And so it begins. Someone has to take the fall for the campaign loss, right? So, they decide to take down the Thrilla from Wasilla. She’s just from some far off land named Alaska, right?
Think again. The woman didn’t get the crowds she did because people thought she was cute. She embodies the rightroots — middle-class conservatives who believe most politicians, no matter what the letter behind the name, can’t be trusted. But here was a politician they could embrace because her record proved what she said. And they connected with her. Now, the D.C. elites who ran McCain’s campaign are trying to tear her down and guarantee she has no future in the party.
Does anyone besides the extreme media idiots elite REALLY believe she didn’t know that Africa was a continent and what countries constituted North America? C’mon! Most of the leaks are unattributed, meaning the person didn’t have the balls to come forward. There is plenty of speculation as to who it is, though.
Here’s the post at Hot Air with plenty of links for your perusal. Suffice it to say that the conservative base is not going to tolerate this.
It appears as if Ted Stevens will hold on to his Senate seat in Alaska. I think the vote was less about voting FOR Stevens than against a Democrat. I’m pretty sure Alaskans know Stevens will be kicked out, and they also know they have a Republican governor who will appoint another Republican.
Now here’s the interesting part. Gov. Palin will get to appoint a successor, then Alaska will hold a special election, according to Ed over at Hot Air. Not sure when that would happen, but if they hold a special election say next year, Palin could run for that seat and probably win it. A couple of years in the Senate would be a great launching point for a future presidential run (wink).
Note: After thinking about this for a few minutes, I realized that Palin would have to appoint a placeholder for her. That would be a difficult task without it looking like favoritism of some sort. If she were to resign as Governor and be appointed by the Lt. Gov., that would look terrible, even though she would still have to make it past a special election afterward. So, maybe this isn’t as politically easy as I thought it would be.
Thank you, Our Country Deserves Better PAC. Right now, they are travelling the country with their “The Stop Obama Tour.” Check them out if they come near you.
I went to vote today. After casting one of my votes, I was reminded that even if we lose in a couple of weeks, there is a bright future out there for the GOP. Of course, Sarah Palin will remain on the national stage in some form or another. She’s too dynamic to not be.
But, I also got to cast my vote for Michael Williams. He’s running for another term as the Texas Railroad Commissioner. The title is misleading, because he has a lot more to do with Texas energy policy than anything. I’ve seen this man speak twice in person. Let me tell you, he can command a room. One was the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston when he was speaking at the Texas Republican Convention (I was honored to be an alternate delegate). He was even more charismatic than Newt Gingrich.
Mr. Williams was powerful. He is gracious, paying homage to the doors that Obama has opened (a la Palin during her nomination acceptance speech). He’s got a great sense of humor. And he’s very conservative. I can’t wait to see him on the national stage some day soon.
I also read an article today about Bobby Jindal that reminded me of his place as part of the future of the GOP. My family originates in Louisiana, so I try to keep up with what’s going on with my neighbors.
Anyway the whole thing got me thinking — these three represent the FUTURE of the party, at least in my opinion. They are all very conservative, very charismatic, and very ambitious. And yes, it doesn’t escape me that they are all “minorities.” But that just goes to prove that we’ve come a long way, baby, and our party is way more big tent than the Dems like to portray. I know we will see one of them in the White House some day.
P.S. There are many other bright stars on the horizon, such as Tim Pawlenty. I was just struck by this trifecta today and thought I’d post it.
Sarah Palin should grant an interview to Bill O’Reilly to be aired on Oct. 29 during Obama’s infomercial (O’Reilly’s normal time slot). I bet he would put her on, since he put Obama’s interview on during the slot before McCain’s RNC speech. McCain should go on CNN or something else, since he’s already interviewed with O’Reilly.
P.S. Some might not like O’Reilly, but he has the highest ratings in the timeslot for cable news, time for which McCain / Palin would not have to pay. I also think he would be critical but fair, because it is becoming more and more clear that he does not want Obama to win. He wouldn’t do a “gotcha” interview, for sure.
ABC ignored the story on air for 24 hours after it was broken by its website. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell played only the clip where Biden praised Obama instead of the one where he guaranteed an Obama presidency would bring a crisis. The same clip was played again on MSNBC’s morning show, but the host called them out on it.
Two people DID agree that there was bias on this story. Dan Rather(!) and CNN’s Drew Griffin, who admits to Sarah Palin that if she had said the same thing, the media would have clobbered her (see the video below with the money quote around 2:30).
First, last night on “Hannity and Colmes,” Alan asked ”Joe the Plumber” if it was socialism what Sarah Palin did for Alaska when she gave them an extra payment on top of their normal state annual payment. Neither Joe or Sean gave the correct answer. The payments are given to Alaskans because the taxpayers as a whole OWN the oil resources. Therefore, when she made the oil companies pay more for the oil resources, she distributed the extra income directly to the owners of the resources.
Second, when Obama-leaning pundits are asked about “Joe the Plumber,” they always seem to resort to the talking point “who’s tax plan will benefit Joe most?” They can’t understand that he doesn’t care. It’s about the principle. And guess what. One of the four candidates running will also benefit from Obama’s tax plan. It’s Sarah Palin. And she doesn’t want it, either.
About three weeks ago, at a discussion event, Madeleine Albright took a jab at Sarah Palin.
In discussing the environment, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour wanted to make clear all five secretaries — who also included Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher and Colin Powell – were in agreement that it is mankind that causes global warming. Amidst all the “yeas” in agreement, Albright added, “Yes, except in Alaska,” which had the crowd loudly applauding the obvious jab at Sarah Palin.
At a rally over the weekend, Palin got in her own dig. She read the quote from her Starbucks cup, which came from Madeleine Albright of all people.
There’s a special place in Hell reserved for women who don’t support other women.
Big roar from the crowd on that one. Except, oh no, Palin misquoted the cup!! The quote actually says “help” not “support.” How could she? Albright’s statement said that “[t]his is yet another example of McCain and Palin distorting the truth.”
Maybe Albright took her cues from her ex-boss.
By the way, m-w.com states help is “to give assistance or support.”
Biden’s tax returns have been brought up again, since Palin released hers yesterday. Who is really middle class becomes clear when comparing the two. The Palins meet the classic definition of middle class income, and their charitable giving is on par, maybe slightly below, the average based on IRS returns of all Americans.
The Bidens, however, make much more than middle class and give much, much less than average for their income level. His campaign explained saying the Bidens give a lot of cash (like offerings at church) and time to their charities of choice. They also said the Bidens loaded up a car full of supplies and drove down to the coast to help Katrina victims themselves. I can see this (maybe not the ENTIRE Katrina story), because many Americans only have time to give, and that’s not deductible.
However, I think the campaign could have come up with a better explanation. Since Biden thinks paying taxes is patriotic, then deducting for charitable giving lowers his tax burden. Therefore, he was being more patriotic by not deducting his charitable giving.
So why deduct ANYTHING? That $300 deduction lowered his taxes by $100 maybe. I can’t explain that one, but I’m sure his spinmeisters could.
Oh wait, they don’t want to remind Joe Six-pack that Joe Biden thinks taxes = patriotism.
