Archive for the ‘Sarah Palin’ Category
Tom Tancredo Calls Sarah Palin Unprincipled: Which Principle Should She Adhere To?
Monday, March 1st, 2010Should Sarah Palin not endorse John McCain in his primary fight to be the Republican nominee for the Senate seat he’s now holding? According to some conservatives, yes. Even some leading conservatives like Tom Tancredo say so.
Over at HotAir, Ed causes trouble with this lede paragraph:
The decision by Sarah Palin to campaign for John McCain has opened up a Tea Party tiff between two of its firebrand conservatives. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo, who has campaigned among Tea Party activists for his long-standing fight against comprehensive immigration reform, declares Palin unfit for the presidency and an unprincipled politician for supporting his bete noir in his re-election bid.
What exactly is Sarah Palin supposed to do? She would still be moose hunting in the Alaska wilds had John McCain not plucked her out of relative obscurity to be his running mate.
The only principled thing she can do is endorse John McCain and hurry up through the primaries and hope he loses. Or maybe she really likes John McCain over Hayworth. There’s that.
Why Sarah Palin Should Have Been At CPAC; Ditto Huckabee
Monday, February 22nd, 2010If there are over 10,000 of the most dedicated grassroots activists for the conservative cause in one place, why would you miss it? That’s a rhetorical question. You wouldn’t miss it.
CPAC was lit up with the energy not of old establishment types but the young, the restless and the politically active. You know those people who knock on doors and persuade? Yeah, that’s who was at CPAC.
The establishment folks were out in force, too, but I haven’t seen so much enthusiasm and unabashed love for conservative values, well, in a decade. The tide has turned and some notable politicians missed out.
Where was Sarah Palin? She is staking her ground on the Tea Party movement. That’s fine. But you know what? In the poll of about 500 attendees of the panel I moderated (a good sampling of CPAC attendees), probably 90% attended a Tea Party. Nearly every hand went up.
I knew that would be the case beforehand. Tea Partiers are conservatives and libertarians and they want to network and meet and hear the new leaders and start making early choices about who they’ll support. When Palin and Huck and others don’t show up, they suffer in comparison because they’re just not there.
On Twitter Matt Lewis says, “Huck’s criticism of CPAC reminds me of his feud with Club for Growth & his book. Failure to swallow pride is career-limiting for pols…”
Outsized pride is career limiting and character-reavealing all at the same time.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney was introduced by the adored Scott Brown.
The leaders of the Tea Party movement were at CPAC, Sarah Palin would have received a hero’s welcome. She could have talked about the Contract From America. She could have talked about all the people she connected with across the country.
There is another chance for these leaders to meet and influence voters.
Americans for Prosperity has a RightOnline conference coming up in Las Vegas, Nevada at the Venetian July 23 – 24. People from all over America–dedicated activists–who use modern technology to spread the word will be there.
I suggest that Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee and the other big-name politicians who want to influence the influencers make a point of showing up….and not for pay. Just show up and talk to the people who will influence the grassroots.
The groundwork is being laid now and the people who care enough to fly to DC to pay for a conference to hear all these great, new, fresh faces are very motivated. It isn’t about the established DC insiders who put together these sorts of things, it’s about the people who attend them.
So, there are some key moments when a movement shifts and changes. CPAC was one such time. The RightOnline conference opposite Netroots will be another.
Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee need to be at these events if they hope to win the hearts and minds of those who influence the perspective of others. They should have been at CPAC. It was a golden opportunity.
PJM: Does Sarah Palin Lead The Tea Party Movement?
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010
There’s a lot of talk about who is and is not in charge of the Tea Party movement. Most of what passes for insight from the mainstream media is utterly bogus. They simply cannot comprehend the phenomenon or the motivations of those involved.
I write about it for Pajamas today. Here’s a snippet:
People who talk about a tea party leader have no experience with tea parties. If they did, they’d realize the notion of a tea party leader or someone “hijacking the movement” would be absurd.
Tea party participants aren’t as recalcitrant and generally grumpy as Ron Paul followers, but they’re close. And while less conspiratorial than the Paul followers, they’re certainly more ticked off.
Jim Geraghty summed it up on Twitter this week: “Trying to direct & control the tea party movement is like trying to unionize the hitmen in Grosse Pointe Blank.”
Also from Pajamas, Bill Whittle produces the single best explanation for the movement yet. It’s excellent and well worth the 9 minute watch time.
Who does lead the Tea Party movement?
Malcolm & Melissa: The Palin Effect And Has Politics Changed Permanently?
Monday, February 8th, 2010
So excited to announce the new podcast I’ll be doing called Malcolm and Melissa.
Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times Top of the Ticket blog and I will be doing a weekly podcast to wrap up the previous week and look ahead to the new one. Imagine a Sunday show…that’s actually interesting!
Andrew has been a journalist for years. He’s written 10 books. He’s received numerous awards. He served as a press secretary for both Laura and George W. Bush.
It should be an interesting show–new and old media together.
Listen here.
When I get the feed on iTunes worked out, you can subscribe there, too. Thanks for listening!
Sarah Palin’s First Stump Speech: With Rick Perry In Houston, Texas
Monday, February 8th, 2010
Sarah Palin visited my neck of the woods yesterday–Cypress, Texas to be exact, which is about a half hour from where I live–to stump for Texas Governor Rick Perry. Perry is being challenged in the primary by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Debra Medina. I attended the rally, sat on Bloggers row [more here] and brought my kids with me.
Texans love Sarah Palin.
The folks who came to hear Perry and Palin speak, on a Superbowl Sunday, no less, roared their approval for Sarah. She got bigger cheers than did Perry–though he got lots of crowd-love, too.
I live-tweeted both her Saturday-night address to the Tea Party convention and her address here in Texas. Her Texas speech, an official political speech, was better. She was was funny, authentic, gently teased Texans and just seemed to be enjoying herself more.
She dressed unconventionally: furry, wrap-dress and thigh-high purple suede boots. She looked wintery and cute. She had daughter Piper in tow who stood for an impressive half hour listening to her mom and Rick Perry speak.
Why did I go to the stump speech?
Because I am curious. It’s clear to me that both Sarah Palin and Rick Perry have designs on national office. They are good friends and share many political philosophies. I wonder if they’d like to be on the same ticket. Who’d be the top of the ticket? I don’t know. Sarah Palin strikes me as pretty alpha. I have a hard time seeing her play second fiddle again.
Rick Perry doesn’t seem to mind basking in her glow, though.
I found myself musing on their collective experience running two big, energy-producing, economically solvent states. Their small-government drive is looking pretty smart right now.
Texas is a mecca for business which creates jobs. The state enjoys lower unemployment numbers, thus more tax payers, thus less need for out-of-work benefits. It’s a cycle that is good for state fiscal success.
Now, the left hates these two candidates. But it’s hard to argue with their executive experience and proven results.
Pictures here and here. Perry made Sarah Palin an honorary Texan.
Here’s Sarah Palin’s and Rick Perry’s Houston, Texas speech:
Here’s Sarah Palin’s Tea Party speech the night before, in full:
Andrew Malcolm noted these two points in the speech:
Two lines that stuck out in particular:
We need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at a lectern.
Gee, wonder if she had anyone in particular in mind.
In praise of the grassroots Tea Party activists, she said:
You don’t need an office or a title to make a difference.
Gee, wonder if she had anyone specific in mind.
The anti-DC sentiment was a common thread between the two speeches. She delivered the message better in Texas where she could make a contrast to the policies of Texas.
Presidential aspirations for these two? Absolutely.
Frank Rich Did It First, But More Would Follow: Trying To Destroy Sarah Palin And The Tea Party Movement
Monday, January 18th, 2010Here is one Mainstream Media Narrative: Tea Partiers (Baggers) are racist, mobs, hate-filled, unruly, people.
Here is another Mainstream Media Narrative: Sarah Palin is a stupid hick, a gender traitor, and a quitter.
And the Mainstream Media Narrative that underlies all narratives: Anyone who believes something other than the liberal agenda is selfish, mean, and evil. So, there goes the majority of the country too stupid to see greatness when it’s right in front of their eyes. /sarcasm
Now, the Judson Phillips’ Tea Party Nation, Inc. gathering at Opryland in Nashville, Tennessee [background here] had the potential to fulfill every single one of those narratives and give the MSM a story that wrapped everything up in a bow. In fact, the MSM was hoping to undermine the Tea Party movement, discredit Sarah Palin and vilify “rich” conservatives all in one fell swoop–hopefully the day of the convention.
Unfortunately for the MSM and fortunately for those who are concerned about the country, the shady actions of a few were exposed so as to not tarnish the vast majority of good people in the Tea Party movement. Some changes could be made to correct errors by the Tea Party Nation, Inc. founder. Sarah Palin could make a decision with all the facts and not be blind-sided.
Still, guys like Frank Rich tried to jump from this one bad actor and tarnish the whole movement. His piece was utterly predictable. He tried to say that Sarah Palin was attempting to hijack the Tea Party movement. Erick Erickson writes of Rich’s leaps in logic:
As for Palin? Rich is trying to build up activists to tear down Palin, but in fact Palin and the activists are one together. Sarah Palin is the epitome of the tea party activist — a mom who got involved in politics because the political establishment in Wasilla, Alaska was misspending sales tax revenue. Just as wasteful spending in Wasilla got her involved in politics, the federal waste and spending is getting lots of moms, dads, and kids involved in politics today.
The Left hates Sarah Palin with a vehemence that is impossible to quantify. They loathe the Tea Party folks because it is everything they’re not–true grassroots, not astroturf; common citizens coming together (not paid stooges); and people who are united by a desire to take power away from D.C. and give it to the American people.
So, if Frank Rich and others like him can tie the actions of one man to the average Tea Party person concerned for his country, he’ll do it. If Frank Rich can portray Sarah Palin as a hypocritical pol, he can defeat the most effective voice in opposition to Barack Obama and the left in general.
The Tea Party groups around the country are doing much good. They will be an effective foundation for bringing accountability to both parties.
Witness what is happening in Massachusetts. Even in a liberal state given to supporting Democrats almost exclusively, the people are rising up to send a message to elitists in Washington.
This is terrifying for the liberals. They’d like to knock down any symbols that will threaten their power.
So, the people do well to police their own. The Left accuses the Right side because they’re the Soros-funded, ACORN-defiled and SEIU astroturf kings. They are utterly corrupt and they want to dishearten Americans by painting the opposition with their own cynical brush.
The best defense against scurrilous attack by people intent on destruction is the truth. Keeping our own side clean deprives the Left of ammunition.
Meanwhile, it’s too late. The Left is losing. And they know it. That’s why they’re desperate.
Wanting Sarah Palin To Succeed
Thursday, January 14th, 2010This post is in relation to a piece I wrote for Pajamas Media titled: Why Is Sarah Palin Associating with the For-Profit Tea Party Nation?
There are a couple kind of “friends”: There are those who kiss your ass, but behind your back say nasty things. There are those who kiss your ass and are opinion-free cheer leading no-minds. There are those who say that you a re friends and you ask, “Who?” I would suggest, that in this world of “friending”, most of these people are not your friends.
A true friend, whose value is above rubies, is one who loves you and loves you enough to tell the truth. A true friend is the iron-sharpens-iron kind.
Now, in politics, finding a true friend is difficult, indeed, but the best politicians have the best friends. They trust them and are open and don’t worry about betrayal. They know, of course, that betrayal is always a possibility. People are human, after all. (Et tu, Brutus?) But they are not obsessed or hide in fear over it. And the best politicians bring around them the best, most trust-worthy advisers. The worst, surround themselves with yes-men.
I was thinking last night about President George W. Bush and his relationship with Karen Hughes. He was strengthened and fortified by her feedback. You could tell even by the pictures that they argued issues and talked through difficult situations. She seemed to be a wise and trusted adviser and friend. I thought his presidency was worse for her leaving. And I wonder how much he lost by not having her around. Who knows?
On Beck last night, Sarah Palin and Glenn talked about trusting people.:
Glenn wonders if “this is the woman who can lead us” and not lose her soul. He reads from his diary and says:
“I don’t know yet if she’s strong enough, if she’s well enough advised, or if she knows that she can no longer trust anyone.”
And then, Sarah says to Glenn, “That trust thing. You nailed it with that question. Trustworthy people surrounding us, leading us, we’ve got to be able to trust, but it’s very, very dangerous to trust people in this business of politics, Glenn.”
And that is definitely true–even liberal journalists see the problem with gossip journalism relying on disaffected insiders. The other day, I read a Politico article about the Clintons being “alone”; they have been abandoned by their inner circle:
While the low-key response to a brutal portrayal of Clinton in part reflected a decision to keep a prominent face of the Obama administration’s foreign policy above the fray, it was also a recognition of reality: The same senior aides who had leaked damaging gossip could hardly be expected to rebut it.
These people have violated the Clinton world’s final taboo: After savaging one another in the press for more than a year, the former aides finally turned on the principals.
Well, there will always be people in it for themselves…Scott McClellon comes to mind. And Steve Schmidt, too, for that matter. Both have revealed themselves to be untrustworthy people unworthy of respect. Their criticism seems born of personal gain not of sincere concern for the person they vilify.
And yet, in this nasty pit that is D.C. politics, a politician has to be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. If he or she lives with integrity, the chance of unseemly characterizations diminishes greatly. Still, even the most silly of sources will be given credibility (hello Levi Johnston) if it fulfills a political purpose. I get all this. This is a part of the national political scene, unfortunately.
However, a politician does need to trust people. He or she needs good advice and fair feedback. Otherwise, the politician is surrounded by boot-licking sycophants and is harmed by an environment of fear that pollutes judgment. (See Richard Nixon.)
Not only that, differing points of view must be sought. The first criticism should never be from an enemy. A friend should always bring it up the possible criticism first, so the person can decide the arguments ahead of time, if nothing else. I remember reading some fashion editor saying that a woman should have a magnifying mirror because no one should see her flaw before she sees it herself. That is, ruthless self-awareness is necessary.
And a true friend cares so much, he will share difficult news. Who wants to hear it from enemies?
Now, specifically regarding Sarah Palin, a cult-like following is NOT what the conservative movement needs. It will do to the conservative and Republican party what Barack Obama is currently doing to the Democratic party: destroying it from within.
If someone disliked something Barack Obama said, he was damned by Obama and his followers. Even if it was friendly advice, the commentator, reporter, etc. was, and probably still is, marginalized and ignored. Now, some of the press coverage of Sarah Palin has been so egregious and unfair, that I don’t believe she should reward those news outlets with ratings on the back of her fame. Fine. Still, there are some honest information brokers who want to report the truth. And the truth is not always going to be comfortable.
Erick Erickson talks about this problem today:
But there is a serious problem developing among some of Palin’s biggest fans.
Unfortunately, given the nature of some of the people who are going to read this, I have to stop here and say I’m a big Palin fan. I like her a lot. I’d gladly support her. I want her in federal office of some kind. And I think John McCain could have picked no finer person to be his running mate. Frankly, the results of 2008 might have been different had the positions been reversed.
Got that? Unfortunately this statement of support is not good enough for some of Palin’s most ardent supporters and I think that is harmful to Governor Palin and to having a real conversation about the GOP, conservatives, and where we head politically in general.
I understand that a great many of Palin’s supporters, myself included, have felt on the defensive for a while. The media genuinely hates this woman. The left is more revolted by Palin than they ever were by Bush.
I get that.
But I also get that there are Republicans who like — even love — Sarah Palin who think some of her handlers might not give her the best of advice or think she should or should not do one thing or another. And i’m finding, both from personal experience and the experience of friends, that when those points are brought up, the person raising the point is often inappropriately attacked as a Palin hater.
He goes on to say this:
It will be Governor Palin who is attacked by the press if my fears turn out to be true. I am concerned about her in this particular instance.
But that hasn’t stopped a number of shell shocked supporters still in their bunkers from firing both barrels because I suggested something Governor Palin is doing might need to be reconsidered.
His concerns, of course are well-founded. Already, posts like this and this are popping up. More are sure to come as the event draws near.
And no, I don’t care what the left-wing media says. I do care about the success of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement. I do care about Sarah Palin walking into a mess of a situation. I do care about the Tea Party movement being co-opted by a local megalomaniac and being sold as representative of the Tea Party movement in general. I do care about new activists being disenchanted by profiteering.
But that message will be lost because no one wants to hear concerns related to Sarah Palin’s actions. When her friends shut up about potential pitfalls, she’ll be more likely to be blind-sided.
So with this very long post, I give you a link to my article at Pajamas Media. It is already inspiring vitriol among Palin supporters. That’s too bad. I really like Sarah Palin and the whole of my writing about her has been very positive.
Blind adoration should be left, though, for God and Jesus. True friends of Sarah Palin speak the truth as they see it…no doubt, their perspective is human and flawed too. Who has perfect vision? But in a multitude of counselors there is safety.
In a multitude of cheerleaders, there is Barack Obama. I don’t think the conservative movement wants that.
Podcast: Erick Erickson And Dan Riehl Talk About Tea Party Nation and Sarah Palin
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010Dan Riehl of Riehl World View and Erick Erickson of Redstate join me to discuss the Tea Party Nation, Tea Party groups and Sarah Palin. What’s happening here?
Melissa talks about CPAC and Sarah Palin’s choices with Dan Riehl of riehlworldview.com and Erick Erickson of redstate.com
Download MP3
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
When Melissa isn’t on the radio, you can find her at melissaclouthier.com and on Twitter. Her username is MelissaTweets.
Will Sarah Palin Still Run For Office From A Fox Studio? Will Huckabee?
Monday, January 11th, 2010
Will Sarah Palin run for office from a Fox studio? Will Huckabee? Maybe. Could they? The answer, of course, is yes. Will they? Probably.
Some people are taking the news of Sarah Palin ending up on TV as proof that she has no presidential aspiration. To which I respond with the mature, “As if.”
Ex-governor Huckabee is sure as shootin’ running for the Presidency, or was, until the whole cop-killer thing happened. He still might. He believes that America needs him. Bad. And so does Sarah Palin. And so does Mitt Romney. And so does Newt Gingrich. And probably, so does Rick Perry. And Tim Pawlenty. The list goes on and on.
Ed Morrissey believes that Palin might put off her presidential hopes:
However, a multi-year deal may mean that Palin will wait to run for higher office. She could either go for the Senate or the presidency next, but either way, she’d have to start building a campaign no later than a year from now. Media outlets generally cut off analysts when they start building campaigns to avoid the necessity of giving opponents free air time for responses. A multiyear deal doesn’t preclude the possibility of entering into a campaign in 2011, but it indicates that Palin isn’t yet envisioning such a step.
That’s not necessarily a bad idea anyway. Palin is young and has plenty of opportunity to run for office, with 2016, 2020, and 2024 all being very realistic for her in terms of presidential campaigns. The Fox appearances will give her an opportunity to hone her craft while keeping expectations in check. Taking her time would be a smart move, and at least since her resignation from office, Palin has been making a series of smart moves.
Well. Time will tell. There is also something to be said for striking while the iron is hot. And right now, Sarah Palin is THE counter balance to Barack Obama. All of the other aforementioned folks wouldn’t be paid attention to at all if they operated like Sarah Palin and communicated via Facebook. And four years could turn into eight or even twelve years if the next president is Republican and I think he or she will be.
Do you think this a good move for Sarah Palin? Vote here now:
Sarah Palin Spoke The Truth About Death Panels: Of Course The Government Will Ration And Deny Care
Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009
How will the government “save” money? 1. Ration 2. Pay less for what they do cover 3. Increase taxes
As to the whole “Death Panel” deal, and Jim DeMint’s finding that the Senate legislation includes a provision forcing future Senates to never get rid of, um, Death Panels, I mean, rationing boards. You know that pointy headed group who will decide the fates of 300 million Americans? Yeah, them.
Anyway, here’s what Sarah Palin said:
Last weekend while you were preparing for the holidays with your family, Harry Reid’s Senate was making shady backroom deals to ram through the Democrat health care take-over. The Senate ended debate on this bill without even reading it. That and midnight weekend votes seem to be standard operating procedures in D.C. No one is certain of what’s in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients – also known as rationing. Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:
“This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.”
In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to “bend the cost curve” and keep health care spending down?The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost. In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the bill’s calculations call for a reduction in Medicare’s spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:
“It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”
Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.
This health care bill is one of the most far-reaching and expensive expansions of the role of government into our lives. We’re talking about putting one-seventh of our economy under the government’s thumb. We’re also talking about something as intimate to our personal well-being as medical care.
This bill is so unpopular that people on the right and the left hate it. So why go through with it? The Senate is planning to vote on this on Christmas Eve. Why the rush? Though we will begin paying for this bill immediately, we will see no benefits for years. (That’s the trick that allowed the CBO to state that the bill won’t grow the deficit for the next ten years.)
The administration’s promises of transparency and bipartisanship have been broken one by one. This entire process has been defined by midnight votes on weekends, closed-door meetings with industry lobbyists, and payoffs to politicians willing to sell their principles for sweetheart deals. Is it any wonder that Americans are so disillusioned with their leaders in Washington?
This is about politics, not health care. Americans don’t want this bill. Americans don’t like this bill. Washington has stopped listening to us. But we’re paying attention, and 2010 is coming.
- Sarah Palin
I don’t think people quite grasp how right Sarah Palin is about this bureaucratic board. In each insurance company, a case manager can be influenced and advocate on behalf of the patient. With iron-clad bureaucratic recommendations, there will be no negotiation, no risk-taking. There will be no incentive to make the customer happy. None.
And people will die. Far more than the 30K or so number that libs cite, when decrying how many uninsured people die. No, this will be state-sponsored withholding, denying and sitting by while people die. It’s not that people couldn’t be helped, it’s that they don’t fall under arbitrary criterion.
Health care recommendations will be politicized and facts will have little to do with it: Witness mammogram recommendations. This issue is very important to me personally. I have a child who survives because the doctors tried. They made a judgment call. The insurance company pays for it. But in Europe, my son would not be alive. In some countries, a baby born before 26 weeks is allowed to die. These tiny babies take resources, you know. And it’s not fair to everyone else.
So, don’t listen to libs talk about the people who die because of lack of care. These are the same people who show no regard for helpless life. They routinely use utilitarian arguments. They will do so with health care. Sacrifice will be for the “greater good”.
Sarah Palin is right.
