I'm not telling anyone to vote for Sarah Palin, like Sarah Palin, or even agree with her on anything. There is, however, a very curious criticism of Sarah Palin. That criticism is that she isn't bright enough to be President.
We've created a much more elitist standard for holding high office than when the country was created. In fact, politics has become an elitist endeavor. When it was founded, the creators had no intention of creating professional politicians. Now, most politicians rely on politics as their one and only source of income. We have operatives, analysts, and strategists. All of these are legitimate forms of professions.
In this context, Sarah Palin is not viewed as intelligent enough to serve. Her knowledge of policy, in the view of some detractors, is simply not deep enough to serve. I would ask compared to whom? President Obama won the presidency specifically by laying out a broad vision without laying out specifics. He promised to spend to bail out the economy, the banks, and health care and promised to cut taxes on 95% of the people without providing specifics for how this would happen.
Let's take Iran as an example. Is there any politician from any side that verbalizes a specific, cogent, and logical policy for how to stop that country from gaining nukes? I don't know of any. So, why is the criticism only of Palin that her policy knowledge isn't deep enough?
It's important to note that Andrew Jackson could barely read and write. Harry Truman only finished high school and Ronald Reagan finished Eureka College. Those are often included among our greatest presidents. If Andrew Jackson could barely read, how exactly is Sarah Palin not smart enough to be president?
Showing posts with label sarah palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sarah palin. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Jim Vandehei on Sarah Palin
Jim Vandehei was on the O'Reilly Factor last week.
O'Reilly's staff did a search of the MSM and found only two stories that were positive towards Palin. Vandehei challenged that study and used his own publication, the Politico, as an example. Of course, O'Reilly doesn't consider Politico among the MSM. What ensued was two people talking over each other.
Well, Vandehei still claims the MSM "loves Palin" and he's penned this piece to prove it. It's a very long piece so here's his two main theses.
So, thesis is this. The media loves Palin because all stories about her are box office draws. Second, they do this even though she has no political viability. I generally like Vandehei but this is absurd. To say that would be to also say that Michelle Malkin loves Barack Obama because she writes about him incessently. Of course, that's silly. Malkin has no use for Obama, but she does love to write about him. That's different from writing favorably about him.
That he tries so hard to demonstrate that she's politically unviable is puzzling to say the least. She's a candidate for nothing. If she were to run in 2012, that's political light years away. Her political standing is still yet to be determined and thus ultimately irrelevant now. Furthermore, if she's totally not viable, why is everyone so obsessed with her?
In fact, all that Vandehei proved is that Palin is a fascinating character and the media is drawn to that fascination. That's a lot different than the media "loving Palin". Glenn Beck spends hours on end talking about Obama and Progressives. Does that mean he loves them? Of course not, but they are topics he's fascinated with.
Politico itself is generally balanced enough toward Palin but that doesn't mean the MSM is. While they all do in fact cover her all the time. Everything is newsworthy, even notes on her hand. To still say they love her is just silly. They don't. They generally despise her. Vandehei mistakes hate for apathy which are two totally different emotions.
O'Reilly's staff did a search of the MSM and found only two stories that were positive towards Palin. Vandehei challenged that study and used his own publication, the Politico, as an example. Of course, O'Reilly doesn't consider Politico among the MSM. What ensued was two people talking over each other.
Well, Vandehei still claims the MSM "loves Palin" and he's penned this piece to prove it. It's a very long piece so here's his two main theses.
For the media, Palin is great at the box office. Among modern American political figures, she is second only to Barack Obama in generating clicks (for Web sites such as this one) and ratings (for the cable news networks hungering around the clock for fresh material).
...
Beyond polls, consider this: If Palin were to announce a bid for the White House, how many party officials would support her? Would a single governor or senator get behind her candidacy? More than 10 House members? And how about donors — how many of the bundlers who seeded President Bush’s two campaigns would do the same for her?
Before you can scream “but those are just elites!” recall the traditions of the GOP. Yes, she could mount an insurgency and run against the power brokers in Washington and the state capitals who traditionally control the nominating process. But has that ever happened in the modern history of the Republican Party? Just ask Presidents Huckabee (2008) McCain (2000), Buchanan (’92 and ’96) and Robertson (’88).
So, thesis is this. The media loves Palin because all stories about her are box office draws. Second, they do this even though she has no political viability. I generally like Vandehei but this is absurd. To say that would be to also say that Michelle Malkin loves Barack Obama because she writes about him incessently. Of course, that's silly. Malkin has no use for Obama, but she does love to write about him. That's different from writing favorably about him.
That he tries so hard to demonstrate that she's politically unviable is puzzling to say the least. She's a candidate for nothing. If she were to run in 2012, that's political light years away. Her political standing is still yet to be determined and thus ultimately irrelevant now. Furthermore, if she's totally not viable, why is everyone so obsessed with her?
In fact, all that Vandehei proved is that Palin is a fascinating character and the media is drawn to that fascination. That's a lot different than the media "loving Palin". Glenn Beck spends hours on end talking about Obama and Progressives. Does that mean he loves them? Of course not, but they are topics he's fascinated with.
Politico itself is generally balanced enough toward Palin but that doesn't mean the MSM is. While they all do in fact cover her all the time. Everything is newsworthy, even notes on her hand. To still say they love her is just silly. They don't. They generally despise her. Vandehei mistakes hate for apathy which are two totally different emotions.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Sarah Palin, Crazy Like a Fox
H/T to my blogging cohort Dave Gerstman, the Soccer Dad, for forwarding me the article that was inspiration for this post. This article recently appeared in the CATO institute's site.
This was a defense of Palin's use of death panels. It's not the first and won't be the last. In fact, that term "death panels" has been among the most debated terms in the health care debate. The reason Dave sent me this article is that long ago, I made a similar defense.
I also said this in the same piece.
At the time, I thought her fiery language, the use of the term "death panel", would take away from the point she made. After reading this article from CATO, I've realized I was wrong.
In fact, the substantive point that Palin was making wasn't anything earth shattering. Health care reform will add tens of millions of patients but it won't add any doctors. If we have the same number of health care providers providing health care to more people then the health care will be rationed. Palin then went on to list several panels that would likely do the rationing. Had she simply made this substantive point she would have been one of many making the same point.
She didn't. Instead, she used the explosive term "death panel". That drove her point home and it invited attack. By extension, it invited debate. In fact, as the article indicates, we're still debating this point.
In fact, I've also criticized Palin for not being active enough in the health care debate. This criticism is likely overstated as well. After all, in her limited role in the debate, she contributed the single most explosive, most talked about, and debated part of the debate.
In fact, Kirsten Powers said it best when she said, "if you have to defend yourself against the accusation that your reform will kill grandma, then you're in trouble." Who created the perception that health care reform will kill grandma? It was Palin.
In fact, as I look back on the debate, her language was brilliant. It drew attention to the point she was making. This was a basic and oft repeated point. Yet, it is Sarah Palin that is now most identified with the issue of rationing in health care. She has in fact taking the lead in the health care debate. The more I follow Palin, the more it's clear that she's crazy like a fox.
The shameless hoax that Palin had confused individual consulting with rationing by a panel was repeated endlessly. By November, the Washington Post was treating this obvious canard as a established fact: “Proposed health-care reform legislation includes a provision that allows Medicare to pay for “end-of-life” counseling for seniors and their families who request it. The provision — which Sarah Palin erroneously described as “death panels” for seniors — nearly derailed President Obama’s health-care initiative.”
What Palin wrote about death panels clearly had nothing to do with counseling or with any other specifics in seminal House bill. What she wrote was: “Government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of
course.”
How could anyone believe Palin’s sensible comment about rationing was, in reality, a senseless fear of counseling? To say so was no mistake; it was an oft-repeated big lie.
This was a defense of Palin's use of death panels. It's not the first and won't be the last. In fact, that term "death panels" has been among the most debated terms in the health care debate. The reason Dave sent me this article is that long ago, I made a similar defense.
There is no question that this bill will create rationing, and there's no question that eventually care will be cut from those that are deemed "unproductive" like her son. In fact, those that criticize misconstrue her reference to page 425 which either mandates or makes optional planning for death. In fact, pages 425-430 do a lot more than merely suggest "advanced care planning". In fact, it's much more complicated than that. The rationing starts on pages 27-30 where "essential benefits" are discussed. A new bureaucracy, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, will be created to decide what insurance and procedures are deemed "necessary". On page 335, there is a section on "Outcomes Based Measures" which will have the same Health Benefits Advisory Committee do a cost benefit analysis of which procedures are cost effective. As such, if a procedure is deemed "unnecessary" and "not cost
effective", it will be regulated out of existence. If you happen to need that procedure to live, get in front of the "death panel" and beg.
I also said this in the same piece.
Now, Palin's statement was far too provocative. There's of course no death panel that will decide who lives and who dies. The language she used went from proper criticism to fear mongering. She should have phrased her comments in a much more states person like manner. That said, those that criticize Palin on the merits of the statement simply haven't read the bill carefully.
At the time, I thought her fiery language, the use of the term "death panel", would take away from the point she made. After reading this article from CATO, I've realized I was wrong.
In fact, the substantive point that Palin was making wasn't anything earth shattering. Health care reform will add tens of millions of patients but it won't add any doctors. If we have the same number of health care providers providing health care to more people then the health care will be rationed. Palin then went on to list several panels that would likely do the rationing. Had she simply made this substantive point she would have been one of many making the same point.
She didn't. Instead, she used the explosive term "death panel". That drove her point home and it invited attack. By extension, it invited debate. In fact, as the article indicates, we're still debating this point.
In fact, I've also criticized Palin for not being active enough in the health care debate. This criticism is likely overstated as well. After all, in her limited role in the debate, she contributed the single most explosive, most talked about, and debated part of the debate.
In fact, Kirsten Powers said it best when she said, "if you have to defend yourself against the accusation that your reform will kill grandma, then you're in trouble." Who created the perception that health care reform will kill grandma? It was Palin.
In fact, as I look back on the debate, her language was brilliant. It drew attention to the point she was making. This was a basic and oft repeated point. Yet, it is Sarah Palin that is now most identified with the issue of rationing in health care. She has in fact taking the lead in the health care debate. The more I follow Palin, the more it's clear that she's crazy like a fox.
Tea Parties: A Movement or a Party
Recent polls indicate that the most powerful force in politics today may in fact be the Tea Parties. Of course, a force is a very nebulous thing in politics. There was a time that Barack Obama was a force and that made him the President. Since then, he's had to govern and he's been brought down to Earth and quick.
So far, the tea parties have shown they can organize, they can create a protest, and they can make their voices heard. Furthermore, the tea parties represent the every man against government corruption, waste, and inefficiencies. This was the easy part. Organizing rallies, protests and town halls shouldn't be understated. The tea parties proved this past summer that their message resonates.
Now, comes the hard part. They need to transform that message into a force that influences. So far, the movement has failed on that end. Now, to be fair, there's only been one test. That test was in New York when the Tea Parties backed Doug Hoffman. Hoffman lost. Many tea party folks still refuse to view this as a loss but it was.
The tea parties have a tension. They are going back and forth between trying to overwhelm the Republicans and force that party into purity and just turning themselves into a third party. In fact, that tension was on display in the Hoffman race. Hoffman ran on the Conservative Party ticket. He essentially replaced the Republican there.
The problem is that neither side is all that simple to accomplish. Right now, the tea party folks are determined to overthrow Charlie Crist in Florida's Senatorial race. He's running against Marco Rubio in the Republican primary. Rubio is down the line conservative while Crist is a moderate. The Tea Parties may in fact be successful in dethroning Crist in the primary. Right now, the two are running neck and neck. If Rubio does win however, he'll likely lose in the general election. The tea parties are determined to turn the Republican party into a down the line conservative party. That sounds good in theory. The problem is that down the line conservatism doesn't play in every part of the country. It won't work in Maine, Connecticut, Massachusetts, among a host of areas. Florida is a purple state. A moderate works best there. The tea parties have no use for that and they're likely to get rid of Crist.
If the Tea parties go around the country challenging every moderate: Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Susan Collins, etc., what they'll do is eliminate in the primaries the only person that can win the general election. Sure, the Republican party will be only conservatives. It will also be a party that won't even have enough members to create a filibuster.
If the tea parties did the natural thing and turned themselves into a third party, that also has plenty of pitfalls. Here in Chicago, the Republicans have a party chair. They have precinct captains in nearly every ward. That's about what the GOP has nearly everywhere and of course the Democrats are the same. That's the kind of organization both parties have. Then, there's ballot access. Both parties have an army of lawyers to challenge each and every signature, ballot, and packet for a race any time in any municipality. A third party would need to be able to run a candidate in every race everywhere to be legitimate. The Green Party, the most powerful third party, gets onto barely 20% of the ballots.
In fact, the only way for the tea parties to thrive as a third party is to run someone with name recognition as the Presidential candidate, and either win or at least supersede all expectations. The most natural candidate is Sarah Palin. I think it's pretty much common knowledge that she wants to lead such a movement. She has little use for the Republican establishment. She's loved by the movement. Furthermore, she has such massive star power that she could raise enough money without the organization of the Republican party.
Of course, if Palin did run and only took votes away from the Republican and ultimately the Democrat won, she and the movement would become hated in many quarters. So, even there, it's a move with plenty of pitfalls. The movement has come to a crossroads. It must decide what to do with its popularity and power. So far, it's accomplished the easy part. Moving forward that will be the hard part.
So far, the tea parties have shown they can organize, they can create a protest, and they can make their voices heard. Furthermore, the tea parties represent the every man against government corruption, waste, and inefficiencies. This was the easy part. Organizing rallies, protests and town halls shouldn't be understated. The tea parties proved this past summer that their message resonates.
Now, comes the hard part. They need to transform that message into a force that influences. So far, the movement has failed on that end. Now, to be fair, there's only been one test. That test was in New York when the Tea Parties backed Doug Hoffman. Hoffman lost. Many tea party folks still refuse to view this as a loss but it was.
The tea parties have a tension. They are going back and forth between trying to overwhelm the Republicans and force that party into purity and just turning themselves into a third party. In fact, that tension was on display in the Hoffman race. Hoffman ran on the Conservative Party ticket. He essentially replaced the Republican there.
The problem is that neither side is all that simple to accomplish. Right now, the tea party folks are determined to overthrow Charlie Crist in Florida's Senatorial race. He's running against Marco Rubio in the Republican primary. Rubio is down the line conservative while Crist is a moderate. The Tea Parties may in fact be successful in dethroning Crist in the primary. Right now, the two are running neck and neck. If Rubio does win however, he'll likely lose in the general election. The tea parties are determined to turn the Republican party into a down the line conservative party. That sounds good in theory. The problem is that down the line conservatism doesn't play in every part of the country. It won't work in Maine, Connecticut, Massachusetts, among a host of areas. Florida is a purple state. A moderate works best there. The tea parties have no use for that and they're likely to get rid of Crist.
If the Tea parties go around the country challenging every moderate: Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Susan Collins, etc., what they'll do is eliminate in the primaries the only person that can win the general election. Sure, the Republican party will be only conservatives. It will also be a party that won't even have enough members to create a filibuster.
If the tea parties did the natural thing and turned themselves into a third party, that also has plenty of pitfalls. Here in Chicago, the Republicans have a party chair. They have precinct captains in nearly every ward. That's about what the GOP has nearly everywhere and of course the Democrats are the same. That's the kind of organization both parties have. Then, there's ballot access. Both parties have an army of lawyers to challenge each and every signature, ballot, and packet for a race any time in any municipality. A third party would need to be able to run a candidate in every race everywhere to be legitimate. The Green Party, the most powerful third party, gets onto barely 20% of the ballots.
In fact, the only way for the tea parties to thrive as a third party is to run someone with name recognition as the Presidential candidate, and either win or at least supersede all expectations. The most natural candidate is Sarah Palin. I think it's pretty much common knowledge that she wants to lead such a movement. She has little use for the Republican establishment. She's loved by the movement. Furthermore, she has such massive star power that she could raise enough money without the organization of the Republican party.
Of course, if Palin did run and only took votes away from the Republican and ultimately the Democrat won, she and the movement would become hated in many quarters. So, even there, it's a move with plenty of pitfalls. The movement has come to a crossroads. It must decide what to do with its popularity and power. So far, it's accomplished the easy part. Moving forward that will be the hard part.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Sarah Palin Conservative Populist
Andrew Jackson was this country's first President that didn't represent the elite in our society. When he won, the party in the White House was attended by all sorts of folks that we'd now call lower middle class. He was America's first populist leader. He won by consolidating his vote around all sorts that had never participated in the process before him.
Every politician would like to be considered a populist because such a moniker spans ideologies. It simply means a politician of the people. William Jennings Bryan rode a populist wave to nearly two White House elections.
Over the last century, however, populism has almost always been associated with liberals. That may all change. Sarah Palin will almost certainly attempt to ride a conservative populist wave to future political fortunes.
Last night, I attended a Thanksgiving dinner with relatives. Both are professors at a major university. Their friends are also professors at the same university. We spoke of politics throughout the evening. While their political persuasion differs from mine greatly (for instance one friend was in favor of single payer health care), the conversations were always lively and cordial.
That was except when the subject of Palin came up. Everyone had a disgust for the woman that's difficult to describe unless you're there to hear the contempt and condescension in their voice. One person couldn't believe that I belong to a Sarah Palin Facebook page. One individual even acknowledged the good work she did in Alaska, including negotiating a good deal for the citizens of her state with the oil companies.
To folks like that, it isn't about accomplishment. One individual said that in this "day and age our Presidents must come from an ELITE university". Keep in mind, Andrew Jackson could barely read. Ronald Reagan went to the "elite" university of Euraka College. Sarah Palin will never win over folks like this and we all know many like them.
In fact, not only will she never win them over but they will be her best campaigning friend. Every single person at this party, and certainly everyone that holds her in contempt (as opposed to simply being uncomfortable, against her, or unsure of her), would be considered an elite by most.
In fact, if Sarah Palin were to become President it would be uniquely American story that most of us would be proud of. She rose from nothing with no connections and only through the force of her own will. She didn't go to an elite school. She doesn't run in elite circles. That makes her like most people as opposed to the elites.
It also makes her the perfect person to run a populist campaign. Of course, the elites have no use for her, that's what makes them elites. Bryan and Jackson weren't trying to appeal to the big wigs and power brokers. They were trying to appeal to the every man. That's what Palin would appeal to as well.
Let's face it those in fly over country, so to speak, already believe, with good reason, that the elites hold them in contempt. If the elites hold Palin in contempt, that only makes her that much more appealing to them. She has a simple anti government message that can easily appeal to the masses. The best part, for Palin, is that her enemies will help sell that message.
Every politician would like to be considered a populist because such a moniker spans ideologies. It simply means a politician of the people. William Jennings Bryan rode a populist wave to nearly two White House elections.
Over the last century, however, populism has almost always been associated with liberals. That may all change. Sarah Palin will almost certainly attempt to ride a conservative populist wave to future political fortunes.
Last night, I attended a Thanksgiving dinner with relatives. Both are professors at a major university. Their friends are also professors at the same university. We spoke of politics throughout the evening. While their political persuasion differs from mine greatly (for instance one friend was in favor of single payer health care), the conversations were always lively and cordial.
That was except when the subject of Palin came up. Everyone had a disgust for the woman that's difficult to describe unless you're there to hear the contempt and condescension in their voice. One person couldn't believe that I belong to a Sarah Palin Facebook page. One individual even acknowledged the good work she did in Alaska, including negotiating a good deal for the citizens of her state with the oil companies.
To folks like that, it isn't about accomplishment. One individual said that in this "day and age our Presidents must come from an ELITE university". Keep in mind, Andrew Jackson could barely read. Ronald Reagan went to the "elite" university of Euraka College. Sarah Palin will never win over folks like this and we all know many like them.
In fact, not only will she never win them over but they will be her best campaigning friend. Every single person at this party, and certainly everyone that holds her in contempt (as opposed to simply being uncomfortable, against her, or unsure of her), would be considered an elite by most.
In fact, if Sarah Palin were to become President it would be uniquely American story that most of us would be proud of. She rose from nothing with no connections and only through the force of her own will. She didn't go to an elite school. She doesn't run in elite circles. That makes her like most people as opposed to the elites.
It also makes her the perfect person to run a populist campaign. Of course, the elites have no use for her, that's what makes them elites. Bryan and Jackson weren't trying to appeal to the big wigs and power brokers. They were trying to appeal to the every man. That's what Palin would appeal to as well.
Let's face it those in fly over country, so to speak, already believe, with good reason, that the elites hold them in contempt. If the elites hold Palin in contempt, that only makes her that much more appealing to them. She has a simple anti government message that can easily appeal to the masses. The best part, for Palin, is that her enemies will help sell that message.
Monday, November 23, 2009
O'Reilly Vs. Palin III
Bill O'Reilly had his final of three parts to his interview with Sarah Palin tonight. I was actually generally disappointed with the interview. O'Reilly said the interview would focus on "policy". There were two questions on Iran, one on Afghanistan, one on domestic policy, none on health care, and no questions on social issues.
That's not really focusing on policy but rather scratching the surface on policy. Tonight's interview was on the "hateful attacks" and whether or not Palin wants to lead the tea parties. All of this is interesting but what I want to know is what Palin would do to fix health care, about the economy, Russia, Iran, China, etc.
These cultural questions are interesting but they say very little about whether or not Palin has serious answers to serious policy questions. O'Reilly barely even mentioned China and Russia in the entire interview. All of Palin's critics say she knows little about foreign policy. O'Reilly neither confirmed nor denied that stance because he barely asked her about policy position toward Russia.
O'Reilly says that Palin wants to leave the new populist movement. Maybe, that's true, but that's ultimately of little consequence. I don't care if she wants to lead a populist movement. I want to know if she has the acumen to deal with geopolitical heavyweights like Vladimir Putin. I expected O'Reilly to ask her enough probing questions to get an idea of that. I was disappointed.
Friday, November 20, 2009
O'Reilly Vs. Palin II
The second part of the O'Reilly/Palin interview just finished.
Palin sounded confident in all her answers. The first part of part two was spent with critical analysis of President Obama. These are questions right in Palin's wheel house. She never called Obama a "socialist" but did say that he was moving away from free market principles. She criticized his policies on closing GITMO and trying KSM in New York specifically.
I was looking forward to the policy portion which really didn't start until after the break. Much like every politician, Palin had nothing but platitudes towards Iran. She wants to work with our allies and apply stiffer sanctions. She referenced Reagan's tough diplomacy as a model.
All of this sounds nice but there's really no specific policy in there. In fact, the best idea I've heard from anyone is from O'Reilly himself and his idea of a military blockade, itself an act of war. Palin was far less specific.
On Afghanistan, Palin said she'd give General McChrystal the troops he's asked for. She made the analogy between the situation in Iraq and the current situation in Afghanistan. O'Reilly pointed out that the Karzai government is terribly corrupt and thus, it may not be worth sending troops. Palin never pointed it out but Maliki was extremely corrupt, and isn't a model of purity still, when Bush sent in the additional troops. Getting a handle on the security situation reduces the corruption.
On China owning a trillion dollars worth of our debt, Palin said that our policies of endless spending is causing us to be vulnerable to this position.
Palin handled the questions fairly well. She appeared confident and not intimidated. She was no more or less wishy washy on Iran but generally gave clear answers to O'Reilly's questions.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
O'Reilly Vs. Palin I
During her whirlwind tour, the only Sarah Palin interview I was looking forward to was the one she was going to have with Bill O'Reilly. It isn't only because O'Reilly is my favorite broadcaster, though that helps. O'Reilly's interview wasn't going to be the softball interview that most conservatives would give her, and it wasn't going to be the touchy feely interview a la Oprah. O'Reilly said his would focus on policy and that's what interested me. In that, I was disappointed.
Part one focused on everything but policy. If there is a headline it was that Palin readily admitted that she screwed up in response to Katie Couric asking her what newspapers she has read. Conservatives tried to defend Palin after that snafu, but Palin offered the best defense in the interview when she said, "who cares".
She didn't answer Couric's question well. That doesn't mean she wasn't a good Governor, mayor, or otherwise a good politician. Some gaffes go unnoticed. The best example was Barack Obama's nightmarish speech two days after the Virginia Tech shooting in which he compared that violence to all sorts of "violence" including: the violence of not being able to have an abortion, losing your job to outsourcing, and not having your voice heard. The media ignored that trainwreck. They've decided to latch onto this. So what?
Palin also broke no news in revealing some of the tension between herself and McCain's operatives. Palin wanted to do the Factor during the campaign but the operatives thought that would be a bad idea. What O'Reilly referred to as being assertive, Palin referred to as the media calling it "going rogue".
My main beef with the interview was that O'Reilly, again, calls Palin "normal". I don't know if I would call her extraordinary but definitely unconventional. She's certainly not normal. There aren't many former state champion basketball players, former sports casters, former hockey moms, that wind up being Governor. She does however have an opportunity to lead a populist movement. She's not normal and any such reference is totally off base. She can however connect and appeal to the masses, which is what I assume O'Reilly meant.
This part of the interview was certainly in Palin's wheel house. She was allowed explain some of the inside baseball of the campaign. She set the record straight on Couric and Gibson. She took the offensive against the MSM, or as she called them the lamestream media. Still, what's important is how she handles policy and those parts are still coming.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Why They're So Bothered By Sarah
With Sarah Palin's new book, Going Rogue, about to come out, we're treated to another round of media frenzy surrounding Sarah Palin. We're also treated to another round of demonization from the mainstream of both the press and the so called conservative thinking. Don't get me wrong. No one is above criticism. Sarah Palin is perfectly capable of handling criticism. What's remarkable about a great deal of the criticism is the utter contempt and condescension that is shown to her by the critics. This sort of contempt is usually reserved for Presidents where the stakes are much higher than with most politicians. Yet, Sarah Palin is treated to the kind criticism reserved for the select few of polarizing politicians. The poster child for this criticism is David Brooks.
Of course, he isn't the only one. Newsweek put Palin on their cover in biking shorts. They proceeded to call her everything but the devil. The Washington Post book critic not only lambasted Palin's book but even admitted that she neve quite finished the book.
I was at a party this weekend at which the subject of Sarah Palin came up and another party goer responded, "she wasn't ready in 2008 and she never will be".
This is a characterization that I suspect a lot of people have heard being directed at Palin. I wonder what anyone means by "not ready". She was certainly fit to be Vice President. She's currently in private life. I think she's perfectly capable of handling all those duties.
Of course, everyone is referring to her being president. That's both ironic and curious. First, the same people that claim that Sarah Palin isn't ready to be president voted for Barack Obama because he could make a series of great speeches. It's curious because Sarah Palin hasn't announced that she's running for President.
If she does it will be in nearly four years. Are all these folks saying they can see four years into the future and know that she won't be ready? They're saying that Sarah Palin is simply not fit.
Why is that? Palin was a successful mayor, a whistle blower, and a successful Governor. That's more qualifications than most presidential candidates. If Barack Obama can be president because he makes good speeches, Sarah Palin can be president.
I've heard people say it's her stance on abortion, it's her big family, her geography, her support for the second amendment, among a host of things. I've concluded that folks David Brooks are put off by the whole package.
In fact, it's ironic. Everything that I find attractive about Palin they find detestable. I think she's endlessly fascinating. She's a former state champion, former sports caster, former hockey mom, that hunts, got into politics by accident, and she went to the University of Idaho and not Harvard. I find all this not only fascinating but appealing. All of this the so called main stream finds detestable. That's because none of it was done in their club. They went to Ivy League schools. They spent most of their time in New York city or D.C. They go to cocktail parties not hunting.
So, I believe, it isn't so much that Sarah Palin is a threat. In fact, it is that Sarah Palin dares to enter their club without an invitation. She doesn't know the secret handshake. She doesn't wear their clothes, speak with their refined accent, or carry herself in a manner they demand.
Sarah Palin is an outsider, at least when you view the world from the prism of the mainstream, be it media or simply as thinkers even among conservatives. That's ultimately why, in their view, she's not only not ready now but will never be ready. How can you ever be ready to enter their arena when you didn't go through their gauntlet?
Of course, he isn't the only one. Newsweek put Palin on their cover in biking shorts. They proceeded to call her everything but the devil. The Washington Post book critic not only lambasted Palin's book but even admitted that she neve quite finished the book.
I was at a party this weekend at which the subject of Sarah Palin came up and another party goer responded, "she wasn't ready in 2008 and she never will be".
This is a characterization that I suspect a lot of people have heard being directed at Palin. I wonder what anyone means by "not ready". She was certainly fit to be Vice President. She's currently in private life. I think she's perfectly capable of handling all those duties.
Of course, everyone is referring to her being president. That's both ironic and curious. First, the same people that claim that Sarah Palin isn't ready to be president voted for Barack Obama because he could make a series of great speeches. It's curious because Sarah Palin hasn't announced that she's running for President.
If she does it will be in nearly four years. Are all these folks saying they can see four years into the future and know that she won't be ready? They're saying that Sarah Palin is simply not fit.
Why is that? Palin was a successful mayor, a whistle blower, and a successful Governor. That's more qualifications than most presidential candidates. If Barack Obama can be president because he makes good speeches, Sarah Palin can be president.
I've heard people say it's her stance on abortion, it's her big family, her geography, her support for the second amendment, among a host of things. I've concluded that folks David Brooks are put off by the whole package.
In fact, it's ironic. Everything that I find attractive about Palin they find detestable. I think she's endlessly fascinating. She's a former state champion, former sports caster, former hockey mom, that hunts, got into politics by accident, and she went to the University of Idaho and not Harvard. I find all this not only fascinating but appealing. All of this the so called main stream finds detestable. That's because none of it was done in their club. They went to Ivy League schools. They spent most of their time in New York city or D.C. They go to cocktail parties not hunting.
So, I believe, it isn't so much that Sarah Palin is a threat. In fact, it is that Sarah Palin dares to enter their club without an invitation. She doesn't know the secret handshake. She doesn't wear their clothes, speak with their refined accent, or carry herself in a manner they demand.
Sarah Palin is an outsider, at least when you view the world from the prism of the mainstream, be it media or simply as thinkers even among conservatives. That's ultimately why, in their view, she's not only not ready now but will never be ready. How can you ever be ready to enter their arena when you didn't go through their gauntlet?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tea Parties at the Crossroads
Following the coming out party for the tea parties (no pun intended) in February, the liberals and Democrats mocked. President Obama was still wildly popular. There were just under 20 different cities with a few hundred attendees in each city. It was a passing fad. After all the president was popular and everyone expected him to remain so for an indefinite future. At the time, the conventional wisdom was the permanent and sustained electoral change to the Democrats. People were figuring out how quickly the country would move from center right to center left and how far left it would.
Then, the tea parties protested on April 15th again. Now, they were in near 1000 cities and the numbers ranged for a few dozen to twenty thousand in Atlanta. The totals numbered somewhere in the neighborhood of one million. Still people mocked. Sure, the tea parties could protest but what would it lead to. On the 4th of July, the tea parties protested again. Their numbers were similar to that of April 15th. Still, it seemed as though it was going to be nothing more than protests.
Then, the August recess hit. The same folks that attended the tea parties started finding town hall debates everywhere and they began challenging politicians over the health care debate. Suddenly, what was once a calm exchange of a few dozen citizens quietly speaking to their representatives turned into a full political force and story. The month of August was dominated by citizens challenging their politicians over the health care debate. While the Democrats struggle to pass health care reform to this day, one thing is certain. The health care proposal, if passed, will not only be unpopular but wildly unpopular and that was finished off by the citizen revolt in August.
All movements must, at some point, turn into an electoral force. That's what the tea parties are attempting to do now. They made their first stand in New York's 23rd District, and it was a total and miserable failure. Worse than that, most of the movement refuses to acknowledge it for what it is. Most folks believe they won. They seem to think that by losing they won.
Doug Hoffman was the perfect tea party candidate. He was an outsider. He was a consistent conservative. He believed in lower taxes, less government, less regulation, and free markets. He was against the bailouts, the stimulus, and the health care reform package. Furthermore, he was running in a district held by a Republican since the Civil War. Furthermore, he had almost every important conservative politician behind him: Fred Thompson, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, etc.
Yet, he lost. He lost because he became a theoretical politician. He became a symbolic politician. He was the sort of politician the tea parties wanted in the Republican party. Meanwhile, Dede Scozzafava was the sort of politician that the tea parties saw the Republican turning into without their revolt. They pitted Hoffman against Scozzafava and the Democrat won.
The Democrat, Bill Owens, spoke to issues important to his constituents: jobs, health care, education. Doug Hoffman spoke about how he's the true conservative. That's the thing about purists. They think everyone is like them. Most people just don't care that much. They want problem solvers. They want people that will help them feed their kids, get good health care, get a good education, etc. They don't care if it's a conservative or a liberal. Running as the consistent conservative will get the purists but it won't win. New York 23 proved that.
Yet, the tea parties seem to think they've won. They ran Scozzafava out of the race and their guy almost won. That's as delusional as it absurd. If this is the way it will go, they'll hand the Democrats a victory everywhere they take a stand. The tea parties are aiming at Florida next. There, the popular, but moderate, governor Charlie Crist is running against the consistent conservative but totally unknown Marco Rubio. They're ready to make another stand. Crist isn't nearly conservative enough for them. So, they're going full force to beat him in the primary. They may even win though Rubio will almost certainly then lose in the general election.
See, in the primary, the true and consistent conservative is important. In the general election, it means absolutely nothing. For the tea parties to be successful, they must move from the theoretical to the practical. No one, but them, cares who is most conservative. People care about getting problems solved. Conservatives seem to think that simply talking about conservatism is enough. If it were, Doug Hoffman would be the new Congressman from New York 23. He isn't because ultimately no one cares all that much.
Many times movements like this wind up doing more harm than good. That's where the tea parties are on the verge of going. They'll challenge each and every moderate in the primaries. Those moderates will lose. Then, their consistent conservative will trot out in the general election and talk about how they're the consistent conservative and they'll lose each and every time. All the tea parties will really do is make sure all sorts of liberals wind up in Congress.
Then, the tea parties protested on April 15th again. Now, they were in near 1000 cities and the numbers ranged for a few dozen to twenty thousand in Atlanta. The totals numbered somewhere in the neighborhood of one million. Still people mocked. Sure, the tea parties could protest but what would it lead to. On the 4th of July, the tea parties protested again. Their numbers were similar to that of April 15th. Still, it seemed as though it was going to be nothing more than protests.
Then, the August recess hit. The same folks that attended the tea parties started finding town hall debates everywhere and they began challenging politicians over the health care debate. Suddenly, what was once a calm exchange of a few dozen citizens quietly speaking to their representatives turned into a full political force and story. The month of August was dominated by citizens challenging their politicians over the health care debate. While the Democrats struggle to pass health care reform to this day, one thing is certain. The health care proposal, if passed, will not only be unpopular but wildly unpopular and that was finished off by the citizen revolt in August.
All movements must, at some point, turn into an electoral force. That's what the tea parties are attempting to do now. They made their first stand in New York's 23rd District, and it was a total and miserable failure. Worse than that, most of the movement refuses to acknowledge it for what it is. Most folks believe they won. They seem to think that by losing they won.
Doug Hoffman was the perfect tea party candidate. He was an outsider. He was a consistent conservative. He believed in lower taxes, less government, less regulation, and free markets. He was against the bailouts, the stimulus, and the health care reform package. Furthermore, he was running in a district held by a Republican since the Civil War. Furthermore, he had almost every important conservative politician behind him: Fred Thompson, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, etc.
Yet, he lost. He lost because he became a theoretical politician. He became a symbolic politician. He was the sort of politician the tea parties wanted in the Republican party. Meanwhile, Dede Scozzafava was the sort of politician that the tea parties saw the Republican turning into without their revolt. They pitted Hoffman against Scozzafava and the Democrat won.
The Democrat, Bill Owens, spoke to issues important to his constituents: jobs, health care, education. Doug Hoffman spoke about how he's the true conservative. That's the thing about purists. They think everyone is like them. Most people just don't care that much. They want problem solvers. They want people that will help them feed their kids, get good health care, get a good education, etc. They don't care if it's a conservative or a liberal. Running as the consistent conservative will get the purists but it won't win. New York 23 proved that.
Yet, the tea parties seem to think they've won. They ran Scozzafava out of the race and their guy almost won. That's as delusional as it absurd. If this is the way it will go, they'll hand the Democrats a victory everywhere they take a stand. The tea parties are aiming at Florida next. There, the popular, but moderate, governor Charlie Crist is running against the consistent conservative but totally unknown Marco Rubio. They're ready to make another stand. Crist isn't nearly conservative enough for them. So, they're going full force to beat him in the primary. They may even win though Rubio will almost certainly then lose in the general election.
See, in the primary, the true and consistent conservative is important. In the general election, it means absolutely nothing. For the tea parties to be successful, they must move from the theoretical to the practical. No one, but them, cares who is most conservative. People care about getting problems solved. Conservatives seem to think that simply talking about conservatism is enough. If it were, Doug Hoffman would be the new Congressman from New York 23. He isn't because ultimately no one cares all that much.
Many times movements like this wind up doing more harm than good. That's where the tea parties are on the verge of going. They'll challenge each and every moderate in the primaries. Those moderates will lose. Then, their consistent conservative will trot out in the general election and talk about how they're the consistent conservative and they'll lose each and every time. All the tea parties will really do is make sure all sorts of liberals wind up in Congress.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
A House Divided in NY 23
It's hard to put into a box just who is supporting Dede Scozzafava in New York's 23rd special election and who is supporting Doug Hoffman in the same. At first, I thought it was the so called establishment supporting Scozzafava and those on the outside looking in supporting Hoffman. Yet, how do you explain the likes of Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann supporting Hoffman? I thought it was the conservatives in support of Hoffman and party loyalists in support of Scozzafava? How do you explain Newt Gingrich supporting Scozzafava?
In fact, what's remarkable about this race is two things, 1) you can't put into a box those who support Scozzafava and those who support Hoffman and 2) the race has unnecessarily taken on more significance than it ever needed to take on. This isn't the first special election and most aren't this controversial. In fact, here in the 5th district of Illinois we had one right after the election when Rahm Emanuel, who then held it, went on to become Chief of Staff in the White House. Both the Democrats and the Republicans held a primary and eventually Mike Quigley replaced Emanuel.
Therein lies the first problem. Dede Scozzafava wasn't chosen by the voters but rather in a dark room by power brokers. Insiders seem to never learn. When you choose someone in secret, with no transparency, the voters revolt. Such a corrupted process almost always leads to a flawed choice. For reasons that are still unclear, party insiders chose a moderate if not flat out liberal, Dede Scozzafava, for a seat that has comfortably gone to a Republican since 1871.
The race in 5th District took on almost no national signifcance. Plenty of local Democrats and Republicans ran. The people had a vote and a new Congressman was elected. In fact, about 10% of the registered voters voted. The race couldn't have been less interesting. This one has received attention from coast to coast. It starts with the process and ends with the selection of Scozzafava.
Dede Scozzafava has become the symbol, for many Conservatives, for what is wrong with the Republican Party. The Tea Party movement has decided to draw a line in the sand and flex its muscle electorally. Political heavyweights like Fred Thompson, Sarah Palin, and Dick Armey have all weighed in. Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have been asked to weigh in. You'd think that we are nominating the president with all the attention of this race. Instead, it's a special election for the New York 23rd District of the U.S. Congress. Even after elected, this same person will have to be reelected in a year.
The consequences of this race can't be minimized. At some point, the Minuteman movement also decided to flex its electoral muscle. They backed Randy Graff in Arizona and Graff got crushed. JD Hayworth allied himself with the Minutemen and he is now a talk radio host. From there, the Minutemen became a marginalized group. That's what is at stake with the Tea Party movement. If this race goes to Hoffman, then the Tea Party movement has moved from an organizational force to an electoral force. If Hoffman loses, then the Tea Party movement will go the way of the Minuteman movement.
Meanwhile, if Scozzafava loses, what does that do the Republican establishment. If Scozzafava loses then the Republican establishment has no credibility electorally. If a candidate beats their candidate and they do it using all outside resources then the Republican establishment has little electoral power. If that's the case, what is the future of the party at large? If the Tea Party movement becomes the driving force in the Republican Party how will that transform the party? Those are all questions that remain unanswered but they'll need to be asked because of the dynamic of New York's 23rd.
In fact, what's remarkable about this race is two things, 1) you can't put into a box those who support Scozzafava and those who support Hoffman and 2) the race has unnecessarily taken on more significance than it ever needed to take on. This isn't the first special election and most aren't this controversial. In fact, here in the 5th district of Illinois we had one right after the election when Rahm Emanuel, who then held it, went on to become Chief of Staff in the White House. Both the Democrats and the Republicans held a primary and eventually Mike Quigley replaced Emanuel.
Therein lies the first problem. Dede Scozzafava wasn't chosen by the voters but rather in a dark room by power brokers. Insiders seem to never learn. When you choose someone in secret, with no transparency, the voters revolt. Such a corrupted process almost always leads to a flawed choice. For reasons that are still unclear, party insiders chose a moderate if not flat out liberal, Dede Scozzafava, for a seat that has comfortably gone to a Republican since 1871.
The race in 5th District took on almost no national signifcance. Plenty of local Democrats and Republicans ran. The people had a vote and a new Congressman was elected. In fact, about 10% of the registered voters voted. The race couldn't have been less interesting. This one has received attention from coast to coast. It starts with the process and ends with the selection of Scozzafava.
Dede Scozzafava has become the symbol, for many Conservatives, for what is wrong with the Republican Party. The Tea Party movement has decided to draw a line in the sand and flex its muscle electorally. Political heavyweights like Fred Thompson, Sarah Palin, and Dick Armey have all weighed in. Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have been asked to weigh in. You'd think that we are nominating the president with all the attention of this race. Instead, it's a special election for the New York 23rd District of the U.S. Congress. Even after elected, this same person will have to be reelected in a year.
The consequences of this race can't be minimized. At some point, the Minuteman movement also decided to flex its electoral muscle. They backed Randy Graff in Arizona and Graff got crushed. JD Hayworth allied himself with the Minutemen and he is now a talk radio host. From there, the Minutemen became a marginalized group. That's what is at stake with the Tea Party movement. If this race goes to Hoffman, then the Tea Party movement has moved from an organizational force to an electoral force. If Hoffman loses, then the Tea Party movement will go the way of the Minuteman movement.
Meanwhile, if Scozzafava loses, what does that do the Republican establishment. If Scozzafava loses then the Republican establishment has no credibility electorally. If a candidate beats their candidate and they do it using all outside resources then the Republican establishment has little electoral power. If that's the case, what is the future of the party at large? If the Tea Party movement becomes the driving force in the Republican Party how will that transform the party? Those are all questions that remain unanswered but they'll need to be asked because of the dynamic of New York's 23rd.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Palin Takes on Baucus
Sarah Palin's facebook page has been relatively quiet lately. She made it louder with a roughly 1000 word commentary on the Baucus bill. Most of the criticism echoed that of the Price Waterhouse report released earlier last week. The main criticism comes down to the idea that pre existing conditions will no longer stop someone from being covered but the penalties for not having coverage will be small.
Like the conclusion of the Price WaterHouse study, Palin concludes that young people will simply not get insurance until they get sick. This will drive up costs for everyone and thus only make health care even more expensive. It's important to note that in demonizing the likes of Palin and the insurance companies no one has answered this charge. No one has been able to say how this assessment is wrong, and that's because it isn't. The administration claims that subsidies and credits aren't factored into the formulation. That's absurd. Neither subsidies or credits are free and neither bring down the cost of health insurance. All it does is move the cost from one party to another. This is the biggest flaw in the Baucus bill. It can't be fixed. If Baucus' bill raises the fees and penalties that would be a massive new tax. Covering those with pre existing conditions sounds great in theory but in reality, there are major flaws in this scheme.
Beyond this, Palin also criticizes the president's hypocritical lack of transparency.
It's often difficult for people to see how corrosive non transparency is. That's because there is no direct effect from non transparency to people's lives. After all, if a bill helps you, do you really care if it was done transparently. Instead, non transparency corrodes the system until the system itself stops helping the masses and helps the special interests. People need to understand that these bills are over 1000 pages. So, unless everyone is going to read and fully analyze them all, they need to know how someone came to the decision they did. When deals are made behind closed doors, then deals are made that benefit the deal makers and not the public. That's what is happening now. Once the process is corrupted, the bill is no longer viable. That's what we have now.
All of these points Palin made as well. Palin once again renewed her support for free market ideas. I continue to be surprised that Palin didn't try to take the lead in debating health care reform. Her contributions have been at the margins. Everytime she made a contribution it wasn't merely debated but hyperanalyzed. Death panels became a part of the lexicon. Yet, she makes a contribution every few weeks rather than on a regular basis. She could have gotten a lot more involved. Palin said one of the reasons she stopped being Governor was to support conservative people and ideas. This was the perfect platform for that. She's stuck one foot in the water but to be taken seriously, she needs to get deep into the fight.
The bill prohibits insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and from charging sick people higher premiums. [1] It attempts to offset the costs this will impose on insurance companies by requiring everyone to purchase coverage, which in theory would expand the pool of paying policy holders.
However, the maximum fine for those who refuse to purchase health insurance is $750. [2] Even factoring in government subsidies, the cost of purchasing a plan is much more than $750. The result: many people, especially the young and healthy, will simply not buy coverage, choosing to pay the fine instead. They’ll wait until they’re sick to buy health insurance, confident in the knowledge that insurance companies can’t deny them coverage. Such a scenario is a perfect storm for increasing the cost of health care and creating an unsustainable mandate program.
Like the conclusion of the Price WaterHouse study, Palin concludes that young people will simply not get insurance until they get sick. This will drive up costs for everyone and thus only make health care even more expensive. It's important to note that in demonizing the likes of Palin and the insurance companies no one has answered this charge. No one has been able to say how this assessment is wrong, and that's because it isn't. The administration claims that subsidies and credits aren't factored into the formulation. That's absurd. Neither subsidies or credits are free and neither bring down the cost of health insurance. All it does is move the cost from one party to another. This is the biggest flaw in the Baucus bill. It can't be fixed. If Baucus' bill raises the fees and penalties that would be a massive new tax. Covering those with pre existing conditions sounds great in theory but in reality, there are major flaws in this scheme.
Beyond this, Palin also criticizes the president's hypocritical lack of transparency.
In January 2008, presidential candidate Obama promised not to negotiate behind closed doors with health care lobbyists. In fact, he committed to “broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are. Because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process. And overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists...” [12] However, last February, after serving only a few weeks in office, President Obama met privately at the White House with health care industry executives and lobbyists. [13] Yesterday, POLITICO reported that aides to President Obama and Democrat Senator Max Baucus met with corporate lobbyists in April to help “set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform.” [14] Needless to say, their negotiations were not broadcast on C-SPAN for the American people to see.
It's often difficult for people to see how corrosive non transparency is. That's because there is no direct effect from non transparency to people's lives. After all, if a bill helps you, do you really care if it was done transparently. Instead, non transparency corrodes the system until the system itself stops helping the masses and helps the special interests. People need to understand that these bills are over 1000 pages. So, unless everyone is going to read and fully analyze them all, they need to know how someone came to the decision they did. When deals are made behind closed doors, then deals are made that benefit the deal makers and not the public. That's what is happening now. Once the process is corrupted, the bill is no longer viable. That's what we have now.
All of these points Palin made as well. Palin once again renewed her support for free market ideas. I continue to be surprised that Palin didn't try to take the lead in debating health care reform. Her contributions have been at the margins. Everytime she made a contribution it wasn't merely debated but hyperanalyzed. Death panels became a part of the lexicon. Yet, she makes a contribution every few weeks rather than on a regular basis. She could have gotten a lot more involved. Palin said one of the reasons she stopped being Governor was to support conservative people and ideas. This was the perfect platform for that. She's stuck one foot in the water but to be taken seriously, she needs to get deep into the fight.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Palin Responds
Sarah Palin's op ed yesterday was apparently so good that several of my liberal readers claimed that it was ghost written. I don't know about all that but I thought that it was well written. My problem is that she's been haphazard on the health care issue. She will issue a statement, facebook post, or op ed from time to time, but she isn't getting forcefully into the debate. Well, it's almost as though she read my piece. On cue, she issued a new post on Face Book responding to Obama's speech.
Palin goes on to mention that President Obama was duplicitous. On the one hand, he called for civility. On the other hand, he called her "cynical" and "full of lies". More than that, Palin continues to emphasize the Independent Medicare Advisory Council which is one of the 53 new bureaucracies created by the Democrat's bill. Here's how Palin addressed the IMAC.
Substantively, Palin continues to stand up for small government and free markets and she continues to attack Obama's plan as a big government takeover.
That's not the key though. The key might be that Palin will now become a consistent player in the health care debate. I don't care if she posts on Facebook, shows up on Wasilla Public Access, or has her kids film her from her home. In the end, she'll attract plenty of attention because that's how Palin is.
One of the reasons she resigned was that she wanted to play a bigger role in promoting conservatism and free markets. This is the biggest stage and in my opinion, it's time for her to take center stage. She can do a major speech, do interviews, or she could simply post a lot more often on health care. Either way, she needs to make a consistent contribution to the debate if she wants to be taken more seriously.
After all the rhetoric is put aside, one principle ran through President Obama’s speech tonight: that increased government involvement in health care can solve its problems.
Many Americans fundamentally disagree with this idea. We know from long experience that the creation of a massive new bureaucracy will not provide us with “more stability and security,” but just the opposite. It's hard to believe the President when he says that this time he and his team of bureaucrats have finally figured out how to do things right if only we’ll take them at their word.
Our objections to the Democrats’ health care proposals are not mere “bickering” or “games.” They are not an attempt to “score short term political points.” And it’s hard to listen to the President lecture us not to use “scare tactics” when in the next breath he says that “more will die” if his proposals do not pass.
Palin goes on to mention that President Obama was duplicitous. On the one hand, he called for civility. On the other hand, he called her "cynical" and "full of lies". More than that, Palin continues to emphasize the Independent Medicare Advisory Council which is one of the 53 new bureaucracies created by the Democrat's bill. Here's how Palin addressed the IMAC.
In fact, after promising to “make sure that no government bureaucrat .... gets between you and the health care you need,” the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council -- an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost ... the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives....” He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.
Substantively, Palin continues to stand up for small government and free markets and she continues to attack Obama's plan as a big government takeover.
That's not the key though. The key might be that Palin will now become a consistent player in the health care debate. I don't care if she posts on Facebook, shows up on Wasilla Public Access, or has her kids film her from her home. In the end, she'll attract plenty of attention because that's how Palin is.
One of the reasons she resigned was that she wanted to play a bigger role in promoting conservatism and free markets. This is the biggest stage and in my opinion, it's time for her to take center stage. She can do a major speech, do interviews, or she could simply post a lot more often on health care. Either way, she needs to make a consistent contribution to the debate if she wants to be taken more seriously.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Palin's Op Ed
Sarah Palin re entered the health care debate today. She wrote a very fiscally conservative, anti big government, free market piece on Obama's health care plan and some alternatives to it. Here's my favorite parts.
Palin does an excellent job of using objective resources to combat many of the president's claims. She, on more than one occasion, referred to things the CBO found about the president's plan that was in conflict with the president's plan. Palin also referred to a study by a group called Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber that measured the wage impact of the Democrats' health care proposal.
Palin proposed the standard conservative free market solutions: tort reform, health savings accounts, and buying insurance across state lines. These three have become the mantra for conservatives, like Palin and myself, and so while there's nothing new here, we'd say that's because these reforms would work.
I have no problem with any part of the op ed. In fact, it's the best she's written. What I have a problem with is that Palin's role in health care reform has been on and off. She made some waves with several Facebook postings. Then, she went quiet for a while. Now, she's resurfaced with another op ed. This is the number one issue of the day, and Palin said she wanted to fight for conservative, free market principles. There's no better platform than that of health currently. She's been a supporting player rather than a leader. She could have gotten deep in the fight. She could have made a major speech. She could have done interviews on the subject. She's chosen to make a few Op Ed's and postings, but not many. I think if she wants to be taken seriously she needs to lead in the debate and not simply add some background noise. I'm still hoping for more out of Palin on health care.
Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."
First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."
Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration
...
Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.
Palin does an excellent job of using objective resources to combat many of the president's claims. She, on more than one occasion, referred to things the CBO found about the president's plan that was in conflict with the president's plan. Palin also referred to a study by a group called Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber that measured the wage impact of the Democrats' health care proposal.
Palin proposed the standard conservative free market solutions: tort reform, health savings accounts, and buying insurance across state lines. These three have become the mantra for conservatives, like Palin and myself, and so while there's nothing new here, we'd say that's because these reforms would work.
I have no problem with any part of the op ed. In fact, it's the best she's written. What I have a problem with is that Palin's role in health care reform has been on and off. She made some waves with several Facebook postings. Then, she went quiet for a while. Now, she's resurfaced with another op ed. This is the number one issue of the day, and Palin said she wanted to fight for conservative, free market principles. There's no better platform than that of health currently. She's been a supporting player rather than a leader. She could have gotten deep in the fight. She could have made a major speech. She could have done interviews on the subject. She's chosen to make a few Op Ed's and postings, but not many. I think if she wants to be taken seriously she needs to lead in the debate and not simply add some background noise. I'm still hoping for more out of Palin on health care.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Sarah Palin States the Obvious
Former Governor Palin continues her bit by bit attack on Obama's health care plan with her latest piece on his plan on Facebook. This one focuses on the need for tort reform and the lack of it in Obama's plan.
The problems with our litigious society and it's effects on health care are obvious. Doctors spend tens of thousands yearly for malpractice insurance. They order batteries of tests on each and every patient simply to avoid potential lawsuits. All of this costs money. It causes doctors to practice medicine cautiously and it clogs the system with lawsuits.
The answers aren't as simple. Everyone says we need "tort reform". Well tort reform is a concept. It's not as though there is a "tort reform" bill ready and able. There are specific reforms that need to be implemented that would discourage frivilous lawsuits, discourage irrelevant tests, and stop doctors from practicing defensive medicine.
Many pundits that want to feel smart say that we need "tort reform". That's fine but very few of them have specific tort reforms. There are two obvious ones. The first is to make loser pay in any lawsuit. That should cut down on junk lawsuits. The second is to set caps on lawsuits. That one sounds good in theory but by doing so, you place limits on lives. Caps on lawsuits also means caps on damages in cases of signficant malicious medical malpractice. Would you want to limit the damage if a doctor operated on a patient drunk for instance?
Beyond those two, I hear very few tort reform ideas. Palin offers very few ideas besides her own state's cap on lawsuits. I would ask the former Governor if she thinks that we should set a cap on damages if a doctor operated drunk. I believe tort reform is vital but there needs to be serious analysis and a sophisticated program of specific tort reforms. The governor identified the problem here but did little to identify specific solutions.
As for Palin, it's now clear she is going to continue to contribute to the health care debate. She appears to want to use Facebook. Contributing substantively to the national debate of the day is the best way for Palin to make her presence felt on the national stage and that's exactly what she's doing.
So what can we do? First, we cannot have health care reform without tort reform. The two are intertwined. For example, one supposed justification for socialized medicine is the high cost of health care. As Dr. Scott Gottlieb recently noted, “If Mr. Obama is serious about lowering costs, he'll need to reform the economic structures in medicine—especially programs like Medicare.” [1] Two examples of these “economic structures” are high malpractice insurance premiums foisted on physicians (and ultimately passed on to consumers as “high health care costs”) and the billions wasted on defensive medicine.What Palin is saying here is so obvious it's almost silly to say. It would be silly of course if Obama's plan included tort reform. It doesn't and that's one of a plethora of problems of Obama's health care reform effort.
The problems with our litigious society and it's effects on health care are obvious. Doctors spend tens of thousands yearly for malpractice insurance. They order batteries of tests on each and every patient simply to avoid potential lawsuits. All of this costs money. It causes doctors to practice medicine cautiously and it clogs the system with lawsuits.
The answers aren't as simple. Everyone says we need "tort reform". Well tort reform is a concept. It's not as though there is a "tort reform" bill ready and able. There are specific reforms that need to be implemented that would discourage frivilous lawsuits, discourage irrelevant tests, and stop doctors from practicing defensive medicine.
Many pundits that want to feel smart say that we need "tort reform". That's fine but very few of them have specific tort reforms. There are two obvious ones. The first is to make loser pay in any lawsuit. That should cut down on junk lawsuits. The second is to set caps on lawsuits. That one sounds good in theory but by doing so, you place limits on lives. Caps on lawsuits also means caps on damages in cases of signficant malicious medical malpractice. Would you want to limit the damage if a doctor operated on a patient drunk for instance?
Beyond those two, I hear very few tort reform ideas. Palin offers very few ideas besides her own state's cap on lawsuits. I would ask the former Governor if she thinks that we should set a cap on damages if a doctor operated drunk. I believe tort reform is vital but there needs to be serious analysis and a sophisticated program of specific tort reforms. The governor identified the problem here but did little to identify specific solutions.
As for Palin, it's now clear she is going to continue to contribute to the health care debate. She appears to want to use Facebook. Contributing substantively to the national debate of the day is the best way for Palin to make her presence felt on the national stage and that's exactly what she's doing.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Palin Responds
On Tuesday, I said that if Governor Palin wanted to be taken seriously she needed to do more than merely offer some drive by criticism of the President's health care bill. She has begun to do that with another Facebook note. This one is also rather wonky and that's also what I said she needed to do.
In this note, Palin does a fair job of analyzing pages 425-430. Those are the now very controversial pages that deal with "Advanced Care Planning Consultations". The president, and his supporters, proclaim that all of this is voluntary. I have my doubts. Here's how Palin frames the argument.
I have pointed that one of the most corrosive effects of this bill is the ambiguous language. Palin appears to agree with my assessment. On the one hand, all of this is "voluntary" and yet, Medicaid is authorized to have a practioner conduct an "advanced care planning consultation" every five years. That's not, as Governor Palin suggests, entirely voluntary. Palin continues.
Therein lies the rub, as Shakespeare would say. This bill is supposed to "bend the cost curve". Yet, 80% of all costs come in the last year of one's life. That's the point that Palin is making. What are these "voluntary" consultations doing in a bill that is supposed to be all about "bending the cost curve"?
Palin then goes onto cite a column by liberal columnist Eugene Robinson, who also had all sorts of qualms about this provision.
Then, Palin again references Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, who has become a sort of boogeyman of the Conservative movement in the health care debate.
In Palin's view, all of this shows that this health care reform is nothing more than a bureaucratic take over of the health care system which will invariably lead to rationing. I would also add that with in the bill, there is the creation of a new bureaucracy, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, with the power to regulate just about anything within health care. On page 335, there is something called the "outcomes based measures" which will measure the cost effectiveness of every procedure done in medicine. Of course, it isn't very cost effective to give an 88 year old with little time left a hip replacement and so this bill would give a new bureaucracy the power to eliminate such a procedure.
The president can hide from this all he wants but he can't hide from the facts. He's the one that said that most of this will be paid for by cutting medical costs in Medicare. We have baby boomers turning 65 in the millions. You can't cut costs to a growing part of the population without rationing care. That's what this plan will do and all the authority to do it is right there in the 1000 plus pages.
As for Governor Palin, she has taken an important step in the health care debate, however it must be the beginning for her not the end. This was a well thought out rebuttal that used specific portions of the bill as evidence. That's the sort of wonky analysis that her detractors claimed she wasn't capable of. Clearly, she is, but if she really wants to be taken seriously she must do more. She has inserted herself into this debate and it still must be all the way. If she is to be taken seriously in this debate, and on all debates, she must make such analysis a regular occurrence.
Politico also has coverage of Palin's statement.
If Palin wants to be taken seriously, she must add more than vague provocative statements like "death panel". Palin must explain what she means. Her Facebook
statement is four paragraphs. If she wants to be taken seriously, she must add more than four paragraphs. She must explain how and why rationing will lead to the "death panel". She must explain how and why the old and the weak will be the first to go in such a case. If Palin wants to help promote conservative principles her moment has arrived.
In this note, Palin does a fair job of analyzing pages 425-430. Those are the now very controversial pages that deal with "Advanced Care Planning Consultations". The president, and his supporters, proclaim that all of this is voluntary. I have my doubts. Here's how Palin frames the argument.
The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.
Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]
I have pointed that one of the most corrosive effects of this bill is the ambiguous language. Palin appears to agree with my assessment. On the one hand, all of this is "voluntary" and yet, Medicaid is authorized to have a practioner conduct an "advanced care planning consultation" every five years. That's not, as Governor Palin suggests, entirely voluntary. Palin continues.
Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about alleviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]
Therein lies the rub, as Shakespeare would say. This bill is supposed to "bend the cost curve". Yet, 80% of all costs come in the last year of one's life. That's the point that Palin is making. What are these "voluntary" consultations doing in a bill that is supposed to be all about "bending the cost curve"?
Palin then goes onto cite a column by liberal columnist Eugene Robinson, who also had all sorts of qualms about this provision.
That's the reason people are so frightened and enraged about the proposed measure that would allow Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling. If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending. It's irresponsible for politicians, such as Sarah Palin, to claim -- outlandishly and falsely -- that there's going to be some kind of "death panel" to decide when to pull the plug on Aunt Sylvia. But it's understandable why people might associate the phrase "health-care reform" with limiting their choices during Aunt Sylvia's final days.
Then, Palin again references Dr. Ezekial Emanuel, who has become a sort of boogeyman of the Conservative movement in the health care debate.
who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”
In Palin's view, all of this shows that this health care reform is nothing more than a bureaucratic take over of the health care system which will invariably lead to rationing. I would also add that with in the bill, there is the creation of a new bureaucracy, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, with the power to regulate just about anything within health care. On page 335, there is something called the "outcomes based measures" which will measure the cost effectiveness of every procedure done in medicine. Of course, it isn't very cost effective to give an 88 year old with little time left a hip replacement and so this bill would give a new bureaucracy the power to eliminate such a procedure.
The president can hide from this all he wants but he can't hide from the facts. He's the one that said that most of this will be paid for by cutting medical costs in Medicare. We have baby boomers turning 65 in the millions. You can't cut costs to a growing part of the population without rationing care. That's what this plan will do and all the authority to do it is right there in the 1000 plus pages.
As for Governor Palin, she has taken an important step in the health care debate, however it must be the beginning for her not the end. This was a well thought out rebuttal that used specific portions of the bill as evidence. That's the sort of wonky analysis that her detractors claimed she wasn't capable of. Clearly, she is, but if she really wants to be taken seriously she must do more. She has inserted herself into this debate and it still must be all the way. If she is to be taken seriously in this debate, and on all debates, she must make such analysis a regular occurrence.
Politico also has coverage of Palin's statement.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Palin's Moment
Sarah Palin has officially thrust herself into the debate on health care reform. This after noon, in the context of countering what he considers misconceptions of the health care bill, President Obama proclaimed, without mentioning Palin by name, a falsehood the idea of a "death panel". The president even proclaimed that "advanced care planning consultation", which he maintains is where the source of the confusion is, was first proposed by REPUBLICAN Senator Johnny Isakson. That reference caused Isakson to say this.
Ever since Governor Palin issued a statement on Facebook, it has been the source of controversy. She has inserted herself into the debate and now it's time for her to make herself a player in this debate. There is nothing I hate worse than drive by criticism. In that, it is someone that makes a nasty criticism and then says nothing else. So far, that's all that Palin has said about the health care reform debate.
If Palin wants to be a player on the national scene, she has the perfect platform now to make an appearance. Folks like Bill Kristol said, when she announced she would resign, that she could travel the country fighting for conservative principles. This health care proposal is an affront to conservatism.
So, Sarah Palin has the perfect platform to make her first appearance on the national scene as a private citizen that defends conservative principles. If all she does is issue this provocative statement and says nothing more on the issue, then frankly she is not ready for primetime. If, on the other hand, she wants to be a player on the national scene, this statement must be the beginning of something. She could do an op ed, an interview, or even a speech. Now that she has thrust herself into the health care debate, she must go all the way into the debate.
If Palin wants to be taken seriously, she must add more than vague provocative statements like "death panel". Palin must explain what she means. Her Facebook statement is four paragraphs. If she wants to be taken seriously, she must add more than four paragraphs. She must explain how and why rationing will lead to the "death panel". She must explain how and why the old and the weak will be the first to go in such a case. If Palin wants to help promote conservative principles her moment has arrived.
The White House and others are merely attempting to deflect attention from the intense negativity caused by their unpopular policies. I never consulted with the White House in this process and had no role whatsoever in the House Democrats’ bill. I categorically oppose the House bill and find it incredulous that the White House and others would use my amendment as a scapegoat for their misguided policies. My Senate amendment simply puts health care choices back in the hands of the individual and allows them to consider if they so choose a living will or durable power of attorney. The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion, and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice.
Ever since Governor Palin issued a statement on Facebook, it has been the source of controversy. She has inserted herself into the debate and now it's time for her to make herself a player in this debate. There is nothing I hate worse than drive by criticism. In that, it is someone that makes a nasty criticism and then says nothing else. So far, that's all that Palin has said about the health care reform debate.
If Palin wants to be a player on the national scene, she has the perfect platform now to make an appearance. Folks like Bill Kristol said, when she announced she would resign, that she could travel the country fighting for conservative principles. This health care proposal is an affront to conservatism.
So, Sarah Palin has the perfect platform to make her first appearance on the national scene as a private citizen that defends conservative principles. If all she does is issue this provocative statement and says nothing more on the issue, then frankly she is not ready for primetime. If, on the other hand, she wants to be a player on the national scene, this statement must be the beginning of something. She could do an op ed, an interview, or even a speech. Now that she has thrust herself into the health care debate, she must go all the way into the debate.
If Palin wants to be taken seriously, she must add more than vague provocative statements like "death panel". Palin must explain what she means. Her Facebook statement is four paragraphs. If she wants to be taken seriously, she must add more than four paragraphs. She must explain how and why rationing will lead to the "death panel". She must explain how and why the old and the weak will be the first to go in such a case. If Palin wants to help promote conservative principles her moment has arrived.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Deconstructing Palin's Health Care Statement
Former Governor Palin weighed into the health care debate with a controversial Facebook statement. Here's the part that's causing the most controversy.
Now, she's taken criticism from all quarters. Jake Tapper wrote a blistering attack of this statement.
Charles Johnson, of LGF, also criticized Palin. Now, Palin's statement was far too provocative. There's of course no death panel that will decide who lives and who dies. The language she used went from proper criticism to fear mongering. She should have phrased her comments in a much more statesperson like manner. That said, those that criticize Palin on the merits of the statement simply haven't read the bill carefully.
There is no question that this bill will create rationing, and there's no question that eventually care will be cut from those that are deemed "unproductive" like her son. In fact, those that criticize misconstrue her reference to page 425 which either mandates or makes optional planning for death. In fact, pages 425-430 do a lot more than merely suggest "advanced care planning". In fact, it's much more complicated than that. The rationing starts on pages 27-30 where "essential benefits" are discussed. A new bureaucracy, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, will be created to decide what insurance and procedures are deemed "necessary". On page 335, there is a section on "Outcomes Based Measures" which will have the same Health Benefits Advisory Committee do a cost benefit analysis of which procedures are cost effective. As such, if a procedure is deemed "unnecessary" and "not cost effective", it will be regulated out of existence. If you happen to need that procedure to live, get in front of the "death panel" and beg.
Then, within pages 425-430, there is language regulating the type of care that those near death will get. Combine that with "Outcomes Based Measures" and "essential benefits" and suddenly 80 year olds won't get a hip replacement. If you only have a month to live anyway, your care will be minimum.
This bill will also regulate pay and make it independent of specialty. This will drive doctors out of the business. (page 241) So, with 50 million more patients, less doctors, and the tools necessary to ration, that's exactly what the government will do. Furthermore, Palin correctly points out that one of the advisors to President Obama is Dr. Ezekial Emanuel (brother of the Chief of Staff) Dr. Emanuel has famously said this.
Now, if the White House creates a system with not enough medical professionals to cover all the new patients, mechanisms to ration care, and has advising it someone that has openly stated that the "unproductive" need to have their care cut off, how else should Sarah Palin read this but that her son won't get care.
If you want to criticize Sarah Palin for her provocative language, scare tactics, and lack of statesmanship, I would agree. That said, on substance, Sarah Palin is absolutely correct.
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course.
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Now, she's taken criticism from all quarters. Jake Tapper wrote a blistering attack of this statement.
One can question whether there will by necessity be any rationing decisions that will need to come as a part of health care reform (and, in fact, we have) but pictures of government bureaucrats forcing euthanasia upon seniors -- and, now, children with Down syndrome -- because they're not productive members of society are not part of any reasonable debate on the facts of the matter. (And frankly, I agreed with
Palin previously, when she was asking members of the media to keep her children
out of any public debate.)
Asked specifically what the former governor was referring to when painting a picture of an Obama "death panel" giving her parents or son Trig a thumbs up or down based on their productivity, Palin spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton responded in an email: "From HR3200 p. 425 see 'Advance Care Planning Consultation'."
Charles Johnson, of LGF, also criticized Palin. Now, Palin's statement was far too provocative. There's of course no death panel that will decide who lives and who dies. The language she used went from proper criticism to fear mongering. She should have phrased her comments in a much more statesperson like manner. That said, those that criticize Palin on the merits of the statement simply haven't read the bill carefully.
There is no question that this bill will create rationing, and there's no question that eventually care will be cut from those that are deemed "unproductive" like her son. In fact, those that criticize misconstrue her reference to page 425 which either mandates or makes optional planning for death. In fact, pages 425-430 do a lot more than merely suggest "advanced care planning". In fact, it's much more complicated than that. The rationing starts on pages 27-30 where "essential benefits" are discussed. A new bureaucracy, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, will be created to decide what insurance and procedures are deemed "necessary". On page 335, there is a section on "Outcomes Based Measures" which will have the same Health Benefits Advisory Committee do a cost benefit analysis of which procedures are cost effective. As such, if a procedure is deemed "unnecessary" and "not cost effective", it will be regulated out of existence. If you happen to need that procedure to live, get in front of the "death panel" and beg.
Then, within pages 425-430, there is language regulating the type of care that those near death will get. Combine that with "Outcomes Based Measures" and "essential benefits" and suddenly 80 year olds won't get a hip replacement. If you only have a month to live anyway, your care will be minimum.
This bill will also regulate pay and make it independent of specialty. This will drive doctors out of the business. (page 241) So, with 50 million more patients, less doctors, and the tools necessary to ration, that's exactly what the government will do. Furthermore, Palin correctly points out that one of the advisors to President Obama is Dr. Ezekial Emanuel (brother of the Chief of Staff) Dr. Emanuel has famously said this.
Health services should not be guaranteed to] individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia
Now, if the White House creates a system with not enough medical professionals to cover all the new patients, mechanisms to ration care, and has advising it someone that has openly stated that the "unproductive" need to have their care cut off, how else should Sarah Palin read this but that her son won't get care.
If you want to criticize Sarah Palin for her provocative language, scare tactics, and lack of statesmanship, I would agree. That said, on substance, Sarah Palin is absolutely correct.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Sarah Palin: Tomorrow is the First Day of the Rest of Your Life
Sarah Palin has only hours left as a public official, and starting tomorrow she will merely be a private citizen. Her political opponents will never admit but Governor Palin has travelled a remarkable and unique journey. Furthermore, her future, political and otherwise, is entirely open and she can do just about anything that she wants to do moving forward.
In fact, starting Monday July 27th, it's going to be very good to be Sarah Palin. Her immediate plans appear to be writing a book, making speeches, and campaigning for candidates that she feels represent the political philosophy and values that she finds important. Compared to the brutal avalanche of media scrutiny and endless stream of ethics investigations, all these activities would define a cushy job.
As for Palin's future, she has the opportunity to do just about anything that she wants to do. It's possible she'll retire quietly to Wasilla and simply spend time with her family. It's also possible that one day she'll run for President. Liberals will mock this idea, but Sarah Palin has defied odds most of her life. She won a state championship on a bad ankle. She became a major almost by accident. She was forced into blowing the whistle on corruption within her own party and then she beat a long term incumbent to become Governor of Alaska.
The idea that she can't be president is held only by those that fail to recognize all that she has already accomplished. They are the folks that dismiss everything she is and has done as merely being in ALASKA. To them, good governance in ALASKA is simple and so Governor Palin really hasn't done anything. Those folks won't end their obsession with mocking and demeaning her just because she is no longer a public official. Most of those folks also have resumes significantly less impressive than the Governor's.
Still, I suspect that moving from Governor Palin to private citizen Sarah Palin will be a relief and a welcomed tamp down in stress. I also predict that no matter what she does moving forward the future is very bright for Sarah Palin.
In fact, starting Monday July 27th, it's going to be very good to be Sarah Palin. Her immediate plans appear to be writing a book, making speeches, and campaigning for candidates that she feels represent the political philosophy and values that she finds important. Compared to the brutal avalanche of media scrutiny and endless stream of ethics investigations, all these activities would define a cushy job.
As for Palin's future, she has the opportunity to do just about anything that she wants to do. It's possible she'll retire quietly to Wasilla and simply spend time with her family. It's also possible that one day she'll run for President. Liberals will mock this idea, but Sarah Palin has defied odds most of her life. She won a state championship on a bad ankle. She became a major almost by accident. She was forced into blowing the whistle on corruption within her own party and then she beat a long term incumbent to become Governor of Alaska.
The idea that she can't be president is held only by those that fail to recognize all that she has already accomplished. They are the folks that dismiss everything she is and has done as merely being in ALASKA. To them, good governance in ALASKA is simple and so Governor Palin really hasn't done anything. Those folks won't end their obsession with mocking and demeaning her just because she is no longer a public official. Most of those folks also have resumes significantly less impressive than the Governor's.
Still, I suspect that moving from Governor Palin to private citizen Sarah Palin will be a relief and a welcomed tamp down in stress. I also predict that no matter what she does moving forward the future is very bright for Sarah Palin.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Sarah Palin and The Republican's Political Civil War
Sarah Palin has again found herself in an ideological battle that she never had any intention of finding herself in the middle of. During the campaign, her candidacy became a flash point for the culture wars. Her political future has now become a flash point for a political civil war within the Republican party. That political civil war is between so called elitists like Peggy Noonan and Charles Krauthammer on one side and the regular base of voters on the other side.
There were always some within the Republican party that were always uncomfortable with Palin. These folks agree to some extent with the caricature of Palin created by her opponents. Intellectuals like Noonan see Palin as unprepared, unintellectual, and bad for the party and America.
The other side mostly includes regular citizens that have fallen in love with Palin.
When you have two extremes, both are more wrong than right. Palin is NOT infallable. She bombed on two interviews and her announcement in resigning the governorship was a rambling and incomprehensible monologue. On the other hand, she is a lot more accomplished, savvy, and intelligent than any of her critics realize. Her critics also put an awful lot of stock in interviews and a speech.
Much like most political civil wars, this one has a pre determined outcome. The Republican party can't make it without its base. Its base loves Palin. Charles Krauthammer is brilliant and he makes a lot of money simply to give his opinion. That said he only gets one vote, and his opinion on this matter will not be followed by the masses. The conservative masses WILL follow Palin.
Folks like Krauthammer and Noonan want someone polished, intelligent, and with inside the beltway savvy. In fact, what they consider intelligence and savvy is their own interpretation of it. Regular voters of the conservative variety aren't bothered by her folksy style. They don't think that her term as Governor and Mayor offer little in the way of experience and accomplishment.
The main reason that she has now been mentioned for a potential third party run has everything to do with this split. The regular voters outside the beltway feel as though the so called insiders have lost touch with their beliefs. Over the last eight years, the Republican party has moved toward big government and incompetence. The voters outside the beltway wanted small fiscally conservative government. They see Palin as the individual that will lead them away from the inside the beltway attitude that caused the Republicans to lose their way. In that respect, the sort of criticism she has received after resigning from Governor has only hardened their belief that she's the one.
The folks outside the beltway view these so called conservative intellectuals as indicative of the sort of inside the beltway thinking that lead to massive government expansion and incompetent governance that occurred over the last eight years. Regular voters point out that it was these very elitists that were in charge for eight years.
One of the most appealing things about Palin is that she has always practiced what she preached. She governed as a fiscal conservative, corruption fighter. Obviously, she lived her life as a pro life individual. I don't know what the future holds for Sarah Palin. I don't even know if she wants a political future, but I do know that all her opponents, conservative intellectuals included, would be wise not to underestimate her.
She has, whether by chance or design, carved out a very powerful nitch as a conservative populist. Her message of smaller government, lower taxes, freedom and liberty can and will resonate with major portions of the populations. More beautifully from her perspective, most of the criticism continues to come strictly from those parts of the political spectrum that Palin can effectively point out have contributed to higher taxes, more government, less freedom and liberty.
There is a political civil war that Palin is in the middle of, unwittingly, but one thing I know is that in this political civil war, Sarah Palin will be a winner.
There were always some within the Republican party that were always uncomfortable with Palin. These folks agree to some extent with the caricature of Palin created by her opponents. Intellectuals like Noonan see Palin as unprepared, unintellectual, and bad for the party and America.
Sarah Palin's resignation gives Republicans a new opportunity to see her plain—to review the bidding, see her strengths, acknowledge her limits, and let go of her drama. It is an opportunity they should take. They mean to rebuild a great party. They need to do it on solid ground.
Her history does not need to be rehearsed at any length. Ten months ago she was embraced with friendliness by her party. The left and the media immediately overplayed their hand, with attacks on her children. The party rallied round, as a party should. She went on the trail a sensation but demonstrated in the ensuing months that she was not ready to go national and in fact never would be. She was hungry, loved politics, had charm and energy, loved walking onto the stage, waving and doing the stump speech. All good. But she was not thoughtful. She was a gifted retail politician who displayed the disadvantages of being born into a point of view (in her case a form of conservatism; elsewhere and in other circumstances, it could have been a form of liberalism) and swallowing it whole: She never learned how the other sides think, or why.
The other side mostly includes regular citizens that have fallen in love with Palin.
Supporting other conservative candidates and taking on the policies of the Obama administration. That didn't quite sound like Nixon 1962. More like Reagan 1976 perhaps. But surely she couldn't seriously be considering stepping down as a move toward stepping up? Sure, the polls suggested that her decision had, if anything, made her more popular among the party's base (and the wider electorate). But Republican consultants said she could forget about the 2012 nomination, and aren't they supposed to be the experts? If she even wants to run as a GOP candidate, that is. Because what is all this talk about supporting conservatives of any party or no party at all? Is she going rogue again? Is she planning a third party run?
And while they were still pondering these 'will she/won't she', 'Third Party/GOP' questions, out of right field came yet another bombshell, namely an op-ed in Obama's own Washington Post in which she launched a full frontal assault on his position on cap and trade - or 'cap and tax', as she called it. It's left the Democrats - and their (many) friends in the media - in a state of confusion similar to the one they were in immediately after her introduction as vicepresidential candidate on August 29th. They're throwing everything at her in a desperate attempt to find a line of attack that will work:
When you have two extremes, both are more wrong than right. Palin is NOT infallable. She bombed on two interviews and her announcement in resigning the governorship was a rambling and incomprehensible monologue. On the other hand, she is a lot more accomplished, savvy, and intelligent than any of her critics realize. Her critics also put an awful lot of stock in interviews and a speech.
Much like most political civil wars, this one has a pre determined outcome. The Republican party can't make it without its base. Its base loves Palin. Charles Krauthammer is brilliant and he makes a lot of money simply to give his opinion. That said he only gets one vote, and his opinion on this matter will not be followed by the masses. The conservative masses WILL follow Palin.
Folks like Krauthammer and Noonan want someone polished, intelligent, and with inside the beltway savvy. In fact, what they consider intelligence and savvy is their own interpretation of it. Regular voters of the conservative variety aren't bothered by her folksy style. They don't think that her term as Governor and Mayor offer little in the way of experience and accomplishment.
The main reason that she has now been mentioned for a potential third party run has everything to do with this split. The regular voters outside the beltway feel as though the so called insiders have lost touch with their beliefs. Over the last eight years, the Republican party has moved toward big government and incompetence. The voters outside the beltway wanted small fiscally conservative government. They see Palin as the individual that will lead them away from the inside the beltway attitude that caused the Republicans to lose their way. In that respect, the sort of criticism she has received after resigning from Governor has only hardened their belief that she's the one.
The folks outside the beltway view these so called conservative intellectuals as indicative of the sort of inside the beltway thinking that lead to massive government expansion and incompetent governance that occurred over the last eight years. Regular voters point out that it was these very elitists that were in charge for eight years.
One of the most appealing things about Palin is that she has always practiced what she preached. She governed as a fiscal conservative, corruption fighter. Obviously, she lived her life as a pro life individual. I don't know what the future holds for Sarah Palin. I don't even know if she wants a political future, but I do know that all her opponents, conservative intellectuals included, would be wise not to underestimate her.
She has, whether by chance or design, carved out a very powerful nitch as a conservative populist. Her message of smaller government, lower taxes, freedom and liberty can and will resonate with major portions of the populations. More beautifully from her perspective, most of the criticism continues to come strictly from those parts of the political spectrum that Palin can effectively point out have contributed to higher taxes, more government, less freedom and liberty.
There is a political civil war that Palin is in the middle of, unwittingly, but one thing I know is that in this political civil war, Sarah Palin will be a winner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
