cjbreisch's blog

Cross posted to Chris of Rights

TO: House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH-08) CC: Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN-05)

Mr. Speaker,

I realize that the election of 2010, while historic, granted the Republican party very limited power in Washingon, D.C. We still have to deal with President Barack Obama (D-USA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). However, I wonder if you are making proper use of even what limited power you have. Like Velma Hart, I am exhausted of defending you. I stood by you after the budget deal over the CR for the rest of fiscal year 2011. I understand the difference between appropriations and allocations, and I realize that you probably got all you were going to be able to get out of that deal. I think you got played on the “czars” part of the deal, but I have faith you won’t let that happen again, and will punish Obama for bargaining in bad faith.

However, your recent comments regarding Congressman Paul Ryan's (R-WI-01) Path to Prosperity leave me gravely concerned. You seem to agree with Congressman Dave Camp’s (R-MI-04) statement regarding the plan:

"I'm not really interested in laying down more markers," said Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.). "I'd rather have the committee working with the Senate and with the president to focus on savings and reforms that can be signed into law."

In fact, your own words on the subject are these:

"My interpretation of what Mr. Camp said is a recognition of the political realities that we face. While Republicans control the House, the Democrats control the Senate and they control the White House," Boehner said at a Thursday press conference.

Again, I understand the political realities we face. I realize that in the end, to pass both chambers and to get the President’s signature, any measure will have to have bipartisan support. I also understand the desire to avoid a vote that will be interpreted by many as purely symbolic. Mr. Camp is correct that the Ryan plan does not have any chance of success in the Senate.

However, I think this path is fraught with peril.

The people that brought you this majority in 2010, did so because we are gravely concerned about the future of this country. Not just for our children, not just for our retirement savings, but we have serious doubts about the next 10 years. We see the headlines about Greece and other countries in the EU, and we wonder if we’re very far behind. Just this weekend it was revealed that the Greece bailout may be failing and that while there is a high risk of default, further bailouts are being considered.

“We have not been discussing the exit of Greece from the euro area. This is a stupid idea. It is in no way - it is an avenue we would never take,” [Head of Eurogroup] Juncker told reporters.

“We don't want to have the euro area exploding without reason. We were excluding the restructuring option, which is discussed heavily in certain quarters of the financial markets.

“We think that Greece does need a further adjustment program,” Juncker said. “This has to be discussed in detail.”

In fact, some economists are not just saying that we’re following Greece, but we’re already there.

[Boston University Economics Professor Laurence] Kotlikoff believes a better benchmark of fiscal fitness is the fiscal gap, or the present value difference between all future expenditures and receipts. His calculations reveal Greece future expenditure at 11.5% of the value of future GDP, after incorporating the new austerity measures.

The US figure, based on the CBO projections--12.2%--is worse than that of Greece, but not by too much.

However, Kotlikoff says the U.S. is in much worse shape than the 12.2% figure suggests, because the CBO’s projections assume “a 7.2% of GDP belt-tightening by 2020,” with "highly speculative” assumptions, such as a substantial rise in tax receipts and wage growth.

A separate analysis by the New York Times also put the U.S. debt--measured by medium term deficit as a percentage of GDP--higher than that of Greece. (See chart)  Furthermore, in a roundabout way, Kotlikoff and Da Gong, the largest credit rating agency in China, seem to be in agreement as to the fiscal position of the United States; although many have dismissed Da Gong’s objectivity when it downgraded the U.S. from AAA to AA.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come to draw a line in the sand. This far. No further. The people that gave you this majority are not interested in bipartisanship. They are interested in saving this country. That will take some hard bargaining on your part, and some strong efforts by Mr. Camp and others, as well as your counterparts in the Senate. We realize that Medicare reform as designed by Chairman Ryan may not pass, but we can not afford to take it off the table without getting something just as significant in return. The Ryan plan should be the starting point in negotiations. We can not move the starting point even further to the left.

We expect you, no, we need you, to stand firm against the destructive plans of Leader Reid and President Obama. We will do our best to give you more tools to work with in 2012, but you have to prove that you’re willing to use the tools that we’ve given you so far.

It’s not entirely your fault, but the citizenry of this country has acquired a high level of distrust for our elected officials. We came out in historic numbers in 2010, not because we suddenly believe in the Republican party, but because of our concerns for the future. We had hope and belief that you understood your mandate and what we expected of you. Then we read things that make it seem as if nothing has changed in Washington, and that you still don’t get it. That doesn’t help your case in attempting to regain our trust. If you want more of our trust and more tools, you’re going to earn it. That means fighting for us, every day, every hour, with every breath you have. We demand, expect, and will accept nothing less. Because we will be doing the same.

If you’re not willing to do that, let us know now. We’re tired of being fooled and we’re tired of waiting for real leadership.

Cross posted at Chris Of Rights

Former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) was the clear winner in last night’s GOP debate. He was energetic, focused, and on message. He handled the question about his former support of cap and trade very well. “We did the research and discovered it was a bad idea. I was wrong.” As long as the big names stay out (Huckabee, Gingrich, Daniels, Romney, Palin), he has to be considered the frontrunner, and may still be even after some of them enter.

Herman Cain (R), and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) also distanced themselves from the rest, but each had some problems as well. Cain is clearly uncomfortable talking about foreign policy, and while a FairTax supporter, his defense of it was very weak. Santorum seemed defensive and awkward at times and used the word ‘I’ far too often. Still, both of them were on message more than they were off.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX-14) was, well, Ron Paul. He speaks the libertarian game very well. But too many mainstream conservatives regard him as a wacko for him to be considered a serious threat. Still, any support he gets just shows the GOP that they need to consider the ideas of the libertarians. Every time he opens his mouth though,  I get a knot in my stomach from wondering what he’s going to say.

And that brings us to the last of our intrepid debaters, former Governor Gary Johnson (R-NM). How can I put this? Well, he stunk. I honestly hope I don’t have to sit through another debate with him as a participant. He was petulant and stumbled through his answers. His answer on how he’d respond to pro-life critics (he’s pro-choice) was terrible. His drug answers weren’t much better. And he just seemed very uncomfortable up on stage. In fact, his only good moment of the night was during his closing statement. It was the only time he looked like he was having fun, and he got in a plug for his website.

Focus groups thought that Cain won the debate and Santorum came in second. I’d say that Cain gained the most last night, but I don’t think he won. Still, he was good enough that people are going to start paying attention to him, which is what he needs. Santorum’s high praise was due almost entirely to his attack on ObamaCare which was very well done.

In all, I think that the heavyweights that skipped this one made a mistake. It was a very good debate, and clearly it’s going to give momentum to Pawlenty, Cain, and Santorum heading into the summer.

Opinions on debates tend to be highly subjective, and depend, more often than not, on your presupposed opinions before the debate even started. Therefore, I present the following videos of the debate in its entirety, so that you may watch and judge for yourself.

Cross posted at Chris of Rights.

Hat Tip: The Distributed Republic via Instapundit.

Look at this chart and remember it the next time a liberal complains to you about all that “big money” the GOP gets. This chart represents the top 20 groups in campaign contributions over the last 20 years.

Not a whole lot of red on that chart, is there? Click on the pic to go to OpenSecrets.org to see the details.

Look at some of those blue lines: AFSCME, Goldman Sachs, IBEW, NEA, Teamsters, SEIU, AFT, and UAW. A “who’s who” of organizations getting special favors from the current administration.

Also worth mentioning is that the first red line is “National Auto Dealers Assn”. Hey, wasn’t one of President Barack Obama’s (D-USA) first acts to shut down a ton of auto dealerships in the United States?

What an amazing coincidence.

Cross posted at Chris of Rights.

We can change the debate. In fact, we already have. as has been said previously, the debate is no longer about whether to cut, but where to cut, and how much to cut. The importance of that point can not be overstated.

But…

We have to realize we’re not going to win this war in one shot. We’re not going to get President Barack Obama (D-USA) to suddenly cut trillions of dollars. Probably not even hundreds of billions. It’s just not going to happen. Even if we get someone in the White House with an R after their name, it’s still not going to be as easy as we’d like.

We have to fight this war one battle at a time. One penny at a time. Every single appropriations bill that comes along needs to be attacked and whittled down. If someone wants the debt ceiling raised, that’s going to come at a price. As heavy a price as we can manage. Every single tax bill needs to be attacked. If a new department or grant is being considered for creation, we need to jump in and shut that off or trim it down.

Obama and Reid need to know that we’re not going away. That we’re going to penny pinch them to death, and that we’re in it for the long haul.

And we don’t let up when we do get a better Senate and White House. That’s a big reason we got into this mess. Despite all my compliments about President George W. Bush (R-USA), there’s no doubt he was a big spender.

But…

We have to understand that we’re not going to get everything. When we ask for $100 billion in cuts, we might only be able to achieve $30 billion, and then only by some serious brinkmanship. And if that means using the troops as a bargaining chip, then we have to do that. We have to use every bargaining chip, every tool we have at our disposal. Because the other side is going to do that, and it’s the only way we’re going to win.

Yes, we’re trying to kill socialism in the United States. But it’s going to have to be a death by a thousand paper cuts. We don’t have the tools and there isn’t the political will in Washington to kill it out right. There may never be.

Those that say that compromise is wrong, and that Boehner screwed up, are flat wrong. Yes, compromises got us in to this mess. But it’s a whole different ball game now, and the compromises we’re seeking are totally different. As I said at the beginning, we’ve changed the argument. We’re not compromising on how much to grow, but how much to cut.

And if we can do that every time, there’s still hope.

Now yes, we have to get that clown out of the White House. And we have to replace him with someone who is serious about cutting. Because we do need some big cuts, and we do need them fast. But, sorry to say, Tea Partiers, but those big cuts ain’t happenin’ before January 2013. It’s impossible.

Shutting down the government is a losing proposition. Independents expect our government leaders to lead and to compromise. Not to pick up their ball and go home. Allowing the government to shut down is no different than what the Democrats did in Indiana and Wisconsin. And in fact, in many ways it’s worse. The GOP might get a boost short term. But then people are going to be needing to go to the Social Security Administration office because they’re dealing with identity theft, and they’re not going to be able to. People are going to get ticked off because all construction has stopped on the interstate they take to work. And the tide will turn against the GOP. And not slowly. Quickly.

Also, there’s a fine line between standing firm and being obstinate. Speaker Boehner (R-OH-08) et al have to walk that line very carefully. Tea Partiers may want him to step over the line to obstinate, but that’s a losing proposition for us long term. Frankly, so far, Beohner has been brilliant. We’re getting an up and down vote in the Senate on ObamaCare. Ed Morrissey describes perfectly how big that is:

So this isn’t important because it holds some new hope for a quicker repeal.  Rather, it forces Democrats to defend the massive government expansion of control yet again, this time closer to the 2012 election.  Democrats didn’t run on ObamaCare in 2010, except in reliably liberal districts for House races, and the last thing they need in an already-difficult cycle is another reminder to voters of the unpopular program.  By forcing a floor vote in this agreement, Reid will have to get his caucus — now reduced to 53 rather than 59 — to entirely back ObamaCare in a new vote.

That means Senators like Bill Nelson in Florida will have to back it, even with the latest Quinnipiac poll showing voters there opposing it 41/49 more than a year after its rollout.  Jon Tester in Montana will have to explain yet again to his constituents why he wants the IRS to be health-insurance cops.  Claire McCaskill already has enough problems in Missouri, as does Ben Nelson in Nebraska.  Even Democrats running for re-election in 2014 — like Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor in Arkansas — will have to go back on the record to support it in order to keep the repeal from passing Congress, and that comes after the clear expression of voter disapproval in last year’s midterms.

Of course, even if that happened, Obama would veto it, but that creates problems for him as well.  If Democrats peel away from ObamaCare and he has to veto it to keep it in place, he suddenly looks very extreme and out of touch.  He’d have to explain why his only real legislative accomplishment has become so toxic that his own party doesn’t back it any more, which would put him even further on the defensive and eliminate the “GOP used scare tactics” defense of ObamaCare that he’ll undoubtedly use on the campaign trail.

Frankly, I’m surprised Reid and Obama agreed to this.  This has zero upside for Democrats heading into 2012, and looks like a political trap.

Brilliant.

The next big battle is over raising the debt ceiling. We’re going to have to get some concessions for that. And frankly, they should be big. Bigger than the $39B we just got. But we’ll see how it goes. Then we have next year’s budget, which will be in a dozen different budget bills. That gives us a dozen different votes. And then we’ll have the 2013 budget, which will be voted upon right before the elections in November 2012. Huge opportunities there.

Attack each one. Get every penny. But understand when you’ve gotten all the pennies you’re going to get.

And move on to the next battle.

Perseverance is the key. This isn’t the lottery. We’re not going to wake up one day and discover that we hit the jackpot and now we’re flush with money.

So, in that spirit, I can accept yesterday’s compromise. Am I happy about it? No. Am I even satisfied? Not hardly. But I can accept it. Win what you can. Move on to the next battle. That has to be our motto, or we’re going to lose.

Remember, the very future of this country is at stake. We can’t afford to lose the war because we’re pouting that we didn’t get enough from one tiny battle.

And we can win this way. Remember, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money.

Cross-posted at Chris Of Rights.

Yes, $39B in cuts amounts to a crap sandwich.

But, we knew when we came in to this diner that all they serve are crap sandwiches.

We got the best crap sandwich we were going to get.

You want something other than a crap sandwich? In November 2012, you will have a chance to change the management.

Look, you can grouse all you want. You can point out that this isn’t 1995, and that President Barack Obama (D-USA) is no President Bill Clinton (D-USA). But, the media is still in the Dem pocketbook. And, long term, a shutdown favors the Democrats. Probably not short term. It isn’t 1995, and he isn’t Bill Clinton. But long term, no doubt.

So, right now Speaker Boehner (R-OH-08) was negotiating from a position of strength. Give it 2-3 weeks, or a month, and he’s negotiating from a position of weakness. We would not have gotten a $39B deal in May. No chance whatsoever.

One more point, it can not be denied that John Boehner’s political power increased greatly over this deal. The 536 people in Washington, D.C. that matter know exactly who won this round and who lost. When the next battles come, that may turn out to be the most significant part of this deal.

Cross-posted at Chris Of Rights.

Ok, first the bad. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH-08) agreed to a mere $39 billion in cuts. That’s about 1%. Or about 2.8% of the deficit. Symbolic, at best.

Ok, now that’s out of the way. Let’s talk about the good.

Despite controlling only 1/2 of one branch of the government, the GOP was able to achieve the first actual spending cuts in modern history. And did it despite the biggest spending President and Senate this country has ever seen.

The Corner has a couple nice quotes for us.

Harry Reid, Feb. 3, 2011, on Paul Ryan’s initial offer of $32 billion in spending cuts:

The chairman of the Budget Committee today, today sent us something even more draconian than we originally anticipated…So this isn’t some game that people have been playing. The House of Representatives [is] actually sending us some of these unworkable plans.

Harry Reid, April 9, 2011, on a deal to cut $38.5 billion:

This is historic, what we’ve done.

Yes, this is a drop in the bucket. But it’s the first drop in our bucket we’ve ever gotten. I believe that Boehner got the best deal he was going to get. Shutdown or no. We have a Keynesian socialist President, who is either incapable of seeing the crisis in front of us, or does see it and honestly doesn’t care. Every financial battle against him is going to go like this. We’re going to have to push him to the brink and settle for the tiniest of cuts.

But we’re setting the table for 2013, when hopefully someone more reasonable will be in office. And the GOP is keeping its promise to push as hard as they can. Victories are going to be small and far between. For now, we’re going to have to be happy with the ones we get, as long as there is reason to believe we took it as far as we could.

But we also got some more things.

Our military will receive their paychecks. That’s good. Not sure how you feel, but I find slavery somewhat abhorrent. Apparently the President feels differently.

The D.C. school voucher program has been restored. This is a huge win for Boehner.

Funding for Planned Parenthood and ObamaCare will receive an up or down vote on the Senate floor. ObamaCare defunding has no chance of passage, but it’s not out of the question that PP defunding could get to 51 votes. It’s a stretch, but not an unbelievable one. There are several vulnerable Democrats who are not going to want to go on the record on this issue.

Remember, the one cut proposal we got from the Dems prior today was for $4 billion in cuts. And passage of that looked unlikely. The Democrats are totally unserious about the financial state of this country.

Next big battle: raising the debt ceiling. We’ll hit it in about 5 weeks, so round 2 is coming up fast.

One question though. How did the Senate vote first on the CR? I thought funding bills started in the House? Was our shutdown avoidance unconstitutional?

UPDATE: Some good points at HotAir:

We’ll see who won in September, but Republicans have achieved one major accomplishment.  Not only did they force the first actual reductions in government spending in ages, but they have changed the political paradigm from whether to cut to how much and where to cut.  That’s a pretty impressive victory for a party that only controls one chamber of Congress.

Update: One last point along these lines.  Democrats have spent the last four months arguing that Republicans were too radical to govern and wanted to destroy government.  Instead, Republicans fashioned a deal on their own terms and passed a budget deal — something Democrats couldn’t or wouldn’t do when they had all the power in DC.  This gives the GOP a lot of credibility on leadership and governance, and all of it at the expense of Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

Cross-posted at Chris of Rights

Forgive the “all Sarah, all the time” coverage for the moment. I think this will be the last post. Please also forgive me repeating myself from a few of my other posts. But I was going to write this as a comment on a few different blogs, and to save time and energy, I’m just putting it all down here.

Many people have called her resignation crazy.  Others have called it brilliant. The links are just two examples. I’m sure you can find plenty more. But both camps are wrong. It’s neither the brilliant choice, nor the crazy choice. It was her only choice.

First, two assumptions. Neither of which are guaranteed by any means.

1. There is no “other shoe about to drop”. She’s not stepping aside because of a scandal.
2. She’s not stepping aside because she’s just “sick of the whole thing”.

I guess there’s a third implicit assumption as well, that she has designs upon higher office.

If we take these as a given, then how could Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) achieve her goals? Let’s look at the obstacles first.

First, her term ends in December 2010. That may be too late to be starting to ramp up a campaign for the White House in 2012. In her case, it’s almost certainly too late. That’s sad, but it’s true. Especially given that she will have a harder time finding quality staff than some would. There’s a lot of resentment towards her from the party elite. And, given that the ankle-biters in AK have made it apparent that they will dog her every move and try to slap an “ethics violation” on it, she can’t really campaign before her term ends. Particularly when any trip she makes to the “lower 48” is guaranteed to be at least an overnight stay. One only needs to look at some of the 15 dismissed “ethics charges” to know that they will seize upon anything, no matter how small, to attempt to bring her down.

Second, and another reason why end of 2010 is too late for her to start, is that currently she is being defined by the likes of Maureen Dowd and David Letterman. As Governor of AK, there’s little she can do to define herself. Once again, she can’t go around the country making speeches. The wonderful people in AK aren’t going to let her.  Any political consultant will tell you that when you’re being defined by your enemies, you’re going to lose. Every time.

Third, she really does care for the initiatives she’s set in motion in AK. And she really does loathe the “good ole boys” network there. She ran against and has actively worked against the corruption of the Murkowskis and their accomplices. Lt. Governor Sean Parnell (R-AK) seems like he will continue her work and continue to move her agenda forward, but he can’t do that if he’s not in office. Running as an incumbent gives him a big leg up in the near certain Republican AK primary, and a leg up in the general election as well.

Given these points, her options were severely limited. The first point makes it a given that at the very least, she should not seek re-election. The second point tells us that even leaving office early would be a good idea. The third point tells us that she should leave early enough to give Parnell time to have a legislative session under his belt which will allow him to actually be seen as an incumbent. Given that, she pretty much has to step down by this fall at the latest. And, once you’ve gone though all this thought process, and reached that conclusion, the next logical conclusion is “why wait any longer?”

Is it unconventional? Certainly. That doesn’t make it either crazy or brilliant though. The situation makes it necessity. But then, “necessity is the mother of invention” (Plato—wow,. I always thought it was Ben Franklin).

Is it high risk? Certainly. That doesn’t mean it’s crazy, though. As Admiral Adama says, “sometimes you have to roll the hard six".

Cross-posted at Chris of Rights

First, it’s worthwhile pointing out that the let-wing blogs are abuzz with speculation that there’s an embezzlement scandal brewing related to Governor Sarah Plain’s (R-AK) time as Wasilla’s Mayor and a company called Spenard Building Supplies.

There’s very little information on this and quite a bit of uninformed speculation, but there’s some information here. At this point in time, there’s nothing about this on any reliable news source. There’s not even anything on the talk page on her Wikipedia entry. So, we’ll classify this as RUMOR for now.

Second, the last election cycle showed us (unfortunately) that the Presidential election cycle is no longer just one year.  It’s two. Or more. Now, the office turnover in AK is in December, so if she stayed through her term, she’d be there through the end of 2010. But, given the way she likes to do things, it’s apparent that she wouldn’t even start the political machinery moving until then. That may be too late to start in the next election cycle. Particularly if you’re way out in the middle of nowhere in Juneau, AK, and disliked by the party elite.

She may have well seen this as the best way to begin her campaign for higher office. She mentioned “unconventional” and “no politics as usual” several times in her speech.  Politics as usual and convention is to continue holding and not doing the job you’re holding while running for your next job.

And that’s the easy and simple response to anyone who calls her a “quitter”.

If, running for higher office is, in fact, what she’s doing, and not resigning due to a scandal.

Cross-posted at Chris Of Rights

Since this blog has been unabashed in its support for Governor Palin (R-AK), it seems necessary to comment upon her surprise announcement yesterday that not only is she not seeking re-election as Alaska’s Governor next year, she is in fact, stepping down at the end of the month.

Her press conference gave few clues as to the reason.  So, what does this mean?

Well, if it were any other politician, I would say one of the following (in descending order of probability):

1. There’s a big scandal that’s about to make headlines, and she knows it.
2. There’s a problem with the family, i.e. someone is very sick, someone’s been severely wounded, someone’s pregnant, someone has marital issues.
3. She’s had enough.

But, Mrs. Palin is not “any other politician”, so we need to at least consider other possibilities.

First, let’s look at what little she did say in her announcement:

Once I decided not to run for re-election, I also felt that to embrace the conventional Lame Duck status in this particular climate would just be another dose of politics as usual, something I campaigned against and will always oppose

Well, that is certainly true. she has always fought “politics as usual”, something the current occupant of the White House campaigned on, but has embraced enthusiastically.

In fact, Adam Brickley takes a look at taking her at her word. He thinks she’s trying to save her pipeline project and other reforms from the Alaaska Republican Party.

However, by resigning now, Palin installs Sean Parnell as an incumbent before the 2010 primary. So, instead of fighting off a strong "CBC" (Corrupt Bastards Club, or “Good Ole Boy Network”) challenger, Parnell will have a much clearer shot at keeping the office in Palinite hands for another four (or possibly eight) years. Sarah Palin did not give up on her reforms today - she institutionalized them, Now, they will not leave office with her, but rather continue under Gov. Parnell.

