On the same day that the 2013 NRA Convention began in Houston, TX Barack Obama was in Mexico telling an audience that "most of the guns used to commit violent crimes here in Mexico, come from the United States." What he didn't tell that audience was that his administration is responsible for Operation Fast and Furious, a program in which the ATF told reluctant gun store owners to sell high-powered guns to bad guys who would then 'walk' those guns to drug cartels in Mexico.
Yet, Republicans and gun rights activists have avoided bludgeoning those in the administration and on the Democratic side of the aisle by contrasting the exploitation of Sandy Hook with the failed attempt to exploit the consequences of Fast and Furious by pointing to its consequences. Those consequences have been - and continue to be - hundreds of murdered people. The Obama administration wanted to used those consequences to push gun control but couldn't because of whistleblowers in general, and one in particular - ATF Agent John Dodson.
Dodson came forward when one of the guns found at the murder scene of Border Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010 was a gun from Operation Fast and Furious. In 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress and Obama asserted Executive Privilege to prevent documents from coming forward that would reveal the truth about the operation.
Despite all of this, Obama presented every speaker at the NRA Convention with a golden opportunity to draw this contrast. To this point, no one has highlighted this contrast.
Said Obama on Friday, May 3rd, the first day of the NRA Convention:
"I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people that can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States... So we'll keep increasing the pressure on gun traffickers who bring illegal guns into Mexico. We'll keep putting these criminals where they belong - behind bars."
This is gall-dacity.
Despite this low-hanging fruit, even Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin have avoided contrasting Obama's exploitation of Sandy Hook with his failure to do so in Fast and Furious... because he got caught.
It's hard to explain why conservatives are avoiding the one argument that will deliver the most severe blow. They don't even use it when they're being taunted by Obama.
Makes. No. Sense.
Here is Cruz. Good speech but he also avoided Fast and Furious vs. Sandy Hook:
The shooting that took place inside the Family Research Council (FRC) is beginning to look more and more political in nature. FRC, headed by Anthony Perkins, is a socially conservative organization that supports the traditional definition of marriage and opposes gay marriage. One could say that FRC and Chick-fil-A are on the same page.
Floyd Lee Corkins was taken into custody after shooting a security guard in FRC's lobby. It turns out that Corkins has done extensive volunteer work at a gay rights organization and was carrying several Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack at the time of the shooting. Oh, and one more thing; the FBI has reported that Corkins made a political statement prior to the shooting.
On Wednesday, 28-year-old Floyd Lee Corkins of Herndon, Va., allegedly entered the lobby of the Family Research Council and shot the security guard. According to the FBI, Corkins had a 9mm handgun, two magazines of ammunition, 50 rounds of additional ammo and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack. According to the FBI, he “stated words to the effect of ‘I don’t like your politics...’”
...The suspect, Floyd Corkins, had been volunteering for the last six months at The DC Center for the LGBT Community. The DC Center released a statement condemning the violence, which was signed by 40 other local and national LGBT groups.
That leads us to the very left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), primarily because of the standard set by the left-wing media, pundits, and movement. The SPLC actually has a 'Hate Map' that identifies entities and individuals it views as being hateful. The FRC is on that map and listed as being 'Anti-Gay'.
First, some context and why SPLC's map is relevant.
Within hours of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting on January 8, 2011, New York Times writer Paul Krugman blamed Sarah Palin for using a map that showed 'crosshair' targets on districts in the country that were held by vulnerable Democrats prior to the 2010 elections; Giffords' district was one that had a target on it and Krugman pounced:
We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.
Instead of being fired for journalistic malpractice, Krugman remained a hero to the left. A consequence was that a new, very low standard had been set. Using Krugman's standard, perpetrators of acts of violence could not only escape 100% accountability for their actions but that people who had nothing to do with it could be blamed. In this case, Krugman implied that Jared Loughner shot Giffords because Sarah Palin released a map that was clearly intended to identify vulnerable Democrats to be targeted... for DEFEAT AT THE BALLOT BOX.
Making matters worse for Krugman, as usual, were facts. Not only did Palin's map have absolutely nothing to do with the Tucson shootings but if Loughner was political at all, he was a leftist (he identified the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf as two of his favorite books).
Now, back to Corkins and the FRC shooting. Unlike Palin's map - intended to generate voter enthusiasm in certain districts - the SPLC's 'Hate Map' is quite plainly intended to identify groups with which it disagrees as being legitimate targets of hatred themselves based on their political views.
At a press conference on Thursday outside the FRC headquarters in downtown Washington, FRC President Perkins said, “I want to express my appreciation to the groups and organizations that we do not agree with on many public policy issues who have also expressed their outrage at what took place here yesterday. For that, I appreciate it. I appreciate them making those statements.”
“But I would ask them to go a step further and to join us in calling for an end to the reckless rhetoric that I believe led to yesterday’s incident that took place right behind me,” he said.
“And that does bring me to my final point,” said Perkins. “Let me be clear, that Floyd Corkins was responsible for firing the shot yesterday that wounded one of our colleagues and our friend Leo Johnson. But Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy.”
“And I believe the Southern Poverty Law Center should be held accountable for their reckless use of terminology that is leading to the intimidation and what the FBI here has categorized as an act of domestic terrorism,” he said. “There’s no room for that in a society such as ours that works through differences that we have on issues in public policy through a peaceful means.”
It is probably not advisable for Perkins to say that SPLC gave Corkins a 'license to shoot' because that can take away from his contention that Corkins was solely responsible for the shooting. However, when applying the standard set by the likes of Krugman, it's a valid point.
The FRC shooting appears to be much more politically motivated than the Giffords shooting was. Let's see, the shooter works for a gay rights group, carries 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack, proceeds to walk into the lobby of a socially conservative organization, and says openly that he doesn't like the politics of that organization while shooting people.
Yet, Krugman and his left-wing media colleagues are silent.
Why is Sarah Palin still scaring the Republican establishment? She's not running for anything. Why do members of that establishment feel the need to continue to go after her? The answers to those questions are that she still wields power (see Ted Cruz vs. David Dewhurst). It smacks of a case of 'thou doth protest too much.' Dick Cheney was the latest to do so, this Sunday, calling McCain's decision to select her as his running mate in 2008 a 'mistake.'
In reality, if 2008 taught us anything, it was that McCain was the mistake and the best thing he did was select Palin.
While appearing on Greta, Sarah Palin hit back at Cheney.
“Well, seeing as how Dick — excuse me, Vice President Cheney never misfires, then evidently, he’s quite convinced that what he had evidently read about me by the lamestream media having been written what I believe is a false narrative over the last four years, evidently, Dick Cheney believed that stuff, and that’s a shame,” Palin said. “So he characterized me as being a mistake.”
But Palin argued that the mistake wasn’t her selection. It would have been if she declined the nomination and pointed to her high numbers at the time of the 2008 presidential race that made her an attractive candidate.
“Here’s where the mistake would have been, Greta, I believe. It’s had I not answered the call — I was honored to get to run for vice president of the United States alongside Senator John McCain. I was honored to accept the nomination from the GOP. And I think that the mistake would have been me just deciding that, ‘Hey, I love my 86-87 percent approval rating up there in Alaska as the governor, moving and shaking and watching corrupt politicians and businessmen go to prison for crony capitalism, working on 16 to 20 percent of domestic energy supplies being able to be increased via Alaska’s resource development, ethics reform legislation that I was working on — that led to that 86 percent approval rating.”
People often forget that Palin did what the Republican establishment, which refers to her as things like a 'mistake' or unqualified, consistently prove incapable of doing - holding themselves and others accountable. In that regard, Palin was more qualified than McCain - in 2008. At minimum, she almost dragged McCain across the finish line despite his apparent unwillingness to cross it.
There are several reasons why the establishment resents the Tea Party. The former has a few secrets it doesn't want the latter to have access to. Sarah Palin - along with the candidates she continues to endorse and help win - represents forces that are demanding accountability from an establishment that doesn't like those forces and individuals on its heels.
Just some comments before I get to the video of Dick Cheney telling Americans that McCain's decision to name Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008 was a 'mistake.'
On today's program, I looked at the string of head-scratching incidents relative to the Bush administration's refusal to deal with the Islamic threat to the United States by the likes of Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef. If you've ever wondered about the root causes of the animosity for the Tea Party that exists within the Republican establishment, the intelligence available to the Bush administration both before and after 9/11 about the perpetrators of 9/11 is something the establishment doesn't want Tea Partiers like Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann getting too close to.
Naseef had distinct ties to the Saudi Arabian government; he was named in a civil lawsuit in 2004 by the families of 9/11's victims. However, he wasn't identified by the Bush administration as a target of American ire after 9/11, which he definitely should have been. Here is what Andrew McCarthy had to say about Naseef's history of escaping U.S. accountability relative to his ties to al-Qaeda:
…in 2004, he was named as a defendant in the civil case brought by victims of the 9/11 atrocities. (In 2010, a federal court dropped him from the suit — not because he was found uninvolved, but because a judge reasoned the American court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.)
The questions I posed were simple: Why was Naseef merely relegated to being a defendant in a civil case? Why wasn't he targeted by the Bush Administration? Why wasn't he prosecuted by Bush's Justice Department like, say, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who had been a State Department employee during the Clinton administration? In October of 2003, Alamoudi was arrested and ultimately convicted of financing terrorism.
If Alamoudi's background was given even a cursory look, it would have become obvious that Naseef was a bigger fish the administration should have been very interested in; it wasn't. Naseef skated and the threats posed by him and his underlings to America are graver than they've ever been. There was the reality of Bush granting access to Alamoudi despite big red flags. Here's a photo of Alamoudi standing with George W. Bush, circa 2000.
Presidential candidate George W. Bush and his political adviser Karl Rove meet with Muslim activist Abdurahman Alamoudi. The meeting is said to have been brokered by Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist. Little is known about the meeting, which will not be reported until 2007. At the time, Alamoudi is head of the American Muslim Council (AMC), which is seen as a mainstream activist and lobbying group. But Alamoudi and the AMC had been previously criticized for their ties to Hamas and other militant groups and figures (see March 13, 1996). Bush and/or Rove will meet with Alamoudi on other occasions (see (see July 2000, June 22, 2001, September 14-26, 2001). US intelligence learned of ties between Alamoudi and bin Laden in 1994 (see Shortly After March 1994); he will be sentenced to a long prison term in 2004 (see October 15, 2004).
Then, of course, there was Bush's decision to stand with CAIR six days after 9/11, at a mosque:
In 2002, a terrorist entity known as the SAAR Network was targeted by U.S. authorities. Both Naseef and Alamoudi were connected to SAAR (Alamoudi was an executive assistant). Yet, despite all of the evidence required to convict Alamoudi, we're to believe that the Justice Department just overlooked Naseef?!
Hardly.
Alamoudi wasn't the only terrorist who was given access to Bush. Sami al-Arian was another, via History Commons:
Sami al-Arian attends a meeting in the White House complex with President Bush’s adviser Karl Rove. Al-Arian is one of 160 members of the American Muslim Council who are briefed on political matters by Rove and others. Al-Arian had been under investigation for at least six years by this time, and numerous media accounts reported that US investigators suggested al-Arian had ties to US-designated terrorist groups. Yet al-Arian passes the Secret Service’s stringent security check, enabling him to attend the meeting.
NEWSWEEK, 7/16/2001; WASHINGTON POST, 2/22/2003] “A law-enforcement official… [said] the Secret Service had flagged al-Arian as a potential terrorist prior to the event,” Newsweek later reports. “But White House aides, apparently reluctant to create an incident, let him through anyway.” [NEWSWEEK, 3/3/2003] In 2005, al-Arian will be found innocent of serious terrorism charges, but sentenced to almost three years in a US prison on lesser charges (see December 6, 2005). Abduraham Alamoudi is also at the meeting. US intelligence have suspected Alamoudi of ties to bin Laden and Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman since 1994 (see Shortly After March 1994). Rove and Bush met with Alamoudi in 1999 and 2000 as well (see 1999 and July 2000). Alamoudi will later be sentenced to 23 years in a US prison for illegal dealings with Libya (see October 15, 2004). [WASHINGTON POST, 2/22/2003]
Here's a photo of Alamoudi (far left), George W. Bush (center), and Karl Rove (far right):
So what does all this have to do with Dick Cheney telling ABC News that selecting Sarah Palin as the VP running mate in 2008 was a mistake? It's anecdotal as much as anything. The Republican establishment in general and the Bush administration in particular messed up in a major way by not going after the government of Saudi Arabia after 9/11. Any serious attempt to find out the truth would have led to Abdullah Omar Naseef - an al-Qaeda leader who was connected to the Saudi government.
We're left to conclude that the establishment will fight tooth and nail to prevent the truth about what it did (and failed to do) both before and after 9/11. Until these people come clean and 'fess up, America will be placed in ever increasing danger.
When the establishment relinquishes power within the GOP, the Tea Party movement will not only seize it but will finally have access to all of the intelligence about how the establishment so roundly miscalculated; that establishment will do all it can to prevent that from happening.
Take a look at what Cheney said today, when viewed within that context:
Of course, if you remember being taken aback by what Barbara Bush said about Sarah Palin back in 2010, maybe we're getting closer to understanding why. Perhaps it has something to do with the threat to the establishment of the group Palin represents. That threat very well could be the truth about our flawed post-9/11 strategy being revealed:
**UPDATE** In light of this angle, I thought it relevant that Liz Cheney would tweet in disagreement with her father about Palin:
Whether he does it or not - and he probably won't - the best thing Mitt Romney (M-I-double tizzle) can do when it comes to a running mate is follow the template the McCain campaign used in 2008. He might win by playing it safe but his odds of winning exponentially increase if he balances the ticket with someone who energizes the base, not someone who neutralizes it.
If someone tells you that Mitt Romney inspires them, they're lying. Honest people will say voting for Romney is all about defeating Obama. In that regard, it's the John McCain redux. The Republican Party establishment is convinced that it can ride anti-Obama sentiment - and little else - to the White House. Avoiding a fight with the media or the incumbent - save for a few jabs - is the inexplicably defensive strategy the establishment types at the RNC think is the best one.
Consequently, in a race where the Republican nominee should be up by ten or more percentage points, Romney is on defense in a neck and neck race. With the Democratic Party's proclivity for electoral hijinks, that's a recipe for failure.
The Republican primaries saw the Republican establishment do one thing much better than the Tea Party - pick one horse and ride it all the way to the nomination. The Tea Party picked several horses and diluted its votes (Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich). Had it been a two-man race between Romney and any one of those candidates, the former Massachusetts Governor would have been a landslide victim.
Flashback to 2008; John McCain was no more inspiring that Romney is today. Prior to selecting his running mate - Sarah Palin - the base was admittedly deflated. Once McCain selected the Alaska Governor, life was breathed back into that base. She then proceeded to steal the show at the Republican Convention. The media's collective mouth was agape as McCain / Palin actually pulled ahead of Obama / Biden. She had to be destroyed and McCain didn't let her fight.
It wasn't until the stock market crash in September - coupled with McCain's ill-fated and counterproductive plan to suspend his campaign and head back to Washington to create the optics that he was engaged in fixing the problem - that Obama pulled away for good. Yet, there is a delusional narrative afoot among establishment types that Sarah Palin dragged John McCain down, that she prevented him from winning and that selecting her was a mistake.
The truth is that selecting Palin was the best thing McCain did. She prevented a shellacking and actually gave him a chance. She so electrified crowds that McCain never seemed to hit the stump without her. He knew better and would have been thoroughly embarrassed by the contrast in crowd numbers and energy.
In fact, had Palin been allowed to be the attack dog Vice Presidents are supposed to be, McCain may have pulled it out. Instead, Palin was told to avoid Obama's achilles heel - Jeremiah Wright. It wasn't until late in the contest that she was permitted to go after Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers. It proved too little, too late.
Obama's achilles heel in 2012 appears to be operation Fast and Furious. Yet, Mitt Romney's avoidance of it is palpable; it's the elephant in the foyer.
The Romney campaign is faced with two choices based on two realities - reality as it is and reality as his campaign wants it to be. A paradigm that says Palin prevented McCain from winning is delusional because the exact opposite is true; she almost dragged him across the finish line. The base didn't want McCain in 2008 and it doesn't want Romney in 2012, which is exactly why "M-I-double tizzle" should pick someone who would do for him this year what Palin did for McCain in 2008 - make people want to buy a Mitt Romney bumper sticker.
The very first test would involve an answer to the following question:
Who could Romney select that would unhinge the mainstream media and drive it out of its collective skull?
The ensuing list would be a good place to start. People like Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, and Condoleezza Rice wouldn't be on it.
People like Rep. Allen West (R-FL), Michele Bachmann (R-MN), and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker would be.
If Romney selects a 'Mini-Mitt (double, double tizzle), the establishment's paradigm would be torpedoed with a loss to Obama. Unfortunately, so might the nation.
I don't want to make too much of this but if Santorum beats Romney in Michigan, it may be the equivalent of landing an upper cut on an opponent with wobbly knees. It would be devastating. However, according to the Public Policy Poll (PPP), not only is Santorum ahead of Romney in the latter's formerly home state but he's blowing him away.
Rick Santorum's taken a large lead in Michigan's upcoming Republican primary. He's at 39% to 24% for Mitt Romney, 12% for Ron Paul, and 11% for Newt Gingrich.
Santorum's rise is attributable to two major factors: his own personal popularity (a stellar 67/23 favorability) and GOP voters increasingly souring on Gingrich. Santorum's becoming something closer and closer to a consensus conservative candidate as Gingrich bleeds support.
Santorum's winning an outright majority of the Tea Party vote with 53% to 22% for Romney and 10% for Gingrich. He comes close to one with Evangelicals as well at 48% to 20% for Romney and 12% for Gingrich. And he cracks the 50% line with voters identifying as 'very conservative' at 51% to 20% for Romney and 10% for Gingrich.
Yeah, that's a 15% lead for Santorum in Michigan. The vast majority of Gingrich's support would likely go to the former Pennsylvania Senator as well if the former Speaker dropped out.
A couple of random thoughts on this.
1.) As a Catholic, Santorum could very well be capitalizing on Obama's contraceptive mandate. It's a rule the administration issued that targets Catholicism more than any other religion since it goes completely against the Church's teachings. Though they're not supposed to endorse any political candidate, the Catholic Church might just be mad enough to do it with Santorum. Obama's Community Organizing tactics work when the CO's are underdogs. In the fight between Obama and the Catholic Church, the CO's are actually the bullies and the Church is the underdog. This, as much as anything, could be giving Santorum the momentum he's got.
2.) If Romney loses Michigan, it might be time for the establishment to throw up its hands and work for a brokered convention instead of coalescing behind any presumptive nominee other than Romney. Along those lines, if Romney represents the establishment and Santorum represents the Tea Party, how clear would that line of distinction be between Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin?
Santorum’s contraception boom — “We’re all Catholics now,” said Mike Huckabee — won’t hold up. Because we’re not. This race could well go to a brokered convention. If Jeb Bush is proposed, so Sarah Palin should be minutes later. She is now and always has been the singular Jacksonian voice in the original Tea Party phenomenon; the only one who can bring it to the mainstream. Her absence from the primary race has left a vacuum and no substitute has been found. Every other possible or potential leadership hopeful has risen and receded in this long Republican primary season.
But as The Hill’s Josh Lederman reports from the CPAC conference, the former Alaska governor received far and away the most spirited and enthusiastic reception at the convention of about 10,000 conservative activists. She drew the audience to its feet more than a dozen times during her keynote address on Saturday.
“The cheers for Palin were so loud that they drowned out her remarks again and again,” he writes. “Conference organizers had to set up three overflow rooms to accommodate the throngs of supporters eager to hear her words.”
Make no mistake. The second it's shown that Romney will not be the nominee, the establishment will fight, tooth and nail, to make sure neither Santorum nor Gingrich gets the nod and it certainly doesn't want Ron Paul (the one thing I agree with the establishment on). These are not just speculative rumors; they're practically self-evident truths.
They're only option at that point is to work toward a Brokered Convention. Jeb Bush and Mitch Daniels are warming up in the bullpen right...this...very...second.
If you're a conservative and don't know if you should go with Gingrich or Romney, Jeffrey Lord's latest piece at the American Spectator should help you decide.
"Ford Declares Reagan Can't Win" -- Headline in The New York Times, March 1, 1980
Yet still more mush from the wimps.
To borrow a famous Reagan phrase: "Well, there they go again."
Somewhere an exasperated Gipper is doubtless shaking his head.
The war between conservatives and the Republican Establishment -- and make no mistake, this is a war -- is on once more.
The people who brought the GOP losing candidates from Dewey to Dole are at it again.
Last week's assault on Newt Gingrich -- with various Romney supporters seriously and deceptively trying to tell unwitting voters that Gingrich was never really a real Reagan ally -- in reality has nothing to do with Newt Gingrich at all.
A certain staunch conservative - former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin - has been practically screaming for people to vote for Newt as her 2008 establishment running mate - John McCain - continues to stump for Romney.
Lord continues:
Sarah Palin is dead-on right.
If Newt Gingrich disappeared from the planet today and in his place stood only Rick Santorum -- or Sarah Palin herself or some other conservative -- you can be certain the Establishment GOP would have their sights trained on that conservative, running some version of precisely the same multi-gazillion dollar campaign they are running against Newt Gingrich right now. As a matter of fact, they did exactly this to Governor Palin from the very moment she stepped on the national stage in 2008. If by chance Rick Santorum emerges as the sole conservative left in this race -- look out Rick.
Here is Sarah Palin's appearance on Hannity one night before the Florida primary:
Read Lord's entire piece. It's long but well worth it.
Check out this chain of events. On Monday, January 16th, Newt knocks the ball out of the park at the Fox News debate. On Tuesday, January 17th, Sarah Palin makes news by telling South Carolina voters to pull the lever for Newt Gingrich on Saturday, January 21st. On Wednesday, January 18th (video below), Gingrich tells Wolf Blitzer that Sarah Palin will 'play a major role' in his administration. On Thursday morning, January 19th, Drudge reports that ABC will be airing an interview with the ex-wife of Gingrich that will make him look extremely bad. The CNN debate will take place hours after the announcement of ABC's hit piece.
Todd Palin endorsed Newt Gingrich last week, which gives people even more reason to think Sarah Palin did the same thing while appearing on Hannity's television show last night. So, did she endorse Newt?
Not really. If you listen to what she's saying here, it has more to do with wanting to keep Romney from pulling away than it does supporting Gingrich. Pundits far and wide are making the claim that if Romney wins in South Carolina, the nomination is his. If that's true, he can start tacking toward the left, which is where he's most comfortable.
What Palin is saying here is that South Carolinians who are undecided should vote for Gingrich, not because he's necessarily the best candidate but because it will buy the nation more time to shop.
There are a couple of things we CAN glean from Palin's comments here, though. First, I think it's safe to say that she's not much of a Romney fan. Second, she probably sees Newt as being more electable than Santorum. Then again, Newt is polling ahead of Santorum in South Carolina, so her motives may be 100% tactical in nature - keep the primaries going.
If you extrapolate this strategy to Virginia, where Paul and Romney will be the only two on the ballot, supporters of Gingrich and Santorum would be best served by voting for Paul in that state. It would keep Romney in check while keeping the not-Romney candidates in the race.
There are three factions in the Republican race right now - the establishment candidate (Romney), the libertarian candidate (Paul), and the anti-establishment candidate (Gingrich, Santorum, Perry).
Palin actually makes a good argument for South Carolinians who support Santorum or Perry to vote for Gingrich. If Romney wins this Saturday's primary, all three men could essentially be gone. If Gingrich wins, Santorum may still be alive (Perry will likely exit on Sunday either way).
Is this Sarah Palin, the populist, defending Ron Paul as someone who is 'pro-Israel' but wants to protect them in a 'different way.' Palin portrays herself as a strong advocate for Israel, which makes this statement on her part all the more disturbing. It sounds like she doesn't believe the claims of former Paul aide, Eric Dondero, or the scores of corroborating videos / writings that show Paul as being anti-Israel.
Not sure what Palin is thinking here but this could cause her to drop a few pegs with the Tea Party base.
Sarah Palin gave Rick Santorum an opening last week when she came very close to endorsing him on Hannity's television show. The former Senator from Pennsylvania is in desperate need of a shot in the arm and a Palin endorsement would certainly give it to him. At some point, however, he's going to have to garner a bit more support before the former Alaska governor is going to give him that endorsement.
To this point, Santorum hasn't been able to do that. What Palin did on Hannity appeared to me to be her attempt to open the door for Santorum but he's got to walk through it.
Here is Santorum talking about why Palin supporters should get behind him but he probably shouldn't expect a Palin endorsement until he at least gets into double digits.
The answer to the question in the title is, 'It sure looked like it.' While appearing on Hannity's television show, Palin first said she would not endorse anyone. Soon thereafter, she seemed to fire a shot across the proverbial bows of both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich by mentioning Rick Santorum by name and strongly hinting that the former Pennsylvania Senator is her kind of candidate.
Maybe it's just me but the only difference between Palin endorsing Santorum in this exchange and her not doing so was the fact that she didn't use the word 'endorse.'
Another good reason to support Santorum over Bachmann, for example, is that if Bachmann will be pulled out of Congress. Santorum does not currently hold elective office.
In case you didn't know, there is a movement afoot to draft Sarah Palin back into the presidential race. This is likely being fed by the fact that the 'Not-Romney' candidate is shaping up to be another DC establishment guy in Gingrich, who got there with strong debate performances and red meat rhetoric. Anyway, here is the ad that is set to run in Iowa on November 29th.
Of course, if Palin even honors the request, she will have put herself behind the 8-ball because some important filing deadlines have already passed, including Florida.
In light of the ad and sentiment among Tea Party voters, that neither Gingrich nor Romney is a sufficient choice, I found this exchange Palin had wit ET's Mary Hart back in October, 2010 rather interesting. Fast forward to the :30 mark to hear Palin say that if there's no one to do it, she would.
The candidates currently in the field that most closely align with the Tea Party are Cain, Bachmann, and Santorum. Cain is fading, Bachmann simply cannot energize the base like Palin can, and Santorum has yet to get any traction whatsoever.
The husband of Gabrielle Giffords, the congresswoman who was shot last January, is shockingly playing politics with his wife's shooting and 'targeting' Sarah Palin. If you remember, the left began politicizing the shooting within a few short hours; Paul Krugman comes to mind. The left continued to fish for a narrative and found one to beat on. Before the 2010 elections, Palin's team released a map of congressional districts with targets on them to illustrate 'targeted districts.' One of those districts was Giffords. The left actually drew a connection between those targets and the motive of Jared Loughner.
Conveniently absent from the left was the fact that Loughner was not motivated by those targets at all; if he was in the least bit political, he was a leftist (communist manifesto was a favorite book).
Yet, Mark Kelly has decided nearly one year later to go after Palin instead of do the responsible thing and categorically reject that narrative. This is really disgraceful.
Mark Kelly has spoken candidly about the moment he learned his wife, Arizona congresswoman Gabby Giffords, was shot at a voting event in Tuscon - and his disappointment at not having been contacted by Sarah Palin following the tragedy.
In a guest appearance on last night's CNN Piers Morgan Tonight show, the husband and father berated Ms Palin's irresponsibility, while Mr Morgan said he found her lack of contact 'extraordinary.'
Recalling the horrific moments he learned of the fatal shooting in January - and the ensuing misinformation that led him to believe his wife had been killed - the co-author of Gabby: A Story of Courage and Hope revealed that he believed his wife's strength saved her.
But it was the lack of any contact from former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin that was 'surprising' said Mr Kelly.
In order for Kelly to be surprised by the fact that he didn't receive a call from Sarah Palin necessarily means that he accepted the absurd premise that she had any degree of culpability in his wife's shooting. Obviously, the media narrative was effective in this regard. It actually caused Kelly to buy into it to some degree.
No doubt, he was angry and wanted to blame someone; it's human nature, which is what highlights the irresponsibility of the media.
The fact remains, however. Sarah Palin had absolutely nothing to do with Giffords' shooting. NOTHING. Logically, why would he call the Giffords? Wouldn't the media exploit that as an admission that she did?
Mr Kelly said that while he believes Ms Palin is not responsible for what happened that day, her actions were irresponsible.
'You know, this was no surprise to us,' he said. 'Gabby even spoke about it before January 8th, during the election cycle, leading up to the election, in an interview... She made is very clear that, hey, this is what's going on, and this could ultimately incite people to do violent things.
'
So it wasn't a big surprise on January 8th...having said that, you know, Sarah Palin certainly is not responsible for what happened. But I think the angry rhetoric in an election year is not - it's not helpful.'
Here's all you need to know. "Sarah Palin certainly is not responsible for what happened. But..." This is really, really shameful.
The word "but" in that regard means that Kelly is implying Palin had a degree of culpability when she had NONE. Isn't he doing the same thing to Palin that she is allegedly responsible for doing to his wife - putting her in danger?
This guy is an astronaut and obviously very intelligent, which is what makes his amazingly dumb behavior all the more troubling.
The endorsement of Sarah Palin is like getting Boardwalk and Park Place in a game of Monopoly; everyone wants it. To this point, the former Alaska governor hasn't yet tipped her hand as to who she's going to endorse but the stars may be aligning for Newt to pick it up.
Almost immediately upon Sarah Palin's announcement that she would not seek the Republican nomination for president, the phone calls from almost all of the GOP candidates began pouring in. They wanted her endorsement.
While Palin has characteristically kept her cards close to her chest, advisers suggest that the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee is likely to endorse before someone emerges as the inevitable nominee -- and that Newt Gingrich appears to be best-positioned to secure her support.
"They speak very favorably of Newt and what they see as his credentials as compared to Perry and Romney," one member of Palin's inner circle said of the former Alaska governor and her husband, Todd, who has long served as her unofficial chief adviser.
Gingrich has been particularly effusive in expressing his admiration for Palin over the last few months, and she has returned the favor by heaping praise on the former House speaker.
"Newt Gingrich again, I think, did the best because he seems to be above a lot of the bickering that goes on," Palin said on Fox News after a Republican debate in Las Vegas last month, adding that Gingrich would “clobber” President Obama in a general election debate.
The Obama media (mainstream media) wants Mitt Romney to win the nomination, just like it wanted McCain to win in 2008. The reason is three-fold. He is the candidate team Obama thinks it has the best chance to beat; he is the candidate least likely to generate an energetic conservative base; and as a liberal, Romney would be the left's best option if Obama were to lose.
That should tell every Republican voter that Romney is not the best candidate. He, in fact, might be the worst based on those reasons alone.
As for Gingrich, any debate he were to have with Obama would be something the Obama administration desperately wants to avoid. That should be obvious after watching Gingrich against his primary opponents. It is his debating that has got him where he is right now in the polls. The more debates, the better he does.
Assuming Palin is ready to endorse Gingrich and assuming that she has concerns about his D.C. establishment credentials, she's probably right to hold out her endorsement until she gets more of a public commitment from Gingrich - or whomever she chooses to endorse - that crony capitalism will be a thing of the past. That's been her hot-button issue and she should get as much as she can in return for her endorsement.
It appears that Andrew Breitbart may have done it again. When Big Government published an e-mail written by Joe McGinniss, the guy who moved in next door to the Palins, it didn't just provide evidence that McGinniss had no hard evidence to back up his tawdry claims; it's causing the Palins to consider suing both McGinniss and his publisher, Random House. In a letter sent to Random House, Palin's attorneys all but make the charge of defamation and then drop a bombshell by reminding the publisher that it is a crime to destroy evidence in the event of litigation.
Yeah, I know. The threshold necessary for a public figure to prove libel or slander is virtually impossible to meet. That reality more than likely factored into Joe McGinniss's decision to let loose with unsubstantiated facts about Sarah Palin. However, thanks to an email obtained by Andrew Breitbart and posted to his Big Journalism and Big Government sites, we may have our first bread crumb that leads to grounds for a lawsuit against McGinnis. McGinniss's recently released book, which is clearly intended to smear Sarah Palin, is full of extremely serious claims that, if unproven, may just meet the standard for proving libel of a public figure.
Though Breitbart hasn't divulged how he got his hands on the email McGinnis sent to a guy named Jesse Griffin, who used to run an anti-Palin blog, McGinnis has since confirmed its authenticity.
From: Joe McGinniss To: Jesse Griffin Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 6:15 PM Subject: I have to ask you for help
Jesse– Legal review of my manuscript is underway and here’s my problem: no one has ever offered documentation of any of the lurid stories about the Palins. Shailey Tripp is the latest example.
APD and Sarah have denied that Todd had any involvement with her. To my knowledge, no one has provided any evidence that he did. TheEnquirer cites AlaskaWTF, which in turn cites the Enquirer: what good is that? I’m also told that the Enquirer is preparing to back off this story and save face by denouncing Ms. Tripp as an unreliable source who promised documentation she couldn’t provide.
She may be mentally unstable and prone to fabrication, delusion, or both. Her joint may be called Blue Hands Massage (brrrrr!), but she’s no Monica Lewinsky with a blue dress with a semen stain, that’s for sure.
Do you believe that Todd paid her for sex? If so, why do you believe that, other than that you wish it were true?
A lurid, sensational, defamatory story about Todd, based only on the account of a woman charged with prostitution, who is no doubt desperate for money, and who sold her story to the Enquirer, is a gift from heaven for Sarah.
Jesse, you can ridicule Sarah for calling in to the execrable Bob & Mark, but the fact is that as far as this story goes, there’s no there there. And rumors about what might come in weeks ahead are not facts. In fact, they’re garbage.
I’ve neither seen nor heard anything that indicates that Ms. Tripp’s story has any basis in fact. None of the endless crap Patrick posted about her before getting the boot from palingates.com offers any substantiation.
CLICK HERE to read the entire email. McGinniss has CONFIRMED the email is authentic, the recipient of that email has quite ironically claimed to be a victim - along with McGinniss - of 'vicious attacks,' and the 'prostitute' referred to in McGinniss's email has directed questions to her attorney.
There is an interesting confluence of events taking place here. First off, McGinniss went over-the-top when he moved in next door to the Palins in order to do 'research' for the book. If it comes out that he knowingly put forth tawdry falsehoods as fact, his book may just do Sarah Palin more good than harm.
Meanwhile, the hopes conservatives have been pinning on Rick Perry seem to be getting dashed after he told his base they 'don't have a heart' if they're not willing to grant in-state tuition for illegals. With Perry fading, Romney rises by default and conservatives don't seem to have any hope of overthrowing Romney as the frontrunner unless Sarah Palin jumps in the race. If she does so at a time when McGinniss proves to have libeled her, it may actually provide her an even bigger boost.
Either way, it's interesting to see McGinniss on defense so soon after the release of his book.
CLICK HERE and scroll down for updates to this story.
I will continue to shout from the rooftops that Rick Perry would be a terrible choice for Republicans to settle on as their nominee. He is such a moderate, he'd only open the door for another Democrat in 2016. Unless the Republicans nominate a conservative, it will be the biggest waste of the Obama years. Jimmy Carter opened the door for Ronald Reagan. Obama is Carter on steroids and it will be an utter shame if conservatives don't take advantage of this reality. Sure, there are conservatives in the race (Santorum and Bachmann) but they increasingly look like they don't have a chance. There is one conservative who does and her name is Sarah Palin. She's also gaining ground on Obama.
WASHINGTON -- Look out President Barack Obama. Even Sarah Palin's gaining on you.
A new McClatchy-Marist poll finds that Obama looks increasingly vulnerable in next year's election, with a majority of voters believing he'll lose to any Republican, a solid plurality saying they'll definitely vote against him and most potential Republican challengers gaining on him.
Even in potential matchups where he leads, Obama in most cases has lost ground to the Republican.
The biggest gain came for Palin, the former Alaska governor who hasn't yet announced whether she'll jump into the fast-changing race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
After trailing Obama by more than 20 percentage points in polls all year, the new national survey, taken Sept. 13-14, found Palin trailing the president by just 5 points, 49-44 percent. The key reason: She now leads Obama among independents, a sharp turnaround.
If it's true that any Republican nominated would defeat Obama, why on earth should the Tea Party or conservatives settle for a moderate like Romney or Perry. Let's face it. As it stands right now, one of those two is probably who we're going to get unless Palin gets in. She's the only potential candidate who can beat either Romney or Perry for the nomination.
On top of that, she's the only one with a quantifiable record of taking on crony capitalism, which is fast becoming a primary issue in 2012.
Remember that guy who moved in next door to the Palins so he could stalk them and write a book? Well, it's coming out next week and in it are allegations that Sarah Palin had a one-night stand with then University of Michigan basketball player Glenn Rice. Rice would soon thereafter end up in Miami where he played for the Heat. Apparently, the Miami Herald has deemed the story fit to print and this has one of its own reporters - Armando Salguero - calling out his employer.
As someone who lived in south Florida for several years, I'm familiar with Salguero's work. When I was there, he was a beat reporter for the Miami Dolphins and did a good job. First up, an excerpt from the article on the Herald's Naked Politics blog that caught Salguero's ire:
Did Miami Heat star Glen Rice and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have a fling back in the 1980s, when she was a budding sports reporter and he was a star at the University of Michigan?
The National Enquirer is reporting that Palin, a former high school basketball standout herself, hooked up with Rice in 1987 when he was in Anchorage, Alaska, for a basketball tournament.
At the time, Palin was unmarried, just out of college and working as a sports reporter at Anchorage TV station KTUU. Rice was a junior and a basketball star -– he went on to lead the University of Michigan to a 1989 NCAA championship.
If the unhinged left is attempting to prevent Sarah Palin from getting into the presidential race with stuff like this, they may only be further encouraging her to do so.
In any event, check out what Salguero had to say in an email he sent to the entire Miami Herald Newsroom:From:
Salguero, Armando [mailto:asalguero@miamiherald.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 09:57 AM To: MIA Newsroom Subject: Palin and Glenn Rice
The Naked Politics blog is repeating the “reporting” of the National Enquirer about Sarah Palin having an affair with former Miami Heat basketball player Glenn Rice.
It is on the FRONT PAGE of The Herald website.
So as a journalist, I ask:
Do we know this story to be TRUE? Are we certain it is TRUE because we’ve done the work or have a reasonable certainty that is TRUE? Did anyone actually try to confirm this story before giving it Herald front page credibility? Did anyone call Glenn Rice to get independent confirmation? He lives in Miami, you know.
Is it now OK to repeat any “report” from the National Enquirer on the front page of the Herald’s website without actually reporting even one fact independently? The blog calls The Enquirer’s sources “solid.” How do we know the Enquirer’s sources — plural? And if we know the Enquirer’s sources, can’t we work them ourselves to see if they’re truly solid?
Question: Can I repeat on my blog any allegation made by the Enquirer culled from any book just because, well, if it’s in a book or in the Enquirer, Herald policy is now to assume it must be true?
There have been a couple of good Enquirer stories on athletes coming from other planets. Those are in bounds now?
If this Rice story, unconfirmed and unreported by us, can be published on our site, do the alien stories not meet the same standards?
These, by the way, are my questions relative to journalism. But there are other things at play here. The Herald, like it or not, admit it or not, is widely viewed as a liberal newspaper. Palin is a conservative.
So we put this story on our website and conservatives that read us ask why The Herald didn’t report the stories of President Obama being gay in 2007 and 2008? Those stories were in the Globe, a competitor to the Enquirer. The allegations were brought by the person who said he had a drug-crazed, gay affair with the President...
CLICK HERE to read the entire letter. I'm going to send an e-mail to Salguero, thanking him for calling out the Herald. He had to have known that he would face a backlash from readers, his employer, and potentially even Glen Rice, who is a member of the sports community Salguero reports on.
Please send him an email expressing your support as well. Send it to: asalguero@miamiherald.com
Armando gets a BIG hat tip on this one and I don't have any idea what his politics are.
Last night's debate was the first indication that Republican candidates had any real interest in seeing the bloom come off the Rick Perry rose. In this first video, both Santorum and Bachmann go after the Texas governor for his signing of the Texas DREAM Act, which grants in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Santorum hits Perry first but Bachmann delivers the money line when she says that people who break our laws should not be eligible for government benefits. Perry's defense was quite pathetic and may have done him more harm than if he'd have deferred. He implied that those who disagreed with him were racist when he said he wasn't going to hold back benefits because of someone's last name.
Bachmann wasn't done. Neither was Santorum. Both also went after Perry over the Gardasil controversy. Bachmann got the better of it when she went for the jugular by rightly pointing out that not only did Perry sign the Executive Order that mandated 12-year old girls be vaccinated for a sexually transmitted disease but in doing so, he helped his former chief of staff who was a lobbyist for Merck, the company responsible for the drug.
Then, after the debate, Palin piled on, saying that the crony capitalism displayed by Perry in the case of Gardasil is exactly the thing she stood up against when she was governor of Alaska. If pressed for time, the good part comes at about the 6:45 mark.
