Some Announcements From Patrick's World USA

Patrick's World USA is also becoming a BlogTalk Radio show. I will be doing a one hour show on Wednesday nights at 11pm. For those of you who live on the left coast, that's 8pm your time. In Oakland, it could be anywhere from 7:45 to 7:55 pm depending upon how much the legalized marijuana affects your time perception.

It's time to take to the airways to put forth the conservative philosophy as I understand it. America has many leaders and many voices. I see many of them here in the blogosphere and on the other social network sites. I am proud to have been able to communicate with other radio hosts, writers and bloggers since becoming active online after the 2008 election. I feel as if I can bring something to the table and add my voice to the roar that grows louder as we head into 2010 and ultimately 2012.

I ask for your support in supporting my effort. This is a business decision. If this citizen can contribute to the movement that will eventually lead the country back to greatness and prosperity, the ability for all of us to earn money and use that money for positive things and the betterment of our communities is a free market "distribution of wealth scheme" that will do more to help all of us fight the monkey wrenches that life throws at us, help the less fortunate among us and enable us to grow our businesses or earn more income at our jobs at a time when the family unit is being beseiged by poverty and financial trouble than any Marxist, socialist or progressive scheme can do.

I believe the principles and the wisdom of Ronald Reagan is not a thing of the past. His articulation of the philosophy only enhances and explains more clearly what our Founding Fathers have written in the literature of the Revolutionary time and in the greatest Constitution the world has ever seen.

And so tonight, I endorse three strong commonsense conservatives for Congress who I think will do great things for this country in the years ahead: CeCe Heil for Tennessee’s 5th District, John Gomez for New York's 2nd District and Jesse Kelly for Arizona's 8th District. Sarah Palin has endorsed the first two, so no explanation is needed there. But Jesse Kelly was one of those candidates that just jumped out at me tonight when I listened to Mark Levin interview him on his radio program.

Jesse Kelly is ideologically dead on.  I was moved, as I could tell Mark was, by how unafraid this candidate was to speak out against liberalism in the strongest terms, stand for protecting the border and commit to sticking to his principles when he goes to Washington. Go to 91:30 of the audio and listen to this fantastic interview. Mark Levin was dead on the money when he said that we have to take back the Republican Party first and then take back the country.

I am also endorsing Karen Handel for Georgia governor.

Next up on my list, Sarah Palin will be on Fox News Sunday at 9 am Eastern time. She will "discuss the 2010 midterms, the Obama Administration, and her own political future." She will also talk about "a federal judge’s decision to block some key parts of the controversial Arizona immigration law." Sarah Palin has gone over 2 million followers on her Facebook page. In recognition of that, I encourage everyone to donate $20.12 to Sarah Pac.

Please listen to my radio show, support the candidates I mentioned and support Sarah Palin.

Thank you Jedediah Bila for your best wishes.

For $20.12 You Can Get Your Country Back

Things may have been bleak a year or two ago. The effort required to save our country from the statists, the liberals and the progressives might have seemed overwhelming then. Sarah Palin was under attack from the liberal media, the Democrat party, liberal organizations across the country and even some of her own ungrateful constituents in Alaska. But things have changed. Sarah has fought her butt off to get this thing back to where it was. And today, it only costs $20.12 to get your country back.

Send SarahPac $20.12. If enough people do this, Sarah Palin will have the resources needed to fight for us. You have seen the causes that she has stepped up to the plate for. She has spoken out on almost every issue imaginable. And she has been right every time.

She is our voice. The more we send, the louder our voices will get.

Don't Hate the Player, Mr. President. Hate the Game.

For years conservatives have been playing the wrong game. As mature adults, conservatives have always looked at politics as national discourse - an intelligent debate where each side laid out its position and the people voted on it. This crumpets and tea approach cost George W. Bush a better legacy and cost the Republicans the 2006 and 2008 elections. After getting pounded by their opponents, conservatives have finally realized that they were trying to play football when the liberals were really playing rugby.

When someone brought the Alinsky playbook in and had everyone read it, the light went on. That's their strategy. I see now how we have to play.

After the 2008 election, John Ziegler met with Sarah Palin and showed her all of the things that were going on in the news media during her campaign for vice president. She was astounded. She wasn't surprised because she was experiencing the media bias first hand, but she was amazed at how low the journalism profession had sunk to undermine her candidacy. Palin told the Daily Caller that McCain's campaign did not fight back when the media portrayed them and particularly her unfavorably. That's the key point.

Conservatives now understand that they must fight back, even if it means being better at playing a game with repugnant rules. Remember, their opponents won in 2006 and 2008. That gives them the right to make those rules. But don't fret about the nasty rules. Conservatives understand that they can beat the liberals at their own game. And, conservatives have an edge: the truth is on their side.

Let's look at the anatomy of two smear campaigns. In order to destroy Sarah Palin, opponents had to make things up about her. They had to file ethics complaints with no standing and have the media ignore the numerous dismissals. She eventually resigned her position. In order to destroy Van Jones, opponents had to tell the truth about him. They had to play videos of actual things he had said and point out that the media was ignoring this. He eventually resigned his position.

Once I knew conservatives would be willing to get their hands dirty, I knew they could win. I read the Daily Caller coverage of the Journolist story with tears of joy in my eyes because it was at that point that I truly felt it in my heart that conservatives have what it takes to save the philosophy and advance the cause. We understood that the liberals own the field and they make the rules now. When we beat them at their own game, we get the field back and then we get to make the rules.

We are better, we are stronger and we are faster than they are. They don't have a Sarah Palin. They don't have a Glenn Beck or a Rush Limbaugh. They got some dufus who used to be a sportscaster firing off their shots. They got some girl who looks like a 12 year old boy in his pajamas smirking into the camera every night after she makes a snarky comment about Sarah Palin.

And before you attack me for demeaning Keith Olbermann or making fun of Rachel Maddow's looks, may I submit exhibit A: Keith Olbermann calling Palin an idiot (editor's note: I'd need at least 22 links here, so you get the picture). Now may I submit exhibit B: Rachel Maddow showing up for work in her pajamas to make fun of Palin making fun of bloggers in pajamas.

Some may say we are lowering themselves to their level, but the last time I checked, using equal or greater force to stop someone from assaulting you worked a lot better than making believe you weren't getting hit.

When we win, we will keep the liberals at bay by holding our extended hand out on the top of their heads as they keep flailing away at the air between us while we talk like adults. But for now, we have to punch, counter punch and float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. We are in the ring now and we must win the match before we can take the trunks off and put on our nice suits again.

You would think Obama, the master of the campaign pick and roll, would be impressed at Andrew Breitbart's form on the Shirley Sherrod story. If you remember, when Sarah Palin resigned her governorship, the media cited portions of her resignation speech out of context to portray her as someone who couldn't take the media heat. Because so many ethics violations had been lodged against her, they assumed there was a federal indictment pending. The whole speech was out there as was Shirley Sherrod's whole speech. Therein lies the technique. The media could take the portion of the speech that made her look racist and leave out the reason why she said it, just like they left out the real reason why Palin resigned. And if responding to false accusations of racism against the Tea Party means showing a true story of a New Black Panther standing in front of a polling place with a baton in his hand or countering an NAACP smear with a counter smear then count me in on this game because it's starting to get fun again.

We fell for the hidden ball trick in the 2008 presidential election. Obama fell for it when the Shirley Sherrod story came out. He can't be mad about that, can he? You'd think his side would take it as a compliment - you know, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I mean, it was their kind of play, right?

So today, Barack Obama went on the view and blamed the media for the Shirley Sherrod firing. And they say the president doesn't feel our pain.

Don't Hate the Player, Mr. President. Hate the game.

Palin is a Giver, Obama is a Taker

Sarah Palin is giving us things, lots of things. Every one of us in the movement have gotten something from Sarah Palin. We have Facebook pages supporting our causes. We have phone calls into our radio programs from her. Candidates have her endorsements. Palin gave her support of Pamela Geller's opposition to the mosque at ground zero with a Facebook page. She gave Tammy Bruce an interview. She gave Conservatives4Palin members a phone call.  She gave Nikki Haley and others her endorsement. Today, she has given Sean Hannity something, her endorsement of John Gomez.

Sarah Palin gave me my gift last week. With her comments to the Daily Caller and subsequent Facebook note, she gave my key issue a place atop the media flagpole: the media lies. I add that to my signed book, a picture and a compliment about my shirt.

Barack Obama, what have you done for me lately?

Obama has screwed up a health care system just as I got my insurance and supplemental insurance right where I wanted it to be under the old system. He screwed up my business opportunity by adding burdensome regulations that may force my business partner and I to take a different direction in our financial business. He passed credit card regulatory reform that caused two of my credit card companies to cut my credit limit and raise my interest rates. He is now talking about taking more of my money every time I turn on a light switch and if the Bush tax cuts expire, I will pay more in taxes.

Where's my hope and change, Mr. President?

I'll tell you where it is. It's with Sarah Palin. She has given America so much. She took a gamble that could have possibly ended her career for us. She has hit the road to give speeches for us, campaign for our candidates and meet us. Liberals will say "well she's getting paid to do that." Uh, yeah. So is Barack Obama. But what the hell is he getting paid for, to restrict our freedoms and destroy jobs?

Voters vote their pocketbooks. So let me see how this will play out in 2012. Who can I cash in on?

I'm not cashing in on you, Mr. President. You're costing me money instead. You're killing me.

I know I can cash in on Sarah Palin just based on her record. As president, she will revitalize the economy and remove the impediments to my ability to earn lots of money off the sweat of my back, the same sweat by which big government earns its money today. Go ahead, liberals, refute that. Make your childish cracks about half term governors (I won't call Obama a half term Senator, I promise). I'll put Sarah Palin's 2 1/2 years up against Obama's first 2 1/2 years any time. I call. Read em and weep.

Oh sorry, you have 2 million jobs lost? I win.

The world is upside down. It's Alice in Wonderland over here. Obama flies all over the world and his family takes lavish vacations while the rest of us have our credit choked off, and the jobs are disappearing faster than the paper trail between David Axelrod's public relations associations and the 2008 smear campaign against Sarah Palin. Yet Sarah Palin stands up for the American people and she gets the crap beat out of her by the liberal mainstream media.

Her family is harassed. Her Down Syndrome child is ridiculed or the circumstances of his birth are questioned. Where's the press drumming up myths about the circumstances of your birth, Mr. Obama? How many trips are you allowed to take without being nickeled and dimed for per diem, Mr. Obama? Did we make fun of Malia for asking when the damn hole would be plugged, Mr. President?  (Is this the part where I'm supposed to say with clenched teeth, "and you Mr. President are the worst person in the woooooorld"?)

No good deed goes unpunished and no good deed goes unrewarded it seems.

But don't fret, my little liberal pretties. Sarah Palin is going to get your doggie and then it's lights out. You think that by manifesting her into this monster is going to save your sorry progressive asses, think again. 48% of the nutroots voted for her to be the GOP nominee. Be careful what you wish for, libbies.

The record is clear. Sarah Palin gives to get. She risked her political career, she worked harder than any other politician has in the last five years and she shows her fans love by not just talking the talk off a teleprompter, but by walking the walk. Every Sarah Palin fan can tell you how she's touched them. She has given us so much to feel good about.

What has Obama given us? How does he make us feel?

Quotes of the Day 07/28/10

"The Journolist emails proves that the media was out to destroy Sarah Palin. She represents an existential threat to liberalism" - Monica Crowley on the O'Reilly Factor 7/27/10 (editor's note: the quote may not be exact as I am still seeking video or transcript. If you have video or transcript, please post it in the comment section below)

"The second liberal self-defense of JournoList was that [Ezra] Klein claimed there was no plan for partisan 'message coordination.' But the Daily Caller showed how no one on the list was really paying attention to that alleged plan. After Sarah Palin was picked for the GOP ticket in 2008, Suzanne Nossel of Human Rights Watch insisted 'I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views.'" - Brent Bozell

"...but liberals if you want to face Sarah Palin after 4 years of Jimmy Carter redux, bring it on!" - DaTechGuy (h/t Texas for Sarah Palin)

"The case for linguistic innovation is this: We need a word that captures and conjoins the meanings of refutation and repudiation. And we need it now. To save the country from the ravages of contemporary liberalism, we have to refute liberal arguments and see liberal politicians repudiated at the polls. So the conservative agenda is, in a word, refudiation. Indeed, given the dramatic moment at which we have arrived, one might say that we now have the prospect of a grand refudiation of liberalism." - William Kristol

"There is a sickness and darkness in today’s liberal media. With revelations like the JournoList exchanges, may the light keep shining to expose the problem." - Sarah Palin

Why Can't I Get My Blog Readership Up?

Because there are so damn many conservative blogs out there.

When I started getting politically active online right after the 2008 presidential election, there were a few of us and a bunch of Obama astroturfers who would hit the comments section of articles about conservatives and conservatism. We engaged in "small aircraft" dogfights. Between November 2008 and July 2009, the conservative blogosphere exploded into the densely populated area it is today. There are hundreds, probably thousands of conservative blogs now that compete for readership.

And my little ole blog is just one of many.

I have great followers. They give me excellent feedback on my blog. If I didn't work so many hours, I'd be calling some of their internet radio talk shows and showing them support for all they do for the cause of taking back America.

This post is not a complaint. This post is a compliment to the many great conservatives out there who put it out there every day. It's great when I see any of us getting covered by the mainstream media or the new media. There is nothing more rewarding than seeing someone who you've tweeted with or exchanged comments with to get their name mentioned or their article posted on a high traffic site or on a program like Hannity or Rush.

Keep up the great work. If you don't see your site on the left sidebar, follow this blog and I'll put you on.

You all are part of Patrick's World USA. When I go to rallies, I see Patrick's World. All the exiles from the Shining City on A Hill are there and it reminds me that even if the city doesn't shine right now, its people still do. And we are the ones who will take it back.

Let's roll.

Washington Post Claims Journolistgate is a Right Wing Conspiracy

Greg Sargent is getting a lot of laughs over his column at The Washington Post today where he claims "The Daily Caller appears to be deliberately picking subjects from J-List threads that will get it maximum pickup from the conservative media -- and right-leaning outlets are obliging." He calls it a "conservative media conspiracy, not liberal one." When you're done laughing, allow me to explain how Sargent's article actually could be used to teach journalism students how things get reported in the mainstream media. And with a little help from this blogger, could also be used to teach journalism students how conservatives are learning to use the tactics needed to win a game where liberals own the board and make the rules as a result of their 2008 electoral win.

Sargent's premise fails to refute anything the right has been saying about media bias. Because Ezra Klein did not sanction a message coordination doesn't mean that the liberal mainstream media's coordination and collusion to help Obama win the election didn't happen. That would be like kids in the lunchroom organizing a food fight and one kid says "I don't think we should," and one breaks out anyway.

Jedediah Bila clearly points out that the mainstream media talking points sounded too familiar to what the Journolist writers were communicating between themselves to be an accident. John Ziegler, who first investigated the issue right after the election writes today "there is no doubt that members of Journolist both tried and succeeded as injecting their opinions (in this case mostly discredited ones) disguised as fact into the mainstream through one of the most widely viewed and respected outlets we have left [NBC Nightly News], at the most advantageous moment possible."

While some may think Greg Sargent is off his rocker, I submit that he's not. Unlike Al Franken who made a complete fool of himself the other night at the Netroots meeting of progressive bloggers, Sargent is only doing his duty to his fellow Journolisters and his employer, The Washington Post. He had to. Conservatives played the game properly and elicited the proper response.

Once conservatives realized that they are in a steel cage with liberals, the notion of playing nice was over. It's a matter of kill or be killed. Like a fighter who must bone up on their fighting technique if they ever hope to win the match, conservatives learned the moves and are now starting to use them. They used Alinsky's Rule 11: "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative." When Andrew Breitbart put out the entirety of Shirley Sherrod's speech, the negative went all the way to the White House.

The conservatives are getting game savvy now and they are playing the liberal game better than the liberals. When Sargent reacted to the Daily Caller's article, it shows the conservatives successfully used Alinsky's Rule 10: "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."

Effective use of both these rules explains the days of relentless Daily Caller stories about Journolistgate and it explains why the White House overreacted and fired Shirley Sherrod.

Conservatives have finally accepted the fact that they are going to have to beat liberals at their own game before they can change the rules. By using the new media, the voice of conservatism is no longer being drowned out by the mainstream media and intellectual elitists. They are seizing their opportunity now to turn the tables on the left. They are no longer bringing a knife to a gunfight.

John Hawkins wrote in May 2009:

...the aggressor sets the rules and if you want to survive, you have to play by those rules.

While we conservatives don’t have to stoop quite as low as the left has, we do need to start giving them a taste of their own medicine, if only to make them think twice about the way they’re treating our side.

Instead of continuing to complain, here’s a better idea. Why don’t conservatives do opposition research on the journalists endlessly running stories about Bristol Palin and Joe the Plumber?

It sounds like someone at the Daily Caller was listening.

Anchorman wrote:

Level a charge of civil rights fake hate, we’ll return volley with a real one. Chant “No justice, no peace!” and we’ll spring an ACORN video on you. Play your recordings of death threats, and we’ll play ours. Try cap-and-trade, we’ll hack some more East Anglia e-mails.

We can both play the Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” game. We can both fight with any means to justify the ends, as Saul would have us do. But there is one difference between the two sides in this battle which shows every intention of escalating. The long hairs who wrote the U.S. Constitution are on our side. And we’re gonna let their freak flag fly.

The least the liberals could do is compliment conservatives on their technique. The replay shows that the play was executed perfectly. The liberal reaction to Breitbart and The Daily Caller clearly proves that liberals are much better at hating the player than they are at hating the game.

Some are going to say conservatives need to be bigger than that. There may have been a time for that and there may be a time again for that, but it's not now. Some may say two wrongs don't make a right. But then again, sometimes three lefts do.

← The left took us here
↓   This is what we're doing now
→ This is where we are going to end up when we fix it

The conservative movement didn't defend itself or its leader George W. Bush during the 2000's. Look what happened. The left isn't playing bean bag. Why should conservatives? Fighting fire with fire is not a bad thing, especially if you have been burnt.

Palin smears and Obama cheers have been getting run up the media flagpole to the big media outlets for the last two years. Here's the journalism lesson about how that works from Greg Sargent:

The Daily Caller builds stories by cherry-picking from threads about Fox News and Rush Limbaugh -- and gets rewarded with pickup on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. It does a story transforming J-List discussion about Sarah Palin into "coordination," and Palin -- who's fast becoming a media figure in her own right -- responds by giving it a big push herself. And on and on.

Uh, yeah.

Joe Schoffstall says it best:

Then you have progressive groups such as Think Progress– whose tactics are much more controversial than Breitbart’s – who get a free pass. Think Progress was caught altering videos and putting “racist” plants into crowds at Tea Parties to prove “racism” was there– a complete fraud. But nope, no media coverage on that. That’s allowed through the double standard.

Didn't Think Progress, Trig Truthers, Palin bashers and Obamamaniacs not teach us how to use this technique? Isn't this how the game is supposed to be played? I don't understand the liberal outrage, unless of course it's based in hypocrisy. Either that or they're just bad sports.

A History Lesson For the Youngsters and the Naysayers

I know you're all going to say "well, there you again," when you read this post. I can hear it now. It's Reagan this, Reagan that. Dopey blogger, even his screen name is ReaganTMan. Will he ever stop? The answer is no and it's not because I'm just some Reaganite blinded by bias. There are certain fundamental truths of history and of politics even if I have been weaned off the textbooks by some hockey mom from Alaska who doesn't fit the mold. But if you get one thing out of this post, it is the hope of this blogger that you understand the facts about Reagan and forget about the myths.

Today, Ronald Reagan is remembered as a great president, a hero to the conservative movement and giant among giants. It was not always that way. The myth is that when Ronald Reagan electrified the convention in 1976 and nearly won the presidential nomination that he immediately became a lock for 1980. The fact is, many in the Republican party were very wary of him and the Democrats hated him - hated his guts.

I'm unable to find the article I read about a year ago, but it was roughly around the 1-2 year mark after Jimmy Carter's inauguration that polls showed that many Americans wished Gerald Ford was president instead. One poll actually had Gerald Ford leading Ronald Reagan fairly handily for the 1980 GOP nomination. Today, nearly half of Americans wish John McCain was president. There are no polls available asking if people would vote for John McCain if he was running in 2012.

While many thought that Reagan could win in 1980, he was far from being the annointed one even though some who look through the murky waters into history think he was. Those who say Sarah Palin is no Reagan because she has high unfavorables and because there is a large enough field of candidates that there are others to choose from miss an important component of history. Ronald Reagan was despised by the left and Republican insiders were just too scared and uncertain about putting a gaffe prone right wing conservative who was once divorced and whose children, particulary Ron and Patti, were not helpful to his public persona. Patti Davis makes Bristol Palin look like Mary Poppins by comparison. And as for Ron, there is no medical reason for his condition.

Kennesaw State University's Ronald Reagan page pointed out that "The 1980 campaign was not a contest between two overwhelming Party favorites." But they did point out the key to Reagan's victory.

Ronald Reagan also had to work hard for his party’s nomination. With Carter's obvious weakness, a large Republican field turned out for the competition. Reagan did have a definite advantage. He had been traveling the country for three years building networks, raising money, repeating one simple message: "Get the government off our backs." After a setback in the Iowa Caucus, Reagan went on to win the New Hampshire Primary and roll to the Republican Convention.

Now it should be starting to look familiar to the youngsters and the naysayers. Those of you who are too young to remember what happened between 1976 and 1980 and those of you who say, ah there are still a lot of differences, might be looking at the actual events and not the technique. Winning the presidency for an outsider like Reagan required a lot more hard work, a lot more relationship building and a lot more perserverence than let's say someone like a George Herbert Walker Bush or a Mitt Romney would have to do.

When looking at the field of GOP prospects for 2012, one has to ask oneself which one is going to spend "three years building networks, raising money, repeating one simple message: 'Get the government off our backs'"?

When Jimmy Carter was nosediving in the polls, the liberals turned to an old standard-bearer, Ted Kennedy who was very reluctant at first to take on the sitting president, kind of the way Hillary Clinton is right now. Don't discount the possibility of Hillary running in 2012 either.

It will be hard to say what the outcome of a Hillary Clinton - Barack Obama primary would be this early in the game, but I'd be sure the dramatics of it would be similar to the Carter - Kennedy contest and create for interesting talk at the Democratic National Convention in 2012. At the same time a large field of Republicans will do battle for the nomination with similar tides as those in 1980. One only wonders if calling Reagan's economic plan "voodoo economics" sat as well with Reagan's supporters as saying Palin "isn't a serious human being" does with hers. And if Palin would be as quick to pick Romney to be her running mate as Reagan was to choosing Bush.

The fact remains, history dictates the symptoms of ruling romance. The automobile manual that shows how to put in a water pump, the directions on a road map and the answer to what's 2+2 don't really change much, do they? And although I slept through the networking and endorsement section of the campaigns and elections political science class in 1984, I'm wide awake for this year's lesson.

The parallels will never be exact, but they are strikingly similar between 1976-1980 and 2008-2012. I've thought about it long and hard and finally figured out there is actually one component that doesn't parallel: the media. The media was still liberal in 1976 when Gerald Ford ran. But the media turned on Carter and made it easier for Reagan to tap into the disenchantment of the American people. The media did not embrace Reagan, they just turned on Carter. Whether this happens to Obama is yet to be seen.

Like Obama, the media loved Carter in 1976. But they were not complicit in his being elected. Most Americans were disenchanted with moderate Republican policies the same way as they were leading up to the 2008 elections. But Jimmy Carter was a much more experienced candidate who didn't have a hidden agenda. It's hard to think the media would have covered it up had Jimmy Carter had any associations with radicals or socialists. And, the Ford campaign would have touted that in 1976 rather than muzzle its VP candidate.

The latest polls are beginning to show what I've suspected would happen for months now. Sarah Palin's hard work and the shedding of the image that she's a lightweight is paying off for her. While her unfavorables are still high, she now leads the field of 2012 GOP contenders. Ronald Reagan began to emerge as the favorite for the nomination around this time between 1976 and 1980 because he, too, was working like a dog.

Liberals and naysayers are still saying she's too polarizing and that she's too extreme. Republican party insiders are afraid that this may be the iron ball that Palin may not be able to get off her leg no matter how hard she runs. Even she, herself, told Sean Hannity that she would have to weigh this factor when making her decision to run. People will never shrug this off until they have no choice and it comes down to choosing either her or Obama. That's the way it was for Reagan, too.

Now you have the history lesson. I have reported. Now you decide. If you want to hear my analysis, read further.

Republican insiders are going to say that Sarah Palin will not be able to win the presidency even if she gets the nomination. They will tell you that her high negatives will offset Obama's poor showing as president and give him a better chance of winning. If you consider that Mickhail Gorbachev claims that George H.W. Bush told him "he believed Ronald Reagan was an 'extreme conservative' supported by 'blockheads and dummies,'" you can only imagine what is being said behind closed doors in today's GOP.

First of all, Ronald Reagan also had high unfavorables. Liberals hated him, just as they hate Sarah Palin. The myth that Ronald Reagan swept into power riding a wave of overwhelming popularity is not true. Ronald Reagan won the nomination in good fashion. But the general election was a haul. He never led in the polls until a week before election day. That week before, he debated Jimmy Carter for the only time and the numbers changed when the American people got to see the real Ronald Reagan, and not the Reagan that was being portrayed by the left.

Sarah Palin turned the polls around in the 2006 gubernatorial debate. She stopped what would have been a further decline in the polls for the McCain campaign with her performance in the 2008 vice presidential debate, although she was up against a financial collapse and a media that volunteered to work for the Obama campaign. People call her an idiot and a lightweight, unnamed aides say she wasn't prepared for the VP debate and critics make fun of her speaking style and choice of words. Yet her record shows she can kick people's asses in debates. A "death panel" moment in the 2012 presidential debates could be a political death panel moment for the Obama administration.

Secondly, although Ronald Reagan won the 1980 election 489 electoral votes to 49 with a spread of 51%-41% in popular vote, that vote was more a repudiation of Jimmy Carter than a committed following for Reagan. So even if 41% of the people say "not over my dead body," I wouldn't cancel the appointment with the interior decorator to measure the drapes. It's not as important for Sarah Palin to become as worshipped by the rest of America as she is by her fans, but rather it's important that she convince enough people who don't like Obama that they can trust her or that she is the lesser of two evils. She only needs 10% of the 51% of the people who say they don't like her to say they don't like Obama even more.

Finally, the American people are a fickle bunch. While most people who follow politics even to a small degree are fairly set in their ideology, many Americans are more interested in their own situation whether it's working hard to put food on the table or satisfying their entertainment needs by watching sports, soap operas, movies or shows like American idol. And just because someone today says they don't like Palin doesn't mean they won't like her tomorrow.

This is not a put down on the American people. The Founders understood this and chose to set us up as a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. The American people are supposed to pursue life, liberty and happiness. They're not supposed to be watching cable news every night and going to rallies because they're scared out of their mind that the country is going down the dumper.

The American people just want to know if the candidate can do the job. If you are the incumbent and you show you couldn't do the job, your out. If your the incumbent and you show you can do the job, you're in. Reagan's 1984 victory, unlike in 1980, was a clear show of support and following by the American people who had by then become his fans. Don't expect the American people to be laying palms at Sarah Palin's feet even if she does win in 2012. It will be up to her to make that happen in 2016.

We are an "American idol" society. Partisans will either hate her or love her. The ones in the middle are going to be looking at her performance, her style and her charisma. She could sing the phone book like Kelly Pickler and win. She could explain the intracacies of War and Peace and lose. It's going to be about perception, those "say it ain't so, Joe" and "hows that hopey changey thing going" moments and it's going to be about her fire and brimstone speeches. Although we understand how important conservative political dogma is, it will not matter to Joe Sixpack that she can explain the existential differences between statists and constitutionalists. It's going to be if they believe they will make more money under her as president than under the current disaster we have now.

I know some of you hate when I say Sarah Palin is Ronald Reagan. But this is because of how she embodies the spirit of who he was. We all know that Sarah Palin isn't really Ronald Reagan. There will never be another Reagan. But there will also never be another Sarah Palin. In that, Sarah Palin is the next great one and she is Reaganesque, deserving to be considered for a spot on the same top shelf as Reagan pending the completion of her accomplishments.

Sarah Palin is going to win the presidency. I'm not just saying that as a fan. I'm saying it as an analyst and I'm saying it as a political scientist. If I thought she wasn't going to win, I'd tell you. I'd tell all you Palinistas that read my blogs and my tweets that I love her to death, but I don't think she's going to win. I promise you, whether you are a Palin fan or not, if I ever think she's not going to win, I'll tell you. Unless she tells us first.

But don't go out and order those commemorative President Palin gold coins just yet.

Obviously, anything can happen between now and 2012. Like my late father said, "you can step outside and get hit by a bus; you never know." So don't get all crazy on me and call me a deluded loon because I said she's going to win. Barring any of the natural monkey wrenches that life can throw at you, she will win. Can I guarantee it? No. I can't guarantee you I will wake up tomorrow. But I can tell that based upon the way things are going right now, I'll be up tomorrow. Trust me on this one.

The Blogger Who Got Palin's Mosque Post Removed

PalinPromotions gives us the blog site that encouraged people to report Sarah Palin's Facebook Note about the New York City mosque. Palin's post was taken down. However, she put it back up.

The Palin army is swift, nimble, strong and precise. We will strike down any and all attempts to malign Sarah Palin or smear her.

Like Tammy Bruce said: THERE WILL BE NO MORE FREE SHOTS!

Better pictures are available on Unsheathed.


Updated: Conservatives4Palin's Adrienne Ross reports Brian Reis of the Daily Beast runs the website where that post was made.

Updated: CNN Reports Facebook Apologized to Palin for taking down her Facebook Note about the mosque in NY City.

Raise Your Glasses

I propose a toast to Tucker Carlson, Jonathan Strong and Sarah Palin who broke the media smear campaign wide open today on the The Daily Caller.

Read more here.

While We're on the Subject of Media Lies... (Updated)

Excerpts from an interview Sarah Palin gave to the Bob and Mark Show in November of 2008.


h/t Conservatives4Palin.com

She's as dead on now as she was then.

UPDATE: The Daily Caller has unearthed a number of e-mails from the Journolist forum that plainly and clearly shows what we in the Palinosphere have been saying since the election. It clearly shows that journalists conspired, colluded, compared notes, and enacted media strategies in their reporting with the expressed and complicit purpose of destroying Sarah Palin.

These journalists were not involved in analysis, reporting or even in op-ed writing. They were astroturfing. They were talking about getting enough of them to raise certain issues that it would fly up the media flagpole and get the public's attention to make it look like Sarah Palin was a sexist choice by McCain, portray her as a right wing extremist and to attack her ability to take care of Trig while she was on the road.

Josh Painter at Texas4Palin made another good point in his Quote of the Day (July 21, 2010):

Michael Wiswell at The Bold Pursuit:

"The old school guys (back in the day, most were guys) believed a candidate should never fight the media – after all, the opponent is a Democrat, not the media. This was the rule until she broke it... Sarah Palin is the rainmaker and the game-changer... Palin knew that we had to take on the media and fight it out, which, if you think about it, makes the old 'experts' from both parties look old indeed – they missed it. No wonder [they] don't like her."

In another excellent post, Painter lands this money quote of his own: "the chatter on the then-secret listserv sounded more like what one would hear in a Democrat Party campaign war room than a newsroom, and the debate from the outset was about the best way to attack Gov. Palin."

There are no words to describe what a Constitutional crisis this could have become had journalists like Andrew Breitbart and Tucker Carlson not hit the pavement and wear out the soles of their shoes in pursuing the sludge that we all in the Palinoshere knew all along was there.

When America's three branch system of government with it's separation of powers is intentionally undermined... and yes I say intentionally... by the fourth estate, the watchdog envisioned by our Founders, it raises serious concerns about the future of how our democracy will function.

Our system of government could not have come into being and thrived for as long as it did if we did not have citizens in the journalism industry keeping another check and balance on the government by being our eyes and ears. Throughout history, the media has unearthed government corruption and provided information on issues of the day that, as Thomas Jefferson put forth, was necessary in order to have an informed electorate.

The media in 2008 decided that instead of informing the electorate, they were going to lie to them and push memes that would influence the average person who does not spend hours on the internet like some of us geeks do.

American journalism died, as Sean Hannity said, in 2008. While it has always been a staple of American debate and a positive addition to the exchange of ideas to have opposing opinions and ideas discussed and argued on the op-ed pages of our newspapers and now in blogs, it was never, and never should be, the role of the media to influence elections, hide facts or distort facts where the flow of objective information is involved.

These journalists that the Daily Caller has exposed are not wrong for having opinions. However, they are traitorist in the method by wish they disseminated, twisted, distorted and withheld information that was crucial for the American people to have in order to make an informed decision about who they would vote for.

I submit for debate the analysis that America made a huge mistake in electing Barack Obama - a mistake that will have serious negative impacts on the world stage both economically and in the arena of foreign policy. And America made this mistake because the media lied to them and did not provide the proper information, context or understanding of who Sarah Palin was and who Barack Obama was.

Barack Obama's socialist associations with the likes of Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers were completely ignored or glossed over by the mainstream media. ACORN's explicit partisanship in recruiting Obama voters was a national disgrace that the media swept under the rug. The media should have been all over a government funded organization actively campaigning for Barack Obama. Instead they chose to focus their attention on Troopergate, which was nothing more than a family issue for the Palins. And if Sarah Palin was not governor, Todd Palin would as a citizen of the state of Alaska still have had every right to question the commissioner on why a rogue cop was not being fired for threatening someone, whether it was his sister in-law or some unknown lady somewhere in Nome.

At the same time they were portraying an outright distortion of the merits of voting for Barack Obama, they were destroying the character of a woman who had done nothing wrong except miss a couple of questions in an interview. They put her under a microscope while the media turned their backs to serious allegations about socialists infiltrating our government.

John McCain and Sarah Palin did not just run against Barack Obama. They ran against the entire media establishment as well. For all intents and purposes, Barack Obama won an unfair, although legal, election because it was two on one. Had this been a fight, it would be like having one boxer having to fight two, with the second fighter being the referee. The election was a sham. The American people were ripped off by the media and they should be as angry about this as if it was Watergate.

John Ziegler understated it when he called it media malpractice. It actually was media fraud.

America was duped by the media. Barack Obama was elected under false pretenses. The job of the media to provide information and facts to the America people was abdicated in favor of agenda driven journalism. That's not only a shame, that's a threat to our democracy. America has been defrauded and the time has come for the new media to step up to the plate and assist in the rebuilding of a seriously broken fourth estate.

Attention Yahoos: We Are On Offense Now

Right around the time of Barack Obama's inauguration, I wrote a webpage where I outlined what I thought needed to be done to save the conservative movement and bring it back to power. Although, I have updated it as new examples, quotes and links have come up, the basic tenets of the page have not changed as I had made a commitment to myself that the basic tenets would not change given the importance of conservatives sticking to what they're supposed to do and not veer off the road like we've done in the past.

The main focus of the page was to express the need to make the point that the media lies and to outline ways that we could beat the liberals at their own game.

We must begin a long drawn out campaign to fight the anti-conservative, anti-Palin, anti-Beck, anti-Limbaugh smear attack that is occuring right now. We must respond to these misguided individuals. Don't pick petty fights. Just write calmly. Focus on attacking the media and getting moderates, independents and libertarians to understand that they are being duped. Call liberals and power elites on their Alinsky tactics. Let them know you understand the rules of the game and are prepared to defeat them.

And, don't be naive. Understand what we're dealing with. They are hell bent on destroying our movement.

I wrote a post for Palin Twibe about how Sarah Palin is one with her followers. She sees what we see and she wants what we want. She has our back and we have hers. She stands for what we believe in. We stand for what she believes in.

Sarah Palin has stood for the causes of activists like Pamela Geller who don't want the mosque in New York by using Twitter and Facebook. She stood for conservative talk radio show hosts like Tammy Bruce by going on their shows. She stood for supporters of life by fundraising for them. She stood for business people by doing speeches for them. She stood for the military by visiting wounded soldiers and speaking out on her Facebook page and Twitter. She stood for people like Nikki Haley who wanted to rid their government of corruption. She stood for Israel and she stood for the oppressed people of Iran.

Now she stands for my cause. For me, my message has and always been "the media lies." If there is anyone who is one with me on my cause now, it's Sarah Palin. So I stand with her, proud to read her tweets and Facebook note on the subject and let you know that these quotes of hers are right on the money.

http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/19103991416
http://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/19102724753
http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/19084159250

We are on offense now. With the Daily Caller firing with all barrels, Andrew Breitbart exposing ACORN and the NAACP for the partisans they really are, Conservatives4Palin shooting down with precision every liberal missile aimed at Palin and little ole me sitting here at the keyboard just trying to convince people that the media has warped their sense of who the Tea Party is, who Sarah Palin is and who we are as conservatives, we are lighting it up now, baby!

To quote Tammy Bruce, "there will be no  more free shots."

Sarah Palin is Playing You Dopey Liberals Like A Piccolo

The key to public relations and selling your brand is to get your name out and to keep it the minds of everyone who hears it. We know that Hollywood actors and actresses, companies that sell new and innovative products, musicians and bands and of course politicians rely on popularity and name recognition as their way of selling their product or brand. A friend of mine whose sister is in the public relations business is not a big Sarah Palin fan. But he knows one thing, being familiar with his sister's business and having helped her from time to time. He has told me regardless of Palin's politics or what he thinks of her, she is the greatest self promoter he has ever seen in the business.

Installing a song, a product, a movie or a politician's name into the brain requires getting it into the subconscious of people to really make it stick. If you can hum that tune that's stuck in your head or if you can remember a movie because the actress appeared in a bikini in a tabloid, you have been marketed to successfully.

Sarah Palin is blitzing the subconscious minds of millions of Americans. For those who like her, it's a good thing because it reinforces their belief that she is a great American with a good heart who is trying to do good things for our country. When she gets into their subconscious, it interacts with all that is good in their hearts. For those who don't like her, particularly hard core left wing liberals and old school crony elites, it's not a good mix. Those who are already troubled deep down in their psyche because their ideology is flawed, their set ways of retaining power for self gain is on shaky ground or maybe just because they're already a miserable person to begin with will find a major firing of neurons of the painful variety when that off balanced brain is attacked with Palin stimuli.

Thus, you have the miserable sacks of human waste who go to the comment boards of articles about Palin and spout off stupid stuff about how dumb she is and wishing she would die and all that nonsense. These people think they are getting others to buy into the meme that Sarah Palin's existence should be "refudiated" or that she should go get her own country with a fence around it. They're not. They're showing other people how deeply miserable and troubled they are. They are revealing their inner hell and most of us positive people don't want to have anything to do with that. Negativity is like cancer and it spreads. Smart people stay away from it.

Fat, over-coffeed and wasting your day posting stupid idiotic comments about someone whose garbage you wouldn't even be qualified to take out is no way to go through life.

Sarah Palin wrote on her hand and the moronosphere went nuts. She wrote "energy", "budget cuts", "tax cuts" and "lift American spirits." She did two things that day. She planted the line "how's that hopey changey thing going?" And she wrote on her hand. We don't remember that it was the Nashville Tea Party Speech 2/16/2010. Yet political scientists who watch that speech over will tell you it was one of her best ones to date. They think that because the substance of the speech was excellent, it was a well written speech and a well delivered speech. But is it possible that speech ranks high because of the subconscious stuff she did? Only a psychologist can figure that one out.

Here's why she wrote on her hand. The bumper sticker stuff, the stuff that any moron can remember is a catchy slogan like "hopey changey." But the core meat, the actual intellectual stuff, the political philosophy and issue positions are too boring for our pea brains to take in.

She didn't write on her hand because she's dumb. She did it because we're dumb. I'm not saying that as a put down. I'm saying it as a psychological truth. We are more interested in how many days Lindsay Lohan is spending in jail than we are about the intracacies involved in the Financial Reform law. It's human nature. It's the way we are. Sarah Palin was trying to teach us the boring political philosophy stuff while trying to entertain us with a fun speech at the same time. Her father was a teacher. He knows the techniques. She knows them, too.

Human nature is human nature. You have to train the brain to learn. Naploean Hill once wrote that in order to control how we think, we need to to control what we put into our subconscious mind. We don't want to be failures. But some of are. We manifest who we are by acts of commission where we teach our brains to think the right way or by acts of ommission where we allow anything to go into our brains, even if its crap.

Those who market, market to the ones who allow anything to go into their brains.

Those who control their brains already know whether someone like Sarah Palin fits their ideological make up. If she does, great. If she doesn't, no big deal. There are a bunch of folks on the left who will never vote for her and there are a bunch of us on the right who will.

But there are a bunch of mush brains sitting on the fence. They are not liberals. They are not conservatives. They are people who have allowed the lying media and filty slobs of the left to put garbage into their brains. And like a gumball machine full of the black ones, for every cherry red one you want to put in there, you have to remove a black one. When the machine is full, that takes time.

So Sarah Palin needs to put the cherry red ones in. But many people still have the black ones in there. So you know what she does? She gets everyone to spew out all the black ones with a dastardly trick. She turns the meme that she's dumb back on them and suddenly her name is being stuck into the brains of millions. Normal people will think it's stupid that the media is going to the lengths they are to go after her for a silly human mistake. Those are the people she is shooting for.

We know politicians who talk a lot and write a lot are going to trip up. I know Barack Obama will stumble on words from time to time. I know Reagan did. I know Bush did. I know the most trained media people do. Other than the "57 states" gaffe (which I think is more than a gaffe - it's a real slip up for someone trying to cover up who he really is), I wouldn't even care about Obama's verbal or rhetorical mistakes other than to use the multitude of them to rebut those who put every nuance of Sarah Palin under a microscope. Other than that, I know he's human.

She said the word refudiate on Hannity's show. She meant to say repudiate. But it was stuck in her head. We all have nuances. For months I spelled hatred as "hatrid" even though I knew it was wrong. I finally got it out of my head. She's human, too. But Sarah Palin realized that she said refudiate instead of repudiate and instead of letting the media control the meme, she turned it back on them.

She knew when she posted that tweet that she wrote refudiate. She deleted the tweet.... on purpose. She knew that people have applications that would keep the deleted tweet. She knew that if she posted "refute" instead of repudiate that she would double whammy the moronoshere.

Ozzy Osbourne was trying to market himself as a wild man so that his rock and roll persona would sell albums and get people to come to his concerts. He had people throwing plastic bats on the stage and he was biting the heads off. But someone threw him a curveball - they threw him a real bat. He bit its head off.

The headlines were negative. Ozzy was an idiot or he was evil or he was cruel to animals or whatever the meme of the day was. He had a conversation with Alice Cooper who told him not to worry. Cooper told him it doesn't matter whether they believed him or not that he didn't mean to bite the head off that bat; it matters that they're talking about it. Bad press is better than no press.

Did that stop Ozzy Osbourne from pursuing his career? Did that stop fans from coming to his shows or buying his albums? No. The more the buzz, even bad buzz about animal cruelty or being a devil worshipper and so on helped him. It helped him attract the people who could look past all that petty stuff and it helped him repel the people who couldn't.

Sarah Palin is playing the liberal media now, although they still think they are playing her. She's on to them - that they have been playing the subconscious mind game. Since she appeared on the stage with John McCain in 2008, they have been bombarding us with lies and innuendo. There are people today who still thinks she kills turkeys or shoots wolves from helicopters for sport. There are people who still think she can see Russia from her house.

Jean Paul Sartre said Hell is other people. He also said not to fear the look because you can always look back. We've been afraid other people would destroy Sarah Palin. We've been afraid that we couldn't stop the damage the media has done to her. We've been pulling our hair out since 2008 about the media and her. They've been looking at us. We have not been looking at them, until now.

When the student is ready, the teacher will appear. Sarah Palin has been trapped in a steel cage, a media hell. So when you're trapped in the steel cage with an enemy that wants to kill you, what do you do? You beat them at their own game of course. She will not be able to get out of the cage until she defeats the enemy and can climb to the top and open the gate. She can defeat the media and therein lies her path to victory.

The liberals and the media have been playing a vicious mind game with us. Knowing they can't defeat Sarah Palin in the arena of ideas, they are trying to constantly plant bad caricatures of her into our minds hoping we will not see who she really is. Sarah Palin has found a way to beat them. Those who are afraid she's unelectable because of the media, fear not. She figured out their game and she's playing it back at them. Why do you think she posted the Daily Caller story about JournoListgate on her Facebook page? It's something I've been saying since we lost the election. Hammer it home. Don't sell Sarah Palin. Sell the people on the fact that the media lies to them. Once they realize that, they'll figure the rest out.

Sarah Palin has been championing the cause I set forth early on right after Obama was elected. Anyone who knows me, knows that the rebuttal to any argument is "the media lies" and let's beat them at their own game. Andrew Breitbart is using Shirley Sherrod to smear the NAACP. Why? Because they smeared the Tea Party. Two wrongs don't usually make a right, but in this case it does because you do have to fight fire with fire. When we didn't fight the fire with fire, George W. Bush and the Republicans got crushed.

The liberals got Sarah Palin to resign. We got Van Jones to resign. It's a game. Yes, it's high stakes. But you have no choice but to know the game or politically die. It's that simple. Rush Limbaugh warned us for years that the liberals were not just trying to beat us, they were trying to destroy us. This is a fight to the political death, not bean bag.

The liberals won the last election. They own the board. Unfortunately, we have to play their game. We may not like getting our hands dirty, but getting out of quicksand requires getting mud on yourself. We are smarter than them. We can beat them at their own game. When we win, then we can make the rules. Then the grown ups can be in charge.  Elections have consequences. Til then, we rock.

I don't know how cool it is under blogger ettiquette to quote comment posts, but it's important to read this one from SE Cupp's article in today's New York Daily News. If you didn't understand a single word of my post, maybe this will make more sense:

Word trouble? Hardly. Sarah Palin plays the parrott press like a piccolo, then chuckles all the way to the bank. Remember, she said "refudiate" in a "Hannity" appearance, but got no response, so a few days later, she wrote it out on "Twitter" so everyone could see the spelling; and, Bingo!

It's like dangling a yarn string out in front of a cat now, isn't it?

Now let's go win!

Kill the Ground Zero Mosque

An Intolerable Mistake on Hallowed Ground - Sarah Palin



Please read my Palin Twibe blog post about Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin is the idiot?

Sanctimonious liberalism at it's best. Sarah Palin is the idiot? Any liberals care to "refudiate" this video?


h/t Conservatives4Palin.com

Psychological Projection
"Paleo-anthropologically speaking, this faculty probably had survival value as a self-defense mechanism when homo sapiens' intellectual capacity to detect deception in others improved to the point that the only sure hope to deceive was for deceivers to be self-deceived and therefore behave as if they were being truthful."

Keep This Handy For When You Change Your Mind About Palin

This is specifically for the fence sitters with the "ah, I like Sarah Palin but I don't think she can be president" opinion. I give my express permission to copy and paste this and use it as your own when the time comes.

I realize for many, there is still more that has to happen to convince you. But hold on to this until at least January or February of 2011. If you still don't need it then, hold on to it until 2012.

Here goes:

I have had serious reservations about Sarah Palin's qualifications for the presidency since the 2008 election.

I was shaken up by the Katie Couric interview. It appeared that John McCain had picked someone that was not ready to be president. While I don't think it cost him the election (she energized the base and the financial collapse hit at the worst possible time), it did bother me that unnamed aides were pointing out that she didn't know certain important things.

Sarah Palin is a good conservative and has done many good things for the conservative cause. However, it was hard to get past a lot of the lingering doubts in my mind.

I began to question all of that when she wrote her book (which became a best seller) and continued to draw huge crowds at speaking engagements even though she was now a private citizen. It caused a kind of cognitive dissonance as to how this person who has been portrayed by the media as not being smart enough to be president was capable of reaching out to millions of people via her Facebook page, appear on Fox News as a contributor, communicate her positions on issues effectively and make a string of political endorsements that turned out to be winners; and for the few that were not, the candidates lost by much smaller margins than they otherwise would have.

How is possible that the caricature that has been painted by the media and GOP insiders is completely different from the reality of how well she really is doing? I don't see any of the other candidates getting the headlines or the face time that she is in the political arena. Yet, they call her dumb.

After seeing her speech to the Tea Party Convention in Tennessee and the video "Mama Grizzlies," I think this woman is extremely savvy. No one as dumb as the political meme sets forth could resign her governorship, write a book, release such a powerful video and raise the kind of money her PAC has if the meme was correct. And how is it possible she has a 76% favorability rating among Republicans?

I think its time to rethink Sarah Palin. Discard all the media damage caused by left wingers and disaffected insiders and take a fresh look at her. In doing so, I think you will find that she is much more qualified a presidential candidate than the way she is being presented by the media.

What kind of sauce goes with crow, and can you please pass it.

Discounting her chances and discounting her abilities was a big mistake.

(Insert Your name here) - (Insert your town here)


If you think I'm kidding, read this. It's starting already.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/37679/time-sarah-palin-rethink-she-redefines-gop

Sarah Palin Was At Ground Zero and There Should Be No Mosque

There should not be a mosque near the World Trade Center site. 52% of New Yorkers agree. So does Sarah Palin.

Pamela Geller has been a strong advocate against the mosque. She has been going to rallies and speaking out on her website. She has had Sarah Palin's back long before it was popular to do so. Sarah Palin now has her back.

I went to ground zero in 2006 and took this picture:

When Sarah Palin was running for Vice President in 2008, this picture was taken by the press:

You don't know how much that picture means to me. When I saw Sarah Palin touching that plaque, I was so moved. It reminded me of that day in 2006 when I walked around Ground Zero. I tried to hide the tears in my eyes, but my buddy told me, "it's okay, we'll get them."

There is no way in hell that a mosque should be built there.

Karen Handel For Georgia Governor

I am endorsing Karen Handel for Georgia Governor because there is a trend in this country toward returning pricipled people to positions of leadership. As a Republican, I watched my party detoriate after Ronald Reagan left the national stage in 1992. I walked into the liberal bastion of a college town in upstate New York in 1984 to register to vote after liberal students successfully lobbied the state to allow students to register to vote in the town or city where they went to college as opposed to their hometown. When I checked off the Republican box for my party affiliation, I did so to stick it in their faces and to register my support for the great Ronald Reagan. And I officially became a Republican.

My party was not supposed to become a party of cronies or good ole boys. I've watched my country go down the toilet because GOP insiders were more interested in retaining power and relationships with people who were running their businesses into the ground while getting special favors or getting special treatment from government. That nonsense got us in trouble with liberals before Reagan and it got us in trouble with liberals after.

The Democrats were able to seize power in 2008 because Republicans were too couched and too wrapped up in seeing to it that their own individual interests were placed above those of the people they represent and the party to which they were supposed to serve.

Knowing that the Democrat party was even worse and filled with more sludge than my party, I stayed the course almost conceding the fact that now that Ronald Reagan was gone, politics would return to being, like he said, the second oldest profession on earth. I love my party and now I have an opportunity to see it win again -  the right way this time.

Sarah Palin hit the scene and suddenly there was a chance that returning integrity to my party was possible. I've always been amazed as a businessman that entrepreneurs big and small always compete for market niche, yet the market niche for integrity is wide open. That is where I intend to focus on in my business. There is no competition there. A lot of people are scum. Call me cynical, but also call me self interested and call me greedy. If there is a vacuum in the segment where integrity is required, I want to capitalize on that.

And in politics, the same rings true. Democrats and Republicans have been selling us bills of goods and talking out of both sides of their mouths since Bill Clinton became president. There are sections of the political spectrum that have been filled by many candidates on both sides of the aisle. But one section that went virtually ignored until Sarah Palin hit the scene is "right wing integrity-ist."

Palin is trying to fill that section with her endorsements. One of those is Karen Handel who, like Palin, puts principle before politics. I may be just a ditto or a rubber stamp of whoever Sarah Palin endorses. That's fine. Say what you will. I am so in agreement with what Sarah Palin is doing and the reasoning behind why she endorses certain candidates that it is fair to say I'm in the tank. But I'm in the tank for a reason.

If I want my country back, I need to take my party back first so it can win. Sarah Palin is a hero and a warrior that is allowing me to see that happen. For all of her fine work and effort, I salute her and am proud to endorse the person she has brought to my attention, Karen Handel.

When Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie won their governorships, I knew we were beginning to put the first pieces of the puzzle into the rebuilding and retaking of our great beacon of freedom, the United States of America. Seeing leaders like Nikki Haley and Karen Handel rise to the forefront just raises my hope even more that we can make this place as great as it was when Reagan was president.

Please support Karen Handel for Governor of Georgia.

Join Sarah Palin and Governor Jan Brewer and support Karen Handel for Governor

Conservative Patriots Group In Alaska Says It Will Rescind Treadwell Endorsement If...

...the group learned Mr.Treadwell supported Senator Lisa Murkowski

According to a press release just issued by the Eddie Burke for Lt. Governor of Alaska campaign, the Conservatives Patriots Group may have to rescind its endorsement of Mead Treadwell for Lt. Governor of Alaska.

According to the press release, "CPG Board Member Frank Bettine publicly stated the group would rescind its endorsement of Mr. Treadwell if the group learned Mr.Treadwell supported Senator Lisa Murkowski."

The Federal Election Commission website shows that Treadwell donated $500.00 to Murkowski's campaign on March 3, 2010. The Burke campaign has not been able to find any donations to Joe Miller, who is running against Murkowski in the 2010 GOP Senatorial primary.

It raises the question of whether the CPG did its homework and properly vetted the candidates before making its endorsement.

The CPG describes themselves on their website as being "committed to electing conservative candidates, advancing conservative ideas, promoting traditional American values, advocating responsible resource development and supporting a strong military."

Treadwell's support for Murkowski puts the group's endorsement in a contradiction with its principles since it endorsed Joe Miller for Senate.

What is Up With Two of the Three Republicans for Alaska Lt Gov?

Jay Ramras and Mead Treadwell are having some credibility problems in the Lieutenant Governor's race in Alaska.

"I have to laugh that Jay Ramras, the guy who sold his stance on Pebble Mine to Bob Gillam for a hefty 'donation' by (Christian) Gillam to Jay's synagogue is going to stand up and point fingers at Sarah Palin right now," ER Dee wrote on ADN.com in April 2009.

It is also coming to light that Mead Treadwell gave contributions to Democrats Matt Claman and Sheila Selkregg.

Are there any real candidates running for Lieutenant Governor in Alaska that are who they say they are? Actually, yes, there is one. Eddie Burke has been a long time conservative activist and radio talk show host who, despite whatever criticisms his opponents may try to throw it him, can never be accused of not being consistent and who does not have a record of saying one thing and doing another.

Eddie Burke has stood up to the establishment when it was cool and when it wasn't cool. He has taken strong stands on the 2nd Amendment, parental rights and economic freedom. His positions are steady and they are strong. There is no flip-flopping on environmental issues and there are no seedy contributions to "the enemy" or from "friends." While the other two candidates try to claim they are conservatives, Eddie really is one.

Alex Gimare wrote this about Jay Ramras in 2007 at a time when folks were getting fed up with the good ole boys' network:

A Republican member of the Alaska Legislature joined the anti-Pebble Mine fight in early September by sending a letter of concern to the State Attorney General’s Dep artment of Law Criminal Division accusing Northern Dynasty, the local company pursuing the Pebble Mine of bribing local native leaders with jobs, cash, and other inducements for their support of the mine. Rep. Jay Ramras (R – Fairbanks) apparently does not think that hiring locals to work in new projects is a good thing. Northern Dynasty has been out in the region, schmoozing the locals, promising jobs, hiring people, and doing the things necessary to get a multi-billion project off the ground, all in the face of withering, hysterical environmentalist and NIMBY opposition. None of this is against the law. Native leaders in the region immediately cried foul, accused Ramras of libel, and st arted threatening lawsuits. I expect a few to be filed. Ramras, who had a reasonable reputation as a conservative, apparently has become close to the chief anti-Pebble opponent Bob Gillam. Gillam donated a small amount to Ramras, well within the limit of current Alaska campaign finance laws. On the other hand, he also donated $10,000 to Ramras’ Jewish Temple in the Fairbanks area. The donation was discussed in excruciating detail on local Anchorage talk radio late last week. Ramras may have stepped in it big time regarding Pebble, as the Fairbanks area is pretty supportive of mining and development, and has long had its fill of anti-development greens, NIMBYs like Gillam and their enablers in both parties. Apparently Ramras allowed himself to get schmoozed by Gillam into taking an anti-mining stance all under the guise of fighting corruption. There are primaries next August for the legislature. This includes the House of Representatives in the state legislature. I expect Ramras to have some opposition, as this thing to blow up nicely in his face.

Ramras was not the only one "dancing with the devil." A lot of questions are now being raised by conservatives and independents after Burke's campaign uncovered contributions to Democrats from "so called conservative" Mead Treadwell. The Burke campaign put out this press release:

Documentation available from the Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) indicates that Alaskan voters should pay close attention to the recipients of Mr. Treadwell’s recent political donations. While his close friendship, support for and countless donations to Senator Lisa Murkowski’s campaigns are public knowledge, it is his donations to liberal, big-government Democrats Matt Claman (here and here) and Sheila Selkregg (here) that should concern Republicans and Independents alike.

According to his APOC Contribution Report, Mr. Treadwell donated $100 to Ms. Selkregg’s Anchorage Municipal Campaign. He also donated $200 on two separate occasions (March 2009, February 2010) to Matt Claman’s Anchorage Municipal Campaign, totaling $400. In fact, according to APOC, Mr. Treadwell’s most recent candidate contribution was to Mr. Claman. Did it ever cross Mr. Treadwell’s mind that he was donating $400 to an individual who sponsored the divisive Ordinance 64: The Anchorage Gay Non-Discrimination Ordinance? These are not the actions of a “real conservative.

On the contrary, this sounds like an individual who is playing both sides of the fence – a candidate who talks the conservative talk, but does not walk the conservative walk. Alaskans should be asking, “Why is a so-called conservative candidate providing financial support to such liberal politicians?”

Alaska has a chance to move forward and grow stronger. The choice is between a two-faced, back room, crony good ole boy network style of politics from the past or real and courageous conservativism. There is only one guy that demonstrates the grit and determination to make his state a place to be proud of. The other two are just trying to crawl back into the dirty holes of corrupt politics that existed prior to the Palin administration when Alaskan politics made the state look more like the alternative in "It's a Wonderful Life" that was known as Pottersville.

In Regards to the Romney - Palin Follower Feud

It was a day in which unnamed Romney aides bashed Sarah Palin causing the potential 2012 presidential candidate to send a tweet calling his aides "numbskulls." Palin people attacked immediately, showing the world that Palin bashing will be met with instant retaliation. You are dealing with Palin surrogates who flooded into the Palin camp shortly after the 2008 election when media malpractice and a DNC smear campaign went unchecked during the 57 days Palin ran for Vice President.

I was a Mitt Romney supporter in 2008. I am a Reagan Republican who was not happy with the choice of candidates. I liked Fred Thompson, but he wasn't getting anywhere so when he dropped out early, I ended up going with Romney. By the time the Virginia primary came around he was pretty much out but I voted for him anyway since the other candidate was a RINO (no offense, Senator - you later redeemed yourself with a brilliant VP pick).

I'm not a Republican establishment type, but I do like qualified candidates with the right ideology. I felt Romney was qualified. I didn't think anyone in the primary except maybe a weak Thompson had the ideology. Since the ideology I was looking for wasn't available, it was a pick the best guy available for the job moment.

Romney is an intelligent man who has proven he can run businesses and even turn around failing ones. He would bring a strong economic background to the table and he would be a good communicator as much now as he would have back then.

But this time around, there is someone with both the ideology and the right qualifications. Prior to August 29, 2008, no one expected that there would be a game changer for anyone seeking the presidency. Obama's camp immediately reacted with fear and embarked on a smear campaign unprecented in American politics. Romney aides seem to be having the same knee jerk reaction fearing that as Palin's numbers strengthen (she's not there yet, but she is slowly proving to everyone that she is a top shelf contender) it is time to take her out.

That's not going to happen.

The Republicans who are not in the Palin camp need to keep focused on Obama's reckless agenda and get behind the effort to take over Congress. Forget Palin for now. That battle will be fought later. If fought fairly, win or lose, we will all take the shining city together. If it is not fought fairly, Romney surrogates and even the candidate himself stand to be damaged by political fallout that could doom his shot at the presidency. Even if Romney wins the nomination, he has to convince the Tea Party and the Palin camp to come along. That's going to be hard to do if he had his thugs beat her in a rhetorical dark alley.

You get more flies with honey. The only problem for Romney-ites is that you may catch the wrong fly. So they are stuck between the vinegar and the honey wondering how in the heck they are going to stop this continuing evolution and leveling up of candidate Palin. The only thing they can do is hope she doesn't run an effective campaign or, as many Republican insiders keep planting in the media, she chooses not to run and assist the party and its nominee in winning the presidency.

Fat chance.

Palin is in it to win it. Otherwise, she'd just sit at home and write checks and let her surrogates do all the work. I'm not trying to knock Romney here, but it is the political reality that Palin has been working her tail off while he's been working quietly behind the scenes dealing with Republican establishment types and making his presence known only when the political science textbook says he should.

As a man with a political science degree, I understand - and under normal circumstances - Romney would be the pre-annointed nominee for 2012. But my political science degree has not been worth the paper it's been written on since John McCain introduced us to Sarah Palin and reminded people like me who thought the Reagan shining city on a hill thing was over that it wasn't over.

When I was a Romney supporter, I was sitting there on the deck talking to my buddy on the phone lamenting about how the country was doomed. The phrase "hell in a handbasket" was used frequently as was "better days are behind us." I wanted to buy a t-shirt that said "I went to the shining city on a hill and all I got was this stupid Poli-Sci degree." My country was about to be flushed down the toilet. The piece of paper with the the little ribbon on it told me that it was over. Ronnie is gone; go watch the tapes.

Then "she" happened.

Nothing against Mitt Romney. He's a good man. History rewarded George Herbert Walker Bush who was in a similar position establishment-wise and financially, but whose shot was ruined by some actor from California who said "well" and "gee" a lot that just happened to strike the right chord and get the right picture of America for everyone. He accused Reagan of "voodoo economics" and the attacks on Reagan were not pretty. The GOP survived that because Reagan was smart enough to unite the establishment wing with his grass roots wing and form a winning coaltion. Bush would become VP and eventually be elected president in 1988.

Do I think the same can happen for Romney? History repeats itself. Obama-Carter, Palin-Reagan, Hillary-Ted Kennedy and Bush-Romney all make sense the way I see it.

Do I think Palin should pick Romney to be her running mate? Or vice versa? No. That's not my call. I'm just saying history has been acting awfully funny lately, funny in a sense that I mean it seems to be doing a lot of the same things it did leading up to Reagan's nomination in 1980.

As for Romney, this is why we have primaries. Let's have a fair fight and not go into 2012 bitter and suspicious of our foxhole buddies when it comes time to take the shining city on the hill. Palin's people are quick to the sword, and we all know why given the way the media and "unnamed" aides have treated her. It would be wise for Republicans to heed Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment and not mess with the Barracuda until you have to.

And when that time comes, the battle will be fought in the arena of ideas, not in the rhetorical back alleys as those who think kneecapping her is the only way to win. If they beat her fair and square, their nominee will be worthy. If they beat her with sucker punches, we may not be happy no matter what happens in 2012.

And if she does win, I think we'll all be happy in the long run. It wasn't until 1984 that everyone really realized that Reagan was the man. In 1980, it was just about beating Jimmy Carter. Now it's about beating Barack Obama.