US Senate: Conservative Christine O'Donnell

One of the biggest contests in American politics will be conservative Republican Christine O'Donnell against liberal Republican Mike Castle, "The King of the Rinos." Conservatives nationally should rally around Christine, who is poised to defeat Castle, one of the anvils around the neck of the Republican Party. [See article below}

Conservative superstar candidates, Christine O'Donnell and Marco Rubio

Christine O'Donnell, who ran for the US Senate against Joe Biden in 2008, is running again this year against ultimate RINO, career politician and mega-millionaire Michael Castle. What's not to like about Christine, a devout Catholic, a fiscal and social conservative, and a strikingly beautiful woman?

The Castle Campaign doesn't like Christine O'Donnell one bit. They wish Christine would go away, that she wouldn't stand in the way of Castle's election -- or, call it his "coronation." Sadly, a few segments of the local media have been carrying water for Castle and spreading gossip and inneundos about her.

Christine is not a rich woman by any means. She grew up in a poor family, one with six children. She said recently that one of the early lessons she learned in life was that it was "hard." Christine doesn't complain, doesn't ever try to play the role of the victim. But she would agree with the famous comment of another Irish-American political figure, John F. Kennedy, that "life is unfair."

Christine probably also would agree with the observation by Jason Chaffetz, the superb freshman congressman from Utah. He said, "You shouldn't have to be a millionaire to run for Congress." Chaffetz sleeps in his office, showers in the House gym, and eats in the cafeteria. Mormon Jason knows, as does Catholic Christine O'Donnell, that life isn't always a bed of flowers.
A story that's been making the rounds this week in Delaware is that -- one time -- Christine's debit card was rejected. In the minds of a few Delawareans -- and in the small mind of Mike Castle, who's almost certainly the source of the story -- that says something bad about Christine.
Barack Obama would sympathize with Christine. In 2000, at the Democrat National Convention, he tried to rent a car. He couldn't, because his credit card, maxxed out, was rejected.

Was that the last we ever saw of Obama? Obviously not. At the 2004 Democrat Convention, he gave the keynote address. In that year, he was elected to the US Senate (take heart, Christine), and in 2008 he was nominated for president. He doesn't have to worry about his credit card balances ever again.

Another story spread about Christine is that she was left over with campaign debt -- a piddling amount -- from her 2008 battle against Biden. In fact, any challenger for a federal office who doesn't have campaign debt obviously wasn't trying to win -- and anyone who knows Christine understands that winning was her only goal.

Campaign debt: Barack Obama raised a staggering amount, $700 mllion, but he had debt left over after he won the presidency. As for campaign debt, Hillary Clinton ended her bid for the presidency with a debt exceeding $22 million.

As late as mid-2009, Mrs. Clinton was still millions in debt. Of course, she and her husband have a net worth in excess of $100 million, so "debt" is perhaps a misnomer.

If Christine O'Donnell were as rich as her opponent -- Mike Castle -- she would never have another financial worry in her life. Castle's net worth (OpenSecrets.org) is as high as $7.8 milion. Even at that level, however, he's "only" the 55th wealthiest member of the House.
In the Senate, which he'd serve in if Christine weren't going to beat him, his $7.8 million would be chump change to people like Kerry, Herb Kohl, and Jay Rockefeller, to name a few.

Christine isn't a millionaire, and maybe never will be one (although I wouldn't bet against her). But as Cong. Chaffetz indicated, there's no constitutional requirement that a US Senator be rich. In fact, if we had a few more normal Americans -- like Christine -- in Congress perhaps they wouldn't spending so much of our money, while retaining all of their own.

In important ways, in fact, Christine is rich -- in the depth of her conservative political philosophy, in the quality of the lessons she's learned from life, and in the abundance of friends she has (of whom I'm proud to be one).

