New Palin Blog Up and Running
Thanks to Palin is a new blog dedicated to addressing and debunking all the new attacks that the Liberal Elitist Left will be throwing out there to denigrate Senator McCain’s Veep choice, Governor Sarah Palin. The blog is founded and created by Eric Odom who is also a leader in the #dontgo Movement.
I encourage you to check it out, not just because your’s truly happens to be a contributor, but because, for many of us conservatives, we still have much to learn about our VP nominee and we need to be able to distinguish between what’s fact and what’s a smear job.
Also, take the time to check out and join the corresponding Thanks to Palin facebook page!
September 1st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I’m a republican and a student of marketing. When viewed as a “marketing” decision, this VP choice is one of the worst blunders in history. Here’s why and what I think McCain needs to do in order to come out on top — http://blog.pastramitopublishing.com/2008/08/30/mccains-vp-choice-sara-palin–smart-or-not.aspx.
October 5th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Sarah is a heartbeat away from the Presidency, and given the four cancer scares her superior has had, this puts her odds quite high of actually assuming the Presidency. That the Republican party could so shamelessly put forward a candidate so utterly lacking in political stature and so lacking in any understanding of the larger policy issues is shocking enough, but the candidate has subsequently shown herself to be totally unable to lead or formulate policy and instead simply parrots the ‘talking points’ of the platform. She looks pretty, but talks dumb. Her refusal to answer “difficult” questions in the debate, and instead respond with her prepared talking points indicates how unable to cope she would be in a complex political or international negotiation. Such a candidate is utterly unfit for office, and she should be removed from the Republican Party platform rapidly in order to restore some confidence in the Party’s goals for this great nation. Finally, I suggest all our fears are succinctly summed up by this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abZLjIpHzj8
October 5th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
That comment has to be the stupidest one left by a troll yet. I mean, I understand Democrats freaking out over Palin, but to go so far as to make a movie trailer on what would happen if McCain won and then died?! C’mon. The derangement runs deep in the unhinged world of liberal trolls.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:16 am
I understand Democrats freaking out over Palin, but to go so far as to make a movie trailer on what would happen if McCain won and then died?!
That’s a pretty silly move. Palin hasn’t done well on the pop quizzes, but as a President, everything is not only “open book tests” but you’re surrounded by people to provide you with all the data that exists. The challenge is to look at the data, and make a good decision - and Palin seems to have pretty good common sense.
I’m not sure that the McCain campaign handlers are doing her any favors, though. She’s criticizing Obama for being on the same board of directors as Bill Ayers, who used to be a domestic terrorist (back when Obama was in the third grade), but Sarah was married to a guy who, just a couple of years ago, while she was married to him, was a registered member of a political party that wanted to secede from the US. It’d be smarter for her to keep her mouth shut about associating with anti-American types.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Harl, that is the typical role of the VP candidate (to be the attacker). The reason that Ayers is relevant is that his attitudes have not changed (see his picture stomping on the flag in one of the big magazines–Time?–just a few weeks ago). Obama’s connection is close enough that Obama will not throw Ayers under the bus like he did his pastor.
Your “open book test” versus “pop quizzes” analogy was one that I have thought of during the various interviews with Palin. Ultimately what you look for in a leader is their decision making process. I think Palin has a decent process–or at least decent intuition. I think Ayers and Rezco show that Obama has a bad process.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Are you talking about this picture?
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/
It’s a posed photo, a gimmick to sell his 2001 book.
And the article that goes with the story says that his attitudes HAVE changed. Instead of trying to overthrow the government, he works for it. Instead of opposing the bourgeoisie, his marriage has lasted nearly 4 times as long as the average marriage, and appears to still be going strong. Instead of “kill your parents”, it’s “let’s go buy a coffee at Starbucks”.
It doesn’t appear that Obama has much to do with Ayers:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/taking_liberties_in_philadelphia.html
And I don’t see a Rezko problem, either:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/rezko_reality.html
But Sarah Palin looks like she has a bright future in the Republican party. If she prods the democrats into making a big deal about Todd’s membership in the AIP, and her speaking before the AIP, it could really screw things up for her.
Time is running short, and McCain keeps dropping lower in the polls. When McCain was a POW, he resisted for four days, and then started making confessions of war crimes, to be used by the North Vietnamese. Sarah needs to follow his example, and think of herself a little bit.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I was talking about that picture. OK, so he was stomping on the flag to sell a book. Is that better? No. He has contempt for the United States. His activities are not “work for [the government]” is that he has found a more effective way of pushing his anti-Americanism–rot out education from the inside out.
So, if Obama has little to do with Ayers, why doesn’t he repudiate him? No, Ayers is nothing if not astute. He has done a good job of keeping the ties away from public view. But it is no secret that Ayers got Obama onto that board that they served on together. It is no secret that Obama’s political career began at Ayers’ house. The fact that Ayers did his ILLEGAL activities before Obama was an adult has nothing to do with the fact that even today Ayers is a radical who should be repudiated by anyone in public office.
Ayers’ marriage length is irrelevant to his radical political positions. The reality is that Ayers is more dangerous now than he was when he was setting off bombs.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:46 am
But it is no secret that Ayers got Obama onto that board that they served on together.
That’s an interesting assertion. Obama joined the board and served on the board from 1993 to 2002. Ayers didn’t join the board until 1999.
It is no secret that Obama’s political career began at Ayers’ house.
Ayers was one of several who hosted coffees for Obama in 1995, but he wasn’t the first. Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf’s wife was.
Wolf leads Kam Isaiah Israel, the synogogue across the street from Obama’s house.
The reality is that Ayers is more dangerous now than he was when he was setting off bombs.
Is John Cougar Mellencamp a dangerous man because he blew up some mailboxes? Ayres helped place a bomb that failed to blow up a statue. Both are stupid acts of vandalism, but blowing up a mailbox is pointless, and Ayres was trying to save lives. And blowing up a mailbox is a federal crime. At the time, blowing up a statue was not.
Radical? Yeah, he is. Anyone who raises a voice and says “this is wrong, damn it” is a radical. The non-radicals sit back and let the TV lull them to sleep. Some of them are get up the energy to change the TV, or make a dash for the refrigerator or water closet during a commercial break. Those who post to blogs about things like $700 billion gifts to Wall Street are extremely few - which defines them as extremists.
Dangerous? I don’t think so. Nobody even pays any attention to him any more. He wrote a book, and it’s only #17,760 at Amazon. By comparison, the glurge of Jonathon Livingston Seagull, which was published way back in 1970, decades before Amazon even existed, is #4830.
If his dad hadn’t been Tom Ayers, nobody would have even noticed what Bill Ayers did.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Harl, Ayers is dangerous not because he might go out and kill someone. He is dangerous because he is working diligently behind the scenes (doing things like setting school curriculum) to promote his world view–which is radical leftism. This goes back to the maxim “the pen is mightier than the sword”. Through his position of influence without title he can influence the decisions of the entire education establishment that will affect hundreds of thousands. When he was setting bombs, he could only affect the lives of a few people.
The Politico reported on January:
“In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn…’I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,’ said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the info rmal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. ‘[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.’”
Regarding Ayers and Obama: you are correct that Ayers did not join the board that Obama was on in 1995 (which is, as best as I can tell the beginning of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge). But that was because Ayers was on the “Collaborative”. Obama was on the financial side of the organization and Ayers was on the Education Policy side–a division of activities that I am not convinced is not the same today.
In fact, Stanley Kurtz reports: “Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.” It was the same time that Ayers was hosting a party to introduce Obama as the next State Senator.
online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
Ayers picked Obama to lead the financial side of this organization and then “introduced” him as a State Senator candidate.
Once again you confuse me, Harl. You claim to be a conservative, but you are supporting one of the most liberal Senators who has direct connections with very radical leftists. If your point is that “we need another Jimmy Carter to get a Reagan”, that is ok (though I think misguided). I cannot fathom another reason why a conservative would let Senator Obama visit the White House, much less live there.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Also regarding Rezco: in the article your link to (from FactCheck)
McCain’s ad, however, is worded in a way that could leave a false impression. It says Rezko “helped him buy his million-dollar mansion” by “purchasing part of the property he couldn’t afford.” That’s true, but only because the seller wanted to sell the two parcels as a unit and the Obamas couldn’t afford both.
FactCheck was saying that McCain’s ad is overstating what happened, but it does not say that there was not a relationship. It verifies that Rezco helped Obama buy the property. Rezco is, at best, a shady character that Obama choose to be close to. He has said that this was a mistake, and he is right.
When taken in collection, you have to wonder about who Obama is listening to and who is helping him set his policy.
October 7th, 2008 at 10:05 am
There is a CNN news story yesterday about Obama’s connection with Ayers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvROBLortBQ
October 7th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Harl, Ayers is dangerous not because he might go out and kill someone.
As opposed to McCain, who is likely to drop a nuke in Iran?
In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn…
That doesn’t back up your assertion that Obama’s political career started there. Mrs. Wolf insists the get-together at her house came first.
Regarding Ayers and Obama: you are correct that Ayers did not join the board that Obama was on in 1995
My assumption was that you were talking about the Woods Foundation. It’s been around since 1941, and it better fits the description “same board of directors”. Obama served on that board from 1993. Ayers joined in 1999, and Obama left in 2002.
If Ayers got Obama to serve on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that would indicate that Obama was endorsing Annenberg, not Ayers. Annenberg was a well-known philanthropist who got rich by publishing “TV Guide”.
If you want to point out that most radicals probably either subscribed to “TV Guide” or purchased it at the supermarket, I’ll concede that point to you. By the same token, most cocaine addicts started out by eating french fries and drinking caffeinated soft drinks before they graduated to nose candy.
You claim to be a conservative, but you are supporting one of the most liberal Senators who has direct connections with very radical leftists.
I am supporting a man who appears to have sound judgment and common sense, over a man with severe problems including anger management and post traumatic stress disorder. I wouldn’t trust him to drive my great-grandchildren to school, much less trust him to keep them from being bombed.
It makes a difference who’s in the White House. Fort Sumner was attacked AFTER Lincoln was elected, but before he moved into the White House. The hostages were released AFTER Reagan was elected, but before he took the oath of office. The current president has declared the Bush Doctrine - that he’s willing to go out and start wars without provocation. If McCain were to be elected, there’s a good chance that an American city will be hit with a nuclear weapon before inauguration day, by some country that expects to be attacked the day after inauguration day.
They aren’t afraid of Obama. He’s willing to sit down and talk. McCain is a loose cannon, that doesn’t care about anyone else. They figure it’s like talking with a teenager - you have to whack him up aside the head with a 2×4 to get him to listen.
A conservative is, by definition, one who conserves what exists, rather than making radical changes. Obama wants to roll back some of the radical changes that Mr. Bush’s administration has wrought upon this country. For instance, he wants to go back to the tax levels that existed during the Reagan administration. And he wants to roll back some of the infringements upon our constitutional rights that were introduced during the Bush administration.
McCain is no conservative. He’s a radical. Ronald Reagan was contemptuous of McCain, and I am, too.
If McCain cared about the party, he’d resign his nomination, asking that Palin be promoted to the top of the ticket, and Huckabee be her running mate. That ticket might get elected. But McCain has no chance, and for that, we can all give thanks.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Your assessment of McCain is ludicrous. He is no more likely to drop a nuke on Iran as you are. That is just a stupid assessment.
If Ayers got Obama to serve on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that would indicate that Obama was endorsing Annenberg, not Ayers.
That statement makes absolutely no sense. Where did your logic go. Ayers, in essence, recruited Obama. What was done on the Annenberg Challenge was a massive radical education program. The money came from Annenberg, but was not directed by Annenberg. It was directed by Ayers (in Chicago, anyway).
Your definition of political conservatism is crazy. Political conservatism has little or nothing to do with making no changes. Reagan was a conservative–was he going to “conserve what exists”? No. He came to change Washington in his own way. He came to strengthen the military, cut taxes, and (as was his desire) to cut spending. He generally failed on the last item, but was more successful than any President since FDR.
Even if your definition had anything to do with reality, why would the “Change”(tm) candidate be more conservative than McCain? That is silly. Obama wants not only top tax rates what they were under Clinton (which would be a bad policy in and of itself), but wants to implement payroll taxes (e.g. SSI) on incomes above $250k. That is not merely going back to Clinton, it is going back to Carter. Dumb. Radical? Yes. By the way, the levels he is talking about would only be those at the beginning of the Reagan administration–that is, before Reagan got them reduced–you know, before the economy improved.
You are right that terrorists are not afraid of Obama. That should be an argument against him rather than for him. Dumb. Then you engage in nuclear fear mongering.
Can you point to an incident where McCain has lost his temper? He certainly has held it together in this election. I can’t recall seeing one video of it. No, I think he is under control.
By the way, your definition of the Bush Doctrine does not match any of the various definitions of that doctrine. Even the version that you reference was not that we go to war without provocation, but rather that we hit enemies before they are capable of hitting us. You can argue for the doctrine or against it, but it is not going after just anybody.
Bad logic, Harl. You basically say that Obama is “more conservative” than McCain which is simply untenable.