About Me

Name: Allen Caeden
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

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

Sarah Palin forms her Political Action Committee.

I just read it in the news that Sarah Palin has formed her P.A.C which is certainly a stepping stone toward the White House most likely in four years, but maybe in eight. With her PAC she will be able to fund and back Republican candidates of her choosing in both Republican primaries and in the congressional election in two years. If the people she supports win they will political owe her back by 2012. Sarah Palin will cerainly by a major player in the Republican Party by 2010 and personally I think she is the only Republican who has both the popularity, the influence, and the balls to snap the Republican Party back to Reagan conservatism. Her PAC's website is here:
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Polls that do not make sense.

Sometimes I find polls that seem contradictory or in some cases do not make sense. I just read a poll conducted by Rasmussen. The poll found that 60% of Americans view Obama's job performance as favorable, but yet 59% are afraid that B.O. will both over spend and over tax them. Their fears are well founded. So what does this mean? Well is it that 60% are saying he is doing a good job because he has not over spent his budget and has yet to tax America? First, let me assure those who are afraid of B.O. misspending and taxing America because that is what is exactly is going to happen. This means that B.O's poll numbers are going to be below 50% very soon. But I ask this question: how can Americans possiblly be surprised by this? How can Americans support B.O. by 60% thus far and by 59% be afraid of his over spending and taxation? I mean my god were these people not listening when he said that he wanted to "spread the wealth around"? America is in for a shock and as I wrote on a previous blog today B.O. and his fellow clowns in congress are going to over reach, too much socialism too quickly is going to cause a backlash against the Democratic Party. Personally I hope that B.O. will continue to be blind to this political fact.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What is Obama going after?

So what does everyone think B.O. is going after in his economic stimulus package? I for one believe that Obama is going after government control of the private economy, but this leaves open the problem of having a bad economy in both 2010 and 2012? So what is B.O. going to do? Do you believe that B.O. will ever have a good economy?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama is going after talk radio.

This article is from Worldnetdaily.net and it concerns the Democrats renewed attempt to silence talk radio, the fight has now begun. They are now beginning to make their move against silencing conservative political dissent.


OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
White House plan puts
bull's-eye on talk shows

Posted agenda issues warning
about new 'obligation' review


Posted: January 26, 2009
8:29 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh


WorldNetDaily

 

The White House is promising new reviews of the "obligations" to the government by broadcasters who "occupy the nation's spectrum" just as the president has targeted conservative talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh for a public attack, raising concerns over the possible restoration of the "Fairness Doctrine," a policy that failed as unneeded and unconstitutional two decades ago.

Paul Ibrahim of NorthStarWriters.com cited Obama's warning to congressional Republicans that "you can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done" in suggesting the president has become the "driving force" because a new "systematic" plan to "intimidate and demonize Obama's opponents."

That such a campaign was launched only days after Obama's inauguration is "tremendously perturbing," he wrote.

"Welcome to the politics of hope 'n' change. Obama's startling attempt to hang Limbaugh's scalp on the wall is a warning that the new ruler does not want unity – he demands it," Ibrahim wrote.

On Obama's agenda, according to his White House website, is the goal to "encourage diversity in media ownership."

Obama elaborates on the site that his aim is to "encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum."

The plan apparently aligns with longstanding Democratic suggestions to resurrect the "Fairness Doctrine."

The policy was abandoned in 1987 under President Reagan when there were 75 radio talk shows in the U.S. Reagan opposed the policy because it required broadcast TV and radio programs to air "opposing views" on political issues, which had the practical effect of virtually eliminating opinion programs.

 

Since abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine, the number of radio talk shows has risen to more than 3,000.

WND founder and editor Joseph Farah long has warned about Democrats' plans to revive restrictions on the airwaves.

"If the Democrats and their me-too Republican allies are successful at sacking talk radio, there will be no stopping them," Farah warned. "Broadcast will be first. Then they will go after the Internet with taxes and new regulations and hate-crimes laws. And when they succeed at muzzling dissenting voices there, they will even turn to print. Remember, we are dealing with a neo-fascist mentality here."

Many fear the Fairness Doctrine would drive talk radio hosts – like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage – out of business.

During the presidential campaign, spokesman Michael Ortiz  indicated Obama thought the debate was "a distraction."

But author Brad O'Leary examined Obama's legal and organizational attempts to silence media detractors during the presidential race and came to a different conclusion.

"Barack Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of [his] campaign," said O'Leary. "His presidency, combined with supermajorities for Democrats in Congress, would almost certainly bring back the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' and allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., affirmed her support to Human Events reporter John Gizzi for a "Fairness" policy, and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., told radio host Jim Villanucci, "I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view, instead of always hammering away at one side of the political [spectrum]."

Ibrahim noted the president's public verbal condemnation of Limbaugh makes clear his "rejection" of the old "Bush" politics.

"You see, President Bush did not launch assaults on private citizens, nor did he ever label anyone as 'unpatriotic' for disagreeing with him. Thus, Obama and his friends are now effecting the change they promised. Welcome to their 'new' politics," he wrote.

The National Review's Byron York said Obama's criticism of Limbaugh makes it appear he considers the talk host "the true leader of the Republican opposition."

York said Limbaugh responded that Obama was trying to make the arguments about the radio show instead of Obama's actual plans.

"To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective," Limbaugh told York. "Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts.

"I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing 'eternal' power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy," Limbaugh continued. "If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle."

Limbaugh added: "One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals: 'Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.'"

Michael G. Franc, writing on the National Review's "The Corner" blog, noted that attorney general nominee Eric Holder also has refused to commit to opposing to Fairness Doctrine.

Obama's choice to head his FCC transition team, Democrat Henry Rivera, added to fear in media circles that the Fairness Doctrine might return to silence conservative talk radio.

Brian Maloney of the blog The Radio Equalizer said in his post "Meet Talk's Executioner" he believes Rivera will use his position to bring back the law for that very purpose.

Rivera, according to Maloney, "is expected to lead the push to dismantle commercial talk radio that is favored by a number of Democratic Party senators. Rivera will play a pivotal role in preventing critics from having a public voice during Obama's tenure in office."

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

Democratic Party smashed in two years?

Will the Democrats overreach? I believe that they will. Recently B.O. remarked to Republican lawmakers that he won and they should stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. This attitude shows that B.O. and the Democratic congress believe that the American people are now left of center on the political and cultural spectrum. The problem is that this is not the case at all. During the election FOX’S Bill O’Reilly rightly asserted that American’s were voting out of anger because of the bad economy, in short it was a protest vote against George Bush. It is a well known fact in politics that when the economy is bad during the election the opposition party to the incumbent party will receive an advantage. The same happened in 1991 when George Bush SR. lost the election during a recession to Bill Clinton. However, what happened to Bill Clinton? Within two years the Democratic Party was smashed in 1994, what happened? President Clinton overreached. It was Clinton’s attempt to nationalize health care that truly did him is as well as his tax increases on the American people. So what did President Clinton do to politically survive? He hired Dick Morris to move him more to the political right, since being a leftist smashed his political party.  Does anyone think that the current Democratic Party with the radical B.O. is not going to try to achieve what Clinton did in his first two years? Of course they are, why? Because the left fails to see what Bill Clinton learned, and this is that America is a center right country both politically and culturally. When Americans finally realize that they are about to have socialism rammed down their throats there will be hell to pay for the Democratic Party. The question is will the Republican’s take advantage of this as they did in 1994.  

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

The media's obsession with Sarah Palin.

The media just cannot seem to stop with Governor Sarah Palin. What is their new attack? Well Sarah Palin may get 11 million for a book deal and well this is outrageous! Because only liberal Democrats should make a lot of money selling books, everyone knows this right? Funny, outside of B.O. the second most common political figure for the media is Governor Sarah Palin and she is not even in national office! I am a Sarah Palin fan and I do a Google news search every day to see what the media is saying about Sarah Palin. About every three days or so the media is attacking Sarah Palin on something and this means that she is continually in the news. One has to ask why is the media so obsesed with attacking Sarah Palin? We do not see other Republican leaders being attacked like this. Are governors Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, or Mark Sanford being attacked? Is Mike Huckabee being attacked? All of these men are potential candidates for 2012. Sarah Palin is being attacked because she is a direct threat to the Democratic Party. I have read numerous biographies on Sarah Palin and this woman's political killing skills are off the charts. In Alaska both the Democrats and the Republicans have stated repeatedly not to underestimate Sarah Palin's political and campaigning skills. She has taken on every major political figure in Alaska and has won in the end. The liberal media knows this and they also see how popular she is with the Republican Base which will nominate a candidate for 2012. The liberal media knows that Sarah Palin is the most admired and most talked about Republican on the planet right now, and an 11 million dollar book deal pretty much highlights the fact that you are a major player in politics. Also, the liberals know where this money is going to go, it will go to her future campaign for president. Remember folks Sarah Palin comes from the middle class and her family is not wealthy like most liberals. Sarah Palin's political success stems from hard work and her first rate political and campaigning skills. At no time did Sarah Palin ever have anything handed to her by either the media or the political establishment. The liberal media is going to do everything to destroy this woman before 2012, because the last thing they want is another Ronald Reagan or in Palin's case a Margret Thatcher style conservative in the White House. Remember one only attacks those whom they fear.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive