Rasmussen Poll: Obama's Popularity Plunging
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_rasmussen_poll/2009/06/30/230686.html?s=al&promo_code=8287-1
Among other things, Sarah Palin needs to run on the theme "I'm NOT Obama."
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Why McCain Disliked Sarah Palin
On McCain, who was such a terrible candidate. When Sarah Palin went to Jacksonville, she drew a crowd in excess of 60,000, maybe the biggest political gathering ever in FL. I fear that John McCain (and the nasty Meghan) resented every one of those 60,000 souls.
Being President to McCain is not as important to him as "being a PLAYER," being a Washington bigshot who gets on the Sunday shows and hangs out with other Beltway types. He's married to one of the richest women in America, and it has been many, many years since he had a real connection to The Great Unwashed.
My slogan for Sarah 2012 is: "Sarah . . . she's ONE of US." Peter N., who wrote the piece below is also "one of us."
Being President to McCain is not as important to him as "being a PLAYER," being a Washington bigshot who gets on the Sunday shows and hangs out with other Beltway types. He's married to one of the richest women in America, and it has been many, many years since he had a real connection to The Great Unwashed.
My slogan for Sarah 2012 is: "Sarah . . . she's ONE of US." Peter N., who wrote the piece below is also "one of us."
Winning the War for Our American Culture and Way of Life
"Von Clausewitz spoke of two main factors to waging war–means and will. Means is the easy part. History is replete with examples of oppressed people getting around the restrictions placed on them by their conquerors in order to fight back. Most Eastern “open hand” martial arts had their origins this way. Means can always be found, even if they need to be taken from the enemy.
"Will is the more difficult, and the more important. Without the will to win, and win decisively, any power, no matter how great, will lose. France in Indochina and Algeria. The US in Vietnam, and still possibly in the Middle East, time will tell.
"Will is everything. We must steel our will to win, no matter how long it takes, or how much it costs us personally. Decisive victory is required, or else we will be re-fighting this cancer over and over again over the next decades. It could be this particular enemy will never go away entirely, and the war must be re-fought every couple of centuries or so. But better a couple of centuries than decades. We must win, and win completely. To that end, we must have the will to go all the way."
The above is a very well-argued piece by Peter N., whom I salute for his candor and commitment.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, January 12, 2009
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 . . .
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.
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.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
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.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Endless Smears Against Palin Family
Who says there's no Easter Bunny? Not the man in the diaper, Senator Al FrankenObviously 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.
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.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Sarah: "I'm One of You"
I've strongly recommended that Sarah's slogan in the presidential race of 2012 should be: "I am ONE of YOU."
Sarah Palin has libertarian, conservative, and populist elements -- and particularly the latter. The Alaska Constitution is a populist document, indicating for example that the resources should be developed for the benefit of the people. Her motto in Alaska is: "Serve the People!"
Sarah has been a member of a union (broadcast journalists) and her husband currently is, as will be her son-in-law. I believe the reason she wanted to stay and campaign in Michigan -- and go into auto plants -- was because she identifies much more with autoworkers than she does with the heads of GM and Ford.
I spoke to more than 100 union members in Beaver County, PA, who were bucking the union bosses and voting for Sarah Palin. At the Palin Really in Beaver, PA, dozens of UMW people were there wearing their "Clean Coal" hard hats. She realizes those people are the new face of the Republican Party in our time. The Sarah Coalition is an extremely diverse group, more diverse in fact than Obama's.
More than 100,000 union members in PA apparently backed McCain-Palin. She wants their votes -- and their needs are critically important to her. They know she is one of them.
I've strongly recommended that Sarah's slogan in the presidential race of 2012 should be: "I am One of You." In fact, she is one of us.
She is not anti-gay. In fact, one of the first groups that endorsed her -- I asked them to -- was GayPatriotWest, the most important gay conservative group on the Web.
On abortion, she's said she doesn't believe in criminalizing it, looking at it much more as matter of conscience, education, and adoption than of legal restrictions. Most people in America agree that there should be fewer abortions and more adoptions. That should be the goal, rather than to engage in a Second Civil War.
Sarah Palin knows that a politician who disagrees strongly with public sentiment is known as . . . a loser. The people rule, and the effective politicians are very good listeners, as Sarah is.
She knows that "politics is the art of the possible." Some of my fellow conservatives, alas, seem to see it as the art of the impossible. Sarah understands that to win elections, it's critical to get many more votes than we did in November from younger people, Asians, Native Americans, women, and, especially, Hispanics. We will not get their votes by irritating them.
Older white males -- I happen to be one -- are fine, but they aren't nearly enough to prevail in a national election (or, apparently, in most statewide elections). Thus, Gov. Palin understands that politics deals with "The World as it is, not as we'd like it to be." I'm very comfortable with that view.
Sarah Palin has libertarian, conservative, and populist elements -- and particularly the latter. The Alaska Constitution is a populist document, indicating for example that the resources should be developed for the benefit of the people. Her motto in Alaska is: "Serve the People!"
