Sunday, September 30, 2012

"Outstanding Speaker" Sarah Palin Headlines A Leadership Forum At Southeastern University



No matter how many times the left says Sarah Palin is "irrelevant" the great mass of common sense folk know otherwise. To be chosen as a headline speaker at a university forum, following past luminaries like Colin Powell and President Bush to present a seminar on "overcoming obstacles in leadership" speaks volumes. Here are the details


From The Ledger: Florida


Sarah Palin to Speak at Southeastern Forum

The seventh annual leadership forum will be held March 7 and 8.


Is it true that former governor of Alaska Sarah Palin — the 2008 Republican candidate for vice president — is slated to speak at Southeastern University next year? You betcha.

By Mary Toothman
THE LEDGER
Published: Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 11:36 p.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 11:36 p.m.
LAKELAND | Is it true that former governor of Alaska Sarah Palin — the 2008 Republican candidate for vice president — is slated to speak at Southeastern University next year?

You betcha.

The university's 2013 National Leadership Forum has announced that Palin, 48, will speak at the seventh annual forum, scheduled for March 7 and 8 at the university's Lakeland campus. Past forum speakers have included Colin Powell, Jeb Bush, President George Bush and Condoleezza Rice.

The forum is geared toward leaders in the business, professional and church communities.

Brian C. Carroll, vice president for university advancement, said the event was created from a desire to teach students and the community about the ideals of servant leadership. "We wanted to create an event that embodies those values," he said.

Lakeland businessman Bill Mutz, a former auto dealer who has been involved with forum sponsorship, said the upcoming speaker lineup is exciting.

"I think the forum has continued to bring some outstanding speakers to the area who offer a little outside-of-the-box leadership thinking that has been very valuable, not only to individuals, but to organizations that send people to the event."

Having Palin speak was not a decision made with a political agenda, Carroll said. "This is not a political forum, by any stretch of the imagination," he said. "Sarah Palin is going to be talking about overcoming obstacles in leadership, and she's overcome a lot of obstacles."


Tickets for the limited seating event go on sale today online at seuleadershipforum.com. Forum tickets cover both days of the event, and are sold in four categories: $450 for non-reserved tickets; $650 for a reserved ticket; $1,000 for a VIP ticket and $1,500 for an executive ticket.

Other speakers on the agenda are:

Phil Cooke, writer and speaker who has produced media programming in more than 40 countries.

Jon Gordon, author and speaker.

AmyK Hutchens, business strategist and speaker.

John Ortberg, author, speaker and pastor of Menlo Park Presbyterian Church.

Nancy Ortberg, teaching pastor, author and founding partner of Teamworx2.

Mark Sanborn, author and president of Sanborn & Associates Inc., a leadership development idea studio.

John Maxwell, an internationally renowned leadership expert, coach, and author.

Pat Williams, senior vice president of NBA's Orlando Magic.

The first two levels of tickets cover seating at all sessions, lunch both days and access to a hospitality tent. The VIP tickets cover reserved seating at the front of the event, lunches — including a private lunch with a forum speaker — reserved parking and access to the VIP hospitality tent.

The highest priced ticket buys premier seating, a private, evening reception with Palin and the amenities included with the VIP tickets.

Maxwell will be the keynote speaker at a scholarship gala, to be on the evening of March 7.

Sponsorships finance the speakers, and also provide scholarships. All net proceeds from the event directly benefit the Southeastern University Scholarship Fund. More than 90 percent of the university's students receive financial aid, officials said. In 2011-12, more than $7 million was awarded to students.

For more information about the conference, call the university at 863-667-5455 or 877-367-8620.

[ Mary Toothman can be reached at mary.toothman@theledger.com or 863-802-7512. Her Twitter feed is @MaryToothman.]


Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.

Leftist (Daily Kos/Wonkette) Race Hate Against Black Congressman Allen West? ( With Palin Photo)

Representative Tim Scott is a Black Republican member of Congress from South Carolina. He was elected in 2010 along with fellow Black Republican Allen West of Florida. A search of the "progressive" i.e. far left Daily Kos site for recent articles on Scott in this election year shows nothing of note. 

A search for Allen West tells a different story.  Why West and not Scott? This picture may be one reason, a Black man who actually is a genuine Christian conservative is anathema to leftists whose "universality" only extends to Blacks who follow the leftist line.




There are a series of hate posts at Daily Kos in the typical intemperate "progressive" rant style e.g. "Allen West Had To Resign From Army To Avoid Court Martial; He's Equally Unfit to Serve in Congress". After the rant (and for a different, more temperate view of West's military career see 
(THIS LINK) there follows the usual leftist ad hominem's that one would expect from "progressives".

"He's nuts" "pond scum" "war criminal" bat crazy" "something largely and vilely wrong with West" "a sociopath through and through" and of course "war criminal".

That's just one of many posts on West including this one which calls for him to be "neutered" where the delightful comment that "West is a lying piece of crap" is just one of many hate comments.

The Kos posts and comments, bad as they are, are as nothing compared to the sick and openly racist ones at the far leftist "Wonkette" site.


The disgusting load of trash "Wonkette", infamous for its Trig Palin "Retard" scandal and lately "Palin waves that retard of hers around like a flag" descent into hell has decided that conservative Blacks are worthy of their denigration.

In an article which clearly sets up Florida Lt. Governor Jennifer Carroll as a stooge who is kept out of the loop on important matters but is used as a front person to show the Florida GOP can't be racist, Wonkette gets a further dig in at their hate figure Cong. Allen West.

West actually takes the attack back to the Dem's which makes the lib meme 'well there are actually a few Black Republicans now but they are all stooges" redundant. What to do with West then? Call him a "traitor" which disposes of the anachronism for them.
Wonkette

"It’s also worth noting that Carroll is, along with various mosquito sprayers and dog catchers and war criminals (Allen West), one of the many several prominent African-American Republicans out there, so Scott’s staff might have thought she’d make a good spokesperson on this racially charged case. And they’d be right! Assuming anyone had told her anything about it, which they didn’t, obviously, I mean come on."

Here are a few enlightened Wonkette comments on the subject;

"Well of course they can't give any information about the case to a black woman; her job is just to stand and look pretty so that the Republicans can point to her and say, "We're not racist and/or sexist; just look at the lieutenant governor!"

"I'd love to talk to you, but Massa Scott says I have to have all the silver polished by noon."


Here is how Wonkette and its alleged human readers dealt with West when he got "uppity" previously;


"Showing that the progressive commitment to a new dialogue, to anti-racism to common decency is a sham, and exposing that when it comes to supporting  the re-election of President Obama the left will play the "Uncle Tom" card against any Black politician who stands in their way, the well known leftist  Blog "Wonkette"  includes this description of Republican congressman Allen West (who represents the Florida 22nd congressional district and is described as R- Plantation") quoting a report by McClatchy;

"In his verbal explosion, the Plantation Republican suggested his beef with Wasserman Schultz began in October 2010 and “the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign” headquarters in Deerfield Beach, West said in his email."

This because West a Republican from Florida, had the temerity to take, exception to Dem Wasserman Schulz character, and said so in strong, but dignified language.

The language itself, being alien to the ears of progressives, also came  under childish attack, but it was the disgusting flow of racist invective which the commentators threw at West, which shows the left has no shame and will use the race card to call, in effect, all Black Republicans, Steele, Cain, and West as examples, "Uncle Tom's" and visible tokens used to mask Republican racism-when clearly it is the Dem supporters who are the racists and hypocrites. 


Just Some remarks from Wonkette's commentators:

"Oh, Jesus Christ. This tool owes his election to the GOPs desperate attempt to find as many "black friends" as they can. He makes Michael Steele look like a friggin' Nobel laureate. "

"Suddenly my attitude toward lynchings has experienced a certain softening..."

"Being a black republican is one long stint of disrespectin' yourself. No wonder they are always in such a snit."

"It was preferable to his preferred moniker, "House Nigger."
"The fact that there's actually a town called "Plantation", in 2011, is yet another bit of proof that the Southerners claiming they just support "their heritage" and not slavery is total BS. And no Mr. West, you can be the best house negro ever and they will still think you're inferior."



Condoleezza Rice is a "war monger" every time she gets mentioned as a possible VP candidate as no one could trot out the store front stooge theme with her of`course.

Black Dem's can advise that if too many people stand near the edge of Guam it will "tip over" and can stash tens of thousands of dollars in bribe money in their freezer, but that's OK they are Dem's and exempt from any charge of idiocy or incompetence. But woe betide any Black who dares stand for conservative principles.



From;Wikipedia "Congressional Black Caucus"
The caucus is officially non-partisan, but in practice it has been closely identified with the Democratic Party, and tends to function as a lobbying group within the wider Democratic Party. Only six black Republicans have been elected to Congress since the caucus was founded: Senator Edward W. Brooke of Massachusetts, Representative Gary Franks of Connecticut, Delegate Melvin H. Evans of the Virgin Islands, Representative J. C. Watts of Oklahoma, Representative Allen West of Florida, and Representative Tim Scott of South Carolina. Brooke was not in the CBC. Watts elected not to join the group because of its closely Democratic affiliation and goals,[4] saying "...they said that I had sold out and [called me an] Uncle Tom. But I have my thoughts. And I think they're race-hustling poverty pimps."[5] After the 2010 midterms, Allen West joined the caucus while Tim Scott declined.[6] West indicated that he planned to shake up the CBC's "monolithic" ideology and indicated the caucus promoted a culture of victimization among its black constituents.[7




Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.



























]

Media Left/Right Heavy Hitters Look Beyond Romney Loss To 2016 & See Palin/Right Unleashed: #4 Benjamin Domenech At Real Clear Politics

This series  shows how the media elite i.e. leftist, and some on the "right" view the 2012 election & its ultimate effect on the GOP, subsequent to what they see as a Romney loss. To give some due credit, the earlier articles, which included predictions of the Romney primary win and nomination, were written months ago. January in Packer's & Waldman's case and February in Klein's.

Their prescience might be diminished somewhat if Romney wins of course. I've put the salient points from Packer/Waldman/Klein's articles in reverse order below Domench's, which is from September and has the advantage, in his case of seeing how things are turning out (pretty much as the other three expected).

In brief all three earlier writers envisage a Romney defeat. They bemoan the inevitable selection of a true conservative in 2016. One is saddened that the GOP did not nominate Gingrich so it could be "cured of its madness by his huge subsequent defeat". Their prescription (who asked them by the way?) is for the GOP to nominate yet another "moderate" on a moderate platform. 

But since the rank and file is apparently "mad" this is unlikely to happen they say. Of course, the fact that if the Beltway grandees tried to foist anther RINO on the rank and file after two losses in a row would cause the probable breakup of the GOP doesn't enter into their thinking. But they are hardly friends of the conservative rank and file.

Next up, Benjamin Domenech at Real Clear Politics gave an overview based on current events. He sees the rank and file as having swallowed the bitter Romney pill, defeating Obama trumps all else (they can deal with President Romney later) whilst the grandees have spat the dummy. 

Since the article was written Tim Pawlenty has jumped ship too which shows which way the wind is blowing. The grandees expected a foreign policy hawk (Bush 3) and kowtowing to them for their assistance in Romney getting the nomination. They see Romney as not showing any interest in hawkishness, their advice or them (having his own coterie apparently). But this is by the by.

Domenech like the other seers sees the inevitability of  a rejection of the Beltway establishment in 2016 if Romney loses.They will own the loss because they bought it. They won't be able to blame the VP selection (even the radical left has stopped discussing Ryan after a brief burst of hate) nor Palin (much as they'd like to). Domenech see Romney's loss as caused by Romney simply being Romney-which is correct as I argued earlier. 

What will be the consequence of the inevitable rightward shift  in 2016 and who will be a likely candidate is not discussed by him. Others bring forward the scary figure of Sarah Palin and well should they be scared as the centrists and their enablers will be swept away like chaff.

Here are some of  Domenech's salient points. You can read the entire article "After Foisting Romney on Base, GOP Elites Now Start to Gripe"
AT THIS LINK


"One of the most interesting aspects of the 2012 election is how the tea party movement has proven more politically mature than the center-right’s self-styled elites, and those who spent much of the Republican primary season chiding swathes of people for being insufficiently pragmatic have turned out to be far more childish than the conservative base.

For the past several weeks, Mitt Romney has been surrounded by critics from the DC-Manhattan elite who’ve denounced him for a lackluster, unfocused campaign, teeing off on Team Romney in the wake of the 47 percent comments for a number of issues—but mostly, in my read, from failing to take their advice. For months the elites bashed the base for failing  to line up for Romney and come on in for the big win. But they got their wish!
In November, the insider spin after a Romney loss will likely be: “The country wasn't ready for Paul Ryan's big ideas, they should've played it safe and gone with Portman.” 
There will be very negative consequences for a Romney loss for the power of center-right elites who are largely viewed as foisting him on the base despite the latter’s objections. A Romney loss almost certainly pushes the 2016 nominee rightward, and I doubt the megaphones will be powerful enough to frame the 2012 contest, as they did in 2008, as one where the conservative Veep choice dragged down the ticket.
Like it or not, the money and opinion elites on the center-right own Romney’s failure from the perspective of the base—they need him to win. And the reality is that if Romney loses, it will have little if anything to do with Paul Ryan’s big ideas, tactical choices, or elite misgivings—and far more to do with the simple fact that Romney is still disliked by most voters."




***************************************************************************
Ezra Klein is next up at The Washington Post; "What if the Republican's lose with Romney" in this series which shows how the media elite i.e. leftist, view the 2012 election & its ultimate effect on the GOP, subsequent to what they see as a Romney loss.

Klein first, and then in reverse sequence below, there is Waldman giving his insights and commenting on Packer (as does Klein) and of course Packer's New Yorker piece follows on from that. These posts are descriptive, biased to the point of being ridiculously snobbishly horrific ( the GOP returning to"mental health") but when predictive are illogical and elitist.

Klein's salient points are in italics below. Basically he like Packer and Waldman envisage a Romney loss and a move to the right candidate-wise in 2016 to match the already shift to the right policy wise. Without stating agreement, he presents Packer's argument that it would be in the GOP's best interest if a right wing candidate (Gingrich) had won the nomination, and had been soundly defeated.

Presuming he is in agreement with Packer, it is the third in the series of pundits seeing a real conservative being nominated in 2016. Well heaven forbid the ordinary fly-over country folks can actually get to choose someone who, 'in their heart of hearts" believe actually speaks for them, instead of the Beltway/Journolist conspirators/leftists who know what's good for rightists.

One can only imagine the action of the nostrils of this elite if e.g. a true conservative like Palin is nominated. That might actually be a good thing, as they might find it below them to even condescend to attack her so her ideas might escape the media filter







[and,] barring a truly extraordinary turn of events, he (Romney)is going to win the primary. That will make 2012 the second presidential primary in a row in which Republicans rallied around someone they didn't totally trust, and perhaps didn't even totally like, in order to win the general election. For all the upsets in individual primaries in 2010, Republican voters are, on net, vastly more pragmatic, at least when it comes to candidate choice, than they are typically given credit for.



But perhaps that's not such a good thing. So argues the New Yorker's George Packer, anyway. Substantively, the Republican Party has moved far to the right over the last decade. Compare Romney's platform to that of George W. Bush, for instance. The question, for many, has been whether electoral losses will force them back to the center.

So far, no.



And if Romney wins, the answer is probably still no. The Republican Party keeps choosing politicians who they don't, in their heart of hearts, truly believe to be conservative.  [and] it will be the story they tell if Romney loses in 2012. You can write the post-mortem now: 'Of course America wasn't going to vote for a liberal Republican from Massachusetts who had passed the country's first individual mandate, been on both sides of Roe, and was a leveraged buyout specialist in an age of job insecurity. Next time, we absolutely have to nominate a real conservative! Next time, we''ll give Americans a real choice.'"






*******************************************************************************

Paul Waldman at "The American Prospect" carries on the "what will the GOP do after Romney loses" (i.e. what sort of candidate will they run) commenced by George Packer at the "New Yorker" way back in January 2012. To give them credit both men decided well in advance that Romney would emerge as the nominee easily besting Newt Gingrich along the way.

To summarize Packer. [If] Romney wins (nomination)-what then? He asks with clear foreboding:

"But what if Romney wins the nomination and loses the election? This scenario is still the odds-on favorite.

It’s easy to picture hard-core Republicans coming to the same conclusion: Romney and the party élite betrayed the party’s principles (again, after McCain) and gave the country four more years of the hated Obama. Never again! Next time, a real conservative!”
And the consequences of that for Packer would be-unleash the Palin!

But if Romney wins the nomination and loses the election, the party will continue down into the same dark hole where Palin, Bachman, Perry, Cain, Santorum, and now Gingrich all lurk."

Packer offers the typical leftist elitism whereby the party bosses and guru’s and pundits know what is best for the hoi polloi even if a majority of them wish an alternative from the tried and failed establishment prescription.I say Palin 2016-let the people decide.

Following on from and drawing from Packer's article Paul Waldman at the American Prospect in February wrote (possiby presciently to give him his due-who would credit such a winnable campaign could be so stuffed up):

"If Romney Loses in November, Will the GOP Move to the Center? Possible? Yes. Likely? No."

Here's what I think are, edited (the whole post is at the link), Waldman's central points;

"It's not too early to start speculating about what a Mitt Romney loss in November will do to the Republican party. Will they move to the center or to the right? The simple answer is, of course they'll move to the right.  As Ezra Klein says: "You can write the post-mortem now: 'Of course America wasn't going to vote for a liberal Republican from Massachusetts  Next time, we''ll give Americans a real choice."


No, the real example to look at is 1992 -- in other words, whether in 2016, the GOP can make the same move to the center that the Democrats did that year.

The point is that we can talk all we want about where the GOP might or might not move, but there has to be an individual presidential candidate who will be the standard-bearer for the ideology that prevails. And who, pray tell, is the moderate Republican who is such a blazing talent that s/he will pull the party to the center?. So unless some extraordinary candidate emerges between now and then, I wouldn't bet on it happening.

Dear oh dear.The same tortuous logic as Mr. Packer exhibited. Why would the conservative rank and file, whose views apparently don't enter into the thinking of the left who are used to dictates from the top as all collective minded people do at heart, wish this 'move to the center"?.

After a McCain/Romney sequence surely even the most blinkered of elitist leftists could imagine that the rank and file would wish, and deserve, a candidate of their liking.If that person lost, well so be it, and they would have done no worse in losing than McCain/Romney did.

But apparently not. Waldman envisages some sort of elitist think tank to provide intellectual ballast to a centrist person of charisma, who, through their mystical powers, would single handed drag the unwilling rightists back to the center.

One thing Waldman is spot on about is that no such person exists. He laughably enters Mitch Daniels name into brief and discarded conjecture. The reason that no such person exists, is that there is no call for such a person now, and if Romney loses there there will be absolutely no call for such a saviour.

If Waldman and Packer are correct, as I expect they are, the call from November 7th will be for a charismatic proven leader from the right, who has been tested in the white heat of the liberal medias fire and is still standing. A leader who can go head to head with the best debaters on the left, and who is loved by the Tea Party.

That person will be , to quote Waldman," [an] individual presidential candidate who will be the standard-bearer for the ideology that prevails."

I believe the prevailing ideology will be a total rejection of the "move to the center" Beltway/Establishment type ideology and towards a true conservatism. That prevailing ideology, and the charisma required, is ideally found in Sarah Palin.
















Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.














Saturday, September 29, 2012

The "Ol Palin Formula:Shoot The VP Candidate. New Republic: It's All Ryan's fault That Romney Is Losing.

At least the McCain team had the decency to (mostly) wait till after the election was over before the rounded on Palin as the supposed reason why McCain lost. The fact that major polling firms showed exactly the opposite-more people voted for McCain because she was on the ticket had nothing to do with the ass covering.

I have actually prepared a "top ten" list of why Palin will even be blamed for losing this election-at AT THIS LINK but I may have been too hasty. 

The New Republic has a post  up '47% was bad for Romney  Ryan has been deadly" which includes this nail in coffin statement "Ryan has done enormous damage to the ticket".

Two things are going on here. Firstly the establishment wants to run another establishment candidate in 2016. If Romney loses (Pawlenty jumping ship is a pretty good indicator of what is to come) the rank and file will of course say they have had enough of RINO's and will want a real conservative candidate.

By pinning the blame on Ryan the Beltway will say that they had their conservative and he lost Romney the election so, heaven forbid I am actually saying this, they will advise that "Romney needs another run, this time with a centrist VP who will not scare away the Independents".

That argument would of course be used against Palin should she decide to have ago in 2016 by the Romney/Bush/Christie forces.

The second thing is that of course the Romney team saw the beneficial financial effects of writing tell all post election loss books which saw them being acted as movers and shakers in a Hollywood flick so the groundwork is being laid.

Of course who forced Romney to pick Ryan as his VP candidate? It's no use saying Romney is a "take charge hard headed businessman" and then say "Romney was forced by extreme elements to choose a radical VP like Ryan. They can't have it both ways (but will try of course).

Top Ten Reasons Why GOP Establishment Will Blame Palin If Romney Loses

As articles like 'Whose idea was it to nominate Romney" appear more often and in various versions the same GOP campaign managers and "insiders" who viciously attacked Sarah Palin after the 2008 campaign will be at it again. 

Having learned that there is good money to be made by writing tell all "books' which the leftist media and Palin haters gobble up there is an absolute certainty we will see the same people, although a different cast of characters, having another go to save their skins and cash in on the anti-Palin audience for such tittle tattle trash. Who knows they may get an appearance in a new version of "Game Change".

Here are the top ten reasons why they will blame Palin if Romney loses;

#1. Force of habit

# 2. Hoping it will lead to "talking head" tame Republican guest spots on MSNBC

#3. To enable them to fill in a chapter in their "tell all" post loss books

#4. Because McCain chose Palin over Romney as his VP thus allowing for "Even McCain preferred Palin to         Romney after seeing his tax records" comments. (Not technically Palin's fault but that won't stop them blaming  her of course)

#5. By suggesting Romney "go rogue" Palin created opportunities for the most miserable "satire" ever. Like this execrable "If Mitt Romney went rogue" piece at The Wall Street Journal which depressed Republican turnout as it indicted the campaign must have been in a hopeless position for such lame "support" of the candidate.

#6. So they can tee-up their next "centrist" candidate (calling Jeb/Chris) by stopping the only viable true conservative.

#7. They will say Romney lost because Palin was not a "team player" didn't fire up the base by speaking at the convention (whoops) and go on the campaign trail with Mitt. (that she wasn't invited is neither here nor there of course.

#8. Palin gave the left an opportunity to "denigrate" Paul Ryan. If she hadn't been on the ticket in 2008 they couldn't have said "Ryan is just Palin in trousers".

#9.By helping so many Tea Party candidates to win in 2010 she forced the party to the right and Romney was forced to stand on an unpopular platform. It's all her fault. Romney was not dislikable, stiff, had no tax return problems, the "47%" video had no influence, his trip to the U.K. was not a disaster, neither did he jump the gun when the U.S. Ambassador was killed. Oh, and Ryan ran a hugely popular campaign with bigger crowds than Palin drew.

#10. They have already started blaming Palin !

Sarah Palin Never Before Seen 21 Picture Candid Photo Album On Stump In Arizona


I was just sent a series of candid photograph's of Sarah Palin campaigning for Kirk Adams in Arizona. A few have been published but not the whole series according to my informant to whom I am most grateful for supplying her precious mementos. Here's her story:





Some are slightly out of focus, but to me that is just part of what is clearly the rush and excitement that her presence generates and is in itself a telling factor.

I add them to the series I published during the campaign and the 21 in total give an outstanding portrait of Palin on the stump. Her affability, genuine care for folks and charisma are obvious for all to see. A  moment in time captured but significant in what it portrays.







Here is a local coffee shop owner commenting on the huge crowd for Palin.Click ony pictures to enlarge.






Friday, September 28, 2012

The Core Policies Of Sarah Palin For This Election & Major Previous Policy Statements



To counter the silly claims of the left and some in the Beltway GOP that Sarah Palin is devoid of policy ideas I posted a whole series of her statements across a wide area. These included energy/foreign policy/social issues and of course economic issues.Plus there were links which countered some of the ridiculous propaganda stories about her.

They are available AT THIS LINK. 

I thought it would be useful as an adjunct to that post (reproduced in whole below) to also include her core concepts for this election, the form part of a message to supporters which covers a wide range of matters (including a list of some key candidates to support)with the following as the policy statement:


** Repealing ObamaCare.
** Upholding the Tenth Amendment.
**Reining in over regulation.
**Cancelling Obama’s unused stimulus money.
**Eliminating all federal corporate income tax, corporate welfare, and loopholes.
**And tapping into our abundant American energy resources – oil, natural gas and clean coal – to free us from dependency on foreign dictators!



*********************************************************************************************************************

With only six weeks left before Election Day, I have just one question for you:
Will you help me finish what we started in 2012?
In 2012, millions of ordinary Americans like you and me came together and formed the Tea Party movement.
We told Barack Obama that we didn’t want America “fundamentally changed.”
Why? Because we love America. And we’re willing to fight for it.
But now in 2012 we’ve got some unfinished business on our hands, and it’s clear what we need to do:
#1. Defeat Barack Obama and #2. Win the U.S. Senate.
Barack Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America is destroying everything that made our country great.
If he and his class-warfare cronies in the Senate aren’t defeated, there will be no end to their regulating, spending, printing and borrowing.
If we want to save our country, then we must change the team and the game plan in this crucial 2012 election.
In fact, if we don’t win this election, I predict that our nation will never recover.
We will go the way of other broken, failed governments.
Nations like Greece – where young, able-bodied citizens expect a government welfare check for doing absolutely nothing.
I don’t want my children and grandchildren working the rest of their lives just to pay off Obama’s debts.
And I’m willing to be you don’t either. So I’m asking you to join me in finishing the job today.
Help me prove that the Tea Party movement isn’t simply a political fad……it’s an American awakening.
And it’s coming from ordinary Americans who understand that reclaiming our America means:
** Repealing ObamaCare.
** Upholding the Tenth Amendment.
**Reining in overregulation.
**Canceling Obama’s unused stimulus money.
**Eliminating all federal corporate income tax, corporate welfare, and loopholes.
**And tapping into our abundant American energy resources – oil, natural gas and clean coal – to free us from dependency on foreign dictators!
This is the kind of sudden and relentless reform in Washington we must have if we are going to defend the future of our families and our nation.
Now is our chance to grab the bull by the horns.
The media elites are predicting that the Tea Party isn’t going to be a difference maker in this Election.
Many of them are also saying that I’m not going to have much of an impact.
As usual, they don’t know what they’re talking about.
My Tea Party friends are telling me that they’re even more excited about this Election than they were in 2010……because this November we have a chance to fire Barack Obama!
State by state, district by district –by bus, by plane, on the stump – you can count on me to do everything in my power to elect the candidates that share our vision for America.
Will you join my SarahPAC Revolution and help me elect pro-family, pro-America patriots who share our beliefs to Congress?
Thank you for helping me save the America we know and love!
Sarah Palin
P.S. As we seek to fundamentally restore our great nation to strength and prosperity, we must send more commonsense conservatives to the U.S. Senate. Please see the enclosed “Retake America Reply” to see who I’m supporting and how
you can help. Many thanks for your continued support!
“Retake America Reply”
If we’re going to take back our country, we must first take back the United States Senate. To help make this happen, I’ve identified four rising star conservatives who need our support:
Ted Cruz, TX
Deb Fischer, NE
Jeff Flake, AZ
Richard Mourdock, IN

Palin Was Right ! Obama admin official, Ratner, wrote column in N.Y.Times saying only way new healthcare law can work is to have death panels/rationing.Yes,he used term, "Death Panels."

From the Small Craft Advisory site.To qualify the post Ratner is a former official and he says
 "well not exactly Death Panels"  I think most people would prefer-no death panels at all whether not exactly or exactly.



FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2012


Sarah Palin Was Right !

     In 2010, when Obamacare was being rammed into law with one party support, in the darkness of night, using a process called reconciliation (which in this application violates the spirit of the Constitution), Sarah Palin was excoriated for suggesting that the new law incorporated death panels. She was characterized by the left as a crazy, right-winger who was trying to scare the American people. The Obama administration said it was a ridiculous accusation not worthy of debate. They announced sometime later that the panels had been taken out of the legislation.
   
  Last weekend, an Obama administration official, by the name of Steve Ratner, wrote an op-ed column in the New York times saying the only way the new health care law can work is to have death panels and rationing. Yes, he actually used the term, "Death Panels." This admission is consistent with the news that the National Kidney Register is changing the criteria for those waiting for a life-saving operation. In the past, the next available kidney would go to the next person on the list. Now, the determination for a kidney will be made on the basis of how much longer the individual will statistically live. In other words, those deemed as not having much more usefulness to the state, will be out of luck. This is similar to how other socialized medicine schemes work. Since health care dollars and providers are limited by the system, a model is used to determine how much useful life an individual posses. If it is deemed that the operation is not cost-effective, the individual is left untreated.
     
This cost-basis model for health care was advocated strongly by Ezekiel Emanuel, a major contributor to the President's health care reform law. In a free-market system, competition drives down the price for procedures and creates an environment that is friendly to new health care professionals. In a recent poll, eighty percent of doctors said they were seriously considering leaving the field if Obamacare is fully implemented.

 Even if half of those doctors leave, it will further decimate the field where in recent years there have been thousands more doctors leaving the profession than there are new graduates to take their place. If the supply of health care dwindles and the demand continues to rise, rationing will necessarily be a reality. In the private sector, insurance companies reject 4% of the claims they receive. The government programs of Medicare and Medicaid reject 8%. If the free-market disappears completely, which is the goal of the new health care law, the rejection rate is any body's guess, but it certainly will not go down. Conservatives knew Sarah Palin was right when she made her proclamation in 2010. If Barrack Obama is re-elected, the rest of the country will discover the wisdom of her statement far too late to save themselves or their loved-ones.

Media Left's Heavy Hitters Look Beyond Romney Loss To 2016 & See Palin/Right Unleashed: #3 Ezra Klein At Washington Post



Ezra Klein is next up at The Washington Post; "What if the Republican's lose with Romney" in this series which shows how the media elite i.e. leftist, view the 2012 election & its ultimate effect on the GOP, subsequent to what they see as a Romney loss. To give them all credit, their views, including the Romney primary win and nomination, were written months ago. January in Packer's & Waldman's case and February in Klein's.Their prescience might be diminished somewhat if Romney wins of course.

Klein first, and then in reverse sequence below, there is Waldman giving his insights and commenting on Packer (as does Klein) and of course Packer's New Yorker piece follows on from that. These posts are descriptive, biased to the point of being ridiculously snobbishly horrific ( the GOP returning to"mental health") but when predictive are illogical and elitist.

Klein's salient points are in italics below. Basically he like Packer and Waldman envisage a Romney loss and a move to the right candidate-wise in 2016 to match the already shift to the right policy wise. Without stating agreement, he presents Packer's argument that it would be in the GOP's best interest if a right wing candidate (Gingrich) had won the nomination, and had been soundly defeated.

Presuming he is in agreement with Packer, it is the third in the series of pundits seeing a real conservative being nominated in 2016. Well heaven forbid the ordinary fly-over country folks can actually get to choose someone who, 'in their heart of hearts" believe actually speaks for them, instead of the Beltway/Journolist conspirators/leftists who know what's good for rightists.

One can only imagine the action of the nostrils of this elite if e.g. a true conservative like Palin is nominated. That might actually be a good thing, as they might find it below them to even condescend to attack her so her ideas might escape the media filter







[and,] barring a truly extraordinary turn of events, he (Romney)is going to win the primary. That will make 2012 the second presidential primary in a row in which Republicans rallied around someone they didn't totally trust, and perhaps didn't even totally like, in order to win the general election. For all the upsets in individual primaries in 2010, Republican voters are, on net, vastly more pragmatic, at least when it comes to candidate choice, than they are typically given credit for.



But perhaps that's not such a good thing. So argues the New Yorker's George Packer, anyway. Substantively, the Republican Party has moved far to the right over the last decade. Compare Romney's platform to that of George W. Bush, for instance. The question, for many, has been whether electoral losses will force them back to the center.

So far, no.



And if Romney wins, the answer is probably still no. The Republican Party keeps choosing politicians who they don't, in their heart of hearts, truly believe to be conservative.  [and] it will be the story they tell if Romney loses in 2012. You can write the post-mortem now: 'Of course America wasn't going to vote for a liberal Republican from Massachusetts who had passed the country's first individual mandate, been on both sides of Roe, and was a leveraged buyout specialist in an age of job insecurity. Next time, we absolutely have to nominate a real conservative! Next time, we''ll give Americans a real choice.'"






*******************************************************************************

Paul Waldman at "The American Prospect" carries on the "what will the GOP do after Romney loses" (i.e. what sort of candidate will they run) commenced by George Packer at the "New Yorker" way back in January 2012. To give them credit both men decided well in advance that Romney would emerge as the nominee easily besting Newt Gingrich along the way.

To summarize Packer. [If] Romney wins (nomination)-what then? He asks with clear foreboding:


"But what if Romney wins the nomination and loses the election? This scenario is still the odds-on favorite.

It’s easy to picture hard-core Republicans coming to the same conclusion: Romney and the party élite betrayed the party’s principles (again, after McCain) and gave the country four more years of the hated Obama. Never again! Next time, a real conservative!”
And the consequences of that for Packer would be-unleash the Palin!

But if Romney wins the nomination and loses the election, the party will continue down into the same dark hole where Palin, Bachman, Perry, Cain, Santorum, and now Gingrich all lurk."

Packer offers the typical leftist elitism whereby the party bosses and guru’s and pundits know what is best for the hoi polloi even if a majority of them wish an alternative from the tried and failed establishment prescription.I say Palin 2016-let the people decide.

Following on from and drawing from Packer's article Paul Waldman at the American Prospect in February wrote (possiby presciently to give him his due-who would credit such a winnable campaign could be so stuffed up):

"If Romney Loses in November, Will the GOP Move to the Center? Possible? Yes. Likely? No."

Here's what I think are, edited (the whole post is at the link), Waldman's central points;

"It's not too early to start speculating about what a Mitt Romney loss in November will do to the Republican party. Will they move to the center or to the right? The simple answer is, of course they'll move to the right.  As Ezra Klein says: "You can write the post-mortem now: 'Of course America wasn't going to vote for a liberal Republican from Massachusetts  Next time, we''ll give Americans a real choice."


No, the real example to look at is 1992 -- in other words, whether in 2016, the GOP can make the same move to the center that the Democrats did that year.

The point is that we can talk all we want about where the GOP might or might not move, but there has to be an individual presidential candidate who will be the standard-bearer for the ideology that prevails. And who, pray tell, is the moderate Republican who is such a blazing talent that s/he will pull the party to the center?. So unless some extraordinary candidate emerges between now and then, I wouldn't bet on it happening.

Dear oh dear.The same tortuous logic as Mr. Packer exhibited. Why would the conservative rank and file, whose views apparently don't enter into the thinking of the left who are used to dictates from the top as all collective minded people do at heart, wish this 'move to the center"?.

After a McCain/Romney sequence surely even the most blinkered of elitist leftists could imagine that the rank and file would wish, and deserve, a candidate of their liking.If that person lost, well so be it, and they would have done no worse in losing than McCain/Romney did.

But apparently not. Waldman envisages some sort of elitist think tank to provide intellectual ballast to a centrist person of charisma, who, through their mystical powers, would single handed drag the unwilling rightists back to the center.

One thing Waldman is spot on about is that no such person exists. He laughably enters Mitch Daniels name into brief and discarded conjecture. The reason that no such person exists, is that there is no call for such a person now, and if Romney loses there there will be absolutely no call for such a saviour.

If Waldman and Packer are correct, as I expect they are, the call from November 7th will be for a charismatic proven leader from the right, who has been tested in the white heat of the liberal medias fire and is still standing. A leader who can go head to head with the best debaters on the left, and who is loved by the Tea Party.

That person will be , to quote Waldman," [an] individual presidential candidate who will be the standard-bearer for the ideology that prevails."

I believe the prevailing ideology will be a total rejection of the "move to the center" Beltway/Establishment type ideology and towards a true conservatism. That prevailing ideology, and the charisma required, is ideally found in Sarah Palin.

















Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.