The Twisted Anti-Santorum Argument Regarding Santorum’s 2008 Romney Endorsement

As The Right Scoop and many others have noted, the Romney campaign is sending around robo-calls to voters in Michigan using the single most positive sentence Santorum had said about Romney in his endorsement in 2008 without mentioning that the statement is four years old.

The act of placing a robo-call on unsuspecting Michinganders as though his current top rival had suddenly endorsed him screams of desperation and hypocrisy. Shockingly, or perhaps not so shockingly, Romney supporters don’t see anything wrong with the above robo-call. They defend the Romney campaign’s actions with the response that Romney hadn’t done anything wrong; Santorum had simply flip-flopped away from his “support” for Romney from 2008, ignoring the complete Santorum statement of the time.

Rick Santorum had clearly stated in 2008 that he hesitated over endorsing anyone since they all had very serious flaws with McCain obviously being the worst of all as even his campaign platform was loaded with liberal rhetoric. He then went on to say that while Huckabee would’ve been great as a governor of the country, he’s got national security all wrong. That left him and the entire conservative movement with the very imperfect Mitt Romney.

Although I haven’t (yet) seen the official Romney team use quotes from others who’ve supported him in ’08 (not out of support but for lack of an alternative) but refuse to do so in 2012 since there are better options, Romney supporters repeatedly cite old endorsements without specifying that they’re from four years ago and that Romney hasn’t been the recipient of their endorsements in 2012.

In 2008, amidst John McCain’s cries against the “torture” of terrorists and the need for intervention to stop global warming, McCain expressed opposition to all earmarks, glad to having identified an almost insignificant item with which he can brand himself as a conservative. It’s interesting to note that Romney too has grasped at earmarks as “proof” of his conservatism and he had indeed received McCain’s endorsement, something no one else desired.

Romney’s opposition to earmarks though, as with everything else in his current campaign, is a direct contradiction to the Romney from prior this election. The Romney who was governor of Massachusetts didn’t only support earmarks; he begged, cajoled, and pleaded for them on his hands and knees. He lobbied for federal funds to help build the Fort Dix highway in Massachusetts and turned to Uncle Sam once again when arranging the Olympics which took place in Utah and which McCain had railed against during that time as the greatest boondoggling of earmarks.

Rick Santorum like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and many other prominent conservatives, endorsed Romney in 2008 as the anti-McCain. Additionally, Romney is now attempting to play conservative in the second election in a row, after falling back to supporting a liberal agenda in the interim, and is fooling far less people about his lack of loyalty to the conservative movement. Mitt Romney is now the John McCain of the GOP primary and we’re lucky we’ve got a true conservative as an alternative choice, unlike in 2008.

It is clear that both the actual Romney team and Romney supporters have decided that the end justifies the means and that misleading and lying is acceptable if it will get their preferred candidate elected. It is equally clear to me and many other conservatives that such behavior is unacceptable and we will not remain silent in expressing our opposition.

What Line Must Newt Gingrich Cross for Conservatives to Disown Him?

The following article I've written , What Line Must Newt Gingrich Cross for Conservatives to Disown Him?, appears on the American Thinker:

In the 2010 primaries, Charlie Christ, then-Senator from Florida and a Republican In Name Only, faced several serious contenders for his seat. One of the most successful ads used against him by his staunchly conservative opponent, Marco Rubio, was an image of opportunist Charlie Christ hugging Obama at a rally where Charlie helped promote the stimulus package. Rubio's constant usage of the image, which reminded the Florida voters of Charlie's support for the stimulus, was a key factor in ousting Charlie from his Senate seat.

In the few short years since Obama has become president, he's caused unbelievable destruction for this country via the weakening of our global image, the wrecking of the economy, the heightened division between class and race, and other ruinous policies. Any politician who had supported Obama in reaching any of his goals deserves to have his opponents harp upon it and to be thrown out of office, as happened to Charlie Christ.

It is now barely two years after we got rid of Charlie Christ, and I'm left to wonder what has occurred to conservatives' demand for character. If an image of Charlie hugging Obama was so powerful two short years ago, why doesn't the image of one of our presidential candidates palling around with a different demagogue receive a similar outcry?

Read more:


       

Resist We Much … Mr. Gingrich for he’s Character Assassination for Conservatism

Updated 12/21/12:

Newt Gingrich was confronted by a African American in South Carolina about his declaration that teenagers should work. Newt replied that "I know Al" and he'd be glad to discuss it with him. In the article below you will see Newt's relationship with Al Sharpton and exactly what's so wrong with that.

After election night of 2008 had passed with Obama having emerged victorious, many conservatives were disappointed to hear that a powerful McCain ad had gone unaired due to McCain’s refusal to mention Obama’s anti-American Pastor. The ad, leaked after the elections were over, highlighted the very different paths the two candidates had taken as young men.

Narrator: Long before anyone knew who John McCain or Barack Obama were, one chose to honor his fellow soldiers by refusing to walk out of a prisoner of war camp. The other chose not to even walk out of a church where a pastor was spewing hatred.

Rev. Wright: Not God bless America! God damn America!

Narrator: Character matters, especially when no one’s looking.

No candidate is perfect since no human being is without flaws. It is therefore crucial for every individual to carefully research the strengths and flaws of each candidate and then choose to support a candidate despite his or her flaws. Obviously each individual will tolerate different flaws. For instance, some consider social issues to be a major deciding factor while others focus on a candidate’s voting record and yet a third individual look at executive experience as a priority. For most conservatives all of these are pretty high on the list.

There is one vital component, however, which a candidate must have and which takes absolute priority above everything else; character. Character is what has made this country a beacon of light amongst the nations and what gives a person the strength to choose right from wrong. How can an individual be trusted to practice what they preach, fulfill their promises, and to make the correct choices in the unknown future if they lack basic character?

In 2008 McCain was of the minority amongst the conservative movement who opposed airing the above ad and who refused to denounce the fact that the Obamas had attended Wright’s church for over twenty years. The 2012 primary though is revealing that a considerable chunk and perhaps even a majority of the conservative movement no longer view character as a vital component of a candidate. With their support for a characterless candidate, they inevitably condone Obama’s friendship with terrorist William Ayers and the fact that Jeremiah Wright was privileged to have the Obama’s attend his church for over two decades.

Newt’s campaign has recently been gaining an increasing amount of traction as more and more conservative express their support for his candidacy. He has made a favorable impression on many thanks to his expert debating skills, his steadfastness to conservative talk, and his dignified presidential manner at the debates when he refused to engage in petty attacks against the others. These are indeed positive qualities and the excitement for an Obama/Gingrich debate is easily understood. However, it is crucial to stop and consider while one is still able, whether the serious implication that will result if the bulk of the conservative movement throws its support behind Newt is worth it, even it leads to victory. For Newt’s character is seriously lacking.

Two short years ago Gingrich had proudly teamed up, at the behalf of Obama, with the rabble-rousing demagogue Al Sharpton to promote the Obama administration’s education policies. Awareness of their joint project was accomplished via rallies across the country and appearances on Sunday TV Shows.

I couldn’t imagine where and what has qualified Al Sharpton to be an education expert until I remembered Obama’s response when questioned about his association with the terrorist William Ayers. Obama spoke of a guy he knew who worked in the education field with nary a mention of Ayers’ terrorist past, his continued support of terrorism after 9/11, or their true relationship. With education experts such as Ayers and Sharpton one has got the answer to the problems plaguing the education system at one’s fingertips.

Several months prior to the Gingrich/Sharpton education stint, Gingrich graced Al Sharpton’s annual National Action Network Conference. For those unfamiliar, the National Action Network serves as Sharpton’s front, is used by Sharpton to promote racial division, and whose actions often fall into the violent and criminal category.

Gingrich’s readiness to team up with an individual such as Al Sharpton, who has no experience in education or any other field except for stirring up violence and racial divisiveness, is appalling. With their project completed, Gingrich continued to act chummy with violence-inciting Al Sharpton. This past October, Gingrich surprised Sharpton by calling into his TV show to wish him happy birthday. He praised the opportunistic, race baiting, hatred-inciting, narcissist, Al Sharpton, as one who “did a lot of good things.”

For those unfamiliar with Al Sharpton’s rabble-rousing violent history, here’s a sprinkling of the many acts he’s directly responsible for.

1987: Sharpton spread the incendiary Tawana Brawley Hoax despite his knowledge of the true facts. He heatedly played defendant of the 15-year-old black girl who was supposedly abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men, and singled out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor, as guilty of a crime which never occurred. Despite Sharpton being aware of Pagones innocence, he taunted him, “If we’re lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it.” Pagones courageously fought for his innocence, sued Sharpton, and eventually won a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day though, Sharpton refuses to recant the slander or apologize for his role in the odious affair.

1989: Al Sharpton also led a vitriolic campaign to vilify the young white woman who had been raped and viciously beaten in the Central Park "wilding" case, since the rapist was black. He led demonstrations against the victim and accused her boyfriend of being the real assailant. Here too Al Sharpton never owned up to the facts despite the criminal’s admittance of his guilt and the DNA testing which proved the black rapist to be guilty of the crime.

1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights section accidentally killed Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child. An anti-Semitic riot erupted, and thanks to Sharpton’s arrival, it lasted for three full days. At Gavin’s funeral he railed against the “diamond merchants” -- code for Jews – who have “the blood of innocent babies” on their hands. He mobilized and led hundreds of demonstrators who marched through the Jewish neighborhood and chanted “No justice, no peace.” A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, was surrounded by a frenzied mob shouting “Kill the Jews!” and was stabbed to death. Two weeks later, Italian-American Anthony Graziosi, whose full beard and dark clothing caused him to be mistaken for a Hasidic Jew, was dragged out of his passing car, brutally beaten and stabbed to death.

1995: The United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raised the rent on Freddy’s Fashion Mart. Freddy’s white Jewish owner was therefore forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensued and before one could blink an eye Sharpton had arrived at the scene and jumped at the opportunity to incite racial hatred. “We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business,” Sharpton proclaimed. He ignored the original cause of the rent hike and the lack of racist action from Freddy’s, and had \the National Action Network, set up picket lines. They spat and cursed as “traitors” and “Uncle Toms” anyone who dared shop at Freddy’s, and shouts of “Burn down the Jew store!” were heard. Protestors simulated the striking of matches while Sharpton’s colleague Morris Powell kept the frenzy going with lines like “We’re going to see that this cracker suffers.” On Dec. 8, one of the protesters burst into Freddy’s, shot four employees point-blank, and then set the store on fire. Seven employees died in the inferno.

Al Sharpton has also shared a stage with gay-bashing, Jew-hating, anti-Catholic racist Khalid Muhammad and praised him as “an articulate and courageous brother."

Fellow conservatives, we don’t need such an individual to be associated with a candidate of ours. Besides for it disqualifying the campaign led against Obama, it brands us as hypocrites and portrays us as morally equivalent to liberals. Carefully vetting a candidate’s record is of extreme importance. Greater priority though should be given to the character of the individual.

Newt proudly referred to his partnership with Al Sharpton as the original “odd couple” and explained his actions with the “education comes before party” lines. Noble sounding indeed except that the left is notorious for having implemented and supported action which raised the bar for the teachers union bosses, not the bar of education. Obama wrongly stopped the DC school vouchers Scholarship Program which had greatly benefited minorities who were stuck in under-performing public schools.

The program had been economically smart since the government paid per voucher less than half of the price they currently spend for each child which is educated in a failing D.C. public schools Additionally, after the Department of Education researched eleven programs, they found that scholarship programs achieved the largest gains. Despite all these facts, Obama found it more important to curry favor with the teachers unions, and his Education Secretary, Duncan, revoked the scholarship of 216 students already on the program. Education “specialist” Al Sharpton who is usually the very first to protest any act with the slightest smell of racism, remained shockingly silent and did not utter a whimper in protest of Obama’s decision which hurt minorities most.

With the closure of the D.C. vouchers program, Obama’s, Duncan’s, and Sharpton’s true colors were exposed yet Gingrich agreed to join teams with these very same individuals in an effort to promote better education for minorities. It would be quite hilarious if the results wouldn’t be so pathetic. After meeting with Obama, Gingrich praised Obama’s stance on education. Throughout the tour, Gingrich didn’t find it necessary to question Sharpton for his inaction. Nor did he take to task Obama’s education Secretary Arne Duncan, who had joined them as a direct representative of Obama in their endeavor to publicly laud Obama’s efforts to reform public education.

Was Newt so stupid as to really think Obama, Duncan, and Sharpton are the type of people who would take positive action to help minorities stuck in failing public schools after their blatant disregard to the minorities in D.C.? Gingrich’s actions can be understood in one of two ways:

A- He’s often turned to government for solutions especially in regard to education. He voted for and helped gather the necessary support Carter needed in order to pass the legislation which created the Department of Education. Under his leadership, Congress passed the largest single spending increase on education in US history, a whopping $3.5 billion dollars! At times, his persuasive skills have sure come to use … for the Democrats.

B-His quest to expand the Republican tent have often led to compromises and bipartisan acts which somehow amounted to conservatives giving in to Democrat demands. (See below)

Either way, his recent actions are in direct contradiction to the image he’s attempted to create of himself throughout his current campaign.

In addition to his lack of character, which unfortunately is no longer considered as a deciding factor for many, Newt’s record is far from unblemished. Since some of his actions are downright disturbing, here’s a handful of some of the Newt controversies, both well-known and lesser -- known.

In a speech given to the Center For Strategic and International Affairs in 1995, Newt Gingrich said this: "The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution…Either we are going to have to re-think our Constitution or we are going to have to re‑think our process of making decisions.”

He stumped for Bush's prescription drug bill and urged all conservatives to vote for it despite it having created an additional seventeen trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. This is one more of many instances where Newt’s smooth talk was used not to promote conservatism, but to promote big government.

Newt agreed with John Kerry regarding the urgency to take action to stop global warming and a need for "Green Conservatism." He also participated in a global warming ad created by Al Gore’s company, in which he sat one couch with Pelosi (and for which he apologized after having launched his presidential campaign.)

Newt’s firm received 1.6 million dollars from Freddie Mac for “consulting services” and another $312,000 from the ethanol lobby (which may explain his confusion regarding the myth of global warming.)

He had been the recipient of President Clinton heartfelt thanks for his support of The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which placed many restrictions on the 2nd Amendment Right and federalized certain crimes involving a firearm. This increased both the size and the scope of the Federal Government, and wouldn’t have passed without Gingrich.

Newt has endorsed moderate and questionable individuals such as Dede Scozzafava, an ACORN-friendly, union-pandering, tax-and-spend radical Republican who ran against a solid conservative, Doug Hoffman. Newt defended his endorsement of Scozzafava (before backtracking once she backed out of the race) saying that “If you seek to be a perfect minority, you’ll remain a minority” thus revealing his true colors and history of compromising with the left rather than sticking to one’s guns. Never mind that it wasn’t even applicable in this case since NY-23 is a Republican district.

Newt supported individual mandates in his book released in 2008.

Gingrich called Paul Ryan’s plan “right-wing social engineering” despite Ryan’s bravery in being the very first to actually present a plan (and for this too he later apologized after receiving heavy flak from conservatives.)

Gingrich had been the only Speaker of the House ever to have been disciplined for ethics violations.

Newt Gingrich has been a member for the past twenty one years of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which has been single-minded and dedicated to the goal of undermining our National Sovereignty in order to promote a One World Government!

My sincerest apologies for any Newt apologies inadvertently not mentioned. They are slightly difficult to keep track of. One thing is certain though. He hasn’t apologized for his teaming up with the Obama team, Obama’s education secretary, and most importantly, Al Sharpton. In fact, he honored Al Sharpton on his new MSNBC show with a surprise happy birthday call this past October in which he cited the time they’ve worked together as memorable and unforgettable. He then heaped lavish praise upon Sharpton’s head including saying that Sharpton “did a lot of good things.” Newt correctly assumed conservatives and family members of Sharpton’s victims weren’t listening to the show, thus providing him with the opportunity to reveal his chumminess with Al Sharpton without receiving any heavy backlash.

Last June, Newt Gingrich gave a speech for the Maryland Republican party in which he said that one only needs the courage to enter and communicate with the African American communities as to how Obama’s policies have caused their unemployment figures to rise and have only hurt the black people.

Mr. Gingrich, although you’re above statement is true there’s an additional reason why black communities’ sufferings are worse than that of the rest of the country, and you are part of the problem. Black communities are hurting precisely because of rabble rousers like Al Sharpton whose entire career is built through the suppression of blacks. He ensures they remain victims in their minds forever so that they remain thankful and faithful to their masters who provide them with food stamps and other programs in exchange for votes. Instead of denouncing and decrying these despicable racists, you’ve teamed up with him and continue to praise, embolden, and encourage Al Sharpton. This further validates this criminal and hurts the African American communities to no end, as detailed in a past article I’ve written.

If you truly seek better education for minorities, denounce Al Sharpton. Additionally, recognize that The Department of Education which you’ve supported from the start and the ridiculous union demands are the main components why minorities suffer from worse educations. Therefore, your promotion of additional government control and federal spending are not only not the solution, but actually part of the problem.

Conservatives have always stood a notch above liberals since conservatives are individuals with character. Conservatism dare not stoop to the level of liberals for America simply cannot afford another characterless president. We’ve got to prove that our values are not for sale. Vehement opposition against Gingrich’s association with Sharpton is necessary in order to demonstrate the truth behind our support of the unaired McCain ad and our opposition of Obama’s troubling past. Perhaps if character would have been given stronger focus in 2008 we wouldn’t be stuck now with our current president. The clock can’t be turned back, but the future is still open and waiting to be molded.


You will also want to read my article which appeared on American Thinker:
What Line Must Newt Gingrich Cross for Conservatives to Disown Him?

Civility Strikes from the Beltway

When writing about civility it would be amiss not to mention the civility from the crowds in Washington right after the Tucson shooting when the entire liberal media from The Daily Kos to Politico attacked the Tea Parties, conservatives, talk show hosts, and Palin as responsible for the horrific shooting.

The media didn’t stand alone in their cries for civility. The entire Democratic political machine starting from Obama at his talk in Tucson demanded civility and a toning down from the Republicans.

As if the above wasn’t enough, some Republicans joined the nonsense noise demanding a tone down and one Republican senator went so far as to blame the town halls, cable TV and talk radio.

All this resulted in the joke of increased civility through the mixed seating during the “state of the union address” as though that really caused a civil tone between the two parties.

It seems that the seating arrangement can now be credited for causing many Senators and Congressmen and women in having become good friends and examples of civility.

Yes, the Democrats teamed up with the beltway Republicans and civilly denounced the tea partiers and hard core conservatives, who are the true friends of the people, as people wanting to take away social security from the elderly and destroy America’s credit rating.

Anyone seeking the definition of a circus merely has to glance back at the actions and reactions the last couple of weeks not only of the media and the liberals but of the entire group of Mr. Civilities comprised mainly of Democrats and Beltway Republicans.

The Tea Party members dared speak the truth with their demands of Washington to curb the spending and to stop selling phony deals with the simple explanation that even without an increase to our budget our debt is unsustainable and the coming generations won’t be able to pay it off.

This was reason enough to snap the members of the civility club from congress and across America into action.

The civility crowd in Washington has actually pulled off a stunning feat, the likes of which has never been seen or done before.

They named the Tea Party Republicans “hostage takers” and “terrorists” without any remorse or apology while simultaneously slamming the usage of the term “terrorist” in situations truly applicable.

When one nutcase in Norway set off a bomb and shot innocent people fingers immediately pointed to right wingers and Christianity as guilty. It didn’t matter that the Facebook page the media pumped all over in which the killer identified himself as a conservative and Christian as proof of his beliefs turned out to be a fake and was removed from Facebook.

On the flip side of the issue, although hundreds of Muslims have committed violence in the name of Allah in the past, when several Muslims committed violence right here in the USA, the civility crowd worked overtime to ensure no one dare suggest that even a minority of the Muslim religion supports terror and violence.

From the very top of the civility callers, Obama has repeatedly called the Republicans “hostage takers” and Vice President Joe Biden lashed out against the tea party Republicans Monday accusing them of having “acted like terrorists.”

Biden also encouraged Democrats to vote for the deal saying it would take “the weapons of mass destruction” out of the hands of the tea party and that the Republicans had “guns to their heads” making it difficult to seek a compromise.

These were not isolated attacks that slipped out of their mouths and were followed with profuse apologies, although that too would’ve been bad enough. Rather, this is part of a calculated strategy from those that hate the tea party to brand them as terrorists who seek to destroy the country.

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) has proclaimed that “We have negotiated with terrorists,” that “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money,” and told Politico that “They have no compunction about blowing up the economy to get what they want.”

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) called the deal a “Satan sandwich.”

Here’s a transcript from a mantage Rush Limbaugh played h/t the Free Republic.

STENY HOYER: The Republicans are holding hostage the credit of the United States of America.

DEBBIE "BLABBERMOUTH" SCHULTZ: ...our Republican colleagues to hold our economy hostage.

DINGY HARRY: The Republican Party is holding our economy hostage.

CHUCK-U SCHUMER: It didn't say, "Hold America hostage."

LOUISE SLAUGHTER: ...hold the debt ceiling hostage.

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: One party is holding the country hostage.

JOHN OLVER: The debt limit has never before been held hostage.

BARBARA LEE: Republicans are holding our economy hostage.

EARL BLUMENAUER: ...willing to take hostage the debt ceiling.

JASON ALTMIRE: Stop holding America's credit rating hostage.

ROSA DeLAURO: The Republican majority continues to hold the American economy hostage.

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Let's not hold the entire American economy hostage.

JOHN LARSON: ...ideological HOSTAGE situation...

LLOYD DOGGETT: The only belt they're really tightening is right around the neck of those hostages.

JAMES CLYBURN: Holding the American economy hostage.

JESSE JACKSON, JR.: This President is being treated differently!

SPEAKER PRO-TEM: (gavel banging)

JACKSON: No other President has been stuck up, shook down, or held hostage!

This list is by far not a complete list of the Democratic politicians who have referred to Tea Party Conservatives as terrorists and hostage takers without seeing anything wrong with the terminology and without receiving a scolding from the moderates and peace lovers.

And of course the media didn’t find it necessary to condemn the dangerous rhetoric, since it delighted in the opportunity to join the game and continue to build on it.

The New York Times called the GOP “hostage takers” for the bipartisan deal that has been reached last week.

The Wall Street Journal called the Tea Party “hobbits” and John McCain found it necessary to read it aloud on the Senate floor.

Chris Matthews found it necessary to remind everyone on the day of Giffords return that she was injured because of the “violent level of the right-wing” and the tea party groups, and compared the Tea Party Republicans to baby-kidnappers and terrorists because of their opposition to the debt deal.
To top it all off, Newsbusters made a shocking discovery which went entirely unnoticed by the media; a political cartoonist from a Tucson Newspaper, from all the places, fantasized about Obama Sending SEALs to Assassinate Tea Party Republicans! 

Civility from Tucson

So I ask this of those of you carrying the flag of civility.

Have you ever seen on Palin’s Facebook page similar language? Do you have a single audio of Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager or other conservatives calling the left terrorists and kidnappers?

Where have all the moderates and civility supporters both from the right and the left disappeared to? Is it uncivil to denounce this hateful and dangerous rhetoric against honest civil people trying to get this country out of debt? 

They are usually the first ones grabbing the microphones and letting their opinion be heard whether by the Times Square bomber, the Fort Hood Shooting, and everywhere in between. Why don’t they take over the floor in the House and the Senate denouncing and demanding an apology of those spewing this hate-filled talk for inciting violence? How can they in good conscience join these hate-filled people in meetings and compromises disregarding their destructive choice of words?

The last several weeks have been the ultimate symbol of civility, unity, and compromise in their attacks against the tea party.

The civility crowd’s silence announced loud and clear their belief that civility is a one-way street. 

There was a strategy the Conservatives could’ve used in ’08 that would’ve led to victory which is a must-know for 2012.

No, it does not involve recreating history such as pretending that a different candidate other than McCain would’ve won the primary, or that the country’s economic situation wasn’t heading towards collapse.

Nor is it necessary to alter the fact that his campaign came after eight years of an unpopular president, George W. Bush, which created an entire new class of Republican haters.

Obama remains his Democratic rival and the then popular Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential pick.

With all of the above, John McCain could’ve won with a landslide.

Here’s how.

During the ’08 campaign, McCain clearly differentiated time and again between Obama’s opposition to the Iraqi war and his support of the war and the surge as seen in this interview on CBS with Katie Couric where he said the following:

McCain: …He (Obama) was wrong. He said he still doesn't agree that surge has succeeded now that everybody knows that it has succeeded. I said at the time that I supported the surge. I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war. Sen. Obama has indicated that by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.

McCain’s constant defense of the war and the surge portrayed him as a man with principles whose values system remained intact. This irked the media to no end and they therefore questioned him how he dared portray Obama as unpatriotic. McCain didn’t allow the media to dictate the narrative and instead calmly responded that he wasn’t questioning anything, he was simply stating facts. When General Petraeus proclaimed the war is heading in the right direction, the left mocked General Petraeus and called him “Betray Us” and accused him in lying. Even when everyone admitted the surge worked, Obama still refused to give credit where credit was due. How patriotic does that come across?

Ultimately, regarding the war, the nation favored McCain over Obama with a significant percentage, and that pretty much tied the charismatic and cool Obama with the bland and white-haired McCain which caused Obama to drop his anti-war rhetoric. After McCain picked Sarah Palin as his vice president, his poll numbers slowly rose upwards and then surged a full ten percent ahead of Obama a week after the Republican convention amongst likely voters.

This came to a sudden halt at the “economic collapse.”

At first, when McCain was questioned about the direction of the economy, he responded in a reassuring and calm manner that although the economy is shaky the fundamentals are strong. The media mocked his reply as proof that he’s out of touch and as not living in reality.

At the same time, Obama’s approach to the failing economy was to sow panic and worry in the hearts of all. In his campaign rallies he portrayed the situation as a terrible catastrophe heading our way caused by Bush’s terrible policies (a line he still uses in almost every speech and press conference) which requires drastic actions or will lead to total economic collapse.

Shortly thereafter, McCain unwisely suspended his campaign due to the economy and flew to D.C. to join the Senate in their decision-making. His actions threw the entire country and media into a heated debate whether McCain should or shouldn’t support the TARP bailout; an act that is now known to all was a bad decision.

McCain’s handling of the economy was the turning point for his campaign which caused his poll numbers to begin slipping and sliding once again and ultimately led to his defeat.

There was an alternative path McCain could’ve taken through which he would’ve emerged as the strong and presidential candidate.

It’s actually not so different from his approach regarding the Iraqi war, which successfully presented him as the stronger candidate regarding the wars. Simply, instead of following Obama’s and the media’s narrative of fear and panic which require drastic solution, McCain should’ve set the narrative at a press conference where he would’ve explained his earlier statement with the following explanation (not necessarily these words):

My fellow citizens, the American people:

Yes, the economy is in a precarious situation and we will experience some, and possibly even a lot of turbulence. Precisely in such a time it is of utmost importance to remember that because the economy of our country is rooted in capitalism and is built upon free enterprise, this difficult period will soon be history and our economy will be even stronger than it had been before hitting tough times.

I know you’re constantly hearing about how the worst is still to come and that the future has never been so bleak, but I’m telling you, that if we give the control back to the private sector and allow freedom to reign we will be out of this mess in no time as we‘ve seen repeatedly in our nation’s history. The fundamentals of our economy are strong and we will continue to strengthen it so that no matter how strong the winds are blowing, we will remain standing strong and proud, and overcome these turbulent times.

I’ve told you earlier in the campaign that Obama is ready to have us lose the war in Iraq as long as it gets him into the oval office. It now appears that he’s ready to do even greater damage to this nation and destroy the entire economy in order to promote his agenda. Obama is ready to throw the entire country into turmoil and panic to benefit his campaign and help him win this election.

We’ve had greater depressions and economic failures than these times in our history, but never, no matter the crisis, have we had a leader constantly harping on the catastrophe and collapse awaiting us.

During the Great Depression, which is the darkest economic times in our history, Roosevelt came out and said words that have become famous and oft-quoted; “The only thing we have to fear is Fear itself.”

That is the proper behavior of a true leader.

I am convinced that if McCain would’ve clearly expressed the above points and repeated this message several times, a majority of citizens would recognize the truth in his words and would support him over Obama. Obama would’ve felt compelled to abandon the panic mode just as he was forced to stop his attacks at the Iraqi war, and McCain, whose poll numbers had been 10% ahead of Obama before the economic collapse, would’ve surged further ahead and been the victorious candidate on November 4, 2008.

Why is this so important now? It is imperative to constantly look back at history in order to see success in the future. History is studied to avoid the repetition of previous errors and emulate those that have made the correct choices.

Obama’s campaign focused on instilling fear into the hearts of the people, and once elected, Obama continued to use panic and play with people’s emotions to push through his radical agenda. Bailouts, Stimulus, Obamacare, and a barely failed Cap and Trade, all fit the above description. Obama is now attempting to do the same with the budget, with the media helping push his narrative by spreading false information such as that the Social Security checks will be stopped if the government is forced to a freeze. Unfortunately, most Republicans play right into the left’s hands by fighting on Obama’s terms rather than setting their own narrative.

Instead of simply responding to the left’s attacks, Conservatives must take the topics concerning voters and explain clearly why the Democrat’s talking points are totally off tangent and what the real solutions are.

For example, the left and the media have decided to focus the discussion regarding the debt ceiling on tax increases for the rich and claim the Conservatives want to cut programs from the poor while allowing the rich to get away without any additional taxes. In addition to responding to their false claims, the conservatives should focus on getting out the message that taxes are not the solution to solving our deficit since it’s spending that causes deficits, not insufficient taxes.

It can be explained in the following manner:

Many people earn decent incomes that can cover all their expenses but are deep in debt because of their spending habits which rack up tremendous credit card bills for items they don’t need. It’s foolish for these people to blame their debt on their bosses or friends for not providing them with money. Credit card debt doesn’t occur or increase if the card is swiped only when one has funds are available and pays their bills on time. The ABC’s of money management is to spend according to one’s income and to know what’s essential and what’s extra.

The Democrats are -- just like these shopaholics who blame others – blaming the higher earners who already pay most of the taxes for the debt that the Democrats have spent us into. We need to go back to the basics of budgeting and decide what’s truly necessary, and what can be cut away. It might be painful, as anyone who’s had to do it in their private lives will attest, but the alternative is in the long term downright dangerous.

Conservatives must put the left on defense by explaining how lower taxes has never caused a deficit because it’s not money coming out of the government’s pockets, it’s the other way around. We are in debt because of reckless spending and only by curbing the addiction can the debt be cured. Conservatives should also clarify the difference between handouts which is spending, and tax cuts which is less government -- taking. When Obama claims he cut taxes thus increasing spending, that is simply not true. It’s not money out, it’s less money in. Taxing is therefore not the solution; higher taxes are actually part of the problem because it promotes the outsourcing of businesses thus destroying thousands of jobs.

When conservatives choose their candidate for 2012, it is imperative that the candidate should be capable of and willing to clarify to one and all Obama’s method of inducing panic in the public and the results of his policies which were able to be passed only because of his fear mongering behavior.

We need someone who won’t be afraid to speak out against Obama and his destructive actions. We need an individual who understands the needs of this country, has a plan how to get there, and won’t rest until success is reached. We need a candidate that’s ready to lead this country back onto its original path of smaller government and individual freedom. We need a president that puts America first before any personal interest or anything else for that matter.

A campaign against Barack Obama must educate America what his panic causing rhetoric has accomplished. He said we have the worst health care system in the world and rammed through his 2,500 page health care in which is constantly discovered additional information he’s hidden from the public and even from many in congress who voted for the bill. We need someone who won’t be afraid to take him up on it, such as terming the end of life counseling “death panels” and confronting Pelosi’s, “you have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” which is proving to contain many unpleasant surprises.

First, the death panels which were officially taken out of the bill and supposedly never even there in the first place were discovered. Then, waivers for certain groups and corporations were discovered, followed by the discovery of a loophole to extend Medicaid to middle class people. Who knows what else is hidden in there further destroying the best health care system in the universe and stripping the citizens from freedom.

We don’t need someone who first said that Obama’s policies haven’t made the economy worse; that it only remained at the same level. Nor do we need someone who speaks out against Obamneycare on a Sunday show but when it comes face to face in a debate suddenly softens his tone.

Barack Obama through his panic that the world is coming to an end, pushed through an economy -- destroying cap & trade bill in congress that attempts to turn the clock back on modernization and civilization several hundred years. Thankfully, Conservatives and Tea Partiers protested and spread the truth about the bill, causing it to fall through in the Senate.

Obama also rammed through a second stimulus package after warning we could not survive otherwise.

This country is in an economic slump yet Obama wants to spend even more even though unemployment is on the rise and the GDP was lower than estimated.

It is time for a Conservative leader to get up to Obama and confront him; Barack Obama, you’ve put America into panic and pushed through endless bills that no one even read worth trillions of dollars and have attempted to destroy coal mines all over the country. 

When the BP oil spill occurred in the Gulf you put a moratorium that banned any offshore drilling even though many judges ruled it as unconstitutional. It is clear how much your trillion dollar spending bills have done to better the economy, and what the real price of his healthcare bill is. We will no longer fall for your scare tactics. 

After His Two Hit Pieces; The John Ziegler I Know

John Ziegler posted an article on the Daily Caller this morning in which he boasted that no one had been able to disprove anything in his last week’s article, which proves that he’s correct with his predictions. I’ve decided to take Ziegler to task here about his previous article and will follow up with another piece on his current article.

It is well known that one of the disadvantages of the internet age is that most people no longer have the time or patience to do more than skim through a couple of lines and if an article has long paragraphs many will just skip right over it.

For those of you in that category, the following four italicized paragraphs outline the basics of the article.

The rest of my article is for those of you (and there are still quite a few) who want a deeper understanding of the issue and, of course, links and proofs to everything.

Last week Sunday John Ziegler published an article on the DC in which he wrote that Sarah Palin shouldn’t run in 2012, and claims he’s always said so. He explained that she’s the only one that definitely won’t win, and that a presidential run from Sarah will ruin the chances of the other candidates and can even cause us to lose the house!

I’ve gone through John Ziegler’s record and although he’s written the above at times, he also wrote that NO ONE can beat Obama in 2012. Additionally, he also wrote numerous times that she is the only one who can attempt to stand up against Obama since she is the only one that has already faced and emerged stronger from the bullets the media has thrown her way, while anyone else attempting to challenge Obama will still have to face the media’s scrutiny and false attacks. Suddenly she’s become the weakest of all candidates?

Ziegler also stressed in the DC article this week that ever since she quit her Governorship and especially since she has become a Fox News contributor, he publicly stated she ruined any chance she had to beat Obama in ’12. However he’s written several articles after the above facts in which he wrote that she’s the only one with a chance to challenge Obama and that she WOULD AND SHOULD RUN! In fact, he even wrote that the worst case scenario of a Palin run in 2012 is a Goldwater loss in which conservative values have been explained to the public and then led to a Republican in the white house 5 out of the 6 next terms.

I don’t believe in predictions and predictors at all, but even if I would, Ziegler has proven to be totally off base in the past as I’ll prove with two articles he wrote after Scott Brown’s victory in which he claimed it to be totally unrelated to Obamacare and 2010.

 

Now for the rest of you:

When I first spotted John Ziegler’s article Sunday night on the Daily Caller I immediately sat down and read his four page article, because I always like to see everything from the original source. Most of you have probably read it already, and for those of you who haven’t, here’s the link.

John Ziegler portrayed himself as a true, and at times the only, Palin supporter who has always and still has Palin’s best interest in mind. He presents himself as someone who knows what’s best for Palin, to a greater degree than Palin herself. After all, he spent 300,000 dollars of his money to make a video in which he proved the media’s bias against her and their waiver for Obama, and he’d done quite a few scientific polls. He doesn’t mention though that he had hoped to sell enough of his documentations to regain his initial investment plus more through sales, though his hopes didn’t materialize and he ended up losing money on it.

Ziegler’s focus is on Palin’s electability and he brings several “proofs” to support his view such as her quitting, her coming under relentless attacks from the media and her high disapproval numbers. He “admits” that it’s not necessarily Palin’s fault but feels that she’s unelectable nevertheless. If she does run, he warns, not only will she lose but she’ll drag down with her the entire conservative movement and even cause us to lose the house.

How much sense does it make, that the most articulate and outspoken conservative will cause conservatives to lose, especially when the nation is so sick and tired of Obama’s hope and change? His approval ratings are almost as bad as Palin and he never stopped running since 2007!

John Ziegler’s current article did not come as a total shock to me because I saw something amiss in his article last week on the DC in which he wrote about “The Undefeated.” He applauded the new movie but claimed he can’t possibly see it accomplishing anything for Palin on the political scene. What caught my eye was the following sentence in the beginning of the article when he was still full of praise.

In fact, I had suggested a similar concept to the Palins back in late 2009.

Oh yeah? Then why did he suggest a similar concept less than two years ago if you’re so skeptical now? Additionally, who said it won’t be heavily advertised? Steven K. Bannon invested lots of money in this project and has tons of experience in this field, and those that have already gotten to see it have doubled over backwards in awe over the magnificent job he’s done. I feel bad for Ziegler that his terrific documentary hasn’t received more attention; however the timing of the current movie is perfect, the buzz surrounding it is deafening, and it is therefore promising to attract tons of viewers.

Ziegler wrote on 4/25/11 in the DC in regard to the E! Network documentary on Palin in which he participated but had barely received any attention because Trump had taken center stage at that time;

 …should Palin decide to run for president (I still think it is 60/40 that she will), this show targets the exact demographic with whom she will need to get a second chance in order to have a legitimate shot at beating President Obama: women who are not news junkies.

So Ziegler believed two years ago as well as less than two months ago that with a compelling widely viewed documentary on Palin, many with unfavorable opinions or no opinion on her will recognize the truth about Sarah and support her. However, less than two months later, he made he made a complete about face.

Perhaps Ziegler has reason to be upset with Palin’s advisors (perhaps not) – but why should his anger cause the Republican Party to suddenly believe that a Palin candidacy in 2012 will cause damage?
In his article last week he wrote;

Let’s face it, Palin made a great decision for her and her family, but one that disqualifies her from running for president, at least in 2012. Obama has the ultimate trump card against her: when things got tough you quit …

The worst part about the resignation from a political narrative perspective is that it also stripped away Palin’s greatest strength. She is clearly a fighter but it is impossible to make “She will fight for you” the cornerstone of a campaign when she just quit her only big job, seemingly for personal gain.

There are three issues with the above. Firstly, Ziegler has written many times that while she shouldn’t run in ’12 she should run in ’16. If she is that damaging, how does four years change that? Has there ever been a candidate with less experience than Obama?

Secondly, she’s been fighting the last three years in order to promote conservative values and expose the Obama administration, no matter how heavily the media has attacked her. In response to Ziegler’s fear of Obama’s trump card, Obama quit his senate seat for definite reasons of personal gain and oh what a disaster his presidency has been. His policies are dragging us deeper and deeper into debt and he’s weakened America’s image worldwide. Who comes across as altruistic and who as egoistic?

Before I continue with all the links which prove how Ziegler has lied repeatedly and is only attempting to promote himself even though he pretends to be doing it all for the good of Palin and the people, I’d like to refute his main claim of the electability/unelectability issue with a story; one that’s actually pretty well known but perhaps forgotten or not seen in the proper light:

In 2007 about this time of the year, many Republicans have announced or were about to announce a run for the presidential office. All polls, strategists, analysts and predictors had Giuliani pretty high up, followed by Romney, Huckabee, and finally McCain. McCain appeared to have absolutely zero chances to win the primary in ’08 especially after he lost Iowa. In fact, at a particular low point during the primary, his fundraising was so weak and his staff so shrunken, he expected to step out and give it up. Less than a year later the candidate who had to travel alone from state to state and drag his own suitcase and bags, received his party’s nomination.

Moral of the story: There is no point attempting to predict what will happen because changes occur and often in the blink of an eye.

It is something that can’t be stressed often enough since it is the most common repeated worry from many on the right, and Ziegler also played on it in his DC article last week:

First of all, almost everyone has already made up their mind about Palin and she has well over a 50 percent disapproval rating with no office/position where she can do/achieve anything to significantly change the narrative about her. About the only opportunity she would have to get a second look is to do high-profile interviews with liberal media types and, against my counsel, she has indicated she has no intention of doing that.

Many of you might nodding your heads along with Ziegler worrying and wondering; how will Palin get her message out to clarify for all those that have been misled about her in the past and will continue to buy all the lies the media spreads about her? There are actually quite a few solutions besides for Ziegler’s and all of them are easily doable.

In response to Ziegler’s “how can she achieve anything,” Palin has shaken up national policy time and again without any official position. Through Facebook she continuously challenges Obama such as with “death panels” and sets the tone for national debate. She also helped many candidates in the midterm elections with her endorsement, which sent tremendous amount of small money donations flying across the internet to their campaigns.

“The Undefeatable” is already scheduled to be shown in several strategic areas and will probably end up having millions upon millions of viewers in the next couple of months. With enough advertisement and viewers, it will completely change the perception people have picked up from the mainstream media, thus raising her approval rating, as her TLC show and “One Nation” bus tour have done.

Additionally, Palin has over three million friends on facebook and that number is constantly increasing. If and when Palin will ask them to go out and educate anyone and everyone they come in contact with, that number will double and triple in no time. That is how Obama got elected. Never give up hope and “Never say Never.”

These are but some examples of Palin reaching voters without having to kneel to the media. No other candidate has the ability to do it the way she does, and it’s a very important tool, because come the general election whoever wins the Republican nomination will be chopped to bits and pieces by the mainstream media as McCain “the moderate” had been in ‘08.

Therefore, when deciding whether to support a specific candidate or where to cast one’s vote, we should focus on principles and values rather than on electability. After all, it is impossible for anyone to know the outcome of an election or the outcome of any event or even what will occur in a single minute from now, so why wouldn’t you support someone with whom you agree on the issues just aren’t sure can win? How many more times must the expected fail to happen and the unexpected happen for people to learn and internalize this truth?

Ask Anthony Weiner if he would’ve dreamt his whole world turning upside down and that he’d be handing in his resignation this week. Who would’ve predicted Weiner’s disgrace a month ago? How many politicians have risen with the right slogan or fallen with one misspoken word? So too here, nobody, including John Ziegler who defended Palin and had gone on so many interviews to spread the truth about her, can know what will be. Even Palin can’t foresee if a campaign will be successful. John, I respect the work you’ve done for Sarah and agree that you, as everybody else, are entitled to form your own opinion. But,

A- don’t lie

B- we don’t have to accept it your opinion even though you’ve met her and interviewed her because many others have spoken and interviewed her and disagree with you

C- your opinions have been proven wrong in the past as is shown later in the article.

Here are some excerpts of Ziegler’s past articles with dates and relevant info in which Ziegler contradicts his current arguments repeatedly in regard to Palin. (During my search I’ve discovered many more contradictory statements that aren’t necessarily tied to Palin so I decided to skip those because this would lengthen an already lengthy article!) Bolded words and color changes are mine.

The first one is from an article he wrote on 11/17/09 reviewing Palin’s book “Going Rogue,” which Palin published several months after she resigned as Governor.

Of course, what everyone really wants to know is whether she is going to run for president in 2012. I have stated my personal opinion to her personally as well as to the Today Show audience: that I believe she would be best to wait until 2016 to run for President (assuming she even has any desire to do so), mostly because I still maintain that Obama is a heavy favorite for reelection.

Before I read this book I was pretty much convinced that Palin would not run for President in 2012 and that she was accepting of the possibility that she will never run for political office again. I now believe that it is very possible that she will run in 2012. This is not because I have read the tea leaves and discovered a hidden message (which, for the record, I did before her resignation), but rather because I believe that if this book is the success that it could and should be, there will be a groundswell among the Republican base demanding that she run. I strongly believe that if every Republican primary voter reads this book, Sarah Palin will win the 2012 nomination in a landslide, whether she wants it or not.

Even if nothing like that ever transpires, I am excited by what I read from Sarah Palin. I had come to believe that all the criticism she and her family have endured had left her a bit “punch drunk” and that her special essence as a political figure had been permanently contaminated, at least to some small extent. Thankfully, I was wrong. The real Sarah Palin is alive and well, and now you have the chance to finally find out who she is and understand why millions of her fans are so devoted to her, even when she is just a private citizen who cares deeply about her country.

So Ziegler believed that once the primary voters were educated about Palin she’ll win with a landslide, even though she quit from being governor which, according to Ziegler, is her greatest obstacle to overcome. As we now know, her book was only the first successful tool she used to increase her positive image. She reached her first million on facebook because of “Going Rogue” and she now has over three million and still growing. She has continued reaching out to many different audiences via her facebook posts, her TLC show, and her “One Nation” bus tour amongst others, though none with the help of John Ziegler. If Ziegler’s concern is only about the general election, why – Ziegler himself in the following excerpt clearly explains how Palin is the only candidate who can dare stand up against Obama!

It is also of importance to note that he’s excited about her book because it proves that “the real Sarah Palin is alive and well,” since he later contradicts that. Additionally, Ziegler is confident that once she gets her message across voters will be so inspired by her, she will win by a landslide.

Read this excerpt written by Ziegler on January 18, 2011, which was several days after the media blamed Palin for the Tucson shooting and about a year after she became a commentator on Fox News.

As dangerous, counterproductive, and pointless as it can be to try and predict whether Sarah Palin will run for president in 2012, I found myself changing my mind last night about what she likely will, and should, do regarding the largest political decision one can make.

I had to stop and comment on his choice of words -- Dangerous? Only if you are putting your own career on line and are betting your life’s savings, although Ziegler officially claims to have only Palin’s best interest in mind when discussing what she should do.

This leads me to my second change of heart. Ever since I witnessed her 2008 convention speech in person, I have had admiration for Sarah Palin, but I had also (almost out of a desire to not see her and her family unnecessarily harassed) come to the conclusion that it was not a good idea for her to run for president in 2012. I figured that, thanks largely to the same media who has targeted her for over two years, Obama was unlikely to lose to anyone and that blowing her one chance to run wouldn’t be good for her or her cause. But now I not only think she will run, but I really hope she does.

I still believe barring a disaster Obama will be reelected, but I now see nothing to lose and lots to gain by a Palin candidacy. She is the only candidate who has the ultimate freedom of having already faced her political death head on. As Winston Churchill famously said, “There is nothing more exhilarating than being shot without result,” and while thankfully Palin only knows this truth metaphorically, all that she has endured gives her incredible independence. Everyone else will inevitably melt (like even grizzled veteran John McCain did) when they get close to the blast furnace that will be going up against the Obama juggernaut. Far more than anyone else in conservative history, Palin has been forced to prove just how fireproof her convictions are and how deep her resolve is.

Quite simply, no one else in the potential Republican field will be as trustworthy to conservatives on the issues, and less likely to back down, than Sarah Palin. She has shown beyond any doubt that she can literally handle anything that the pressure of running for president could possibly present.

Would she win? Probably not, but there is no Republican who would be close to being favored today against Obama. Instead, a Palin candidacy would guarantee, by far, the best chance to have true conservative principles articulated in a fearless fashion on the grandest of stages, which hasn’t really happened (with apologies to Ronald Reagan) since 1964.

While that losing Barry Goldwater campaign is not one which is likely to be emulated politically anytime soon, with Palin such an outcome (a spirited, non-politically correct defense of conservatism followed by likely temporary defeat) is the absolutely worst case scenario. Considering that such a campaign ended up directly leading to Republican victories in five of the next six presidential elections, such a potentiality is one that should be embraced by conservatives and not feared.

Remember that this comes way after her having quit for Governor and several months after she has become a contributor for Fox, both two reasons he cites now have ruined her chances. Additionally, because of the unbelievable attacks on Palin, her approval rating had been at the very lowest point. Despite all of the above, Ziegler was convinced Palin can handle anything and should run for president.

It seems to me that as long as Ziegler felt necessary and played an important role in the defense of Sarah Palin, thinking of her as this poor woman attacked by a pack of dogs, he did his role to the tee. Once Palin emerged on her own, or skipped his advice, and used her own techniques and tools to defend herself such as her facebook page, Ziegler got mad at her each time, as seen in his article last week in regard to Letterman. Is she supposed to let every one of her defenders such as Rush, Hannity, Malkin, etc. know before she releases any statement? What a ridiculous complaint!

Before I discuss this piece, read the following reply Ziegler uses on his new blog to defend himself from the critic he knew he’d receive after his DC piece last Sunday:

I am contradicting my past writings about Palin and a possible campaign. I can understand how people may conclude this because it would require a very detailed look at what I have said and the exact timing of those statements in order to fully realize that this allegation is completely false. For instance, when I wrote for Mediaite that I had “changed my mind about a Palin presidential run” (a headline I did not write) a close reading of that column indicates that I had come to the belief that she WOULD RUN, not that she would win.

The Mediaite column he’s referring to is the one I just brought excerpts from and which he now conveniently chooses to omit that he not only wrote she WOULD run, but that she SHOULD run. He explains that if anyone can beat Obama it’ll be Palin because she is the most trustworthy on the issues, least likely to back down, and “can literally handle anything that the pressure of running for president could possibly present.”

What event affected Palin negatively since January 2011 that has caused him to make a complete turnaround? The “One Nation” bus tour and the announcement of “The Undefeatable” have occurred since then, both of which brought tons of additional support to Palin as seen in her rising poll numbers, (and had no relation to Ziegler much to his disappointment.) This is still before the general public has seen anything more than several short sneak preview of the new movie.

I’ve got some additional issues with Ziegler’s article from last week such as here where he refers to March of 2010 (excerpt below) which is about half a year after her book tour and shortly after she became a Fox News contributor:

Soon after that, she went on The Tonight Show, just blocks from where I was living. I was scheduled to be on Morning Joe on MSNBC very early the next morning. I asked the Palin team if I could simply attend the afternoon taping so that I could be prepared to defend her appearance without having to stay up very late before getting up absurdly early. Laughably, they actually told me that they had no ability to get any tickets to the very public and free taping.

On almost no sleep I did that show anyway and said that while she is clearly brilliant, that there was no way she could beat Obama in 2012, partially because of the choices she had recently made (resignation, Fox News instead of an over-the-air network, getting in bed with corrupt elements of the Tea Party, etc.).

Oh my!

That’s the only thought I was capable of having after reading the above. So this guy was so annoyed at his loss of sleep and so outraged that he hadn’t gotten tickets to The Tonight Show (whether or not they really couldn’t get one for him) that he went the very next morning on MSNBC and disparaged her on everything he can think of such as being in bed with corrupt elements etc. One would have to be an utter fool to want any contact with such a person in the future. Who needs such a teenage moody guy near oneself? If you fill his desires, he sings your praises. If you dare insult him, intentionally or otherwise, he’ll snub you in public. This is, by the way, exactly what he’s doing right now but on the largest scale ever.

In his interview on Morning Joe that morning he also said the following about Palin:

"The Sarah Palin of 2008 doesn’t exist anymore”

And,

"This is Sarah Palin 2.0 She had very limited options about what she was going to do with her future because she was unfairly destroyed, as my documentary proves, in the 2008 election…Since January of this year when she decided to become a Fox commentator, I believe she has gone down a path that makes it absolutely positively impossible in 2012 to beat Barack Obama."

A quick point to ponder; the media’s latest Palin bashing after her emails have been released and no scandals were found, is that she had been a terrific governor but has changed into the partisan and media hating Palin she is now. Credit must be given where credit is due. Thank you John Ziegler for inventing this nonsense and for giving the media another illogical argument to use against Palin.

Additionally, remember that in the first excerpt Ziegler wrote that Palin’s book “Going Rogue” proved that “the real Sarah Palin is alive and well” while here he claims she was destroyed in 2008. Which one is it? Whichever fits your narrative better at the moment?

Here’s another question I have for Ziegler in light of the excerpts above: What occurred between these excerpts from March 2010 in which he disparaged Palin on MSNBC, and January 2011 where he wrote positively about her and enumerated the many strengths a Palin candidacy would have, except for the Tucson shooting? She remained the same Tea Partier who’d written two books, resigned from her governorship, and contributed to Fox!

This crappiness of Ziegler on MSNBC after she’s done such a hell of a job on Jay Leno the night before once again reiterates my previous observation how Ziegler is only there to defend Palin when he perceives her as the helpless victim of the media with no one else ready to defend her. If you follow his actions closely, it’s pretty obvious how every time she doesn’t appear dependent on him or doesn’t respond to “her savior” immediately, he sulks. There are many more examples such as his constant whining in the DC article last Sunday every time she didn’t respond to his emails etc., with the strongest proof being his attack on her this week which is in reaction to the documentary he’s got no part in as proven above.

How else can you explain his irrational behavior of praising Palin suddenly after the Tucson shooting even though she remained the same person who had left her governorship and has become a Fox News contributor – the two things he always has greatest issue with? This also explains why he’s rooting for Pawlenty out of all the other candidates since he’s clearly the new underdog. One has got to be utterly naïve to believe that Ziegler is truly convinced Palin is the one ruining Pawlenty’s chances and at the same time believe that Pawlenty has a better chance in defeating Obama than Palin. Just rereading my last sentence shows the ridiculousness in Ziegler’s latest attention-seeking article.

In his DC article last Sunday, Ziegler also wrote the following:

Quite simply, the evidence is overwhelming that Palin would get crushed by Obama in such a resounding fashion that it may even threaten the Republican hold on the House and the party’s presumed taking of the Senate.

What evidence? Palin played a major role in the success the Conservatives and Tea Party members had in the 2010 election in which the Republicans picked up 63 in the House of Representatives. Her endorsement for Sean Duffy from WI-7, Ann Marie Buerkle from NY-25, and Allen West from FL-22 amongst many other candidates has been credited for creating the momentum that helped them win in

Democratic strongholds. And in 2012 she will be the cause for the loss of seats?

Ziegler seems to have a personal grudge against Palin which he hides at times pretty successfully, but is seen in his attempt to use every and any excuse he can possibly create to discredit her from running. Although he claims he no longer wanted her to run when she resigned from governorship, in his article last Sunday he wrote that he told Palin directly in their meeting in Alaska when she was still governor that;

“You have to know, you can’t beat Obama in 2012. The media won’t let you. They won’t let him lose and the narrative about you is too negative to correct in three-and-a-half years.”

Once she quit, that became his official song for a while and he kept on changing the tune to keep up with the times. He jumped from the electability issue, to claiming it’s in the best of her interest to wait until 2016. He then felt that she had too much on her plate, until he landed with her harming the party by destroying the other campaigns. (If no one can beat Obama, who’s chancing is she ruining? And if they can’t beat her how can the beat Obama PLUS the media?) This guy should get an A+ for his creative imagination!!

By the way, don’t most of these sound eerily familiar as the talking points of the liberals? Which one takes it from the other? Here, Ziegler worried that she’s too busy with her kids to run for president. How nice of you Mr. Ziegler to involve her children!

If you think you’ve heard it all then look below at this one! It truly blows the top! Ziegler wrote the following in March ‘10 a week after Palin was on Jay Leno’s show and he was still blowing over his non-invitation and having to get up early the next day to be on Joe Scarborough’s show.

Some will say that the first hurdle is winning the nomination and that, should the economy continue in deep recession, that anyone at the top of the Republican ticket would beat Obama. Therefore, Palin is right to worry about appealing to the “base” first and then deal with independents and Obama later.

My answer to that would be that under the “economic doom” scenario, Palin might very be the only mainstream Republican Obama could beat. Think of it this way, if things are truly that desperate in 2012, is America really going to dump a guy who at least has four years of Presidential experience for a person who has none, who “quit” her job as Governor of a small state, and who they have been told over and over is not very bright?

You see the problem with coming up with a scenario where Palin could be Obama in 2012 is that the worse things get for him, the less likely that the country would be to take a chance on her.

How much sense does that make to you? How many people consider Obama’s last couple of years as massive experience? What one thing has he done right? The student protests in Iran? Libya? Egypt? Insulting our friends in England and Israel? Jobs? Economy? Energy policies? Wanting to try KSM in Manhattan? Naming a police officer “stupid” before knowing the details? I’ll let you fill in the rest of his impressive resume.

On the other hand, reading Palin’s facebook posts provides clear concise answers to countless issues facing us regarding energy independence, foreign policy, healthcare, and every other topic. This is besides all her past experience.

For those of you not familiar with Ziegler and afraid that with all his scientific polling he’s better informed than anyone else in regard to election outcomes, the following are two more excerpts which Ziegler wrote, one after Scott Brown’s astonishing victory in MA in the special election of Kennedy’s senate seat, and the other in regard to Frank Bailey’s anti-Palin book; with which I rest my case.

In an article titled Brown’s win not necessarily a harbinger of GOP comeback, Zeigler wrote several reasons why Brown won and I copied those relevant to my point:

Fourth, Brown is not just a good candidate, he is so ideal that there is no way his win can possibly be duplicated around the country. Unless of course Republicans have a sable full of experienced, properly accented, locally educated, hunky male candidates with perfect names who drive trucks and whose wives are local newscasters but who are portly enough where their husband’s good looks don’t turn off females voters (the John Edwards effect) and whose daughters are American Idol contestants who star on local college basketball teams. Good luck with that Michael Steele. Sarah Palin is clearly very fertile but even she couldn’t possibly populate a master race of populist Republican candidates fast enough to fill the need.

Sixth, the Haitian earthquake took almost all of Martha Coakley’s natural allies in the news media away from Massachusetts at exactly the time she needed them to descend on Boston to dig up some dirt on Brown. Does anyone really believe that if the quake hadn’t hit that the national media wouldn’t have unleashed Palin-like hell on Brown once they realized he was a legitimate threat? When is a Republican ever going to get a “pass” like that again?

It seems like Ziegler didn’t follow the news in regard to Brown. What sort of pass did Brown get? Olbermann’s favorite topic was blasting Brown with ridiculous untruths such as him having raped women, being a racist for driving a pick-up truck, and being a birther. The left always has enough reporters and attack dogs when wanting to destroy Republicans, as seen then and at every occasion. Ziegler also claimed his victory was unrelated to Obamacare and would have no effect in 2010, something he’s been proven wrong big time!

In another article written on 5/31, he wrote that Frank Bailey’s new anti-Palin book has caused his vision of Palin to become blurry and become unsure of who she really is, further causing him to need to reflect and refocus because Bailey’s book explains with proofs of emails between him and Palin some of the stories Ziegler’s been directly involved. And what’s his new view? His attack piece last Sunday! So,

A- Ziegler is back to himself and his own feelings, although he mainly pretends to be acting out of the goodness of his heart.

B- Most of Palin’s emails have been released to the public and the media hasn’t found anything derogatory against Palin. Why hasn’t Ziegler specified details?

C- Ziegler chooses to believe someone who released private emails from his former employer whom Ziegler officially supports.

D- Ziegler chooses to believe this guy who’s involved in two unethical charges rather than other Palin supporters who’ve explained he’s taken her words out of context and twisted stuff around. For example, Bailey used an email Palin wrote in regard to rumors about her daughter’s pregnancy before she actually knew about it, as her reaction towards her daughter herself, and not rumors.

An aside, after having read every article available online I was able to find that John Ziegler wrote about Palin, it is simply mind boggling to see how self-centered and self-thinking the guy is. Just reading his thoughts will convince all of you who this guy really is, and how every second line is promoting one of his videos or is filled with I and I!

To sum it up, depending on his mood swings and whatever is convenient at the moment, Ziegler uses different “reasons” why Palin shouldn’t run, although his true reason is his opposition to Palin. This is the John Ziegler, after many hours of research on his articles that I know.

Cross Posted at Red State

Update: Thank You Texans For Sarah Palin for linking and quoting this article!
Update II: The Book Of Sarah has linked to this article as well!