Sarah has been a member of a union (broadcast journalists) and her husband currently is, as will be her son-in-law. I believe the reason she wanted to stay and campaign in Michigan -- and go into auto plants -- was because she identifies much more with autoworkers than she does with the heads of GM and Ford.
I spoke to more than 100 union members in Beaver County, PA, who were bucking the union bosses and voting for Sarah Palin. At the Palin Really in Beaver, PA, dozens of UMW people were there wearing their "Clean Coal" hard hats. She realizes those people are the new face of the Republican Party in our time. The Sarah Coalition is an extremely diverse group, more diverse in fact than Obama's.
More than 100,000 union members in PA apparently backed McCain-Palin. She wants their votes -- and their needs are critically important to her. They know she is one of them.
I've strongly recommended that Sarah's slogan in the presidential race of 2012 should be: "I am One of You." In fact, she is one of us.
She is not anti-gay. In fact, one of the first groups that endorsed her -- I asked them to -- was GayPatriotWest, the most important gay conservative group on the Web.
On abortion, she's said she doesn't believe in criminalizing it, looking at it much more as matter of conscience, education, and adoption than of legal restrictions. Most people in America agree that there should be fewer abortions and more adoptions. That should be the goal, rather than to engage in a Second Civil War.
Sarah Palin knows that a politician who disagrees strongly with public sentiment is known as . . . a loser. The people rule, and the effective politicians are very good listeners, as Sarah is.
She knows that "politics is the art of the possible." Some of my fellow conservatives, alas, seem to see it as the art of the impossible. Sarah understands that to win elections, it's critical to get many more votes than we did in November from younger people, Asians, Native Americans, women, and, especially, Hispanics. We will not get their votes by irritating them.
Older white males -- I happen to be one -- are fine, but they aren't nearly enough to prevail in a national election (or, apparently, in most statewide elections). Thus, Gov. Palin understands that politics deals with "The World as it is, not as we'd like it to be." I'm very comfortable with that view.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Conservatives: Listen to Sarah Palin
On November 4, 2008, the conservative movement in America suffered devastating defeats. Almost invariably, the more conservative candidates lost, and the more liberal types won.
What do the American people owe those of us in the conservative camp? A one word answer: nothing.
Instead, we owe them the responsibility not to make adherence to conservatism sound like a visit to the dentist. Conservative principles (limited government, unlimited opportunities) are fine, but we must articulate them in a way that makes them appealing to most voters.
Instead, we sometimes come across as saying, "You don't have a job or health care? Tough luck!" That's not an approach that will work anymore, if it ever did.
The world has changed in my lifetime. Robert Frost's "The Death of the Hired Man" talks about family being, in essence, the place where they have to take you in when you show up in need.
Increasingly, it seems families (and communities) don't take care of each other -- or even talk to one another. Thus, people feel more vulnerable -- and are perhaps more fearful -- than they were in my childhood. "If the economy has grown so much, why am I not happier and more secure?" As our national wealth (GDP) grew dramatically, so did the poll numbers saying people believed we were heading in the wrong direction.
McCain-adviser Phil Gramm observed that we had become "a nation of whiners." That didn't go over well, and it shouldn't have. It was conservatism at its worse.
In conservative circles, the "dirty little secret" about Sarah Palin is that she has populist tendencies. (Reagan did also.) We do have a government "of, by, and for the people," so we'd better pay attention to them.
The Alaska Constitution says the resources of the state belong not to the oil companies but to the people. How novel. How "Palinesque."
Gov. Palin's motto is "Serve the People!" It's not "Serve only the people like us." Americans, even those who don't vote for the Governor, have to know that she understands them, will listen to their concerns, and wants to serve their needs.
I've suggested Sarah's campaign slogan in 2012 should be "I'm One of You." In fact, she is, and that's why she has a good chance of becoming President.
What do the American people owe those of us in the conservative camp? A one word answer: nothing.
Instead, we owe them the responsibility not to make adherence to conservatism sound like a visit to the dentist. Conservative principles (limited government, unlimited opportunities) are fine, but we must articulate them in a way that makes them appealing to most voters.
Instead, we sometimes come across as saying, "You don't have a job or health care? Tough luck!" That's not an approach that will work anymore, if it ever did.
The world has changed in my lifetime. Robert Frost's "The Death of the Hired Man" talks about family being, in essence, the place where they have to take you in when you show up in need.
Increasingly, it seems families (and communities) don't take care of each other -- or even talk to one another. Thus, people feel more vulnerable -- and are perhaps more fearful -- than they were in my childhood. "If the economy has grown so much, why am I not happier and more secure?" As our national wealth (GDP) grew dramatically, so did the poll numbers saying people believed we were heading in the wrong direction.
McCain-adviser Phil Gramm observed that we had become "a nation of whiners." That didn't go over well, and it shouldn't have. It was conservatism at its worse.
In conservative circles, the "dirty little secret" about Sarah Palin is that she has populist tendencies. (Reagan did also.) We do have a government "of, by, and for the people," so we'd better pay attention to them.
The Alaska Constitution says the resources of the state belong not to the oil companies but to the people. How novel. How "Palinesque."
Gov. Palin's motto is "Serve the People!" It's not "Serve only the people like us." Americans, even those who don't vote for the Governor, have to know that she understands them, will listen to their concerns, and wants to serve their needs.
I've suggested Sarah's campaign slogan in 2012 should be "I'm One of You." In fact, she is, and that's why she has a good chance of becoming President.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Sarah, Todd Palin Now Grandparents
Bristol Palin with finance Levi Johnston at the Republican National Convention. Photo by: huck Kennedy / MCT / Landov
Bristol Palin sitting with baby brother Trig in her lap and next to sister Piper. Congratulations to Bristol on the birth of a healthy son, Tripp Johnston.Bristol Palin, the 18-year-old daughter of former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, gave birth on Sunday to a healthy 7 lb., 4 oz., baby boy in Palmer, Alaska.
"We think it's wonderful," said Colleen Jones, the sister of Bristol's grandmother Sally Heath, who confirmed the news. "The baby is fine and Bristol is doing well. Everyone is excited."
The baby's name is Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, according to Jones.Baby Tripp takes his surname from his dad, Levi Johnston, an apprentice electrician and former Wasilla High School hockey player who has been dating Bristol for three years.
Bristol Palin is currently residing in Wasilla and completing her high-school diploma through correspondence courses.
Johnston is studying to become an electrician. He told the Associated Press in October that he and fiancée Bristol plan to wed in 2009 and raise the child together.
Bristol, the eldest of Sarah and Todd Palin's three daughters (the couple also have two sons), made headlines with her pregnancy last summer, shortly after Republican presidential candidate John McCain picked the Alaska governor to be his running mate on his party's ticket.
In a statement at the time, Bristol’s parents said their daughter "came to us with news that we as parents knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned." They added, Bristol "has our unconditional love and support."
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Sarah vs. Hillary: Sarah Wins
Wonders Never Cease: October, 2008, President of Los Angeles Chapter of NOW endorses Sarah Palin in Carson City, NVIf I ran Sarah's presidential campaign -- and don't kid yourself, she wants to be President -- I would have as her slogan: "I am ONE OF YOU."
She is a wife, a mother (and mother of one soldier and one special needs child), a wife of a union member, a woman professional, an exemplar of Christian values, a staunch constitutionalist, a lifelong sportswoman and NRA member. She's an expert on energy, the environment, and integrity in government.
The MSM tended to ignore her multitude of connections with NORMAL AMERICAN PEOPLE. She is NOT an ideologue. She deeply believes in integrity, freedom, opportunity, and respect for others. That's enough.
Recently, I had a "discussion" with a staunch Hillaryite who was rhapsodizing about Mrs. Clinton's views on the middle class. I pointed out that Mrs. Clinton (Wellesley, Yale, Arkansas Governor's mansion, White House, and the $100 million fortune) is not -- and never has been -- a real member of the American middle class. Sarah has been -- and is.
I told the Hillaryite, "Sarah Palin has EVERYTHING in common with you -- and HRC has NOTHING in common with you."
In short, that's our Sarah. If she and those who support her make the same points, she can win in 2012. It will take a monumental effort by her -- and us. Obama and his "people" will stop at nothing in their efforts to retain power. They will make Rod Blagojevich look like Mother Theresa. We have to do what is necessary to stop them in their tracks.
Sarah will never (thank God) be a detail person -- and neither were any of our great Presidents. Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon were detail people.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
TeamSarah.org -- Great Political Tool
America's favorite gun-toting momma, Alaska's Sarah Heath PalinMerry Christmas to all. As of January 1, 2009, This blog will start up again with five (or more) columns per week regarding Sarah Palin and American politics. The "end" of the blog will occur in January, 2013, when Gov. Palin is inaugurated as the 45th President of the U.S.
In recent weeks, I've been doing a lot of work with -- and about -- a remarkable organization: http://teamsarah.org/. It now has more than 63,000 memebers, and it's aiming for 100,000 by the end of January. I urge you to join and participate in TeamSarah activities.
TeamSarah is going to be a very useful tool for activists in every state. I wrote the following today to several friends. It suggests how they can use the fine search function of TeamSarah to advance pro-American causes.
Meg, I notice on Team Sarah that there are 2,020 Pennsylvanians that show up in a search. At some point, we (and I mean dozens of us if we can find them) should be asking everyone of them to join the PA Sarah Team. I've asked everyone I can find in Beaver County (about 30 people) to join my friends list.
Janet, there are 1600 Georgians -- hint, hint.
Traci and Lyn, there are nearly 2800 Texans in the group.
Sharon, 506 Oklahomans.
Jean, in good ole left-wing WA state, there are 1,041 Team Sarah members.
In another year there will be five times as many members from each of the states. I told Meg, head of the TeamSarah, PA group that we need 60,000 PA activists in place by Labor Day, 2012. I define an activist as somebody that will contact (at least) a dozen people and ask them to support Sarah Palin. Most of them will do more than that.
NOTE: On TeamSarah searches, beware the use of the comma. If you put Beaver Falls, PA, on the eearch, you get everyone in PA. If you omit the comma, you just get the people you're looking for.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
MEDIA WAR ON SARAH PALIN
The following is a release from Paul Steitz's 2012DraftSarahCommittee:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8DTSPzU0RI
When the British marched out of Boston toward Lexington and Concord, they marched in formation as had troops in Europe for generations. If they met the enemy the orders were given, "level, fire." The soldiers did not aim but merely leveled their rifles and fired at a distance of less than a hundred yards.
But the Colonial Minutemen did not mass up and level their rifles. They had used their rifles to hunt. They aimed their rifles to hit the target. And their targets were the officers (the leaders) of the British troops.
The left-wing journalists (MSNBC the most rabid of the cable channels) are recognizing what a threat Sarah Palin is and therefore, as with the British officers, they are targeting her. (Somehow they are not following Newt Gingrich.) It is amazing that they are sending a` crew to Alaska simply to follow Sarah around.
The objective is obviously to discredit Gov. Palin, that is to jump on a mistake, have her awkwardly answer a question, or in this case, juxtapose Sarah talking to a journalist against a background of what actually happens in a slaughtering house, they kill birds to eat.
Or as someone responded to me, I am telling you this, if I find out any of the turkey's I have ever eaten --- if our grocery store has been buying dead turkeys to sell us at Thanksgiving there is going to be heck to pay!!
Now to the simple-minded, (I am surrounded by such liberals at work), this incident is but further proof of Gov. Palin's incompetence, and much the subject of laughter, but the feeble minded are easily amused.
To Gov. Sarah Palin supporters, "get used to it." Gov. Palin is more a threat to Obama and the Democrats than any other person on the planet, and the left-wing is going to do everything possible to take her down. Such trivial incidents are going to be made much of, because on the big issues, she is very much in tune with the American public.
Leaders are not leaders because they have any specific set of characteristics. There is no paper test to take. Rather, leaders are leaders because they attract followers to listen to them, to understand them, to respect them and to support them. Sarah has that, that is why she is dangerous, and that is why left-wing crews are in Alaska to tape her every move.
She is a threat to them and they know it.
You betcha!
Paul Streitz
Gov. Sarah Palin flyer, poll, buttons, etc. available at www.2012draftsarahcommittee.com.
Here's how I introduced Paul's fine piece in a mass mailing:
Is the mainstream media really out "to get Sarah Palin." You betcha.
Paul Streitz explains why in the attached. I've highlighted (and italicized) one paragraph from his release above. To find out more about Paul and his efforts, go to: www.2012draftsarahcommittee.com. Paul's release shows what we're up againt.
The next issue, one I'll be exploring this week on my thiis site, my "Sarah" blog (http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com), is what we do about it. Basically, we need to let the MSM know we're very much aware of their game -- and that they'll pay a heavy cost if they continue it.
We have some great advantages, including some of the best writer-activists in America who strongly back Gov. Palin. One is Paul Stretiz. Another is Cindy Reidhead, who blogs at: thepinkflamingoblog.com. Cindy is an expert on American icon Wyatt Earp. She's also an expert on how to win elections.
People like Cindy and Paul will be critical components in the "new media" that is rendering the MSM increasingly irrelevant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8DTSPzU0RI
When the British marched out of Boston toward Lexington and Concord, they marched in formation as had troops in Europe for generations. If they met the enemy the orders were given, "level, fire." The soldiers did not aim but merely leveled their rifles and fired at a distance of less than a hundred yards.
But the Colonial Minutemen did not mass up and level their rifles. They had used their rifles to hunt. They aimed their rifles to hit the target. And their targets were the officers (the leaders) of the British troops.
The left-wing journalists (MSNBC the most rabid of the cable channels) are recognizing what a threat Sarah Palin is and therefore, as with the British officers, they are targeting her. (Somehow they are not following Newt Gingrich.) It is amazing that they are sending a` crew to Alaska simply to follow Sarah around.
The objective is obviously to discredit Gov. Palin, that is to jump on a mistake, have her awkwardly answer a question, or in this case, juxtapose Sarah talking to a journalist against a background of what actually happens in a slaughtering house, they kill birds to eat.
Or as someone responded to me, I am telling you this, if I find out any of the turkey's I have ever eaten --- if our grocery store has been buying dead turkeys to sell us at Thanksgiving there is going to be heck to pay!!
Now to the simple-minded, (I am surrounded by such liberals at work), this incident is but further proof of Gov. Palin's incompetence, and much the subject of laughter, but the feeble minded are easily amused.
To Gov. Sarah Palin supporters, "get used to it." Gov. Palin is more a threat to Obama and the Democrats than any other person on the planet, and the left-wing is going to do everything possible to take her down. Such trivial incidents are going to be made much of, because on the big issues, she is very much in tune with the American public.
Leaders are not leaders because they have any specific set of characteristics. There is no paper test to take. Rather, leaders are leaders because they attract followers to listen to them, to understand them, to respect them and to support them. Sarah has that, that is why she is dangerous, and that is why left-wing crews are in Alaska to tape her every move.
She is a threat to them and they know it.
You betcha!
Paul Streitz
Gov. Sarah Palin flyer, poll, buttons, etc. available at www.2012draftsarahcommittee.com.
Here's how I introduced Paul's fine piece in a mass mailing:
Is the mainstream media really out "to get Sarah Palin." You betcha.
Paul Streitz explains why in the attached. I've highlighted (and italicized) one paragraph from his release above. To find out more about Paul and his efforts, go to: www.2012draftsarahcommittee.com. Paul's release shows what we're up againt.
The next issue, one I'll be exploring this week on my thiis site, my "Sarah" blog (http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com), is what we do about it. Basically, we need to let the MSM know we're very much aware of their game -- and that they'll pay a heavy cost if they continue it.
We have some great advantages, including some of the best writer-activists in America who strongly back Gov. Palin. One is Paul Stretiz. Another is Cindy Reidhead, who blogs at: thepinkflamingoblog.com. Cindy is an expert on American icon Wyatt Earp. She's also an expert on how to win elections.
People like Cindy and Paul will be critical components in the "new media" that is rendering the MSM increasingly irrelevant.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Sarah Supporters: Take Down Letterman
The national effort to get the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to stick its thumb in David Letterman's eye is a good one. As you'll see in the letter from Emily (of TeamSarah.org, below in italics), Letterman has taken to insulting Gov. Sarah Palin -- and the example Emily cites isn't the only one.
As a group, we aren't YET strong to "bring down" a David Letterman, but we're getting there. Our model should be the massive, effective criticism of leftists (and misogynists) Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman of MSNBC. We didn't get them fired, but we reduced their status -- and put the entire media on notice that blatant bias and propaganda aren't acceptable. We need to do the same for Letterman.
My intention is to spend several days writing (on this Sarah blog) about Letterman and a few other media simpletons who deserve condemnation. I hope other bloggers and onliners will do the same.
People like Letterman have done great damage to our country. They have nothing of value to say. They promote a culture of self-absorption, materialism, and human degradation. They're as ignorant as their "guests," nonentities like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and Janet Jackson.
The last time I watched an entire "Letterman Show" was in 2001, right after 9/11. His guest was Dan Rather. It was clear that neither man had any grasp of what had transpired at the WTC and the Pentagon, let alone the heroic actions of the Americans aboard Flight 93. They had no understanding of the Middle East, the Islamic religion, or the al Qaeda terrorists .
Both of them ended up blubbering, paddling around in a sea of self-pity. It was a disgraceful episode.
It's impossible to separate the decline of the American media -- would any sane person spend a significant amount of time watching CNN or reading the Washington Post? -- from the election of Barack H. Obama.
A nation nurtured by Letterman, Oprah, and (three-out-of-four) ladies of "The View" is likely to elect a demagogic windbag like Obama. A country that's dumbed down and desensitized can't resist a man who talks much -- and says little.
Obama would be a perfect guest on Letterman: a gabby "celebrity" of limited accomplishments and insights.The character and values represented by a Sarah Palin mystify most of the media. Since they essentially believe in nothing, they exist as little more than pampered, opinionated children. When they encounter an adult, a Sarah, they react with fear and loathing. She reminds them of their own shallowness and immaturity.
Anyway, I hope you will write a short e-mail -- in your own words -- to the FCC [see below]. When it comes to Letterman, let them know that, in the words of Queen Victoria, "we are not amused."
EMILY'S MESSAGE IS BELOW:
A message to all members of Team Sarah
Such hypocrites! Two nights ago, David Letterman, in interviewing Katie Couric, described Gov. Palin as "the first vice presidential candidate that I found myself being aroused about."It is ghastly that this kind of discourteous, indecent talk should pass for conversational fodder -- even on late night TV.
This violates CBS's own "Program Practices" specifically states that: "The Program Practices editors review material for excessive or gratuitous violence, sexuality, nudity and inappropriate language. They ensure that character portrayals are sensitive to current ethnic, religious, sexual and other significant social concerns." http://www.cbspressexpress.com/div.php/cbs_network/page/program_practices
A violation? What do *you* think? Well, don't just think it! Make your voice heard.
Email the Federal Communications Commission!
Email fccinfo@fcc.gov, tell them your name, where you are from, and EXACTLY how you feel about Letterman taking indecent liberties with a dignified lady, mom, and governor on his show!-- -- Enily
teamsarah08@gmail.com
As a group, we aren't YET strong to "bring down" a David Letterman, but we're getting there. Our model should be the massive, effective criticism of leftists (and misogynists) Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman of MSNBC. We didn't get them fired, but we reduced their status -- and put the entire media on notice that blatant bias and propaganda aren't acceptable. We need to do the same for Letterman.
My intention is to spend several days writing (on this Sarah blog) about Letterman and a few other media simpletons who deserve condemnation. I hope other bloggers and onliners will do the same.
People like Letterman have done great damage to our country. They have nothing of value to say. They promote a culture of self-absorption, materialism, and human degradation. They're as ignorant as their "guests," nonentities like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and Janet Jackson.
The last time I watched an entire "Letterman Show" was in 2001, right after 9/11. His guest was Dan Rather. It was clear that neither man had any grasp of what had transpired at the WTC and the Pentagon, let alone the heroic actions of the Americans aboard Flight 93. They had no understanding of the Middle East, the Islamic religion, or the al Qaeda terrorists .
Both of them ended up blubbering, paddling around in a sea of self-pity. It was a disgraceful episode.
It's impossible to separate the decline of the American media -- would any sane person spend a significant amount of time watching CNN or reading the Washington Post? -- from the election of Barack H. Obama.
A nation nurtured by Letterman, Oprah, and (three-out-of-four) ladies of "The View" is likely to elect a demagogic windbag like Obama. A country that's dumbed down and desensitized can't resist a man who talks much -- and says little.
Obama would be a perfect guest on Letterman: a gabby "celebrity" of limited accomplishments and insights.The character and values represented by a Sarah Palin mystify most of the media. Since they essentially believe in nothing, they exist as little more than pampered, opinionated children. When they encounter an adult, a Sarah, they react with fear and loathing. She reminds them of their own shallowness and immaturity.
Anyway, I hope you will write a short e-mail -- in your own words -- to the FCC [see below]. When it comes to Letterman, let them know that, in the words of Queen Victoria, "we are not amused."
EMILY'S MESSAGE IS BELOW:
A message to all members of Team Sarah
Such hypocrites! Two nights ago, David Letterman, in interviewing Katie Couric, described Gov. Palin as "the first vice presidential candidate that I found myself being aroused about."It is ghastly that this kind of discourteous, indecent talk should pass for conversational fodder -- even on late night TV.
This violates CBS's own "Program Practices" specifically states that: "The Program Practices editors review material for excessive or gratuitous violence, sexuality, nudity and inappropriate language. They ensure that character portrayals are sensitive to current ethnic, religious, sexual and other significant social concerns." http://www.cbspressexpress.com/div.php/cbs_network/page/program_practices
A violation? What do *you* think? Well, don't just think it! Make your voice heard.
Email the Federal Communications Commission!
Email fccinfo@fcc.gov, tell them your name, where you are from, and EXACTLY how you feel about Letterman taking indecent liberties with a dignified lady, mom, and governor on his show!-- -- Enily
teamsarah08@gmail.com
Friday, November 21, 2008
Organizations Designed to Defeat Obama
Sarah Palin: Hope for Americans Valuing Freedom, Tolerance, and OpportunityAs we end the "grieving process" over the election of Barack H. Obama, we must turn to forming alliances that will ensure the self-absorbed President-elect endures the fate he so richly deserves: a one-term presidency.
Some words about who's getting this e-mail. It includes Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and a few Libertarians. Recipients include African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans, as well as Australians, Canadians, and an Indian computer whiz.
Many of you are bloggers, including veterans of the "NoBama Mission" efforts. Some of the most creative political activists in the world are reading this, including one woman who helped ensure that every county in her state went for John McCain and Sarah Palin. Another person - a blogger - was a major factor in Gov. Palin's getting the Republican nomination, a fact she herself acknowledged.
If, as appears likely, Governor Palin chooses to run for the presidency, some people reading this should be the ones who play major roles in the campaign. Although you'll all make your own choices, my blog(s) will advocate the nomination and election of Gov. Sarah Heath Palin in 2012. DraftPalin2012.blogspot.com will function as a clearing house for organizations and information helpful to the Governor's cause. I'll also work to coordinate "payback" for the Obama Campaign (which, trust me, is endless) and its media minions who are dedicated to smearing Sarah Palin and her family.
My other blog (stevemaloneygop) will emphasize issues of concern to patriotic Americans who reject Obama's "Socialism Lite," his weakness on matters of national defense and security, and his disregard for constitutional principles. Beginning this weekend, I'll be writing about two key questions: (1) "Why Sarah?"; (2) "Why now?" Short answers: (1) She's the best candidate with a chance to win in 2012, and, (2) if we wait until 2011 or 2012 to select a candidate, we might as well let Obama run unopposed.
I won't really have a specific organization for you to join, but I urge you to sign up with effective, action-oriented groups like those highlighted below:
This terrific site for bloggers and others is managed by Janet in Georgia. She says the following: "The Network originally came into being when the press started going after Sarah Palin. Some of our blogs were already going in full force supporting John McCain and / or conservative issues. Many of our blogs were rolled out, brand new, just for the Network. As we blogged, we grew. We attracted a wide variety of bloggers writing about a broad spectrum of issues. Our blogs are maintained by Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, Republicans and those who aren't sure where they fall except they hold to the principles and values that have made our country the greatest in the world. . . . We've grown and we're still growing. We want to be the voice that is missed when you pick up the local newspapers or visit mainstream media websites."
http://modernconservative.com/anystreet.php/ ("ModCon")
"Winning the war of ideas. One mind at a time." On ModCon's approach: There are 3150 counties in the US, and ModCon wants to organize in all of them. It is headed by some of the most effective voices in the conservative movement.
This is a big organization that's on its way to becoming HUGE. Right after the election, it had 45,000 members; now, it will exceed 60,000. It is endorsing Sarah Palin for President in 2012. It emphasizes timely, practical actions that are essential to political victories. Here's what it says about the Georgia senatorial runoff:
"Calling all Team Sarah members to make phone calls in the Georgia Senate runoff race. We cannot lose another seat in the Senate-- we must have Saxby Chambliss' vote to STOP Obama's radical plans."Please make phone calls to Georgia voters today and remind them how critical it is that the vote for Saxby in the runoff."You can access an online phone bank here: www.gop.com/phonebank
http://wam08.org/ ("Wake Up America")"Wake Up America (WAM) is a grassroots movement emphasizing effective cultural and political actions, including:
o Bringing about reforms in the Mainstream Media to better serve the public interest;
o Influencing mass media to report vital news & information accurately and objectively;
o Disseminating public information that increases integrity and transparency in Washington, D.C.;
o Supporting public officials to place the Will of the People over self-serving interests;
o Generating effective action in Congress on critical issues of concern to most Americans.
On DraftPalin2012, I'll be writing in the weeks ahead about other organizations that deserve your support. Which of the above organization should you join? I've joined all them. In fact, my hope is that eventually they'll combine forces and become the very large, effective group we need to win future elections.
NOTE: IF ARE OVERDOSED ON POLITICS OR WOULD OTHERWISE NOT WANT TO RECEIVE ANY FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS, PLEASE RESPOND WITH ONE WORD: REMOVE. i'M VERY INTERESTED IN YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE "WAY FORWARD." Thanks.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Activists Backing Gov. Sarah Palin
Above: Wonders never cease. President of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW gives Sarah Palin a powerful endorsement (rally in Carson City, NV)
In general, I'm going to be on "hiatus" through December 1, 2008, although I will produce a few columns from time-to-time. Right now, I'm mainly involved in acquainting activists -- well over 100 of them -- with one another. These are people who are going to play a crucial role in helping us regain political power. They will be key individuals in defeating Barack H. Obama in 2012. So, keep returning, as you've always done -- and have a great Thanksgiving. Thank you and God bless.
[Note; If you're a political activist interested in finding the most effective ways to defeat Obama in 2012, please send me an e-mail at: TalkTop65@aol.com. If you're already on my mailing lists, you don't have to sign up again.]
Monday, November 17, 2008
Barack Obama: Information Grabs, Deceit
Dear Friends: Please read the following (in italics) from Janet of the ReadMyLipstickNetwork.
"I expect all of you would check out a website before adding it as a link or making it part of your blogroll, and you may already be familiar with this one, however, just to be on the safe side wanted to let you know that www.electpalin.com redirects straight to a donation page for Obama / Biden. Someone just sent it to us wanting to join the network. Ha ha. We've also had one titled 'when pigs can fly palin' want to join..." -- Janet
The Obama Campaign does something people like Janet and I, as well as other Palin backers, will NEVER do: it participates in "information grabs," an especially sleazy practice.
What is an "information grab?" Let me give you an example: if you remember back to August, Axelrod/Obama announced that people who gave them their cell phone numbers would get an early heads-up on The Chosen One's vice-presidential choice. In fact, the text message about the Biden selection went out 3-4 hours AFTER the news announcement appeared on TV.
So, the people who provided the cell numbers got nothing of value. On the other hand, what did the Obama Campaign get? It received valuable information: more than 500,000 cell phone numbers. Thus, it was able to use those numbers to solicit donations and other forms of support. It was underhanded and cynical.
Sadly, it was helpful to a campaign willing to do anything to win the election. Axelrod/Obama had no interest in providing real information to its supporters. It had great interest in stealing their cell phone numbers.
Obama and his personal Svengali, the odious David Axelrod, will do any to undermine Gov. Palin, their most feared opponent. One of my favorite quotes -- a masterpiece of alliteration -- from early in the presidential campaign was a headline in the Black Conservatives Group, which read, "Democrats Desperate to Dig Up Dirt to Destroy Palin.' Famously, Obama dispatched 30 lawyers to Alaska to find out -- and to make up -- information harmful to the Governor.
What dirt did they find? Basically, they discovered none. Thus, it largely fell to Obama supporters, such as "Markos," the founder of Daily Kos, to invent preposterous stories aimed at harming the Governor. One of those was the Kos story that Bristol Palin was the mother of baby Trig. Of course, it turned out that when Trig was born, Bristol was newly pregnant with her own unborn child, whose name will not be "Trig." In short, the Kos story was despicable, an outright lie.
Did the many lies hurt Gov. Palin? Sadly, they did. People are gullible. If they hear something on CNN or MSNBC, two of the main media culprits, the tendency is to believe it. I avoid such a temptation by never watching CNN or MSNBC. Information from the Obama Campaign -- and, trust me, it continues -- is invariably false or misleading. With them, mendacity is a way of life.
In their world, "spin" is reality. Thus, Obama and friends delight in grabbing information from unwitting individuals. However, they don't PROVIDE information, factual, verifiable truths. I've taken a few days off, but I'll be writing again on my main blogs, including this one and http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com.)
My emphasis will be on simple, practical steps Gov. Palin should take to build up support to defeat Obama in 2012. If you've been watching Sarah Palin on TV recently, you may note that she's doing everything necessary to take such a step -- aside, perhaps from wearing a "Palin for President" button.
Mainly because of his embrace of deceit, cynicism, and voter fraud, Obama is not going to be easy to beat. However, defeating him is not a hopeless task. In fact, if John McCain had received a million more votes in the right states he would now be President-elect.
There's no reason Sarah Palin couldn't get those million votes -- and then some. Remember, it's not necessary to win the popular vote, which skews in the favor of the Democratic candidate (mainly because he gets huge majorities in CA, NY, and IL). Prevailing in the electoral college is lot easier than winning a "paper" majority in the popular vote.
NOTE: I'd be very interested in your own thoughts on any of the subjects covered here, particularly steps you believe the Gov. should take. Thanks.
And Happy Thanksgiving to all! Let's continue to take the actions necessary to make Thanksgiving, 2012 the happiest one of all.
"I expect all of you would check out a website before adding it as a link or making it part of your blogroll, and you may already be familiar with this one, however, just to be on the safe side wanted to let you know that www.electpalin.com redirects straight to a donation page for Obama / Biden. Someone just sent it to us wanting to join the network. Ha ha. We've also had one titled 'when pigs can fly palin' want to join..." -- Janet
The Obama Campaign does something people like Janet and I, as well as other Palin backers, will NEVER do: it participates in "information grabs," an especially sleazy practice.
What is an "information grab?" Let me give you an example: if you remember back to August, Axelrod/Obama announced that people who gave them their cell phone numbers would get an early heads-up on The Chosen One's vice-presidential choice. In fact, the text message about the Biden selection went out 3-4 hours AFTER the news announcement appeared on TV.
So, the people who provided the cell numbers got nothing of value. On the other hand, what did the Obama Campaign get? It received valuable information: more than 500,000 cell phone numbers. Thus, it was able to use those numbers to solicit donations and other forms of support. It was underhanded and cynical.
Sadly, it was helpful to a campaign willing to do anything to win the election. Axelrod/Obama had no interest in providing real information to its supporters. It had great interest in stealing their cell phone numbers.
Obama and his personal Svengali, the odious David Axelrod, will do any to undermine Gov. Palin, their most feared opponent. One of my favorite quotes -- a masterpiece of alliteration -- from early in the presidential campaign was a headline in the Black Conservatives Group, which read, "Democrats Desperate to Dig Up Dirt to Destroy Palin.' Famously, Obama dispatched 30 lawyers to Alaska to find out -- and to make up -- information harmful to the Governor.
What dirt did they find? Basically, they discovered none. Thus, it largely fell to Obama supporters, such as "Markos," the founder of Daily Kos, to invent preposterous stories aimed at harming the Governor. One of those was the Kos story that Bristol Palin was the mother of baby Trig. Of course, it turned out that when Trig was born, Bristol was newly pregnant with her own unborn child, whose name will not be "Trig." In short, the Kos story was despicable, an outright lie.
Did the many lies hurt Gov. Palin? Sadly, they did. People are gullible. If they hear something on CNN or MSNBC, two of the main media culprits, the tendency is to believe it. I avoid such a temptation by never watching CNN or MSNBC. Information from the Obama Campaign -- and, trust me, it continues -- is invariably false or misleading. With them, mendacity is a way of life.
In their world, "spin" is reality. Thus, Obama and friends delight in grabbing information from unwitting individuals. However, they don't PROVIDE information, factual, verifiable truths. I've taken a few days off, but I'll be writing again on my main blogs, including this one and http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com.)
My emphasis will be on simple, practical steps Gov. Palin should take to build up support to defeat Obama in 2012. If you've been watching Sarah Palin on TV recently, you may note that she's doing everything necessary to take such a step -- aside, perhaps from wearing a "Palin for President" button.
Mainly because of his embrace of deceit, cynicism, and voter fraud, Obama is not going to be easy to beat. However, defeating him is not a hopeless task. In fact, if John McCain had received a million more votes in the right states he would now be President-elect.
There's no reason Sarah Palin couldn't get those million votes -- and then some. Remember, it's not necessary to win the popular vote, which skews in the favor of the Democratic candidate (mainly because he gets huge majorities in CA, NY, and IL). Prevailing in the electoral college is lot easier than winning a "paper" majority in the popular vote.
NOTE: I'd be very interested in your own thoughts on any of the subjects covered here, particularly steps you believe the Gov. should take. Thanks.
And Happy Thanksgiving to all! Let's continue to take the actions necessary to make Thanksgiving, 2012 the happiest one of all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
