The American Spectator

Beyond the Palin

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.4.09 @ 2:15PM

My take on Sarah Palin's latest move is up at the Guardian. I focus more on what she might be trying to do than what the likely result will be.

I interviewed Palin's successor, Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, for TAS during his unsuccessful primary challenge to Congressman Don Young in 2008.

10 Comments | Add a Comment

Back to Basics for the Republican Party

Posted by Matthew Vadum on 7.4.09 @ 9:00AM

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. -Ronald Reagan

                                                   * * * * *

On this Independence Day, with the national Republican Party at its lowest ebb in decades, Michael Zak reminds us that it was not always this way.

Zak is author of the under-appreciated book Back to Basics for the Republican Party. He says Republicans need to remember the party's proud legacy.

The theme of his book and the speeches he has delivered in 30 states to date is that Republicans would benefit from appreciating the heritage of their Grand Old Party.

"As you know, Democrats control most of the media, but they also write most of the history books, thereby controlling what even Republican activists think they know about our party's glorious heritage," he writes.

Zak notes that when it comes to civil rights, Republicans have consistently been on the right side of history. The GOP has long fought against Democrats who favored slavery, backed Jim Crow laws, and fought tooth-and-nail against the enactment of civil rights legislation.

His book was even cited in a Supreme Court case. Justice Clarence Thomas referenced Zak's work in his dissent in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee.

Zak maintains a website for the book, www.republicanbasics.com, and blogs at Grand Old Partisan.

19 Comments | Add a Comment

Why Health Care is so Hard to "Fix"

Posted by Doug Bandow on 7.4.09 @ 5:02AM

The basic problem is that health care is a complex human system, not a set of mechanical boxes which can be moved around or replaced without affecting anything else. 

John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis made this point well:

Why is Washington having so much trouble reforming health care?

Why, if they do pass a major overhaul, are the problems of cost, quality and access almost certain to get worse?

Answer: Because they don't understand health care. By that I mean, almost no one in Congress understands health care as a complex system. When they campaign, most politicians claim that health care problems could be solved with a few simple reforms. Now that it's time to legislate, they are discovering that health care is very, very complicated. In fact, there is no solution that even comes close to being simple or easy.

As Nobel Laureate Frederick Hayek taught us, a complex system is a structure that is so complicated, that no one person can even begin to grasp it in its entirety. The best each of us can hope for is to master the small part of it we interact with.

Washington policymakers should take note.  But almost by definition Washington policymakers don't believe in reality, so I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Limited-Government Conservatism Is Sexy

Posted by Matthew Vadum on 7.3.09 @ 8:49PM

Upon being asked to comment on the extramarital adventures of South Carolina's Republican governor Mark Sanford, tax fighter Grover Norquist was blunt:

"I disagree with the idea that this shows problems for the modern Republican Party," said Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, a group that applauded Mr. Sanford's attempt to refuse some federal stimulus funds earlier this year. In reference to the fiscally conservative philosophies of Mr. Ensign and Mr. Sanford, he joked, "I think instead it shows that sexual attractiveness of limited-government conservatism."

4 Comments | Add a Comment

Somewhere, Somebody Is Crying in Anchorage

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.3.09 @ 7:43PM

Or Juneau. Perhaps Sarah Palin's resignation will be sufficient to get Mark Sanford out of the headlines. Let us hope they are not soulmates in the GOP's terminal decline.

6 Comments | Add a Comment

What Happened to Sarah Barracuda?

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.3.09 @ 6:25PM

Karol at Alarming News believes Palin's political career is over, and writes, "What (Palin) had, more than anything else, was a toughness and a dedication to her position. She blew all that with her announcement today."

This is exactly right. It may not be fair, but to succeed, a female politician has to come off 10 times tougher than any man -- "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher being the most obvious example. One of the things that Palin had going for her was that she was, as Cindy McCain described her during the Republican National Convention, a "hockey-mommin' ... basketball shootin' ... moose huntin' ... fly-fishin' ... pistol-packing ... mother of five." She had been nicknamed "Sarah Barracuda," and took on the "good ole' boys" who controlled Alaska politics.

However, to all but her most loyal supporters, today's bizarre press conference made her look brittle -- like a person who couldn't take the heat and was buckling in the face of attacks. Today's move is perfectly understandable if she wants to give up politics and protect her family from the blistering assaults of the media and her political oppenents. Maybe this news -- odd within the political realm -- actually makes her a pretty normal person by real world standards. But normal people do not get elected president.

