Sarah Palin Signs In.

Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left

by Sarah Palin on Friday, January 27, 2012 at 2:57pm

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future. But this week a few handpicked and selectively edited comments which Newt made during his 40-year career were used to claim that Newt was somehow anti-Reagan and isn’t conservative enough to go against the accepted moderate in the primary race. (I know, it makes no sense, and the GOP establishment hopes you won’t stop and think about this nonsense. Mark Levin and others have shown the ridiculousness of this.) To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan. He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days. You can’t change history. We know that Newt Gingrich brought the Reagan Revolution into the 1990s. We know it because none other than Nancy Reagan herself announced this when she presented Newt with an award, telling us, “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century.  Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.” As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque rewriting of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

I spoke up before the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primary going because I have great concern about the GOP establishment trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energy and resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to the general election in order to defeat President Obama. Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward. The questions need answers now. That is why this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this. Pundits in the Beltway are gleefully proclaiming that this primary race is over after Florida, despite 46 states still not having chimed in. Well, perhaps it’s possible that it will come to a speedy end in just four days; but with these questions left unanswered, it will not have come to a satisfactory conclusion. Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate. The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.

As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?

- Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin on the Road in Pennsylvania

Sarah Palin has arrived in Philadelphia on day three of a mystery bus tour that is swamping US media coverage of the Republican race for the White House, leaving her rivals struggling to win attention.

Palin, who began her road trip in Washington, is refusing to provide an itinerary for the media, in what is being interpreted as payback for the hostility she faced in the 2008 election.

"It's not really an intention to play cat and mouse," she said. But the tactic has worked spectacularly to her advantage, with reporters gleefully turning her tour into a chase and guessing game about her next stop.

Reporters are enjoying the novelty so much that there is even a Twitter hashtag, #wheressarah, logging sightings and speculating on her next venue.

When reporters do catch her, the inevitable question is whether she intends to join other Republicans in seeking the nomination to take on Barack Obama in 2012. She insists she has not made up her mind. "I don't know, I honestly don't know," she says.

The 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate may be engaged in an elaborate tease but, after a few months in which she largely dropped out of public view, the bus tour has renewed speculation that she is contemplating joining the contest.

She even admitted to reporters she had been thinking about what kind of campaign she might run, saying it would be non-traditional and unconventional – a bit like her bus trip.

She spent Tuesday at a hotel near the site of the battle of Gettysburg, in Maryland. Journalists gathered in the morning outside her bus but she had slipped out earlier to view the battlefield in peace.

The media then followed her bus to Philadelphia, where she visited the sites associated with the 1776 declaration of independence.

Her trip, accompanied by husband Todd and the rest of the family, has included the capital, George Washington's home at Mount Vernon and Fort McHenry in Baltimore, where the British laid siege in 1814.

She will almost certainly go to Boston, scene of the Tea Party. But there is speculation, too, that she will go to New Hampshire, where the second round of the Republican nomination contest will be held, a sign that political ambition rather than a historical lesson is at the forefront of her mind.

She is also planning to visit Iowa, where the first round will be held and where she is to attend the premiere of a documentary about her time as Alaska's governor.

Replying to reporters' questions about whether she will stand, she said: "It's still a matter of looking at the field and considering much. There truly is a lot to consider before you throw yourself out there in the name of service to the public because it is so all-consuming."

She has given only one interview, to Fox's Greta Van Susteren, the only reporter allowed on the bus.

Asked why she was not providing reporters with an itinerary, Palin, who has an intense dislike of much of the media, said: "They want, kind of, the conventional idea of, 'we want a schedule, we want to follow you, we want you to bring us along with you'. I want them to have to do a little bit of work on a tour like this, and that would include not necessarily telling them beforehand where every stop is going to be. The media can figure out where we're going if they do their investigative work."

The game partly explains the renewed media interest in Palin. But the attention also reflects the lack of excitement about the present Republican field.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and Republican frontrunner, is due to announce his candidacy formally in New Hampshire on Thursday.

A Gallup poll of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents published on Tuesday put Romney on 17%, with Palin in second place on 15%, followed by Ron Paul on 10%, Newt Gingrich on 9%, Herman Cain on 8%, Tim Pawlenty on 6%, Michele Bachmann on 5%, and Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum and Gary Johnson all on 2%.

These candidates have had a hard time getting on air and when they do they are almost inevitably asked about Palin.

Bachmann, who is to declare within the month, was invited on to ABC and asked how she differed from Palin. Bachmann deflected the question, saying they were friends.

Pawlenty was interviewed at the weekend and showed signs of irritation when asked about Palin.

Palin described the field as quite strong but predicted "there will be more strong candidates jumping in" and wondered about the Texas governor, Rick Perry, and others coming in. She added: "The field isn't set yet, not by a long shot." GUARDIAN

Many Democrats think the president’s chances of winning re-election would improve vastly if Mrs Palin was his opponent.

Sarah Palin accuses Barack and Michelle Obama of being unpatriotic

Sarah Palin has accused Barack and Michelle Obama of being unpatriotic and suggested that they were racist.

By Alex Spillius, Washington 6:26PM GMT 19 Nov 2010
Telegraph

The attack is likely to deepen the impression that the former Alaska governor is too divisive a figure to win the presidency.

In leaked extracts of her new book, Mrs Palin delves into the minefield of racial politics, arguing that the first African American US president is among those who regarded the conservative tea party movement as racially prejudiced and who thinks that “America is a fundamentally unjust and unequal country”.

As proof, she dredged up a quote from a 2008 campaign speech in which Mrs Obama said “for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country”.

Mrs Palin went on to say: “I guess this shouldn’t surprise us, since both of them spent almost two decades in the pews of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church listening to his rants against America and white people.”

Mr Obama remains personally popular despite his Democratic Party allies being heavily beaten in the recent midterm elections. His wife moreover is according to numerous polls the best-liked the political figure in the country, thanks to her support for military families and campaign against childhood obesity.

In America By Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag, which is published next week, Mrs Palin was choosing a line of attack against the First Lady that most other opponents of the president have abandoned long ago.

She characterised the First Lady as only being proud “when her husband started winning elections”. In full context, Mrs Obama’s meaning was that she felt a surge of pride at the way young people were finding hope in the country’s future.

The former vice-presidential candidate’s second book is regarded as a launch pad for a bid for the 2012 Republican nomination, which Mrs Palin this week admitted she was “seriously considering”.

Many Democrats think the president’s chances of winning re-election would improve vastly if Mrs Palin was his opponent.

Vice-President Joe Biden had to stifle laughs when asked about the possibility of an Obama-Palin matchup on morning television yesterday.

“I don’t think she could beat President Obama,” he said, “but she’s always underestimated, so I don’t think I should say any more”.

Early reviewers have described Mrs Palin’s new book as mostly a fairly predictable paean to conservative American values.

But it also contains a withering put-down of talent show contestants, particularly those on American Idol, and the “cult of self-esteem”, which she blames partly on Mr Obama.

“No one they have encountered in their lives – from their parents to their teachers to their President – wanted them to feel bad by hearing the truth. So they grew up convinced that they could become big pop stars like Michael Jackson.”

Her observations came without apparent irony, despite the fact that her own daughter Bristol is competing so ineptly in Dancing with the Stars that there are strong suspicions she has only stayed in contention because of the support of her mother’s fans voting from home.

Mrs Palin herself has also begun broadcasting her own reality show about her family life and her home state.

Evita Palin

Sarah Palin Says She Could Beat Obama

In Interview With Barbara Walters, Palin Says She Is Seriously Considering Entering Race in 2012







Eva Peron was never officially elected as President of Argentina but she exercised power and influence within the government. While she could mobilize throngs of adoring supporters at the drop of a hat, the middle and upper classes, military leaders and some government officials were angered by this woman who seemed to have virtually taken over the country. As her celebrity and influence grew, she became progressively more vengeful as well. This only served to validate the bitter hatred some had for her.




Evita Peron Quotes

» Answer violence with violence. If one of us falls today, five of them must fall tomorrow.

» By this time I had fallen in love with him as we both came from the same type of humble back ground. Also because he put his energy behind working people. With the power of the shirtless ones (the poor) he was swept to power. He was then put under arrest so we decided to get married secretly .

» Charity separates the rich from the poor; aid raises the needy and sets him on the same level with the rich.

» I am my own woman.

» I am only a simple woman who lives to serve Peron and my people.

» I am only a sparrow amongst a great flock of sparrows.

» I demanded more rights for women because I know what women had to put up with.

» I had watched for many years and seen how a few rich families held much of Argentina's wealth and power in their hands. So Peron and the government brought in an eight hour working day , sickness pay and fair wages to give poor workers a fair go .

» I have one thing that counts, and that is my heart; it burns in my soul, it aches in my flesh, and it ignites my nerves: that is my love for the people and Peron.

» I know that, like every woman of the people, I have more strength than I appear to have.

» I was born Maria Eva Duarte in one of those miserable dry and sleepy little towns in 1919.

» I will come again, and I will be millions.

» I will return and I will be a million.

» If I have to apply five turns to the screw each day for the happiness of Argentina, I will do it.

» In government, one actress is enough.

» Keeping books on social aid is capitalistic nonsense. I just use the money for the poor. I can't stop to count it.

» My biggest fear in life is to be forgotten.

» One cannot accomplish anything without fanatacism.

» Shadows cannot see themselves in the mirror of the sun.

» Suffer little children and come unto me.

» The nation's government has just handed me the bill that grants us our civil rights. I am receiving it before you, certain that I am accepting this on behalf of all Argentinean women, and I can feel my hands tremble with joy as they grasp the laurel proclaiming victory.

» There are some oligarchs that make me want to bite them just as one crunches into a carrot or a radish.

» Time is my greatest enemy.

» To convince oneself that one has the right to live decently takes time.

» When my father died it left me without any financial support. At the age of fifteen I ran off to Buenos Aires with a passing musician who promised to make me a film star . But soon after the musician left, I managed to stay alive by playing small parts in the theatre and films .

» When the rich think about the poor, they have poor ideas.

» When the rich think of the impoverished, they think of impoverished desires.

» Where there is a worker, there lies a nation.

» Yes, well I do have plenty of clothes, jewels and money. However I don't ask for money for myself but if some one gives me money I take it and put it in The Eva Peron Foundation which gives huge amounts of money to the poor and helps to build hospitals , schools and old peoples' homes .

» You must want! You have the right to ask! You must desire.

Sarah Palin Finds Her Groove

HAT TIP: Rufus


Momma Grizzly must have taken Obama seriously on the fired up thingy because she was smoking hot in Anaheim. I especially enjoyed some of her better tweaks at the usual suspects. It was a clever speech, well written and masterly delivered.

You will have to watch to find them.

"They know we're at war, and to win that war we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern." - Sarah Palin

PART TWO



PART THREE



PART FOUR



PART FIVE



I confess to being a Sarah Palin sceptic, but Palin does strike a chord as the un-Obama. I was less impressed with the beginning of the Tea Party.

Now I am not sure that they should not be taken seriously. The Democrats surely have.

How can we tell? The race card of course.

The Left and Democrats have reflexively played the race card, saying the Tea Party is a white movement and of course suspicious, which is laughable and ironic at the beginning of the dutiful annual homage to "black history month."

I am amused that almost all black callers on c-apan complain that the Tea Party movement is a white movement, and of course, racist.

Look at the Left-wing blocks. Listen to MSNBC, the tingly pink Chris Matthews. They are the real race card officiandos. Check out field negro's blog

Blacks voted 97% for Obama and somehow I doubt that was a coincidence. Complacency has been a large feature of white middle class and working class Americans, and they do not vote on strictly racial lines.

We shall see in November.

_______________________________________


Sarah Palin lashes Obama at first Tea Party convention
BBC

Former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has spoken at the first US Tea Party convention, urging a return to conservate principles.

Speaking in Nashville, Mrs Palin called President Obama's 2011 budget "immoral" and said it would raise the US debt.

The year-old Tea Party movement includes many people who oppose Barack Obama's plans for healthcare reform and the president's stimulus package.

Mrs Palin said future generations would pay the cost if spending was not cut.

"It's easy to understand why Americans are shaking their heads when Washington has broken trust with the people that these politicians are to be serving," she told the convention.

'Drowning in debt'

When she warned that the US was "drowning in national debt, and many of us have had enough," the former governor of Alaska was rewarded with a standing ovation.

She also berated the Obama administration for focusing on adversaries of the US rather than its allies.

"We need a foreign policy that distinguishes America's friends from her enemies, and recognises the true nature of the threats that we face," Mrs Palin said.

She praised the leaderless, bottom-up approach of the Tea Party movement, saying its success had Washington politicians running scared.

"I am a big supporter of this movement," she said, and added - in a nod to the Tea Party's name, a reference to a famous protest against British colonial rule: "America is ready for another revolution and you are part of this".
Congress goal
Barely a year old, the Tea Party gained influence during the acrimonious US healthcare reform debate.

Members, gathered from state-level Tea Parties, complain that big spending to stimulate the economy is being wasted in Washington and on Wall Street while small-town America has to tighten its belt.

And the coalition of disaffected conservatives is undoubtedly growing in influence - its endorsement of Republican Scott Brown helped his election last month as Massachusetts senator, says the BBC's Madeleine Morris, attending the Nashville event.

Our correspondent says that movement's organisers have announced the formation of a political action committee, with funds of $10m, whose goal will be to get up to 20 conservative candidates into Congress in November's mid-term congressional elections.

There has been controversy over the use of paid lobbyists and PR companies at the conference and Mrs Palin's appearance fee: reported to be as much as $100,000.

Some activists have also complained about the $500 (£317) registration fee for the Nashville conference.
But in an opinion piece published on USA Today website ahead of the conference Mrs Palin said she would not benefit financially from speaking at the event.

Instead she said she was motivated only by her "goal [...] to support the grassroots activists who are fighting for responsible, limited government - and our constitution".

Sarah Palin, after Bush and Obama, Why Not?

bob said...

Yea

I have gone and stayed.

Lo

I have swayed out on the wildest wave alive, and yet am still.

Yea, I have gone far away, and yet remain.

Lo

I have touched the hand of a goddess
I have touched the skin of a goddess
And have not died.

I have conversed with a goddess, spoken with a goddess, such speaking is not easy.

I have shaken the hand of the luckiest man in America, a shy, soft spoken man.

I have two signed books and

Yo!

Two T-shirts too

It was worth it...

If she is preggers, she didn't show it. What a nice looking young coouple they are!

Sold out turn out in Sandpoint. Sandpoint is a lot like what Coeur d'Alene used to be.

Thu Dec 10, 11:28:00 PM EST

_______________________

December 10, 2009
The Palin Palimpsest
By Jed Gladstein American Thinker

Sarah Palin is an authentic American phenomenon. She resonates with a majority of the American people as authentic -- because she is authentic. She is a no-BS, stand-for-the-truth, take-a-licking-and-keep-on-ticking kind of gal. In other words, she is not like the ordinary, everyday, go-along-to-get-along professional politicians who control our national political parties. And it is precisely for that reason that she can now spearhead an American political renaissance.

Our nation has been buried for decades under political pabulum. The Democrats pretend to represent average Americans, but they are controlled by wealthy elitists who pay lip service to American values while propagating cultural Marxism in every corner of the land. The Republicans pretend to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but they are more comfortable outsourcing the sinews of American power than strengthening the fabric of American society.

The American people have been held in thrall for decades to the two major political parties because there isn't a viable "none-of-the-above" option on our ballots. Worse yet, people have grown cynical about the prospects of honest and honorable government because they see that the people in power, whatever their political party, seem to have more solicitude for their own power than they have for the people.

The framers of the Constitution knew that government seats would attract people willing to trade their votes to remain in power. The framers therefore crafted a Constitution to create a limited government in order to curtail the power of such people. But government of the people, by the people, and for the people requires people to be vigilant about keeping the power of government limited. Unfortunately, the people have failed to do that, and now it is time to rectify the failure.

It would be comforting if an authentic American political phenomenon like Sarah Palin could spearhead a successful third-party movement. But that is wishful thinking. Were she to attempt such a thing, it would almost certainly fragment the huge centrist American vote and result in further radical left victories in the national polls. That would compound the present disaster and tilt America inexorably toward third-world status and misery.

Better to heed the words of Shakespeare, who wrote that "There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune." For America, that means Sarah Palin and the Republican Party. Here's why and here's how:

1. The Republican Party is out, and wants in. That means it needs a champion who can generate popular enthusiasm. Sarah Palin is such a champion. Put aside the blithe criticisms of the pundits and naysayers. If an election were held today, Sarah Palin would generate a popular majority greater than the one that swept Ronald Reagan into the White House.
2. The Republican Party is chastened. Its failure under Bush to pare back the scope of federal interference in people's lives resulted in the Devil's bargain with the Democrats to expand federal involvement in mortgage lending, and that led directly to the collapse of the real estate market and then the stock market. That has taken the Republican Party down a couple of pegs, and it is now far more amenable to the common-sense values that Sarah Palin embodies.
3. The Republican Party has an existing political infrastructure that can be used to facilitate a national campaign by Sarah Palin, whereas a third party candidacy would need to reinvent the wheel. Time is short, the issues are vital, and the 90% rule applies to the choice of political vehicle.
4. National campaigns require huge amounts of money. Sarah Palin can raise that money directly from the American people by way of the World Wide Web, in exactly the way Obama is alleged to have done. Millions of Americans will donate $5, $10, $20 or $100 to a political renaissance spearheaded by Sarah Palin. They will be glad to do it because they trust her.
5. The time to begin the political renaissance is now, not in 2011 or 2012. The reason is that Sarah Palin must spearhead more than a personal political campaign. She must spearhead a political renaissance, and that means taking over the Republican Party. To do that, she will need time and allies and money. She can raise the money, and the allies are ready to hand. But time is remorseless, and assuming power in the Republican Party will be time-consuming, so she must begin that task today.

A palimpsest is a manuscript written over a partly erased older manuscript in such a way that the old words can be read beneath the new. It is time for Sarah Palin to write over the American political landscape so that the words of our Founders will resonate across this land again. She can do it, because like the Founders of this nation, she is an authentic American phenomenon.

Can the Republicans screw up the next Presidential campaign?

The Republicans could not be foolish enough to think the American public would go for Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee in 2012, could they? Barack Obama could not possibly be that lucky, you think?

_____________________

What the election results mean for Barack Obama and Sarah Palin

Toby Harnden
Telegraph

So, 24 hours after the votes have been counted and as the chattering classes fall silent, what does it all mean? Here are 10 thoughts to take away:

1. Barack Obama needs to be very afraid. If he doesn’t start to notch up concrete achievements, the Democrats could take a pasting in next year’s mid-terms, setting the stage for his being a one-term president.
2. Sarah Palin roared and had a considerable impact in New York’s 23rd District, which the Democrat narrowly won. Trouble is for her that the result showed the limits of her appeal. There was no exit polling and so there is much supposition but it seems that her intervention energised conservatives but alienated centrists. Perhaps the national Republican who came out best was Mitt Romney, who decided not to get involved.
3. The 2008 presidential election was probably an aberration rather than a seismic shift in the political landscape. Obama’s winning formula of massive turnout from the young and the black plus support from independents seems to be a thing of history.
4. Bob McDonnell’s thumping 18-point win in Virginia shows how Republicans can win again. He and Chris Christie, the New Jersey victor, did not take up Palin’s offer to campaign for them and played down their social conservatism – so this could be bad news for Palinites.
5. The national Republican party is in disarray. If they don’t get their act together then Obama will win a second term by default if nothing else.
6. The media narrative about NY23 – that it was about an intolerant Right purging a noble moderate – is rubbish. What happened was a very liberal Republican and awful candidate was chosen in error/arrogance and the people rejected her. She then showed her true colours by sabotaging the GOP. There’s a lot of Democratic gloating but you can bet the farm on a Republican being elected there in a year’s time.
7. This is likely to make health-care reform more difficult to achieve because conservative Democrats in the House will be fearful of signing their own death warrant by backing Nancy Pelosi and Obama.
8. Calling your opponent fat is not a winning strategy. Even if he is.
9. After the result in Maine, the battle over gay marriage is far from over.
10. It’s the economy stupid and despite all the White House spin, it seems they get that.

Sarah Palin to Repose

Why? Why not? What kind of person would want to subject themselves and their family, to the hypocrisy, inanity, and viciousness of American politics?

We have legislatures that pass laws that they have not read. We have a vapid president that has made tele-prompted platitudes an art form and yet receives little serious scrutiny from an intellectually shallow and dishonest press. Why would Sarah Palin or anyone else want to be part of that?

I think Sarah Palin is an attractive but ordinary talented politician that by any measure exceeds the standards of most who serve in the US Congress. I have lost sight of the qualifications necessary to be president. Could she be any worse or less qualified than Jimmy Carter, George Bush the younger or Barack Obama? I doubt it. Is there some tawdry revelation hidden by the media smoke screen of Michael Jackson or the sinning, sorry, sniffling governor from South Carolina?

If you want good government too bad, you aren't getting it in the America of 2009. The American political establishment is a septic sewer of corruption and venality caused by the barter and spoils of minority interests and lobbyists who wheedle the political compass for their paymasters. Still, things have not gotten bad enough to change that.

The Obama presidency rises or falls on the economy. An economic wreck is about the only hope the Republicans have to regain power. Who will lead them to an unlikely victory is anyone's guess. I doubt it will be the good mom from Alaska.

The Palin Epilogue

Gibson Edited and Distorted the Palin Interview

The Smart and Tough, Mark Levin.

Hat Tip: What is Occupation

This is a transcript from the Palin interview by ABC's Charlie Boy Gibson. It is the complete transcript. Mark Levin  of the ABC affilate WABC in New York City highlighted the pieces that were clipped out by Gibson. He has guts.

It is a shameful example of the propagandist wing of the so-called news at it's finest. 

I am perplexed that the McCain people would have allowed the editing, but they apparently did not object and here it is with the edited parts in bold type. Thank you Mark Levin.

EXCERPTS: Charlie Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin (September 11, 2008)

THE BOLDE PARTS WERE EDITED OUT OF THE INTERVIEW


GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say “I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?”

PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I’m ready.

GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, “Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?”

PALIN: I didn’t hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn’t that take some hubris?

PALIN: I — I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink.

So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it’s about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that’s with the energy independence that I’ve been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: I know. I’m just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It’s that important. It’s that significant.

GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?

PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life.

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.


GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Sarah Palin on Russia:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

Sarah Palin on Iran and Israel:

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn’t second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don’t think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?

PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we’re able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we’re a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.


Sarah Palin on God:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That, in my world view, is a grand — the grand plan.

GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

PALIN: I don’t know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.

Sarah Palin is Ready to Lead and More Qualified Than Barack Obama

There is nothing that I can add to describe the shameful and contemptible reporting tactics and shenanigans of our rulers and masters in the shameless American Theater of the Absurd called "The Media." Even the term is loaded with a smug self anointed importance. The Media.

Sarah Palin did fine today with ABC and she may as well continue with the rest of the alpha-beltway pack. She was a little bit too calm for me and I would have been back at Charlie Boy but then I would not get elected to anything.

Palin reminded me of an intentional border intrusion by fighter pilots, flying aircraft loaded with electronic recording equipment, for the purpose of getting a hostile to light up what they have, for intelligence purposes and future use. She is a quick study and will be ready to take on the best of the worst soon. Turn her loose on Chris Matthews and show the MSNBC jester what a reversal and mat burns to the face feel like. Hardball. She would crack his nuts.

See, there I go again, too aggressive. Let Sarah do it her way. The Republicans have nothing to worry about with her in a one to one with any of them.

_______________________________

Sarah Palin first major interview: 'Ready to lead the nation'
In her first major interview since being named as the Republican vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin adopted a tough tone on national security and claimed she was ready to lead the nation if necessary.

By Alex Spillius in Washington Telegraph
Last Updated: 6:26AM BST 12 Sep 2008

The Alaska governor categorized the recent Russian invasion of Georgia as "unacceptable". She said that if Georgia become a member of Nato, then war with Russia might be necessary in order to protect a US ally.

"Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a Nato ally, if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help," she told ABC News.

Mrs Palin has given only scripted speeches since her explosive arrival into the White House race three weeks ago, which has transformed presidential nominee Senator John McCain's performance in the polls.

Until her interview with Charles Gibson, a veteran foreign affairs specialist, aides had ruled out press conferences, where unplanned questions have tripped up many candidates in the past. Her only interview thus far had been with People magazine.

Mrs Palin is such a hot property that ABC was planning to roll out the interviews over Thursday evening and Friday. Aides to Mr McCain said more interviews were scheduled for next week, but made it clear hostile networks would not be selected.

Critics have questioned Mrs Palin's experience, as she received her first passport earlier this year to visit US troops in Kuwait and Germany and has less than two years as governor of a state with a population of 646,000.

To the disappointment of Democrats, she passed her first significant media test without any major gaffes, though she suffered some uncomfortable moments.

She was forced to admit she had not met any foreign heads of state, but said she was sure nor had plenty of other vice-presidential candidates.

When asked if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine (of pre-emptive warfare), she was unaware what it meant. She then defended a previous statement made in an Alaskan church that the war in Iraq was a "task from God". Mrs Palin said she was referring to a famous quote from Abraham Lincoln.

Saying she had no doubts about her readiness to be vice-president, or president should Mr McCain be incapacitated, she said: "I answered 'yes' [to McCain] because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink."

Sarah Palin Has MSM Slime Merchants on DEFCON 2

Twenty-Two Reasons To Vote Against Obama
By: Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin
09/05/2008

The mainstream media continue to deteriorate into a world of slime and sleaze with their assault on Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican candidate for vice president. They are picking up on lies manufactured in the blogosphere by hate groups such as the Daily Kos, and are transmuting rumors, speculations and outright lies into front-page smears disguised as hard news. As usual, the New York Times (September 2, 2008) has led the way with two front page storie s and a third on a full-page inside. The journalism of the New York Times now makes the supermarket tabloids look good by comparison.


Yes, the biased, slime merchants at the New York Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the rest of the mainstream media have spent more time vetting and investigating the 17-year old pregnant daughter of Sarah Palin then they have investigating Sen. Barack Obama, a candidate for president. They have spent more time investigating a 22-year old DUI incident of Mrs. Palin's husband than they have spent investigating Sen. Obama's illegal use of cocaine and his admitted boozing and his long-time association with terrorists and racists. They give Obama a free pass but look at Palin's daughter as if the daughter is on the ticket.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson was right on target when he said the mainstream media and its partner, the Democratic Party, are so in fear of defeat after the announcement of the McCain/Palin ticket that they are going ever deeper into the journalistic sewer to discredit Gov. Palin. I keep saying the mainstream media has hit rock bottom, but it conti nues to sink lower into the journalistic sewer. They are now clearly so devoid of journalistic principles, honesty and fairness that they will do anything. They are at bottom and can't sink lower.

Now here's 22 reasons to vote against Mr. Obama and for McCain/Palin.

1. Sen. Obama gives flowery speeches on change and hope. But he's part of one of the most corrupt political machines of all time. And instead of fighting and trying to reform the corrupt Chicago Cook County political machine, he used it to rise to power. When reformers tried to fight it, Mr. Obama refused to help them and actually was instrumental in defeating the reform movement. He preaches a new kind of politics but supports and uses one of the worst political machines in the U.S.
2. He led the battle in the Illinois legislature to assure that born-alive infants would not be treated as persons and would not be entitled to medical care. Instead, if Sen. Obama had his way, such babies born alive after a botched abortion would be left to die, thus legalizing what apears to be infanticide and murder.
3. When he first responded to Russia's invasion of Georgia, he said that aggression was wrong, but the U.S. would be in a better position if we set a good example. Thus he made it clear he was drawing a moral equivalence between Russia's aggression and the U.S.'s liberation of Iraq, which had violated 17 United Nations resolutions. This reaction alone, suggests not merely bad judgment but apparently no judgment at all. Then after giving it more thought, his second response was turning the matter over to the United Nations. That of course was a stupid idea as Russia has a veto in the Security Council.
4. He sat in the pews of the Trinity Church in Chicago, listening to a notorious racist, bigot and anti-American, Rev. Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright, without a peep of protest. He did not leave the church until Rev. Wright said Obama is just another politician who says what he has to say. And that move was dictated by political considerations, not any moral outrage.
5. He started his political career in a fund-raiser in the home of William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist and anti-American. He still hasn't denounced him but says Mr. Ayers is now a member of the Chicago Democratic mainstream. He still maintains a friendly relationship with him, has served on a board with him, and has participated in speaking panels with him.
6. He refused to wear a flag on his lapel, claiming he viewed it as a symbol of false patriotism employed after 9/11. He started wearing the flag only when he was embarrassed into doing so under political pressure. At that time he suddenly started ending his speeches with the words "God Bless America."
7. He got an earmark appropriation from Congress for his wife's employer, the University of Chicago Medical Center. When questioned on the appearance of conflict of interest, he said there was nothing improper about that but he should have gone to his fellow Illinois Sen. Dick Durban, to put the appropriation through. In other words, if there is an appearance of conflict of interest, you should hide it somehow instead of avoiding what creates such appearance. This is a pattern: saying one thing and doing the opposite. When he started to run for the presidency, he stopped putting in earmarks. As is his usual pattern, he started doing the right thing for election purposes only. So judge him by his record, not moves that are merely campaign calculation.
8. He favors increasing the capital gains tax, even though he admitted it will not raise tax revenue, but cut it instead. He justifies such an irrational move, out of what he calls a sense of fairness. That would mean less tax revenue, higher deficits and less incentive for saving, investment, capital formation, economic growth, and creation.
9. He called for negotiations without preconditions with the Ahmadinejad of Iran, Chavez of Venzuela, and Castro of Cuba. Even Senator Obama recognized the folly of this idea, so he backed off of it after an explosion of criticism. He thinks sweet talk solves all problems, and when a problem calls for something beyond sweet talk, he 's stumped. He speaks loudly and often, but carries a toothpick-size stick which he is afraid to use. Another example of Mr. Obama's naiveté was his comment that Iran is a small country not to be feared.
10. He opposed the surge, said it would fail, and even after it was almost universally acclaimed to be a success, he refuses to admit the surge succeed ed.
11. He called for withdrawal from Iraq, in effect, calling for retreat and defeat, which would have turned over the Middle East and much of the world's oil supplies to terrorists and their supporters in Iran.
12. He associated with and made a land deal with convicted felon, Tony Rezko, even knowing he was under serious investigation. He admitted this was what he called a boneheaded mistake. Mr. Obama seems incapable of judging his associates, as his close and friendly encounters with the hate-America and terrorist crowd suggests. Even an otherwise friendly biographer, said he is at home with the hate-America types.
13. He claims he will bring all sides together but he has never shown any signs or symptoms of bipartisanship. His record is that of a far-left liberal, the most liberal of any member of the U.S. Senate. He goes down the party line, and never reaches across the aisle.
14. He claims he will bring change to Washington, but picks a long-term Washington insider, Sen. Joe Biden, who has been in the Senate for decades, and is rated the third most liberal in the U.S. Senate. He claims he'll be the agent of change, but in his acceptance speech he catalogs the tired left-wing Democratic agenda, that has been regurgitated every four years for decades. He talks change but dishes up only the old liberal dishes, which have been rejected by voters many times from McGovern to Carter, and which have failed when implementation was attempted. If Mr. Obama wins the White House, he is likely to have a veto proof Congress, which mean all of his left-loony proposals would probably become law. Electoral history suggests Americans don't go for such unrestrained power. Beware of an Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate that would bring us radical liberalism in its worst form.
15. He says he wants to bring us energy independence but refuses to drill and extract our huge reserves, greater than those of Saudi Arabia. He wants us to check our tire pressure instead of drilling. Give me a break! He also advises everyone to tune-up their cars, even though most cars no longer need tune-ups.
16. He never sticks with a job. For example, when he became senator he started writing his book. Then within two years of becoming a senator, he started running for president. It is not surprising that he has no legislative accomplishments. This has been the pattern of his entire career. He never sticks with anything long enough to chalk up significant achievements. That's why when asked about his accomplishments, his supporters seem to be stumped. Dean Barnett, in an article in the Weekly Standard (Sept. 1, 2008), entitled "Would You Hire Barack Obama? The resume of a chronic underachiever," writes, "You'd have to conclude that Obama's failure to commit himself to any career sufficiently to excel at it suggests some unexplained restlessness." I'd say it suggests he's a dilitante, who flits from one project to another, but never stays long enough to deliver a satisfactory end product.
17. As talk show host Michael Medved has pointed out, the people vouching for him at the Democratic National Convention were mainly relatives, such as his wife and brother-in-law. There were not major figures vouching for him, because they could not vouch for a classic empty-suit. Even Hillary Clinton, in her convention endorsement speech, said Democrats must support him, but in no way vouched for his character or judgment. Contrast that with the people at the Republican National Convention who vouched for Sen. McCain - Sen. Joe Lieberman and former Sen. Fred Thompson.
18. To bolster his foreign policy credentials, he picked Sen. Joe Biden as vice president. Sen. Biden voted for the war in Iraq, which vote Sen. Obama views as the symbol of bad judgment. So even Sen. Obama admits Sen. Biden ha bad judgment. Sen. Biden also comes up with wacky ideas of his own such as splitting Iraq, a sovereign nation, into three parts for the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis. He also voted against the first Gulf War, even after Iraq had invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East. I'd think most would consider that the height of bad judgment. He opposed the surge. He opposed Reagan's build-up to fight international communism, so his bad record is long and unbroken. Biden has judgment bad enough to match that of Sen. Obama's.
19. He flip-flops on matters that suggest he has no principles except the old Chicago machine principle of do anything you have to do to get elected. He promised to take public financing, something that the great reformer and change artist claimed to be committed to. Then when he saw it was to his political advantage to stay with totally private contributions, as that would bring in more money, he went back on his promise and rejected public funding. He said that his wide array of contributors to his campaign made his approach into public financing, one of his more nonsensical pieces of logic. He think if he uses sufficient oratorical powers he can make two and two equal ten, or private financing equal public financing.
20. He constantly uses such expressions as, "I would be glad to debate my opponent on that issue anytime, anywhere." But that is just for oratorical effect. In practice, he refused Sen. McCain's offer of a town meeting every week to debate the issues. He is clearly afraid of unscripted sessions. If he is not smart enough to go off the teleprompter and script, he is not smart enough to be president. When he participated in the Saddleback debate with Pastor Rick Warren, he demonstrated again he doesn't make sense when confronted with tough questions without the answers on a script. When asked when does life begin, he said that was above his pay-grade. If that question is above his pay grade so is the presidency of the United States.
21. He would like voters to view him as a man of great political courage, but he has a documented record of political cowardice. For example, when in the Illinois legislature, he voted "present" over 100 times and was well known for taking that route, of neither a yes or no vote. Present is a classic sitting on the fence and waiting to find out which way the wind will blow. As William Kristol of the Weekly Standard (Sept. 1, 2008) has pointed out, " Has he shunned the easy path or broken with the conventional liberal pieties of those around him? Has he taken on his own party on a major issue? Nope."
22. Mr. Obama bases his campaign on his superior judgment, and that in turn is based on his speech against the war in Iraq. Of course, he never made a vote against the war, as at the time he was in the Illinois legislature, not the U.S. Senate. He gave the speech at an anti-war rally in the liberal Hyde Park section in Chicago. But votes are more important than speeches. And since he's been in the Senate, he's been wrong on every issue related to Iraq. These mistaken positions were summed up in an article by Emery in the Weekly Standard (Sept.1, 2008) entitled "Misfortunes of War: Success in Iraq Confounds the Democrats." It isn't easy to be wrong on every vote and pronouncement on Iraq, but don't underestimate Sen. Obama's ineptness in the foreign policy area. Mr. Emery writes: "He claimed that the Anbar Awakening took place as a result of Democrats' congressional victories, but it began in September 2006, two months before before the voting took place. He opposed not only the troop surge, but also the strategic changes that took place along with it, that did so much to enable the victory. He said the American military had noting to do with the Anbar Awakening or with the retreat of the Sadr militia, something denied by the Iraqi military and by the Iraqi Sunnis themselves. He was also wrong in his predictions that none of this would occur."
    

Sen. Obama not only has judgment bad enough to make him wrong on every foreign policy question, but he also has the knack of picking advisors and close associates who have a strong record of being wrong. For example, his choice for vice president, Sen. Biden, and one of the senators that accompanied him on his trip to Iraq, Sen. Chuck Hagel, introduced a resolution in opposition to the buildup that was the surge that turned the tide in Iraq.

Sen. Obama's inexperience in foreign policy is perhaps his most dangerous deficiency. But don't underestimate his ability to wreck our economy, destroy the incentives for entrepreneurs to take risks and build jobs, and to wreck our health care delivery system.

Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.

Sarah Palin and Maggie Thatcher

We saw something special tonight. Palin drew an arrow, took aim at her detractors, and hit her target. Win or lose in November, Sarah Palin and John McCain have changed the dynamic of the Republican Party.  I firmly believe that they will revive the challenge for leadership in the cultural tug of war in America.

Palin made direct challenges to Obama and shifted the Republican Party into a populist mode. She eviscerated the train wreck of the MSM. She brought respectability to normality. An iron lady, maybe so. It was fun to watch.

________________________

Sarah Palin gets the spiteful Margaret Thatcher treatment
By Janet Daley Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 04/09/2008

There are few sights more bloodcurdling than the liberal pack in full cry. The viciousness of the attacks on Sarah Palin is a testimony to the degree of panic her appointment has generated in Leftist circles.

It would seem that it is only sexist to trash a woman candidate if she is a Woman Candidate, which is to say a liberal.

It took about 20 minutes after John McCain announced her as his running mate for the attack machine to mobilise: woman candidate (bleep, bleep), no previous warning (nee-naw, nee-naw), exterminate, exterminate.

At first, it was pretty tenuous stuff: her husband had once been caught on a drink-drive charge - when he was 22 years old. You don't say. In blue-collar America, having only one drink-drive offence pretty much qualifies you as a Grade A wimp.

Then the piranhas got hold of a real prize (or so they thought): the 17-year-old daughter of this Christian Evangelical family was pregnant.

Yes, these things happen - and this particular thing happens quite a lot among the working-class American families that Mrs Palin personifies. She and her daughter are being true to their convictions: the girl will have her baby and marry her boyfriend. There will be no abortion or adoption.

The Palin family will offer them love, compassion and support. What's your problem? Christianity (even of the Evangelical sort) does not expect human beings to be faultless: it demands only that they make amends for their transgressions and accept responsibility for them.

The Evangelical churches have made it their particular mission in recent years to support teenage mothers and urge their families to stand by them. So where is the shame in this situation?

Now those who are not of the Palins' religious persuasion may well feel that it is wrong to allow a 17-year-old to marry and start a family. If one of my daughters had become pregnant at the age of 17, would I have advised her to have the baby and marry the father? No, I would not.

Do I respect the decision of another mother and daughter to make that choice based on their own values? Yes, I do. And that - as far as I am concerned - is what it means to be a "liberal". Which brings us to the subject of those hokey old redneck values that the Guardian and the blogosphere find so amusing (or pernicious, depending on their degree of dedication).

I personally am, and always have been, fervently pro-choice on abortion. I do not consider this to be the only sanctified Woman's point of view because I am aware that huge numbers of women disagree with me.

Whenever I touch on the subject, they write in and tell me so, often in eloquent and passionate terms. But according to the official feminist sisterhood (which was taken over by the totalitarian Marxist tendency long ago) you can represent the views of Women only if you accept the tenets of their ideology. Ergo, Mrs Palin is not a Woman Candidate.

She is a renegade, the gender equivalent of an Uncle Tom. In the US, her position is particularly incendiary because it is part of the culture war between metropolitan liberals and provincial America: that vast fly-over country where people (or "folks", as they call themselves) still live by the standards the Palin family embodies. Life is about hard work and hard play.

They hunt with guns from childhood. They talk about sin (and redemption) in ways that embarrass the urban elite, and they regard patriotism as a fundamental part of their moral code. (It is the liberals' ambivalence about patriotism that they detest most.)

Like Margaret Thatcher before her, Mrs Palin is coming in for both barrels of Left-wing contempt: misogyny and snobbery. Where Lady Thatcher was dismissed as a "grocer's daughter" by people who called themselves egalitarian, Mrs Palin is regarded as a small-town nobody by those who claim to represent "ordinary people".

What the metropolitan sophisticates failed to understand in the 1980s when Thatcher won election after election is even more the case in the US: most (and I do mean most) ordinary people actually believe in the basic decencies, the "small-town values", of family, marital fidelity, and personal responsibility. They believe in and honour them - even if they do not manage to uphold them.

Middle America - of which Alaska is spiritually, if not geographically, a part - builds its life around those ideals and regards commonplace moral lapses as part of the eternal struggle to be good.

The life of small-town USA is based on the principles of those Protestant colonial settlers who founded the nation: hard work, self-improvement, personal faith and family devotion. Mrs Palin speaks to and for them in a way that patronising "liberal" elitists find infuriating.