Video: Gov. Palin talks domestic policy on 'Hannity'

*
From TheRightScoop:



- JP

Sarah Palin: Brewer Has 'Cojones'; Obama, not so much (Updated)

*
Sarah Palin offered praise for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Sunday morning for defending her state's immigration law in court against Eric Holder's lawsuit. Gov Palin said her friend Brewer has the "cojones" that President Obama lacks on the critical issue of border security:

Palin said on "Fox News Sunday" that Brewer is tackling border security and putting her faith in legal immigration where Obama is not.

"Jan Brewer has the cojones that our president does not have," she said. "If our own president will not enforce our federal law, more power to Jan Brewer."

[...]

Palin called the judge's ruling "unfortunate" but hopefully "temporary."

"There are many, many more steps to take," she said, adding that the case could come before the Supreme Court.

Gov. Palin also called Obama and congressional Democrats "all wet" for planning to let the Bush tax cuts expire, adding, "It's idiotic to think about increasing taxes at a time like this."

Asked by host Chris Wallace what she had written on her palm, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate held up her hand to show the words "$3.8 trillion over 10 years," the cost, Republicans say, of allowing the cuts to expire. Wallace inquired why she wrote the palm note, and she replied:

"...so I don’t say ‘$3.7 trillion’ and then get dinged by the liberals saying I don’t know what I was talking about."

We'll have the video of her comments up when Fox releases it, and, no, we're not going to link to any of the biased lamestream media stories on this FNS appearance. The usual media suspects can float down the River Styx in a hand basket to Hades. Frankly, we've grown weary of giving them page hits to spread their DNC attack memes about Sarah Palin.

Update: More quotes from Gov. Palin's FNS appearance via Chris Wallace's blog:

"To reduce deficit spending and our enormous debt, you rein in spending. You cut the budget. You don't take more from the private sector and grow government with it. And that's exactly what Obama has in mind with this expiration of Bush tax cuts proposal of his. His commitment to let previous tax cuts expire are going to lead to even fewer job opportunities for Americans, because it's the job creators who will be taxed.”

[...]

“I think President Obama is trying to deceive the public in pretending that he was not a part of Congress that has made some decisions in the past that got us to where we are today. It just amazes me that he continues to look backward and blame solely President Bush for the conundrum that we're in right now… We're not out of the problem. We have a jobless recovery and that's no recovery in the minds of most Americans.”

[...]

“As for the unfavorable, you know, I don't blame people for not really knowing what it is, in some instances what I stand for, what my record is because if I believed everything that I read in or heard in the media, I wouldn't like me either.”

- JP

Sarah Palin: Obama's health plan doesn’t pass the smell test

*
In a new op-ed on her Facebook Notes page, Sarah Palin slammed President Obama's latest health care proposal, saying that it is even worse than the Senate bill:

More of the Same, Only More Expensive

The President has wrestled control of the health care debate away from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid by finally introducing his own plan. Unfortunately, the White House’s proposal includes everything we found untenable about the old Senate bill – only this one is even more expensive! This is what you might call putting “perfume on a pig.”

What’s in this “new” proposal? It has the unpopular (and arguably unconstitutional) individual mandate that forces people and employers to purchase health insurance – only this time with much harsher fines on employers who choose not to go along with another expensive government mandate. It has provisions that will make employers think twice before expanding their workforce. It has cuts to Medicare Advantage, a popular program which allows seniors to pay a little more money out of pocket for better coverage. And, of course, it still has sweetheart deals – only this time they’ve been extended even more.

We don’t know what the final long-term cost of this will be because the Congressional Budget Office hasn’t had a chance to calculate costs. We do know that the White House recognizes that its proposal will cost tens of billions more over the next ten years than the already-expensive $2.5 trillion Senate bill. The President promised last July that he won’t sign a health care bill if it “adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.” But he’s now proposing a health care bill with uncertain fiscal repercussions that could lead to endless deficits.

The rising cost of care has driven the entire health care reform debate. So how does the President’s proposal address this central issue? Price controls. That’s right: Washington, D.C. wants to give a panel of bureaucrats the power to cap insurance premiums and prices. As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute notes, “artificially limiting premium growth allows the government to curtail spending while leaving the dirty work of withholding medical care to private insurers.” This leads to rationing. Any economist worth his salt – including the White House’s own Larry Summers – will tell you that price controls lead to all sorts of negative unintended consequences. It’s another step towards government controlled health care and away from the real solution: free market, patient-centered reform.

With a government-growing proposal this bad, it’s no wonder the President wants bipartisan cover for it in an election year. Thursday’s health care summit is already being revealed as little more than a photo-op. The Obama administration still denies the existence of the House Republicans’ health care plan that offers alternative solutions to health care challenges – even though the White House website links right to it.

The President’s proposal doesn’t include pro-free market ideas like allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, giving individual buyers the same tax benefits as those who get insurance through their employers, or instituting real medical liability reform. Despite the “kumbaya” rhetoric, Democrats are making plans to ram this bill through the Senate using a partisan procedural maneuver that will bypass the normal bipartisan debate process.

In the meantime, the White House will continue to ignore Republican reform ideas and cast the GOP as the party of no. That’s a hard sell considering that Democrats still hold the majority in the House and Senate. The only real “gridlock” preventing Democrats from doing what they want is the very real threat of America's voice being heard at the ballot box.

The public is clearly opposed to the Democrats’ health care bills. Americans want to scrap these big-government plans and start over with common-sense, incremental reform. Some on the left have urged Democrats to vote for Obamacare because it’s a foot in the door for universal health care. They understand what’s at stake; so should the rest of us.

The President can perfume this proposal however he wants, but it still doesn’t pass the smell test. Washington should listen to Americans now, or Washington will hear us in November.

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Sarah Palin on cancer screenings and rationed care

*
Sarah Palin once again takes the Democrats to task for their massive health care "reform" proposals and asks on her Facebook Notes page if new guidelines on cancer screenings are careless cost-cutting that threaten potential cancer patients:

Cancer Screenings - Rational Advice or Rationed Care?

It was a breath of fresh air to finally hear the Democrats admit to their health care bill as “a lot of show and tell and razzmatazz,” (see Democrat talking points, in reference to my book). At least now we’re all on the same page when discussing the problems with their monstrous government health care “reform” plan.

Now, tonight, more disconcerting news – the New York Times reports of new guidelines to scale back cervical cancer screenings. The recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists comes on the heels of another recommendation to limit breast cancer screenings with mammograms. There are many questions unanswered for me, but one which immediately comes to mind is whether costs have anything to do with these recommendations. The current health care debate elicits great concern because of its introduction of socialized medicine in America and the inevitable rationed care. We need to carefully watch this debate as it coincides with Capitol Hill’s debate and determine whether we are witnessing the early stages of that rationed care before the Senate bill is rushed through as well.

Another question is why these women-focused cancers are seemingly receiving substandard attention at a time when proactive health and fitness should be the message. Every woman should encourage rigorous debate to ensure that our collective voices are heard. We are paying attention to Washington’s health care proposals, and we want to hear what helps patients the most.

We need answers: Is early screening not saving lives? Why do doctors’ groups disagree? Did costs play any role in these decisions to change the recommendations on breast and cervical cancer screenings? We need assurances that everything we’ve heard this week about fewer tests for women’s cancers is a result of patient-focused research and providing the best care for the right reasons, and not because of bureaucratic pressure to control costs.

Obviously the first thought that comes to mind when hearing of these new recommendations from bureaucratic panels is “rationed care.” It’s fair – and healthy – to ask if that’s what Washington has in mind with a government-controlled takeover of a health care system.

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Politico: Palin health care critique "tough but wonky"

Politico's Andy Barr on Sarah Palin's most recent op-ed on health care reform:

Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin penned a tough but wonky critique Saturday night of the health care bill approved this week by the Senate Finance Committee.

In a more than 1,000-word essay posted on her Facebook page shortly before midnight, Palin knocked the bill sponsored by Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) for not setting up proper cost offsets, but offered none of the more incinedary, "death-panel" type claims that have marked her previous comments.

[...]

To make her argument that the bills costs are not supported by Baucus's proposed offsets, Palin, quoted Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former top economic advisor to Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign.

She also took a process-oriented shot at Obama, writing: "In January 2008, presidential candidate Obama promised not to negotiate behind closed doors with health care lobbyists," Palin wrote. "However, last February, after serving only a few weeks in office, President Obama met privately at the White House with health care industry executives and lobbyists."

Barr notes that former Governor Palin "took a more tempered approach Saturday" with her opinion piece than one she posted in August in which she raised the possibility of death panels that could make end of life care decisions for the elderly. Within days of the death panels op-ed, the Senate Finance Committe dropped the end of life provision from its version of a health care reform bill.

- JP

Quote of the Day (October 17, 2009)

*
Anthony Dalke:

"I’m anxious to see the media coverage of this piece. Although Palin voiced some of the same complaints others have made about the Baucus Bill, they will have more influence coming from her. Regardless, the fact that she has highlighted some of the drawbacks of the bill, which has received rather positive coverage as a middle-of-the-road compromise by the mainstream media, should help increase public opposition."

- JP

Quote of the Day (October 15, 2009)

*
James Taranto:

"'We're Going to Let You Die'
Who said it? Hint: It wasn't Sarah Palin."

- JP

Quote of the Day (September 22, 2009)

Commentarama:

"I am not the world's biggest fan of Sarah Palin. But what she called 'death panels' are provided for in every government-run option produced by Obama or Congress so far. You can call them counseling services or bereavement advice, but 'death panels' comes darned close to being right-on-the-money accurate. It is exactly the same analysis used by the British National Health Service, and to an only slightly-lesser extent, in Canada."

- JP

Quote of the Day (September 14, 2009)

Ken Blackwell:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was ordered out of the room by leading conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who is a medical doctor -- a rarity in the world of pundits.

Krauthammer said Palin's comments about "death panels" in Obamacare were not helpful in a serious debate on the government takeover of health care.

But then Dr. Krauthammer wrote that the result would only be a "gentle nudge" toward that hooded figure in the corner of the room, that grim fellow with the scythe.

Hmmm. Maybe we should invite Palin to come back in.

- JP

Relevant Palin now the focus of White House talking points

Via Ben Smith at Politico:

The White House has... chosen specifically to focus on former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and evidently to make her the face of the opposition, or to respond to her ability to project herself into the debate. She is the only Republican named in the talking points.

Here's that section:

On Gov. Palin's Attacks

Every non-partisan organization that has looked at her claims say they are false. And the ideas in her op-ed are both scary and risky. Eliminating Medicare and giving our seniors vouchers instead is a bad idea that we shouldn't adopt.

This can't be the same White House that insisted in July that former Governor Palin was irrelevant:

"I can tell you with absolutely honesty,” Axelrod said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, "that when I sit around with my political friends... there’s very little or no discussion of Sarah Palin."

It appears that statement, like everything else that comes out of the Obama Administration, had an expiration date. Nevertheless, we're sure that the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate appreciates the White House elevating her status to that of Obama's leading Republican opponent. She's playing them like they were on her iPod.

And when did Sarah Palin ever say that we should get rid of Medicare?

- JP

What if Sarah Palin had been elected?

A blogger considers the possibilities:

If Sarah Palin had been elected, there would never have been an endless parade of apologies around the world for America being America.

If Sarah Palin had been elected, America would be drilling for oil in America, and not George Soros drilling for oil to sell to America from Brazil impoverishing the nation more.

[...]

If Sarah Palin had been elected, America would not be over 12 trillion dollars more in debt with that money sitting in European banks.

If Sarah Palin had been elected, Pennsylvanian thugs intimidating voters would have been prosecuted where Eric Holder could not see a crime committed.

[...]

If Sarah Palin had been elected, Christians, Veterans and Patriots would not be listed as terrorists.

Like we said, just the musings of one blogger. But food for thought nevertheless. We can think of a few what-ifs ourselves: 

If Sarah Palin had been elected, there would have been no "coup" in Honduras other than the failed one Zelaya tried to pull off.

If Sarah Palin had been elected, the federal government would not own General Motors and control Chrysler, and bureaucrats would not be deciding what kind of cars they can make.

If Sarah Palin had been elected, the same government that wants to control your health care would not have gotten involved in and FUBAR'ed a simple automobile trade-in program.

If Sarah Palin had been elected, the U.S. government would not own most of the financial sector and control a significant share of the banking industry.

If Sarah Palin had been elected, the U.S. economy would still be based on capitalism, not corporatism (the economic doctrine of fascism).

How many of these what-ifs can you think of before the 2012 election?

Related: NRO's Peter Kirsanow:

"Imagine. It's easy if you try."

h/t for the update: Sarah Palin 2012

- JP

Quote of the Day (September 3, 2009)

Progressive Examiner D.K. Jamaal:

"If Palin can manage to throw Obama off message with Facebook, I shudder to think what Palin can accomplish with the entire right-of-center electoral apparatus behind her at the top of a national ticket."

- JP

Quote of the Day (September 2, 2009)

Michael Eden at Start Thinking Right:

"Sarah Palin redefined the entire debate on ObamaCare with a single Facebook entry submitted while she was on vacation. Not bad for a political has-been who destroyed her platform and popularity by stepping down."

- JP

Don't you know you fool, you never can win

*
Our Blog 4 Palin colleague Steve at Motor City Times observes how Sarah Palin has gotten under the Left's Skin big time:

Sarah Palin using only a Facebook page has changed the whole health care debate. Within a span of a week the Democrats are completely on the defensive and are dropping the 'end of life' counseling and ‘The Public Option‘ in an effort to save their health care reform bill

Cue Sinatra:



All the Left has left, Steve says, are insults. Actually, they had precious little more than that to begin with.

- JP

Gov. Palin signs school choice bill

In the setting of Academy Charter School in Palmer, Alaska, Gov. Sarah Palin signed Senate Bill 57, a measure which supports school choice and ends the charter school penalty in the 49th State.

More from Governor Palin 4 President.

Update: Here's the news release and some photos of the signings via the governor's office.

- JP