Pitch-Perfect Palin

Pitch-Perfect Palin

By C.
Edmund Wright

Last night, Sarah Palin’s statement — and her
breaking news interview with Mark Levin — stressed some extremely important
ideas.  As such, her not running might well be among the least important topics
she touched on.  Yes, I know that’s the news that everybody was waiting for —
but what interested me most was what Palin said about her vision for America and
how she said it.  It was crafted very intentionally –and it was simply
pitch-perfect.

 

Palin spoke of ideas and priorities.  These were above
and beyond what particular position she — or anyone else — might play in our
arena of ideas.  That she’s still very much in the arena — and planning on
making a difference — is obvious.

 

In her written statement — and her immediate
follow-up interview with Levin — she made it clear what was important.  Saving
the country is all that matters, and the first step required for that task is to
totally reverse our current course.  Of course, that includes removal of the
current occupant in the White House.  Consider Palin’s first action
step:

 

We need to continue to actively and aggressively help
those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead
seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional
republic based on the rule of law.

 

Her message is transparent.  Obviously, fundamental
transformation refers to an idea of Barack Obama, and stopping this idea
requires defeating Obama.  If we don’t accomplish this, nothing else matters.
Stopping this fundamental transformation is more important than Palin’s
running…and more important than any particular person…and more important
than any particular issue.  Plugging the hole in the Titanic means
changing presidents, and if this is not accomplished, anything and everything
else is merely rearranging the deck chairs.

 

Thus — with apologies to the many on the internet
message boards who have been assuring us that she had a master plan to swoop in
with a whole new movement — Palin very directly asserted to Levin that a
third-party run (by her or anyone else) would merely guarantee the reelection of
Barack Obama.  This is a fate that must be avoided at all costs.  And by all
costs, Palin means all costs.

 

On this count, Palin’s choosing Levin’s show for her
initial interview post-announcement could not have been an accident.  Levin is a
classic Reagan conservative, and as such, he is an instinctively pro-Palin
figure.  Moreover, he is an “anybody but Obama” advocate, and while he will
likely criticize certain Republicans (like he did McCain in ’08) during the
primary process, he will be violently opposed to any third-party or independent
movement even if he’s not thrilled with the GOP choice.  Palin made it clear she
is of the same mind on that issue.  Read her lips: no third
party
.

 

As a note, this message was missed by some in the
pundit class — including A.B. Stoddard on last night’s Fox All Star Panel.
Stoddard confidently snarked that the use of the term “GOP nomination” in
Palin’s statement about not running was a clear signal that she intends to go
independent.  Sorry to disappoint, A.B.  You should have listened to the
tape.

 

What else struck me was Palin’s next order of
business: energy as the key to our free-market economy.  And by struck, I mean
profoundly pleased.  I totally agree with Palin’s emphasis:

 

I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and
free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must
embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource
developments of conventional energy sources, along with
renewables.

 

What the former governor of an energy rich-state knows
is that without more reliable and less expensive energy, our free market economy
cannot reach its potential.  It just cannot happen.  She also knows that we
cannot have a nominee this time around as naïve on domestic energy as was John
McCain.  The energy emphasis was a profound statement and a perfect segue to the
more traditionally obvious Tea Party issues — which are, of course, still near
to Palin’s heart:

 

We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations
that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize
government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create
jobs. Those will be our priorities so Americans can be confident that a smaller,
smarter government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the
people can better serve this most exceptional
nation.

 

Obviously, many of the tax burdens and onerous
regulations that are killing our economy are part of Obamacare — not to mention
the NLRB’s attack on Boeing and the EPA’s attack on just about everybody.  These
bureaucracies are just part and parcel of a government ever-growing in its size,
scope, cost, and intrusion into our lives — and threatening to bankrupt us for
generations as well.

 

This message is not merely an “it’s the economy,
stupid” message, but instead a message that demonstrates what is important about
the secular role of government — even to devout Christians who bathe their
political decisions in prayer.  And what is important is that said government
stays limited and allows for maximum liberty.  The fundamental transformation
Palin opposes maximizes government and minimizes liberty.

 

If that fundamental transformation is not stopped,
America will cease to exist as the Founders envisioned it and as we have known
it.  That America, more than anything else, is an idea — a huge idea.  It’s
bigger than any issue.  It’s bigger than any person.  And Sarah Palin, unlike
many who denigrate her, has a mind great enough to understand that.  We all need
to.  Pitch-perfect, indeed.

 

The author has written
about Sarah Palin since before she was picked as VP nominee in
2008.

Sarah Palin Jabs Michelle Obama’s Anti-Obesity Campaign With S’mores

Sarah Palin Jabs Michelle Obama’s Anti-Obesity Campaign With S’mores

The Huffington Post
|  Nick Wing
First Posted: 12-20-10 10:09 AM   |   Updated: 12-21-10 12:06 PM
Sarah Palin took a shot at Michelle Obama
during Sunday’s episode of her reality TV show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,”
jabbing the first lady’s anti-obesity campaign for attempting to deprive
Americans of dessert.
While searching for s’mores ingredients on a family camping trip, Palin remarked:
“Where are the s’mores ingredients? This is in honor of Michelle Obama, who said the other day we should not have dessert.”
Michelle Obama has been a key proponent of an initiative to improve
children’s health by encouraging better diets and sufficient exercise.
In May she announced her “Let’s Move” program, which promoted dessert alternatives, among other dietary suggestions.
The Associated Press reported at the time:
One in 3 American children is overweight or obese, putting
them at higher risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol
and other illnesses. Obesity is even more prevalent among black and
Hispanic children. Some public health experts say today’s children are
on track to live shorter lives than their parents.
But Palin has maintained that Obama’s effort to combat child obesity — which was recently aided by the passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act
— is one that seeks to take away “God-given rights to make our own
decisions.” Some have since slammed that comment as Palin’s demanding that Americans cling to their “God-Given right to be fat.”
During an appearance on Laura Ingraham’s radio program last month, Palin complained:
“Instead of a government thinking that they need to take
over and make decisions for us according to some politician or
politician’s wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back.”
And CNN relays another incident in Pennsylvania last month, in which the former Alaska governor sought to criticize the first lady’s health plan:
Palin also hand-delivered cookies to a Pennsylvania school
last month before delivering a speech there, saying: “Who should be
deciding what I eat? Should it be government or should it be parents? It
should be the parents.”
WATCH (via Politico):

Proof for Chris Matthews That Sarah Palin Isn’t Illiterate

Proof for Chris Matthews That Sarah Palin Isn’t Illiterate

By Doug Powers  •  November 4, 2010 09:51 AM
**Written by Doug Powers
Late on election night, as bad news for Democrats continued to dump water on the electric thrill that used to run up Chris Matthews’ leg before it was short-circuited, a nightmarish thought obviously started gnawing at him: President Sarah Palin.
Matthews then went on to dispute Palin’s stance on trade, taxes, national security and abortion. Just kidding — all he did was call her stupid, even going as far as questioning whether or not she’s even literate:
“Have you ever been an eyewitness to her actually reading something?” Matthews badgered. “Have you seen her – no, I’m dead serious about this. Have you ever seen her reading words on a piece of paper? A newspaper, magazine, anything? Have you ever seen her read something?”
Well, yes I have as a matter of fact, and so have you, Chris. Remember this?
null
Matthews has obviously put this out of his mind because of what it said:
null
I have seen Sarah Palin reading books, too — it’s just that Matthews doesn’t like what she reads:
null
**Written by Doug Powers

Palin has last laugh on PBS host, Kos

Palin has last laugh on PBS host, Kos

Sneering commentators thought they caught tea party leader in history
gaffe


Posted: October 21, 2010
12:35 am Eastern

By Art
Moore

© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON - APRIL 15:  Gwen Ifill, moderator of PBS's 'Washington Week,' listens during a taping of 'Meet the Press' at the NBC Studios April 15, 2007 in Washington, DC. Ifill spoke on the controversy that was created by radio talk show host Don Imus' racial and gender comments to the players of Rutgers University women's basketball team.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images for Meet the Press)
Blogger Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos and PBS host Gwen Ifill could
barely contain themselves when they came across an apparent elementary
historical-knowledge gaffe by tea party favorite Sarah Palin, but it turns out
the left-leaning commentators were the ones with egg on their faces.
Moulitsas – a major power-broker in the Democratic Party’s left-wing base –
dashed off a message to his thousands of followers through the Internet social network Twitter after Palin told tea party
activists in Nevada, “Don’t party like it’s 1773 yet,” reported
the blogger who uses the pen name Cuffy Meigs
.
Moulitsas
sneered
, “She’s so smart.”
Ifill wrote:
“Sarah Palin: party like its 1773! Ummm.”
Others mocked Palin with comments such as “uhhh” and “[expletive] happened in
1773?”
Palin presumably knows the U.S. was born in 1776. But what Moulitsas and his
crew didn’t recall was that 1773 was the year of the Boston Tea Party, the
inspiration for the grass roots movement that is threatening to sweep the
Democratic Party from power in Congress next month.

WASHINGTON - APRIL 15:  Gwen Ifill, moderator of PBS's 'Washington Week,' listens during a taping of 'Meet the Press' at the NBC Studios April 15, 2007 in Washington, DC. Ifill spoke on the controversy that was created by radio talk show host Don Imus' racial and gender comments to the players of Rutgers University women's basketball team.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images for Meet the Press)

SARAH PALIN HARD AT WORK CLEARING THE TARBALLS OFF THE GULF BEACHES

 

SARAH PALIN HARD AT WORK CLEARING THE TARBALLS OFF THE GULF BEACHES
 

 

Palin Says She Will Run in 2012 If Nobody Else “Steps Up”

Palin Says She Will Run in 2012 If Nobody Else “Steps Up”

Details at Hot Air.

Remember: you don’t get to vote for the “idea” of Sarah Palin. If she runs, Americans will have to cast a vote for her.

In fact, supporting the “idea” of a candidate, as certain bloggers have suggested they are doing with Christine O’Donnell (while pointedly disclaiming that they are fully invested in the notion of the candidate herself as a “hill to die on”) is the type of thinking that got us Barack Obama. People voted for the “idea” of Hope and Change, and got something quite different in reality.

It is blind idealism, and it is dangerous on the left and on the right.

Will we follow that path with Sarah Palin — that is, if nobody else “steps” up?

Or will we confront the candidate as she exists in real life — with whatever faults and flaws she has — and decide whether that candidate is worth staking our hopes on?

Time will tell.

Sarah may not be a viable presidential candidate in 2012, but she’s a gutsy lady with a lot of common sense . . . . . .THE MOST INTERESTING PART IS AT THE END!!!!!

Sarah may not be a viable presidential candidate in 2012, but she’s a gutsy lady with a lot of common sense . . . . . .

THE MOST INTERESTING PART IS AT THE END!!!!!


 

From the canadian free press. Not published by our media

READ TO THE VERY END!   VERY ENLIGHTENING!!! 
AND VERY DISTURBING!!! 


By Dewie Whetsell,  Alaskan Fisherman. 
As posted in comments on Greta’s article referencing the MOVEON ad about Sarah Palin.

The last 45 of my 66 years I’ve spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska .  I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year.  Here’s the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it.  It’s not about persona, style, rhetoric, it’s about doing things.  Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I’m about to mention here.

1. Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor’s office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican’s “Corrupt Bastards Club” (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, “la la la la” (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar. 

2. Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called “ACES.” Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, “don’t let the door hit you in the stern on your way out.” They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.

3. The other thing she did when she walked into the governor’s office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as “pork.” She went through the list, took 85% of the m and placed them in the “when-hell-freezes-over” stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we’ll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor’s jet because it was extravagant. 
  
Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor’s cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning – I imagine – that she’s packing heat herself). I’m still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.

4. Now, even with her much-ridiculed “gosh and golly” mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn’t impress you, then you’re trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.

5. For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn’t start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. Then, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house.   Alaska won again.

6. President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewables by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that’s just a cover-up. I’m still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won’t be holding my breath.

By the way, she was content to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn’t let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.

You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents’ wives.


So “You go, Girl.” I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals.     

I rest my case. Only FOOLS listen to the biased media.  

If you’ve read this far ……………………………………….. 
First Lady Michelle Obama’s Servant List and Pay Scale

First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants

1. $172,2000 – Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff) 

2. $140,000 – Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)

3. $113,000 – Rogers, Desiree G.  (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary) 

4. $102,000 – Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady) 

5. $100,000 – Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 

6. $90,000 –   Medina  , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 

7. $84,000 – Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady) 

8. $75,000 – Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady) 

9. $70,000 – Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady) 

10. $65,000 – Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary) 

11. $64,000 – Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary) 

12. $62,000 – Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady) 

13. $60,000 – Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Dir ector of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady) 

14. $57,500 – Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady) 

15. $52,500 – Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to The First Lady) 

16. $50,000 – Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special=2 0Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to The First Lady) 

17. $45,000 – Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady) 

18. $43,000 – Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office) 

19. $40,000 – Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady) 

20. $36,000 – Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary) 

21. $35,000 – Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant) 
22. $35,000 – Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady) 
  
(This is community organizing at it’s finest.)

There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bushone; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President’s own pocket. 
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and “First Hairstylist” Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe  . 

FRIENDS…..THESE SALARIES ADD UP TO SIX MILLION, THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,364,000) FOR THE 4 YEARS OF OFFICE?????   AND WE ARE IN A RECESSION?????  WELL….MOST OF US ARE.  I GUESS IT’S OK TO SPEND WILDLY WHEN IT’S NOT YOUR OWN MONEY????? 

Copyright 2009 Canada FreePress.Com  


Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press has to publish this because the USA  media is too scared they might be considered racist.  Sorry USA !

Primary Lessons

Posted By Jacob Laksin On June 10, 2010 @ 1:00 am In FrontPage | 2 Comments

As President Obama’s poll ratings tumble and the Democratic majority in Congress continues to post record disapproval numbers, some on the Left have consoled themselves with the thought that the growing grassroots hostility to incumbent candidates transcends party and ideology. In this exegesis, liberal and progressive discontents are just as wound up – and just as influential – as their conservative Tea Party counterparts. If this week’s primary election results proved anything, it’s that this reading of the nation’s political map won’t wash. While the Tea Parties continued to notch victories in pivotal primary races, the Left’s insurgents were rebuffed.

The most prominent example came from Arkansas, where embattled Senator Blanche Lincoln staved off a bruising challenge from her union-backed rival, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. Lincoln drew Big Labor’s wrath for heresies like opposing “card check [1]” legislation, which would have eliminated secret ballots to facilitate union organizing. As payback, unions, aided by a battery of progressive political action groups, put their full political clout into the race, sponsoring Halter to the tune of $10 million. But while the lavishly funded challenge did force Lincoln into a runoff, the unions’ purchasing power came up short. As one agonized Obama White House official told Politico: “Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members’ money down the toilet on a pointless exercise.” Lincoln remains deeply vulnerable. Polls show she trails her Republican opponent John Boozman by some 25 points. But her defeat, if it comes, will be punishment for being too loyal to the Left’s agenda (Lincoln cast the decisive 60th vote to pass ObamaCare) rather than for straying too far from it.

Lest one dismiss Arkansas as a one-off from conservative country, liberal bastions proved no more receptive to left-wing insurgents. In California’s 36th district, far-Left candidate Marcy Winograd lost her second successive bid to oust Democratic centrist Jane Harman. Winograd, who styles herself as a “peace” activist, ran a campaign that sounded the full range of the angry Left’s talking points: Harman was variously portrayed as a corporate shill, a warmonger, and a traitor to the Left. An outspoken foe of Israel, Winograd even tried to capitalize on Harman’s pro-Israel record in the context of the recent clash between Israeli commandos and armed Turkish activists attempting to run Israel’s naval blockade. Winograd boasted [2] that as a sign of “solidarity” with the activists, her campaign had sent a Winograd for Congress T-Shirt that had been “worn on the flotilla.” As primary day neared, progressive blogs began trumpeting [3] Winograd as the new Joe Sestak – a true progressive who would oust the incumbent impostor. The hype proved just that, as Harman won by a comfortable 18-point [4] margin.

