Our Choice For 2012

People are constantly faced with choices in their lives. At times the choice which appears to be the correct one to make may in the long run reveal itself as not that good of a decision and the same is true vice versa. This is especially so when faced with the choice of whom to support amongst several candidates during a primary. Although some folks have become discouraged over the years when the choice they’ve selected turned out to not be as originally envisioned, it’s important to continue making decisions and choosing the candidate which appears best at the time. At other times, one choice is obviously negative and although the other option may not be perfect, it is definitely the better of the two - as explained all the way below.

Since no-one is perfect and it is impossible to agree with one’s candidate/supported official 100% of the time, even when making a correct choice it is often accompanied with many gray areas which at times overshadow the white. Prior to the 2010 elections Arlen Specter, Republican Senator of purple-blue Pennsylvania was approaching a reelection and wavered on a decision before ultimately shocking and angering Republicans when he cast his vote in favor of Obama’s stimulus plan. This was the first time he sided with the Democrats on a major bill and his action resulted in conservatives and Tea Partiers to declare war on Specter at every cost. Their mission appeared noble and correct, and Pat Toomey is now the Republican Senator of Pennsylvania after barely winning the general election with a single point in the 2010 mid-term elections; a year in which Republicans swept victories across the country. He is surely a better representative of conservative values in the Senate than Specter had been.

However, the price tag it had cost for conservatives to place Toomey in the Senate had turned out be unexpectedly sky-rocketing expensive and resulted in many to question whether the goal was worth the consequences. When Specter saw he would be unable to win the Republican Primary, he made a mad dash to save his seat, switched parties, and provided the Democrats with the 60th vote which led to the passage of their infamous Obamacare. Thus, although we now have a solid conservative in the Senate who replaced a RINO (not an outright liberal) we are now weighed down with Obamacare which threatens to overtake a sixth of the private sector and is currently awaiting judgment on its constitutionality by the Supreme Court Justices.

Incidentally, two of our current conservative Supreme Court Justices, Roberts and Alito, are currently on the bench thanks to Specter, after Senator Santorum had made the choice to support Specter for reelection in ’04 when he was challenged in a primary by Pat Toomey. At the time, Senator Santorum was faced with the difficult choice whether he should support the incumbent Senator Specter and his senior colleague who although was a less conservative choice than Toomey, was far more probable to be successful in keeping the seat red during an election where the balance on Senate was up in the air and anti-Republican emotions were thick. This surmise turned out pretty accurate since Toomey barely managed to eke out a 1% victory in 2010 when the public was outraged at Obamacare and looked favorably upon the Tea Party candidates.

Maintaining the Republican control of the Senate was by far not the only factor which Santorum focused on when making his decision. He was also strongly aware that Bush would be nominating at least two and possibly three justices for the Supreme Court and that Specter who headed the judiciary committee would be extremely influential whether Bush’s proponents would ultimately be approved by the Senate. Santorum therefore opted to support Specter after receiving his word that he would support the conservative candidates for the Supreme Court which Bush would propose, something which will influence U.S. history for years to come as is visible now with the Obamacare hearings.

Santorum’s support of Specter indeed resulted in two strong conservatives on the bench, although it may have likely cost him the nomination in the current GOP presidential primary. In addition to having been hammered for supporting Specter in’04 for actions taken years later and were impossible to foretell six years earlier, his act resulted in Specter’s former opponent and the current Conservative Senator of Pennsylvania and Santorum’s home-state, Pat Toomey, to act favorably towards Santorum’s opponent – the author of Romneycare. In fact, immediately after Santorum announced he was suspending his campaign yesterday, Toomey released an official endorsement endorsing Romney, causing many to speculate whether the endorsement would occur regardless prior to Pennsylvania’s primary and whether it was one of the causes which led to the Santorum campaign suspension.

The above two examples clearly illustrate how when one makes a choice which appears to be good, it isn’t necessarily all good as is later revealed. It shouldn’t however leave us disheartened for ultimately many good also emerged from those choices. Additionally, many decisions are pretty clear-cut where one option is definitely bad. Even if the other one doesn’t necessarily turn out to be all that good, we still know it is better than the alternative.

