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.

Rick Perry Echoes Governor Palin on Eric Holder

As of November 18th, 2011, GOP presidential contender Rick Perry had refused to state his position concerning Eric Holder in the wake of the "Fast and Furious" scandal.

Via the Daily Caller:

For weeks, The Daily Caller has been asking Perry staffers, including chief spokesman Mark Miner, for comment on what the border state governor thinks of the operation. Perry and Miner have not commented.

TheDC has also asked Miner if Perry thinks Holder should resign immediately — the stance of 51 congressmen so far. Perry has continued to not answer the question.

Today, Perry came out with a much more decisive stance calling on Eric Holder to resign. He starts off by writing:

Ever since the Department of Justice’s gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious became public, the Obama administration’s response has been slow and infuriating. Of particular concern is Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s lack of candor concerning what he knew and when he knew it.

This is not a typical case of bureaucratic bungling. A 40-year-old Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry, and possibly a U.S. immigration agent, are dead because of a horribly ill-conceived Justice Department operation that went tragically wrong.

Wait a second... This looks awfully familiar, doesn't it?

Back on November 10th, 2011, Governor Palin released a statement titled "Fire Eric Holder." She wrote:

When the stories about Operation Fast and Furious first broke, it sounded too crazy even for this administration.

Why would any government official with an ounce of common sense think it’s a good idea to facilitate the smuggling of thousands of guns into the hands of violent Mexican drug cartels? That’s what Operation Fast and Furious did.

You might think Eric Holder’s Department of Justice was setting up a sting operation in which our federal agents would swoop down and arrest the bad guys the minute the guns traded hands. But that’s not what happened. Eric Holder’s DOJ had American gun dealers sell weapons to “straw purchasers” tied to drug cartels without actually following the movement of the guns as they were then sold to Mexican drug lords. They apparently thought this so-called “gun-walking” operation would help them chart the path of gun smuggling, but they didn’t have a plan to actually control the weapons’ movements as the guns were allowed to “walk” into Mexico. All Holder’s DOJ did was arm violent criminals. What manner of fools do we have working in this administration? What’s next? Supplying nuclear weapons components to the Iranians so we can track their activities?

Fast and Furious isn’t just your typical government incompetence. This is a deadly tragedy. U.S. border agent Brian Terry was gunned down with weapons connected to Holder’s debacle. At least 200 Mexican citizens were also killed by criminals using Fast and Furious weapons. We can only imagine how many more people will be murdered by criminals our government armed.

And back to Rick Perry's statement:

Hundreds of Fast and Furious firearms have been implicated in criminal activity, and another 1,400 firearms are on the street because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives engaged in gun-walking – the selling of firearms to straw purchasers in an attempt to locate major weapons traffickers in Mexico. This controversial tactic, involving thousands of weapons, means that brave law enforcement personnel along the border remain at risk.

As details come to light, a larger shadow has been cast on Mr. Holder. When initially asked under oath to say when he first knew about Fast and Furious, Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee on May 3, “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”

But the evidence casts serious doubt over that claim. First, President Obama had commented publicly on the operation, noting on March 22 – more than a month before Mr. Holder’s sworn statement – that an inspector general had been assigned to investigate the matter. [...]

Perhaps more damning is that records show Mr. Holder was briefed about the operation as far back as July 2010, when the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, Michael F. Walther, sent Mr. Holder a written memo that his agency would assist in the investigation of a gun trafficker who had acquired weapons under Fast and Furious. Another memo, from Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, notified Mr. Holder of a sealed Justice Department indictment against weapons traffickers in Arizona.

Mr. Holder’s proclaimed ignorance leaves Americans to draw one of two conclusions: Either he is guilty of extraordinary bureaucratic incompetence or he is guilty of a cover-up meant to shield him from the consequences of an operation that has left at least one federal agent dead and continues to imperil many more.

Either way, it is high time for Mr. Holder to step down. If he refuses to resign, Mr. Obama must fire him immediately.

And Governor Palin's statement from November 10th reads:

And where is President Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder in all of this? When did he first know about the operation? In his testimony to the House Oversight Committee on May 3, 2011, Holder stated, “I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” But the DOJ’s own documents prove that Holder had been receiving briefings on Fast and Furious for nearly a year before that date. In other words, our government’s top law enforcement official, Eric Holder, lied to the American public. He finally admitted this week to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “In my testimony before the House committee [on May 3], I did say a few weeks. I probably could have said a couple of months. What I said about a few weeks was inaccurate based on what happened.”

When the nation’s highest law enforcement official lies to the American people, he must go.

And if he claims that he didn’t lie, then how else do we explain this situation? He’s either lying or he’s so grossly incompetent and lazy that he didn’t read important life and death briefings from his deputy attorney general and didn’t know about this deadly operation run by people under him. So, which is it? Incompetent, lazy, or lying? No matter which explanation fits, he needs to go.

Holder conceded this week, “I have ultimate responsibility for what happens in the department.” He can prove it by resigning. And if he refuses to resign, then President Obama – with whom the bucks ultimately stop – can prove that he respects honesty, transparency, and accountability in his administration by firing Holder.

Don't get me wrong... I'm happy to see that Rick Perry finally made his mind up on the issue and added his voice to those calling for Eric Holder's resignation. And it is always nice to see any presidential candidate echo Governor Palin on anything, but some attribution would have been nice.

GOP Candidates Endorse Governor Palin

Some of them endorsed her ideas and words anyway...

For instance, during the GOP debate Monday night in Tampa, Peter Hamby tweeted the following:

Bachmann team sends out press release hitting Perry's "crony capitalism" cc @SarahPalinUSA

After the debate, Michele Bachmann appeared On The Record with Greta Van Sustren, stating the following, as Molly Ball reported:

“This is what the American people don’t want. They don’t want crony capitalism. It infuriates them,” she said, drawing a parallel with Obama’s Solyndra controversy. “It’s no better when Republicans engage in that as well,” she said.

Newt Gingrich also embraced Governor Palin's message of reform and against crony capitalism on Greta's show, saying:

I do want to say by the way, that Governor Palin's speech in Iowa last weekend on crony capitalism and on the problems of both parties, is a very very important speech. I'm going to be tweeting a link to it. I'm also going to be doing some other things with it. I think it was maybe one of the most important speeches she's ever given. And I think it raised a series of very profound questions that all of us, Democrat and Republican, have to wrestle with as citizens. And she did it very well. It's a very very impressive speech.

So impressive that Rick Perry borrowed some of the words from Governor Palin speech in an op-ed he penned for USA Today on Monday. He wrote:

We must have a frank, honest national conversation about fixing Social Security to protect benefits for those at or near retirement while keeping faith with younger generations, who are being asked to pay.

From the governor's speech in Iowa:

The status quo is no longer an option. Entitlement reform is our duty now, and it must be done in a way that honors our commitment to our esteemed elders today, while keeping faith with future generations.

I sincerely doubt that any of these candidates would be talking about crony capitalism before the governor gave that speech in Iowa. Whether she's defining the debate, or helping candidates learn how to talk, Governor Palin is shaping the primary race just by sharing her opinion on the issues that effect this nation. The candidates are certainly following her lead, and I commend them for doing so.

Governor Palin understands that she's having an effect on the race, as she stated on Monday (also on Greta's show):

"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!"

How to Win the Social Security Debate

Rick Perry has come under a considerable amount of scrutiny after the debate last Wednesday night for stating that in his view, Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme." Social Security is most certainly broken but veteran politicos, Mitt Romney's campaign, the left, and the media all took Perry to task for his remarks.

As the site GOP12 noted yesterday, Governor Palin 'clarified' Perry's Social Security comments during her Friday interview with Megyn Kelly. They wrote:

On Fox News today, Sarah Palin offered Rick Perry a more gentle way of talking about Social Security.

"What Rick Perry was trying to say, I believe, is that there needs to be reform. Status quo is not acceptable, because these programs are insolvent.

.... So he's saying reform is necessary."

Perry has written that Social Security is a "failure" and "Ponzi Scheme", and returned to those themes in Wednesday night's debate.

If Perry were really just saying "reform is necessary", then pretty much everyone, including Romney, would agree. Palin's suggested rhetoric is much less controversial than Perry's.

Governor Palin has consistently addressed the Social Security debate responsibly by highlighting the fact that the program has to be reformed, while also insisting that we must not hurt those who have paid into the system throughout their adult lives and now depend on it.

Back in December of 2010, Governor Palin addressed the Social Security issue while endorsing the Paul Ryan roadmap. She wrote (emphasis):

On Social Security, as with Medicare, the Roadmap honors our commitments to those who are already receiving benefits by guaranteeing all existing rights to people over the age of 55. Those below that age are offered a choice: They can remain in the traditional government-run system or direct a portion of their payroll taxes to personal accounts, owned by them, managed by the Social Security Administration and guaranteed by the federal government. Under the Roadmap's proposals, they can pass these savings onto their heirs.

And as recently as last Saturday, during her speech at the tea party rally in Indianola, Iowa she said:

The status quo is no longer an option. Entitlement reform is our duty now, and it must be done in a way that honors our commitment to our esteemed elders today, while keeping faith with future generations.

Michele Bachmann also weighed in on the issue yesterday during an interview with Radio Iowa. Katrina Trinko reported:

Without naming competitor Rick Perry (although I did in the questions), Bachmann said federal policymakers have to “keep faith” with current Social Security beneficiaries. ”That’s wrong for any candidate to make senior citizens believe that they should be nervous about something they have come to count on. We need not do that, but I think at the same time we also outline our positive solutions,” Bachmann said. “That’s what I’m trying to do.”

It's very encouraging to see some of the GOP candidates take on the Social Security during the primary season. It ensures that the topic will be an issue during the 2012 general election debate. It is important however, for republicans who wish to see true reform of our nation's entitlement programs, do so in a manner that allows independent thinkers to actually hear our side of the debate. With an issue as sensitive as Social Security, we must not allow the left any leverage to deflect the issue, while painting conservatives as out of touch or heartless to the elderly - who as I stated above, have already paid into the system. We must be clear that reform must take place, or as Governor Palin said in Iowa:

We either do it ourselves or the world’s capital markets are going to shove it down our throats, and we’ll have no choice but to reform our entitlement programs.

Responsible, honest debate is what the American people need if we are to make the reforms that are necessary a reality.

The Glaring Differences Between Palin & Perry

After his announcement last weekend, Rick Perry's record has come under considerable scrutiny from the media and the blogs. One of the most notable items of discussion has been about an executive order that Perry signed, mandating young girls to receive the HPV vaccine known as Gardasil. It was so controversial that the Texas State Legislature stepped in and repealed the law just weeks after Perry had pushed it through.

Tuesday evening, Michelle Malkin published a very detailed column about Perry's Gardasil mandate. She wrote:

In February 2007, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a shocking executive order forcing every sixth-grade girl to submit to a three-jab regimen of the Gardasil vaccine. He also forced state health officials to make the vaccine available “free” to girls ages 9 to 18. The drug, promoted by manufacturer Merck as an effective shield against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) and genital warts, as well as cervical cancer, had only been approved by the Food and Drug Administration eight months prior to Perry’s edict.

Gardasil’s wear-off time and long-term side effects have yet to be determined. “Serious questions” remain about its “overall effectiveness,” according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. Even the chair of the federal panel that recommended Gardasil for children opposes mandating it as a condition of school enrollment. Young girls and boys are simply not at an increased risk of contracting HPV in the classroom the way they are at risk of contracting measles or other school-age communicable diseases.

Perry defenders pointed to a bogus “opt-out” provision in his mandate “to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children’s health care.” But requiring parents to seek the government’s permission to keep an untested drug out of their kids’ veins is a plain usurpation of their authority. Translation: Ask your bureaucratic overlord to determine if a Gardasil waiver is right for you.

Libertarians and social conservatives alike slammed Perry’s reckless disregard for parental rights and individual liberty. The Republican-dominated legislature also balked. In May 2007, both chambers passed bills overturning the governor’s unilaterally imposed health order.

Fast-forward five years. After announcing his 2012 presidential bid this weekend, Perry now admits he “didn’t do my research well enough” on the Gardasil vaccine before stuffing his bad medicine down Texans’ throats. On Monday, he added: “That particular issue is one that I readily stand up and say I made a mistake on. I listened to the legislature … and I agreed with their decision.”

Perry downplayed his underhanded maneuver as an aberrational “error,” and then — gobsmackingly — he spun the debacle as a display of his great character: “One of the things I do pride myself on, I listen. When the electorate says, ‘Hey, that’s not what we want to do,’ we backed up, took a look at what we did.”

Are these non-apology apologies enough to quell the concerns of voters looking for a presidential candidate who will provide a clear, unmistakable contrast to Barack Obama? Not by a long shot.

There is a ton of information in Malkin's piece and she went to great lengths to link all of her research. I strongly recommend reading the entire column if you have not so already.

While Rick Perry's executive order to mandate vaccines for children is raising eyebrows in the Republican party, I think it would serve us to take a look at what Governor Palin has said on the record about a state government taking such action.

Located within the mountain of emails that were released months ago from Governor Palin's time in office, is a small quote from her that sums up her philosophy about the government's role in such matters. She wrote this in response to an email from her staff in 2008 about chicken-pox immunization regulations:

"I would not propose govt mandating anything like shots for our kids."

I never questioned for a moment whether or not Governor Palin would have done something akin to what Perry did in Texas with Gardasil. That's the luxury of being a Palin supporter. We know her philosophy and we know she's remained steady in her belief of limited government. We also know that she never governed for the benefit of any cronies.

The more I read about Rick Perry, the more I see in him what Governor Palin fought so hard against in Alaska. The Gardasil issue is just one instance in many that it appears Rick Perry put the interests of his financial backers above those of his constituents.

Timothy Carney wrote an eye-opening article for the Washington Examiner called "The cowboy corporatist rides to the rescue." In it, he details some of the other recipients of Perry's 'assistance' after donating money to his political operation. Carney writes:

In his next State of the State address, Perry pushed the Legislature to create the Texas Enterprise Fund, giving the governor, lieutenant governor and House speaker the power to hand out multimillion-dollar grants to businesses seeking to relocate to or expand within the state. Two years later, Perry and the Legislature created another subsidy bank, called the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, using taxpayer money to invest in high-tech companies. Perry made government a venture capital fund.

Muckrakers at the Los Angeles Times and the Austin American Statesman have shown a strong correlation between Perry's biggest campaign contributors and the money handled by these funds and Perry's other public-private partnership. Almost half of Perry's "mega-donors," according to the Times, have received profitable favors from the Texas government. Poultry magnate Joe Sanderson, for instance, gave Perry's campaign $165,000 and received $500,000 from the Texas Enterprise Fund to open a facility in Waco, the Times reports.

The Austin paper documents the unsavory case of $80,000 Perry donor David Nance winning a $4.5 million grant from the Texas Emerging Technology Fund. A regional board had denied the grant to Nance's Convergen LifeSciences, but Perry intervened and ushered the grant through.

And just as President Obama uses renewable energy as an excuse for steering taxpayer money to big business, Perry also loves green corporate welfare. Perry was a featured speaker at the national wind lobby's 2008 conference, where he touted his 2005 law requiring Texans to purchase wind and solar energy -- all in the name of "job creation" and business growth. If you force people to buy a product, of course the businesses selling that product will grow.

How the conservative establishment plans on selling this guy as a bridge between the Tea Party and the GOP establishment, through the duration of the primary campaign is beyond me. Rick Perry's views on the role of government and corporate welfare fly in the face of Tea Party values. Padding one's political piggy bank with the money of people and entities who expect a much larger return on their "investment" is an abuse of the system. The idea that taxpayers go into debt paying out large sums to these "investors" to keep elected officials in their seats of power, is not the sort of behavior you will find any Tea Party activist supporting.

Governor Palin's history of service stands in direct contrast to most politicians, including Rick Perry's. She went against the grain of the deep-rooted corruption in Alaska, and even in her own party. She was independent enough to call out those who were abusing the system, and taking a strong stand against them. The only "interests" that Governor Palin focused on, were those of her constituents. That includes respecting their personal liberty by not "mandating anything like shots" for their children.

Governor Palin Never "Sold Out" to Anyone

The San Francisco Chronicle shot a some footage at the Iowa State Fair last Friday that has been making the online rounds this week. The video shows a woman who claims to be from Alaska, heckling Todd Palin by calling Governor Palin a "sellout" for resigning from office.



This line of attack is common with the governor's foes for many reasons. For one, it's much easier to spin the fact that she stepped down from her post than it is to explain the complicated circumstances that led up to her decision. It certainly takes less time. Second, Governor Palin's political enemies don't have anything else. The governor has been fully vetted in public view over the past three years, and there isn't anything else for them to latch on to. The left-wing press even sued to have all of her emails released to them, only to come out with nothing but message after message of a good public servant doing her job, and doing it well.

I wrote a piece back in December of 2010 called "Why Governor Palin Resigned." I gave an overview of the section in Going Rogue where the governor wrote about her decision to step down. In the book, the governor writes about the avalanche of politically motivated frivolous lawsuits that were taking their toll of the state. They were bogging down her administration, costing Alaska time and resources in fight that appeared to have no end unless she did something drastic. As you can tell by Todd's reaction in the clip, the lawsuits were also taking a financial toll on the Palin family. Her decision to pass the ball to her Lt. Governor weighed heavily on her for sure. But there is no doubt that it boiled-down to doing the right thing for the State of Alaska, and the right thing for her family.

The woman in this clip claims that the governor "sold out." I would ask her, who exactly did the governor "sellout" to? It certainly wasn't the powers that be in the northeast, who control the federal government and the airways. Nobody in the political class, or media class, own the governor. She has never "sold out" her character to advance her political career. She has never turned away from her reform-minded independent nature to become something she is not, but typical politicians are. Sarah Palin is not typical politician because she is not for sale.

Did she make some money after her resignation? Yes she did, so what! We're Americans, we're supposed to be capitalists, remember? Governor Palin earned every dollar she made, so why begrudge another person for honest success. She made the best for her family after being handed a very bad situation. Plus, it's not as if all Governor Palin has done since she left office, is make money. She has been on the front-lines fighting against the "transformation of America." She played a key role in the takeover of the House in 2010, and she brings light to issues that many in D.C. would rather she not. She has one of the most powerful voices in the realm of politics today, whether Fox News will admit it or not.

Most C4P regulars know exactly why Governor Palin stepped down, but I'm sure most Americans don't fully understand it. That's why when stuff like this pops up, or a future campaign opponent levels this attack against the governor, we will continue to respond and set the record straight. I don't believe the woman in the clip cares whether or not Governor Palin resigned. I think she wanted to take a free shot and found Todd Palin standing in the line of fire. People like her don't care why the governor made the decision she made. They have simply found an easy talking point to trash the governor with, and they won't stop until more Americans understand the truth.

"The same people who had wanted nothing more than to throw me out of office were suddenly outraged that I was obliging." - Sarah Palin

Debating Governor Palin's Fiscal Record

An odd thing happened to me on Wednesday... A left-winger tried to debate me on Governor Palin's actual record. Considering this is not the normal sort of behavior I am accustomed to as a Palin supporter (usually things that don't exist are the topic of my debates with the left) it shocked me.

The person who attempted to play gotcha with Governor Palin's record, is an obscure individual on Twitter who goes by the name "Uncle Fetus." At this point, you may be asking yourself why I would bother posting on a debate with an anonymous lefty who only has 15 followers... The reason for that is because he was civil, he wanted to argue substance, and if someone else tries to use his false argument, C4P readers will be equipped to answer them.

He shifted an earlier debate about whether or not Governor Palin is running for president in 2012, to the governor's fiscal record in Alaska. He sent me the following two tweets:

Here

Under Palin, AK Total State Debt increased from $8.3 billion in FY2005-06 to $9.3 billion in FY 2009-10. http://www.revenue.state.ak.us/treasury/programs/programs/other/debt/index.aspx

And here

For FY2005-06, Total State Supported debt was $972.9million, in FY2009-10 it rose to $1.349billion. http://www.revenue.state.ak.us/treasury/programs/programs/other/debt/index.aspx

Now, I am very familiar with Governor Palin's record, but I'm also the sort of person who you put a bunch on numbers in front of, and my eyes glaze over. Math was never my best subject. So, in order to answer Uncle Fetus' claims thoroughly, I thought I would message Whitney, who is more familiar with Governor Palin's record than roughly 99.9% of the planet. She's also pretty good with numbers. Whitney sent me the following in response (emphasis):

First off, he's looking at the wrong set of data for Murkowski's final year and Palin's final year. He's a year off. Murkowski's final FY is actually FY2006-2007 with his budget passed in the summer of 2006. In addition to a budget, some of the other policies that might affect the debt would be in place from the Murkowski administration to some degree for that year's debt info. This information is found here in the following year's report: http://www.dor.alaska.gov/treasury/programs/documentviewer/viewer.aspx?428f where it says "as of June 30, 2007, the ____debt is". While Governor Palin was in office then, it was Murkowski's budgeting term that ended in June 2007. With this, the debt then was $9.2 billion with state supported at $1.085+ billion. Governor Palin's final year was the FY20092010 budget passed in the summer of 2009. These numbers show a state debt of $9.0 billion and a state supported debt of $1.256 billion in the report from the following year: http://www.dor.alaska.gov/treasury/programs/documentviewer/viewer.aspx?811f. The overall debt was reduced by $200 million.

Fiscal year things are confusing, then there is a delay between the Fiscal Year and the reporting with this stuff. I had to look at it a few times to make sure I understood right. There may be some influence from Palin's policies (though not budget) in Murkowski's final year, and the same kind of thing for Palin/Parnell. However, the debt numbers are from each person's final fiscal year in office.

Yes, the state supported debt went up from the Murkowski to Palin administration, but it seems that they include pensions, which are always a mess. Governor Palin reformed pensions and used the surplus to help pay it down. Gov. Palin' s second to last year (the number's he is showing), the state supported debt is $1.349 billion--higher than in her final year. She reduced it as her tenure went on.

Regarding the surplus vs. debt thing, I think they can have a revenue surplus, but the aspect of debt also deals with pensions and bonds. It would be outside of an operating or capital budget. Also, this info seems to include municipal debt, which would be at the local level, largely outside of the influence of a governor.

It was a nice try by Uncle Fetus, but he failed to make a valid point at then end of the day. Sarah Palin was a responsible governor, a proven reformer, and she has spoken many times about respecting taxpayer dollars considering where they come from.

This might also be a good time to point out that the left's most famous politician, Barack Obama, has "plunged" this nation into frightening debt. So much so, that congress is in the middle of debating whether or not to raise the $14.3 trillion debt-ceiling at this time. While it's great that some on the the left want to argue substance, it may be wise for them to steer clear of fiscal policy debates.


(All credit to Whitney Pitcher)

Author of Palin Hit-Piece Claims to Speak for All Conservative Women

Once again, Governor Palin is taking on some friendly fire from a conservative commentator. I did not add quotation marks to the word "conservative" because I have no doubt that this latest attack was delivered by an actual conservative. I don't believe there is a difference in ideology between said commentator and the governor, but rather, this person is just uninformed.

I'm talking about Lisa Fritsch, who posted this long piece over at American Thinker. She starts her article by praising Governor Palin for staying relevant over the course of the last three years, but then states that the governor has yet to win over conservative women as part of her support base. Needless to say, I find that to be a ridiculous statement.

Fritsch then goes on to say that conservative women "adore" that:

... Palin is a wife and mother (including of a special needs child); she hunts, fishes, and does things even men cannot do; she plays several sports; and, as if to put the ribbon on top of it all, she is beautiful.

But:

As much as conservative women admire and respect Sarah Palin, Palin's intellect and intellectual stamina stops short at her own base and platform. The brilliance does not translate beyond her (and our own) comfort zone. She lacks the ability to cross over and present herself in the wider social and political strata. Just as love isn't enough to sustain a marriage, Tea Party-speak isn't enough to win the presidency. The depth required of a president and commander in chief is missing.

It is ludicrous and somewhat narcissistic for anyone to speak for an entire group, such as "conservative women." I know plenty of conservative women who support Governor Palin strongly, and I know some who don't. We are not a monolithic bunch. Next time Lisa should try adding the word(s) "some," "a few," or perhaps "I" for a more honest assessment. And yes, we do admire the governor's family, but to say that conservative women "adore" Governor Palin because of her recreational choices and her looks is shallow and just plain wrong. Why would we care what Governor Palin looks like, or use that as a basis by which to judge her at all? And yeah, the hunting is cool, but it isn't the reason we support her.

Then, to say that Governor Palin's "intellect and intellectual stamina stops short at her own base and platform," is a statement only someone who isn't familiar with the governor's record could make. It is a narrow and hallow critique, not rooted in any sort of understanding of how Governor Palin operates as an executive. And based on the feedback, there is no doubt that most who attended the RightOnline screening of The Undefeated last night in Minneapolis would disagree. Lisa Fritsch is a victim of overexposure to LSM narratives, and not someone who has studied Governor Palin in any depth.

Fritsch continues her 'I am all conservative women and we don't think Palin is up to the job,' post by bringing up the Katie Couric interview from 2008 and Sarah Palin's Alaska on TLC as proof. So, if I have this correct, that means anyone who has ever had a bad moment during an interview, or anyone who used their voice to promote the state they love, is disqualified to run for high office... Well, why is Barack Obama sitting in the White House then?

Next, Fritsch states that Governor Palin is being "coddled" by FOX News. There are two problems with this statement. First, while a few people at FOX have been fair with the governor, their DC based political commentators for the most part, have not. Secondly, Governor Palin is currently under contract with FOX News, so to insinuate that she is avoiding doing interviews with other networks for any other reason, is just dishonest. The governor isn't afraid to step outside of FOX to speak with journalists, and anyone who kept tabs on her recent bus tour knows that.

Fritsch then goes on to compare Governor Palin with the 2008 version of Barack Obama. She wrote:

Because Americans have already taken a chance on the outsider who promised that charm and wit could make up for lack of experience in the line of fire and depth and expertise in foreign affairs, the conservative voter is especially turned off to this strategy of going with a candidate who lacks a serious résumé. In the game that is the presidential election, you must not only be the able to show us the how, what, and why, but you must also be able to explain all of them convincingly and without defect.

Lisa, with all due respect, please educate yourself about Governor Palin's "serious résumé" before you waste your time writing the next lengthy Palin hit-piece. It would save you (and me) the trouble, considering your point has no basis in reality. It is insulting to ignore Governor Palin's record of executive leadership and then claim it is the equivalent of a Junior Senator with a short history of voting "present." Again, this section says more about what Lisa Fritsch doesn't know about Governor Palin, than it does about Governor Palin herself.

Fritsch ends her piece by stating that she has "questions" regarding Governor Palin, then adds this insulting line:

These questions lean toward the juvenile context which that Rush caller suggested; they cast Palin as a candidate for high school prom queen, not president of the United States.

Perhaps those questions could be answered by doing some actual research. But instead, Lisa Fritsch would rather rely on played out narratives as the basis from which to judge Governor Palin. This is exactly what I was talking about the day when I wrote how it "drives me nuts" when conservatives fall for bogus media-driven memes. This woman took the effort to write paragraph after paragraph repeating garbage she picked up from the press to discredit and diminish Governor Palin. She never cites any portion of Palin's governing record to make her case, but instead recycles attack lines that were mainly created by the left. All while purporting to speak for every conservative woman, no less.

Well Mrs. Fritsch, you do not speak for me. I know Governor Palin's record and I understand her character well. She is a responsible leader and a proven reformer, unlike Barack Obama or any current GOP candidate for that matter. She stands for commonsense conservative principles, and YES, has the record to prove it... Look it up!

Jeff Goldstein: Losing More Slowly is Now Nearing Lost

Jeff Goldstein recently wrote a piece regarding the release of Governor Palin's emails, highlighting the now famous message she sent a few days before Trig Paxson Van Palin was born to friends and family. Goldstein then shares his views of the current media culture that is so damaging to our nation, in reaction to said message. He writes:

It is profoundly saddening to me to reflect on what the media — and many on our own side — have tried to do to this woman, who clearly embodies the very principles conservatives and classical liberals claim to embrace and fight for, and who is clearly (in my mind) qualified to lead this country back from the brink of socialist hell, so comfortable and committed is she to constitutional authority, and so battle-tested is she after having had to endure a 3-year pop-cultural attempt to destroy her and her family.

I hope in their most private moments, Kathy Griffin or Andrew Sullivan or Janeane Garafalo or Jen Rubin — and a host of others I can name — feel wash over them the sudden rush of shame and embarrassment they so richly deserve.

And I hope it fucking burns.

The truth is, we have allowed a media culture to form in this country that is rotten to its core. It is petty, spiteful, vindictive, triumphalist, arrogant, profoundly biased, and undoubtedly left-leaning. We have given this media the power to shape our narratives, inform our decisions, and — because there are few if any consequences for doing so — create and destroy individuals with the impunity of a hive minded mob embarking on a wilding.

Helping the media along in such a project — as many “conservatives” do, by accepting as a matter of nature, unchangeable as a hurricane, the premises the media advances — is the kind of intellectual dereliction that has brought us to this point in our nation’s history, where 20% or less of the population controls the reins of political power, as well as the vast majority of our cultural institutions, from the media and the academy, to putative moral authority to champion the environment, the working man, the poor.

Losing more slowly is now nearing lost. And yet still we’re hearing from some on “our” side that we need to find an “electable” candidate that will appeal to “moderates” — someone who doesn’t represent the kind of “extremism” that, in an Orwellian turn, has become synonymous with the very legal conservatism and classical liberalism around which this country was founded, and which provided the template for the most free and prosperous country the world has ever known, with the most free and prosperous people history has ever produced.

I noted this before, but let me note it again: the antidote to Carter was not Howard Baker or George HW Bush. We’re at the brink. And if we can’t articulate the enormous CHASM that separates classical liberal and legal conservative principles from those on witness by the democratic socialists in power — who are actively working to increase government’s size and the people’s dependence on it, intentionally sabotaging energy production and private sector job growth while putting in place the bureaucratic structure to control us through our healthcare decisions and through regulations on the very exhalation that comes from our bodies, or the dust we kick up when we walk — we have lost our country anyway, and it’s damn certain that Mitt Romney and his carbon emission-sensitivity or his ethanol panders isn’t going to do dick structurally to help us get it back. At best he’s a kind of cultural procrastination. And at worst, he comes (courtesy of the press — and likehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif George Bush did in his two terms) to count as the benchmark of right-wing “extremism,” against which the next leftist candidate positions himself.

The GOP is content being the more frugal, more incremental, of the two big government ruling parties.

I’m not content with that as a choice.

And so I fight on.

I'm with him 100% in that... You can read the entire piece here.

Goldstein hits the nail on the head when writing about the influence the DC establishment media class has on the direction of the country. He is especially poignant when discussing the "conservative" side of that coin, and their role in picking the types of candidates we put up against big government leaders on the left. What good does it do us to give Americans a choice between the type of overbearing statists in the Obama administration, and someone like Mitt Romney, who obviously believes that the solutions to this nations ills can be found with federal intervention? None!

As Goldstein states, politicians like Romney are a type of "cultural procrastination." While they don't force us into a system of more government-less freedom, at quite the pace of a Barack Obama, the end result is the same. And if you look at the current state of the economy, our energy situation, and the size of the federal government, you quickly realize that we are on a path that is unsustainable. We do not have time for these big spenders, their cronies, or their expensive hair-brained "solutions," which more times than not come at the price of our liberties.

I have to be honest with you... It absolutely drives me nuts to watch conservatives fall for media narratives. Don't we, of all people, know better? We cannot trust the media, and that goes for FOX News as well as many "conservative" publications. None of them are worthy of our trust. We have to weigh everything we hear and read. We have to consider the source, and stop giving these tin-can pundits the power to force real reformers out of the debate. There is a reason that people like Governor Palin are shunned by them. She would never accept their big state compromises, and she would never continue us down this path. The status quo has become dangerous, and the only solution is to ignore those who preach it.

My Review of 'The Undefeated'

I had the honor last weekend to preview Steve Bannon's new documentary "The Undefeated," based primarily on Governor Palin's political life. When Mr. Bannon was asked recently by Kathryn Jean Lopez, why he "was keen on telling her story," he replied:

This woman is one of the most covered individuals in our media-saturated “global village,” yet I felt that she was totally unknown. The real person was hiding in plain sight.

As a C4P contributor, and supporter of Governor Palin's since first learning about her in late 2007, I can say that he is absolutely correct about that. It is why I have used the word "distortion" so often in my writings. The media has covered Governor Palin virtually every day since the presidential election in 2008, yet only now are Americans starting to learn about her actual record. It's a shame that it took so long, and it's amazing how it all came about, but at least the truth is finally up for discussion, in more places than just pro-Palin comment boards.

The film starts off with a shocking display of hatred in various forms, directed towards Governor Palin by the left. It was nothing I hadn't seen before, but I'm sure most Americans are unaware of the actual level of vitriol that Governor Palin and her family have been subjected to. By putting this segment at the very beginning of the movie, Bannon grabs the attention of the viewer, letting them know all about it by giving them a taste.

The movie describes why and how Governor Palin got involved in politics in the first place. It touches on her years in the city council, and goes into great detail about her time as Wasilla Mayor, chair and ethics officer of the of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and Governor of Alaska. They interview many familiar (to C4P readers) faces who worked with Governor Palin, and were a big part of her administration.

During the portion of the film that covers Alaska, viewers get to see Governor Palin's courage and ethical principles on full display. Those who have no knowledge about the governor (other than moronic Tina Fey skits) will get to see the reformer we know. They will learn how she rose to power on her own accord, without being backed by the Alaska GOP establishment, then how she took them on to clean up her state's government. They will learn about her enormous approval ratings, and learn why. The film goes into great detail about her policy accomplishments, and viewers will no doubt have a better understanding of energy, it's relationship to Alaska, and the importance of domestic production after seeing the film.

The movie briefly covers the 2008 presidential campaign, and highlights Governor Palin's significance to the Republican ticket. They touched on the country's economic collapse during that time, and the subsequent loss for McCain-Palin. The more important part of the film follows, as some Americans will learn for the first time what happened to Governor Palin when she returned to Alaska following the election.

Viewers get to see the litany of attacks she faced, the avalanche of frivolous claims, the costs to her family and state, and a legislature more interested in playing partisan games against her than working for the people, after she returned from the campaign trail. People who see this movie will have little doubt that the reason Governor Palin resigned from the governorship was for the sake of Alaska, even if it cost her political career.

The movie goes on to tell the story of Governor Palin and the conservative movement since her resignation. They make the obvious comparison with the Reagan Revolution, and note how the governor has encouraged so many to get involved in the process. Showing her leading the charge in many instances taking on the left, while simultaneously keeping the national GOP on notice.

The movie is two hours long, which is considered lengthy for the subject matter. But I can tell you that it doesn't feel like two hours after you've watched it. Due to the structure and content, the movie holds your attention the entire time. It also has some great original footage most have never witnessed. I appreciated this film to no end, and like Dan Riehl, I even teared up at one point when Andrew Breitbart was speaking.

The Undefeated is a story about a courageous, modern-day political reformer but more importantly, it is a story about a survivor. It is the true story of Governor Palin and what she represents as most Americans have never seen before. I strongly recommend that they do when the film comes out on July 15.

Kimberley Strassel; Elitist Naysayer de Jour

Kimberley Strassel wrote a piece on Thursday, for the Wall Street Journal in which she attacked Governor Palin wrongly as being someone who doesn't engage in "serious policy discussion." Before she began her best Charles Krauthammer impersonation, she took a swipe at Palin supporters. She wrote:

Her fans have come to view her as the living antithesis of everything they find offensive—the mainstream media, cultural elites, out-of-touch Washington. She so embodies this role that it is no longer clear whether her backers support her in her own right or support her because they so dislike what she dislikes.

Listen Kim, I've spent over two years, down here in the muck defending an honorable reformer from the most vile, insane, and downright evil attacks from the Republican establishment, left-wing zealots, backstabbers, and crackpots. I, just as any other Palin supporter, don't need your detached opinion about why we support Governor Palin. I've known for quite some time why I support this woman, and it's not because she's some sort of "symbol" for all the things I find "offensive." I could go on to list Governor Palin's attributes and record to better describe why I support her, but that would take another blog post. For now, just know that her courage and principles have everything to do with it.

Strassel goes on to make the kind of uninformed remarks about Governor Palin that we have come to expect from writers of her ilk, such as:

Of all criticisms of Mrs. Palin back then, the most legitimate was that the relative political newcomer lacked knowledge and experience, in particular on foreign policy. A serious candidate, one who was determined to seize the frontrunner mantle in 2012, would've set about using the intervening years to bone up, to demonstrate accomplishments, and to build a brilliant team.

What does Strassel know about Governor Palin's foreign policy team? She knows that nobody she knows is on it. And exactly what kind of foreign policy "accomplishments" should the governor have at this point? Standing with Israel, in Israel near the same time as our current president is selling out their security, should be something to be admired in a prospective candidate. Highlighting our country's relationship with India, and the plight of the people of Haiti, is also important. I'm just not sure what Strassel considers as an "accomplishment," or what other possible GOP candidates have done in this realm to merit her giving them a pass.

Strassel continues:

Mrs. Palin had a perfect perch from which to do this, as governor. She instead chose to quit that job and retreat to (let's be honest) the easier occupation of private citizen. Rather than build a team, she has cast herself as a one-woman-show. Her supporters love this spunk, but the aggressive insularity—Sarah against the "establishment"—has also served to alienate many of the local political leaders and organizers necessary to build a nationwide campaign. That includes fund-raisers.

Yes, let's be honest, shall we...

Obviously, Strassel isn't familiar with the fact that Governor Palin RESIGNED for the good of her state. Otherwise, Strassel would consider that a bogged-down, politically targeted (with no help from the national Republicans, thank you very much) administration would have been better for the governor's future political aspirations. If Governor Palin had just forgotten about Alaska's welfare, and thought about her own, she would be respected by the Beltway establishment. No wonder this country is so messed up!

Strassel goes on to praise Mitt Romney for having a health care "plan" and Newt Gingrich for "getting into specifics." She doesn't get into the specifics about which of Newt's "specifics" were so impressive, however. She then states that Governor Palin "has not outlined many policies of her own."

Why is Kimberley Strassel writing articles about people whom she is unfamiliar with? Governor Palin has taken a position on virtually every major issue since the 2008 election, in detail. Even recently, throughout the "One Nation" bus tour, Governor Palin has been talking policy. All you have to do to find this out is read articles written by people who actually pay attention. Like for instance, Byron York:

One thing many viewers have probably missed in all the horse-race speculation is that Palin is perfectly willing to discuss her positions on key issues, if anyone wants to ask. In fact, in recent days, weeks, and months, we've seen a lot of policy commentary from the former Alaska governor.

[...]

For those interested in her positions on issues, Palin's Facebook page is filled with notes and commentary. Recent entries include titles like "New Afghanistan Development Dangerous to NATO," "Obama's Strange Strategy: Borrow Foreign Money to Give to Foreign Countries," "Barack Obama's Disregard for [Israel's] Security Begs Clarity," "Obama's Failed Energy Policy," and "Removing the Boot from the Throat of American Businesses." They're not think-tank white papers, but they are substantive statements on key issues.

The other GOP candidates really aren't all that specific in their policy statements, I've suffered through them, I know. These guys pander to which ever audience they are in front of at any given time, and they flip-flop all over the map on important issues. None of them have a record of reform, but they have sipped cocktails with all the right foreign policy advisers, lobbyists, and party "leaders." For that alone, they won't be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as the governor, I guess.

Clearly, nothing Governor Palin says or does will be enough for people like Kimberley Strassel, Charles Krauthammer, and Elitist Inc. The question for the future is, how much longer will people listen to baseless arguments from these sheltered columnists?

Andy Barr Gets the "Who" Very Wrong in His Rolling Thunder Coverage

Andy Barr offered us another fine example of excellence in journalism during his coverage of the Rolling Thunder event on Sunday, in Washington DC. He writes in the first paragraph (emphasis):

Only one advance staffer was on hand to wrangle the fans and reporters hoping to get close to the former vice presidential nominee, who arrived at Sunday’s Rolling Thunder rally on a motorcycle driven by her daughter Willow.

Wait, what? Willow Palin is 16 years old. The woman who drove Governor Palin to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial looks young, but she certainly looks old enough to vote.

I actually know the name of the woman driving and it isn't "Willow Palin." She lives in my city where she does NOT attend High School, but in fact, owns a small business. I'm not going to publish her name here however, due to the fact that she has not released it through any media agency or otherwise in connection with the Rolling Thunder event.

That said, the best part of the Andy Barr piece is that he already posted a correction about who was driving the motorcycle. At the end of the article, he wrote (emphasis):

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story mistakenly indicated that Sarah Palin was driving a motorcycle when she arrived. Willow Palin was.

He really got this obvious, yet basic fact wrong TWICE!

A San Diegan who is not Willow Palin and Governor Palin riding to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial during Rolling Thunder event in Washington DC, 2011.

I'm not going to launch into some tirade by insinuating some sort of bias on Andy Barr's part here. Clearly it wasn't Andy's, nor his editors political leanings at work here. This is actually the same problem I alluded to the other day when I wrote the piece about ABC's horrendous reporting. This is pure laziness and sloppiness on the part of Barr and his editors.

It's bad enough that we as Americans have to deal with the constant diet of bias from the leftist media mills. But when they can't even get the basic who, what, where, when, why, and how of a story correct, it makes you wonder why they exist at all. We're accustomed to reading news and filtering out the bias, just to grab on to a fact or two. As it turns out, that might not be a good idea either.

Taking a Look at ABC's Sloppy Coverage of Governor Palin's Interviews

Recently, ABC News has descended into the sort of sloppy journalism usually reserved for the entertainment section of any media institution. That stands to reason considering that they have been assigning an entertainment writer to cover political news.

That entertainment reporter, Sheila Marikar (apparently also a writer for ABC's The Note, which bills itself as being "Washington's Original and Most Influential Tipsheet") has been the designated reporter covering Governor Palin's recent Fox News interviews. Her awful reporting skills became apparent last week, after she wrote a piece on the governor's interviews with Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren. Marikar started her piece (emphasis added):

In a pair of conservative talk show appearances Wednesday night, Sarah Palin defended presidential contender Newt Gingrich's criticism of fellow Republican Paul Ryan's Medicare plan by reiterating her frustration with the “leftist lame-stream media."

Um, no she did not.

What Governor Palin said in regards to Newt Gingrich during those interviews was:

On Hannity:

I do believe that Newt Gingrich is terribly wrong on his assessment of Representative Ryan's plan. It is good fiscally sound and courageous plan. And it's not all just about Medicare, we have to make sure that we are understanding that Ryan's budget is a big difference as opposed to the Obama budget, which of course have has us on the road to bankruptcy.

On Greta:

Well, I think that the media -- that we all have a right to ask Speaker Gingrich, what in the heck did you mean that Paul Ryan's budget plan is radical or social engineering? No, what is radical is not proposing a plan to counter Obama's budget plan that has us on the road to bankruptcy.

[...]

You know what I thought after the whole Newt Gingrich thing in these last 24 hours, Greta, was, "Bless his heart" and every other good ol' boy's heart that's in that political game there in the Beltway. They don't really know any more than the rest of us. Greta, it was Newt Gingrich who told me in January of this year, Sarah Palin needs to slow down and really think through what it is that she has to say. Well, you know, he stumbles, too. We all stumble. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses.

Clearly the governor's statements were not an endorsement of Newt Gingrich's position on Paul Ryan's plan. Or at least whatever Newt's position was the day he stumbled, but I digress...

Keeping up with that sort of journalistic standard, Marikar "reported" on Sunday for ABC (emphasis added):

“Anyone who studies history, studies the old testament, studies geography understands that Israel now is surrounded by enemies at all times,” Palin said on Jeanine Pirro’s “Justice With Judge Jeanine.” “It should be now that America takes a stand in defending our enemies in Israel.”

That's quite the typo you've got there, Sheila.

She later changed it by replacing the word "enemies" with "friends" however, nowhere in the article does it mention that she made any changes from a previous version. Which it should have considering other news outlets, like the Israeli media site Ynet, used ABC as a reference to cover the interview. As of right now, Ynet's article still reads "enemies."

I'm sure the readers on Ynet can read the rest of the article and conclude that Governor Palin did not mean "enemies" but when placed in quotation marks like that, they may conclude that she said it. Worse, perhaps someone will only read that part of the article and conclude that the governor really meant that!

Do you see how sloppy journalism can effect people's perceptions? One poorly designated reporter writes up a couple of articles laden with mischaracterizations and misquotes, other reporters pick up the words and repeat them for readers all of over the world. This is how rumors and false perceptions begin. Although the press deeply resents that Governor Palin refers to them as the lamestream media, they are more than deserving of that title. In fact, they should thank her for being so kind.

The Matter of Bachmann's Record

Monday, Matt Lewis wrote a piece for The Daily Caller that received a lot of attention concerning Michele Bachmann's record. He covered some territory regarding the congresswoman's background that had until now, gone unnoticed and unreported in most conservative circles. In fact, Lewis begins the last paragraph in his column by saying:

To be sure, most of Bachmann’s potential problems and challenges have been reported in the past, but they are not widely known by grassroots conservatives.

Conservatives appreciate Michele Bachmann because she speaks their language on many issues. However, saying the right things only matters if your words match your actions. Unlike the liberals of 2008, conservatives are far too smart to nominate a potential presidential candidate on rhetoric alone. A politician can say they are against government excess and waste, and preach about reform, but what have they ever done while in office to prove it? What does Michele Bachmann's record say about her, above and beyond the speeches to the base?

Lewis' piece breaks down many aspects of Bachmann's short political history. His piece begins:

When it comes to Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, the Tea Party rhetoric doesn’t always match the record. Should she launch a serious bid for president, Bachmann would likely find herself defending a slew of questionable votes and decisions, including on earmarks, pardons and farm subsidies.

Bachmann’s penchant for earmarks dates back to her days in the Minnesota state Senate. Despite her reputation as a fiscal conservative, from 2001-2006, then-state Senator Bachmann proposed more than $60 million in earmarks, including a $710,000 “Bond For Centerville Local Improvements Around Highway 14″ and a $40,000,000 “Bond for Lino Lakes And Columbus Township Highway Interchanges.”

Bachmann's communication director attempted to paint such action on earmarks as being something voters approved of because they "expect that things like road projects should be done at the state level, where voters can have a say through the selling of bonds.” As Lewis points out, that's a fine argument, but it isn't consistent with other facets of Bachmann's record. For instance:

[S]ince joining the U.S. Congress in 2007, Bachmann has appropriated more than $3.7 million in earmarks. What is more, when Republicans sought an earmark moratorium, Bachmann pushed to exclude transportation projects from the ban.

Aside from earmark spending and federalism vs. statism hypocrisy, there is also the matter of the Bachmann collecting farm subsidies on some family property. Lewis wrote:

Bachmann’s fiscally conservative positions will also need to be squared with the fact that from 1995-2009, the Bachmann Family Farm (still listed as being owned by her deceased father-in-law) collected $259,332 in federal farm subsidies. According to financial disclosures, Bachmann has personally reported income of between $15,001-$50,000 from “Bachmann Family Farm LP. Bachmann & Associates.” (Additionally, the Christian psychology clinic run by Bachmann’s husband, Marcus,
has received nearly $30,000 in state funding since 2007.)

Bachmann's office claims that she is merely a trustee on the farm, and has no operational control over the decisions made regarding it... Okay, if they say so, but her office never mentions the state funding that her husband's clinic receives.

Matt Lewis' column also discussed Bachmann's involvement with a controversial request for a presidential pardon. He writes:

In 2007, Bachmann wrote a letter requesting a presidential pardon for a convicted drug-smuggler and money-launderer named Frank Vennes. Vennes was convicted of money laundering in 1988 and pleaded no contest to a cocaine and weapons charge. Making matters worse, he and his wife donated a total of $27,600 to Bachmann’s 2006 and 2008 election.

Bachmann's camp said in response to Lewis' inquiring on the matter, that the congresswoman "too hastily accepted his [Frank Vennes] claims of redemption." Unfortunately, they did not address the $27,600 in campaign donations from a money-laundering drug-smuggler.

That leads us up to the part where Lewis writes about Bachmann's record in the House of Representatives. While the congresswoman should be credited with the forming of the Tea Party Caucus, I have yet to see her take a leadership position with that group of legislators, within the body of the House itself. Time may tell a different story, but it would certainly help push the stated agenda of the caucus, if the founder spent more time in DC as opposed to Iowa. Nonetheless, Lewis notes the thin list of Bachmann's other legislative accomplishments. He writes:

Bachmann’s effectiveness as a legislator will almost certainly come into question if she begins to gain traction as a candidate. Since becoming a member of the U.S. Congress in 2007, even her fans concede that her legislative career has been relatively unremarkable. During an interview with The Daily Caller, Matt Kibbe, president and CEO of FreedomWorks, called her an “articulate spokesman” for the tea party, but added: “She doesn’t have a long list of legislative accomplishments.”

In fact, during her four years and four months in Congress, Bachmann has sponsored and passed only two bills (one recognizing the 150th anniversary of Minnesota and one honoring public child welfare agencies) and three resolutions. (Note: Her Healthcare Fiscal Accountability Act in the current Congress has 91 co-sponsors and her St. Croix River crossing legislation has bipartisan co-sponsorship and the support of Democratic Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton. She is also talking with Democratic Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar about working together on this issue.)

Senior writer for the Washington Examiner, Philip Klein added:

“[W]hen it comes to choosing a presidential candidate, I think conservatives need to look beyond who they like or agree with the most, and carefully consider who has the experience and record to be good at the job of being president. Some conservatives may argue that passing new legislation is bad, but others believe her failure to pass legislation speaks to her lack of effectiveness in the body."

I think an argument can be made for both, but a good leader within the legislative branch knows how to make a real impact. See "Paul Ryan" for details...

I often hear or read conservatives comparing Michele Bachmann to Governor Palin, but I've never really understood the comparison. Sure, they're both conservatives who happen to be female, but their records are remarkably different. In all honesty, I find it insulting to Governor Palin to be continually compared to a House Member, just beginning their second term. I mean no personal offense to Michele Bachmann, but Governor Palin has a wealth of accomplishments and a real record of reform. The congresswoman doesn't. Bachmann may be a good spokesperson for the conservative movement, but the more the base learns about her actual record, the less likely she is to pick up a GOP nomination. At this point, she would only be helping the wing of the Republican Party that the base doesn't want to see facing off with Obama in 2012. Perhaps Michele Bachmann should take a page out of the Mike Pence book of leadership, by spending her efforts running for Governor. That way, she can get some executive experience and while adding real accomplishments to her record. Things she can bring to the table in a possible future run for the White House.

It is true that actions speak louder than words. Governor Palin's words are great, but her actions are what lead me to support and defend her. This nation is at a critical point in history. We must demand that our leaders have it in them to live up to their rhetoric. We are well past the point of accepting empty campaign slogans and red meat buzz words as a sufficient resume. We need proven, effective leadership, and nothing less.

Frivolous Lawsuit Filed Against Sarah Palin, AP Fails Reporting Story

Last Tuesday, a man by the name of Chip Thoma filed a lawsuit against Governor Palin over an alleged "traffic conspiracy." Yes, you read that right... If you're thinking this sounds like some sort of ridiculous frivolous complaint, you would be correct. Mr. Thoma isn't new to Governor Palin, nor is he new to filing frivolous claims against Alaskan Governors. However, you wouldn't know much about this case if you got all of your news from the Associated Press.

Becky Bohrer, the AP writer who covered the story, not only posted her story with an embarrassing grammatical error, but she also omitted key details from her report. She wrote:

An activist is suing Sarah Palin for at least $100,000, claiming she undertook a campaign to "punish, embarrass, discredit and silence" him while she was Alaska's governor.

Palin's attorney, John Tiemessen, called the complaint frivolous and said it was filed "merely for the purpose of harassment."

"The governor's actions and statements regarding this matter are a matter of public record and governed by the long standing doctrine of executive immunity from tort claims," he said in an email late Friday. "Like all of the other harassing complaints against the governor, we anticipate that Mr. Thoma's will be quickly and summarily dismissed."

Thoma's attorney, James McGowan, said Thoma complained about tour bus traffic on the narrow, windy [sic] streets around the governor's mansion. McGowan said Thoma, whom he described as a "Palin fan" at the time, sent tour operators fliers to try to encourage them to change the routes. He said Thoma also helped neighbors create yard signs against what Thoma considered the noise, pollution and congestion caused by the buses.

I think Chip Thoma was as much of a "Palin fan" as I am an Obama supporter. Of course, I'm not sure what Mr. Thoma's voting eligibility status is after his cocaine conviction and receiving numerous DWI's.

This all started back in May of 2009, when Chip Thoma started publicly protesting tourists visiting Juneau and the buses that drove them around the city. He claimed that Governor Palin attracted "voyeurism" due to her "notoriety," in an interview he gave to the Anchorage Daily News shortly after he sent letters to tour bus operators and started placing signs that read "Stop Local Tours" around the area of the governor's mansion. Palin offered to meet with Thoma to see if they could work something out, but he declined the meeting. She then delivered a written statement in which she welcomed the tourists and said she "can't imagine other areas of Alaska looking at having the Governor's house nearby as a degrading irritation that invites voyeurism."

The current complaint from Thoma was filed as an intentional tort, meaning that he believes she caused him some sort of harm by speaking about his efforts to curb tourism to the city. Governor Palin was completely within the bounds of the law, and also her duty to speak publicly about someone who was attacking one the state's largest industry's.

As Palin's attorney stated in the AP article, this case will be throw out, just as the case Chip Thoma filed against former Alaska Governor, Walter Hickel in 1997. The case of Thoma vs. Hickel is a key detail left out of Becky Bohrer's report. Considering the complaint is of the same nature, and directed at the same seat of government, one would think this would be a relevant item to the current story.

Walter Hickel was accused of engaging in a "smear campaign" against Chip Thoma after Thoma began a recall effort against the governor. The Sierra Club joined Mr. Thoma in his effort to get Governor Hickel out of office. When Hickel's office wrote the Sierra Club asking them why would they align themselves with a convicted felon and a serial drunk driver, Thoma cried foul over the disclosure of such information. Everything Hickel's office state in their letter was a matter of public record. And as was the case in 2009, "under Alaska law, public officials in the executive departments of government have either absolute or qualified immunity from tort suits." The court ruled against Thoma in this case stating:

The court holds in Part II that Hickel is entitled to qualified immunity from this suit because Thoma failed to assert a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, concluding that a 1983 claim does not reach retaliation by speech because imposition of § 1983 liability would have a chilling effect on expression protected by the First Amendment.

The court concludes that imposition of 1983 liability on a public official who “responds in kind” to protected speech critical of the official would not be consistent with the First Amendment:

Making public officials civilly liable for retaliatory speech would, in essence, convert the First Amendment model of an interchange into a one-way street. As we believe this would be fundamentally inconsistent with the values protected by the First Amendment, we conclude that no valid claim of retaliation has been asserted by Thoma.

Not only did Wally Hickel win the verdict, he was also awarded $77,865.50 in attorney's fees. You would think that Chip Thoma would have learned his lesson on tort laws during his experience with Governor Hickel, but it's clear that he did not. He clearly found an attorney who is willing to take his case on against Governor Palin, perhaps someone seeking some "notoriety" of their own.

Americans are sick of these sort of frivolous cases that so abuse our justice system. These things cost taxpayers money and place an unnecessary burden on to the public. We are equally tired of the shoddy reporting from the likes of the Associated Press. When they aren't distorting and spinning facts to fit their world-view, they are disregarding key elements in stories such as this. Whether their lackluster performance at their duties are ideologically driven, or rooted in old-fashion laziness, is hard to say. The silver-lining here is that while we may be fed up with the current state of journalism, we also have other sources for information gathering available to us. Use your search engines wisely.

The "E! True Hollywood Story" on Sarah Palin Misses the Mark

The E! entertainment network chose to use Governor Palin as the subject of the Thursday episode of their "True Hollywood Story." Strangely enough, most of the show was based out of Alaska...

The entire purpose of E! doing this show is clearly to push the narrative that Governor Palin is more of a "celebrity" than she is a political figure. I lost count of the number of times the show actually referred to Governor Palin as a "celebrity." Given Hollywood's general political affiliations, it would make sense that they would apply their resources to continue the theme.

Salon.com seems to think that this hurts her with the electorate, even though she had nothing to do with the production of the show. The clips that E! shows of Governor Palin being interviewed are from John Ziegler's 2009 movie titled "Media Malpractice." Unfortunately, viewers who have not seen Ziegler's documentary will have the false impression that Governor Palin agreed to be interviewed by E!. She was not interviewed by them for this show, nor were any of her family members or staff.

Having learned some of the names of the people E! chose to interview for the show prior to it's airing, I was prepared to see a skewed version of Governor Palin's biography, which I did. They opened the show talking about Governor Palin's younger years growing up in Alaska, at which time they got the actual name of the town the Heath family moved to when the governor was just small child, wrong. There were much more than geographical errors in their reporting, but mix-ups that obvious should serve as a warning flag to viewers that what they were watching wasn't very accurate.

One of the first faces to appear being interviewed by E!, was a woman by the name of Anne Kilkenny. Oddly enough, they ran a segment of Kilkenny discussing Governor Palin's religious background. This is odd because Kilkenny is a Wasilla resident most known for filling part of the vacuum created when the McCain campaign fumbled media coverage of the VP selection roll-out in 2008. Kilkenny, an active Democrat, submitted a highly inaccurate, politically motivated email to national news agencies during that time. She is responsible for establishing some of the earliest misnomers and outright lies about Governor Palin, many of which hinting that the governor is some sort of religious extremist. On the E! program, Kilkenny also repeats the meme she helped to create, that Governor Palin wanted to ban books in the Wasilla Library while she was Mayor. Thankfully, E! also interviewed the former Wasilla Deputy Mayor, Judy Patrick who shot down that lie by stating "I can not say that strongly enough, that she did not ask for any books to be banned."

Another face featured throughout the only slightly true Alaska story, was Andy Barr of Politico fame, and someone I affectionately refer to as "Skippy." Barr does his part to downplay the level of corruption Alaskans were dealing with at the time that Governor Palin resigned in protest from the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. This subsequently downplays her actions to bring that corruption to light, and discounts the effect she had in helping clean up the states business.

Barr also brings up the ridiculous Bush Doctrine clip from the Charlie Gibsin interview, during the 2008 presidential campaign. According to Skippy, the Bush Doctrine is specifically "using force before a situation escalates." It's amusing that liberals tried to make a political point with this in 2008, and it still is today. The left are the only people who used that phrase. Republicans as a whole, had no idea what Gibson specifically meant by that question, as he condescendingly peered over his glasses at the governor.

The E! show used some of the journalists they interviewed (including Skippy) to discuss what is known as "Troopergate." Overall the program did a very poor job of covering this topic. Barr said that the ethics commission found that Governor Palin "probably violated ethics rules" in the matter but in all actuality the Alaska Personnel Board cleared Governor Palin of any wrongdoing, and that was never disclosed on this show.

Another topic E! touched on but failed, was Palin's resignation from the governorship. They amusingly interviewed a well known personality in Alaska, named Shannyn Moore to talk about it. For those of you who don't know who Moore is, this would be the equivalent of interviewing Rush Limbaugh to discuss Barack Obama's term as Senator... Moore states that when Governor Palin returned to Alaska from the 2008 campaign, she "came home to absolutely no friends." And by "fiends" Moore means her own friends in Democrat politics. E! never discusses the avalanche of frivolous "ethics" complaints that Moore's friends were filling against the governor, nor do they mention the toll that this was taking on conducting state business.

During the interview, Shannyn Moore tries to imply that Governor Palin was torn between her role as Alaska's Governor, and national politics. In another geographical error for the program, Moore states that Palin was attending "anti-choice rallies" in "Ohio" and "California." But in reality, Governor Palin had only attended one pro-life event in Indiana. Moore and her friends pitched public fits any time Governor Palin did anything, much less leave the state for 36 hours after discussing it with legislators.. They created phony controversies out of nothing, and trashed Palin on a daily basis. One wouldn't get that impression from watching the E! program.

Many people were interviewed over the course of the show. While I am happy that they spoke to a couple of people who defended the governor, I am still astonished by the particular critics they chose to talk to. Granted the show was only an hour long, and I will concede that they cleared up some old rumors about the governor; however, viewers won't come away with very accurate picture about who Sarah Palin is.

As stated above, I think the main reason to produce such a show about Governor Palin is push into the public conscious that she belongs in the world of celebrity, over the world of politics. While it's true that the governor did an eight-part series for TLC, mostly showcasing her state of Alaska, she isn't currently on any non-news related television, nor is she taking part in anything related to Hollywood. Anybody who saw or read her speech from Wisconsin, or keeps up with her on Facebook, knows where Governor Palin's strengths are. This is a woman who has battled corruption, has been the first to take on the current administration on major issues, and has proved her strength by helping many commonsense conservatives get elected last November. She isn't going to be marginalized into some meaningless celebrity status just because the entertainment industry wishes it so.