About Me

Name: Allen Caeden
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

A bad night for Jindal but an excellent night for Palin.

   It is hard to say but Bobby Jindal may have done irreparable damage to his presidential aspiration for 2012 last night in what is universally acknowledged (even by conservatives) to be a disastrous performance. Since most of the Republican base are unfamiliar with Jindal and who saw him for the first time last night are simply not going to want to see this guy be the 2012 Republican nominee. Ed Rollins Reagan’s campaign manager for the 1984 election which was a 49 state victory stated that last night was a very bad night for Jindal, so bad in fact that it may have ended his presidential hopes. On the flip side Rollins said that last night was a very good night for Sarah Palin who now has one less conservative opponent to worry about if she decides to run in 2012.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin vs. Jindal in 2012

   Ya know it is funny how double standards work. Over the past few weeks many Republican strategists have commented that Governor Sarah Palin needs to get out of the media spotlight and spend some time brushing up on national and foreign policy issues. Yet Governor Bobby Jindal is given a front and center stage by the Republican establishment in providing the Republican response to Obama’s ridiculous stimulus package. By why should they pick a first term governor from the state of Louisiana to give this address instead of a prominent Republican member of Congress? The answer is simple: this is Bobby Jindal’s coming out party. This is a move by the Republican establishment to thrust Bobby Jindal into the national spotlight and on to the road to winning in 2012.

                So what is the double standard between Jindal and Palin? Well the Republican establishment is doing everything to put Jindal in the spotlight while at the same time advocating that Sarah Palin stay out of the spotlight. There is also another double standard being applied to Sarah Palin and this is that she should disappear so that she can brush up on foreign policy issues, but what foreign policy experience does Bobby Jindal have? At least there are positions taken by Sarah Palin on foreign policy, they can be found at: http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm. However, we know nothing about Bobby Jindal on these issues, but yet he is given the media spotlight.

                I have stated this before and I will state it again. First, Bobby Jindal is a political lightweight who will not rock the boat for the Republican establishment in Washington D.C. and in my opinion he is simply a clone of President Bush, and how did that work out for us? Sarah Palin on the other hand has made a career out of rocking the boat for both the Democratic and the Republican establishments, and the Washington elites simply do not want her in power because they know that they cannot control her. Sarah Palin is a crusader for the people and will always side with her principles and the people over and against any political establishment and this way of doing things has worked out quite well for her.

                The second point is this, does anyone really believe that Bobby Jindal can take on and beat Sarah Palin in a primary, let alone Obama in a general election? Bobby Jindal has some serious handicaps that will hold him back in any run for the presidency. First, he is not charismatic, meaning he does not energize the Republican base. Sarah Palin drew wildly enthusiastic crowds of 20,000-30,000 people. Does anybody honestly believe that Jindal has this kind of charisma? Second, Bobby Jindal is simply unattractive and looks like the wimpy kid that was constantly beat up in school. Sarah Palin is a highly attractive woman. This may sound superficial but in today’s elections looks play a major factor in many people votes, this is just being honest. Third, Jindal in my opinion simply lacks both the fierce debating skills and the political killing skills that Sarah Palin possesses. A fourth problem for Jindal is that the Republican base is wildly attached to Sarah Palin and it is going to be awfully difficult for him to break this bond between Sarah Palin and American conservatives. If he attacks her the base may very well turn on him as a result, so Jindal is playing with fire when it comes to dealing with Sarah Palin and the conservative base.

                Let me just add one more point and this is that Republicans have been in this situation before in both 1976 and then again in 1980. In 1976 it was Ronald Reagan vs. Gerald Ford in the GOP primaries. Now guess whom the Republican establishment supported? If you guessed Gerald Ford then you would be right, and Ford went on to lose the election to Jimmy Carter. However, Ronald Reagan ran again in 1980 but guess whom the Republican establishment supported? Reagan? Nope. They supported George Bush 41. However, this time the Republican grassroots had enough and worked hard to get Reagan to win both the primaries and the general election. Now once again there is a divide between the Republican base and the Republican establishment and this can be seen in the establishments support for Bobby Jindal and the conservative grassroots support for Sarah Palin. Now let me ask you this: how has voting for the choice of the Republican establishment worked out for conservatives? George Bush 41 undid what Reagan accomplished and was voted out. Bob Dole could not even boot out Bill Clinton when Clinton was so scandal ridden that it wasn’t even funny. George Bush 43 grew the government by leaps and bounds and messed up the war in Iraq and asked us for a trillion dollar bailout. Then John McCain gave us Barak Obama. So you can listen to the Republican establishment if you like but you will only get more big government, less liberty, and with Obama now you can have socialism.  

