I share the views of the majority of political commentators and must disagree heartily with a number of my Race colleagues; Sarah Palin’s decision to resign her Governorship with 17 months remaining is, if anything other than a desire to (for whatever reason) exit politics, a reckless and irresponsible move.  Writing this gives me no pleasure.  I have been, if not a Palin booster, at least a Palin fan.  But, there’s something profoundly unnerving about Palin’s decision, which cuts against most of her appeal.  Philip Klein puts it this way:

However, to all but her most loyal supporters, today’s bizarre press conference made her look brittle — like a person who couldn’t take the heat and was buckling in the face of attacks.

It may not be fair, but to succeed, a female politician has to come off 10 times tougher than any man — “Iron Lady” Margaret Thatcher being the most obvious example. One of the things that Palin had going for her was that she was, as Cindy McCain described her during the Republican National Convention, a “hockey-mommin’ … basketball shootin’ … moose huntin’ … fly-fishin’ … pistol-packing … mother of five.” She had been nicknamed “Sarah Barracuda,” and took on the “good ole’ boys” who controlled Alaska politics.

Klein nails it.  The “Rugged Frontier Woman” narrative was always more plausible as a national pitch than turning herself into the cultural zeitgeist for a dwindling number of conservatives.  It also had the added advantage of potentially allowing her to seem serious, without wracking up the kinds of experience that normally confers seriousness.  What’s left of it now?  Did the Rugged Frontier Woman abandon her post because the guys thought she looked silly in all that fur?  No one, least of all me, will deny that Palin was savaged mercilessly and beyond all reason by the national press corps and the Republican establishment.  I will forever hold a grudge against the latter because of the way they played this game. 

But, the Republican establishment, no matter how mean-spirited and effete, ought to be a mildly challenging sparring bout for someone gearing up to face Manny Pacquiao.  That’s what the Presidency is, after all- the hardest fight a politician will ever have.  Deciding that she’s not up for even the sparring match isn’t a character flaw- millions of sane people wouldn’t subject their family to such a strain and they still manage to live their lives with a quiet grace and dignity the average politician couldn’t begin to understand (more on this in a later post).  It is, however, for better or worse, a political flaw and about the only one that could keep a woman of Palin’s talent and stature from a prominent place in the 2012 firmament. 

But, to be honest, I don’t seriously think Palin expects to run in 2012.  I do not buy Kavon’s explanation.  Yesterday’s statement was all but incoherent and Palin’s normal brimming confidence seemed to be thoroughly shaken- this is not the way a future Presidential Candidate announces a, at best, controversial and wildly risky move.  Are there effective narratives I could see someone employing, in Palin’s situation, to get back into the game?  Absolutely, and Alex’s suggestion wasn’t bad; but none of those narratives seem at all like Sarah Palin; they’re- and I mean this as a compliment- too crafty by half.  They certainly don’t involve, as some have suggested, a campaign that effectively begins today.  An effective Palin bid would need to be a slow-play, with behind the scenes networking, and an “impromptu” draft.  And as Palin admitted yesterday (in about the only part of her statement that seemed genuine and coherent) she didn’t get into politics to play such games. 

What does this all mean for the 2012 race?  Honestly?  I have no idea.  It’s too bizarre and I’m still processing.  But, I think it ought to humble those of us who hope to analyze politics for a living; this stuff is wildly unpredictable and, even when you know the main variables, hard to get a fix on.  It’s possible I’m totally wrong here; Palin’s decision may dovetail neatly with a rising disgust for politics and politicians, thus positioning her to be the zeitgeist of more than just cultural conservatism.  I don’t think that’s where we’re headed, but then, I didn’t think we’d be seeing a first term Senator become President or a staid South Carolina Libertarian turn into a moonstruck 13-year old girl.  Them’s politics.

-Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

Michael Jackson’s death has moved media focus from their personal savior, Pres Barack Obama, to the life and times of one of the all-time performers in music (regardless of your thoughts of the man, his impact on music has been tremendous).  The resignation of Gov Palin has completely absorbed the political world (as evidenced by the 17 posts on the topic yesterday).

I’m not interested in plowing already-tilled earth here.  Today is the recognized birthday of the greatest country the earth has ever seen.  We are in turmoil within, the world is a dangerous place, and our leaders seem determined to reduce, not increase, our standing in the world through weakening us.  Even with all that, I can’t imagine a country I’d rather live in, and nothing is happening that we won’t be able to turn around in time.  God bless the USA, and thank you, Founding Fathers, for the courage and wisdom you showed 233 years ago that created this country, even if your initial concept is under seige.

I absolutely love America. I love it not because of “heritage,” or simply because of the accident of my being born here, but because of the virtues it represents and the opportunities that it affords individuals. My love for America is similar to the immigrant’s love: that of choice — of examining the landscape in an educated fashion and determining that the United States is truly the greatest country on Earth. There is nowhere else I’d rather live, no other country I’d rather lend my loyalty to.

America was founded as a beacon of classical liberal sentiment: of individualism, of religious tolerance, of free enterprise. It was an imperfect endeavor at its beginning, of course, but it was simply inevitable that we’d correct ourselves as we went along — it was impossible not to, given our virtues. President Clinton put it best, perhaps, when he said that “there is nothing wrong with America that can’t be fixed by what’s right with America.” When the words “all men are made equal” were enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, they proved stronger than the barbarism of slavery or the backwardness of limited suffrage. The momentum of freedom and liberty overcame our most glaring shortcomings. And still too should it continue to, in the hearts of free men (America, after all, is more than its federal government).

Those who were born here should reflect once in a while upon just how lucky they are. We are a country of roughly 300,000,000, or roughly a twentieth of the Earth’s population. The crude math alone says that there is a ninety-five percent chance that one will be born outside of America. Simply by being born in America, you’ve essentially won life’s lottery. I personally reflect even further — as most readers will be able to relate to — to think of how I was also born with the gift of intellect, health, and financial security.

And yet, so many of us remain unhappy from day to day.

Perhaps some of that unhappiness — that ungratefulness — would fade if we’d simply ‘count our blessings’ every so often. Being born in America is a fantastic opportunity to build a beautiful life for one’s self and one’s family. The virtues of our people have proved enduring. These virtues have created the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

Today, we tip our collective hat to our Founding Fathers, our veterans, our military, and those people — exceptional and unexceptional — who have built the foundation for us to live freely. Happy Independence Day!

1) Mitt Romney – Gov. Romney remains in the best position to win the GOP nomination in 2012. He continues to do everything right; good interviews, smart policy critiques of Obama without the red meat attacks, joining the he National Council for a New America, etc. He gave a wide ranging speech on national defense spending and budgets to the Heritage Foundation, the most convincing sign yet that Romney is all in for 2012.  Until someone else emerges clicking on all cylinders, he will remain poised as the undisputed front-runner for 2012. The misfortune of many 2012 potential candidates is beginning to make me think Mitt has a voodoo doll collection of GOP upstarts.  Their failings are Mitt’s gains, as he looks more and more the solid, intelligent, national leader with each passing day. Palin is just the latest Republican to make Romney look good by default.

2) Mike Huckabee – Palin’s resignation helps Gov. Huckabee more then any other candidate.  Huckabee is unlikely to be able to match Romeny over the long haul with limited resources without building momentum in Iowa and South Carolina.  Palin and Sanford have now helped make Huckabee the front-runner to repeat in Iowa, and given him an early edge in South Carolina.  Romney would have been well served with Palin and Huck splitting social cons, but now may not have that scenario to aid him.  Unless Palin’s new found freedom helps her build a strong network and leads to a 2012 bid, then Huckabee will certainly have the best early chance at topping Romney and becoming the front-runner.

3) Tim Pawlenty - Minnesota’s governor has the proven ability to win in the bluest of states (even Reagan never won Minnesota) with his blue-collar Republican message.  I imagine T-Paw’s  Sam’s Club populism could be quite effective in 2012 after years of bailouts and debt. He is also an evangelical, and could give Palin and Huckabee a run for the support of values voters.  Governor Pawlenty could appeal to all sectors of the party in ways that the Big Three from 2008(Romney, Huckabee, Palin) have failed to do. Having decided against a third term bid, Pawlenty is now free to build a national organization and shape his message for a GOP primary. With the stumbles and affairs of Jindal, Palin, Ensign, and Sanford, Pawlenty has the chance to become the new face in leading a revival for the GOP.

4) John Thune - Senator Thune is the most likely member of the Senate to get the GOP nod in 2012.  He has the conservative resume to win over the base, the looks and communication skills to win over the broader electorate, and a chance in the Senate leadership to become the rhetorical counter to Obama the next four years.  His lobbying ties and strong religious values could hurt him some with moderates. It seems more and more, however, that the Senator is making all the subtle moves to run. He has become the strategic point man to defeat Obama on Card-Check, Cap and Trade, and other legislation.  Senator Thune could emerge as a unifying figure in a field with a number of candidates who have difficulty winning over certain parts of the party; Romney with evangelicals, Huckabee with fiscal cons, Palin with moderates.  Sen. John Ensign’s scandal all but eliminates him as a potential 2012, and Thune stands to gain the most from it politically.  Not only does it eliminate a fellow senator and rival, but now Thune is the leading candidate to replace Ensign in the Senate Leadership, proof of Thune’s rising star.  If Palin is truly gone for 2012 and beyond, then look for the social cons to look for a new charismatic rock star, and Thune fits that bill better then most.

5) Newt Gingrich – The next generation of Republicans are not off to a great start, which makes it all the more likely that the party turns to an old hand to help revive it.  Speaker Gingrich, amazing as it is, is beginning to look like an old, steady hand compared to some of the young guns, and given his potential for bold ideas and solid fundraising, puts him back near the top of the list.  It is quite possible that if Obama fails that the country prefer a more proven, older leader to that of some new, young unknown.  However, Newt is the only ‘old guard’ potential candidate with 1994 cred and strategic acumen.  Gov. Barbour, in his former capacity as RNC chairman had a lot to do with 1994′s success, along with Gingrich, Dick Armey, and Bob Dole, and some would argue the most to do with the success that cycle.  If and when Obama falls short, the nomination could come down to two of the party’s smartest, most proven and controversial leaders.

6) Haley Barbour - Governor Barbour is perhaps the greatest strategist in the party.  Putting those considerable skills to use, he could build a strong campaign and give himself a good chance to win the primary.  However, Barbour is also the man who virtually invented modern lobbying and ran the most powerful lobbying firm in D.C., and while this may make him a legend to the inside-the-Beltway crowd, it would make him a tough sell to average voters.  Barbour is still going to be a very important player in the rebuilding of the party, whether he runs or not. Mark Sanford’s affair and resignation as head of the RGA moves Barbour into the leadership role ahead of schedule, and elevates Barbour by process of elimination. As troubles for other governors mount, Barbour could continue this elevation by his competence alone, and further it with his famed political instincts.

(more…)

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, seems to be testing a line of attack just in case Palin is planning a primary challenge. The Senator released this statement today:

“I am deeply disappointed that the Governor has decided to abandon the State and her constituents before her term has concluded.”

I guess the beating Palin gave daddy still stings a little, eh Senator?

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

I think there are a lot of implications of Gov. Palin’s decision today – and for the record, I think she is far from done when it comes to politics. However, right now I want to open up another angle of this story. This move makes much more sense when viewed through the prism of Alaskan politics.

I have been asking myself this question for months – “if Sarah doesn’t run for re-election, what happens to the pipeline?” Had she simply not run for re-election, she would have triggered a competitive GOP gubernatorial primary, and run the risk of the “Good Old Boys Club” (or “CBC” for those Alaskans who understand that acronym) taking the GOP nomination and the governorship. Otherwise known as the “Republican Majority”, this group is vociferously anti-Palin and even functions as a SEPARATE PARTY in the State Senate – where both the majority and minority leaders are Republicans, due to the “Majority’s” decision to govern in coalition with the Democrat’s rather than work with their fellow Republicans. If they had taken the governorship, the pipeline project (and many other Palin programs) would have been near the top of the cut list.

However, by resigning now, Palin installs Sean Parnell as an incumbent before the 2010 primary. So, instead of fighting off a strong “CBC” challenger, Parnell will have a much clearer shot at keeping the office in Palinite hands for another four (or possibly eight) years. Sarah Palin did not give up on her reforms today – she institutionalized them, Now, they will not leave office with her, but rather continue under Gov. Parnell.

While we’re on the subject of Sean Parnell, I think we need to welcome him to the Governorship. In following Palin for so long, I have followed Parnell by default – both as Lt. Governor and as a congressional candidate. He’s a stand-up guy, a fine campaigner, and a fantastic leader for Alaska. In fact, with a little seasoning, he might be a good national candidate himself someday.

So, on beahalf of Palinites everywhere, I’d like to offer a toast to Governor-designate Parnell, all of the accomplishments of the Palin administration, and all of the fun we will be having now that “Gov. Palin” is now “just Sarah”. Something tells me this is only the beginning for Sarah, and I for one am more than ready for the next stage of this journey.

Call me schmaltzy for saying that – but it’s really no secret that I’m in the tank for Palin.

Huckabee gives a good long interview with a lot of praise for Sarah Palin. My wife shared observation that Huckabee doesn’t sound like he’d run against Sarah Palin.

In the last few Presidential elections the majority of candidates have been incumbents to some office (Governor, Senator, Vice President) when they ran for office.

However it looks like none of the 2012 Republican candidates will be officeholders.

Palin has bowed out.

Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty will all be former Governors.

Haley Barbour’s term as Governor ends in 2011. Jindal’s term ends the same time making it unlikely he’d run for re-election _and_ the GOP nomination at the same time.

Are there any realistic 2012 nominees who may run from a sitting office?

I’ve heard Rudy mentioned but I think it’s unlikely he’ll run for Governor then leave his state to run for President a few weeks after being sworn in. That’s ignoring the likelihood that he isn’t Governor of New York in 2011.

Palin 2012. Hypothetical narrative.

If this is what she runs on — and does it well — then watch the hell out:

I’m Sarah Palin, and I’m running to be Citizen-In-Chief.

I entered politics to change something. I ran to serve my state, the great state of Alaska, and then for the vice-presidency because I care about this country.

I saw first-hand the viciousness and pettiness that have made Americans fed up with politicians, politics as usual, and the destructive personal attacks that also go on far too often. Those sorts of things that public service should never be about.

I thought I could serve my country best by being removed from that environment.

I don’t need a title to bring  to Washington the change America really needs: a dose of humility in a federal government that has completely lost touch with its citizens.

So I come to you today as an Alaskan, as a parent of a soldier, and as a mother of five. I am running not as a member of the elite, of the establishment — but of the everyday. I ask to serve you as president because I have shared your experiences and I understand your disgust with the system. What we need today is not a ruler, but a servant. A servant of the people. A servant of America.

I will govern as first among equals,  not as your ruler. Not as the Queen of Washington, giving orders that descend from on high. I know firsthand how that culture of selfishness and personal destruction in Washington harms lives.  I ask for your support because I share your disgust with the system. And if you will fight with me, if you will put that trust in me to do that — then you can trust me, also, to change it.

Just a clarification: she meant that she was resigning because she didn’t want to be a lame duck. After she’d announced her intention to not run again, she immediately became a lame duck, and she had no interest in being one of those.

Yes, that just begs the question: why announce now if you’re just leaving because you don’t want to be a lame duck? Why not stick around a bit longer?

More from me soon…

Here are a few of my thoughts on what today’s surprise announcement means for the 2012 Republican nomination contest. I hope that everyone who reads this post remembers that I have not endorsed any candidate in this race, and feel I that I am quite far from being able to make that decision.

Question: So does this move mean that Sarah Palin is really running for President? I am hearing reports that she is done with politics…

Answer: Sarah Palin is, without a doubt, running for president in 2012. Disavow yourself of any notions to the contrary right now. Her speech today was, essentially, the first speech of her presidential campaign. She would not have dismissed Bill McAlister and replaced him with a spokesman who she felt was better able to handle the national media if she was through with politics.

You can also dismiss any rumor emanating from the MSM that Palin is through with politics, as these are likely intentional misdirections from Palin allies who undoubtedly keeled over with laughter upon seeing them reported on MSNBC.

Question: So why couldn’t Palin fulfill her term AND run for president in 2012?  Doesn’t there just have to be some scandal that is ready to break that would derail her governorship, prompting this move?

Answer: It is highly unlikely that there is a scandal on the horizon that prompted Palin to resign. Sarah Palin is a fighter would would be far more likely to remain in office and fight to clear her name that to run away into private life.

The answer to this question is actually rather simple. Palin knows that she will need to spend a great deal of time traveling the country in 2010 to campaign for Republican candidates. It is by this process that political capital is amassed and critical future endorsements are sealed. The problem is that she simply cannot do this while she is Governor of Alaska due to the time it takes to travel to the “Lower 48.”

Think about how much time it would take for her to travel and campaign for someone in Iowa: a commercial flight lasts over seven-hours one-way from Anchorage to Des Moines (and Gov. Palin does insist on traveling economy class on commercial flights for non-Alaska related business.) This means that she would spend nearly 15 hours just in travel time for a campaign stop in Iowa! It is twelve-hours one-way from Alaska to New Hampshire. So there is simply no way that Sarah Palin could campaign for Republican candidates across the nation while being Governor of Alaska.

This is the reason that she is resigning, not just announcing that she will only serve one-term. Her resignation is, in fact, the slam-dunk evidence that she is all in for 2012 (although I have no doubt that a desire to get her family out of the headlines is a strong motivating force for her as well.)

Question: Won’t resigning before serving a full-term hurt her presidential aspirations?

Answer: The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was a U.S. Senator for a year and change before ditching that job to run for President full-time. Obama’s election should end the argument for significant experience in public service as a requisite for running for president for the near future.

Palin has been governor for two-and-a-half years now. That compares very favorably with Obama’s career experience before assuming the presidency.

It is an open question as to how her decision to not fulfill a full-term of the job she was elected to will be perceived by voters. However, for the reasons I outlined above, Palin really had no choice but to resign if she wanted to run in 2012.

Question: So now that we know that Sarah Palin is running for President, what effect do you think this will have on the GOP primary race itself? Does any candidate have a clear path to the nomination?

Answer: It is hard to speculate until we know what the 2012 primary calendar will be, which we won’t know for some time. What if the California and Michigan primaries are held in May? Or the Florida Primary is in June? Will the Michigan Primary return to its more formal, later date?

I think we can surmise a few things at even this early date:

First off, a primary calendar along the lines of 2008, with many high delegate Northeastern states plus California following the first four contests of IA, NH, NV & SC, would help Mitt Romney against Sarah Palin quite a bit. However, it is extremely unlikely that the 2008 calendar with be repeated in 2012 with no serious Democratic primary contest. The frontloading phenomenon that made a Super-Duper Tuesday possible in 2008 was the product of a bipartisan effort in various state legislatures. There is no reason for Democrats to collaborate with Republicans this time around to re-create such a calendar.

Secondly, Mitt Romney’s path to the nomination mirrors John McCain’s. It is fairly easy to imagine Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee canceling each other out in the race (as Huck, Fred, and Romney did the last time) allowing Mitt Romney to win the nomination by reassembling the majority coalition that propelled John McCain to the nomination.

This will require Gov. Romney to adopt a different tone in this campaign than the one he did the last time around. Can he be the brilliant, innovative, competent and technocractic problem-solver that we thought he’d campaign as in 2008? Or will he once again decide to try to fight outside of his arena in a futile effort to become the candidate of social conservatives (anyone remember the government mandated anti-porn V-Chips in every computer sold in America?)  Romney will find even less success in this effort this time around against Sarah Palin–of this I can be sure.

Thirdly, this move by Palin makes Mike Huckabee the most important person in Republican politics for the time being, as the impact of his decision regarding whether to run for President will profoundly alter the race.

If he runs, he will likely engage Sarah Palin in a fight to the death over the Conservative Wing of the GOP, which in turn leads to a scenario where absolutely anything can happen. Who wins Iowa if Huckabee runs? Who wins South Carolina? What happens if Romney, as expected, carries New Hampshire and Nevada easily while Palin and Huckabee expend a tremendous amount of their resources to win IA and SC? Does Huckabee’s entrance into the race ensure that Mitt Romney travels the “McCain Path” to the GOP nomination?

Question: Could Huckabee’s refusal to run in 2012 result in a Sarah Palin landslide in route to the Republican nomination?

Answer: Well, there is an argument to be made that it could.

Palin without Huckabee in the race would likely dominate among self-identified “conservatives” (leading, perhaps, to the ironic scenario in which Romney supporters champion open primaries after decrying them in 2008.)

The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to legalize Gay Marriage makes it even harder for Romney to win Iowa this time around, as the most active traditional marriage advocates in Iowa are already highly suspicious of Romney’s actions as Governor of Massachusetts when Gay Marriage became legal in that state on his watch (although there are rumors that these same people are less than thrilled with Palin after her recent Alaskan Supreme Court  nomination–and, of course, there is really nothing more that could have been done by Gov. Romney after the MA Supreme court ruling.)

Gov. Romney also faces a major hurdle in South Carolina, which has been the definitive contest in the GOP nomination race since 1980. Many expected him to fair well there after gaining the endorsement of Sen. Jim DeMint, as well as allocating significant financial resources to the state. However, Gov. Romney was forced to resign from the contest in the week leading up to the primary, which resulted in a disappointing 4th place finish.

So if Palin is greatly favored to win IA and SC in a “Huckless” primary fight, why shouldn’t she be favored to win the nomination outright? Especially considering the fact that she will be armed with the resources to match Romney penny-for-penny in organizing the caucus states (as well as with the lesson learned by Hillary Clinton regarding the importance of this.)

The answer, I think, is that many Republicans will be able to imagine Mitt Romney defeating the sitting President of the United States in the debates. An event, where it to come to pass, that could play as big a role in Republican victory as Ronald Reagan’s defeat of President Jimmy Carter in their sole debate of the 1980 election.

I think that it is more difficult for rank-in-file Republicans to image Sarah Palin giving such a performance at this point in time. That does not mean that she is incapable of such a performance, however, should her dominating performances in the 2006 Alaskan Gubernatorial debates be any guide.

The bottom line is that it is a long, long, ways until 2012–and there are certainly events yet to unfold that will profoundly influence the race (Newt Gingrich’s eventual entrance for example.)

But one of the most significant events of this race did indeed unfold today, July 3rd, 2009.  For it is this day that we gained the knowledge that Sarah Palin was, indeed, going to run for President.

___________________________________________________________________________

This post is dedicated to the memory of Dean Barnett, who was the originator of the FAQ format in the Blogosphere.-KWN

Meet Linda Kellen Biegel, aka Celtic Diva.  She is a radical left-wing blogger who has hounded the Governor relentlessly. She is just one of thousands of lefty nutcases who’s bloodlust for Palin’s scalp was all that drove them, and what will continue to drive them even after she has left office.  Those who are upset or disappointed in Palin’s decision have to ask yourselves, would you put your kids through it?  Would you continue to take hit after hit from fat slobs like Biegel, Olbermann and others while your young children remain victims of their onslaught?  Palin was a woman with the nomination of her party in the palm of her hand, the first woman ever in such a position, and she gave it up to protect her family from the very worst of what our country has to offer.  The pure scum that make up much of these lefty blogs, cable news, and every newspaper from NY to LA simply were not worth tolerating, the power of the Presidency not worth seeing your children destroyed.  It’s really a remarkable indictment of the so-called elite, how they delight in ruining a human being and her small children, but in the end it may provoke a change in how the chattering classes work. Maybe a backlash will begin against those who caused this, maybe they will finally be held to account for betraying the trust that America instills in it’s press, and for giving up their integrity and their dignity to become advocates of leftist ideology and of this President.  Maybe, just maybe, there will be justice for Sarah Palin.

UPDATE: Almost on cue, Huffington Post proves why Palin wants to get her family away from the press:

PALIN WILL RUN IN ’12 ON MORE RETARDATION PLATFORM

So Barack, this is the change in discourse you said you’d bring?  FAIL

UPDATE:** Huff is trying to cover their tracks, here are screen shots of the story taken before the Huff coverup.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

Say what you want about Governor Palin, but she’s got cojones… big ones.  I don’t know what to think about this decision. 

Is she running for President? 

Is she going to run for Governor of South Carolina? 

Is she  trying to kill her political career because she’s jealous of the attention Michael Jackson has been getting lately post mortem?

If I believe her side of the story, then I think it’s an admirable decision, on a personal level.  Her family has been tarred and feathered by the media in blazingly hypocritical fashion.  She also has a newborn child with special needs. 

(Off topic:  The news said a few minutes ago that she has a daughter named Willow???  Huh… If she’s worried about the scrutiny towards her children, then why on earth did she name one of her daughters Willow???  Madmartigan!!!)

If I believe that she decided to resign because it was costing the state of Alaska money for them to be under the constant barrage of silly claims made about her and making it too difficult for her to be an effective governor… then she’s a damn American hero. 

On the other hand, If I believe that she is doing this to better position herself for a run in 2012, then I have no use for her.  She would be everything her critics have made her out to be:  incompetent and completely unfit for the highest office our country has to offer, not to mention a quitter.

I’m utterly baffled by this decision.  Up until now, I’ve been somewhat… what’s the word I’m looking for… uncommitted about Sarah Palin.  It’s no secret that I wasn’t terribly impressed by her during the 2008 campaign, but I’ve kept a somewhat open mind about her in 2012- not heaping unwarranted praise upon her, but not criticizing her.  Now,  I don’t know what to think about her… she’s either a hero or a baffoon.

Mixed signals about her future continue to come out:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin plans to remain extremely visible and will give serious consideration to running for president in 2012, but has made no decision, a close friend said after her startling announcement Friday that she will resign her office.

Friends say Palin plans to spend time writing her book, which is due this fall, then promote it heavily when it comes out in spring 2010.

Read the whole thing here.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell has been informed that Sarah Palin is departing from politics completely, and will not pursue the presidency in 2012.

Talking to people who are very close to Sarah Palin, I have been told that she has told her supporters, she is out of politics. Period. She is fed up with politics. She doesn’t like her life. She feels that she needs to raise her family. She’s sick of the commute from Wasilla to the capital. And she really does not want to run for higher office — that this is not a case where she is stepping down en route to clear the way for a presidential run. In fact, she has told some of her biggest backers in the national Republican Party that they are free to choose other candidates for 2012, which, of course, opens new avenues for Mitt Romney, for Tim Pawlenty, for other potential candidates who are very definitely in the running.

Hmm… OK

Several explanations abound.

The most obvious, of course, is that she’s prepping for a 2012 campaign. She wants to walk away as quietly as possible, burying this in the middle of the three-day holiday weekend. In the meantime, she’ll write her book — which will be personal but also filled with policy ideas; it will be The Manual for the 2012 operation — and devote all of her time to studying foreign policy and national-level economics. She has truly, seriously decided to get ready to debate Romney, Huckabee, and company — and Barack Obama. She knows that she can’t fulfill her duties as governor in 2009 and 2010 while becoming a serious study when it comes to foreign policy (as well as raise kids and keep her profile high amongst the national in-charges). She wants time to assemble a top-notch team. Alaska is far removed from the rest of the country. It’s a long way to DC — to say nothing of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. She wants to be president, but does not want to merely float by with her — let’s face it — limited knowledge.

And she doesn’t want to wait. She wants to take a chance, here, before her star power fades. She understands that her stock is limited.

She’s not worried about questions of experience, because she can just shoot back that her opponent was hired after being a senator for only a couple of years, while she was a governor for a couple of years. Good enough, right? That’s the new standard.

She just hired a new spokesman, so it’s not like this doesn’t line up with what’s going on. And now that she’s gotten “credit” for the natural gas pipeline deal, well…

Of course, there are the alternative, semi-plausible explanations, but they don’t account for the new hire:

* She’s utterly sick of the media spotlight and just wants to be a mom again.

* We haven’t seen the end of this: there’s a scandal involved and she’s stepping down so as not to cloud the integrity of the office.

* She’s tired of having her money sucked up by ethics “scandals.”

But I seriously doubt it.

She’s running in 2012, and she’s using this time in the interim to campaign for candidates in the lower 48, build ties, study up, and refine her message.

Count on it.

Another day, another complete idiot:

A local teacher accidentally put pornography into a DVD that was meant to be filled with school memories from the past year, and nobody caught the error until after it was sent home, shocking parents and students alike.

Parents of students who attend Isabelle Jackson Elementary said that the woman is a good teacher, but just made a mistake that may become the most embarrassing moment of their life.

The offending DVD starts with a menu screen that displays various school trips and functions, and when you click on one of them, you see kids in a classroom sharing stories. They start clapping, then the video suddenly cuts to sex.

“It goes from my son, straight to her on the couch,” said ‘Joe,’ who saw the video along with his son and did not wish to be identified. “My son’s reaction was, ‘Dad, is that Ms. Defanti?’”

“We were up till midnight doing the ‘birds and the bees,’” he added.

The person in the video turned out to be Isabelle Jackson Elementary fifth grade teacher Crystal Defanti.

