How Sarah Heath Palin does in the 2012 presidential election depends in large part on how effective the Obama presidency is (at least in the eyes of U.S. voters). There is growing evidence that the Administration of Barack Hussein Obama will be calamitous. In that regard, consider two events that will be coming soon to America: hyperinflation and economic stagnation. If you liked the Jimmy Carter presidency, you're going to love the reign of Obama.
"Hyperinflation," where people go to Wal-Mart with a wheelbarrow full of low-value "dollars" to buy staples is an extremely important concept. The way the Fed is "solving" the economic problem by printing tens of thousands of tons of greenbacks will lead inevitably to very high inflation, which tends to feed on itself. This is one of the nasty little "surprises" that the Obama policies will produce.
Another key term is "stagflation," which the Carter Administration excelled at. Of coruse, the way to deal with hyperinflation is to jack interest rates up to Carter-like levels (17% mortgage rates), which of course produces economic stagnation, which is back where we are now. The goal of the Obama Administration is not to 'fix" the economy, but rather to produce the illusion of better days around the time of the next election. Pray for America.
Bye Bye U.S. Dollar....
UN backs new new global currency reserve (The Sunday Telegraph, U.K.)
"A UNITED Nations panel of economists has proposed a new global currency reserve that would take over the US dollar-based system used for decades by international banks. The proposal follows the controversial call by China's central bank governor, Zhou Xiaochuan, to create a new world currency reserve to replace the greenback as part of an overhaul of global finance. China and many developing countries blame the global crisis on US mishandling of over-extended mortgage loans and investments in them.
"With the US also borrowing trillions of dollars, it risks hyperinflation, which would considerably weaken the dollar. An independently administered reserve currency could operate without conflicts posed by the US dollar and keep commodity prices more stable."
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Why Sarah Refused Stimulus Money
Why did Sarah Palin refuse potentially hundreds of millions of dollars from Obama's "Stimulus Bill?" She did so because she saw the money as designed to build the size of government and thus lead to tax increases for the people of Alaska -- and the United States.
Some of her critics have portrayed Palin as rejecting "free money" that would benefit the people of Alaska. Those critics are shortsighted. There is no such thing as "free money." Palin is rejecting money she believes will aggravate the financial crisis rather than ameliorate it.
On my other blog, I'm writing a related piece about "What Caused the Financial Crisis?" Gov. Palin knows what caused the crisis: over-borrowing, over-spending, and over-lending. Barack Obama probably knows -- even though economics is not his strong suit -- but has chosen to act like a politician rather than a President.
Companies, including banks and other financial institutions, borrowed too much (and had too little capital). Individuals, companies, and, especially, governments spent too much. Individuals, companies, and governments borrowed too much, more than they would able to repay in a time of economic downturn.
The aforementioned paragraphs outline what happened. They will tell you more than you'll hear in the millions of words emanating from the TV networks and the national publications. They rely too much on long-winded "experts" and impenetrable financial jargon (e.g., "credit default swaps," "derivatives," and "subprime mortgages").
I won't join the "Blame America First" crowd. However, in the 1990s and the new century, our country struck a "deal with the Devil," China, a subject I'll write more about this week. Essentially, we said to China, "Look, we'll buy all the good you can manufacture or assemble . . . as long as you buy our burgeoning debt at relatively low interest rates." Essentially, China lent us huge amounts of money that we used essentially to pay for the goods we bought from them.
Domestically, the government did everything it could to encourage the purchase of homes, including purchases by people who were poor credit risks. Meanwhile, equities, stocks bought and sold on Wall Street, kept surging upward.
What were the assumptions underlying all this? They were that home prices and stock prices would continue to go up . . . essentially forever. However, what if house prices started to go down sharply -- as they did? And what if stock prices went into a steep decline -- as they did?
The answer is that our whole financial house-of-cards -- for individuals, business, and government -- would collapse, as it has. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is regathering the cards -- and rejiggering some of the players -- to rebuild the "House" all over again. We need a newer -- saner -- financial model, but we're getting the old, unworkable one.
What is Obama's "solution" to the financial crisis, one caused by over-spending, over-borrowing, and over-lending? Unfortunately, he proposes a "hair of the dog" answer -- to spend, borrow, and lend more. In short, he's proposing a solution of appearance rather than reality. He's trying to postpone the crisis rather than solve it.
(More tomorrow on the financial crisis -- and some contrasts between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama.)
Some of her critics have portrayed Palin as rejecting "free money" that would benefit the people of Alaska. Those critics are shortsighted. There is no such thing as "free money." Palin is rejecting money she believes will aggravate the financial crisis rather than ameliorate it.
On my other blog, I'm writing a related piece about "What Caused the Financial Crisis?" Gov. Palin knows what caused the crisis: over-borrowing, over-spending, and over-lending. Barack Obama probably knows -- even though economics is not his strong suit -- but has chosen to act like a politician rather than a President.
Companies, including banks and other financial institutions, borrowed too much (and had too little capital). Individuals, companies, and, especially, governments spent too much. Individuals, companies, and governments borrowed too much, more than they would able to repay in a time of economic downturn.
The aforementioned paragraphs outline what happened. They will tell you more than you'll hear in the millions of words emanating from the TV networks and the national publications. They rely too much on long-winded "experts" and impenetrable financial jargon (e.g., "credit default swaps," "derivatives," and "subprime mortgages").
I won't join the "Blame America First" crowd. However, in the 1990s and the new century, our country struck a "deal with the Devil," China, a subject I'll write more about this week. Essentially, we said to China, "Look, we'll buy all the good you can manufacture or assemble . . . as long as you buy our burgeoning debt at relatively low interest rates." Essentially, China lent us huge amounts of money that we used essentially to pay for the goods we bought from them.
Domestically, the government did everything it could to encourage the purchase of homes, including purchases by people who were poor credit risks. Meanwhile, equities, stocks bought and sold on Wall Street, kept surging upward.
What were the assumptions underlying all this? They were that home prices and stock prices would continue to go up . . . essentially forever. However, what if house prices started to go down sharply -- as they did? And what if stock prices went into a steep decline -- as they did?
The answer is that our whole financial house-of-cards -- for individuals, business, and government -- would collapse, as it has. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is regathering the cards -- and rejiggering some of the players -- to rebuild the "House" all over again. We need a newer -- saner -- financial model, but we're getting the old, unworkable one.
What is Obama's "solution" to the financial crisis, one caused by over-spending, over-borrowing, and over-lending? Unfortunately, he proposes a "hair of the dog" answer -- to spend, borrow, and lend more. In short, he's proposing a solution of appearance rather than reality. He's trying to postpone the crisis rather than solve it.
(More tomorrow on the financial crisis -- and some contrasts between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama.)
Sunday, March 29, 2009
What Caused the Financial Collapse
Friends, you may already have heard, but they just informed me that I won't be on BBC Radio today. It will be next week (time to be determined). Thanks for your interest. I sent out the following. [Note: Later today I'll write on this blog about Hillary Clinton supporters who have moved to support Sarah Palin in her efforts to become America's first female President. Yesterday's column on http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com is about "Obama lied . . . and America Died."]
Oops, the BBC just called, and I will be on NEXT WEEK (and not today). I gave them the name of a British contact, Brad Setser, who is the man, along with American expert Nouriel Roubini, predicted exactly what would happen in the financial crisis. That prediction was made (in a beautifully written article) in 2005 in the magazine Foreign Affairs. I really urge everyone to read the piece, which you can find at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60840/brad-setser-et-al/how-scary-is-the-deficit
If you don't have the time, here's the Wikipedia short form of the Setser-Roubini piece. They are brilliant, but not obnoxiously so, and their prediction outlines everything that came to pass:
"If the US does not take policy steps [in 2005] to reduce its need for external financing [i.e., from foreign central banks, particulary China's] before it exhausts the world's central banks willingness to keep adding to their dollar reserves - and if the rest of the world does not take steps to reduce its dependence on an unsustainable expansion in US domestic demand to support its own growth - the risk of a hard landing for the US and global economy will grow. The basic outlines of a hard landing are easy to envision: a sharp fall in the value of the US dollar, a rapid increase in US long-term interest rates and a sharp fall in the price of a range of risk assets including equities and housing. The asset price adjustment would lead to a severe slowdown in the US, and the fall in US imports associated with the US slowdown and the dollar's fall would lead to a global severe economic slowdown, if not an outright recession." [from Messrs. Setser and Roubini, Foreign Affairs, 2005]
The financial problem the world faces was caused by over-borrowing, over-lending, and over-spending. The Obama/Geithner solution is to borrow more, to have foreign central banks increase their lending, and for government to accelerate its own spending. If that sounds as if we're trying to solve the problem by doing more of what caused it, well, you've hit the nail on the head.
Additionally, we're bailing out failure and submerging success. Just call it "The Obama Depression." He's repeating all of Roosevelt's mistakes, while remaining blind to FDR's successes.
Right now, Obama is tripling the national debt, while pledging -- eventually -- to cut it in half. If that sounds like the math of a professional swindler, well, then you've been paying attention.
Remember, Obama is a Chicago Machine Politician, nothing more, nothing less. He, Geithner, and Bernanke are preparing to pay off (part of) the massive debt with inflation-cheapened dollars, but it's highly unlikely foreign bankers are going to want to play that game for long.
Oops, the BBC just called, and I will be on NEXT WEEK (and not today). I gave them the name of a British contact, Brad Setser, who is the man, along with American expert Nouriel Roubini, predicted exactly what would happen in the financial crisis. That prediction was made (in a beautifully written article) in 2005 in the magazine Foreign Affairs. I really urge everyone to read the piece, which you can find at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60840/brad-setser-et-al/how-scary-is-the-deficit
If you don't have the time, here's the Wikipedia short form of the Setser-Roubini piece. They are brilliant, but not obnoxiously so, and their prediction outlines everything that came to pass:
"If the US does not take policy steps [in 2005] to reduce its need for external financing [i.e., from foreign central banks, particulary China's] before it exhausts the world's central banks willingness to keep adding to their dollar reserves - and if the rest of the world does not take steps to reduce its dependence on an unsustainable expansion in US domestic demand to support its own growth - the risk of a hard landing for the US and global economy will grow. The basic outlines of a hard landing are easy to envision: a sharp fall in the value of the US dollar, a rapid increase in US long-term interest rates and a sharp fall in the price of a range of risk assets including equities and housing. The asset price adjustment would lead to a severe slowdown in the US, and the fall in US imports associated with the US slowdown and the dollar's fall would lead to a global severe economic slowdown, if not an outright recession." [from Messrs. Setser and Roubini, Foreign Affairs, 2005]
The financial problem the world faces was caused by over-borrowing, over-lending, and over-spending. The Obama/Geithner solution is to borrow more, to have foreign central banks increase their lending, and for government to accelerate its own spending. If that sounds as if we're trying to solve the problem by doing more of what caused it, well, you've hit the nail on the head.
Additionally, we're bailing out failure and submerging success. Just call it "The Obama Depression." He's repeating all of Roosevelt's mistakes, while remaining blind to FDR's successes.
Right now, Obama is tripling the national debt, while pledging -- eventually -- to cut it in half. If that sounds like the math of a professional swindler, well, then you've been paying attention.
Remember, Obama is a Chicago Machine Politician, nothing more, nothing less. He, Geithner, and Bernanke are preparing to pay off (part of) the massive debt with inflation-cheapened dollars, but it's highly unlikely foreign bankers are going to want to play that game for long.
Friday, March 27, 2009
McCain Staff Corrupt, Palin Shines
"People who don't Think probably don't have Brains; rather, they have gray fluff that's blown into their heads by mistake." Winnie the Pooh. obviously speaking about Obama and his supporters.
Sarah Palin was a great vice-presidential candidate whose efforts were undermined by a disloyal and incompetent campaign staff, one extremely unhelpful either to Sarah or to John McCain.
[Scroll down to read about new book on Sarah Palin being "poised for the presidency."]
Karen Allen (http://www.annieoakley.org/) , who'd be a great staffer in a future Palin campaign, mentioned the story below (in smaller print) supposedly citing former members of the McCain campaign staff who worked with Gov. Palin for two months-plus in September/October. Read the story carefully please. Gov. Palin is criticized (as is her Alaska staff) for her "extreme candor." I guess extreme candor is not in this year.
Also, the people supposedly criticizing Sarah Palin are those characterized as ones "who showed extreme loyalty to Palin, continually getting thrown under the bus or slapped in the face . . ."
Somehow, I don't see these people as exactly showing "extreme loyalty" to anyone but themselves. Their post-campaign actions don't exactly mirror those of, say, John Ziegler or Bill Kristol. In general, the McCain Campaign staff was awful, serving as punching bag for Obama's far superior stafff.
On Sarah's staff, where in "H" was Adam Brickley, the political whiz who almost single-handedly got Sarah the v-p nomination? Adam's site (http://palinforvp.blogspot.com) has been recognized by the Library of Congress, which made it part of the permanent collection. He should have had a top position on the Palin staff. (Adam now blogs at: http://thebrickyard.blogspot.com/)
Where was the first-rate speechwriter? I've written speeches for CEOs of ten of the world's largest companies, and I would have worked for her for free. The BBC in London is asking me to speak on Obama and the G-20 summit in London -- the tenth time I will have spoken on the BBC. They know I exist, which is more than I can say for the McCain Staff.
Where was the take-no-prisoners media person? She needed Dana Perino, and she got The Invisible Man (Tucker Bounds).
My guess is that Sarah looked at the people around her as one she needed more to pray FOR than pray WITH. Here's the story:below:
Some of Sarah Palin's former campaign aides are frustrated with the Alaska governor for remarking in a lengthy, freewheeling speech that she had refused to pray with them before last October's vice presidential debate.Palin told the story in a speech to a GOP dinner in Alaska last Friday."So I'm looking around for somebody to pray with, I just need maybe a little help, maybe a little extra," she said of the moments before the debate. "And the McCain campaign, love 'em, you know, they're a lot of people around me, but nobody I could find that I wanted to hold hands with and pray." In this Feb. 11, 2009 file photo, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin listens to a question during a news conference, in Juneau, Alaska. Palin reinforced her conservative credentials when she announced she would not accept nearly one-third of the federal stimulus money offered to the state, but a day later, was fending off critics who said it will hurt Alaskans. - AP Photo As the audience laughed, Palin noted that she meant no disrespect to the McCain campaign and that ended up saying a prayer with her daughter Piper.A handful of the McCain campaign staffers who traveled with the former vice presidential nominee nearly every day for two months caught wind of Palin's remarks on Thursday morning — and they aren't thrilled with her quip."We all talked this A.M.," said one former Palin aide in an e-mail. "This set off a nerve for sure with a lot of people.""It's yet another example of the few staff still loyal to Palin questioning their loyalty and ardent defense of her over the several months since the campaign," said the aide, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about campaign colleagues.Since election day, Palin has publicly griped about the way she was handled by the McCain team and pushed back against some of the campaign advisers who attacked her anonymously in the press.But another former staffer said that in doing so, Palin is failing to distinguish between the strategists at McCain headquarters and the people who were at her side every day from late August through election day."It's about us people who were on the plane, who showed extreme loyalty to Palin, continually getting thrown under the bus or slapped in the face by her comments, whether she means it or not," the staffer said, adding that Palin's remarks "cause you to question not only your loyalty but her judgment as a leader."The former aides said they place part of the blame for Palin's post-campaign candor on the governor's staff in Alaska. Several have reached out individually to offer advice or assistance to the governor, but "have gotten only pleasantries in response," said one aide."Who is the one making the decision that she needs to be out there saying these things?," the second staffer asked. "Someone needs to be telling her, 'Listen, let's not talk the campaign any more.' We need to talk about what's relevant and thinking about her influence as a voice in the Republican Party.""The people that she has, either working at her PAC or advisers in Alaska, aren't exactly making the best decisions for her," the staffer said.Palin's office in Alaska did not respond to a request for comment.
http://www.bnd.com/news/state/story/706665.html
Sarah Palin became the Republican vice presidential nominee, few Americans knew much about this young governor of Alaska. During the campaign, the media attacked her, as did her detractors from within and outside of the Republican Party. But Americans saw a tenacious political warrior who would not acquiesce in a male-dominated political battle. The purpose of this work is to introduce Americans to a young woman who has the character, the qualifications, and the unprecedented historical opportunity to become the leader of the greatest nation on earth. So, who is Sarah Palin? What was her journey like from a concerned hockey-mom to becoming governor of Alaska? How and why was she chosen to become the Republican vice presidential nominee? What is her future in the Republican Party and her opportunity for national, political office? You are likely to find some answers within the covers of this book.
Available at Amazon.com
Sarah Palin was a great vice-presidential candidate whose efforts were undermined by a disloyal and incompetent campaign staff, one extremely unhelpful either to Sarah or to John McCain.
[Scroll down to read about new book on Sarah Palin being "poised for the presidency."]
Karen Allen (http://www.annieoakley.org/) , who'd be a great staffer in a future Palin campaign, mentioned the story below (in smaller print) supposedly citing former members of the McCain campaign staff who worked with Gov. Palin for two months-plus in September/October. Read the story carefully please. Gov. Palin is criticized (as is her Alaska staff) for her "extreme candor." I guess extreme candor is not in this year.
Also, the people supposedly criticizing Sarah Palin are those characterized as ones "who showed extreme loyalty to Palin, continually getting thrown under the bus or slapped in the face . . ."
Somehow, I don't see these people as exactly showing "extreme loyalty" to anyone but themselves. Their post-campaign actions don't exactly mirror those of, say, John Ziegler or Bill Kristol. In general, the McCain Campaign staff was awful, serving as punching bag for Obama's far superior stafff.
On Sarah's staff, where in "H" was Adam Brickley, the political whiz who almost single-handedly got Sarah the v-p nomination? Adam's site (http://palinforvp.blogspot.com) has been recognized by the Library of Congress, which made it part of the permanent collection. He should have had a top position on the Palin staff. (Adam now blogs at: http://thebrickyard.blogspot.com/)
Where was the first-rate speechwriter? I've written speeches for CEOs of ten of the world's largest companies, and I would have worked for her for free. The BBC in London is asking me to speak on Obama and the G-20 summit in London -- the tenth time I will have spoken on the BBC. They know I exist, which is more than I can say for the McCain Staff.
Where was the take-no-prisoners media person? She needed Dana Perino, and she got The Invisible Man (Tucker Bounds).
My guess is that Sarah looked at the people around her as one she needed more to pray FOR than pray WITH. Here's the story:below:
Palin's prayer remark angers former staffers
Some of Sarah Palin's former campaign aides are frustrated with the Alaska governor for remarking in a lengthy, freewheeling speech that she had refused to pray with them before last October's vice presidential debate.Palin told the story in a speech to a GOP dinner in Alaska last Friday."So I'm looking around for somebody to pray with, I just need maybe a little help, maybe a little extra," she said of the moments before the debate. "And the McCain campaign, love 'em, you know, they're a lot of people around me, but nobody I could find that I wanted to hold hands with and pray." In this Feb. 11, 2009 file photo, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin listens to a question during a news conference, in Juneau, Alaska. Palin reinforced her conservative credentials when she announced she would not accept nearly one-third of the federal stimulus money offered to the state, but a day later, was fending off critics who said it will hurt Alaskans. - AP Photo As the audience laughed, Palin noted that she meant no disrespect to the McCain campaign and that ended up saying a prayer with her daughter Piper.A handful of the McCain campaign staffers who traveled with the former vice presidential nominee nearly every day for two months caught wind of Palin's remarks on Thursday morning — and they aren't thrilled with her quip."We all talked this A.M.," said one former Palin aide in an e-mail. "This set off a nerve for sure with a lot of people.""It's yet another example of the few staff still loyal to Palin questioning their loyalty and ardent defense of her over the several months since the campaign," said the aide, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about campaign colleagues.Since election day, Palin has publicly griped about the way she was handled by the McCain team and pushed back against some of the campaign advisers who attacked her anonymously in the press.But another former staffer said that in doing so, Palin is failing to distinguish between the strategists at McCain headquarters and the people who were at her side every day from late August through election day."It's about us people who were on the plane, who showed extreme loyalty to Palin, continually getting thrown under the bus or slapped in the face by her comments, whether she means it or not," the staffer said, adding that Palin's remarks "cause you to question not only your loyalty but her judgment as a leader."The former aides said they place part of the blame for Palin's post-campaign candor on the governor's staff in Alaska. Several have reached out individually to offer advice or assistance to the governor, but "have gotten only pleasantries in response," said one aide."Who is the one making the decision that she needs to be out there saying these things?," the second staffer asked. "Someone needs to be telling her, 'Listen, let's not talk the campaign any more.' We need to talk about what's relevant and thinking about her influence as a voice in the Republican Party.""The people that she has, either working at her PAC or advisers in Alaska, aren't exactly making the best decisions for her," the staffer said.Palin's office in Alaska did not respond to a request for comment.
http://www.bnd.com/news/state/story/706665.html
SARAH PALIN POISED TO BECOME AMERICA'S FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT
Sarah Palin became the Republican vice presidential nominee, few Americans knew much about this young governor of Alaska. During the campaign, the media attacked her, as did her detractors from within and outside of the Republican Party. But Americans saw a tenacious political warrior who would not acquiesce in a male-dominated political battle. The purpose of this work is to introduce Americans to a young woman who has the character, the qualifications, and the unprecedented historical opportunity to become the leader of the greatest nation on earth. So, who is Sarah Palin? What was her journey like from a concerned hockey-mom to becoming governor of Alaska? How and why was she chosen to become the Republican vice presidential nominee? What is her future in the Republican Party and her opportunity for national, political office? You are likely to find some answers within the covers of this book.
Available at Amazon.com
Palin: Learn From Bush's Failures
. . and why the Palin presidency doesn't have to fail. Below: I don't want Sarah Palin in 2020 to be complaining that "Soros and the media ruined my presidency." Instead, I want her -- about 2020, at the end of her second term -- saying, "I crushed George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and all those associated with them."
GWB was and is a good man, an American patriot. His wife was one of the greatest of First Ladies.
But he was a lousy salesman. (Today, Obama did a very poor job of "selling" the Afghan War, because he failed to make it personally meaningful to Americans.) Republican Presidents have a very small margin of error, because of media hostility, and somehow I never got the impression that GWB was having searching discussions of how best to "sell" the war or his handling of Katrina.
On somebody like Harriet Miers, the question is not whether she's an outstanding person, but rather: "How do I sell her as a credible nominee for the Supreme Court?' Yes, some conservatives stabbed her -- and GWB -- in the back, but that's the world we live in.
Compare the nomination of John Roberts, a bullet-proof candidate, versus that of Harriet, who never had a chance. The Gonzalez appointment turned out to be a disaster. Yes, he was loyal, but he wasn't much more than that.
He needed people around him who would say: "Mr. President, NO! It won't work." He didn't have such people.
Frankly, GWB's desire to have "friendly" relations with the White House Press corps showed a truly amazing naivete. Those people inhabit a culture that sees Bush's views and his religious faith as toxic.
His little "teasing" comments to journalists were seen as embarrassing and phony. They are not his friends; they will never be his friends.
Does he understand that? No, but Sarah Palin does.
Yes, Soros types and the Dems did everything they could to undermine GWB's presidency. What was his plan for counteracting that? Potentially, the POTUS is a thousand times more powerful than George Soros. It didn't work out that way. Soros lied -- and [the] Bush [presiency] died.
I don't want Sarah Palin in 2020 to be complaining that "Soros, Pelosi, Reid, and the media ruined my presidency." Instead, I want her saying, "I crushed Soros and all those associated with him and his kind." As Gen. MacArthur said, "There is no substitute for victory."
GWB was and is a good man, an American patriot. His wife was one of the greatest of First Ladies.
But he was a lousy salesman. (Today, Obama did a very poor job of "selling" the Afghan War, because he failed to make it personally meaningful to Americans.) Republican Presidents have a very small margin of error, because of media hostility, and somehow I never got the impression that GWB was having searching discussions of how best to "sell" the war or his handling of Katrina.
On somebody like Harriet Miers, the question is not whether she's an outstanding person, but rather: "How do I sell her as a credible nominee for the Supreme Court?' Yes, some conservatives stabbed her -- and GWB -- in the back, but that's the world we live in.
Compare the nomination of John Roberts, a bullet-proof candidate, versus that of Harriet, who never had a chance. The Gonzalez appointment turned out to be a disaster. Yes, he was loyal, but he wasn't much more than that.
He needed people around him who would say: "Mr. President, NO! It won't work." He didn't have such people.
Frankly, GWB's desire to have "friendly" relations with the White House Press corps showed a truly amazing naivete. Those people inhabit a culture that sees Bush's views and his religious faith as toxic.
His little "teasing" comments to journalists were seen as embarrassing and phony. They are not his friends; they will never be his friends.
Does he understand that? No, but Sarah Palin does.
Yes, Soros types and the Dems did everything they could to undermine GWB's presidency. What was his plan for counteracting that? Potentially, the POTUS is a thousand times more powerful than George Soros. It didn't work out that way. Soros lied -- and [the] Bush [presiency] died.
I don't want Sarah Palin in 2020 to be complaining that "Soros, Pelosi, Reid, and the media ruined my presidency." Instead, I want her saying, "I crushed Soros and all those associated with him and his kind." As Gen. MacArthur said, "There is no substitute for victory."
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Obama's Disapproval Rates Skyrocketing
As Obama continues his mindless descent into socialism and national defenselessness, his approval rates are tanking while his disapprovals are skyrocketing. He is now on pace to become perhaps the worst President in American history. Somewhere, Richard Nixon is smiling. If this keeps up, Michelle Obama's short period of being "proud" of her country may fade away.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Does Sarah Palin Lack "Gravitas?"
Some people assert Sarah Palin lacks the "gravitas" (seriousness, solemnity, and intellectual firepower) to be President. I beg to differ. Unlike her opponent-to-be, Barack H. Obama, Sarah has never been a "Chicago politician."
On the gravitas issue, Sarah already has a lot more of it than Barack Hussein Obama, with his giggling and "punch drunk: manner, not to mention the "March Madness" idiocy, as well as his crude statement on Special Olympics, and his use of a TelePrompter on all occasions, which has led to a web site of and by . . . Barack's TelePrompter. The YouTube of him using a TelePrompter to get the notoriously sour Michelle "in the mood" is not far off the mark.
Sarah is a friendly, open person who relies more on naturalness (to her advantage) than on some assumed persona. What we see with Sarah is what we get.
The "intellectual Presidents" we had included Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, and (to a degree) Bill Clinton. None of them was a raging success. The notion that Obama is abnormally bright is laughable. What he knows is what he reads on the aforesaid TelePrompter.
In the campaign, Joe Biden made one false statement after another. He also misrepresented consistently the circumstances of his wife's and daughter's death in an auto accident. (He claimed for years that the truck driver involved, Mr. Hamill, was drunk.) CBS News (Katie the Rodent) made the same claim. CBS retracted this week its repetition of the Biden story, as Mr. Hamill's daughter informed me.
See the following link for the true story: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.transport.trucking/2008-09/msg00683.html
But Joe, with his fake silver hair and garrulous nonsense, has "gravitas."
I don't believe Sarah wants to be -- or will be -- anything but what she is, a normal American who has great leadership qualities. She's average in some ways, but way above-average in the things that count. Her appeal is to mid-Americans who identify with her as a wife, a mother, a hunter, an athlete, an advocate for special needs children, and a rock of integrity.
In short, just what America needs. That has to be enough.
On the gravitas issue, Sarah already has a lot more of it than Barack Hussein Obama, with his giggling and "punch drunk: manner, not to mention the "March Madness" idiocy, as well as his crude statement on Special Olympics, and his use of a TelePrompter on all occasions, which has led to a web site of and by . . . Barack's TelePrompter. The YouTube of him using a TelePrompter to get the notoriously sour Michelle "in the mood" is not far off the mark.
Sarah is a friendly, open person who relies more on naturalness (to her advantage) than on some assumed persona. What we see with Sarah is what we get.
The "intellectual Presidents" we had included Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, and (to a degree) Bill Clinton. None of them was a raging success. The notion that Obama is abnormally bright is laughable. What he knows is what he reads on the aforesaid TelePrompter.
In the campaign, Joe Biden made one false statement after another. He also misrepresented consistently the circumstances of his wife's and daughter's death in an auto accident. (He claimed for years that the truck driver involved, Mr. Hamill, was drunk.) CBS News (Katie the Rodent) made the same claim. CBS retracted this week its repetition of the Biden story, as Mr. Hamill's daughter informed me.
See the following link for the true story: http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.transport.trucking/2008-09/msg00683.html
But Joe, with his fake silver hair and garrulous nonsense, has "gravitas."
I don't believe Sarah wants to be -- or will be -- anything but what she is, a normal American who has great leadership qualities. She's average in some ways, but way above-average in the things that count. Her appeal is to mid-Americans who identify with her as a wife, a mother, a hunter, an athlete, an advocate for special needs children, and a rock of integrity.
In short, just what America needs. That has to be enough.
Tea Parties: Rage WITH Action
As Jacquerie of WamToday (http://wam08.org) said, "Rage without action is pointless." If the Obama Administration's massive bailouts and "Stimulus" payoffs to special interests enrage you -- as they should -- then you must act. About 5 p.m. (EDT) today (Wednesday), I'll have a list of actions you can take in regard to the Tea Parties that will occur in many American cities on April 15.
We can't allow the Tea Parties -- the Second American Revolution -- to be one-and-done events. They must be a beginning -- and not an end. As the old saying goes, "Don't just get mad; instead, get even.
1. Contact as many family, friends, and political allies as possible and ask them to go as a group to the local Tea Party – tell them exactly where and when it will be, and offer transportation if you can;
2. Promote the event widely by calling into talk radio, sending letters-to-the-editors of local papers, and notifying local political organizations;
3. Take a half-day’s vacation (if necessary) and ask that sympathetic co-workers do the same;
4. Invite local political and community leaders (although they shouldn’t dominate the event, which should be a true grassroots undertaking);
5. Dress up to make the event as festive as possible – perhaps an Uncle Sam (or Aunt Sam) outfit, or wearing a barrel, or donning a “Lady Liberty” hat;
6. Make up (several) handmade signs, which will capture the attention of the local media;
7. Bring your children if possible and have them carry age-appropriate signs (such as the one that said, “Keep your hands off my piggy bank”);
8. Have card tables and sign-up sheets where people can put their names, addresses, and e-mail addresses, so it will be easier to build crowds for future actions;
9. Enable people to sign up to support their favorite pro-Tea-Party candidates (e.g., Gov. Sarah Palin);
10. Make sure as many people as possible can speak at the event by keeping remarks short and to the point (two-three minutes maximum);
11. Acquaint the people with organizations they can join, such as: TeamSarah.org, Wam08.org, Americac2C.org, and others.
Overall, make the tea party fun, productive, and the foundation for future actions.
We can't allow the Tea Parties -- the Second American Revolution -- to be one-and-done events. They must be a beginning -- and not an end. As the old saying goes, "Don't just get mad; instead, get even.
Eleven Actions for Your Local "Tea Party"
1. Contact as many family, friends, and political allies as possible and ask them to go as a group to the local Tea Party – tell them exactly where and when it will be, and offer transportation if you can;
2. Promote the event widely by calling into talk radio, sending letters-to-the-editors of local papers, and notifying local political organizations;
3. Take a half-day’s vacation (if necessary) and ask that sympathetic co-workers do the same;
4. Invite local political and community leaders (although they shouldn’t dominate the event, which should be a true grassroots undertaking);
5. Dress up to make the event as festive as possible – perhaps an Uncle Sam (or Aunt Sam) outfit, or wearing a barrel, or donning a “Lady Liberty” hat;
6. Make up (several) handmade signs, which will capture the attention of the local media;
7. Bring your children if possible and have them carry age-appropriate signs (such as the one that said, “Keep your hands off my piggy bank”);
8. Have card tables and sign-up sheets where people can put their names, addresses, and e-mail addresses, so it will be easier to build crowds for future actions;
9. Enable people to sign up to support their favorite pro-Tea-Party candidates (e.g., Gov. Sarah Palin);
10. Make sure as many people as possible can speak at the event by keeping remarks short and to the point (two-three minutes maximum);
11. Acquaint the people with organizations they can join, such as: TeamSarah.org, Wam08.org, Americac2C.org, and others.
Overall, make the tea party fun, productive, and the foundation for future actions.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Sarah Palin Supporters Fighting Back
Sarah Palin Supporters are "mad as Hades" at those who delight in smearing her, and we aren't going to take it any more. If they throw a verbal stone at Sarah, we're going to drop a boulder on them. Recently, the largest pro-Palin organization, TeamSarah.org, banned an anti-Palin reporter (Amanda Coil, also known as "Anaconda Coil") from the site. She squealed like a pig in a hailstorm (scroll down toward bottom of the column).
Here's how an important Sarah backer, Ron Devito (and three cheers for him) of Team Sarah, responded to Ms. Coil:
Team Sarah is for friends and supporters of Sarah Palin, not her enemies. You have this paper [The Alaska Dispatch], ADN [Anchorage Daily News], and multiple Obama-supporting blogs to post your hatred of Governor Palin. This hatred -- from you and others in the tank for Barack HUSSEIN Obama spews like a steady stream of vomit on on a daily basis in all these venues.
Team Sarah and other pro-Sarah sites are not intended for "reporters"to troll. then post hateful material. A reporter covers news - a reporter does not interject opinion into the news.
Are you a reporter or a columnist? Which is is it? You can't be both. I have a journalism degree; I was in the field for two years. I know what is going on with the message boards, with the paid bloggers and how the mainstream press is specifically targeting Governor Palin. Journalism is dead -- and people like you -- are part of the reason why.
I run several blogs documenting the Governor's accomplishments and "anti-Sarah"material would be shot down faster than a hostile airliner on a September morning on any blog I operate. Freedom of the press belongs to the owner of the press. Team Sarah owns their press; I own mine. If you don't like it, too bad.
No one is stopping you from publishing your hatred here on your turf, on the blogs where your opinionated reporting is welcome, or on a blog of your own -- you have the same Internet, we all have -- but you are not going to come to any of our houses (that would be our websites) and use them as a means to aid your poison pen against Governor Palin. Team Sarah was correct in their action. And if you don't like my opinion, you're welcome to ban me from here. One way or the other it will be published some place."
Below is the plaintive bleep from the eternally bleeping Amanda Coil that Ron responded to in his comments. [Note: The Alaska Dispatch regularly "bans" people whom they regard as insufficiently service to their bogus journalism.]
Guess Teamsarah.org, Palin's biggest support group,is banning reporters now.The first message came in an inbox, from someone named Bill Collier. Anybody know him? If you do, you might want to remind him that Gov. Sarah Palin's platform is transparency.
"Amanda, I am temporarily suspending your account's access privileges pending a verification of your membership. Please provide your name, location, and either an email that we can verify from a paid account or your ISP or a verifiable phone number. Thank you, TS
Governance."
Notice the first person there? Amanda, as in Amanda Coyne, who [note Ms. Coil means "whom"] Team Sarah nicknamed "Anaconda Coil." A link on the email led to this message:
"You have been banned from Team Sarah. Sorry, Amanda, you can not access Team Sarah as you have been banned. If you think you've been banned in error, you can contact the administrator."
Amanda concludes, "It's hard to imagine conservatives4palin.com doing anything like this, the other big grassroots, pro-Palin site."
Here's how an important Sarah backer, Ron Devito (and three cheers for him) of Team Sarah, responded to Ms. Coil:
Team Sarah is for friends and supporters of Sarah Palin, not her enemies. You have this paper [The Alaska Dispatch], ADN [Anchorage Daily News], and multiple Obama-supporting blogs to post your hatred of Governor Palin. This hatred -- from you and others in the tank for Barack HUSSEIN Obama spews like a steady stream of vomit on on a daily basis in all these venues.
Team Sarah and other pro-Sarah sites are not intended for "reporters"to troll. then post hateful material. A reporter covers news - a reporter does not interject opinion into the news.
Are you a reporter or a columnist? Which is is it? You can't be both. I have a journalism degree; I was in the field for two years. I know what is going on with the message boards, with the paid bloggers and how the mainstream press is specifically targeting Governor Palin. Journalism is dead -- and people like you -- are part of the reason why.
I run several blogs documenting the Governor's accomplishments and "anti-Sarah"material would be shot down faster than a hostile airliner on a September morning on any blog I operate. Freedom of the press belongs to the owner of the press. Team Sarah owns their press; I own mine. If you don't like it, too bad.
No one is stopping you from publishing your hatred here on your turf, on the blogs where your opinionated reporting is welcome, or on a blog of your own -- you have the same Internet, we all have -- but you are not going to come to any of our houses (that would be our websites) and use them as a means to aid your poison pen against Governor Palin. Team Sarah was correct in their action. And if you don't like my opinion, you're welcome to ban me from here. One way or the other it will be published some place."
Below is the plaintive bleep from the eternally bleeping Amanda Coil that Ron responded to in his comments. [Note: The Alaska Dispatch regularly "bans" people whom they regard as insufficiently service to their bogus journalism.]
Guess Teamsarah.org, Palin's biggest support group,is banning reporters now.The first message came in an inbox, from someone named Bill Collier. Anybody know him? If you do, you might want to remind him that Gov. Sarah Palin's platform is transparency.
"Amanda, I am temporarily suspending your account's access privileges pending a verification of your membership. Please provide your name, location, and either an email that we can verify from a paid account or your ISP or a verifiable phone number. Thank you, TS
Governance."
Notice the first person there? Amanda, as in Amanda Coyne, who [note Ms. Coil means "whom"] Team Sarah nicknamed "Anaconda Coil." A link on the email led to this message:
"You have been banned from Team Sarah. Sorry, Amanda, you can not access Team Sarah as you have been banned. If you think you've been banned in error, you can contact the administrator."
Amanda concludes, "It's hard to imagine conservatives4palin.com doing anything like this, the other big grassroots, pro-Palin site."
Monday, March 23, 2009
WHY OBAMA HATES SARAH PALIN
Barack Hussein Obama hates Sarah Heath Palin because she poses the greatest threat to his winning a second term (and third-term, apparently) as President of the U.S. When John McCain named Sarah as his running mate, the McCain-Palin team surged to the lead in the national polls. They stayed ahead until the economy began collapsing on September 15.
Is this man capable of calling Sarah Palin names? Actually, he's the one who threw his own grandmother under the bus, absurdly comparing her to Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Barack Hussein Obama hates Sarah Heath Palin because she poses the greatest threat to his winning a second term (and third-term, apparently) as President of the U.S. When John McCain named Sarah as his running mate, the McCain-Palin team surged to the lead in the national polls. They stayed ahead until the economy began collapsing on September 15.
When Sarah Palin surfaced on the national scene, Obama sent an army of lawyers to Alaska. Their mission was summed up by one blogger: "Democrats Desperately Trying to Dig Up Dirt to Destroy Palin." At the same time, Obama and his minions began slinging mud and hurling slurs at Gov. Palin.
Someone recently questioned my claim that Barack Hussein Obama had called Sarah Heath Palin "a pig." I cite two news outlets below -- I could have cited 50 -- who believe Obama was referring to Gov. Palin when he made his "you can put lipstick on a pig" comment. (Google: "Barack Obama" + "lipstick on a pig" to see exactly who was the target of his reference.)
When Obama made the statement, no person in America was more associated with "lipstick" than Gov. Palin. In the same way, when Obama was speaking about primary opponent Hilary Clinton and made an obscene gesture with his middle finger, he wasn't merely exercising his digit.
How did Obama's audience react when he made the lipstick=pig reference? According to a NY Post reporter in attendance: "Many in the Obama crowd leaped to their feet in delight - apparently taking the 'pig' comment as a direct slam at Palin."
How was the slur interpreted overseas? The Telegraph in the U.K. had the following headline: "Barack Obama's 'lipstick on a pig' remark prompted by Sarah Palin?" [See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2779438/Barack-Obamas-lipstick-on-a-pig-remark-prompted-by-Sarah-Palin.html
The Telegraph added, "Perhaps Barack Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark tumbled out of his mouth prompted by Sarah Palin's own remark about lipstick distinguishing a hockey mom from a pit-bull."
As illustrated by his comments and gestures in regard to both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, Obama is a certifiable sleazebag. Maybe it comes from being a long-time Chicago politician and a lifelong misogynist.
Is Obama the worst President? He's off to a "good start." Is he the sleaziest? No contest. He might end up making Richard Nixon look like George Washington.
Following is the NY Post story on Obama's remark and how his supporters interpreted it.http://b.casalemedia.com/V2/62428/114222/index.html?g=Af////8=&r=www.nypost.com/seven/09092008/news/politics/obama__put_lipstick_on_a_pig__its_still__128280.htm:By
GEOFF EARLE, Post Correspondent, Sept. 9, 2008
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama stuck his foot in his mouth today when he said "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" - which the angry McCain campaign immediately charged was an out-of-bounds attack on running mate Sarah Palin.
Obama delivered the line while campaigning in Lebanon, Va., tearing into his rivals for not representing real change.
"You know, you can put lipstick on a pig," Obama said, "but it's still a pig."
Is this man capable of calling Sarah Palin names? Actually, he's the one who threw his own grandmother under the bus, absurdly comparing her to Rev. Jeremiah Wright.Barack Hussein Obama hates Sarah Heath Palin because she poses the greatest threat to his winning a second term (and third-term, apparently) as President of the U.S. When John McCain named Sarah as his running mate, the McCain-Palin team surged to the lead in the national polls. They stayed ahead until the economy began collapsing on September 15.
When Sarah Palin surfaced on the national scene, Obama sent an army of lawyers to Alaska. Their mission was summed up by one blogger: "Democrats Desperately Trying to Dig Up Dirt to Destroy Palin." At the same time, Obama and his minions began slinging mud and hurling slurs at Gov. Palin.
Someone recently questioned my claim that Barack Hussein Obama had called Sarah Heath Palin "a pig." I cite two news outlets below -- I could have cited 50 -- who believe Obama was referring to Gov. Palin when he made his "you can put lipstick on a pig" comment. (Google: "Barack Obama" + "lipstick on a pig" to see exactly who was the target of his reference.)
When Obama made the statement, no person in America was more associated with "lipstick" than Gov. Palin. In the same way, when Obama was speaking about primary opponent Hilary Clinton and made an obscene gesture with his middle finger, he wasn't merely exercising his digit.
How did Obama's audience react when he made the lipstick=pig reference? According to a NY Post reporter in attendance: "Many in the Obama crowd leaped to their feet in delight - apparently taking the 'pig' comment as a direct slam at Palin."
How was the slur interpreted overseas? The Telegraph in the U.K. had the following headline: "Barack Obama's 'lipstick on a pig' remark prompted by Sarah Palin?" [See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2779438/Barack-Obamas-lipstick-on-a-pig-remark-prompted-by-Sarah-Palin.html
The Telegraph added, "Perhaps Barack Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark tumbled out of his mouth prompted by Sarah Palin's own remark about lipstick distinguishing a hockey mom from a pit-bull."
As illustrated by his comments and gestures in regard to both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, Obama is a certifiable sleazebag. Maybe it comes from being a long-time Chicago politician and a lifelong misogynist.
Is Obama the worst President? He's off to a "good start." Is he the sleaziest? No contest. He might end up making Richard Nixon look like George Washington.
Following is the NY Post story on Obama's remark and how his supporters interpreted it.http://b.casalemedia.com/V2/62428/114222/index.html?g=Af////8=&r=www.nypost.com/seven/09092008/news/politics/obama__put_lipstick_on_a_pig__its_still__128280.htm:By
GEOFF EARLE, Post Correspondent, Sept. 9, 2008
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama stuck his foot in his mouth today when he said "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" - which the angry McCain campaign immediately charged was an out-of-bounds attack on running mate Sarah Palin.
Obama delivered the line while campaigning in Lebanon, Va., tearing into his rivals for not representing real change.
"You know, you can put lipstick on a pig," Obama said, "but it's still a pig."
He added, "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change.' It's still gonna stink after eight years."
Many in the Obama crowd leaped to their feet in delight - apparently taking the "pig" comment as a direct slam at Palin.
Many in the Obama crowd leaped to their feet in delight - apparently taking the "pig" comment as a direct slam at Palin.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Special Olympics: Palin Blasts Obama
Gov. Palin condemned Barack Obama's offensive comments about Special Olympics athletes. [Scroll down two columns to see "Why Obama Hates 'Imperfect' People"] My previous column is about media hatred of Sarah.
March 20, 2009, Juneau, Alaska –
Governor Sarah Palin responded to remarks made [Thursday] night by President Obama related to the Special Olympics on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.”“I was shocked to learn of the comment made by President Obama about Special Olympics,” Governor Palin said. “This was a degrading remark about our world’s most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world.
“These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity than most of us ever will. By the way, these athletes can outperform many of us and we should be proud of them. I hope President Obama’s comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community.”
March 20, 2009, Juneau, Alaska –
Governor Sarah Palin responded to remarks made [Thursday] night by President Obama related to the Special Olympics on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.”“I was shocked to learn of the comment made by President Obama about Special Olympics,” Governor Palin said. “This was a degrading remark about our world’s most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world.
“These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity than most of us ever will. By the way, these athletes can outperform many of us and we should be proud of them. I hope President Obama’s comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community.”
OBAMA'S SPECIAL OLYMPICS SLUR
Here's Politico's description of what Obama said:
"Obama used much of his appearance on the comedy show to discuss the economy but sought to get in some light-hearted quips toward the end of the taping. He said he had been working on his bowling game just below his new residence and recently rolled a 129.
"'That’s very good, Mr. President,' cracked host Jay Leno.
'It's like — it was like Special Olympics, or something,' the president replied."
Some people want to give Obama a pass on his strange comment about Special Olympics. I don't. He's earlier made jokes about Nancy Reagan's interest in astrology, as well as about Jessica Simpson's weight. His constant caricatures and condemnations of his predecessor as President damaged America's status in the world. His attempts to use the Iraq War for political gain endangered the lives of American soldiers.
Also -- and notoriously -- he once referred to vice presidential candiate Sarah Palin as a "pig."
At times, this supposed "great communicator," Obama, misuses words to an alarming extent. I've written recently (on my other blog) about how Obama and his wife seem to admire "beautiful people," including themselves, while they look with distaste on those who are "imperfect," such as the handicapped young people in Special Olympics. During the campaign, some of Obama's surrogates, including Democratic official Carol Fowler, indirectly criticized Sarah Palin for even having a Down Syndrome baby, Trig.
Calling attention to such verbal garbage is in no way unfair. We should hold Obama to at least some standards of personal conduct.
MEDIA'S ANTI-PALIN HATE CAMPAIGN
Why did the mainstream media, following the lead of the Obama Campaign, launch a steady stream of hateful comments at Gov. Sarah Palin? Why did they ignore the accomplishments of this remarkable young woman? To find out, read Nicholas Guariglia's remarkable article following. It might be the most important article you've read this year.
March 19, 2009
"Palin in Retrospect: The Mainstream Media Went Insane Last Year
Nicholas Guariglia
"These are confusing times. Print journalism is dying" – so said Victor Davis Hanson last September. Now that the hysteria of the campaign is over, we can see in retrospect that this claim had more than enough credence to it, and nowhere was this more evident than in the mainstream media's visceral reaction to Gov. Sarah Palin.
Rewind six months: if an uninterested observer in September picked up a newspaper, read the Associated Press, scanned through the New York Times, or turned on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN, they would have likely walked away with the impression that Sen. McCain's selection for vice president was not the most popular governor in the United States, who oversaw much of the country's energy reserves, while challenging bureaucracy, her own party, and reforming Alaskan government.
Richard Cohen of the Washington Post called Gov. Sarah Palin a "sitcom" candidate. She has been described as an "empty pantsuit" and "almost absent qualifications for the job." Joe Biden dismissed her as "obviously a backward step for women," before adding "she's good looking" (Michelle Obama's opinion: "she's cute").
Cintra Wilson of Salon referred to Palin as the "Carmella Soprano of the GOP," a "Republican blow-up doll," and a "White House bunny" with "Playmate-style bunny ears, big, stupid eyes and her mouth hanging open like someone just punched her." The ever-brilliant Juan Cole, also of Salon, compared her to Islamic Jihadists and the Guardianship Council of the Iranian dictatorship, rhetorically asking "What's the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? Lipstick."
Carol Fowler, Democratic chairwoman in South Carolina, asserted Palin's "primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion." The National Organization for Women claimed Palin was "more a conservative man than she is a woman on women's issues." In direct reference to Palin's governorship, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), visibly proud of his wittiness, said "Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus… Pontius Pilate was a governor."
Sally Quinn of the Washington Post, David Letterman, HBO's Bill Maher, John Roberts of CNN, and MSNBC's headlines all wondered aloud if Palin is a poor mother. How can she work and take care of her kids, after all?Garry Wills of the New York Times demanded Palin "withdraw her nomination" to minimize her "own humiliation." Maureen Dowd, also from the Times, thought Palin was "forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood."
Mary Mitchell from the Chicago Sun-Times called Palin a "laughingstock," adding "Sarah Palin makes me sick." Keith Boykin of The Daily Voice said Palin made a fool of herself by referring to "Talabani" (she was talking about Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq, not the Taliban in Afghanistan). The raspy-voiced Rep. Charlie Rangel called Palin "disabled." Wendy Doniger wrote in the Washington Post, "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."
Saturday Night Live did a skit implying Palin's husband, Todd, engaged in incest with his daughters. When it was announced Gov. Palin would be traveling to the UN building in New York to meet foreign heads-of-state, Sandra Bernhard issued a warning to Palin not to enter Manhattan or else she would be "gang-raped by my big black brothers."
Kate Zernike of the New York Times characterized her UN trip a little less crudely, but just as unprofessionally, when she called her meetings with the leaders of Georgia, Ukraine, Iraq, and Pakistan foreign policy "tutorials," where Palin and her foreign dignitaries engaged in "small talk about her looks and New York City."Funny, isn't it?
When Barack Obama went on his international magical mystery tour last summer, I do not recall the press characterizing his meetings with heads-of-state as "tutorials."Just what is it about this woman – who had initially been received well by the majority of the country – that stirred up so much hatred and vitriol from a particular clique in the media and increasingly visceral Democrat circles?
Palin is a gifted politician, whose views are not ambiguous. You either agree with her or you disagree with her, and that is understandable. But the "love her or hate her" attitude that pervaded most Beltway circles, perpetuated by the media, was entirely irrational.
Once she was nominated by John McCain, the mainstream media forwarded "stories" and "reports," asserting that Sarah Palin a) wanted to ban library books in Alaska; b) believes in teaching creationism-only in schools; c) is actually the grandmother of her baby son and is lying us; d) is a member of a fringe-extremist Alaskan party that wants to secede from the United States; e) is responsible for her son's Down syndrome because she flew on a plane while pregnant; f) did not practice adequate prenatal care; g) is anti-Semitic and supports "Nazi-sympathizing," ultra-right-wing politicians; h) feels the Iraq war is a task from God; i) cheated on her husband; j) opposes teaching about contraception in sex-education class; k) opposes abortion even if the life of the mother is in jeopardy; l) believes, and claims, that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks; m) used the phrase "Sambo" in reference to Barack Obama; n) is a "global warming denier" – God forbid; o) has a brother in jail; p) was willingly indoctrinated by AIPAC; q) cut state funding for unwed mothers; r) cut funding for the Special Olympics in Alaska; s) stops talking to people when she realizes they're black – amongst many other claims.
All of which is false, of course. Entirely false.So what was the deal? In the past, the news media reported stories which could be independently verified. Analysis would be objective. Investigative journalism would require actual transparent investigation. But today, with the advent of the "blog," any-old Joe Schmo can write whatever he or she wishes on websites like DailyKos.com and MoveOn.org, thereby – in the never ending race to be first – prompting anchormen on cable news and editorialists from mainstream papers to pick up and run with a blog rumor as a "story."
And if the "story" turns out to be false or a non-story – like the examples listed above – then that becomes the story and a small retraction is issued at the bottom of the last page. Last year's coverage of Palin exemplified this phenomenon.
With television ratings and newspaper sales lower than ever, it is becoming increasingly evident that Americans can now find their news from alternate sources like the Internet and talk radio. We no longer have to turn on the television and watch old has-beens like Charlie Gibson stare down his interview guests – like Sarah Palin – emotionlessly peering at her over his thin glasses rested at the bottom of his nose, like a University Dean about to reprimand and discipline an out-of-control sorority girl.
That McCain's selection of Palin was a total surprise for many – for Republicans, for Barack Obama, for the press, etc. – only enhanced the likelihood that the press would, leech-like, cling on to any story which was even remotely juicy. After a no-name blogger posted some year-old photos of the Palin family, and forwarded the notion that Palin looked a little too good to be pregnant and Palin's 17-year old daughter, Bristol, had a little "baby fat," the mainstream media ran with the story.
What story? The story that there was a rumor. And what rumor? That Bristol Palin is really the mother of Palin's newborn son Trig, and Palin the grandmother.The rumor was proven untrue, obviously, but to prove its invalidity the Palin family was forced to reveal the very private and personal fact that Bristol was, in fact, five months pregnant with a baby of her own. Then that became the new smear.
Think about the grotesque nature of it all. Some 50-something DailyKos creep was sitting there, probably in his mother's basement, analyzing the astute nuances of Bristol Palin's lower abdomen. After visually scoping her up and down, he concluded that Bristol, a legal minor, was a little too chunky for his liking – therefore obviously pregnant – and posted the Palin family photos and his "journalistic analysis" all over the Internet.
Then, even more bizarrely, the lead editorialists of the country's major newspapers, and the chief executives of the largest news shows on television, decided to report this as objective news.At the time, Michael Moore, the infamous liberal political critic and movie director, summed up his feelings regarding this episode rather nicely:
Knocking Bush for being a C student only endeared him to the nation of C students. Knock Palin for having kids, for having a kid who's having a baby, for anything that is part of her normalness – a normalness that looks very familiar to so many millions of Americans – well, you do this at your own peril.
So why would the media behave in this manner? Jonah Goldberg of the National Review explained:Cockroaches scatter when shocked by a flipped light switch. Grizzly bears attack when startled. And when caught napping by big news, the press corps floods the zone. Editors scream at underlings who missed the story. Networks fret they'll be scooped. And all of a sudden, the norms and standards become a blur in the race to be first.
In the case of Palin, the press vaulted over every principle and standard they'd established about what is and isn't fair game… it required the Jaws of Life to pry news of John Edwards' affair out of the mainstream press. But when it came to the personal drama of Palin's 17-year old daughter, the press clawed for morsels like they were golden tickets from Wonka Bars.
People in the press would say they were just doing their job. The perpetually angry and now-demoted Chris Matthews of MSNBC – who, I never fail to remind my readers, claimed he gets a tingling sensation up his leg whenever he hears Barack Obama speak – responded with indignation. His general attitude was, "How dare you question me and the media for holding the possible vice president's feet to the fire?"
Touché, Chris. Now how about doing that with the President Obama, as well?
Nobody is suggesting we should have exempted Gov. Palin from examination. The public deserved to know Gov. Palin's record, which means cataloging and reporting her actual record. Funny business from the New York Times warning that Palin's mayoralty and governorship suggests she is "secretive," evident in that she brought in her own cabinet team (the horror!) – as if every executive on the planet doesn't do that as well – is not analyzing her record; it is an opinion, and a dumb one at that.
Snobbery from Charlie Gibson, quoting Palin out of context then flatly stating "Exact words" when Palin objects, is not analysis of her record; its unprofessional journalism and a bad interview. When Gibson snidely snickers he got "lost in a blizzard of words" after Palin articulately responds to his ridiculous questions, that's not holding her feet to the fire; that's just rude. When he asserts that it takes "hubris" for Palin to think she should be elected, that's not objectivity; that's just being a jerk.
In the world of information, the elite media is in its last throes. Mark Penn, a prominent Clinton strategist, now asserts that the press has lost its credibility. Lanny Davis, Terry McAuliffe of the DNC, and Gov. Ed Rendell – famous surrogates of Hillary Clinton – all echo that same theme.
In sending hit-squads to tiny Wasilla, not reporting Gov. Palin's record but pillaging matters of privacy, hacking into her e-mail account, and forwarding private e-mails to the press, the mainstream media behaved in a manner that they would all collectively describe as Orwellian and fascist if Ashcroft's Justice Department were to act this way to an al Qaida suspect. They proved they were everything they claimed Dick Cheney to be.
The media was fearful because Palin's political character exposed the extreme far-left for what it is: an ideology whose existence is rooted in parasitically paying lip service to, but never genuinely supporting, movements of authentic liberation. Their feminism is the type that doesn't care whether or not women play on an equal field, and advance accordingly, but whether or not women en masse will be co-opted to support their social and cultural beliefs in the hope that someone is speaking for them.
Just as prominent African-American conservatives like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice et. al. were castigated as "sell-outs" and "Uncle Toms," so too Sarah Palin proved a woman can hunt, dress a moose, raise five kids, run the largest state in the country, and excel on her own merit alone, without familial ties or matrimony to powerful men – unlike a Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, or Diane Feinstein – without "mastery" in Ivy League "oppression studies," rabid support for all forms of abortion, or a general off-putting attitude that suggests all men are evil and somehow stand in their way. Palin's success essentially said to girls, "If you want, there's another route you can travel."
Before Barack Obama's election, only two Democrats had been elected to the White House since 1968 (Carter and Clinton). Both were from the South and at least portrayed themselves as centrist moderates at the time of their election. Neither of them would have reached the presidency without an unusual variable (Watergate for Carter, Ross Perot's third candidacy for Clinton).
Democrats in 2008 were aware of this. They knew they have had a poor showing during the last four decades. And at least demographically, they still know they need to rely on a few core "blocs" to ever get elected again – namely, minorities and women. In their view, Gov. Palin threatened not just Obama's chances in 2008, but she threatened the Democrat Party as a whole, as an institution. All of this had led to a feeling of extreme unease.
Their answer? To forgo all standards of media objective analysis and attack Sarah Palin and her family in any way, shape, or form. Years from now, journalism classes will look back at this and marvel.
Paraphrasing Goldberg, yet again: there were legitimate criticisms to make of Gov. Palin. But that is not the same thing as saying all of the criticisms were valid or that the intensity and magnitude of the criticism was warranted.FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Nicholas Guariglia is a polemic and essayist who writes on Islam and Middle Eastern geopolitics. He can be reached at nickguar@gmail.com.
You can find this online at: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2786/pub_detail.aspCOPYRIGHT 2009 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.
March 19, 2009
"Palin in Retrospect: The Mainstream Media Went Insane Last Year
Nicholas Guariglia
"These are confusing times. Print journalism is dying" – so said Victor Davis Hanson last September. Now that the hysteria of the campaign is over, we can see in retrospect that this claim had more than enough credence to it, and nowhere was this more evident than in the mainstream media's visceral reaction to Gov. Sarah Palin.
Rewind six months: if an uninterested observer in September picked up a newspaper, read the Associated Press, scanned through the New York Times, or turned on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN, they would have likely walked away with the impression that Sen. McCain's selection for vice president was not the most popular governor in the United States, who oversaw much of the country's energy reserves, while challenging bureaucracy, her own party, and reforming Alaskan government.
Richard Cohen of the Washington Post called Gov. Sarah Palin a "sitcom" candidate. She has been described as an "empty pantsuit" and "almost absent qualifications for the job." Joe Biden dismissed her as "obviously a backward step for women," before adding "she's good looking" (Michelle Obama's opinion: "she's cute").
Cintra Wilson of Salon referred to Palin as the "Carmella Soprano of the GOP," a "Republican blow-up doll," and a "White House bunny" with "Playmate-style bunny ears, big, stupid eyes and her mouth hanging open like someone just punched her." The ever-brilliant Juan Cole, also of Salon, compared her to Islamic Jihadists and the Guardianship Council of the Iranian dictatorship, rhetorically asking "What's the difference between Palin and Muslim fundamentalists? Lipstick."
Carol Fowler, Democratic chairwoman in South Carolina, asserted Palin's "primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion." The National Organization for Women claimed Palin was "more a conservative man than she is a woman on women's issues." In direct reference to Palin's governorship, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), visibly proud of his wittiness, said "Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus… Pontius Pilate was a governor."
Sally Quinn of the Washington Post, David Letterman, HBO's Bill Maher, John Roberts of CNN, and MSNBC's headlines all wondered aloud if Palin is a poor mother. How can she work and take care of her kids, after all?Garry Wills of the New York Times demanded Palin "withdraw her nomination" to minimize her "own humiliation." Maureen Dowd, also from the Times, thought Palin was "forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood."
Mary Mitchell from the Chicago Sun-Times called Palin a "laughingstock," adding "Sarah Palin makes me sick." Keith Boykin of The Daily Voice said Palin made a fool of herself by referring to "Talabani" (she was talking about Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq, not the Taliban in Afghanistan). The raspy-voiced Rep. Charlie Rangel called Palin "disabled." Wendy Doniger wrote in the Washington Post, "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."
Saturday Night Live did a skit implying Palin's husband, Todd, engaged in incest with his daughters. When it was announced Gov. Palin would be traveling to the UN building in New York to meet foreign heads-of-state, Sandra Bernhard issued a warning to Palin not to enter Manhattan or else she would be "gang-raped by my big black brothers."
Kate Zernike of the New York Times characterized her UN trip a little less crudely, but just as unprofessionally, when she called her meetings with the leaders of Georgia, Ukraine, Iraq, and Pakistan foreign policy "tutorials," where Palin and her foreign dignitaries engaged in "small talk about her looks and New York City."Funny, isn't it?
When Barack Obama went on his international magical mystery tour last summer, I do not recall the press characterizing his meetings with heads-of-state as "tutorials."Just what is it about this woman – who had initially been received well by the majority of the country – that stirred up so much hatred and vitriol from a particular clique in the media and increasingly visceral Democrat circles?
Palin is a gifted politician, whose views are not ambiguous. You either agree with her or you disagree with her, and that is understandable. But the "love her or hate her" attitude that pervaded most Beltway circles, perpetuated by the media, was entirely irrational.
Once she was nominated by John McCain, the mainstream media forwarded "stories" and "reports," asserting that Sarah Palin a) wanted to ban library books in Alaska; b) believes in teaching creationism-only in schools; c) is actually the grandmother of her baby son and is lying us; d) is a member of a fringe-extremist Alaskan party that wants to secede from the United States; e) is responsible for her son's Down syndrome because she flew on a plane while pregnant; f) did not practice adequate prenatal care; g) is anti-Semitic and supports "Nazi-sympathizing," ultra-right-wing politicians; h) feels the Iraq war is a task from God; i) cheated on her husband; j) opposes teaching about contraception in sex-education class; k) opposes abortion even if the life of the mother is in jeopardy; l) believes, and claims, that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks; m) used the phrase "Sambo" in reference to Barack Obama; n) is a "global warming denier" – God forbid; o) has a brother in jail; p) was willingly indoctrinated by AIPAC; q) cut state funding for unwed mothers; r) cut funding for the Special Olympics in Alaska; s) stops talking to people when she realizes they're black – amongst many other claims.
All of which is false, of course. Entirely false.So what was the deal? In the past, the news media reported stories which could be independently verified. Analysis would be objective. Investigative journalism would require actual transparent investigation. But today, with the advent of the "blog," any-old Joe Schmo can write whatever he or she wishes on websites like DailyKos.com and MoveOn.org, thereby – in the never ending race to be first – prompting anchormen on cable news and editorialists from mainstream papers to pick up and run with a blog rumor as a "story."
And if the "story" turns out to be false or a non-story – like the examples listed above – then that becomes the story and a small retraction is issued at the bottom of the last page. Last year's coverage of Palin exemplified this phenomenon.
With television ratings and newspaper sales lower than ever, it is becoming increasingly evident that Americans can now find their news from alternate sources like the Internet and talk radio. We no longer have to turn on the television and watch old has-beens like Charlie Gibson stare down his interview guests – like Sarah Palin – emotionlessly peering at her over his thin glasses rested at the bottom of his nose, like a University Dean about to reprimand and discipline an out-of-control sorority girl.
That McCain's selection of Palin was a total surprise for many – for Republicans, for Barack Obama, for the press, etc. – only enhanced the likelihood that the press would, leech-like, cling on to any story which was even remotely juicy. After a no-name blogger posted some year-old photos of the Palin family, and forwarded the notion that Palin looked a little too good to be pregnant and Palin's 17-year old daughter, Bristol, had a little "baby fat," the mainstream media ran with the story.
What story? The story that there was a rumor. And what rumor? That Bristol Palin is really the mother of Palin's newborn son Trig, and Palin the grandmother.The rumor was proven untrue, obviously, but to prove its invalidity the Palin family was forced to reveal the very private and personal fact that Bristol was, in fact, five months pregnant with a baby of her own. Then that became the new smear.
Think about the grotesque nature of it all. Some 50-something DailyKos creep was sitting there, probably in his mother's basement, analyzing the astute nuances of Bristol Palin's lower abdomen. After visually scoping her up and down, he concluded that Bristol, a legal minor, was a little too chunky for his liking – therefore obviously pregnant – and posted the Palin family photos and his "journalistic analysis" all over the Internet.
Then, even more bizarrely, the lead editorialists of the country's major newspapers, and the chief executives of the largest news shows on television, decided to report this as objective news.At the time, Michael Moore, the infamous liberal political critic and movie director, summed up his feelings regarding this episode rather nicely:
Knocking Bush for being a C student only endeared him to the nation of C students. Knock Palin for having kids, for having a kid who's having a baby, for anything that is part of her normalness – a normalness that looks very familiar to so many millions of Americans – well, you do this at your own peril.
So why would the media behave in this manner? Jonah Goldberg of the National Review explained:Cockroaches scatter when shocked by a flipped light switch. Grizzly bears attack when startled. And when caught napping by big news, the press corps floods the zone. Editors scream at underlings who missed the story. Networks fret they'll be scooped. And all of a sudden, the norms and standards become a blur in the race to be first.
In the case of Palin, the press vaulted over every principle and standard they'd established about what is and isn't fair game… it required the Jaws of Life to pry news of John Edwards' affair out of the mainstream press. But when it came to the personal drama of Palin's 17-year old daughter, the press clawed for morsels like they were golden tickets from Wonka Bars.
People in the press would say they were just doing their job. The perpetually angry and now-demoted Chris Matthews of MSNBC – who, I never fail to remind my readers, claimed he gets a tingling sensation up his leg whenever he hears Barack Obama speak – responded with indignation. His general attitude was, "How dare you question me and the media for holding the possible vice president's feet to the fire?"
Touché, Chris. Now how about doing that with the President Obama, as well?
Nobody is suggesting we should have exempted Gov. Palin from examination. The public deserved to know Gov. Palin's record, which means cataloging and reporting her actual record. Funny business from the New York Times warning that Palin's mayoralty and governorship suggests she is "secretive," evident in that she brought in her own cabinet team (the horror!) – as if every executive on the planet doesn't do that as well – is not analyzing her record; it is an opinion, and a dumb one at that.
Snobbery from Charlie Gibson, quoting Palin out of context then flatly stating "Exact words" when Palin objects, is not analysis of her record; its unprofessional journalism and a bad interview. When Gibson snidely snickers he got "lost in a blizzard of words" after Palin articulately responds to his ridiculous questions, that's not holding her feet to the fire; that's just rude. When he asserts that it takes "hubris" for Palin to think she should be elected, that's not objectivity; that's just being a jerk.
In the world of information, the elite media is in its last throes. Mark Penn, a prominent Clinton strategist, now asserts that the press has lost its credibility. Lanny Davis, Terry McAuliffe of the DNC, and Gov. Ed Rendell – famous surrogates of Hillary Clinton – all echo that same theme.
In sending hit-squads to tiny Wasilla, not reporting Gov. Palin's record but pillaging matters of privacy, hacking into her e-mail account, and forwarding private e-mails to the press, the mainstream media behaved in a manner that they would all collectively describe as Orwellian and fascist if Ashcroft's Justice Department were to act this way to an al Qaida suspect. They proved they were everything they claimed Dick Cheney to be.
The media was fearful because Palin's political character exposed the extreme far-left for what it is: an ideology whose existence is rooted in parasitically paying lip service to, but never genuinely supporting, movements of authentic liberation. Their feminism is the type that doesn't care whether or not women play on an equal field, and advance accordingly, but whether or not women en masse will be co-opted to support their social and cultural beliefs in the hope that someone is speaking for them.
Just as prominent African-American conservatives like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condi Rice et. al. were castigated as "sell-outs" and "Uncle Toms," so too Sarah Palin proved a woman can hunt, dress a moose, raise five kids, run the largest state in the country, and excel on her own merit alone, without familial ties or matrimony to powerful men – unlike a Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, or Diane Feinstein – without "mastery" in Ivy League "oppression studies," rabid support for all forms of abortion, or a general off-putting attitude that suggests all men are evil and somehow stand in their way. Palin's success essentially said to girls, "If you want, there's another route you can travel."
Before Barack Obama's election, only two Democrats had been elected to the White House since 1968 (Carter and Clinton). Both were from the South and at least portrayed themselves as centrist moderates at the time of their election. Neither of them would have reached the presidency without an unusual variable (Watergate for Carter, Ross Perot's third candidacy for Clinton).
Democrats in 2008 were aware of this. They knew they have had a poor showing during the last four decades. And at least demographically, they still know they need to rely on a few core "blocs" to ever get elected again – namely, minorities and women. In their view, Gov. Palin threatened not just Obama's chances in 2008, but she threatened the Democrat Party as a whole, as an institution. All of this had led to a feeling of extreme unease.
Their answer? To forgo all standards of media objective analysis and attack Sarah Palin and her family in any way, shape, or form. Years from now, journalism classes will look back at this and marvel.
Paraphrasing Goldberg, yet again: there were legitimate criticisms to make of Gov. Palin. But that is not the same thing as saying all of the criticisms were valid or that the intensity and magnitude of the criticism was warranted.FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Nicholas Guariglia is a polemic and essayist who writes on Islam and Middle Eastern geopolitics. He can be reached at nickguar@gmail.com.
You can find this online at: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2786/pub_detail.aspCOPYRIGHT 2009 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Why Obama Hates "Imperfect" People
Sarah and Todd had Trig because they don't believe God makes mistakes. Obama? The last time -- maybe literally the last time -- he talked about religious faith he couldn't remember whether he was a Muslim or a Christian. Sarah Palin has spoken regularly about Special Needs people. The first time Obama spoke about such individuals he made them the butt of a joke about bowling. "I swear The One [Obama] knew what he was saying [about Special Olympics] and that it was a slam on Palin." (My friend Cindy's "take")
We need to recognize -- and to communicate to others -- that Obama and those around him are slimeballs, whose endless gaffes and smears are part of their nature. Many of you might remember his offensive statement about Nancy Reagan -- after which, as with the Special Olympics people -- he called to "apologize." In the campaign, he clearly referred to Gov. Palin as a "pig" -- and didn't apologize.
How do elitists like Obama and his dreadful spouse look at the children and young adults in Special Olympics? With contempt, of course. The chances of Michelle Obama ever giving birth to a Down Syndrome child are something less than zero. The embryo would have been aborted without question and thrown out with hospital garbage. To the Obamas and their admirers children who are less than perfect have no right to intrude on their lives.
The Obamas are what the media call "beautiful people." Anybody who is unbeautiful is someone they avoid. People who are handicapped -- or have handicapped children -- are butts of jokes and derision.
Frankly, someone like Sarah Palin and her family -- or like the people reading this -- are incomprehensible to the Obamas. They hate the Palins because they stand for something -- rather than self-absorption. Sarah talks about the need for leaders to have a "servant's heart." To the Obamas, a servant is someone who takes care of their dirty laundry.
How should we react to the self-obsessed Obama and his malicious spouse? Give them no quarter. By doing what they do and being who they are they diminish the value of life. Like their admirer John Edwards, they suffer from chronic narcissism and egotism.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
PALIN REJECTS OBAMA STIMULUS MONEY!
Bulletin: Palin tells Obama what he can do with his Simulus Money. First shot across the blow in emerging battle for presidency.
“We are not requesting funds intended to just grow government. We are not requesting more money for normal day-to-day operations of government as part of this economic stimulus package. In essence we say no to operating funds for more positions in government,” Palin said.
Palin said she’ll work with the Legislature if it decides that it wants to go ahead and accept the money (although she didn’t rule out vetoes). But the deadline for the Legislature to decide could be April 3. Legislators from both parties said, if that is the deadline, it doesn’t leave them much time to sort through it all.
Reaction among lawmakers was mixed. Members of the all-Republican state Senate minority said Palin is taking a wise course and it’s important not to accept federal money that could end up costing the state in the long run.
Anchorage Democratic Rep. Les Gara suggested Palin could be pandering to voters outside Alaska and said it’s hurting the state's education, public safety and quality of life.
“I’m worried the governor is taking this sort of national political stance which is that she’s going to be the opposite of Barack Obama on everything,” he said.
U.S. Sen. Mark Begich quickly issued a written statement today calling for lawmakers to accept the remainder of the stimulus money.
“I trust the legislature will do the right thing and take Alaska’s share of the money for education in the economic recovery package,” the statement quotes Begich as saying. “We owe it to our children to give them the most opportunities possible, and this is money fairly allocated to Alaska in this stimulus package.”
Breaking story from Anchorage Daily News: Palin rejects 45% of stimulus money
Gov. Palin said today she'll accept only 55 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska. She said she will accept only about $514 million of the $930 million headed to the state.
[Note: Prior to Obama's signing of the Stimulus legislation, Sarah Palin urged him to veto it. Below (in italics) is the full story from the Anchorage Daily News, a newspaper that's long been hsotile to Palin -- apparently because of her commitment to traditional American values. She rejects the money for "education" on the grounds that paying for it is a state and local responsibility. Also, it makes little sense to spend more on education when the children are going to end up paying it in much higher taxes on their income.]
Gov. Sarah Palin just told reporters that she’s accepting only 55 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska. The governor said that she will accept only about $514 million of the $930 million headed to the state.
“We are not requesting funds intended to just grow government. We are not requesting more money for normal day-to-day operations of government as part of this economic stimulus package. In essence we say no to operating funds for more positions in government,” Palin said.
The biggest single chunk of stimulus money that Palin is turning down is $160 million for education. There’s also $17 million in Department of Labor funds (vocational rehabilitation services, unemployment services, etc.), about $9 million for Health and Social Services and about $7 million for Public Safety. The full list and the specifics aren’t available from the governor’s budget department yet.
Palin said she’ll work with the Legislature if it decides that it wants to go ahead and accept the money (although she didn’t rule out vetoes). But the deadline for the Legislature to decide could be April 3. Legislators from both parties said, if that is the deadline, it doesn’t leave them much time to sort through it all.
Reaction among lawmakers was mixed. Members of the all-Republican state Senate minority said Palin is taking a wise course and it’s important not to accept federal money that could end up costing the state in the long run.
Anchorage Democratic Rep. Les Gara suggested Palin could be pandering to voters outside Alaska and said it’s hurting the state's education, public safety and quality of life.
“I’m worried the governor is taking this sort of national political stance which is that she’s going to be the opposite of Barack Obama on everything,” he said.
U.S. Sen. Mark Begich quickly issued a written statement today calling for lawmakers to accept the remainder of the stimulus money.
“I trust the legislature will do the right thing and take Alaska’s share of the money for education in the economic recovery package,” the statement quotes Begich as saying. “We owe it to our children to give them the most opportunities possible, and this is money fairly allocated to Alaska in this stimulus package.”
Sarah Palin: Reagan's '80%" Philosophy
Some far-right conservatives are enamored of the term "RINO," standing for "Republican in name only." But is there an equivalent term "DINO," standing for Democrat-in-name-only? No, the Party of the Donkey isn't that politically stubborn. They just call them "Democrats." They win with their approach -- and we lose (too often) with ours.
Is this the toughest elected official in the U.S.? You betcha.
This column is from a new site developed by Cindy Reidhead (of ThePinkFlamingoblog.com) and me. It's based on an important statement by Ronald Reagan: "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor." (http://the80percentsolution.typepad.com)
The new site will be pro-Sarah Palin but will not be "anti" other possible Republican candidates. It will solicit columns from bloggers who agree generally with the "80% Solution," as well as from some national writers, such as Elaine Lafferty, Tammy Bruce, and others. The site will take a dim view of those who practice "single-issue" politics or demand ideological rigidity from candidates.
People who advocate "circular firing squads," including those who use the destructive term "RINO," will not feel comfortable at "80%." The site will have pieces from people who identify themselves as conservative, moderate, or liberal, as well as pro-choice and pro-life.
People who are pro-Obama should stay away. We regard Obama as an individual who engages in unconstitutional and unethical practices for political gain.
So what's the link between "80%" and Sarah, founded by two of her earliest and strongest supporters (Cindy and me)? It will focus on getting Republicans (including of course Sarah) a great deal more support from critical groups: (1) women (especially pro-choice single women and all women living in large urban and suburban areas); (2) young people -- those below 30 -- a group McCain lost 71% to 29%; (3) Hispanics (especially women); (4) former Hillary Supporters, four million of whom voted for McCain-Palin; and, (5) gays and lesbians. (a group whose support in FL in 2000 was critical to George W. Bush's carrying that state -- by 600 votes -- and winning the presidency).
We'll continue to support Gov. Palin for President. However, Cindy has recommended that Sarah consider holding off on a run for the presidency until 2016. Obama is proving to be an awful President, but he is a terrific campaigner.
I also believe,that Gov. Palin should think very hard about the damage done to her and the Palin family by the ceaseless hate campaigns by Obama and the media. Frankly, is the end, running for the presidency, worth the harm done to the family, especially the children?
Moreover, she needs to examine carefully whether some of her "friends," particularly the single-issue folks, are going to do her more harm than good. In politics, one's enemies are "reliable" in that at least they're consistent; however, when "friends" are unreliable, they're basically worthless.
Cindy and I hope you will return often to "80% Solution."
On "The 80% Solution," our primary goal will be to support candidates of integrity and help them win elections. If we don't win a lot of them, we will have little if any say in how our country is governed.
Is this the toughest elected official in the U.S.? You betcha.This column is from a new site developed by Cindy Reidhead (of ThePinkFlamingoblog.com) and me. It's based on an important statement by Ronald Reagan: "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor." (http://the80percentsolution.typepad.com)
The new site will be pro-Sarah Palin but will not be "anti" other possible Republican candidates. It will solicit columns from bloggers who agree generally with the "80% Solution," as well as from some national writers, such as Elaine Lafferty, Tammy Bruce, and others. The site will take a dim view of those who practice "single-issue" politics or demand ideological rigidity from candidates.
People who advocate "circular firing squads," including those who use the destructive term "RINO," will not feel comfortable at "80%." The site will have pieces from people who identify themselves as conservative, moderate, or liberal, as well as pro-choice and pro-life.
People who are pro-Obama should stay away. We regard Obama as an individual who engages in unconstitutional and unethical practices for political gain.
So what's the link between "80%" and Sarah, founded by two of her earliest and strongest supporters (Cindy and me)? It will focus on getting Republicans (including of course Sarah) a great deal more support from critical groups: (1) women (especially pro-choice single women and all women living in large urban and suburban areas); (2) young people -- those below 30 -- a group McCain lost 71% to 29%; (3) Hispanics (especially women); (4) former Hillary Supporters, four million of whom voted for McCain-Palin; and, (5) gays and lesbians. (a group whose support in FL in 2000 was critical to George W. Bush's carrying that state -- by 600 votes -- and winning the presidency).
We'll continue to support Gov. Palin for President. However, Cindy has recommended that Sarah consider holding off on a run for the presidency until 2016. Obama is proving to be an awful President, but he is a terrific campaigner.
I also believe,that Gov. Palin should think very hard about the damage done to her and the Palin family by the ceaseless hate campaigns by Obama and the media. Frankly, is the end, running for the presidency, worth the harm done to the family, especially the children?
Moreover, she needs to examine carefully whether some of her "friends," particularly the single-issue folks, are going to do her more harm than good. In politics, one's enemies are "reliable" in that at least they're consistent; however, when "friends" are unreliable, they're basically worthless.
Cindy and I hope you will return often to "80% Solution."
On "The 80% Solution," our primary goal will be to support candidates of integrity and help them win elections. If we don't win a lot of them, we will have little if any say in how our country is governed.
CRITICAL LINKS FOR POLITICAL ACTIVISTS
Dear Friends: Cindy Reidhead, a TS member, and I have developed a new blog site dedicated to Ronald Reagan's proposition that anyone who was with him 80% of the time was "a friend and ally." Cindy was one of the most effective advocates for Gov. Palin in the "old days," when we were pushing Sarah as the V-P choice. The new site is: http://the80percentsolution.typepad.com.
I hope you'll visit. And I hope you'll pass on this entire message to as many people as possible.
Also, I'm focusing a great deal on Jim Tedisco's race for the vacant House seat in New York's 20th congressional district. Jim, an outstanding Republican assemblyman in NY, is running against the usual Democrat mega-millionaire (and far-leftist) opponent. If you have a blog -- or know someone who does -- or if you have regular online contacts -- please ask them to use and distribute the following link to Tedisco's site: https://www.icontribute.us/jimtedisco/initiative/lipstick.
The online coordinator of Jim's campaign is my political friend, Ali, who has been a major force in advocating Sarah Palin.
Another person who played a major role in the McCain-Palin online campaign is Kathy Morrison, a tech wizard from New Hampshire. She's written a book on the media and politics. She sent me the following information:
Hi Steve, The following is a video Senate Republicans put out about the Tea Parties; not sure if it's been passed around yet, so I thought I'd forward it to you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M0ZOMXPzQ0
Also, wanted to let you know I've written a book about the campaign process, and hope to have it published and ready for the stores in about a month. It's a fairly light look at the election, combined with some analysis. If you'd be willing to bring it up to people you're in contact with I'd be really grateful. Here's the preview... http://www.broadsideofthebarn.com
(It's critical of the media) -- Kathy
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Palin: Really "One of Us?"
Thumbs up for Sarah Heath Palin, our next President
But what makes arah run?I've been suggesting Sarah Palin's campaign slogan in 2012 should be: "Sarah . . . she's one of us." But is she really one of us, as she seems in so many ways an "average American?" Let's just say that she's an above-average American. What's more, she has a background that has made her a uniquely independent spirit.
Even though I hear Sarah Palin has some issues with Lorenzo Benet's book about her ("Trail Blazer"), it gives great insight into her early life and her parents' examples. They lived in Skagway, 100 miles north of Juneau. It was a very isolated community -- children there thought bananas had black skins because that was the way they were when they saw them on rare occasions.
Even though I hear Sarah Palin has some issues with Lorenzo Benet's book about her ("Trail Blazer"), it gives great insight into her early life and her parents' examples. They lived in Skagway, 100 miles north of Juneau. It was a very isolated community -- children there thought bananas had black skins because that was the way they were when they saw them on rare occasions.
[Hey all, come visit the new blog I've launched with Cindy Reidhead of ThePinkFlamingo blog fame. See it at: http://the80percentsolution.typepad.com.]
Sarah's father taught her (at ages 4 & 5) how to box, and she used to box against her older brother, Chuck (a future football star), among others. The kind of rugged idividualism she learned and still practices is foreign to most of us in the "lower-48."
If for some reason the grocery store in our town closed, we'd probably starve to death. In Skagway, there really wasn't any food store as we know them. If they wanted meat or fish, they had to shoot or catch it.
We Repulbicans know the job of the liberal Democrats is easier than ours. Their motto seems to be: "Open your mouth real wide, little bird, and we'll put a worm in it." The notion that ultimately we're responsible for ourselves and our families (to the degree we're able) is foreign to the Left.
The problem is that socialist societies (France, Great Britain, Germany) have low economic growth, high unemployment, and relatively limited opportunities. On the other hand, they supposedly have "great unemployment benefits." They need them.
How conservative is Sarah Palin? Not conservative enough for some conservatives. She has conservative values but governs from the center.
Today's article in my 80% Solution blog on former congressman J.D. Hayworth shows the problem with the hard-right approach. It attracts conservatives, but it doesn't appeal much to anyone else.
I've said of John McCain, who has known some tough guys in his life, that Sarah is probably the toughest, most fearless person he's ever met. She doesn't sleep very much, getting up just about every morning at 4 a.m., checking the Internet, making sure the younger children are okay, and then heading off to the office at 7 a.m. She's one tough lady.
I believe Sarah mystifies John McCain. A spoiled child like Meghan McCain has no understanding of unspoiled Sarah. My impression: the better the American people get to know Gov. Palin, the more they're going to like her.
I've said of John McCain, who has known some tough guys in his life, that Sarah is probably the toughest, most fearless person he's ever met. She doesn't sleep very much, getting up just about every morning at 4 a.m., checking the Internet, making sure the younger children are okay, and then heading off to the office at 7 a.m. She's one tough lady.
I believe Sarah mystifies John McCain. A spoiled child like Meghan McCain has no understanding of unspoiled Sarah. My impression: the better the American people get to know Gov. Palin, the more they're going to like her.
NOTE: ON MY OTHER BLOG I'VE BEEN HAVING SOME BLOCKBUSTER COLUMNS ON OBAMA'S LATEST PLOYS TO DEFLECT ATTENTION FROM HIS SOCIALIST AGENDA, See the columns by going to: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com. Also, find out how you can help Republican Jim Tedisco win his race (election on Mar. 31) in NY's hotly contested 20th congressional district. Click on the Tedisco for Congress link on the top of the sidebar at your right. Cindy Reidhead and I have launched a new site dedicated to explaining exactly how the GOP can stop losing critical elections. You'll find it at: http://the80percentsolution.typepad.com.
Republicans: Stop Alienating Key Voters
What's necessary for Republicans to win in 2010 and 2012? Simply put, we need to STOP ALIENATING LARGE VOTING BLOCS -- Blacks, Hispanics, young people, gays, and women (especially single-women living in larger urban and suburban areas).
If we send a message to voters that we want to be "the morality police," they're going to proclaim, "No thanks!" They don't want us to be intrusive forces in their lives. (In the column below, you can read about a new site, "The 80% Solution," designed to help us -- Republicans -- put ourselves more in line with what 21st century voters want from their government. Please take a quick trip to our new web site: http://the80percentsolution.typepad.com/the_80_solution/ Comments there are always welcome.
[Note: On Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, I'll have additional columns here regarding Gov. Palin's inexorable drive to become the nation's first female President.]
Last weekend on my other site I offered a partial solution (an achievable one) the health care crisis. My approach on healthcare ultimately will cost trillions of dollars less than Obama's. It will also lead to better treatment for patients.
On my blogs, I avoid the "outrage of the day" approach favored by many web sites. Instead, my focus is on what's really going on in American politics. In other words, I concentrate on substance -- on viable ideas -- rather than rumors, fluff, and warmed over "headlines." My solution on health care is not something stolen from the WSJ or USA TODAY.
Overall, I want to offer you something on these blogs that you won't find anywhere else. (Tomorrow -- Wednesday -- on http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com/, I'll be offering solutions to the "education crisis." Sadly, Obama's solution is to spend lots more money without producing better outcomes. My solution is to spend less money but to produce striking, positive results. Please come back.)
About a new blog site: Those people who think that winning elections somehow displays a lack of "principle" will be agitated by an important new blog site: "The 80% Solution." Groups that consistently lose elections soon find their principles have become politically irrelevant.
If you scroll down, you'll find a short excerpt from the first column, which I hope you'll visit often.
If we send a message to voters that we want to be "the morality police," they're going to proclaim, "No thanks!" They don't want us to be intrusive forces in their lives. (In the column below, you can read about a new site, "The 80% Solution," designed to help us -- Republicans -- put ourselves more in line with what 21st century voters want from their government. Please take a quick trip to our new web site: http://the80percentsolution.typepad.com/the_80_solution/ Comments there are always welcome.
[Note: On Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, I'll have additional columns here regarding Gov. Palin's inexorable drive to become the nation's first female President.]
Last weekend on my other site I offered a partial solution (an achievable one) the health care crisis. My approach on healthcare ultimately will cost trillions of dollars less than Obama's. It will also lead to better treatment for patients.
On my blogs, I avoid the "outrage of the day" approach favored by many web sites. Instead, my focus is on what's really going on in American politics. In other words, I concentrate on substance -- on viable ideas -- rather than rumors, fluff, and warmed over "headlines." My solution on health care is not something stolen from the WSJ or USA TODAY.
Overall, I want to offer you something on these blogs that you won't find anywhere else. (Tomorrow -- Wednesday -- on http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com/, I'll be offering solutions to the "education crisis." Sadly, Obama's solution is to spend lots more money without producing better outcomes. My solution is to spend less money but to produce striking, positive results. Please come back.)
About a new blog site: Those people who think that winning elections somehow displays a lack of "principle" will be agitated by an important new blog site: "The 80% Solution." Groups that consistently lose elections soon find their principles have become politically irrelevant.
If you scroll down, you'll find a short excerpt from the first column, which I hope you'll visit often.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Pro-Palin, Pro-GOP Site Launched
Those people who think that winning elections somehow displays a lack of "principle" will be agitated by an important new blog site: "The 80% Solution." Groups that consistently lose elections soon find their principles have become politically irrelevant. The following is a short excerpt from the first column, which I hope you'll visit often.
Cindy Reidhead, this site's developer, and I will be sending out some information this week about our new web site called "The 80% Solution." It's based on an important statement by Ronald Reagan: "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor."
It will be pro-Sarah Palin but will not be "anti" other possible Republican candidates. It will solicit columns from bloggers who agree generally with the "80% Solution," as well as from some national writers, such as Elaine Lafferty, Tammy Bruce, and others. The site will take a dim view of those who practice "single-issue" politics or demand ideological rigidity from candidates. People who advocate "circular firing squads," including those enamored of the destructive term "RINO," will not feel comfortable at "80%."
The site will have pieces from people who identify themselves as conservative, moderate, or liberal, as well as pro-choice and pro-life.
People who are pro-Obama should stay away
Here's the link:http://the80percentsolution.typepad.com/the_80_solution/2009/03/80-solution-propalin-groups.html
Chairs Announce Gov. Palin to Keynote Senate-House Dinner
Monday, March 16, 2009
NRSC Press Office
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), and U.S. Representative Pete Sessions(R-TX), Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), announced that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will deliver the keynote address at the annual Senate-House Dinner to be held on June 8th at the Washington Convention Center:
“Governor Palin has quickly emerged as one of the most popular and recognizable faces in the Republican Party, and we are honored to have her deliver the keynote address at the Senate-House dinner. As a proven leader in her home-state of Alaska, Governor Palin represents a breath of fresh air from the business-as-usual crowd in Washington, and is one of our Party’sup-and-coming young governors who will play a critical role in our re-buildingefforts in the years to come. Last fall, she electrified and energized crowds across the country, and we expect she will generate a similar amount of enthusiasm at this spring’s dinner.” – NRSC Chairman John Cornyn
“On behalf of Congressional Republicans, it is a pleasure to announce one of the brightest rising stars in the Republican Party, Sarah Palin, will deliver the keynote address at this year’s Senate-House dinner. Gov. Palin’s conservative values, commendable achievements in Alaska and the sheer energy she personifies make her one of the most compelling visionaries of our Party. With respect, admiration and enthusiasm, I look forward to welcoming her to Washington and await the inspirational address our Party needs, as it rebuilds and prepares for a victorious election cycle.” – NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions
80% Solution, Pro-Palin Groups
Cindy Reidhead, this site's developer, and I will be sending out some information this week about our new web site called "The 80% Solution." It's based on an important statement by Ronald Reagan: "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor."
It will be pro-Sarah Palin but will not be "anti" other possible Republican candidates. It will solicit columns from bloggers who agree generally with the "80% Solution," as well as from some national writers, such as Elaine Lafferty, Tammy Bruce, and others. The site will take a dim view of those who practice "single-issue" politics or demand ideological rigidity from candidates. People who advocate "circular firing squads," including those enamored of the destructive term "RINO," will not feel comfortable at "80%."
The site will have pieces from people who identify themselves as conservative, moderate, or liberal, as well as pro-choice and pro-life.
People who are pro-Obama should stay away
Here's the link:http://the80percentsolution.typepad.com/the_80_solution/2009/03/80-solution-propalin-groups.html
SARAH PALIN TO BE KEYNOTE SPEAKER @ HOUSE-SENATE DINNER!
NRSC & NRCC
Chairs Announce Gov. Palin to Keynote Senate-House Dinner
Monday, March 16, 2009
NRSC Press Office
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), and U.S. Representative Pete Sessions(R-TX), Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), announced that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will deliver the keynote address at the annual Senate-House Dinner to be held on June 8th at the Washington Convention Center:
“Governor Palin has quickly emerged as one of the most popular and recognizable faces in the Republican Party, and we are honored to have her deliver the keynote address at the Senate-House dinner. As a proven leader in her home-state of Alaska, Governor Palin represents a breath of fresh air from the business-as-usual crowd in Washington, and is one of our Party’sup-and-coming young governors who will play a critical role in our re-buildingefforts in the years to come. Last fall, she electrified and energized crowds across the country, and we expect she will generate a similar amount of enthusiasm at this spring’s dinner.” – NRSC Chairman John Cornyn
“On behalf of Congressional Republicans, it is a pleasure to announce one of the brightest rising stars in the Republican Party, Sarah Palin, will deliver the keynote address at this year’s Senate-House dinner. Gov. Palin’s conservative values, commendable achievements in Alaska and the sheer energy she personifies make her one of the most compelling visionaries of our Party. With respect, admiration and enthusiasm, I look forward to welcoming her to Washington and await the inspirational address our Party needs, as it rebuilds and prepares for a victorious election cycle.” – NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Sarah Palin: Criticism from "Friends"
Below: Sarah and Todd at prom . . . and later, with children Track and Bristol . . .
How should Sarah Palin respond to "constructive" criticism from people who claim to be her ardent supporters? My view: she should respond by using an old truism: "With friends like that, who needs enemies?"
[Note: On my other blog I basically solve America's health care crisis -- in less than 800 words. It was a very tough job, but somebody had to do it. "If not now, when? If not me, who?"]
Ever since she came on the national stage (on August 29, 2008, in Dayton, Ohio, when John McCain named her as his running mate), Sarah has been subject to a torrent of vitriol from Obama/Aexlrod and their media cronies. She does not need -- nor does she merit -- additional criticism from people claiming to be her friends and admirers.
During the presidential campaign (and after), Sarah was surrounded by McCain staffers who ranged from incompetent to disloyal. I've revealed recently that one of the people spreading false rumors about Sarah was Meghan McCain, the Senator's thoroughly pathetic daughter.
Having to work with people she couldn't trust made it hard at times for Sarah to campaign effectively. When John McCain failed to defend Sarah adequately that must have been disheartening for her, as she had been the Senator's most faithful cheerleader between August 29 and the election on Nov. 4.
In politics, the people you sometimes need to worry about most are your supposed "friends" -- not your enemies, whose behavior is predictable. The smears Sarah and her family have been subjected to have inflicted some damage on the famously tough and close-knit Palins. Realizing the challenges she faces, Sarah demands absolute loyalty from her staff. She's entirely right to do so. Disloyal staffers -- and, frankly, disloyal "supporters" -- are useless.
The critics that must dishearten Sarah the most are those on the right -- particularly "single-issue" conservatives. Understand that single-issue people inhabit a political universe the size of a broom-closet.
For example, Sarah was recently criticized for selecting a distinguished female jurist, Morgan Chretien, to serve on the Alaska Supreme Court. To the single-issue people, Ms. Chretien has committed the unforgivable sin: she is -- or may be -- pro-choice. In the fever swamps of the extreme Right, Chretien's views on a thousand or so other issues don't matter.
Critics of "Sarah's choice" ignore an important reality: Under the Alaska system, a judicial board selects the candidates (two in this instance), and the Governor chooses among them. A spokesperson for Sarah's political action committee (sarahPAC) explained it this way: the Governor had a choice between a liberal and a moderate -- and she chose "the moderate."
Sarah's critics on the right say she should have taken the entire matter of the Supreme Court appointment . . . to the Supreme Court. She should have, they say, fought the system for selecting judges to the highest court. They ignore the fact that a prior governor, Frank Murkowski, did just that . . . and had his lawsuit tossed back in his face.
Of course, Obama's perpetual campaign has seized upon the conservative criticism of Sarah and is running with it. They're using it to try to drive a wedge between Sarah and the small but passionate pro-life community.
Frankly, Sarah's sometimes unreliable friends on the political right have hatched an image of her that resembles a cartoon-character rather than a real human being. Through glazed eyes, they apparently see her a pure ideologue. "Wind her up, and she spouts an endless stream of right-wing propaganda."
Strangely enough, Sarah's liberal supporters -- and she has millions of them -- seem to understand her better than many conservatives. Consider Elaine Lafferty, a feminist and former editor of Ms. Magazine. She worked as a speechwriter with Sarah during the campaign and wrote a famous article describing the Alaska governor as a "brainiac" and a "feminist." (Lafferty also co-authored a book with Sarah's most consistent admirer on the media, Greta van Susteren.)
Here's what Lafferty said about Sarah's appointment of Judge Chretien (only the second female ever appointed to the Alaska Supreme Court): "Of course Sarah Palin is not pro-choice. But she is now, as governor of Alaska, what she was before the presidential campaign: a pragmatic conservative politician who largely governs from the center. She is opposed to abortion, but it does not inform every decision she makes.
Lafferty adds, "Done with playing the good soldier for McCain’s right wing on the campaign trail, she [Sarah] is back to being who she is."
Trust me, Elaine Lafferty understands Sarah Palin much better than, say, Phyllis Schlafly. Elaine grasps Sarah's human gravity and complexity. If Gov. Palin never makes it to the presidency, it won't be the fault of Elaine Lafferty and others like her.
I have a lot more to say about Gov. Palin's future, including the issue of whether she should seek either re-election as Alaska's governor or go after the Republican nomination for President. Right now, I'm leaning against her doing either -- a major reversal of position for me. Come back on Sunday and Monday to find out why.
Ever since she came on the national stage (on August 29, 2008, in Dayton, Ohio, when John McCain named her as his running mate), Sarah has been subject to a torrent of vitriol from Obama/Aexlrod and their media cronies. She does not need -- nor does she merit -- additional criticism from people claiming to be her friends and admirers.
During the presidential campaign (and after), Sarah was surrounded by McCain staffers who ranged from incompetent to disloyal. I've revealed recently that one of the people spreading false rumors about Sarah was Meghan McCain, the Senator's thoroughly pathetic daughter.
Having to work with people she couldn't trust made it hard at times for Sarah to campaign effectively. When John McCain failed to defend Sarah adequately that must have been disheartening for her, as she had been the Senator's most faithful cheerleader between August 29 and the election on Nov. 4.
In politics, the people you sometimes need to worry about most are your supposed "friends" -- not your enemies, whose behavior is predictable. The smears Sarah and her family have been subjected to have inflicted some damage on the famously tough and close-knit Palins. Realizing the challenges she faces, Sarah demands absolute loyalty from her staff. She's entirely right to do so. Disloyal staffers -- and, frankly, disloyal "supporters" -- are useless.
The critics that must dishearten Sarah the most are those on the right -- particularly "single-issue" conservatives. Understand that single-issue people inhabit a political universe the size of a broom-closet.
For example, Sarah was recently criticized for selecting a distinguished female jurist, Morgan Chretien, to serve on the Alaska Supreme Court. To the single-issue people, Ms. Chretien has committed the unforgivable sin: she is -- or may be -- pro-choice. In the fever swamps of the extreme Right, Chretien's views on a thousand or so other issues don't matter.
Critics of "Sarah's choice" ignore an important reality: Under the Alaska system, a judicial board selects the candidates (two in this instance), and the Governor chooses among them. A spokesperson for Sarah's political action committee (sarahPAC) explained it this way: the Governor had a choice between a liberal and a moderate -- and she chose "the moderate."
Sarah's critics on the right say she should have taken the entire matter of the Supreme Court appointment . . . to the Supreme Court. She should have, they say, fought the system for selecting judges to the highest court. They ignore the fact that a prior governor, Frank Murkowski, did just that . . . and had his lawsuit tossed back in his face.
Of course, Obama's perpetual campaign has seized upon the conservative criticism of Sarah and is running with it. They're using it to try to drive a wedge between Sarah and the small but passionate pro-life community.
Frankly, Sarah's sometimes unreliable friends on the political right have hatched an image of her that resembles a cartoon-character rather than a real human being. Through glazed eyes, they apparently see her a pure ideologue. "Wind her up, and she spouts an endless stream of right-wing propaganda."
Strangely enough, Sarah's liberal supporters -- and she has millions of them -- seem to understand her better than many conservatives. Consider Elaine Lafferty, a feminist and former editor of Ms. Magazine. She worked as a speechwriter with Sarah during the campaign and wrote a famous article describing the Alaska governor as a "brainiac" and a "feminist." (Lafferty also co-authored a book with Sarah's most consistent admirer on the media, Greta van Susteren.)
Here's what Lafferty said about Sarah's appointment of Judge Chretien (only the second female ever appointed to the Alaska Supreme Court): "Of course Sarah Palin is not pro-choice. But she is now, as governor of Alaska, what she was before the presidential campaign: a pragmatic conservative politician who largely governs from the center. She is opposed to abortion, but it does not inform every decision she makes.
Lafferty adds, "Done with playing the good soldier for McCain’s right wing on the campaign trail, she [Sarah] is back to being who she is."
Trust me, Elaine Lafferty understands Sarah Palin much better than, say, Phyllis Schlafly. Elaine grasps Sarah's human gravity and complexity. If Gov. Palin never makes it to the presidency, it won't be the fault of Elaine Lafferty and others like her.
I have a lot more to say about Gov. Palin's future, including the issue of whether she should seek either re-election as Alaska's governor or go after the Republican nomination for President. Right now, I'm leaning against her doing either -- a major reversal of position for me. Come back on Sunday and Monday to find out why.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Sarah Palin Despises Disloyal People
In politics, the people you need to worry about most are your "friends" -- not your enemies, whose behavior you can anticipate. On Saturday and Sunday, I'm going to discuss Sarah and the Palin family in very candid terms. The criticism Sarah and her family have been subjected to has inflicted some damage on the famously tough and dedicated Palins. Sarah demands absolute loyalty from her staff, and she's entirely to do so. Disloyal staffers -- and, frankly, disloyal "supporters" -- are useless.
In the meantime, I hope you'll scroll down to read my criticism of John McCain, who in fact was not loyal to the woman he chose as his running mate. That may have rubbed on the McCain Campaign Staff, which at times seemed disloyal to a fault when it came to Sarah. It's widely believed by many, including me, that Meghan McCain, John and Cindy's notoriously narcissistic daughter, was a source for some of the false rumors about Sarah Palin.
Also, when Sarah came under ceaseless attack during and after the campaign, John McCain did a terrible job defending her. Senator McCain, like his dismal staff, was looking around for someone to blame for his own half-hearted presidential effort. Sarah? In the face of adversity, she was generally magnificent.
In the meantime, I hope you'll scroll down to read my criticism of John McCain, who in fact was not loyal to the woman he chose as his running mate. That may have rubbed on the McCain Campaign Staff, which at times seemed disloyal to a fault when it came to Sarah. It's widely believed by many, including me, that Meghan McCain, John and Cindy's notoriously narcissistic daughter, was a source for some of the false rumors about Sarah Palin.
Also, when Sarah came under ceaseless attack during and after the campaign, John McCain did a terrible job defending her. Senator McCain, like his dismal staff, was looking around for someone to blame for his own half-hearted presidential effort. Sarah? In the face of adversity, she was generally magnificent.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Sarah Deserved Better Than McCain
Which one of these two people would make a better President?Yes, John McCain spent 5 1/2 years in the "Hanoi Hilton," but somehow he never fully understood Sarah Palin's toughness, indomitable spirit, and loyalty to , , , him. In all his years as a Washington Insider, he apparently had never met anyone quite like her.
John McCain is now speaking out against the Obama Omnibus Spending Bill, but his words demonstrate the same naivete that has characterized him for decades. In recent days, he's sent a new fundraising letter, which is what he did best in his campaign. In those days, I contributed approximately $500 to McCain and organizations backing him. In gratitude, I guess, the McCain Campaign sent me approximately 50 fundraising appeals.
For my contributions, I also got two pictures of Cindy and John. She looked great; he looked old tired, and generally clueless. Don't get me wrong: I admire John McCain for what he was and revere his service as an American hero, but the fact that he now is surprised by Obama's actions -- ones The Anointed One has engaged in his entire political career -- establishes that John is hopelessly naive.
Of course, he won't go so far as to call Obama a "socialist." He wouldn't do so if BHO started wearing whiteface, donning a Karl Marx wig, and carrying around a copy of "The Communist Manifesto."
John will go to his grave disbelieving that "going across the aisle" isn't necessarily a good thing. In practice, it's a one-way street, with Democrats -- the daffy Joe Lieberman doesn't count -- never doing any such thing. John continues to talk of Joe Biden as his "friend," although Biden portrayed McCain as erratic and even dangerous during the campaign. That doesn't seem to have registered with John, alas. Clearly, he has very low standards when it comes to choosing friends.
When McCain staffers like Mark Salter (and, apparently, John's daughter, Meghan) came out with nasty and made-up rumors about Sarah Palin, it demonstrated that, for all his life experience, McCain isn't a good judge of character. John adores Meghan -- even though she generally deserves a spanking and a sharply reduced allowance.
For months, Gov. Palin ferociously and consistently defended Senator McCain. However, when he had opportunities to reciprocate and defend Sarah, he decided instead to go on "Letterman." The general hostility in McCain quarters for the heroic Gov. Palin was that she drew huge crowds . . . while McCain couldn't draw flies if he was buried up to his head in a landfill.
He has chronically exaggerated the character of Barack Obama. When John told the woman in Wisconsin that we "have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency," he was -- as we've learned -- just plain wrong. People fear Obama because he has greater allegiance to the Democratic Party and its electability than to his country. Hey, he's from Chicago, right?
In the primary season, McCain regularly said that he "would rather lose the presidency than lose a war [in Iraq]." With his dismal, lackluster campaign he apparently succeeded in losing both.
I'll always believe that if Sen. McCain had run a more forceful campaign, a few GOP Senators might have come through with victories. Perhaps there would have been enough to defeat the omnibus bill that now concerns him.
Instead, he chose to wage a "gentleman's campaign," while his opponents trashed him and his V-P choice at every opportunity. He never knew what hit him. He smiled a lot, almost oblivious to the political thrashing he was receiving. When he lost -- badly -- he refused to let Gov. Palin speak, perhaps fearful she would upstage him one last time.
And oh, by the way, no more requests for money, John. I'm giving it all to your former running mate.
John McCain is now speaking out against the Obama Omnibus Spending Bill, but his words demonstrate the same naivete that has characterized him for decades. In recent days, he's sent a new fundraising letter, which is what he did best in his campaign. In those days, I contributed approximately $500 to McCain and organizations backing him. In gratitude, I guess, the McCain Campaign sent me approximately 50 fundraising appeals.
For my contributions, I also got two pictures of Cindy and John. She looked great; he looked old tired, and generally clueless. Don't get me wrong: I admire John McCain for what he was and revere his service as an American hero, but the fact that he now is surprised by Obama's actions -- ones The Anointed One has engaged in his entire political career -- establishes that John is hopelessly naive.
Of course, he won't go so far as to call Obama a "socialist." He wouldn't do so if BHO started wearing whiteface, donning a Karl Marx wig, and carrying around a copy of "The Communist Manifesto."
John will go to his grave disbelieving that "going across the aisle" isn't necessarily a good thing. In practice, it's a one-way street, with Democrats -- the daffy Joe Lieberman doesn't count -- never doing any such thing. John continues to talk of Joe Biden as his "friend," although Biden portrayed McCain as erratic and even dangerous during the campaign. That doesn't seem to have registered with John, alas. Clearly, he has very low standards when it comes to choosing friends.
When McCain staffers like Mark Salter (and, apparently, John's daughter, Meghan) came out with nasty and made-up rumors about Sarah Palin, it demonstrated that, for all his life experience, McCain isn't a good judge of character. John adores Meghan -- even though she generally deserves a spanking and a sharply reduced allowance.
For months, Gov. Palin ferociously and consistently defended Senator McCain. However, when he had opportunities to reciprocate and defend Sarah, he decided instead to go on "Letterman." The general hostility in McCain quarters for the heroic Gov. Palin was that she drew huge crowds . . . while McCain couldn't draw flies if he was buried up to his head in a landfill.
He has chronically exaggerated the character of Barack Obama. When John told the woman in Wisconsin that we "have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency," he was -- as we've learned -- just plain wrong. People fear Obama because he has greater allegiance to the Democratic Party and its electability than to his country. Hey, he's from Chicago, right?
In the primary season, McCain regularly said that he "would rather lose the presidency than lose a war [in Iraq]." With his dismal, lackluster campaign he apparently succeeded in losing both.
I'll always believe that if Sen. McCain had run a more forceful campaign, a few GOP Senators might have come through with victories. Perhaps there would have been enough to defeat the omnibus bill that now concerns him.
Instead, he chose to wage a "gentleman's campaign," while his opponents trashed him and his V-P choice at every opportunity. He never knew what hit him. He smiled a lot, almost oblivious to the political thrashing he was receiving. When he lost -- badly -- he refused to let Gov. Palin speak, perhaps fearful she would upstage him one last time.
And oh, by the way, no more requests for money, John. I'm giving it all to your former running mate.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Preserve America: Contribute to SarahPAC
Sarah: Is that a halo around her head? Must be.
Donate at SarahPAC.com
Please click on any of the blue lines following to visit SarahPAC. When you get there, I hope you'll make a contribution. If you can afford $100 or more, please contribute that amount. If in these hard times, you can afford only $10, please donate that. We don't have to watch the America we love fade away as if it were all a dream. Please ally yourself with SarahPAC today. If you have friends or family that share your values, please forward this e-mail to them. God bless you all.
(Note: If you have a blog or organizational web site, please go to SarahPAC to obtain a donation widget/gadget that you can put on your site. Thanks.)
Also, if you want to take some other practical political actions today, visit Jim Tedisco's web site. He's running for the open congressional seat in NY's 20th district (Albany, Hudson Valley area) and needs your support. Jim led the fight against then Gov. Spitzer's absurd effort to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens. The special election in the NY 20th CD will be held on March 31.
"Sarah Palin: She's One of Us!"
Donate at SarahPAC.comDear Friends of Gov. Sarah Heath Palin: The federal budget deficit this year is estimated (by the Obama Administration) to be an unfathomable $1.75 trillion. The "good news," unless you're relatively young, is that you won't have to pay it off. The bad news is that your children and grandchildren, nieces and nephews will confront a crushing debt that will cripple their ability to experience lives as good as ours have been. That is just plain wrong. It's the kind of "change" that will lead to national hopelessness.
What can you do about it? You can contribute to SarahPAC, a political action committee founded by Gov. Sarah Palin. It will focus on assisting candidates committed to responsible -- and smaller -- government and to the principles espoused by Gov. Palin -- individual liberty, tolerance and respect for others, and economic opportunity.
Please click on any of the blue lines following to visit SarahPAC. When you get there, I hope you'll make a contribution. If you can afford $100 or more, please contribute that amount. If in these hard times, you can afford only $10, please donate that. We don't have to watch the America we love fade away as if it were all a dream. Please ally yourself with SarahPAC today. If you have friends or family that share your values, please forward this e-mail to them. God bless you all.
(Note: If you have a blog or organizational web site, please go to SarahPAC to obtain a donation widget/gadget that you can put on your site. Thanks.)
Also, if you want to take some other practical political actions today, visit Jim Tedisco's web site. He's running for the open congressional seat in NY's 20th district (Albany, Hudson Valley area) and needs your support. Jim led the fight against then Gov. Spitzer's absurd effort to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens. The special election in the NY 20th CD will be held on March 31.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
New Single Information Site Coming
Some brilliant people are deeply engaged in the effort to ensure that the 45th President of the U.S. is a woman named Sarah Heath Palin. One of them, Ana, recently wrote about the need to have a main informational site for people who now support Sarah or may (or may not) do so in the future. Here's my reply below. [Your comments are very welcome.]
Ana, as you said, merely complaining endlessly about Obama is debilitating. About establishing a "single" site for center and center-right people to go to (tentatively entitled "Our Voces," it's an excellent idea. (What about "Our Voice(s). . . Making History" as a title)? One voice will be a lot more effective than 500 voices crying in the wilderness. (Here's the link to the preliminary Our Voice(s) site: http://sarah4life.ipower.com/bo/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=4&id=16&Itemid=27
My friend Cindy in New Mexico is establishing a web site called "The 80% Solution," and it's directed mainly toward Republicans of relatively moderate views. It should be complementary to "Our Voice(s)."
Ana, we need discuss how we can get this site going and publicize it to a lot of people. We need some communication support from TeamSarah.org and other groups. I see the site as pro-Sarah but not as "anti" other potential candidates. If somebody thinks Newt Gingrich or Tom Coburn would be great candidates, let them tell why they think so -- and what evidence there is that they could win. (Obama is going to be very difficult to defeat and just nominating a classic "conservative Republican" won't work in 2012.)
I look at "Our Voice(s)" as a site that eventually would get 30,000-plus visitors a day. I think we shouldn't emphasize "the latest outrage from Obama!!!!" but rather basic principles (conservative and American principles) and practical actions to start winning elections. We should keep emphasizing that complaining, whining, and feeling sorry for ourselves have no benefits.
To me (and as Sarah Palin said), "freedom, tolerance, and opportunity" are the keys. We need more friends and fewer enemies. We need to ask what is the best solution we can possibly get, not what our ideal would be if this were only were 1890 rather than 2009.
Anybody who supports Sarah or candidates like her is my ally -- period.We can disagree with people without accusing them of destroying Western civilization. Obama/Pelosi/Reid are the ones we want to go after, and we need a very broad base of support to put them in their places. "Angry white guys" obviously are not enough.
I was friends with Russell Kirk (now deceased sadly) who wrote a book called The Conservative Mind and who laid out conservative principles. Those principles didn't involve being in bed with Wall Street semi-crooks or other greedy "fat cats.' Instead, they involved caring deeply about the principles (back to opportunity, tolerance, freedom, and personal responsibility) that made the country "a shining city on a hill."
Prof. Kirk talked a lot about "right reason," which is essentially common sense. His point was that some things we do strengthen civilization, while others (violent video games, Keith Olberman, SNL) undermine it. People like Thomas Jefferson told exactly us what is necessary to preserve a strong, free society. Obama and Jefferson would be in disagreement on just about every principle, by the way. For one thing, Jefferson believed in citizen-legislators while Obama not only believes in professional politicians -- he, of course, is one.
Anyway, I'm hoping we can get many bloggers -- thousands eventually -- to highlight "Our Voces," which is a good title. It should encourage comments; it should be "the place to go" to get USEFUL information on how all of us in the center or center-right should proceed. It should stress the need to contribute money (a little or a lot), to participate in organizing, and to campaign for good people -- in our state and sometimes outside. We might have some tips on using the Internet effectively to make it more likely that we will win in 2010 and 2012. We need to volunteers to write about organizing groups -- young people, Hispanics, women -- that will be essential in winning future elections.
On practicality: I saw something today about U.S. Senate races in 2010. We need to know which leftists are running so we can begin the process of defeating them. Sarah Steelsmith will be running (in MO) for U.S. Senate in 2010, and we need to get an army of people behind her. We need to make sure we get a great candidate to run for the Senate seat Kay Bailey Hutchison is giving up in 2010. No more "grumpy old men," please. If Rick Santelli runs for the Roland Burris seat (Illinois) in 2010, we need to make sure he wins.
I will be writing a piece soon on "The Blue Dog Democrats," who pretend to be conservative or moderate. In fact, they're the House members we should be targeting for defeat. If we had 40 fewer of them, that would be 40 fewer votes for Speaker Pelosi. Kirsten Gillibrand WAS a Blue Dog, but immediately changed her positions on several key issues when she was appointed to the Senate. That kind of cynicism needs to be pointed out.
Ana, as you said, merely complaining endlessly about Obama is debilitating. About establishing a "single" site for center and center-right people to go to (tentatively entitled "Our Voces," it's an excellent idea. (What about "Our Voice(s). . . Making History" as a title)? One voice will be a lot more effective than 500 voices crying in the wilderness. (Here's the link to the preliminary Our Voice(s) site: http://sarah4life.ipower.com/bo/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=4&id=16&Itemid=27
My friend Cindy in New Mexico is establishing a web site called "The 80% Solution," and it's directed mainly toward Republicans of relatively moderate views. It should be complementary to "Our Voice(s)."
Ana, we need discuss how we can get this site going and publicize it to a lot of people. We need some communication support from TeamSarah.org and other groups. I see the site as pro-Sarah but not as "anti" other potential candidates. If somebody thinks Newt Gingrich or Tom Coburn would be great candidates, let them tell why they think so -- and what evidence there is that they could win. (Obama is going to be very difficult to defeat and just nominating a classic "conservative Republican" won't work in 2012.)
I look at "Our Voice(s)" as a site that eventually would get 30,000-plus visitors a day. I think we shouldn't emphasize "the latest outrage from Obama!!!!" but rather basic principles (conservative and American principles) and practical actions to start winning elections. We should keep emphasizing that complaining, whining, and feeling sorry for ourselves have no benefits.
To me (and as Sarah Palin said), "freedom, tolerance, and opportunity" are the keys. We need more friends and fewer enemies. We need to ask what is the best solution we can possibly get, not what our ideal would be if this were only were 1890 rather than 2009.
Anybody who supports Sarah or candidates like her is my ally -- period.We can disagree with people without accusing them of destroying Western civilization. Obama/Pelosi/Reid are the ones we want to go after, and we need a very broad base of support to put them in their places. "Angry white guys" obviously are not enough.
I was friends with Russell Kirk (now deceased sadly) who wrote a book called The Conservative Mind and who laid out conservative principles. Those principles didn't involve being in bed with Wall Street semi-crooks or other greedy "fat cats.' Instead, they involved caring deeply about the principles (back to opportunity, tolerance, freedom, and personal responsibility) that made the country "a shining city on a hill."
Prof. Kirk talked a lot about "right reason," which is essentially common sense. His point was that some things we do strengthen civilization, while others (violent video games, Keith Olberman, SNL) undermine it. People like Thomas Jefferson told exactly us what is necessary to preserve a strong, free society. Obama and Jefferson would be in disagreement on just about every principle, by the way. For one thing, Jefferson believed in citizen-legislators while Obama not only believes in professional politicians -- he, of course, is one.
Anyway, I'm hoping we can get many bloggers -- thousands eventually -- to highlight "Our Voces," which is a good title. It should encourage comments; it should be "the place to go" to get USEFUL information on how all of us in the center or center-right should proceed. It should stress the need to contribute money (a little or a lot), to participate in organizing, and to campaign for good people -- in our state and sometimes outside. We might have some tips on using the Internet effectively to make it more likely that we will win in 2010 and 2012. We need to volunteers to write about organizing groups -- young people, Hispanics, women -- that will be essential in winning future elections.
On practicality: I saw something today about U.S. Senate races in 2010. We need to know which leftists are running so we can begin the process of defeating them. Sarah Steelsmith will be running (in MO) for U.S. Senate in 2010, and we need to get an army of people behind her. We need to make sure we get a great candidate to run for the Senate seat Kay Bailey Hutchison is giving up in 2010. No more "grumpy old men," please. If Rick Santelli runs for the Roland Burris seat (Illinois) in 2010, we need to make sure he wins.
I will be writing a piece soon on "The Blue Dog Democrats," who pretend to be conservative or moderate. In fact, they're the House members we should be targeting for defeat. If we had 40 fewer of them, that would be 40 fewer votes for Speaker Pelosi. Kirsten Gillibrand WAS a Blue Dog, but immediately changed her positions on several key issues when she was appointed to the Senate. That kind of cynicism needs to be pointed out.
Monday, March 9, 2009
What Palin Knows Obama Doesn't
What does Sarah Palin know about the economy that Barack Obama clearly doesn't?
Look at it this way: Franklin Roosevelt was a many of many talents (mainly oratorical), but one talent he lacked was an understanding of how business works -- and creates secure. Obama knows little about business -- how could he -- and like FDR, he has a preference for public sector jobs over the private type. [NOTE: On my other blog, I have a new piece, as of Monday afternoon, about parallels between FDR's economy-killing mistakes and Obama's. Also, if you visit this blog frequently, and many do, please scroll down in the sidebar to your right and join the "Followers" Group. Thanks.]
Gov. Palin is never going to win the Nobel Prize for Economics. However, in her efforts as Governor of Alaska and as a candidate for vice-president, she has demonstrated on understanding of how jobs get created -- and how they destroyed. Her goal has been to make Alaska more self-sufficient by attracting more non-government jobs. She understands that, without a strong private economy, states and towns can't generate enough revenue to serve the people.
In Franklin Roosevelt's first years in office, he and his associated "created" many government jobs. Yet as my previous column mentioned (scroll down to the bottom of the column below), Roosevelt did not drive down the unemployment rate. Why? Because for every public sector job created, anti-business policies destroyed a private sector position.
Beyond that, unless public dollars from "stimulus" efforts continue to be poured into jobs, they tend to disappear. Sarah Palin knows this. Barack Obama apparently doesn't. Consider the following from Amity Shlaes's The Forgotten Man, a study of the Great Depression.
"The American Federation of Labor . . . reported in late spring that 780,000 workers who had been reemployed by the [federal government's relief organization] National Recovery Administration [NRA] in the autumn had been unemployed again in the spring of 1934. William Green, the AFL's leader, began fighting [with the head of NRA] over employment numbers." And here's the kicker:
"The AFL wanted industry, not relief agencies to solve the economic problem." William Green said, "We cannot indefinitely support one-sixth of our population on money borrowed against future taxes."
Alas, William Green is long-deceased. It would be very helpful if he had some contemporary counterpart -- and there is no such person -- to speak truth to power (i.e., to Obama). He could tell him that it's immoral to borrow huge sums of money and then send the bill to our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. He could add that real jobs, sustainable ones, don't get created with government handouts.
I know these things. Most of you -- all of you? -- know them also. The stock markets know them. Sarah Palin is certainly well aware of them. So, why doesn't Obama get it?
The American philosopher George Santayana famously, "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." Obama has forgotten the past and, yes, we are now repeating it.
Look at it this way: Franklin Roosevelt was a many of many talents (mainly oratorical), but one talent he lacked was an understanding of how business works -- and creates secure. Obama knows little about business -- how could he -- and like FDR, he has a preference for public sector jobs over the private type. [NOTE: On my other blog, I have a new piece, as of Monday afternoon, about parallels between FDR's economy-killing mistakes and Obama's. Also, if you visit this blog frequently, and many do, please scroll down in the sidebar to your right and join the "Followers" Group. Thanks.]
Gov. Palin is never going to win the Nobel Prize for Economics. However, in her efforts as Governor of Alaska and as a candidate for vice-president, she has demonstrated on understanding of how jobs get created -- and how they destroyed. Her goal has been to make Alaska more self-sufficient by attracting more non-government jobs. She understands that, without a strong private economy, states and towns can't generate enough revenue to serve the people.
In Franklin Roosevelt's first years in office, he and his associated "created" many government jobs. Yet as my previous column mentioned (scroll down to the bottom of the column below), Roosevelt did not drive down the unemployment rate. Why? Because for every public sector job created, anti-business policies destroyed a private sector position.
Beyond that, unless public dollars from "stimulus" efforts continue to be poured into jobs, they tend to disappear. Sarah Palin knows this. Barack Obama apparently doesn't. Consider the following from Amity Shlaes's The Forgotten Man, a study of the Great Depression.
"The American Federation of Labor . . . reported in late spring that 780,000 workers who had been reemployed by the [federal government's relief organization] National Recovery Administration [NRA] in the autumn had been unemployed again in the spring of 1934. William Green, the AFL's leader, began fighting [with the head of NRA] over employment numbers." And here's the kicker:
"The AFL wanted industry, not relief agencies to solve the economic problem." William Green said, "We cannot indefinitely support one-sixth of our population on money borrowed against future taxes."
Alas, William Green is long-deceased. It would be very helpful if he had some contemporary counterpart -- and there is no such person -- to speak truth to power (i.e., to Obama). He could tell him that it's immoral to borrow huge sums of money and then send the bill to our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. He could add that real jobs, sustainable ones, don't get created with government handouts.
I know these things. Most of you -- all of you? -- know them also. The stock markets know them. Sarah Palin is certainly well aware of them. So, why doesn't Obama get it?
The American philosopher George Santayana famously, "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." Obama has forgotten the past and, yes, we are now repeating it.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Who Caused the Economic Crisis?
Who caused the economic crisis that now grips our nation? The correct answer, one we really don't want to hear, is: We did. How? By taking on (high) levels of debt that we're now finding harder and harder to pay off. We believed that something called "inflation" would allow us to pay off debts with ever-cheaper dollars. Instead, we have something called "deflation," which is having just the opposite effect, making dollars harder and harder to come by. There's no more inflation to bail you out. [If you'd like to see some terrific cartoons featuring Obama and his economic achievements, please visit my other regular blog: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com/)
Note 1: Later today (Monday), I'll be writing the first of several pieces about similarities between the current economic downturn and the 1930s. If your parents or grandparents were admirers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, I regret to inform you that most of the things they told you about FDR were false. In fact, he probably did more harm than good. Scroll down to the bottom to see an example. I hope you'll return late this afternoon or this evening to see what I have to say.
[Note 2: Beginning Tuesday, I'll write about some major differences between Gov. Sarah H. Palin and Barack H. Obama in regard to the crisis. Frankly, Obama is surrounded by people like his Treasury Secretary Geithner and advisers like GE's Jeffrey Immelt, who played major roles in causing the financial meltdown. Immelt's GE Capital has $16 billion in bad or questionable loans -- and he's the one whose advice is going to get us back to financial stability? Sarah Palin has no such human baggage around her. She also has a basic understanding of the American economy that Obama clearly doesn't possess.] Scroll down to the bottom for comments about "Conservatives Who Don't Like Sarah Palin"
On the political front, the short -- but incomplete -- answer to who caused the problem is: Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and various other Democrats, as well as the self-aggrandizing people at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All of the above insisted that lenders offer loans to people who now can't afford them.
The longer answer is that the crisis traces back to all those people -- in the public, in the government, and in the urban caverns of Wall Street -- who engaged in, or encouraged, very risky borrowing. One such individual is a man named Tim Geithner. In the run-up to the crisis, he headed the New York branch of the Federal Reserve. He strove to keep interest rates at extremely low levels, which of course encouraged people -- from Main Street individuals to Wall Street speculators -- to go into heavy debt. Of course, low interest levels are fine, but only as long as borrowers don't over-use them.
There used to be an old nonsense game that college guys used to play on spring break drives to Florida. Here's one question: "On the stupidity scale, what's dumber -- a doorknob or a doorbell?" It turns out that the correct answer to that question is: Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary who now heads the IRS but didn't pay his taxes.
Let's be clear: It's certainly okay to borrow modest amounts of money, as long as the recipient has a reasonable chance of paying back the loan. However, if the person doing the borrowing can't survive an economic downturn, even a severe one, big loans are a bad idea.
As people try to put their arms around our dismal economic situation, they should start reading an important financial web site: MotleyFool.com. The writers there avoid financial jargon and "WallStreetspeak."
One MotleyFool piece I urge everyone to read is Matt Koppenheffer's provocatively titled essay: "Who Should Go to Jail?" You can find it at the following link: http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2009/03/06/who-should-go-to-jail.aspx?source=iflfollnk0000001
As you read the following material from Koppenheffer's piece, think of a line from an old song: "Those were the days my friend; we thought they'd never end." Of course, everything comes to an end. Relatedly, as Sir Isaac Newton taught the world long ago, "What goes up must (eventually) come down." That's as true of economic rises and falls as it is of roller-coaster rides.
But who should we punish for economic malfeasance? In Koppenheffer's words, "As the nation’s collective temper flares, we’re all beginning to consider tossing the people responsible for today's financial mess in the slammer and throwing away -- no, melting -- the key. And with our economy in disarray and major banks like Citigroup (NYSE: C) and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) potentially on the brink of collapse, it's tough to fight that sentiment. . . . .
"Sometimes it just doesn't matter what your IQ is, what school you went to, or what position you hold -- idiocy can creep up and slide into bed with you. Even more irresistible is an idiocy that is supported by seemingly everyone around you. 'What? Home prices never go down?' That sounds fishy, but everyone else seems to think it's true.
"Remember when your mother asked whether you'd jump off a bridge if everyone else did it? Some people, even smart ones, have been jumping off that bridge their entire lives."
Koppenheffer's point is that, in financial matters, there are some crooks -- like Bernie Madoff -- and many fools, a group that includes nearly all of us (including me). As a nation, we jumped off bridges -- by making risky investments and buying houses that are now worth less than we ever imagined.
Can Obama bail us out? Surely you jest. He isn't going to hand over his own fortune to the American people. Remember, he's living rent free in a $200 million home. The only one who can bail us out is . . . us, the taxpayers, and, of course, the foreign lenders from whom we're borrowing trillions. Somehow it doesn't seem likely that a problem generated by over-borrowing is going to be solved by . . . massive borrowing.
But why oh why did we buy a $500,000 house when we could only afford one for $400,000 or less? We did so because the "smart people" (now known as the "dumb people") told us it was a good investment. After all, in a few years wouldn't our half-million house be worth $600,000 or $700,000?
Right now, however, our $500,000 home may be worth $390,000 -- or less. The notion that home prices would not -- could not -- go down turned out to be a foolish notion. The "housing market" ended up pricing itself out of the market.
On that $500,000 home, suppose you put down $100,000 -- one-fifth of the price. Then, suppose, you took out a home equity loan (perhaps to pay off credit card debt) of $60,000. In that case, you owe a total of $460,000 on a home that's worth $390,000 (minus the real estate commission of more than $20,000). You are out a ton of money.With economics, the word "never" (as in, "House prices will never go down") doesn't apply. It doesn't apply if you're Citigroup, or Merrill-Lynch, or AIG.
It also doesn't apply if you're you, sitting nervously in a home that you can no longer afford. You're up the creek, and your creditors are holding the "paddle."
(Note: I'll be writing the rest of the week on the economy, with emphasis on what the Obama [Administration should do -- but probably won't.]
More from MotleyFool.com: "My guess is that a heck of a lot of the problems that we're facing today were born of people doing dumb things. Building a financial model that assumes housing prices will never fall? Dumb. Buying a $500,000 house with 2% down and a three-year interest-only loan? Dumb. Giving a mortgage loan to somebody putting nothing down? Yup, that's dumb too."
Note 1: Later today (Monday), I'll be writing the first of several pieces about similarities between the current economic downturn and the 1930s. If your parents or grandparents were admirers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, I regret to inform you that most of the things they told you about FDR were false. In fact, he probably did more harm than good. Scroll down to the bottom to see an example. I hope you'll return late this afternoon or this evening to see what I have to say.
[Note 2: Beginning Tuesday, I'll write about some major differences between Gov. Sarah H. Palin and Barack H. Obama in regard to the crisis. Frankly, Obama is surrounded by people like his Treasury Secretary Geithner and advisers like GE's Jeffrey Immelt, who played major roles in causing the financial meltdown. Immelt's GE Capital has $16 billion in bad or questionable loans -- and he's the one whose advice is going to get us back to financial stability? Sarah Palin has no such human baggage around her. She also has a basic understanding of the American economy that Obama clearly doesn't possess.] Scroll down to the bottom for comments about "Conservatives Who Don't Like Sarah Palin"
On the political front, the short -- but incomplete -- answer to who caused the problem is: Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and various other Democrats, as well as the self-aggrandizing people at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All of the above insisted that lenders offer loans to people who now can't afford them.
The longer answer is that the crisis traces back to all those people -- in the public, in the government, and in the urban caverns of Wall Street -- who engaged in, or encouraged, very risky borrowing. One such individual is a man named Tim Geithner. In the run-up to the crisis, he headed the New York branch of the Federal Reserve. He strove to keep interest rates at extremely low levels, which of course encouraged people -- from Main Street individuals to Wall Street speculators -- to go into heavy debt. Of course, low interest levels are fine, but only as long as borrowers don't over-use them.
There used to be an old nonsense game that college guys used to play on spring break drives to Florida. Here's one question: "On the stupidity scale, what's dumber -- a doorknob or a doorbell?" It turns out that the correct answer to that question is: Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary who now heads the IRS but didn't pay his taxes.
Let's be clear: It's certainly okay to borrow modest amounts of money, as long as the recipient has a reasonable chance of paying back the loan. However, if the person doing the borrowing can't survive an economic downturn, even a severe one, big loans are a bad idea.
As people try to put their arms around our dismal economic situation, they should start reading an important financial web site: MotleyFool.com. The writers there avoid financial jargon and "WallStreetspeak."
One MotleyFool piece I urge everyone to read is Matt Koppenheffer's provocatively titled essay: "Who Should Go to Jail?" You can find it at the following link: http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2009/03/06/who-should-go-to-jail.aspx?source=iflfollnk0000001
As you read the following material from Koppenheffer's piece, think of a line from an old song: "Those were the days my friend; we thought they'd never end." Of course, everything comes to an end. Relatedly, as Sir Isaac Newton taught the world long ago, "What goes up must (eventually) come down." That's as true of economic rises and falls as it is of roller-coaster rides.
But who should we punish for economic malfeasance? In Koppenheffer's words, "As the nation’s collective temper flares, we’re all beginning to consider tossing the people responsible for today's financial mess in the slammer and throwing away -- no, melting -- the key. And with our economy in disarray and major banks like Citigroup (NYSE: C) and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) potentially on the brink of collapse, it's tough to fight that sentiment. . . . .
"Sometimes it just doesn't matter what your IQ is, what school you went to, or what position you hold -- idiocy can creep up and slide into bed with you. Even more irresistible is an idiocy that is supported by seemingly everyone around you. 'What? Home prices never go down?' That sounds fishy, but everyone else seems to think it's true.
"Remember when your mother asked whether you'd jump off a bridge if everyone else did it? Some people, even smart ones, have been jumping off that bridge their entire lives."
Koppenheffer's point is that, in financial matters, there are some crooks -- like Bernie Madoff -- and many fools, a group that includes nearly all of us (including me). As a nation, we jumped off bridges -- by making risky investments and buying houses that are now worth less than we ever imagined.
Can Obama bail us out? Surely you jest. He isn't going to hand over his own fortune to the American people. Remember, he's living rent free in a $200 million home. The only one who can bail us out is . . . us, the taxpayers, and, of course, the foreign lenders from whom we're borrowing trillions. Somehow it doesn't seem likely that a problem generated by over-borrowing is going to be solved by . . . massive borrowing.
But why oh why did we buy a $500,000 house when we could only afford one for $400,000 or less? We did so because the "smart people" (now known as the "dumb people") told us it was a good investment. After all, in a few years wouldn't our half-million house be worth $600,000 or $700,000?
Right now, however, our $500,000 home may be worth $390,000 -- or less. The notion that home prices would not -- could not -- go down turned out to be a foolish notion. The "housing market" ended up pricing itself out of the market.
On that $500,000 home, suppose you put down $100,000 -- one-fifth of the price. Then, suppose, you took out a home equity loan (perhaps to pay off credit card debt) of $60,000. In that case, you owe a total of $460,000 on a home that's worth $390,000 (minus the real estate commission of more than $20,000). You are out a ton of money.With economics, the word "never" (as in, "House prices will never go down") doesn't apply. It doesn't apply if you're Citigroup, or Merrill-Lynch, or AIG.
It also doesn't apply if you're you, sitting nervously in a home that you can no longer afford. You're up the creek, and your creditors are holding the "paddle."
(Note: I'll be writing the rest of the week on the economy, with emphasis on what the Obama [Administration should do -- but probably won't.]
More from MotleyFool.com: "My guess is that a heck of a lot of the problems that we're facing today were born of people doing dumb things. Building a financial model that assumes housing prices will never fall? Dumb. Buying a $500,000 house with 2% down and a three-year interest-only loan? Dumb. Giving a mortgage loan to somebody putting nothing down? Yup, that's dumb too."
Conservatives Who Don't Like Sarah Palin
We Palin backer are going to lose some "conservatives" along the way.
The "conservative" candidates in 2008 were Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Jim Gilmore, and (perhaps) Fred Thompson, and (on social issues) Mike Huckabee. The characteristics they all shared were these: (1) they couldn't raise any money; (2) they didn't get any votes, except for Huckabee, who got votes almost exclusively from American evangelicals. Overall, John McCain got more votes from evangelicals in the primaries than Mike Huckabee.
Sarah Palin should not run as "The Goddess of the Right Wing," because she would be certain to lose -- badly. She should run as what she has been in Alaska, a principled centrist, a believer in private enterprise and individual liberty, as well as an achiever who cares deeply about people. If she does, she can win.
The Good Ole Boys -- the "navel sniffers," as Tammy Bruce calls them -- of the traditional GOP will not support Sarah because she will push them off their comfortable gravy train. The "conservatives" who will oppose Sarah will be individuals who didn't give a dime to McCain-Palin and didn't campaign for them (or, in some case, even vote for them).
Sarah is much better off without them, and she knows that. Such ideologues offend most Americans, and they drive away more votes than they cast.
Did FDR really lift America out of the Depression. No, he didn't.
Barack Obama talks regularly about the inspiration he receives from the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. However, when it comes to bringing the country out of an economic crisis, FDR is a very poor model. He succeeded at getting large segments of the population to revere him. He failed at solving the country's economic disaster. Consider . . .
In November , 1933, a year after FDR's election, unemployment in the U.S. was above 23%, nearly one-in-four workers. The Dow Jones Industrial average, which had gone over 380 in fall, 1929, was at a miserable 90.
What about November, 1934, two years after Roosevelt's election? Unemployment remained exactly where it had been a year earlier -- at 23%, and the Dow had moved us a measly three points -- to 93.
By July, 1935, two-and-a-half years after his election, FDR had barely put a dent in unemployment, which remained about 21%. The Dow had moved up some -- to 119 -- but it was still at a level less than one-third the high in 1929.
Frankly, much of what we learned about FDR from old family members -- and from our history books -- was incorrect. FDR remained a dashing and popular figure, but the Depression lasted all the way through Roosevelt's first two terms.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Obama and Know-Nothing Voters
NOTE: ON SUNDAY, MONDAY, AND TUESDAY, I'LL HAVE COLUMNS THAT I HOPE WILL BE THE SIMPLEST, MOST HELPFUL PIECES AVAILABLE ON THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS -- AND HOW TO GET OUT OF IT. PLEASE VISIT. There was an old nonsense game that college guys used to play on spring break drives to Florida. Here's one question: "On the stupidity scale, what's dumber -- a doorknob or a doorbell?" It turns out that the correct answer to that question is: Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary who now heads the IRS but didn't pay his taxes. Prior to his current high position, Geithner was head of the Federal Reserve's New York branch, an institution with heavy responsibile for the financial crisis.
In the 19th century in America, there was an anti-immigrant political movement whose members' motto was "I know nothing." With Obama voters, that slogan may be making a comeback.
There's abundant survey evidence that most Obama voters in 2008 were not exactly valedictorian material. It may have something to do with all those homeless types and prison convicts registered by ACORN and other worthies.
As the material below (in smaller print, scroll down) from yesterday's column illustrates, tens of millions of Americans are uninformed about some of the most basic realities of life in America. They are dumber than doorknobs. [Note: If you come here often, please sign up with other "followers" on the sidebar to your right.]
As frequent readers know, this blog is not to be confused with The Complaint Department. In fact, its purpose to come up with solutions rather than to whine about the outrages of any particular day.
As you know, I'm an optimist. I believe "Low-knowledge" voters, the kind who flocked to the polls for Obama, are a problem, but perhaps not an insoluble one. We need to figure out ways to get some basic knowledge to people whose curiosity is extremely limited. Such individuals aren't going to read books about economic declines -- and they're unlikely to tune into Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.
In whatever way we can we must get our message across -- or they'll continue voting for Obama types until the country is totally bankrupt and devoid of individual liberties.
During the past election, I made a lot of phone calls on behalf of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Like any good caller, I didn't argue with people hell-bent on voting for Obama.
However, in one case, I violated that rule. The person I called let me know he was "totally in favor of universal health care."
I couldn't help myself. I said, "Universal health care . . . does that mean I pay for your care . . . or that you pay for mine?" The man didn't hang up, but there was an extremely long pause on his end of the line. Heretofore, he had been under the impression that he would take -- and someone else would give.
I was making a simple point, one I probably knew about age 5 or 6 The point was that nothing in life is free, NOTHING. Somebody pays for the things we receive, and usually that somebody is us. A political slogan like "universal health care" is not a solution to problem that a service -- like health care -- is costly.
In short, I may have taught the man a basic truth that he hadn't encountered in his many years on earth. Was it the beginning of wisdom for him? Probably not, but it was better than nothing, which is what he knew previously.
In the 19th century in America, there was an anti-immigrant political movement whose members' motto was "I know nothing." With Obama voters, that slogan may be making a comeback.
There's abundant survey evidence that most Obama voters in 2008 were not exactly valedictorian material. It may have something to do with all those homeless types and prison convicts registered by ACORN and other worthies.
As the material below (in smaller print, scroll down) from yesterday's column illustrates, tens of millions of Americans are uninformed about some of the most basic realities of life in America. They are dumber than doorknobs. [Note: If you come here often, please sign up with other "followers" on the sidebar to your right.]
As frequent readers know, this blog is not to be confused with The Complaint Department. In fact, its purpose to come up with solutions rather than to whine about the outrages of any particular day.
As you know, I'm an optimist. I believe "Low-knowledge" voters, the kind who flocked to the polls for Obama, are a problem, but perhaps not an insoluble one. We need to figure out ways to get some basic knowledge to people whose curiosity is extremely limited. Such individuals aren't going to read books about economic declines -- and they're unlikely to tune into Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.
In whatever way we can we must get our message across -- or they'll continue voting for Obama types until the country is totally bankrupt and devoid of individual liberties.
During the past election, I made a lot of phone calls on behalf of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Like any good caller, I didn't argue with people hell-bent on voting for Obama.
However, in one case, I violated that rule. The person I called let me know he was "totally in favor of universal health care."
I couldn't help myself. I said, "Universal health care . . . does that mean I pay for your care . . . or that you pay for mine?" The man didn't hang up, but there was an extremely long pause on his end of the line. Heretofore, he had been under the impression that he would take -- and someone else would give.
I was making a simple point, one I probably knew about age 5 or 6 The point was that nothing in life is free, NOTHING. Somebody pays for the things we receive, and usually that somebody is us. A political slogan like "universal health care" is not a solution to problem that a service -- like health care -- is costly.
In short, I may have taught the man a basic truth that he hadn't encountered in his many years on earth. Was it the beginning of wisdom for him? Probably not, but it was better than nothing, which is what he knew previously.
Most hilarious opinion survey in history: Opinion Research did a survey for FOX, and here's one of (many) thigh-slappers it produced. When asked where the government gets its money, 65% said it got it from taxes on wage-earners and businesses.
Twenty-four percent affirmed (I love this) "The government has its own money."
Eleven percent said either that it got it from some other source (aliens? payoffs from lobbyists? Christmas gifts?) or that they just didn't know. I wonder whether to worry more about the 24% that think the government has a night job or the 11% who are just plain clueless.
Just before the last election, the BBC in London had me on their early morning radio show and the subject was "low-knowledge voters." These are people who aren't knowledgeable about politics, candidates, the issues -- or, in fact, anything much of social and economic significance.
The Opinion Research survey shows us exactly what the lowest of low-knowledge voters don't know. It could -- and does -- fill all the books in the Harvard Library.How many of the 36% who think the money government spends comes from some source other than taxpayers are Obama voters?
Without more information, I'd hazard a guess that most of them are. As a famous post-election Zogby Poll demonstrated, most of what Obama voters know is true . . . isn't. A majority of Obama backers knew that Sarah Palin said, "I can see Russia from my house." In fact, Sarah never said any such thing. The remark was made by comedienne Tina Fey.
It turns out that many "Obama voters" are that only -- and not much more. That was illustrated in the early December run-off for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia. It was supposed to be a close race between Democrat Jim Martin and incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss, perhaps even closer than the tight November election where neither candidate won the required majority.
In fact, Chambliss in December won by a landslide -- 57% to 43%. Apparently, a great many Obama voters -- tens of thousands (and some estimates are a hundred thousand-plus) -- stayed away from the run-off. They just weren't interested if Obama wasn't on the ballot.
Will something similar happen in other states in the 2010 election, when there will be no Obama running? Could be.Friday, March 6, 2009
Dumbing Down of American Voters
“It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly – and for the most part sincerely – assured of their greatness.” President Calvin Coolidge, shortly after leaving office (and he never even knew Barack Obama)
The woman knows that Barack Obama's spending plans are going to be paid for by the children to her right . . .
The woman knows that Barack Obama's spending plans are going to be paid for by the children to her right . . .Most hilarious opinion survey in history: Opinion Research did a survey for FOX, and here's one of (many) thigh-slappers it produced. When asked where the government gets its money, 65% said it got it from taxes on wage-earners and businesses. [Note: This weekend I'll be writing more about Sarah Palin and the economy.]
Twenty-four percent affirmed (I love this) "The government has its own money."
Eleven percent said either that it got it from some other source (aliens? payoffs from lobbyists? Christmas gifts?) or that they just didn't know.
I wonder whether to worry more about the 24% that think the government has a night job or the 11% who are just plain clueless.
Just before the last election, the BBC in London had me on their early morning radio show and the subject was "low-knowledge voters." These are people who aren't knowledgable about politics, candidates, the issues -- or, in fact, anything much of social and economic significance.
The Opinion Research survey shows us exactly what the lowest of low-knowledge voters don't know. It could -- and does -- fill all the books in the Harvard Library.
How many of the 36% who think the money government spends comes from some source other than taxpayers are Obama voters? Without more information, I'd hazard a guess that most of them are. As a famous post-election Zogby Poll demonstrated, most of what Obama voters know is true . . . isn't.
It turns out that many "Obama voters" are that only -- and not much more. That was illustrated in the early December run-off for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia. It was supposed to be a close race between Demcocrat Jim Martin and incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss, perhaps even closer than the tight November election where neither candidate won the required majority.
In fact, Chambliss in December won by a landslide -- 57% to 43%. Apparently, a great many Obama voters -- tens of thousands (and some estimates are a hundred thousand-plus) -- stayed away from the run-off. They just weren't interested if Obama wasn't on the ballot.
Will something similar happen in other states in the 2010 election, when there will be no Obama running? Could be.
Twenty-four percent affirmed (I love this) "The government has its own money."
Eleven percent said either that it got it from some other source (aliens? payoffs from lobbyists? Christmas gifts?) or that they just didn't know.
I wonder whether to worry more about the 24% that think the government has a night job or the 11% who are just plain clueless.
Just before the last election, the BBC in London had me on their early morning radio show and the subject was "low-knowledge voters." These are people who aren't knowledgable about politics, candidates, the issues -- or, in fact, anything much of social and economic significance.
The Opinion Research survey shows us exactly what the lowest of low-knowledge voters don't know. It could -- and does -- fill all the books in the Harvard Library.
How many of the 36% who think the money government spends comes from some source other than taxpayers are Obama voters? Without more information, I'd hazard a guess that most of them are. As a famous post-election Zogby Poll demonstrated, most of what Obama voters know is true . . . isn't.
It turns out that many "Obama voters" are that only -- and not much more. That was illustrated in the early December run-off for the U.S. Senate seat in Georgia. It was supposed to be a close race between Demcocrat Jim Martin and incumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss, perhaps even closer than the tight November election where neither candidate won the required majority.
In fact, Chambliss in December won by a landslide -- 57% to 43%. Apparently, a great many Obama voters -- tens of thousands (and some estimates are a hundred thousand-plus) -- stayed away from the run-off. They just weren't interested if Obama wasn't on the ballot.
Will something similar happen in other states in the 2010 election, when there will be no Obama running? Could be.
Sarah Palin's Republican Enemies
Sarah Palin in the future of the Republican Party, but she has real enemies in the GOP, largely people who've gotten used to being a minority and are more interested in protecting their jobs than in safeguarding the country. Sarah is seen as a threat to Republicans who have come to terms with comfortable mediocirty. She's a winner in a Party that has too many losers.
One of the most effective conservative voices on the Internet is that of Palin-backer Tammy Bruce, a California feminist (and former head of the LA chapter of NOW), who blogs at TammyBruce.com. Here's a "Fox Forum" blog piece below that she wrote recently, one I'll comment on later today. It's about Sarah Palin's conflicts with the GOP's "Old Boy's Club." [Note: My column on the other blog today is about Sarah Palin's political strategy for 2009.]
This current public fight between Limbaugh and Steele, two important and influential conservative men, reveals just how deeply in trouble the DOP [Dumb Old Party] really is. What happened to the Grand Old Party? Its so-called leadership has been inside the Beltway too long, going to the same cocktail and dinner parties for decades.
They like the money and the decadence and the smell of their own navels. The idea of returning to the principled values of Reagan means hard work, smaller government (read: less money), taking on the tyrants of the world thereby losing Islamist largess for travel, parties, and dare I say, presidential libraries. Worst of all, a return to the Reagan legacy brings with it an expectation of discipline and personal responsibility.
It is also especially frightening to the Republican Elite that a return of the Reagan legacy is represented by one person these days who, like Reagan, hails from the far-side of this nation, away from the increasing stench (and corrupting influence) of Washington. Sarah Palin is a woman who means business when she talks of reform. The one person none of the boys in Washington like, she lives and works west of the Rockies (let alone the Mississippi), was educated at a university without Ivy on its walls, is not of the monied class, and actually intends to confront the corruption and hypocrisy emanating from both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Sarah Palin is not “of” them, you see, so the DOP Elite (for the ultimate oxymoron) prepare to toss Reagan Conservatism, best represented by Palin, under the bus lest the loss of Islamist money, parties with boys from the same school as you, and the use of the American taxpayer to fund the greed, excess and conga-lines of the Obama White House as the economy tanks.
One of the most effective conservative voices on the Internet is that of Palin-backer Tammy Bruce, a California feminist (and former head of the LA chapter of NOW), who blogs at TammyBruce.com. Here's a "Fox Forum" blog piece below that she wrote recently, one I'll comment on later today. It's about Sarah Palin's conflicts with the GOP's "Old Boy's Club." [Note: My column on the other blog today is about Sarah Palin's political strategy for 2009.]
This current public fight between Limbaugh and Steele, two important and influential conservative men, reveals just how deeply in trouble the DOP [Dumb Old Party] really is. What happened to the Grand Old Party? Its so-called leadership has been inside the Beltway too long, going to the same cocktail and dinner parties for decades.
They like the money and the decadence and the smell of their own navels. The idea of returning to the principled values of Reagan means hard work, smaller government (read: less money), taking on the tyrants of the world thereby losing Islamist largess for travel, parties, and dare I say, presidential libraries. Worst of all, a return to the Reagan legacy brings with it an expectation of discipline and personal responsibility.
It is also especially frightening to the Republican Elite that a return of the Reagan legacy is represented by one person these days who, like Reagan, hails from the far-side of this nation, away from the increasing stench (and corrupting influence) of Washington. Sarah Palin is a woman who means business when she talks of reform. The one person none of the boys in Washington like, she lives and works west of the Rockies (let alone the Mississippi), was educated at a university without Ivy on its walls, is not of the monied class, and actually intends to confront the corruption and hypocrisy emanating from both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Sarah Palin is not “of” them, you see, so the DOP Elite (for the ultimate oxymoron) prepare to toss Reagan Conservatism, best represented by Palin, under the bus lest the loss of Islamist money, parties with boys from the same school as you, and the use of the American taxpayer to fund the greed, excess and conga-lines of the Obama White House as the economy tanks.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Obama: Architect of Failing Economy
Sarah Palin at age 2 carrying shrimp in each handFinancial expert Troy Dunn says, "It's like donating blood at a morgue." He's talking about the government's stupid decision to throw more cash at hapless AIG. [Note: Later today I'll be discussing why Sarah Palin should replace Obama as President in 2012.]
In coming days, I'll discuss what's gone wrong with the economy -- and what the Obama Administration is doing to make it worse. The reality is that you'll find much more of value here than you will on CNN and the rest of the mainstream media. The MSM continues to find it difficult to ask serious questions about Obama's policies, which are designed mainly to pay off his voters rather than to benefit the nation. (If you come here regularly, please sign up as one of my "followers" -- scroll down the sidebar at the upper right.)
Economics, my friends, is relatively simple, involving a finite number of variables, including: supply, demand, investments, profits, and taxes. Obama is focusing on demand and ignoring the other components. Worse than that, he's looking for scapegoats rather than solutions. It's a tactic disastrously practiced during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration.
Consider Obama's disastrous plunge into class warfare. Yes, many people love to hate "the rich" (whether they're really rich or not). But consider this: Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently spoke out against soaking the rich people in his city. He explained that high-tax, high-cost New York has eight million residents. But a mere 40,000 of the eight million -- one-half-of-one-percent -- provide city tax revenue totaling a massive 63%.
What if one-eighth of those people -- 5,000 -- moved out of the city? That would do serious damage to the city's capacity to provide services. What if one-fourth of them -- 10,000 -- moved out, which they certainly have the resources to do? It would cripple the city's ability to meet the needs of its people.
Is Obama aware of such a situation? He hasn't shown any sign yet that he is. Sarah Palin does understand such realities, and that's one reason she'd be a much better President than Obama. In Sarah's world, which is also my world, a company that operates efficiently, wisely, and profitably can grow and flourish. Companies that perform poorly will flounder and, eventually, fail.
Not so in the political planet occupied by Obama and people like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. They look at companies such as GM and AIG as "too big to fail." Thus, such companies qualify for huge bailouts, which are somehow never quite enough money to change their prospects.
GM says it needs another $30 billion -- with a "b" -- to stay afloat. However, GM is the corporate version of a bottomless pit. Most insightful observers believe the company is headed for bankruptcy. Even that drastic step might not save America's largest automaker. At the same time, the overpaid members of the automakers union seem blissfully unaware of GM's lurch toward oblivion. GM wants to cut nearly 50,000 jobs, but even that probably will not be enough.
GM qualifies as one of Obama's companies that's "too big to fail," but fail it will. "Its auditors have serious doubts about its ability to survive," as one news report just said. Please let it die in peace.
What about insurance Godzilla AIG? So far, it has received a total of about $150 billion in bailout money. Guess what? It will need more, much more. In last year's fourth-quarter, AIG lost a whopping $60 billion. Is it doing better in this year's first quarter? Apparently not.
What's AIG's problem? It insured many of the companies that were up to their eyeballs in the subprime lending debacle. In other words, AIG insured companies that matched it in irresponsibility and bad financial practices. For that, we're supposed to bail it out?
What about the concept that a company like AIG is "too big to fail?" I have news for Obama (and AIG): it is failing. Last fall, its stock price was $20 a share. Today, a share of AIG stock is worth . . . 50 cents. Its terrible performance is one of the reasons owners of shares in all American companies have lost a total of $1.1 trillion -- with a "t" -- in wealth in the past six weeks. Obama is bankrupting the nation.
This morning on FOX News (an island of sanity in a sea of nonsense), self-made millionaire Troy Dunn said this about AIG: "It's not too big to fail." He added, "It has already failed."About throwing additional taxpayers' money at AIG, Dunn observed: "It's like donating blood at a morgue."
If AIG collapses -- actually, when it collapses -- many companies around the world will suffer. Some of the will fail. However, Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke are incapable of saving AIG. They are involved in trying to resuscitate a corpse stiffened by rigor mortis.
Today (Thursday), the stock market is continuing to fall. That's about as newsworthy as saying "The sun came up once again this morning."
Wall Street is sending a message to Obama, who remains tone deaf to the sobering music of the market. Wall Street is saying that it doesn't believe Obama has a clue about how to turn the situation around. In that view, Wall Street is correct.
[Tomorrow (Friday), I'll be writing on how to cure a serious recession, with emphasis on how it's been done effectively in past, specifically in the Administrations of Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. They did so by taking steps the exact opposite of what Obama's doing. A situation where companies aren't allowed to fail becomes one where companies eventually aren't allowed to succeed.]
In coming days, I'll discuss what's gone wrong with the economy -- and what the Obama Administration is doing to make it worse. The reality is that you'll find much more of value here than you will on CNN and the rest of the mainstream media. The MSM continues to find it difficult to ask serious questions about Obama's policies, which are designed mainly to pay off his voters rather than to benefit the nation. (If you come here regularly, please sign up as one of my "followers" -- scroll down the sidebar at the upper right.)
Economics, my friends, is relatively simple, involving a finite number of variables, including: supply, demand, investments, profits, and taxes. Obama is focusing on demand and ignoring the other components. Worse than that, he's looking for scapegoats rather than solutions. It's a tactic disastrously practiced during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration.
Consider Obama's disastrous plunge into class warfare. Yes, many people love to hate "the rich" (whether they're really rich or not). But consider this: Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently spoke out against soaking the rich people in his city. He explained that high-tax, high-cost New York has eight million residents. But a mere 40,000 of the eight million -- one-half-of-one-percent -- provide city tax revenue totaling a massive 63%.
What if one-eighth of those people -- 5,000 -- moved out of the city? That would do serious damage to the city's capacity to provide services. What if one-fourth of them -- 10,000 -- moved out, which they certainly have the resources to do? It would cripple the city's ability to meet the needs of its people.
Is Obama aware of such a situation? He hasn't shown any sign yet that he is. Sarah Palin does understand such realities, and that's one reason she'd be a much better President than Obama. In Sarah's world, which is also my world, a company that operates efficiently, wisely, and profitably can grow and flourish. Companies that perform poorly will flounder and, eventually, fail.
Not so in the political planet occupied by Obama and people like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. They look at companies such as GM and AIG as "too big to fail." Thus, such companies qualify for huge bailouts, which are somehow never quite enough money to change their prospects.
GM says it needs another $30 billion -- with a "b" -- to stay afloat. However, GM is the corporate version of a bottomless pit. Most insightful observers believe the company is headed for bankruptcy. Even that drastic step might not save America's largest automaker. At the same time, the overpaid members of the automakers union seem blissfully unaware of GM's lurch toward oblivion. GM wants to cut nearly 50,000 jobs, but even that probably will not be enough.
GM qualifies as one of Obama's companies that's "too big to fail," but fail it will. "Its auditors have serious doubts about its ability to survive," as one news report just said. Please let it die in peace.
What about insurance Godzilla AIG? So far, it has received a total of about $150 billion in bailout money. Guess what? It will need more, much more. In last year's fourth-quarter, AIG lost a whopping $60 billion. Is it doing better in this year's first quarter? Apparently not.
What's AIG's problem? It insured many of the companies that were up to their eyeballs in the subprime lending debacle. In other words, AIG insured companies that matched it in irresponsibility and bad financial practices. For that, we're supposed to bail it out?
What about the concept that a company like AIG is "too big to fail?" I have news for Obama (and AIG): it is failing. Last fall, its stock price was $20 a share. Today, a share of AIG stock is worth . . . 50 cents. Its terrible performance is one of the reasons owners of shares in all American companies have lost a total of $1.1 trillion -- with a "t" -- in wealth in the past six weeks. Obama is bankrupting the nation.
This morning on FOX News (an island of sanity in a sea of nonsense), self-made millionaire Troy Dunn said this about AIG: "It's not too big to fail." He added, "It has already failed."About throwing additional taxpayers' money at AIG, Dunn observed: "It's like donating blood at a morgue."
If AIG collapses -- actually, when it collapses -- many companies around the world will suffer. Some of the will fail. However, Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke are incapable of saving AIG. They are involved in trying to resuscitate a corpse stiffened by rigor mortis.
Today (Thursday), the stock market is continuing to fall. That's about as newsworthy as saying "The sun came up once again this morning."
Wall Street is sending a message to Obama, who remains tone deaf to the sobering music of the market. Wall Street is saying that it doesn't believe Obama has a clue about how to turn the situation around. In that view, Wall Street is correct.
[Tomorrow (Friday), I'll be writing on how to cure a serious recession, with emphasis on how it's been done effectively in past, specifically in the Administrations of Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. They did so by taking steps the exact opposite of what Obama's doing. A situation where companies aren't allowed to fail becomes one where companies eventually aren't allowed to succeed.]
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Limbaugh, Palin Right, Obama Wrong
Tomorrow (Thursday), I'll discuss Obama's disastrous plunge into class warfare. Yes, many people love to hate "the rich" (whether they're really rich or not). But consider this: Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently spoke out against soaking the rich. He explained that high-tax, high-cost New York has eight million resident. But a mere 40,000 of the eight million provide 63% of the city's revenue. What if one-eighth of those people -- 5,000 -- moved out of the city? It would do real harm to city services. What if one-fourth of them -- 10,000 -- moved out, which they certainly have the resources to do ? It would cripple the city's ability to meet the needs of its people. Is Obama aware of such situations? He hasn't shown any sign yet that he is. Sarah Palin does understand such realities, and that's one reason she'd be a much better President than Obama.
Below: "Obama's success would be America's failure." That's why we don't want him to succeed. The MSM's absurd notion that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are simpletons while Obama is a sophisticated intellectual makes me apoplectic. The stock market has dropped 3,000 points since the election of Obama. Wall Street believes Hussein Obama is the simpleton, and it's correct.
[Note: If you'd like to honor me by being a follower of this blog, please do so, as many others have, by clicking on the sidebar to your right.]
Clearly, Barack Obama has no understanding of how the American economy works. His tax plan is an invitation to investors to sell their stocks. It's an invitation to American business to hoard cash rather than invest it.
But how could Obama understand the economy? The man has spent his entire life going to left-wing academic institutions, "organizing" communities, and running for ever-higher offices. He's spent a lifetime accepting handouts -- scholarships, grants, and payments for being a lazy, lousy legislator. Obama has had everything given to him. People like Palin and Limbaugh have had to earn all that they've gotten.
Frankly, if you want to know what's wrong with the economy and what must be done to fix it, don't go to Obama's web site. Instead, come here, where I'll offer simple explanations of what is going on and how we can help improve the situation.
First, however, a last word (for now) on Rush Limbaugh's amazing speech to CPAC: What Rush reminds us is that we don't have to "make nice" with people who try to smear Sarah Palin -- or who sling mud at Limbaugh. Being nice to deceitful, dishonest people ensures they will never get any better. We may not change their minds, but we can at least make them uncomfortable.
Frankly, in his LONG CPAC address Rush did not say offensive things. His goal was to defend responsible democracy and the American way of life. The accusations he made about Obama's socialist -- or vote-buying -- agenda happen to be true. Some of our Republican leaders are good people -- John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, even Michael Steele -- but they aren't forceful enough.
As Limbaugh indicated, when it comes to simple matters of right-and-wrong, "bipartisanship" is not the answer. When a public policy is bad, compromising on it doesn't make it "half-bad."
When Obama is taking steps that harm charities and further depress the housing market, we don't need a bipartisan compromise. When people tell us comforting lies, we need to tell the truth to the best of our ability.
Also, when investors feel gloomy about the stock market's prospects, we need to reveal the negative effects of Obama's efforts to increase the tax rate on capital gains and reduce people's capacity to invest. Finally, when Rush says that's what Obama's doing, is he being "mean" -- or is he just reciting some obvious, if inconvenient, truths?
As a society, we don't want to punish the most productive people in the economy and reward the least productive. Doing so harms the country. That's why many of us, including Rush, don't want Obama to succeed.
In fact, Obama's success would be America's failure. We don't want to become like Britain and France, with slow growth, high unemployment, and a social welfare scheme that reduces opportunity.
Barack Obama likes to talk a lot about Abraham Lincoln and, lately, Franklin D. Roosevelt. One historical individual Obama has never mentioned -- but should -- is Benjamin Franklin.
What's the best way to gain great wealth? Is it to speculate wildly on Wall Street, assuming that the market will always go up -- as you've noticed, it doesn't? Or is it to buy more house than you can afford, believing that the market will always trend upward and you can sell it at a handsome profit. Not anymore.
Benjamin Franklin took a more modest approach, one we might describe not as "get rich quick," but rather as "Get rich . . . slowly." He said, "The road to wealth, if you desire it [who doesn't?], is as plain as the way to market. It depends chiefly on two words, industry and frugality. That is, waste neither time nor money, but make the best use of both."
In the U.S., tens of millions of people have gotten wealthy by doing basically what Franklin advised. (In contrast, Obama got rich through two massive book deals for autobiographical volumes that were strong on hope and short on real accomplishments.) His wife got a rich person's salary primarily because she was married to an influential elected official.
Currently, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Obama's Illinois political associate, is trying to get rich in a hurry with a book deal of his own. If all else fails, as it did for Blagojevich if not for Obama, then write a book. For normal people, it pays to follow Ben Franklin's advice, sagacious as he always was.
[More tomorrow about what Obama doesn't know about U.S. business and economics -- and Gov. Palin does.]
Below: "Obama's success would be America's failure." That's why we don't want him to succeed. The MSM's absurd notion that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are simpletons while Obama is a sophisticated intellectual makes me apoplectic. The stock market has dropped 3,000 points since the election of Obama. Wall Street believes Hussein Obama is the simpleton, and it's correct.
[Note: If you'd like to honor me by being a follower of this blog, please do so, as many others have, by clicking on the sidebar to your right.]
Clearly, Barack Obama has no understanding of how the American economy works. His tax plan is an invitation to investors to sell their stocks. It's an invitation to American business to hoard cash rather than invest it.
But how could Obama understand the economy? The man has spent his entire life going to left-wing academic institutions, "organizing" communities, and running for ever-higher offices. He's spent a lifetime accepting handouts -- scholarships, grants, and payments for being a lazy, lousy legislator. Obama has had everything given to him. People like Palin and Limbaugh have had to earn all that they've gotten.
Frankly, if you want to know what's wrong with the economy and what must be done to fix it, don't go to Obama's web site. Instead, come here, where I'll offer simple explanations of what is going on and how we can help improve the situation.
First, however, a last word (for now) on Rush Limbaugh's amazing speech to CPAC: What Rush reminds us is that we don't have to "make nice" with people who try to smear Sarah Palin -- or who sling mud at Limbaugh. Being nice to deceitful, dishonest people ensures they will never get any better. We may not change their minds, but we can at least make them uncomfortable.
Frankly, in his LONG CPAC address Rush did not say offensive things. His goal was to defend responsible democracy and the American way of life. The accusations he made about Obama's socialist -- or vote-buying -- agenda happen to be true. Some of our Republican leaders are good people -- John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, even Michael Steele -- but they aren't forceful enough.
As Limbaugh indicated, when it comes to simple matters of right-and-wrong, "bipartisanship" is not the answer. When a public policy is bad, compromising on it doesn't make it "half-bad."
When Obama is taking steps that harm charities and further depress the housing market, we don't need a bipartisan compromise. When people tell us comforting lies, we need to tell the truth to the best of our ability.
Also, when investors feel gloomy about the stock market's prospects, we need to reveal the negative effects of Obama's efforts to increase the tax rate on capital gains and reduce people's capacity to invest. Finally, when Rush says that's what Obama's doing, is he being "mean" -- or is he just reciting some obvious, if inconvenient, truths?
As a society, we don't want to punish the most productive people in the economy and reward the least productive. Doing so harms the country. That's why many of us, including Rush, don't want Obama to succeed.
In fact, Obama's success would be America's failure. We don't want to become like Britain and France, with slow growth, high unemployment, and a social welfare scheme that reduces opportunity.
Barack Obama likes to talk a lot about Abraham Lincoln and, lately, Franklin D. Roosevelt. One historical individual Obama has never mentioned -- but should -- is Benjamin Franklin.
What's the best way to gain great wealth? Is it to speculate wildly on Wall Street, assuming that the market will always go up -- as you've noticed, it doesn't? Or is it to buy more house than you can afford, believing that the market will always trend upward and you can sell it at a handsome profit. Not anymore.
Benjamin Franklin took a more modest approach, one we might describe not as "get rich quick," but rather as "Get rich . . . slowly." He said, "The road to wealth, if you desire it [who doesn't?], is as plain as the way to market. It depends chiefly on two words, industry and frugality. That is, waste neither time nor money, but make the best use of both."
In the U.S., tens of millions of people have gotten wealthy by doing basically what Franklin advised. (In contrast, Obama got rich through two massive book deals for autobiographical volumes that were strong on hope and short on real accomplishments.) His wife got a rich person's salary primarily because she was married to an influential elected official.
Currently, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Obama's Illinois political associate, is trying to get rich in a hurry with a book deal of his own. If all else fails, as it did for Blagojevich if not for Obama, then write a book. For normal people, it pays to follow Ben Franklin's advice, sagacious as he always was.
[More tomorrow about what Obama doesn't know about U.S. business and economics -- and Gov. Palin does.]
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Sarah and Rush: Basic Americans
On Rush Limbaugh: We all, including Rush, fall into the situation described by St. Paul: "For all have sinned, all have fallen short of the Glory of God." Sarah Palin reminded us long ago that she isn't perfect either. (But you're closer than most, Sarah!) [This is the second of two columns today about Limbaugh. Scroll down to see the other]
NOTE: PLEASE SEE URGENT INFORMATION AT BOTTOM OF THIS PIECE
That said, Rush Limbaugh evokes fear and loathing from the Left not because he's a "bad man." He does so because he is the embodiment of the American Dream.
The same, by the way, is true of Sarah Palin. Obama and his supporters despise Sarah because of her humble beginnings and her basic Americanism. Nobody ever gave her an "affirmative action scholarship." She's not from the privileged and pampered world of Barack and Michelle Obama. She's a gritty -- and gifted -- American. For that, people like David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel, and Barack Obama will never forgive her.
Rush came from nowhere (Cape Girardeau, MO) and from nothing. He never went to college (remember, Bill Gates dropped out in his sophomore year). He has benefited greatly from the kind of opportunity America provides to its citizens. He's grateful. He doesn't expect everybody to agree with him, because he understands, as he put it, that we're all individuals, all unique.
I disagree with Rush on a couple of issues, one of which is how to handle immigration. But I was happy he brought up the scapegoating of businesspeople, some of whom are no more responsible for their companies' problems than I am for the collapse of my 401-K. He made ME feel guilty, because I sometimes trash Wall Streeters indiscriminately. Of course, the Obama people are looking around for others -- scapegoats -- to blame for the disastrous results their policies are producing.
Rush shamed the media, which should be shamed every single day. He brought up questions about Obama's actions that the media should be raising -- but isn't. He asked where on earth a socialist agenda, and that is Obama's agenda, had ever worked. That is a legitimate question, and not one CNN or MSNBC wants anything to do with.
To me, Rush stood up for the Constitution, for liberty, for tolerance (*we want everybody to be successful"), and for opportunity. If people want to trash him for that, they're not only short-sighted but downright dangerous. For someone like Rahm Emmanuel, the essence of America boils down to buying votes and selling influence. For Barack Obama, it's redistributing wealth -- without having a clue how wealth is created.
Rush said what many people feel, but lack the skill -- or the guts -- to tell the truth as effectively as he did. As one of my blogs put it today, "Three cheers for Rush Limbaugh."
URGENT INFORMATION BELOW
employment of illegal aliens expires this Friday, March 6. E-Verify has been in
use since 1997 by businesses nationwide - but Congress appears to be 'hoping'
Americans won't notice that they removed the extension of this regulation from the
"Stimulus Plan" and the issue has been ignored and screened out of Mass Media
news coverage.
LET'S SHOW WASHINGTON WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION and we are opposed
to the hiring of illegal aliens. SIGN the Urgent E-VERIFY PETITION Now - and send this
link to your friends to sign on in support of this "Smart Business Practice."
http://www.wam08.org/TakeaStand.html
NOTE: PLEASE SEE URGENT INFORMATION AT BOTTOM OF THIS PIECE
That said, Rush Limbaugh evokes fear and loathing from the Left not because he's a "bad man." He does so because he is the embodiment of the American Dream.
The same, by the way, is true of Sarah Palin. Obama and his supporters despise Sarah because of her humble beginnings and her basic Americanism. Nobody ever gave her an "affirmative action scholarship." She's not from the privileged and pampered world of Barack and Michelle Obama. She's a gritty -- and gifted -- American. For that, people like David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel, and Barack Obama will never forgive her.
Rush came from nowhere (Cape Girardeau, MO) and from nothing. He never went to college (remember, Bill Gates dropped out in his sophomore year). He has benefited greatly from the kind of opportunity America provides to its citizens. He's grateful. He doesn't expect everybody to agree with him, because he understands, as he put it, that we're all individuals, all unique.
I disagree with Rush on a couple of issues, one of which is how to handle immigration. But I was happy he brought up the scapegoating of businesspeople, some of whom are no more responsible for their companies' problems than I am for the collapse of my 401-K. He made ME feel guilty, because I sometimes trash Wall Streeters indiscriminately. Of course, the Obama people are looking around for others -- scapegoats -- to blame for the disastrous results their policies are producing.
Rush shamed the media, which should be shamed every single day. He brought up questions about Obama's actions that the media should be raising -- but isn't. He asked where on earth a socialist agenda, and that is Obama's agenda, had ever worked. That is a legitimate question, and not one CNN or MSNBC wants anything to do with.
To me, Rush stood up for the Constitution, for liberty, for tolerance (*we want everybody to be successful"), and for opportunity. If people want to trash him for that, they're not only short-sighted but downright dangerous. For someone like Rahm Emmanuel, the essence of America boils down to buying votes and selling influence. For Barack Obama, it's redistributing wealth -- without having a clue how wealth is created.
Rush said what many people feel, but lack the skill -- or the guts -- to tell the truth as effectively as he did. As one of my blogs put it today, "Three cheers for Rush Limbaugh."
URGENT INFORMATION BELOW
CONGRESS EXPIRES CRITICAL TOOL FOR SCREENING
ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT!
The E-Verify Program, on which businesses across the country rely to screenemployment of illegal aliens expires this Friday, March 6. E-Verify has been in
use since 1997 by businesses nationwide - but Congress appears to be 'hoping'
Americans won't notice that they removed the extension of this regulation from the
"Stimulus Plan" and the issue has been ignored and screened out of Mass Media
news coverage.
LET'S SHOW WASHINGTON WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION and we are opposed
to the hiring of illegal aliens. SIGN the Urgent E-VERIFY PETITION Now - and send this
link to your friends to sign on in support of this "Smart Business Practice."
http://www.wam08.org/TakeaStand.html
Three Cheers for Rush Limbaugh
Last Saturday afternoon Rush Limbaugh delivered a remarkable one-and-a-half-hour speech to CPAC. It was broadcast live by FOX, CNN, and a few other outlets. The speech ignited a storm of commentary on the Sunday talk shows and throughout the country. In it, Rush said he "hope(s) Obama fails." Rush said he felt that way because Obama's policies, particularly in economics, are bad for the country -- and at variance with the traditions that have made this an exceptional country.
I watched the well-received speech on CNN, a network Limbaugh intentionally failed to mention in his speech (he mentioned FOX several times). The CNN reporter and news reader seemed miffed that Rush had omitted any reference to their network.
CNN also read several e-mails from viewers hostile to Limbaugh. One called him a "fascist"; another likened him to Hitler. Later, Republican National Chairman Michael Steele called Limbaugh an "agitator" and "incendiary." (Subsequently, Steele apologized and praised Rush.)
Time out, folks. Limbaugh's could have been "A Tribute to America." He spoke in support of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, two documents he believes Obama is ignoring in his rush toward a nanny-state. Rush allied himself with the Declaration's commitment to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He called for a government that respects the Constitution, which Obama clearly does not. He saluted Americans' self-reliance and their belief in liberty and opportunity.
In short, the speech Limbaugh gave was one Barack Obama should have delivered -- but won't -- ever. There was nothing fascistic or Hitlerian about Rush's call for equality of opportunity and fairness. There's nothing dictorial about a love of democracy. Yes, it's possible to disagree with Rush on some issues -- and I do myself.
However, he cherishes dissent from his views, because he realizes that conflict draws attention., and attention draws radio listeners. As Rush suggested, if people want boring, they can tune into C-Span or PBS. If he didn't have an audience, he's end up like so many of us, basically talking to ourselves. When Rush talks, people listen, and that's the main goal of his profession.
If Limbaugh is an "agitator," then the nation could use a lot more agitation. If he's an "entertainer," as he has often admitted he is, Rush demonstrates that there's nothing wrong with being entertaining. Making a thoughtful statement on politics and society does not require one to be as boring as John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Michael Steele.
Limbaugh is passionate about all the right things: liberty, equality, opportunity, innovation, and wealth creation. He's deeply rooted in American traditions and values. Other Republicans could learn a great deal from him.
In fact, part of Sarah Palin's great appeal is that she touches hearts. She doesn't confuse a political speech with a tedious repetition of facts in a graduate course in public policy. She feeds off her audience -- and this true of Limbaugh -- as it feeds off her. Her audiences, like Rush's tend to end up chanting "USA! USA!" Obama's mesmerized audiences often turn into zombies, mindlessly and metronomically intoning something meaningless ("Yes we can." Well, "yes you can . . . WHAT?)
Does Rush rely heavily on emotion? Of course, and he's wise to do so. Most Americans (70%? 80%? More?) don't on their intellect -- the rationality -- in making political decisions. Instead, they respond vicerally, emtionally -- with their hearts first and their heads second. There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with feeling strongly about issues. Other Republicans -- in general, we're an unexciting lot, alas -- could learn a lot from Limbaugh.
Rush's point -- and my point -- is this: We hope Obama fails in his effort to socialize the country. Insofar as Obama fails, the nation succeeds. Insofar as Obama fails, the Constitution will remain the foundation of our nation's greatness.
I watched the well-received speech on CNN, a network Limbaugh intentionally failed to mention in his speech (he mentioned FOX several times). The CNN reporter and news reader seemed miffed that Rush had omitted any reference to their network.
CNN also read several e-mails from viewers hostile to Limbaugh. One called him a "fascist"; another likened him to Hitler. Later, Republican National Chairman Michael Steele called Limbaugh an "agitator" and "incendiary." (Subsequently, Steele apologized and praised Rush.)
Time out, folks. Limbaugh's could have been "A Tribute to America." He spoke in support of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, two documents he believes Obama is ignoring in his rush toward a nanny-state. Rush allied himself with the Declaration's commitment to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He called for a government that respects the Constitution, which Obama clearly does not. He saluted Americans' self-reliance and their belief in liberty and opportunity.
In short, the speech Limbaugh gave was one Barack Obama should have delivered -- but won't -- ever. There was nothing fascistic or Hitlerian about Rush's call for equality of opportunity and fairness. There's nothing dictorial about a love of democracy. Yes, it's possible to disagree with Rush on some issues -- and I do myself.
However, he cherishes dissent from his views, because he realizes that conflict draws attention., and attention draws radio listeners. As Rush suggested, if people want boring, they can tune into C-Span or PBS. If he didn't have an audience, he's end up like so many of us, basically talking to ourselves. When Rush talks, people listen, and that's the main goal of his profession.
If Limbaugh is an "agitator," then the nation could use a lot more agitation. If he's an "entertainer," as he has often admitted he is, Rush demonstrates that there's nothing wrong with being entertaining. Making a thoughtful statement on politics and society does not require one to be as boring as John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Michael Steele.
Limbaugh is passionate about all the right things: liberty, equality, opportunity, innovation, and wealth creation. He's deeply rooted in American traditions and values. Other Republicans could learn a great deal from him.
In fact, part of Sarah Palin's great appeal is that she touches hearts. She doesn't confuse a political speech with a tedious repetition of facts in a graduate course in public policy. She feeds off her audience -- and this true of Limbaugh -- as it feeds off her. Her audiences, like Rush's tend to end up chanting "USA! USA!" Obama's mesmerized audiences often turn into zombies, mindlessly and metronomically intoning something meaningless ("Yes we can." Well, "yes you can . . . WHAT?)
Does Rush rely heavily on emotion? Of course, and he's wise to do so. Most Americans (70%? 80%? More?) don't on their intellect -- the rationality -- in making political decisions. Instead, they respond vicerally, emtionally -- with their hearts first and their heads second. There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with feeling strongly about issues. Other Republicans -- in general, we're an unexciting lot, alas -- could learn a lot from Limbaugh.
Rush's point -- and my point -- is this: We hope Obama fails in his effort to socialize the country. Insofar as Obama fails, the nation succeeds. Insofar as Obama fails, the Constitution will remain the foundation of our nation's greatness.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Obama: Leading America Into Depression
NOTE: Tomorrow (Tuesday) I'll switch gears for a day and write "In Praise of Rush Limbaugh." speaking about his Saturday remarks at CPAC (and the fall-out). Then, I'll go back to explaining why Obama's horrible economic and social policies are driving the nation into a Depression
In dealing with the current severe recession, Barack Obama is making "all the wrong moves." He is taking steps that will turn today's recession into tomorrow's Depression. At a certain point, he will not be able to blame his mistakes on George W. Bush. I'll be writing all this week (on this blog and my other one) about what has gone wrong with our economy -- and why Obama's spending spree won't cure what ails us.
On Monday and Tuesday, this column and my other one will be roughly the same. Starting on Wednesday, this column will differ from the other. I hope you'll continue to visit both.
Amity Shlaes' book about the Depression (The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression) talks a great deal about the real strengths -- and the real weaknesses -- of Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The big question she faces is: Why on earth did the Depression last so long (from 1929-1940)? The answer is that, first Hoover, and then Roosevelt, pursued policies that made a sustained recovery impossible. Roosevelt cultivated groups, such as consumers, who had many votes and scapegoated producers, who had few votes. He looked at voters not as individuals but rather as members of groups, a Democratic tendency that continues to the present day.
Regarding Franklin Roosevelt, Shlaes reminds us that very rich man gained his wealth from inheritance. He was not in any sense a self-made man. Frankly, he knew less about business than most people who put in a stint at 7/11 or Burger King. Hoover wasn't much better, believing that a balanced budget would cure all economic woes.
Why is what Amity Shlaes says important? BECAUSE OBAMA IS MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES THAT PROLONGED THE DEPRESSION. Shlaes says:
". . . The biggest problem was the intervention, the lack of faith in the marketplace. Government management of the late 1920s and 1930s hurt the economy. Both Hoover and Roosevelt misstepped in a number of ways.
"Hoover ordered wages up when they wanted to go down [because of deflation, which is what we have now]. He allowed a disastrous tariff, Smoot-Hawley [think: "buy American"], to become law when he should have had the sense to block it. He raised taxes when neither citizens individually nor the economy as a whole could afford the change. After 1932, [many nations, including Japan, Sweden, Greece, Denmark, and others] began seeing industrial production levels rise again -- but not the United States.
"Roosevelt's errors . . . were equally devastating. He created regulatory, aid, and relief agencies based on the premise that recovery could only be achieved through large, military-style efforts . . . [Some] new institutions, such as the National Recovery Administration [NRA], did damage. The NRA . . . [over-relied on] price-setting. NRA rules were so stringent they perversely hurt business. They frightened away capital, and they discouraged business from hiring workers. Another problem was that the laws . . . were so broad that no one knew how they would be interpreted. The resulting hesitation in itself arrested growth.
"Where the private sector could help to bring the economy back -- in the area of [electric] utilities, for example -- Roosevelt and his New Dealers often suppressed it . . . . [As a result of Roosevelt's intimidation tactics] business decided to wait Roosevelt out, hold onto their cash, and invest it in future years. Yet Roosevelt retaliated by introducing a tax -- the undistributed profits tax -- to press the money out of them.
"Such forays prevented recovery and took the country into the depression within the Depression of 1937 and 1938 . . . . The high [union] wages [for some] made possible by New Deal legislation helped those workers who earned them. But the inflexibility of those wages also prevented companies from hiring additional workers. Hence the persistent shortage of jobs in the latter part of the 1930s . . . . Fear froze the economy, but that uncertainty itself might have a cost was something the young experimenters [of the New Deal] simply did not consider.
"Roosevelt's move[s overall were] so profound that they changed the English language. Before the 1930s, the world 'liberal' stood for the individual; afterward, the phrase increasingly stood for groups."
Tomorrow on my blogs, I'll talk about how Obama has turned out to be someone who doesn't know or understand economic history and thus seems hell-bent on repeating it. Like Hoover and FDR, he doesn't understand business -- how could he? -- and so he's advancing policies, especially in taxes, that make it impossible for private enterprise, especially small businesses, to create a sufficient number of jobs. That's not his intention, of course, but neither was it the intention of Hoover and Roosevelt.
How does Sarah Palin fit into this discussion? Unlike Obama, she doesn't believe government is the solution to all our problems. She recognizes that while government might create jobs on a temporary basis, the creation of wealth -- and of economic growth -- depends on the private sector. She recognizes that if the producers fail, consumers cannot succeed. She understands that if supplies decline, prices invariably shoot up. Finally, she's aware that just printing money generates short term gains . . . and long-term pains. If Obama knows any of these things, he now acts as if he doesn't.
On Monday and Tuesday, this column and my other one will be roughly the same. Starting on Wednesday, this column will differ from the other. I hope you'll continue to visit both.
Amity Shlaes' book about the Depression (The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression) talks a great deal about the real strengths -- and the real weaknesses -- of Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The big question she faces is: Why on earth did the Depression last so long (from 1929-1940)? The answer is that, first Hoover, and then Roosevelt, pursued policies that made a sustained recovery impossible. Roosevelt cultivated groups, such as consumers, who had many votes and scapegoated producers, who had few votes. He looked at voters not as individuals but rather as members of groups, a Democratic tendency that continues to the present day.
Regarding Franklin Roosevelt, Shlaes reminds us that very rich man gained his wealth from inheritance. He was not in any sense a self-made man. Frankly, he knew less about business than most people who put in a stint at 7/11 or Burger King. Hoover wasn't much better, believing that a balanced budget would cure all economic woes.
Why is what Amity Shlaes says important? BECAUSE OBAMA IS MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES THAT PROLONGED THE DEPRESSION. Shlaes says:
". . . The biggest problem was the intervention, the lack of faith in the marketplace. Government management of the late 1920s and 1930s hurt the economy. Both Hoover and Roosevelt misstepped in a number of ways.
"Hoover ordered wages up when they wanted to go down [because of deflation, which is what we have now]. He allowed a disastrous tariff, Smoot-Hawley [think: "buy American"], to become law when he should have had the sense to block it. He raised taxes when neither citizens individually nor the economy as a whole could afford the change. After 1932, [many nations, including Japan, Sweden, Greece, Denmark, and others] began seeing industrial production levels rise again -- but not the United States.
"Roosevelt's errors . . . were equally devastating. He created regulatory, aid, and relief agencies based on the premise that recovery could only be achieved through large, military-style efforts . . . [Some] new institutions, such as the National Recovery Administration [NRA], did damage. The NRA . . . [over-relied on] price-setting. NRA rules were so stringent they perversely hurt business. They frightened away capital, and they discouraged business from hiring workers. Another problem was that the laws . . . were so broad that no one knew how they would be interpreted. The resulting hesitation in itself arrested growth.
"Where the private sector could help to bring the economy back -- in the area of [electric] utilities, for example -- Roosevelt and his New Dealers often suppressed it . . . . [As a result of Roosevelt's intimidation tactics] business decided to wait Roosevelt out, hold onto their cash, and invest it in future years. Yet Roosevelt retaliated by introducing a tax -- the undistributed profits tax -- to press the money out of them.
"Such forays prevented recovery and took the country into the depression within the Depression of 1937 and 1938 . . . . The high [union] wages [for some] made possible by New Deal legislation helped those workers who earned them. But the inflexibility of those wages also prevented companies from hiring additional workers. Hence the persistent shortage of jobs in the latter part of the 1930s . . . . Fear froze the economy, but that uncertainty itself might have a cost was something the young experimenters [of the New Deal] simply did not consider.
"Roosevelt's move[s overall were] so profound that they changed the English language. Before the 1930s, the world 'liberal' stood for the individual; afterward, the phrase increasingly stood for groups."
Tomorrow on my blogs, I'll talk about how Obama has turned out to be someone who doesn't know or understand economic history and thus seems hell-bent on repeating it. Like Hoover and FDR, he doesn't understand business -- how could he? -- and so he's advancing policies, especially in taxes, that make it impossible for private enterprise, especially small businesses, to create a sufficient number of jobs. That's not his intention, of course, but neither was it the intention of Hoover and Roosevelt.
How does Sarah Palin fit into this discussion? Unlike Obama, she doesn't believe government is the solution to all our problems. She recognizes that while government might create jobs on a temporary basis, the creation of wealth -- and of economic growth -- depends on the private sector. She recognizes that if the producers fail, consumers cannot succeed. She understands that if supplies decline, prices invariably shoot up. Finally, she's aware that just printing money generates short term gains . . . and long-term pains. If Obama knows any of these things, he now acts as if he doesn't.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Sarah: "She's ONE of US"
My slogan for Sarah 2012 is "Sarah . . . She's ONE of US." In heavily unionized Beaver County, two-to-one Democratic voter registration edge, Sarah drew a crowd of 10,000-plus. That is the biggest crowd ever to gather for anything in Beaver County and twice what Obama drew. (He was two hours late and then the campaign tried to stiff the police on overtime.)
Sarah's crowd was about half union people and union families, including many children who were very excited to see the irrepressible Piper (and Willow) Palin. In this Democratic, union-intensive county, McCain-Palin won by 4,000 votes. They also won ALL the small counties in western PA!!!! How would Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee have done? Don't make me laugh.
I've been saying, "The Republican Party used to be the fat cats. Now, we're the alley cats." How do we get the Wal-Mart voters? As even Rush admitted, "We've already got them" Sarah, running against the candidate of "hope," gave something to the people they needed ... . hope for a better future, hope that their normal, middle class lives had meaning, hope that they really did have a woman who cared about them.
I was a "greeter" at the event. I got to the 7 p.m. event at 3:30 p.m., accompanied by two terrific young HBO people from San Francisco. who were doing a series on "America." I met them while I was wearing my Sarah tee-shirt ("Guns and God"). I told them people in SF and Beaver County did not "hate" each other.
Sarah's crowd was about half union people and union families, including many children who were very excited to see the irrepressible Piper (and Willow) Palin. In this Democratic, union-intensive county, McCain-Palin won by 4,000 votes. They also won ALL the small counties in western PA!!!! How would Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee have done? Don't make me laugh.
I've been saying, "The Republican Party used to be the fat cats. Now, we're the alley cats." How do we get the Wal-Mart voters? As even Rush admitted, "We've already got them" Sarah, running against the candidate of "hope," gave something to the people they needed ... . hope for a better future, hope that their normal, middle class lives had meaning, hope that they really did have a woman who cared about them.
I was a "greeter" at the event. I got to the 7 p.m. event at 3:30 p.m., accompanied by two terrific young HBO people from San Francisco. who were doing a series on "America." I met them while I was wearing my Sarah tee-shirt ("Guns and God"). I told them people in SF and Beaver County did not "hate" each other.
I said we all needed some place to complain about. They said, "Yes!"
I noted we had a lot more in common than either group wanted to admit, as illustrated by the outpouring of support for the supposedly "hated" New York when 9/11 occurred. We had discovered that we, too, were "New Yorkers," and many EMTs, police, and fire fighters had gone to Manhattan to help out.
They had both decided, "Yeah, Sarah is the real deal." The young woman from HBO (Alexandra) was getting ready to take the red-eye back to SF, where she had waiting for her two little boys, ages two and one. She liked Sarah because she (like Alexandra) wanted to "have it all." I told her husband, Will, also young, how lucky he was to be married to Alex. He said, "Don't I know it. Don't I know it."
I was a greeter at the rally. I must have talked to and shaken hands with 500 people. It was an exhilarating trip into the Real America. These were good people. They loved their country, and they knew in their hearts that Sarah did also. When Sarah hit the stage (right on time), I learned the meaning of the word "pandemonium." She had a dark blue top and black slacks (see above).
One of the best days of my life. Come back again in 2010 and 2012, Sarah.
I noted we had a lot more in common than either group wanted to admit, as illustrated by the outpouring of support for the supposedly "hated" New York when 9/11 occurred. We had discovered that we, too, were "New Yorkers," and many EMTs, police, and fire fighters had gone to Manhattan to help out.
They had both decided, "Yeah, Sarah is the real deal." The young woman from HBO (Alexandra) was getting ready to take the red-eye back to SF, where she had waiting for her two little boys, ages two and one. She liked Sarah because she (like Alexandra) wanted to "have it all." I told her husband, Will, also young, how lucky he was to be married to Alex. He said, "Don't I know it. Don't I know it."
I was a greeter at the rally. I must have talked to and shaken hands with 500 people. It was an exhilarating trip into the Real America. These were good people. They loved their country, and they knew in their hearts that Sarah did also. When Sarah hit the stage (right on time), I learned the meaning of the word "pandemonium." She had a dark blue top and black slacks (see above).
One of the best days of my life. Come back again in 2010 and 2012, Sarah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
