Sarah Palin Endorses Our Next President, Donald J. Trump, at a Campaign Rally in Ames, Iowa

Here is Governor Sarah Palin at her most fiery and ebullient best.  The video starts with an endorsement of John Wayne's daughter; Governor Palin speaks at about the 28:00 minute mark.

Palin Praises the "Consistent Conservative," Rick Santorum

“If voters start kind of shifting gears and deciding they want ideological consistency, then they are going to start paying attention to say, Rick Santorum, who has been consistent on being a hardliner against Iran to help protect Israel. He’s been consistent in wanting to protect the most vulnerable and the sanctity of life. He’s been consistent in saying we need to slash the federal income tax. People will start paying attention to some of these other messages from some of the other messengers, like Rick Santorum.”

 –Sarah Palin on Hannity - Fox News (Hannity, December 1, 2011)

Sarah Palin Responds to the Left's 'Blood Libel'

Republicans Raise Money for Sodomite Agenda

"While Karl Rove is not listed as a sponsor of the homosexual fundraiser, his criticism of Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell is seen by some conservatives as based largely on her strong stand in favor of pro-family policies and not any personal problems she may have had in her distant past. A staunch Catholic, O’Donnell accepts church teachings about sexuality and opposes gay rights."

From Accuracy in Media
By Cliff Kincaid

The civil war in the Republican Party takes another turn on Wednesday night when Sarah Palin basher Nicolle Wallace lends her name to a fundraiser for a pro-homosexual group called American Foundation for Equal Rights. Wallace, an adviser to the 2008 McCain for President campaign, figures prominently in Sarah Palin’s book, Going Rogue, as someone determined to get her on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric so that she could be sandbagged by the left-wing anchorwoman.

American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) supports the “right” of a homosexual judge in California to unilaterally overturn the state’s ban on homosexual marriage.

Meanwhile, with Senator John McCain adamantly opposed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a vote Tuesday on legislation to repeal the 1993 law against open homosexuals serving in the military. Repeal has already passed the House.

Palin, whose selection as the vice presidential nominee gave McCain some hope of winning the 2008 presidential election, has since been actively supporting conservatives for public office who believe in traditional values. She even campaigned for McCain in the Arizona Republican Senate primary.

The emergence of former McCain aide Nicolle Wallace in the pro-gay movement has raised questions about whether Palin’s charges against her, made in her best-selling book, were true.

Palin’s sabotage accusations, a subject of some controversy when her book came out, seem to find confirmation in the fact that Nicolle Wallace and her husband Mark are among the liberal Republicans listed as sponsors of a September 22 “cocktail reception” to raise money for the pro-gay organization.

The Palin book had called the Katie Couric interview a trap and she blamed Wallace for the debacle and questioned Wallace’s Republican credentials. Wallace, who insisted that Palin’s charges against her were false, had been a CBS political analyst after serving in the Bush-Cheney White House as an associate of Karl Rove. She has recently been promoting a novel, Eighteen Acres, about a White House sex scandal.

But the real-life scandal seems to be how many secret homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers have assumed positions of prominence in the Republican Party. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the heads of Republican congressional campaign committees, Senator John Cornyn and Rep. Pete Sessions, are scheduled to attend a national fundraising dinner of the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans on the same night, September 22.

The Log Cabin group, which filed suit against the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy and advocates its repeal, has issued a statement hailing the participation of Cornyn and Sessions in their event. They are also giving an award to Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Nicolle Wallace’s emergence on behalf of the gay rights cause is significant in view of her Republican credentials. Her bio says that, in addition to being a senior adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign from May to November 2008, “She served President George W. Bush as an assistant to the president and director of communications for the White House, as well as communications director for President Bush’s 2004 campaign.”

The hosts of the gay rights fundraiser she supports include hedge fund managers and Republican financial contributors Paul Singer and Peter Thiel. A billionaire, Thiel is a homosexual activist who co-founded the PayPal company and has links to libertarian think tanks such as the Cato Institute.

Thiel runs Clarium Capital Management, a $2 billion hedge fund, and Singer runs Elliott Management, a $17 billion hedge fund. Both are members of the powerful Managed Funds Association that also includes George Soros.

Another host is former Republican chairman Kenneth B. Mehlman, the Bush campaign manager in 2004 who recently admitted being a secret homosexual during the time he worked for the party. Publicly, Mehlman had lied, insisting he wasn’t a homosexual.

But the event is hardly a Republicans-only affair. Other sponsors include John Podesta, former Clinton chief of staff and president of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, and Democratic Party strategist Steve Elmendorf.

The co-chairs of AFER are Podesta and Robert A. Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute.

While Karl Rove is not listed as a sponsor of the homosexual fundraiser, his criticism of Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell is seen by some conservatives as based largely on her strong stand in favor of pro-family policies and not any personal problems she may have had in her distant past. A staunch Catholic, O’Donnell accepts church teachings about sexuality and opposes gay rights.

Palin, who supported O’Donnell, reveals in her book that during the 2008 campaign she discussed homosexual issues with the McCain advisers and made it clear that she opposed gay marriage. After McCain went down to defeat, McCain senior campaign adviser Steve Schmidt gave a speech to the Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual group, endorsing gay marriage. Schmidt was a close associate of Karl Rove and his name also appears on the list of AFER sponsors.

In her book, Palin says that Wallace convinced her to do the interview with Couric by claiming that “Katie really needed a career boost” and that Palin could provide it by sitting down for an interview. “Katie really likes you,” Wallace told Palin. “She’s a working mom and admires you as a working mom. She has teenage daughters like you. She just relates to you.”

