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.

Town Halls: What's Really Happening

The following (below in boldface) is from my friend Elyse, who attended two town halls in New Jersey's 9th CD (congressional district). Where is it? If you're a fan of NY Giants and NY Jets football, it includes the area around the Meadowlands pro football stadium. Or if you're a fan of The Sopranos, well, you have a good image of the place, right down to Lodi, NJ, home of the fictitious "Bada Bing" strip club. The area used to be home to pig farms, gas stations, and abandoned buildings. Its smell was . . . not pleasant.

The congressman there is Steven Rothman, who votes 100% liberal and apparently is an enthusiastic participant in NJ's infamous "politics of corruption." Elyse's description of the town halls is below in boldface. Cong. Rothman, like most Democrats in the House, is totally unaware that his cluelessness is producing an explosive situation in the U.S. as his actions, along with those of other leftists, are making our country disappear as if it had all been a dream. The Rothmans of the world believe that it's all fine and good if they extract money from the relative few to buy votes from the many who sit as if they were baby birds waiting for "mom" to put worms in their mouth.s

Elyse says:

I went to two town hall meetings yesterday done in my district by Steve Rothman, have two more today. Some of the things I noticed were:

- No muscle in evidence in the afternoon session (mostly seniors) in Wallington. Crowd was civil and almost cordial (heavily Democratic town) Seniors were pretty well informed however he cut them off at the knees when they started talking about provisions in the bill by saying nobody knows what the final bill looks like because there are 3 versions that came out of committee. HR 3200 is listed on dozens of congressmen's websites however I couldn't find it on his. No one asked him why the bills that are out of committee are not available for public view.

- Muscle in evidence last night but a bit more discreet than we've seen nationwide - no identifying shirts etc. at the town hall in Palisades Park. Several people commented about the large menacing man in the meeting room itself (I could not get closer than the hallway) who would glower if the people seated didn't voice their approval. Actually told Michele from the NJ Tea Party organization that he would eject her if she didn't keep it down.

- We were unable to ask spontaneous questions - if you wanted to speak you had to fill out a form that Rothman's staff was passing through the crowd (SRO) giving your name, address, phone, email address and the question you would like to ask. There were 4 "plants" in Wallington and at least 8 last night, called on strictly for their favorable comments.

-The Congressman's remarks were even keeled until the last 20 minutes or so when the blame game started going. The debt is Bush's fault yadda yadda [or "Bada Bing, Bada Bing?"]. No opportunity for rebuttal. You got your two minutes and that was it. Stupidly drew the comparison that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid technically were and are unconstitutional but so what???? Unreal. I couldn't believe he made such a dopey comment.

Bashed Reagan for giving amnesty to 5 million illegals besides! As if there were no objections to that action then. It was one of the biggest gaffes of Reagan's Presidency. Think he's a little desperate?

- The little Obamabot girls, those kids that answered the $11-15 an hour Craigslist ads carrying small signs that said Thank you Mr. President for Healthcare Reform...almost threw up. When I asked the one young lady if she knew what the bill was about she had absolutely NO CLUE. Just making a little extra money before school starts, how utterly capitalistic of her ;)

All in all the attendees for these town halls come prepared and angry. Very angry. I was impressed to see all age groups actively engaged, talking to their neighbors and being very clear that they do NOT want what these idiots are selling. Many did their homework, brought with them facts and were well spoken. Expect that as information regarding the parental rights built into the bill that we do have access to comes out today that the questions will get much much tougher.

Two more town halls today, this afternoon in Englewood Cliffs and tonight in Rutherford. Rutherford should be interesting, that is the hometown of my friend Vince who ran against Rothman this past election ;)Elyse

Independence Day: Remembering Ronald Reagan

When Reagan was elected president in 1980, I was overjoyed. I remembered (and remember) his remarkable speech in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater. My expectations for Reagan were extremely high. I expected (hoped?) he would repair a badly damaged economy -- and to take extraordinary steps to do so. I didn't expect him to end the Cold War, which looked as if it would go on forever, but I had high hopes that he at least begin the process of ending what he called the "evil empire." He did a lot more than that.

I also knew that his optimism and love of America (and its people, who are not always lovable) would be a great tonic for our native land. When Reagan appeared at the Olympics, people started chanting "USA, USA!" He had become synonymous with America. He was a staunch adherent to what historians call "American exceptionalism," the belief (one that is true) which recognizes that America is "not just another nation."

The liberals at the time claimed Reagan would be a "war-monger," which was the reverse of the truth. However, as a child of WW II, he did understand the truth of Senator Pat Moynihan's assertion: "You must remember that we are a warrior nation." In my heart, I also know that RR knew the truth of Gen. Lee's statement after the battle of Fredericksburg: "It is a good thing war is so terrible, else we should love it too much."

New Pro-Republican Site Launched

What's necessary for Republicans to win in 2010 and 2012? Simply put, we need to STOP ALIENATING LARGE VOTING BLOCS -- Blacks, Hispanics, young people, and women (especially single-women living in larger urban and suburban areas). If we send a message to voters that we want to be "the morality police," they're going to proclaim, "No thanks!" They don't want us to be intrusive forces in their lives. Below, you can read about a new site, "The 80% Solution," designed to help us -- Republicans -- put ourselves more in line with what 21st century voters want from their government. Please take a quick trip to our new web site: http://the80percentsolution.typepad.com/the_80_solution/ Comments there are always welcome.

Last weekend on this site I offered a solution (a partial one) the health care crisis. My approach on healthcare ultimately will cost trillions of dollars less than Obama's. It will also lead to better treatment for patients.

On my blogs, I avoid the "outrage of the day" approach favored by many web sites. Instead, my focus is on what's really going on in American politics. In other words, I concentrate on substance rather than rumors, fluff, and warmed over "headlines." My solution on health care is not something stolen from the WSJ or USA TODAY.

Overall, I want to offer you something on these blogs that you won't find anywhere else. (Tomorrow -- Wednesday -- I'll be offering solutions to the "education crisis." Sadly, Obama's solution is to spend lots more money without producing better outcomes. My solution is to spend less money but to produce striking, positive results. Please come back.) My other blog is at: http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com.

Those people who think that winning elections somehow displays a lack of "principle" will be agitated by an important new blog site: "The 80% Solution." Groups that consistently lose elections soon find their principles have become politically irrelevant. The following is a short excerpt from the first column, which I hope you'll visit often.

80% Solution, Pro-Palin Groups

Cindy Reidhead, this site's developer, and I will be sending out some information this week about our new web site called "The 80% Solution." It's based on an important statement by Ronald Reagan: "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor."

It will be pro-Sarah Palin but will not be "anti" other possible Republican candidates. It will solicit columns from bloggers who agree generally with the "80% Solution," as well as from some national writers, such as Elaine Lafferty, Tammy Bruce, and others.

The site will take a dim view of those who practice "single-issue" politics or demand ideological rigidity from candidates. People who advocate "circular firing squads," including those enamored of the destructive term "RINO," will not feel comfortable at "80%." The site will have pieces from people who identify themselves as conservative, moderate, or liberal, as well as pro-choice and pro-life. People who are pro-Obama should stay away

Here's the link:

http://the80percentsolution.typepad.com/the_80_solution/2009/03/80-solution-propalin-groups.html

Barack Obama: Bankrupting the Nation

Handing money out to AIG is "like donating blood at a morgue." (Troy Dunn)
Him: "Look, he's giving us all money just like he primised."
Her: "He has your wallet."

Financial expert Troy Dunn says, "It's like donating blood at a morgue." He's talking about the government's stupid decision to throw more cash at hapless AIG.

In coming days, I'll discuss what's gone wrong with the economy -- and what the Obama Administration is doing to make it worse. The reality is that you'll find much more of value here than you will on CNN and the rest of the mainstream media. The MSM continues to find it difficult to ask serious questions about Obama's policies, which are designed mainly to pay off his voters rather than to benefit the nation. (If you come here regularly, please sign up as one of my "followers" -- in the sidebar at the upper right.)

Economics, my friends, is relatively simple, involving a finite number of variables, including: supply, demand, investments, profits, and taxes. Obama is focusing on demand and ignoring the other components. Worse than that, he's looking for scapegoats rather than solutions. It's a tactic disastrously practiced during the Franklin Roosevelt Administration.

Consider Obama's disastrous plunge into class warfare. Yes, many people love to hate "the rich" (whether they're really rich or not). But consider this: Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently spoke out against soaking the rich people in his city. He explained that high-tax, high-cost New York has eight million residents. But a mere 40,000 of the eight million -- one-half-of-one-percent -- provide city tax revenue totaling a massive 63%..

What if one-eighth of those people -- 5,000 -- moved out of the city? That would do serious damage to the city's capacity to provide services. What if one-fourth of them -- 10,000 -- moved out, which they certainly have the resources to do? It would cripple the city's ability to meet the needs of its people.

Is Obama aware of such a situation? He hasn't shown any sign yet that he is. Sarah Palin does understand such realities, and that's one reason she'd be a much better President than Obama. In Sarah's world, which is also my world, a company that operates efficiently, wisely, and profitably can grow and flourish. Companies that perform poorly will flounder and, eventually, fail.

Not so in the political planet occupied by Obama and people like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. They look at companies such as GM and AIG as "too big to fail." Thus, such companies qualify for huge bailouts, which are somehow never quite enough money to change their prospects.

GM says it needs another $30 billion -- with a "b" -- to stay afloat. However, GM is the corporate version of a bottomless pit. Most insightful observers believe the company is headed for bankruptcy. Even that drastic step might not save America's largest automaker. At the same time, the overpaid members of the automakers union seem blissfully unaware of GM's lurch toward oblivion. GM wants to cut nearly 50,000 jobs, but even that probably will not be enough.

GM qualifies as one of Obama's companies that's "too big to fail," but fail it will. "Its auditors have serious doubts about its ability to survive," as one news report just said. Please let it die in peace.

What about insurance Godzilla AIG? So far, it has received a total of about $150 billion in bailout money. Guess what? It will need more, much more. In last year's fourth-quarter, AIG lost a whopping $60 billion. Is it doing better in this year's first quarter? Apparently not.

What's AIG's problem? It insured many of the companies that were up to their eyeballs in the subprime lending debacle. In other words, AIG insured companies that matched it in irresponsibility and bad financial practices. For that, we're supposed to bail it out?

What about the concept that a company like AIG is "too big to fail?" I have news for Obama (and AIG): it is failing. Last fall, its stock price was $20 a share. Today, a share of AIG stock is worth . . . 50 cents. Its terrible performance is one of the reasons owners in listed shares of all American companies have lost a total of $1.1 trillion -- with a "t" -- in wealth in the past six weeks. Obama is bankrupting the nation. (Citigroup, once the most valuable financial institution in the world now has its stock trading at $1.03 per share.)

This morning on FOX News (an island of sanity in a sea of nonsense), self-made millionaire Troy Dunn said this about AIG: "It's not too big to fail." He added, "It has already failed."

About throwing additional taxpayers' money at AIG, Dunn observed: "It's like donating blood at a morgue."

If AIG collapses -- actually, when it collapses -- many companies around the world will suffer. Some of the will fail. However, Obama, Geithner, and Bernanke are incapable of saving AIG. They are involved in trying to resuscitate a corpse stiffened by rigor mortis.

Today (Thursday), the stock market is continuing to fall. That's about as newsworthy as saying "The sun came up once again this morning." Wall Street is sending a message to Obama, who remains tone deaf to the sobering music of the market. Wall Street is saying that it doesn't believe Obama has a clue about how to turn the situation around. In that view, Wall Street is correct.

[Tomorrow (Friday), I'll be writing on how to cure a serious recession, with emphasis on how it's been done effectively in past, specifically in the Administrations of Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. They did so by taking steps the exact opposite of what Obama's doing. A situation where companies aren't allowed to fail becomes one where companies eventually aren't allowed to succeed.]

Obama: Anatomy of Failed Presidency

Barack H. Obama, disconnected perpetually from America and Americans (that is, from the kind of Americans who would actually fight for their nation).

If Barack Obama and his cohort in economic crime, Nancy Pelosi, would each wear a bell, taxpayers would know when they're coming.

Obama, listen up: "Hopelessness is not a strategy. And terrifying people is a recipe not for recovery, but rather for national paralysis."

"We cannot continue to spend as we please." (Barack Obama)

"He's [Obama's] amplifying this [national] fear." (Jeffrey Rosenzweig, Associate Professor, Emory University)

Obama needs to present "some hope, some vision for the future." (Rosenzweig)

If Obama continues as he has since January 20, his presidency will be a monumental failure. His constant fear mongering is not only decimating financial markets, but also depressing the spirits of the American people, where consumer confidence is in the toilet. Scaring people is not a manifestation of leadership, although it might in the short-term be "good politics."

As you see in the quotes above, Obama recently said, "We cannot continue to spend as we please." Unfortunately, the "we" seems to apply both to individuals and Congress. Frankly, individuals in a free society exercise their liberty through making economic choices, either spending or saving. It's none of Barack Obama's concern what you do -- legally and reflectively -- with your money. He is the President (sadly), not the dictator of economic decisions.

In Congress, their has been wild overspending, plunging the nation into huge deficits and enabling huge trade deficits. Who's responsible for the profligate spending? Why, the most liberal members of Congress, since "liberal" is a synonym for "spend more."

And who are the extreme liberals? According to the non-partisan National Journal, the most liberal Senator was. . . Barack Obama. The second most liberal is Obama's Illinois colleague Dick Durbin. The third most liberal is avowed socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The fourth most liberal is . . . Joe Biden.

In a few short years in Congress, Obama was responsible for nearly a billion in "earmarks," pet projects that are a hallmark of wasteful spending. The purpose of most earmarks has nothing to do with advancing national interests, but rather buying votes from a legislator's constituents.

Barack Obama's entire career consists not of solving problems, but rather at ensuring he's always on the government payroll. He has almost no real accomplishments either as an Illinois Senator or U.S. Senator. Why? Because he spent most of his time -- years -- positioning himself and running for higher office. What's next? Emperor of the Western Hemisphere?

Most people will grant that Obama is an excellent public speaker. By that, they apparently mean he has a nice baritone voice. In fact, his speeches are dreadful, devoid of any intellectual content. In one recent speech, he used the word "crisis" 26 times. Unfortunately, the "solution" to the "crisis" was to do more of what generated it -- over-spending and devaluing the worth of a dollar.

With his fear obsession, Obama reminds us of a famous statement by humorist Woody Allen. He said, "We are at a crossroad. On one side lie insoluble problems. On the other side lies the abyss and utter destruction. God grant us the wisdom to choose wisely."

Hopelessness is not a strategy. And terrifying people is recipe not for recovery, but rather for national paralysis.

As Emory University's professor Rosenzweig pointed out today on CNN, Obama's main oratorical accomplishment seems to be engendering panic. In short, Obama is a very scary man. He never misses an opportunity to evoke gloom and suggest darkly that we're on our way to doom. If his favor word is "crisis," it's followed closely by "catastrophe."

In another difficult time, Ronald Reagan offered a vision of "a shining city upon a hill." In Obama's case, his calls for "hope" and "change" didn't survive the presidential campaign. If he sees a city on hill, it apparently lies in ruins. If it shines at all, it does so in the manner of a dead mackerel.

The U.S. will survive the presidency of Barack Obama, the man who, with a straight face, can have U.S. governors attend a "Summit on Fiscal Responsibility. Obama lacks the rhetorical skills, experience, and vision to offer this country the kind of leadership it so desperately needs. Yes, we will survive the reign of Barack H. Obama . . . but just barely.

Palin: Images, Symbols, Attitudes, Winning

PLEASE SIGN JOHN MCCAIN'S PETITION OPPOSING THE CURRENT, BLOATED STIMULUS BILL. (Scroll down below the Palin pictures.)

In the previous column (scroll down), I talked about super-strategist Lee Atwater -- who engineered wins by Ronald Reagan in 1984 and George H.W. Bush in 1988. Atwater believed that issues and opinions were secondary with voters. What counted most were attitudes, ones based on emotional responses to candidates. He said that images (such as pictures and videos) and symbols were crucial in forming attitudes. Later today (below the pictures), I'll be discussing images and symbols and how they can help Gov. Sarah Palin win the presidency in 2012. Consider the pictures below of Gov. Palin and what they say about her. She's NOT a frail woman. And she's a wife and mother, first, last, and always. She's a person of great character and strong values. Most of all, "she's one of us," which should be her campaign slogan. If you want to know what separates winners from losers in politics, I urge you to read a brilliant biography by John Brady:Politics Bad Boy: The Life and Politics of Lee Atwater.

Sign petition opposing stimulus bill - It's quick and easyhttp://www.countryfirstpac.com/petition/economic.aspx

John McCain Sponsors Petition Protesting Bloated Stimulus Planhttp://purplepeoplevote.com/2009/02/03/john-mccain-sponsors-petition-protesting-bloated-stimulus-plan/

Senator McCain sent an email to supporters explaining his opposition to the current emergency economic stimulus package stating that…

Yesterday, the Senate began debate on an economic stimulus package that is intended to get our economy back on track and help Americans who are suffering through these difficult times. Unfortunately, the proposal on the table is big on the giveaways for the special interests and corporate high rollers, yet short on help for ordinary working Americans. I cannot and do not support the package on the table from the Democrats and the Obama Administration.

Our country does not need just another spending bill, particularly not one that will load future generations with the burden of massive debt. We need a short term stimulus bill that will directly help people, create jobs, and provide a jolt to our economy.

He further explains the myriad of problems with this bloated stimulus package and asks for people to sign a petition to voice their disapproval of this bill.

Sign Vote No On The Stimulus Package Petitionhttp://www.countryfirstpac.com/petition/economic.aspx

Is Palin Running for President?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please take a few minutes today to sign up at TeamSarah.org and at sarahpac.com.

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

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

Teddy Kennedy's KGB Friends

Paul Kengor, Professor of Political Science at Grove City College (Pennsylvania)(

It's hard after so many years to be shocked by the bizarre behavior of Sen. Ted Kennedy, but Paul Kengor's discoveries about the malicious behavior of the Massachusetts Senator is quite amazing. I'll write more about it tomorrow. Below is an excerpt of Professor Kengor's amazing interview with Frontpagemag.com.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Paul Kengor, the author of the New York Times extended-list bestseller God and Ronald Reagan as well as God and George W. Bush and The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. He is also the author of the first spiritual biography of the former first lady, God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life. He is a professor of political science and director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College.

