President Obama Knocks "Drill, Baby, Drill" in Energy Policy Speech

As the Hill points out, in an uncharacteristic move, President Obama went off teleprompter to get in a dig at Governor Palin during his speech on energy this morning.

As shown in the clip above, President Obama stated:

But here’s the thing – we’ve been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon. I remember because I was in the middle of a Presidential campaign. Working folks haven’t forgotten that. It hit a lot of people pretty hard. But it was also the height of political season, so you had a lot of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians waving three-point-plans for two-dollar gas – you remember that-'drill, baby,drill'-we were going through all that. And none of it would really do anything to solve the problem. There was a lot of hue and cry, a lot of fulminating and hand wringing, but nothing actually happened. Imagine that in Washington.

However, in his prepared remarks released to the press, this portion of his speech reads (emphasis mine):

But here’s the thing – we’ve been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon. Working folks haven’t forgotten that. It hit a lot of people pretty hard. But it was also the height of political season, so you had a lot of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians waving three-point-plans for two-dollar gas – when none of it would really do anything to solve the problem. Imagine that in Washington.

President Obama characterizes Governor Palin as an "outraged politician". However, the Obama administration has repeatedly claimed they don't think about Governor Palin. This is not the first time that President Obama has taken a political shot at Governor Palin's comment during a policy speech. In his speech in September of 2009 where he tried to sell his form of health care reform, he stated that the claim that Obamacare include "death panels" was "a lie, plain, and simple". Of course, it has been shown again and again that "death panels", rationing via bureaucratic decision making, are present in Obamacare. We have addressed this numerous times, here, here, here, and here to name a few.

Beyond the political shot at Governor Palin during what was supposed to be a policy speech, it is clear that President Obama sees every speech as a campaign speech. In 2008, Republicans, namely Governor Palin, saw "drill,baby, drill" as a mantra representing a solution to make America energy independent. However, when the America people bought the "hope and change" mantra over the "drill,baby,drill" mantra, there's little wonder that " nothing actually happened", as President Obama said. Hope and change is little more than a platitude, yet in many ways, it is indicative of the energy policy that President Obama has implemented since he was elected.

Governor Palin has highlighted many of the wrong-headed energy initiatives that President Obama has touted are unproven and can only be pushed because liberals hope that they work. In her Facebook post earlier today, Governor Palin highlighted the "boondoggle" of President Obama's support of electric cars:

It’s a lot more viable than subsidizing boondoggles like these inefficient electric cars that no one wants. I’m all for electric cars if you can develop one I can actually use in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. But these electric and hybrid cars are not a quick fix because we still need an energy source to power them.

The promotion of electric cars as a means of reducing Americans dependence on energy is laughable, as the majority of the time these electric cars will be charged using electricity generated from fossil fuels, and like Governor Palin said electric cars are horribly impractical in many areas like Alaska.

Beyond this "hope and change" energy policy idea, President Obama is right to say that "nothing has happened", because despite his claims that his administration has increased drilling, the opposite has happened. Yes, he has advocated for drilling, but his biggest recent push for drilling has been in Brazil, not America. He has been slow to issue deep water drilling permits, and a few of these have been for projects that started prior to last year's oil spill, not new projects. Additionally, the EPA redtape has held up Arctic drilling for Shell until 2012. If he has promoted drilling, it's akin to someone tying a runner's shoes together, then telling them to go run a mile.

President Obama continues to also falsely claim that America has only 2% of the world's oil resources. American Solutions highlights the fact that this number is taken from only taking into account the reserves where we are already drilling--not the billions and billions of untapped barrels of oil that we are currently not accessing, due in large part to what Governor Palin has characterized as a "moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico as well as the de-facto moratorium in the Arctic". The 2% of worldwide oil resources is only in light of the fact that we are not drilling for oil where we do have it. In fact, a recent Congressional study showed that America has recoverable more fossil fuel--oil, natural gas, and coal--resources than any other country in the world. Governor Palin has often said that we have the resources, the workers, and the ingenuity for energy independence, all we need is the political will:

Cars and businesses cannot be fueled and homes cannot be heated by an energy policy of "hope and change". However, when "drill, baby drill" is implemented bringing economic, monetary, energy, and national security, it not only contributes to an "all-of-the-above approach" to energy independence, but also addressing many problems we face in America.

As Governor Palin says, "2012 can't come soon enough".

Thank you to Sheya at C4P for providing both video clips.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Fact Checking President Obama's Lack of Leadership on Libya

As we linked yesterday in a post on Mediaite's poor "attempt" at semantics checking of Governor Palin's appearance with Greta van Susteren , surprisingly the Associated Press provided a pretty scathing fact check of President Obama's speech on Libya. Using 18% of the number of staff that the AP used to fact check Governor Palin's book Going Rogue, they addressed President Obama's misrepresentation of America's role in NATO, the unclear statement of America's military mission, a lack of a clear communication of America's interests in Libya, his false claim that Gadhafi's advances have been stopped, and the false claim that America intervenes in all unjust and tyrannical situations that it verbal condemns. Beyond these fact-checked claims, as Governor Palin put it last night, "the Obama doctrine is still full of chaos and questions". He did not make himself clear. Additionally, as usual, he pointed back at the Bush administration for what he perceived as failures, and for praising supposed successes that haven't shown . However, the overarching false claim is that President Obama stated that "real leadership" has taken place.

The first area that the AP addressed was President Obama's discussion of America's role within NATO. While President Obama stated that as a coalition, NATO would be taking a leading role and the US would be be supporting, the AP points out that America provides 22% of NATO's budget, and much of its personnel leadership. Essentially, there is some inconsistency in the state role of America in Libya. However, beyond his words, President Obama's action lacked proper leadership. The NATO leader of military operations in Libya is a Canadian,yet when he spoke with world leaders in a secure conference call, he included France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Canadian leadership was not included. As America is very much a leader in NATO, it shows a lack of leadership when key players aren't included in important discussions.

The AP also addressed that President Obama stated America's military mission was saving lives, but at the same time, the efforts also seemed to allow the rebels to advance. Additionally, President Obama's military mission was understated and his diplomatic and political missions were overstated. Beyond this inconsistency, President Obama tried to tie America's efforts in hastening the ousting of Gadhafi to America's interest in the world. Governor Palin addressed both the mission's effect on the Libyans and on Americans last night:

It's very disappointing that we didn't hear that commitment from our president, that America's interests lie in Qaddafi being ousted. And without that being met, you know, I have to again ask why in the world will our military might be used according to the U.N. and Arab League desires and NATO's leadership in this skirmish or this war or whatever it is that Obama calls it or doesn't want to call it.

[...]

Well, if we were going to protect civilians, doesn't that mean, then, getting rid of the bad guy? And hasn't the president already said that Qaddafi's the bad guy? He said that some weeks ago, when those of us who supported the no-fly zone said, yes, get in there and act. Get rid of him then. And then the tune changed coming from the White House and...

This presents another aspect of President Obama's failed leadership--choosing his own channels of approval for his chosen mission. The AP addressed that it is disingenuous for President Obama to say America is handing over the reins to NATO when America funds and leads NATO to a great degree. At the same time, this pseudo change in optics does not show America's leadership, but rather a willingness to allow others to lead in areas where President Obama has placed American troops. Beyond this, President Obama even admitted that he went to NATO, the UN, and the Arab League before consulting with Congress. A lot of questions have been raised about the Constitutionality of President Obama's actions, the rhetorical and substantive differences between "intervention" and " declaring war", and a whole host of other issues. Suffice it to say, President Obama sought the input and approval of worldwide governing bodies prior to " consulting" with Congress, in essence pruning off one branch of government and grafting in three others when it comes to the "kinetic military action" in Libya.

The AP also addressed the problem with President Obama's assertion that America always intervenes when there is a foreign atrocity and human rights are being violated, when reality shows the Obama administration is selective, as Governor Palin addressed last night herself:

Well, he did not articulate really what our purpose was, except some inconsistent humanitarian effort there in Libya. And yet the inconsistency lies with the questions now being asked, well, why not Darfur, why not North Korea? What are we going to do about Syria? All these other areas where I guess America could intervene with our power and resources to help humanity.

Governor Palin has highlighted President Obama's inconsistency on humanitarian efforts and human rights violations in Iran and elsewhere in the past as well. The focus here is not to say where America should or shouldn't intervene or where we should devote resources, but instead to highlight President Obama's inconsistency and false claims.

As is his trademark, President Obama pointed back to the Bush administration and what he sees as failures with the war in Iraq and mentions the success of uprisings in Egypt when there is more concern about Egypt's current trajectory of leadership. President Obama can't seem to make up his mind. While the war and Iraq has cost a lot of money and sadly a lot of American lives, President Obama tends to blame President Bush for these costs, yet tends to take credit for the successes in Iraq, referencing in his speech that Iraq is now "left to its people" and combat troops are gone. The Obama administration wants to point fingers to the Bush administration to apportion blame in the costs and time devoted to Iraq, but want to take credit for the success, even as far as Vice President stating a little over a year ago that Iraq (the war that Obama opposed as a Senator) was one of the President's greatest achievements. In his speech, President Obama praised what has happened in Egypt saying it had inspired and changed our hopes and was inspired by how young people were involced. However, as Governor Palin warned in January, with Mubarak out of power in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood with their lack of regard for Israel, women's rights,and other things, has taken a greater role in creating a new government and the young people of Egypt are not a political driving force.

President Obama's most laughable claim is that what he has done has shown "real leadership in Libya". President Obama's speech did not clarify what America's true interests were in Libya. He did not give a picture of an endgame, nor a clear idea of what role our military will take in these NATO led efforts. He rose more questions than answers in his speech. Governor Palin characterized the Obama doctrine as "full of chaos and questions" and his leadership as "intervention by ad hoc policy". In essence, Governor Palin highlighted the biggest false "fact" of President Obama's speech--real leadership has not been shown.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Governor Palin's Role--Point Guard or Cheerleader?; Updated

In recent weeks, it seems that the chorus of voices telling Governor Palin what she should or should not do has grown louder and louder. Earlier this week, Bill Kristol asserted that Governor Palin should not and could not be the GOP nominee for President in 2012. Andrew Breitbart and Ann Coulter have also weighed in recently on Governor Palin's presidential possibilities, both of them stating that it would be a "step down" for her to run for the presidency or that the presidency is "beneath her". Breitbart and others have asserted that Governor Palin's best place in politics would be as Kingmaker or Queenmaker--cheering on from the sidelines those who are in the game. All of these assertions begs the question--can you really ask a point guard to take the role of a cheerleader?

In Kristol's assertion about Governor Palin's potential for a 2012 run and nomination, he first disrespects both Governor Palin and the American electorate. Kristol stated that Governor Palin was " unlikely to be the Republican nominee, and to be honest I think she probably shouldn't be the Republican nominee for president". In response to Kristol's ridiculous statement, Mark Levin tweeted on Wednesday:

Thanks Bill but, frankly, who asked? We believe in the real democracy project here, and the people will decide. http://fb.me/UJLwfH2d

Levin is right. To be sure, pundits' and talking heads' jobs involve discussing political campaigns, polls, and the viability and potential of possible candidates. However, Kristol said Governor Palin shouldn't be the Republican nominee, which is not his call to make. That judgement is left to the American people through their vote, not the pundocracy through their megaphone. Kristol is entitled to his opinion, but he's not entitled to shape the opinion of the entire electorate.

Kristol also laughably stated that Governor Palin hadn't taken the lead on the issues since stepping aide from the Governor's office:

I thought she had a real chance to take the lead on a few policy issues, do a little more in terms of framing the policy agenda. I don't think she's done that.

Governor Palin has taken the lead on several issues since stepping aside from the Governor's office. Dare I say, she's effectively been running point for the conservative offense since she was announced as Senator McCain's running mate. Governor Palin has both taken the lead on many issues and has even influenced the Obama administration to take action on a few occasions. Governor Palin made a strong statement on the war an Afghanistan in Augusts of 2009 signing on to a letter to President Obama with Bill Kristol himself--something he seemingly forgot. Governor Palin's famous "death panel" Facebook post laid out the problems of rationing, bioethical concerns, and the improper role of government in the health care reform proposal of Democrats. She framed the debate by framing both the rhetoric and the policy. She has taken a lead on the issues by warning of the problems of quantitative easing and the resulting rise in commodity prices that would follow. She is the only potential Presidential candidate to endorse Congressman Ryan's roadmap-- a serious and effective way to address entitlement reform and our massive national debt. Of course, no one can call plays on the issue of energy independence better than Governor Palin, recognizing both the problems with the inhibitory policies of the current administration and the solutions needed to make America energy independent. When President Obama showed a complete lack of leadership and total ineptness following the oil spill in the Gulf last Spring, Governor Palin encouraged him to meet with the head of BP to appropriately address the spill, and eight days later, President Obama did. During the uprisings in Egypt, Governor Palin called for President Obama to also ensure that the people of Iran were equally supported in their struggle for freedom, and the next day President Obama made a statement to call for the Iranian people to be allowed freedom. In short, Governor Palin has taken indeed taken the lead.

In spite of the fact that Governor Palin has indeed led on the issues, people like Andrew Breitbart assert that she would be better suited to be a cheerleader for other conservatives:

“I think the presidency is beneath her,” the conservative media activist told GQ. “There's more power in being Oprah Winfrey than in being Barack Obama. It would be my goal for Palin to become Oprah and be the ultimate kingmaker for 20-odd years.”

There's a lot to say about the influence over culture that a figure like Oprah has. In recent years with the increase in the use of social media and a 24/7 news cycle, people have the opportunity to influence the political landscape without taking a definitive lead on the policy. This is how Governor Palin has the potential to be what Breitbart characterizes as the "ultimate kingmaker", or essentially a cheerleader. In this role of cheerleader, Governor Palin would be a voice of support for the ideas and policies being in acted on the "court" and for those who seek to play the game. However, there's no room for leadership when you're relegated to the role of cheerleader, and as mentioned earlier Governor Palin has lead on so many issues both in her firm stances on issues and in her stellar gubernatorial achievements ranging from energy independence to frugal budgeting to ethics reform. Governor Palin uses social media and traditional media effectively, but she uses media as a tool, not as a her operational framework.Her ability to influence is enhanced by the media, but not driven by it.

In Breitbart's comments he indicates that he thinks that greater power lies in being an "Oprah" figure than in being a president, and Ann Coulter's comments indicate that she thinks Governor Palin would lose influence and power by running for President. These two individuals are missing two critical points in their argument--the political shift in leadership that would occur if Governor Palin is elected president and the unique perspective held by Governor Palin regarding elected office.

In their comments, Breitbart and Coulter must be conceding that if Governor Palin doesn't run for the presidency in 2012 that President Obama will be re-elected. How else can they assert that Governor Palin maintains her "power" only if she does not run? Governor Palin's current political "power and influence" lie in the fact that she provides the most stark contrast of President Obama and his policies. Through her ability to community effectively, Governor Palin has been able to frame the debate rhetorically as well. Governor Palin replacing President Obama in the Oval Office, in a sense, changes her level of influence. Being placed in presidential leadership mean that she no longer provides the stark contrast in policy because she becomes both the new point of comparison and the President. Governor Palin's new level of influence now lies not in the contrast between herself and President Obama, but in her ability to clean up the mess that she has been exposing in her previous unelected level of influence. In their assertions, both Coulter and Breitbart have created a false argument.

Influential in their own right, Breitbart's and Coulter's influence differs from Governor Palin's. They need to understand that Governor Palin does not view the Presidency as a position of power, but as a position of service. In choosing to run for president, Governor Palin is seeking how to serve, not how to obtain power. In her interview with Greta van Susteren on Wednesday night, Governor Palin laid out what characteristics she would desire in a President and why she might choose to run (emphasis mine):

I'm tempted [to run], because I'm still wondering who the heck is going to be out there willing to serve the American people for the right reasons. Not for ego, not for special interests. Not with partisanship that will get in the way to do what is right to get the economy back on the right track and strengthen national security. Who else is out there who wants to do this?

If Governor Palin chooses to run, it will be because she's motivated by how she can best serve, not how she can gain greater power. This is servant leadership--a term perhaps not too often used outside of evangelical circles--but indicative of a point guard seeking to assist, not to score. The decision to serve as "America's point guard" lies with Governor Palin and the American electorate, not with pundits who want push the narrative of the Establishment or project their own ideals of power and influence on Governor Palin.

UPDATED: Jim Nolte, editor of Big Hollywood, has a piece up today where he speaks about Andrew Breitbart's comments. Here is what he says in part:

Anyone who knows me or who has followed me on Twitter knows that all Sarah Palin has to do is point to the broken glass she wants me to crawl over. I’ve never seen anyone put through such a cruel, mean-spirited, public meat grinder where their family, womb, faith, gender, dialect, looks and culture are all fair game for the worst kinds of smears. And because she has survived this unprecedented evil with such grace and dignity – Sarah Palin is my hero. And of course I want her to be president. But when Andrew says that he sees her as the Oprah of the right; once again, he’s seeing the bigger picture — the pop culture landscape that shapes and defines our politics in ways not enough people on our side understand (you better believe the Left gets it).

There ’s only one Sarah Palin and she would make for one outstanding president, and like Andrew I will vote for her in a heartbeat and fight for her every step of the way. But it’s just a fact that the price of a President Sarah Palin is a hole in the crucial pop culture war that only she can fill. And only a wicked, journOlisting MSM would attempt to spin into a negative a man publicly declaring that he would like to see this one person lead the charge in a battle that has defined his life more than any other.

Andrew Breitbart has been nothing if not supportive of Governor Palin, but the role that he feel she should fill is more of one that is solely cultural, whereas many other Palin supporters would like to see her fill a role that is more political, and thus would transcend political and cultural lines. I agree with Nolte in the fact that, yes, perhaps a President Palin would leave a hole in the "pop culture war". However, isn't it more important that a gap in presidential leadership be filled? Governor Palin and her family will make the decision as to whether or not she will seek the presidency or whether she will continue to fight the battle on a different plane. No matter what that decision is, she has my unequivocal support.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

NOW Asserts that They Won't Defend Women of Any Political Stripe

Today, the increasingly irrelevant National Organization of Women (NOW) released a statement as a backhanded, faux defense of Governor Palin regarding degrading comments made by "comedian" Bill Maher. However, in this so-called defense, NOW asserts that they will not defend any women. As the Daily Caller reports:

“Listen, supposedly progressive men (ok, and women, too): Cut the crap! Stop degrading women with whom you disagree and/or don’t like by using female body terms or other gender-associated slurs,” Lisa Bennett, NOW communications director wrote in a statement.

...

“You’re trying to take up our time getting us to defend your friend Sarah Palin. If you keep us busy defending her, we have less time to defend women’s bodies from the onslaught of reproductive rights attacks and other threats to our freedom, safety, livelihood, etc,” wrote Bennett. “Sorry, but we can’t defend Palin or even Hillary Clinton from every sexist insult hurled at them in the media. That task would be impossible, and it would consume us. You know this would not be a productive way to fight for women’s equal rights, which is why you want us stuck in this morass.”

Let's see. NOW isn't going to defend unborn baby girls. They aren't going to defend liberal women like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They aren't going to defend conservative women like Governor Palin. The 2010 California gubernatorial race proved that they aren't going to support moderate women like Meg Whitman either. What women are left for them to support? What a great way to celebrate Women's History Month, ladies! Yes, the amount of sexism directed at female politicians is huge, especially the amount directed at Governor Palin even by Daily Caller editor, Tucker Carlson, as we addressed late last month. However, NOW uses a convenient excuse of excessive sexism and supposed conservative shenanigans as reasons to not defend female politicians of any political stripe.

NOW asserts that they want to support "women's rights", but when you look at their stance on women's rights on a global level, they can't hold a candle to how Governor Palin has supported women's rights on this level. In the past year alone, Governor Palin has called for the Obama administration to seriously address the possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood taking control in Egypt in part because of how they subjugate women. She has called for the Obama administration to take a stronger stance against Iran in their gross mistreatment of their female citizens exercising their right to vote. Governor Palin has criticized China's human rights abuses,which include forcing women to have abortions.

Governor Palin has additionally supported women in her message of empowerment that women are strong enough to choose life, which also supports unborn girls. Her support for smaller government allows women to prioritize their hard earned money to be spent as they see fit for themselves and their families. Her support for fewer regulations allows women business owners greater opportunity for success and less bureaucratic red tape that would stymie their growth. Her support for addressing entitlement reform and the reducing the massive national debt shows that she supports providing a stable financial environment for future women. Her support for a strong national defense shows she, not NOW, wants to ensure " freedom, safety, and livelihood" of women.

That's just on the level of policy. When it comes to politics, who was the one who helped provide a boost to the election of the first female Governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, first female Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, or first female governor of Oklahoma, Mary Fallin? It certainly wasn't NOW. NOW has asserted that they won't waste their time defending Secretary Clinton or Governor Palin, both of whom stated just last week that it's time for a female president. Female candidates and women in general can officially say, "women need NOW like a fish needs a bicycle".

Crossposted here, here, and here.

President Obama Says "Drill, Baby, Drill"...in Portuguese; Updated

Yesterday, President Obama spoke to a group of business leaders in Brazil regarding the economic partnerships that could be made between the two countries. One such partnership is in the area of energy:

The second place we want to partner with Brazil is on the issue of energy, which is why President Rousseff and I also agreed to launch a Strategic Energy Dialogue. By some estimates, the oil you recently discovered off the shores of Brazil could amount to twice the reserves we have in the United States. We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. At a time when we’ve been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.

It's interesting that President Obama wants to say, "drill, baby, drill"... but perhaps only in Portuguese. In fact, as GatewayPundit highlighted on Friday, President Obama praised Brazil's offshore drilling industry, while at the same time he imposed an offshore drilling moratorium in the Gulf. To date, only three deepwater leases have been issued since the moratorium was quasi-lifted. All three of these leases have been given to oil companies to re-start and/or complete projects that had been started prior to the Gulf oil spill last Spring,not to begin new drilling. In a recent Facebook post, Governor Palin highlighted that the Obama administration's moratorium has forced companies to move rigs out of the Gulf and off the shores of other countries:

Exhibit A: His drilling moratorium. Guided by politics and pure emotion following the Gulf spill instead of peer-reviewed science or defensible law, the President used the power of his executive order to impose a deepwater drilling moratorium. The Administration even ignored a court order halting his moratorium. And what is the net result of the President’s (in)actions? A large drilling company was forced to declare bankruptcy, the economy of the region has been hobbled, and at least 7 rigs moved out of the Gulf area to other parts of the world while many others remain idle. Is it any surprise that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to fall by 240,000 bbl/d in 2011 alone?

But that’s just the Gulf. There’s also the question of a moratorium on the development of Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf. It seems the Obama Administration can’t agree with itself on whether it imposed a moratorium there or not. The White House claims that they didn’t, but their own Department of the Interior let slip that they did. To clear up this mess, Gov. Parnell decided to sue the DOI to get a solid answer because such a federal OCS drilling moratorium would violate federal law.

So while President Obama is doing everything he can to block drilling in the U.S., even to the point of contempt, he says that America wants to work with Brazil to develop their oil. However, as Governor Palin wrote in August of 2009, we already have helped Brazil developed their oil. The U.S. government sent $2 billion to fund state run (and Soros associated) Petrobas:

So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than two billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources? That's all Americans want; but such rational energy development has been continually thwarted by rabid environmentalists, faceless bureaucrats and a seemingly endless parade of lawsuits aimed at shutting down new energy projects.

President Obama states that America would be one of Brazil's "best customers" of Brazilian oil and that we would welcome this stable source of oil. Governor Palin, on the other hand, firmly supports an energy strategy where America is both the producer and consumer of our own oil. President Obama points to Brazil's vast resources of oil, but he ignores the massive amounts of oil in the Gulf of Mexico in addition to the vast resources in Alaska, Texas, North Dakota, and various formations through the United States. There are 90 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in the Arctic alone! As Governor Palin so often emphasizes tapping into these resources would provide energy, jobs, and national security--something that drilling done in instable regions in the Middle East and even friendly countries like Brazil would not do.

President Obama also praised Brazil for their clean energy technology and discussed the partnership that Brazil can have with the U.S. saying, " ...we know that the development of clean energy is one of the best ways to create new jobs and industries in both our nations". While President Obama was making the false claim of the economic boost of green energy yesterday, Governor Palin spoke of the failures of green energy initiatives during her speech in India:

So as government locks up land & we lose good jobs in the 'Conventional Resource' arena, you may hear that "green jobs" will be the saviour! But look around the world & try telling that to the thousands of English & Scottish workers who've lost jobs as a result of government investments in "green energy" projects. A recent UK study shows that for every "green job" created, nearly four jobs were lost elsewhere in the economy due to lack of affordable energy! Same story in Spain - investment in "green jobs" brought massive debt, skyrocketing energy costs & 20% unemployment.

This push for 'green' at the expense of 'conventional, reliable' sources is not a credible energy policy or economic policy. It's "Social Engineering" by Central Government Planners. And it leads to nothing but more debt & more job loss. And taxpayers will be stuck subsidizing the failure and paying more for energy.

President Obama shows himself to be on the wrong side of the issues of energy yet again. When he promotes development of fossil fuels, he does so in foreign countries where companies cannot create American jobs. When he promotes energy initiatives in America or in partnerships with other nations, they are initiatives that have proven to kill jobs and increase both energy costs and national debt. Governor Palin continues to be on the right side of this vital issue that links America's energy, economic, monetary, and national securities.

UPDATE: Not only did the Obama administration give Petrobas $2 billion in funding to drill off shore in Brazil, they have also now given Petrobas approval to drill in the Gulf. While this may provide some jobs in the Gulf, it also proves to be another case of the pervasive crony capitalism and questionable associations of this administration. (H/T Tammy Bruce)

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Governor Palin, the Success of ACES, and the Defeat of Corruption--Part II

One of Governor Palin's key pieces of legislation--Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES), legislation outlining a tax structure for oil companies-- has come under attack from Alaskan politicians, oil companies, and the press as a means of undermining Governor Palin's gubernatorial legacy. Over a series of posts, we will highlight the foundation and principles on which ACES was developed, the success in oil development the legislation brought, and the players involved in attacking Governor Palin's cornerstone pieces of legislation. The first post in this series, which discussed the anti-corruption, pro-growth principles that molded the legislation and the transparent process in which it was passed, can be found here. This second post in the series will highlight the success of ACES since its passage more than three years ago.

With the signing of this bill, we can turn the page and look forward to a new era of stability and investment opportunities developing Alaska’s resources, creating new jobs and a strong economy for years to come.

-Governor Palin upon signing ACES into law

More than three years following the passage of this bill, Governor Palin's assertions regarding ACES have come to fruition. ACES has created a stable environment for investment and development of oil and has provided a boost to Alaskan jobs and the economy, while concurrently boosting state revenue. In short, ACES has been a success.

In the year following the passage of ACES, the number of oil wells in Alaska increased, indicating that ACES created a favorable environment for development. From the year prior to the passage of ACES to 2009, capital investment on the North Slope increased 33% to $2.2 billion, indicating that oil companies are making investments in future development. More recently, a poll of petroleum executives indicated that a greater percentage of executives thought that ACES "promoted investment" than 2/3 of the 24 other states who were included in the survey. Earlier this month, a Spanish oil company, Repsol, announced that it would be devoting more than three-quarters of a billion dollars to North Slope exploration (emphasis mine):

"This deal is a perfect fit in our efforts to balance our exploration portfolio with a lower risk, onshore oil opportunities in a stable environment," Repsol CEO Antonio Brufau said in a statement.

ACES has been beneficial to oil companies of all shapes and sizes. In fact, since the passage of ACES, the number of oil companies filing tax returns with the state of Alaska has doubled indicating that more and more companies are seeking to develop in the state. Actually, Alaska has the second most favorable business tax climate in the country, moving up two spots since the passage of ACES. In fact, since 2006, the state of Alaska has given $3 billion in investment incentivizing tax breaks to oil companies. ACES taxes net profits rather than gross revenues (like Governor Murkowski's oil tax structure) and offers tax credits to oil companies, which yielded high profits for large oil companies like ConocoPhillips and high praise from smaller oil companies. In fact in the year following the passage of ACES, ConocoPhillips Alaskan oil production accounted for 29% of its worldwide income despite only accounting for only 12% of its output. The flexibility of ACES' taxation mechanism in conjunction with changes in oil prices has proven to be beneficial to ConocoPhillips as well. When oil prices dropped in 2009, their Alaskan profit's percentage was higher than in 2008 when oil prices were high, ranging from 35-55% of their total profits in the first three quarters of 2009. Additionally, Former Republican Alaskan legislator, Ray Metcalfe, highlighted that ACES provides a much lower risk for development and 10 times the profit per barrel for oil companies in Alaska compared to oil rich Iraq. Current Alaska state senator Bill Wielechowski spoke to Bob and Mark in February about how ACES has benefited both oil companies and the state of Alaska (H/T Kelsey):



In addition to the benefits ACES provides oil companies, ACES has proven beneficial to the people of Alaska--both in the way of jobs and state revenue. After all, the compass that guided Governor Palin in this effort was the Alaska constitution, which stated that resource development must be done for the maximum benefit of the people. Oil jobs have increased since the passage of ACES with 2009 bringing a record high number of oil jobs. Additionally, even in spite of the economic recession in recent years, Alaska's job market, with 1/3 of jobs related to the oil industry, has remained strong. Alaska's unemployment numbers have remained lower than the national average since 2009. Alaska's economy ACES has also generated more revenue for the state since its passage than the previous two oil structures would have under current oil prices and production. Such revenue helped allowe Governor Palin to put $5 billion in state savings and forward fund education while she was governor. Additionally,a portion of oil revenues provide Alaskans, as resource owners, with a permanent fund dividend, which is essentially akin to stockholders receiving their share of a company's profits.

When Governor Palin signed ACES into law, she asserted that this legislation would provide stability, spur investment and development, strengthen the economy, and create jobs. By all accounts, Governor Palin's assertions ring true, and her detractors must eat crow once again.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Governor Palin, the Success of ACES, and the Defeat of Corruption--Part 1

One of Governor Palin's key pieces of legislation--Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES), legislation outlining a tax structure for oil companies-- has come under attack from Alaskan politicians, oil companies, and the press as a means of undermine Governor Palin's gubernatorial legacy. Over a series of posts, we will highlight the foundation and principles on which ACES was developed, the success in oil development the legislation brought, and the players involved in attacking the Governor Palin's cornerstone pieces of legislation.

Governor Palin's political career has been marked by a consistent efforts to rid Alaska of corruption, remove pervasive crony capitalism, and make government more transparent. Her proposal of Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share is an excellent example of her reaching all three aims. Under her predecessor, Governor Murkowski, the Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT), a oil tax scheme, was implemented. PPT taxed oil companies 22.5% of their net profits, compared to the 10% tax on gross revenues that was previously in place. A tax on net profits was intended to encourage development and production. However, this legislation had two major problems: corruption and failure to both bring in sufficient revenue and increase development.

The passage of PPT in September of 2006 was later found to be marred by extortion, bribery, and conspiracy. Three state legislators were indicted in May of 2007. Two of these individuals were later convicted and sentenced (one is still being dealt with in the courts) on corruption charges for their improper dealings with the oilfield company, VECO, in passing PPT. Governor Murkowski's chief of staff, Jim Clark, also later plead guilty to conspiracy for hiding campaign contributions to Murkowski's campaign from VECO. Prosecutors charged that that Clark used his position to push for the tax rate preferred by VECO--PPT. Suffice it to say, PPT's passage was tainted, which contributed to the Palin administration's reasons for re-visiting this tax structure. Additionally, Governor Palin tasked the Alaska Department of Revenue with evaluating PPT's generation of revenue and industry reinvestment. This report found that revenues were lower than anticipated (to the tune of $800 million lower), operational and capital costs were higher, and tax credits were not effectively spurring production and development.

Following this report, Governor Palin introduced a new tax structure that not only addressed the problems of the PPT, but also had its foundation in the Alaska state constitution, which states that resources must be developed for the maximum benefit of the people of Alaska:

The new plan, called Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share, or ACES, is a hybrid of a gross and net tax system. It includes a minimum 10 percent tax based on gross receipts for the North Slope’s legacy fields with a 25 percent net tax to encourage new development and reinvestment in existing infrastructure. ACES also allows for tax credits on future work. It restricts capital expense deductions to scheduled maintenance and implements strong audit and information sharing provisions.

As James P. Lucier described in the Wall Street Journal, Governor Palin's plan accounted for fluctuation in oil prices and provided incentive for development:

As a new governor in 2007, Mrs. Palin stepped in to address the fiscal crisis and restore accountability. Working with Democrats and Republicans alike, she chose a 25% profits tax. But in lean years the state reverts to a 10% gross revenue tax on legacy fields that do not require massive continuing inputs of new capital.

Relative to the old system, Mrs. Palin's plan -- called "Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share" (ACES) -- improves incentives for developing new resources. It ensures the state does well in boom times -- as it is doing now -- when oil prices are high. But it also hedges against low prices in the future by ensuring that oil companies exposed to commodity price swings don't face a crushing tax burden when commodity prices fall.

Her plan includes an escalator clause that gives the state a larger share of revenues when oil prices rise. This is common to production-sharing agreements all over the world.

Governor Palin released a draft of the bill 17 days before the Special Session to enable both the legislature and the public to read the proposal prior to its discussion in the legislature. Her oil and gas team also held a series of briefings throughout the state prior to its discussion in the Special Session to allow the people of Alaska to be informed about the proposal. The bill was passed very easily in both the House and the Senate with bipartisan support before Governor Palin signed it in December of 2007. In signing this bill, Governor Palin removed the taint of corruption from taxation negotiation process and submitted a strong piece of legislation ensuring that the people of Alaska received their "clear and equitable share" as shareholders in the resources of the state.

One common misconception regarding this piece of legislation is that it is a windfall profits tax that hurts industry. In reality, such a tax is a severance tax, and its basis is constitutional. Rob Harrison addressed the former misconception in a post in June of 2009 in which he referenced a piece characterizing Palin's ACES legislation as a severance tax:

State severance taxes charged on production of oil and gas and minerals are common throughout the United States. Also sometimes called "production taxes," they're charged by the state from beneath whose land valuable resources are extracted, and they're designed not to punish the energy companies, but to recompense the state for its loss of a non-replaceable resource — one that must be quantified and taxed upon removal, if it is ever to be taxed at all. Severance taxes are therefore based on production from within the state, not on profits earned by the company extracting that production — even though the production may be measured in, and the tax assessed upon, the market value or gross revenues (as measured in dollars) received for that production, rather than an "in kind" delivery to the state in barrels or cubic feet as such. See, e.g., Tex. Tax Code §§ 201.051 & 202.051 (Texas production taxes on gas and oil respectively).

It is not a windfall tax, as championed by liberals to capture even greater revenue during periods of larger profits. Instead, it is a tax that is levied on production and the loss of a resource. The state revenues generated by ACES , just as its name states ensure Alaskans receive their "clear and equitable share".

More than three years later, why does this matter? It matters because Governor Palin's record continues to be either ignored, misrepresented, or attacked. Governor Palin's record is based on transparency and integrity, and she ensured that her administration did what was best for the people of the Alaska. When ACES was passed, it wasn't a result of undue influence from oil companies, but it wasn't a punitive tax aimed at the oil companies either. It was done in such a way that the people of Alaska received optimum benefits and the oil industry was encouraged to produce and develop. It has achieved those goals. Stay tuned for discussion of the success of ACES in boosting state revenue while increasing development, growing oil jobs, and allowing for a good business environment for both small and large oil companies.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Governor Palin Says President Obama Is "Scary Wrong" on Oil

Earlier tonight, Governor Palin tweeted a link to an Investors' Business Daily article highlighting how Americans overwhelmingly support drilling in ANWR and off shore in addition to tapping into shale reserves in the West:

Obama's so wrong on energy/scary wrong on oil;AK alone w/billions bbls & trillions cu ft of nat gas.(Other states, too) http://bit.ly/hX5AzT

"Scary wrong" is indeed the way to characterize the Obama administration's energy policy. On Friday, CNSNews spoke with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to ask him why the administration wasn't considering drilling in the Arctic with gas prices so high:



Yep, you heard that right. Using the logic of Vice President "We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt" Biden, Salazar said that we should not drill in the Arctic because it won't make us energy independent, as if inaction will make us energy independent. The only action the Obama administration is willing to take is to discuss tapping into our Strategic Petroleum Reserves.

On Saturday, I wrote that Senate Democrats were urging the Obama administration to tap into these reserves, but at the time, the administration felt that this was a short sighted option. What a difference a day makes, as on Sunday, White House Chief of Staff William M, Daley said that this was a measure that the Obama administration was now considering. As I referenced in my post on Saturday, a few sentences from Governor Palin's RNC speech ring especially as true today as they did two and half years ago:

When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
...
Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems — as if we all didn't know that already.

But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.

The Obama administration has us so dependent on foreign sources of energy that drawing from our Strategic Petroleum Reserves has become a possibility. Their idea of energy independence has been to make America independent of energy. After all, they don't wish to drill in the Arctic, the Gulf, the Atlantic, or Pacific. Their one granted lease in the Gulf was given to enable a company to continue a project following the Gulf oil spill, not to allow new drilling to begin. Mining for coal, which would likely power the re-charging of Obama's favorite electric vehicle, has been hindered by Obama administration EPA regulations.

As Governor Palin mentioned in her tweet, Alaska has billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. The Natural Petroleum Reserve in Alaska alone is estimated to have 53 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Arctic is estimated to have 90 billion barrels of oil and 1. 67 quadrillion (1,670 trillion) cubic feet of natural gas. For some perspective, that is 1,670,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas. Those kinds of numbers make even Obama's deficit numbers seem small! She also mentioned that other states have large amounts of resources as well. For example, the Green River formation in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah is estimated to have 1.5 trillion barrels of oil--6 times as much as Saudi Arabia. There are 3-4.3 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana. Those a just a few examples of the abundance of God-given resources.

Americans are right to supporting drilling here in America. With soaring gas prices and instability in the Middle East and parts of northern Africa, where much of our oil comes from, it only seems practical to tap into our own resources. Additionally, increased energy production would provide jobs. It is estimated that tapping into resources currently off limits would add more than half a million jobs and also bring in $150 billion in government revenue, which liberals love, by 2025. Energy independence, more jobs, and stronger national security. How's that for winning the future?

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Governor Palin is Right on Energy...Again

Last fall, Stacy and I put together a post highlighting several of the economic and national security problems have emerged since Barack Obama became president, as Governor Palin warned in her 2008 RNC speech. With the current chaos in the Middle East and northern Africa and with President Obama's perpetual aversion to drilling for oil in America, more of Governor Palin's warnings from her 2008 RNC speech are sadly coming to fruition. She said in that speech two and a half years ago (emphasis mine):

When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.

With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.

And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We've got lots of both.

Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems — as if we all didn't know that already.

But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.

Replace the hypothetical situations Governor Palin outlines with the current situation in Libya and throughout the Middle East and we have the today's current energy situation. Governor Palin warned that America should not become so dependent upon foreign sources that we would have need for tapping into strategic reserves in the case of a crisis. However,the New York Times reports:

As oil prices have risen in recent weeks, calls have been growing in Congress for the Obama administration to consider tapping into the nation’s strategic petroleum reserve, which is now at its full capacity of 727 million barrels.

...

“Between the lost production in Libya, the crude oil dislocation associated with additional Saudi production and the prospect of further turmoil in the region,” Mr. Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, said in a floor statement late Wednesday, “we are now unquestionably facing a physical oil supply disruption that is at risk of getting worse before it gets better.”

Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee feel that tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserves should only be done in situations like Hurricane Katrina, the most recent time it was accessed, not in our current conditions. At full capacity (as it is now), the reserves hold 727 million barrels of oil, enough to replace foreign sources of oil in the US for about 5 months. The Obama administration feels that this discussion is a reaction to transient oil price increases, and actually, their 2012 budget proposal suggests selling half a billion of oil from the reserves to pay for governmental programs. They feel no need to access this reserve at the moment.

The fact that such a possibility is even being discussed shows that, of course, Governor Palin was right on the need for energy independence, and her assertion that there is an inherent link between energy independence and national security is indeed correct.

The Obama administration has gone out of its way to not tap into our energy resources. Just yesterday, the Obama administration appealed a ruling from a judge calling for the Interior Department to administer leases for drilling in the Gulf. The judge that the administration is appealing is one of two judges who has held the administration in contempt for not appropriately lifting their drilling moratorium in the Gulf by administering drilling leases. On Monday, the Interior Department did issue its first lease since last year's disastrous oil spill. However, this lease was for a project that had yet to be completed and was halted due to the oil spill. Essentially, this lease allows for an old project to be completed not for new drilling to be initiated.

In addition to Gulf oil, the Obama administration has not sought to extract the abundant energy resources in Alaska. Earlier this week, Doug linked an article at Human Events that questioned the Obama administration's neglect of ANWR and other Alaskan sources. ANWR has the potential to produce 1 million barrels of oil a day, and yet it has remained untapped. Additionally, the Trans-Alaskan pipeline system is only operating at 1/3 of its current capacity, and the EPA's over regulation has essentially halted Arctic drilling until 2012. Again, Governor Palin is right. Drilling isn't going to solve all problems,but President Obama is doing very little to tap into our national resources and is actually obstructing resource development.

Energy has an effect on America's economy as well. As Governor Palin spoke of in her interview with Bill O'Reilly last night, allowing energy development in Alaska would help lower unemployment and would reduce people's reliance upon government assistance. The White House has even admitted that their moratorium on drilling in the Gulf would cost tens of thousands of jobs. Their moratorium also led to Texas based company, Seahawk Drilling, to file for bankruptcy. Not only are Obama's policies killing jobs, they are contributing to increased oil prices (yesterday, prices hit their highest since September 2008). His policies of "diversifying" energy supplies, rather than increasing production of legitimate energy sources, are having a detrimental effect, as the Heritage Foundation reports:

Anyone could have predicted that the recovering world economy, coupled with the continued growth of India and China, was going to push oil prices higher. So if an Administration wanted to keep gas prices down, they could have mitigated increased oil demand by increasing domestic oil production. But that is not what the Obama Administration has done. Instead of increasing domestic oil supplies, the Obama Administration has cut them at every opportunity, and Americans are now suffering because of those choices.

...

According to Heritage analysts Nick Loris and John Ligon, Obama’s energy policy consists of: increased biofuel production, increased electric vehicle production, and increased renewable power production. These are all terrible public policies. The major source of biomass production, corn-based ethanol, produces less energy per unit volume than gasoline, contributes to food price increases, costs taxpayers $4 billion to produce 2 percent of the total gasoline supply, and has dubious environmental effects.

President Obama's policies focus on yet-to-be-proven sources and eschew proven and abundant sources that we have right here. Such policies lead to reliance on energy sources from volatile nations, fewer jobs, and higher fuel prices. America cannot be powered on hope and change. Governor Palin, yet again, was right on our need for energy independence.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

MILF--Misogynists (and Elitists) I'd Like to Fulminate

As the 2012 elections draw near, the Elites and misogynists in the Republican party have doubled down on their direct and indirect attacks on both Governor Palin and grassroots conservatism. In a post at the National Review yesterday, Romesh Pennuru argues that a Romney/Palin match up in the Republican presidential primary would be bad for the party (emphasis mine):

So there is a non-trivial chance that the Republican nomination contest could come down to Palin vs. Romney, and that their conflict could define the primaries. And that’s very bad news for the Republican party. A campaign that pits the two against each other would divide the Republican party along each of its fault lines.

Funny. I thought presidential elections were about what is best for the country, not the Republican party. Silly me. However, he shows the true problem that the Establishment and Elites have with Governor Palin and other conservatives. In the eyes of the elitist Establishment, their greater problem is not with the Left or the Democrats in Washington; it is with people like Governor Palin who have the potential to rid them of their hold on the Republican party.

Pennuru later goes on to describe the class struggle within the party:

Class is another increasingly uncomfortable fault line in the party (as Reihan Salam and I recently described in these pages). Romney’s supporters tend to be college-educated, while Palin draws her support from people who didn’t get college diplomas. In recent elections, upper-middle-class voters have left the Republican party in part because they regard it as dominated by yahoos and know-nothings. But other voters, particularly in the party’s base, resent what they see as a tendency to overestimate the importance of degrees from prestigious colleges.

While recent polling data supports his assertion with regards to education, Pennuru exemplifies how out-of-touch many of the elites/Establishment are. The class issue is not an issue of education level; it's an issue of entitlement and character. The Establishment feels the "next in line", such as Mitt Romney, is deserving of the Republican nomination, but if that touted candidate couldn't win the previous primary election, what makes them automatically entitled to the next nomination? Such an attitude disrespects the American electorate's ability to choose a nominee for themselves. The character of the elites and Establishment are called into question when they so often choose to remain anonymous in their criticism of Governor Palin, like when unnamed Romney aides said she "isn't a serious human being" or multiple nameless GOP operatives trashed Governor Palin's supposed unelectability out of fear that her nomination may destroy their power structure in the GOP.

The most visible example of this is none other than Karl Rove, whose political dictionary seems to define gravitas as possession of a XY chromosome and a resume that includes time in a Bush administration. In a recent interview with New York Magazine, Rove criticized Governor Palin's travelogue show, and those close to him stated that Rove was frustrated by the fact that the Tea Party was outside of his ability to control. To which Rove discusses:

He says Palin’s people responded to his criticisms by suggesting they’d found a new way to campaign.

“Some of her people have talked to me and said, ‘Look, the old rules don’t apply,’ ” says Rove. “In essence, the candidate is the message. We’ll see. That’s an interesting view, and we’ll see how accurate it is.”

By operating without filters in a flattened media environment, Palin and the tea party have argued that power is now bottom-up, divorced from the top-down organizing structures Rove has functioned within for more than 30 years.

The rules of the Establishment no longer apply. It isn't about the next in line or the preferences of the Elite. That is why Rove's preferred candidate and the man Pennuru touts as the compromise between Governor Palin and Governor Romney, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, will likely have little traction in a 2012 election. What Rove calls an " interesting view" is that the message and the messenger do indeed matter. That is why a man like Governor Daniels, who isn't known for his charisma ,who presided over President Bush's bloated budgets and would support a Value Added Tax, will not fly with an electorate looking for both the right message and the right messenger.

Perhaps an additional reason that Governor Palin does not win the respect of the Elite and Establishment is that you cannot be praised for your "perfectly creased pants" if you often wear a skirt, right David Brooks? The continued line of attack from the Establishment and Elite men in the GOP have come as a result of Governor Palin's genetic makeup. As Stacy wrote about yesterday, Daily Caller editor and Fox News contributor, Tucker Carlson, tweeted a sexist reference to Governor Palin as a MILF (mother I'd like to F**k). Sadly, it even took him two tweets to even get an apology right. The irony of this is that Carlson's site called out Chris Matthews earlier this week for his sexist and derogatory comments. Red State editor and CNN commentator, Erick Erickson joined in the misogyny when he tweeted the following last night:

Maybe my sense of humor needs to be recalibrated, but when I heard @TuckerCarlson's MILFistan comment, I laughed then got out my passport.

Yes, Erickson's sense of humor needs to be recalibrated. What is funny about denigrating any woman? What is politically constructive about objectifying the most powerful political voice in America?

Much like Governor Palin's redefinition of President Obama's Win the Future acronym, perhaps a redefinition of MILF is needed--Misogynists (and Elitists) I'd like to Fulminate. What do these lines of attack boil down to? It might very well be best described by one of Governor Palin's political role models, Margaret Thatcher, who once said, " I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding, because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have no political argument left".

Thatcher's words ring true. The Elites and misogynists do not attack Governor Palin on the issues; they attack her personally--her class and her gender. After all, what's there to criticize about the one potential candidate who could best provide the solutions on what appears to be a coming energy crisis? What's there to criticize about a woman who has been prescient on commodity inflation that has resulted because of quantitative easing? The elites and the misogynists cannot criticize Governor Palin on the issues because there's is little to criticize. Governor Palin has always been open to discussion of the issues, but when the elites and misogynists stoop to the level of chauvinistic pig, even with a tint of elitist lipstick, they are still chauvinistic pigs.

Crossposted here, here, and here.