Image 01 Image 03

The core of the Tea Party movement

The core of the Tea Party movement

I don’t have much time to “analyze” Palin’s speech in Indianola (text here), Iowa and what it all means in terms of the political landscape.

But what jumped out at me is that she expressed one of the core principles of the Tea Party movement, that corporate interests are not necessarily our interests:

Now to be fair, some GOP candidates also raised mammoth amounts of cash, and we need to ask them, too: What, if anything, do their donors expect in return for their “investments”? We need to know this because our country can’t afford more
trillion-dollar “thank you” notes to campaign backers. It is an important question, and it cuts to the heart of our problem….  It’s because we believe in the free market. I believe in the free market, and that is why I detest crony capitalism. And Barack Obama has shown us cronyism on steroids. It will lead to our downfall if we don’t stop it now. It’s a root that grows our economic problems. Our unsustainable debt and our high unemployment numbers and a housing market that’s in the tank and a stagnant economy – these are all symptoms. Politicians are so focused on the symptoms and not the disease. We will not solve our economic problems until we confront the cronyism of our President and our permanent political class.

So, this is why we must remember that the challenge is not simply to replace Obama in 2012. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country.

This view closely follows my own view, which is that for too long we have played into the Democratic narrative that Republicans are the party of big business.  The reality is that Democrats too are the party of big business (with Big Labor), they just hide it better.

It’s the reason I see nothing inconsistent with being a plaintiff’s lawyer at heart and a Tea Party movement supporter.

I have seen for too long how the federalization of law has had negative effects on the ability of individuals to seek redress in state courts.  Whether it is federal preemption of state common law in areas of importance to defrauded investors, or application of the Federal Arbitration Act regardless of state legislation to deprive investors of access to state courts, too often Republicans and Democrats come together in Congress and the federal courts in the service of big business over the individual and the ability of states to find their own ways.

It’s why I oppose federally mandated tort reform, which is a goal of the insurance industry, while I respect individual state’s rights to find their own way on tort reform.

You can’t have it both ways, opposing an intrusive national insurance mandate while supporting an intrusive national tort reform mandate.

I don’t know what the future holds for Palin, whether she will be a candidate or just a powerful voice against crony capitalism.  I also don’t know whether the two are compatible.  I am not convinced that even the Republican electorate is ready for the message.  That’s for another day.

What I do know is that in attacking crony capitalism, Palin gave voice to those of us who refuse to buy into the Democratic narrative that the answer to Democratic union pandering is Republican big business pandering.  It’s not about them, it’s about us.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Thank you. Perfectly put — by both of you!

“The reality is that Democrats too are the party of big business (with Big Labor)…”

It’s a sad commentary on our society that that is not accepted as common knowledge.

Professor, how is any of that new? Crony capitalism? Been going on since the days of Woodrow Wilson. “Permanent political class?” Nothing more than what Romney said last week with his “professional politician” comments.

While the words are nice, and pump up the choir, there is only accusations there, no solution. Americans are looking for a solution.

So what is the solution to big budget, expensive campaigns when we are now a nation of 305 million? Do we go back to the days were candidates do limited stump speeches? Where they generally stay in their own areas and don’t visit other states? How do you fund campaigns without the bundlers and the large corporate/union PACs? Her speech was also a swipe at the other GOP candidates who are building war chests and raising lots of money. I believe Romney’s campaign took in $13 million just last quarter.

I have been head of a county TEA Party group, and been to many TEA Parties. I didn’t hear people complain about how much is spent campaigning, I heard complaints about how much money politicians spent once they hit Washington, D.C.

Unfortunately, when you examine Palin’s speech, there was lots of potatos and gravy, but no red meat. She missed a golden opportunity to outline exactly what it is she would do, if elected. Had she done that, all other candidates would be reduced to giving specifics. This was no “Morning In America” speech. Heavy on generalities, light on specifics.

    I must have heard a different speech than you did, because I heard specifics. Taken from the transcript:

    1)“[L]et’s enforce the 10th Amendment and devolve powers back locally where the Founders intended them to be.”

    2)“We must repeal Obamacare!”

    3)“Third, no more run away debt. We must prioritize and cut.”

    4)“ Affordable and secure energy is the key to any thriving economy, and it must be our foundation. So, I would do the opposite of Obama’s manipulation of U.S. supplies of energy. Drill here, drill now. Let the refineries and the pipelines be built. Stop kowtowing to foreign countries and dictators asking them to ramp up production and industry for us, promising them that we’ll be their greatest customer.”

    5)“I propose to eliminate all federal corporate income tax. {snip} To balance out any loss of federal revenue from this tax cut, we eliminate corporate welfare and all the loopholes and we eliminate bailouts. This is how we break the back of crony capitalism because it feeds off corporate welfare, which is just socialism for the very rich.”

      retire05 in reply to Kitty. | September 4, 2011 at 12:05 pm

      Kitty, I fear you heard what you wanted to hear, nothing more. But what was new?

      1) 10th Amendment – Right out of Rick Perry’s book. Perry has been campaigning on the 10th Amendment ever since he got in the race, just as he has in every election he ran in in Texas.

      2) Repeal Obamacare – nothing more than what every GOP, including Romney has been saying. No red meat there.

      3) The debt – also what every candidate has been saying. But again, no solution to reducing the debt.

      4) Drill here, drill now – a movement started by Newt Gingrich. And a plan that is supported by every candidate on the stump, except Obama.

      5) Eliminate corporate income tax. Standard boilerplate. Anyone who does not subscribe to Keynes understands that corporations do not pay taxes as those taxes are passed on to the consumer. And if the goal is to reduce the size of government, why would those taxes have to be replaced. Corporate welfare? Nothing more than tax deductions that are giving to you when you claim your children, or your mortgage interest, on your tax return. The “corporate” welfare that Palin addresses is simply tax breaks given to companies just as one could consider the tax breaks you are given could be considered “individual” welfare.

        Yah. While Palin hit all the easy targets (I don’t blame her, by the way), she is dramatically short on specifics.

        OTOH, maybe that’s her game plan. No candidacy, just “air-cover” for other Conservatives. She has a constituency, she can influence it AND the national conversation…

        Not a bad thing.

        Aridog in reply to retire05. | September 4, 2011 at 12:27 pm

        Not sure you meant it this way … but I find it disturbing that that you find equivalence between deductions for individuals and/or corporations with “welfare.” How is allowing an earner to keep their own earnings welfare?

        “Welfare” might just be the fact that nearly 50 of the populace pays not income tax, period. How about an “alternative minimum tax” schedule (I use that term tongue in cheek) for the least among us? Deductions to reduce taxes owed is one thing, when they eliminate it altogether is another … and worse when refunded credits are paid out for no input.

        I do think “corporate” income taxes are absurd and counter productive as they are structured these days … they do amount to favors here, but not there, etc. That is manifestly not the same as deductions for an individual that at least express some grasp of the expenses of living and contributing to the economy.

          retire05 in reply to Aridog. | September 4, 2011 at 12:48 pm

          Deductions, for any reason, allow people to keep more of their money. But why should corporations, which create jobs, the one most important issue of this campaign season, be any different? Do you have visions of CEOs, like Scrooge McDuck, swimming in those profits?

          Those profits are then turned over to the investors in the form of dividends paid into IRAs held by firefighters, police officers, teachers, telephone repairmen, computer programers. Where do you think those profits go? It is called “owning stock”. And while a company, or corporation, will maintain what is called “growth capital” that growth capital is what creates jobs. Money invested in expansion is not profit, but it does help [hopefully] more profit which is then paid into those IRAs I mentioned.

          Giving tax breaks to corporations, which creates jobs, also works the same way when you give tax breaks to individuals, who then spend that money creating a demand for a product, which creates jobs.

          This is simple Hayak stuff.

        I listened to her speech, I read the transcript, and I like what she said. She’s got the experience I like. She thinks outside the box. She’s been vetted for years now and has withstood the attacks — stronger than ever. I know more about her than any of the others combined, and what I know I definitely like.

        I knew of Sarah Palin before she was chosen by McCain. I had been admiring her accomplishments in Alaska, especially going after the corruption in her own party. I was extremely impressed with that. So when he picked Sarah Palin, I was overjoyed! There was none of that Sarah who? for me.

        For me, Sarah Palin is the complete candidate in one gutsy woman. That’s saying a lot, because until she came along, I thought I could never vote for a woman for president.

          retire05 in reply to Kitty. | September 4, 2011 at 12:59 pm

          Kitty, as I have said before, September/October 2008 was a game changer for our economy. How has Palin had any effect on that? What has she accomplished in the last three years? Has she lobbied for legislation that would change the tenor in D.C.?

          All Palin has is her record of being Governor of Alaska for a short, less than one term. If she was such a conservative then, why did she agree to run with the biggest pro-illegal, pro-amnesty Republican this side of Lindsay Graham? The very man who, along with Ted Kennedy, wrote the Shamnest Bill? Why did Palin, in 2008, support a path to citizenship for illegals who, by their very action of coming to the U.S. without permission, violated our laws?

          Palin shouts “Drill here, drill now” and you eat it up like a Baskin and Robbins cone. But when oil production is such an important issue to Alaskans, what did Palin do to take on the federal government to force their hand on ANWAR?

          retire05… As opposed as I was/am to McVain, I was thrilled she accepted his offer in ’08. If she hadn’t, Obama would have won with a bigger margin, and she wouldn’t be seriously considering running now. I’m not trying to change your mind, and you’re definitely not changing mine. Give it a rest.

          William A. Jacobson in reply to Kitty. | September 4, 2011 at 1:37 pm

          Great advice!

          retire05 in reply to Kitty. | September 4, 2011 at 1:48 pm

          Kitty, my primary goal is to remove Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. from office on January 20, 2013. My goal is not to be part of a cheerleading squad.

          If we are too look at the accomplishments, and failures, of one candidate, in order to be well informed voters, we are to apply that standard to ALL candidates.

          I have tried to explain to you the science of politics and that there are certain rules that must be followed. Palin, like her running mate, McCain, seems to think she can ignore those rules. We know what happened.

          Basically, for three years Palin has had a captive audience who supports her. But when she throws her hat in the ring, if she does, the other candidates will have opposition research teams that will be pointing out her weaknesses and failures. They are not going to go down without a fight. Palin will also have to appeal to the Independents, which currently she does not.

          Now, if Palin was wise, she would take the next month to lay low, build a campaign team (one that does not include a former Dole hack which is as big a mistake as Bachmann picking Rollins to work for her) and who can steer her in the ways of winning elections.

          Palin has another “Restore America” rally planned on October 8th (I think) appearing with Glen Beck in St. Louis. She is going to have to declare before then, due to deadlines in certain states and debate rules. What then? Does she cancel that rally? Will Beck want to appear to be throwing his support behind her with a dual appearance? I have my doubts.

          Weirddave in reply to Kitty. | September 5, 2011 at 1:04 pm

          Kitty, save your breath. Retire has made it clear that he’s a long time establishment guy. He doesn’t care about Palin, he cares about her opposition to the GOP establishment. Read his posts. He sits here and types and types and types legions of words that all boil down to one version of the appeal to authority fallacy. “Why, I know..”, “I have years of experience…”, “Palin can’t…” He claims to be concerned with defeating BHO, but I bet if it came down to a choice between BHO and a job for him, he’d have to sit and think real hard and long. His stated “concern” with Palin is contradictory. He states over and over that it takes resources, and people, and organizations to run a presidential campaign, Palin doesn’t have those things, and that’s why he’s so worried and concerned that people are deluding themselves that she’s viable, it’ll be such a damn shame when they are disappointed because she’s not. If he really believed that, he wouldn’t say a damn word, he’d just sit back and let her declare, implode and drop out. I saw a couple of kids last month who had attached wooden wings to a go cart and were getting ready to push it down a hill. See, I knew that they wouldn’t fly, knew it absolutely, but I didn’t rush over to tell them all of the myriad reason why what they were trying wouldn’t work, I watched them go down the hill. And not fly. And smiled at their enthusiasm, and walked on. That’s how a normal person reacts to something that he absolutely knows won’t work.

          Retire though, he acts like someone who is afraid something unconventional WILL work, and he’ll suffer for it. Palin doesn’t have a conventional staff, she’s not using traditional fund raising methods. Will it work? Personally, I don’t know. But if it does…..what then for those hangers on that any political campaign acquires over time? What do the sycophants to power do if if they’re not needed anymore to tell the candidate what to say, how to say it, when to say it, etc..? If the candidate can figure out for herself WHAT-IT-ALL-MEANS and doesn’t need a cadre of “experts” to guide her every move, well then, what need are there for the “experts” at all? THAT’S where I think Retire fits into all of this, not as someone pragmatically and reluctantly forced to concede that Palin doesn’t have a chance, even though gosh-darn-it he sure likes her moxie, but some as who is absolutely terrified that she does, and that if she does succeed, it’s be very bad news for the inside-the-beltway GOP establishment upon which he relies for his livelyhood.

          That’s how Retire strikes me based upon his posts. YMMV.

        Projection? It is you are hearing what you want to hear and don’t like what you are hearing. Perry will be vetted no matter how much his supporters scream about it.

        He’s got plenty of explaining to do. But then Newt’s good old boys know how to apply the spin.

      Neo in reply to Kitty. | September 4, 2011 at 1:42 pm

      Ending “corporate welfare” just means more corporate taxes that they won’t pay either. Any business that pays it’s taxes with it’s own money is bankrupt.

    Rick Perry has huge “crony capitalist” problems. There is nothing Tea Party about Perry. He was not the Tea party candidate in the Texas governor’s race.

    Every Tea Party I attended talked about crony capitalism.

    You sure sound threatened. Palin gave nothing but specifics. Perry should be threatened. Those days are over. Either we fix DC now or the small business guy will never get to grow his business to compete.

    Sorry dude, the rules are going to be rewritten. Guys like Perry will be dinosaurs. The success of the nation depends on it.

      retire05 in reply to JRD. | September 4, 2011 at 1:19 pm

      What rules are being rewritten?

      You talk about the small businessman. Are you even aware of the thousands of small businesses that have been created in Texas due to Perry’s philosophy of keeping state government out of their way? Can you even begin to compare any other state to Texas’ record of creating jobs and maintaining a lower than national average of unemployment in spite of 5,000 new residents a month? What about Bobby Jindal? Can you deny his success in attacking the corruption that permeated his state when he took office? Or Governor Walker and Governor Christie’s battle with the “crony capitalism” of the unions?

      If Sarah Palin wins the nomination, I will vote for her and even campaign for her. But I would vote for a dead armadillo over Obama.

      As to your comment “the success of the nation depends on it” has been a rallying cry since the days of George Washington.

      “Rick Perry draws ire from Tea Party in N.H.”

        retire05 in reply to Kitty. | September 4, 2011 at 1:33 pm

        Oh, please, Kitty, the Boston Globe? The publication that pimped for John Kerry the entire 2004 campaign season and one of the most far left publications in Mitt Romney’s state?

        Nah, no bias there.

          Viator in reply to retire05. | September 4, 2011 at 4:21 pm

          It’s not the Boston Globe! It’s the Boston Herald, the more conservative Boston newspaper.

          “Speaking to hundreds of Granite State voters at a private reception, the Texas governor was asked whether he supported a fence along the Mexican border.

          “No, I don’t support a fence on the border,” he said, while referring to the long border in Texas alone. “The fact is, it’s 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good.”

          Instead, Perry said he supported “strategic fencing” and National Guard troops to prevent illegal immigration and violence from Mexican drug cartels.

          The answer produced an angry shout from at least one audience member. And it exposed an ongoing rift with some conservative voters over Perry’s immigration record.”

          Perry tells NH ‘no’ to border fence

          beloved2 in reply to retire05. | September 4, 2011 at 5:26 pm

          Awful. AP Misleads Readers on Perry’s New Hampshire Speech
          They’re not telling the whole story.
          by Jim Hoft
          “…And, the state-run media is TERRIFIED of Governor Rick Perry from Texas.

          Yesterday the AP reported this on Rick Perry’s campaign stop in New Hampshire:

          Speaking to hundreds of Granite State voters at a private reception, the Texas governor was asked whether he supported a fence along the Mexican border. “No, I don’t support a fence on the border,” he said.

          “The fact is, it’s 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good.”

          The answer produced an angry shout from at least one audience member.

          But, Weasel Zippers found this report from WOIA TV on Perry’s speech:

          Speaking to hundreds of Granite State voters at a private reception, the Texas governor was asked whether he supported a fence along the Mexican border. “No, I don’t support a fence on the border,” he said, while referring to the long border in Texas alone.

          “The fact is, it’s 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good.”

          Instead, Perry said he supported “strategic fencing” and National Guard troops to prevent illegal immigration and violence from Mexican drug cartels.

          The answer produced an angry shout from at least one audience member. And it exposed an ongoing rift with some conservative voters over Perry’s immigration record.

          The AP deleleted the part of Perry’s speech that including using “strategic fencing” and National Guard troops on the border.

          And, then there’s this.

          There was no angry shout from the audience. At least that’s what one audience member said. Via Instapundit


          A BLOG REPORT FROM RICK PERRY’S SPEECH IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: “I attended that event, stood about 15 feet from where he delivered those remarks and never heard an ‘angry shout’. Either the AP is making it up or it wasn’t much of a shout. Perhaps they can supply the audio.”

          Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be any video of the reported incident.

          ** Once again – If you plan on attending one of these events PLEASE bring your camera with you.

          Jim Hoft is the proprietor of Gateway Pundit Blog from the heart of America– St. Louis, Missouri. He is also a guest-blogger for HUMAN….”

          Viator: The lamestream media that you quoted from will not tell the whole truth because they are determined to smear, misinterpret and lie about everything Governor Perry has said. Professor Jacobson reads and posts from the Weasel Zippers site(to me that is an endorsement) so will you believe weasel zippers? Governor Perry was explaining to the New Hampshire audience why he cannot support building a fence the 1200 miles from El Paso to Brownsville because the illegals will buy a 35 foot ladder and vault over or tear it down. A fence would be unguarded and useless. Texas has a moat named the Rio Grande river but illegals swim it (ever heard the slur ‘wetback’). Now a fence along the border of New Hampshire may be a strategic place, I don’t know. Obama has ignored ALL requests from the governors from the border states to enforce the federal immigration laws and even has sued Arizona’s governor for her efforts to enforce those laws. So Governor Perry has done the only thing the Texas governor can do and that is to send the Texas Rangers Recon to the border and they shoot to kill. That is a more effective solution than a worthless fence.

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | September 4, 2011 at 5:30 pm

          Viator, I stand correct on the Hearld/Globe error.

          But tell me how successful the existing fence has been. Has it stopped illegals from climbing over it, or tunneling under it? Some of those tunnels are lighted and even have air conditioning.

          Do you approve of the use of eminent domain to take away land from ranchers to build the fence? Those ranchers depend on that water for their herds. How do you place a fence in the middle of the Rio Grande? Logistics would be a nightmare.

          Perry does approve of fencing in the metropolitan areas where it can be patrolled by the police, as well as Border Patrol (which I appreciate you pointing out). But no fence can equal the boots on the ground. Right now, we have about 650 Border Patrol agents working the entire southern border. Perry asked for 1,200 National Guard for Texas alone. When Obama sent the NG to the border, Texas got less than 250 for almost 1,300 miles of border, less NG than Arizona, New Mexico or California.

          Fences help, but they don’t stop that kid from climbing over your fence that surrounds your swimming pool when you are not at home and who drowns in it leaving you to be sued by his parents.

          If fences were the entire answer, why don’t we just build one around Afghanistan and Iraq?

          I fully understand the passion surrounding the fence, but it is economically and logistically not feasible. Boots on the ground, enforcement of our laws, punishments for employers who create the draw in the first place, elimination of all social welfare benefits for illegals, all that must go hand in hand with any amount of fence.

          Viator in reply to retire05. | September 4, 2011 at 6:37 pm

          Hey folks talk to the Israeli’s about fences. They build them because they work. They build them fast and they build them right, just like we used to do things in this country. They are starting a fence along the Egyptian border. Date of completion, next year.

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | September 4, 2011 at 7:30 pm

          Viator, Israel also requires mandatory military service from every citizen to keep their military population numbers strong.

          Do you support the U.S. doing the same in order to put three shifts of Border Patrol/NG in watch towers every 100 feet?

          Viator in reply to retire05. | September 4, 2011 at 9:43 pm

          1) What does one have to do with the other except to serve as straw dog?
          2) The border fences in Israel hardly have watch towers every hundred feet as a quick Google search easily proves.
          3) I am for a end to massive illegal immigration across our southern border with it’s legion of concomitant problems which have been well described by many commentators. Among these problems is the use of illegal immigrants to provide voters to fill out the rolls of the declining Democrat Party.
          4) Stopping the flow of illegal immigrants will be the first step in solving the problem of the millions of illegal immigrants already here in our country.
          5) I am tired of lies, cronyism, broken promises and half measures regarding illegal immigrations.

          beloved2 in reply to retire05. | September 5, 2011 at 3:15 pm

          There is no reasonable comparison between the security fences of Israel which BTW does NOT stop the terrorists lobbing Kaazam rockets DAILY. Israel builds fences as part of their security but it only slows intruders, it doesn’t stop them. Google the Fogle family massacre and others who have been massacred behind a security fence.
          The 143 mile fence along the Egypt/Israel border estimate costs are $180 million dollars US. There is 1200 miles between El Paso and Brownsville, Texas.How much would the fence cost? More dollars than Bernanke can print!

          This study from 2007 estimates costs of $49 BILLION U.S. to build a fence of 700 miles in San Diego, notice it does not include the cost of buying private land. The U.S. Mexico border is 1,950 miles long. So multiply and it would come to trillion dollars U.S.
          Governor Perry is for building strategic fences but has the smarts to know that fencing all 1,950 miles is not a viable solution because it does not stop fence climbing illegals and is not cost-effective. We need a President Perry to change the irresponsible, unconscionable present administration’s policy who will cram illegal immigration down our throats. Will a fence stop the obama administration’s determination to legalize the 12 million who are already here? No. We need a change of administration and policy not a fence we have no money for. GO Governor Perry!

Both parties listen to corporations, I have no issue with that.

Here is where I have problems, when you have big govt, and big corporations, and big labor, they collude together making it harder for small businesses, and the individual.

When dems are in power, the collusion is between big govt + big labor
When repubs are in power, the collusion is between big govt + big corporations.
So, the little guy is screwed either way no matter which party is in power, I don’t care if someone makes a company, grows it becomes a billanaiore, where I have a big problem is when that corporation uses its power to lobby for rules or exceptions to rules to favor it, small/medium business/individuals don’t have this advantage. The same can be said with big labor + big govt.

If you succeed, great and good on you, but if a competitor comes along, its not the job of big govt, big labor or big corporation to tilt the playing field towards those who can bend the rules their way to preserve their power.

The TP, the way I’m seeing them is against all 3 bigs. and that is a good thing, let competition thrive, the govt entities need to make sure to make America as a whole competive against other countries, not take sides of companies within the US itself, let the best ideas win.

As for Palin, sorry, I liked her before, donated to her before, she makes a great speech, but not a chance I would vote for her, she will lose. Unlike the establishment repubs, I’ll acknowledge she was and is a strong force for the limited govt view, forcing people like me, former dems, reagan dems, to realise what conservative is. But if she runs, and she has a perfect right to, I won’t be voting for her. I see Perry as a much stronger candidate.

Now, for the Professor:

While state-by-state redresses/actions are certainly within the spirit (and mostly the letter) of the 10A, should there be ‘national standards’ by which peddlers of interstate products (say, cars) should be accountable?

Look, eg, at the California fuel economy demands v. the Feds’. Can FoMoCo produce two versions of the same car, one for (say) 10% of the market, the other for the rest?

This is not an attack-question. Like “welfare,” the argument is always in the ‘fine-line’ area; what’s good in NY State is not necessarily good in Wisconsin. But there IS a common ‘bottom-line’ –or should be– for all the issues, right?

“The reality is that Democrats too are the party of big business …”

That’s putting it lightly.

Moats are naturally shovel ready.

    … and Bill clinton proved once and for all that “rich” folks can be Democrats too. After years of “Republicans are the party of the rich,” does anybody seriously think the “poor” or middle class (or Republicans) will pay for Obama’s “billion dollar campaign” ?

Just an aside… Sarah Palin ran a 1/2 marathon in Iowa this morning, and her time was 1:45.

“It’s the reason I see nothing inconsistent with being a plaintiff’s lawyer at heart and a Tea Party movement supporter.”

I hope one day soon there will be more of you and less of the gazillion Marxist lawyers who are degrading America’s Judicial system. America has some of the top Law schools in the world yet all they do is reproduce year after year a gazillion more Marxist lawyers!

Heck, most every Democrat in Congress is a well-trained Marxists lawyer! Not to mention President Obama- a Harvard Constitutional Law-degreed Marxist!

Further; I hope there are more of you because for every corrupt crony capitalist zillionaire, billionaire, millionaire who use their wealth and power to impose their Statist Collectivism there are a gazillion lawyers hired by these same cronies to destroy us, our Liberty and our right to prosper if we so choose.

How does a free person stand a chance against that corrupt system.

I cannot afford to hire a gazillion lawyers to protect my Liberty so I am standing with Palin who has the guts to take them on.

The Ruling Class is at war with the governed and Palin is one of the few good Americans who is with Tea Party patriots taking on this fight against this corrupt Ruling Class system.

[…] can read a perceptive take on the speech at Legal Insurrection. For the full text of Palin’s speech, go to […]

Donald Douglas | September 4, 2011 at 1:47 pm

Full video here: “Sarah Palin at Indianola: ‘Polls Are for Strippers and Cross Country Skiers…'”. Palin gives great speeches, continually proving she’s heartland like no one else. After awhile, though, coyness starts to break hearts. She’s draggin’ folks along. It hurts and gets old. People start looking around for someone in whom they can invest time, money, and emotion.

This story (like so many others) takes me back to a post I read about 2 years ago on some forgotten site by some forgotten Progressive …

“Can’t we all agree that it’s about dividing up the spoils ?”

The answer is “NO!”

“But like Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Abramowitz also said they were more likely to harbor racial resentment, which he judged based on their answers to questions such as whether blacks could succeed as well as whites if they “would only try harder,” and whether they agreed with the statement that Irish, Italians and Jews overcame prejudice and “blacks should do the same without any special favors.”

I’m sorry … but if anybody wanted to bet that if you took thousands of poor Jews or poor Chinese living under some oppresive regime overseas and dumped them in an inner-city over here, virtually penniless, that they wouldn’t be taking advantage of every opportunity America has to offer, and, within a generation or two, be enjoying the American dream as their children excelled in school … I’d love to take that bet. It’s culture, it’s culture, it’s culture.

If that makes me racist, man oh man, the criteria for what constitutes racism is to be laughed at and mocked.

” … tea party supporters were substantially more likely than other voters to question how much effort black Americans are making to advance themselves versus being held back by social factors.”

Well, then Bill Cosby has showed racist tendencies towards blacks in the past … as has the mayor of Philadelphia who recently told maurading black flash mob youths that they were hurting their own race.

LukeHandCool (who says, Professor Jacobson, you’re welcome to make use of our spare bedroom if you ever come out this way to challenge UC San Diego Professor Greg Jacobson to a debate or duel or whatever. Tentative name for your Left Coast base? … “Cornel West” … heh heh heh).

Sarah Palin understands that trying to find pro-business or anti-business attitudes in candidates may be a doubtful endeavor. It is their position on free markets that matters. If one supports free markets the good and bad of business will take care of itself. Businessmen [and women] will always prefer the quiet life of crony capitalism to the struggle of competition.

Free markets protect the general interest while the special interests seek protection from the free market through alliances with the politically establishment. These conclusions may seem simple and mundane to some but if that were so it would not be so difficult to find candidates and politicians truly committed to free markets as their guiding principle. It is a guiding principle of Sarah Palin’s political philosophy and that’s what makes her special.

In the debate between Kitty and Retire, I’m with Kitty.

Thank you Professor – IMV you have highlighted the CRUX of the matter ….. my new fav phrase is, because it will ((((terrify)))) those who need to be ((((terrified))))


(YEAH! Bring.It.ON.Gov Palin!)

The following comment over at Natalie Nichols’ article (big govt)is the type of comment I’ve been waiting, looking, hoping for ….. the Conservative person who has previously bought into the ‘she’s unelectable’ meme, but has been persuaded purely by the power of Gov Palin’s consistent message, her sincere passion, and her “realness” to get in behind her …..

After watching her full speech yesterday I am committed to supporting her if she runs. I know there is no winning over some people because they are so completely twisted inside, but SHE is the only candidate who utterly inspires me, though I do like Bachmann. I am ready to stop caring whether the experts think she is electable. I am ready to stop listening to my liberal friends who laugh at and mock her. I am ready to defend her to anyone who denigrates her in my presence. I am not going to worry about getting a “more electable against Obama” candidate. I am going work to make Palin more electable. Screw the detractors and hand wringers. I am ready to vote FOR something I believe in. ”


btw – “Etta” is Natalie’s daughter (for those who saw the placard she was wearing at Indianola! *__*)

Forgot to subscribe ….

R05, you really need to find a new way to interact on this and other websites. We know you are from Texas, we know you favor Perry, but dismissing the Boston Globe article without having read it is over the top. You did the same thing to me a month or so ago on the subject of the Texas Dream Act, when you asked where my information source was. When I showed you the link at, I got the same response that there is nothing in the Houston Chronicle worth reading, despite the fact that the source was cited an article from the Washington Times. Give us all a rest, please.

    retire05 in reply to gad-fly. | September 4, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    Yes, I am from Texas. Yes, I lean toward Perry. But I also will support the nominee who comes out on top at the RNC convention. Can you say the same?

    I am sure that I pointed out to you one basic fact: there is NO conservative press in Texas; not the Houston Chronicle, which was started by an ardent New Dealer, not the Dallas Times Herald, the Fort Worth Star Telegram and especially not the Austin American Stateman. Where you giving a hurrah for the Boston Globe when it was pandering for John Kerry?

    The Houston Chronicle was in Bill White’s corner, just as it has been in the corner of every Democrat who ever ran in Texas. If Palin takes the nomination, the Chron will rip her to shreads, I promise you.

    Will you then be linking them and singing their praises? Or even linking to the Washington Times, another not so unbiased publication?

    Also, there is NO Texas Dream act. There was legislation that mirrored the same legislation passed by Oklahoma and New Mexico, Utah and Washington state, and now California.
    To single out Texas is not only unfair, it is biased.

1. Brilliant speech, probably better than the 2004 convention speech that put Obama on the map. If the Left is ignoring it, no wonder: bashing it could backfire badly.

2. Had Palin given that speech as a sitting, emphatically reelected governor, I’d advocate that she be the next President. As matters stand, I don’t propose to replace one half-term orator with another one. I may write in Gary Johnson in November 2012.

3. I am unconvinced that she is anything more than a politically gifted opportunist. Her text did not contain the word ‘Republican’; the term ‘permanent political class’ was used six times. Is she setting up an independent or third-party run?

A bad outcome for the country’s stability will be if Obama squeaks out a victory while the Republicans sweep Congress and Palin siphons off maybe 20% of the vote.

(I believe that the country is being ruined by a malignant parasite class that encompasses both major parties. That belief doesn’t translate into support for Palin. I might reconsider only if things in 2012 get drastically worse than they are today.)

    Viator in reply to gs. | September 4, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    The GOP should thank their lucky stars for Sarah Palin. She has fought very hard to keep the tea party and her supporters in the GOP tent. She shows no sign of changing that position. Sarah Palin was one of the drivers of the biggest GOP victory in almost 75 years in 2010 election cycle.

    “Now the smart thing will be for independents who are such a part of this Tea Party movement to, I guess, kind of start picking a party,” Palin said. “Which party reflects how that smaller, smarter government steps to be taken? Which party will best fit you? And then because the Tea Party movement is not a party, and we have a two-party system, they’re going to have to pick a party and run one or the other: ‘R’ or ‘D’.”

Thought-provoking post. Almost too thought-provoking 😉

The Democrats have always hidden their true nature better, be that with regard to being in bed with lobbyists, big banks, big industry (movies, television, and films are shot in Vancouver, why? and why does no one seem to care?), etc. And yes, this extends to the so-called party of tolerance and its attacks on Israel and Christianity, along with its supposed work for minorities (apparently heaping more minorities onto welfare and food stamps is “helping” them and “paying them back for past injustices” . . . somehow.).

But here’s the thing, Palin is prone to this sort of madness, too. She not only endorsed McCain’s reelection campaign but also made the rounds for him. How does this not figure into the payback scheme? Sure, he took her on board to be his running mate, but from everything that she’s said, he’s politically the polar opposite of her (supposedly). I know you don’t like any hint of “Palin bashing,” but let’s face it, this is just weird. Why would she support someone whose entire ideology (McCain is pro-amnesty, pro-gun control, pro-every idiot RINO idea to come down the pike) flies in the face of her own? Crony capitalism is here to stay, and I’m afraid that Palin is just as susceptible to it as are the rest. Has she profited from it yet? Not yet. But she has chips out that will be cashed in if she enters the 2012 race and then wins.

What Americans usually do is weigh those chips against national interest. I like Palin, I’d like to see her run, but she doesn’t get my primary vote automatically (any GOP nom will get my vote in the general). I’m troubled by her previous endorsement of McCain and by the people she will “owe” should she win. Ideally, I’d love to see someone run who does not, in any way, owe anyone anything. But that’s not how our system works. Instead, as voters, we have to decide whether we approve not only the candidate but whichever special interest made their candidacy possible.

[…] am unsurprised she made no announcement of her Presidential election intentions (or lack of them). I agree with Professor Jacobson that the essence of the speech was focused on core Tea Party values, and like Shane Atwell did so well in this post, Palin also highlighted the statist attitude of […]

David R. Graham | September 4, 2011 at 8:09 pm

“This was no “Morning In America” speech. Heavy on generalities, light on specifics.”

“The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country.”

The latter, I feel, answers the former. Changing the game plan itself is the specific. She embodies that. I believe yearning to change the game plan is the soul of the Professor’s post here. Details come through events. The specific of changing the game plan itself is fundament and goal. It’s what she did to be elected Governor of Alaska: she drew in Democratic support, lots of it, by resolving to change the game plan of Alaska’s being run by Republican crony capitalism.

Let’s see what she does. IMO she has great power to attract Democrats and Republicans and Independents with the, fundamentally, 10th Amendment/end crony capitalism message and practice. One crucially important thing about Sarah Palin is that one knows she will do what she says and say what she does. And she has a strong record of having done exactly that while holding agency and executive responsibilities.

I do not see anything she *has* to do. Were I in a position of counsel to her, I would recommend being strong and happy and doing what she feels she should do, and leave the consequences to God. Little fish get through nets big fish die in. It’s the nets fish want out of the water so they can swim about safely and live their life.

Politics, religion and gardening share a common goal: when tended properly, they shed weight rather than gaining it. Politics sheds obsolete or harmful laws and regulations. Religion sheds debilitating desires. Gardening sheds weeds. It’s all the same busy-ness.

    “Let’s see what she does.”

    She has had almost three years to show us what she does. Has she taken to the podium/stage to promote legislation she supports, say, the Balanced Budget Amendment? Do you think she is incapable of drumming up millions of calls to Congress, demanding a BBA? Think that doesn’t work? Remember the Shanmesty Bill? Americans were so against it, they literally shut down the Congressional switchboard with their calls. It was defeated.

      William A. Jacobson in reply to retire05. | September 5, 2011 at 5:26 am

      You are now into ridiculous territory. Palin raised money and helped dozens of candidates in 2010, more so than anyone else in the field. That doesn’t make her more qualified to be president than the others, but the level to which you reach to criticize her is becoming tiresome. And to criticize her because she was McCain’s running mate is beyond absurd.

David R. Graham | September 4, 2011 at 8:21 pm

“Why would she support someone whose entire ideology (McCain is pro-amnesty, pro-gun control, pro-every idiot RINO idea to come down the pike) flies in the face of her own?”

Because he is a decorated war veteran and knows the political landscape well enough to want her playing on it. And he needed a wingman for a hard dog fight. And she saw an opportunity to serve her country as she had served her state. And she wanted to have some fun at the expense of the Republican establishment. All perfectly natural and fair.

His handlers got cold feet and suppressed her, but that’s the game she accepted and she’s a loyal person, as everyone should be. And his desires outstripped his age-diminished abilities. But she did not and will not subvert him. In fact, she cannot and she would not want to in any case.

Life is not about issues, it is about people. Once the word is given, to be loyal to a person, even if they fail one, is top priority. She embodies that maxim. And Sarah Palin has her own political calculus and we just have to/get to watch it unfold. It’s not about issues. It’s about people. That’s what she means by changing the game plan. Change the players and we get a different result. Re-uniform them and we get the same result.

Bottom line: Sarah Palin is loyal to her benefactors and John McCain, anything else notwithstanding, is her benefactor. And, she knew he was the candidate and took the opportunity to serve her country. All the rest is fluffy detail.

    Well, that’s a relief! Good to know that she will always remain true, first and foremost, to her benefactors, regardless of their stance on issues.

    Let’s just hope that she doesn’t become beholden (and loyal) to someone \who doesn’t have America’s best interests at heart. “Fluffy details” like that are so troublesome.

    There is no taking away John McCain’s service to his nation. He suffered greatly. But his military service, and his political career are two distinctly different things. He is obviously the polar opposite of what Palin claims to be. Was he just a stepping stone to what she felt was higher office after a term as VP?

    “She wanted to have some fun at the expense of the Republican establishment.”

    Is this a prom queen contest where she gets even with all those gritchy girls who made fun of her? If that kind of attitude is “natural and fair” our nation has far more problems than we could have possibly dreamed.

    It seems Sarah’s loyality to McCain, which was on full display last fall during the elections, is now a bit shakey since she slammed the “hobbit” comment. But it does bring up the question: if Palin was using McCain for his “knowledge of the political landscape” why did she back him in his last election when it was not necessary? Did she know know how far apart they are when she went to Arizona to campaign for him? You make Palin sound like a poltical opportunist. Is that your intention?

    You are wrong; life may be about people, but politics are about issues. People come and people go in politics, but the issues remain. The issues raised by Woodrow Wilson, the epitome of the progressive movement, do not venture far from the issues raised by FDR, or Kennedy or Clinton. Since the arrival of William Buckley, and the conservative movement, not much has changed from those ideas/ideals of Goldwater, Reagan, and any other Republican who is loyal to the ideals of conservatism.

      David R. Graham in reply to retire05. | September 6, 2011 at 1:35 am

      “You make Palin sound like a poltical opportunist. Is that your intention?”

      Fair question, but I think you know it is not my intention, and I think you are overlooking my gestalt reference. Her target is not girls who have dissed her, it is girls and boys who are lining their pockets and usurping powers at taxpayer expense, aka “crony capitalism.” It isn’t high school, it’s serious adult mis-and mal-feasance of whatever party that directly and indirectly hurts citizens and our nation. It is secret deals and cynical arrangements that subvert the Constitution. It is networks that suck power from its real owners. It is people hurting other people with impunity, even when those other people are not aware they are being hurt. It is plaintiffs, jurists and pleaders commandeering the rightful purpose of the courts, the schools and the religious institutions to wreak havoc on seeking souls. It is clerics sending confidants down endless treks of pseudo-theological psycho-babble as domination exercises and money and/or sex extortion. It is …. the list goes on and on.

      I think something like that is what Sarah Palin condemns and calls for a team change to remedy. I think she is sincere and consistent about that throughout her career in public service. I think that is a very specific and rallying campaign message and platform plank. And I think she is correct in assessing that a team change, one sharing or approximating her coup d’oeil, is indicated and can win the next presidential and congressional elections.

BannedbytheGuardian | September 4, 2011 at 8:39 pm

There is no attack on Perry in that speech. Perry pre emptive defenders are trying to divert attention .

There is no comparison Sept 3 between Palin in an open raining cornfield in Iowa before thousands & Perry in a cloistered private function for 100s in NH.

Perry’s might be better , smarter & creative but it is not available -much less televised nationwide by CSpan & CNN.

In all everyone in Indianola had a great time & Palin worked the ropes even signing a holder complete with pistol!

Sept 4 is another day & a Sarah Heath came 2nd in a 1/2 marathon in time averaging 8 min miles !

Now what is Rick up to?

Sherriff Palin is gonna ride into town in NH, at high noon Monday … I hear tell she is lookin for a Posse …. she wants to sign up all those who are willing and able to go after the Corruptocrats and the Crony Capitalists in this great Land …

I heard she will be announcing before September’s end, where the Palin Posse should report to collect their Deputy badges ….. *__*

Stand by Palinista Posse ….. check the hooves of that horse, load and balance those saddlebags …. pack a couple of extra kerchiefs, this road is gonna be full of dust at times …. don’t want us all chokin’ when it kicks up in our faces

….. it won’t be long now before we hear her voice call out … “Head ’em up! … Move ’em out!”


    retire05 in reply to exodus2011. | September 4, 2011 at 11:42 pm

    “Head ‘me up!…Move ’em out!”?

    That’s what you say about cattle.

      David R. Graham in reply to retire05. | September 6, 2011 at 1:42 am

      ““Head ‘me up!…Move ‘em out!”?

      That’s what you say about cattle.”

      Sure is. I’ve been on two cattle drives, on a horse, not in a jeep.

      I think the “Head ‘me up!…Move ‘em out!”? commentator is jeering.

For those that want to continue to say there was no meat or it was just a standard boiler plate speech you obviously are supporting another candidate or you are a troll. Which is it?

Here’s what I got out of this speech. But I’ll let Tony Lee from Human Events explain it to you. Not enough time nor can I write it as eloquently as he did here:

You chastise Sarah Palin for, in your mind, entertaining a 3rd party run, then you say you’ll write in Gary Johnson if she’s the nominee? How does that square in your mind? People like you will reelect Obama if you do not vote for the GOP nominee. I have no doubts that Palin will either run as a Republican or not run. She would not see another 4 years of this administration. I hope you can say the same.

    People like you will reelect Obama if you do not vote for the GOP nominee.

    The Republicans have played me for a chump since 1988. Possible exceptions like Paul Ryan are not in control. (I share the Tea Party’s stated goals, but they have yet to convince me that they can win a national election or that they can govern.)

    If the GOP’s shtick continues to be:

    Vote Republican. We Wreck the Country Slower.

    my response is:


David R. Graham | September 6, 2011 at 1:44 am

The goal is to break the back of the ecclesial/academic/media/bureaucratic monopoly that killed John F. Kennedy and has been sucking power into the federal system ever since. Sarah Palin is the only religious/moral/political personality of national and international prominence who embodies that goal.

The professor is right on this issue. There is huge similarity between big government, big labor and big business … and that is the quid pro quo self serving layer of lard in their managements.

Both parties have been culpable in this mess, whether it’s Obama and GE or Bush and Haliburton … see the Bunnatine Greenhouse case for an example of what happens to an honest federal employee, even more notable because she was at the SES level … among the few at that grade that actually had done the work overseen.

That case is not an exception other than her rank and the particular situation. It goes on every day, in industry and in government, where lies are expected, even demanded, from one another, to perpetuate a misdirected program, top to bottom. The ugly layer of lard in government is the SES, all appointed (long ago removed from civil service system), most with no experience at the working level of the fields they oversee, and “at will” more or less … e.g., subject to the favor of cabinet level people.

Some will say “pshaw”, this can’t be. I will tell you that in a period from 1968 through 2006 in my time as a uniformed then later civilian “fed” for the Army, that you are wrong. I have been there, done that, at lower levels, either to survive or just to get on to more important matters … with approximately 3+ “whistle blower” episodes where my identity was kept confidential. I grew tired of it, and near 2006, refused to lie anymore, or ignore blatant law breaking. It was time for me to go, and I did.

The “Tea Party” appeals to this socially liberal, fiscally conservative person precisely because it poses an alternative to the status quo of both houses. To be effective, the TP must invigorate the Republican Party to set itself apart in real terms.

And I repeat, the professor is right. “Big Labor” is a joke today to this old time skilled tradesman, both in military and civilian guise, and Mr Trumka is a comic figure … a self styled firebrand leader who never worked a day in his life where dirty fingernails could be had, straight from law school to union leadership, and subsequently to the defeat of industrial unionists in the AFL-CIO.

Thank you, professor, for stating the conundrum so simply and plainly. I apologize for being so verbose.

Dang .. I screwed up the link. It should be Bunnatine Greenhouse.