Sarah Palin is right...and wrong

I'll say this: Sarah Palin knows how to whip people into a frenzy. It's virtually effortless for her at this point.

Consider: just yesterday, Governor Palin mentioned, in passing, that she could provide balance to the so-far-left-it-could-tip-over-at-any-time ABC discussion program The View. Within minutes, the internet exploded. (What, didn't you see it?) Twitter was awash in people aghast at the possibility that ABC might let her near the program. (Twitchy has a little sampling of the reactions here.) Do I think she really expects any sort of consideration for The View? Good grief, she hardly gets consideration from a lot of the folks at Fox now, so why expect better treatment anywhere else?

No, I don't think she expects to be joining The View anytime soon. (Or ever, honestly, though I will say I was surprised that a reliably liberal program like The View let Dana Loesch on, so I may not have the most insight into ABC's thought processes.) No, I think Sarah Palin said what she said because she knows how to play the media. And she does it very well. She knows that a statement like this will cause howls of outrage from the usual suspects, and she makes that type of statement anyway.

And why? Simple: by continuing to live rent-free in so many haters' heads (haters, I might add, from both major political parties), and also by continuing to inspire many people (including many, but certainly not all, Tea Partiers), she can virtually guarantee herself mega-exposure when she zings President Obama.

And did she ever zing him today.

In case you missed today's internet explosion (or perhaps one of today's explosions), Governor Palin posted a little piece on Breitbart.com with the not-at-all-attention-grabbing headline "EXCLUSIVE—SARAH PALIN: 'IT'S TIME TO IMPEACH' PRESIDENT OBAMA" this morning.*

The main paragraph follows:

President Obama’s rewarding of lawlessness, including his own, is the foundational problem here. It’s not going to get better, and in fact irreparable harm can be done in this lame-duck term as he continues to make up his own laws as he goes along, and, mark my words, will next meddle in the U.S. Court System with appointments that will forever change the basic interpretation of our Constitution’s role in protecting our rights. 

Of course, Governor Palin is right: President Obama and his administration are mired in scandal after scandal. Laws have absolutely been broken, subpoenas ignored, enemies harassed, etc. President Nixon resigned for less than this, and he was within days of being impeached himself when he bailed. Impeachment for President Obama would be an appropriate response to the behavior of this administration, to be sure.

There's only one problem: it's not time to impeach President Obama. And for the foreseeable future, it will never be.

There are, as one might expect, several reasons why this is the case, but let's start with the obvious one:

The Witch Hunt theory. Let's face it: any impeachment attempt will immediately be equated to the gotcha mindset during the late 1990s that did a brilliant job of derailing the Contract With America. It became more important to "get" Bill Clinton than to get anything worthwhile done. And what came of it? President Clinton got a slap on the wrist, the Republicans got eaten alive in the media, and, as everyone knew would happen going in, the Senate couldn't even get a simple majority to vote for removal from office, let alone the two-thirds required. It didn't matter that President Clinton deserved impeachment; the way the whole affair was presented was that the Republicans just hated the president. How much worse to you think impeachment will appear to people when we have the first black president, particularly given that our side is already routinely accused of racism?

And, of course, we have the other big reason that impeachment is not going to happen:

The GOP is a party of squishes. For years, the higher-ups in Congress have shown unswerving loyalty to...getting reelected. When a sitting Republican senator can be accused, believably, of stoking fear in order to get a bunch of African-American Democrats to cross over and vote against a primary opponent, you have to wonder how much a lot of these Republicans care about the principals for which they claim to stand.

And, let's face it: a bunch of scaredy-cats who care more for their political futures than anything else are not going to take any sort of chance of alienating voters, particularly just months before the mid-terms.

Finally, let's not forget this old favorite:

A non-trivial number of people idolize President Obama. This rather feeds into the previous two reasons, but as I have asserted (and partially walked back), President Obama benefits from a fairly substantial cult of personality,** in a way that neither Nixon or Clinton did while facing their potential or actual impeachments. Want to earn someone's enmity for life? Trying to destroy that person's idol is a pretty good start in a lot of cases.

And all of that adds up to the fact that it would ridiculous to even think that impeachment has a chance in this political environment. And that, unfortunately, means that even calling for it amounts to little more than tilting at windmills.

Now, with all that said, I will say again that Sarah Palin is a master at playing the media. It may be that this is a very calculated attempt to fire up voters to try to flip the Senate and pad our advantage in the House, since we know (and, honestly, she knows) that nothing is going to come of this call for impeachment, at least as far as Congress is concerned. I hope this is her way of rallying the troops, deep down; if it isn't, then Sarah Palin is absolutely wrong on this one.

* Warning:  as I have found out the hard way, Breitbart articles have the occasional tendency to disappear after a couple of years...or sooner.

** I have also said previously that Sarah Palin benefits similarly, though certainly not to the same extent. I'm too tired to look up where I said it, but take my word for it.

Challenged to Civility, Part 2

In one of the very, very few posts that have appeared on this blog this year, I happened to mention that I had stopped paying much, if any, attention to Ann Coulter for her use of a pejorative term that I would prefer for people not to use.  Now, thanks to Bill Maher (to whom I pay little attention, though others seem to give him as much ego stroking as he desires), that word is being discussed yet again, thanks to Mr. Maher's reported use of it to describe Trig Palin.

Yes, Trig Palin, the five-year-old son of Sarah Palin. 

And then to see some of the women of "The View" trying to justify it...well, all I can do is shake my head and get further burned out on the political process.  When someone says it's okay to insult a child just because of who his mother happens to be, that person is not a helpful component of any political discussion.  Ever.  (It's amazing that "The View" never had an hour-long celebration of that purveyor of eloquence, Jack Stuef.)

Thankfully, others have responded in a much better manner.  Take, for example, this video:



I don't recognize who this is in the video, but what he says is well put, and simply put.

Just for the record, this is not in any way an attempt or a desire for anyone's speech to be regulated.  You have every right to use that word, just as I have every right to discount your opinion for thinking that word is acceptable.

And one last thing:  Adrienne Ross, an online friend who writes a blog called MotivationTruth, wrote recently on her Facebook page:

And I would say, as I've said many times, putting "tard" after "Lib' is also not acceptable, conservatives.

Very true.  It's not helping.

I'm sure I've said something like this before, but here goes:  yes, we can debate on the ideas.  Yes, I'm sure I don't agree with some of yours, and I'm sure you don't agree with some of mine.  But if we cannot have political discussions without throwing around words like "retard" (may this be the last time I ever write it on this blog), then we've lost a lot more than an argument.

Just a quick little observation about the mainstream media

Sarah Palin still lives rent-free in the heads of most of the Obama-supporting mainstream media.  And, as always, this is most evident at that bastion of unbiased--meh, I can't even joke about that, no one would believe it--this is most evident at MSNBC.

Courtesy Newsbusters via The Right Scoop:


Yes, in a conversation that had absolutely nothing to do with Sarah Palin, Mika Brzezinski felt the need to say that something with which she (or, rather, her colleague, Joe Scarborough) not only disagreed but found "stupid" sounded like "something Sarah Palin would say".

Whatever, Ms. Brzezinski.  Keep thinking you're doing something worthwhile when you rant about Governor Palin, as you have done for years now.  Keep hate alive.

Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin at Right Online 2012

This weekend the Right Online 2012 conference is going on in Las Vegas.  This is a conference for conservative new-media types and bloggers (even, I suppose sixth-rate ones such as myself).  It features a lot of speakers whom I would love to hear. 

As neither the day job nor the Snowed family budget allow for traveling to Las Vegas for two days, I usually end up missing such events as this.  (Heck, my time budget doesn't even allow for blogging a good portion of the time.)  Thankfully, a lot of the speakers and sessions are streamed online at this page.

I got to see two very good speakers last night in Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin.  Both of them talked about the impact that the "new media" can have; in addition, Governor Palin spoke of the failure of the old media (which isn't a new theme for her, but it still rings true).

And thanks to The Right Scoop, both speeches have already been preserved for posterity.  (Specific links to the individual speeches are here and here.)

Here is Sarah Palin's speech (approximately 35 minutes, and worth it):



And here is Michelle Malkin's speech (approximately 18 minutes, also worth it):

Happy belated birthday, Trig

As most Palinistas are aware, yesterday was Trig Palin's 4th birthday.  (And, as everyone who has accepted reality over really strange conspiracy theories knows, Trig is the son of former governor of Alaska Sarah Palin.)

Every time I have ever been around a child with Down Syndrome, he or she has always been one of the sweetest people I have ever met.  I have friends who have been raising a DS child over the past year and a half, and whenever I see her, I have seen the most loving child who very often has a big smile on her face.  Children with Down Syndrome are truly a blessing, though they are also a challenge.  My friends, as well as the Palins, have truly risen to that challenge, and for that they are to be commended.

As readers of my blog may remember (if they haven't all gone somewhere else that updates more often than this particular blog) that last year, Trig's birthday brought about some of the nastiest, hate-filled writing I have ever seen.  Thankfully, it also brought out a firestorm of condemnation toward such hatred, as I blogged the very next day after the last piece I just linked.

I think Ron DeVito may be correct when he posted the following yesterday in his birthday greeting to Trig:  "How you react to him – and Gov. Palin as his mother – tells the whole world who and what you are as a person."

(Image courtesy Palin Promotions under Fair Use clause)

 

And so today I wish nothing but good things for the Palin family, particularly Trig.  Happy birthday, Trig.  May your fifth year be filled with blessings and happiness.

Palin on Today: what to watch for

Now that, as was plastered all over the net today, pretty much anyone following the news in this country knows that Sarah Palin will be hosting the Today Show tomorrow, here are a few things I expect to see during the broadcast.  (You might call this a drinking game, but as this is a morning show, I do not recommend drinking any adult beverages, especially if you are planning to leave for work after watching.)

• Some mention of Katie Couric, who will be guest-hosting some other morning show at the same time.
• Some mention of Tina Fey, who originated an infamous quote about Russia that many people think Sarah Palin said, and whose quote was incorrectly attributed to Governor Palin in a Politico article just today.  Really?
• Some mention of the four men still contending for the Republican nomination for President.  And I'm sure Matt Lauer will ask some snide question to the effect of whether she is plotting to steal the nomination in an open convention.
• The phrase "you betcha" will be spoken almost certainly by someone who is not Sarah Palin.
• The word "rogue" will appear in the first five minutes of Governor Palin's appearance.
• Trig and Tripp will both be mentioned multiple times...as they should be; Sarah Palin is a proud mother and grandmother.
• And, of course, there will be some mention of President Obama.  I wouldn't be surprised to hear some version of the phrase "failed policies".

Mostly, though, I think viewers will see a very easygoing Sarah Palin who does not match the caricature that has been imprinted on too many people's minds.

Now, here are a few things that you will not see, though they will undoubtedly happen:

• A lot of people with nothing better to do will post innocuous things Sarah Palin says during the broadcast on Twitter and find some way, logical or not, to attack her for it.
• People will complain that she was even allowed on "a real network".  Bonus points if you find complaints referencing "Faux News", which is, as you know, the peak of originality for some of these haters.
• I'm sure Ms. Couric will have something to say about Governor Palin.  But I know I won't see it, as I have no desire to allow Ms. Couric's show into my home.  I'll watch next week, when Robin Roberts is back.  Maybe.

All in all, I'm looking forward to watching.  See the preview for yourself (without having to endure the general ugliness of the YouTube comments):

Game Change: a hit piece masquerading as truth

Tonight, HBO will air what they believe to be a blockbuster-type movie, "Game Change".  As most people know by now, "Game Change" the movie ignores well over two-thirds of what was covered in the original book.

The original book had a fascinating portion about the 2008 Democratic presidential primary season, covering the implosion of John Edwards, the absolute mismanagement of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and the rise to prominence of Barack Obama.  There were literally hundreds of pages of material detailing how, for example, even when Senator Clinton's campaign appeared to be doing well, it was still reeling.  There were several moments when the Obama campaign was stressing over issues as well.  Brought to life on the small screen, it would truly have been must-see TV*.

But no, HBO and the makers of "Game Change" decided that the portion of the book that needed to be brought to life the most was the portion involving Sarah Palin.  And why not; the conventional wisdom when this movie was commissioned was that Governor Palin would be a huge factor, if not the front-runner, in the 2012 Republican presidential primary.  And HBO planned for maximum exposure for their movie, scheduling it to air the Saturday after Super Tuesday, when, they were sure, Governor Palin would have had a huge day.

And why?  Because they planned to kill her campaign with this movie.

This movie, as has been reported in many places, showcases a fictional version of Sarah Palin who couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted her the C and the A.  Gone is the fighter who took on corruption in both parties, instead, you can find, as John Nolte discovered (to his disgust), some "cold, snippy, power-hungry and cruel" two-dimensional character who "is 'flipping' fascinated to discover Germany was our enemy during the world war", who "had no idea in 2008 that England has a prime minister", and who was "shocked to learn Saddam Hussein wasn't behind 9/11, [needed] a flashcard to memorize what NAFTA is and [had] never heard of the Federal Reserve."

Monica Crowley had little good to say about it or its network either:

The film centers on Palin's selection as John McCain's VP and what a "huge mistake" it was, because, you know, she was such a Big Dummy. There's a brief mention of how McCain actually went into the lead over Obama by about 5 points after her selection and dynamite convention speech. But other that that, she's cast as the sole reason McCain lost. (Never mind that McCain was a terrible candidate, wouldn't go full-frontal against Obama, and that the entire global economy was collapsing. No, it was Palin who single-handedly lost the election for the ticket.)

Her conservative values are mocked, from her belief in limited government to her faith in God. Each time she prayed in the film, the leftwing elites around me in the theater laughed at her. But really, they were laughing at US. This is what they really think of us. This is what Obama thinks of us: "bitter clingers," and all that.

But who is really surprised by this type of treatment given Sarah Palin by HBO?  This is a movie in which the principal stars and executives have given over $200,000 to Democratic causes and absolutely nothing to Republicans.  This is a movie with an executive producer (you might have heard of him...his name is Tom Hanks) refused even to take a copy of a much truer movie about Sarah Palin entitled "The Undefeated".  Oh, and this is indeed the same Tom Hanks who can currently be heard narrating a Obama 2012 campaign video.  Certainly he would produce an impartial movie about his preferred candidate's potential opposition, right?  Don't make me laugh.

But I think the best response to this work of fiction came from SarahPAC:



Bottom line:  "Game Change" on HBO is not worth your time or attention.  Give it a pass, and while you're at it, you might evaluate whether HBO is truly geared toward someone on your side of the political aisle.

p.s.  If you have not seen "The Undefeated", you can check it out tomorrow night on ReelzChannel, or you can buy it right here**:




And, for those interested in the original "Game Change" book, you can purchase that here**:



* I hope I can use that phrase without running afoul of any trademarks.  I know NBC Thursday nights certainly don't deserve it anymore.

** As with all Amazon links on this blog, I get a pittance from all sales.  PLEASE BUY SOMETHING!

Is it open season on Sarah Palin or something?

"Hey, let's go after Sarah Palin...it's what all the cool kids are doing!"

Enough already, people.

I have no idea why so many on the right, in an attempt to be relevant (which I have almost never been, politically speaking), have decided that the best way to do so is to attack Sarah Palin, who, you may recall, isn't presently running for anything.  But this behavior appears to be encouraged, based on the way some of it gets promoted.

Case in point:  Eddie Scarry, who writes for Mediabistro's FishbowlDC and The Blaze.

Mr. Scarry apparently took issue with a piece Gov. Palin wrote for Newsweek Magazine, an increasingly leftist-slanted magazine which very recently spotlighted an article by Andrew Sullivan, noted expert on Sarah Palin's uterus.  (I commented about that in a Facebook note, which is what I do sometimes when I don't have time to blog about things.  Of course, the dearth of posts on my Facebook page doesn't speak well for my use of my time either.  But I digress.)  In her note (entited "Life With Trig: Sarah Palin on Raising a Special-Needs Child"), Gov. Palin paints an almost-idyllic picture of the blessing her son Trig has been to her and her family.  (Note to readers:  You might want to follow my example and not read the comments...as usual, some of Newsweek's readers have displayed what appears to be a typical (for them) hatred.  Yes, I did read a couple of comments, and then I forced myself to stop, as they all appeared to be coming from a hive mind afflicted severely with Palin Derangement Syndrome.)

An example of what seems to have set Mr. Scarry and a bunch of angry commenters off:

God knew what he was doing when he blessed us with Trig. We went from fear of the unknown to proudly displaying a bumper sticker sent to us that reads: “My kid has more chromosomes than your kid!”

So, what in the world could someone who writes for a conservative site such as The Blaze have against Sarah Palin gushing, as any decent mother would, about her young son?  Well, Mr. Scarry got it into his mind, somehow, that Gov. Palin was supposed to be writing about Rick Santorum, who has his own special-needs child.  She wasn't, but Mr. Scarry based his four-paragraph rant (entitled "Somehow, Santorum’s family troubles relate to Sarah Palin") on this incorrect premise.  Hey, why fact-check this stuff when you can score cheap points against Sarah Palin, right?

A sample of his comments:

For more perspective, the names “Rick” and “Santorum” appear three times total and are all found in the first paragraph. The word “my,” in reference to Palin herself, appears 15 times throughout the rest. I didn’t bother searching for “I” and “I’ve.”

Thankfully, many people tried to correct the record about the reasoning behind Gov. Palin's piece.  Notable among these was Stacy Drake:

Now, while this blog does not care for the last term of endearment Ms. Drake used, it certainly did not deserve Mr. Scarry's response (courtesy Big Journalism, since Mr. Scarry has since whitewashed the following tweet):

(there used to be an image of a tweet calling Stacy Drake "whore" here, but it has since disappeared from Big Journalism's site)

I wonder how The Blaze's founder, one Glenn Beck, feels about that response.  I'm hoping he's a bit upset about it, but at this point, who knows?

Regardless, of course, Ms. Drake was right, as evidenced by the Huffington Post piece she linked:

[A] Daily Beast spokesperson says the Palin piece was assigned last week following the news that Rick Santorum's daughter, Bella, had been hospitalized and he was briefly leaving the campaign trail.

"We asked Sarah Palin if she would like to share her personal story about life with a child with special needs upon learning about Senator Santorum's decision last week to place his campaign on hold to be with his daughter," the spokesperson emailed. 

I couldn't sum up the issue any better than John Nolte at Big Journalism:

In other words, in the wake of what happened to Bella Santorum, Newsweek reached out to Sarah Palin — and I’m going to repeat this carefully for the Beck-impaired — to… share… her… personal… story… about… life… with… a… child… with… special… needs…

So what is Sarah Palin guilty of here? Writing the piece she was asked to write.

But what is The Blaze guilty of here? Again, telling a lie of omission and, just like Wonkette and Andrew Sullivan, using Palin’s family as a weapon against her. After nearly four years, this tactic is well-honed and easy to spot. Anytime the Governor writes about or speaks of or is seen with her family, some bottom-feeder weaponizes the event, weaponizes her own family, to beat her senseless with. And that’s exactly what The Blaze did.

As it turns out, though, Mr. Scarry has now added the following to his rant, which he left untouched otherwise:

UPDATE: Many Palin supporters have read this post and taken issue with the fact that it does not mention Palin was actually asked by “Newsweek” to write about her experience raising a special needs child. She did not approach the publication and that is a crucial piece of information that should have been included for BLAZE readers.

This post was a brief analysis of the perception I, among others, had of Palin contributing to a magazine she regularly criticizes. And though my thoughts on Palin’s column still stand, it‘s also important to acknowledge that Palin’s experience raising her son Trig is a fascinating story and is worth a read in her book “Going Rogue.” –Eddie Scarry, Eddie@theblaze.com

Some of the above does not ring true.  Mr. Scarry devoted one throwaway phrase ("a magazine she loves to hate") in his initial rant to the idea of Gov. Palin writing for Newsweek after having slammed it.  No, Mr. Scarry, the original post was a brief assumption that Gov. Palin had made something all about her when, in your mind, it should not have been.  The problem, of course, is that Gov. Palin's piece was indeed supposed to be about her own family, and you still haven't acknowledged that you were flat-out wrong about it.

But, as has increasingly been the case, facts don't seem to matter to those who want to take down Sarah Palin.  And a lot of the Palin-hatred, unfortunately, is coming from our own side.

Update:  Welcome, Conservatives4Palin readers!

Unfairly forgotten song #10: Girls With Guns by Tommy Shaw

I'm not gonna lie:  what made me think of this was a recent comment by one Sarah Palin (as quoted by National Review via Conservatives4Palin) in which she stated, "I’m all in favor of girls with guns who know their purpose."

How could this child of the 80s not think of Tommy Shaw?

Tommy Shaw, as most of my readers probably don't know, was the lead guitarist for Styx through the late 70s and early 80s but left the group due to dissatisfaction with the direction in which other members wanted to take the band.  (Meh, go look it up on Wikipedia.)

Mr. Shaw's first solo album, which came to mind after I heard Governor Palin's statement above, was called "Girls With Guns", and its title track was Mr. Shaw's only Top 40 solo appearance, spending a grand total of three weeks on the Top 40 charts and peaking at #33 on November 17, 1984, before falling completely off the charts the following week.

It should be noted that, as I and others (such as "cassiemay10" over at SongMeanings.net) understand it, Mr. Shaw was writing not necessarily about girls carrying actual guns, but about strong, independent women.  (Women like Sarah Palin, perhaps.)

An interesting trait about the video for this track is that it is all one take; there are no cuts, which is quite different from the frenetic editing seen in most videos that I've ever watched.  See for yourself:


(All copyrights acknowledged.  Presented under Fair Use clause, and this was posted before SOPA, may it die in flames, ever passed.)

While I have never heard this song on the radio in the past 20 years apart from Ron "Boogiemonster" Gerber's "Crap From the Past" on KFAI Minneapolis, you can purchase the MP3 right here (full disclosure:  I'll get about a penny if you purchase through this link):



*Note:  most information in "forgotten songs" entries comes from the always-reliable Wikipedia; as such, its veracity may be questionable.

Can't we all just get along?

In the last two months since Sarah Palin announced she was not running for president, two factions have formed among those who were (are?) called Palinistas.  One group took the viewpoint that "Gov. Palin has made her decision, and we need to accept it," while the other group recalled a moment in which Sarah Palin, when asked what sort of metaphorical earthquake would be required to get her to change her mind, said, "It would have to be at least a 10.3..." and have sent in lots of postcards trying to convince her to enter the race as part of a group they have named "Sarah Palin's Earthquake".

Apparently, there have been tensions between these two factions.  (Due to family stuff, work stuff, a big vacation, and a general frustration with other tensions between supporters of the remaining candidates, I've stayed out of most of this, though I count myself as one of those respecting Gov. Palin's decision.  I don't have to like it, but I will respect it.)  As I understand it, Sarah Palin's Facebook page's moderators are removing some posts relating to the "respect her decision" viewpoint, while some of that viewpoint have harsh words for the "Earthquake" movement's apparent disregard for the Palin family.

Lisa Graas spoke to that yesterday:

My advice to the “Respect Sarah Palin’s Decision” people is that you try to be patient with the “Earthquake” people. They are acting out of pain, not hatred. They can’t see a way forward unless she runs for president, and these things take time to heal. It’s really important that we all try to give them their space and let them deal with this in their own way and in their own good time.

I have nothing but respect for Sarah Palin. I love her and respect her even though I have strongly disagreed with her. As I always say, there will always be a little Palinista in my little Passionist heart…but I am not Sarah Palin. I am Lisa Graas. Having said that, I can almost promise you that Sarah Palin is cognizant of, and able to manifest, the need for us all to love and respect each other while disagreeing strongly far more than I am able to manifest it. God bless her for what she brings to our public discourse in that regard.

It's a reminder that we need every so often.  It's okay to disagree and yet still respect those with whom we disagree.  Lisa's whole post is worth a read.

Sarah Palin on Congress's incredible double standards

Despite the hopes of many, Sarah Palin is not going away.  She has had a couple of prominent speeches since her announcement that she is not running for president, and in Friday's Wall Street Journal, she lets members of Congress (on both sides of the aisle) have it in a column entitled "How Congress Occupied Wall Street".  Very quickly, her tone is set as she refers to "this permanent political class in all its arrogant glory" in her discussion of a new book by Peter Schweizer (a foreign policy advisor for her PAC) called "Throw Them All Out".*  (I gotta say that I really like that title.)  She continues:

Mr. Schweizer answers the questions so many of us have asked. I addressed this in a speech in Iowa last Labor Day weekend. How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians' stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers'? I answered the question in that speech: Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.

"The money-making opportunities for politicians are myriad," she goes on, and as it turns out, a good portion of this is because the laws that apply to us little people don't apply to members of Congress, including laws regarding whistleblowing and FOIA requests.  It would seem to breed a fair amount of corruption.

And Governor Palin knows a thing or two about corruption:

I've been fighting this type of corruption and cronyism my entire political career. For years Alaskans suspected that our lawmakers and state administrators were in the pockets of the big oil companies to the detriment of ordinary Alaskans. We knew we were being taken for a ride, but it took FBI wiretaps to finally capture lawmakers in the act of selling their votes. In the wake of politicos being carted off to prison, my administration enacted reforms based on transparency and accountability to prevent this from happening again.

She goes on to argue for real solutions that "transcend political parties".  Hopefully this is a call that is heard by the American people.

Her entire column is worth a read.  Check it out.



* Disclaimer:  I get paid if you buy through this link.

On Governor Palin's announcement

After reading/hearing Sarah Palin's announcement (through a written statement and an interview with Mark Levin, available here) that she will not be running for President in 2012, I have a few thoughts, directed toward a few different, but involved, parties:

To Sarah Palin, who, I'm quite sure, will not read this*:

I respect your decision not to run.  I'm sure that you didn't make it lightly.

With that said, I am disappointed to hear today's announcement.  You, Governor Palin, were the only potential candidate (to say nothing of the declared candidates) who had truly taken on corruption in both parties in your state, and I believe you were the only one mentioned in the nomination discussion who would take it on again in the federal government.  I have generally enjoyed reading your thoughts on the issues facing our government today (much more, obviously, than I've enjoyed being continually lectured by President Obama), and while I'm sure there will be more statements from you on different policy issues, I would rather have heard them from you as a declared candidate for President.

Some have said that there is more to this story than what we have heard so far.  I'm sure that if there is more to tell, you will do so in your own time.  In any case, I wish you and yours all the best in whatever the future holds for you.

To a few Palin-haters, who, I'm quite sure, also will not read this*:

Congratulations, you got what you want.  Someone who has had more than a few insights to offer over the past three years is not going to be in this race.  And how do you react?  In more than one case, by acting like a child as you become perfect examples of a sore winner.


I would have preferred it, though, if that hatred had been confined to the left.  I expect pettiness from a hack like Andi Sullivan; I believe that to be one of his defining characteristics at this point, which is too bad.  (Sorry, readers, but there's some real nastiness on the left.  Accept it.  And no, I'm not going to link the rantings of Mr. Sullivan tonight.  Or ever.)  But I expect better from people on my side of the aisle.  And maybe I shouldn't.

Erick Erickson of RedState.com, for example, gleefully posted every hour, on the hour, when Governor Palin did not announce anything on the last day of September (though I still don't recall her ever having said she would announce yea or nay by that day), and he even more gleefully "recommended" a hopelessly out-of-date RedState diary entry (posted earlier today) called "Palin's running...Here's why"...after she made her announcement.  Oh, and he also posted the number of the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline on his Twitter account this evening in the midst of rubbing Palin supporters' noses in the announcement.  Tacky, tacky, tacky.

(Mr. Erickson has, as one might expect, attempted to walk back his previous immaturity with a post tonight in which he states that he has always liked Sarah and Todd Palin.  I'd hate to see what you would have done on your site, Twitter, etc., if you hadn't liked them, Mr. Erickson.  I'll give you some credit for spelling out all that Governor Palin has accomplished over the past couple of years.  And I'll admit to being jealous of your having met her.  But your behavior in recent weeks has still left much to be desired, in my opinion.  And I doubt I'll be visiting RedState.com anytime soon, thank you very much.)

But the grand champion of apoplectic rantings appears to be RedState contributor Jeff Emanuel, previously mentioned in this blog for...well, pretty much the same thing.  In the aforementioned "Palin's running" diary, Mr. Emanuel appears to aim for an all-time low with the following comment (written with the subject line "You people have a serious sickness."):

If Christ returned tomorrow, I’m confident you and the rest of the Palinistas would reject Him until SARAH confirmed that He was God, and instructed you to follow Him.

For all I know, this is the level at which Mr. Emanuel has been operating for quite a while.  Honestly, I've done my best to ignore his comments (and based on the downward trend that I saw today in his Twitter followers, I'd say I'm not the only one to do so), but I happened across this one, and it shows me that Mr. Emanuel seems to have become so blinded in his hatred of all things Palin that he has apparently lost the capacity for reason.  As for tact, of course, he lost that some time ago; this little gem of offensiveness makes that all too plain.

And as an aside, as a very imperfect follower of our Lord Jesus Christ, there is a huge difference in how I feel about Christ and how I feel about Sarah:

If I differ with Sarah Palin about some issue, I would hope that she would change and come around to my side.

If Christ differs with me about something, then I would hope that I would change and come around to His side.

But maybe that difference in perception is beyond Mr. Emanuel, who has amused himself this evening by gloating about Governor Palin's announcement, up to and including this gem of a tweet:

You stay classy, Mr. Emanuel.

Oh, and as Mr. Emanuel has demonstrated beyond doubt that he has no respect for anyone who might support Sarah Palin, then I have no further use for his opinions.  On anything.  Whoever his preferred candidate is would be well advised to avoid him.

To the regular readers of this blog (now numbering well into the double digits!):

If you happen to like Sarah Palin, as I do, then you'll probably understand if I run silent for a few more days.  Just writing the above section got my blood boiling.  Apparently respect is a lost art in political discourse these days.

And if you don't like Sarah Palin and feel the need to respond to this post, either use some of that respect or don't bother.  I'm not in the mood for further condescension.  I've already, just for supporting Governor Palin, had my intelligence, my sanity, and my Christianity questioned.  Rise above it or go away.

Oh, and I won't be making any signs of support for any of the Republican presidential candidates in the near future.  Someone is going to have to convince me to go any further than the "anyone but Romney" stance I adopted on Twitter tonight.

And with that I wish you a good night.

* The reader is reminded that this is, at best, a seventh-rate blog.

The patience of Todd Palin

Over the last three years, Todd Palin has seen his wife and family subjected to some of the most vicious filth I have ever seen in modern politics.

He's seen the punk kid who cheated on his daughter every chance he could doing some of the worst lying in the history of untruth (and by worst, I mean that this person--who, you will remember, is no longer to be named in this blog--is a flat-out bad liar...he can't even keep his story straight from one interview to the next) and yet being lauded by people like, well, pretty much every anti-Sarah blog, as well as distinguished celebrities like Tyra Banks and Kathy Griffin.

And now he's seen a guy who has had an axe to grind with Sarah Palin for years come out with, surprise of surprises, a smear job of a book containing all sorts of salacious rumors, some of which have been raised, and dismissed, before.  This is a guy, mind you, who went so far as to move into the house next to the Palins in order to spy on them.  Seriously, there's no other reason to move in next door unless you're wanting to try to obtain some material surreptitiously.

If I were the husband of someone who had been targeted like this, I'd be furious.  (Thankfully, Mrs. Snowed is not subjected to anything like this, as she has chosen to remain out of the public eye.)  But Todd Palin has, at least on the record, remained quite diplomatic, not calling the author of this book some of the names that he almost deserves to be called, but instead issuing the following statement giving this author all the attention, and then some, that he ought to receive for publishing this garbage.