43 Comments | Add a Comment

Palin's Dereliction of Duty

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.3.09 @ 4:35PM

Knowing that many, many conservatives will absolutely dump on me for saying this, I can't help myself: Sarah Palin's resignation is an appalling dereliction of duty and a highly cynical move to set herself up for a presidental run for which she is manifestly unqualified.

I have written the same thing about other politicians who resigned their offices mid-term without any scandal or family crisis necessitating it: It is an absolute dereliction of duty to quit mid-term. When you run for office, you are making a promise to your constituents to serve out your term (unless you get elected to higher office or have one of the aforementioned compelling reasons not to do so). To do otherwise is, in effect, to break your word. It is a sign of a lack of integrity.

Now, I also have argued that being governor of Alaska is one of the easiest jobs in politics because Alaska is rolling in money and because its population is so low -- and also because it receives so much outrageous federal pork. I have therefore argued that Sarah Palin was not yet qualified for the presidency. Two years as governor of such a state, with very little other relevant experience beforehand, does not amount to qualification for the presidency. It has nothing to do with Ms. Palin, but everything to do with the nature of the respective jobs.

I have argued, also, that Bobby Jindal is not yet ready to be president, but getting closer. Why? Because almost anybody can get elected as a reformer under the right circumstances; the real test comes when the bad-ol'-boys have time to regroup, re-strategize, and make their counter-attack. If somebody not only gets elected as a reformer and does a few reformist things at the beginning of one's term, but THEN maintains enough political strength AND integrity to fight off the counterattack and remain a reformer four, five or six years into the office at hand -- THAT is when the person starts becoming a statesman. Just as a congressman isn't a legitimate conservative or reformer until AFTER he has been in office for at least six or eight years and still has NOT been Beltwayed, so too is a governor not a fully legitimate reformer and conservative until having remained one for a full cycle or more.

What Sarah Palin did today was get out before the real challenges of the job (whatever challenges there are for such an easy job) really rear their heads. The going got tough in terms of spurious ethics charges against her, and she took off. That's cowardly. That's not a sign of staying power. It's a sign of wanting to get out while the getting is good, in order to become a full-time candidate for a presidential race that won't culminate for 3 1/2 more years. It's a little too calculating, by half -- or more.

I just listened to her speech announcing her decision, and found it singularly unimpressive. "This was a rambling, bombastic, self-centered, 'poor me' kind of speech." That's how Mike Carey of the Anchorage Daily News just described her speech on Fox News. I agree. He then said it was, darn, I already can't remember if he said it was "pitiful" or "pathetic," but it was some word like that. Again, I agree. It was a speech in which she clearly made a bid for a national audience -- not a very effective bid, but a transparent one -- but didn't adequately explain to the people of Alaska why she was relinquishing her duty.

Again, I repeat: I have written the same criticisms of other candidates who left office early. If I remember rightly, I did so even at the report that U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam was doing so -- an erroneous report that I read on the 'Net -- before it became clear that Putnam was just announcing that he would not run again, not that he would actually leave mid-term.

The point is that the criticism here is not Palin-specific; it is a consistent theme of mine. Then again, I am rather old-fashioned, and have some old-fashioned notions of public service. I view a campaign as a commitment to serve. That commitment has now been broken by Sarah Palin.

Statesmen hang tough. Sarah Palin is cutting and running. 'Nuff said.

137 Comments | Add a Comment

Palin to Resign

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.3.09 @ 4:05PM

In another stunning bit of political news, Sarah Palin announced today that she would resign as governor at the end of the month. We'll obviously learn more in the coming days and weeks about what prompted this move, but I don't see how anybody can argue that this bodes well for her presidential ambitions. At the end of last year's campaign, the general view was that for her to reemerge as a serious presidential candidate, she would have to go back to Alaska, read up on issues, and build up a record of governing accomplishments. It simply makes no sense that she would resign from office after less than 3 years if she were serious about seeking the presidency in 2012. First Huntsman, then Ensign, then Sanford, and now Palin -- the 2012 GOP field keeps on getting thiner and thiner. Will anybody be there to stand in Mitt Romney's way?

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Palin Quitting?

Posted by Doug Bandow on 7.3.09 @ 3:47PM

It is being reporting that Sarah Palin plans on resigning.  According to a CBS station:

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has announced she's resigning from her job and plans to step down by the end of the month, CBS News affiliate KTVA is reporting.

Gov. Palin, who ran for the White House vice president seat on a Republican ticket with presidential nominee John McCain, made the announcement in a press conference Friday.

Palin said she will transfer power to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell. Parnell will be sworn in during an event on July 25th.

Palin did not answer questions from the press, KTVA reports.

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Hillary Clinton: "Never Waste a Good Crisis"

Posted by Matthew Vadum on 7.3.09 @ 12:08PM

Somehow I missed this in March.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a longtime admirer of community organizing guru Saul Alinsky, visited the European Parliament in Brussels on March 6, 2009. She told the assembled Eurocrats:

I'm actually excited by this opportunity. I'm very well aware that we are not yet through this economic crisis but the chief of staff for President Obama is an old friend of mine and my husband's and was in the White House when Bill was there. And he said, you know, never waste a good crisis, and when it comes to the economic crisis don't waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security. And that's what we're trying to do.

This makes it even more clear that the Obama administration's highest priority is the radical transformation of American society. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's statement after Election Day ("Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.") wasn't just an offhanded remark. 

The economic crisis is simply an excuse to transmogrify American into a sclerotic European-style socialist state. The economically suicidal cap-and-trade legislation, which would have the effect of a huge national energy tax, is a primary vehicle to impose the left's vision of "social justice" on America.

Who knew the Obama administration was being so blatant about it? They're not even trying to hide it and the media, for the most part, isn't even bothering to ask questions.

Here is a video of Secretary Clinton's remarks in Brussels:

(Hat tip: Berit Kjos of Right Side News)

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Turkish Anti-Christian Conspiracies?

Posted by Doug Bandow on 7.3.09 @ 10:04AM

Turkey long has been allied with the U.S., seen as a bulwark against both the Soviet Union and radical Islam.  However, ties have been fraying in recent years for a number of reasons.  The Turkish public has turned hostile to Washington and Americans cannot even count on the friendship of secular nationalists.

Particularly disturbing is evidence tying the so-called "deep state," long viewed as a threat to democratic governance, especially by the moderately Islamic ruling party, to the 2007 murder of three Christians, a German and two Turkish converts.  The crime was grotesquely brutal and cruel, yet public officials have seemed almost as willing to criticize the victims as the murderers.  According to Christianity Today:

In April 2007, five young men tortured and killed two Turkish converts and a German Christian at a Christian publishing house in the southeastern city of Malatya. When the resulting trial began in January 2008, the court and the Turkish public regarded it as a straightforward case of overzealous nationalists killing missionaries, whose activity was widely regarded as a national threat.

But in recent months, lawyers have tied the case to a more serious national threat. Prosecutors have expanded their investigation beyond the five assailants to local officials. The murders are now seen as a plot by the "deep state" group Ergenekon, a cabal of generals, politicians, and other prominent figures accused of trying to overthrow the government. Ergenekon is already accused of plotting a national coup and killing several people, including a Catholic priest.

"From the very beginning, it was clear that some other people were involved with this, because in Turkey you cannot do something on this scale without being noticed by state agents," said Orhan Kemal Cengiz, the lead prosecuting attorney for the Malatya case. He invited lawyers from across Turkey working on Ergenekon-linked murder cases to form "a common eye" on the Malatya murders.

Turkish politics long has had a vicious authoritarian edge.  Be careful what you say about the military and don't ever think about criticizing Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey.  But aiding and abetting murder?  If the allegations are true, it turns out there isn't a lot of moral difference between Islamic radicals and nationalist secularist radicals in Turkey.

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Empathy for Merit-Based Promotion?

Posted by Doug Bandow on 7.3.09 @ 7:29AM

Latina Sonia Sotomayor may figure that ethnicity should determine judicial outcomes, but Ben Vargas, a plaintiff in the New Haven firefighters' case, thinks differently.  He is a Latino who believes that promotions should be based on merit, not race.  Shock!

Not surprisingly, his views have not gone over well with those who have created and benefited from today's racial spoils system.  But his career--and desire to be rewarded for his hard work and achievements--act as a powerful rebuke to Judge Sotomayor.

Amazingly, the New York Times includes a positive profile of Vargas today.  Reports the Times:

When the United States Supreme Court ruled this week in the firefighters' favor, Lieutenant Vargas, 40, the son of Puerto Rican parents, found himself celebrating amid an awkward racial dynamic: As the lone Hispanic among the 18 plaintiffs who had challenged an affirmative action policy, he had also challenged an appeals court decision joined by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court.

"She's from Puerto Rico, and I'm from Puerto Rico," he said. "She obviously feels differently than I do."

The Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision is expected to have repercussions on employment discrimination law that go well beyond fire departments, where minority groups have been woefully underrepresented, particularly in leadership positions. On the steps of the federal courthouse in New Haven on Monday, a lawyer for the firefighters, Karen Lee Torre, said they had "become a symbol for millions of Americans who have grown tired of seeing individual achievement and merit take a back seat to race and ethnicity."

For Lieutenant Vargas, the ruling will probably mean a long-awaited promotion to captain in a 350-member department that he has admired since childhood but that has been plagued for decades by racial tension and recriminations.

"I consider myself an American - I was born and raised here," he said in an interview on the porch of his home in the wooded suburb of Wallingford. "I love my people. I love my culture. I love our rice and beans, our salsa music, our language - everything my parents raised us with. But I am so grateful for the opportunity only the United States can give."

When Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor--assuming nothing happens to derail her approval by the Senate--dives into the cases before her, will her empathy reach someone like Vargas?  Someone who understands why opportunity, not race, should be what America is about? 

The Times profile concludes:

Gesturing toward his three young sons, Lieutenant Vargas explained why he had no regrets. "I want them to have a fair shake, to get a job on their merits and not because they're Hispanic or they fill a quota," he said. "What a lousy way to live."

2 Comments | Add a Comment

God Wants You to be Sick

Posted by Doug Bandow on 7.3.09 @ 6:02AM

Okay, that's not quite the way the religious Lefties put it when they rallied recently on behalf of socialized health care.  But that might as well be their message.

Reports Rebekah Sharpe for the Institute on Religion and Democracy:

Inspired by a meeting with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)'s office in early April, liberal religious leaders banded together into the "Believe Together: Health Care for All" advocacy network comprised of more than 40 faith groups who are "encouraging our nation's leaders to pass comprehensive and compassionate health care reform legislation this year." The central component of their advocacy was the June 24^th "Interfaith Service of Witness and Prayer for Health Care for All."

The healthcare coalition wants the federal government to socialize America's health care system.  President Obama and many congressional Democrats are advocating a new federal health insurance program that would compete with private insurance.  Critics allege this program ultimately would drive private insurance out of business.  Liberal church groups largely prefer a "single payer" plan that would eliminate private health insurance in favor of federal control.

Leaders at the June 24 rally/service emphasized that this was a critical time for people of faith to coordinate their efforts with Congress. Neera Tandan, a Senior Adviser in the Department of Health and Human Services, told the religious activists: "Your united voice is critical... We are, in the next two months, at the most critical time of trying to get [healthcare] legislation passed." Tandan encouraged, "Hopefully, we are months, not years away from the day we cover all Americans." 

An estimated 850 to 1100 Religious Left activists sat in the afternoon heat for two hours in Freedom Plaza in the nation's capital as leaders of their churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples prayed and spoke in favor of a socialized medical system that they insisted must be "inclusive, accessible, affordable, and accountable."

You'd think those purporting to represent the poor would advocate a system which expanded individual choice and people's access to medical care.  But while the religious Left says it wants "inclusive, accessible, affordable, and accountable" health care," that is the opposite of what would occur in a government-run system.

Look at nationalized systems around the world.  Accountable they most certainly are not.  Inclusive and accessible they are only in the sense that you are promised a long wait in a long line for services most Americans take for granted.  And the systems are affordable only by rationing care and denying the best life-saving treatments to most people, especially the elderly.

I'll admit that God hasn't yet told me what kind of health care system he wants America to have.  But I'm skeptical that he views socialized medicine as a means of inaugurating his kingdom on earth.  A better approach to affirm human life and dignity would seem to be to increase the choices available to patients, allowing them to make more decisions about their own treatment.

1 Comment | Add a Comment

Lawyer Responds to Rep. Jackson Lee's ACORN Questions

Posted by Matthew Vadum on 7.2.09 @ 11:45PM

Even I am getting tired of writing about ACORN today (honest!), but another story came over the transom.

Here we go:

I have learned that after testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on March 19, Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) Vice President Heather Heidelbaugh today responded to a request for additional information about ACORN from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), a member of the committee. (letter available here as PDF)

Heidelbaugh had testified at the hearing about ACORN's many misdeeds. At the time, committee chairman John Conyers (D-Michigan) said the allegations were "a pretty serious matter" and that an investigation was warranted. Heidelbaugh's testimony about ACORN was largely based on evidence provided by ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief in her testimony in a 2008 Pennsylvania lawsuit called Moyer v. Cortes. (331-page transcript available here as PDF)

Heidelbaugh had testified in Congress that the nonprofit group violated a host of tax, campaign finance, and other laws. She said the presidential campaign of Barack Obama sent ACORN its "maxed out donor list" and asked two of the avowedly nonpartisan group's employees "to reach out to the maxed out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN." The New York Times had the donor list story but editors there spiked it the month before the election, she said, repeating the assertion on "The O'Reilly Factor" two weeks later.

Here are the two questions posed by Lee and the short versions of the answers from Heidelbaugh (as provided in an RNLA press release available here):

Q. Do you think ACORN staff was simply untrained and that there was no systematic attempt by ACORN to engage in voter fraud?

A. Based on the evidence I have seen, my opinion is that the ACORN staff were not adequately trained to conduct proper voter registration drives. Further, I question whether the system of compensation in place for the staff obtaining voter registration cards both for the worker and for ACORN encouraged voter registration fraud. It is also my opinion based on the evidence that I have seen that it was not a simple matter of poor training. Lastly, it is my opinion based on the evidence I have seen from the King County Settlement Agreement, the testimony in the Pennsylvania case, and the news reports from other criminal investigations that ACORN as an organization has either willfully failed to properly train its workers or grossly negligently failed to train its workers. Further information is needed in order to determine which is closer to the actual scenario. In addition, since ACORN operated voter registration drives in so many states, each state or local operation may differ in its training efforts.

Q. Do the workers with ACORN get paid based upon how many registrations they complete?

A. There have been widespread allegations from former ACORN employees that ACORN does pay its employees on a per registration basis and has imposed a quota system upon its employees. These allegations have been raised in states including Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington. These allegations have been the basis of charges brought against ACORN representatives in the state of Nevada.

If you wish to read Heidelbaugh's complete answers to Rep. Lee, they are available here as a PDF. 

On May 4 Conyers mysteriously backed away from plans for a probe the same week a raft of new voter registration fraud charges were laid against ACORN and its ex-employees in Nevada and Pennsylvania. Last week Conyers cryptically remarked that he wasn't going to proceed with an investigation because "the powers that be decided against it." He refused to elaborate.

Incidentally, the chairman of the RNLA, David Norcross, was on the "Glenn Beck Program" last night talking about ACORN, the Secretary of State Project, and their role in electing Al Franken, the incoming second Democratic senator representing Minnesota. Here is the video clip:

Note: On July 3, I obtained the above referenced Jackson Lee letter dated June 17 and added a link to it above.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Do Census Layoffs Clear the Way for Hiring of ACORN Workers?

Posted by Matthew Vadum on 7.2.09 @ 9:21PM

This might be something, or it might be nothing.

Remember when the Obama administration lied about the extent of ACORN's involvement in the 2010 Census?

After the Census Bureau responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Judicial Watch reported that

In its official statement responding to the ACORN controversy, the Obama Commerce Department downplayed ACORN's participation in the Census, and labeled "baseless" the notion that ACORN would be involved in any Census count. However, the Census Bureau offered ACORN the opportunity to "recruit Census workers" who would participate in the count. Moreover, as an "executive level" partner, ACORN has the ability to "organize and/or serve as a member on a Complete Count Committee," which, according to Census documents, helps "develop and implement locally based outreach and recruitment campaigns."

According to its application ACORN also signed up to: "Encourage employees and constituents to complete and mail their questionnaire; identify job candidates and/or distribute and display recruiting materials; appoint a liaison to work with the Census Bureau; provide space for Be Counted sites and/or Questionnaire Assistance Centers; sponsor community events to promote participation in the 2010 Census," among 18 requested areas of responsibility. The documents also show the decision to add ACORN as a partner occurred in February, long after the January 15th Census partnership application deadline. (One Census official had bet "it was under Bush.")

Now today the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the layoff of Census workers comprised the bulk of the jobs just lost in the federal government. The July 2 Employment Situation Summary states: "Employment in federal government fell by 49,000 in June, largely due to the layoff of workers temporarily hired to prepare for Census 2010."

What's wrong with this picture? The federal government isn't exactly on an austerity binge right now.

Given that the Obama administration lied about ACORN's involvement in the Census, it might be lying now about the laid off workers being temporary employees. Is the way being cleared for ACORN workers to be hired?

If the administration hadn't tried a few months ago to move oversight of the Census into the White House and then lied about ACORN and the Census, the news of the layoffs would not have caught my attention.

However, the Obama administration did attempt the Census power play and it did lie about ACORN's involvement in the Census, so reasonable observers have every reason to be suspicious.

And former ACORN organizer Gregory Hall recently warned in a Washington Examiner op-ed about the dangers of letting ACORN participate in the Census:

There is no reason to believe the problems of staff mistreatment or systematic fraud will be any different if and when the federal government asks ACORN to take its show on the road to households across the country.

9 Comments | Add a Comment