Lesson for people who say "I like Palin, but she's unelectable"

Today Scott Brown announced that he is in favor of repealing DADT.

…Brown’s backing means that – on paper – supporters of the repeal have 61 senators in favor of the bill.

This is a lesson to everyone who says that Sarah Palin is unelectable. Scott Brown was certainly electable. He was the one with enough appeal to attract "moderates and independents." He was massively propped up by establishment Republicans and the Tea Party alike as a candidate for everyone. By the way, the fact that he failed to thank the Tea Party in his acceptance speech was a bad omen.

Now we see his true colors. He may have been against ObamaCare, but he seems pretty Left on everything else, even fiscal matters. Now his vote could mean a repeal of DADT - a vote that we all thought would go the other way. He's also said that he won't be in favor of repealing ObamaCare now that it's here.

This is a lesson to show us that "electability" means nothing! It does absolutely no good to elect these people when they vote against what we believe in. They won the election - so what? We sacrificed everything to get him there. We know Palin will vote the way we believe. We know she has conservative values. We can vote for her and if she wins the general election, great! If she doesn't, a Democrat will be in office. If we vote for a RINO who wins the general election, essentially a Democrat will be in office, too.

This is also a lesson to us regarding the MSM and RINO news outlets like NRO and The Atlantic. Scott Brown was the darling of those places, and to some extent, the MSM as well. He was the kind of candidate, like McCain, that the media loves to prop up. We need to learn our lesson so these mistakes don't happen anymore.

On the surface, Ryan endorsement seems pivotal to 2012

Those of us entrenched in following Palin are not surprised to see that she endorsed Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America's Future. The content of which is policy that her supporters could easily identify as in line with Palin's views.

However, I will admit I was surprised to see so many comments and posts throughout the blogosphere saying that this endorsement legitimizes Palin as a presidential candidate in their minds. I also hadn't really noticed that Ryan is one of Palin's favorite politicians. I can't believe I didn't notice that, or the view that endorsing this would make her a serious candidate to those who hadn't previously thought of her that way. (Maybe being pregnant most of the year explains how I missed it :)) Ace said endorsing the Roadmap is risky. Well, Palin is all about taking risks so that did not surprise me in the least. There's also this myth among RINOs that she doesn't discuss substantive issues or policy and this is the BIG tipping point where she finally does. Well, if you read her Facebook posts, Going Rogue, America by Heart, her Twitter feed, watch her interviews, listen to what she says on Fox as a contributor...you'll see that she addresses substantive policy daily.

In any event, I'm happy for the change of heart and I welcome it. If this is what it took, then I'm very happy she endorsed it. Where's Romney and Huck and what do they think of the Roadmap?

The endorsement also seems to be pivotal in that many (including myself) are recognizing that Palin really likes Paul Ryan, a lot. She endorsed his views in February and August of this year, too, which I read about at Hot Air.

Palin is definitely doing two things with the Roadmap endorsement: (1) bringing conservative policy reforms to the forefront of the national discussion; and (2), bringing attention to Paul Ryan, again.

She could possibly be doing a third or fourth thing: (3) setting the scene to pick Ryan as her VP; or (4), pushing Ryan to run for president and giving him the ammo to do so by her endorsement of his policy ideas.

In her interview with Mary Hart earlier this year, Palin said (paraphrased) that she'll run for President in 2012 if there isn't a better candidate who will take on the tough task of undoing what Obama and the Left has done to this country. So, she could be hinting that Paul Ryan could be one of those better candidates. But in the February article linked above, Ryan said that he won't run in 2012 point blank. So maybe she's grooming him for her VP pick?

Either way, this endorsement has proven to be pivotal for the 2012 candidates. Palin, for publicly supporting this policy and seeing those who are not publicly supporting it, and Ryan, who may run for President or could be picked as a VP.

Good, but not good enough in my opinion

I'm very happy we took the House last night and we sent a strong message overall that we are serious about how much we dislike this Democratic-controlled government. I think Florida had the best results - Marco Rubio won by a landslide, Alan Grayson was thrown out on his rear end, Rick Scott is leading in the Gubernatorial election and Allen West won. I only wish Delaware, Nevada, California and Alaska had followed suit.

For those saying that the Tea Party candidates Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle and Joe Miller were weak, not good enough, not vetted, etc. - I have a bone to pick with you. If those three had won we would have take the Senate, correct? Harry Reid is pretty much the Devil Himself so I don't care who flippin' runs against him; I want him out. No one could be worse. People seem to forget that a Senator is not the President. They don't have to conduct Middle East Peace Talks or Push the Button. They don't host state dinners for foreign leaders and are not the face of our country. What they do is write legislation and vote on it. Voting is the only thing that matters. I don't care if they're not the most professional or the best looking; I care about how they're going to vote. I personally didn't like Sharron Angle's speech patterns and mannerisms but I sure would have liked the way she voted. I wouldn't want her to be the President but she wouldn't have the same responsibilities where that kind of thing matters now would she? See what I mean? So instead of having the Senate majority and three more good Senators who will VOTE the way we want them to, we're still stuck with Healthcare Harry and Lisa Murcookoo.

I really hope the RINO elitist establishment doesn't take those losses as a sign that the Tea Party is fringe and not able to produce winners. Linda McMahon and Carly Fiorina were the "electable" and "center-right" candidates that the pragmatic elites supported and they lost as well. I think in the states where we had unfortunate losses we have to blame the voters in those states, if we have to blame someone. Either they haven't seen the light yet, or they've decided to put their heads in the sand.

Overall it was a good night but I'm a little disappointed. I think it'll take a few days for it to sink in and I'll feel better and realize how good these results really are.

I take her at her word, but I know she's running, and this is the best evidence yet

I saw this on Conservatives4Palin this morning. It's the best confirmation from Palin herself that she will run in 2012.



I do take her at her word that she hasn't yet decided, but based on the words she used to answer the question, and her overall involvement in daily politics thus far, all points to a huge possibility of her running in 2012.

"Tough choices," that's a great phrase right there. That means she won't stand by and let a RINO squish take the nomination. She wants someone who will make the tough choices to repeal Obamacare, to take steps in significantly reducing government's reach, to undo all that Obama has done. There are several potential candidates who will not have the guts to do those things. She will.

She didn't give the usual "no" response when asked about running for President. She said it's too soon to decide, which is the truth. But meanwhile she is laying the groundwork for a run just in case.

Look for the rest of the interview with Mary Hart on Entertainment Tonight, tonight at 7:30pm EST.

Possibly a great candidate who doesn't have a chance

While getting everything ready to file our taxes this year I started thinking about property tax. Ours are outrageously high and it really hit me how unfair it is. Even if you completely paid off your house you still would not "own" it. The government owns your land and house, period. If you failed to pay the increasingly high property taxes then the government would take away your property - but this is property you supposedly own! Imagine if you bought furniture but had to pay the furniture store a yearly fee to keep it, would that be considered "owning" that furniture? No

I bing'd "eliminate property tax" to see if there was a group or movement or something that supported eliminating property taxes altogether and classifying them as unconstitutional. Lo and behold, one of the first results was a campaign website for Debra Medina for Governor of Texas. Who? I never heard of her. I looked at her page.

If Texans are to remain free from the ever-encroaching state, Big Brother, we must own our property, on that we must not compromise and we must not surrender. In order to protect against subservience to that growing state, we must eliminate property tax in Texas and we must protect against abusive eminent domain seizures. We must be free to own that for which we labor. Texas can lead and Texas will lead…when we protect that which keeps men free.

I just found a candidate who I might really like, too bad she has no chance of winning the primary.

For fairness' sake, I went to Perry's website to see what he has to say about property taxes.

Working with the legislature, Gov. Perry helped pass the strongest property rights protection in the state’s history through House Joint Resolution (HJR) 14. Gov. Perry campaigned for this measure, which voters enshrined in the Constitution by approving Proposition 11, so the legislature can’t weaken it without the people giving their permission at the ballot box. When voters added Proposition 11 to the Constitution this November, they forever prevented the government from taking private property to give a developer or enhance tax revenues.

Eh...my property taxes are still high, and I really don't think there was a possibility that my property would be given to a developer anyway. And he doesn't say anything about eliminating property taxes completely.

Palin has endorsed and will campaign for Perry in his re-election bid as Governor, which means this whole discussion is moot. He will win it all. This is one instance where I don't really agree with Palin.

She and Perry have seemingly been friends for years and she's very familiar with his policies. I have no doubt that her endorsement is 100% solid. However, Perry is running for his third term. I don't think anyone should be in office that long, not even Palin. He's part of the establishment and has shown RINO tendencies in the past. Also, had she gotten to know the crop of candidates I think Medina is someone she might like. She reminds me of Doug Hoffman and Scott Brown, the unlikely conservative candidate who has a fighting chance to win. She usually likes to stand behind those types of candidates.

As I said I just found out about Medina and I really liked her website and her ideas. But I haven't done extensive research on her yet. I know Perry will continue to be a good governor and much better than RINO Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison any day. I just really like the idea of eliminating property taxes. I hope we can do it some day.

Rasmussen: 59% of GOP Voters Say Palin Shares Their Values

I found this at NRO's "Rogue" blog, which is a very good blog so far.

I know Palinmania has arrived with her Oprah appearance today and the book coming out tomorrow. I just wanted to pass this along because it is great news! It shows that we're not going to let the corrupt media pick our candidates anymore. More and more Republicans are supporting Palin and breaking away from the GOP RINO tendencies.

Rasmussen: 59% of GOP Voters Say Palin Shares Their Values [Robert Costa]

From Rasmussen:

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republican voters say former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin shares the values of most GOP voters throughout the nation.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% of Republican voters disagree and think the 2008 vice presidential candidate does not share their values. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.

By contrast, 74% of Republicans say their party’s representatives in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters nationwide over the past several years. Only 18% of Republican voters believe their elected officials have done a good job representing the base.

The findings in these two surveys highlight the political debate within the Republican Party. Party leaders worry that Palin is pushing the GOP too far to the right to win general elections by aligning herself with Tea Party voters frustrated with both parties in Washington and the big government policies they have produced.

Still, just 18% of Republicans - and 26% of voters nationwide - see Palin as a divisive force within the GOP. A plurality believes Palin is representative of a new direction for the Republican Party. That view is held by 57% of Republicans and 41% of all voters. A plurality of Democrats aren’t sure what to think of Palin’s role within the opposing party.

11/16 11:22 AM Share

Squishy Right publications obsessed with being "elite opinion makers"

I know there's a lot going on today but I wanted to pass this along. I read this article at The Atlantic about the Ft. Hood shooter by Jeffrey Goldberg. In his article he describes the opinions of his collegues regarding the Nidal Malik Hasan, and I cringed when I read these lines:

But I do think that elite makers of opinion in this country try very hard to ignore the larger meaning of violent acts when they happen to be perpetrated by Muslims.


Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism.

It instantly reminded me of this line posted at NRO by Anthony Dick on July 8, 2009:

It is not enough for conservatives simply to be intelligent or sophisticated. They have to project these qualities, conspicuously and convincingly, in order to get past the visceral prejudices of elite opinion-makers, who generally regard conservative ideas as some combination of boobish, evil, backward, boring, dangerous, and simplistic.

The Atlantic and National Review are examples of the elite establishment of the Republican party. It's not surprising to me that they use the same language to describe what they aspire to be - elite opinion makers. They simply cannot get passed their prejudices of the common American citizen. They strive for a leader to tell them what to do and how to think. Even an assessment of Hasan's character leads to a discussion on what the "elite opinion makers" need to do and say instead of discussing the monster that he is.

I say, speak from your heart and don't try to gain the elite's approval. That's why Palin has been so successful and why The Atlantic and NRO have relegated themselves into niche markets.

Chris Cillizza says Independents were the ones who voted today

Chris Cillizza wrote in The Fix this evening about the elections today:

Independent voters are moving strongly to Republican candidates in the New Jersey and Virginia governors races, an ominous sign for Democrats whose gains in 2006 and 2008 were built on heavy support from unaligned voters.

In Liberal Fantasy Land, "Independents" are the magical voters who are above party affiliation. They are the ultimate Prize and must be won at all costs. They are the Key to winning any election and both Democrats and Republicans (but mostly Republicans) need to change their party to fit the "Independents." Since they don't have political views, it's hard find out exactly how the party needs to change, but you still need to do it anyway.

The idea that Independents are "moving strongly to Republican candidates" is false. Today's elections were all about conservatives sending a message. They came out in droves and won Virginia. And while NJ and NY23 are still too close to call, it's very likely the Right will win there, too. Since the epic failure of the 2008 election, conservatives have been organizing like never before. The Tea Party movement happened and is still going strong. Palin's endorsement of Doug Hoffman started a conservative tidal wave of support. Voters are starting now: voting out big government, RINOs and higher taxes - and voting in conservatives, individual freedom and getting the government off our backs.

The Left's new talking point about the elections today is how the results don't matter. They're trying to downplay how big this day was because they don't want to admit that the majority of Americans are fed up. Conservatives used today as a 2010 preview and the Left is waking up to the fact that they could lose their jobs next year.

Chris Cillizza is (still) trying to push the meme that "Independents" matter. He can't see that the sleeping giant (conservatives) woke up, because in his mind the majority of Americans are not conservative. So he falls back on "Independents" being the magical entity that decides elections. In doing so he downplays the conservative movement. Instead of saying that conservatives are unifying and getting stronger and sending a message, he goes straight to the thing he knows best and what makes sense in his mind - Independents. What else would you expect from the corrupt media?

Election Day reminder

I know that anyone reading this blog will probably already know that today is election day for several local races and propositions, but just in case - today is the day to vote! These local elections are crucial for most of us. I'll also keep my eyes NY23 and the governor elections in NJ and VA. Our time to vote conservatives in and kick RINOs out is now. Please vote!

American Thinker nails it again with NY23 race and RINOs

Palin's endorsement of conservative Doug Hoffman in NY23 proved to be too much for "Republican" Dede Scozzafava as she has since suspended her campaign and now...shockingly...endorses the Democrat candidate on her way out!

I can't emphasize again how critical this race is, how undeniably gamechanging it is for the GOP. With this race, Newt Gingrich destroyed his chances of running for President and Palin just boosted hers. RINOs like Tim Pawlenty showed their true colors while Mitt Romney sat on the sidelines and did nothing. This is exactly what the future will look like, this little congressional race is proving to change the course of history. I'm not trying to be over-dramatic, I really do believe it.

November 01, 2009
Dede Scozzafava proves her detractors right!
by Aaron Gee

It is being reported today that Dede Scozzafava is endorsing Democrat Bill Owens. In one fell swoop she proved her detractors right. Her actions also speak to the Republicans that made excuses for her such as Newt Gingrich; they were dead wrong. When Dede withdrew from the race on Saturday, many (including me) thought she was doing the right thing for Northern New York, and the Republican Party. Instead we have been presented with the quintessential example of what the label RINO means.


"Scozzafava dropped out after Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman experienced a late-in-the-game surge. The move was expected to consolidate GOP voters behind Hoffman on Tuesday.

But on Sunday, Scozzafava backed Democrat Bill Owens -- the announcement was made in a statement sent out by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee."


When the DNC is releasing statements for the former GOP candidate you know something is very wrong. This is a wake up call for the leaders of the Grand Old Party. The party got its hat handed to it in the last election by running the most "moderate" candidate in decades why do they continue in the same vein that didn't work last time?


Listening to voters helped create the contract with America which propelled the GOP into the House and Senate in 1994. It was ignoring those principals that led to the GOP's decline. Instead of listening to Washington insiders the GOP would do better if it listened to the people.

Going Rogue with Hoffman endorsement

Palin has endorsed conservative Doug Hoffman over the “Republican” Dede Scozzafava in the special election of New York’s 23rd congressional district.

This is exactly the type of situation that Palin said she would like to help out on. Getting the RINOs out and real conservatives in is exactly what we need to do to stop this landslide into socialism. This is great news and will most definitely give Hoffman a substantial edge.

Now for the Going Rogue part? Minn. Governor Tim Pawlenty didn’t know anything about this race. I’m not kidding:

"You know I haven't been following that, I haven't studied the race at all," he said. "It's not that I would or wouldn't, I just don't know anything about it. I haven't taken the time to study their positions, their records, so I haven't taken a position on it."

And this man is supposed to be a 2012 frontrunner?? First he hires former McCain aides for his campaign and now he’s not paying attention to a wildly popular conservative vs. Republican special election that has gained immense national coverage? This makes me think that he’s on board with the RINOs and doesn’t want to publicly acknowledge himself that way, or he is incredibly stupid, one or the other.

This race is critical. The only way we’re going to change the direction of this country is to elect real conservatives. I keep hearing that a so called “third party” won’t ever win. I disagree. First, a conservative is not part of a third party. Secondly, the majority of Americans are sick and tired of RINOs and hard leftists. They’re tired of paying the government for wasteful programs. I think most Americans are ready to elect real conservatives, not squishy "Republicans" or RINOs. That was one of the reasons the Right was so down about McCain being the 2008 nominee.

Palin endorsing Hoffman is going to start an enormous wave of support for conservatives everywhere. She will be the catalyst for this change, while the other Republican RINOs sit on the sidelines.

No concerns, just lies

This post at the Corner got me thinking of how over a year ago the Left continually demanded that Palin should resign being the VP candidate because she had a family and needed to concentrate on being a mother and raising her kids. Their sexist excuse was because she had a 5-month-old special needs baby and his mother shouldn't be out working at job that would take away so much time from him.

And now, reading those sexist statements a year later you see that their “concerns” were all lies. When Palin did in fact have to resign because of attackers hell bent on destroying her career you would think the Left would say something like “she’s doing the right thing to protect her family.” Or “we continually wanted her to resign in order to take care of her family and now she’s doing it.” But no, they’re not about advocating for Palin’s children or her family or women in general. No, once she resigned all we heard from the Left was “QUITTER!!!!!”

So their feigned concern was nothing but an attempt to attack Palin. They don’t care about the message it says to women. They don’t care that they’re being hypocritical because they’re also attacking women on the Left with the exact same family arrangements as Palin. They don’t care that it makes the Left look like it’s stuck in the 1950’s as far as women’s roles in the work force go. The only thing they care about is destroying the Right, destroying conservatism and they know Palin is a huge threat to their goals. Their attacks, their "concern" was all about trying to destroy her any way they could. They will attack her no matter what she does.

As an aside, I get the feeling the Left has never underestimated Palin. They've never had doubts that she's a superstar with mass appeal, and they've never had doubts that she would be a great Republican president comprable to Ronald Reagan. That's why they keep on knocking her down, and go to extreme lengths to do so. And they are so effective with their attacks that the RINOs on the Right actually start to believe their lies. At least NRO seems to be turning the tide with their treatment of her recently.

Interesting that Palin is going on Oprah Nov. 16

Palin is going to be on the Oprah show on November 16, to promote Going Rogue. I am so intrigued by this and wonder how it will turn out. We all know the history of Palin and Oprah from last year. Oprah went all in to help fellow Chicago resident Obama win the presidential election last year, even going so far as to produce an infomercial for him. Despite Palin's wild popularity Oprah didn't invite her on the show - which is fine, it's her show.

But now all of a sudden Oprah wants to give Palin a platform to promote her book. I'm skeptical. I know Oprah will be polite and nice. I don't think this will be a Katie Couric moment for her. I think she does have a shred of integrity left and wouldn't want to use her show for that purpose - to purposely make a guest look stupid. Although, if I remember correctly she embarrassed that writer who lied about his biography while he was a guest on her show - but that's a totally different situation. I do get the sense that Oprah is not a Palin fan by any means and doesn't respect her. I am riveted wondering what kind of questions she'll ask Palin.

Oprah obviously has the golden touch when it comes to endorsements and celebrities who go on her show instantly receive a certain legitimacy of their work that might take years to achieve otherwise - her endorsement of Obama is great example of this. It's interesting to think that Palin's appearance on the show might boost her popularity outside hardline conservative circles - which is what all the NR and RINO folks have been saying "she needs to do." But given Oprah's audience it might go the other way - they may continue to dislike Palin and also start to dislike Oprah for having Palin on.

No matter what we know that Oprah will achieve one thing - a massive boost in ratings. I know I'll DVR her show, which I never do. And I really will be excited to see how this turns out for both Oprah and Palin.

As the book release date gets closer, expect the Left to ramp up Palin bashing

I saw this blog article published by Zennie Abraham in the San Francisco Chronicle online edition titled "Sarah Palin "Going Rogue" will keep her out of office." Abraham's bio says that he works in the sports business world and that he's a video blogger who gets picked up by CNN. It was a very long piece and I have to ask - why are they going to this much effort to try and discredit Palin if her career is so over? That's what I keep hearing from the Left and the RINOs, that she's un-electable, a carciacture, career dead in the water, quitter, etc. Yet they keep coming out with these editorials, blog posts, articles and news stories about her.

In his post, Abraham tries to make the case for elites being the best politicians and why Palin will always fail as a politician because she is not an elite (?). Or at least I think that's what his point is.

Her new book "Going Rogue" is proof of what I've expected all along: that Governor Palin didn't want to learn how to be an effective politician at the highest levels of office. Like any member of the masses who obtains a little power and attention, it overcame the larger responsibility of governing and so she jettisoned being Alaska's leader.

What? That paragraph makes no sense. What is the "it" he's referring to? She was elected Governor of Alaska - since when is that "a little power and attention." It's the executive position of the largest state in the country. She ran it and was the first woman and youngest ever to do so. I don't understand when he says she didn't want to learn how to be an effective politician at the highest level. She was already there; she was already effective. Alaskans elected her. And how does he know what she wrote in Going Rogue - so how can it be "proof" of anything?

He tries to explain himself in the following paragraph:

By contrast, elite elected officials rise to power because they have an overarching sense of purpose that involves true social change focused more on helping people than a party or a group. The lynchpin idea of Ronald Reagan's assent to power was that government had become too large and inefficient at a time that America didn't need government spending to supercharge the economy.

So "elite elected officials" have a sense of purpose that involves true social change - not fake social change. And Palin has no sense of purpose, because she is not an elite. Got it. /sarc

He also throws Reagan in there and it doesn't make sense at all because Reagan was not an elite, but maybe that's the point he's trying to make - that Reagan is the exception to the rule because of the chance possibility that America didn't need government spending at that time (?) but Reagan outspent a lot of Presidents and increased debt so I don't understand how this fits with his argument but whatever.

Here are some more of Abraham's great ideas (all in this same post):

I fully expected Palin to resign from the GOP in the middle of the presidential campaign

...now we're in a position where without government spending the country's financial system would have collapsed.

No Republican or Democrat in power will tell you that we don't need the stimulus program, but will tell you that money's not getting our fast enough for their areas.

That's where we are today and why so many Alaskans thought Governor Palin lost her mind when she threw back part of the economic stimulus money.

Gov. Palin has become a kind of repository for the hopes and fears of the undereducated mostly white American masses.

Palin's message is outside of that of the power elite because it doesn't help solve the problems they're dealing with.

Let's not forget this was in the San Francisco Chronicle online. They probably paid him to write this trash. This is an example of the corrupt media trying desperately to prime their audience, however shrinking it may be, for some major Palin-bashing once the book comes out. This blog post is a steaming pile of you know what and the SF Chronicle doesn't care if it's published as long as it bashes Palin. The fact that it's poorly written, contains factual errors and misrepresentations is of no importance to them. I expect nothing less from the corrupt media now and in the coming weeks.

Krauthammer tells Palin to sit down and shut up

Charles Krauthammer, who is a regular guest on Fox, has regular news columns, and who has the NRO staff posting his insights on the Corner daily – doesn’t have half the readers that Palin does on Facebook. Although his opinions on this most recent health care debate have been intellectual and insightful, they haven’t caught fire like Palin’s. They haven’t utterly dismantled the bill like Palin’s.

So Krauthammer tells Palin to “leave the room,” which leads me to ask, what side are you on Charles? Do you want this health care bill or not? Palin effectively put a huge dent in the progress of this bill and now he wants her to leave the room so everyone else can have a “reasoned discussion.” It seems to me that Palin did have a reasoned column. She stated the facts of this bill – bold, can’t ignore them, facts. When the democrats were left to defend those facts they couldn't because she was right. And she has the personality to engage millions of voters. They listen to her which makes her an effective tool in the conservative movement. The fact that Krauthammer wants her to leave the room says a lot about what side he’s on. He doesn’t want the conservative movement to progress, period.

In a now-famous column at Hot Air, a poster with the pseudonym “Doctor Zero” took on Krauthammer’s article and it was a thing of beauty. Doctor Zero’s column should be read entirely but here’s a snippet.

Every political movement needs both academic intelligence, and vital charisma. The Left has always viewed the relationship between its intellectuals and politicians as something like the production and marketing departments in a business – and when it comes to accumulating power, socialists are all business. People like Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers spent decades weaving the strings that control the Obama marionette. They openly wrote of their understanding that savvy merchandising would be needed to make the public accept their agenda, at least until the public no longer has a meaningful choice about accepting it. When was the last time you heard a leftist intellectual belittle a popular liberal politician, the way Charles Krauthammer treated Sarah Palin?

The challenge for conservatism is to educate the voters in its basic principles, since they received no such education in the public schools. Conservatism always triumphs on the elementary questions of freedom and capitalism. The ideas of the Left are diseased in root and branch – history has shown there is no need to allow them to blossom, in order to see they are poisonous. Conservatives who allow themselves to be dragged into bickering about page 945 of a 1200-page bill have already conceded far too much of the debate. Americans deserve better than being told to sit down and shut up, while Washington plays Jenga with Obama’s obscene health-care proposals. They should be angry and insulted their time and money were ever wasted with this madness.

National Review coverage

It's not my intention to bash Republicans in pointing out my disappointment in National Review and NRO. But I do feel compelled to defend Palin against needless attacks which, in my opinion, NRO has been indulging in since Palin announced her resignation. I simply want to change my perspective of what NRO represents and accept it for what it is.

I found a post by Anthony Dick posted July 8 that I wanted to highlight here. I feel like it underscores why I'm disappointed and why I no longer consider NRO a daily must-read.

But it wasn’t just the choices she [Palin] made; it was the way she presented herself in conformance with the stereotype of the red-state simpleton.

WFB [William F. Buckley] once remarked to me, in reference to the second-term plunge in popularity of the George W. Bush administration, that it is not enough for conservatives simply to be intelligent or sophisticated. They have to project these qualities, conspicuously and convincingly, in order to get past the visceral prejudices of elite opinion-makers...

Two questions of "why." Why would someone change who they are in order to appease people who hold visceral prejudices? Prejudices are bad, and they prevent people from seeing the real person, the real issues and it's not fair to judge others based on prejudices. Those are the people who need to change, not the ones who are simply being themselves. The second "why" is - why are the elite making opinions for the general public, why does their opinion matter? If they are elite it means they don't represent the realities of everyday Americans. They have special, unique life situations that don't trickle down. So they are not equipped to "make opinions." Elites don't make my opinion, thankyouverymuch.

...elite opinion-makers who generally regard conservative ideas as some combination of boobish, evil, backward, boring, dangerous, and simplistic.

Whoa, back up there, Anthony. In addition to calling Palin those things, it sounds to me like he's saying that the elite opinion makers consider conservative ideas (his words) that way, including the right-leaning elite opinion makers. That's not good for the conservative movement. He puts down conservativism and props up what? What is his alternative? He doesn't say.

Overcoming these prejudices is, if not a prerequisite, at least a very helpful vehicle for receiving a fair hearing on the merits. Bill Buckley was, of course, a master at this project.

So he's saying that if someone presents themselves in a non-simpleton (his words) way, then they will receive a "fair hearing on the merits," fait accompli. Not only is that false but again, what does it say about these elite opinion makers that they cannot focus on the issues and are obsessed with appearances and language? Truly intelligent people are able to look past anything that might be a distraction and cut to the real issues, not at NRO. They are concerned with appearances.

The other thing that struck me was that he said it is a prerequisite to present yourself in a non-simpleton way. A prerequisite to what? Winning a presidential election or just receiving a fair hearing on the merits? I don't recall William F. Buckley winning a presidential election. And the candidate we nominated last year had all those qualities and he failed to receive the winning votes. Republicans never receive fair treatment by MSM or democrats so I wonder again why this is a prerequisite.

Sarah Palin seems either completely oblivious to it, or else too indignant to play that game. This may be a principled decision, but it is not without consequences.

Here is his baseless attack. Palin absolutely does not present herself as a "simpleton." She is a professional, classy, an intelligent speaker, has built vastly successful relationships with foreign countries in her role as governor, connects with voters in a powerfully persuasive way, able to juggle special interests along with what the general public wants. Her priorities are right; she has a very good handle on all the important issues. And putting all that aside, she's a mom of five who hasn't had the help of nannies and maids like most politicians. It's draining to constantly prove Palin's legitimacy to these "elite opinion makers" who outright refuse to look beyond their prejudices. If they have prejudices, it's not my problem or Palin's problem. They need to take a look at themselves first before "making an opinion" for the masses.

The bottom line is that we cannot rely on the Republican elite at NRO as any sort of source of support for Palin and I would also include the conservative movement in general. I see National Review as what it is - an elite subculture, a smaller group within a larger group. The larger group is us, the everyday Americans who are fed up with the way our government is going. The smaller group are people who more or less agree with some of the ideals of the larger group, but not reflective of the group as a whole due to their prejudices. They are a minority. If Palin has some good advisors she won't be listening to NRO's "advice."

Why I think Sarah will run in 2012

After the 2008 election, Palin went back to work immediately to Alaska. The legislature was in session and she focused completely on her work as governor. She did not make any national appearances save for the John Ziegler interview for Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected.

It was a cold few months where we didn't really have anything to report except for her accomplishments in Alaska, and I was a little worried that she just wanted to maybe run for governor again, but that was it. No presidential run. After getting burned so badly personally by MSM and the McCain staffers, it seemed like she was kind of forgetting about the national scene for awhile.

But ever since the legislative session ended, she's been setting the world on fire. It's pretty clear that she strictly wanted to do her job well and was completely focused on that. Now that the session's over she has the time to do other things and she's been using that time wisely and effectively.

She has yet to comment on her political aspirations, either as running for re-election as governor or president. But I think she will run in 2012 based on a few things.

Below is a list of the reasons *I* think Palin will run - in no particular order - and my thoughts behind them.

*She signed a book deal for a political memoir that will be released in late 2010/2011. A perfect opportunity to express her views in her own words so people can get to know her better before the election. A great opportunity to show her foreign policy expertise and de-bunk the stupid MSM lies about her.

*She uses Facebook and Twitter, and has two Blackberries. She's showing everyone that she's not a "chillbilly hick from Alaska;" she's adept at all the different forms of digital communication and filtering information. She updates them regularly and appropriately.

*She makes articulate statements on national issues that are not related to Alaska, but would give voters a chance to know "what does Sarah think about this?" For instance she made statements on George Tiller and William Long. In these situations I see Palin acting as the party leader. I want Michael Steele and our popular Republican Senators and Governors making statements like this where they can steer the party, in a way. So far, not many leaders have stepped up to bat and it looks like Palin is taking it upon herself to do so.

*She used Letterman's "joke" as an opportunity to improve how women are treated on a national level. She put the spotlight on how young teens and women's sexuality are still fair game for comedic fodder and her eloquent points convinced a lot of people that Letterman was wrong. She could have not responded at all, but she did and actually went beyond that by making it a national issue - testing the waters if you will. She also sent a strong message to those who attack her children, that she will not back down as they want her to. She fights back.

*During her speech introducing Michael Reagan, she discussed her naysayers at length. I urge you listen to that audio if you haven't already. She made this statement without hesitation, almost as if she had been waiting years to say it: "Those are the folks who want to tell me, they want to tell you, to sit down and shut up. We will not do that. I just can't, because I love my state. I love my country." After everything hurled at her this is what she says "I will not sit down and shut up." She is one strong woman who loves a challenge, loves to fight for what is right and doesn't let anyone walk all over her. I think she sent a strong message to the Democrats and to her "fans" if you will by saying that. She's going to run.

*During the Hannity interview she repeated the line that she will not sit down and shut up.

*She's been going on national TV shows, radio and cable shows, expressing her views without fear, without hesitation, with a TON of great information and political views. She went on Hannity (which wasn't a hard-hitting interview I realize, but still) and hammered out her opinions one by one in an intelligent manner. There was no "uh, uh, uh," there was no teleprompter. She went on the Today show and just cut Matt Lauer to pieces and told him point blank he was naive. She has a platform and she uses it well. She doesn't do the typical politician response of not really answering any question. She's putting herself out there as a real person, not a skeevy politician just trying to get votes.

*The "elite" RINOesque front runners, Huckabee, Romney and Mitch Daniels (Gov. of Indiana), have been given massive airtime from MSM and "elite" right-leaning media - and have pretty much epically failed. Romney posts on The Corner almost every other week, writes op-eds for various newspapers, and rarely says anything of substance. Huckabee has his own show that I don't think anyone watches. Mitch Daniels is the latest person they're telling us is the best thing since sliced bread and was given the cover on a recent issue of National Review. From what I read he seems like kind of a typical politician.

The problem with them is that they're all so entirely "meh" and forgettable. I'm sure they would be great presidents, but I'm really not enthusiastic about them in the least. Palin on the other hand, everyone knows from the campaign and can't get enough of her. She's the opposite of those guys when it comes to charisma and public speaking ability. 20,000 people showed up to Founder's Day in NY to hear her speak. She's getting people so excited about 2012 they literally can't wait to vote for her. Supporters are giving tons of money to her PAC so she'll have enough capital to run. She doesn't even have to ask, they just do it. So among the "leaders" she's miles ahead of them.

And finally...

*Her faith. She has faith in God's plan for her, that God is protecting her family. I know it sounds kind of cheesy, but her faith seems to guide her in a way that gives her the strength to fight these battles and people who are constantly trying to take her down. I don't know how else to explain it.

*Her love of her country. She has obviously said many times how much she loves her country. She loves freedom. She appreciates the sacrifices made in order to preserve freedom and she said she does what she can to maintain our freedom. She uses her unique gifts to serve her country in her way.

So what?

Republican strategist John Weaver:

"If it's 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we're headed for a blowout. That's just the truth."

My response: if that's really going to happen, then so be it and 'so what.' I would rather lose running on principles that I believe in and those that I believe will strengthen the party, then to win by compromising my beliefs. For the millionth time, what's the point of winning an election if you had to compromise who you are to get there?

I know things are bad for Republicans right now and I'm not delusional as to how hard it will be to win in 2012 against Obama. That's why we fight, organize and prepare for it. We don't change who we are to get votes. We strengthen who we are.

Weaver is the strategist who was preparing former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman for a Presidential run in 2012. Huntsman just accepted an appointment in the Obama administration as U.S. Ambassador to China and is one of the most "moderate" Republicans out there. McCain name-dropped him several times over the past year and he's become the poster boy for party reform.

The Huntsman appointment has the MSM painting Obama as a post-partisan President reaching across the aisle, and Huntsman as a beaming example for Republicans everywhere. Kind of like how they painted McCain, before he won the nomination last year. We can't let the MSM decide who our leaders are.

"I firmly believe that Huntsman and people like him are the prescription for what ails us," says Weaver. "But I have the feeling that our party maybe won't order that prescription in 2012."

Okay, just to nitpick, no one "orders a prescription;" a doctor prescribes it. But whatever. The point is, we had a moderate run for President last year and look where it got us. Do the "moderates" not learn? It seems so obvious to me. Palin was the one who got the base energized, not McCain. So logically it seems that our party is ready for someone who shares the same ideas as her.

When will I learn...

...not to be surprised at NRO's dislike of Palin? I swear this is like the 3rd or 4th time I've read and posted about a severely negative unwarranted ambush on Palin at NRO - the alleged bastion of conservative Republican thought.

This time it's from Steve Hayward, saying her speeches are too long. He even goes a step further saying they're "Castroesque." Great.

You could fit five of Reagan's state of the union speeches inside one of Bill Clinton's or George W. Bush's. (This means you, Governor Palin, whom I heard in Anchorage in March making a rambling hour-long speech that someone at my table rightly described as "Castroesque.") So try this out, GOP leaders: Shorter speeches. People will remember more of what you say, and want to hear you say more later. This really isn't rocket science. Heck, it isn't even political science.

Ironically, this was in a long piece regarding how the Right needs to defend and honor Ronald Reagan better against attacks like Jeb Bush made last week. Ironic considering Reagan is who Palin reminds most people of.

By the way, I would gladly take Hayward's place the next time he's been invited to one of Palin's speeches in Alaska. You know, since he hates them so much. I think it would be thrilling to attend her speech in person but that's me.

AK Legislature approves federal stimulus money unanimously

Now we wait to see if Palin will veto any of it. I hope she will. This vote actually gives us a better view of the "Republicans" in the legislature.

This is from "Republican" Rep. Mike Hawker:

"The federal economic stimulus package can do a lot of good for Alaskans without growing government," said House Finance Co-Chair Mike Hawker of Anchorage. "If we fail to accept these funds, they will largely be re-allocated to other states.

"After an extensive review and hours of public hearings, the House could not find any significant strings attached to the money -- other than that we carefully account for how we spend it and what we accomplish with it," Hawker said. "The strict accounting and reporting requirements of the federal aid are good things, not reasons to walk away from putting this money into Alaska's economy."

Mike Hawker needs to examine himself if he thinks those are Republican ideals. If my representative were saying those things I would definitely not vote for him next election. He needs to remember that his constituency voted for a Republican. MSM loves to quote him. He's quoted in almost every anti-Palin piece I read. He must think he's getting his name out there but he just looks like he's a jealous anti-Palin power freak.