Palin

Newt Gingrich Endorses Dede Scozzafava?? Out Of Touch!!

Submitted by Skip MacLure on Sun, 10/25/2009 - 05:52

in

I knew there was something about Newt Gingrich that was REALLY bothering me. Don’t get me wrong, Newt is a really bright guy, but I had severe doubts about his sanity when he started to cozy up to Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential campaign. Some of his choices recently lead me to believe he’s lost touch with the conservative patriot movement of the party, if he in fact was ever in touch with it at all. Newt’s endorsement of FAR LEFT LIBERAL Republican Dede Scozzafava makes as much sense as Meg Whitman’s gushy endorsement of avowed communist agitator Van Jones and will have the same inevitable result..the only difference being that Newt is not seeking to be Governor of California..but that’s a story for another time. I’ve been talking about the “Old Guard” Country Club Republican Party. The guys that meet and predetermine our presidential candidates before district or state elections or national primaries. That they’ve been wrong time after time doesn’t seem to bother them. They see themselves as beltway movers and shakers and the all-knowing decision makers for us ordinary little people. There is a ground swell phenomenon out there called the Conservative Patriot movement that the Old Guard is having difficulty comprehending, much less coping with. It’s a movement that is insisting that American Conservative values be followed…that honesty and transparency become the by-word of the party. That small government, anti-regulation, tax reform and fiscal responsibility become the focus of a new and revitalized Conservative Republican Party. The 23rd District race in New York may very well be a bell weather indicator for what is going to occur around the country. The Old Boy network of New York GOP political bosses decided that ultra left Dede Scozzafava, a MAXI RINO, would be the party’s pick to run in the 23rd congressional district. This didn’t sit right with the natives, who promptly rebelled with immediate and potentially national implications. Conservatives flocked to the aid and support of patriot dark horse candidate Doug Hoffman. Including the Conservative Club for Growth and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Hoffman may turn this race into a route…which should give establishment Republicans around the country pause for severe reflection. They should be getting this message; We don’t want deal makers. We want leadership who will stand up and FIGHT for what we believe in. We don’t want a CENTRIST limp-wristed party leadership who will be pushed around by every Democrat on the hill. BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU FIGHT FOR, FIGHT FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE!!

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

Skip MacLure's blog
Login or register to post comments

A failure to communicate

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sat, 12/13/2008 - 09:37

in

Palin

That is the key point of Hugh Hewitt's Politico's article: GOP 5.0: What next for Lincoln's party?

"The difference — a 6-point, 8 million vote difference, it turned out — was in the GOP's ability to communicate its ideals and its vision for America. The party lost its voice at precisely the moment it needed to be full throated. Gov. Sarah Palin's enormous popularity was primarily because she was unafraid to speak into the roar of disapproval of the media elite about the virtues of the classic GOP platform, including its belief in protecting unborn life and in economic liberty. As Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) noted after his blowout win — which also energized the GOP nationally — Palin’s barnstorming drew enormous crowds and allowed his runoff campaign to peak at exactly the right time."

We need an RNC Chair who above all else will be unafraid to articulate the Republican message of regainig a robust, internationally competive economy through less government -- less taxes and less restrictive government regulation -- amid the roar of disapproval from the liberal Left and the media elite. What Gov. Palin did in Georgia can be seen as a clear example of what she is capable of doing for the Republican Party on the national stage...communicate the message.

ex animo

davidfarrar

davidfarrar's blog
Login or register to post comments

A multiple choice question

Submitted by davidfarrar on Thu, 12/11/2008 - 18:24

in

Quick, when Saxby Chambliss needed a Republican heavy weight to help him in his runoff election, who did he call for?

Saul Anuzis

Ken Blackwell

Katon Dawson

Mike Duncan

Chip Saltsman

Michael Steele

If you were running in the 2010 Congressional elections, who would you most likely call upon to come and stump for you in your Congressional District?

Saul Anuzis

Ken Blackwell

Katon Dawson

Mike Duncan

Chip Saltsman

Michael Steele

ex animo

davidfarrar

Force Democrats to Commit to a Particular Vision for America!!

Submitted by go2thegym on Fri, 12/05/2008 - 01:35

in

There is any easy path back: Force Democrats to Commit to a Particular Vision for America.

To do this, consider a coalition between the Green and the Republican Parties.

Crazy you say?

Hear me out.

What is the best way to expose the basic fraud in the democrat appeal?

Force them to choose between the liberal base and the broad coalition.

What is the best way to do that?

Help the Green Party win those "safe" liberal seats tucked away in the inner cities.

Usually, the Republican Party doesn't even run a candidate in these seats. Why not contribute to Green Party victories in those Gerrymandered Liberal State Representative, State Senate, and U.S. Congressional seats?

How can you do that?

Prevent the democrats from blocking Green Party ballot access. Relax restrictions on ballot access. Contribute money to Green Party campaigns. At every opportunity, attack the hypocrisy of Democrat candidates in comparison to Green candidates.

Don't let the Democrats get away with installing another Baraka tHUSAME Obama in a nice safe State Senate seat like the one in Hyde Park, Chicago. Make the would be "liberal" democrats fight the Green Party for those seats. Make them prove their liberal credentials so that they can't run away from their commitments as soon as they see lobby money waived in their faces.

This is way better than the K-Street project. The Green Party project would actually work.

Think of the effect on the Democrat Party.

Democrats would have to choose between, on the one hand, an honest and straightforward socialist approach, or, on the other hand, a weasel-worded, flim-flam, Obama type campaign of deception in which they promise everything and deliver nothing but image.

How can Republicans continue letting the Democrats finesse all the major issues of the day, without forcing them to commit to their best solution?

Exhibit A: immigration policy.

Exhibit B: trade policy and globalism

Exhibit C: income redistribution

Force the democrat liberals to choose.

You really want "Choice not an Echo," then start by forcing the liberals to choose. It'll make your job easier.

If Green members take the liberal seats in the State Houses and Congress, the Green Party can form a coalition with the Republican Party, just as happens with third parties in Canada, Europe and Israel.

Coalitions allow the parties to unite to accomplish specific goals. It's not true that there could never be a project on which Republicans and Greens could agree. Starting with the selection of a Speaker of the House (state or federal), the opportunity to form a coalition with the Green Party could offer significant advantages to Republicans over their Democrat rivals.

The beauty of a multi-party system is that each party passionately represents it's own constituency. As the constituencies expand, the influence of the party expands. Each party negotiates on behalf of its constituency for the best government possible. There is less ideological fraud.

The Republicans have been trying to run on ideology since 1964 - as if Republicans were in a multi-party system. Instead of a straight up debate, Republicans keep using wedge issues and sleezy (Atwater type) campaigns in order to win. This must be frustrating to those who want to have a full opportunity to work out a functioning philosophy of government. How can you do this if the Democrats can't be pinned down?

Force the democrats to stick with a message. Force them to represent their constituents.

Force the democrats to face the Green Party.

Force liberal democrats to chose between the Democrat Party and the Green Party.

Liberal democrats will either disappear; or, the Democrat Party will accept a fixed ideological position. Either way, is good for Republicans. And, coincidentally, it would be good for America.

Sarah Palin to stump for Chambliss in Georgia

Submitted by davidfarrar on Tue, 11/25/2008 - 14:27

in

Governor Sara Palin will participate in four campaign rallies across Georgia on Monday on December 1, 2008 on behalf of Sen. Saxby Chambliss runoff election. The rallies will be in Atlantia, Augusta, Macon and Savannah areas.

When you consider posting your nominees for the RNC Chair race, I would like for you to stop and consider who Saxby Chambliss has chosen in his hour of political need -- and inwardly digest.

ex animo

davidfarrar

davidfarrar's blog
Login or register to post comments

Why I Prefer to Be a Bad Sport for Now

Submitted by R. Thomas Risk on Thu, 11/06/2008 - 16:49

<!--[if gte mso 10]>

<![endif]-->

On November 5 John Kasich wrote: “We must figure out how to reorganize and restructure ourselves so that we can once again command the confidence and respect of not only the members of our own party, but voters of all stripes.” I certainly agree that conservatism must be redefined, and I will offer my suggestions in a moment. But I submit that none of us is ready for the task just yet.

In her 1969 groundbreaker On Death and Dying, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, M.D., introduced a model known as the Five Stages of Grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. While not every process entails all five stages, the good doctor stated categorically that everyone experiences at least two. But it appears that virtually every conservative commentator has tossed the model out and substituted his own single-phase paradigm: Submission. No sooner had Senator McCain delivered his concession speech than some of my favorite radio talk show hosts – who had been breathing fire just hours earlier – blandly appealed to my optimism as though the proponents of capitalism and self-determination had merely lost a preseason football game. Perhaps they don’t want to appear sore losers. Perhaps they want to come across as “high-roaders.” But in whose eyes? I guarantee you the liberals are so drunk with victory that they don’t care whether we lost sportingly or otherwise. Besides, it is a bit late for conservatives to worry about image. We have been drubbed. We have been bulldozed, hoodwinked, ground into the muck. We fought fair while they pulled every dirty trick in the playbook, and they clobbered us silly.

Where is the outrage, ladies and gentlemen? Do liberals hold a patent on passion? Did someone outlaw indignation while I wasn’t looking? The liberals seem to wield it freely enough. History instructs that we can not move forward until we fully appreciate where we are. Permit me to remind all of those blasé “we’ll-gettum-next-timers” a few facts I can recall off the top of my head about the man who just gave conservatism a bloody nose. Barack Hussein Obama: (1) exhibited blatant sexism during the primaries, then thumbed his nose at feminism by snubbing Senator Clinton in favor of “Conehead” Biden; (2) showed the “common man” his true elitist colors when he rejected public campaign financing and outspent Senator McCain by a factor of 7 to 1; (3) would turn our courts into tools for “redistributive justice”; (4) used government computers and databases to find dirt that would discredit Joe the Plumber; (5) has bragged about the fact that he wants to increase the tax burden on the producers of this country so that he can guarantee a better living for the 30-40% who are freeloaders; (6) was endorsed by both Hugo Chavez and Iran’s parliament; and (7) has little patience for the notion of individual rights.

And another thing. Let us not forget that, despite his silken demeanor, the man is an empty suit when it comes to concrete solutions. I know attorneys because I am one. The first lesson they teach in law school is how to use as many of the biggest words available to say as little as possible. Our new chief executive took that lesson to heart. People are weeping and screaming and dancing in the streets because “we” made history on November 4 by electing the first African American in U.S. history. Unfortunately, a majority of the voters got so caught up in making history that they forgot to ask what kind of person lay beneath the fashionable skin they were about to vote for. Let’s face it. Obama didn’t have to make sense. He needed no substance. And he didn’t need to curry favor with moderates. All he needed was to be a good looking, well-spoken black man who hung out with “cool” people like Madonna and Bruce Springsteen. And he knew it from day one. When I was a boy I was taught that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s would someday stamp out racism. I’m sorry to report that racism is still with us; it has merely switched sides.

This is the America our complacency has nurtured. So spare me the silver-lining pablum. I want to hear some emotionally healthy yelling and desk-pounding out there. I’m not talking about rioting or bullying. Those of you with an established forum in the media know exactly what to do. I only hope you’ll find the motivation to do it. As for the rest of you, try this as an example. When I moved to a college town some years back, I confess that I allowed my vitriolic liberal brother-in-law to temper my philosophies. Whenever he would rant about the evils he perceived Bush to have perpetrated, I was quick to remind him that the common enemy wasn’t Bush – it was career politicians and elitists in general. When he simmered down I patted myself on the back for "remaining above the fray." But one evening my 9-year-old nephew bragged to me that he had browbeaten a schoolmate of his into “voting” for a liberal in an important race. With the glassy-eyed exuberance of a Hitler youth, he recited the mantra he had heard night after night from his father. I decided I had placated the brother-in-law for the last time. Though I don’t hang out as much with my sister’s family as a result, I can rest assured that my nephew now knows his father’s way of thinking is not the only way.

So conservatism as we know it has been pulverized. It lies dead in the gutter. How do we resurrect it? The first thing we do is reintroduce ourselves to some fundamental principles many of us have forgotten: lower taxes; limited government intervention; disciplined government spending; individualism. All variations of the concepts of tradition and convention must be eliminated from our lexicon. Who do we attract? On the count of three, let’s all scratch our heads. One … two … three … and there is our answer: Real People. But just what is a real person? As a rule of thumb, real people don’t toe the party line or wear the homogenous blue blazer. Take me, for instance. I’m into The Who, Pearl Jam and the Black Keys, but I refuse to buy a suit that is anything but double-breasted. I have tattoos, but I believe shoelaces should be tied, belt loops should be belted and undershorts should be covered in public. I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and I will not hesitate to go for the kill shot if someone breaks into my home. On the other hand, I have never understood, and will never understand, the attraction of game hunting. I am an agnostic. I detest abortion, but I think an outright ban ignores reality. Though I am a heterosexual, I don’t understand how letting gays get married diminishes the institution for straights. By the same token, I don’t understand why gays feel the need to impose an archaic religious ritual on an otherwise fulfilling relationship. I don’t indulge in illegal recreational drugs; just the same, I don’t see the harm in legalizing marijuana or cocaine – people bent on destroying themselves will do it one way or another, so there’s no reason to spoil the party for responsible users. Blah, blah, enough about me.

The point is that today’s conservative is not as easy to peg as was the little twerp Michael J. Fox played on prime time television in the 1980s. That is why there were so many so-called Independents out there for Obama and his string-pullers to swoop up this time around. The key to redefining conservatism is to refrain from overdefining it. Agree on a very limited number of core principles, leave the rest of the slate clean and welcome the deluge of fresh new faces with bold ideas who will inevitably flock to your doorstep.

-R. Thomas Risk

Don’t Blame Sarah Palin

Submitted by Rev. John on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 21:25

in

McCain
Palin

Crossposted at JohnBrodigan.com...

Apparently there are people within the McCain campaign, in the event of a loss on Tuesday, who are setting the stage to blame Sarah Palin for the loss. Arguing that the person most responsible for the crowds, the excitement, the fundraising, and the volunteers would be the one responsible for the loss is above my pay grade, but that seems to be what's coming.

Yes, I am well aware what the polls say about her not having the experience to be President. Obama doesn't have the experience either, but because change is coming and experience doesn't matter in a change election and we are the change we are waiting for, it doesn't matter. That's because it's all spin, something the McCain campaign has failed miserably at. The numbers are also a reflection of that trainwreck of a Katie Couric interview (through no fault of Ms. Couric) that they never should have had her do in the first place...but "The Mismanagement of Palin" is a blog post of another time.

The fact is the McCain campaign is behind, and when the campaign is behind going into the days before an election, fingers start to get pointed. A lot of those fingers seem to be pointed at Gov. Palin. A lot of the fingers doing the pointing seem to be coming from "anonymous" McCain staffers...who used to be Mitt Romney staffers (if you're like me an believe everything you read on the Internet), but that too is a blog post for a different time. Anyone who is pointing to Sarah Palin as being the reason the McCain campaign has been doing so poorly in the past month is quite simply wrong.

Some things to keep in mind...

1. It is not Sarah Palin's fault that the economy collapsed. This is this most important one, and you would think one that is pretty obvious. The polls were essentially tied the day of the bailout vote. As the Dow Jones dropped, so did McCain's poll numbers. We're not talking quantum physics here.

2. It is not Sarah Palin's fault that John McCain didn't take a stand against the bailout, which would have a) been true to who he is, b) given the House Republicans an opportunity to break from President Bush, and c) put him on the side of the American people, who opposed the bailout by a general margin of five to one.

3. It is not Sarah Palin's fault that the McCain Campaign let Obama get away with his misleading ads aboot McCain's healthcare plan, get away with using the usual Democrat politics of fear to scare seniors into thinking McCain was going to take their social security away, or get away with the "Obama Tax Cut" that isn't really a tax cut.

4a. It is not Sarah Palin's fault that Joe Biden and Joe the Plumber make a better case for John McCain than John McCain does.

4b. It is not Sarah Palin's fault that Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson make a better case for John McCain than John McCain does.

4c. It is not Sarah Palin's fault that Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, who don't like John McCain, make a better case for John McCain than John McCain does.

5. It is not Sarah Palin's fault that no one ever explained to John McCain you can't be a Republican running for president and have the media like you, or that the media was never his friend in the first place and only used him when they needed a Republican they could always count on to publicly criticize other Republicans.

Could John McCain have picked a running mate that could have delivered him the election? I doubt it. With all the criticism of Palin being a bad choice, I've yet to hear anyone make a case for anyone else. It's also, in general, criticism from people who always want to tell you what the Republican party needs to do and what John McCain could have done to win...even though none of them are Republicans and never wanted him to win in the first place. Had he picked Romney/Pawlenty/Ridge/Lieberman, these same people would be criticizing McCain for not "thinking outside the box" by choosing someone like Palin or Bobby Jindal (R-LA).

Don't get me wrong, I haven't given up hope for a McCain victory on Tuesday. The internals of some of these polls don't jive with the end result, and the MSM seems to be ignoring the same signs of Republican voter turn out that they ignored in 2004. A longshot? Yes, but not impossible.

But what if he does lose? Are we really going to put all the blame on Sarah Palin, someone poised to be a future leader of our party? Or are we going to put the blame on John McCain, who is barely the current leader of our party...and who is the one that's running for President in the first place?

Final Electoral Predictions: What a McCain Upset Would Look Like

Submitted by Aaron Marks on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 16:24

in

Cross-posted from NextGenGOP.

At this point, I don’t think that any of us can effectively predict what the outcome of tomorrow’s elections will be. Quite frankly, I’m not even sure that we’ll know the who the next President of the United States is going to be for many hours, if not days, after polls close. That said, it seems that there are three possible scenarios that could play out in tomorrow’s Presidential election:

Barack Obama wins in a huge landslide.
Barack Obama wins in a close race.
John McCain pulls off an historical upset in a close race.

Barack Obama Wins in a Huge Landslide

This seems to be the narrative that the Leftosphere would like us to believe. This scenario seems to be the most unlikely due to a number of factors, including the huge percentage of undecided voters (which should break for McCain), McCain’s success in raising doubts in the minds of voters about Barack Obama, and Obama’s struggles with working-class voters in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Nonetheless, if current polling is to be believed, then we should see a such a landslide with an electoral map looking something like this (this is pulled straight from the RCP “No Toss Up States” map):

Barack Obama Wins in a Close Race

Unfortunately, I strongly believe that this scenario is the most likely. Basically, I see Florida and Ohio departing from their current polling numbers and going for McCain. Obama is polling near, but not at, the 50% mark in each of the states, and I think that the vast majority of undecided voters will swing to McCain in these states, allowing him to win each of them, albeit closely. Thus, the final electoral map in this scenario would look like this:

John McCain Pulls of an Historic Upset in a Close Race

I am extremely hopeful that John McCain can pull off an upset tomorrow. Unfortunately, looking at the electoral maps above, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which he can accomplish such a difficult feat. However, if it’s going to happen, I think that in addition to Ohio and Florida bucking the current polling trends, so will Pennsylvania and, out of necessity, another state with a couple of electoral votes. Based on current RCP averages, I’m of the opinion that Nevada is the other state most likely to swing.

First, let’s talk about Pennsylvania. I’m Pittsburgh born and raised, and so I’ve lived in Pennsylvania my entire life. As a former Santorum 2006 staffer, I know that accomplishing a statewide victory in Pennsylvania is an incredible challenge for Republicans. However, I also believe that the dynamics of Pennsylvania’s electorate make it the next most likely state to flip from polling projections after Ohio and Florida. No, this isn’t because we’re racist or a bunch of rednecks (although I believe that Murtha’s comments may drive an increased number of Republicans in his district to the polls tomorrow, which is undoubtedly in McCain’s favor). Rather, I believe that the blue collar voters of Pennsylvania, although reliably Democrat, find it extremely difficult to swallow Barack Obama’s “spread the wealth around” policies – and as a result, they may either decide to not vote at all, or to pull the lever for John McCain. Additionally, there are a number of highly competitive Congressional races in PA in which an outcry of Republican voters could help turn the race in favor of McCain. Specifically, I look to William Russell’s race against John Murtha (which I mentioned above), but also to Lou Barletta’s race against the filthy Paul Kanjorski, in which I think Lou will defeat Kanjorski. With Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida going against polling trends, the electoral college stands at 270 for Obama-Biden to 268 for McCain-Palin, requiring one more state to flip for a McCain-Palin victory.

In my eyes, there are two other states that potentially could end up becoming red despite polling that indicates otherwise: Virginia and Nevada. Winning in either of these states will prove difficult for John McCain. However, he only has to flip one of them from its polling trends in order to win. So a McCain-Palin victory might look something like this:

The roadmap to victory for the McCain-Palin ticket is enormously difficult and quite improbable, although certainly not impossible. Some important questions to ponder over the next day or so: Can Barack Obama close? Will the GOP’s vaunted GOTV machine have the success we’ve seen in previous elections? Will young voters turn out in droves, and if so, will they really disproportionately vote for Obama? And, most importantly, does John McCain’s campaign have the ability to pull off an unprecedented and historic electoral victory?

Aaron Marks's blog
Login or register to post comments

Palin and Thatcher: Reaction of the "Intellectual Class"

Submitted by Tim W on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 15:48

in

A comparison between Sara Palin and Margaret Thatcher can be taken a bit too far. They are in many respects very different people. But the reaction to each by the intellectual "new class" in their societies is remarkably similar. I've been reading Hugo Young's 1989 biography of Thatcher and came across this:

"One of the most readily discernible issues between these two worlds was a matter of social snobbery, laced, on the part of the dissenting intellectuals, with a special tang of indignation deriving from the fact that their antagonist was a woman...

."...the baroness had once seen Mrs Thatcher on television choosing clothes at Marks & Spencer, and there was, she found, something quite 'obscene' about it. The clothes showed a woman 'packaged together in a way that's not exactly vulgar, just low.' Lady Warnock confessed to 'a kind of rage' whenever she thought about her.

"Scarcely less remarkable than such sentiments, which sounded as though they sprang from something deeper than the well of pure reason, was the willingness of these intellectuals to express them. It was as though the passions of the age had lifted all restraint from the canons of public conversation. Nothing, it appeared, was unmentionable, no depth of condescension need be left unplumbed..."

The Young biography is a bit old, and I've been thinking about picking up the Claire Berliniski biography. Is anyone familiar with it?

Tim Wright

Mitt Romney's Anti-Palin Crusade

Submitted by Allen on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 13:16

in

Palin
romney

The American Spectator is reporting that Republican operatives on behalf of Mitt Romney are actively trying to sink Sara Palin.

This is the second credible source who has reported this to me.

The Specator piece also mentions how unhelpful Romney has been to other Republican candidates.

This election has shown the worst side of the Republican Party. Along with being ideologically adrift, the Party has an abudance of "supporters" who need to learn Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment. Republicans should not speak ill of fellow Republicans.

There is no need to detail the premediated, destructive attacks of David Frum, Peggy Noonan, and Mitt Romney. There is need to remember those who let the Democrats off the hook by directing their fire on Republicans.

National Review Online has a longish defense of Romney. The majority of this piece is a compelling defense of Romney being active this campaign season. The paragraph on Palin is not persuasive.

Newt Gingrich Endorses Dede Scozzafava?? Out Of Touch!!

A failure to communicate

A multiple choice question

Force Democrats to Commit to a Particular Vision for America!!

Sarah Palin to stump for Chambliss in Georgia

Why I Prefer to Be a Bad Sport for Now

Don’t Blame Sarah Palin

Final Electoral Predictions: What a McCain Upset Would Look Like

Palin and Thatcher: Reaction of the "Intellectual Class"

Mitt Romney's Anti-Palin Crusade

User login

Subscribe & Connect

Ads

Promos

Recent blog posts

Recent comments

Search

Links