Morning Jolt - Dick Cheney: Well, That Sarah Palin Was No Me

NRO Newsletters . . .

Morning Jolt

. . . with Jim Geraghty

July 30, 2012

In This Issue . . .

1. Dick Cheney: Well, That Sarah Palin Was No Me

2. Prime Minister Netanyahu's Totally-Not-an-Endorsement Appearance with Romney

3. Mayor Bloomberg, Regulating the Space between Babies and Breasts

4. Addendum

Here's your Monday Morning Jolt.

Enjoy!

Jim

1. Dick Cheney: Well, That Sarah Palin Was No Me

Dick Cheney probably won't make the Palins' Christmas Card list this year.

Cheney would not comment on what he told Romney and Myers, but he was harsh in his assessment of McCain's decision to pick Palin.

"That one," Cheney said, "I don't think was well handled."

"The test to get on that small list has to be, 'Is this person capable of being president of the United States?'"

Cheney believes Sarah Palin failed that test.

"I like Governor Palin. I've met her. I know her. She -- attractive candidate. But based on her background, she'd only been governor for, what, two years. I don't think she passed that test . . . of being ready to take over. And I think that was a mistake."

Melissa Clouthier disagrees with Cheney's take: "In fact, in one of the most atrocious presidential campaigns ever, @SarahPalinUSA was the bright spot."

Our Greg Pollowitz observes, "If Palin wasn't on the ticket, she would've wowed with a regular convention speech & she'd probably be the nominee now."

It's not an absolute certainty that history would unfold as Greg predicts, but we can look at a two-term governor, with a solid record of reform and taking on established interests, and dream of what an electoral powerhouse that would have been . . .

Of course, now the Palin who we'll see on our television screens this autumn is (sigh) Bristol, on Dancing with the Stars again.

But the good news for Palin is that there is some Cheney family dissent: "Rarely do I disagree with the best Vice President ever but Sarah Palin was more qualified than Obama and Biden combined. Huge respect for all she's done for the GOP," writes Liz Cheney.

2. Prime Minister Netanyahu's Totally-Not-an-Endorsement Appearance with Romney

Meanwhile, overseas . . .

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that sanctions against Iran -- largely pushed by President Barack Obama -- have failed to stop that country's nuclear program.

Speaking with presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney at his side, Netanyahu said a "strong and credible military threat" was needed on top of the sanctions to get Iran to make a change.

"I think it's important to do everything in our power to prevent the Ayatollahs from possessing that capability," Netanyahu said. "We have to be honest and say that all the sanctions and diplomacy so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota. And that's why I believe that we need a strong and credible military threat coupled with the sanctions to have a chance to change that situation."

Jen Rubin notices the Romney campaign sending little signals with its dateline:

Without specifically criticizing President Obama in his speech in Jerusalem, Mitt Romney delivered a blow to the Obama campaign's frantic efforts to defend the president's hostile stance toward the Jewish state simply by saying: "It is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel." The Obama administration can't even say that much, a sign of how reflectively protective of the Palestinians' sensibilities is this president. Of course, Jerusalem is the capital. It was declared so in 1948. The Knesset is there. The disposition of its borders is a matter for final status negotiation, but only an uninformed or virulently insensitive administration would be unable to distinguish the two.

In a bit of cleverness the Romney team sent out the text of the speech with this header: "Mitt Romney today delivered remarks to the Jerusalem Foundation in Jerusalem, Israel." That is a deliberate dig at this administration. which has repeatedly put out documents suggesting that Jerusalem isn't in Israel and has attempted to scrub from the White House Web site the reference to Israel's capital.

As for Romney's remarks, this is a good taste:

Our two nations are separated by more than 5,000 miles. But for an American abroad, you can't get much closer to the ideals and convictions of my own country than you do in Israel. We're part of the great fellowship of democracies. We speak the same language of freedom and justice, and the right of every person to live in peace. We serve the same cause and provoke the same hatreds in the same enemies of civilization.

It is my firm conviction that the security of Israel is in the vital national security interest of the United States. And ours is an alliance based not only on shared interests but also on enduring shared values.

Rick Moran explains why this may be a big deal:

The key difference -- and the one that matters most to the Israelis -- is that Obama would act militarily only if Tehran actually built a weapon. Proof of that would only come with some sort of test by the Iranians -- something that they aren't stupid enough to do.

Romney, on the other hand, agrees with the Israeli position that the Iranians must be prevented from developing the capability to construct a weapon. There are several red lines involved in this policy and will be just as difficult to judge as the Obama position. But the tripwire is thinner and there are some in Israel who believe the Iranians have already crossed the threshold.

If Israel decides to act, they are going to need American cover at the UN and in the international arena. Romney just may have signalled a willingness to provide that cover under most circumstances. It is a significant development and will no doubt be included in Israeli calculations as a decision is being made about what to do with Iran.

Considering the consequences of an Iranian nuclear weapon, it's rather stunning how rarely that issue garners the big headlines.

3. Mayor Bloomberg, Regulating the Space between Babies and Breasts

Remember, women, the important thing is that progressives respect you and your right to make your own choices about your body.

Mayor Bloomberg is pushing hospitals to hide their baby formula behind locked doors so more new mothers will breast-feed.

Starting Sept. 3, the city will keep tabs on the number of bottles that participating hospitals stock and use -- the most restrictive pro-breast-milk program in the nation.

Under the city Health Department's voluntary Latch On NYC initiative, 27 of the city's 40 hospitals have also agreed to give up swag bags sporting formula-company logos, toss out formula-branded tchotchkes like lanyards and mugs, and document a medical reason for every bottle that a newborn receives.

While breast-feeding activists applaud the move, bottle-feeding moms are bristling at the latest lactation lecture.

"If they put pressure on me, I would get annoyed," said Lynn Sidnam, a Staten Island mother of two formula-fed girls, ages 4 months and 9 years. "It's for me to choose."

Under Latch On NYC, new mothers who want formula won't be denied it, but hospitals will keep infant formula in out-of-the-way secure storerooms or in locked boxes like those used to dispense and track medications.

With each bottle a mother requests and receives, she'll also get a talking-to. Staffers will explain why she should offer the breast instead.

This is raising hackles outside of conservative circles. "Gothamist Executive Editor Jen Chung, mother of one, shared her mixed feelings with us: "For many women, breastfeeding is HARD, that's why there are lactation consultants who charge like $175/private visit or $35 for a 15-minute phone call after you leave the hospital. And when the breastfeeding isn't going well, it really makes the mom depressed. For some moms and babies, it's easy, for others, it's harder. I definitely think moms should give it a try for as long as they can but they shouldn't feel like terrible mothers if they can't or that the hospital/medical professionals won't support them. Keeping formula 'locked up' is also weird -- moms could just make their partners/friends buy it from the drug store.'"

Doug Johnson sees echoes of national policy to come in Bloomberg's decision: "Hardly anyone disagrees that breastfeeding is what new babies need, and the formula (while safe and effective) does not match breast milk in providing what babies need. Still, this is the kind of bureaucratic overreach that government control of health care famous that we are in store for. Your future under Obamacare is playing out right in front of your eyes in New York City . . ."

Is anyone else dumbfounded that the most draconian of food and health laws are being enacted in "hey, fuggedaboudit" New York City? This is the city of pugnacious tabloids, the mafia, Archie Bunker, Taxi Driver, Joe Namath -- this city used to define its identity through toughness, and defiance, and independence, and disregarding authority. And now some pint-size billionaire has decided he's the city's healthy-living messiah, sent to save us from ourselves, to use the power of government to force us to make what are considered the healthy choices . . . today.

Phineas writes at Sister Toldjah's site: "That's the essence of liberal fascism, of the nanny-state, of arrogant would-be Czars like Mike Bloomberg: there is no limit, no point at which they say they control enough. Every minute aspect of your life -- how much salt you use, how much soda you drink, how you feed your baby -- is subject to the state's direction. Every. Single. Bit."

"Just imagine if the poor babies need more than 16 ounces of formula," fears the Jammie Wearing Fool.

4. Addendum

Dan Collins brings us up to speed to the mysteriously absent congressman: "Mayo Clinic preliminarily diagnoses Jesse Jackson, Jr. with chronic graft, a heritable condition."