Writing off 2010, but warning us Republicans that we’re going to get clobbered in 2012:

The Republicans who won in ‘94 mistakenly believed that Americans had ratified their right-wing philosophy, when voters had simply been using the GOP as a protest vehicle. When 1996 rolled around, the economy was stronger (thank you, 1993 budget), the Republicans’ brand was tarnished (voters came to loathe the Gingrich Congress), and Clinton was again able to charm the country with his sunny demeanor.

The story of Clinton’s first term, in other words, is the story of the difference between midterm and presidential elections.

Except that it wasn’t the 1993 budget but the 1995 budget which really got things rolling – and 2000 showed that even peace and prosperity doesn’t necessarily win continued power for the guys in charge. Gingrich was, indeed, loathed but that was because the New Media simply wasn’t there – we had Rush Limbaugh, a few magazines and that was it. You can’t quite as successfully vilify a Republican in 2010 as you could in 1996 – especially now that MSMers are held in increasing contempt by the electorate. And Clinton was charming – but he also adopted huge swaths of the GOP agenda in order to win re-election in 1996 (welfare reform – opposed tooth and nail by Democrats – was key to Clinton’s victory).

Can Obama be re-elected in 2012? Certainly. Its always very hard to get an incumbent out. In 1980 it was because we had the till-then worst President America ever had in office battling it out with the man who is arguably third after only Washington and Lincoln. In 1992, the ruling party’s vote was split (in 1996, as well – people forget that Clinton never won a popular vote majority; that Obama is the first Democrat to win such a majority since 1976). Prior to Bush I and Carter, you have to go back to 1932 to find a sitting President voted out of office. Its not something which happens on a regular basis. Anyone seriously handicapping 2012 has to put it “leans Obama”.

But, will he? That will depend upon a lot of factors:

1. Is the economy good or bad?

2. Is there a foreign crisis calling in to question the President’s leadership ability?

3. Has there been scandal?

4. Is there a third party to siphon votes away from the President?

In the normal course of events, the economy would be better, foreign affairs would be quiet, there wouldn’t be a major scandal and no third party…but these aren’t very normal times, and we might be wallowing with 10%ish unemployment for years, foreign affairs are getting brutal and not likely to calm down, there already is all sorts of scandal bubbling under the surface and already some leftists are exceptionally angry with Obama.

Lots can happen. Its a long ways away. But to try to extrapolate out from 1994/96 is foolhardy.

You’re turning our Blue States, Red:

Barack Obama now has a negative approval rating in every state he flipped from the Bush column to his in 2008. In each of those places his level of support is now in the 44-46% range. It’s probably a good thing he doesn’t have to run for reelection this year. He can only hope things start turning around for him once the midterms are in the rear view mirror, much as they did for Bill Clinton.

Only took a bit more than a year for our erring sisters to figure Obama out – and now these States are receding rapidly from Obama; and they won’t be back in 2012, even if the economy improves. All that political polarization is just going to get stronger, thanks to Obama’s relentless liberalism. Its very hard to switch a negative view back to a positive one.

This doesn’t mean Obama can’t win in 2012 – but it does mean that its back to Ohio and Florida calling the shots. For now. Obama keeps going like this and we might get a repeat of the last Carter Administration…

As, again and again, 2010 gets more fun all the time:

Oh. My. God:

President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

(Blasphemy deleted). This is something I’d expect Bush to say. And yes, I mean that as the worst possible insult.

Hey Obama: THE TAX PAYERS DIDN’T SPEND HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BAIL OUT ALEX RODRIGUEZ. This is an important distinction that bears repeating…

…Man, (expletive deleted) it. I’m now officially on the Palin 2012 bandwagon. Because if this country’s going to crash, I want it to crash hard and fast so we can just start over.

What is really funny: This liberal is only just now figuring out that the Banksters and liberal leaders are on the same side, even when they are not one in the same person.

With each other:

A couple of years ago an upstart black politician took on the establishment candidate and did remarkably well for himself. Well, at least until he was sworn in.

Fast forward two years and here we we have another upstart black politician gunning for the establishment candidate in New York and he’s not as well received.

Funny how that is. But Harold Ford isn’t daunted and is now upping the ante.

In his toughest comments to date, Harold Ford cast Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Monday as a “weak” puppet of the state’s political establishment who has failed to connect with voters after a year in office.

“There is no doubt that Sen. Gillibrand is weak in many places across the city and the state,” Ford told the Daily News in an interview. “At best, there is interest in hearing an alternative.”

Have at it, Democrats! But didn’t you liberals say that it was we GOPers who were having the internal battle? Oh, we were – once upon a time, you were correct about that…but during the NY-23 fight, we all realized that we’re on the same conservative/libertarian/independent team against the liberals. We lost that particular race, but we cleared a lot of issues up.

Now we’re united – and the liberals are falling apart.

Can you see me smile?

A year into his tenure, a majority of Americans would already vote against Pres. Obama if the ‘12 elections were held today, according to a new survey.

The Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll shows 50% say they would probably or definitely vote for someone else. Fully 37% say they would definitely cast a ballot against Obama. Meanwhile, just 39% would vote to re-elect the pres. to a 2nd term, and only 23% say they definitely would do so.

Obama’s first year in office has been marked by an unemployment rate that surged to 10%, an increased commitment of troops to Afghanistan and a health care battle that has taken a serious political toll on the WH.

A year ago, I would have never guessed that the Obamabots who put that dumbass in office would come to their senses so quickly. There is hope. Obama is on the road to being a one-termer.

How can I be so confident? Well, the good faith some had in Obama, once lost, is either lost for good, or will be so hard to get back, I don’t see Barry being able to win it back, given his arrogance.

Very good:

Almost 1-1/2 years since she shook up American politics with her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is set to headline another landmark political event: the first-ever Tea Party Convention next month in Nashville, Tenn.

This shows that she understands the current dynamic of American politics. Remember, recent polling has the TEA Party as more popular than either the GOP or the Democrats. People are angry and frustrated and Sarah Palin senses this.

And now she’s taking the lead of it…

Interesting:

By bringing Palin onto the stage with Shatner, and having Palin mock sentences from Shatner’s own book, the show sent an enormous subliminal message: Perhaps some of the mocking of Palin that goes on in the entertainment media was not justified since anyone could be the subject of such mockery.

Palin thus took on the pervasive liberal and Democratic caricature of Palin, and did so in a humorous and sympathetic way. Palin was allowed to fight mockery with mockery. Touché.

Palin’s appearance on the Conan show may mark a turning point. The mainstream media, very begrudgingly and in small steps, is shifting its approach to Palin as polls show Palin’s popularity rising. Palin’s appearance on Oprah brought the show ratings it had not seen in years.

Obama used his appearance on Oprah, and other entertainment media love, to establish his popularity. Which is why it damages Obama’s image so badly when SNL mocks Obama. At this point, Obama needs the media more than the media needs Obama.

Palin, by contrast, established her popularity independent of, and despite, the entertainment media. When it comes to Palin, the entertainment media is following not leading. We have reached the point where the mainstream entertainment media needs Palin more than Palin needs the media.

Due to family loyalties, we don’t get to watch Conan all that much – well, at all, really. Unless we can justify it as oppo-research. So, I missed Palin’s appearance on it, but I’ve been hearing nothing but positive buzz about it. This article seems to explain why it is positive buzz – and does note the hard truth of the matter: Sarah Palin’s public image is no longer dependent upon MSM coverage. Her loyalt troops in the conservative base and her mega-hit book have ensured that, love her or hate her, you’ll have to do so on her terms, not on what some talking head thinks you should care about. Read the rest of this entry »

Which will make our liberals shake with fear:

Sarah Palin has erased her drop in the polls that followed her resignation as Alaska governor, according to new national survey.

But when it comes to opinions of Palin, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday suggests a partisan divide and a gender gap.

The survey indicates that Americans are split on Palin, with 46 percent saying they have a favorable opinion of her and an equal amount saying they have an unfavorable view of last year’s Republican vice presidential nominee.

Which approval rating, by the way, is very close to Obama’s right now…and he’s on the way down.

Methinks the demonization of Palin just went too far – she’s really just an all-American girl who represents what is best in our nation: our faith in God; our faith in our people; our can-do spirit. She’s hated on the left – and on the elite right – because she is just one of the people…and that scares the living daylights out of some people. They know darn well that if she were to get in to the White House, they would have no hold over her – no way to hold her down and make her compromise with the sick, nauseating mess in DC.

Whether she’ll end up running in 2012 is still an unknown – also unknown is whether I’ll back her or, indeed, anyone in the GOP primary for that year (as a good Republican, I’ll support the eventual nominee, but I’m not inclined, at the moment, to commit myself to any particular candidate); its all very much up in the air and, of course, the 2010 results will play a large role in who chooses to run and what they’re prospects really are. But regardless of what the future holds, Sarah Palin has shaken up American politics (and let us remember to thank John McCain at least for this) – the Powerful know that the people are angry and willing to storm the barricades of complacent, corrupt DC politics-as-usual. Palin may not end up leading the charge, but the charge will be done.

A disappointing event because it would have been the most fun race, ever:

A couple of weeks ago on Fox News Sunday, Liz Cheney set off a round of (somewhat far fetched) speculation about her father running for president when she blurted out “Cheney 2012″ in the middle of a panel discussion on national security.

Today, in an interview with Politico, the former Vice President put the kibosh any talk of a 2012 run, saying, ““Why would I want to do that? It’s been a hell of a tour. I’ve loved it. I have no aspirations for further office.”

Cheney is one of the most accomplished and intelligent men in American politics – just the thought of Cheney having a debate with his fellow GOPers (and, even better, with the lightweight Obama!) is enough to give us conservatives a thrill. But, he’s also massively hated – because the left spent 8 years lying about him and Cheney was too calm and reasonable to hit back. A loss to American politics, and a shame to our nation that we can’t find further employment for a man like Cheney.

Why do they? Hanson reviews:

The furor

The AP supposedly hired 11 fact-checkers to discredit Ms. Palin’s memoir (Did Fox News hire 11 to question the very questionable things found in the two Obama memoirs?)

Bloggers post on Palin’s live interviews minute by minute; few, if any, opponents of Barack Obama do the same.

Every statement she makes is parsed, to prove she is ignorant or parochial—though most of her so-called lapses are the sort of things Biden and Obama are accustomed to committing weekly.

So what?

The list could go on, but two fundamental questions arise:

1) What drives this fear and loathing?

2) How does one, then, assess the Palin phenomenon?

Question one is easy, and we can be systematic in our exegeses:

Read the whole thing.

My take: they hate her because she’s not one of them. Mostly on the left but with some on the right, the correct perception is that Palin doesn’t care what they think and is entirely uninterested in what they have to say. Failed people who consistently get things wrong are not to be listened to even if they have television shows, syndicated columns and a shelf of books to their name.

I’ll add: she’s also proving herself vastly smarter than her critics.

Detailed in his idiot piece about Sarah Palin. You can read it, if you’ve a mind to waste effort on the obtuse. A quote will do:

Obama knows the long odds against a right-wing populist winning the presidency, no matter how good she looks in a skirt (or running clothes), brandishing a gun. He shouldn’t be too cocky, however, because the death of the center is ultimately a problem for him and the whole country. If the Palinistas seize the GOP, they probably cannot take the White House. But their brand of no-prisoners partisanship sure can tie up Congress.

‘Cause an un-tied Congress is so wonderful? Because the current Congress is doing such a good idea?

Thomas is just repeating the mistake of liberals past – assuming that the favorite of the populist/conservative American population is the problem. The actual problem, of course, if Obama’s ardent leftism and the leftism being rammed through by Pelosi and Reid in defiance of the popular will. But for people like Thomas, the ideal world is to have someone like Senator Lindsey Graham (RINO-NC) co-sign America’s death warrant, thus allowing liberals to say their idiocy is “bi-partisan” (and it should be noted that moderate, go-along, make nice-nice Graham is tanking in the polls – were he up for re-election in 2010, he’d be toast).

Our best move, for now, is to just let these fools yammer on – the more they think Palin is un-electable, the closer we get to a President Palin, or President Just-Like-Her, or, at any event, a President Not-At-All-Like-Obama.

And what did they find?

…the 11 fact-checkers triumphantly unearthed six errors. That’s 1.8333333 writers for each error. What earth-shattering misstatements did they uncover for this impressive investment? Stand well back:

PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking “only” for reasonably priced rooms and not “often” going for the “high-end, robe-and-slippers” hotels.

THE FACTS: Although she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard)…

That looks like AP paid 1.8333333 fact-checkers to agree with Mrs Palin: She says she didn’t “often” go for “high-end” hotels; they say she “usually opted for less-pricey hotels”. That’s gonna make one must-see edition of “Point/Counterpoint”.

I mean, seriously, this is getting absurd – for crying out loud, liberals and MSMers, will you just stop hating Sarah Palin. She’s not an ogre out to destroy all life on earth – she’s just a populist-conservative wife and mother who wants to field-dress liberalism’s dead carcass. She’s also much, much better looking than any liberal chick you’ve got…so, there.

James V. DeLong explains why. Highly recommend this article, as well as DeLong’s The Coming of the Fourth American Republic.

I can’t find anything to dispute with either article and both track exceptionally well with my own views.

Over at Instapundit - they’ve had several versions of this over the past week, and Palin keeps coming out on top in all of them.

Going to the ultimate source of our economic ills:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, in what was billed as her first public-speaking engagement outside North America, blamed the world financial crisis on government excesses and called for a new round of deregulation and tax cuts for U.S. businesses.

“We got into this mess because of government interference in the first place,” the former Republican U.S. vice presidential candidate said Wednesday at a conference sponsored by investment firm CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets. “We’re not interested in government fixes, we’re interested in freedom,” she added…

…In the wide-ranging address, Ms. Palin touched on the rising U.S. budget deficit, the debate over a proposed health-care overhaul, the war in Afghanistan and China’s role in world affairs.

She described her political philosophy as a “common-sense conservatism,” and said the free-market policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher should be guides for how to get out of the current economic situation. “Liberalism holds that there is no human problem that government can’t fix if only the right people are put in charge,” she said.

Other news reports are claiming that some US bankers in attendance walked out – probably due to a guilty conscience. Government made Wall Street what it is today – the play ground of the well-connected and a slush fund for the government apparatchiks who regulate Wall Street: the calls by Obama and his liberals for more government regulation are really just calls to make the bond between Wall Street and DC tighter…so that there can be more special deals for the well-connected and more “oversight” which doesn’t see.

Freedom is the answer – and freedom requires that we break up Big Government and Big Corporation….but, also, that we unfetter the American people. Get rid of those regulations which make it next to impossible to start up a new factory, or a new farm, or a new mine – get rid of the liberal NIMBYism which has prohibited us from building nuclear power plants, drilling for oil, refining gasoline and exploiting our massive coal reserves. Unleash the American economy – and allow real wealth to be built up: that is what will cure our ills.

Crucial to the debate over Obamacare:

For an uneducated, unsophisticated rube and former governor from a backwater state, Sarah Palin sure can drive a debate. With prospects for passage of his sweeping overhaul of the American health care delivery system fading with every speech, President Barack Obama is making it increasingly clear that Palin will be recognized, for good or ill, as perhaps the most prominent single political figure responsible for stopping it in its tracks.

It’s a remarkable story. A failed vice-presidential candidate and resigned governor — unfairly viewed by many as a cruel joke – reached from beyond the political grave her elitist critics prematurely dug for her and her political future to thwart a popular president prematurely regarded by the same elite that shunned her as perhaps the most gifted politician this nation has ever produced. If Sarah Palin were a sitting governor, a failed presidential candidate, or even a state legislator, her influence in the health care debate would not be as unexpected. It is the fact that she is a private citizen, completely out of politics save for a small political action committee, that makes this story unique.

How did she do it? That’s where the story gets even more remarkable.

There were no public appearances or speeches, no glitzy ad campaigns, no publicity tours, no interviews in the mainstream press or any new media outlet. Sarah Plain killed health care reform with a posting on her Facebook page, an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, and an exquisite sense of timing.

“Death Panels” did it – and I know our liberals still yank their hair in frustration…there was no such thing, they assert. After all, you can comb through the whole series of proposals and never find the phrase “death panel” mentioned. And that, to the liberals, is the end of it…its sort of like their assertion that no one is pro-abortion because no one actually says they are pro-abortion. But just as there are pro-abortion people, so were there “death panels” in the health care reform proposals, disguised as various commissions and committees which would oversea what coverage plans were to provide. And Sarah Palin’s phrasing was crucial to turning the debate firmly against Obama and his Democrats.

Now, the Palin might be out of the running for President – the left smeared her as a dunce, much as they once smeared Dan Quayle as a dunce, even though he was vastly smarter than Al Gore; and that smear might stick. Its hard to overcome public prejudices – it can be done, but its hard. The best person at it, ever, was Ronald Reagan. We’ll have to see if Palin can develope Reaganesque ability to re-shape public perceptions. But, be that as it may, Palin has shown why she rose so far and so fast – and still has a shot at the White House in 2012: she’s very, very smart.

And she’s made the left jump to her tune – that, in and of itself, will provide satisfaction when set against the slanders the left has launched against her.

Telling Obama that he’d better toe the line:

Leading liberals are already thinking the unthinkable: Challenging President Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2012.

According to a report on the left-leaning Huffington Post website, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann and Eugene Robinson, an African-American national columnist for The Washington Post, discussed just such a possibility Thursday night. Robinson said Obama needs to be careful how he handles the health care reform issue and the continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Olbermann said the president has “compromised on everything so far and as self-defeating as it may be, the progressive caucus and progressives would abandon him if necessary, if this was to be the policy of this administration into 2012. If it’s necessary to find somebody to run against him, I think they’d do it, no matter how destructive that may seem.”

This is something that I’m picking up on in leftist circles: a dismay that Obama and Co aren’t just muscling leftism through. After all, with the White House and solid majorities in Congress, it should be easy, right? It seems so, but only if you’re a liberal and thus think in tyrannical terms. To liberals, a win means absolutely – in other words, if they cross the finish line first, they get it all. They forget that Obama only got 52% of the vote – ie, one percentage point more than Bush got in 2004, and no liberal out there in 2005 thought that President Bush should have been able to rule by decree. Meanwhile, the Democrats House majority is by grace of 50 Democrats holding GOP seats – and winning those seats by being as close to GOP as you can get without changing party registration. Take away those 50 and pare away the Senate Democrats who also ran on GOP platforms, and you can see that even in this glory day of Obamunism, the Democrat majority is thin and easily broken.

But that, once again, is not how our liberals view it – Obama won and the Democrats won and the war in Iraq is supposed to be over, gay marriage implemented and President Bush up on war crimes charges. That they aren’t getting these things is starting to anger the left. Right now, its mostly being directed at Congressional Democrats – but it can easily be swung in Obama’s direction.

So, Obama will shortly have a choice – ditch the left and possibly draw a primary or Third Party challenger in 2012 (but still have a chance of winning) or embrace the left and have a united Democratic party to be trounced by the GOP and Independents coming together. Be interesting to see how it plays out.

Certainly a strong possibility:

Republican Mitch Daniels has repeatedly insisted that his 2008 run for a second term as Indiana’s governor was his last election and that he’s not interested in the “savagery” of a national campaign.

But like it or not, Daniels’ name is being dropped in conservative GOP circles as someone to watch in 2012. Many say Daniels is just what the battered GOP needs, a blend of conservative values, cool demeanor and fiscal discipline.

“Mitch has been steady to the cause, he’s stayed principled,” said Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee. “The nation is going to recognize him.”

Some political observers say Daniels is as good a bet as any for a national party reeling from Democrats’ solid victory last year…

…The 60-year-old millionaire governor is equally at home in Washington and Indiana after serving as President George W. Bush’s budget director and an adviser to President Ronald Reagan. He earned a reputation in Washington as the “blade” for his efforts to promote fiscal responsibility in Congress and carried that to Indiana, where he took over a state with a $800 million deficit and worked with lawmakers to pass a balanced budget in his first year. The state’s fiscal year ended June 30 with a $1.3 billion surplus.

Certainly he’s vastly better at this whole governing thing than our current President. As an aside, I wonder when the MSM will stop describing us GOPers as “reeling”? I don’t feel like I’m reeling. Does anyone else out there? I’m actually licking my chops over our prospects for 2009 and 2010, right now. Harry Reid trails two second-rank politicians out here in Nevada – and my bet is that he’s going to lose to a third-ranked one (wink, wink/nudge, nudge…by the way, anyone have any idea how to raise $25 million when you’re not the Senate Majority Leader? Heck – I guess it’ll just have to be done on less than that…).

The only problem I see with 2012 is that there might be as many as a dozen GOPers to enter the lists – unless a miracle happens, Obama’s going to be the most vulnerable incumbent President since Carter.

This time over divorce rumors:

By now you have probably seen the wave of Sarah Palin rumors in the dinosaur media and the liberal blogs’ focus on the story that Sarah Palin and husband Todd are headed for divorce because of extramarital affairs by both. As you may imagine, the rumor was like a dream come true for many lefty bloggers…

…the left took up the call on this “divorce” rumor, apparently wanting desperately to take a little of her momentum away. In so doing, the left apparently found the answer for Palin and her people to the question of what might give her even greater name recognition and voter sympathy. The beauty is, she didn’t even have to lift a finger this time around. All she had to do was to answer the rumor with:

Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd? I may be just a renegade hockey mom, but I’m not blind!

They really, really hate her.

Guess what, liberals? She’s not only a better person than the average run, but she’s also vastly smarter than you are.

John Hawkins comments on the level of elite conservative vitriol directed at Sarah Palin:

…But why would the right have it in for Palin? The excessively vicious attacks on Palin from some quarters on the right make people scratch their heads — particularly since her critics claim to agree with her on the issues and so much of their criticism seems to be, at least on its face, completely irrational.

They said Sarah Palin wasn’t experienced enough — but, despite the fact that Obama has been in the White House for six months, he still has less executive experience than Palin. They said Palin spent too much time talking in platitudes — after America elected a man whose campaign primarily consisted of repeating the words “change” and “hope” over and over again. They got upset because Palin was parodied on Saturday Night Live — but what candidate isn’t going to be ripped to pieces on that show?

To many conservatives, those complaints didn’t seem to make sense when the people making them often seemed to give Obama a free pass for the very flaws they seemed to hate so much in Palin. Where did these strange complaints come from? …

…An unspoken assumption was made by many conservatives: Palin is like me and the real problem that Palin’s enemies on the right have with her is that they’re snobs and they don’t accept common people like me in their leadership.

Given the way that conservatives are regularly betrayed and the contempt for them that some Republicans have shown over the last few years, that assessment is probably correct more often than not.

Palin is, indeed, just like me. Just like most of the people I know. Quite honestly, whom do you want coming over for dinner – Sarah Palin, or John Kerry? The former has “American” on her like a crown; the later is barely identifiable as an American, at all. There are two Americas – that part which is proud to be American and that part which is not, or at least not so proud of being American that it trumps an Ivy League degree or the knowledge that the oyster fork is placed to the right of the plate. Palin is hated because she’s one of us who also has a chance of governing the elite – and they can’t stand it.

We are to sit down and shut up. Pay our taxes. Serve in the military/police/fire department. And leave governing to those who know better than us – and, sad to say, there is a substantial conservative elite who also feel this way. Even if they would agree to policies which allow the common man more leeway, they still don’t want that common man barging in and breaking wind in the palaces of the great (10 points to whomever can identify where I took that last bit from). This is why I characterize the real political battle of 2010 forward as “people vs powerful”.

The left is going to be excluded from this – they think that with Obama in charge they’ve got a seat at the table. They haven’t learned that their seat is in the corner where fund raising and volunteering is done…not where decisions are made. Conservatism may be excluded – to a degree – if the GOP leadership listens to the DC/NYC conservative elite and tries to shut out things like the TEA Party movement. The changes which are sought in the populace are revolutionary – no more tinkering about the edges and trying to figure out who gets what government subsidy. The desire is for a complete house cleaning and a re-emphasis on the rights of the people.

Scared to death of Palin and what she represents, the powerful are essentially closing ranks – preferring, to a certain extent, even the continuation of the Obama disaster if that is the only means of keeping the people out of power. Anything is better than some yokel like Palin (backed by a legion of House members and Senators elected first elected in 2010) actually ripping the government to shreds and insisting upon honesty and results. She must be stopped – and so they go after her thinking that if they get her, the danger is over (they forget people like Jindal – after his excruciating national debut, he’s discounted…but, he’s also of the people and, if you take any random 1,000 Americans, you’ll probably find he’s smarter than any of them…even if that 1,000 people were made up of Harvard and Yale PhD’s). Of course, she can be stopped – but what she stands for, can’t be. At best, the powerful will win a temporary reprieve – but the political executioner is not to be denied.