Comparison: Sarah Palin, Hillary, Barack

In making comparisons between the heroic Sarah Palin and the intensely political Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, one soon finds there is no comparison. "For Obama to be Commander-in-Chief is equivalent to Madonna entering a nunnery."

I believe Barack Obama is destroying America as a land of freedom, tolerance, and opportunity (the three terms are from speeches by Sarah H. Palin), and that all Americans who love this country, including "The Big Dog" (Bill Clinton) and his spouse, have a moral obligation to oppose him.

"I have a lifetime of experience. John McCain has a lifetime of experience. Barack Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." (HRC) And did she then endorse her "friend" John McCain and oppose her tormentor, Barack Obama? Did she ever defend a her under-attack political sister Sister Palin? We know the answer to that one. She did what was best for Hillary.

Mrs. Clinton has spent a lifetime with a husband who humiliated her consistently through constant acts of adultery? Why did she stay with such a man? He recognized it as a necessary "career move." Bill Clinton was her ticket to bigger (and better?) things.

The Palins? They have a marriage that most Americans regard as near ideal. The Palins have five children. The Clintons have a much more trendy one.

As a little boy many years ago, I had some wonderful Catholic nuns emphasize to me the need "to tell the truth." I am not God Almighty and sometimes I'm dead wrong, but I have always tried to tell the truth. At times, that has hurt my "career" (to say the least). On the Clintons4McCain BlogTalkRadio show, I defended Mrs. Clinton (and even Bill) on a couple of occasions where I believed participants had gone overboard in criticizing the Clintons.

I know many people (too many) who died for their country in war (mostly Viet Nam), including some of my best friends from childhood. My closest friend now in Pittsburgh won a Silver Star in 'Nam. They did not want to die (or get badly injured) in War, but they didn't hesitate to put their lives on the line. Of course, getting killed or damaged for life in war is not a "good career move."

My military friends have standards of courage and honor that I also find in Gov. Palin and her family. Her children have inherited toughness -- courage -- from Todd and Sarah. Her son Track is in Iraq now -- in an infantry unit -- and his life is very much on the line.

I know many politicians will shed a tear in expressing their love of country, but would they really put their lives on the line -- or encourage members of their family -- to do the same? Would Obama? Of course not. Would Speaker Pelosi or Majority leader Reid? Would Hillary Clinton? Guess.

Barack Obama's daughters, Malia and Sasha, would no more choose a military career than they would aspire to be pole-dancers. From all available evidence, Obama has never had even one good friend in the military.

During the campaign, he invented imaginary feats supposedly performed by his "uncles" -- saying they had liberated concentration camps that were in fact freed by the Soviet Union's Red Army. He sought almost desperately to establish personal links with the military, but never found any. For him to be Commander-in-Chief is equivalent to Madonna entering a nunnery.

"Country first," to coin a phrase. Career does not come last, but it's pretty far down the list for people of real integrity.


Sent the following out today to some hard-core Palinites:

I(I like Cindy R's concept that "the group with the most e-mail addresses wins in 2012)Hi:

I thought Rush Limbaugh's speech today was outstanding, quite a remarkable achievement. As he said, one of our greatest tools in voter recruitment is to remind everybody that we're advocatinng liberty, tolerance, and opportunity.

By 2011 (or earlier), the bloom will be off the Obama rose. He will still be handing out truckloads of cash, but fewer and fewer people will be fooled about what he's up to. "Let them eat speeches" will be his mantra.

I don't put much stock in CPAC's straw poll today (and I wouldn't have even if Sarah had won). I'm sure some CPACers were punishing Sarah for her temerity in actually fulfilling her duties as Governor.

I'm certain if Mitt Romney is the nominee in 2012, we will all go through the motions and vote for him as we watch him lose 46 states. His concession speech (delivered eight minutes after the polls close in the Northeast) will contin the immortal words, "Thank God for the good people of Utah, Idaho, Alabama, and Mississippi."

One way we will win is by having 20,000 real activists across the country -- at least 10 in every state, with emphasis on states like Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, New Mexico. Our activists will play major roles in winning the electoral vote. By 2012, we won't be ready to carry states like MA, NY, and CA, but we need activists who will reach out -- and, in some case, travel to -- contested states.

One thing I've been doing over the past several years is collecting names (and e-mail addresses) of such "real activists" -- people like Sharon Caliendo, who could run a national campaign if someone put a gun to her head. (Actually, if you asked her, she'd gulp twice and say yes).

The people we need to recruit are individuals who are, in many ways, like Sarah herself: women, mothers, military families, Christians, supporter of women's rights, members of union families, athletes, small towners, and on and on. Sarah is so many things, has so many positive qualities, that it should be very possible to build her a huge, solid group of supporters.

We also need to offer help to candidates who will back Sarah. They include Saxby Chambliss and his GA Senate mate, Rick Perry of Texas, Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, Sonny Perdue of Georgia, Rudy Giuliani, and others.

We do not need to bash Romney and Huckabee, who will do a great job, as usual, of bashing each other. They both have a low ceiling of support, and they will be gone when Sarah wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (or whatever the exact order is by then). If I'm not wearing a barrel by that time, I expect to be in Iowa, NH, and SC. (I will buy a barrel in SC). I hope the Greyhound Corp. is still operating.

Bobby Jindal? He's a media creation, and the media is now busily "uncreating" him.

I'm not at all concerned that Sarah is taking some time to avoid the spotlight. Hard as it is to believe, it's only 2009.

We need to figure out ways to recruit more young people, including high school age types who will be able to vote in 2012. We also need to recruit more Hispanics (tough) and women (easy). As the bandwagon gains speed, the recruits will be seeking us out.

Todd & Sarah: Model Americans

This weekend (Saturday and Sunday & into Monday), I'll be writing on two subjects: (1) what YOU can do to help ensure Sarah Palin defeats Barack Obama in 2012; (2) what you should know about the major differences in background between Sarah and Obama. The Palins (pictured below) are a classic American family; the Obamas are a couple nurtured, as Obama admitted in his books, in environments largely detached from the American mainstream. Michelle Obama has been an advocate of the Black Separatism preached by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama's views on Black Separatism are not known, although he did spend 20 years listening to Rev. Wright's rants against white people and America. He has never explained that disturbing history. In any case, his leftist policies are doing great damage to the American Way of Life. In 2008, Obama got 96% of the African-American vote, a disturbing sign of the racial politics he and his campaign guru David Axelrod practiced.

Note: On SteveMaloneyGop today is the first of my blockbuster columns about Obama's plan to destroy our country's middle class, the one element that could fight against his plan to redistribute American wealth.


Right now, one pro-Palin organization (TeamSarah) has nearly 70,000 members. Other large groups on MySpace, Facebook, and elsewhere are also backing Sarah Palin. If, by 2012, Sarah has one-million-plus trained activists, she could be unbeatable.

SNEAK PEEK AT A SUBJECT I'M COVERING IN MY BOOK ON SARAH PALIN. THIS PIECE DEALS WITH ZIEGLER'S "MEDIA MALPRACTICE" AND THE NEED TO GET IT OUT TO MANY INDEPENDENTS AND DEMOCRATS

On Hillary Supporters: I am not a fan of Mrs. Clinton, but starting last April (around the time of the Pennsylvania primary), I began working half-time or more with backers of HRC, some of whom I found to live in fantasy land but many of whom become good friends. I was the co-host (with Anne Franklin, an Independent but a Hillary Supporter) of the "Clintons4McCain" Blog Talk Radio. I knew last April that Hillaryites were a key to winning in Nov.

Yes, it's very important to get "Media Malpractice" out to as many Indepdents and Hillary Supporters as possible. I hope the PUMA groups feel the same way. I'm going to ask for some help on that from Frank Pinnizotto of NJ, a Democrat who headed "Democrats for McCain."

Sarah is hated for very simple reasons. She's good looking, a terrific wife and mother, a rock of integrity, and an American who lives her values. That makes her a threat to Barack Obama, who spent 20 happy years shucking and jiving in Rev. Wright's America-hating, race-baiting, misogyny-tolerating church. Barack Obama has nothing but contempt for the America most of us grew up in.

Much of the hatred toward Sarah apparently is financed by George Soros and other wealthy "donors" to Obama. It has neither spontaneity nor veracity. Any truly honest elected official is going to be subject to endless mud-slinging.

Never underestimate Sarah Palin. She is a lot tougher than Obama, or Axelrod, or Soros. She has lived a life that Obama and Michelle, the "Affirmative Action Kids," cannot comprehend. They were pampered their entire lives because they combined being Black with the abiity to spell "potato." What does not destroy Sarah makes her stronger -- and nothing destroys her.

She is innocent in some ways -- a characteristic of people who are goodness personified and have a strong sense of right-and-wrong. But as the Ziegler interview shows, she's learned a lot. She's less innocent now.

Palin: Parental Consent on Abortion

Palin backs parental consent for abortion

By ANNE SUTTON

The Associated Press

Last Modified: February 26th, 2009 02:21 PM

JUNEAU -- Gov. Sarah Palin is backing a bill that would require parental consent for a minor to have an abortion in Alaska.

Rep. John Coghill, a North Pole Republican, and Sen. Donny Olson, a Democrat from Nome, are the main supporters of the bill, and appeared with Palin during a news conference today in the Capitol. Palin has voiced strong anti-abortion views, which endeared her to social conservatives in the recent presidential race, but has not pushed that agenda until now.

The bill would revise the Parental Consent Act passed by the Legislature in 1997, which was overturned 3-2 by the Alaska Supreme Court in 2007. The court held that the parental consent requirement was unconstitutional because it infringed on a pregnant teen's right to reproductive freedom.

The court is more conservative now with a Palin-appointee replacing a justice who cast a vote to overturn.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates, and read full coverage in tomorrow's Anchorage Daily News.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/703736.html

NOTE: To those who don't know the Anchorage Daily News, it is a hotbed of hostility toward Sarah Palin and practices the worst forms of manipulative journalism. In backing Gov. Palin for two years, I have never seen her take a position on a social issue for any reason other than that she thought it was the right thing to do, as is certainly the case here. For the ADN, the notion of right and wrong is a mystifying concerpt, which the journalist describes as an "agenda."

Obviously, there must be exceptions to parental consent. One such exception should be in the case of incest. Another should exist in an abusive household.

However, in a world where a school nurse can't give a student two Tylenol without parental approval, no child in a non-threatening situation should be able to have an abortion without knowledge and consent by her parent(s).

Sarah Palin Mystifies Liberals, Elitists

I've discussed the need for us to use powerful images and symbols in the crusade to defeat Barack H. Obama. The image below is one of the most powerful I've ever seen. I hope Gov. Palin visits Israel soon to show her solidarity with the Jewish people.

BULLETIN: Tonight (Wed.) on the Greta van Susteren show on FOX, John Ziegler, creator of the documentary "Media Malpractice" will be the primary guest. If you didn't see Ziegler's intellectual evisceration of Matt Lauer on the "Today Show," you missed a classic.

Part I: What Sarah Palin Knows That We Don't

The Lorenzo Benet book on Sarah Palin (Trail Blazer) is most compelling when it discusses the period when she and her family first lived in Alaska in the 1960s and early 1970s. Then, Alaska was very much America's "wild frontier." Sarah grew up in a world that relatively few Americans -- and almost no one in the liberal media -- understand. It was a time and a place that demanded real survival skills and self-reliance.

Granted, Sarah's early years in remote Skagway (100 miles north of Juneau) when she was 4-5 years old were extreme by modern standards, but Alaska still maintains a lifestyle that was pretty standard for much the world into the 20th century. If people survived, they had to do it pretty much on their own. There was no "going down the mall," because there was no mall. If you wanted meat, you had to go out and shoot something. If you wanted fish, you went out and caught it.

The suburban liberals -- and the left-leaning MSM that criticize Sarah believe she's "not like them." In a way, they're right. She's tougher and much more attuned to life on a fundamental level, one where family and community are very close to one another -- and dependent on neighbors not just for company but for survival.

A lot of modern people -- I'd include myself -- don't have great survival skills. If the electricity went off and the grocery closed down, we'd largely be helpless. We wouldn't have learned the basic skills that were almost second-nature to our ancestors -- and skills Sarah did develop as a child. Instead, we live on top of support system whose existence is one of which we're hardly aware. We're a lot less self-reliant than Sarah, her family, and many of the people in Alaska.

Part II: Sarah and The Media

One of the various disasters in the McCain Campaign was the effort to keep Sarah on a tight leash. I agree that we absolutely must "let Sarah be Sarah." Beyond that, she should never let the MSM use her as a punching bag. She need to fight back with ferocity (and so do her supporters).

Another disaster of the McCain Campaign: the pathetic belief that if Sarah had media interviews, it had to be with hostile people like Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric (called "the little rodent" by Don Imus). Yikes, why not throw in David Letterman and Bill Maher? Frankly, every time we put out a hand of friendship to those in the MSM (as my friend Roger Morrow observed) they try to chew it off.

Thus, Sarah should have interviews with Sean Hannity, Greta van Susteren (as she's doing several times), Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Wallace (maybe), and, I'd add, Deborah Norville of "Inside Edition." I'd add several more cable people who would be appropriate: Kyra Phillips, Betty Nguyen, and Heidi Collins of CNN. Norah O'Donnell of NBC would also be okay. Rush Limbaugh? If you're in GOP politics, I suggest being good buddies with Rush.

I'd also recommend some national talk radio people (Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingram, Michael Medved, and a few others), as well as LOCAL political reporters who don't have an axe to grind. Top print journalists reporters like Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes (both ofThe Weekly Standard), Katie O'Malley (Human Events), Debra Saunders (San Francisco Chronicle) and Jack Kelly (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) would also be good.

There are also international journalists who like Sarah a lot, including my friend Mariko Fukuyama of Japan's Asahi TV, as well as some of the BBC "morning drive" people in London.

These aren't lighweights. In fact, they're the heavyweights. Sarah should be talking to such people rather than pretentious leftists like Couric.

Yeah, my strategy is to freeze out the MSM windbags completely. Any reporter who is going to play gotcha games should be ignored. This approach would allow us to begin re-shaping the way society defines the media. This strategy would have horrified the McCain Campaign, which was headed by incompetents and narcissists.

*The night of Sarah's speech at the Convention, Kyra Phillips was in Anchorage for CNN doing a friendly, informative interview with Sarah's older sister (Heather) and brother-in-law. Kyra "gets it," while most of her counterparts in the MSM don't get it -- and perhaps can't get it. Sarah makes them feel inferior, and since they are inferior to this women, their instinct is to attempt to destroy her.

Palin: Weapons of Media Destruction

For people like Sarah Palin and her family the American flag and the National Anthem have a significance that Barack H. Obama will never grasp. Sarah son, Track, is ready to fight and, if necessary, die for his country.

Sarah Palin says -- correctly --that the media "was on a search and destroy mission" against her. But as I'll explain today and tomorrow, Sarah may very well have the last laugh on a biased, out-of-touch, moribund MSM.

Sarah at the Republican National Convention. Will she become America's 45th President?

The following is from CNN (in italics). I'll comment later (Wednesday a.m.) on how Palin and her supporters can finish the job of depositing the MSM into "the dustbin of history."

Palin says in a new documentary that the media set out to destroy her.(CNN) — The mainstream media made it a mission to destroy the vice presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin, the Alaska governor says in a new documentary released Monday.

In an interview taped last month for conservative John Zeigler's new film "Media Malpractice," Palin said it is "very frightening, I think, what the media was able to get away with, this go-around.”

"’We are going to seek and we are going to destroy this candidacy of Sarah Palin’s because of what it is that she represents,’" the former vice presidential candidate described as the attitude members of the press adopted.

The movie, available on DVD for the first time Monday, chronicles press coverage of both Democratic primary campaign and the general election, and concludes the media was clearly biased in favor of Barack Obama.

“This is for the sake of our democracy that there is fairness in this other branch of government, if you will, called the media,” Palin also says in the interview filmed in January. “It is foreign to me the way some in the mainstream media are thinking.”

How is the mainstream media doing? Not very well.

The Christian Science Monitor has ceased its print editions. The liberal Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News have applied for bankruptcy protection. The New York Times and the Washington Post are hemorrhaging subscribers and ad revenues. Viewership for the nightly news on ABC, CBS, and NBC has been in steady decline for years. CNN and MSNBC are in an electronic food fight for the (small) left-wing audience that exists after FOX's dominance of the (much larger) center-right audience.

Yes, the media clearly hates Sarah Palin, the quintessence of normal, patriotic, hard-working Americanism. But the question is how much longer the MSM will be alive to spew their hostility to Sarah and the Palin family. Fair minded people increasingly look at the once-dominant media, including such former staples as "The View," "The Oprah Winfrey Show," and "David Letterman," with revulsion. That's very good news for those with even faint remembrances of times past when the MSM not only preached objectivity, but also occasionally practiced it.

Tomorrow (Wednesday), I'll talk about how Sarah and her Supporters can accelerate the decline of the MSM . . . and help turn American culture away from extreme secularism, materialism, and moral degradation. Hope you'll return!

Is Sarah "The Real Deal?"

IF YOU'D LIKE TO SUPPORT SARAH PALIN AND HER FAMILY IN AFFIRMING THE VALUE OF ALL HUMAN LIFE, PLEASE CLICK ON THE REVOLVING IMAGE TO YOUR RIGHT. THANKS . . . AND GOD BLESS YOU AND THE PALINS.

What makes Sarah run? Many things . . . Once Sarah said she would "run over" to her aunt's. The distance was 12 miles each way, and she finished the run in good time.

A TeamSarah friend asked me if Sarah Palin is "the real deal" -- or is she another one of those political disappointments that come along with depressing regularity? Also, what makes me believe she'd be a great President? Here's my answer:

I've read a lot about Sarah (pro and con) and been an observer of her for nearly two years. I believe she is most authentic -- the most real -- elected official I've ever encountered, which is saying a lot. Will you, or I, or anyone agree with her on every detail of every issue? I doubt that any two human being would fit that ideal.

People following Jesus generally either disagreed (remember what the rich man did when Christ asked him to sell all his goods and give the money to the poor?) or disappointed him (e.g., Peter).

I believe that, because of her character, values, and love of country, Sarah would make a great President. She has talked about the need for a real leader to "have a servant's heart." She does. I suggested that Sarah's campaign slogan should be, "Sarah . .. she's one of us."

Remember St. Paul's statement: "For all have sinned, all have fallen short of the glory of God." In her statement about the servant's heart, Sarah made the point that she's not perfect. No human being is, but she is truly a remarkable woman.

That's the main reason so many on the Left hate her. She's a threat to Obama's assumption that he will be re-elected. Maybe he will be, but I have a hunch that Sarah will win in 2012.

"She's one of us." Everyone, including our spouses and our children, disappoint us at some point, and I don't ask that Sarah act as if she were already an angel in heaven. Heck, we sometimes disappoint ourselves. But Sarah hasn't disappointed me yet.

Palin: "Veto That Stimulus Bill!"

A week ago, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said the Stimulus Bill means "America's best days are behind it." On her interview with Greta van Susteren a week ago, Governor Sarah Palin said Obama should "veto the Stimulus bill" -- that is, HIS Stimulus Bill.

Today, Monday, Feb. 23, Obama is talking about "investing" the Stimulus money -- all of it borrowed, all of it repayable by taxpayers -- on behalf of the American people. He doesn't explain why he won't allow Americans to invest the money themselves. As usual, Obama is in the position of promoting bad economic policies while saying he's doing it on our behalf. Total cynicism? Absolutely.

Last Saturday on FOX, Ben Stein talked about the Stimulus Bill as little more than an effort to pay off Democratic voters -- and to buy the votes of new ones. Failed institutions, like GM and Chrysler, get rewarded -- mindlessly -- because the unions supported Obama. Huge amount of money get redistributed to states like Massachusetts (reportedly getting $9 billion), California, and Michigan, mainly because their electoral votes went for Obama. In contrast, Red states, generally much more responsibly governed than their "Blue" counterparts, get proportionately less.

"Pay to Play"

To use Illinois terms, states like Maryland and Massachusetts "played" the game Obama's way, so they get paid. As Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts told CNN's John King on Sunday, people in that state "want bridges and highways.' It never seemed to occur to him that if people in a state want something, they should ante up and pay for it themselves.

As Gov. Palin told the Republican National Convention, experience had taught the people of that state a valuable lesson. Yes, something like the "Bridge to Nowhere" would provide some benefits to the state (easier transportation, construction jobs), but it would come at a high cost to the nation. Thus, as she said, "If we need a bridge, we'll build it ourselves."

That classic American concept of self-reliance has little meaning to people like David Axelrod and Obama. People who are self-reliant are immune for the kind of vote-buying traditional in places like Chicago.

The problem with bailouts isn't that they don't provide short term help to some states and individuals. The problem is that they do great damage to the productive members of society, essentially punishing them for BEING productive. They -- we -- don't get "bailed out." In fact, the "water" -- the tax bills -- threatens to come up to our eyeballs.

To our credit, we don't want to be bailed out. We refuse to engage in what John McCain called "generational warfare," where our children and grandchildren pay the bill so that we can pretend we're better off than in fact we are.

By all means, let's help people who -- through no fault of their own -- are in trouble. But let's not help those who have no intention of helping themselves. Remember, our country's motto is "In God we trust" -- and not "gimme, gimme, gimme."

A society where no one is allowed to fail eventually becomes one where no one is able to succeed.

We sometimes hear how "complicated" the economic situation is, but that's just plain false. As people like Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and Alaska's Sarah Palin know, life and economics are fairly simple.

For example, you don't buy a house -- or have a lifestyle or spend money -- that you can't afford. You make sacrifices. You don't assume that the economy will never take a nosedive. You don't expect that someone else is going to pay your bills. You don't spend every last cent you have coming in. You don't have children and then assume that "society" (i.e., the taxpayers) will pay for their upbringing.

America is a country for free people. It is not a country for people who are perpetually dependent on government.

Does Obama understand such basic facts of life? Why should he? He's "The Affirmative Action Kid."

Yes, he talks about his "student loans," but he went to an expensive prep school in Hawaii and then to three of the costliest schools in America -- Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard. What percentage of his educational costs did Barack Obama pay? Of course, he hasn't released such facts -- nor will he ever. A good assumption is that he paid a relatively small amount.

From all avialable evidence, other people financed Barack Obama's education. He got mostly a free ride. It was an early version of his economic policy, where Other People's Money (OPM) is made available to help out Obama's chosen few. It all fits the definition of socialism, which is not so much an economic policy as a vote-buying scheme.

However, what happens when the productive members of society get tired of financing the unproductive? Unfortunately, it looks as if we're all going to find out the answer to that question . . . in the form of diminished economic growth, reduced opportunities, higher inflation, and less personal freedom.

While Obama Stinks, Sarah Shines

"Give me liberty . . . or at least give me a big screen TV." Obama may be able to use that as a theme for his Administration. One of the great unanswered questions about Obama is why he "punished" (or was it just persuaded?) Michelle to give birth to Malia and Sasha?

On Monday a.m., I'll be writing more about why Obama, as President, is an idiot.

As a corporate and political speechwriter for 30-plus years (tempus fugit), I know lousy speeches when I hear them, and Obama gives many more than his share. Is Sarah Palin a great speaker? I refer you to her remarks at the Republican National Convention, where she gave the finest political speech most of us have ever heard.

In his speech on the housing "crisis" (yes, Barack, we know it's bad), a frightened and flustered Obama used one word 26 times. That word was "crisis." After the first and second use of word, every time someone repeats it in a presentation, it loses its capacity to register in a listener's mind. By the 20th or so usage, a "crisis" had become nothing special. It's the equivalent of the little boy crying "wolf" 20 times. (Obama's speecwriter gets this advice free-of-charge.)

Known (wrongly) as a great orator, Obama is in fact a terrible one. Take away his Teleprompter,and he becomes as articulate as a drunk at closing time. Now that he can't sell "hope" and "change" anymore -- and no longer has George Bush to kick around -- he has almost nothing to say.

If the man has ever uttered one memorable line, we must have missed it.

Beyond that, although he's very bad at defining problems, he's even worse at presenting solutions. A hint for Barack: The solution to a problem where the federal government, the states, companies, and individuals have been wildly over-borrowing is not to engineer a massive loan. When the nation and its people are over-spending, the last thing we need is a stimulus (spending) bill.

Here are suggested lines for Obama's future speeches: "Spend your money wisely. Don't borrow money you can't pay back. And don't ever try to borrow and spend your way to prosperity."

Elect Palin 2012: Practical Steps

Sarah Palin below with the love of her life, Trig Palin . . . the one she calls "The Little Michelin Man." Note: ON MY OTHER BLOG (HTTP://STEVEMALONEYGOP.BLOGSPOT.COM), I HAVE A SATURDAY COLUMN ON OBAMA'S DISASTROUS ECONOMIC POLICIES.

Protestors like the one confronting Obama in Mesa, Arizona, are "Sarah's People."

Subjects: Defeating Obama 2012, Electing Palin 2012, Cultivating young voters, Hispanics, and women, Emphasizing Military Families and those with special needs children, Securing Donations for SarahPac

The Palins have powerful links to American families, particularly those with relatives in the military and with special needs children. Those of us who support Sarah need to reach out to such people . . . and bring them into our Movement.

The first "TeamSarah Newsletter" will be coming out soon. TeamSarah.org is the "tip of the spear" for the Palin Movement. It has nearly 70,000 members, and it's the largest of the many pro-Palin groups. The Newsletter is one of many practical steps needed to ensure the election of Gov. Palin as America's 45th president.

On the Team Sarah newsletters in the future, I'd love to help with volumes to come, particularly with practical, action-oriented material that people could use to begin (key word) to change the culture and the political make-up in Congress.

In particular, I'd like teenagers and college students to begin asking young relatives and friends to join TS -- and working to register people inclined to support Sarah and similar candidates. The goal would be to establish a foundation for victories in 2010 and 2012. The "dirty little secret" is that most Americans under the age of 30 are not registered. Obama's people had a number of initiatives to get "their" young people registered and working as volunteers. McCain really had nothing similar, and the results showed it.

Ancient history: In 1972 (McGovern v. Nixon), I worked with students at the University of Georgia to organize on behalf of Nixon. The national media was portraying a situation where McGovern had locked up the youth vote. In fact, students at UGA canvassed everyone who lived on campus . . . and then everyone who lived in Clarke County (where the University is). Nixon won the student vote by a huge margin. (Later, Watergate revelations undid the great work that had been accomplished with college-age voters.)

I know that in 2008 Obama got roughly 70% of the "first-time-voters" and roughly two-thirds of the under 30s. There's no reason why Sarah can't win two-thirds of the youth vote in 2012.

There are ways we can "manage" the situation to make that happen. We could focus initially on "red" states, but we should ask the young people to reach out to friends in "blue" states. The way we can "sell" activism to young people is to emphasize that they can exert a tremendous influence on their country's future direction. Sarah has built-in advantages (including three teen-age children) that give her great appeal to young voters.

Overall, we need people reaching out to members of key groups: young voters, Hispanics, and women. We can our activists with guidance on how to do so. People prefer to support candidates that are like them.

We also need to give them information about how to solicit donations (small ones). Giving them that instruction will encourage them to donate themselves. It's okay to donate $10. It's also okay to donate $1,000.

As my political allies have pointed out, we need to get people TO ACT, to do things that advance the prospects of Sarah winning. People who don't want to act should be moved discreetly to the back-burner.

Actions we need to take now and in the weeks ahead: (1) Getting people to back Jim Tedisco in the key House race in New York; (2) getting people in Illinois and elsewhere to back the Republican candidate for the Burris seat, which should be open soon; (3) Getting people to join action-oriented groups like WAMToday; (4) Targeting the so-called Blue Dawg Democrats who voted FOR the Stimulus legislation;

There are more than 30 such "Dawgs," and they all need to be defeated in 2010. The reason most Democrats sign up as "Blue Dawgs" (Wikipedia has a list of them) is NOT that they're moderate or conservative. Instead, the reason is that they want to deceive their constituents into thinking that they're moderate or conservative on social and fiscal issues. Almost invariably, they vote with Pelosi/Obama. We need to confront such people face-to-face whenever possible.

My next column, up this weekend, will deal with e-mail lists . . . and how they'll be central to victory in 2010 and 2012.

Turning Obama's Strategies Against Him

Today, I'll be reprinting (scroll down) my summary of Saul Alinsky's "Rules" that the Obama Campaign followed -- and that Sarah Palin and her backers must learn from to win in 2010, 2012, and beyond. Yesterday's column on the "Rules" elicited the following comment from regular reader and Palin backer Greg Hanson:

"You're absolutely right, we have to turn their rules back on them from day one, and stay on the attack. McCain was afraid to go on the attack, and we can't let that happen again. Money, organization."

Let me add this to Greg's comment: In 2012, Sarah must give the American people compelling reasons why they should vote for her. In addition, however, she must explain why they should not vote for Obama. She should explain why he falls short of being the kind of leader America needs. That doesn't have to mean excessive negativity. Instead, it's an essential use of comparative politics.

Here's the reprint of yesterday's "Rules" column:

To defeat Barack Obama in 2012, Sarah Palin will need to rely on all her fabled toughness. She also needs to understand -- and use to her own advantage -- the tactics David Axelrod and Barack Obama learned from fabled "community organizer" Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky was a Chicago-area agitator who wrote a classic grassroots organizing treatise called Rules for Radicals. Much-misunderstood, Alinsky influenced both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, neither of whom ever completely grasped what he was about. Those of us who oppose Obama can learn much of value from Alinsky’s principles. As you'll see, these are the tactics used against Sarah Palin -- and, to a lesser extent, against McCain.

• “Rub raw the sores of discontent” – in other words, get unhappy people angry enough to demand change;
• Convince skeptical people that real change is possible (“Yes, we can!” "Change we can believe in!");
• Understand that hopefulness can overcome a sense of powerlessness;
• Sharpen resentments, fan hostilities, and exploit old and new controversies;
• Begin organizing by first disorganizing the community -- that is, shaking them out of their complacency;
• Convince your opponent that your movement is unstoppable ("It's OUR time");
• Stay within your people’s comfort zone – their limited experience (e.g., symbols are more effective than substance);
• Force your opponents outside their comfort zone to create uncertainty and fear;
• Demand your opponents obey their stated rules, which they usually won’t;
• Use ridicule to infuriate your opposition and generate overreaction (e.g., Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” slur against Palin);
• Apply tactics that your people enjoy carrying out (e.g., chanting slogans);
• Change your tactics regularly to keep your opponents off-balance (e.g., take the political high-road and then shift to the low-road);
• Maintain constant pressure on the opposition to encourage stress and confusion (e.g., make so many charges your opponent will have to spend excessive time answering them);
• Remember: threatening an extreme action is more terrifying than carrying it out (e.g., "there could be riots in the streets");
• Have an alternative ready when your opponents make a proposal;
• Avoid vague abstractions by picking, personalizing, and polarizing the target (e.g., "four more years of George Bush!")

If you go through these “Rules” line-by-line, you’ll be reminded of what Axelrod and Obama did (such as using fear and ridicule/smear tactics). You’ll also understand exactly how we must proceed to overcome Obama and his minions. Being “Mr. Nice Guy” and “Miss Nice Gal” will get us

Palin: Rules for Defeating Obama

NOTE: THURSDAY A.M. I'LL HAVE UP A BLOCKBUSTER PIECE ABOUT HOW SARAH PALIN AND HER SUPPORTERS CAN ACCELERATE THE MSM'S TRAVEL DOWN THE ROAD TO OBLIVION. THE GOAL SHOULD BE TO PUT KATIE COURIC, CHARLIE GIBSON, AND JOHN ROBERTS OUT OF BUSINESS.

"Gonna getcha Barack Obama . . . you betcha!"

To defeat Barack Obama in 2012, Sarah Palin will need to rely on all her fabled toughness. She also needs to understand -- and use to her own advantage -- the tactics David Axelrod and Barack Obama learned from fabled "community organizer" Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky was a Chicago-area agitator who wrote a classic grassroots organizing treatise called Rules for Radicals. Much-misunderstood, Alinsky influenced both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, neither of whom ever completely grasped what he was about. Those of us who oppose Obama can learn much of value from Alinsky’s principles. As you'll see, these are the tactics used against Sarah Palin -- and, to a lesser extent, against McCain

• “Rub raw the sores of discontent” – in other words, get unhappy people angry enough to demand change;


• Convince skeptical people that real change is possible (“Yes, we can!” "Change we can believe in!");
  Understand that hopefulness can overcome a sense of powerlessness;


• Sharpen resentments, fan hostilities, and exploit old and new controversies;


• Begin organizing by first disorganizing the community -- that is, shaking them out of their complacency;


• Convince your opponent that your movement is unstoppable ("It's OUR time");


• Stay within your people’s comfort zone – their limited experience (e.g., symbols are more effective than substance);


• Force your opponents outside their comfort zone to create uncertainty and fear;


• Demand your opponents obey their stated rules, which they usually won’t;


• Use ridicule to infuriate your opposition and generate overreaction (e.g., Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” slur against Palin);


• Apply tactics that your people enjoy carrying out (e.g., chanting slogans);


• Change your tactics regularly to keep your opponents off-balance (e.g., take the political high-road and then shift to the low-road);


• Maintain constant pressure on the opposition to encourage confusion (e.g., make so many charges your opponent will have to spend excessive time answering them);


• Remember: threatening an extreme action is more terrifying than carrying it out (e.g., "there could be riots in the streets");


• Have an alternative ready when your opponents make a proposal;


• Avoid vague abstractions by picking, personalizing, and polarizing the target (e.g., "four more years of George Bush!")

If you go through these “Rules” line-by-line, you’ll be reminded of what Axelrod and Obama did (such as using fear and ridicule/smear tactics). You’ll also understand exactly how we must proceed to overcome Obama and his minions. Being “Mr. Nice Guy” and “Miss Nice Gal” will get us nothing.

Does Sarah Need Media Makeover?

As Lorenzo Benet's biography illustrates, Sarah Palin grew up and came to political maturity in a way that's vastly different from almost all our backgrounds. She learned things -- important lessons -- about the world at fundamental levels that her critics will never understand. She's a role model for a better America, one that is more self-reliant and family- and community-oriented. There is no benefit in trying to turn her into an Ivy-League educated suburbanite (i.e., into Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama).

Sarah should talk only to media and audiences that will give her a fair hearing. The others she should ignore. It's certainly worked well for her in recent months.

Regarding whether Sarah should do something of a personality make-over to be more acceptable to the MSM: I believe she should not, which doesn't mean she shouldn't learn from experience and get better at what she does. I have suggested a long list of media people, good ones, that she should not hesitate to talk with, and I'll be putting that list up later today (Tuesday).

In general, I believe she should stay far away from CBS, NBC, and ABC, as well as some other people (like John Roberts and Bill Maher) on cable news. In general, she should also refuse interviews with the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Newsweek, Time, and a few other outlets.

I don't say this because of Sarah's supposed limitations. Rather, I say so because such outlets lack the kind of curiosity and broad-mindedness necessary to understand people who are "different," who grew up in cultures outside the mainstream. That includes someone like Sarah, but also people in other nations who did not grow up in conventional American-style settings.

To paraphrase Sarah, people like Katie Couric have no interest in character and values, which are her strong suits. The good people in the MSM never discuss their own character and values, perhaps because they have few or none. Thus, they can't do justice to someone like Sarah (or to her family).

The Times, WaPo, and others will never be able to elicit the kind of information Greta van Susteren got last night from Bristol (or from Sarah), important facts and sentiments about teen pregnancies and supportive families. Greta is a serious journalist trying to generate useful information, something that's not true generally of the MSM.

I see no upside in Sarah's paying any attention to secularists, materialists, and cynics who share none of her values and thus engage mainly in "gotcha" games. The MSM is heading down the road to oblivion. Fewer people are reading newspapers and watching TV news, and that's all to the good. It's a process we should all seek to accelerate.

n contrast, Sarah is involved in an important dialogue with fair-minded Americans and, hopefully, it will lead to the presidency.

Sarah as President may be more than we deserve, but she's exactly what we need.

Note: Later today, I'll have a list of the media that I believe Sarah should seek to accomodate.

Sarah: She Wants Presidency

(My other column for today is below this one) I was just looking at page 83 of Lorenzo Benet's book, (Trail Blazer) which discusses Sarah Palin's thinking on the verge of her upset electiion over a four-term incumbent as Mayor of Wasilla

"Sarah's political trajectory, meanwhile, seemed poised to clear Mount McKinley. During a late-night meeting before the election, [campaign manager Laura] Chase and Sarah were discussing the candidate's future, and Chase suggested she would run for governor in ten years. [She did, and she won.]

"It's doubtful that even the GOP leaders lining up in support could have anticipated the reply from the ambitious thirty-two-year-old mayor-to-be. 'I want to be president,' she said."

As the political opponents she's left in the dust know only too well, Sarah generally gets what Sarah wants.

Fighting Smears Against Sarah Palin

SEE IMPORTANT NOTE AT BOTTOM!

Sarah Palin's critics absolutely hate pictures like this one because it reminds them what's lacking so often in their own lives. Such a picture illustrates who Sarah Palin is and what she has a loving wife and mother.

I'm writing all this week on my blogs (especially this one) about Lorenzo Benet's book (Trail Blazer: An Intimate Biography of Sarah Palin) about Sarah, who she is, why she evokes such hatred from some people, and why is she's so tough that she's become indestructible. She knows what's going on; and we know. The left-wing media wants to destroy her because they are hooked on Bambi Obama, who isn't half the human being Sarah is.

In answering criticisms about Sarah we need to be very brief and direct. When something is a lie, such as "Bristol is really Trig's mother," we need to say: "That is a lie spread by the Obama Campaign through its loyal servants at The Daily Kos (Markos Markos)." Period. We should not "play nice." We need to be ferocious in our counterattacks. "Take no prisoners."

When a feminist says, "Sarah wears clear glasses to make her look intellectual," we should say: "Sarah has been near-sighted since childhood, like her daughter Piper, and she's worn glasses since she was 10." Period.

When someone says, "Well, Sarah implied they sold [former Alaska Governor] Murkowski's jet on E-Bay," we reply: "She never said it. She never implied it. They tried to sell it on E-Bay and, when they didn't get the offers they wanted, they sold it through a broker. It was sold -- period -- and Sarah never used it."

On the bogus situation known as Troopergate: "Oh yeah, that was the state police officer who was abusive toward his wife (Sarah's sister) and tasered their 11-year-old son. He deserved to be fired."

I believe we need to stay on a positive message as much as possible. Benet's book (Trail Blazer) is not perfect, but it does a good job in explaining where Sarah got her spine of steel.

Some of the charges against Sarah are exaggerations. Most of them are outright lies. We need to characterize the smear artists as liars haters of Christian Americans, which they generally are. They have no understanding or respect for a self-made, self-reliant woman like Sarah Palin. We need to expose them for exactly what they are: loathsome smear artists.

NOTE: Some people are telling me that certain conservative web sites don't like the Benet book, apparently because they believe (wrong-headedly) that it's not sufficiently reverential. My response:

On on my blog (http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com) and through other communications I'm QUOTING and paraphrasing segments of the Benet book, mainly ones that present Sarah, Todd, AND THEIR EXTENDED FAMILIES, in very good lights. If those who "don't like" the book are doing otherwise, then you can safely assume they're just blowing ideological smoke. It's a good book, not a great one, and it's not done in adoration of Sarah. In terms of substance, it's not as good as the one I'm writing, but it presents a great deal of new information. It cites -- and names names -- of people who know Sarah best, including her parents, her sisters, her friends, her neighbors, and some of her political and media critics.

It does what a biography is supposed to do.

It's not supposed to be a "love letter," and it's not.

It's written in "People Magazine" style, one that I like because it's so readable.

Sarah's Family: A Special Love

Those of us who grew up in suburban America know little about the realities of human life that Sarah Palin learned at an early age . . .

"There is an old photo of young Sarah as a mere toddler, standing in a blue jumper in Skagway yard dangling two shrimp from her tiny hands. Her clothes are soaked, and her pearl skin is filthy, her brown hair tousled. 'That was Sarah for you, [neighbor] Moore said, 'She wasn't your typical little girly-girl.'" (Lorenzo Benet, Trail Blazer: An Intimate Biography of Sarah Palin) I can't recommend the book highly enough.

In fact , this volume is teaching me many new things about the nature of life, and that's rare when someone has been on the earth as long as I. As a young child, Sarah, her parents (Chuck, Sr, and Sally Heath), her brother Chuck, Jr., and her older sister Heather and younger sister Molly grew up in Skagway, Alaska, one hundred miles north of the capital city of Juneau. What was life like there?

A friend and neighbor of Sarah's family puts it this way: "Skagway had no beauty parlor, no barber shop, and if your car broke, you fixed it yourself; if your washer broke, you fixed it.. . . You wore many hats: carpenter, plumber, electrician, and boat mechanic; you did all your own stuff. We had just two grocery stores in town -- there was no fresh milk, and the produce ship came twice a month. Banana skins were yellow, but our kids grew up thinking they were black, so we ate a lot of banana bread."

The Heath neighbor who tells that story was one of 11 children. His family engaged daily in something that could verge on a desperate struggle for survival. The father and mother had to do everything necessary to provide food and shelter for their children.

What if a family didn't hunt and fish? Then, it would not get nearly enough protein. As Sarah's neighbor puts it, "The wild game and fish -- that's food and not just a hobby." In short, it wasn't recreational hunting. It was sustenance hunting, as it still is in much of Alaska.

The way Sarah grew up -- and in fact, the lifestyle she still pursues -- is one that's incomprehensible to the over-socialized, over-suburbanized. over-secularized elites that dominate the media (Katie Couric? Rachel Maddow?) and entertainment worlds (Ashley Judd? David Letterman?). People in those cultures are detached from the basic realities of life in a way that Sarah and her family never have been.

If we want to understand people, it's essential to know where they grew up -- and what lessons their world taught them. In Alaska, people have to construct their own social safety net.

The Benet book on Sarah is really good because she and her family were in Alaska in the 1960s and early 1970s when it was still America's "wild frontier." The early years in Skagway when Sarah was 4-5 years old were a little extreme by our standards, but Alaska still has a lifestyle that was pretty standard for much the world into the 20th century. If people survived, they had to do it pretty much on their own. There was no "going down the mall," because there was no mall. If you wanted meat, you had to go out and shoot something.

Some of the suburban liberals who criticize Sarah believe she's "not like them." In a way, they're right. She's tougher and much closer to life on a fundamental level, one where family and community is very close to one another -- and dependent on neighbors not just for company but for survival.

A lot of modern people -- I'd include myself -- don't have great survival skills. If the grocery closed down and there was no one to reply the washer and dryer, we would be largely helpless. We wouldn't have learned the basic skills that were almost second-nature to our ancestors. Instead, we live on top of support system whose existence is one of which we're hardly aware. We're a lot less self-reliant than Sarah and many of the people around her.

Sarah Palin, Abortion, Planned Parenthood

The following is a press release from Gov. Sarah Palin on the subject of abortion: My comments are below the release.

February 11, 2009, Juneau, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin today issued the following statement in response to reports that contributions are being made to Planned Parenthood in her name:
“The abortion issue has been with us for decades and has pitted well-meaning people of differing ideologies against each other. Where we can find common ground is in the belief that no one wants a single abortion.

“But when there is a clash of values, I always will come down on the side of life. Making donations to Planned Parenthood in my name might be interesting theater in these politically charged times, but it is not going to change my views or the views of many other Alaskans who believe every life is precious.

“Anti-hunting groups are employing the same tactic of using my name to promote their cause right now. Again, interesting theater.”

Steve says:

I've sort of "said my say" on the abortion issue, but if I go back to Elaine Lafferty's article on Sarah as a "brainiac" and a "feminist," I believe she nails it. For those to whom pro-abortion ('"pro-choice" it turns out is a semantic game, where only one "choice" is acceptable) is a critical single-issue, Sarah will never be acceptable.

However, I do get the sense that Sarah wants to move beyond the endless cultural food-fight over the abortion issue. Good for her. I have a hunch that the "big issue" in 2012 and perhaps 2016 is going to be how to deal with the sick elderly to keep their illnesses from bankrupting the country. The Stimulus Bill, as Sen. Coburn pointed out, is a first step in that direction.

Tom Daschle is an assisted suicide enthusiast, and even though he's dead meat politically, his initial nomination shows which way the wind is blowing. As the poet put it, there are some who are "half in love with easeful death."

I admire the way Sarah is seeking to re-frame the abortion issue: She says, “The abortion issue has been with us for decades and has pitted well-meaning people of differing ideologies against each other. Where we can find common ground is in the belief that no one wants a single abortion."

"No one" may be excessive. Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and other worthies, such as the gentle ladies in NARAL, appear never to have seen an abortion they don't like.

Technology is confronting us with issues (octuplets anyone? gender selection?) that, as a society, we're ill-equipped to deal with. We need a modern St. Thomas Aquinas to give us some coherent foundation for making moral decisions.

Sarah Palin: Right on Abortion

"Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven." (Jesus, KJV)

I sent the following out to some people who were parsing (slicing and dicing) the abortion issue and whether it could cost Sarah Palin the presidency). Your thoughts are welcome.

Yes, some women (a sliver of urban and suburban females) will always hate -- yes, that is the right word -- Sarah for affirming life. However, I don't think it is possible to put life issues completely on the back burner.

The new "Stimulus" bill contains health provisions that point in the direction of denying adequate care to the very sick elderly. Daschle, Obama's first choice for HHS, advocates as much in his book.

There is a belief, widespread in the Democratic Party, that providing care for the elderly -- who, after all are going to "die anyway" -- is too expensive. In short, having sick old people around is an inconvenience.

Who is to say such liberals are wrong? Well, I for one will say it, but if we are all going to say so, we need some philosophical (or theological?) basis for doing so.

Let me be very blunt my friends: Don Fowler, "Mr. Democrat" from South Carolina and a former head of the DNC, said in late August that Sarah Palin's main qualification for the V-P slot was "that she didn't have an abortion [with Trig]."

I wanted in vain for Hillary Rodham Clinton and other female Democrats to chastise Fowler. If they disagreed with him, they didn't say so. Thus, I assume they weren't disturbed by his outrageous comments.

Here's the issue: What living things are valuable? And which ones should be disposed of in the most expeditious way possible?

Sarah Palin, portrayed as some kind of simpleton by many liberal feminists, has wrestled with that question. She believed and believes that her youngest son, Trig, is a child of God and that he has profound value.

Many feminists, including those who hate Sarah, believe no such thing. They apparently believe the Trigs of this world would be worthless -- burdens, inconveniences, ueseless cellular masses. Sarah does not believe such things.

If I may look into her heart, she would say that if she did have such secularist, selfish views, then life itself -- her life, your life, everyone's -- would be devalued. We would be in the situation Thomas Hobbes described where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and . . . short."

If the Trigs of the world don't have a right to "go to term," then why in fact should their lives after birth be sustained? After all, the ancient Greeks, who invented democracy and moral philosophy, practiced infanticide.

Granted, they didn't have sonograms or abortion clinics. However, were they just being more honest than we are?

Yes, the octuplets have been born in CA. But some of them are not going to have what we would regard as a decent life. So, why should they have a right to live? Why not just toss them in with the rest of the hospital garbage?

Our own squeamishness (or horror?) at the thought of infanticide is not exactly a moral imperative. It's critical that on abortion and end-of-life issues we not fall into what's happened for more than 30 years . . . a mindless exchange of slogans.

On this issue generally, I do not want any more constitutional amendments -- on life, on marriage, or on any other issue. But that doesn't mean I don't side with Sarah, who realizes that the devaluation of life that's been going on for nearly four decades could turn into a catastrophe for our society and culture.

Thankfully, Sarah does not side with Nancy Pelosi in the view that one solution to our economic problems is to have a lot fewer Black and Hispanic babies.

It was one of Dostoevsky's characters (in The Brothers Karamazov) who said, "If God [i.e., any sense of ultimate value] is dead, everything is permitted." And yes, he did mean EVERYTHING.

Sarah Palin Outshines Hillary Clinton

Scroll down to previous columns on NY congressional candidate Jim Tedisco, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton TOMORROW: WHY SARAH PALIN IS RIGHT ON ABORTION -- AND HER CRITICS ARE DEAD WRONG.

For his book, “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media,” author Bernard Goldberg interviewed Rush Limbaugh.Goldberg asked Rush, among other things, what he thought about Palin Derangement Syndrome. “Why such hatred, especially from liberal feminists? Was it simply her politics or was something else at play?”

Here’s what Limbaugh has to say: “Something else. She was the only effective Republican candidate anywhere in this entire campaign – among all candidates, for all offices. Sarah Palin is what militant feminists have been suggesting all women can become. But she had the gall to have a Down Syndrome child and be opposed to abortion, which is the sacrament to feminist liberalism. She was the Clarence Thomas of the Anita Hill hearings. Her electoral future had to be destroyed.”

Steve Says: When I went to a (wonderful) Catholic elementary school, the nuns told us, "You never mistread girl. GOD will be very angry if you do." They got our attention. Bill never went to that school. His abuse of women, especially middle-class women (Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and many others) in vulnerable positions, has been the bad habit of a lifetime.

Bill Clinton lives in the world chillingly described by a character in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, where everything is relative. As one character puts it, "If God [any sense of ultimate value] is dead, everything is permitted." In Bill's world and, I'd submit, in Hillary's, everything is permitted . . . as long as you don't get caught. If you do get caught, you apologize -- and then, when the coast is clear, you go do it again.

Okay, when she was at Wellesley, Hillary wrote her senior thesis on labor organizer Saul Alinsky (a better man than many people think), and he offered her a job with his community development organization. His total budget for a year was $100,000 (including his salary). He labored almost exclusively with the working poor, including Blacks and first generation immigrants. He hated the "welfare state."

Hillary response to the job offer? She said, No thanks and went off to Yale Law School, one of those places that usually leads to whole truckloads of money and power. Yes, Hillary "loves" the poor, but only at a distance.

As for Bill, I am not against people making money, even though I don't. He parlayed the presidency into a fortune of $100 million. ONE HUNDRED MILLION. He sold out to everyone, especially rich foreigners, who had a large bag full of cash.

Okay, during the end of the primary season, there was a guy who told a group I was in that he had been unemployed for 17 months (yikes). But he had scraped together $25 that he was sending in "to help pay off Hillary's debt."

One problem, the money was being re-directed to her 2012 Senate re-election campaign. The whole thing disgusted me. I told the group, "Bill should write a check" (I think it was $9 million they owed). That $9 million would have been the same for him as us kicking in ten bucks. The Clintons are one of the wealthiest families in America -- and trust me, they will get a while lot wealthier.

Sarah will never be Hillary's intellectual equal, but unlike HRC, she knows the basic difference between right and wrong. And in life that matters more than anything else. When Hillary and Bill started slobbering over Obama, it made me physically ill. As one of Shakespeare's cynical lines has it, "Nothing lost save honor."

Susan Rice, named ambassador to the U.N. the same day as HRC got the State job, was the person in the Obama Campaign in charge of smearing Hillary. I kept waiting for the two to embrace.

What did Obama promise HRC for endorsing and campaigning for him? Guess. I know what Susan Rice got for her misdeeds.

A Sarah Palin is a person whose life is suffused with character and values. She would not feel comfortable with a Suan Rice or a Hillary Clinton. Sarah does not regard politics as a nasty game whose only purpose is self-advancement. It matters deeply to Sarah that someone like Barack Obama is not dedicated to national security, freedom, tolerance, and opportunity. Those factors matter not at all to someone like Hillary. They don't show up in a bank account or on a resume.

Yes, Hillary Clinton is a book-smart, but essentially trivial, human being, but that doesn't make her any less dangerous. She has spent a lifetime putting her own interests ahead of those of the nation. Right now, she's too old to learn new tricks.

HILLARY IS NO SARAH PALIN

"I have a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. Barack Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] he delivered in 2002." (Hillary Rodham Clinton) I'll keep adding to this column on Wednesday and finish the "Hillary comments" on Thursday. I'd very much like to get your comments on a deeply flawed human being, Hillary R. Clinton.

I have many friends who were Hillary Supporters. One former friend, Robin, listened to my positive comments on Sarah Palin after she was named McCain's running mate. Robin then said, "Steve, I don't like all the praise of Palin because it makes Hillary sound bad by comparison." That's when Robin, a woman incapable of taking a clear-eyed look at HRC, became a former friend. "Yes, Robin, HRC is no Sarah Palin -- not by a longshot."

My sad impression is that most Hillary Supporters don't want to discuss the woman's actions in any serious way. Apparently, they feel that if they look deeply into this woman's heart and soul, they'll end up like the madman in Conrad's Heart of Darkness, who finally recognizes the evil of what he's done and blurts out, "The horror! The horror!" Horror and Hillary are more than alliterative.

John Edwards, another mindless left-wing Democrat, limply said of his affair that he had become "egotistic" and "narcissistic." John Edwards, meet Hillary Clinton, a card-carrying narcissist.

Hillary Clinton has spent a lifetime accepting, rationalizing, and even defending (yikes) her husband's chronic adultery and abusive behavior toward women, including Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Kathryn Willey. Of course, that didn't stop the gentle ladies of NOW and NARAL from endorsing Bill . . . or Hillary. Abuse of women is apparently okay as long as you're "right on the issues." Of course, without a demand for basic decency all the "issues" become practically irrelevant.

Many Hillary Supporters are now spending their lives defending HRC's decision to value her career over her country. In fact, what do you call a woman who values career more than the nation? Why, for services rendered, you call her "Madame Secretary of State," that is Secretary of . . . the Country.

As a member of Alaska's Oil and Gas Commission, Sarah Palin cited the head of the Alaska Republican Party (Randy Ruedrich) for an ethics violation. Such acts continue to make her enemies in the state, one long synonymous with political corruption. . Hillary Clinton has NEVER done anything remotely comparable in her long career. The sad reality is that most of Hillary's supporters have much higher standards for themselves than they do for their tinsel candidate.

I fear that if Mrs. Clinton appeared without clothes, such supporters would be marveling over how good she looks in a pants suit.

In the election, Clinton was a major factor in helping Obama carry Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. To say that she must have had a good (but of course, unstated) reason for doing so is to give her credit she in no way deserves. Over a lifetime, she has always done what is best for Hillary. Period.

During and after the election, I regularly asked people why HRC had supported her tormentor -- her abuser -- Obama. Perhaps for the same reason she'd always supporter her marital abuser, Bill, "the Big Dog?" No one ever gave an answer that made Mrs. Clinton seem like anything other than a moral weakling.

More than one Hillary backer told me, "Well, she had to. They [unnamed] threatened her. They threatened her MOTHER. They threatened CHELSEA." There is not one scrap of evidence any such thing ever happened. Moreover, anyone who would cave into threats has no business aspiring to the presidency.

People like Hillary Clinton are despicable. The fact that she's a woman is not exculpatory. Anyone who's so easily intimidated should not be occupying a high position of any kind.

Help Palin, Elect Jim Tedisco

TOMORROW (WEDNESDAY) I'LL HAVE A COLUMN TITLED "HILLARY IS NO SARAH PALIN." Hillary Clinton has spent a lifetime accepting, rationalizing, and even defending (yikes) her husband's chronic adultery and abusive behavior toward women. Many Hillary Supporters are now spending their lives defending HRC's decision to value her career over her country. Sarah Palin is a woman who turned in her own Party's state chairman for ethics violations. Hillary Clinton has never done anything comparable in her career. The sad thing is that most of Hillary's Supporters have much higher standards for themselves than they do for their tinsel heroine.

"It's better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness" (Father Keller, "The Christophers," in radio addresses during the 1970s). PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING AND THEN GO TO JIM TEDISCO'S WEB SITE.

Dear Fellow Bloggers and Online Activists: One of the most important political contests of our time is unfolding in New York's Hudson Valley area (Albany, Saratoga Springs areas). It pits Republican State Assembly leader Jim Tedisco against a super-wealthy liberal Democrat who can't wait to get to Washington to support the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda. The race is in New York's 20th congressional district, and it's for the seat formerly held by Kirsten Gillibrand, recently appointed to fill Hillary Clinton's U.S. Senate seat.

The election of Jim Tedisco will send a powerful message to Obama and his congressional allies. It will demonstrate that the American people are no longer content to have a left-wing government borrow trillions of dollars, use the money mainly to pay off their political supporters, go hat in hand to Communist China for financing, and send the bill to our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Jim Tedisco led the fight against disgraced former Gov. Eliot Spitzer's cynical plan to grant drivers licenses to illegal aliens. He represents the classic American values we all grew up believing were synonymous with our country.

What can you do to help?

You can go to Jim's outstanding web site and learn more about him. Also, you can participate in the "$20 for the 20th [District]" effort by donating $20. If you can't afford that much, give what you can -- even a dollar would be much appreciated.

Moreover, you can help Jim's message "go viral" by quickly disseminating either this e-mail or a message of your own to friends, family, and political allies. Those of you with blogs or group web sites can post the information -- as soon as possible -- for your visitors to see and share with their own contacts.

Significantly, the leader of Jim's online effort is Ali Akbar, whom many of you will recall from the effort to elect John McCain and Sarah Palin. Ali is a young GOP activist with an unusual name, but most of all, he's one of us. He's among the hundreds of veterans of the last campaign who are helping us begin dominate the Web . . . and turn this country back in the right direction.

The primary reason I back Ali so strongly in his efforts is that he knows how to win. He fights fair, but he fights hard. If you need to contact Ali, you can do so at: Ali@jimtedisco.com.

Please help us in this national effort. Let's make history . . . rather than waiting for others to do so.Go to Jim's web site, sign up, and contribute either $20 or as much as you can afford -- and remember, even a dollar will be appreciated. Then, put up on your blog or web site the links and banners I'll make available in the next 24 hours. (I'll be putting them up today on my sites, including: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com and http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com.

Finally, if you want to opt-out of the effort to elect Jim Tedisco, you can do so by hitting reply and putting one word -- "Remove" -- in the subject area. Note; The following statements by Jim Tedisco demonstrate exactly what this good man stands for. God bless America!

Tedisco says, “I am running for Congress to bring the same passion, energy and proven record of public service I have demonstrated as an Assemblyman to residents of the 20th Congressional District. As Republican Leader of the State Assembly, I led the fight for tax relief, a real property tax cap, a stronger economy, more jobs and fiscal responsibility. I opposed Eliot Spitzer when he tried to steamroll New Yorkers with higher taxes and more wasteful spending. I also led the fight against his unlawful plan to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens and worked to keep the Schenectady Free Health Clinic open and operating when he tried to take political retribution against me for opposing his plan."

My friends, this guy -- Jim Tedisco -- is the real deal. Let's light thousands of candles on his behalf. Please do everything you can to help him.