posted May 23, 2010 11:47 AM            

O'Bomber 0-4
Palin 4-0

Palin's message is more diffuse, but her star power's undiminished
By Allison Sherry
The Denver Post
Posted: 05/23/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 05/23/2010 01:47:07 AM MDT

As a vice presidential hopeful two years ago, Sarah Palin drew passion and loyalty from the Republican base even before there was a Tea Party movement.

And though her rhetoric is still red meat, her political tactics have become far more nuanced — more opportunist, say her critics —than fans or foes expected.

The former Alaska governor left office 17 months before her term was up to canvass the Lower 48 so she could leverage her book-tour-burnished brand to help selected — and at times unpredictable — Republicans.

Her picks are a somewhat quixotic blend of traditional candidates and rogue, popular conservatives like Kentucky Senate hopeful Rand Paul.

But her endorsements are undoubtedly helpful.

Palin is the party's biggest star. She draws audiences who pay $50 and $100 to see her speak. And her facile monikers like "mama grizzlies" and "pink elephants" go viral within hours.

"She has morphed from this very controversial vice presidential candidate who most people thought hurt McCain into this phenom," said Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. "She's everywhere, doing everything. All the media interviews. The $100,000 speeches."***MOST people don't say any such thing. That's just the usual blather we hear from so called experts. ***

In the past several weeks, she also has taken to boosting conservative women to office — a role many observers say the Republican Party desperately needs.

"It's certainly been the weakness in the Republican Party, they haven't done that well among women," said Gary Jacobson, a political-science professor at the University of California, San Diego. "It's a niche that hasn't been filled by anyone else."

Speaking at a lunch last week, Palin touted Carly Fiorina for California's U.S. Senate seat, Nikki Haley for South Carolina governor and Colorado U.S. Senate hopeful Jane Norton.

Norton says she is proud to be mentioned in a speech but doesn't expect an official endorsement from Palin.

"I think Sarah Palin plays an indispensable role in the 2010 elections because she challenges the good ol' boys," Norton said. "Just like me."

Palin didn't go the extra step and endorse Norton on Saturday during her visit to the University of Denver, when, frankly, Norton could have used the positive headline.

Her primary opponent, Ken Buck, swept the state GOP assembly Saturday, winning 77 percent of the delegate votes. Norton skipped the assembly because she is petitioning onto the primary ballot.

"An endorsement like that would help Norton," said Sabato. "She clearly needs it right now."

The Norton camp said an endorsement this weekend was not expected because Palin's talk was organized by a radio station and "it's really their event," said spokeswoman Cinamon Watson.

"We were honored that she (Palin) mentioned Jane at the Susan B. Anthony breakfast," Watson said.

Tried-and-true conservatives — those who enthusiastically got behind John McCain in 2008 because of Palin's presence on the ticket — say Palin has a more confused role in Republican politics now.

"In some ways, she seems more party-line than she was before," said Lu Busse, chair of the 9.12 Project Colorado Coalition.

"People are scratching their heads; these endorsements don't seem to match up. . . . She's an enigma, and she's inconsistent. When she doesn't pick the most conservative one in the race, well, then I don't understand."

Even Buck, who often says he voted for Palin in 2008 and not McCain, was originally undecided about whether to attend the Palin event Saturday because of her tacit support for his opponent.

"I'm just not sure what her intentions are. I don't know if she's doing this to set herself up to run for president, or she's doing this because she feels strongly about the candidates she's supporting," he said. "I think we know more about her now than we did in 2008."

But after his state-assembly victory — and reassurance that Palin wasn't going to endorse Norton — Buck said he was going to attend the DU event.

Though Palin's future may not include presidential politics, political scientists say her star status will be a boon to Republicans for years to come.

"She's avant-garde. She's a feminist. She cuts a dashing figure. There aren't that many leading Republicans that do that," Sabato said.

