Dumb

From Boortz:

Ok, I have nothing else to say.

Sometimes You Have to Roll the Hard Six

Forgive the “all Sarah, all the time” coverage for the moment. I think this will be the last post. Please also forgive me repeating myself from a few of my other posts. But I was going to write this as a comment on a few different blogs, and to save time and energy, I’m just putting it all down here.

Many people have called her resignation crazy. Others have called it brilliant. The links are just two examples. I’m sure you can find plenty more. But both camps are wrong. It’s neither the brilliant choice, nor the crazy choice. It was her only choice.

First, two assumptions. Neither of which are guaranteed by any means.

1. There is no “other shoe about to drop”. She’s not stepping aside because of a scandal.
2. She’s not stepping aside because she’s just “sick of the whole thing”.

I guess there’s a third implicit assumption as well, that she has designs upon higher office.

If we take these as a given, then how could Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) achieve her goals? Let’s look at the obstacles first.

First, her term ends in December 2010. That may be too late to be starting to ramp up a campaign for the White House in 2012. In her case, it’s almost certainly too late. That’s sad, but it’s true. Especially given that she will have a harder time finding quality staff than some would. There’s a lot of resentment towards her from the party elite. And, given that the ankle-biters in AK have made it apparent that they will dog her every move and try to slap an “ethics violation” on it, she can’t really campaign before her term ends. Particularly when any trip she makes to the “lower 48” is guaranteed to be at least an overnight stay. One only needs to look at some of the 15 dismissed “ethics charges” to know that they will seize upon anything, no matter how small, to attempt to bring her down.

Second, and another reason why end of 2010 is too late for her to start, is that currently she is being defined by the likes of Maureen Dowd and David Letterman. As Governor of AK, there’s little she can do to define herself. Once again, she can’t go around the country making speeches. The wonderful people in AK aren’t going to let her. Any political consultant will tell you that when you’re being defined by your enemies, you’re going to lose. Every time.

Third, she really does care for the initiatives she’s set in motion in AK. And she really does loathe the “good ole boys” network there. She ran against and has actively worked against the corruption of the Murkowskis and their accomplices. Lt. Governor Sean Parnell (R-AK) seems like he will continue her work and continue to move her agenda forward, but he can’t do that if he’s not in office. Running as an incumbent gives him a big leg up in the near certain Republican AK primary, and a leg up in the general election as well.

Given these points, her options were severely limited. The first point makes it a given that at the very least, she should not seek re-election. The second point tells us that even leaving office early would be a good idea. The third point tells us that she should leave early enough to give Parnell time to have a legislative session under his belt which will allow him to actually be seen as an incumbent. Given that, she pretty much has to step down by this fall at the latest. And, once you’ve gone though all this thought process, and reached that conclusion, the next logical conclusion is “why wait any longer?”

Is it unconventional? Certainly. That doesn’t make it either crazy or brilliant though. The situation makes it necessity. But then, “necessity is the mother of invention” (Plato—wow,. I always thought it was Ben Franklin).

Is it high risk? Certainly. That doesn’t mean it’s crazy, though. As Admiral Adama says, “sometimes you have to roll the hard six".

A Thought On ‘Burying the News With A Friday Afternoon Release’

One of the many things discussed on Friday about Governor Sarah Palin’s (R-AK) surprise resignation from the governorship of AK was the timing. News media members of every persuasion reminded us that this was being released on the Friday afternoon of a holiday weekend, and that it had been “rushed together too fast” for the national media to be there.

The reason for this is that they wanted to bury the news in a “slow news cycle”, and that it was bad news. This fed the “other shoe about to drop” speculation as well.

Except the narrative doesn’t fit the events, does it? Not that such a thing has ever stopped the news media before, but it bears further investigation in this case.

Lt. Governor Sean Parnell (R-AK) says that Palin informed him of her decision on Wednesday. He doesn’t say when, but even if it was very late, that still gave the Palin team over 36 hours to set up a press event. So, it wasn’t rushed, and it wasn’t that there wasn’t time to get the media there. They weren’t wanted.

Ok, they weren’t wanted. That’s ok, that still fits part of the narrative that this was bad news and Palin wanted to bury the news on the Friday of a holiday weekend.

Except that didn’t happen. It was the most talked about thing on the internet this weekend and on all major networks. It pushed Michael Jackson and Mark Sanford totally off the map.

Palin’s often accused (wrongly) of not being very bright, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this kind of reaction was inevitable. Everything Palin does is news. No matter what day and time it occurs on.

So, what if Palin knew it would be big news, and actually wanted it released on Friday of a holiday weekend so that she’d be the only story? Is that too far-fetched to believe? But then she’d want the national media there, right? I can’t have it both ways, after all.

Wrong. I can.

This was a deliberate thumbing-of-the-nose at the national media that thinks so highly of itself. It was a giant one-fingered salute to CNN, ABC, MSNBC, et al. It was quite simply a way of saying, “I’m sick of you defining me. I’m going to define myself. Without you. This is the age of the internet. I don’t need you anymore.”

President Barack Obama (D-USA) is often (correctly) credited with having an incredibly internet savvy campaign, the first person to have really done so. Sarah Palin on Friday may have taken this to a whole new level. We may be simultaneously witnessing the birth of the first true internet politician, and the death of main-stream media as a controlling influence.

The Best Sarah Palin Post Ever

At Reclusive Leftist (yes, she’s a feminist on the left). It’s long, but read the whole thing. An excerpt (emphasis mine):

But even weirder is what happens when you try to replace the myths with the truth. If you explain, “no, she didn’t charge rape victims,” your feminist interlocutor will come back with something else: “she’s abstinence-only!” No, you say, she’s not; and then the person comes back with, “she’s a creationist!” and so on. “She’s an uneducated moron!” Actually, Sarah Palin is not dumb at all, and based on her interviews and comments, I’d say she has a greater knowledge of evolution, global warming, and the Wisconsin glaciation in Alaska than the average citizen.

But after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate.

More On Sarah

First, it’s worthwhile pointing out that the let-wing blogs are abuzz with speculation that there’s an embezzlement scandal brewing related to Governor Sarah Plain’s (R-AK) time as Wasilla’s Mayor and a company called Spenard Building Supplies.

There’s very little information on this and quite a bit of uninformed speculation, but there’s some information here. At this point in time, there’s nothing about this on any reliable news source. There’s not even anything on the talk page on her Wikipedia entry. So, we’ll classify this as RUMOR for now.

Second, the last election cycle showed us (unfortunately) that the Presidential election cycle is no longer just one year. It’s two. Or more. Now, the office turnover in AK is in December, so if she stayed through her term, she’d be there through the end of 2010. But, given the way she likes to do things, it’s apparent that she wouldn’t even start the political machinery moving until then. That may be too late to start in the next election cycle. Particularly if you’re way out in the middle of nowhere in Juneau, AK, and disliked by the party elite.

She may have well seen this as the best way to begin her campaign for higher office. She mentioned “unconventional” and “no politics as usual” several times in her speech. Politics as usual and convention is to continue holding and not doing the job you’re holding while running for your next job.

And that’s the easy and simple response to anyone who calls her a “quitter”.

If, running for higher office is, in fact, what she’s doing, and not resigning due to a scandal.

UPDATE: Statement from her lawyer on the “SBS scandal”

Almost immediately afterwards, several unscrupulous people have asserted false and defamatory allegations that the “real” reasons for Governor Palin’s resignation stem from an alleged criminal investigation pertaining to the construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex. This canard was first floated by Democrat operatives in September 2008 during the national campaign and followed up by sympathetic Democratic writers.^1. It was easily rebutted then as one of many fabrications about Sarah Palin. Just as power abhors a vacuum, modern journalism apparently abhors any type of due diligence and fact checking before scurrilous allegations are repeated as fact

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE II: I saw this first thing this morning, but didn’t have a chance to do anything about it. The story now appears in a reliable source. The LA Times, that well known conservative outlet, has an article saying there’s no truth to the rumors.

[T]he FBI’s Alaska spokesman said the bureau had no investigation into Palin for her activities as governor, as mayor or in any other capacity.

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

Ok, that’s that. Not that I’m saying there’s no shoe about to drop, but I think we can put that particular “scandal” to bed.

What’s Up With Sarah?

Since this blog has been unabashed in its support for Governor Palin (R-AK), it seems necessary to comment upon her surprise announcement yesterday that not only is she not seeking re-election as Alaska’s Governor next year, she is in fact, stepping down at the end of the month.

Her press conference gave few clues as to the reason. So, what does this mean?

Well, if it were any other politician, I would say one of the following (in descending order of probability):

1. There’s a big scandal that’s about to make headlines, and she knows it.
2. There’s a problem with the family, i.e. someone is very sick, someone’s been severely wounded, someone’s pregnant, someone has marital issues.
3. She’s had enough.

But, Mrs. Palin is not “any other politician”, so we need to at least consider other possibilities.

First, let’s look at what little she did say in her announcement:

Once I decided not to run for re-election, I also felt that to embrace the conventional Lame Duck status in this particular climate would just be another dose of politics as usual, something I campaigned against and will always oppose

Well, that is certainly true. she has always fought “politics as usual”, something the current occupant of the White House campaigned on, but has embraced enthusiastically.

In fact, Adam Brickley takes a look at taking her at her word. He thinks she’s trying to save her pipeline project and other reforms from the Alaaska Republican Party.

However, by resigning now, Palin installs Sean Parnell as an incumbent before the 2010 primary. So, instead of fighting off a strong "CBC" (Corrupt Bastards Club, or “Good Ole Boy Network”) challenger, Parnell will have a much clearer shot at keeping the office in Palinite hands for another four (or possibly eight) years. Sarah Palin did not give up on her reforms today - she institutionalized them, Now, they will not leave office with her, but rather continue under Gov. Parnell.

Well, that also fits what we know about her. She loathes the Good Ole Boys Networks, and will do whatever she can to hurt them. She doesn’t care whether it’s Republican or Democrat. She wants no part of it. She’s also extremely passionate about the pipeline, and the CBC hates it. This does allow Parnell to campaign next year as the incumbent, and not just as her “hand picked successor” (which he most certainly would have been).

Some people say that she’s setting herself for a Presidential run, but not in 2012, but 2016 or 2020. Supposedly Charles Krauthammer is in this group, but I can’t find a link to support that. Well, apologies to Mr. Geraghty and Mr. Krauthammer, but you’re being stupid. If she’s setting up for something long-term, there’s no need to resign.

Her brother was interviewed on FNC yesterday (sorry, no link), and said that Palin and her staff have been spending almost 80% of their time fending off frivolous ethics complaints, and he implied that she stepped aside so the government of Alaska could go back to governing Alaskans, instead of deciding whether bringing Trig along on a trip makes it a “persona'” trip, not a “business” one.

Some say she is going to run for President in 2012, and this is the first step. Of course, many of those say that this is the dumbest first step possible. Nate Silver, for example:

But can someone who may forever be branded as a "quitter" become Commander in Chief? There's almost no way. I can't think of someone who has done something comparable to what Palin did today running for national office, let alone winning it. In her critics' imaginations, she's gone from being Dan Quayle to some permutation of Thomas Eagleton.

and even more stupidly:

A fourth theory, I guess, is that she's running for Senate, but that doesn't make any sense at all. Why would she need to leave office to do that? And could she really beat Lisa Murkowski? My guess is that, after today, Palin would not only lose the primary to Murkowski but might do so by an embarrassing margin.

Nate’s an ok guy, I guess, although his political views are obscene. But he really should stick to what he does best, number crunching. When he starts attempting political analysis, he makes himself look like a fool.

Regardless of the events of yesterday, if there’s no scandal attached, Sarah Palin can win whatever political office in Alaska she desires. Easily.

There will be those that will attempt to brand her as a “quitter”, but let’s face it, those people would’ve never voted for her in the first place, and, if she’d been campaigning while Governor, would’ve been complaining about her ignoring her state, or wondering if the Alaskan taxpayers are paying for her campaign junkets, etc.

In fact, she has a ready-made response to the “quitter” claim, that has great soundbite potential and works well as a zinger in a debate.

“Once I decided to explore my options for higher office, I knew I’d be doing a disservice to Alaskans unless I stepped aside. They deserve my full time attention, not whatever attention I can spare from the campaign. How many votes have you missed this year, Senator?”

(Then Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) missed 80% of Senate votes during his campaign—how well were his constituents served?)

In fact, she is now free to go on her book tour, make political speeches, even expand her grassroots support, find other candidates of like mind and support them for Congress in 2010. In fact, Bill Quick makes that very suggestion.

Set out to remake the GOP in her image. This means identifying strong conservative candidates for both the House and the Senate, then supporting them with fundraisers, public appearances, the expertise of her team, and clout with the party itself in both the primaries and the general election

I’m not sure how doable that is without completely exhausting oneself, but it’s a possibility, certainly. It’s evident that she has felt for some time that she couldn’t participate on the national stage and be Alaska’s Governor. Remember the big NRSC/NRCC fundraiser in June for which she was giong to be the keynote speaker? And then wasn’t going to be? And then was? And then wasn’t? She informed the Congressional Republicans that she needed to attend to her Alaskan duties and could not commit to being there until after the legislative session was over (it ended in mid-April). Properly, she was committed to her state, but obviously wanted to have a national voice.

So, what’s the total list now?

Mickey Kaus has 14 possibilities as of this moment:

I can see 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Palin theories ... and counting: 1) She's running for president; 2) She's undergoing fame withdrawal and plans to get more attention in the lower 48; 3) She wants to cash in ($); 4) There's another shoe about to drop; 5) She'll now run against Murkowski for Senate. 6) She needs to tend to her family. 7) She's bonkers. 8) She's preggers. 9) She wants to "effect positive change outside government at this point in time on another scale and actually make a difference for our priorities." 10) Actually being a governor in a recession is no fun. Gives you ulcers. 11) She worried she wasn't giving "Alaska's issues" the attention they deserve, and was being criticized for that; 12) She's "fed up with politics ... the personal garbage" etc.. 13) She wants to fight back without one hand tied behind her back. 14) The Alaska legislature now hates her; ... These theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I have no idea which one it is. Because she’s a politician, typical or not, smart money is on scandal or family issue (but after 15 dismissed ethics charges, what new scandal could there be?). Next best bet is this is the first step in forming an exploratory committee to run for President in 2012.

Whatever it is, this blog definitely offers its prayers and hopes for her and her family. Would i vote for her in 2012? Wow, that’s a long way off. I can’t answer that. I know for a fact that I’ll never vote for Mitt Romney though. I’m tired of voting for pseudo-conservatives. John McCain was my last.

Quote of the Day

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but BOLD COLORS which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people.

Sounds like someone might say about conservatism or the Republican party today, doesn’t it? No, this was from 1975, and then, like now, the Democrats seemed to have a stranglehold on the government, and like now, people everywhere were advising the Republican party to move to the left, to become a pale echo of the Democrat party.

Who said it? Some of you know.

Ronald Wilson Reagan, March 1, 1975.

Now, I am not one who believes that we should deify Reagan, as some conservatives feel. He had his faults. But he had his good points as well. we should recognize both. Here, he spoke the truth, and the words still ring true 34 years later.

The Obligatory “100 Days” Under Obama Post

First, I’ll give my honest opinion, and it’s quite different from what you’re likely to see on CNN. Obama’s first 100 days have been a disaster. I’ll go even farther. You’d have to either really not be paying attention, or a complete Obama partisan to think otherwise.

Let’s go to the tape:

• He campaigned on bringing change to Washington, avoiding “politics as usual”, but…
• His stimulus bill was passed with no real bipartisan support.
• He campaigned on transparency in government. He has none.
• His Cabinet appointments have been laughable. Apparently, all you have to do to get a Cabinet appointment from Obama is to not pay your taxes
• He continues to attack the previous administration, for no apparent reason other than to distract us from the failures of his own.
• Earmarks were supposed to be a thing of the past. So much for that.
• Ditto on allowing lobbyists positions inside his administration.
• Foreign Policy?
• Well, know about “the bow” and “the handshake” and “the iPod” , “the DVD’s”, and “the reset button”. Really, none of these are big deals. But they do paint an overall picture of amateurishness on the part of the Obama administration and State department. Do these people know nothing of protocol? How stupid are they?
• What’s worse is that his overseas trip was a complete failure. He pleaded for help in Afghanistan. He got none. The North Koreans were so impressed by him that they launched a missile as he was calling for nuclear disarmament. He claimed U.S. responsibility for the global economic downturn, which is odd since it started earlier elsewhere and has been deeper felt elsewhere as well.
• He hasn’t yet screwed things up in Iraq, so I guess that’s a plus.
• We haven’t yet had another 9/11, so that’s a plus too.
• Economic policy?
• The Dow was at roughly 8,000 when he took office, and still is, although it dropped to the 6,500 level in mid March. On the whole, not as bad as it could be.
• The state of economy is still worsening.
• He’s nationalizing the banks. Which, by the way, is a bad idea.
• He’s nationalizing GM.
• Before the nationalizations, the administration decided it had a) the knowledge, b) the power to fire CEOs of businesses.
• Housing prices are in freefall.
• Fiscal Policy?
• He recently asked his Cabinet to find $100 million in cuts over the next 90 days. Let’s put this in perspective. If your family is making $100,000 a year, and you did the equivalent, you’d budget to spend $150,000 this year, and then you’d cut out roughly $5 in spending. Yeah, that’s a big help.
• From the “a picture paints a trillion words department”:
  
• He wants to reinstitute Pay As You Go (to avoid pictures like the one above).  Now, let’s be honest here.  He just got a huge spending increase passed….so, do you really think he’s changed his mind and wants to cut all that back? Or is he going to raise taxes?
• General foolishness:
• Planegate!
• No more “terrorist incidents”, but instead we have “man made disasters”.
• The DHS report on “Right Wing Extremists”
• For 8 years we heard about how bad a speaker President George W. Bush (R-USA) was, and how that meant he was dumb. So, is Obama now dumb too?
• And, as Glenn Reynolds likes to say, “meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

The successes here are very small and few and far between. Good news, though. There’s only 1287 days until the 2012 general election.

More here.

Why All the Sudden Interest In Interrogations and Torture?

First, President Barack Obama (D-USA) stated that there would be no prosecutions of CIA officials for using “enhanced interrogation” techniques. Of course, the then changed his mind. Then the administration released the Office of Legal Counsel’s (from the Bush administration) memos on the interrogations. Except they released versions turned out to be edited, and missing the information saying that valuable information was received during these interrogations. Finally, the administration will now release more pictures of apparent prisoner abuse.

So, a couple of missteps here. First, the flip-flop, then the disingenuous release of the memos.

Of course, if there are investigations, one reasonable question is how far will they spread? We know Congressional Democrats were briefed on the methods and the results. So, Obama can’t use this as an indictment against the previous administration without tarring his own party, can he?

Yes, he can. And that’s exactly what he intends (or more likely, the DNC intends to do).

The Democrats have been running against George W. Bush (R-USA) since 1999. Around the beginning of 2005, they finally figured out how to do it correctly, and won elections in 2006 and 2008. They’re going to keep running against him until they start losing elections again. The point of this whole mess is to keep bringing up real or imagined failures or mistakes by the Bush administration. This will not be the last event like this we see. In fact, I expect to see many many more.

But won’t the splatter hit people like Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)? Yes, but it won’t be a big deal. First, the Democrats will make sure that there are no actual criminal proceedings, just endless investigations. A criminal proceeding would hurt Pelosi, but not an investigation. She’s the representative of a carefully gerrymandered Democratic district in California. Unless it’s proven that she attached electrodes to the testicles of prisoners herself, she’s safe as long as it stays out of criminal prosecutions. She might lose a few votes for an election cycle or two, but she’s not going to lose her seat. But the news will be national and will further impugn the reputation of George W. Bush, and by association, the Republican party. So, it won’t hurt Pelosi, but might hurt a Republican in a more purple or even blue district. That’s the plan by the DNC, and the Obama administration is just doing all it can to help.

Expect more of the same from President Hope and Change over the next 2 years at least, probably the next 4.

More on Arlen Specter

I heard both John Zogby and Scott Rasmussen claim yesterday that Arlen Specter (D-PA) will now easily win re-election in 2010. These are people who are paid to analyze these things, and have been doing it for years. They know a lot more than me. So, you should listen to them.

However, in my opinion, they’re wrong. Of course, I thought that Barack Obama (D-USA) could not win his party nomination or the presidency. Shows what I know.

I’ll be blunt. For Specter to win in 2010, he has to move to the left. Hard left. And fast. For those of you keeping score, that would be a disaster for the GOP (and for America, in my opinion, but that’s another topic). Anyone who is claiming that this is good for the GOP is fooling themselves.

Let's be honest with ourselves. He made this switch out of concern for his own political future. He wants to be re-elected in 2010. Period. There's no other reason behind it. He can claim that the Republicans went to the right during his tenure, but that’s nonsense and he knows it.

Ok, let’s look at history. In 2004, his Democrat opponent got 43% of the vote. These 43% aren't likely to be very enthusiastic about Specter. Let's say the teacher's union was against him in '04 (I don't know if they were). They're unlikely to change their position in '10. Without a movement to the left, his support from the left is going to be tepid at best.

Also, he needs to generate money, and fast. Toomey's bringing in lots of cash. Specter's already in a hole because he's going to actually have to give back some of what he's taken in. And who's going to donate to him? Campaign contributors tend to be among your most partisan constituents. Is he going to get much money from his former contributors? Unlikely. How about from the left? Again, unlikely, unless he moves to the left.

Yes, the DSCC will pump some money into this campaign, probably quite a bit of it. They would have in any case, to defeat Toomey. But, so will the NRSC, so that's unlikely to help much.

Prediction? Toomey outspends Specter by a hefty margin and this election is much closer than our so called experts are predicting at the moment.

If re-elected, Specter probably moves back towards the center, but until next November, he’s going to move left and stay there.