American Maggie

As of Friday November 20, a Google search of the words, “Sarah” and “Palin,” in that order, produced a results page of 8,510,000 hits. Compare that to Joe Biden’s 2,150,000 and even John McCain’s 6,730,000. And to think that just 18 months ago, the name Sarah Palin was barely known outside the cold confines of the hockey-loving state of Alaska. Then McCain had to go and pick her to be his running mate.

What happened in the following months is a story that all Americans know and maybe love, but have definitely not grown tired of talking about. Frankly, to not have heard the tales of Palin you’d have to be well, dead. With the exception of Barack Obama, rarely does a politician ignite such a firestorm in the press. And rarely does a candidate attract such a united flock of conservative supporters and good ol’ average Americans. Not only that, but Palin managed to elicit attack after attack from those in the media.

But in the year since the end of the presidential campaigns, the Palin love-fests and hate-fests have continued. Her critics in the media however, haven’t been without help. During the campaign she gave them a sometimes on, sometimes off conservative, pro-life hockey mom-turned politician. After the campaign, she practically handed them their own ammunition by resigning as governor of Alaska. Her new autobiography “Going Rogue” isn’t helping things either.

Wall Street Journal opinion columnist Thomas Frank recently called Palin a “whiner,” writing “now her knack for self-pity is on full display in her book.” The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan wrote, “It [Going Rogue] resembles not so much a memoir as a work of magical realism…Palin has a long and documented record of saying things that are empirically untrue but asserting them as if her own imagination is the only source of objective reality.”

Those two snippets are only a very tiny fraction of the skepticism in the media right now directed at Palin’s book, Going Rogue. But is this cynicism really surprising? Before the book was even published, rumors circulated that it contained nothing more than petty vindictiveness and revenge against the McCain’s staff for mismanaging the campaign and muzzling her every chance they got.

Since the book’s release, those rumors have proved to actually be somewhat accurate. Of course, Palin would probably never call it “revenge” per se, just revealing the facts. For example, she accuses the McCain campaign of making her pay $50,000 in legal fees during the vetting process, keeping her away from the media and not adequately preparing her when she was able to do interviews, and not defending her during the expensive clothing debacle, among other things. Palin even takes a few shots at Katie Couric, saying the CBS anchor was badgering, condescending and biased during that infamous interview.

Palin’s account of all things 2008 may indeed be what really took place, even if McCain staffers deny it. But if the former vice presidential candidate is really concerned about being treated unfairly in the press, maybe writing a book to settle old scores and make accusations wasn’t the best or smartest move.

On the flip side, should the Associated Press have assigned 11 reporters to fact check the entire book? No, because a news outlet like the AP should be focused on reporting the book like they would any other political memoir. Not doing so does indeed display bias. Nor should Newsweek have put Palin on the cover in running shorts. Agree with her politics or not, Palin should receive the same respect as any other vice presidential candidate.

But should Sarah Palin really be surprised? In a word: No. Once she made the decision to go ahead with the book, she should have prepared herself for the media onslaught; just as she should have when she was announced as McCain’s running mate. Despite this, news outlets like the AP are giving her reason after reason to accuse them of bias and unfair treatment.

Sarah Palin is, to be sure, a great American. But as we’ve seen in the last 18 months, being a great American does not always make for great leadership, nor does it qualify you for public office. The media should cover her for exactly what she is- former governor of Alaska and vice presidential candidate (even if she does have over 8 million Google hits!). That seems to be enough for her millions of supporters; it should be for the media too.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

When the U.S. House of Representatives passed their healthcare bill last weekend, it included a strong individual mandate that would require that all Americans buy health insurance. And according to Politco.com, the penalty for not complying with the mandate could be a fine as high as $3,800 a year per family.

Proponents of the mandate have offered fairly run of the mill arguments: it will drive down costs, it will prevent Americans from having to shoulder the bill of someone else without insurance (where was this argument when welfare was created?), etc. etc.

Disregarding the fact that this individual mandate is a tax increase, which completely contradicts President Obama’s campaign pledge not to raise taxes, some questions are being raised about its constitutionality.  In a recent conference call with reporters, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said, “Whether it’s constitutional or not ought to have the most debate.”

Grassley is right to raise this concern, even if others don’t think so. The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein responded by saying “Before we get down this road, yes, the individual mandate is constitutional […] you can look at the individual mandate as a tax, which is constitutional.”

Klein went on to write that Republicans voicing this concern are just “getting a bit desperate.” He also cited examples like the individual mandate in Massachusetts’ healthcare plan (their system may be bankrupt, but at least its constitutionality hasn’t been challenged!) and the fact that numerous Republicans like Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander, Norm Coleman, and Bob Corker have all come out in support for a mandate.

But another common argument for the constitutionality of an individual mandate cites the ever-so-popular and commonly misconstrued Interstate Commerce Clause.  According to Wake Forest University law professor Mark Hall, “…a mandate to purchase health insurance appears to fall fairly readily within the current breadth of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.”

And yet another angle was tried recently by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer when he said the mandate was constitutional because it promotes the general welfare: “The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.”

So is there any weight behind these explanations for the constitutionality for a law that would essentially criminalize any individual who opted not to buy a certain product in the private sector?  In a word: No.

As every American Government 101 class used to teach, the Constitution clearly outlines the powers that are enumerated to the federal government in Article 1, Section 8.  And anything not explicitly enumerated? The 10^th Amendment took care of that: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So does an individual mandate for buying health insurance fall in the category of powers delegated to the United States? If you’re Ezra Klein, it does because well, it’s a tax! But according to the Constitution, an individual mandate cannot be a tax because it is not an excise, capitation, or income tax; the only taxes established in the Constitution.

Clearly, a mandate that fines people for not buying a product does not fall into any of these categories because it’s not a surcharge on a purchase, a fixed amount levied on all individuals, or a charge on one’s income. So while it is indeed a “tax,” it is not one that has been authorized by the Constitution.

That leaves the Commerce Clause argument. In the past, it has been grossly misinterpreted in landmark Supreme Court cases like Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich. In both instances, the Court ruled that the federal government had the power to regulate substances that were neither sold nor bought, but grown on private property for personal use.

With an individual mandate however, the government would be fining people for not buying health insurance; no commercial activity would be taking place. But that is an essential qualifier for the commerce clause. Thus it would be difficult for the most Washington-savvy politician or lawyer to argue otherwise, even with the appalling Supreme Court precedents.

But President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have embraced the individual mandate because they know it is the only way universal healthcare can be funded. Not only that, but with the new regulations that say health insurance companies must provide coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, it would make little sense for people to buy coverage before illness hit; unless of course, they are threatened with a massive fine.

An individual mandate is anything but constitutional; that much could be clear to anyone who studies that great document penned by our Founding Fathers. Furthermore, if said mandate becomes law, what’s to stop the powers in D.C. from “taxing” people who don’t buy organic produce, go to public schools, or drive hybrid vehicles? Any reason given to justify a “tax” on individuals for not purchasing health insurance could just as easily be applied to any number of behaviors. A chilling thought, indeed.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

There was no lifelong dream fueling my entry into politics, I entered politics as a reaction to what was going on in my life at that time. I was a mother of three daughters under age 4, working as a law clerk at the state Supreme Court and handling my life. One day, my husband, a physician received a call about the need to get involved in a battle at the state legislature- a battle that affected our very livelihood. That was my call to action. And, I have never looked back.

It was never my dream to be in politics….NEVER !  My life’s plan was to raise my family and practice law. Now, this is not to say that I was not involved in the process: I voted in every election, I was a member of the TARs (Teen Aged Republicans) in the late ‘60’s and I volunteered in some campaigns for my friends’ fathers. But, not me-  a life of politics was not something I planned. Often people plan a career around running for office; for others, making the decision to run is sometimes a gut reaction to what is going on in your arena. That call rocked my world- and changed it.

My first campaign was successful despite my lack of campaign knowledge and experience so I offer some suggestions for making the decision to run.

1)      Know your strengths and weaknesses as well as those of your potential opponents

In today’s world of social media, any photo that was ever taken of you can be posted. You certainly do not want a ”Paris Hilton moment” or even something less risqué. Remember, jilted fiancés, angry neighbors, and disgruntled employees all have a means by which to torpedo your aspirations.

2)      Be able to answer the question: Why are you running ?

Ted Kennedy’s Presidential aspirations imploded when he could not answer the question: “Why are you running?” If you are not able to state at least one good reason you are running then you should not be running. This is not only because you need to answer that question in public but you need to answer that question for yourself. My first election was for the New Orleans City Council and I ran because I was raising my children in a City with the nation’s highest crime rate and I wanted them to be safe, I was scared. They say if good people who have the knowledge and ability to serve don’t run for office, then you get second rate politicians.  Bad politicians usually result in bad government.

3)      Prepare your family and friends.

Have a real, heart-to-heart, conversation with your family. Let them know what to expect and warn them that the campaign can get nasty. My daughters were in high school and college when I ran for the United States Senate, and even at that age, they were not prepared to see their mother get hurt in a campaign. Also, remember your family is your refuge. I have a few “home rules.” First, don’t make the campaign the center of your life at home. (Tivo/DVR is great for not being bombarded with negative ads.)  Second, try to have at least one meal a day at home with your family, it keeps you grounded and they know that they are an important part of your life; and, third, try to never miss an athletic event or school function. Remember: someone has to be the mother and, no matter how equal your marriage, it is usually the woman.

Your friends are hard because in the early stages you have to depend on them for your initial support, your seed money and your first open houses. When you ask a friend for help you can feel as if you are imposing and, even though a person is your personal friend, they may not be your political friend.

4)      Learn to raise money.

Only once in my political career have I used a professional fundraiser and that was in a race for the United States Senate; but, I have never had trouble asking for money. How to ask?  Practice. Fundraising is something that can be learned by raising money for a candidate, your children’s school, a non-profit in your area, or a cause that is important to you. Once you learn how to ask and sell that product, you learn to ask and sell yourself. Donors love to be in contact with the potential candidate and you have to be ready for rejection. If someone says no, don’t write them off, go back. It is always surprising who will give you money and for what reason.

5)      Be a filter.

Throughout your planning and decision making process, be prepared to filter the information you are receiving. You will hear all kinds of rumors, receive all sorts of advice, and all kinds of people will want to help. Use your filtering system to determine what is important and what is not- is it really important that your potential opponent is at a school fair? It depends.

Is the campaign consultant who ran your Congresswoman’s campaign the best person for your judgeship race? Maybe not. Ultimately, you are the best judge, filter the information and trust your gut.

6)      Don’t run to gain name recognition.

I have heard time and again about people running for office knowing they cannot win in order to build name recognition. Don’t do it! Why put your family and friends through a campaign if you know you won’t win just to build name ID? There are plenty of ways to build name ID in your community. You can help in the aforementioned fundraising efforts, you can help another candidate (that also gets that person’s supporters on your side), you can get involved in your church or neighborhood group. But, don’t put yourself, your friends and your family through a campaign you know you can’t win just to build a name.

7)      Be prepared to lose.

The first time I asked myself the question “What happens if I lose?” It was the night before my first election- it was a question I should have asked before I qualified. You never want to lose, but you need to know what can happen if you do. Will you lose your job? Will you lose clients? What will you do after the campaign? How will your family fare?

Losing is a reality because someone has to lose. It is important to remember that an election doesn’t reflect on your worth but is merely a day in the life of the community. It depends who turned out, what they were thinking, what was on the news the night before, etc. Be prepared for the good and the bad.

It is important that good, conservative women enter the political arena at all levels. My convictions are stronger now than ever. And like so many women out there, I do not believe that Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer speak for me. Now, the question remains: will we sit on the sidelines, accept the status quo and wait for someone else to step up? Or are we going to answer the call ?

******

Suzanne Haik Terrell is the Founder and Co-Chairman of Project GOPink.  A lawyer by training, Terrell has served in appointed and elected office.  Elected statewide in 1999, Terrell remains the only Republican woman ever elected to statewide office in Louisiana.  In 2002, she won the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate and lost in the closely watched national campaign against the Democratic incumbent.  The race was historic for the fact that it was the first Senate race in history with two women representing their respective parties.  Terrell lives in New Orleans with her husband of more than thirty years, they have three daughters.