Supporting a candidate doesn’t necessarily mean that one agrees with all they’ve done or stand for, although a candidate usually will have some supporters who do identify with them to an extreme. Many supporters of a specific candidate usually support the candidate because they identify with them on a single issue while many others don’t even have that. They simply support a certain candidate because he’s the better choice than the alternative. This was visible numerous times amongst this primary and is very typical. After Palin chose not to run, a majority of her supporter split between Cain and Newt. After Bachmann, Cain, and Perry exited the race, their supporters too turned to find a second or third ro fourth choice amongst the remaining candidates. This led to the momentum to shift from Perry to Cain to Newt to Santorum as voters were forced to reevaluate the field once it was clear the person they supported wasn’t running at all or any longer. I too have first supported Palin, and when she announced she wasn’t running though long and hard until turning to support Santorum approximately a month prior to the Iowa caucuses.

With Santorum now having suspended his campaign, the primary is sort of wrapped up despite the many voters including myself who haven’t yet received the opportunity to cast their ballots. Unlike the primary where the choices were plentiful - at least at the start, the general will boil down to two choices; four more years for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. Obama has already been in office long enough for everyone with an open mind to recognize the damage he’s wrought upon this country. Obama is clearly not only the bad choice but an utter disaster for this country. Any alternative will be far better and less to the left than the Marxist Obama.

Romney’s Attorney General will not be someone like Eric Holder who looks the other way when the Black Panther sets a price-tag of a million dollars on Zimmerman’s head and refuses to take responsibility or even answer basic questions regarding Fast & Furious. Nor will Romney chose the dopey Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services, the unqualified leftist Janet Napolitano as his Secretary of Homeland Security, and so on and so forth.

The choice now has boiled down between two people; Obama and Romney and it is time to unite under the better of the two – Mitt Romney. There are many who have announced that they refuse to vote for Romney and are planning to sit out the 2012 election, all the while talking of setting him up with a conservative in 2016. It is okay to talk of 2016, but only after the 2012 elections have taken place and giving Romney a chance at the presidency, if he reaches it. He may or may not make a good president but he’s not a definite Obama, and if conservatives will dislike him so greatly we can challenge him in 2016 just as we would put out a conservative against Obama.

We conservatives have proven our power the last couple of years by successfully challenging lots of incumbents in primaries and Romney is aware of it.. He won’t want to face a primary from his own party and will probably go along with whatever conservatives in Congress present him. Obama, on the other hand, is aware it’ll be his last term and will have no need to appease to any voters except for his leftist base who will replace Karl Marx with Barack Obama. If we thought he was radical in his first term, a second Obama term will be so much more disastrous it defies description. I plead with you fellow conservatives, w can look ahead to the future but at the same time we MUST REMEMBER THE HERE AND NOW AND MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR 2012. WE MUST SAY NO TO OBAMA AND THUS SAY YES TO MITT ROMNEY.

Perry vs. Christie: Coulter's Contradiction

Ann Coulter is a great conservative who does a terrific job explaining conservatism on interviews and in her columns. In her humorous manner she clearly defines the differences between the left and the right, and is never afraid to tell someone directly into their faces what she thinks of them.

I’ve noticed though that at times her humor and views are not necessarily strictly in line with conservative values. Yes, she’s very pro-life and right on the moral and other issues, but while she may preach certain values in public at the same time she lauds and supports individuals that don’t defend those very same values.

For example, the last several months, Coulter fell in love with a Christie campaign, although many other candidates and potential candidates are way more conservative than him. Coulter is never heard discussing Christie's record, his position on issues, or how long he’s been Governor. Rather, she repeatedly stresses how no one’s as good as him and that he’s the only one who can come out strongly to challenge Obama.

In an interview last week with John Hawkin on Right Wing News, I was stunned to see the following:

Hawkins:
You’ve been saying for a while that you think Chris Christie may be the only guy who can stop Mitt Romney. How about Rick Perry, who’s also a big name candidate — and if not, why not?

Coulter:
Chris Christie could eat Rick Perry for breakfast — so to speak.

I can take a joke and enjoy her great sense of humor, but has Coulter ever researched who Christie is and what he supports? Coulter mocks man-made global warming and is anti-stronger gun control, so why from such a large field of candidates does she support Christie who’s not even running and believes in global warming and greater gun control amongst many other non-conservative beliefs.

Additionally, is Coulter aware how Christie became the Governor of New Jersey?

Christie was a popular U.S. Attorney whom the media hyped because of his center-left beliefs. True he had successfully battled many corrupted politicians with many landing behind bars; however his conservative credentials besides being a registered Republican amounted to promising to lower taxes. He ran in support of increased gun control, believed in man-made global warming, and wasn’t pro-life. Despite the above and more, he received support in the primary from the entire Republican Party from conservative Steve Forbes to the former popular Mayor Rudy Giuliani of neighboring NYC.

Christie played the role of popular U.S. Attorney with endorsements from all and lots of name recognition. He was ahead in the polls and it was clear to all that he’ll crush the incumbent unpopular Corzine and become the next Governor of the state.

Several months before the primary, Christie, the candidate who received the support of all major newspapers and politicians, faced an unknown challenger for the primary. A true conservative who had served as the mayor of a small town in NJ, Steve Lonegan campaigned on all conservative issues including shrinking the size of government, anti-gun control, anti-illegal immigration, pro- energy independence, anti-environmentalism, pro-life, pro-flat tax etc. Although Lonegan was articulate and passionate in his beliefs, he faced attacks from Giuliani and many others in the Republican Party because of his staunch conservative values.

Lonegan jumped in to the primary just a few short months before the elections and campaigned endlessly to build up his name recognition. The last several weeks before the election had him inching closer and closer to Christie, but time wasn’t on his side. When Election Day arrived he had bridged a tremendous gap without the help of any in the establishment, although Christie still remained ahead of the game.

At the time, it reminded me very much of the primary playing out between Charlie Christ and Marco Rubio, with the difference being that Rubio started his campaign enough in advance to reach out to voters and establish himself, which led to him beating Christ in the polls which caused Christ to run as Independent.

In addition to his popularity, Christie’s pockets were much deeper than his opponent’s and he was thus able to bombard the air waves and TV waves with ads against his opposition, Lonegan. All of the above resulted in Christie emerging as the victor though not with the overwhelming numbers originally predicted before Lonegan entered the race.

He won the primary with a mere 55% of the votes.

In the general election, Christie actually received endorsements not only from the right but from many on the left including the leftist environmentalist Seattle Club who endorsed him over the Democrat candidate John Corzine! How conservative does that make him appear? On top of the many endorsements, he faced a scandalized incumbent who led the state into deeper economic disaster which resulted in the people seeking for change.

When November arrived, Christie won with five percent of the votes.

And now Coulter wants to convince us that Christie can swallow Perry whole when Perry has a greater favorability than Christie, has won three elections, and has served as the Governor of his state for over ten years? All this is not even including the fact that Perry is far more to the right than Christie on most of the issues. Additionally, Christie’s unfavorable numbers are higher than his favorable numbers and he’s not even Governor for two years. I know New Jersey is a blue state, but Alaska’s majority is not Republican either and Palin had an approval rating of 80% before she was picked as McCain’s VP.

On what does Coulter base her claim that Christie, and only Christie, can beat Obama? Christie has not proven to have fought tough elections in the past, is not a true conservative, has only a little over a year of executive experience, and is not even well liked in his own state!

In these tough economic times, Perry can point to his state’s financial success who’s unemployment numbers are lower than the national average and New Jersey’s. Anyone with the retort that Christie can’t possibly be blamed for his state’s terrible economy since it has preceded him and that he hasn’t yet had the ability to enforce changes; that too is exactly my point. How and why could you trust this guy with the presidency of the United States when he hasn’t been Governor any longer than Obama had been senator before he ran for higher office? Are you looking for a repeat of ’08? Christie hasn’t even been Governor yet for the length of time Palin had been.

Coulter opposes Romney while supports Christie when they are on the same side of the table on many issues – and the opposite of conservatism. On the other hand, Perry is a staunch pro- life, anti-gun control, anti-global warming candidate and so are Palin and Bachmann.

Ann Coulter’s response on Sean Hannity when asked what she thinks of a Palin as president left me quite puzzled. You can watch the entire clip here.

Coulter replied; “I don’t think she’s going to (run) I think she should run for senate or something…….I think she’s a great voice for conservatism, ummm why bother running for president?”

Why Palin should bother?

Firstly, If she runs it will be much more than a bother, she will have to fight with every tooth and nail against the hating left; but she won’t do just to prove that she could win.

If she runs, it will be because this country needs a strong conservative to take control of the government and its out-of-control spending and there’s no one else that has the tools to fight the left like she does.

This country needs someone that has already stood up successfully in the past against her opposition, even from her own party, all so that her state would benefit.

In the same interview Coulter said she needs “someone who’s stellar and a cut above.” What makes Christie so outstanding? His only plus is his fight against unions, so then why not choose Walker who does the same and is a conservative to boot? If Coulter is a true conservative, what is it in Christie that she supports?

Palin had beaten a popular incumbent in the primary with no party support whatsoever and then took on and won in the general election against a former popular Democratic Governor. She had also served previously as a Mayor for two terms, thus gaining lots of executive experience.

Listening to Ann Coulter on Hannity, however, it’s obvious she knows only one thing. And that is, that Christie is the best. How about doing some research into his background as well as the history of the other candidates?

I believe that neither Christie nor Perry will run, and that Perry will endorse a Palin presidency, I simply felt compelled to question Ann Coulter and her unintelligible attitude.

This article was cross posted at Red State.

A Great Review of "The Undefeated"

Since I haven't yet watched “The Undefeated”, I've been reading the reviews and reactions to those who have already seen it.

The more I've read, the more obvious the tremendous impact this may have. Josh Painter, the editor of Texans for Sarah Palin wrote a great review in which he articulates it in three clear and concise points.

You can click here for the entire article.

The first of these is the initial "Three Minute Hate" sequence, which has a powerful emotional impact on the viewer. Much has been made of the foul language used by some of the more notorious among the Palin-hater demographic and how it will require director Stephen Bannon to market two versions of his film so PG audiences won't miss out on the opportunity to view it. The angrier extremists of the far left can't seem to communicate without resorting to gutter language, like so many of today's stand up comedians who use filthy epithets as a crutch to get through their acts. Lacking the creativity and talent of great comics such as Bill Cosby, Bob Hope, Jonathan Winters and Bob Newhart, this generation of comics are more than just several cuts below the greatness of the masters of their craft. But I suspect general audiences who see "The Undefeated" will find the intensity of the hate for Sarah Palin to have more shock value than the four-letter words used to express it. Coming at the beginning of the film as it does, the Three Minute Hate overwhelms the viewer with the irrationality and pathology of the attacks made against Gov. Palin. Viewers with a conscience will not be able to avoid the feeling of revulsion and even outrage over the extreme degrees of nastiness pursued in the efforts to destroy the woman. Those left of center, but of good character, will instinctively want to distance themselves from such vileness, which is exactly what the filmmaker wants them to do. Only then can these viewers, the main targets of the documentary, give Sarah Palin an even break and grant her a fresh appraisal.


Moving from the emotional to the intellectual, audiences can't help but be impressed by the accomplishments of the governor they see on the screen, as they witness the fiscal restraint, "servant's heart," and overall competence which rewarded her with impressive approval ratings in office, at least before the 2008 presidential campaign. Energy independence has always been a top issue for me, and as we see in "The Undefeated," it is for Gov. Palin as well. It is this issue which initially pulled me into her political orbit when I first began to pay attention after reading "The Most Popular Governor" by Fred Barnes nearly four years ago. Before I was even made aware of Sarah Palin, I was on board with her on the security and economic necessity of this nation deriving much more of its oil and natural gas from domestic exploration and production, while importing much less of it from potentially unreliable foreign sources. Not only would it be a shot in the arm to our ailing economy, it would help create hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of jobs. This made economic sense even back when the unemployment rate was almost half of what it is now. Today, it is nothing less than mission critical if we want to put America back to work.

Finally, the film impressed me with its great potential to change minds and thus change the game. Even if it does not move them 180 full degrees from the media-created Palin perception, that's not a problem. "The Undefeated" doesn't need to have that much of an impact on everyone who experiences it. The hard left will never give Gov. Palin an even break, but they're only about 20 percent of the population, so they aren't relevant to the mission of the this documentary (aside from the fact that they helped to perpetuate the media-driven lies about Sarah Palin by repeating them over and over again). Very few radical leftists, members of an even smaller subgroup, will even bother to watch the movie anyway. All this film need do is persuade those who sit for it to give her a second look, one not contaminated by media misrepresentation. Given that criteria, I believe that it will be a great success.

As a committed Palin supporter, it's difficult to put myself in the mind of a fence-sitter, and as a Reagan conservative, just as hard to try to image the thinking of a moderate or independent who fell for the anti-Palin media hype and accepted it as Gospel. But I do know a few things about communication and the psychology of marketing, and I'm convinced that if enough people - registered voters in particular - get the chance to see this powerful documentary they cannot help but be moved by it and have it challenge their preconceptions. Again, change enough minds, and you have changed the game. That's the emotional and intellectual power of "The Undefeated."

 I just hope that the film will reach enough Americans, especially those not already a part of the Palin camp, so it should have an impact.

Citizen Palin or President Palin?

The following article posted on Tennessee4Palin titled Why I Can No Longer Support “Citizen Sarah" is a must-read!

It explains so clearly and concisely why we need Palin to join the race and be our next president.

It would be difficult to dispute the fact that “Citizen Sarah” Palin is one of the most effective voices in conservatism today…the evidence speaks for itself.

On issue after issue…from healthcare to national security to quantitative easing, Citizen Sarah has “led from the front”, presenting a stark contrast between herself and media proclaimed frontrunners such as Romney or Pawlenty.

For the midterm elections, Rick Santorum rightly conceded she was THE endorsement candidates craved. And for good reason. Her tireless resolve and fundraising heft resulted in an impressive list of wins on her electoral scorecard.

And she did it all without a title next to her name.

Yes…Citizen Sarah has been a powerful influence, a solid voice, a bold warrior and a centering presence for those of us who yearn for a smaller, smarter government that works for us. Citizen Sarah inspired me (and no doubt countless others…an “army of Davids”) that I didn’t need to hold any kind of office to make a difference. I didn’t need to have a title to work with my local tea party and lobby our representatives effectively. I didn’t need to be anything other than who I was…an American who loves this Republic with everything in her…to effect positive change.

All that said, it is becoming increasingly clear that the time of Citizen Sarah is rapidly drawing to a close.

You see…while Citizen Sarah can make…and has made a difference, Citizen Sarah cannot affect public policy.

Citizen Sarah cannot cut the federal budget and dismantle the outrageous, intrusive regulatory scheme.

Citizen Sarah cannot shut down the offices of the long stream of Czars who work outside the scope of the Constitution.

Citizen Sarah cannot nominate Supreme Court Justices who will honor the original intent of the Constitution as opposed to revisionism and leftist theory.

Citizen Sarah cannot ensure our troops are being sent on missions with clear objectives for the right reasons.

Citizen Sarah cannot demonstrate to the world that we will stand by our friends and allies, nor can she make it clear to our enemies that we will not back down in the face of their intimidation.

Citizen Sarah cannot allay the concerns of freedom loving people around the world that they will find a friend in the United States.

Citizen Sarah cannot cut Obamacare off at the knees.

As we look at the challenges we face as a nation, both domestically and internationally, we can only conclude that Citizen Sarah does not have the ability to do what we need.

And so…I can no longer support Citizen Sarah Palin.

The time has come for a new face to take Citizen Sarah’s place…someone who can do all of the above and more… who will, with a healthy dose of reluctance yet with a fire in her belly, accept the call of leadership with a servant’s heart.

The time has come for President Palin to grace the stage.

Check out their website Tennessee4Palin for many other great articles in support of Palin.

Bomb shelled: Ziegler declares his film a fraud and has $100,000 up for grabs although he’s unemployed

In the DC this past Monday John Ziegler wrote a second anti-Palin article in which he said he had been mistaken in the format of his previous article and that he should’ve divided the article into his relationship with Palin as one article while leaving his argument she shouldn’t run in another. He explained that he did it as one piece in order to attract as many readers as possible and to prove to Palin supporters how much he cares about her and has done for her. I guess he hasn’t noticed that he reached his goal in reaching more people, but with different results. Those who still thought Ziegler is a true Palin defender have now discovered the truth about him. Seriously, did he really think that by ripping Palin he’ll convince her supporters to turn against her?

How but as a fraudster can you describe a man like John Ziegler who originally gave out a film whose entire basis was to prove how the media targeted Palin and gave Obama a free pass to the White House, and is now saying she hasn’t faced any serious opposition from the media yet? In his article this week, Ziegler made a complete 180 degree turnabout claiming the media hasn’t even begun to hammer Palin about her resignation and other topics. What’s wrong with this guy? Was he in Mars the last three years?

In my  article earlier this week regarding Ziegler I brought an excerpt from a column he wrote in January how the left and the media has already thrown everything on Palin and how she emerged stronger than ever. That’s why she should run, Ziegler wrote; because she’s the only one that could attempt to take on Obama and the media. In this week’s article he wrote the media hasn’t begun their attacks on Palin. This guy is lies with greater ease than Obama!

Which one is fraudulent – his film or his current article?

In his first article he lamented how his defense for Palin has caused him to be “almost unemployable”, He’s also constantly running on interviews and writing columns to promote himself and his videos, but suddenly he has nothing better to do with $100,000 then bet it away? First he threw 300,000 down the drain to make a video at least now the money won’t go to waste.

I think Keith Olbermann should open a new segment on his show with the “Best Person of the World” and honor Ziegler with the first slot!

John Ziegler is an absolute disgrace and a delusional guy. He’ll do anything necessary including contradicting his own movie on which he spent $300,000 in order to be heard and spoken about. Yes, he’ll have many more articles in the future loaded with additional stupidity as his past two articles have been, but they won’t have any effect because he’s already been taken to task by many.

It’s time for Ziegler to find another profession.

This article was cross posted at Red State

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!

Governor Palin’s good governing record doesn’t matter just like Obama’s awful record doesn’t matter

The unprecedented action of forcing a former governor to release over 24,000 emails has been making headlines the last few days, not the fact that it’s an unheard of act, but in regard to the actual emails. While the left and LSM have asked the public to help go through the emails in the hope to discover “the scandal” to finally put an end to Palin, the very same media ignored the lack of records Obama hasn’t released such as his state senate records, never mind his college records and were actually outraged at the demand for the release of his birth certificate.

A couple of days after all these emails have hit the internet, the media’s effort to smear Palin has bounced right back into the face of the leftists’. If anyone emerged stronger and more credible than before, it is definitely Palin. It only proved to all the media’s bias against her and Palin’s honesty and straightforwardness.

The release of these emails follows nearly three thousand emails that had been released about half a year ago from Todd’s email address and his correspondence with government officials including the former Governor. In it, the left discovered that Palin actually discussed issues with her husband and asked his advice on many topics. What a weird sounding thing to do for someone on the left. Talk to your spouse? Have him advise you? Normal husband and wife relationships are so far removed from leftist reporters’ world, that they can’t fathom an honest couple that treat each other with respect and attention and have never cheated each other.

Especially since this came after the left and Levi Johnson worked their hardest to spin that Sarah and Todd Palin don’t get along that well and there’s lots of tension between the two. When her emails showed a wife who values her husband’s opinion and asks his advice on many issues, the media pounces upon the fact that she involves her husband in her work and claims it therefore proves she couldn’t make her own decisions as governor. As though she’s the very first person in politics to have an adviser.

The left then waited with a bated breath for the release of the additional thousands of Sarah’s emails which have been released last weekend because they were convinced that they were loaded with statements contradictory to those she’s made in the public, and she’ll be exposed once and for all as the fake she isn’t. After all, that’s what the left does all the time. Saying one thing in public and another in private is what they consider as the norm. Anyone remembers journolist? What a shock it was to discover that Palin has actually been saying the truth all along about everything she was questioned in public including about the troopergate issue. It was simply too much to swallow. First a true solid marriage and now an honest one-faced politician and still a female to boot? What can they do to such a creature – to them more frightening than an alien from outer space?

Aha! Molly Ball from politico and some others from the left finally figured it out! Molly wrote a piece titled Long-lost Sarah Palin surfaces in emails in which one can almost think she didn’t hate Palin with every ounce of blood flowing through her veins. Her theory is as follows; the former successful governor truly was an outstanding individual. (After all, at this point nothing can be dredged up to fight that fact.) However, that person is something of the past. The Sarah Palin gleaned from the emails is something they’d love to have now, but alas, Sarah Palin has become an entirely different person. She’s become too distanced from the media, she no longer trusts anybody, is very defensive, and has gotten too much self-confidence.

Didn’t it possibly dawn on them the following? Perhaps the change has occurred with them and not her? Of course she’d never in the past defended herself of a blood libel; she’s never been accused of murder! Nor had she or anyone else faced a media who stripped any pretenses of neutrality and reporter only, openly waging a war with her. It began with an army of reporters sent to overturn every stone in Alaska when she was chosen as McCain’s VP, and hasn’t ended.

Indeed she has changed. She went from reaching the stars without any name recognition and confidence, to aiming for even greater heights with loads of supporters’ support and self-confidence. She’s gone from facing opposition on a state level from the right, the left, and the media, to facing greater challenges on a national level from both parties in addition to facing the open hate of the media all over the world who are contesting each other over who can create the crazier claims about her.

I can’t give Ball the full credit for her brainy article without mentioning Joshua Green from The Atlantic who first wrote The Tragedy of Sarah Palin in which he laments how Palin was the greatest Governor and has ruined all her chances because of her alignment with the right. If only she would’ve played the maverick in ’08 the media would’ve loved and swooned over her instead of Obama. C’mon. Does he really think we’re that stupid?

It’s interesting to note how the media has completely skipped over Obama’s record when he ran for the highest office of this nation. Not a word was mentioned in regard to his friends like Bill Ayer in whose house he launched his campaign. Nor was there any attention given to his pastor, Jeremiah Wrights, in whose church he sat for twenty years and went to have his kids baptized. Ditto, for Obama’s joining a group of Palestinians for a dinner in Chicago and praising radical Rashid Khalidi who’s a former PLO operative. The LA Times actually has the video of the event for over 3 years, there’s no need to go searching anywhere. However, since the talk is of Obama, the LSM actually tried hiding the entire story from the public and even after it leaked and many have demanded to have the video released, the LA Times refused to show it. And we’re supposed to believe reporters are reporting news and not inventing or twisting news.

I must mention that at times the media has also looked the other way in regard to Palin’s record. Palin’s outstanding record as Mayor and Governor and fighting the establishment has yet to make appearance on most major news outlets. In fact, her policies led to the tremendous surplus Alaska now enjoys, and if not for her the state would be in debt. Nor has there been any praise for her putting aside politics and often working with the opposing party in order to ensure economic success for her state. On the other hand, Trig’s supposedly having been given birth by Bristol or Tina Fey’s “I can see Russia from my house” have been splashed across every newspaper and every website. I guess since records are off the table the LSM had to resort to fibs.



This article was cross-posted at Red State and Conservatives4Palin.

Dick Morris Strikes Thrice; Medicare, Elections, and Oxygen

In three of his recent articles Dick Morris’s attitude serves as a reminder to the fact that he’s been a life-long Democrat until recently and how he doesn’t quite get the conservative movement.

It is actually something I’ve noticed repeatedly, such as when I bought and read his “catastrophe” book in which he effectively fights the left although he does so in a liberal fashion-compassionate and emotional.

In the first article which I have issue with, titled Newt’s right, he attacked Paul Ryan and his Medicare plan. His defense of Newt Gingrich’s attack on the plan is actually understandable because Dick had always supported and defended Newt and was attempting to put out damage control on Newt’s comment.

What’s non-defendable is the reasoning Dick used to exonerate Newt. Dick Morris’s called the Paul Ryan’s plan suicidal and agreeing to the term “right wing engineering” because it will be implemented only in ten years and it doesn’t bring back cuts to Medicare Obama has made. He also compared it to Obamacare which brought to the defeat of many in the Democrat party in 2010, and is under the belief that the same will happen to those that support the Ryan’s plan. He also believes that Obama will use the fact that Paul Ryan didn’t overturn his 500 billion dollars Medicare cuts he enforced in his health care bill against any candidate supporting the plan. This will scare seniors just as they had been scared of Obamacare and cause them to turn their backs at the Republicans.

Why does Dick declare his plan as so extreme and suicidal? Dick is wrong in his entire reasoning. Here’s why. We can’t wait until Medicare has collapsed and bankrupted completely to begin brainstorming how to solve the problem. On the other hand, any drastic change will scare and confuse our seniors already on Medicare. Ryan’s plan brilliantly resolves both issues, because he proposes Medicare reforms only for those under 55 years so our current seniors and those retiring in the next ten years won’t be affected at all thereby having nothing to worry about, while ensuring the future generations won’t be left without any coverage.

If Dick is truly concerned seniors might reject the Republican Party because of misinformation spread by the left regarding the Paul Ryan Plan (henceforth referred to in this article as the PRP) Dick should spend his time fighting such lies rather than allowing them to sentence our candidates to the gallows.

For those under 55, PRP proposes giving vouchers to each individual which will allow them to choose an insurance policy that will work best for them. This will lead to greater competition between insurance companies to provide better service for less in order to receive more customers and will result in more affordable health insurance with higher quality service. His plan is actually something that has been tried and implemented successfully with the prescription drug benefit for seniors, and is also how the government provides for all federal employees, including congress, insurance.

What the left and some on the right are trying to forget, or at least pretend to forget, is that Medicare is a system on the verge of bankruptcy and will collapse if left as is. We can’t just bury our heads in sand and hope the problem will disappear on its own. Doing so would leave future seniors in the not-so-distant future without any health insurance and can have devastating effects on our entire country and economy. By putting out a plan, and the best one yet, the Republicans are seen as acting responsibly towards the future generations who will be facing retirement sooner than later.

Dick Morris claims his main issue with the PRP is the cutting of 500 billion dollars which is just as Obama did, and that Obama will use it against us in 2012.

Firstly, Ryan isn’t cutting anything. Obama already removed those funds from Medicare and PRP simply didn’t reenter it into the budget. It has nothing to do with its removal. Additionally, how can Obama denounce something that will be thrown right back into his face? Dick’s issues with PRP appear like the typical liberal talking points. I’m not necessarily saying Ryan’s plan is the only way to go and must be implemented or else; however something definitely must be done and so far this is the best solution that has been offered. Does Dick have a better plan? We don’t need a contest between the establishments over who can better destroy the conservatives; we need concrete solutions to real problems.

And by the way, can someone tell Dick that Newt already apologized to Ryan for speaking out against his plan?

In a separate article titled Who’s left on the right? Dick Morris starts off by mentioning the Democratic convention of 1960 at which Adlai Stevenson responded to reporters’ questionings who he thinks would win the nomination that it would be “The Last Survivor.”

Dick then suggests that the Republicans might face a similar standoff and explained it with the following theory. He mentions Romney, Huntsman, and Pawlenty as representing the moderate Republicans and predicts Romney as the frontrunner of the moderate republican voters. He then lists Bachmann, Newt, and Cain as the tea party and conservatives candidates, predicting Bachmann to lead that part of the party. (For any of you wondering why he put Bachmann instead of Newt as the frontrunner for the conservative fraction, the second article has been written almost a week after the first and Newt’s poll numbers have plummeted.) He then wonders whether it will be Romney or Bachmann who will emerge as “The last survivor.” His only vision of a different outcome is if Christie joins the race.

His article has been written 5/23, and even now – a few weeks later the field of candidates is still murky. So many potential candidates have yet announced their decisions whether or not they’ll jump into the primary. Rick Perry, Rudy Giuliani, Thaddeus McCotter, Sarah Palin, who else has been skipped over? And what if one of those he did mention but decided will be defeated will emerge as the leading candidate? The primary is barely beginning and he’s up to the last survivor? There are way too many scenarios that might still occur, and 2008 has proven all original predictions wrong – who remembers Hillary vs. Rudy?

What does he plan to accomplish by attempting to spread gloom and doom in playing the “last survivor game”? On what has he based his predictions before any ads, debates, or official campaigning has begun? And why does he repeatedly join the leftist attack dogs in his attacks against conservatives such as Ryan and Palin? In my opinion Palin has great chances of winning not only the primary but also the general election, and everybody else seems to believe she has a shot in the primary, so why doesn’t Dick Morris even count her as someone that should be mentioned when discussing the Republican primary?

Just a few days before the 2008 elections he repeatedly said John McCain has pretty strong chances to win the election. In 2010, he was convinced the Republicans would take control of the senate in addition to the house. As Ann Coulter pointed out after the 2010 election, while the likes of Dick Morris were on interview after interview with their latest predictions, the candidates who needed every bit of publicity to spread their message and beliefs were rarely given the opportunity. This resulted in some candidates losing the election by extremely tight margins while we gained nothing from Dick Morris trying to guess each day anew how many jelly beans were in the jar, I mean, how many seats we were going to win.

Perhaps Dick wants to be the lone voice of opposition against common-sense thinking so that in case by some off chance the unexpected happens, he will be crowned as the only one with the foresight and knowledge to predict the events correctly. Here and there I guess he’ll land lucky, sort of like the guy that plays daily several lottery tickets and wins a couple of bucks here and there, and maybe even a nice sum once in his lifetime. However, that shouldn’t mean we need to promote a guy that’s lucking his way around in order to build his own image. He says whatever is necessary to get him on as many shows and interviews as possible, and I have no problem with someone focusing on their own success. However, conservatives should remember that he has his own agenda and it doesn’t always coincide with the conservative agenda. It’s therefore time to get rid of so called conservatives who have focused on attacking conservatives rather than spreading the conservative voice.

I understand Dick has to churn out articles on a steady basis and the wackier and more original his analysis will seem the more attention it will garner, but why should we conservatives and conservative talk show hosts be the ones to build up his image? What service is he doing for the conservative movement anyways?

Here’s an excerpt from the third article in which he clashes with conservatism by trashing a candidate who personifies conservatism.

In any case, Sarah Palin is doing a disservice to her party. There are many good candidates wanting to nurture their infant campaigns who cannot grow in Palin’s shadow. How are Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, or Jon Huntsman to attract national attention when Sarah is breathing in all the oxygen? And how can good potential candidates like South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint or Texas Governor Rick Perry to test the waters when Palin’s bus is on the highway?

Perhaps she’s testing the waters herself? I know you don’t want her to run, but she is probably considering it anyways and doesn’t give a hoot to your opinion, as any conservative should. Besides, a campaign is meant to weed out the weak candidates and emerge with someone ready to take on the opposition. If she is truly sucking the oxygen out of the room now, she’ll do the same to Obama. And if someone is gasping for breath in her presence, they’ll be blue in their face when facing Obama and the mainstream media.

Sarah needs to get into the race or stay out. What she should not do is attract the attention just because she can.

She will be getting in or out because what’s the third option? However, she will make the decision when she decides and not when you or anyone else decides. And let’s not forget that the actual decision of who will face Obama in November 2012 lies solely in the hands of the voters.

This article has been cross-posted at Red State