About Me

Name: Allen Caeden
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Palin & the stimulus bill

The Alaska Legislature has voted to accept nearly all of the federal stimulus money and now about 60 spending bills are headed to Governor Palin’s desk and now it is time to see whether she will reject about 1/3 of the money as she originally claimed that she would. The AP has reported the following from a Palin aide:

Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow said the message that Palin was going to reject stimulus funds was misconstrued. "She's never said she's rejecting anything. She's been consistent we need to hear from the public, thus the legislative hearings," Leighow said. The only funds Palin will reject, Leighow said, will be nearly $29 million for a State Energy Program she says are tied to adopting a statewide energy code.

However, the Alaskan Governor’s website makes it very clear that Sarah Palin absolutely refuses to start a single new government program mandated by the federal stimulus bill. Thus she has twenty days to sign or veto the spending bills sent to her desk. I would advise Sarah Palin to reject as much of this stimulus bill as possible, because the acceptance of or the rejection of the stimulus money will become a campaign issue in the Republican Primaries in 2012. The reason why this will be a campaign issue is because of the severe disapproval among Republicans of federal bailouts, and Sarah Palin would be wise to take this into consideration if she has her eyes on 2012.    
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The media & Sarah Palin

There is no precedent for what is now occurring in the political world. The lame stream media is obsessed with two political figures. The obvious one is Barak Obama, the other is Sarah Palin. The former they worship, the latter they try to smear. What is unique about Sarah Palin is the fact that about seven months after a failed bid as the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, she is still the political star of the Republican Party. Political stardom has never been achieved by a defeated vice-presidential candidate, but such is not the case with Sarah Palin. Whether you are a supporter of Sarah Palin or not, one cannot ignore the fact that she is the most popular Republican on the planet by the GOP base and the Republican who is by far the most vilified by the liberal media. But why should the liberal media be so obsessed with Sarah Palin? Does the press vilify other potential 2012 GOP presidential candidates? What about Huckabee, Romney, Jindal, Pawlenty, or Mark Sanford? Nope, not one word. The liberal media is deeply concerned about a possible 2012 run, but why? First, the leftists see how much Sarah Palin jazzes up the GOP base, and voter morale does have an impact on elections. Second, the leftists know that Palin has a long history of running as the political underdog, running on a shoestring budget but with fiercely diehard supporters, and who in the end manages to pull off magnificent political triumphs. Third the leftists know that Sarah Palin is fiercely anti-corruption and she would be a direct threat to what is now a corrupt federal government. Fourth, they see in Sarah Palin what Michael Reagan (President Reagan’s son) has seen and wrote about, and this is that Sarah Palin is the first person to arrive on the national scene who is most like President Reagan, who is the kind of political leader the left never wants to see in the oval office again. This my friends is why Sarah Palin is undergoing a continuous smear campaign by the leftists in this country and why we should remember her in 2012.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama: Most Polarizing President Ever By Pew Poll

Reported by Newsmax.com


In his first two months in office, President Barack Obama has succeeded in widening the political gulf among Americans more than any other president in modern history, according to a new poll. The "partisan gap" between Republicans and Democrats is 10 points larger than it was under George W. Bush.

The gulf – between Democrats and Republicans who say President Obama is succeeding – is also showing signs of further widening, according to a new Pew Research poll.

The poll indicates that 88 percent of Democrats approve of the president's job performance, while just 27 percent of Republicans say the same thing – a 61-point difference.

By comparison, the gap for President George W. Bush at a similar point in his administration was 51 points. It was 45 for Bill Clinton, 38 for George H. W. Bush, and 46 for Ronald Reagan.

The Pew Research Center poll – a survey of polls six weeks into the Obama era – concluded that despite the frequent calls for bipartisanship, U.S. politics is more polarized than at any equivalent point in the past four decades.

"There is no single answer as to why this is happening," Michael Dimock, the associate director at Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, and the author of this study, told Digital Journal.com. "This polarization is part of a long-term pattern. You see increasing polarization with Reagan and then with Bush and now with Obama.

"One argument is that it is the environment that Obama inherited," Dimock said. "The counter-argument is that people came into this presidency optimistic that he would be bipartisan. However, the polarization that we are seeing with Obama is occurring on both sides. It is not just a Republican issue. Democrats support him uniformly - more than they did under Clinton."