“This is a man who has been relentlessly stalking my family to the point of moving in right next door to us to harass us and spy on us to satisfy his creepy obsession with my wife. His book is full of disgusting lies, innuendo, and smears. Even The New York Times called this book ‘dated, petty,’ and [said] that it ‘chases caustic, unsubstantiated gossip.’”
– Todd Palin

(statement courtesy Conservatives 4 Palin via Stacy McCain)

Stacy McCain, as per the same article, has spoken with Todd Palin about the punk kid, suggesting to Mr. Palin that the kid needed some sort of retribution.  He feels the same way about this author (maybe I should just call him "the punk author" to stay consistent with regard to these ankle-biters tormenting the Palins).  And he calls all Palinistas to help:

So I’m asking readers to go make a $25 donation to SarahPAC to help defray Todd’s legal expenses when he shows up at McGinniss’s first book signing and pounds that scurvy worm into a bloody pulp.

Now, this blog would never advocate violence in that way, but given that, as I believe, Todd's wife is about to enter the presidential race, perhaps a large influx of donations in response to this punk author's hack job would send a message of some sort to somebody, so I encourage those who are tired of the same old rumor-mongering and hate directed toward Sarah Palin to visit the page linked in Stacy's quote (and also right here!) and add your voice to those condemning the last three years' worth of behavior toward the Palin family.

And send a few good thoughts and prayers Todd's way, that his patience may persist in the face of all that continued attacks.

p.s.  Stacy McCain has more about the punk author.  Having now read these posts, I feel that the term "punk author" is dead-on accurate.

A call for patience

Apparently the Palin hatred about which I wrote last week was just the tip of the iceberg.  In the past two days, there have been too many people to count, all of whom have felt the need to make some sort of statement to the effect that Sarah Palin must declare her candidacy for president (or not) on their schedule, rather than hers.  And this has sparked a lot of screaming (as it were, given that this is mostly on Twitter and other online places) from Palin's fans...which, of course, is used by those sniping at Governor Palin to write her off.  Thus continues the endless cycle.

Most notable in the recent sniping have been RedState's Erick Erickson, who, in a post titled, simply, "Enough", repeated the same old lines we've been hearing for at least a week:

Sarah Palin is a great person. She’s a great fighter. She draws in awesome attention and rallies a crowd. She has some terrific and loyal supporters I don’t want to lump in with the loud voices largely now disconnected from political reality. Ron Paul is the same way. But at some point, Sarah Palin has to take some responsibility for her supporters as Ron Paul must for his. Palin’s dragging out the tease on her decision has compounded the problem and we’ve reached a breaking point.

I'll give Mr. Erickson credit for at least pointing out that not all Palinistas are crazy; as I said last week, some are all too eager to lump us all together in the crazy train.  With that said, though, we've heard the rest of that paragraph all too many times before.

Mr. Erickson was inspired to post this (and many, many more paragraphs which will not be quoted here, including one likening moving on from Palin to leaving a cult) by an appearance on Fox News the other night by Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter.  William Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection has that video, about which I will not say much more except to point out that Ms. Coulter pretty much said the same thing as Mr. Erickson:  that Sarah Palin has to decide now or else, and also, her supporters are jerks who are killing her image.  Mr. Jacobson fired back at the snipers:

So yes, I do take it personally when conservatives lash out at Palin not because of her policy positions or what she’s done or not done in her career, but with personal invective.

It’s not religion, its a cold hard understanding of what is to come, and how those who call Palin a diva or a tease or any of the other names coming from media conservatives do damage to us all.  Palin is simply the test case for how the Republican nominee, whoever that person may be, will be treated, and we pile on her at our own peril.

I won't go into other people's posts basically calling Governor Palin a diva, an attention whore, or whatever.  Life's too short, honestly, as is my patience with this kind of talk.  I also won't go into the further Palinista response of "go to hell" for those who want the governor to go away.  While I feel that telling Governor Palin to go away is not helpful, I also don't feel it is helpful to lash out at those who talk that way.

I also don't want to say much more about those who cannot tolerate any criticism whatsoever of Sarah Palin.  I've already said that this viewpoint is not helpful.  Now, though, I wonder if there is more to this don't-you-dare-say-anything-about-our-Sarah faction than I thought.  Since last week's post (which I've already linked twice, so scroll up), I've been blocked on Twitter by at least two intense Palinistas, one of whom is somewhat well-known internet radio host Tammy Bruce.  How in the world is that helping?


(Incidentally, I had intended to link a Tammy Bruce clip refuting (or refudiating, as it were) Ms. Ingraham and Ms. Coulter, but for some reason, I no longer feel the desire to do so.)

Perhaps the best response to the people sniping at Sarah Palin was by John Hayward at Human Events, as linked by Josh Painter at Texans for Sarah Palin:

Maybe Palin won’t run, and never seriously planned to.  Maybe she will, but she’s taking a long time to make her announcement.  She always said she wanted to see if there’s another candidate she could support.  Tonight [note:  this was obviously written yesterday] will be the first big debate appearance of Rick Perry, the last big name to join the race.  He had a pretty spectacular campaign launch.  Is it so unreasonable for Palin to wait a bit longer and see how he fares, once his campaign reaches orbit?  If she’s a non-factor, why are so many people – pro and con – being so unreasonable about her?

If Palin doesn't run, the vast majority of her supporters will look to the other candidates.  If those candidates think they've been left with insufficient time to rally voters to their cause, because Palin waited a few extra months to announce she wouldn't enter the race, then Sarah Palin isn't the one who has a problem worthy of serious criticism.

Regardless of how one feels about Sarah Palin's timeline or her potential candidacy, as Mr. Hayward points out, she has been a major voice in the political narrative.  And that's very true:  honestly, Sarah Palin has done as much to advance conservative objectives (Tea Party objectives, in many cases) as anyone has with her public statements.

So why don't we all--Palin fans or not--step back, take a few deep breaths, and remember what is important?  Here's a hint:  it's not winning an argument on the internet.

Palin's Tea Party Rally speech...and a warning

I don't know about anyone else, but to me, Sarah Palin's speech at the Tea Party Rally today sure made it seem as if she is going to be a presidential candidate before too long.  It was a great speech, taking aim at the "permanent political class" on both sides of the aisle (because we all know that neither side has a monopoly on people whose first priority is to stay in power), and it laid out a great plan for helping to move America forward.  (That sounds like a good name for an organization...one that I didn't actually remember until I typed those words, but still...)

The full speech (with thanks to The Right Scoop and Conservatives 4 Palin for pointing me in the right direction) can be found right here.  It's just over 40 minutes, but well worth watching.



I'd include some of the best quotes from the speech, but, as usual, Jedediah Bila has beaten me to it.  A sampling of her picks are as follows:

“What brought us together is a love of country and we see that America is hurting. We’re not willing to just sit back and watch her demise through some fundamental transformation … we’re here to begin the restoration of the country that we love. We’re here because America is at a tipping point.”

“Politicians are so focused on the symptoms and not the disease … so this is why we must remember that the challenge is not simply to replace Obama in 2012, but the challenge is who or what we will replace him with.”

“My plan is a bona-fide pro-working man’s plan and it deals in reality … My plan is about empowerment, empowerment of our states, empowerment of our entrepreneurs … empowerment of you, our hard-working individuals.

“Real hope is in you. It’s not that hopey-changey stuff that we heard about in 2008 … Real hope comes from realizing that ‘we the people’ can make the difference.”

I ended with that last quote on purpose.  What Ms. Bila snipped from that quote was the sentence just before, which stated that real hope should not be in any one person (at least in the political word...my hope is indeed in one Person, which is good because I'm a bit of a screw-up on my own).  I warned years ago about people forming a cult of personality around President Obama or Governor Palin.  As I said then, the policies are the important thing, not the person.  And, as we've seen (and as I recently pointed out), the true believers react very negatively when their object is belittled in any way.  That isn't standing up for a policy, that's standing up for a person.

But with that said, there now seems to be an Anti-Palin cult of personality as well (or would that be a cult of anti-personality?), in which the members react negatively when their object is praised.  (Yes, there's one of those for President Obama as well...you've seen it, I'm sure.)

So my advice (which I am mostly offering to myself, since I'll forget this within 48 hours, most likely) is not to be a member in such a cult, and not to engage someone who is obviously a member of an anti-cult.  Let them stew in their overly intense emotions, and you work toward bringing about the change you want to see in this country.  If someone running for anything shares your views (as, for example, Sarah Palin seems to share mine), then work with them.  But don't focus on a person too much, to the detriment of the country.

New old meme: Palinistas are crazy idiots!!!!

How do they hate Sarah?  Let me count the ways.  Let's see, I've in the past commented on people falsely characterizing her as an extremist, insulting her daughter and her son, and, of course, calling her every possible synonym for "idiot" (and, occasionally, much worse).  We can't forget the blaming her for violence having nothing to do with her, either.

And we've even heard the "Palinistas are idiots for liking her" arguments before, sometimes (at least for me) from people once considered friends.

But now the seemingly chic thing to do online--on Twitter or wherever--is for the "Palinistas are idiots" assertion to come, not from the Obama supporters, which would be expected, but from fellow conservatives.  A lot of these such tweets swapped "idiots" for "crazy", which does not appear to be much of an improvement.  Typical of this are tweets such as the following, both of which occurred during a very quick period during which it appeared that Governor Palin had cancelled a proposed speech on Saturday:

@jeffemanuel: @gabrielmalor @allahpundit Palin and her faction have reminded me more and more of high school girls. This doesn't help.

@gabrielmalor Palin die-hards are already blaming this SNAFU on *anyone but Palin* before we even know what really happened. #allyouneedtoknow

 

There are others who appear to take great joy in painting all Palinistas with this broad brush as well.  None of these people who have recently taken up this type of argument ever respond when I try to point out that not all Palinistas are unreasonable, crazy, stupid, or whatever.*

And yes, I do know that some supporters of Sarah Palin do have an unfortunate tendency to snipe at anyone who says anything bad about her.  Some do insult the intelligence of others who question anything of Sarah Palin.  It's sad that I have to say this, but you Palinistas who do this type of thing:  YOU AREN'T HELPING.  No, it's not fair that Sarah Palin is called out for things that aren't even true, or things about which, if we were talking about anyone else--Democrat or Republican--no one would care, but in case you've forgotten, Sarah Palin is more than capable of defending herself.

 

But regardless of these supporters' behavior, the people who have taken to insulting all Palin supporters in the fashion mentioned above are out of line.  It's like it's a new game:  "Bait a Palinista".  Step one:  say something insulting about Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin's supporters, or both.  Step two:  Wait for one Palinista to respond.  If response isn't sufficiently insulting, keep needling at Palinista until Palinista lashes out.  Step three:  Retweet Palinista's response, then state that your point that Palinistas are idiots are crazy/stupid has been proven.

It's enough to make me begin to understand why some supporters of Hillary Clinton in 2008 formed the PUMA movement.  (Like Hillary's supporters, it certainly appears that Sarah's supporters are being brushed aside.)  

 

So some of y'all think Sarah Palin is unelectable?  Fine.  Give me a reason to support someone else instead.  But cut the insulting out.  It doesn't make me want to support you in, well, anything.  (And yes, these same suggestions apply to someone attempting to convince people to support Governor Palin.)

* There is one person I know who, when I challenged him regarding his characterization of Palinistas, did respond, but this person has been gleefully posting anything to make Governor Palin look bad long before the current group of people adopted the new trend of baiting Palin's supporters.

Jedediah Bila: "What pundits should be talking about when it comes to Palin"

As regular readers of this blog (of which I have none) may know, I have become quite the fan of the writings of one Jedediah Bila in recent months.  (I most recently said as much here.)  Ms. Bila, as seen on her site, has written a quite interesting book, which I intend to review at some point in the future when I learn that crucial skill of time management.  (After thirtysomething years, it's not looking terribly likely, but I'm still holding out hope.*)  Among the reasons that I enjoy her writing, as anyone familiar with both of us would know, is that we both are in substantial agreement with Sarah Palin with regard to policy.

So with that said, it comes as no surprise to see Ms. Bila leading the way in trying to steer bunches of misguided pundits toward some proper Palin-related talking points.  This is necessary, of course, because, as Ms. Bila states in her latest column at the Daily Caller:

While some pundits are busy calling Sarah Palin thin-skinned, claiming that there is “no space for her” in the 2012 race and incessantly speculating about her potential announcement date, some of us are sitting by laughing, sufficiently amused by typical establishment tactics that have grown tired, old and frankly a little boring.

One of the problems with this approach to Governor Palin is that these pundits are forgetting the fairly impressive record that she put together when she was governor.  So, as a helpful reminder for these pundits, Ms. Bila has compiled a nice list of ten accomplishments from the Palin administration in Alaska, ten accomplishments that these pundits, seemingly, have either forgotten or never bothered to learn in the first place.  Here's a taste:

1. As governor in 2007, Palin was responsible for the largest veto totals in state history, while investing $1 billion in forward-funding education and fulfilling public safety and infrastructure necessities.

For the rest, you'll need to check out Ms. Bila's column.  It's definitely worth a read, just as Governor Palin is worth a second look.

* It's true that I still hold out hope; it's not as true that I am actively, you know, doing something about the problem.

The Palin Plan for the financial crisis

Sarah Palin's most recent Facebook post, "Conquering the Storm", directly addresses the financial mess in which our country currently finds itself.  Since no plan was to be found in President Obama's "we're still a AAA country" lecture yesterday, I'll start with a short excerpt from Governor Palin's plan, which is near the end of her post:

We need to get this economy moving again, and the real stimulus we’ve been waiting for is domestic energy development. We must reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil by responsibly developing natural resources here. This will provide good paying jobs, reduce our trade deficit, increase federal and state revenue, ensure environmental standards, and actually stimulate our economy without incurring any debt. That’s real stimulus!

There's more to it, and I'm gonna encourage you, gentle reader, to go over to Gov. Palin's full post and read it yourself.

But what of those readers who believe, as some of my friends on both sides of the aisle do, that Sarah Palin has no knowledge about pretty much anything (though certainly some on the other side don't believe this)?  For those people, the governor addresses her qualification to speak on this issue:  she warned that this exact situation would come months ago:

Back in December 2010, I wrote: “If the European debt crisis teaches us anything, it’s that tomorrow always comes. Sooner or later, the markets will expect us to settle the bill for the enormous Obama-Pelosi-Reid spending binge. We’ve already been warned by the credit ratings agency Moody’s that unless we get serious about reducing our deficit, we may face a downgrade of our credit rating.” And again in January, in response to President Obama’s State of the Union address I wrote: “With credit ratings agency Moody’s warning us that the federal government must reverse the rapid growth of national debt or face losing our triple-A rating, keep in mind that a nation doesn’t look so ‘great’ when its credit rating is in tatters.”

There is much, much more to Gov. Palin's post.  Check it out.  And hopefully you will realize that her ideas are indeed worthy of consideration.

(Hat tip:  HotAir.com, "Palin knocks it out of the park", which sums up my feeling on the matter)

What do Manhattan liberals think of Sarah Palin?

If I haven't already said so, I have grown to enjoy Jedediah Bila's writing over the last year, or however long it's been since I was first introduced to her punditry.  Ms. Bila can truly turn a phrase, which is probably why she's an up-and-coming pundit, whereas I'm a seventh-rate blogger.  But I digress.

Ms. Bila, like me, is a fan of one Sarah Palin, which deeply colors her interactions with other people in the greater Manhattan area, where she lives.  (She wrote a whole book about such experiences, Outnumbered: Chronicles of a Manhattan Conservative, which I intend to review if I ever finish the thing.)  Anyway, she was at a cocktail party on the Upper East Side and overheard many of the left-leaning attendees talking about Governor Palin, who, it had been announced that day, would be headlining a tea party rally in Iowa on September 3.

And what kind of sentiments were expressed about Gov. Palin?  Well, for starters, as per Ms. Bila:

5. SHE’S SCARY BECAUSE SHE’LL ACTUALLY DO WHAT SHE SAYS. That’s right, folks. They know she’s the real deal. They know that if she says it, she means it. And that scares the living daylights out of them.

No, I'm not including the whole list.  If you want to see the rest, as they say, read the whole thing.

But I will say that it is very telling that these Manhattan liberals seem to think more of the potential of Sarah Palin than a lot of Washington Republicans do.  I guess we'll see who's right in the coming months.

Disclaimer:  I do indeed get paid an incredibly small pittance if you happen to purchase through Amazon.com links on this blog.

Palin explains why Tea Partiers aren't terrorists

When you think of the word "terrorist", which image comes to mind?

Well, apparently, if you're the vice-president, and definitely if you are one of at least four editorial writers for the New York Times, this is representative of the image that comes to your mind:

(Sarah Palin on Hannity, courtesy Fox News Channel, used under Fair Use)

I was all ready to write some sort of response to remarks allegedly made by Joe Biden that Tea Partiers acted like terrorists, as well as to multiple NYT editorials (none of which I care to link) referring to Tea Partiers similarly or using terms like "waging jihad", but thanks to my all-too-typical delays in writing, I was beaten to the punch by Sarah Palin.  And it's just as well, really, since Governor Palin put it much better than I could, unloading on the administration for its skewed perception of what constitutes terrorism.  As she put it on Fox News Channel's Hannity last night:  

If we were really domestic terrorists, shoot, President Obama would be wanting to pal around with us, wouldn’t he? I mean he didn’t have a problem with palling around with Bill Ayers back in the day when he kicked off his political career in Bill Ayers' apartment, and shaking hands with Chavez, and saying he doesn’t need any preconditions with meeting dictators, or wanting to read US Miranda rights to alleged suspected foreign terrorists. No, if we were real domestic terrorists, I think President Obama wouldn’t have a problem with us. 

I can hear some of my acquaintances on the other side already screaming that Gov. Palin's statement was out of line, that she shouldn't say those kinds of things about our president.  But when multiple eyewitnesses are saying that his vice-president is saying the exact same kind of things about us (I don't know about you, but I have never hung around with an admitted domestic terrorist, by which I mean a real terrorist, not someone who uses governmental procedure to shape a debt-ceiling bill), I see no reason for her not to unload with both barrels on this administration.  Somebody needed to do it.

The above transcript was courtesy The Right Scoop, who wanted readers to "be surprised" by the second part of her interview.  I, however, thought this portion of part two needed to be highlighted:

[t]hat's why I'm an optimist heading into this next election cycle.  I believe that the Tea Party patriots really have been strengthened, and evidence of that is the vitriol which you see targeted towards these Tea Party patriots who just want a sound fiscal policy adopted in our nation, so we will not become a bankrupt nation.  And, now more than ever, the Tea Party patriots have got to be energized. They cannot be numb and calloused and depressed about some of the "two steps forward, three steps back" that we saw happening in the last couple of days with the debt ceiling increase. They need, now more than ever, to really be united.  Work extremely hard to get the right candidates in there, despite the boot on the neck that many of us feel that government is trying to do to us, and those on both sides of the aisle who kind of run the political machines, that boot on the neck trying to take us down and keep us down.  No, now isn't the time to retreat, but it's the time to be united, to move forward, very very powerful grassroots movement, I believe, that will grow even more in these coming months as the election approaches.

I think Governor Palin is setting herself up very nicely, not necessarily to lead the entire Tea Party movement (according to some who only think they have a clue, the Koch brothers already hold that position, and doggone it, I'm still waiting for my check, y'all!),  but certainly to be a strong guiding force.  She isn't afraid to take a controversial stand, as she certainly did with regard to the debt ceiling debate, and she issued a fairly sharp rebuke to Mitt Romney last night for not articulating any position until the deal had been struck.  Gov. Romney's approach to this debate seems to match the typical "finger in the wind" take on an issue by which most politicians live.  Gov. Palin represents a breath of fresh air compared to that approach.

Check out the entire interview (parts one and two) here: