No, it isn’t Tina Fey:
As Ed at Hot Air says, “Maybe Jimmy Fallon really does want to follow Jay Leno’s tradition of full-political-spectrum comedy.”
No, it isn’t Tina Fey:
As Ed at Hot Air says, “Maybe Jimmy Fallon really does want to follow Jay Leno’s tradition of full-political-spectrum comedy.”
CPAC speeches! These guys, at least, understand what’s wrong with America – namely, Big Government – and the corresponding importance of liberty and small government:
That’s all I could watch in one sitting, while fighting my cold. Here is the full playlist; if you have a favorite, call it out in the comments!
1. Death Panels.
During the Health Care debate of 2009-10, Sarah Palin recognized that Obamacare could not possibly meet its promises of “more care, for more people, costing less money,” and that the inevitable result would be that Government bureaucrats would pick and choose which people would have how much access to which care; and the the sick and the elderly (at least those without political connections) would be hardest hit. The shorthand for this system she called “Death Panels.” (In the UK’s NHS, these are known as NICE.) And the Obama left mocked her relentlessly, and Politifact (who are also part of the Obama left) called her a liar.
She has since been vindicated. Left-wing economist Paul Krugman says death panels are needed to control health care costs. And Democrats have admitted that IPAB, Obamacare’s cost-control body, functions essentially as a Death Panel. And even journalists so in the tank for Obama they wear scuba gear to work admit she was right about death panels.
2. “Drill, Baby, Drill.”
In 2008, Sarah Palin had the audacity to suggest that developing domestic hydrocarbon reserves should be a cornerstone of economic policy and energy independence, she was mocked relentlessly by the know-it-alls on the left, who supported Obama’s vision of energy prices that must “necessarily skyrocket” in order to usher in an age of an economy powered by wind, solar power, and unicorn farts. (Note: The economy of the 18th Century was also wind and solar-powered.)
Now in 2014, we see that states that have adopted domestice energy development as policy, such as Texas and North Dakota, have booming economies while the rest of the country (except for the National Capital Region) stagnates and declines. And even Obama himself brags about how much energy is being produced, despite his best efforts to stop it.
3. Russia as a Geopolitical Adversary.
Sarah Palin was attacked in 2008 for suggesting that Russia would be encouraged to invade Ukraine if they perceived the USA as weak and ineffectual. The brilliant leftists at Foreign Policies mocked her scenario as “far-fetched.” And of course, we know how that one worked out.
The real kicker to this is that Sarah Palin was right about all of these things, and Obama and all his dear little sycophants were wrong. That must drive them nuts, yes? To be consistently out-smarted by a woman they regard as so very, very stupid.
In 2008, Vice Presidential nomineed Sarah Palin was attacked and ridiculed for pondering an outrageous, impossible scenario that no one could possibly take seriously.
Palin helpfully offered four scenarios for such a crisis, one of which was this strange one:
After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.
Wow. What an imbecile. We sure dodged a bullet there, didn’t we?
Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate… http://t.co/H3H8t6d8hi
— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) February 28, 2014
Dan has written a few good posts already about Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as both someone who should be viewed as a “feminist icon,” and as a woman who who rose to power “by dint of her own striving,” in the words of Meryl Streep. In the second post, Dan asked a rhetorical question about the reception of strong, conservative women in politics: “Why is it that certain conservative leaders, particularly women who capture the public imagination, endure this ‘special hatred and ridicule’?”
Dan’s question reminded me of something I saw at the Daily Caller. On Geraldo Rivera’s radio program yesterday, Ann Coulter claimed that, according to sources allegedly close to Thatcher, Lady Thatcher wanted to meet with Sarah Palin to give her advice about presenting herself more effectively:
“One thing that I know, because I know people who know her, is when Sarah Palin first burst on the scene, she wanted to have a meeting with Palin, because she saw raw political talent, but wanted to teach Sarah Palin to do what she did,” Coulter said. “I just know it from friends of hers — to teach [Palin] to speak proper English. Sarah Palin did not meet with her. And just a year or two ago, when Sarah Palin was promoting some reality show or something, she went to England and she announced to the press that she was planning on dropping by to see Lady Thatcher. And Lady Thatcher put out the word that she would not be available.”
I have no clue as to the reliability of Coulter’s sources in this instance or the veracity of those reports, but regardless of whether the story is true or whether it is merely apocryphal, it does serve to illustrate some key differences among Thatcher, Palin, and the political environment that exists in the U.S. today as opposed to that that existed in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s.
There should be no doubt that the left in Britain hated Thatcher as much as the left in America hates Palin–and has ever since she lambasted Obama in her convention speech in September 2008. But despite that similarity and the fact that both Palin and Thatcher are strong, outspoken conservative women, it strikes me as a sort of revisionist history to suggest, as Coulter implicitly does, that Palin’s situation today might have taken a very different course had she met with Thatcher when she “first burst on the scene,” whenever, exactly, that was.
Thatcher rose to prominence in Britain over many years in the British House of Commons, a branch of parliament known for its particularly rowdy and confrontational style of debate and discussion. Thatcher did well in that environment and successfully managed to become the head of her party there. Thatcher’s history of rising to power through parliament bears some similarities to the manner in which Palin rose to become governor of Alaska and to take on the entrenched interests of her own party.
But the similarities end there. The crucial difference is that Thatcher’s rise to power occurred on a broader political stage than Palin’s did, and given the short timeframe in which Palin went from being a governor to being a national figure, it should be evident that she had few opportunities to shape the counter-narrative that the media and the left started putting out about her shortly after she “burst on the scene.”
Short of advising her not to do an interview with Katie Couric, I can’t imagine what Lady Thatcher could have said or done to help Palin navigate the treacherous waters of the 2008 presidential campaign, and that was especially the case as long as Palin’s fate was tied to that of John McCain, one of the most conciliatory candidates I have ever seen run for the presidency.
After the campaign ended, Margaret Thatcher might have been able to help Palin gain a little more polish, perhaps, but I doubt that would have done anything to change the situation in which Palin found herself, with lawsuit after lawsuit filed against her in Alaska, until she ultimately decided to resign as governor in July 2009. Although the media’s harsh attacks on Palin greatly damaged her image with a large segment of the public at large, I would argue that Palin’s decision to step down as governor had more of an impact on dampening enthusiasm for her as a candidate for the presidency in 2012 among many conservatives.
Palin’s story is still being written. Whether or not she decides to run for elective office again remains to be seen. While I have no doubt that Margaret Thatcher could have given her some excellent advice and guidance, it also seems rather like wishful thinking to suggest that Palin’s political fortunes would be dramatically different today had she met with Thatcher many years ago.
Update: Nile Gardner first reported that the Thatcher-Palin story was a hoax when he wrote about it in 2011. (Hat Tip: Professor Jacobson.) Of course, as The Right Scoop asks, that makes one wonder what Coulter is trying to accomplish by repeating it.
I saw this item at Reason.com the other day. It’s a short piece reflecting on a video of a speech by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt talking about how one’s “sensitivity to disgust” is supposedly some sort of predictor of one’s political views. I haven’t watched the whole video yet, but the speech was given at the Museum of Sex in New York City, so some amount of its content seems designed to appeal to the audience that would be attending a speech in that location.
Jim Epstein at Reason.com summarizes the key points of the speech as follows:
“Morality isn’t just about stealing and killing and honesty, it’s often about menstruation, and food, and who you are having sex with, and how you handle corpses,” says NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who is author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics.
Haidt argues that our concern over these victimless behaviors is rooted in our biology. Humans evolved to feel disgusted by anything that when consumed makes us sick. That sense of disgust then expanded “to become a guardian of the social order.”
This impulse is at the core of the culture war. Those who have a low sensitivity to disgust tend to be liberals or libertarians; those who are easily disgusted tend to be conservative.
The full video of the speech is available at the above link.
My reaction to all this is that it 1). depends on how one defines conservative, and 2). it depends on what kinds of things one labels or considers to be examples of disgust.
With respect to point 1)., I think that a large portion of the conservative coalition is rather heavily libertarian-leaning, and it just makes more sense for us to identify as conservative and vote for Republicans because the Libertarian party seems doomed to remain a fringe party, at least as long as that party’s leadership continues to endorse an isolationist or head-in-the-sand approach to foreign policy. Now while it may be the case that many traditional “social conservatives” have a “high sensitivity to disgust” with respect to issues of sex, I’m not even convinced that that is as widely the case as Haidt’s remarks suggest. I’ve heard socially-conservative Christian ministers talk about sex in ways that show they may have a better understanding of the variety of human sexual experience than many academics who claim to be experts on the subject.
On the other hand, with respect to point 2)., I can find many, many examples of “disgust” fueling the attitudes of liberals and leftists. One could begin by looking at their intense hatred of Sarah Palin and anyone like her. Some of that hatred, I would argue, was fueled by a disgust at the lives of anyone who doesn’t live the life of a modern liberal in a major coastal city.
Most modern liberals are disgusted by hunting, by the people who shop at Wal-Mart, by the petroleum industry, by the food industry, by the military, by evangelical Christians, and by the reality of life in small-town, rural America. James Taranto and British Philosopher Roger Scruton call it “oikophobia”: it is a worldview which accepts or excuses the transgressions of select special-interest groups or of non-western cultures, while it judges the familiar by a harsh standard and condemns them with expressions of disgust at the nature of their lives.
Reader MV passed along Sarah Palin’s Facebook post which, in a normal world, would generate a bit of buzz among those concerned about the improving state of affairs for gay and lesbian Americans. The accomplished former Governor of Alaska writes that her daughter:
Bristol makes such an important point in this post! Being in favor of the traditional definition of marriage doesn’t mean a person hates gay people or is expected to shy away from candidly answering what their opinion is on something like marriage. Since when has our nation been anything but an exceptional nation that prides itself on the right of expressing personal opinion under the First Amendment and continuing to build our culture on a melting pot of diversity. Need we remind people that leaders like Barack Obama and Joe Biden held the exact same position as Bristol does in favor of traditional marriage just a few short months ago, yet were never called “haters” of anyone.
In the post Palin cited, her daughter addressed the question whether she would “mind dancing with a gay dance partner“:
Frankly, I found the question silly. Of course, I’d most like to dance with Mark again, but that’s up to the producers! If I can’t dance with Mark, I’d love to dance with a gay partner, a straight partner, or anything in between. (more…)
May build on this post later. Was just at a brunch where a very intelligent man refused to accept that Sarah Palin had a record of accomplishment as Governor of Alaska. Why is it that some Democrats (and a few Republicans) refuse to acknowledge — or even familiarize themselves with this woman’s record?
Is it because she is a woman?
I mean, when John McCain tapped her as his running mate, she enjoyed a 75% approval rating . . . among Alaska Democrats. When Katie Couric interviewed the then-Republican Vice-Presidential nominee, the CBS News anchor didn’t once ask her interlocutor about her record. Or what she had done to win support among Democrats as well as Republicans.
Do these folks just assume that a woman can’t stand up to a corrupt political establishment and effect real reforms?
As per my previous post, won’t have much time to weigh in on Hilary Rosen’s attack on Mrs. Romney, but some quick thoughts, largely through links to other bloggers. Seems she received a warmer welcome than her husband at the NRA Convention: ”Via Supplyboys News, it’s hard to tell from the audio but ABC says Ann Romney got a ‘hero’s welcome’ and a ‘rock-star reception’ from the crowd.”
Hilary Rosen has made it a lot easier for conservatives, particularly social conservatives to rally to Mitt Romney. When they see a liberal pundit take on his wife, they rush to defend the individual attacked, hence Mrs. Romney’s rock-star reception. And if people learn her story how she raised five boys, battled breast cancer and suffers from MS, this charming woman will a far more sympathetic figure than she already is.
This kerfuffle allowed one revere conservative woman to challenge the hypocrisy of those who attacked her in 2008 for the choices she made, choices a bit different from those Mrs. Romney made in her life. Tina Korbe writes about Sarah Palin’s reaction to this kerfuffle:
When she ran for vice president, some on the left actually criticized her for not staying home with her five children. Clearly, it’s not a “mommy” thing, Palin pointed out. It’s a conservative thing.
True. When was the last time you heard Nancy Pelosi criticized for anything at all related to her five children? Why is it conservative families are fair game, but liberal families are off-limits? Thank goodness President Barack Obama at least made that point: He has no patience, he said, for attacks on politicians’ spouses. Neither should we.
Palin also specifically says she thinks Rosen’s comments awakened “apolitical” moms.
Seems Hilary Rosen’s commentary is going to make it a lot easier for Sarah Palin to back Mitt Romney. Or at least very publicly defend his wife.
Didn’t we have a conservative reader who said that he media attacks on Mitt Romney make the former Massachusetts governor more sympathetic to him? This guy, as I recall, had not previously been favorably disposed to the presumptive Republican nominee.
FROM THE COMMENTS: sonicfrog finds that “what Rosen did, in order to score some political points, was akin to throwing fellow woman Ann Romney under the bus. And here it’s worse, because Mrs Romney wasn’t even in the road, but was a pedestrian on the sidewalk, and Rosen had to swerve to nail her!”
