Palin-Clinton: The Battle Begins

Sarah Palin, a builder in more ways than one.

Gov. Sarah Heath Palin welcomes home Alaska troops who fought in Iraq. Gov. Palin's 18-year-old son Track is an infantry soldier in the U.S. Army.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton delivers her concession speech on Saturday in DC.

"Sarah Palin is no ordinary mortal."

"We may be seeing the emergence of someone [Sarah] who's Mt. Rushmore material."

As the world rightly focuses on the McCain-Obama contest, a battle is shaping up behind the scene -- one that pits two powerful women -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Gov. Sarah Heath Palin -- against one another. Why is Sarah Palin the woman the Democrats fear most? I'll try to answer that today (Sunday). If you scan through the previous columns, you'll find comments on both women.

Sarah Palin may very well be John McCain's choice for V-P on the Republican ticket. Barack Obama apparently doesn't want Hillary to be his V-P choice, but for purely political reasons he may choose her anyway.

Why do the Democrats fear the presence of Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket? In part, it's her legendary toughness (they don't call her "Sarah Barracuda" for no reason). But her main strength is her strong appeal to critical groups of voters. Consider:

Married women: Sarah's marriage to Todd Palin gives every evidence of being a model relationship. Sarah and Todd were childhood sweethearts, and they eloped shortly after she graduated from high school. As with so many issues, the Palins take no "stand" that is in any way at variance with the way they conduct their lives.

Young people: Sarah is only 44, and she exude youthfulness and energy. She has children ranging in age from 18 (son Track) to a few weeks (son Trig).

Military families: Sarah and Todd are a military family. Their son Track enlisted in the U.S. Army Infantry on September 11, 2007. It's extremely likely he will see combat duty in either Afghanistan or Iraq, or both.

Families with children: The Palins have five children, three of them teenagers, as well as daughter Piper, age 7, and baby Trig (a Norwegian name).

Reagan Democrats: Palin has the highest approval ratings of any major elected official in the U.S. -- in the 90% range. That means she's gained approval from the vast majority of Democrats.

Women professionals (journalists, teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, and businesswomen): Sarah is the consummate female professional, having served as Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and as governor of the state. Her college degree is in journalism. Her parents both served as public school teachers.

Working families: Sarah's husband, Todd, has labored his entire adult life as a commercial fisherman and an oil field production worker. The couple's links to working families go far beyond the usual political rhetoric.

Gun owners: Sarah is an avid hunter and a life-member of the National Rifle Association.

Pro-Life social conservatives: When Sarah found out that her unborn son, Trig, had Down Syndrome, she and her husband elected to have the child. Her point was that God has a purpose for every human being. When Trig was born, the Palins' press release began with thse word, "God has blessed us . . . ." The fascinating point was that they meant every word of it.

Evangelical Christians: Sarah is an evangelical Christian. However, she doesn't wear her religious faith on her sleeve. She is not anti-gay and does not scapegoat people who disagree with her.

People concerned about energy and the environment: As governor of Alaska, Sarah is among the best-informed elected officials on both issues. She's head of the energy committee at the Republican Governors Association and is a strong advocate of level-headed conservation of natural resources.

Overall, there's no other Republican that brings more to the table than Sarah Palin. She has exceptionally wide appeal. She would help John McCain with many groups with which he's currently weak (including young people and women professionals).

Of supreme importance: Sarah could be particularly helpful in battleground states with large numbers of working class voters, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, New Jersey, and Michigan. I've suggested that McCain should "park" Sarah in those five states until Election Day. If Republicans win just three of those states, John McCain will be President-elect.

In 2012 (if Obama wins this year or if McCain elects to serve just one term) or 2016, the presidential face-off could pit Sarah Palin against Hillary Clinton. One imagines that it would be a battle royal.

Note: I hope everyone will visit my Hillary Supporters for McCain column. Today, it contains a guest column by a Black woman from North Carolina -- a Hillary supporter -- who is now strongly backing McCain.

Chicago Corruption, Pennsylvania Corruption

This weekend, Saturday and Sunday, I'll be writing about the supposed need of John McCain to "shore up the conservative base." Frankly, any conservative who isn't yet backing McCain against far-left opponents (Obama and Clinton) probably needs resuscitation more than "shoring up." If McCain is to win in November, he needs -- as even Rush Limbaugh understands -- to remain . . . John McCain, an independent-mind Republican who's "nobody's boy." Currently, there are a lot more moderate Independents and moderate Democrats than there are conservatives "trying to make up their [feeble] minds." John McCain, please be yourself. In a recent Pew Research Poll, 25% of the Democrats supporting Hillary Clinton said they would consider voting for McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination.

Picture of Barack Obama, Tony Rezko (now being tried for political corruption and bribery), and the mock Georgian Mansion that Rezko helped his political protege Obama purchase.

I hope you'll take a look at the previous column (scroll down) regarding my home state, Pennsylvania, and its role in determining who will be the next President of the United States. I will do a lot more on Pennsylvania as we move toward the state's primary on April 22, a contest that Hillary Rodham Clinton should win handily.

I wrote about Pennsylvania's governor, one Edward Rendell, a politician so devious and corrupt that he would be right at home in Barack Obama's Chicago. Every day I learn more about Windy City politics by reading the superb Chicago Tribune reporter John Kass, who may be the world's leading expert on corruption in his city.

Two pieces by Kass that I highly recommend are his Sunday column (March 2) entitled "GOP is Caught Looking as the Rezko Trial Begins," which you can find at: http://chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-rezko-trial-blago-column,1,6062021.column. Kass points out how Republicans in Illlinois have learned well from their Democratic counterparts when it comes to corruption.

Also take a look at Kass's column today (March 6) about what he calls "The Chicago Way," which refers to the city's politicians perpetually having their hands out for bribes. Regarding Senator Obama, who probably should have kept his hands in his pockets when it came to political fixer Tony Rezko, Kass says:

"Naturally, there are some squares who don't think taxpayers should pave the Chicago Way to make it easy for Rezko to help purchase the senator's dream house in a kinky deal exposed by the Tribune and still not fully explained."

"'It's really the Old Chicago Way,'" said Jay Stewart, executive director of the Better Government Association. 'In the old days they would pretty much admit it up front, and now they deny it. It's essentially about power, access to government jobs, government contracts and taking care of your own.'"

You can see the entire article at: http://chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-john-kass-mar06,1,4070424.column.

In my previous column, I mentioned that Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania also has a corruption problem. In The Almanac of American Politics, Michael Barone notes (p. 1378) that, in 2006, "Rendell spent $740,000 (out of a total campaign expenditure of $42 million) on Election Day activities, including $450,000 cash to be handed out in [Philadelphia's] 66 wards."

I'm sure you're shocked (or not?). In other words, Rendell basically handed out bribe money to make sure he won my huge majorities in Philadelphia. But isn't that illegal? Apparently, it's not in Pennsylvania (or, for that matter, Illinois). I'm not certain how much money Rendell passed to political fixers in Pittsburgh, but I'm sure it was a tidy sum.

Rendell is a former Mayor of Philadelphia, and in his first campaign he ran as the architect of something called "The Philadelphia Miracle." In fact, Philadelphia is a "leader" among American cities in homicides and overall crime per capita, as well as in unemployment and overall misery. Its educational system is among the worst in the nation.

Apparently, the Philadelphia Miracle is the fact that the city, under Rendell's leadership, didn't fall into the Atlantic Ocean.

In many ways, Chicagoan Barack Obama should feel right at home here in the Keystone State. However, Rendell favors Hillary Clinton, and what Rendell wants he generally gets. When it comes to generating political results, Gov. Rendell pays top dollar.

Much more about PA to follow in the coming weeks . . .

Larry Perrault and Laurence White: Endorse Sarah Palin Now!

"Sophia Petrillo" on "The Golden Girls" as she uses the remote control: "Look, there's a Black man doing the news -- and it isn't even the weekend!"

I'm sorry this is long, but I'm presumptuous enough to believe it is very important. I will "fiddle" with it until about 1 p.m. Friday. I will respond to all comments, other than those by "Anonymous."

In the comments to this piece, I talk some about Dr. Laurence White and his essay called "God and Ceasar." I quote the piece extensively, and my conclusion is that White is (1) basically calling for a violent revolution by Christians against American civil society; (2) encouraging "pro-life-killers" like Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph; (30writing a document that sounds uncomfortably like an American Mein Kampf in targeting certain groups and institutions -- including homosexuals and the public school system -- of destroying the moral core of society. I disagree with him on all points. This is a pluralistic representative democracy. It is not a theocratic state. One of my biggest problems with Dr. White (among many) is that there seems no evidence that he's ever talked to one of those young women "in trouble and in need of a friend." In fact, he's not their friend, but rather their accuser. One of my best friends is a woman with the initials P.L., who counseled many pregant women, most of them young, some extremely young (13-14), and some of them ended up having abortions, often being pressured to do so by femily or "friends." P. L. loved them unconditionally as is her way, and that approach is what makes her a living saint. I also think of my African-American neighbor Mary, whom I saw tonight on my way to the h.s. football game. She was -- appropriately -- wearing a gold cross. She's in her 60s and take care of children -- current, Ali, age 4, and "Mo Mo" (Monique) who's 14 months. I expect shen she's 80 she'll be taking care of Ali's and Mo Mo's kids. P. L. and Mary are so of the inhabitants of the "evil" America Dr. White supposedly sees. Sad.

In the comments section of my most recent piece on my proposed Human Life Amendment, you'll notice a statement by Larry Perrault, a Southern Baptist and an important figure in the Houston religious community. He's also a dedicated supporter of Mike Huckabee, and much of my own attraction to Mike's campaign comes from the support he gathers from Larry and various others, including important bloggers like Kerry in Minnesota, James H. in Louisiana, and several others.

Here's Larry's comment:

"Seemingly, all that does matter is their continued ability to express their enduring moral superiority to people like me" [Steve's statement]

I selected out this sentence because it seems to best distill what you think is going on. And, it also tells me that I'm wasting my time. You have made an a priori and incorrect judgment of intentions, and evaluate everything from within that perception. So, you don't believe me when I say that it isn't about me, which truly enough would be a squalid motivation, when I make a moral point about something. It's about right and wrong. The same is true of Laurence White. It's a good thing that I'm not after judgments of my moral superiority, because they aren't exactly pouring in.What I think you should note is that both Dr. White's [Laurence White, an important figure in the Houston Lutheran community and in Texas politics] speeches and most of my writing, including the last post at my blog, do not indict American culture in general, but rather the avowedly pro-life social conservatives who are too timid to hold up a clear and discernible standard. As I said, it isn't about THEM, it's about US.But, you appear to believe that I am a lying morally posturing Narcissus. In that case, it is pointless to converse because everything said is not to be trusted and is up for measurement in the context of what you KNOW is really a self-serving motivation.All I can repeat is that I have drastically disagreed with you on strategy as well as on your perceptions. But, I have not, therefore, reached to call your character or intelligence into question. I think that is a first step toward a possible constructive cooperation in the face of not just this, but any disagreement. But it is one that it appears as though you are not about to take.You should consider that I may not be lying to you, or give up the conversation."

Here's my initial reaction:

I'll respond to Larry later today (Friday) in the comments section, but first I'd like to switch gears somewhat and reprint a short statement from Gov. Sarah Palin in her three-part interview series with the Anchorage Daily News. By the way, Sarah is happily married and has four children, a boy 18 and three younger girls. She has stated her firm commitment to the sanctity of life (from conception until natural death), but doesn't discuss the matter (in public at least) at any length.

Sarah was responding to a question about the need some political figures (especially those in Alaska) feel to cut ethical corners. She said:

"Right. Well, that's why I think we need more real and normal and hardworking and blue-collar Alaskans to want to run for office and serve in these positions that are making decisions. Again, I will personalize this. I am not from that other world. My dad as a school teacher wasn't a mover and shaker developer making big bucks in the state of Alaska off of property development. My husband [a commercial fisherman and oil field worker] isn't that way. I am not raising my kids to be that way.... If you want to be in public service, it is being willing to serve Alaskans for the right reasons. It is having to have a servant's heart when you come into these positions. It's not to get rich."

That's one of the great statements in the history of American politics. It was made by a Governor in Alaska whose existence is not yet known to a majority of the American people.

"A servant's heart" is one of selflessness, the rarest commodity in politics. A servant's heart in this case also is one that recognizes a large majority of Americans want to reduce significantly the number of abortions in our country. Everything in Sarah's career and life indicates she would do anything in her power to serve the people's needs. Yes, I tend to idealize this fine woman, but her capacity to serve seems unlimited.

Sarah Heath Palin is a "politician" with ethical standards that are rare in any nation. People like Larry Perrault and Dr. Laurence White should be lining up behind and supporting her as a major leader of our country.

I hope to live long enough to attend her inauguration as President of the United States -- presumably as early as 2012 (when she presumably would run against President Hillary Rodham Clinton) and no later than 2016, when her opposition could be someone like Barack Obama.

Will Sarah Heath Palin be able to end abortion in this nation? No, of course not. Even if abortion were made illegal -- something that's not going to happen -- it would not "end." Right now, 800,000-plus abortions occur in this country and, even before Roe v. Wade, as many as 300,000 occurred, most of them illegal.

I believe strongly that Mrs. Palin would be receptive to ideas such as mine that would sharply reduce the number of abortions in America. How could she do this when so many other people have failed so miserably?

She knows that abortion in this country will not be reduced by angry rhetoric -- the approach favored by people like Dr. White and Sen. Larry Craig. Instead, the direction has to be one of love for real people, especially young women and poor women who see no alternative to terminating their pregnancies. The resolution, partial though it may be, will depend on elected officials who have true empathy for the people they serve.

The answer to abortion will not come from people (like Dr. White) comparing our country to Nazi Germany. Instead, it will come from individuals like Sarah Heath Palin who recognize that the vast majority of Americans are good people who want to do the right thing.

We desperately need leaders who have "a servant's heart."

It amazes me that candidates like Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani aren't beating a path to Sarah's door in far-off Wasilla, Alaska (a suburb of Anchorage). They should be seeking her guidance and support. They could also get some tips on how to defeat entrenched members of both parties, which she has done.

The candidate who seeks her out first -- and best -- could just be the next President of the U.S. Before you can lead the American people, you first have to love them, warts and all.

Elected officials with the potential for real greatness -- figures in the tradition of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan -- come along so rarely. Sarah is one of them.

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

P.S. My direct response to Larry's comments will occur in the Comments section later today (Friday).

HUMAN LIFE PROPOSAL -- Plus a Dim View of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

IMPORTANT NOTICE: http://larryperrault.blogspot.com/ prints today (Tuesday) a letter by Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod -- the far right branch of Lutheranism) leader Dr. Laurence White (Houston) regarding abortion. I wrote a vigorous dissent on Larry's site, because I believe Dr. White is little more than a member of the pro-life "enterprise," rather than a person seriously involved in protecting the sanctity of life at all stages, from conception to natural death. Tomorrow, I'm going to propose a constitutional amendment on life -- one forbidding most abortions, those that occur in the second and third-trimester of pregnancy -- that has a decent chance of passing. This will be not be the imaginary "amendment" favored by some presidential candidates -- an amendment that has zero chance of ever passing. Instead, my amendment proposal will be one supported by the vast majority of Americans. I also support federal AND state legislation mandating the expenditure of money and the providing of counselling in order to encourage adoption. It's frankly immoral to approach the issue of abortion in such a way that it never gets resolved in a decent, humane way in keeping with the Bible (which doesn't say much about the issue, except perhaps for a few passages in Exodus) and the English Common Law that guided the Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitiuion. I hope at some point leading candidates for the Republican nomination -- including Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter -- embrace a proposal something like mine. Ending legal abortion in the U.S. is part of a process, and it's time to begin it now!


Note: At the end of this piece I note what's going on at an important blog: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com/

"Secretary Donald Rumsfeld flat-out refused to leave the building [Pentagon on 9/11]." -- Barbara Starr today on CNN

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one's self in the ranks of the insane." - - Marcus Aurelius

September 11: This is an important day in the history of the United States of America. "Time can never fully dull the pain," as Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this morning. Over the course of today and tomorrow, I'd like to share some of the memories that I have of that day and the ones that followed.

However, I'd first like to focus on the two main Democratic candidates: Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. Granted, I've said some positive words about both of them, but here's the bottom line: I don't have much respect for either of them.

My image of Mrs. Clinton, who may very well be my President and yours, is of her making a statement that was shrill, cruel, and demagogic: "THIS IS GEORGE BUSH'S WAR!"

Oh, really?

Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, a country ruled by a bloodthirsty tyrant who had killed millions of people, launched two awful wars, and had a history of providing sanctuary to terrorists and using weapons of mass destruction. Mrs. Clinton voted as a result of the same intelligence information provided to George W. Bush.

In the United States, as Mrs. Clinton should know, when the President launches a military action, it is not HIS war, but rather OURS.

It's OUR war because we have a sacred responsibility to the men and women who are fighting it. It's OUR war because winning it affects the country's ability to function effectively. It's OUR war because we must refrain from statements that help the enemy. It's OUR war because comments made about it on purely political grounds are immoral.

In recent times, Senator John McCain said that there are consequences connected with the Iraq War that transcend his ability to become President. His point was that what happens to John McCain is a lot less important than what happens to our country.

Does Mrs. Clinton love her country? I have no firm sense of what the word "country" means to her. To people like John McCain, war hero, our nation means not less than everything.

However, if Mrs. Clinton believes the country has any more important duty than electing her President, she needs to let us know. Does she really believe Iraq is "George Bush's war" -- as opposed to the war of those fighting and dying in it? I don't know if such questions are relevant to "that woman," to take a phrase from her husband.

This is (mainly) a "warrior nation," as former Senator Moynihan called us. Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, testifying to a Senate loaded with people focused almost exclusively on the next election, represent that warrior nation. I'm a member of it, and so are most of you.

In contrast, Mrs. Clinton inhabits a nation that consists mainly of one person -- herself. She would no more fight and die for this country than she would convert to Republicanism. She may well become President, but she doesn't deserve it.

As for Senator Obama, my new correspondent Ancient Mariner -- a naval veteran -- is leaning toward voting for him. I ask the Mariner to think back to the early Democratic debate, where Obama confronted the question of what he, as President, would do if he heard that terrorists had HIT (with weapons of mass destruction?) two American cities.

He said he would launch an investigation of the intelligence services to determine who was responsible. As I put it, perhaps uncharitably but I believe accurately, he would conduct a witch hunt.

Would he respond militarily to such a terrorist atrocity? He didn't indicate that he would.

I fear that the world Barack Obama inhabits is one that reflects the Democratic bias to conduct endless, after-the-fact Senate and House hearings. It's not a world where the President devotes himself to PREVENTING attacks. It's not a world where the chief-executive takes personal responsibility for the bad things that happen on his watch.

Also, The Economist recently raised questions about Obama's comment that he would seek to impose "fines" on mortgage companies that had engaged in unwise lending practices. As The Economist noted, imposing heavy fines on mortgage companies short of cash and laying off workers would be extremely unwise.

What do I think of Obama's proposal that, under certain circumstances, we might invade Pakistan, an ally -- and one with nuclear weapons? I believe it borders on the preposterous. Let's see, the anti-war guy wants to invade Pakistan? It's senseless.

As readers of this column know, I'm often critical of (some) Republicans, (some) conservatives, and (some) evangelicals. However, I'm much more concerned about the Democratic candidates. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to make statements that raise questions about whether they're really ready to govern this country.

After 9/11, politics as usual -- iresponsible remarks about "George Bush's War" and speculations about invading allies -- is not acceptable. If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe they are ready to hold the nation's highest office, they need to apply -- soon -- for membership in the Warrior Nation. They need to stop the political pandering and demagoguery -- now.


Note: This column is dedicated to Peter Paul Domiano, Industry, NY, 1st Lt. USMC, and Thomas Cartwright, Industry, NY, Captain, USMC, my friends, both of whom died for their beloved country in Viet Nam. Peter, a graduate of the University of Virginia, was the manager of our (very good) high school basketball team and brother of my classmate, Judy Domiano; Thomas. a graduate of Penn State University, was the brother of our class valedictorian, Richard, and a fellow basketball player at Rush-Henrietta H.S. At one point, Industry, NY, near Rush and Henrietta, NY, was the town with the highest per capita number of soldiers killed in action. "Time goes on, but some memories never fade." I'd also like to salute two other Marines, young ones, named Matt Franchik and Adam Giran, both very much alive (thank the Lord) & both outstanding football players on a "national powerhouse" in high school, and residents of Mt. Lebanon, PA. "Oh traveler, tell the Spartans we lie here obedient to their word." When compared to Senators Clinton and Obama, the superb human beings I've mentioned here might as well be from another planet.

Sanity Anyone? PLEASE CHECK OUT SANITY102'S BLOG (http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com/ ), ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES ONLINE. In recent days, she's done so wonderful columns. Note also Jim's comment there that the term "conservative" increasingly seems synonymous with "extreme right-wing bigots."

Here's a response I made to her recent writings: I agree with Jim, and I now avoid using the word "conservative." Increasingly, it refers to people loaded with malice and devoid of love or understanding.

Sanity, you are one of the most thoughtful people online. I believe the country faces a serious question of what we are to do with Moveon.org types (who did the recent Petraeus smear). You raise the "right" to abortion, which no Founder ever foresaw as somehow a "right."

The Constitution now provides other "freedoms" that the Founders never envisioned. Does anyone ever seriously believe that the Founders believed that "nude dancing" -- or things a whole lot worse than nude dancing -- constituted speech? In writing the Second Amendment did the Founders really mean that inner-city teens should all have a personal assault rifle -- something inconceivable in the 18th century -- to kill each other and police? They would be absolutely appalled. The U.S. has now become "Murder Central" for the civilized world, and that's something we can't tolerate.

If freedom of speech (and press) is a license to print things like "Petraeus or Betray Us," then it is a luxury we can't afford. We need to discuss these issues seriously rather than fantasize that the Founders would have been foursquare behind sleaze-bags dropping F-bombs on TV and America-haters defaming distinguished generals. I am going to keep recommending your site to everyone whose attention I can get. As Justice Arthur Goldberg once stated, "The Constiution is NOT a suicide pact."

Rudy Giuliani Among the Evangelicals

The short answer is he feels they're unreliable, dogmatic, and toxic when it comes to attracting "normal" Republican voters and independents. He believes the far "right-edge" of the evangelical movement is a liability – a band of sanctimonious hypocrites.

The major issue confronting Rudy Giuliani is whether he can attract a big chunk of evangelical votes. At some point (soon) Rudy is going to challenge people who don’t grasp the significance of Mike Huckabee’s saying that “Life begins at conception, but it doesn’t end at birth.”

That’s a criticism of supposed pro-lifers who talk a lot about the subject, but don’t actually DO much about it. They also seem to lose interest in children after they’re born.

Mike can’t (currently) express such unpleasant truths in stark terms, but Rudy can -- and probably will. Sometime during the primary season, you may hear Rudy uttering such sentiments out loud.

He will try -- and perhaps succeed -- putting the far right element of evangelicals on the defensive and even marginalize them. And when he speaks out, don't be surprised if he doesn't get a resounding "amen!" from many evangelicals. He will get affirmative responses from those evangelicals who have reflected deeply on implications of Mike's statement about life's beginning and continuation.

Let me get personal. I am strongly pro-life (from conception to its end in natural death). I have been sending money to the National-Right-to-Life organization for decades. I've written dozens of articles promoting the sanctity of life.

But in recent years, I've become suspicious of some elements in the Movement. Occasionally, it seems more about raising money, issuing press releases, and uttering maudlin statements.

Yes, it is a very emotional issue, but it's also one with some profoundly practical elements: specifically, reducing the number of abortions and increasing the number of adoptions. Which of the candidates has the BEST RECORD of achieving those ends?

It MAY (key word) just be Rudy Giuliani. In getting pro-life RESULTS, it could be the supposedly pro-choice individual. In his tenure as Mayor of New York, abortions declined and adoptions increased. That happened on his watch.

The right-edge of the evangelical movement chronically underestimates Rudy. He's one of the great coalition builders -- and one of the great Mayors -- of all time. He won election twice as a Republican in a city where Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than a four-to-one margin.

Rudy Giuliani's presidential strategy is to compete vigorously in several Blue States. He believes he can win in Pennsylvania (went 51-49% for Kerry) and New Jersey (went about 55-45% for Kerry). He also believes he can be very competitive in the critical state of New York. (In 2004, George W. Bush, who spent no money in New York, was polling nearly 45 %. at one point)

At the same time, Rudy believes he can hold states in South and the Mountain West, mainly because he would be the conservative alternative to Mrs. Clinton. The current polls (and hey, it's early!) suggest the strategy could work.

In response to such situations, what might the right-edge of the evangelical do? A thoughtful Baptist preacher in Houston suggested this approach: that devoted evangelicals form a third political party, one with a (Christian) theocratic flavor.

He suggests that the evangelical party's nominee might be Mike Huckabee, whom he assumes won't win the Republican nomination. It's an eminently bad idea, but -- perhaps perversely -- I'm not totally against it.

Frankly, Mike Huckabee doesn't possess a death-wish, so he would pass on the nomination, because it would be a time-consuming, expensive process that would end with him winning zero electoral votes. He knows all about being the cutest fat boy at the dance.

Ross Perot, who's filthy rich and spent money like a drunken Naval Academy grad (which he is -- not the drunk part) ran as a third-party candidate. He succeeded in tipping the election to Bill Clinton, and won zero electoral votes. (He came close to winning Maine but not any other state.)

The recent condemnations of by evangelicals (like the Romans) of Mike are sad to see. However, the souring of a few extremists on Mike reflects this fact: in his effort to win the nomination (and also the election), Mike is becoming slightly more like, well, Rudy Giuliani.

Specifically, Mike realizes that it's essential for him to appeal voters who've been turning away from Republicans: Blacks, Hispanics, "security moms," and younger people. He also knows that to get votes you have to give something in return.

Far-right evangelicals (I call them the "I'm right and you're not" crowd) proceed under the illusion that in politics you can somehow get something for nothing. Good luck!

Both Mike and Rudy have similar assumptions about what evangelicals will do in the general election. If Mike loses a handful of evangelicals, well, so what? If Rudy loses a bigger handful of evangelicals, well his motto might be: "Don't let the door hit you in the butt."

Almost strangely, the polls continue to suggest that Rudy is doing well among evangelicals. He's getting a higher percentage of them than the supposed "evangelical favorite," Mike Huckabee. (That may change somewhat.)

Admittedly, a candidate like Rudy Giuliani doesn't want all or most evangelicals out of the Party. Instead, he wants to purge the far-right corps of evangelicals, people like the Romans, the Dobsons, and Pat Robertson (the "Prince of Smarm"). He knows their choices either will be to stay home or vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Giuliani assumes that if he runs against Hillary Rodham Clinton, he'll get a large chunk of evangelical votes. Again, the polls suggest he's correct. What he does want is to shove aside single-issue and single-candidate evangelicals.

In other words, Giuliani is NOT looking to attract people who despise moderate candidates like him. He believes there aren’t enough of them to cost him the election. To people who say, "If Mike doesn't get the nomination, I'm outta here," Rudy is saying, "It's been nice knowing you."

(As the day goes on, I'm going to write about gay and lesbian people and their role in the conservative movement.)

NOTE: I'm informed the Romans persist in making bogus statements about my being a Giuliani backer. Many months ago, after the first debate I did endorse (on another blog site) Giuliani because I thought he was the candidate most likely to beat Hillary Clinton. Since then, partly because of my Palin work, I've backed away from an endorsement.

At times this week, I've considering endorsing Mike Huckabee. I regard Giuliani as an authentic American hero with a superb record as Mayor of New York. Mike is, for me, "the candidate of the heart." He certainly has a way of growing on people., and his appearance today (Sunday) on CNN was very impressive.

Granted, I regard Hillary Clinton as NEARLY unbeatable, partly because of the clumsiness of some evangelicals in understanding what's at stake.S ometime in November perhaps I'll endorse someone.

As for 2012 and 2016, the person I endorse for President is Gov. Sarah Heath Palin. I also recommend her as keynote speaker for the 2008 Republican National Convention. She can send a powerful message: that the Republican Party doesn't consist mainly of angry, aging white guys.

On Sarah and the vice-presidency, I know there have been some contacts with the Giuliani and Huckabee campaigns, but I don't know their exact nature or significance. I also know the Arkansas Republican Party says, "Sarah is now on our radar." Look for more and "Sarah sightings" as the primary season unfolds.

(For my column tomorrow about gay conservatives -- and how GWB's win in 2000 depended on his getting hundreds of thousands of votes from gay people, paticularly those in Florida -- please take a look at today's (Sunday's) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Forum (opinion section). You can find Timothy Patrick McCarthy (gee, he's as Irish as I am) writing about, "Homos, Hypocrites, Haters." Apparently, he's the "homo," whereas we Republicans are the hypocrites and haters.

Unlike Stephen Richard Maloney, Timothy Patrick McCarthy appears to be rather strongly on the Left. Here's his salute to the GOP: "The Republican Party is clear about its 'values' [he puts it in quotes] when it comes to gays and lesbians: They oppose our right to raise children, to live in safety, to work in peace, to serve our country, or to marry our loved ones."

I believe he's accusing us of coming up short in our adherence to Jesus' Second Great Commandment. As to gay marriage, I'm a "civil union" type of guy, but like a good Republican, I believe it's primarily up to the several states.

My essay will not be about Mr. McCarthy but rathr about the hundreds (yep) of CONSERVATIVE gay and lesbian bloggers, with emphasis on http://gaypatriot.org/ and http://tammybruce.com/. In general, I like gay people, but Mr. McCarthy and I are off to a rocky start.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I'M PROUD OF THE FACT THAT I'VE HELPED BRING DOZENS OF SUPPORTERS TO THE DRAFT SARAH PALIN EFFORT. HOWEVER, I WANT TO WRITE HARD-HITTING MATERIAL ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES -- AND CONTROVERSIAL CANDIDATES -- AND THAT CAN SOMETIMES CONFLICT WITH ADVANCING THE BLOGGERS-FOR-PALIN EFFORT. I WILL CONTINUE TO WRITE ABOUT SARAH FROM TIME-TO-TIME, BUT I'D LIKE TO DIRECT ALL ENQUIRIES ABOUT LEARNING MORE ABOUT HER -- OR ABOUT JOINING THE BLOGGERS' GROUP -- TO ADAM AT HTTP: //PALINFORVP.BLOGSPOT.COM. HE STARTED THE PALIN EFFORT AS A "COALITION" OF ONE, AND ITS SUCCESS IS LARGELY A RESULT OF HIS EFFORTS. SO, PLEASE CONTACT ADAM ABOUT ANY IMPORTANT PALIN MATTERS. I UNCONDITIONALLY SUPPORT SARAH FOR VICE-PRESIDENT, AND I SUPPORT THAT REMARKABLE WOMAN FOR EVEN HIGHER OFFICE AS EARLY AS 2012, AND NO LATER THAN 2016. THE V-P MOVEMENT WILL BE IN GOOD HANDS WITH ADAM. -- STEVE (AS YOU'LL NOTE, I HAVE CHANGED THE FOCUS AND MY PROFILE SOMEWHAT. )

ABOUT SARAH: I SPEAK FOR MYSELF AND NO ONE ELSE

ABOUT SARAH PALIN, HER POLITICAL FUTURE -- ONE FULL OF ABUNDANT PROMISE -- WILL DEPEND ON HER ACTIONS, WHICH MIGHT JUST AMAZE THE WORLD. I AM PLAYING A SMALL (BUT NOT INSIGNIFICANT ROLE IN HELPING ENSURE THAT FUTURE. HOWEVER, THE DEGREE TO WHICH ANYONE SUPPORTS HER SHOULD DEPEND ON SARAH AND NOT ON ME. I WILL SPEAK THE TRUTH AS I SEE IT, WHICH SHE DOES, AND WHICH ALL PEOPLE SHOULD DO.


In regard to the Sarah Palin effort, I've been associated with it for several months. I'll tell you a secret about the effort: it's a totally democratic undertaking. It's a true "coalition of the willing."

I sometimes list myself as part of the "National Coordination Team," but everyone who backs Sarah for higher office (and not just the vice-presidency) is a member of that national coordination team. Perhaps we should call it "the National UN-Coordination Team?"

I do not in any official sense represent Sarah Palin. I do not speak FOR her, but rather ABOUT her. What I say about Sarah -- or anyone or anything else -- represents my view. I will do my best to be truthful in anything I say, and I assure you I will be hard-hitting.

Obviously, I also don't speak for any other blogger, columnist, or individual associated with the advancement of Sarah's political career at the state and national levels. They can speak for themselves, and sometimes we will disagree, which is fine.

People who support Sarah Palin (mainly for the vice-presidency in 2008 and for the presidency at some later date) reflect a variety of viewpoints -- one is a liberal Democrat (!!!!) and the rest are mainly moderate, conservative, or libertarian Republicans or Independents. This is as it should be in any political movement that has at least a chance of success. If you're in a coaltion where everyone agrees with you, then you're in a losing effort.

There are currently about 45 bloggers and columnists who have affirmed support for Sarah. Some of these people who have the luxury of doing so are devoting full-time to the "Sarah Project." Others, including one sailor on active duty in the Middle East, are doing everything they can.

Presidential candidates favored by those who also back Sarah include: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Tommy Thompson (who's withdrawn as a candidate), Ron Paul, and presumably others. There's no litmus test on this matter, but it probably would be a good idea for any serious presidential candidate to have Sarah's phone number on speed-dial.

The list of Republican candidates about whom I've said nice things is a long one. (If you want evidence of that, I'll provide it.) For those who care, I'm especially attracted to the presidential campaigns of (in alphabetical order): Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, and John McCain. I believe Hunter and McCain have almost no chance of winning, but I have tremendous respect for both.

I will support the Republican ticket in 2008 -- no ifs, ands, or butts. As I've been saying, in politics "half-a-loaf" is the equivalent of a seven-course-meal. Any candidate who claims to agree with you (or me) on every issue is not passing what the computer geeks call "the straight-face test."

Most experts (and serious pollsters) think it's unlikely the Republican presidential nominee will win in 2008. I agree with that assessment (sadly), but that will have zero effect on my own efforts to help ensure that the next President is someone other than Mrs. Clinton. Unless she stumbles badly --and unexpectedly -- she will be the Democratic nominee in 2008.

According to the Gallup Poll, the second-most respected woman in America is Obama-supporter Oprah Winfey. The person at the top of the Gallup list is Hillary Rodham Clinton. I'm sure you don't need me to outline the implications of those poll results.

As for support for Sarah, it's primarily a matter of the head and the heart. If at any time an individual would like to withdraw his or her support for Gov. Palin, they're of course welcome to do so. There's no one to stop them. They would suffer no recriminations from me (or anyone else I know of).

However, if anyone makes defamatory or false statements about Sarah, I will respond, as I imagine would many other people. Also, if anyone makes false or defamatory statements about presidential candidates, including Democratic hopefuls, I will also respond.

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

Note: I'll write later today about Mike Huckabee's campaign strategy and, at some point, about false statements made about Rudy Giuliani.

Doc Holiday or Hillary Clinton? America's Fate Lies in Balance

SJ Reidhead (Cindy), who does the glorious Pink Flamingo website (see blogroll), has raised an entirely new possibity in the Presidential sweepstakes: her cat, Doc Holiday., apparently a registered Independent. One of her other cats, GeorgieW, passed away and is not eligible for the presidency, except perhaps in Mayor Richard Daley, Jr.'s Chicago. In any case, I urge you to visit Cindy's new blog: http://docholidayforpresident.blogspot.com/. The original Doc Holiday is responsible for an important political principle: if your opponents never see your back, they're much less likely to stab or shoot you there. Would that Alberto Gonzalez had heeded that advice.

Note: We in the Maloney Family have two cats: Larry Bird and Tigger Edward. Larry Bird, named after the basketball star of yesteryear, is 20 years old, which means Guinness Book status may be in his future. He's in good health. He eats three hours per day (mainly shrimp and other delicacies that are nearly unaffordable) and sleeps 20. The rest of the time he seems to spend reading an ancient history text.

I'll try to put up a picture of Larry, who mostly shuns publicity, later today.

SARAH EFFORT AT TIPPING POINT: Support Pours In

NOTE: There are two columns -- the one below, and the one below that -- that I regard as important. I realize Senator Larry Craig has resigned, but I want to retract my initial condemantion of him. I rushed to judgment, and I was mistaken to do that. So, please take a look at both columns. Thanks. -- Steve

In the Palin Movement, one great thing after another continues to take place. TWO fine blog columns by David Anderson, a long-time admirer of Gov. Sarah Palin has two dynamite pieces in praise of her. You can find them at the following links: http://stoptaxing.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/why-sarah-palin-could-be-the-most-important-person-you-dont-know/

http://firststatepolitics.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/is-sarah-palin-the-best-hope-for-the-gop/

One new recruit to the Palin Movement sent me an e-mail with the following message: "You guys really do have me excited about Palin now. (And those are some great pics ... it's now wonder she can boast an 84+% approval rating...)"

Steve says: Some Republicans with the national Party in DC don't quite know what to make of Sarah's appeal, which is a shame. They tend to spend much of their time trying to preserve the Republican "Good Ole Boys" network, channeling money and support to individuals who have been around long enough to raise their own campaign funds.

Frankly, if we don't put excellent candidates forward (and see David Anderson's list of such people in the comments section of his blog) who are rigorously honest and great communicators, our future will be a gloomy one.

COBB (MICHAEL COBB BOWEN) FOR PRESIDENT?

I read a column by Michael Cobb Bowen, a Black conservative who blogs under the name "Cobb" (see his site on the blogroll). http://cobb.typepad.com/. He posts under the name "Cobb: Strictly Old School."

Discussing Hurricane Katrina, he builds on a point made by economist Larry Kudlow: that the $125 billion-plus in federal dollars that have gone to New Orleans should have been distributed to the 300,000 people remaining in New Orleans. Each of the people would have received $425,000. A family of four would have received $1.7 million.

