Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Palin Takes On "$4 per Gallon President," While Enduring Attacks From Useful-Idiot Beltway RINOs

Thanks to Texas for Sarah Palin for the link!

Sarah Palin has written another great Facebook post "The $4 Per Gallon President."

I don't want to clip excerpts from what she wrote, because the whole piece is worth your time to read, because she really looks at the problem, and gives solutions. Not just on how to lower energy cost and become more energy independent, but how exploration for more energy will create jobs, which creates more taxpayers, thus creating more tax revenue.

But this kind of "common-sense" conservatism is a threat not just to the entire liberal establishment, but to the Inside the Beltway and Manhattan pseudo Conservative elite.

Mark Levin wrote about this on Facebook yesterday, referencing a Politico article which some elitist conservatives played the role of useful-idiots for the Palin-hating Left, going so far as to compare her to Al Sharpton.

This is not to say the folks cherry-picked by Politico are without accomplishment and merit. They clearly are accomplished. But that's not the point. Most were not involved in either the Reagan Revolution or the Tea Party movement, and were not, to the best of my knowledge, early outspoken supporters of either. What is necessary is a fulsome debate on each candidate's substance and policy positions. Most of these Politico stories are little more than excuses to attack Palin, intended to damage her early on in case she should decide to run. This has been going on for some time now. If she is as weak as some think, why the obsession? Why the contempt? Moreover, Palin has used social media and other outlets to comment substantively on a wide range of issues and policies. In fact, she has spoken on a wider array of issues than Youtube governor Chris Christie, popular among most of these folks, and her positions have, for the most part, been solidly conservative. (Christie's positions on numerous issues important to conservatives are all but ignored by some of those complaining about Palin; indeed, the same could be said of potential presidential contenders Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitch Daniels, among others.) My purpose in mentioning Christie here is to juxtapose the demands by "the intellectuals" on one politician versus another. Their inquisitiveness seems influenced by their political bias. That's not unusual, but it requires underscoring lest their opinions be viewed or promoted as objective.

As a Reaganite pre-dating Reagan's 1976 candidacy, the contempt for Palin does, in fact, remind me of the contempt some had for Reagan, especially from the media and Republican establishment, although no comparison is exact. I've not settled on a favorite would-be presidential candidate, but I also know media hit-jobs when I see them. I am hopeful more conservatives will begin to speak out about this or, before we know it, we will wonder why we are holding our noses and voting for another Republican endorsed by "the intellectuals" but opposed by a majority of the people.
Levin's points are backed up by a book I referenced not too long ago on the 1980 campaign (Rendezvous With Destiny, by Craig Shirley, I highly recommend you read it), which showed the elite GOP establishment supporting candidates like George H.W. Bush, or even Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan that year. The phrase used often against Reagan in 1980 was "too old." Polls even showed him losing to not just Jimmy Carter, but to the Prince of Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy. Several of the same elites in the Politico article, Levin notes, were late to get on-board with Reagan.

Rush Limbaugh has also commented yesterday and today on this issue. Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has as well, asking "Does Being A Conservative Now Require That We Join In Sexualized Mocking of Conservative Women?"

I've heard a lot of the complaints about Palin in my conversations with people, but they usually don't have anything to do with her ideas. They're just personal swipes, or attacks at some aspect of her personality. What does that have to do with her ability to be President of the United States? I've heard the argument used that if she's the GOP nominee, she'll just be savaged by the media. True, but if the GOP electorate throws her under the bus for that reason, they'll just savage whomever the nominee is, because their job is to get the worst President in American history re-elected by any means necessary. Look at all the negative coverage John McLame got in 2008 (not to say he didn't help himself out), and he was the one whom the elites and libs said was the perfect Republican candidate.

Why is it Sarah Palin is so hated? Is it because she's a lot more articulate than the media and elite GOP gives her credit for? Her Facebook posts and policy speeches are well thought out and contain ideas to solve our nation's problems, they're not just full of talking points.

There's also an old saying, that if you're getting a lot of flak, then you must be over the target. If Sarah Palin was the dumb hick the lapdog media and GOP elite thought she was, they'd be encouraging her to run and make an idiot of herself. But the fact they're wanting to destroy her before she even makes up her mind about running in 2012 tells me she may be the leader we need.

And I certainly don't want the lib media and the elites telling us who our candidate in 2012 should be.

No comments: