Sarah Palin, even if she serves two terms, would not be able to part the Red Sea.
One of my main selling points to people of various political stripes is that: Sarah Palin will LISTEN to you. And, Sarah Palin will do her darnedest to be PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, not just the president of AL, MS, UT, and ID.
She will uphold the Constitution, even in cases where her views might differ somewhat from those of the Founders. (For example, freedom of speech and press sometimes get misused, but that doesn't mean such misuses are unConstitutional.) I believe she will be respectful of state constitutions, which occasionally differ from the national document (or at least from Supreme Court interpretations.
I don't expect Sarah to come across as an "anti" in regard to groups (except perhaps terrorists). Sarah Palin is not a clone of any of us. And she's not someone comfortable with pitting one group against another.
For example, Alaska people tend to have a libertarian streak, and Sarah is one of them. She seems to be more a friend of small businesses than of the large ones she knows (the oil companies and oil service firms that misbehaved badly in AK). On the famous "social issues," Sarah clearly believes in teaching by example -- through behavior -- rather than by delivering lectures and passing laws that are unenforceable.
Finally, Sarah's appeal to some liberal women (Elaine Lafferty, Lynn de Rothschild, Tammy Bruce, Camille Paglia, and others) results from them seeing her as, in Lafferty's words, a "feminist" and a "brainiac" -- a good and thoughtful person). We don't need ideological tests to welcome people in as Supporters. After Nov., 2012, we can begin squabbling if necessary (or if we can still recall what the argument was about.)
We must get across to Sarah that there are people backing her, including many people working together on the "Sarah Effort," who can play important roles on ensuring she eventually makes the move to the White House. Smart, curious, hard-working, tough, loyal: those should be the main criteria for Sarah's people. A tradition of working on losing campaigns should be a disqualification.
Showing posts with label Tammy Bruce. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tammy Bruce. Show all posts
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Palin Readying for Independent Run
When it comes to the GOP, Sarah Palin's message for it seems to be: "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." The "good ole boys" who run the Republican Party are not held in high regard by Gov. Palin. As the National Review's editor, Rich Lowry, said of Sarah: "She is the only Republican who has 'the X-factor," by which he meant charisma and mass popular appeal.
Following is by Dawn at http://nypalinpower.blogspot.com
Get Ready for Independence Day!
Woo Whoo! My dream is coming true! As a registered independent and an old Ross Perot supporter and campaign operative, I am absolutely thrilled at the news that our Sarah might actually be considering an independent run for President!I always felt she was independent at heart and was praying for her to embrace unity and not division. Check out these two articles, one from Tammy Bruce, the other from an exclusive interview with the Washington Times today!
http://tammybruce.com/2009/07/palin-hints-at-independent-conservative-movement.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/12/palin-stump-conservative-democrats/?feat=home_cube_position1&She also mentioned once in an interview there are not many politicians she likes (gosh... I wonder why?) which really makes me feel that she will fuel a grassroots political organization that will blow Ross Perot out of the water!I'm loving Sarah even more now (if that's possible) that she's almost back to being Citizen Sarah again!Sarah your ground troops are waiting!
Here’s Tammy Bruce’s column below
Palin Hints At Independent Conservative Movement
http://tammybruce.com/2009/07/palin-hints-at-independent-conservative-movement.html
by Tammy on July 11, 2009 · 13 comments
In an interview with the Washington Times, Palin makes her most direct comments yet about Conservativism versus the Republican Party. In my humble opinion, it’s clear the GOP, unfortunately, is lost beyond the point of return. When you’re one year out of key campaigns to take back Congress in 2010 and Meghan McCain is The Oracle of the party, you know it’s over. If Tina Brown thought Ms. McCain’s willingness to be a Useful Idiot for liberals would undermine the conservative movement (and consequently Sarah Palin), she should take a serious and long look at what their attacks on Palin provoked: a stronger, more independent, more determined conservative leader and base.
Enter now Sarah Palin with very encouraging comments that lead one to believe that she is indeed planning to do what she must: build an independent conservative movement and take this nation back from the liberals which now control both parties.Thanks liberals, for provoking Sarah into the national scene while vetting that family at the same time.
One thing I will say, the Washington Times with their headline for this exclusive interview reveal an anti-Palin stance. She is, don’t doubt, a threat to every existing political status quo. I hope the Washington Times and their editors realize, sooner than later, that the Palin movement is unstoppable and their credibility would be saved simply by reporting the news instead of becoming a GOP version of the NYT..
Following is by Dawn at http://nypalinpower.blogspot.com
Get Ready for Independence Day!
Woo Whoo! My dream is coming true! As a registered independent and an old Ross Perot supporter and campaign operative, I am absolutely thrilled at the news that our Sarah might actually be considering an independent run for President!I always felt she was independent at heart and was praying for her to embrace unity and not division. Check out these two articles, one from Tammy Bruce, the other from an exclusive interview with the Washington Times today!
http://tammybruce.com/2009/07/palin-hints-at-independent-conservative-movement.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/12/palin-stump-conservative-democrats/?feat=home_cube_position1&She also mentioned once in an interview there are not many politicians she likes (gosh... I wonder why?) which really makes me feel that she will fuel a grassroots political organization that will blow Ross Perot out of the water!I'm loving Sarah even more now (if that's possible) that she's almost back to being Citizen Sarah again!Sarah your ground troops are waiting!
Here’s Tammy Bruce’s column below
Palin Hints At Independent Conservative Movement
http://tammybruce.com/2009/07/palin-hints-at-independent-conservative-movement.html
by Tammy on July 11, 2009 · 13 comments
In an interview with the Washington Times, Palin makes her most direct comments yet about Conservativism versus the Republican Party. In my humble opinion, it’s clear the GOP, unfortunately, is lost beyond the point of return. When you’re one year out of key campaigns to take back Congress in 2010 and Meghan McCain is The Oracle of the party, you know it’s over. If Tina Brown thought Ms. McCain’s willingness to be a Useful Idiot for liberals would undermine the conservative movement (and consequently Sarah Palin), she should take a serious and long look at what their attacks on Palin provoked: a stronger, more independent, more determined conservative leader and base.
Enter now Sarah Palin with very encouraging comments that lead one to believe that she is indeed planning to do what she must: build an independent conservative movement and take this nation back from the liberals which now control both parties.Thanks liberals, for provoking Sarah into the national scene while vetting that family at the same time.
One thing I will say, the Washington Times with their headline for this exclusive interview reveal an anti-Palin stance. She is, don’t doubt, a threat to every existing political status quo. I hope the Washington Times and their editors realize, sooner than later, that the Palin movement is unstoppable and their credibility would be saved simply by reporting the news instead of becoming a GOP version of the NYT..
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Who Caused the Economic Crisis?
Who caused the economic crisis that now grips our nation? The correct answer, one we really don't want to hear, is: We did. How? By taking on (high) levels of debt that we're now finding harder and harder to pay off. We believed that something called "inflation" would allow us to pay off debts with ever-cheaper dollars. Instead, we have something called "deflation," which is having just the opposite effect, making dollars harder and harder to come by. There's no more inflation to bail you out. [If you'd like to see some terrific cartoons featuring Obama and his economic achievements, please visit my other regular blog: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com/)
Note 1: Later today (Monday), I'll be writing the first of several pieces about similarities between the current economic downturn and the 1930s. If your parents or grandparents were admirers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, I regret to inform you that most of the things they told you about FDR were false. In fact, he probably did more harm than good. Scroll down to the bottom to see an example. I hope you'll return late this afternoon or this evening to see what I have to say.
[Note 2: Beginning Tuesday, I'll write about some major differences between Gov. Sarah H. Palin and Barack H. Obama in regard to the crisis. Frankly, Obama is surrounded by people like his Treasury Secretary Geithner and advisers like GE's Jeffrey Immelt, who played major roles in causing the financial meltdown. Immelt's GE Capital has $16 billion in bad or questionable loans -- and he's the one whose advice is going to get us back to financial stability? Sarah Palin has no such human baggage around her. She also has a basic understanding of the American economy that Obama clearly doesn't possess.] Scroll down to the bottom for comments about "Conservatives Who Don't Like Sarah Palin"
On the political front, the short -- but incomplete -- answer to who caused the problem is: Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and various other Democrats, as well as the self-aggrandizing people at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All of the above insisted that lenders offer loans to people who now can't afford them.
The longer answer is that the crisis traces back to all those people -- in the public, in the government, and in the urban caverns of Wall Street -- who engaged in, or encouraged, very risky borrowing. One such individual is a man named Tim Geithner. In the run-up to the crisis, he headed the New York branch of the Federal Reserve. He strove to keep interest rates at extremely low levels, which of course encouraged people -- from Main Street individuals to Wall Street speculators -- to go into heavy debt. Of course, low interest levels are fine, but only as long as borrowers don't over-use them.
There used to be an old nonsense game that college guys used to play on spring break drives to Florida. Here's one question: "On the stupidity scale, what's dumber -- a doorknob or a doorbell?" It turns out that the correct answer to that question is: Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary who now heads the IRS but didn't pay his taxes.
Let's be clear: It's certainly okay to borrow modest amounts of money, as long as the recipient has a reasonable chance of paying back the loan. However, if the person doing the borrowing can't survive an economic downturn, even a severe one, big loans are a bad idea.
As people try to put their arms around our dismal economic situation, they should start reading an important financial web site: MotleyFool.com. The writers there avoid financial jargon and "WallStreetspeak."
One MotleyFool piece I urge everyone to read is Matt Koppenheffer's provocatively titled essay: "Who Should Go to Jail?" You can find it at the following link: http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2009/03/06/who-should-go-to-jail.aspx?source=iflfollnk0000001
As you read the following material from Koppenheffer's piece, think of a line from an old song: "Those were the days my friend; we thought they'd never end." Of course, everything comes to an end. Relatedly, as Sir Isaac Newton taught the world long ago, "What goes up must (eventually) come down." That's as true of economic rises and falls as it is of roller-coaster rides.
But who should we punish for economic malfeasance? In Koppenheffer's words, "As the nation’s collective temper flares, we’re all beginning to consider tossing the people responsible for today's financial mess in the slammer and throwing away -- no, melting -- the key. And with our economy in disarray and major banks like Citigroup (NYSE: C) and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) potentially on the brink of collapse, it's tough to fight that sentiment. . . . .
"Sometimes it just doesn't matter what your IQ is, what school you went to, or what position you hold -- idiocy can creep up and slide into bed with you. Even more irresistible is an idiocy that is supported by seemingly everyone around you. 'What? Home prices never go down?' That sounds fishy, but everyone else seems to think it's true.
"Remember when your mother asked whether you'd jump off a bridge if everyone else did it? Some people, even smart ones, have been jumping off that bridge their entire lives."
Koppenheffer's point is that, in financial matters, there are some crooks -- like Bernie Madoff -- and many fools, a group that includes nearly all of us (including me). As a nation, we jumped off bridges -- by making risky investments and buying houses that are now worth less than we ever imagined.
Can Obama bail us out? Surely you jest. He isn't going to hand over his own fortune to the American people. Remember, he's living rent free in a $200 million home. The only one who can bail us out is . . . us, the taxpayers, and, of course, the foreign lenders from whom we're borrowing trillions. Somehow it doesn't seem likely that a problem generated by over-borrowing is going to be solved by . . . massive borrowing.
But why oh why did we buy a $500,000 house when we could only afford one for $400,000 or less? We did so because the "smart people" (now known as the "dumb people") told us it was a good investment. After all, in a few years wouldn't our half-million house be worth $600,000 or $700,000?
Right now, however, our $500,000 home may be worth $390,000 -- or less. The notion that home prices would not -- could not -- go down turned out to be a foolish notion. The "housing market" ended up pricing itself out of the market.
On that $500,000 home, suppose you put down $100,000 -- one-fifth of the price. Then, suppose, you took out a home equity loan (perhaps to pay off credit card debt) of $60,000. In that case, you owe a total of $460,000 on a home that's worth $390,000 (minus the real estate commission of more than $20,000). You are out a ton of money.With economics, the word "never" (as in, "House prices will never go down") doesn't apply. It doesn't apply if you're Citigroup, or Merrill-Lynch, or AIG.
It also doesn't apply if you're you, sitting nervously in a home that you can no longer afford. You're up the creek, and your creditors are holding the "paddle."
(Note: I'll be writing the rest of the week on the economy, with emphasis on what the Obama [Administration should do -- but probably won't.]
More from MotleyFool.com: "My guess is that a heck of a lot of the problems that we're facing today were born of people doing dumb things. Building a financial model that assumes housing prices will never fall? Dumb. Buying a $500,000 house with 2% down and a three-year interest-only loan? Dumb. Giving a mortgage loan to somebody putting nothing down? Yup, that's dumb too."
Note 1: Later today (Monday), I'll be writing the first of several pieces about similarities between the current economic downturn and the 1930s. If your parents or grandparents were admirers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, I regret to inform you that most of the things they told you about FDR were false. In fact, he probably did more harm than good. Scroll down to the bottom to see an example. I hope you'll return late this afternoon or this evening to see what I have to say.
[Note 2: Beginning Tuesday, I'll write about some major differences between Gov. Sarah H. Palin and Barack H. Obama in regard to the crisis. Frankly, Obama is surrounded by people like his Treasury Secretary Geithner and advisers like GE's Jeffrey Immelt, who played major roles in causing the financial meltdown. Immelt's GE Capital has $16 billion in bad or questionable loans -- and he's the one whose advice is going to get us back to financial stability? Sarah Palin has no such human baggage around her. She also has a basic understanding of the American economy that Obama clearly doesn't possess.] Scroll down to the bottom for comments about "Conservatives Who Don't Like Sarah Palin"
On the political front, the short -- but incomplete -- answer to who caused the problem is: Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and various other Democrats, as well as the self-aggrandizing people at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All of the above insisted that lenders offer loans to people who now can't afford them.
The longer answer is that the crisis traces back to all those people -- in the public, in the government, and in the urban caverns of Wall Street -- who engaged in, or encouraged, very risky borrowing. One such individual is a man named Tim Geithner. In the run-up to the crisis, he headed the New York branch of the Federal Reserve. He strove to keep interest rates at extremely low levels, which of course encouraged people -- from Main Street individuals to Wall Street speculators -- to go into heavy debt. Of course, low interest levels are fine, but only as long as borrowers don't over-use them.
There used to be an old nonsense game that college guys used to play on spring break drives to Florida. Here's one question: "On the stupidity scale, what's dumber -- a doorknob or a doorbell?" It turns out that the correct answer to that question is: Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary who now heads the IRS but didn't pay his taxes.
Let's be clear: It's certainly okay to borrow modest amounts of money, as long as the recipient has a reasonable chance of paying back the loan. However, if the person doing the borrowing can't survive an economic downturn, even a severe one, big loans are a bad idea.
As people try to put their arms around our dismal economic situation, they should start reading an important financial web site: MotleyFool.com. The writers there avoid financial jargon and "WallStreetspeak."
One MotleyFool piece I urge everyone to read is Matt Koppenheffer's provocatively titled essay: "Who Should Go to Jail?" You can find it at the following link: http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2009/03/06/who-should-go-to-jail.aspx?source=iflfollnk0000001
As you read the following material from Koppenheffer's piece, think of a line from an old song: "Those were the days my friend; we thought they'd never end." Of course, everything comes to an end. Relatedly, as Sir Isaac Newton taught the world long ago, "What goes up must (eventually) come down." That's as true of economic rises and falls as it is of roller-coaster rides.
But who should we punish for economic malfeasance? In Koppenheffer's words, "As the nation’s collective temper flares, we’re all beginning to consider tossing the people responsible for today's financial mess in the slammer and throwing away -- no, melting -- the key. And with our economy in disarray and major banks like Citigroup (NYSE: C) and Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) potentially on the brink of collapse, it's tough to fight that sentiment. . . . .
"Sometimes it just doesn't matter what your IQ is, what school you went to, or what position you hold -- idiocy can creep up and slide into bed with you. Even more irresistible is an idiocy that is supported by seemingly everyone around you. 'What? Home prices never go down?' That sounds fishy, but everyone else seems to think it's true.
"Remember when your mother asked whether you'd jump off a bridge if everyone else did it? Some people, even smart ones, have been jumping off that bridge their entire lives."
Koppenheffer's point is that, in financial matters, there are some crooks -- like Bernie Madoff -- and many fools, a group that includes nearly all of us (including me). As a nation, we jumped off bridges -- by making risky investments and buying houses that are now worth less than we ever imagined.
Can Obama bail us out? Surely you jest. He isn't going to hand over his own fortune to the American people. Remember, he's living rent free in a $200 million home. The only one who can bail us out is . . . us, the taxpayers, and, of course, the foreign lenders from whom we're borrowing trillions. Somehow it doesn't seem likely that a problem generated by over-borrowing is going to be solved by . . . massive borrowing.
But why oh why did we buy a $500,000 house when we could only afford one for $400,000 or less? We did so because the "smart people" (now known as the "dumb people") told us it was a good investment. After all, in a few years wouldn't our half-million house be worth $600,000 or $700,000?
Right now, however, our $500,000 home may be worth $390,000 -- or less. The notion that home prices would not -- could not -- go down turned out to be a foolish notion. The "housing market" ended up pricing itself out of the market.
On that $500,000 home, suppose you put down $100,000 -- one-fifth of the price. Then, suppose, you took out a home equity loan (perhaps to pay off credit card debt) of $60,000. In that case, you owe a total of $460,000 on a home that's worth $390,000 (minus the real estate commission of more than $20,000). You are out a ton of money.With economics, the word "never" (as in, "House prices will never go down") doesn't apply. It doesn't apply if you're Citigroup, or Merrill-Lynch, or AIG.
It also doesn't apply if you're you, sitting nervously in a home that you can no longer afford. You're up the creek, and your creditors are holding the "paddle."
(Note: I'll be writing the rest of the week on the economy, with emphasis on what the Obama [Administration should do -- but probably won't.]
More from MotleyFool.com: "My guess is that a heck of a lot of the problems that we're facing today were born of people doing dumb things. Building a financial model that assumes housing prices will never fall? Dumb. Buying a $500,000 house with 2% down and a three-year interest-only loan? Dumb. Giving a mortgage loan to somebody putting nothing down? Yup, that's dumb too."
Conservatives Who Don't Like Sarah Palin
We Palin backer are going to lose some "conservatives" along the way.
The "conservative" candidates in 2008 were Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Jim Gilmore, and (perhaps) Fred Thompson, and (on social issues) Mike Huckabee. The characteristics they all shared were these: (1) they couldn't raise any money; (2) they didn't get any votes, except for Huckabee, who got votes almost exclusively from American evangelicals. Overall, John McCain got more votes from evangelicals in the primaries than Mike Huckabee.
Sarah Palin should not run as "The Goddess of the Right Wing," because she would be certain to lose -- badly. She should run as what she has been in Alaska, a principled centrist, a believer in private enterprise and individual liberty, as well as an achiever who cares deeply about people. If she does, she can win.
The Good Ole Boys -- the "navel sniffers," as Tammy Bruce calls them -- of the traditional GOP will not support Sarah because she will push them off their comfortable gravy train. The "conservatives" who will oppose Sarah will be individuals who didn't give a dime to McCain-Palin and didn't campaign for them (or, in some case, even vote for them).
Sarah is much better off without them, and she knows that. Such ideologues offend most Americans, and they drive away more votes than they cast.
Did FDR really lift America out of the Depression. No, he didn't.
Barack Obama talks regularly about the inspiration he receives from the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. However, when it comes to bringing the country out of an economic crisis, FDR is a very poor model. He succeeded at getting large segments of the population to revere him. He failed at solving the country's economic disaster. Consider . . .
In November , 1933, a year after FDR's election, unemployment in the U.S. was above 23%, nearly one-in-four workers. The Dow Jones Industrial average, which had gone over 380 in fall, 1929, was at a miserable 90.
What about November, 1934, two years after Roosevelt's election? Unemployment remained exactly where it had been a year earlier -- at 23%, and the Dow had moved us a measly three points -- to 93.
By July, 1935, two-and-a-half years after his election, FDR had barely put a dent in unemployment, which remained about 21%. The Dow had moved up some -- to 119 -- but it was still at a level less than one-third the high in 1929.
Frankly, much of what we learned about FDR from old family members -- and from our history books -- was incorrect. FDR remained a dashing and popular figure, but the Depression lasted all the way through Roosevelt's first two terms.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Sarah Palin's Republican Enemies
Sarah Palin in the future of the Republican Party, but she has real enemies in the GOP, largely people who've gotten used to being a minority and are more interested in protecting their jobs than in safeguarding the country. Sarah is seen as a threat to Republicans who have come to terms with comfortable mediocirty. She's a winner in a Party that has too many losers.
One of the most effective conservative voices on the Internet is that of Palin-backer Tammy Bruce, a California feminist (and former head of the LA chapter of NOW), who blogs at TammyBruce.com. Here's a "Fox Forum" blog piece below that she wrote recently, one I'll comment on later today. It's about Sarah Palin's conflicts with the GOP's "Old Boy's Club." [Note: My column on the other blog today is about Sarah Palin's political strategy for 2009.]
This current public fight between Limbaugh and Steele, two important and influential conservative men, reveals just how deeply in trouble the DOP [Dumb Old Party] really is. What happened to the Grand Old Party? Its so-called leadership has been inside the Beltway too long, going to the same cocktail and dinner parties for decades.
They like the money and the decadence and the smell of their own navels. The idea of returning to the principled values of Reagan means hard work, smaller government (read: less money), taking on the tyrants of the world thereby losing Islamist largess for travel, parties, and dare I say, presidential libraries. Worst of all, a return to the Reagan legacy brings with it an expectation of discipline and personal responsibility.
It is also especially frightening to the Republican Elite that a return of the Reagan legacy is represented by one person these days who, like Reagan, hails from the far-side of this nation, away from the increasing stench (and corrupting influence) of Washington. Sarah Palin is a woman who means business when she talks of reform. The one person none of the boys in Washington like, she lives and works west of the Rockies (let alone the Mississippi), was educated at a university without Ivy on its walls, is not of the monied class, and actually intends to confront the corruption and hypocrisy emanating from both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Sarah Palin is not “of” them, you see, so the DOP Elite (for the ultimate oxymoron) prepare to toss Reagan Conservatism, best represented by Palin, under the bus lest the loss of Islamist money, parties with boys from the same school as you, and the use of the American taxpayer to fund the greed, excess and conga-lines of the Obama White House as the economy tanks.
One of the most effective conservative voices on the Internet is that of Palin-backer Tammy Bruce, a California feminist (and former head of the LA chapter of NOW), who blogs at TammyBruce.com. Here's a "Fox Forum" blog piece below that she wrote recently, one I'll comment on later today. It's about Sarah Palin's conflicts with the GOP's "Old Boy's Club." [Note: My column on the other blog today is about Sarah Palin's political strategy for 2009.]
This current public fight between Limbaugh and Steele, two important and influential conservative men, reveals just how deeply in trouble the DOP [Dumb Old Party] really is. What happened to the Grand Old Party? Its so-called leadership has been inside the Beltway too long, going to the same cocktail and dinner parties for decades.
They like the money and the decadence and the smell of their own navels. The idea of returning to the principled values of Reagan means hard work, smaller government (read: less money), taking on the tyrants of the world thereby losing Islamist largess for travel, parties, and dare I say, presidential libraries. Worst of all, a return to the Reagan legacy brings with it an expectation of discipline and personal responsibility.
It is also especially frightening to the Republican Elite that a return of the Reagan legacy is represented by one person these days who, like Reagan, hails from the far-side of this nation, away from the increasing stench (and corrupting influence) of Washington. Sarah Palin is a woman who means business when she talks of reform. The one person none of the boys in Washington like, she lives and works west of the Rockies (let alone the Mississippi), was educated at a university without Ivy on its walls, is not of the monied class, and actually intends to confront the corruption and hypocrisy emanating from both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Sarah Palin is not “of” them, you see, so the DOP Elite (for the ultimate oxymoron) prepare to toss Reagan Conservatism, best represented by Palin, under the bus lest the loss of Islamist money, parties with boys from the same school as you, and the use of the American taxpayer to fund the greed, excess and conga-lines of the Obama White House as the economy tanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