“All she could say was that it was a horrible mix up,” Joe said.

The teacher called his home the day after his child got the DVD, crying hysterically, profusely apologizing and asking the man and his wife to call every parent they knew to stop their kids from seeing the DVD too.

The Elk Grove Unified School District says they are investigating, but legal experts say it’s unlikely that the teacher will lose her job.

“It’s felony stupid, but it’s not a crime,” said defense expert Ken Rosenfeld. “Is it something that she should be disciplined for? Absolutely, but fired for? She didn’t intend for this to happen.”

Joe doesn’t care if the teacher keeps her job, he’d just like some help from the school.

“Maybe offer some sort of counseling for my children, ask me how my children are doing,” he said. “I want somebody to ask me the kind of questions my kids are asking me.”

School officials say a new DVD will be sent to students once it has been reviewed.

 

Do you think she should be fired?  Should law enforcement become involved?  You could make an argument that she was distributing indecent materials to minors, but since she did not do it knowingly, then it is technically not a felony. 

Still, she is guilty of one thing… 

(more…)

She couldn’t govern Alaska and run a presidential campaign in the lower 48 (and be a mom) at the same time.

One of them had to give. Alaska is hours away from Iowa and even further away from New Hampshire. South Carolina is further still.

Not even superwoman can do it all. Especially when her main rivals are freed from their duties, busy punditing around.

So the former gave. Consider this her official announcement that she’s running for president in 2012. This will make her more experienced than Barack Obama was when he ran. She has calculated, I imagine, that the ‘not experienced’ canard won’t work, because of that, should she become the nominee. But can she show the American people that she has the judgment? That will be her question.

Still waiting on Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee to announce…

UPDATE: She’s resigning!

Despite the fact that most Americans are already happy with their health care, including the uninsured, the radical left has convinced the nation that there’s a crisis. (There is a crisis in health care, actually: it’s called Medicare, and it’s not going to pay for itself. But I digress…) So to fix this “crisis,” Barack Obama and his cheerleaders are promoting what they call a “public” option to promote more “competition” in the health care market. Sounds awfully capitalisty. Competition and all that.

But what they mean, of course, is a government option funded by taxpayers to naturally monopolize the health care market. It isn’t “competition” for one side to start out with unlimited resources and three hundred million donors to the kitty. If you think that the government option is going to merely “compete” with the private sector, then take a look at the education system. “Public” “schools” are merely “competing” with the private sector. Such is the essence of socialistic policies: everyone’s covered. Poorly.

Obama wants everyone to have “the same care as Congress has,” as if that were possible.

How about Congress send their kids to the schools they force everyone else to send their kids to? Even the federal government itself doesn’t trust what it’s doing.

Perhaps one day we’ll be so well-covered, just like Britain, that our government bans life-saving drugs because they’re too expensive. Hooray for “universal” “health care”!

Or maybe private care will be made illegal, like in Canada. (They were more honest about where “competition” leads, it should be said.)

No one can “compete” with the behemoth “public” option. The multi-trillion dollar federal government is better-funded than any other operation in the universe and can crush everything in its path. It did it to our schools. If you want our health care quality to look like our schools, then sign on to the Obama plan. But please call it what it is.

Gregory D.  Lee has an excellent editorial on Sarah Palin and the fear she generates in Democrats.

Recently, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin traveled to Auburn, New York, and led a parade to celebrate Founder’s Day and help raise money to build a museum to honor William Seward, the secretary of state who was instrumental in acquiring Alaska for the country. Twenty thousand people attended the event chanting, “Run, Sarah, run!”  

Would Sen. John Kerry attract that many people in Massachusetts for a similar event? Not likely.

That’s the rub with Democrats. They see Gov. Palin as a unifying force within the Republican Party who will bring a credible challenge to its power base. Her rock solid conservative credentials, coupled with charisma, affable personality and abundance of common sense, scare the hell out of Democrats who have already started demonizing her before she gets too much more traction. Unfortunately for the Democrats, she is the most popular Republican since her vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech at the 2008 convention, and there are no signs her popularity is waning. In fact, it seems to increase with every Democratic attack hurled toward her.

Last week an esteemed former Democratic presidential nominee and sitting member of the U.S. Senate, took the latest juvenile potshot at Gov. Palin. After hearing that South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford had gone missing for several days to have a rendezvous with his Argentine mistress, Sen. John Kerry remarked to a group of businessmen, “Too bad if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.” What a guy! It’s too bad he didn’t go missing in Vietnam where he could have had long conversations with Sen. John McCain.

To compound his stupidity, at the time of Sen. Kerry’s remark, Gov. Palin was overseas visiting members of the Alaska National Guard who were called to active duty, to express her thanks and support for their service. Contrasting this patriotic gesture, Sen. Kerry is on record accusing U.S. soldiers of terrorizing women and children in Iraq.

I heard something about Sen. Kerry being a Vietnam veteran during his presidential campaign. (Who didn’t?). While running for president, Democrats wanted you to forget that as an anti-war advocate, he lied in congressional testimony about witnessing alleged atrocities committed by military members. He also lied about being in Cambodia on a secret mission when no such mission took place. But he gets a free pass from liberals and the press (I know that’s redundant) because lying is acceptable to achieve their goals of undermining national defense and raising taxes.

David Letterman’s writers seized the opportunity to slam Gov. Palin on her recent visit to New York City to accept an award as a strong advocate for children with disabilities. During one of his monologues, Letterman said that Gov. Palin and her daughter were attending a baseball game at Yankee Stadium and “during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.” It turned out that the daughter accompanying the governor was her 14-year-old, and not the vilified 18-year-old Bristol Palin, who became pregnant out of wedlock. Regardless of which daughter was there, would any prominent Democratic woman governor be the butt of such jokes?

Letterman later reluctantly apologized, but the damage had already been done. Americans admired Gov. Palin’s composure, and Democrats cringed once again.

Gov. Palin’s popularity among liberals would increase substantially if she had aborted her Down Syndrome baby. Maybe, if she said she smoked but didn’t inhale marijuana, advocated open borders, opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, called the CIA a bunch of liars and believed in spreading the wealth around by spending trillions of borrowed dollars on the guise of “economic stimulus,” the media would fawn over her.

But that’s not Sarah Palin. She’s the real deal. She’s the antidote for President Obama, Sen. Kerry and their liberal friends in Congress. As president she would restore national security, fiscal responsibility and U.S. world leadership. And the Democrats know it.

The more Democrats hurl insults at Gov. Palin, the stronger and more resilient she becomes. If she should become the first woman president of the United States, she will always be compared to another non-white male president, President Obama.

I look forward to the comparison. Run, Sarah, run!

__________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

The 1970′s were a period of liberal hegemony. The Republicans elected in this era tend to be moderate and ineffectual opponents of liberalism. Republicans got elected by conservatives and then promptly went about disowning conservatives.

Conservatives hungered for a politician that would openly run as a conservative and push conservative ideas in the halls of power.

Reagan succeeded for conservatives where all before him had failed. He was far from perfect but he was an honest conservative and he managed to keep liberals in their place.

Since then conservatives have looked for the next Reagan. In dark times like the present we look more forcefully for another Reagan.

This reminds me of an event in Christian history.

It was the practice in early Christian Churches for the congregation to stand, clap and scream “THIRTEENTH APOSTLE” when a preacher said something eloquently. Once Saint John Chrysostom said something very eloquent. As the crowd rose he sternly rebuked them and attacked the tawdry custom. However John Chrysostom was so eloquent that the crowd arose more forcefully to clap and declare him “THIRTEENTH APOSTLE”.

In our time getting called “the next Reagan” can be very bad for a Republican’s career. It raises expectations and causes disappointment. This happened with Bobby Jindal when he gave a mediocre rebuttal to Obama’s address to Congress.

I understand the thirst for a politician who can hold back the liberals who would take away our freedom and encourage individual dependence on Washington. We don’t want to see bureaucrats in DC determining whether our elderly parents can get pacemakers or have to settle for painkillers as Obama recently proposed.

We can’t wait for another Reagan and we shouldn’t be looking for another one. We must pave the way for conservative leaders by opposing Obama and building a grassroots movement to defeat his schemes to take away America’s freedom.

We don’t need another Reagan. We need millions of Paul Reveres to set off a new birth of freedom. Obama owns the media and the elites are in his pocket. However if we refuse to tolerate his actions we can beat the powerful interest groups that are pushing to control our lives and take away our freedom.

The very first thing that needs to happen is acceptance.  Whether there were irregularities that bring into question the legitimacy of this election (and I think there were), the fact of the matter is that Sen Franken was declared the winner, and no party with a vested interest is contesting this.  This was a close election, let there be no doubt of it, and had there not been a 3rd party candidate, Sen Franken would likely have won outright on election night.  Let us not act like Democrats, who still complain that Pres Bush stole 2000 and 2004 (no evidence shows either, only what if scenarios that could cut either way).  This puts Dems with 60 votes in the Senate, making a filibuster that much harder (though doable, because Dems have their DINOs that will sustain some of the filibusters).

Having said that, I think there’s a variety of election issues that we should be raising NOW, as opposed to trying to fight them in court after the election has occurred.  Generally, we’ll lose at that point, as the courts (rightly) are reluctant to make a change to how the votes were counted. (more…)

Jim Geraghty at NRO:

On MSNBC, the anchor just asked Dan Abrams whether Sanford’s turning down “perfectly good stimulus funds” counts as evidence that he is not psychologically stable.

Cable

I turned on my television at 6:00PM and checked out the cable news networks;

Fox: Major Marine Corps Offensive in Helmand Province, North Korean missile launch, WaPo’s new marketing campaign  and the rising unemployment rate.

CNN: Michael Jackson, Jermaine Jackson, Neverland Ranch, President Obama on Michael Jackson and MJ’s children.

MSNBC: Not exactly sure, as I have it blocked on my satellite. 

—

Sanford Comeback

State investigators have determined that Mark Sanford is innocent of the accusations that he fraudulently used State resources on his trips to Argentina.  I fully expect an apology from Anderson Cooper this evening for suggesting this crime, even though he lacked the evidence to prove the charge. 

It appears as if the crying and public repenting has satisfied Jenny Sanford, as she has decided to forgive her husband, despite calls from pundits for her to leave him in the barn with the rest of the game-cocks .

Sanford will not resign and I predict a comeback within 6 years.

—

Afghanistan

According to the Fox News story on the Marine offensive in Helmand province, President Obama has in fact adopted the LBJ strategy for fighting a counter insurgency.  The 4,000 Marines (some of whom were parachuted behind enemy lines) are battling the Pashtun militancy without air support.  Apparently the Obama administration is worried about collateral damage making its way into newspaper headlines in Europe. 

This event reminds me of something I wrote back in early April.

I had held out hope that the new administrations Afghan strategy would be similar to President Nixon’s Vietnam strategy, of using military means to force your opponent to the bargaining table while simultaneously preparing the local government for political and security self-sustainment.  What we are facing, is an inexperienced President, fearful of creating political waves, who is allowing our allies to withdrawal from Afghanistan while taking the focus and funding off of stabilizing the central government in Kabul.

God bless the Marines and protect them from the incompetent political leadership that is leading us into failure in Afghanistan. 

—

The Federal ATM

You have to give Sarah Palin credit for predicting the future.  The Governor of Alaska has predicted just about every policy move made by the Obama administration thus far.  In 2008 she warned us that Obama was looking to adopt a European style of socialism, by expanding the size of the US government and increasing taxes on middle America. 

Last month Governor Palin predicted that the Obama administration would offer bailout packages to States.  The word around States houses today, was exactly that.  The Obama administration is now willing to offer bailout packages to cash strapped States.  Since there are always strings attached to the Obama ATM, one has to wonder what exactly his administration will ask for in return (cough – health care reform)?

—

More Taxation

Speaking of health care reform, the Dodd-Kennedy-Obama plan will propose a $750 per employee head tax on companies that refuse to provide those on their payroll with health insurance.  The CBO estimates that this new tax will generated $36 billion in additional revenue.  CBO estimates on job losses and small business bankruptcies as a result of this new tax have not been released as of yet.

—

Team Mahmoud-Obama 

Now that the US media, the President of Iran and the Obama administration have successfully muffled the coverage of the brutal crackdown on women and youth in Iran, the Islamic Republic has restored SMS texting service.  

What was her name again?

__________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

From Rush earlier:

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, as a powerful, influential member of the media I am asked questions frequently as though I am an expert — which I am, of course.  One of the most often asked questions is, “How in the world did Obama get elected?  How can this happen?”  I call your attention to the story here in Florida where a guy and his girlfriend are living together. The guy has a nine-foot python in the house — and it does what snakes do, it snuck outta there.  And it strangled the woman’s baby girl.  Now, who…? There are a lot of things that I don’t understand.  That’s one of them.  It’s not the animal’s fault.  I mean, the python’s a python.  It strangles things.  “Yeah, but, Rush, it was an albino!”  So what?  It’s a sad situation. 

If you spent any time watching the news today, somewhere in between reports about Michael Jackson and Mark Sanford, you probably saw this story.  From the Associated Press:

OXFORD, Fla. — A Burmese python more than 8 feet long broke out of a terrarium and strangled a 2-year-old girl in her bedroom yesterday at a central Florida home, authorities said.

Shaiunna Hare was already dead when paramedics arrived at about 10 a.m., Lt. Bobby Caruthers of the Sumter County Sheriff’s Office said.

Charles Jason Darnell, the snake’s owner and the boyfriend of Shaiunna’s mother, discovered the snake missing from its terrarium and went to the girl’s room, where he found it on the girl, who had bite marks on her head, Caruthers said. Darnell, 32, stabbed the snake until he was able to pry the child away.

Authorities removed the snake from the home yesterday afternoon after obtaining a search warrant. Once outside the small, tan home, bordered by cow pastures, the snake was placed in a bag then inside a dog crate. The snake was still alive.

Darnell did not have a permit for the snake, which would be a second-degree misdemeanor, said Joy Hill, a spokeswoman with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. He has not been charged, but Caruthers said investigators were looking into whether there was child neglect or if any other laws were broken.

This story caught my attention when I heard it on the radio this morning, but it was not until I heard the 911 call being played repeatedly on the news channels today that it really got me mad. 

First of all, what in God’s name would possess some idiot to have this kind of animal in the house… especially with a toddler?  You have got to be a MORON to even consider such a thing.  I mean… unless you’re the F***in’ Crocadile Hunter then there is no excuse to have an animal of this nature around children.  Hell, they shouldn’t be around people at all. 

The Dorton family in Florence has had their Burmese python for one year. They said they hope the Florida tragedy won’t put a bad light what they call gentle creatures.

Belle is an albino Burmese python, and very similar to the snake that killed the 2-year-old in Florida.

“It’s tragic, absolutely tragic,” said Dolly Dorton. ”I have a 2-year-old grandbaby and a 5-year-old niece, so, they love her to death.”

Dorton said Belle has been a great pet. She only has to feed her every two weeks, and she never makes a sound.

“They are cold,” she said. ”She helps with my hot flashes.”

Many snake owners say that they actually make wonderful pets. Dorton did encourage anyone who wants a snake to remember they are dangerous if not handled carefully, and owners must be very responsible.

“If you have something of that size, its a danger,” said Vinnie Grosso with Florence Animal Control.

Grosso himself is the owner of two snakes. He said he doesn’t know the details of the Florida incident, but says there was probably a reason the snake attacked.

“A snake of that size is not going to go after a 2-year-old unless its very, very hungry,” he said.

Grosso said snakes can go up to a year without food, but if they have an opportunity to eat, they will.

“If you’re going to have a snake of that size, you can’t buy a cage,” he said. ”You have to have something built.”

And the most important part is to make sure the snake can’t get out.

The man who owned the snake that killed the child in Florida could face child endangerment charges.

Some “snake enthusiasts” will bring up the fact that only 12 incidents have been reported where a pet python kills its owner in the last twenty-six years, which is an accurate number according to experts.  Of course, less people have been killed by tigers in that same period (only 8), BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS SAFE TO HAVE ONE IN THE HOUSE AND RAISE IT LIKE A PET! 

And then having heard this jerk off’s 911 call played numerous times today, it’s safe to say that I’ve got no sympathy for them.  Yes, the child’s death breaks my heart, and she did not deserve to die the way she did, but THEY SHOULDN”T HAVE HAD A FREAKING SNAKE IN THEIR HOUSE. 

I’m completely with Rush on this:  It’s not the python’s fault.  The python did what a python does.  A python can not discriminate between a rat and a toddler when it decides that it’s dinner time, the way a domesticated dog would do. 

Let me use an example to show you what I mean:  a wolf mother cares for her pups until they are able to fend for themselves.  Here is the wikipedia article describing how a wolf is normally raised in the wild:

The gestation period lasts between 60 and 63 days. The pups, which weigh 0.5 kg (1 lb) at birth, are born blind, deaf, and completely dependent on their mother.  The average litter size is 5-6 pups, though there are two Soviet records of litters consisting of 17 pups.  The pups reside in the den and stay there for two months. The den is usually on high ground near an open water source, and has an open chamber at the end of an underground or hillside tunnel that can be up to a few meters long.  During this time, the pups will become more independent, and will eventually begin to explore the area immediately outside the den before gradually roaming up to a mile away from it at around 5 weeks of age. Wolf growth rate is slower than that of coyotes and dholes.   They begin eating regurgitated foods after 2 weeks of feeding on milk, which in wolves has less fat and more protein and arginine than dog milk.   By this time, their milk teeth have emerged — and are fully weaned by 10 weeks. During the first weeks of development, the mother usually stays with her litter alone, but eventually most members of the pack will contribute to the rearing of the pups in some way.  After two months, the restless pups will be moved to a rendezvous site, where they can stay safely while most of the adults go out to hunt. One or two adults stay behind to ensure the safety of the pups. After a few more weeks, the pups are permitted to join the adults if they are able, and will receive priority on anything killed, their low ranks notwithstanding. Letting the pups fight for eating privileges results in a secondary ranking being formed among them, and allows them to practice the dominance/submission rituals that will be essential to their future survival in pack life.  During hunts, the pups remain ardent observers until they reach about 8 months of age, by which time they are large enough to participate actively.

Now, compare that to the Burmese Python:

Burmese Pythons breed in the early spring, with females laying clutches which average 12–36 eggs in March or April. She will remain with the eggs until they hatch, wrapping around them and twitching her muscles in such a way as to raise the ambient temperature around the eggs by several degrees. Once the hatchlings use their egg tooth to cut their way out of their eggs, there is no further maternal care. The newly hatched will often remain inside their egg until they are ready to complete their first shedding of skin, after which they hunt for their first meal.

It is pretty dumb to think one could raise a pet wolf  because they are not safe, but wolves at least have some sort of sense of companionship.  The Burmese python, on the other hand, does not.  At the same time, the python in the Florida case didn’t know it was doing anything wrong.  To the contrary… 

The idiot who thought he could keep a nine foot predator in the same house as a toddler has no one to blame but himself.  I realise that he was angry and stabbed the snake to get it to release the child’s body, but in the end…  it didn’t know it was doing anything wrong.  It only followed it’s instincts.  The jackass who thought it was a good idea to keep a python in the same house as a toddler might not have suffered from a lack of instinct, just from having no common sense.

I missed a somewhat interesting post on New Majority a couple days ago (probably because I only glance at it on my googlereader feed about once a week).  The piece, “Dick Cheney’s Child and Mine”, is written by a woman named Elise Cooper and it makes a somewhat atypical call for gay marriage.  Her son, like Dick Cheney’s daughter, is gay and her plea is as much personal as political.  In arguments of morality, where premises are difficult to agree on and facts are often interminable, personal pleas can go a long way. Elise writes, in part: 

Why do I believe in gay marriage? On a personal note, as a mother, I want my son to find someone who he can spend the rest of his days with in a loving, long lasting relationship. After informing some of my Republican friends about my support of gay marriage, I got the gamut of reactions from “so what” to “gay marriage is simply not right.”   There were numerous reasons given by my Republican friends for being against gay marriage which I hope to counter in this article.

Some Republicans believe that civil unions should reinforce the rights of gay and lesbian couples. They told me “if a person got sick, they should be allowed to have visitors close to them.” Some went further, stating “there are those who should be allowed to make health care decisions for each other or be allowed to be put on each other’s insurance policy.” My response to them was that by accepting civil unions you are recognizing gay couples (except if you happen to live in Iran.) By being in support of civil unions there is the undeniable recognition of domestic partnerships. Therefore, civil unions promote “gay families.” Then why not call it marriage? 

These aren’t bad arguments and conservatives need to (and in most cases have) come to grips with them. Unfortunately, much of the rest of the argument doesn’t stand up to any intellectual or moral scrutiny.  Later: 

Other Republicans pointed out that the Bible prohibits homosexual activity and does not accept it as a lifestyle. I cannot accept that premise considering the fact that the Bible talks about other archaic practices such as stoning and polygamy. It seems to me that people choose to follow certain parts of the Bible while ignoring others. I want my son to continue to be a part of our religion and not to be turned away because of his beliefs or lifestyle. For me, the reality of religions is that everyone chooses to pick what they will follow from the Sacred Text.

Let’s leave aside, for the moment, that there are later parts of the Christian Bible (particularly the New Testament) which seem to take serious issue with the “archaic practices” Elise mentions.  Let’s even accept that, like Scalia’s faint-hearted originalist, some of us are faint-hearted Christians.  Even after all that, there’s still nothing remotely coherent about the bolded text.  How can someone be “part of a religion” if they don’t let it affect their beliefs or lifestyle?  Even the vaguest, watery spirtualism makes claims about proper lifestyle and right belief.  Imagine this reformulation: “I want my son to be a Vegan and not be turned away because he happens to like meat”.  Such a statement would strike even the most hardened cynic as incredible, but we barely notice the more consequential religious version. 

I don’t claim to know how central the doctrines on homosexuality are to Christianity (though I’m pretty sure it’s somewhere between Jerry Falwell Christianity and Elise Cooper Christianity). Still,  I think it’s troubling that we now take our diets more seriously than our religion.  Christianity has become, for the Elise Cooper’s of the world, a cultural artifact like Republicanism was for mid-20th century Northeasterners- divorced from the doctrinal background which made it a force to be reckoned with.  If the gay marriage crusade- wherever you come down on the issue individually- leads to a world where more people feel that religion shouldn’t interfere with your beliefs or lifestyle, then we’ll all lose out.

Barack Obama held a “forum” about health care yesterday. It was a throughly unenlightening affair, stacked from top to bottom with prearranged audience members and questions. The apex of the event, an emotional moment during which a woman hugged the president, who vowed to help her find a solution to her cancer, was scripted.

This comes on the heels of a scripted question at a presidential press conference from the liberal Huffington Post.

And let’s not forget the president’s scripted opponents — and his thoroughly scripted remarks and answers.

This is the showbiz age, and this is the showbiz presidency. Everything, from top to bottom, is scripted. There are no such things as actual “town halls,” “forums,” or legitimate interrogations of the president’s policies by opponents. There is no debate. There is no opposition.

There is no accountability. Congress is Democratic, with its sixtieth Democratic senator a lying pundit coming from showbiz. The press corps is Democratic, broadcasting “infomercials” from the White House. The president’s opponents are acknowledged only by the generosity of the president and his allies — and when they are acknowledged, they come in the form of 2-d cardboard cutouts, suitable only for knocking down.

In the hot new movie The Presidency, politics is a grand melodrama, not an exchange of ideas. The good guy, Change Agent Barack Obama, must defeat the villains: big corporations, “special interests,” “those who say change isn’t possible,” and above all, that wicked wretch Rush Limbaugh. They want to prevent change from coming to America. Will our hero be able to stop them before they deny the American people the change they need?

Frank Rich gives it “two thumbs way up!”

But this movie world exists only in the fantasy of the left. What will happen if the American people turn on this charade? What will happen if the Republicans retake Congress or bust the supermajority? What will happen if unemployment reaches double-digits? What will happen if there’s a true international crisis?

Could the script have a twist ending?

What will become of our hero? Stay tuned…

Quinnipiac National Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Approve 57% (59%)
• Disapprove 33% (31%)

Among Independents

• Approve 52% (57%)
• Disapprove 37% (30%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 52%
• Disapprove 42%

Among Independents

• Approve 47%
• Disapprove 46%

Who do you trust to do a better job handling the economy – President Obama or the Republicans in Congress?

• President Obama 54%
• Republicans in Congress 32%

Among Independents

• President Obama 49%
• Republicans in Congress 32%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling foreign policy?

• Approve 55%
• Disapprove 35%

Among Independents

• Approve 54%
• Disapprove 37%

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?

• Approve 46%
• Disapprove 42%

Among Independents

• Approve 37%
• Disapprove 48%

Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court?

• Approve 54% (55%)
• Disapprove 26% (25%)

Among Independents

• Approve 47% (53%)
• Disapprove 28% (26%)

Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]

• Barack Obama 58% / 30% [+28%]
• Democratic Party 42% / 42% [0%]
• Republican Party 25% / 52% [-27%]

Among Independents

• Barack Obama 55% / 33% [+22%]
• Democratic Party 30% / 49% [-19%]
• Republican Party 20% / 57% [-37%]

(more…)

I may be the guy with the reputation for wild speculation about candidates around here. At various times, I’ve specualted on Senate runs by Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) and Major General Bentley Rayburn (CO), started a comment riot by suggesting Sen. Judd Gregg as a national candidate, and latched on to State Rep. Laura Brod as a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate (more on that one in the next few days). However, even I thought that the idea I’m about to present was crazy when it was first suggested to me. However, there may now be a perfect storm brewing to make this scenario possible.  

A few months ago, I had an email conversation with my old friend Steve Maloney - who was one of my first endorsements at palinforvp.blogspot.com and a longtime partner in the “Draft Palin for VP” movement. At time, I was making a lot of noise about the potential to take out David Vitter with Joseph Cao, and I had asked his opinion on all of my ”Draft Cao” rhetoric. During the course of the conversation, he mentioned that the person he would most like to see drafted for office was author and columnist Amity Shlaes, who penned the now iconic history of the Great Depression, The Forgotten Man. At the time, we both lamented the fact that Schlaes was from deep-blue New York and went on with our lives. However, after reading today’s news, I’m starting to think that this is not such a far-fetched idea. 

At the moment, the GOP is scrambling to find a challenger for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand – who suffers from low popularity and is almost certain to face a tough primary challenge from Manhattan congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (no relation to Steve). Still, Rep. Peter King has said that he is now leaning against running,and while efforts are being made to lure former Governor George Pataki into the race, a Pataki candidacy appears far from certain.  So, in the event that both King and Pataki take a pass – the Republicans are out of luck. Furthermore, the race is complicated by the Democratic advantage in New York and the huge amounts of cash that would be needed to competed in such a huge state.  Some people might consider that an excuse to throw up our hands and quit the race, but I personally don’t like the idea of chickening out.

So, we need a well known candidate who can raise major moolah very quickly and convince moderates to swing against Gillibrand or Maloney. In other words, we need a celebrity candidate who is also an intellectual force to be reckoned with – in short, we need a bestselling author. Enter Amity Shlaes.

As the author of a book that is wildly popular in libertarian/conservative circles, Shlaes’ candidacy would instantly create excitement (and fundraising potential) among her fans around the country. She also has a number of devotees among the power elite of the GOP, as noted by The New Republic:

The Forgotten Man has been publicly touted by such Republican luminaries as Newt Gingrich, Rudolph Giuliani, Mark Sanford, Jon Kyl, and Mike Pence. Senator John Barrasso was so eager to tout The Forgotten Man that last month he waved around a copy and announced, “in these economic times, a number of members of the Senate are reading a book called The Forgotten Man, about the history of the Great Depression, as we compare and look for solutions, as we look at a stimulus package.” Barrasso offered this unsolicited testimonial, apropos of nothing whatsoever, during the confirmation hearing for Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

So, with the backing of tons of fans, Republican officials, and New York heavyweight Rudy Giuliani, Shlaes would be in a very good position to raise the money and get the publicity she would need to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand. Plus, with Giuliani likely to be campaigning for governor against the unpopular David Paterson, it is likely that Shlaes could quickly be associated with Giuliani (and Gillibrand with Paterson).

Even if she fails to unseat Gillibrand, running Shlaes would still be worth the effort, as it gives us a chance to put a top-flight conservative intellectual on the air in America’s biggest media market. By 2010, Obama’s popularity will likely have waned further, and depending on the state of the economy, running an expert on the economics of the Great Depression would do a lot to dispel many of the Democrats’ claims that they are saving us from a new Depression. Merely inserting Amity into the public debate would be invaluable, as she has the intellectual haft to slice, dice, and julienne the claims of the opposition.

Am I saying this is definitely going to happen? No. I have no clue whether Shlaes would even be interested in pursuing elected office. However, if Pataki takes a pass, we will need a highly unorthodox strategy in order to compete in New York. At least on paper, Amity Shlaes provides many of the necessary ingredients for a successful campaign. She might not be interested, but if I were John Cornyn at the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), I would definitely be giving Amity a call.

So, comments section, what say you?