The fact that Barack Obama was elected President is a pretty clear indicator that Politics is not scientific. That is, with all due respect to the President, his resume was the thinnest in memory, with no real substance to support his claims that he should lead the country. Nevertheless, Barack Obama won, defeating first a powerful Democratic party rival with an impressive political resume and efficient campaign machine, then a Republican opponent with far greater experience on most of the issues important to voters. In the 2008 election, however, style won over substance, although it may be fairly argued that neither party's nominee made an effective case on the merits of their qualifications.

The election of 2008 was hardly unprecedented. Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush on pure style and media spin, just as the first President Bush beat Michael Dukakis on rhetoric and style in 1988. While Reagan beat Carter with arguments supported by evidence, his most effective tactics used style - we still remember and ask if we are better than four years ago. This goes back at least to JFK's victory over Nixon in 1960, effective use of media and style to win over the public.

This brings up the question on 2012. Many Republicans have assumed that Obama would follow the path of Jimmy Carter and implode, opening the door to the 'Next Reagan'. A closer look at the matter indicates such optimism may be unfounded. First off, Carter recovered from most of his mistakes, and Obama has learned how to move beyond his blunders; the plain fact is that wit ha compliant media Obama's blunders have a political half-life of only a few weeks at most, far too short to damage his re-election chances significantly unless he either commits a major mistake immediately before the election, or makes so many mistakes that the weight of their total overwhelms him. It could happen, but it would be foolish to expect it to be so.

The second problem is the missing New Reagan. By the time the GOP Convention finished in 1976, many Republicans knew that if Gerald Ford lost, Governor Reagan would have the de facto lead for the 1980 race. Reagan was tested by other would-be nominees, but he was clearly the leading man from the start. Putting it bluntly, the GOP has no such candidate now. Look at 2008; John McCain frankly took the nomination by default, because no one really showed up to make a strong case. Conservatives got excited about Fred Thompson, but to be blunt Mister Thompson lacked the stamina and energy to sustain a serious campaign. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were too thin and brittle to be successful, showing no ability to attract supporters outside a limited spectrum. John McCain got the nomination for the same reason that John Kerry won the Democratic Party nomination in 2004; he was believed to be the most "electable" in a field of uninspiring contenders.

Who, frankly, inspires the nation from the Right? Those with strong followings, like Sarah Palin, tend to attract support from a tight range of political opinion, lacking the means to attract and win over the undecided and doubters. Others do their jobs well, Like John Boehner, but have no evident charisma to build a national following. Worse, the national party has two serious problems - they are out of touch with grassroots Republicans, supporting senior Republicans even when they do not represent the party's ideals (one notes that the GOP has refused to condemn Governor Sanford's adultery and malfeasance, even after his confession) and sometimes even opposing fresh contenders in the party who have broad support and represent reason for hope. And second, the national GOP has siloed, with factions standing off against each other in petty feuds, preventing unity on critical issues and campaigns. The matter has become serious enough, that many who oppose the Democrats and President Obama, do so without declaring support for the Republicans who might run for reform. The simple fact is that right now the voting public has little confidence in the Republican Party to be any better than the Democrats. And until that changes, President Obama and the Democrats have little to fear from the next election or two.

- copied over from WizPol -

Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Politics

Over at Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds has assembled a great roundup of photos and summaries from dozens of July 4th Tea Party protests around the nation. The overall turnout for these protests was very encouraging considering the fact that so many Americans travel out of town to celebrate the 4th of July.

Here in Oklahoma City, the organizers of the first two OKC Tea Party protests (held February 27th and April 15th of this year) canceled their plans for a July 4th Tea Party, in favor of a larger protest to be held on September 12. You can read more about the "912 Project" founded by talk radio and Fox News personality Glenn Beck here.

But another group of citizens seized this opportunity and organized a "Sooner Tea Party" for July 4th. I wasn't able to attend the protest, but reports seem to indicate a decent-sized crowd (1500 or more) and a rally that captured the spirit of the nationwide Tea Party movement.

With the death of Michael Jackson and the resignation of Sarah Palin filling the weekend news cycle, there was little coverage of the Tea Party protests in the national news media. And there has been virtually no ridicule of the Tea Parties from the usual liberal suspects during the past few weeks. Liberals greatly overplayed their hand on April 15th with their non-stop barrage of tasteless and crude "teabagging" comments. Perhaps now they are hoping that if they just ignore the Tea Party protests, the movement will quietly fade away.

But as long as government continues spend recklessly while the economy teeters on the edge of what could turn out to be a very deep double-dip recession, the Tea Party movement won't be going anywhere.

Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Tea Party Movement

This week's Weekend Caption Contest™ had a pretty good showing for a holiday weekend. The assignment this week was to caption the following picture:

Here are the winning entries:

1) (griff) - "I bleeping told you ACORN was the bleep you stupid bleeping hayseed bleeeeeep. I'm a bleeping Senator now you bleeping bleep and there isn't a bleeping bleep you or any other bleeping voter can do about it for six bleeping years."

2) (Stephen Macklin) - "It's my Senate seat.I stole it fair and square."

3) (GMAC) - "I'll have you know that *THIS* is the 'Al Franken decade' at last and nothing you can do is going to stop it!"

4) (jim2) - "Soros tops Caligula, who had needed ALL of a horse to make a senator."

5) (Porkopolis) - "After weeks of practice in front of a full-length mirror, Senate-elect Al Franken channels John Kerry and tries out his 'Do You Know Who I Am' pose on an unsuspecting constituent."

6) (iwogisdead) - "Al Franken reacts to learning that he has to pay for his coffee in the Senate cafeteria."

The Readers Choice Award this week went to griff's winning entry. In its place I offer this editor's choice caption:

(Rick13) - "You just watch Kevin! In five years I'll prove how stupid the people of Minnesota really are, and I'll be a U.S. Senator!"

That's all for this weekend. A new edition of the Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ will debut Friday morning.

Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Weekend Caption Contest

Some of you may have noticed that the main page at Wizbang seems somehow different.

In a nutshell, I've decided to focus on Wizbang and Wizbang Pop! The other sites, while still there, are being phased out. I won't go so far as to say that they are being permanently shuttered, but the focus will be on the aforementioned two sites, and there are no plans for the other sites.

The two sites I will be concentrating on will be getting a variety of upgrades and new features in the coming weeks. As always all of us who write at all of the Wizbang sites appreciate your support and patronage. We are committed to providing you the best opinion, analysis, and entertainment and lifestyle coverage possible.

Carry on...

Permalink | Comments (55) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Site News

I suppose it's my turn to write about the sudden resignation of Sarah Palin this past Friday. As I digested the news reports and commentary this weekend, one word kept popping into my mind: "outsider".

In politics, there is something magical about being an outsider. Political consultants sell their candidates' outsider status as a kind of synonym for purity. Outsiders are expected to work for the people, not for the system, because they have not been bought and paid for by special interests.

Barack Obama's political strategists used his relatively short tenure in national politics in order to portray him as an outsider. Obama was young, smart, free from corruption, free from D. C. entanglements, not beholden to the Clinton political machine, not controlled by the DNC, etc. They directly contrasted this to the cold, calculating demeanor of Hillary Clinton, who was suddenly transformed from the idealistic, progressive sweetheart of the 1990's into the epitome of the kind of iron-fisted Washington establishment figure that Obama's "Hope And Change" was supposed to trump.

Then Sarah Palin showed up. And she really was an outsider, in every conceivable sense of the word.

We know that John McCain's campaign staff harbored a lot of resentment toward Sarah Palin. Perhaps jealousy is a better word. Palin immediately eclipsed McCain on the campaign trail, simply by being herself. She rose to the top of the ticket without minute-by-minute briefings and instructions from McCain's handlers. She planned her own schedule, she took her own phone calls, she chose her own outfits (until McCain's staff forced her to wear outfits picked by a high-dollar Manhattan fashion consultant, a move which grossly backfired). She politely, but firmly, refused to be turned into a puppet by the McCain campaign staff. And that burned them up.

In spite of the wholesome nature ascribed to political outsiders, within the world of politics outsiders are thought of as foolish amateurs, and their ignorance of the system is considered to be a dangerous liability by political veterans. Sarah Palin's natural popularity was something that seasoned political insiders within both the Democrat and Republican parties found difficult to understand. I think Palin was somewhat prepared for the attacks from Democrats (though no one could have predicted the viciousness with which liberals would personally attack her and her family, especially her son Trig who has Down syndrome). But I don't believe that she was prepared to be handled in such a rough and patronizing manner by staffers from her own party.

I think Palin learned an important lesson from her vice presidential candidacy: the Washington, DC political establishment did not like her, and no one -- not even the national Republican party -- could be trusted to back her if she decided to pursue a Senate or Presidential candidacy.

I always believed that Sarah Palin entered politics to make a real difference. That's why she got involved in her local school board, then ran for city council and mayor. When she was appointed Chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, she refused to go along with the "good old boy" system and eventually filed ethics complaints against Oil and Gas Conservation Commissioner Randy Ruedrich and former Alaskan Attorney General Gregg Renkes. Both of these men were Republicans, and Sarah's commitment to ethics above party politics is a marvel that few political figures are capable of. (Honestly, can you imagine Barack Obama taking on the Chicago Democrat political machine in a similar fashion?) I think we can take Palin at her word when she says that being a lightning rod for the Republican party has severely crippled her effectiveness as an elected leader.

So what will Sarah Palin, a legitimate political outsider, do now that she is no longer an elected official?

I think Palin knows that she is still very popular within the broad base of middle-class Americans who vote Republican. She was, without a doubt, the phenomenon that drew the crowds of tens of thousands to McCain-Palin campaign events. I think she also knows that she is still very popular outside of the circle of die-hard Republicans. During the final weeks of the 2008 Presidential election, a significant number of Americans, whether or not they all agreed with Sarah Palin's personal beliefs, found Palin's humble roots, impressive accomplishments, and devotion to her family all enormously appealing. And these same people were shocked and disgusted by the way she and her family were mercilessly pilloried by the news media and the Hollywood entertainment industry.

Again, this broad appeal is what drove the establishment crazy. No matter how hard the news media tried to portray Palin as a clueless idiot, no matter how hard liberal opinion writers tried to convince their readers of Palin's ignorance and unpreparedness for the office of Vice President, no matter how hard entertainers tried to portray Palin as an uncouth denizen of the redneck culture that thrives on teenage pregnancy, firearms, and Bible-thumping, Sarah Palin's popularity remained unchanged. The greatness of the liberal establishment's success in transforming Barack Obama into The Messiah was embarrassingly squelched by the thoroughness of their failure to destroy Sarah Palin's grassroots appeal.

As our own Hugh S., Kim, and many other conservative pundits have stated, Palin's effectiveness will be much greater whenever she becomes a private citizen. Americans have little patience for high-profile figures who deliberately savage ordinary citizens, and (as Hugh S. noted) the misogyny and contempt for special needs children that has saturated much of the anti-Palin bile spewed by liberals has left a bad taste in the mouths of the American public, and could horribly backfire in the near future if it is not discontinued.

The conservative movement in this country needs a strong figure to rally around, if for no other reason than to counter the massive cult appeal of Barack Obama among the liberal chattering class. I believe that Sarah Palin could become such a figure, even if she does not run for elected office again. She has the ability to galvanize the conservative movement and organize it around a set of positive, proactive goals, which is what conservatism needs right now. The Cult of Obama has too great a hold on American popular culture for conservatives to simply be "against" the Obama presidency.

Whatever her new calling turns out to be, I wish her all the success in the world. She has certainly done enough to earn it.

...

ADDED: I thought this observation from The Bosque Boys was worth noting:

Prediction: Sarah Palin will never be president of the United States.

However, there is no reason why she can't be a Republican Al Gore, beloved and admired on her side of the aisle and reviled and ridiculed by her irate opponents. Remember, Vice President Gore has reportedly earned $100 Million during the years following his defeat in 2000. Like Gore, Palin will always have star power and the ability to draw a crowd. We can expect her to use her influence on the party faithful when needed, and we can also expect her, like Gore, to continually dangle the prospect of running for president before the press and her faithful boosters (but my hunch is, ultimately, she will never pull the trigger again on a all-out run for the big prize).

All she needs now are a "few inconvenient truths."

Instapundit Glenn Reynolds adds: "...she'd be wise to avoid Al Gore's weight gain."

Permalink | Comments (45) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Sarah Palin

This comes from an FBI agency spokesman, so there's absolutely no doubt about it. The rumors and lies on the left wing blogs that she resigned because she's the subject of an FBI investigation are just that, rumors and lies:

A day after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin resigned, a federal official in her home state dismissed one potential explanation for her sudden and unexpected resignation: a rumored FBI investigation into the former Wasilla mayor on public corruption charges.

Despite rumors of a looming controversy after the Republican governor's surprise announcement Friday that she would leave office this month, some of them published in the blogosphere, the FBI's Alaska spokesman said the bureau had no investigation into Palin for her activities as governor, as mayor or in any other capacity.

"There is absolutely no truth to those rumors that we're investigating her or getting ready to indict her," Special Agent Eric Gonzalez said in a phone interview Saturday. "It's just not true." He added that there was "no wiggle room" in his comments for any kind of inquiry.

Well, that settles that. And just in case some mainstream media outlets are still interested in smearing Governor Palin anyway, they've been put on notice by her attorney:

Ratcheting up her offensive against the news media, Gov. Sarah Palin's attorney threatened Saturday to sue mainstream news organizations if they publish "defamatory" stories relating to whether Palin is under federal investigation.

In an extraordinary four-page letter, Alaska-based attorney Thomas Van Flein warns of severe consequences should speculation that until now has largely been confined to blogs about whether Palin embezzled funds in the construction of a Wasilla, Alaska, sports arena find its way into print.

"This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law," Van Flein warned, citing Alaska liberal blogger Shannyn Moore.

"Just as power abhors a vacuum, modern journalism apparently abhors any type of due diligence and fact checking before scurrilous allegations are repeated as fact," the Anchorage attorney wrote.

Neither the Times or the Post made any mention of the embezzlement rumors in their Saturday editions, but sources close to Palin consider the letter a warning shot to stay away from the topic.

In the letter, Van Flein writes: "'The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those "responsible for the abuse of that right.'... These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable."

I'm glad she's standing up for herself. She and her children have been the targets of media campaigns to defame, malign, and besmirch them. The liberals and progressives in the media hate Sarah Palin to their cores so they want to destroy her any way they can, and I think William Jacobson is right that it has always been about Trig:

If Sarah Palin had aborted Trig, the left would have been okay with it. If she hid Trig offstage and out of sight, all would be good. But treat the child as you would any other child, and that cannot be tolerated.

There is something about a Down syndrome child in plain view which has exposed the moral and emotional bankruptcy of the left-wing of the Democratic party. And they hate Sarah Palin because deep down, they hate themselves for being who they are.

Kurt Schlichter at Big Hollywood has an interesting take on the positives on Sarah's resignation:

Remember when Darth Vader faced off with Obi-Wan Kenobi? "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine?" She's now immune from bogus legal claims and her book will not only raise her profile but set up her family financially for life. Now Sarah is unbound, freed from the need to be up in Juneau and able to network, fundraise and even (maybe) campaign without limitation. And the modern media environment will let her do these things without even a nod to the mainstream media (Do you think Katie Couric will ever get to ask Sarah another question? Ha!)

Lefties, if you were responsible for her doing this, you just unleashed your strongest opponent and made her immune from your strongest attacks all at once. Ouch. It must hurt to know a woman you pride yourself on seeing as a drooling Neanderthal nitwit so thoroughly out-maneuvered you. You do see it, right?

Be sure to stop by Kurt's post and watch the Star Wars clip he's posted.

I have no idea if Palin had a grand plan in mind when she resigned. I think she was doing what was best for her family and her state. I also think she was doing what was best for her Lieutenant Governor, too, because he will now be able to run as an incumbent. While she helped him, she took all the wind out of Hollis French's sails. He was prepared to run for governor against Palin and was going to get really nasty and use the same "it's not business, it's personal" tactics the MSM has been using. It sucks to be him right now.

Permalink | Comments (48) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Media, Sarah Palin

I'm not quite sure what was behind Sarah Palin's announcement on Friday that she would not seek reelection and would resign as governor of Alaska (but, as Kim noted, I will take her at her word until persuaded otherwise by facts). If the past few days have demonstrated anything it is that the visceral hatred of Sarah Palin among those on the left has become pathological.

Just after the Palin announcement The Huffington Post post ran a piece titled "Palin Will Run In '12 On More Retardation Platform". After the Free Republic complained to the HuffPo the site took the piece down, but not before a screen cap was made. You can view it here. That a liberal site would use a special needs child as its foil is no longer shocking in the demented universe of Palin haters.It's encouraging to see evidence that the Palin family is going to take the gloves off and go after these scum bags (read this for more).

I agree somewhat with William Jacobson that much of what drives the hatred of Sarah Palin is her son Trig. Trig Palin is, to put it bluntly, a living and breathing indictment of the abortion industry that simply will not go away. Trig Palin's very existence makes the abortion advocates squirm in their seats and sweat. That's why so much energy and attention has been focused on the political and personal destruction of his mother.

But there is another element to the Palin obsession on the Left. As has been thoroughly discussed on this site and in the comments, if Sarah Palin was the dolt her opponents so eagerly claim she is then why the non stop demonization of her well after a landslide victory by the Left in 2008? The answer is that the Left knows that Palin speaks to a large constituency in the middle class that is becoming more organized and vocal as each month of this economic collapse worsens. On a deeper level, the Left also knows that there is a thread of misogyny that runs through much of the propaganda against Sarah Palin and this deep seated contempt for women will bring about a furious backlash. Therefore, the Left must not just wound her, they must eliminate her.

Sarah Palin has been vilified unlike any politician I have seen in my lifetime. Unless there is some scandal about to break (and it appears unlikely) the Left (with its contempt for her family) will have succeeded in turning her into a martyr. As such, she will raise more money for Republican politicians than any other figure on the national stage. The midterm elections got a lot more interesting on Friday.

Permalink | Comments (30) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Politics
Tags: Palin Legal Action, Palin Resignation, Thomas Van Flein

Update: It is looking like this was a murder-suicide. The woman, his 20 year old girlfriend, shot him and then turned the gun on herself. McNair, however, was married and had four children. I feel terrible for them.

What horrible news. Pray for his family:

Former NFL quarterback Steve McNair has been shot and killed. He was 36.

Nashville police spokesman Don Aaron confirmed that police were called to a residence and found McNair and a woman shot to death inside. Aaron said authorities don't yet know the circumstances of the shooting.

"I don't have any answers for you now as to what's happened, who's responsible," he said.

Aaron said police have tentatively identified the woman but did not release her name.

Titans owner Bud Adams also confirmed the quarterback's death in a brief statement released Saturday.

Adams called him "one of the finest players to play for our organization and one of the most beloved players by our fans. He played with unquestioned heart and leadership and led us to places that we had never reached, including our only Super Bowl."

McNair played 11 seasons in the NFL with the Tennessee Titans franchise and then spent two seasons with the Baltimore Ravens.

He was a three-time Pro Bowler and was the Co-AP NFL MVP in 2003.

He just embarked upon a new career as a restaurateur:

Steve McNair never really planned on owning a restaurant after his professional football career, even though he's known within his family as a pretty good cook.

But he's got one open now -- called Steve McNair's Gridiron9 -- on Jefferson Street near Tennessee State University. McNair said his place is at that location for a reason.

"I always wanted to retire and teach kids about life, and I'm still doing that with my camps,'' McNair said. "This is something that I can still give back to the community. A lot of college students don't have the funds to go to (upscale) restaurants, but we can still offer them good food, healthy food they can afford.''

The restaurant has a bit of a college, come-as-you-are type feel to it, not big, but relaxed.

"We want to know (customers), their name, what they eat and drink,'' McNair said. "If I'm in town, I'll be here every day.''

McNair plans to open additional Gridiron9 locations. He'll first look to expand at other areas in and around Nashville and then, perhaps, in McNair's home state of Mississippi.

Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Breaking News

Sarah Palin's announcement that she's not running for reelection for governor in 2010 and will step down and hand the reins to Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell on July 26th was a shock to everyone. Of course, everyone is speculating why. The Anchoress wondered if she or someone in her family is sick and she mentioned how thin she has become lately. Others are wondering if she is positioning herself for a 2012 run. Those who tend to see the world through a bit more cynical colored glasses are speculating that there's another scandalous shoe to drop. I have to admit, being a Sarah Palin fan, I want to see the positive in her decision.

Being a mom, I have found myself furious after hearing about all the disgusting accusations Palin's opponents have made about her family. I just don't get the hatred that flows in some people's veins. I would not blame her one iota if she decided to say "screw it" and leave politics in order to protect her kids. But I don't think that's it. She also mentioned in her announcement today that it's become nearly impossible for her to even do her job as governor with all the frivolous ethical complaints her political opponents in Alaska keep throwing at her. Her brother in a phone call to Fox News said she told him she and her staff spend 80% of their time dealing with them. But I don't think this is the primary reason, either.

If you take her at her word, and with her I am willing to, I think she sees a greater opportunity to advance the conservative cause outside the governor's office. This will allow her to campaign for conservative candidates and give speeches at conservative events.

A post at the Huffington Post offers an explanation from the head of the Republican Governor's Association Nick Ayers:

"I don't think this is buckling to pressure," said Ayers. "I think this is her coming to the realization that the legislature in Alaska and that some bloggers and activists in Alaska are going to do everything they can to stymie her progress. This is a governor who didn't run for the office because she wanted a title. She wanted to make significant change in the state. She realized that that was no longer going to be able to happen, because things had become so partisan there."

Let me speak to that for a minute.

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I've been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations - such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters' questions.

Every one - all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We've won! But it hasn't been cheap - the State has wasted thousands of hours of your time and shelled out some two million of your dollars to respond to "opposition research" - that's money not going to fund teachers or troopers - or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the "politics of personal destruction" ... Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn't cost them a dime so they're not going to stop draining public resources - spending other peoples' money in their game.

It's pretty insane - my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with this instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more "politics as usual," but this isn't what anyone had in mind for Alaska.

If I have learned one thing: life is about choices!

And one chooses how to react to circumstances. You can choose to engage in things that tear down, or build up. I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and productivity. I choose not to tear down and waste precious time; but to build up this state and our country, and her industrious, generous, patriotic, free people!

Life is too short to compromise time and resources... it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: "Sit down and shut up", but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and "go with the flow".

Nah, only dead fish "go with the flow".

No. Productive, fulfilled people determine where to put their efforts, choosing to wisely utilize precious time... to BUILD UP.

And there is such a need to BUILD up and FIGHT for our state and our country. I choose to FIGHT for it! And I'll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and LIFE... I'll work for and campaign for those PROUD to be American, and those who are INSPIRED by our ideals and won't deride them.

I WILL support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don't care what party they're in or no party at all. Inside Alaska - or Outside Alaska.

But I won't do it from the Governor's desk.

Thomas Lifson has more at the American Thinker.

Bruce Kessler writing at Maggie's Farm says today is Sarah Palin's Independence Day.

Permalink | Comments (52) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Politics, Sarah Palin

As Americans prepare to celebrate the 4th of July it's worth asking, are you better off than you were two years ago when Democrats took over Congress? Are you better off than you were six months ago? If not, then consider what you have to look forward to for the next couple of years.

The Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration promised a peak unemployment of 8% if the stimulus legislation was passed. Now that that unemployment has blown through 9.4% in less than five months after its passage voters should think hard about some other unemployment data that paints a much more depressing picture of the U S economy. Those Americans that are employed are working on average 33 hours per week. As the Wall Street Journal notes, that's the lowest level in 40 years:

Average hours worked per week dropped to 33, the lowest level in at least 40 years. This means that millions of full-time workers are being downgraded to part-time, as businesses slash labor costs to remain above water. Because people are working less, wages have fallen by 0.3% this year. Factories are operating at only 65% capacity, while the overall jobless rate hit 9.5%. Throw in discouraged workers who want full-time work, and the labor underutilization rate climbed to 16.5%.

So what does Congress have on deck to address this underemployment and unemployment? A minimum wage hike from $6.55 an hour to $7.25 an hour. As real wages in the private sector are falling the government is mandating higher wages to accomplish what? Higher employment? Hardly. An increase in the minimum wage will exacerbate the already contracting market for jobs as employers continue to squeeze out cost savings in a shrinking economy.

Asked about the surprise surge in unemployment Thursday, President Obama had this to say:

"If we're weatherizing every building and home in America, if we are creating windmills and solar panels and biofuel facilities, that is a huge promising area not only for jobs here in the United States, but also for export growth."

That answer is on par with his "tune up" advice for car drivers last year when gas prices spiked. Has there ever been a more disengaged, clueless Executive on the matter of economic and fiscal policy? The answer is no because this president has set himself apart from the rest by advocating a massive energy usage tax (Cap and Trade),a massive health care tax, increased taxes on small business, and mandatory wage hikes on small business.....all in the first six months of office, all in the midst of the worst recession in forty years.

As the Journal editors correctly note, "a sustained expansion and job creation must come from private investment and risk-taking". There is nothing in President Obama's policy that encourages risk taking. In fact, there is much about the President's policy that encourages risk avoidance and tax avoidance, both of which behaviors are anathema to private sector growth. Democrats in control of both Congress and the Presidency offer little real hope and change for the unemployed. In light of the legislative milestones of the past six months Republicans need to exploit the gift their opponents are serving up to them: every unemployed and underemployed person is a swing vote worth fighting for.

Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Economics
Tags: Minimum Wage Hike, Obama Tax Increases, Unemployment

The Politico reports Governor Palin will make an announcement from her home in Wasilla, which some are speculating means that she will announce she won't run for reelection as governor. Who knows. Maybe the hateful, bigoted, and just plain insane accusations (Sullivan still insists Trig is not her baby) made about her and her family may have just become too much. I hope that's not the case because it would mean that the haters can succeed in driving out those they fear from public office.

Update: Mark Halperin offers 10 reasons why Governor Palin won't run for reelection as governor.

Here are some predictions from friends on Twitter:

The Anchoress thinks Palin will announce she is ill and won't run for reelection. She makes this prediction based upon the fact she has become quite thin lately.

Jim Geraghty says his wife thinks Palin will announce she and Todd are expecting again.

Update II: CNN reports that according to GOP sources Palin won't run for reelection. \

Update III: Palin says she can better affect positive change for Alaska and the country from outside the governor's office. In the video of her speech announcing she would not run for reelection she referenced all she did to help Alaska's energy production, but she also said she and her staff spent too much time and public money to fight the frivolous ethics complaints. It cost the state $2 million and her family $500,000 to as she said "set the record straight."

My gut tells me she will not run for president in 2012.

Update IV: Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC says sources tell her Palin is out of politics for good:

Some have speculated in the past that Palin may be interested in running for president in 2012, but she did not mention running for another office at her press conference. Sources told NBC's Andrea Mitchell that Palin is out of politics for good.

Update V: The Anchoress is sticking by her prediction that there's something else going on that she wants to keep secret, like maybe she or one of her kids is ill and has no interest in giving the leftist haters something else to rip apart with their fangs.

Update VI: Jim Geraghty touches on what has me upset and that is how Palin's kids were treated by sickos like Andrew Sullivan, David Letterman and others on the left who said such evil, nasty things that I have begun to accept that they have no souls but are the human equivalent of Orcs:

The lesson that the ruthless corners of the political world will take from the rise, fall, and departure of Sarah Palin that if you attack a politician's children nastily enough and relentlessly enough, you can get anybody to quit.

Permalink | Comments (89) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: News, Sarah Palin

I discuss in my AIP column today how in the 233 years since we told the king of England that we were going to make our own course the independent and self reliant streak of our Founding Fathers is no longer recognizable in so many Americans today. Here's a portion:

Since government interference into Americans' daily lives was kept to a minimum, independence and self reliance were principles that were valued not just because they were good character traits but because they were necessary for everyday life. These values, though, had been ingrained into the people who created and built our fledgling Republic, for they were the descendants of the brave men and women who sailed, cramped in wooden ships for months, from Britain to the New World to build the colonies. The new Americans had been handed down a hardiness and strong will to not just survive, but to thrive, which made them a bit different from their family members and friends who remained in the more established and comfortable world of Britain. They surmounted illnesses and bitterly cold winters without any of what we take for granted today. There were no government programs like welfare or food stamps or Medicare. There were no Wal-Marts or Costcos. Many people were farmers so they grew their own fruits and vegetables and raised cattle, dairy cows, and pigs to eat. They kept what they needed for themselves and then sold the rest to others in their communities. Many were skilled tradesman like carpenters, blacksmiths, shoemakers, tailors, gunsmiths, and wheelwrights. Rugged individualism and an independent spirit ran strong through the early Americans. Government interference was minimal so independence and freedom flourished.

It is a bit unnerving that 233 years later Americans will celebrate Independence Day with many of its citizens dependent on the government for their income or some kind of significant assistance. Sadly, much of the rugged individualism and independent spirit that were the foundation of our Republic have been slowly dying. According to a study by Gary Shilling and reported in the Christian Science Monitor, in 2007, only two years ago, 52.6 percent of the American people were receiving significant income from government spending. It breaks down this way:

Mr. Shilling's analysis found that about 1 in 5 Americans hold a government job or a job reliant on federal spending. A similar number receive Social Security or a government pension. About 19 million others get food stamps, 2 million get subsidized housing, and 5 million get education grants. For all these categories, Mr. Shilling counted dependents as well as the direct recipients of government income.

With the passage of President Obama's stimulus bill that funds Democrats' dream projects, the mortgage relief plan that bails out homeowners who were irresponsible and bought too much house, the president's budget that expands welfare spending, grows government, and included over 9000 earmarks, the government takeovers of Chrysler and General Motors, Obama's proposed health care reform plan that will make millions dependent on government-run health care, and a potential cap and trade plan that will create a monstrous new government bureaucracy, this statistic will only continue to sky rocket. Unfortunately, when government grows, freedom, self-reliance, and independence shrink more and more as new regulations and laws are enacted to limit and control the behavior of the individual.

Sadly, the character traits that separated us from the rest of the world don't seem to be in existence in the majority of Americans anymore. It's a sad day when the President of the United States essentially tells us that we really aren't any more special than any other citizenry in the world, so we can let go of our history, our self-reliance, our independence - the great American experiment - and just conform to the rest of the world, which is heavily dependent upon their big brother governments.

Read all of my column and tell me what you think. Am I off base here? Brian Faughan also has a column today and he believes that conservatisim, which embraces the independence and self-reliance of our Fore Fathers, is on a comeback while progressivism is waning. TJ Brown writes about the Five Stages of Political Decline.

Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Big government

It's Friday, which means it's time for the Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™. In honor of our newest U.S. Senator we dusted off this Wizbang exclusive photo from our archives... Enter your best caption for the following picture:

Winners will be announced Monday morning.

Update: Winners announced. Click the link to read the winning entries. The contest is now closed.

Permalink | Comments (75) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Weekend Caption Contest

I have become an avid admirer of our "Founding Fathers". The early history of our young country, the Revolution itself, and the people who gave their lives to its outcome, are a wellspring of unending inspiration to me.

It is within these parameters that I say, with no joy and an unfortunate sense of hopelessness, that there are no true patriots anymore. At least not in the classical American sense of the word.

Sure, there are heroes on a daily basis. Members of our military, especially. Men and women who do extraordinary things. We should be thankful for their sacrifice. But none, with particular emphasis in the realm of politics, which provoke a sense of awe and personal admiration for their levels of insight, or for their personal determination to use their given talents for the betterment of their fellow citizens and their country.

The time we are in sickens me. Our representatives possess no qualities redeemable or virtuous. Politicians of our time have deviated from the path of righteousness. A path which their early predecessors left as a legacy for them to follow. One passed down from those who held a personal sense of philosophical integrity, and a deep belief in civic duty. I speak of those which once gave their very lives in pursuit of liberty, who were consumed with notions of goodwill, tempered with boundless wisdom and enthusiasm for the formation of a government worthy of a free people, exempt from fear and oppression.

These visionaries are gone. They are memories from an important past long since vanished, found only within the writings of history books, biographies, or marble statues. They are emulated by no one. The stark realities reveal today's politicians to be nothing more than deceitful, deviant creatures. Men and women in pursuit of corruptible power. In this quest of selfish purpose, they leave in their wake a path of hopeless ruination, using fear to promote a subversive agenda, spitting on the very cause for which greater men gave their all.

Yes, there are some very intelligent, insightful people in positions of political power. Most end up as uninspired policy wonks: Continually attempting to figure out how to beat the other at that which has become nothing more than a game of dull political wit and petty brinkmanship.

This is not to say that the men and women of our country's founding had reputations beyond reproach. To the contrary, they were every bit as flawed with emotions and human frailty as are we, as is the nature of human existence. However, even their flaws, more often than not, would manifest themselves into actions which contributed to the good of their intentions, whether or not by design.

Gone are the likes of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin. Men who possessed uncanny education, vision and miraculous foresight. Whose belief in freedom from tyranny and oppression led them to set in motion a revolution of ideals unmatched in the history of the world. Men who, refusing to be burdened with the heavy yoke of oppression, fervently set themselves upon a path of choosing their own grand system of government, one to be led by the governed themselves. One which was to become the envy of the world. One for themselves, their children, and generations of countrymen and women they would never know. One for us.

The confluence of events which led to the involvement of these specific individuals at that precise moment in time, with each member possessing their own unique talents and genius, contributing to the whole, is an act which I am more convinced each day was set in motion from a divine providence. Men, many times with the unheralded strength of their wives at their backs, who, against unimaginable odds and a fragile populace, changed the world with the sheer will of their hearts and minds. Men, whose courage and conviction, made possible their political and philosophical creations, which have withstood the test of time and the attacks of much lesser men.

Though we are still blessed to be born in the greatest country ever to have graced the earth, it is sadly much diminished, diminished by fear and lies: Its possibility, promise, and distinction held back by people who are unworthy of its creators. People who think their ambitions are dearer than the whole, who value style over substance, who offer up "bread and circus" other than bold and caring creations from their god-given souls.

"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it."

- John Adams

Let us pray his words ring prophetic, still.

Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Democracy, History, Patriotism

On Wednesday of this week, President Obama held a "town hall" meeting before an audience of about 200 people at Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale. The focus of the meeting was health care reform, and the photo-op moment came when the President hugged 53 year old Debby Smith, after she tearfully described how difficult it has been for her to get treatment for a recently-discovered tumor.

All in all, it was yet another Obama White House stage production, complete with pre-screened questions and an audience hand-picked from groups generally considered to be supportive of the President's political agenda.

From The Washington Post.

The president called randomly on three audience members. All turned out to be members of groups with close ties to his administration: the Service Employees International Union, Health Care for America Now, and Organizing for America, which is a part of the Democratic National Committee. White House officials said that was a coincidence.

Uh-huh. Funny how often those "coincidences" seem to happen at Democrat-orchestrated events, isn't it?

___________________________________

And speaking of The Washington Post, The Politico learned yesterday that the Post had planned an exclusive "salon" meeting at the home of the newspaper's publisher, Katharine Weymouth, for lobbyists and association executives interested in meeting face-to-face with "those powerful few" who oil the wheels of the DC bureaucracy, including Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the Post's own "health care reporting and editorial staff." The price? A mere $25,000 to $250,000 "sponsorship" of the event.

Weymouth said the paper had planned a series of dinners with participation from the newsroom "but with parameters such that we did not in any way compromise our integrity. Sponsorship of events, like advertising in the newspaper, must be at arm's length and cannot imply control over the content or access to our journalists. At this juncture, we will not be holding the planned July dinner and we will not hold salon dinners involving the newsroom. "

She made it clear however, that The Post, which lost $19.5 million in the first quarter, sees bringing together Washington figures as a future revenue source. "We do believe that there is a viable way to expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do - cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington," she said. " And we will begin to do live events in ways that enhance our reputation and in no way call into question our integrity."

After serving as today's laughingstock for bloggers, Twitterers, and other newspapers, the Post finally announced that the upcoming salon dinner would be canceled.

Oh well ... at least JournoList is still free, and still running.

Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Media
Tags: health care reform, town hall meeting, Washington Post

Last week, during Senate hearings on the proposed Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions offered the following hypothetical scenario to Attorney General Eric Holder: "[A] minister gives a sermon, quotes the Bible about homosexuality, is thereafter attacked by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what Scripture says about homosexuality." Sessions then wanted to know if the minister would be protected under the new proposed hate crimes legislation, because he was attacked specifically because of his religious views. AG Holder responded:

Well, the statute would not -- would not necessarily cover that. We're talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends -- is designed to cover. We don't have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person's desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute.

Later in the hearing, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn asked AG Holder about last month's attack on a US Army recruiting office in Little Rock by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a radical Muslim, that left Pvt. William Long dead and Private Quinton Ezeagwula seriously wounded. The recruiting office and soldiers were targeted simply because they represented the US military. Again, Holder responded:

There's a certain element of hate, I suppose. What we're looking for here in terms of the expansion of the statute are instances where there is a historic basis to see groups of people who are singled out for violence perpetrated against them because of who they are. I don't know if we have the same historical record to say that members of our military have been targeted in the same way that people who are African-American, Hispanic, people who are Jewish, people who are gay, have been targeted over -- over the many years.

Thank you, AG Holder, for clearing up the real purpose behind "hate crime" laws -- they are designed only to protect "historic" minorities, i.e. non-whites, homosexuals, and non-Christians. If you are white, or associated with a belief system akin to Christianity, and you are singled out as the target of a criminal act solely because of the color of your skin or your religious beliefs, you have no additional recourse against the perpetrators of the crime under the proposed law.

For example, Mormons living in California who have been the targets of various criminal acts committed by gay extremists including vandalism, extortion, and verbal and physical attacks would not be victims of "hate crimes" per se, even though they were targeted by gay extremists solely because of their affiliation with the Mormon church.

In an excellent opinion piece discussing the recent tiff between "Perez Hilton" (Mario Lavandeira) and Will.I.Am, the black frontman of the Black Eyed Peas, Andrew Breitbart made the following observation:

The calculus of political correctness is like roshambo, the "rock-paper-scissors" game. Different identity groups hold specific levels of power over others when their battles play out in the media. To wit: Black beats white. Gay beats white. Black beats gay.

Don't ask why. It just is.

Of course conservatives have understood this for some time now, and we have delighted in insulting the legions of perpetually morally superior liberals bydaring to ask why on a regular basis. Seriously though, this is the fundamental reason why conservatives have always opposed hate crimes laws -- we believe that it would be a travesty for our legal system to prostrate itself before a fleeting and shallow fad like political correctness. And we are always thankful when liberals finally admit the shallowness behind their line of reasoning.

(For the record, a 2004 ABC News investigation found little evidence of an anti-gay "hate crime" in the death of Matthew Shepard. Instead, they found that the likely cause of Shepard's death was the drug-induced rage of the primary perpetrator, Aaron McKinney, who went on to assault and rob yet another victim on the same night, after Shepard had been already beaten and left to die.)

h/t Rush Limbaugh

Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Law
Tags: Eric Holder, Jeff Sessions, Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, Tom Coburn

Members of Congress just love to use the American taxpayers as their own personal ATM. They can go to the bank and money they never earned is magically there. Overseas trips by congressman and senators have gone way up the past few years, especially since the Democrats took over control of Congress in 2006. The Wall Street Journal explains:

Spending by lawmakers on taxpayer-financed trips abroad has risen sharply in recent years, a Wall Street Journal analysis of travel records shows, involving everything from war-zone visits to trips to exotic spots such as the Galápagos Islands.

The spending on overseas travel is up almost tenfold since 1995, and has nearly tripled since 2001, according to the Journal analysis of 60,000 travel records. Hundreds of lawmakers traveled overseas in 2008 at a cost of about $13 million. That's a 50% jump since Democrats took control of Congress two years ago.

The cost of so-called congressional delegations, known among lawmakers as "codels," has risen nearly 70% since 2005, when an influence-peddling scandal led to a ban on travel funded by lobbyists, according to the data.

Politicians are arguing that it's a good use of the money because they get to learn about the world. What a scam. They could learn about the world just as well and save us a lot of money by doing a Google search. That's what the rest of us do when we want to learn about an exotic land far away.

I'm sure there are many parents who would love to send their high schoolers and college age kids overseas to learn about the world, too, but unlike the congressmen and senators, they would have to pay for it themselves and most parents don't have that kind of cash lying around, especially in an economy like we have now.

And these same politicians couldn't get their mugs on television fast enough to express their "outrage" that business executives used private jets for travel.

Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Congress

It appears that the question of whether the federal government is going to bail out the state of California has been rendered moot. Two large banks have announced that they will accept the IOU's issued from the State of California to its customers beginning today. Wells Fargo announced this afternoon that the bank would be accepting the monopoly money for a period of one week.

Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE:WFC) said today it will accept registered warrants issued by the State of California from its retail and business customers for a limited time. It will begin accepting the registered warrants for deposit on July 2, 2009 and stop accepting them no later than July 10, 2009.

Chase also made a similar announcement:

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Chase, the banking unit of J.P. Morgan Chase , said Thursday it will accept registered warrants issued by the state of California through July 10. "We will accept the registered warrants from our customers to help them through this challenging time," said Pablo Sanchez, head of Chase's branches in the Western region.

Now that the camel has its nose under the tent who thinks this scheme will be just temporary? The fact that the banks mentioned are TARP banks, beholden to Washington for their very existence, suggests that the U S taxpayer bailout of California has begun.

Update: According to Seeking Alpha, it's looking a lot more like currency:

Watch out Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve now has competition in the currency game. California is planning to create its own money in the form of IOUs, just like the Fed. What is the California IOU - currency or an interest bearing note?

Officially the IUOs will be called "registered warrants". State Controller John Chiang planned to issue $3.4 billion, maturing on Oct. 1 to replace state payments. The interest rate is set to be determined on Thursday, but cannot exceed the statutory limit of 5%.

California's ingenuity poses an interesting dilemma for the Fed. The IOUs would be structured as short-term tax-free bills, but trade like cash. Banks are being asked to accept the IOUs and advance customers interest. Should the Fed sanction alternate forms of money?

This is all very surreal.

Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Politics
Tags: California Bailout, California IOU's, TARP

I speculated recently that the worm may be turning as it relates to the Obama administration's political capital. The near Teflon like protection that a fawning press afforded him is being overwhelmed by events that have no regard for lofty rhetoric, such as job losses:

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. economy shed jobs at a faster pace in June than in May, suggesting that the turnaround in the economy may take longer than expected.

Nonfarm payrolls shrank by 467,000 in June, higher than the 325,000 decline expected by economists surveyed by MarketWatch and the 322,000 jobs lost in May.

The unemployment rate ticked higher to 9.5% in June from 9.4% in the previous month. Economists had expected the unemployment rate to rise to 9.6%.

There was only a very slight 8,000-downward revision to payroll losses in April and May.
Since the recession began in December 2007, payroll employment has dropped by 6.5 million.

Construction, manufacturing and professional and business services reported heavy job losses in June. Construction payrolls fell by 79,000, factory payrolls fell by 136,000, and professional and business employment fell by 118,000.

Democrats are already talking about a second stimulus package. That's just brilliant. How did that first stimulus package work out for you? And don't forget that under the Bush administration in 2008 a stimulus package was approved. That one didn't work very well either.

Those unemployment numbers released today contain some chilling results. For example, note the business and professional job losses. While Democrats love to play class warfare and belittle the misfortune of the rich, they refuse to acknowledge that those professionals are the highest wage earners. Except that they aren't earning wages now, hence no tax receipts. Get your erasers out and prepare to recalculate the Obama deficit.

Update: Check out this chart

Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Economics
Tags: Deficits, Stimulus, Unemployment

Another day, another Obama infomercial.

President Barack Obama held a townhall style meeting today, one in which the audience was "hand-picked" by White House staffers.

It was conveniently "moderated" by White House domestic policy chief Valerie Jarrett.

Questioners included members from, gag, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) and the group Health Care For America Now.

The other questions from the audience were also hand-picked by Obama's casting crew, er, I mean, staff.

At one point, Obama just happened to pick a woman, named Debbie Smith, who, by pure coincidence, is a volunteer for Obama's "Organizing For America" group. She received tickets through the White House staff. Debbie proceeded to give a tear-jerker of a speech concerning her kidney cancer and how she cannot get health insurance, nor a job.

Obama, in an "I feel your pain" moment, hugged her, and told her she would receive help immediately. (Hallelujah! Can I git an "Amen"?!)

Just another example of honesty taking a back seat to Obama's agenda.

Permalink | Comments (80) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Barack Obama, Health Care, Scams