"Think Mitch McConnell or John Boehner. When you see them coming on, you know it's nap time.

posted May 23, 2010 05:10 PM              

apparently the tea party candidates are having a similar effect on the republican voting public...rand paul may have won the race against the other republican but he only garnered one half as many votes as the LOSING democrat in kentucky... keep it up and get your zingers in november my son.

posted May 24, 2010 09:01 AM            

"he only garnered one half as many votes as the LOSING democrat in kentucky"

You're going to have to learn to stay away from websites run by nuts and liars...like move on, daily kos, demoscat underground and puffington post. Otherwise, you're never going to know what's going on.

posted May 24, 2010 01:40 PM              

perhaps you have access to the figures which disprove what i posted? better yet perhaps you could post your rebuttal in numerical terms?

i don't visit any of those sites. moveon email me regularly but i rarely even open them, not sure how they got my address even...

all right i will cede you that point...still paul is going to have to win over a lot of democrats to win this race...

In the Republican primary, Paul -- the son of 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul -- received almost 207,000 votes, easily defeating McConnell's preferred candidate, Grayson.

posted May 24, 2010 04:08 PM            

There is something terminally wrong with your math however.

"but he only garnered one half as many votes as the LOSING democrat"

Since when is 207,000 half of 225,000?

posted May 24, 2010 05:39 PM              

still stands that paul is going to have to win a lot of democrats over if he is going to take the seat. maybe he thinks hinting they won't have to let blacks into their stores anymore will do the trick. or maybe doing away with the disabilities act will win the Vet Vote for him! lol........

doesn't take a mathemetician to see that though the estimate was off he still pulled less votes than the losing dem. any more hairs you want to split today??

posted May 25, 2010 07:54 AM            

Kentucky has about 600,000 more registered democrats than republicans.

Those registered democrats seem to vote for a lot of republicans.

Kentucky has 2 Republican Senators.

McCain beat O'Bomber by almost 17% in Kentucky.

Kentucky is a pretty conservative state whose voters vote for conservatives...who are mostley Republicans.

I'm not worried about Paul. One other thing. Kentucky holds closed primaries. Registered voters MUST vote in the party primary in the party in which they are registered.

posted May 26, 2010 10:15 AM              

i notice even "small government" pushers like palin are suggesting the feds should take over in the gulf!! dare i say that whenever the problem is in one's own backyard it seems government is asked to make it better?

posted May 26, 2010 11:13 AM            

Your tactic is transparent and laughable katatonic.

posted May 27, 2010 10:47 AM            

Though, let me remind you the Civil Rights Act has some racist components as interpreted by courts.

Just a few months ago Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor was rebuked by the Supreme Court for one of her "decisions" in "Firefighters v New Haven Connecticut.

posted May 27, 2010 03:29 PM            

Do you think minorities should be given hiring preferences?

Do you think minorities should be given extra points on promotion tests because of their race?

Do you think minority students should be given preference in university admissions?

Do you think black universities should be required to hire white university presidents?

Do you think Hooters should be required to hire fat men or fat women as servers?

Do you think private golf/country clubs should be required to admit anyone who has the price of admission?

Do you think all women's clubs should be required to admit men?

Do you think all men clubs should be required to admit women?

Do you think private associations or private institutions should be required to admit anyone who makes application for membership?

posted June 09, 2010 10:39 AM            

The worst mistake of O'Bomber's life...aside from the decision to embrace the brain dead Socialist ideology of Karx Marx...was to belittle Governor Palin's executive experience at a time when O'Bomber had none.

O'Bomber shows that though he's Prez, he's still not up to managing the job. O'Bomber is simply not Executive material.

Less Talkin’, More Kickin’
Yesterday at 2:31pm
Sarah Palin

50 days in, and we’ve just learned another shocking revelation concerning the Obama administration’s response to the Gulf oil spill. In an interview aired this morning, President Obama admitted that he hasn’t met with or spoken directly to BP’s CEO Tony Hayward. His reasoning: “Because my experience is, when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he’s gonna say all the right things to me. I’m not interested in words. I’m interested in actions.”

First, to the “informed and enlightened” mainstream media: in all the discussions you’ve had with the White House about the spill, did it not occur to you before today to ask how the CEO-to-CEO level discussions were progressing to remedy this tragedy? You never cease to amaze. (Kind of reminds us of the months on end when you never bothered to ask if the President was meeting with General McChrystal to talk about our strategy in Afghanistan.)

Second, to fellow baffled Americans: this revelation is further proof that it bodes well to have some sort of executive experience before occupying the Oval Office (as if the painfully slow response to the oil spill, confusion of duties, finger-pointing, lack of preparedness, and inability to grant local government simple requests weren’t proof enough). The current administration may be unaware that it’s the President’s duty, meeting on a CEO-to-CEO level with Hayward, to verify what BP reports. In an interview a few weeks ago with Greta Van Susteren, I noted that based on my experience working with oil execs as an oil regulator and then as a Governor, you must verify what the oil companies claim – because their perception of circumstances and situations dealing with public resources and public trust is not necessarily shared by those who own America’s public resources and trust. I was about run out of town in Alaska for what critics decried at the time as my “playing hardball with Big Oil,” and those same adversaries (both shortsighted Repubs and Dems) continue to this day to try to discredit my administration’s efforts in holding Big Oil accountable to operate ethically and responsibly.

Mr. President: with all due respect, you have to get involved, sir. The priorities and timeline of an oil company are not the same as the public’s. You cannot outsource the cleanup and the responsibility and the trust to BP and expect that the legitimate interests of Americans adversely affected by this spill will somehow be met.

White House: have you read this morning’s Washington Post? Not to pile it on BP, but there’s an extensive report chronicling the company’s troubling history:

“BP has had more high-profile accidents than any other company in recent years. And now, with the disaster in the gulf, independent experts say the pervasiveness of the company’s problems, in multiple locales and different types of facilities, is striking.

‘They are a recurring environmental criminal and they do not follow U.S. health safety and environmental policy,’ said Jeanne Pascal, a former EPA lawyer who led its BP investigations.”

And yet just 10 days prior to the explosion, the Obama administration’s regulators gave the oil rig a pass, and last year the Obama administration granted BP a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) exemption for its drilling operation.

These decisions and the resulting spill have shaken the public’s confidence in the ability to safely drill. Unless government appropriately regulates oil developments and holds oil executives accountable, the public will not trust them to drill, baby, drill. And we must! Or we will be even more beholden to, and controlled by, dangerous foreign regimes that supply much of our energy. This has been a constant refrain from me. As Governor of Alaska, I did everything in my power to hold oil companies accountable in order to prove to the federal government and to the nation that Alaska could be trusted to further develop energy rich land like ANWR and NPR-A. I hired conscientious Democrats and Republicans (because this sure shouldn’t be a partisan issue) to provide me with the best advice on how we could deal with what was a corrupt system of some lawmakers and administrators who were hesitant to play hardball with some in the oil field business. (Remember the Alaska lawmakers, public decision-makers, and business executives who ended up going to jail as a result of the FBI’s investigations of oily corruption.)

As the aforementioned article notes, BP’s operation in Alaska would hurt our state and waste public resources if allowed to continue. That’s why my administration created the Petroleum Systems Integrity Office (PSIO) when we saw proof of improper maintenance of oil infrastructure in our state. We had to verify. And that’s why we instituted new oversight and held BP and other oil companies financially accountable for poor maintenance practices. We knew we could partner with them to develop resources without pussyfooting around with them. As a CEO, it was my job to look out for the interests of Alaskans with the same intensity and action as the oil company CEOs looked out for the interests of their shareholders.

I learned firsthand the way these companies operate when I served as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC). I ended up resigning in protest because my bosses (the Governor and his chief of staff at the time) wouldn’t support efforts to clean up the corruption involving improper conflicts of interest with energy companies that the state was supposed to be watching. (I wrote about this valuable learning experience in my book, “Going Rogue”.) I felt guilty taking home a big paycheck while being reduced to sitting on my thumbs – essentially rendered ineffective as a supervisor of a regulatory agency in charge of nearly 20% of the U.S. domestic supply of energy.

"My experience (though, granted, I got the message loud and clear during the campaign that my executive experience managing the fastest growing community in the state, and then running the largest state in the union, was nothing compared to the experiences of a community organizer)[/b] showed me how government officials and oil execs could scratch each others’ backs to the detriment of the public, and it made me ill. I ran for Governor to fight such practices. So, as a former chief executive, I humbly offer this advice to the President: you must verify. That means you must meet with Hayward. Demand answers.

In the interview today, the President said: “I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.”

Please, sir, for the sake of the Gulf residents, reach out to experts who have experience holding oil companies accountable. I suggested a few weeks ago that you start with Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources, led by Commissioner Tom Irwin. Having worked with Tom and his DNR and AGIA team led by Marty Rutherford, I can vouch for their integrity and expertise in dealing with Big Oil and overseeing its developments. We’ve all lived and worked through the Exxon-Valdez spill. They can help you. Give them a call. Or, what the heck, give me a call.

And, finally, Mr. President, please do not punish the American public with any new energy tax in response to this tragedy. Just because BP and federal regulators screwed up that doesn’t mean the rest of us should get punished with higher taxes at the pump and attached to everything petroleum products touch.

posted June 09, 2010 12:26 PM              

and when is she going to move on from coulda shoulda woulda?

posted June 10, 2010 08:07 AM            

That minor leak in the Alaska pipeline is underground and IS NOT fouling the land. Further, they found the leak, shut down the pipeline and are in the process of fixing the leaking section of pipe.

Further still, Sarah Palin IS NOT Governor of Alaska and has no responisbility for the leak.

posted June 14, 2010 09:44 AM            

So, at what point do we call this a blowout?

Worst mistake O'Bomber ever made was to belittle Sarah Palin's executive experience.

Only a truly brain dead moron who had no executive management experience would suggest he, who had never run anything in his life, had superior executive management experience to the Governor of the biggest state in the United States.

We are now paying the price for electing a dummy who is in way, way, way over his head in every category of experience necessary to run the Executive Branch of the United States government.

How can we thank you O'Bomber voters for electing the biggest failure in American Presidential history...especially after we told you he was an empty suit, a make believe personality and an ideological far left Marxist Socialist radical?

We have the biggest reserves of energy in the world right here in America. In fact, US energy reserves rival the rest of the world combined..so, why should we be buying energy from tyrants and dictators?

But, when the question is put to O'Bomber, he goes into his deer in the headlights mode and and starts spouting nonsense about clean energy and jobs from clean energy. There's no alternative energy sources in the present or even on the horizon to take the place of carbon based energy.

It seems O'Bomber is not aware Spain already tried that and found that for every job produced in the so called green energy field, 2 jobs were lost in the rest of the Spanish economy. Spain already wised up to facts but O'Bomber isn't intelligent enough to learn from Spain's mistake.

So now, O'Bomber has shut down oil drilling and production offshore in the United States..both deep water and shallow. About 25% of US production comes from the Gulf of Mexico with more than 3,000 oil platforms.

The result of this will be an exodus of drilling rigs from US waters to Brazil and Africa. The owners of those drilling rigs and platforms are private contractors and cannot afford to have their equipment sitting idle.

It also means the loss of Billions in lost oil revenues for Gulf states and all those good paying jobs. Poof, gone; about 40,000 jobs at the stroke of O'Bomber's pen.

Let's see if you O'Bomber cheerleaders are still cheering when you're paying $5-6 or 7 bucks per gallon for gas...while O'Bomber is pointing fingers at the oil companies for the mess he caused.

Let's see if you're still cheering when your electric bills skyrocket...as O'Bomber promised.

In the meantime, Fidel Castro is letting contracts to China...to drill and produce oil offshore in the Florida Straits. Nice, very nice!

Fuel America with Terrorist-Tarred Oil Instead of Drilling Our Own, Baby?
Yesterday at 12:20pm
Sarah Palin

Am I the only one who wonders what could possibly be the agenda of any politician who would thwart our drive toward energy independence? Continuing to lock up America’s domestic energy reserves, including the energy-rich Last Frontier of Alaska, only equips dangerous foreign regimes as they fund terrorist organizations to harm us and our allies. I’m going to keep speaking and writing about this in the simplest of terms until someone can provide a simple answer as to why liberal Democrats don’t understand that we have safe, warehoused onshore and shallow water reserves waiting for permission to be extracted. They either choose not to understand the geology, science, and technology behind an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy security, or they understand it, yet for whatever frightening reason choose to be lap dogs to Chavez and Ahmadinejad.

