The Difference between Embracing Bipartisanship and Eschewing Obsessive Partisanship

by Whitney Pitcher

 

The recently passed fiscal cliff deal was heralded by the media as a “bipartisan compromise”.  Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein emphasized that the deal needed a “bipartisan basis”. Republican Senator John Boozman called the bill a “bipartisan solution” that would “tackle the financial troubles are country is facing”. The bill ultimately received a total of 125 Republicans and 219 Democrats between both the House and Senate. The bill indeed was bipartisan, but what was the price of bipartisanship? Eighty percent of the revenue from the bill will go to President Obama’s cronies through incentives and subsidies. The Congressional Budget Office ultimately determined that the touted “balanced approach” really meant that there would be 10 dollars in tax increases for every dollar in spending cuts leading to an additional $4 trillion in deficits.Additionally, the payroll tax holiday expired as part of the deal. It is indeed arguable that the tax holiday shouldn’t have existed in the first place, as the holiday could contribute to the insolvency of Social Security. However, allowing that tax holiday to expire while claiming that the deal didn’t “raise” taxes is a disingenuous claim by politicians pretending to champions for the middle class while 77% of Americans see less money in their paycheck. In order to face the political reality of a looming, media declared fiscal cliff that would have meant deep across the board spending cuts and tax increases, Congress ignored the fiscal reality of our present and future to spend more… but bipartisanship!

The media has touted the bipartisanship of both President Obama and Governor Chris Christie in recent months as well. President Obama has chosen to appoint former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. Hagel supported Obama 2008 candidacy and has taken some stances on Iran and Israel that have made many leery of him as a Defense Secretary. Following the devastation of Hurricane Sandy, Governor Christie embraced and praised President Obama’s response while more recently trashing Republicans for ultimately waiting a few days to pass a clean bill for Hurricane Sandy aid, rather than the pork laden bill that Christie preferred. Both of these politicians “sacrificed” in their bipartisanship–Obama his partisan stance for his policy stance and political friendship and Christie his party’s purported conservative platform for his political advantage.

Abandoning a party platform (i.e. principle) for the sake of party happens often in politics. It’s called obsessive partisanship. Congressman Paul Ryan joined in the aforementioned “bipartisanship” when he voted for the fiscal cliff deal, noting that he “had the guts to vote for it” and that allowing this plan to pass meant that “now we can finally debate spending”. However, when Congressman Ryan had the opportunity to “debate spending” when President Bush was in office, he didn’t. As I have written before:

He is an intelligent Congressman who has shown leadership in the House on the budget and making strong stances against Obamacare, particularly the IPAB—the unelected board of bureaucrats tasked with managing how Medicare pays. Ryan has served as a Congressman in Washington DC since 1999 and worked for House members for several years during the early and mid 1990s as well. However, despite his strong stance against the Obama administration’s profligate spending, he also supported the TARP bailout during the Bush administration and the auto bailout set in motion during the Bush administration.

Paul Ryan is just one example. Individuals on both sides of the aisle are guilty of obsessive partisanship. When President Bush raised the debt ceiling, then Senator Obama called it “a failure of leadership”, only to raise the debt ceiling himself in his first term. He is poised to raise it yet again. This is obsessive partisanship. It’s one thing for a liberal or a conservative to vote or govern according to his or her principles. It is another thing to abandon one’s alleged principles for the sake of party or political expediency.

Thankfully, there are some individuals who have eschewed obsessive partisanship for the sake of maintaining their principles. Sarah Palin is a prime example:

She had garnered a reputation for bucking her own party– calling out the Alaska GOP chair for doing party business on state time, taking on and defeating an incumbent governor in her own party, cleaning up the ethical mess caused by that incumbent she defeated, and even suing a GOP presidential administration to enable energy development in Alaska.

There are other examples as well. Just this week former Illinois Republican gubernatorial candidate, Adam Andrezjewski filed a lawsuit against Republican comptroller Judy Baar Topinka to make the state of Illinois checkbook publicly available. Topinka had earlier denied Andrezjewski’s organization’s (For the Good of Illinois) FOIA request. He is suing a member of his own party for the sake of making a state in fiscal shambles more transparent. Making state spending publicly available was embraced by Governor Palin as well and is an example of obsessive partisanship eschewed. When Governor Palin launched that effort in Alaska in 2008, it was praised by both Grover Norquist and Democrat Ralph Nader. She willing exposed the spending she signed into law at the risk of political criticism.

This why pro market, pro transparency populism needs to be embraced. Americans have become jaded to politics where their kids’ futures are put in jeopardy because politicians in Washington want to play kick the can for the sake of their own political expediency. Politicians too often point the finger of blame and broken promises only to find that when they point fingers they have three pointing back at them. Is a pro market, pro transparency approach to governance idealistic? Perhaps. Do we deserve it? With our propensity to vote the same folks into office election after election, maybe we don’t, but America’s future does deserve it. We can’t continue to sacrifice our fiscal reality for the sake of our bipartisan, but obsessively partisan political reality.

Under the Magnifying Glass: A Tale of Two Vice Presidential Candidacies

by Whitney Pitcher

In the weeks following the election, Republicans are assessing what went wrong that led to their defeat. Much to the criticism of some in the party, Governor Romney has hypothesized that President Obama won because of the “gifts” that he offered minorities. Others have speculated that the GOP was not able to effectively reach out to the changing demographics of America or that the party misinterpreted polls and got cocky. Others have pointed to poorly designed and implemented GOTV technology.Compared to the 2008 election, there is one reason for defeat that is conspicuously missing from the “Wednesday morning” political strategizing — blaming the GOP choice for vice president.

Paul Ryan, of course, was not the reason for Mitt Romney’s defeat. His nomination provided a spark for many in the Republican party. He was an articulate voice for the GOP ticket and a seemingly good fit for a Romney campaign nearly singularly focused on the economy. He is an intelligent Congressman who has shown leadership in the House on the budget and making strong stances against Obamacare, particularly the IPAB—the unelected board of bureaucrats tasked with managing how Medicare pays. Ryan has served as a Congressman in Washington DC since 1999 and worked for House members for several years during the early and mid 1990s as well. However, despite his strong stance against the Obama administration’s profligate spending, he also supported  the TARP bailout during the Bush administration and the auto bailout set in motion during the Bush administration. He has been a good Republican soldier in Washington D.C. for nearly twenty years, which made him ideal for Romney, especially as someone from the same state (a swing state too) as the current RNC chair.

In 2008, Sarah Palin was quite the opposite in some respects. She was the governor of Alaska–about as far away from Washington D.C. as one can get. She had garnered a reputation for bucking her own party– calling out the Alaska GOP chair for doing party business on state time, taking on and defeating an incumbent governor in her own party, cleaning up the ethical mess caused by that incumbent she defeated, and even suing a GOP presidential administration to enable energy development in Alaska. During the campaign, she wanted to abandon the micromanaging of her handlers and speak on passion and principles rather than talking points. She was the embodiment of the feminist ideal–a great family, a successful career, not to mention a state basketball championship and the ability to shoot a moose and cook it up for dinner. This proved to be a perfect target for the media, the Democrats, and GOP Establishment to go after Governor Palin, not only for the blamecasting loss, but also the treatment and coverage throughout the campaign, which was much harsher than what was shown Paul Ryan.

The Romney campaign was, of course, smart enough not to hire the likes of Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace (unlike MSNBC and ABC), so the source of much of the redistribution of blame of the 2008 campaign was missing from the 2012 campaign. Ryan was not a threat to the GOP machine, because in many ways, he was already a part of it. There was no need for Romney campaign staffers, some of whom had trashed Governor Palin during the 2008 general election, to send out emails to coordinate a strategy to shield themselves from blame if they lost, as Steve Schmidt had done.So far during the 2012 election fallout, Romney advisers are blaming strategy and messaging, not directly their own candidates.

The media and the Obama campaign, however, did go after Paul Ryan with spurious attacks. Prior to the campaign and during the campaign, they tried to portray his budgetary roadmap as one that would throw grandma over the cliff. The Obama campaign tried to conflate Todd Akin’s comments on rape with Paul Ryan’s stance on abortion. The media and Democrats both turned a visit by Ryan to a soup kitchen into a ridiculous mini-scandal. However, this was nothing compared to the barrage that Governor Palin received four years ago from within her campaign, the Democrats, and the media. Like Ryan, Palin also had false accusations launched at her regarding who rape–specifically who paid for rape test kits when she was mayor. However, with Governor Palin claims seemed more pointed and numerous. Ridiculous claims were made that she wasn’t the mother of Trig, her youngest son. False claims were also made regarding Palin’s associations with the Alaska Independence Party (AIP), which has succession as part of its platform. This supposed AIP-Palin connection was also falsely cast onto to Governor Palin by an employee of a Democratic PR firms. Claims were made that she cut funding for special education when she actually increased spending for special education substantially.She even was falsely reported to have banned books like Harry Potter when she was mayor--before the books were even written.

For Governor Palin, it went beyond false claims surrounding policy and into false charges regarding her character– charges that she abused her power by pressuring a commissioner to fire a state trooper who once was Palin’s brother-in-law. State senator, Kim Elton launched a legislative inquiry into the matter, deeming it an “October surprise”(i.e. he intended it be political). During the inquiry process, the Obama camp even made contact with the troopers’ union of Governor Palin’s former brother-in-law.Ultimately, the politically motivated legislative inquiry found her as abusing power, while the personnel board, who were all appointed by Governor Murkowski, no friend of Governor Palin, exonerated her. Following President Obama’s election, Kim Elton was given a cushy job in President Obama’s Department of Interior. Elton had also allowed former chief of staff to then Senator Obama and once interim chief of staff to President Obama, Pete Rouse, to use Elton’s Alaskan address so that  Rouse could vote in Alaska even after he hadn’t lived there for more than twenty years. Democrats sought to destroy her character, not solely mislead on her policy.

During the campaign, Governor Palin was criticized for being held back from the press–a poor campaign move by operatives like Schmidt and Wallace. Prior to her becoming the VP pick, emails obtained by the Anchorage Daily News noted that she was to be a McCain surrogate across several networks, yet the campaign held her back when she was picked. When she did talk to media embeds, she was criticized for “going rogue”. Meanwhile, Paul Ryan only spoke to the traveling press corps four times during the campaign and never gave formal press availability. Ryan’s limited press interaction never became a major story, however, only the subject of a singular tweet from a member of the traveling press corps.

Not only was Governor Palin more harshly covered by the media, her family was as well. Todd Palin’s voter registration became a huge news story when he inadvertently checked the box for the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) when he simply intended to note he was an independent (he later corrected this). However, Paul Ryan’s wife was not placed under the same intense scrutiny–despite the fact that she had been a congressional staffer and a corporate lobbyist in the past.  During their respective campaigns,  Governor Palin’s children was the mother of a four school aged (or younger) children and a son in the military while Congressman Ryan’s children were all under the age of 10. The young age of his three children and a busy campaign schedule were never a reason for faux concern from the media, as it was for Governor Palin.  Not to mention how Bristol Palin was put under the spotlight by the media and the Left during her concurrent pregnancy.

Despite claims made by McCain campaign staffers even prior to the campaign’s end, Governor Palin was not reason for the McCain-Palin ticket’s defeat. In fact, she helped the ticket. Among those who noted Palin’s presence on the GOP ticket affected their vote, 56% voted for McCain-Palin compared to 43% for Obama-Biden. John McCain and Sarah Palin received 59,934, 814 votes while  Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan received 59, 142,004 votes–a more than three quarters of a million vote difference in favor of McCain-Palin. This was despite the fact that the Romney campaign made more contacts with voters on a grassroots level than the McCain campaign. These vote differences are in no way an indictment of Paul Ryan’s candidacy, nor does an indictment lie in the context of solely a presidential campaign. The indictment lies with the GOP Establishment, Democrats, and the media who all seemed to have the same goal of destroying Governor Palin–a goal they haven’t achieved despite continued efforts. Revisiting the 2008 campaign is not an attempt to rehash the past, but to put it in greater perspective. This month’s election now provides an even bolder contrast to further reveal how much the media, the Democrats and even her own party wished to smear and discredited Governor Palin–and how much they continue to do so.

During this election cycle, GOP Establishmentarian, Karl Rove disingenuously represented Palin’s effect on the ticket by saying McCain was leading prior to picking her as VP and he poo-pooed the effect of her endorsement as “not worth snot”. In the end, Rove’s endorsement successes were non-existent while Governor Palin had great success. The Democrats still reference Palin, in attempts to diminish her, but their reference to her only shows her influence and their fear. John Kerry referenced Governor Palin  in his speech at the Democratic convention when discussing Mitt Romney’s policy on Russia. Obama campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, referenced Palin in response to Rudy Guliani questioning Joe Biden’s mental capacity. This past week, the head of Obama’s SuperPAC and former deputy White House press secretary, Bill Burton took a shot at Palin in response to John McCain’s criticism of Susan Rice’s comments on the attack on the American consulate in Libya.She still remains a target for and a threat to both parties.

A willingness to serve in the capacity of vice presidential nominee means that your record, your family, and your character will be put under a magnifying glass–as it should. With Governor Palin, however, the GOP establishment, Democrats, and the media used (and continue to use) the magnifying glass the same way a mean kid uses it to direct sun’s rays to an ant hill–to destroy. A magnifying glass can be revealing for objects on either side of it though, and thankfully, Governor Palin has used the magnifying glass to further reveal the corrupt nature of the very people who seek to destroy her.

Sarah Palin Talks with Brian Kilmeade About the Biden-Ryan Debacle and the Future

Governor Sarah Palin signs legislation

By Gary P Jackson

A good and frank discussion between Sarah Palin and Brian Kilmeade about Thursday night’s debate between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden.

Sarah doing a better job of making Ryan’s points than he was able to do himself. Brian asks her how things would have been different had she and McCain won the election, and how things have changed since becoming a world wide political force.

Brian asks her about the possibility of her being named Energy Secretary by President Romney, and she talks at length about energy independence and how energy is where much of her expertise lies. Before being elected Governor, Sarah was Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the board that regulates oil and gas production and serves as the state’s ethics watchdog over the industry.

As Governor Sarah was the Chairman of the Nation’s Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, and her fellow Governor chose her to lead the National Governors Association’s Natural Resources Committee.

She would be the right choice for Energy Secretary, that’s for certain.

They also talk about Todd and Bristol as well.

Great interview:

Audio courtesy SarahNet.

Governor Sarah Palin and her team

Debate Night Reflections from Sarah Palin: Moderator Allowed Biden to Run Roughshod Over Ryan

It reminded me kind of a musk ox running across the tundra

~ Sarah Palin on how the moderator allowed Joe Biden to run wild.

By Gary P Jackson

In interviews with both Neil Cavuto and Sean Hannity Sarah Palin recaps Thursday night’s debate between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden. She notes, as we all have, that debate moderator Martha Raddatz was in the tank for Biden, and allowed Joe free reign to interrupt Paul Ryan, and ramble on endlessly. In the end, this strategy seems to have failed, as Biden came off looking like a gigantic ass, but it also exposed some weaknesses Paul Ryan has.

Sarah also talks about some of the debate prep she went through in 2008 before she met and won a decisive victory against Joe Biden.

Videos courtesy SarahNet.

Sarah Palin Debates Bill O’Reilly About Her and Biden’s Debate and Tonight’s

By Gary P Jackson

The video opens with Biden talking about Katie’s Cafe in Wilmington, which, in fact, closed in the 1980s, and the Home Depot. Sarah Palin goes into how Biden just “makes shhhh-stuff up“! I kinda wish she could have used the word she wanted to!

Hard to tell at times if O’Reilly is trying to ask questions of Sarah or challenge her to a debate. He finally shuts up and lets Sarah tell about her debate experience with Joe Biden, and her thoughts on tonight. Great answers from Sarah, annoying banter from O’Reilly. In other words, 8 pm as usual on Fox News.

At the end, Sarah tell O’Reilly to read her book Going Rogue if he wants to learn all of the details about the debate. I have and it’s good stuff. O’Reilly seems put off by this. Hilarious since Bill never misses a chance to plug one of his books on the show!

Video courtesy SarahNet.

Sarah Palin and Megyn Kelly Handicap Tonight’s Vice Presidential Debate

By Gary P Jackson

Sarah Palin and Megyn Kelly talk about tonight’s vice presidential debate:

Video courtesy SarahNet.

What to look for during and after the debate from our friends in the media:

For Second Election in a Row Debate Moderator has Troubling Conflict of Interest

Tonight’s debate moderator Martha Raddatz [far right]with her pals at Sesame Street. ABC says no bias, move on, nothing to see here!

In 2008 it was vice presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill from PBS who had a major conflict of interest. It was a Drudge headline:

As Mark Whittington wrote at the time:

he upcoming debate between Vice Presidential candidates Sarah Palin and Joe Biden hasn’t even occurred yet and it already has its first controversy. It seems that Gwen Ifill, the PBS reporter who will moderate the debate is in the tank for Barack Obama.

This should not be too surprising. Most journalists in the mainstream media are as much in love with Barack Obama as the giddy college students who used to swoon at his rallies. Gwen Ifill works for PBS, hardly a hotbed of McCain support. But it seems that Gwen Ifill has not only an ideological interest in an Obama victory, but a financial stake as well.

Gwen Ifill is coming out with a book, entitled The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, a book describing the state of black politics in the modern age, as the civil rights generation starts to give way to a generation of African Americans who benefited from the civil rights struggle and never lived under Jim Crow and segregation.

The problem Gwen Ifill faces is that should John McCain win the election, there is not going to be an “Age of Obama.” The campaign of Barack Obama will be an important development in American history, but it will not have the world historical impact that it would have should Barack Obama not be elected President. Thus, Gwen Ifill’s book will not sell as well.

Not only was/and is Ifill a rabid Obama supporter, she had a significant financial stake in the election. Obviously the only way her book would have been relevant is if Obama won the presidency. Folks that watched the debate could see a definite bias. The debate commission saw no problem with Ifill moderating the debate.

We have come to expect major media bias, and even major bias at these debates, but when you have such an obvious conflict of interest as Ifill had, there is no way you should be allowed anywhere near the debate.

That brings us to tonight. It seems we have another issue with the moderator. Though there is no financial motive, Barack Obama and Martha Raddatz are acquainted. From The Daily Caller:

President Barack Obama was a guest at the 1991 wedding of ABC senior foreign correspondent and vice presidential debate moderator Martha Raddatz, The Daily Caller has learned. Obama and groom Julius Genachowski, whom Obama would later tap to head the Federal Communications Commission, were Harvard Law School classmates at the time and members of the Harvard Law Review.

After TheDC made preliminary inquiries Monday to confirm Obama’s attendance at the wedding, ABC leaked a pre-emptive statement to news outlets including Politico and The Daily Beast Tuesday, revealing what may have been internal network pressure felt just days before Raddatz was scheduled to moderate the one and only vice-presidential debate Thursday night.

Both Politico and The Daily Beast jumped to ABC and Raddatz’s defense. The Huffington Post, a liberal news outlet, joined them shortly thereafter, while calling “unusual” ABC’s attempt to kill the story before it gained wide circulation.

As Twitchy reports, ABC called the questions of Raddatz’s fitness to moderate tonight’s debate “absurd” and Politico’s Dylan Byers joyfully reports that the Commission on Presidential Debates sees absolutely no problems here:

“We selected Martha Raddatz because she is a terrific journalist and will be a terrific moderator and we’re thrilled to have her,” Peter Eyre, an adviser to the Commission, said in a statement. “The notion that that somehow affects her ability is not something we have given a moment’s thought to.”

Look, it would be absurd to pretend everyone involved doesn’t have political biases one way of the other. But it’s just as absurd to think someone who has decades long ties to the President belongs at that table moderating an important debate.

In 2008 we all watched Gwen Ifill like a hawk watches chickens, watching for any attempts to sway the debate in Biden’s favor. We must keep the same sharp eye on Martha Raddatz and be prepared for the same shenanigans.

Sarah Palin: Sometimes Politicians Need to Admit They are Wrong

By Gary P Jackson

Here’s an interview that got by me on Thursday night. Sarah Palin’s third Fox appearance of the day, this time with Neil Cavuto on Fox Business News.

Probably the best interview of the day, the talk turns to the many mistakes Republicans have made over the years. Specifically they are talking about vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, who voted for excessive spending programs like TARP, the auto bailouts, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and much more. Over $1.5 trillion in wasteful spending. [not counting Medicare Part D]

Sarah notes it’s not only OK, but essential that politicians own up to their mistakes. She defends Ryan, saying he’s since seen the light and is now trying to stop further spending and restore fiscal sanity.

Cavuto asks what’s next for Sarah, politically. Her answer might surprise you. All I can say is I share her dislike for politics and politicians.

Sarah Palin: Proud and Pleased with Paul Ryan’s Speech

By Gary P Jackson

Sarah Palin talks to Sean Hannity about Paul Ryan as well as the 2008 race. Goes into what Romney and Ryan can expect from the corrupt, Obamacentrict media.

Video courtesy SarahNet

Sarah Palin Talks to Megyn Kelly About Romney/Ryan Must Expect Next

By Gary P Jackson

Sarah Palin talks to Megyn Kelly:

Video courtsey SarahNet