Palin Takes Shot At CPAC

Hmmm. Reported via Politico. I looked closely at the charges against Keene back in October and concluded the charges seemed unfair. Not everyone agreed, but that struck me as naive.

I won't go on about specifics, but I doubt I would have reacted any other way than Keene did, myself. From an earlier post by Eric at RedState.

His point, above all else, was that he had no knowledge of the ACU letter. People, myself included, forget that Dave Keene, unlike many other leaders of conservative interest groups, is not a full time Chairman. He is not in charge of the day to day operations of ACU and did not participate in the negotiations with FedEx.

CPAC was good enough for Reagan and good enough for Limbaugh when I heard him speak there the year before. And it's also been good enough for a great many other fine conservatives I've observed over the years, with more to come, I'm sure. But not good enough for Sarah Palin?

I'm not so sure. Let's hope it isn't a case of skin too thin because Keene suggested she had some things to do and learn if she wanted to be president one day. I believe that's a fair assessment. In the original Politico item, also linked above, Keene responded professionally, as he should.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Pain is turning down an invitation to speak at one high-profile conservative gathering while accepting another.

Palin is declining an invitation to address the Conservative Political Action Conference next month because, a source said, she does not want to be affiliated with the longtime organizer of the traditional movement confab.

At issue is the role of David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union which organizes CPAC. In September, POLITICO reported that Keene asked FedEx for between $2 million and $3 million to get the group's support in a bitter legislative battle with rival UPS.

A source close to the Palin camp says that request led to a decision to stay away from the upcoming CPAC conference, calling it a forum that will place "special interests over core beliefs" and "pocketbook over policy."

Comments

[A Stephens]

Principles! Keene's effort with Fed Ex was reminiscent of a Jesse Jackson shakedown. This is where the rubber is going to meet the road for Palin supporters. When she starts to piss off some of the entrenched movers and shakers, will they have the nads to hang with her? Personally I hope so because frankly I'm as disgusted by pathetic self-serving Republicans as thieving, lying, traitorous Democrats.

[Ran / Si Vis Pacem]

I'm with Stephens, Dan.

Rubber, meet road. CPAC and Keene aren't universally respected. This is a notch in Sarah's lipstick case.

[inspectorudy]

From everything I've read about Keene and the FedEx shake down I don't blame Palin one bit. I flew with Fred Smith in Viet Nam and he is a straight up guy. He looks after his employees. Keene immediately went to bat for the heavily unionized UPS after he was turned down by FedEx. As people are saying about Michael Yon versus the Custom and Border Patrol in Wa., which one would you trust? I am the same way with Smith at FedEx versus Keene!

[SteveP]

Snubbing Keene and his RINOfest and pissing off the Republican establishment, which the grassroots despises, will only further solidify Palin's support among the base.

[MacAoidh]

The other issue nobody's talking about is that CPAC sold a sponsorship to the John Birch Society this year, and Palin's people might well be a bit concerned about getting identified with the Birchers.

[Greyledge Gal]

I am sick to death of the Republican Political Class. Case in point today, when they decide Romney is going to be the Pres. Nominee in 2012 at 62% and Palin and Huckabee don't even rate a percentage in the poll.

Sorry but who appointed the 109 party leaders, pundits and strategists who participated in this poll. One thing for sure -- they are just like most of the Republicans in Congress right now. Their fingers in their ears, blinders over the eyes, and singing la, la, la at the top of their lungs like spoiled children. The people are going to take away all their play money and play toys. No more bribery, debauchery, and disregard for the regular folk.

[Patricia Graham]

Palin is correct in snubbing CPAC. Keene and the other "establishment" republicans have become the problem, not the solution.

[Angela]

I agree with Palin. I am sick of establishment country-club Republicans snubbing her. Glad she's calling them out for what they are. And I have zero respect for Keene. Besides the Fed Ex scandal, he's been downright nasty to Sarah in the past. He's in the tank for Mitt Romney, as is all his cronies.

I

[Tom Lamb]

So by Palin putting the Kabosh on CPAC, what does this say about those who attend.

Mark Levin, is he attending? Marco Rubio, Ann Coulter, Amb Bolton, etc etc.?

If they attend, what does this say about these people?

Will they follow Palin's footsteps or choose to attend?

[Angela]

Maybe, Tom, it says that David Keene didn't insult them, then lie about them? You will recall that last year, when Palin did not attend CPAC, David Keene said that she "backed out" of attending, after confirming she would attend. Keene lied. Palin never said she would attend. Keene made up that story to make Palin look bad. He is 100% in the tank for Romeny, and has done plenty to insult and down-right lie about Governor Palin. And he's done this publically. I wouldn't want to associate with him either.

I'm sure Keene's been really respectful to Levin, Rubio, Coulter, and I do not fault them for attending. But his lack of respect for Sarah Palin is just disgusting.

[montee]

Look reality check not every conservative who likes the CPAC is a "RINO". Neither are those who would rather skip it, enemies of conservatism. Attending or not attending the CPAC is not a standard bearer for anybodies conservatism. So Palin doesn't want to attend. Well it could be to her lose or gain. But there really is no need to turn this into another unnecessary controversy. Palin didn't attend last year and both the CPAC and Palin did just fine. There is really no controversy here, so lets not make one. She supposedly said she would want to be associated with Keene. That is not a statement about the event or any body who chooses to attend.

[Dan Riehl]

No, but it suggests she used the press to take a shot at Keene. Maybe she thinks he's a Romney guy and wants him out. Still, I find it ironic that someone who has complained about the press and hit jobs, or people talking, just did precisely that to Keene with the help of the Politico. Pot meet kettle.

[Angela]

Dan, do you recall that Keene lied about Governor Palin attending CPAC in the summer of 2009? It seems to me that you are being deliberately obtuse here. Keene lies about, then trashes, Sarah Palin. That is a "hit job".

Sarah Palin pointing out facts, however, is not.

Keene is clearly the villain here, and I am disappointed at you giving him a pass.

[Clifton B]

CPAC needs Sarah a whole lot more than Sarah needs CPAC. Ask yourselves, what does CPAC offer Sarah that she doesn't already have? The respect of the GOP establishment? That is the last thing she needs. Go Sarah!

[Dan Riehl]

Angela, as I recall, early on she had a number of issues around event appearances which seem to have come from miscommunication on her end. It also seems to have been resolved. But I'm not prepared to call Keene a liar for having been mixed up in one of them. If there is more to it and you'd like to post a link, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

[Dan Riehl]

I can only assume you know very little about CPAC, Clifton. They more than anyone have continued to give grassroots conservatives a place rally on an annual basis.

For the record, I wasnt even invited to CPAC last year. I scorched them, not on my blog, but directly via email, as I was so angry. And I said far worse things directly to them than Palin used the Politico to say. But that was last year.

If she's basing her judgment on what this fellow Ziegler may have told her, I think she's woefully ill-informed on the issue. I gave him a chance to clear the air last year and he made an ass of himself. And I'm hardly one with a rep for carrying water for CPAC, or the establishment GOP.

[montee]

Agreed Dan. But the operative word I took from your point above was "maybe". We just don't know. Maybe she asked for a speaking fee and the CPAC declined. Unnecessary speculation and unconfirmed theories only harm both of these individuals, whom are not perfect (but I like and support both just like you). As for Palin taking shots at the Keene. I don't see it that way. I don't ever recall Palin herself ever criticizing Keene for any comments he made about her (even if Ziegler proceeded to act like a nut about it), besides he made what he felt were legitimate critiques of her and she has apparently done the same of him. I don't see any pots or kettles.

[Tom Lamb]

Angela read this statement:

"...A source close to the Palin camp says that request led to a decision to stay away from the upcoming CPAC conference, calling it a forum that will place "special interests over core beliefs" and "pocketbook over policy."

She is calling out the forum that will place "special interest over core beliefs" and "pocketbook over policy"

According to the source, she did not name Keene specifically, she called out the "forum."

Her comments do not single out Keene.....

So what if Keene has been respectful to Levin. Palin called out the forum....

[Angela]

Tom, with all due respect, you either missed or deliberately ignored this part of the article:

"Palin is declining an invitation to address the Conservative Political Action Conference next month because, a source said, she does not want to be affiliated with the longtime organizer of the traditional movement confab."

She clearly states that the reasoning has to do with not wanting to be affiliated with Keene. Keene's dirty dealings have tainted things. Because of him, there is now "special interest over core beliefs". It's clear her beef is with Keene and his influence ofver the forum.

And Dan, I think Palin has been practically downright gentle with Keene given his nastiness towards her, his innuendoes, and his negative attitude. Not to mention, his shady dealings.

She is right to distance herself from him. And no, there is no pot and kettle IMO.

[Dan Riehl]

"his nastiness towards her, his innuendoes, and his negative attitude"

You offered no link to support your claims. So I can only go on what I myself have seen. Consequently, I can only conclude you believe anyhting less than glowing praise of Palin is unacceptable.

That's unfortunate. But personally, I stopped drinking kool-aid after I grew up.

[JadedByPolitics]

Sarah Palin is nothing if not SMART and if she believes she better SERVES her base of support by attending a different event that is held at the SAME TIME.....so what? What is funny is how the LEFTY media (yeah that right politico) is attempting to stir up that which need not be a story at all!

[anonymous]

I am glad to hear that Sarah Palin will not speak at CPAC. The problem with CPAC is that they have these RINO Republicans are speaking at their meeting like Romney, Daid Keene, for example and they like to attack Palin. These RINO's and David Keene are the Rockefeller Republicans. They are liberal just like the Democrat. Keene endorsed Mitt Romney for President last 2008 primary election. Romney lost the primary election. CPAC is not for the conservatives anymore. It is a trouble organization.

[Tom Lamb]

Angela,

The forum has become the issue. Keene is not the issue. You have people like Levin, Rubio, Amb Bolton who have already accepted the invite to speak.

By they accepting to speak at CPAC, does this mean they endorse an alleged behavior that Dan points to that may not have occured? Was the allegation erroneous?

Palin could have easily accepted the invite, attacked the issue and laid claim to being the maverick that she has at times displayed. In this case, she looks to be avoiding a good fight.

Now given what Palin has done is; she has put the indivduals named, who accepted the invite in a bad position. It's called driving the wedge. And the press will take any opportunity to drive that wedge. The Politico story is the first swing.

Moreover, as stated previously on another thread, Palin's endorsement of McCain has more of a negative connotation in that McCain was the architect behind the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005 that started the ball rolling in ending waterboarding and the closing of Gitmo.

When you have Palin attacking Obama on the topic of how detainees are treated now. She can also look to McCain when McCain was against waterboarding and supported closing Gitmo because it made the U.S. look bad.

Now you tell me which is worse; Palin endorsing a candidate who supported legislation that brought us the closing of Gitmo and supported the end of waterboarding or attending a forum where people like Levin, Rubio, Amb Bolton will speak.

When it comes to loyalty your either loyal to the person or the issue.

And at CPAC it is about conservatism and if Levin and the others speak, I don't think you will hear Palin's excuse (if true) for not attending being supported by people like Levin, Rubio and Bolton....

Your genisis in argument went from Keene treating Palin unfairly and he treating the other speakers fairly to something entirely different.

Palin has put herself in an interesting situation, if the speakers like Levin stay and speak at the forum.

[Dantes]

"I'm not so sure. Let's hope it isn't a case of skin too thin because Keene suggested she had some things to do and learn if she wanted to be president one day."

His petty and uncalled for criticizm of Palin was a few days after her resignation, when many on even the right were putting the boot in. He thought or wished Palin was finished politically.

He deserves to take the blame for any damage Palin does to CPAC or his own reputation. He should stop whining and accept if you are in the big league (as he says in the article), there are other people with big boots too.

[syn]

CPAC; if I were Mark Levin, Marco Rubio and Amb Bolton I would avoid speaking at any events sponsored by the John Birch Society.

CPAC sponsored by the John Birch Society is as stupid as when Newt Gingrich sat side-by-side with Nancy Pelosi promoting Climate-Change Fraud.

CPAC sponsored by John Birth Society, this shows me that CPAC is a hell of a long way away from when CPAC began grassroots organization under Reagan.

Palin made the right decision in not showing up at this year's CPAC event, her experience told her that that the media would ply America with images of her and those crazy John Bircher lunatics .

What the heck is CPAC doing by associating with John Birch Society?

Does not the Conservative movement already have enough Ron Paul '9-11 Truther' loons?

Perhaps questioning CPAC's insane association with John Birhers and Alex Jones would be more appropriate at the moment?

[syn]

" Still, I find it ironic that someone who has complained about the press and hit jobs, or people talking, just did precisely that to Keene with the help of the Politico. Pot meet kettle."

Wait until the media formulates pictures of Mark Levin, Marco Rubio and Amb Bolton standing under a John Birch Society banner.

CPAC sponsored by John Birch Society, Keene cannot be defended and neither can CPAC.

Dan, on this subject you are looking at the wrong thing.

[Dante]

Ramesh Ponnuru

http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru052803.asp

May 28, 2003, 8:30 a.m.
Lobbyist Bites Dog
David Keene’s Pennsylvania surprise.

You would expect David Keene to be on board for the Toomey campaign. Keene is the chairman of the American Conservative Union. Pat Toomey, a House Republican from Pennsylvania, has a 97-percent rating from the ACU. Toomey has been a leading advocate of personal accounts for Social Security. He sponsored a bill in 2001 to make President Bush’s tax cut larger. He has tried to force spending restraint on his colleagues in both parties.

Toomey is running for the Senate in a Republican primary against the incumbent, Arlen Specter. The latter is one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate. He voted to shrink Bush’s tax cut in 2001. He is a leading advocate of cloning. He wants to grill Bush’s judicial nominees to make them pledge their fealty to diversity. He voted against impeaching President Clinton. And so on. Specter has a lifetime rating from the ACU of 47 — a fact that Keene acknowledges.
Yet Keene has written a column in support of Specter.

Keene notes that Specter has sometimes been a useful ally of conservatives, as in the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. This is true, but it is not much of an argument for keeping a 47-percent conservative when you could have a 97-percenter. A conservative could nonetheless support Specter in good conscience on the theory that Toomey would be likely to lose the seat for the Republicans, and that in today’s circumstances that is not a risk that should be taken. I wouldn’t agree with this argument myself: Toomey has a pretty good track record in places you wouldn’t expect conservatives to do well. But in any case, Keene does not make this argument from pragmatism.

Instead, he claims that Specter is worth supporting for his personal qualities: “I’ve known and worked with Specter for more than a decade. . . . He is honest and decent, and, unlike many of his colleagues, his word is always good. When he’s with you, he’ll tell you, and when he’s against you, he’ll let you know that, too. . . . I may be going soft, but I like him. I like his honesty and his willingness to listen. . . . Arlen Specter is what we used to call a standup guy. He isn’t always with us, but when he is you can take his word to the bank. He’s willing to climb out of his foxhole and take on the opposition. . . . It may not count with many conservatives, but it counts with me.”

Well. It must be said that Keene’s view of Specter as a likable fellow is, um, not universally shared. But be that as it may. There are plenty of liberal Democrats in the Senate who are honest and affable as well. We would not, however, expect the chairman of the ACU to endorse them on that basis, or even to stay neutral in their races.

Thirty-three Republican congressmen have written to the ACU’s board of directors to express their “dismay” at Keene’s endorsement, which, they claim, “has brought discredit and embarrassment to your fine organization.” They acknowledge that Keene’s column was not written in his capacity as the head of the ACU — although the column did identify him as such — but say that it has “placed in doubt” the ACU’s “commitment to conservative principles.”

Some conservative activists are also raising the question of whether Keene has a conflict of interest. As The Hill also notes, Keene is “a managing associate with the Carmen Group, a D.C.-based governmental affairs firm.” In other words, a lobbyist. A brief review of the lobbying-disclosure reports reveals that Keene is frequently listed as doing lobbying work that concerns the Senate Appropriations Committee: for example, lobbying on the appropriations bill that funds the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services. No doubt all this lobbying activity is directed toward shrinking the federal government. But it is worth noting that the chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Labor-HHS appropriations is — Arlen Specter.

Keene’s colleague Donald Devine recently wrote a memo arguing that conservatives, their movement having been taken over by imposters comfortable with big government, should start a new magazine. I disagreed with Devine’s analysis. But a new, less compromised version of the American Conservative Union may well be in order.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru052803.asp

[Dante]

James Justin Wilson

http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment072203c.asp

July 22, 2003, 11:00 a.m.
Not So Keene
The ACU chairman sells out.

By James Justin Wilson

avid Keene is a man of many hats. He's best known to conservatives as head of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which describes itself as the oldest conservative advocacy group in the nation. He's also a columnist for The Hill newspaper. Finally, he's a managing associate of the Carmen Group, a Washington, D.C. lobbying firm.

Recently he's also been the target of a tough letter signed by 33 House Republicans, including Sue Myrick, chairman of the Republican Study Committee. "The individual actions of Mr. Keene have placed in doubt the ACU's commitment to" conservative principles, they wrote.

They were objecting to Keene's endorsement of Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, a liberal Republican, over his conservative primary challenger, Rep. Pat Toomey. Keene called Specter a "standup guy" despite his "anemic" 47 percent rating from the ACU. Toomey received a "spectacular" 97 percent, which was still not good enough to garner Keene's endorsement.

Specter just made that impossible case even harder for Keene to make when he announced his opposition to a bill that would offer $13 million dollars to Washington, D.C.'s public schools and another $13 million towards vouchers. Evidently Specter isn't willing to stand up for the District's struggling students (even though California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein, among others, is).

The problem appears to stem from Keene's work as a lobbyist. As Ramesh Ponnuru recently pointed out, Keene has business before Senate panels chaired by Specter.

This is not the first time Keene's commitment to conservatism has been called into question. Since 1998, Keene has lobbied on behalf of Citizens for State Power (CSP), a coalition of interests opposed to federal energy deregulation. In the late 1990s, Keene and fellow ACU board members Craig Shirley and Grover Norquist lobbied against federal energy deregulation. With the help of Shirley's public-relations firm, Citizens for State Power produced a number of anti-deregulation ads that claimed federal involvement violated the traditionally conservative notion of states' rights.

With billions at stake, lobbyists of every persuasion wanted a piece of the pot. While Keene and Citizens for State Power were lobbying Republicans with their concern for states rights, the Electric Utility Shareholder's Alliance (EUSA) used populist rhetoric to lobby Democrats against federal involvement. So much money changed hands during the debate that it led one lobbyist to remark in CQ Weekly that it was a "two-Lexus issue," referring to the number of cars lobbyists could each afford for their efforts.

Most conservatives — including many Republican congressional leaders and experts from conservative think tanks — agreed that federal deregulation was necessary to resolve interstate issues and introduce competition into what many previously considered a "natural monopoly." They agreed that only federal legislation would foster free market competition and lower energy prices for consumers while state efforts would preserve the utility monopolies. Keene, Shirley, and Norquist quickly found themselves siding with Ralph Nader and liberal organizations like People for the American Way and the Public Citizen.

Even stranger was the fact that Keene involved the ACU in the deregulation debate at all. With other controversial issues — like the compromise between free trade and protectionism — Keene has kept the ACU out of the fray.

"In years past, I did lobbying for The Limited, which is a free-trade company," says Keene. "There was always the possibility that the ACU would be charged that I was coming down on one side because of my client. So the ACU just didn't do anything about it."

"This is not an issue of federal versus state regulation. It's the government versus consumers," says Adam Thierer of the Cato Institute. "Both sides are partially right on energy deregulation, but you quickly lose sight that the real enemy is government regulation on any level. What I'm more concerned about is when these groups make states-rights arguments and seem to have another agenda in mind."

Months later, after deregulation efforts failed, the Washington Post reported that a secret coalition of nine state electric utilities funneled $17 million dollars into Citizens for State Power, and its liberal counterpart, the Electric Utility Shareholders Alliance. The campaign, which was known as "The Project," created front groups in an effort to garner public opposition to deregulation.

At the height of the legislative battle, CSP ran radio ads attacking former Republican Representatives Steve Largent of Oklahoma and Rick White of Washington after they spearheaded the deregulation debate in the House. A memo obtained by the Post claimed that "For the first time in this debate there were palpable political consequences for appearing to support [deregulation]…In the case of Rick White, those consequences were direct and career threatening." White, in fact, went on to lose his reelection bid.

"In my seven and a half years in Congress, that was the most unusual alignment I ever saw," says Largent. "I saw people at the ACU, who are typically very conservative in their views, basically prostitute themselves to a monopoly. My experience is that there are few people in Washington that are pure, and David Keene is surely not one of them. To hide behind the moniker of the ACU and then hold some of the positions that he holds is wrong."

While Citizens for State Power was attacking Republican legislators and opposing free market legislation, Keene used his position as chairman of the American Conservative Union to endorse the CSP agenda. Keene, who was actually working for CSP and the Carmen Group, signed a number of public letters as chairman of the ACU.

Keene explained that he was signing letters and lobbying as a private individual and that his role as chairman of the ACU was used only as a means of identification, not endorsement. But fellow ACU board member Steve Moore disagrees: "I think it's impossible for him to have a separate political identity from the ACU."

"Whatever issue you are on, there is a great deal of lobbying money on both sides," says Keene. "The problem is that if you run an advocacy group, your greatest value is to someone you don't agree with."

That's especially true when you're willing to hire out your services. CSP paid Keene's Carmen Group more than $160,000 in fees from 1998 to 2002, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms. Keene denies that he received any of CSP's money directly, but admits that he is a salaried employee of the Carmen Group.

Keene and the ACU's opposition to deregulation is not confined to energy. On a number of occasions Keene has lobbied against federal telecommunications deregulation using the same states rights mantra. Most recently, he wrote a letter to FCC chairman Michael Powell — on ACU letterhead — pressuring him to preserve states rights in telecom deregulation. Keene's employer, the Carmen Group, had a $100,000 contract with AT&T, the deregulation proposal's principal opponent. It is almost a certainty that Keene doesn't describe these activities to his grassroots donors.

Finally, regarding Specter, nearly half of Keene's clients in 2002 — and over $900,000 in income for the Carmen Group — involved lobbying in front of Specter's various Senate committees. Little wonder he chose to endorse the Pennsylvania liberal, even at the expense of a conservative.

Perhaps Keene really does agree with CSP and AT&T on deregulation. If so, he is virtually alone among conservatives who have studied the issue closely. The trouble is that Keene's public identity as a prominent conservative who runs the ACU is not separable from his other life as a lobbyist. Whenever Keene advocates against conservative principles on behalf of a client, many assume he represents the views of the ACU as a whole rather than the for-profit interests of the Carmen Group. On numerous occasions he identified himself as the ACU's chairman, not as a representative of the Carmen Group or CSP, when writing about an issue of interest to his clients. Even his column in The Hill hasn't consistently mentioned his affiliation with the Carmen Group, which happens to be a frequent advertiser in The Hill.

Keene risks permanently tarnishing the reputation of the ACU. Perhaps he put it best in his own newspaper column when he described the problem Larry Klayman created for Judicial Watch when he began to attack fellow Republicans: "The question is whether [Klayman] can get conservatives or others to continue to write checks to his operation while he attacks DeLay rather than Clinton. Whether one likes him or agrees with him, Larry Klayman has now put his future and that of the organization he founded on the line."

So has Keene.

[Scott]

I don't know if this qualifies as an attack on Palin by Keene, but it works for me.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31254.html

Money quote:

"Keene has criticized Palin in the conservative press, telling Newsmax in July that she was "whining" about her press coverage and was not yet ready for primetime.

"Conservatives like her, but you've got to have more than that," Keene told the outlet. "You've got to be more than a rock star. If in fact she's interested in the presidency, she has got to establish herself as someone you can envision in the Oval Office. And it's become more difficult to envision than it was at the time of the election."

Let's see: Whining. Rock star. Not ready for primetime. More difficult to envision than it was at the time of the election.

Yep. Sounds a lot like nastiness, innuendoes, and negative attitude. And from a guy ready to shake down Fed Ex.

[FGMorley]

From what I saw on the videos posted at http://www.johnziegler.com/ David Keene isn't one to be trusted. This was a confrontation by John Zeigler regarding the corruption issue.

[x11b1p]

Sorry Dan, Keene seems to be another shithouse rat RHINO ass sniffer mucking up the works! Are we still picking sides this close to the 2010 elections, I thought the Scuzzyfava goat fu*k had settled the debate that the GOP elite class is full of shiznit?

[chercast]

Palin is making the right high risk move (tea party), at the right time for independents. CPAC's lineup is impressive, and she doesn't need to be there. Could be a wedge, but, on the other hand, I look at it more as Palin stretching the field with a spread offense, so the defense has to stretch itself across the field to cover everyone. In my opinion, Palin's move will open more channels than less....as long as it is not just a case of thin skin. I don't think it is. I think this is just a case of good political instincts and principle.

[Lisa Graas]

Dan writes: "it suggests she used the press to take a shot at Keene."

As opposed to what Keene did to her?

Now, Dan. Sigh and alas. Do I detect a double standard?

[A Stephens]

I suggest we move along from the Palin v Keene template. Frankly, she can take care of herself just fine. The larger issue is whether we continue to blindly support go along-get along/where's my check? Republicans. I won't.

[Lisa Graas]

Call it Kool-Aid if you like, but my honest opinion of Sarah Palin is that she has the toughest skin and thickest spine in American politics today....and this decision simply confirms that. She knows full well that this is going to tick a lot of people off, but guess what? She did it anyway. That's thick skin. That's having a spine. Doing the right thing even when it's unpopular is what Palin is about. Does anyone here honestly believe that David Keene is more powerful than the grassroots itself? If so, you are right to believe that Palin is being thin-skinned here. If you believe, on the other hand, that she understands that she could potentially lose public support for this, you'll see the spine in her.

The bottom line is that Palin always does what she thinks is the right thing, even if it will cost her politically. In other words, she is the opposite of David Keene if his FedEx/UPS deal is any indication.

[Lisa Graas]

A Stephens writes "go along-get along/where's my check? Republicans"

I couldn't have said this better myself. Do they not know how horrible this strategy is for them?

[my my]

Probably doesn't hurt her with Fred Smith.He has money and contacts

[inspectorudy]

My Dad told me when I was very young and then told me again when I thought I knew everything, that I should always ask myself "What's the best and worst thing that will come out of this event?" If Palin asks herself that question she would not speak at CPAC. The best thing would be for her to be a hit among conservatives, (Which she is already), and maybe move some of the RINOs a little her way. The worst thing would be for the press to play up the Bircher meme along with Keene saying something snarky that would immediately bring on a press attack against her. The CPAC needs Palin, she does not need them!

[alwaysfiredup]

http://newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/sarah-palin-cpac/2009/07/09/id/331430

The interview is far from flattering to Palin, and it came out at a time when the left-wing press was dying to hear conservatives trash her. I'm not surprised she took offense.

I don't know much about this UPS/FedEx thing, but it bothers me that Keene works for a lobbying group. Their clients' interests will not always coincide with conservative interests, and it looks like a conflict of interest.

Also, the GOP has a branding problem, so Palin is trying to come up with a new GOP brand that voters will like. Voters think the GOP is full of crooks, so Palin makes herself look better by publicly refusing to join bigwig GOP-ers who appear crooked. It isn't a bad strategy if the goal is to appeal to popular opinion instead of tastemakers.

There's going to be some pain in remaking the GOP into an electoral winner. The establishment has got to realize that.

[Dante]

Can someone tell me exactly what about Sarah Palin is conservative? I see more populism in her, for example her boasts about bossing around the oil companies, than I do any real conservative principle. I like her for what she is a regular person and non-Beltway insider, but I don't see conservative.

[Bruce, NV]

Dante, you are being willfully blind, then.

[Dante]

Thanks for the enlightenment, Bruce. You truly seized on the opportunity to educate. If you were unable to answer the question (and you are not alone in that, trust me), then you should have just said so.

[Bruce, NV]

Dante, have you read "Going Rogue"?

[Bruce, NV]

The reason I say that, Dante, is because I see an awful lot of trolls pulling the same game. Palin is a believer in smaller decentralized government, for example, and a strong defense. Of a government getting the hell out of the way and of killing corporate welfare. Sorry, in my eyes, those are conservative positions. Positions I don't think you'd see at CPAC.

[Dante]

Bruce, no, I haven't nor do I plan to read it. I frankly don't care if you think I'm a troll or not. I see a large fan base of Palin who keeps touting her as a conservative, when her words and actions don't back it up. She is a populist. For example, this is not the work of a conservative: "Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared." "Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared." Actions don't match up with words.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html

Instead of just regurgitating the party line, please provide examples of Palin's actions that put her as a conservative.

[Dante]

Sorry for the repeat quote. The second was meant to be this: "Palin's administration last week gained legislative approval for a special $1,200 payment to every Alaskan to help cope with gas prices, which are among the highest in the country.

That check will come on top of the annual dividend of about $2,000 that each resident could receive this year from an oil-wealth savings account."

[ol_dirty_/b/tard]

Dante is a moby. Ignore him.

[Dantes]

"Dante is a moby. Ignore him."

And he's not Dantes - that's me :).

[Dante]

moby?