FP: Paul Kengor, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

Kengor: Always great to be back, Jamie.

FP: We’re here today to revisit Ted Kennedy’s reaching out to the KGB during the Reagan period. Refresh our readers’ memories a bit.

Kengor: The episode is based on a document produced 25 years ago this week. I discussed it with you in our earlier interview back in November 2006. In my book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, I presented a rather eye-opening May 14, 1983 KGB document on Ted Kennedy. The entire document, unedited, unabridged, is printed in the book, as well as all the documentation affirming its authenticity. Even with that, today, almost 25 years later, it seems to have largely remained a secret.

FP: Tell us about this document.

Kengor: It was a May 14, 1983 letter from the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, to the head of the USSR, the odious Yuri Andropov, with the highest level of classification. Chebrikov relayed to Andropov an offer from Senator Ted Kennedy, presented by Kennedy’s old friend and law-school buddy, John Tunney, a former Democratic senator from California, to reach out to the Soviet leadership at the height of a very hot time in the Cold War. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president---Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, “very impressed” with Andropov.

The thrust of the letter is that Reagan had to be stopped, meaning his alleged aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid, needed to be stopped. It was Ronald Reagan who was the hindrance to peace. That view of Reagan is consistent with things that Kennedy said and wrote at the time, including articles in sources like Rolling Stone (March 1984) and in a speeches like his March 24, 1983 remarks on the Senate floor the day after Reagan’s SDI speech, which he lambasted as “misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes.”Even more interesting than Kennedy’s diagnosis was the prescription: According to Chebrikov, Kennedy suggested a number of PR moves to help the Soviets in terms of their public image with the American public. He reportedly believed that the Soviet problem was a communication problem, resulting from an inability to counter Reagan’s (not the USSR’s) “propaganda.” If only Americans could get through Reagan’s smokescreen and hear the Soviets’ peaceful intentions.

So, there was a plan, or at least a suggested plan, to hook up Andropov and other senior apparatchiks with the American media, where they could better present their message and make their case. Specifically, the names of Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters are mentioned in the document. Also, Kennedy himself would travel to Moscow to meet with the dictator.Time was of the essence, since Reagan, as the document privately acknowledged, was flying high en route to easy re-election in 1984.

FP: Did you have the document vetted?

Kengor: Of course. It comes from the Central Committee archives of the former USSR. Once Boris Yeltsin took over Russia in 1991, he immediately began opening the Soviet archives, which led to a rush on the archives by Western researchers. One of them, Tim Sebastian of the London Times and BBC, found the Kennedy document and reported it in the February 2, 1992 edition of the Times, in an article titled, “Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file.”

But this electrifying revelation stopped there; it went no further. Never made it across the Atlantic. Not a single American news organization, from what I can tell, picked up the story. Apparently, it just wasn’t interesting enough, nor newsworthy. Western scholars, however, had more integrity, and responded: they went to the archives to procure their own copy. So, several copies have circulated for a decade and a half.I got my copy when a reader of Frontpage Magazine, named Marko Suprun, whose father survived Stalin’s 1930s genocide in the Ukraine, alerted me to the document. He apparently had spent years trying to get the American media to take a look at the document, but, again, our journalists simply weren’t intrigued. He knew I was researching Reagan and the Cold War. He sent me a copy. I first authenticated it through Herb Romerstein, the Venona researcher and widely respected expert who knows more about the Communist Party and archival research beyond the former Iron Curtain than anyone. I also had a number of scholars read the original and the translation, including Harvard’s Richard Pipes.

Below is the link to the complete Kengor inverview with Frontpage:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=0DC20D32-80C6-446E-BF51-1C054E35B7BA

Blog Change

After February 6, the day after Super Tuesday, I’ll be posting exclusively at my main blog: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com. Friday evening’s posting is an editorial from the Austin (TX) Statesman endorsing John McCain for President. It’s well done and worth reading.

Steve Maloney
Ambridge, PA
National Co-Chair McCainVictory08


A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON MCCAIN FROM NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE:

A Different Perspective
Victor Davis Hanson

Three unexpected developments have given Republicans a shot this year at winning once thought impossible, given the normal desire of the electorate for a fresh party after eight years, and worries about Iraq and the economy. All can change, but for now they have a real shot.

The first, of course, is the radical turnabout in Iraq. Had we been seeing over 100 dead a month, the loss of Baghdad, and a failure of the surge, McCain would be finished and his Republican rivals would have carved out a third position between Bush and the Democrats that would have been still rejected by the voters.

Second, no one anticipated the surge of Obama, and the Clintons’ overt and clumsy efforts at personal destruction that turned off even liberals, a development that explains why a McCain in theory could be palatable to disaffected Democrats and Independents.

No one knows whether Thursday night’s [Obama-Clinton] reconciliation will last. But I doubt it, since Obama was figuring his nice guy image gained him ground, while Hillary worried that unleashing Bill and knee-capping her rival lost her percentages. But when it gets down to winning and the race narrows, each will readjust and it will get nasty again. Bill is ungovernable, and growls and gets toothy in periods of quiet and tranquility when he recedes from the news

And third, the unanticipated November implosion of Rudy Giuliani coalesced many moderate Republicans behind one candidate, the once moribund McCain, while base conservatives were never quite energized over either Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or Fred Thompson, and either diluted their support or never embraced a candidate with real passion.

It is understandable to lament the absence of conservative purity, but ahistorical to suggest that any recent Republican president would have met any of the litmus tests now demanded, given the dependency of the middle class on entitlements and its touchy-feely worldview.

Reagan, and Bush I and II all adjusted to that unfortunate reality. A Democrat did not appoint Souter, O’Connor, or Kennedy, nor raise payroll and gas taxes in the 1980s, nor sign amnesty and de facto open-border legislation in 1986, nor, later, increase federal spending well past the rate of inflation, or offer amnesty again in 2007. Tax cuts were great, but without caps on spending they were unfairly slurred as revenue reducers once deficits soared. Recent Republican congressional scandals mirror-imaged some of the Clinton-era roguery.

Reagan’s pragmatism on taxes, amnesty, new federal programs and government expansion, was continued by both Bush I and II. In that regard, McCain seems a continuum, not an abject disconnect. His problem is mostly temperament, as when he strayed he was blunt about what he was doing and sometimes gratuitously offended his base in a way that neither Reagan nor the Bushes dared. That is a legitimate concern of tactical aptitude, but not one so much of ideology.

He also never was a conservative idealist that voiced conservative themes on the campaign trail which he could not enact once elected. But in terms of judicial appointments, foreign policy and the war, and federal spending, he is not much different from any of the prior three Republican presidents, and might well prove tougher, given his age and occasional contrarianism. We worry over his immigration stance, but his former mistaken position was Reaganite to the core and reflected the Bush consensus. His new stance of closing the borders first would be a radical departure, and a conservative remedy.

In short, anyone who saw the Democratic debate Thursday night can envision the new future on their horizon: identity politics and self-congratulation over race and gender; tax increases (back to estate tax hikes, income tax rates go up, payroll tax caps lifted, etc); internationalism for the sake of internationalism (defer to the U.N., E.U., apologies for past conduct, contextualizing terrorism), more government (teachers, the poor, the middle class, etc. all need new government programs to add to those we have), and legislating judges (more Ginsburgs and Breyers).

Given all of the above, I don’t think it’s in the interest of conservatives for much longer to worry about McCain’s class ranking at Annapolis or how many planes he was nearly killed in.

THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES WILL BE . . .

This weekend I'll have a column on Saturday and one on Sunday. I'd love to hear from readers on their "guesses" -- and that's all they can be at this point -- on which candidates they (i.e., you) think the eventual nominees will be.

There don't appear to be any clear frontrunners right now. Super Tuesday (February 5) is looming as the definitive moment, but we may not know for certain even then who the winners will be. It could be that close a race.What are my guesses? So far, I'm said on different occasions that I believe the Democratic nominee will be Barack Obama (rather than Hillary Clinton), but I can't make that claim with certainty.

Unlike many of my fellow conservatives, I never understimate the political skills of anyone named "Clinton." On Eric Dondero's radio show the day before the New Hampshire primary, I said that Mrs. Clinton's "tearing-up" episode would help hur rather than hurt, and I turned out to be one of the few conservatives that got that right.

On the Republican side, I don't believe the nominee will be either Fred Thompson (the most disappointing of the candidates) or Mitt Romney. I started out many months ago by endorsing Rudy Giuliani, whom I still think would be a fine nominee. But for various reasons, I switched last week to John McCain. In other words, I've been all over the lot on my predictions.

What are your own thoughts?

If I had to bet the farm today, my guesses would be: Barack Obama and John McCain.


The following are my additional comments to "GenXDad" on his praise for Cindy's piece on McCain-haters and Reagan-haters being one and the same:

I give Cindy at The Pink Flamingo (http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog) a lot of credit for doing some great research on this subject. It's hard to remember, but Reagan got criticized all the time for being "too liberal," which was ridiculous. He did what he believed had to be done, including the grant of "amnesty" to many immigrants, mostly Mexicans. Reagan was not a militant pro-lifer, because he believed (correctly) it was impossible to pass any sort of constitutiononal amendment on the subject. Go to wikipedia and read about "The Human Life Amendment," and you'll see why he thought as he did. He ended up as one of the few truly GREAT Presidents. There have not been any perfect Presidents.

It's fine for people to disagree with John McCain on immigration, campaign reform, or other issues. But they have an obligation to show that they understand his arguments and then they have to duty to show why they disagree. Mere sloganeering is not enough by any means. An issue like immigration is really a tough one. How does one take a sound position without sounding anti-Mexican and thereby losing (forever) most of the critical Hispanic vote? McCain wrestles with such issues -- but most of his opponents have done little thinking on the subjects.

McCain Haters Were Reagan Haters

From: http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/1/10/3458404.html

McCain Hatred, Conservative Amnesia & the Cult of Reagan
by SJ Reidhead at 01:18PM (MST) on January 10, 2008 Permanent Link Cosmos
''It is unlikely that the Reagan era
will prove to be the historic change
in the direction of America that we have sought.''
Edwin J. Feulner Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation,1985.



THE TRUTH HURTS!
This harping back and forth, declaring John McCain and Mike Huckabee impure, is nothing new for conservatives. I know it appears as though they are looking for something special, a 2nd coming of Reagan, but the problem was, when they had Reagan, they wanted to get rid of him. The problem is the fact that the same people absolutely detested Reagan when he was POTUS, but are now lying about it. I was going to wax poetic about the way the usual sources of Limbaugh, Malkin, Ingraham, Hewett, Hannity, etc. were slamming McCain, Huckabee, and to a lesser extent Giuliani, but then I realized they are doing nothing new. When Reagan was President, the same hard line mindset hated him. He wasn’t conservative enough for them, pure enough for them, and pandering enough for them. A few of the names have changed, but the vitriol remains the same. Only now, these people have turned a great man into a false god, creating a cult around him, one where they can sacrifice any one who doesn’t live up to their tainted and fantastical idea of what Ronald Reagan was.

And so, our dear media darling multi-millionaire conservative talk show far out conservatives with their endearing little PMS (President McCain Syndrome) are getting their silk undies in a wad over the prospect of a McCain Presidency. As it looks more and more like McCain’s time has finally come, they are doing everything possible to destroy him. Like I wrote last night, Rush Limbaugh has an irrational hatred of John McCain that will end up destroying Rush Limbaugh and his vaunted credibility.

I've done a cut and paste of past Pink Flamingo articles on the subject. I think they prove my point. Today's bunch of petty, sore-headed conservatives are acting no different than they did when Ronald Reagan was President. The ones who made trouble for Reagan now lie about their support. The ones who are now making problems for John McCain and worship Reagan are lying to themselves about the false legacy they have created. They are demeaning Ronald Reagan as a man. They are also turning this election over to the Democrats. Sometimes I think that's exactly what they want to do. They would rather see us lose in November than they would lose some of their power.

REAGAN AND THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
About six months ago I did an article about Reagan and conservatives.
“On Oct 14, 1983, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that …
‘…President Reagan isn't doing particularly well among evangelical and born- again Christian voters, according to a new poll that one "new right" leader said yesterday should set off "an alarm bell" at the White House. The poll said Reagan was running only roughly even with Sen. John Glenn of Ohio in a potential 1984 presidential matchup. While Reagan held a substantial lead over former Vice President Walter F. Mondale in the poll…”


And, like George W. Bush, conservatives like Richard Viguerie threatened Reagan in the Miami Herald, on Jan 21, 1984.
“…Conservatives may not back President Reagan for reelection in 1984 unless he reverses what they consider "almost a stampede to the left" in the White House, New Right leaders said Tuesday. "Quick and comprehensive changes" in Reagan's staff and policies are needed to win back longtime supporters in the conservative wing of the Republican Party, they indicated. Howard Phillips, who heads the Conservative Caucus, and Richard Viguerie…’


And like their criticism of Bush, the Heritage Foundation found that Reagan was not conservative enough for them. One wonders what Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh would have said of Reagan had they been in power during his presidency. See if you recognize any of these names, all of whom now vocally criticize GWB. NY Times, Nov 25, 1983.
“….To some, he has sounded an uncertain trumpet, missed golden opportunities, compromised too often and drifted from his conservative moorings. To others, he has changed the direction of Government in a way that Democrats will be hard-pressed to reverse. To still others, he has had a mixed bag of successes and failures.

Such are the findings of the Heritage Foundation, a Washington policy group that has been both an occasional critic of and an intellectual resource for the Reagan Administration. In an effort to explore the depth of conservative discontent as well as satisfaction with the President, it recently asked a number of prominent conservative activists, intellectuals, politicians and writers to rate how he was doing.

The foundation, which periodically runs such surveys, plans to publish its findings shortly. But foundation sources have provided a preview of what is to come.

What they were unable to provide was what effect, if any, the division in conservative ranks might have on Mr. Reagan's re-election chances. For a number of the doubters, provided the dissatisfaction is not too deep, Mr. Reagan could still be the only acceptable candidate. Not Enough 'Reaganauts'…John T. Dolan, chairman of the National Conservative Political Action Committee, contended that the tax cut would be the only real historic achievement of Mr. Reagan's Presidency. ''I expected more to happen,'' said this disappointed conservative activist. ''There has been no major defense buildup beyond what Carter would have done. There has been no spending cut. There has been no turnover of control to the states. There has been no effort to dismantle the Washing bureaucratic elitist establishment.''

M. Stanton Evans, a newspaper columnist, is no less disappointed. ''This has been essentially another Ford Administration,'' he said in his critique. ''It has been business as usual, not much different from any other Republican administration of our lifetime. It has been an Administration populated by corporate executive types.'' Everyone knows, he added, that ''people used to the decorum of the boardroom back off from controversy.''

Representative Newt Gingrich, Republican of Georgia, saw Mr. Reagan as ''the only coherent revolutionary in an Administration of accommodationist advisers.'' His chief criticism: ''The Administration has had no capacity to launch strategic offenses on behalf of Reagan's vision.'' After Mr. Reagan won his tax and budget cuts in the spring of 1981, Mr. Gingrich added, someone in the White House should have been asking, ''What do we do to keep up momentum?'' Instead, he said, Mr. Reagan returned from California in August to a ''vacuum of activity'' and a new political agenda that had been set by Democrats. ''Political debate was once again totally enmeshed in the rhetoric and values of the liberal welfare state,'' Mr. Gingrich said. Waste in Spending Cited Howard Phillips, national director of the Conservative Caucus and one of Mr. Reagan's earliest and sharpest critics, asserted: ''Reagan is just the sort of nice fellow I'd like to have as a neighbor, but he defers too quickly to anyone in a three-piece suit.''…Cal Thomas, vice president of communications for Moral Majority, credited the President for transforming public thinking on Government spending, but faulted him for his leadership on the abortion issue. ''If we balance the budget and we still keep murdering a million and a half babies every year, there's no way we can say we're better off than we were four years ago,'' said Mr. Thomas. Paul M. Weyrich, executive director of the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, said Mr. Reagan's eagerness to avoid political confrontations with Congress robbed him of victories that he might have had. Sadly, Mr. Weyrich wrote, ''The radical surgery that was required in Washington was not performed. Ronald Reagan made a pledge not to touch entitlement programs, and that's one of the few pledges he has kept absolutely.''…”

Vice-President Sarah Heath Palin!

Please save a place on the mountain for Sarah Palin

Governor Sarah Palin's inexorable journey to the vice-presidency of the U.S. -- and ultimately to the Presidency -- continues. Adam Brickley, founder of the Draft Palin Movement, sent the following message today:

Hello Palin fans,

In yet another big media development, the Draft Palin Movement was mentioned (and linked) this morning in a Associated Press story by Steve Quinn. The story just hit the front page of Yahoo! News' "U.S. News" section, and has also been added by a number of news outlets, the most prominent (so far) being FoxNews .com, TheNew York Times, Newsweek.com andTownhall.com.

The story details Palin's meteoric rise, and includes quotes from Claremont McKenna University professor John J. Pitney pegging her as a VP candidate. Folks, we have just broken another glass ceiling by getting national-level mainstream media coverage!

(Adam Brickley)


Take a bow, Adam -- and all the others (like Trish Houser of Alaska) associated with this great movement. In my own blog's support for military people (including Gov. Palin's son, Track), veterans, and their families, Gov. Sarah Palin, a Blue Star mom, occupies a special place in my heart. Is she a "female Reagan?" No, she's better.

I strongly urge Sarah -- the nation's most popular elected official -- to come to PA and other states and campaign for strongly pro-military candidates, including William T. Russell (12th Congressional District) and Melissa A. Hart (4th Congressional District). I look at the faces on Mt. Rushmore and I hope I live long enough to see two new figures added: Ronald Wilson Reagan and Sarah Heath Palin.

Note: Sarah has also been endorsed for the Republican nomination for Vice President by Emily Zanotti of The American Princess blog, Pulitzer Prize nominee Les Kinsolving of WorldNetDaily, Mayor Sam of California's Second City Blog, Cindy at ThePinkFlamingo, and many, many more bloggers.

And more good news for Sarah below . . .

This week, we picked up and endorsement from Charleston Daily Mail coulmist Don Surber. which caught the attention of Instapundit, resulting in over 2,000 hits in one day! (shattering our previous record.)

Then, we found out that Gov. Palin will be appearing in the February issue of Vogue. This means that Sarah Palin will literally be staring thousands (if not millions) of women in the face right as the primaries end and VP speculation heats up.

If you'd like to vote for Sarah Palin for V-P in an online poll, please click on the following: ....this one does.