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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crossposted here, here, and here.

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

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

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

-Governor Palin upon signing ACES into law

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

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

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

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



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

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

Crossposted here, here, and here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crossposted here, here, and here.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Governor Palin is Right on Energy...Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

Crossposted here, here, and here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Governor Palin and Cherry Picking Media Memes

In another display of the media's complete lack of objectivity, McClatchy published a piece last week arguing that even Republicans activists do not want Governor Palin as president. In doing so, they attempted to cram in as many of media talking points and memes as possible that are consistently parroted about Governor Palin. She's not serious in her decision making to run for the presidency. Her poll numbers show she's not electable. She doesn't have the leadership skills or policy chops needed to be president. She's a quitter.

First, McClatchy writer, Steven Thomma, states:

As Sarah Palin wonders whether to run for president, she might want to talk to people in places such as South Carolina.

The word "wonder" in a decision making process generally refers to what you're going to make for dinner or what kind of jeans you're going to buy. In using that wording to describe Governor Palin's decision making process in potentially running for the presidency, Thomma attempts to paint Governor Palin as one who would make such a decision on a whim or flippantly. In the numerous interviews where Governor Palin has been asked about 2012, she has mentioned that she would look at the "lay of the land", pray, and consult her family in addition to contemplating her electability and potential to add to the presidential discussion. Moreover and arguably most importantly, Governor Palin frames a decision to seek the presidency as a "call to serve" not as a decision be president. Should she choose to run, she will make the moves, albeit as she says, unconventionally, necessary to forge a solid campaign throughout America in general and in early primary states like South Carolina specifically. Let's not forget she ran a successful primary and general election gubernatorial campaign in a state twice the size of Texas, and she is a masterful retail politician.

Next, Thomma trots out Governor Palin's poll numbers:

While national polls show that Palin still would win the support of about one in five Republicans in a national face-off today for the nomination, she no longer can claim the dominant role she enjoyed when she burst out of the 2008 campaign as the undisputed star of the party. She's also losing ground quickly among independents, who hold the keys to the White House.
...

A Gallup poll taken in September 2008, for example, found that 53 percent had favorable views of her and 28 percent held unfavorable views. Last month, the same poll found the numbers were almost reversed, 38-53.

It is amazing how much the media think polls matter at this point. No one has officially announced they are running for president. There have been no debates to allow candidates to juxtapose their positions and records against one another. At this point, polling data are only used as a talking point to paint Governor Palin as unelectable. If polling data a year prior to the first primary were a predictor of presidential nomination, then we would have seen a Giuliani vs. Clinton race in 2008. Additionally, even if one puts stock in the polls, then it must be noted that Governor Palin is indeed statistically tied with Governor Romney and Governor Huckabee in the polls, despite how Thomma tries to represent where potential candidates stand. If Thomma reports a loss of support by a potential candidate, he really should note that Governor Romney has lost 15% of his support since November while Governor Palin's support has remained steady. While Thomma claims that Governor Palin loses support among independents, the most recent Gallup poll shows that Governor Palin is statistically tied for the lead with Governor Romney among both Republican-leaning independents and moderate to liberal Republicans.

Thomma also egregiously brings out Governor Palin's poll numbers from just weeks after she was announced as Senator McCain's running mate to compare them to last month's favorability numbers. In the last two and a half years, the media has created a caricature of Governor Palin that has become the false perception of many Americans. After all, Governor Palin has been portrayed as unintelligent and unaccomplished when in actuality, she negotiated the largest private sector infrastructure project in the nation's history. She has spoken to business leaders in Hong Kong and on Long Island, yet the focus when she speaks is that she supposedly requests bendable straws. She is involved in a medical mission visit to Haiti where she spent time touring earthquake ravaged Haiti and holding cholera infected children, yet the false takeaway is that she brought a stylist on the trip (who, of course, was simply her daughter Bristol fixing her hair in an AP photo). Just last month (when the poll cited was conducted), the media reached a new low with constant, scurrilous assertions that a campaign map and political analogies used by Governor Palin were the driving force behind a madman killing several Arizonans and attempting to kill Congresswoman Giffords. With this media drawn caricature, it's no wonder Governor Palin's favorability has decreased. Should Governor Palin run, she will be given a greater opportunity to create her own narrative and correct the fallacies reported by the media. Ian addressed some of the other issues with Thomma's polling assertions here.

Thomma also cherrypicked GOPers at a South Carolina fund raiser to promote their false narratives. He also fails to detail the fact that the event he drew his quotes from was a fundraiser headlined by Congresswoman Bachmann:

"I like Palin," said Joseph Kejr, a Republican from Rock Hill who works in information technology for a Christian ministry. However, he added, "she's not polished in national government. In terms of leadership, I don't know about her."
...
She's not really creative," said Swain Shepperd, a retiree from Rock Hill. "She just repeats what's already been said by others."

The word "polished" has been used to describe our current president, and we've seen how that has worked out for us. "Polished" doesn't provide economic solutions or lead on foreign policy. The assertion that Governor Palin simply repeats what others have said is quite laughable, as is the claim that she cannot lead. In 2008, she first showed her prescience when she warned of then candidate Obama's stance on jobs, taxes,energy, spending, growth of government, foreign policy,etc. She drove the debate against President Obama's government takeover of health care. She was the only one of the potential 2012 presidential candidates to lead on border security issues when she stood with Governor Brewer. In addition to Congressman Pence, she was one of the few to address the dangers of quantitative easing. In her support for Congressman Ryan's roadmap, she was the first potential candidate to seriously addressing entitlement reform. Not to mention that with increased turmoil in places like Libya, potential issues with oil transport through the Suez canal, and the Obama administration's complete disregard for drilling for oil, Governor Palin leadership on energy issues will be at the forefront of a 2012 campaign.

The last meme Thomma addresses is the ubiquitous "quitter" meme:

Some said she hurt herself by quitting halfway through her term as governor of Alaska, robbing herself of a platform in government.

That shortfall's become more glaring as party activists have cheered on people who are now governing and fighting to cut spending, such as Govs. Chris Christie in New Jersey, Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Rick Scott in Florida and Scott Walker in Wisconsin, as well as Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives such as Bachmann.

Through three legislative terms as Governor, Palin reduced state spending by more than 9% (part of which was during of time of economic prosperity, which shows great fiscal discipline), reduced earmark requests by 80%, forward funded education, signed ethics reform, addressed oil tax structures, and initiated the largest private sector infrastructure project in American history. Needless to say, her platform in government is quite strong. As much of Governor Palin's staff's time was taken up by dealing with frivolous ethics complaints, her resignation allowed for state government to be less inhibited while still maintaining the same platform. As a byproduct of stepping aside from office, Governor Palin has been able to constructively criticize the Obama administration, provide conservative solutions, and endorse candidates without the potential for a baseless ethics complaint to be levied against her. In actuality, her platform has broadened.

It must be noted as well that if a resignation from office disqualifies one from the presidency, Congressmen Gingrich is not qualified. Additionally, if currently holding office is the only way one's budgetary record can be highlighted, then potential candidates like Governor Romney, Governor Huckabee, Governor Pawlenty, Senator Santorum cannot be considered either. Such "qualifications" would essentially reduce the field to zero.

Thomma attempts to highlight almost every meme directed against Governor Palin by cherry picking poll results and comments from GOPers. However, campaigns are run by creating one's own narrative, and campaigns are won by the voices of the whole of the electorate, not a small portion.

Cross posted here, here, and here.