Back from the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, fired up and ready to go. Today’s show includes four of the 17 interviews I conducted: Kevin Jackson, John Wells, Fred Karger and Andrew Breitbart. Enjoy!
I’ve been away from my computer for a couple of days, but now that the negative effects of Internet withdrawal are fading away I am full of opinions waiting to be heard. (note: my blog has moved to a different hosting service, therefore this may appear as a repeated post.)
As you certainly know by now Sarah Palin has is stepping down as Governor of Alaska. Let me be crystal clear about my opinion on this: I am 100% supportive of her decision and think we will look back at this and see that it was a smart move.
I watched Fox News Sunday morning and heard several conservatives citing various reasons that she made a mistake. I don’t buy any of their arguments. Our world is full of self-proclaimed experts, as well as those anointed by whomever to be considered experts as they spew verbal diarrhea while on camera. To a large extent I think the media has become full of itself and can no longer see reality.
Allow me to address the “abandoning her state” argument. She is doing no such thing. Her replacement, also elected, will take over for her. Any person can leave their job for any reason. And, I would like to remind you how much the Left mocked the fact that Palin was the governor of the measly state of Alaska. They tried to discredit her by somehow claiming that it was a meaningless place, certainly not able to justify political leadership experience worthy of a VP candidate. Now, that she has decided to leave her position, they suddenly want to reverse this mindset and claim that her state needs her, that it is an important job and she is shirking her elected responsibilities. Grow the hell up you hypocritical, hate-filled whiny bastards.
I ask those that think she is leaving her job prematurely this:
- In 1996 Obama wis his first election and becomes an Illinois state senator.
- Obama completed his first two-year term as a Illinois senator. In 1999, during his second term, he decided to run for Congress. He lost failed at that effort in 2000.
- In 2003 he made the mid-term decision to run for the US Senate.
- After becoming a Senator in and beginning his term in 2005 he decided a year into the job that he would run for President. He officially began running in January 2007.
I’ve always hated listening to politicians after they decide to run for higher office. Obama is the poster child for how to ignore your responsibilities while seeking higher office. It is all he has ever done. If you thing high school “senior-itis” is tough to deal with, imagine what it is like as an elected official. If you are focused on the next election, your current job responsibilities go straight out the door. Understanding this concept, do you think it was fair to the citizens of Arizona that John McCain spent virtually all of his time running for president instead of serving his state? Did Barack Obama neglect or abandon his duties in Illinois by spending two years running for president?
In my opinion, if you decide to run for higher office, the best possible thing you can do for your constituents is step down from your current position. Let someone else do the job that can focus on that job. What possible positives can you wring from the idea that doing a half-assed job as a lame duck while running for a new position is the honorable thing to do?
I think that Sarah Palin is preparing for a very powerful run for president in 2012. Bu stepping down as governor she can organize, fund raise and speak freely, without worrying about conflicts of interest. She has already hired legal councel to protect her from the certain slander/libel she will face. I see her as a pissed off animal about to strike fear into any that dare oppose her. After all, the press and the psychotic liberal braindead are happy to hide behind their blogs and iPhones, lobbing hate speech and blatant lies in her direction. But now that she will be a normal American citizen like you and me, she sheds the target of being a public offician and can fight with both hands.
The left is using strong language, negative language, to describe Palin’s decision. This is because with her religion and gun clinging she scares the hell out of them. They are all borrowing from Barry Alinsky Obama’s playbook and are focusing like a laser on Palin. Alinsky wrote “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense.” It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. Alinsky also said “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (source) Do the two bold tactics above sound familiar? (If I were allowed a single question for Barack Obama it would be “have you read Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and if so, what was its effect on your political career?)
Look at it this way. If you were going to take on Team Obama, the most successful campaign team in election history, wouldn’t you want to start as early as possible and do everything you can to give yourself whatever advantages you can find? In order to counter the most powerful and unethical (dare I say illegal) fund raising machine we have ever seen Palin needs to start fund raising now and has to find powerful and, more importantly, rich allies. To counter the ongoing wave of media backlash she needs to remove the shackles of public office. To address the oh so many lies, rumors and stories thrown at her she needs to have time to repeat her factual messages over and over and over and over again. Obama has shown America that if you repeat a lie often enough, the people buy it. If you perform “action A” while at the same time blatantly lie to the American people and tell them that you instead are doing “action B,” they will buy it.
I think Sarah Palin will be successful because she has something Barack Obama does not have: Morals. Obama has been nothing but a higher-office seeking, “present” voting, race-baiting, self-serving opportunist that has never had to be responsible for his actions. To be fair, by all appeances he seems to be a great father and husband. But this does not qualify him as leader of the free world.
For the next week or so we will hear all sorts of psychobabble about her resignation. Be sure to consider the source and be warry of those that focus on the ridicule aspect without any substance to back up their statements. Sarah Palin is going to be a force to be reckoned with, I suggest that you buy as much popcorn as you can because this is going to be a great show to watch. If she surrounds herself with the right positive influences and ethical, dependable people, Sarah Palin will be our next president.
UPDATE: I found the following comment on HotAir and feel that it sums things up quite nicely.
People are choosing sides. — faraway on July 5, 2009
This is getting to the heart of it I think. The RINO wing of the party has known the war with its principled base was coming for some time, but I think they figured they had a tremendous time advantage over the base, since ‘foes’ like Palin were ‘locked in’ to their existing commitments until at least 2010 if not 2012, and thus couldn’t bring the fight directly to them. With their time advantage, they probably figured they could make their case relatively unobstructed, cut small side deals with the Democrats from time to time that continued to undermine the position of the base (such as immigration perhaps?), continue to open small pinhole leaks in the fabric of their constituency, slowly demoralize the base, and position themselves to blackmail the base as the “only alternative” come 2012 as they always do, on the grounds that conducting open political warfare so close to the 2012 election would mean certain defeat for Republicans.
Now all that has changed. And they know it. And they’re pissed about it.
Now, they probably think all this is terrible news. After all, aren’t they selflessly trying to ’save’ the Party by manipulating those red-state rubes in the base? But to those of us who knew the fight was coming, who knew the fight had to be waged no matter what, who implicitly understand a fight like this cannot (and ultimately would not) be swept under the rug, this is important news indeed. Because it means that *at least* the bloodbath will be taking place NOW, with lots more time to spare before next election, instead of smack-dab during the election season.
Until Sarah Palin’s announcement, there were all the excuses in the world for postponing the day of reckoning. Now, there are few to none. Sorry RINOs.
If this analysis is true, then (at least this part of) Palin’s decision is selfless as it means she understood she had to bring the fight now and not in another year and a half, and thus is taking a risk in order to do the right thing for the Republican base.
RD on July 5, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Prepare the world. Notify the Secret Service. Let Joe “invisible man” Biden know that I’ve decided to “get patriotic.” I’ve got an Internet talk show now, thanks to the folks at RFCradio.com. It will be airing Tuesdays and Thursdays at 3PM Central time. Check it out if you can. Go to RFCradio.com and click on the “Listen Now” link at the top right. Or click on the link at the top left of my blog where it says “Listen Up.” There is also a live chat room where I’ll hopefully be (schedule permitting) if you want to offer instant feedback.
Bio — Chat Room — Listen Live – Schedule
I hope you listen! It’s time to get LOUD!
If you missed Sarah Palin’s speech at the RNC, you missed a speech that was both entertaining and effective. In plain English, as only a mother of five can deliver, Palin called out Obama. She said what so many Conservatives have been saying without the benefit of media coverage. As the first Republican female VP candidate she delivered several direct and unmistakable shots into the gut of Barack Obama. Sarah Palin has energized the Republican party like no one else. I can’t wait to see her debate 35-year insider Joe Biden.
Here are the barbs that Palin shot at Obama. I wonder if any of these sent a tingle up Chris Matthews’ leg:
- “… I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involved.”
- “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.”
- “I might add that, in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they’re listening and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening. No, we tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.”
- “Our opponents say again and again that drilling will not solve all of America’s energy problems, as if we didn’t know that already. But the fact that drilling, though, won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.”
- And now, I’ve noticed a pattern with our opponent, and maybe you have, too. We’ve all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers, and there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the State Senate.”
- “This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word “victory,” except when he’s talking about his own campaign.”
- “But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot… when that happens, what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet. The answer — the answer is to make government bigger, and take more of your money, and give you more orders from Washington, and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world.”
- “America needs more energy; our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.”
- “Government is too big; he wants to grow it. Congress spends too much money; he promises more. Taxes are too high, and he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan. And let me be specific: The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, and raise payroll taxes, and raise investment income taxes, and raise the death tax, and raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.”
- “In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers, and then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change. They are the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners or on self-designed presidential seals.”
- “Harry Reid, the majority of the current do-nothing Senate… he not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee. He said, quote, “I can’t stand John McCain.” Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we’ve chosen the right man.”
- “My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery.”
- “This world of threats and dangers, it’s not just a community and it doesn’t just need an organizer. And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they’re always, quote, “fighting for you,” let us face the matter squarely: There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you.”
- “For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words. But for a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.”
For some reason I envision Joe Biden quivering beneath his hair plugs. He may have a high IQ, but his track record as a lifelong Washington insider makes him a prime target for Sara Barraccuda in the upcoming debates. Sure, he will jab at her ‘lack’ of experience, but Palin dismissed that issue tonight. Game over Joe, thanks for playing.
He’s going to be the Republican nominee. Let’s get right to his speech (transcript here):
“Many of you have disagreed strongly with some positions I have taken in recent years. I understand that. I might not agree with it, but I respect it for the principled position it is. And it is my sincere hope that even if you believe I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative, you will still allow that I have, in many ways important to all of us, maintained the record of a conservative. Further, I hope you will grant that I have defended many positions we share just as ardently as I have made my case for positions that have provoked your opposition.”
In other words
- I disagree with your opposition to McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold.
- I don’t think I’m mistaken. I think you are mistaken.
- I’m passionately stubborn and will continue to demand my way or the highway.
Next:
“…the rule of law in our country is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty and property of its citizens.”
Is that so? What about the property of border towns? What about the liberty of the 60 or so Americans kidnapped from Laredo this year? What about the laws already on the books that make it illegal to enter our country by simply walking across the desert?
Next:
“I believe today, as I believed twenty-five years ago, in small government; fiscal discipline; low taxes; a strong defense, judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are the true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…”
Starts off good, this is what Conservatives want. We just don’t these rights extended to illegal aliens. Now more on immigration:
“I respect your opposition for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law. And while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were. I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.”
This is good, but is it true? The past voting record is to the contrary. Do Conservatives have enough trust left in the bank to hope that this actually happens? Or, is this just pandering to silence critics until we are distracted by something else.
- “Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government. I intend to reduce it.”
- “Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I intend to cut them.”
- “Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.”
Amen Senator. On these items we agree.
“If I am convinced my judgment is in error, I will correct it. And if I stand by my position, even after benefit of your counsel, I hope you will not lose sight of the far more numerous occasions when we are in complete accord.”
To paraphrase the red text above, “I may push forward with legislation that Conservatives may hate, but that’s ok because there have been times in the past that we happened to agree.” Personally, I’d like to hear a single example of a time when the Senator has changed his position based on erroneous judgment. Just one.
“I am pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere in the world because of them, because I know that to be denied liberty is an offense to nature and nature’s Creator. I will never waver in that conviction, I promise you.”
In other words torture is bad, I will not condone it, nor will I condone prisons like Guantanamo.
Summary: I am of mixed emotions over this speech. How much is sincere? How much is pandering? I didn’t witness it so I’m forced to interpret from text alone. I pray that the Senator has truly heard our voices and will work as hard with Conservatives as he does across the aisle.
