For the last week, The Usual Suspects have tried to belittle every aspect of Gov. Sarah Palin’s political life and, sadly, her personal life as well. On the political front, one of the most pointed criticisms about her has been in response to the claim made by McCain campaign staffers and surrogates that she is the CIC of the Alaska National Guard. Predictable liberel blogs like the HuffPo have led the ridiculing of this claim by pointing to information that is incomplete, by referencing half truths, and in some cases just by flat out lying.
Last night on Greta Van Susteren’s show on Fox, Major General Craig Campbell, who is the head of the Alaska National Guard, deflated a lot of what the far left has said in response to the claim about Gov. Palin’s role as CIC of the AK NG (h/t: Jennifer Rubin):
Maj. Gen. Campbell’s defense of Gov. Palin won’t by any measure stop the whining and blubbering currently being engaged in by people who wouldn’t support the Governor if she’d had 30 years experience in government at a state level, but for people with an open mind who have wondered, “Just what responsibilities does being the CIC of a state’s National Guard entail?” - now you have a good idea.
The YouTube video is above is just part of the story Van Sustern did on Gov. Palin. She interviewed the current mayor of Wasilla in addition to Campbell. Here’s the complete segment, via Ed Morrissey:
In an article trying to downplay Gov. Palin’s experience as CinC of Alaska’s NG, the LA Times (perhaps inadvertently) included information that helped bolster the case that it’s not just the figurehead role some have made it out to be (h/t: Memeorandum):
Commanding the Alaska National Guard is hardly an insignificant job, military officials say. Still, they acknowledge that it provides little, if any, foreign policy experience.
Overseeing a state Guard is a “chief executive role” with real management responsibilities, said Mark Allen, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau, the federal office that coordinates state National Guards.
“I don’t think people should think it is a casual relationship, or is like the king putting on the medals,” Allen said. “It is not that at all. But the role of the governor is to use the Guard to help the citizens of a state, as opposed to declaring war on a neighboring state.”
[...]
National Guard officials said visits such as Palin’s trip to Iraq may be important because state officials can lobby the federal government for better training and more equipment if they are needed. There is no indication that during her trip Palin found major problems with how the Alaska Guard was trained or equipped.
Closer to home, the bread-and-butter duties of most state National Guards are natural disasters. During Palin’s 21 months in office, there has been one declared disaster: widespread flooding in June and July this year. Palin quickly signed a disaster declaration, officials said. The Guard’s role was limited to providing two water tanks and 30,000 sandbags to local authorities.
The Alaska Air National Guard, with 1,946 service members, is involved in an exceptional number of search-and-rescue missions. Since Palin became governor in December 2006, the Air Guard has flown 521 missions, saving 200 lives and assisting with the rescue of 77 more people, said Kalei Brooks, a spokeswoman for the Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.
To my knowledge, no one within the McCain campaign has ever said that Palin’s role as CIC of the AK NG involved commanding troops to go to war in a foreign land. Duh. Doesn’t everyone know that’s the President’s job? Apparently everyone but the mainstream media and many far left liberal critics who - surprise - don’t really “get” the military anyway, because they despise it. Gov. Palin’s role as AK CinC is just one of many important parts of her role as chief executive of the State of Alaska, and it’s one more reminder of the executive experience that Senator Inexperienced Obama can’t claim for himself … that is, unless he really does believe he’s already president, and the evidence is mounting up that he does - considering the faux presidential seal, the “diplomatic” overseas tour …
The immediate uproar from the left over John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate has, at least for me, brought back memories of the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. There are some very interesting comparisons to be made here, especially for those too young to remember the Thomas confirmation hearings.
Thomas, a conservative Republican African-American, was nominated by President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1991 to become the second black Supreme Court justice succeeding Thurgood Marshall, a liberal icon of the Civil Rights era. That Thomas was conservative and a critic of affirmative action was a red flag in the eyes of liberals, especially black liberals. They saw in Thomas a rejection of the notion that African-Americans needed special treatment in order to succeed in a racist American society. To the liberals in the Democratic Party and various political activist groups, Thomas’ nomination had to be defeated at all costs.
First, they argued that he was unqualified for the position. Thomas, however, proved a feisty opponent as the confirmation hearings proceeded. He was making his opponents on the Judiciary Committee look like the small people they were.
Then they dug up Anita Hill, who came to testify that, as a former employee of Thomas, he had pursued her for a relationship in inappropriate ways. In other words, Thomas had been guilty of sexual harassment. Thomas, for his part, denied the charges angrily as stories of pornography and inappropriate language and conduct were hurled at him-without proof. In the end, Hill’s testimony could not be corroborated, and Thomas was confirmed after a humiliating process played out in front of a national TV audience. Since then, Thomas has served as a solid conservative on the Supreme Court, hated to this day by liberals and groups such as the NAACP. What was Clarence Thomas’ crime? He was a black conservative. To this day, he shares the fate of all black conservatives in America-castigated and insulted as an “Uncle Tom” and a “sell-out”.
Ironically, one of Thomas’ biggest thorns on the Judiciary Committee was Joe Biden, for whom Thomas had harsh words in his memoirs. Biden was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who presided over the ugliest confirmation hearing in memory.(He voted against Thomas.)
Now along comes Sarah Palin, right on the heels of Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign to become the first female president. Unlike Hillary, however, Palin is a conservative. She is the embodiment of what so-called feminists profess they dream about-a woman who works hard and makes it on her own ability-independent of being the spouse or girlfriend of some powerful man. In reality, Palin is the woman’s equivalent of Clarence Thomas. Her elevation to Vice-President is completely unacceptable to liberals and feminists. Never mind that she enjoys an approval rating among Alaskans at 80%. Never mind that the Republicans have accepted her enthusiastically. She is unacceptable to “them”.
Why? Several reasons. First, she is conservative-a Republican. (How dare the Republicans put the first female in the White House as VP-that’s the “Democrat destiny”.) Second, she is a family woman. Married-not to some rich, powerful man-but to a blue collar worker. She has five children-the last born in April with Downs Syndrome. This leads to perhaps the biggest objection. Palin chose to have the baby. She is anti-abortion.
Therein lies the problem for Democrats, liberals and feminists: Palin’s elevation, like that of Thomas before her, sends a message to women that they don’t want women to hear. That message is about family, conservative values and life-as opposed to abortion.
Thomas’ message was and is that African-Americans or anybody else can make it in today’s America through their talents and hard work. For the left, he was a figure that had to be stopped at any cost. Smear him, destroy him, destroy his family-whatever it takes.
Now we see it repeating itself with Sarah Palin. From day one, the left has mounted a campaign to stop this woman by whatever means necessary. Like Thomas, they say she is unqualified by nature of her political experience (which is arguably at least equal to if not greater than Barack Obama). Now, in short order, we see the personal smears. First, it was the Daily Kos running with a wild rumor that Palin was not the real mother of her baby, Trig-rather it was her daughter, Bristol, 17, who was the real mother. Faced with that flying around the blogosphere and being repeated by the media, Palin announced that Bristol was pregnant and expecting in December. So now, we watch the Democrats and their allies in the media spouting moral outrage. How could this Sarah Palin run for Vice President with a 17-year-old pregnant, unmarried daughter-plus a baby with Downs Syndrome? How could she? She is not a fit mother. Never mind that if Palin were a liberal Democrat, the left would be celebrating her as a modern-day WOMAN-especially if she aborted that baby. Since when did the left become the new “Moral majority” in this country? Since when did they become the guardians of our morals in the bedroom?
The Palin saga is going to get much uglier. This is an all-out attempt to drive her from the ticket-to humiliate her and her family until she throws in the towel and withdraws. It is the same tactic that was used-and failed with Clarence Thomas-a good and decent man who refused to back down. I hope that Palin, whatever the sacrifice, will stand her ground. If she does, I think the American people will stand with her.
gary fouse
fousesquawk
Comment by gary fouse @ 9/7/2008 - 7:40 pm
Great Video of her in Action at LINK
Clearly she’s in charge of the Guard for that state!
Comment by Silent Majority @ 9/8/2008 - 5:52 pm