Sarah Palin is smarter than NRO's editors

"What had looked like a modest success now looks like a sodden disappointment."
*
In an editorial mea culpa Wednesday, National Review Online's editors admitted that they were wrong to praise the Boehner-Obama budget compromise so quickly:

"We initially supported the deal House Speaker John Boehner cut with the White House to cut $38.5 billion from the rest of the fiscal year 2011 budget. It was only a pittance in the context of all of Washington’s red ink, but it seemed an acceptable start, even if we assumed it would be imperfect in its details. What we didn’t assume was that the agreement would be shot through with gimmicks and one-time savings. What had looked in its broad outlines like a modest success now looks like a sodden disappointment."

Unlike the NRO punditocracy, Sarah Palin did not fall for the deception. Asked by Judge Jeanine Pirro on Fox News about the deal Saturday, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate replied:

"When you consider that we just saw an increase in government spending by about 28% and saw a little chip out of that to the tune of 1%, I would say that no, the tea party and Americans in general who are concerned about the fiscal health of our country did not get what they wanted. We have a lot of work to do to help educate Congress when it comes to the expectations that we have when we send our politicians to DC to do the job of making sure that our country is solvent."

Heh. Mama Grizzly is smarter than the average bear... and a lot smarter than your average NRO editor.

- JP

Crawford: Palin decision to pass on debate says nothing about 2012

It doesn't mean that she's not running
*
NRO's Katrina Trinko reports at The Corner that Gov. Palin’s decision to keynote a charity event benefitting military families in Colorado rather than take part in the first GOP presidential primary debate does not mean that she will not run for president in 2012, according to one of the governor's top aides:

“It has nothing to do with a decision [about running for president in 2012]. The Governor said the other day that she will make a decision about that in the coming months,” Tim Crawford, the treasurer of Palin’s PAC, told National Review Online.

Palin will be the keynote speaker at the Colorado Christian University’s “Tribute to the Troops” event, which the university describes as “a military and veterans appreciation rally and charity benefit.” The benefit will be held in Lakewood, Colo. on May 2, the same day Politico and NBC News have scheduled the first GOP debate at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif.

Hmmm. Help raise funds for the families of our fallen troops, or be a party to a rigged debate with questions from two slobbering Obama enablers from the leftist media? That was an easy choice for for any Reagan conservative, Reagan Library not withstanding. Honor the troops, not the Democrat/Media Complex.

- JP

Gov. Palin: De-link Missile Defense; Defeat New START

There are many problems with the treaty
*
Gov. Palin returned to Facebook Friday with an op-ed on the proposed START treaty:

De-link Missile Defense; Defeat New START

The following statement I wrote regarding the New START treaty was just posted at National Review Online's The Corner:

The proposed New START agreement should be evaluated by the only criteria that matters for a treaty: Is it in America’s interest? I am convinced this treaty is not. It should not be rammed through in the lame duck session using behind the scenes deal-making reminiscent of the tactics used in the health care debate.

New START actually requires the U.S. to reduce our nuclear weapons and allows the Russians to increase theirs. This is one-sided and makes no strategic sense. New START’s verification regime is weaker than the treaty it replaces, making it harder for us to detect Russian cheating. Since we now know Russia has not complied with many arms control agreements currently in force, this is a serious matter.

New START recognizes a link between offensive and defensive weapons – a position the Russians have sought for years. Russia claims the treaty constrains U.S. missile defenses and that they will withdraw from the treaty if we pursue missile defenses. This linkage virtually guarantees that either we limit our missile defenses or the Russians will withdraw from the treaty. The Obama administration claims that this is not the case; but if that is true, why agree to linking offensive and defensive weapons in the treaty? At the height of the Cold War, President Reagan pursued missile defense while also pursuing verifiable arms control with the then-Soviet Union. That position was right in the 1980’s, and it is still right today. We cannot and must not give up the right to missile defense to protect our population – whether the missiles that threaten us come from Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, or anywhere else. I fought the Obama administration’s plans to cut funds for missile defense in Alaska while I was Governor, and I will continue to speak out for missile defenses that will protect our people and our allies.

There are many other problems with the treaty, including the limitation on the U.S. ability to convert nuclear systems to conventional systems and the lack of restriction on Russian sea launched cruise missiles. In addition, the recent reports that Russia moved tactical nuclear weapons (which are not covered by New START) closer to our NATO allies, demonstrate that the Obama administration has failed to convince Russia to act in a manner that does not threaten our allies.

If I had a vote, I would oppose this deeply flawed treaty submitted to the Senate. Just because we were out-negotiated by the Russians that doesn’t mean we have to say yes to this. New START’s flaws have to be addressed in the form of changes to the treaty language that, at a minimum, completely de-link missile defense from offensive arms reductions. Other issues would have to be addressed in the ratification process. If this does not happen either now or next year, Senate Republicans, vote no!

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Sarah Palin: Giving Thanks

I'm grateful that Providence continues to guide us
*
Here's Gov. Palin's contribution to National Review's collection of Thanksgiving messages at NRO Symposium:

I am giving thanks for so much this Thanksgiving. I’m grateful that we enjoy the “blessings of liberty” secured by our Constitution. I’m grateful for the protection of America’s finest, our men and women in uniform — many of whom will spend Thanksgiving far from their loved ones so that we might celebrate with our families in peace and security.

I’m grateful that America’s children can look forward to a hopeful future because their mothers and fathers will make the sacrifices generations of American parents have made to safeguard freedom and opportunity.

I’m grateful that our land is rich in resources — all that we need to sustain ourselves and secure our prosperity.

I’m grateful that all Americans have the equal opportunity to earn, contribute, create, produce, perform, and succeed by our own merits and through the application of a sincere work ethic. I’m grateful for the ingenuity, innovation, and optimism that still animate the American spirit.

Most of all, I’m grateful that the steadying hand of Providence that guided the Pilgrims to Plymouth Rock continues to guide us toward a better future.

Messages were also contributed by Senator-elect Marco Rubio, the next Speaker of the House John Boehner, classicist Victor Davis Hanson, economics guru Larry Kudlow and others.

- JP

The Midterms: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward

Have an intelligent message, and fight for your right to be heard.

- by Sarah Palin

*
Now that the dust has settled on the 2010 midterm elections, it’s slowly becoming clear just how monumental the results really are. We saw an extreme left-wing agenda suffer a crushing defeat. At the ballot box, voters took Obamacare and the stimulus and wrapped them right around the necks of those same House members and senators who had arrogantly dismissed the concerns voiced in countless town halls and Tea Party rallies up and down the country. Voters sent commonsense conservatives a clear mandate to hold the line against the Obama agenda.

Does that mean Republican candidates can look forward with greater confidence to the 2012 elections? Yes and no. Yes, objectively speaking the next electoral cycle should be even more favorable than the one that just ended. A large number of red-state Democratic senators will have to defend their seats; and since Obama will be at the top of the ballot that year, they won’t be able to hide from the fact that their party leader is a detached liberal with a destructive tax-and-spend agenda. Whether Republicans will do as well as they did in this cycle depends on whether they learn the lessons from the 2010 election.

The first lesson is simple: Set the narrative. This year it wasn’t too difficult to tell the story of the election: It was about stopping an out-of-control Congress and an out-of-touch White House. In races across the country, Republican candidates ran on the message that the Left was bankrupting America with budget-busting spending bills that mortgage our children’s future, burden the private sector with uncertainty, and cripple our much-needed job growth.

The story of the next cycle, though, remains to be written. Its content depends on what Republicans do next. Just as in the 1980s, there are today millions of conservative-leaning Democrats and independents who are ready to join our cause. They gave us their votes, now we must earn their trust. And we do that by showing them that a vote for us will not be a vote for the big-spending, over-regulating status quo. The 2012 story should be about conservatives in Congress cutting government down to size and rolling back the spending, and the Left doing everything in its power to prevent these necessary reforms from happening. In the next two years, if all we end up doing is adopting some tax hikes here, some Obama-agenda compromises there, and a thousand little measures that do nothing to get us out of the economic mess we’re in, the same voters that put the GOP in office will vote them out in the next election. If that happens, the story of 2012 may well be that of the GOP going the way of the Whigs. No, the American people are expecting us to be bold and big in our economic reform to allow the private sector to create jobs and soar!

In the coming weeks, there will be those who lament that some of us endorsed conservative Republicans over liberal ones in blue-state races. It’s a good debate, and one I’m willing to have. First, we must keep in mind that there is no guarantee that any Republican will win in a deep-blue state (as evidenced by the exit polls in Delaware showing that the liberal Republican would have lost too). But even more to the point, we saw in the last decade what happens when conservatives hold their noses and elect liberals who have an “R” after their names. Our party’s message of freedom and fiscal responsibility became diluted. In 2008, it was difficult to claim on the one hand that we were the party of fiscal responsibility and on the other hand that our fiscal policies work. It was clear to the electorate that the GOP had not adhered to fiscally conservative positions, and that the liberal positions they did adhere to didn’t work. If we go on in that direction again, we won’t have a base, let alone a majority. Certainly we can and should back sensible center-right candidates in bluer states, but I see no point in backing someone who supports cap-and-tax, Obamacare, bailouts, taxes, and more useless stimulus packages. If you think such a candidate will be with us when it comes time to vote down an Obama Supreme Court nominee, you’re living on a unicorn ranch in fantasy land.

In the coming weeks there will also be a debate about the viability of particular candidates. Anyone with the courage to throw his or her hat in the ring and stand up and be counted always has my respect. Some of them were stronger candidates than others, but they all had the courage to be “in the arena.” The second lesson of this election is one a number of the candidates had to learn to their cost: Fight back the lies immediately and consistently. Some candidates assumed that, once they received their party’s nomination, the conservative message would automatically carry the day. Unfortunately, political contests aren’t always about truth and justice. Powerful vested interests will combine to keep bad candidates in place and good candidates out of office. Once they let themselves be defined as “unfit” (decorated war hero Joe Miller) or “heartless” (pro-life, international women’s rights champion Carly Fiorina), good candidates often find it virtually impossible to get their message across. The moral of their stories: You must be prepared to fight for your right to be heard.

Another important lesson is that we will need the mother of all GOTV efforts if we wish to win in 2012. Sending donations isn’t enough when push comes to shove. Millions of boots on the ground are needed, and voter-fraud prevention must be addressed before election eve.

The last, and possibly most important, lesson is that a winning conservative message must always be carefully crafted. If candidates are going to talk boldly on the campaign trail about entitlement reform and reducing the size of government, they must be prepared to word it in such a way as to minimize the inevitable fear-mongering accusations of “extremism.” We are quickly approaching a fiscal turning point where these crucial reform discussions will be mandatory. We need to speak about them in a way that the public will embrace. During his first run for the presidency in 1976, Ronald Reagan found out that election campaigns aren’t necessarily the best settings for quasi-academic discussions about issues like Social Security reform. So for his next campaign, he resolved to build his platform out of tried and tested policies like tax cuts. Successful candidates in the next election cycle will have to test and develop similar policy platforms that address the crucial issues of entitlement reform and shrinking government in a way that the voters will find pragmatic and even attractive.

If we manage to do these things, there is no reason why we can’t look forward with confidence to winning in 2012. I have said all along that this election must be seen in conjunction with the next. Ultimately 2010 must be viewed as just the first battle in a much longer fight that leads to November 6, 2012, and beyond. We cannot fully restore and revive America until we replace Obama. The meaning of the 2010 election was rebuke, reject, and repeal. We rebuked Washington’s power grab, rejected this unwanted “fundamental transformation of America,” and began the process to repeal the dangerous policies inflicted on us. But this theme will only complement the theme of 2012, which is renew, revive, and restore. In 2012, we need to renew our optimistic, pioneering spirit, revive our free-market system, and restore constitutional limits and our standing in the world as the abiding beacon of freedom.

Till then, I hope that commonsense patriots will join me in applauding the real heroes of this election year: the Tea Party Americans. In 2008, we were told that we had to “move beyond Reagan.” Well, some of us refused to believe that America chose big-government European-style socialism. American voters elected a politician who cloaked his agenda in the language of moderation. Once the mask was removed, Americans rejected his “fundamental transformation.” The Tea Party reminded us that Reaganism is still our foundation. I think the Gipper is smiling down on us today waving the Gadsden Flag.

- Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, was the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president.

Video: Sarah Palin backstage at 'Restoring Honor' Rally (Updated)

*
The media interviewed Gov. Palin backstage at the Restoring Honor Rally here, here and here:

"I hope that Dr. King would be so proud of us, as his niece Dr. Alveda King is very proud as a participant in this rally. This is sacred ground where we feel his spirit and can appreciate all of his efforts. He who so believed in equality and may we live up to his challenge."

"[Voters in November will elect,] I think, a lot of common sense constitution conservatives That’s what Americans are ready for — the kind of change where we get back to protecting our constitution and limiting government. That’s what I think we see reflected here, even though this is a rally about restoring honor. Really appreciating our military here today is reflected I think [in] that sentiment.."

"I'm very excited about Joe Miller, and I anticipate the final victory after the absentee ballots are counted. A lot of folks like me, my husband and my friends all voted absentee, of course, for Joe. Joe Miller is the right one for Alaska and he’s the right one to help put our country back on the right track. He knows that it is time for Alaska to start contributing more to the U.S. with development -- responsible development of our resources -- instead of being a ‘taker state,’ being a contributor. We’re so vastly wealthy with our resources but the federal government has to allow us to tap into those resources so that we can become energy secure as a nation."

Update: Notice how the ABC News headline distorts Gov. Palin's answer about Dr. King here. Lamestream media, indeed!

- JP

Nordlinger, Palin to Israel: Despite Obama; You've Still Got Friends in USA

*
Sunday at NRO, Jay Nordlindger wrote about one of the many troubling facets of "change we can't believe in" facilitated by the election of Barack Obama -- the great shift in in U.S. policy toward our once-favored ally, Israel:

As I understand it, Israel is the only U.N. member-state — the only one of the 192 nations represented there — that is unable to sit on the Security Council. The only one. All the other states have a shot. And who has been Israel’s friend and protector on the Security Council? I’ll give you a hint: not France (although Sarko has been better than any French premier in memory). If Israel has not the U.S... it has itself, and — many, many Americans and others whose understanding of the Middle East is much different from, and better than, President Obama’s.

I smile at two little facts: Sarah Palin, in her governor’s office, had an Israeli flag. Siv Jensen, leader of a party in Norway called the Progress party, has an Israeli flag in her office. No, those women are not in power. But they represent a lot of people, who count.

Gov. Palin commented via Twitter:

@NROcorner Great work,Jay. Suggest for r Jewish friends(if they can count on enough allies' cont support)"We're here,no fear,get used to it"

- JP

Sarah Palin Was Right #29: National Review Editors on Drilling

*
In an NRO editorial Tuesday, the editors of National Review agreed with Sarah Palin, who in an April 30 Facebook op-ed argued that despite recent events, "We need oil, and if we don’t drill for it here, we have to purchase it from countries that not only do not like America and can use energy purchases as a weapon against us, but also do not have the oversight that America has":

Others already have observed, correctly, that the risks involved in drilling off the coast of the United States are small in proportion to those involved in shipping oil across the ocean or drilling off the coasts of countries that do not treat safety and environmental standards with our own degree of care.

Oil remains the most cost-effective source of transportation fuel we have; as long as our economy is thriving, we will need to produce or import a lot of it. Global-warming alarmists and zealous proponents of alternative energy have already made the BP spill the new Exhibit A in their case against fossil fuels. In evaluating their claims, we should be mindful of the economic and environmental costs of the spill relative to those associated with their preferred alternatives.

[...]

The safety record of shallow-water drilling remains very impressive, and this deep-water calamity neither tarnishes that record nor indicates that it couldn’t be duplicated if Obama opened more of the coastline to exploration. In any case, the president’s moratorium on new drilling is a self-defeating proposition: New rigs will take years to construct and to begin production; their safeguards will incorporate whatever lessons we learn from the investigation of this catastrophe

The editors say that although "Drill, baby, drill" is likely to no longer be an effective battle cry, "offshore drilling remains a crucial source of energy — and clearing obstacles to future exploration is still part of the right policy mix."

Read the full NRO editorial here.

- JP

Sarah Palin: Obama’s energy proposal is all talk and no real action

*
In an op-ed on NRO's The Corner blog, Sarah Palin warns that the Obama Administration’s "sudden interest in offshore drilling is little more than political posturing designed to gain support for job-killing energy legislation":

Stall, Baby, Stall

Many Americans fear that President Obama’s new energy proposal is once again “all talk and no real action,” this time in an effort to shore up fading support for the Democrats’ job-killing cap-and-trade (a.k.a. cap-and-tax) proposals. Behind the rhetoric lie new drilling bans and leasing delays; soon to follow are burdensome new environmental regulations. Instead of “drill, baby, drill,” the more you look into this the more you realize it’s “stall, baby, stall.”

Today the president said he’ll “consider potential areas for development in the mid and south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, while studying and protecting sensitive areas in the Arctic.” As the former governor of one of America’s largest energy-producing states, a state oil and gas commissioner, and chair of the nation’s Interstate Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, I’ve seen plenty of such studies. What we need is action — action that results in the job growth and revenue that a robust drilling policy could provide. And let’s not forget that while Interior Department bureaucrats continue to hold up actual offshore drilling from taking place, Russia is moving full steam ahead on Arctic drilling, and China, Russia, and Venezuela are buying leases off the coast of Cuba.

As an Alaskan, I’m especially disheartened by the new ban on drilling in parts of the 49th state and the cancellation of lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. These areas contain rich oil and gas reserves whose development is key to our country’s energy security. As I told Secretary Salazar last April, “Arctic exploration and development is a slow, demanding process. Delays or major restrictions in accessing these resources for environmentally responsible development are not in the national interest or the interests of the State of Alaska.”

I’ve got to call it like I see it: The administration’s sudden interest in offshore drilling is little more than political posturing designed to gain support for job-killing energy legislation soon to come down the pike. I’m confident that GOP senators will not take the bait.

Next week I’m headed to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, where I look forward to discussing what “Drill, baby, drill” really means.

— Governor Sarah Palin is a former Republican vice-presidential nominee and author of the bestselling Going Rogue.

- JP

NRO Interview With Sarah Palin

NRO's Rich Lowry & Robert Costa talked with Sarah Palin Tuesday afternoon in what the authors described as "a wide-ranging and frank interview." Here are some excerpts:

She thinks President Obama’s bow to the emperor of Japan reflects an attitude that America should be “subservient to other countries”; characterizes Newt Gingrich’s thinking on NY-23 as reflective of a “political machine”; thinks that South Carolina voters should consider sending Sen. Lindsey Graham a message by supporting a conservative primary challenger; calls the media’s treatment of Carrie Prejean “unfair”; and says she would give John McCain “the benefit of the doubt” in their dispute over whether she was charged with fees for her vetting. And oh, yeah — her anonymous critics don’t have “guts,” and she’s not a David Brooks fan.

“That was a mistake,” Palin says of the Obama bow. “It was symbolic of, perhaps, our country being led to believe that we are subservient to other countries.” She says she would “like to see us head more in the direction of Ronald Reagan’s thinking — knowing that we are a very, very blessed nation and a superpower.” She adds, “We can get there through a position of strength and not believing that we have to kowtow or bow to anybody.” Asked if she would have bowed, she replies, “No, sir.”

[...]

“As for Lindsey, individually, I really like him,” she says. “His constituents may want to send him a message to say ‘shore it up’ and come back to some more commonsense, conservative ideals.”

She suggests, meanwhile, that there might be encouraging news coming Marco Rubio’s way. She says she’s had a chance to look at the Crist-Rubio race “just on the surface.” But she adds, “I’m just being asked about it really in the last week or two, so I’ll dig more into it. I’ll find out what the guys are holding in terms of positions and see where maybe I can help.”

On 2010 in general, “I would like to help whoever is bold enough and has a stiff enough spine to make the right decisions,” she says. “I’d be happy to help on a district and state level, and a local level, too. Change starts on the local level — that’s imperative. And I will help anybody who asks me.”

Read the complete NRO Sarah Palin interview here.

- JP

Rich Lowry: Sarah Palin’s Roguish Charm

National Review editor Rich Lowry takes a look at The Palin Phenomenon in his syndicated column, from which we have excerpted the following:

It’s fair to say this: Yes, the campaign had a hugely difficult task in taking Palin from 0 to 60 mph on the national stage, but it handled it badly — and, in the end, gracelessly.

Palin has lived to tell the tale because going rogue is now her operating principle. Her base of support is so intense, she doesn’t need supply lines into the political or media establishment. She transformed her Facebook page into a must-read organ of conservative opinion by lobbing “I can’t believe she said that” rhetorical bombshells. No political consultant would ever approve of her M.O.; for Palin’s purposes, no political consultant could possibly improve on it.

[...]

But why should Palin change? She represents less a philosophical strain on the right than an affect and a demographic. What makes her otherwise orthodox conservatism different is the plain-spoken, combative way she expresses it and the constituency she attracts. Her supporters identify with her populist, unaffected vibe and tend to be disaffected with politics as usual — they’re Palin Perotistas. A drastic image makeover would only drive them away.

Republicans need these voters more than ever given the roiling grassroots revolt against Obama’s governance. Without them, they can’t get a majority; they’d be doomed if they were ever to slide into a splinter party. If Palin is their voice and channels their energy productively, she’s part of the Republican answer to Obama, no matter what presidential politics ultimately holds for her. There’s an upside to rogue.

Read the full Rich Lowry opinion piece at NRO. It's about as favorable to Sarah Palin is anything you're likely to read that was written by a Romney guy.

- JP

K-Lo: Palin book more about reintroduction than score-settling

On NRO's The Corner blog, Kathryn Jean Lopez says Sarah Palin's memoir is not so much about revenge, as some in the liberal media have insisted. The National Review Online Editor says Going Rogue is more about the former governor's reintroduction:

I was struck by how different it is than it sounds on MSNBC (and elsewhere). It was easy to get the impression over and going into the weekend that the book was a whole lot of score-settling. Having done a speed read of it, I'd say it's a reintroduction more than score-settling.

Sure, Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt aren’t giving it as Christmas gifts, but it’s not gratuitously nasty. In fact, it’s not even nasty..."

- JP

Check out NRO's newest blog

NRO has a new blog. With Robert Costa as blogmeister, it's name is Rogue: The Sarah Palin Book Blog.

In other news, Saddam Hussein just tweeted from the gates of hell to say that they're having a devil of an ice storm down there...

- 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

T.D. Williams finds an anomaly at National Review

At Terrance this is stupid stuff, T.D. Williams finds an anomaly at National Review -- two positive Sarah Palin articles in a row. No, really:

"After a spate of pieces either advising Palin on what to do to be a real winner* or slapping her hands for her actions** or phrasing***, NR has published two positive items in a row."

Then T.D. dares to hope:

"Is NR's treatment of Palin as a serious conservative voice here to stay? One can only hope."

We wouldn't recommend that any Palin supporters get those hopes up too high. Though National Review occasionally throws a few table scraps in Sarah Palin's direction, the feast there is in Mitt Romney's honor. NR is Romney territory, having been conquered long ago.

- JP

Bloggers Skewer National Reviewer

In an earlier post today, we noted Andy McCarthy's minority opinion in a dissent from an NRO editorial which complained about "hysteria" surrounding former Governor Sarah Palin's characterization of "death panels" in proposed health care reform legislation. The Conservasphere is beginning to erupt over the editorial also, and National Review editor Rich Lowry has to be feeling the heat . Here are five prime examples...

Robert Stacy McCain:

National Review contributes more evidence for the prosecution in the continuing case of Why Rich Lowry Should Have Been Fired No Later Than 2001.

[...]

Lowry's stayed too long at the dance, and people are getting sick of NR being the official Mitt/Jeb 2012 campaign journal, repeatedly slagging Palin and the grassroots.

The Conservative Comeback:

Andy McCarthy's point about Reagan using the Evil Empire phrase is valid. How would todays National Review have treated that comment? No doubt they'd have scolded him for his "hysteria."

[...]

In one week Sarah Palin had a portion of the bill tossed out and along with the help of townhall protesters has put ObamaCare on life support. Can anyone point me to a National Review article that has made headlines to damage this bill?

Ace:

I'm with McCarthy on this.

I don't see what makes her formulation particularly egregious when the White House is engaging in daily demonizations. "Death panels" is particularly evocative, and maybe a bit under-subtle. So what? We are talking style points at this point, and I hardly think that style is the most important concern.

Further, what Obama envisioned is a "death panel."

Dan Riehl:

I suppose the boy Editor will eventually argue, "Well, it was only her words, you see". As if the childish looking dupe could ever pull off a decent Buckley imitation.

What is it going to take for conservatives to finally accept that William F. is dead, the heirs to the throne, with too few exceptions, are a bunch of 2nd and 3rd generation elitist brats who belong to the Inside the Beltway set? They are not a part of the conservative movement that must re-define American politics, just as Reagan did, if there is to be anything like conservatism going forward in the nation's political discourse.

The Sundries Shack:

Andy McCarthy demolished the editorial all by himself, which is a testament to how poorly it was put together. If one man can take apart the work of the entire National Review editorial staff, it’s safe to say they didn’t do their best work.

And they really didn’t. What I got from the editorial is that they don’t like it when conservatives play rough and use hyperbolic language, even if its only a little bit hyperbolic, but they never quite summoned the courage to say that. Instead, they tried to explain that what Palin wrote wasn’t merely hyperbolic but incorrect. Their argument would have been a lot stronger had they not admitted right at the very beginning that she was correct, even if they didn’t do so explicitly.

Update 1: Lowry has finally replied to McCarthy on The Corner. We would have phrased that as "finally answered" instead of "finally replied" had Lowry provided an actual answer to the McCarthy dissent. Instead, the editor sidesteps substance and says, "Hey, we're not that far apart." Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? -- Over.

Update 2: McCarthy fires back, "There's no reason to characterize what "in other words" I must be saying. In my response to the editorial, I said exactly what I meant..."

Update 3: Mark Steyn comes down on the side of the good guys:

I'm with Andy. I think Sarah Palin's "death panel" coinage clarified the stakes and resonated in a way that "rationing" and other lingo never quite did. She launched it, and she made it stick. So it was politically effective.

But I'm also with Mrs Palin on the substance. NR's editorial defines "death panel" too narrowly. What matters is the concept of a government "panel".

[...]

And finally I don't think this is any time for NR to be joining the Frumsters and deploring the halfwit vulgarity of déclassé immoderates like Palin. This is a big-stakes battle: If we cross this bridge, there's no going back. Being "moderate" is not a good strategy. It risks delivering the nation to the usual reach-across-the-aisle compromise that will get Democrats far enough across the bridge that the Big Government ratchet effect will do the rest.

Update 4: Jonah Goldberg sides with the good guys also:

"If Obama, Pelosi, Waxman et al get their way, the relationship between the citizen and the state is profoundly, and perhaps permanently, altered and down that path lurks death panels. Oh, they won't be called death panels, but that function will lurk like the ghost in the machine of the federal bureaucracy."

Update 5: The Underground Conservative opines:

There is an absolute fear and hysteria — yes, we will use their word on them — among the elitists in the GOP, some of whom pass themselves off as conservative, when it comes to Sarah Palin, the same type of fear and hysteria that encircled Ronald Reagan and still does to this day.

- JP

Stop the presses!

At NRO's The Corner blog, K-Lo has made an astonishing discovery:

"Palin Is Back on Facebook"

Don't anyone tell NRO that the former governor never left Facebook and has been impacting the health care debate from there for a full week now. It's, like, been on the news and everything, K-Lo.

We realize that it must be difficult to keep up with Sarah Palin when another former governor is, to paraphrase the Willie Nelson song, always on your mind. But speaking of that other former governor, where's he been on the health care debate while Sarah Palin has been showing real  leadership? 

- JP

Yet another "Dear Jonah" letter

Dear Mr. Goldberg,

It was very generous of you to give Gov. Palin some advice, but your letter may be in queue for some period of time. It's not like the governor hasn't been bombarded with unsolicited advice for months on end. I see that two of the contributors to Conservatives4Palin.com have already e-mailed you with their own opinions on your free advice for Sarah Palin. Good. Having no need to rehash their points, I can make this short and sweet. Aside from the ground they have already covered, I have just one bone of contention to pick with your letter. You wrote:

"Mitt Romney, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, and other hands-on types are what the party wants and, frankly, needs."

While any political junkie recognizes that you are eminently qualified to state your opinion of what the GOP needs, I question your authority to speak for what the party wants.Your opinion regarding what the Republican rank and file may desire in a candidate seems to be at odds with the evidence. Consider, for example, the Pew Research poll (PDF) released June 24. Pew shows Gov. Palin with a whopping 16-point advantage over Romney among Republicans. Jindal and Daniels are well below radar altitude.

Granted, it's early yet, and it's just a poll. Still, Pew is generally regarded as the most accurate of the pollsters, and I believe such empirical results carry much more weight than just your opinion, however valuable it may be. No offense intended. Gov. Romney, though well-regarded, could not even manage to defeat a weak opponent like John McCain in the 2008 primaries. This, despite Romney's most impressive fund raising and his contribution of a sizeable chunk of his personal fortune to his own campaign.

So by all means, please continue to state your opinions, but when you offer advice to Gov. Palin, please refrain from speaking for the whole of the Republican Party as to who it wants to represent it in the next presidential election. The Grand Old Party's grassroots will make their own opinions known in due time at the ballot boxes. Meanwhile, Governor Sarah Palin is entitled to do whatever she chooses to do. She's earned it through hard campaigning and by showing a loyalty to Sen. McCain which he did not deserve and for which he has not reciprocated.

Regards,
Josh Painter

Update: Swamp_Yankee has also penned a letter to Jonah Goldberg.

- JP

NRO goes positive on Palin

A trio of posts on Gov. Palin from National Review Online. Read all three in full, but here's a snippet from each:

Jay Nordlinger:

"John McCain has had about 3,000 debates on the national stage, running for president all those years. Palin has had exactly one. Who did better: the GOP presidential nominee, in his three debates last fall, or the vice-presidential nominee in her one — in her maiden effort?"

Jim Geraghty:

"In her opponents' minds, Palin's made all the wrong choices, and cannot, they insist, be very bright. Yet she's happy and successful. She is an anomaly that invalidates their worldview, and for that, they attempt to immiserate her..."

Mark Hemingway:

"It appears this is a meme that gained currency among those on the far left who actively despise Palin and posess no special insight into her. Either Purdum is far too credulous and should have investigated the claim, or Purdum deliberately wrote up baseless claims of narcissistic personality disorder to make it sound like the diagnosis came from Alaska insiders and in the process made the claim far more salacious. Either way, I don't think Purdum's reporting is to be trusted."

- JP