Well, that also fits what we know about her. She loathes the Good Ole Boys Networks, and will do whatever she can to hurt them. She doesn’t care whether it’s Republican or Democrat. She wants no part of it. She’s also extremely passionate about the pipeline, and the CBC hates it. This does allow Parnell to campaign next year as the incumbent, and not just as her “hand picked successor” (which he most certainly would have been).

Some people say that she’s setting herself for a Presidential run, but not in 2012, but 2016 or 2020. Supposedly Charles Krauthammer is in this group, but I can’t find a link to support that.  Well, apologies to Mr. Geraghty and Mr. Krauthammer, but you’re being stupid. If she’s setting up for something long-term, there’s no need to resign.

Her brother was interviewed on FNC yesterday (sorry, no link), and said that Palin and her staff have been spending almost 80% of their time fending off frivolous ethics complaints, and he implied that she stepped aside so the government of Alaska could go back to governing Alaskans, instead of deciding whether bringing Trig along on a trip makes it a “persona'” trip, not a “business” one.

Some say she is going to run for President in 2012, and this is the first step. Of course, many of those say that this is the dumbest first step possible.  Nate Silver, for example:

But can someone who may forever be branded as a "quitter" become Commander in Chief? There's almost no way. I can't think of someone who has done something comparable to what Palin did today running for national office, let alone winning it. In her critics' imaginations, she's gone from being Dan Quayle to some permutation of Thomas Eagleton.

and even more stupidly:

A fourth theory, I guess, is that she's running for Senate, but that doesn't make any sense at all. Why would she need to leave office to do that? And could she really beat Lisa Murkowski? My guess is that, after today, Palin would not only lose the primary to Murkowski but might do so by an embarrassing margin.

Nate’s an ok guy, I guess, although his political views are obscene. But he really should stick to what he does best, number crunching.  When he starts attempting political analysis, he makes himself look like a fool.

Regardless of the events of yesterday, if there’s no scandal attached, Sarah Palin can win whatever political office in Alaska she desires. Easily.

There will be those that will attempt to brand her as a “quitter”, but let’s face it, those people would’ve never voted for her in the first place, and, if she’d been campaigning while Governor, would’ve been complaining about her ignoring her state, or wondering if the Alaskan taxpayers are paying for her campaign junkets, etc.

In fact, she has a ready-made response to the “quitter” claim, that has great soundbite potential and works well as a zinger in a debate.

“Once I decided to explore my options for higher office, I knew I’d be doing a disservice to Alaskans unless I stepped aside. They deserve my full time attention, not whatever attention I can spare from the campaign.  How many votes have you missed this year, Senator?”

(Then Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) missed 80% of Senate votes during his campaign—how well were his constituents served?)

In fact, she is now free to go on her book tour, make political speeches, even expand her grassroots support, find other candidates of like mind and support them for Congress in 2010. In fact, Bill Quick makes that very suggestion.

Set out to remake the GOP in her image. This means identifying strong conservative candidates for both the House and the Senate, then supporting them with fundraisers, public appearances, the expertise of her team, and clout with the party itself in both the primaries and the general election

I’m not sure how doable that is without completely exhausting oneself, but it’s a possibility, certainly.  It’s evident that she has felt for some time that she couldn’t participate on the national stage and be Alaska’s Governor. Remember the big NRSC/NRCC fundraiser in June for which she was giong to be the keynote speaker? And then wasn’t going to be? And then was? And then wasn’t? She informed the Congressional Republicans that she needed to attend to her Alaskan duties and could not commit to being there until after the legislative session was over (it ended in mid-April). Properly, she was committed to her state, but obviously wanted to have a national voice.

So, what’s the total list now?

Mickey Kaus has 14 possibilities as of this moment:

I can see 5  6  7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Palin theories ... and counting: 1) She's running for president; 2) She's undergoing fame withdrawal and plans to get more attention in the lower 48; 3) She wants to cash in ($); 4) There's another shoe about to drop; 5) She'll now run against Murkowski for Senate. 6) She needs to tend to her family. 7) She's bonkers. 8) She's preggers. 9) She wants to "effect positive change outside government at this point in time on another scale and actually make a difference for our priorities." 10) Actually being a governor in a recession is no fun. Gives you ulcers. 11) She worried she wasn't giving "Alaska's issues" the attention they deserve, and was being criticized for that; 12) She's "fed up with politics ... the personal garbage" etc.. 13) She wants to fight back without one hand tied behind her back. 14) The Alaska legislature now hates her; ... These theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I have no idea which one it is. Because she’s a politician, typical or not, smart money is on scandal or family issue (but after 15 dismissed ethics charges, what new scandal could there be?). Next best bet is this is the first step in forming an exploratory committee to run for President in 2012.

Whatever it is, this blog definitely offers its prayers and hopes for her and her family. Would i vote for her in 2012? Wow, that’s a long way off. I can’t answer that. Unless something changes dramatically, I won’t vote for Mitt Romney though. I’m tired of voting for pseudo-conservatives. John McCain was my last.

Cross-posted at Chris of Rights

The mainstream media has been telling us that Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) was not vetted properly by Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) campaign. There's a term in psychology for this. It's called projection.

the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety

Make no mistake, the mainstream media (I prefer "old media" actually) was snookered by John McCain and even though Palin's name has been mentioned several times during the VP search, they didn't do their homework on her. Now they see that this pick may turn the election around and they're feeling guilty about it and in a state of panic.

As I write this, it's been about 144 hours since we first learned that Palin was McCain's choice.  And in those 144 hours every lefty in America with an internet connection or a phone has been trying to get the dirt on Palin. Let's see how they've done.

• She lied about the “bridge to nowhere”. FALSE. The worst you can say is that she was for it before she was against it.

  She changed her mind, he said, when "she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving, and that impression bothered her and she wants to change it. … I think that Sarah Palin is someone who has the courage to reevaluate situations as they developed."

• She lied about Trig. He isn’t really her baby! FALSE. 
• She was a member of a secessionist party. FALSE.  And unsourced. Good job here, old media. And now retracted.
• Troopergate. DEAD END. To be fair here, this is only news to mainstream America. Most bloggers and the media, left and right, knew about this "mini-scandal".
• She hired a lawyer to help her with Troopergate. FALSE.  This is a legal proceeding, and typically the Governor would be represented by the Attorney General. He felt he had a conflict of interest, so directed the state to hire a lawyer for her.  All perfectly reasonable and above board.
  

  The state has hired a private lawyer to represent Gov. Sarah Palin's office in the Legislature's investigation into the firing of former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. The lawyer already has challenged whether lawmakers even have authority to oversee the inquiry.

  The state Department of Law hired Thomas Van Flein, an Anchorage attorney with expertise in employment law and professional liability, because Attorney General Talis Colberg has a potential conflict of interest and shouldn't represent the governor, Van Flein said Monday.

• She has refused to testify in Troopergate and is blocking the investigation. FALSE. The only investigation she has refused to cooperate with is the one that has no legal jurisdiction. She has made it quite plain that she is more than willing to follow AK's laws in this matter. So, the left is criticizing her for obeying the law. This whole "investigation" is a witch hunt and is based upon a crime without a victim. The supposed victim is required by law to file a formal complaint if he feels he has been the victim of of an ethics violation. He has not done so. In fact, he has repeatedly stated that no one pressured him to fire the trooper. This really should be the end of the story. The fact that it isn't shows that this is all about politics and not about reality.
• Archives of her newspaper aren’t available online and haven’t been accessed by anyone locally. FALSE.
• She is a supporter of "Nazi Sympathizer" Buchanan and anti-Israel. FALSE. And FALSE.  It's worth pointing out that this smear comes directly from the organization of Mr. FightTheSmears himself.  Classy.
• She is tight with corrupt and indicted Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK). FALSE. And FALSE. Yes, I know she directed a 527 for him in 2003. But that was before she got fed up with corruption and ran for Governor against Stevens' pal Frank Murkowski. Stevens has never forgiven her for that. He endorsed her a mere 3 weeks before the general election, long after Murkowski had been defeated in the primaries, and frankly, when it was obvious she was going to win.
• She's in the pocket of "Big Oil". FALSE.
• She wasn’t vetted. PROJECTION, and FALSE. Old media has an ego problem. They honestly believe that if they didn't report on it, it didn't happen.
• She cut funding for teen mothers. FALSE.
• She pushed to have creationism taught in schools. FALSE.
• Peggy Noonan said that the campaign is over and that McCain has lost. FALSE.
  

  But, I argued, that's over, those assumptions are yesterday, the party can no longer assume that its base is utterly in line with the thinking of the American people. And when I said, "It's over!" — and I said it more than once — that is what I was referring to.

  Now, it's true that Noonan thinks that Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) would be a better choice, and she's entitled to her opinion. But, as she has said already about Palin:

  [H]er candidacy will be either dramatically successful or a dramatically not; it won't be something in between.

• She claimed that the Iraq war is 'a task that is from God'. FALSE. 
• She cut the budget for Alaska's special needs children by 62%. FALSE. 
• As Mayor of Wasilla, she tried to get this list of books banned, and then attempted to fire the librarian for not doing so. FALSE. It's TRUE that she did ask the librarian about censoring some books, and I admit that's not one of Palin's better moments, but it's not the list shown, as some of those weren't even published at the time. I'm unable to find a real list.  Some time later she did ask the librarian to resign, along with other holdovers from the previous administration, so it's hard to the "censorship question" as the cause here. She later relented and no books were ever banned. As I said, this is not one of Palin's better moments, but it's not nearly as bad as the left makes it out to be.
• Sarah Palin is being hidden from the media. FALSE.
• She's Pentecostal! MAYBE. But, so what? Is there something wrong with that, particularly when compared to the Trinity United Church?  The New York Times says she's definitely NOT a religious extremist. (Pentecostals aren't, anyway, just in case you were wondering).
• She should stay home with her family in this time of need. SEXIST.
• Her daughter getting pregnant reflects poorly on her. Oh God…if this is what you have to settle for, then you’re in deep trouble. There’s not a family in America that hasn’t had similar issues. Somehow I don’t remember Gore’s son being treated this way when it was discovered he had some drug issues. What the H***, I’ll go with SEXIST.
• The mayor of a town with only 9,000 people doesn't have the experience for the Presidency. Somehow forgetting that she is currently the Governor of AK. Even Community Organizer Barack Obama (D-IL) has gotten into the act:
  

  Well, you know, my understanding is that, uh, Governor Palin’s town of Wasilly [sic] has, uh, 50 employees, uh, uh, we’ve got 2500, uh, in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. Uh, uh, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. Uh, so I think that, uh, our ability to manage large systems, uh, and to, uh, execute, uh, I think has been made clear over the last couple of years.

  If that’s your tactic, I’m going to call Obama a “community organizer” from now on and forget all about his Senate job that he doesn’t do anyway. It's worth mentioning here that there was a lot of talk about Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA) as Obama's running-mate. He has no more experience than Palin, and yet I don't recall hearing these kinds of complaints about him. I'm going to have to go with SEXIST again.

  BTW, someone please remind Obama that he's not running against Palin. He's running against McCain. And while you're at it, let him know that when he compares her experience to his all that does is remind us that he doesn't have any.

• Her husband got a DUI 20 years ago. TRUE. SO?  If we're going to start eliminating politicians because of substance abuse problems with them and their families, the halls of Congress would be empty. I checked for similar things in the past of some prominent Democrats, but Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.
• She got federal money for her city as a mayor. TRUE, but isn’t that what mayors are supposed to do?
• She laughed on a radio show when another woman, a cancer survivor, was called a bitch. TRUE. But there's much more to the story than just that, and in fact, she does appear to be a bitch.
  

  A radio interview with Palin surfaced in which she discussed a petty, last-minute attempt by Lyda Green — the Republican state Senate leader and Palin’s political enemy — to change the time of this year’s state of the state address. The schedule had been set well in advance, but Green cited a transparently bogus scheduling conflict in an attempt to force the speech to a time that would have prevented Palin from attending her son’s graduation. In that context, Palin let loose a small giggle when the radio host called Green a “bitch.”

• Her daughter is pregnant. TRUE. Oh, but the media didn't find that one, the Palins released that information in response to the trash I've noted above. It's worth noting that Palin apparently feels that the child is a "blessed event" and doesn't feel that her daughter is being "punished with a baby".
• She should drop out, or McCain should kick her out.  This one has been really picking up steam the last couple of days.  My question: WHY?  The implicit answer is "because we're going to keep making up stuff about her for as long as it takes." Certainly there's no other reason.  Nothing that's TRUE that's been brought up so far even rises to the level of a gnat bite. I'm not sure if this is SEXIST or just SLEAZY, but it's certainly BIASED.
• The NATIONAL ENQUIRER is reporting that she had an affair with a businessman in AK. The status of this is UNKNOWN. I don't discount it automatically because it came from the ENQUIRER.  Sometimes they get things right.  John Edwards is a recent example.  On the other hand, how many times have they reported that Dr. Phil's marriage is on the rocks?  The Bush's marriage is on the rocks?  Here's what the story says:
  

  Another incredible allegation emerging from the family war is that Palin, a mother of five, had an affair with a former business associate of her fisherman husband, Todd.
  “Todd discovered the affair and quickly dissolved his friendship and his business associations with the guy,” charges an enemy. “Many people in Alaska are talking about the rumor and say Todd swept it under the rug.”

  Seems pretty thin, even by ENQUIRER standards. But, it is possible that this is the only TRUE and relevant story out there. We'll see. The Smoking Gun has more info on this, and at least the main reason behind this speculation is FALSE. The status of the entire story is still UNKNOWN.

Ok, so after probably tens of thousands of man-hours of research what have our best and brightest on the left come up with that's relevant and TRUE?

Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Also, this seems to belie the statement that she wasn't vetted properly.

Now, if only the press was so interested in vetting Obama. But I’ve given up on that.

This post will continue to be updated as long as more "vetting" occurs.