Palin says she wanted to talk to The Wall Street Journal and Fox News. However, “from the beginning, Nicolle pushed for Katie Couric and the CBS Evening News.” For some reason, Palin went on to say, “Nicolle seemed compelled to get me on the Katie bandwagon.”

Palin writes that Wallace had a “peculiar” attitude and “didn’t have much to say that was positive” about working for a Republican president.

This could very well be explained by the fact that Wallace and other liberal Republicans were secretly opposed to the Bush campaign stance in favor of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Bush’s re-election in 2004 has frequently been attributed to his stand in favor of marriage between a man and a woman and the fact that pro-traditional marriage amendments were on the ballots in 11 states and helped increase turnout for the Republican ticket.

Earlier this year, however, Bush’s wife Laura said she now accepts gay marriage.

Other sponsors of the gay rights fundraiser include Fox News contributor Margaret Hoover; Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney; and Benjamin Ginsberg, who served as national counsel to the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign.

Speaking for conservatives, Rep. Mike Pence told the Values Voter Summit in Washington over the weekend that Republicans should continue to oppose the homosexual agenda.

On the issue of a strong national defense, he said, “It means defending those who defend us from being used to advance a liberal domestic agenda. For our soldiers, their families, for readiness, recruitment and unit cohesion, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell must remain the policy of the United States Armed Forces.”

He said, “Finally, a vision for a better America must recognize that our present crisis is not merely economic and political, but moral in nature…We will not restore this nation with public policy alone. It will require public virtue, and that emanates from the traditional institutions of our nation—life, family and religion.

“Now I know some say that Republicans should stay away from such issues this year—that the American people are focused on jobs and spending and our movement would do well to stand aside, bank the win and return to fight after this fiscal and economic crisis has passed.

“But we do not live in a world where an American leader can just focus on our financial ledger. A political party that would govern this great nation must be able to handle more than one issue at a time. We must focus on our fiscal crisis and support our troops. We must work to create jobs and protect innocent human life, defend traditional marriage and secure religious liberty.

“To those who say that marriage is not relevant to our budget crisis, I say, ‘you would not be able to print enough money in a thousand years to pay for the government you would need if the traditional family continues to collapse.’”

Sarah Palin on Alaska's Promise for the Nation

SARAH PALIN took office as the eleventh governor of Alaska on December 4, 2006. Prior to her election as governor, she served two terms on the Wasilla City Council and two terms as mayor of Wasilla, during which she was elected as president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. A former chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Governor Palin is currently chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and vice chair of the National Governors Association Natural Resources Committee. A resident of Alaska since 1964, she and her husband Todd have five children.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on August 2, 2008, aboard the Regent Seven Seas Mariner in Juneau, Alaska, to Hillsdale College friends and supporters during the College’s “North to Alaska” cruise from Seward to Vancouver.

--------------

NEXT YEAR IN ALASKA we are celebrating 50 years of statehood. We are still a very young state, and we’re still experiencing some growing pains, perhaps, as we seek opportunities for Alaska to become more self-sufficient and less dependent on the federal government. And the key to our becoming self-sufficient—and doing our part for our fellow Americans—is to develop further our state’s vast natural resource wealth.

Fifty years ago, this was our deal with the federal government—that we pull our own weight. And we’ve already come a long way from being known as “Seward’s Folly,” back when Alaska was purchased from the Russians for two cents an acre. We’re earning our keep, largely by tapping our energy resources such as crude oil and liquefied natural gas. In fact, Alaska has our nation’s only liquefied natural gas export facility, located in the south-central Alaska town of Nikiski. But Alaska could and should be doing much more.

Being an Alaskan today is especially exciting and historic, as the energy and fuel crisis in our nation spawns creativity and makes us reevaluate what is important and necessary. As we consider where our energy will come from in the future, Alaska can and must be a big part of the answer. In fact, Alaska has already begun to take the lead on a sorely needed national energy policy. Groundbreaking history was made just up the hill at the capitol building yesterday, as Alaska’s lawmakers voted to award TransCanada Alaska a license to proceed with fieldwork, permitting, and development of the biggest construction project in the history of North America—the building of a natural gas pipeline, a project we have been fighting to begin for three decades. Once constructed, this pipeline will supply four to four-and-one-half billion cubic feet of natural gas per day—roughly six percent of America’s demand—to our fellow countrymen in what we call “the lower 48.”

Just to provide some perspective, Alaska has tens of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas under the surface, especially on the North Slope. Alaskans have longed for the right to access our gas and more of our oil to assist in supplying the U.S. market, and now we are finally on the road to doing so. This $30-40 billion infrastructure project—which will be built by the private sector—is one of the most exciting and progressive events in Alaska’s history.

This is a good start, to be sure. But Alaska has much more to offer in the way of resources. And let me tell you clearly that we can do so in a way consistent with good environmental stewardship. Each and every Alaskan recognizes that our most precious resource is the pristine environment in which we are privileged to live and where our “First People” still subsist to this day. No one can love or care for Alaska more than Alaskans. And we who live here recognize that sound science and constantly improving technology make it possible to extract oil and gas safely and responsibly. Furthermore, with gas and fuel prices reaching record highs, oil and gas must be extracted—even as we move in the direction of renewable and alternative sources of energy.

Because of the lagging economy, Americans do not have time for “all talk and no action.” Here at home, Alaskans struggle with the highest gas prices in the nation—the cost of gas in parts of Alaska is four to five dollars more per gallon than gas in the lower 48—and many face the choice between heating their homes and putting food on the table. Now other Americans are experiencing the same challenges. And we are in this position only because Alaska’s vast resources are being warehoused underground by Congress—placing us in a ridiculous and difficult position.

The price of oil, and now gasoline, has always been sensitive and subject to events occurring outside the U.S. We have placed ourselves in the position of having to plead with Middle Eastern suppliers to increase production, when instead we could lift the development bans that are keeping us from our own resource independence—namely, the bans relating to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and offshore drilling.

Alaskans find it incredibly frustrating that others—many of whom have never even set foot in our state, much less lived here—dictate how and when we can best use our own resources. Whether over the barren tundra or in our majestic mountains, we have a strong history of responsible development. To date, Alaska has sent more than 15 billion barrels of oil, safely and efficiently, to the lower 48. One look at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System illustrates that development and wildlife can and do coexist.

I’ve heard it said by some politicians that Alaska doesn’t have enough oil to make a difference. I can tell you honestly that we do have enough. And while consultants and experts debate the current energy crisis, Alaska is already preparing for its next role—providing American consumers with a safe and secure domestic source of crude oil and natural gas. In fact, if energy imports were curtailed completely, Alaska could provide our nation with seven years of crude oil independence and an eight-year supply of natural gas. These are numbers that reflect known and recoverable oil and gas deposits.

To repeat, Prudhoe Bay has produced 15 billion barrels of crude oil, and there’s more where that came from in ANWR, which is home to more than ten billion barrels of oil and nine trillion cubic feet of natural gas. I know this is a controversial issue. But most Americans do not realize that of the 20 million acres that make up ANWR, we are asking for the right to access just 2,000 of them—a mere 1/10,000th of the total area. Opening up just that sliver of ANWR—which would create a footprint smaller than the total area of Los Angeles International Airport—could produce enough oil (an estimated one million barrels per day) to ease America’s fuel crisis and greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

It is also estimated that there are 24 billion barrels of recoverable oil and another 104 trillion cubic feet of natural gas offshore. In other words, offshore areas that are geologically promising, such as the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, hold roughly three-and-one-half years of U.S. oil consumption and four-and-one-half years of natural gas.

Congress can make it possible to take advantage of these resources right now, by streamlining access to offshore areas. As usual, outside interests are throwing up roadblocks and manipulating the legal system to achieve their agenda. But we need to bring some sanity back to the legal and permitting processes in the area of energy production.

In calling for bans to be lifted in order to get our nation out of the chokehold of high oil prices and dependence on the Middle East, I am certainly not rejecting the idea of alternative and renewable resources. I believe that we need to move in that direction, ultimately weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels. But we can’t do it overnight—or even over a decade. In Alaska, we have almost limitless opportunities for thermal, wind, solar, and hydroelectric energy. In fact, our capital city of Juneau receives 80 percent of its electricity from hydroelectric energy. Recently we have created a renewable/alternative energy fund with an initial $50 million that will build to $250 million over a five-year period. Yet until the science is fully developed, until all our vehicles are green, we must wisely and responsibly utilize known and given oil and natural gas resources so that we can provide for ourselves.

Alaskans are a very unique kind of people. We hear this on a regular basis from our visitors from the lower 48. One thing that makes us so unique is that we are at once fiercely independent and incredibly community-minded. It may seem as though these two qualities would be in conflict, but I believe they are the complementary qualities which, in tandem, drove the American Revolution. Our forefathers fought and died for liberty and independence, but they did so together. Today, as we seek freedom from dependence on foreign oil—and freedom from having to send our presidents to plead with the Saudis for more oil production—we must join together again, in the spirit of freedom and independence, to gain access to our own energy resources.

I say this to you not just as Alaska’s governor, but as the mother of a soldier—my son, Track, will soon be deploying overseas in service to his country and to a war that is certainly complicated by our dependence on foreign resources.

We must open ANWR and lift the ban on offshore drilling. The science and technology to harvest our resources responsibly and safely are in hand. The time for congressional action and leadership is now.

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.

Despite Dismissive Media, Palin's 'Death Panels' Resurface in White House Rationing Schemes

From NewsBusters
By Lachlan Markay

PolitiFact called it the Lie of the Year, and journalists left and right (but mostly left) dismissed the claim as hyperbole at best, and fear-mongering propaganda at worst.

But Sarah Palin's "death panel" comment may not be as off the mark as so many have claimed. Don't take her word for it. White House budget director Peter Orszag apparently agrees.

Well, Orszag didn't specifically address Palin's claim, but his description of Medicare's new Independent Payment Advisory Board tried to cast health care rationing in nice rosy terms.

Speaking at the Economic Club of Washington, Orszag stated:

The only real solution to our long-term fiscal imbalance, because it's driven disproportionately by the rate at which health care costs grow, is to move towards a health care system that is based on quality and efficiency, rather than quantity…

Everyone agrees that we can no longer afford to just pay for quantity. That is a fee for service system where doctors and hospitals are reimbursed based on volume. I think folks have not really focused on the Medicare commission, the Independent Payment Advisory Board that's created. This institution could prove to be far more important to the future of our fiscal health than for example the Congressional Budget Office. It has an enormous amount of potential power…

So this Independent Payment Advisory Board has the power and the responsibility to put forward proposals to hit a pretty aggressive set of targets over the long term. And furthermore, the proposals take effect automatically, unless Congress not only specifically votes them down but the President signs that bill. So the default is now switched in a very important way on the biggest driver over long-term cost, which is the Medicare program…

Again, a lot will depend on whether it realizes its potential, and how the culture develops, but it has statutory power to put forward proposals to reduce health care cost growth overtime and improve quality, and those proposals take effect automatically if Congress ignores them, or if Congress votes them down and the President vetoes that bill. So in other words, inertia now plays to the side of this independent board.

So health care costs disproportionately drive our fiscal train wreck of a federal budget into the red, and this panel -- made up of unelected non-doctor bureaucrats -- has been charged with meeting "a pretty aggressive set" of financial targets by reducing the quantity of medical care Americans receive.

Boy, that sounds a lot like rationing. In fact, that's pretty much the definition of the word: to "restrict the consumption of a relatively scarce commodity." It doesn't matter if care is being rationed "for the public good" or who the bureaucrats are that populate the panel, or what they do (unless they are doctors, but in this case they aren't). Care will be rationed.

Now, the bill claims otherwise. It states that the Medicare panel "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care ... or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria." Phew. Disaster averted. Palin marginalized. But wait, just a couple paragraphs further, the bill demands that the panel "give priority to recommendations that extend Medicare solvency."

Well Orszag just informed us that the federal budget is plummeting towards fiscal catastrophe, and Medicare is the primary driver. So if Medicare itself is to remain solvent, deep, deep cuts need to be made. Orszag seems to realize this fact -- hence the "pretty aggressive" targets.

Reducing Medicare costs is the only way to keep the system solvent, and Orszag has just informed us that reducing the quantity of care is the way to do that. He is not the first administration official to say so. Reducing costs takes precedence over the legislation's "rationing" restrictions, so as long as Medicare is up to its eyes in red ink, rationing will be a cause for concern.

The bill also requires the panel "include recommendations that target reductions in Medicare program spending to sources of excess cost growth." As you may have expected, the panel, not Medicare patients and their doctors, determines what constitutes "excess cost growth."

Now, there is the question of whether or not the Medicare board can or should be called a "death panel," but that is a question of style, not substance.

Palin wrote in her recent book "Going Rogue,"

Since health care would have to be rationed if it were promised to everyone, it would therefore lead to harm for many individuals not able to receive the government care. That leads, of course, to death…

The term I used to describe the panel making these decisions should not be taken literally.

In other words, there is no euthanasia involved, but by limiting the options available to American health care consumers with the explicit goal of saving on costs, the panel -- again, not populated by doctors -- is necessarily hindering the quality of care patients can receive. For the patient who is denied treatment in the name of Medicare's solvency, it is indeed a "death panel."

PolitiFact did not return a request for comment regarding its Lie of the Year. But the watchdog site was far from the only outlet to disregard Palin's concerns.

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell gleefully proclaimed the former Alaska Governor "Palinocchio." The Washington Post's Ceci Connolly called the "death panel" debate a "sideshow … from a very serious debate." The Nation's Richard Kim claimed the entire issue was bred from "hysteria."

But with Orszag's statement, it seems well within reason that the new bill -- though we're still in the process of deciphering its contents -- will create a Palinian death panel, not to "euthanize granny," but simply to ration care. Of course he is not the first administration official -- nor the first journalist -- to laud the necessity of health care rationing.

This panel will decide which treatments will be offered or covered by insurance companies. If you relied on a treatment that is no longer covered, well, best of luck to you.

Lachlan Markay is an associate with Dialog New Media.

Sarah Palin's Speech at the Harry Reid Retirement Party, Searchlight, Nevada

White House Chief-of-Thugs Apologizes for Calling Comrades "F%&king Retarded"

In response to a demand by Sarah Palin that Obama fire White House Chief-of-Thugs Rahm Emanuel for describing the strategy of Senate liberals as "fucking retarded," Emanuel has apologized to Tim Shriver, the chief executive officer of the Special Olympics.

Since we don't want Obama to succeed in his efforts to reduce America to a European-style welfare state, we're delighted to see the thugs in the White House feuding with soon to be retired comrades in the Congress. Governor Palin's open letter to the President follows:

“I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and not allow Rahm’s continued indecent tactics to cloud efforts. Yes, Rahm is known for his caustic, crude references about those with whom he disagrees, but his recent tirade against participants in a strategy session was such a strong slap in many American faces that our president is doing himself a disservice by seeming to condone Rahm’s recent sick and offensive tactic.

The Obama Administration’s Chief of Staff scolded participants, calling them, “F—ing retarded,” according to several participants, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.

Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the “N-word” or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and the people who love them – is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking.

A patriot in North Andover, Massachusetts, notified me of Rahm’s “retarded” slam. I join this gentleman, who is the father of a beautiful child born with Down Syndrome, in asking why the Special Olympics, National Down Syndrome Society and other groups condemning Rahm’s degrading scolding have been completely ignored by the White House. No comment from his boss, the president?

As my friend in North Andover says, “This isn’t about politics; it’s about decency. I am not speaking as a political figure but as a parent and as an everyday American wanting my child to grow up in a country free from mindless prejudice and discrimination, free from gratuitous insults of people who are ostensibly smart enough to know better… Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Mr. President, you can do better, and our country deserves better.

Todd and Sarah Palin to Divorce?

An Alaska publication is reporting that Todd and Sarah Palin plan to divorce. Alaska Report claims to have confirmed the story with multiple sources in Wasilla and Anchorage. According to the Internet news site:

A National Enquirer story exposing previous affairs on both sides led to a deterioration of their marriage and the stress from that led to Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska.

The Palins were noticeably not speaking to each other at last Sunday's resignation speech in Fairbanks. Sarah ditched Todd (MSNBC) right after the speech and left without him. Sarah removed her wedding ring a couple of weeks ago.

Sarah has recently purchased land in Montana and is considering moving the family there. Sarah Palin is originally from Idaho.

Alaska Report notes that it was the first site to report that Sarah Palin was running for Governor, and the first site to report that she had been chosen as John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate.

Governor Palin Resigns, Campaign 2012 Begins

We have opposed ever-longer presidential campaigns. Not this time. The presidential campaign of 2012 can't begin soon enough, and 2012 cannot come soon enough. It is too early to say if Governor Palin will be our choice; but we will enthusiastically support the fiscal and social conservative with the best chance of ending this anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-life, anti-family, and anti-capitalist regime. Given Governor Palin's extraordinary drawing power and demonstrated influence in the Georgia Senate race, we suspect she may be our candidate.

CNN Poll Has Huckabee and Palin Leading Potential 2012 GOP Presidential Picks

From LifeNews
By Steven Ertelt

The third major poll since the elections to survey Republican voters on their preference for a presidential candidate in 2012 finds Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin topping the list. Palin led in the two previous polls while Huckabee finished in the top three along with Mitt Romney.

The CNN poll asked Republicans to pick from among a group of several candidates and Huckabee received the support of 34 percent of the Republicans and Republican-leaning voters in the poll.

Palin garnered 32 percent while Romney placed third with 28 percent.

Looking at other candidates, former House Speaker New Gingrich gets 27 percent, 23 percent back pro-abortion former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal gets 19 percent.

Oddly enough, the CNN poll finds Palin doing better with men while Huckabee fares better with women.

“It might come as a surprise to some that Palin does better than Huckabee among GOP men but that Huckabee beats Palin among Republican women,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Palin's strength is also concentrated among older Republicans, but Huckabee may have a slight edge among conservative Republicans."

Huckabee has a 9 percentage point lead with evangelical Republicans while Palin leads by 7 with those who are not evangelicals.

A November Zogby poll found 24.4 percent said Palin was their top choice to face Obama in 2012. Romney came in second with the support of 18 percent, Jindal placed third with 15.6 percent, Huckabee came fourth with 9.7 percent, and 8.2 percent of Republicans said someone else was their top choice.

The Zogby poll found Palin stealing Huckabee's thunder among Republican religious conservatives and working class voters. Huckabee's highest GOP totals still come from born-again Christians (15%) and weekly churchgoers (18%), but those numbers are about half of those drawn by Palin.

The Zogby survey follows a Gallup poll LifeNews.com reported on showing Palin leading and Romney and Huckabee second and third.

Gallup interviewed Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and asked whether certain potential candidates should run or not.

Some 67 percent of Republicans said Palin should run, helping her top the list. Another 62 percent wanted to see Romney run, and 61 percent favored Huckabee.

The rest of the potential names came in at under 50 percent, in some cases because they are not as well known. Jindal received the backing of 34 percent of Republicans but his numbers were low because 30 percent of GOP voters had no opinion and are apparently not familiar with him.

Sarah!

An Open Letter to Sarah Palin

How I wish Governor Palin could slip away from the watchful eyes of her handlers and join Pat Buchanan and the editors of The American Conservative Magazine for a long dinner and discussion. Here's their attempt to save the greatest hope the conservative movement has had since Ronald Reagan.

To: Gov. Sarah Palin
From: The American Conservative Editors
Re: What Your Tutors Aren’t Telling You

Congratulations on being chosen as John McCain’s running mate. It’s an honor, if a dubious one. As you know, conservatives have reservations about McCain. To your credit, they have few such concerns about you.

You’ve given new life to a party whose brand was bankrupt. You’ve energized a campaign that was embarrassing its own partisans. Across America, crowds flock to see you—not that old man who barely wheezed his way through the primaries. If John McCain wins, he will owe you, as the guy in the undisclosed location says, “Big time.”

Wonder why Middle America finds you irresistible? Maybe they’re big Tina Fey fans. More likely, you remind them of the conservative values they feared lost: faith, family, independence. This impression owes more to who you are than what you’ve done. But at least you keep Obama from cornering the market on hope. Conservatives have faith in you. Don’t fail them as George W. Bush has.

You see what happened: the president’s entire domestic agenda collapsed under the weight of his failed foreign policy. Social Security reform stalled. Pro-lifers became political orphans. And whatever gains Bush’s tax cuts secured were wiped out by record spending. Everything was subordinated to the war on terror.

Conservatives grasping for something to commend give the president points for his judicial picks. But he would have much preferred justices like Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers—toadies whose top qualification was their willingness to give the executive more power.

The party that championed the things you prize—individual liberty, fiscal restraint, and a strong defense—has trampled civil rights, pushed us to the brink of insolvency, and broken our Armed Forces. After eight years of Bush, even diehard Republicans are glad to see him go. You might have noticed the elephant not in the room in St. Paul.

There’s a better way. In fact, you figured it out in the 1996 presidential primary when you sported the flair of the leading pro-life candidate. (Your minders would prefer that we not mention his name. It triggers their Tourette’s.) As you surely know, even beyond social issues, he represents a strain of conservatism that offers a consistent ethic of life and philosophy of limited government. It was not a coincidence that the most pro-life candidate in ’96 was also passionately noninterventionist.

It’s also no coincidence that those who want you to heed the siren call of global democratization care little for traditionalist causes. Recall that second night of the Republican Convention when you were told to blow off a reception in your honor hosted by Phyllis Schlafly so Joe Lieberman could chaperone your debut before the directors of AIPAC. Neoconservatives pay lip service to life, but, as their enthusiasm for Lieberman shows, they have higher priorities. Now they plan to make them yours.

You’ll find the new friends conducting your foreign-policy crash course pleasant enough, if a little dogmatic and a lot condescending. They call you “Project Sarah.” We saw that one staffer at AEI—that mystery monogram on all your briefing books—said you’re “a blank slate.” He added, “She’s going places, and it’s worth going there with her.” That’s how they operate. They don’t implement their agenda themselves. Rather, they impose it on rising star. If things don’t work out, it’s because the Project wasn’t sufficiently committed. (Just ask President Bush.)

Now you’re the latest object of their attention, and you’re probably finding the program a bit confusing. They tell you that the U.S. is fighting “World War IV,” a struggle against “Islamofascism.” We can win, they say, as long as we’re prepared to bomb Iran and build up the national-security establishment at home, just like Reagan did.

Trouble is, your tutors also believe we’re still engaged in “World War III,” the Cold War with Russia. So maybe the Gipper didn’t win that one after all. In fact, neoconservatives like Norman Podhoretz chided Reagan for appeasing Moscow. And when terrorists struck the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, Reagan, instead of “staying the course,” withdrew our troops. Your Beltway suitors prescribe the opposite of Reagan’s strategy.

And as they would have it, we’re not only waging World Wars III and IV, we’re still fighting World War II. At least, that’s the way it sounds when Robert Kagan opens a Washington Post op-ed by likening Russia’s conflict with Georgia to Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia.

But Russia is not Germany, Georgia is no innocent Czechoslovakia, and Vladimir Putin is not Adolf Hitler—no matter what your guru Randy Scheunemann says. (He probably forgot to tell you that he used to lobby for the government of Georgia.)

Here’s a hint: don’t believe everything you read in the papers, especially if the byline is Kristol or Krauthammer. Russia is not an expansionist, ideological empire. It’s a traditional, semi-authoritarian great power intent on preserving its influence in its own backyard and its prestige on the world stage. That’s why Russia intercedes in the domestic disputes of unruly states on its periphery. Putin balks at Poland hosting our antimissile systems for the same reason we would bristle at Cuba or Mexico receiving Chinese antitank missiles.

With more validity, some of the people whispering in your ear tell you that Moscow wants to corner the European markets for oil and natural gas. And what nefarious end does Putin have in mind? Raising prices and reinforcing Moscow’s political clout, not with nuclear blackmail but with good, old-fashioned economic power. We have plenty of that ourselves (or at least we used to). Putin, far from being a totalitarian ideologue, is an economic nationalist, as the leaders of great powers traditionally have been.

Then there’s the Middle East, where only American arms (and lives) can prevent little Israel from being swept into the sea by Muslim hordes. Surely that’s what AIPAC told you that night you left Phyllis cooling her heels. But again, it isn’t true. Israel has nuclear weapons, for one thing, and can outfight her neighbors even without resort to atom bombs. Israel’s problem isn’t external threat so much as internal security and demographics. When the Jewish state was founded, tens of thousands of Palestinians—Christians as well as Muslims—lost their homes. Palestine was no wide-open Alaskan frontier: when the newcomers moved in, Arabs were moved out, often by force. Terrorism didn’t come to the region with Hamas or Hezbollah; decades earlier groups like the Stern Gang and Irgun used violence to clear the way for Israel’s creation. Nor was Palestinian Authority leader Yassar Arafat the first terrorist to lead a state in the Holy Land. Israeli Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir had unclean hands as well.

While your minders probably don’t put much stock in his work, University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape has shown that suicide terrorism develops almost always among occupied peoples. The task before the Israelis is not to defend themselves against aggressive neighbors but to give justice to the Palestinians already in their midst—to suppress terrorism without suppressing civil liberties and human rights, which only leads to more bloodshed. The most helpful role the United States can play is that of impartial mediator in the conflict. There is injustice and suffering on both sides.

No doubt you’ve been told (again and again) that Iran wants to “wipe Israel off the map.” Here’s something to keep in mind: Iran does not have nuclear weapons and is far from attaining them. Ironically, the Bush Doctrine’s pledge that “America is committed to keeping the world’s most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous regimes” makes rogue states like Iran more likely to seek nuclear devices, as a deterrent against pre-emptive U.S. strikes. This is a vicious circle. Instead of boxing Iran into a corner, we should engage with Ahmadinejad, unsavory fellow though he is. Even with nuclear weapons, Iran would not pose an existential threat to Israel, let alone America.

Since you had some difficulties in your oral exam with Charlie Gibson, your new friends will no doubt ramp up their lessons. (For the record, you can scarcely be blamed for fumbling the answer about the Bush Doctrine. Your tutors were clearly reluctant to bring it up, even though the whole scheme was theirs, not Project George’s.)

They may even start assigning you book reports. It will feel like the third grade, except the subjects won’t be charming orphans. Now it’s rogue states against America the Benevolent. Near the top of the list will be An End to Evil by Richard Perle and David Frum. They’d have you think that Muslims will impose Islamic law on America if we don’t go to war with 18 different countries. But you know that a bunch of Muslims can’t make red-blooded, moose-hunting Americans wear burqas. Think what happens if you try to get a book pulled out of the library.

That’s only the beginning of the curriculum. You’ll be handed titles like Present Dangers and The Return of History. Thankfully, just like third grade, you don’t really have to read them. If they ask, just say, “The enemies of freedom won’t be appeased. We must stand firm, like Churchill.”

Meanwhile, we suggest sneaking a look at The Limits of Power by Andrew Bacevich. It’s stern stuff, but he gets to the point: America can’t spend money it doesn’t have, beat everyone up, and expect to stay healthy, wealthy, and wise. If you want a good book on how America screwed up in Iraq, there is Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. You said some nice things about Ron Paul during the primary. He gave Giuliani a list of books that might be worth your time.

You’ll have to keep your extracurriculars quiet. We know how these things work. Since he helped you break into the big leagues, you have to toe McCain’s line. But the outgoing administration has shown us how powerful a veep can be. If you go all the way, President McCain will be in your debt. (If he forgets, ask him how many rallies he held while you were home in Alaska. He wisely opted not to deliver speeches in phone booths.) Don’t leave your maverick spirit on the campaign trail.

Despite all the briefing books being thrown at you, you know your own mind—and you realize that the neoconservative agenda doesn’t square with your worldview. You prize localism, their vision is grandiose. You value fiscal discipline, neocons will ruin the country to finance endless war. You honor life, and they think nothing of killing hundreds of thousands in the service of ideology. But they’ll tell you this alien vision—imported from the Left—is coherent and conservative.

It is neither, but your supporters are both. They’ve turned against this war and definitely don’t want another. Yet your running mate does. Perhaps you’ve noticed that his interest in domestic policy pales alongside his foreign-policy ambitions. Or maybe you caught his virtuoso performance of “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.”

You surely see that the Bush policies have come to a dead end. If the millions poised to vote for you wanted four more years, the president’s approval rating wouldn’t be 25 percent. This isn’t because Republicans dislike Bush personally or disagree with his positions on energy and taxes. It’s because they know that his main legacy—the Iraq War—is a disaster.

Thankfully, they don’t think you’re like him. They see in you someone like themselves—a patriot and a mother. The Middle Americans waiting hours to hear you speak don’t want the United States to be defeated, and they don’t want Iraq to be a haven for al-Qaeda—something it never was before the invasion. They are pleased that the surge has made it more possible to leave because they don’t want to send their boys back for a third or fourth tour. They want America to come home—not because she’s weak but because she’s wise. They hope that you are, too.

SOURCE: [1] The American Conservative Magazine

The Battle for Sarah Palin's Soul

From The Telegraph

By Damian Thompson

Sarah Palin is at the centre of a furious battle behind the scenes of the US election between conservative Christian tribes who want to claim her as one of her own. "Paleocons" and "theocons" are shrieking: "She's ours!" while the Republican campaign looks on in horror, hoping they will go away.

I stumbled across this drama by the unlikeliest of routes. I noticed that the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) - anti-Zionist Catholic rebel traditionalists - are backing Palin because of her uncompromising stance on abortion. But then a link on an SSPX website led me to Patrick Buchanan, the hard-Right, anti-Israel scourge of the neocons whom Palin has been accused of supporting in the past.

Buchanan, a Catholic hero of the SSPX, said this week that "the lady is no neocon". But, clearly, he's worried that the Zionist lobby is getting to his girl:

"Will the neocons who tutored George W. Bush in the ideology he pursued to the ruin of his presidency do the same for Sarah Palin? Should they succeed, they will destroy her. Yet, they are moving even now to capture this princess of the right and hope of the party.

"In St. Paul, Palin was told to cancel a meeting with Phyllis Schlafly and pro-life conservatives. McCain's operatives said Palin had to rest for her Wednesday convention speech. Yet, on Tuesday, Palin was behind closed doors with Joe Lieberman and officials of the Israeli lobby AIPAC. There, according to The Washington Post, Palin took and passed her oral exams."

The neocons are not a religious movement. But their born-again Christian allies, the theocons, passionately support Israel because they believe that it will be attacked by the forces of the Antichrist, as predicted in the Book of Revelation. And Palin has a foot in this camp, too.

She was born a Catholic but raised a Pentecostalist. Her former church, the Wasilla Assembly of God, takes the standard fundamentalist line that the apocalypse will begin in the Middle East. Indeed, the liberal Huffington Post claims that Alaskan fundamentalism (yup, there is such a thing) may have influenced Palin's view that the US is doing God's work in Iraq.

Not so fast, says Buchanan. His CNS article quotes Palin's reaction to the "surge" in 2007: "I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our President, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place." That's not the language of "benevolent global hegemony", he says.

Meanwhile, bible-prophecy.com, a leading resource for America's 10 million or so hard-line fundamentalists, is rapidly turning into a Sarah Palin fansite. That's not what the vice-presidential candidate needs to attract swing voters – but then, neither is the support of isolationist paleocons who think Jewish money will determine the result of the election.

Even more than most candidates, Palin has to think twice before saying anything with even the slightest religious resonance. Because, as Pat Buchanan puts it, "the battle for Sarah's soul is not over".

ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview

NewsBusters has revealed that ABC News shamelessly distorted Charles Gibson's interview with Governor Palin. The recent interview is also in striking contrast to the soft-ball questions asked of Senator John Edwards in 2004. Is it any wonder that these MSM propaganda organs -- print and broadcast -- are dying?

*****

From News Busters
By P.J. Gladnick

A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin's website. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. The first edit shows Palin responding about meeting with foreign leaders but this was actually in response to a question Gibson asked several questions earlier:

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: 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. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

Next we see that Palin was not nearly as hostile towards Russia as was presented in the edited interview:

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia. The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relations with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

We also see from Palin's following remark, which was also edited out, that she is far from some sort of latter day Cold Warrior which the edited interview made her seem to be:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Palin's extended remarks about defending our NATO allies were edited out to make it seem that she was ready to go to war with Russia.

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help. But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members. We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

That answer presented Palin as a bit too knowledgeable for the purposes of ABC News and was, of course, edited out. Palin's answers about a nuclear Iran were carefully edited to the point where she was even edited out in mid-sentence to make it seem that Palin favored unilateral action against that country:

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

Laughably, a remark by Gibson that indicated he agreed with Palin was edited out:

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

Gibson took her point about Lincoln's words but we wouldn't know that by watching the interview since it was left on the cutting room floor. I urge everybody to see just how the unedited version of the first interview compared to what we saw on television by checking out the full transcript . It is a fascinating look into media manipulation via skillful editing.


—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.

Sarah Palin: An Innocent Abroad

From Chronicles
By Srdja Trifkovic

At Christmas a couple of years ago I was given a daily planner called The Worst Case Scenario Survival Calendar. It gives you advice on how to deal with seriously dire emergencies, like free-falling from 10,000 feet with a parachute that wouldn’t open, facing shark attack far from shore, being bitten by a cobra with no antidote on hand, or evading a roaring grizzly in the wilderness. The advice was tongue-in-cheek serious: based on real-life situations and special forces’ manuals, each daily snippet told you how to improve your chances of survival perhaps a hundredfold—from one-in-ten-thousand, say, to one-in-a-hundred. The booklet was fun: you don’t really believe that you’ll ever be in need of such advice, but you read on nevertheless, tickled with vivid images of horrors that happen to “others.”

The forthcoming general election is a Worst-Case Scenario Survival situation and it is happening to us. November 4 calls for the Guide approach. Let me come to the point and speak plainly.

When we look at this season’s four key names—Obama, McCain, Biden, Palin—we know what three of them signify.

Let us start with Senator Obama, that perpetually self-inventing Kenyan-Hawaiian nobody who came from who-knows-where. He may be an American citizen after all, but his disdain for the still-real and historic America is on full display even when it is wrapped in smilingly patronizing condescension for its majority population. The purpose of his presidency would be to re-educate that population in the spirit of self-loathing – his cult-like following among many white yuppies gives him great hope – and to neutralize the incorrigible segment by whatever means the postmodern therapeutic state has on offer. Abroad, we’d have the “Concert of Democracies” led by Washington deciding whom to bomb, with Zbigniew Brzezinski pulling the strings. Under Obama, America’s overall odds, at home and abroad, would be no better than those of a Dresden firefighter on February 13, 1945.

Joe Biden is the archetypical Homo Beltveicus. He’d be Pol Pot’s running mate if that served Joe Biden’s quest for power, money, and then some more of the same. He proves that in Washington we have the best Congress and the worst hair pluggers money can buy. An interventionist to boot, Biden enthusiastically supported Clinton’s bombing campaign against the Serbs in 1999, which prompted John McCain to declare three weeks into the war, “We need Joe Biden for secretary of state.” When Tim Russert asked, “Is that an offer by President McCain?” McCain replied: “Absolutely!” Almost a decade later he is on the same page with McCain on supporting Kosovo’s independence and in his visceral Russophobia, as evidenced by his recent trip to Tbilisi.

In case of a Democratic victory Biden’s chances of succeeding Obama would be no better than one-in-fifty, however – not that it would matter much one way or another. Barring a Dallas-like scenario that Hillary Clinton wished him in the primaries’ final days, Obama is good for another quarter-century of CV building and self-reinvention before finally making the Hajj.

John McCain is an unstable ignoramus who has never seen a war he wouldn’t gladly escalate. He is also obtuse, unendearingly eccentric, and morally challenged. (Let us not waste time dwelling on those traits; the evidence is ample and available to the curious.) If elected he would invent new missions and embark on new cakewalks, because he cannot do otherwise and because he’d be surrounded by foreign lobbyists (Scheunemann) and McCain clones (Lieberman) who reflect and support his mindset. He is an authentically dangerous man. His only saving grace, and the reason to vote for him under the Worst Scenario rules, is his age.

Mortality tables used by the life insurance industry and by the Social Security Administration indicate that average life expectancy for a 72-year-old man is at best about 11 years. That figure declines to about one half of that, however, when we factor in two significant variables: (1) four cancer scares, including melanoma (plus a long history of early and middle age smoking); and (2) a choleric personality (as per Hippocrates), which is dangerous when coupled with the pressures of a top office.

The probability of McCain dying before the end of the first term is a little over 20 percent before those variables are factored in, but they jump to somewhere between 33 and 40 percent when they are taken into consideration. Furthermore, the actuarial morbidity tables may significantly increase the odds of Veep Palin becoming President following the onset of an incapacitating condition that would force McCain to resign.

That leaves us with the probability of one-third or better that President Sarah Palin would be sworn in before the expiry of McCain’s first term. What would she do? I don’t know, but I am pretty certain that her foreign policies would not be any worse than those proposed by the three men. The Washingtonian “foreign policy community” would try to manipulate her, of course, but she is a tough nut to crack. Over the past few years she readily confronted an Old Boys’ Network and defeated Frank Murkowski, the sitting Republican governor, in the 2006 Republican gubernatorial primary. Before that she resigned a State sinecure, protesting the “lack of ethics” of fellow Republican members, and went on to destroy the political careers of Randy Ruedrich, GOP State Chairman, and Gregg Renkes, a former Alaska Attorney General.

Mrs. Palin’s alleged weaknesses are her strengths. Being an innocent abroad, in the dangerous world modelled on Hobbes and Darwin, is preferable to having “experience” in the obsessive attempt to tame and conquer that world. The Weekly Standard cabal and their ilk will be hard-pressed to make President Palin obey a bunch of Manhattanite intellectual pseuds, let alone to internalize their foreign policy schemes that are evil, stupid, and harmful to our troops’ safety: unlike any laptop bombardier, she has a son on his way to Iraq. I’d say that it is at least 50-50 President Palin would act as a foreign policy realist who’d refrain from new “missions,” “engagements” and “force projections.” That translates into cca 20 percent chance of America conducting a sane foreign policy, for the first time in decades, some time before 2012.

Most of our daily choices are morally ambiguous. The one based on The Worst Case Scenario Survival Calendar, which I am presenting herewith for our readers’ consideration, is no exception. In a fallen world the alternative is plague-on-all-their-houses quietism that suits the bad guys.

Governor Palin at Son's Army Deployment

In the following video Governor Sarah Palin sends her son and other soldiers off to combat. One question comes to mind; could Obama give Palin's speech without looking like Michael Dukakis in that tank?

The Daily Palin

Sliming Palin: Fact Check Organization Responds to Lies

False Internet claims and rumors fly about McCain's running mate.

Summary

We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.

• Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.

• She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.

• She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
• Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a "courtesty" when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.
• Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

A few of these claims were included in a chain e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny. We'll be looking into other charges in that e-mail for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.

Note: This is a summary only. The full article with analysis, images and citations may be viewed on our Web site: