File these under the heading of “Unbelievable, But Not Surprising”

Dead Bankers Watch

This site is following the current (until October)  tally of dead bankers, hedge fund managers, financiers and financial beneficiaries of TARP as funded by tax dollars.

Pistol Packing Penny Pinchers

It seems the senior Goldman folks are stocking up on firearms in order to defend themselves in case there is a populist uprising against the bank.

Okay, give me just a second to think this through…

Some disgruntled taxpayers decided to vent their frustration. The whole idea is a bit tacky and ham-handed. But as far as I can tell they are just blowing off steam; maybe engaging in a little Schadenfreude.

Now I’m not naïve. I’m sure Goldman Sachs has received quite a few death threats from the unwashed peonage, who under threat of incarceration, have always been required to pay their bills. The “help” tends to resent having the security deposit taken out of their pockets after the yacht club’s massive party (that the help was barred from attending) trashes the entire economy.

The Haves and the Have-Nots

So how do the erstwhile gunslingers from Sachs’ imagine this whole thing is going to go down? Some mano a mano showdown at high noon? Saddle-legged bankers swaggering down a gritty Wall Street, taking on the dirty unwashed?  And in true Sam Peckinpah form, the cowardly bad guys having lost their dental insurance, smile crookedly; shattered yellow teeth glinting in the harsh sun of New York’s concrete jungle.

Hyperbole aside, consider the mindset of someone who would actually buy a gun to protect themselves from the envious and disgruntled poor. Forgive the obvious, but wouldn’t this be the same sort of disconnected and self-aggrandizing reactionary thinking that created the problem in the first place?

I mean, if one wanted to murder a financier, consider the exhaustive primer of imaginative murder porn that arrives free, fresh and bloody from the boob tube on a daily basis. Even if Joe Taxpayer isn’t clever enough to come up with a workable plot on his own, he has a ready supply of clever ways to do the deed with a simple click of the remote. How is a gun going to protect banksters from home-made ricin, GHB in their martinis, access provided by a hired driver or some freight elevator operator who watched his hard-earned 401K shrink into oblivion?

I have nothing against guns. We have 3 in our household; a pistol, a rifle and a 12 gauge. Guns are useful against specific, knowable threats. We keep ours in the event that rabid wildlife threatens me or mine. And given that one of my dogs has already had a bloody run-in with a coyote, we have no doubts about the need for a gun.

Regardless of what Goldman Sachs thinks about the gigantic underclass they have had a hand in creating, impoverishment does not destroy one’s humanity. It does not turn people into rabid animals. So in the end, Goldman Sachs’ gunslingers may not find the threats they face from the wilds of poverty so simple, straightforward or easily remedied.

The following is an article from BBC News about Racial Tension In Mississippi. The Council Of Conservative Citizens are mentioned in the article. We recently did an interview with BBC Radio’s Crossing Continents. You will notice the article is very much slanted in the Black Crime direction!

For The Article Click Here

For The Podcast Click Here

‘Ik ben geen trutje, maar ik heb wel geweend’

MC (leeftijd onbekend) is naar eigen zeggen geen bang meisje. En toch. ‘Toen ik eindelijk thuis was, heb ik geweend.’ De OVDD-blogster gaat onderzoeken of zij op blogvlak iets kan ondernemen. ‘Nu begrijp ik hoe mannen zich moeten voelen als ze door een vrouw gevolgd worden!”

Woensdagavond nam MC na een late vergadering in Leuven de trein in het Station. ‘Nog voor ik de trein was opgestapt, had ik gemerkt dat er precies iemand rond me bleef draaien. Een man van een jaar of 35, 40 met een baard en lang haar, keurig in een staartje gebonden. Soit, ik schonk geen aandacht aan hem en plofte neer in een vrijwel lege eersteklassewagon. Ik deed mijn schoenen uit, legde mijn voeten op de bank en plots was hij daar: diezelfde vent. Hij kwam vlak naast me zitten.’

‘Ik zag meteen dat die man me zat te begluren. Hij prutste voortdurend aan zijn gsm. Ik denk dat hij zelfs foto’s van me maakte. Even later zat hij ook in zijn gsm te fluisteren. Net luid genoeg, zodat ik het kon horen. Ik zit hier naast haar. Ik houd haar in de gaten. Het gaat goed, hoorde ik. Ik ben geen trutje, maar durfde amper op te kijken. Ik hield hem zoveel mogelijk in de gaten via de weerkaatsing in het raam. Ik was enorm geïntimideerd, al had hij me niet aangesproken of aangeraakt.’

Beklemmend gevoel
MC probeerde de man van zich af te schudden in het Brusselse Zuidstation. ‘Ik stapte uit en sprong vier wagons verder opnieuw op de trein. Ik dacht dat ik hem kwijt was, maar vrijwel meteen ging de deur van de coupé open. Daar was hij verdorie wéér.’ En opnieuw kwam de man vlak naast MC zitten. ‘Plots zat hij weer te telefoneren. We zijn bijna in Gent. Alles gaat goed’, zei hij. Ik dacht daardoor eventjes dat ik me misschien maar inbeeldde dat die gast me achtervolgde. Maar dat is toch allesbehalve normaal? Echt: dat was een heel beklemmend gevoel.’

‘Ik had het lef niet om mijn schaduw te vragen of er een probleem was. Hij zat voortdurend in een heuptasje te roefelen. Sebiet haalt die hier een mes boven, dacht ik.’

In Gent stapten zowel MC als de onbekende man af. Vlak voor het vertreksignaal sprong de blogster op de trein naar Oostende. ‘En daar was hij weer. Hij kwam treiterend lachend naast me zitten. Hij bleef maar bellen. Ik dacht: die trommelt hier wat vrienden op om me aan te pakken. Echt, ik was bang. Ik sms’te Nel, een medeblogster, of zij me op het perron wilde opwachten. Ik durfde niet met de fiets naar huis.’

In Oostende wandelde de man rakelings langs de blogster. ‘Hij stapte de trappen af en verdween. Ik zei nog tegen Nel: Heb ik het me dan toch ingebeeld? Maar plots zagen we hem zitten, verscholen in een hoekje. Precies alsof hij op me zou springen. Toen we aan de auto kwamen, begon hij aan de portieren van geparkeerde auto’s te rammelen. Toen hebben we de politie gebeld.’

MC  en haar medeblogster hielden de bizarre man in de gaten tot de politie er was. ‘Ze konden hem gemakkelijk oppakken. Hij stond gewoon achter een boom.’

Pure stalking

‘Ik vind zoiets véél erger dan fysieke bedreiging. Het is pure stalking. En waarom? Ik weet het niet. Ik heb die man nog nooit van mijn leven gezien. Het erge is: ik zal hem nooit meer vergeten. Ik slaap nu al dagen slecht. Zonder pilletje lukt het niet.’

Gisteren diende MC een klacht in bij de politie. ‘Ik wil zoiets nooit meer meemaken. Ik weet nu al dat ik nooit nog in een lege treinwagon stap.’

De politie van Oostende onderzoekt de zaak. ‘Die man heeft alleszins verdachte handelingen gesteld door de blogster sterk te intimideren’, zegt de hoofdcommissaris. De man uit Middelkerke mocht na verhoor beschikken, maar moet zich ter beschikking houden voor verder onderzoek. Hij gaf nog geen deftige uitleg voor zijn bizarre gedrag. Hij beweert dat hij nog nooit van MC hoorde. Hij zou geen wapens op zak hebben gehad.

MC heeft achteraf beseft dat ze dat gezicht kende. Van de TV en uit de gazetten. MC meende Pol Van Den Driessche herkend te hebben onder de vermomming, gewichtig senator en populistisch paniekzaaier. Vermoedelijk was hij voor de kwaliteitskrant Het Nieuwsblad undercover onderzoekend veldwerk aan het verrichten ter voorbereiding van een indringend maatschappelijk relevant journalistiek opiniestuk over het (on)veiligheidsgevoel bij de modale burger.

(BOVENSTAANDE IS – MET UITZONDERING VAN DE LAATSTE PARAGRAAF – EEN COPYPASTE MET NAAMVERVANGING VAN EEN  KRANTENARTIKEL VAN BJORN MAECKELBERGH , HET ORIGINEEL KAN U HIER LEZEN: HET NIEUWSBLAD)

Most men may not complain when young women these days wear their pants lower than where their mother’s pockets used to be, but it can be somewhat nauseating to see older females trying to keep up with their daughter and even granddaughter’s peer group. It reminds one of the sixties, when in order to be cool, boys had to wear Levi’s brand jeans, even though JC Penny sold a perfectly functional pair for half the price.

A Bob Dylan song back then touched on this “Mr. Jones” mentality of modern society and, what with large gas-guzzling SUV’s being purchased by American middle-class “McMansion” families in the midst of Middle East wars, oil shortages and looming planetary disaster, certainly nothing much has changed.

Liberal authors tend to blame corporate branding, but such a “keeping up with the Joneses” reality has existed since ancient Babylon and, traces back into the mists of prehistoric time. Tribal cultures on a global basis display culturally dictated rings, beads, feathers and other ornaments, paint faces and bodies in peer-pressure proscribed ways and, mimic each other in dress, speech and custom.

Ancient warriors often trimmed beards and hair in certain proscribed fashion and displayed specific tattoos and other body markings. Cultures throughout history display their own unique concepts of beauty, manliness and femininity, often directly contradicting what other cultures dictate. Heterosexual men in many societies have worn clothing that even the most overt homosexual male wouldn’t wear in our own.

Today, tattoos and body piercings are all the modern rage and women deliberately reveal bra straps they worked diligently to keep hidden not long ago. And, we are inundated with harmful food and “must have” gizmos and gadgets that no one in their right mind would consider purchasing for logical survival or any other purpose.

Are designs carved on ancient pottery and inlaid jewels on swords functionally necessary at all? And, was expensive architecture, art and sculpture purchased by kings and popes in the midst of massive poverty and famine during the Middle Ages, any less moral than modern Wall Street paper-shufflers earning 10,000 and more times as much as those who pick their fruit, cook their food, cut their lawns and pick up their garbage?

Does a wise society reward athletes with enormous sums to play games in the midst of rising poverty, homelessness and human suffering? Do wise people stand in long lines to see the latest film or to meet celebrities who really haven’t accomplished much of anything at all? How many Americans blindly believe we represent the greatest society in history, without even bothering to actually study much of human civilization, if any?

Culturally induced conformity might appear harmless, but it extends into endorsing the amassing of private wealth and consequent enslavement of the masses, supporting wars in a guise of false patriotism’ and, endorsing racism and classicism in order to “belong”.

Is it really true that “all we like sheep have gone astray”? You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Gerade habe ich in den Nachrichten gehört, dass Oskar Lafontaine morgen operiert wird!

Die traurige Nachricht, dass er Prostatakrebs hat hörte ich schon vorgestern. Auch wenn es wohl Heilungschancen geben soll bin ich doch ein wenig erschrocken. Schließlich habe ich Oskar immer als sehr profilierten und mutigen Politiker geschätzt, der auch keine Angst vor Kontroversen hat und ein begnadeter Rhetoriker ist.

In Zeiten wo man bei vielen Politikern nicht mehr weiß wofür sie eigentlich stehen ist der ehemalige SPD-Chef und heutige Spitzenmann der Linken ein echtes Kontrastprogramm, wenn auch nicht selten mit populistischen Zügen. Man mag ihn, oder hasst ihn!

Ich wünsche ihm jedenfalls viel Glück morgen in der OP!

My new post on Politics Daily / Woman Up:

Lou Dobbs has quit his news anchor job at CNN, his network home for three decades. Currently he’s considering all kinds of offers, including opportunities in politics.

Dobbs has a reputation as an anti-immigration racist and a right-wing nut. His detractors lump him in with Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck. And, of course, Hitler.

I confess – for years I watched the now-defunct “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on CNN. Whenever I let that detail slip, friends respond with shock or horror. Or both. But that’s because they assume I watched Dobbs for his politics. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Lou is the grandfather I never knew. If you factor in his use of language – words like balderdash and phrases like “preening buffoons” and “lily-livered cowards” – he’s the great-great grandfather I never knew…

Read the rest on AOL. Lou Dobbs: The Haters Are Wrong.

If Democrats don’t want gays and lesbians to stay home in 2010 and 2012 (they don’t), they will pass at least a partial repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) sometime next year. President Obama explicitly promised to repeal DOMA during the 2008 campaign, and the Democratic leadership in Congress has also expressed support for repeal. Republicans can and must get out in front of this issue and pressure Democrats into a bipartisan agreement that would still protect the essential spirit of DOMA.

We can do that by supporting a libertarian, populist revision of DOMA — by introducing a Let the People Decide Act of 2010.

Here’s how it would work. The full faith and credit clause that prevents same-sex marriages from being forcibly exported to other states would be left completely intact. The clause that excludes same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships from federal rights and benefits would be repealed if and only if voters within a state approve some version of same-sex unions through ballot issues.

More beneath the fold…

On a partisan strategic level, a Let the People Decide Act would effectively beat Democrats to the punch and allow Republicans to reach out to libertarian and conservative gays and lesbians, as well as social moderates, without betraying the base. It would level the playing field, allowing both proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage to make their case directly to voters and then letting voters make the final decision. A Let the People Decide Act would effectively remove this issue from the Democratic campaign arsenal.

Within the party, it would allow the GOP to reclaim the mantle of the Big Tent by appealing to libertarians, conservatives, and moderates. What’s the appeal for opponents of same-sex marriage, you ask? In order for states to secure federal rights and benefits for same-sex unions, they would have to receive voter consent rather than bypassing voters through judicial activism or liberal legislatures beholden to special interests. A Let the People Decide Act would force states like Massachusetts to finally seek voter approval of same-sex unions.

While this would carry some risk for opponents of same-sex marriage, it must be remembered that in every state that has presented same-sex marriage to voters through the ballot it has been rejected. This most recently includes socially moderate Maine. While proponents of same-sex marriage would stand to potentially gain from a Let the People Decide Act, so would opponents in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and elsewhere. Whatever the outcome, at least both sides would have to be satisfied with the fact that voters — not judicial activists or legislators — made the decision.

On an ideological level, a Let the People Decide Act meshes well with the libertarian strain within the Republican Party. It would make a great addition to a platform that emphasizes freedom first and state sovereignty, and it would emphasize the federal government’s Tenth Amendment responsibility to place the power to decide this issue directly in the hands of the states and the people. This proposal would be federalist and libertarian at its core, emphasizing a Republican commitment to respecting the constitution.

There is valid disagreement within the Republican Party and among the people of the fifty states about the proper degree of recognition for same-sex marriage. The best way to iron out those disagreements and reach consensus is to encourage vigorous debate among voters at the state level. Let’s demand the right of the American people to express their values on this contentious issue. Let the People Decide.

Cross-posted to RedState.

November 9, 2009

An Essay: The Case for Palin

I’ve heard it all before… I’ve read it all before. I hear it and read it now too. So have you…

“Sarah Palin represents the very worst of America…”

“This woman is a complete moron…”

“She’s a brainless piece of excrement…”

“This woman is a village idiot, uneducated and inexperienced…”

“She’s despicable, emotionally unstable and a narcissistic wingnut…”

“She’s a far-right-wing nutjob with delusions of grandeur…”

“This lady is dangerous. George Bush in a dress…”

“She’s damaged goods…”

There is an obvious pack mentality to question everything about Ms. Palin and their spin is often transparent. We know the MSM gives Sarah negative press whenever they can and Obama a pass wherever possible (as attested to by the Washington Post’s own ombudsman). Of course, if former-Governor Palin really was the ignorant “hillbilly”, the “caribou Barbie” etc., etc., that those who perceive themselves to possess superior intelligence to her proclaim, then neither of the elites in both parties would be trying to label and libel her to the extent that they are so doing.

Yet, the MSM continue to publish unflattering stories trying to vilify Palin and many in the GOP party establishment, mindful of her polarizing persona and the devastating caricatures would prefer she remain in Alaska and leave the party rebuilding to others who may appeal to the broad ‘middle’ of the country. The dirty little secret about Sarah is that she represents everything the beltway snobs hate; normalcy, unabashed conservatism, and absence of an Ivy League pedigree; Palin does not hobnob with the Beltway elite establishment on K Street. She is no friend to the liberal eastern, urban bias.

To them, the strategy to ridicule Palin is a tactic intended to discourage her from any attempt to seek national influence; Palin upsets their apple cart which represents a threat to all the blue blood Republicans – even after being the top GOP fundraiser in 2008. Yet, even after the constant attacks coming from the liberal media, White House and even those within her own party that cling to the old boys-club mentality, Palin has galvanized grassroots conservatives and has tapped into a growing fervor of principle over party. She’s shown too that one doesn’t need the press to get a message out.

Consider this: Compare Sarah with Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan. Both were beauty contestants; both governors. One was a successful, popular governor of a prosperous state, while the other is an increasingly unpopular governor of a state with a dismal economy and high unemployment. One utilized fiscal prudence; the other did not. One is conservative; one is liberal. One is ridiculed by the MSM, by Democrats and their followers; the other was on the short list for a Supreme Court nomination. Since the moment she burst onto the national scene, there has been an unparalleled effort amongst the so-called sophisticated elites to destroy Palin.

Unparalleled yes; but not unprecedented.

Unplugged & Unleashed

Throughout her life, Palin has always been underestimated. Anyone who writes her off does so at his or her own peril. If Palin has her eye on the White House, she’s staking out a different path toward it. Throwing the old GOP playbook out the window, it seems she believes that the modern political landscape has changed; old rules don’t apply and the conventional wisdom no longer exists. Palin has made few of the conventional moves befitting a presidential candidate-in-waiting: She’s rarely shown up at establishment party events, has made virtually no public appearances since she resigned the governorship, or granted no national media interviews and retained no political staff. That is, up until now – with her book tour. The tour is part of a carefully crafted strategy to leapfrog traditional media outlets and appeal directly to her dedicated and vocal fan base.

Palin clearly believes that the public image of her created by the media is fundamentally incorrect, and until only recently, had been seeking an end-run of the media through her Facebook, and in turn, speaking directly to her backers. But she will soon be hitting them head-on too. Palin’s memoir “Going Rogue: An American Life”, published on Nov. 17 and her book tour starts with well publicized interviews on the television circuit. She will be on Oprah, Barbara Walters, numerous ABC News broadcasts – “Good Morning America,” “Nightline” and “20/20″ and is scheduling interviews with others, including Rush Limbaugh and four Fox News Channel personalities: Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Greta Van Susteren. A slate of other speeches are expected to be scheduled in the weeks ahead too.

The book tour starts Nov. 18 at a Barnes & Noble in Grand Rapids, Mich., where Palin, and McCain made a campaign appearance last fall. Choosing Michigan as the first state on her book tour fits the book’s title, which refers to reports from last years campaign that the then-Alaska governor was defying McCain’s staff and instead had gone “rogue.” Palin openly expressed her unhappiness with the campaign’s decision to pull out of Michigan and effectively concede the state to Obama. With unemployment the highest of all states, the voters in Michigan will welcome and embrace Palin’s call. Other parts of the tour will mirror the 2008 race.

Palin will travel by bus adorned with large images of her face in an attempt to start connecting with supporters in the kinds of places she once described as “real America.” On her tours, you can expect her stops to turn into impromptu Palin rallies. It’s interesting to note that many of Palin’s book events are in states which 0bama carried; Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Michigan head the list. No stops are planned in the major cities and book-buying communities of Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and others where the voters tend to be Democrats. She will also be the Republican speaker at the Gridiron Club’s Winter Dinner on Dec. 5. The Gridiron dinner allows Palin to show her authenticity, humor, charm and self-deprecation with some of the top Eastern-elite and Beltway journalists. In a recent speech given last week at a Wisconsin Right to Life event, Palin was quoted as telling the crowd: “Don’t let anyone tell you to sit down and shut up.”

The Democrats’ strategy to marginalize Palin was always to shut her up, tie her down and bankrupt her family with frivolous ethics complaints while using Obama’s shadow government of warriors to ridicule her and her family. Unfortunately, Palin trumped that idea by resigning as Governor. It reportedly cost various state agencies $1.9 million over 6 months to handle the complaints as well as public records requests and nearly 6,000 hours of staff hours. The ethics charges seemed insurmountable and growing exponentially as a cost to the state. The decision seems not just prudent but self effacing for the purpose of helping Alaska that she resigned. Her resignation though, shows she is capable of unorthodox “out-of-the-box” thinking – one of the key differences between leaders and managers.

Palin has proven through her fast rise to the top of American politics that she has solid political instincts. By the same token, she has shot herself in the foot from time to time by relying too much on her gut at the expense of seasoned advice. Reagan made many foolish comments early-on because his team was new and he was poorly briefed. It’s fair to say that getting involved in a press release battle with a 19-year-old kid was not a decision that added to her gravitas. And, from Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe: authors of Sarah From Alaska: we learned that Palin did not adequately prepare for what turned out to be the less than flattering Katie Couric interview partially because she was overconfident.

With her book out, Palin will now go on her book tour, give select speeches and promote her common-sense principles and conservative populism all over the country in the midst of the Obama administration disaster; while gaining great political capital in the process. As contributions continue to pour-in to SarahPAC, she will support conservative and center-right common-sense candidates in 2010 amassing much more political capital. Palin said she was going to focus on her book tour through December, but planned to turn to politics and help party candidates starting in January. Scott Walker, the Milwaukee County executive and the Republican front-runner for WI governor in 2010, is the first reported instance of a GOP politician going to her and making his case in person as to why she should endorse him.

Sarah can get over the media trashing of the last year since the media themselves are not viewed in a favorable light. Her popularity problem is simple to understand: 1) the political double standard we know that exist. 2) the power and shamelessness of the MSM. Palin, like Reagan, will have to do it all on her own though. If she does want to run for President, she will have to take her message directly to the people, just like Reagan did. The GOP Elitists will not support her until they are forced to – just like Reagan. And, Palin needs to draw-in ‘less government’ independents. After all, her most ardent backers will continue to support her no matter what. Palin, it seems, now has a strong core group of politicos to give her guidance.

History repeats itself

Palin is viewed by the RNC establishment, as the most potentially dangerous threat to their hold on the power and control infrastructure of the party since Reagan. Looking back at history, you see resemblances of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in Palin. Both Thatcher and Reagan were dismissed and insulted by their own party stalwarts as well as their opponents. The viciousness of the attacks on Palin is testimony to the degree of panic her persona has generated in leftist circles. Like Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher before her, Mrs. Palin is confronting both barrels of left-wing contempt: misogyny and snobbery. There are few sights more hair-raising than the liberal pack in full cry.

As Peter Heck has elegantly pointed out, there are parallels between Reagan and Palin. The media attempted to downplay Reagan’s intellect as they have Palin’s. Reagan was also the target of ageism as Palin has become the target of sexism. Reagan was termed a radical while Palin is called a far right-wing religious nut. Reagan was proclaimed politically dead after his term ended as governor while Palin has been labeled finished after resigning her governorship. Like Reagan before her, Palin is a gifted public speaker and a former small-market sports broadcaster. And, the camera loves Palin like it loved Reagan.

Reagan too bypassed the filter of the liberal media by using TV and radio appearances to address fundamental issues of the day. Palin is accomplishing the same thing through her utilization of new social media’s such as Facebook and Twitter. And of course, the intellectuals and elite media didn’t just consider Reagan ‘unqualified’ but ‘nowhere near presidential.’ They considered him a “howling idiot”, a “reactionary kook” and a “warmonger.” Columnist William Grieder summed up the sentiment of many reporters at the time: “My God, they have elected this guy who nine months ago we thought was a hopeless clown. There is something going on here we don’t understand.”

Many pundits called Reagan an ‘ignoramus” opined John Osborne in the New Republic in 1980. Warned the Nation on 1980: ‘he is a menace to the human race.’ He was seen as a man of another era, a curious relic, classified as the “most dangerous person to ever come this close to the presidency.” Even within the GOP Party, many viewed him with sneering condescension. Such disdain from the establishment, far more harshly expressed in private, betrayed a broad sentiment that Reagan was a hopeless amateur among seasoned professionals; a witch doctor in the field of skilled surgeons.

Mrs. Thatcher too was looked down on her small town, lower-middle-class background and her religiously strict background. The arguments against her were plenty: She had no experience in foreign policy, defense or national security matters and most of her expertise was in domestic issues such as education. Like Palin, the old-boy network was united against her, but she took on the leadership in her own party. Like Palin, the intellectual and political establishment disdained Thatcher. Thatcher, like Palin, was not an accommodating or compromising politician of principles. In Alaska, Republican leaders tried to stop Palin from going after corruption in her own party. Her unyieldingness upset the don’t-rock-the-boat Republicans in control.

Dismissed as a “grocer’s daughter,” Britain’s Thatcher sparked the ire particularly of the academic left who called her “Attila the Hun in a skirt.” In Palin, those nicknames start with “Caribou Barbie” and “Pit-bull with Lipstick.” At first, conservative leaders did not know how to deal with Thatcher. As her biographer, Chris Ogden of Time magazine, observed, “Her rivals’ experience with women was limited to aristocratic wives and demure and acquiescent females.” Over time, Thatcher struck a resonant chord with Conservative Party constituencies and won the party leadership.

Reagan, Thatcher and Palin: Three demonized peas in a pod.

Yet admirably, Sarah Palin has never played herself off as a victim. In fact, Palin deflects criticism with a smile better than anyone I have ever seen beside Ronald Reagan. And, Reagan wasn’t very popular with moderates and independents at first, either; a voting block Palin must capture as she navigates the political landscape moving forward – starting with her upcoming book tour interviews. But what people don’t recognize is that both Palin and Reagan understood the importance of compromise. Reagan negotiated and compromised with Tip O’Neil on a consistent basis while Palin was bipartisan in Alaska with the legislature. Neither abandoned their principles. Reagan was dealing with a Democrat majority. He had to compromise in order to accomplish anything. Palin dealt with a corrupt Republican majority in the Alaska Legislature and found compromise with Democrats.

But, it seems the GOP elitists are forgetting Palin’s recent history in Alaska too: Palin dismantled the ‘good ol’ boys’ network in Alaska. Palin moved into the governor’s mansion in 2006 on a platform of reform and change, having developed a reputation as a whistleblower after calling out the chair of the state GOP and the state’s Republican attorney general on ethics grounds. She took on the Republican Party chairman, Gov. Frank Murkowski’s attorney general, Murkowski’s daughter, Sen. Ted Stevens’ son, the North Slope oil producers such as BP, Conoco-Phillips, Exxon-Mobil, and finally Murkowski himself – and won.

Beyond Murkowski , she also beat out a former Democrat Gov. Tony Knowles; two of the most prominent establishment power-brokers in the state. After she got into office she started going after corrupt legislators. With the FBI’s help, seven people were sent to prison and fined by the state, several more indicted and the “Corrupt Bastard’s Club” as they arrogantly called themselves were dismantled. As a champion for ethics reform, Palin’s first legislative action after taking office was a bipartisan ethics-reform bill; signed in 2007, and calling it a “first step”, declaring that she remained determined to clean up Alaskan politics.

What many neglect to grasp is how Palin always has taken a keen interest in ethics. She also stood toe-to-toe with top executives from Exxon-Mobil, Conoco-Phillips, and BP too helping to change the relationship between the companies, and the state, for the better. It’s a well-known fact she cleaned house with a bite radius of a great white shark. For Palin, the outsider role is not really new. She had cast herself before as the new candidate, the fresh face, the good old boys’ worst enemy. She refused to play by the status quo rules; so it is no surprise that she will not play the MSM rules, the Democrat rules, or the Republican rules.

Common Sense Conservatism

I am, to begin with, an admirer of Ms. Palin — the real Sarah Palin that is, not the creature of myth. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Palin phenomenon is that the mythical version, a caricature of Palin as a valley-girl dolt, an arch-conservative, especially on the governing of social issues, and an opportunist almost to the point of know-nothingism; a caricature that has been embraced by many in the Republican Party as avidly as by her arch enemies.

But the caricature has little to do with Palin’s actual record as a public servant. What people and the MSM fail to understand about Palin is although she is a champion of social issues in her personal life her record in office does not reflect her governing on a social agenda. I seriously doubt she would support federal dollars being spent overseas for abortions, but I don’t see her on a mission to reverse Roe vs. Wade either. Her actions, if given a chance will be much more subtle. She will wait until she hears that call from the will of the people, if the opportunity presents itself.

The real Sarah is a populist conservative; a common-sense fiscal conservative; and a corruption-busting reformist. As governor, she dismantled the good old-boy’s network, reformed government, pursued energy independence and executed fiscal restraint. In response to Obama’s announcement of a December Job’s Summit, Palin, using historical facts and logic, and applying them to Obama’s request for “any demonstrably good ideas”, honors Reagan by suggesting to the Obama Administration to follow the example of the man who occupied the White House in 1983: “If you want real job growth, cut taxes – including capital gains taxes and small business payroll taxes – and slay the death tax once and for all.” No doubt, Palin is also an energy expert. If you only know three things that Sarah Palin accomplished as Governor of Alaska, it should be these three:

1. You should do yourself a favor and research about Palin and her involvement to bring about the Alaska Highway pipeline which TransCanada Corp is going to build. It is not only impressive but the natural gas pipeline will contribute 6%-8% of the USA’s natural gas needs. Given that Iran, Russia, and Qatar are in the process of building a natural gas cartel, Palin won a geopolitical economic war against our enemies. And she thumped ExxonMobil, ConnocoPhillips, and BP in the process! That’s brilliance.

To do this, she had to break the monopoly power of the big energy companies by opening the project to competitive international bidding. Gov. Palin’s vigorous action – calling special sessions of the state legislature and injecting herself directly and vigorously into the process – had ended the deadlock in ways that seem certain to benefit consumers. By this accomplishment, Gov. Palin had done more to advance the cause of American energy independence than any other politician – of any party, and at any level of state or federal government – in this century. But the national media have generally ignored this accomplishment.

2. Gov. Palin used her line-item veto to slash hundreds of millions of dollars in spending from the state budget. In considering this accomplishment, keep in mind that the Alaska Legislature is controlled by the GOP, meaning that the funding she cut had already been approved by legislators of her own party. Nevertheless, she made her vetoes stick. The sign of a real fiscal conservative is how they handle the difficult times. Palin cut Alaska’s budget and took significant steps to slow government growth and achieve savings on top of having a $6 Billion surplus. While banking hundreds of millions for a rainy day, Palin proposed a fiscal 2010 budget that was only a scant 1% larger than the budget for the 2009 fiscal year. She also limited pay personnel increases to 2% while refusing a pay increase for herself. She then turned around with a 7% cut in overall spending and a 57% cut in capital spending projects. That is not just a cut in projected increases. But an actual real cut:

The Total Percentage Cuts in her last Operating Budget: 13.4%

The Total Percentage Cuts in her last Capital Budget: 31.7%

The Total Percentage Cuts in her last Overall Budget: 16.8%

When it comes to budgets, holy batman, this is a fairly large number. And, this budget included a large percentage of the Obama stimulus funds in the operating and capital budgets. Clearly, Palin managed to make dramatic cuts to the budget beyond Obama’s stimulus funds. The point of the stimulus funds from the federal government was to increase spending. Some of the stimulus funds were inserted by the Governor (mostly in the capital budget) and the rest inserted by the state legislature (mostly in the operating budget).

Although Alaska has traditionally been more dependent than other states on federal funding (since the federal government owns such a large portion of the state’s property and resources), even the often-critical Anchorage Daily News admits that Gov. Palin has “increasingly distanced herself from earmarking” since 2006, and that her having done so over the past year has been “the leading source of tension between Palin and the state’s three-member congressional delegation.” She also reduced Alaska’s earmark requests by nearly 85% – proving that she was one of the strongest anti-earmark governors in America – and medical backlogs by 83%. In her final year as Governor, Palin requested 8 projects or $69 million in earmarks compared to 63 or $350 million in earmarks in Murkowski’s last year. Actually exercising fiscal discipline in a time of plenty, at both state and federal levels and against the will of the members of her own party, is a better predictor for how she would actually govern on a national level than ten thousand campaign promises.

3. Gov. Palin also kept her campaign promise to revamp the state’s pre-existing severance tax on oil & gas production, replacing a structure negotiated behind closed doors by ethically challenged predecessors and the big energy companies with one negotiated in full public view — and then rebated part of the resulting surplus directly to tax-payers. Severance taxes are a kind of property tax charged on a one-time basis, at the time of production, on subsurface assets (like oil, gas & minerals) which can’t be quantified and taxed through regular property taxes. There was widespread resentment and distrust over the version negotiated by Gov. Palin’s predecessor with the three big energy companies who’ve traditionally ruled the roost in Alaska – Exxon-Mobil, Conoco-Phillips, and BP.

The new version negotiated and passed with Gov. Palin’s support was thoroughly disinfected by the sunshine of public scrutiny. Although it’s not a “windfall profits tax” – indeed, the base rate only went from 22.5% to 25% – it did permit the Alaskan people to share in a larger portion of the current high prices for oil by raising the additional, progressive portion of the tax from 0.25% to 0.40% on revenues between $32.50 and $90/bbl. Above that, however, the new law actually cut taxes by dropping the rate on revenues above $90/bbl to 0.1%. With the resulting budget surplus, after contributing to the state’s fund for that future day when its oil & gas wealth is exhausted, she pressed for and got legislation to rebate a healthy chunk directly to tax-payers on a per capita basis, trusting them to spend the proceeds from this sale of the state’s commonly-owned resources rather than trusting government to spend it for them.

Beyond her promise to end corruption in state government, Palin made other promises too; reduce earmark spending and provide transparency and accountability in state Government. She’s redeemed those promises in her 2 ½ years. She also spent over $913,000 less on personal expenses in her first two years than former Governor Frank Murkowski did his last two years. For Palin, upholding the Alaskan Constitution took precedence over everything she did, even her own core values. She is a constitutional originalist. In fact, in an interview with CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo, Palin stated: “My Bible is the State Constitution”. A lifetime member of the NRA, she is a strong proponent of Second Amendment rights. No doubt, she is a recognized authority on energy issues.

Palin is pro-American, pro-Constitution, pro-gun, pro-children, pro-capitalism advocate who is the antithesis of Obama. She understands that marginal tax rates are too high and many federal-mandated programs are counter-productive. She initially rejected $288 million of the $930 million of Obama’s federal stimulus package but later moved to accept those funds, except for the $28 million for energy-efficiency spending. Her veto of those dollars was eventually overturned by the legislature. Anyone who thinks Palin is a lightweight hasn’t researched her governing background in Alaska or read the nearly nine-page excerpt of her 90 minute Hong Kong speech, now posted on her Facebook account, which she gave from notes, not teleprompter.

Looking Forward

The lady who shares the beliefs of limited government, low taxes, family values, free enterprise and American exceptional-ism must now start to demonstrate the intellectual framework of her agenda; a clear intellectual understanding of the issues and enduring summation of her political philosophy that effect voters. If she can articulate the problems of this country, and map their common sense solutions the way Reagan was able to articulate simple explanations of complex matters, she will be a force to the establishment and liberals alike. Like Reagan, Palin is a grassroots campaigner – and her grassroots campaigning has silently begun.

To start, Palin’s new strategy of touring through small towns and mid-size cities, designed to both maximize sales of her book and rally grassroots; and her decision to go on shows such as Oprah, Barbara Walters and cable shows – part of a reintroduction of herself – is a decision that will come to be seen as a brilliant counterstroke to the death by a thousand cuts to the Democrats who are attacking her. Combined with other newly deployed strategies of buying Internet advertising based on Google searches of her name, and using Facebook as the key means of communicating with voters, serves as a warm-up for what promises to be a starring role in next year’s midterm elections and, if her supporters get their wish, the next presidential race.

One can predict the book, its tour, and the publicity surrounding it will improve her favorability, and demonstrate that she’s more intelligent than the media has acknowledged. While a majority of Americans view Palin as honest and trustworthy; two thirds believe she is a good role model for women, more than 70% believe she is not qualified to be president. And a recent NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll finds a statistically significant drop in her favorability numbers since July; only 26% of Americans have a positive response to her versus 42% who regard her with suspicion.

This is amazingly similar to what was being said about Reagan in‘78 and ‘79. At the time, powerful congresswoman, Pat Schroeder, compared Reagan to an ‘amiable dunce.’ In an attempt to upstart her reform persona on the national stage, Palin will attempt to win over persuadable voters such as disaffected independents, unaffiliated moderates, libertarians while peeling away margins in the youth vote, non-white, pro-life and Regan Democrats. Already, grassroots conservatives who vote in Republican primaries provide Palin with a nearly 70% favorability. If Palin can lock down and retain her fervent grassroots following and capitalize on the disaffected Tea Party voting bloc ahead of the primary season, she will face a smoother course to the nomination.

And there are other parallels too with Reagan. In a 2008 poll, where voters who described themselves as liberal amounted to 22 per cent of voters, moderates to 44 per cent, and conservatives to 34 per cent. That is almost uncannily similar to a poll quoted by Mr. Reagan some 30 years ago: “A Harris poll released Sept. 7, 1975, showed 18 per cent identifying themselves as liberal and 31 per cent as conservative, with 41 per cent as middle of the road.” So it reasons that Palin will begin to court less partisan-charged voters, or at least avoid alienating them.

To do so, Palin will not try to court the GOP establishment to her way of thinking but instead will capture the movement of the Tea Party activists and grassroots. She already has displayed the ability to draw crowds and raise money. She already has shown she is deft at going on the attack. And, for all her faults, Palin is smart enough to know that having a million friends/fans on Facebook is like having a marketing/information-dissemination army on your side, ready with the click of a mouse to do your bidding. With a low threshold for news, anything she does will be reported. Palin is now pilot of her own plane which seeds her authenticity.

Obama clearly considers FDR a model and inspiration; his belief that as Roosevelt led America out of a great economic depression, Reagan lifted a traumatized country out of a great psychological depression, induced earlier by the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., and sustained by the Vietnam War, the scandal of Watergate, and the malaise of Jimmy Carter. Reagan used the same political instruments as Roosevelt – the major address to Congress and the fireside chat with the people – and the same optimistic, uplifting rhetoric. But although both Roosevelt and Reagan appealed to the best in America, there was a significant philosophical difference between the two Presidents: Roosevelt turned to government to solve the problems of the people, while Reagan turned to the people to solve the problems of government.

And Palin will turn to the people too; conservative grassroots, libertarians, fiscally responsible independents and Tea Party movement activists, to solve the problems of runaway government. This is a platform from which Sarah can take hold. With her emphasis on ethics and openness in government, Palin is capable of reviving a modern-era Reagan coalition of the entrepreneurial middle-class and blue-collar workers who unite traditional economic conservatives (that believe in smaller government and tax relief) with blue-collar workers who hold traditionalist views on culture or morality. Like Reagan, Palin has the ability to communicate and explain why our society and ideals are worth preserving. Palin will fight for principles over party.

In a reversal of bad fortunes, while it has not been talked about, you can expect Palin to redeem herself and sit across the seat from Katie Couric again – when the timing is right – dispelling the notion she is an air head. Couric got Palin to argue on bad ground, and Palin didn’t think quickly enough to challenge Couric’s assumptions. That won’t happen again. This time, she will not be looking over her shoulder at McCain and Palin speaking her mind is more appealing than orchestrated answers to appease McCain’s policies. In a June interview, Couric told Usmagazine.com: “If I get the opportunity, I’d be thrilled to talk to her again.” You’ll get your chance Katie.

From a big picture standpoint, the Republican congressional strategy in 2010 is aimed at retaking centrist districts where Democrats have sometimes won election by persuading voters that they aren’t beholden to liberals such as Ms. Pelosi. A major part of the GOP’s 2010 electoral strategy will be linking vulnerable Democrats to Pelosi. The NRCC aired about a dozen television and radio ads during Congress’s August break linking Democrats in conservative or centrist districts to Ms. Pelosi, often noting how often the lawmaker voted with her. The NRCC plans a similar run of ads over the Thanksgiving break. Palin would benefit by aligning herself with viable traditional fiscal conservatives who possess the pedigree and chances at winning in their districts. Here, Palin will use SarahPAC to support local and national candidates who share Palin’s ideas and goals for the country.

Should Palin run and get to the nomination, Palin will have to successfully remake (or polish) her image to independents from what it has been over the past 14 months and in an effort to demonstrate her abilities in winning over a larger proportion of the electorate. Significantly, she’ll have to be ready to take serious questions as to why, if she resigned a little over halfway through her term as governor of one of our most sparsely populated states, she now thinks she is capable of leading a nation of 300 million people. Palin’s resignation speech was somewhat rambling, fraught with emotion and was an enormously missed opportunity. Her resignation speech should have been a memorable philosophical statement akin to Ronald Reagan’s speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential campaign.

The Gipper’s speech was an eloquent and enduring summation of his political philosophy and while it did little to help his candidate, it catapulted him onto the national political stage and laid out his governing vision. It was known among his staff simply as “the speech” and he would give variations of it for the rest of his career. Yet, Palin has been vilified like no other in the press, her family ridiculed, trashed and minimized; countless ethic violation charges and frivolous lawsuits filed against her; over $1.9 million in state agency cost for complaint and public records requests, etc. Palin resigned as Head of the Alaska Oil and Gas commission too and somehow, in spite of this resignation supposedly ruining her career, she still became Governor. Conservative Republicans are the least fazed by Palin’s decision to resign. Just 37% think she’s hurt her chances of winning the nomination, compared to 52% of moderate Republicans. Palin will have to make nice with the moderates in the next year or two.

Historical Perspective: Rove 2004 Base Strategy

It’s really interesting to see how Bush won. In 2004, 37% of voters were Democrats, and 37% were Republican, which left 26% Independent or Unaffiliated. Kerry won the Independents by a slim margin. So how did Bush win by 3%? Nearly twice as many Democrats voted for Bush – as did Republicans for Kerry. Karl Rove was able to capture a larger proportion of the electorate and support among Republicans – and among conservatives; over 90 percent in fact, larger than Reagan in ‘84. “Compassionate conservatism” was the notion that brought Bush to power the first time around, and it was almost the opposite the second time around. Forget about the compassionate conservatism; this was a pure and simple play to the Republican conservative base and enfranchising ‘lazy Republicans”.

The goal was to capture an equal number of Republicans on Election Day as Democrats; if they were successful, the Rove team felt that they would win the election, no matter what happened among the shrinking persuadable voters which had dwindled from 20% to 7% in their analysis. The Christian Coalition was bypassed in favor of going directly to local Christian churches. This had never been done before. Four million evangelicals had gone to the polls for Bush in 2000 but four million did not. The mobilization of individual churches resulted in evangelicals not only coming on board, but campaigning, volunteering at polls, canvassing and working the phone banks. With base motivation as important as swing; all decisions influenced every Rove decision; targeted mail, phones, media, travel, organization, staff – all focused on base.

Roves methodology; utilizing benchmarks or ‘metrics’ enabled him on election day 2004 to realize before anyone else did – that Bush would win. In 2001, Rove set out to enlarge the electorate by consolidating rural votes through new voter registrations programs and target its reach of traditional Republicans. Along the way, they discovered that 85% of Republicans did not live in Republicans precincts; only 15% did. Sophisticated analysis of what magazines people read, brand of cars they owned, where they lived; a combination of what issues they were interested in were gathered, analyzed, scrubbed and put into a central data bank.

If somebody received Field and Stream, it was learned that they were much more likely to be a Republican voter than a Democratic voter. If someone got Rolling Stone, they’re much more likely to be a Democratic voter. Somebody that watched CSI was much more likely to be a Republican versus someone that watched soap’s during the day. People who drank Coors beer, had Caller ID and watched Fox News, when aggregated, all tended to be Republicans, and so on. Once they identified their target constituencies they then aggregated every possible technique to discover how actually to get those people to vote through paid phone banks, messaging and canvassing. The ‘01 and ‘02 elections tested theories and tactics.

In the end, the Rove team figured out ways to go into the Democratic base and peel away votes. Their messaging became more effective at targeting and getting swing voters – the independents – and conservatives increased their participation level as a proportion of the electorate. The Rove team improved performance among people that lived in big cities by 13 points, from 26 to 39 percent; African Americans by 1.5%, Jewish Americans by 5%; hispanics by 9% and even women went up. Across the political spectrum, they not only appealed to the red areas, but made them redder while also turning blue areas purple. Their model was a bottom-up structure, a grassroots structure designed to bring more people into the party, enfranchise more naturally Republican voters and increase percentage in nontraditional Republican voting demographics.

But with base motivation now as important as swing, they reevaluated their mix of putting 80 percent of their resources into persuasion and only 20 percent into base motivation. While they fought to do fairly well among the 6 or 7% persuadable, (analysis showed 93 or 94% were going to be already decided either for Bush or against) they felt they could lose the 6 or 7% and still win the election, which was fairly revolutionary thinking, considering the historical perspective and prior focus on swing votes. What Rove attempted to sheppard in was a durable majority, not a permanent majority. Having just barely won in 2000 with 271 electorate votes, Bush took away 286 in 2004.

How do we grow the electorate in a way that is beneficial to the president? By hardening the base, by everything being aimed at the base of the evangelicals and the social fundamentalists, with minimal effort to reach out to the independents, what cost to governance is there and what cost to the future of the party would there be? Bush won by only a three-point margin not an electoral landslide; Clinton was elected by 8, Reagan by 18, Nixon by 23. And, as we witnessed in 2008, the movement of a handful of states pushed the presidency back to the Democrats. In 2008, McCain lost over 7% of evangelicals and Obama did 10% better than Kerry with church-goers. McCain too lost 6.2 million more votes than Bush and in Georgia, McCain barely mustered 7% to Bushes 19%. And, by a crushing 6 to 1 margin, those young that were polled said Obama, 47, understood “the problems of people our age” better than McCain, 72. Palin, well aware of these statistics, won’t let history repeat itself.

The Rove base strategy is one that Palin can leapfrog from. Palin has shown her ability to connect with the evangelical, social fundamentalists and conservative base, and she knows how to inspire donors to write checks. As VP candidate, Palin made more than 130 stump stops in a hundred plus cities in more than 25 states while also running Alaska. The McCain campaign raised $4.4 million in the first 12 hours after Palin was introduced and debuted as his running mate, and by the end of that weekend, the total was $10 million. The Rove base will transcend and rally around Palin but, it will be up to Palin’s conservative populist agenda to then attract the middle to her way of thinking. Reagan brought the middle-class over to his way of thinking by having a kind of populist agenda. The difference is that he replaced the struggle of the common man with the elite with the struggle of the common man against a wasteful, intrusive, and bloated government. Palin can duplicate this road map.

The Road Map

To give you an idea of the power of independents, take a look at Nov. 3rd NJ and VA elections, the results should be a wake-up call to both red state Democrats and blue state Democrats as well. Of significance was the overall shift away from Democrats in Virginia (13 points), New Jersey (12) and Pennsylvania (8). As Dick Morris points out, in Virginia, the outcomes in 1993 and 2009 were almost identical; a precursor to 2010. And in New Jersey, the parallels between 1993 and 2009 were equally striking. And, Obama is the most divisive partisan politician we have ever seen. That won’t change.

To put in perspective, roughly a 7% shift in the voting electorate and John McCain would be president. With Obama’s poor polling, that seven-point shift is in play now. And as Karl Rove points out, even a five point shift would have drastically changed the make-up of Congress. There are more than eighty (80) Democratic congressmen and 20 senators that come from states that John McCain carried in 2008. This is where the congressional battles will be fought in 2010. And, if Pelosi and Reid have their way, we will soon be witnessing many of their Marxist comrades casting their career-ending votes for health-care reform.

Disaffected independents are critical for any GOP rebound in 2010 and 2012. Just as Republicans can’t win with the culture conservative base alone, they can’t win without them either. The same is true with independents. Through her trademarked maverick persona, Palin will begin to court centrist and disenfranchised independents and “unaffiliated” voters – those that have a jaundiced view of government bureaucracy and big business – with a message that favors the individual and small business, the efficacy of the free market and a willingness to work with the opposing party. Her personal traits of integrity and managerial competence will establish a frame of stability and order for the future as she addresses real-life concerns rather than repositioning issues along the ideological spectrum. To Palin’s benefit; deficits, bailouts, jobs, economy and wasteful government spending will be the new culture war in 2010 and 2012.

Reform is embedded in Palin’s political soul. As she challenges the status quo of the party establishment and as Obama loses more and more independent voters frustrated independents will withdraw from the Obama Administrations turmoil and risk in favor of a safe pair of hands. But, the young will need swaying too. The most lopsided contest within an age-group in any presidential election in modern times was in the under 30 age-groups where 66% of the vote went to Obama. And, of the approximate 10 million Latinos who went to the polls in 2008, 67% voted for Obama. That was up 13% from Kerry’s 53%. In the end, Obama won because blacks, the youth and independents backed him.

In early 2008, during the primary season, women said they would have backed Hillary Clinton over McCain by 18 percentage points, bigger than Obama’s 12-point advantage with them. Whites favored McCain over Obama by 12% but leaned toward the Republican by a narrower 5% against Clinton; 86% of blacks would have backed Clinton – solid, but shy of the 95% who supported Obama. Clinton almost matched the two-thirds of people under-age 30 who voted for Obama, but nearly one in 10 of them said they wouldn’t have bothered voting at all. This reflects too few party faithful in the GOP and a potential challenging hurdle for Palin to overcome – should either run – would be the injection of Hillary in the race in 2012.

To start, winning the White House against an incumbent is more difficult than in an open-seat year. A compelling fact to this is when an incumbent runs the party in power wins about two of every three times, but when the seat is open the party in power wins only about half the time. As Tom Schaller of FiveThirtyEight.com points out, since World War II, there have been 10 elections (leaving out LBJ not running in ’68 or it would be 11) in which the incumbent–whether he won a first term or succeeded to the White House by death or resignation–has run for re-election: ‘48, ‘56, ‘64, ‘72, ‘76, ‘80, ‘84, ‘92, ‘96 and ‘04. And the incumbent, and thus the party in power, won seven times. So, from a statistical standpoint, if Palin is seeking higher office she might want to wait until she is not running against an incumbent president who enjoys the many advantages that incumbency provides. History says the odds are better if you wait. Yet, incumbents lost the Presidency in 1976 (Ford), 1980 (Carter), and 1992 (Bush I).

A historical precedent that is even more predictive of Obama’s reelection is that only once in the last 112 years has control of the White House switched parties and then switched back four years later (Carter ‘76/Reagan ‘80). Every other time (since the nonconsecutive terms of Grover Cleveland) that control of the White House switched parties, it did not switch back for at least 8 years. But, that was then and this is now. Three years is a long way away – and if there was ever an example of fortunes changing within a year – all you have to do is look at Virginia, NJ and Pennsylvania’s elections last week (Nov. 3) as a 13, 12 and eight points shift respectively. The public mood of the electorate is ripe for a Palin run as we have seen how a change in public sentiment can work both for you and against you. Palin is not a conventional candidate and these are not conventional times.

Moreover, recent polling shows too that the mood of the country is ripe for a reversal; 66% of voters nationwide say they’re angry about current government policies; 61% believe the nation is heading in wrong direction; and 83% now believe that ethics and corruption is the key electoral issue placing it just ahead of the economy at 82%. Rasmussen too reported on Nov. 8th that 58% of the American people believe the next US President will be Republican, and 52% say Republicans are most likely to gain seats in Congress in next year’s mid-term elections. Americans too now believe that just 4% of politicians keep their campaign promises. Yes, you read that right – four percent.

Republicans too have now jumped to a 6% lead on the Generic Ballot even while their party ID has fallen. And, for the first time, voters are now blaming Obama nearly as much as Bush for the country’s economic problems (49%-45%). A continued trajectory of Obama’s performance bodes well for all GOP candidates and Palin. The big difference being political operatives do not spend critical time and money throwing mud against unsuccessful VP candidates who are merely irritating, inept or inconsequential. Compare the ongoing fixation with Sarah Palin to the post election coverage of Dan Quayle or Geraldine Ferraro. If Palin is able to get past the relentless, hostile smear campaigns and capture the country’s anger and discontent, Palin will find success in determining a path to the nomination.

The power of the incumbency is something that must not go unnoticed though. Obama may be weakened by 2012, but if you think of weak incumbents who have won re-election, just because he’s weak doesn’t mean he won’t win. George W. Bush was weak in 2004, but he faced a weak John Kerry, and was able to win. Bill Clinton wasn’t terribly popular in 1996, but he won against a weak Bob Dole. Harry Truman was supposed to lose in 1952, but he was able to pull it out against Thomas Dewey, who didn’t inspire anybody. It takes more than a weakened incumbent for people to want to make a change. Even if people are even moderately satisfied with where things are, history shows they’ll keep the guy who is in charge instead of risking a change. Even a tarred and feathered Obama can beat a weak challenger because people don’t want change. History has shown it takes an awfully lot of bad things to happen for the American voter to want change. With Palin stepping-up and speaking out of her “Reaganesque” principles, in 2012, the contrast will be clear.

The route to victory in the primary process is usually one of building momentum early and becoming “inevitable.” If the GOP wants to gain the independent vote, they must do so by creating momentum. History shows independents go where the momentum is (Reagan 80, Bush 04, Obama 08). You cannot develop momentum unless your base is creating it (it did not for McCain in ‘08). A grassroots conservative movement is already influencing the opinion of independents, who traditionally have always been strong fiscal stalwarts anyway. The TEA parties have served to rally independents and conservatives against Obama’s more liberal policies.

If Palin survived the early primaries and goes to Super Tuesday, she’d pick up huge numbers of delegates from southern, some western and even mid-western states and may be able to overcome the fact that the northeast might shut her out. If you do the math, the votes are there if she plays her cards right. But, it will be a battle with the GOP establishment who still holds influence. The only time the party nominated a non-establishment candidate for president in the last century was Goldwater in 1964, and his defeat meant they might not venture outside of their ranks again. Palin is a non-establishment candidate. But, the party underestimated the resolve and force of the tea party movement and the establishment will underestimate Palin’s resolve and force with the grassroots.

The grassroots is looking to champion a leader with true conservative roots and by bucking the establishment in NY23, Palin showed she is that champion. But a political reality is that going forward Hispanics will have to play a bigger role in keeping the GOP competitive nationally. Yet, if Palin does not take a strong stance against those who are here illegally she will lose her base. She did support Rep. Lynn’s HB3 Visa/Drivers License law in Alaska which stated if you don’t have a legal right to walk down a street, you shouldn’t have a legal right to drive. Hispanics are projected to become 20% of the electorate by 2020 and Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona all boast heavy Latino populations.

Electability

The 2008 election was a referendum on Bush II and the economy – the next election in 2012 will be a referendum on Obama and the economy. Obama blew out McCain in high-unemployment states like Michigan, Oregon and Nevada – states which are normally much more competitive. He won, to much surprise, Indiana and North Carolina, two states with unemployment rates well above the national norms but have growing Hispanic populations. In 2008, the Latino vote made the difference in the outcome of three states: New Mexico, Indiana and North Carolina where Obama lost non-Hispanic voters by a slim margin but was put over the top by Hispanic votes. But, in 2012, Obama will face a whole new voting block of the electorate; those who have not participated and voted in prior elections.

In the southwest, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado render the biggest challenges for the Republicans to recapture the White House – but the GOP can win without them. In an attempt to figure out which states the Republicans can win, we can start by looking at those states that John McCain won in 2008, which were worth 173 electoral votes (EV) last year, but will be worth at least 178 in 2012 after the census changes. Starting with that 178-EV baseline, and adding states back into the Republican column in reverse order of difficulty shows what Palin’s most plausible path to victory would be. Note: In 2008, you can subtract any state from Obama’s tally of EV votes, and he still would have won.

Indiana – Obama won by one-point in a small but heavily Democratic-leaning Hispanic population. Republicans won’t take the state for granted next time. Indiana was a state Bush won by 20 points. (11)

Virginia – No Democratic had won since Johnson in 1964. Obama’s had 2,000 transplanted volunteers from Maryland, Delaware and NY flood a single county for 2 straight days. The state came back home for the GOP in the 2009 Governors race. (13)

North Carolina – No Democrat seriously competed in NC since Bill Clinton in 1992, who lost the state by a point. NC’s high unemployment will surely play a role this time around. Obama won by one point. (15)

Ohio - Republicans could gain ground if they trump Obama on issues like NAFTA. And Rob Portman, the Senate candidate, is looking promising in Ohio polls. Ohio likely will lose one or two electoral votes in 2012 as a result of the 2010 census. Obama won by 5%. (19)

Florida – Latino population is still outweighed by Cuban versus Hispanic. Obama won only 57% of Florida’s Hispanic votes in 2008, his smallest margin among Latino votes. Obama beat McCain by 3%. (28)

If Palin is to reverse the fortunes of the above mentioned states, she would have 264 EV’s – 6 short of the 270 needed for victory. Looking at Iowa (6) and New Hampshire (4), one nice advantage the Republican nominee will have in 2012 is that candidates will have spent many months barnstorming through these states. The Republicans could lose NH and still win 270-268. Palin will fight for Michigan’s 16 electoral votes (high-unemployment state will lose one electorate) and as Iowa (6) goes, often so does Wisconsin (10) and Minnesota (10). If Palin can’t overcome the Hispanic vote in New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and even Arizona, Palin will have to pursue a middle-America strategy; the industrial belt to the deep south – leaving the coastal regions to the Democrats.

In any close race, you have to figure in Maine and Nebraska’s distributed electorate votes. The electoral map will change for the 2012 election, based on the results of the 2010 census. Texas (+3), Arizona (+1), Georgia (+1), Utah (+1) will gain while Louisiana loses one. Swing states Florida (+2) and Nevada (+1) gain, while Iowa, Missouri, Pennsylvania (-1) and Ohio (-2) lose. The reason why many of these states are gaining electoral votes is because their cities are expanding. Look at Nevada and Arizona for example. Their populations are expanding because people are moving out of California and into the metropolises of these states. Therefore, they are actually getting less conservative. Just look at what happened in Virginia and North Carolina in 2008.

Consider this too: What is the percent of White Evangelical Christians (WEC) in the GOP at the moment? In year 2000 it was 33%, in year 2006 it was 47%, in year 2008 it was 50% in the CNN exit polling. WEC’s make up 20% of the total electorate and they are big Palin fans. So if they are much above 50% then her nomination could be smooth (smoother during primaries if she siphons votes away from Huckabee). Is it possible that the decrease in Republican Party affiliation is caused by non-WEC’s leaving the party to become disinfected independents, resulting in the party base becoming increasingly homogenously WEC. Could percent WEC be as high as 60-70%? In 2004, the GOP got the vote out by riling up the religious right and wooing the moderate middle.

All those declaring 2012 already over because of the power of incumbency should remember that Bush I won in 1988 with over 400 EV’s and still got thrashed 4 years later. Obama had two distinct advantages going into 2008; he had no recognizable voting record in higher office to hang around his neck to define him; and he had a gigantic money advantage (well over 2-1). Where McCain never mentioned Obama’s “bitter clingers” comment, Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary sermons, Obama’s breaking his word to use public campaign financing and never mentioned Obama’s plan to “bankrupt” the US coal industry – Palin was ready to pounce. Had McCain just followed Hillary’s many tough arguments in the primaries he could have restored his fledging campaign. Palin has a cut in her jib; she knows when to take the gloves off; be the pit-bull wearing lipstick. Palin, it should be noted, has a spine. Sarah will be exceedingly popular among GOP candidates running for Congress in 2010.

McCain was the candidate of every Republican coalition partner except the Southern moralists and the religious right that make up the Solid South; a region that Palin will do well. He famously spat on them time and time again, and they were only happy to return the favor in 2008. Another fact which doomed McCain was his treasonous support of amnesty for illegal aliens. It will be critical for Palin to find solid footing on the immigration issue. As Obama stubbornly neglects the path that Bill Clinton took in moving to the center after his mid-term thrashing, GOP candidates and Palin will benefit from Obama’s ongoing liberal policies. The resulting contrast will be socialism versus conservatism. A Reagan Conservative brings all their bullet points to bear on the opposition, and do so with authority. Palin is a fighter that fights to win – unlike McCain.

Many didn’t predict an Obama win four years ago but some foresaw, two years ago, pretty confidently, that “Generic Democrat” was going to win in 2008. All Obama had to do, given Bush sentiment, the poor economy and financial meltdown, was get in the vicinity of that, and he had it in the bag. If Palin chooses to run for President, she’ll face the same scrutiny and similar primary questions, critique, and pressure that all candidates face; probably even more. The American public will get to see it all unfold, and then the electorate will decide. For those that believe Palin’s brand is hurt:

Not according to the most recent CNN/Opinion Research poll:

-65% believe she’s not a typical politician
-64% consider her a role model
-56% believe she cares about people like you (a question with which Republicans typically struggle)
-55% believe she’s honest and trustworthy

More from the CNN/Opinion Research poll: The country is split as to whether it generally agrees with Palin on issues it cares about (48/50). That’s pretty much the same split that is facing Obama where 48% of the country agrees with Obama on the issues that matter with 51% saying they do not agree. So the country doesn’t believe she’s any further to the right than it believes Obama is too far to the left. A fair reading of the CNN polling data is that a solid majority of the country admires and likes Palin but doesn’t believe she’s qualified for the top job. Those are perceptions Palin can change over the course of the next year much less three years. I don’t think anybody claims to be a walking encyclopedia on all issues so, if Palin were to win the GOP primary, and she still has a branding issue, you might expect the unconventional and see her possibly name certain cabinet members prior to the election. It will all be part of her belief of an open and transparent government.

To win general elections, ‘telegenic’ and ‘charasmatic’ candidates matters. Palin has a
magnetism that can’t be learned. She draws a crowd because people want to see and hear her. Moreover, governors rarely have “foreign policy experience.” How much experience in this realm did George W. Bush have? Bill Clinton? Ronald Reagan? Jimmy Carter? The answer is none because they were governors. The last VP nominee that met the requirements of “foreign policy experience” as defined by beltway think tanks and the elite-biased media was Dick Cheney. Palin was held to different standards than most, if not all, previous VP contenders. Just look at Barack Obama’s credentials. Expect Palin to travel as she did to Hong Kong to build credentials.

Closing

Voters in 2008 were looking for hope and change because of the economy, jobs, Bush sentiment and, to a lesser extent, Iraq. And, Obama’s activist agenda is in strong contrast to Bushes final 2-years. Now Obama’s approval rating drop is tied to the rising unemployment rate and a belief that he is not solving the nation’s economic problems. As long as consumer confidence lags, so will Obama’s numbers. While Obama falsely ran as the “anti-politician” his administration brought a political campaign approach to its policy agenda. This partially explains Obama’s rapid approval rating drop. But Palin will rally the ‘Reagan Democrats’ and ‘Tea Party activists’ and set the rules of engagement for the election battle. Her fortunes will be tied to what she stands for – not just what she is against.

Welcome to the longest election cycle in political history. Come January, all eyes will be on November, and those who have higher aspirations will begin revving up their activity in support of certain congressional districts in order to build momentum for 2012. By the time the 2012 election season rolls around, many will demand a new era of honesty politics and fervent in their expectation for transparency and accountability in government. Playing politics with bad policy will ultimately be Obama’s downfall. Bad policy often has ulterior motives… And, many too will realize that the same corrupt elected officials who got us in this mess will proclaim they’re the ones that will get us out of it. The landfills are littered with dishonest politicians.

Palin knows how to win elections and take on the establishment; she has a gut and instinct and was right for wanting to stay in Michigan in the ’08 campaign. If Palin was not hamstrung by the McCain team from “being herself” she probably would have been more comfortable in her role of VP instead of letting herself be pigeonholed like she was in interviews. Sarah knows that you can’t bring moderation to an ideology fight. McCain was a flawed candidate. McCain too, did not inspire people. Palin is a candidate who is inspiring; a true conservative who knows how to speak to the principles of common sense conservatism which will be critical in convincing the young, disenfranchised, independents and unaffiliated moderates. That is how, under her own control, she won and governed Alaska. Like Reagan, Palin understands the art of compromise but never abandons her ideals. And, in governing, she moderated her own culture beliefs and did not pursue a rigid social agenda.

In his run-up to his election, Reagan did ‘not’ speak to the core of conservatives but rather Reagan spoke his conservative principles to the core of America as a whole. Palin will follow the same trajectory as she did in Alaska in winning over Reagan Democrats. Is Palin the second calling of Ronald Reagan? If she is not a Ronald Reagan – maybe its because neither was Reagan – at age 45. To be exact, imperfections and all, I don’t think another Reagan in his exact form is in our future. However, Palin has it within her to become his equivalent as a leader. Simply put, the way she has made her way through life and politics tells me that she embodies the moral purpose and absolute fearlessness in defending without equivocation what she knows to be right. Sarah is a leader in waiting and Palin is a disciple of Reagan and Thatcher and it was their policies which led to a 30-year economic expansion.

Palin advocates the practical common-sense conservatism of Middle America. The center-right. She is capable of reviving a modern-era Reagan coalition of the entrepreneurial middle-class and blue-collar workers …. who unite traditional economic conservatives (that believe in smaller government and tax relief) with blue-collar workers who hold traditionalist views on culture or morality. Human, likeable, personable and witty like Reagan, with loads of common sense and confidence, Palin lives what she believes. Like Reagan, Palin has generated a lot of enthusiasm with the grassroots base just as the Gipper did before winning the hearts of the American people. Ronald Reagan is smiling.

Every candidate for office who takes on an incumbent runs on a message of change and reform. Few live-up to their promise. Sarah Palin ran against the political establishment in Alaska with the promise to clean up the self-dealing and corruption that had finally worn out the patience of Alaskan voters. She defeated an incumbent Republican governor and a popular former Democratic one, an impressive accomplishment in itself. But she didn’t just run as a reformer. She governed as one. While Governor, Palin never abandoned her fundamental beliefs for political expediency – something that will be in stark contrast to her primary opponents. Anyone who is more than a casual observer will, in time, see Palin’s ‘all in’ to defend this country against socialism and the attacks of the radical left.

Sarah Palin is hands down the most popular candidate among the GOP conservative grassroots base and Tea Party movement. However, the full court efforts to smear her by the state-run media and the string of bogus ethics complaints have successfully tarnished her brand in the center. I have never seen another GOP candidate who so effortlessly pushes nearly every single ideological and social hot button on the urban-elite left. Sarah terrifies them. Palin-haters and misguided newsmakers arrogantly fail to recognize that a great leader does not imply perfection. Palin astutely understands that imperfection is distinct from or unrelated to being a qualified leader. With an authentic heart and mind Palin stands tall among those who always seek out imperfections of others.

The question for Palin is whether she can reintroduce herself to the ‘center’ to fill the vacuum being left by the exodus of center and center-right independents from Obama’s radical policies and ingratiate herself with the party elites. She cannot win a general election if she cannot successfully do these things. Palin knows how to reposition herself. The late Lee Atwater, Reagan’s former campaign manger stated; that ‘inside polling reflected that Americans were undecided about Reagan until the final week of the election.’ This largest transfer of private wealth to public officials in US history will put the Republicans back in the race in 2010 and 2012 and to the libertarian, Palin is a particular attractive governing choice.

I have no doubt Palin is currently, albeit unofficially, running for President:

1) Sarah started her reintroduction process to the center with her book, her tour and appearances on Oprah, Barbara Walters, etc. Every Presidential candidate who later went on to win – took this path.

2) Sarah will be barnstorming the country picking up tokens raising money for 2010 GOP candidates. No singular person can match her in bringing in crowds or money.

3) Sarah is giving paid economic and foreign policy speeches to foreign business leaders to establish her credentials with party leaders.

4) Sarah is bypassing the state-run media and speaking directly to voters from her Facebook page, which is being picked up pretty routinely in the conservative press and then by the liberal press.

5) Sarah has set up an issues PAC called “Stand Up For Our Nation.”

These are not the actions of a retired politician simply making a living on the rubber chicken circuit. Time will tell whether her efforts will pay off enough to declare her candidacy in 2011. It would be a mistake to underestimate Sarah, though. She is just what this country needs. During her campaign for governor, she was criticized for being vague on issues but she sold voters on the one product that mattered: herself.

The first woman on a national Republican ticket, the party’s top grassroots star, and an obvious potential contender for the 2012 nomination, she’s a sought-after guest whose every move is studied for political intent. She has displayed the ability to draw crowds and raise money. She’s a woman of the people; she belongs to us not Washington. Her political rise is a great and rare story of how adherence to principle – especially to transparency and accountability in government – can produce political success. Look at the politicians of today. Watch their eyes, and you’ll see the difference. There’s no trust with our elected officials. Hire and fire politicians until you see eyes like Reagan’s. Vote out the establishment and bring in an outsider. We need real leaders. Let’s not pretend anymore. I think the party should call on Palin, and any other hopefuls, that want to rise to challenge the status quo and the establishment. As a champion of ethics, Palin has the courage and tenacity to take on both Democrats and Republicans.

Palin’s brand of can-do, no-excuse, moose-hunting feminism too– is a world away from the whining, sniping, wearily ironic mode of the establishment feminism. And, the unrelenting attacks against Palin since McCain chose her as his running mate show that the liberal and far-left power brokers most certainly do not understand her, and even more dangerously for them, underestimate her. One has to admire Palin’s courage in the midst of such acrimony and contempt from the liberals as she plays the left like a Stradivarius. One thing’s for sure – Palin is smoking out the real snakes in the grass among the GOP, the liberal left and the MSM. Just watch this all unfold.

A part of Palin’s political appeal is her ability to exploit social grievances, fiscal insanity and cultural symbolism and the more that they attack her, the more that they try to diminish her, the greater her stature becomes in the consciousness of the rapidly enlarging mass. America is no longer fooled and the growing resentment toward elected officials has reached a fevered pitch. If Palin adopts a voter-friendly conservative populist agenda to strengthen her policy credentials which is seen as less partisan to independent voters, then more people will see her as being qualified in beating Obama. America needs a Palin-type reformist for the next Presidential term. If not her, her clone would be fine. But, Palin’s new strategy and grassroots campaign to reintroduce herself has begun and I hope she carries it through to 2012. And, I’ll put my money on Sarah standing above dishonest criticism and gaining national appeal long before I see the moment when the rise of the oceans begin to slow and our planet begins to heal.

“Common-sense conservatism” will be her theme.

Articles:

The Competing Narratives of Barry and Sarah

According to George W. Bush, we are fighting in Iraq to “secure the peace” and, to “secure freedom and democracy”.  Is there any historical or other rational reason to believe this?  If war can secure peace then why, after 10,000 years of war, isn’t there peace on earth by now?

War didn’t begin with the American Revolution, nor did it end there; many soldiers who fought against the British rose up in “Shay’s Rebellion” against wealthy colonists who were taking their land and throwing them into debtors prison.  Soon after, another war against the British erupted.

Then came the Mexican-American War, Civil War, Spanish-American War and War in the Philippines.  And then, the so-called “war to end all wars”, WWI, soon followed by WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War and now, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Spaced among this long sad bloody list of war after war after war, were several slave uprisings, a long drawn-out war against Native populations and many smaller wars and battles.  There have also been many “uprisings” within the U.S. population, including mob murder of African-Americans, Irish, Jews, Mormons, Chinese, Latinos, adult and even, child workers on strike.

Yet today, after all this bloodshed, we find ourselves at war, yet again.  In spite of the overwhelming historical evidence, a morally bankrupt American population remains quick on the trigger and very slow to understand, that war will never “secure the peace”.  Is President Obama acting any wiser than Bush by continuing to stay the course in Iraq and increase troop levels in Afghanistan?

Some people claim Gandhi was wrong because he ended up a martyr.  Yet, Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez and a great many others claim to have been inspired by him.  Did Gandhi lose in the great historical war between pro and anti-human rights forces, the only war that really matters?

According to Jesus, the solution to war is to put down our swords.  A small child can easily grasp this crystal clear logic of Jesus, yet we find people today pretending to follow him, who still promote war as the solution to somehow secure the peace.  The life of Jesus has inspired millions of people to promote peace and goodwill.  Thus, he won a far, far, far greater victory than all of the military generals in history combined.

It is entirely logical, that if I promote peace and goodwill, I will help humanity and leave a positive legacy for others to emulate.  It is likewise, entirely logical that if I promote war as a solution, I will hurt humanity and extend the trail of tears for others to emulate.

We as individuals have little choice what our leaders or other people do.  However, we each have a personal choice to make, to either stand up for peace and goodwill or, to bow to peer pressure and promote war and other violence.

It takes courage to stand up against one’s own society, which is why Isaiah and Jesus continue to be revered by millions.  It takes only a victim of societal pressure to promote war.  It is mature to promote peace and goodwill; it is childish, historically and patently absurd to promote anything else.

Is Obama any smarter than Bush?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Now that Scozzafava ditched the race and the leftists are scratching their heads in bitter amazement at the good run Dan Hoffman has in NY23 (the race isn’t over at the time of this writing), perhaps the Republican martini elite has gotten it through their dullness that most of us want CONSERVATIVE leadership! 

With this switch to Hoffman, perhaps we can anticipate more patriotic conservatives to emerge on the Republican ticket in the congressional races for 2012, espousing school choice, responsible yet minimal government regulation, secure borders, strong national defense, and (of course) freedom of speech on the airwaves and internet; all solutions supported by the vast majority of Americans (if, in using the word “populist” you mean “replacing the Democrats”, yes, that is to what I refer, but not engendering the ”populist movement of the 1890’s).

Back in the first half of 2006, Dan Riehl reported that “the word populist may be for the Right what liberal is for the Left – a bad word. Both words suffer from extreme over-simplification…”

“[V]ia Real Clear Politics, an excellent site for a timely snapshot of political news…”

“But the topic for now is political terminology thanks to an interesting piece by Craig Shirley at the Washington Post.”

The immigration reform debate has highlighted a long-standing fissure in the GOP between the elitist Rockefeller business wing and the party’s conservative populist base…

Particularly noteworthy is the following:

The elites in the GOP have never understood conservatives or Reagan; they’ve found both to be a bit tacky. They have always found the populists’ commitment to values unsettling. To them, adherence to conservative principles was always less important than wealth and power.

… It was the populists under Reagan, and later under Newt Gingrich, who energized the party, gave voice to a maturing conservative ideology and swept Republicans into power. We would be imprudent and forgetful to disregard this…

“In its pure form, populist means little more than lower-case d democrat.”

[A]n advocate of democratic principles.

Riehl goes on to describe some history and then explains why Americans simply want good laws to be enforced and big government to become smaller and less intrusive.  They also want their representatives to actually represent them – what a novel concept in today’s political arena.  When Obama spoke of transparency and change, many people really thought he’d live up to at least a little of that rhetoric (like not using “bundling buddies” as employees and ambassadors or making stealth deals with Google that affect Net Neutrality…).

Conservatives are guided by the governing principles of the primacy of individual sovereignty, the sanctity of private property, and preservation of the rule of law.  The rule of law is what makes this Republic different than any other country in the world.  So when our leaders make laws that usurp or controvert the Constitution, they are abridging our freedoms!

  ”It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government.”  ~Alexander Hamilton

Let us hope and pray that Conservatives win these elections this month and in 2010 in a grand wave of freedom, and may it be a warning to all incumbants that we intend to vote them out if they continue on their same paths.

 
A New Dawn: http://wp.me/pzfHB-hb

Earlier on this evening I saw a trailer for tonight’s News At Ten.  I was amazed that the headline they were running was about Wayne Rooney’s baby, and how much money the first pictures would be worth!  How can this be ‘news’ in the first place, let alone the main item?

My ire at this type of ‘celebrity’ news was at it’s highest during the unfortunate illness and ultimate demise of Jade Goody.  Whilst I had no specific like or dislike for her, and her death at such an early age was obviously sad, the amount of news coverage it garnered was ridiculous.

I was also disappointed that (as far as I am aware) none of the ‘royalties’ she recieved for selling her story were passed to cancer charities rather than put in trust for her children.  Whilst I can see her wishes they are well cared for, I am sure there is already ample monies in their trusts to cover any educational costs.

I rarely watch ITN News, but after that trailer this evening I have decided to stick to BBC News which, other than Breakfast TV which seems to be turning into a series of trailers for other BBC shows, is generally good.

What is sovereignty and does anyone still have any?

Rush Limbaugh correctly pointed out on his show (on 10-22-09) that the statement released by the White House claims “Special Master on Executive Compensation” Kenneth Feinberg made the decision on cutting executive pay on his own, without having to run it past Obama first. This begs the question “just how much autonomous authority do these czars (never subjected to Senate scrutiny) have?”

As distressing as that question and its implications are, it is even more frightening that there is no answer forthcoming (and I wouldn’t suggest holding your breath waiting for one).

One point that Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity ALL failed to make, however, was one that popped in my mind Wednesday evening while watching ABC’s Nightly News reporting on the Pay Czar/Special Master’s announcement. Namely, that this 90-95% pay cut is for the top 25 execs from 7 TARP companies. But, as far as I’ve been able to determine, it states that these cuts are to be applied to base salaries.

Quite a few of these execs are making a base salary of $1 per year. So now they’ll be getting a nickel or a dime per year in compensation? That’s less than Michael Vick was earning per hour IN PRISON! Well, of course that’s not the entire compensation package for these executives. Their main perks come in the form of stock options, retirement plans, and bonuses. Oops! Not BONUSES?! We proved back in March with AIG that we can drum up a hell of a lot of violent faux “populist” outrage with the notion of bonuses!

Here’s my prediction: wait a few months (if that long) and the Congress will start holding hearings where these execs will be grilled (or, more aptly, raked over the coals) by grandstanding Senators raising the banner of righteous indignation over these “greedy profit-mongers” and their “undeserved bonuses.
“

This entire deal boils down to one larger point: with executive pay limits, and the inevitable future recycled furor over bonuses, the Obama administration gets a two-fer distraction to keep your minds focused on what they want you to focus on. They are magicians of the first order and this is grade-A sleight of hand.

How many balls are in the air right now, and being juggled by this inexperienced clown of a President? Afghanistan, Health Care Reform, Cap&Trade, Card Check, Stimulus 2, Net Neutrality, Executive Pay, Financial Sector Regulatory Reform… The list goes on and on.

We cannot allow them to make us focus on just one of these. We must all be vigilant, tiring though it may be (and by design, I might add. It’s the Chicago way.), and we must all focus on all of it at once.

To reiterate, watch your balls, America. Or, as Uncle Joe Biden would say, “Gird your loins!” ;D

The 2010 United States census will be mailed to Americans in February and March of next year. It will offer more choices than ever for racial classifications. This comes at a time when nearly every leader says that race does not matter. Some people even say that there is no scientific basis for race. Yet many who claim to believe this also support affirmative action and other forms of discrimination against whites.

The Center for Perpetual Diversity found some problems with the census and made recommendations to the Census Bureau for the 2020 census. First we should look at the 1890 census which is interesting because they already recognized the problem of how to count mixed race people. According to the census in 1890 The United States and its territories contained 6,337,980 Negroes, 956,989 Mulattoes, 105,135 Quadroons, 69,936 Octoroons, 107,475 Chinese, 2,039 Japanese and 58,805 Civilized Indians. The 1890 census divided whites into 3 categories. Their populations were as follows: 34,358,348 native whites, 11,583,075 native whites with foreign parents, and 9,121,807 foreign whites.

An Octoroon was defined as anyone with 1/8 negro ancestry or any trace of negro ancestry. Later the Census Bureau simplified things by just having one category for people with black ancestors. When they made this change it gave Qaudroons and Octoroons a chance to classify themselves as white. Furthermore, how many people know all eight of their great-grand parents? I am sure that quite a few Octoroons don’t even know that they are black. Even Quadroons are technically more white than black, even though they look black and probably vote black. A Quadroon would not really be telling a lie if he said he was white.

In 1890 Hispanics had to be counted as either white or Civilized Indian. So why do we need a different category for them in 2010? Hispanics can be of any race as they keep reminding us. When a crime victim describes the assailant as looking Hispanic, a good defense attorney will explain to the jury that there is no such thing as a Hispanic look or a Hispanic race. Hispanics’ skin color ranges from the darkest black to nearly the lightest white and there are Asian Hispanics as well.

Question number 8 of the 2010 Census explains that ‘Hispanic origins are not races.’ We are offered the following choices:

Not of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin

Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano

Peurto Rican

Cuban

“another Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin – print origin, for example, Argentinian, Columbian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadorean, Spaniard, and so on”

Question 9 is about race and says the respondant can mark one or more boxes. It offers the following choices:

White

Black or African American or Negro

American Indian or Alaska Native, Print name of enrolled or principle tribe.

Asian Indian

Chinese

Filipino

Japanese

Korean

Vietnamese

Native Hawaiian

Guamanian or Chamorro

Samoan

Other Asian

Other Pacific Islander

Just in case these choices are not enough you can also check ‘some other race’ and print whatever you want.

For the purpose of the census, is the difference between Japanese and Chinese or Korean really that important? They are not different races, just like French and English are not different races..

Are Guamanians and Samoans different races? Why are they races and Hispanics are not? Most Hispanics need to say that they are white if they choose from the above list and don’t want to write an answer by hand in those little squares. Hispanics could be divided into racial groups and the entire category of Hispanic could be eliminated. People with mostly Spanish or Portugese blood would be white or European and darker Hispanics would be African or Negro and the others would be South American Indians. They would not lose political power from such a change.

I am sure that many of the people who check the ‘white’ box do so because they don’t fit into the other categories and they don’t want to take the time to put a check mark next to ‘some other race’ and then scribble the name of some country which they are happy to forget. Many of these ‘whites’ are not really white at all.

The term white really seems inappropriate now. Arabs, Georgians, Afhanistanis, Iranians, Most Hispanics or Latinos, and Moroccans to name a few, are not really white. Some of them can pass for white but such diverse people should not simply be dumped in the same category just to make things easy.

Perhaps there is another reason. The same people that are responsible for bringing millions of third world immigrants into our country might be telling the Census Bureau to make it look like America is more white than it really is. High level officials must be concerned that reporting a smaller population of whites will shock the financial markets and cause a market crash and/or a devaluation of the dollar. When the white population drops below a certain level, it could trigger the ultimate white flight, as millions of whites move to Europe as author, James Schneider wrote about in his novel, White Flight? This is a valid concern, but The Center for Perpetual Diversity believes we should correct the problem rather than mislead ourselves into thinking that it is not that bad.

The Center recommends that the Census Bureau eliminate the white category and replace it with: Europeans, Arabs, and West Asians. Perhaps it would even be good to separate Europeans into Northern Europeans, Southern Europeans, because these two groups are more different than Chinese and Japanese. If the Census Bureau followed this advice the white population of the US (people whose ancestors came from Europe) would probably be less than 50%. This is a milestone that many liberals look forward to. Why not give them this victory sooner rather than in the year 2042 as projected? Then we will see if they are satisfied with a white population under 50% or if they will continue their racist policies until whites are virtually extinct.

To further complicate things we should consider the white Africans. There are a number of white refugees from Africa living in the United States. Most are from South Africa and Rhodesia but there are some from other countries too. These people were born in Africa and may even have white ancestors born in Africa hundreds of years ago. They are not black or Negro but they are more African than the majority of blacks in America. They could honestly say that they are African Americans.

My dictionary defines Hispanic as, ‘of or relating to the people, speech or culture of Spain, Spain and Portugal or Latin America.’ If a European couple lives and works in Mexico for a few years and then moves to the U.S., can they claim to be Hispanic? What about their Mexican born child? If a person visits Mexico for a week or two and likes the food and learns a few words of Spanish is that enough to be Hispanic?

Many anthropologists agree that all humans alive today have a common ancestor who lived near what is today Kenya about 150,000 years ago. Therefore everyone could say that they are African or African Americans. It is even more important to classify yourself as African American when you are applying for a loan or a job. It may increase your chances of success, but it also helps the company you are dealing with. They will get extra points (whatever that is worth) for lending to or hiring more Africans. If they look at you and say, ‘you’re not African American.’ You can respond defiantly, ‘I have ancestors from Africa. I hope you are not going to discriminate against me because my skin is lighter than some of my African cousins.’

When we complete the 2010 census we must give more thought to our responses, especially question 9. It would be more accurate to check the ‘other’ box and write in ‘European’ or a specific country of origin. Or, should we consider our ancestors from 150,000 years ago and say that we are African American to protest against a country that encourages discrimination against whites? If large numbers of people who think of themsevles as white were to reclassify themselves as African American it would focus more attention on our plight. If the 2010 census shows that whites are only 40% of the population maybe some of our leaders would be alarmed enough to take action and stop the insane levels of immigration into our country. Or is it more important to get results which can be compared to previous census’ so that we will all know how much worse our country has become?

By James Schneider.

The Council of Conservative Citizens, the no-longer-silent majority, is a genuinely active national organization — effectively organizing and winning!

The C of CC was organized by conservative leaders from throughout the nation, who met in Atlanta, Georgia to build an updated organization in which the “silent majority” could participate at the local, state, and national levels.

We’re organizing conservative activists, developing unity, and successfully building a network of chapters and supporters at the grass-roots level nationwide to serve as a responsible, effective voice and active advocate for the no-longer-silent conservative majority. This is a unification movement that is desperately needed and long overdue. For more information, see our Statement of Principles.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that American media habitually fails to address issues at a fundamental core level that would actually serve to achieve legitimate reform? Instead, we are treated to a giant merry-go-round shell game of opposing pundit charades; both “sides” belittling and whining about the other and neither offering any coherent plan for actually achieving reform.

For example, amidst growing public outrage over corporate bailouts and other corrupt political shenanigans, why aren’t political pundits on either the so-called “liberal” or “conservative” side calling for a national cap on interest rates at a reasonable 5%? This would do far more to stimulate the economy, insure the long-term health of the banking industry and actually help the average citizen, than all of the trillions tossed down the historical sewer and all of the nonsensical cosmetic “reforms” offered up by both “sides” combined.

In the debate over universal verses private health care, why is there no discussion regarding the obvious immediate and long-term ramifications of contagious diseases? If conservative mothers actually knew how severely in danger their own children are, even if insured, we would have had universal health care long ago, like any reasonable and sane government today should and does provide.

Amidst much feigned “outrage” over political corruption, why is nobody on either side calling for a constitutional amendment banning all political contributions of any and every kind except by private individuals and, limiting individual donations to 1% of the median income? Given the historical track record of the Supreme Court siding with business interests against any and all legitimate political reform legislation, it should be obvious even to someone without fancy degrees attached to their name, that the only way to achieve true political reform is by constitutional amendment.

And, when obviously crooked and entirely corrupt leaders in White House and congressional halls decide to engage in foreign wars of aggression, obviously designed to consolidate political power and enhance corporate bottom lines, why is the American media in total lock-step mentality, found proudly “embedded” in flag-waving “patriotic” support of such atrocities? CBS featured the oft-maligned supposedly “liberal” Dan Rather embedded right on cue in real time during Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq, whispering in hushed, reverent tones, describing in detail how adept our military is at invading and bombing a completely out-gunned city full of civilians into “democratic” submission?

American media has long focused on the so-called “health” of the stock market as the leading indicator for whether our not the economy is doing well. This in spite of the well known historical facts that often during a prolonged bull market, the majority of Americans continue to lose economic ground. Whether or not the market is doing well in the short term Wall Street reality has little to zero bearing on the economic lot of the majority of American citizens.

Media would be informing us far better if it focused on rising energy, food and housing costs relative to the median wage and better yet, the minimum wage, as leading economic health indicators. What good is it to average Americans, if a few more billionaires are created, when less than zero percentage of growing market prosperity “trickles down” on the vast majority of our citizens?

What is the real agenda behind the carefully controlled piece-meal information dolled out by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal? Is CNN, Fox News and MSNBC giving us the information we really need? Why aren’t mainstream media outlets informing us correctly and adequately regarding various major issues of the 21st Century?

Is American media really legitimate, or is it just a big waste of everybody’s valuable time? Would we be better off burying our radios and televisions in our backyards, that is, those of us who still have a backyard to bury them in?

You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for above article