Shoot, I must have lived such a doggoned sheltered life as a normal, independent American up there in the Last Frontier, schooled with only public education and a lowly state university degree, because obviously I haven’t learned enough to dismiss common sense (a prerequisite for power in Washington these days). Help me out, friends! Help someone like me – and the majority of Americans – understand why we would ever kowtow and bow to foreign regimes that hate us, instead of doing all we can to starve the beast of terrorism in our plight for security, prosperity, and peace.

There’s an obvious common sense answer to our need for security and energy independence, but don’t hold your breath waiting for common sense to surface in Washington – it’s an endangered species there. Obviously we must responsibly develop our God-given domestic oil and gas reserves right here, right now; we must conserve energy; and we must develop renewables that are based on sound science, not snake oil and favors for political pals.

Please read the following Newsmax article (posted below) summarizing GOP efforts to push the Obama Administration to produce a plan to potentially wean us off one source of dangerous foreign oil. (Of course, I think the prodding should be even more aggressive to shake up the naïve complacency of anti-development Democrats and some deer-in-the-headlights mainstream reporters who are finally realizing they’d been buffaloed into believing any politician had all the answers.)

We must understand the imperative nature of energy security, along with America’s life and death need to secure our borders. Baby, this is why I won’t sit down and shut up about the need to drill.

- Sarah Palin

Senators Demand Answers on Venezuela’s Links to Terrorism

A dozen Republican senators have sent a letter challenging the Obama administration to explain what it knows about Venezuela’s support for terrorism and suggesting that the country be declared a “state sponsor of terrorism.”

“Hugo Chavez’s relationships with Iran and other foreign terrorist organizations continue to grow and pose a serious threat to our hemisphere,” Sen. George LeMieux of Florida, one signer of the letter, said of the Venezuelan president.

“I encourage the State Department to thoroughly evaluate Venezuela’s actions and determine if the country needs to be added to the official U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.”

John Ensign of Nevada, who drafted the letter along with LeMieux, declared: “It’s no secret to the American people that Venezuela wishes harm to the United States. What is secret is how many more ties to terrorist organizations and state sponsors of terrorism does Venezuela need to be declared a state sponsor of terrorism.”

The letter addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton points to a number of concerns raised by Chavez’s Venezuela:

Surface-to-air missiles and other weapons have reportedly been provided by Venezuela to FARC guerrillas in Colombia. An arms cache captured from FARC in 2008 included Swedish-made anti-tank rocket launchers that had been sold to Venezuela.

Venezuela provides cross-border sanctuaries for Colombian guerrillas.

A United Nations report last year disclosed that nearly one-third of all cocaine produced in the Andean region passes through Venezuela. The senators question how much terrorist groups such as al-Qaida profit from trafficking drugs that originate in or flow through Venezuela.

The U.S. has frozen the assets of two Venezuelans, including one working for Chavez, for providing direct support to the terrorist group Hezbollah. The senators ask the State Department for an assessment of the activities of Hezbollah inside Venezuela.

Chavez’s “extensive support” of the Castro regime in Cuba is calculated to amount to $1 billion a year, and Cuban advisors are involved in the intelligence and security apparatus of the Venezuelan government.

Chavez “has repeatedly expressed support” for Iran’s covert nuclear program and announced a plan for the construction of a “nuclear village” in Venezuela with Iranian assistance. Also, Chavez has pledged to provide Iran with 20,000 barrels of gasoline per day.

As for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, “recent years have witnessed an increased presence in Latin America, particularly Venezuela.”

Weekly flights connecting Iran, Syria, and Venezuela raise suspicions of “nefarious purposes” because passengers on these flights have been subject to only “cursory immigration and customs controls.”

Newsmax magazine’s May issue disclosed that Iranian security officers seal off the airport in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, two hours before Iran Air jets arrived. Those officers supervise cargo unloading with no inspection by local officials.

Iran could easily fly in highly enriched uranium that could then be carried into the U.S. from Mexico, increasing the risk of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon.

If the U.S. did declare Venezuela a state sponsor of terrorism, American arms sales to the country would be prohibited, as would U.S. economic assistance, and severe restrictions would be placed on bilateral trade.

“The Obama administration’s decision to pull the trigger on Venezuela may hinge on whether the United States can afford to forfeit petroleum exports from that South American country,” Roger F. Noriega, a former assistant secretary of state and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, observes on the Institute’s journal, The American.

“Anticipating the argument that Venezuela’s oil supply is too essential to the U.S. economy to risk slapping that country with the terrorist label, the senators ask the administration to explain its ‘contingency plan’ for dealing with a ‘sudden and prolonged unavailability of Venezuelan oil exports to the United States.’”

In answer to the question, the U.S. would likely find new sources of oil on the international market — but Venezuela’s economy will be crippled by the loss of oil revenue and consumer imports, Noriega notes, adding: “Since the last years of the George W. Bush administration, U.S. diplomats have steered clear of Chavez for fear of ‘provoking’ him. Thanks to congressional oversight, we are about to confront the terrible downside of that naïve, passive policy.”

posted June 14, 2010 10:05 AM              

funny though that OTHER countries have managed to find clean energy sources and created the jobs to go with them, isn't it. that is why we are in danger of falling behind in the NEW economy coming up globally. but that is just fine with the conservative faction, as long as we don't have any regulations.

of course sarah palin cannot understand a single thing obama does. she had to try 5 colleges to find one that would graduate her. he finished harvard law school *** laude - or was that magna *** laude? - really just a walk in the park for joe shmo, so nothing to brag about.

as i said before, if she really cared rather than making political whoopie out of this BP nightmare she would be where it matters trying to help. not a hint of that happening, is there?

and i notice that now the problem is in your back yard you're all for the feds stepping in and taking away your freedom to do something about it! what you guys don't understand is that having SOLD EVERYTHING off to the highest bidder we no longer have the wherewithal to cope with this. if we ever did.

it really is a thing of beauty to watch the private sector being allowed to do its thing, and the market to decide who will succeed...especially in cases like the gulf, right?

posted July 06, 2010 05:23 PM            

Sarah Palin has more intelligence in her fingernail clippings than O'Bomber has in his entire body.

Peace Through Strength and American Pride vs. “Enemy-Centric” Policy
Wednesday, June 30, 2010 at 2:56pm
Sarah Palin

Earlier this week, I spoke at the Freedom Fest in Norfolk, Virginia; and, evidently, the media was asked to leave – not by me, that’s for sure. I want my message out, so despite reporters making up a story about “Palin people kicking us out” (uh, the “Palin people” entourage would consist of one person – my 15-year-old daughter, Willow – and I have no doubt she could take on any reporter, but I know for certain she didn’t “kick ‘em out” of the event). Anyway, here are some of the key issues I spoke about.

DEFENSE SPENDING

It takes a lot of resources to maintain the best fighting force in the world – especially at a time when we face financial uncertainty and a mountain of debt that threatens all of our futures.

We have a federal government that is spending trillions, and that has nationalized whole sections of our economy: the auto industry, the insurance industry, health care, student loans, the list goes on – all of it at enormous cost to the tax payer. The cost of Obamacare alone is likely to exceed $2.5 trillion dollars.

As a result of all these trillion dollar spending bills, America’s going bust in a hurry. By 2020 we may reach debt levels of $20 trillion – twice the debt that we have today! It reminds me of that joke I read the other day: “Please don’t tell Obama what comes after a trillion!”

Something has to be done urgently to stop the out of control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, and no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny. We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose the ability to deter adversaries, if we lose the ability to provide security for ourselves and for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great! That is a price we cannot afford to pay.

This may be obvious to you and me, but I am not sure the Obama Administration gets it. There isn’t a single progressive pet cause which they haven’t been willing to throw billions at. But when it comes to defense spending, all of a sudden they start preaching a message of “fiscal restraint.” Our Defense Secretary recently stated the “gusher” of defense spending was over and that it was time for the Department of Defense to tighten its belt. There’s a gusher of spending alright, but it’s not on defense. Did you know the US actually only ranks 25th worldwide on defense spending as a percentage of GDP? We spend three times more on entitlements and debt services than we do on defense.

Now don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with preaching fiscal conservatism. I want the federal government to balance its budget right now! And not the Washington way – which is raising your taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending habits. I want it done the American way: by cutting spending, reducing the size of government, and letting people keep more of their hard-earned cash.

But the Obama administration doesn’t practice what it preaches. This is an administration that won’t produce a budget for fear that we discover how reckless they’ve been as fiscal managers. At the same time, it threatens to veto a defense bill because of an extra jet engine!

This administration may be willing to cut defense spending, but it’s increasing it everywhere else. I think we should do it the other way round: cut spending in other departments – apart from defense. We should not be cutting corners on our national security.

THE U.S. NAVY

Secretary Gates recently spoke about the future of the US Navy. He said we have to “ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers.” He went on to ask, “Do we really need... more strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?”

Well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can and, yes, we do because we must. Our Navy has global responsibilities. It patrols sea lanes and safeguards the freedoms of our allies – and ourselves. The Navy right now only has 286 ships, and that number may decrease. That will limit our options, extend tours for Navy personnel, lessen our ability to secure our allies and deter our adversaries. The Obama administration seems strangely unconcerned about this prospect.

OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY INHERITANCE

When George W. Bush came into office, he inherited a military that had been cut deeply, an al Qaeda that had been unchallenged, and an approach to terrorism that focused on bringing court cases rather than destroying those who sought to destroy us. We saw the result of some of that on 9/11.

When President Obama came into office, he inherited a military that was winning in Iraq. He inherited loyal allies and strong alliances. And thanks to the lamestream media pawing and purring over him, he had the benefit of unparalleled global popularity. What an advantage! So their basic foreign policy outlines should have been clear. Commit to the War on Terror. Commit to winning – not ending, but winning the war in Afghanistan. Commit to the fight against violent Islamic extremism wherever it finds sanctuary. Work with our allies. Be resolute with our adversaries. Promote liberty, not least because it enhances our security. Unfortunately, these basic principles seem to have been discarded by Washington.

THE WAR ON TERROR

His administration has banned the phrase “war on terror,” preferring instead politically correct nonsense like “overseas contingency operations.” His Homeland Security Secretary calls acts of terrorism “man-caused disasters.” His reckless plan to close Guantanamo (because there’s no place to go after it’s closed) faces bipartisan opposition now.

The Attorney General just announced that a decision about where to try terrorists like 9/11 master mind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would not be announced until after the mid-term elections. Is there something he’s afraid to tell us?

The President’s new National Security Strategy does not even use the word “Islamic” when referring to violent extremism. Does he think the ideology of those who seek to kill Americans is irrelevant? How can we seek to defeat an enemy if we don’t acknowledge what motivates them and what their ultimate goals are? President Obama may think he is being politically correct by dropping the term, but it flies in the face of reality. As Senator Joe Lieberman noted, refusing to use the word Islamic when describing the nature of the threat we face is “Orwellian and counterproductive.”

AFGHANISTAN

In Afghanistan, it is true that President Obama approved deploying additional forces to the conflict – most, but not all the troops requested by commanders on the ground. But it took months of indecision to get to that point, and it came at a very high price – a July 2011 date to begin withdrawal.

This date was arbitrary! It bears no relation to conditions on the ground. It sends all the wrong signals to our friends and to our enemies. We know our commanders on the ground are not comfortable with it.

As that great Navy war hero, Senator John McCain recently put it: “The decision to begin withdrawing our forces from Afghanistan arbitrarily in July 2011 seems to be having exactly the effect that many of us predicted it would: It is convincing the key actors inside and outside of Afghanistan that the United States is more interested in leaving than succeeding in this conflict.”

Does the President really believe the Taliban and al Qaeda won’t be empowered by his naming of a starting date for withdrawal? They now believe they can beat him simply by outlasting us. What sort of effect does he think this will have on the morale of our troops – and of our allies?

ALIENATING OUR ALLIES

It’s not the only area where the Obama administration has failed our allies. They escalated a minor zoning issue in Jerusalem into a major dispute with our most important ally in the Middle East, Israel. They treated the Israeli Prime Minister shabbily in Washington. When a Turkish sponsored flotilla threatened to violate a legal Israeli blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, the Obama Administration was silent. When Israeli commandos were assaulted as they sought to prevent unmonitored cargoes from being delivered to Hamas terrorists, the Obama Administration sent signals it might allow a UN investigation into the matter – an investigation that would be sure to condemn our ally Israel and bemoan the plight of Hamas. Loyal NATO allies in central Europe were undermined by the cancellation of a missile defense program with virtually no warning. At the same time, Russia and China are given preferential treatment, while remaining silent on their human rights violations.

CODDLING ADVERSARIES

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes. They shake hands with dictators like Hugo Chavez, send letters to the Iranian mullahs and envoys to North Korea, ease sanctions on Cuba and talk about doing the same with Burma. That’s when they’re not on one of their worldwide apology tours.

Do we get anything in return for all this bowing and apologizing? No, we don’t. Yes, Russia voted for a weak sanctions resolution on Iran, but it immediately stated it could sell advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Iran anyway, and would not end its nuclear cooperation. In response to North Korea’s unprovoked sinking of a South Korean Navy ship, China warned us not to take part in military exercises with our ally.

And while President Obama lets America get pushed around by the likes of Russia and China, our allies are left to wonder about the value of an alliance with the U.S. They have to be wondering if it’s worth it.

AN “ENEMY-CENTRIC” FOREIGN POLICY

It has led one prominent Czech official to call Obama’s foreign policy “enemy-centric.” And this “enemy-centric” approach has real consequences. It not only baffles our allies, it worries them. When coupled with less defense spending, it signals to the world that maybe we can no longer be counted on, and that we have other priorities than being the world leader that keeps the peace and provides security in Europe, in Asia and throughout the world.

Together with this enemy-centric foreign policy, we see a lessening of the long, bipartisan tradition of speaking out for human rights and democracy. The Secretary of State said she would not raise human rights with China because “we pretty much know what they are going to say.” Democracy promotion programs have been cut. Support for the brave Iranians protesting their government was not forthcoming because President Obama would rather try to cut a deal with their oppressors.

When the world’s dictators see the United States unconcerned with human rights and political freedom, they breathe a sigh of relief, because they know they have a free hand to repress their own people.

This goes against the very ideals on which our republic was founded. There is a long bipartisan tradition of speaking out in favor of freedom – from FDR to Ronald Reagan. America loses something very important when its President consigns human rights and freedom to the back burner of its international priorities.

A DIFFERENT VIEW OF AMERICA

We have a President, perhaps for the very first time since the founding of our republic, who doesn’t appear to believe that America is the greatest earthly force for good the world has ever known.

When asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama answered, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Amazing. Amazing.

I think this statement speaks volumes about his world view. He sees nothing unique in the American experience? Really? Our founding, and our founding mothers and fathers? Really? And our history over the past two and half centuries?

Really? He sees nothing unique in an America that fought and won two world wars and in victory sought not one inch of territory or one dollar of plunder? He sees nothing unique in an America that, though exhausted by conflict, still laid the foundation for security in Europe and Asia after World War II? He sees nothing unique in an America that prevailed against an evil ideology in the Cold War? Does he just see a country that has to be apologized for around the world, especially to dictators?

President Obama actually seems reluctant to even embrace American power. Earlier this year when he was asked about his faltering Middle East peace process, he said “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.” Whether we like it or not?! Really? Mr. President, this may come as news to you, but most Americans actually do like it. And so do our allies. They know it was our military might that liberated countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. Yes, we do like it. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom and kept authoritarian powers in check.

It is in America’s and the world’s best interests for our country to remain the dominant military superpower, but under President Obama’s leadership that dominance may be slipping away. It’s the result of an agenda that reeks of complacency and defeatism.

(I went on from there to talk about our need to end the negative, defeatist attitudes of those in leadership. I spoke further on American exceptionalism, and Willow and I ended a great evening with some great patriots. Sorry the media chose to report anything other than what actually happened at the event.)

Sarah Palin

posted July 06, 2010 07:28 PM              

isn't it criminal that we have a president who understands that other countries have their own flags and patriotism which RESENTS our big brother attitude and presence though their governments still allow it - it saves them money if we spend ours "over there".