If, back in 2008, our legacy media had taken the time to look into Sarah Palin’s actual record in Alaska politics, three names of corrupt politicians would forever be associated with her, Frank Murkowski, Greg Renkes and Randy Ruedrich. And the reason we would associate their names with hers was not because she turned a blind eye to their double-dealing, but because she exposed it.
She stood up against corruption in her own party. Each of those men is a Republican. As she put it in her post yesterday on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government:
Barack Obama and I both served in political office in states with a serious corruption problem. Though there is a big difference between serving as the CEO of a city, then a state, and regulating domestic energy resources, and being a liberal Community Organizer, bear with me on the comparison. The difference between my record and Barack Obama’s is that I fought the corrupt political machine my entire career (and I have twenty years of scars to prove it) on the local, state, and national level. But Obama didn’t fight the corruption he encountered. He went along with it to advance his career.
Read the whole thing.
And yet our friends in the legacy media bought into the claim that that career Chicago poll was some new kind of politician. They neither asked nor looked for any evidence to buttress his claims.
Sarah Palin, by contrast, had a real record of reform. It’s just that some journalists thought her tanning bed of greater interest.
But, we’ve been through this before. That said, it serves as an important reminder about necessary battlefield preparation for the coming presidential contest.
NB: Tweaked the title to make it less clunky
If Rick Santorum were the consensus conservative choice for the Republican presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich’s support would long since have melted away. And although his chances of winning the Republican nomination are slim, he still wins the support of sucy prominent mainstream conservatives as Fred Thompson and Tea Party favorites and this former governor who dubs the former Speaker the “cheerful one”:
Since the former Pennsylvania Senator’s hat trick last month in the Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri beauty contests, he has not exceeded 40% in a single state whereas Mitt Romney finished well above that barrier in Arizona, Massachusetts and Idaho.* Newt won over 40% in each of his victories, South Carolina and Georgia, respectively.
There’s a lot of talk about Republicans looking for a non-Romney, but some conservatives, it seems, are looking for an acceptable non-Santorum. Indeed, in John Hawkins’s poll over conservative bloggers, he found Gingrich coming out ahead of Santorum when all candidates were included and beating Santorum in a head-to-head matchup.
And to many conservatives with doubts about Santorum, Newt remains the most acceptable alternative.
From the headlines on AOL yesterday:
He, merely, as your own reporting indicates, challenged her assessment of his political leanings:
Mitt Romney defended his conservative credentials on Wednesday, deflecting doubtful comments made by Sarah Palin about his strength with Republican voters.
In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” the former GOP vice presidential candidate and Alaska governor said that she was “not convinced” by Romney’s conservatism.
When asked about Palin’s comments on Wednesday, Romney defended his conservatism, giving a laundry list of examples. (more…)
I never expected Sarah Palin to run for president. She’s smart and knows that should she falter in the campaign, she would lose some of the cachet she has in certain conservative circles. Plus, it does seem she enjoys her life now as a conservative celebrity.
Allahpundit explains why, he believes, the accomplished Alaska reformer “did the smart thing by staying out“:
Just yesterday, CBS found that three out of four Republicans didn’t want her to run compared to just 23 percent who did. Her favorable numbers have been underwater for ages and she would have been hammered on the inexperience charge for failing to finish her term as governor. I do think she could have emerged as the “Not Romney” in the race over Cain and a weakened Perry, but realistically there was no way to beat Mitt once it was a binary choice. . . . . Worse, there was a chance that she wouldn’t even emerge as the “Not Romney”: If Perry or Cain ended up faring better than her in Iowa or South Carolina, it would have shattered her mystique as the ultimate champion of grassroots conservatives. By staying out, her supporters now get to say “she would have won if she ran” without ever having to test their theory and she gets to kinda sorta play kingmaker as people wait to see if she’ll endorse Perry, Cain, or (gasp) Romney.
Emphasis added. Sarah Palin can read poll numbers as well as any politician. She’s not in a strong position to win the Republican nomination (and in an even weaker position to unseat the unsuccessful incumbent). Should she falter in the primaries, her charisma would likely not be able to rescue her reputation.
She’ll remain a kingmaker. Her endorsement could well help decide the contest. Whatever the case, the former governor seems to be enjoying herself now. Having already experienced the rigors of a presidential campaign, she may rest a little easier that she will no longer have to subject herself to that grueling routine.
And she’ll still be able to make sport of the mainstream media.
It seems that whenever I fault the news media for going overboard about Sarah Palin, any Palin-hater within earshot will rebuke me for demanding that people refrain from criticizing the accomplished Alaska reformer. They contend I wish to silence Palin critics. Heck, I don’t even seek to silence the rabid Palin-obsessives, just lament that those who criticize the charismatic conservative celebrity (more often than not) exaggerate her flaws, if not make up (or truncate) comments she has made or views she holds, all while refusing to acknowledge Sarah Palin’s strengths as an individual and her record as an office-holder.
Why can’t some people just express their disagreement with Mrs. Palin in a civil tone — and take the time to familiarize himself with her actual arguments? Those who question her competence to hold office should at least consider her actual record in office. But, some in the news media would rather ask gotcha questions than inquire into that record.
Despite the ignorance of many Palin critics of what that Republican woman actually did in Alaska, she was an accomplished reformer who had worked with Republicans and Democrats alike while governor of the Last Frontier. Before questioning Palin’s qualifications to lead, Ann Althouse did just that when commenting on a movie based on the Alaskan’s accomplishments:
The material — which impresses some people, even to the point of getting confused into thinking that the movie is good — shows Sarah Palin’s rise to power in Alaska and her excellent achievements and immense popularity as governor. The problem is that all of this happened in the context of boldly and bravely challenging the corrupt Republican establishment. This made her very popular with Democrats in Alaska. (more…)
Sarah Palin did more to bring down corrupt politicians in her own party before she became governor than Barack Obama has done in his party, indeed in both parties, in his entire political career.
Sarah Palin reminds me of one of my teenage nieces who knows just how to smile and just what to say in order to manipulate her father. For an example of such behavior, see the first scene of the Odyssey on Olympus. Athene knows how to get Zeus to do her bidding. My niece is not nearly as successful as was the owl-eyed Olympian, but she is aware (at some level) of her charm and her power over men. And Sarah Palin sure knows, on a much deeper level, just when and where to bat her eyelash to whip the media into a frenzy.
Or to get them to follow her motorcade when she doesn’t share her itinerary with them. Today, I occasionally looked up from the new cardio machine to catch a glimpse of CNN commentators caught in Mrs. Palin’s web. They were talking about her recent pizza summit in New York with the man who bills himself as the Donald (the real Donald has his own bill) and bemoaning that Mr. Trump and Mrs. Palin were upstaging the more serious candidates and preventing a serious discussion of the issues.
Methinks they were doing the bidding of the Obama campaign, trying to make Republicans look like we’re obsessed with the Trump/Palin circus.
But, the only reason Palin and Trump might be upstaging the other candidates is because, well, folks like those on CNN are dispatching their production crews to follow her every move as they shine their lights and focus their cameras on their stage. Message to CNN: if you don’t want Sarah Palin to upstage those whom you bill as the more serious candidates, then don’t cover her.
“For more than two years,” Michelle Malkin observes, “Palin-bashing journalists (on the establishment left and the right) have mocked the conservative supernova while milking her for headlines, circulation, viewership and Web traffic.”
These guys just can’t leave her alone. They give her a prominent role on their broadcasts while complaining that she gets too much publicity. They should learn from wise fathers of teenagers. It is possible to say, “No,” to a charming and attractive young woman.
UPDATE: In a great post on the media’s Palin obsession, John Nolte wonders “how many of these so-called journalists who are now making complete fools of themselves choking on bus fumes left unfinished ‘Palin is irrelevant’ pieces on their desk to dash off and make fools of themselves.” Read the whole thing.
While I have been more critical of Sarah Palin in recent days than I was during the 2008 presidential campaign, I still admire the accomplished reformer for her ability to drive liberals crazy without insulting them and to keep her name in the media. Yesterday, Glenn linked this from Hot Air:
Once again, the former vice presidential nominee has proven she can tilt the political world on its axis in an instant. Last week, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann took their campaigns to Iowa, but it was the news of Palin’s bus tour that really had people talking. She made a simple announcement on her website, and she got all the attention, all the interest.
Today on Hot Air, Ed Morrissey tells us that the media have been grumbling “that Palin’s decision to keep them out of the loop on the tour’s stops have created a dangerous working environment for reporters“, with CBS reporting
Since Palin and her team won’t share where the potential candidate is headed, reporters and producers have little choice but to simply stay close to Palin’s bus. This has resulted in scenes of the Palin bus tooling down the highway followed by a caravan of 10 or 15 vehicles – including a massive CNN bus – all trying to make sure they don’t lose sight of the Palin bus.
It adds up to a dangerous situation, says CBS News Producer Ryan Corsaro.
I can just see the former Alaska governor looking back through tinted glass windows at the caravan of media struggling to keep up with her bus and laughing (a rich, deep, full laugh) at their obsession. Morrissey offers them a means to spare themselves this dangerous pursuit: ”Here’s your first option: stop chasing her. If it truly presents a danger to journalists to drive behind the bus and attempt to keep up, then don’t bother doing it.” Yeah, but, Ed, as Glenn put it, “She’s living in their heads, rent-free, 24-7.” Like a jilted boyfriend, they can’t let her go.
In addition to being the official left-wing panty buncher, Sarah Palin may well also serve that role for the MSM.
UPDATE: I believe the answer to this question is “Yes”: Media wonders: Could Palin be manipulating us?.
UP-UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein finds that her failure to play by the traditional rules of political travel is. . .
. . . driving the mainstream press to distraction — giving her the media coverage she needs, on her terms, because they just can’t quit her, and because they can’t help but take offense at her audacity in ignoring them, which serves to remind them, uncomfortably, that their cultural significance is based solely on people’s willingness to believe in their power.
In commenting on Josh Green’s Atlantic piece on Sarah Palin, Jennifer Rubin takes slight issue with said reporter’s conclusion that the former Alaska governor is a tragic figure and elucidates a pitfall of politics — and of blogging as well:
One can’t but feel that Palin was not only snared in the web of resentment but that it determined a particular course for her post-2008 career. She embarked on a particular path, one incompatible with being a serious force on conservative policy and a credible presidential contender. . . .
But one can’t really call it a “tragedy” as Green does. She’s attained fame and fortune and she has as loyal a following as any popular figure. But she made a choice — to bear grudges, to forgo serious policy study, to reject the advice of all but a handful of advisers. It is a shame for those who saw a star-quality and enviable political talent. But tragedy? No. She simply chose a different path.
“Snared in the web of resentment”: a good way to describe what sometimes happen to bloggers who end up responding to hate comments where the critic makes little effort to understand our arguments, even less to acknowledge the sincerity of our expression. But, alas, they’re not interested in our opinions, but see us instead as targets for their own animus.
Just as most Palin critics are little interested in her record. Josh Green is. Outlining her successes as governor and asking a question which almost perfectly parallels an exchange I had with a liberal Alaska woman last summer*, he asks:
WHAT HAPPENED TO Sarah Palin? How did someone who so effectively dealt with the two great issues vexing Alaska fall from grace so quickly? Anyone looking back at her record can’t help but wonder: How did a popular, reformist governor beloved by Democrats come to embody right-wing resentment?
I do think he’s a little harsh here, but he is onto something. Sarah Palin doesn’t so much embody right-wing resentment as she taps into it, but she also exudes conservative enthusiasm. She can still articulate that vision of the Gipper, painting a picture of that shining city on a hill and expressing the confidence that we can still find our way toward that idyllic place. But, in promoting that visions, she’s become more of a cheerleader than a policy leader. (more…)
Palin has quietly backed the end of DADT and expressed support for conservative gays and lesbians in the past. Speaking here with David Brody from the Christian Broadcast Network and excerpted by Breitbart TV, Palin doesn’t endorse GOProud but does defend their attendance at CPAC, and argues that the value of events such as CPAC is to debate the issues and provide as much information as possible to attendees
Not quite a ringing endorsement, but she does seem to subscribe to the view that the conservative movement should be open to all who embrace conservative ideas. And note also that the accomplished former Alaska Governor is talking to someone from the Christian Broadcast Network which surely includes some viewers who would not welcome GOProud’s participation. This lady is not pandering to her audience.
Make sure to check out Ed’s post for his poll on GOProud participation.
As our long-time readers know, Dan and I are “Reagan Babies” — we grew up with Reagan as THE President of the United States. I was physically born under LBJ, but I was ‘born-again as a conservative American’ under Ronald Reagan.
Sunday, February 6, 2011 is The Gipper’s 100th Birthday and there are major celebrations going on all over the nation and around the world. The focus of the anniversary party is one of my favorite spots in the United States — The Reagan Library.
Tonight, the party starts with a keynote address by Gov. Sarah Palin at the Reagan Library. The speech will be shown on C-SPAN at 11PM Eastern Time. And we will “simulcast” it right here.
Come back tonight at 11PM Eastern and watch the speech. Follow me on www.twitter.com/gaypatriot throughout this weekend … and next week at CPAC where there will also be Reagan100 festivities!!