Romney and His People Are Truly Contemptuous of Social Conservatives

How many more instances like this must we be treated to before those social conservatives who plan to fall into line and vote for Dullard Flip Rino because ... well ... we JUST HAVE to ... wake up to the fact that the GOP has, via the nominee it has chosen, decided you are no longer welcome?

Follow my lead and DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, vote for Mitt Romney. There ARE alternatives. Vote 3rd party. Don't buy into the lesser of two evils spin coming from the major parties.

Vote your conscience. Vote your values. Don't vote for Rockefeller RINOs like Romney.

The So-Called "Professional Conservative Smart Set" ...

... can kiss my @$$.

Add George Will to my $h!+ list. Actually, he's been on there for quite a while with his elitist anti-Palin schtick, but this is just beyond the pale. Someone ought to remind George that it's baseball season, and that he should STFU and take in a game.

And Ross Douthat should really tell his buddy Marc Ambinder that he does Ross no favors by describing him in these terms: "... the professional conservative smart set (like The New York Times’s Ross Douthat)".

What a bunch of elitist douchebags.

Blood Libel

Quin Hilyer writes at The American Spectator:

... The truth is, there is almost nothing this lady has ever done or said that merits the sorts of venomous vitriol to which she has been subjected. Her rhetoric is sharp but not hateful. Her views -- and even more, her actual record -- are mainstream conservative, not extremist. And her story of a plucky, self-made rise from unlikely (for a politician) origins, on the basis of hard work and gumption, is remarkably admirable. And, frankly, whom has she hurt along the way? The feelings of those who are appalled that she wouldn't abort her Downs Syndrome baby? The ideology of those who thought she should force her daughter to get an abortion? The corrupt old-boy network who plagued (and effectively robbed) Alaska, whom she defeated in fair-and-square elections? The self-important worldview of those who believe that women who aren't liberal are illegitimate political actors? Go ahead: Show where Sarah Palin has been mean-spirited, abusive, or hateful? Can't do it. She hasn't been.

Sarah Palin has been libeled for the past nine days, and indeed libeled ever since John McCain announced he was choosing her as his running mate. Amidst all the slings and arrows, she has retained remarkable composure. She's not my choice for president, but I would be happy for her to continue, at any time she wants, to put leftist folly in her verbal gunsights.

"Were it not for double standards, the left would have no standards."
~ Sarah Palin

PETA Objects to "Sarah Palin's Alaska"

Palin Eating Tasty Animals:

It was only a matter of time before People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) responded to the fourth installment of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” that aired Sunday night.

In the episode, Palin went hunting in the Alaskan tundra and shot, killed and skinned a caribou with her father and family friend.

On Monday, PopEater printed a statement released by PETA Vice President Dan Mathews, who said, "Sarah seems to think that resorting to violence and blood and guts may lure people into watching her boring show. But the ratings remain as dead as the poor animals she shoots.” The show’s ratings have indeed fallen since its premiere, but with 3.5 million viewers last week, the program is hardly “dead.”

Of course, both the network and Palin knew that an episode about hunting would stir controversy. They had Ted Nugent talking about the merits of hunting on SPAlaska.com before the show aired, and Palin posted a message about her intolerance of the anti-hunting brigade on her Facebook wall. “Tonight’s hunting episode ‘controversial’?” Palin asked on Sunday. “Really? Unless you’ve never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather couch or eaten a piece of meat, save your condemnation of tonight’s episode. I remain proudly intolerant of anti-hunting hypocrisy.”

Vindicated

Or is it "vindifudiated"?

Either way, Palin was right.

Chris Matthews is a Bigoted, Elitist Idiot [UPDATED]

How else to explain this?

[...]

MATTHEWS: You, you sir, strike me, as I hate to use the word [ED.: No you don't, liar, or else you wouldn't constantly bring it up], as someone who's well-educated. I know you went to UVA Law School [ED.: Join the club]. Is that hurting you? Is - no I'm dead serious about this. Do you get hurt in the Republican Party now for having had a fine education? Do people think, look askance at you and say, "Oh he's an egghead, he's got a good degree from UVA" Is that a problem now, it's better to be a yahoo? Well I mean to be really uneducated like Palin, to really be proud of the fact you don't know anything?

INGLIS: There, there is a sense out there that ignorance is strength. But you know ignorance really is not strength...

Read more

(editorial commentary added)

My Comments:
I, too, went to UVA Law School, and NEVER ... NOT ONCE ... have I EVER been made by Republicans or conservatives to feel like an "egghead" (seriously, we're talking about dime-a-dozen lawyers here, not nuclear physicists) or that I was too "intellectual" with my "fine education" and "good degree from UVA".

My law school classmate, Todd Zywicki, now he's really smart. A highly published law school professor, in fact. Maybe he qualifies as an "egghead" with his "fine education" (he also has an A.B. with high honors from Dartmouth College - but never mind the M.A. he got from that land grant school, Clemson) and "good degree from UVA". But I'd be willing to bet that he has never been made to feel that he is "too smart" by any of the Republicans of his acquaintance.

And what about Laura Ingraham? She was a couple of years ahead of us at UVA Law (and, like Todd, she also has a degree from Dartmouth College). Yeah, those Republicans just can't stand Laura, can they? She's too smart for 'em. They think she's an overeducated egghead, and none of them EVER listen to her radio show or watch her on FOXNews.

Matthews is clearly grasping here, pretending that a UVA Law degree bestows some sort of intellectual superiority. Again, it's a frickin' law degree, not a PhD from MIT. He so wants to show that the conservative movement is anti-intellectual that he tries to paint frickin' Bob Inglis as some sort of heavyweight thinker, who was therefore rejected by the GOP, because he got a law degree from one of the liberal-approved law schools (after all, it's where Chrissy's heroes Bobby and Teddy got their law degrees).

But more than that, Matthews is projecting his own bigotry on those who he is attacking. He's so convinced that anyone who doesn't follow his lead by getting wood for The One MUST be so deficient in their intelligence and in their outright disdain for education that they would reject someone for the mere crime of having a law degree from UVA. The rubes are not only "yahoos", according to Matthews, but they celebrate their uneducated status by throwing overboard anyone with the slightest hint of a higher degree from a "fine" school (yet, somehow, W's degrees from BOTH Yale AND Harvard didn't hurt him among the "yahoos"; those two Ivy League degrees don't seem to measure up in Chrissy's mind to Inglis' law degree from UVA). It's Matthews who is bigoted in his views of those with whom he disagrees, not the other way around. Yet Matthews continues to project on a daily basis, spewing this garbage about conservatives being hostile to education.

And Bob Inglis, still smarting from his throw-the-bums-outa-office asswhooping he took in the South Carolina Primary, glibly plays along, tying to milk his 15 minutes of lefty love now that he has trashed as "racists" the constituents who kicked him to the curb. Thank God the voters of his district voted this petulant jerk an early retirement.


UPDATE (16 July 2010)
Chris Matthews couldn't have had worse timing in bringing up a UVA Law degree as evidence of "someone who is well educated".

My friend the Cranky Con brings to my attention this little gem from Congresscritter Sheila Jackson-Lee - a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law:



And it's not like this is Jackson-Lee's first or even most egregious gaffe. Yet Chrissy Matthews would assure us that - on the basis of her Yale and UVA degrees - Jackson-Lee is among the nation's elite, unlike that "yahoo" Sarah Palin.

Ross Douthat: Blue Families Better Than Red Ones [UPDATED]

Okay, I'll admit it. Something about Ross Douthat just gets under my skin. So, I don't know if I'm reading his latest NY Times piece with an open mind or not. Probably not.

