The Atlantic Pushes the "Irrelevant" Meme in Wake of "No Invite" Newsweek Story

The left has spent years trying to convince Americans that Governor Palin is "irrelevant." The fact that they are still claiming the same garbage in the year 2012, proves how ridiculous the claim is and has always been.

Today, The Atlantic used the revelation that Governor Palin has not been invited to the Republican National Convention to rehash this old, laughable attack-line. The article they published to "prove" their case is titled, "Sarah Palin's Incredible Shrinking Act Is Almost Complete." Oh, how they wish it were so...

The piece began:

Last December, after Sarah Palin announced in October she wouldn't run for president, we started to notice she was shrinking. Now, four months ahead of the election, she seems smaller than ever. The latest sign of her diminished political significance is that Palin hasn't even been invited to the Republican National Convention by Mitt Romney, Newsweek's Peter Boyer reports. But it doesn't appear that it's because she's too busy with other things.

The writer of this piece, Elspeth Reeve, seems to have missed some key parts of Peter Boyer's piece. Such as the history of Palin-bashing from the Mitt Romney camp, the tenuous relationship between Romney and grassroots base voters, and this key paragraph towards the end of the Newsweek article that stated:

Palin’s admirers—and they are many, judging by Facebook and Twitter metrics, where her numbers are far greater than Romney’s—still hope for a rapprochement. “Palin is the female Ronald Reagan of our time,” says Kremer of the Tea Party Express. “There’s no one that excites the base, and energizes the base, the way that Sarah Palin does. There’s just not.”

None of that information fits the absurd narrative that The Atlantic is trying to sell to their readers by cherry-picking the pieces of Boyer's article that they wanted to spin. Reeve continues:

The chief of staff for her SarahPAC quit, ABC News' Shushannah Walshe reports, because he didn't have enough to do. Palin hasn't totally endorsed Romney and she hasn't done any campaign events for him, and the worst part is, hardly anyone's noticed.

This person obviously hasn't discovered the joy of breaking ideas into separate paragraphs, but I digress...

First of all, Governor Palin hired Michael Glassner while she was still considering running for office. After she made her decision, I'm sure she down-sized her payroll a bit. Why wouldn't she? And what does the size of her staff have to with the relevancy of her message? The answer is that it doesn't because people are still very much drawn to Governor Palin, and what she stands for.

Just ask anyone who has seen her speak in person, within the last few months. Or ask one of the 1,500 people who gathered in 100 degree heat to see her speak in Michigan last weekend. Governor Palin is still very much a movement leader with "rock star" popularity, and the lefties can't stand it.

The piece continues:

Palin's headlines have all announced a steady decline, even when we couldn't tell that's what was happening.

Yes, Reeve now offers up "even when we couldn't tell" as evidence that Governor Palin's headlines have "announced a steady decline." Pure rubbish, on a day that saw hundreds of "Palin" headlines, most of which found a way to trash her for getting snubbed (thus far) by her own party.

Next, Reeve dives into a long string of sentences with no time-lines attached, or context added about some of Governor Palin's staff changes, and employees who have protected Twitter accounts. The sad thing is that The Atlantic's left-wing audience is willing to accept a protected Twitter account as proof that she's finally irrelevant. It's pathetic and it's reaching.

Governor Palin didn't get passed over by Mitt Romney and the RNC because she's losing her influence, quite the contrary. If Governor Palin did attend the Republican Convention, and delivered a prime-time address, she would outshine their candidate a hundred times over. She didn't mean to upstage John McCain in 2008, but she did, just by being herself. There is no doubt that Romney's advisers aren't aware of that. It's nothing more than a left-wing pipe dream to think she wasn't invited because she's losing her stature.

The bottom-line is that she wasn't invited to the GOP Convention because their 2012 nominee hasn't extended an invitation. It fits the way Mitt Romney has treated Governor Palin, ever since his staff started publicly trashing her before the 2008 election. It also fits the way the GOP establishment treats outsiders and reformers.

I hope The Atlantic is proud that they did their part to assist the good ole boys in the GOP establishment cover their backsides, with this scatterbrained hit-piece.

Romney Lacks Credibility to Attack Crony Capitalism

At Thursday night's GOP presidential debate in South Carolina, Mitt Romney rightly attacked Barack Obama on the issue of crony capitalism. As noted by NBC's Mark Murray:

And Romney adopts the Palin/Perry "crony capitalism" line against Obama, and dings president on Keystone

Good for him!

Unfortunately, Romney's history shows that he lacks the credibility to make this a real issue during the general election. While serving as the Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney handed over $4.5 million in state government money to cronies of his very own, for companies that failed. Via the Boston Herald (emphasis):

GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has hammered President Obama for his administration’s tax-funded investment blunders — but when Romney was governor, the state handed out $4.5 million in loans to two firms run by his campaign donors that have since defaulted, leaving taxpayers holding the bag.

The two companies — Acusphere and Spherics Inc. — stiffed the state on nearly $2.1 million in loans provided through the state’s Emerging Technology Fund, a $25 million investment program created while Romney was governor in 2003 that benefited 13 local firms.

Acusphere, a biotechnology firm headed by a Romney campaign donor, got $2 million in 2004 that it was supposed to put toward a $20 million manufacturing facility in Tewksbury, which never became fully operational. Calls to Acusphere’s headquarters in Lexington were not returned...

Spherics Inc., meanwhile, was lured from Rhode Island to Mans–field with much fanfare from the Romney administration, partly through a $2 million loan in 2005. By 2008, the company laid off all employees and completely shut down. The state received about $300,000 when the company liquidated its assets, but the firm defaulted on more than $1.5 million of the state loan, Abbruzzese said.

Together, the two companies’ investors and executives donated more than $7,000 to Romney’s past campaigns.

The hypocrisy didn't go unnoticed by a pro-Obama Super PAC called "American Bridge." NBC's Domenico Montanaro reports:

Democratic-aligned Super PACs are going after Mitt Romney on what they depict as essentially his own Solyndra, a further sign that Democrats see the writing on the wall and that they believe Romney will be President Obama's opponent this fall.

A video produced by American Bridge, called “Romney’s energy loan hypocrisy,” hits Romney for loans made while he was governor of Massachusetts to two companies that eventually failed or moved away – and had ties to Romney campaign donors.

They certainly didn't do a very good job of exonerating Obama, but I digress.

Couple this information with what we already know about Romney's inclination to grow and link government with certain businesses. As Timothy Carney wrote in the Washington Examiner last May:

Examine Romney's dalliances with big government that have caused him such grief, and you'll see a trend: They all are described as "pro-business," they all amount to corporate welfare, and they all reflect the technocratic mind-set you'd expect of a business consultant. Romney's record and rhetoric show how managerialism veers away from the free market and into corporatism.

Begin with health care. Romney last week defended his Obamacare prototype in Massachusetts by pointing to the findings of a think tank that was "funded by business." In a similar vein, the Boston Globe attacked Romneycare's critics in an April editorial: "if they weren't hyperventilating about the national law, they might come to recognize that the role Romney played on the state level was skillful, creative, and business-friendly."

Yes, the legislation was business-friendly -- in a big-government way: It required individuals to buy health insurance, and it provided taxpayer subsidies for health insurance, helping insurers and employers at the expense of taxpayers and patients...

Romney didn't compete for business through lower taxes and regulation: He tried to entice them to the state with special subsidies. In 2005, Romney lured Spherics, a pharmaceutical company, away from Rhode Island by offering a $2.5 million direct loan from the state's "Emerging Technology Fund." That same year, he signed a bill creating the Massachusetts Film Office that was empowered to hand out special tax credits to studios filming movies in the Bay State.

Romney's corporatism isn't limited to the state level. In his 2010 book "No Apology," he lays out a national energy plan including more federal funding for energy research and supporting subsidies for "infant industries." He has supported that favorite of Iowa caucus-voters, ethanol subsidies.

On one hand, it's great that Romney is going after Obama for his crony dealings, failed energy policies, and kowtowing to special interests. On the other, how is he going to make the case against Obama during a general election when the president's supporters (as they already have done) can point right back at Romney and invoke rule #4 in Alinsky's book? Mitt Romney needs to ensure the country that he will not partake in crony capitalism on a national level, if he is elected as the GOP nominee. For now, his record indicates that he lacks the credibility to do so.

Imploring Mitt Romney to Release His Records

Last week, Governor Palin urged Mitt Romney to be release his tax records and back up his "job creation" claims.

Via BigGovernment:

“Governor Romney has claimed to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain, and people are wanting to know: is there proof?” Palin told Sean Hannity on Fox News.

Rick Tyler, former Gingrich aide and head of Newt Gingrich’s Super PAC, has already accused Romney of having created those 100,000 jobs in Asia and Mexico. Earlier this week, Big Government pointed out that Romney’s claim to have created 100,000 jobs contrasts with claims he made during his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, when he claimed to have created 10,000 jobs at Bain. Romney retired from Bain Capital in 1999.

Palin said that Romney needed to come clean about his record, given the likelihood that Democrats would probe the tax issue and Romney’s tenure at Bain if he were to become the Republican nominee.

While being interviewed again last Saturday, Governor Palin restated why she believes Mitt Romney needs to be more transparent about his record:

"Let's talk about job creation claims by a candidate and get to the bottom of it. And the candidate who is being accused of maybe not creating all of the jobs that they have claimed, well he can capitalize on it and he can explain what his record is."

Governor Palin is absolutely correct. Mitt Romney can use the opportunity of people calling on him to release his records to make his case. By releasing his tax records, the data he used to come up with the number of jobs he "created" at Bain Capital, and even the names of his bundlers, he can "inoculate" himself for what is sure to come.

As the front-runner in this GOP primary cycle, the left is presently storing up ammunition to use against Mitt Romney come general election season. They are fully aware that Romney has yet to release these very important documents. Without them, the left is free to assume any reason they want as to why he hasn't.

As Eleanor Clift did over the weekend, via Newsbusters:

ELEANOR CLIFT, NEWSWEEK: Romney’s refusal so far to release his income tax returns will be linked to probable investments in the Cayman Islands and the likelihood that he paid a very small percentage of his income in taxes.

I'm not here to debate the use of offshore accounts. I personally feel that taxes should remain low on principle, but it is a line of attack that Democrats will use to vilify Romney in the general. Another line of attack will be Romney's refusal to release information pertaining to his bundlers. This can been seen in a Washington Post editorial titled "Why won’t Romney release his tax returns?" from January 11th:

Tax returns offer information not available on the financial disclosure forms that are legally required of candidates, including their charitable deductions and use of tax shelters. Tax information could be especially revealing in the case of Mr. Romney and his extensive investment income, which may be why he has been reluctant to release it. During his 1994 Senate race, Mr. Romney called on Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D) to release his tax returns and show he had “nothing to hide.”Neither candidate released his tax information. Such secrecy will not stand for a presidential nominee.

The identity of a candidate’s bundlers is similarly important. Campaign finance laws limit individual contributions to a candidate to $2,500 per election ($5,000 if you include the primary and general election campaigns), but bundlers haul in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by tapping extensive donor networks. Knowing to whom and for how much candidates are indebted is essential information, of which candidates and their advisers are exquisitely aware. Yet under current law the only bundlers whose identities candidates must disclose are registered lobbyists. That information is useful but insufficient: A CEO who bundles $500,000 for a candidate can have as much influence as the company’s Washington lobbyist. Why should this knowledge be kept from voters?

The New York Times agrees:

It is not too much to ask someone seeking the nation’s highest office to sacrifice some personal privacy to reassure voters that they have no hidden entanglements.

And this is not the only place where secrecy has been a problem. Unlike Mr. Obama or John McCain, or George W. Bush in earlier contests, this year’s presidential hopefuls have refused to identify the “bundlers” who reel in many hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions for their campaigns, disclosing only those bundlers who are registered lobbyists, as the law requires.

Only Mitt Romney's campaign can save itself (and possibly the GOP as a whole) a lot of future headaches by releasing the information in question. If they continue to stone-wall, the left and their friends in the media can imply anything they want the general public to believe, as to why Romney is being so secretive.

I implore Mitt Romney's campaign to release Romney's tax records, his jobs numbers claim, and the information about his bundlers, in a day in age when crony capitalism and insider trading rules Washington DC at the expense of the nation.

You can do the same by emailing the Romney campaign at: info@mittromney.com

Via snail mail at:

Mitt Romney for President
P.O. Box 149756
Boston, MA 02114-9756

Or by phone at: 857-288-3500

Leading Without a Title

Twenty-three days after Governor Palin posted a statement to Facebook calling for Eric Holder to be fired in the wake of the "Fast and Furious" scandal, Mitt Romney took the bold step of echoing her call. Just as Rick Perry (using much of her language) did almost two weeks after her statement, Romney said, via The Blaze:

“Either Mr. Holder himself should resign, or the president should ask for his resignation or remove him... It’s unacceptable for him to continue in that position given the fact that he has misled Congress and entirely botched the investigation of the Fast and Furious program.”

This cycle's GOP presidential candidates have a history of echoing Governor Palin, while very few (okay maybe only one of them) actually attributing her as their source.

Back in September, I wrote a piece after a republican debate about this occurrence. I showed examples of Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann taking on crony capitalism, and Rick Perry adopting the governor's language to push for Social Security reform.

During an interview with Greta Van Susteren, Governor Palin remarked:

“I’m getting kind of a kick out of … getting out there, giving a speech, making some statements about things that must be discussed and then the very next day watching some of the candidates get up there and discuss what it was that we just talked about, like the corruption, the crony capitalism, the waste, the fraud – some of those things that are going on right now. It’s like, come on, candidates, it’s about time you started talking about that!”

It's a good thing that Mitt Romney has finally joined the chorus calling for Eric Holder to resign, even though he avoided the topic for weeks. It would behoove candidates to listen to Governor Palin on the issues, and if they have the credibility to do so, take them on for themselves. The earlier, the better. The longer they delay expressing their positions on such blatant examples of Obama administration incompetence like Eric Holder, the more they look like nothing more than politically expedient, issue-polling machines.

Governor Palin has political instincts that are second to none. This is because she understands the concerns of Americans and the problems that we face as a nation. She isn't compromised by being part of the DC 'in-crowd' and she doesn't mind ruffling their feathers. She doesn't conduct surveys across the country telling her how to feel about the topics of the day. She appears to only "poll" her gut, and her gut seems to reflect that of most Americans. Although she is not running in this presidential election, Governor Palin has expressed the desire to continue pushing for reform in government, also keeping issues such as energy and tax reform front and center.

We, her supporters must help Governor Palin continue to define the debate on a national level. We should get behind her when she makes a statement on an important topic or brings matters to light that should be a part of our national discussion. We should also encourage GOP candidates to continue adopting her issues as their platform, truly without even caring too much about who gets credit. The bottom-line is that it is vital that this nation get on track. We can only do that if our elected officials hear our concerns and we as a people, make demands on them to start fixing the problems. The governor has identified and brought to the public's attention many of the larger issues that plague our country. If we join Governor Palin in this fight, we can all make a difference leading from the outside, and without a title.

WaPo's Facts Perform a Disappearing Act

Rachel Weiner, a writer for the Washington Post's The Fix, posted a very disingenuous piece on Wednesday claiming that Governor Palin had somehow 'disappeared' from the debt debate. To suggest such a thing indicates that Weiner hasn't been paying much attention to what the governor has had (on many occasions) to say bout the matter. Which in the WaPo's writer's case, might benefit her in more ways than one.

Weiner writes:

During Washington’s long-running debt debate, one name you didn’t hear very often was that of Sarah Palin.

Googling the words "Palin Debt Ceiling" gives you a pretty good indication how out-of touch with reality that first sentence is. The search yields many results, all which could have aided Weiner's research efforts had she chose to engage in such a task. She goes on:

But then, just as the debate lurched to a final close on the day the country threatened to default, the 2008 vice presidential candidate suddenly reemerged on the political scene.

On Tuesday’s Fox News’ “Hannity,” Palin seemed to take it very personally when Democrats compared tea-party House Republicans to “terrorists” in referring to their tactics in the debt fight.

“I'm not just going to roll over with a sticker plastered on my forehead that says, hit me baby one more time, call me a terrorist again, call me a racist,” she told Hannity.

“And I'm going stand up for those fiscally conservative patriotic independent Americans who want the best for this country.”

Palin also criticized former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a potential rival in the 2012 presidential race, saying he “waited until it was a done deal that we would increase the debt ceiling” before coming out against the compromise.

Those kind of headline-grabbing comments raise questions about Palin’s future plans. But the former Alaska governor has a tendency to insert herself into debates with a splash and retreat just as quickly as she appeared, going dark for weeks at a time. Given recent history, it won’t be long before Palin disappears again.

Don't they wish...

And yes, Weiner is suggesting that Governor Palin hadn't weighed in on the debt debate until Tuesday's interview with Sean Hannity... Somehow Rachel missed that whole episode when some in the establishment wing of the Republican party got somewhat wee wee'd up over a certain statement she posted on Facebook. Maybe she also missed these interviews the governor gave to Greta Van Sustren here and here, and this one on Fox Business here.

She continues:

As other 2012 presidential candidates ramp up their campaigns heading into next week’s Ames straw poll and this fall’s debates, Palin is barely a presence in Iowa or any other primary state. She has shot down reports that the high-profile bus tour that took her to New Hampshire in June is over, but two months later it has yet to restart.

The end of that tour was her last major media blitz. On June 2nd, wrapping up her trip, Palin criticized Romney in New Hampshire. She appeared on “Hannity” on June 3rd and on “Fox News Sunday” on June 5th. A few days later she was on the cover of Newsweek saying she could beat President Obama.

Wait a minute, she wrote that the governor did interviews on June 3rd & 5th and that a "few days later she was on the cover of Newsweek saying she could beat President Obama." A few days? The Newsweek article that Weiner links to was posted on July 10th, which is nowhere near a "few days" after June 5th. That's more than month! That is some horrible reporting.

Here's more:

Then Palin disappeared — even as archives of her emails from her time as Alaska governor were released and pored over by the media. On June 28th, she went to Pella, Iowa, for the premiere of “The Undefeated,” a movie about her governorship, but said little. At no point did she get back into the political debate.

Oh really? Not only did Weiner not read the date of that Newsweek article, she didn't read any of the content either. From the Newsweek article:

"I believe that I can win a national election," Sarah Palin declared one recent evening, sitting in the private dining room of a hotel in rural Iowa. The occasion for her visit to quintessential small-town America was a gathering of the faithful that would have instantaneously erupted into a fervent campaign rally had she but given the word. Instead, it had been another day on the non–campaign trail, this one capped by a sweet victory: she had just attended the premiere of a glowingly positive documentary about her titled The Undefeated.

Talk of winning a national election would certainly indicate being part of "the political debate."

It continues:

On Twitter, Palin promoted her daughter Bristol’s book and little else. Her other comments on the debt ceiling were via a couple vague Facebook notes.

Did she or did she not read the Facebook notes? Those were Governor Palin's statements regarding the debt ceiling, which indicates that she is engaged in the current debate. Weiner tries to downplay them but there was nothing "vague" about what Governor Palin was saying. Just ask Laura Ingraham.

Then Weiner implies that the governor didn't weigh in on the debate via Twitter by writing "Palin promoted her daughter Bristol’s book and little else." In reality, Governor Palin had tweeted the following:

@BarackObama wants us to contact Congress. Great idea! Tell them to rein in our dangerously unsustainable debt to protect our credit rating.

@BarackObama wants us to support a "balanced deficit solution." Great idea! How about a balanced budget amendment?

@BarackObama you're wrong, threatening to throw seniors under the bus because you refuse to prioritize govt spending.Time to #womanup & lead

After stating at the beginning of her article that Governor Palin had "reemerged" on August 2nd to talk with Sean Hannity, Weiner curiously writes this paragraph towards the end of her piece:

Then, Palin reemerged. On July 26th, she was on Greta van Susteren’s show. Two days later, she posted a Facebook comment that included a threat to House Republicans at the end: “P.S. Everyone I talk to still believes in contested primaries.”

So she did see at least one of the interviews with Greta, and she indicates that she's read the Facebook note that caused some in the establishment wing of the GOP to get upset. But her whole article is centered around the notion that Governor Palin had been entirely absent from the debate. So which is it?

This maddening article continues:

Yes, Palin explicitly positioned herself as an observer of the debt debate, saying that “out here in proverbial politico flyover country, we little folk are watching the debt ceiling debate with great interest and concern.”

Hey Rachel, Governor Palin stated she was watching the debate WHILE she was weighing in on it. Your whole point moot.

Weiner ends the article by writing:

“Doggone it, I want these candidates who are in there,” Palin said of Romney yesterday. “I want them to not be sitting back.” Her sporadic involvement in the political debate suggest that she won’t be one of those candidates. If she does, it would still shake up the race in a major way — but she would be forced to follow her own advice.

She has been following her own advice, despite Rachel Weiner's messy attempt to make Governor Palin look like a hypocrite. Unlike Romney, Governor Palin has been giving her opinion about the debt debate since it became an issue in the realm of politics. Well before the debate had wall-to-wall coverage on the 24-hour news cycles, she spoke about the matter. She's also remained consistent throughout the debate in her position. Something else Romney would have a hard time doing, on any issue.

From start to finish, the whole piece is designed to create a perception that the meat of the article doesn't back up. Weiner gives the impression that she's following some sort of time-line in her reporting, leading her to make this conclusion. But that time-line doesn't match reality and it doesn't even match her own story. Pay attention to detail when reading anything the Washington Post publishes considering their "facts" are nothing more than empty props.

Andy Barr's Strange Definition of "Fans"

First of all, I would like to boldly state that I take offense when people refer to Palin supporters as "fans." The notion that we are "fans" infers that we are not serious in what we do. It also infers that Governor Palin is not serious, as if she is just some celebrity with a fan-club. Nonsense. We are serious activists with a serious cause. Governor Palin is a serious leader, during a serious time. Don't let them diminish any of our efforts by downplaying our motives.

That said, Andy Barr wrote a piece recently for Politico titled "Palin fans tire of 2012 question." The title itself insinuates that supporters or "fans" (because that's what the leftist media calls us) of Governor Palin are tiring of the governor, and are running to Andy Barr to go on record about it. Rubbish.

As you look through the list of people he cites as alleged "fans," you will notice that they all have something in common. Every one of them are current or former GOP officials. Since when has Sarah Palin had a large number of "fans" within the Republic establishment, on any level? Um, try never.

Barr writes (emphasis):

And the frustration is starting to build: key early state players are tiring of trying to read the tea leaves about whether she’s in or out. They’ve reached the point where they just want to know the answer.

“Trying to figure out Sarah Palin reminds me of the ancient practice of extispicy, divination by examining entrails for meaning,” said former New Hampshire GOP chairman Fergus Cullen.

“I’ve become convinced that there is no grand strategy behind Palin’s activity,” Cullen added. “There is no rhyme. There is no reason. The only common theme to her schedule of activities, statements and appearances is her seemingly unending ability to attract media coverage."

Now, there is nothing to say that a former GOP official couldn't be a supporter of Governor Palin. I'm sure she would appreciate the support, and I know her real supporters would as well. However, in Mr. Cullen's case, he appears to be a pretty big "fan" of somebody else. Back in May of this year, Cullen wrote a piece for the New Hampshire based Union Leader called "Why I’m giving Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt." In it, he writes:

Conservatives rightfully celebrated the defeat of Hillarycare in 1994, but then they failed to move market-based alternatives to big-government healthcare. Meanwhile, people had the audacity to keep getting hurt and sick. Others worried about affordable coverage and staying insured. Swelling costs threatened federal, state, and local budgets. The issue didn’t heal itself. It metastasized politically while most Republicans did little.

An exception was Mitt Romney, who tried to address the public’s desire to bring predictability to insurance, cover the uninsured, lower costs, and protect taxpayers. We can, and should, debate aspects of his approach and whether it’s worked, but Romney deserves more credit and less criticism than he’s getting for addressing an enormously complicated issue, and the benefit of the doubt for trying when others would not. Governors and Presidents are elected to lead. Romney did.

It’s not enough for Republicans to say they want to repeal Obamacare. It’s not enough for Romney’s opponents to shoot at the Massachusetts model. Candidates need positive plans to replace Obamacare with something better, that relies on market forces instead of government, that expand coverage and lower costs.

Does he sound like a Sarah Palin supporter to you? Me neither.

Nice try Andy, but you are going to have to coordinate your story better with the headline writers at Politico to get a bogus meme like this to stick. At the very least, next time pick a Romney "fan" who hasn't been so public with their support.

We Palin supporters aren't 'tiring' and we aren't running to reporters to talk about our feeeeelings. We know what we're doing, and if Governor Palin wants to drive the press mad for awhile making them wait on her decision, it's fine by me.

Obama's Team Hoping to Face Mitt Romney 2012

I don't pretend to read the minds of those in charge of re-electing Barack Obama in 2012. I can however, read their signals and through deductive reasoning, make an educated guess what situation will benefit them the most in the upcoming election.

One of those signals was given last Friday by the outgoing Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs. Politico reports (emphasis mine):

Gibbs took the bait when asked about Mitt Romney’s speech at CPAC, in which the former Massachusetts governor didn’t exactly dwell on health care. “I don’t know why he wouldn’t,” Gibbs said, smiling, also remarking that it will be “interesting to see throughout the next two years if the two words ‘health care’ come out of his mouth.”

Ouch.

Now, keep in mind what Obama told Bill O'Reilly during the pre-Super Bowl interview last week. He said:

Here's what I think is true. Over the first two years of my presidency, we had a complete disaster. Right?

Right.

Then Obama went on to blame the economy, saying:

The financial markets were breaking down. We were slipping into a Great Depression.

Now what did the Obama administration spend the first two years of his presidency doing? Getting his health care legislation passed and signed into (unconstitutional) law, that's what. He wasn't focused on the economy. His administration spent the bulk of their time trying to repackage and resell a bill that Americans did not want, no matter how the administration spun it. What better scenario for Team Obama, then to have that prickly issue taken off the table for 2012, in a bid to hold on to the White House?

Although Romney has taken to reworking his position (again) on health care, he cannot escape reality. The Obama people know this too. In fact, they credit Mitt Romney for the "blueprint" to the bill. As Politico reported:

Democrats have consistently pointed to the Massachusetts plan Romney signed into law as a forerunner for national legislation.

Last year, Steve Kornacki from Salon gave a pretty good overview of how the left perceives Romney's attempt to redefine himself on the issue. He wrote:

It's not news when man bites dog, so why should it be any different when Mitt Romney makes a brash and insincere pronouncement?

And yet there was the one-time Massachusetts governor forcing his way into Monday morning's headlines with what may have been the most over-the-top of all of the over-the-top Republican reactions to the House's passage of Barack Obama's healthcare plan.

"An unconscionable abuse of power," Romney declared while asserting that the president "has betrayed his oath to the nation."

When Mitt starts talking like this, it's usually because he knows his own past record makes him vulnerable on the issue at hand.

And when it comes to healthcare, his hypocrisy is particularly galling. Romney is actually the only governor in American history ever to impose an individual health insurance mandate on his citizens. And an individual mandate, of course, is at the heart of Obama's reform package.

Nor is the mandate the only common ground between RomneyCare and ObamaCare; the Massachusetts plan that Romney signed into law in 2006 is essentially the blueprint for Obama's plan. Both rely on the same basic formula: a requirement that everyone purchase insurance and government assistance for those who can't afford it.

As I noted in the recent post I wrote about Mitch Daniels, the left loves to exploit hypocrisy. It is a vital part of their game-plan to take the focus away from them, and put it back on to their Republican opponent. It is even common for them to invent hypocrisy where there is none, but in Mitt's case, that wouldn't be necessary.

Governor Palin fought against Obamacare from day one. She took many hits from the left, and even from some in her own party for taking such a strong stand. This issue would be alive and well in a hypothetical Palin versus Obama campaign. Considering the shellacking the president has taken in his approval rating, and the "disaster" that defined his first two years, Team Obama doesn't want the match-up. They would much rather see Mitt Romney standing across from Obama in a debate, spouting more of that hypocrisy they so love.