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.

American Way: Republicans tell Barack Obama ‘You’re no Ronald Reagan’

American Way: Republicans tell Barack Obama ‘You’re no Ronald Reagan’

By Toby Harnden WorldLast updated:  February 5th, 2011

207 CommentsComment on this article

For many Americans, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library is a place of solemn pilgrimage. This weekend, it is also the site of lavish celebrations marking what would have been the 100th birthday of “the great communicator”.

On Sunday, his widow Nancy will lay a wreath at his gravesite as F-18s launch from the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier and a 21-gun salute is fired. There will be a Beach Boys concert, a six-feet-by-six-feet birthday cake topped with 20,000 jelly beans (Reagan’s favourite). And a bill of $5 million (pounds 3.1 million), to be settled using funds raised privately.

Among those paying homage in person are Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, both with presumed presidential aspirations in 2012. The formal start of the Republican presidential campaign will take place in May with a debate at, naturally, the Reagan library.

Perhaps more surprising is that there is a new claimant to the Reagan throne this year: President Barack Obama. Having once routinely derided Reagan as, in the words of Democratic greybeard Clark Clifford, an “amiable dunce”, the liberal establishment is now seeking to embrace him.

Obama first tried to grab Reagan’s mantle three years ago when he cited the Gipper as a way of taking a shot at the Clintons by saying that the Republican had “changed the trajectory of America” in a way that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton had not. Reagan, he added, responded to a feeling that “we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship”.

Now, Obama sees Reagan’s aura as a potential political lifeline as he hopes to emulate his forerunner’s feat of receiving a drubbing in mid-term elections after two years (in 1982) followed by a landslide re-election victory two years after that (in 1984).

Obama’s recent State of the Union speech was full of self-conscious optimism (though the slogan “winning the future” is a pygmy compared with Reagan’s “morning in America”) and appeals to bipartisanship – a nod to the celebrated fact that Reagan managed to work with Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, a liberal Democrat.

Other Democrats, taking this a step further, are using Reagan as a stick to beat the modern Republican party, painting him as a moderate pragmatist who would be out of step with today’s hard-right ideologues.

Republicans treat all this with weary disdain. To paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s famous 1988 put down of Senator Dan Quayle, the older ones are saying: “I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan is an idol of mine. President Obama, you’re no Ronald Reagan.”

Rich Galen, a Republican strategist who was working on Capitol Hill in the Reagan era, says that conservatives giggle at Obama’s attempts to be Reaganesque. “Obama is diametrically opposed to everything Reagan stood for.”

Reagan nurtured a coalition that included Reagan Democrats, who stayed with the party for decades, he points out, but the term Obama Republicans has not been heard since the 2008 campaign. Even on style, there’s little comparison. “Obama is cold and distant whereas Reagan was warm and liked to be around people,” says Galen.

Some Republicans fear that Reagan is facing a posthumous political emasculation by Democrats who play down his conservatism and recast him as a squishy conciliator.

There is little doubt that Reagan would have been dryly derisive of Obama’s policies and presidency. “Government is like a baby,” Reagan once quipped. “An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

Obama, by contrast, views government as a kindly nurse and the people as the baby. According to his mindset, the people should submit to those in government who know better and whose role is to make decisions and control the purse strings.

Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist who grew up in the post-Reagan era, views his country’s 40th president, primarily as “the embodiment of American exceptionalism”, a stark contrast with Obama.

Although Obama has been paying lip service to American greatness in recent months, he made it clear in his first two years in office that he saw the United States as a flawed nation with much to apologise for and dismissed the notion of American exceptionalism as mere patriotism.

Despite the comical transparency of Obama’s attempts to portray himself as the new Reagan, Democratic attempts to redefine the conservative hero as some kind of big cuddly jelly bean do leave Republicans with a dilemma.

Reagan’s sunny optimism was all about looking forward. He was not a nostalgic man. To do battle with Democrats over who Reagan was leads Republicans into a debate over the past when they need to be setting out a vision for the future.

The opening event of the weekend birthday celebrations was a Friday night speech by Palin in Santa Barbara, close to the Reagan ranch. In it, she focused on a Reagan speech from 47 years ago, declaring that “the choices before us are as clear now as they were in 1964”.

Relatively few American voters can remember 1964 but those who can will note that Barry Goldwater suffered an overwhelming defeat at the hands of Lyndon Johnson that year.

Palin, who happened to be born in 1964, recently compared herself to Reagan, dismissing a criticism by Karl Rove about her reality show series with the retort: “Wasn’t Ronald Reagan an actor? Wasn’t he in Bedtimes for Bonzo, Bozo or something?” Relegating Reagan to having been a mere actor did not exactly endear Palin to those who revere the man who ended the Cold War. So now, it seems, the former Alaska governor is over-compensating.

It would, however, be best for the Republicans who hope to oust Obama next year if the current 100th birthday celebrations mark the moment that Reagan was finally consigned to the history books.

Tussles over who Reagan was and futile attempts by Republican candidates to define themselves in terms of how they measure up with his legacy are exactly what Obama and the Democrats want.

Toby Harnden’s American Way column is published in the Sunday Telegraph each week.

Sarah Palin speaks

http://vimeo.com/18698532 to see and hear the video

Sarah Palin speaks

Clarice Feldman

 

Here is a part
of the statement
Sarah Palin issued today, something no one else in her
party (are you listening Governor Pawlenty ?) has had the wit or wisdom to say:

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and
praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled,
then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from
people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.
President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s
broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the
American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of
monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals
who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with
those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both
sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise
their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly
voted in the last election.
The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s
future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would
join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his
party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the
will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power
proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most
cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to
work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you
don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision.
If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But,
especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should
not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and
violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

 
Clarice Feldman

Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/sarah_palin_speaks.html
at
January 12, 2011 – 10:13:37 AM CST

//  

Who’s Guilty of Inciting Violence, Mr. President?

Who’s Guilty of Inciting Violence, Mr. President?

January 11th, 2011

Victor Davis Hanson, The Washington Times

Very few Americans are fans of both The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, as 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, the purported Tucson killer, apparently was. Fewer still post on the Internet fears about “brainwashing,” “mind control,” and “conscience dreaming”; have long records of public disruption and aberrant behavior; were expelled from community college; or were rejected summarily for military service.

No matter. Almost immediately following Mr. Loughner’s cowardly killing of six and wounding of 14, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, pundits and some public figures rushed to locate his rampage, together with his paranoid rantings about government control, within the larger landscape of right-wing politics – especially the rhetoric of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin.

Apparently, we are supposed to believe that Mr. Loughner’s unhinged rants about the “government” indict those who express reasonable reservations about the size of government as veritable accessories to mass murder. The three worst offenders were Paul Daly of the New York Daily News, who claimed just that in an essay with the raging headline “The blood of Congresswoman Giffords was on Sarah Palin’s hands”; the ubiquitous Paul Krugman, who connected Mr. Loughner to the supposedly Republican-created “climate of hate”; and Andrew Sullivan, who thought he saw yet another avenue through which to further his own blind antipathy toward Mrs. Palin and “the Palin forces.” In their warped syllogism, the Tea Party unquestionably creates hatred; a congresswomen was shot out of hatred; ergo, the Tea Party and/or the Republican Party all but pulled the trigger…

There is much talk that Mrs. Palin’s “cross hairs” ad pushed Mr. Loughner over the edge. But if sloppy use of gun metaphors can drive anyone to shoot congressional representatives, think what we are up against when the president of the United States invokes violent imagery to galvanize his supporters. What are we to make of President Obama’s warning of “hand-to-hand combat” if the Republicans take over or of his comment that one of his supporters could “tear [Sean Hannity] up” or his “Untouchables” boast that “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” or his advice to supporters of his presidential campaign to argue with Republicans and independents and “get in their face”?

Why would a president boast about figuring out “whose ass to kick” or, in a climate of fear about terrorism, call his opponents “hostage takers”? In a post-Sept. 11 world, is it prudent for the commander in chief to say of his political opponents, “Here’s the problem: It’s almost like they’ve got – they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up”? What about, “But you’ve got to kind of talk to them, ease that finger off the trigger”?

Also, in a political twofer, Mr. Obama once not only evoked gun imagery, but did so in a context of relegating Republicans to second-class citizenry: “We can’t have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

Read more.

48 Hours

48 Hours


It has been almost 48 hours since a liberal lunatic shot and killed six people and grievously wounded Congressman Gabrielle Giffords.    The left immediately jumped into action, trying to blame this on the Tea Party.  That did not work out too well when the killer was identified and his friends started saying he was liberal.

Then the message changed, not because the facts changed, but because Conservatives fought back.  Remembering what happened in the past, conservatives refused to let liberals try to claim this was the act of someone on the right.  Conservatives refused to let the lunatic left define us or this tragedy.  And as it turns out, the killer was not a member of the Tea Party movement, so they’ve been forced to change the message.    Their message became this tragedy was triggered by the “hate speech” and “violent rhetoric” from conservatives.   Again, they ignore the facts, but since when have liberals ever let the facts get in their way?

The liberal hotheads have been flooding twitter and other social media outlets with claims that conservatives are “heartless” because we are talking about the facts.  What the really mean is that they are upset with us because we are not simply rolling over and letting them define us or this tragedy to suit their agenda.

The danger is not from the hotheads who run their mouths on social media.  The danger comes from those who are in a position to do some real damage and they are now starting to come out of the woodwork. 

The first is Congressman Carolyn McCarthy (Socialist-NY).  In 1993, her husband was murdered and son seriously injured by a gunman on a Long Island commuter train.   Since then she has turned that tragedy into her personal platform to try and strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights. 

McCarthy complains that the killer, Jared Loughner, should not have been able to purchase the gun because of his mental instability.   Guess what?   There are already laws in effect for that.  What McCarthy really wants is to prevent Americans from owning firearms. 

Congressman Robert Brady (Socialist-PA) wants to make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening to a federal official or a member of congress.

Perhaps this bill could be called the First Amendment repeal act. 

Senators and Congressmen from the party of treason have a real problem.  They do not like criticism.  They do not want to be accountable to the people.  Their definition of something that is perceived as threatening is simply disagreeing with them or calling for them to be replaced. 

Does anyone remember the Health Care debate?   When the members of congress from the party of treason decided to walk down the road to Capitol Hill to try and provoke the Tea Party protesters into doing something?

It did not work, so what did they do? They lied.  First they claimed they were spit on and when video disproved that, and they claimed Tea Party protesters had used racial epithets against them.  Funny, that got disproved too.

This type of lunatic legislation exists for one reason only – to try and silence political speech from conservatives.  Liberals are quite willing to lie about these things, while conservatives have enough respect for America and the rule of law, not to lie.

Finally, the left is out to destroy Sarah Palin.  We have known this for two years.   Now they are trying to use this incident to end her political career.

With the possible exception of Rush Limbaugh, there is no bigger name in conservative political circles.   The left wing media has gone after her, while ignoring identical comments from far left groups, such as the Daily Kos. 

At Tea Party Nation, we know something about having the left try to destroy you.

A year ago, as we were preparing for the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, a group of liberal journalists, led by David Weigel, now of Slate.com, tried to destroy our convention.  Sarah Palin could have cut and run because of the heat.  She did not.

Now is the time we need to stand with Sarah Palin against the left.  If the left can use this incident to destroy her, they can destroy anyone in the conservative movement. 

We need to keep turning the tables on the left and keep the pressure on them.  This shooter was a liberal lunatic.   Democratic operatives have already said they are trying to pin this on the Tea Party movement.  We need to fight back and put the blame for this anti-conservative propaganda where it belongs.

The liberal left.

And the winner of the most bizarre, overwrought, hysterical denunciation of Sarah Palin by a brainless lefty is…

And the winner of the most bizarre, overwrought, hysterical denunciation of Sarah Palin by a brainless lefty is…

Rick Moran

It’s not Paul Krugman, although I know he has many fans on the right who were hoping he would win the prize because he fits the “brainless” description so aptly.

Nor is it any lefty blogger who, over the last 24 hrs, has stretched, and stretched, and stretched the point some more about Sarah Palin’s “target” list actually meaning that she hoped someone or someones would grab a gun and off the congressmen she wanted defeated.

Sorry – you’re all wrong. The winner is the NY Daily News’ Michael Daly.

The headline on his column: “Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ blood is on Sarah Palin’s hands after putting cross hair over district;”

Here’s the passage that nailed down his victory:

Palin would no doubt say that she was only speaking in metaphor, that she only meant her followers should work to unseat Giffords and 19 other Democrats who had roused her ire by voting for health care.But anyone with any sense at all knows that violent language can incite actual violence, that metaphor can incite murder. At the very least, Palin added to a climate of violence.

Palin should have taken it as a warning of what might happen when a Tea Party hothead dropped a gun while heckling Giffords at an earlier Congress On Your Corner event, more than a year ago.

That did not stop Palin from declaring Giffords a “target.” Giffords’ district office was subsequently vandalized, and the congresswoman noted that Palin had put “the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district.”

“Metaphor incite murder?” Where? When? Who? WTF? Just one example would be helpful, but apparently Mr. Daly is far too busy drooling his hysterical rant to pay attention to such mundane details as proving such an outrageously stupid charge.

Congratulations are in order to Mr. Daly for topping the rest in vitriolic hate of Sarah Palin. The competition was stiff, but Daly prevailed due to his mindlessly idiotic “analysis” of the tragedy.

I leave it to AT readers to come up with an appropriate prize.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/and_the_winner_of_the_most_biz.html at January 09, 2011 – 10:16:30 AM CST

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):