Thoughts from Madison: Game On!

Governor Palin gave a simply incredible speech today in Madison, Wisconsin speaking on a range of issues including the recent budget and collective bargaining battle in Wisconsin, the capitulation of the GOP Establishment, the recent budget to the empty promises of President Obama, and a declarative on the 2012 election. Governor Palin began her speech discussing Wisconsin as the "frontlines in the battle for our country", which indeed is true from the roles that Governor Walker, Judge Prosser, and Congressman Ryan have played in the recent political discussion.

Wisconsin is also the birthplace of the Republican party and in many ways, the progressive movement as well, particularly in Madison. This made it all the more fitting that Governor Palin came to speak in Wisconsin. In her speech, she called the Republican party to stand on the planks of the party, and she called out the tactics and the policies of the Progressive movement in both Madison and Washington D.C.. The Tea Party movement is on two fronts--against the Left and against the Establishment. As Karen rightly said last night, we are Wisconsin.

I was blessed with the opportunity to make the trip up to Madison this morning to attend the rally. There were, of course, no Koch brother marionettes standing behind Governor Palin choreographing her every move as she spoke, as the Left claims. She is no corporate puppet, just ask the oil companies in Alaska. Of course, the Left's assertions regarding the Governor are more often than not projections, ad hominem attacks, and falsehoods. This rally was no different. Laughably, one protest sign simply said, "Sarah Who?". The illogic of the Left--claim someone is irrelevant, then show up at a venue where they are speaking in the wind and snow to protest their appearance. Their method of "reason"--noise--the audible equivalent of the legitimacy of their arguments.

Prior to the speeches, several Wisconsin and Illinois volunteers from Organize4Palin handed out hundreds of palm cards to rally attendees and got pages and pages of individuals signed up for more information about this grassroots effort. From my personal experience with this, it was very exciting to see the receptiveness and excitement that people had in response to Governor Palin. Some individuals who signed up brought Governor Palin's books to hold up in lieu of signs. Some were military veterans. All appreciated the courageous conservatism that Governor Palin espouses.

Organize4Palin volunteers signing up interested individuals

Organize4Palin WI coordinator Bill Lichter,

Wisconsin Treasurer Kurt Schuller, and myself

If you haven't already, please sign up to be involved in Organize4Palin. Supporting Governor Palin is especially effective when we are boots on the ground in addition to being fingers on a keyboard. She has had our back, and we have the opportunity to have her back as she continues to speak out as 2012 approaches.

Game on.

Kelsey also attended the rally. She has some absolutely amazing pictures. Please see here and here.

Crossposted here.

Budget, Leadership, and Character Deficits in Washington D.C.

President Obama will be giving a speech later today laying out his plan for reducing the budget deficit. This, of course, comes after the fact that in his first 19 months in office alone, he created larger deficits than Presidents Washington through Reagan combined and the fact that the current deficit is up 16% in the past 6 months. This also comes after he formed a deficit commission to formulate potential solutions to the deficit only to largely ignore their suggestions. The whole idea of him speaking on deficit reduction is on par with President Obama running a pitching camp or Vice President Biden teaching a math class. Nonetheless, we all know actions speak louder than words, and President Obama and many of the politicians in Washington D.C. have not only created massive budget deficits, they themselves have shown large deficits in leadership and character amongst our nation's politicians.

Last week, President Obama, Senator Reid, and Speaker Boehner came to a "compromise" regarding the FY2011 budget. This compromise was touted by GOP leadership as a $38.5 billion spending cut, but putting that in perspective, during the eight days prior to the compromise, the deficit grew by $54.1 billion, more than $15 billion more than the was supposedly cut. When the dust settled, the spending cuts actually amounted to only $14 billion, and the budget weighs in at $778 billion higher than the 2008 budget. It isn't any wonder that during budget discussions, Governor Palin referred to those involved in negotiations as a "leaderless" government and referred to President Obama's actions as "petulant obstruction" and "appalling". It's become increasingly clear that the budget deficit is due in large part to a deficit in leadership. When Speaker Boehner was agreeing to pseudo budget cuts like unspent construction and census money while also allowing spending increases for some of President Obama's favorite programs, Governor Palin asserted that the Tea Party wasn't getting what it wanted from the deal:

Well, what the tea party wants is for government to be smaller and smarter. So, you know, when you consider that we just saw an increase in government spending by about 28% and saw a little chip out of that to the tune of 1%, I would say that no, the tea party and Americans in general who are concerned about the fiscal health of our country did not get what they wanted. We have a lot of work to do to help educate Congress when it comes to the expectations that we have when we send our politicians to DC to do the job of making sure that our country is solvent.

Governor Palin has shown a surplus of leadership, both inside and outside of office. Leadership is not a title you carry; it is a characteristic you display. While in office, Governor Palin cut her budget 9.5% over her predecessor This included vetoing hundreds of millions of dollars in spending and cutting federal earmark requests by more than 80% in a state known for bringing home the bacon. This is not only leadership; it is courage. As Governor Palin has stated, it takes "courage and real leadership" to make cuts during a time of plenty as she did. During her time as Governor, she put $5 billion in state savings while paying down unfunded pension programs and forward funding education, and her policy legacy has given Alaska a current $12 billion surplus.

Outside of office, Governor Palin has led in opposition to Obamacare, in support of border security, and in warning about coming inflation due to the problems of quantitative easing. She has also taken the lead in real fiscal reform and addressing the budget deficit. She was the first and only potential presidential candidate to support Congressman Ryan's road map. When Congressman Ryan released the House GOP's FY2012 proposal last week, Governor Palin called it a "good start", but she also noted it still didn't stop deficit spending. What is the solution then? As she later said on Judge Jeanine, "everything is fair game" when it comes to addressing the spending/deficit/debt problem in Washington. Governor Palin said that both entitlement programs and discretionary spending need to be dealt with, and she stated that budgets should start first with constitutionally mandated services, not with other programs. These are ideas of a bold leader, not of one who cannot even give an answer on how to address entitlement reform.

The leadership deficit in Washington is closely tied to character deficit. Washington politicians claim to be future focused, but their lack of seriousness in addressing spending merely means that they will play "Kick the Can" with the future of America. You cannot win the future when you are already losing the present by being unwilling to address spending problems. Governor Palin characterizes our nation's massive debt as "generational theft" and "immoral". She sees that the problems in Washington as a deficit of character, not simply poor economics. Politicians are more apt to do what is politically expedient rather than what is right for the country. The budget deficits our so called leadership have accrued are immoral because they are stealing from the prosperity of the future. Leaders of true character recognize this and are willing to address it by cutting spending and addressing entitlements.

Character goes beyond simply doing what is right; it also is refusing to engage in wrong and unethical behavior event when it is pervasive. Crony capitalism and corrupt corporatism have infested state capitals and D.C. far too long. Governor Palin called out the unethical behavior Alaska GOP chairman and fellow oil and gas commissioner, Randy Reudrich. Governor Palin took on the crony capitalism in Juneau by re-vamping the corruption tainted oil tax structure in addition to passing ethics reform. She has called out the Obama administration for their revolving door with the financial industry. Governor Palin has shown character driven leadership in the face of pervasive corruption.

Washington D.C. faces a serious deficit spending problem, but that problem will only continue if the issues of leadership and character deficits are not simultaneously addressed. These two traits are not gained by reading piles of policy white papers, nor are they achieved through focus group testing. One must have a strong moral compass and an ability to draw from life experiences. As Governor Palin said in her most recent Facebook post, " there's a leadership vacuum in the White House right now, but that's nothing that another good old fashion election can't fix".

Updated: This supposed compromise is worse than even estimated earlier this week. The Congressional Budget Office states that this "deal" cuts spending by a mere $353 million, not $38.4 billion or even $14 billion. By contrast, during her time as Governor, Governor Palin cut spending by roughly three times that much--$1,127,400,000--in her FY2010 budget compared to her predecessors FY2007 budget. This is cutting at the state level with a smaller pool of revenue and a much, much small number of constituents than at the federal level. Governor Palin was right again. They were simply arguing over " peanuts".

Crossposted here.

The Lingering Influence of Crony Capitalism and Big Oil in Alaskan Politics

In recent posts, I discussed how Governor Palin's key legislative victory, Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) , has been a transparent, constitutionally-based, pro-growth success. In 2007, Governor Palin signed into law ACES, an oil tax structure that includes incentives for development and investment in capital improvements and ensured that Alaska's resources would be developed for the maximum benefit for the people of Alaska as per their state constitution. The Alaska constitution states that the state's natural resources belong to the people of Alaska. In essence, revenue derived from oil development belongs in part to the people of Alaska who, as owners of the resources, are due their share of the profits as "shareholders". Beyond this, ACES also replaced Governor Murkowski's Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT) which was tainted by crony capitalism and corruption and lead to the arrest and conviction of state legislators and Governor Murkowski's chief-of-staff due to the ties between PPT negotiations and VECO Corp, a oil and gas pipeline company.

ACES has been a success for both the people of Alaska and the oil companies. In a recent Facebook post, Governor Palin highlighted how the revenues of ACES have benefited the people of the Alaska and have made the state financially sound, as it has helped provide a $12 billion state surplus, put billions is savings, pay down underfunded state pension plans, and forward fund education. ACES has proven to be a success for oil companies as well. ACES has contributed to oil job increases, high profits for industry, a record high numbers of oil companies drilling in Alaska, and increased capital development by oil companies spurred by $3 billion of tax incentives. Alaska now has the second best business tax climate in the country, moving up two spots since the passage of ACES.

In the previously referenced Facebook post, Governor Palin brushes off current criticisms of ACES and refers to desires by some to make changes to ACES as "political posturing". A bill that would alter the ACES tax structure (HB 110) was passed by the House last week. However, this bill does not even remove the progressivity of ACES--the main criticism from detractors. It solely caps the progressivity. In fact, it changes the calculation period for the tax, and it does not account for volatility of oil prices. It is estimated that such a plan could cost the state $100 to $200 million a year. With a constitutionally sound oil taxation structure that has proven to benefit both the Alaskan people and the oil companies, why might Alaskan legislators and Governor Parnell seek to do away with ACES?Are oil companies and crony capitalist Alaskan politicians using the current political climate (and the anti-oil agenda by the current President) as a springboard for altering the oil structure?

A chorus of voices has risen in support of making changes to ACES, but where are these voices coming from? Are these merely echoes of the corruption of the past? Former Republican Alaskan House member, Ray Metcalfe, indicates that this is likely the case. Metcalfe was instrumental in exposing the impropriety between Alaskan legislators and VECO. He highlights that former VECO spokesman, Paul Jenkins, has been given free rein to write op-eds in the Anchorage Daily News (ADN) in support of making changes to ACES; his most recent ad hominem, snark ladden piece was published Saturday. Prior to the exposure of the VECO scandal, Jenkins wrote paid op-ed advertisements in support of VECO in the ADN before the scandal prompted the ADN to stop running the ads. Paul Laird, former BP spokesman, has also been involved. He was general manager of the Alaska Support Industry Alliance until last July. The Alliance has been pushing hard for changes to ACES as well, including pushing an ad campaign that shared the stories of those supposedly negatively affected by ACES. During the 2010 election cycle Laird donate money to three House members' campaigns. All three of these legislators voted in favor of the new tax structure last week. Current Alliance General Manager, Rebecca Logan, also donated money to a legislator who supported the change to ACES and to Governor Parnell, who also has pushed for changes to the ACES.

Despite supporting ACES while serving as Lt. Governor, Parnell has pushed for changes to ACES since February of 2010. Governor Parnell (while governing conservatively on budgeting, earmarks, and Obamacare, advocating for the 10th amendment, and supporting Governor Palin's gasline project, AGIA) has a revolving door career between politics and the oil industry. In the early and mid 1990s, Parnell served in the Alaska House of Representatives and Senate. Following his time in the Senate, Parnell became director of government relations for ConoccoPhillips. He then went to work for Governor Murkowski as the director state division of oil and gas from 2003 to 2005. During part of this period time, Governor Palin had served as an oil and gas commissioner until she encountered unethical behavior from another commissioner and Alaska GOP chair,Randy Ruedrich, and she resigned and lodged a complaint against Ruedrich. Prior to running for Lt. Governor in 2006, Parnell worked at Patton Boggs, a law firm that represented ConoccoPhillips and ExxonMobil in the Exxon Valdex oil spill case.

Additionally, Parnell's 2010 election donations came from those with ties to special oil interests who may have a stake in any changes made to ACES. One of these donors was Kevin Jardell, who had a managerial role in Governor Murkowski's administration and has worked as a lobbyist for ExxonMobil (as a side note, that linked article also notes that Governor Palin did not allow lobbyists in her office). Jardell, in addition to Camden Toohey, made the highest individual donations to Governor Parnell allowable by Alaska election laws. Camden Toohey has had a revolving door career as well--working as lobbyist, then in President Bush's Interior Department, and now working as a legal adviser with Shell. With the EPA red tape tying up Shell's drilling in the Arctic until 2012, would Shell have a particular interest in potential changes to ACES as federal restrictions are reducing their profits?

Governor Parnell is not the only one with donors who may have a vested interested in changes to ACES and have ties to the corrupt oil taxation processes of the past. Rep. Anna Fairclough's, who headed up the HB 110 efforts, greatest percentage of 2010 election funding came from energy and natural resource industry including BP and ConoccoPhillips. BP and ConoccoPhillips spoke before the House Resource committee in February to advocate for the proposed changes to ACES. Another proponent of this bill is Rep. Mike Hawker ,who is no friend of Governor Palin and is one of the charter members of the Corrupt B*****s Club (CBC), the name corrupt and boastful legislators gave to themselves because of their embrace of their own corruption. Hawker, in addition to Rep.Chenault, were two legislators who voted for HB 110 and who received tens of thousands in campaign donations from VECO executives. Hawker and Chenault voted for Governor Murkowski's corruption tainted PPT and against Governor Palin's ACES. Suffice it to say, the CBC is still kickin' in Alaska politics, perhaps now with some new inductees.

HB 110, touted by Governor Parnell and supported by a majority of Alaskan House members, does not appropriately address the criticism of ACES's progressivity, does not deal with the volatility of oil prices, and is likely to reduce state revenue by hundreds of millions of dollars. Beyond that, the proponents of this bill have a history of engaging in crony capitalism, corruption, and unethical behavior. While it is unlikely that Senate version of the bill is unlikely to pass, Governor Parnell supports changes to ACES, and there is the potential for such a bill to be taken up again next year. These are the very things that Governor Palin has fought against her entire political career. Governor Palin has called out the unethical behavior of Alaska GOP chair Randy Ruedrich when she was an oil and gas commissioner. She implemented corruption free ACES project that was passed in a transparent manner without the outside influence of oil companies. She championed the AGIA pipeline project that was negotiated in a transparent manner. She has called out the Obama administration on their pervasive crony capitalism. Should she run for President in the future, there's no doubt she would continue to strive to rid government of corruption; stop the revolving doors between the private sector, lobbying, and government; and end the behind-closed-doors negotiations that have been pervasive for years in Washington. For Governor Palin, phrases like "walking the walk, not just talking the talk" and " no more politics as usual" are not platitudes, they're the way she's lived her political career.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

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.