The Romney versus Palin race is on -- according to guest columnist Eric Dondero of LibertarianRepublican blogger Eric Dondero.
http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2010/03/its-on-romney-vs-palin.html
It's on: Romney vs. Palin, 16 months before first Iowa test
Palin supporter brings up Romney's less-than-impressive book salesThe very first shots of campaign 2012 may have just been fired. And it appears that for the moment it's a battle of the book sales. Supporters of the Palin camp, 16 months before the GOP primary season officially begins, are taking a mild swipe at the former Massachusetts Governor for his alleged artificial inflation of his own book sales. Ian Lazaran reports over at the hugely popular site Conservatives4Palin, the following:
Mitt Romney's book has debuted at #1 atop the NY Times best-seller list among non-fiction hardcover books. However, the NY Times also provides some additional information that may explain how Romney's book hit the #1 spot.
Whenever the NY Times places a "dagger" symbol next to a book, it signifies that "some bookstores report[ed] receiving bulk orders" for the book.
The NY Times placed not just one, but two, daggers next to Romney's book. You can draw your own conclusion as to who it was that purchased Governor Romney's book in bulk.
By contrast, the NY Times failed to place the "dagger" symbol next to Governor Palin's book in any of the weeks she held the top position on the NY Times best-seller list among non-fiction hardcover books. Despite the left's unsubstantiated theories, bookstores did not report to the NY Times that they received bulk orders for Going Rogue. See week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4, week 5, and week 6. As you can see, in none of these weeks is there a dagger symbol next to her book.
Lazaran cautions "Don't shoot the messenger... I'm just reporting what I found... don't shoot the messenger."
Sidenote - former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania spoke before the Iowa Christian Alliance last Tuesday, in what many deemed a 2012 campaign trip. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has already visited the State once, and is planning on making an additional appearance at a Tax Rally in Des Moines on April 15.
The Iowa Straw Poll (held traditionally at the IA State Fair), is just 16 months away.
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Palin Offers Real Healthcare Solutions
In the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 8, Gov. Sarah Palin discussed workable solutions to America's health care problems. She confronts her Marxist opponent, Barack Obama, and basically kicks him to the curb.
By SARAH PALIN
Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.
I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.
How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.
Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."
With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.
Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."
First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."
Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans.
Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.
Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats' proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won't reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.
The economic effects won't be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they'll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats' proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise "the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers." Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.
Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats' proposals "will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it's true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats' proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.
Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.
Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats' proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not "provide more stability and security to every American."
We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we're not buying it.
Ms. Palin, Sen. John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election, was governor of Alaska from December 2006 to July 2009.
By SARAH PALIN
Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.
I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.
How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.
Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."
With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.
Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."
First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."
Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans.
Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.
Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats' proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won't reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.
The economic effects won't be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they'll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats' proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise "the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers." Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.
Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats' proposals "will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it's true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats' proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.
Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.
Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats' proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not "provide more stability and security to every American."
We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we're not buying it.
Ms. Palin, Sen. John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election, was governor of Alaska from December 2006 to July 2009.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Why Obama Hates Sarah Palin
The Alaskans who know her love Sarah Palin. What is there not to like? Admittedly, Sarah H. Palin has almost nothing in common with Barack H. Obama, a slick-talking socialist who's been pampered ever since his teen years.
She's been a superb leader in a state mostly known for partisanship and reampant corruption. She talks the talk, and she walks the walk. I've said that people who don't like Sarah Palin (people like Letterman, Begala, Axelrod, and most Democrats) really don't like America. They don't like the kind of opportunity that's available to someone from modest origins. They don't like the fact she's a model wife and mother, mostly because they don't really believe women should be wives and mothers, apparently. They don't like her espousal of liberty, tolerance, and opportunity, because they believe in an America run by academic ideologues, like Dr. Zeke Emanuel. They don't like the fact that her son is in military, whereas their sons and daughters aren't. They hate the fact that she's an excellent athlete in a family of athletes. She's physically beautify, while they aren't. She makes them feel inferior, which they are.
Again, people who despise Sarah also despise America. It's that simple. Reportedly, Barack Obama is not a big fan of hers.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Slogan: Obama Lies, Grandma Dies
Sarah Palin's "death panel" concept revisited:
The biggest problem with the Dem's health proposals is that they don't really try either to lower costs or to improve quality. Main point: no tort reform because the liberals are completely in bed with the trial lawyers, who extract a hundred billion-plus from our health system.
One fascinating development: hospitals in South America and India -- at least their top-tier hospitals -- are as good as MOST (not all) American hospitals. And insurance companies increasingly are flying people to New Delhi or Buenos Aires (and other sites) for operations. It turns out (rough numbers) that a heart bypass that costs $35,000 in the U.S. might cost $8,000 in India. Thus, the return flight tickets, the operation, and a short stay for recuperation can end up saving, say, $15,000 or more in costs.
The Economist had an article several months ago saying the number of Americans going to India or South America was nearly one million per year! They estimated the number could go to 10 million in the next decade or so. Start multiplying savings of $5 thousand or $10 thousand (or more) by ten million people, and the reduction in costs is immense.
If Americans see the numbers, which indicate they're not more likely to die in foreign hospitals, they are more inclined to take the trip. In some case, people are paying out of pocket (no health insurance) and saving money along with their lives appeal to them.
The Dem's health legislation is completely uncreative and basically will bring a meat-axe to medical costs. It will ration according to age and other statistical factors before it makes economic promises it will not be able to keep.
Thus, Dr. Thomas Sowell is correct: the Dems won't technically refuse care; instead, they will just refuse to pay for expensive treatments. The refusal to pay will not be a "death panel" as such, but it will have the same effects.
The biggest problem with the Dem's health proposals is that they don't really try either to lower costs or to improve quality. Main point: no tort reform because the liberals are completely in bed with the trial lawyers, who extract a hundred billion-plus from our health system.
One fascinating development: hospitals in South America and India -- at least their top-tier hospitals -- are as good as MOST (not all) American hospitals. And insurance companies increasingly are flying people to New Delhi or Buenos Aires (and other sites) for operations. It turns out (rough numbers) that a heart bypass that costs $35,000 in the U.S. might cost $8,000 in India. Thus, the return flight tickets, the operation, and a short stay for recuperation can end up saving, say, $15,000 or more in costs.
The Economist had an article several months ago saying the number of Americans going to India or South America was nearly one million per year! They estimated the number could go to 10 million in the next decade or so. Start multiplying savings of $5 thousand or $10 thousand (or more) by ten million people, and the reduction in costs is immense.
If Americans see the numbers, which indicate they're not more likely to die in foreign hospitals, they are more inclined to take the trip. In some case, people are paying out of pocket (no health insurance) and saving money along with their lives appeal to them.
The Dem's health legislation is completely uncreative and basically will bring a meat-axe to medical costs. It will ration according to age and other statistical factors before it makes economic promises it will not be able to keep.
Thus, Dr. Thomas Sowell is correct: the Dems won't technically refuse care; instead, they will just refuse to pay for expensive treatments. The refusal to pay will not be a "death panel" as such, but it will have the same effects.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Palin Winning "Death Panel" Debate
My friend "WB" sent the following: "The Death Panel already exists! It was passed in the Stimulus Bill. Here is a link to American Thinker and their article on this subject":
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html
Also, take note of the following: See the USNews report on Palin's victory on "death panel": http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/8/13/score-one-for-sarah-palin-on-the-healthcare-reform-death-panels.html
The following is my take on the public relations elements of the "death panel" debate:
From a public relations standpoint -- and yeah, I have been in that business since the mid-1970s -- the most important thing you can do is to put your opponents on the defensive. (We sometimes make the mistake of allowing ourselves to be put in a defensive posture.) One goal of Sarah's "death panel" concept is to get people like Obama and Specter (and Paul Begala and other drones) saying, "No, we don't have death panels in the legislation."
Keep them mentioning the phrase "death panel" -- and then hit them hard with statements like, "Gee, won't that be the practical effect of the mandated end-of-life counselling sessions?" Or, "won't that be the practical effect of making massive cuts in Medicare?" Or, "Gee, what about Obama's key adviser, Ezekiel Emanuel, who says a teenager's life is worth a lot more than that of a senior citizen?"
Keep them sputtering and blustering about the death panels. In short, keep asking them loaded questions -- keep passing them hand grenades. Bring up the "Jane Sturm" episode, where Obama was making the case that a healthy 100-year-old woman shouldn't have received a pacemaker -- the woman is now a health 105 year old. Bring up Obama's grandmother, whom he said shouldn't have received a hip replacement. That is, tie them knots, and beat them senseless.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/death_panel_is_not_in_the_bill.html
Also, take note of the following: See the USNews report on Palin's victory on "death panel": http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2009/8/13/score-one-for-sarah-palin-on-the-healthcare-reform-death-panels.html
The following is my take on the public relations elements of the "death panel" debate:
From a public relations standpoint -- and yeah, I have been in that business since the mid-1970s -- the most important thing you can do is to put your opponents on the defensive. (We sometimes make the mistake of allowing ourselves to be put in a defensive posture.) One goal of Sarah's "death panel" concept is to get people like Obama and Specter (and Paul Begala and other drones) saying, "No, we don't have death panels in the legislation."
Keep them mentioning the phrase "death panel" -- and then hit them hard with statements like, "Gee, won't that be the practical effect of the mandated end-of-life counselling sessions?" Or, "won't that be the practical effect of making massive cuts in Medicare?" Or, "Gee, what about Obama's key adviser, Ezekiel Emanuel, who says a teenager's life is worth a lot more than that of a senior citizen?"
Keep them sputtering and blustering about the death panels. In short, keep asking them loaded questions -- keep passing them hand grenades. Bring up the "Jane Sturm" episode, where Obama was making the case that a healthy 100-year-old woman shouldn't have received a pacemaker -- the woman is now a health 105 year old. Bring up Obama's grandmother, whom he said shouldn't have received a hip replacement. That is, tie them knots, and beat them senseless.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Barack Obama, Meet Dr. Kevorkian
Barack Obama, Say Hi to Dr. Jack Kevorkian. (President Death meets Dr. Death.)
The "Obama Health Care" plan really doesn't exist. What we have is HR 3200. Since Obama has not read a word of it, he's not real good on answering questions about it.
Is there really a death panel, as Sarah Palin charged? Yes, there is, but it will be renamed something like "Life begins at 90 panel."
Actually, it's name is The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Its goal is to turn medical care from Mayo Clinic Model into the Dollar General model. Little secret: it's NOT about effectiveness. It's about reducing costs . . . and doing so at all costs.
In fact, the bill says its goal is "to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs." In other words, no more of those pesky (and expensive) new meds that will cure mom's breast cancer or dad's heart arrhythmia.
And then -- don't tell Barack! -- we will have a gentleman or gentlelady who will serve (with a bureaucracy in the tens of thousands) as The National Coordinator for Health Information and Technology. Sounds great, right?His (Her? Its/) job will be to "monitor treatments being delivered to make sure doctors and hospitals are strictly [key word] following government guidelines that are deemed appropriate." Notice the use of the passive voice ("are deemed"), which are always signs that bureaucrats are work, evading responsibility as they go.
What will happen to doctors and hospitals doing cutting-edge work to keep patients alive? As you might guess, those "no adhering to guidelines will face penalties," which will include hefty fines . . . and even prison terms, particularly handed out to conservative doctors who hate the Obama Plan.
Question: what about those doctors (including mine) and hospitals (some in my area) that are doing a tremendous job healing patients and saving lives? Will they be used as examples for other docs and hospitals? Surely you jest. My betting is that they will be the ones facing fines and jail times. They probably aren't following the already cockamamie government regulations and "guidelines."
Sarah Palin is being attacked in the White House, as well as on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, the Disney Channel, and CNN for describing ObamaCare as exactly what it is: an exercise in the proposition that when you can make sure people are safely dead, they don't "incur" any addional health costs. Can't argue with that. Do you really want to argue with the notion that an Obama who favors "live birth abortion" (i.e., infanticide) won't back a form of "eldercare" that includes euthanasia?
Admittedly, the death panel won't fully crank up until, say, the third term of Barack Obama, by then known as "President-for-Life." By then, we'll all be too numb to notice. Every home in America will have a super-size photo of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.
The "Obama Health Care" plan really doesn't exist. What we have is HR 3200. Since Obama has not read a word of it, he's not real good on answering questions about it.
Is there really a death panel, as Sarah Palin charged? Yes, there is, but it will be renamed something like "Life begins at 90 panel."
Actually, it's name is The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Its goal is to turn medical care from Mayo Clinic Model into the Dollar General model. Little secret: it's NOT about effectiveness. It's about reducing costs . . . and doing so at all costs.
In fact, the bill says its goal is "to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs." In other words, no more of those pesky (and expensive) new meds that will cure mom's breast cancer or dad's heart arrhythmia.
And then -- don't tell Barack! -- we will have a gentleman or gentlelady who will serve (with a bureaucracy in the tens of thousands) as The National Coordinator for Health Information and Technology. Sounds great, right?His (Her? Its/) job will be to "monitor treatments being delivered to make sure doctors and hospitals are strictly [key word] following government guidelines that are deemed appropriate." Notice the use of the passive voice ("are deemed"), which are always signs that bureaucrats are work, evading responsibility as they go.
What will happen to doctors and hospitals doing cutting-edge work to keep patients alive? As you might guess, those "no adhering to guidelines will face penalties," which will include hefty fines . . . and even prison terms, particularly handed out to conservative doctors who hate the Obama Plan.
Question: what about those doctors (including mine) and hospitals (some in my area) that are doing a tremendous job healing patients and saving lives? Will they be used as examples for other docs and hospitals? Surely you jest. My betting is that they will be the ones facing fines and jail times. They probably aren't following the already cockamamie government regulations and "guidelines."
Sarah Palin is being attacked in the White House, as well as on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, the Disney Channel, and CNN for describing ObamaCare as exactly what it is: an exercise in the proposition that when you can make sure people are safely dead, they don't "incur" any addional health costs. Can't argue with that. Do you really want to argue with the notion that an Obama who favors "live birth abortion" (i.e., infanticide) won't back a form of "eldercare" that includes euthanasia?
Admittedly, the death panel won't fully crank up until, say, the third term of Barack Obama, by then known as "President-for-Life." By then, we'll all be too numb to notice. Every home in America will have a super-size photo of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Revealing Pictures: GWB, Obama, Palin
The best way to evaluate Presidents and potential Presidents is not by words written by someone else and recited from a TelePrompter, but rather by their actions. The pictures below are worth more a 1,000 words, and they illustrate actions that tell us nearly all we need to know about the basic decency of President George W. Bush, Gov. Sarah Palin, and Barack Hussein Obama. If every American would take a good look at these pictures, it would help ensure that Obama would be a one-term President. In words and actions, BHO has shown his lack of respect for the unborn, the disabled (remember his Special Olympics "joke" on Letterman?) and the elderly. Eventually, God will judge this deeply flawed man. Soon, say 2012, the American people will get to sit in judgment on his atrocious presidency.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Obama's Health Plan Shafts Disabled
As regards children with autism, their major protector within the political world is Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. She looks at them as American citizens with special needs who deserve special protection.
Obama looks at them as non-voters and thus not one of the groups that he wishes to favor. Obama's bad taste joke on Letterman about the Special Olympics illustrates where he stands on special needs kids and adults, whom he supposedly regards as a burden to society.
Obama's "death panel," condemned by Gov. Palin, will appear as the government takes over health care almost completely. It will set "guidelines" that will separate Obama's favorite groups, such as the more militant unions, from his least favorite groups, including those with autism and Down Syndrome.
Does this sound overly cynical? In fact, it is just a statement of the way Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel operate. Oh yes, there may be a bone tossed in the direction of the disabled, but they don't need bones. Rather, they need good health care, including physiotherapy and psychological assistance. That's precisely what they won't get.
On death panels, I urge people to read (on Wikipedia and elsewhere) about Obama's "health" advisers, including Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and Jacob Blumenthal, as well as Princeton Professor Peter Singer, an important outside influence. Emanuel is a death-worshipper. Blumenthal thinks rigid government controls are a good way to "control costs." Singer believes that people with severe disabilities have no real right to life.
What about Obama's "advisers" on the other side? Sadly, there are none.
If there are humane, intellectually sound ways to reduce costs -- and there are, with such things as medical liability reform -- they are NOT included in the Obama Plan. Civil liability reform would offend the ambulance chasers (John Edwards is the most famous one) who contributed tens of millions of dollars to Obama's campaign. Such tort reform would save as much as a trillion dollars over the next 5-6 years, but it will never happen as long as Obama/Pelosi/Reid are in power.
My wife and I save for ourselves (and the nation) approximately $1300 a year by ordering prescriptions in bulk. Why doesn't the Obama Administration encourage such savings nationwide? Because it would anger the executives of pharmaceutical stores retailers who have embraced the Obama Plan in order not to be punished by the Administration.
We all like to engage in philosophical debates about health reform. However, if we want to know what's really going on, we need to remember an old line from Watergate: "Follow the money." Obama knows that politics and power have everything to do with money.
This gets us back to autistic and Down Syndrome children. Their contributions to the Obama Campaign (one that's endless) adds up to . . . zero. Therefore, they will get nothing from the man who is pretending to be "our president."
Obama looks at them as non-voters and thus not one of the groups that he wishes to favor. Obama's bad taste joke on Letterman about the Special Olympics illustrates where he stands on special needs kids and adults, whom he supposedly regards as a burden to society.
Obama's "death panel," condemned by Gov. Palin, will appear as the government takes over health care almost completely. It will set "guidelines" that will separate Obama's favorite groups, such as the more militant unions, from his least favorite groups, including those with autism and Down Syndrome.
Does this sound overly cynical? In fact, it is just a statement of the way Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel operate. Oh yes, there may be a bone tossed in the direction of the disabled, but they don't need bones. Rather, they need good health care, including physiotherapy and psychological assistance. That's precisely what they won't get.
On death panels, I urge people to read (on Wikipedia and elsewhere) about Obama's "health" advisers, including Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and Jacob Blumenthal, as well as Princeton Professor Peter Singer, an important outside influence. Emanuel is a death-worshipper. Blumenthal thinks rigid government controls are a good way to "control costs." Singer believes that people with severe disabilities have no real right to life.
What about Obama's "advisers" on the other side? Sadly, there are none.
If there are humane, intellectually sound ways to reduce costs -- and there are, with such things as medical liability reform -- they are NOT included in the Obama Plan. Civil liability reform would offend the ambulance chasers (John Edwards is the most famous one) who contributed tens of millions of dollars to Obama's campaign. Such tort reform would save as much as a trillion dollars over the next 5-6 years, but it will never happen as long as Obama/Pelosi/Reid are in power.
My wife and I save for ourselves (and the nation) approximately $1300 a year by ordering prescriptions in bulk. Why doesn't the Obama Administration encourage such savings nationwide? Because it would anger the executives of pharmaceutical stores retailers who have embraced the Obama Plan in order not to be punished by the Administration.
We all like to engage in philosophical debates about health reform. However, if we want to know what's really going on, we need to remember an old line from Watergate: "Follow the money." Obama knows that politics and power have everything to do with money.
This gets us back to autistic and Down Syndrome children. Their contributions to the Obama Campaign (one that's endless) adds up to . . . zero. Therefore, they will get nothing from the man who is pretending to be "our president."
Friday, August 7, 2009
Palin Condemns Obama's Health Schemes
Sarah Palin is horrified by Obama's efforts to nationalize the U.S. health care system and have bureaucrats make life and death decisions for Americans. She wrote the following today on her Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434
As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434
As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost.
And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course.
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.
We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens.
If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.
- Sarah Palin
Rep. Bachmann's speech can be viewed here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CHBvKGmevI
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Obamas Visiting Palin in Alaska
Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs broke the following story about Sarah Palin and Barack Obama
Palin: The Power of Good
Considering Obama and his operatives are beind the campaign of harassment, ethics charges and attacks on her and her children, Sarah Palin is nothing short of divine. The election is over.
It is time to repair friendships with the other party.
Gov. Sarah Palin is doing her part.
The rest of the world cannot understand how, after bitter election campaigns, American politicians can kiss and make up.
For instance, Gov. Palin has invited, to her great state of Alaska , the men who defeated her, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, along with their wives. She has set up a moose hunting trip for their enjoyment and hired three prominent experts in their field to assist them.
Dick Cheney will carry the gun, Ted Kennedy will drive them back to their cabins each evening, and Bill Clinton will entertain their wives.
Sarah is such a good sport! She thinks of everything!
These guys are evil, I hope Palin is not holding her breath waiting on the tarmac.
Palin: The Power of Good
Considering Obama and his operatives are beind the campaign of harassment, ethics charges and attacks on her and her children, Sarah Palin is nothing short of divine. The election is over.
It is time to repair friendships with the other party.
Gov. Sarah Palin is doing her part.
The rest of the world cannot understand how, after bitter election campaigns, American politicians can kiss and make up.
For instance, Gov. Palin has invited, to her great state of Alaska , the men who defeated her, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, along with their wives. She has set up a moose hunting trip for their enjoyment and hired three prominent experts in their field to assist them.
Dick Cheney will carry the gun, Ted Kennedy will drive them back to their cabins each evening, and Bill Clinton will entertain their wives.
Sarah is such a good sport! She thinks of everything!
These guys are evil, I hope Palin is not holding her breath waiting on the tarmac.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Palin: To Hell and Back
Sarah Palin knows that to win as election as President she must attract millions -- perhaps six million -- of the voters who once supported Hillary Clinton.
And how stupid is someone to believe that Palin is “going away”. For what reason? Why resign as Governor when she would be re-elected if she wanted…if that’s what she really wanted, was to be Governor of Alaska. Why leave office now?
Because the kooks in Alaska kept The Guv from traveling, prevented her from making speeches, raising money for candidates, and doing all the things she needs to do to build a national organization for herself. With her book set to launch in 2010, these same kooks would throw a wrench in her book tour, too, and the assorted Obots assigned to filing bogus ethics complaints against The Guv would complain left and right about her TV appearances, interviews, and other obligations going forward.
Palin is a very smart woman and knows 2012 is her shot if she wants to run for President…but she could not do that as Governor of Alaska. The state’s too far away, but more important than that, the people there are of a very special breed in that they don’t seem to understand a sitting Governor can indeed travel in other states, making appearances, and raising her profile, while carrying out the constitutional duties of the state.
In “the lower 48?, Governors cross state lines every day for one reason or another (just try to come between Charlie Crist and an especially attractive taffeta sale in Georgia…or between Bobby Jindal and an exorcism just about anywhere).
But, not Sarah Palin! Hell, no, she can’t go! Make her stay in Alaska where it’s cold and no one can see her! If she leaves the state for any reason, file more ethics complaints! We must destroy this woman AT ALL COSTS!
Dr. Utopia proves that just about anyone can become President of the United States. He spent less time in the US Senate before he ran for President than Sarah Palin has spent as the Chief Executive of the nation’s largest state, with extremely more important duties than any Senator has.
The fact that liberals wailed and cried every time she left the state — declaring how important her job was — proves what great experience she has, and how well she did her job. If her leaving the state’s borders, for even a day, would seemingly trigger a complete collapse of society in Alaska and the end of life as Alaskans knew it, then it’s ludicrous to argue the woman isn’t capable at what she does.
We. Love. This. Woman.
Why?
Because this woman loves America. She wakes up every morning, works hard, and does her best to do what’s right each and every day. In the face of the nastiest, most misogynistic, most vile attacks from Left, she soldiers on, with grace, class, style, and charm. People call her a hillbilly, comment on her looks, talk about her marriage, attack her daughter, but she continues to put herself out there because she believes she can make a difference for this country.
And how stupid is someone to believe that Palin is “going away”. For what reason? Why resign as Governor when she would be re-elected if she wanted…if that’s what she really wanted, was to be Governor of Alaska. Why leave office now?
Because the kooks in Alaska kept The Guv from traveling, prevented her from making speeches, raising money for candidates, and doing all the things she needs to do to build a national organization for herself. With her book set to launch in 2010, these same kooks would throw a wrench in her book tour, too, and the assorted Obots assigned to filing bogus ethics complaints against The Guv would complain left and right about her TV appearances, interviews, and other obligations going forward.
Palin is a very smart woman and knows 2012 is her shot if she wants to run for President…but she could not do that as Governor of Alaska. The state’s too far away, but more important than that, the people there are of a very special breed in that they don’t seem to understand a sitting Governor can indeed travel in other states, making appearances, and raising her profile, while carrying out the constitutional duties of the state.
In “the lower 48?, Governors cross state lines every day for one reason or another (just try to come between Charlie Crist and an especially attractive taffeta sale in Georgia…or between Bobby Jindal and an exorcism just about anywhere).
But, not Sarah Palin! Hell, no, she can’t go! Make her stay in Alaska where it’s cold and no one can see her! If she leaves the state for any reason, file more ethics complaints! We must destroy this woman AT ALL COSTS!
Dr. Utopia proves that just about anyone can become President of the United States. He spent less time in the US Senate before he ran for President than Sarah Palin has spent as the Chief Executive of the nation’s largest state, with extremely more important duties than any Senator has.
The fact that liberals wailed and cried every time she left the state — declaring how important her job was — proves what great experience she has, and how well she did her job. If her leaving the state’s borders, for even a day, would seemingly trigger a complete collapse of society in Alaska and the end of life as Alaskans knew it, then it’s ludicrous to argue the woman isn’t capable at what she does.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Sotomayor is No Sarah Palin
Many of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee talked about Sonia Sotomayor with something approaching awe, reminding us about her "brilliance." Many of said Democrats and their media friends would not use the term "brilliant" in describing Sarah Palin, who in fact is very bright and a fast learner.
My own view of Sotomayor is that she's the woman who graduated "summa cum laude" from Princeton . . . but has no idea how to pronounce . . . summa cum laude.
Sonia Sotomayor wildly mispronounced the common legal term "sui generis." She thought the first word had one syllable -- it has two -- and the second word had two syllables -- it has three. Latina, yes. Latin? Nope. Then she kept saying "eminent" when she meant "imminent." She also talked about her "story of knowledge," when she meant "store of knowledge."
Since Sarah has resigned her day job, maybe Obama could get her out of his hair by appointing her (instead of Sonia S.) to the Supreme Court? We could do worse. We ARE doing worse.
My own view of Sotomayor is that she's the woman who graduated "summa cum laude" from Princeton . . . but has no idea how to pronounce . . . summa cum laude.
Sonia Sotomayor wildly mispronounced the common legal term "sui generis." She thought the first word had one syllable -- it has two -- and the second word had two syllables -- it has three. Latina, yes. Latin? Nope. Then she kept saying "eminent" when she meant "imminent." She also talked about her "story of knowledge," when she meant "store of knowledge."
Since Sarah has resigned her day job, maybe Obama could get her out of his hair by appointing her (instead of Sonia S.) to the Supreme Court? We could do worse. We ARE doing worse.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Palin v. Obama, Attitudes, Ideology
I keep asking (pleading with) everyone to get a copy of John Brady's magnificent biography of Lee Atwater. It's called "Bad Boy." Atwater engineered George H. W. Bush's unexpected victory over Michael Dukakis in 1988 and was thereafter head of the RNC. (He died in 1991 of inoperable brain cancer.)
Atwater is often looked at as a highly ideological (conservative) political figure, but that's not exactly the case. Atwater believed that people voted much more on attitudes than on ideology. Atwater saw, for example, that Baby Boomer, with all their confidence and power, also had some feelings of guilt about environmental pollution.
He believed people were still putting emphasis on doing good (making money) but there was also a growing interest in being good (in what Christians call "good stewardship" of the earth). Atwater used his own love for rock and roll (and blues music) are a political pathway to young voters. A "good ole Southern boy" in so many ways, Atwater's hero (and one of his best friends) was . . . James Brown. In politics, Atwater, a chronic philanderer, would have seen Bill Clinton (a constant philanderer) as a political adversary . . . but a kindred soul on matters sexual.
The "attitudes rather than ideas" concept from Atwater is very important but rather slippery. People might not want to set the AC at 78 degrees, but they might put a brick in the toilet tank to save water. Modern culture does a great job of all making us feel guilty about various things. ("I have so much and THEY have so little.")
On more important matters, most people may be appalled at partial birth abortion and live-birth abortion, but they really (really) don't want to outlaw abortion. Also, they may be turned off by the phrase "global warming," but they may not regard it as a hoax (I do) . . . and they occasionally feel guilty about using so much energy.
Some of Sarah Palin's "problems" deal with attitudes, especially among married women. It amazed me (it shouldn't have) that some married women I talked to were obviously jealous of Sarah Palin's success. ("Let see, she's the mother of five and is running for V-P and looks wonderful, and I'm a mother of five and my hair looks like a fright-wig.") We've all read about women with high-powered, high-paying jobs who spend most of their time feeling guilty about something-or-other.
It is okay to be ideological, but we need to recognize (at least according to the brilliant Atwater) that attitudes trump ideology.
Atwater is often looked at as a highly ideological (conservative) political figure, but that's not exactly the case. Atwater believed that people voted much more on attitudes than on ideology. Atwater saw, for example, that Baby Boomer, with all their confidence and power, also had some feelings of guilt about environmental pollution.
He believed people were still putting emphasis on doing good (making money) but there was also a growing interest in being good (in what Christians call "good stewardship" of the earth). Atwater used his own love for rock and roll (and blues music) are a political pathway to young voters. A "good ole Southern boy" in so many ways, Atwater's hero (and one of his best friends) was . . . James Brown. In politics, Atwater, a chronic philanderer, would have seen Bill Clinton (a constant philanderer) as a political adversary . . . but a kindred soul on matters sexual.
The "attitudes rather than ideas" concept from Atwater is very important but rather slippery. People might not want to set the AC at 78 degrees, but they might put a brick in the toilet tank to save water. Modern culture does a great job of all making us feel guilty about various things. ("I have so much and THEY have so little.")
On more important matters, most people may be appalled at partial birth abortion and live-birth abortion, but they really (really) don't want to outlaw abortion. Also, they may be turned off by the phrase "global warming," but they may not regard it as a hoax (I do) . . . and they occasionally feel guilty about using so much energy.
Some of Sarah Palin's "problems" deal with attitudes, especially among married women. It amazed me (it shouldn't have) that some married women I talked to were obviously jealous of Sarah Palin's success. ("Let see, she's the mother of five and is running for V-P and looks wonderful, and I'm a mother of five and my hair looks like a fright-wig.") We've all read about women with high-powered, high-paying jobs who spend most of their time feeling guilty about something-or-other.
It is okay to be ideological, but we need to recognize (at least according to the brilliant Atwater) that attitudes trump ideology.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Palin, Obama: Very Different People
Neil Cavuto put it well: "If everyone is going to have health care, shouldn't everyone pay for it?" That kind of common sense thinking is anathema to Obama and his fellow Marxists, who excel in handing out other people's money in exchange for votes. In the campaign for the presidency, we need to play offense to win.
If I were brainstorming with Sarah, I would focus on the slogan "I'm one of you," and I would use the theme of simple things: liberty, opportunity, tolerance, personal responsibility, private enterrprise, national security. I'd point out that Obama's pretty words don't lead toward any of those fundamentals. They lead to a government-run nation with no room for personal liberty. "We the people" become "They, the government."
If I were brainstorming with Sarah, I would focus on the slogan "I'm one of you," and I would use the theme of simple things: liberty, opportunity, tolerance, personal responsibility, private enterrprise, national security. I'd point out that Obama's pretty words don't lead toward any of those fundamentals. They lead to a government-run nation with no room for personal liberty. "We the people" become "They, the government."
Friday, July 3, 2009
Sarah Palin: Going National
Bulletin: Palin Hinting at Run for Presidency. "And though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make. But every American understands what it takes to make a decision because it’s right for all, including your family." (Sarah's Facebook Note on July 4)
I believe Sarah Palin made Friday's decision herself. She was basically being held prisoner in Alaska ("Boo hoo, Sarah doesn't 'wub' us as much as she 'wubs' the lower-48." She's better off being the former Gov. of Alaska. Essentially, Sarah was being held "prisoner" in Alaska because of the endless whining that ook place in The Anchorage Daily News and elsewhere whenver she ventured out-of-state.
Bulletin: Please read Pamela Geller's superb article "Palin in 2012" in WorldNetDaily: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103019
Sarah is a national figure with national aspirations, and it's in her best interest not to continue to serve as Governor. It's that simple folks.
Some "conservative pundits," generally as idiotic as their liberal counterparts, will express bogus horror that Sarah has "quit her day-job." Frankly, Sarah doesn't want to run for President on the state of Alaska's dime. Obama quit as his own day-job, as U.S. Senator -- or at least stopped performing it -- after serving less than a year. Nobody raised a peep.
Here's how Greg Hanson, a keen observer, described Sarah's actions:
"I just read the transcript of her speech, and nothing in there tells me that she's the least bit interested in quitting. She is taking her fight to a completely new level. She is now free to come and go as she pleases, and will undoubtedly be taking advantage of some of the hundreds of invitations she's received. Look for Sarah Palin at a venue near you in the coming weeks and months. I find it interesting that her resignation comes about the same time as SarahPAC's numbers are reported. My hunch is that they will be huge, and will be a very big story both as to the amount raised, and the number of donors, all with very little effort on her part. This is the opening salvo of the 2012 campaign. Start packing 0bama, you're finished."
Additional Comments by Steve in an e-mail to Sarah Supporter Bill LeBlanc:
I said on this blog yesterday that she basically was being "held prisoner" in Alaska, with bogus "ethics violations" being filed against her every time she left the state. Some people in Alaska have an insecurity complex and don't understand that what happens in America has a tremendous impact on Alaska. Ronald Reagan didn't get elected until 1980, but he started having great influence nationally with a speech he gave in 1964. You and I were lucky enough to attend the Oct. event in Beaver, PA, and we saw first-hand the kind of power and honesty in this remarkable woman. Sarah is already the most important political female in American history.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Rasmussen Poll: Obama's Popularity Plunging
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_rasmussen_poll/2009/06/30/230686.html?s=al&promo_code=8287-1
Among other things, Sarah Palin needs to run on the theme "I'm NOT Obama."
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_rasmussen_poll/2009/06/30/230686.html?s=al&promo_code=8287-1
Among other things, Sarah Palin needs to run on the theme "I'm NOT Obama."
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Palin Advancing Quckly on Obama
Greg H. posted some interesting (and positive) comments (below in italics) about how Gov. Palin is doing in the blogosphere. Things are moving very much in the right direction for Sarag Palin.
If we achieve a grassroots efforts that is truly huge -- and I believe we will -- we can win the presidential election in 2012. Frankly, it's as much up to us as it is to Gov. Palin.
In many of the states won by Obama (including FL, IN, OH, MI, and some others) the economic situation is calamitous, with unemployment up in the double-digits. On issues like cap and trade, healthcare, and immigration reform, Obama must get legislation passed this year or he can forget about it through the balance of his first (and last) term.
On my DraftPalin2012 blog, I posted this weekend Cindy R's useful comments on how bloggers can take steps that will move the online momentum even more in Gov. Palin's direction. Sarah is counterattacking very effectively against the liberal mudslingers. She neturalized (neutered?) Letterman with her comments labeling him a dirty old man, and she nailed John Kerry ("Why the long face, John?") late last week. Obama and his minions (mainly Axelrod, Soros, Emanuel, Begala, and Carville) remain very worried about her.
The 2012 election is of course a long time away; however, the election will be "won" -- the foundations for winning be set -- in 2009 and 2010.
Greg H. wrote:
I always read the comment sections on news stories and blogs related to Gov. Palin, and have noticed that there are an increasing number of positive comments being left, particularly at the Anchorage Daily News, Boston Herald, and other papers. Some of the anti-Palin bogs are getting a lot of pro-Palin comments left on them as well. More and more blogs that have never mentioned her before are now posting positive stuff about her from time to time. Gov. Palin's Facebook is fast approaching 560,000 up about 15,000 in the last 2 weeks, and she is approaching 40,000 followers on Twitter.
If we achieve a grassroots efforts that is truly huge -- and I believe we will -- we can win the presidential election in 2012. Frankly, it's as much up to us as it is to Gov. Palin.
In many of the states won by Obama (including FL, IN, OH, MI, and some others) the economic situation is calamitous, with unemployment up in the double-digits. On issues like cap and trade, healthcare, and immigration reform, Obama must get legislation passed this year or he can forget about it through the balance of his first (and last) term.
On my DraftPalin2012 blog, I posted this weekend Cindy R's useful comments on how bloggers can take steps that will move the online momentum even more in Gov. Palin's direction. Sarah is counterattacking very effectively against the liberal mudslingers. She neturalized (neutered?) Letterman with her comments labeling him a dirty old man, and she nailed John Kerry ("Why the long face, John?") late last week. Obama and his minions (mainly Axelrod, Soros, Emanuel, Begala, and Carville) remain very worried about her.
The 2012 election is of course a long time away; however, the election will be "won" -- the foundations for winning be set -- in 2009 and 2010.
Greg H. wrote:
I always read the comment sections on news stories and blogs related to Gov. Palin, and have noticed that there are an increasing number of positive comments being left, particularly at the Anchorage Daily News, Boston Herald, and other papers. Some of the anti-Palin bogs are getting a lot of pro-Palin comments left on them as well. More and more blogs that have never mentioned her before are now posting positive stuff about her from time to time. Gov. Palin's Facebook is fast approaching 560,000 up about 15,000 in the last 2 weeks, and she is approaching 40,000 followers on Twitter.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Blowback Against Obama-MSM Underway
The blowback against the Obama-MSM regime has begun, with thanks to Angela for the following material. People are beginning to discover that Barack Obama is not a big admirer of the country -- America -- which he supposedly leads.
"On a more serious front, I sincerely hope that when the president goes in for his annual check-up, the doctors at Bethesda will do a brain scan. Surely something must be terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran." --columnist Burt Prelutsky
US Commisions on Civil Rights Demand Answers on Voter Intimidation Case Dismissal (good for them)
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/70422
Wallopin Walpin (Walpin-gate ain’t over … have the Republicans finally found their balls? They better.)
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/18/walloping-walpin
Critcs Attack ABS News for Refusing to Air Opposing Ads During Obama’s Health Care Special
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/18/critics-attack-abc-news-refusing-air-opposing-ads-obamas-health-care-special/
Olive Garden pulls Letterman Ads (Guess where I’m having dinner tonight?)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23889.html
President Obama fails to quell gay uproar
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23868.html
"On a more serious front, I sincerely hope that when the president goes in for his annual check-up, the doctors at Bethesda will do a brain scan. Surely something must be terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran." --columnist Burt Prelutsky
US Commisions on Civil Rights Demand Answers on Voter Intimidation Case Dismissal (good for them)
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/70422
Wallopin Walpin (Walpin-gate ain’t over … have the Republicans finally found their balls? They better.)
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/18/walloping-walpin
Critcs Attack ABS News for Refusing to Air Opposing Ads During Obama’s Health Care Special
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/18/critics-attack-abc-news-refusing-air-opposing-ads-obamas-health-care-special/
Olive Garden pulls Letterman Ads (Guess where I’m having dinner tonight?)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23889.html
President Obama fails to quell gay uproar
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23868.html
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
How Palin Will Defeat Obama
Below you'll find your first look at the new "ObamaMobile" from Government Motors. It's designed for a family of four where two of the people really can't stand the others.
Fan clubs are great, but the fans tend not to reach outside the core group. They talk a lot to themselves and each other, which can be something like a car spinning its wheels. People -- especially young people -- have to find out that it's trendy -- cool -- to support Sarah Palin. We also need to spread doubts about Obama's commitment to American values and about his intelligence, which is highly suspect.
Remember, Obama is the guy who called his own Secretary of Defense (Bob Gates) "Bill Gates," who is the guy at Microsoft. Obama is the "constitutional lawyer," who has never written an article or even a footnote on constitutional law. Even conservatives like Charles Krauthammer call him "brilliant," but where's the evidence of that brilliance?
Obama is the guy who's given an Inaugural Address and a spech at the D-Day ceremony. Can anyone in America (other than Michelle) remember even a single word or phrase from those "brilliant" speeches? I can still go around quoting JFK nearly 50 years after his Inauguration. Without the TelePrompter, Obama would have to take a vow of silence.
All groups and individuals that support Sarah for President in 2012 need to emphasize simple, practical steps that will build her formidable grassroots effort. By practical and simple, I mean reaching out to "Aunt Edna" and "Cousin Bob" to get them to become part of Sarah's team. If every strong backer of Sarah can bring in two or three more people -- something that shouldn't be too difficult -- we establish a framework for winning.
Fan clubs are great, but the fans tend not to reach outside the core group. They talk a lot to themselves and each other, which can be something like a car spinning its wheels. People -- especially young people -- have to find out that it's trendy -- cool -- to support Sarah Palin. We also need to spread doubts about Obama's commitment to American values and about his intelligence, which is highly suspect.
Remember, Obama is the guy who called his own Secretary of Defense (Bob Gates) "Bill Gates," who is the guy at Microsoft. Obama is the "constitutional lawyer," who has never written an article or even a footnote on constitutional law. Even conservatives like Charles Krauthammer call him "brilliant," but where's the evidence of that brilliance?
Obama is the guy who's given an Inaugural Address and a spech at the D-Day ceremony. Can anyone in America (other than Michelle) remember even a single word or phrase from those "brilliant" speeches? I can still go around quoting JFK nearly 50 years after his Inauguration. Without the TelePrompter, Obama would have to take a vow of silence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