So, I ask you to please read what he has written and tell me whether I'm justified in being even more ticked off at Douthat than usual:

... This is one of the themes of “Red Families v. Blue Families,” a provocative new book by two law professors, Naomi Cahn and June Carbone. The authors depict a culturally conservative “red America” that’s stuck trying to sustain an outdated social model. By insisting (unrealistically) on chastity before marriage, Cahn and Carbone argue, social conservatives guarantee that their children will get pregnant early and often (see Palin, Bristol), [ED.: Just had to drag Sarah Palin and her kids into this, didn't you? As if the children of liberals and/or those living in "blue" families don't get knocked up young and out of wedlock? More on this in a moment.] leading to teen childbirth, shotgun marriages and high divorce rates.

This self-defeating cycle could explain why socially conservative states have more family instability than, say, the culturally liberal Northeast. If you’re looking for solid marriages, head to Massachusetts, not Alabama.

[...]

Liberals sometimes argue that their preferred approach to family life reduces the need for abortion. In reality, it may depend on abortion to succeed. The teen pregnancy rate in blue Connecticut, for instance, is roughly identical to the teen pregnancy rate in red Montana. [ED.: STOP RIGHT THERE! Okay, then, so what was the point of dragging up Bristol Palin's name? Oh, that's right, you're writing for an audience in which you get extra "reasonable" points as the house "conservative" every time you hit on all the correct left-wing Pavlovian stimuli, such as attacking certain hated conservative figures and their family members. Jerk.] But in Connecticut, those pregnancies are half as likely to be carried to term. Over all, the abortion rate is twice as high in New York as in Texas and three times as high in Massachusetts as in Utah.

[...]

Whether it’s attainable for most Americans or not, the “blue family” model clearly works: it leads to marital success and material prosperity, and it’s well suited to our mobile, globalized society.

By comparison, the “red family” model can look dysfunctional — an uneasy mix of rigor and permissiveness, whose ideals don’t always match up with the facts of contemporary life.

But it reflects something else as well: an attempt, however compromised, to navigate post-sexual revolution America without relying on abortion.

[More]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

The irony is that my disagreement with Douthat is generally over style and tone - which, as is often the case for the house "conservative" at left-leaning media organs like the NY Times, is all apologetic for not being more liberal, aches to be liked and respected by the leftists he sees as his intellectual peers, and self-aggrandizes into a bash-as-an-extremist-any-conservative-to-the-right-of-me schtick. On the substance, I rarely ever disagree with Douthat (in fact, I've stated on many occasions that he is one of the political pundits whose ideology most closely resembles my own).

However, with respect to this latest piece, I couldn't disagree with him more on the substance. Oh yes, he plays his usual little "but, on the other hand" game of equivocation and moral equivalency, where he tries to play both sides against the middle (in, as one email correspondent and friend puts it, "an impressive attempt to say nothing whatsoever") and makes noise about how so-called "red" families are more pro-life than "blue" families. But, in the end, Douthtat, at best, puts up not so much as a half-hearted defense of the virtues his Church professes, and, at worst, unmistakably identifies the "blue" family model as superior. As my email-corresponding friend put it:

Douthat makes no attempt to critically engage the book, but seems to accept the thesis and moves on. That was a pretty poor job from someone who at least is fairly solid when it comes to social issues.

In fact, this is the lazy effort of a man not terribly interested in defending against the onslaught of the cultural left in the seemingly neverending so-called "culture wars", and who so wants the clash of cultures to be over that he is willing to surrender the moral high ground to achieve that end. Not surprising coming from someone so obviously embarassed to be saddled with a conservative movement that includes all those Jesusland yokels.


UPDATE
See also the Cranky Con's take here. (After doing so, you'll probably be able to guess who my email correspondent was.)


UPDATE #2
I've amended some of my language in this post to make it a little more family friendly.


UPDATE #3 (12 May 2010)
See the Cranky Con's second post on this subject, "So Just Say It", which addresses Darwin Catholic's post at The American Catholic and some of the comments thereto.

For me, here's the key paragraph:

Here’s the thing. Why couldn’t Ross Douthat just write that himself? Instead of holding up a philosopher’s stone in order to gauge the deeper meaning of his column, wouldn’t it have been more worthwhile for Douthat to clearly spell out his objections?

Exactly.

Palin Forces Media to Pony Up a Pro-Life Donation in Order to Cover Her Speech to Pro-Life Group

Creative Minority Report calls it a "Win-Win":

... The media follows her relentlessly attempting to find one slip of the tongue that they can use against her. They video tape every public appearance in hope that this time she will slip up and they will have the video to prove it.

Sarah knows this and has decided to use it for advantage. Not her own advantage, mind you, but to the advantage of the unborn.

Palin was giving a speech to a pro-life group. She and the group decided if the media wanted to tape her speech in their perpetual pursuit of the soundbyte o'death, they would have to support life to do it.

Palin made the media purchase tickets to the event and the proceeds went to the pro-life cause. That is sweet...

[More]

Even some on the left grudgingly acknowledge that this is "a pretty neat trick".

Compassionate, Non-Violent Lefties Spread the Love

Gateway Pundit reports: "GOP Official & Boyfriend Savagely Beaten For Wearing Palin Pins – Including Broken Leg, Jaw, Concussion… Media Silent".

Creative Minority Report on Why "a Lot of People Owe Sarah Palin an Apology"

Patrick Archbold gives the details in "Krugman: Death Panels Will Save Money".

Is the Left Beginning to Take Sarah Palin Seriously?

Or, perhaps, they ALWAYS took her seriously, which is why they took it upon themselves to destroy her from Day 1.

At any rate, some on the left now appear willing to openly discuss taking her seriously. For example, the so-called "Dean of the Washington press corps", David Broder, admonishes "Take Sarah Palin seriously" in today's Washington Post column:

... Her lengthy Saturday night keynote address to the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville and her debut on the Sunday morning talk show circuit with Fox News' Chris Wallace showed off a public figure at the top of her game -- a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself, even with notes on her palm.

This was not the first time that Palin has impressed me. I gave her high marks for her vice presidential acceptance speech in St. Paul. But then, and always throughout that campaign, she was laboring to do more than establish her own place. She was selling a ticket headed by John McCain against formidable Democratic opposition and burdened by the legacy of the Bush administration.

Blessed with an enthusiastic audience of conservative activists, Palin used the Tea Party gathering and coverage on the cable networks to display the full repertoire she possesses, touching on national security, economics, fiscal and social policy, and every other area where she could draw a contrast with Barack Obama and point up what Republicans see as vulnerabilities in Washington.

Her invocation of "conservative principles and common-sense solutions" was perfectly conventional. What stood out in the eyes of TV-watching pols of both parties was the skill with which she drew a self-portrait that fit not just the wishes of the immediate audience but the mood of a significant slice of the broader electorate...

[More]

And talk about an unlikely source of praise, at The Huffington Post (of all places), we read this glowing piece by Joan Williams:

Addressing the Tea Party, Sarah Palin wrote three notes on her hand: "Energy, Taxes, Lift American Spirits." Why? She already had notes in front of her on the podium. Surely she could remember three simple themes. Why write notes on her hand?

Here's my take on why: she knew that they would be visible when she gave the speech. And she knew that she would be made fun of -- as so stupid that she needs to write notes on her hand. And that's one of her most effective tactics -- to be made fun of. It's an integral part of her strategy of standing in for hardworking, Middle Americans, derided by the condescending, know-it-all liberal elites.

So what does the Obama administration do? Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had a great idea: he made fun of her. He wrote a grocery list on his hand at a White House briefing, and belittled Palin for not being able to remember her message. Thus the White House became a vehicle for Palin's narrative of the snooty elites who think they're better than average Americans.

Palin is a brilliant strategist. First, note that I just repeated Palin's key talking points: Palin has even us fellow travelers at The Huffington Post repeating, "Energy, Taxes, Lift American Spirits." Talk about earned media.

Palin's ploy also spoke directly to ordinary Joe and Jane. By writing her script on her palm, she got to identify with the unscripted real folks, heightening the contrast with the golden-tongued Obama and his reliance on the teleprompter. Hasn't everyone sometimes written a note on her hand? Doesn't putting your message on your palm literally define the common touch? The elites were clueless.

Sarah Palin is playing chess. I don't know what game the Administration is playing, but they just walked right into her carefully laid trap. Palin, the strategist, is amazing to watch. Her brilliance is her ability to tap in to the class conflicts that drive American politics these days. Obama, whom I have supported since Iowa, just doesn't get it.

Here's what he doesn't get: He believes in the American dream. He believes that if you work hard, even if you come from a modest, single-mother family, you can make it. You can even become President.

For him that's true. In fact, it's true for everyone in the White House. They're all there based on merit and hard work.

But there are millions and millions of Americans are out there, working as hard as they can, some just as smart as Obama, who never get anywhere. They clean your shirts, mop your floor, fix your TIVO, sell your computer service contracts. They work hard their whole lives, and they feel left out, disrespected, undervalued -- treated as if they are stupid.

So there's the Obama Administration's spokesman reinforcing Palin's narrative, showing that the elites think that average people who write notes on their palms are stupid...

And yet, from certain quarters of the right, Palin is trashed relentlessly by those who claim to be "mystified" that otherwise intelligent people might admire her political skills in addition to her policy preferences.

Palin Pwns Schwartzenegger on Climate Change

After Arnold Schwartzenegger's bizarre attack on Sarah Palin over her climate change stance (he implied that she is a so-called "denier" when the exact opposite is the case), Sarah Palin responded with a Facebook post revealing that she has more stones than California's girly man governor could ever dream of having:

Why is Governor Schwarzenegger pushing for the same sorts of policies in Copenhagen that have helped drive his state into record deficits and unemployment? Perhaps he will recall that I live in our nation’s only Arctic state and that I was among the first governors to create a sub-cabinet to deal specifically with climate change. While I and all Alaskans witness the impacts of changes in weather patterns firsthand, I have repeatedly said that we can’t primarily blame man’s activities for those changes. And while I did look for practical responses to those changes, what I didn’t do was hamstring Alaska’s job creators with burdensome regulations so that I could act “greener than thou” when talking to reporters.

- Sarah Palin

(Hat tip: Ed Morrissey)

Quote of the Day: Different Political Directions

From a Christianity Today interview with Mike Huckabee:

A lot of people compare you and Sarah Palin as conservative Christian candidates. What separates you two? What makes you different?

Well, it's hard for me to say what's different because I don't know. I don't know how people make the comparison. We were both governors, we certainly are both pretty clear in our expression of faith, so yeah, we share those things. But other than those things, I'm not sure where the comparisons are. We're both Republican, we're both pro-life—there are a lot of similarities that way—but she has a very different political direction than I do. I'm not sure of her future politically, and I'm really not sure of mine either.

(emphasis added)

From a a commenter at HotAir comes this pithy quote of the day:

Yeah, her political direction is up and his is down!

Yep, that about nails it.

I'm Sure Sarah Palin is Just Crushed ...

... that she has failed to receive the much-coveted Shea endorsement. The expert political pundit that pontificates at Catholic And Enjoying It has deemed Gov. Palin not qualified to be President of the United States. On what basis he makes that assessment, he doesn't really say (apart from typical anti-Palin boilerplate that doesn't match reality).

But this turn of events is devastating, nonetheless. I mean, if Gov. Palin can't win the Shea vote, then ...

... well, from my politically uninformed and obviously "idea-bereft-Thing-that-Used-to-Be-Conservative" perspective, it proves she must be doing something right.


UPDATE
The Cranky Conservative adds his thoughts regarding this epic non-endorsement.


UPDATE #2 (19 November 2009)
I guess I don't fit into Shea's definition of "normal" since I don't share his obviously expert assessment:

... what we normal people already know and acknowledge: that she's a woman with a tenuous relationship to honesty who isn't too bright and who is obviously not suited to be President.

If only I could be "normal" like Shea.

God help me.

Sarah Palin, Gamechanger [UPDATED]

Matthew Archbold writes:

A few weeks ago nobody had ever heard about Dede Scozzafava. And then Newt Gingrich endorsed her for the House seat (NY-23) for which she was already endorsed by the local Republican Party.

But then Sarah Palin, who Katie Couric recently referred to as a "sideshow" on the "fringe" of the party, endorsed a little known third party conservative candidate.

And then everything changed. Hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into conservative Doug Hoffman's coffers. National pundits focused their gaze on this New York district. Hoffman shot up in the polls despite the NRCC and RNC backing Scozzafava...

[More]

UPDATE (2 November)
More proxy war stuff in NY-23: Plugs picks a fight with Palin, and she kicks his @$$.

I suppose you have to admire the chutzpah of the idiot gaffe-o-matic putz of a Vice President who not only makes Dan Quayle seem like a frickin' genius by comparison, but who actually got his @$$ beat in a nationally televised debate (during which virtually every point he made was exposed as a lie) by the very person who he is trying to belittle with his condescending remarks.

God luv ya, Joe, STAND UP! Oh, what am I saying?

You are standing up, it's just that you're a mental midget.

Palin Speaks to Investors in Hong Kong [UPDATED]

Surprise, surprise. The New York Times actually runs a positive story on Sarah Palin:

HONG KONG — Sarah Palin, in what was billed as her first speech overseas, spoke on Wednesday to Asian bankers, investors and fund managers.

A number of people who heard the speech in a packed hotel ballroom, which was closed to the media, said Mrs. Palin spoke from notes for 90 minutes and that she was articulate, well-prepared and even compelling.

“The speech was wide-ranging, very balanced, and she beat all expectations,” said Doug A. Coulter, head of private equity in the Asia-Pacific region for LGT Capital Partners.

“She didn’t sound at all like a far-right-wing conservative. She seemed to be positioning herself as a libertarian or a small-c conservative,” he said, adding that she mentioned both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. “She brought up both those names.”

Mrs. Palin said she was speaking as “someone from Main Street U.S.A.,” and she touched on her concerns about oversized federal bailouts and the unsustainable American government deficit. She did not repeat her attack from last month that the Obama administration’s health care proposals would create a “death panel” that would allow federal bureaucrats to decide who is “worthy of health care.”

Cameron Sinclair, another speaker at the event, said Mrs. Palin emphasized the need for a grassroots rebirth of the Republican Party driven by party leaders outside Washington.

A number of attendees thought Mrs. Palin, the former vice presidential candidate, was using the speech to begin to broaden her foreign policy credentials before making a run for the presidency in 2012.

“She’s definitely a serious future presidential candidate, and I understand why she plays so well in middle America,” said Mr. Coulter, a Canadian.

[...]

[Regional marketing consultant Melvin] Goodé, an African-American who said he did some campaign polling for President Obama, said Mrs. Palin mentioned President Obama three times on Wednesday.

“And there was nothing derogatory in it, no sleight of hand, and believe me, I was listening for that,” he said, adding that Mrs. Palin referred to Mr. Obama as “our president,” with the emphasis on “our.”

Mr. Goodé, a New Yorker who said he would never vote for Mrs. Palin, said she acquitted herself well.

“They really prepared her well,” he said. “She was articulate and she held her own. I give her credit. They’ve tried to categorize her as not being bright. She’s bright.”

UPDATE
Wall Street Journal: Palin understands China better than Obama does.

Also from WSJ:
"Palin Addresses Asian Investors"

"Excerpts of Sarah Palin’s Speech to Investors in Hong Kong"


UPDATE #2 (24 September)
"THE OTHER SPEECH - Sarah Plays Hong Kong"

... Sarah Palin appears to be pursuing a strategy, for now, of staying out of the media, letting her ideas speak for themselves, while reducing the implicitly demeaning emphasis on her persona, including her personal appearance. At the same time, she builds suspense about an eventual, inevitable “return” in dramatic living color. She stokes hunger among her political following just for the sound of her voice and the sight of her smile, but without ever quite going away. More than a few observers, even enemies and adversaries, have been forced to acknowledge her demonstrations of power at a distance - the fact, for instance, that a couple of Facebook entries and an op-ed have repeatedly forced the President to respond directly to her claims, arguably losing rhetorical control while indulging in his personal attacks on her. That he resists the mention of her name even while “everyone” knows, whispers, and passes it on, inflates her further: She has become the “one who must not be named,” looming like some psychic or supernatural force in the Obamian political drama...

[More]

No, President Obama, YOU'RE the Manipulative, Cynical Liar

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is 100% absolutely correct about your "death panels":



UPDATE
The essence of the President's speech:

"All the objections raised to my health care plan are LIES told by those trying to kill reform through cynical manipulation of people's fears and emotions. Now, hurry up and pass my health care reform before people start dying in the streets. Let's do it for Teddy Kennedy."


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Palin Upstages President Again on Death Panels: "Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care" [UPDATED]

More Evidence that Palin Right on "Death Panels"

At the Head of the Table: Churchill, Kennedy, & Palin

Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief: Hippocratic Oath Responsible for "Too Much" Medical Care

Andy McCarthy and Mark Stein Slap the Handwringing Girly Boys in Charge Over at National Review: Palin Was Right On the "Death Panels" [UPDATED]

Sarah Palin Right About Obama "Death Panels"

Health-Care Rationing Violates Catholic Teaching

Palin Upstages President Again on Death Panels: "Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care" [UPDATED]

Sarah Palin writes in The Wall Street Journal that the president's health care proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers:

... Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

***
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.

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats' proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not "provide more stability and security to every American."

[More]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Posted tonight just so you'll know ahead of time what everyone will be talking about tomorrow. Far from "leaving the room" whenever health care is being discussed (as suggested by certain self-satisfied beltway elitists), the lady has taken her place at the at the head of the table. And when the lady at the head of the table speaks, people listen.

(I'm interested in seeing how many more hits and how much more attention Palin's column in the WSJ will receive vs. Margaret Noonan's weekly pap that the WSJ prints every Friday. It'll only serve to make Margaret even more Sarah Palin jealous than she already is.)


UPDATE (9 September)
From Jack Fowler, writing at Critical Condition, the health care blog on National Review Online:

"Death-Panel Encore: Sarah Palin’s Testimony"

Sarah Palin couldn’t attend today’s New York State Senate public hearing of the Aging Committee — chaired by pro-life Democrat Ruben Diaz — but she submitted testimony which has been provided to NRO...

[More]

And writing at The Corner, Fowler also comments on Palin's WSJ piece:

Palin Sending O-Care to Political Death Panel

The relentless former governor of Alaska drops her second health care blast this Obama Speech Eve, via a Wall Street Journal Online piece. By the way, she's not relenting on blasting "death panels" (and good for her). Here's a nice hunk (you can also read the whole enchilada on her Facebook Notes page.

[More]

Good to know that there are others besides Andy McCarthy and Mark Steyn bucking the hand-wringing posture of the girly boys in charge at National Review.

Expect much more buzz throughout the day on Wednesday.


UPDATE #2 (9 September)
And here's some of the afore-mentioned predicted buzz.

Love her, hate her, or indifferent, at least they're all talking about her.


UPDATE #3 (9 September)
Even the White House is forced to take notice when the head of the table speaks: "White House talking points blast Palin".

And the lefties don't seem too pleased to see the President give Palin's argument any attention, knowing full well how she played his ass the last time it happened. Here's a sampling:

Idiots. They took her bait AGAIN.
Posted By: September 09, 2009 at 02:21 PM

Agreed, she is going to play them for a fool again. Sheesh, Rahm, wake up!
Posted By: P*ssed Liberal September 09, 2009 at 02:22 PM

Heh!



Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
More Evidence that Palin Right on "Death Panels"

At the Head of the Table: Churchill, Kennedy, & Palin

Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief: Hippocratic Oath Responsible for "Too Much" Medical Care

Andy McCarthy and Mark Stein Slap the Handwringing Girly Boys in Charge Over at National Review: Palin Was Right On the "Death Panels" [UPDATED]

Sarah Palin Right About Obama "Death Panels"

Health-Care Rationing Violates Catholic Teaching

More Evidence that Palin Right on "Death Panels"

Wesley Smith reports.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief: Hippocratic Oath Responsible for "Too Much" Medical Care

Andy McCarthy and Mark Stein Slap the Handwringing Girly Boys in Charge Over at National Review: Palin Was Right On the "Death Panels" [UPDATED]

Sarah Palin Right About Obama "Death Panels"

Health-Care Rationing Violates Catholic Teaching

At the Head of the Table: Churchill, Kennedy, & Palin

Definitely read this terrific piece at The American Spectator:

... The British statesman was a guest at a dinner in a private home. The dinner hour arrived and the guests made their way to the dining room. Churchill moved to a chair along the side of the table. Mortified, the hostess was quickly at his side, gesturing to the empty chair waiting for him. "Mr. Churchill," she said, "your seat is at the head of the table." To which Churchill responded in typical Churchillian style. "Madame," he said, "wherever I sit is the head of the table." And with that -- the Great Man sat down where he was.

***
This is a rare quality in political leaders. In reality it's a human trait, not a political one. Your Aunt Sally could possess Churchill's "head of the table" characteristic and not your Uncle Jim. Yet in the rarefied world of politics, where there is by definition a handful of nationally prominent politicians at any given moment, possessors of Churchill's "head of the table" trait stand out.

They possess, as did Winston Churchill, an unquantifiable capability that can not just electrify a room full of supporters but send them into passionate fits of ecstasy -- while simultaneously sending opponents into a furious, foaming rage. If these politicians master the art of using this quality, they can instantly play a huge role in anything from a winning political campaign to driving a piece of legislation across the legislative finish line. Or stopping it.

By now, a year after her emergence on the national scene, it is crystal clear that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has this "head of the table" gene in spades. She is, in a remarkable way, the real heir -- make that heiress -- to Senator Kennedy. She is charismatic, she has a decided point of view and she is a lightning rod for controversy. Just as Kennedy managed to sink a once sure-thing Supreme Court nomination with his famous Bork speech, Governor Palin has managed to explode Section 1233 of the ObamaCare House bill with her vivid description of "death panels," severely damaging the President's entire legislative priority in the process.

***
Are there other Americans on the political scene like this right now? Yes indeed, with some having one-word name identification with most Americans. Hillary and Newt would be two in this rarified crowd. Former vice presidents Dick Cheney and Al Gore are another two, making headlines regularly, both out of office with the presidency in each case seemingly never in the cards.

***
This is what really drives Sarah Palin's critics nuts. She sits up there in Alaska with Todd and the kids, taps out a few words on her Facebook page -- and presto! ObamaCare has a torpedo amidships! Without doubt this causes Palin's rivals, just as it once did with Churchill's and Teddy Kennedy's, to fret and fume if not foam.

***
There are a zillion talk radio hosts in America these days. I need not mention the "R" word for everyone out there to know who is, instantly, understood by all to be "talk radio." This is Churchill's head of the table factor on radio. She may be quiet over there in the State Department at the moment, seething about her treatment in the White House or elsewhere, but there isn't an American awake who doesn't know Hillary is there, plotting, planning --well, something. This is Churchill's head of the table factor momentarily setting up shop in the State Department.

***
like Ted Kennedy, Sarah Palin has a gift. An ability to make Americans focus on the issue of the day -- and likewise the head of the table ability to lead the country in a specific direction. In fact, she just did it on health care, making her sentiments plain with a Kennedy-style "Robert Bork's America" pronouncement. No other losing vice-presidential candidate in American history has drawn this kind of attention -- whether the passionate applause or the enraged disdain -- as Sarah Palin. Every time her enemies disparage her it only serves to underline the point, just as Ted Kennedy's enemies did the same with him.

[Read the whole thing]