Jennifer Rubin attacks Sarah Palin... again

Singing that WaPo anti-Palin tune
*
For the second time in less than eight days, Jennifer Rubin, the leftist Washington Post's idea of a conservative (i.e., one who will attack Sarah Palin on demand), has gone after Gov. Palin. In a December 1 post, we noted how Rubin, who had mostly treated the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate fairly on the pages of Commentary Magazine and its Contentions blog, had started slamming Sarah for Rubin's new masters, the WaPo editors.

Rubin continues with her anti-Palin pontificating Wednesday in her "Right Turn" column. Today's attack is even more gratuitous than her first one, hyper-criticizing the governor for her tweets regarding the dealings in DC on the Bush tax cuts:

What is she talking about? It is obvious that an extension of the Bush tax cuts is wrong? Or is it obvious that Obama is adopting ideas that were once Republican positions? If the latter, it should be a good thing, one would think. This is Palin at her worst -- reflexively anti-deal making, grandstanding, imprecise and unreasoned. If she has a specific policy argument -- e.g. the payroll tax "costs" too much for too little job growth -- then you'd think she, who has been accused of being light on policy knowledge, would want to spell . . er . . . tweet that out.

For some time, liberal pundits have been taunting conservatives that they need "adult" or "mature" leadership. Right now, Obama is short on both qualities. His shoddy performance yesterday highlights the opportunity for Republicans to field a candidate in 2012 who appears more presidential than the incumbent. But Palin certainly doesn't give the impression she would be able to step into that role.

Rubin should be ashamed of herself. It's obvious to anyone who can read and looks at Gov. Palin's tweet in the context of her other Twitter messages on the subject what she means and where she stands. She obviously stands with Jim Demint, who tweeted that Republicans can do better than the current compromise they made with Obama on the cuts. Why is it so difficult for Rubin to recognize this? That's a rhetorical question; it's clear what the columnist is up to here.

We cut Rubin some slack, even after her shoddy treatment of Fred Thompson during the 2008 GOP presidential primaries. But Jennifer Rubin has crossed the line and is now spouting the same elitist nonsense that anti-Palin faux conservatives David Frum, Kathleen Parker, Karl Rove and Peggy Noonan have been cranking out, some of them for years. Sadly, Rubin has sold out to the WaPo leftists and is now doing their dirty work for them. The last ounce of respect we had for this writer has evaporated. She's fitting in very well at the Democrats' DC house organ.

- JP

Jennifer Rubin reverts to type

Rubin Version 1.0 returns
*
As a writer for Commentary Magazine and its Contentions blog, Jennifer Rubin consistently defended Sarah Palin against the left's attacks. When the news broke that she had been hired by the left wing Washington Post to write about the right, many conservative bloggers and pundits hailed the hiring as a sea change. Finally, they trumpeted, WaPo had obtained the services of a real conservative to write about real Republicanism and conservatism. And hey, after the Weigel fiasco, any conservative would be an improvement.

We didn't hail that particular bandwagon and ask for a ride, preferring instead to reserve judgment until after we had a chance to read Rubin's Post postings for ourselves. Our skepticism was rooted in recent memory. The 2008 Republican primary race was not so long ago, and we recall that she was a big backer then of Rudy Giuliani, the most socially liberal of all the GOP candidates. We also recall that Rubin was especially critical of Fred Thompson, the only across-the-board Reagan conservative in the Republican presidential primaries.

After reading what she has written in her first five columns for WaPo, we see that Jennifer Rubin has downgraded to version One-Point-Oh. She's conservative on three legs of the four-legged conservative stool, but hold the social conservatism from her order, please. It didn't take Rubin long to start running down Sarah Palin now that the commentator is of the Post. In just her fifth WaPo column, she starts to pick on Palin.

According to Rubin, or at least the WaPo version of Rubin, the notion that Sarah Palin is the front runner for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination is just a liberal conspiracy because, you see, they want her to be the nominee, as she simply has no chance whatsoever of winning the general election, even against such a failed president as Barack Obama. Rubin hits all of the talking points from the elites of the left and the right - Sarah Palin has limited appeal among independents; golly, she sure did back some questionable candidates for the Senate, especially that awful Christine O'Donnell; her political judgment during a general election might be just too risky; most elected Republicans don't think Palin is a front runner, etc.

That last one is a real gem. Has Rubin asked "most" elected GOP officials or conducted a survey? We don't think so. Oh well, "when in Rome..." or perhaps better said, "while at the Post..." Are we accusing Jennifer Rubin of changing her own narrative to try to get the "progressives" who account for most of its readership to read her column? Not substantially, no. Only just a little. Actually, for Jennifer Rubin its more a case of her reverting to type rather than making a compromise. She's a Rudy Guiliani conservative again. Apparently that's not too conservative for either the people who buy and read the Washington Post or those who run it. And since being negative on Sarah Palin is part of the Post's program, it's good for Rubin that she has no problem with that. It didn't seem to bother her to go negative on Fred Thompson three years ago, so this Palin-marginalizing should be a piece of cake.

- JP

NY Sun: The Palin Platform

Constitutional Conservatism
*
According to a New York Sun editorial Friday, Gov. Palin's success in helping the 2010 candidates she endrsed get elected, although impressive, is not her most important achievement:

The fact is that Mrs. Palin has spied and branded the most relevant, the most inclusive, and the most uplifting theme for the Republicans in the coming contest — the idea of what she calls constitutional conservatism.

[...]

This is an idea for our times, if there ever was one, and it was shrewd of Mrs. Palin to seize on it, as early as she did. It is certainly true that others have gotten the message, and may have gotten it independently of Mrs. Palin.

[...]

The clarity of the idea comes into focus at a time when the Democratic administration is lunging for expanded powers, and she has emerged in a remarkable position. She has written two books. One is a kind of autobiography and declaration of her breakout from what might be called hidebound Republicanism, the other — to be issued this month — a meditation on faith, flag, and country. This sets her up for a third book on the idea of constitutional conservatism. If she goes ahead and writes it, we predict it will have an even greater impact than her first two — and just in time for 2012.

