Updates on the Special Elections in NY-9

 

With the all the hype in the national stage the upcoming special elections in NY-9 for Weiner's seat has suddenly crept upon us and is now less than two weeks away.

Things sure are heating up between the Democratic candidate, David Weprin, and The Republican candidate, Bob Turner! The week started off with a bang, with Weprin showing off how much he knows.

Here's the report from Lonely Conservative.

The folks at the New York Daily News had a Q&A session for the candidates running to replace Weiner in congress. The Democrat, David Weprin took the cake for the most ignorant answer. He was asked a pretty simple question – how much is the national debt.

Daily News: “Right now, how big is the debt?”

Weprin: (Pause) “Trillions.”

News: “But how many?”

Weprin: (Deer in headlights look.) “I got caught up on this once before,” referring to his inability while running unsuccessfully for city controller in 2009 to state that office’s budget.

News: “This is central to what is going on in Washington.”

Weprin: “About 4 trillion.”

News: “Four trillion is the debt?”

Weprin: “Right.”

Well, he was off only by a $10 trillion order of magnitude. As has been reported far, wide and ad nauseam, the U.S. is burdened by a debt of roughly $14 trillion.

And this man is telling voters he is ideally suited to participate in finding solutions to America’s yawning annual deficits and crushing debtload? It’s no wonder Weprin inhabits a fantasyland in which, he says, bringing troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq alone “will go a long way to reducing the deficit.” ….

In response, Bob Turner gathered a handful of his 13 grandchildren together below the federal debt clock in midtown Manhattan this morning to lay out what he thinks the federal government should do to lower the deficit and turn economy around. In short, he proposed:

• A “significant” cut in spending to lower the debt

• No further stimulus

• “A sound energy policy”

• Taking corporate money off of balance sheets

At least someone's aware of the current economic situation and ready to do something to reign in the debt!

h/t The Brooklyn Politics

Then, following the deficit debacle, Weprin  ditched a debate blaming it on Hurricane Irene which was long gone Monday. Hmm. Wonder why.  

Here's the news from Roll Call:

State Assemblyman David Weprin (D) dropped out of a scheduled debate with Republican Bob Turner scheduled Monday, just over two weeks before a special election in New York’s 9th district that will send one of the men to Congress.

Next, the New York Times jumped into the fray and endorsed ignorant arrogant Weprin because ...  drumbeat ... Weprin "has a proven public record to support Israel."

Whoa! Since when has the New York Times become pro-Israel? And this is definitely the first time in all these years that they half-ways admitted Obama's anti-Israel stance. Does the NYT take us for such fools that we should fall for their phony claim of endorsing Weprin for his supposed support of Israel rather than being a through and through lib?

Here's their endorsement via Brooklyn Politics:

The least helpful contribution to this race comes from former Mayor Ed Koch, who has endorsed Mr. Turner, he says, as a way to protest President Obama’s statement that Israel’s pre-1967 borders should be the basis for negotiating a peace agreement — with mutually agreed land swaps. The idea has been the basis of all negotiations for more than a decade. But Mr. Weprin and Mr. Turner have been equally critical of Mr. Obama’s words. Mr. Weprin has a proven public record in support of Israel.We endorse David Weprin.

In more campaign news, Turner sent out this flyer of Weprin together with Obama and stressed their support for the planned mosque near ground zero, which Turner opposes. With this mailer Turner reinforces the message of his first campaign ad in which the burning twin towers were seen followed by Weprin's comments in support of the mosque.

h/t Brooklyn Politics

The left erupted at Turner for politicizing the tragedy to advance his personal agenda while disregarding the feelings of the families.

Aha! So when Obama uses the death of Osama Bin Laden as self-promotional material while our soldiers are still battling the enemy and endangering their lives, not a peeps is his heard in protest of the left. Nor do they condemn Obama’s sharing military secrets with a private company which will release a video of the raid which captured Osama a month before the 2012 elections.

But Turner’s ad which shows an image of the burning twin towers needs to be decried as insensitive to the victims’ families. Why pay attention to the fact that his ad is showing his empathy of their added pain because the planned mosque?

To see the ad click here.

In more news, Koch who endorsed the Republican candidate Turner, put out the following robocall for Turner:

 "This is former Mayor Ed Koch. I'm calling set the record straight on something. David Weprin is making phone calls trying to scare seniors. They're NONSENSE. Weprin should be ASHAMED of himself. Bob Turner is running for Congress to PROTECT your Medicare and Social Security. It's why I ENDORSED BOB TURNER for Congress. If anyone tries to scare you with LIES about BOB TURNER, tell 'em ED KOCH told them to KNOCK IT OFF. BOB TURNER is the BEST candidate for senior citizens in this race. Don't believe anything else. Send Washington a message: Vote for Bob Turner for congress on September 13th. Bob Turner is supported by Rudy Giuliani, the Liberal Party and me."

So Weprin, in typical Obama style, is using baseless panic to persuade voters to vote for him. How disgusting, though not surprising. In his campaign last year, he used doctored images of swastikas against his Jewish opponent trying to scare Jewish voter.

For more details about the candidates and the upcoming special elections you can read:

NY-9: Do you really need David Weprin who used swastikas against his opponent and dumped his religious values to promote himself?

Shockwaves hit NYC from the liberal epicenter; Democrat Ed Koch endorses Republican Bob Turner for Weiner’s seat!

Ny-9: Bob Turner Ad and the (In)Tolerance of the Left about 9/11

Rick Perry's Hypocrisy

In an obvious political stunt, Perry sent a letter to Janet Napolitano, Director of the Homeland Security, dated three days before his official campaign launch, demanding the federal government to refund Texas approximately 350 million dollars they’ve spent to keep illegals in prison with the explanation that the federal government hasn’t enforced their laws.

The hypocrisy of Rick Perry is clear to all who are aware of his Governing record. Until the past year when he was seriously considering a presidential run, he stood together with the left on the topic of illegal immigration. Perry does not support a wall spanning the entire Mexican border, and has said Arizona's tough-on-immigration law wouldn't be right for Texas.

If that’s not enough here’s more:

In a recent interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader,Governor Rick Perry reiterated his support for the Texas DREAM Act, a bill he signed in 2001. The bill signed by Governor Perry allows illegal aliens who have lived in Texas for three years to receive in-state tuition. Due to the Texas DREAM Act, qualifying illegal aliens attending the University of Texas, for example, pay $10,000 less in tuition costs, an amount that is thrown on the backs of taxpaying citizens in Texas.

In 1996, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas authored the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Rep. Smith’s bill clearly prohibits states from offering in-state tuition benefits for illegal aliens, unless offered to all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants as well.

The Texas DREAM Act of 2001 that Governor Rick Perry signed and supports, is clearly in violation of Rep. Smith’s Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

Although credit must be given for him for attempting to prohibit cities from adopting “sanctuary” rules, being slightly better than Obama is far from good enough.

Where are his letters to the Department of Homeland Security from five or ten years ago? Where is his outrage for the Texan taxpayer money he’d used to provide illegals with subsidized education? He obviously wasn’t thinking of a presidential run in 2001 when signing the Texas DREAM Act. Fighting the people’s fight in order to win an election does not qualify a candidate as a truthful servant of the people. Quite the contrary.

Perry's game of playing conservative immediately prior and during the campaign is not only in regard to illegal immigration. As I’ve written in the past, Perry has been governor for over decade yet only found it necessary this year to pass a budget smaller than the previous one. You can love Rick Perry to no end, but if you’re ready to support Perry despite his hypocrisy than you might as well support the Romney. As long as the field is still open and other candidates have the option of joining, a true conservative shouldn't support either of the two flip-floppers. Perry obviously thought he’d get away with the publicity stunt without anyone delving into his true positions and past records. However, the voters have awoken and candidates will have to prove they’ve walked the walk, not just talked the talk.

The Republican Party’s motto has always been cutting taxes and spending. Cutting taxes is indeed necessary for the economy to flourish. However, most Republicans including Perry have only focused on the tax cuts part while skipping over the equally or more important cuts in spending. Tax cuts alone is not an effective or sound economic policy. The deficit has increased with four trillion during Bush’s two terms despite his tax cuts, since wasteful spending was not curbed.

The Republican establishment crowd is currently seeking for more of the old; a candidate who is capable of shelling out trillions at a speed only somewhat lower than Obama’s as long as the candidate will pledge to cut taxes. This reasoning is faulty since it doesn’t solve the economic troubles nor do anything to reduce the deficit. Tax cuts alone are not enough to turn around the economy since it doesn’t include anything to halt the tracks of the upwards-climbing deficit. Although tax cuts might’ve boosted the economy somewhat and possibly delayed the credit rating downgrade, it wouldn’t avoid the downgrade.

Every one of the Republican presidential candidates would fight new taxes for they wouldn’t want to face the same fate as Bush 41. Would any of them be willing and able to implement real spending cuts? It’s time to update “Read my lips: No New Taxes” to include “Read my lips: No New Spending.”

Only one individual has a record of consistently cutting spending.


 

A Palin Presidential Run is the Ultimate Debunker

Celebrity-hungry, fame-seeker, and money-minded. This is the description the media and the establishment typically use to portray Governor Palin.

Here’s a question for the media: How can one explain the actions of someone whose only focus is self, self, and self, but opted to sell a private plane handed to her as part of the package of being Governor? How does the money-hungry image match with a Governor who chose to forgo the taxpayer funded private chef with the result that she would continue to do her own cooking?

How can a Governor who supposedly dreams of dollars fight special interests, powerful oil companies, and corrupted individuals with the knowledge that doing so will ensure they won’t contribute a dime to her campaign or include her in back-room shady dealings as per their usual customs with the previous Governor Frank Murkowski and most politicians? After all, the power they’ve amassed was largely thanks to their constant efforts in keeping the political machine properly oiled.

Why would a Governor out to promote and benefit oneself lead the most transparent administration in world history?

Why would someone who has dollar signs reflected in her eyes refuse to accept a pay raise of $25,000 recommended by an Alaskan state commission? Which money-minded individual has ever left a six figure position without an equivalent or greater monetary job in the waiting? There was no way Palin could’ve known that she’d sell millions of copies of the books she hadn’t yet written at the time and which were later proclaimed by all that they would sit and gather dust in the basement of bookstores. Certainly no-one could have foretold that this supposedly brainless woman would produce a documentary watched by millions, become a sought-after speaker, and a Fox News contributor.

Besides, many politicians including Perry have authored books and gone on book tours, or embarked in other private endeavors to earn additional money while continuing to officially serve the people and receiving their weekly taxpayer-funded check. If Palin were truly greedy she could have thus similarly continued being governor and receiving her paycheck while raking it in from her books and other endeavors.

An announcement from Palin that she’s running for president is the ultimate debunker of the celebrity-seeking money-craving myth. If she has left the public service in order to make a fortune off her name, as the Palin-haters claim, then why would she once again run for public office after seeing such stunning success in the private sector? After the TLC documentary Hollywood has jumped to have Palin join their world where she’d have the opportunity to make tens of millions, become a true celebrity, and have the media fawning and falling all over her. Choosing to face a tough campaign, more media scrutiny, and then serve the country in these difficult times for a paltry $400,000 comparative to making millions with a Hollywood career simply doesn’t match the image of Palin as portrayed by the media.

The only answer that can thus properly explain the incongruity of the facts vs. the fabrication is the hypocrisy and hatred from the left, media, and establishment. They simply choose to ignore facts that don’t match their lies. While the correct course of action for the media, left, and establishment would be to quit making things up they will in all probability not change their current agenda and continue to invent fabrications and distort the facts.

Sarah Palin has understandably mainly focused the last few years exposing Obama’s terrible policies and his lack of leadership, and hasn’t spent much time on her own experience and qualities except when refuting the media or when relevant to the national discussion. During the campaign, the Palin team will have the opportunity to debunk these and all other ridiculous lies regarding her and her record that are circulating on the internet and believed by many.

The biggest challenge likely awaiting Palin and her campaign staff may be the educating of voters as to who the real Palin and the real Obama are, and that the true solutions to get the economy moving once again were actually implemented successfully in Alaska during her governorship. Unfortunately, since a large percentage of voters tune into elections with barely half an ear it’ll be necessary to shrink her resume to bite-size portions — not empty slogans, but short enough so that it will stick in the minds of millions who vote based on emotion rather than logic and brains. Needless to say, every Palin message released will also be spread via O4P, C4P, and her millions of supporters thereby increasing the number of recipients and amplifying its effectiveness.

The battle between truth and falsehood is about to begin. Let the truth prevail!


This article is cross-posted at Conservatives4Palin.

Biden Reveals the Truth About the Pro-Choice Movement

The pro-choice movement, which is mainly comprised of liberals, is a false description of their true narrative. Although they claim to promote freedom of choice, in reality they stifle the choice of many with the spread of misinformation and outright lies.

Biden’s remarks in support of China’s one-child policy shook up all freedom-lovers causing the White House to quickly issue a statement expressing their opposition to the one-child policy while Biden called it “repugnant.”

Their statements however are a mere cover-up and their actions prove to be supportive of the Chinese actions.

In addition to his current comments, Biden voted in 2000 against an amendment for a non-binding resolution condemning the one-child policy despite having been made aware of the details of Chinese atrocities. Obama reinstated funding for the UNFPA although it has been found to be complicit in the one-child policy in China.

The lies of the pro-choice movement start from the very top but are far not limited to them.

Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice agencies are known to push those seeking their advice to abort their unborn child. When women such as Sarah Palin chose life for their Down Syndrome babies, the pro-choice crowd reacts with undisguised contempt for the pro-life “choice” which was made.

The term “family planning” is an intentional misnomer. A family is defined as a group consisting of parent(s) AND offspring while family planning groups promote aborting unborn children. Although the left constantly denies the true intentions of family planning services, here and there they slip up and reveal the truth.

Pelosi unwillingly admitted that the family planning agencies are a fraudulent phony cover for the promotion of abortions. She defended the hundreds of millions of dollars originally inserted in the stimulus package for increased family planning services with the following:

“Well, the family planning services reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”

Biden, like most on the left, prides himself of his pro-choice stance, although he understands the Chinese policy. With her above statement Pelosi admitted she’s pro-abortion and not pro-choice as she usually considers herself. Same is for Obama who expressed his support for the increased funding to family planning centers. Actually, same is for majority of those who claim to be pro-choice. Why does the left have such difficulty proclaiming their true stance as pro-abortion with the same conviction pro-lifers tout their ideology? Perhaps deep down in their hearts they know how wrong their positions are?

Funny how the very same individuals whose battle cry is “freedom of choice” oftentimes oppose the notion of choice, and not only in regard to the choice of life. It’s a movement which makes choices and then tries to shove their decisions down our throats. They “advise” us which foods to eat, when to turn off our lights and the types of cars we should drive.

These pro-choice leftists also oppose and have outlawed in many states the death penalty, thus limiting the choices available to juries when meting out judgment against a cold-blooded murderer. They attempt to force upon us all environmentalist laws which strip citizens of their choice regarding the actions they wish to take (if any) to save the planet.

When one acts contrary to the choices they’ve made for the people, such as following through with a pregnancy, they attack the choice that was made.

Biden’s comment in China once again revealed the liberal mentality of only supporting choices which are aligned with the liberal ideology. While many mock Biden as a gaffe machine and whose lack of intelligence is evident as soon as he opens his mouth, his words were simply an honest moment of the left. The left is not pro-choice. They are pro-abortion.

Biden is your stereotypical liberal with one minor differentiation. He’s never mastered rule number-one in the liberal handbook for dummies:

“Never express your true thoughts in public.”

Biden therefore unintentionally provides us with the rare image of what the left truly respects.

This article was cross-posted at Conservatives4Palin.

 

Erick Erickson’s Virginia Senate Flip Flop Undermines ‘Badge of Honor’ Talk

In response to my C4P post Tuesday highlighting RedState’s inconsistent treatment of Republican candidates, including its pro-Perry, anti-Palin bias, Erick Erickson wrote this: (emphasis mine)

God help us, but if there is one uniform criticism from all sides, it is typically that we here at RedState are not team players. And I wear that proudly as a badge of honor. I’m not willing to sacrifice my conservatism for the GOP or a particular candidate.

Erickson might not chuck conservatism “for the GOP or a particular candidate” but he does appear willing to “sacrifice his conservatism” when it threatens his paycheck.

Politico’s Ben Smith posted an article Wednesday shedding light on Erickson’s conscience-for-hire, providing yet another glimpse into Erickson’s well-documented ability to quickly spin away earlier views and inconvenient facts. No doubt he calls this flip flopping behavior “being objective” or something.

Erickson originally endorsed Tea Party candidate Jaime Radke in her Virginia GOP senate contest against establishment pick, and former senator, George Allen. Notice Erickson’s bold proclamation of how important it was to support the grassroots. That is … until he was told not to.

“This race may be the big grassroots vs. party establishment race of 2012 and a test of the tea party’s continued momentum,” wrote Erickson, who is also a CNN contributor.

[Erickson's] endorsement, Jaime Radtke campaign manager Carter Wrenn said, gave the campaign a boost. But soon, he noticed that RedState wasn’t giving Radtke’s campaign much attention.

“The word came back to me that the people who own Human Events and RedState were for Allen and had asked Erickson to step back,” he said.

This summer, Radtke emailed Erickson to ask if she could speak and network at his RedState Convention earlier this month, to which she had not been invited.

Erickson responded in the August 4 email to Radtke, which her campaign manager Wrenn forwarded to POLITICO, with a frank explanation of why he couldn’t offer her a speaking slot.

“[M]y bosses are HUGE Allen friends, not just fans. They are socially connected,” he wrote. “So I’m having to tread carefully in this. Happy to help, but it’s got me in a difficult position. So please come and let me introduce you to people, but just understand that I have to be delicate for now.”

Erickson did, ultimately, allow Radtke to introduce Stephen Bannon, the director of the Sarah Palin film The Undefeated in which Radtke appears. He did so, Wrenn told Radtke, because the Eagle officials weren’t present. Radtke didn’t respond to a request, through Wrenn, for an interview.

Erickson responded in an email to POLITICO that the Eagle officials hadn’t forbade him from taking sides, but simply “asked [that Erickson] go slower in evaluating that race instead of diving in head first.”

“It was not a commandment or order, but out of respect to the long-term relationship a George Allen has with Eagle, I thought it was a reasonable request I was happy to accommodate,” he said. “As it turns out, I don’t really see any way George Allen gets beaten and I’d rather focus resources in Indiana and elsewhere.”

I’m not taking sides in the Radtke vs. Allen battle. Nor do I have any issues with the Eagle officials since they are businessmen like any others who’ve got the right to support the candidates of their choice. I can similarly understand Erickson’s need to respect his bosses’ wishes.

What’s troubling is Erickson’s delusional self-portrayal as this “idealistic pure conservative” who won’t allow anyone or anything to sway his positions when the truth shows otherwise time and time again. It’s nothing but spin.

Erickson’s initial support of Radtke as evidenced by his promotion of her articles — to his rapid turnaround toward openly mocking her — makes him seem like an insincere, self-serving flake. (Remember when he promised to provide the names behind the Will Folks smearing of Nikki Haley, then quickly changed his mind on that, too?)

That was precisely the point of my C4P post about RedState’s hypocrisy with regard to covering candidates. They don’t promote conservatism. They promote flavors of the month. In his nonsensical, self-martyring response Wednesday, Erickson dismissed all these facts I laid out in the piece, and chose to focus on one C4P reader comment calling him a “hack” out of more than 150 comments.

I’ll just close by pointing out the irony that on the same day Erickson talked proudly about wearing badge of honor for being a “non-team player” he devoted two columns to hyping Perry’s candidacy. In the first one he cited a PPP poll which has Perry up, as a likely sign of his winning the primary. He cited a Gallup poll in the other piece as proof that Palin should not think the nomination is hers for taking if she runs.

Funny how Erickson forgot to mention this inconvenient piece of info from the PPP poll:

Independents view him (Perry) negatively already by an almost 2:1 margin, 29/55, and Democrats pretty universally give him bad ratings at a 10/71 spread. As a result Obama leads Perry thanks in large part to a 24-point advantage with independents at 56-32.

To Erickson’s mind, Perry’s negative numbers are neither worthy of being mentioned nor a sign of him being unelectable. But Palin’s high disapproval figures are reason to believe she has been made radioactive. — despite the fact that unlike Perry, she hasn’t even begun to campaign, and she has already had everything including the kitchen sink thrown at her for three years.

Two candidates. Two different standards at RedState. Par for the course.

The internal politics at RedState are irrelevant save that all conservatives should be made aware that the information there is tainted. Erickson’s views time and again are based on additional factors besides the promotion of “conservatism.” Sometimes it’s about his own bottomline.

In consuming the information provided at RedState, it should be buyer beware.


This article is cross posted from Conservatives4Palin.

True Colors: Red State Shows Anti-Palin, Pro-Perry Bias

Two months ago, The Atlantic ran a piece called “The Tragedy of Sarah Palin.”

The author, Joshua Green discovered something seemingly only Limbaugh and Levin listeners and viewers of The Undefeated were aware of until then: that Palin was a great governor whose outstanding governing record endeared her to Alaskans. Joshua Green “explained” that Palin’s many achievements and high approval rating stemmed from her moderate stance on the issues, and blamed her “turn” toward conservatism when picked for VP as the cause of the public’s current hostile treatment.

Imagine my surprise and shock last week to come across another attack against Palin but this time coming from the complete opposite direction. The article was written by Leon H. Wolf, a front-page writer at Red State. The claim: Sarah Palin started out as a true conservative who has made a U-turn, became a moderate, and linked hands with the establishment.

The absurdity of Green’s article is mirrored in Wolf’s piece. Palin has been, still is, and will continue to be a staunch conservative, often taking on the establishment in order to promote conservative ideology.

Their attacks seem to be geared to sway readers who think positively of Palin while currying favor with readers already against Palin. The Atlantic’s readers obviously dislike conservatives in general and Palin in particular. Green thus provided them the perfect explanation to defend their hate towards Palin despite her outstanding record. Red State, on the other hand, is a conservative site whose audience disagrees with the liberal ideology and opposes moderates for not remaining true to conservative beliefs. Wolf’s piece thus gives Republicans who dislike or fear Palin for whatever reason, a decent-sounding excuse for their opposition towards one of the most conservative, fearless, and articulate individuals in this day and age.

Since Red State is not the Atlantic, and it holds sway with many conservatives who can’t see through its phony pretense of neutrality, I therefore felt obligated to dissect Wolf’s article and point out the simple truth: his piece makes as much sense as the foolish column at The Atlantic. I also apologize for calling someone a hypocrite but lack an alternative accurate description that would do justice of Red State’s actions of late.

Wolf criticized Sarah Palin for not yet announcing her decision whether or not she’s running for president claiming it ties up her supporters at a time when all appearances suggest she’s either not running or running without plans of winning.

Whoa! I always thought the GOP rules regarding who may run in a presidential election include something called a primary complete with a deadline until which one may announce their candidacy. Since when has the primary become the result of the hand-picked competition between two individuals courtesy of the establishment? What happened to allowing the people choose the candidate of their choice in the primary? Where are the hit pieces on Giuliani for having not yet made up his mind? The field is far from complete and there’s no reason to rush the process.

Wolf’s argument is quite surprising given that Erick Erickson “proved” in an article written just one day prior to Wolf’s piece that Palin won’t win even if she joins the primary since she polls only 12 percent in Gallup national. Erickson then admitted that her poll figures would probably increase if she announces a presidential run since some of her supporters who believe she won’t run are supporting their second choice.

Wolf, did you perhaps miss that? The Palin supporters who don’t believe she’s running have already chosen another candidate, and if Palin’s decision ends up being negative the rest will follow suit. When the people will head to the election booths, she either will or won’t be in the race allowing everyone to make their decision based on the current facts. Although it’s obvious you don’t want her to run, Palin will choose that which she’ll feel is best for her and the country at the time she deems right, and her supporters have every right to tie their allegiance to Palin since they strongly believe she will run.

The arguments used in the article to support her non-candidacy are 100% nonsense and you must know that. She has the largest boots-on-the-ground force and will be bombarded by donations the day she’ll announce her campaign. If she isn’t running, why would she encourage O4P’s actions? Why would she have a foreign policy advisor? Why would she visit Iowa’s State Fair and be returning there again Labor Day weekend? What is the ultimate purpose of her One Nation tour and the documentary, The Undefeated?

Besides, isn’t it funny how the same individual Wolf describes as not likely to run and incapable of winning, is then described as depleting the oxygen supply in the room simply by entering? Sucking the oxygen out of a room is not something Santorum, Cain, Huntsman, or even Perry and Romney are known to do. If Palin can’t win whether she does or doesn’t run, as Wolf and the others at Red State claim, why do they dread an impending Palin announcement?

Furthermore, Wolf’s ignores facts in order to reach his conclusion that Palin is a moderate. It is shocking and shameful to say the least.

Palin endorsed 64 conservative candidates in the 2010 elections, many of them long before Red State and others glanced their way, including Susana Martinez — the current Governor of New Mexico, Allen West – a congressman of Florida, Rand Paul – Senator of Kentucky, and Joe Miller. Wolf, however, pounced upon her endorsement of two candidates in the primaries, Carly Fiorina and Kelly Ayotte, as proof of Palin’s drift towards the establishment. Never mind that her endorsements made absolute sense if one only bothers looking into the facts.

Palin’s endorsement for Fiorina requires a bit of background. The California Republican Senate primary was a three-way race with Fiorina opposed not only by Chuck Devore which Red State endorsed but also by Campbell, a candidate with ties to radical Muslims and a more moderate than Olympia Snowe. Campbell was leading the polls with Fiorina lagging behind and Devore a far third. A Campbell victory would portray the Republican Party as the water-downed version or even the mirror image of the Democrat Party. A debate between Tom Campbell and Boxer would result in who has done more to save the environment and expand government programs.

Palin’s endorsement of Fiorina, who was the conservative candidate with greater chances of beating Campbell, gave Fiorina the necessary push to win the primary thus resulting in a conservative representing the Republican Party in the debate and campaign against Boxer. Although Boxer was reelected, voters in California have been exposed to conservative talk and to a clear differentiation between the ideologies of the two parties.

Regarding Palin’s endorsement of Kelly Ayotte, the primary consisted of two conservatives. While Red State and some others pumped Lamontagne as the stronger conservative Palin and others supported Ayotte as the true conservative. Each had their minor flaws as every human being does with different people ultimately preferring different choices. If your favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla, is the next guy who prefers chocolate wrong with his choice? Are people no longer allowed to disagree peacefully? How does Palin’s endorsement of Ayotte brand her as a moderate? Is Ayotte’s current record in the senate not enough proof of her conservatism? She co-sponsored a bill to repeal Obamacare and voted against the debt ceiling deal. What liberal bill did Ayotte vote for? (And if she did vote “moderately” in one instance she would probably apologize just as Perry – Red State’s favorite — has apologized regarding Gardasil, thus negating her vote.)

Sorry, but having candidates’ opponents endorsed by Red State, make neither the candidates nor their endorsers un-conservative.

Wolf questioned Palin’s endorsement of Christine O’Donell who was less electable than Mike Castle, since Palin based the above two endorsements partly on electability. The comparison however is equivalent to a comparison of apples and oranges.

Palin’s endorsement for O’Donnell is unlike her previous two endorsements since the primary didn’t consist of two conservatives; Castle cannot be described as a conservative by any stretch of imagination. He had voted for Cap and Trade which threatened to destroy America’s economy and supported campaign financing rules that would favor unions while putting businesses at a disadvantage. Mike Castle would be only slightly better than a Campbell in Senate, and would jump to “compromise” with the Democrats in exchange for some media attention.

In Washington, Sarah Palin endorsed the more conservative candidate, Clint Didier, who signed the pledge not to raise any taxes while Dino Rossi who was endorsed by Red State refused to do so. Does that make Red State a moderate site?

Wolf’s continued comparison of Palin’s recent support of Orrin Hatch in light of her opposition to Mike Castle is ludicrous. Castle’s lifetime ratings according to the American Conservative Union is 51.62% and only 38% in 2010 while Hatch was one out of 11 senators to earn a perfect score in the American Conservative Union’s 2010 ratings and a lifetime rating of 89.47 percent. How can one even attempt to compare the two? Now throw into the equation that Hatch happens to also be an excellent debater and extremely articulate of conservative ideology, a true rarity amongst conservatives these days.

Most importantly, Hatch is currently the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. If the Republicans take control of the senate, that will make him chairman. This is the committee that writes tax policy and has jurisdiction on Social Security and Medicare. If Hatch loses his seat and the Republicans take the senate, the new chairperson would be OLYMPIA SNOWE! (h/t bradkarr.)

Shocking, huh? One may disagree with Hatch on certain issues, but to say he’s not a true conservative is not being very honest. How about instead of slamming Palin for speaking positively of Hatch’s seventeen attempts to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, or attempting to oust Hatch in exchange for some low-ranking Congressman with an unknown record, onetake all facts into consideration?

If Wolf’s article were the only disgraceful one on the Red State site, it would perhaps be somewhat understandable as one writer who overstepped the bounds and deserving of a scolding of his editor. However, the editor himself, Erick Erickson is the one leading this hypocrisy.

Erickson wrote an article January 3rd drafting Mike Pence to the race, with the explanation that although he’d wish Palin would be the next president she’s too polarizing and he feels she won’t be able to win the primaries.

… I am not excited by or inspired by any of them save Sarah Palin and, as much as I love Sarah Palin, I am adamantly convinced that she cannot win given the ridiculous smears and hate thrown her way by Democrats and, frankly, by a lot of Republicans. She has been made radioactive.

I would, however, still gladly vote for her and support her. I’d rather go down with her than up with some of the others.

…I’d have rather gone down swinging with Barry than sell out with Nelson any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I feel the same way with Palin.

Erickson then posted an additional column reiterating his support for Palin provided Pence doesn’t run:

Third, and I think this is the key point:

I’d have rather gone down swinging with Barry than sell out with Nelson any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I feel the same way with Palin. (Emphasis by Erick)

As it stands right now, if the election were held tomorrow and Mike Pence isn’t in, Palin has my vote. Don’t get me wrong, I can be persuaded by any of the other candidates in all seriousness. And the odds are in the favor of several of them. But my heart is with Palin.

This was obviously a load of nonsense aimed at fooling his readership since Erickson has since jumped onto almost every bandwagon but Palin’s. As soon as Pence’s decision not to run was final, Erickson, who had written he supports Palin even if it would mean going down with her as by Goldwater, didn’t attempt to draft her even once. He toyed first with Huckabee and then placed his hopes on Mitch Daniels, although that came to a halt after Daniels put out a “truce” on social issues. Erickson then turned his entire energy towards drafting Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas. Erickson’s efforts were rewarded with Perry’s announcement at the Red State event, with Erickson introducing Perry. Red State, though, continues to play uncommitted to any candidate for the 2012 Republican primary.

There are three basic kinds of political sites. The first kind is a general site, say — a conservative site, that will jump to defend all conservatives on the receiving end of criticism for outright fabrications, believing it is crucial for all honest individuals to fight for and defend the truth whether or not you support the person’s positions, policies, or candidacy. The Breitbart sites model of this type of behavior, as seen in their defense of all candidates and conservatives facing media falsehoods and exposing lies from the liberal left. Examples are their exposure of the doctored video Ed Schultz used against Perry, the falsehood of Ziegler’s rumors about Palin, and the calling of Bachmann a flake.

The second kind is a political site whose focus is to support and defend a specific candidate. Such a site’s focus is obviously on that specific candidate’s achievements, as well as attacks thrown their way. This behavior is also the expected of such a site and doesn’t cause any raised eyebrows.

The third kind of site masks their real agenda. Red State has unfortunately joined this third group with their pretense of judging all conservatives equally and “vetting” Perry’s record, while unofficially having thrown their support behind Perry. Red State should switch over to being the second of these three groups in order to be considered an honest site who acts with integrity.

Update: Dan McLaughlin penned a piece today endorsing Perry, stressing that it is a personal endorsement and not on behalf of Red State.

Erickson’s underhanded manner of supposedly supporting Palin while running after everyone else is just the tip of the iceberg. When honest conservatives question Perry’s executive order regarding Gardasil, it’s hypocritical of Red State to claim that an apology wipes away a candidate’s past record. Attention all candidates seeking reelection or a different office and in want of Red States’ endorsement: All you’ve got to do is apologize for any negative item on your record, say that you erred and regret it.

It wasn’t enough to only have Erickson respond to the Gardasil gate, as is usually the case with others. Everyone jumped into the “protect Perry” mode, as each took a different angle in whitewashing Perry’s attempt to ram down this shot via executive order against the protests of the legislature. Ben Howe posted a piece titled “Vetting Rick Perry” which more likely should have been called defending, excusing, or exonerating Rick Perry. Repair_Man-Jack played undecided in his support of Perry’s candidacy. Streiff and again Streiff showed his true colors, calling for Perry or else.

Streiff even went so far as to issue a “fair warning” announcing his intention “to treat those making those allegations in a way indistinguishable from the way birthers and truthers are treated.” (banned from the site.) Erickson re-posted his article of 2007 where he slammed Perry for the executive order, and explained that although he disagreed with the executive order, it still had the opt-out factor. Combined with the apology, and the fact that it never happened, the issue should be laid to rest. Erickson also noted that: 

 …this issue (Gardasil) only really resonates on the right.

Really now. Was anyone here waiting with bated breath for the left to call out someone expanding the control of government? Of course it resonates only with the right; it’s the right that’s concerned about the current size of government. We got primaries for a reason; it’s a time to vet the candidates to see who matches your ideology before sending the winner off to compete in the general election. If we want to call out Obama on his expansion of government, we must present someone who’s the antithesis of big government.

Red State and Erickson in particular have hidden their political interests until recently and still pretend to vet and treat Perry as any other candidate. Erickson has pretended to have no problem with Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee,and so has Leon Wolf. Yet, they take issue with the fact that she hasn’t yet made her decision although there’s still plenty of time to do so. At the same time, Red State continuously “discovers” phantom evidence and statements proving that Palin is not going to run and that she’s become a member of the establishment. Since when does speaking positively of a Senator with one the most conservative records turn you into a moderate?

I’ve always been honest and straightforward in my articles expressing my support of Sarah Palin for the presidency. Perry is not my first choice for other reasons disregarding Gardasil. Although I’ll admit Perry’s remorse in the campaign shows a savvier political sense than Romney’s refusal to regret Romneycare, regretting one’s previous actions during a campaign is not sufficient proof of true regret. Perry signed the executive order against the protests of the legislature. He was only forced to abandon the measure when when it was voted against by a veto proof majority. If Romney would’ve apologized for his Romneycare bill, would that be sufficient for us to forgive him? Who decides when and where apologies must be accepted across the board by all? How about, and this is entirely rhetorical since it won’t happen, if Obama decided to “admit he erred” in order to win the elections?

Erickson’s two-sidedness is also obvious when glancing at his review of The Undefeated where he found it necessary to write this:

The film concludes with a comparison between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin. Just as the Republican establishment attacked and tried to shut down Reagan, they are doing the same to Palin. I’m not sure I buy the extent of the comparison and issues within the conservative establishment highlighted toward the end, but I have frequently said myself that Palin taps into something with conservatives that no one since Reagan has done.

While Erickson didn’t “buy the extent of the comparison” in The Undefeated made by Stephen Bannon, he wrote this, the past Saturday:

Next time you hear some Republican consultant say Rick Perry can’t win because he is too much of a cowboy, understand that it is probably a national Republican consultant fearful they will be shut out of work if Perry wins and, more importantly, understand that the same dynamics were in place in 1980 with Reagan’s “boys from California” team of consultants and the national consultants back them said the same about Reagan — he’s too much of a cowboy conservative who will alienate key voting blocks.

That’s not to say Perry is Reagan. It is to say the GOP national consultants have been pulling the same stuff since 1980.

So Erickson’s not sure whether the establishment is actually as hateful and condescending to Palin as they were to Reagan, but the attacks on Perry – boy, that’s an exact repeat of 1980.

Additionally, when Perry gets attacked, Red State is quick to point out the fear the left has for Perry which drives them to falsify information against him. The endless attacks against Palin though, have caused her to become radioactive.

Add to the above that Erickson’s original issue with Palin was the endless smears the media threw her way which, in his opinion, has made her radioactive. If Perry ends up being the frontrunner he too will face similar endless attacks. Will Erickson consider him as radioactive as Palin thus necessitating him to be dropped for another candidate? Whoever wins the Republican nomination will face the hate from the left, and it’s to Palin’s advantage that the left has already emptied their ammunition against her.

It’s a tragedy for a conservative website to behave like Green of The Atlantic in an attempt to control the Republican primary in 2012. People have had enough of phony conservatives pretending to be altruistic while pushing their private agenda. I therefore believe 2012 will be a bottom-up election where people make their own decisions based on the candidates’ records.

This article is cross-posted from Conservatives4Palin.

Perry Waited 10 Years to Cut Spending – Sorry, Rick, Presidents Can Only Serve 8 Years

Rick Perry jumped into the field last Saturday waving his ten years of experience as governor of Texas proudly in the air.

If the Republican field were complete at this time and consisted only of a bunch of RINOs with Rick Perry as the only Conservative, conservatives would obviously support him as the candidate closest to their camp.

However, although Perry might not like it, this is far from the current scenario. Palin, who has close to a decade of executive experience including her time as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission chairwoman, and governor of Alaska, will likely be joining the race within the next month or two. Besides the fact that she will overshadow him and the rest of the field, Palin will bump Perry from “the most conservative” candidate to the second or third seat.

With the downgrading of our credit rating the entire country was shaken out of its slumber and the number-one priority for all Americans is once again the economy. The candidates will thus have to prove their prowess to the public.

Although Rick Perry is selling himself as a through and through conservative especially fiscally, and has begun to tout his alliance to the Tea Party, the facts show otherwise.

Perry has served as the governor of Texas for over a decade with the overall spending increasing ever since he took office in December 2000 up until the current fiscal year of 2011 at an average of 16.8 percent every two years. Even after adjusting the figures in consideration of population growth and inflation, spending has still increased by 4.2 percent every two years Perry governed.

Suddenly, after an entire decade of increased budgets, and with a presidential bid looming in the horizon, Perry found it necessary to reign in the spending slightly in an attempt to get the economy into some semblance of control. He announced with great pomp that the upcoming two fiscal budgets will be smaller than the current one. Hey, I know Obama always talks about what will take place ten years down the road, but in reality the presidential term is only four years long with a maximum of two terms. Waiting ten years in order to take action is a red flag on a resume for a potential presidential candidate. Such behavior should be unacceptable.

In direct comparison, during Perry’s growth of debt, Palin defeated the corrupt Murkowski and in less than three years cut spending, reduced future debt, and created policies which spurred tremendous growth in the private sector.

When faced with Perry vs. Palin the choice should be obvious. Yes, Texas is far more populated and has a larger economy than Alaska, but you know what? Many small business owners are successfully turning in a profit year after year, while quite a few multi-billion dollar corporations such as GM are heavily in debt with their executives clueless in how to turn things around. Perry may be the one governing the larger state, but his record doesn’t seem to be the more impressive of the two. Palin has led first Wasilla and then Alaska with business acumen, stopping frivolous spending. The economy boomed under her watch, yet she made sure to spend wisely and plan for the future.

Palin CUT spending during her years as Governor of Alaska. The budget of 2010 was 9.5% lower than the budget of 2007 and a decrease of 16.8% from 2009! These figures don’t include inflation or population increases which only make her accomplishments so much greater.

Under Perry’s watch, federal funds amounted to approximately a third of Texas’s state’s budget for the last decade.

On the other hand, Palin slashed the federal funding for the state of Alaska in three years by 80 percent! For the fiscal year of 2007, Governor Murkowski had requested and received federal funding for 63 projects to the tune of $349,497,000. In 2010, for FY2010, Governor Palin’s federal funding requested and received was a mere $69,100,000 for only 8 projects!

And although most of you probably saw the PA4Palin article Whitney re-posted, now that Perry officially joined the race it’s worth repeating.

During Sarah Palin’s governorship (December 2006 – July 2009)

• Alaska ranked 2nd in the nation for job growth.

• Alaska ranked 3rd in the nation for change in the unemployment rate relative to the national average.

During Rick Perry’s governorship (December 2000 – May 2011)

• Texas ranked 4th in the nation for job growth.

• Texas ranked 23rd in the nation for change in the unemployment rate relative to the national average.

One more interesting tidbit: Texas and Alaska both don’t collect personal income tax, although Texas makes up for it by having the tenth highest sales tax at 6.25% while Alaska is one of only two states which collects neither personal income tax nor sales tax.

As Palin had said in Iowa last week, she’d support ABO (Anyone but Obama) – and Perry is definitely a better alternative than Obama. However, Perry’s record is still a far cry from the fiscally prudent conservative whose mask he’s recently donned, especially in comparison to Governor Palin’s record. Palin’s gubernatorial record is proof of her ability to prioritize expenses, shave away all wasteful programs, and turn a lack of cash to an overflow of funds.

Conservatives, after discovering the facts, will turn to Palin to unseat Obama and stop the reckless spending.

A Glimpse at the "Everyone But Me Is To Blame" Bus Tour

Obama’s three day bus tour has come to an end, costing you and me only a coupla million dollars and change.

Yes, I dare to question Obama’s use of our money when “meeting” Americans because of Obama’s record.

You see, Obama has already passed one stimulus and repeatedly expresses his desire to pass an additional stimulus bill in order to create those jobs the first one failed to do. This is because Obama believes that the president and the government are the only ones capable of stimulating the economy and creating employment for the unemployed. Obama’s bus tour which is both, government funded and led by the president is therefore deserving of an analysis of its effectiveness in stimulating the economy. 

Stimulating the economy? But of course! 

Isn’t a bus tour the ultimate boost the economy has been waiting for all this time? Even the mantra surrounding the trip is so noble and selfless; talking about economy growth and job creation. What, is talking about jobs not good enough for you, you bitter folks? You want His Highness to actually do that which he preaches? Well, it just so happens to be, that while he’s been talking the talk he’s been simultaneously doing the deed! Just take a look at how many enterprises have benefited from the campaign jobs tour. The bus company, the drivers, the secret service agents working overtime, gas stations, restaurants, and numerous others too lengthy too list. Why, the result will be felt within ten years from now in an earsplitting boomerang echoing from coast to coast. 

How is it possible for someone other than a racist to speak negatively of the jet black bus Obama used on his trip? What difference does it make to anyone that the two buses Obama and his team traveled around with, which cost us taxpayers a whopping 1.1 million each, were made in Canada by a Canadian company? Hasn’t he created enough jobs with the tour? And the fact that he headed specifically to the Midwest, flying with Air Force One to Michigan in order to begin his tour there rather than taking the bus straight from the White House is totally unrelated to some election occurring in a little over a year. The White House clearly responded to all critics that the president wished to meet "real folks in real places” who unfortunately don’t seem to exist anywhere between D.C. and Michigan, Illinois, and Iowa. My apologies to those of states like Kentucky, West Virginia, Montana, or Tennessee.

Obama’s non-stimulus tour thus explains why the left was so outraged at Palin’s “One Nation” tour. You see, every single penny surrounding Palin’s bus tour consisted of private sector funds with no government funding whatsoever! How can anyone possibly expect to stimulate the economy effectively without using taxpayer funds? The private sector is incapable of producing jobs without any governmental aid. (For clarification read paragraph one again.) 

Additionally, how can crowds show up and help stimulate the economy without revealing one’s itinerary? Keeping the public (and the media) in suspense doesn’t leave room for the coordination of crowds to be bussed in which would boost more bus companies (American ones), gas stations, and all local shops within the square 100 mile range, similar to what the unions and Democrats masterfully arrange for Obama’s visits.

Besides, Palin’s bus emitted global warming carbon, instead of running on ethanol or electricity. It’s true that Obama’s bus ran neither on ethanol nor on battery, but it was impossible to do so because of security issues as per the commands of the secret service.

 

Palin’s bus had made stops at many local eateries encouraging obesity and unhealthy eating habits, while Obama’s deliberation’s over which pie to choose, (final decision: one whole coconut pie and two slices each of three other pies) was a pretense, sacrificing his personal health solely to please the shop owner and boost the economy. 

Many of the right have criticized Obama’s bus for not having the USA flag displayed on it. Don’t you remember Palin’s One Nation Bus Tour being criticized by NBC for politicizing the flag which is unconstitutional? If Palin, a private citizen, and her bus which was paid for by the private sector were lambasted, could you imagine the outrage if the president himself would use taxpayer money to put the image of the flag on a jobs bus? Besides, just think of the disgrace to the flag located on Palin’s bus which is unshielded during harsh weather.

One last note to some taxpayers still grumbling for having to foot the bill for Obama’s latest photo-op bus tour: If Obama’s buses would’ve been sponsored by private donations, the luxury buses would’ve been placed in the same category of the luxury jets -- which we all know deserve additional taxes, thus further necessitating the vital needs of federal funds which are exempt from being taxed by the U.S. government.