I recommend enthusiastically to all readers two organizations designated to defending the legal rights of American fighting men and women. Please look into these groups and then donate a sum of money, small or large, to them. Thanks.
The Military Combat Defense Fund, reachable at: http://militarycombatdefensefund.com/
Thomas More Law Center, reachable at: http://thomasmore.org/
Soliders who've risked their lives for American deserve our unyielding support, and these organizations provide them with necessary assistance.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Sarah Palin and Trib-Review Article
Information From Elephantman
I received today the following information from Adam, "Elephantman," who blogs at http://palinforvp.blogspot.com, which I urge you to visit:
Actually, this news story is about GOP governors saying it's too early to say there's a favorite in the 2008 Race, but read Palin's quote very carefully:
"A lot of us are sitting back and waiting to see if there will be new players in there," Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said. "That's probably why that box that says 'none of the above' is so popular right now." [See my analysis of these comments at end of this piece]
Is there anything between the lines there? I don't like to make lots of presumptions, but something inside me wants to think that Gov. Palin knows what's up.
We may also get some good material on Palin in the next few days as she is visiting Alaskan troops in Kuwait
As Adam suggests, this is very, very interesting.
Dimitri Vassilaros Column in 07/23 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Adam, Trish Houser (www.palintology.com/), and I were quoted in Dimitri Vassilaros' "The Palin Effect" that appeared in the July 23, 2007 Tribune-Review. Dimitri says the following about us (and other Palin boosters): "Ardent Palinistas strecth from Alaska to Ambridge [PA]. They praise her honesty, leadership, and for worshipping the state Constitution. But they freely admit they know nothing about her stands on most national issues. One of the most ardent [he's referring to me] doesn't want to know, at least yet."
The point I tried to get across to Dimitri is that Sarah Palin is a state official -- not yet a national one. Alaska, like every other state in the union, including Pennsylvania, DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN POSITION ON ISSUES LIKE IMMIGRATION AND IRAQ.
It's true I don't know Sarah's "positions" on Iraq and Immigration Reform, but I also don't know the positions of PA Governor Ed Rendell, whom I've followed closely for many years, on either issue. Their roles as governors don't require them to take stands on every subject of national interest. Sarah isn't yet a declared candidate for the national ticket. I hope she will be soon.
In fact, however, she has strong positions on many state matters that have national implications.
For example, as her actions show, she's strongly opposed to excessive government spending and the resultant heavy taxes. She's very much in favor of getting Alaskan energy -- especially the state's vast reserves of natural gas -- to us in the lower-48. She has stood foursquare against the kind of political corruption that is prevalent among politicians both in Alaska and in the rest of the country. She's deeply aware of the need to protect Alaska's fragile environment against oil spills and other forms of devastation.
One of the most important issues confronting the Republican ticket (including Sarah) in the 2008 election will be to build national support for common sense positions on controversial issues -- something she excels at. As the Bush Administration's record shows, no reforms (in Social Security, in Immigration, or in the WOT) will take place without national understanding and support.
I'm not advocating purely poll-driven politics. The Democrats have a monopoly on that. Rather, it's clear that without the backing of most Americans, no elected official can "reform" anything. In Alaska, Sarah Palin has achieved an approval rating of 90%, which shows she knows how to get her messages and policies across to voters.
Sarah Palin's policy recommendations on key matters -- especially Iraq, Immigration, and Social Security-Medicare -- will be very important. That's why I hope she and, of course, the eventual presidential nominee, take the time to get their positions right.
The people at the top of the ticket will have to propose NEW solutions, ones that strikes most Americans as reasonable, fair, and workable. In other words, the presidential and vice-presidential nominees will have to show the same kind of political and communication skills Gov. Palin has demonstrated in Alaska.
Yes, we're asking a lot of one governor, but no one has ever gone broke betting on Sarah Palin.
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
I received today the following information from Adam, "Elephantman," who blogs at http://palinforvp.blogspot.com, which I urge you to visit:
Actually, this news story is about GOP governors saying it's too early to say there's a favorite in the 2008 Race, but read Palin's quote very carefully:
"A lot of us are sitting back and waiting to see if there will be new players in there," Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said. "That's probably why that box that says 'none of the above' is so popular right now." [See my analysis of these comments at end of this piece]
Is there anything between the lines there? I don't like to make lots of presumptions, but something inside me wants to think that Gov. Palin knows what's up.
We may also get some good material on Palin in the next few days as she is visiting Alaskan troops in Kuwait
As Adam suggests, this is very, very interesting.
Dimitri Vassilaros Column in 07/23 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Adam, Trish Houser (www.palintology.com/), and I were quoted in Dimitri Vassilaros' "The Palin Effect" that appeared in the July 23, 2007 Tribune-Review. Dimitri says the following about us (and other Palin boosters): "Ardent Palinistas strecth from Alaska to Ambridge [PA]. They praise her honesty, leadership, and for worshipping the state Constitution. But they freely admit they know nothing about her stands on most national issues. One of the most ardent [he's referring to me] doesn't want to know, at least yet."
The point I tried to get across to Dimitri is that Sarah Palin is a state official -- not yet a national one. Alaska, like every other state in the union, including Pennsylvania, DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN POSITION ON ISSUES LIKE IMMIGRATION AND IRAQ.
It's true I don't know Sarah's "positions" on Iraq and Immigration Reform, but I also don't know the positions of PA Governor Ed Rendell, whom I've followed closely for many years, on either issue. Their roles as governors don't require them to take stands on every subject of national interest. Sarah isn't yet a declared candidate for the national ticket. I hope she will be soon.
In fact, however, she has strong positions on many state matters that have national implications.
For example, as her actions show, she's strongly opposed to excessive government spending and the resultant heavy taxes. She's very much in favor of getting Alaskan energy -- especially the state's vast reserves of natural gas -- to us in the lower-48. She has stood foursquare against the kind of political corruption that is prevalent among politicians both in Alaska and in the rest of the country. She's deeply aware of the need to protect Alaska's fragile environment against oil spills and other forms of devastation.
One of the most important issues confronting the Republican ticket (including Sarah) in the 2008 election will be to build national support for common sense positions on controversial issues -- something she excels at. As the Bush Administration's record shows, no reforms (in Social Security, in Immigration, or in the WOT) will take place without national understanding and support.
I'm not advocating purely poll-driven politics. The Democrats have a monopoly on that. Rather, it's clear that without the backing of most Americans, no elected official can "reform" anything. In Alaska, Sarah Palin has achieved an approval rating of 90%, which shows she knows how to get her messages and policies across to voters.
Sarah Palin's policy recommendations on key matters -- especially Iraq, Immigration, and Social Security-Medicare -- will be very important. That's why I hope she and, of course, the eventual presidential nominee, take the time to get their positions right.
The people at the top of the ticket will have to propose NEW solutions, ones that strikes most Americans as reasonable, fair, and workable. In other words, the presidential and vice-presidential nominees will have to show the same kind of political and communication skills Gov. Palin has demonstrated in Alaska.
Yes, we're asking a lot of one governor, but no one has ever gone broke betting on Sarah Palin.
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Adam (Elephantman) is intrigued by Sarah Palin's comments about possible "new players" entering the presidential primaries. Of course, she could be referring to Fred Thompson (who may, or may not, have been talking to her). Another possibility is that Sarah is thinking about being one of the "new faces" in the campaign for the nation's highest office.
In terms of political strategy, it wouldn't be a bad idea for her to jump into the fray. There would be no better way for her to gain one thing she now lacks: national name recognition. Also, she can see that none of the current candidates has truly caught fire, especially with conservative Republicans.
Sanity102 and others have been making the point that Sarah isn't fully ready for the top slot. On the flip side, however, anyone who runs for the vice-presidency is in fact a heartbeat away from the presidency.
When Franklin Roosevelt died near the end of the World War II, Harry Truman probably wasn't fully "ready" to be President. However, he got ready in a hurry. I believe Sarah could do the same.
John Edwards was a trial lawyer who became a one-term U.S. Senator. Barack Obama has been in the Senate for a year-and-a-half. Neither of them has any executive experience in government. Yet they don't get the "lack-of-experience" tag.
Elephantman is right about Sarah's comments being provocative. She's now in Kuwait, meeting with soliders, and I'll be all ears about what she says . . .
Monday, July 23, 2007
Coming Events: Sarah Palin & Hillary Clinton
Monday, July 23, 2007: As I said earlier, I'm taking a few days off. Later today, I'll write a few comments about Dimitri Vassilaros' column regarding Palin supporters, including yours truly. Tomorrow I'll write about Asst. Sec. of Defense Eric Edelman's criticisms of Hillary Clinton (and others) seeking "contingency plans" for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The two subjects -- the growing support for Sarah Palin and the rise to prominence of Hillary Clinton -- are of course connected. Mrs. Palin, a model of decency and conviction, is the "anti-Hillary."
Not to leave anyone in suspense on the Edelman matter: I agree strong with him that the irresponsible actions of Mrs. Clinton and the anti-war group encourage our enemies and put our soldiers at greatest risk. Like Edelman, she is an American citizen with a perfect right to express her views. Unlike Edelman, she doesn't seem to have a grasp that her "ideas," good ones and bad ones, have consequences.
Not to leave anyone in suspense on the Edelman matter: I agree strong with him that the irresponsible actions of Mrs. Clinton and the anti-war group encourage our enemies and put our soldiers at greatest risk. Like Edelman, she is an American citizen with a perfect right to express her views. Unlike Edelman, she doesn't seem to have a grasp that her "ideas," good ones and bad ones, have consequences.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Fred Barnes and Sarah Palin: He Did Everything But Propose Marriage
THIS WEEKEND I'LL ADD A FEW COMMENTS ABOUT IMMIGRATION (MAINLY BASED ON A RECENT ARTICLE IN THE ECONOMIST). OTHERWISE, I'LL BE LOAFING AWAY ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY, WITH PLANS TO RETURN ON MONDAY.
"Winning isn't everything, but losing isn't anything." (Vince Lombardi)
"Republicans make terrible choices for vice-president, so we've decided to help them." (The "4 Palin Movement")
This is an adapted version of my reply to Sanity’s comments about my interview with a Pittsburgh reporter regarding the Movement to draft Sarah Palin. I don't want a Rudy-Sarah administration (or a Fred-Sarah, or a Mike-Sarah, or a John-Sarah one) to scratch anybody's ideological itch. I want them to SOLVE PROBLEMS and CREATE MORE UNITY in this fractious nation.
Are there any significant negatives to a Sarah candidacy? There certainly don't seem to be. Yes, I idealize her somewhat, but I'm also the one who keeps reminding everyone that there are no perfect candidates. "For all have sinned, all have fallen short of the glory of God."
In the interview, I tried to bring up my point of 50-years-of-bad-vice-presidential-choices-by-Republicans, a thought-provoking point (why did it happen?), but one that didn't go anywhere. Historically, Republicans make awful decisions about the vice-presidential role. Our efforts on behalf of Sarah are an attempt to break that cycle.
Sanity, do you remember when I was trying (too hard) to get a guy to join the 4-Palin effort, and he kept asking about her “stand” on immigration? In your nice way, you told me to stop pandering to him -- and suggested (demurely?) that he was a Mexican-hater.
You were right. He wanted to know if Sarah supported the building of the "Berlin-Wall-on-the-Rio-Grande." He didn't want to hear that immigration is too complicated and too important for any sane person to concoct a position that fits on a bumper sticker.
The far-right (what Sanity calls the "absolutists") won a great "victory" in defeating immigration reform. The cost of the victory may be electoral defeat in 2008 -- and perhaps for many years after that. (See my comments later today on what the Economist magazine said on the subject.)
In the interview, it may have been my own deficiencies, but I couldn't get across the point that politics-as-usual will not work anymore. The three leading Democratic candidates (Edwards will fade quickly) will be: a white woman, a Black man, and a Hispanic (Richardson). Against such dynamic candidates some Republicans are proposing our classic ticket of two aging white guys, one eligible for Medicare, one almost there.
Lorie Byrd, a superb political columnist for TH, has suggested that a good choice for V-P would be Michael Steele, a Black man who served as Lt. Gov. in Maryland and ran for the U.S. Senate there. On my original short list of good candidates, I listed Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, and Mike Huckabee (an ordained Baptist minister and Palin supporter Kerry’s choice for the presidential nominee). They’re all un-traditional candidates.
Let me be clear: I support Sarah Palin as the best possible candidate for the vice-presidential slot. There are other good choices (Steele and Huckabee), but Sarah is the best one.
In Fred Barnes's fine piece on Sarah, he did everything but propose marriage to her. What other candidate, Democrat or Republican, would merit such an article? The most intriguing thing about Barnes's observations is that they're true. It's a tribute to the finest woman in American politics.
My fellow Republicans need to remember that this is NOT the America of 1948 or 1952, and there's no Eisenhower (a moderate Republican who wouldn't be acceptable to the modern Right) out there.
Why is it so difficult to get some people to recognize the situation? Elephantman, who's 20 years old, figured out months ago when he determined that Sarah Palin could make the GOP ticket a winner.
There are signs out there that people starting to think with their brains rather than their rear ends.
This morning on CNN, they released the latest poll numbers from South Carolina. Rudy Giuliani had 28%, John McCain 20%, and Fred Thompson 17%. The people on CNN (liberals John Roberts and Bill Schneider) were amazed. How, they asked, could a former Mayor of New York be leading in a Deep South state, one with a large number of evangelical Christians? (The media hate it when voters don't live up to journalistic stereotypes.)
Recently, one South Carolina evangelical (and a strong pro-lifer) put it this way: Rudy, he said, is “resolute . . . a leader.” The man added, “And I think he can beat Mrs. Clinton.”
That’s going to be a major consideration in the months ahead. Right now, Rudy Giuliani is probably as happy as a man strolling through a field of high cotton (old Deep South saying). It's still early, but he is looking like a winner.
Stephen Maloney
Ambridge, PA
"Winning isn't everything, but losing isn't anything." (Vince Lombardi)
"Republicans make terrible choices for vice-president, so we've decided to help them." (The "4 Palin Movement")
This is an adapted version of my reply to Sanity’s comments about my interview with a Pittsburgh reporter regarding the Movement to draft Sarah Palin. I don't want a Rudy-Sarah administration (or a Fred-Sarah, or a Mike-Sarah, or a John-Sarah one) to scratch anybody's ideological itch. I want them to SOLVE PROBLEMS and CREATE MORE UNITY in this fractious nation.
Are there any significant negatives to a Sarah candidacy? There certainly don't seem to be. Yes, I idealize her somewhat, but I'm also the one who keeps reminding everyone that there are no perfect candidates. "For all have sinned, all have fallen short of the glory of God."
In the interview, I tried to bring up my point of 50-years-of-bad-vice-presidential-choices-by-Republicans, a thought-provoking point (why did it happen?), but one that didn't go anywhere. Historically, Republicans make awful decisions about the vice-presidential role. Our efforts on behalf of Sarah are an attempt to break that cycle.
Sanity, do you remember when I was trying (too hard) to get a guy to join the 4-Palin effort, and he kept asking about her “stand” on immigration? In your nice way, you told me to stop pandering to him -- and suggested (demurely?) that he was a Mexican-hater.
You were right. He wanted to know if Sarah supported the building of the "Berlin-Wall-on-the-Rio-Grande." He didn't want to hear that immigration is too complicated and too important for any sane person to concoct a position that fits on a bumper sticker.
The far-right (what Sanity calls the "absolutists") won a great "victory" in defeating immigration reform. The cost of the victory may be electoral defeat in 2008 -- and perhaps for many years after that. (See my comments later today on what the Economist magazine said on the subject.)
In the interview, it may have been my own deficiencies, but I couldn't get across the point that politics-as-usual will not work anymore. The three leading Democratic candidates (Edwards will fade quickly) will be: a white woman, a Black man, and a Hispanic (Richardson). Against such dynamic candidates some Republicans are proposing our classic ticket of two aging white guys, one eligible for Medicare, one almost there.
Lorie Byrd, a superb political columnist for TH, has suggested that a good choice for V-P would be Michael Steele, a Black man who served as Lt. Gov. in Maryland and ran for the U.S. Senate there. On my original short list of good candidates, I listed Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, and Mike Huckabee (an ordained Baptist minister and Palin supporter Kerry’s choice for the presidential nominee). They’re all un-traditional candidates.
Let me be clear: I support Sarah Palin as the best possible candidate for the vice-presidential slot. There are other good choices (Steele and Huckabee), but Sarah is the best one.
In Fred Barnes's fine piece on Sarah, he did everything but propose marriage to her. What other candidate, Democrat or Republican, would merit such an article? The most intriguing thing about Barnes's observations is that they're true. It's a tribute to the finest woman in American politics.
My fellow Republicans need to remember that this is NOT the America of 1948 or 1952, and there's no Eisenhower (a moderate Republican who wouldn't be acceptable to the modern Right) out there.
Why is it so difficult to get some people to recognize the situation? Elephantman, who's 20 years old, figured out months ago when he determined that Sarah Palin could make the GOP ticket a winner.
There are signs out there that people starting to think with their brains rather than their rear ends.
This morning on CNN, they released the latest poll numbers from South Carolina. Rudy Giuliani had 28%, John McCain 20%, and Fred Thompson 17%. The people on CNN (liberals John Roberts and Bill Schneider) were amazed. How, they asked, could a former Mayor of New York be leading in a Deep South state, one with a large number of evangelical Christians? (The media hate it when voters don't live up to journalistic stereotypes.)
Recently, one South Carolina evangelical (and a strong pro-lifer) put it this way: Rudy, he said, is “resolute . . . a leader.” The man added, “And I think he can beat Mrs. Clinton.”
That’s going to be a major consideration in the months ahead. Right now, Rudy Giuliani is probably as happy as a man strolling through a field of high cotton (old Deep South saying). It's still early, but he is looking like a winner.
Stephen Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Gov. Palin, Senator Jim Webb and the "Issues"
Note: In this column, I'm going to write about Sarah Palin and her "stands" on national issues. It's clear that some pople have a basic misunderstanding of the role of a state governor, as opposed to a federal official. Frankly, governors are not some elected form of "talk-radio-callers," people who are never at a loss for opinions. ("Rush, I have an opinion on this-here Global Warming thing . . . ")
Senator Daniel P. Moynihan once said, "We have a right to our own opinions, but we don't have a right to our own facts." Most talk-radio callers, talk-radio hosts, and even columnists have a habit of ignoring Moynihan's point.
The fact is that any state governor -- be it Alaska's Sarah Palin or Pennsylvania's Ed Rendell -- has opinions on many subjects. However, unless their views are a legitimate matter of state interest, they keep their opinions to themselves. States don't have their own foreign policies, and they don't have their own immigration policies.
When Sarah Palin, committed to keeping taxes down, veoted many items in the state's capital budget (hundreds of millions of dollars worth), she often wrote next to the veto signature these words: "Not a matter of state interest."
That's a critical point many people fail to recognize. Certain issues are legitimate concerns of governors, and others are not.
Spouting opinions on various subjects, no matter how tempting it might be, is not part of a governor's responsibility -- something that Ed Rendell knows as well as Sarah Palin.
The national issues that also have state consequences for Alaska are energy, the environment, taxation, political corruption, and economic growth. Gov. Palin is extremely strong on all these national/state issues. That strength is what led columnists like Fred Barnes and Dimitri Vassilaros to feature her in recent articles. It's what has caused the Republican Governor's Association to devote its current website (http://rga.org) to the praise she's drawn for her accomplishments.
When the time comes for Sarah Palin to speak out on issues like Iraq and immigration, she should do so. That time will come when she speaks to the Republican nominee and he offers her the vice-presidential slot.
Before then, she should follow the example of Ed Rendell and every other governor with a grain of sense -- and keep her opinions on bumper-sticker issues to herself. She understands that, as the highest elected official in her state, actions speak much louder than words. Her actions on critical issues have earned her a 90% approval rating. That's a very good start.
-----------------------------------
As I said to Sanity in another communication, I had a long -- and rather unsetting -- interview today about Sarah Palin's candidacy for the vice-presidency (and someday, for the presidency). The interview reminded me of how ideologically intense politics in the USA have become.
I strongly support Sarah because she's an honest, hard-working, constitutionally oriented person who is a fierce campaigner and a winner. Her job in the nation's highest office(s) would be to make America more secure and, to the degree possible, to enable people to feel more satisfied (well, a little more) about their lives. She should be a healer of divisions, not a creator of them. The presidential and the vice-presidential candidates have to bring the country together, which they're not going to do with ideology and partisanship, but rather with character, compassion, and communication skills.
As for GWB, he got deeply wounded politically on immigration. Of course that spills over and affects his degree of public support on other issues.
Look at it this way: the Dems say they oppose the war (i.e., oppose George Bush's conduct of it) but support the troops. That is in fact a meaningless distinction, as Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, whose son is serving in Iraq, said this morning on CNN. Opposing the War -- and doing so in a politically cynical way -- confuses and HURTS the troops. It encourages the enemy. It results in deaths and injuries to American soldiers. Senator Bond was too gentlemanly to say that, so I'll say it for him.
To Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha, Jim Webb, and other ideologues, I say this: you have blood on your hands. You are trading American lives for the votes and support of your "base," one-third of whom believe GWB was complicit in 9/11. You are listening to the fanatics -- mentally unbalanced America-haters -- in your effort to stay in office. That is not leadership. It is a form of political indecency, obscenity.
Senator Webb's son is fighting in Iraq. He's trying her best to prevent psychotic people from murdering innocent Iraqis and destroying any effort to create a decent society. And what is Senator Webb doing? He's taking political steps to ensure that the fanatics win. He's putting his own son at risk for reasons that are incomprehensible. It's disgusting behavior.
Speaker Pelosi wants to fight the War in Afghanistan. Why? Because the polls haven't yet turned completely against it? And what about when the sacred "polls" show diminished support for that effort? Then, like John Edwards, the Dems may declare the WOT an illusion. If we close our eyes and wish upon a star, there will be no bin Laden, no al Qaeda, no mass murders.
Then, the Dems can go back to their favorite task, which is redistributing income and ignoring foreign policy. Hey, it worked for Bill Clinton!
I guess this is why I'm not a big fan of the Dems.
Stephen R. Maloney
As the day goes on, I'll write about Sarah and "national issues." In fact, the challenges Sarah is grappling with in Alaska -- especially energy, the environment, taxes, economic growth, and political corruption -- ARE critical national issues. She's dealing them with practically and decisively -- and in a way that's brought her a 90% approval rating, which is about 70% higher than the ratings for the Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress.
Senator Daniel P. Moynihan once said, "We have a right to our own opinions, but we don't have a right to our own facts." Most talk-radio callers, talk-radio hosts, and even columnists have a habit of ignoring Moynihan's point.
The fact is that any state governor -- be it Alaska's Sarah Palin or Pennsylvania's Ed Rendell -- has opinions on many subjects. However, unless their views are a legitimate matter of state interest, they keep their opinions to themselves. States don't have their own foreign policies, and they don't have their own immigration policies.
When Sarah Palin, committed to keeping taxes down, veoted many items in the state's capital budget (hundreds of millions of dollars worth), she often wrote next to the veto signature these words: "Not a matter of state interest."
That's a critical point many people fail to recognize. Certain issues are legitimate concerns of governors, and others are not.
Spouting opinions on various subjects, no matter how tempting it might be, is not part of a governor's responsibility -- something that Ed Rendell knows as well as Sarah Palin.
The national issues that also have state consequences for Alaska are energy, the environment, taxation, political corruption, and economic growth. Gov. Palin is extremely strong on all these national/state issues. That strength is what led columnists like Fred Barnes and Dimitri Vassilaros to feature her in recent articles. It's what has caused the Republican Governor's Association to devote its current website (http://rga.org) to the praise she's drawn for her accomplishments.
When the time comes for Sarah Palin to speak out on issues like Iraq and immigration, she should do so. That time will come when she speaks to the Republican nominee and he offers her the vice-presidential slot.
Before then, she should follow the example of Ed Rendell and every other governor with a grain of sense -- and keep her opinions on bumper-sticker issues to herself. She understands that, as the highest elected official in her state, actions speak much louder than words. Her actions on critical issues have earned her a 90% approval rating. That's a very good start.
-----------------------------------
As I said to Sanity in another communication, I had a long -- and rather unsetting -- interview today about Sarah Palin's candidacy for the vice-presidency (and someday, for the presidency). The interview reminded me of how ideologically intense politics in the USA have become.
I strongly support Sarah because she's an honest, hard-working, constitutionally oriented person who is a fierce campaigner and a winner. Her job in the nation's highest office(s) would be to make America more secure and, to the degree possible, to enable people to feel more satisfied (well, a little more) about their lives. She should be a healer of divisions, not a creator of them. The presidential and the vice-presidential candidates have to bring the country together, which they're not going to do with ideology and partisanship, but rather with character, compassion, and communication skills.
As for GWB, he got deeply wounded politically on immigration. Of course that spills over and affects his degree of public support on other issues.
Look at it this way: the Dems say they oppose the war (i.e., oppose George Bush's conduct of it) but support the troops. That is in fact a meaningless distinction, as Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, whose son is serving in Iraq, said this morning on CNN. Opposing the War -- and doing so in a politically cynical way -- confuses and HURTS the troops. It encourages the enemy. It results in deaths and injuries to American soldiers. Senator Bond was too gentlemanly to say that, so I'll say it for him.
To Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha, Jim Webb, and other ideologues, I say this: you have blood on your hands. You are trading American lives for the votes and support of your "base," one-third of whom believe GWB was complicit in 9/11. You are listening to the fanatics -- mentally unbalanced America-haters -- in your effort to stay in office. That is not leadership. It is a form of political indecency, obscenity.
Senator Webb's son is fighting in Iraq. He's trying her best to prevent psychotic people from murdering innocent Iraqis and destroying any effort to create a decent society. And what is Senator Webb doing? He's taking political steps to ensure that the fanatics win. He's putting his own son at risk for reasons that are incomprehensible. It's disgusting behavior.
Speaker Pelosi wants to fight the War in Afghanistan. Why? Because the polls haven't yet turned completely against it? And what about when the sacred "polls" show diminished support for that effort? Then, like John Edwards, the Dems may declare the WOT an illusion. If we close our eyes and wish upon a star, there will be no bin Laden, no al Qaeda, no mass murders.
Then, the Dems can go back to their favorite task, which is redistributing income and ignoring foreign policy. Hey, it worked for Bill Clinton!
I guess this is why I'm not a big fan of the Dems.
Stephen R. Maloney
As the day goes on, I'll write about Sarah and "national issues." In fact, the challenges Sarah is grappling with in Alaska -- especially energy, the environment, taxes, economic growth, and political corruption -- ARE critical national issues. She's dealing them with practically and decisively -- and in a way that's brought her a 90% approval rating, which is about 70% higher than the ratings for the Democrat-controlled U.S. Congress.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Pittsburgh Columnist Salutes Sarah
NOTE: Christopher Wensley (http://youngrepublican.townhall.com/) brought to my attention that the Republican Governor's Association (http://rga.org/) features Gov. Sarah Palin on its website, along with a reprint of the Fred Barnes Weekly Standard piece on her as the GOP's rising star. I brought the Tribune-Review article (see below) to the attention of the RGA's press people. Re Sarah: The iron is hot, and we need to keep striking.
The following is a reprint of a July 16, 2007 column about Sarah Palin that appeared in the Pittsburgh (PA) Tribune-Review. I hope every supporter of Sarah will drop a short e-mail to Dimitri Vasillaros, the author (see link at end), and tell him just how right he is about Sarah.
Palin is GOP's beacon
By Dimitri Vassilaros
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, July 16, 2007
Sarah Palin can teach Republicans how to be Republicans. It's a simple lesson. But it won't be easy for anyone who thinks being pragmatic and principled are mutually exclusive.
Mrs. Palin, 43, is the governor of Alaska and the brightest light in the land of the midnight sun. While rasing four kids with her husband, Palin has reduced taxes, embraced the state Constitution, publicly complained about powerful fellow Republicans she thought unethical, encouraged companies to compete for state contracts -- and has not ruled out running for president.
She relishes moose burgers because "they taste better than beef with no chemicals, steroids or hormones." She adopted the Pittsburgh Steelers because of the team's success in the 1970s and because there are no major professional teams in her state.
As a teenage flautist trying to win a scholarship, she was second runner-up in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant. Looking back, she now thinks she was livestock in a swimsuit being eyed by the male judges. "Degrading" she calls it now.
Talk with her for awhile, as I did last Wednesday, and try to count the number of references to her state Constitution. During that phone call, she cited it more than 12 times -- not once gratuitously.
"It's my bible in governing," Palin says. "I try to keep it so simple by reading the thing and believing in it and living it. It's providential. Some of the crafters of the Constitution are still alive. They're my mentors, my advisers. I get to meet with these folks and ask, 'What did you mean by this?' And it makes so much sense."
Palin does not favor same-sex marriage. However, she vetoed a bill prohibiting official gay unions because the judiciary had ruled that banning it was unconstitutional. "I wasn't going to disobey what the courts said we could and couldn't do." When she swore to uphold the law, she meant it.
Ask her to articulate her conservative principles and you'll hear, "Fiscally speaking, the private sector can do a better job than government can do." She also believes in man. "Also just trusting individuals to make wise decisions for themselves and families. I have a lot of trust in individuals. I don't trust government nearly as much."
Gov. Palin vetoed about a third or more of the capital budget, she says. "It's not an open, transparent process at all. The way (the Legislature) works, the administration doesn't even know what's in it until the gavel falls. It's handed to the governor without public process and public debate. It's a nonsensical way of budgeting."
Many of the vetoed items were earmarks by her fellow Republicans. Little wonder she and her party are estranged political bedfellows. "There's absolutely no communication between the state administration and the Republican Party," she says. "No communication, no calling for advice either way."
Some would look at that as the price she has to pay for being a GOP maverick. That is, someone who talks the talk and walks the walk. "I look at it as the way it's supposed to be."
Palin recently signed a bill vastly improving Alaska's ethics and disclosure laws. Now it's a crime for public servants not to report bribery they know about.
Ask her five or six different times if she will run for president and hear nervous giggles and self-deprecating humor. But you won't hear "No."
Dimitri Vassilaros is a Trib editorial page columnist. His column appears Sundays, Mondays and Fridays. Call him at 412-380-5637. E-mail him at dvassilaros@tribweb.com.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/vassilaros/s_517252.html
The following is a reprint of a July 16, 2007 column about Sarah Palin that appeared in the Pittsburgh (PA) Tribune-Review. I hope every supporter of Sarah will drop a short e-mail to Dimitri Vasillaros, the author (see link at end), and tell him just how right he is about Sarah.
Palin is GOP's beacon
By Dimitri Vassilaros
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Monday, July 16, 2007
Sarah Palin can teach Republicans how to be Republicans. It's a simple lesson. But it won't be easy for anyone who thinks being pragmatic and principled are mutually exclusive.
Mrs. Palin, 43, is the governor of Alaska and the brightest light in the land of the midnight sun. While rasing four kids with her husband, Palin has reduced taxes, embraced the state Constitution, publicly complained about powerful fellow Republicans she thought unethical, encouraged companies to compete for state contracts -- and has not ruled out running for president.
She relishes moose burgers because "they taste better than beef with no chemicals, steroids or hormones." She adopted the Pittsburgh Steelers because of the team's success in the 1970s and because there are no major professional teams in her state.
As a teenage flautist trying to win a scholarship, she was second runner-up in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant. Looking back, she now thinks she was livestock in a swimsuit being eyed by the male judges. "Degrading" she calls it now.
Talk with her for awhile, as I did last Wednesday, and try to count the number of references to her state Constitution. During that phone call, she cited it more than 12 times -- not once gratuitously.
"It's my bible in governing," Palin says. "I try to keep it so simple by reading the thing and believing in it and living it. It's providential. Some of the crafters of the Constitution are still alive. They're my mentors, my advisers. I get to meet with these folks and ask, 'What did you mean by this?' And it makes so much sense."
Palin does not favor same-sex marriage. However, she vetoed a bill prohibiting official gay unions because the judiciary had ruled that banning it was unconstitutional. "I wasn't going to disobey what the courts said we could and couldn't do." When she swore to uphold the law, she meant it.
Ask her to articulate her conservative principles and you'll hear, "Fiscally speaking, the private sector can do a better job than government can do." She also believes in man. "Also just trusting individuals to make wise decisions for themselves and families. I have a lot of trust in individuals. I don't trust government nearly as much."
Gov. Palin vetoed about a third or more of the capital budget, she says. "It's not an open, transparent process at all. The way (the Legislature) works, the administration doesn't even know what's in it until the gavel falls. It's handed to the governor without public process and public debate. It's a nonsensical way of budgeting."
Many of the vetoed items were earmarks by her fellow Republicans. Little wonder she and her party are estranged political bedfellows. "There's absolutely no communication between the state administration and the Republican Party," she says. "No communication, no calling for advice either way."
Some would look at that as the price she has to pay for being a GOP maverick. That is, someone who talks the talk and walks the walk. "I look at it as the way it's supposed to be."
Palin recently signed a bill vastly improving Alaska's ethics and disclosure laws. Now it's a crime for public servants not to report bribery they know about.
Ask her five or six different times if she will run for president and hear nervous giggles and self-deprecating humor. But you won't hear "No."
Dimitri Vassilaros is a Trib editorial page columnist. His column appears Sundays, Mondays and Fridays. Call him at 412-380-5637. E-mail him at dvassilaros@tribweb.com.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/vassilaros/s_517252.html
Sanity102 & Wil Keepers: Sarah and the "Experience" Factor
Two of the finest bloggers on Townhall are Wil Keepers (he calls his blog "Ramblings of an Average American") and Sanity102 (http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com/). They've had a recent exchange in response to Sanity's strong support of Sarah Palin for the vice-presidential nomination. (You can see the full exchange on Sanity's blog.)
Wil's key comments to her follow: ". . . I have searched and I have yet to find what Palin would do in the war [on terror]. This is such a pivotal issue, that to me, a person one heartbeat away from the Presidency would have to show a grasp of this issue, and come to the right conclusions for me to consider them. True the VP does not set foreign policy, but they must be competent in it for there to be any confidence in the ticket as a whole. (Think Dan Quayle...despite the jokes, he was a departure from the old part of the old white guy club, yet his opponents played on his age and inexperience as weaknesses and exploited them for political gain)."
The following is my response: "Wil is a serious commenter on critical issues. The point he's raised is worthy of about 10,000 columns (at least).
I support Sarah in part, perhaps in large part, because of the "fresh eyes" phenomenon. Given her personality and history, she would conduct the WOT vigorously, with a commitment to winning it. However, she should not comment on Iraq until after the Republican nominee offers her the V-P slot. Alaska does not have a foreign policy.
What we absolutely cannot tolerate is a continuation of foreign and defense policies as our "established leaders" have defined them. We can't fight a war on anything if half the country (or more) opposes the endeavor.
In other words, we don't want the WOT over the next 8-9 years to go on as it has recently -- with great opposition to its fundamentals coming from Washington, DC. That's not fair to anyone, especially the soldiers who receive mixed messages everyday from Washington. Wil and everyone else have to tackle this issue -- and not assume that experience in the continuing "food fight" over Iraq has some special value.
Some of the Democratic candidates (Biden, Dodd, Richardson) have foreign policy experience, but their comments on the WOT are not helpful. John Edwards, who's perhaps assumed to have experience (but doesn't) says the WOT is a "bumper-sticker," a Bush-generated fantasy. His fellow candidates have not exactly responded decisively to Edwards' comment.
"New" (and Sarah is new in spades) is not always better, but old -- things as they have been and the debate as now defined -- is totally unacceptable. It's all well and good for the Dems to say they "support our troops," but that's like saying you support Michagan while half-hoping (for political reasons) that Ohio State wins. Unintentionally or not, the Democrats' stand does in fact embolden the enemy.
In a practical sense, the Dems -- the experienced and the inexperienced -- are sleeping with the enemy. Can V-P Sarah or, if the chief executive passes away, President Sarah function effectively in that situation? Of course not, and no top leader could.
What I'm saying is that Sarah can bring a new perspective (precisely because she's not yet "implicated" pro-or-con in the old war strategy) and find new, more compelling ways to explain what's at stake. The "old guys" can't do that apparently, because if they could, they would.
Like all Presidents, Sarah will need good advisors. I'd suggest people like Sanity, Wil Keepers, Elephantman, Diana Lynn Irey, Michael Steele, Lorie Byrd, and me. But what about all the "old Washington hands?" I'd recommend that she avoid them, since they're ones who have given GWB some very bad advice.
On the Dan Quayle comparison: his problem was not "inexperience." It was incompetence. The guy is an intellectual and political lightweight. Ironically, his wife is neither.
That's not a problem Sarah has. She is tough, smart, and an outstanding communicator -- all qualities Quayle lacks. For many people, Quayle was the classic "deer in the headlights. Sarah's nickname is the "Barracuda."
In the WOT, deer is bad, and barracuda is excellent.
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Wil's key comments to her follow: ". . . I have searched and I have yet to find what Palin would do in the war [on terror]. This is such a pivotal issue, that to me, a person one heartbeat away from the Presidency would have to show a grasp of this issue, and come to the right conclusions for me to consider them. True the VP does not set foreign policy, but they must be competent in it for there to be any confidence in the ticket as a whole. (Think Dan Quayle...despite the jokes, he was a departure from the old part of the old white guy club, yet his opponents played on his age and inexperience as weaknesses and exploited them for political gain)."
The following is my response: "Wil is a serious commenter on critical issues. The point he's raised is worthy of about 10,000 columns (at least).
I support Sarah in part, perhaps in large part, because of the "fresh eyes" phenomenon. Given her personality and history, she would conduct the WOT vigorously, with a commitment to winning it. However, she should not comment on Iraq until after the Republican nominee offers her the V-P slot. Alaska does not have a foreign policy.
What we absolutely cannot tolerate is a continuation of foreign and defense policies as our "established leaders" have defined them. We can't fight a war on anything if half the country (or more) opposes the endeavor.
In other words, we don't want the WOT over the next 8-9 years to go on as it has recently -- with great opposition to its fundamentals coming from Washington, DC. That's not fair to anyone, especially the soldiers who receive mixed messages everyday from Washington. Wil and everyone else have to tackle this issue -- and not assume that experience in the continuing "food fight" over Iraq has some special value.
Some of the Democratic candidates (Biden, Dodd, Richardson) have foreign policy experience, but their comments on the WOT are not helpful. John Edwards, who's perhaps assumed to have experience (but doesn't) says the WOT is a "bumper-sticker," a Bush-generated fantasy. His fellow candidates have not exactly responded decisively to Edwards' comment.
"New" (and Sarah is new in spades) is not always better, but old -- things as they have been and the debate as now defined -- is totally unacceptable. It's all well and good for the Dems to say they "support our troops," but that's like saying you support Michagan while half-hoping (for political reasons) that Ohio State wins. Unintentionally or not, the Democrats' stand does in fact embolden the enemy.
In a practical sense, the Dems -- the experienced and the inexperienced -- are sleeping with the enemy. Can V-P Sarah or, if the chief executive passes away, President Sarah function effectively in that situation? Of course not, and no top leader could.
What I'm saying is that Sarah can bring a new perspective (precisely because she's not yet "implicated" pro-or-con in the old war strategy) and find new, more compelling ways to explain what's at stake. The "old guys" can't do that apparently, because if they could, they would.
Like all Presidents, Sarah will need good advisors. I'd suggest people like Sanity, Wil Keepers, Elephantman, Diana Lynn Irey, Michael Steele, Lorie Byrd, and me. But what about all the "old Washington hands?" I'd recommend that she avoid them, since they're ones who have given GWB some very bad advice.
On the Dan Quayle comparison: his problem was not "inexperience." It was incompetence. The guy is an intellectual and political lightweight. Ironically, his wife is neither.
That's not a problem Sarah has. She is tough, smart, and an outstanding communicator -- all qualities Quayle lacks. For many people, Quayle was the classic "deer in the headlights. Sarah's nickname is the "Barracuda."
In the WOT, deer is bad, and barracuda is excellent.
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
