Support Gov Palin At SarahPAC

Showing posts with label Pawlenty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pawlenty. Show all posts

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Framing The Debate: Sarah Palin Common Sense Vs Obama Bullcrap

Ted Belman, of Israpundit.com, wrote a very insightful piece: Palin is framing the debate. “my common sense v your bullcrap” . 
Sarah Palin is a fighter, a barracuda or a pitbull, with lipstick of course. She is on the prowl for Obama.  More than anyone else, she is responsible for the decline in the prospects, for not only Obamacare but for Obama’s presidency as well.
Palin endeared herself to conservatives because she took on Obama in her acceptance speech. Unfortunately McCain didn’t have the stomach for it and muzzled her instead. Now she is calling the shots.
By repeating her mantra in every speech or comment she makes, she is branding herself. She presents her policies as axiomatic, requiring no proof and the public is accepting them as such. She is negatively characterizing Obama and his policies.
She participated in the pre and post analysis of Obama’s SOTU address on Fox News and the next day was interviewed by Greten van Susteren. In answer to the first question she said
  • Well, you know, listening to his speech last night, I was kind of getting some whiplash there. I’d listen to what he was saying, then I’d whip my head down there and read the text to try to figure out what is he actually saying here? How does what he is saying match up to the actions that he’s taken thus far? Because the acts that he’s taken thus far will not get the jobs created, as he says he desires. 
  • That speech was so full of contradictions last night. And I know that, you know, afterwards, as we analyze it, we’re supposed to be, you know, quite diplomatic and analytic and quite gracious in our commentary. But come on! You know, again, so full of contradictions that the American public, I think, listened to the thing and said, How are jobs going to be created when you talk about cap and tax, which is taxing energy, which will prohibit more developments across our nation, when you talk about the second jobs bill, which is a stimulus bill, more spending, which is going to require tax increases to pay for these things. How in the world is that going to help the middle class? How will that help job creation?
In the first paragraph she is contrasting his words with his deeds. The public is already beginning to ignore what he says and Palin will speed that process along.
She starts her attack by saying “But come on.” and then lets loose. Name me one other politicians who is so direct. Palin is also good at ridiculing Obama. In all her speeches she deflates him with her ridicule. I love it.
She is framing the debate. “my common sense v your bullcrap”
Full Article At:

Monday, December 21, 2009

Gov Pawlenty: Sarah Palin Is More Qualified To Be President Than Obama


Our good freinds at Texas4Palin posted a nice interview Governor Tim Pawlenty gave to Newsweak:



Did McCain explain to you why he picked her? 
The conversation was pretty brief. I just think he felt he had to do something maybe a little different than what would have been the traditional approach. And I think he felt good about his decision.

Do you think Palin is qualified to be president? 
She is easily as qualified as Barack Obama. I would argue she's more qualified in terms of leadership, experience, management, and supervision—actually running something. She was a mayor, head of an energy commission, and governor.  Sarah Palin is also the owner of two successful small business. 

Did she help or hurt the ticket? 
My view is that she helped him because she energized the campaign. She brought a fresh and dynamic perspective that I think complemented his strengths really well. I think she helped. I know there are some pollsters who take issue with that.

Also, the National Journal.com reported on the same interview:

MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) says the media is obsessed with ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R), and that her celebrity makes her a front-runner for the WH'12 sweepstakes.   Pawlenty called his potential rival a "political rock star," and said that standing gives Palin a platform from which she could run.

"We live in a society in which being familiar, being well known, gives you a platform. She certainly has that. The Democrats have all kinds of characters who are interesting, bold, and dramatic. On our side, you guys are obsessed with Palin," Pawlenty said.

He added, handicapping the eventual field: "Is Mitt Romney running? I think he would clearly be the frontrunner, he and Palin. And there is Mike Huckabee, of course, and any number of people could emerge out of Congress."

Original Post:


Thursday, October 1, 2009

No Cover, Not Even Finished But Sarah Palin Is A Phenomenon

Michael van der Galien, of Poligazette.com, had a nice article: Sarah Palin: Phenomenon
It’s almost beyond belief but Sarah Palin’s book “Going Rogue” is already the best selling book on both Amazon and Barnes & Nobles. This even though it isn’t finished yet.
Un-be-lie-va-ble.

Forty-eight days before the release and she’s already topped Dan Brown’s latest conspiracy-theory casserole at both top retailers. To put that in perspective, note that the book doesn’t even have a cover yet. So much for the Page Six hit piece about demand for her being slack.
Politico – which is no friend of Palin (this the organization that broke the $150.000 wardrobe scandal last year - adds that these pre-order sales are “unprecedented.” A publishing industry source said they “cannot remember a non-fiction book taking off like this in the pre-order market. It became number one only a couple of hours after nothing more than a date announcement. It is truly unprecedented.”
She could not possibly have hoped for a better start of a presidential campaign. And let’s face it, chances are she’ll run for president. She should. There’s not one Republican out there who is more popular among the grassroots. The only question is whether she’ll attempt to succeed Obama in 2012 or 2016.
Like it or not, this woman truly is a phenomenon.

Full Article At:

Monday, September 28, 2009

Sarah Palin Teaching The US Catholic Church A Thing or Two

Frank Walker, of Pewsitter.com, wrote a great piece: Palin’s New Tack and the Catholic Bishops’ Old Game.  I posted parts of the article:  

Sarah Palin is starting to slowly re-appear on the world scene. Now that she is free of the hopeless McCain campaign and no longer tied up in Alaska, she’s presenting a clear ideology with a potent delivery.  It's a pure antidote to the current American pathology. Many U.S. Catholic leaders, so key to the liberal government’s ascendance, should try to hear what Sarah is ready to teach the country.

Sarah Palin's Determined Message
Sarah Palin is an amazing and interesting politician, but even the boldest conservative writers have asked that she take time off and educate herself. Voices on the right are hopeful and intrigued by her, but they would consider it foolish to suppose she's a viable leader. Republican elites think Palin is the kind of embarrassment that stalks the party and must be handled. The contempt and condescension from the left never seem to erase their horror that she might represent an American majority.


[...]

The Right's disconnect with Sarah Palin comes from entrenched expectations. Political talkers can be steeped in the past. They know each player and strategy. They track every measure. But there is something fundamental and new about Palin that is hard for professionals to detect. She is not manly and that is rare for a powerful woman today. There is no reason why this must be the case, nevertheless Sarah brings her whole self to politics. She won't shut a part away as if it were not good enough. Sometimes she is emotional, even vulnerable, and in the face of something shockingly wrong, stunned; but Palin is rarely daunted, and she's canny. Her purpose on the world scene grows from a compassionate heart. The same devotion that rescued and protected her baby is the force in her leadership.

Today Sarah has re-positioned. Always conscious of the American people and fixed on reaching them directly, Palin is sending her messages in code and short wave, under the radar of the state media machine. As James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have just demonstrated, this is the only effective way. Their ACORN trojan horse tells the story. America is now an underground movement again.

Speaking in Hong Kong September 23rd Palin called her ideas, "common sense conservatism." To many this may just sound like more populist material, but it's different from the compassionate conservatism of George W. Bush, which generally meant liberalism. Here it suggests Thomas Paine's straightforward calls to action and it builds on her natural style. Before the closed group of business and political people she said:
"I believe in striving for the ideal, but in realistic confines of human nature."
"China rightfully makes a lot of people nervous."
"It's just common sense that government attempts to solve problems like health care will just create new problems."

On having the Fed oversee "systemic risk" in the financial system:
"The words fox and henhouse come to mind."

How Catholic Church Leaders Can Learn From Palin's "Common Sense."
The honesty and simple wisdom of Sarah Palin is rejuvenating. Many who lead the Catholic Church will hopefully take notice. Today there are bishops worldwide who will go to almost any lengths in the name of social justice. Often when they do, they reveal their allegiances and their worldliness. This week the social justice arm of the USCCB, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, is under intense light again for its openly political, anti-Catholic, and corrupt beneficiaries. In Vienna Cardinal Schoenborn recently tried to squelch a pro-life rally and then forbad clergy to participate. Notre Dame, the pre-eminent American Catholic University, continues to prosecute eighty-eight pro-life demonstrators, including Norma McCorvey, following the Obama honors last spring. In August Boston's O'Malley scandalized the world with a funeral for anti-life pariah Ted Kennedy, and this past week Scotland's Cardinal O'Brien railed in the press about global catastrophes, millions of refugees, and the poor before a climate meeting at the UN.


America's most powerful Catholic hierarchy are so eager to socialize our medicine, that they act as though it were possible to protect the lives of the sick, elderly, and unborn by simply not mentioning them in a massive healthcare takeover bill. In calculated parsings they've called on Catholics to urge Congress to pass a reform now (leaving out explicit abortion funds and references to euthanasia). Some bishops have gone so far as to equate a lack of what is called universal coverage with the evils of abortion.
From their holy offices many bishops are keen to promote uncontrolled immigration, an end to capital punishment for brutal killers, subsidized housing, and free healthcare even at the expense of the Catholic conscience. When we hear bishops condemn abortion today, we must ask ourselves if his Excellency has a sincere interest in what he is saying based upon his actions, or whether he is just using genocide to rally the faithful toward another deadly statist cause.

In her Asian speech Sarah Palin mentioned government re-distribution and its flaws. Considering all the compromises bishops have been making in the name of social justice, perhaps Mrs. Palin in her common sense way could teach from the lives of Christ and St. Mary Magdalene. It was not a small, simple thing for Magdalene to be changed by Jesus. She showed her gratitude with a priceless jar of perfume at the house of the Pharisee. Even with this extravagance, her loving affection, and the entirely humble spectacle the honor and appreciation could never repay. Regardless, the apostle Judas, humiliated by the scene and envious of the "misused" money, took what he saw as a weak moment to publicly challenge, "Why was not this ointment sold and given to the poor?"

[...]

Speaking critically of the current U.S. political climate, Sarah Palin has said, "There is no justice in taking from one person and giving it to another." Some of our bishops might learn a thing or two from Palin. It sounds like she grasps the scriptural story of Mary Magdalene, Jesus, and Judas. I wonder whether some of our bishops do...

Full Article At:

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Transcript Of Governor Palin's Speech In Hong Kong


So far, I’ve given you the view from Main Street, USA. But now I’d like to share with you how a Common Sense Conservative sees the world at large.

Later this year, we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall – an event that changed not just Europe but the entire world. In a matter of months, millions of people in formerly captive nations were freed to pursue their individual and national ambitions. 

The competition that defined the post World War II era was suddenly over. What was once called “the free world” had so much to celebrate – the peaceful end to a great power rivalry and the liberation of so many from tyranny’s grip. 

Some, you could say, took the celebration too far. Many spoke of a “peace dividend,” of the need to focus on domestic issues and spend less time, attention and money on endeavors overseas. Many saw a peaceful future, where globalization would break down borders and lead to greater global prosperity. Some argued that state sovereignty would fade – like that was a good thing? – that new non-governmental actors and old international institutions would become dominant in the new world order.

As we all know, that did not happen. Unfortunately, there was no shortage of warning signs that the end of the Cold War did not mean the end of history or the end of conflict. In Europe, the breakup of Yugoslavia resulted in brutal wars in the Balkans. In the Middle East, a war was waged to reverse Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. North Korea’s nuclear program nearly led to military conflict. In Africa, U.S. embassies were bombed by a group called al Qaeda. 

Two weeks ago, America commemorated the 8th anniversary of the savagery of September 11, 2001. The vicious terrorist attacks of that day made clear that what happened in lands far distant from American shores directly affect our security. We came to learn, if we did not know before, that there were violent fanatics who sought not just to kill innocents, but to end our way of life. Their attacks have not been limited to the United States. 

They attacked targets in Europe, North Africa and throughout the Middle East. Here in Asia, they killed more than 200 in a single attack in Bali. They bombed the Marriott Hotel and the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. Last year in Mumbai, more than 170 were killed in coordinated attacks in the heart of India’s financial capital. In this struggle with radical Islamic extremists, no part of the world is safe from those who bomb, maim and kill in the service of their twisted vision.

This war – and that is what it is, a war – is not, as some have said, a clash of civilizations. We are not at war with Islam. This is a war within Islam, where a small minority of violent killers seeks to impose their view on the vast majority of Muslims who want the same things all of us want: economic opportunity, education, and the chance to build a better life for themselves and their families. The reality is that al Qaeda and its affiliates have killed scores of innocent Muslim men, women and children. 

The reality is that Muslims from Algeria, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries are fighting al Qaeda and their allies today. But this will be a long war, and it will require far more than just military power to prevail. Just as we did in the Cold War, we will need to use all the tools at our disposal – hard and soft power. Economic development, public diplomacy, educational exchanges, and foreign assistance will be just as important as the instruments of military power. 

During the election campaign in the U.S. last year, you might have noticed we had some differences over Iraq. John McCain and I believed in the strength of the surge strategy – because of its success, Iraq is no longer the central front in the war on terrorism. Afghanistan is. Afghanistan is where the 9/11 attacks were planned and if we are not successful in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will once again find safe haven there. As a candidate and in office, President Obama called Afghanistan the “necessary war” and pledged to provide the resources needed to prevail. However, prominent voices in the Democratic Party are opposing the additional U.S. ground forces that are clearly needed. 

Speaker of the House Pelosi, Defense Subcommittee Chairman Murtha, the Senate Armed Services Committee Chair, and many others, recently expressed doubts about sending additional forces! President Obama will face a decision soon when the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan requests additional forces to implement his new counterinsurgency strategy. 

We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. Last year, in the midst of the U.S. debate over what do to in Iraq, an important voice was heard – from Asia’s Wise Man, former Singaporean Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, who wrote in the Washington Post about the cost of retreat in Iraq. In that article, he prophetically addressed the stakes in Afghanistan. He wrote: 

“The Taliban is again gathering strength, and a Taliban victory in Afghanistan or Pakistan would reverberate throughout the Muslim world. It would influence the grand debate among Muslims on the future of Islam. A severely retrograde form of Islam would be seen to have defeated modernity twice: first the Soviet Union, then the United States. There would be profound consequences, especially in the campaign against terrorism.”

That statesman’s words remain every bit as true today. And Minister Lee knows, and I agree, that our success in Afghanistan will have consequences all over the world, including Asia. Our allies and our adversaries are watching to see if we have the staying power to protect our interests in Afghanistan. That is why I recently joined a group of Americans in urging President Obama to devote the resources necessary in Afghanistan and pledged to support him if he made the right decision. 

That is why, even during this time of financial distress we need to maintain a strong defense. All government spending should undergo serious scrutiny. No programs or agencies should be automatically immune from cuts. 

We need to go back to fiscal discipline and unfortunately that has not been the view of the current Administration. They’re spending everywhere and with disregard for deficits and debts and our future economic competitiveness. Though we are engaged in two wars and face a diverse array of threats, it is the defense budget that has seen significant program cuts and has actually been reduced from current levels! 

First, the Defense Department received only ½ of 1 % of the nearly trillion dollar Stimulus Package funding – even though many military projects fit the definition of “shovel-ready.” In this Administration’s first defense budget request for 2010, important programs were reduced or cancelled. As the threat of ballistic missiles from countries like North Korea and Iran grow, missile defense was slashed. 

Despite the need to move men and material by air into theaters like Afghanistan, the Obama Administration sought to end production of our C-17s, the work horse of our ability to project long range power. Despite the Air Force saying it would increase future risk, the Obama Administration successfully sought to end F-22 production – at a time when both Russia and China are acquiring large numbers of next generation fighter aircraft. It strikes me as odd that Defense Secretary Gates is the only member of the Cabinet to be tasked with tightening his belt. 

Now in the region I want to emphasize today: The reason I speak about defense is because our strong defense posture in Asia has helped keep the region safe and allowed it to prosper. Our Asian allies get nervous if they think we are weakening our security commitments. I worry about defense cuts not because I expect war but because I so badly want peace. And the region has enjoyed peace for so long because of our security commitment to our longstanding allies and partners. 

Asia has been one of the world’s great success stories. It is a region where America needs to assist with right mix of hard and soft power. While I have so much hope for a bright future in Asia, in a region this dynamic, we must always be prepared for other contingencies. We must work at this – work with our allies to ensure the region’s continued peace and prosperity.

I know that you all -- like all of Asia and indeed the whole world – has a keen interest in the emergence of “China as a great power.” Over the past few decades China’s economic growth has been remarkable. So has the economic growth and political liberalization of all of our key allies in Asia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Asia’s economic growth and political development, together with our forward military presence in the region and strong alliances, have allowed the region to prosper in peace for a long time. We hope that Asia will continue to be an engine of world economic growth, will continue to democratize and will remain at peace. 

Our future is now deeply linked to Asia’s success. Our children’s future. We must continue to strengthen our key alliance with Japan, a country going through its own democratic change. Together the U.S. and Japan built the security umbrella under which so many Asians prospered. While there is so much attention to China these days, we cannot forget the importance of Japan in helping to make this the “Pacific Century.” 

The recent elections in Japan demonstrated that voters wanted reform and an end to debt and stagnation. We have a substantial stake in Japan’s success -- our alliance with must continue to be the linchpin of regional security.

With its open political system and vibrant democracy, South Korea wants to play a larger role on the international stage as well. Of course it wants us to work together toward a future where the peninsula is irreversibly denuclearized, and unified. But it also wants to play a global role. We need to work together with Japan, South Korea and our steadfast ally to the south, Australia, to make sure Asia remains peaceful and prosperous. 

Australia rightly reminds us to keep our eye on Southeast Asia, where Indonesia has proved that Islam and democracy can co-exist. Indonesia has fought extremism inside its own border and is consolidating a multi-ethnic democracy that is home to hundreds of millions of Muslims. Those who say Islam and democracy are incompatible insult our friends in Indonesia. 

Our great democratic friend India is also “looking East”, seeking a greater role in East Asia as well. Together with our allies we must help integrate India into Asia. If we do so we will have yet another strong democracy driving Asia’s economy and working on shared problems such as proliferation and extremism. And we must continue working with the region’s most dynamic economy, China. We all hope that China’s stated policy of a “Peaceful Rise” will be its future course. 

You know better than most the enormous change that has taken place in China over the last thirty years. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been pulled out of poverty as China has undertaken economic reforms that have resulted in unprecedented growth. Even today, China’s economy is projected to grow by some 8%. It is helping to edge the world out of recession. 

China has amassed huge financial reserves. Chinese diplomats are engaged on every continent and, through its vote on the United Nations Security Council, China has become critical in gaining UN support on multilateral issues from Darfur to Iran to North Korea. 

Just four years ago, then-Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick urged China to become a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system. He observed the many benefits to China of a “benign international environment.” 

The peaceful regional environment that China has enjoyed was created through the hard work of Americans, Japanese, South Koreans and Australians. Secretary Zoellick urged China to step up and play its role too. We are working with China to de-nuclearize North Korea. But to be a responsible member of the international community China should exert greater pressure on North Korea to denuclearize and undergo the fundamental reforms it needs. Zoellick urged China to play a greater role in stabilizing the international energy market by ceasing its support of dangerous regimes. 

China could play a role in stabilizing its ally Pakistan, and working for peace in Afghanistan. There are many areas where the U.S. and China can work together. And, we would welcome a China that wanted to assume a more responsible and active role in international politics.

But Secretary Zoellick also noted that many of China’s actions create risk and uncertainty. These uncertainties led nations to “hedge” their relations with China because, in Zoellick’s words: “Many countries HOPE China will pursue a ‘Peaceful Rise’ but NONE will bet their future on it.”

See: this is the heart of the issue with China: we engage with the hope Beijing becomes a responsible stakeholder, but we must takes steps in the event it does not. See? We all hope to see a China that is stable, peaceful, prosperous and free. But we must also work with our allies in the region and the world in the event China goes in a direction that causes regional instability. 

Asia is at its best when it is not dominated by a single power. In seeking Asia’s continued peace and prosperity, we should seek, as we did in Europe, an Asia “whole and free” – free from domination by any one power, prospering in open and free markets, and settling political differences at ballot boxes and negotiating tables. 

We can, must and should work with a “rising China” to address issues of mutual concern. But we also need to work with our allies in addressing the uncertainties created by China’s rise. We simply CANNOT turn a blind eye to Chinese policies and actions that can undermine international peace and security. 

China has some 1000 missiles aimed at Taiwan and no serious observer believes Taiwan poses a military threat to Beijing. Those same Chinese forces make our friends in Japan and Australia nervous. China provides support for some of the world’s most questionable regimes from Sudan to Burma to Zimbabwe. China’s military buildup raises concerns from Delhi to Tokyo because it has taken place in the absence of any discernible external threat. 

China, along with Russia, has repeatedly undermined efforts to impose tougher sanctions on Iran for its defiance of the international community in pursuing its nuclear program. The Chinese food and product safety record has raised alarms from East Asia and Europe to the United States. And, domestic incidents of unrest -- from the protests of Uighurs and Tibetans, to Chinese workers throughout the country rightfully make us nervous. 

It is very much in our interest and the interest of regional stability that China work out its own contradictions – between a dynamic and entrepreneurial private sector on the one hand and a one party state unwilling or unable to adjust to its own society’s growing needs and desires and demands, including a human being’s innate desire for freedom. 

I do not cite these issues out of any hostility toward China. Quite the contrary, I and all Americans of good faith hope for the Chinese people’s success. We welcome the rise that can be so good for all mankind. We simply urge China to rise responsibly. I simply believe we cannot ignore areas of disagreement as we seek to move forward on areas of agreement. Believe me, China does not hesitate to tell us when it thinks we are in the wrong.

I mentioned China’s internal contradictions. They should concern us all. We hear many Chinese voices throughout that great country calling out for more freedom, and for greater justice. Twenty years ago, many believed that as China liberalized its economy, greater political freedom would naturally follow. Unfortunately that has not come to pass. 

Ummm, in fact, it seems China has taken great pains to learn what it sees as “the lesson” of the fall on the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union: any easing of political constraints can inevitably spin out of control. But, in many ways, it is the essence of China’s political system that leads to concerns about its rise. 

Think about it. How many books and articles have been written about the dangers of India’s rise? Almost as large as China – and soon to be more populous – virtually no one worries about the security implications of India becoming a great power – just as a century ago the then-preeminent power, Great Britain, worried little about the rise of America to great power status. My point is that the more politically open and just China is, the more Chinese citizens of every ethnicity will settle disputes in courts rather than on the streets. The more open it is, the less we will be concerned about its military build-up and intentions. The more transparent China is, the more likely it is they we will find a true and lasting friendship based on shared values as well as interests. 

I am not talking about some U.S.-led “democracy crusade.” We cannot impose our values on other counties. Nor should we seek to. But the ideas of freedom, liberty and respect for human rights are not U.S. ideas, they are much more than that. They are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other international covenants and treaties. They apply to citizens in Shanghai as much as they do to citizens in Johannesburg or Jakarta. And demands for liberty in China are Chinese, not American, demands. Just last year, many brave Chinese signed Charter 08, a Chinese document modeled on the great Czech statesman Vlacav Havel’s Charter 77. Charter 08 would not be unfamiliar to our Founding Fathers and was endorsed by Havel himself. No, we need not convince the Chinese people that they have inalienable rights. They are calling for those rights themselves. But we do have to worry about a China where the government suppresses the liberties its people hold dear. 

Nothing of what I am saying should be seen as meaning conflict with China is inevitable. Quite the contrary. As I said, we welcome China’s responsible rise. America and China stood together against fascism during World War II, before ravages took over in China – we were ready to stand together with China to shape international politics after World War II. Much has been accomplished since President Nixon’s fateful visit. And again, we stand ready to work with what we hope will be a more open and responsible China on the challenges facing the 21st century.

All of you here know how deeply integrated the economies of the United States’ and China’s are. We rely on each other, sometimes unfortunately in unhealthy ways. America spends too much that we don’t have, and then we go to China as a lender of first resort. Our fiscal policy, lately, seems to be “tax, spend, borrow, tax some more, repeat” and then complain about how much debt China holds. America needs to gets its own fiscal house in order. That’s a Common Sense Conservative perspective. We can hardly complain that China holds so much of our debt when it’s over spending that created the debt. 

But here’s the reality. If in fact the United States does the “right” thing – if we spend less and save more – then China will also have to rebalance its economy. We need to export more to China – and we’d like China to consume more of our goods – just as we need to save and invest more. This vital process – so crucial to both countries – is impeded by problems of market access. 

We must talk about these issues with more candor. If China adopts policies that keep our highest value products out of their markets, by manipulating technical standards or licensing requirements, our economic relationship suffers.

Our economic interdependence drives our relationship with China. I see a future of more trade with China and more American high-tech goods in China. But in order for that to happen, we need China to improve its rule of law and protect our intellectual property. We need to avoid protectionism and China’s flirtation with state-assisted “national champions.” On our part, we should be more open to Chinese investment where our national security interests are not threatened. In the end, though, our economic relationship will truly thrive when Chinese citizens and foreign corporations can hold the Chinese government accountable when their actions are unjust.

I see a bright future for America in Asia. One based on the alliances that have gotten us this far, one based on free and open markets, one that integrates democratic India into East Asia’s political life and one in which China decides to be a responsible member of the international community and gives its people the liberty – the freedom – they so desperately want. 

Sadly, however, our largest free trade agreement ever in Asia, with South Korea, sits frozen in the Congress. In contrast, China is behaving wisely in negotiating free trade agreements throughout Asia. We want an Asia open to our goods and services. But if we do not get our free trade act together, we will be shut out by agreements Asians our making among themselves.

All of you here follow global financial markets and economic policy closely, I know that it will come as no surprise to you that United States leadership on global trade and investment is being sorely tested at this moment. 

We are struggling with a monumental debate on whether fiscal discipline, or massive government spending, will drive a sustained recovery. We are struggling to repair the excesses that grew in our own economy and served as a trigger to a catastrophic collapse in the global financial system. And we are attempting to do so under the weight of a global imbalance of debt and trade deficits that are not only unbearable for the world’s mightiest economy, but also unacceptable in that they foster tensions between global economic partners like the United States and China.

I am proud to be an American. As someone who has had the tremendous opportunity to travel throughout the United States and listen to the concerns of Americans in towns and cities across the country, I can tell you that there is a sense of despair and even crisis afoot in America that has the potential to shape our global investment and trade policies for years, and even decades to come. Never has the leadership of our government ever been more critical to keeping my country, and the world, on a path to openness, growth and opportunity in global trade and investment.

It would of course be a mistake to put the entire burden of restoring the global economy on the backs of America’s leaders. There is plenty of work for all of us to do in this matter. Governments around the world must resist the siren call of trade protection to bring short term relief during a time of crisis. 

Those who use currency policy or subsidies to promote their nation’s exports should remain acutely aware that if there ever were a time in which such policies could be viewed as “tolerable,” that time has now passed. All participants who seek to find benefit in the global trading system must also take the responsibility of playing by the rules. 

The private sector has responsibilities as well. For instance, it should not be the responsibility of government to dictate the salaries of bankers or the ownership of companies. And yet, due of the excesses committed by some, this is exactly where we find ourselves now because government now owns substantial portions of the private economy – even, unbelievably, in the United States. 

These are challenging times for everyone, but we in the United States must humbly recognize that if we are to lead and to set the direction for the rest of the world, it must be by our example and not merely our words. And we must tread lightly when imposing new burdens on the imports of other countries. 

Well, CLSA: My country is definitely at a crossroad. Polling in the U.S. shows a majority of Americans no longer believe that their children will have a better future than they have had...that is a 1st. 

When members of America’s greatest generation – the World War II generation – lose their homes and their life savings because their retirement funds were wiped after the financial collapse, people feel a great anger. There is suddenly a growing sentiment to just “throw the bums out” of Washington, D.C. – and by bums they mean the Republicans and the Democrats. Americans are suffering from pay cuts and job losses, and they want to know why their elected leaders are not tightening their belts. It’s not lost on people that Congress voted to exempt themselves from the health care plan they are thrusting on the rest of the nation. There is a growing sense of frustration on Main Street. But even in the midst of crisis and despair, we see signs of hope. 

In fact, it’s a sea change in America, I believe. Recently, there have been protests by ordinary Americans who marched on Washington to demand their government stop spending away their future. Large numbers of ordinary, middle-class Democrats, Republicans, and Independents from all over the country marching on Washington?! You know something’s up!

These are the same people who flocked to the town halls this summer to face their elected officials who were home on hiatus from that distant capital and were now confronted with the people they represent. Big town hall meetings – video clips circulating coverage – people watching, feeling not so alone anymore. 

The town halls and the Tea Party movement are both part of a growing grassroots consciousness among ordinary Americans who’ve decided that if they want real change, they must take the lead and not wait to be led. Real change – and, you know, you don’t need a title to do it.

The “Tea Party Movement” is aptly named to remind people of the American Revolution – of colonial patriots who shook off the yoke of a distant government and declared their freedom from indifferent – elitist – rulers who limited their progress and showed them no respect. Today, Main Street Americans see Washington in similar terms. 

When my country again achieves financial stability and economic growth – when we roar back to life as we shall do – it will be thanks in large part to the hard work and common sense of these ordinary Americans who are demanding that government spend less and tax less and allow the private sector to grow and prosper. 

We’re not interested in government fixes; we’re interested in freedom! Freedom! Our vision is forward looking. People may be frustrated now, but we’re very hopeful too. 

And, after all, why shouldn’t we be? We’re Americans. We’re always hopeful. 

Thank you for letting me share some of that hope, and a view from Main Street with you. God Bless You.


-  Sarah Palin

Friday, August 21, 2009

Sarah Palin: No Health Care Reform Without Legal Reform

Obama's health care "reform" plan has met with significant criticism across the country. Many Americans want change and reform in our current health care system. We recognize that while we have the greatest medical care in the world, there are major problems that we must face, especially in terms of reining in costs and allowing care to be affordable for all. However, as we have seen, current plans being pushed by the Democratic leadership represent change that may not be what we had in mind -- change which poses serious ethical concerns over the government having control over our families’ health care decisions. In addition, the current plans greatly increase costs of health care, while doing lip service toward controlling costs.


We need to address a REAL bipartisan reform proposition that will have REAL impacts on costs and quality of patient care.


As Governor of Alaska, I learned a little bit about being a target for frivolous suits and complaints (Please, do I really need to footnote that?). I went my whole life without needing a lawyer on speed-dial, but all that changes when you become a target for opportunists and people with no scruples. Our nation’s health care providers have been the targets of similar opportunists for years, and they too have found themselves subjected to false, frivolous, and baseless claims. To quote a former president, “I feel your pain.”


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.


Dr. Stuart Weinstein, with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, recently explained the problem:


”The medical liability crisis has had many unintended consequences, most notably a decrease in access to care in a growing number of states and an increase in health care costs.

Access is affected as physicians move their practices to states with lower liability rates and change their practice patterns to reduce or eliminate high-risk services. When one considers that half of all neurosurgeons—as well as one third of all orthopedic surgeons, one third of all emergency physicians, and one third of all trauma surgeons—are sued each year, is it any wonder that 70 percent of emergency departments are at risk because they lack available on-call specialist coverage?” [2]


Dr. Weinstein makes good points, points completely ignored by President Obama. Dr. Weinstein details the costs that our out-of-control tort system are causing the health care industry and notes research that “found that liability reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a 5 percent to 9 percent reduction in medical expenditures without any effect on mortality or medical complications.” Dr. Weinstein writes:


“If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. health care spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in health care costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine.

Excessive litigation and waste in the nation’s current tort system imposes an estimated yearly tort tax of $9,827 for a family of four and increases health care spending in the United States by $124 billion. How does this translate to individuals? The average obstetrician-gynecologist (OB-GYN) delivers 100 babies per year. If that OB-GYN must pay a medical liability premium of $200,000 each year (which is the rate in Florida), $2,000 of the delivery cost for each baby goes to pay the cost of the medical liability premium.” [3]


You would think that any effort to reform our health care system would include tort reform, especially if the stated purpose for Obama’s plan to nationalize our health care industry is the current high costs.


So I have new questions for the president: Why no legal reform? Why continue to encourage defensive medicine that wastes billions of dollars and does nothing for the patients? Do you want health care reform to benefit trial attorneys or patients?


Many states, including my own state of Alaska, have enacted caps on lawsuit awards against health care providers. Texas enacted caps and found that one county’s medical malpractice claims dropped 41 percent, and another study found a “55 percent decline” after reform measures were passed. [4] That’s one step in health care reform. Limiting lawyer contingency fees, as is done under the Federal Tort Claims Act, is another step. The State of Alaska pioneered the “loser pays” rule in the United States, which deters frivolous civil law suits by making the loser partially pay the winner’s legal bills. Preventing quack doctors from giving “expert” testimony in court against real doctors is another reform.


Texas Gov. Rick Perry noted that, after his state enacted tort reform measures, the number of doctors applying to practice medicine in Texas “skyrocketed by 57 percent” and that the tort reforms “brought critical specialties to under served areas.” These are real reforms that actually improve access to health care. [5]


Dr. Weinstein’s research shows that around $200 billion per year could be saved with legal reform. That’s real savings. That’s money that could be used to build roads, schools, or hospitals.

If you want to save health care, let’s listen to our doctors too. There should be no health care reform without legal reform. There can be no true health care reform without legal reform.


- Sarah Palin


[1] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409904574350370729883030.html

?mod=googlenews_wsj

[2] See http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov08/managing7.asp

[3] Id.

[4] See http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/new_laws_and_med_mal_damage_caps_devastate_


plaintiff_and_defense_firms_alik/print/

[5] See http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Tort-reform

-must-be-part-of-health-care-reform-8096175.html

Friday, August 14, 2009

Newt Gingrich Gives Governor Palin 6 Steps To Be President

In interview with Politico, by Jeanne Cummins, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich offers Governor Palin 6 Steps to keeping her presidential options open:


1. Write a book. Palin is already set to do that, which Gingrich applauds. A book, he said, helps a politician lay out his or her philosophy and experiences in their own unhurried words. It also helps score TV time, which in turn helps sell books, he added.


2. Land a regular commentator slot on television. It’s a sure way for an outsider to stay inside the national dialogue and in touch with the incumbents, activists and strategists who can help launch a comeback.


3. Consider getting a condominium in New York or Washington. An East Coast base of operations would ease what could become an onerous travel schedule from Alaska.


4. Write and master three types of speeches. One speech “is to make money,” he said, and should be something smart and entertaining. The second set of speeches includes what Gingrich calls “high-value” addresses designed to be delivered before major interest groups and universities, enabling Palin to “project her brand.” The third speech, of course, is a campaign stump speech that she can take on the road in 2010 to help Republican candidates raise money and gain attention.


5. Create some sort of national project or center. This can serve as a base for her political return and an incubator for ideas and action on issues. A National Energy Project, Gingrich said, would be a natural for Palin.


6. Plan on working really, really hard. Many ex-politicians confuse being a celebrity with being a serious political player, Gingrich said. “She can be a personality for a long time,” he said. “But that is very different from becoming a national leader.”


Read Full Article At:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26018.html

Amazon Deals

Followers

Citizen Palin 4 President FACEBOOK:

Palin For President T-Shirt

Get Your 1 or 2-Sided Palin Apparel

GET INVOLVED ==> Organize 4 Palin

Sarah Palin's Facebook Notes

International Visitors

free counters

Blog Archive

Bloggers 4 Citizen Palin

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

Visits To Citizen Palin 4 President


About Me

My photo
Washington, DC, United States
I live in DC and a I can be reached at sarah2012gop@yahoo.com