Does Childhood Obesity Make America Less Secure?

On December 13th , President Obama signed the Healthy, Hunger Free Act of 2010, a bill aimed at improving school lunch programs and government food assistance programs for families and children by increasing funding by $4.5 billion over the next 10 years. The Obama administration cites support from a group called Operation: Readiness (emphasis mine):

“On behalf of Mission: Readiness and over 100 retired generals and admirals who support child nutrition legislation as a matter of national security, we are very pleased that the nation has taken this important step in addressing the nation’s obesity epidemic. Being overweight or obese is the No. 1 medical reason why young men and women are unable to join the military. Research shows that up to 40 percent of what children consume every day takes place during school hours and that 80 percent of children who were overweight between the ages of 10 to 15 were obese by age 25. The final bill includes provisions that can get junk food out of schools, nourish more kids who need healthful meals and motivate them and their parents to adopt healthful eating and exercise habits. Military concerns about the fitness of American children are not new. When the National School Lunch Act was first passed in 1946, it was seen as a matter of national security. At the time many military leaders recognized that poor nutrition was a significant factor reducing the pool of qualified candidates for service. Our country is facing another serious health crisis. Obesity rates threaten the overall health of America and the future strength of our military. We must act, as we did after World War II, to ensure that our children can one day defend our country, if need be.”

In Mission: Readiness' statement, they discuss a study about childhood obesity and physical eligibility for military service. They present valid data about the problem of childhood obesity in America and how this affects the number of adolescents and young adults who are eligible for military service based upon their weight. In fact, 42.4% of Illinoisans aged 18-24, the age when most enter military service, are overweight or obese. There is a definite problem. There could be a whole host of ways to address the problem of childhood obesity. Mission: Readiness, however, suggests greater governmental intervention including having the Department of Agriculture implement Institute of Medicine standards, increasing funding for school lunch programs, ensuring that all students eligible for free or reduced fee lunches are signed up for the program, and increasing school funding for educational programs aimed at students and parents. All of these suggestions require greater governmental funding and intervention.

The study received funding from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Birth To Five Policy Alliance, The Grable Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation and The Pew Charitable Trusts and Pre-K Now, a campaign of the Pew Center of the States.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation, one of the funders of this study, has a progressive bent in its mission favoring large government initiatives for health care and employment. They led a consortium of non-profits in a study known as the Assessing the New Federalism which concluded that adequate income and child care can be ensured by larger governmental spending and bureaucracy.

The W.K. Kellogg Foundation is also another funder of this study. Started by W.K Kellogg, the cereal producer, its mission took a progressive turn following his death in 1951 and views America as inherently racist. Therefore, this must be addressed through the many organizations that receive their grants--such as the Tides Foundation, ACORN, La Raza, and the ACLU to name a few. This Foundation changed their framework in 2008 to reflect the following goal:

The new framework also recognizes that the active pursuit of racial equity, the eradication of structural racism, and the rigorous encouragement of civic and philanthropic engagement are essential to creating a social context in which all children can thrive, including the most vulnerable.

The results of the study prepared by Mission: Readiness may be truthful and sobering. However,if this organization receives funding from other organizations that have a progressive agenda, the recommendations and conclusions must be taken as such. How can they been taken as objective if their funding is subjective?

Mission: Readiness claims that childhood obesity is a threat to national security, an assertion echoed by First Lady Michelle Obama:



Mission: Readiness cites that the National School Lunch Act passed in 1946 also mentioned that implementing such a school lunch program is a national security issue. In this era, the problem was a lack of nutrition. During World War II, many recruits were too thin to be accepted into military service, so the Truman administration passed this bill to ensure that students received proper nutrition. Mission: Readiness states that today childhood obesity is a national security threat and a hindrance to eligibility for the military because of obesity. While this may be a problem on an individual level, all branches of the military either meet or exceed their recruitment goals. Can Mission: Readiness truthfully cite a "reduced pool" of recruits? Can the Obama administration make this claim if the military has a sufficient number of troops? Childhood obesity may be an individual and public health issue, can it rightly be called a national security threat?

