President Obama Should Make Evan Bayh next Chief of Staff

.

With the imminent departure of his top two White House aides, Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff, and David Axelrod, political director, along with the departure of his three top economic aides, Barack Obama has a chance to restructure his administration and put in place a team that can actually carry out his former campaign promises for a bipartisan and gentler governing to end the bitter partisanship plaguing our nation's government.

Almost a year ago I urged Obama to make Evan Bayh, the retiring Senator from Indiana, his next chief of staff and now more than ever I think it is the best way to heal America.  Back then I said the following:   


The Associated Press said in yesterday's stunning announcement that:

"Two-term Sen. Evan Bayh says ever-shriller partisanship and the frustrations of gridlock made it time for him to leave Congress. Republicans aren't buying it, saying he and fellow Democrats sense that voters will be after their heads this fall.

The Indiana Democrat, a moderate who twice came close to being added to his party's national ticket, said Monday he will not seek re-election this November. The announcement gives Republicans a strong chance of capturing his seat and makes it likelier that the 59 votes that give Democrats command of the 100-seat Senate will dwindle.

Bayh, 54, said his passion for helping people is "not highly valued in Congress." He said he did not love the institution in which his father, Birch Bayh, had also represented Indiana."



Well I for one don't really believe his explanation. Bayh was a potential powerhouse among moderate Democrats with a history of working for bi-partisan government. His credentials were everything the American people are looking for in leaders of the new America.

There are several reasons I think he retired and having watched his career, I do not doubt the veracity of what he said. His Midwest background and father's influence are indeed significant causes for him to express frustration with liberal Democrats and the inertia of Congress. His acute awareness of the unfair need for elected officials to spend much of their time raising money for the next campaign is exactly why I got out of politics so I am encouraged he pointed out the huge flaw in our political system.



Yet there is more I suspect beneath the surface because a person like Bayh is needed now more than ever. To explain let me first outline what else happened yesterday when he announced he was retiring at the end of the year. The most powerful person in the Senate, Democratic leader Harry Reid, did not find out about this dramatic development until after Bayh made the announcement. It is unheard of that a party boss would be left out in the cold on such an important matter impacting on the future control of the US Senate by the Democrats.

Yet immediately after he made the announcement the President and White House praised Bayh and said they were aware of his decision beforehand. Why would he consult the president and not the leader of the Senate where he is a member? Let me give you a clue.

The White House has demonstrated how to mismanage the presidency to a degree not often seen before with tactics that infuriated both the Democrats controlling the House and Senate as well as the public and the Republicans. Since before Obama took office I pointed out how they were making one of the first sins of government, expecting the hard nosed opportunists from the campaign to be able to run the nation's government.



No newly elected president has done that because they know the campaign people have neither the experience nor the ability to work with all elected officials, Democrats and Republicans, once elected. By nature the campaign people are paranoid, living in constant fear the other politicians will undermine their efforts. To compensate they use heavy handed tactics to force loyalty from their own party, Democrats, and use intimidation and threats to try and control the opposition party, the Republicans.

It never works. All new administrations make a series of staff mistakes that take one to two years to correct. Obama made these mistakes throughout his fledgling administration loading his staff with friends and associates, campaign contributors and lobbyists. Time after time his own people have been his biggest burden and their actions have upset those who know what makes the government tick.



To be successful a president must surround himself with people who are not paranoid and who know they must govern for all the people, not just those throwing money at them. Thus the White House staff is a sea of turmoil when they have no policy, executive nor practical experience in a bi-partisan world.

Such appointments are not necessarily a sign of weakness but a sign of inexperience. In time the polls and the inability of the president to govern make these mistakes obvious. Perhaps Obama has finally seen the light and realizes his strident and petty staff are his own worst enemy.



Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been the most striking example of how a staff member can get a president in trouble. Every major failure of the Obama administration can be laid at the doorstep of the Chief of Staff from secret deals with the pharmaceutical companies and unions (SEIU) to interfering in local elections (New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts).

When your key aide is the cause of your failure to govern the key aide becomes an untenable liability and now many people are questioning the judgment of Obama's Little Napoleon. I suspect the reason Obama knew about the Bayh resignation in advance is that Obama may have talked to Bayh about taking over as his new Chief of Staff. It was necessary for Bayh to clear the way to move to the White House and take over.

By announcing his retirement when he did, the day before the filing deadline for someone to run for his Senate seat, it left no one time to file as the Democratic candidate for Senate from Indiana. Since no one expected Bayh to leave no one was prepared to file the next day. This means the State Democratic party in Indiana can select the next candidate for the people, giving them time to recruit the best possible candidate for the race.

It is all too convenient for Bayh to end up taking over as Chief of Staff for Obama and solving one of the biggest headaches for the president, how to get Emanuel out of there. Bayh could resign at any time and his seat would be filled by governor's appointment. The governor is a Republican in Indiana but Bayh could make a deal with him on his replacement, appointing a Democrat who will not run for office in the fall. The Indiana governor is a weak form of state organization so he may very well make a deal to get the seat open and to get a friend (Bayh) in the White House.



If Obama does not make moves to fix his White House staff there will be a series of resignations by cabinet members like Hillary Clinton who are sick and tired of the backroom politics of Emanuel and the other staff members and see their ability to represent the United States being undermined by the politics in the White House. Bayh would be in a great position to help the president and smooth over the ruffled feathers on Capitol Hill.

Remember, President Reagan was successful because he had former Congressman and moderate James Baker as his Chief of Staff. Obama could learn from Reagan's experience. It was Baker who helped make Reagan one of the most popular presidents of all time. Oh yes, as an early supporter of Hillary in her campaign for president Bayh would go a long ways toward healing the deep wounds between Obama and the Clintons.

Stay tuned...

-

Was Obama Right on his Afghanistan Policy? Is it a War that can't be Won?

.

In all the uproar over the new book by Bob Woodward, Obama's Wars, and the volatile internal debate, denunciations and recriminations raging in the media, we tend to get distracted from the underlying policy actions of the President in the midst of the internal conflicts.

What needs to be assessed is did the President come to the right conclusions in overriding the advice of his military commanders and attempting to contain the build up in Afghanistan?

What seems clear is this. The president redirected the war effort from one of nation rebuilding to one of targeted terrorist attacks. At the same time he greatly expanded the use of drones and other counter terrorism efforts and increased coordination with Pakistan in an effort to reach beyond the Afghan border in pursuit of Pakistan based terrorists.

History has demonstrated that no outside nation has successfully undertaken a war against Afghanistan and won including the world's only super powers the Soviet Union and the United States. Afghanistan is a tribal run society with no particular loyalty to anyone or any political philosophy.

Could a conventional war ever be successful in Afghanistan? Hardly, but war is seldom waged for conventional purposes. Prior to World War II it was the arms dealers of the world and the international bankers, both of whom were based primarily in Europe, who dictated the proliferation of war in the world.

With American intervention into World War II the American military industrial complex became the dominant world force in war, or the instigation of war more properly. We were warned of this danger in explicit terms by President Eisenhower, the Commander of the Allied war effort, just three days before he gave up his presidency to newly elected John F. Kennedy.

The haunting words of Eisenhower delivered to the nation are as follows:

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

(Excerpts delivered 3 days before leaving office)

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."

Nearly 100 years earlier and just before his death President Abraham Lincoln also warned of the dangers facing America:

"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."

The passage appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.

History would indicate President Obama has taken the right course in seeking a means to get out of the Afghan country as soon as possible. His compromise with the military by sending 30,000 more troops will make the path more difficult and his goal is opposite of the military industrial complex will to keep America at war. It will be a task he faces and one all presidents have faced throughout our history.

All Americans should support a path to a return to America's role as a peacekeeper, not an advocate of war. By now we should have learned the dangers of war after Viet Nam, Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan. It is time we return to traditional American values.

.

Obama Staff Real World and Policy Inexperience Sinks the Cerebral Presidency

.

Obama's criticism of Sarah Palin for inexperience is his own Achilles heel.

He campaigned by condemning Palin for her inexperience and the public bought it but in the end the disintegration of his own staff reflects on his own inexperience in policy and real world challenges. As the integrity of his economic, health care and foreign policy are challenged and word leaks out on how he constructed and pursued his agenda of change the cerebral approach to the presidency he displays is daily being undermined by the exodus of key staff and leaking of internal policy disputes.

First came the departure of three of his top economic advisors, the latest being Lawrence H. Summers, who will step down as director of the National Economic Council. His abrupt resignation follows that of Budget director Peter Orszag who left in July, and the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, who left earlier this month. Only embattled Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner remains of the original Obama team.

Since when did the architects of the most significant economic changes in our nation's history, to paraphrase the White House spin, run for cover before their plans are even implemented? Could it be a forewarning that the White House intellectuals failed to understand the politics of governing and have decided to abandon ship before they are blamed for the failures?

Health care looms as a second backdrop to the policy problems of our young president as health care costs continue to rise after passage of the Obama bill while trillion dollar price increases were postponed by the White House until after the 2012 election and they cast a dark cloud over our future. More evidence of the policy failures and failure to read the public mood by the president's team.

Today's disclosure by The New York Times of the vicious policy battle over the war in Afghanistan as disclosed in a new book by Bob Woodward indicate Obama gave up trying to build a consensus in his own staff and made up a strategy with no basis in fact. Coming just six weeks before the midterm elections the impact of Woodward disclosures could be further devastating to the hopes of Democrats of keeping control of the Congress.

With Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, ready to jump ship and run for Mayor of Chicago those with the least practical experience will be left in the White House. One wonders why Emanuel would trade running the White House for being mayor of a city but he knows what we don't know about the state of the state.

Obama built an administration with many educators and friends and a cadre of former Clinton people but the theoretical world of academia is a far cry from the hard knocks of reality and many of the Clinton people were the previous architects of policies and procedures that caused the economic collapse. There are times when even experience is bad if it did not contribute to the public good, a fact President Clinton recognized when he apologized for the economic and regulatory changes these people made late in his presidency.

Obama can still salvage his final two years if he does not make the same staffing mistakes again as he replaces all those staff running for the turnstiles. Of course his administration still remains bloated with academics and arm chair activists with no clue as to the policy process, the art of compromise with Congress and the meaning of bipartisanship so the purge must go much deeper if he is to be a success.
.

Harry Reid Plays Politics and Gets Burned using American Soldiers as Pawns

.

In one of the dumbest acts ever seen by a leader of the Senate, Democrat leader Harry Reid put his own re-election above the interests of America's fighting forces in Afghanistan and Iraq by loading a Defense Appropriation bill with social issues including the Don't Ask Don't Tell gay policy change for the military and illegal immigration amnesty, both extremely controversial to most Americans. To add insult to injury he denied Republicans the right to attempt to amend the massive bill or eliminate the unrelated social changes.

Now Harry is locked in a tough election campaign and the amnesty would directly help him but most of America is firmly opposed to it. This type of politics as usual and backroom deal making is why the Democrats are sinking into oblivion and why the Tea Party has become a dominant force in politics.

By the way, in spite of liberal media attempts to paint the vote as Republican obstructionism two Democratic Arkansas Senators voted against it meaning Democrats and Republicans blocked this travesty.  One need look no further than today's headlines to see why Americans are demanding change again, this time change that works.
.

SAVIORS OF THE 20TH CENTURY HITLER & STALIN - Striking Similarities

.

The war of annihilation between the Nazis and Communists

ISBN 0964599317

LCCN 2004095812

Available worldwide through Amazon Kindle books

http://www.amazon.com/Saviors-20th-Century-Hitler-ebook/dp/B0040ZNU76/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1285077808&sr=1-1

Saviors of the 20th Century - Hitler and Stalin - The War of Annihilation Between the Nazis and Communists, a historical narrative by Jim Putnam about the history of Nazism and Communism and the rise to power of Hitler and Stalin. This book unveils many secrets of the Nazis and Communists long hidden in classified records and secret KGB archives in the frontier outside Moscow.

Excerpt:

Striking Similarities

Hitler’s family name was changed.
Stalin’s family name was changed.

Hitler’s father beat him.

Stalin’s father beat him.

Hitler’s mother gave birth to 3 children before Adolf, all died.

Stalin’s mother gave birth to 3 children before Josef, all died.

Hitler was a sickly child.

Stalin was a sickly child.

Hitler’s father virtually abandoned his family.

Stalin’s father virtually abandoned his family.

Hitler was raised and loved by his mother.

Stalin was raised and loved by his mother.

Hitler very much loved his mother.

Stalin very much loved his mother.

Hitler was a Catholic.

Stalin was an Eastern Orthodox.

Hitler’s mother wanted him to be a Catholic priest.

Stalin’s mother wanted him to be an Orthodox priest.

Hitler attended a Benedictine monastery.

Stalin attended Orthodox theological school and the seminary.

Hitler’s father died when he was 13.

Stalin’s father died when he was 11.

Hitler was an exceptional student at an early age.

Stalin was an exceptional student at an early age.

Hitler developed into an excellent artist in school.

Stalin developed into an excellent artist in school.

Hitler failed to graduate from high school.

Stalin failed to graduate from high school.

Hitler never attended university.

Stalin never attended university.

Hitler lost his faith by the time he was 13.

Stalin lost his faith by the time he was 13.

By age 20 Hitler was a social dropout living on his own.

By age 20 Stalin was a social dropout living on his own.

Marxism fascinated Hitler.

Fascism fascinated Stalin.

Hitler lived in Vienna in 1913.

Stalin lived in Vienna in 1913.

Hitler served time in jail for his political beliefs.

Stalin served time in jail for his political beliefs.

Hitler, born in Austria, moved to Germany to pursue politics.

Stalin, born in Georgia, moved to Russia to pursue politics.

At age 33 Hitler led the revival of the Nazi party.

At age 33 Stalin led the revival of the Bolshevik party.

At age 35 Hitler wrote “Mein Kampf” outlining Nazi policy.

At age 34 Stalin wrote “Marxism and the National Question” outlining Bolshevik policy.

At age 42 Hitler was in control of the Nazi regime.

At age 42 Stalin was in control of the Communist regime.

In 1931 Hitler’s love committed suicide with his pistol.

In 1932 Stalin’s love committed suicide with his pistol.

Hitler’s love was 22 years younger.

Stalin’s love was 21 years younger.

At age 45 Hitler started purges of Nazi party foes.

At age 45 Stalin started purges of Communist party foes.

Hitler admired and feared Stalin.

Stalin admired and feared Hitler.

This stunning list of similarities is but a sampling of the fascinating look at history by the author Jim Putnam. Readers say they are overloaded with new information, plot twists and turns, and motivations previously buried in secrecy. It is a must read for seekers of truth. Saviors of the 20th Century Hitler and Stalin is now available for ordering exclusively through Amazon Kindle books worldwide on the Internet.

.

Sarah Palin through the eyes of Outsiders - Sarah's Story

.

The two year preoccupation of the liberal media in trashing Sarah Palin leaves little room for ouside opinions on her from people not interested in protecting the Democrartic majority in America but it is refreshing to see that not eveone in the world thinks she is bad. In fact some unlikely people also think the Palin coverage has misled the American electorate like the story below.

 Why I support Sarah Palin

Ted Belman. I was half way through writing Sarah Palin is electable when I came across this fabulous well researched ode to Sarah Palin. I have left out the attacks on her particularly by the GOP trying to shut her out and focused on her outstanding qualities. Don’t miss the part on Israel and Iran at the end.

Vetting Sarah Palin—The Assignment of a Lifetime

By Christopher Massie, Canada Free Press

There is a wave now clearly rising. There is a movement very definable now fully exposing itself to America. The Tea Party now has more successful wins to its credit within a condensed timeframe than any other American political movement can rightfully claim. This movement is alive, palpable, real, not to be ignored and poised to return America to its position as that Shining City Upon the Hill. And one individual is responsible for this momentum.

That person is Sarah Louise Palin—and this is her vetting.

SARAH PALIN—THE EARLY YEARS:

Sarah Palin, a 46 year old, self-described “Bible-believing Christian”, born in Sandpoint, Idaho, the United States of America, has represented Conservative Constitutionalism, small business entrepreneurs, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, non-partisanship, pro-life advocacy, the Amendments (as a staunch Constitutionalist), but in particular the 2nd, and political term limits (among her most prominent platforms) her entire political career. She abhors wasteful government spending—a cause Palin is so deeply passionate towards it would launch her Mayoral career in 1995—and Palin considers the current administration the bane of current as well as future generations to come.

Governmental corruption goes against every core belief inherent to Palin’s persona—her programs to vet those within her administration are well documented. Inter-departmental deceit and immorality have been dealt with through patience and diplomacy, but dealt with they have been. In Palin’s nearly 20 year political career, she has positioned herself as a fresh and rejuvenating force for positive upward mobility in the Republican Party, and her current influence is instantly perceptible.

At the age of 18, when most American teenagers were deciding on far less important issues, Sarah Palin officially registered as a Republican, a decision no doubt based on values deeply entrenched within Palin throughout her upbringing. By the age of 28, that decision would prompt Sarah to enter politics for the first time, pitting her against a local telephone company worker. That election would mirror many in Palin’s future political career; voters in Wasilla questioned her ability to defeat a man, much less her ability to have a serious affect on the City Council.

She would win that election to the City Council of Wasilla, Alaska—an election she was encouraged to enter by fellow classmates of hers at a local step aerobics center. Also members of this class were two gentlemen who would later play a central role in Palin’s advancing career. Three years later, after shocking voters by not allowing her personal religious convictions to interfere with her role on the Council—as it related to small business owner’s rights—she would be elected again; this time by an overwhelming majority.

Upon completion of her first term on the City Council, midway through satisfying her second, Palin would set her sights on higher office, electing to run for Mayor of Wasilla. Her bold decision to seek the office of Mayor was based on her fears that the local government was wastefully spending revenues generated by a new sales tax increase. The city’s coffers were expanding, the then-current administration had drawn up plans requiring unnecessary, frivolous spending, and Palin—reflecting her classic Conservative ideals—announced her campaign.

This would be the first real test of Sarah Palin’s mettle as a Conservative politician—and as a woman running against the good old boys. That race would match Palin against her one time aerobics class partner—one of the men pivotal to her ascension into politics—then-Mayor of Wasilla John Stein.

Then-Mayor Stein never knew what hit him. Then 32 year old Sarah Palin was a formidable foe. Exposing Stein’s proposed spending and record of high taxes, as well as sharing her other campaign platforms with the voters of Wasilla—a voting majority comprised, by the time of Palin’s rise, of Conservative Christians—that included her pro-life and pro gun-rights stances, Sarah defeated Mayor Stein handily. Her platforms, campaign strategies and overall ideology caught the attention of the state GOP as well. The Party would endorse Palin over the three-term incumbent Stein, running television ads on her behalf—cementing a political relationship for better or worse. By the conclusion of the campaign, Palin’s political reputation had begun to take shape.

MAYOR PALIN:

Once in office, Palin’s inaugural actions included the lowering of her personal salary by 10%—a move most voters (while appreciating the gesture) probably doubted would come to fruition. From there, the internal vetting of the previous administration would begin. Palin required updated resumes from every official, going so far as to demand resignation letters from particular department leaders most loyal to the former Mayor. Her moves, while unconventional, proved beneficial towards ferreting out true team players from those whose personal goals and biases would prove to undermine the role of government—that role, for Palin, being a small unified body working to effectively service the voting community. Palin’s successful process to unify or dismiss resulted in a first term staff turnover of nearly 100%—but the voters remained quite pleased. Palin listened to her constituency; and the voters elected her again—by a landslide!

Palin’s second term would witness her contributions to this once sleepy little town of Wasilla resulting in an expansion that brought business revenue and improvements to the city as never before. And while growth most certainly has the potential to come at a price (Wasilla’s long term debt would increase to $25 million as a result of expansion under Palin, leading her to secure the first of $10 million in earmarks for the government before her term would expire), today, Wasilla is a thriving community.

The current mayor attributes Wasilla’s 50,000 daily shoppers directly to Palin’s 75% reduction in property taxes and infrastructure improvements. “This is no longer a little strip town you can blow through in a heartbeat”. Wasilla, strong, proud, and now home to more than 6,000 people, remembers well the ways in which Sarah Palin heard their voice, listened to their demands, and bettered their lives. The old boys’ club was forever changed in Wasilla, and the GOP took notice.

SARAH PALIN GETS A TASTE OF THE WHITE HOUSE EXPERIENCE:

Sarah Palin’s next move, at the age of 38 (in 2002), was a bid for Lieutenant Governor of Alaska—running against 4 other Republicans in a primary in which she came in second. This loss would expose Sarah to what was possibly the most extreme case of political nepotism she had yet witnessed in her career. After her defeat for Lieutenant Governor of Alaska, Palin campaigned intensely throughout the state of Alaska for Frank Murkowski and Loren Leman—the team running for Governor-Lieutenant Governor of Alaska. Sarah Palin would spend countless hours rallying for Frank Murkowski, befriending the man, cheering him on—hoping his win would secure for her his vacated seat in the Senate. Murkowski won. Palin was on the short list for his vacated Senate seat—everyone said she was a shoe in.

In what continues to this day to be called one of the most flagrant displays of unwarranted nepotism, Frank Murkowski—in typical old boys’ school demeanor—selected his daughter, State Representative Lisa Murkowski, to be his successor in the Senate. Palin would instead be offered and accept an appointment to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she would expose myriad ethics violations. The old boys’ networks would continue to be served notice, and Murkowski and Palin would be set on an inevitable collision course that would collide just a few years later.

In 2006, at the age of 42, against all odds, first facing down Murkowski’s formidable war chest of funds, and later defeating Democrat Knowles by a margin of 48 to 40 percent, Sarah Palin became the youngest Governor of Alaska in history—as well as the State’s first female to ever hold the position.

Understanding the voice of the voters, she ran on a platform of education first, followed by public safety and transportation. Her long-standing role as a pro-life proponent gained her the endorsement of the Alaska Right to Life group while her concerns with the environment combined with her continued advocacy for Alaska’s oil industry garnered her support from former Alaska Governor Walker Hickel. An additional endorsement, based on Palin’s recognized position on second amendment rights, would come from the Alaska Correctional Officers Association; indeed, through endorsements, Palin would succeed in winning the Governorship even while being outspent throughout the campaign.

Naturally, as with any position of such great importance and responsibility, attacks upon the one in office are inevitable—and Sarah Palin was no exception. For the record, Troopergate was finally concluded in 2008 with a final report from Tim Petumenos: “There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters.”

While ethics issues certainly weigh heavy in every politician’s career, other more important issues have been, and continue to be, placed center stage by Palin’s opponents. Since her days as Governor, Sarah Palin has strongly pleaded the case for America’s independence from its reliance on foreign oil suppliers. To that end, Palin supports drilling for oil and natural gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). And while this controversy has been one of deep concern that continues to provide contentious discourse between conservationists and economists, Palin remains firmly planted on the side of job creation, revenue procurement, and American energy independence.

Palin remains a committed environmentalist, as evidenced by her establishing of the gubernatorial executive order number 238 which, among several other key provisions, calls for “developing recommendations on the opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Alaska sources, including the expanded use of alternative fuels, energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, land use management, and transportation planning.” Palin’s ANWR stance, combined with this order, clearly demonstrates Palin’s ability to balance a fiscal need for energy independence against a respect for “green” initiatives—truly a rare trait in today’s old boys’ networks.

PALIN THE GALVANIZER:

Throughout her career, Sarah Palin has witnessed and battled cronyism, nepotism, old boys’ networks, corruption, and political deceit of every size, shape and description. Her wars raged have been born from Conservative ideals, Christian values, the fundamentals found in the words of America’s Founding Fathers as written in the Constitution, and a plain old sense of knowing right from wrong. These ideals, shockingly—not surprisingly—have rendered her the target of great condemnation from socialists, Liberals, Democrats and even certain members from within the GOP—that party once so eager to embrace her in the days of Wasilla.

As the GOP has ungraciously turned its back on Sarah Palin—as particularly evidenced through the actions of one of the most glaring examples of the old boys’ network, John McCain—she has continued along the path of adhering to the voters; ever cognizant of the true Conservatives requiring support. She has been the driving force unifying the Tea Party movement in America—a once loose knit group of a few hundred people that now counts hundreds of thousands of well organized members in practically every state of the union. This movement draws inspiration from a unified mission: lower taxes; smaller government that interferes less with the population’s private lives; state’s rights; and an overall belief in American Exceptionalism. These are core, fundamental issues Sarah Palin has stood for her entire career.

Sarah Palin—through her support of and involvement with the Tea Party in general—has in one way or another had a positive effect on the campaigns of several Tea Party-backed Conservatives this election cycle. Some of the candidates who have included Palin in their projects or discussed her influence as having a positive upshot on their drives this year include Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, and others. And those candidates who have succeeded in their bids for office as a direct result of Palin’s endorsements include Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, and, of course, Christine O’Donnell. Sarah Palin’s clout is more than influential—for many in the truly Conservative camp, it is the most powerful weapon in politics since that witnessed by Ronald Reagan’s allies in the days of the Gipper’s reign.

The ability to galvanize on Palin’s part—the ability to bring together the voice of the voters and the electable candidates proven to answer the call of those voters—is a powerful magnet in a politician. It is also a fantastically rare commodity. One truly believes Palin’s honesty; her words—humble and forever unassuming—consistently come from the heart. When she speaks to a crowd, it’s as if she is talking to her family; never scripted, oft-times with a slip or a twist of the tongue, and genuinely caring.

Remembering speeches given by Ronald Reagan—when he would pause, almost coming to tears contemplating the severity of his words—one cannot help but catch glimpses of these mannerisms in moments of Palin on stage. She is captivating in her simplicity, powerful in her convictions, Reagan-esque in her Conservatism, Constitutionalism and belief in American Exceptionalism.

THE GOP TAKES A PAGE FROM THE DEMS PLAYBOOK:

As this nation heads towards November, a crucial turning point in American history, Palin’s foes are making hay. Political strategists the likes of Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer have emerged from the old boys’ network closet. The most infamous, nepotistically-influenced, former Palin competitor Lisa Murkowski has announced she will run again this November—as a write in. In these days, it is wise to recall the actions of Harry Reid in 2006 when he summoned then-Senator Obama, instructing Barack it was the Party’s intentions to have him run for the Presidency (even though it would not be until the summer of 2008 that Reid would publicly endorse the Senator from Illinois).

The Democrats (led by Reid) would have done anything to defeat Hillary—and they did it stealthily. The GOP is taking a page from that book. There is an all too familiar episode re-playing itself for voters to witness this season. The GOP loathes Sarah Palin. And the Party is now setting about to deeply unsettle those successful candidates she has promoted. The evidence is glaringly obvious. Murkowski has been unleashed; Rove and Krauthammer are doing their bidding. The events unfolding are towards one goal: the destruction of Palin’s bid for the Presidency.

Beginning with Sarah Palin’s first mayoral bid in Wasilla, and her refusal to kowtow to the GOP in the aftermath of her ascension to city office—a position she rightly earned regardless of Party politics being played out on the local airwaves—to her days as Governor of Alaska and her patriotic decision to place more emphasis on the needs of the voters of her state than the bureaucratic strong-arming of the Bush administration and its political blackmail as it related to the Alaska pipeline contracts, Palin has steadfastly remained a true person of character—and a life-long politician representing “We the People”. Now, in what has become America’s deadliest fight against tyranny since its founding, this nation’s leader in waiting listens for her constituency’s demands once more.

PALIN—THE VITAL POINTS:

There can be no doubting Sarah Palin’s longstanding, steadfast commitment to a strong, stable, secure and Exceptional America at home. Also without question is the importance of America’s safety abroad and its allegiance to our allies. Since the days of this nation’s founding, freedom has come at great costs; never has security from tyranny been free.

Allowing for the rise of injustice, murder, torture, attack or any other form of degradation to another nation, be that persecution in the name of political gain, religious dominance and expansion, or sheer bigotry and ideology, it is the moral responsibility of the nation of the United States to stand up for the rights of the less fortunate and oppressed. Never in the history of man has the allowed suffering of another nation, creed, race or religion resulted in anything other than millions of deaths and suffering; likewise neither has the ignored spread of hatred, socialism, Marxism, Nazism, Trotskyism or other form of sociopathic ideology or sociological theory left any positive remains in its wake.

Sarah Palin has vowed, in her own words, that there will be: “no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel,” further swearing, “Israel is our strongest and best ally in the Middle East. We have got to assure them that we will never allow a second Holocaust, despite, again, warnings from Iran and any other country that would seek to destroy Israel that that is what they would like to see. We will support Israel. A two-state solution, building our embassy, also, in Jerusalem, those things that we look forward to being able to accomplish, with this peace-seeking nation, and they have a track record of being able to forge these peace agreements.” Palin will immediately look to mend the relations so quickly crushed and thrown to the wind by the current administration.

Palin also will not allow for an unchecked, nuclear Iran. Considering the flaccidity of the current administration as it pertains to the Bushehr reactor debacle, in fact, Palin should have been in control of that issue from the beginning: “A leader like Ahmadinejad, who is not sane or stable when he says things like that, is not one whom we can allow to acquire nuclear energy, nuclear weapons… is downright dangerous because leaders like , who would seek to acquire nuclear weapons and wipe off the face of the Earth an ally like we have in Israel, should not be met with without preconditions and diplomatic efforts being undertaken first.” (WIKIPEDIA)

In closing it is fantastically imperative to reiterate one fundamental element of Sarah Palin’s political and personal persona: she is first and foremost a Christian. Second, and equally as important, she is a Constitutionalist. Defining those terms in the context of how she will lead a country requires one simple review of the Founding Fathers. She has never allowed religion to interfere with her duties as a servant to the people—ever. She has forever listened to the voice of the people—always. She has in all public duties eschewed obfuscation—consistently. She is the one true voice of the people—and so too have her soldiers, her armies, always been.

This city on the hill has grown dim. Sarah Louise Palin is the lantern to light that torch for the world to once again turn towards.

From someone who knew someone who worked with her over the years:

CO. Hoosier, I’m not even sure that I can be classified as a “Palin fan”, but I am kind of an observer. An old school buddy of mine has worked within the Alaska legislature for the last twenty years or so. He’s a registered Democrat and has worked on projects that allowed him to cross paths with her going back when she was a city commissioner, as the mayor, and as the governor.

He told me that the picture painted of her as a mindless ideologue is about 180 degrees off base. He said that over the years, he’d probably dealt with her a couple of dozen times and that her input and/or decisions were always supported by law and not by personal beliefs.

The thing he told me about her that really peaked my interest of her was her ability to process information and then to quickly forge a plan with the information she was given. He said she was a living, breathing CPM chart. He said he had seen her on multiple occasions on a variety of subjects instantly absorb input from others and then respond with cogent solutions to problems. He said if you put her in a room with a bunch of people, the chances would be great that she’d be the smartest one in the room.

He told me that when he saw her debacle with Katie Couric, his first thought was, “who is that Sarah Palin imposter?” He said that was not the Sarah Palin he had worked with for years. He was sure that the interview was highly edited. It came out later that there was almost six hours of the interview that people didn’t see.

He told me that if I really wanted to get a feel of who she is and how she dealt with powerful people, I should read the book, “Sarah Takes On Big Oil”. It was released in October, 2008 and written by two of the state’s top oil & gas editors. The lady they described had no fear to stand toe-to-toe with heavyweights and leave them slinking away with their tales between their legs. She told them that she was the advocate of the citizens of Alaska and there would be no deal making that would adversely affect them. The big boys at Exxon-Mobile and BP folded like a cheap suit.

One other thing he told me that still amazes him was how she managed to get people to work together. According to him, she could take two people with opposing opinions, sit down with them, listen to them, offer her solutions, and both guys would leave happy and not feeling that they had compromised their position at all.

He laughed at the “she doesn’t read” meme. He said it is well known in the capitol that she was a voracious reader. She truly did read most of the national mags and newspapers, mostly on line, as well as a dozen or so energy trade magazines. According to him, there were stories about how she would take home stacks of papers and reports to prepare for a next-morning meeting and it was as if every word of those reports were stamped into her brain when she sat down at the meeting.

He told me not to be fooled by her syntax or her colloquialisms because they were not a fair barometer of her smarts. He said if people would just listen and not try to read between the lines, she was easy to understand. He said he’d love to see her and Obama in a debate about energy or even healthcare. He said she’d clean his clock. He even said that if she were given a day or two to prepare for a debate on foreign affairs, his money would still be on her.

He said she was the epitome of a leader. She assembled her staff, listened to their advice, allowed opposing ideas to be heard, and then acted accordingly. As a manager, she advocated making a plan based on the best info available, budgeting the plan, working the plan, measuring results, and quickly adjusting the plan if it was determined it wasn’t working as expected. She believed in the First Law of Holes.

He thought her biggest struggles in the 2008 campaign were the product of trying to endorse McCain’s positions on issues. She was able to voice her dissenting opinion on ANWR because her views were known, but on everything else she was expected to toe the McCain line. He said that she lacked the ability to shovel crap and sell it as perfume.

He reminded me that anyone who denies the accuracy of her “death panel” metaphor should go back and read her exact words, both her initial FB post and her rebuttal of Obama’s attack on her words. He said “read what she wrote, not what someone wrote or said what she wrote”. Her words in those posts have already been proven to be true.

He said that “divisive” is not a word that should be used to describe her. He said that was just a simple use of Alinsky’s rule #13. He said, “look at all the issues. Her position is in line with the majority on virtually all of them”.

He told me she wasn’t perfect, but if I read something or heard something that was negative, I should check it out a little closer. He shared a lot more, but I’m afraid I’ve already rambled on for too long.

Should she run in 2012? I really don’t know. Would I vote for her? It depends who she’s running against. Will she drive the agenda if she doesn’t run? Yes, for a long time.

Ted Belman
Jerusalem, Israel

Thanks for using IsraPundit!

.