Conservatives around the nation should embrace the candidacy of this outstanding American woman. Christine O'Donnell will make a great US Senator from Delaware. Other states should be so lucky to have such a person running for high office. Let's make it happen!

http://www.christine2010.com/

Note: Post above cross-posted with http://www.modernconservative.com/ (go to "Blog Alley")
Please feel free to cross-post on your own blog (with different title perhaps)

Obama's Presidency: A Colossal Failure

Below, you'll see Rex Murphy's superb column in the Toronto Globe and Mail. His point -- and who would dispute it? -- is that, not-yet-one-year-into-the-Obama-presidency -- we are already tired of the preposterous man who occupies the White House. Whatever or whoever you might be, Barack, all we ask is that you be gone.

I think Time went to the relatively faceless functionary Bernanke mainly not to name Barack Obama. Time, like a lot of its fellows in the wild world of the contemporary U.S. media, is in an awkward place with regards to Mr. Obama. Having devoted so much incense to his remarkable ascendancy, a great swath of his country's press is looking for a convenient and not too noticeable off-ramp while it – shall we say – recalibrates its enthusiasm.

It's an uncomfortable pivot from the audacity of hope to buyer's remorse. Very uncomfortable for those in the media who played the cheerleader for Mr. Obama, who skated by controversies that would have sunk other candidates or abandoned the ruthless investigations they would have pressed on less congenial candidates.

The ferocity they applied to the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, in contrast with the timidity they brought to his campaign, will in time come to be seen as one of the most shameful episodes in American journalism. Not so much for what they did to Ms. Palin, but for what they neglected to do in examining the candidate for the office that really counted. In some curious way, the U.S. media's bulldogging of Ms. Palin was kind of an inverted compensation for what they weren't doing to him.

Well, the bands have stopped playing for Barack Obama. At the end of 2009, the poll numbers have dropped mercilessly. He may yet get his health reform package, but only in the teeth of great public resistance. More Americans simply don't like what he's doing with health care than do. The great “cool” of Mr. Obama – essentially all those qualities that marked him as the non-George Bush, the anti-George Bush – is wearing a little thin now that Mr. Bush is really no longer a figure in play.

That cool now is seen as a troubling lack of affect, an unsettling passionlessness. What really, in his public role, captures or commands the fundamental energies of Mr. Obama? What are his core convictions and aspirations? It's very hard to tell.

His eloquence is fading, more people now find it more a trick of rhythm and cadence – a mannerism – rather than felt thought in memorable language. His recent statement to an anxious America after the Christmas Day bomb plot was flat, off-key and utterly unpersuasive. He went to Copenhagen, played the frantic for the better part of a day and came home essentially empty-handed. Hugo Chavez is mocking him in precisely the same terms as he mocked poor Mr. Bush.

Most of all, Mr. Obama has exploded his own credentials as the agent of (genuine) hope and change. The promise to remodel the essentially harsh nature of modern politics, to seek transformation in the tone and substance of public life, to end Washington's buying and selling, is seen now, and seen very reluctantly such was the real hope he inspired, as empty. His White House is as dagger partisan as Richard Nixon's.

Almost a full year into his presidency, Mr. Obama is at a dangerous point. His ability to inspire has all but departed. The novelty of his historic ascension is over. And, late though it be, there are now questions about his effectiveness. As there are also doubts about whether that magnificently cool presence – his much-touted ability to distance himself from the turbulence and passions of those around him – springs from a fear of being overwhelmed by events rather than a confidence in mastering them.

No wonder Time gave him a pass.

Scott Brown Surging in Massachusetts

A big salute to all those Patriots -- people like you -- who've embraced the Scott Brown Campaign for US Senate . . . and asked your friends and family members to do the same. Scott Brown's "people" (i.e., individuals just like us) have been overwhelmed by the support they're getting from the online community.

As you know, the election is on Jan. 19, 2010. So, it's an off-year (and even an off-month) election. And in the middle of January, it being MA, there will probably be a monumental snowstorm. All such factors work in Scott's favor, because he'll get the votes of every sane Bay Stater repulsed by the three-headed monster: Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

How do we win this race that once looked unwinnable? By contributing our money -- even $10 or $20 would help -- and our time. Scott has a great system at his web site for individuals to call-into MA from out-of-state.

www.brownforusscenate.com

Support Scott -- and then ask everyone you know to do the same.

Scott is a conservative. In fact, he will be the most conservative Senator elected from MA since . . . Senator John F. Kennedy, who nowadays would be denounced by liberals as "a dangerous right-winger." JFK loved our country, and he knew that in a recession you don't raise taxes -- instead, you cut them. And as a man with chronic ailments, JFK had no desire to our health system into one resembling Bulgaria's.

Scott Brown is committed to voting to repeal the health care monstrosity Reid and Pelosi are busy hatching. He's against the Cap-and-Tax legislation. He's in favor of reducing our taxes. And, unlike Obama, he's not afraid to use the phrase "war on terror."

You may ask . . .

What about Scott's opponent, one Martha Coakley? She's another one of those Massachusetts liberals (think: John Kerry) whose ambitions are as unlimited as her talents are nonexistent. As a member of the Massachusetts legal community, she specialized in ferocious prosecutions of people who were clearly innocent. In many ways, she's a lot like her hero, Barack Hussein Obama, who's described accurately in a Jan. 2 article by Geoffrey P. Hunt (following):

American Thinker: Another Failed Presidency

". . . This president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for the size of the task-- all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.

"In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: 'For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too.'"

The beginning of the end for the absurd Obama "presidency" began with our victories in VA and NJ. If we can win in Massachusetts, as I believe we can, we can win everywhere. Please ask everyone you know to rally behind Scott.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Destroying Black Income, Families

The bad news is that, for Blacks, especially poor ones, unemployment is rising while income is falling. But the banks and other companies Obama bailed out with hundreds of billions in taxpayer money are reporting "record profits" and paying big bonuses -- reportedly one hundred million to one energy "trader.' (The energy traders are those who help artificially jack up prices for gasoline and home heating oil.)

Of course, the banks, like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and others are the ones who "donated" all that money to the Obama Campaign. Barack Obama takes care of his "friends." He appreciates Black votes, but isn't about to do anything to earn them.

Might it be time yet to start rubbing the noses of yesterday's Obama supporters in such facts? Gee, the first mixed race president is presiding in the most precipitous drop in the standard of living -- and the quality of life -- for Black people. As Michelle Obama said (althuogh not in the way she meant it), "It's time for Black folks to wake up."

Oh, and Barack's and Michelle's combined income last year was $2.8 milion. Sasha and Malia go to a (mostly white) private school that costs $30,000 a year -- for each of them. At least one guy with some African ancestry is doing very, very well.

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!

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

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.

Obama, Crowley, Gates: Revealing Image

Story by Thomas Lifson of the American Thinker
Obama's revealing body language I am stunned that the official White House Blog published this picture and that it is in the public domain. The body language is most revealing. Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?

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.

Obama, Sotomayor: Slobbering Love Affair

Sonia Sotomayor graduated "summa cum laude" (highest honors) with a degree in political science from Princeton University. Apparently, poli sci at Princeton, as at many big-time universities, is an easy major, one that doesn't demand a great command of the English language.

On Sunday and Monday, I'll be writing more about Sonia Sotomayor's intellectual limitations, which are many. The other day I was taking notes during the first two days of the Sotomayor hearings. Her comments were legalistic and jargon-ridden to the point of being incomprehensible. When Senator Coburn asked her if we Americans "have a right to self-defense in our own homes," she gave an incoherent answer.

Even worse, she regularly misused common English words. In answering (sort of) Coburn's question she use the word "eminent" (standing out above others) several times when she meant "imminent." (about-to-happen). If she's ever ruled on the concept of "eminent domain," goodness knows what the decision sounded like.

Also, when she was talking about an individual's "store of knowledge" (itself a redundant phrase) she called it "story of knowledge." It was an absurd blunder. I doubt she won any spellingbees at Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx.

(Marnie Delano of New York State pointed out to me that Sotomayor badly mispronounced the Latin phrase "sui generis," meaning originally "of its own kind" and now generally meaning individual or unique. Sotomayor pronounced it "soo jen-riss," whereas the correct form is "soo-eye gen-er-iss.")

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have been slobbering (and shedding tears) over Ms. Sotomayor and her supposed "brilliance." Sotomayor once described herself as the "poster girl for Affirmative Action." In her case, truer words were never spoken.

She's not a "wise Latina." She's an unwise one. She wouldn't even be a good candidate for the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.

Oh yes, she's a certain to get confirmed. Her confirmation is imminent, although there's nothing eminent about her.America now is the country where every girl, even stupid ones, can grow up to be a Supreme Court Justice.

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."

Scenario: McCain Defeat Obama

Lee Atwater practiced "tar baby" politics. Willie Horton was Dukakis' "tar baby," and Atwater (along with a guy named Floyd Brown, who's still around) attached the "team" of Dukakis-Horton together.

If I'd been king of the McCain Campaign, I would have suggested the same with the team of Obama-Wright. One problem: John McCain NEVER mentioned the name "Jeremiah Wright," and apparently forbade Sarah from doing so. I believe McCain only mentioned Bill Ayers' name once, perhaps twice.

The campaign gave Sarah a script to use on Obama-Ayers, and it was a pretty lame script ("paling around with terrorists"). They failed to portray Obama as a socialist who was proposing job-destroying (key term) tax policies. And on and on . . .

The result was that Obama, throughout the campaign, had very high "positives." At one point (with the lady in Wisconsin) McCain told us we "have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency." He should have added, "Heck, I may vote for him myself."

I'm not suggesting that McCain should have run a Darth Vader campaign, only that he should have established Barack Obama as a radical who would do great harm to individual Americans. As I've said before, I kept wondering "Exactly why is John McCain running for President? Does he really think it's important that the American people elect him rather than the other guy?"

As Pamela Geller put it recently in WND, Sarah Palin's "simplicity" is her strength rather than her weakness. For example, 18% of the people eligible for Medicare have "no health insurance." Make them sign up, and we significantly reduce the number of uninsured. Many of those people don't sign up because they don't want to pay the 90 bucks a month premium. Okay, find out what needs to been done to get them to pay it -- and then do what's necessary.

Those approaches may have some bad sides, but it's a lot better than what we're seeing now in Congress. If we PAID private insurance -- basic coverage -- for ALL the uninsured, it would cost less than the proposals now in front of Congress.

Sarah Palin will never be able to cite statistics on health care (from a TelePrompter) that come trippingly off the tongue of Hussein, but his statistics are all self-serving and ultimately bogus. When it comes to smart, the TelePrompter is smarter than the guy reciting from it.

Sarah Palin Confronts Barack Obama

Isn't love wonderful?

Gov. Sarah Palin Spoke out today (Tuesday) against Barack Obama's disastrous "Cap and Trade" proposals. I'll be writing on cap and trade, as well as the "global warming" fantasy, on Wed. and Thurs.

The 'Cap and Tax' Dead End

By Sarah Palin
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Washington Post

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, "poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity."

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama's plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can't afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama's energy cap-and-tax plan.


The writer, a Republican, is governor of Alaska.

Hillary Clinton Ready to Resign?

There are many hot rumors coming out of DC and NY that Hillary Rodham Clinton is preparing to resign as Secretary of State. Why?

Because Obama has reduced the woman to invisibility and irrelevance. He's accomplished much of the same with Bill Clinton, who hates being in the background.

Also, Obama is pursuing policies, especially with Iran and North Korea, that are downright dangerous, which Mrs. Clinton knows. It's no secret that, during the rebelliion in the streets of Tehran, the Secretary of State wanted the President to take a much harder line than he did.

Finally, Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell (neither of whom is as great he thinks) are fulfilling what should be primary obligations of a real Sec. of State. Holbrooke is in charge of the explosive situations in Pakistan and Afghanistan, while Mitchell essentially has responsibility for the Middle East. In addition, Obama sees himself as the chief foreign policy negotiator, which leaves Clinton usually looking for something of significance to do.

Mrs. Clinton has become mainly an administrator at State, her least-favorite role aside from office maintenance.

The irony is that John McCain would have named Clionton Sec. of State and given her real responsibilities. (I don't know what HRC's relationship is with U. N. Ambassdoar Susan Rice, an Obama loyalist who bashed Hillary during the campaign, but I would bet it's frigid at best.)

Obama: America's Big Ass Mistake

Obama: One Big Ass Mistake America.

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.

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.