The irony is that Obama has made it a central pillar of his presidency to try and heal what was often described at the bitter partisanship of the last three decades. In the final days of the election campaign, he rebuffed Republican claims to represent the "real America" by saying, "There is no city or town that is more pro-America than anywhere else; we are one nation, all of us proud, all of us patriots."

But his strong Democratic support seems to be due to the overwhelmingly liberal Democratic issues that Obama supports in a much more aggressive manner than Bill Clinton did, Dimock said. And that hurts him even more with conservative and moderate Republicans.

"He has taken on an ambitious agenda," Dimock said. "His policies cleave along partisan lines - they are right down the center. Obama's approval results are based on the decisions he has chosen to make."

The Pew findings suggest that, at least up to now, he has been unable to turn back an historic trend in American politics and society, FoxNews.com pointed out. Over the past 40 years the country has grown steadily more polarized.

Richard Nixon at the start of his first term in 1969 had a partisan gap of only 29 percent, and Jimmy Carter in 1977 of only 25 percent. Since then the gulf has widened with every new presidency other than the elder George Bush who succeeded in reducing the gap after Reagan to 38 percent.

"Thirty years ago people on the losing side of an election tended to give new presidents the benefit of the doubt early on, but that seems to have gone," said Dimock.

The explanation for Obama's failure to reintroduce a bipartisan note is in itself polarized, Dimock added.

"Some would argue that he inherited this problem - a nation where divisions were raw and the country divided, despite his best efforts,” he told reporters. “Others will follow the 'he brought it on himself' school of thought, pointing to his ambitious agenda that was always going to ruffle feathers."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mark Levin, his book, & the battle for the GOP

Recently a new book by the radio talk show host Mark Levin was released, it is called Liberty & Tyranny: A Conservative Manfifesto and it has become an absolute bestseller. In this book Mark Levin strongly puts forth a manifesto for what is known asTraditionalist Conservatism. Now since the election I have heard every Republican under the sun saying that our party needs to return to its conservative "roots". I have heard this from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Bobby Jindal, Newt Gingrich, Michael Steele, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin, and etc. They all claim that the Republican Party has left its conservative "roots", yet how can this be since we have had a Republican President for eight years and even a Republican Congress from 1994-2006? My friends we have been living under conservative rule, but it has been the policies of what is known as Neo-Conservatism. It is easy to fall under the belief that all "conservatives" believe the same thing, but nothing could be further from the truth. There are basically two streams of conservatism.
 
   The battle that is going on is between: Traditionalist Conservatism and Neo-Conservatism. So what is the difference? Let me point out what each camp believes.
 
Neo-Conservatives on the issues:
 
1.) Their origins- Neo-Conservatism began in the 1970's and they were semi-conservative pro-government Democrats who left the Democratic Party because of its move toward extreme socialistic liberalism and they joined the Republican Party (and brought their semi-liberalism with them).
 
2.) Their foreign policy- Is to convert the world to democracy, even in places where democracy will never work because of the cultural barriers to democracy.
 
3.) Government- They support big government and have a low opinion of states' rights.
 
4.) Spending- They are big spenders on social programs and believe in deficits. Balancing the budget is not a priority.
 
5.) Welfare- They generally support it.
 
6.) Social issues- Generally give lip servive to conservative social issues, but rarely pursue them when in office.
 
7.) Economic issues- Very extreme in free trade and globalization. Supporters of big buisnesses.
 
8.) Immigration- Believe in open boreders and have done nothing to secure the borders and they support general amnesty.
 
9.) Education- The federal government must regulate it and support it.

10.) The Constitution- They never bother to ask whether the laws they vote for are constitutional or not.

11.) Judicial Activism- They have no plans to oppose unelected judges who make laws that violate the Constitution. 
 
Faces of neo-conservitism: Both Bushes, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, the Weekly Standard, Walter Krauthammer, most of the Senate Republicans and especially John Mccain.
 
Traditionalist Conservatism on the issues:
 
1.) Their origins: Thomas Jefferson's Republicanism, Andrew Jackson's Popularism, Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, John Locke, The Federalist Papers & The Anti-Federalist Papers, and finally Ronald Reagan.
 
2.) Foreign policy- Use force to protect American intrests but it is not our job to always build and save nations and police the world in every particular circumstance. It is not the job of the United States to convert the world to democracy. It is our job to intervene when human rights are being completely trampled by evil tyrants.
 
3.) Government- Government is the problem not the solution. Cut government programs. Strongly protect states' rights.
 
4.) Spending- Strongly believe in cutting government programs and radically reducing spending. Balancing budgets should be a goal. Primary spending should be on the military.
 
5.) Welfare: Oppose it.
 
6.) Social issues: Takes social issues seriously. The root of most problems in the country are the result of immoral behavior. Welfare and social programs is simply the goverment bailing people out of the consequences of their actions. A virtuous and prudent people has little need for government.
 
7.) Economics- Tax cuts across the borad, but a watchful eye must be kept on Wall Street. Favors small buisnesses over big buisnesses because a big buisness can cause as much a problem as a big government can.
 
8.) Immigration- Supports securing the border and limited amnesty.
 
9.) Education- Is not the job of the federal government but is a state and local issue. Support vouchers or tax credits at most.

10.) The Constitution- They take seriously whether the Constitution prohibts a law or not. It is well understood that the Constitution mandates limited government.

11.) Judicial Activism- Activist federal judges including the U.S. Supreme Court must be reigned in and their power to create unconstitional laws from the bench must be fought. Judges should have term limits, or be subject to popular elections. The U.S. Congress should have the power to overturn outragous and unconstitutional rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court, thus the ultimate power must rest with the people and not unelected judges who are responsible to no one.
 
The most famous Tradtionalist Conservatives are President Ronald Reagan, most Southern Republicans, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin.
 
Please read Mark Levin's book, in it he refers to moderate Republicans and neo-conservatives as "Neo-Statists" as opposed to the Democrats who are full blown "Statists". My friends we must support the traditionalist conservatives, because the neo-conservatives have been killing our party. We have not had a decent Republican President since President Reagan and we all know it. Bush senior led to Bill Clinton, Bob Dole was a dud and led to 4 more years of Clinton, and Bush junior (along with John Mccain) has led us to a radical Democratic Congress and BO (Barak Obama). It is time to reclaim our party. The Republican elites are all neo-conservatives and the base are mostly traditionalist conservatives, and we need to reclaim our party from the neo-conservatives. This is why it is so important to pay attention in selecting Republican state chairmanships and in selecting true traditional conservatives during the primaries: both on a local level and a national level. The last thing we need is another government growing neo-conservative. My friends throw the Republican neo-conservatives overboard and put traditional conservatives back in power and things will change for the better! Neo-Conservatism has been tried and has been an absolute disaster, now let's throw the S.O.B's out!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The GOP, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin

I must confess that I find myself amused by something. The GOP publically disinvited Sarah Palin as their keynote speaker for a fundraiser in June. Sarah Palin told them that she could not confirm until the Alaska Legislative session was over in the middle of this month, unless she calls for a special extended session which she may do. The GOP staffers said that they could not wait this long so they publically disinvited her. Now here’s what is funny. They invite Newt Gingrich whom I both admire and respect, but who is also a man who just days ago was so disgruntled with the GOP that he has threatened the GOP with a new third conservative politically party in 2012. So you gotta a guy to help raise money for the Republican Party whom has publically stated that the GOP has completely lost its conservative way. Now in what world is this a good strategy for raising money at a fundraiser! It is unbelievable how far the GOP has their heads up their you know what!  I cannot help but laugh at this ridiculous scenario that the GOP fundraiser now finds itself. Now I already posted a very extensive response as to why disinviting Sarah Palin was a very stupid move on the part of the GOP. See my blog post entitled Disinviting Sarah Palin was a very foolish move!  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The death of the GOP?

Recently Newt Gingrich threatened the GOP with a new conservative party in 2012 if they continue being moderates. I find Newt Gingrich’s comment to be credible. The conservative base’s disdain for the GOP leadership has reached almost a fevered pitch. I saw it all over the place in the last election cycle. The GOP in 2006 was largely defeated because most conservatives stayed home on election day causing the Democrats to retake control of the House & Senate. Why did they stay home? Largely because Bush and his Neo-con associates refused to do anything about securing the border and foolishly talked about amnesty in an election cycle when the number one hot topic was illegal immigration at the time, Bush was also joined with John McShame on this issue (big surprise). I knew as soon as this proposal was made that the Republicans were going to lose control of Congress and I was right. This was not the only reason the conservative base was pissed off at the GOP leadership. Let us not forget Mccain-Feingold which took away my free speech, and the wonderful new prescription drug benefit which I get to pay for, just to name a few Bush entitlement programs. Oh yeah did he cut any government programs? Not a one. The problem is that the GOP has been hijacked by big government, open boarder, global interventionist neo-cons that have took the GOP far to the left and as a result have suffered major defeats. Neo-Conservatism has been tried and it has been an abject failure. The conservative base is simply sick of the current GOP Establishment and if a new party which is a truly conservative party that is started by conservative leaders such as Newt and some other high profile conservatives, it is the GOP that risks extinction not the new conservative party. 

   If a new truly Traditionalist Conservative party is formed then the GOP is in trouble if major players like Newt Gingrich are among its founders. If the GOP dies it is because it has lost connection with its base this would not be the first time a major political party has died out. The Federalist Party died out. Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party died up as did the Whig Party. These political parties were replaced by new political parties. If the GOP base flocks to a new and well organized conservative political party it will be the death of the GOP. Once the Religious Right is gone the GOP loses the south, and once non-religious social conservatives such those who are pro-lifers and those who stand against the radical homosexual agenda are gone who is going to replace them? Liberal rich gays and pro-abortionists? Once those who believe in limited government are gone, who is going to be left? What you will have is a secular “elitist” pro-abortion, gay rights, big government party, that believes in cutting taxes and running up huge national debts. Okay so you will have a GOP base that will look like the Jerkanator in California, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, and Arlen Spector. This sound like a winning team to you guys? The GOP will be even more like the Democrats then they are now, but hey the question then is why should their supporters not just join the Democratic Party at this point, since the only distinction will be that the “rich” will benefit more under this new GOP than they would under the taxes of the Democrats. But there is a problem for this new GOP, there are not enough socially liberal rich voters out there, so as I said thus comes the death of the GOP.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sarah Palin's letter to Obama

Sarah Palin's letter of certification to Obama on stimulus bill, refusing much of it. Taken from conservatives4palin.com.
 
Mr. President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

The purpose of this letter is to provide notice that I am accepting those funds available to Alaska under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) that create new, private-sector jobs and grow the economy.

I have invited public discussion through the legislative hearing process currently underway on ARRA funds that appear designed to grow government programs or that will impose federal mandates on our state. Federal stimulus spending must not add to strained state budgets nor diminish state sovereignty by imposing mandates, now or in the future.

The law requires that I certify that every dollar of these economic stimulus funds will create jobs and grow the economy. I take that charge seriously. I have forwarded requests to Alaska's legislators to appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars for infrastructure projects that truly create new private sector jobs and stimulate the economy. Through our budget process, I have also accepted additional Medicaid funds available through ARRA.

We will continue to review the assurances and requirements in the ARRA under each title for receipt of federal economic stimulus funds. The state legislature is fully engaged in the budget process and taking public testimony on the economic stimulus funding to determine the impacts on Alaska's budget now and in the future when the federal funds are no longer available. It is possible that there will be areas where the state will not choose to apply for funds. These instances will be addressed on a case by case basis.

Pursuant to Title XVI, section 1607 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Pub. L. 111-5 (Feb. 17, 2009)) ("ARRA"), entitled "Additional funding Distribution and Assistance of Appropriate Use of Funds", I Sarah Palin, the Governor of the State of Alaska, hereby certify that:

1) The State of Alaska will request and use certain funds provided by ARRA with some decisions subject to final determinations based on the legislative appropriations process described in this letter; and

2) Funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth.

By making this certification, the State of Alaska is not committed now or in the future, to accept all of the federal funds.

The federal economic stimulus package will have profound, long-term implications. Our citizens and future generations must have the hope of meaningful work and economic opportunity, rather than be burdened by higher taxes and increased national debt.

Sincerely,

Sarah Palin
Governor
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Disinviting Sarah Palin was a very foolish move!

From Conservative4palin.com a great article, why the Republicans made a foolish move:
 
After thinking about the recent "issue" between SarahPAC and the NRSC/NRCC, I have come to the conclusion that the GOP will end up the loser in all of this.

For one thing, the goal of the event is to raise money. Obviously more funds would have been raised had Governor Palin attended. Scheduling screw ups will happen from time to time. However, Governor Palin made it clear that she never personally accepted the invitation and would consider the invitation after the legislative session concluded. The legislative session ends in mid-April and the GOP fundraiser is scheduled for early June, meaning that there was more than enough time available for the GOP to wait for her response. I say this because sometimes it is beneficial to "wait it out," especially considering that she is a money-making machine for Republicans and has the unique ability of drawing large crowds to events. But they decided to dump her for Newt Gingrich. It's as if the Los Angeles Dodgers were hosting a charity event, and because Manny Ramirez did not get back to them in time, they inserted Steve Sax instead simply out of spite.

The fundamental problem with the beltway GOP is that they believe that they own the party outright. The only thing they have "owned" over the last decade are record setting deficits and outrageous government spending.

They also "own" last night's debacle of a special election in the New York's 20th Congressional district. Tedisco can still pull it out after the absentee ballots are counted, but this is a district that leans conservative and also contains a huge Republican registration advantage. And, sadly, we've seen in the past how incompetent the GOP is in fighting Democrat fraud in these too close to call races (think "Senator Franken").

You may have also noticed that many political organizations are using Palin's name and image to gin up interest in their events. CPAC comes to mind. For months CPAC ginned up interest by using Palin's name in the hope that it would lead to greater attendance. And it did! The media reported that she would be attending the event; however, many people did not bother to check the schedule or they would have seen that Palin only appeared on the "invited" list. She never confirmed her attendance.

Taking shots at Governor Palin for this "issue" will not help the Republican party at all. The GOP is still "brand damaged," and the D.C. players are still the same. For as much as I admire Newt Gingrich, he does not have the ability to revive the Republican party. When I am asked my political ideology, I simply state that I am a conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin.

This situation reminds me of the Saxby Chambliss run-off election in December. Chambliss called in everybody he could find to campaign with him to defeat his Democratic challenger. John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani all attended Chambliss campaign rallies. At most they drew around 1,500 people between the three of them. Chambliss then asked Governor Palin to help out, and she graciously accepted. She came in the day before the election because she was viewed as the one person who could really fire up the base and get them to the polls. The audiences for each of her events that day were double (and even triple) the size of the total audience for all the other speakers combined. Are you getting the picture? Chambliss had a small edge in the polls before Palin came to Georgia, but he ended up winning by an astounding margin. He attributed his victory margin to Palin revving up the base for him.

Republicans do not get enthused when they hear from Gingrich and McCain. They do not open their checkbooks to make a donation after listening to a speech by Mitt Romney. The facts bear out that they will do both of these things for Governor Sarah Palin. The McCain campaign raised more money in the days immediately following Sarah Palin's introduction as McCain's running mate than at any time prior.

The fact that the high muck-a-mucks of the GOP have thrown their best fundraiser under the bus in order to make an elitist inside-the-beltway point just goes to show you how incompetent and out of touch they are as a party. This is the same incompetence they showed while in power, and it's the very reason why they are now out of power. The GOP beltway elite need to prove themselves to ordinary Americans like us and Sarah Palin, not the other way around. She doesn't own them anything, and neither do we.

At the end of the day, it was the NRSC and NRCC that snubbed Governor Palin. They showed her the same contempt they've shown us over the years. Remember this the next time the Republican party asks for your money. We support SarahPAC here because we trust her more than we trust them. We're conservatives here, not Republicans.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A great point from Redstate.com

 

At What Point Do People Revolt?

Taken from Redstate.com

Spokane County became the launch pad last July for the nation’s strictest ban on dishwasher detergent made with phosphates, a measure aimed at reducing water pollution. The ban will be expanded statewide in July 2010, the same time similar laws take effect in several other states.

As the Associated Press notes, there’s just one problem:

Many people were shocked to find that products like Seventh Generation, Ecover and Trader Joe’s left their dishes encrusted with food, smeared with grease and too gross to use without rewashing them by hand. The culprit was hard water, which is mineral-rich and resistant to soap.

Washington State has turned its residents into a group of drug runners — crossing state lines to buy dish washer detergent with phosphate.

At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot?

At some point soon, it will happen. It’ll be over an innocuous issue. But the rage is building. It’s not a partisan issue. There is bipartisan angst at out of control government made worse by dumb bans like this and unintended consequences like AIG’s bonus problems.

If the GOP plays its cards right, it will have a winning issue in 2010. But it is going to have to get back to “leave me the hell alone” style federalism where the national government recedes and the people themselves will have to fight to take their states back from special interests out of touch with body politic as a whole.