In other words, New Orleaneans would have had enough money to do whatever was in their best interests. Let me add: It's probable that a big chunk of the money would have gone to rebuilding businesses, charter schools, homes, and the like that would by now have have made The Big Easy into The Big Success Story.

How would the $425,000 each help with the major problem of getting people to return home? Guess.

My question is this: why isn't the national Republican Party begging and pleading with Cobb to run for the state senate -- or for Congress -- or, eventually, for President? Also, he's a computer whiz who could be showing the Party how to use the Internet to build support among minorities.

Also, on Cobb's blogroll there are 100-plus sites listed. Most of them are Black conservatives who blog. Why isn't some Republican (other than just little me, of course) contacting them to ask for their support -- and to provide whatever assistance they need?

Do I agree with Cobb on everything? No, I don't, which puts him in the same category as the other 300 million Americans who disagree with me on something or other.

However, with most of the national Democrats (from Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Pelosi to Mr. Murtha and Mr. Schumer), I don't agree with them on hardly anything. Ergo, let's see the Cobbs (and Michael Steeles) of the world become the subjects of serious discussion about how we're going to get them in the nation's highest offices.

The column below reprints Kazoo's thoughtful support of Gov. Sarah Heath Palin for the vice-presidency of our beloved country. Kazoo grew up near where I now live, and I grew up in the county where he now resides. As Kazoo suggests, Sarah's having the second spot makes eminent sense. I'd also like to direct you to Adam's site -- http://palinforvp.blogspot.com to see some wonderful pictures (courtesy of Alaskan Tricia Ward) of Sarah and her husband (Todd) with Alaska's teacher-of-the-year, Ina Boucher. Kazoo's excellent blog is at: http://kazoolist.blogspot.com/2007/08/palin-for-veep.html

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 (By "Kazoo")
Palin for Veep?

I recently came across the Draft Sarah Palin For Vice President blog via comments on a post on a friend's blog.Sarah Palin is the Governor of Alaska and while I'm not yet ready to throw all (2 1/4 ounces) of my blog's weight behind the Palin for VP movement, I think Palin would make a wise (though unfortunately unlikely) choice for Republican '08 Vice Persident. [Note from Steve: Palin backers include individuals who support nearly every one of the 10 presidential candidates who appeared in the first -- Reagan Library -- debate. The Palin Movement as a whole currently endorses no single individual for the presidency. FYI: Currently, a good number of Palin supporters are backing Gov. Mike Huckabee]

Quoting from an early entry on the Draft Palin blog:

"This blog is the result of about a month worth of research on potential Republican Vice-Presidential candidates for the 2008 election. ... I developed the following profile for the perfect VP candidate (using Rudy Giuliani as my presumptive presidential candidate):

1) A energetic, young, fresh face who will energize the electorate
2) Not connected to the current administration
3) Pro-Life
4) Pro-Gun
5) A woman or minority to counter Hillary or Obama and put to rest the idea that America only elects white males.

One of the first names I found that fit these qualifications was that of Sarah Palin, the recently elected Governor of Alaska. ...

After looking at every GOP governor, senator, and congressperson, I found that Palin had only become more appealing. From what I've read, she certainly is an "energetic, young, fresh face who [would] energize the electorate."

Frankly, I think she could even give Obama's charisma a run for its money.She also has a reputation for shaking up the political status quo, knocking off incumbents and chasing down corruption (even when it was Republicans committing the corrupt acts.)" [End of Adam's comments quoted]

[Kazoo's observation] That fits in really well with '08 being billed as "change election" and Americans being tired of the "political establishment." She also passes the "extremely like-able" test with an 84% approval rating. And, I can't see anyone being able to effectively run attack ads against her. She would just come off as being too sympathetic. Not because they'd be attacking a woman; more like if someone were to run attack ads against Ned Flanders.

[Kazoo adds -- and notice his warming up considerably to Sarah] Actually, now that I've finished jotting down my thoughts I can't think of a better choice for '08 GOP VP. If nothing else, maybe the momentum behind trying to have her be the VP will show that Republicans really are OK with candidates that aren't just white males.

(Not that that stereotype actually doesn't hold water ... first woman SCOTUS justice? Appointed by Reagan. First African-American male Sec. of State? Appointed by G.W. Bush. First African-American female Sec. of State? by Bush. First Hispanic Attorney General? by Bush (but witch-hunted out by white (Democratic) males Schumer, Leahey, Biden, Kennedy and Finegold.))

Perhaps my one final (fleeting?) reservation is that she probably best pairs up with Guillani, and he's certainly not my first choice.

But since he is (admittedly) the most likely choice, Run Palin Run! [End of comments by Kazoo]

Comment from Steve Maloney: I have said that I will back the presidential (and vice-presidential) nominees for the Republican Party. If the Republican nominees lose in the 2008 presidential election (presumably to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton), I intend to begin working immediately to ensure that Sarah gets the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 to oppose -- and to defeat -- Mrs. Clinton. In Kazoo's piece, note how he starts out somewhat tentative about backing Sarah for V-P -- and ends up doing so enthusiastically. That's a process many Sarah supporters know well. I hope you'll join Kazoo in getting behind this remarkable woman.

Timothy Egan, an important Seattle-area newsman, says the following about Sarah: "The good news for Republicans is that the most popular fresh face is one of theirs — Gov. Sarah Palin, who looks like Tina Fey of “Saturday Night Live” fame. A marathon runner and commercial fisherwoman — whose kids are named Track, Bristol, Willow and Piper — Governor Palin knocked out an encrusted incumbent in the primary last year. She supports a new ethics bill designed to bring light to the long winter of Alaska politics."