Thursday, September 30, 2010

Obama: The Implosion of a Presidency

-cross posted from The Shining City on a Hill.

The seas have not calmed and the waters have not receded. A record number of homeowners are in foreclosure. More Americans than ever are slipping into poverty. Unemployment is stuck at 9.6% (according to the government). The dollar is dropping. Health care insurance coverage costs are skyrocketing. Businesses are afraid to spend or hire because of the uncertainty of the tax and regulatory environment. Obama administration officials are leaving in droves.  The national debt is at its highest ever and still growing with President Obama on pace to raise the deficit higher than any other president ever. Across the political spectrum and from within his own administration there is talk of losing control, hostility toward military leaders, buyer's remorse, failure to enact the progressive agenda he promised and a sense of desperation as the president's approval numbers drop to nearly 40% as a tidal wave of Republican gains appear likely with the mid term elections.

Newsflavor spoke to a White House insider who says the president is losing it.
I don’t have a problem saying that the president is losing it. I don’t mean he is like losing his mind. I mean to say that he is losing whatever spark he had during the campaign. When you take away the crowds, Obama gets noticeably smaller. He shrinks up inside of himself. He just doesn’t seem to have the confidence to do the job of President, and it’s getting worse and worse. Case in point – just a few days before I left, I saw first hand the President of the United States yelling at a member of his staff. He was yelling like a spoiled child. And then he pouted for several moments after. I wish I was kidding, or exaggerating, but I am not. The President of the United States threw a temper tantrum. The jobs reports are always setting him off, and he is getting increasingly conspiratorial over the unemployment numbers. I never heard it myself, but was told that Obama thinks the banking system is out to get him now. That they and the big industries are making him pay for trying to regulate them more. That is the frame of mind the President is in these days. And you know what? Maybe he is right, who knows?
Standing alone, the Newsflavor article might not mean that much. But couple it with Bob Woodward's portrayal of a president who "oversaw a staff of bickering advisers and an administration that was rife with infighting during the Afghanistan policy review," and you see a similar picture of a self-absorbed intellectual who lashes out when the frustration reaches a certain point. Peter Baker of The New York Times writes:
As for Mr. Obama himself, the book describes a professorial president who assigned “homework” to advisers but bristled at what he saw as military commanders’ attempts to force him into a decision he was not yet comfortable with. Even after he agreed to send another 30,000 troops last winter, the Pentagon asked for another 4,500 “enablers” to support them.

The president lost his poise, according to the book. “I’m done doing this!” he erupted.

To ensure that the Pentagon did not reinterpret his decision, Mr. Obama dictated a six-page, single-space “terms sheet” explicitly laying out his troop order and its objectives, a document included in the book’s appendix.

Mr. Obama’s struggle with the decision comes through in a conversation with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who asked if his deadline to begin withdrawal in July 2011 was firm. “I have to say that,” Mr. Obama replied. “I can’t let this be a war without end, and I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”
Clearly, there is a willingness on the part of Obama to put his concerns about losing the Democratic Party as a priority over winning a war and doing what's right for the country. He appears to be feeling squeezed between his base on the left, which has become impatient with his inability to enact progressive change faster, and his detractors on the right who are standing in unison against his legislative agenda.

His response to these pressures has always been to acquiesce to his base and lash out at his opponents. This time, however, Obama scolds his base. Howard Portnoy of The Manhattan Examiner writes:
In an interview in Rolling Stone to appear on Friday, the president asserted, "People need to shake off this lethargy. People need to buck up," adding that "if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place."

And home is exactly where those voters are heading, though only a man in the terminal throes of self-delusion and utter narcissism could accuse them of being unserious. In the first 19 months of Obama’s presidency, the federal debt rose by $2.5260 trillion—more the cumulative total of the national debt amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. Unemployment has risen to 9.6 percent despite his promises that passage of his stimulus would keep the rates at under 8 percent.
This is a breaking point for Obama whose entire presidential raison d'etre is to usher in the hope and change for a radical progressive movement that has spent over a century trying to infiltrate the institutions of the U.S. government. He stands to not only fail at achieving that, but to position himself to be regarded by the mainstream electorate as a weak president in the historical context of Jimmy Carter or Warren G. Harding.

Telling the people to shake off their lethargy is Obama's "malaise" moment. Jimmy Carter described it as "a crisis [of confidence] that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will." Robert Guttman of The Huffington Post writes:
The president needs to show some real concern for the average American. Like the days of Jimmy Carter we are fast approaching a crisis of confidence in the current presidents' leadership style.

I was hoping after a full year in office I would be comparing the president to FDR or Lincoln but instead I am comparing him to the unpopular Jimmy Carter.
"Our liberal friends are wondering where it all went wrong," writes Christopher Chantrill at The American Thinker. It went wrong when the progressive movement decided that they were going to seize the moment in 2008 to take advantage of Obama's charisma and overlook the fact that he was wet behind the ears. After deliberately and methodically moving in over the course of decades, progressives and radicals jumped the gun by sending in a political child to do a man's job thinking that their opportunity had arrived.

David Rothkopf, in talking about Obama's current woes, writes:
Part of the problem here is that this president and his communications team have failed to assume the role of effective leaders of their own party. They have neither connected well with the Hill leadership nor demanded discipline nor provided support.

A bigger part of the problem is just inexperience. Obama hasn't suffered blows like this before and it's hard to be a golden boy all your life and then to face brutal competition. He may have the character to rise to this challenge but thus far he has not demonstrated it. He seems even more withdrawn and aloof than he usually does. What's more he has relied on a team that is also inexperienced or that has cut out the voices within his administration that could really help him deal with the current situation. He has a fairly dysfunctional administration despite the reports of smooth meetings and "no drama." The Woodward book demonstrates this but so do a hundred other bits of evidence.
All the signs were there before Obama was elected president. But they were ignored by too many. Today's buyer's remorse is coming from the people who are realizing that they were duped by what we can now say was a dog and pony show of a campaign where huge promises were made and the people were misled by both a complicit media and a financially strong-armed Democrat party machine to believe that Obama was the second coming of something that he wasn't.

The campaign promise of changing the tone in Washington has turned into a continual lashing out at Republicans, "people waving tea bags" and Fox News when the president is not too busy blaming George W. Bush for all his problems. The campaign image of Obama as a fiscal moderate has turned into the reality of Obama as big spender and redistributor of wealth. The campaign promise of cleaning up corruption and ending the influence of lobbyists has become the Culture of Corruption. I could go on.

This pattern continues throughout his presidency. Even the promises of Obamacare don't match the realities.

Obama supporters are exhausted of defending him. People are asking, where is the hope and change they voted for? As more and more people figure out that the Obama presidency is really just the progressive movement's political To Serve Man, they are getting off their couches to join the ever growing Tea Party movement. Seeing that the frog cannot be boiled the way they are doing it, Democrats and the president are becoming more outwardly frustrated and Republicans are becoming more and more "see I told you so."

During her speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention, Sarah Palin said:
This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much ... he promises more.
Two years later, her words continue to resonate.
My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.
So how's the on the job training going? According to Newsflavor's administration insider:
The president is finding out what it's like to be president. Obama loved to campaign. He clearly didn’t like the work of being President though, and that attitude was felt by the entire White House staff within weeks after the inauguration. Obama the tireless, hard working candidate became a very tepid personality to us. And the few news stories that did come out against him were the only things he seemed to care about. He absolutely obsesses over Fox News. For being so successful, Barack Obama is incredibly thin-skinned. He takes everything very personally.
Normally, this writer would take a quoting an anonymous source like this with a grain of salt. But it wasn't until after the insider was quoted that Obama called Fox News a destructive force and returned to campaigning at a point when the governing part wasn't going so well. The President's behavior seems to collaborate what the Newsflavor's insider says. Even the thin skin showed when he told his supporters to "Buck Up." Sweet Spirits of Ammonia writes, "As usual, Obama plays the blame game never accepting responsibility for what he has caused."

The Democrats are getting desperate and the administration is losing control. So what do they do? They go back to the old dog and pony show with a campaign event in Wisconsin (fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me?). They create a failed "Coffee Party." They can't defeat the Tea Party with rhetoric so they now they are trying their hand at a rally this weekend. Take a look of the types of people who are going.

The whole thing is unravelling and the wheels are falling off.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

It's Not YOUR Seat, Lisa

You will fall off your chair laughing. This is the funniest political video I've ever seen.


A big tip of the hat to Kelly on Twitter

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Alaskans: Be Wary of Democrats in Republican Clothing

Paul Jenkins, editor of the Anchorage Daily Planet, wrote a pro-Berkowitz op ed at the Anchorage Daily News that tries to pull the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting Alaskans by selling the idea that Ethan Berkowitz is more like a Republican than Sean Parnell.  Jenkins' piece makes one wonder exactly which planet his publication's name refers to. Of course no one wants to sell themselves as a Democrat anymore these days. So it's understandable that one would want to throw an elephant suit over the donkey. But this is nothing more than a snow job that will leave the rhetorical Alaskan political road full of potholes at the end of the day.

If Berkowitz is such a "Republican" then Jenkins needs to explain why he wanted to introduce a state income tax in 2002. The supporter of the income tax advocating Berkowitz wastes no time in calling Parnell a "tax-and-spend chief executive" despite the fact that Parnell has not raised taxes since becoming governor, and he is pressing hard to hold the line on spending much like his predecessor was.

Speaking of his predecessor, Jenkins has no problem attacking Parnell by taking a cheap shot at Sarah Palin all in the same spew, calling the Parnell administration "the lifeless spawn of Demi-Gov. Sarah Palin."

Alaskans can see right through that pot shot as well as the naysaying on the gas pipeline (when gas goes back up over $13 per million btu everyone will be kicking themselves in the butt if they pull the plug on AGIA). And, asking Parnell to release the results of AGIA when a number of things have not been determined or finalized yet is akin to complaining that the coach won't tell you who won the game even when it's only the third quarter.

Jenkins complains "Jobs are being lost, investment is off, exploration is down, oil production is dwindling and we have about five years before Alaska tanks." Shouldn't these complaints be directed to President Obama rather than Sean Parnell? How many more moratoriums and lock ups of the ANWR does Alaska need before big nanny state Fedzilla gets state politicians to break down and go running back to Washington begging for other people's money again?

Alaska has weathered the Obama recession much better than most states have because of the policies of Palin and Parnell. I'll cede the point that government jobs also help, but the other sectors are all private. Is Jenkins asking that a Governor Berkowitz do away with government jobs?

Criticizing Governor Parnell for "state maintenance programs and capital spending" makes me think that Berkowitz would rather not have any infrastructure at all. Republicans are fiscally conservative, but they also recognize that spending on projects and infrastructure are a necessary function of state government. Since the budget is balanced (thanks to Palin's and Parnell's stewardship), why is this even an issue?

Don't be fooled by a Democrat in Republican clothing. I've seen this movie before. It's called the Mark Warner story. When he was governor of Virginia, I watched our roads and infrastructure go to pot under his and the subsequent Tim Kaine administration. The suspension-wrecking disaster I used to travel to work has been completely repaved now that Bob McDonnell is running things here.

Alaskans may want to be careful with playing political games with infrastructure spending. They also need to avoid fake elephants.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Chuck Smith For Congress in Virginia's 3rd District

Ever since I moved to Virginia in 2000, every Congressional election has provided me with no choice. Every two years, liberal Democrat Bobby Scott runs unapposed and I leave that race blank on my ballot every time. That is not happening this year. Chuck Smith is opposing him this time. I have someone I can vote for now.

Here in Virginia's 3rd District (which was somehow gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats, and which left me just on the other side of a line that would have put me in Eric Cantor's district), it's an ecclectic mix of urban Democrats and rural Republicans. Comprising the cities of Richmond, Portsmouth and Newport News, it is weighted more in favor of high population areas that vote Democrat over lesser populated areas that vote Republican.

Yet, with a strong anti-incumbent feeling throughout the electorate and the growing Tea Party movement that is bringing serious issues of out of control government spending, soaring deficits and the failure of "hope and change" to the district,  there is hope that more moderate Democrats and independents here could be the key to reversing the effects of gerrymandering and turn this congressional district red.

This is what Chuck Smith is all about:
My Ten Commitments

I, Chuck Smith, commit to you, the voters of the 3rd District,
to work for the following:

1. Increased Employment and Economic Growth. I want to strengthen American businesses by getting the government off their backs, and out of their wallets, so they can focus on hiring the unemployed and building our communities and fueling our way back to prosperity.

2. Cutting Government Spending. We are $13 Trillion in debt, and the politicians are still taking home the pork without restraint. I pledge to vote to reduce government size and government spending, and focus on fiscal responsibility with a balanced budget.

3. No More Bail-outs. Just as businesses should be free to succeed, they should be free to fail. Working Americans should not see their hard-earned money taken to save big businesses from unwise practices. I pledge to protect working Americans from this exploitation.

4. Lower Taxes. Americans cannot afford to send another penny to the federal government, especially not now. We need to keep our money in our communities, to buy products, sold by Americans, in local businesses. As I have pledged to reduce government spending I can confidently pledge to reduce taxes.

5. Real Education Reform. Many government programs simply fund more levels of bureaucrats and do not actually help the children and teachers in the classroom. I will fight for real education reform that better prepares our children to be a productive part of our communities.

6. Cutting Government Waste. We need to cut the waste from every single government program. Too many taxpayer dollars are thrown away, when they could have been spent wisely at home and in the community. I pledge to reduce government waste.

7. Informed Law-Making. I pledge to read every bill before I vote for it, and I promise to fight for a rule-change that requires each bill be posted, in its final form, for five business days before coming to a vote, to make sure all Americans know what’s in the legislation before we pass it. I pledge transparency in all law-making that does not compromise our national security.

8. Secure Borders and Fair Immigration Procedures. Immigration laws must be enforced to protect American citizens, and the immigration process must be simplified to provide a clear and open path for those who wish to join us legally. I commit to protecting Americans first.

9. Strict Enforcement of the Constitution. The great document places limits on government power, and protects our individual liberties. I pledge to uphold those limits and protections.

10. True Representation for the 3rd District. When you send me to Washington, I pledge to work for you, and I’ll keep coming home to you to find out how you think I’m doing.
I encourage everyone who reads this to donate to his campaign. Help us take back my congressional district.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Quotes of the Day 09/23/10

Sarah Palin is on fire edition

Let's start off with a fantastic read written by Sarah Palin: Lies, Damned Lies – Obamacare 6 Months Later; It’s Time to Take Back the 20!

"By the way, when the administration was talking about that independent board that has the statutory power to decide which categories of treatment are worthy of funding based on efficiency calculations (that, again, sounded to me like a panel of faceless bureaucrats making life and death decisions about your loved ones – which, again, is what I referred to as a 'death panel'), it was another opportunity for Americans to hear the truth about Obamacare’s intentions."

Newsbusters on Jack Cafferty's PDS: "On Wednesday's Situation Room, CNN's Jack Cafferty revisited his anti-Sarah Palin obsession and somewhat predictably, grouped U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell with the former Alaska governor, stating it 'feels like Sarah Palin all over again....O'Donnell has some big question marks on her resume, just like...Palin.'"

Lisa Richards:
Whenever good-looking conservative feminists appear on the political scene,  the left rears its frightened chauvinistic hatred of attractive females.  No wonder leftists never decry Islam’s hiding women under black sheets.  Heaven forbid there might be a “cupcake” among them; it would topple the crazy, brutally, male-dominated portion of civilization as we know it!
Lori Ziganto:
Listen, actual sexism should, and does, get pointed out. Deciding to discuss if Sarah Palin had a boob job the day after primaries, as a way to diminish the primary wins of candidates she endorsed? Sexist. The Palin Newsweek cover and “humorous poems“? Sexist.  Journolist’s planned attacks on Palin? Sexist. A democrat congresswoman suggesting that GOP women need to lift their skirts before voting to check to see if they are female? Yes, that’s all sexist.
Susannah Fleetwood: "If they [the mainstream media] dislike you, or find you to be 'spreading the poison', that means you are winning. See Sarah Palin and the Tea Party as exhibit A of this phenomenon."

Ah, and you also know we are winning when Time Magazine says something nice about Sarah Palin.

Jay Newton-Small:
A year ago, Sarah Palin gazed out across this lake as she hunkered down to write a book many felt the world might ignore. She had just resigned as governor of Alaska. The losing 2008 vice-presidential candidate had been roundly written off by what she terms the "lamestream media" as yesterday's news. People in Washington and Wasilla wondered if her time had come and gone. Her "rambling resignation speech should take her off the political map for the duration of the Obama era," wrote conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat.

Her failing became a theme on the right. "She is now a quitter," George Will declared on ABC. Even Fox News became a soapbox for those writing her off. "It is not clear what her strategy here is by exiting the governorship 2½ years through the term," Karl Rove said on one of its shows. He pronounced himself "perplexed" by her rush for "the national stage that she may not yet be prepared to operate in."

What a difference a year makes.

Palin is now more popular nationally, more in demand by conservative groups as a speaker and far richer than she's ever been. She has earned an estimated $9 million by talking and writing — her first book ended up being a best seller, thank you very much — and she has inked a reported $1 million annual contract with Fox News. Oh, and she's become the most important independent endorser in a generation: her 16-11 win-loss record in the recent GOP primaries gives her a lot of political chits to call in if — just to suppose — she were to weigh a presidential run.
Ian Lazaran:
My take on Jimmy Carter is that it's good for our country if what he says should not happen actually does happen. Here is what Carter said should not happen:
But when I ask Carter if he thinks [Palin] will run for president, he responds crisply: “I don’t think she should."
If the second worst President in the last fifty years (Obama is the worst) says that Governor Palin should not run for the presidency, it means that it would be a good thing for the country if she did.
Sarah Palin is not about to let this election slide from conservative hands. She is leading the charge in promoting great candidates to promote our principles in the House and Senate. She is not taking the enthusiasm of conservatives and the tea party for granted. If we’re serious about changing Washington, we must not relent in promoting, aiding, and voting these men and women to office.

Her endorsement of common sense conservatives will heighten activism among the Palinistas and conservatives. Today, Palin launched “Take Back The 20″ endorsing 20 conservatives up against 20 democrats who voted for Obamacare.
I know this isn't directly related to the topic, but I have to give The Other McCain credit for a great picture:

Guys, I'm just letting you know that if you think Sarah Palin was big in 2008 is big now, just wait until 2012 when she'll be a behemoth.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Why Palin Can Win the Presidency in 2012

Barack Obama.

When Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980, he was not the historical giant we read about today. He was a former governor who spent the Carter years doing everything he could do to convince the American people that he was not an extremist. He gave speeches. He did radio spots. He wrote op-eds. Most of all, he spent the time becoming the "anti-Carter." His stinging rhetoric about the Panama Canal and arms control would dog Carter much the way as Sarah Palin's has dogged Obama on spending and health care reform.

Analysts and pundits will spend the next two years (assuming, which I do, that she runs) pulling brain muscles and performing mental gymnastics to figure out where Sarah Palin is going to pick off those 10 or so percent of people who consider her "unfavorable" that she would need to win a general presidential election.

I'd like to save these people some time.

First of all, the 2012 presidential election will be won in the GOP primary barring some unforeseen event that causes Obama to become popular again. Whoever wins the 2012 Republican primary will be the president for the same reasons I lay out below.

Let's examine the latest Rasmussen poll:
Fifty-two percent (52%) of Likely U.S. Voters say their own views are closer to Sarah Palin’s than they are to President Obama’s, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Voters are fairly evenly divided in their views of Palin. Forty-eight percent (48%) view her favorably, while 49% hold an unfavorable opinion of her. This includes 21% with a Very Favorable view and 31% with a Very Unfavorable one. This marks little change from last November when Palin was on a national tour to promote her book, “Going Rogue.”

However, 76% of Republicans and 52% of unaffiliated voters now hold a favorable opinion of Palin.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of GOP voters said in November 2009 that Palin shares the values of most Republican voters throughout the nation. At the same time, 74% of Republicans said their party’s representatives in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters nationwide over the past several years.
Palin is not picking up in the area I knew she wouldn't pick up in. It's the area of what I call "the Kool Aid drinker vote." The 31% unfavorables? Forget about them. Reagan made it through two terms with similar numbers. The independents and the moderates? There's where you will see a swing. They are beginning to see that their "hopey changey" thing isn't working out. While they won't be lining up at Team Sarah anytime soon, you can rest assured that even though these folks are beginning to realize that the media lied to them and that Sarah Palin is not the monster she has been portrayed at, their vote is not going to be contingent on whether or not they find Palin favorable, but whether or not they dislike Obama more.

Ronald Reagan did not win over the people he needed to win until a couple of weeks before the election. It was the "there you go again" quote that convinced Americans that he could do it. This was not a groundbreaking steal from the pool of Carter supporters. There were about 10% of the electorate who were fed up with Carter who were just not comfortable enough yet to pull that lever for Reagan. They didn't need to think he was the second coming. They just needed to feel comfortable enough with him to nervously hand him the presidency due to the lack of a better alternative.

This may sound cynical, but Sarah Palin will not become the president because everyone is as nuts about her as we are (although having the army she has will help her with her ground game just as it did for Reagan). She will become president because Obama has botched the job so badly that even the non kool-aid drinkers today who shake their head and go "ahhhh, I don't know about Palin - maybe Romney or someone else..." will vote for her. They will vote for anyone who runs against Obama.

Palin should maintain these Rasmussen numbers into 2011. She is only strengthening the public's view of her with her speeches and her continued leadership in the Tea Party movement and the Republican party, when that leadership is accepted and not rejected by party elites. This bodes well for her.

There is still a lot of work to do. Her numbers are not there yet. But in two years, she has fought an incredible battle against a mainstream media and political elite class that has been trying to destroy her since day one. It's not an issue of concern that she still has not forged ahead of Obama in head to head polls. In fact, it's encouraging that she has been closing the gap and that today, at just the halfway mark, she has cut Obama's Lead in Half And Has Effectively the Same Negative Rating as Obama and Net Favorable Rating as Biden.

So let me once again save the analysts some time.

Reagan was far from a lock at the halfway point either. Brices Crossroads on Free Republic helps me out with some numbers in his response to my Liberty's Lamp article about this subject back in April.

Actually, Palin is in somewhat better shape versus Obama than Reagan was at this point against Carter. In December 1978, Carter led Reagan in the Gallup poll by 57-35%. Even after he clinched the nomination, in the spring of 1980, national opinion polls showed Reagan trailing Carter by 25%. (Time, March 31, 1980) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921912-1,00.html#ixzz0lPAErDI8 
If you want to know what Sarah Palin is doing, just study Reagan's playbook. She is following it like it was a cook book or the directions for building a house. Everything she has done so far parallels what Reagan did between 1976 and 1980 (Reagan did not have the internet and social media - so this is one area that may help her reach that "there you go again" moment long before there is two weeks left until election day). Other than that, it's pretty boiler plate. Palin may be an outside the box thinker, but she knows how to read the directions.

The key is going to be in the intangibles. Just as Reagan had to beat a "Kentucky Derby" sized field to win the nomination in 1980, so will Palin. We all know the story about the plans of mice and men. And in living our lives, we have become well acquainted with Murphy and how monkey wrenches work. Therefore, there can never be a guarantee. There is no sure thing. But should Palin stay her course right now and keep heading like a sailor who uses the North Star to guide her, she is Ronald Reagan in 2012.

It will be up to her to put together an effective campaign. It will be up to God to make sure that a Howard Dean moment or a Macaca moment isn't framed into the timeline by the fickle finger of fate. It will be up to America to listen to her and open their hearts to her.

Many strange things have happened before in politics. But right now, on paper, Sarah Palin has the best shot of winning the presidency she has ever had in her life. Those odds may continue to go more in her favor as time marches on for "the one" for who the bell of liberty tolls.

Allow me to use rough numbers for illustrative purposes since we are still so far off from the primaries. She will take about 25% of the vote because of the "crazies for Palin" (h/t to Karen Allen for coining that phrase). Another 15% of her support will come from the supporters of the other primary candidates. She will go into the convention with about 40-45% of the people supporting her. The rest of the people who vote for her will be voting against Obama.

When Reagan won his first term, the people voted against Carter. When Reagan won his second term, the people voted for him. Like with Reagan, it will not be until 2016 that American will realize how great Sarah Palin really is.

For those who worry about Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience, whether she is too polarizing or how the media effect on her image will make it impossible for her to overcome her unfavorables, don't sweat it. We've been there before and it turned out just fine.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

BOOM! Palin Ad Pre-empts Democrat Strike on Tea Party


Sarah Palin has just jumped ahead of an ad campaign that Obama Democrats were planning on conducting to smear the Tea Party movement.

Watch this awesome video just released by SarahPac:

Sarah Palin sent out a tweet about the ad about 12:35 pm ET and it immediately went viral.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Media Might Actually Have a Real Story About O'Donnell!

With all the made up stories, half truths and long range extrapolations based upon what Christine O'Donnell did in her her past, cancelling appearances on the Sunday shows is actually the first time that Christine O'Donnell herself has actually done something questionable that is worth debating the merits over. Of the dozens of whacky hit pieces and agenda driven pundit talking points, this is the ONLY real story that would even qualify as news worth discussing.

I was disappointed she didn't go on Fox News Sunday, not because I'm a hater or worried about haters looking for the gotcha moment, but because I really like to hear what she has to say and was looking forward to seeing her. She has the right ideas about what Delaware needs in the Senate. Chris Cooms is the extremist (Marxist), not Christine O'Donnell. The media devotes very little time to that story. This could have been an opportunity for that story to get some quotes from the candidate herself.

There are merits to the argument that she should focus more on her state than to appear on national news programs. There are also merits to the argument that she and her staff may have gotten crossed up in the heat of an exhaustive and intense campaign. Even "extremists" like myself can be intellectually honest and accept the fact that she's going to take some legitimate heat on this.

Here's a message to the media, pundits and her opponents: if you want to criticize Christine O'Donnell, put away the out of context witch stories being released by an unhinged loon like Bill Maher, stop reading improprieties into a tax lien that was resolved, stop questioning whether late payment toward a college degree negates all the knowledge she acquired in school and most of all stop the mental self pleasuring you are getting by reporting on Christine O'Donnell's views on masturbation. Instead, why don't you report on stuff that she's actually doing, like trying to contrast a commonsense conservative message with that of her opponent, an avowed Marxist? And yes, if she does cancel being on a couple of shows, report it because its something that actually happened rather than something that is manufactured after a night of dumpster diving and public record research.

Sarah Palin told the audience in Iowa Friday "to hold the press accountable when you know that they're making things up and telling untruths" and decried a media "claiming the right to print and to say anything without a corresponding responsibility to truth." In other words, keep it real, guys. No more witch hunts, okay?

Sunday, September 19, 2010

O'Donnell is a Nut! Palin and Beck are Nazis!

I've been doing this blog thing all wrong. If we want Sarah Palin to win in 2012, we need more hit pieces!

I don't need Frank Luntz to tell me that Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are the giants they are because of negative attacks. Every time someone says something nasty about Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck, they get more attention. They get more popular.

Christine O'Donnell won because the negative attacks on her got so many people's attention (including mine) that they jumped on board and started supporting her like she was the second coming of Scott Brown. They wouldn't know her from a hole in the wall had the smear campaign not become so unhinged.

I'm in the mood for a good laugh, especially after reading the piece at Texas4Palin about the Obama and Pelosi operatives holding pictures of Beck and Palin as Hitler. It's Saturday night. I think I'll crack open a beer and bust a gut by watching the EWOK video again.

Friday, September 17, 2010

How to Blow A Senate Seat By Nominating A Clown

So some Republicans think Christine O'Donnell can't win, do they? What if she does?

In 2008, the Green Bay Packers had Brett Favre and it was thought that they were probably the only team from the NFC that would even have a shot of beating the Patriots that year. But after the NY Giants beat them in the NFC Championship, the sports pundits turned forecasters said it looked like the Super Bowl was going to be a blowout win for the Pats. A young, still mistake prone and untested Eli Manning against a Patriot's machine? The naysayers said it could never happen.

 Bookmaker Charles Krauthammer would probably have said that there was about a 1 in 10 chance of the Giants beating the heavily favored Patriots.

While it doesn't always work out, it doesn't mean we shouldn't always give it our best. Just because the odds may be against something, doesn't mean you pack up and go home. What if everyone involved with Apollo 13 just gave up? What if the United States Hockey Team didn't play in the 1980 Olympics because they were afraid being beaten by the Soviets would give the communists a propaganda edge?

Antoine de Saint-Exupery said As for the future, your task is not to foresee it, but to enable it.” For those who may want to throw in the towel or give up on Delaware's Senate seat, there is an old Chinese proverb that says the person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it.

Sometimes, taking a shot can surprise you. Those who have gambled and lost know that losing is life's existential norm. Winning is something you have to work for and believe in with faith and enthusiasm. You have to will victory. But you can also will defeat. It depends on one's attitude. You can't give up until its over. It's why they play the games.

Working for the big win still has its benefits even if you do lose. Go ask Tug McGraw whose claim to fame is that he coined the phrase "You Gotta Believe" for Mets fans in 1973. They lost to the Oakland A's, but the enthusiasm generated from that series bolstered attendance at Mets game for years to come. Tug McGraw is probably thankful now that he didn't coin the phrase "Forget about it, we suck."

If Karl Rove was supporting a different candidate, would he have gone on Hannity the day after George W. Bush won the 2000 nomination and question his character by reading off liberal talking points about his alcohol abuse and alleged cocaine use that occured in his "checkered past?" If Sean Hannity interupted, would Rove quip back at him "well, what about the DUI? And George W. Bush's academic record?" Shady at best, right Karl? Character and rectitude, right Karl?

I know how to settle this whole feud right here. On Fox News Sunday, Karl Rove should trade his documentation clearing him of any wrong doing in the Scooter Libby case for a copy of Christine O'Donnell's letter clearing her of her IRS tax lien. Then they should share tea together.

If you think Christine O'Donnell can't win because she's not qualified to be in the Senate, think again. Take a look at what happened in Minnesota when an unqualified candidate ran against the Democrat Party establishment. From Open Left (written before the election):
Transformative progressive candidates are people who speak and communicate well. Franken's training as an artist and a storyteller meant that he took risks, creative risks, and learned how to connect with large groups of people and entertain them. He's very very good at it. And that's the kind of person we need in the Senate, a smart, dedicated, aggressive Democrat that understands the modern media environment.

Democrats in Minnesota would do well to stop stabbing him in the back. Just say, eight years ago Al Franken was a professional comedian, and voters can tell the difference between jokes and Norm Coleman's record of voting with Bush to send thousands of Americans and sink trillions of dollars into an immoral war that should never have been waged.
The Democrat establishment thought that Franken could never beat Coleman in the general election. They pretty much gave up on the seat after Franken beat Patricia Lord Farris, a member of a longtime Minnesota Democratic family in the primary. The writer pleads with fellow Democrats to frame Franken properly much the way we plead with Republicans. Just say that O'Donnell was a struggling media commentator years ago who was not making a lot of money, and voters can tell the difference between someone who had some personal financial problems and an opponent who wants to continue sending trillions of American taxpayer dollars into a bottomless pit and increase an immoral deficit that should have never been run up by bailouts and stimuli in the first place.

Someone needs to tell our anti-O'Donnell GOP doomsayers that even a clown can win a Senate seat. And Christine O'Donnell ain't no clown. 

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Trouble in Paradise: Are the Obamas Having Marital Problems?

It is a warm day in Fairfax, Virginia. President Obama is answering questions after giving a speech about the economy. Clearly visible to all is a bare ring finger. At first the rumors were that his wedding ring was out to a jeweler to be repaired. But a week later, he still didn't have it on as a growing number of stories about Obama's unhappiness were making their way into the blogs.

And what to make of a comment by First Lady Michelle Obama? According to Chicagoist:
A new book written in collaboration with [France's First Lady Carla] Bruni claims that when she asked Michelle how living in the White House was, she replied "Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!" The Daily Mail in London was the first to report the statement which supposedly took place this March during the Sarkozy visit to Washington.
Both Carla Bruni and Michelle Obama deny the conversation. But it's in Bruni's book. Her name is on it. Something was said, context or no context. It still raises questions.

Are things beginning to go south for the once messianic politician from Chicago who thrilled the world with his rousing campaign speeches about hope and change? And is he having more than just marital problems? According to one insider, Obama's having problems on the job as well.

NewsFlavor article describes a conversation with a Washington D.C. insider, and former advisor to the Obama election campaign and transition team, who describes "an administration in crisis" and a "president increasingly withdrawn" from his job. The insider mentions both the marital and job problems. "You got a Chief of Staff who despises cabinet members, advisors who despise the Chief of Staff, a President and First Lady having their own issues…"

This comes at a time when rumors are swirling about a possible Hillary Clinton challenge in 2012, the president's poll numbers are plummeting and there is an imminent tidal wave about to hit the Democrats in the upcoming 2010 midterm elections. Rumors have even been swirling that Obama may not run for a second term.

But long before the polls plummeted and the Tea Party made any headway opposing his agenda, the seeds of marital trouble were there.

There was a strain that was evident even as the Obama's first moved into the White House. According to The Sunday Times:
At one point Michelle expressed frustration at her secondary role after the years she spent as a high-earning hospital executive in Chicago: “Clearly Barack’s decisions are leading us. They are not mine, that’s obvious,” she said. “I’m married to the president of the United States, I don’t have another job.”

That the marriage experienced “bumps” came as no surprise: Richard Wolffe, a Newsweek journalist, has already described in his book on Obama’s rise how Michelle at one point became “angry at [Barack’s] selfishness and careerism; he thought she was cold and ungrateful”.

Asked if their marriage had come close to rupture, Obama told The New York Times: “That’s over-reaching it. But I wouldn’t gloss over the fact that that was a tough time for us. There were points in time where I was fearful ... that she would be unhappy.”
According to Extra:
Michelle admits that her marriage "isn't perfect" -- and that even her hubby has insecurities. "You know, yes, I'm sure he does," confessed Michelle. "I'm not going to share them with you, but yes."
Now, are the marital strains affecting his job?

According to NewsFlavor:
Ok, look, just like any other marriage, folks have issues. The Obamas are no different, except of course they are very high profile. I was told they were having issues before the campaign, and they have even more issues now. Maybe that is why Obama seems so detached – not so much the stress of the White House, but the stress of personal issues. I can certainly relate to that kind of situation.
The insider that spoke with NewsFlavor also said Obama "obsesses over Fox News," is "incredibly thin-skinned" and a "slow talker" who uses "Lots of ummms, and lots of time in between answers where you can almost see the little wheel in his head turning very slowly." There was even an allegation of paranoia - that Obama believes the banking system is undermining the economy to harm him intentionally because of anger toward his economic policies.

This is not the first time that this type of "news" has been discussed in the media and blogosphere. You may recall that an embattled governor in Alaska began showing signs of stress after returning to her governorship following her run for vice president, according to "insiders." It makes one wonder, after hearing the rumor that Sarah Palin threw her wedding ring into Lake Lucille, if President Obama has not in fact thrown his ring into the Potomac.

Either way, one can't help but to wonder if all the projecting and all the discussions of ideological, political and marital problems coming forth from the Left onto the right, and in particular Sarah Palin, are not actually the hidden demons within their own souls which they must ascribe to others so as to deflect attention from the reality that these ideas are not only written by them, but written well because of their first hand experience with these deficiencies.

Is it possible I'm just writing this post because it's so sweet to see the president "Palinized" this way? I know the stuff written about the Palins is a well mixed coctail of mistruths, distortions, misinterpretations and in many cases outright lies. One can argue "hit piece!" But isn't that how it works in today's media? Having been on that side of the ball many times, I can sympathize with Obama supporters if they are troubled by a piece like this.

But then again, nah.

We know what the left is capable of. This isn't the first play we can take from their playbook and it isn't the last.

Now think about it. Isn't it possible that an "iceberg" can turn into a part of a tsunami if it melts and comes back at you?

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Why Castle is Not Our Ticket to the Senate

Ben Domenech at Red State lands it:

Conservatives should not tolerate the likes of Mike Castle because of the simple fact that a 51 member Senate with Mike Castle is a Senate where Mike Castle is the most important vote in the room. As Specter and others before him, that Senator will set the terms of policy debates, determining in advance what can succeed and fail. Those who advance the argument that a majority with Castle is better than being in the minority tend to place priorities on Senate committee chairmanships and staff ratios and lobbyist cash… a list which pales in comparison to the power they would wield as the broker for both sides. Again and again I saw this play out during my time as a Senate staffer, and anyone who tells you contrary is incredibly naive about the way legislative decisions are made.

As a friend of mine in the business of campaigns and elections has said, electing moderates simply to secure a majority for Republicans is a self-defeating proposition. We’ve seen this play out time and again. Career politicians abhor principle, and adore power and fecklessness. Their presence in Washington provides constant aid and comfort to the Left. They dilute the brand, confuse voters and sell out conservatives just at the moment they are needed most.
h/t Right Wing News

The GOP Establishment's Stinking Thinking

O'Donnell can win the general if we all decide she will.

Read the tweets, please

Allahpundit: Yeah, I'm finding it amazing that suddenly we're in unity mode after a week of "purge the RINO" nastiness

Allahpundit: Patterico was called a jackass moron ass by a prominent radio host. Water under the bridge already, huh?

She is talking to us. She's telling us to unite. We have a city to take.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

The GOP Establishment's Stinking Thinking

Is it time to reawaken this industrial giant, to get government back within its means, and to lighten our punitive tax burden. And these will be our first priorities, and on these principles, there will be no compromise. - Ronald Reagan 1st inaugural address

There is no I in team and there is no "we" in establishment. The establishment is about one thing and one thing only: their power. Their hunger for Senate committee chairmanships, their hunger for clinging to the status quo of crony centrism, their hunger for career politicians who hold seats so long they forget what it was like to be one of the little people was on glaring display leading up to tonight's Delaware GOP Senate primary. They talk a good game against big spending government, but history shows they stumble over whether to call out aye or nay on the floor when it actually comes down to punching in their votes. The people are speaking and they don't like it. Too friggin bad.

The arguments that broke out in the blogosphere over the O'Donnell - Castle race proved two things. Some are not ready to embrace the new landscape (and would rather back a RINO to win instead of having courage) while others are enjoying success as the numbers are growing in the movement for Constitutional commonsense conservatism. For O'Donnell to win by that much of a margin in blue Delaware proves that stinking thinking is what really has been keeping Republicans from winning all along. Afraid she can't win in the general? Negative, defeatest, stinking thinking.

It's time for the GOP to step up and become the party of optimism, of faith and of an enthusiasm for victory that we have not seen since the last anti-establishment candidate, Ronald Reagan, showed them how it was done. Put up the money, GOP. Back O'Donnell. Anything less would be childish, take your ball home, nonsense.

The selfish concerns and bitter "what's in it for me" attitude displayed by the GOP establishment leading into tonight was a shame, but the victory washes that away. They are dinosaurs now. They can stop faking conservatism and get on board with the real thing or they can become extinct.

The Democrats hold 60 seats (two independents caucus with them). The GOP needs to win 11. Current odds say we can take 8. The establishment thinks we could have taken 11, but now cry that O'Donnell blew that chance. Blew that chance? The campaign for the general election has just started. Look at how she beat Castle. You don't think she can beat Coons? Castle was a RINO. Imagine what she can do to a liberal.

If Castle had won, it would have meant nothing. It would have made it a token seat, a numbers padder for the GOP in November. If the GOP was serious about taking the Senate they'd be looking more long term. To really win the Senate, you need 60 seats, not 50 and 1/2. Technically, if Castle had won and the GOP took 51 seats, we'd really only have 48. Do you remember Snowe and Collins? And, committee chairmanships? They would be nice. But this is about more than just self-aggrandizing power for party heads. It's about setting up the table now and then serving the main course in 2012 on the coattails of the Republican presidential winner.

On the other hand, we MUST win the House in November. I've said since day 1, if we don't win the House, it would be a severe defeat. By winning the House and setting up the Senate for 2012, we can still stop the Obama agenda and prepare ourselves to govern in 2012. If we do win the Senate outright in 2010, gravy. Blaming O'Donnell in advance is bitter dregs and not becoming of a party that means it when it says it wants to win.

We moved the ball tonight.

Sarah Palin took out another RINO. Watch and learn. As Charlie Daniels would say "that's how you do it, son."

Today's Republican Primary Voter's Guide

Gone are the days when you go to the ballot box and vote for the "R" that the party selected for you. Today's politics is being infiltrated at every level by the working man, the professional, the busy mom and the silent members of the majority who used to come home after a long day and be thankful to grab the remote around 9 or 9:30 and catch a good comedy or two on the TV before grabbing a late night snack and heading off to bed. The couch potato has suddenly realized that there will be no couch, or at best it might be redistributed to someone who has spent the day leaning on a post if he or she doesn't get off it and hit the phones or the computer.

Today is a big day. Those voting in Republican primaries have an opportunity to send a message to the establishment: there will be no more business as usual! Hard working slobs, average Joes and ladies who would normally be putting their kids to bed, exhausted from the days toil, are taking those extra couple of hours normally spent on the couch to do something that they never thought they'd have to do: save their country.

Today, Kelly Ayotte will get her opportunity to be nominated to run for Senate in New Hampshire.  One could argue Ayotte's "establishment," but she is not like the establishment candidates that Sarah Palin has taken on. Ayotte is a conservative woman and a mom. She fits the Mama Grizzly meme. She represents more of what the establishment should look like after we take it over than the way it is now with party insiders just doing their own bidding at the expense of the voters and taxpayers.

One myth to dispel regarding Kelly Ayotte is a smear being used to try to paint her as sympathetic to Planned Parenthood. "The Telegraph stated in part that '(Ovide) Lamontagne had planned to bring up Ayotte’s decision as attorney general to have state taxpayers pay $300,000 in legal fees to Planned Parenthood,' leaving out five critical words: as ordered by the court." Read more here. Ayotte has been endorsed by the National Right to Life and the Susan B. Anthony List. She also has a strong record as Attorney General. Sarah Palin described her as "one tough 'Granite Grizzly' who has broken barriers, fought off and locked up criminals, and stood up for New Hampshire families."

While Ovide Lamontagne is a good candidate, he is running against a conservative Republican with a strong record who has used her status within the Republican Party responsibly.

In Delaware on the other hand, Mike Castle, who earned a 52% rating by the ACU, is a true RINO and presents a true contrast to outsider Christine O'Donnell similar to the one that Murkowski presented to Joe Miller. Although O'Donnell does not have the resume that Miller has, she has the heart, the fighting spirit and the common sense of a Miller. O'Donnell has suffered personal financial hardships which she has not lied about or covered up. Instead, she overcame them and "has broken through to the other side," as she said on Fox News this morning. She demonstrates a winning spirit and attitude that eventually, if one has faith and perserverence, leads to the overcoming of obstacles that would normally cause a lesser woman in her position to question her ability to even give it a shot. Castle is the typical insider - a good old boy who has been overcoming his RINO record by being a liberal Republican in a blue state.

Christine O'Donnell is real. She understands what needs to be done to take this country back. She gets it.

Maryland's race is somewhere between the New Hampshire and Delaware races as far as the ideological spectrum goes. On paper, Robert Ehrlich is an okay candidate. His 83% ACU rating would keep him in the tent, although probably somewhere over on the left edge at the McCain table. At first glance, Sarah Palin's endorsement of Brian Murphy causes one to pause and wonder. However, given the fact that "Ehrlich is not pro-life and opposes display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings," according to a 2001 article from Human Events (hardly written in today's environment of Tea Party purism), one can understand why the pro-life Palin would want to endorse his opponent.

At first, this blogger was not fully in touch with Palin's reasoning (a borderline "sin" for someone who views Palin as Reagan's politcally incarnate daughter). But, when Ehrlich melted down after Palin's endorsement, William F. Buckley's statement about being "governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone directory " made a whole lot more sense. Palin's endorsement of Brian Murphy is highlighted by the contrast of views between establishment types and true grassroots. And after looking at Ehrlich's pro-life record, questionable 2nd amendment credentials and vitriolic response to Palin's endorsement of Murphy, one couldn't help but conclude that even if Palin picked Murphy's name out of the Maryland phone book, choosing this longshot actually wasn't that bad of a thing.

Put a strong conservative with an impeccable record like Kelly Ayotte into the Sentate in Maryland. Get rid of a RINO like Mike Castle and put a real commonsense conservative like Christine O'Donnell in the Senate in Delaware. And don't let an unhinged career politician like Robert Ehrlich back into a Governor's seat that is better served by the likes of a Brian Murphy who has real private sector experience.

When we look at our vision of what we want those who lead us to look like, we have to seize upon the opportunity to vote for the ones today who will be part of that vision tomorrow. Kelly Ayotte, Christine O'Donnell and Brian Murphy fit that vision best in today's races. Go vote and make it happen.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Shannyn Moore (No Journalist, just a climber) Tweets list of Protestors

The tweet is no longer available due to blockage (Update: see below), but I got the link to the FB page that she was promoting. Mudflats is also at the the event. And we know greenie agitator Desa Jacobsson is the organizer. Palingates is tweeting (and stealing pictures from the Alaska Dispatch) and blogging as well. Same old boring washed up has been protestors are trying to drum stuff up as usual. (yawn)

Shannyn Moore helps us identify those who think restoring honor and raising money for charity is a bad thing:

Destroying Honor! Palingates Steals Photos From Media Outlet

Saturday, September 11, 2010



On 9/11/01, this writer went into work after the twin towers came down
and told everyone in the office "let the bombing begin." While it took
some time to get the logistics of the operation in place, it was exactly
what this citizen requested. Our great president, George W. Bush
approved of a military campaign of intensive bombing in Afghanistan of
Taliban and terrorist targets. On 10/07/01, when the news broke, the
flags waved and the celebration began at this writer's house. It is a
celebration of freedom, and the willingness of this great nation to go
to war to protect those freedoms.

While nothing will bring back the lives of those killed in the
Terrorist Attacks of 9/11/01, a great giant has been awakened to answer
the call: destroy terrorism and the nations that harbor it.

To keep it short and to the point, the President made 3 basic points
with which no one can disagree with:

1. Osama bin Laden will be brought to justice. This is still a work in progress, but the goal will be achieved.

2. The economy will respond due to the resolve of the American people. It did.

3. This will be a long campaign, some aspects of which we are not
familiar with since we've never seen this type of warfare before.

I wish the victims and their families hero status, and I wish for a
complete and successful campaign to destroy the evil that caused this

God bless the United States of America.


More info from the best News Network:

Friday, September 10, 2010

Sarah in Wonderland

In Alice in Wonderland, as in Barack Obama's world, "everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?"

In Sarah in Wonderland (1:00 in), "things that should be up are down, what's inside's really outside. Everything is really reversed in terms of the trend that we should be heading. No. He's (Obama) doing everything opposite."

Sarah Palin endorsed Christine O'Donnell in a brilliant move when Sean asked her the million dollar question about her retweet of Tammy Bruce's tweet. I had asked this question and awaited an answer. Then the answer came.

Sarah Palin is looking to fix the view of the "wonderland" through the looking glass by supporting strong Constitutional conservatives. When we all look at it again in two years, maybe it won't look so nonsensical.

The interview is top shelf. Listen to the recording again because Sarah packs a lot of stuff into a short period of time. Notice the Margaret Thatcher references. Notice who she is describing.

I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date... a rendezvous with destiny.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

How Liberals and GOP Insiders Made Me Endorse Christine O'Donnell

I think I started following Christine O'Donnell a few weeks ago on Twitter because someone tweeted me asking me to follow her. So I did. I wasn't really thinking about getting too heavily involved in her race because I was so wrapped up in Joe Miller's race that I was only keeping up with the other candidates by retweeting other like-minded conservatives who were supporting them. But yesterday the "smear-o-meter" went off like crazy. I thought to myself, what is Sarah Palin up in Delaware today?

Here in my blog batcave, I went over to the screen to see what all the fuss was about. Apparently, the liberals and the political establishment were going into convulsions after the Tea Party Express endorsed Christine O'Donnell for the Senate primary in Delaware. I checked out this article on Yahoo. Holy smear campaign Batman! Even the Republican Party is in on it!

Stacy McCain (who just ran up the score in street cred by getting an interview with Todd Palin following the Miller win) also provided some compelling evidence that made my blood boil about the insider Republican Party establishment in Delaware. My first reaction of course is to equate smear with fear. Then rule of thumb number 2 comes into play. Whenever Republicans become as despicable as Democrats, look for the RINO.

When I followed the RINO dung, it led my right to Mike Castle whose whopping 52% ACU rating, according to Cubachi, made me wonder if my silence would be mistaken as support for a caviar club Republicans with knife in the back cronies whose elitist ideas of free market capitalism and small government include any manipulation of the system for personal gain and power that isn't socialism. Pass the Grey Poupon. Oh, that Christine O'Donnell is such a commoner.

I had already heard and read some of the great things that Mark Levin was saying and writing about her. I had already watched a really great interview conducted by Melissa Clouthier. One by one, all the people I listen to, read and have regard for were supporting O'Donnell. As of this writing, the Twittersphere was beginning to rumble with word that even Rush Limbaugh was now standing up for O'Donnell.

Which means I have to hurry now. I have a rule. I form an opinion first and then listen to Rush. It's my way of being intellectually honest. Liberals accuse me of being a Rush kool aid drinker. Hey, libbies, he agrees with me 98.6% of the time, not the other way around, okay? I decided Palin was great before I listened to Rush the day she was announced.

I admit, I've been waiting for an official Palin endorsement. But I left it open until today where I figured Palin or no Palin, my love for a classic grass roots conservative candidate versus the sludgy wing of the GOP a la Alaska's primary would win out and require that I endorse. It looks like a fun race, too - a possible repeat of Miller and Murkowski, real conservative Republican outsider versus fake conservative Republican insider. I'll take a large popcorn with butter and a diet coke, please.

Now, I'm not a lemming. I endorsed Eddie Burke in AK and Pamela Gorman in NV without the need of a Palin endorsement. I can go to the bathroom, eat, write a blog post or support a candidate without something having been written her Facebook page. However, as one who uses the rhetorical sword of words to promote the cause, I prefer to be in agreement with the bespectacled warrior who wields the rhetorical version of Excalibur from her Facebook page to substantiate my positions.

And might I be?

Sarah Palin may have weighed in afterall on this race with an ambiguous re-tweet of Tammy Bruce. I've asked Tammy for her take on it and will update this article if she responds.

O'Donnell's staff salivates for Palin's endorsement in the article that also points out that she met Palin briefly at the Restoring Honor Rally. That passes the first part of the litmus test for me. Pro-Palin? Check. For the final dip, place the strip into the liberal waters. Bingo. Positive again! I  link to the tweet here to show you my final piece of evidence in favor of Christine O'Donnell: the left wing's use of guilt by association.

Well, libbies, if O'Donnell seeks out Sarah Palin and if People for the American Way want to build up a resume of debunkable smears before finishing the sentence by asking "is it really all that surprising that she has won the support of Sarah Palin?" then I'm in. I call that a Palin endorsment by left wing triangulation. It's close enough for rock and roll. I'll take it.

And so it with great conservative fortitude and honor that I endorse Christine O'Donnell for Delaware Senate. If we are going to restore the honor and greatness of our country, we have to have people with the right political convinctions in place not just so that we can oppose the Obama agenda after 2010, but so that we have the right coalition who will readily embrace the agenda of a strong Constitutional conservative president should America be smart enough to elect one (and you know of whom I speak).

visit Christine O'Donnell's website

We cannot have liberals who want to run roughshod over the very fabric of our country's nature in power any longer. Nor can return power to those who long for the days of the Potomoc water drinking and go along to get along politics. These types of Republicans who, like dead fish, go with the flow will never take the courageous stands necessary to enact real change for a country that struggles with a top heavy government and evaporating jobs. The Delaware primary is another example of why we need to replace this type of Republican with the right type of Republican.

I echo the sentiments of Jeffrey Lord who writes "The objective is to move the ball." Mike Castle may be wearing a Republican Jersey, but he is playing for the wrong team. He might as well be the Democrat in the race. Christine O'Donnell can move the ball.

And besides, Christine O'Donnell is real. Not only is she the real deal. She gets the deal.


Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Water Doesn't Stick to Teflon

Get the popcorn and the drinks. This is starting to get fun. The liberal Palin smear machine is coming completely unhinged, derailing like a train in a comedy where the doors fly off and the wheels roll down the side of the hill.

You can't take the kinds of punches Sarah Palin has taken for the past two years and still be standing - and standing even stronger and taller than you were before you took the punches - unless there is something really weak with the attacker, something really strong about the punch taker or a combination of both. The fact that nothing sticks is definitely a tribute to the courage and the toughness and strength of of the "skin" of the one who would wear the nickname "the teflon mom" as nicely as Reagan wore the name of "the teflon president." However, it is also a testament to the fact that the Leftist smear campaign, like water, doesn't stick to teflon because it has no ingredients.

There is no egg, no meat and no cheese in what the left has been cooking. We're onto them and they are out of ammo.

Robert Stacy McCain exposes the Alinsky-like tactics of the Left:
Bad Faith – The accusation that conservatives are motivated by bad faith (mala fides) is essential to the Left’s attacks. Stigmatizing and marginalizing conservatives is much easier than debating them. Cogent arguments about policy become unnecessary to advancing the Left’s political agenda if they can dismiss its opponents as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc

The Ransom Note Method – By carefully selecting “evidence” of bad faith, the Left is able to present a distorted image of its conservative targets. Out-of-context quotes and controversial biographical data are cherry-picked and re-assembled (in the manner of a kidnapper assembling a ransom note) to present the target in the most damning possible light. This method is particularly effective against conservative talk-radio personalities who engage in polemic battle with leftists. This is why Media Matters devotes such enormous resources to monitoring talk radio in hopes of grabbing a 40-second “gotcha” sound-bite.

The ‘Links and Ties’ Method – More than simple guilt-by-association, the Links-and-Ties Method involves presenting a chain of incidental connections to suggest a sympathy of views that does not actually exist. To wit: Target A once spoke at Event B which was sponsored by Group C, co-founded by Person D who once made controversial statement E. By this method, it is implied that Target A actually endorses Statement E.

Telescoping and Telepathy – The actions, statements and associations of a conservative target acquire a trans-temporal permanence in the smear attacks of the Left. Once a target is associated (however incidentally) with controversy, this association can be repeated endlessly as evidence of bad faith, no matter how many years intervene. Furthermore, if the target is associated in Year X with a respectable person or organization that becomes controversial in Year X+5, that association can be cited in Year X+10 as evidence against the target – even if the target had no involvement in the cause of controversy. Finally, all evidence of bad faith accumulated by these methods is presented as indicative of the target’s deepest and unwavering personal convictions, as if the accuser were possessed of telepathic mind-reading abilities.

Deny, Denounce, Repudiate – The key to these attack methods is the presumption of the target’s guilt. The accuser, having carefully selected the evidence to be discussed in the manner of a prosecutor making an indictment, demands that the target deny the accusation, denounce the bad-faith views involved, and repudiate the persons and organizations to whom he has been connected by the links-and-ties method. As anyone who has been targeted by such attacks can attest, it’s rather like being accused in one of Stalin’s infamous Moscow “show trials.”
John Fricke at American Thinker writes:
The left, especially their media wing, are stunned at what is likely to happen on November 2, 2010 -- not just in the election results or the repudiation of their ideals, but more in that, from nowhere, it seems to them, all the ammo they have is suddenly worthless. Backs against the coming electoral wall, they have attacked on every front, using their entire arsenal. Americans who oppose their agenda on any given issue have been, and still are, called the most vicious names the media can conjure up. Homophobic, Islamaphobic, xenophobic, greedy, and, of course, racist. Their media does its not-so-subtle best to paint conservatives with a blood brush, from direct attacks (Time magazine asking if "America [is] Islamaphobic" -- meaning anyone who dares disagree with the liberal position on the mosque at Ground Zero is a racist) to the indirect assaults (CNN referring to the massive crowd at Glen Beck's 8/28 Washington rally as "predominantly white" -- insinuating that the crowd was a collection of racists). Those and all their other attacks have failed. For the first time in modern American political debate, the liberal label gun is jamming. Worse for liberals, the bullets will likely never be effective again.
In these "bullets" we've found the root cause for Palin Derangment Syndrome: Palinphobia. Whitney Pitcher writes at Conservatives4Palin:
So as the Left continues to fear the influence and effectiveness of Governor Palin, they continue to show new symptoms of Palinophobia. No longer is Palinophobia marked solely by the false charge of racism, it also manifests itself with the symptoms of false charges of homophobia and Islamophobia. What's next? It seems that the Left and their cohorts in the media are grasping at straws yet again, but this is not new.
Gone are the days of angst associated with the Left's smear campaign following the 2008 election loss. Having learned to respond with lightning speed to Leftist smears, the armies of truth have taken to their blogs and the Twittersphere to debunk myths, lies and smears as quickly as they are written. The challenge put forth by those who relentlessly smear Governor Palin and the Tea Party movement has been like a workout that leaves Palin's supporters intellectually buff and ready at a moment's notice. And Palin herself is noticeably cut in her ability to talk policy, respond to smears in a media savvy way and connect with the people via her Facebook page. Intellectually flabby Leftists and ankle biters who tried everything they could to stop her have failed miserably. The gig is up.

As the Journolist story broke, the laughable Emily's list "Mama Grizzly" video was released and writers everywhere were writing stories about Sarah Palin's waning influence in the wake of an anticipated Lisa Murkowski primary win, those on the right were quickly flicking the Left off like harmless gnats. When Michael Joseph Gross wrote the Vanity Fair hit piece, it was as if a puny 90 pound weakling had come to take on the muscle man that Palin and her army has become today.

Dr. Gina Loudon, in addressing the author of the Vanity Fair hit piece on Big Journalism, Micheal Joseph Gross, may have just summed up the entirety of the Left's epic failure of a smear campaign:
I think your piece (which has been rebuked by liberals and conservatives alike) may have pushed anyone who doubted the Palins square into their corner. You may have done more for her than a million dollars worth of marketing. You may have boosted her shot at the White House. We may all be thanking you for that one day.
While the smears against Sarah Palin will continue (the smear campaign against Ronald Reagan continued throughout his entire presidency), you can mark this down: the Vanity Fair 18 page empty shell will come to symbolize the moment when the smear campaign became impotent and limp.

The smears the Left passed around to each other like syphillis may have once created a false apprehension in the less astute reader, voter, independent or moderate; but ultimately even these people will find that Palin is more palatable than they've been led to believe, especially if they are suffering "buyer's remorse" over Obama. They will find that the only thing the Left has to serve them is the burnt toast of hope and change, which in most restaurants gets sent back to the kitchen. Soon these people will be able to order the Palin omelet without everyone around them looking at them funny.

Total Pageviews