Governor Palin and the Changing Rules of the Establishment

by Whitney Pitcher

Authors from several publications– the Atlantic, Commentary and the Washington Post have finally caught up on the political history of the past 5+ years–Governor Palin had an excellent record during her tenure. For some reason, the Atlantic writer, Joshua Green, finally realized in May of 2011 what Governor Palin accomplished as an oil and gas commissioner in 2003-2004 and as Governor 2006-2009. She took on the corruption in her own party in both roles. She revamped the oil taxation plan in Alaska by cleaning up the corruption of her predecessor and helping leave Alaska with what is currently a $12 billion state surplus. She initiated a natural gas pipeline project,bringing it further than any of her predecessors. John Podhoretz at Commentary and Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post concede Green’s points in articles they write using Green’s piece as a springboard.

The concessions and praise end there, however, aside from backhanded compliments regarding her political talent. These authors then go on to trash Governor Palin’s actions during the past nearly two years. Green labeled Governor Palin as the embodiment of “right wing resentment”and driven by “virulent animus”. Jennifer Rubin, whose tone deafness to Governor Palin’s true influence and policy prowess as  Conservatives4Palin have highlighted several times, asserts (wrongly of course) that Governor Palin has made the choice “to bear grudges, to forgo serious policy study, to reject the advice of all but a handful of advisers”. Podhoretz, however, makes the most uncalled for and backhanded claim about Governor Palin in his piece at Commentary:

In some ways, the story of Palin is a story of temptation. Rather than sticking to her guns and deepening her political credentials and her knowledge base, she embraced her celebrity instead. And in doing so, she didn’t defeat her critics and enemies; she capitulated to them. Listen, it’s her life and her fortune and she is free to do what she wishes with it. And there’s no telling what the future holds for anyone in America. But she had and has more raw political talent than anyone I’ve ever seen, and, alas, as phenoms go, it looks like she is headed for a Darryl Strawberry-like playing career.

William A. Jacobson has a great piece at the Legal Insurrection where he calls in to question Podhertz’s absurd comparison:

Podhoretz’s explanation, much like that of Green, pays only passing attention to the unprecedented and relentless attacks on Palin since the moment she was nominated. Attacks joined in with glee from a broad swath of the media, and most importantly, the entertainment industry which to this day cannot resist mocking Palin.

Rather than a thin skin, Palin showed a mental toughness which few if any politicians could muster in the face of the cultural, political and journalistic forces aligned against her from the get-go.

By using the analogy of the Darryl Strawberry, who truly self destructed from drug addiction, Podhoretz not only uses a bad analogy, he piles on with a cheap shot.

And I have zero tolerance for that.

As Jacobson points out, Podhoretz uses a poor baseball analogy. Darryl Strawberry was an outfielder who played for several Major League baseball teams in the 80s and 90s. Strawberry showed a lot of promise in the early and mid stages his playing career, winning the National League Rookie of the Year in 1983 and being named to the All Star team eight times, before getting involved in cocaine use in 1994 and dealing with a several run ins with the law and a jail term following his career. Jacobson is right–it was both a bad analogy and a cheap shot.

It is more fitting to compare Governor Palin to Bob Gibson— an outstanding pitcher for the St. Louis Cardinals from 1959 to 1975 and one of the fiercest competitors to play the game. Gibson had a storied playing career racking up multiple all star appearances, Cy Young awards, Gold Gloves, and World Series rings and was elected to the baseball Hall of Fame in 1981. The 1968 season proved to be Gibson’s most successful season. He won the Cy Young, MVP, and Gold Glove awards that year by having an incredible 1.12 ERA with 22 wins (13 of them shutouts) and 268 strikeouts. However, Gibson’s dominance (along with that of a few other pitchers) led Major League baseball to lower the pitching mound from 15 inches to 10 inches following the 1968 season. Gibson’s pitching prowess led the league to change the rules, thinking he and others were too dominating on the mound. Lowering the pitching mound was intended to remove that advantage. The major league changed the rules.

The same could be said of Governor Palin. Because of her political abilities (something Podhoertz actually acknowledges) and her success, the rules changed. No longer were children off limits. No longer was policy prescience recognized. No longer were political achievements and principles compared as apples to apples with others. Instead, Governor Palin’s children have been mocked. She has been subject to never-before-seen undeserved scrutiny, vitriol, and disrespect. Her political prescience has been largely ignored by Establishment and the press. Her political achievements generally only used a a springboard for criticism while the political missteps of others are overlooked in deeming them the next GOP nominee for President.

The latest Gallup poll shows that the percentage of Republicans and Republican leaning independents view Governor Palin “favorably” or “very favorably” is 71%, which is higher than any other Republican. This is a higher percentage than those who even know who Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, Tim Pawlenty, or Rick Santorum are. For all the criticism that the chattering class levels at her, the everyday conservative overwhelming sees her favorably. Beyond that,  the children of other potential candidates have been rightfully left alone, while Governor Palin’s son,Trig, who has Down Syndrome, has become a political prop of the hatred that the Left harbors for Governor Palin.

The intellectual dishonesty of the likes of Green, Podhoretz, and Rubin proves to be the most politically egregious aspect of their writings. They all assert in one form or another that Governor Palin has not studied up on the issues and hasn’t deepened her political understanding. Of course, this is the furthest thing from the truth. Governor Palin has been prescient on every major political issue. On the issues of foreign policy, Governor Palin has been fully cognizant of the threats of Iran, has warned of the problems of signing the START treaty with Russia, and has being rightfully skeptical of the uprising in Egypt. She is the only potential candidate to lay out a foreign policy vision for the appropriate use of force in engaging the US military. On economic issues, she has predicted the inflation that was bound to follow QE2 by the Fed and was a consistent and early critic of the Obamacare. Of course, there is no doubt that no other potential candidate can match her when it comes to energy issues. Governor Palin’s “political education” may not have retroactively involved her receiving a degree from an Ivy League school, and her recent change in foreign policy advisers now has her ties from the political Establishment essentially severed. These are the defining characteristics of true intellectual curiosity, according to the likes of the authors mentioned. Governor Palin has taken a different route, of course. She has written books highlighting her political achievements and delineating the principles that guide her personal and political decision making. She has criss crossed the United States speaking to business, trade, pro life, college, and Christian groups. She has traveled abroad speaking to groups in Hong Kong and India and engaging in humanitarian efforts in Haiti.

Despite this, Governor Palin is seen as “too unserious” to contend for the presidency. Meanwhile, Governor Romney is still defending a health care reform measure passed while he was governor of Massachusetts. It has failed with an average appointment wait time of 7 weeks and a staggeringly low number of doctors who accept the state provided insurance coverages–which has deemed him “Obama’s running mate” in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today. Governor Pawlenty’s record includes former support for cap and trade and a push for a mileage tax. One of the latest Establishment’s favorites, Governor Daniels, has called for a truce on social issues, would consider supporting a value added tax and oil tax hikes, and has openly admitted that he isn’t ready to debate President Obama on foreign policy. Sure these guys are serious–seriously wrong. However, these men are often touted as the next GOP presidential nominee. The rules have indeed changed.

These authors have recognized–albeit a few years late–that Governor Palin indeed has a stellar gubernatorial record marked by a strong fight against corruption, major energy initiatives, and a large state budget surplus. One day, they may look back at the past two years and see that Governor Palin was deeply serious about the pressing policy issues of the day, and she was extremely prescient about the foreign and domestic problems we face as Americans. Given that it has taken these individuals a few years to recognize her gubernatorial success, don’t be surprised if takes them a few years to recognize her seriousness and prescience as well. It just may be during her first presidential term.

Governor Palin–Point Guard or Cheerleader?

by Whitney Pitcher

In recent weeks, it seems that the chorus of voices telling Governor Palin what she should or should not do has grown louder and louder. Earlier this week, Bill Kristol asserted that Governor Palin should not and could not be the GOP nominee for President in 2012. Andrew Breitbart and Ann Coulter have also weighed in recently on Governor Palin’s presidential possibilities, both of them stating that it would be a “step down” for her to run for the presidency or that the presidency is “beneath her”. Breitbart and others have asserted that Governor Palin’s best place in politics would be as Kingmaker or Queenmaker–cheering on from the sidelines those who are in the game. All of these assertions begs the question–can you really ask a point guard to take the role of a cheerleader?

In Kristol’s assertion about Governor Palin’s potential for a 2012 run and nomination, he first disrespects both Governor Palin and the American electorate. Kristol stated that Governor Palin was ” unlikely to be the Republican nominee, and to be honest I think she probably shouldn’t be the Republican nominee for president”. In response to Kristol’s ridiculous statement, Mark Levin tweeted on Wednesday:

Thanks Bill but, frankly, who asked? We believe in the real democracy project here, and the people will decide. http://fb.me/UJLwfH2d

Levin is right. To be sure, pundits’ and talking heads’ jobs involve discussing political campaigns, polls, and the viability and potential of possible candidates. However, Kristol said Governor Palin shouldn’t be the Republican nominee, which is not his call to make. That judgement is left to the American people through their vote, not the pundocracy through their megaphone. Kristol is entitled to his opinion, but he’s not entitled to shape the opinion of the entire electorate.

Kristol also laughably stated that Governor Palin hadn’t taken the lead on the issues since stepping aide from the Governor’s office:

I thought she had a real chance to take the lead on a few policy issues, do a little more in terms of framing the policy agenda. I don’t think she’s done that.

Governor Palin has taken the lead on several issues since stepping aside from the Governor’s office. Dare I say, she’s effectively been running point for the conservative offense since she was announced as Senator McCain’s running mate. Governor Palin has both taken the lead on many issues and has even influenced the Obama administration to take action on a few occasions. Governor Palin made a strong statement on the war an Afghanistan in Augusts of 2009 signing on to a letter to President Obama with Bill Kristol himself–something he seemingly forgot. Governor Palin’s famous “death panel” Facebook post laid out the problems of rationing, bioethical concerns, and the improper role of government in the health care reform proposal of Democrats. She framed the debate by framing both the rhetoric and the policy. She has taken a lead on the issues by warning of the problems of quantitative easing and the resulting rise in commodity prices that would follow. She is the only potential Presidential candidate to endorse Congressman Ryan’s roadmap— a serious and effective way to address entitlement reform and our massive national debt. Of course, no one can call plays on the issue of energy independence better than Governor Palin, recognizing both the problems with the inhibitory policies of the current administration and the solutions needed to make America energy independent. When President Obama showed a complete lack of leadership and total ineptness following the oil spill in the Gulf last Spring, Governor Palin encouraged him to meet with the head of BP to appropriately address the spill, and eight days later, President Obama did. During the uprisings in Egypt, Governor Palin called for President Obama to also ensure that the people of Iran were equally supported in their struggle for freedom, and the next day President Obama made a statement to call for the Iranian people to be allowed freedom. In short, Governor Palin has taken indeed taken the lead.

In spite of the fact that Governor Palin has indeed led on the issues, people like Andrew Breitbart assert that she would be better suited to be a cheerleader for other conservatives:

“I think the presidency is beneath her,” the conservative media activist told GQ. “There’s more power in being Oprah Winfrey than in being Barack Obama. It would be my goal for Palin to become Oprah and be the ultimate kingmaker for 20-odd years.”

There’s a lot to say about the influence over culture that a figure like Oprah has. In recent years with the increase in the use of social media and a 24/7 news cycle, people have the opportunity to influence the political landscape without taking a definitive lead on the policy. This is how Governor Palin has the potential to be what Breitbart characterizes as the “ultimate kingmaker”, or essentially a cheerleader. In this role of cheerleader, Governor Palin would be a voice of support for the ideas and policies being in acted on the “court” and for those who seek to play the game. However, there’s no room for leadership when you’re relegated to the role of cheerleader, and as mentioned earlier Governor Palin has lead on so many issues both in her firm stances on issues and in her stellar gubernatorial achievements ranging from energy independence to frugal budgeting to ethics reform. Governor Palin uses social media and traditional media effectively, but she uses media as a tool, not as a her operational framework.Her ability to influence is enhanced by the media, but not driven by it.

In Breitbart’s comments he indicates that he thinks that greater power lies in being an “Oprah” figure than in being a president, and Ann Coulter’s comments indicate that she thinks Governor Palin would lose influence and power by running for President. These two individuals are missing two critical points in their argument–the political shift in leadership that would occur if Governor Palin is elected president and the unique perspective held by Governor Palin regarding elected office.

In their comments, Breitbart and Coulter must be conceding that if Governor Palin doesn’t run for the presidency in 2012 that President Obama will be re-elected. How else can they assert that Governor Palin maintains her “power” only if she does not run? Governor Palin’s current political “power and influence” lie in the fact that she provides the most stark contrast of President Obama and his policies. Through her ability to community effectively, Governor Palin has been able to frame the debate rhetorically as well. Governor Palin replacing President Obama in the Oval Office, in a sense, changes her level of influence. Being placed in presidential leadership mean that she no longer provides the stark contrast in policy because she becomes both the new point of comparison and the President. Governor Palin’s new level of influence now lies not in the contrast between herself and President Obama, but in her ability to clean up the mess that she has been exposing in her previous unelected level of influence. In their assertions, both Coulter and Breitbart have created a false argument.

Influential in their own right, Breitbart’s and Coulter’s influence differs from Governor Palin’s. They need to understand that Governor Palin does not view the Presidency as a position of power, but as a position of service. In choosing to run for president, Governor Palin is seeking how to serve, not how to obtain power. In her interview with Greta van Susteren on Wednesday night, Governor Palin laid out what characteristics she would desire in a President and why she might choose to run (emphasis mine):

I’m tempted [to run], because I’m still wondering who the heck is going to be out there willing to serve the American people for the right reasons. Not for ego, not for special interests. Not with partisanship that will get in the way to do what is right to get the economy back on the right track and strengthen national security. Who else is out there who wants to do this?

If Governor Palin chooses to run, it will be because she’s motivated by how she can best serve, not how she can gain greater power. This is servant leadership–a term perhaps not too often used outside of evangelical circles–but indicative of a point guard seeking to assist, not to score. The decision to serve as “America’s point guard” lies with Governor Palin and the American electorate, not with pundits who want push the narrative of the Establishment or project their own ideals of power and influence on Governor Palin.

UPDATED: Jim Nolte, editor of Big Hollywood, has a piece up today where he speaks about Andrew Breitbart’s comments. Here is what he says in part:

Anyone who knows me or who has followed me on Twitter knows that all Sarah Palin has to do is point to the broken glass she wants me to crawl over. I’ve never seen anyone put through such a cruel, mean-spirited, public meat grinder where their family, womb, faith, gender, dialect, looks and culture are all fair game for the worst kinds of smears. And because she has survived this unprecedented evil with such grace and dignity – Sarah Palin is my hero. And of course I want her to be president. But when Andrew says that he sees her as the Oprah of the right; once again, he’s seeing the bigger picture — the pop culture landscape that shapes and defines our politics in ways not enough people on our side understand (you better believe the Left gets it).

There ’s only one Sarah Palin and she would make for one outstanding president, and like Andrew I will vote for her in a heartbeat and fight for her every step of the way. But it’s just a fact that the price of a President Sarah Palin is a hole in the crucial pop culture war that only she can fill. And only a wicked, journOlisting MSM would attempt to spin into a negative a man publicly declaring that he would like to see this one person lead the charge in a battle that has defined his life more than any other.

Andrew Breitbart has been nothing if not supportive of Governor Palin, but the role that he feel she should fill is more of one that is solely cultural, whereas many other Palin supporters would like to see her fill a role that is more political, and thus would transcend political and cultural lines. I agree with Nolte in the fact that, yes, perhaps a President Palin would leave a hole in the “pop culture war”. However, isn’t it more important that a gap in presidential leadership be filled? Governor Palin and her family will make the decision as to whether or not she will seek the presidency or whether she will continue to fight the battle on a different plane. No matter what that decision is, she has my unequivocal support.