Of Veep Speeches and What Might Have Been

Thursday, July 21, AD 2016

 

Mike Pence never has been known as an orator, but he rose to the occasion last night and gave the best speech of his career.  He will give the Trump campaign some much needed stability and dignity, and, surprisingly, some good humor.  Trump made a good choice.

However, the best Vice Presidential acceptance speech I have ever heard, indeed the best speech I have ever heard at any political convention made by anyone not named Ronald Reagan, was that of Sarah Palin in 2008:

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Of Veep Speeches and What Might Have Been

  • Favorite line, “I’m a Christian, conservative and Republican. In that order.”- Can I get a witness?

  • Thank you for posting Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech. A good reminder. After observing and listening to Sarah Palin and John McCain at a northern VA rally, it became clear that she deserved a better candidate at the top of the ticket. McCain, known for his strong personality, appeared to be on tranquilizers throughout the whole contest. The McCain campaign did their best to minimize a loyal Palin when she was their best asset. My guess it was a jealous Cindy McCain. Older than Palin, Mrs. McCain tried to compete with longer and blonder hair and her classic wardrobe became trendy with shorter skirts.

Sarah Palin on Abortion for Handicapped Kids

Wednesday, September 9, AD 2015

 

Sarah Palin of course walks the walk on this issue.  For an alternative view from a pro-abort fanatic who has a Down Syndrome child, claims to love her, and still opposes laws banning abortion for Down Syndrome children, go here.  Oh yes, she also says that if she knew her child, that she claims to now love, had Down Syndrome, she would not have hesitated to abort.

There are many folks — some of whom are in the Down syndrome community — who look at my story and point to it smugly as a tale of a woman who thought having a child with Down syndrome would be her worst nightmare, but triumphed. But my relationship with my daughter was something that had to develop on its own; if I had had a prenatal diagnosis, but had been forced to continue the pregnancy like Ohio legislators want, it would have been a disaster.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Sarah Palin on Abortion for Handicapped Kids

  • “…oh yes, she also says that if she knew her child, that she claims she now loves, had Down Syndrome, she would not have hesitated to abort.”

    Wow! With a mother like this who needs Isis?

    So when this loved daughter of hers reads mommy’s statement I’m sure it will be a “bonding moment” for them both. Could you imagine your mother making that statement about you, your ailment? Talk about insanity.

    Please say a prayer to De-fund WTM Inc..
    At 10:30am Eastern time, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing testimony from two abortion survivors. The act’s of PP and the mentality of the mother who is loving (?) her Down Syndrome daughter, well, they are grotesque.

  • One more please….Sarah hits a Home run!
    “Tolerance for people who are a little bit different! ”

    Dunk that in your coffee liberal media!

  • Sarah Palin has always been a heroine to me, especially given the hatred visited on her head by the left wing maniacs.

  • Hatred for Sarah is putting it lightly.

    They are going to reap what they sow Paul.
    A very sad, infested lot, the libs for death group.
    Sickening bunch of demons.

Of Sarah Palin, Waterboarding and Baptism

Tuesday, April 29, AD 2014

Sarah Palin and the torture debate?  Red Meat for bloggers for sure!  Sarah Palin at the NRA convention said about captured terrorists and interrogation:

“Oh, but you can’t offend them, can’t make them feel uncomfortable, not even a smidgen. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

The remark has received predictable criticism from the Left.  Mark Shea, who is not a Leftist whatever else he is,  chimes in with the usual quiet reason that has ever reflected his comments during the torture debate:

Well done also to Joe Carter for giving this vile filth no quarter.  There is nothing left to discuss or negotiate.  “Prolife” Christians who cheer for torture and, worse, cheer for sacrilegiously likening it to baptize have only one option: repent and seek forgiveness.  Those who make excuses for it or refuse to repent ought to be as radioactive as Catholics for a Free Choice.

Here is a link to the Joe Carter post mentioned by Mark.

Father Z believes that the remark requires an apology.

Ed Peters who Father Z quotes is very condemnatory:

Open contempt for faith and things of religion is broadly associated with the left in America. I well recall pro-aborts smirking under a placard that claimed “If men could become pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.” Now Palin has given sociology professors an incontestable example of contempt for religion on the American right.

May my readers join me in offering a short Pater in reparation for both.

In the face of all this, Sarah Palin is unrepentant:

Actions to stop terrorists who’d utterly annihilate America and delight in massacring our innocent children? Darn right I’d do whatever it takes to foil their murderous jihadist plots – including waterboarding. Whatever one thinks of my one…-liner at the NRA rally about treating evil terrorists the way they deserve to be treated to prevent the death of innocent people, it’s utterly absurd for MSNBC to suggest that I could put our beloved troops in harm’s way, but we’ve come to expect the absurd from that failing network. If you want to talk about what really harms our troops, let’s talk about politicians who gut our military’s budgets, or a president whose skewed budgetary priorities slash military benefits, or an administration that puts our vets on endless waiting lists for care that comes too late to help those who’ve paid the price for our freedom, or those who break bread with those who think it makes no difference how our military heroes died in Benghazi or anywhere else trying to protect America. Those actions are a heck of a lot more harmful than declaring an appropriate message our enemies should receive. If some overly sensitive wusses took offense, remember the First Amendment doesn’t give you a right not to be offended. Perhaps hypocritical folks who only want Freedom of Speech to apply to those who agree with their liberal agenda might want to consider that the evil terrorists who were the brunt of my one-liner would be the first to strip away ALL our rights if given the chance. That’s why we do whatever we can to prevent them from killing innocent people. And for that, we should NEVER apologize. Good Lord, critics… buck up or stay in the truck. And if you love freedom, thank our troops! Thank our vets! And thank those who have the brains to support them and the guts to defend what they have earned!
– Sarah Palin
My own thoughts?
Continue reading...

35 Responses to Of Sarah Palin, Waterboarding and Baptism

  • Didn’t some prominent blogger actually pooh pooh the desecration of the Holy Mass by saying it doesn’t happen often. Actually, my understanding is that sacrilegious celebrations of the Mass have occurred far more frequently than waterboarding by Sarah Palin.

  • Mark Shea is a democratic ideologue. He showed his true apparatchik colors through his many comments to his bloggers in the 2012 election cycle. He would vote for hitler or stalin if they ran as democrats. His caustic and bombastic remarks to his followers are legend. Took him off my daily reading years ago.

  • “2. Since waterboarding is physical torture I am against it as a matter of policy. I also would be eternally grateful to someone who did it and prevented Chicago, for example, going up in a nuclear blast.”

    .
    Torture for the sake of inflicting pain and ultimate power over another human being is sick. Torture to extract information to save innocent human life may not be a sacrament, but it is close to it. Question: Can the word “baptism” be used outside the context of the Sacrament of Baptism?

  • Wait, THAT’S what she said? I was skimming around and didn’t see the quote but… really? It’s an action movie one-liner. The equivalent of “the one finger salute” (and nobody thinks the person saying that is denigrating saluting) or saying “baptismal by fire”. OMG! Setting people on fire is totally torture! And you’re equating it with baptism! They must be stopped who used that phrase!

    I dunno, maybe I’ve been too desensitized by things from the internet and public nowadays (seriously, going around town I’ve seen the graffiti “God is Gay”) this just doesn’t even register (and I’m of a Protestant branch that takes baptism VERY seriously – like, we don’t accept sprinkling seriously). Part of me wonders how long we can last when we as a nation can’t even “talk tough” any more. How long until even the act of fighting back for our survival is seen as “torturing” the other side and a big no no?

    Mark Shea, who is not a Leftist whatever else he is,

    How do you mean? If you mean “leftist” as “the particular species of idealogue who behaves in such and such way” I’ll agree that he’s only 78% leftist, not 100%. If you mean it by “one who resides on the left side of the spectrum” then I’ll quite disagree.

    And note: I’m using the spectrum of totalitarianism on the left, anarchy on the right. (none of that communist/fascist loop crap)

  • “How do you mean? If you mean “leftist” as “the particular species of idealogue who behaves in such and such way” I’ll agree that he’s only 78% leftist, not 100%.”

    Shea’s views on abortion and gays would make him permanent persona non grata on the Left. He used to be a paleocon and I think he has been trending Left on many issues, especially economic, but there are clear differences between him and the Left on major issues. He is also not a conservative, despite his occasional claims to be a true conservative.

  • It is astonishing that Palin can raise such emotion six years after a failed campaign for Veep! Most politicians are eminently forgettable characters,

    Less astonishing if you consider that political discussion has for many decayed into a self-aggrandizing exercise of ‘I’m better than you”; palaeoconservative and post-1998 liberals are alike in that these sentiments seem to dominant strain in what they have to say. It’s a reasonable wager that Gov. Palin is a fixation for people harboring a mess of free-floating aggression (Shea) or social anxiety (Dreher). Something about her. She’s very adept at revealing the asses in our midst (Prof. Charles Fried being the most prominent example).

  • It’s a repellent comment for which she should apologize. Beyond that, there’s no point in hyperventilating. I don’t–and can’t–go to maximum outrage for every affront to Christianity. It would be a soul-killing exercise.

    I already know things are bad enough for Christians with respect to the decay of the right, and the slow morphing of the business world into an anti-Christian force. The Chamber of Commerce and the business wing of the GOP do more damage to the faith than flip comments from Mrs. Palin.

  • “It’s a repellent comment for which she should apologize.” “terrorists” is what, or more correctly, “who” is repellent. “waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists”
    Didn’t Pope Urban II “baptize” that infidel drink arabic bean coffee?

  • Shea’s views on abortion and gays would make him permanent persona non grata on the Left.

    Yeah but that’s why I try to look at the total view of someone and not just 1 or 2 things. You may as well say someone like Ron Paul isn’t conservative because he believes in drug legalization or reducing overseas operations. On the whole weight of things… well it’s funny how much of this Shea ends up matching (as well as other measures of leftism).

    He used to be a paleocon and I think he has been trending Left on many issues, especially economic, but there are clear differences between him and the Left on major issues. He is also not a conservative, despite his occasional claims to be a true conservative.

    Well just to nitpick whenever you take a a large group of people united and come up with an average or mean statement of their views, I think every individual of said group is going to have clear differences between them and the group. (well if they’re honest)

    There’s a saying (or if it isn’t, maybe it should be): “Just because there’s someone more evil than you, doesn’t mean you’re not evil yourself.” To amend it: Just because you can point to someone yet further left, doesn’t mean that makes you (or any person in particular) center. knowwhatimean?

  • I still like Sarah Palin. I applaud her public acceptance of baptism by pouring as well as by immersion. The more time passes, the closer to the Catholic heart of Christian truth the evangelicals come. The dear Governor Palin is even adopting the Pope’s habit of the faux pas (though she’s no way as frequent in its performance as he).

  • I have no problems with Sarah Palin’s comments. The Left can….well, I won’t say it here.

    Our pinhead of a president has shown himself to be a shrinking violet in the face of radical Islam and of Putin. Bumbling Barry sacked the missile program destined for Poland and the Czech Re[public. Bumbling Barry wants to destroy the Air Marshal program. Putin starts a land grab from Ukraine.

    Good for Palin to slap MSNBC upside the head. It is a failing network.

    I waste none of my precious time on Mark Shea. Shea wouldn’t know what a conservative is if one drove over him with a truck.

  • I wish I had been there.

    You and I sleep at night because rough men do rough things to allow us to sleep safely.

  • Shea is sometimes more offensive to me than Sarah Palin has ever been. As a matter of fact, I don’t think she has offended me yet.
    Her turn of phrase is tough, and in an oblique way it refers to the fact that this is about a religious war.
    We are Christians, people who are baptised and who evangelize and baptize, which brings people together in faith in the family of God.
    We are under attack by terrorists who see us as without faith.. They do not evangelize us, they sneak and surprise and terrorize and murder innocent people, not concerned about sharing faith or bringing us together, but just killing us. Waterboarding is not maim or murder, and waterboarding may save innocent lives.

    It is unlikely that a terrorist in fear of losing his life by waterboarding, will experience a ‘come to Jesus” moment. but he is not killed by the experience. Unlike the victims of the surprise attacks and random bombings, he will survive and still have the time re-consider his religion.

  • I love Sarah Palin. If I had heard her statement in person, I would have applauded because terrorists deserve to be treated as what they are and she being a Pentecostal had no intent to denigrate baptism. As for Mark Shea, I give him all the attention he deserves – none. I cannot be bothered hyperventilating over bombastic sanctimonious blogging.

  • I found her original comment to be offensive, but that follow-up Facebook comment enrages me. Does she really think that the only person who could be offended by her comment must also hate the troops and our freedoms? I get it, she was treated unfairly by the press. I remember. That doesn’t mean that every criticism she gets is unfair. Conservatives don’t get a free pass. When Reagan messed up, the movement called him on it. And Reagan did a lot more for the conservative movement than Palin has.

    If we want to declare that someone is hands-off just because of the enemies they’ve made, how are we better than the cult-of-personality left?

    I read something recently, that I haven’t had a chance to follow up on yet, about the Obama White House. It was a discussion of a strategy that they consciously use, that whichever advisor it was admitted to, that when they put an issue before the press, they deliberately overstate it, because they know that’ll get a rise out of the Republicans, and the whole back-and-forth rebuttal will keep the issue alive in the press even longer. There’s a lot to chew on there. For one thing, it’s a tacit recognition that the press and the Democrats’ supporters won’t make them pay for lies. But what I keep thinking about is: they’re trolls. They’re just common, run of the mill trolls. The concerns of governance mean nothing to these people, as long as they’re eliciting the responses from their opponents that keep them in the driver’s seat. When I look at statements like this from Palin, I’m telling you, I don’t see anything better.

    The shortage of adults is costing us a lot, and it’s only going to get more expensive from here.

  • “If we want to declare that someone is hands-off just because of the enemies they’ve made, how are we better than the cult-of-personality left?”

    Who said that Palin was above criticism?

    “When I look at statements like this from Palin, I’m telling you, I don’t see anything better.”

    Palin is not in government now. She was appealing to a partisan audience with a throw away line. The amusing thing to me is how someone who hasn’t been in government for almost half a decade can be still be such a lightning rod for controversy.

  • Torture for the purpose of degrading another person is obviously sinful. Whether it licit in the service of justice is an entirely different matter. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, it is licit for lawful authority to maim another in the service of justice. He then indicates that the infliction of pain to correct someone under one’s authority is also licit if done in the service of good. Therefore, it seems probable that waterboarding is not necessarily wrong if done to serve justice by extracting information to prevent an attack. If done to simply break someone’s will, which is done by dictators, then it is sinful. It is nothing more than the use of physical force to compel or restrain an action.

    The CCC on the other hand, says that torture is wrong even by legitimate authority is wrong, stating “In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.”

    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3065.htm

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

    Whether the use of the term ‘baptism’ to describe is sacrilegious, I would argue that it is only venially so.

  • What would you expect from an ex-Catholic.

  • “Who said that Palin was above criticism?”

    It seems like she set up a false dilemma between her freedom and liberal hypocrisy. I mean, I was aware that the Constitution doesn’t give me the right to not be offended.

    “The amusing thing to me is how someone who hasn’t been in government for almost half a decade can be still be such a lightning rod for controversy.”

    Agreed. Even so, I guess I’m burnt out on trolling, even when it’s surprisingly effective.

  • I agree with Pinky.

    I have been a big Sarah Palin fan since 2008. That said, her original comment I found to be repugnant and blasphemous. But I still liked her afterward. Her follow-up comment caused me to stop being a fan altogether.

  • I know that Shea has a tendency to overstate his case on many issues, but one of his latest posts raises a good point: how is comparing waterboarding to baptism any less offensive than a far left Catholic for Choice using an image of the Last Supper or the Eucharist and the phrase “This is MY BODY” to promote abortion on demand?

  • Because abortion and torture are two different issues. The Popes used torture in judicial proceedings until the dissolution of the papal states in 1871. The Church has opposed abortion since the Crucifixion. As far as Shea is concerned the Church prior to 1965 might as well not exist.

    In regard to Palin she simply did not have an intent to blaspheme, which to my mind is the important fact in this attempt by some to transform this molehill into a mountain.

  • “…how is comparing waterboarding to baptism any less offensive than a far left Catholic for Choice using an image of the Last Supper or the Eucharist and the phrase “This is MY BODY” to promote abortion on demand?”

    “And that 99.99999998536% of all Masses celebrated were not clown Masses. Call me a heretic but If Pope Benedict could manage to live with the knowledge that a “clown Mass” of some form has taken place somewhere in the world – without despairing of God or the Church, I can live with that…Yep”

    Distinction? I might say for Shea it is hypocrisy.

  • Tito, I’ll have to disagree with you on the “ex-Catholic” label. I read several biographies of Mrs. Palin during and after the ’08 campaign. Yes, she was baptized Catholic and yes, her parents (basically her mom — Mr. Heath just went along with Mrs. Heath’s wishes) sent her to CCD classes, and she probably made her First Communion while her parents were still (more or less) practicing Catholics. However, apparently Mrs. Heath’s faith was shaken by a Protestant Bible study or some such she’d been invited to by her friends, and the local priest (who doubtless had a large, far-flung flock to tend to up there in Alaska) wasn’t able to answer her concerns to her satisfaction — so she took herself, Mr. Heath, and the kids out of the Church, and they all became fundamentalist Protestants. Quite likely Mr. & Mrs. Heath were poorly-catechized, weak Catholics, whose faith wasn’t able to withstand the doubts raised by their Protestant neighbors. So Sarah Palin’s parents certainly qualify as ex-Catholics — but Sarah Palin herself should not be blamed for a change of religion made when she was a child and unable to easily defy her parents by choosing to remain Catholic.

  • Here we go Don… 😉

    Let’s see, today Mark posted…
    the US is an oligarchy
    AND
    get rid of the death penalty

    Ok… and who would be major ideological allies in rectifying these two burrs under Shea’s saddle?

    LIBERTARIANS! Those he… throws under the bus at least once a week. Hm. And what’s Shea’s proposed solutions? “Think differently” and “think like the church”. Huh, empty platitudes that tell us nothing about a real, workable solution. “Yes we can” anyone?

    As the saying goes: “The left designs government assuming they are in charge of it. The right designs government assuming their enemies are in charge of it.” That and other instances of rank hypocrisy (notice how he likes to bring up “those in need of insensitivity training” while being fast on the ban button himself? or being sensitive to things like… Sarah Palin’s words?) shove him pretty far left. That and given his cultish attitude towards the pope, as the latter drifts left, watch Shea keep going that way as well.

  • “watch Shea keep going that way as well.”

    Most assuredly. I have observed before that if a pope ordered that each Catholic paint their bottom yellow, Mark’s only question would be “What shade?”.

  • You’d go nuts if you heard some of the talk (now that’s blasphemy!) I heard.

    Shea got his bloomers in a bunch, again! He waxes hysterical over a sound-bite. Why the histrionics? Why do Imam Shayz gots out the fatwa on Sarah?

    He’s a liberal. Scratch a liberal and you find a fascist, every time.

    Liberals’ hatred is based on their abject fear of her mere existence. They over-react at every opportunity because she has the potential to do them in. The Left controls the mainstream media. The Left hates Sarah Palin. The mainstream media constructed a caricature in the minds of many ignorant, liberal (I repeat myself) people. They wanted her to go away. But she is still standing, still smiling, still speaking, unbowed and “undefeated.” Not only have they failed to destroy her, by attempting and failing to do so, they have raised her stock. She is my hero because by breathing she seriously annoys lib nitwits.

