Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Sarah Palin: Oprah on November 16th



Via Facebook:

Oprah on November 16th

Willow, Piper, and I are in Chicago and just wanted to let you know that I had a great conversation with Oprah today. We taped the show for Monday, November 16th, and enjoyed it so much that we went way over on time. The rest will air on Oprah.com. Oprah was very hospitable and gracious, and her audience was full of warm, energized and (no doubt) curious viewers.

- Sarah Palin

Read more...

Sarah Palin: Coin Controversy?



Via Facebook:

It is stunning to read and hear about this “coin controversy.” At a recent speech in Milwaukee I discussed the troubling fact that we too often move God to the side in our public life, and gave as an example the shift of the words “In God We Trust” to the edge of the dollar coin. My comments were not about this President or this Congress – this change predated them. I was merely making a point about a disturbing trend in our country, after which I moved on to discuss some encouraging trends. People who try to read more into such straightforward comments are working hard to find a controversy where there is none.

- Sarah Palin

Read more...

Ayn Rand and health care, among other things



Many thanks to C4P readers who are veterans or have family who are veterans - I wish you all the best and thank you for your service to the country. As there's no way to segue from that, I humbly extend my thanks.

As it's a relatively slow news day, here's a selection from my column today. The piece is long and it's primarily about Ayn Rand, her writing and her critics, but there are many parallels to the similarities between Rand and the rhetorical assaults launched against her (then and now) and a certain other person who's about to publish a book sure to rile Liberals the world over. If you're a Rand fan, you'll enjoy - otherwise, nothing to see here:

The arguments against what I would now call Conservative Populism and the ridicule of its leading figures was long ago foretold by Ayn Rand, especially in her novels. The applications are not merely capitalistic, they span the various arenas of American culture and society. The attempt to nationalize health care – moving forward against a strong national opinion against it – through Quixiotic, Byzantine and unreadable legislation with ironic naming devices is nothing new. So long as leaders have felt the need to consolidate power, they have attempted to foist upon the public the sell of legislation that says it will do one thing yet, when enacted, does the opposite.

Ayn Rand and her remarkable mind foresaw this a half-century ago. Like so many contemporary figures ridiculed for their provinciality and simple-mindedness, Rand also saw through the elaborate charade of a bare few politicians trying to rule over the rest of us.

Read more...

What Else? An Open Thread



-Mark Halperin claims to have his second Palin "scoop" of the day.

-Her interview with Oprah occurred hours ago in Chicago.

-Here's some video of the party that the Weekly Standard threw for Matthew Continetti, whose book about Palin is scheduled to be released tomorrow. The American Spectator interviewed Continetti about the book and we should have a book review ready for you by tomorrow.

-Because yesterday's predictions thread was such a success, why not make some predictions as to some things she'll say in her book that haven't already been bandied about in Halperin's first Palin "scoop" of the day (the picture is pretty funny).

Or just converse about anything.

Update by Doug: Mark Helperin's "second Palin scoop", to which Tommy Report referred above, has been confirmed by Scott Walker's spokesperson, Jill Bader. More here.

Read more...

Jonathan Martin Continues to Make Up Controversies Out of Thin Air; Updated



Like most in America, I was a typical angry teen. Like many kids my age, I was just ticked off at the world. My mom, being a good mother, tried to find out what in the world I was so angry about. The truth is that I was angry because I was a typical teenager, no real reasons other than that.

I still remember my mother’s words of wisdom during that time that has stuck with me all these years. She said “You know Kathy, your angry and bitterness will destroy you long before it destroys the person that you are angry with. Your anger will eat you up inside.” The years since hearing those words, I have realized how right my mother was. Luckily I grew up and grew out of that faze of being angry at the world.

My mother’s words of wisdom came flooding back to me when I heard and then read about the latest angry response by leftists when talking about Governor Sarah Palin’s Right to Life speech in Wisconsin.

Noting that there had been a lot of "change" of late, Palin recalled a recent conversation with a friend about how the phrase "In God We Trust" had been moved to the edge of the new coins.

"Who calls a shot like that?" she demanded. "Who makes a decision like that?"
She added: "It's a disturbing trend."

Unsaid but implied was that the new Democratic White House was behind such a move to secularize the nation's currency.

Implied? Implied by whom?

I was at the event, so let me say that you have to be an incredibly angry partisan hack to think that Governor Palin in any way said or even implied that President Obama was to blame for the “change”.

The only reason that I can think of that Politico or anyone else would actually believe that Governor Palin was implying that the coin problem was Obama’s fault was because she used the word “change” as she led into her story.

Perhaps Politico actually missed the actual theme of the entire night. The theme for the entire night was changes that have taken place in this country when it comes to the pro-life movement. This country is no longer siding with the abortion movement. A recent Gallup poll shows that 51% of Americans are now pro-life and only 42% are pro-abortion.

This is a change, a real change, not just a political slogan.

Moments before Governor Palin stepped out on stage, the pro-life attendees were treated to entire presentation on the real changes taking place in this country. Barb Lyons, the head of Wisconsin’s RTL and the night’s MC of the evening Charlie Sykes, both spoke about the incredible changes. Following the same theme, Governor Palin also spoke of the changes taking place.

The only reason anyone would believe Politico’s way of thinking is if they actually believe that the word “change” can no longer be used by anyone accept the President Obama and the Democrats.

I understand that President Obama used the words “hope” and “change” as his campaign theme. Does that really mean that the word “hope” and “change” cannot be used by anyone else? Do President Obama and the Democrats now own the word “change” and no one else can use it?

Common sense thinking Americans recognize that many a campaign slogan have used the words “hope” and “change”. Americans are smart enough to recognize that President Obama did not invent the word “change”. Americans are also smart enough to know that President Obama and the Democrats do not own the word “change”.

Since the birth of this nation, hundreds of thousands of candidates have run on the theme of “change”. President Obama did not invent the theme. It is the most commonly used political theme in our nation’s history.

Clearly, Politico’s reaction to Governor Palin’s speech is the typical angry lefty reaction to a woman they hate. They took a snippet of Gov. Palin's speech and used it to attack her. The problem is that it is a lie.

The change being discussed that night ran along several themes. One theme was the changes taking place in the pro-life movement and the reaching out to the younger crowd that Wisconsin RTL has put at the top of their list. Barb Lyons spoke on this issue. Certainly the Politico did not bother to take this “change” theme out of context.

Another theme of changes was the Governor’s reference to setting God off to the side in our lives. It really wasn’t about the actual coin itself. Of course, the angry liberals chose this as one theme to take out of context.

The primary theme of the evening was the change taking place in America’s way of thinking about abortion rights. America has changed. This change theme was mentioned by all three speakers during the evening: Barb Lyons, Charlie Sykes and Governor Palin.

Obviously, it is the anger and the hatred by the lefties(media) against Governor Palin that is on full display. They completely missed the theme of the entire evening. Yes, change was the theme of the evening. But it wasn’t Obama's “change”. It was about real change, not just a campaign slogan. Change that you can actually see taking place, not the faux kind of change promised, but not delivered, during a campaign.

The liberals at Politico and around America need to take my mother’s advice. Their anger and hatred towards Governor Palin will destroy them long before it will destroy Governor Palin. Clearly their anger is eating them up inside.

The liberals have already tried this angry and hate filled theme against President Bush and it did not destroy him. Do you think President Bush is sitting at home in Crawford sobbing over the liberal’s hatred of him? Probably not. President Bush has had a good life. He was president of the most powerful country in the world for 8 years, has a great wife and two wonderful daughters. I would imagine someday soon he will have grand-kids. That is a great life, no matter how much anger the left still feels towards him.

Governor Palin has also had a great life. Liberal anger will to do nothing to hurt her. She has a good husband, five wonderful children, a grandson, and a belief in God that will carry her through the rest of her life. Governor Palin has a great life and is about to publish a bestselling book.

The hit piece written by Politico is nothing more than a reflection of the angry left. When you have to cut and paste someone’s speech or ideas in order to fit your own agenda; obviously your anger has gotten the best of you. Most of us grow out of our angry teenage stage in our early twenties; clearly the left has not matured to that point in life yet.

Grow up liberals! The sun was rising and setting before Obama became President and it will do the same long after we replace the President with someone who has matured past the anger.

Here is the actual audio where there was no mention of President Obama or the White House:



Update by JL: What was merely 'implied' by Jonathan Martin, becomes gospel truth in Mark Halperin's version of the story in Time:

She went after President Obama, mocking his signature phrase "Change we can believe in" and suggesting he had authorized moving the words "In God we trust" from the face of a new $1 coin to its edge.

Is it just because they always have Obama on their minds that they assume everyone else must share their obsession? Or are they just incompetent?

Update by Doug: Jonathan Martin, the “reporter” whose vivid imagination conjured up the so-called coin-gate controversy, has a history of manufactured controversies and outright lies when it comes to Governor Palin. In a post just two weeks ago, we reported on Martin’s attempt to gin up a phony controversy involving an invitation Governor Palin received to speak to a private group in Iowa. In his tediously long hit piece, Mr. Martin found it necessary to seek out and interview Mitt Romney supporters in Iowa in a concerted effort to make Governor Palin look bad for, I guess, retaining the Washington Speaker’s Bureau as her agent. The utter tripe that Martin published was apparently too much for the far-left leaning Newsweek as even they called him to task for his nonsense. Josh Painter described the tiresome Mr. Martin’s piece thusly:

False? Misleading? Distorted? Deceptive? Biased? Anti-Palin? You betcha! That's Jonathan Martin. That's Politico. That's reprehensible. Why is Sarah Palin the only political figure Politico goes out of its way to treat in this manner?

Josh Painter’s words also describe the hebetudinous Mr. Martin's latest unsuccessful attempt at journalism.

Update by Mel: Governor Palin responds.

Read more...

Fan Video: Sarah Palin Honors U.S. Military



Two supporters made this excellent video of the Governor paying tribute to the U.S. Military. A special thank you goes out to Keith and Missy from Mississippi for this video and heartfelt thanks goes out to the brave men and women that serve our great nation! God bless the USA!

Read more...

Sarah Palin: In Honor of Those Who Sacrificed for Our Freedom



Governor Palin honors our veterans via Facebook:

In Honor of Those Who Sacrificed for Our Freedom

In most of our cities and towns, you’ll see memorials to brave Americans – some in uniforms of wars from long ago – who defended freedom. If you look down at their inscriptions, you’ll see that they were dedicated by the mothers, fathers, wives and orphans of the veterans who gave all for their country. In distant lands across the globe, you’ll find silent fields of white markers with the names of Americans who never came home, but who showed their dedication to their country by where they died. Today we honor those who served and made the ultimate sacrifice, as well as those who served and came home forever changed by the battlefield.

Remember all the veterans who fought and sacrificed for our freedom today, and then please take the time to thank our brave men and women currently serving in uniform. We owe them so much.

- Sarah Palin

*Bumped up by Mel.

Read more...

November 11th Open Thread




Today is Veterans Day in the United States, and Remembrance Day in many other countries.



To all who have served: Thank you.

Read more...

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Ten Questions/Predictions for the Book Tour



Let's have some fun. Maybe we'll have a prize for the winner:

1) Will there be a Drudge headline noting that sales for Going Rogue eclipsed 200,000 in its first week?

2) Will Oprah ask Governor Palin about NY-23?

3) Will Glenn Beck cry during his interview with Governor Palin?

4) Will Obama's approval rating in the Gallup daily tracking poll of adults fall under 50% at any point during Governor Palin's book tour?

5) On which stop on her book tour will Governor Palin receive her largest reported crowd?

6) Will a bid on her in the 2012 intrade market exceed 30 at some point during her book tour? (for context, the last bid placed on her was 25.1)

7) Will she endorse either Mark Kirk or Marco Rubio at any point during the book tour?

8) Will Mike Huckabee make another comment about her appearance at any point during the book tour?

9) Will John McCain, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden make any comment on her book once it's released?

10) Treat #10 as the tie-breaker and just make your own wild prediction.

Read more...

Evening Open Thread



Not much going on today but here it is...

-Governor Palin will reportedly keynote the Bowling Proprietors Association of America's Bowl Expo in Las Vegas next June.

-She'll reportedly speak with Eddie Burke on Monday between 2-5 PM (h/t Cruela)

-Obama Delivers Largely Unemotional Speech at Fort Hood is one headline for Obama's speech today. I am begging Gallup to poll this speech. I doubt he breaks 50% with the public if Gallup were to poll registered voters as to whether the speech was excellent/good (Obama's speech at the DNC convention did register an impressive 58% excellent/good rating, which was good for second place to ...).

-I like the East Texas media.

Converse about....anything.

Read more...

Barbara Curtis: 'Ever wonder why liberal pundits are so concerned with helping the Republican Party avoid losses?'



Barbara Curtis, in her weekly "Palin Tracker" column at Pajamas Media, asks:

Ever wonder why liberal pundits are so concerned with helping the Republican Party avoid losses? Should the GOP listen to their sage advice about dumping Palin? Ask Doug Hoffman, who soared from 15% to 46% after Palin’s endorsement just two weeks before the election.

Ms. Curtis also links to our own K. Carpenter's report on Gov. Palin's speech to the Wisconsin Right to Life last Friday.

Read more...

Rubio on Palin: 'I can't think of anything her and I disagree with'



Jordan Fabian, in an article for The Hill, wrote:

Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio (R) said on Monday that he would welcome the endorsement of ex-Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska).

The conservative insurgent candidate challenging Gov. Charlie Crist (R-Fla.) said that Palin's endorsement would be more than appropriate because they agree on nearly every issue.

"I can't think of anything her and I disagree with off the top of my head," he told CBS News in an interview.

Though Crist is the favored candidate of the Republican establishment, having already gained the backing of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Rubio has cut into Crist's lead in the polls by running a conservative campaign that has attracted the support of grassroots Republican activists.

More here.

Read more...

A Further Note: On Moral Qualifications for the Presidency



Doug Brady has highlighted Doctor Zero’s masterful demolition of David Frum, which I encourage you to read; it won't be much longer, I think, before Doctor Zero’s going to have to come out from behind that pen name and take his seat with the ranks of the great pundits on the Right. I wanted, though, to draw your attention to a different section of the good Doctor’s work:

Palin has developed a remarkable knack for saying all the things President Obama should be saying, at any given moment. While Obama was serving as the warm-up act for anti-American and anti-Semitic nutjobs at the United Nations, Palin spoke of her country’s proud tradition of liberty and capitalism in Hong Kong. While Obama pondered whether the ruins of the Berlin Wall would make a suitable backdrop for his magnificence, Palin wrote of the twilight struggle between Ronald Reagan’s America and the Evil Empire . . . and wasn’t shy about naming both the heroes and villains.

Palin’s qualifications are not merely academic. She’s been a lonely pair of boots on the ground, in conflicts where most of her presumptive rivals have been content to either sit on the sidelines or follow her lead. She’s demonstrated a willingness to take risks, and stand her ground under fire. Those are qualities Republican voters will be looking for, if they want a President who can do more than just negotiate lower monthly payments on the lethally overdrawn American Distress card.

My only complaint with what Doc Zero has to say here is that I think he actually understates the importance of his point; he doesn’t draw out the deeper significance of Gov. Palin’s willingness to lead under fire, and so I think he misses the fact that her statements do not in fact merely demonstrate “a remarkable knack.” Rather, all these things together illustrate her moral qualifications for the office of the presidency—and, I believe, the fact that she’s more qualified in that respect than its current occupant.

To understand where I’m going with this, let’s reflect for a moment on the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989 was, and remains to this day, the most astounding thing I’ve seen in my lifetime. The entire wall didn’t physically come down on that day twenty years ago, of course, but psychologically, that was the day East Germans forced their way through. It was an amazing victory for the forces of democracy over the forces of tyranny, and a vindication of Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Eastern Bloc could in fact be beaten, and was not simply a fact of life which must be accommodated. It may have been the greatest triumph for human rights that the world has seen in the last half century; I can’t say for sure, but I'm not thinking of anything to top it at the moment.

It was of course a victory won by many; in the West, as John O’Sullivan has pointed out, President Reagan was in fact the last of the three great leaders in the fight, joining Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. I think, though, that the psychological moment was President Reagan’s, coming in June of 1987 when he stood at the Brandenburg Gate and threw down a challenge to the leader of the Soviet world: “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Later on in his speech, he declared, “Across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom.” For his words, he was mocked by many, and ignored by many more; but in the end, the truth of his words was proved when the wall was torn down, not by Mr. Gorbachev, but by the combined weight of the East German people.

And as all Germany celebrated the twentieth anniversary of this wondrous liberation, our president didn’t go. I know there are many in this country who think that the inauguration of Barack Obama was the greatest event of their lifetime, but Barack Obama shouldn’t be one of them. The President of the United States should be someone who understands more than most people the transcendent importance of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and of the many, many sacrifices made by American soldiers, sailors, diplomats, and spies, and by West Germans and East Germans, and by many others, that made that day possible; he should be someone who understands how important it is for him to be there to honor their sacrifice—to honor their hope.

And yet, German Chancellor Angela Merkel invited him, and he said no. He didn’t hesitate to go to Berlin to celebrate himself when he was merely running for president; why would he not go when he is the president to celebrate this great victory for the cause of freedom and human rights?

Unfortunately, I think Rich Lowry nailed it:

Wouldn’t Obama at least want to take the occasion to celebrate freedom and human rights—those most cherished liberal values? Not necessarily. He has mostly jettisoned them as foreign-policy goals in favor of a misbegotten realism that soft-pedals the crimes of nasty regimes around the world. During the Cold War, we undermined our enemies by shining a bright light on their repression. In Berlin, JFK called out the Communists on their “offense against humanity.” Obama would utter such a phrase only with the greatest trepidation, lest it undermine a future opportunity for dialogue.

Pres. Ronald Reagan realized we could meet with the Soviets without conceding the legitimacy of their system. He always spoke up for the dissidents—even when it irked his negotiating partner, Mikhail Gorbachev. Whatever the hardheaded imperatives of geopolitics, we’d remain a beacon of liberty in the world.

Obama has relegated this aspirational aspect of American power to the back seat. For him, we are less an exceptional power than one among many, seeking deals with our peers in Beijing and Moscow. Why would Obama want to celebrate the refuseniks of the Eastern Bloc, when he won’t even meet with the Dalai Lama in advance of his trip to China?

Now, as I’ve noted before, I’m a preacher, and I think like one; and one of the things that years of preaching the word of God given through such hard-headed types as Paul and James has taught me is that “out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks.” In other words, what we say (and also what we do) proceeds out of our beliefs, our attitudes, and our moral commitments. The willingness to set aside the moral crimes of foreign governments and just “do bidness” with them Chicago style cannot be judged or regarded merely as an intellectual approach; it is a moral act, it is an expression of the faith of our president, and must be understood as such. The same is true of his remarks following the Fort Hood shooting.

Similarly, the fact that Gov. Palin persists in addressing such events as the shooting at Fort Hood and the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and that she was willing to take a stand amidst the chaos of the NY-23 special election, cannot be interpreted merely in terms of political calculation; this, too, speaks to her moral qualifications for leadership. Her statements give us indications as to whether she has the strength of character to lead without flinching from the task, and the wisdom to lead well; they also tell us much about what she believes at the core of her being, and how those beliefs drive and shape her as a leader. As such, while most have been parsing her statements for what they say about her intellectual qualifications (for, in particular, the top job)—and while this is not insignificant—what they say about her moral qualifications is, in my view, more important.

You see, from a biblical point of view, the most basic part of leadership isn’t decision-making or setting the agenda or casting the vision or knowing the issues; rather, the most basic part is providing a model for people to follow. The most basic statement of Christian leadership is offered by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:1: “Be imitators of me as I am of Christ.” Now, obviously, this doesn’t transfer directly to political leadership (though for those who claim to be Christians, the correspondence is a lot closer than you might think), but the basic principle holds: leadership is mimetic, which is to say, it’s about imitation.

To be specific, it’s about taking your faith—the principles you believe in, the truths you understand to be primary, the values you see as of first importance—and incarnating it, making it real in your life, so that others can look at you and see what it means to live, in the real world, according to those beliefs. For most people, that’s the only way they’ll be able to go and do likewise. Most people need more than just to have it explained, they need to see it in action—and that is the heartbeat of leadership. This necessitates a deep commitment to one’s faith, a staunch consistency in adhering to it, and the courage to stand to it even when that seems to be the harder, riskier or more dangerous path; it requires leaders to choose what they believe to be right over what is popular or expedient or safe, trusting that their vindication will come in due time.

The question that is raised, then, by our president’s decision not to go to Berlin (especially when he’s already gone to Copenhagen) and by his remarks on Thursday, as well as by his refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama, his appeasement of the Iranian mullahs, and various other acts of his government, is whether he’s up to that challenge. Whatever his intellectual qualifications for his present eminence, is he morally qualified to lead? I don’t just mean on this scale, either—is he morally qualified to lead at all? At the present, I have to say, I don’t see any reason to think so.

Nor is this a new conclusion; I didn’t see any during the campaign, either. This was, I think, the root of all the conservative complaints about Sen. Obama’s lack of accomplishments, practical qualifications, etc. He was (and is) good at casting a vision, but it’s a vision entirely in the future; which is to say, it’s all about where he wants to send us, not about inviting us to come along with him where he’s already going. It was not already realized in an effective way in his own life and actions; we couldn’t point to his life and say, “This is what his vision looks like when it’s lived out—this is what he’s calling us to be and do.” Obviously, there were many in this country who didn’t mind that fact, either because what he was saying supported their own plans, or because it supported what they wanted to believe about themselves; but for others, that kind of formless vision only created the suspicion that Barack Obama wanted to send Americans somewhere rather than to lead us there, and thus to have others do the work for which he could then take the credit.

As for Gov. Palin? To be sure, one cannot simply do a straight-line comparison, since she’s currently leading from the sidelines, and while she faced some significant leadership challenges during her time in Juneau, they were different from those faced by the inhabitant of the White House. That said, she has consistently risen to the challenges she has faced—even when that challenge meant accepting that she was no longer the best person to fulfill the duties she had been given, and the act leadership demanded of her was abdication. As Doctor Zero has noted, she has been consistently saying the things that need to be said in this moment that our national administration has not been saying; and she had the courage to stand up for her principles in the race in upstate New York, when to that point the only conservative leaders who had done so were those with nothing to lose.

Beyond that, though, look at how Sarah Louise Heath Palin has lived her life. She has consistently identified things that need to be done and found ways to get them done. She did it on the basketball court in high school—it wasn’t her talent that got her the nickname “Sarah Barracuda,” after all. She was never the most talented player on the hardwood, but she understood how to lead a team, and how to drive it to victory, and she did just that. She did it with her beauty-pageant participation, using that as a way to help pay for college. She did it in raising a large family and running a family business.

And here, I think, is the critical point: that same drive is what got her into politics. She identified issues in her hometown that needed to be addressed, so she ran for city council. When she got there, she saw problems with the ways things were run, and a mayor who was (among other things) trying to evade term limits that had been approved by the voters, so she ran for mayor. That pattern, of identifying problems and going after them to solve them, has marked her throughout her political career; it’s why she ran for governor, and it’s how she operated as governor. The consistent theme of her career has not been seizing opportunities, but rather trying to create solutions.

This is not to say that Sarah Palin isn’t an ambitious woman; if she weren’t, she couldn’t have kept going this long, this far, through this much. Clearly, she is seeking power and influence and authority, and it seems pretty certain that she believes she can do a better job with them than most. (Personally, I wouldn’t argue.) No doubt she has high goals for herself, and things she wants, and no doubt they aren’t all pure and admirable, because none of us could make that claim for ourselves. But this is to say that for a politician, her career looks a lot less like blind ladder-climbing than usual, and a lot more like it’s driven by the desire to address problems and serve the public; which is to say, she appears to be one of that all-too-rare breed of politician who sees public service as less an opportunity than a calling.

Taken all in all, from what Gov. Palin has said and done so far, I have no hesitation in saying that she is as morally qualified as anyone could reasonably expect to be the President of the United States. In point of fact, I would say that she shows more evidence of such qualifications for the job than anyone elected to it since the first President Bush—and honestly, it isn’t even close. (Whether you consider that to be more a statement about Sarah Palin or more a statement about presidents 42-44 is up to you.)

Read more...

On Adverse Selection, Moral Hazard, and ObamaCare



Most of the attention associated with the Pelosi-Obama bill, which barely passed the House Saturday night after much arm twisting by Democrats, has focused on the astronomical debt the plan will add to the nations already dire fiscal condition. The Democrat Party will only admit to approximately $1 trillion in costs but the far more credible Heritage Foundation estimates the actual cost at about $2.6 trillion over 10 years.

In addition to the staggering cost, other prominent criticisms of the Pelosi-Obama government takeover of health care include the rationing of health care to the elderly (death panels), rapidly rising insurance premiums for all Americans, the basic premise that government should be in the insurance business at all, as well as many other issues too numerous to list. The Wall Street Journal has referred to this bill as perhaps the worst to be contemplated by Congress since the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930.

One of the worst components found in all of the various health care bills, which collectively can be called ObamaCare, is the provision which prevents insurance companies from denying, or even rating, the coverage to those with so-called "pre-existing" conditions ("rating" is the practice of charging higher premiums or lowering benefits to account for enhanced risks discovered during the underwriting process). The criticism of this aspect of ObamaCare has been muted in most quarters with precious few exceptions.

The government takeover of health care has obviously been a topic of discussion on many of the various talk shows on both network and broadcast television of late. In watching many of these debates, I've been struck by the inability of ObamaCare opponents to effectively defend the very reasonable practice of denying or rating coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Indeed many so-called conservatives get uncomfortable when this is brought up and attempt to change the subject.

This is unfortunate. This practice is rooted in sound economic theory and is rather easy to explain to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the concept of risk. Insurance, whether life insurance, auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, or health insurance, is based entirely on risk. In its simplest terms, insurance is nothing more than a form of risk management. The person or entity purchasing the insurance, the insured, is transferring the risk of loss to the insurer. In effect, the insured is assuming a smaller but known risk (the cost of the premium) to guard against an unknown but potentially much larger risk. In order for this arrangement to work properly, the insurer must be able to determine the risk of loss and charge a premium commensurate with that risk. Both the insurer and the insured have the right to manage their respective risk.

If private insurers are not allowed to make their own risk assessment based on all available information, including information relating to pre-existing conditions, the entire risk management process necessary to the survival of the insurance industry will be undermined, perhaps catastrophically. If insurance companies are unable to take the financial risk into account associated with such risk factors as family history, claims history, or pre-existing conditions through the underwriting process, they will be unable to properly indemnify themselves and in short order, given their razor-thin profit margins, will be at risk of bankruptcy.

Denying insurance companies the right to appropriately underwrite the medical insurance they issue will result in a situation where only those who are at imminent risk of needing medical coverage will purchase insurance. Those who are healthy will simply forego the insurance, confident that they can wait until they are sick to purchase the coverage. This is what economists refer to as adverse or negative selection.

This is not complicated. Why would a healthy individual purchase an insurance policy when he knows the insurance company must provide him with coverage by law, even if he waits until he's sick? There is no financial incentive for him to so. The $750 fine is far cheaper than the cost of coverage. Those who do purchase insurance will see their premiums rise dramatically as healthy people opt to pay the fine rather than purchase the insurance. This will leave insurers with a smaller pool of increasingly unhealthy policyholders. Insurers will be forced to raise premiums for these people to cover the increased costs, resulting in more people opting out, resulting in still higher premiums and so on.

This downward spiral is how the Pelosi-Obama bill will eventually bankrupt and eliminate the private insurance market. When opponents of ObamaCare make the point that the Democrat plan will drive private insurers out of business, this is the primary basis for that claim. Make no mistake; the goal of ObamaCare is to destroy the private insurance market which will ultimately result in a single-payer government monopoly in which health care will be doled out by the government for political rather than medical reasons. This has always been Obama's goal.

In addition to adverse selection, the risk of moral hazard will be elevated by ObamaCare. Moral hazard is closely related to adverse selection and is what economists refer to as the tendency to modify behavior in such a way as to assume more risks due to the presence of some form of insurance. For example, if a homeowner has fire (homeowner's) insurance, he may be more likely to place one of those dangerous kerosene heaters in his house on a cold day whereas he'd think twice about this if he had no insurance.

This same concept can be applied to health (or any other) insurance. If insurance companies are no longer able to properly underwrite health insurance policies, many people may decide to eat cheaper and less healthy food, exercise less, take up smoking, etc. Again, insurance companies will be required by ObamaCare to provide them coverage regardless of the lifestyle decisions they make. The incentive to maintain a healthy lifestyle in order to save on health care expenses will have been removed from consideration by government decree. Obviously, saving on health care costs is not the only reason to stay healthy, but is undoubtedly a factor for some. Economics teaches us that people do respond to incentives, despite what Democrats claim to believe.

Nancy Pelosi, in a breathtaking display of ignorance, claimed that when insurance companies take pre-existing conditions into account, they are engaging in some form of "discrimination" and that such a practice is "scandalous". The only thing that's scandalous is that someone so astoundingly obtuse is Speaker of the House. Moral hazard and adverse selection are two exceedingly simple concepts that any first year economics student understands better than, apparently, most of the Democrat Party from Obama on down. An accurate assessment of risk exposure is crucial to the economic viability of any insurance company, regardless of what they're insuring.

Governor Palin herself dealt with these issues in an October 17 Facebook Note more effectively and succinctly than I've heard any opponent of ObamaCare address it on television (on the rare occasion they deigned to address it at all):

The bill prohibits insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and from charging sick people higher premiums. [1] It attempts to offset the costs this will impose on insurance companies by requiring everyone to purchase coverage, which in theory would expand the pool of paying policy holders.

However, the maximum fine for those who refuse to purchase health insurance is $750. [2] Even factoring in government subsidies, the cost of purchasing a plan is much more than $750. The result: many people, especially the young and healthy, will simply not buy coverage, choosing to pay the fine instead. They’ll wait until they’re sick to buy health insurance, confident in the knowledge that insurance companies can’t deny them coverage. Such a scenario is a perfect storm for increasing the cost of health care and creating an unsustainable mandate program.

Once again Governor Palin demonstrates an understanding of economics which dwarfs that of Obama and those who support ObamaCare. Adverse selection will be nothing less than the undoing of the private insurance market. There can be no doubt that, were she in charge, we wouldn't even be discussing the concept of the U.S. health care system being run by the same people who run the post office.

Read more...

Tuesday Open Thread




VDH: With our new Campaigner-in-chief at the helm, Washington heads to the stormy horizon

Hot Air: $25 billion “stimulus” program produces 0 jobs

AP: Abortion could roil Senate health care debate

WSJ: Curbing Size of Big Firms: Bills Would Set Limits on Financial Companies

Clive Crook: Obama has lost sight of the centre

Hot Air: CBS, ABC on Obama Af-Pak decision: Never mind

Michael Yon: Ambush of the Common Sort

THV: School District Gives First Honorary Diploma To WWII Hero

Soldiers' Angels: Support Project Valour-IT

Read more...

Monday, November 9, 2009

Doctor Zero: The Palin Qualifications



Doctor Zero has destroyed David Frum's latest nonsense in a brilliant article at Hot Air.

Writing on his website, which used to be called “New Majority” until he got tired of people laughing at him, David Frum published an essay called “The Palin Fantasy” over the weekend. Even as the House of Representatives was preparing to pass the most blatantly unconstitutional assault on America’s freedom in Congressional history, Frum found something really outrageous to write about: Matthew Continetti’s admiring essay on Sarah Palin’s populist appeal. It’s a good thing Frum has his priorities in order. We wouldn’t want Palin to get into office and drop a few trillion dollars of unsustainable debt on us.

Frum disputes Palin’s populist appeal by citing some poll numbers:

According to Gallup, 63% of Americans say they would never consider voting for her. By a margin of 62%-31% Americans rate Palin “unqualified” to serve as president – by far the worst score for any leading Republican.
In comparison, only 51% of Americans say they would never consider voting for Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee – and a plurality of Americans rate the two as “qualified”: 50-36 say Huckabee is qualified, 49-39 say Romney is qualified.

This is an important point, because poll numbers never change, especially for private citizens who haven’t declared any intention to run for office, three years before the elections. How often do polls have to shift, or produce completely inaccurate numbers, before people stop trying to use them to shape the reality they supposedly measure? A nation looking for confident, visionary leadership is not going to look down and notice David Frum waving a spreadsheet of poll numbers.

I doubt many of the respondents to that Gallup poll could specify exactly what the “qualifications” for the President are. It’s a singular position, with qualifications that change based on current events, and the mood of the electorate. I suspect the electorate of 2012 will be looking for someone who isn’t a “community organizer” with a shady past and zero governing experience, riding a wave of uncritical media adulation and touting an education at elite universities. Palin doesn’t have the only resume that fits the bill, but nobody else’s resume is selling millions of copies at the moment.

Given the difficulty in itemizing the exact “qualifications” for President, and the painfully thin portfolio of the current occupant of the White House, a poll pronouncing the former governor of Alaska “unqualified” is really measuring the effectiveness of crude media caricatures from 2008. Palin isn’t currently running for anything, so people who don’t follow politics closely are left with the afterimage of her savage treatment in the last campaign burned into their memories. That might change when people read her book, and follow her appearances on the book tour, but otherwise I wouldn’t expect much movement in her poll numbers unless she actually tosses her hat in the ring. Why would disengaged voters think of her as anything but a celebrity author until then?

Comparing Palin’s “qualification” ratings to Romney or Huckabee is a little silly, because neither of them took the kind of pounding she did. The Left’s supply of anti-Mormon bigotry remains locked in the toxic waste dump of its soul, where it will remain until Romney looks like he’s going to win the Republican nomination. Huckabee seems to be carefully laying the groundwork for a 2012 run, but right now he could interview live extraterrestrials on his Fox show without pulling a fraction of the sustained media attention Palin continues to receive.

Read the whole thing here. There is nothing quite like a good fisking by Doctor Zero and this is one of the best I've seen in a while.

(H/T Sinistar)

Read more...

Sarah Palin: "Going Rogue" Book Tour Dates Through Thanksgiving





Via Facebook:

Here are some details of the upcoming book tour. I’m starting in Michigan and you’ll understand why when you read the book. Last year, I made a promise to the good people of Michigan that I would be back, and now I’m keeping that promise. (Michigan is near and dear to my family’s heart! Our eldest son, Track, lived with a great host family there during his hockey days.)

From Michigan, the “Going Rogue” tour will cover as much of the country as possible. I’ve decided to stop in cities that are not usually included in a typical book tour. For instance, I’m looking forward to meeting our honorable men and women in uniform and their families at a Fort Bragg book signing, and to reconnecting with friends my family made last year on the campaign trail in different book signing venues.

We have a tight schedule, but I’m working with the publisher to allow possibilities of stopping at a few unannounced places, too.

I’ll Twitter information when the tour starts, so I’ll post our progress from the road. You can follow on Twitter at SarahPalinUSA.

Below are dates, times, and locations for the first part of the tour – this schedule brings us up to Thanksgiving, where I’ll get to connect with family in Washington state for the holiday. Stay tuned for our post-Thanksgiving schedule coming soon.

Please contact each venue for more information. Can’t wait to see you soon!

- Sarah Palin

November 18th

GRAND RAPIDS, MI
Barnes & Noble
3195 28th Street SE
Space B116
Grand Rapids, MI 49512
6:00 – 9:00 PM

November 19th

FORT WAYNE, IN
Meijer’s
10301 Maysville Road
Fort Wayne, IN 46835
12:00 – 3:00 PM

NOBLESVILLE, IN
Borders Books and Music
13145 Levinson Lane
Noblesville, IN 46060
6:00 – 9:00 PM

November 20th

CINCINNATI, OH
Joseph-Beth Booksellers
2692 Madison Road
Cincinnati OH 45208
12:00 – 3:00 PM

COLUMBUS, OH
Borders Books and Music
6670 Sawmill Road
Columbus, OH 43235
6:00 – 9:00 PM

November 21st

WASHINGTON, PA
Sam’s Club
80 Trinity Point Drive
Washington, PA 15301
11:00 AM – 2:00 PM

ROCHESTER, NY
Borders Books and Music
1000 Hylan Drive
Rochester, NY 14623
6:00 – 9:00 PM

November 22nd

ROANOKE, VA
Barnes & Noble
4802 Valley View Boulevard NW
Roanoke, VA 24012
11:00 AM – 2:00 PM

November 23rd

FORT BRAGG, NC
AAFES Bragg N Main Shop
Bldg 8-5050, 2nd & Butner Road
Ft. Bragg, NC 28307
11:00 AM – 2:00 PM

BIRMINGHAM, AL
Books-A-Million
757 Brookwood Village
Birmingham, AL 32509
4:30 – 7:30 PM

November 24th

JACKSONVILLE, FL AREA
Books-A-Million
Orange Park Mall
1910 Wells Road
Orange Park, FL 32073
9:00 – 11:00 AM

THE VILLAGES, FL
Barnes & Noble
1055 Old Camp Road
The Villages, FL 32162
2:30 – 5:00 PM

ORLANDO, FL
Barnes & Noble
Colonial Plaza Market Center
2418 East Colonial Drive
Orlando, FL 32803
7:30 – 10:00 PM

Read more...

Just The Facts, Ma'am: The Wardrobe Saga



The recently released book Sarah from Alaska presents the true story of the phony “wardrobe saga” of the 2008 campaign. During the election the media felt the need to jump on every “made up” story about Governor Palin that would hurt her and, therefore, help their anointed one, former community organizer Barack Obama. However, now that the truth has finally come out, they have consciously chosen to ignore it since it doesn't fit their meme that Governor Palin was some kind of a "diva". Since they are unwilling to do their job, we decided to do it for them.






(H/T Joshua Livestro for all your help)

Read more...

Sarah Palin: Commemorating a Victory for Freedom



Via Facebook:

Twenty years ago, the ultimate symbol of the division between freedom and tyranny was torn down. The Berlin Wall was constructed for one purpose: to prevent the escape of East Germans to the freedom of the West. The Wall’s cold, gray façade was a stark reminder of the economic and political way of life across the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

Ronald Reagan never stopped regarding the Berlin Wall as an affront to human freedom. When so many other American leaders and opinion makers had come to accept its presence as inevitable and permanent, Reagan still hammered away at the Wall’s very premise in human tyranny, until finally the Wall itself was hammered down. Its downfall wasn’t the work of Reagan alone. Our president’s actions were joined with the brave acts of many individuals who stood firm and united in facing the Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall came down because millions of people behind the Iron Curtain refused to accept the fate of enslavement and their supporters in the West refused to accept that the “captive nations” would remain captive forever.

Though that long, tragic episode in human history had come to a close finally with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it wasn’t the “end of history” or the end of conflict as some had hoped. New conflicts confront us today throughout the world which call for courage and resolve and dedication to freedom. The new democracies and market economies that have emerged in Central and Eastern Europe still require our friendship and alliances as they continue to seek security, prosperity, and self-determination. But as we reflect on present and future challenges, let’s take time to celebrate the anniversary of this awesome victory for freedom. The downfall of that cold, gray concrete Wall should be a lesson to us in hope. Nothing is inevitable. Tyranny is no match for the hope and resolve of those who work and fight for freedom.

- Sarah Palin

Read more...

Monday Open Thread





MKH: Video: The Berlin Wall Comes Down

NewsBusters: Video: Reagan Celebrates Fall of Berlin Wall, November 9, 1989

AP: Germany celebrates memory of Berlin Wall falling

WSJ: Why the Berlin Wall Fell

The Economist: The world after 1989

Marian L. Tupy: The Road From Serfdom

Read more...

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Sunday Evening Open Thread



The 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall is tomorrow. In honor of that, here's your Sunday night movie:

Read more...

Politico Tries to Stir Up Controversy, Fails



Carol Lee at Politico has a post on Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour's appearance on "Meet the Press," hosted by David Gregory, this morning. Among other things, Lee takes Gov. Barbour's responses out of context, and cuts of his responses off halfway through. Politico says:

Republican Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi dodged a question Sunday about whether former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin could be president and declined to rule himself out of the 2012 lineup.

“I don’t have any plans to [run for president], but I wouldn’t consider it until the elections of 2010 are over,” Barbour said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “But you know my wife doesn’t always agree with me either.”

Confused? Could be because those quotes are taken completely out of context. From the transcript of the show:

GREGORY: What, what do you think of [Gov. Palin]?

GOV. BARBOUR: I like her.

GREGORY: Is she...

GOV. BARBOUR: Don't always agree with her. But, you know, my wife doesn't always agree with me, either.

[...]

GREGORY: Would you like to run for--in 2012?

GOV. BARBOUR: I would like for us to win in 2010.

GREGORY: And then you'll consider it.

GOV. BARBOUR: Well, I don't have any plans to, but I wouldn't consider it until the elections of 2010 are over.

Make more sense now?

Besides trying to make Gov. Barbour look like an idiot, Lee tries to stir up some controversy. Here's her interpretation of an exchange between Gregory and Gov. Barbour about Gov. Palin:

After host David Gregory noted the impact of Palin’s endorsement of the conservative candidate in New York’s 23rd congressional district special election – a move that helped push out the Republican nominee – Barbour pointed out that Palin has no “official role” in the party but said “a lot of people care about her, a lot of people are fond of her.”

“I like her,” Barbour said. “I don’t always agree with her.”

Asked if Palin speaks for the party, he said, “I think she speaks for herself.”

First of all, if that had been all that Gov. Barbour said, what, exactly, would be wrong with it, Carol? Gov. Palin doesn't have an "official role" in the Republican party. Something to which Gov. Palin herself has referred. Lee also quotes Gov. Barbour as saying, "I like her. I don't always agree with her." How dare he?! I'm outraged! Oh, wait, no I'm not, Carol. People in the Beltway really do think that people outside of it are idiots, don't they?

And Gov. Barbour said that Gov. Palin "speaks for herself"? Oh, dear. Now, I really am upset, Carol. Hang on a minute... I checked the transcript, and Gov. Barbour went on to say that he speaks for himself, too. The full quote: "I think she speaks for herself, just like I speak for myself." That's a comma in the middle, Carol, not a period.

Here's a transcript of the full exchange between Gregory and Gov. Barbour:

GREGORY: Sarah Palin got involved in [the Congressional race in NY-23], she endorsed the independent conservative. What role does she play right now in the Republican Party?

GOV. BARBOUR: Well, she doesn't play any official role in the Republican Party, but a lot of people care about her, a lot of people are fond of her and she's like a lot of other politicians who are very well-regarded in our party.

GREGORY: What, what do you think of her?

GOV. BARBOUR: I like her.

GREGORY: Is she...

GOV. BARBOUR: Don't always agree with her. But, you know, my wife doesn't always agree with me, either.

GREGORY: But is she, does she an important Republican leader, in your book?

GOV. BARBOUR: Oh, I think she is. I think she's got something to offer. One of the great things...

GREGORY: Right. Do you think she could be president?

GOV. BARBOUR: One of the great things about when your party's out of power, you don't have a spokesman.

GREGORY: Right.

GOV. BARBOUR: You have a lot of--I don't want to say let a thousand flowers bloom, but you have a lot of different people, and that's healthy for your party.

GREGORY: Do you, do you...

GOV. BARBOUR: The Democrats do that when they're out.

GREGORY: But does she--do you think she speaks for the party?

GOV. BARBOUR: I think she speaks for herself, just like I speak for myself.

GREGORY: Do you think she could be president?

GOV. BARBOUR: Look, it's a long way away from there. Every time, every time people ask me about president, I remember them, David, any Republican who cares about the future of our country needs to be focused on the elections of 2010. Those are the elections that matter. We'll worry about president after 2010.

Try to contain your outrage, folks.

Lee also claims that:

When host David Gregory first posed the question [of if Palin could be president], Barbour talked over it.

Let's go to the video, shall we?



Seems to me that Mr. Gregory talked over Gov. Barbour, not the other way around, as Lee claims.

Epic fail, Politico.

Read more...

Media Blathers Follow-Up: Mayor Palin and Wasilla's Earmarks



I felt I needed to address something I neglected to mention in my last Media Blathers post regarding the Federal earmarks Wasilla acquired during Sarah Palin's tenure as Mayor.

The most commonly cited claim is that Mayor Palin hired a lobbyist to secure $27 million in Federal earmarks for Wasilla, a lie that Media Matters was all too eager to parrot, with assistance from equally inaccurate mainstream media sources:

Example one:

Washington Post staff writer Paul Kane reported on September 2 that "Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town [Wasilla, Alaska] of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group"

Example two:

Yet, contrary to Novak's assertion that Palin has a "loathing for earmarks," Palin has repeatedly sought and requested hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks as governor of Alaska, and, according to The Washington Post, which publishes Novak's column, hired a D.C. lobbying firm to acquire tens of millions of dollars in earmarks while serving as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

Example three (note that MMFA attacks Charles Gibson for being too easy on Governor Palin's record):

According to the transcript, Gibson said in the interview, "Earmarks...[Palin] got $27 million in earmarks for her small town. You have talked about them in pernicious terms that you campaign. So why are they OK for them?"

Example four:

...according to The Washington Post, she hired a Washington lobbying firm to acquire tens of millions of dollars in earmarks while serving as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

Example five:

...And as mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million.

[...]

As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million.

[...]

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host, This Week): Governor Palin put her own record front and center last night on that "Bridge to Nowhere." The story is a little more complicated. When she was campaigning for governor in -- in 2006, she was actually for the bridge. She opposed it when she got elected, after Congress had already taken away the earmark for the "Bridge to Nowhere." And as we've reported before, when she was mayor of Wasilla, she did seek $27 million in earmarks --

Example six:

Going back even further, we find that while still mayor of Wasilla, Palin successfully obtained a total of $27 million dollars for her town of about 8,000.

Actually, Wasilla did not receive $27 million worth of Federal earmarks during Mayor Palin's six years in office - not even half that. In fact, it was less than $8 million.

Indeed, as ABC News reported, that oft-cited "27 million" figure refers not to the Wasilla's earmarks but rather, to the earmarks the entire Matanuska-Susitna Borough received as a result of the lobbying firm that multiple borough communities, including Wasilla, used to acquire Federal funds, and of the three earmarks from this total which Senator John McCain attacked, Palin was only involved in one. That earmark was for a $1-million regional emergency dispatch centre, which was requested following a major 1996 fire that burnt down 300 homes in the borough.

To sum up: Wasilla received $7.95 million in Federal earmarks between 2000 and 2003, not the $27 million figure MMFA - along with multiple media sources - cites. Last time, Media Matters' earmark figures were off by 400%, now they're off by just under 300%. If there were a contest for failing upwards, Media Matters would win first prize.

Read more...

Leadership: Governor Palin and our Military



A few days ago, the nation experienced a tragedy. Men and women who have committed their lives to the service of their country were gunned down by one of their own. Some of these soldiers may have braved the dangers of war on foreign soil only to come home and be murdered.

I, like all of you, am horrified that 13 lives have been lost and 30 injured. Families have experienced overwhelming sadness, communities have been rocked, and the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas is left trying to pick up the pieces.

As is fitting, the President of the United States offered his condolences concerning the tragic shootings. I was jarred by how he initiated his comments. At first I thought maybe it was just me, but after blogger Ron Devito forwarded an article to me, I realized that it wasn't just me. I have had some time to think about this.

I will preface this by saying that it's never an easy task to address hurting people, much less a hurting nation. However, I simply cannot fathom the manner in which our president opened his remarks at such a somber gathering.

He began by thanking the Department of the Interior for the organizing of a conference. Then at :33 into the video below, he stated the following, causing me to scratch my head in complete bewilderment:

I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow is around, so I want to give a shout-out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. Good to see you.

A shout-out? That's the kind of comment one makes at a rally perhaps, but certainly not when you've come to the podium to express condolences.

He continued his remarks, not yet addressing the shooting, and made a promise that the work begun at the conference would continue. At this point, 1:12 into the video, the attendees can be heard applauding and whistling.

Going on, he said:

...I plan to make some broader remarks about the challenges that lay ahead for Native Americans, as well as collaboration with our administration, but as some of you might have heard, there has been a tragic shooting at the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas.

He mentioned the shooting at 2:03 into his comments.

When I think about the gravity of what brought him to address the crowd, I simply cannot wrap my brain around being so cavalier about it all. The cheering in the background during his promise, I believe, was just a reflection of the president's attitude. The people responded in kind. He was light-hearted. They were light-hearted. They followed his lead, it appears.

No doubt, President Obama wasn't trying to be insensitive. However, I am not the only one who can't help but wonder where his advisors were and why he didn't know that opening comments about Dr. Joe and a conference were not appropriate when someone has just attacked our military.

Robert A. George of NBCChicago.com wrote in an article called Disconnected President:

Getty Images President Obama didn't wait long after Tuesday's devastating elections to give critics another reason to question his leadership, but this time the subject matter was more grim than a pair of governorships.

After news broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas, the nation watched in horror as the toll of dead and injured climbed. The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.

But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

[...]

Did the president's team not realize what sort of image they were presenting to the country at this moment? The disconnect between what Americans at home knew had been going on -- and the initial words coming out of their president's mouth was jolting, if not disturbing.

[...]

If the president's communications apparatus can't inform -- and protect -- their boss during tense moments when the country needs to see a focused commander-in-chief and a compassionate head of state, it has disastrous consequences for that president's party and supporters.

All the president's men (and women) fell down on the job Thursday. And Democrats across the country have real reason to panic.

Governor Palin, however, did demonstrate compassion as she responded to the tragedy--not trying to be deep, long winded, or light-hearted. With simple heart-felt sympathy, she released these words via Facebook:

Todd and I would like to offer our condolences to the families of the victims of the tragic shooting today at Fort Hood. Our thoughts and prayers will be with them.

- Sarah Palin

Governor Palin also demonstrated her appreciation for U.S. soldiers and her sorrow at the Fort Hood tragedy on Friday at Wisconsin Right to Life. Before doing anything else, reported K. Carpenter, the governor honored them:

As she stepped to the microphone when the cheering began to die down, the Governor’s first thoughts were on America’s military forces. After asking all of our current military and veterans to stand, she asked for a moment of silence. She told us that during the moment of silence she would be saying a prayer and invited us all to do the same. After the moment of silence for the soldiers currently serving at Fort Hood, she immediately thanked our military personnel for their service to a raucous round of applause and cheers for our military.

I repeat, I don't believe President Obama meant to be insensitive, and probably didn't even realize he was being insensitive. But that's part of the problem. He, no doubt, is as saddened by this tragedy as the rest of America. His handling of it, therefore, illustrates not so much a lack of concern as it does a lack of leadership.

Governor Palin's love for our military is without question. She has always voiced true concern for our men and women in uniform and has advocated for their support. She wraps that concern in leadership ability, effectively communicating to the American people on their behalf.

The sensitive manner in which she addresses tragic situations of this nature, which none of us ever wants to see happen, reveals within her what Robert A. George says should exist in a "focused commander-in-chief and a compassionate head of state."

We learn much about a person by observing how they lead in difficult times, and Governor Palin demonstrates a sincere heart of leadership when it is most needed.


Read more...

James V. DeLong: Sarah Palin and the Dysfunctional Political Class



James V. DeLong, in an article for Pajamas Media, wrote:

The frenetic hostility to Sarah Palin, even by many on the Republican side, is unnerving, because her qualifications to be president are objectively better than those of almost anyone who has been on the national ticket over the past decade.

A reasonable conclusion is that these qualifications are precisely the cause of the hostility. To admit to the reality that the dominant political class, including the MSM and the punditocracy of both parties, has been giving us abysmal presidential candidates, to accept that a hockey mom plucked from small-town Alaska is better than the best that the political class can come up with, would require recognition of the terrible truth that the system has become deeply dysfunctional. Doing this would force our political elites to look into an abyss of serious questions about the functioning of our democracy. Palin creates a cognitive dissonance so intense that it simply cannot be accepted.

To start, compare her experience as a person, mayor, and state leader with George W. Bush’s pre-presidential career as an alcoholic, baseball executive, and ornamental governor. Whatever one thinks of his performance as president — and like most conservatives my views are complex — he was not promising material as of 2000.

Al Gore would be disqualified by knowledge of his academic career and by a reading of Earth in the Balance, an exercise in messianic ignorance. His subsequent career getting rich from climate change subsidies would reinforce this opinion. John Kerry had a Senate career of unbroken mediocrity, compounded by his unapologized-for Winter Soldier exercise and the still-unanswered Swift Boat questions.

John Edwards had no shadow of a qualification, and again the judgment is confirmed by subsequent events.

Obama’s qualifications were will-o-the-wisp. His supporters cited his “potential,” as they had to, because his only actual feat was his first book — and the claims that this was ghosted have been met by non-denial. The Asia Times characterizes these rumors as “well-established,” which tells one something about current foreign assessments of Obama. The president’s long-standing ties to the radical left should have tipped the balance to the negative.

Vice President Joe Biden has a long history of blurring the line between fantasy and reality to a degree that one wonders if he sees any distinction, but 36 years of this is enough to make him “qualified.” This, too, tells a lot about the mental processes of the dominant political class.

One can deeply respect John McCain’s courage and service. But he is an erratic senator, with a tendency to reach decisions on a whim and then excoriate anyone who disagrees. As demonstrated by McCain-Feingold — which hamstrings the middle-class base of the Republicans while leaving intact the power of unions and public employees, the media, the rich, and Native American tribes — McCain does not, or cannot, think even two moves ahead.

Read the rest here. It's very good.

Read more...

Sarah from Alaska



As Tommy Report already reviewed Sarah from Alaska, I'll post an excerpt of my thoughts, and if you want to read the whole thing, feel free to go here. Like me, it's long-winded, so beware!

I have looked forward to Sarah From Alaska (SFA) since I heard of its announced publication. Before reading, I had three questions I wanted to get better answers to:

1. Could two reporters embedded with Palin throughout the campaign objectively report the good and the bad of Sarah Palin without resorting to the potshots that creep into seemingly every report about Gov. Palin from The Medea?

2. Did Gov. Palin botch the campaign, or did the campaign – specifically her handlers – “botch” Gov. Palin?

3. After reading SFA, will I still support Gov. Palin as passionately as I did before reading SFA?

Briefly, yes, the handlers botched Palin, and yes, now more than ever.

Let’s call SFA “A Tale of Two Books.” Supporters of Gov. Palin will relish the first 192 pages of the book, as it confirms (by Liberal writers no less) what those of us who followed the campaign suspected: Palin was mishandled from the outset, and instead of playing to her strengths, the campaign attempted to box her in and put the circular peg into a square hole.

The final hundred pages of SFA, well, not so much. I’m not an Alaskan, not from Alaska, never been to Alaska. I work 60 hours a week and have writing life outside of C4P and my own site – frankly, I don’t have time to follow the ins-and-outs of Alaskan politics. This isn’t an excuse, it’s a fact.

Read more...

Patrick Adams: The Sarah Palin Binge



Patrick Adams wrote a great article for his blog, Patrick's World. Here are some excerpts:

I admit in 1976, I didn’t know who Ronald Reagan was. I rooted on Ford because that’s all I knew. But as I grew into a more aware high school student and the events of the Iranian hostage crisis were unfolding, I got more involved. I knew there was a tough guy named Reagan out there. And I knew Jimmy Carter had to go.

When Ronald Reagan won in 1980, I bounded up the stairs toward the projectionist booth of the movie theater where I worked fist pumping. When inside I high fived my co-worker, Kenny, who was also my age 17 (and thus neither of us could vote) and Don, the projectionist who was a middle aged guy.

The statute of limitations has probably long since expired, so I will admit this. Don gave Kenny and me a beer and we drank in celebration of Ronald Reagan’s victory. That’s when I began binging. No, not on alcohol, but on Reagan.

[...]

So it wouldn’t surprise anyone to know that I “binged” during the Ronald Reagan / John Paul II era. I mean I really binged. Because I was drinking beer with some friends on the Fourth of July one year, I had to go in the house to use the bathroom. But I never came back out for over an hour.

It was during that “beerless” hour that I binged the most. It just so happened I walked into the house just as Ronald Reagan began delivering the Statue of Liberty speech. I immediately hit the couch and glued my eyes to the set. My friends asked me what happened and I told them that I was watching Ronald Reagan.

The economy was booming and good times were being had by all. I advanced my career quickly during the Reagan years and made a decent buck, which allowed me to drive a nice car and do things like go to the Hamptons or go on canoe trips with my friends.

Then it was over. Until now.

There are many I see online who are younger than me and do not have the warm and fond memories I have of living during the Ronald Reagan years. They don’t yet know what it’s like to binge, but they do know what it’s like to be out. These are the Sarah Palin fans who are in their 20’s.

When she ran for vice president, we binged. But it was a short binge of only a couple of months. Yet we wanted more. We spent our waking hours wondering where our next dose of Sarah was going to come from. I mean come on, I even read the Anchorage Daily News every day hungering for anything Sarah, even if it was negative (I knew negative press would reinforce the fact they were scared of her and that meant she was still viable).

[...]

I was too young to watch what Ronald Reagan did before he became president. So I hit the computer and researched the hell out of the pre-presidential days of Reagan. I also bought “Rendezvous With Destiny.”

I realized that what I was seeing with Sarah was the “political childhood” I had missed with Reagan. Reagan became the man for me a half hour after he was inaugurated, not in 1964 or 1976. Sarah Palin became “the woman” for me the night she gave her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.

I got to see Sarah Palin’s governorship. I got to see her exile. I got to see the part that I missed with Reagan.

If Sarah Palin could draw 60,000 people to a rally, electrify the Republican base the way she did and develop such a strong devout following all in the matter of a few months, can you imagine what she could do in the matter of a few years?

It’s mind boggling.

[...]

Now consider this. Since July it’s been what 3 months? Sarah Palin has done more preparation for being president than she’s ever done in her life. Sarah basically did the work equivalent of earning a PHD in political science during the last three months. And she wrote a book doing it.

There are going to be a lot of people who are going to be not only surprised, but shocked at the politically mature and ridiculously charismatic Sarah Palin we are going to see in just a few short days.

[...]

Sarah Palin supporters are about to get more Sarah than they can possibly handle. It’s going to make liberals sicker than dogs, but it’s going to be binge time for Sarah Palin fans.

Ladies and gentleman, you are about to see what happens to a snapshot in time when she becomes an evolving candidate. You are about to see what happens to a electrifier when she becomes a behemoth.

Read the whole thing here. The analogies the author draws to Ronald Reagan are spot on, and his political evolvement mirror's mine (although putting my beer down for an hour at a 4th of July party is probably a bit unrealistic for me). This is a fairly long but excellent piece. Enjoy.

Read more...

Sunday Open Thread





Thomas Sowell: The ‘Costs’ of Medical Care: Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV.

Hot Air: Gregg: CBO cost estimate of Pelosi Plan $3 trillion

Betsy McCaughey: What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says

ABC: Jobless Rate Surges to 10.2 Percent

Glenn Reynolds
: Unemployment rate with and without the 'stimulus'

NYDN: USS New York comes to life

McClatchy: McChrystal: We need 80,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. Obama: I'm thinking... 34,000.

Soldiers' Angels: Project Valour-IT

Read more...

Sarah Palin: The Pelosi Bill Was Rammed Through on Saturday, But Sunday’s Coming



Via Facebook

We’ve got to hold on to hope, and we’ve got to fight hard because Congressional action tonight just put America on a path toward an unrecognizable country.

The same government leaders that got us into the mortgage business and the car business are now getting us into the healthcare business.

Despite Americans’ decisive message last Tuesday that they reject the troubling path this country has been taking, Speaker Pelosi has broken her own promises of transparency to ram a health “care” bill through the House of Representatives just before midnight. Why did she push the 2,000 page bill this weekend? Was she perhaps afraid to give her peers and the constituents for whom she works the chance to actually read this monstrous bill carefully, if at all? Was she concerned that Americans might really digest the details of a bill that the Wall Street Journal has called “the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced”?

This out-of-control bureaucratic mess will be disastrous for our economy, our small businesses, and our personal liberty. It will slam businesses at a time when we are at double-digit unemployment rates – the highest we’ve seen in a quarter of a century. This massive new bureaucracy will cost us and our children money we don’t have. It will rob Americans of more of our freedom and further hamper the free market.

Make no mistake: we’re on course to have government commandeer one-sixth of our economy. The people who gave us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now want to run our health care. Think about that.

All of us who value the sanctity of life are grateful for the success of the pro-life majority in the House this evening in its battle against federal funding of abortion in this bill, but it’s ironic because we were promised that abortion wasn’t covered in the bill to begin with. Our healthy distrust of these government leaders made us look deeper into the bill because unfortunately we knew better than to trust what they were saying. The victory tonight to amend the bill and eliminate that federal funding for abortion was great – because abortion is not health care. Now we can only hope that Rep. Stupak’s amendment will hold in the final bill, though the Democratic leadership has already refused to promise that it won’t be scrapped later.

We had been told there were no “death panels” in the bill either. But look closely at the provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care.

Look closely at provisions addressing illegal aliens’ health care coverage too.

Those of us who love freedom and believe in open and transparent government can only be dismayed by midnight action on a Saturday. Speaker Pelosi’s promise that Americans would have 72 hours to read the final bill before the vote was just another one of the D.C. establishment’s too-common political ploys. It’s broken promises like this that turn people off to politics and leave them disillusioned about the future of their country.

But despite this late-night maneuvering, many of us were paying close attention tonight. We’ll keep paying close attention. We need to let our legislators in Washington know that they still represent us, and that the majority of Americans are not in favor of the “reform” they are pushing. After all, this is still a country “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” We will make our voices heard. It’s on to the Senate now. Our legislators can listen now, or they can hear us in 2010. It’s their choice.

- Sarah Palin

Read more...

Saturday, November 7, 2009

House passes Obamacare bill 220-215



The House of Representatives voted to approve Obamacare by a 220-215 margin. Joseph Cao was the lone Republican to vote in favor of it.

Treat this thread as an extremely late-night open thread.

Read more...

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP