Sarah's "Team"

There is a great video over at Conservatives4Palin today. It is an add for "ProjectGOPink," a conservative women's group that will be meeting in Washington, D.C., on November 17-19. Sarah has been invited to speak, but has not yet indicated whether she will do so.

The video was made by Pass Code Creative, which made Sarah's PAC videos, and it has her input all over it. It is another indication of what I think is a conscious strategy on her part. If she had run for president, the media would have made the election all about her. As it is, she is transforming the attention directed at her, diverting it to other conservative women, who will take the next step to getting our country back on track. Sarah is ensuring that the movement to do that is broad-based. She has always said that this movement is not about her; it is about all of us. Remember, she is a team player. Steve Bannon's movie shows how she gave credit to the members of her administration.

Picture credit: MoreThings

Mama Grizzly

I just came back from a short trip to Washington, D.C. One of my favorite places to visit there is the National Portrait Gallery, which shares quarters with the newly named Smithstonian Museum of American Art. It was at the latter that I saw this painting by the artist W. Herbert Dunton (1878-1936). The painting is entitled Fall in the Foothills. Dunton worked in the Southwest, principally Taos, but I thought of the Alaskan Mama Grizzly when I saw this painting. (Here is a much better image of the painting.) I wonder if Sarah has seen this? She would certainly like the Museum of American Art.

They'll have to find a new line of work

As disappointed as I am, these two people are one reason why Sarah's decision may have been wise. There has been too much of a media circus around her for the last three years. Hate-filled cable personalities have filled their programs with invectives about her. They trashed her, but couldn't get enough of her. McGinniss is even taking credit on his website for chasing her out of politics. Ha! There went his book sales.

I have had a disagreement with my husband about Tina Fey. It shows you how little I know about popular culture, because I said no one would ever have heard about Tina Fey if she hadn't had her gig imitating Sarah. He insisted that she was a well-known commodity. Whatever the case, if Sarah had run, Tina Fey would have been front and center stage for the next year and half and into the future. No more Emmies for you, no more public adulation. Good by, Tina, and good riddance.

I can't help thinking that some of this media circus went into Sarah's calculations. She realizes that her message -- and we all know what it is -- would simply become beside the point.  We have to keep in mind that Sarah has not only always exceeded expectations, but she also defies them. Thus, the pundits who say she is finished now, has shot her wad, will have no further role, etc. are simply projecting their own desires. Howard Kurtz, who today opines that her role as a serious political broker are over, doesn't get Sarah. If you listened to her words in her interview with Greta last evening, her intention is not to be a power broker. She is going to lead in the "fundamental restoration of America." It is not the political class and its hangers-on on which she has set her sites. She is going to go directly to the people. Go, Sarah, go!

I guess she won't

I always suspected that she didn't want to run, but in the end I thought she would because, well, who else is there to support? The candidate in the lead -- Mitt Romney -- doesn't fully embrace conservative goals. I have a feeling that Rick Perry threw her off of her plans by jumping in. She may not think the office of the president, as long as it is Republican, is essential. More important is to get a rock-solid conservative House and Senate and also fill up the governorships with conservatives.

We love you, Sarah, and look forward to your next move.

Will she or won't she?

There is some nervousness about Sarah's interview with Greta last night, especially at Conservatives4Palin. Again, I want to emphasize what I said yesterday: Sarah Palin is not conventional. There are several things that should be mentioned in connection with what seemed her hesitations last evening.

First, as I have written earlier, I think she may not want to be president and would prefer to let someone else carry the torch. She has said, however, that she would step in if she didn't see a candidate likely to beat Obama. With all due respect to Hermann Cain, I don't think he is that candidate. He has lots of expertise as a businessman, but none in government, a different beast. Sarah knows this as well: she has actually run for office and won.

Second, as far as not needing a title, Greta very wisely challenged Sarah. There is a difference between having dinner with the prime minister of Israel and telling him that the American people love his country and sitting down at the table as president of the U.S. with all the actors and players, thus in a position to further Israel's interests. Sarah is not so innocent and naive as not to know this herself.

Third, her secrecy regarding her intentions is a good sign: it means her opponents do not know where she stands. She keeps her cards close to her chest. That is an excellent operating position when you consider the opponents she will face as president of the U.S. Obama gave away everything from the get-go, telling our enemies what he would do. And guess what? We are weaker now not only as a nation but also as an international player. Sarah Palin will not telegraph and certainly not proclaim loudly in advance what America's game plan is.

Fourth, RichardNC mentioned something very important in a comment on Conservatives4Palin: Sarah has to have all her ducks lined up perfectly. Otherwise, her enemies will exploit any "technical" mistake she makes by filing suits with the FEC.

Finally, I would say that she has never said she would not run. If she decides, she will be whole-hearted. And because she will be whole-hearted, she will win. Thus, her answer to Greta: Of course, she can beat Obama.

Keep the faith!

The pundits and Sarah Palin

Last evening I listened to Steve Bannon's interview with Shoshanna Walsh. She had the good fortune to travel around with Sarah during the McCain-Palin run, and wrote a book with Scott Conroy, Sarah from Alaska. Bannon treated her quite respectfully, raving about her book. I read it standing up at a local Borders when it came out. It seemed to me rather thin, but, since Sarah Palin remains a phenomenon, Shoshanna Walsh has a job, with a specialty reporting on Sarah Palin.

Listening to Walsh, however, I was struck by how inarticulate she was. Well, she is young and is at the start of a career as a pundit. What was clear is that she really knew very little about Sarah Palin. For starters, she was puzzled that Sarah is threatening to sue Joe McGinnis and his publisher. In Walsh's view, this will only give McGinniss publicity and help his book sales. So, Walsh takes a conventional, cautious position. But Sarah is not conventional, and, when necessary, she doesn't do caution.

What I am trying to say is that, despite having spent a lot of time with Sarah Palin and written a book about her, Walsh really has no more understanding of her than any other person in the LSM. I am not singling out Shoshanna Walsh in order to beat up on her, but what she reveals is that the LSM does not get Sarah Palin. Thus, today's piece in The Washington Post, concerning Sarah's "second tier status." The Post is judging her by conventional standards, which is exactly the way that the more articulate pundits evaluate her and her chances, for instance, Charles Krauthammer or George Will. They are all so used to being in an echo chamber, repeating variations of the same pieties, that the only difference between them is the smoothness with which they express themselves. Shoshanna Walsh still has a long way to go, but she is on the right track to being a conventional, mediocre pundit. For the rest of us: Keep the faith.

Presidential candidate Sarah Palin in South Korea; addendum

I woke up at 4 a.m. with a brilliant scenario dancing in my head. It caused me to rethink some of the my recent reflections on when/how/whether Sarah Palin will announce for president.

For a long time I have thought that she really does NOT want to run. Yet, she has always said that if there is not a good candidate, she would jump in. It is becoming clear that there is no such candidate. She also indicated (I think it was to Greta) that, if she announces, no one will miss the announcement. Recently she has said that the coming election will be different from anything before.

Until last night I thought she would not announce before her trip to Korea, as doing so would upstage the other speakers -- and she is too much of a modest person to do that. In the wee hours of the morning, however, it struck me that there could be no better way to position herself for 2012 than to go to Korea as an announced candidate for president of the U.S. The South Koreans -- and the Japanese and Taiwanese and so on -- would take this as a sign of the importance of East Asia to America. The media coverage would be immense, more so than if she goes as "former governor of Alaska and Republican vice-presidential candidate." Her speech would be broadcast all over the world, and it would absolutely knock the socks off of everyone in the U.S.

As Sarah has said, no one will miss her announcement, perhaps on the Bob & Mark show, after which she boards the plane and flies over the Arctic Circle to Korea.

ADDENDUM: And how priceless won't it be to watch the flat-footed LSM trying to get a flight to South Korea!

Sarah in Korea

I thought this was a very cool picture, though I've no idea what the quote is about. It concerns her October visit to South Korea to participate in the World Knowledge Forum. More details later.

For those who have wondered where I have been, well, I am back! I had always planned to wait until Sarah puts herself in contention for the Republican nomination for president before I started posting, but earlier in the summer I had a few things on my mind that got me started.

I visit a couple of Palin websites, principally Conservatives4Palin, but recently the constant complaints among Palinistas along the lines of "when is she going to announce" have got me down. Hey, folks! She is waiting for the present field to shoot itself in the foot. Stay cool and be patient. You will be rewarded. Sarah never undertakes anything unless she knows she will win. She is a hunter. She is a barracuda. She wants to position herself in the best possible way before she leaps in. Let the others tear themselves to shreds first.

"The Undefeated"

Team Sarah sent out a notice that there would be showings of The Undefeated in Manhattan. I promptly reserved two tickets. It was recommended that one should bring a liberal to see the movie. I think I was the only one in the audience who actually brought one, my friend Barb.

I don't know that I can say much about the movie that has not already been said. There has been lots of praise for it, even in its "rough cut" form, which I assume is nothing like the experience of watching it on a big screen in high resolution in a movie theater at the local mall. Even for those of us who have been following Sarah Palin and who admire her intensely will come away impressed with her doggedness and cheerful heart. Stephen Bannon, the director, made some comments before and after the screening, mentioning, among other things, the consistency of the governor's "politics" over the course of two decades of public life. I had already seen that consistency, as mentioned in an earlier posting, when I saw a Charlie Rose interview with her and Janet Napolitano.

Thus, let me say something about what appears to be one liberal's reaction to the movie.

Barb is a pretty open-minded liberal, and she, like many liberals, is enamored by the supposed intelligence of Obama and of his administration. Her first take after the movie was that of most liberals, namely, that Palin has never done anything to demonstrate that she is intelligent: in other words, everything Palin says was written by someone else, and she is (as John Cleese asserts) a parrot. I pointed out one could say the same thing about Barack Obama, reading from his teleprompter.

Like many liberals, she also took umbrage at what she considers the gung-ho patriotism of conservatives, which, in her eyes, expresses contempt for the rest of the world, especially the so-called Third World, a term she finds disparaging. I pointed out that this term was not coined by grassroots conservatives.

Basically, however, Barb, like many liberals, is conservative in her own life. She has built a successful career by being conservative and, as a self-employed person, she despises taxes. She thinks government is out of touch and out of control, and she is not hopeful that it can be changed. She was impressed that Palin took on "the establishment," whether Republican or Democrat, but she doubts anyone can really turn things around, even if Alaska, as Bannon pointed out, shows that a political culture can be changed.

I think the one way to reach "conservative" liberals like Barb is to stress that being pro-American is not to be chauvinist. We want America to succeed, not in order to be "better" than other nations, but out of self-interest. Whatever our errors are as a nation, the U.S. has proved that it is a place to which people have journeyed to realize opportunities unavailable elsewhere. If America is successful, we will continue to be an opportunity society and offer an example for others. Sarah Palin's career in Alaska, as I discerned it from The Undefeated, was successful because she appealed to the pride Alaskans feel for their state and at the same time made that pride a source of economic renewal. Thus, self-interest (as Adam Smith wrote) can also benefit others, if properly understood. The task before conservatives is to get this message across. Our present financial insolvency is directly related to personal insolvency on a nation-wide scale, the attempt by liberals to be all things to all people. Sarah Palin's love of country shows a desire to return us to our roots in personal self-interest, which made us a powerful, rich, and generous nation.

Has anyone noticed ...?

An editorial by William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, carries the title "Don't Block Up the Hall." It concerns the "control freaks in the political establishment," the donor class, the media, and so on, all of whom want "certainty and easy predictability in their politics." In other words, the Republicans should already have crowned their presidential candidate. Kristol, however, feels differently:

"[A] wide-open primary season will likely prove good for the Republican party, good for the conservative cause, and good for the country."

And then comes the pull quote: "Competition is good, after all. Road testing is useful."

Where oh where have we heard this before? The originator of this sentiment is, of course, Sarah Palin. But does Kristol give her credit for saying that competition in the elector process, as in other aspects of life, is good? You got to be kidding.

What strikes me is how much Sarah Palin is framing the Republican political contest. Everything that she has advocated since the Tea Party broke onto the scene has been taken up by the other Republican candidates (Romney perhaps excepted). Recently it was a liberal publication -- the Baltimore Sun -- who, during her One Nation tour, called her "the most mischievous force in American politics." This was said admiringly. The Baltimore Sun understood her. For some reason, however, the Right refuses to give her credit, even though every supposedly conservative candidate is constantly echoing what she has said. When will the Republican establishment, including Kristol, finally notice that she is dominating the "conversation"? Does the establishment think that if it ignores her, she will go away? Ha!

It's not about Sarah

I finally read John Ziegler's piece. What a hit piece. It's hard to know what motivated him, but I suspect that, as with many conservatives, he is freaked out by the vitriol aimed at Sarah and honestly believes it is too intense to allow her to win the presidency. Also factor in a bit of sour grapes or wounded vanity.

I had a more brilliant insight, however. It strikes me that the vitriol is not aimed at Sarah Palin. It is aimed at "we the people." It is aimed at the heartland and its values, which liberalism has been steadily eroding for the past several decades, under the "enlightened" administration of Boomer elites. With the election of Obama, these elites imagined that they had finally overcome the evil arising from the traditional values of the heartland. Suddenly, Sarah Palin appears, and it is evident that those values still reign. The bearer of those values has to be destroyed.

Sarah Palin has consistently said that "it is not about me; it is not about Sarah Palin." The media, however, has framed a narrative that it is about Sarah Palin. Thus, my advice for a Palin for President campaign is as follows: Sarah P. has to overcome the "personalization" inherent in this narrative. I think that the remaining caution toward her among some conservatives (not me!) -- the notion that she lacks "gravitas" -- may stem from the sense that she hasn't been able to rise above the attacks on her.

Recently we conservatives have continued to defend her in the Palin v. the Media scenario. She is the underdog, and we are for her. In doing so, however, we lose sight of the fact that the real aim of the media and the elites is to destroy US and our values.

If Sarah can rise above the way she has been "framed" (quite literally) and take the fight to another level, make clear what the attacks on her are really about, then she will truly be Reaganesque, not only in ideals but also in temperament.

"The Quotable Rogue"

When I set up this blog I did not plan to write anything until Sarah Palin announced she was running for president, aside from some occasional musings. Lately I have wanted to weigh in on the One Nation bus tour and the Email Hunt. Enough said by others on those. Let me be the first to review a new book, namely, Matt Lewis's The Quotable Rogue: The Ideals of Sarah Palin in Her Own Words. I just got my pre-ordered copy this morning and quickly read through it.

Much of what strikes me has already been echoed in the past week or so, even by LSM talking heads after their advance view of The Undefeated, namely, that twenty years ago Sarah Palin had the same position on the issues that she has today. In other words, she has been consistent, and she has always been a "commonsense" conservative. I had already noted that when I saw a clip of a long-ago interview of her and Janet Napolitano with Charlie Rose. Both women had just been elected governor. Sarah Palin did not then seem as confident as she has become; the attention was clearly a bit new for the Alaskan. Napolitano, by contrast, was already a very smooth politician, and in retrospect it is understandable that Obama would think she would make a good member of his administration. One of Charlie Rose's questions concerned health care reform. Napolitano was in favor of big change; Palin agreed that there needed to be reform but insisted we shouldn't invent the wheel.

As Lewis writes in the Introduction, Palin "has articulated thoughtful stands on a number of issues," and these are the substance of his book. Those of us who have followed her for the past few years are familiar with her Facebook and Twitter postings, but he delves back further, into her Alaska political days and the election of 2008, when she burst into the national awareness. At that time, he writes, "she seemed so ordinary. And yet she quickly became a household name, a recognizable face, and a lightning rod for strong reactions." The book's topics follow an alphabetical sequence, from "On Abortion," "On the Real America," "On Living in Alaska," to "On the Tea Party Movement," "On Tina Fey," "On Washington." There is an index, in which was missing, to my surprise, "death panels." For your information, the quote from Palin is on page 95. Herewith some of my favorites:

"The people of America realize that all political power is inherent in the people. And government is to be implemented on behalf of the people and the will that they desire that their government engage in" (9/17/2008)

"Q: Will you support an effort to expand hate-crime laws?
A: No, as I believe all heinous crime is based on hate"
(from 2006 gubernatorial candidate questionnaire)

"The people of Alaska understand that Alaska has so much to contribute in terms of energy sources to the rest of the U.S. ... I think Washington doesn't understand that we are at a real critical crossroads: we are either going to become more and more dependent on foreign sources of energy, or we're going to be able to secure our nation and drill domestically for safe, stable, clean supplies of energy that we have here. We have them in Alaska" (6/28/2008 interview)

"President Bush is right. Across the nation, communities are feeling the pinch of high energy costs. It is absurd that we are borrowing from one foreign country to buy oil from another. It is a threat to our national security and economic well-being. It is well past time for America to develop our own supplies" (Alaska governor's office press release, 4/29/2008)

"Q: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
A: I have not, and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you"
(interview with Charlie Gibson, 9/11/2008)

"Q: Are we continuing on the proper course in Iraq?
A: In the past five years, there hasn't been a successful terrorist strike on U.S. soil, and that's no accident. ... I support our president. I support our military. But of course I want to see that exit strategy being developed and being revealed to the public."
(Alaska 2006 governor debate, 10/30/2006)

"I have been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. [While supporting our president] I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe" (Alaska Business Monthly, 12/4/2006)

No need to go on. Just a couple of points. I thought I detected somewhat of a hardening of her position after joining McCain's ticket on the Iraq war. She is quoted in UPI on Oct. 2, 2008, saying "We do have a plan for withdrawal. We don't need .. early withdrawal out of Iraq. We cannot afford to lose there ..."
I notice, of late, in the case of Libya and Afghanistan, that she is returning to her earlier position of insistence on an "exit plan." I think she may also have hardened a bit on immigration since the Arizona law and the Obama administration's actions against that state. On Oct. 26, 2008, for instance, in an interview with Univision, she expressed support for "a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants." At the same time, she also thought it impossible round up all the undocumented immigrants and deport them.

I also found it interesting that Jay Newton-Small of Time magazine had already been following Governor Palin in August 2008, before John McCain picked her to run with him. So, some journalists recognized her special quality early on.

All in all a good read and a good complement to the governor's own books.

And, by the way, who has become the more formidable personality since the Charlie Rose interview?

Go, Girl!

Picture credit: Feel Free

The "11th" Commandment

It was good to hear Charles Krauthammer invoking Ronald Reagan's "11th Commandment" today when speaking of Newt Gingrich's criticism of Paul Ryan's health care plan. Now, I wonder if Krauthammer will adhere to that commandment if Sarah Palin enters the race for president. Let's hold him to it if she does. And also George Will and the other members of the chattering class.

Where's the baptismal certificate?

I'm not sure what to make about the controversy over President Obama's birth certificate. The issue continues to dominate because there is something "alien" about the president: his values are not mine or yours. Yesterday, he did something -- that is to say, he omitted to do something -- that once more brings out his alienation from American ways. It seems he did not issue the usual presidential proclamation regarding Easter, even though he never neglects other such prominent holidays (especially Muslim ones).

At a press conference today, his press secretary laughed off the absence of a proclamation, saying the president had gone to church with his family, "in a very high-profile way," thereby showing Americans that he is a "devoted Christian." Interesting that "very high-profile way."

I have my doubt about his devotion. I don't care about his birth certificate. I want to see his baptismal certificate. Has President Obama ever been baptized?

Photo credit: Christians for Sarah Palin

"Let's run a boring white guy"

"A boring white guy" is basically the advice of pundit Charles Krauthammer. In the National Review he has written that, in order to win in 2012, Republicans need to run an "ideological" race based on the issues that "shellacked" Democrats in 2010: "the size and reach of government, spending and debts, and ... the nature of the American social contract." Very fine words. And who is supposed to carry this message to the American people?

Someone without "baggage" or "flash." Americans, he asserts, have been burned by charisma and are no longer looking for "a thrill up the leg." What we want, he claims, is someone "solid, stable, sober, and, above all, not scary." Who could he be talking about? Gerald Ford, maybe? Excepting maybe Mitch Daniels, that description doesn't really match any of the "major candidates" he lists: Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Barbour (well, maybe it does fit him). I was surprised he actually considered Michelle Bachman a "long shot" for the nomination. She certainly scares a lot of people.

It's interesting how major pundits like Krauthammer do not want to consider Sarah Palin seriously. In his opinion, she is not running, knowing, he says, that she has "little chance at the nomination and none in the general election."

I remember hearing Krauthammer speak in early 2002. It was when George W. Bush was making preparations for what would be the invasion of Iraq. Krauthammer predicted that Iraq, having a large secular population, would have a democratic society in no time. Unfortunately, people like Krauthammer carry a lot of influence. It was opinions like his on Iraq that supported the invasion. Other pundits and opinion makers listen to him and repeat what he says, in the present case concerning Sarah Palin. An indication of the animus he has toward her came out in an interview with Hugh Hewett a couple of years ago, when he described her as the "pulchritudinous" Sarah Palin.

What guys like Krauthammer don't get is that a boring white guy is not likely to beat Obama. As I said in my original post on this site, the ideological issues of government size and spending are not going to drive people to the polls, short of a major economic depression. To win back America, we have to appeal to the hearts of Americans. And, besides Herman Cain (certainly not a boring white guy), Sarah Palin is the only one who can do that. Go, Sarah!

Political Art

In front of the Metropolitan Museum of Art are lots of vendors selling "art" and various art-related souvenirs. Recently I started talking with a guy who was making 5 x 7" prints based on the Obama "Hope" visual. There were some of Sarah Palin with the word "Nope" below. I asked him if he would make me one that said "2012." He nicely complied, for only $10.00. When I picked it up today, I told him he should make more of them. I'm sure there would be out-of-town buyers, if not New Yorkers. Probably he is afraid of being attacked by liberals.

"I ♥ Sarah Palin"

Not long ago the feeling among conservatives was palpable: Barack Obama could be beat in 2012. In Congress, the Republicans seemed to be getting tough, a heartening phenomenon. Presidential candidates were being evaluated by the great minds among conservative pundits. Anyone who watched the speeches of the "majors" at CPAC could not help but marvel at how impressive they were. Donald Trump was in great form. Lots of red meat there.

The recent fight over the government shutdown, however, reminds us that one should be cautious about attributing any conservative ascendency to the popularity of conservative ideas. Honestly, who wants to be reminded to be fiscally prudent? Some conservative politicians have been urging fiscal prudence for ages. For instance, that perennial presidential candidate Ron Paul. Mitch Daniels even wrote a campaign biography about our national profligacy.

The truth of the matter is that the current financial train wreck has scared Americans to death. If they voted for Republicans in November, it was because they hoped Republicans would restore the gravy train.

Strip away the "now," however, and no matter how articulate the rhetoric (think Chris Christie), what the Republicans are urging is more of the same heartlessness with which Democrats have battered them for decades. The Democrats are experts at working the heart strings: conservatives want to kill grandma and starve children. In fact, they are so expert at it that they have brought the nation to the brink of fiscal insolvency. Barack Obama, with otherwise no credentials, was swept into office by the votes of otherwise sensible people ignoring what their mind and reason should have informed them was the case. They went with their hearts.

Yesterday Obama poured on more of the same old Democratic rhetoric, "poisoning the well," as Paul Ryan said.

If Republicans intend to win the present battles but also win back the country, they have to touch hearts as well as minds. They have to reach the huge swath of the American citizenry that is detached from politics as well as that section of citizenry whose personal profligacy -- out of wedlock births, welfare dependency, educational underachievement -- is supported by the national fiscal profligacy. None of them is going to embrace Republicans because they've been converted to fiscal responsibility.

We have to engage our fellow Americans by appeals to their better selves. We have to convince them to believe in America again. That path leads through their hearts, not their minds.

The only potential Republican candidate currently addressing hearts is Sarah Palin. Even the title of her most recent book, America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag, telegraphs what will win back the disengaged and detached. Family, faith, and flag are not cheap emotional appeals. They are the real thing. They once made America great -- and solvent. Our hearts should beat a little faster at the singing of the national anthem.

For some time I have been puzzled by the hostility of the conservative elite to Sarah Palin. I am convinced that it is because the likes of George Will and Charles Krauthammer, articulate men both, hate the way she talks. They are embarrassed that she mangles grammar. Ann Coulter went on MSNBC to tell Laurence O'Donnell that Republicans need an "articulate" candidate, if they want to win, and that Chris Christie was the one. Or is that "the new One"?

No doubt we all have memories of our embarrassment that George W. Bush seemed inarticulate. His word salads were the delight of liberal bloggers and telepundits. It's not surprising, in light of the current conservative ascendency, that an "articulate" Republican might do the trick, beat the "articulate" Obama.

Strip away the articulate rhetoric of the current crop of hopefuls, however, and one has to concede that they are only echoing what Sarah Palin has been saying since the meteor-like arrival of the Tea Party. She is only saying it differently.

Conservative pundits and opinion-makers should stop harping on what they perceive as Palin's faults. Sarah Palin not only has a huge following that loves her, but she also has the potential to touch hearts in a way that no other Republican can. And if she gets the nomination, they should get behind her.

I mean, really, can one imagine "I ♥ Christie"? Not to mention Donald, Mitt, Tim, or Rudy?