  • oh my gosh
    how is comparing waterboarding to baptism any less offensive than a far left Catholic for Choice using an image of the Last Supper or the Eucharist and the phrase “This is MY BODY” to promote abortion on demand?
    .
    oh wow that whole thing is so obtuse it makes my stomach hurt! NOT remotely apt!
    .
    Baptism is given to us to do, to administer in the Name of God.
    The sacrament of Jesus’ body is given to us to receive from Him — “given for you”.
    Christ gave his own real personal body in total generosity.
    .
    If the pregnant woman were to try to imitate Christ, she might say to her unborn child: ” This is my body and I give it to you for your good.”
    Instead the pro aborts say in effect: This is my body and I am NOT giving it to you.
    Christ’s phrase “This Is My Body” predicates a generous gift… the Choice people’s use of the phrase “This is My Body” indicates selfish denial of love to a most innocent dependent, taking life from one who is of the mother’s own flesh and blood

  • It is surprising to me that this evoked so much comment. I am also surprised the assumed acceptance of waterboarding as torture. I am certainly not qualified to define torture, but I think Alphatron made some good points. Also, waterboarding does not do physical harm or lasting damage, although it does induce temporary fear and anguish. But since we waterboard some soldiers for training, I can’t see how it is necessarily torture. Just as in killing intent and circumstance distinguish it from murder, so too, I think waterboarding. So in my limited understanding I do not accede to waterboarding as torture. In a real sense, the person who refuses to divulge something and endures even torture is making that choice, which may or may not be heroic. Tell me this or I am going to scare the heck out of you….not physically harm you or emotionally damage you forever, but scare you badly if you choose not to cooperate in saving lives… does not seem morally wrong to me. If it is, then we would have to let Chicago blow up as someone else mentioned.

  • Catherine,

    Almost Ex-Catholic just doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.

    😉

  • SPOT ON Ray!!! Cudo’s – and thanks for the sanity check on this- it was a red meat throw away line with no thought re; blasphemy blah blah – i too am impressed that Sarah can evoke such reaction so many years later- she is a lighting rod cause the darkness hates the light …. mark shea is a pile ……… and just slightly off……

  • Kevin – Me too. As I remember it, there was a lot of debate over whether waterboarding was torture. This may be one of the finer points of the debate that’s gotten lost over time, but I don’t think the “science is settled”.

  • Anzlyne: “Christ’s phrase “This Is My Body” predicates a generous gift… the Choice people’s use of the phrase “This is My Body” indicates selfish denial of love to a most innocent dependent, taking life from one who is of the mother’s own flesh and blood”
    .
    And the father’s own flesh and blood. Science has learned that some of the unborn child’s cells enter the bloodstream of his mother making the mother one with the father. (Married) No link, sorry. Had to say.
    .
    I love Sarah Palin. It is the duty of the citizen to keep his /her mouth open. Sarah Palin fulfills the definition of Citizen.

  • I don’t know if anyone will notice a comment on this ol’ thread, but I just read this article at First Things and had to link to it.

8 Responses to Green Eggs and Ham Palin Style

  • “All the little WHOs in Whoville got their knows.”

  • Thus the left hates a woman – Sarah Palin. The left has always hated the truth.

  • I’ll never understand why people love Sarah Palin.
    She’s a twit and probably cost John McCain the presidency. I certainly had to hold my nose when I pulled the lever for him.

    Just because she’s expert at yanking liberals’ chain doesn’t make her someone I want represent conservatism or the Republican Party.

  • You are a prejudiced and judgmental person, Tom Collins. How dare you berate and denigrate a Godly woman who made good with her life and does good.

  • She’s a twit
    ——
    And with three little words you’ve managed to discredit yourself pretty quickly. She is actually fairly well-versed in political thought and has demonstrated a rather keen understanding of the American political process. I am not suggesting she is perfect or without fault, particularly in how she nurses grudges at times, but she is no twit.
    —-
    and probably cost John McCain the presidency
    —-
    An absurd and baseless charge. McCain/Palin led in the polls for a couple of weeks after the convention. What changed? A little economic collapse you may have heard about. Combined with an electorate that was already wary of the GOP after eight years of the Bush presidency, and that is the reason McCain lost.

    I certainly had to hold my nose when I pulled the lever for him.
    —-
    A common sentiment, but I assure you for most it wasn’t because of the second person the ballot.

  • “and probably cost John McCain the presidency”

    McCain cost McCain the Presidency. He a had an uphill struggle, but once he gained the nomination he did not know what to do with it, running the most lifeless and passive general election Presidential campaign since Michael Dukakis. McCain was pathetically eager to suspend his campaign when the financial crisis struck, offended and frightened by the media turning on him, McCain being used to favorable coverage from the media prior to his Presidential run when he could be counted on by them to blast other Republicans, and seemed to be running for Miss Congeniality towards the end of his lackluster stroll, I will not dignify it with the term “race”, instead of President. McCain completely alienated the Republican base by the end of the campaign and without Palin he would have likely lost several more states to subtract from his abysmal showing. In 2008 John McCain dropped 11 points among white men from the totals of Bush in 2004. He dropped only 4 points among white women. The diffence was solely Palin. Without her McCain would have been lucky to crack 40%.

    I voted for Palin with enthusiasm and for her running mate with my left hand over my nose.

  • I voted for Sarah Palin not McCain.

  • Ditto to T Shaw. I voted for Sarah Palin, a Godly Christian woman who reminds me of Deborah, Esther and Judith, and NOT RINO McCain who reminds me of the King whom Jeremiah the Prophet confronted.

PopeWatch: Sarah Palin

Monday, November 18, AD 2013

VATICAN-POPE-AUDIENCE

 

Sarah Palin and Pope Francis!  Yes, PopeWatch is shooting for a thousand hits on this post!  Last week Sarah ran afoul of what PopeWatch assumes must be a new eleventh commandment:  Thou shalt not criticize Pope Francis!  Here is the offending video:

Gasp!

She actually said that she was taken aback because of a few things she had heard in the media indicating that some of the stances of the Pope seem liberal, but she goes on to state that she has not studied this in detail and that she was not going to trust the media.  PopeWatch thinks that such mild comments might even pass muster with a Francis defender like Mark Shea, who, if the Pope ever decreed that all Catholics must paint their bottoms yellow, would no doubt only inquire what shade.

So far, so banal.  However, what is interesting is that Palin felt compelled to apologize the next day:

Continue reading...

23 Responses to PopeWatch: Sarah Palin

Yep, the Emperor Really is Naked

Sunday, November 3, AD 2013

Snake Oil Salesman

An increasingly desperate President Obama had a speech last week in Boston where he acted as a pitchman for his floundering ObamaCare.  Sarah Palin called it his Sham Wow speech:

President Obama flew in to Boston today to deliver another “ShamWow”-style infomercial for Obamacare, and it went about as well as his entourage’s snarled traffic debacle in Beantown.

As millions of Americans are being kicked off their desired insurance plans and seeing their premiums skyrocket, the President had a lot of ‘splaining to do today. For starters we anticipated a Presidential apology for lying to Americans repeatedly when he promised things like, “If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it.” Make no mistake, he knew he was lying when he said that. And make no further mistake, after five years of false Obama claims, no one should actually expect contrition on this administration’s part.

Bloomberg reports that in June of 2010, the administration knew millions would be kicked off existing healthcare plans due to Obamacare; but President Obama continued to knowingly deceive the American people with repeated claims that if we liked our current plan we could keep it.

So, finally busted, did the President apologize? Was remorse and sympathy shown for Americans who now can’t afford health insurance thanks to Obamacare? Nope. He instead informed us that Americans who receive cancellation notices have been on “substandard” plans supplied by “bad apple” insurers. That’s right. Obama didn’t lie to you when he said, “if you like your plan, you can keep it.” Why? Because, you sillies, you DIDN’T REALLY like the plan you chose for yourselves! No arguing. Barack Obama knows best and he’ll tell you whether you actually liked your insurance plan or not. If you’re an elderly bachelor, your old plan was clearly “substandard” because it didn’t offer maternity care. What’s that you say? You don’t need maternity care? Well, according to the President today, he says you do, and any insurance plan that doesn’t offer it is a “junk” plan provided by a “bad apple” insurer.

Go here to read the rest.  That Palin is calling out Obama is unremarkable.  What is remarkable is that some of the media are beginning to act as if they are not simply unpaid Obama press agents.  ABC News in regard to the same speech:

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Yep, the Emperor Really is Naked

Sarah Palin on Roe and Obama

Wednesday, January 23, AD 2013

 

 

Forty years ago today the Supreme Court rendered its Roe v. Wade decision. Those who believe in the sanctity of human life and long to see America embrace a culture in which innocent life is honored and protected continue to look for a day when humanity is again deemed valuable, where we cherish even those who would be born in “less than ideal circumstances.” Children are our most precious resource and remain the greatest symbol of hope God has given us. This is just one reason why the annual March for Life has been such a powerful aspect of the pro-life movement. This year’s event is Friday, January 25th, and once again a multitude of Americans will gather in Washington, D.C. to show their support for precious little ones.

Our Founding Fathers declared: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” However, since 1973, millions of children have been denied the basic right upon which all the others hinge: the right to life.

Lately, President Obama has taken to boldly highlighting children in his speeches. Using kids as the backdrop for his gun control speech, the President claimed his commitment to young ones. “If there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try,” he said. He then outlined why gutting our Second Amendment is the means by which he believes we accomplish this. Every law-abiding citizen’s heart is broken when children are the target of men hell-bent on committing acts of evil, and we agree that the safety and protection of innocent life is paramount.

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Sarah Palin on Roe and Obama

  • Thank you for this. Very well articulated. I have been saying this myself for a long time now. Obama would be willing to abort and kill his own grandchild if his daughter had an unintended pregnancy. It is a vicious point of view on the value of human life. An unborn child is every bit as fully human as any child killed in the school massacre. Think of what our society would be like if we welcomed all human life with joy, rallied around to support the mothers of all children, and put down our selfish inclinations to do just what is convenient for our own purposes. There is a terrible, malicious selfishness at the heart of American materialism. Obama’s agenda only encourages it. He is a source of depression and sense of futility for the whole nation.

  • Well said, Sarah Palin! For individuals with Down syndrome, their families, and friends, who are going to be at the March for Life in DC on Friday, please join us for our KIDS (Keep Infants with Down Syndrome) gathering prior to the march, and walk with us in the March for Life, in solidarity with the individuals with Down syndrome, born and unborn. Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, herself also a mother of a child with Down syndrome, will speak to our group at 11:00.
    http://keepinfantswithdownsyndrome.blogspot.com/2013/01/kids-gathering-at-2013-march-for-life.html
    (if you decide to join us, my contact information is on the KIDS blog)

  • Good posting. My one nitpick – and it’s a nitpick – is that we shouldn’t refer to the pro-abortion agenda as “liberal”. We should allow the self-identified liberal to reclaim his rightful role in the pro-life movement. It’s kind of the point of the whole posting.

  • I sincerely hope Sarah Palin’s career in politics is not over. She needs to stay in the political arena and keep being a voice for life.

  • Sarah has not made a “career” in politics, she has stepped forward as a freedom loving American citizen to make things better for our country when corrupt politicians were only making things better for themselves. She was so effective at righting wrong in government, even taking on high level people in her own party, that she became a threat to the opposing party and to some within her party. Those politicos turned the elite media on her to destroy her and have succeeded to this point. Not even a single Catholic clergyman ever spoke up in her defense, not even when it was announced she was carrying a Downs syndrome child. Until the good people in this country rise up and demand from the First Amendment Rights protected media, the truth and honest objectivity, we will continue to be deceived by what has become Pravda in the U.S. If we will do that, good people like Sarah Palin will have a real chance to be elected to high office. I, for one, don’t trust or believe the liberal, now leftest media. But I do trust and believe Sarah Palin.

  • when I see a post with Sarah Palin in the headline I read it right away. To me she stands for hope. She is a sign of contradiction to the sick and sad culture around us.
    This quote from our first commenter says it well : There is a terrible, malicious selfishness at the heart of American materialism. Obama’s agenda only encourages it. He is a source of depression and sense of futility for the whole nation.

  • The current administration has no moral compass. Anarchy and chaos will surely plague us for the next four years.

  • I realize that Ms. Palin has dramatic views and fairly extreem opinions and truth doesn’t seem to matter. When she can refer to him as President Obama I might see a a reason to listen to her vitroil.
    Serioulsy folks, she really is history and illiterate to boot.

  • I love this woman! What she’s been subjected to by mental midgets has been horrendous, yet she still remains so strong and a thorn in Obama’s side. May God bless and protect her and her family.

  • “I realize that Ms. Palin has dramatic views and fairly extreem opinions and truth doesn’t seem to matter.”

    What a substanceless comment! A glittering jewel of an example of a troll grunt that manages only to convey a dislike of Sarah Palin and spares not a second to address the substance of her post which is that Obama’s pro-abortion advocacy makes all of his protestations of concern for children ring as hollow as his promise in 2008 to reduce the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Obama uses kids as political weapons. In the womb they are useful to stir up his followers who view the right to slay their offspring as a precious right or rite. Outside the womb they are useful as political props. Palin was completely on target in her critique.

  • Blee – are you a Mass attending Catholic?

  • Perhaps Blee can enlighten us on what extreme opinions Governor Palin has or when she has strayed from the truth. We’ll be awaiting your response.

  • Blee, Palin refers to President Obama as “President Obama” once in the piece, and 8 times as “the President”. She doesn’t refer to him as “Obama” once.

  • I realize that Ms. Palin has dramatic views and fairly extreem opinions and truth doesn’t seem to matter. When she can refer to him as President Obama I might see a a reason to listen to her vitroil.
    Serioulsy folks, she really is history and illiterate to boot.

    Your literate self might learn to spell common-and-garden words like ‘extreme’ and ‘vitriol’.

  • I so miss getting that sharp Palin point of view on Fox. Who knows where we would be if the puppet media hadn’t tore her down so quickly. Sometimes I get so disheartened by the way Satin so easily steals the show. But I remind myself that it is like we are seeing the gnarly, raveled and torn backside of a beautiful tapestry that won’t be completed until the end of time. We already know that Our Lady’s immaculate (yet sorrowful) heart will triumph! Sigh.

  • Sarah Palin: “There is destiny for every child in the world and it is good…” the unalienable right to the pursuit of Happiness. The pursuit of Happiness for our- selves and our constitutional posterity is the pursuit of our destiny. God, the Father, alone, knows where our pursuit of our destiny will bring us, therefore, let us not hesitate or delay to do the will of God.
    Sarah Palin has my vote. I was, indeed, very disappointed in that I could not vote for Palin.

At Least the SS had Snazzier Uniforms

Wednesday, December 19, AD 2012

 

 

 

 

The Nazis began their death march across Europe by killing mentally handicapped Germans in an euthanasia campaign that caused the Lion of Munster, Bishop Von Galen, to preach a sermon which may be read here, and in which he made this statement:

For the past several months it has been reported that, on instructions from Berlin, patients who have been suffering for a long time from apparently incurable diseases have been forcibly removed from homes and clinics. Their relatives are later informed that the patient has died, that the body has been cremated and that the ashes may be claimed. There is little doubt that these numerous cases of unexpected death in the case of the insane are not natural, but often deliberately caused, and result from the belief that it is lawful to take away life which is unworthy of being lived.

This ghastly doctrine tries to justify the murder of blameless men and would seek to give legal sanction to the forcible killing of invalids, cripples, the incurable and the incapacitated. I have discovered that the practice here in Westphalia is to compile lists of such patients who are to be removed elsewhere as ‘unproductive citizens,’ and after a period of time put to death. This very week, the first group of these patients has been sent from the clinic of Marienthal, near Münster.

Hitler and his gang of murderers were stopped at an enormous cost, but Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so often in defense of the Church that I have designated him Defender of the Faith, tells us at Midwest Conservative Journal that the ideas of Der Fuehrer are all the rage in Europe today:

Europe descends further toward the abyss:

Belgium is considering a significant change to its decade-old euthanasia law that would allow minors and Alzheimer’s sufferers to seek permission to die.

The proposed changes to the law were submitted to parliament Tuesday by the Socialist party and are likely to be approved by other parties, although no date has yet been put forward for a parliamentary debate.

“The idea is to update the law to take better account of dramatic situations and extremely harrowing cases we must find a response to,” party leader Thierry Giet said.

The draft legislation calls for “the law to be extended to minors if they are capable of discernment or affected by an incurable illness or suffering that we cannot alleviate.”

Belgium was the second country in the world after the Netherlands to legalise euthanasia in 2002 but it applies only to people over the age of 18.

Socialist Senator Philippe Mahoux, who helped draft the proposed changes, said there had been cases of adolescents who “had the capacity to decide” their future.

He said parliamentarians would also consider extended mercy-killing to people suffering from Alzheiner’s-type illnesses.

No possibility of abuse there.  Meanwhile, the French would like their dying population to snap it up.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to At Least the SS had Snazzier Uniforms

  • Mercy killing? Mercy for whom?
    For the ones who can only equate life / money.

    Memories of Terri Schiavo, and her dear family struggling to gain access to be merciful. Starving Terri was much more merciful however.

    On Terri’s website, terrisfight.org a simple sentence; “Where there is Life there is Hope.”

  • Does anyone remember the name of the doctor(s) who wrote in German in the early 1900s, recommending the elimination of the handicapped, aged, and other “unfit”?

  • Donald,

    I might have known you would know. Have you read it?

    –Jonathan

  • No Jonathan I have not. I am unaware as to whether it has been translated into English.

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • Our Pope has been steadfastly opposed to this evil. Of course, the Holy Father
    objects because euthanasia violates the basic tenets of the Faith. However, not
    many people are aware that our Pope also has a personal experience of the
    state’s tender mercies.

    By 1941, the nazis had made it illegal for families to care for their disabled at
    home. Government ‘therapists’ came to the home of our future Pope’s aunt and
    forcibly removed his young cousin, who had Down’s Syndrome. Shortly after
    his removal, the young man was euthanized by his ‘caretakers’, as government
    policy decreed.

  • Just got hit by a different shape to this horror….

    Notice the phrasing, that people can apply for permission to end their lives?

    That implies that the government has more of a right to the lives of those involved than the people themselves.

    That is… a very scary mindset. At least laws against suicide, as much as they annoy many folks, are consistent in the theme of protecting life as a sacred thing.

  • Minor chidren and the mentally and the physically disabled do not have freely formed, informed consent to give. Thereby making the law a mockery of civil rights. Assisted suicide is one murderer and one dependent victim.

  • Deep thought #6419 Those supporting assisted suicide must do it first. See how they like it.

  • I’ve yet to see a proponent of assisted suicide address what studies have shown:
    that in families where one member has committed suicide, the remaining family
    are exponentially more likely to also attempt/commit suicide at some point in
    their lives.

  • Thanks for this post and the video clips. We need to be reminded.

  • Socialists ruled in the USSR and another brand of socialists were in charge in Germany. Both were power-crazy and ruthless. The present socialists in the West are a combination of both. Evil times are ahead.

  • Mal: Truth – “Evil times are ahead.”

    Up until the moment of the Flood (Genesis), people were feastng, marrying, sowing, reaping, etc.

Socialism and Death Panels

Monday, December 3, AD 2012

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Sarah Palin after the Supreme Court ruling upholding ObamaCare

As the above video indicates, back in 2009 when Sarah Palin predicted that ObamaCare would end up in death panels for the elderly and for “defective” children like her son Trig, she was widely derided by the unpaid Obama press agents the Mainstream Media.  News from Great Britain tells us just how prescient Palin was.

Sick children are being discharged from NHS  hospitals to die at home or in hospices on controversial ‘death  pathways’.

Until now, end of life regime the Liverpool  Care Pathway was thought to have involved only elderly and terminally-ill  adults.

But the Mail can reveal the practice of  withdrawing food and fluid by tube is being used on young patients as well as  severely disabled newborn babies.

One doctor has admitted starving and  dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.

Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician  revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a  baby  becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’.

The LCP – on which 130,000 elderly and  terminally-ill adult patients die each year – is now the subject of an  independent inquiry ordered by ministers.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Socialism and Death Panels

  • This is not surprising, but it is horrifying. I just watched the movie Abraham Lincoln with a lady friend last night. I was again reminded how the Democrats continue to be on the wrong side of history, and how utterly evil they are. My date agreed.

  • Liberal Catholics like to talk about “structures of sin.” Of course this usually is meant by them as any social situation they want to call “unjust” and correct with liberal prescriptions. The Church of course correctly notes that such sinful structures are the result of numerous, personal sins.

    We’re seeing a structure of sin being erected here in the US. Too many of the personal sins are sins of greed, pride and the need for power.

  • I slightly disagree with Philip. But only slightly.

    I see America as currently being a competition between Libertine elites. Fiscal Libertines and Sexual Libertines are competing to gain power by promoting Greed and Lust.

    The real communists aren’t in Washington DC, they’re on Wall Street, and they now have a choke hold on the capital we all need to raise families and run small businesses. The result is a culture of death, where the “Least of These”, the unwanted and unplanned and the poor, are killed outright for the convenience of the rich.

  • In a Marxist dream state that is true. In real life not.

  • Only the dead have seen the end of progressive evil.

  • Ted Seeber

    “The real communists aren’t in Washington DC, they’re on Wall Street, and they now have a choke hold on the capital we all need to raise families and run small businesses. The result is a culture of death, where the ‘Least of These’, the unwanted and unplanned and the poor, are killed outright for the convenience of the rich.”

    How did you ever come up with this statement from reading this article and the policies of the pro-death, Democrat Party presidential election victory (thanks to the 50% of the Catholic vote)?

Beware the Cult of Personality

Thursday, October 6, AD 2011

I have mixed emotions about Sarah Palin’s announcement that she won’t be running for the presidency.  Though she would not have been my top choice had she entered the fray, she at least would have been in the portion of the field that I am still considering voting for (with Perry, Cain, Santorum and Gingrich).  She would have provided a change of pace from the rest of the crop of candidates.  And, frankly, I like her and think she’s a much more insightful and perceptive person than given credit for. But I am not convinced that her time is now, so it’s probably for the best that she is not part of the conversation for 2012.

One of the fascinating things in watching the conservative end of the blogosphere over the past few months is the intense reaction that Palin sparks.  Of course there are her detractors, both right and left.  Some of these individual – in particular the wannabe gynecologists – border on the pathological.  There are valid criticisms to be levied against Palin, but I’ve seen otherwise reasonable people turn into irrational cranks when it comes to her.  She may not have been the best candidate for president, but she is not quite the manipulative, dumb, vacuous or whatever adjective you want to throw out there individual that her most vocal critics have portrayed her as being.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Beware the Cult of Personality

  • Most politicians cannot be adequately judged until at least a century has passed from their death, and the passions of their time have died away. Of course some passions never completely die away, as is demonstrated in the comboxes whenever I post about Lincoln!

  • I will remember the following from Governor Plain’s statement to Mark Levin.

    “Saving the country is all that matters, and the first step required for that task is to totally reverse our current course. Of course, that includes removal of the current occupant in the White House.”

    You should do a study of the Cult of the Obama-worshiping Imbecile. They make Cargo Cultists look like Einsteins.

  • From the title, I thought you were going to blog about Steve Jobs.

  • Not really asking for a savior – almost the opposite: someone who is humble enough to understand the limits of office and stick to them.

  • T. Shaw, Sarah was anything but Gov. Plain. 🙂

    Also, great video. Living Colour’s first album, Vivid, rocked hard. Album no. 2 was okay with a couple of good songs, but it went downhill quickly after that.

  • I have Time’s Up but not Vivid. It was actually in the group of five cds that were the first ones I ever bought, and I’m not sure I ever listened to it again after the first time I played it.

  • “Put your trust not in princes. It’s a biblical injunction that we ought to heed. We’ve seen what happens when a large segment of the population treats a political figure as the Messiah, and we’re working to clean up that mess right now.”

    Couldn’t have said it better myself. Even the real Messiah refused to be a political Messiah, to the disappointment of some of His followers.

    I would have to also agree with c matt that what we should be looking for is NOT a candidate who will change the world and solve all our problems but someone who, recognizing the limits of their office, won’t promise what they can’t deliver and who won’t make things worse.

  • We look to man to do what God alone can accomplish. Everyone wants a messiah who will solve their problems. The best thing elected officials can do is to remain humble, honest, and realistic.

Palin Not Running

Wednesday, October 5, AD 2011

This was just released:

October 5, 2011
Wasilla, Alaska

After much prayer and serious consideration, I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order.

My decision is based upon a review of what common sense Conservatives and Independents have accomplished, especially over the last year. I believe that at this time I can be more effective in a decisive role to help elect other true public servants to office – from the nation’s governors to Congressional seats and the Presidency. We need to continue to actively and aggressively help those who will stop the “fundamental transformation” of our nation and instead seek the restoration of our greatness, our goodness and our constitutional republic based on the rule of law.

From the bottom of my heart I thank those who have supported me and defended my record throughout the years, and encouraged me to run for President. Know that by working together we can bring this country back – and as I’ve always said, one doesn’t need a title to help do it.

I will continue driving the discussion for freedom and free markets, including in the race for President where our candidates must embrace immediate action toward energy independence through domestic resource developments of conventional energy sources, along with renewables. We must reduce tax burdens and onerous regulations that kill American industry, and our candidates must always push to minimize government to strengthen the economy and allow the private sector to create jobs.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Palin Not Running

  • Well, I know who this doesn’t benefit. Sorry, Mitt.

  • Of course, there’s always the chance she may be asked to run for VP with the
    next Republican nominee…

  • Perry issues a brief statement: “Sarah Palin is a good friend, a great American and a true patriot. I respect her decision and know she will continue to be a strong voice for conservative values and needed change in Washington.”

  • This is a wise decision on Palin’s part. She knows exactly where her talents can best be used at this time: helping elect “other true public servants” and “driving the discussion for freedom and free markets.” If she should obtain a Cabinet post or other high level appointment in the next GOP administration, she may be in a position to more credibly run for president again. Or she may just decide that what she’s doing now is exactly what she’s called to do. In either case, I wish her and her family the best.

  • I part ways with many conservatives on this subject. Palin is woefully underqualified for the presidency. The Republicans dodged a bullet today. She could have only made things worse in the primaries, and never could have won a general election.

  • Governor Palin would have whipped Obama . . .

  • Wise move. Of all the Repubs, only Romney has a chance of beating Obama, according to most polls.

  • Which of course Joe are completely meaningless at this stage of the game, except to indicate that compared to other incumbent Presidents who won re-election, Obama is doing poorly.

  • Has anyone else noticed that the same people who got most of what they know about the Catholic Church from Monty Python skits got most of what they know about Sarah Palin from Tina Fey SNL skits?

    Here’s another frightening thought: those people are allowed to vote.

  • only Romney has a chance of beating Obama, according to most polls.

    I take it you missed the survey which placed the President in a statistical tie with Ron Paul and the one that put him just ahead of Herman Cain.

    For the layman who lacks the skill of statistical modeling of political phenomena, there is the Gallup organization’s jim dandy historical statistics. There have been several occasions over the last 60 years where an incumbent President was regarded as disapprovingly as the current incumbent within a year of having to stand for election: in the spring of 1948, in the fall of 1951 and thereafter, in the fall of 1967 and thereafter, in the fall of 1979 and thereafter, and in the spring of 1992. Between the last quarter of 1947 and the last quarter of 1948 domestic product grew by 5.8%, which is not going to happen over the next 13 months. The President’s campaign team needs to brainstorm about how to arrange for the Republican nominee to be caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.

    Palin is woefully underqualified for the presidency.

    No, merely underqualified. ‘Woefully underqualified’ is properly reserved for candidates who have never supervised aught but a few dozen staff devoted to their welfare and never distinguished themselves in a legislative body as a caucus leader or policy maven (Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, and Buchanan would be examples from past years).

  • Art, in a country that’s 66% white, can we do no better than Obama vs. Cain? What’s telling about the sad state of politics in this country is the total lack of quality candidates in both major parties. Christie was really scraping the bottle of the barrel and Palin was never taken seriously by many. Trump and Giuliani are more interested in making more millions, and the current GOP crop are about as exciting as a Wagner opera. Most on this forum are counting Obama out in 2012, but even McCain, who lost big, is beginning to look good by comparison with the Repub duds out there. Is there not at least one credible Reaganesque conservative to fill the void?

  • Reagan was considered a dud at the time Joe by quite a few people. When he ran for re-election in 1984, 40% of the population voted against him. It is only with hindsight, and fairly recently, that he has assumed great president status. When he ran in 80 he was derided by many within the Republican party as a has been reactionary actor who would easily be defeated by Carter in the Fall, and many polls were indicating that would be the case. Until a candidate is tested through the campaign season and, if elected, as President, it is rather difficult to predict who will be a dud and who will be great. Obama has proven himself to be a dud in the eyes of a majority of the electorate, and that is the anchor around his neck for 2012.

  • Joe,

    1. Your 1st sentence is completely non sequitur.

    2. McCain lost by a common-and-garden margin, no worse. Obama’s margin was abnormally large for a Democrat standing de novo. Had the banking crisis erupted six weeks later (or, perhaps, six weeks earlier) it would not have been.

    3. I think there has been a secular decline in the quality of the candidates, but its manifestation is not local to this year’s race. (Complaints are a constant as well). Actually, Gov. Romney is a quite able man; regrettably, he has been playing the weathervane for 17 years. My remarks and yours had nothing to do with that, however. They concerned speculation about what was likely to happen. If B.O. were returned to office under the circumstances we now face, it would be a break with precedent.

  • Art – Yeah, I thought that I’d deleted the word “woefully” before posting that comment.

    To be honest, I’m at the point where I don’t think I could vote for anyone with less than eight years high-level experience. Palin, Bachmann, and Cain are off the list for me. Even Romney’s iffy (with regard to experience).

129 Responses to Sarah Palin: Two Predictions

  • 1.) I doubt she will even seek the nomination.

    2.) If she IS the GOP candidate Obama will win in a landslide.

    3.) Why are we even talking about this? The election is 1.5 years away. My proposal: no primaries until after 4th of July, then conventions after Labor Day.

    Better yet, no primaries at all. I don’t see we’re better off with the pee-pul choosing candidates than when party hacks were in charge.

  • She’s become too polarizing. I don’t think she’ll get very far if she runs for office.
    Maybe she can hope to become the Secretary of State…

  • No Thomas she will run and she will crush Obama. With his numbers today and the wretched economy, which I think will only worsen by this time next year, almost any Republican could defeat him, but Palin, who I think has more raw political talent than anyone I have seen since Reagan rode off into the sunset, will humiliate him.

    Our election system is what it is. I see no great virtue in short campaigns, especially when major issues are at stake, and this election will have no shortage of these. However, I like politics which I realize makes me an oddity among most Americans.

  • I think she is “too polarizing” because the media has made her appear so. She is far less polarizing in reality that, say, Obama.

  • The news media will do everything in its power to ensure Sarah Palin is defetaed. They cannot stand a conservative Christian woman, especially one who is beautiful and shows by that beauty how godlessly ugly their liberal feminist sexual perversion is.

    I wish Don’s predictions would come to pass, but that’s more hope than reality.

  • They did that in 80 against Reagan Paul at a time that the lamestream press had far more credibility and a near monopoly on news. Their being in the tank for Obama, as they clearly were in 08, will work to Palin’s advantage as they have no credibility left with the vast majority of the American public.

  • It won’t happen as long as the negativity of “I don’t think she can win” talk keeps up..You think ANYONE is just gonna walk in & take it? Your gonna have to have faith pray then work like a dog to make it happen..She is gonna run,,she will beat Obama as long as WE DO OUR PART! She was ONLY ONE fighting against Obama the last three yrs..men put your ego’s aside-women put your jealousy aside..remember Moses led the people to freedom and he was mocked because he studdered..She is good decent hardworking woman that is not owned. This may be our last shot of saving our country..She has NO ties to oil,pharma,wall street,banks,muslim brotherhood…They fear her cause she WILL bring down entire foundation they spent 100yr sbuilding

  • 3 Years of Attacks:

    attempt to burn her church down, accuse her of murder, 1,000s death threats, 40+ reporters sent to AK for e-mail dig, Dozens of CNN, CBS, NBC, NY Times “polls” saying negs are high / not liked etc., Obama “media” repeating Can’t win a general, to divisive, obama landslide win & promote bachmann & perry to keep her out!!

    ALL THIS TELLS ME SHE WILL EASILY BET OBAMA!!! twitter: @MaxCUA

  • Well, maybe Donald, Bellez and Max are right. I will say this: the dripping putrid hatred that liberal blog meisters demonstrate for Sarah Palin on their message boards is almost palpable. I even know some who are otherwise very intelligent and well-balanced when it comes to science and engineering. In fact, I can’t believe that the pro-nuclear energy forums I “attend” are all so in love with Obama (who himself appointed an anti-nuke as NRC chairman, thereby stifling the nuclear rennaissance) and in hatred against Sarah Palin (who is very pro-nuclear). I just don’t get it. That’s the reason for my pessimism – the liberals control what’s said in the media.

    BTW, the actual people who work in nuclear energy – those without time to administer blog sites – are for Sarah Palin and against Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

  • Delusional.
    Obama has a better chance of winning the Republican nomination.

  • RR I would doubt my prediction if you agreed with it. You know as much about GOP primary politics as a pig does about penance.

  • “That’s the reason for my pessimism – the liberals control what’s said in the media.”

    No longer Paul, thanks to the new media. TAC is one small part of that new media and there are tens of thousands of organs like it around the nation. The days when Walter Cronkite could say “And that’s the way it is” and be believed are as dead as black and white TV.

  • Donald,

    I thus thank God for TAC, Real Catholic TV and similar outlets. I mean that sincerely.

  • Don, a wager? If Palin enters and wins the nomination, I’ll upload a pic of me with literal egg on my face. If Palin enters and fails to win the nomination, you do it.

  • In this age of “gotcha” journalism dominated by leftist media, the sharks will be out en masse picking up on every alleged Palin”gaffe.”

    Bachmann’s pretty much finished after her Elvis blooper (despite the triviality of it). When you become the constant butt of late night comics and political cartoonists and the jokes go viral, you’re done in the eyes of many.

    In an age when appearances rather than substance matter most, Chris Christie also wouldn’t last long given his corpulence. Imagine him, for example, counseling Americans to “tighten our belts” and the reaction.

    Palin has hard core support on the right, especially the Tea Party, but there are millions of haters out there who would still stick with Obama rather than see her win. She ran a small state, which as governor would be comparable to being mayor of Columbus, Ohio, and while charismatic she lacks intellectual depth and gravitas to be president. However, if she were on the ballot against Obama, I’d hold my nose and vote for her.

    Right now, I’d say it’s a two-man race between Romney (well financed and a good campaigner) and Perry (the best resume by far), and while neither is ideal in my view (although a Perry-Ryan ticket would be attractive), both are superior to the hapless McCain and likely have the best chance to beat Barack.

    Speaking of which, while the economy is in the crapper, don’t discount Obama’s ability to turn things around by fudging the numbers and pushing his theme that the Repubs have been the obstructionists to everything he’s trying to do. He’ll play the blame card for all its worth.

    Penultimately, there’s a Hollywood movie about the Seals raid on Osama in the works, planned to be released in October 2012 (note the timing) that will portray the CinC as a rock-solid patriot totally in command evoking images of Ike, Patton and MacArthur.

    And, as one poster mentioned, it’s early yet and there’s always the unexpected. Another 9/11-scenario, in which Americans would become united again, could be enough to get Obama over the hump.

  • Don, I wish I shared your optimism on this, but I just don’t. Lord knows, I love Sarah Palin – she was the ONLY reason I voted for McCain in ’08, and I’d happily vote for her again. But I know too many people to whom she should be an appealing candidate who can’t stand her. I just don’t see her winning enough support from waivering independents, and her presence at the top of a GOP ticket would inspire Obama’s currently uninspired base to turn out in droves. And that’s assuming she won the GOP nomination.

    With a viable conservative alternative like Perry in the GOP race, Palin’s winning the nomination becomes even more difficult than it already would have been. More likely, Perry and Palin and Bachmann and Paul will so splinter the conservative vote that Romney will win the nomination by default.

    That’s the scenario Obama would love to see play out. If that happens, what should be a fairly easy win for a Republican will turn into either a narrow Obama victory, or, worse-case scenario, a very narrow Romney victory that will result in Romney governing like the Rockefeller Republican that he truly is (I honestly see an Obama victory as preferable to that).

    At this point, I hope she doesn’t run.

  • Max reminds me that the e-mail dig was supposed to find dirt. Didn’t the MSM enlist the aid of volunteers to dig and analyze.

    Did they complete the review and find nothing or are they still digging?

  • Thomas Collins, RR.

    Three of the President’s more recent predecessors have had at modest recovery in public esteem at some point or another during the fifteen months or so antedated a stand for re-election, so it is not unusual at all. These recoveries occurred over a period of months in 1948, 1975-76, and 1992. The quarter-to-quarter changes in gross domestic product (expressed at annualized rates) were as follows:

    1947 q2: -0.3
    1947 q3: +6.2
    1947 q4: +6.5
    1948 q1: +7.5
    1948 q2: +2.2
    1948 q3: +0.6
    1949 q1: -5.5
    1949 q2: -1.4

    1975 q2: +3.1
    1975 q3: +6.9
    1975 q4: +5.3
    1976 q1: +9.4
    1976 q2: +3.0
    1976 q3: +2.0
    1976 q4: +2.9
    1977 q1: +4.7

    1991 q2: +2.7
    1991 q3: +1.7
    1991 q4: +1.6
    1992 q1: +4.5
    1992 q2: +4.3
    1992 q3: +4.2
    1992 q4: +4.3
    1992 q1: +0.7

    I do not think we will see economic performance this good in the coming year and a half, sad to say. You may have noticed that two of the three individuals in question were voted out of office anyway. If I were employed on the President’s campaign crew, I would not be particularly confident unless the GOP nominated Darth Vader.

  • Polarizing! Obama is the most divisive, class/race-hate generating cad in American History.

    Polarizing? Is “polarizing” the obazombie vocabulary word for this week?

  • Obama will win in a landslide.

    The following have been returned to office in landslides:

    Franklin Roosevelt (rapid economic growth, tarnished opposition)
    Dwight Eisenhower (broad and durable public esteem, modest economic growth)
    Lyndon Johnson (general if brittle public esteem, prosperity)
    Richard Nixon (mixed public opinion, prosperity with problems)
    Ronald Reagan (improving public esteem & liked by all but partisan Democrats, rapid economic growth)

    Which precedent is analogous?

  • RR:

    If Governor Palin wins, meds wouldn’t be sufficient. You will be in a padded room wearing a straitjacket.

    I will be singing “Non Nobis Domine . . .”

  • If she enters she has to be considered a front-runner for the nomination. It basically become a three-way bloodbath between Perry, Romney, and Palin. Bachmman’s candidacy would effectively be over. My fear is that Perry and Palin would split enough votes to swing the nomination to Romney.

    As for a general, the idea that Obama would win in a landslide is laughable. Yes, Palin’s negatives would make it a close election, and it might turn a few swing states towards Obama. That said, at a minimum Palin or any GOP candidate will win every state McCain won, and at this point Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina would almost certainly return to the red column regardless the GOP nominee.

    All that said, I’m more or less with Jay in my preferred outcome at this moment, but there’s a long way to go.

  • “Don, a wager? If Palin enters and wins the nomination, I’ll upload a pic of me with literal egg on my face. If Palin enters and fails to win the nomination, you do it.”

    Done RR, but with the caveat that the wager only applies if she gets in.

  • Destiny is an unmovable force. So we will see whose side She is on.

  • If Palin gets in she will win the nomination by acclimation. By the time Iowa, NH, South Carolina, Nevada and Florida are done it will be so clear what Republicans want the GOP will have no choice.

    If the Establishment Good Ole Boys continue to try and manipulate the outcome the Republican Party will be finished.

  • “With a viable conservative alternative like Perry in the GOP race, Palin’s winning the nomination becomes even more difficult than it already would have been. More likely, Perry and Palin and Bachmann and Paul will so splinter the conservative vote that Romney will win the nomination by default.”

