“In confronting the challenges of our time, there are more nations than ever capable of contributing, but there is still only one that is capable of leading.”

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) gave a much-anticipated foreign policy speech Wednesday at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.  While many have been speculating that the speech was an “audition” for a coming role and Mitt Romney’s Vice President, I’m inclined to believe the young senator is merely attempting to expand his reach and influence.

As to the speech, I watched most of it live and would give it a solid B+.  I’m sure that too will be a topic of much debate in coming days.  The McCain crowd will probably say he didn’t go far enough and the Paul wing of the Party will probably call it treasonous.  I thought it was solid and for a first major speech on foreign policy, I’d say he hit it out of the park.

What Rubio represents is a sense of optimism in all things American.  His message is that this country is and always will be what it has been and should be… just so long as we don’t lose Faith in the things that have made us great.  In the years that I’ve been following his career, I’ve disagreed with him on a number of issues; but I’ve never for even a moment doubted whether or not this guy gets the quintessential ”It.”

—

Here’s a link to a short highlight version or watch the full thing below.

You can read the entire transcript of the speech here…

Linked at The Lonely Conservative.  Thanks.

—-

A few of the high points…

We hold out hope for a new China of tomorrow, but for now we must deal with the China of today.

Everywhere we look, we are presented with opportunities for American leadership to help shape a better world in this new century. We have to view these opportunities within the context of the fact that in every region of the world, other countries look apprehensively on the growing influence of newly emerging powers in their midst, and look to the U.S. to counterbalance them.

Our goal for our own region should be pretty straightforward: a coalition of neighboring democratic nations that trade freely and live peacefully with one another.

Even in our military engagements, the lasting impact of our influence on the world is hard to ignore. Millions of people have emerged from poverty around the world in part because our Navy protects the freedom of the seas allowing the ever increasing flow of goods between nations.

“You absolutely cannot trust the United States Senate to live within its means.”

Say what you want about Senator Corker, but the guy is among an ever-dwindling group of  ”grown-ups” still walking the halls of the United States Senate when it comes to getting the country’s financial house in order.  He may not always represent the model conservative this Tennessee constituent longs for; but on fiscal matters, he rarely finds himself on the wrong side of things.

I’ve only loosely followed this debate the last few days, but I’ll try to limp through the basics.  Senate Republicans attempted to block a Harry Reid-driven postal reform bill from coming to the floor with a point of order challenge to the proposed legislation because they said S. 1789, would add to the deficit in violation of last year’s Budget Control Act; and add $34 billion to the nation’s debt.

That’s a Murderer’s Row of Moderates if I’ve ever seen one…

The Senate voted on 16 amendments to the reform bill (8 passed/8 did not) and the Body was set to pick up the rest on Wednesday.  Here’s a list of the proposed amendments.

Here’s the debate in a nutshell…

“Any new burden” on taxpayers… Now I understand.  Haven’t we heard that before?

Harold Ford Jr. joined Joe Scarborough and the Meet the Press panel Sunday for a discussion of the week’s top political topics.  Among them was the issue hitting closest to home with most Americans – gas prices.  The former Congressman from the Great State of Tennessee penned an editorial for the Wall Street Journal last week in which he called for President Obama to “work with our leading energy companies instead of fighting them.”

Just in case you missed it.  The President urged the passage of a bill that would have killed what the administration labeled “tax breaks for big oil.”  It, instead of the “tax breaks”, failed in the Senate.

Just in case you’re still a bit cloudy on the whole “tax breaks for big oil companies” language, Congressman Ford does a pretty solid job giving the panel – namely Mika – a bit of a reality check on the tax breaks nonsense.

Not bad for a Dem.  Not bad at all.  Minus the whole wanting to get Barack Obama re-elected business, of course.

—-

The Harold Ford Jr. portion of the clip begins at the 1:45 mark.  The first part of the video is Tom Friedman rambling about curbing consumption and encouraging the use of renewables… oh, and raising the gas tax!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I blog because I enjoy it.  To say that I’ve enjoyed blogging the last several days would do a great disservice to the word enjoyment… and just about any other word with positive connotation.  Because of that, posts have been coming at a snail’s pace around here; and I do apologize to the folks that venture over this way in search of “news” and whatever it is one typically comes here to find.  That said, I have thoroughly enjoyed watching my right-wing brethren navigate their way through this relative news suck week; so I will share a few of the best and brightest I came across along the way.

(And if you’re in the giving mood, throw a few bones Da Tech Guy’s direction so he can’t keep on keeping on over there…)

DA TECH GUY:

• My current bleg at less than 1% Update 13% down $1920 to go

THE OTHER MCCAIN:

•  Mr. Inevitability, Mitt Romney
• Hillary Clinton ‘… Reject Efforts To Marginalize Any One Of Us*’
• Why Did the Santorum Campaign Leak Its Strategy Memo to Liberal Media First?
• ‘Alabama Deserves Better’

POLITICAL REALITIES:

• GOP Nomination Race Hits Alabama and Mississippi
• GOP Delegate Rules – 50 States of Confusion
• Oklahoma House Approves Drug Testing For Welfare Recipients

CONSERVATIVE HIDEOUT 2.0:

• Op-Ed: Why does the left want a king to rule over us?
• Unions Contributions Expected to Exceed 450 Million Dollars in the Coming Election
• Occupy Wall Street Running out of Other People’s Money?
• Articles of Impeachment for Libya 2.0, the Syria Chapter

JUST A CONSERVATIVE GIRL:

• Freedom of Speech and the Slippery Slope
• Rick Santorum – My View

LEFT COAST REBEL:

• Impeachment Proceedings Against Obama Have Begun
• Video – Newt Agrees With Ron Paul And Gary Johnson On Afghanistan

MOTOR CITY TIMES:

• Video: Michelle Obama insists Let’s Move is not about government telling people what to eat, then tells people what to eat
• National Research Council developing global warming indoctrination standards for classrooms

THE WYBLOG:

• How low can it go? Obama’s approval rating plummets, again
• Monday Misanthropy, how many feminists does it take to christen an aircraft carrier?

ACE OF SPADES:

• Pirates vs. Congress – And Why Congress Is More Dangerous
• Is Steve Schmidt the Dumbest Guy in Politics?

THE LONELY CONSERVATIVE:

• Obamacare to Fund Abortions with $1 Monthly Premiums?
• Obama’s Leadership Test: A Tale of Two Massacres
• Taxpayer Money Used to Lobby for Soda Taxes

I OWN THE WORLD:

• Actress Julianne Moron: blind, deaf, and really dumb:
• Just Another Darth Vader in a Kilt Riding a Unicycle Playing the BagPipes Video
• In the Future, Socialism Will Advance Through “Insurance”

ADRIENNE’S CORNER:

• You can’t legislate morality…
• For those of you who were “disappointed” in the Derrick Bell video released by Breitbart…

DON SURBER:

• Only 20% say they are better off now than they were 4 years ago
• Obama loses the real war
• Obama attacks Palin, she bites back harder

REAGANITE REPUBLICAN:

• Goofy David Cameron Schedules Obama Campaign Stops While Completely Ignoring American Conservative Leaders
• Newt to Obama: ‘This is What an Oil-Drilling Platform Looks Like’

LIBERTARIAN PATRIOT:

• TLP Quik Hits: CA Effort To Put Marijuana Legalization Measure On Ballot In Disarray

THE WASHINGTON REBEL:

• Government Extremists
• They Will Come For You

THE WHITED SEPULCHRE:

• Noah Webster on Censorship
• What is a Libertarian?

MICHELLE MALKIN:

• Top 10 Twitchy stories
• Joe Biden: Republicans Don’t Know What it Means to be Middle Class

PIRATES COVE:

PROOF POSITIVE:

• Bamboozler-in-Chief on Women’s Health Issues

WINTERY KNIGHT:

• Iain Duncan Smith’s defense of traditional marriage in the UK

THIS AIN’T HELL (BUT YOU CAN SEE IT FROM HERE):

• Left’s media hit squads trying to censor AFN

STRIDENT CONSERVATIVE:

• Hey Arlen! You Reap What You Sow!
• An Energy Cost Misdirection – Look Here, Don’t Look There

THE CLASSIC LIBERAL BLOG:

• Politics and the Generation Gap

THE BLAZE:

• Here’s Why the University of Texas Had That $1 Billion in Solid Gold Delivered

THE DAILY CALLER:

• Alabama governor: I voted for Santorum but I don’t endorse him

RIGHT WING NEWS:

• 15 Responsibilities You Have As An Adult

PATTERICO’S PONTIFICATIONS:

• Obama Attack Video Against Palin, Breitbart Is Selectively and Heavily Edited
• An unhappy Trende for Romney

AMERICAN GLOB:

• INFOGRAPHIC: How Democrats Are Trying To Cover Every Base For 2012
• FUN WITH ANAGRAMS: Soledad O’Brien = Deniable Odors

QUESTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS:

• Regulations and Obama: Judge him by what he does, not what he says

YID WITH LID:

• MJ Rosenberg Renounces “Israel Firsters”-Doubles Down on Jew-Hate and Says Yidwithlid is a Mean Guy

VERUM SERUM:

• Moving On and I Hope You’ll Join Me

JAMMIE WEARING FOOLS:

• Afghan Taliban Vow to Behead U.S. Soldiers, Obama Flies Off to Watch Basketball
• Surprise! “Cosmic Slop” Director a Big Obama Donor, Compares Bell to MLK

THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS:

• PEACE TREATY BETWEEN ISRAEL AND EGYPT IS ALL BUT OVER: LOWER HOUSE OF EGYPTIAN PARLIAMENT PASSES BILL NAMING ISRAEL ENEMY #1

ALTHOUSE:

• Have you heard about the health insurance plan that covers your fresh, organic fruits and vegetables?

LEGAL INSURRECTION:

• David Axelrod’s war on Mormon women?
• Assad captures last major rebel stronghold

FRUGAL CAFE:

• Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words… Chart of Obama’s Dismal Economic Record

FULL METAL PATRIOT:

• Obama signs H.R. 347 anti-protest “Trespass Bill”
• Why America’s Education Isn’t Worth The Money (Infographic)

GATEWAY PUNDIT:

• Ping! Missouri Mom Arrested After Beating Son’s Heroin Dealer With an Aluminum Bat
• More Hope and Change… Afghans Torch Obama Effigy

GAY PATRIOT:

• Kirk Cameron in Context
• On to Alabama & Mississippi

HOTAIR:

• Santorum: My 12-year-old will out-reason Bill Maher
• Coming soon: the USS Britney Spears?

PROTEIN WISDOM:

The conservative movement has lost one of its most powerful voices as Andrew Breitbart has died at the age of 43.

The terribly sad news of his passing was announced at Big Government.

Like many in the right-wing universe, my path once crossed that of Andrew Breitbart.  I met him at the Tea Party Convention in Nashville in February of 2010; shared a few drinks with his colleagues and many friends; and took away from the encounter a sense that I’d just met both a rock star and an ideological icon.   In reflecting upon meeting Breitbart and many of the best and brightest of the conservative new media, I characterized Mr. Breitbart as the GodFather; and in a sense, that’s really what he was.  No cause was too minor or insigificant; no obstacle too great to overcome.  When the MSM and the Left brought a knife, Breitbart brought a gun.

I can hardly say I “knew the guy” as I most certainly did not.  I was lucky enough to share a few hours with Mr. Breitbart and his colleagues at a convention I attended only because I opposed the very idea of said convention in the first place.  But what I took away from my time with Mr. Breitbart and those who dined at his table was a sense of urgency – not to complain about the MSM or the Left – but to do something, to create something, to stand for something that would make the efforts of the liberal establishment pale in comparison to the movement from a unified Right.

The conservative movement and the political universe has lost a giant.  He will truly be missed.

—

More news and reactions…

From The Blaze:

From RS McCain:

From Ed Morrissey:

From Datechguy:

Breitbart at CPAC last month via Mediaite and The Lonely Conservative:

I’m a little late getting this up, so my apologies.  I’m more that mired in a never-ending-primary funk and can’t wait to have an opponent with a (D) next to his name.  The monotony of the in-fighting truly has me tuning out more than I’m currently tuning in.  That said, I did look forward to Wednesday’s debate like I haven’t in quite some time.  The two-a-week debate schedule was beginning to dull the interest, but a relatively long layoff did manage to rekindle a sense of reluctant enthusiasm.

So, let’s get down to it.  Who won the debate?  I’d venture to guess that probably depends on your preference at this point.  If you’re like me, its really more about negatives than anything else.  Given that we’ve been at this for months, it’s far more likely that a candidate could do something to “turn me off” than “win me over.”  That’s just the reality of a drawn out contest, I suppose.

With that as the measuring stick, I can’t really say that any of the candidates met that fate.  I more or less walked away with an attitude of nothing lost and nothing gained for anyone up there.  That said, the night was not without a few high points…

I was particularly intrigued by on of the early back-and-forths between Congressman Paul and Former Senator Rick Santorum.  Paul was hammering Santorum for sharing statistics about his fiscally conservative voting record compared to that of his peers while serving in the Senate.  Paul said, “That’s always a cop-out when you compare yourself to the other members of Congress…  The American People are tired of the members of Congress – they’ve got about a 9% rating.”  Emphasis is, of course, mine on the “they’ve” there.  Is it Congressman Paul or former Congressman Paul?  Is he of a higher class than the rest of his fellow members of Congress?

—

The next was a Romney/Santorum dust-up…  Arguing over earmarking, Romney fired back at Santorum for referring to his own earmarking efforts by saying, ”While I was fighting to save the Olympics, you were fighting to save the Bridge to Nowhere.”  Fair enough.  Clearly a few points earned for Romney.  Olympics versus Bridge to Nowhere.  Win for Romney.  But that perceived advantage lasted but a moment as Gingrich quickly closed the earmarking discussing with a reminder of how ridiculous the whole conversation was in the first place by saying (and I paraphrase here) “You’re saying he earmarked; earmarking is bad; except for when you earmarked; because your earmarks were good; and his earmarks were bad.”  Score one for Newt.  By that point, I’m fairly certain most of the audience was ready to watch Modern Family.

—

The award for the worst question of the evening has to go to the guy with the weird name that emailed to ask “Which candidate believe in birth control?”  While Newt and Mitt seemed to fight over the opportunity to hammer King, CNN, and the question, Newt managed to seize the moment.

1.  There is a legitimate question about the power of the government to impose on religion activities which any religion opposes.

2. Not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.  If we’re going to have a debate about who the extremists is on these issues, it is president obama who as a state senator voted to protect doctors who killed babies that survived abortions.  And it is not the Republicans.

Score a few for Newt.

—

In another exchange, Santorum offered what can only be described as a kidney blow to Romney and his “not caring about the poor” remarks by saying

“The family is fractured… We can’t cut spending, lower taxes, limit the government and everything will be fine.  No, everything’s not going to be fine.  There are bigger problems at stake in American.  No one’s talking about these things.  I will… Here’s the difference between me and the Left.  Just because I’m talking about it doesn’t mean I want a government program to fix it.”

I thought that may have been among the best moments of the night for Santorum.  He’s clearly going to have to answer the question of how his personal views square with his public policy positions; and if undecideds were listening, I think those remarks probably offered the best explanation I’ve heard from the candidate to date.

—

The biggest laugher of the evening had to come when Governor Romney attempted to blame Rick Santorum for ObamaCare.  Making the argument that his endorsement of Arlen Specter, rather than Pat Toomey, for the Pennsylvania Senate seat, Romney attempted to connect dots that his endorsement was to blame for the legislation’s ultimate passage.  A bit of a stretch.  So much so, in fact, that I can’t for the life of me figure out why Romney would attempt to raise it.  Ultimately the move backfired because Santorum’s response was surprising and more than satisfactory.

Essentially, Santorum made the case that his support for Specter was due to the fact that he was set to serve as the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.  That role would allow him to have great pull as President Bush presented potential SCOTUS nominees to the Senate.  Santorum clearly explained that his endorsement was conditioned on a promise to not stand in the way of Bush nominees – the end result was the confirmation of Alito and Roberts.

I call that a draw at best for Romney.  Probably a win for Santorum.  Folks love them some conservative Justices…

—

The obligatory “getting to know you” question came in the form of asking for a one-word response that best describes the candidates.

• Paul – consistent
• Santorum – courage
• Romney – resolute
• Gingrich – cheerful

Lame, lame, lame, and somewhat funny.

—

In typical CNN fashion, King began to explore the topic of “foreign affairs” and after asking only Newt Gingrich about Iran attempted to change course and move into a discussion of gas prices.  The candidates refused to take the bait.  I thought it was the prudent choice for most of them; but I do think it was somewhat regretful that the moderator never managed to make his way back to an issue very much on the minds of American voters.

But on Iran, all shared typical Republican talking points and expressed dissatisfaction with the way the President has handled Middle Eastern affairs, generally.  Congressman Paul used his time to remind the audience of the harmful consequences of “rushing to war”… and then went into his rants that absolutely make my head spin.

(Paraphrasing – because dude is all over the place – my apologies) “There’s no evidence that they have it (a nuclear weapon).  We’re encouraging them to have a weapon because they feel threatened… The Iranians can’t possibly attack anybody… If we’re going to go to war – do it properly – ask the people and get a declaration of war.”

I agree with him on the very last part there.  The rest… not so much.

—

So, how do we score this thing?  The usual method (1-10).  A (1) is pathetic and a (10) would take divine intervention.  

MITT ROMNEY:

Romney was Romney – or at least the Romney he’s become of late.  He attacks when he thinks it’s safe to attack; but never so much that he leaves himself exposed.  I thought his attempt at linking Santorum to ObamaCare through Arlen Specter was uncharacteristic and his weakest moment of the night.  The fact that he thinks he can attack anyone on the topic of government-run health care tells me he’s either really cocky or really bleeping stupid.  That, or maybe he just thinks we’re all ridiculously ill-informed.

The guy still very much looks the part, and I think the viewing public probably sees that.  Also, I can’t confirm it; but I’d bet any sum of money that the Romney camp’s been feeding him a hearty dose of Reagan film as his delivery is beginning to mirror the Gipper’s.  I know that’s blasphemy, but listen to Romney without looking at the television.  Then pull up a clip of a Reagan speech.  I think you’ll see the parallels.

Romney gets a (7).  He had as much to lose Wednesday night as anyone, and he walked away relatively unscathed.  Because of that, and little more, he’s scores favorably.

NEWT GINGRICH:

Newt looked younger, thinner, and very comfortable sitting rather than going through the exercise of standing for two hours.  I guess his “departure” from the race since Florida has been good for him.  Polls may disagree, however.  He emerged from his results-imposed hiatus looking once again like the positive-talking, media-hating, candidate that not too long ago rose from the ashes in the polls.  Could he be due for another round at the top?  Is he finally done sulking about Romney hammering him with negative ads in Florida?

Newt once again took aim at King and the MSM.  The base loves that sort of thing – even though they’ve seen it a million times – so he definitely scored some points.  He also appeared, yet again, as the grown-up on the stage when the topic turned to earmarking – a posture that has suited him well in the past and one that provided cover for him considering it was his tenure as Speaker that gave rise to the earmarking discussion in the first place.

I stand by a position I’ve had on Newt since day one.  He clearly has the highest ceiling among anyone left in the field.  Using the football reference, he’s the quarterback that will either throw 6 touchdowns or 6 interceptions.  I’m not sure that how many lives this cat’s got left, but he took the first major step Wednesday night by putting Angry Newt to bed.  Newt gets a (6).

RICK SANTORUM:

If Rick Santorum is going to win our Party’s nomination, he’s going to have to answer the question of how his personal views square with his positions on public policy – specifically pertaining to social issues.  He’s going to continue to be painted by the MSM as a religious extremist at every turn.  The earmarking thing is a wash considering the candidates in the field and appears to be nothing more than a distraction fabricated by the Romney camp – put to rest Wednesday evening by Speaker Gingrich.

My problem with Santorum from day one is also one of the reasons I wholeheartedly respect the man.  He’s unwavering in his personal views on all things social and he’s not afraid to talk about it.  I respect that.  I really do.  The only problem is that I don’t agree with him on a host of issues (personally) and I don’t think I’m painting with too broad a brush in saying a substantial portion of the American public is probably similarly situated.  In a headline-driven media culture, that is and always will be a problem for a candidate like Santorum.

I’m not one to tell a candidate to “hide” his personal views, but there comes a point where Santorum may be stumbling into overkill with his openness.  Focus on how you’d govern and save the lecture on morality for another day.  While I appreciate the fact that Santorum is a man of Faith and embrace the idea of electing a president that will lead from a principled posture, I will not be voting for my religious leader.  I’ll be voting for the next Leader of the Free World.

Santorum took some shots from Paul and Romney and appeared uneasy with the boos from the Romney/Paul faithful.  Because of that, he gets a (5) on the evening.  He had a golden opportunity to seize Michigan and Arizona.  Regrettably, I think he failed to complete the task.

RON PAUL:

I know some Ronulans out there are going to hate what I’m about to say here, but here it is all the same.  My apologies to the rational Ron Paul supporters.  I know many of you are simply looking for an alternative to the Republican talking points and Paul represents the closest thing going.  I regret that this field has not presented you with a more desirable option.

That said, I’ve come to the conclusion after watching these debates and following Paul’s campaign that his view of prudent governance would unequivocally lead to the destruction of this country as we now know it.  I know that’s a lofty statement, so hang with me for a moment.  Just look at Wednesday night’s debate and the discussion of appropriations bills and earmarking.  Congressman Paul takes the position that he would not support any appropriations bill that contains anything he objects to – yet he’d earmark the hell out of it along the way – just in case and to prevent “power” from being passed to the Executive Branch.  Let’s just say everyone followed Ron Paul’s lead.  How would we fund the government?  Would every piece of legislation also carry no less than 535 earmarks?

Now you may say that in a perfect world you’d change the system; you’d eliminate layers of bureaucracy, you’d defund unnecessary aspects of the federal government, etc, etc…  My question.  Where’s that Ron Paul proposal?  If his campaign is genuinely about winning the White House and not simply throwing a curve ball to the rest of the field, wouldn’t one expect him to produce a roadmap for how his rigid ideology will lead to sound governance?

Pick an issue.  He makes the case for day one fundamental transformation of nearly every major sector of government at the federal level, yet he spends the balance of his time in front of the American voting public ranting about how we are forcing Iran to go nuclear?  Spare me.  Come back when your message has some substance.  Trading Republican rhetoric for that of another kind – with no plan for what to do with it after election – Ha.  Pass.  Congressman Paul gets a (2), because he’s absolutely wasting my time.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made a rare in studio appearance on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this morning and was asked to weigh in on the GOP primary contest and the role of Tea Party versus The Establishment in 2012 and going forward.  Wallace also addressed the coming release of a movie produced by HBO based on the best selling book Game Change which at least appears from trailers to portray the former governor in a less than flattering light.

On the last front there – Game Change – Palin looks to be wisely taking the higher ground.  She says she has bigger things to worry about than how HBO makes her look in a TV movie.  While appearing generally dismissive of the movie’s release, she firmly denied reports of a “breakdown” as depicted in the trailers.

As to the Tea Party versus The Establishment debate, Palin was Palin – totally vague and free-flowing with red meat.

PALIN:  ”Tea Party members of Congress have fulfilled their promise to the people that hired them.  In some ways, they’ve been punished… We would hope that the leadership in Congress – especially in our own party – that they would start accepting and appreciating these Tea Party members have done.  And I would like to see them in leadership positions.”

WALLACE:  Who is the Republican Establishment?  And is John Boehner part of the establishment?  Is Mitch McConnell part of the establishment?  And are they part of the problem?

PALIN:  ”I’d consider anyone part of the establishment – those today who are fighting to keep the status quo.  Those who are allowing government to grow; who are allowing the president that plastic credit card that’s increasing debt; and they are not engaging in that sudden and relentless reform that we need in order to defend our Republic in order to get us off the road to bankruptcy.”

Palin’s broad talking point is that The Establishment doesn’t want to change Washington, because they’re “doing just fine.”  It’s an argument I wholeheartedly agree with.  The only point of contention I have with folks like the former governor is that at some point the “outsiders” become the “insiders”; and I’m not sure that anyone similarly situated realizes that the change has occurred until it is far too late to doing anything about it.  I can’t help but wonder if Gov Palin has unknowingly crossed that line.

Those that use “establishment” in the traditional sense of the word would probably not include a Sarah Palin in that higher class – and I would offer nothing that would aim to change that.  What I would suggest is that folks like Sarah Palin would like nothing more than to replace said “establishment” with one of their own creation.  I’ll leave to your better judgment whether the new boss would end up looking any different than the old one.  A king maker is still a king maker from where I’m sitting.

As Wallace transitioned to a discussion of the current GOP field, I found myself once again scratching my head trying to figure out what Palin’s angle is in this election cycle.  Is she a closet Gingrich supporter like most believe?  Is she crossing her fingers for a brokered convention?  Is she waiting to be drafted to oppose Romney should Gingrich and Santorum make an early exit?  Is she really undecided?  Does she secretly want an Obama victory so she’d have another crack at it in 2016 – before being replaced by the likes of Rubio, Rand Paul, Ryan, or any VP that would be on a Republican ticket in 2012 and/or 2016?

Beyond that, I’m more than confused with where she stands regarding Mitt Romney… and this interview surely did nothing to answer any of my questions.

WALLACE:  What do you think of Mitt Romney?

PALIN:  I think he’s a great candidate.  I honestly think that we have a good slate of candidates – the four of them all with their individual strengths Chris and each of them, I believe, are getting stronger; they’re getting better; and that’s what competition provides.  That’s why I want to see the competition continue.

WALLACE:  Do you trust that Mitt Romney is an instinctive conservative?

PALIN:  I trust that his idea of conservatism is evolving.  And I base this on a pretty moderate past that he has had – even in some cases a pretty liberal past.  Here, he agreed with mandating on a state level what his constituents needed to be provided needed to purchase health care under Romney Care – which of course was the precursor to Obamneycare – to ObamaCare – now that’s a problem. Ha. Yeah ObamneyCare.  (Please tell me she remembers the Pawlenty ObamneyCare fiasco?  It spelled the beginning of the end of Pawlenty’s candidacy)

WALLACE:  Freudian slip? Haha.

PALIN:  Yeah that’s a new one.  We’ll coin that one. So it is evolving, but what I want to see is that candidate… who we can trust will inherently, instinctively, turn right – always err on the side of conservatism – which means smaller smarter government, more empowerment for the individual; for the private sector.

WALLACE:  It sounds like at this point you’re not convinced?

PALIN:  I am not convinced. And I don’t think the majority of GOP and independent voters are convinced.  And that is why you don’t see Romney get over that hump.  He’s still in the 30% mark when it comes to approval, primary wins, and caucus wins.  He still hasn’t risen above that yet, because we are not convinced.

WALLACE:  But governor, he’s been running for 5 years.

PALIN:  And he’s spent millions and millions and millions of dollars and he hasn’t risen yet.

WALLACE:  What does he have to do?

PALIN:  He still needs to be able to articulate what his solutions are to the challenges facing America – but not just Mitt.  All four of them.  They need to quit beating each other up.  We already know that the Left and the media allies to the Left are going to beat up our candidates; they’re going to attack their reputations; they’re going to target their families; we don’t need to do that job for them.  We need to hear from our candidates the solutions – what is their plan to get us back on the right road in America – we haven’t heard that yet.  The discussion needs to continue until we hear that.

She begins by calling him a “great candidate”; then says he has a liberal past; and finishes by saying he’s spent millions and millions and millions of dollars and still isn’t good enough?  I’d hate to hear what she might say about a less than great candidate.

Here’s why Governor Palin is anything but my cup of tea.  More accurately, here’s why she makes my head feel like it’s going to explode…

1. Her closing argument here is that no one in the GOP field is “articulating solutions to the challenged facing America.”  Fair point.  Only problem is that never – in the Era of Sarah Palin – have I ever heard her “articulate” anything beyond a laundry list of bumper sticker talking points.  Why’s the standard so much higher for Mitt, Newt, Rick and Ron?
2. She says “all four of them” need to “quit beating each other up”… Yet in this interview, she says Romney’s view of conservatism is “evolving”; she says his past record is moderate to liberal; and she says he’s spent millions and millions and millions of dollars but still doesn’t measure up.  She wants a contested primary, but she wants to be the only one allowed to have an opinion or share a less than favorable one?  Spare me.
3. This woman has made a name – and a brand – for herself serving as the self-appointed arbiter of all things conservative; yet she has to have Chris Wallace force her into an honest answer on the issue of whether Romney’s the best choice for conservative Republicans?  She begins by calling him a “great candidate.”  If her litmus test is truly conservatism, is “great” really be an adjective she should be choosing?  Of course not.  Tolerable, maybe.  Better than Obama, I’ll buy it.  But conservative?  Not so much.  She’s talking out of both ends here folks.

I know many of you think Sarah Palin walks on water.  I get it.  Spare me the hate emails.  I’m fully aware that she’s an ally – not an enemy.  That said, when are you going to realize she’s as phony as the rest of these A-holes?  When are you going to realize that she’s as self-interested in the outcome of this election as anyone in Washington?  Her motivation may have two heads – saving the Union and saving the Palin brand – but one would have to be a fool to ignore that in her mind the two are somehow connected.

—

Watch the interview if you’d like.  I fell asleep twice attempting the effort.  By the third time, an overwhelming sense of anger and frustration was the only thing keeping my eyes open.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum made an appearance on Meet the Press with David Gregory Sunday morning and immediately found himself defending his campaign from the blatant bias and outright ridiculousness that typifies Gregory’s program.  Spinning away from the “contraception controversy” to a discussion of the 9th Circuit’s decision regarding Prop 8 in California, Gregory demonstrated precisely how the MSM and the Left plan to marginalize Santorum’s candidacy should he ultimately emerge as the Party’s nominee.

Here was Gregory’s question / lead-in.  ”I want to stay on some of the social issues that seem to define your campaign… I want to talk about gay marriage… If the Supreme Court decided that gays and lesbians had a Constitutional Right to marry, what would President Santorum do?  Would you respect that decision?”

Watch the video for the answer, but before you go… ponder this.  Have conservatives like Rick Santorum made these issues center pieces of their campaigns; or has the MSM and the Left made these issues – national issues – so that we could spend weeks asking questions about “gay marriage” rather than questions about our economy or failed policies of the Obama administration?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum scored a huge victory Tuesday night in the race for the Republican nomination – three if you’re really counting.  Winning Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado; the Iowa Caucus victor firmly cemented his place in the field going forward and will no doubt give pause to many who had assumed Former Speaker Newt Gingrich would emerge as the primary Non-Romney challenger as this race moves toward Super Tuesday.

In recent days, polling in both Minnesota and Missouri seemed to predict an impressive night for Senator Santorum was a real possibility; but I’m fairly certain that few outside the Santorum campaign saw a clean sweep could be in the making.  Regardless of the actual stakes involved in any of these contests, Santorum has clearly made his mark on this campaign by proving the Iowa victory was not a one-and-done.  In sports, people often say “you’re only as good as your last performance.”  With three wins Tuesday night, Senator Santorum is looking pretty good.

“Conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota.”

“Tonight was not just a victory for us.  Tonight was a victory for the voices of our Party – conservatives and Tea Party people who are out there everyday… building the conservative movement in this country, building the base of the Republican Party, and building the voice of Freedom in this land.”

“I don’t stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.  I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.”

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani made an appearance on Face the Nation Sunday Morning and gave what may have been the most honest and telling interview I have ever seen from “America’s Mayor.”  He openly described himself as a ”Pro Choice Republican”; he embraced the label that he’s previously shunned – moderate republican; and he very plainly shared his thoughts on the current GOP field and the Republican Party as a whole.  When was the last time you heard Rudy being this forthright?

On Governor Mitt Romney and his history of evolving positions on social issues…

“I am a moderate Republican, so I’d be inclined to support someone like Mitt Romney; but all those changes in positions give me pause.”

On whether or not he regrets not entering this race…

“No, no, no… If Mitt Romney having changed all those positions isn’t conservative enough yet; believe me, I wouldn’t have had a chance.  I’m realistic enough to know how Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida would vote.  And they would like me on economics, and they would like me on national security, but they wouldn’t like me on my social views and I’m not about to change them.  They’re very much with me.”

On if there is still such a thing as a Moderate Republican…

“When I look at the whole picture of republicans, on two areas – gay rights and choice – I would be considered a moderate… And both of those positions are positions of conscience for me.  I can’t change them.  Even if I got elected president, I couldn’t change those positions – wouldn’t be able to operate effectively and honestly.”

Who is this guy?

Don’t get me wrong.  Rudy’s right.  There is no way in seven kinds of hell that he could have claimed the GOP nomination by saying the things he said in this interview.  While I am anything but a “one-issue” Republican, I do recognize the fact that abortion is and probably always will be a deal breaker with many in my Party.  From where I sit, I’ve always taken the view that a candidate flawed on 99% of the issues is no less flawed because he happens to say he’s Pro-Life.  But I suppose that’s neither here nor there as Rudy was really just touching on the issue of Mitt Romney’s evolving positions over the years.

On that front, while I appreciate Rudy’s honesty here, I still struggle with those who take issue with Romney’s somewhat checkered past on the issue of Life.  In my world, I often say that I “endeavor not to change minds, but only to demonstrate the ability to do so.”  Yes, I know that’s vague; but hang with me.  Here’s the thing.  If we’re truly in a battle for the soul of our great nation – and Abortion is the fundamental issue – why would we castigate and condemn someone who’s seen the error in his ways and come over to our side of the issue?  It just seems counter-intuitive to me.  We want to share with the world the importance of all Life; and then as soon as someone agrees with us, we distrust them like an outsider?

I guess what I’m really getting at here is this.  Politicians will say absolutely anything to get elected.  It’s only after they’ve run their last campaign that we truly get to see what really rests at their core.  I think this video offers a glimpse of that which drives Mayor Giuliani.  He tried to embrace the Pro-Life message – because he had to if he wanted to get elected as a Republican, nationally.  But looking back, and gazing upon a Giuliani free of the shackles of campaigning, we see that he was only playing the game.

My question is this.  When will we ever get to a day or a place where this issue won’t be the starting point for choosing our candidates?  Because again, from where I sit, the whole thing looks rather ridiculous.