Crossposted here.

Trying to Put Lipstick on a Death Panel

Governor Palin invoked the outrage of many on the Left with her now famous "death panel" assertion in August of 2009. They claimed that statement of government-controlled rationing was nothing but a hyperbolic lie. Since then, former White House budget adviser Peter Orszag has admitted that Obamacare would sacrifice quantity of care for quality and efficiency, in effect, rationing. New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman has twice admitted that death panels are present in Obamacare. Medicare Commissioner Donald Berwick is upfront with his support for rationing of healthcare. President Obama's deficit commission has suggested the Medicare rationing would be a means of reducing the national deficit.

Depending upon a decision to come today, the FDA may begin to implement a form of rationing by preventing a drug to treat late stage breast cancer, Avastin, from reaching the market based primarily upon cost. The drug was shown to prolong life by an average of 3.5 months, though some survived for years. It was set to be finally approved, but a panel struck down this approval with a 12-1 vote. The drug is rather expensive, but was shown to be effective. An editorial from the Washington Examiner states:

Doctors and patients were then stunned last summer when the ODAC ruled, by a vote of 12-1, that the drug did not produce clinically meaningful results. Why did the panel deny the obvious evidence of Avastin's effectiveness? One member of the FDA's panel, Jean Grem of the University of Nebraska, said, "We aren't supposed to talk about cost, but that's another issue." If the FDA follows through on the ODAC's finding and revokes Avastin's approval, both the government and private insurers will quickly cease paying for its use on breast cancer sufferers.

[...]

Government bean counters were never supposed to determine what your treatment options are, and patient advocacy groups are justifiably outraged. If Avastin and other expensive wonder drugs are denied approval because of costs, proponents of government-run health care will have to no choice but to admit "death panels" have gone from rhetoric to reality.

Sally Pipes writes in Forbes:

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the advisory committee claims its recommendation had nothing to do with Avastin's cost. The FDA's top brass will doubtlessly take the same line and claim that its decision to ratify that recommendation was based solely on the drug's medical efficiency.

The truth is that Avastin is expensive. A year-long supply for breast cancer treatment costs upwards of $80,000.

However, many American women are getting something priceless in return for those dollars: life and vitality. In one clinical trial, nearly 50% of patients receiving Avastin witnessed their tumors shrink. Another study found that patients receiving the drug in conjunction with chemotherapy lived "progression-free" twice as long as patients without it.

[...]

However, if the FDA revokes Avastin's approval, public insurance programs like Medicaid and Medicare could decide to refuse coverage of the treatment. Many private insurers would likely do the same. Indeed, several major insurance companies--including Regence and HSCS--have already reacted to the FDA Avastin debate by restricting coverage for the drug in the treatment of breast cancer.

Of course, doctors would still be able to prescribe the drug "off label." But because patients wouldn't have coverage, the only ones that could still use Avastin would be the small minority that can afford to pay its full price out-of-pocket.

This pending FDA decision is only further proof of a government panel making decisions that should be made by a doctor and his or her patient. People are beginning to admit the presence of "death panels" in Obama administration policy, but their presence has been seen for quite a while. Funding for "comparative effectiveness" health care research, determining what treatments are most effective for a given malady, was arguably the most under emphasized part of the stimulus bill. The general concept of "comparative effectiveness" appears benign. as most Americans want to make sure that the receive the best treatment for a disease and do not wish to receive unnecessary, ineffective treatment. Comparative effectiveness research is performed and presented in aggregate, but treatment is performed on individuals. When results are applied to decisions made by government panels, it is just another indication that further government intervention results in less freedom and volitional control to the individual. Last year, the U.S Preventative Services Task Force recommended reducing the frequency of mammograms and the age to begin the screening. The Task Force made this recommendation all while not soliciting the opinion of either a radiologist or an oncologist. While the recommendations were not further pushed by the Department of Health and Human Services, it provides an open door for government panels' recommendations to affect coverage and thus, potential early detection.

Once again, Governor Palin's prescient comment is vindicated. You can put lipstick on a death panel by calling it the FDA, comparative effectiveness research, or the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, but it's still a death panel.

Cross posted here and here.

Governor Palin's Intelligence vs. President Obama's Intellectualism

" Credentialed ignorance is still ignorance" - Thomas Sowell

Another one of the memes that has been swirling about over the past two plus years is that Governor Palin is stupid and embraces anti-intellectualism. This meme was pushed especially hard last week. Barbara Walters twice brought up that people see Governor Palin as "uninformed" in her recent interview with Governor Palin. In this same interview, Walters asked the Governor what she reads, rehashing the tired and disrespectful question first asked by Katie Couric over two years ago. When Governor Palin answered that enjoys reading C.S. Lewis, some in the punditocracy as an indication that she was indeed some kind of rube only capable of reading children's books. In the minds of the punditocracy, this must mean that Governor Palin runs from intelligent, mature thought like President Obama runs from a post-meeting press conference, never mind that Lewis is a renowned Christian theologian and apologist.

The critics of Governor Palin's intelligence miss the distinct difference between intelligence and intellectualism. Intelligence involves the ability to process and apply information in a successful manner. By comparison, Thomas Sowell, an esteemed economist, author, and favorite of Governor Palin's, describes intellectualism: "at the core of the notion of an intellectual is the dealer in ideas, as such--not the personal application of ideas". In 2009, Sowell wrote a book entitled Intellectuals and Society where he highlights how the role of "intellectuals" have negatively influenced all aspects of society--from economics to law to the media. The common thread that runs through each aspect that Sowell covers in his book is that intellectuals feel that they are needed to dictate to the unwashed masses how they should conduct their lives. This is where you get the intellectual politicians who feel that they should control the economy through regulations, taxation, and the like, and this is also where you get the pontificating pundits who feel that they know best. After all, they have the Ivy League education and the self-declared credentials to do so, right?

If you'll excuse the personal anecdote, let me digress for a moment. My dad is a farmer turned city bus driver who has great mechanical skills. A good friend of mine received his degree in mechanical engineering and was one class away from having a second major in physics. My friend was fascinated by my dad's ability to fix cars and farm machinery. My friend could complete all the calculus and understood the physics behind the mechanics of a car's engine, but he could not change his oil much less fix a car. The intellectuals and pontificators of the world would likely gush over my friend's engineering background while they would likely poo poo my dad's high school education and career choices. However, my dad could fix a car while my friend couldn't. I don't say this to bash my friend, but to make a distinction between intellectualism and intelligence put into practice.

What does this have to do with politics? The two most recent presidents who were college professors at some point in their careers were Woodrow Wilson and Barack Obama--two of the most liberal, big government presidents in our nation's history. By comparison, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan, former presidents from similar eras in our history as the preceding example, were a farm boy and actor respectively who ushered in pro-growth, small government principles that lead to prosperous economic times. In the eyes of the intelligentsia, Wilson and Obama would be seen as the smart guys due to their educational and/or professional backgrounds. However, as in car mechanics, successful political policies don't lie in algorithms or theory. Car problems can't be fixed based solely upon calculation of engineering formulas in a controlled environment, nor can economies be improved through theory and central control.

The Obama administration has ushered in a lot of big government initiatives in the last nearly two years. They tried to stimulate the economy through a huge spending bill that attempted to implement a lot of green initiatives because the intellectuals told them that climate change was legitimate, settled science. This same bill included a lot of strings-attached programs that required states to adhere to federal regulations because the intellectuals in DC felt they needed the control. The Obama administration has, of course, also signed legislation that essentially led to far greater control over health care--1/6 of the American economy. With this legislation, the intellectual bureaucrats of the federal government will have greater control of health care in America through various Medicare panels and comparative effectiveness boards. Why did the Obama administration pass these massive bills that provided greater control to intellectuals and bureaucrats? Perhaps it is because the Obama administration has so many intellectuals/bureaucrats embedded in it. In fact, more than 90% of cabinet appointees have only public sector experiences. Because so many of his appointees have been involved in government so long, they feel that more governmental control is the answer to America's problems rather than individuals and private sector businesses. On the other hand, Governor Palin feels that including people with private sector backgrounds is necessary, as she stated in a recent interview with Jedediah Bila in describing an ideal 2012 Presidential candidate (emphasis mine):

“Someone who’s willing to take some risks in terms of bringing in people who aren’t the known bureaucrats, but people with private sector experience who know how to run a business, make payroll, balance a budget, and live within your means.” According to Palin, the candidate should also have “that steel spine, thick skin, not worrying about what it is that the adversaries are going say about you” and an understanding that “it is the people who hire you, who elect you, whom you are beholden to.”

In other words, Governor Palin advocates hiring individuals who have actually accomplished something in the real world, not people who haven't held a job outside the public sector. Perhaps this provides the perfect dichotomy between Governor Palin and President Obama. Governor Palin was intelligent enough to negotiate the largest private sector infrastructure in America's history. President Obama was intellectual enough to sign a bill that had the government essentially takeover 1/6 of the American economy. Governor Palin was intelligent enough to put $6 billion dollars into state savings. President Obama was intellectual enough to add more to the national deficit than all of his predecessors combined. Governor Palin was intelligent enough to re-vamp the public employee retirement system to make it more solvent. President Obama has been intellectual enough to appease the unions at every step.

I'll take intelligence over intellectualism any day.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Are the Founding Fathers a Good Marketing Tool?

I ran across this today on Twitter,and I don't necessarily intend to promote a certain company. However, I find it encouraging to see that the Founders can be used to sell a product. To me, this says that the ideas and words of the Founders are resonating with people. Microsoft highlights the functions of their product in a way that appeals to people. We'll see if they next use the Constitution to promote their Powerpoint or Publisher program.

Governor Palin on the Issues: Entitlements Programs

“I think if you want to expand your base, you have to get into policy even though it sounds dull.”
-Charles Krauthammer in regards to Governor Palin's 2012 Presidential potential (see beginning at the 2:18 mark of the following video)

This is the second in a series of posts outlining Governor Palin's stance on policy issues, and this one is dedicated to Charles Krauthammer who apparently hasn't been paying very close attention. Prepare to be bored! You can see the first "On the Issues" post on monetary policy here. This second post will address Governor Palin's stance on entitlement programs.

Governor Palin has recently emphasized the need to reform entitlements. In a recent interview with Time Magazine, she emphasized the need to address entitlements as a means to get America's fiscal house in order:

I'd also look for entitlement reform, as well as a system-wide audit of government spending with a goal to move us toward zero-based budgeting practices and ultimately a balanced budget. We need to start really living within our means. As any mother or father will tell you, you don't spend what you don't have. And if the argument against this is that the government is too big and unruly to even consider such an audit, then I say that that alone is all the proof you need that our government has grown completely out of control and desperately needs to be reined in.

She also expressed strong support for Congressman Ryan's "Roadmap for America" juxtaposed against President Obama's Debt Commission findings in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week. She discusses Ryan's solutions for Social Security and Medicare:

In my view, a better plan is the Roadmap for America's Future produced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.). The Roadmap offers a reliable path to long-term solvency for our entitlement programs, and it does so by encouraging personal responsibility and independence.

[...]

On Social Security, as with Medicare, the Roadmap honors our commitments to those who are already receiving benefits by guaranteeing all existing rights to people over the age of 55. Those below that age are offered a choice: They can remain in the traditional government-run system or direct a portion of their payroll taxes to personal accounts, owned by them, managed by the Social Security Administration and guaranteed by the federal government. Under the Roadmap's proposals, they can pass these savings onto their heirs. The current Medicaid system, the majority of which is paid for by the federal government but administered by the states, would be replaced by a block-grant system that would reward economizing states.

Together these reforms help to secure our entitlement programs for the 21st century. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Roadmap would lead to lower deficits and a much lower federal debt. The CBO estimates that under current spending plans, our federal debt would rise to 87% of GDP by 2020, to 223% by 2040, and to 433% by 2060. Under Rep. Ryan's Roadmap, the CBO estimates that debt would rise much more slowly, peaking at 99% in 2040 and then dropping back to 77% by 2060.

In supporting Congressman Ryan's plan, Governor Palin advocates for reforms in Medicare and Social Security that give individuals greater control over their own money, as working Americans pay social security and medicare taxes, by giving them the option manage their own personal accounts. Governor Palin advocated another means of Medicare reform in the Fall of 2009 during health care reform discussions (emphasis mine):

Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.

This reform would give patients greater flexibility and would save American taxpayers money. Michael Cannon, whom Governor Palin referenced, said this regarding Medicare vouchers:

"Vouchers would not make seniors less secure, it would make them more secure," Cannon told ABC News. "Everyone agrees that Medicare cannot go on spending as much money as it does now. The voucher idea allows individual consumers to make their own decisions about what they need and what they don't need."

"Giving Medicare seniors a voucher is the most rational, the most humane way to contain Medicare spending," he added.

She also advocates a plan for Medicaid which incentivizes states to budget more frugally and efficiently as suggested in Ryan's plan . What effects would these reforms have? They would "lead to lower deficits and much lower federal debt". Governor Palin often refers to deficit, out -of-control spending and massive debt as generational theft. Borrowing from future in order to pay for today's entitlement is indeed stealing from our kids and grandkids. It's also the ultimate display of taxation without representation, as future Americans will be paying for past entitlements without having representation to approve this spending.

Governor Palin not only has opinions on entitlement policy; she also has a strong record on dealing efficiently with Medicaid on a state level. Medicaid is a program funded and managed on both a state and federal level. Due to federal restrictions, assessments to see if elderly patients qualified for Medicaid funded home health care assistance had to be taken over by the state as no other contractors could bid. The federal government stopped accepting new patients due to the backlog of individuals to be assessed for assistance. By FY2009, Governor Palin's administration had reduced the backlog of assessments from 30.5% in her predecessor's FY2005 and 4.5% in FY2008 during her administration.

The FY2011 budget is still being discussed in the Senate, but the FY2010 budget included $1.9 trillion dollars in non-discretionary (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) spending, which is equivalent to 55% of the federal budget. Through their taxes, people have paid into Medicare and Social Security over time. It is smart, as Congressman Ryan and Governor Palin have suggested, to allow for greater personal responsibility and flexibility for these programs. Additionally, these reforms would help decrease the national debt to help secure America's future and solvency.

I hope this was dull enough for you, Mr.Krauthammer.

Update: I neglected to previously include that Governor Palin strongly encouraged incoming members of Congress to address entitlement reform in a Facebook post last month:

In order to avert a fiscal disaster, we will also need to check the growth of spending on our entitlement programs. That will be a huge challenge, but it must be confronted head on. We must do it in a humane way that honors the government’s current commitments to our fellow Americans while also keeping faith with future generations. We cannot rob from our children and grandchildren’s tomorrow to pay for our unchecked spending today.

Crossposted here and here.

Food Safety Enhancement or Government Overreach?-Updated

In August of 2009, the House of Representative passed a bill known as the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (HR 2749) in order to essentially amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , which was passed in 1938 to first give authority to the Food and Drug Administration to oversee the food, drug, and cosmetic safety. This bill has since been amended on several occasions.

The House bill passed last year gives further regulatory power to the FDA and the Secretary of Health and Human Services with regards to food processing and food transport safety. It requires greater accountability and tracking by food manufacturers (with the exception of those under the regulation of the Department of Agriculture). It also requires further foodborne pathogen surveillance by the Center for Disease Control and Surveillance. It also increases fees and penalties to entities in violation of regulations.

The Senate version of the bill (S 510) is currently being discussed in the Senate during the current lame duck session and was introduced by Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin. The Senate bill introduces other components which include bringing the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security in the mix and will incur a cost of $3.4 billion to taxpayers between 2010 and 2015.

Here is a brief overview:



The amendments accompanying this bill are intended to protect small farms. One component of one amendment, the Manager's Amendment, states the following:

(d) SMALL ENTITY COMPLIANCE POLICY GUIDE.- Not later than 180 days after the issuance of the regulations promulgated under subsection (m) of section 418 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (as added by subsection (a)), the Secretary shall issue a small entity compliance policy guide setting forth in plain language the requirements of such section 418 and this section to assist small entities in complying with the hazard analysis and other activities required under such section 418 and this Section.

However, the language of the amendments leave the FDA and other government agencies room to define what small entities are or what "hazard analysis" entails. Additionally, another component regulates people who may be engaged in farming or gardening and may distribute their produce:

(2) USE OF OR EXPOSURE TO FOODS OF CONCERN.-If the Secretary believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to an article of food, and any article of a food, that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports such article can be acted upon by the FDA.

Obviously, no one would knowingly share vegetables or food that may be contaminated. However, would such a bill component make individuals liable if something they brought to a church potluck made people sick or if vegetables they sold at the farmer's market contained salmonella? Should such nebulous regulatory power be extended to the FDA and other government departments and agencies?

As with any bill, its necessity must be viewed in the light of the Constitution. As the Senate discusses this bill during the week of Thanksgiving, we must consider the potential that the Department of Homeland Security and regulators at the FDA, who are unelected and thus unaccountable to the American people, may have the power to regulate the cranberry sauce and turkey at your dinner table? Do agencies and departments under the executive branch have the Constitutional authority to regulate and legislate?

Update:

On Tuesday, November 30th, S510 was passed by the Senate by a 73-25 margin with both of Illinois' Senators voting yes. However, due to the fact that part of this Senate bill outlines collection of revenue, it will likely be blocked by the House, as it is unconstitutional:

Section 107 of the bill includes a set of fees that are classified as revenue raisers, which are technically taxes under the Constitution. According to a House GOP leadership aide, that section has ruffled the feathers of Ways and Means Committee Democrats, who are expected to use the blue slip process to block completion of the bill.

Article 1 Section 7 states, " All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

The bill can be re-written from scratch when the new session convenes in January, or it can be re- addressed by the Senate after the House passes a new bill. However, it would need unanimous approval to limit debate and pass the bill before the end of the year.

Crossposted here.

Ed Rollins Engages in "Green" Journalism against Governor Palin

We are all well aware of the numerous examples of yellow journalism that has been printed about Governor Palin over the past 2+ years, but following the midterm elections just a month ago, it seems that more and more liberal pseudoconservative political analysts have added another hue to their palate and engaged in "green" journalism. The "green" environmentalist adage of "reduce, reuse, recycle" has now become applicable to the numerous anti-Palin screeds that have come out over the past month. First, any arguments made against Governor Palin have been reduced to ad hominem attacks and non-substantive arguments about her political strategy and potential run for president, then these reduced attacks and arguments are reused by other psuedoconservatives and recycled by other news outlets. It has become nothing but a vicious cycle.

In a recent interview, Governor Palin answered a question posed by Chris Wallace regarding negative comments made by Karl Rove in reference to Governor Palin's travelogue show on TLC. In her response, Governor Palin made reference to the fact that President Reagan once had an acting career. This has become fodder for pseudoconservative analysts to run to their laptops and tap out the ridiculous argument that Governor Palin was disrespecting Reagan and his accomplished political career. These arguments was first screeched by Peggy Noonan, then parroted earlier this week by Joe Scarborough. Not to be outdone, CNN political analyst and former Huckabee campaign manager, Ed Rollins jumps on board the "green" journalism bandwagon and attacks Palin on her comments about Reagan and her potential 2012 presidential run.

Rollins attempts to begin his piece by using a nonsensical analogy of a marriage between the GOP and the Obama administration with the American people acting as parents hopeful that this marriage will work out. Then he make an abrupt 180 and uses this illogical example as a springboard to launch into a patronizing, misconceived advice column directed at Governor Palin. About Palin and Reagan, Rollins writes:

And quit comparing yourself to Ronald Reagan. To paraphrase the late Sen. Lloyd Bentsen's comments to Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice presidential debate: I knew Ronald Reagan, and you're no Ronald Reagan.

[..]

And the Reagan comparisons aren't helping. You might as well compare yourself to Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt.

Before President Reagan was your age, he was an international movie and television star, the actor's union president and a spokesman for a major U.S. corporation.

I know you were only 2 when Ronald Reagan was elected by a landslide to the first of two terms as governor of California in 1966, but I would have hoped somewhere along the way through the five colleges you attended that you would have learned a little history. And I can tell you being governor of the most populous state is a lot tougher than being governor of one of the least populous ones.

The year you were born, Ronald Reagan picked up the torch of Barry Goldwater after the debacle of 1964 and carried it proudly forward. He rebuilt the Republican Party after Watergate, the resignation of Richard Nixon and the defeat of Gerald Ford in 1976.

He won two electoral landslides and made the presidency work again after several failed presidencies. He also never quit anything or any job before he was done. And he was a great communicator because he not only made great speeches, he wrote many of them because it was what he believed. People listened to them and were moved by them.

Does Governor Palin greatly respect and admire President Reagan? Yes.Does she often quote him and invoke the principles that he so strongly stood for? Yes. Does she compare herself to him or personally see herself as Reagan's political heiress? No! She simply brought up the fact that President Reagan was an actor that later went on to an accomplished political career.

One would have hoped that in his educational career, Rollins would have learned a little bit of geography and basic facts about America. In attempting to slap Governor Palin for what he misconceives as a lack of knowledge about Reagan's political career, Rollins seems to forget that the candidate he worked for in 2008 was once Governor of Arkansas-- not a populous state by any stretch of the imagination. It's also quite interesting that a former governor (Howard Dean) of the country's least populous state (Vermont) never seemed to be questioned about his potential presidential abilities as a governor of a small state, but I digress.

Beyond what appears to be an obsession with how young Governor Palin is and how old she was at different points in Reagan's political career, Rollins then drags out the "quitter" meme which he improperly addressed earlier in his piece when he implied that Governor Palin resigned to make money writing books and giving speeches rather than because it was best for the state of Alaska and also subsequently allowed her to be a strong voice for conservative ideals and candidates as Nicole brilliantly addressed earlier this week.

Rollins also tries to suggest, like so many others, that Governor Palin just can't hang with the boys:

You can be a contender for the Republican nomination in 2012, but you're a long way from being the nominee. You're going to have to beat some very formidable candidates with way more experience and far superior knowledge on issues foreign and domestic. And to rate your chances today, I would put them at "possible" but not "probable." It's an all-uphill battle.

Who are these "formidable candidates"? The man whose health care plan is bankrupting his state and served as a blue print for Obamacare? The man who raised taxes on his state and pardoned a cop killer? The man who has a misguided, flip flopping view of climate change? The man who would be supportive of a value added tax? The man who resigned due to small losses in the House and who has loads of personal baggage? Additionally, Rollins seems to imply that Governor Palin feels entitled to the GOP nomination. Completely false. She has not yet declared she is running and has always welcome competitive primaries. She's never presumed anything. S

Rollins then discusses how Reagan wrote many of the speeches that he delivered. This is something that Governor Palin has done also, including, as the recent New York Times magazine piece reports, writing her entire recent speech on quantitative easing. This leads into the next piece of advice that Rollins trumpets from his condescending high horse:

Ms. Palin, serious stuff needs to be accomplished in Washington.

If you want to be a player, go to school and learn the issues. Put smart people around you and listen to them. If you want to be taken seriously, be serious. You've already got your own forum. If you want to be a serious presidential candidate, get to work. If you want to be an imitator of Ronald Reagan, go learn something about him and respect his legacy.

Rollins says that Governor Palin needs to learn the issues, huh? Perhaps addressing the potentially pending Obama tax increases, wikileaks, quantitative easing, foreign policy (including defense spending, the war on terror, Afghanistan, relationships with our adversaries and allies), and Obamacare, just to name a few, fits the bill, Mr. Rollins? He advises for Governor Palin to put smart people around her. Governor Palin has done this if you take a look at the people who advise Governor Palin and are part of her staff, as the NYT magazine piece highlighted. Additionally, Governor Palin has shared that if elected President, she would surround herself with intelligent people, as she did as Governor. She shared in a recent interview with Jedediah Bila (emphasis mine):

To be a successful governor, you have to put obsessive partisanship aside, and you have to be a really good administrator, and you have to have a good team around you, and you have to make prudent decisions based on what is best for the people whom you are serving.

[...]

Someone who’s willing to take some risks in terms of bringing in people who aren’t the known bureaucrats, but people with private sector experience who know how to run a business, make payroll, balance a budget, and live within your means.

These "smart people" that Rollins suggests are likely not the same people whom a candidate Palin or President Palin would surround herself with. This is one of the things that separates Governor Palin from the political establishment. Governor Palin seems to be one of the few who realize what Reagan believed-- that not all the answers come from Washington D.C.. She knows Reagan's legacy. She knows his life story. Anecdotally, I can tell you that she knows even the number of lives that Ronald Reagan saved as a lifeguard working on the Rock River as a young man--an aspect of Reagan's life she spoke about at a speech in Washington, Illinois that I was fortunate enough to attendthis past April.

GOP political analysts, operatives, and consultants have been unleashing tripe about Governor Palin for more than two years, but following the midterm elections, the floodgates of unhinged political discourse have been gushing in reference to a potential Palin presidency. Never mind that there is a new class of Congressmen and Congresswomen who will be sworn in next month. Never mind that the House and Senate are trying to ram through a whole slate of lame duck agenda items in the coming weeks. Never mind the national security threats that have emerged in recent weeks. In the eyes of the political chatting class, those political, domestic, and foreign policy issues are of little consequence. In the eyes of these folks, the greatest threat to America is a President Palin.

Presidential candidacies are chosen by the candidates and their families,and party nominees and presidents are chosen by the voters, much to the dismay of the political analysts. An out-of-context and misinterpreted quote from Governor Palin has served as the basis for at least three Anti-Palin opinion pieces in the past month. That's the only "argument" they can attempt to build upon to paint Governor Palin's supposed disrespect of Reagan.They are grasping at bendy straws. They blatantly choose to ignore her reasons for resigning from the governorship, and their eyes are closed to the numerous times Governor Palin has addressed policy in speeches, TV appearances, op-eds, and Facebook posts. They can't address her on policy because she's right, so they ignore on substance and grab hold of recycled memes. As we have addressed here and here, they have no political arguments left.

To Rollins, Scarborough, Parker, Noonan, Gerson and the whole lot of pseudoconservative windbags, I think that most of us can say, " those voices don't speak for the rest of us".


Crossposted here and here.