Tag Archives: Charles Krauthammer

If the GOPe Were Smart They Would Beg Gov. Palin to Come Back Into the Room

By Stacy Drake

* Follow Stacy on Twitter

But this is the “stupid party” we’re talking about, so I won’t hold my breath.

In the wake of the disastrous 2012 election results, there has been a lot of discussion on the right regarding the GOP’s apparent “message” problem. Much of the conversations has focused on immigration issues as a way to bring in new voters. Recently, Charles Krauthammer wrote:

’ve always been of the “enforcement first” school, with the subsequent promise of legalization. I still think it’s the better policy. But many Hispanics fear that there will be nothing beyond enforcement. So, promise amnesty right up front. Secure the border with guaranteed legalization to follow on the day the four border-state governors affirm that illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle.

Imagine Marco Rubio advancing such a policy on the road to 2016. It would transform the landscape. He’d win the Hispanic vote. Yes, win it. A problem fixable with a single policy initiative is not structural. It is solvable.

It’s going to take much more than that to solve the current issues the GOP has with voters. You can’t pander to one racial demographic and think that will solve all of your problems. The predicament that they find themselves in goes much deeper than a single issue, and it’s based primarily on trust. According to an election night survey released by Breitbart News, Judicial Watch, and Public Opinion Strategies:

Voters’ responses suggest that the American public agrees with conservative policies–but does not trust the Republican Party to implement them.

For example, voters dislike big government, with 71% agreeing (and 49% strongly agreeing) that: “The larger the size of government the more opportunities it creates for possible corruption.” In addition, 85% of voters said they were concerned about corruption in Washington, and 53% described themselves as “very concerned.”

Yet voters do not trust Republicans more than Democrats to deal with corruption. Only 34% said Republicans would do a better job of cleaning up corruption; 37% said Democrats would. That is an indictment of the permanent political class, regardless of party. And despite the President’s talk of cleaning up Washington, his party is not viewed as better able to do so.

So, the Democrats share much of the same issue with voters regarding corruption, but they’re able to squeak enough votes each cycle because they have more credibility on other matters. Here’s a thought. How about for starters, the GOP stop selling out their principles and try to gain some trust back with that 71% who dislike big government? And how does either party address the 85% of voters who are concerned about corruption in Washington, when both of them are compromised in that area? Considering all of the money wasted in Washington on cronies and corruption, these concerns by the vast majority are extremely legitimate.

As I watched the debate go back and forth on the GOP’s message problem after the election, an article written by Anand Giridharadas back in 2011 titled “Some of Sarah Palin’s Ideas Cross the Political Divide” came to mind. In it, he wrote:

[S]omething curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa…

She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.

Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.

Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?” she said, referring to politicians. “It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”

Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.

Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs…

This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.

Keep in mind that Sarah Palin was told to “leave the room” by none other than Charles Krauthammer, back in 2009. Yet now he tells the Republican Party that in order for it to save it’s hide, they must reward lawbreakers and anoint a man as leader who has engaged in illegally soliciting foreign donations, just as President Obama has also done.

That is not the answer. The answer for the GOP is to clean up its own act and address the real concerns of the majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation. They can start by not shunning the members of their own party who have the credibility to speak on such matters. Reform in Washington is a winning message and has the potential to bring in voters from nearly every racial, gender, and economic demographic in the country.

It isn’t too late for the Republican Party to jump on board, but time is ticking. American voters need a true opposition party to the big-government, tax and spend, corruption plagued Democrats. The GOP establishment would do themselves and the country a favor by allowing people into the room who can credibly push for reform, and by ceasing their own practices of big-government corruption.

Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

Publisher’s Note” in case you missed it, here is the Indianola, Iowa speech Stacy references. This is what real leadership looks like. The Geniuses of the GOP™ should take note:

And of course, the she stuck around to meet the people:

7 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Krauthammer: Politics, Not the Constitution Behind Robert’s Decision

By Gary P Jackson

I don’t always agree with Charles, but I think he is on the right track. Basically, Krauthammer is saying that Chief Justice Roberts was more concerned with the reputation of the Supreme Court, that it would be attacked by the Obama regime, than he was about following the Constitution.

There are all kinds of theories being formed as to why Roberts changed his mind and sided with tyranny rather than the Constitution, but this makes a lot of sense.

As Hannity points out, the Justices who wrote in dissent were aiming their anger at Roberts.

Very much worth your time to listen to Krauthammer here:

Video courtesy SarahNet

2 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Mark Levin On Sarah Palin, Ronald Reagan, and “Intellectual” Elites

By Gary P Jackson

Mark Levin was on fire Monday morning, releasing a scathing refudiation of Republican “intellectuals” and their complete inability to recognize and understand Conservatism and it’s principles. Levin rightly points out that George Will, an elitist if there ever was one, never got what Reagan was about. I’m sure it had something to do with the fact Reagan often wore blue jeans, a no-no in Georgie’s world.

Krauthammer has long been a disappointment. He’s intelligent, for sure, but often quite wrong when it comes to basic issues. Oh, Charles can be brilliant at times, especially on complicated issues. But when it comes to the every day meat and potatoes issues, Charles just doesn’t get it. Of course, what does one expect from someone who not only worked for President Jimmy Carter but Walter Mondale, as well, when he ran against Ronald Reagan!

Calling Charles Krauthammer a “Conservative” is like calling David Frum, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, and Peggy Noonan “Conservatives.”

The American people are well past allowing our “betters” to continually tell us how we should think, and who we should vote for.

The hate for Sarah Palin

The corporate hate for Sarah Palin at Politico is obvious. The latest is here

But if you google Politico and Palin, the evidence of a Politico agenda is overwhelming. And the manner in which Politico’s editors pursue their hate-Palin agenda is to cherry-pick the individuals they quote to make the point they want made.

A couple of quick things:

1. As I demonstrated last week, remarkably George Will missed the Reagan Revolution not only in 1976 but as late as 1980. In the 1979 Republican Presidential Primary, his first choice was Howard Baker, his second choice was George H. W. Bush, and his third choice was Reagan. Not until days before the 1980 general election did he write on November 3, 1980 that Reagan deserved election. For all his wonderful columns, the Republican electorate better understood the needs of the nation and the excellence of a potential Reagan presidency than Will.

It is hard to believe he was so wrong about a matter of such great import, despite Reagan’s presence on the national scene for many years.

2. Charles Krauthammer was not only wrong about Reagan, as late as 1980 he was a speech-writer for Vice President Walter Mondale. Krauthammer, like Will, not only missed the significance of the Reagan candidacy, but was putting words in the mouth of a terribly flawed politician from a philosophical perspective. I certainly do not begrudge, but in fact encourage, liberals becoming conservatives or Democrats becoming Republicans.

Reagan was a Democrat who famously changed parties. But I do not believe that individuals touted by a left-wing “news” site as two of the leading conservative intellectuals, who stunningly opposed Reagan’s candidacy while both were of mature age and mind, are necessarily reliable barometers in this regard. The “non-intellectual” voters knew better.

3. It is apparent that several of President George W. Bush’s former senior staffers are hostile to Sarah Palin, including Karl Rove, David Frum, and Pete Wehner, to name only three. Pete is a good friend and a very smart guy. That said, Bush’s record, at best, is marginally conservative, and depending on the issue, worse. In fact, the Tea Party movement is, in part, a negative reaction to Bush’s profligate spending (including his expansion of a bankrupt Medicare program to include prescription drugs). And while Bush’s spending comes nowhere near Barack Obama’s, that is not the standard.

Moreover, Bush was not exactly among our most articulate presidents, let alone conservative voices. I raise this not to compare Bush to Palin, but to point out only a few of the situational aspects of the criticism from the Bush community corner. (If necessary, and if challenged, I will take the time to lay out the case in all its particulars, as well as other non-conservative Bush policies and statements. No Republican president is perfect, of course, but certainly some are more perfect that others, if you will.)

This is not to say the folks cherry-picked by Politico are without accomplishment and merit. They clearly are accomplished. But that’s not the point. Most were not involved in either the Reagan Revolution or the Tea Party movement, and were not, to the best of my knowledge, early outspoken supporters of either.

What is necessary is a fulsome debate on each candidate’s substance and policy positions. Most of these Politico stories are little more than excuses to attack Palin, intended to damage her early on in case she should decide to run. This has been going on for some time now. If she is as weak as some think, why the obsession? Why the contempt? Moreover, Palin has used social media and other outlets to comment substantively on a wide range of issues and policies. In fact, she has spoken on a wider array of issues than Youtube governor Chris Christie, popular among most of these folks, and her positions have, for the most part, been solidly conservative.

(Christie’s positions on numerous issues important to conservatives are all but ignored by some of those complaining about Palin; indeed, the same could be said of potential presidential contenders Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitch Daniels, among others.)

My purpose in mentioning Christie here is to juxtapose the demands by “the intellectuals” on one politician versus another. Their inquisitiveness seems influenced by their political bias. That’s not unusual, but it requires underscoring lest their opinions be viewed or promoted as objective.

As a Reaganite pre-dating Reagan’s 1976 candidacy, the contempt for Palin does, in fact, remind me of the contempt some had for Reagan, especially from the media and Republican establishment, although no comparison is exact. I’ve not settled on a favorite would-be presidential candidate, but I also know media hit-jobs when I see them. I am hopeful more conservatives will begin to speak out about this or, before we know it, we will wonder why we are holding our noses and voting for another Republican endorsed by “the intellectuals” but opposed by a majority of the people.

Ronald Reagan was vilified by the Republican elites. It was very much like the attacks and petty sniping we are witnessing now against Sarah Palin. As is always the case, the Republicans fought harder against the Conservative, Reagan, than they did Carter!

What they are doing to Palin is nothing new. The fact is, the GOP country club set has always held true Conservatives in great contempt. Those who reflect the feelings and aspirations of the Republican Party base of voters, those true Conservatives are always attacked, ridiculed, and otherwise slandered by the cucumber and mayo sandwich crowd.

The problem with the Republican Party, the elites, is they would rather lose elections than lose power. The Republican Party, pre-President Reagan, was totally content to sit back and be the minority party, allowing the democrat party to run roughshod over the entire nation. They were happy to just sit at the table and have some power. Settling for what ever table scraps they were allowed by the democrats was fine with them.

It wasn’t until 1994 that Conservative Republicans prevailed, and ended 40 years of Democrat control of Congress. This was a natural extension of the Reagan Revolution. Sadly, once in office, many of those Republicans became just as entrenched and out of touch as the democrats they replaced. More worried about staying in office than running an efficient government.

Now the elites have carved out their little zones of power, and are not about to give them up. Not about to change the way they do business.

The Tea Party as a whole, and Sarah Palin in particular, is a direct threat to these entrenched little elites. That’s why these elites fight so hard. Things must change. Government is broken. It’s a disaster. The nation itself is staring into the abyss. We have a debt we may never be able to pay. We have an energy crisis, an economic crisis, and a national security crisis. “More of the same” is not going to cut it. Things must be shaken up, and a new path chosen.

The problem with choosing new paths though, is many of those on the old path are left behind. And these little elites don’t want to go along with the new path, especially if they lose their influence and power.

Sarah Palin represents a real threat to the Ruling Class, in both parties. She is not a “business as usual” type of leader. She’s well known as someone who “shakes things up.” Her lengthy record of leadership as a Mayor, energy regulator, and Governor shows that she doesn’t waste time doing things as they’ve always been done, just “because” and she doesn’t suffer fools well. This is bad news for the elites, because they are a foolish bunch.

4 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, Ronald Reagan, sarah palin

A Note To Karl Rove & Charles Krauthammer: Sarah Palin’s Alaska Is More Relevant Than You Are

By Gary P Jackson

Recently a couple of Washington elites, Republican “strategist” and Fox News talking head Karl Rove and columnist and Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer have decided to weigh in on all things Sarah Palin.

Karl Rove “The Architect” [of WHAT I have no idea] has stated that writing books and having a so-called “reality show” just doesn’t display the proper “gravitas” befitting a United States President. Note these GOP elites, just like the dishonest media, refer to Sarah’s travelogue as a “reality show” in the pejorative. It’s a dishonest attempt to compare a show about the beauty and magnificence of Alaska, with a look into the Palin family’s life, with Jersey Shore, or the Real Housewives of wherever.

It’s pretty sad. But it’s all these people have. No ideas, no substance. Just petty snark. Here’s a hint for ya Karl. Snark doesn’t equal gravitas either pal!

Charles Krauthammer, the very epitome of the Beltway elite, who has no idea what life outside the Washington bubble is about, has recently said Sarah’s two best selling books, and her mega-hit TLC show are “distractions” and if she wants to be taken serious she needs to “study up.” I guess that’s an improvement from last year when, after framing the ObamaCare debate with two powerful words,[death panels] Charles declared that Sarah should “leave the room.”

Nothing elitist about that at all. Nope, no way.

With those two little words Sarah changed the entire debate. And while ObamaCare was passed, it was the fight of Obama’s life, took multi-billion dollar bribes to get votes, and will be repealed before it ever takes full effect. Thanks to Sarah Palin firing people up, and keeping them fired up, more people now than ever are demanding this dangerous legislation be repealed. The direct result of her unrelenting campaign against ObamaCare, and other dangerous initiatives, are the recent historic elections.

But Charles is the smart one. Don’t you DARE to forget that.

I guess Charles can’t lower himself to read the dozens of op-eds in many of the nation’s largest and most influential newspapers Sarah has written, on ever major issue of our time. I’m sure it’s beneath Charles to go over to Facebook and read the hundreds of notes, read by millions, on serious issue. Why the man might have to rub elbows [if only online] with us commoners. 

For her part, Sarah was invited on Bill O’Reilly’s show, the night after Krauthammer once again made a fool of himself. She was brilliant in her refudiation of these little Washington elites.

In case you missed it, the occasion of Krauthammer’s appearance on the O’Reilly Factor was to handicap the 2012 GOP field. Predictable, for an elite, Charles declared Mitt Romney the front runner, but admitted he was not going to be successful because of RomneyCare. [yeah, that took some real genius to figure out!] So when pressed, Krauthammer professed him man crush on Mitch Daniels.

I haven’t written much about Mitch Daniels, because it’s hard to stop laughing long enough to type anytime he is mentioned as a serious presidential contender.

Daniels was George w Bush’s Director of Budget Management. [let that sink in a minute] Recently, when asked about this by Fox News’ Bret Baier, in the context of how fiscally irresponsible the Bush years were, Daniels kinda did the “wasn’t my job man” dance. You know, because the Director of Budget Management for the President of the United States has nothing to do with all that money stuff!

Daniels has also famously called for a “truce” on all social issues. [because the democrat's social engineering NEVER costs us any money] Daniels is strongly in favor of a European style value added tax [VAT] on all goods and services. This national tax would be in addition to the income tax.[let THAT sink in a moment]

Just the other day Daniels also said we should ignore the abortion issue, because it gets in the way of the money stuff. I don’t know about you, but to me, the right to life is the most basic human right there is. It’s a fight we should never give up, not for one second.

In other words Mitch Daniels is not a serious candidate. But he’s “smart.”

I’m still trying to figure out why Charles Krauthammer’s opinion, especially on what and who is “presidential” even matters. Krauthammer’s biggest claim to fame is he used to be a speech writer for far left presidential candidate Walter Mondale. [and yet, Charles is allowed to pass himself off as a Conservative]

Mondale was Vice President to mega-failure President Jimmy Carter. He ran against President Ronald Reagan in 1984.

How formidable was Krauthammer’s man, Mondale? Ronald Reagan won 49 states and 525 electoral votes. [out of a possible 538] Mondale won his home state of Minnesota and it’s 13 electoral votes by only 0.18%, and the District of Columbia. Literally a hand full of votes going Republican in Minnesota could have given Reagan a 50 state sweep!

That Krauthammer sure can pick em, huh!

These elites who are constantly sniping at Sarah Palin do so, not because they honestly think she isn’t “presidential,” [whatever the hell that means] but because they have an agenda. The Republican establishment fears Sarah Palin. Not the lady, as much as what she represents. Like Ronald Reagan before her, Sarah is a movement Conservative. She doesn’t just talk the talk, she walks the walk. She is the real deal and has put the principles of Reagan Conservatism into practice every day of her 20 year career as a public servant.

Sarah is also a reformer. Has been since her earliest days as a member of the city council in Wasilla. The GOP elites know she sent a bunch of dirty Republicans to the hoosegow over the massive corruption she uncovered. The fact they were members of her own party mattered nothing to her. This scares both parties in Washington, but scares the Republican establishment the most. When Sarah Palin says she would go to Washington to “shake things up” she means it! [and they know it]

Sorry to ramble on, I promised this would be about Sarah Palin’s Alaska, and it is.

You see, I laugh at these little elites like Rove and Krauthammer, who think doing a wonderful show about Alaska, and life living in what is truly the last frontier, is somehow beneath a serious person.

I guess these two idiots never heard of Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom!

When I was a kid growing up, millions were glued to the TV on Saturdays to watch this adventure show hosted by Marlin Perkins, of the St Louis Zoo, and sponsored by the Omaha, Nebraska based insurance company. Every week we watched as Perkins and his crew showed us another adventure. Much like Sarah’s show, there was a bit of a “reality” component, as well. These were great shows.

I wasn’t a big fan, but millions also watched the many Jacques Cousteau underwater adventures that featured as much, or more , family interaction [“reality”] as does Sarah Palin’s Alaska.

For the life of me, I can’t recall a single human being questioning whether Marlin Perkins or Jacques Cousteau were “serious people”.

Look, times change, and styles change. OF COURSE Sarah Palin’s Alaska may have a slightly different style than the two celebrated shows mentioned above, but so what? Everything gets modernized and updated for current times. Nothing in the media is like it was 40-50 years ago, including the news media where these nay-saying pundits get to spout off!

I for one greatly enjoy seeing Alaska in high definition! 

As for being a serious outdoors woman somehow not being “presidential,” if that was true, why is it “serious candidates” like Mitt Romney and John Kerry [who served in Vietnam] go through such ridiculous kabuki theater to pander to the American people by pretending to be “life long hunters”?

Who can ever forget the pathetic attempt by John Kerry [ a Vietnam vet] to look “with it” when he walks into a shop asking: “Can I get me a huntin’ license heyah?

These guys, Romney and Kerry, who aren’t sure which end of a gun to point at the target, are “serious people” but Sarah Palin, who has hunted, fished, and lived the frontier life since childhood is not?

Give me a break.

Someone else who might give Rove and Krauthammer’s notions a pretty strong rebuff, if he were with us today, is President Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt is just as well known for his love of the outdoors, and his adventures as a hunter and fisherman, as he is for his exploits in Cuba during the Spanish-American war, or as President.

Like Sarah Palin, Roosevelt loved the land and all of the wildlife. Not sure how many people today even know that the “teddy bear” all children grow up loving, was named for President Roosevelt, after an incident involving a bear cub, while the President was in Mississippi to resolve a border dispute between Mississippi and Louisiana. You can read that wonderful little story here.

I doubt Sarah and Teddy would see eye to eye on most politics. Roosevelt was a progressive who believed in big government, and overstepped his authority on many occasions, and Sarah, of course, is a Conservative. But the two share a love for the great outdoors, and a penchant for reform.

I can imagine the President who created the concept of a nation parks system would enjoy the notion of a President today who shares his love and respect for the great outdoors, even if that President happens to be a girl!

Sadly, I doubt little elites like Rove and Krauthammer will ever get it. That’s all right, the American people do.

Let me leave you with this:

Larry Johnson wrote this over at No Quarter. I think it speaks well to the impact of Sarah Palin, and Sarah Palin’s Alaska:

A Sarah Palin Christmas

Don’t kill the messenger. I’m just reporting what I saw. Last night we hosted a Christmas Party at our house for the nurses who work for my wife. My wife is a nurse manager and has a staff of 67 (the fact that no human being should have to write fitness reports on 67 people is another matter for another time).

Among the more than 50 people crowded into our house were a small group of teenagers, boys and girls. I have a pool table in my basement alongside a nice 50 inch flat panel TV. Playing eight ball and watching some tube. Life is good. It is a sort of man cave environment. Three of the teenage boys were eager to play billiards and I obliged them. A fourteen and fifteen year old tandem of Irish twins played me and a ten year old boy.

Now you’re asking, I’m sure, what the hell does this have to do with Sarah Palin?

When the billiards match concluded (yes, I beat up on the 14 and 15 year old boys) the boys decided to sit down and watch some tube. It is not your normal system and the remote is not easy to figure out so I offered to get them the channel they wanted. Imagine my shock when all three–the ten year old boy, the fourteen and the fifteen year old–requested SARAH PALIN’S ALASKA. I have HBO, Showtime, Encore and NFL Network. Although I do not subscribe to the Playboy channel it was late enough at night that I’m sure Showtime had a nude fest on somewhere.

Yet, despite all of those options, the boys wanted to watch Sarah Palin’s show. Hell, I did not even realize it was on. These guys knew where and when the show was on. That tells me something about the Sarah phenomena. She is resonating with a segment of society I never imagined would have a clue about her.

One of the boys did confess that he found Sarah’s daughter, and I’m quoting here, “HOT.” I found that reassuring in that one would expect teenage boys to be thinking about girls.

Democrats beware. All of your attacks on Sarah Palin and your attempts to demonize her or demean her intellect are likely to backfire. You know Sarah is a genuine phenomena when you are confronted with the fact that three boys with a chance to watch anything on TV choose to watch Sarah.

How’s that for a Christmas story?

For those not familiar with Johnson, here’s his bio:

Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism.

He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.

This is someone who’s career has been based on making observations and analyzing trends. While Johnson doesn’t say it here, I think we can all see the obvious:

Sarah Palin’s Alaska [and Sarah Palin herself] are more relevant [an influential] than Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer.

7 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin