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."

Constitutional Bans on Gay Marriage or Abortion? Don't Hold Your Breath

I've added a new blog, one that's run by Treva and that you can find at: http://thinkaware.blogspot.com. Treva isn't ready yet to sign up to back Sarah Palin, but her blog is very good, and I urge you to visit. Treva and I may disagree on this-or-that, but she shows a great instinct for practical politics and understands that it's a lot more fun to win than to lose. Triva also has many pictures of her strikingly attractive children, whom she homeschools (and introduces to her favorite candidate, Mike Huckabee.)

In this column, I'm going to discuss my distaste for "conservative" (or supposedly conservative) candidates who talk about "constitutional amendments" defining marriage or "outlawing" abortion. There's a better chance of us cashing in on the million dollar offers we get from spammers in Nigeria (why is it always Nigeria?) than for a constitutional amendment outlawing gay unions or abortion. It is not going to happen!

I believe there are several politicians -- Larry Craig and Mark Foley, you many cover your ears -- who claim to be "pro-life" or "pro-traditional-marriage" who are actually neither. You can find them by determining how quick they are to support constitutional amendments that have zero chance of passing. Such people feel that evangelical Protestants and traditional Catholics are easily deceived -- making us convenient targets for family values rhetoric.

If an elected official claims to support policies that will never see the light of day as actual legislation in either chamber of Congress, it's a good idea to look into what HE (and they're almost always "hes") is up to.

In the succeeding paragraphs, I'm going to advocate "truth-in-politics" when it comes to the slim-and-none chances for certain constitutional amendments.

The last significant vote on a constitutional ban on abortion (The Human Life Amendment) came in 1983 with legislation presented by Republican Senator Hatch of Utah and Democratic Senator Eagleton of Missouri. It got 49 votes -- many more than it could get today -- and was not anywhere receiving enough votes for cloture (let alone for passage, where it required 67 votes to get through as an amendment to the Constitution).

Despite suggestions otherwise by presidential candidates Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney, a constitutional amendment banning abortion has NO CHANCE of getting through the Senate. It also has no chance of getting through the House, where it would take two-thirds of that body for passage (about 290 votes).

But what a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman -- period? The last vote on that matter was in 2004, when Republicans controlled both Houses. In the Senate, it also got 49 affirmative votes (a popular number) and 50 in the negative.

Proposed amendments banning abortion still peek up their heads in the Congress, but they never even make it out of committees. They are DOA.

Again, an imaginary ban on states recognizing gay marriage has ZERO chance of passing, particularly with the number of seats Democrats added in 2006 -- and the additional ones they're poised to get in 2008.

What are elected officials who propose constitutional amendments on abortion and gay marriage doing? Frankly, they're pandering to the group whom they perceive as social conservatives. They're suggesting something is possible when it's not. They're "blowing smoke" at us.

I don't know where Senators Vitter and Craig are standing on such matters nowadays. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if they're still trying to sell the same politics of illusion. They'll probably do so just as long as their constituents are willing to put up with them -- which, one hopes, will not be too long.

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

Christian "Conservatives": Rhetoric or Reality?

I was one of the first bloggers to call for the resignation of Senator Larry Craig. He probably will resign, but now I wonder if I was too hasty. I assumed there was some verbal solicitation or groping of the undercover policeman, and apparently there was none. It may be more a case of physical clumsiness and bad judgment in pleading guilty. The policeman was totally out-of-bounds in making assumptions about Craig's character. I may have rushed to judgment. (Note: The policeman said he didn't care about Craig's supposed "sexual preference," itself a loaded and suspect term, but what were the police doing in the men's room? It now looks like entrapment to me. ) -- Stephen R. Maloney



After the piece below about the bogus "social conservatives' (Craig, Vitter, and Foley), I will point in several links to pieces that give a good insight in who Gov. Sarah Palin is and what she's acccomplished. Will be up at 9 p.m. EDT.

I can't tell you how distressing this whole matter of Senator Larry Craig of Idaho (see the column below) is to me. No, I don't want him boiled in oil or drawn and quartered or made to wear a Scarlet Letter. Frankly, I just want him to go -- to resign.

In his thoughtless actions -- and now in the lies he feels compelled to utter to save his sorry skins -- he disgraces himself, his family, and worst of all, the Republican Party. The Democrats accuse us of hypocrisy, and people like Craig (and many others) give them the ammunition. They soil us.

He has been what we generally call "a tireless advocate for traditional marriage and ethical behavior." And he didn't mean a word of it. He was appealing to "social issue voters," most of whom are sincere in their beliefs, but he perceived rightly that such people are easily deceived.

In my discussions with Larry Perrault, which I've enjoyed a good deal, even though we both occasionally exasperate each, I've explained that I'm increasingly suspicious of "social values" politicians. They push our buttons to get elected, and in a practical sense they accomplish nothing.

Specifically, I want candidates to stop identifying themselves with slogans. It's fine to be, for example, "pro-life" as long as that isn't some meaningless and cynical designation a candidate uses to appeal to Christian evangelicals and traditional Catholics. I'm not exactly impressed by candidates who propose constitutional amendments that have absolutely no chance of passing.

Mitt Romney is being criticized for flip-flopping once again on the issue of abortion in adopting his current position that abortion should be an issue settled by the states. I have no idea of Romney's real feelings on abortion, but he is right about the states' responsibility. There will be no consittutional amendment on this issue in our lifetimes. As was the case pre-Roe v. Wade, this is question for the 50 states, period. It's a lot easier to exert influence at the state level than at the federal.

Reportedly, Senator David Vitter of Louisiana had said -- before it was revealed he was a customer of the so-called "DC Madam" -- that the most important issue facing Americawas . . . gay marriage. That at a time when we're facing the dilemma of the Iraq War and the approaching disaster of $100 trillion in unfunded liability for entitlement programs, among many others.

Senator Vitter emphasized the gay marriage matter because he believed -- and probably still believes -- the voters of Louisiana are stupid people. Is he right? We shall find out. Gay marriage or civil unions or whatever it's called is an absolutely trivial matter. It's one of those famous "wedge issues" that deserves about one minute any sane person's time. If Bob and Andy and Sue and Debbie want to "tie the knot," we should wish them all a long and happy life and then go on to more important things.

If Senator Vitter and Senator Craig, as well as some other "distinguished" elected officials, had concentrated more on doing real work on behalf of the nation we'd all be better off. Instead, they pandered to . . . us. All government officials hereby have my permission never to pander to me. I prefer that they talk honestly, even when I don't completely "like" what they have to say.

As a group, we Christian conservatives have to look into our own hearts. We have to ask what we want from candidates: rhetoric or some semblance of reality. If we desire the Mark Foleys, David Vitters, and Larry Craigs, who are willing to scratch us where it itches and nothing more, then God help us.

(I'd love to get some comments -- any comments -- on this short post, but I fear the response will be silence. We've been hoodwinked, my friends, and it doesn't feel good at all.)

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

I've spent much of the week trying to get Mike Huckabee supporters involved in the campaign to get Gov. Sarah Palin on the Republican national ticket. The thing that impresses me most about her, as I told KTUU-TV in Anchorage, is that she is a very loving wife and mother. The second thing is her absolute honesty -- something that has isolated her from the state Republican Party, including its chairman whom she cited for ethics violations. What a wonderful role model for every girl and woman in this country!

Many Huckabee supporters have "signed up" as supporters of Gov. Palin for the vice-presidency, and others are close to doing the same. In their actions, they're helping to rebuild the foundation of the Republican Party, something that will take years -- perhaps many years -- to complete.

I have spent 1,000 hours so far working on Gov. Palin's behalf. I don't regret one minute of that time. I'm doing it mainly for my children and grandchildren -- and for yours. It's hard work, because she not nearly as well known as she deserves.

Join me. Join us. Join her. This is a remarkable woman and, at some point in 2012 or 2016, she will be the President of the United States. Let's just make sure she's THE FIRST female President and not the second.

To all elected officials: Saying the right words is fine as far as it goes. Doing the right things is better. .

The following are important pieces about Sarah Palin, her life, her views, and her character.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin (Short and accurate biographical)

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp (outstanding piece on Sarah by Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard and FOX News analyst)

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/08/17/235529.php (SJ Reidhead (Cindy), Article by the "Queen of the Blogosphere" on the Character and Potential of Sarah Palin)

http://columbian.com/opinion/news/07252007news173060.cfm (Essay by editor emeritus Tom Koenigger on Alaska and its remarkable Governor)

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/vassilaros/s_517252.html (Essay by conservative columnist Dimitri Vassilaros in praise of the GOP's "Beacon of Hope")

It might take a half-hour to read all these pieces. It will be time well spent, because Sarah is at least a step ahead of nearly ever elected official in our nation.

Two Great Candidates (Huckabee & Palin) and An Awful One (Larry Craig)

Please don't skip over the material at the bottom of this post dealing with disgraced Republican Senator Larry Craig's pleading guilty to lewd conduct in a Minneapolis restroom. It's depressing, but it's important to face reality.

Note to supporters of MIKE HUCKABEE and other candidates, the best way to learn about Sarah Palin is to read some of the national articles praising her, all of them listed on my blogroll (Fred Barnes' "The Most Popular Governor" in The Weekly Standard, White House Correspondent Les Kinsolving in WorldNetDaily, Dimitri Vassilaros in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review), SJ Reidhead on BlogCritics, and Tom Koenniger in The Columbian). The Wikipedia article on Sarah (type in her name) is short but accurate. If you're interested in blog sites backing Sarah, look at: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/, http://palintology.com/ (an Alaska site), http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com/, as well as pro-Huckabee sites such as http://onemom.wordpress.com/, http://opinionatedcatholic.blogspot.com/ and http://themaritimesentry.blogspot.com/. Please join us in our efforts to get the most electable woman on the GOP ticket. If you're interested, leave a comment or send me an e-mail at TalkTop65@aol.com.

A big welcome to the newest Palin Fan (and a strong supporter of Mike Huckabee), a guy named "Nuke" who does Nuke's News & Views at: http://conservablogs.com/nuke/

In my comments section for yesterday's column, you'll notice NY Catholic Mom saying that Sarah should hold her political fire until Mike Huckabee has served two terms and Sarah's kids "are grown." Three of the kids are pretty well grown by now, including a boy who will soon be 19. The following in blue is my response:

Dear Catholic Mom: Sarah seems to have done a wonderful job (along with her husband, Todd) with her kids to this point. From the polls, it looks likely (though not inevitable) that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the next President of the U.S. The push to get Sarah on the ticket is an effort to forestall that from happening.

If Mike Huckabee or any Republican presidential candidate doesn't have an absolutely dynamite running mate, then the only time he will spend in the White House will be on a visitor's pass. Yesterday, a blogger for Huckabee noted that "It's time for Mike to take some risks." He said a mouthful.

People who believe Mrs. Clinton will be easy to beat are in denial, ignoring her tremendous financial and political resources, as well as her strong appeal to several large voting blocs. In generic polls (do you prefer a Republican or a Democrat for President?) the Democrat wins by 52-39%.

In her first Senate race in New York, Mrs. Clinton ran against a popular young congressman, Rick Lazio. Despite being called a carpetbagger and every other name in the book, she won 55 percent to 43 percent, which in New York qualifies as a landslide.

New York is a much more diverse state than most people think. It has a rich ethnic and racial blend. One surprise is that the state has a huge number of farms, and dozens of small and medium-sized cities, as well as many villages.

If Mrs. Clinton wins in 2008, her opponent in 2012 might very well be Gov. Sarah Palin. Poll data (I can provide if you'd like to see it) shows the Democrats doing very well among Catholic voters. That data has been generated by Rasmussen and Pew, two highly respected survey firms.

The Republican Party has also done poorly for nearly 30 years with women professionals (teachers, doctors, lawyers, businesswomen, nurses) for 30 years, and that gap is widening. The current thinking among most experts is that the Republican Party will get skunked in most important races, including the one for the Presidency.

It wouldn't benefit Mike to choose a male Caucasian (a Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich) with very limited appeal to voters generally, as the Republican Party has done over and over and over again since the Eisenhower era. If the Republican Party has stars -- and Mike truly is one -- then it is time to present them to the voters.

Gov. Palin has more executive experience than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards -- combined. That executive experience comes from two terms as Mayor of Alaska's fastest growing town (Wasilla) and as governor of a state that's crucial to America's energy future. She also serves as chairman of energy resources for the Republican Governors' Association.

In a Republican Party (see the material below on Sen. Craig) beset by corruption and sexual misconduct, Sarah Palin is a model of ethical behavior. In her tenure on the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, she blew the whistle on ethical misconduct by the head of the state's Repubican Party and on Alaska's Attorney-General.

The Republican Party has only two women -- a shamefully low number -- who could run effectively on the national ticket. They are Congresswoman (and Air Force veteran) Heather Wilson of NM and Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. I don't think the message we want to send to women interested in public service is that they had best ally themselves with the Democrats.

Surveys demonstrate that 92% of Americans are ready to vote for a qualified woman for President. Gee, what woman might that be? Apparently, Republican women make up most of the 8% who are not ready to vote for a woman for the highest office. That is just plain sad, and hopefully candidates like Sarah will rectify the situation.

As you can see, a great deal of thought has preceded the many thousands of hours people have spent on Sarah's behalf. IT IS NOT A CASUAL SUGGESTION.

(Note: A good chunk of the statistics I cite are drawn from a figure who's young but has almost achieved sainthood in the conservative movement, Patrick Hynes. You can find the material in his article, "Identity Group Conservatism," at the following link: http://anklebitingpundits.com/content/index.php?p=2496)

steve maloney

MINNEAPOLIS (Aug. 28) - Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is a conservative Republican who has voted against gay marriage and opposes hate crimes legislation that would extend special protections to gay and lesbian crime victims.

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, confirmed on Monday that he pleaded guilty earlier this month to a charge of disorderly conduct after he was arrested at an airport. In the wake of Craig's guilty plea on misdemeanor charges stemming from complaints of lewd conduct in a men's restroom at the Minneapolis airport, his political future is in question. The three-term senator, who has represented Idaho in Congress for more than a quarter-century, is up for re-election next year. He hasn't said if he will run for a fourth term in 2008 and was expected to announce his plans this fall. A spokesman, Sidney Smith, was uncertain late Monday if Craig's guilty plea would affect his re-election plans.

Steve says: Affect his re-election plans? What re-election plans? This pitiful guy is political dead meat. I am sick of people, especially those who masquerade as "conservative Republicans," engaging in sexual misconduct. It's disheartening to see Republicans (Rep. Mark Foley, Sen. David Vitter, and Randall Tobias (Hollywood-Madam-customer) appealing to the "Republican base" with demagoguery and pandering -- and then engaging in the basest of behavior. In dealing with the "base," their motto is let them eat rhetoric.

Sen. Larry Craig should resign, and should do it today. Sinful and disgusting behavior by such people is an arrow in the heart of our many decent candidates, including people like MIke Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, Heather Wilson, and Diana Lynn Irey. The "narrative" people like Craig construct is one that says Republican elected officials are corrupt hypocrites. The fact that there were problems with the way Craig conducted himself should not come as a major surprise (for decades there have been rumors that Craig is gay, although married). As William F. Buckley, Jr. said many years ago: "Self-control is the most exhilarating of pleasures." Too bad that people like Foley and Craig don't heed that admonition.