Posts Tagged ‘Sarah Palin’

Sarah Palin on Cavuto (Eric Bolling Guest-Hosting) Video

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012

Governor Palin with Eric Bolling

Governor Palin appeared on Fox with Eric Bolling to talk about the Ted Cruz victory, as well as other matters.  Bolling asked her about a remark by lobbyist and former Senator Bob Bennett(R-UT) who had said that the “Tea Party wave is receding.”  Gov. Palin responded: “Bless his heart, he’s a little out of touch… Bolling also asked Governor Palin about the convention, and she said “I just want to help,” but that “sometimes, helping means you step aside,” apparently meaning that Governor Palin won’t be part of the convention as a speaker, at least as it stands.  Here’s the video, courtesy of the Barracuda Brigade:

Advertisements

Ted Cruz Wins Texas Run-Off!

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012

On to the General Election!

Ted Cruz won Tuesday’s Senate run-off against Lt.Governor David Dewhurst in convincing fashion, defeating the Austin moderate by a margin of nearly ten points.  That’s a stunning win given how his campaign was outspent by Dewhurst, and it speaks to the commitment of activists all across the state, and a few notable conservatives who showed up to campaign for Cruz, including Sarah Palin, and Jim DeMint, but also that big voice on the evening airwaves, Mark Levin.  Tea Party Express worked tirelessly to get out the vote, and Amy Kremer must be ecstatic and exhausted.  Nevertheless, Cruz must still win the general election in November, but it’s a refreshing change to see that Austin insider David Dewhurst didn’t walk away with the nomination.  Texas conservatives and Tea Party patriots won a huge victory Tuesday over the Austin establishment!

Twitter was awash in comments all evening, and when various media outlets began to call the race, it was quickly a party of sorts as faithful re-Tweeters spread the word and celebrated.

Meanwhile, at 9pm central, Governor Palin took to the airwaves on Greta Van Susteren’s “On the Record” on FoxNews, and just before going on, she posted a note of congratulation to Ted Cruz on her Facebook page:

“Congratulations to Ted Cruz! This is a victory both for Ted and for the grassroots Tea Party movement. This primary race has always been about the kind of leadership we need in D.C. Our goal is not just about changing the majority in the Senate. It is about the kind of leadership we want. Ted Cruz represents the kind of strong conservative leadership we want in D.C. Go-along to get-along career politicians who hew the path of least resistance are no longer acceptable at a time when our country is drowning in debt and our children’s futures are at stake. The message of this race couldn’t be clearer for the political establishment: the Tea Party is alive and well and we will not settle for business as usual. Now, it’s on to November!”

For his part, Ted Cruz thanked Governor Palin, Senator DeMint, and all of his supporters and endorsers via Twitter immediately after the race was called, and Texas conservatives were able to bask for the remainder of the evening in the warm glow of victory!  Saturday, in attendance at a small, hastily assembled Cruz campaign stop in Waco, he noticed my Texas4Palin t-shirt, plastered with Cruz buttons, and he said: “Governor Palin really energizes a crowd, doesn’t she? She’s really terrific!” It was easy to see that he was thankful for her support, and appreciative of all the Texans who turned out for him at his stops around the state.

For my part, thanks to all of those who have re-tweeted my messages on Twitter in support of Ted Cruz, and thanks on behalf of a grateful state to Governor Palin, Senator DeMint, Mark Levin, Amy Kremer, and all of the others who so tirelessly labored to get our candidate the win.  It’s grass-roots activism at its finest, and I have had the great privilege of helping in a cause in which we dared not fail.  Thanks to the candidate himself, who ran a clean campaign in the face of withering, fraudulent attacks and dirty tricks from his opponent.  Congratulations to all!

Way to go Texas!  Now let’s help conservatives in other states as well!

 

Sarah Palin Goes ‘On the Record’ – Best Lines of Tuesday Night

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012

On the Record

On Tuesday evening, after sending out a congratulatory message to Ted Cruz on his Senate run-off victory in Texas, former Alaska  Governor Sarah Palin went On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.  She discussed a number of issues, from Chick Fil-A to Ted Cruz, and the GOP convention, as well as Dick Cheney’s insulting proclamation.  Gov. Palin had a number of interesting things to say, and you should watch the video.  Pay particular attention to the way she answered the question about former Vice President Dick Cheney’s remarks about her qualifications for the office of President.  She also gave Mark Levin credit for providing the basis of her curiosity about Ted Cruz, who she had endorsed.

“Well seeing as how DICK, excuse me, VICE PRESIDENT Cheney, never MISFIRES…”

By the time I finished laughing, the segment was nearly over, so I replayed it once more.

As ever, Governor Palin was on point, and right on time.  As she continues to campaign for conservatives in key races, the establishment continues to take their shots at her, calling her “irrelevant,” telling us her endorsements “aren’t worth snot,” and that she wasn’t qualified.

After a while, it should beg the question: Who isn’t qualified?  Who isn’t relevant?  Whose endorsements aren’t worth snot?

 

 

 

Shooting-Off Again: Dick Cheney Leads the Attack… on Sarah Palin

Sunday, July 29th, 2012

Still Mad, Dick?

Bless his heart, but Dick Cheney really stepped in it this time.  I want to know why the former Vice President is attacking Sarah Palin. We were all sickened when leftists publicly wished he would die, or be denied the heart transplant that has extended his life, but apparently, Vice President Cheney has no heart left for common-sense conservatives, or for the lady who bore the brunt of the left’s most vicious attacks in 2008, since he now adds to them.  Having been the frequent target of the left’s senseless harangues, one would expect that Cheney would know better, but it’s apparent that a decade in Congress, four years as Secretary of Defense, and eight years as the Vice President haven’t made him any smarter.  If I were a leftist comic, I would take the opportunity to remind readers that Cheney has a history of shooting at the wrong target.  Asked by Jonathan Karl of ABC News what advice he would offer about the process of selecting a VP candidate, given 2008 as an example, he said this:

“The test to get on that small list has to be, ‘Is this person capable of being president of the United States?’”

True enough, but then he said:

“I like Governor Palin. I’ve met her. I know her. She – attractive candidate. But based on her background, she’d only been governor for, what, two years. I don’t think she passed that test…of being ready to take over. And I think that was a mistake.”

As is the current fashion in the media, ABC used the occasion of Mitt Romney’s impending VP pick to launch an attack on the former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, and predictably, this representative of the Bush administration and of the GOP establishment crowd wouldn’t miss an opportunity to get his digs in.  Mark Levin was so annoyed by it that he posted to Facebook on the subject, and he’s right to be upset with the former Vice President.  After all, what is served by attacking Sarah Palin?  What’s in it for Cheney?  I believe Cheney’s criticism of Sarah Palin reveals something ugly about the Republican establishment, but also their basic view of the Presidency. In their view, the Presidency and Vice Presidency should never be held by “amateurs,” a.k.a., “non-insiders.”

When Cheney said he thinks Sarah Palin hadn’t “passed that test…of being ready to take over,” what he’s stating bluntly is that she was not qualified to be President.  There are likely millions who would disagree vociferously with that assessment, and Cheney’s criticism is one we ought to examine because he had held that office, but we should not fail to turn the question on him:  Was Dick Cheney qualified to hold that office?  Some would argue that from the moment he first exhibited substantial health difficulties, Cheney should have stepped down as Vice President, permitting President George W Bush to replace him.  After all, if something terrible or unfortunate had happened to the President, the health of the Vice President, then unceremoniously elevated to the Presidency,  would have been of immediate concern for the country.

Americans expect is their leaders will do the most responsible thing in pressing situations, but Dick Cheney failed that test.  Whatever the objections of President Bush may have been at the time, Cheney should have stepped down, for the sake of the country, if for no other reason.  He didn’t.  He could have done the responsible thing, and nobody in the country would have blamed him had he stepped aside due to ill health, and a frightening heart condition that could have claimed him at any time.  He’d have enjoyed the sympathies of millions who would have respected him for doing the responsible thing, and yet he failed that test.

While Dick Cheney gives interviews to ABC News, Sarah Palin has been out on the campaign trail doing the hard work of getting out the vote for common-sense, constitutional, conservative candidates.  Dick Cheney is giving interviews to mainstream media outlets to attack Sarah Palin.  To me, one of the most important qualifications for either the job of President or Vice President is to exhibit leadership.  What is Dick Cheney leading?  An assault on Sarah Palin?  What is Sarah Palin leading, and what has she recently led?  In 2010, she helped to lead the battle to retake the House of Representatives, and in 2012, she is helping to lead the charge to retake the Senate.  Meanwhile, Dick Cheney gives interviews offering advice to Mitt Romney on his forthcoming VP pick.  While the country is burning down around us, this is the battle in which GOP insiders like Cheney wish to engage? Nobody stops to turn the question around and ask Cheney about his qualifications, which are assumed to have been sufficient:

Cheney states: “She’d only been governor for, what, two years.”

Question: How many years was Cheney governor of a state?  Answer: None.

Cheney headed the Department of Defense under George H.W. Bush, but that’s a largely bureaucratic position more than one of leadership.  Leon Panetta is the current Secretary of Defense.  Is Panetta qualified for the presidency?  Cheney was a legislator, first and foremost, and an insider who elevated himself within the House of Representatives.  Is this the qualification for President?  Cheney was never an inspirational figure.  Did this qualify him for that office?  After all, it was Cheney who had helped to select Vice Presidential candidates before, including in 1976, and again in 2000, when he headed the search committee, but himself got the nod from George W. Bush.  It was also Cheney who was campaign manager for the Ford Campaign in 1976, and he served as Ford’s chief of staff.  I don’t know how any of that qualified him to be Vice President, or President, but if Sarah Palin ever decides she wants some advice on how to be a DC insider or political hanger-on, she should immediately contact Dick Cheney, as in this at least, one might conclude that he had been eminently qualified.

It’s not my intention here to drag Dick Cheney’s name through the mud, but I must repeat Mark Levin’s question: “Why does Dick Cheney feel the need to attack Sarah Palin?”  Cheney is an insider.  Way back in 1976, it was Cheney at the GOP convention who helped to make sure that Gerald Ford was the Republican nominee, but not Ronald Reagan.  The GOP establishment is rightly sensing a bit of a revolt forming in the rank-and-file, as many conservatives are not altogether thrilled with the presumptive Republican party nominee.  He knows there is a move afoot to ditch Mitt Romney at the convention, and he sees Sarah Palin as one of the threats to the Romney ascendancy because the grass roots of the party loves her. Whatever happens in this election cycle, it is the aim of the establishment to be sure that none but another member of the extended Bush clan rise to the nomination in 2016.  Hammering away at Sarah Palin now, in 2012, helps to solidify the notion that Governor Palin is a political has-been, and one who was never qualified for the office in the first place.

That’s garbage, but in the perceptions-driven game of politics, it contributes another few slashes in the death of one-thousand cuts.  The GOP establishment doesn’t want a Palin candidacy, now or any time in the future, and it perturbs them greatly as the collective hive-mind of the anointed class that at present, the most effective spokesperson for rank-and-file Republicans is a woman they would rather have us all forget.  Sarah Palin brought big oil to heel as Governor of her state, forcing them to live up to contracts with the state of Alaska on which they had been dallying interminably.  She exposed and throttled crooks in both parties, including the state’s own GOP establishment.  None of that sits well with the Washington crowd of which Cheney is an undeniable part.

Whatever Governor Palin’s electoral potential in the future, I find it simply astonishing that a man who had virtually nothing to recommend him as a potential President of the United States other than his appointed proximity to that office now offers Mitt Romney counsel on who to pick as his VP, and in so doing, sets out to demolish the party’s last nominee for that post.  It’s a despicable bit of politicking on Cheney’s part, and it is in such instances as this one that cause many in the grass-roots to wonder about the motives of the establishment.  It is Cheney, as part of Washington DC’s permanent political class that symbolizes the problem.  From his first day working inside the Beltway as an intern for Congressman William Steiger in 1969 until present, Cheney has been hooked into DC politics. Forty years of his influence in Washington is more than enough.  Until we begin to discard these insiders, we will never get very far in restoring our republic.

His opinion on Governor Palin was offered up as another propaganda victory to the left, as it was the sort of answer Jonathan Karl had been seeking.   An old Washington insider like Cheney couldn’t possibly have fallen into a trap of that sort, so this was said with the full intention of malice, and the manner in which it was said makes it clear there is plenty of that left in Dick Cheney’s heart.

(I suppose this evinces also the fact that one can change one’s heart but still not alter one’s mind, however small the latter chore might have been.)

 

 

Sarah Palin Is Right: We Shouldn’t Surrender “Blue” States

Saturday, July 28th, 2012

Every Reason to Fight

At the Ted Cruz rally at The Woodlands on Friday, Governor Palin made mention of a candidate who hasn’t been getting  a great deal of national attention, but who deserves the support of conservatives and Tea Party folk everywhere.  One of the things her remarks made clear is that too often, we surrender supposed “blue” states on the basis that we should not waste our precious resources campaigning in places that have been written-off as simply too far gone.  Governor Palin is right about this, and going back even to 2008, when she wanted to spend some time in Michigan, but the McCain Campaign had decided it was not worth the effort, Governor Palin has never been one to cede anything to the left, leaving them a victory by default. In fact, this is what has made her so precious to many on our side, because it is this unrelenting fighting spirit that we have often lacked.  It’s been the habit of the GOP establishment to write-off such places, but she’s right:  We must fight for every one.  In her speech on Friday, she mentioned a candidate for Senate in the State of Maryland, a deep, deep blue state in which mathematically, no victory should ever be possible for a Republican, never mind a conservative, but maybe that’s our problem.  Perhaps we abandon the men and women like Dan  Bongino too easily, and maybe that’s why we seem to be perpetually on the defensive.

We fight over our “Red” states, and some “battleground” states, and we walk away from “blue” states because it just seems so impossible, but we must ask at some point: Is it?  Is it really impossible to deliver a message of freedom and liberty and the vast potential that is the America we love to all her people?  More, aren’t we committing a grave moral error when we abandon the people of those states as veritable Don Quixotes, damned forever to tilt at the windmills of a hopeless political imbalance in their states?  Yes, I am fortunate enough to live in a “red” state, but then again, I am actually a transplant from a “blue” state via a “battleground” state and my service in the Army.  The reason I decided together with my wife to remain in Texas two decades ago is because I looked at the increasingly hopeless prospects of the states in which I had spent my youth, and decided there could be no way I would willingly damn my young family by dragging us back there.

The problem is what Mark Levin likes to point out, likening the left to a swarm of locusts: Once they strip a place and make of it an economically barren and politically devastated wasteland, they move on to more promising areas, turning them each in their turn to the sort of disaster they had created on their previous stops.  I often meet folk who have come to Texas from other places around the country, and some of them ask me how I have adapted to Texas.  My response is always the same: “Don’t try to make Texas into the same sort of place you had left behind, but instead make yourself into a Texan.”  Many of them are taken aback at the notion, and they ask me what I mean, and I explain to them that so many come here from deep blue or battleground states, arriving here to set about the business of turning Texas into what they fled, never stopping to consider the insanity of the notion.  Why would one try to recreate here the very things one has so recently escaped?

Another problem we face is that in leaving these “blue” states to the left, not only are we abandoning some of our most stubborn brethren, who refuse to be run-off from their homes, and who fight tooth and nail for every inch of political ground, but we are also rejecting our own thesis with respect to warfare, whether real or political.  You see, one of the things we conservatives have acknowledged vis-à-vis the war on terror is that for the sake of our country’s safety, it is far better to fight the thugs and terrorists and tyrannical despots on their ground, rather than waiting for them to arrive here, on ours, because naturally, given the time, they will attack us at home. By our failure to contest ‘blue’ states, they needn’t spend any time or effort defending their own ground, because we don’t press our attack there any longer, leaving them free to go on the offensive in every red precinct in the country.

As I have explained before, our political strife in this country is a war, in fact, restrained for the moment to the sphere of politics, but the strategies employed are no different.  Governor Palin mocked Barack Obama for suggesting that Texas would be a blue state, and for the time being, that’s true, but as her words also warned, the only thing preventing that from coming true over the longer run is us.  If we permit the GOP establishment and all the Austin cronies to turn Texas to their purposes, and if we don’t begin to fight the radical left, not only in Texas, but in places like Maryland too, we are going to slowly lose.

It is stunning to think that only a generation ago, California voted for Ronald Reagan, the most conservative president of my lifetime, and perhaps the lifetimes of most Americans still living.  Conservatives don’t seem able to win in California any longer, and it is the locust-like nature of the left, combined with our own unwillingness to battle them that explains the problem.  We ceded that ground, as we have ceded New York, Illinois, Michigan, Maryland, Massachusetts and a number of others.  We’ve simply walked away.  We’ve effectively said “tough luck, we’re saving our own skins” to our conservative brethren in those states, leaving them to grasp at the last straws of their political and economic freedoms, yet we wonder why we see the left infiltrating those places that had been our great strongholds.  There had been a time not so long ago when places like Virginia or North Carolina would never have been in question.  Now?

Ladies and gentlemen, as I write this post, I am re-watching at the video of Dan Bongino, linked by Governor Palin on her Facebook page, and I want you to see this too. Here is the video, and at its end, he makes the same point:

Here is a man who is fighting like Hell for the last bit of logic and the last bit of sanity remaining in his state, and when you hear his passion, and when you see the fire in his belly, I want to ask all of you, my conservative brethren, most of us ensconced in deep red territory, how is it that we walk away from fighters like this man, abandoning them to a hopeless battle in which we had surrendered the flanks:  Is he not championing precisely the things in which we believe?   Like many of my readers, and like Gov. Palin, I’m not much inclined to give anything to the left, and I’m certainly not of a mind to leave such a man standing alone, speaking the truth in a state in which, without our help, he will never be heard over the din of the locusts.  It’s time we do something about that, and being conservatives, our country and our culture under attack on all fronts, there is no time like the present.  We shouldn’t wait for somebody else to rescue us, because if we don’t do it, none will.  If you’re in Maryland, go help get this guy elected, and if you’re not in Maryland, contribute to that effort any way you can.  Start here.  Then, let’s fight the left everywhere.  All we’re doing at present is “holding onto our positions,” but we’re not advancing the war by pressing our assault on their leviathan.  It’s time to change the formula.  It’s time to make the case.  It’s time for us to reinforce our flanks, but surge and break through at the front.  This is total war, waged for now in words and votes, but if we fail to engage on all fronts, we will lose the country.

 

Sarah Palin Rocks The Woodlands For Ted Cruz!

Saturday, July 28th, 2012

Revving The Crowd for Cruz!

On Friday, I drove the two-and-one-half hours from my home to the Ted Cruz rally at The Woodlands, just North of Houston.  The venue was Town Green Park and the speakers included a number of Tea Party leaders, like Amy Kremer, and also Senator Jim DeMint(R-SC.)  Ted Cruz gave a very encouraging, impassioned speech about what he would do if elected to the Senate, and he appropriated Barack Obama’s catch-phrase “Yes, We Can” in a little dialogue with the crowd, asking the crowd “Can we repeal Obama-care?”  On cue, the crowd responded with a thundering “YES WE CAN!”  Cruz exuded confidence, but the truth is that with early voting now ended, the real crunch is on from now until Tuesday to turn out the vote across Texas on his behalf.  In her customary form, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made her speech to thundering applause and enthusiastic support.  It was a remarkable speech, and Palin was fiery with the energy and passion that have made her the premiere speaker in the Republican party over the last four years.  Conservatives turn out for Sarah Palin, and there’s simply no escaping that fact.

(Note to GOP establishment: You may want to rethink this plan to exclude her from the convention in Tampa next month.)

I was also heartened to see so many of my friends from TxO4P on hand, including Josh Thuma, who was so enthusiastic in Indianola, Iowa last September, so it was no surprise that at The Woodlands, he followed up in similar form, waving signs and cheering-on all of the speakers.  I saw Cynthia Dixon and Del Parker, and some other faces I recognized, so I decided that rather than spending my time trying to capture the event, I would simply join in the fun.  It was a good time for all, and Jim DeMint gave an excellent talk about needing help in the Senate, meaning he want more constitutional conservatives.  He went on to extol the virtues of Ted Cruz, introducing the candidate to great applause, and Cruz made mention of the effort to repeal Obama-care, saying he would work every day until it had been repealed, killing off the notion of replacement: “Every last word…” must be repealed, vowed Cruz.  The crowd roared in approval.

Hearing the Roar

Cruz went on to introduce Governor Palin, and the crowd’s cheering was so loud from my vantage point that I couldn’t hear the first few words of her speech.  As always, when Governor Palin speaks at such an event, she speaks as much for those gathered as to them.  This event was no different, and she focused in particular on three themes, including the wreck Obama has made and is making of the country, and the intractability of the permanent political class in the mission to restore our constitution, and naturally, how Ted Cruz will be an important player in that fight.  She mentioned that she intended to try out Chick Fil-A on her way back to the airport, and as always, Governor Palin made good on her word, later posting this on her Facebook page:

The Palins Stop at Chick Fil-A

She wore the boots  Governor Perry gave her on a previous visit to the Lone Star State, saying “at least in that one case he made a good decision,” but also gently chiding Perry for his present support of David Dewhurst in the primary against Ted Cruz.  She mocked Obama’s assertion of last week in Texas that he’s seeing “shades of purple,” implying that the state might one day go Democrat.  With the amnesty-by-executive-order that Obama has put in place, there can be little doubt that is part of his aim.  Governor Palin exhorted the crowd to not let Texas go purple or blue.  Said the Governor:

“There will be an Alaskan-sized blizzard on the Brazos before Texas turns blue for Barack.”

“Damn straight.”  (So said many in the crowd.)  She also went after the “lap-dogs in the media practicing yellow journalism,” but then she shifted her focus to the permanent political class in Washington DC that has managed to confound some of the efforts of the Tea Party patriots who sent more conservatives to the House in 2010, managing to co-opt some of them.  She was brilliantly on point as she made clear that politicians in both parties have failed to carry out their constitutional responsibilities, passing Obama-care over the objections of the American people, and failing to enact a budget in four years, but she reminded the crowd:

“There’s nothing wrong with America that a good, old-fashioned fair election can’t fix.”

She then explained that she was supporting Ted Cruz because he is a common-sense, constitutional conservative, saying “Ted Cruz represents the positive change we need.”

Sarah Palin, Ted and Heidi Cruz, Jim DeMint

You can watch the video here, courtesy of  the BarracudaBrigade:

As has been the case at events in which Gov. Palin speaks, after the conclusion of her remarks, and to the cheering of the crowd, she and Todd went off-stage and to the rope line, where she signed autographs for a long while, and as usual, the rope-line was mobbed.

I don’t have a firm grasp on how many people were in the park for the event, but I would guess there had been well over one-thousand, perhaps closer to twice that number, despite the sweltering heat.  One thing is certain: Texas really is Palin country, and all who want to support a common-sense, constitutional conservative in this election ought to follow Governor Palin’s lead.  With early voting over across the Lone Star State, what remains is election day, Tuesday, 31 July.  Let’s get out the vote and put Ted Cruz over the top!

 

 

Palin to Rally for Cruz in Texas; Dewhurst’s Desperation Showing

Thursday, July 26th, 2012

Desperation

I hate that this is the case, but I must say that the antics of Lt. Governor David Dewhurst are despicable.  Dewhurst began running a new ad this week on the Internet featuring a woman crying about her son who killed himself, implying that Ted Cruz was somehow to blame is a scandal.  I find it offensive that any politician seeking to be the Republican Senate candidate would run such an ad, but I cannot believe any even vaguely conservative Texan would knowingly vote for this man.  The internal polls must not be looking all that spiffy for Lt. Gov. Dewhurst.  It’s time we go to the polls and give him a taste of how bad it can get.

On Wednesday evening’s show, Mark Levin also addressed this latest attack ad by Dewhurst.  Here’s audio:

 

Alternative content

Dewhurst is an amoral politician who seeks only power.  The worst part may be that a large number of Democrats may be voting in this run-off as Republicans in order to skew the vote in Dewhurst’s favor, and he’s quietly courting their support.  Democrats clearly realize Dewhurst is a guy who will frequently go their way in tough votes in the Senate like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, or Lindsey Graham.  They expect he will be a reliable aisle-crosser.

What this means is that you had better turn out for Ted Cruz, or the liberal Republicans and the Democrats will combine to elect another squish.

To the polls, Texas Conservatives!

In related news, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and South Carolina’s Senator Jim Demint will be rallying in support of Ted Cruz on Friday at the Woodlands, near Houston, and I will be there to join in the support!

Texans, get out there and show your support!  Show David Dewhurst he can’t get away with skewing reality this way, and vote for Ted Cruz!

 

Texas Conservatives: Have You Voted for Ted Cruz Yet?

Monday, July 23rd, 2012

Time to Vote!

Early voting has started today across the Lone Star State.  We don’t need any more RINOs in Washington DC, so don’t procrastinate. David Dewhurst is pulling out all the stops, and hurling more garbage at Ted Cruz.  Sarah Palin posted a message to Facebook earlier today reminding us to support Ted Cruz and you should check it out. Remember, you can help Ted Cruz overcome the disinformation of David Dewhurst by going to his website here.

Now get out there and vote, Texans!

 

A Teachable Moment For Barack Obama, Courtesy of Bristol Palin

Thursday, July 19th, 2012

Be sure to drop by Bristol Palin’s blog-site today and share with her what you have built, all without government’s help.  She authored a post Thursday in which she brings more needed attention to the obscenely foolish notion put forward by Barack Obama last Friday that if you have a business, and you’ve been successful, “you didn’t build that.”  Says Bristol in response: “I built this, Mr. President.”  Darn right! It’s time more people begin to tell this President that they have built plenty all without his help, and despite his interference.

Bristol has invited her readers to share all the things they have built, all on their own, and I think it’s a great idea to highlight just how misguided Barack Obama really is. Be sure to visit Bristol’s blog to show some support!

Right on, Bristol!

 

 

 

It’s His Party…

Tuesday, July 17th, 2012

Doesn't He Need the Help?

I must say that I’m not terribly surprised to read that the Romney Campaign seems not to have invited former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for a speaking opportunity at the convention, as Newsweek reports via C4P.  After all, if you were Mitt Romney, or his genius advisers, would you let Sarah Palin speak at the RNC convention in Tampa?  Of course you would not, because you’d be at least savvy enough to know that you shouldn’t have the presumptive nominee upstaged at his own convention.  I don’t think Gov. Palin would be out to upstage him either, so much as by the sheer energy she brings to events, along with the invigorating effect she has on crowds where she speaks, it’s perfectly understandable that the Mittsters would seek to exclude her from participation.  If you ever needed any evidence of what is wrong with the Republican Party, this is it, because when a party benches its best player in the World Series, at some point, people in the stands are going to ask in hushed, recriminating tones if November brings a defeat:  “How serious had we been about winning?”

That’s a great question, and it’s one we should begin to ask now, before the convention, and before the entire spectacle of the servile media trying to drag Barack Obama across the finish line in November.  The matter at hand is the future of the country, and it has always seemed to me that with so much at stake, you don’t want to send a crowd of bench-warmers in as pinch-hitters when it’s for all the marbles.   Instead, it would seem the time to pull out your best, biggest guns and let it all fly, giving it everything you are able.  Hot-Air is suggesting that there is no snub, but I wonder if that matters.  Many are likely to perceive it as such, and that’s not going to help Gov. Romney obtain the support he needs to win in November.  Mr. Morrisey’s stance seems to be that it’s a tempest in a teapot, but there may well be more to it than he suspects.

Part of the problem is that Sarah Palin became the scapegoat for the 2008 McCain campaign’s failures.  In fact, any honest analysis of the 2008 campaign clearly demonstrates that McCain would have garnered still fewer votes without Palin on the ticket.  I don’t mean to re-hash this point, because it’s been well-covered here, however there is an element within the Republican party that views Sarah Palin and the sort of independent conservatives to whom she appeals as a bunch of bumpkins, embarrassments to the party proper, and it is their view that predominates among establishment DC Republicans. The permanent political class is fully satisfied to snub Palin, and those who will be offended by such a turn are simply an added bonus.  That sort of Republican sneers at so-called ‘bumpkins’ like me. Their view of “fly-over country” is barely distinguishable from the left’s.

In the view of the establishment, we  conservatives are obstacles.  One can almost hear it in their tone as they seem to wish to agree publicly with the statists that the so-called “hard right” is “reactionary” and “extremist,” but the simpler truth is that they like the power arrangements in Washington DC, and they can’t imagine sharing any part of it with somebody who had been so overwhelmingly popular in far-away Alaska.  They sneer, and they point out that there are more than twenty cities in the United States more populous than Alaska, implying that the governor of such a remote state couldn’t possibly have any real understanding of national politics.  Theirs is a sort of “misunderestimation” born of a malice toward those who are not DC insiders, and others they consider to be “movers and shakers.”  What they’ve never understood about Palin is her ability to move people, and shake things up.

Whether the Romney campaign ultimately invites Governor Palin, it’s clear that between his campaign’s antics, and its almost complete ineffectiveness, he’s not doing himself any favors with the base of the Republican party if he chooses to exclude Palin.  They’re anxious to see a  candidate fighting with Obama, and what they’re getting from Romney and his campaign is Milquetoast.  Romney has exhibited a tendency to leave the “dirty work” to others, particularly in the early primary states, and now he desperately needs to gather up the support of some who his earlier tactics may have seriously offended.  It’s really not a smart play to re-offend a segment of the electorate among which some were beginning to accept grudgingly that Romney would be their only option in 2012.  For others, the matter will be mere confirmation of what they already guessed:  They’re not welcome to Romney’s party.  Many are now making other plans accordingly.

 

 

Live Feed from Patriots in the Park

Saturday, July 14th, 2012

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is scheduled to appear at the AmericansForProsperity event. You can watch the stream of the event, live, below:



Streaming Live by Ustream

After the event, you can watch the recorded version here:



Video streaming by Ustream

Palin Haters Not Exclusive to Left

Sunday, July 8th, 2012

Them's Some Kooky Sheep...

I must admit to having read some bizarre conspiracy theories about Sarah Palin, because in seeing what these nuts write, one gets a sense of just how thoroughly out of touch some people have become.  For far too many rank-and-file Republicans, it’s all a cult of personality.  Few are concerned about fundamental principles, to such an extent that they are unable to linger over even the most obvious facts that might stand in opposition to their odd-ball theories.  I have been sent a link to a group of such odd-balls on Facebook, where one may find the most obtuse concoction of cobbled-together propositions embraced by psychological delinquents I’ve seen since the anti-Palin bloggers I have covered in the past.  It’s a veritable nexus of dumb, and it seems to be composed of Romney supporters who seem to believe Sarah Palin is an evil genius, setting up for a 2016 Presidential run in which she expects to face Hillary Clinton in what these brain-addled doorstops term a “mud-wrestling match.”  It would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that they have nearly one-hundred members.

This means there many more deluded, psychologically broken people in Romney’s camp than one might otherwise expect.  Their basic theory?  Sarah Palin is trying to undermine Mitt Romney in 2012 so she can run in 2016, and she’s being aided in that venture by none other than Rupert Murdoch.  Yes, there are certifiable mad-caps in the GOP, too.

Before any of the Palinistas reading this get too excited, I’d like you to have a sample of the intellectual rigor of the people who are positing this theory.  Says one:

“The whole point of Obama care is to take over Health care by creating another government beauracracy. It’s a communist take over of an industry. The people will not benefit from this, because they are not supposed to benefit from it. It is designed to create more liberals who will be working as beuracrats for the communist government. This has nothing to do at all with Massachusets, that’s just their cover to throw people off the trail. It is a communist take over. Communists always have a group of people they oppresss as part of their power grab. Obama care has already selected the first group that they will oppress, those without health care who cannot afford it. They will be given an oppressive …tax, that they cannot afford. This will then be used to garnish wages and confiscate personal property of those who do not pay the penalty. Year after year the debt will grow. I bet they will imprison people who fall into the catagory I described. The beauracrats, hired by their buddies in the government, will over see this oppression. This has nothing at all to do with Massachusets, or even health care, it is merely a vehical to bring communistic practices full circle. Who knows what mandated laws will be implemented once by Obama’s beauracrats, get going? The sky is the limit. Health care is only the vehical, not the goal. It’s just an excuse. What are we seeing already with the millions of dollars being put into the solar energy. It’s the same thing, they are empowering their own as they declare war on us. Has nothing at all to do with Massachusets. And sadly, too many will find out only when it’s too late.”

I kid you not.  This sad person isn’t merely a terrible speller, but is also blinded to reality.  Somebody should tell this young woman that Mitt Romney imposed precisely the kind of system about which she spends most of her time criticizing, and that in fact, Romney-care is the prototype for the system against which she is railing.  Yes, this is an example of the logic you will find in this group of utterly helpless people.

Naturally, you can expect a torrent of useless babble from any group that announces its intentions thus:

“It’s TIME for the Conservatives and the Moderates to UNITE to STOP Sarah Palin from pushing her way into this Presidential Election. Whether through manipulation, deception, or down-right dirty politics via a Brokered Convention, Palin is POISON and always has been. This group is OPEN, we are not speaking to just ourselves and don’t intend to. Join this group, share a link to this page, invite your friends. There is a WEALTH of info here documenting the REAL SARAH.”

Of course, the hits keep coming, because this group of mad-caps is so twisted-up with hatred for Sarah Palin that they can’t even objectively consider the nonsense they’re spewing:

“Regarding the argument that Christie would make a bad VP pick for Romney because Christie woud overshadow Romney, I have this to say:

“To overshaddow someone, you have to do it DELIBERTLY, When that happens, it’s no accident. Anyone who thinks overshadowing is done on accident is a FLIPPIN fool. Decent people with character know when to hold back. FLIPPIN backstabbers never hold back, cause it’s always about THEM!!! People with character know how to make it clear they are NOT number one. Christie has character, unlike the last no account, backstabbin, FLIPPIN quitter!!!!”

If you were to choose to”delibertly” avoid this group, I would understand. The same poster seems to study slow-motion video clips of Sarah Palin, turning every motion of her face into a secret, subliminal message:

“Because this is the Sarah Palin Conspiracy Threory, might as well mention it cause it’s something I have noticed before:

Speaking of Historonic personality disorder and excessive attention seeking, just saw Palin in slow motion licking her lips and heaving as she was being interviewed by Hannity, her eyes got really narrow and then really wide as if she was coming on to him during the interview. I have seen her do this with other men who let her run all over them. It’s like she does it on purpose, not only for control over the interviewer, but for control over the male viewers. Wonder if anyone else has noticed? Oh, and by the way, when Palin kept insisting that she is supporting Romney, because it’s: ABO – Anybody but Obama, and she kept repeating this over and over like she was trying to slap down Romney and degrade him with that, I noticed Hannity didn’t protest or confront her on this. Wonder if the lip licking has anything to do with Hannity’s compliance when it comes to Palin?”

Yes, this is real. I’m not embellishing anything. I couldn’t fake being this stupid, and I don’t believe anybody else could fake it either.  Undeterred by anything even vaguely resembling a fact, this genius continues:

“The reason why the Palinbots are pushing for either Rubio or Jindial as the VP pick for Romney is because of this:

“The reason why the “base” (and I call them that losely, cause I think we all know that they are just a segment with their own selfish agenda, that has nothing to do with real people like us), is pushing for those lackluster two is cause they don’t want to win this time around, they want to throw it for their Imbicial Snow Queen. They know what they are doing, and it ain’t pretty. They can take it their two lackluster ones, and shove it where the sun don’t shine. Sorry for the crudeness, but they’ve earned it.”

Most Palinistas I know wouldn’t want either Rubio or Jindal, never mind “Jindial ,” whomever s/he may be.  If Palinistas had their way, I think most would like to see Allen West as VP.  Of course, the lunacy that pervades this Facebook group is quite stunning, and all the more when you consider this bit:

“The Tea Party is still dreaming of a Brokered Convention. Shame on them!”

This appeared with a link to an article in the Washington Times, in which Tea Party Nation’s Judson Philips is quoted as asking: “Is it too late to switch?”  This remark was made in the aftermath of Eric Fehrnstrom’s remarks about whether Obama-care is a tax or a penalty.  The rabid Romney-bots in this particular Facebook group simply cannot conceive of the thought that Mitt Romney might be seen by the broader base of conservatism as something of a sell-out.

They weren’t satisfied to go after the Tea Party, as they attack Mark Levin for his support of Sarah Palin, and generally regard Palinistas as brain-dead zombies.  Yes, they are leaping to the defense of Mitt Romney from the she-devil Sarah Palin, who they will tell you is a socialist.  That’s right, for these folk, Sarah Palin is a socialist.  Try not to soil your computer screen with spewed coffee as you laugh at these flakes.  I promise, you will read their ‘critiques’ of Governor Palin as very nearly a parody of leftist critiques, and I think this demonstrates my point from earlier Saturday.  If they had been mere Romney-bots, we might not have spotted the fact that these are full-bore kooks every bit as bad as any on the left.  It’s refreshing to have one’s assertions born out within the space of an afternoon.

Editor’s Note: While it is clear that these people claim to be Romney supporters, it is certain they aren’t doing this with the blessing or endorsement of the Romney Campaign.  Then again, he couldn’t tell the SuperPacs what to do when they were bashing Newt Gingrich, either. (Wink Wink) They could also be Obama-shills, attempting to stir up trouble between the Palinistas and Romney-bots, but at least on the surface, these appear to be genuinely nutty Romney supporters.  Go figure.

 

Oil Price Slippage Constitutes Warning

Sunday, May 6th, 2012

Producing Our Economic Life-blood

Over the life of this blog, one of the subjects that has arisen repeatedly is our energy problem, and the effects Obama’s policies are having on our nation’s economic condition.  I have offered you charts, graphs, economic theory, and an understanding of why we remain in the economic trouble we’re in, and much of our troubles originate with energy concerns.  Again validating what I’ve previously reported, global oil prices are now falling in response to the economic outlook in the US and in Europe.  The reason I again bring this to your attention is not to thump my chest, since there’s nothing revolutionary in what I’ve argued, but instead to reinforce the point, because in the broader media, there are too many sources interested in obfuscating and otherwise muddling the matter.  To have a growing, vital economy, the US has relied historically on inexpensive energy.

The American economy is a vehicle of vast capacity for growth, and the American people remain its vital engine, both as consumers and producers.  What the Obama policies have done is to choke down this engine, and the result is an economy that is bottom-bouncing at an idle, struggling for air that a reckless government policy forbids it to consume.  Every time the American people start to accelerate, the market effects of the regressive policies of our government govern the capacity of our economy like a vast engine choke. You could rightly call the policies of Barack Obama the “stuck choke” of American economics.

An engine makes a great analog for the state of our economy, because an engine must both consume energy, and convert it into motive power.  In a healthy state, that’s what the US economy does, and it’s why we must not ignore the grave costs of the current Obama policies.  Consider what happens when you step on the gas in your car:  The throttle opens up, allowing the engine to draw more of the air-fuel mixture, permitting the engine to accelerate, reciprocating more rapidly, and those converting the energy to the horsepower needed to make the vehicle go.  This is how our economy functions: It’s demand for consumption increases, and we have traditionally answered it by permitting more air-fuel mix(energy and capital) into the engine, and it accelerates(grows) providing output some of which is reintroduced back into the stream going in.  It’s a marvelous thing, and the prosperity of every American increases on average.

The situation we’ve been placed in by the Obama policies, combined with the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve is that the air-fuel mix becomes prohibitively expensive.  Imagine driving down the road at 30mph in order to conserve fuel.  You could come up to speed, but because fuel is so expensive, you really can’t afford to put your foot in it, so instead, you patiently move along at a snail’s pace because you’re trying to do the minimum consumption you can manage and still get to your destination.  This is what happens each and every time the economic engine gets going these last several years:  The price of fuel begins to tick rapidly upward, we get a price spike, and everybody goes into conservation mode, and as a result, the economy slows down.  Naturally, as soon as the economy slows, the prices for fuel begin to fall again, and one can expect that at around the time they hit the bottom of the trough, people will begin to feel safe accelerating their cars back up to highway speeds, and the process begins once more.

The slippage in oil prices this week constitute a warning, because what it implies is that you’ve already hit that point of conservation.  Of course, it’s not merely consumers, but businesses and every form of productive endeavor that uses energy, which is of course all of them.  In that environment of rationing, what occurs is that people necessarily become more frugal, but so do businesses.  It’s unavoidable.  You can only afford to spend so much of your capital on energy, because you must still pay for all of the other necessities of living, and the United States has been operating very close to this line for several years.  A rational Federal policy would realize that this is a supply-side problem, and that to alleviate the problem, what we must do is increase the supply of energy available to the market, but our government has instead answered with tepid notions about conservation, and highly speculative and fanciful programs for “green energy” while it chokes off the supply of real energy to the market.

This is our situation, and the current drop in oil prices is a result of the fact that our economy is again on the downside, and that is further substantiated by the poor numbers of jobs being created.  At this point, it should be so obvious to every living person with two brain cells remaining to clack together that there ought to be a national movement to remove any politician who isn’t focused on this problem.  Instead, we have an administration that is dithering, and is actually making things substantially worse through its regulatory paradigm that insists America simply do more with less.  This insane, nearly maniacal policy is impossible to sustain, because it is driving us to the poor-house, and yet the radical left is fine with that outcome.  They want to make us poorer, and the reason is clear:  Poor people who must choose between groceries and gasoline are easily managed by a central authority, and they are only too willing to do the “managing.”

Let us place this in context:  Imagine that you have a home that is all electric.  Many Americans do.  Imagine that the power grid that supplies electricity to your home generates that power with coal, oil, and nuclear processes.  You might also have a little hydroelectric power, or a little wind and solar, but on average, those supply only a small fraction of our power generation.  Remembering that oil derivatives are one of the primary fuels used in power generation, what happens if we take away one of the others, like coal?  Coal currently provides half of our electric generation, nationwide.  What happens to the price of oil and all its derivatives, including the gasoline or diesel for your vehicle when coal is taken away from power generation?  The answer is obvious, and so is the result, because we’re living it.

Understanding the relationship between energy and our economic prospects is key to understanding our current economic malaise, and the impending disaster we face if our policy is not soon changed to promote more energy production, and to unshackle energy producers from the chains that prevent them from providing to the market the energy that a growing economy requires in order to sustain itself in that state.   This is why Newt Gingrich’s idea of $2.50/gallon gasoline was important, and it’s also one more reason so many of us had hoped that  we would see a Sarah Palin candidacy, because she understands, perhaps better than any other politician in the country, how thorough is our reliance upon energy, but also how to best develop the resources we already have at our disposal.  We desperately need an “energy President,” who understands that growth and prosperity are only possible with abundant and inexpensive energy, permitting the American people to do what they already know how to do, and want to do: Build, grow, and prosper.

The proof of this thesis is contained in our cycle of boom-spike-conserve-bottom. When energy prices fall, the economy (and the American people who drive it) respond with jobs, growth, and productivity.  The problem is that in our current environment of government regulation and governmentally-induced inflation, when the growth begins, the price of energy begins to immediately climb upward, eventually spiking to unsustainable costs.  This places the entire economy into conservation mode, and very rapidly, we slide to the bottom again.  It’s no longer a matter of proving the theory.  It’s proven, and the evidence is all around us, but until we make the conscious decision to end the misery, we’re stuck.

Really, This Guy Is Too Absurd to Be President

Sunday, April 29th, 2012

Even Tasteless Michelle...

Honest to goodness, one can’t make this up. Barack Obama’s attempt at humor is just abysmal, as he was neither funny, nor clever.  At the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, he took a swipe at Sarah Palin, and at those who focused on the story of him eating dog, all to concoct one of the most brutally stupid “jokes” I’ve ever heard, never mind from a President.  Is this guy really our President?  Even Michelle “Keep-on-walking” Obama seemed astonished.  His joke wasn’t funny, and while there was some nervous “we’ll laugh at anything this jack-ass says because he’s our guy” chortling from the crowd, I don’t think anybody appreciated it as much as he did.  Of course, that could be said for the entirety of his presidency.

Courtesy Breitbart:

I think Joe Biden is finally rubbing-off on this guy.  The last three-and-one-half years have been a non-stop bad joke on the American people.

 

Do You Fear Obama?

Sunday, April 29th, 2012

Do You Fear This Guy?

Listening to conservative commentators, one can witness a kind of fear of Barack Obama that I’ve never encountered in domestic politics before.  Sure, back in the 1990s, there were some conservatives who were fearful about the things Bill Clinton might do, given a chance, but the unmistakable terror some exhibit at the mere idea that Barack Obama would somehow be re-elected is astonishing to me.  Is he horrible?  Yes.  Is he actively undermining our nation?  Certainly.  Is he a demagogue?  You bet!  Nevertheless, I do not understand the fear that seems to grip so many on the right side of the political divide.  I don’t fear Barack Obama.  He doesn’t impress me that much, and if he takes the country all the way to and over the brink, patriotic Americans will stop him.  I’m not scared of Barack Obama.  I’m not threatened by a temporary political hack.  The thing that makes me fearful is the tendency among conservatives to imagine more power on the part of Obama than he actually possesses, but worse, the willingness on the part of establishment Republicans to cede to him such power.  The power of the presidency doesn’t belong to any man, but to the people, and all it takes to stop any President is their will.

Fear is an important tool used to herd us in the direction of the establishment’s favored candidates.  I am not driven by that sort of thing.  What makes me fear for my country is the endless parade of candidates who are put up by the Republican establishment every four years who leave us with a choice between the wholly unpalatable and the unconscionably unpalatable.  It’s like a perpetual taste test between excrement sandwiches where the only question is whether the prime course originated with a horse or a bull.  What drives me to something like real fear is when I see the uncritical thinking that pervades so much of our culture.  When I hear alleged conservatives saying that they think George W. Bush was a “real conservative,” I shake my head and walk away.  There’s no point to an argument over the matter.  He wasn’t a conservative, but for those who think he was, there’s no convincing them, no matter how many instances of his big-government statism his record provides as evidence.

I don’t fear Barack Obama because we already have an example of how to make a leftist President ineffective.  Newt Gingrich showed us through determined leadership in the middle 1990s, and except for betrayals from the establishment wing of his own party, he might well have accomplished more.  The problem is that the same people who destroyed his campaign this year by one act of dishonest infamy after the other are representatives of that same group that undercut him nearly two decades ago.  Even at this late date, with Gingrich effectively out of the running, still there are attacks by the Romney campaign on Gingrich.  Why fear Barack Obama?  With “friends” like this, who needs enemies?  Still, Gingrich showed us what we can do by his example in 1994.  To do it, we will need to change the face of the Senate.  That’s where Gingrich ran into the most trouble, and apart from our tepid House leadership today, I think this is where we must begin.

We need to eject RINOs like Dick Lugar from the Senate, and send in conservatives like his opponent Richard Mourdock, and just as Kay Bailey-Hutchison is departing the Senate, I will be happy to send Ted Cruz there rather than establishment tool David Dewhurst.  I was a bit astonished, after his appeal to Tea Party types, to see Rick Perry endorse Dewhurst.  Of course, Friday, he also endorsed Romney. I guess we know all we need to about that, but it’s another example of our problem:  We need to defeat not only Democrats who are holding Senate seats, but also a number of Republicans who shouldn’t be left in charge of anything.  You see, we don’t need the Presidency to run the country.  We merely need a large enough majority in both houses of Congress, but that will still only help us if they’re not a pack of establishment types.  While John McCain came out to endorse Dick Lugar, Sarah Palin instead endorsed Richard Mourdock, continuing to demonstrate that one needn’t have a title to be effective, and we need more of that kind of leadership from high profile conservatives.  From the Republicans’ presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney? Silence.

I don’t fear Obama, but if you want to see me afraid, observe my reaction to the wasted effort the GOP establishment has made of the Tea Party’s victories in 2010.  There was momentum and vigor, but by a long list of sorry surrenders, Boehner and McConnell have sapped the energy out of the movement.  I fear that the Tea Party waited and waited for a Presidential candidate to emerge who would carry their banner, and when one didn’t appear, or at least didn’t stick around, and while the establishment undermined conservative alternatives to Mitt Romney, the Tea Party seems as though much of its energy has been spent.  I hope I’m wrong, but with Romney emerging as the probable nominee, it’s hard to imagine the Tea Party getting very excited.  Who can blame them?  The establishment of the GOP is intent upon giving us a guy who lost to Ted Kennedy by double digits in 1994, a year Republicans made huge strides and took both houses of Congress.  Do we expect to defeat Barack Obama, and even if we do, to what end?

I don’t fear Obama because I know that he’s just one more step down a path our country and culture has been following all my life.  If it wasn’t Obama, it would be somebody like him.  If it wasn’t Romney, it would be somebody like him.  They fit their respective templates, and they fulfill their respective roles.  We’ve been railroaded into a notion of America that is top-down, and I simply don’t buy it.  There are three-hundred millions of us.  Do you really think Washington DC can impose anything on us that we(or some sizable number of us) refuse to do?  The problem I see is that the longer we let this fester, the more foot-soldiers for the cause they breed.  Do you really wonder why neither party is serious about controlling illegal immigration?  Do you really wonder why it is that our social safety nets are encouraging more of the same, now largely hammocks in which too many people recline endlessly, while you work like rented mules to carry their burdens?

Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t believe we need a third party.  I’d be happy with two.  Unfortunately, from my point of view, I’m finding it impossible to discern much difference at the upper echelons, apart from the much too rare sort best exemplified by Sarah Palin.  The establishment in DC plays both sides of the street, and neither side is composed of conservatives.  This whole system is full of corruption, and it’s not because the system was built to be corrupted, but because we the people, by our shameful inattention, and our general unwillingness to do our homework have left the store undefended, the till untended, and our alleged ‘public servants’ unaccountable.  When I say “we,” I don’t mean you and I, though we surely should do more, but I look around at the popular culture, and I note with dismay that there are hundreds of television channels available, and apart from C-Span, there are perhaps a dozen or so that cover public affairs, politics, and political news, and none of those garner as many viewers as the average prime-time sitcom.

If you want to know why America is in decline, you need only observe the priorities of most people.  The amount of time daily that most Americans devote to public affairs is minuscule.  Most of them can’t recite so much as the preamble to the constitution, and few can recite, verbatim, any of the amendments, even the first ten.  Don’t ask them to provide from memory some notion of the structure of the constitution, and don’t ask them to tell you anything about the enumerated powers of Congress, the President, or the courts.  As long as this remains true, there is no chance to reform the country. You and I can go to Tea Party rallies, and the GOP establishment will do its best to co-opt them.  The broad body of the American people remains unmoved, and nothing short of catastrophe is likely to move them, but as with most such things, the catastrophe will be evidence that they’ve been roused from their slumber too late.  We say we believe in citizen-legislators, and the form of self-governance our founders gave to us, but too few of us who are able step forward to take the risk.

On the other hand, I don’t fear Obama in part because I know that common sense will eventually trump him.  A good example of this is the proposed regulation out of the Department of Labor that would have made it illegal for anybody under 18 to perform certain chores or work in certain jobs in an agricultural setting.  The backlash was so strong, even among Democrats, that the Obama administration actually rescinded the proposed regulation, at least for the time being.   The administration and the Department of Labor were deluged with a huge number of tersely worded communications from across America telling them to back off or else.  One farmer I know locally, whose two sons routinely help him operate tractors and so on actually called and told some government stooge in Washington DC that he was free to come and impose his regulations if he thought he could. Ladies and gentlemen, there are three-hundred millions of us.  Even if fully half have “gone over to the dark side,” the government can’t impose anything on the rest of us if we refuse.  People wonder why I don’t quake in fear about Obama, or any other tin-pot dictator who might set up shop in DC, but this is the reason.

A government loses its legitimate claim to authority at some point, and small incidents like the backlash over farm labor rules is just one such instance.  Another bit of evidence comes in the form of gun and ammunition sales, still at record levels these last three years as people prepare for…come what may.  Sure, it’s only a small fraction of Americans who are preparing to any substantial degree, but that’s still a goodly number.  As they liquidate debt, pull assets out of markets, buy durable commodities and stored goods, and make ready for the possibility that this society may break down.  The core that keeps this country afloat is doing what it has always done: Through prudence, thrift, and industry, they are preparing to the best of their ability for the worst that the world may throw at them.  They don’t fear Obama either.  Like me, they’re more inclined to fear the legion of unprepared network television viewers who will be standing there with one hand out-stretched, gun in the other, issuing pleas for help in the form of demands, if and when things go even more badly for our country.

The thing we must all remember is that as bad as Obama is, he is temporary.  He may do this or that, and he may make a wreck of things for the nation, but he’s temporary, and there’s nothing he can inflict that we can’t undo.  The only thing that makes a guy like Obama dangerous are the people ostensibly on our side who seek to collaborate with him.  It’s the moderates who undo us each and every time.  I offer the debt ceiling debate of last July to any who doubt me.  No, I don’t fear Obama, bad as he may be, nearly so much as I live in terror at the prospects of the next surrender of the Republican establishment.  That’s what makes our situation seem hopeless.  Who among you harbors the delusion of John Boehner riding in to save us?  Mitch McConnell?   Mitt Romney?  That’s what demoralizes our conservative activism.  That’s what cuts the heart out of the resistance.  We won’t be delivered into communistic despotism by Barack Obama, but instead by some gutless cabal of establishment Republicans hurriedly cutting a deal to save their own necks, thereby damning the rest of us into servitude.  It is ever the betrayers, the surrendering class, clamoring to hold onto some vestige of what they see as their rightful place, or even merely to save their own hides.  I see this as the most pressing issue we face.  Barack Obama is only possible because of the sell-outs.

For all appearances, Mitt Romney seems to be part of that class of Republicans, and if you ask me what it is that I fear, it is that once again, we will be saddled with a nominee who is not one of us, doesn’t understand us, and doesn’t see the world from the point of view we mostly share, out here, where the country is made to work by the choices, the goals, and the devotion of millions of individual Americans, each working to better his or her own life, and the life of their families, but actions that also redound to the benefit of the nation at large.  When I listen to Romney, I am left with the unmistakable impression that I am hearing a man who wants to rule over me, the same as Obama, but with slightly different aims.  I hear a man who is speaking to collectivized notions of American greatness that defy 250 years of the history of individual achievements linked by the consent and volition of the achievers.  What I hear is: “New boss, same as the old boss.”  If you tell me you fear Obama more, I can’t help but wonder why.  Nothing is more terrifying to me than the thought that Mitt Romney is the best we could do in the face of Barack Obama’s four years of rampant destruction.  If true, it may mean we’ve already lost the country, and there is nothing about Barack Obama so frightening as that possibility.

 

Sarah Palin on NBC’s Today Show: “…When Barack Obama Took Over”

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012

Joining the Lamestream Media?

Former GOP Vice Presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin appeared on NBC’s Today Show on Tuesday. She co-hosted the show, and she also answered a series of question from Matt Lauer. It’s an interesting this to see her place Barack Obama in the proper context, that I submit is a better characterization of the manner of the current president: “…when Barack Obama took over.” This is exactly the right sense of the manner in which Obama has presided over the country. He hasn’t led anything. He simply “took over.”

Governor Palin went on to explain why she thinks this election is so important, but also why she thinks the GOP shouldn’t play it safe when it comes to picking its Vice Presidential candidate. Here’s the interview segment with Matt Lauer:

Governor Palin was featured in a number of entertaining segments throughout the show, and you can watch some of the highlights here:

Speaking of April Fools…Coulter Attacks Palin Again

Monday, April 2nd, 2012

Here We Go Again...

Ann Coulter seems intent on snuggling up close to the GOP establishment, and her liberal friends in media. On Sunday, notably a day for fools like Coulter, she joined the round table discussion on ABC’s “This Week.”  The problem is that as with all such things, it seems as though the only real intention here was to smear Palin.  The comment was an aside without substantiation, and I now believe she does it just to ingratiate herself with the liberal Republicans and the left.  It’s typical of Coulter to make snide remarks as a throwaway line, but this isn’t the first lately aimed at Sarah Palin.  To attack the former Vice Presidential candidate as having been some sort of “novelty candidate” when she was picked by John McCain as his running mate is simply ridiculous.

Here’s the video:

I think Coulter is losing her grasp on the conservative movement.  Slowly but surely, she’s turning into precisely the caricature the left has painted of her over the years.  Naturally, in discussing the Vice Presidential pick, she acknowledged many are talking about Marco Rubio, and she fairly drooled over the prospect of NJ Governor Chris Christie again, but that’s no surprise.  Coulter has worn out her welcome with me, as she continues to take cheap-shots at conservatives, particularly Sarah Palin.

A Conservative Calls for a Third Party Palin Run

Sunday, April 1st, 2012

Would it work?

Over at Westernjournalism.com, Kriz Zane has written an interesting piece suggesting that the way for conservatives to get out of the Romney predicament is for Sarah Palin to run as an independent.  Zane seems to have gone through a genesis on this campaign not unlike my own, in that originally, Sarah Palin was Zane’s chosen candidate, but when that campaign didn’t materialize, the switch ultimately went to Newt Gingrich. What Zane argues, and I’m not entirely certain I agree, is that it seems for some reason that Gingrich is simply not acceptable to too many people, and of course, much like me, Zane finds Romney deplorable at best, and certain to get Obama re-elected.  What is a conservative to do?  Zane has decided to ask that Sarah Palin seek the presidency as a Tea Party candidate.

Zane sets aside the conventional wisdom that a third-party candidacy would merely split conservatives making it easier for Obama to defeat them.  The idea is that Palin would be a transformational figure who would attract support from the Tea Party folks, and effectively make the GOP candidate moot.  While it’s an interesting idea, the problem is that I don’t know the mechanics of how one would put such a candidate on the ballots in all fifty states even if the candidate were inclined to run at all, never mind as an independent.  Of course, it can be rightly said that Sarah Palin surely has an independent streak, but I think the first step would be to see if the candidate has any such interest, and there’s no word from Zane on that question.

The other point made is one that I’ve repeated often, inasmuch as Mitt Romney simply doesn’t have what it takes to get the job done.  Conservatives are unhappy with the prospect, and Zane focuses on a letter read aloud by Rush Limbaugh from a friend on the subject.  You can see Rush read the letter below, H/T Rightscoop:

This is a perfect example of the things that most conservatives are saying about a Romney nomination.  They simply don’t want him, and the truth is they’d rather go down fighting with a conservative nominee than to simply have another establishment candidate.  This angst is not unfounded, as we have seen what happens when the GOP establishment puts up their kind of candidate.  Most of the time, they lose.

The reason is simple, and it’s the same justification Zane relies upon for the theoretical Palin independent campaign: Conservatives simply won’t turn out with sufficient fervor to push Romney(or anybody like him) over the top.  Of course, the GOP establishment has its own view, which would roughly equate to “their way or the highway.”  Let’s face facts: The Republican establishment largely consists of people who expect to be immune from much of what Obama may do in a second term, so they may be more inclined to lose than to support an actual conservative, and I think that they have done so before.

For these reasons, I understand the horns of the dilemma on which Zane and so many other conservatives now sit, and I am surely among their number.  While Zane presents an intriguing idea, I don’t know how we get from here to there.  Of course, if there’s any politician in America who could pull off succh a move, it would almost certainly be Governor Palin.  As of Saturday, the story had bbroken that she would be co-hosting the Today Show on NBC, Tuesday, going head-to-head against Katie Couric on Good Morning America, and when asked about that aspect of the scheduled appearance by Breitbart.com, she reportedly answered simply: “Game on!”  With an attitude like that, it’s small wonder that so many conservatives have such high hopes for Governor Palin, and after all, who knows?

Sarah Palin On The Record With Greta Monday Night

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

On The Record

Greta Van Susteren interviewed former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Monday night, asking her about a range of issues including the Obama-care case and its relevance to the 2012 election.  She was asked what she thought of the effect it would have on Mitt Romney’s campaign, and it was an accurate, and concise answer as usual.  Said Gov. Palin: “Romney will have his hands full with this one because he’s now been dubbed the father of Obama-care.”  That’s an apt description of things, and I believe it’s the prevailing opinion among conservative voters.

Here’s the video:

 

Sarah Palin Is Right About Obama’s Intentions

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

The Gov Weighs In

When President Obama was caught by an open microphone telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he needed more flexibility because this is an election year, he wasn’t saying this as a means to buy time for negotiations as his staff later claimed.  He was plainly delivering a promise on our missile defense systems that endangers every American from sea to shining sea.  This ridiculous behavior caught the attention of many, but it brought down a hail of criticism from former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who has embarked on a mission to thoroughly vet Barack Obama since the media didn’t do it in 2008, and since Obama now has a record from which he cannot escape.  In an article entitled The Audacity of Obama’s Intentions Revealed, Governor Palin makes the strong case that Barack Obama isn’t looking out for American interests, and may indeed by hurting them.

She offers the following quote from the open-mic transcripts:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

“Vladimir” is none other than Vladimir Putin.  What Medvedev does is agree to be a courier for Obama and deliver a message to Putin.  He’s buying time, but it’s political time, meaning he is offering to come across with what Putin wants but he has to wait until after the election when he’ll be able to get away with almost anything if re-elected.  From Gov. Palin’s Facebook note:

“I pointed this out as Governor of Alaska when he proposed reducing Alaska’s missile defense system capabilities. I explained then that the President’s proposed military cuts would diminish Alaska’s opportunity to defend the union with our strategic location’s defense infrastructure. We also know that in 2009, as part of his “reset” with Russia, President Obama turned his back on our Eastern European allies by abandoning past promises for a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.”

Governor Palin is spot-on about this.  President Obama has done everything he could to weaken the United States position with respect to Russia, and it hasn’t gone well for America’s defenses as Obama has cut our vital strategic capabilities.  Among other things she notes, Gov. Palin points out the disastrous results of just three short years of Obama’s defense policies for American national security:

“He has consistently taken a position of weakness and naïve trust in Putin’s Russia. Consider that one-sided New START Treaty as an example of this. Or consider those cuts to Alaska’s missile defense system, which leaves us much more vulnerable in the face of a nuclear North Korea. Now consider the state of our national defense under a President who whispers to a foreign power that he needs even “more flexibility” to weaken us further.”

This is demonstrably true, and it should cause great concern for Americans.  Read the rest of Governor Palin’s article here.  I think it’s a dangerous sign that the President of the United States is making whispered assurances of this sort to Putin’s emissary.  What Obama clearly has in mind is the ability to rule without worry about being kicked to the curb for his disgraceful behavior in this matter, but also his general lack of concern for the defenses of our nation.

My questions are simple, and I’ve asked them many times before, in various forms:  What is Barack Obama after?  Why is he undermining our country?  What will he gain?  Whose interests does he serve, since it cannot be ours?  Why do I get the feeling that if re-elected, Barack Obama might well leave this country even more fully open to attack than his policies have already made it?

As Governor Palin points out elsewhere in her article, while we can’t know what’s in Barack Obama’s mind, we can make educated guesses based on his past performance as a decryption key in speculating about his future actions.  In my own view, with the past as prologue, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to imagine that Barack Obama isn’t intentionally undermining America and bolstering its enemies at home and abroad.  As I have pointed out before, I do not believe that Obama’s actions owe to incompetence.  What he’s doing is by design, and the increasing threat of an Obama second term should be terrifying to Americans who love their country.

After Schmidt, Conservative Candidates Should Watch Their Backs

Sunday, March 25th, 2012

Failing the Sniff-Test

Is Steve Schmidt really a liberal?  I’ve begun to draw that conclusion, because once again, he’s out there bad-mouthing Sarah Palin, and I’ve just about had it with his lip.  It’s not that he doesn’t have freedom of speech, but that I want every politician in sight to pay attention to how this campaign strategist is attempting to rescue his own reputation by running down the ticket for which he once worked. If you’re a budding politician, and you need the services of a campaign adviser, you might want to consider what this guy and those like him will do to you after their strategies fail.  It also points out something more important that I find simply galling:  When the media would question the motives of a former campaign adviser who said such things about a Democrat candidate, they have no problem accepting at face value, and without challenge almost anything said by one who had worked for a conservative.

Consider this latest bash-fest in the Caucus-blog section of NYTimes.com, where it’s open season on Gov. Palin, pushing a narrative that continues the Blame Change without a single word devoted to Steve Schmidt’s lack of credibility:

But in Republican circles, there is a clear focus on avoiding the problems that marked the Palin selection: a rushed process failed to ask basic questions about the prospective running mate, and put short-term electoral concerns ahead of readiness to assume the presidency.

“One of the mistakes we made in the Palin process was one of assumptions,” said Steve Schmidt, one of the McCain aides who guided the process. “We immediately made the assumption that anyone with ‘Governor’ next to her name has a base level of knowledge of history and policy that in a post-Palin world it isn’t necessarily safe to assume.”

If we’re going to discuss assumptions of dubious merit, I would prefer we start with another:  It’s ordinarily the operative assumption of candidates that their campaign staff won’t use their insider position to personal advantage at some future date, particularly by smearing their former client(s.)   Of course, this is a terrible assumption for any candidate to make, particularly if they’re conservative, but most particularly if the adviser’s name is Steve Schmidt.

Schmidt is the man who advised Senator McCain, the 2008 GOP Presidential nominee, and suggested to him that the idea to suspend the campaign and make a big splash out of riding into Washington to solve the financial crisis, and then head out of town as the conquering hero.  Of course, the problem with all of that is the requirement that Washington DC will play along, and that you’ve laid the actual legislative groundwork for such a move.  Schmidt tried to do it on the cheap, and what it looked like instead was an admission of culpability for the banking crisis, and it inflicted serious damage to the McCain-Palin ticket.

This was when the rescue plan for Schmidt’s reputation was hatched, and since he didn’t want to point a finger at his boss, he needed another fall-guy, but the only one plausible was a woman.  Sarah Palin was a relatively unknown commodity, and it was therefore much easier to make her out as having been the problem.  Besides, his pals in the media hated her, so it would be an easy sell.  The strategy moved forward and Schmidt and his pals directed the blame at Gov. Palin.

Richard Stevens, writing for the Times, seems to happily pick up this ball and run with it, and not once in his misleading article does he question the veracity of Schmidt’s claim, since it lays the ground work for Stevens’ thesis:  “After Palin, Expect a More Intense Vetting Process.”  I would suggest an alternate title, were Stevens up to it, though apparently, he’s not:

“After Schmidt, Conservative Candidates Should Watch Their Backs.”

This would at least be more fitting, and infinitely more suited to the facts.

 

Governor Palin on Hannity Discussing Vile Attacks (Video)

Saturday, March 24th, 2012

Governor Palin on Hannity

On Friday evening, former Alaska Governor and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin appeared on Hannity on FoxNews to discuss a range of topics, relating to the vile attacks she and her family have endured over the last four years since John McCain chose her to be his running mate.  Hannity prefaced the segment with a number of disturbing video clips of various media personalities saying the most obscene and ridiculously insulting things about Gov. Palin and other members of her family, and given the nature of some of the things that have been said, I remain amazed at her poise and strength of resolve in confronting it all.  Bill Maher, and David Letterman, among others headline this bunch of shameless media vermin, but Governor Palin was most perturbed by the attacks on her children.

Perhaps the most shocking of attacks has been on her young son Trig who was born with Down Syndrome, and has been the focus of disgusting ridicule and ridiculous conspiracy theories.  As a parent, it’s horrible to witness attacks of any kind on your children, but the despicable attack on a child with special needs is particularly abominable. Frankly, I consider the purveyors of this alleged “comedy” aimed at defenseless children the signature of pure evil.  Here’s the video:

Naturally, there have been attacks on all her kids, and some of them stunningly vile.  The question of President Obama’s hypocrisy came up, since one of the SuperPACs supporting him accepted one million dollars from professional pig Bill Maher.  Hannity also highlighted Bristol Palin’s blog in which she asked President Obama directly:  Mr. President, When Should I Expect Your Call?  The hypocrisy is evident, but that’s not particularly bothersome to leftists, who must adopt every manner of contradiction in logic and morality to hold their positions.  The Governor’s eldest daughter did an excellent job of demonstrating the clear hypocrisy through his remarks to the press on the Sandra Fluke story.

The left loves to profess their love and reverence for the rights and dignity of all women, but when it comes right down to it, what’s really important to leftists is ideology.  Women only qualify for their respect if they happen also to be leftists.

PPP Poll: Sarah Palin Could Unite GOP

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

The GOP's Real Uniter

An interesting bit of data is buried in a PPP Poll released today, showing that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is more popular among conservatives than any of the actual candidates in the race.  Nobody should be surprised, but after Governor Palin bowed out of the nomination race in October, there has been a continuing undercurrent of support for some method by which to bring her into the race after all.  Many focused on a draft movement, while others have been talking about a possible brokered convention.  All of this is a continuing demonstration of the power of Sarah Palin’s appeal with the conservative base of the party, but also with the more moderate and independent-minded wing of the party.  That’s noted in this article as well, and it’s interesting to see how Gov. Palin compares:

“The talk of a brokered convention never seems to die down and one interesting finding on this poll was that Sarah Palin is far more popular than any of the actual Republican candidates in the race. Her net favorability is +48, with 68% of voters rating her favorably to only 20% with a negative opinion. That compares favorably to +29 for Santorum, +19 for Romney, and -26 for Paul.”

“Palin is someone GOP delegates might be able to unify around in the case of a hopelessly deadlocked convention. She is seen positively by Gingrich voters (85/7), Santorum supporters (80/10), and Romney ones (57/27) alike. That’s a contrast to Romney who is disliked by both Santorum (38/48) and Gingrich (32/54) voters and Santorum who is disliked by Romney (38/48) voters and only seen narrowly favorably by Gingrich (46/42) backers.”

So you want to know who can unite the Republican party?  It isn’t Mitt Romney.  Once again, this reveals what many ‘Palinistas’ have known for some time: Governor Palin’s appeal is more broad-based than anybody else one can name in the GOP.  This poll merely confirms that view, and it’s part of the reason so many were shocked when she announced she would not seek the GOP nomination back in October.

I believe this is the reason the war on Governor Palin has recommenced lately, because I think both Romney and Obama see her as the biggest threat.  Romney fears a brokered convention, because it could lead to that kind of outcome, and Obama fears her impact with voters.  It’s all about a preemptive strike against the one person the GOP establishment and the left sees as the biggest threat to their joint power-sharing hegemony in American politics.

 

 

The Media’s Sick Assault on Conservative Women

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

Maybe Stick to Jazz?

From the pages of NewYorkDailyNews, we see one example of the vile thinking of the left, where Stanley Crouch, noted leftist and  general crackpot, has written a piece arguing that Sarah Palin isn’t the right kind of woman to be in leadership.  He spends several paragraphs attacking Palin, but his general point is this:  Women rising to leadership is important, but Palin is evidence of what sort of women we do not need and should not want.  What Crouch reveals about his real agenda is made evident when he gushes over Olympia Snowe(R-ME,) Susan Collins(R-ME,) and Kirsten Gillibrand(D-NY). While he is careful to select two Republicans as the objects of his fawning, it’s important to note that he picked two of the most liberal elected Republicans in the country.  For all intents and purposes, they’re Democrats in Republican clothing, and the two vote with Obama more often than against him.  This example demonstrates the point clearly: While Crouch focuses on Sarah Palin in this article, she is once again a voodoo doll for the disdain he heaps on all conservative women.

One would think that with such a clear ideological litmus test, Crouch might admit he’s not interested in their sex so much as their political persuasion. Instead, Crouch poses a self-contradictory, self-defeating claim:

“Women need not be political targets and ought not be political pawns. They can, instead, be top-shelf leaders. The likes of Sens. Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Kirsten Gillibrand make it perfectly evident how well women can set the pace for the doing of good things for themselves — as well as for the entire nation.”

“To do this, they must beat back the hustlers and hucksters in their midst. Even Ann Coulter — a woman not expected to provide insights and facts — sees this point clearly.”

Notice that while he mentions that Ann Coulter is a woman not expected to provide insight and facts, she’s good enough to further his attack if she’s willing to go on the record as slamming Sarah Palin.  Years ago, Coulter would have gotten my sympathy for his characterization, but that’s no longer the case, as she’s abandoned conservatism.  The words of Coulter to which Crouch points are from the video I posted last week:

At a Republican Party dinner in Florida, this is what Coulter said, in reference to a conversation about Palin and others like her:

“I think our party and particularly our movement, the conservative movement, does have more of a problem with con men and charlatans than the Democratic Party. The incentives seem to be set up to allow people, as long as you have a band of a few million fanatical followers, you can make money. The Democrats have figured out how not to do that.”

She went on: “All the Republican nominees for President, I want them to sign a pledge saying, ‘If I lose the nomination, I pledge I will not take a gig with Fox News or write a book.’ ”

Crouch, who wouldn’t ordinarily reference Coulter on anything charges in to point to one of the several, disturbingly more frequent instances when Couter abandons conservatives.  There are at least two lessons in this, and one is the obvious for you, the reader, but the other is for Ann Coulter:  When you attack a conservative icon like Governor Palin, while you’re a purported conservative, expect to find yourself in the company of such worthless hacks as one Stanley Crouch.

For his part, Crouch is undeterred by the fact that he’s dismissed Coulter, because in this case, she’s done his dirty-work, and like most leftists, he’s as intellectually lazy as his is vapid.  His point is that Palin isn’t a real leader, but he doesn’t explain why.  Instead, he relies upon Coulter’s attack, alleging Gov. Palin is a charlatan.  He does nothing to prove his opening thesis either, in which he poses the notion that while Palin was good enough for Alaska, she’s not good enough for the country as a whole.  His assessment of Palin boils down to this, with no evidence to support any part of it:

“She remains embittered by her limitations.”

Embittered?  I’ve seen no evidence of bitterness on the part of Palin, although lately one could certainly detect a fair amount of that in the words of Ann Coulter.  Crouch doesn’t explain what he means by her supposed “limitations,” apart from relying upon Coulter’s attack.  What he says in conclusion is an abject rejection of what he says earlier in the article:

“Women have shown that they are and can be leaders in all fields — not to be defined or dominated by their sex, but to be judged by what they say and do.”

For the life of me, I can’t understand whether he wants us to elect women just because they are women, or not.  He starts out the article explaining how important it is to elect women.  Now he wants to qualify that, but we would be right to examine his list of qualifications, though thankfully, it’s quite short:  Agree with leftists.

This is the only qualification any woman needs to exhibit in order to garner his approval. He has a similar standard for African-Americans, too.  In his view, Allen West is a sell-out, as is JC Watts, but what you must see is that his view on women is quite the same. Conservative women are sell-outs to womanhood, and this is the widely-held view in media. Pick your favorite news outlet, and ask yourself how many of its women are anti-abortion?  No, culturally, you will not find many in any of these newsrooms who are, and yet here’s an inescapable fact: More than half of American women are not pro-choice and do not consider themselves “feminists” as defined by the left.  Governor Palin represents that conservative woman, and the media knows it, and hates her for it.

You see, in order to carry out their empty attacks as Crouch has done in this piece, they must further a talking-point aimed at all women, but particularly those sitting on the fence, or unsure on that issue.  Bashing Palin is a shortcut to prodding these women who would otherwise see themselves as with few other female politicians as examples.  It’s shameful, but it’s the sort of narrow-minded propaganda that hacks like Crouch produce in reams.  The idea is to convince the unconvinced that they’re alone, and that there are no credible women giving voice to an opposing viewpoint.  It’s the anti-syllogistic kissing cousin to the premise that there is a “consensus” on global warming.  You see, it’s not about what’s true, but about what you can convince people is true.  His attack on Palin is about creating an impression rather than telling you anything concrete, and for those souls who may be suffering in ignorance, it’s an effective albeit dishonest approach.

He explains that she is “incompetent,” but he doesn’t bother to explain how; on the witness of a formerly-conservative huckster, he claims that Palin is a “charlatan,” but he offers nothing to support that allegation.  He tells you she is “embittered,” but he offers no syllables in explaining the evidence or the root of such bitterness.  He ultimately wants you to understand that Palin is a woman, but that she’s the wrong sort, without really stating how that’s the case, other than by the examples, from which we can only conclude that he is an intellectual NAZI, who simply doesn’t like women with a viewpoint that contradicts his own leftist ideology.  That’s the real message women should understand from Stanley Crouch: Unless you’re a liberal, he’d rather you just stay home, whether in New York or Alaska, and bake some cookies.  If you’re a conservative woman, he doesn’t think you’re fit for much else.