One chapter in the book I'm writing (with help from other very talented people) about Sarah Palin will deal with feminists who strongly support the Governor and see her a role model for American women. They include Elaine Lafferty, the former Ms. Magazine editor who called Sarah a "feminist' and a "brainiac"; Shelley Mandell, the president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW, who endorsed Sarah in a Carson, CA event (to the dismay of the tree-dwelling segment of NOW) by saying, "This [Sarah] is what a feminist looks like"; and the remarkable Camille Paglia, who voted for Obama, but has paradoxically been Sarah's strongest defender. Paglia wrote the following on October 8, 2008, about Gov. Palin:
"The mountain of rubbish poured out about Palin over the past month would rival Everest. What a disgrace for our jabbering army of liberal journalists and commentators, too many of whom behaved like snippy jackasses…One of the most idiotic allegations batting around out there among urban media insiders is that Palin is "dumb." Are they kidding? What level of stupidity is now par for the course in those musty circles? People who can't see how smart Palin is are trapped in their own narrow parochialism-the tedious, hackneyed forms of their upper-middle-class syntax and vocabulary…I admire her competitive spirit and her exuberant vitality, which borders on the supernormal…both Todd and Sarah Palin…have emerged as powerful new symbols of a revived contemporary feminism. That the macho Todd, with his champion athleticism and working-class creed, can so amiably cradle babies and care for children is a huge step forward in American sexual symbolism."
Please also pass along the following link to Paglia's extended (and brilliant) analysis of the character, values, and socia significance of Sarah Palin:
http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/0/9/camille_paglia_on_sarah_palin_barack_obama_joe_biden_and_more/
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Sarah Palin: 2012 The Year?
The following comments are from CPAC section on Team Sarah, and they raise the question whether Sarah should run in 2012? I'll respond to them tomorrow (Thursday). Short version: I believe she should plan to run for the presidency.
Comment on Points Made in the Following piece by John:
John makes excellent points (below in italics), and I tend to agree. . . . But I'm not so sure about their ability to rack up a Super Majority in Congress in the off year elections. Traditionally, the President's party does not do well in the off years.I view the off year as an opportunity for us to drill into their existing majority. If that happens significantly, then I think Sarah should go for it. If it doesn't happen, then I think she should cool it, and build her resume.
john.md said:
And Mitt Romney is worth 100 million, doesn't and never will have to work to support his family or his presidential ambitions.Huck falls into the same class. They can afford to put every political operative in Iowa on retainer. The simple fact remains if Obama has 50 % or better favorability no one will beat him no matter how much money or how long they campaign. He already has 200 mill for the next election and I saw on a dem web site they expect to have a 2 billion war chest for 2012 plus the incumbent advantage They are already counting the additional seats they are going to pick up in 2010 for a super majority; they are that confident. I personally think that she needs to be re-elected in 2010 and then take a look at it in 2011. The more leadership experience and getting re-elected will go a long way in the public eye. If the great one has fallen there will still be plenty of time. If he has not then Huck and Mitt can waste their money and they will be labeled as unelectable for what will be what the third or fourth time. Remember Sarah Draws big crowds , Mitt and Huck don't come close to generating that kind of excitement. 2011 will be soon enough to start if the conditions are right and if not 2014 will be just right . Unless the One gets the Constitution changed it will be a level playing field. Two full terms as governor , two years to campaign unrestricted plus the time in between to gain international expertise and build one helluva grass roots organization. Remember it has taken 8 years for the dems to get back in the white house.
Comment on Points Made in the Following piece by John:
John makes excellent points (below in italics), and I tend to agree. . . . But I'm not so sure about their ability to rack up a Super Majority in Congress in the off year elections. Traditionally, the President's party does not do well in the off years.I view the off year as an opportunity for us to drill into their existing majority. If that happens significantly, then I think Sarah should go for it. If it doesn't happen, then I think she should cool it, and build her resume.
john.md said:
And Mitt Romney is worth 100 million, doesn't and never will have to work to support his family or his presidential ambitions.Huck falls into the same class. They can afford to put every political operative in Iowa on retainer. The simple fact remains if Obama has 50 % or better favorability no one will beat him no matter how much money or how long they campaign. He already has 200 mill for the next election and I saw on a dem web site they expect to have a 2 billion war chest for 2012 plus the incumbent advantage They are already counting the additional seats they are going to pick up in 2010 for a super majority; they are that confident. I personally think that she needs to be re-elected in 2010 and then take a look at it in 2011. The more leadership experience and getting re-elected will go a long way in the public eye. If the great one has fallen there will still be plenty of time. If he has not then Huck and Mitt can waste their money and they will be labeled as unelectable for what will be what the third or fourth time. Remember Sarah Draws big crowds , Mitt and Huck don't come close to generating that kind of excitement. 2011 will be soon enough to start if the conditions are right and if not 2014 will be just right . Unless the One gets the Constitution changed it will be a level playing field. Two full terms as governor , two years to campaign unrestricted plus the time in between to gain international expertise and build one helluva grass roots organization. Remember it has taken 8 years for the dems to get back in the white house.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The Smear Campaign Against Sarah
Minnesota sends diapered Easter FrankenBunny to the U.S. SenateObviously we need to respond effectively to criticisms directed at Sarah Palin and her family. One problem is that point-by-point refutations are sometimes needed, but they also result in repeating stories, many of them fanciful charges (e.g., Sarah "banned books": Trig's mother is "really Bristol"; and on and on).
The Anchorage Daily News (ADN) is a source of many rumors and smears. Frankly, the ADN is small potatoes, backwater journalism. It's "reader comment" section is dominated by Sarah-haters who revel in baseless charges.
The entire "Troopergate" controversy was bogus. Unfortunately, pro-Sarah bloggers had to spend tens of thousands of hours refuting charges that were baseless. The trooper was a rogue who drank on the job, tasered his own young son, and treated Sarah Palin's sister very badly. By age 35, this "congenial" soul had acquired four wives. He's not exactly what women call a "keeper."
He should have been fired -- although he hasn't yet.
As for Monoghan, the safety commissioner, Sarah had every right to fire him. She regarded him as disloyal to her administration. Yes, he worked for the people of Alaska, but he worked for them through the Governor. If he didn't have the confidence of the Gov. of Alaska, then it was her obligation to get rid of him.
I realize these aren't the usual analyses of the situations (the trooper and the Safety Commissioner), but they're about all I care to do. Sarah likes to get rid of disloyal subordinates (and so do I, by the way). She did the same when she first became Mayor of Wasilla.
My friend and YouTube expert, Rebekah Chauhan in CA, has suggested we ascribe criticisms of Sarah to sexism, which Rebekah says is equivalent to racism. Yeah, in a way this is name-calling, but if the name fits, use it. It's a simple approach.
Very early in the game -- during the Republican Convention -- I was on a TV show in Pittsburgh, debating with two female Obama Supporters. The question came up whether, as Politico had suggested, Sarah was "shrill and inexperienced." My comment was: "Apparently, shrill means she has a woman's voice. Inexperienced means she's a woman . . . and has a woman's (wife's, mother's, working woman's) experience." Simple, but it worked well.
I've had long experience in public relations for some of the country's most controversial industries (oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, health insurance), and I really believe "less is more" when it comes to dealing with (baseless) charges. Point-by-point refutations tend to get us in a situation like Brer Rabbit and the tar baby. It's debilitating.
My response to the "current" controversy regarding Levi Johnston is this. Yeah, teenage parents and 18-year-olds in general make mistakes. As the world knows by now, two of my daughters (nearly two decades ago) had children (one each) before they married the children's fathers. In one case, the father was involved in activities which I didn't, to say the least, approve of.
However, I don't recall being asked for a lot of advice by my "children," who were both young adults when the events occurred. They insisted on their right to make their own mistakes, which they did in abundance.
I'm sure that, like many teen parents, Bristol and Levi will flounder around. Decent people will wish both of them well -- period. Even if I knew Bristol and Levi much better than I do, I'd hesitate to make any judgments about them as people. Ask me again when they're, say, 35.
In the campaign, the oxymoronically named "Obama Truth Squad" worked effectively, mainly because the media allowed it to do so. The MSM is not going to give us in Sarah's camp that luxury. That's why we need to replace the media, which is doing a good job collapsing of its own dead weight, with a new media, i.e., us.
Overall, we shouldn't over-react to what will be an endless stream of petty charges against Sarah and her family. We need to recognize it for what it is: an attempt to smear a woman and her family for being "normal" and for having the same problems and challenges as tens of millions of other American parents and families.
During the convention -- before "the speech" -- one of my frequent correspondents (Eric) said that a McCain staffer told him there were some "devastating" (and apparently credible) allegations against Sarah, etc., etc. (At the time Markos Markos of The Daily Kos was spewing out one lie per hour about Sarah Palin.)
I told Eric this: "You know Sarah well (he'd campaigned in Alaska for her) and I know all about Sarah. And because you know so much about her, you realize that any such allegations are completely false." (I believe they had something to do with Bristol's pregnancy.)
I took a leap of faith in what I said -- faith in the character, values, and essential goodness of Sarah Heath Palin. In the end, I was right, and Eric, along with his "source" were wrong.
The Obama Campaign (one that apparently continues unto eternity) -- basically controlled by people who hate "normal Americans" -- would love for us to spend the next four years (eight years?) refuting absurd charges against Sarah. They don't want us to spend our precious time organizing and emphasizing the kind of positive change Sarah represents.
Obama and his media minions want to destroy Sarah Palin. They will find out eventually that she is indestructible. Carry on, Sarah.
The Anchorage Daily News (ADN) is a source of many rumors and smears. Frankly, the ADN is small potatoes, backwater journalism. It's "reader comment" section is dominated by Sarah-haters who revel in baseless charges.
The entire "Troopergate" controversy was bogus. Unfortunately, pro-Sarah bloggers had to spend tens of thousands of hours refuting charges that were baseless. The trooper was a rogue who drank on the job, tasered his own young son, and treated Sarah Palin's sister very badly. By age 35, this "congenial" soul had acquired four wives. He's not exactly what women call a "keeper."
He should have been fired -- although he hasn't yet.
As for Monoghan, the safety commissioner, Sarah had every right to fire him. She regarded him as disloyal to her administration. Yes, he worked for the people of Alaska, but he worked for them through the Governor. If he didn't have the confidence of the Gov. of Alaska, then it was her obligation to get rid of him.
I realize these aren't the usual analyses of the situations (the trooper and the Safety Commissioner), but they're about all I care to do. Sarah likes to get rid of disloyal subordinates (and so do I, by the way). She did the same when she first became Mayor of Wasilla.
My friend and YouTube expert, Rebekah Chauhan in CA, has suggested we ascribe criticisms of Sarah to sexism, which Rebekah says is equivalent to racism. Yeah, in a way this is name-calling, but if the name fits, use it. It's a simple approach.
Very early in the game -- during the Republican Convention -- I was on a TV show in Pittsburgh, debating with two female Obama Supporters. The question came up whether, as Politico had suggested, Sarah was "shrill and inexperienced." My comment was: "Apparently, shrill means she has a woman's voice. Inexperienced means she's a woman . . . and has a woman's (wife's, mother's, working woman's) experience." Simple, but it worked well.
I've had long experience in public relations for some of the country's most controversial industries (oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, health insurance), and I really believe "less is more" when it comes to dealing with (baseless) charges. Point-by-point refutations tend to get us in a situation like Brer Rabbit and the tar baby. It's debilitating.
My response to the "current" controversy regarding Levi Johnston is this. Yeah, teenage parents and 18-year-olds in general make mistakes. As the world knows by now, two of my daughters (nearly two decades ago) had children (one each) before they married the children's fathers. In one case, the father was involved in activities which I didn't, to say the least, approve of.
However, I don't recall being asked for a lot of advice by my "children," who were both young adults when the events occurred. They insisted on their right to make their own mistakes, which they did in abundance.
I'm sure that, like many teen parents, Bristol and Levi will flounder around. Decent people will wish both of them well -- period. Even if I knew Bristol and Levi much better than I do, I'd hesitate to make any judgments about them as people. Ask me again when they're, say, 35.
In the campaign, the oxymoronically named "Obama Truth Squad" worked effectively, mainly because the media allowed it to do so. The MSM is not going to give us in Sarah's camp that luxury. That's why we need to replace the media, which is doing a good job collapsing of its own dead weight, with a new media, i.e., us.
Overall, we shouldn't over-react to what will be an endless stream of petty charges against Sarah and her family. We need to recognize it for what it is: an attempt to smear a woman and her family for being "normal" and for having the same problems and challenges as tens of millions of other American parents and families.
During the convention -- before "the speech" -- one of my frequent correspondents (Eric) said that a McCain staffer told him there were some "devastating" (and apparently credible) allegations against Sarah, etc., etc. (At the time Markos Markos of The Daily Kos was spewing out one lie per hour about Sarah Palin.)
I told Eric this: "You know Sarah well (he'd campaigned in Alaska for her) and I know all about Sarah. And because you know so much about her, you realize that any such allegations are completely false." (I believe they had something to do with Bristol's pregnancy.)
I took a leap of faith in what I said -- faith in the character, values, and essential goodness of Sarah Heath Palin. In the end, I was right, and Eric, along with his "source" were wrong.
The Obama Campaign (one that apparently continues unto eternity) -- basically controlled by people who hate "normal Americans" -- would love for us to spend the next four years (eight years?) refuting absurd charges against Sarah. They don't want us to spend our precious time organizing and emphasizing the kind of positive change Sarah represents.
Obama and his media minions want to destroy Sarah Palin. They will find out eventually that she is indestructible. Carry on, Sarah.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Sarah in 2006 campaigning for Gov. with her strongest supporter, Piper PalinSarah among the people she loves -- and who love her
I wrote the following to Karen Allen, who's head of one of my favorite organizations: http://annieoakleypac.org. She and I were talking about the fact that some Sarah Supporters believe she's more conservative than she actually is.
Karen, the issue you and I are discussing is perhaps the most important one facing those of us who back Sarah Palin: It's: How do we attract more voters?
Frankly, some of them will be pro-life. Others will be on the fence, and some will be pro-choice, such as Elaine Lafferty, the former Ms. editor who wrote the piece on Sarah (whom she supporterd) that described Gov. P. as a "feminist" (correct) and a "brainiac" (also correct). The head of the LA Chapter of NOW, Shelley Mandel, famously endorsed Sarah at a rally in Carson, CA.
We must welcome such people into our movement, and we must seek out more of them. We can't just hand every large state (CA, NY, PA, OH, MI, MA) to Obama. We can't prevail with UT, ID, AL, and MS alone. Above all, we can't ask Gov. Palin to run a race that she cannot win.
One of my favorite professional football coaches has said, "In pro football, there are NO MORAL VICTORIES." I believe the same is true of high-level politics. If a candidates doesn't believe he or she can win -- and doesn't have a credible plan to do so -- then someone else should run.
In the campaign, Sen. McCain's staff basically pulled out of Michigan, the kind of state Republicans must win. Gov. Palin opposed that move. She recognized that McCain was waving a white flag.
She also understood that people in Michigan (and we could add Ohio and Pennsylvania) are HER people. They aren't the "fat cats" of the GOP past, but rather autoworkers and ordinary Americans from all walks fo life.
She also understood that people in Michigan (and we could add Ohio and Pennsylvania) are HER people. They aren't the "fat cats" of the GOP past, but rather autoworkers and ordinary Americans from all walks fo life.
In the heavily unionized PA county where I live (Beaver County), Democrats outnumber Republicans by two-to-one. However, McCain-Palin carried the county by 4,000 votes. We need to understand why this county ended up loving and admiring Sarah Palin.
We have a government "of, by, and for the people." It's not the obligation of political leaders to give the people marching orders. That reverses the process the Founding Fathers had in mind.
The most imporant tool any political leader has -- and Gov. Palin possesses it in abundance -- is the ability to LISTEN. We need to believe that she will respond to what she hears.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Should GOP Cultivate Black Voters
Should the GOP in 2010 and 2012 spend time and money trying to attract Black voters? If I were forced to give a one-word answer right now, it would be: No.
In 2008, Obama carried 95% of the Black vote. If I had a crystal ball, I'd predict (and be right) that Obama's share of the Black vote will be roughly . . . 95%.
In 2006, three outstanding Black candidates, Lynn Swann in PA, Ken Blackwell in Ohio, and Michael Steele in Maryland, ran for high offices (two for Gov. and one for the U.S. Senate). They ran against white candidates, none of whom was exactly Abraham Lincoln.
How did those fine Black candidates do with Black voters? Very poorly. In PA, Democrat Govenor Rendell paid top-dollar (half-a-million-dollars in Philly alone) to precinct "leaders." Rendell won the Black precincts in Philly by huge margins.
One of my Black friends suggested that the GOP should establish store-front operations in depressed areas, as the liberals have. My question about those store-front operations is this: what exactly have they accomplished for the Black communities?
When Ed Rendell first ran for Governor of Pennsylvania, he touted something known as "The Philadelphia Miracle." Apparently, the miracle was that Philly was still classified as a city.
Consider this: In Philly, the murder rate is off the charts, the schools are in disarray, and the unemployment rate is high. But the good Black folks of Philly go merrily along voting for the same people who put them in their current pickle. Philly is about one-fifth the size of New York, but in 2009 the number of murders in "the city of brotherly love" may top that of the Big Apple.
There are people out there (not enough, though) like Larry Elder, who are willing to speak some hard truths to Black voters. I hope they are successful, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Bill Cosby tried in the last generation, and all he got was a bunch of blank stares.
Yeah, I'm angry at most Black voters. They seem to have to lost touch with reality and essentially offered their votes to the highest bidder. That's bad for America and bad for the communities, because the handouts delay the actions that are necessary to bring about real . . . change.
In 2008, Obama carried 95% of the Black vote. If I had a crystal ball, I'd predict (and be right) that Obama's share of the Black vote will be roughly . . . 95%.
In 2006, three outstanding Black candidates, Lynn Swann in PA, Ken Blackwell in Ohio, and Michael Steele in Maryland, ran for high offices (two for Gov. and one for the U.S. Senate). They ran against white candidates, none of whom was exactly Abraham Lincoln.
How did those fine Black candidates do with Black voters? Very poorly. In PA, Democrat Govenor Rendell paid top-dollar (half-a-million-dollars in Philly alone) to precinct "leaders." Rendell won the Black precincts in Philly by huge margins.
One of my Black friends suggested that the GOP should establish store-front operations in depressed areas, as the liberals have. My question about those store-front operations is this: what exactly have they accomplished for the Black communities?
When Ed Rendell first ran for Governor of Pennsylvania, he touted something known as "The Philadelphia Miracle." Apparently, the miracle was that Philly was still classified as a city.
Consider this: In Philly, the murder rate is off the charts, the schools are in disarray, and the unemployment rate is high. But the good Black folks of Philly go merrily along voting for the same people who put them in their current pickle. Philly is about one-fifth the size of New York, but in 2009 the number of murders in "the city of brotherly love" may top that of the Big Apple.
There are people out there (not enough, though) like Larry Elder, who are willing to speak some hard truths to Black voters. I hope they are successful, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Bill Cosby tried in the last generation, and all he got was a bunch of blank stares.
Yeah, I'm angry at most Black voters. They seem to have to lost touch with reality and essentially offered their votes to the highest bidder. That's bad for America and bad for the communities, because the handouts delay the actions that are necessary to bring about real . . . change.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Journalistic Integrity: Joe the Plumber
In general, the MSM doesn't like Sarah Palin. Why? Because she's one of us -- and not one of them.
Recently, John Roberts of CNN interviewed Joseph Wurzelbacher ("Joe the Plumber"), who has written a book on his recent experiences. The media generally doesn't like "Joe's" book, apparently because he's critical of Sen. McCain (which confuses the media) and supportive of Gov. Palin. Of course, Joe has also been critical of the media, which may resent the fact that Joe revealed more about Obama's tax plan in five minutes than the self-proclaimed journalists did in five months.
In the interview, Joe criticized the media for coming after HIM rather than enquiring into Obama's positions. Basically, he suggested the media was a horde out to get anyone who might be critical of The Chosen One.
John Roberts was taken aback. In a major huff, he indicated that Joe, in this comments on the media, had "impugned [his] journalistic integrity."
I laughed when I heard that. John Roberts, a standard Washington/New York liberal, is to journalistic integrity as Hugh Hefner is to marital fidelity. In the campaign, he never resisted the opportunities either to fire zingers at McCain and Palin or to defend Obama and the hapless Biden. Apparently, that kind of political water-carrying is what Roberts regards as "integrity."
Joe the Plumber had penetrated the media sanctum, one reserved for human talking-points like Paul Begala, James Carville, and Donna Brazille. They all respect Robert's "journalistic integrity," although in truth they have no idea what the term means.
Joe the Plumber had seized an opportunity denied to most (of us) who would be critical of the press and their coverage of any political issue. In general, the media only wants people present who are one of them. That way they never need to answer any embarrassing questions.
When Katie Couric ("the little rodent," as Don Imus called her) asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, we all know the "correct" answer: "Well, Katie, I read the NY Times and the Wash Post regularly, along of course with Newsweek and Time and, from time to time, the London Economist and The Wall Street Journal."
In my case, the answer, a truthful one, I would have given Katie was: "I don't read any of them. Why should I? What would they have to tell me that I can't find out from the Internet and other sources?"
Katie Couric probably regards CBS News the way John Roberts does CNN, as an indispensable news source. However, very few people watch CBS News, they having detected that Edward R. Murrow is long gone.
But if CBS and CNN are really indispensable (like the auto industry and AIG), we might soon expect a government bailout to keep them afloat in a world that increasingly wishes they would sink to the bottom of the sea.
In the interview, Joe criticized the media for coming after HIM rather than enquiring into Obama's positions. Basically, he suggested the media was a horde out to get anyone who might be critical of The Chosen One.
John Roberts was taken aback. In a major huff, he indicated that Joe, in this comments on the media, had "impugned [his] journalistic integrity."
I laughed when I heard that. John Roberts, a standard Washington/New York liberal, is to journalistic integrity as Hugh Hefner is to marital fidelity. In the campaign, he never resisted the opportunities either to fire zingers at McCain and Palin or to defend Obama and the hapless Biden. Apparently, that kind of political water-carrying is what Roberts regards as "integrity."
Joe the Plumber had penetrated the media sanctum, one reserved for human talking-points like Paul Begala, James Carville, and Donna Brazille. They all respect Robert's "journalistic integrity," although in truth they have no idea what the term means.
Joe the Plumber had seized an opportunity denied to most (of us) who would be critical of the press and their coverage of any political issue. In general, the media only wants people present who are one of them. That way they never need to answer any embarrassing questions.
When Katie Couric ("the little rodent," as Don Imus called her) asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read, we all know the "correct" answer: "Well, Katie, I read the NY Times and the Wash Post regularly, along of course with Newsweek and Time and, from time to time, the London Economist and The Wall Street Journal."
In my case, the answer, a truthful one, I would have given Katie was: "I don't read any of them. Why should I? What would they have to tell me that I can't find out from the Internet and other sources?"
Katie Couric probably regards CBS News the way John Roberts does CNN, as an indispensable news source. However, very few people watch CBS News, they having detected that Edward R. Murrow is long gone.
But if CBS and CNN are really indispensable (like the auto industry and AIG), we might soon expect a government bailout to keep them afloat in a world that increasingly wishes they would sink to the bottom of the sea.
(Tomorrow: Should Republicans in the era of Obama really seek out Black votes?)
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Ensuring that Sarah Defeats Obama
Note: If you'd like to see important information about Sarah and Bristol Palin, as well as Bristols's son Tripp, please scroll down to the previous column.
Sarah Palin blows a kiss to fans during a rally in Kissimmee, Fla., on October 26. (Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/MCT)
It's absolutely crucial that the Palin Campaign in 2011/2012 not be run by the usual suspects, Party hacks whose commitment to Sarah (as we saw in the McCain effort) would be limited, while their commitment to themselves (their miserable "careers") would be limitless.
Sarah Palin blows a kiss to fans during a rally in Kissimmee, Fla., on October 26. (Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/MCT)It's absolutely crucial that the Palin Campaign in 2011/2012 not be run by the usual suspects, Party hacks whose commitment to Sarah (as we saw in the McCain effort) would be limited, while their commitment to themselves (their miserable "careers") would be limitless.
There are many things that must be done. Some hard questions (how exactly do we win?) will require answers. That will be the main emphasis in this blog: outlining practical steps that will raise money and build support for Sarah Palin in her quest to become the nation's 45th President.
Also, there must be mechanisms in place to raise money and to combat the Obama-Axelrod smear machine. As we learned in 2008, "TeamObama," including its media allies, will stop at nothing in their efforts to defame Gov. Palin and her family.
As we prepare for a tough campaign, I'd suggest everyone read Joe Trippi's "The Revolution Will Not be Televised." Trippi is an awful writer, but he was the driving force behind the Howard Dean Money Tree. Another book that I found really helpful was the biography of Lee Atwater (titled "Bad Boy").
My personal goal is to help create momentum that will make Sarah unstoppable in getting the nomination and an even-money choice for the presidency. One important way you can help to that end is to join TeamSarah, the biggest and most active of the Palin groups. Bloggers should join the ReadMyLipstick group.
I believe Sarah has every intention of seeking the presidency in 2012. To help her achieve that goal, we would need to have an army of supporters -- real activists -- in place by 2011.
We can't do the usual Republican thing of running around at the last minute begging people for money and volunteer help. We begin the process of defeating Obama now, or we might as well not attempt it at all.
The more we look like we can win, the easier it will be to raise money and get ground-game volunteers. People love the smell of victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
