. . 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."
Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts
Friday, March 27, 2009
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Comparison: Sarah Palin, Hillary, Barack
In making comparisons between the heroic Sarah Palin and the intensely political Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, one soon finds there is no comparison. "For Obama to be Commander-in-Chief is equivalent to Madonna entering a nunnery."
I believe Barack Obama is destroying America as a land of freedom, tolerance, and opportunity (the three terms are from speeches by Sarah H. Palin), and that all Americans who love this country, including "The Big Dog" (Bill Clinton) and his spouse, have a moral obligation to oppose him.
"I have a lifetime of experience. John McCain has a lifetime of experience. Barack Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." (HRC) And did she then endorse her "friend" John McCain and oppose her tormentor, Barack Obama? Did she ever defend a her under-attack political sister Sister Palin? We know the answer to that one. She did what was best for Hillary.
Mrs. Clinton has spent a lifetime with a husband who humiliated her consistently through constant acts of adultery? Why did she stay with such a man? He recognized it as a necessary "career move." Bill Clinton was her ticket to bigger (and better?) things.
The Palins? They have a marriage that most Americans regard as near ideal. The Palins have five children. The Clintons have a much more trendy one.
As a little boy many years ago, I had some wonderful Catholic nuns emphasize to me the need "to tell the truth." I am not God Almighty and sometimes I'm dead wrong, but I have always tried to tell the truth. At times, that has hurt my "career" (to say the least). On the Clintons4McCain BlogTalkRadio show, I defended Mrs. Clinton (and even Bill) on a couple of occasions where I believed participants had gone overboard in criticizing the Clintons.
I know many people (too many) who died for their country in war (mostly Viet Nam), including some of my best friends from childhood. My closest friend now in Pittsburgh won a Silver Star in 'Nam. They did not want to die (or get badly injured) in War, but they didn't hesitate to put their lives on the line. Of course, getting killed or damaged for life in war is not a "good career move."
My military friends have standards of courage and honor that I also find in Gov. Palin and her family. Her children have inherited toughness -- courage -- from Todd and Sarah. Her son Track is in Iraq now -- in an infantry unit -- and his life is very much on the line.
I know many politicians will shed a tear in expressing their love of country, but would they really put their lives on the line -- or encourage members of their family -- to do the same? Would Obama? Of course not. Would Speaker Pelosi or Majority leader Reid? Would Hillary Clinton? Guess.
Barack Obama's daughters, Malia and Sasha, would no more choose a military career than they would aspire to be pole-dancers. From all available evidence, Obama has never had even one good friend in the military.
During the campaign, he invented imaginary feats supposedly performed by his "uncles" -- saying they had liberated concentration camps that were in fact freed by the Soviet Union's Red Army. He sought almost desperately to establish personal links with the military, but never found any. For him to be Commander-in-Chief is equivalent to Madonna entering a nunnery.
"Country first," to coin a phrase. Career does not come last, but it's pretty far down the list for people of real integrity.
Sent the following out today to some hard-core Palinites:
I(I like Cindy R's concept that "the group with the most e-mail addresses wins in 2012)Hi:
I thought Rush Limbaugh's speech today was outstanding, quite a remarkable achievement. As he said, one of our greatest tools in voter recruitment is to remind everybody that we're advocatinng liberty, tolerance, and opportunity.
By 2011 (or earlier), the bloom will be off the Obama rose. He will still be handing out truckloads of cash, but fewer and fewer people will be fooled about what he's up to. "Let them eat speeches" will be his mantra.
I don't put much stock in CPAC's straw poll today (and I wouldn't have even if Sarah had won). I'm sure some CPACers were punishing Sarah for her temerity in actually fulfilling her duties as Governor.
I'm certain if Mitt Romney is the nominee in 2012, we will all go through the motions and vote for him as we watch him lose 46 states. His concession speech (delivered eight minutes after the polls close in the Northeast) will contin the immortal words, "Thank God for the good people of Utah, Idaho, Alabama, and Mississippi."
One way we will win is by having 20,000 real activists across the country -- at least 10 in every state, with emphasis on states like Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, New Mexico. Our activists will play major roles in winning the electoral vote. By 2012, we won't be ready to carry states like MA, NY, and CA, but we need activists who will reach out -- and, in some case, travel to -- contested states.
One thing I've been doing over the past several years is collecting names (and e-mail addresses) of such "real activists" -- people like Sharon Caliendo, who could run a national campaign if someone put a gun to her head. (Actually, if you asked her, she'd gulp twice and say yes).
The people we need to recruit are individuals who are, in many ways, like Sarah herself: women, mothers, military families, Christians, supporter of women's rights, members of union families, athletes, small towners, and on and on. Sarah is so many things, has so many positive qualities, that it should be very possible to build her a huge, solid group of supporters.
We also need to offer help to candidates who will back Sarah. They include Saxby Chambliss and his GA Senate mate, Rick Perry of Texas, Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, Sonny Perdue of Georgia, Rudy Giuliani, and others.
We do not need to bash Romney and Huckabee, who will do a great job, as usual, of bashing each other. They both have a low ceiling of support, and they will be gone when Sarah wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (or whatever the exact order is by then). If I'm not wearing a barrel by that time, I expect to be in Iowa, NH, and SC. (I will buy a barrel in SC). I hope the Greyhound Corp. is still operating.
Bobby Jindal? He's a media creation, and the media is now busily "uncreating" him.
I'm not at all concerned that Sarah is taking some time to avoid the spotlight. Hard as it is to believe, it's only 2009.
We need to figure out ways to recruit more young people, including high school age types who will be able to vote in 2012. We also need to recruit more Hispanics (tough) and women (easy). As the bandwagon gains speed, the recruits will be seeking us out.
I believe Barack Obama is destroying America as a land of freedom, tolerance, and opportunity (the three terms are from speeches by Sarah H. Palin), and that all Americans who love this country, including "The Big Dog" (Bill Clinton) and his spouse, have a moral obligation to oppose him.
"I have a lifetime of experience. John McCain has a lifetime of experience. Barack Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." (HRC) And did she then endorse her "friend" John McCain and oppose her tormentor, Barack Obama? Did she ever defend a her under-attack political sister Sister Palin? We know the answer to that one. She did what was best for Hillary.
Mrs. Clinton has spent a lifetime with a husband who humiliated her consistently through constant acts of adultery? Why did she stay with such a man? He recognized it as a necessary "career move." Bill Clinton was her ticket to bigger (and better?) things.
The Palins? They have a marriage that most Americans regard as near ideal. The Palins have five children. The Clintons have a much more trendy one.
As a little boy many years ago, I had some wonderful Catholic nuns emphasize to me the need "to tell the truth." I am not God Almighty and sometimes I'm dead wrong, but I have always tried to tell the truth. At times, that has hurt my "career" (to say the least). On the Clintons4McCain BlogTalkRadio show, I defended Mrs. Clinton (and even Bill) on a couple of occasions where I believed participants had gone overboard in criticizing the Clintons.
I know many people (too many) who died for their country in war (mostly Viet Nam), including some of my best friends from childhood. My closest friend now in Pittsburgh won a Silver Star in 'Nam. They did not want to die (or get badly injured) in War, but they didn't hesitate to put their lives on the line. Of course, getting killed or damaged for life in war is not a "good career move."
My military friends have standards of courage and honor that I also find in Gov. Palin and her family. Her children have inherited toughness -- courage -- from Todd and Sarah. Her son Track is in Iraq now -- in an infantry unit -- and his life is very much on the line.
I know many politicians will shed a tear in expressing their love of country, but would they really put their lives on the line -- or encourage members of their family -- to do the same? Would Obama? Of course not. Would Speaker Pelosi or Majority leader Reid? Would Hillary Clinton? Guess.
Barack Obama's daughters, Malia and Sasha, would no more choose a military career than they would aspire to be pole-dancers. From all available evidence, Obama has never had even one good friend in the military.
During the campaign, he invented imaginary feats supposedly performed by his "uncles" -- saying they had liberated concentration camps that were in fact freed by the Soviet Union's Red Army. He sought almost desperately to establish personal links with the military, but never found any. For him to be Commander-in-Chief is equivalent to Madonna entering a nunnery.
"Country first," to coin a phrase. Career does not come last, but it's pretty far down the list for people of real integrity.
Sent the following out today to some hard-core Palinites:
I(I like Cindy R's concept that "the group with the most e-mail addresses wins in 2012)Hi:
I thought Rush Limbaugh's speech today was outstanding, quite a remarkable achievement. As he said, one of our greatest tools in voter recruitment is to remind everybody that we're advocatinng liberty, tolerance, and opportunity.
By 2011 (or earlier), the bloom will be off the Obama rose. He will still be handing out truckloads of cash, but fewer and fewer people will be fooled about what he's up to. "Let them eat speeches" will be his mantra.
I don't put much stock in CPAC's straw poll today (and I wouldn't have even if Sarah had won). I'm sure some CPACers were punishing Sarah for her temerity in actually fulfilling her duties as Governor.
I'm certain if Mitt Romney is the nominee in 2012, we will all go through the motions and vote for him as we watch him lose 46 states. His concession speech (delivered eight minutes after the polls close in the Northeast) will contin the immortal words, "Thank God for the good people of Utah, Idaho, Alabama, and Mississippi."
One way we will win is by having 20,000 real activists across the country -- at least 10 in every state, with emphasis on states like Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, New Mexico. Our activists will play major roles in winning the electoral vote. By 2012, we won't be ready to carry states like MA, NY, and CA, but we need activists who will reach out -- and, in some case, travel to -- contested states.
One thing I've been doing over the past several years is collecting names (and e-mail addresses) of such "real activists" -- people like Sharon Caliendo, who could run a national campaign if someone put a gun to her head. (Actually, if you asked her, she'd gulp twice and say yes).
The people we need to recruit are individuals who are, in many ways, like Sarah herself: women, mothers, military families, Christians, supporter of women's rights, members of union families, athletes, small towners, and on and on. Sarah is so many things, has so many positive qualities, that it should be very possible to build her a huge, solid group of supporters.
We also need to offer help to candidates who will back Sarah. They include Saxby Chambliss and his GA Senate mate, Rick Perry of Texas, Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, Sonny Perdue of Georgia, Rudy Giuliani, and others.
We do not need to bash Romney and Huckabee, who will do a great job, as usual, of bashing each other. They both have a low ceiling of support, and they will be gone when Sarah wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina (or whatever the exact order is by then). If I'm not wearing a barrel by that time, I expect to be in Iowa, NH, and SC. (I will buy a barrel in SC). I hope the Greyhound Corp. is still operating.
Bobby Jindal? He's a media creation, and the media is now busily "uncreating" him.
I'm not at all concerned that Sarah is taking some time to avoid the spotlight. Hard as it is to believe, it's only 2009.
We need to figure out ways to recruit more young people, including high school age types who will be able to vote in 2012. We also need to recruit more Hispanics (tough) and women (easy). As the bandwagon gains speed, the recruits will be seeking us out.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Should Palin Confront Obama Now?
If you visit here often, I hope that today you'll also take a look at my other blog (http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com/) to see the "real story" on the Biden-Palin debate. It's titled: Joe Biden: Chronic Liar, Windbag, Tomorrow, on this site and the other one an explosive story: "Biden Lied About Wife's Death."
Statue of America's first President with the woman who should be America's 45th President
Statue of America's first President with the woman who should be America's 45th PresidentNote: Over the next four years (yikes!) this blog will continue to present crucial information about important developments concerning Gov. Sarah Heath Palin and her "crusade" to become POTUS. As always, opinion pieces will focus on activities and ideas that will advance the candidacy of Sarah Palin, a true American heroine.
Someone asked me why Sarah Palin isn't engaging in all-out criticism of Barack Obama's initiatives. My response:
One of the most important things Sarah Palin can do is to pick her times and her targets (which will be Obama, Reid, and Pelosi) well. Things she (and, especially, we) can't defeat, even if they should be defeated, she needs to discuss only in passing.
In the first month of the Obama Administration, maybe the first two months, it's sad but true that criticisms from conservatives will get ignored by the media. Sarah Palin's State of the State address (see the previous column) contains many policies and principles in conflict with those of Obama. She's arguing on the plane of ideas rather of personalities, and that's a good strategy.
That's the best way she can proceed at this time. Third-parties like us -- the onliners mainly -- are the best ones right now (not always) to criticize Obama's actions.
In the campaign, we on the online community did some good things but also many that were ineffective. We criticized Obama on 5000 fronts, rather than focusing on a handful (maybe five?) of issues where he was especially vulnerable. In politics, focus is critical. So is fighting battles only where we have a chance of winning. Sarah does not want to come across as some sort of National Scold.
Thus, she needs to choose her battles carefully, and so do we.
One of the most important things Sarah Palin can do is to pick her times and her targets (which will be Obama, Reid, and Pelosi) well. Things she (and, especially, we) can't defeat, even if they should be defeated, she needs to discuss only in passing.
In the first month of the Obama Administration, maybe the first two months, it's sad but true that criticisms from conservatives will get ignored by the media. Sarah Palin's State of the State address (see the previous column) contains many policies and principles in conflict with those of Obama. She's arguing on the plane of ideas rather of personalities, and that's a good strategy.
That's the best way she can proceed at this time. Third-parties like us -- the onliners mainly -- are the best ones right now (not always) to criticize Obama's actions.
In the campaign, we on the online community did some good things but also many that were ineffective. We criticized Obama on 5000 fronts, rather than focusing on a handful (maybe five?) of issues where he was especially vulnerable. In politics, focus is critical. So is fighting battles only where we have a chance of winning. Sarah does not want to come across as some sort of National Scold.
Thus, she needs to choose her battles carefully, and so do we.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