Even if the Alaskan doesn’t turn the idea of constitutional conservatism into a book, Mrs. Palin has marked the idea as her theme. Its great power is that it sets up a methodology for dealing with everything from — to name but a few issues — foreign policy and the war to the dollar, nationalized health care, same gender marriage, taxation, and gun control.

[...]

So let the pundits puzzle over which of Mrs. Palin's candidates prospered and which lost. The better count is which contenders for the national ticket can lay any better claim than Mrs. Palin to an idea as unifying, uplifting, and inclusive as the idea of constitutional conservatism that she has made her platform.

[More]

- JP

Jay Nordlinger: Sarah Palin, Forbesian and Reaganite

*
At National Review Online, Jay Nordlinger posts a reminder that during the Y2K presidential primary race, Sarah Palin, who was mayor of Wasilla at the time, was also a member of the Steve Forbes campaign's Alaska leadership committee. Though, thanks to the media and its leftist allies, Gov. Palin was given the reputation of being a social conservative, she was and continues to be just as much a fiscal conservative and free market advocate:

Funny that she’s so seldom described this way. Many of the “cool” Republicans disdain her. You know the type of Republican I mean: the type that wants the party to drop abortion and other icky, discomforting issues. But, if entrepreneurial capitalism’s your thing, Palin is your woman, or at least someone to appreciate. She ought to have the appreciation of the entrepreneurially minded everywhere. It’s just that some people can never forgive her for not aborting a Down-syndrome child. Believe me, I know such people (I’m sorry to say).

P.S. I apologize to The Atlantic magazine for the gullible assumption that Palin is actually Trig’s mother. You know how in the tank we are, enchanted by Palin’s winkin’ eyes and can’t-stop comeliness.

P.P.S. Palin is what I’d call a true-blue Reaganite, a Reaganite across the board: a free-marketeer, a social conservative, and a hawk. Beautiful.

As we never tire from pointing out, Gov. Palin is not only a fiscal, social and security conservative, as Nordlinger says, but a limited-government conservative as well. Unlike Mitt Romney's metaphor of a three-legged conservative stool, Reagan's own formulation for the furniture has four stout legs for stronger support. Those who forget the libertarian leg understand neither Ronald Reagan nor his brand of conservatism.

In an earlier NRO post, Nordlinger credits Sarah Palin with not only speaking truth to power, but "speaking truth to the people" as well.

- JP

Doctor Zero: Sarah Palin is the heart and soul of the Right.

*
Doctor Zero, from Hot Air's Green Room:

The election of 2012 will be a savage battle, and all the arrows coming at Palin will be dipped in poison. The Republican electorate would like to see some x-rays of the fire in her belly before they get behind her.

Some of the softness in Palin’s support is probably sympathetic. She’s doing great work for the conservative cause as a private citizen, and enjoying an incredibly successful career. Her quest for the White House would be a roller coaster leading into a meat grinder. There’s a quivering lunatic in a tattered lab coat hanging around the loading platform, mumbling something about discovering the real mother of her son. Is she ready to strap her family into that ride again? Would anyone blame her for deciding not to?

Personally, I hope she does.

[...]

I’ve said before that a large government is, by definition, more emotional than rational. The problem is that dismantling such a government will require passion. The project must rest upon a sound, logical foundation, but there is simply no way to succeed without engaging Big Government on its own emotional terms.

The path to American renewal will be extremely difficult to follow. The morale of our citizens will be a serious concern. Regardless of how awful a president Barack Obama has been, the media will present his defeat in 2012 as a tragedy, bordering on a national sin. They’ll push that meme harder as his failures pile up. We need leadership that combines good cheer, fiery determination, and intelligent mastery of the issues.

Mitt Romney is cut from polished wood, and Newt Gingrich is origami folded from a thousand position papers, blotted with ugly scozzafava stains that may never come out. At this moment in time, Sarah Palin is the heart and soul of the Right. I can understand why many Republican voters might be reluctant to go into the next election with their hearts on their sleeves, but that’s the only way to win… and achieve the mandate necessary to do what needs to be done.

These are, of course, only the excerpts. Read the Doctor's commentary unabridged here.

- JP

Ed Morrissey on Principled Palin Pragmatism

*
Hot Air's Ed Morrissey was at the Rosemont Theater last night for Gov. Palin's speech and posted about it this morning. Here are some excerpts which we think are significant, in light of the dust up over Gov. Palin's most recent endorsement:

Palin addressed the issue of her endorsement of Carly Fiorina during her speech. Without mentioning Fiorina by name, Palin defended the California Senate candidate as “pro-life, pro-business,” and underscored Fiorina’s conservative credentials. Activists need to back the “best conservatives we can elect,” Palin said, and said that activists have to have some pragmatism about electability. Palin took a more veiled shot at Tom Campbell by noting that Fiorina was a better conservative choice than some of the alternatives.

She also challenged the notion of RINOs in her speech, which may also have surprised some in the audience. While the name “Mark Kirk!” got yelled repeatedly, Palin warned about purity purges in the Republican Party, especially in this midterm cycle. Palin admitted that RINOs exist but argued that they’re more rare than people think — and to remember that the goal is to produce conservative leadership in Congress and eventually in the White House. That won’t happen, Palin reminded people more than once, while Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi control the agenda.

The crowd was highly receptive to the entire speech, although one could hear a little grumbling about RINOs during Palin’s argument. It was an effective rally speech, but also a practical defense of her efforts and endorsements in this campaign season.

Read the full Morrissey post here.

- JP

Conservative Intellectual Norman Podhoretz Praises Palin

*
In Monday's Wall Street Journal, Norman Podhoretz praises Sarah Palin and slaps "conservative" intellectuals Chris Buckley, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan, David Frum and David Brooks, all of whom found more to like in radical liberal Barack Obama than in Gov. Palin:

But how do we explain the hostility to Mrs. Palin felt by so many conservative intellectuals? It cannot be differences over policy. For as has been pointed out by Bill Kristol—one of the few conservative intellectuals who has been willing to say a good word about Mrs. Palin—her views are much closer to those of her conservative opponents than they are to the isolationists and protectionists on the "paleoconservative" right or to the unrealistic "realism" of the "moderate" Republicans who inhabit the establishment center.

Much as I would like to believe that the answer lies in some elevated consideration, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the same species of class bias that Mrs. Palin provokes in her enemies and her admirers is at work among the conservative intellectuals who are so embarrassed by her. When William F. Buckley Jr., then the editor of National Review, famously quipped that he would rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the combined faculties of Harvard and MIT, most conservative intellectuals responded with a gleeful amen. But put to the test by the advent of Sarah Palin, along with the populist upsurge represented by the Tea Party movement, they have demonstrated that they never really meant it.

[...]

I remain more convinced than ever of the soundness of Buckley's quip, in the spirit of which I hereby declare that I would rather be ruled by the Tea Party than by the Democratic Party, and I would rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama.

Our only quibble with the author would be his assumption that Barack Obama's IQ is higher than that of Sarah Palin. The president has said too many things which call his intelligence quotient into doubt, including his recent claim that employer health premiums will drop up to 3,000 percent under ObamaCare. Obama's continued refusal to allow the release of his college records leave us convinced that he has some potentially embarrassing things to hide.

Read the complete Podhoretz commentary here.

Update: Mark Tapscott agrees with Podhoretz:

Among Reagan's great strengths was his determination to speak the truth by, for example, calling the Soviets the "Evil Empire," and reminding us that "if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"

Palin has a similar capacity for speaking hard truths directly and without equivocation. True, she lacks the tempering and experience that Reagan received in two major presidential campaigns, as governor of California for eight years and in his time with GE on the rubber chicken circuit.

But tempering and practical wisdom come from a variety of paths in life and Palin's has certainly not been one of privilege or ease. She is closer to the plain-spoken Truman than to the eloquent FDR who inspired the younger Reagan. Her wisdom, such as it is, may not be profound but it clearly has been hard-earned. That may be exactly what is needed in a troubled nation headed toward that rendezvous with destiny of which Reagan spoke so often.

- JP

Solberg: Sarah Palin is a force to be reckoned with

*
Monte Solberg, Toronto Sun columnist and former Member of Parliament, writes that his opinion of Sarah Palin has changed. Citing Gov. Palin's Calgary speech in which she declared that our faith should be in ideas, not politicians, Solberg says he no longer doubts that the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate is the one to carry these ideas forward:

Having now seen her in action, what I now see is that her conservatism is in her bones, people relate to her and most of the mainstream media will never get her.

She has radar for the aspirations of regular people, causing her to speak past many journalists and what she probably thinks are their dorky questions. Many in the media could spend hours listening to Barack Obama pontificate about Copenhagen or his outreach to the Muslim world. Palin couldn’t care less. She’s all about controlling spending, lower taxes, safe streets and borders and practical solutions for the environment, healthcare and education. That’s it.

Terrific timing

She thinks governments should do a few things and do them well. Politicians, she noted, lose focus. O Canada, is she ever right.

Describing the Palin approach as "local, affordable and direct," Solberg says that Gov. Palin understands what motivates people "better than Obama, Bush or Clinton what moves people, and in that sense is more like Reagan":

She seems more committed to small, common-sense government than any of them and could potentially rally the public to chasten a spendthrift Congress.

Though the columnist observes that Sarah Palin doesn't have a lock on the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, "she is a force to be reckoned with."

Read the full Solberg commentary here.

- JP

Give Sarah Palin a Break

*
We're already tired of the grumbling on some conservative websites over Sarah Palin's announcement Wednesday that she will campaign for her former GOP running mate. Anyone who thinks Sarah Palin should not campaign for John McCain now, but were excited to see her chosen by him and to campaign with him in 2008 is a hypocrite.

By their logic, if she's wrong to campaign for him now, then she was wrong to campaign for him then and shouldn't have accepted his offer to be the first woman to be nominated by the Republican Party for vice president. So give Sarah Palin a break. Had she turned McCain down, she might likely still be a mostly obscure governor of a remote state. Her approval ratings in Alaska would probably still be quite high. But the cause of conservatism here in the lower 48 would be all the poorer for the lack of her presence on the national stage.  Barack Obama and his Democrat allies, however, would be all the richer for it. The pro-life community would also be missing one of its most visible and persuasive assets. The Tea Party movement would still be on the rise, but it would be minus the most powerful voice currently speaking in the nation for the values it shares with Sarah Palin.

The Arctic Fox values loyalty above most everything else except God, family, our troops and the love of her country. Anyone who doesn't get this doesn't know a thing about Sarah Heath Palin. Are we pleased that she's campaigning for McCain? No, but that's her decision to make, and we're not going to criticize her for it. We have yet to see the politician who could please us 100 percent of the time with his or her actions.

So far, McCain has no viable announced challenger in the GOP primary in his state for reelection. Though former U.S. Congressman J.D. Hayworth's name has been tossed around as a potential opponent, Hayworth has a well-deserved reputation as a loose cannon with an even looser mouth. Despite the 60% Republican registered voter advantage in his district, Hayworth lost his bid for reelection to the House in 2006. His loss has been largely attributed to ties between himself and lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was convicted on three criminal felony counts of fraud. The same connections to Abramoff which hurt Hayworth in 2006 would still be around in 2010 should he decide to run against McCain, and that's why few analysts consider him to be a viable alternative to the senior Senator from Arizona. Don't get us wrong; we like J.D. But anyone who doesn't think that the Democrats would have a field day in the Grand Canyon State with Hayworth as the GOP candidate for Senate is in deep denial.

Does Sarah Palin's loyalty to McCain make her any less of a conservative? No, unless -- like the leftists -- you thought that she was some kind of far right winger. She is not that and never was. Just as Fred Thompson -- another political figure we have supported and for whom we continue to have respect -- is a "moderate conservative," Sarah Palin is the same populist-leaning conservative she always has been. Both Thompson and Palin are disciples of Ronald Reagan, the only conservative who has managed to get himself elected to the White House in the modern era. Yet today, some "conservatives" would not consider the great man to be positioned far enough to the right on the political x-axis to meet their standards. But much of Sarah Palin's success as a governor was grounded in her Reagan-like pragmatism, and that's just one of the qualities which bodes well for her political future.

The difference between Sarah Palin and most conservatives in the Republican Party is that she's the one with the guts to stand up to the radical leftists that are in control of the Democrat Party and all three branches of the federal government. So, from our perch here in Aggieland, we say Gig 'em, Sarah.

- JP

Ibbetson: Should we make rogue vogue?

In a CFP op-ed Paul Ibbetson tackles the question, "Should we make rogue vogue?" Here's just a portion :

"The questions of fundamental importance are whether or not the Palin philosophy of following conservative values outweighs political prestige and party? If doing what you feel is right is worth losing title and station, if placing God and family before the well-embraced public sentiment of moral relativism and political expediency, is it worth the pain? Is it not good enough to simply do what is right, despite tomorrows poll rating? Is it worth it to go rogue? I must admit, I was among the many that questioned Palin’s decision to step down from the position as Governor of Alaska. The thought of 'finish what you start,' was heavy in my mind, in combination with the fact that I knew liberals, the same liberals who were heaping fraudulent law suits on her and the state of Alaska, would later attack her for stepping down. My second point is now coming to fruition; however, I may have been wrong to believe that Sarah Palin failed to finish what she had started. In fact, she may be in roguish fashion illuminating the fact that conservative values have validity alone, and only find certain limited facilitation through the political process. The echo of Palin’s gubernatorial step-down surely also reflects the Republican Party’s ultimate need for conservatives and not vice versa. If any of these ideals are true, and I believe they are, then it is worth saying that gold, glory, governorships and dare I say, even presidencies, should be the fruits of this scarce righteous mentality. These ideals have become almost foreign today, and most certainly could be termed rogue."

The complete essay can be perused at Canada Free Press.

- JP

Ronald Reagan's Legacy: Palinism is Reaganism

Since Sarah Palin first stepped on the national stage, pundits have been comparing and contrasting her with Ronald Reagan. Michael Reagan, in the excitement following Sarah Palin's RNC acceptance speech, authored an op-ed that appeared in Human Events and Townhall.com, in which he portrayed the Alaska governor as the reincarnation of his late father. One hundred and eighty degrees away,  one Conservative Lite drinker after another has disdainfully sneered, "She's no Ronald Reagan." To some extent, both of these views have elements of truth in them.

Sarah Palin -- like many of her fellow conservative "young guns" -- grew up in the Reagan era. She was born in 1964, the same year Ronald Reagan delivered his famous "A Time for Choosing" speech. She was twelve when The Gipper challenged Gerald Ford for the nomination of his party in 1976. When Reagan was elected to the White House, she was a teenager, and she was entering adulthood when he defeated liberal Walter Mondale in a 1984 landslide reelection victory. Eric Cantor, Jeff Flake, Thad McCotter and Mike Pence were children of that same generation. Michele Bachmann and Jeb Hensarling are a few years older, Paul Ryan and Bobby Jindal a few years younger, yet they are all Reagan's political children. Ronald Reagan was their inspiration, and they share his vision of America as that shining city on a hill. Sarah Palin, however, is the only one of them who was blessed with the gift of charisma to the same degree that Ronald Reagan possessed it. She is truly a political rock star.

While Sarah Palin is indeed not Ronald Reagan, she knows his playbook like the back of her hand. Palinism is Reaganism. And that's both the point and the title of an Examiner opinion piece by Rob Binsrick:

"Reagan’s appeal to the middle and to those ‘Reagan Democrats’ was not his policies but rather his optimism and more so his ‘Americanism.’ When Reagan went abroad he did not apologize for America like Obama has done, but instead he sold America as the best brand available in the world. He was completely unabashed in his pride for America and he was strong, forceful and vocal in his disdain for communism and other perceived evils in the world. Contrast that with how Obama presents America abroad and bows to leaders of communist states."

[...]

"When [Sarah Palin] starts talking about America... is when she sounds absolutely Reaganesque."

[...]

"Palin shares Reagan’s optimism about America and about Americans. As opposed to Obama’s ‘blame America first’ approach to diplomacy, Palin speaks fervently about the greatness that is the America spirit. Reagan had that ability to make everyone feel better about their country and about themselves. He not only wanted everyone to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, he was able to convince most Americans that they could do so."

"Palin is a living example of what Reagan envisioned for all Americans – someone who could start out from humble beginnings but achieve high levels of success in life. As her book title suggests, she has lived ‘An American Life’ and it is just the kind of which Reagan would have approved."

"Palin also wears her conservatism on her sleeve and is unashamed to talk about it. The same was very true of Reagan."

Yet, as Binsrick takes pains to illustrate, both Reagan and Palin governed not as radical right-wingers, but from a center-right perspective. They had to. The realities of their respective terms in office required them to deal with Democrats and Republican Lites to push through their own agendas.

Binsrick also has a great counter punch for those who have criticized Palin's two and a half percent increase in the production tax oil companies pay to her state:

"Democrats in Congress during the Bush administration... wanted to take the money from the oil companies and keep it in Washington for the government to use, but in Palin's plan she gave the money back to the taxpayers of Alaska. Palin and Reagan correctly understood that individuals can make better decisions for themselves than bureaucrats in Washington or Juneau can make for them."

The full op-ed is here, and it's worth the read.

- JP

The Bulletin: Palin And Co. Energizing GOP

Excerpts from an op-ed by Jane Gilvary in the Philadelphia Bulletin:

We know that Mrs. Palin is a media machine and that her endorsement means something. In fact, it changed the entire scope of the race in the 23rd District in New York. Other conservative Republicans like Mr. Pawlenty soon followed Mrs. Palin’s lead by also endorsing Mr. Hoffman. Claude Sandroff at The American Thinker writes, “Palin is bringing us back to the principled, universal roots that Reagan shared with the Founders.”

We now know that the conservative base of the GOP — Mrs. Palin, Mr. Pawlenty, Fred Thompson, Dick Armey, and Steve Forbes — is the true voice of the Party. In their endorsement of conservatives like Mr. Hoffman, they sent a message to the establishment that adhering to the core principles of conservatism is what the party wants. We’re tired of out-of-control spending, government takeovers of private enterprise and weak foreign policy.

[...]

It is obvious... that Americans are moving back to center right values thanks to true conservatives like Mrs. Palin. The Arctic Fox is going rogue and it looks like America just might follow her.

You can read the full opinion piece here.

- JP

At NRO, K-Lo is no lily of the field

*

"Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin" - Matthew 6:28

National Review Editor Kathryn Jean Lopez cannot be accused of being a lily of the field. She works hard, and she spins even harder for Mitt Romney. On the day that voters in NY-23 go to the polls in a contest that has taken on national significance as conservatives take a crucial step in their efforts to recapture the party of Reagan, K-Lo defends Mitt Romney's decision to stay out of the race in a piece titled Where's Mitt Romney?:

Less than a week before election day, while campaigning for the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, Bob McDonnell, Romney announced: “I have chosen not to endorse the Republican in the 23,” indicating that he thought that sent a message in and of itself.

His spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom elucidated: “Mitt Romney is a Republican and he tends to support the Republican candidate in races — and when he can’t, because there are too many differences on the issues, he stays out of the race altogether, and that’s the course he’s following in the New York special election. He doesn’t plan to make any endorsement at all.”

By not endorsing anyone in NY-23, the once and presumably future Republican presidential hopeful avoided the Gingrich problem — endorsing the Republican-who-could-comfortably-endorse-a-Democrat (and would!) — while avoiding the problem of opposing the candidate put forth by the party he would probably be approaching before long to support his own candidacy.

One could argue that Romney did what you would expect the establishment Republican candidate to do...

K-Lo calls it the "Let Romney Be Romney" cycle. And that what bothers us most about the former Massachusetts governor. There's always another "cycle" with him. He's been all over the political map on so many key issues that many conservatives feel that they just can't trust him. Mitt obviously believes that he has made the case that he really is a conservative and no longer needs to prove it to anyone.

But conservatives are engaged in a struggle from which they must emerge victorious to put the "Grand" back into the Grand Old Party and return it to its winning (i.e., Reaganite) ways. Romney's failure to stand up for Doug Hoffman stands in sharp contrast to Sarah Palin, who was the first viable 2012 GOP presidential prospect to endorse the conservative candidate. Once Sarah had taken her stand, Tim Pawlenty decided it was safe for him to follow her. Just because Mitt Romney didn't make the same mistake made by Newt Gingrich in endorsing the Daily Kos' candidate in the race, K-Lo wants us to believe that Mitt comes out of this smelling like a fresh lily. Though he may pass the smell test with establishment Republicans, conservatives by and large are not convinced of Mitt's deep and abiding commitment to the cause of conservatism. To win the confidence of conservatives, a presumptive leader must get down in the trenches with them, or at least cheer them on enthusiastically from the sidelines. Mitt Romney did neither.

Mitt's a favorite in the halls of the House that William F. Buckley built, especially with those in charge, like Rich Lowry and Kathryn Jean Lopez, so it's not a shocker when NRO spins for him. Everyone plays their favorites, it seems. Palin bloggers, most of us anyway, at least have her name or some part of it on the banners at the top of our front pages. Other right bloggers at least proclaim their conservatism in one way or another. Has National Review become an organ of the Republican establishment? If it is committed, as was Buckley to the cause of conservatism, why does it make excuses for those who opt out of a key battle for that cause?

- JP

Gingrich Glum While Palin Glows After Hoffman Endorsement

- by Ian Ransom

It's so heartbreaking to watch a deck-hand go down with a sinking ship, especially when there are still plenty of lifeboats available, and all sensible passengers have long-since abandoned the doomed vessel for a boat that'll actually float. Yet, the disoriented swabber remains frozen and indecisive near the prow, hoping that his poor judgment might be mistaken for some sort of heroism--even as the waters of doom start to swirl around his disappearing feet.

That basically sums-up what I saw while watching Newt Gingrich complain to Greta Van Susteren the other night in the aftermath of Sarah Palin's endorsement of the Conservative Party's Doug Hoffman. Of course, Newt stood by his own endorsement of NY's 23rd District Republican candidate, Dede "I'm-not-a-real-conservative-but-I-play-one-on-TV" Scozzafava. Sure, Gingrich tried to sound cool and collected when Susteren asked him how it felt to be so out of touch with reality, but the insidious odors of underlying petulance were clearly filling the studio. I think I saw a couple of Greta's nose hairs sizzle and burn as bitter Newt-breath billowed:

"So I say to my many conservative friends who suddenly decided that, whether they're from Minnesota or Alaska or Texas, they know more than the upstate New York Republicans? I don't think so. And I don't think it's a good precedent."

There you have it. Newt Gingrich's rationale for utterly ignoring the vast majority of the GOP's base. Behold the obstinance, while voters in every district are confused enough by threats to conservative identity fostered through Newt's politics-as-usual approach. Does Gingrich really believe that the unity of a disconnected party is hindered by strong leadership coming from across the nation, at a time when what the GOP needs most is unifying leadership on a national scale?

In light of the widespread and thunderous uprising of grassroots conservatives across America, this kind of narrow Beltway vision has bypassed the relentlessly flogged "dead horse" phase. It's way beyond time for that animal to be buried. Newt made a mistake by failing to properly assess the needs of a conservative constituency that's been getting distilled misinformation about candidates from dominating liberal media outlets; yes, even at the district level. Like so many at the GOP's helm, Gingrich is ignoring this peril and, in turn, castigating those in his own party who are principled enough to sweep away cobwebs and help conservatives (anywhere and everywhere) properly identify their own, like-minded leaders!

Gingrich and others like him can gnash their teeth all they wish, but the tables have been turned and now they stand outside the door while the people (with help from leaders like Sarah Palin) are finally getting down to business within. The only difference is that Newt can walk through the same portal and join the ranks anytime he wants. There are no locks, here. This is not the sort of exclusive, "closed discussion" he and the Beltway Boys are used to.

Best of all, there's no charge for admission--save for courage and a bit of common sense.

- Ian

Stacy McCain on Sarah Palin and NY-23

Stacy McCain linked to our post on how Sarah Palin must take Sun Tzu's advice and choose her battles and battlegrounds carefully. Though Stacy and I disagree on one point -- that being that the '08 GOP VP candidate should not burn her bridges to potential sources of the kind of big-money donors a candidate needs to win a presidential nomination -- we agree that she would be a great help to Doug Hoffman in his race in New York's 23rd Congressional District.

Stacy wants to know why Sarah Palin hasn't spoken up for Hoffman. Although a donation from SarahPAC would really help the Conservative Party candidate:

"It wouldn't cost Palin a penny to support Hoffman. All she has to do is issue a 200-word press statement -- or record a 30-second video and put it on YouTube -- and she could make all the difference in the world in NY23."

Such a statement could be posted on the former governor's Facebook Notes page, and it would be an instant sensation among Sarah's 928,739 Facebook supporters (but who's counting?), and the media would give it an audience of millions more. As she said after she announced her intention to resign as Alaska's governor:

"I will go around the country on behalf of candidates who believe in the right things, regardless of their party label or affiliation."

Here's her chance. Doug Hoffman fits that definition, and any help Sarah Palin would give him "could make a huge difference in the NY23 special election, and everybody knows it," as Stacy points out. The Other McCain is also correct that time is running out on Hoffman's chances:

"We are 17 days from Nov. 3. Every minute counts..."

We know that Sarah Palin is busy, working with her publisher to plan her book tour, and she has a new 527 non-profit to roll out. Still, it seems likely that she should be able to find a few minutes in her time budget to post an endorsement of Doug Hoffman on Facebook.

What we don't know, and what Stacy apparently hasn't investigated, is whether Hoffman or his team have asked for Sarah Palin's assistance. We don't see her interjecting herself into the battle in NY-23 uninvited. But by the same token, we can't imagine why former Governor Palin would withhold her endorsement or SarahPAC dollars if only Hoffman's campaign lets her know that they want it.

- JP

Sarah Palin must choose her battles carefully

The Sarah Palin story of the week is the news that the former Alaska governor is about to debut a new organization which may or may not be called Stand Up for Our Nation. Likely to be a 527 non profit issue PAC, the group should be rolled out to coincide with the release of her Going Rogue memoir and the launch of her book tour.

Since the Palin team has been so tight-lipped about the project, it has been the subject of some speculation. Jamie Jeffords expects to see "a libertarian leaning, populist type initiative to counter the standard Republican, fit me for a toga line of Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Mike Huckabee":

"I think it is a good idea for Palin to attempt reshaping conservatism into a populist movement. Yesterday, USA Today said the majority of the country’s wealthiest districts were represented by Democrats... a plutocracy with all the prerequisite contempt for the have nots..." 

"Let us not forget the conservative elite, floundering though it is, and their contempt for Palin and the conservative base."

Aligning herself with the TEA Party/Townhall movement may seem like a natural fit for the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate, but Sarah Palin must tread carefully. She doesn't want to completely burn her bridges to the GOP establishment. She has a few friends inside the Beltway -- Fred Malek is one -- whom she doesn't want to alienate. There's nothing like having grassroots support, but if Sarah Palin wants to be president some day, she will need the support of big donors and the big campaign contributions they make to pull it off. And these money men are to be found almost exclusively among the members of the establishment. In The Art of War, Sun Tzu advised to never fight a battle that can be avoided because it wastes people and resources. He also advised that when you do decide to fight, choose your battles and battlegrounds carefully.

So the former governor must choose very carefully those candidates whom she will support, endorse and campaign for. A good example is the Nevada race to oust Senate majority leader Harry Reid. Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian are the two leading canidates for the GOP nomination. Lowden has stated that she's a Palin fan who views herself as similar in several respects, including her views on the issues. But Sarah's dad and her brother have been campaigning for Tarkanian across Nevada. Since Sarah has not interjected herself into the race, the help for Tarkanian from her family has so far allowed Sarah Palin to avoid alienating Lowden and most of Sue's supporters. It's a good example of the former governor wisely avoiding a costly battle which doesn't have to be fought.

Some other candidates shouldn't present such a problem. In New York's 23rd District, for example, Sarah can set herself apart from Newt Gingrich by giving her support to Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, as have Fred and Jeri Thompson. Gingrich, rather inexplicably, has joined the RNC and NRCC in endorsing liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava. Meanwhile in Florida, now that Sarah Palin is no longer a governor, it also shouldn't be a problem for her to throw her support behind conservative Marco Rubio in his battle with Vichy Republican Charlie Crist, even though Crist was once Palin's colleague in the Republican Governors Association. It is in individual contests like these where Sarah Palin can go against the GOP establishment and still keep those friends she has and needs inside the Beltway.

Sarah Palin must walk a fine line between populism and party. By wisely using her new oranization to promote those policies which are important to her, and her existing PAC to support the campaigns of viable conservative candidates, she can position herself as the leader Republicans as well as independent conservatives and libertarians will want to follow.

- JP

Fear is the mind-killer

From Fear an Iarthair:

Rush said, a couple of times last week, that the left, through their MSM mouthpieces, will often tell you who they're afraid of, that is, they try to demonize and destroy the people they fear the most, and by that standard, it is clear that they fear Sarah Palin.

I've been thinking about that all week. The more I think about it, the more I think that it's not so much Sarah Palin they fear as it is a possibility that she represents.

[...]

She may not be an economic sophisticate on par with Thomas Sowell, but she knows enough about economics to know that free markets work better than statist controlled economies. She's unashamedly and unabashedly America first. She's committed to smaller government and more liberty. She's firmly committed to the traditional family. She loves guns and hunting and darn near every non-PC point of view and activity you can name. She thinks the Constitution doesn't give government unlimited power. She's a fierce partisan for her point of view. In short, she's about what most people I know are like.

And I think what really scares the left, what really drives them nuts about this woman, is their underlying sense that there may, just may, be enough people like her left in this country to shift the country away from the direction it is currently headed, if only they can find someone to rally around.

We think it is significant that though she is not an economist, Sarah Palin knows enough about economics to read Professor Sowell, understand the practical consequences of what he writes about, and quote him as an expert source in her arguments. That's common-sense conservatism, and the Left fears it.

Consider these two sentences from Frank Herbert's "litany against fear" in Dune:

"Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration..."

Though written for a science fiction novel, that excerpt from Herbert's incantation rings true in the struggle between common sense conservatism and statist collectivism. The side which manages to think clearly despite its fear of what the other seeks to accomplish will win. And there's nothing the statists fear more than the prospect of this nation returning to the principles upon which it was founded.

Another great writer, George Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, showed us what a collectivist system carried to its illogical conclusion might look like. Such a vision could be nightmare for those who cannot manage their fear. So far, the Left seems to be having more difficulty dealing with what it fears. Though the stakes are high, let's keep it that way:

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

- JP

What do you mean, "Where is Sarah?"

We've been seeing so many great posts at American Thinker and praising them lately that it was inevitable that Thomas Lifson's great site would publish something with which we would disagree. And so it has with George Joyce's "Where's Sarah?" which was posted to AT's blog late Monday afternoon.

Joyce, it seems, is so bummed by Mark Steyn's conjecture -- in an NRO op-ed that ObamaCare will probably get pushed through eventually -- that he's gettin' mighty nervous. Joyce wants Sarah Palin, warrior princess, to ride in on a white steed and save the day:

In light of this remarkable admission from Steyn, the question on many conservative minds is: where’s Sarah Palin? In response to those who have defended Palin’s gutsy political instincts one can only wonder about a woman who seemed to be AWOL during and after last Saturday’s heady demonstration. In other words, without a clearly recognized conservative spokesperson willing to passionately articulate the desires of millions of frustrated Americans, the poll numbers will probably continue to favor the rhetorically unchecked Obama.

Either Palin has decided not to run for President in 2012, or, huddled with her advisors, she is carefully calculating how to plod into her party’s nomination a couple of years from now. If the latter, this dynamic, popular, and talented woman is making a profound mistake.

There’s a righteous wind blowing – a conservative righteous wind – but so far no conservative politician has been prescient enough to ride the gale force that may be the only deterrent to what Steyn envisions as America’s left-of-center future.

In other words, even if Palin does get elected in 2012, her passion may well be condemned to pledges about how she can “deliver government services more efficiently.”

Someone very soon needs to take a leap of faith – the time for calculation is long past.

Chill, George.

Wherever Sarah Palin is, she's probably finishing her book. Authors who sign deals to have their books published owe big obligations to their publishers, who expect to have manuscripts on the editor's desk by certain dates. That's usually written into the contract. And even if the former governor has already delivered her manuscript to Harper Collins, editors always want to make changes, most of them minor ones. Our best guess is that Sarah, with the help of Lynn Vincent, is in the process of making those final changes to the manuscript now. It's a matter of simple economics, as Andrew Malcolm explains:

Book advances are usually paid half on signing and half on acceptance of the finished manuscript with the agent usually receiving at least 15% off the top.

And she can use the money. Her legal bills, thanks to a number of frivolous "ethics" complaints that were filed against her, were reported to be well over $600,000 as of July, and have probably accrued considerably in the two months since. She can't touch her legal defense fund, as that money is tied up pending the resolution of yet another "ethics" complaint which was ironically filed against her simply for having a legal defense fund. 

Sarah Palin declared her independence July 3 when she announced her intention to resign her office, and she sealed it at the governor's picnic when she officially handed over the reigns of power to Sean Parnell later that month. Her key to being able to make the most of her liberation from the bear trap of the Alaska governor's office is the financial security for which her book advance is only just the down payment.

So Sarah Palin has personal business to take care of, and it is obviously very important to her. She passed up an opportunity to appear at the Ronald Reagan Library at the invitation of a Republican women's group and also said no to several other events where her presence would have been a great benefit to her. So no one should really be surprised that she didn't show up at the epicenter of the 9/12 event Saturday. We doubt she will make any public appearances prior to her scheduled keynote address in Hong Kong at the CLSA Investors' Forum September 23.

There is also another personal matter which is sure to command Sarah Palin's attention. Her son Track's Army unit, the 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, is in the process of rotating back home after a year of duty in Iraq. Track is due to return soon (the last group of 1/25 Strykers should be back stateside by Oct. 2), and he will have some well-deserved leave coming. Count on the Palins to celebrate his return and spend some family time to themselves.

But there is another reason why she didn't show in person in Washington, D.C. this weekend. The 9/12 event wasn't about her -- it was about the everyday people who made it happen. It was their moment in the limelight, their chance to stand up to the president and his enablers and say, "No you can't." Had Sarah Palin turned up there and stole their thunder, she would have already been dragged through the coals by the Left as a rank opportunist.

Her presence there would have also taken away the argument that 9/12, the tea parties and the town halls are all part of a genuine grassroots movement. The Obamunists dispute this and claim that it's a top-down conspiracy spearheaded by Fox News, the Republican Party and whatever other boogey men they can think of. Had Sarah Palin walked onto the stage, it would have simply added fuel to the fire they have tried, so far unsuccessfully, to build.

We have to have patience, and we have to have faith. When and if the time is right, Sarah Palin will be where she has to be. Trust her political instincts, which many of both her admirers and her critics have praised. And don't for even a second doubt her passion. The grassroots movement will have star-quality leadership when the grassroots decides that someone deserving has earned it, and not a day sooner than that. Sarah Palin said she intended to campaign for conservative candidates for 2010, and we don't doubt her commitment to do just that. After that, who knows?

And though Mark Steyn is one of our all-time favorite political writers (we put him up there with Victor Davis Hanson and Bill Whittle), he is not a prophet, nor is he infallible. For the moment, at least, Obama doesn't have the votes he needs to push through his Big Government patent medicine. There is still plenty of time to make this grassroots movement mature if we take our time and keep our wits about us. That "righteous wind" is in no danger of  blowing itself out anytime soon.

Finally in answer to the question that forms the title for George Joyce's op-ed, all anyone at the rally had to do was look around them. Everywhere there were Sarah Palin t-shirts, posters, pictures, buttons and banners. She was there in spirit, which was not unexpected and was the appropriate presence for her, in our opinion.

- JP

It's not crazy to stand with Ronald Reagan and the founders

At American Thinker, Villanova emeritus law professor Howard Lurie addresses the liberal charge that Sarah Palin is crazy for warning about death panels:

The absence of specific language in the Constitution or a statute doesn't mean that something isn't there. There is no language in the Constitution guaranteeing a right to abortion, but that didn't stop the Supreme Court from concluding that such a right exists. The right to an abortion arose out of the right of privacy that also lacks any textual support in the Constitution.

[...]

If the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is subordinate to "a compelling state interest," one could reasonably fear that the Amendment's guarantee that no person should be deprived "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law is likewise subordinate to "a compelling state interest." Arguably, the preservation of dwindling government health care dollars is "a compelling state interest."

[...]

I hasten to remind the reader that it was not too long ago that, in the interest of the greater good, states were forcibly sterilizing the mentally retarded. "It is better for all the world" said the eminent jurist Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. speaking for the Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell (1927), if "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles is enough."

Professor Lurie reminds us that over one million abortions a year are performed with the full sanction of the president and the Supreme Court, many of them merely for the convenience of the mother, and concludes:

If the burden of the unwanted justifies their extermination prior to birth, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the burden of the unwanted ill and infirm elderly would constitute a justification for their early exit from this world. Will some number of ill and infirm aged be "enough"?

There are but a few steps between government mandated end-of-life counseling, and the "better for all the world" ending of life by government mandates.

Sarah Palin is not crazy.

Blogger Mark Epstein, a pro-life libertarian, concurs:

If there’s an undergirding insanity in the body public, it’s not Sarah’s beliefs, but those who abhor her.

Anyone who doubts that there are many who call themselves Republicans but neither support nor agree with the principles stated in the Grand Old Party's platform, should look no further than the anti-Palin faction of the GOP. These Vichy Republicans are not only anti-Palin, but they have turned their backs on the very principles which Ronald Reagan so effectively preached and practiced to become the most successful GOP presidential candidate in modern history. Sarah Palin has embraced Reagan's principles. Epstein touches on two of them, family values (including standing for life) and fiscal restraint:

While the left uneducatedly screams about separation of church and state, the Republicans see acceptance of abortion as a political means to an end. Sarah takes issue with both and, since the majority of Americans oppose abortion, it would seem Palin is more in touch with the citizenry than either of the two major political parties.

[...]

Now that America is suffering a more than 16.8% real unemployment rate, the corporate thieves have made off with taxpayer money, and the country stands on the precipice of hyperinflation, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama era policies are coming home to roost. Obama’s answer? Pass the largest pork-laden generational-theft act in history, whose only result will enslave future Americans to the federal government for generations to come. Sarah has a problem with this and so do most Americans.

[...]

Of all the politicians in America, Sarah "gets it" with respect to the God-ordained role of the family — the very same God who grants Americans their inalienable rights.

Although not cited by Epstein, Sarah Palin stands strong for Reagan's other two principles. The first of these is national security, not only through a strong military, but through her advocacy of replacing imported oil and gas with our abundant domestic resources to achieve true energy security. The other is limiting the growth in the size of the federal government, a Palin position which has won her the support of many libertarians.

In conclusion, Epstein warns that unless the GOP turns away from its "royalist" ways (we know the Democrat Party won't), the Republican Party could be marked for extinction:

Glenn Beck is leading the charge in this area and his ratings reflect a disenchantment with both political parties. Americans are energized and they want real change, regardless of party affiliation. At this point, Sarah Palin could conceivably run as an Independent and trounce both parties combined. Why? Given the public’s disaffection with Obama’s Pravda (mainstream media) and its loss of viewership combined with crumbling newspapers, Beck and bloggers are rapidly becoming the option for real news “choice.” And the choice is clear: Throw ALL the bums out of Washington.

If the GOP goes the way of the dodo, it need look no further than the Vichy Republicans of the Tom Ridge and David Frum school and spineless "conservatives" who lack the courage to fight for not only the principles which Ronald Reagan stood for, but for which our founders pledged "our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor."

Related: Read Bill Quick's "Control and the Young Lions" at Daily Pundit.

- JP

For Rick Perry, Sarah Palin is "the face of America"

Texas Governor Rick Perry, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, had more high praise for his former RGA colleague Sarah Palin. In a earlier telephone discussion with Politics Daily's Matt Lewis in June, Perry had said of Palin's endorsement of him:

"If there's a bigger endorsement in the Republican universe, I don't know who it is than Sarah," he declared in a telephone interview over the weekend. He described the Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee as a "close personal friend" who knows my heart."

In this latest interview, conducted Friday in Austin, Perry's enthusiasm hasn't waned a bit. He told the WSJ:

"I love Sarah Palin, I love her positions, I think she was a good governor... I want her to be engaged in this rebuilding of the Republican Party... She is substantially more the face of this country than some other people who might want to be the face of the Republican Party. To me she's the face of America. I mean she's a hard worker, she didn't come from money, she didn't come from privilege, she just worked hard... I have not seen another person who invigorated the Republican base [like she did] with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan in 1976—the speech he made at the Republican Convention. People were looking around and saying, 'we nominated the wrong dude.'"

In her Facebook op-ed Friday, Sarah Palin cited Texas as an example of how tort reform can make health care more readily available to more people:

"Texas Gov. Rick Perry noted that, after his state enacted tort reform measures, the number of doctors applying to practice medicine in Texas 'skyrocketed by 57 percent' and that the tort reforms 'brought critical specialties to under-served areas.' These are real reforms that actually improve access to health care."

According to the WSJ, Texas' tort reforms have also been an economic boom for the Lone Star State:

Six years ago, Mr. Perry's state underwent a critical tort reform that was codified in the state constitution. The payoff is that Texas is now outpacing California economically. According to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, between 1997 and 2006 Texas' economy grew an average of 4.3% while California's grew at a rate of 3.7%. But as of 2002 (to 2007), with tort reform in place, Texas' annual economic growth jumped to 5%, while California's remained essentially the same at 3.6%.

Any chance of seeing a Palin-Perry presidential ticket in the future? Not according to the governor:

"Unless my family is at gunpoint, I will not go to Washington, D.C."

Perry, who faces a challenge from Texas Sen. Kay Baily Hutchison in his bid for an unprecedented third term in the governor's mansion, says the battle for the soul of the Republican Party is between...

"mushy, middle of the road" Republicans and clear, devoted fiscal and social conservatives, like himself and Sarah Palin.

Part of Perry's strategy for reelection is to define Hutchison as one of the former. For her part, the Senator seems to be working hard at saying, "Hey, I'm a conservative too." Anyway, that's how it looks from our vantage point here in the Brazos River Valley.

- JP