While primary challenges from the Left sputtered, Tea Party-backed conservatives scored several successes. Most prominently, Sharron Angle [5], until recently a relative unknown, rode the Tea Party movement’s support to victory in a crowded field for Nevada’s Republican nomination for the Senate. Although Tea Party spending to support Angle’s candidacy was limited compared to Big Labor’s efforts in Arkansas – the Tea Party political action committee spent just $550,000 to boost her name recognition – it was far more effective: From a 5 percent approval rating as recently as April, Angle went on to win the nomination. Tea Party-backed candidates also won [6] in Georgia, Maine and South Carolina.

It was not all glory for the Tea Party. In California and New Jersey, Tea Party favorites failed to break through. (A too-close-to-call race [7] between Tea Party candidate Anna Little and establishment rival Diana Gooch in New Jersey’s 6th Congressional district was one notable exception.) Even in defeat, though, there was encouraging news for the movement, as Tea Party candidates ran strongly in almost all races in which they were involved. At the very least, their generally strong showing indicated that despite their now-stale slogans of “change,” the Left is not nearly as energized, and not nearly the same force in primary races, as the surging conservative opposition.

Still, those determined to rain on the Tea Party’s parade ask a pertinent question: Can the movement replicate its strong success in primaries in general election races, where it must court a more ideologically diverse electorate? Democratic strategists and the mainstream media have professed glee over the prospect of Democratic incumbents facing candidates like Sharron Angle, whom they deem too far out of the mainstream. One Democratic strategist suggested [8] that Harry Reid would be “dancing in the streets” were Angle to win the GOP nomination. The Washington Post even did Reid the unsolicited favor of producing a list of allegedly damning quotes [9] that Reid could use to paint Angle as an extremist. But if early poll results are any guide, the Angle-Reid matchup won’t be the cakewalk that Democrats suppose. Indeed, a recent Mason-Dixon poll has Angle beating Reid by 44 percent to 41 percent. The Tea Party, it seems, is just getting started.

National Review: Palin’s ‘Mama Grizzlies’ Bite Back

National Review: Palin’s ‘Mama Grizzlies’ Bite Back

by Robert Costa

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley
Enlarge Mary Ann Chastain/AP PhotoFormer Alaska Governor Sarah Palin waves to supporters after she endorses South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley.

Mary Ann Chastain/AP PhotoFormer Alaska Governor Sarah Palin waves to supporters after she endorses South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley.

text size A A A

June 9, 2010

Oh, those “mama grizzlies, they rise up.” So says Sarah Palin, rightfully, and it bears repeating after two high-flying lady Republicans she championed swept to victory on Tuesday. In South Carolina, Nikki Haley outdistanced three rivals in the GOP gubernatorial primary (falling just short of a majority, but she is heavily favored to win the runoff on June 22), while in California, Carly Fiorina held off four Republicans in a crowded Senate primary. Their wins are Palin’s, too.

Haley and Fiorina are examples of what Palin last month called an “emerging, conservative, feminist identity” in the GOP. In other words, the rise of Palinistas: smart, pro-life conservative women who succeed with style — and a dash of controversy. The latter they address with a smile, and, Thatcher-like, with a quick quip or a swift kick.

Going rogue, of course, isn’t easy. Since Palin endorsed Haley in May, the former state representative has experienced her share of misadventure. First, a pair of Republican operatives, without proof, claimed to have slept with the married mother of two. Then Haley, whose Sikh parents emigrated from India, had to sidestep a “raghead” slur made by a state senator. With its tabloid-like media coverage, the unwelcome controversy mirrored Palin’s 2008 vice-presidential run, during which she was dogged by rumors and innuendo.

Haley, for her part, denied the allegations of adultery, though some feared the tawdry whispers would damage her fresh-faced reputation. They didn’t. In fact, with a little help from Palin, who seems to relish lowering a Facebook boom on foes, Haley weathered them with ease. On the social-networking website, the former Alaska governor laid into Haley’s haters and offered a glimpse into a Palinista’s world. “I warned her and her family that she would be targeted,” Palin wrote, that “she would be put through some hell. . . . As I said to Nikki this morning, ‘Hang in there. I’ve been there.'” Haley did, and she has kept her comfortable, double-digit lead in the polls.

Deftly playing victim, and punching back at sexed-up slime, may be politics as usual in South Carolina, but for national observers, it’s also Palin 101. As Walter Shapiro of Politics Daily put it, Haley mastered “boomerang politics — making every attack seem like a vindication of her conservative populist outrage.” That has been a favorite Palin technique since the days when nobody outside Alaska had heard of her.

Tangling with opponents, however, is not the only element of Palinista politics. Friendly debate with tea-party groups is another. Palin — an outsider to the GOP establishment before she was tapped as the veep nominee, and its pit bull once brought inside — remains a trusted tea-party favorite. Though she is close to the movement, it’s important to note that she’s not of the tea parties. She was around, and battling Obama, before tricorner hats began to pop up en masse.

That warm affinity and simultaneous lack of debt to the tea-party movement has enabled Palin to be independent, and surprisingly unpredictable, in whom she chooses to endorse. While Haley, a tea-party darling before she got Palin’s nod, was an easy, no-trouble pick, Palin’s endorsement in California’s GOP Senate primary caused a bit more tension on the right.

In early May, Palin posted a note to her Facebook followers about Fiorina, the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard. “I’d like to tell you about a commonsense conservative,” she said, one who, like her, “grew up in a modest home with a schoolteacher dad, worked her way through several colleges, and then entered an arena where few women had tread.” While a “huge proponent of contested primaries,” Palin explained that she was backing Fiorina because her “fiscal conservatism is rooted in real-life experience.”

The uproar came fast. Thousands of conservatives commented in anger below the Facebook endorsement, scratching their heads about why Palin, of all people, would back Fiorina, whom they considered a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Chuck DeVore, considered by many, including Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), to be the most tea-party-aligned of the contenders, was left empty-handed. With Palin having endorsed her former running mate, Sen. John McCain, a moderate, in Arizona’s Senate primary months before, “that’s two strikes against you, little sister!” wrote one commenter. “One more and you’re done.” Shelby Baker, a leader of Tea Party Patriots, complained to Human Events that the “bloom’s off the rose,” dubbing Palin “a company girl . . . a Republican, and not in a good way.”

Palin eyed the online debate for a bit, and then jumped in with a Facebook update. Look, she typed, “some reaction right out of the chute calls for more information.” Fiorina, she argued, is “pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-military, and pro-strict border security and against amnesty,” as well as being for repealing Obamacare and for supporting the Second Amendment. “That’s no RINO,” Palin mused, “that’s a winner.” Some still didn’t buy it, finding Fiorina to be, as the Telegraph explained, “insufficiently robust against abortion.”

Nevertheless, Palin’s willingness to mix it up with tea partiers will only help her should she decide to run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012. For Palin, policy ideas and values are important. So, smartly, is winning — especially when it comes to electing her hand-picked crop of Palinistas. “No matter your gender or politics, you have to hand it to her: Palin is fearless,” says Mark McKinnon, a former adviser to Pres. George W. Bush.

Despite the complications, that’s good news for the GOP’s electoral chances. “Sarah Palin — feminist first, tea partyer second,” said one recent Christian Science Monitor headline. About that, we shouldn’t be too sure. For Palin, it seems, it’s about electing Republicans, just with a mama grizzly, please. From what we saw last night, her strategy is working.

Sarah Palin: America Speaks Out! It’s time to take back our government and put it on our side. Remember it’s “We the People”!

Sarah Palin: America Speaks Out!

America Speaks Out!
 Yesterday at 10:34am
Here’s a great forum for those who believe it’s time to stand up and be heard! From the tea party movement to the town halls, we’ve seen Americans rise up and make their voices heard. From the bailouts to the wasteful stimulus spending bill to the $2.5 trillion health care take over, Washington stopped listening to us average everyday hardworking Americans… so we’re doing something about that.

Today a new website was launched to change the situation!

Led by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, a new project is now launched called “America Speaking Out” which is aimed at giving us a direct role in putting together a new policy agenda for our country based on the principles of smaller, more accountable government.

Check out the website at http://www.americaspeakingout.com/ and make your voices heard.

It’s time to take back our government and put it on our side. Remember it’s “We the People”!

– Sarah Palin