It was the most electrifying speech I have heard from a leader of the GOP since Reagan.

She can electrify a crowd. She has the kind of charisma that appeals to the sub-rational. and she has crafted a Peronist identity – utterly fraudulent, of course – that is political dynamite in a recession with populism roiling everyone and everything. She is Coughlin with boobs – except with a foreign policy agenda to expand Israel and unite with it in a war against Islam.

Do not under-estimate the appeal of a beautiful, big breasted, divinely chosen warrior-mother as a military leader in a global religious war. (emphasis added)

Is there anyone left who is capable of rationally discussing the merits or demerits of anything this woman does?  Supporters do themselves no favors by reflexively shouting down anyone who dares utter a single negative comment about her.  Detractors often reveal that they are just as incapable of entertaining other points of view, and do so in ways that reveal their own inability to move beyond the media narrative.

I’m not saying we all have to hang out in some perpetual limbo where we keep an “open mind” (YACK!) about Sarah Palin.  Again, I’m just fascinated that there just seems to be not only no middle ground regarding her, but that she elicits only the most extreme reaction either way.

And for the record, I largely agree with Dr. Beckwith.  I understand that there is a large berth given to the type of sponsor CPAC allows, but it makes sense for Palin and others to distance themselves as much as they can from the fringe element.

This, just up, from Sarah Palin on her Facebook page (with footnotes too!):

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore….It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.” [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives…. It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen … should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

[1]See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/president-obama-addresses-sarah-palin-death-panels-wild-representations.html.
[2]See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[3]See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
[4]See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
[5]See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[6]See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html].
[7]Id.
[8]See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html].
[9]See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200.
[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
[11]See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions.

My initial instinct is to call this move savvy. The announcement itself tacitly takes advantage of not only the news cycle but the reality that people will now talk about her at every Independence Day July picnic. That’s a smarts not usually seen on the Republican side.

The truth-of-the-matter is that despite modern travel and media, Alaska is effectively out-of-the-way and like Hawaii, not really part of the lower 48. Q.E.D. Had Palin been the Governor of say North Carolina or Oklahoma, I doubt should would have made the same decision, simply because, as she said, her travel would not have placed a burden on the tax-payers. Her cited reasoning might be a pretext, but it is a believable one and honest. Does that cover the coming charge that she’s “a quitter”? Perhaps, but I’m not sure that charge will stick much, except with those who don’t already like her. The problem is, though, that’s not a small minority.

The game for Palin now becomes simple: she’s a draw. Her primary work over the next year and a half will be first and foremost to crisscross the country attending fundraisers and stumping for the Party in as many Congressional seat battles as possible. Despite having an enormous gap in experience, helping Republicans close the gap in 2010 will give her enormous street-cred with the party and buy her no small amount of fellow party-members willing to go to bat for her. Thus, while Gingrich and Romney presently have formidable infrastructures and connections, Palin changes the game on them and makes 2012 about what have you done for me lately, not what might you do for me, especially among operatives and party faithful.

On the national level, her resignation gives her a chance to more aggressively go after the Administration and be the Republican voice of opposition. No one has yet seized this mantle and one of her greatest liabilities in 2008 was her inability to tackle the press and opposition head on. If she’s going to go after Obama, it’ll have to be through traditional media, talk radio and the internet where she must grow a thick skin and effective claws. The jury is still out here on Palin. For my taste, I’ve never liked Palin’s style of public debate because she is the human cliche machine. But in an era where sound-bites dominate, perhaps that’s the best thing. In the short run that’s not a skill that inspires a lot of confidence in me of actually elevating the debate and helping rebuild the Republican brand. It seems her political philosophy is at best an attempt to resuscitate the Reagan Coalition. Obama is so far to the left that it is likely that coalition has one last hurrah left in it. And her “unique ability” to speak to the current medium might just be perfect for that purpose. And while it certainly doesn’t usher in a reborn Republican brand, it might help revive one that’ll be “just strong enough” in 2012.

Again, barring a shocking revelation, this move is a huge gamble but one that cany pay off. Look, the left and mainstream media knows she can be a real populist threat to Obama. Why else would Andrew Sullivan spend so much time concocting deranged theories about her child if she weren’t so? I can’t really say at this point if she is my cup of tea, but the truth-of-the-matter is that Republicans, especially conservatives, likely will rally around one candidate early rather than fragment among several and get another RINO running for President.

And, hey, if doesn’t work out for her, she can certainly dye her hair blond and go work for Fox News.

Happy Independence Day Everyone!

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin shocked the political word Friday by announcing that she will step down at the end of the month and transfer power to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.

Update: Video of the presser.

“For a fleeting moment,” she considered having an abortion after learning that her son Trig would have Down syndrome. The experience, she added, “now lets me understand a woman’s, a girl’s temptation to maybe try to make it all go away. . . I had just enough faith to know that my trying to change the circumstances wasn’t any answer,” said Palin, the featured speaker before 3,000 people at a banquet in Evansville.

I’m fairly heartened to hear Governor Palin say these things. To me it adds nuance and complexity to the reality that is motherhood in America today that a strict, political platform presentation of pro-life views cannot. Governor Palin was certainly not ready for the limelight back in September—no one could have expected her to address something like this in the heat of the campaign. And despite my serious misgivings about her, sincerity like this warms me a bit more towards Governor Palin in 2012. Faith and Doubt do in fact work hand-in-hand and that’s something better for the world to see than rhetorical hope and change.

POLITICO’s poll confirms these numbers.  And to stir the pot, it’s worth noting that just 26% of Americans said that they trusted Sarah Palin “to identify the right solutions to the problems we face as a nation.”  Pelosi fared better than Palin.

Hackers have allegedly broken into Sarah Palin’s Yahoo email account and posted their findings on Wikileaks. And, sadly, the woman I had such hopes for appears to have–I hate to post this on a family blog, but sometimes you just have to deal with filth–both disagreed with a talk show host AND has a friend who prayed for her.

Smoking gun? This is a smoldering arsenal, my friends. It’s all over now.