Palin: "Veto That Stimulus Bill!"

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

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

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

"Pay to Play"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While Obama Stinks, Sarah Shines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elect Palin 2012: Practical Steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turning Obama's Strategies Against Him

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palin: Rules for Defeating Obama

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Does Sarah Need Media Makeover?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah: She Wants Presidency

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

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

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

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