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A conservative hit piece on Sarah Palin?

   Carol Platt Liebau has an article posted on Townhall.com concerning Sarah Palin which is about how Sarah Palin is handling the media, but her article has numerous factual errors in it. First, Liebau claims that Sarah Palin made a committment to attend CPAC but then backed out of it. This is false because Sarah Palin never made a commitment to attend CPAC, I have monitored that issue for some time and I am disappointed that she has decided not to attend. However, she will have a taped speech of some kind which is sure to be all over the news and youtube five minutes after it is given. Second, Liebau's comparing Palin's tax issue with what is going on in the Obama White House is not a fair comparisson. Palin's tax issue was simply a misunderstanding about tax laws that was quickly resolved by her own inititive, and unlike the Democrats she never intended to evade taxes. 

   Third, Carol obviously did not watch the Bristol interview with Greta. I can say this because Bristol never came out and said that abstinence education was wrong as Liebau claims; and I never heard her advocating the giving out of condoms either. Fourth, Bristol stated that she informed her mother that she was going on Greta’s show the day before she was interviewed; this was not some grand plan by Sarah Palin to remain in the media spotlight as Liebau claims. In fact, I am betting that Sarah Palin may have been upset with Bristol for pulling this stunt because it does look bad for Sarah Palin, but Bristol is 18 years of age and can do what she wants at this point in her life. Lastly, Carol radically underestimates the predicament that Sarah Palin is in right now concerning the media. No matter what Sarah does, whether it is something small and insignificant or big and political it is going to be reported in the press. I check the news for articles on Sarah Palin every day and there is always some lefty smearing her. If she talks to the press they claim she is hogging the spotlight and risking overexposure, and when she doesn’t talk to the press they write stories about how she was hogging the spotlight and needs to retreat from center stage for a while. This kind of ongoing 24/7 media attack on a politician who maybe running in four years has never been seen before, not even Reagan had to endure this kind of smear campaign after he lost the Republican primary in 1976. So it is easy to criticize Sarah Palin for how she is handling the media, but no matter what she does the leftist press continues to hammer her. So what is Palin to do?
 
   I cannot help but wonder if this is not a hit piece against Sarah Palin from those who are closely aligned with the Republican establishment and who favor Bobby Jindal. I know that Carol Liebau is closely associated with Hugh Hewitt and I have known for sometime now that Hugh is a big fan of Bobby Jindal. In fact, it seems to me that many leaders in the Republican Party seem to be leaning toward Bobby Jindal. So I ask is this an attempt to try and break the bond between Sarah Palin and the Republican base? Lord knows that Jindal will never be able to do this on his own.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin vs. Jindal in 2012

I have known for sometime that Jindal is going to run in 2012 and he seems to be the favored candidate of the GOP establishment, which is one of the reasons I distrust him. Sarah Palin on the other hand is the candidate favored by the base of the Republican Party and what we have is 1980 all over again. In the Republican primaries of 1980 the GOP establishment completely backed George Bush SR. over Ronald Reagan, and the grassroots base of the GOP were all for Ronald Reagan. I think we are going to see this divide again in 2012. One of the reasons the GOP establishment is afraid of Sarah Palin is that Sarah Palin will not tolerate either corruption or incompentance from either political party. In short Sarah Palin is not a team player and her record in Alaska bears this out. The establishment is afraid that many Republicans in Washington will get a pink slip from President Sarah Palin soon after her election. Jindal however is more of a team player as both Bush presidents were and how did that work out for us? The way that I see it is that the 2012 GOP primary is Sarah Palin's to lose. Even Newt Gingrich stated that Sarah Palin is ahead of any other potential candidate for 2012, including Jindal. The plain fact is that the GOP base loves and trusts Sarah Palin and Jindal in my opinion is going to have a hard time breaking the bond between Sarah Palin and the GOP base. Also, never forget that Jindal completely lacks charisma and good oratory skills, both of which Sarah Palin greatly excels and are vital to energize people to your cause. I do not see Jindal lasting long against Sarah Palin in the forthcoming 2012 debates. Sarah Palin has political star power and in my opinion Jindal simply does not. Sarah Palin however cannot continue to avoid conferences like CPAC as she has done this month, granted she is providing a taped speech and it will be interesting to see how this taped speech will be recieved by those at CPAC. One thing is for sure and this is that Palin's speech will be all over youtube five minutes after it is given. Maybe this is Sarah's intention?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michael Savage vs. Sarah Palin

Today on Michael Savage's webpage he refered to Sarah Palin as "the Alaskan hillbilly". Even the far left does not use this kind of language in public concerning Sarah Palin. Now I like Michael Savage and I think his criticism of the left is spot on, but when it comes to whom he would like to see in office he never has any answers. It is as if Savage is only good in poiting out the negatives and never the positives. Now why would he have such incredible disdain for Sarah Palin? Savage wants to get rid of corrupt politicians: Sarah Palin has done this in Alaska. Savage want smaller government: Sarah Palin has done this in Alaska. Savage wants low taxes: Sarah Palin has kept taxes low in Alaska. Savage wants action taken against corrupt corporations: Sarah Palin has taken on big oil in Alaska and has won. Savage is concerned about gun rights: Sarah Palin is fiercely pro-second amendment. Savage hate deficits: Sarah Palin has kept the Alaskan budget in the black and even has a large surpluse. Savage has disdain toward those who believe in global warming: Sarah Palin believes that global warming is nonsense and says that there is no evidence of it in Alaska. So I have to ask what is it that drives Michael Savage to slander Sarah Palin by calling her an "Alaskan Hillbilly"? Perhaps Savage is simply ignorant of what Sarah Palin believes in and has accomplished in Alaska. I wonder if Ronald Reagan would have been good enough for Michael Savage?  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama is a foreign policy disaster.

It is interesting to see how fast the world is turning against B.O. First after his speech on Arab TV the Iranians told him what to go do with himself. Second, the nation of India has told B.O. to go screw himself when Obama claimed that he would solve the Kashmir issue between Pakistan and India. Third, I read today that the Israelis have now told B.O. what to go do with himself. But hey not all the news for Obama is bad because he did recieve an endorsement from what remains of the Taliban in Afganistan. I have said this before and I will say it again, B.O. is not a smart man, he is a media creation and he has let the messiah praise go to his head. I stand by my conviction that this dunce has absolutely no idea what he is doing and in the end B.O. is going to be remembered as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. Hey the Jimmy Carter years are back again!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A good article on Palin.

This article was taken from Conservatives4palin.com:
 
Michael Carey has an insightful commentary in the ADN on Gov. Palin's role as the new face of Alaska.

Carey discovered that when folks outside the Great Land hear the word Alaska, they no longer think of igloos and dog sleds, they think of Sarah Palin.

In Manhattan the name is often accompanied by a primal scream, as evinced by his encounter with a NYC hotel clerk:

A staffer at the information desk answered my questions cheerfully, then she asked: "You're not from around here, are you?"

No, I replied.

"Where are you from?"

"Anchorage, Alaska."

The middle-aged woman's face immediately turned scarlet and she screamed "SARAH PALIN --AAAAAHHHHH!"

Then she started fumbling with the papers on her desk. I thought she was looking for a cross to ward off evil, but a former New Yorker here in Anchorage later suggested, "She was probably searching for her gun."

Carey pinpoints a reason for this leftwing panic:

Why do they scream? The easy answer is they're Democrats or independents who voted for Barack Obama and loathe conservative Republicans. In some Manhattan precincts, Obama received more than 80 percent of the vote. But I also sensed a certain fear of Sarah Palin. The screamers know Obama came from nowhere to become president. What if she repeats the performance?

Though many blue staters admired Gov. Palin (C4P's blue state dominant readership is a testament to this), there was also a vicious and demeaning contempt for her among denizens of the LA/NYC/DC axis:

Yet there are voters along the Hudson River who turned out for Palin -- members of my own family in New Jersey, for instance. And the disdain for Palin is built on something of a caricature or cartoon, a caricature/cartoon Jon Stewart brilliantly exploited for weeks on "The Daily Show." For Stewart, Alaska is Dogpatch and Sarah Palin is Gov. Daisy Mae.

Many of you will recall Jon Stewart's "f*** you!" rant against Palin during the election. He was supposedly outraged by her "divisive" praise of the "real America." He never seemed to understand that praising people in a specific region for being patriotic does not ipso facto mean that the other regions of the country are unpatriotic. She was not demeaning NYC when she praised the people of rural Pennsylvania and Ohio, but Jon Stewart was certainly demeaning Sarah Palin's small town background. So who was being divisive, Jon?

Who was it who referred to Palin's hometown as "Wasilly"? Who held up a photo on CNN of Wasilla's town hall and compared it to a bait shop? Did Sarah Palin make fun of your city? Or did you make fun of hers?

Ruben Navarrette
noted:

You'd think the presidential campaign was about conservatives picking on urbanites.... I live in a city with a population of more than a million people and I never thought the GOP singled me out as not being a "real American."

If anything, it appeared that big-city liberals were tapping into prejudices about small-town America to belittle the governor of Alaska.

Many of us were especially shocked by the efforts of the left to sexualize Palin in the crudest and most demeaning manner. It wasn't just a harmless celebration of her wholesome sex appeal. We have no problem with that, and I'm sure the Guv doesn't either (after all, she winked at us). I'm talking about this, and this, and this, and this.

Carey saw this too:

From the "I-scream-when-I-hear-the-name-Palin" perspective, her good looks are a form of cheating. As if women with "bad" ideas about abortion, gun control and oil drilling in the Arctic shouldn't be allowed to package them in a winning appearance.

I'm tired of the stereotype of conservatives as sexphobic scolds. That's one of the reasons why I, as a conservative woman, posted that "stimulating" pic yesterday for a few laughs. JR would never do that because, as a man who respects the Guv, he doesn't want to appear as if he's diminishing her in any way -- even in the most innocent way (like Glenn Beck calling her a "hot grandma"). But I'm a woman too, and as a woman, I can say: You go, girl! Wear those boots, Sarah. Show 'em that conservatives can be all that and bag of bagels too.

Laura Vanderkam, the writer that RSM
recommended and we seconded to ghost write Palin's book (and she really wants the gig too!), thinks that Palin is a breath of fresh air for women:

Sarah Palin -- mother, governor, moose hunter -- burst onto the national scene in August with a face and a life story that launched a thousand editorials. Not only has she achieved great professional success, she also has a healthy marriage steamy enough to produce five children. Like Hillary Clinton, she took her husband's name; but unlike Hillary, it was she who first made the family name famous.

As our friend Josh Painter noted, Palin has become so many things to so many people. Jennifer Rubin saw her as a Rorschach test with everyone seeing in her what they wanted to see regardless of the truth. A woman who named her youngest son after Van Halen, kept the bars open late when she was mayor, admitted to smoking pot when it was legal, and grew up in a libertarian haven for Sixties "End-of-the-Roaders" was typecast as a puritanical religious wacko by our leftwing media.

Across the pond, Janet Daley
noted in the UK Telegraph the similarities between the left's treatment of Palin and their treatment of that other famous tough-as-nails woman leader:

Like Margaret Thatcher before her, Mrs Palin is coming in for both barrels of Left-wing contempt: misogyny and snobbery. Where Lady Thatcher was dismissed as a "grocer's daughter" by people who called themselves egalitarian, Mrs Palin is regarded as a small-town nobody by those who claim to represent "ordinary people".

What the metropolitan sophisticates failed to understand in the 1980s when Thatcher won election after election is even more the case in the US: most (and I do mean most) ordinary people actually believe in the basic decencies, the "small-town values", of family, marital fidelity, and personal responsibility. They believe in and honour them - even if they do not manage to uphold them.

Yes, Sarah Palin does indeed appeal to the "ordinary people" (like us "ordinary barbarians"), but she also evokes something quite out of the ordinary -- that mythic frontier ethos.

Virginia Postrel
spotted it immediately:

[W]hen I heard Sarah Palin's convention speech and thought about how so many smart--but parochially "cosmopolitan"--people miss the enormous appeal of her persona. She may have wrangled fish rather than cattle, but she shares the cowgirl tradition.

Alex Massie described Palin as "the cow-girl-turned-Sheriff":

Palin represents a certain ideal of American womanhood. It is easy to joke about moose-hunting and all the rest of it, but she taps into an ancient American tradition. To put it another way, she wouldn't have the same impact if she came from Alabama or Ohio. Her westernness, the sense of the frontier, pioneering spirit is a significant, telling, part of her appeal.

On the one hand, she represents the pioneering spirit that built the United States in the first place; on the other there's an element in which, culturally anyway, she represents the common sense integrity of the frontier in contrast to the intrigue and squalor of viperous Washington.

It was only a matter of time before someone connected Palin to that quintessential gun-toting western woman of legend. And I'm glad that that someone was the brilliant Camille Paglia:

The gun-toting Sarah Palin is like Annie Oakley, a brash ambassador from America's pioneer past. She immediately reminded me of the frontier women of the Western states, which first granted women the right to vote after the Civil War -- long before the federal amendment guaranteeing universal woman suffrage was passed in 1919. Frontier women faced the same harsh challenges and had to tackle the same chores as men did -- which is why men could regard them as equals, unlike the genteel, corseted ladies of the Eastern seaboard, which fought granting women the vote right to the bitter end.

Charlotte Allen picked up Paglia's Annie Oakley analogy and extrapolated more:

Paglia's comparison of Alaska to the frontier West is apt. Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, and Colorado, whose terrain resembles that of Alaska, were the first to enfranchise women. So is the comparison of Palin to Annie Oakley, the legendary female sharpshooter who could slice a playing card at the thin edge from 30 paces. Oakley, like Palin, was deeply religious and read the Bible daily. The self-confident, genially contemptuous song lyrics that Irving Berlin put into Oakley's mouth -- "Anything you can do, I can do better / I can do anything better than you" -- as she went up against her male sharpshooter competitors in "Annie Get Your Gun," the 1946 musical based on her life, might well apply to Palin's bold forays into territories usually ruled by men, such as the Alaskan oil and gas commission.

The song could easily apply to Sarah Palin, but it should be noted that she actually can bake a pie.

This is not to suggest that Alaska is some wild frontier land -- though
gold rushes, volcano eruptions, and a lady governor who pilots fishing trawlers in storms might suggest otherwise. Anchorage is as urbanized as any other modern metropolis -- aside from the occasional moose wandering the streets. (Homelessness is a problem in every major city. In Alaska, they have homeless moose).

Sarah Palin's Alaska isn't the frontier outpost of Jack London novels any more than Ronald Reagan's California was the wild west of Hollywood films. Yet Reagan purposely evoked the mystique of the west. That's why his campaign aides had him photographed in a white cowboy hat. He was the good guy in the white stetson, the Henry Fonda character in High Noon.



It's all part of what George H. W. Bush called "the vision thing."

The PBS American Experience documentary on Reagan noted this quality:

As President, Ronald Reagan evoked a simpler place and a simpler time. Small towns, patriotic values, family, and community. An idealized America that no longer was. That perhaps never was. Even for Ronald Reagan.

Reagan evoked these values and made Americans believe in them. Sure, they were idealized and perhaps even mythical, but he evoked them effectively.

And it was not cynical manipulation. Reagan relished the history and lore of the American West. He had California in his blood, and California wasn't a place to him -- it was an idea. It meant freedom and possibility and wide open spaces under a blue sky and a bright warm sun.

Reagan wasn't a native Californian. He was born and raised in rural Illinois. He chose California, and he loved it in a way no native could. I understand this. I'm not a native Californian either. I'm from Michigan. I fell in love with California the moment I saw the Pacific. (It's quite ironic that the only other president from California--Richard Nixon--was a native Californian, and yet he never evoked the same spirit of California that Reagan did.)

Sarah Palin and her family relish the eccentricities and lore of the Last Frontier with the same passion that Ronald Reagan loved his California.

Palin evokes for us the same sort of idealized and perhaps somewhat mythic past. That's what great communicators do. Great leaders inspire people.

Michael Carey
notes all of this mythologizing from the Lower 48, but he doesn't seem to begrudge us our myths -- perhaps because he, like Sarah Palin, understands that we need them:

Since the United States was formed 200-plus years ago and Americans began to move westward, the West has been delivering curiosities to the big cities of the East. Performers like Buffalo Bill and Annie Oakley. Political leaders like William Jennings Bryan and Barry Goldwater. Outsiders who seem alien and exotic.

Sarah Palin is in this tradition. Annie Oakley gone Goldwater. A marvelous combination in Anchorage but one to provoke screams on Madison Avenue.

The Annie Oakley comparisons came first, but the Goldwater comparisons have been picking up steam lately.

As my Right Honourable Friend from New Jersey
noted, "Goldwater himself was not a very good Presidential candidate, and he lacked the charisma and appeal of a Ronald Reagan or Sarah Palin. There are many comparisons one can make between Sarah Palin and Barry Goldwater, but their impact as a Presidential candidate is not one of them."

Sarah Palin has none of Barry Goldwater's liabilities. Barry Goldwater didn't look
like this or draw crowds like this. The analogy is absurd in that regard. But Palin can certainly benefit from a comparison to Goldwater's strengths. So, by all means, compare her to Goldwater. Her "extremism" as a western conservative "is no vice."

And she can do anything you leftwing snots can do, better... and in high heels.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Republican's seeking Palin's endorsement.

Sarah Palin’s star power has not diminished because today it was revealed that Sarah Palin has formally endorsed Texas Governor Rick Perry in his bid for re-election. Perry is being challenged in the Republican primary by Kay Hutchison. It seems that Sarah Palin’s endorsement is something that many Republicans have realized is worth its weight in gold. It is going to be interesting to watch and see whom Sarah Palin will endorse in both the Republican primaries and the general election in 2010. Sarah is obviously building up political alliances for 2012 and we will see if in the end it will pay off. It is interesting to note that Newt Gingrich has already commented that Sarah Palin is already the frontrunner for 2012 and is also far ahead of any other GOP challenger in terms of name recognition, the backing of and the popularity with the GOP base, the ability to run a grassroots campaign, and she will most likely have little trouble in raising campaign funds due to her popularity with the GOP base and even many independent voters. When is the last time that the base was this jazzed up for a Republican political figure? How about not since Reagan left office in 1988.  

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Great polling news for Sarah Palin

If Sarah Palin is looking to win the Republican nomination in 2012 and go on to the White House then she has just received some excellent news from Rasmussen. A Rasmussen poll which was released on January 29th found that 55% of Republicans polled wanted the GOP to become more like Governor Sarah Palin. Also, independent voters by 46% would like to see the GOP become more like Sarah Palin. Among all those polled Sarah Palin now has a favorable rating of 52% and a very favorable rating of 28%. If Sarah Palin is eyeing 2012 then she has good news because 51% of Republicans have a very favorable regard for Sarah Palin while 51% of Democrats have a very unfavorable view of Governor Palin.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sarah Palin vs. the House Republicans???

According to ABC and Worldnetdaily.com the House Republicans are claiming that Sarah Palin lied to them concerning her reasons for not attending a House Republican winter conference this weekend where she was invited to speak. They claim that she responded that she was going to be working for the State of Alaska this weekend and could not leave the state. However, Sarah Palin is in Washington D.C. this weekend for two reasons: first to attend the Alfafa Dinner and to see congression leaders and the President concerning the issue of how a stimulus package would affect Alaska. For some time now Sarah Palin made it very clear that this weekend trip was not going to be about campaigning for 2012 and her office has turned down numerous interview offers for this weekend. In the end I do not know what exactly was told to the Republican leaders who planned the winter retreat this weekend but I do know that Sarah Palin's main concern for this weekend was to visit the powers that be in Washington over issues that concern Alaska and in in this committment she has not waivered. Some other speakers at the Republican conference include Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michael Steele screwing up the GOP.

   Yesterday I read an article online where Michael Steele predicted that the GOP may be out of political power till 2016, if not 2020. Folks I have written numerous times that Michael Steele has no idea what he is doing, and now he is basically conceeding that he is not going to be able to mobilize the GOP back into power until a time when he will most likely no longer even be the RNC Chairman. Think about it, Michael Steele himself has stated that the GOP should get used to being out of power for at least the next EIGHT YEARS! Is this what Republicans want in their leadership? Michael Steele is already making excusues for what is sure to be his upcoming failure as RNC Chairman. I will say this, if by chance the Republican Party can pull off an upset in 2010 as they did in 1994, it will be despite Michael Steele's position as RNC Chairman and not because of him and Steele will simply be a person who was in the right place at the right time. I say this because Michael Steele's resume is simply a resume of failures, his GOPAC organization has never achieve a damm thing and his influence in his home state of Maryland is non-existent. I supported Katon Dawson for RNC Chairman because he put a bankrupt Republican Party back on its feet in South Carolina and he succeded in getting the Republicans back into power in many major offices in his state. I cannot help but wonder how much Michael Steele's race may have been a factor in his election. Was Steele supported simply because he was black? Were the Republicans afraid of the media the day after the election of the RNC Chairman telling people that the GOP voted down a black man? I simply cannot help but ask this question in large part because of Michael Steele's extremely poor resume in terms of his organizational skills and political influence and what concerns me even more is his own prediction that Republicans will be out of power for at least the next eight years, which is pretty much during his term as RNC Chairman. Is this the kind of leadership that the GOP is looking for????
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »