Saturday, January 31, 2009

Comparing Sarah Palin with Obama

Never, never understimate Sarah Palin's toughness . . .

Right now (8 p.m. ET Saturday), Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are at the Alfalfa Club dinner in DC. Like you, I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that event.

Today, I was reading John Brady's superb biography of political genius, Lee Atwater (Bad Boy: The Life and Politics of Lee Atwater). Brady opens the book with the following quote: "The things we admire in men [and women, hopefully], kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest -- sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest -- are the traits of success. And while men [and women] admire the quality of the first, they love the produce of the second." (John Steinbeck, Cannery Row)

Is that true? For the most part, it is. Someone like Sarah Palin falls mainly in the first category, while Barack Obama -- and the men around him -- fall mainly in the second. Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod, is a specialist in smearing -- defaming -- his client's opponents. Axelrod was the primary sources for the flood of lies about Palin. To a degree, his tactic worked, driving down Sarah's "favorables," which was Axelrod's intent.

I've talked about Joe Biden uttering one falsehood after another during the campaign. He's now the vice-president of the U.S. No one has yet identified one lie told by Sarah Palin. She's the one who's not the vice-president.

Does all this mean that Obama inevitably defeats Palin in a head-to-head match? Not necessarily. We cannot ignore Sarah's toughness, which far exceeds that of Barack Obama. Also, as former Ms. editor Elaine Lafferty observed, Sarah is infinitely curious and a fast learner.

How much exactly she learned in 2008 -- and continues to learn -- we're beginning to see. Perhaps at tonight's Alfalfa Club dinner, Obama will begin to see it also.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Palin Presidential Bid Taking Shape

Sarah Palin is doing everything to ready a presidential bid except wearing a baseball hat saying "Palin for President." Just because you're running for President, Sarah, doesn't mean you have to declare it.

Consider the following piece (in italics) by Washington Post writer Chris Cilizza, who does a column called "The Fix": Cilizza, like most people at the WaPo, is no friend of Sarah Palin, so his comments should be eyed skeptically. She's "not one of them" -- thank goodness.

As you read Cilizza's column think about the parts of it (most) that should be taken as balderdash. (The Post wouldn't endorse Sarah if her opponent was Rod Blagojevich.)

NEWS NUGGET: Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has hired Becki Donatelli to handle her brand-spanking new Sarahpac, according to sources familiar with the move. Donatelli is the chair of Campaign Solutions, a Republican consulting firm that specializes in fundraising and Internet strategy. Donatelli was intimately involved in both of Sen. John McCain's (Ariz.) presidential bids and her work with Palin suggests that reports of the two camps' distaste for one another might be (slightly) overblown. The hiring of Donatelli also is evidence that Palin understands she must overhaul her image among the Republican professional class in Washington if she wants to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate in 2012."

Bulletin to Cilizza: According to Scott Rasmussen, who's a lot smarter than the smug folks at the Post, his most recent poll on the subject shows two-thirds of Republicans favor Sarah Palin as the Party's presidential nominee for 2012. Chris might ask himself why The Alfalfa Club movers-and-shaker didn't invite Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, neither of whom have a chance of ever winning a national election.

Another observation: There are people already working full-time to advance Sarah's causes who know at least as much about Internet politics as Becki Donatelli, good as she is.

If Sarah wants better relations with the narcissistic Washington "political class," it should be on her terms. Making nice with such people may be part of the job. Trusting them, however, is a luxury she can't afford.

Spontaneously generated pro-Sarah groups, including 70,000 member TeamSarah and ReadMyLipstickNetwork, are going to be major factors in Sarah's winning the presidency. Also, doesn't have to worry about the members of such groups throwing mud behind her back -- unlike some members of McCain Campaign.

Links to the Cilizza story follow:

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Palin-Obama: 2012 Election Preview?

I'll write tomorrow (Friday a.m.) about the joint appearance by Sarah Palin and Barack Obama in Washington, DC, this Saturday. As you'll note, Jonathan Martin's Politico piece assumes Sarah Palin is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination. I'd say to Sarah what Joseph Conrad said in Lord Jim, "Immerse yourself in the destructive element." In such an immersion, I expect Sarah to prevail.


By: Jonathan Martin
January 29, 2009
09:53 AM EST

In what could be a preview of the 2012 presidential race, Sarah Palin and Barack Obama will share a stage together this Saturday night in Washington, D.C., Politico has learned.

The Alaska governor and former GOP vice presidential nominee, making her first trip to the nation’s capital since the election, will join the President at the Alfalfa Dinner, a venerable gathering of the city’s political elite.

Palin and Obama will both address the black tie crowd at the Capital Hilton, aides to each say.

The duo will not, though, be heard by the general public. By tradition, the old world gathering, now in its 96th year, bars reporters. Quotes from the rostrum do, however, tend to find their way out to reporters in the lobby.

It’s a light-hearted affair, with political types playfully roasting themselves and one another. The dinner is put on by the Alfalfa Club, an exclusive list of about 200 movers and shakers whose only purpose is to throw the annual dinner on the last Saturday of January. The name is honor of a plant known to do anything for a drink.

Comprised of mostly older white men, the group didn’t induct women until 1993. Blacks were only welcomed in the 1970s.

Presidents, though, almost always attend and speak.

And aside from the real thing, club members always nominate a mock candidate for the highest office in the land. The “nominee” is then required to give an acceptance speech.

Should Palin be this year’s lucky nominee, she’ll be in good company: Three honorees have actually gone on to actually become president – Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Barack Obama: Sowing Economic Disaster

The problem is that the Democrats look at most of the public as helpless babies, waiting for Big-Mama-Government to feed and "take care of" them. Of course, the liberals love to foster this notion, because the more people become dependent, the more they rely completely on "the government" (i.e., those of us who pay taxes) to take care of them.

Thus, we give big "tax cuts" to people who pay no income tax. If you provide men and women with "tax cuts" when they're not federal taxpayers, you're taking resources from the productive -- the working, wealth-generating, job-creating people -- and giving them to the unproductive. When you reward people for merely being alive, you provide powerful incentives for an increasing number of individuals to contribute nothing to society. They take much; they give back little or nothing.

In exchange, we give away our rights to a vigorous economy and a free society. As Dick Morris recently said, our country turns from a dynamic USA into a lassitudinous, slow-growth France.

This is a "speech" that Barack Obama could give -- and should give -- but won't. Thus, he and his allies commit one immoral act after another, giving money to the current generation and sending huge bills to future generations. That doesn't produce economic recovery. It produces short-term and long-term economic disaster.

Obama is really a slicker -- and more discreet -- form of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whom Obama supporting in "Blago's" runs for Illinois governor. Clearly, Obama believes in "pay for play" politics. In the past, those who rewarded Senator Obama with campaign contributions got big paybacks in the form of earmarks and legislation.

It's "Chicago politics," the only kind Obama knows. So, the stimulus package is loaded with goodies for the unions and other groups that contributed to -- and voted for -- Barack Obama. Is the original "Mayor Daley" up in heaven (or somewhere?) smiling?

If the current President's agenda represents change, it's the kind Blagojevich and Obama have always stood for: pay off your supporters and punish your opponents.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

ALG Blasts Obama's "Stimulus" Nonsense

The woman who just might be the savior of both her Party and her Country

For Immediate Release Contact: Robert Romano
January 28th, 2009
“[I]nstead of fixing the problems government created,
the House has voted to make things worse by adding
another $1.2 trillion to the debt when interest and other
considerations are calculated.”—ALG President Bill Wilson

ALG Condemns the House for Voting for $819 Billion “Boondoggle”

January 28th, 2009, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today strongly condemned Congress for voting in favor of the $819 billion spending bill, H.R. 1, in the House of Representatives “that is certain to consign future generations to permanent debt to foreign creditors.”

“Congress is only adding to the national debt, now totaling $10.7 trillion,” said Wilson. “And they do so knowing full well that the money to pay for their extravagant spending spree needs to be borrowed from elsewhere.”

The national debt of $10.7 trillion includes $4.3 trillion owed in the form of unfunded obligations to Social Security, Medicare, and other commitments, and $6.4 trillion held privately, $3 trillion of which is held overseas.

Forty percent of the debt held privately comes due this year, and most economists agree that the only way for the government to pay it is to borrow more money.

“The problems with the economy started in large part because of government excesses: too much credit, too much borrowing, too much spending, and too much debt,” Wilson said. “Only a madman would now suggest that borrowed money on this sort of scale—which needs to be paid back—would provide any long-term economic stimulus,” Wilson added.

“Instead, because of this $819 billion boondoggle, paying down the national debt will eat up an ever-larger share of the overall economy in the years to come, diverting capital from creating new jobs and enterprises,” Wilson explained.

“And, instead of fixing the problems government created, the House has now voted to make things worse by adding another $1.2 trillion to the debt when interest and other considerations are calculated,” Wilson noted.

Wilson believes that extraordinary government interventions to date have discouraged savings, investment, and capital creation. According to the Congressional Budget Office, even without the $819 billion spending bill, the federal deficit will rise to $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP, in 2009, an all-time high.

“Markets will not recover any time soon unless the government generates a real plan to pay off the debt and get rid of wasteful spending,” said Wilson.

“Instead, the House voted to increase the deficit, increase all of our children’s and grandchildren’s financial burden, increase future interest rates and taxes, and once again shackle the American taxpayer to a mountain of debt,” Wilson concluded.

Americans for Limited Government is a non- partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free market reforms,private property rights and core American liberties.

For more information on ALG please call us at 703-383-0880 or visit our website at

Is Palin Running for President?

As Michael Reagan said recently, people have long been awaiting the arrival of another President, and then she showed up in a dress . . . and with five kids.

I sent the following to 500 people on my e-mail list:

Only those who haven't been paying attention in the last eight weeks doubt that Sarah Palin is running for President. I believe that she should declare outright sooner rather than later. She would then be a major catalyst for opposition to the far-left elements of Barack Obama's agenda.

Sending a $1.5 trillion bill to our grandchildren is not the way to solve a problem that has its origins in over-borrowing, and we need a national figure to make that point to the American people.

In my view, the best person to do so would be Gov. Palin, who has broad support, as illustrated by the huge numbers of activists joining groups aligned with "Sarah." In a Rasmussen Poll after the election, 64% of Republicans cited her as their choice for the 2012 nomination.

How can you help? One way is to join, which is now approaching 70,000 members.

Another step I hope you'll take is to contribute to, a political action committee dedicated to advancing Gov. Palin, as well as the candidates and causes she supports. (When you go to link up to SarahPac, you will need to use the "www" or else your computer won't connect.)

Right now, in the race for 2012, Barack Obama is far ahead. His campaign, one which apparently goes on unto eternity, has 13 million e-mail addresses -- four million of whom are contributors. If we want until 2011 and 2012 to mount a campaign against him, we might as well let the man run unopposed.

Please take a few minutes today to sign up at and at

By doing so, you can not only back a remarkable woman, but also strike a powerful blow for constitutional government and the American republic.

Thanks for your help, and God bless you and your family.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Media's Love Affairs with Obama

When Barack Obama has nightmares, this woman is usually in them.

Bernard Goldberg, former CBS News reporter, has written a book about the media's deep crush on candidate Barack Obama. It's appropirately titled A Slobbering Love Affair.

Goldberg says, "The media IS his [Obama's] base."

Goldberg adds, "When he became President, Obama found the economy was in worse shape than he thought . . . so he had to lay off 17 journalists."

I heard Goldberg on "The Sean Hannity Show" Monday. is it just me, or is Hannity's show much better without the irritating presence of Alan Colmes?

Monday, January 26, 2009

Biden Falsifies Wife's Death Circumstances

I've been writing on this blog about Joseph Biden's difficulty telling the truth, with a focus on what really happened in the Palin-Biden debate (short version: he told one lie after another).

In response, I got the following from Pamela Hamill. Who's she? The daughter of the truck driver who was involved in the 1972 accident that killed Biden's first wife and his young daughter, Naomi. It seems Biden has regularly falsified key circumstances in the event over the years.

Basically, he has said Hamill's father, Mr. Dunn, was impaired by alcohol, a charge that is not true. (At the bottom of this column, there's a link to the story that appeared last September in The [Wilmington, DE] News Observer.

Pamela left this comment on my earlier post: Joe Biden: A National Disgrace":

"Steve, Please research Joe Biden's false account of the 1972 accident that tragically took the lives of his first wife Neilia and baby daughter Amy.Vice President Biden says "A guy who drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch" killed them. This urban legend he has created has been accepted by the media as the truth. My father [Mr. Dunn] passed in 1999 and is not here to defend his honor.We have to be his voice and set the record straight."We are certainly not trying to equate Biden's loss to our father's heartache but this untruth is a character assassination.

Can you imagine if Sarah Palin was vilifying an innocent man who cannot defend his honor? This is one gaffe the media is allowing him to get away with so far. I am currently speaking to CBS and Katie Couric about the false account she reported of 'drunk driver killing his wife and daughter' at the Democratic National Convention and again at the Inauguration. I am waiting to hear back from them as well as our Vice President. For the full story, google 'Inside Edition' + 'Pam Hamill.'

Signed, Pamela Hamill

Note to Readers: For details on this story, please take a look at Rachel Kipp, The [Wilmington, DE] News Journal, "Joe Biden: Wrongly Blaming the Truck Driver."

Link to story:

Reporter Rachel Kipp says:"Even before Obama asked Biden to join his campaign, political observers said the senator's gaffes could be a liability in a contest where every word will be scrutinized. Biden's first presidential campaign 20 years ago was undone by charges he plagiarized parts of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.

I'll be talking with Pamela Hamill today (Monday) and will have more on this story tomorrow.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Joe Biden: Chronic Liar, Windbag

Tomorrow, on this site and my other one ( I'll have an explosive story about V-P Joe Biden. It's title, "Biden Lied About Wife's Death." It's a story that's been flying underneath the national radar, but no more . . .

Sarah Palin, one extremely tough lady . . .

Everyone acknowledges that former Senator Joe Biden is a windbag -- and, as one reporter observed, "a human gaffe machine." He's also a compulsive liberal, the fourth most liberal Senator (after Obama, Dick Durbin of IL, and (avowed socialist) Bernie Sanders of VT.

His gaffes are legendary. During one campaign stop, he saw a man with a sign that Biden liked. He urged the man to "Stand up. Stand up so everyone can see you.;" The gentleman was in a wheel chair.

After the election, he said that Vice President Cheney, whom he called "the worse vice president in history" had violated Article 1 of the Constitution in exceeding the bounds of his office. In fact, Biden, who supposedly teaches constitutiona law, apparently didn't know that Article 1 deals with the legislature, and Article 2 is the one applicable to the vice-presidency.

On the lighter side, Biden repeatedly insists --with no evidence -- that he is in close contact with America's version of The Great Unwashed. In the Oct. 2, he talked about what the common folk of Delaware -- he mentioned "Katie's Diner . . . on Union Street . . . in Wilmington" -- were saying about the economy. The next day, long-term Wilmingtonians noted that Katie's had been closed for going on 15 years. Obviously, Joe needs to get out more in his home-town.

If Sarah Palin had many any such statements, "Saturday Night Live" would have devoted whole episodes to them. But frankly, "SNL" doesn't regard Biden gaffes as worthy of notice.

In the debate with Gov. Palin, Biden insisted to an amazed Sarah that he really hadn't voted for the war in Iraq. Palin insisted that Biden, who had indeed voted for the authorization of the use of the force (i.e., war) must be using "Washington insider" logic.

In fact, Biden had said before the war that the U.S. had "no choice but to eliminate" Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. He added that war with Iraq was "probable." In August, 2003, with insurgency growing, he said he didn't regret his vote for the war. (For more information on Biden's statements, see Michael Barone, The Almanac of American Politics, 2008 edition, p. 365)

Palin found Biden's falsehoods hard to deal with. Who wouldn't> How do you say that a six-term Senator -- one with silver hair (via transplant) -- is doing nothing more than blowing endless clouds of smoke up the collective derriere of the American people?

Also in the debate with Palin, Biden said that the Iraq war was costing more per month ($10 billion) than the entire action in Afghanistan. In fact, the total cost of the U.S. effort in Afghanistan at that point added up to $172 billion. -- 17 times as much as the (monthly) cost in Iraq.

And what the media say about Biden's constant misstatements? Generally, they regard him as "lovable, loquacious old Joe," the guy with chronic foot-in-mouth disease. As a CNN reporter (Paul) said last week, in spite of Biden's record of misstatements, "he brings so much else to the table."

Biden brings to the table a record of being perpetually misinformed -- and of having not even a tangential relationship with the truth. The American people elected the wrong person vice-president, an error we have a chance to correct in 2012.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Joe Biden: A National Disgrace

Tomorrow, Sunday (Jan. 25), I'll continue the column on Joe Biden as a national disgrace. One reporter called the new Vice President "a human gaffe machine," and that's accurate.

Sometime ago, Biden was discussing the fast food and convenience store situation in his home state of Delaware. He commented, "You cannot go to the 7/11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent." Can you imagine the response if, say, Sarah Palin had made such an idiotic statement?

In the campaign, Biden once introduced his running mate as "the next President of the United States . . . Barack AMERICA." Is this a manifestation of some sort of brain disorder?

(Much more tomorrow. Hope you'll come back.)

Friday, January 23, 2009

Obama v. Palin on HealthCare

NOTE: This important column is a cross-post from my other site ( 90% of the time the posts will be different.
Photo by Al Grillo, Associated Press. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, right, shakes hands with Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell before she gives the state of the state address to a joint session of the state Senate and House in the Capitol in Juneau, Alaska on Thursday Jan. 22, 2009.

It's fascinating to contrast what Gov. Palin says about health care with what Obama says (see link below to Sarah's State of the State Address yesterday).

"Simply increasing budgets every year, a common government practice, is no guarantee of success. More often, it's an incentive to failure. Good public policy is accountable for results, and focused on critical priorities.

"In this [Alaska legislative] chamber, we share a commitment to serious health-care reform. We've learned from experience that all the answers do not come from Washington. When Congress turns to health-care reform this year, we look to our delegation to make the case for greater competition, more private sector choices, and less litigation in the health-care market. But we're not going to wait. Here, reform can move forward without delay.

" . . . [H]ealth care reform on an individual basis is often just this simple: we could save a lot of money, and a lot of grief, by making smarter choices.

"It starts by ending destructive habits, and beginning healthy habits in eating and exercise. In my case, it's hard to slack when you have the ever-present example of an Iron Dogger [Todd Palin]nearby. But many of us could use a little more time in our great outdoors - and when you live in the Great Land, there's no excuse.

"Protecting good health is largely a matter of personal responsibility, but government policy can help. Our new Alaska Health Care Commission will recommend changes that affect the well-being of Alaskans far into the future."

As Sarah suggests, our individual health is largely (not completely, of course) self-determined If people behave irresponsibly (in eating, exercise, and other areas) there is no way to hold the line on costs, and people end up being sicker -- and dying earlier -- than necessary.

The most critical "reform" in health is a change of heart on the part of Americans -- a willingness to choose good health over the bad kind. There may be ways to drive down costs -- especially through the use of technology and "virtual clinics" for exams -- that will not compromise the quality of care. Mail order prescriptions save my wife and I about $1,000 per year, and if that gets mutliplied by hundreds of million people, it's a painless way to cut overall health care costs. (Admittedly, mail order is not for everyone.)

Most of our society's supposed problems have relatively simple solutions. The reason they don't get solved by someone like Obama is that he's mainly interested in paying off his political supporters/voters, most of whom have little interest in efficiency or cost-containment. Thus, the problems never get solved, except rhetorically.

On just about every issue, I admittedly emphasize cost-cutting. In higher education, for example, there's no reason -- in the age of the Internet -- for college costs to continue rising at twice the rate of inflation. Frankly, college costs should not be five times as much, adjusted for inflation, as they were when I attended the University of Rochester a generation ago. Where there's no real incentive for cost-cutting, there will be none, a reality that's lost on Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.

I realize that there can't be such thing as a "virtual emergency room" or a "virtual obstetric procedure," but virtual "routine office visits," with perhaps a paramedic in attendance with the patient, should be possible.

My wife had a bad stroke in 1991, and she's been on Medicare since 1994, no going into her 15th year. In that time, her Medicare premiums have more covered the expenses in all but two years (one of which she had a gall bladder operation). In short, the government (the taxpayers) is a net winner with her. She eats well; she exercises regularly (more regularly, alas, than her husband0. She's an extremely prudent consumer of health care services. She realizes nothing is free. She has absolutely no desire to waste American resources.

Is Barack Obama going to encourage people to behave the way my wife does? Very unlikely. I fear Obama is going to overwhelm the health system, discourage young people from preparing for medical careers, and utlimately lead the nation to rationing.

Sadly, you're not going to hear this debate on CNN or MSNBC. They will continue to focus on Michelle's dress, the family's "labradoodle," and Barack's "Blackberry."

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Obama is NOT African-American

"We will enter his [Obama's] Administration as the United States, buoyed by an aggressive free market economy. We will exit his first year - and even the first hundred days - as France, burdened with massive government regulation, a vast public sector, and permanent middle class entitlements," (Dick Morris)

In my previous columns on President Barack Hussein Obama, I noted that he's a good speech-deliverer -- as long as you don't mind speeches totally devoid of content. In this piece, I point out that, although he managed to get 96% of Black votes, he's not really an African-American.

There are ways to move more Black people out of poverty. There are ways to improve inner-city schools. Most people know what those ways are(such as school choice), but they will wait in vain for Obama and the Democratic Congress to take them. Most Democrats love Black people's votes, but they won't go as far as actually loving --or truly helping -- Black Americans.

Obama has Black voters in his pocket. As a good Chicago politician, he knows he doesn't therefore has to do anything in particular for Black people. Thus, giving them real hope -- say, by encouraging Black small businesses or rewarding those who work their way up to high incomes -- is unnecessary.

Obama is no more African-American than he is a Caucasian-American. His mother, not mentioned much in his campaign propaganda, was not Black. She was white. His father was an Arab with a smidgen of African ancestry.

So, BHO is the designated Black, not actually Black in any genetic sense. He is our first (that we know of) mixed-race President. Of course, that's not exactly how he gets portrayed. He's "Black" in name only. He's Black because it's politically convenient for him to be so labeled. The most important quality we can have in life is to be a truth-teller, even when it's politically inconvenient to do so, and Obama has not yet learned that lesson.

Oh yes, he's a Democrat who, like most of them, finds it not in his interest to acknowledge the historic commitment of his Party to segregation and, before that, slavery. That's not change; rather, it's historical blindness, cynicism, and dishonesty.

"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it." (George Santayana)

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Why Obama's Inaugural Address Stunk

The most important change Barack Hussein Obama can make is to get a new speechwriter

Barack Obama blows nose and receives standing ovation from adoring crowd

I had computer problems today (Wednesday), so I'll wait until tomorrow to end my discussion of Obama's mediocre Inaugural Address. He had suggested we were going to get a "new Lincoln," but instead all we got was a used Hyundai. Barack Obama may be from Illinois, but he's no Lincoln.

Obama has a great voice -- not James Earl Jones, but good nevertheless. He's very effective with his pregnant pauses. Unlike, say, John McCain, he doesn't read a speech as if he's running a race. He's slick; he's smooth; and, with his somewhat emaciated form, he looks good on TV.

But that eminently forgettable Address! President Bush's former speechwriter, called it a "rhetorical failure." It lacked the verbal magic of a Lincoln or an FDR. If there was an one truly powerful line in it (something like Kennedy's "Ask not . . .") no one has pointed it out yet.

Abraham Lincoln talked about "the mystic chords of memory." In Obama's speeches, there's no mystery -- no chords that resonate after the deep baritone voice fades into blissful silence. What remains generally are a handful of abstractions, mostly about "hope" and "change."

What Obama should change is his speechwriter. High school students presumably still memorize Lincoln's Gettysburg Address -- as they should. However, anyone who memorizes one of Obama's speeches should receive hazardous duty pay.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Inauguration of Ignorance, Fraud, Racism

The following was sent to me by Linda in Texas, a major force in the effort to keep Barack H. Obama out of the White House. The article is from The Canada Free Press.
( and entitled
"The Bread and Circuses Presidency. It's by Daniel Greenfield, and it was published on Monday, January 19, 2009

The eloquent comments speak for all of us who believe today, Obama's Inauguration Day, should be one of national mourning. She says "It will be an Inauguration of Ignorance, a Festival of Fraud, and a Reception of Racism . . . a Bread and Circuses Presidency."

Call it the Bread and Circuses Presidency, or better yet the Bailouts and Reality TV Presidency. Forget expecting results or ethics from the occupant of the White House. Just join an organization or a cause and stick your hand out for your share of misappropriated taxpayer money, and get ready to vote online for which puppy the Obama’s should adopt. …

" iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, panem et circenses. (Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81) . . . "

Translation: Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.

So America continues the transition from a citizenry to a people that waits for government handouts and the comforts of a monarchy as spectacle, broadcast simultaneously on all channels. While Obama preps a cabinet slate, half of whom belong in jail, the media continues applauding loudly to drown out any criticism.

And the public watches with glazed eyes.

The millions who will trudge to watch this “historic” triumph of style over substance, dishonest criminality over ethics, and anti-Americanism over American, will get exactly what they expect. A $150,000,000 coronation for the Prince of Chicago, a lavish subversion of American democracy splashed across every television and website.

When Rome moved from Republic to Empire, the corrupt decadent Emperors understood what the mob wanted. As Obama’s backers work to make America a post-Democratic post-Republic oligarchy, they’re doing it with Bread and Circuses.

The Obama Girl Revolution (TM) will be brought to you by Pepsi (TM) and Jones Soda (TM). Now stay tuned for a news report on a letter by Obama’s flacks supposedly written to his children, yet broadcast to all of America. Feel free to buy some Frito chips, the official chip of the Obama inauguration.

And now breaking news, a special interview with the Obama’s new dog.

Switch to another channel to see all the movie stars getting their moment too. Welcome to the Fall of the Republic, brought to you by Pepsi. Never mind that a Muslim Brotherhood proxy will be delivering a prayer at Obama’s inauguration, which means that Al Qaeda and Hamas will have a place of honor at the event. Keep your eyes on the celebrities and the concerts.

The War on Terror conducted officially by the American government is over, and this time instead of four planes, America itself has been hijacked. The lead hijacker, the 21st hijacker, will shortly place his hand on a Bible, and swear to defend a country he was not born in and overtly despises.

And he will try to keep a straight face while doing it, and perhaps show enough restraint not to scratch himself with his middle finger or grab his crotch during the ceremony.

After the last month of outreach, there will no doubt be conservatives that will report approvingly on this. Though what exactly they will be conserving besides their own mainstream relevance, New York Times and Washington Post columns is unclear.

When the mob gets big enough, many feel compelled to march with the mob. That is their choice and a matter for their own consciences.

There will of course be Jews there at this Ahasverosh feast, which like the original will be a case of feast before attempted genocide. Those Jews however are no brothers or sisters of mine, no more than the Neturei Karaites (yes the spelling is correct), the Kapos in the camps or those wealthy and well off Jews during WW2 who aided and abetted the Nazi genocide by helping bar Jewish refugees from safe harbors such as America, South Africa or Singapore.

I have no connection to them and no obligation to them whatsoever, neither as brothers or sisters, or even as human beings. Whether they knew what they were doing or not, their actions have placed a Mark of Kayin on their own foreheads. Like the original murderer of his own brother, they have no place near me.

There will finally be the Obama Zombies, the grass roots supporters who donated more than they could for Obama, who worked to the bone for him, and now imagine that their sacrifices will have some meaning. Theirs will be the spectacle but nothing else.

Some of them are already realizing that they have been used. Others will take a while to realize that the Cult of Personality they have joined has nothing to offer them. But sooner or later, all of them will know the truth, whether they choose to deny it or not.

But what the spectacle in Washington D.C. will truly testify to, is the danger that the American Republic is in, a danger caused by the abandonment of a loyal, responsible and committed citizenry, in favor of a universal mobocracy, cultivated by popular culture, and devoid of actual political knowledge.

Subtract all the ballots motivated by ignorance, racism and fraud-- and this election would never have concluded the way it did. And that in truth is what this Inauguration will be a historic triumph for, no matter what the Lapdog Media or any of the Poodle Pundits say.

It will be an Inauguration of Ignorance, a Festival of Fraud and a Reception of Racism.

The only history being made here is the Fall of a Republic, into a phony populist monarchy. When the 21st Hijacker in Chief takes his oath of office, America will be facing the greatest challenge to its own survival since the Civil War, a ruthlessly corrupt Bread and Circuses Presidency.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Barack Obama Versus Sarah Palin

Note: Tomorrow, Jan. 20, 2009, this site will diverge from my other one and will focus on the presidency of Barack Obama. The other site will continue to discuss the presidential prospects of Gov. Sarah Heath Palin, prospects that I believe are very good. I hope you'll visit both sites regularly. "You betcha!"

Let's see, Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of the Treasury, who will be in charge of the IRS, is a man who didn't pay his income tax. His nominee for Secretary of Commerce is under grand jury investigation and may end up making license plates rather than mananging the nation's business. His nominee as head of the CIA is someone with no intelligence experience. Maybe if the MSM keep saluting his cabinet choices, most of them pedestrian, we might believe they're more than a collection of stiffs. Sarah Palin is starting to look better and better. (After Obama's Inaugural Address on Tuesday, I'll give my assessment of what he says, if anything. I don't expect Abraham Lincoln.)

"Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven."

A friend asked me how Sarah Palin can "square the circle" of retaining conservative support while also attracting moderates and center-left Democrats.Linda, there are ways of handling the challenge of keeping conservatives while appealing to moderates and Democrats.

Sarah needs to make the point that we need more respect for life in general in America -- less violence against women, less hostility to minority group members, less child abuse, less warehousing of kids in bad schools, less crime, less drug and alcohol addiction, less mistreatment of the elderly, even less animal abuse.

At the same time, we need more assistance for those with special needs children, more facilitation of adoption, more assistance to girls and women who are pregnant and in need of supportive people.

I believe Sarah Palin is very much in favor of moving on all the issues I raise. That's one reason I support her so strongly.

There are laws against the things I mentioned (e.g., murder, child abuse), but reducing their incidence in our society is a matter less of law than of conscience, education, and basic morality. There was a belief after Roe v. Wade that it would reduce the occurrences of child abuse, spouse abuse, and the like. That didn't happen.

(By the way, I'm not in favor of abortion, but ultimately it's not my decision to make. At the same time, I'll discuss the matter with anyone who wishes.)

Sarah needs to appeal to what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature." She should use those very words. Her own respect for life should include respect for those whose views differ from her own. All Americans will agree with her that there hasn't been exactly an excess of love in our society.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Stimulus Money for "Palin's Pipeline"

America's "pit bull with lipstick," Gov. Sarah Heath Palin of Alaska

Recently, there's been a rumor in "TeamSarah" circles that Sarah Palin was poised not to accept Obama "Stimulus Money" for Alaska infrastructure money. That rumor is false. The Governor is poised to accept such funds, mainly for the state's massive ($40 billion-plus) natural gas pipeline project.

Here's how a friend described the reaction of some TeamSarah members: "There's a rift developing at Team Sarah over this. There was a blog post a couple of days ago in which she was grouped with two other governors (Texas and another Southern state) as the only three who 'refused' money from Obama's stimulus package. The announcement of her accepting funds to develop energy independence has had their heads spinning."

Should she seek the funding for her state? The answer is: YES.

Granted, the Obama "package" is much too large for a nation that doesn't have extra money to dole out for pet projects.However, the natural gas pipeline will not only benefit the state of Alaska substantially, but also will do the same for "lower-48 states."

The huge amounts of natural gas in Alaska, along with vast natural gas resources in the New York-Pennsylvania area provide an essential resource needed to keep the our economy running effectively.

Getting Alaska's natural gas to market will have tremendous tax benefits for Alaska and America as a whole. The taxpayers' money invested will be dwarfed by the tax benefits and economic development that occurs. It should be a classic case of the government spending pennies to generate dollars.

Also, gas produced and consumed in the U.S. will reduce our extreme dependence on foreign oil produced in places like the Middle East and Venezuela, entities that are less than friendly to our country. That will benefit everyone in our nation.

In terms of the environment, natural gas is a very clean-burning fuel. It emits fewer greenhouse gases than either oil or natural gas liquids (NGL). In many cities and states, officials are moving toward natural gas to power vehicles. As indicated earlier, the Obama Stimulus Package is too large (more about that in future columns).

However, there's no doubt Congress will allocate hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure project. Sadly, some congressional representative will line up to get financing for their pet projects, many of which have nothing to do with infrastructure.

But assistance for roads, bridges, and the like for Alaska's TransCanada Pipeline isn't pork. It's a necessary expenditure to move us toward energy independence and preserve our national security. We must move away from the situation where we're sending three-quarters of a trillion dollars to nations that don't like us and that, in some cases, are funding terrorism.

A project that's good for the entire nation -- that provides for economic growth -- is one that's deserving of assistance. Sarah Palin is on target in requesting such assistance.

Tomrrow: Sarah Palin's dramatic initiatives to move Alaska toward renewable energy .

Friday, January 16, 2009

AP Lies About Sarah Palin

Following is a slightly modified version of a friend's commentary on the Associated Press' s bad reporting on Gov. Palin and its unwillingness to recognize the smear campaign -- an endless stream of lies -- against her.

Team Sarah member John Hopkins (a budding journalist) posted a blog lately re: an AP article in which correspondent Michael Gormley exonerates his organization from spreading lies about Palin, based on only ONE claim, that the media tried to say that Trig was really Bristol's son.Gormley claims that this was "only" the domain of bloggers, and clean, uncorrupted AP had nothing to do with that.

But the "blogger" (Markos Markos) who spread the story, on The Daily Kos, was a Newsweek columnist, and both CNN and MSNBC picked up that ball and ran with it. (Of the two, only MSNBC has issued a formal apology.)Still, Gormley's article is relentlessly mocking of Palin: "She messed up her first interviews, didn't show much of a grasp of the issues and, dontcha know, had a speech pattern that was widely mimicked. Sarah Palin? You betcha. But Caroline Kennedy also fits the bill."

How can he even compare the two?? Caroline Kennedy is, in actuality, a fine writer who has done two books on the Constitution. But she's never held elective office, never run a city, let alone a state. So, how can one say she and Sarah are "both" political incompetents?

Here's the link:

Gormley, like so many journalists, dwells in a world where their primary goal isn't to provide verifiable information. Rather, they're driven mainly by a desire to curry favor with their peers, i.e., other self-styled "journalists." They're blissfully unaware of any America that exists outside America's biggest metropolitan areas.

And how did Palin "mess up her first interviews"?

Oh yes, I remember, She didn't know what Charles Gibson meant by "The Bush Doctrine," a term that media journalists made up and which has covered over time no less that FOUR so-called "Bush Doctrines." One possible definition of said "Doctrine" is to "kill them [terrorists] before they kill us," a view Gov. Palin certainly shares. Another Bush principle is to encourage the spread of democracy in the Middle East and Central Asia, which would also get Sarah's approval.

Note: Don Imus, who avoids political correctness, accurately characterized Charles Gibson as "a pretentious fool," and he labeled Katie Couric as "a little rodent." Gibson and Couric inhabit a liberal universe where they get paid millions of dollar for reading news reports mainly written by others.

But here's the shocker.

Google "AP stories about Sarah Palin, 9/1/08 - 11/4/08," and you pull up - ONLY FOUR STORIES - all of them relatively balanced. Gone are any stories about the vicious attacks, about Bristol, about the bogus "Troopergate," about Sarah (who's worn spectacles since age 10) supposedly wearning glasses to look more intellectual, about the wardrobe purchases, about her calling Africa a country, etc. etc. etc.

Gone, gone, gone. They never existed, don'tcha know?? WE never said them! WE'RE fair and honest journalists!!

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Obama: Cooking Up Economic Catastrophe

If Gov. Sarah Palin can get 51% of the women's vote in 2012, she will win by a significant margin. That shouldn't be impossible, given that she IS a woman, but nothing is easy when you go against the Obama Machine.

What about Obama's "$1 trillion stimulus package?" It's a much-larger dose of the 'medicine' that made us sick in the first-place -- over-borrowing and giant dollop of inflation by running the money-printing-presses 24X7. If a country gets drunk on bad financial practices, the way to solve it is not to open up another bottle.
How on God's earth is it the right thing to do to borrow another trillion from the Communist Chinese and basically send the bill to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren?

The economic historian Niall Ferguson (Oxford, Harvard, Stanford), who's an admirer of Sarah Palin, has written about the orgy of credit and financial promises in the U.S. and said that it has led to a $70 trillion "unfunded liability. That's a nice way of saying we have financial obligations that we as a nation have no way of paying.

The answer is NOT to borrow more. The answer is to start living, as individuals and a nation, within our means.

Many people are responsible for the economic situation, including Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama, all big-time recipients of "donations" from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the major culprits in the housing crisis.

Chances are that the Obama presidency will be a calamity. I'm not wishing that, just saying that it's inevitable.I heard today that the price of crude oil today was $36 a barrel, down a "little" from the high a few months ago of $140. The marketplace, which can be brutal when necessary, is "handling" the problems for us. Wall Street speculators -- not "supply and demand" -- drove oil prices up to unsustainable levels, and now economic fundamentals have sent oil futures into free fall.

The thing about windfall profits is that they're ultimately followed by windfall losses, which seem to be going around a lot these days.

Investment analyst Howard Ruff is right about 50% of the time, but his recent remarks about where we're headed economically are right on target. He says."We are in for some rough times, and it's laughable that the same people who caused the problems are now being hailed as our saviors.

"First, we will continue to plunge into a major deflation period [falling real prices] which wi ll be characterized as a 'recession,' and later in the year as a 'depression.' Deflation and inflation are always monetary phenomena.

"Second, deflation will evolve into a run-away-hyper-inflationary depression because of what government will do to try to prevent deflation, which is synonymous with depression and has overtones of the 1930s.

"The government is creating money at a rate unprecedented in all of American History, with deflation and depression, driving their decisions, as politicians hate deflation. That is why they have been inflating the currency at varying rates for decades."

Look for Barack Obama to take the current mess that is the U.S. economy -- and make it worse. Look for him, as several NY Times reporters recently speculated, to be a one-term President. Look for Sarah Heath Palin, four years from next week, to become the 45th President of the U.S.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Israel, Palestine: Winning PR Battle

On Thursday noon, I'll have up a piece called "Obama: The Coming Economic Calamity." Friday's column will be: "Obama: a One-term Presidency." Hope to see you here! (Note: On January 20, this site will have unique posts focused on the Obama presidency. On my other blog ( I will continue to write about Gov. Palin and related issues.
Sarah Palin in her office with Israeli flag on the window (circled in red)

A member of sent out a message today about a CNN Poll that showed twice as many Americans supported the Palestinians as did the Isrealis. My response:

Israel has not done a good job on the public relations front, and those of us in the Sarah Palin camp can learn from this situation. Hamas, a thoroughly disgusting and murderous outfit, is better at propaganda. With Israel and with Gov. Palin truth -- reality -- will not get any help from the media, which handles ideas poorly and relies excessively on images, which can be profoundly misleading

With Israel and Palin, we need to have many voices -- and not the Tower of Babel -- expressing a simple, coherent message. E.g., "Hamas has fired 6,000 rockets and terrofized, killed, and injured peace-loving Isaeli citizens. They must be stopped at all costs. Americans would feel no differently if rockets were descending on our towns and cities. By firing rockets from populated areas Hamas has declared that its people, especially women and children, are expensable."

The message must be repeated continually -- and by various people. The same approach is necessary with the ongoing smear campaign against Sarah Palin. People who make the smears, against a country or a candidate, must be identified and excoriated

Note: I spent 30 years in public relations for some of America's most controversial industries. Winning the PR battle takes tremendous energy and laser-life focus. Wars and national political campaigns are not won through timidity. Confront your foes directly and throw them off stride. Always keep them on the defensive. Use every means at your disposal, including media interviews, blogs, e-mail messages, and talk radio.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Hammer Away at Palin Haters

Note: on Jan. 20, 2009, the posts on this site will diverge from those on my other site: This site will focus on the presidency of Barack H. Obama. The other site will concentrate on the future presidency of Gov. Sarah Heath Palin. I hope you'll visit both sites regularly.

Sarah Palin: Ready to Ride Her Way to the White House?

I've had an interesting discussion with Silvia, a member of TS, dealing in part with "friends" who mindlessly repeat the smears made against Sarah that originate from the endless Obama Campaign and are spread through "hate-sites" such as The Daily Kos and

Here are Silvia's comments:

I admire Gov Palin because she has the executive experience she's built from the ground up. I connect to her experience as a mother as well.Recently, I argued with a friend who 'claims' to have heard on Fox News that Gov Palin increased funding for special needs education AFTER her nomination. Now this liberal friend despises Fox, yet he was able to walk away [and retain] that lie. The real record was on CNN, where they cited the factcheck website. (

WE NEED TO GET THE GOVERNOR'S RECORD OUT THERE, not her personal stuff but her ACCOMPLISHMENTS. That remains a major challenge.Silvia

My response:

Silvia, you make excellent points, and I'll try to use your comments on my blog ( -- and respond to them.Obama managed to run with no accomplishments, including his laughable tenure as a "community organizer." perhaps asked why they're so gullible. When Sarah's media critics throw a stone,

As for your friend, I think such people need to be "beaten up" (metaphorically). If they're spreading lies, they should be informed that's what they're doing -- and we need to respond with an avalanche of boulders.

Ask your friend who he thinks it is (hint: Axelrod handles the smears/lies and they come through The Daily Kos) that's providing her with such misinformation?People like to feel comfortable with their illusions. Let's make them uncomfortable.

Sarah herself is doing that now, with her comments about "class" and the dismissing of Katie Couric as a narcissist and Obama shill. When such people are confronted aggressively, they fold quickly.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Sarah Must Win Dems, Indies

Sarah Palin at huge rally in Jacksonville, FL stadium . . .

Please participate in the effort to come up with a slogan for Sarah Palin to use in future campaigns. You can do so by going to: I've give my own suggestion tomorrow.

As I've said before of the people in the Palin Movement, our goal shouldn't be to become "the nation's most congenial, PERMANENT MINORITY." In politics, there's really no such thing as a "moral victory." You either win in glory, or lose in devastation, as happened last November.

In a state like PA (and many other big ones), we need to figure out how to reach out effectively to Indies and Dems, including ones who are pro-choice. (Reading poll data carefully, it's clear that many "pro-choice" people are actually more pro-life than pro-abortion.)

At this point, we're 7 million-plus votes behind Obama, and we need to make up the difference. We can't do that by being ideological purists.

I keep saying, "We need to deal with our world as it is, not as we'd like it to be.' I spent a lot of time in the campaign working with Hillary Supporters who backed -- or leaned toward -- McCain-Palin. I didn't do it because I adored Hillary -- I do not -- but because there was no other way to win than by getting many Hillary Supporters, some of them pro-choice (strongly) and some pro-life, with most of them in the middle.

In the election, it appears we got about four million of Hillary's Supporters. We needed six million-plus, but without the four million it would have been a true landslide for Obama.

In my book, I will discuss the major feminists (Elaine Lafferty, former editor of Ms.; Shelley Mandel, president of the LA chapter of NOW; and, especially, Camile Paglia) who have strongly backed Sarah. There are many others in addition to the women I've named. I want them to continue their efforts, because we need such people to help us win.

I don't want to lose the social conservatives, far from it. However, Sarah Palin clearly is the best possible candidate they can get to run effectively for President. It will be challenging enough for her win -- I believe she can -- but it would be impossible for any other Republican. I don't under-estimate the ruthlessness of the Obama Campaign, which was the direct source of the smears against Sarah.

Frankly, I have zero interest in Sarah running a race she can't win, and I believe she feels the same way. She knows that millions -- tens of millions -- of her supporters are the working middle-class and even the working poor. Seeing the 10,000 people at Sarah's Beaver County rally, it became clear to me that these sure weren't your stereotypical Republicans. I estimate that at least 100 were members of the UMW, proudly wearing their "Clean Coal" hard hats.

I felt very comfortable with these people and talked to hundreds of them as they waited in line for up to four hours. One older man had been a member of the Boilermakers Union for 50 years. He bragged that he'd convinced this wife, for the first time in her life, to vote Republican (for McCain-Palin).

On Sean Hannity's radio program, a Democratic woman, an animal rights activist, was talking to Sean while, in the background, her three daughters were chanting, "Sarah Palin! Sarah Palin! SARAH PALIN!" The woman, a Sarah-backer herself, said, 'I'm afraid the neighbors are going to think I've become a Republican!"

We need that woman (and her daughters and millions like them) on our side.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Sarah Palin: The Abortion Issue

Picture of Trig Palin as a newborn . . .

I count myself as strongly pro-life, but I've argued for a pragmatic approach to the abortion issue. I know, you know, and Sarah knows there is nothing like a majority in the Congress -- or among the states (three-fourths of them needed) to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. The last time a Human Life Amendment (see Wikipedia) was brought up in the Senate was 1983, and it failed to get even a majority, let alone the two-thirds vote it needed.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who is personally opposed to abortion, has said, "The Constitution does not permit abortion. The Constitution does not prohibit abortion."

The critical point here is not whether one "agrees" with Scalia, but rather that what he says is true, which it is. (The implication in Scalia's statement is that the issue should go back to the states, which probably isn't going to happen. Things will stay as they are.)

Scalia is sometimes sniffed at by leftists as an "originalist." In fact, an originalist is someone who believes the Constitution means what it says. It doesn't mean what the latest Gallup Polls indicate a majority wishes it said.

Sarah's core group is anti-abortion. However, as her number of supporters grows, it will become more and more diverse.

People will also come to understand that Gov. Palin embraces a combination of conservative, libertarian, and populist principles. Her motto has been: "Serve the people." Her motto is NOT "Serve the people who believe exactly as I do."

She has said she personally opposes abortion, but that she has no interest in "criminalizing" it. By the way, neither do I. Neither I guess would Scalia.

One of the chapters in my book on Sarah Palin will deal with feminists who support her, including Elaine Lafferty, Shelley Mandell (the head of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW who endorsed Sarah), and Camille Paglia. That chapter will deal with Sarah's obligation as a potential President to those women and others like them. The key is a question of respect -- respect for those whose views differ from Palin's on one or more issues.

I've had discussions with some strong pro-lifers , including one woman who heads a pro-life PAC. She understands very well what I'm saying about abortion as an issue, that it's one of conscience and education, not laws, and she generally agrees. In time, I think most of the staunch pro-lifers on in Sarah's camp will also agree.

No one sound of mind wants to paint Sarah into a corner that would lead to her inevitable defeat. We can't ask her to run in an imaginary America; she has to run in the nation as it is. Sarah is a person who leads by example, not by barking out orders and using strong-arm tactics.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Palin "Real Deal": John Ziegler

The John Ziegler interview with Sarah has been much in the news Thursday and Friday. I strongly recommend that everyone take a look at Ziegler's comments on his impressions of Gov. Palin and her family. You can see by clicking on the link below.

Following are some key points Ziegler makes about Sarah:"[In the long interview in Wasilla] we saw the genuine Sarah Palin and it is patently obvious that this is the only one that exists. She is the real deal.

"As a former TV sportscaster and radio talk show host, I have interviewed a lot big-time 'celebrities,' and . . . though you could argue that Sarah Palin was the most prominent I have ever spoken to one-on-one, she was also by far the nicest, most sincere and, seemingly, honest subject that I have ever questioned.

"I now know that Sarah Palin is exactly who I thought she was. I also know now, with moral certitude, that the media assassination of her, her character and her family was one of the greatest public injustices of our time."

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Camile Paglia Admires The Palins

One chapter in the book I'm writing (with help from other very talented people) about Sarah Palin will deal with feminists who strongly support the Governor and see her a role model for American women. They include Elaine Lafferty, the former Ms. Magazine editor who called Sarah a "feminist' and a "brainiac"; Shelley Mandell, the president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW, who endorsed Sarah in a Carson, CA event (to the dismay of the tree-dwelling segment of NOW) by saying, "This [Sarah] is what a feminist looks like"; and the remarkable Camille Paglia, who voted for Obama, but has paradoxically been Sarah's strongest defender. Paglia wrote the following on October 8, 2008, about Gov. Palin:

"The mountain of rubbish poured out about Palin over the past month would rival Everest. What a disgrace for our jabbering army of liberal journalists and commentators, too many of whom behaved like snippy jackasses…One of the most idiotic allegations batting around out there among urban media insiders is that Palin is "dumb." Are they kidding? What level of stupidity is now par for the course in those musty circles? People who can't see how smart Palin is are trapped in their own narrow parochialism-the tedious, hackneyed forms of their upper-middle-class syntax and vocabulary…I admire her competitive spirit and her exuberant vitality, which borders on the supernormal…both Todd and Sarah Palin…have emerged as powerful new symbols of a revived contemporary feminism. That the macho Todd, with his champion athleticism and working-class creed, can so amiably cradle babies and care for children is a huge step forward in American sexual symbolism."

Please also pass along the following link to Paglia's extended (and brilliant) analysis of the character, values, and socia significance of Sarah Palin:

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Sarah Palin: 2012 The Year?

The following comments are from CPAC section on Team Sarah, and they raise the question whether Sarah should run in 2012? I'll respond to them tomorrow (Thursday). Short version: I believe she should plan to run for the presidency.

Comment on Points Made in the Following piece by John:

John makes excellent points (below in italics), and I tend to agree. . . . But I'm not so sure about their ability to rack up a Super Majority in Congress in the off year elections. Traditionally, the President's party does not do well in the off years.I view the off year as an opportunity for us to drill into their existing majority. If that happens significantly, then I think Sarah should go for it. If it doesn't happen, then I think she should cool it, and build her resume. said:

And Mitt Romney is worth 100 million, doesn't and never will have to work to support his family or his presidential ambitions.Huck falls into the same class. They can afford to put every political operative in Iowa on retainer. The simple fact remains if Obama has 50 % or better favorability no one will beat him no matter how much money or how long they campaign. He already has 200 mill for the next election and I saw on a dem web site they expect to have a 2 billion war chest for 2012 plus the incumbent advantage They are already counting the additional seats they are going to pick up in 2010 for a super majority; they are that confident. I personally think that she needs to be re-elected in 2010 and then take a look at it in 2011. The more leadership experience and getting re-elected will go a long way in the public eye. If the great one has fallen there will still be plenty of time. If he has not then Huck and Mitt can waste their money and they will be labeled as unelectable for what will be what the third or fourth time. Remember Sarah Draws big crowds , Mitt and Huck don't come close to generating that kind of excitement. 2011 will be soon enough to start if the conditions are right and if not 2014 will be just right . Unless the One gets the Constitution changed it will be a level playing field. Two full terms as governor , two years to campaign unrestricted plus the time in between to gain international expertise and build one helluva grass roots organization. Remember it has taken 8 years for the dems to get back in the white house.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

The Smear Campaign Against Sarah

Minnesota sends diapered Easter FrankenBunny to the U.S. Senate

Obviously we need to respond effectively to criticisms directed at Sarah Palin and her family. One problem is that point-by-point refutations are sometimes needed, but they also result in repeating stories, many of them fanciful charges (e.g., Sarah "banned books": Trig's mother is "really Bristol"; and on and on).

The Anchorage Daily News (ADN) is a source of many rumors and smears. Frankly, the ADN is small potatoes, backwater journalism. It's "reader comment" section is dominated by Sarah-haters who revel in baseless charges.

The entire "Troopergate" controversy was bogus. Unfortunately, pro-Sarah bloggers had to spend tens of thousands of hours refuting charges that were baseless. The trooper was a rogue who drank on the job, tasered his own young son, and treated Sarah Palin's sister very badly. By age 35, this "congenial" soul had acquired four wives. He's not exactly what women call a "keeper."

He should have been fired -- although he hasn't yet.

As for Monoghan, the safety commissioner, Sarah had every right to fire him. She regarded him as disloyal to her administration. Yes, he worked for the people of Alaska, but he worked for them through the Governor. If he didn't have the confidence of the Gov. of Alaska, then it was her obligation to get rid of him.

I realize these aren't the usual analyses of the situations (the trooper and the Safety Commissioner), but they're about all I care to do. Sarah likes to get rid of disloyal subordinates (and so do I, by the way). She did the same when she first became Mayor of Wasilla.

My friend and YouTube expert, Rebekah Chauhan in CA, has suggested we ascribe criticisms of Sarah to sexism, which Rebekah says is equivalent to racism. Yeah, in a way this is name-calling, but if the name fits, use it. It's a simple approach.

Very early in the game -- during the Republican Convention -- I was on a TV show in Pittsburgh, debating with two female Obama Supporters. The question came up whether, as Politico had suggested, Sarah was "shrill and inexperienced." My comment was: "Apparently, shrill means she has a woman's voice. Inexperienced means she's a woman . . . and has a woman's (wife's, mother's, working woman's) experience." Simple, but it worked well.

I've had long experience in public relations for some of the country's most controversial industries (oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, health insurance), and I really believe "less is more" when it comes to dealing with (baseless) charges. Point-by-point refutations tend to get us in a situation like Brer Rabbit and the tar baby. It's debilitating.

My response to the "current" controversy regarding Levi Johnston is this. Yeah, teenage parents and 18-year-olds in general make mistakes. As the world knows by now, two of my daughters (nearly two decades ago) had children (one each) before they married the children's fathers. In one case, the father was involved in activities which I didn't, to say the least, approve of.

However, I don't recall being asked for a lot of advice by my "children," who were both young adults when the events occurred. They insisted on their right to make their own mistakes, which they did in abundance.

I'm sure that, like many teen parents, Bristol and Levi will flounder around. Decent people will wish both of them well -- period. Even if I knew Bristol and Levi much better than I do, I'd hesitate to make any judgments about them as people. Ask me again when they're, say, 35.

In the campaign, the oxymoronically named "Obama Truth Squad" worked effectively, mainly because the media allowed it to do so. The MSM is not going to give us in Sarah's camp that luxury. That's why we need to replace the media, which is doing a good job collapsing of its own dead weight, with a new media, i.e., us.

Overall, we shouldn't over-react to what will be an endless stream of petty charges against Sarah and her family. We need to recognize it for what it is: an attempt to smear a woman and her family for being "normal" and for having the same problems and challenges as tens of millions of other American parents and families.

During the convention -- before "the speech" -- one of my frequent correspondents (Eric) said that a McCain staffer told him there were some "devastating" (and apparently credible) allegations against Sarah, etc., etc. (At the time Markos Markos of The Daily Kos was spewing out one lie per hour about Sarah Palin.)

I told Eric this: "You know Sarah well (he'd campaigned in Alaska for her) and I know all about Sarah. And because you know so much about her, you realize that any such allegations are completely false." (I believe they had something to do with Bristol's pregnancy.)

I took a leap of faith in what I said -- faith in the character, values, and essential goodness of Sarah Heath Palin. In the end, I was right, and Eric, along with his "source" were wrong.

The Obama Campaign (one that apparently continues unto eternity) -- basically controlled by people who hate "normal Americans" -- would love for us to spend the next four years (eight years?) refuting absurd charges against Sarah. They don't want us to spend our precious time organizing and emphasizing the kind of positive change Sarah represents.

Obama and his media minions want to destroy Sarah Palin. They will find out eventually that she is indestructible. Carry on, Sarah.