Sarah Palin may be edging closer to a 2012 presidential run, telling Fox News “I would give it a shot” if the American people think she’s “the one.”
The former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee was in Des Moines, Iowa, Friday for the Reagan Dinner, a big GOP fundraiser in the heart of water-testing country for presidential candidates.
Palin has remained coy about her ambitions, but she elaborated a bit in an interview with Fox News, attaching several conditions to the possibility of a 2012 presidential run.
“If the American people were to be ready for someone who is willing to shake it up, and willing to get back to time-tested truths, and help lead our country towards a more prosperous and safe future and if they happen to think I was the one, if it were best for my family and for our country, of course I would give it a shot,” she said.
“But I’m not saying that it’s me. I know I can certainly make a difference without having a title. I’m having a good time doing exactly that right now.”
Personally, I’d rather wait till after the 2010 elections are over before starting to speculate on GOP Presidential hopefuls for 2012, but I am sure there will be those that will start speculating as soon as they read the article above.
Well, it looks like some lefties are considering attacking Sarah Palin… again.
If I was a conservative eminence grise standing behind the President’s shoulder in the Oval Office, and wanted a quick and efficient way to make Obama look even more foolish than he already does, I would whisper “attack Palin!” in his ear incessantly.
Allow me to make an (apparent) digression to make the point. Trust me, I’ll connect it all up again later.
Most adults, once they’ve worked for a few years, have encountered at least one example of the whiner who blames everyone else for his own deficiencies. This person was probably doing just fine in a lower position, but somehow he got promoted beyond his ability, and now he just can’t hack the job. Some people, admittedly, when faced with this sort of situation, will admit that they’re not up to the job, and either drop back to a lower level, or do their best to get advice and/or training so that they can handle the higher position.
However, more often than not, at least in my experience, people turn to endless carping and complaining about “them.” You know, “they” are sabotaging his plans. “They” won’t cooperate. “They” are whispering rumors behind his back. “They” created the problems and skillfully hid it until he arrived to pull back the curtain.
Here’s the connection… every time Obama tries an Alinskyite attack on a different target, be it Bush, Boehner, Cantor, Beck, Limbaugh (either Rush or David), or Palin, he reminds people of just that sort of whining ninny who’s been promoted to his level of incompetence.
So, if I had the President’s ear and wanted to make him look small, petty, and whiny, I’d be whispering, “attack Palin!”
Are ya ready for this earthshaking announcement?
Are you sitting down?
Okay… it’s below the fold.
A British teenager who sent an e-mail to the White House calling President Obama a “pr*ck” was banned from the U.S. for life, The Sun reported Monday.
The FBI asked local cops to tell college student Luke Angel, 17, that his drunken insult was “unacceptable.”
Angel claims he fired off a single e-mail criticizing the U.S. government after seeing a television program about the 9/11 attacks.
He said, “I don’t remember exactly what I wrote as I was drunk. But I think I called Barack Obama a pr*ck. It was silly — the sort of thing you do when you’re a teenager and have had a few.”
Angel, of Bedford, in central England, said it was “a bit extreme” for the FBI to act.
“The police came and took my picture and told me I was banned from America forever. I don’t really care but my parents aren’t very happy,” he said.
In the first place, while I have no problem with keeping the President (regardless of party) safe from threats, I doubt that calling him a “pr*ck” ranks up there on the danger scale.
For comparison, imagine if Dubya had banned everyone who called him a name… first, how many would have to be banned, and second, how would the lefties have reacted?
I guess Dubya has a thicker skin than Obama… but then, we knew that already, didn’t we?
Or, at least, that’s how this Politico story makes it look:
Red-district Democrats are pressuring Speaker Nancy Pelosi to extend Bush-era income tax rates for all brackets, revealing a high-stakes rift between the party’s vulnerable moderates and its safe liberals as the issue increasingly dominates the national debate.
POLITICO has obtained a draft of a letter from rank-and-file lawmakers to Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer urging them not to let tax rates rise for Americans at the highest income levels.
“We believe in times of economic recovery it makes good sense to maintain things as they are in the short term, to provide families and businesses the certainty required to plan and make sound budget decisions,” the House members wrote in a letter that was being circulated for signatures on Friday and is expected to be delivered on Monday or Tuesday.
Reps. Jim Matheson of Utah, Glenn Nye of Virginia, Melissa Bean of Illinois and Gary Peters of Michigan drafted the letter and are working to gather support, mostly from the moderate Blue Dog and New Democrat coalitions, for at least a temporary extension of the rates for top income earners as well as those in the lower brackets.
I must admit, however, that I’m not so sure that the authors of that letter are more concerned about the economy, or about saving their own hides in what seems to be shaping up as a very anti-Democrat election cycle. Either way, I am glad to have them fighting their own party leadership (Obama-Pelosi-Reid) on what amounts to a tax hike in a recession.
Of course, some Democrats are still desperately trying to spin things:
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen and Obama have accused Republicans of holding the middle class “hostage” because they want all of the tax rates extended.
In point of fact, there are not enough Republicans in the House to stop a tax cut if that’s really what Pelosi wants to pass. In the Senate they might be able to by filibuster, but it’s entirely possible that the Senate could push it through using the Reconciliation rules, which, if I remember right, were created at least in part for just this sort of thing. Therefore, saying that the GOP is holding the cuts “hostage” is at best misleading and at worst a bald-faced lie… not that we should be surprised at seeing the latter from Obamacrats.
Amir Taheri, an Iranian-born journalist, offers some important context for the Ground Zero Mosque project in the NY Post:
In fact, the proposed structure is known in Islamic history as a rabat — literally a connector. The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet.
The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word “raid”). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.
After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat — or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias. Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid, they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia.
It is no coincidence that Islamists routinely use the term ghazva to describe the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. The terrorists who carried out the attack are referred to as ghazis or shahids (martyrs).
Thus, building a rabat close to Ground Zero would be in accordance with a tradition started by the Prophet. To all those who believe and hope that the 9/11 ghazva would lead to the destruction of the American “Great Satan,” this would be of great symbolic value.
Kinda gives a whole new meaning to the Ground Zero Mosque, doesn’t it?
As for the “Cordoba House” name, Taheri has some context for that, too:
The argument is that Cordoba, in southern Spain, was a city where followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism lived together in peace and produced literature and philosophy.
In fact, Cordoba’s history is full of stories of oppression and massacre, prompted by religious fanaticism. It is true that the Muslim rulers of Cordoba didn’t force their Christian and Jewish subjects to accept Islam. However, non-Muslims could keep their faith and enjoy state protection only as dhimmis (bonded ones) by paying a poll tax in a system of religious apartheid.
If whatever peace and harmony that is supposed to have existed in Cordoba were the fruit of “Muslim rule,” the subtext is that the United States would enjoy similar peace and harmony under Islamic rule.
A rabat in the heart of Manhattan would be of great symbolic value to those who want a high-profile, “in your face” projection of Islam in the infidel West.
And, a final warning from Taheri:
Before deciding whether to support or oppose the “Cordoba” project, New Yorkers should consider what it is that they would be buying.
Smart advice, I think.
Yesterday, Obama spent part of his much-touted speech (which couldn’t even fill a college auditorium) bashing House Minority Leader John Boehner. This strikes me as a really bad idea, even by Obamaic standards.
I’m not a poll-watcher, and have my full share of skepticism about polls, but when just about every recent poll shows that people think the country is headed in the wrong direction, I think we can take it as pretty much established. In that sort of atmosphere, I would think Obama wouldn’t want to, in essence, tell people about someone who also thinks the country is headed in the wrong direction and who–despite what Obama falsely claimed–has offered his own plan for turning things around.
Boehner is, to be honest, not exactly a household name among the non-political-wonks out there in America. Yet Obama seems to want to say, “hey, people, if you don’t like what I am doing, here’s someone that’s opposing me!”
Just one more sign that the Obama White House is flailing.
Now, I don’t think of myself as one of the leaders of conservatism, but I do come at this from the perspective of someone who’s spoken from behind the pulpit on numerous occasions, and there’s one point I’d like to make about this whole thing.
The person leading this effort is a Christian minister, but I think he’s forgotten one of the primary rules of being a minister: Your goal should be to bring people in, not chase them away. Burning someone’s holy book isn’t going to get them to come to Christ, it’s likely to drive them even further away. The best way to get converts is to show them the love and grace that Christ showed us.
Not to mention that we should leave the book burning to those who seem unable to show tolerance to other religions… like, say, Muslims… the stories of Muslim oppression of Christians, Jews, and other religions, even Buddhism, are widespread and well known.
So, from one Christian to another, and one preacher to another (even if I’m not ordained as a minister yet), I urge Pastor Terry Jones to take a deep breath and a big step back from the same sort of tactics that those he denounces use.
From the Washington Post (not normally considered a conservative bastion, note):
WINCHESTER, VA. – The last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States is closing this month, marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison’s innovations in the 1870s.
The remaining 200 workers at the plant here will lose their jobs.
Emphasis added by me.
200 more jobs gone, to join the millions of others that have been lost since Obama took office.
During the recession, political and business leaders have held out the promise that American advances, particularly in green technology, might stem the decades-long decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs. But as the lighting industry shows, even when the government pushes companies toward environmental innovations and Americans come up with them, the manufacture of the next generation technology can still end up overseas.
What made the plant here vulnerable is, in part, a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014. The law will force millions of American households to switch to more efficient bulbs.
Note that. Government regulation is pushing one product completely out of the marketplace, replacing it with another product which is supposedly “greener.” I say supposedly because there are serious problems with disposal of a dead compact fluorescent lamp (CFL). From the website “greenlivingtips.com,” which presumably isn’t really hostile to living more “greenly” (is that even a word? Oh, well, I guess it is now; I’ve used it) comes these tidbits (again, emphasis added, link in original):
Throwing CFL’s in the bin isn’t a good idea. Aside from the waste of materials, there is one rather unsettling issue with compact fluorescent lamps - they contain a small amount of mercury; approximately 3-5 milligrams. It’s a tiny amount, about the size of the very tip a ballpoint pen and far less than what is present in a watch battery. Still, a hundred million of these small amounts does become a significant issue.
Additionally, at the end of a CFL bulb’s life, little of the mercury remains in its most toxic form. Regardless, given the fragility of the bulbs; caution is necessary and mercury shouldn’t wind up in landfill at any time and at any level. Mercury is a powerful toxin that contaminates earth, air and water and accumulates in animal tissue.
Compare and contrast to what one does with a burned out incandescent bulb… something we should all be familiar with.
And then there’s this list of instructions if a CFL should break, from the same page quoted above (misspelling and smiley in original):
The Australian Department of Environment offers the following advice:
- Open windows in the room to air out fo 15 minutes before cleaning up
- Don’t use a vacuum as this will spread mercury into the air
- Wear gloves when cleaning up
- Use a disposable brush to gently sweep up fragments
- Use a moist paper towel to help pick up remaining tiny fragments
- Wrap the pieces up in layers of newspaper and place in a sturdy sealable bag or container along with anything used to clean up the mess.
The advice is then to place the container or bag in your rubbish bin, but I feel that perhaps it should be treated as hazardous chemical waste; i.e. stored safely until such time that it can be taken to a hazardous chemical disposal facility. Given all that messing around, it just pays to be extra careful when handling a CFL bulb :).
Again, compare and contrast to what happens with a broken incandescent bulb… another thing most people should be familiar with.
So, where are these wonderful “green” but potentially poisonous bulbs manufactured? I return to the WaPo article:
Rather than setting off a boom in the U.S. manufacture of replacement lights, the leading replacement lights are compact fluorescents, or CFLs, which are made almost entirely overseas, mostly in China.
There you have it. Our Democratic Congress (remember, they took control in 2006, and the law that caused this was passed in 2007) has just caused the elimination of American jobs and the creation of Chinese jobs… one might even say they shipped those jobs overseas, if one were given to that sort of hyperbole.
And what has our “sort of God” President done about it? You know, the guy touting the green jobs that are supposedly going to save the American economy?
I can’t find a single thing he’s done about these jobs being lost here.
If anyone can find credible evidence of something that Obama has done to keep these jobs from going overseas, please list it in the comments.
Update: J. E. Dyer over at HotAir took a look at the same WaPo article and caught something I missed… so go read it.
“Our combat mission is ending,” he said, “but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.”
Days after the U.S. officially ended combat operations and touted Iraq’s ability to defend itself, American troops found themselves battling heavily armed militants assaulting an Iraqi military headquarters in the center of Baghdad on Sunday. The fighting killed 12 people and wounded dozens.
It was the first exchange of fire involving U.S. troops in Baghdad since the Aug. 31 deadline for formally ending the combat mission, and it showed that American troops remaining in the country are still being drawn into the fighting.
The attack also made plain the kind of lapses in security that have left Iraqis wary of the U.S. drawdown and distrustful of the ability of Iraqi forces now taking up ultimate responsibility for protecting the country.
And the money paragraph, buried–predictably–at the bottom by the AP:
Iraq’s political instability now appears to be threatening the country’s security. Six months after an inconclusive election, Iraq still has no new government. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, is struggling to keep his job after his political coalition came in a close second to a Sunni-backed alliance in the March 7 vote.
Like the economy, the situation in Iraq that President Bush handed to President Obama did have its share of problems. However, Obama appears to have–again, like the economy–done his best to take a bad situation and make it worse.
If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, even possibly to civil war, it won’t be Bush that the history books blame… it will be Obama, who decided to yank troops out of a situation where they were probably one of the few things maintaining what little stability Iraq had.
Sounds like at least a few Republicans have learned a good lesson:
The Young Guns book recognises “high profile ethics lapses” and “an inability to rein in spending or even slow the growth of government” led to a breakdown in trust in the party.
During the previous Republican rule, Tom DeLay, the former majority leader in the House, was prosecuted for money laundering and violating campaign finance laws, though he was never convicted. Several other members of Congress were embroiled in scandals involving favours for lobbyists.
“The fact is, we had our chance, and we blew it,” wrote co-author Eric Cantor, the party’s chief whip.
Critics have pointed out that Mr Cantor, 47, from Virginia, was a member of the party’s leadership during the era he is now criticising.
The Young Guns programme run by Mr Cantor and his colleagues and co-authors Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan is designed to find new, reliable conservative candidates.
Yeah, Cantor was part of the leadership back then. However, intelligence allows for a change of direction when one is clearly not working. The high-spending politics-as-usual policies Cantor was following led directly to the losses of 2006 and 2008, if he’s truly changed his ways (and I admit to some skepticism), then congratulations to him.
“Some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time and they’re not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, but it’s true,” [President Obama] told a crowd largely consisting of union members.
The line was a rare departure from a president who normally sticks close to the text of his speech and may forecast a more aggressive tone on the part of Obama as the midterms approach.
Remember how kindly and graciously then-Senator Obama and others of his party and/or ideology treated President Bush?
Right. Neither do I.
As ye sow, Mr. Obama, so shall ye reap. Or, in a lingo perhaps more familiar to one trained in The Chicago Way of Politics: what goes around, comes around.