How to Confront Palin Haters

Note: Note: on Jan. 20, 2009, the posts on this site will diverge from those on my other site: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com. This "Draft Palin" site will continue to focus on the future presidency of Sarah H. Palin. The other site (SteveMaloneyGOP) will concentrate on calamitous presidency of Barack H. Obama. I hope you'll visit both sites.

Sarah Palin: Ready to Ride Her Way to the White House?

I've had an interesting discussion with Silvia, a member of TeamSarah, dealing in part with "friends" who mindlessly repeat the smears made against Sarah that originate from the endless Obama Campaign and are spread through "hate-sites" such as The Daily Kos and Moveon.org. Here are Silvia's comments:

I admire Gov Palin because she has the executive experience she's built from the ground up. I connect to her experience as a mother as well.

Recently, I argued with a friend who 'claims' to have heard on Fox News that Gov Palin increased funding for special needs education AFTER her nomination. Now this liberal friend despises Fox, yet he was able to walk away [and retain] that lie. The real record was on CNN, where they cited the factcheck website. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html)

WE NEED TO GET THE GOVERNOR'S RECORD OUT THERE, not her personal stuff but her ACCOMPLISHMENTS. That remains a major challenge.

Silvia

My response:

Silvia, you make excellent points, and I'll try to use your comments on my blog (http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com/) -- and respond to them.

Obama managed to run with no accomplishments, including his laughable tenure as a "community organizer." As for your friend, I think such people need to be "beaten up" (metaphorically). If they're spreading lies, they should be informed that's what they're doing -- and perhaps asked why they're so gullible. When Sarah's media critics throw a stone, we need to respond with an avalanche of boulders.

Ask your friend who she thinks it is (hint: Axelrod handles the smears/lies and they come through The Daily Kos) that's providing her with such misinformation?

People like to feel comfortable with their illusions. Let's make them uncomfortable. Sarah herself is doing that now, with her comments about "class" and the dismissing of Katie Couric as a narcissist and Obama shill. When such people are confronted aggressively, they fold quickly.

Sarah Needs Many Democrats, Independents

Please participate in the effort to come up with a slogan for Sarah Palin to use in future campaigns. You can do so by going to: http://www.teamsarah.org/forum/topics/share-ideas-for-sarah-slogan I've give my own suggestion tomorrow.

Sarah Palin at huge rally in Jacksonville, FL stadium . . .

As I've said before of the people in the Palin Movement, our goal shouldn't be to become "the nation's most congenial, PERMANENT MINORITY." In politics, there's really no such thing as a "moral victory." You either win in glory, or lose in devastation, as happened last November.

In a state like PA (and many other big ones), we need to figure out how to reach out effectively to Indies and Dems, including ones who are pro-choice. (Reading poll data carefully, it's clear that many "pro-choice" people are actually more pro-life than pro-abortion.) At this point, we're 7 million-plus votes behind Obama, and we need to make up the difference. We can't do that by being ideological purists.

I keep saying, "We need to deal with our world as it is, not as we'd like it to be.' I spent a lot of time in the campaign working with Hillary Supporters who backed -- or leaned toward -- McCain-Palin. I didn't do it because I adored Hillary -- I do not -- but because there was no other way to win than by getting many Hillary Supporters, some of them pro-choice (strongly) and some pro-life, with most of them in the middle.

In the election, it appears we got about four million of Hillary's Supporters. We needed six million-plus, but without the four million it would have been a true landslide for Obama.

In my book, I will discuss the major feminists (Elaine Lafferty, former editor of Ms.; Shelley Mandel, president of the LA chapter of NOW; and, especially, Camile Paglia) who have strongly backed Sarah. There are many others in addition to the women I've named. I want them to continue their efforts, because we need such people to help us win.

I don't want to lose the social conservatives, far from it. However, Sarah Palin clearly is the best possible candidate they can get to run effectively for President. It will be challenging enough for her win -- I believe she can -- but it would be impossible for any other Republican. I don't under-estimate the ruthlessness of the Obama Campaign, which was the direct source of the smears against Sarah.

Frankly, I have zero interest in Sarah running a race she can't win, and I believe she feels the same way. She knows that millions -- tens of millions -- of her supporters are the working middle-class and even the working poor. Seeing the 10,000 people at Sarah's Beaver County rally, it became clear to me that these sure weren't your stereotypical Republicans. I estimate that at least 100 were members of the UMW, proudly wearing their "Clean Coal" hard hats.

I felt very comfortable with these people and talked to hundreds of them as they waited in line for up to four hours. One older man had been a member of the Boilermakers Union for 50 years. He bragged that he's convinced this wife, for the first time in her life, to vote Republican (for McCain-Palin).

On Sean Hannity's radio program, a Democratic woman, an animal rights activist, was talking to Sean while, in the background, her three daughters were chanting, "Sarah Palin! Sarah Palin! SARAH PALIN!" The woman, a Sarah-backer herself, said, 'I'm afraid the neighbors are going to think I've become a Republican!"

We need that woman (and her daughters and millions like them) on our side.

Palin: The Explosive Abortion Issue

Picture of Trig Palin as a newborn . . .

I count myself as strongly pro-life, but I've argued for a pragmatic approach to the abortion issue. I know, you know, and Sarah knows there is nothing like a majority in the Congress -- or among the states (three-fourths of them needed) to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion.

The last time a Human Life Amendment (see Wikipedia) was brought up in the Senate was 1983, and it failed to get even a majority, let alone the two-thirds vote it needed.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who is personally opposed to abortion, has said, "The Constitution does not permit abortion. The Constitution does not prohibit abortion." The critical point here is not whether one "agrees" with Scalia, but rather that what he says is true, which it is. (The implication in Scalia's statement is that the issue should go back to the states, which probably isn't going to happen. Things will stay as they are.)

Scalia is sometimes sniffed at by leftists as an "originalist." In fact, an originalist is someone who believes the Constitution means what it says. It doesn't mean what the latest Gallup Polls indicates a majority wishes it said.

Sarah's core group is anti-abortion. However, as her number of supporters grows, it will become more and more diverse. People will also come to understand that Gov. Palin embraces a combination of conservative, libertarian, and populist principles.

Her motto has been: "Serve the people." Her motto is NOT "Serve the people who believe exactly as I do." She has said she personally opposes abortion, but that she has no interest in "criminalizing" it. By the way, neither do I. Neither I guess would Scalia.

One of the chapters in my book on Sarah Palin will deal with feminists who support her, including Elaine Lafferty, Shelley Mandell (the head of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW who endorsed Sarah), and Camille Paglia. That chapter will deal with Sarah's obligation as a potential President to those women and others like them.

The key is a question of respect -- respect for those whose views differ from Palin's on one or more issues.

I've had discussions with some strong pro-lifers , including one woman who heads a pro-life PAC. She understands very well what I'm saying about abortion as an issue, that it's one of conscience and education, not laws, and she generally agrees. In time, I think most of the staunch pro-lifers on in Sarah's camp will also agree.

No one sound of mind wants to paint Sarah into a corner that would lead to her inevitable defeat. We can't ask her to run in an imaginary America; she has to run in the nation as it is. Sarah is a person who leads by example, not by barking out orders and using strong-arm tactics.

John Ziegler: Sarah "Real Deal"

The John Ziegler interview with Sarah has been much in the news Thursday and Friday. I strongly recommend that everyone take a look at Ziegler's comments on his impressions of Gov. Palin and her family. You can see by clicking on the link below.

http://johnziegler.com/editorials_details.asp?editorial=182


Following are some key points Ziegler makes about Sarah:

"[In the long interview in Wasilla] we saw the genuine Sarah Palin and it is patently obvious that this is the only one that exists. She is the real deal.

"As a former TV sportscaster and radio talk show host, I have interviewed a lot big-time 'celebrities,' and . . . though you could argue that Sarah Palin was the most prominent I have ever spoken to one-on-one, she was also by far the nicest, most sincere and, seemingly, honest subject that I have ever questioned."

"I now know that Sarah Palin is exactly who I thought she was. I also know now, with moral certitude, that the media assassination of her, her character and her family was one of the greatest public injustices of our time."

Camille Paglia Salutes Sarah, Todd Palin

One chapter in the book I'm writing (with help from other very talented people) about Sarah Palin will deal with feminists who strongly support the Governor and see her a role model for American women. They include Elaine Lafferty, the former Ms. Magazine editor who called Sarah a "feminist' and a "brainiac"; Shelley Mandell, the president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW, who endorsed Sarah in a Carson, CA event (to the dismay of the tree-dwelling segment of NOW) by saying, "This [Sarah] is what a feminist looks like"; and the remarkable Camille Paglia, who voted for Obama, but has paradoxically been Sarah's strongest defender. Paglia wrote the following about Gov. Palin, which I hope you'll disseminate widely.

In an article written on October 8, 2008, Paglia said:

"The mountain of rubbish poured out about Palin over the past month would rival Everest. What a disgrace for our jabbering army of liberal journalists and commentators, too many of whom behaved like snippy jackasses…One of the most idiotic allegations batting around out there among urban media insiders is that Palin is "dumb." Are they kidding? What level of stupidity is now par for the course in those musty circles? People who can't see how smart Palin is are trapped in their own narrow parochialism-the tedious, hackneyed forms of their upper-middle-class syntax and vocabulary…I admire her competitive spirit and her exuberant vitality, which borders on the supernormal…both Todd and Sarah Palin…have emerged as powerful new symbols of a revived contemporary feminism. That the macho Todd, with his champion athleticism and working-class creed, can so amiably cradle babies and care for children is a huge step forward in American sexual symbolism."

Please also pass along the following link to Paglia's extended (and brilliant) analysis of the character, values, and socail significance of Sarah Palin:

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/0/9/camille_paglia_on_sarah_palin_barack_obama_joe_biden_and_more/

Should Sarah Run in 2012?

The following comments are from CPAC section on Team Sarah, and they raise the question whether Sarah should run in 2012? I'll respond to them tomorrow (Thursday). I believe she should plan to run for the presidency.

Comment on Points Made in the Following piece by John:

John makes excellent points (below in italics), and I tend to agree. . . . But I'm not so sure about their ability to rack up a Super Majority in Congress in the off year elections. Traditionally, the President's party does not do well in the off years.I view the off year as an opportunity for us to drill into their existing majority. If that happens significantly, then I think Sarah should go for it. If it doesn't happen, then I think she should cool it, and build her resume.


john.md said:
And Mitt Romney is worth 100 million, doesn't and never will have to work to support his family or his presidential ambitions.Huck falls into the same class. They can afford to put every political operative in Iowa on retainer. The simple fact remains if Obama has 50 % or better favorability no one will beat him no matter how much money or how long they campaign. He already has 200 mill for the next election and I saw on a dem web site they expect to have a 2 billion war chest for 2012 plus the incumbent advantage They are already counting the additional seats they are going to pick up in 2010 for a super majority they are that confident. I personally think that she needs to be re-elected in 2010 and then take a look at it in 2011. The more leadership experience and getting re-elected will go a long way in the public eye. If the great one has fallen there will still be plenty of time. If he has not then Huck and Mitt can waste their money and they will be labeled as unelectable for what will be what the third or fourth time. Remember Sarah Draws big crowds , Mitt and Huck don't come close to generating that kind of excitement. 2011 will be soon enough to start if the conditions are right and if not 2014 will be just right . Unless the One gets the Constitution changed it will be a level playing field. Two full terms as governor , two years to campaign unrestricted plus the time in between to gain international expertise and build one helluva grass roots organization. Remember it has taken 8 years for the dems to get back in the white house.

Endless Smears Against Palin Family

Who says there's no Easter Bunny? Not the man in the diaper, Senator Al Franken

Obviously we need to respond effectively to criticisms directed at Sarah Palin and her family. One problem is that point-by-point refutations are sometimes needed, but they also result in repeating stories, many of them fanciful charges (e.g., Sarah "banned books": Trig's mother is "really Bristol"; and on and on).

The Anchorage Daily News (ADN) is a source of many rumors and smears. Frankly, the ADN is small potatoes, backwater journalism. It's "reader comment" section is dominated by Sarah-haters who revel in baseless charges.

The entire "Troopergate" controversy was bogus. Unfortunately, pro-Sarah bloggers had to spend tens of thousands of hours refuting charges that were baseless. The trooper was a rogue who drank on the job, tasered his own young son, and treated Sarah Palin's sister very badly. By age 35, this "congenial" soul had acquired four wives. He's not exactly what women call a "keeper."

He should have been fired -- although he hasn't yet.

As for Monoghan, the safety commissioner, Sarah had every right to fire him. She regarded him as disloyal to her administration. Yes, he worked for the people of Alaska, but he worked for them through the Governor. If he didn't have the confidence of the Gov. of Alaska, then it was her obligation to get rid of him.

I realize these aren't the usual analyses of the situations (the trooper and the Safety Commissioner), but they're about all I care to do. Sarah likes to get rid of disloyal subordinates (and so do I, by the way). She did the same when she first became Mayor of Wasilla.

My friend and YouTube expert, Rebekah Chauhan in CA, has suggested we ascribe criticisms of Sarah to sexism, which Rebekah says is equivalent to racism. Yeah, in a way this is name-calling, but if the name fits, use it. It's a simple approach.

Very early in the game -- during the Republican Convention -- I was on a TV show in Pittsburgh, debating with two female Obama Supporters. The question came up whether, as Politico had suggested, Sarah was "shrill and inexperienced."

My comment was: "Apparently, shrill means she has a woman's voice. Inexperienced means she's a woman . . . and has a woman's (wife's, mother's, working woman's) experience." Simple, but it worked well.

I've had long experience in public relations for some of the country's most controversial industries (oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, health insurance), and I really believe "less is more" when it comes to dealing with (baseless) charges. Point-by-point refutations tend to get us in a situation like Brer Rabbit and the tar baby. It's debilitating.

My response to the "current" controversy regarding Levi Johnston is this. Yeah, teenage parents and 18-year-olds in general make mistakes. As the world knows by now, two of my daughters (nearly two decades ago) had children (one each) before they married the children's fathers. In one case, the father was involved in activities which I didn't, to say the least, approve of.

However, I don't recall being asked for a lot of advice by my "children," who were both young adults when the events occurred. They insisted on their right to make their own mistakes, which they did in abundance.

I'm sure that, like many teen parents, Bristol and Levi will flounder around. Decent people will wish both of them well -- period. Even if I knew Bristol and Levi much better than I do, I'd hesitate to make any judgments about them as people. Ask me again when they're, say, 35.

In the campaign, The oxymoronically named "Obama Truth Squad" worked effectively, mainly because the media allowed it to do so. The MSM is not going to give us in Sarah's camp that luxury. That's why we need to replace the media, which is doing a good job collapsing of its own dead weight, with a new media, i.e., us.

Overall, we shouldn't over-react to what will be an endless stream of petty charges against Sarah and her family. We need to recognize it for what it is: an attempt to smear a woman and her family for being "normal" and for having the same problems and challenges as tens of millions of other Americans.

During the convention -- before "the speech" -- one of my frequent correspondents (Eric) said that a McCain staffer told him there were some "devastating" (and apparently credible) allegations against Sarah, etc., etc. (At the time Markos Markos of The Daily Kos was spewing out one lie per hour about Sarah Palin.)

I told Eric this: You know Sarah well (he'd campaigned in Alaska for her) and I know all about Sarah. And because you know so much about her, you realize that any such allegations are completely false." (I believe they had something to do with Bristol's pregnancy.)

I took a leap of faith in what I said -- faith in the character, values, and essential goodness of Sarah Heath Palin. In the end, I was right, and Eric, along with his "source" were wrong.

The Obama Campaign (one that apparently continues unto eternity) -- basically controlled by people who hate "normal Americans" -- would love for us to spend the next four years (eight years?) refuting absurd charges against Sarah.

They don't want us to spend our precious time organizing and emphasizing the kind of positive change Sarah represents. Obama and his media minions want to destroy Sarah Palin. They will find out eventually that she is indestructible. Carry on, Sarah.