Were I in Washington State, I’d be cleaning my gun right about now waiting to protect my property from the coming riots or the government apparatchiks coming to enforce nonsensical legislation.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A good post on Redstate.com

AT WHAT POINT DO THE PEOPLE  REVOLT? 
 
by Erick Erickson
 
You can find it here:
 
RedState
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Report Jim Orr on Sarah's "disinvitation"

Reporter Jim Orr discovered the following concerning the Republican fundraiser (led by the NRSC) and Sarah Palin. He wrote the following"
 
Well, the on again, off again, we don’t know what we’re doing again, dinner is now officially off, again. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is no longer the keynote speaker at the 2009 Republican House-Senate dinner in June. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has officially booted her to the curb. It’s not because she did something drastic like deciding to drive a Prius or observing Earth Hour or anything. It’s because she never accepted the invitation in the first place. Make sense? Welcome to the Republican party of 2009.

Background
:

Two weeks ago, the House and Senate Republican campaign committees announced that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be speaking at its big annual Dinner on June 8. We told you about it here. The only problem was no one told Sarah Palin. Her staff said the governor would not be able to commit until the end of Alaska’s legislative session. But over-eager NRSC staff jumped to the wrong conclusion after meeting with Palin’s Political Action Committee staff, according to a SarahPAC spokeswoman. “Enthusiasm during a scheduling meeting among SarahPAC members to discuss events that we thought the governor should consider attending was misinterpreted as a confirmation of attendance,” Meghan Stapleton told the Associated Press. Of course, the NRSC sees it differently claiming that they had a commitment. And since the event is imminent (only 70 days away), they disinvited her, opting for another young, attractive, up-and-comer: Newt Gingrich.

They’re ba-a-a-ck

The unidentified sources complaining about Palin have re-surfaced again too. This time bristling at the perceived slight. “She was a disaster,” one Republican source told FOX News. “We had confirmation.” Give the nameless source some credit. If there’s one party that knows about disaster, it’s the GOP.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What's up with Sarah Palin?

                  I found out that after having been confirmed as being the keynote speaker at a Republican fundraiser on June 8th, she has now been replaced by Newt Gingrich after informing them that due to the legislative session in Alaska, she could not commit to the speaking engagement. Now there is much to this story that needs to be told. Sarah Palin has two choices that political experts have advocated as a course of action for her until she decides when or if to run for president. The first course is for her to stay out of the limelight and focus on doing an excellent job as governor in Alaska. The second is for her to take advantage of the limelight and capitalize on her stardom in the GOP. I recommend that she take the latter course of action, but it seems that she is taking the former. In either case it is not wise for her to commit to something like this and then back out of it. This fundraiser would have cost her no more than one day on the job which I am sure she could afford. So I have to state that even as a Sarah supporter that I think this move was a mistake.

                Now having stated all of this there are some things that you should know about what is going on in Alaska right now. Sarah Palin is trying to get her budget passed in the legislature and the moderate “Republicans” and Democrats have formed a coalition in the Alaskan Legislature to dramatically increase spending in the State of Alaska and Sarah is firmly standing her ground and refuses to increase spending and is in fact calling for government budget cuts. So right now there is a political staring contest going on in Alaska to see who will back down, with Sarah threatening a veto on more government spending. Second, Sarah has been involved in tough negotiations concerning the Alaskan pipeline and is once again finding fierce opposition in the State Legislature of Alaska led by liberal Democrats and moderate “Republicans”. Third, Sarah is committed to getting her Parental Rights Bill passed in this term, which would require both that parents be notified of and their consent needed for their minor daughters to receive an abortion in the State of Alaska, and guess who is opposing her, yep both Democrats and moderate “Republicans”.

                Fourth, and this is the biggest issue and this concerns Obama’s stimulus package. Sarah only wants 55% of the money and claims that the other 45% would involve mandating Alaska to create massive new government agencies and programs, which in the end will cost Alaska billions in spending after the bailout money runs out in two years. The problem is that once again both the Democrats and the moderate “Republicans” want nearly all of the money. The problem is that there is a provision in the stimulus bill that allows state legislatures to get the money over the heads of their governors and Sarah right now is trying to figure out a way to keep Obama’s programs out of Alaska. The Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford finds himself in the same boat. Ultimately what maybe needed is to take the stimulus bill to federal court and claim that it is unconstitutional because it mandates that state legislatures can avoid following their state constitutions which require spending bills to receive either a governor’s signature or a veto. Thus Sarah Palin has to figure out how to handle the Obama problem. Will she and can she even veto the stimulus money, and if not does she take the issue to court as I think she should in order to protect states rights and the Alaskan Constitution? In short Sarah Palin completely has her hands full and I can respect this, but in the future when you make a commitment like you did for the Republicans in June you should keep it or refrain from making such commitments in the future. This is my advice to the great Governor of Alaska. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »