Saturday, August 15, 2009
The last 45 of my 66 years I’ve spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska. I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here’s the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it…It’s not about persona, style, rhetoric, it’s about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I’m about to mention here.
1- Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor’s office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican’s “Corrupt Bastards Club” (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits. The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing “la la la la” (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar. But while you’re thinking, I’ll continue.
2- Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So, she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called “ACES”. Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them “don’t let the door hit you in the stern on your way out.” They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.
3- The other thing she did when she walked into the governor’s office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as “pork”. She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the “when-hell-freezes-over” stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we’ll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor’s jet because it was extravagant. Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor’s cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning—I imagine—that she’s packing heat herself). I’m still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
4- Now, even with her much-ridiculed “gosh and golly” mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn’t impress you, then you’re trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.
5- For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn’t start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. This summer, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.
6- President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewables by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona . Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that’s just a cover-up. I’m still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won’t be holding my breath.
By the way, she was content to to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn’t let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.
On Palin's Facebook response and media "fact-checking":
I have to say it's a risky move to pin your argument down to one section of the bill. That was the media's initial opportunity to take her statement, "fact-check" it, and say, "See! There's no mention of death panels!"
I kind of hope she broadens the argument into other arenas or other sections just so that the media will have a harder time pinning her down. Having said that, it's brilliant. She once again managed to instantly galvanize the whole discussion by going right for the throat and effectively accusing the bill of being a form of government murder.
Instant galvanization. Just like the David Letterman thing. Like Beck pointed out, she didn't just come out and say, "Leave my kids alone." She effectively said, "You're a dirty old man and your mindset contributes to the objectification of women in America. Apologize to all women." Like Joseph Livestro pointed out on C4P, she is framing the debate. Now, we need to be careful of the media's blinders when it comes to "fact-checking" her arguments.
Wisetrog on C4P said this: "The Dems tried to sidestep her argument by confining it to end of life arguments. She has responded to the end of life questions, she should move on and bring the debate to her turf which is rationing. She should expand on her last point and make it a debate about rationing."
I agree. Sarah started with the end result. Now it's time to unravel the rest of the thread. And I suggest doing it before the media has a chance to pick apart this latest post. Death panels are a result of rationing, rationing comes because there's too much demand and not enough supply, which will result because of these provisions in the bill, the cost, etc... and look at what's happened in other countries...
It's time to take the whole thing apart and kill it dead. Broaden the argument. She's gotta dance around. If she stays on the one point, they'll focus all their energy on discrediting or "fixing" that one point in the bill and then claiming it's all better.
All I'm saying is that the media was able to try and discredit her statements originally because she handed them just one section of the bill, which they then "fact-checked" and took her statement out of context (removed it from the rationing scenario) to say it just simply wasn't true and she's making stuff up. Perhaps a slight tactical error, but it doesn't really matter now:
On Sarah's Victory in the Senate Version of the Bill:
One down, about 28 million to go. In an obvious win for Sarah Palin the Senate struck out the end of life counseling provision. Yay.
Forgive me for not celebrating too loudly, but this is nowhere near over. Broaden, broaden, broaden. Go read her latest Facebook post and you'll see that she's doing just that.
Sarah got at least one section fixed. My fear with this approach was that if they did strike it (which they did) they could then claim, "Look, we fixed it! Are you happy now?" Which is why even though Palin could keep on pressing that one section, she really needs to not make that her only topic of conversation (which she isn't) and she must now broaden quickly (which she is). She already set the stage for this in her reaction to it being struck, saying that it was just one part out of many that causes concern and focusing more on rationing. Good, good, good!
Remember a couple of other things too. First off, this isn't even the final version of the bill. The House passed theirs. The Senate struck this one provision. Later they'll go into committee and hammer out a whole new bill reconciling the differences of the House and Senate. Do you get my drift? We don't even have the final version of the bill yet, let alone a guarantee that anything struck out won't just be slipped back in.
Secondly, this one section doesn't really solve the problem of death panels. This one section was only a piece of that, and Palin's already brought that up. She's also now hammering on the rationing point now quite nicely. Good, good, good. The spending and the framework of a committee like Britain's NICE are just a few other pieces of the bill that will lead to rationing and therefore government bureaucrats handing out care selectively, i.e., death panels.
Whether the section that was struck out is in the final version of the bill or not doesn't really matter. The bill itself as a whole will cause a shortage, and then the American version of Britain's NICE committee will start the rationing, whether we try and convince old people to end of their lives or not.
I hate to be a gloomy Gus, but we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. If this thing passes, that's it. The intrusion of government into our lives will be practically irreversible. Once we become dependent on the government for not only our financial well-being but for our very lives, we are in their hip pocket for good.
So now I say, Sarah, broaden the debate, and in her latest Facebook post she already is. Good. This was not the end of the battle, it was merely the first shot. This was a demonstration of Palin's power to shape the debate and shake up Obama. She won the first advance. Now, on to the war.
P.S. I also want to see Sarah say something about the new FCC guy and his regulations that will destroy talk radio.
Death Panel" is to irrevocable bureaucratic decision not to provide care as "Star Wars" is to Ballistic Missile Defense and the destabilization it would have on nuclear parity. There was no reference to "Star Wars" in the legislative language dealing with Ballistic Missile Defense. What is it that liberals are having such a hard time grasping about the term? It captures the essence of the program - rationing of care and the allocation of the rationed care towards people who lead "worthy" lives as determined by bureaucrats.
I have to ask those supporters of Palin's who must extrapolate and explain her death panel comments.... What do you say too those people who are making end of life decisions for family member at this moment? When we had to "ration" care for one of our parents, it was the most painful decision I had to make. But like my sister said, who was by her bedside daily, look at the toll it was taking on surviving family members and what our parent daily care was, how humiliating the daily care was to a very proud and private person. Ms. Palin, before she involves herself in the pubic discourse, should first consider making statement that do no need explaining, and second, to remember that these decisions are the most private and painful decisions a person has to make, and that to have to hear and read about death panels, esp for the people making at this time these end of life decisions for a family member, is emotionally devastating.
That is a decision that you and your family personally got to make. That's fine. How would you have felt if you had no say in the matter, if it was something you had no control over because shortages had centralized healthcare to Washington? There is a role for you and your family and a role for the government. Blending the roles; not a good thing. The critical point we have to be clear on is whether this bill will create such a drain on healthcare that it will create those shortages. That's the question I wish I could ask Barack Obama. Maybe he's got a good answer, but I doubt it. It's just not economically feasible. And if you actually read her statement she does put the "death panel" comment in the context of rationing. It's just that most people skip the context.
We ration care now. My parents insurance had a lifetime max on its policy. Who was going to pay for it after it was reached? If my siblings and myself would have hadn't to taken it over, it would have bankrupted us, I was for spending what it took, but I could not make that dec for anyone else. I was single and only had myself to be responsible for. Palin's comments were irrational and illogical. I have worked in the insurance industry for many years, in a department called "cost containment" Right now, in that department, a nameless faceless person is making decisions on your health care. The decision is probably motivated by profit, So what is the "blending" part you spoke of? There is no blending. Almost every decision in health care is based on profit. I also worked in the fraud department, so I have working first hand knowledge of the fraud.
Maybe I'm missing something, but that was my initial reaction.
Don't get me wrong, I know we need to reform health care. But after what Obama's done so far with the stimulus and all the other out-of-control spending, I just simply don't trust him. I honestly do not believe what comes out of the man's mouth. If I don't trust his words, I sure ain't gonna trust his healthcare.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
And that's where they miss the point entirely.
I don't think Sarah Palin gives a rip about being President in 2012. I really don't. If that's where this road leads, than that's where it leads. If not, that's even better.
Think about it. This woman was unknown to the world a year ago. On August 29th she did something that to her was probably very simple and logical: she accepted her country's call to run for Vice-President, arguably the most boring job on the planet.
A bit of a political earthquake has followed Sarah Palin wherever she's gone, but I don't think even she had any clue of how the Left was going to lose its head completely. With that speech in Ohio accepting the Vice-Presidential nomination, a chain of inevitable events was set into motion.
That chain ultimately shut down her ability to do her job as Governor and led her to where she is today, where a simple note on her Facebook page can send the entire media into a babbling conniption fit.
She hasn't been storming the country just yet. If you think about it the woman hasn't really had a day off since she signed up to run with McCain. And if she takes Obama on it's going to be a fight to the finish, so she better get some rest now while she still can.
What is Sarah Palin going to do? She's going to try and pull this country back from the brink of losing everything that it is. In so doing she will tell it like she sees it, "death panel" language and all. If that kills her chances of the Presidency, whoop-de-dung-doo. This country is more important than any one person's political ambitions.
Here's my take on her healthcare comments:
Human life at any stage and any level is worth protecting simply because it is human, not because of its supposed value to society. The words "death panel" may not be in Obama's bill, but that is the natural result of the circumstances the bill would create.
All you have to do is look at other countries in Europe that already have socialized medicine. This healthcare bill is the first step to what they've got. The elderly mean less than dirt over there. What Palin has done is reason things out to their eventual end. I don't think we want to go down that road.
Yes, we as individuals do sometimes have to make choices about when to pull the plug, but those are choices we should be making, not choices a centralized government bureaucracy should be making for us. If they really want to just bring prices down there are tons of other things they could do that would actually work.
And to those who think she's being too divisive: She's right. I don't think she gives a rip if she's ever Prez or not, and at this point, neither do I. Would I like to see that? Sure. But Palin's political future is not nearly as important as the lives of American citizens. If matters of life and death are not worth dividing people over, then nothing is. Kudos to Sarah for not being afraid to speak the truth. Keep it up.