason is simple: Their would-be supporters immediately recognize that the fatal flaws of the latter position negates any virtue to be found in the former.


Any Way They Can

Consider President George W. Bush, whose argument was that he’s a compassionate conservative. The base implication of that label is that conservatives have no compassion. It was designed to reassure voters that he’s a social moderate. His first term punctuated the notion, as he assisted in crafting laws on social policy including the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, and an education act that was drafted largely by such great conservatives(?) as Teddy Kennedy. These programs will eventually have cost Americans hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, all in service to a liberal social agenda. How can one then contend that the notion of a fiscal conservative and the idea of a social liberal/moderate could be anything but mutually exclusive?

Because Bush claimed to be a conservative, however, many on the right happily went along with the programs in the name of ‘bi-partisanship.’ We’ve seen recently in the Debt Ceiling debate what that sort of joined-hands surrender to the left this approach offers up in the end: A complete and utter failure that serves no one but government. What really defines a social liberal isn’t merely the so-called “social issues,” but the unflinching willingness to spend tax-payers’ dollars on them. It is this fundamental contradiction with all such “ideological moderates” that labels them dishonest brokers for a failed statist ideal. Many got a moments’ chuckle from my post on the mythical program S-GROPE, but these are the sorts of mindless, destructive federal expenditures born of moderate Republicans.

Consider what would have been the case if moderate John McCain had been elected in 2008. He too would have enacted some sort of health-care reform, but Republicans would have surrendered in sufficient numbers to pass it because of the shoddy notion of party loyalty, rather than loyalty to principle. Since McCain didn’t win, Republicans made a principled stand against it, and the issue is still very much in doubt as Federal courts continue to find parts or the whole of the law to be unconstitutional, nearly ensuring it will have a future date before the United States Supreme court. Had it been enacted by a moderate Republican like John McCain, few would have said even a word in opposition, and they would have been painted as “Hobbits” or “terrorists” or some other smear.

This is why when you see a governor like Rick Perry, willing to use the power of the state to require vaccines against the spread of a behaviorally-transmitted disease like HPV, you can bet you’re looking at another moderate “do-gooder” willing to spend the peoples’ treasure on the advancement of a leftist policy imperative. Not satisfied with defaming all girls twelve years or older in the state of Texas as sexually active, he actually wanted to mandate this and have it administered at school, without charge. Notice how the social moderate winds up always dismissing his fiscal conservatism in the name of some imagined public good on behalf of statist dogma.

Consider Mitt Romney’s ridiculous health-care plan in the state of Massachusetts. It’s not possible to suggest that Mr. Romney doesn’t understand how ridiculously simplistic his arguments in favor of a mandate are under logical scrutiny. First, he offers that it’s a states’ rights issue. That really doesn’t hold water, so instead he offers up a sorry analogy to auto insurance. What sort of auto insurance may any state mandate on drivers? Liability insurance. They don’t mandate collision or comprehensive or road-side assistance or towing or any of the other options you can purchase with your policy. They require only that you cover the losses and damages you inflict upon others. In all logic, there can be no way to contort health insurance to fit such a mold, and yet this is the policy initiative of a man who claims to be a conservative.

These are among the sort of issues in which the social liberalism reveals the true nature of one’s fiscal orientation. When a politician claims to be a “social moderate,” he or she is attempting to govern as a liberal, but generally more slowly, hoping to disguise it all behind the ski-mask labeled “fiscal conservatism,” and further hoping you won’t notice the philosophical slight of hand. Unfortunately for them, voters catch on to this maneuver quickly, and the slick ones will always try to stay a bit ahead of the unmasking, some of them now claiming to be social conservatives on the basis of their professed faith, or their stance on one or more divisive issues preferred by people of faith.

In 2012, we conservatives will be faced with two momentous questions: First, which candidate for the nomination will we support, and second, will we show up to vote in the election? It’s my contention, aimed squarely at the GOP establishment, that if we don’t nominate a real common-sense conservative, this time, that will provide the answer to the second question. Rather than preach to us about the necessity of winning at the expense of our principles, it would be surprising if those glorious advocates of compromise would allow themselves to see it our way, for once in a generation. Rather than being the hidden enemy in our home encampment, let them discard their principle of the center stripe, upon which we’re frequently mowed down, and side with us for a change. A real change.

What the ‘Lame-Stream’ Media Won’t Tell You

Friday, August 12th, 2011

Perry Joins 'Savior-of-the-Month' Club

It’s time for some frank discussion of the coming election and how the media is attempting to influence the outcome.  The media has no particular love of the country, because they serve corporate and political masters who don’t share the average American’s interests or visions.  You may think some network is telling you the entire truth, but all of them are compromised in one way or another.  Many center-right folks trust Fox News, but it cannot be said that this organization remains untouched by the political bias of the DC culture, particularly given the enlarging legal problems the network’s parent company, News Corp, is facing abroad, and more recently here at home.  What none of them seem interested in telling you is the identity of the real GOP front-runner.

For their dismissive attitude toward her on-camera, or in print, the media is overwhelmingly focused on the possibility of Sarah Palin’s entry into the GOP field.  Happy to leave them guessing, Governor Palin’s One Nation bus tour is back on the road, while the Lame-Stream Media pursues her, all the while feigning an indifference to her potential candidacy.  This duplicitous approach to covering the former Alaska Governor is intended to extinguish her popularity in the face of a string of flavors of the month.  Ignoring what they say instead of how they behave, their pursuit of her goes on without pause in the manner of the Paparazzi pursuing royalty.  Fortunately for the American people, this approach seems to be failing, because after each successive introduction of the next “GOP Savior” of the moment, what commences is a long trail of diminution in the eyes of the public.   Trump was going to save us.  Huntsman was going to be the ‘real deal’.  Anybody remember the name “Mitch Daniels” any longer? Then it was Bachmann. Now we’re being offered another “No, really, trust us, we’re right this time.”

The latest alleged savior of America is Rick Perry, but once again, this is largely a manufactured sentiment of the LSM.   As I’ve detailed elsewhere, for a variety of reasons related in part to eight years of a George Bush presidency, combined with Perry’s own shoddy record that wilts under the sunlight of intense examination, it’s clear that soon the bloom will be off the rose from Texas, as well.  Perry can’t win a national election.  His Texas mannerisms and speech simply aren’t salable in the immediate future, not because Americans dislike Texans, but because so many are soured on Texas by Bush.  Perry’s abandonment of conservatism when it has suited political expediency almost certainly dooms his candidacy from the outset.  After all, Barack Obama would love nothing better than to be able to launch a campaign against George Bush’s lieutenant governor.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin is in Iowa, and is scheduled to be on Hannity tonight from the Iowa State Fair.  At almost any moment, she threatens to swoop in and suck the thin political oxygen out of the GOP primary race, with the Iowa straw poll set to take place on Saturday.  This approach certainly leaves the field in turmoil, left to wonder when Palin will drop the hammer and crush some of the less popular candidates.  It’s an open secret among many now loosely in the Michele Bachmann camp that in some sense, while well-liked among Tea Party Republicans, she’s become a sort of place-holder for people who would prefer to support Governor Palin.

This suggests that a high-stakes, well-placed announcement by Sarah Palin could very well overwhelm the latest “savior,” whomever that may be.  Sarah Palin’s in the cat-bird seat, and she knows it.  She’ll likely jump in when she sees the best moment, likely surprising everybody, and this possibility has the remainder of the field sweating, leaving the savior of the moment wondering when his halo will evaporate too.

The Fire In Her Belly

Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011

I'm Going to Stand

Tuesday night on Hannity, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin exhibited some of that fire.  It’s sure to give the existing Republican presidential field no shortage of heartburn.  She was strongly combative in the face of ridiculous slurs, and not merely those leveled at her, but also those aimed at Tea Party patriots and even talk radio hosts.  Her message was clear and concise:  “Enough is enough!”  Indeed, her words reverberated with with passion for this fight.  Sarah Palin seems intent upon taking up the fight against the entrenched establishment with a vigor that no other prospect of national political prominence is willing to do.

This facet of Governor Palin’s attitude is what Americans have been hoping to see from any of the other presidential prospects in the GOP.  Instead, what they’ve seen is an increasingly invisible and tepid lot of weakly-mumbled remarks in lukewarm defense of the Tea Party, and conservatism.  This is the most significant distinction between Sarah Palin’s electability and that of the other Republican candidates:  Governor Palin has the unique capability to energize crowds, move people to rally with her, and focus their combined strength on virtually any cultural and political issue.  Combined with her commitment to firmly held principles, what the fire in her belly provides is the one thing the GOP needs in a candidate, perhaps more desperately than any other trait:  Sarah Palin has the unrepentant will to stand up and join in  the fight.

It isn’t about simple sloganeering.  Governor Palin seems willing to leave slogans to others, but what her passion indicates is a sincere commitment to the restoration of the republic.  Why wouldn’t she be passionate?  In most every respect, she has much more in common with the average American than any of the other republicans in a position to seek the presidency.   She has every bit as much to lose from the continuation of the current establishment paradigm as any of us.  She’s an entrepreneur who sees the effects of the growing government sector at the expense of the private sector.  Like so many of us, as a parent, and nowadays, a grandparent, she has a deep personal investment in the future of the country, and it resounds in the tone of her voice as she tells her audience that we can’t afford any more of Obama’s disastrous economic policies.  She isn’t just spouting talking points.  She means it.

More importantly, perhaps, it seems many Americans recognize her commitment, her passion, and her sincerity in confronting the crises with which the country is faced.  One fairly reliable gauge I’ve found for evaluating candidates is in the person of my wife.  She’s had an uncanny ability to pick who will win or lose, and she is consistently adept at sizing up candidates.  In 1992, she took one look at Bill Clinton and said: “Oh, wonderful, we’re going to have a used-car salesman for President.”  In 1996, she took one look at the newly-minted Republican nominee, and said: “Just get yourself ready for four more years of Bubba-talk and used cars.”  She’s successfully picked the winner in each subsequent election, mostly on the basis of her relative appraisals of the candidates.  Somehow, she just knows, and while she may not like what her judgments tell her, she’s been remarkably straightforward in stating them.  In 2008, she looked at John McCain, shook her head, and asked: “Why did they nominate him?” Adding more, she nodded her head at the speaker, Sarah Palin, and said: “They could have saved a lot of time and trouble, and four years of pain if they would have just nominated her, instead.”   After a moment more of the governor speaking she looked at me and said: “Don’t worry, she’ll be back.”  I’ve asked her to explain it to me, but she says it’s a ‘woman thing.’  Perplexed as ever when that is offered as the sole explanation, I shrug hopelessly and go on to the things I can measure.

It’s against this back-drop that on Tuesday night, I watched the Hannity interview alone, but I was curious to be able to watch the reaction of a true political skeptic.  Mrs. America walked into the room, and I rewound the DVR to replay it for her, as I settled into a position from which I could watch my wife without making it obvious, and thereby biasing my ‘study.’  Having spent more than two decades as the perpetual cause of most of her more severe facial expressions, I knew that by watching Mrs. America’s face for every raised eyebrow, every tiny widening of eyes, and every re-forming of the shape of her mouth, I would be able to gauge her reaction as a sort of study in the effects Governor Palin might have on an agreeable but not altogether ‘sold‘ viewers.  After forty-six years, I may not know the first thing about ‘women,’ but I know how to read the nuances of the mood of exactly one woman.  When she started to speak, Hannity having posed the question about Biden and the others calling Tea Party Americans ‘terrorists,’ I watched a growing look of inquiring expectancy.  She was waiting for something.  When Governor Palin came out swinging, taking the leftists to task for this latest vile nonsense, I saw the set of a jaw tightening and the barely perceptible nod, and as Mrs. Palin went on, Mrs. America followed.

When Mrs. Palin said “I’m going to stand up…” I saw a brightening of the eyes, and a slight smile begin to take shape from the previously indifferent pose of Mrs. America’s lips.  Every time and in every way she addressed the propensity of Obama to recklessly spend more money, I watched a growing resolve in the set of my wife’s jaw.  When Hannity prepared to go to commercials, he had to make the obligatory inquiry about her plans for 2012, but pressed for time, he tried to suggest one, and Sarah Palin beamed and laughed and that’s when I saw it:  My wife, the hardened cynic, with resolute indifference to most frivolous remarks, had leaned back slightly in her seat, and she had begun to smile with Sarah Palin.

The beauty of DVR technology is that we didn’t need to wait through those commercials.  Advancing  it to the resumption of the interview, Mrs. America, at first sitting forward again, now leaned back against the sofa as if settling in.  When Hannity asked about the notion of ‘compromise,’ here too, my wife leaned forward a bit, as if waiting to hear the answer that would tell the tale of the tape.  As Governor Palin described the need to stand firm, citing Ronald Reagan’s example, I watched something interesting develop on the face of Mrs. America, and it was an expression with which I’m naturally less familiar:  Approval.  Nodding in agreement, I watched my wife’s hand tighten on the remote, and lightly pound it into the top of her thigh.  It was an exclamation point in time with the Governor’s remarks on Cut, Cap, and Balance.  The drumbeat of those words were matched in time by Mrs. America’s.   When Governor Palin analogized her position to that of Hannity, Levin, and Limbaugh, Sean asked if she really thought any of the three could be elected to office.  Sarah Palin’s answer was a laugh, and as she said “Well, I do, but I’m one of those ‘terrorists’…”  My wife had begun to smile again, and now laughed openly, again with Mrs. Palin.  When I saw that, what it told me is that the remainder of the Republican field had better prepare themselves for a serious primary battle.  If Mrs. America’s reactions to Governor Palin are any yardstick by which to measure her presidential prospects, my wife’s little statement to me as she passed back the remote may be the indication: “She’ll do just fine.”   After twenty-three years of marriage and five presidential campaign seasons together, that sort of matter-of-fact appraisal is as much as I will get, and what it tells me is only: She knows.