My Dear Friends in Sarah,
 
Happy Monday to you all!!
 
I loved her Friday interview on the Hannity show.  While I could mention any number of issues, I would like to focus briefly on one thing that I believe she said.  I put it this way because I have not had the chance to watch the show a second time!
 
While conceding that many of the candidates in the GOP presidential field hold (some) sound conservative principles, she said that, beyond that, we need FIGHTERS.  I don’t think she said it explicitly, but, IMHO, she was saying implicitly:
 
“These others may SAY and PROFESS the right things, but I have my doubts that they are willing to FIGHT for these principles.”
 
Guys, if we know two things about our Sarah, they are that she is a mom and she is a fighter: A Mama Grizzly.
 
SARAH FIGHTS; nobody else has the heart and cojones and love for God and country to fight the way she has, she does, she will.
 
THIS LADY FIGHTS; THIS LADY IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT; THIS LADY WILL BECOME OUR PRESIDENT!!!
 
Someone who fights and suffers and bleeds for his or her beliefs is like a Gandalf or a Merlin taking a magic staff, a wand of power, and waving it over a lovely but lifeless statue…and breathing all the might and majesty and vitality of flesh and blood and soul into it!!
 
In the hands of, in the mouth of, in the heart of our Sarah, the Constitution and the other foundation blocks of America become more than just dry documents and dead stones; they breathe forth all the fire of youth, all the flames of love for Liberty that animated our Founders, that have animated our heroes and heroines in the past, and that animate and drive and inspire all patriots today!
 
Lead on, O Brave Captain, O Brave Heart…lead on, SarahAmerica…millions of us are poised, are primed, are prepared to follow you!!
 
I will have a few remarks later on this week about her appearance on Chris Wallace’s show yesterday.
 
Below is the commentary on the next page of Going Rogue.
 
Commentary on previous pages (and accompanying photographs) may be found at:
 
http://goingroguereflections.blogspot.com
 
God bless you all always!
 
SARAH 2012!!!!!
 
Brianus
 
PAGE FIFTY-SEVEN
 
On p. 57 of GR, Sarah has just recounted the birth of their first daughter, Bristol.  She talks about the inchoate characters of her two eldest children: “With Todd away, I was busy with two active little ones in our first house…Track was the clingy one and always needed me in his sight, while Bristol was quite independent.”
 
Here we have a seemingly simple statement; nevertheless, I think it can provide insight for us into Sarah’s own character, and give us a glimpse of one of the many qualities that, taken together, have placed her in a position to assume the mantle and majesty of the Presidency of the United States.
 
Notice that there is not a hint here of any censure either of Track’s character or of Bristol’s.  Sarah takes each one as he or she is.  I imagine that some people might have become worried about Track’s early need to cling to his mom; Sarah did not.  She allowed both Track and Bristol to develop along the natural grooves and tracks (no pun intended!) and timetables planted in them by an all-wise Creator.  There is no hint that I can discern of any sentiment on Sarah’s part that she should be worried about Track, or should force him prematurely into being as independent as Bristol was at this time.
 
Behold the magnificent results of her prudent and wise patience!!
 
Track enlisted in the United States Army and served his country honorably in Iraq.  He is assuming the responsibility for the family fishing business.  He is going to be studying at the University of Alaska.  He is now married!!  Sarah and Todd let him develop at his own pace, and now he is a model young man and citizen of his State and of his country!
 
May we not draw a comparison and parallel between the variegated characters of different children, and the multifarious natures of the many States in our Union?
 
We are confronted today with power-hungry Washington political hacks, led by “president” barack obama, who do not understand the character of our great country; who despise the Tenth Amendment; who scorn the individual history and “genius” of each of the magnificent fifty stars and States that combine and coalesce to constitute the glory and constellation of our flag and of our Union!
 
They want to impose an imperial homogeneity, an unnatural “oneness,” on the many States.  In place of the free United STATES (plural) of America, they seek to eradicate all natural distinctions and differences between regions and peoples, and create one Communist “STATE” (singular) of “Amerika”!!
 
The young Sarah wisely understood and respected the individual natures of her kids.
 
The ever-young, but older Sarah (guys, if I may insert something here, she seems to me to be even more “young” and lovely and beautiful in her forties than she was in her twenties!!)–the ever-young, but still older Sarah well understands the unique genius of the United STATES of America.  She understands, respects, loves our Constitution.  She is of one mind with the Founders about the nature of the country, about the proper relationship between the States, and about the nature of their federal Union.
 
She was a wise mom then; she is a wise mom today.
 
GEORGE WASHINGTON: FATHER OF HIS COUNTRY.
 
SARAH LOUISE HEATH PALIN: MOTHER OF HER COUNTRY !!!

Ok, I hate doing this, but I’m severely hacked off.

My alleged conservative local radio guy has a poll on his website re: whether or not Gov. Palin will run. He’s a Mitt guy, trying to not openly support him, but it’s not working. He is a alum of the Bush 41 administration. He thinks the Gov. won’t run because she craves the limelight and the money (he doesn’t know her very well, does he?). His fill-in host had Frank Bailey on his show last week, tossed him nothing but softballs, didn’t challenge him on anything (he and I got into a fairly heated e-mail exchange afterward), so I want him to see a little shock and awe.

Anyway, please go to his website, scroll down a bit and you’ll see the poll. Vote and give him a tingle up his leg. Thank you.

http://gillreport.com/

The Long View… Why Neither Bachmann/Cain Nor Ethanol Subsidies Pose a Threat to Palin’s Nomination:

Palin’s Multiple Paths, through Iowa and Ethanol, to the Nomination
06/04/2011
Brices Crossroads

When Sarah Palin came out against government subsidies in general,
including ethanol subsidies, which are reputedly inviolable among
voters in grain producing states like Iowa, the beltway archons
pronounced this a very grave problem for her in the “first in the
nation” Iowa caucuses this February 6. Since she is expected to win
here, a loss in Iowa would finish her campaign early, so they tell us.
As a stopped clock, is this one of the two times for the beltway “wise
men” to be correct? No, it is not. Palin’s position against government
subsidies in general is good fiscal and pro-free-market policy. But, as
is frequently the case, it is good politics as well.

I am not at all convinced that her position against ethanol subsidies costs Palin Iowa. My reasons are twofold. Opposing ethanol subsidies separates her from the panderers, and her rejoinder to any attack on this front is at once principled and practical: that is, she opposes
subsidies because they are anti-Free Market (principle) and because we can’t afford them any more (practical). What is the use of promising a subsidy, she might ask, if the federal government is too broke to make good on it? With a $14 trillion debt, that argument has real resonance. The ethanol subsides are a threat to other programs which would berelatively more unjust to cut, like Medicare for seniors, who have actually paid into a system and thus should prime those who are merely being subsidized gratuitously. This argument would apply to Iowa
seniors as well, and would have real political “legs”, since Iowa just happens to be the fourth oldest state in the Union (just behind Florida, Pennsylvania and West Virginia according to the 2000 Census, with 14.9% of its population over the age of 65).

She can frame these latter day “Corn Laws” by referring to the Corn Laws of the 19th Century. The 19th Century Corn Laws were a protective tariff (or tax) designed to shield the British grain market from cheaper foreign imports. In their operation, however, they punished the British
consumer (who ultimately paid the tax through higher prices) and not only protected the domestic grain industry but restrained Free trade and withdrew capital from free market commerce, with a net negative effect on wealth creation. In contrast, the ethanol subsides are not a direct tax but, rather, an indirect one, which ultimately falls on the American taxpayer and is financed–in the near term– by money borrowed from foreign countries. To continue these subsides under the current circumstances is not just bad policy, but sheer madness. When their
toxic effect is properly explained by someone who really believes it, the electorate, even in Iowa, will not only understand but will embrace the anti-subsidy position.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that I am wrong and that her stand on ethanol, coupled with the presence of the TEA party stalking horse(s) in Iowa allows Romney or Pawlenty to gain a plurality. Is that the end of the game for Sarah Palin? Not by a long shot. Remember 1976. Gerald Ford, a sitting President, won the first six caucus/primaries in a row Iowa, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Florida and Illinois), stretching from January 27 until March 23, a two month string of defeats before Reagan finally broke through to upset Ford in North Carolina. Reagan then went on a tear of victories through the south and the west that
left him only a few delegates short of a first ballot victory. (Students of Reagan remember that his campaign’s failure to file a full slate of delegates in some states–most prominently Pennsylvania–
likely cost him the 1976 nomination.)

Let’s say she loses Iowa and then loses New Hampshire, as Reagan did in 1976. Where do the
primaries go next? South to South Carolina and to the socially conservative (and delegate rich) states in Dixie. And to the equally delegate rich and libertarian-conservative west. And what of the field? It will be thinner by then. Mitt Romney, if he has eked out victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, will cause the bile to rise in southern and western throats and will be the subject of a “stop-Romney” campaign. Cain and Bachmann will NOT win Iowa and thus will have run out of money and probably dropped out long before the primaries go south. Even should they persist, however, if their voters have provided the margin to defeat Palin in the first two primaries, Cain and Bachmann will be seen (at least operationally) as Romney allies. They will thus be
marginalized and will lose any viability as stalking horses either in Dixie or in the West. As the Panama Canal was Reagan’s issue, Romneycare will be hers. Stripped of his blockers, Romney will be a ripe and easy target for Palin everywhere south of Mason/Dixon and west of the Mississippi.

But, her detractors will argue, 2012 is not 1976. Granted. The political landscape is far friendlier to a Reagan style, TEA party conservative in 2012 than it was in 1976 when the Gipper came within a eyelash of denying a sitting President thenomination. Unlike Gerald Ford, however, Mitt Romney is not President of the United States and thus has no institutional claim on the
nomination, as Ford did.

And the delegate map is not the same either. Roughly the same number of delegates is needed to nominate now as then: 1130 delegates in 1976; 1212 delegates in 2012. But the relative size
of the state delegations has changed dramatically. The population shifts and voting patterns of the last 35 years have seen the delegate totals in the South and Mountain West come to dwarf those in the Northeast, which is the only even arguable Romney stronghold. For example, with a combined population of 9.6 million, staunchly conservative Alabama and Louisiana, because of their fealty to the GOP cause, have the same number of delegates (95) as New York, which has
more than twice the population (19.6 million). To illustrate this trend, in 1976, New York had a whopping 154 delegates, while Alabama and Louisiana had a combined total of approximately 70 delegates. Relatively tiny GOP strongholds South Carolina and Mississippi have roughly half the population of blue Pennsylvania (approximately 7million to 13 million), but they have a combined 87 delegates to the Keystone state’s 72. (Pennsylvania had 88 delegates in 1976; South Carolina and Mississippi had about 60) In the west, tiny Idaho and Wyoming (combined population: 2 million) have a total of 61 delegates, 20% more than New Jersey (population: 8.7 million), which only has 50. In a word, Mitt Romney is going to be in big trouble when the primaries head south and west in March, regardless of the outcome of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Let me say a word about California here, as I am quite sure Palin will compete vigorously in the California primary, which is currently scheduled to be a winner take all primary for 172 delegates. Most of the chattering class would currently write off Palin’s chances in California, because it is now a Democratic state. However, the grass roots of the GOP in California are far more
conservative than the electorate at large, as witness the 2010 GOP Senate primary in which Palin endorsee, pro-life Carly Fiorina won with 56.5%, while staunchly conservative Chuck Devore snagged a very respectable 19%. If 75% of the GOP primary voters in California voted for a Palin endorsed candidate and one who was arguably even more conservative, her chances in the California primary seem to me to be very good indeed. Also, when discussing California electoral
proclivities, GOP primary voters seem to have an affinity for candidates with “star power” stretching back to George Murphy in the 1960s, and including both Reagan and Schwarzenegger. In other words, the contrast between Palin’s charisma and and Romney’s stiffness will be starker in California than..say… in Kansas. And, I predict, so will the electoral consequences.

But overall, one begins to get the picture. When the nomination race turns south and west, Palin will be in a position to recover from any early slips. Indeed, even if she loses both Iowa and New Hampshire, as did Reagan in 1976, she will be far better positioned for a comeback than was Reagan that year. Of course, should she win Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney will be toast. He
will not be staging any comebacks in the Deep South or in the Rocky Mountain West.

Having said all this, I still predict she will win Iowa . She will not fail to take it seriously, as Reagan did both in1976 and 1980. That was his campaign’s error there both times, not any
particular issue position he took. But if she doesn’t win Iowa, she will still be the nominee. Unlike Romney and the rest, she has multiple paths to the nomination, a friendlier electoral map than Reagan in 1976 and the tenacity of a … Mama Grizzly.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2729930/posts?page=35#35

From Jim Geraghty’s NRO Morning Jolt:
 
“For Palin Fans, ‘The Undefeated’ Is Worth a Bloody Foot or Two”
 
In part:
 
“How much will fans and supporters of Sarah Palin like the new documentary, “‘The Undefeated’”?
 
“Let me put it this way: If you are a Sarah Palin fan, and you lose your shoes, and you have to walk to the movie theater where it is showing barefoot, and if the sidewalk and parking lot in front of the theater is covered with broken glass, then you had better John McClane your way across the broken glass because you will tell yourself that the film is worth it as you pick the pieces of glass out of your grotesquely sliced-up feet.”
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/268858/palin-fans-undefeated-worth-bloody-foot-or-two
 
Geraghty’s full review on “The Undefeated” can be read here:
 
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268845/palin-iundefeatedi-jim-geraghty

Good Mornin’ Palin Patriots!! It’s a little cloudy and the humidity is only 75% today, dry by Florida standards. I think Governor Palin’s suckered the media into her ‘Paul Revere’ stratagem, by doing a wide-eyed expression as if she was guessing.

One thing I am sure about, Sarah is not going to England and apologize about Paul Revere lying to the British soldiers.  I do hope she gets to meet with Mrs. Thatcher, what a role model. Maybe Sarah will request Churchill’s bust to return it to the White House  in 2013.