Congressional Candidate Erika Harold Must Be Over the Target

Erika Harold, Republican candidate for the 13th Congressional district, is being described as "a glimmer of hope for the Illinois GOP" and "a formidable candidate". Those very reasons just may be why, months before the 2014 GOP primary, Harold is already being attacked.

Harold has a compelling background. She is multi-racial woman in her early thirties and a Harvard educated lawyer. Harold is also a former Miss America. She won the coveted crown in 2003 and used the scholarship money she won to pay for law school. Harold is challenging an incumbent Congressman, Rodney Davis, who just took office earlier this year. In 2012, shortly after the GOP primary, Congressman Tim Johnson retired. The Republican party in the 13th district was tasked with finding someone to take Johnson's place on the November ballot. Candidates were asked to put for their names if they were interested in being considered. From those names, four preliminary candidates were chosen. Both Rodney Davis and Erika Harold were among these candidates. A series of forums were held where these potential candidates shared their views. GOP chairs from the counties represented in this district were then charged with the task of choosing the candidate to represent the party in November's election. Davis, a longtime Congressional aide and the interim executive director of the Illinois GOP, ultimately became the choice of the county chairs. The voters of 13th district were never given a choice. That, in part, is why Harold is running. Harold told the Washington Examiner in an interview earlier this month, " I think it’s important for the party that the primary voters within the district have the final say on who represents them going forward".

In that same interview, Harold also spoke about oft-spoken political "war on women":

“If I thought that the Republican Party wasn’t a welcoming place for women, I wouldn’t run, because making sure that women have the ability to pursue their aspirations both professionally and within their families is something that’s very important to me,” Harold replied when The Washington Examiner raised the topic during a phone interview conducted in two parts on Thursday and Friday. 

Harold added that she wants “to show that principles of economic freedom and limited government are not part of the ‘war on women’ but can actually empower women.”To that end, she suggested that “it’s important for our party that we do promote strong women in the Republican Party, because that’s a great way of showing that, not only is there no war, but that we support women that want to stand for conservative principles.”

Harold articulates a clear message about the empowerment that the free market can bring women and her belief that the Republican party is welcoming to women. Unfortunately, Harold has been targeted by people within her own party. On Wednesday, the Montgomery county GOP chair, Jim Allen, a supporter of Davis, launched a sexist and racially charged attack on Harold through an email, saying:

Rodney Davis will win, and the love child of the DNC will be back in Chicago by May working for some law firm that needs to meet their quota for minority hires. ...The little queen touts her abstinence. Now, Miss Queen is being used like a street walker and her pimps are the Democrat Party. These pimps want something they can't get.

Allen's attack is not only vile and absurd; it is demonstrably false. Harold got to where she is on her own merits, not as a result of a law firm's need to fulfill quotas. As someone who was a delegate to the 2004 RNC convention and who strongly espouses conservative principles, she is hardly a "love child" of the DNC. Harold responded by noting that such comments had "no place in the public discourse" and that she wanted to remain focused on a positive campaign. Sadly, sexually charged attacks are common place when conservative (and minority) women take on the establishments of their own party. Sarah Palin has been referred to as the " supreme commander of MILF-istan" by pundit Tucker Carlson and referred to as a Spice Girl during her mayoral campaign in the mid 1990s.  Indian American South Carolina governor Nikki Haley was called a "raghead" and  was hit with allegations of an affair by men within her own party during her 2010 gubernatorial run. 

The Davis campaign and RNC chair Reince Prebius rightfully called for Allen's resignation, and on Thursday, Allen resigned from his chair. To borrow from a World War II term, if Erika Harold is taking flak; she must be over the target. Flight crews knew that if they were taking flak from the enemy, they must be over their target (doing their job effectively). Those who choose to take on the establishment of their own party are often attacked. Women like Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley especially can attest to that, but that puts Harold in pretty good company.

Crossposted from the New Agenda.

The Republican Party's Political and Policy Pyramid Scheme

On Saturday, Tony Lee wrote a piece at Breitbart highlighting a recent speech by Pat Caddell where he discussed the reasons behind the Republican party's defeat in the presidential election. Among the many things that Caddell noted is that the Romney campaign bowed to the "consultant-lobbyist-establishment" complex. However, this is not only the GOP's political modus operandi, it is also their policy approach. This is why, although the Democrats may seem to resonate with voters more on messaging (Caddell also mentioned that voters didn't think Governor Romney "cared about them"), the differences on policy between the two parties appears to be shrinking. Of particular note, Caddell said:

“Why are Republicans not the anti-establishment party?,” Caddell asked.  

Caddell emphasized a “narrative is a story” that comes over a period of time and “not just a single message.” 

He cited Ronald Reagan as someone who knew how to speak to Democrats and “ordinary and common” Americans and bring them over to his side because Reagan had been one of them and came from regular Americans and shared their experiences. 

“That is a quality that has been missing a long time in a search for alternative candidate," Caddell said, in reference to Reagan's ability to resonate with blue collar Americans. 

[...] 

“As long as the establishment wants to preserve the establishment and their special deals, you will lose,” Caddell said.

Caddell, of course, is correct. The Republican party's political approach has been inept attempt of self-preservation of the Establishment. They have been rudderless, inarticulate, and out-of-touch. I wrote last week about the need for the Republican party to do a better job at messaging and selling the winning product of conservatism, but the keys to victory of course, goes beyond this. One of the Republican party's failures has been that they have seen politics along a single axis--right and left--between the seemingly arbitrary boundaries of political parties. In reality, politics and policy both have a vertical component to them---top to bottom--not in the terms of political party, but of political connection and personal benefit.

As Caddell notes, "why are Republicans not the anti-establishment party?". They are not because they willfully ignore their own devotion to that "consultant-lobbyist-establishment" complex. Caddell also noted:

“No presidential campaign should be run by consultants,” Caddell said. “They should be run by people who are committed to the candidate and not into making big money.”

However, the past two losing presidential campaigns has been run by people who saw they could make money even in losing. Despite running a horrible campaign in 2008, Steve Schmidt saw he could continue to make money as a consultant and later as a political analyst at MSNBC as a "Republican" who trashes Republicans. The same can be said for Nicolle Wallace who works now at ABC and has attempted to capitalized on the notoriety of defeat by writing political fiction (which is the same genre as her political commentary). Through mid October, the Romney campaign had paid  $134+ million to political firms tied to his aides, including funding a  failed GOTV software. Karl Rove's "Crossroads" group brought in and spent more than one hundred million dollars, only to have every candidate they supported lose. The GOP establishment has turned the Republican party into a pyramid scheme--where the few at the top (the Establishment and their consultants) eat well at the expense of their own base. The political game is not simply "right vs. left"; it is a game where the establishment does not care if they win politically (and the country wins on the basis of ideology and principle) so long as they win monetarily.  They eschew their own base and ignore the entire electorate to pad their bank accounts. They do not realize the need for "free market populism", which is the solution for the "vertical" political and policy problems the GOP has.

Policy must be viewed on a vertical plane as well. Cronyism and corporatism must be rejected. Both of these "isms" allow for the politically connected at the top of food chain to benefit at the expense of the taxpayers at the bottom. This goes beyond the infamous problems with Solyndra and the other green energy companies tied to political donors. This also includes political institutions like the ExIm Bank, which provides taxpayer backed loan guarantees for American companies who sell their product overseas. The ExIm bank is supported by many Republicans, and its re-authorization was one of the few things that flew through the House and Senate with ease before being signed by President Obama. The Republican party is not distinguishing themselves from the Democrats when they choose to subsidize business on the backs of ordinary Americans.

Economic ideas must not be the "pro-government" ideas of the Democrats, nor the purported "pro-business" ideas of the Republicans. Rather, they must be "pro-market" ideas. Pro government ideas are founded in expanding government at the expense of the taxpayers' money and liberty. Pro business ideas are founded in expanding government and some businesses at the expense of both other businesses and taxpayers. Both of the ideologies empower either government or specific businesses or industries, but "pro market" ideas empower the consumer as their purchasing power, not government taxation, bailouts, or subsidies, drives the market. Take, for example, ethanol subsidies. The EPA refused to ease ethanol mandates for fuel following a year of drought which negatively affected the corn harvest. What does this do? It makes fuel more expensive, and it has even made livestock farmers resort to feeding candy to their animals because increased corn prices have made livestock feed more expensive, which continues to occur in part because corn is being used for ethanol in fuel rather than in livestock feed. What does this have to do with the Republican party? Again, ethanol subsidies have bipartisan support, and the Republican party has not distinguished themselves from Democrats.

The concept of populism is not often seen as a conservative concept, and to some, free market populism may seem like an oxy moron. However, it is not the populism of liberals who pit Americans against each other through class warfare. It is a populism that desires to wage a war of sorts against the permanent political class (and the "consultant-lobbyist-establishment" complex) through a new brand of policy and politics. It is a brand guided not by the clinched fist of socialism, nor the hand-in-hand relationships of business and government, but of the invisible hand of the free market where the individual is empowered by lower taxes and smaller government.

In order to win elections and subsequently support for policy, the Republican party must realize that the battle lies in their message and the directionality of their focus, not in the hands of establishment consultants. If they ignore the vertical plane of their political and policy battles, they will lose not only their political base, but the electorate as a whole, and their pyramid scheme will come crashing down.


Crossposted here and here.

Under the Maginfying Glass: A Tale of Two Vice Presidential Candidacies

In the weeks following the election, Republicans are assessing what went wrong that led to their defeat. Much to the criticism of some in the party, Governor Romney has hypothesized that President Obama won because of the "gifts" that he offered minorities. Others have speculated that the GOP was not able to effectively reach out to the changing demographics of America or that the party misinterpreted polls and got cocky. Others have pointed to poorly designed and implemented GOTV technology.Compared to the 2008 election, there is one reason for defeat that is conspicuously missing from the "Wednesday morning" political strategizing -- blaming the GOP choice for vice president.

Paul Ryan, of course, was not the reason for Mitt Romney's defeat. His nomination provided a spark for many in the Republican party. He was an articulate voice for the GOP ticket and a seemingly good fit for a Romney campaign nearly singularly focused on the economy. He is an intelligent Congressman who has shown leadership in the House on the budget and making strong stances against Obamacare, particularly the IPAB---the unelected board of bureaucrats tasked with managing how Medicare pays. Ryan has served as a Congressman in Washington DC since 1999 and worked for House members for several years during the early and mid 1990s as well. However, despite his strong stance against the Obama administration's profligate spending, he also supported  the TARP bailout during the Bush administration and the auto bailout set in motion during the Bush administration. He has been a good Republican soldier in Washington D.C. for nearly twenty years, which made him ideal for Romney, especially as someone from the same state (a swing state too) as the current RNC chair.

In 2008, Sarah Palin was quite the opposite in some respects. She was the governor of Alaska--about as far away from Washington D.C. as one can get. She had garnered a reputation for bucking her own party-- calling out the Alaska GOP chair for doing party business on state time, taking on and defeating an incumbent governor in her own party, cleaning up the ethical mess caused by that incumbent she defeated, and even suing a GOP presidential administration to enable energy development in Alaska. During the campaign, she wanted to abandon the micromanaging of her handlers and speak on passion and principles rather than talking points. She was the embodiment of the feminist ideal--a great family, a successful career, not to mention a state basketball championship and the ability to shoot a moose and cook it up for dinner. This proved to be a perfect target for the media, the Democrats, and GOP Establishment to go after Governor Palin, not only for the blamecasting loss, but also the treatment and coverage throughout the campaign, which was much harsher than what was shown Paul Ryan.

The Romney campaign was, of course, smart enough not to hire the likes of Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace (unlike MSNBC and ABC), so the source of much of the redistribution of blame of the 2008 campaign was missing from the 2012 campaign. Ryan was not a threat to the GOP machine, because in many ways, he was already a part of it. There was no need for Romney campaign staffers, some of whom had trashed Governor Palin during the 2008 general election, to send out emails to coordinate a strategy to shield themselves from blame if they lost, as Steve Schmidt had done.So far during the 2012 election fallout, Romney advisers are blaming strategy and messaging, not directly their own candidates.

The media and the Obama campaign, however, did go after Paul Ryan with spurious attacks. Prior to the campaign and during the campaign, they tried to portray his budgetary roadmap as one that would throw grandma over the cliff. The Obama campaign tried to conflate Todd Akin's comments on rape with Paul Ryan's stance on abortion. The media and Democrats both turned a visit by Ryan to a soup kitchen into a ridiculous mini-scandal. However, this was nothing compared to the barrage that Governor Palin received four years ago from within her campaign, the Democrats, and the media. Like Ryan, Palin also had false accusations launched at her regarding who rape--specifically who paid for rape test kits when she was mayor. However, with Governor Palin claims seemed more pointed and numerous. Ridiculous claims were made that she wasn't the mother of Trig, her youngest son. False claims were also made regarding Palin's associations with the Alaska Independence Party (AIP), which has succession as part of its platform. This supposed AIP-Palin connection was also falsely cast onto to Governor Palin by an employee of a Democratic PR firms. Claims were made that she cut funding for special education when she actually increased spending for special education substantially.She even was falsely reported to have banned books like Harry Potter when she was mayor--before the books were even written.

For Governor Palin, it went beyond false claims surrounding policy and into false charges regarding her character-- charges that she abused her power by pressuring a commissioner to fire a state trooper who once was Palin's brother-in-law. State senator, Kim Elton launched a legislative inquiry into the matter, deeming it an “October surprise”(i.e. he intended it be political). During the inquiry process, the Obama camp even made contact with the troopers’ union of Governor Palin’s former brother-in-law.Ultimately, the politically motivated legislative inquiry found her as abusing power, while the personnel board, who were all appointed by Governor Murkowski, no friend of Governor Palin, exonerated her. Following President Obama’s election, Kim Elton was given a cushy job in President Obama's Department of Interior. Elton had also allowed former chief of staff to then Senator Obama and once interim chief of staff to President Obama, Pete Rouse, to use Elton’s Alaskan address so that  Rouse could vote in Alaska even after he hadn’t lived there for more than twenty years. Democrats sought to destroy her character, not solely mislead on her policy.

During the campaign, Governor Palin was criticized for being held back from the press--a poor campaign move by operatives like Schmidt and Wallace. Prior to her becoming the VP pick, emails obtained by the Anchorage Daily News noted that she was to be a McCain surrogate across several networks, yet the campaign held her back when she was picked. When she did talk to media embeds, she was criticized for "going rogue". Meanwhile, Paul Ryan only spoke to the traveling press corps four times during the campaign and never gave formal press availability. Ryan's limited press interaction never became a major story, however, only the subject of a singular tweet from a member of the traveling press corps.

Not only was Governor Palin more harshly covered by the media, her family was as well. Todd Palin's voter registration became a huge news story when he inadvertently checked the box for the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) when he simply intended to note he was an independent (he later corrected this). However, Paul Ryan's wife was not placed under the same intense scrutiny--despite the fact that she had been a congressional staffer and a corporate lobbyist in the past.  During their respective campaigns,  Governor Palin's children was the mother of a four school aged (or younger) children and a son in the military while Congressman Ryan's children were all under the age of 10. The young age of his three children and a busy campaign schedule were never a reason for faux concern from the media, as it was for Governor Palin.  Not to mention how Bristol Palin was put under the spotlight by the media and the Left during her concurrent pregnancy.

Despite claims made by McCain campaign staffers even prior to the campaign's end, Governor Palin was not reason for the McCain-Palin ticket's defeat. In fact, she helped the ticket. Among those who noted Palin's presence on the GOP ticket affected their vote, 56% voted for McCain-Palin compared to 43% for Obama-Biden. John McCain and Sarah Palin received 59,934, 814 votes while  Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan received 59, 142,004 votes--a more than three quarters of a million vote difference in favor of McCain-Palin. This was despite the fact that the Romney campaign made more contacts with voters on a grassroots level than the McCain campaign. These vote differences are in no way an indictment of Paul Ryan's candidacy, nor does an indictment lie in the context of solely a presidential campaign. The indictment lies with the GOP Establishment, Democrats, and the media who all seemed to have the same goal of destroying Governor Palin--a goal they haven't achieved despite continued efforts. Revisiting the 2008 campaign is not an attempt to rehash the past, but to put it in greater perspective. This month's election now provides an even bolder contrast to further reveal how much the media, the Democrats and even her own party wished to smear and discredited Governor Palin--and how much they continue to do so.

During this election cycle, GOP Establishmentarian, Karl Rove disingenuously represented Palin's effect on the ticket by saying McCain was leading prior to picking her as VP and he poo-pooed the effect of her endorsement as "not worth snot". In the end, Rove's endorsement successes were non-existent while Governor Palin had great success. The Democrats still reference Palin, in attempts to diminish her, but their reference to her only shows her influence and their fear. John Kerry referenced Governor Palin  in his speech at the Democratic convention when discussing Mitt Romney's policy on Russia. Obama campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, referenced Palin in response to Rudy Guliani questioning Joe Biden's mental capacity. This past week, the head of Obama's SuperPAC and former deputy White House press secretary, Bill Burton took a shot at Palin in response to John McCain's criticism of Susan Rice's comments on the attack on the American consulate in Libya.She still remains a target for and a threat to both parties.

A willingness to serve in the capacity of vice presidential nominee means that your record, your family, and your character will be put under a magnifying glass--as it should. With Governor Palin, however, the GOP establishment, Democrats, and the media used (and continue to use) the magnifying glass the same way a mean kid uses it to direct sun's rays to an ant hill--to destroy. A magnifying glass can be revealing for objects on either side of it though, and thankfully, Governor Palin has used the magnifying glass to further reveal the corrupt nature of the very people who seek to destroy her.

Crossposted here and here.

Rejecting "Crystal Pepsi" Conservatism and Embracing People and Principle Centered Conservatism

"It was a tremendous learning experience. I still think it's the best idea I ever had, and the worst executed. A lot of times as a leader you think, "They don't get it; they don't see my vision." People were saying we should stop and address some issues along the way, and they were right. It would have been nice if I'd made sure the product tasted good. Once you have a great idea and you blow it, you don't get a chance to resurrect it."  

Those were the words of Yum Brands CEO, David Novak, . His "great idea" was that  of revamping Pepsi as a clear soda called Crystal Pepsi. Crystal Pepsi was introduced to the market in the early 1990s and proved to be a massive flop. Why did it flop? Because they tried to change a winning product. However, Novak and Yum Brands took Crystal Pepsi off the market because it failed. They knew they could not get customer buy-in on a poor imitation of a solid product. Perhaps the Republican party could learn a lesson from those in marketing. When you match a good product with the right messaging, the product sells.

However, the Republican Establishment and Beltway campaign operatives think that the way to improve conservatism is to change it, rather than to do a better job of marketing conservatism. This kind of "Crystal Pepsi conservatism" is pushed by Establishmentarians like Governor Jeb Bush who wrote a piece at the National Review this past summer indicating that Republicans need to become the "Grand Solutions party" and abandon the "black lines of ideology". However, in Governor Bush's attempt to make the GOP big tent, he has tried to drive the ideological pegs into the swampy ground of moderation, rather than the solid ground of principle. Following the electoral loss last week, Republicans like John Boehner and conservative pundits like Sean Hannity have called for immigration reform. Bill Kristol is encouraging the GOP to give in to tax increases. All of these men are trying to re-package a failing "Crystal Pepsi conservatism" that betrays principles. Instead, the party ought to follow the advice of Governor Sarah Palin that she shared following the 2010 GOP victories, " a winning conservative message must be careful crafted" just as Reagan changed his messaging between his 1976 and 1980 campaigns. The message may need to be re-crafted, but the conservatives principles need to remain. 

The Republican Establishment would be well served to replace their high investment, but low return DC/NYC political strategists and operatives with conservatives who are in the field of marketing. Those in marketing don't change good products; they only seek to provide the product with the right message in the appropriate media so that it sells. Conservatism is a great product. Individual freedom, free men and free markets are marketable to every demographic. It just needs to be messaged appropriately to our diverse American melting pot. Those in marketing and advertising use market segmentation research to reach our diverse popularity by tailor the message by race, income, education, urbanicity and other factors. Just as Pepsi isn't sold to baby boomers using the same commercial advertising and advertising platforms as millennials, so conservatism shouldn't be marketed to white empty nesters in the same manner as it is marketed young Hispanic business owners. Free market conservatism is the product, but the message to empty nesters might be one of reduced capital gains taxes to protect their retirement while the message to young Hispanic business owners might be one of reduced corporate taxes and fewer government regulations that provides a better life for their family. This enables conservative coalition building, and is something that would have served the Romney campaign well. However, Hispanic and black conservatives approached the campaign with coalition building ideas that were turned away.  The campaign did not effectively engage the consumers of conservatism. There is no need for pandering, but there is a place for engaging all segments of the electorate a candidate ultimately aims to represent. 

 Our Republic was founded on "we the people", and that is what conservatism's messaging should be founded upon as well. This is a  messaging concept that Margaret Thatcher understood an ocean away and nearly 40 years ago, when in 1975, the Tory party suffered considerable political defeats. She wrote (emphasis added):

Politicians should not be either professional efficiency experts or amateur industrial consultants. Their concern is with people, and they must look at every problem from the grassroots, not from the top looking down. 

[...] 

My kind of Tory party would make no secret of its belief in individual freedom and individual prosperity, in the maintenance of law and order, in the wide distribution of private property, in rewards for energy, skill and thrift, in diversity of choice, in the preservation of local rights in local communities. 

Size is not all, any more than economic growth is all. Even efficiency is not enough. People come first—their needs, their hopes, their choice, their values and ideals. We have to understand these first—to be seen to be listening with sympathy and concern. It is important to be able to lead, certainly. But you cannot for long lead people where they do not want to go.

Conservatism must be framed in the context not in the white papers based theory of policy, but in the reality and application of those policies in individual's lives.People must come first, and as Thatcher said, politicians must look at problems not from the top down, but from the grassroots--the people, not the consultants. The message medium has changed as well, and the Republican Establishment must adapt. Texas conservative grassroots activist Michelle McCormick characterizes the current GOP as " Blockbuster in the age of Netflix". Both the brick and mortar Blockbuster and Netflix have the same product of "rentable" movies, but Netflix acts within the framework of the internet while Blockbuster operates in the last century framework of tangible DVDs. Conservatism must operate in a new media, entertainment age. As Andrew Breitbart famously emphasized politics is downstream from culture, and this is something the Republican party must capitalize upon. 

William F. Buckley famously noted that he'd rather be governed by the first 400 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard. In the same way, conservatism would be well served to employ conservative marketing strategists instead of beltway strategists and blue blood politicians who insist on single minded and poor imitations of the winning product of conservatism. 

Palin, Reagan, Thatcher, and the Political Second Coming of 1976

Today, February 11, 2012,  Governor Palin gave the closing address at CPAC. Today also marks 37 years since Margaret Thatcher was elected to be the head of British Conservative party ousting former Prime Minister Heath. That same year, 1975, Thatcher was given that leadership, Ronald Reagan gave his famous "bold colors, no pastels" speech to that year's CPAC convention. Three leaders whose principles and passion drive them, not their political party.

Governor Palin's barnburner of a speech hit on everything from her call to stand for life to highlighting how Obama's policies led to the MF Global's disastrous loss of billions of dollars of people's money to criticizing how the Obama administration is sharing nuclear intelligence with the Russian Kremlin . She carved out every leg of the stool.  She hit on the permanent political class who, rather than viewing Washington D.C. as a cesspool that needs drained, see Washington as a hot tub to lounge in. She called for not a red or a blue America, but a red, white, and blue America--unity against a president who is not trying to win the future, but lose our country. She also called for the presidential candidates to stick to the issues and to the need to replace President Obama in the issues. Perhaps drawing (in a bit of a softer way) from her recent Facebook post about the cannibalistic methods of GOP Establishment, Governor Palin called on the candidates to avoid the personal attacks and misrepresentations and lies of each other's records. There's no need for the Republican Party to become the political Donner party to only make the Democratic machine's job easier in the general election.

Any words I could type about this speech would not do Governor Palin justice. The best thing to do is watch it for yourself. There are some who, even after this speech, which required 4 overflow rooms to be open at the event with who knows how many watching at home, downplay Governor Palin's influence. There are some who say that if she was a real fighter she would have thrown her hat into the ring for 2012. However, Governor Palin's flame has not be snuffed out, as Adrienne Ross noted yesterday. She is still a fighter. None of the current presidential candidates went to Madison, Wisconsin in the midst of one of the fiercest reform battles in modern American history. None of the others stood with the Tea Party when we were essentially deemed accomplices to murder following the horrible Tucson shooting in January of 2011, yet Governor Palin did--even while she was the main target. Today, she stood with us fighting a two front ideological and strategic battle with both the GOP Establishment and the Left. Governor Palin has always stood with us, not in front of or behind us. She has spoken with us, not at us or to us. She has done so, not to score political points and not to gain political power. She has done so because it is who she is. She happily clings to principle; she doesn't bitterly cling to power. What you cling to is what guides you.

 Personally, I've always thought of Governor Palin has the political lovechild of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Ronald Reagan's "bold colors, no pastels" speech came when he was not an office holder, nor had he launched his 1976 presidential campaign. Margaret Thatcher's position as head of the British Conservative party came when her party was in the minority. She wasn't running for prime minister at this time. In the timeline of conservative political history, so many have tried to correlate this year's upcoming election with that of 1980. While there is indeed a Jimmy Carter like figure in this election; there is not a Reagan like figure. While there are no perfect political parallels, perhaps this election year begs the question if  it is really the second 1980? Perhaps instead it is the second 1975-1976--when the conservatives in America and in Britain called their parties to be bold in their principles and in their foundation. After all, what good is a "big tent" if the tent pegs are driven into a mushy ground?  Conservatism is often described as a three legged stool, and indeed it is, but it's that stool won't hold together unless it is bound by the seat of character and the glue of the optimism and good humor. This is the principled bond of Thatcher, Reagan, and Palin. Because these principled leaders reasonated with so many people, they were often tried to be silenced by their critics. However, they all possessed that "glue" of optimism and good humor in the face of hecklers, as Rubegonia has captured in this clip of Palin's speech today and one of both Reagan's and Thatcher's speeches:

 

 Thank you, Governor, for being principled and passionate, and happy birthday!

Crossposted here and here.

Governor Palin's Message to the Donner Party--We Owe Americans a Better Discourse than This

...One of the left's favorite weapons is frivolous ethics complaints. That's what they used to bring down the architect of the 1994 "Republican Revolution", Newt Gingrich. 

Prior to the election of 1994, the Democrats had held a majority in the House of Representatives for nearly 4 decades. Working with a team of grassroots activists, Newt selected and trained candidates, shaped a political message, and became what [David] Horowitz called "something rare in Republican politics--a genuine movement leader." 

To the left, that meant one thing: he had to be eliminated. There are many fine Democrat public servants, but sadly many in the party have moved increasingly left, and often the beating heart of their political warfare had been the personal distruction of their enemies. Generally speaking, after decades of failed social policies and weak national security positions, the party doesn't have a strong base of success from which to win political arguments. So it targets people instead of ideas. 

Back in the 1990s, Democrats had Newt in their sights. And strangely enough, the more influential he became, the more "unethical" he became--at least if you count the number of complaints filed against him. Horowitz wrote, "Eventually, Democrats lodged seventy-four separate charges against Gingrich, sixty-five were summarily 'laughed out the committee'. 

Over time the cloud of ethical questions hanging over Newt reached critical mass. Instead of defending their own, Republicans on certain committees forced Newt to concede one charge. 

-Governor Palin in Going Rogue (page 363-364) (emphasis added)

Yesterday, Governor Palin wrote a scathing rebuke of the GOP Establishment, which based upon the title of that Facebook post, I'm going to now refer to as the Donner Party.Governor Palin has recognized the tactics of the left as they have been applied to both Speaker Gingrich and herself. The excerpt from her book that I shared above comes amid her discussion of the frivolous charges launched at her. What this excerpt and her Facebook post really boil down to is three things: 1) the savageness of the left 2) the passive and sometimes non-existent defense of the "right" and 3) the cannibalism that has been employed by the "Donner Party".

As Governor Palin wrote in that Facebook post:

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.  

 [...]  

 As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?

Governor Palin has seen the nature of the tactics of the left and some in the Establishment first hand. She saw her family attacked, her maternity questioned, and her record misrepresented by an Obama campaign machine and a complicit media. The media still employ individuals, like recent Newsweek cover story author Andrew Sullivan,  who question that she is the mother of her youngest son. The 2008 election and beyond brought a whole flurry of attacks on Governor Palin and her record. A legislative inquiry, billed as an "October surprise" for the 2008 election, was launched into whether or not Governor Palin pressured a commissioner to fire a state trooper for personal reasons. This was led by a Alaskan Democrat who later was rewarded with a cushy job in the Obama Interior Department, and the Obama campaign kept in contact with the trooper's union during the proceedings. Her record--from funding for special needs education as Governor to funding for rape kits while mayor--was lied about.   Additionally, when the barrage of frivolous ethics complaints were levied against the Governor in 2009, many of them came from the DNC's official Alaskan blogger for the 2008 campaign. The McCain campaign in 2008 and few if any Republicans in 2009 came to her defense when her record was misrepresented, her character was attacked, and unsubstantiated charges were levied against her.

As an electoral defeat seemed imminent and eventually came to be in 2008, anonymous McCain staffers (many of whom were former Romney staffers) were thought to be the ones who disparaged the Governor--who was a candidate on the very ticket they were working for--by saying she "went rogue" against the McCain campaign's direction, didn't know that Africa was a continent, and answered the door of her hotel room with nothing but a towel on during the campaign. All this happened while, as Governor Palin stated in her Facebook post, "[m]any of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted". Senator McCain's staff was kneecapping their own candidate while Senator McCain was unwilling to effectively focus on candidate Obama's associates and lack of a record.

 In 2010, anonymous Romney staffers would dismiss Governor Palin as "not a serious human being", and even as recently as last fall, other anonymous staffers joked that they would be trilled with a Palin (and/or a Bachmann) candidacy because they could run against  those "crazy women".   Not juxtaposition of records or ideas, but personal attacks, not by Romney himself, but by anonymous staff. His hands stay clean while his potential opponents get knocked.

It's not just about Governor Palin, though in spite of the fact she isn't running for President this cycle, the Donner Party still sees her as a great threat. It is the Tea Party movement.When Christine O'Donnell won the GOP primary race for Senate in Delaware, GOP Establishmentarian Karl Rove and others spent the remainder of the campaign bashing O'Donnell and the Tea Party movement and essentially serving as an across-the-aisle surrogate for Chris Coons, the Democratic candidate and later victor of the race. To be sure, O'Donnell was in many ways a flawed and perhaps out-of-depth candidate, but the level of vitriol launched at her by her own party was hurtful to their chance to potentially regain control of the Senate. Although like O'Donnell,  Nikki Haley is seen by some as a traitor to Tea Party principles following her endorsement of Mitt Romney, she was one of the many who came into office under the wave of the Tea Party. Haley won her race in spite of sexist and Establishment lies about alleged affairs launched at her.  Again, the South Carolina Establishment, rather than supporting their party's gubernatorial nominee, levied attacks against her. To his credit, Governor Romney did support Nikki Haley in this, though the same could not be said of the next attack on Tea Party conservatives when the tragedy of the Tucson shootings occurred a few months following the 2010 election.  Romney and others said little if anything in defense of the Governor Palin, specifically, and the Tea Party, more broadly, when they were essentially deemed to be essentially accomplices to murder. Governor Palin is absolutely right. These folks are political cannibals, or at the very least, political pacifists unwilling to defend the people of their own party.

In Governor Palin's post, she articulates that this is also not about Newt Gingrich. In fact, Gingrich's support of liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava in the special election in NY-23 indicated that he was willing to go along with the Establishment, and he even criticized Governor Palin for supporting conservative candidate Doug Hoffmann. Gingrich has indeed been in Washington for many years and isn't without fault, but at this point in the election, poses the greatest threat to the Establishment's golden boy, Mitt Romney. As with any election, the candidates are imperfect. Herein lies the beauty of the American electoral experience! James Madison once said, " if men were angels, there would be no need for government".  The beauty of the America lies in the fact that  we choose are leaders from among ourselves. By default, they are going to be imperfect. That's not to say that their faults are to be excused. Quite possibly the only thing that Mitt Romney has not flip flopped on is the topic of Romneycare, among his other faults. Newt Gingrich has supported efforts on climate change with Nancy Pelosi and education with Al Sharpton among other liberal notions he's espoused over the years. Rick Santorum has voted against national right-to-work laws  and has some issues with using taxpayer money to fund his children's "cyber school" education. Ron Paul has a dangerous approach to Iran, and in spite of his strong stand against massive government spending, has requested millions in earmarks, even at a time when the GOP has called for a moratorium on earmarks. Like Governor Palin said, Newt Gingrich is an "imperfect vessel". Any candidate would have some level of imperfection.

The problem with the Donner wing of the GOP is that a double standard is applied. Earlier during the presidential primary, Romney hit then candidate Rick Perry from the left on Social Security without a peep from the Establishment, but when Newt Gingrich hit Romney from the Left on Bain Capital, it was seen as an inexcusable attack on capitalism. Romney, the candidate who said that he didn't want to return to the ways of Reagan, have been inaccurately and malevolently trying to paint Newt Gingrich as anti-Reagan. To be sure, Gingrich has perhaps been critical of Reagan's state department and had suggestions for George HW Bush's campaign, but to paint the man whom Nancy Reagan said carried President Reagan's torch, is an underhanded tactic. One could only imagine the tactics the Establishment would use against Governor Palin had she chosen to run. Attacks on her resignation and the frivolous ethics complaints would likely be used to try to paint her as not up to the pressure of the job of leader of the free world. Who knows? They may have even tried to paint her as anti-Thatcher as well!

The Establishment wants a coronation; the electorate wants a nomination. Generally it has been the "next-in-line" who has gotten the support of the Establishment. In 2008, it was John McCain, and in 2012, it is Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney has gotten the support of the those in the conservative media--Jennifer Rubin and Ann Coulter. He has received the support of the likes of John McCain, President George HW Bush, and Bob Dole--candidates who took the phrase "everything in moderation" and turned it into a political ideology. Whoever has been the biggest challenge to Mitt Romney has been disparaged by the Establishment. Jennifer Rubin started writing negative pieces about Governor Palin 8 days after she started writing for the Washington Post. At the time, Governor Palin's potential candidacy was the biggest threat to Romney's nomination. The Establishment knocked Rick Perry when his candidacy peeked and was a threat to Romney's nomination. Tom Ridge, moderate Republican and former Bush Cabinet member, hit Michele Bachmann as inexperienced when she was at her peak. While Newt Gingrich is seen as a Washington insider, he is not necessarily the Establishment's choice, and has therefore been in many ways unfairly attacked.

 To be sure, campaigns are cutthroat. Records need to be exposed. Policy plans will be scrutinized. Character will be tested. This is all for the benefit of the electorate and the refining of the candidates' mettle. Same standards must be applied to all candidates. People who cry foul on Gingrich's misrepresentation of Romney's immigration stance can't try to sweep Romney's misrepresentation of Gingrich's ethics record under the rug. Our country was founded in part because the settlers wanted representation; they didn't want a distant king calling down orders and levying taxes from on high. Similarly, the conservative electorate, or any American electorate for that matter, does not want an oligarchical "Donner Party" to determine the outcome of election.  Here in Illinois, some of Mitt Romney's delegates are challenging Rick Santorum's ballot petition signatures to potentially keep him off the Illinois primary ballot. Mitt Romney's Illinois campaign manager is also our state treasurer.  Never mind that in the interim, Illinois credit was downgraded to the worst in the country. Getting a political opponent off the ballot is far more important than hunkering down and addressing a major fiscal crisis to those backing Romney. In other words, Romney's supporters would rather not give Illinoisans a choice of candidates rather than win the battle of ideas.

 Thankfully, there are people like Governor Palin who are echoing the words of President Reagan when he said, "those voices don't speak for the rest of us" when speaking about the Elite whether it liberals in elected office or those in the political power at a party level. During her gubernatorial run in 2006, a pivotal point came when Governor Palin's opponents were bickering, and she interrupted them and calmly said, "we owe Alaskans a better discourse than this".  Governor Palin has essentially said the same thing on a national level.  The GOP owes the electorate a discourse, not an Establishment monologue, on the issues, and they owe us a better one. Eleanor Roosevelt once said, " Great minds discuss ideas;average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people". This primary election must be a discourse of ideas, not a barrage of personal attacks. As an undecided voter, a discourse of ideas, not an Establishment command, is what I would like to see in the coming weeks and months of this upcoming election. I'm glad to see that Governor Palin has continued to hold the Donner Party accountable for their tactics.

 Crossposted here and here.

Bonnie Erbe Plays a Bad Hand against Governor Palin

It has become customary over the past two-plus years for "journalists" and columnists to play a number of dog-eared cards from their deck of memes, slights, and misconceptions about Governor Palin in their articles and columns. A syndicated editorial piece by Bonnie Erbe (who is no friend to strong, out spoken conservative women as Michelle Malkin can attest to) published this weekend plays several of these cards against Governor Palin, her book, and her potential run for the presidency. Erbe begins by mocking Governor Palin's star power and her straightforward approach. Then, she goes on to provide her own off base, biased, mocking summary of Governor Palin's newest book by playing the racist and anti-feminist cards and mocking Governor Palin's unabashed conservatism:

In it, she blasts feminists (after once having called herself one) and waves the flag of racial division. She blasts Democrats as Socialists, bullies Republicans for being too weak-kneed on budget items and dares to tread where no man (or woman) in the national political spotlight has had little-enough common sense to tread before.

Ms.Erbe must have read a different book than scores of Americans and I are reading, but like many of her "journalist" counterparts, Erbe feels that insinuating that any conservative who opposes the President on any aspect of his progressive agenda is a racist. My challenge to Erbe, David Frum, and Richard Cohen is to read pages 23-33 of America by Heart, and then attempt to say Governor Palin "waves the flag of racial division". In this particular section of the book, Governor Palin briefly outlines the history of America and race from the Constitutional convention to to the Civil War to the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr.. Governor Palin even praises candidate Obama's speech on race during the 2008 campaign. Governor Palin recognizes the errors of America's past while encouraging Americans to be unified around the exceptionalism that is America. When discussing academia's propensity to talk about slavery in light of America's birth, Governor Palin writes on pages 24-25:

It sometimes seems like slavery is all that liberal academia and the mainstream media wants to talk about when the topic is America's birth, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge the contradiction that slavery represented to American principles. To do less is to denigrate the greatness of those principles. To love our country is to confront our history squarely and honestly. To love our fellow Americans is to admit that we have not always, as a nation, respected their God-given rights.

Governor Palin is definitely not waving a flag of "racial division"there, but instead a flag of American unity based upon a truthful understanding of our past and an optimistic outlook of our present and future.

Later in America by Heart, Governor Palin eschews the notion of liberal feminism based upon victimhood, big government, and pro-abortion stances. She does not bash feminism; she redefines it based upon the rugged individualism of the pioneering women of the West and the work of the earliest American women involved in American and Alaskan politics. Throughout the book, yes, Governor Palin does criticize liberal politicians and squishy Republicans. When the Democrats recent policies have resulted in trillions of dollars in new spending and greater government involvement in industries and Republicans behave more like liberals, then Governor Palin never hesitates to call a spade a spade.

Beyond the ideological cards, Erbe decides also to play the all-too-often used card of "polarization". Erbe references a recent CNN poll which shows Governor Palin to be unfavorable to the American people as a whole. Authors all too often ignore that many people are unfavorable of the caricature of Governor Palin that has been portrayed by the media, not the person herself. In August, I wrote something that still remains true today (with the exception of the fact that President Obama has maintained his negative double digit approval rating for more than 4 months now):

In spite of all the media attacks and frivolous ethics complaints levied at Governor Palin, and despite the misrepresentations of her stellar gubernatorial record over the past nearly two years, Governor Palin maintains a 44/47 favorable/unfavorable rating, a favorability index of -3, in the country. Contrast this with President Obama,whose approval index has stayed in the negative double digits for more than six weeks straight and for the vast majority of 2010 in spite of the fact that the President has a largely doting media supporting him. Despite what the media have done to support President Obama and trash Governor Palin, it seems that the country likes Governor Palin more than they approve of President Obama.

As Stacy recently highlighted, the polarization card is often played to marginalize Governor Palin. However, when Governor Palin is seen as more favorable than the President is seen approved, and the majority of American people see their views are more in line with Governor Palin's than President Obama's, the media (and the rest of us) have to ask themselves, who really is polarizing?

In addition to falsely stating that Governor Palin was disloyal to Senator McCain during the 2008 Presidential campaign and levying gratuitous knocks at Bristol Palin, Erbe closes her piece by playing a card often played by the likes of Meghan McCain:

The chaos never ends. And on one level her mastery of it is fascinating. Her ability to consume way more than her share of “ink” or media coverage is incredible as well. But as a stateswoman or seasoned politician there’s no there there.

The question for now is, has she become over-exposed? Will the media tire of her shortly? Will she just have to keep getting more and more outrageous to get attention?

I do not believe she could possibly win a general presidential election. But I also feel sorry for the Republican Party hierarchy because it will have absolutely no say in whether she runs for the nomination or not. Let us hope the media and the public tire of her increasingly predictable routine.

It is ironic how so often the likes of Bonnie Erbe and Meghan McCain complain about the amount of press Governor Palin receives by writing a editorial piece about Governor Palin themselves. Beyond that, Erbe attempts to diminish the Governor Palin as a purveyor of chaos who seeks to gain attention and as a tactless, wild woman of a politician who has no chance to win a Presidential election, but may very well defy the potential wishes of the anonymous hierarchy of the Republican party.

Governor Palin does not seek to gain attention for herself, but for a message that she has become the face of over the last two years: commonsense conservative ideas, clean, uncorrupted government, and a media that seeks to inform public opinion not give its own. Erbe is right. Governor Palin is not a seasoned politician; she is an experienced leader with character. She has twenty years of experience in politics. She has experience in the private and public sectors and involvement in negotiations between the private and public sectors. She has been a city council woman, mayor, oil and gas commissioner, governor, and vice presidential candidate. Stateswoman she is, contrary to Erbe's assertion. No one has endured such attacks on her family, herself, and her record of achievements as Governor Palin has, and yet has handled it with such grace. People with in her own party have repeatedly diminished and insulted her, yet she has always adhered to Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment with grace.

The unnamed GOP hierarchy may continue to feel threatened by her potential presidential run, but no other potential candidates adheres to the principles of the Republican party better than Governor Palin. Should she seek office, her "Big Tent" will have its stakes firmly driven into the foundation of those core values of the Republican party--limited government, strong national defense, and the sanctity of life. Why should Erbe be "concerned" that a potential Republican candidate adheres to the planks of the party platform better than the party leadership does?

Erbe and the rest of the columnists and "journalists" who attempt to play from their deck of cards against Govenror Palin could learn a lesson from Kenny Rogers in his song , "The Gambler", "you gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run". These "journalists" can choose to fold or walk away. They are playing with a bad hand.

(H/T Stacy and Dave C)

Crossposted here and here.

Parker Patronizes Palin's Endorsements and Kitchen Table Politics

Kathleen Parker has decided to join in her fellow GOP Elitists, Peggy Noonan and Michael Gerson, in placing all responsibility for any Republican losses in last week's Mid-term elections on Governor Palin. Of course, the Elite probably retroactively blame Governor Palin for Reagan losing Minnesota in 1984 as well. Rumor has it as well that the Elite are in contact with Alaskan geologists to re-name the location of the massive 1964 Alaskan earthquake--Sarah Palin's fault-- as her family's move to Alaska when she was an infant was obviously the reason for the devastation.

Rather than a hit piece filled with anonymous sources, Parker's editorial uses patronizing, insulting phrases to characterize Governor Palin and her endorsements. Parker calls Governor Palin "She to Whom Respect Must Be Paid", "princess party girl", and "an attractive nuisance", then goes on to refer to her endorsements as "gambles" and her endorsed candidates as "anointed ones".

Parker then parrots the fallacy from Congressman Bachus regarding the timing of Governor Palin's endorsement of Sharron Angle:

Other notable lost seats in states where the establishment candidate might have won include Nevada, where Harry Reid defeated Tea Party pick Sharron Angle. Conventional wisdom among political veterans is that Angle's primary opponent, Sue Lowden, would have bested Reid by 15 points.

Governor Palin, as Ian pointed out earlier this week, did not endorse Sharron Angle until after the primary, so Governor Palin's endorsement had no effect on the GOP candidate selection in Nevada. Par for the course, Parker also trashes Governor Palin's endorsements of Christine O'Donnell and Joe Miller because of course in the eyes of the Establishment, it's better to have Senators who cling to power rather than those who cling to principle.

Beyond the discussion of the recent midterm elections, Parker drags out the well worn "stupid" meme when it comes to Governor Palin:

Cutting government spending may be the central mantra of the Tea Party and, increasingly, of Palin. She recently wrote against the QE2 - "quantitative easing" - whereby the Federal Reserve will dump $600 billion in freshly minted dollars into circulation in hopes of revving the economy. Doubtless, this inspired critique evolved from Palin's long years poring over the Economist.

Parker does not dispute Governor Palin's discussion of this poor plan tosupposedly help the economy. She only uses it to take a gratuitous slap at Governor Palin. Ironically, Parker's insult of Governor Palin's supposed illiteracy comes just a day after Governor Palin called out Parker's fellow "journalists" for not even reading their own newspaper. What Parker cannot seem to grasp is that Governor Palin has an uncanny ability to distill complex public policy into practical kitchen table politics. Policy is crafted by politicians and staffers in Washington, but the heavy handed effects of such policies are felt by families across the country sitting at their kitchen table trying to balance their monthly budgets. As Governor Palin pointed out in her recent speech, the potential effects of QE2 could be an increase in food prices:

All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so.

These Americans who have a grasp of what has happened to grocery prices do not include President Obama. In September, President Obama tried to purchase four apples for a dollar during a trip to Philadelphia thinking that was sufficient to cover the cost.Obviously the repercussions of quantitative easing did not factor into the Obama administration decision to purchase these bonds.

The greater issue is that politician need to be able to both understand and articulate complex policy issues to the American people in a way that is meaningful to them. Americans may understand the process of trading carbon credits, but what they are really concerned with is how cap and tax will impact their energy bills. They may understand all the levels of production a value added tax has an additional "charge", but what they're really concerned with is how this tax may increase the price of goods. The same can be said of QE2. Parker and her friends patronize this commonsense approach to policy discussion, but the American deal with policy with their checkbooks, not with pie charts and bar graphs.

Parker closes her piece by trotting out the Palin is "dangerous" meme:

Watching Palin drop foreign policy and economic nuggets into the twitterverse confirms that the real agenda for Palin is President Palin, and therein lies fresh terror for Republicans. She's too powerful to ignore, and too (fill-in-the-blank) to take seriously.

She is - in a word yet again whispered rather than uttered - "Dangerous."

Not only would Palin the presidential candidate drive away other Republican candidates, but she would most certainly lose a national election. Thus, the GOP finds itself in a pickle: How to shed itself of this attractive nuisance?

In response to a Politico hit piece a couple of weeks ago where an anonymous source called a potential Palin presidential nomination a "disaster", I wrote:

Rather than being fearful for the effects of the Obama agenda, the GOP Establishment appears to have a greater fear of Palin nomination and the "wrath" of "enthralled" Palin supporters. The GOP Establishment deems that nominating Governor Palin in 2012 would spell disaster. However, for whom would a Palin nomination be a disaster? The GOP Establishment? One of the GOP boys: Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Thune, Barbour, Daniels? President Obama?

The same message applies. Be it Kathleen Parker or an anonymous source, the Elites see Governor Palin as a disaster and a danger, but Governor Palin is only disastrous and dangerous to the GOP Establishment and to President Obama. Some may say that addressing the likes of Parker and friends isn't worth the blog space, but it has become increasingly clear,especially now that the 2010 Midterms are over, that there continues to be a battle for the Republican Party in general and the 2012 Presidential nomination specifically. The likes of Parker, Noonan, and Gerson may claim that the Establishment must be embraced and the Tea Party shunned and that commonsense language eschewed for hundred dollar words. However, the ultimate battle is against the Left. For conservatives and Republicans, that battle needs to be waged not by those who choose to endorse candidates only when it's politically safe or those who choose to comment on an issue only when loss of political capital is likely to be minimal. Governor Palin has repeatedly led on endorsing candidates, not for the sake of political expediency but for the sake of political principle. She has risked, but not lost, political capital when she has taken the lead on the issues of Obamacare, quantitative easing, and a whole slew of other issues. Parker claims the GOP can't be led by Governor Palin, but by all accounts, she is one of the few who has been willing to lead.

UPDATE: Ironically, in Parker's drivel, she pulls a page from the Couric playbook and tries to take a smack at Governor Palin's reading choices by mentioning the Economist. Governor Palin is front and center on the latest edition of the Economist leading the Republican charge on Washington:



Crossposted here.

Governor Palin Takes on Politico's Anonymous Sources

As Doug linked in a previous post , Governor Palin responded to yesterday's Politico piece in an email to the Daily Caller. This is the second Politico piece in recent weeks laden with quotes from anonymous GOP sources. The first piece was quickly refudiated by Glenn Beck and Mark Levin . The most recent piece was smack down by Greta van Susteren last night when she questioned the anonymous sources who want to be in charge of our national security do not even have the guts to attach their names to their quotes bashing Governor Palin. In the Daily Caller piece, Governor Palin, with her signature use of truthful sarcasm calls out these anonymous sources:

Palin also mocked Politico’s use of anonymous sources, saying, “I suppose I could play their immature, unprofessional, waste-of-time game, too, by claiming these reporters and politicos are homophobe, child molesting, tax evading, anti-dentite, puppy-kicking, chain smoking porn producers…really, they are… I’ve seen it myself…but I’ll only give you the information off-the-record, on deep, deep background; attribute these ‘facts’ to an ‘anonymous source’ and I’ll give you more.

In addition to referencing the paleness of KTVA reporters who were plotting an scurrilous story line for a piece on Joe Miller and his supporters, Governor Palin also makes a clever reference to Seinfeld with her "anti-dentite" reference, further emphasizing the ridiculousness of anonymous sources in politics:



The greater issue is that of the liberal media and the Establishment GOP. The American media is growing increasingly distrustful of a media that do not put names to their sources. The American people are also becoming more distrustful of the political machine that sees the greater goal being increased party power at any cost rather than a stronger stance on party principles. That is why elections have consequences. Many Establishment Republicans did not win their primaries, and Movement Republicans are poised to have a huge impact on the Midterm elections tomorrow. That's why Americans go to the polls--for the airing of grievances. A Festivus Pole (Poll), anyone?

Read more from the Daily Caller piece here.

Crossposted here.

A Message Has Been Sent to the GOP Establishment

In recent weeks Alaska and Delaware have become the setting for a battle between the GOP establishment and the commonsense conservative movement. A few weeks ago, Joe Miller's win in Alaska GOP senatorial campaign sent political shockwaves throughout the nation, as a conservative, Tea Party candidate defeated a RINO, establishment incumbent. The National Republican Senatorial Committee released a short statement of support for Joe Miller following his victory However, their statement is essentially all the support that they have given to the Miller and the commonsense conservative movement.

Within the last week, Christine O'Donnell received the support of America's leading conservative voice, Governor Palin, Congress's leading conservative voice, Michele Bachmann, and the Senate's leading conservative voice, Jim DeMint. What did that lead to? O'Donnell defeated RINO, Establishment backed candidate, Mike Castle, by a considerable margin. Of course, such news leaves Establishment commentators and pundits with their proverbial panties in a wad. Former Bush advisor, Karl Rove, proves to serve this point rather well:



Interestingly, the candidate whom Rove preferred to win once voted for an impeachment resolution for his former boss, President Bush, but I digress. Suffice it to say, for the Establishment, party politics trump party principles, even going so far as attempted deal making.

A "top Republican official" shared similar sentiments to Rove's following O'Donnell's win:

"Until she demonstrates some viability in the polls we are not going to have any money for her," a top Republican official told CNN. "It is now incumbent on Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and the Tea Party Express to help support her. They got her here. Now make it happen."

Mike Castle has already stated that he will not be endorsing O'Donnell in the general election, and when asked if the NRSC should support O'Donnell in the general election, a campaign operative said, " they should save their money."

The Tea Party Express has replied:

"We encourage the NRSC to take a night off, get some sleep, and reconsider their rash statements. It is because of inexcusable conduct in Delaware and Alaska that so many conservatives have turned to the Tea Party Express, offering their support and their donations.These people have lost faith in the NRSC as just another big-government, Washington, D.C.-based organization that has contributed to the problems this country currently faces.

"If the NRSC is committed to defeating Democrats in November, then it is time for them to honor their mission statement and do just that. If they fail to do so, then they can expect millions of conservatives to continue to steer their donations and volunteer hours elsewhere.

"Wake up NRSC, the reason the tea party movement has grown into such a powerful force is because of the failures of establishment organizations such as yours to honor the principles of the Republican Party platform. You tried to force through the most liberal Republican in Congress on the voters of Delaware and they rejected you. Wake up, you are defying your own base, and will end up an irrelevant and impotent organization that serves to only amuse the corrupt political establishment in Washington, D.C."

We often hear of Governor Palin saying, "the planks in the Republican platform are strong", and the Tea Party Express echos these sentiments in their statement. When you look at the candidates the NRSC has supported--Murkowski and Castle-- you see candidates who have supported cap and trade initiatives, who don't support repeal of Obamacare, and who are not pro-life. Are these the kind of strong planks that the Republican party stands upon? The obvious answer is "no".

Much of the Establishment and the GOP have not supported conservative candidates and have even called endorsements by conservative leaders like Governor Palin, who do support the conservative candidate, "destructive","irresponsible", and "capricious". However, the American people have spoken with their voice (and their campaign dollars), and the people of Alaska and Delaware have spoken with their vote. If you don't stand on the planks of the party, you will end up walking the proverbial plank to your own political peril. A "big tent" Republican party is a noble goal, but it is bound only to collapse if its stakes are driven into shallow ground of inconsistent, moderate principles. A message has been sent. It's not about political establishment; it's about political platform. It's not about supposed political expediency; it's about political principles.
This race is also about party unity and the GOP establishment realizing the the candidate to their ideological Left is the true opponent, not the candidate on their ideological Right. Some say that primary wins for candidates like O'Donnell spell a loss of a chance at a Republican majority in the Senate, but what's more important? A Republican majority or a conservative majority? Is the GOP establishment more concerned with putting politicians into office with a "R" behind their name or candidates whose policy positions represent what that "R" truly stands for? Governor Palin called for party unity, as did O'Donnell. If the Republican establishment does not stand behind the candidate that bears their name, they have defeated themselves and have handed victory to the Democrats. A message has been sent to the Republican establishment; it's time for the Republican establishment to join with the commonsense conservative movement to send a message to the Democrats.


Crossposted here.