Sarah Palin is no stranger to smear campaigns. The latest such story which has liberal bloggers and other Palin haters all wee-wee’d up alleges that Palin and her “entourage” gobbled up all the free Oscar swag. Supposedly, she and her group were “like locusts,” and descended on the liberal event and ruined everything by being such a greedy capitalist.
Too bad it’s all a lie. Here’s what actually happened:
CommentsThe Silver Spoon, a company owned and operated by women and established with a firm belief in supporting women in business and leadership, invited Governor Sarah Palin and her family to participate in a charitable function sponsored by The Silver Spoon and the Red Cross to support the Red Cross’ disaster relief efforts in Haiti. Governor Palin graciously accepted since it was in support of such a worthy and timely cause. The governor arrived with a small group about 15 minutes prior to our store’s official opening; and upon arrival, she and her entire group gave generous donations to the cause. We offered to open early to accommodate her schedule; she did not ask us to open early. The other vendors routinely set up an hour before the event opens, so they were already there when the governor arrived. No one was asked to come in early. When Governor Palin arrived, she and her guests made generous donations. I escorted her around and introduced her to every vendor, and they talked to her about their products and gifted her with samples. She never asked for anything but politely accepted the products. The governor and her family and guests were very gracious and respectful to everyone. We asked and the governor happily agreed to take a photo with the American Red Cross staff and the staff of The Silver Spoon. The governor stayed for a total of about 35 minutes, thanked everyone, made an additional generous personal donation pledge to the Red Cross, and then departed.
Print This Post
Sarah Palin announced today not only that she would not run for re-election, but also that she is resigning as governor well before the end of her first term. Michelle Malkin has the details.
If she has designs for the presidency in 2012 then this is an odd move. A governorship is historically the best place from which to launch a national campaign. She might be looking to enhance her foreign policy credentials, in which case she could challenge Murkowski in 2010 for the Alaskan Senate, then aim for 2016 to run for president. But given the number of governors versus senators ever elected as president, that would be an odd strategy indeed.
Also, her speech was terrible. If she wants to be taken seriously on the national stage, then she will have to improve significantly. She rambled on and bounced defensively from issue to issue. I got so bored I turned it off before she ever got around to the point, which was her resignation.
I think Sarah Palin has an important and useful role she can play in the republican party, but it shouldn’t be as their candidate for president in 2012.
Comments Print This Post
I was too tired to do a write-up after the last two days of the conference, so I’ll recap my impressions of them both now.
Day 2
Although there were a number of good speeches, the star of day 2 was Newt Gingrich. Like many speakers, Newt quickly picked on Eric Holder’s “nation of cowards” remark. Unlike others, however, he flipped it completely around on Holder and challenged him to a dialogue on cowardice in Detroit, where “bad government, bad politicians, bad bureaucracy, [and] bad ideas” have driven the city into the ground. He adds that “we should be committed to eliminating bad government, bad bureaucracy and bad politics to liberate the people of Detroit.”
Newt went on to argue that the democrats actually think we’re “just plain dumb.” As examples he cites Obama’s pledge to allow no earmarks when he was about to sign a bill with 8,000, Obama’s attack on CEO’s who use private planes while Pelosi flies around privately thanks to U.S. taxpayers, and finally, Obama’s claim that he wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone making $250,000 while at the same time making clear he is for an energy tax which, since everyone uses energy, would significantly raise taxes on people making less than $250,000.
He also laid appropriate blame on the last minute policies of the Bush administration and talked of an Obama-Bush economic continuity that cannot work. He then further criticized Obama’s desire to punish companies for taking jobs out of America instead of rewarding companies for bringing jobs in. There was plenty more in the speech than I touched on here, so you can see it for yourself at Newt.org.
Day 2 also saw good speeches from Ron Paul, Wayne LaPierre and Mitt Romney. Ron Paul (speech available here) received a pretty positive reception, including on issues which he might not have in the past. His call to change our foreign policy is clearly getting wider consideration within the conservative movement. While I don’t agree with the degree to which he’d have us retreat from the world stage, I think it’s an important realization that we simply cannot afford to do again what we did in Iraq, regardless of whether one thinks it was necessary (or we were justified in believing so based on the evidence) or not. The movement, myself included, got a bit too caught up in Wilsonian idealism in response to 9/11. The goal’s of the Bush Doctrine are admirable and would improve our security, but spreading democracy is not as simple as removing a dictator. Democratic government first requires democratic culture, and that has to come from within. Open economic and cultural trade and soft power need to be used in all but the most extreme circumstances.
I was also glad that Ron Paul clarified that he does not want to abolish the Fed entirely, but thinks it needs serious reform. He cited a bill recently introduced to audit the Fed, which got widespread applause. Clearly the institution needs reform. The idea that we can count on technocrats at the Fed to tweak interests rates and perfectly balance between the triple threats of unemployment, inflation and speculative bubbles is simply no longer credible. We need to rethink the government role regarding the money supply, and reforming the secretive nature of the Fed is a necessary first step.
Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the NRA, offered a stern warning against the Obama administration’s plans for gun rights. Following the recent and fallacious comments by Eric Holder attributing Mexico’s problems to our gun freedoms, he portrayed the administration as poised to strike against gun owners. It was highly effective and, if the administration pursues a reckless gun grabbing agenda, it is likely that the NRA could return as a potent political force in the next election. Guns motivate the right, and Obama would be wise to remember this.
Mitt Romney’s speech was also well received. He said a lot of right things, but it all just felt like a testing ground for potential campaign lines. Still, he had a few memorable lines. Perhaps my favorite was when he said that “passing on that kind of debt to our children is not only fiscally irresponsible, it is morally wrong.” He also defended his support of TARP, saying “I believe that it was necessary to prevent a cascade of bank collapses.” I’m not convinced that is true, but it’s more plausible than any justification given by proponents of the other big spending initiatives.
He also won the straw poll with 20%. Following him was Bobby Jindal (14%), Ron Paul (13%), Sarah Palin (13%) and Newt Gingrich (10%). I did not catch the speeches of John Cornyn or Jim DeMint , and there were other good ones I have not mentioned.
Day 3
Day 3 saw a number of terrific speeches and presentations. In addition to the expected headliners, there were a few surprises, for me, in day 3. Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) gave an impassioned speech on why energy taxes are an attack on the poor. He got everyone fired up and received a grateful ovation from a crowd that was clearly bored by the previous presentation. Ward Connerly followed with a strong but calm speech on ending racial preferences.
The next two presenters were a big thrill. Out to talk about their recent film (Not Evil, Just Wrong) on how the environmentalists agenda destroys lives, Irish couple Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer mixed in various clips with the story of how they converted from European leftists to free marketeers – or “recovering Europeans,” as they called themselves. They are doing exactly the kind of works conservatives need to support to help counter the powerful hollywood propaganda machine of the left. I missed the speeches of Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty and Ann Coulter.
Of course, the main attraction of the day was none other than the Maha Rushie himself, Rush Limbaugh. For hours leading up to his speech, you could feel the anticipation grow in the crowd, finally erupting when he came on stage to his signature introduction music. The extemporaneous speech (Rush made a point of highlighting that he had no teleprompter or script) was broadcast live on Fox, C-SPAN and CNN, and Rush made light of this fact numerous times by referencing it as his “first address to the nation.”
In the first part of the speech, Rush gave an impassioned explanation of conservative principles. Conservatism wants people to succeed and all obstacles that stand in the way of success to fail. He repeatedly highlighted the difference between the left’s agenda of punishing success in the name of equality of outcomes, and the conservative ideas of liberty and opportunity. Philosophy, not narrow debates over process and even policy, are how he says conservatives must sell themselves. As usual, Rush is right. I could probably say a lot more about the speech, but I highly suggest you watch it for yourself. It is an hour and a half long (an hour longer than his original half-hour scheduling), but it’s worth it. You can find the transcript and links to video on Rush’s site.
Over the course of the entire convention, some issues stood out more than others. The most notable observation is that domestic issues were prominent. There was still a consensus that the jihadist threat is real and we must remain vigilant, but there was some disagreements over the nature foreign policy should take, and it was more than just Ron Paul on the side of less interventionism. This is a healthy debate to be having.
Domestically the most important issues included education, health care, unions and “card check,” and the free speech (fairness doctrine). On education the view was unanimous: we need school choice. On health care the main theme was that we cannot allow universal health care to happen. Ditto on card check and the fairness doctrine.
All in all I’d say the future of the conservative movement is bright. People were excited about the future as they could see conservatism returning to it’s roots of limited government and personal responsibility. The first step to ending the era of big government was ending the idea of big government conservatism, and I’d say CPAC all but completed that task.
Comments Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science and work in public policy, but please don't hold that against me.