    Romney is a pathetically weak candidate Jay, as demonstrated by Perry obtaining front runner status just by getting in. I don’t think there is a sizable vote for him outside of New Hampshire against a first rate opponent. Bachmann gets out after Palin gets in. She will have no choice as her money and support collapses. Her appeal has basically been as an imitation Palin. Santorum will also get out, after throwing his support to Palin, in hopes of getting a cabinet position, which he will. Paul’s vote doesn’t come mainly from Republican conservatives, but rather from disaffected left wing Democrats and Libertarians. He and Palin will not be fighting for the same votes in the primaries. Her main opposition will be Rick Perry, who may well end up as her Veep.

  • (Guest comment from Don’s wife Cathy): G-Veg, the MSM finished digging through all the Palin emails released by the state of Alaska — and found nothing/zip/zilch/nada.

  • Rove and the rest of the GOP establishment will play divide and conquer like nobody’s business. They will play Perry and Palin (and Bachmann – she still has a significant following) off of one another, planting stories here and there to make it look like they’re backbiting one another. When all is said and done, they WANT Romney and they will have Romney, unless there is a single viable alternative to Romney. As much as I love Sarah, I’m not sure she represents the viable alternative.

    By the way, what will be the “theme” of her campaign? Perry has shown us what his theme will be and has shown some discipline in sticking to it, even in the face of all the sharp knives that have been out since his announcement. He is campaigning on jobs and the economy and pointing to his own 10-year record as governor of the 2nd-largest state as an alternative to what Obama has to offer. If the economy and jobs is the focus of the next election, the Republican nominee will win. What will Sarah’s theme be? What record will she run on to point to as an alternative to Obama. At this point, she has less executive experience than he has, which was not the case in’08, when she had more experience than he. If Sarah’s campaign becomes about her (and the Dem and the media will pull out all the stops to make it about her), she will lose. We already had one election in ’08 that was all about the candidate and the precedents that electing him would set – he won and the current state of affairs is the consequence of that. Sarah will need a compelling reason to vote for her over Obama. Perry offers that. Heck, even Romney (as pathetic as he is) offers that. Even Ron Paul, believe it or not, offers that.

    Unfortunately, I’m not sure Sarah does. Next year’s election has to be about the economy and jobs and restoring America’s confidence and good name. What does Sarah point to as being her qualifications to do this?

  • “Sarah will need a compelling reason to vote for her over Obama.”

    Actually I think any GOP candidate will be have a compelling reason to vote for them: they aren’t Obama. President’s who preside over lousy economies during election years lose. That is a simple fact of American political life.

    She has spoken out against virtually every economic and fiscal mistep of this administration. Go to the link below to read her facebook page which chronicles her views quite well.

    http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?v=wall#!/sarahpalin?sk=notes

    She has been building her platform ever since 2008. She will win due to the bad economy and a promise to reverse the course that Obama has set for us.

    In regard to Perry he is a good enough conventional politician with a tendency to be a bit too Texan for the rest of the nation. (Does he really think that the 1845 treaty of annexation gives Texas a right to secede?) I think he will give Palin a good race and keep up excitement and interest in the Republican primaries which will be all to the good for the general election. If Palin does not get in, Perry will be the nominee, absent some major scandal, but I think that Palin will get in.

  • JA Has it 100%.

    The campaign will be about “compare and contrast” four more years robbing Peter to pay Paul to prosperity for all: economic growth and job creation.

    The MSM can’t broadcast Obama’s utter failure so it will character assassinate Governor Palin or Governor Perry, or whomever.

  • To be honest, I’m hoping that Palin stays out.

    She’s an attractive political personality, and I had a lot of hopes for her when got the VP nomination last year, but it seems to me she showed a lot of weakness in quitting the governorship without finishing her first term, and she did honestly fall down badly in unscripted interviews.

    I hate saying anything against her, since the Left (and the elitist Right) managed to show some of the most despicable behavior in our political arena in the last 30 years towards here — behavior which shows how truly loathsome a lot of them really are.

    But overall I’m just not sure she’d be that good a president. (Better than Obama, but then would would be some yard gnomes.) And I’m concerned she wouldn’t do well in the election.

    That said, the GOP field is staggeringly weak. I’m slightly leaning towards Perry but no one has my enthusiasm.

  • Being a Texan myself, I can’t comprehend what “too Texan” might mean. Is that like having “too much money”? Or “too much love”? Or “car too fast”?

    Or “economy too good”? “Too much job creation”?

    In ’08, the “rest of the country” chose for President an infantile amateur with no governing experience who likes to make everything all about himself. At this point, even one of them there Texans might look good to the “rest of the country”.

    (And, by the way, MOST Texans, including expat Texans like myself, adopt the interpretation of the 1845 treaty of annexation that Gov. Perry put forward. In fact, I adopt the position that the treaty of annexation is completely irrelevant to the question of secession, and that Texas could just tell the “rest of the country” to go to hell and do whatever it wants.)

    😉

  • Ditto Darwin. I will add however, that I actually feel some despair about the situation in our country and the world as a whole. The only hope I have for any type turn toward sustainability is for the Republican Party to put forward a candidate with a solid vision, strong convictions that are good. I just don’t see it happening though. I would likely vote for just about anybody the Pubs put it up because the odds of that person being worse than Obama or any other Dem are slim, but holding your nose while you pull the lever does not bring relief to the soul. It’s so cliche to say it, but what need a Reagan type of candidate. Not a clone, not someone who pays lip service to him, not someone who tries to be like him, but just a sharp, decent human being who is unafraid to work for the right thing in spite of all the opposing forces.

  • the GOP field is staggeringly weak

    Most of them would be passable in a different set of circumstances (say, 1996). The trouble is the culture in the Republican Party. They are no longer able to talk turkey in any setting.

  • ” I can’t comprehend what “too Texan” might mean.”

    I believe there was a state advertising slogan for Texas a few decades back Jay that said, “Texas, it is a whole other country!” Sometimes Texas politicians translate well on the national stage and sometimes they do not. John B. Connelley wasted quite a bit of money in 80 to go noplace. I doubt if LBJ would have ever gotten to the White House, but for his ability to steal the 60 election for Kennedy in Texas, and an assassin’s bullet. Bush 41 was elected President in 88, but I doubt if he ever made a convincing Texan. His son was pure Texan, and he just barely made it to the White House in 00 and it was a lot closer than it should have been in 04. I personally think that Texas has been a success and that other states should emulate it in many ways, but that there is potential hurdle for a Texan politician going national is undeniable.

    The treaty of annexation does not say anything about secession, but it does allow Texas to split into four other states, something which might come in handy in the future if the citizens of Texas found that desirable.

  • “but it seems to me she showed a lot of weakness in quitting the governorship without finishing her first term, and she did honestly fall down badly in unscripted interviews.”

    I believe that she has been planning this run since 2008 and I think quitting the post was a necessary part of her plan. She has used it to build up a national movement and to amass favors owed from Republican politicians across the nation. In regard to unscriped interviews, I think that was true in 2008, but it is no longer true this year.

  • I and almost every other Texan knows what the treaty says. The fact that the notoriously independece-minded Texans didn’t feel the need to explicitly reserve the “right” to secede tells me that it wasn’t even questionable. Of course they could do with regard to the U.S. what they had just done with regard to Mexico.

    Apart from Sam Houston, who was a late interloper into the Texas Revolution acting as Andrew Jackson’s stalking horse with the interests of the U.S., as opposed to those of Texas, closest to his heart, I doubt most Texans believed entering into the Union foreclosed future options. And it wasn’t 15 years later that they decided to exercise those options.

    As for Texas being a “whole other country”, is it REALLY that different that frickin’ Alaska?

  • And let’s not forget that the Palins have a secession advocacy problem of their own in their past.

  • “And it wasn’t 15 years later that they decided to exercise those options.”

    And what a rousing success that was Jay! 🙂 A lot of misery could have been avoided if Texans had listened to the man who led them to victory at San Jacinto.

    Alaska has never had a politician in the White House. Palin will be sui generis on that point, as well as many others.

  • Wow. For people opposed to the hate shown by the media toward your devout Sarah, there certainly is a lot of hateful speech here toward anyone who doesn’t worship at her stilettos.

    Fact: she left Wasilla in debt by building a sports arena on land the city did not own.
    Fact: her mansion was built by the same contractors as the arena, with many of the same materials, supposedly by Todd’s ‘buddies.” Mayor Sarah suspended the need for building permits, so no one can find out facts about who, what, or how much.
    Fact: Sarah is afraid to be interviewed anywhere but Fox, which feeds her softball questions in advance so she can have her answers in front of her (you can often see the prompter reflected in her glasses.)
    Fact: Sarah Palin has nary a good word to say, ever, about the other side. President Obama has done all he can to work with the GOP, to the extent of hurting his initiatives and making himself look bad.
    Fact: the people here who support her will dismiss everything I have written, because you have bought her picked upon genius meme. So be it. But Sarah has so many skeletons in her personal and financial closets that I don’t think she wants scrutinized. For example, why is a PAC paying for ‘family vacations’ in a vehicle that costs millions to drive, and then they pay for her hotel rooms as well? Her PAC, which was set up to help candidates of her choice, has spent a teeny amount doing that, and much more on speechwriters (surprise, she never writes what she says, or writes) and personal things for multimillionaure Sarah.
    Keep thinking she is your savior: she is not.

  • “And let’s not forget that the Palins have a secession advocacy problem of their own in their past.”

    If you can ever find anything where Sarah Palin ever said that Alaska had a right to secede Jay, you would have a comparison to what Perry said.

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891829,00.html

  • I just mention it as evidence of what Texans might have been thinking in 1845. Clearly, slavery played a role (although a much more minor role than left-wing historians would have us believe) in the Texas Revolution. And it was one of the sticking points blocking an earlier agreement on annexation with the U.S. And it was clearly the reason behind secession 15 years later.

    There is no way Texas agreed to statehood thinking that they wouldn’t have a future option to secede over the issue of slavery. As ashamed of Texas’ slavery past as I am, that is just the plain intent of the parties based on the facts.

  • “that is just the plain intent of the parties based on the facts.”

    If such a provision had been inserted Jay it would never have made it through Congress. Northern Democrats and Whigs were already leery about Texas coming into the Union as a slave state, and a proviso allowing secession at the whim of Texas would have driven them over the edge. In any case, Texas had been begging for admission since 1836. This was not the case of the US wooing a reluctant Texas but quite the reverse.

  • As for the hero of San Jacinto, you will find that I am a big fan of Sam Houston. “The Raven” is one of my favorite books of all time, albeit fairly poor in the way of objective biography. More recent biographies and histories of the Texas Revolution offer a much more balanced assessment of Sam’s role in the Runaway Scrape and eventual victory at San Jacinto. It appears that Houston’s intent had been to retreat all the way across the Sabine and enlist the aid of U.S. troops to defeat the Mexican army. Much of the credit for the victory goes to Houston’s subordinates who forced Houston’s hand on meeting Santa Ana at Buffalo Bayou.

  • Again, Texas would never have entered the Union believing itself barred from acting in what it believed were its interests with respect to slavery. And all I’m saying is that what happened just 15 years later is evidence of that.

  • I hope she runs. She mentioned the blessings of liberty. I connect with that, so do others. To early to predict anything about anyone. I want Obama defeated and sent home.

  • I tend to agree Jay with those authorities who say that at the Council of War held by Houston prior to the battle of San Jacinto that a majority of the participants were in favor of going on the defensive and waiting for Santa Anna to attack, and that it was Houston who pressed for an immediate assault. Certainly several of Houston’s officers had various hare-brained schemes during that campaign including abandoning Texas to Santa Anna and marching on Mexico City. Houston who was a flamboyant personality himself, was, by comparison, restrained and sober in his command of the Texan army. I have always treasured this quote by Houston about those days:

    “All new states are invested, more or less, by a class of noisy, second-rate men who are always in favor of rash and extreme measures, But Texas was absolutely overrun by such men.”

  • The fact that she garners this much time and attention on a Sunday morning says something significant.

  • Indeed it does G-Veg. Love her or hate her the woman is a political superstar. Most politicians are ribbon clerks by comparison.

  • It seems as though Sally is a wee bit jealous. Isn’t there a Commandment about that?

    I would happily vote for Sarah just to put people like Sally into fits of apolexy.

    “…there certainly is a lot of hateful speech here toward anyone who doesn’t worship at her stilettos.”

    Hah! I don’t worship at her stilettos, but I certainly hope (and pray) that she takes them off long enough to place their business ends straight into the filthy dirty heart of the godless party of death know as “Democrat” (figuratively speaking, of course). Then I would ask – nay, beg! – Todd for permission to kiss them. Heck, I might do that anyways!

    I just love people like Sally and their vile invective. That alone shows me that perhaps Donald is right. Sarah can win and those who consider themselves better than her are perfectly green with envy.

    PS, does that make me racist because I cited green pigmentation in skin color? Ha!

  • It was only overrun by such men after the later wave of immigrants came in – say, roughly around 1832 or after. Houston, Bowie, Travis were among them. The earlier Anglo settlers like Austin were much more measured and conservative than the late arrivals.

    The definitive military history of the Texas Revolution, in my view, is “Texian Iliad” by Stephen L. Hardin. He’s been called a “revisionist” by many partisan Texans (is there any other kind?) because he offers a balanced portrayal of the events that seeks neither to glorify nor to denigrate. (NOTE: this is the book that almost EVERY Texas Revolution re-enactment group reccomends as definitive, so you can take their word for it, or you can defer to Houston apologists who absolutely HATE this book.) Hardin’s study of Houston portrays a man decidedly less “decisive” than the Houston you describe as one who “pressed for an immediate assault”. Apparently NOT how the whole thing went down. Not only San Jacinto, but Houston’s role in the entire Revolution is reassessed throughout. Suffice it to say, Houston made questionable decisions throughout the war, including dismissing Travis’ dispatches from the Alamo : “Houston ‘swore that he believed it to be a damn lie, & that all those reports from Travis and Fannin were lies, for there were no Mexican forces there and that he believed that it was only electioneering schemes on [the part of] Travis & Fannin to sustain their own popularity.’ ”

    http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/houstonhardin.html

    Rather than regurgitate here what Hardin has written, I will instead encourage you to read the book. As a lover of military history, you won’t be sorry.

    At any rate, I didn’t mean to take this Palin thread so far afield. That’s all I’ll say about Texas … at least in this thread.

  • To win by 300, Obama needs to be in real trouble. Outside of conservative circles, Palin’s name is a punchline. We can debate whether that ought to be the case or not, but that doesn’t change the reality that Palin has a lot of baggage that she would have to overcome not only to secure the Republican nomination the presidency in general, not to mention have such a rousing defeat. Palin would make it easy for Obama to do what Bush did in ’04 and turn the tables to attack the stereotype of the opponent rather than have the public focus on whether the president deserves reelection.

  • Are you better off today than you were in 2008? I’m not. Since 2008 my husband has had a pay freeze and I’ve had a pay reduction. We are immensely thankful that we are still employed! Gas prices have doubled, food prices have soared, my retirement is in the tank, my home has lost value, our country is in another war, we’ve lost international standing, we’ve experienced more terrorist attempts yet it’s the grannies in the airport line getting stripped searched, Michelle Obama has been on vacation for over 42 days this year alone on our dime, and I can’t even bring myself to speak of what the Golfer-in-Chief has done to our military’s morale. And the radical pro-abortionist calls himself a Christian, phfttssts!

    I have taken a vow not to put down any Republican candidate, let the best man or woman win. Anyone out there who votes for Obama needs their heads examined!

  • Hmmmm….after a little research one wonders if our Sally might be none other than Sally Quinn, that Washington Post reporter who had a feud with the Clintons and who (being non-Catholic) partook of Holy Communion at Catholic Church anyways while knowing better (liberals always know better).

    I’ll wager there are skeletons in Ms. Quinn’s closet as well, and in this day and age of the internet, time and research can bring those to light. Fortunately, however, I actually work for a living instead of trying to drag Sarah Palin’s name into the dirt with writing nonsense that I know nothing about.

  • The Tea Party and hardcore social conservatives may be enough to make Palin a primary contender, but I really don’t see her going over the top even for the nomination; and if she does win the nomination I think she will lose by about 3-5 percentage points of popular vote (don’t ask me to translate that into electoral votes).

    The reason: she needs independents to win the general election, just as Obama needed more than just hardcore liberals to win. Obama has since lost appeal to independents, but in an Obama-Palin race they might be persuaded to vote for him again, albeit reluctantly, on the grounds that the devil they know beats the one they don’t.

    When even I — who vote Republican 99 percent of the time, have ALWAYS been pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment, and personally admire Palin and DO NOT think she is the complete idiot the MSM makes her out to be — nevertheless have severe doubts about whether I want her to be POTUS, you can bet a lot of other Republicans, not to mention independents, feel the same way.

    I think she will play the same role in the GOP primaries this time around that Hillary Clinton did in ’08 — it may be neck and neck between her and Perry until fairly late in the primary season. It certainly won’t be over on Super Tuesday.

  • Obama is in desperate shape, especially under the new electoral map. Palin takes Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Alaska and New Hampshire as givens for a total of 184. I can’t see Obama winning Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, and that gets her to 276 and the election. Then I am pretty confident she will win Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin for another 32. You can probably add into that mix Colorada at 9 and Pennsylvania at 20, both of where Obama’s numbers are plummeting.

  • a little research one wonders if our Sally might be none other than Sally Quinn,

    I doubt Sally Quinn bothers with blog commentary (much left chock-a-bloc with internet memes), would fancy a bus or an RV has operating costs in the ‘millions’, or would consider a 3,400 sq foot home built nine years ago to be a ‘mansion’.

  • “I can’t see Obama winning Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida”

    I CAN see Obama winning (or more precisely, Palin losing) Florida and maybe Ohio. I also would NOT count on Palin winning either Michigan or Wisconsin, because disillusionment with the GOP not having solved all their economic problems in 2 years may start to settle in there, and you can bet unions will be going all-out to defeat her. Also, I wouldn’t put Missouri in a “sure Palin win” column yet either; if I remember correctly, it took more than a week to determine, last time around, whether the Show Me State went for Obama or McCain (it finally ended up in the McCain column but not by much).

    All that said, if you remove all the states I consider doubtful from the R column, that subtracts 83 electoral votes from Palin (10 each for MO and WI, 16 for MI, 18 for OH and 29 for FL) and leaves her with only 225, if my math is correct. If she holds on to Florida, that gives her 254 electoral votes; she would need 16 more to win, which could be attained with either Ohio or Michigan by itself.

  • I don’t think Sarah Palin will run for President for 2012. Rick Perry has jumped in and Perry has a much longer – and quite successful – political record. It has some flaws, but I don’t care. Perry will hand Obama’s rear end to him.

  • Palin would make it easy for Obama to do what Bush did in ’04 and turn the tables to attack the stereotype of the opponent rather than have the public focus on whether the president deserves reelection.

    The President actually runs against a flesh-and-blood candidate, not some spectre (which is Elaine Krewer’s point). Mr. Kerry was as presentable as the Democratic Party could manage (his competitors being John Edwards, Dr. Dean, and Gen. Clark – each of whom had vulnerabilities). Mr. Bush had a passably durable floor of 50% of the public who approved of his performance (whether he deserved that or not).

  • I think Florida and Ohio are safe for the GOP next year Elaine. If Palin wants a little insurance for Florida, and to dent Obama’s Hispanic vote, Marco Rubio would be an excellent choice for Veep.

    The fact that Missouri went Republican in 2008 is a guarantee that it is going Republican in 2012, since 2008 was the worst Republican year since the Watergate wipeout of 1974.

  • Obumbler will not win Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida in 2012again. Obumbler could lose Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa and Wisconsin in 2012. If obumbler won New Hampshire last time, I don’t remember if he did, he will lose there as well. Maybe in Maine, too?

    The point is, a conservative has to win the GOP nomination (Perry or Bachmann, not Romney) for this to happen. The 2012 election will be all about the economy – jobs, inflation, the despised health care law and energy. Obumbler cannot win these issuses against Rick Perry.

  • Ohio would NOT be safe for Palin. As I mentioned earlier, I know too many people who SHOULD be huge Palin fans who can’t stand her. They’ve bought into the caricature the media has painted of her.

  • I disagree Jay. With this economy only masochists and yellow dog Democrats, no doubt a fair amount of overlap in those categories, will be voting for Obama next year.

  • I doubt if LBJ would have ever gotten to the White House, but for his ability to steal the 60 election for Kennedy in Texas,

    For the record, he would have had to arrange for his minions to steal 46,000 votes, not the 202 votes they stuffed into one ballot box in one precinct in Jim Wells County in 1948. I don’t think so.

  • Open fraud was blatant in the Presidential contest in 1960 in Texas Art. Typical examples include a precinct in Angelina county where 86 people voted and 147 Kennedy votes were tallied; in Fannin County the 4895 registered voters managed the considerable feat of casting 6183 votes, 75% for Kennedy. The Texas Board of Elections, completely controlled by Democrats, refused to order a state wide recount even though the fraud was open and obvious.

  • It’s not like there was any voter fraud in Illinois in 1960 or anything.

    😉

  • I doubt if anyone sentient doubts the stealing of the Illinois votes Jay! 🙂 Texas was always key however, since Illinois was not enough to change the results. Earl Mazo of the New York Herald Tribune began an excellent series on the fraud in Illinois and Texas. He wrote four of a planned 12 part series. His editors, at the request of Nixon, pulled him off the story. Nixon was afraid that a battle over the fraud would lead to endless turmoil and was not in the interest of the nation. I have almost no use for Nixon, but his attitude after the 1960 election was stolen from him was statesmanlike.

  • Coincidentally, Nixon came up at work in conversation this week. One of our Ivy League attorneys stated if it were not for his institution of federal guaranties for student loans, she could not have earned her Ivy laurels.

    There was a war going on in Vietnam and in America. Nixon similarly quietly resigned during Watergate when many patriotic Americans (outside the Viet-Congress and the comintern-funded VC sympathizer campuses/weathermen/media) would have backed him. That war was won in the US.

  • I have been noodling around in some databases. There appears to be little scholarly literature on the subject and what there is is on the situation in Illinois.

    It’s not like there was any voter fraud in Illinois in 1960 or anything.

    Again, Lyndon Johnson’s crew would have had to scale up their 1948 performance by a factor of 23 and outdo Mayor Daley in Illinois by a factor of 5. I do not think so.

  • Richard Nixon’s resignation was as quiet as a steam calliope, three-fourths of the public was content to see him go, and he was told by Barry Goldwater that there were all of twelve Senators who would vote for acquittal should the full House pass any of the three impeachment resolutions it had to consider. If I am not mistaken, federally guaranteed student loans (like Pell Grants) were an initiative of the Johnson Administration, enacted in 1965.

  • It might have been “statesmanlike”, but it certainly was NOT in the best interest of the country to allow to go uninvestigated voter fraud on such a scale as to swing a presidential election.

  • I disagree Jay. Consider the amount of bitterness injected into our politics by disputes over the 2000 election. I think Nixon made the right call for the country.

  • “Again, Lyndon Johnson’s crew would have had to scale up their 1948 performance by a factor of 23 and outdo Mayor Daley in Illinois by a factor of 5. I do not think so.”

    Why not? The Democrats were in control of the entire state and LBJ controlled the Texas Democrat party. The fraud was part and parcel of the way LBJ did business throughout his career. Interestingly enough, once LBJ was out of the state and in the White House, the Texas Republicans were able to win their first state wide race since Reconstruction when John Tower won the special election for Johnson’s senate seat.

  • The alternative to that bitterness was Algore stealing an election via “recount” fraud. Again, it does the country no favors to allow rampant cheating to swing the outcome of elections.

  • I think I need to redo my math based on Don’s projections….

    “Palin takes Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Alaska and New Hampshire as givens for a total of 184.”

    Mostly true, although I still have my doubts about Missouri (10 electoral votes) as noted above. I’m also not so sure about West Virginia (5 electoral votes) as that state is traditionally very Democratic. 184 – 15 = 159.

    “I can’t see Obama winning Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, and that gets her to 276 and the election.”

    Remove Ohio and Florida, which I consider doubtful, and we are left with 6 (IA) + 11 (IN) + 13 (VA) + 15 (NC) = 45 electoral votes + 159 from the “sure thing” states = 204.

    “Then I am pretty confident she will win Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin for another 32.”

    I don’t think ANY of those states are sure things — remember, Nevadans chose Harry Reid, who was thought to be a dead duck, over Sharon Angle, who was one of the Tea Party darlings; and if Nevadans thought she was scary, what will they think of Palin? It will be close in all those states but Obama could still pull it off here.

    “You can probably add into that mix Colorado at 9 and Pennsylvania at 20, both of where Obama’s numbers are plummeting.”

    If we do, that brings Palin’s grand total to 233, well short of what she needs to win.

  • “The alternative to that bitterness was Algore stealing an election via “recount” fraud.”

    Gore was in the Nixon role Jay. Instead of doing the statesman like thing and conceding that the election went against him in Florida, he was willing to raise up a whirlwind of ill will until the Supreme Court shut him down.

    Such statesmanship was also shown by Democrat Samuel J. Tilden after the 1876 Presidential election was stolen from him.

  • West Virginia went against Obama in 2008 Elaine. There is no way that will change in 2012. My comment about Missouri stands. I do not think it will even be close there. I don’t think there is anything doubtful about Florida and Ohio being in the GOP slot. In Pennsylavania in a recent poll Obama was shown in a virtual tie with Santorum, which is just incredible for anyone who pays attention to Pennsylvania politics. Wisconsin I think is headed in a red direction. Michigan has probably suffered more than any other state in the recession. While Nevada was re-electing Reid, his kid was getting clobbered in the gubernatorial election. Nevada will be the closest, but I think Palin would win by at least three points.

  • Al Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral college on the basis of fewer than 600 votes in Florida. He owed it to himself and those who voted for him (the majority of those who voted) to seek a recount under those circumstances. I won’t begrudge him that, and it was not “unstatemanlike” for him to seek a recount to determine whether he actually lost by fewer than 600 votes. What was unstatesmanlike was the manner in which he sought to conduct the recount.

    Had the 1960 election ended like the 2000 election did, Nixon would have owed it to the country to seek a recount. If Sarah Palin were to win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote on the basis of fewer than 600 votes in Ohio or Florida, I feel certain you’d want a recount to determine whether she actually lost in that state.

  • Florida had a recount Jay. What the Gore campaign wanted was the Florida Supreme Court to alter Florida state election law in order for them to have the type of recount they wanted which was contrary to Florida law as it existed at the time of the election. The Florida Supreme Court, controlled by the Dems, obliged the Gore campaign and altered the law, which is why the US Supreme Court stepped in twice. I have no problem with Gore having the recount required by Florida law, which he had. The unstatesmanlike behavior arose from his campaign, and the Florida Supreme Court, seeking to alter the rules after the fact. The country is still paying the price for Gore allowing ambition to overrule patriotism.

  • Okay Don, now that I think about it, I’ll put W. Va. and Missouri back in the GOP column, which gives Palin 248 electoral votes. She needs 22 more to win. Those votes could come from Florida alone; PA in combination with ANY other state; or a 2 out of 3 sweep of WI, OH and MI.

    I worry, however, that in states like MI and OH and even PA that have suffered badly from the recession, independent voters might be susceptible to the argument that the GOP is dominated by wealthy fat cats like those eeevil Koch brothers who care about nothing but increasing corporate profits, busting unions and making everyone work for minimum wage (I’m not saying that is in any way true, just pointing out how the Democrats are likely to paint the situation).

    For a helpful tool in piecing together a 2012 electoral map, visit this site:

    http://www.270towin.com/

  • “I have no problem with Gore having the recount required by Florida law, which he had. The unstatesmanlike behavior arose from his campaign, and the Florida Supreme Court, seeking to alter the rules after the fact.”

    Then we’re in perfect agreement on that.

  • Al Gore won nothing in 2000. There is no “popular vote”. Had that election been contested, state by state, Gore would have ended up having more votes disqualified. Democrats get 100% of the dead vote and almost 100% of the illegal alien vote. How many voters voted in both New York State and Florida (thanks to Motor Voter, it is nearly impossible to remove a person from the rolls).

    I don’t think independents can bring themselves to vote for Obumbler in 2012 when so many of them resoundingly voted against Obumbler in 2010.

    Ohio will not go for Obumbler in 2012. Northeast Ohio does not like John Kasich, but Kasich has been turning Ohio around and Northeast Ohio does not carry the state. Florida will not vote for Obumbler. Virginia will not vote for Obumbler. North Carolina will not vote for Obumbler. Indiana will not vote for Obumbler. I don’t think Iowa will vote for Obumbler.

    Pennsylvania has weathered the recession better than most states, as the unemployment rate in Pennsylvania has not hit 10% statewide. The thing here is, despite some unpopularity for Governor Corbett, Corbett signed a balanced budget, with no tax increases, ahead of schedule. Eddie $pendell wanted a tax increase each and every year. There is Democrat fatigue in Pennsylvania and I don’t see how a tired, inept Obumbler can carry Pennsylvania again. They key is the Philly suburbs, which have trended Democrat for the better part in presidential elections since 1992, but went GOP in a big way in the 2010 elections.

    Let’s face it. The economy will not improve in the remainder of 2011 or in 2012. The health care law has frightened business from hiring and high fuel prices, coupled with inflation in food prices, will not scare independents into voting for Obumbler. George Soros’ money won’t save him. The silly college age youth who voted for Obama in 2008 are largely unemployed or underemployed and Obumbler can not snooker the college youth in 2012 like he did in 2008.

  • If she’s nominated, I can’t see how she wins, unless the economy tanks even more. A distinct possibility, but the President still retains a decided popularity edge over Palin. People still like him, if not the job he’s doing.

    Palin, on other hand, is radioactive with independents. The media’s hatchet job, along with a couple of unforced errors, have ensured that. That unpopularity will not decay in time for the 2012 election. I like her personally (my uncle worked with her father in law up in Alaska) and am infuriated by the hatchet job, but she’s not electable *now*. Run for Begich’s seat, build up her resume’ some and she still has a future.

    In short, if we’re staring down the barrel of Carter-level stagflation, she can win. But then again, so can the rest of the current field, including candidates with far less baggage.

  • More grist for the mill: Rasmussen has her being crushed in a head-to-head matchup with the President. Today.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/obama_50_palin_33

    At 33%, she’s not even holding on to the Republican base, gents. Even in this dead-parrot economy.

  • And Reagan in 1979 Dale was being crushed 57-35 in Gallup head to head match ups against Carter. Campaigns and the state of the economy in the election year do wonders for determining the actual outcome in November. Polls at this point are fun for political junkies like me, but are of little utility except perhaps for one element noted by Rasmussen. Obama is losing to a generic Republican. That is usually predictive of an incumbent in deep trouble.

  • Don, don’t whistle too loudly past the graveyard. : )

  • I don’t watch or follow any sports Joe. Politics fills that function for me. I certainly support Sarah Palin, but my analysis in this thread is simply what I think the political outcome would be in a matchup between Palin and Obama. If you wish to argue otherwise based on facts, feel free.

  • Don, your Palin “landslide” presumes she will be the nominee, which is not only premature but unlikely. Although there’s much discontent in the land that an Obama opponent could tap into, it is a FACT that the Democrats are more united than the GOP where RINOs and the Tea Party barely co-exist much less share political views.

    Secondly, wasn’t it the “Architect” himself, Karl Rove, whose party clout is undeniable, who cut Sarah off at the knees repeatedly.

    Lastly, Wisconsin, although purple, is still a toss-up state and could go blue in light of the growing anti-Walker sentiment and possibility of recall and the mountains of cash the unions are able to use as leverage.

  • That Palin will be the nominee is quite likely Joe as Iowa and New Hampshire will demonstrate quite well. Her main competition will be Rick Perry who is now receiving the same micro-exam that Palin has been under since 2008. Palin has a hard core of supporters throughout the nation that the other candidates currently lack. She has been quietly building up enthusiastic organizations for her in every state of the Union. She can outraise in campaign funds any of her opponents. The enthusiasm gap between her supporters and the supporters of any of the other candidates is vast.

    Karl Rove? Would that be the Karl Rove who almost lost two elections that any Republican candidate should have won going away in 2000 and 2004? I enjoy his appearances on talk shows, but I have little doubt that he will have zero influence on who the nominee will be.

    Wisconsin is not necessary for Palin to win the White House, but I think we shall have it in any case. What Walker is doing is already bearing positive fruit for the Wisconsin economy, and the economy is going to be the overriding issue next year.

  • Well, Don, I’d like to share your enthusiasm but don’t think Palin can pull it off. We’ll see. Meanwhile Rove’s still a force and his potshots don’t help.

  • I thought this post was a joke! Palin as President? A wing-nut if I ever heard one.

  • “I thought this post was a joke! Palin as President? A wing-nut if I ever heard one.”

    Is that the best you can do? “Wing-nut”? As can be seen above, I’m a strong skeptic of Palin as a candidate, but can’t you at least offer something substantive? Anything?

  • “I thought this post was a joke! Palin as President? A wing-nut if I ever heard one.”

    Yeah and Reagan was only “a has been grade b actor”. I have been around long enough to recall all the epithets aimed at conservative standard bearers in presidential contests. You will have to dodge more artfully than that.

  • The reason I thought this was a joke was that Sarah Palin is the same as Obama except from the other political extreme. We don’t need political extremeism anymore. We need someone who has more real world experience than her. We need a republican candidate who can pull both parties together and start making something good happen in this country. I think electing Sara Palin would be self destructive to this country by electing someone who is just as polarizing as Mr. Obama.

  • The reason I thought this was a joke was that Sarah Palin is the same as Obama except from the other political extreme.

    To anyone remotely familiar with either, this statement must sound unreal.

    If you wish to argue otherwise based on facts, feel free.

    One cannot argue on the basis of fact. One can speculate. You’ve got your known unknowns (the course of the economy over the next 15 months and the identity of the Republican candidate) and then you’ve got your unknown unknowns. Precedents are modest in number and efforts at statistical modeling in the past have proven unreliable (recall the corps of quantitatively oriented political scientists whose model in 2000 predicted that Albert Gore would be voted into office with 60% of the vote, a historically unprecedented margin). Would not wager much.

    More grist for the mill: Rasmussen has her being crushed in a head-to-head matchup with the President. Today.

    Having a not-ready-for-prime time candidate would (one suspect) cost you. You know, though, there are only four recent precedents (Wendell Willkie, Barry Goldwater, George McGovern, and Ronald Reagan). The relevant question is how much it costs you and what your antecedent baseline is. Who can say?

  • I agree in essence with Art. There are simply too many variables to argue “facts.” All this conjecture is nothing more than opinion, or a semi-educated guess, on what can/will happen. Isn’t voting, when you come down to it, little more than a tabulation of collective opinion?

  • “One cannot argue on the basis of fact.”

    Fact: The economy is bad and getting worse.

    Fact: Obama doesn’t have a clue what to do about it.

    Fact: The overwhelming issue in the vast majority of Presidential elections is the economy.

    Conclusion From the above Facts: Obama is in the worst place of any President seeking re-election since Herbert Hoover.

    Further facts in regard to Palin to follow after I have had an opportunity to unwind from an order of protection hearing that didn’t end until 6: 30 this evening.

  • “Yeah and Reagan was only “a has been grade b actor”

    More precisely, a “has been Grade B actor” who had been Governor of California for 8 years. He was elected to two terms and COMPLETED both. So he was considerably more ready for prime time than Palin.

  • Not according to his critics at the time Elaine. Reagan got no credit whatsoever for his time as governor of California, and his ideas were mocked as out of date if not positively senile. The contempt and vitriol poured on Reagan in 76 and 80, more than a little bit from fellow Republicans, cannot be understated. The opposition was so strong to Reagan that it helped to convince Republican congressman John Anderson to run third party. He walked away with 6.6% of the vote on election day, not an uimpressive showing by a third party candidate. A gallup poll in late October of 1980 showed Reagan trailing Carter by six points. Reagan tends to be viewed through rose colored classes these days, but his road to the White House was bumpy and hard fought, and almost all elite opinion, and probably most Americans until shortly before the election, thought that he should never get there.

  • Sarah Palin cannot possibly be as successful as innumerable Ivy League geniuses that have pretty well wrecked the greatest nation in the History of Man.

  • More precisely, a “has been Grade B actor” who had been Governor of California for 8 years. He was elected to two terms and COMPLETED both. So he was considerably more ready for prime time than Palin.

    Gov. Palin was a mayor and a state bureau chief for ten years prior to her turn as governor. Her’s has been a more normal political progression. (Reagan did have some preparation by superintending the Screen Actors’ Guild). Lou Cannon and others have contended Mr. Reagan hardly knew whether he was coming or going during his initial years as Governor of California. I do not think anyone has contended Gov. Palin was in a similar predicament. She was quite forthright about practical circumstances which compelled her to resign as Governor of Alaska. Unless you can face $500,000 and ever upward of legal bills, I would suggest you be less catty about it.

  • Objection, Don, asked and answered.

  • I remember a couple of years ago many conservatives were saying that we can never again let the left and their media pick the Republican candidate. Did we forget what we said? Don’t let the media pick who we should not vote for either.

    Palin is the most vetted politician in history, and all of her ‘negatives’ are based on lies.

    Sticking her neck out confronting Obama, 2 books,
    24,000 emails, and an independently made movie,
    all show that Sarah Palin is a hard working, capable, incorruptible, servant of the people.

    Palin has the truth on her side. The more that comes to light, the better for her.
    This is exactly the opposite for most of her opponents and especially Obama.
    She has earned my vote already.

  • “Objection, Don, asked and answered”.

    My response to a successful objection along those lines Joe is to alter my question until I get the answer I want, or until I have so confused the court and opposing counsel that the answer I did not want harms me very little. 🙂 Oh and going back to the question later after additional questions and answers have complicated/confused the issue is another useful technique. Ah Socrates, the legal profession today would make you weep, but I could have spared you the hemlock if I had represented you! (Although after seeing a modern trial he might have been bellowing for hemlock, the more potent the better!)

  • We need a republican candidate who can pull both parties together and start making something good happen in this country.

    I think this is impossible. Other than a few outliers, the Democrats would never participate in it. It’s not in their best interest to help Republicans do the right thing and it’s not in their best interest to have society humming along nicely without their heavy hand. At best you can hope for a sound candidate who can solidify most if not all of the party behind him and garner enough broad public support to squeeze vulnerable Democrats to cross party lines.

  • Don, I’ve been a defendant twice in my life, both for traffic tickets, which I pleaded not guilty to. I represented myself, took photos, called the cops to the stand, cross-examined, all the while getting the malocchio (bad eye in Italian) from the judges. Verdict: Guilty, pay up. I guess I watched too much Perry Mason when I was younger. But I did get 30 days to pay. : )

  • Traffic cases are difficult to win Joe in front of most judges. They tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the cops in my experience. Additionally too many judges view contested traffic ticket trials as a waste of their time, which is precisely the wrong attitude for them to have. They are paid to preside and decide. I can sympathize with a Judge who has a schedule to keep and a bench trial over, to him, a petty matter, is throwing off that schedule, but that is the nature of the business, and if a judge cannot conceal his impatience, then a mistake was made when he was given the black robe.

  • Other than a few outliers, the Democrats would never participate in it.

    Agreed. Erskine Bowles and Alice Rivlin do not preside over the congressional caucuses. Reid and Pelosi do. The conduct of the Democratic caucuses in the last three years have left quite a few of us wondering just where the bottom is.

  • Additionally too many judges view contested traffic ticket trials as a waste of their time, which is precisely the wrong attitude for them to have. They are paid to preside and decide.

    Here in New York, traffic cases are heard by JPs (commonly laymen) who usually serve part time and by hearing examiners appended to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. The JPs usually are not pressed for time and the hearing examiners are specialists. You’re still guilty.

  • Don, my defense in the first case, speeding, was lame. I was “keeping up with traffic,” going no slower or faster than the rest of the violators. Why pick on me? Also, I challenged the accuracy of the RADAR gun. In the second instance, I actually felt not guilty because it was in a construction zone at night and I was being tailgated by a car with very bright headlines and was trying to stay reasonably ahead so as not to be blinded. Little did I know until a few miles later that the car that was tailgating me was a squad car! He claimed I was
    “going too fast for conditions,” a situation he caused by following too close! The judge didn’t agree.

  • bright headlights…in previous

  • “The JPs usually are not pressed for time and the hearing examiners are specialists.”

    In Illinois Art everything is tried by real judges. Unpaid JPs handled traffic offenses in Illinois until 1970 when the Constitution was rewritten. In my town the local JP was an auto mechanic who would hear traffic cases in his garage. The JPs got a percentage of the fines so there was a built in conflict of interest. My guess is that the results today, at vastly greater cost, are not too different from the verdicts handed down long ago by that auto mechanic.

  • “Don, my defense in the first case, speeding, was lame. I was “keeping up with traffic,” going no slower or faster than the rest of the violators. Why pick on me? Also, I challenged the accuracy of the RADAR gun. In the second instance, I actually felt not guilty because it was in a construction zone at night and I was being tailgated by a car with very bright headlines and was trying to stay reasonably ahead so as not to be blinded. Little did I know until a few miles later that the car that was tailgating me was a squad car! He claimed I was “going too fast for conditions,” a situation he caused by following too close! The judge didn’t agree.”

    Those aren’t defenses Joe but they are factors in mitigation. If I were representing you here in Illinois, I would enter my appearance and request a jury trial. Then at the pre-trial I would have you enter a blind plea. At the sentencing I would mention the factors in mitigation. We already have brownie points from the judge since we aren’t actually taking it through to trial, and most judges are then willing to discount the fine asked for by the State if I can give them some basis to do so.

  • Well, I did manage to avoid points against my license in both cases so it wasn’t a total failure. Irony of ironies, I ran into the same cop a few months later and he let me off with a warning on a broken tail light, cutting me a break after the first encounter.

  • “Unless you can face $500,000 and ever upward of legal bills, I would suggest you be less catty about it.”

    I don’t doubt that was a legitimate consideration on her part. But what if she gets hit with all sorts of legal expenses while in the White House? Is she going to walk away from that job too? Sorry, but I just don’t have confidence in her ability to serve as POTUS yet. As I’ve said before on this blog, I think she should run for Congress or the Senate, or take a Cabinet position in a GOP administration (maybe Perry could make her Interior Secretary if he’s elected?), get a few years of federal level service under her belt and then consider running for POTUS.

    Say what you will about the virtue of not being a “Washington insider” or of “running government like a business,” since when is lack of experience considered a virtue when considering someone for one of the most important, most complex, and most stressful jobs on the planet?

    Would you deliberately seek out an inexperienced airline pilot, brain surgeon, or even plumber? Granted, “inexperienced” doesn’t automatically mean “incompetent”, and the young, inexperienced doctor, pilot, etc. may be naturally smarter than some who have been in the field for many years. Plus, the problem of inexperience will get better with time. Someone who is inexperienced now may not be in 5 or 10 years.

    But, all other things being equal, when you are talking about putting your life, or your property, in someone else’s hands, you want someone who has a proven record of handling that type of job well. Shouldn’t the same principle apply when choosing someone to become Commander in Chief, which is, after all, just as much a life or death job?

  • And before anyone jumps to conclusions, the same principles apply equally to Obama, who had very little federal level experience when first elected (less than 2 years in the U.S. Senate), and who now has a proven record of INcompetence in office.

  • But what if she gets hit with all sorts of legal expenses while in the White House? Is she going to walk away from that job too?

    Again, she was facing the legal expenses because of the nuisance suits allowed by some curios in Alaska ethics laws. Supporters of Gov. Palin set up a legal defense fund to help defray her expenses and the result was … another ethics complaint. Unless the applicable federal statutes can be exploited similarly, that is not an issue.

  • Art is correct Elaine. Under Alaska law an ethics complaint can be filed by anyone who pays the minor filing fee. Then the Alaskan state government was required to conduct an investigation, and Palin had to hire counsel out of her own pocket. A few deranged Palin haters were the prime filers of the ethics complaints, all of which I believe were found to be meritless. This “politics through litigation” has continued after Palin left office. Note the link below. Now of course Palin has earned enough in the private sector so responding to these deranged cranks will not bankrupt her family.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60573.html

  • If Sarah Palin will not make it as the nominee of the Republican party, it is because the owners let it be..

    It’s easy to win a congressional race as a tea partier, and to some extent some gubernatorial races, but that’s where the buck ends with the Republican machinery.

    If she is to win, there needs to be a third party. The only reason why conservatives in congress and media decry this is because it takes power away from their coporate owners.

  • No, if Sarah loses, it will be because the very type of voter who she needs to support her (people like me who happen to be BIG fans of hers) will have found another candidate that they would rather support. From a new poll of Iowa voters:

    “If you throw Sarah Palin into the mix the numbers are pretty similar with Perry at 21%, Romney at 18%, Bachmann at 15%, Paul at 12%, and Palin registering at only 10%…”

    Iowa is a state in which Palin SHOULD play extremely well – instead, she registers 5th in this poll. And, when you dig deeper into the numbers, it appears that she pulls more support away from Ron Paul than she does from Perry, Romney, and Bachmann combined. In short, mainstream conservatives in Iowa have, for the most part, settled on a different candidate than Palin.

    But, it’s early yet, and Palin is certainly the one person who could potentially change the dynamic of the race. I just hope she doesn’t do so by throwing the election to Romney. The fact that polls show him only 3 points off the lead in Iowa is cause for concern. If that fraud Romney should somehow pull off a win Iowa, it’s game, set, and match, folks.

  • if Sarah loses, it will be because the very type of voter who she needs to support her (people like me who happen to be BIG fans of hers) will have found another candidate that they would rather support.

    Bingo! I like her, but I simply see no path to victory for her in 2012. She has no room to grow with independents, unless the economy completely tanks. The people who are either indifferent to, unsure of, or unaware of Sarah Palin are those emerging from comas.

    The only grain of salt I’d add to that poll is that that’s what she’s polling in the absence of actually being in the race. Look what happened to Perry after he declared.

    And I agree about Romney–his real chance is rather like McCain’s in 2008: the more conservative candidates fracture the vote, and he takes the remainder.

  • Does anyone see Rick Santorum in the mix?

  • “Polarizing” if you really want to call it that is a good thing. Some of us call it divide and conquer. Psssst…We outnumber them. 2-1. Look it up. The “experts” are lecturing to us that if Mitt Romney is the nominee we will vote for Mitt Romney and if Sarah Palin is the nominee we will vote for Barack Obama. Hmmm…I didn’t go to Harvard, Princeton, or Yale (Heck I didn’t go to College at all) but I know crap when I hear it. I’m tired of the “experts” picking the nominee. Let’s divide and conquer. Polar-Rising! #PalinOrBust

Andrew Sullivan is Certifiably Insane

Monday, June 13, AD 2011

I don’t like to write about Andrew Sullivan.  At this point he should be treated like a troll, meaning it is best to ignore him.  Every now and then it is good to be reminded that Andrew Sullivan has clearly lost his mind.

Most of you have probably read this email that Sarah Palin sent before she gave birth to Trig.  She actually published this in her book, but today it has garenerd wider attention.  It’s a rather touching expression of her faith, and is one of the most beautiful pro-life testimonies you’ll ever read.

One would also think that it’s further proof – not that any is really needed save for disturbed individuals like Sullivan – that Sarah Palin is in fact Trig’s mother.

Oh no.  This is just an opportunity for Sullivan to continue to cast doubts on the official story.

Earlier today there was a replay of the Michael Medved show where he interviewed Jonathan Kay, author of Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground.  Kay and Medved discussed the nature of the conspiracist mindset, and Kay emphasized that there is really not much point in trying to rebut these folks with facts, because they are impervious to all evidence.  Listening to Kay, and then reading Sullivan’s latest screed one is reminded of the futility of trying to deal with such people.

So can we please shun Andrew Sullivan and stop treating him like he’s even a remotely credible journalist of any kind?  No more linking – not even to rebut the man.  Yeah I know I just spent 250 words on the guy, but I guess I’m still in shock that there are people still willing to give this man a platform.  For as absolutely batty Sullivan is, the Daily Beast should be ashamed of employing him.

H/t: Midwest Conservative Journal.

(On a side note, the critics of Kay’s book as well as Sullivan ought really to read my previous post.)

Update: Andrew Sullivan actually responded to an email that I sent him.  Notice anything about the grammar?

show me some evidence. any evidence. then handle all the evidence i
have assembled.
i’m not insane. but palin sure is. when she produces the medical
records i asked for two and half years ago, i will stop asking
questions.
why not email her to ask her to clear this up? or do you suspect she cannot?

Yes, clearly we are dealing with a very lucid mind.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Andrew Sullivan is Certifiably Insane

  • “because they are impervious to all evidence.”

    Good old invincible ignorance. As for Mr. Sullivan, he long ago graduated from “freak show” to “strait jacket”.

  • Sullivan. Ugh. Yes, he is certifiable.

  • Does someone really need to produce a private medical record to some crazy just to prove they had a baby? Really. Whatever happened to trust? Is it so dead that we can’t have faith that a person is telling the truth? He trusts that people in restaurants aren’t poisoning him when he eats out. He trusts a doctor will give him the best advice about a medical procedure. He trusts that an airline pilot will not crash his plane. But he can’t trust that a woman says she had a baby had a baby? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? He’s got serious issues.

  • I try to remind myself that he’s a physically-ill man, perhaps in the early stages of dementia. But he’s also one of the great haters to ever put his thoughts to print, so he’s not blameless. Yes, best for all that he descends into a forced obscurity that will force him to seek the medical and spiritual help he desperately needs.

  • The nation would be much better situated if Sarah Palin today were VP.

    Sulli -who? It’s best to ignore such things.

    Early 2003, I stopped wasting eyesight on his vicious tripe after she accused Pope John Paul II of “traditional Catholic antisemitism” for suggesting peace as an alternative to the invasion of Iraq.

    I blame the evil, filthy liberals (repetitious again) that employ him. He is merely one of the more horrid (of the many vile) Obama-worshiping psychopaths that wrought obamination on the nation.

  • Take a pill. Few people are evil and Andrew Sullivan is not a psychopath. He was not always a hater, either. The wretched part of aging is that we deteriorate in ways those around us might have predicted. In his case, the vector was set by sexual perversion.

  • Andrew Sullivan is not a psychopath

    You’re clearly reading a different Andrew Sullivan than the rest of us.

  • Maybe I am missing the humor, here. I think a short definition of ‘psychopath’ is someone unable to feel guilt or love. I would tend to doubt that describes Sullivan. Of course, I do not know the man personally. Sidney Zion offered a while back an assessment of Roy Cohn in which he said the following: “He did what he wanted to do…that type either ends up in prison or as chairman-of-the-board.” Sullivan is neither a convict nor a captain of industry.

  • Art, you might be taking things a wee bit too literally here, but that’s okay.

  • Since 2003, I have not exposed myself to . . . OOPS!! Wrong choice of words . . .

    “. . . unable to feel guilt or love.” That sounds about right.

    Apparently, AD has a psychiatry medical license.

    I suffer from keyboard Tourrettes Syndrome.

  • No I do not. T. Shaw, you referred to him as a psychopath. Given the atypicality of that sort of person, it is generally safe to assume that a given individual is not.

  • When Sullivan produces medical records (I’ll accept colonoscopy, MRI, CAT scan or x-rays) that prove he is not suffering from irreversible cranial-rectal inversion, I’ll take him seriously.

  • I’m reasonably confident that Sullivan is not a psychopath. He is probably sane enough to be tried for a capital offense, should he ever kill someone, which while not likely is more likely than anyone who regularly visits this blog. But he is a self-righteous jerk who is not as smart as he thinks he is and who interpret everything in life through the distorted lens of his homosexuality, which makes him exceptionally predictable and therefore boring.

  • I stopped listening to Andrew Sullivan when he suggested once that Jesus was anti-family. Not a joke.

That Stupid Palin, Getting Her History Right

Saturday, June 4, AD 2011

I guess there’s a new kerfuffle related to Sarah Palin.  This video was linked at NRO “without comment” by Andrew Stiles.  It’s more evidence that she’s some kind of historical illiterate, or something, as she supposedly claims that Paul Revere rode to warn the Brits.

Admittedly Palin’s wording is incredibly garbled and she did not give a very articulate response.  Here’s the thing: her comments are completely accurate.  Here’s a letter written by Paul Revere himself:

“I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms.”

Again, though spoken in mangled English, Palin’s comments are pretty much right on the money.  Revere was in fact warning the British, but more as a way of bragging.

But hey, it’s so much easier to call Sarah Palin an idiot than bother with facts.

Continue reading...

31 Responses to That Stupid Palin, Getting Her History Right

  • Yes, obviously that’s what Palin was talking about when she said that Paul Revere was warning the British with his “warning shots and bells.”

  • “The American Catholic is an online community of Christians,”

    Really, with the personal attacks against a fellow American you sound like a muslim group.

    This site just proves anyone can put up a website.

  • Ed, you might actually want to read the post before commenting next time.

  • Governor Palin also is so stupid that she doesn’t know that there are 57 states, that today in London it’s June 4, 2008 Greenwich Mean Time, or that ripping apart the evil, unjust private economic sector will resolve all America’s problems.

    Let us begin. Compare what Obama has done to the US economy with what Governor Palin did for Alaska’s free and prosperous citizens.

  • Attempts to defend Palin’s gaffes are often more embarrassing than the gaffes themselves. It’s like if people responded to Obama’s misstatement about having visited 57 states by arguing that there really were 58 states.

  • I am by no means an apologist for Palin and I think that she clearly misspoke here. That being the case, what she said is in fact accurate, and the mis-reporting of what she said is wrong.

  • I also get a kick out of the interaction of Palin haters and Palinistas. The former don’t want to hear any counter-factual evidence that their opinions of the lady might be off, the latter can’t abide even a hint of criticism. She’s not my first choice for President, but a part of me would enjoy the endless entertainment that one or two terms of President Palin would provide on all fronts.

  • “Attempts to defend Palin’s gaffes are often more embarrassing than the gaffes themselves. It’s like if people responded to Obama’s misstatement about having visited 57 states by arguing that there really were 58 states.”

    One rarely hears about Obama’s gaffes except in organs of conservative opinion either in the old or the new media. Palin has been savaged more than any politician I can think of in my lifetime, with much of the criticism being lodged against her being intensely personal and intensely deranged. (Yes, Andrew Sullivan, I am looking at you.) What this latest tempest in a Boston teapot truly reveals is that most of the critics addressing this verbal mistep of hers have a rather shakier grasp of American history than she does.

  • Oh, and to avoid some historical errors painful to behold being written by Palin bashers in this thread, I would note the following:

    1. After Revere reached Lexington the Church bells began to ring. That is how the militia were summoned in colonial days. That is how the militia were summoned throughout Massachusetts on that fateful early morning of April 19. Where bells weren’t available artillery shots were used and where that wasn’t available muskets shots were used to call in the militia,

    2. The British were marching to seize the magazine at Concord and take the powder there.

    There, now you will not reveal yourself to be as ignorant as some of the Palin critics on the net who are oblivious to these facts.

  • Paul,

    Palin says the Revere “warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells, and making sure as he rode through town to send those warning shots and bells.”

    Does Revere’s letter say that he rang any bells to warn the British? No.

    Does Revere’s letter say that he fired any warning shots to warn the British? No.

    Does Revere’s letter say that he rode through town to warn the British? No.

    If you read Revere’s letter (not just the one paragraph excerpt) what you find is that Revere did ring bells, ride through town, and fire warning shots, but that he did all of these things not to warn the British, but to warn the Americans about the British. The letter also recounts how, after doing all this, he is spotted by some British officers, how he tries to evade them (as he had previously evaded British horsemen while warning the countryside) but is captured, and the tells them that he had warned the Americans.

    Just so I’m clear here, when Palin refers to Revere warning the British by making warning shots and ringing bells, you think that she meant to refer to the fact that Revere told the British what he had done after being captured? And that, despite the fact that Revere’s statement to the British involved him neither ringing any bells, nor firing any shots, nor riding through town, you think her statement is “completely accurate”?

  • More basic historical knowledge for Palin bashers:

    “Dawes initially appeared to have escaped his pursuers, but was thrown from his horse and captured. Paul Revere was taken prisoner and during his interrogation deliberately provided greatly inflated numbers of militiamen awaiting the British at Concord.

    During the ride back to Lexington, Revere and his captors heard shots fire and church bells ring throughout the area — events that gave some credence to Revere’s report of colonial preparations. Fearing for their safety, the British released Revere, but took the precaution of giving him a tired horse to slow his return to Lexington.”

    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1261.html

    Don’t thank me. I consider it my bounden Christian duty to instruct the historically ignorant.

  • “Just so I’m clear here, when Palin refers to Revere warning the British by making warning shots and ringing bells, you think that she meant to refer to the fact that Revere told the British what he had done after being captured?”

    No BA, her statement clearly indicates that she was referring to Revere’s ride as a challenge to the British and the bells ringing and the warning shots as a result of that ride. She was inarticulate about it, as most politicians tend to be when they make off the cuff remarks, but that was the clear sense of what she said. The facts of Revere’s ride indicate that her remarks were closer to describing what actually happened than the over the top reaction of her critics would indicate.

  • I should add that I don’t think Palin’s error here is a big deal. Anyone who does a lot of extemporaneous speaking is going to make similar flubs from time to time. The problem comes when people try to defend her by pretending that they aren’t flubs.

  • At least she know how many states the US has or which army liberated Auschwhiz. I believe Sarah would be even able tell someone which hand one salutes the flag with and be willing to salute the flag.
    The MSM has dealt the woman misery ever since she was selected to run for vice president. It is shameful the way American media conducts it self and the blatant bias they exhibit. The give Obama a pass on any and all of his actions. Obama’s ego is so big he cannot admit most of his ideas are at best socialistic and doomed to wreak havoc on the United States, yet the press will not report on it.

  • Here’s the solution both for Palin-haters and Obama-worshipping imbeciles.

    Set up a 50 question multiple choice test on history, and fiscal and monetary policies. Palin’s people make up Obama’s test. Obama’s villains compile Governor Palin’s test.

    We’ll learn who is the idiot.

    Or, they could both make fools of themselves on “Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?”

    Here’s the big difference! Palin is making a fool of herself on TV opinion shows. Obama’s mistakes . . .

  • Admittedly Palin’s wording is incredibly garbled and she did not give a very articulate response.

    How dare you! According to Don, Palin is the greatest political talent since Reagan (that’s not hyperbole on my part). I quote, “Charisma is a much overused term, but no other will do for describing the impact of Palin on the television screen. This is a God-given gift that no amount of practice can give, and God was very generous indeed in the portion that He gave this daughter of Eve.”

    That was a serious post by Don shortly before the 2008 election. To which Tito replied, seriously, “She certainly has confidence, intuition, brains, and an excellent grasp of the issues.”

    Now, I’ve defended Palin from liberals in the past. I think she’s attacked more viciously than any other politician. She seems like a good manager. On the issues, I’m probably in agreement with her more than with Obama. And in this case, it wasn’t the content that I cringed at. It was her poor attempt at expressing it. She can’t speak intelligently about a topic she’s not comfortable with and the topics she’s not comfortable with are history, science, literature, economics, and foreign policy.

  • No BA, her statement clearly indicates that she was referring to Revere’s ride as a challenge to the British

    Tell that to Paul. He seems to think Palin meant that Revere was warning the British, and that she was right!

  • A staple knock on Reagan from the Left his entire political career was that he was a blithering idiot. Clark Clifford after Reagan’s election in 80 referred to Reagan as an amiable dunce. (RR, if you don’t know who Clark Clifford was just google his name.) Liberals often took great joy in the fact that Reagan frequently made mistakes of fact in his stories, and not infrequently mangled history, sometimes quoting something he had seen in a movie and citing it as a historical event. None of that made any difference because Reagan had preternatural political skills and leadership ability in spades, and because he was challenging Jimmy Carter, the most inept president in our nation’s history not named James Buchanan or Barack Obama. I think Palin has the same qualities in the first two areas. Like Reagan, and like most politicians, Palin mangles facts when she speaks off the cuff. As in the case of Reagan, the mainstream media labor mightily to transform mistatement molehills of Palin into mountains of error, because, as also was the case with Reagan, they heartily detest her and the Harley she rode in on.

  • Tell that to Paul. He seems to think Palin meant that Revere was warning the British, and that she was right!

    What Paul actually said.

    Revere was in fact warning the British, but more as a way of bragging.

    Neither Palin nor myself said that Paul Revere made his ride to warn the British. I related the story as actually told by Revere. He encountered the British sentinels, and then told them what was going down.

    The problem comes when people try to defend her by pretending that they aren’t flubs.

    Wow I actually said – more than once – that she mangled the English language and spoke inarticulately. Again, you are the complete opposite end of the Palinistas. Just as they can broker absolutely no criticism of anything she speaks, people of your ilk cannot tolerate any mild defense of her. It’s kind of sad, really. But I guess such is the life of an anonymous coward lobbing verbal hand grenades without bothering to form opinions for yourself.

  • Neither Palin nor myself said that Paul Revere made his ride to warn the British.

    Palin said Revere “warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells.”

    You said her remarks were “completely accurate.”

    Have I misquoted either you or Palin here?

  • I think it is painfully obvious listening to Palin that she is not saying that Paul Revere set out on his ride to warn the British. As she said in her – once again for you too slow to understand – badly garbled soundbite, once confronted with British troops Revere warned them, but not in a manner of alarm but in a sense of bragging about what was being done .

    Seriously, are you so dense that you can’t comprehend the difference? This was obvious the first time I heard the soundbite.

  • I think it is painfully obvious listening to Palin that she is not saying that Paul Revere set out on his ride to warn the British.

    That’s what she said. You can argue that that’s not what she meant, and as I said above I don’t think this is really a big deal. She got confused, which happens to the best of them. I don’t have a problem with people defending Sarah Palin (I’ve done it myself from time to time). What I object to are the claims that what she said was accurate.

    As she said in her – once again for you too slow to understand – badly garbled soundbite, once confronted with British troops Revere warned them, but not in a manner of alarm but in a sense of bragging about what was being done.

    Seriously, are you so dense that you can’t comprehend the difference? This was obvious the first time I heard the soundbite.

    The first time you heard the soundbite your reaction was that she was referring to what Revere said to the British after he was captured?

    There’s no reference to Revere being captured, for example, and all the things she does mention (ringing bells, firing warning shots, etc.) are things Revere did to warn people about the British. To say that she meant to refer to what Revere said after he was captured is simply not plausible (though I’m happy for each person to judge for himself).

    Btw, saying that Palin spoke inarticulately or that what she said was garbled is not the same as saying that what she said was inaccurate. Your statement was that what she said was completely accurate. You can resort to name calling, but it won’t change the fact that this isn’t true.

  • That’s what she said.

    No. It isn’t. She didn’t say that Paul Revere set out to warn the British.

    The first time you heard the soundbite your reaction was that she was referring to what Revere said to the British after he was captured?

    Exchanges like this make we weep. No, my first instinctual reaction was not that she was referring to this specific exchange (although, upon learning of where she had been and the tour she had taken I think that perhaps she was referring to this). As soon as I heard this soundbite it seemed glaringly obvious that she was not asserting – as the anchor suggested -that Paul Revere set out to warn the British. That’s the only point I’m really making. The assertion that Sarah Palin completely jumbled her history and thought that the Paul Revere rode out to warn British soldiers seemed patently false upon first hearing.

    Btw, saying that Palin spoke inarticulately or that what she said was garbled is not the same as saying that what she said was inaccurate.

    Because what she said wasn’t inaccurate. If she had gotten her history wrong I’d be the first to admit it. But what she said was correct. That she knows more about history than you is not really a sign of her ignorance.

  • It seems they (the W, the despicable party, and state-run press) believe insulting Sarah Palin’s historical acuity will somehow assuage the sufferings of 150,000,000 hopeless Americans.

  • In light of the original post, this incident reminds me of Dan Quayle and the potatoe incident.

  • I think she clearly mispoke and meant ‘warning that the bristish were coming’.

    But hey, let Marsha Shea and the girls at Vox Nova have their fun.

  • (Guest comment from Don’s wife Cathy: ) This is a followup story to the original incident, reporting on Palin’s appearance on Fox News Sunday in which she was questioned by host Chris Wallace about the Paul Revere remarks:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/palin-i-didnt-mess-up-about-paul-revere/2011/06/05/AGL71aJH_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_politics

  • Per Cathy’s link, Palin says of Revere that “[p]art of his ride was to warn the British.”

    Glad we cleared that up.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJgcDaOlbQ

    She certainly knows her American history far better than most of her critics who have simply beclowned themselves in this latest chapter in their unending Palin obsession.

  • Here’s another column from Hot Air on the story, again buttressing the point that Palin essentially got it right, as a Boston U History professor attests to.

    They link to this Andrew Malcolm. It’s a good rundown of other “gaffes” that weren’t gaffes or didn’t happen (Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet, GHWB didn’t mis-identify a checkout scanner).

    Then again, we live in a country where people think that Sarah Palin actually said “I can see Russia from my house.”

  • Unthink progressives are deathly afraid of Governor Palin’s policies. As always, they show their “true colors” with hatred, insults, and fabrications.

    See today’s Instapundit: Experts back Governor Palin on Paul Revere. Here’s the money quote, “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”

    “Any fool can criticize and complain.” And, most debased, dilatory, indolent, languid, miserable, supine, witless morons do.

Palin: “Fight Like a Girl!”

Monday, April 18, AD 2011

One of the hardest things for any orator to do is to give a successful stump speech before a hostile audience, and that is just what Sarah Palin did on Saturday, April 16, 2011, in Madison, Wisconsin at a tea party rally.  Union rent-a-mobs were out in force, drawn like flies to sugar by the presence of Palin, always a mesmerizing target for the denizens of the Left.  During her speech you can hear constantly in the background their continual attempts to shout her down.  Go here to Ann Althouse’s blog to see some of the charming signs carried by the Union mob and her comments on their attempts to drown out Palin.  (The height of courage was shown when the Union thugs attempted to drown out a 14 year old girl who was speaking.)  Palin did not back down an inch, giving a pugnacious, fighting speech, that not only took on Obama and the spend-us-into-bankruptcy-Union leadership, but also the clueless Gop establishment.  It was a bravura performance, and the best stump speech I have seen since Reagan rode off into the sunset.  Here is the text of her speech with my comments:

Hello Madison, Wisconsin! You look good. I feel like I’m at home. This is beautiful. Madison, I am proud to get to be with you today. Madison, these are the frontlines in the battle for the future of our country. This is where the line has been drawn in the sand. And I am proud to stand with you today in solidarity.

Note the use of the term solidarity, and it will not be the only time she uses it.  Palin wasn’t born with a silver spoon in her mouth, and her family members belong to unions.

I am here today as a patriot, as a taxpayer, as a former union member, and as the wife of a union member. What I have to say today I say it to our good patriotic brothers and sisters who are in unions. I say this, too, proudly standing here as the daughter of a family full of school teachers. My parents, my grandparents, aunt, cousins, brother, sister – so many of these good folks are living on teachers’ pensions, having worked or are still working in education.

Not us versus them, but just us.  Palin is talking to union members over the heads of their union bosses.

Continue reading...

38 Responses to Palin: “Fight Like a Girl!”

  • I was not able to make it to Madison on Saturday. I watched Palin’s speech livestreamed and I was extremely impressed.

    As for the leftist idiots who attempted to drown out her speech, they have proved that they care not a whit for free speech, unless it’s speech they agree with. How on earth can you have an exchange of ideas with someone who is screaming in your face and wants only to shut you up?

    The Madison protesters were ladies and gents compared to some other anti-TP protesters across the country – like the mob in Portland. One man screamed that he uses the American flag as toliet paper. When I watched and heard the hatred in that clip my thought was that they were in need of an exorcist.

    Now off into the lovely April snow. Ugh 🙁

  • Watching Sarah in action giving her take on our problems and the way she believes government should resolve them for the sake of saving America for future generations makes you wish every pastor in every church would at least recognize her voice as a solid pro-life, defense of marriage, and faith based governance appeal to the voters in this country. But that won’t happen because far too many fear their right to free speech could be used against them by the PC police and that trumps their obligation to stand along side of a voice for biblical truth from a candidate. Yet there were parishes with doors wide open for Doug Kemeic’s high tributes for Obama during the 2008 campaign and bishops who silently endorsed the proceedings. Are the Church and the voice of truth going to forever be held captive by Political Correctness? Is it not enough that such fear already grips the black community as evidenced by the verbal and even physically brutal attacks on black Tea Party members?
    By the way if you will notice as Palin is leaving the stage at the end a black gentleman in an orange shirt politely kisses her hand.

  • It looks like the Democrat pseudo-Catholics have forgotten the lesson of Judith 14:11-19. It took a woman then to fight the good fight. And so today. I cannot wait till I hear the howl of consternation and see the renting of tunics as another anti-christ lies deposed and headless (speaking figuratively, of course – no physical violence is either encouraged or desired).

    11
    At daybreak they hung the head of Holofernes on the wall. Then all the Israelite men took up their arms and went to the slopes of the mountain.
    12
    When the Assyrians saw them, they notified their captains; these, in turn, went to the generals and division leaders and all their other commanders.
    13
    They came to the tent of Holofernes and said to the one in charge of all his things, “Waken our master, for the slaves have dared come down to give us battle, to their utter destruction.”
    14
    Bagoas went in, and knocked at the entry of the tent, presuming that he was sleeping with Judith.
    15
    As no one answered, he parted the curtains, entered the bedroom, and found him lying on the floor, a headless corpse.
    16
    He broke into a loud clamor of weeping, groaning, and howling, and rent his garments.
    17
    Then he entered the tent where Judith had her quarters; and, not finding her, he rushed out to the troops and cried:
    18
    “The slaves have duped us! A single Hebrew woman has brought disgrace on the house of King Nebuchadnezzar. Here is Holofernes headless on the ground!”
    19
    When the commanders of the Assyrian army heard these words, they rent their tunics and were seized with consternation. Loud screaming and howling arose in the camp.

  • Donna V.,

    Those are not idiots. They are fascist gangsters executing orders issued by the lawless tyrants in the WH.

  • The only thing I take issue with in Palin’s speech is this :

    “And Madison, you defended the 2010 electoral mandate. You are heroes, you are patriots, and when the history of this Tea Party Movement is written, what you accomplished here will not be forgotten.”

    Madison is getting far too much credit here. She should have said Wisconsin instead of Madison. Most present-day Madisonians would make the town’s namesake twirl in his grave. They voted overwhelmingly for Kloppenberg and their mayoral race was Lenin vs. Trotsky. Our ex-governor Tommy Thompson said it best when he described the place as 77 square miles surrounded by reality.

    When Obama wants to preach to a worshipful crowd, Madison is one of his top go-to spots. It’s highly doubtful whether he would venture into hostile territory (Waukesha county, for instance) the way Palin does.

    That’s one reason Prosser’s win (and Walker’s earlier victory) so delighted us conservative cheeseheads – it meant the state is not completely in thrall to the Dane-Milwaukee County Democratic machines.

  • I appreciate Sarah Palin’s honesty in revealing her connections with unions, but because of those connections I will not vote for her. As a public-school teacher who has never belonged to a union I have taken heat for speaking up against the I.B.E.W.’s takeover of our local power co-op, and by the other side have been accused of being a unionist because of my employment.

    What a mess!

    Sarah Palin seems to be standing elliptically on both sides of unions, and that won’t do.

  • Sorry that this is irreverent, PWP. The quote reminds me of a headline in the NY Daily News from many years ago. “Headless Body Found in Topless Bar.”

    More irreverence: The CSJ motto: “Don’t waste any time praying – organize!”

  • (Guest comment from Don’s wife Cathy): Mack, I think Mrs. Palin was trying to distinguish between rank & file union members and their union leadership, and encouraging them to vote according to their own beliefs, as opposed to what union bosses tell them to do. I dare say that many people who are currently union members would choose not to be if it was not required by their employment, and that many more would withhold that portion of their dues which their union leadership uses for political activism, if they were allowed to.
    Bravo to you for staying out of the teacher’s union! My mom (a retired teacher), I believe, had to pay union dues (at least I remember our getting NEA’s magazine in our mail when I was a kid), but refused to go out on strike when the local teacher’s union would call for one. (She was the sole breadwinner in our family sometimes, so we needed the money!)

  • Guilty as charged. I’m a union VP (I was asked to run. I didn’t know I was unopposed!) and am local treasurer – it’s what I do. Plus, annual union training is all-expenses-paid in Las Vegas!

    I have annoyingly commented ad nausem: Voting demokrat is a mortal sin. I donate the money I used to give the commie bishop to right-minded candidates.

    The one thing Obama has accomplished: re-awakening the “Reagan” Democratic voter.

    The GOP merely needs to contrast Reagan’s recovery to peace and prosperity to Obama’s growing evil, gangster nightmare.

  • I agree with T. Shaw: one cannot possibly be Christian and vote Democratic. However, many Christians say it’s wrong to judge Democrats as evil because one doesn’t know the state of their souls. That’s true. Nevertheless, as the old Biblical saying goes, by their fruits ye shall know them, and the fruit of liberal Democracy (i.e., two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner) is murdered babies and sanctification of homosexual filth. Now that being said, I utterly oppose physical violence against abortionist doctors and against gay couples. The solution is NOT violence. But sin is sin, and it is the very reason why our nation is today in such peril. This reminds me of 2nd Chronicles 7:14.

    Now while I really liked Sarah Palin’s speech, and while I agree with Donald’s commentary here at The American Catholic blogiste, I do not think we can look to a political solution for what ails our nation. As Jesus said to Pontius Pilate, “My Kingdom is not of this world…” That doesn’t mean we stop voting or writing our Senators and Congressmen, or being otherwise politically active as befits our station in life. But it does mean that while Sarah Palin and others like her seem to offer hope, our real hope must remain in the Lord. There will be no lasting peace, no real justice on Earth till He returns again in the clouds of glory. We can and should, however, work as laborers in the Lord’s vineyard, but His Kingdom won’t be (and isn’t) a political one – Republican or Democrat. Yes, one can and should vote against the Democratcs and this likely means voting for the Republicans as the lesser of evils. But while the Democratic Party is certainly the Party of Satan, its antagonist the Republican isn’t the party of God. We have to be Catholic Christians first and foremost.

  • That is enough on this thread about Christians not being able to vote for Democrats. My opinion of the current, since 1966, Democrat party, is on a par with my opinion of English cuisine and French stiff upper lip, but I will not contend that my views are the only views for Christians. In regard to politics and religion, I think they are generally separate spheres. Some great moral issues, such as slavery and abortion, cause an overlap, but generally it is best not to confuse politics with religion or religion with politics.

  • Donald’s admonishment is well taken. However, it is quite obvious that the Democratic party and its platform have produced the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Charles Rangel, and many other “distinguished” members of congress along with a host of “intellectual” clergy and prominent individuals who ALL gave their unbridled support (honorary degrees) to the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for president. All of these we could assume would agree with your “separte spheres” but we must ask what does this say for the church in America? Especially when these same people often state and expound that their positions and values don’t conflict with or reduce their standing within the church as they boldly file in line at the communion table.

    Remember when Nancy Pelosi told a reporter that (her) church was not sure when life begins and that it was “debatable” only about 20 of the approximately 150 catholic members of congress willingly signed a letter of admonition to her.( None of the above mentioned). And to realize that these officials are continually reelected by large portions of catholic laity speaks volumes for the guidance the laity are receiving from their shepherds.

    I think Paul in his way is not so much condeming Democtats and their agenda but rather the fact that it seems to thrive in the face of moral reality as defined by the Church and continues with little opposition from Church authority. Paul is knowingly or not taking up the vocal cross which belongs to the bishops in their absence. Perhaps it is somewhat overheated at times but like a cry in the desert for the acknowledgment of neglect and capitulation to the forces of evil in our society by men who wear the garments of faith and good will.

  • Thanks, Bill Sr. The bottom line, I think, is this: it’s a pity that we as Catholics have to be reminded of what truth is by an Assemblies of God Pentecostal woman – Sarah Palin. As Matthew 3:7-12 states:

    When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
    Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones. Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees. Therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in his hand. He will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

    If Catholics won’t respond, then God will (and does) use the Pentecostals.

  • Amazing woman. Word is she still had time after her speech to watch a hockey game, kill a moose, ride a snowmobile and buy some new designer specs.

  • Joe Green’s comment reminded me that the reason why modernists don’t like Sarah Palin is because she is a REAL woman, not one of these new age feminists who believe in abortion and lesbianism, and because she is Christian (albeit not Catholic) and Conservative, and most of all, exactly what they are not: beautiful. Now regardless of whatever sarcasm may or may not be in Joe’s Green’s little comment, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least that she might have had time to watch a hockey game, kill a moose, ride a snow mobile and buy new designer specs after her speech. I don’t, however, say that she is my hero. But I do say that she is my heroine. She can’t be a hero because heroes are always male. The female version (Deborah in the Book of Judges and Judith in the Book of Judith) are always heroines. That is a point forever lost on modernists as they continue to obscure, mix up and confuse gender in this false idea that equality in dignity is somehow equality in function – but that’s a discussion for a different day.

    Hooray, Sarah Palin! Never have modernists shown more intolerance of real women in politics than in its villification of Sarah Palin. (But the androgenous feminists – they’re A-OK).

  • Sarah Palin is a very formidable woman who clearly loves being a wife and mother. She reminds me of my wife and mother in that regard. It is good to see a politician who does not come across as plain weird.

  • Obviously I agree, Donald, but I fear that if Sarah runs, many people will buy into the news media’s hatred of her and vote for Obama if only to vote against her. I have talked with many people who aren’t influenced by the purple koolaid, as it were, yet they still would rather have Obama than Sarah. The media certainly has done a bang up job in getting people to see Sarah so negatively.

  • That is why we have campaigns Paul. Prior to Reagan smashing Carter by 10 points in 1980, the polls showed the race neck and neck. Obama and the mainstream media assume that Palin will be easy pickings in 2012. She is severely underestimated and that is not a bad place for a politician to be in what is sure to be a hard fought campaign. Many people currently have low expectations of Palin and have written her off as a low wattage bimbo. More fools they.

  • No meanspiritedness intended. Palin’s easy to parody. Then again, what politician isn’t? I’d wouldn’t want her higher than Sec of Interior. No one on right or left appeals to me. Let’s just put the country on autopilot and hope for the best.

  • Thanks for the note, Joe. Obama is pretty easy to parody, too, but whenever someone does that, he’s accused of being mean spirited, divisive, intolerant and “not nice.” Yet people do it willy-nilly to Sarah and it’s undeserving. If someone treated Geraldine Ferraro during the election of 84 (I think) the way MS NBC and the rest treat Sarah Palin on a daily basis, then the modernists would have been screaming bloody murder.

    For example, I think that those who mistreated Bush with their vile name calling are now getting it back and they don’t like receiving what they so freely gave. So their reaction is to vilify Sarah.

  • Don, Palin would use to Obama, as would Trump, Pawlenty (yawn), Romney (double yawn), Giuliani, Huckabee (imagine a President Huckabee), Bachmann, Gingrich (fill in any GOP candidate’s name here).

    Trump merely enjoying the attention his massive ego craves. He will not run, has too much fun making money and enjoying in celeb status. Chris Christie is a long shot. So who else is going to carry the flag? I thought McCain was weakest but the current crop is even weaker, and the GOP has no identity other than a growing reputation, undeserved perhaps, of being the party of obstructionism. Paul Ryan might make a good Veep choice but still need someone at the top of the ticket.

    Thoughts?

  • Palin would lose, etc.

  • ‘Thoughts?”

    That it is a long way to 2012 would be my main thought. Secondary thoughts are that the economy is in a mess and shows no signs of improving, that gold has gone up $500.00 an ounce in the last year and today stands at $1500.00, that inflation is beginning to take off, that Obama is now involved in three conflicts and shows no clue as to what to do, that the US credit rating is now in doubt, that we will soon be staring at $5.00 a gallon gasoline. If these conditions persist, I think Obama is rather beatable by anyone with an (R) after their name. Oh, and if the ludicrous polls are adjusted to show near parity between Democrats and Republicans instead of the 10 point spread that they continue to give the Democrats, Obama’s approval would now be under 40%.

    I think it is a given that Palin will be the nominee if she gets into the race. If the conditions I have enumerated persist into the summer of 2012, I would give the general election to Palin with at least 52% of the vote and an electoral college win of 290-300. If the economy worsens between now and election day, and unfortunately I think that is entirely possible, I could see Palin increasing her vote margin to 55% and an electoral college win of 338.

  • Don, I think you’re a bit too sanguine about Palin’s chances and underestimating Obama as a brilliant campaigner, albeit a lousy president.

    Consider: He has the big advantage of incumbency and money, as well as a solid base that includes Latinos (now 1/6th of the population), blacks, homosexuals, younger folks and white libs. That’s a sizable block.

    Plus he has the media on his side, which is a huge difference in a sound-bite world in which issues tend to be oversimplified in a dumbed-down country.

    Despite declining popularity in polls, which vary considerably and which are capricious and subject to sharp fluctuations, Obama is skilled at spin, propaganda and manipulation of the facts, in concert with his lapdog press, and has been able to keep the GOP on the defensive. Even though he and his party took a so-called “shellacking” last November and the Republicans made large mid-term gains, neither Boehner nor his troops have been able to capitalize and, given the parity in the Senate, Obama’s veto pen still holds sway and the Republican agenda (if there is one) is effectively blunted.

    Of course, five-dollar gas, rising food prices and high inflation remain troublesome for Obama, and the economy, as usual, figures to be the top issue come 2012. By then, however, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him pull some rabbits out of the hat, selling himself as the Great Compromiser, as the GOP stumbles to look for leadership and someone with star power to take over the party reins and adopt a strong message that will resonate with vox populi.

    Even though Obama’s approval ratings have dipped, in all the other polls matching him against any of the Republicans, he’s ahead by comfortable margins. Trump, by the way, isn’t helping by stealing the GOP’s thunder right now with silly birther talk, and becoming the face of the party in ways that party would not prefer (see Karl Rove, George Will, et al, who have begun marginalizing him.)

    Rove is still a man with considerable political clout as a Fox regular and his frequently disparaging remarks about Palin no doubt would be featured in the Democratic ads should she be the nominee.

    To say that Obama is “beatable with anyone with an (R) after his/her name” may be wishing thinking, Don, and probably too soon to assert at this early stage. By fall, I think our crystal balls will clear up enough to make more certain predictions.

  • “underestimating Obama as a brilliant campaigner”

    I disagree that he is a brilliant campaigner. In 2008, with an economic meltdown to hang around the neck of the Republicans, and every advantage imaginable, he won with 52.9% of the vote. Considering the cicumstances, and also considering that McCain was an almost laughably bad candidate for the GOP, it should have been a blowout between 55-60%.

    “He has the big advantage of incumbency and money”

    Incumbency tends to be a bad thing for a President Joe if the economy is in the dumpster, which this economy is. As for money, I believe Palin would outraise him through massive donations over the internet.

    “blacks, homosexuals, younger folks and white libs.”

    Young folks are over the Obama fling. Not having a job tends to do that. Homosexuals routinely give at least a third of their votes to the GOP. Obama has given libs little, and I expect their enthusiasm level will not match the “He is the Messiah” hysteria we saw in 2008. Even black support for Obama is beginning to decrease.

    “Plus he has the media on his side, which is a huge difference in a sound-bite world in which issues tend to be oversimplified in a dumbed-down country.”

    He has the dying and dead media on his side Joe. New media, what people increasingly watch, is competitive for the GOP.

    “Obama is skilled at spin, propaganda and manipulation of the facts”

    I disagree Joe. I’m beginning to come to Jay Cost’s view that Obama, at least now, is bad at politics.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-obama-dances-two-left-feet_557338.html?page=1

    ” took a so-called “shellacking”

    Nothing so-called about the massive beating the Dems took last Fall Joe, and I expect much more of the same if the economy is still in the tank next year.

    “I wouldn’t be surprised to see him pull some rabbits out of the hat”

    I would. He is doing nothing that will improve the economy, and he is doing much to make it worse. As for him being the “Great Compromise” , I doubt it. I think that Obama has already decided to run to the Left next year.

    “Even though Obama’s approval ratings have dipped, in all the other polls matching him against any of the Republicans, he’s ahead by comfortable margins.”

    Meaningless at this time Joe. Carter regularly trounced Reagan in such polls in 79.

    “Trump, by the way”

    Yeah, “by the way” which I think is where Trump will end up. I don’t see Trump as being another Perot. He will go nowhere in the Republican primaries and I think a third party bid would have nill impact. The man is a complete buffoon and has no issue to rally supporters around.

    “Rove is still a man with considerable political clout”

    Please. This is a man who almost lost two Presidential elections in 2000 and 2004. The most overrated man in politics. Rove is now a man of yesterday and is of no consequence except as a demon figure on the Left. He has now as much political significance as the toe licker, Dick Morris.

    “To say that Obama is “beatable with anyone with an (R) after his/her name” may be wishing thinking, Don”

    I rather think it is sound analysis Joe, based on the current situation. I do agree it is a long way to 2012 at this point.

  • Well, Don, I have your prognostications turn out to be better than mine. Can’t afford another 4 years of this bozo. One guy that gets little mention is Rick Santorum. For his pro-life stance alone, I’d vote for him. I was sorry to see him leave the Senate. Maybe a veep choice. Romney would be a disaster with all that Massachusetts baggage. Maybe Chris Christie will jump in.

  • Well, I hope, etc…. Don, need an edit function so posters can revise, fix their typos; maybe even a delete button for those comments we wish we never made.

  • solidarity. Her use of that term I think is deliberate and echoes Solidarity in Poland

    Bringin Palin in was the conservative’s strong card, yet they still lost the hand.

    The original Walker strategy was to expect Police & Firefighters as well as private sector blue collar workers to back him up. It failed. Wisconsin firefighters and police officers have been in the forefront of opposition to Walker. They didn’t fall for the carve out he put in his bill. And private sector union members have ben equally strong against Walker. The jury might still be out on Wisconsin non-union blue collar workers, though they certainly have not rallied to the Governor over public workers as expected by the GOP. In their favor, the Prosser race did give evidence of strong white collar support for the Governor. If Wisconsin ever had many limo liberals, they certainly didn’t come out in the election.

    The conservatives needed to try to win back non-college workers in Wisconsin and Palin was the best they had. However, ignore the debates about how many rally attendees were on which side. Count all 6,500 as Palin supporters and it still is nothing compared to the 100,000 in support of the unions. The ‘Solidarity’ reference made her look silly (other than the fact that Solidarity was a public sector union when it struck the government owned Gdannsk Shipyards). The Polish Union had just sent a letter to the Wisconsin unions supporting their efforts and publsihed in the newspaper.

    Nice try, no cigar. Keep to Waukesha County; that’s where your hope is.

  • All of you who choose to demonize her must admit whether you will or not that…..
    Millions of Americans along with me know that had Sarah Palin with her courage, experience, and ability to deliver her message had she been a DEMOCRAT instead, she would have been the darling of the media for her beauty, her “audacity”, her special needs child, and rouge hockey mom style. Don’t lie to yourself.

  • I am glad that Palin doesn’t “keep it to Waukesha County,” but brings her message to the entire country, for that is exactly where her hope is, and that is exactly why a certain political class are beside themselves in hurling invective after invective after her. The behavior of this elitist class and their little minions in Wisconsin show exactly what we have to look forward to as we progress from a Constitutional Republic into a national Demokracy (misspelled purposefully). I further am overjoyed that Palin likewise calls the country club Republicans on the carpet, too.

    BTW, the more liberals tell Palin to stay in Wauskesha, the more she won’t and the more money she makes off the clownish criticisms of her adversaries. I think it’s great – she gets money because clowns who are acting like little cry-babies make fun of her. Good for her! Make fun of her some more as she takes the money to the bank. That’s fuel for the election campaign!

  • I also agree with what Bill Sr. wrote. If the Republicans had criticized Geraldine Ferraro (a pro-abortion Catholic – what an oxymoron!) the way Democrats demonize Sarah Palin, there would be hell to pay. Yet a pro-life Pentecostal does what a Roman Catholic in politics opposed, and the Democrats are all over the pro-lifer like stink on manure while they eulogize a baby-murderer. That’s why I get so mad at the left. The hypocrisy is astounding and unbelievable. They would release a convicted serial killer or rapist from prison on humanitarian grounds, but would condemn Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome baby to death in the womb.

  • I am glad that Palin doesn’t “keep it to Waukesha County,”

    Paul,

    I was unclear. I did not intend that comment to be directed to Gov. Palin but the WI GOP. The Walker initiative has been a political disaster to the GOP among blue collar Wisconsinites. However, I have to admit they may have made up much of the lost ground with an incredible mobilization in white collar and upper middle class parts of the state. I meant that the WI GOP should stick to Waukeha County if they are looking for success, not Gov. Palin.

    When you are tanking with blue collar families, I think bringing in Palin is probably the best you got if the GOP does not want to totally give up on that demographic. Unlike most Republicans who speak of union members as either dolts or Communists, she actually gives some respectful lip service and maybe has half a clue as to what our life is like. She talks about how unions are essential for health care and a decent retirement. In the end, I think she fails in an attempt to identify culturally with blue collar workers and union members while not standing with us on a policy basis, but I give her credit as a Republican that tries and fails over most of her party who do not even try.

    The “Solidarity” reference might have worked had it not come right after news stories that Soldarity has issued a statement praising the Wisconsin workers.

  • Thanks for the clarification, Kurt. I assumed incorrectly – my apologies. But compared to the best that the Dems have to offer (Obama), Palin is a breath of fresh air. That arrogant, snide-full, elitist, narcissic……well, anything else I say about him is unprintable.

  • Paul,

    While I have a somewhat more positive view of the President than you do, I freely admit the best thing he has going for him are not his virtues but the cast of clowns that make up his political opponets. (Though I was looking forward to Haley “Boss Hogg” Barbour on the GOP ticket!)

  • Kurt,

    I find it troubling that the President has surrounded himself with all manner of abortionists and homosexual activists, and you cite his “virtues”. One wonders what they may be outside of being able to follow an electronic teleprompter. It is equally troubling that he has spoken positively about every single Muslim holiday, yet issued no word of thanks to God on Easter (though much was made of his attending a Baptist church on Easter Sunday).

    Now I know nothing about Haley Barbour, so unless you can substantiate the calumny with which you described him, I will reserve opinion. Additionally, exactly what cast of clowns are the President’s opponents who are more evil than his open support of baby murdering as the right to choose?

    I will not speak on this matter again. I shall vote against that man in the Oval Office, even if it means voting for Barbour as President and Palin as Vice President. Furthermore, I do not dialogue with liberals.

  • Kurt and everybody that voted for the Fraud,

    Thanks for ruining our country.

    2012 – Anybody but Obama.

  • Furthermore, I do not dialogue with liberals.

    Lucky liberals.

  • I am not going to respond to the liberal or pollute Donald’s blog with more argument. But a friend of mine has forwarded me a little essay exposing the man in the Oval Office for what he is. That short writing is here::

    http://commentarius-ioannis.blogspot.com/2011/04/current-president-of-these-united.html

    How anyone can be so in love with him after all he has done to destroy this country is unfathomable.

This Issue’s A Bust

Friday, February 18, AD 2011

Once in a while the political news circuit gets stuck on a topic so amazingly trivial and foolish that the spectacle of such a large tempest raging in such a small teapot makes it hard to look away. This week, the leading ladies of the right and left have decided to fight it out over breastfeeding.

I picked this for obvious reasons, but the parent in me says “No diaper and white dress: Watch Out!”

How, you might ask, could something like breastfeeding become a hot political issue? It seems that as part of her Let’s Move program to reduce childhood obesity, Michelle Obama has decided to promote breastfeeding. A nurse-in at the White House? No, that might actually be interesting. Rather, the proposal is for the IRS to grant a tax deduction for breast pumps and other nursing supplies.

Seeing a chance to turn a phrase, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin have weighed in, saying that getting the government involved in breastfeeding is the ultimate in “nanny state” politics. And this has given political commentators on the left the chance to weigh in with “Palin attacks breastfeeding” and “Bachmann says government has no business telling women what choices to make about their bodies” type headlines.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to This Issue’s A Bust

  • Its stupid stuff like this, I think, that keeps many people in the center from embracing the Republican Party. I agree with you that the suggested tax deduction is almost a meaningless gesture… at least it was prior to Palin and Bachmann chiming in.

    They might have a point if the government was proposing a consumption tax on formula, but the government has long used tax deductions to provide an incentive towards particular behavior. Whether we should or not is a question we can debate, but I don’t see Palin complaining about how the government is interfering in where we choose to live by giving us a Mortgage Tax Break or Bachmann complaining that the government is trying to tell us who to give money to with the Charitable giving tax break.

    In any case, for many Americans, stuff like this makes them look petty. To a certain extent, I think the Republican party is starting to make the same mistakes Democrats made after the 2008 election. My take on the 2010 election like the 2008 election before it is that the side that won succeeded not because they had convinced most Americans that they were right, rather they convinced most Americans that they were simply less wrong than the side in power. The Republicans might not get hammered by this in 2012 since Democrats still control the Senate and the White House, but if Palin and Bachmann keep opening their mouths like this they might hurt the chances of the Republicans from gaining the White House.

  • This tells me that Palin and Bachmann are merely being partisan and contrarian.

  • “This Issue’s a Bust”

    Bad Darwin. Bad, bad Darwin. 🙂

  • There’s already a huge economic incentive for breastfeeding. You don’t have to spend $100 to $200 a month on formula.

    I picked this for obvious reasons, but the parent in me says “No diaper and white dress: Watch Out!”

    Obvious reason being boobs no doubt.

  • There’s already a huge economic incentive for breastfeeding. You don’t have to spend $100 to $200 a month on formula.

    No kidding…

  • Nah, I’m not touching this one with a 10 inch milk bottle.

  • GROAN:
    I’m so upset. I could give that kid a bust in the mouth.
    GROAN

  • As a non-libertarian and non right-liberal, meaning the valuing of virtue and societal posterity as greater than abstracted “freedom” and “liberty”, I have no theoretical problem whatever with government promoting breast-feeding. I hope they do. (Just as I hope they get rid of the carb-heavy food pyramid.)

    Good for the First Lady.

  • Its stupid stuff like this, I think, that keeps many people in the center from embracing the Republican Party. I agree with you that the suggested tax deduction is almost a meaningless gesture…

    You mean it is trivial for Gov. Palin to comment on the issues but not trivial for people to make the issue decisive in determining their party affiliations?

  • As a non-libertarian and non right-liberal, meaning the valuing of virtue and societal posterity as greater than abstracted “freedom” and “liberty”, I have no theoretical problem whatever with government promoting breast-feeding. I hope they do.

    I don’t have a principled problem with promotion of breast feeding — and I suppose arguably it is the job of first ladies to immerse themselves in earnest and harmless concerns with great fanfare — I just think that the likely benefit of a tax deduction for this is going to be trivial at best. (The working class women who could most use a hand in this regard probably won’t benefit at all, since if you make under 40k and have one or more kids you generally don’t end up paying any taxes anyway.)

    I suppose one could say that Palin and Bachmann are marginally more at fault in that they’re supposed to concern themselves with substantive issues while the first lady is supposed to focus on fluff and the IRS is supposed to focus on minutae — but the fact that this is being blown into a “is the GOP against motherhood?” circus strikes me as deeply silly all around.

  • Oh, no doubt Bachmann and Palin are going to be unfairly beaten about for this, although the fact they never turn down a tv appearance has somthing to do with that.

    As for the trivial benefits of a tax deduction – probably. Economic incentives don’t matter nearly as much as economist types think they do for our tribal and social status seeking species – the whole reason we finally have behavioral economics.

  • Here, Michelle Antoinette is on to something.

    First, this is typical Obama-worshipping media bias.

    Check out the Misery Index as it rises going forward. Obama-regime-generated inflation added to perennial high unemployment will force mothers to breast feed because (assuming their husbands are not unionized, government millionaires) they will be unable to afford formula or milk. The first lady is correct about breast feeding but gives the wrong reason.

  • Initial unemployment claims unexpectedly rose 25,000 from last week to 411,000.

    That is just the 11,000th reason the Obama-worshipping media need to constantly talk about Palin.

  • I suppose arguably it is the job of first ladies to immerse themselves in earnest and harmless concerns with great fanfare

    Mrs. Truman spent much of her time in Missouri.

    Among Mrs. Obama’s problems are that she quit practicing law in 1993 and there are only so many jobs for professional diversicrats at greater Washington’s hospitals.

  • You don’t actually need a breast pump to breast feed. Most babies can feed directly. You only need the pump if mommy is going to leave baby regularly. Typically it means mommy is going to work. So it is not about encouraging breast feeding but encouraging breast-feeding mothers to work. If the government want to help it should enable moms to stay home longer. Most women will breast feed if they have the chance to focus on baby in those first few months.

  • You only need the pump if mommy is going to leave baby regularly. Typically it means mommy is going to work. So it is not about encouraging breast feeding but encouraging breast-feeding mothers to work.

    Agreed. My wife has breastfed all five of our kids, and we’ve never owned a pump. My bias is very much towards mothers staying home — at least while their kids are young enough to nurse.

    Though to be fair, I think it’s more that these folks are assuming that all moms will work and hoping that they won’t forgo breastfeeding even though they’re working. Thus the equipment.

  • Ok, I feel I sort of have standing to address this issue. I tried to breastfeed my one and only child, and could not manage more than a few drops here and there, despite repeated attempts at pumping and other measures. I’m not sure why exactly. My mom told me she tried and failed at breastfeeding also so perhaps it’s inherited. So, as natural as it is, there are women who just can’t do it — whether it’s a psychological thing or a hormonal thing or what.

    I have no objection with promoting breastfeeding in general and I agree it is healthier — that’s why I tried so hard to do it myself. But all the tax deductions in the world probably wouldn’t have helped me and it probably won’t make a whole lot of difference to other women either.

  • If the federal government will be granting tax deductions for breast-feeding, they may as well pay people to have children. I don’t think that’s what the Founding Fathers meant to do when they signed the Constitution.

  • Darn. All the good puns have been taken – been milked dry.

  • Pingback: Taxation and Breastfeeding « Vox Nova
  • “The parent in me says, ‘No diaper and white dress: watch out!”

    That’s for sure. She might as well be tempting fate as much as she would be if, for instance, she washed her car before planning a picnic or outdoor wedding (thereby insuring that it will rain).

  • I miss Laura Bush. She kept a simple, low profile encouraging children to read. Every time I turn around M.O. is telling me what to eat and to move it! Its an ironic choice for a first lady agenda given M.O.’s physical stature and eating habits as reported by the MSM.

    Our family has had a vegetable garden for years, eats very healthily and is involved in a plethora of activities to keep us fit. We’re Republicans, we figured these things out on our own, but I guess some people need to be told what to do.

    As a mother I wold say as far as breast feeding is concerned – do what is right for you. The decision to breast feed MUST be made at the individual level. Bachmann and Palin are right, it’s not the government’s business. But again, I guess some people need to be told what to do.

2 Responses to Life Imitates Art