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.

Specter Makes It Official – He’s a Democrat

Read his statement here.

Let’s parse some of it, briefly:

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right.

Hmm. Certainly this statement is not true of his fellow Senators, and he knows it. Is it true of the Republican citizenry? Hard to tell, but I’d say “no”. I’m calling B.S. on this one, and Arlen Specter (D-PA) knows it.

Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats.

Ah ha! This is the most important sentence in his entire statement. This is a political move, pure and simple. Specter doesn’t care about party affiliation. He cares about being re-elected in 2010.

And he knows he wasn’t going to win the Republican primary against Toomey. Recent polls have had him 20 points down.

Or, as he puts it:

Since then, I have traveled the state, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable.

On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my 29-year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

So he had to do this. He couldn't run as an independent. Beyond the legal primary issues involved, the politics were against him. This isn't like Connecticut and Lieberman where Lieberman won because of Republican votes. Republicans voted for him over their own candidate because their own candidate was so awful. Specter would have been trounced as an independent from both the left and the right.

Short term, this is a PR disaster for the Republican party. No doubt. Particularly on the 99th day of the Obama administration. I'm sure this will be hyped as part of the 100 day celebration.

Long term, hard to tell, but it may be better for the Republicans. Depends on whether Specter stays somewhat in the middle or really does move to the left between now and November 2010. Also, depends on how deep the short term effects are, and how lasting.

Until today, it appeared a near certainty that a) Toomey would defeat Specter in a Republican primary, and b) some Democrat would defeat Toomey in the general.

Toomey will now likely coast to an easy win in the Republican primary, and have a nice little war chest available for the general, which he would not have had otherwise. He'll also have a motivated base behind him.

And, instead of facing "a real Democrat", he's going to be facing Specter. Unless Specter moves to the left, it's hard to see how liberals are going to be all that excited about voting for him. The Democrat in 2004 picked up 43% of the vote. Hard to believe those 43% are suddenly going to become Specter supporters. Without a high turnout, it would seem unlikely for him to be able to hold his seat.

Happy Lenin’s Birthday!

Today (April 22) is the birthday of the Father of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. As we continue our march to socialism, we should celebrate the lives of it’s founding fathers.

Lenin oversaw the executions of possibly a quarter of a million of his own people, and had the model of forced labor camps later used by Nazi Germany.

Even the clergy did not escape his tyrannical methods:

Lenin remained an advocate of mass terror, according to Richard Pipes. In a letter of 19 March 1922, to Molotov and the members of the Politburo, following an uprising by the clergy in the town of Shuia, Lenin outlined a brutal plan of action against the clergy and their followers, who were defying the government decree to remove church valuables: “We must (…) put down all resistance with such brutality that they will not forget it for several decades. (…) The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing (…) the better.”^[68] Estimates of the numbers of the clergy killed vary. According to Orlando Figes^[69] and The Black Book of Communism^[70], 2,691 priests, 1,962 monks and 3,447 nuns were executed as a result of Lenin's aforementioned directives. Historian Christopher Read estimates from the records that a grand total of 1,023 clergy were killed in the whole period 1917-23.^[71] However, the late Alexander Yakovlev, the architect of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) and later head of the Presidential Committee for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression, cites documents that confirm nearly 3,000 were shot in 1918 alone.^[72] Yakovlev stated that Lenin was "By every norm of international law, posthumously indictable for crimes against humanity."^[73]

I won’t speculate on what it means that today is also “Earth Day”.

Georgetown University Covers Up Symbol for Obama’s Speech and Rightwing Bloggers Swing At The Dirt

As you’ve no doubt heard by now, President Barack Obama (D-USA) spoke at Georgetown University last week, and the university covered up an “IHS” symbol behind him. IHS is a symbol for the name of Jesus.

CNS News has even discovered that GU did not cover up the symbol when First Lady Laura Bush spoke there in 2006.

The Christian right is up in arms about this.

Pardon me while I stifle a yawn.

No doubt, had they not covered up the symbol, we would’ve seen some AP photograph this week cleverly angled so that the symbol would appear directly over Obama’s head. And the Christian right would be upset about that showing that our MSM is once again trying to make a messiah out of Obama. This was done numerous times during the election campaign.

You can’t have it both ways. And I, for one, am more upset about the messiah images than this, if I have to choose. So, with GU’s choice here, I am at least spared one more messiah image.

Tea Parties – Great Kid! Don’t Get Cocky!

Reliable estimates put total Tea Party attendance somewhere north of 300,000. Perhaps even north of 500,000.

Tea Party organizers are giddy about these results.

The left and MSM continue to treat the events with scorn and ridicule.

They’re both right. And both wrong.

First, the left criticism that these are astroturf campaigns is both laughable and ludicrous. Laughable because it comes from the Soros-funded MoveOn.org crowd, who know a thing or two about astroturfing. Ludicrous, because if the GOP was really capable of organizing people this well, they wouldn’t have lost the last two elections.

However, the left is correct that these protests are dwarfed in size by many Iraq War protests and May Day protests (and we can bet that they will make sure that this year’s May Day events are huge, no matter how much astroturfing they have to do to get there).

The tea partiers are correct too. Let’s face it, most of these protestors were from the right or at least center right. Getting 300,000+ conservatives together to protest anything is amazing. Conservatism is all about individualism. It’s not about mobs. (It’s also about jobs and work ethic, but one could argue that I’m hitting below the belt here). There’s every reason to be excited about these numbers. Especially for a nascent “movement”, that doesn’t have a huge (or really any) organizational structure or backing.

But the tea partiers are wrong to call this a “movement”. This was one day out of people’s lives. Will they follow up? Will they hold their congressmen’s feet to the fire? Will they “throw da bums out”? Will they form a new political party? Will they fund their own candidates and get them to run? Will they go to future protests, town halls, etc? Will they call, write letters, go door-to-door? Until the tea partiers can prove they can do at least some of these things, they shouldn’t call themselves a “movement”.

There’s definitely some potential here, though, and both Democrats and Republicans ignore this group at their own peril.

So, call me skeptically optimistic. This could be the dawn of something huge for those who lean to the right. Or it could fizzle out and merely be a footnote about President Barack Obama’s (D-USA) first 100 days in office.