Via Facebook:
Oprah on November 16thRead more...
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
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.Read more...
- Sarah Palin
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.Read more...
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.
-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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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
Today is Veterans Day in the United States, and Remembrance Day in many other countries.
To all who have served: Thank you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.)Read more...
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
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.
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.Read more...
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
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
The 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall is tomorrow. In honor of that, here's your Sunday night movie:
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
When host David Gregory first posed the question [of if Palin could be president], Barbour talked over it.
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"
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.
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?"
...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.
...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 --
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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:Read more...
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.
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.
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
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.Read more...
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
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.
Posts
All Comments
© Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
