Republican Truth Serum: What You "Know" About Income Taxes Isn't True

IMPORTANT NOTE: My columns on Tuesday and Wednesday will be about Rudy Giuliani and his need to reach out to what are known as "social conservatives." As soon as you can, please read the important Weekly Standard column by Fred Barnes, which discusses steps Rudy can take to resolve his issues with some conservatives. The link is as follows: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/224qoncj.asp

The Speech He Needs to Give
Giuliani and social conservatives.
by Fred Barnes
10/22/2007, Volume 013, Issue 06


This column is part of a continuing series that will appear every Sunday and Monday. It deals with the critical need for Republican candidates and thinkers (that means you) to get across some basic ideas that are the core of Republicanism.

"The problem with most people is that what they KNOW is TRUE . . . isn't." (Mark Twain)

"People have a right to their own opinions, but they don't have a right to their own facts." (Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

If you don't read anything else today, please examine the following press release from the Tax Foundation: http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22652.html. The information may come as a real shock.

I recently had an exchange with an online friend (call him "M") who was making the points that: (1) high-income people didn't pay very much in taxes because of all the loopholes they have and (2) the poor are getting poorer while the rich are getting richer. In fact, "M" is dead wrong on both points.


The source for the following is the IRS:

"The table above [in the Tax Foundation release] shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). {AGI refers to adjusted gross income.]

"The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns."

"The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups."

The data shows that what "most people believe" (including Matt) is not accurate. Are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards who talk about "tax cuts for the rich" aware of these facts? Presumably they are, but they continue to mislead Americans so that they can get elected.

Admittedly, Republican candidates probably aren't going to get a lot of sympathy from voters for the "plight" of the rich. However, politics should not be all about fantasies and the toleration of factual errors.

We average Americans don't have to like affluent people. On the other hand, we have no right to spread falsehoods about them.

About half the people in the U.S. pay almost all the federal income taxes. Roughly half the people -- the poorer half -- pay little or nothing in federal income tax, although they do pay Social Security and Medicare "charges."

We should rub people's noses in these undisputed facts, but at the same time -- unlike the Democrats -- we shouldn't nurture anyone's illusions. "The truth shall make you free."

Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

Join SJ Reidhead's "I Vote the Elephant" Blog Site!

Note: On Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday I'll have exact instructions on how you can put the Ivotetheelephant link on your blog site. If you don't need help, well just do it!!! Note 2: Go visit Christopher's site: http://youngrepublican.townhall.com/ to see what's at stake in next year's Senate races.

If you'd like to see a good exchange on Why Vote Republican? see my comments to Matt's column (http://senseinpolitics.blogspot.com) titled "Don't Put Christians in a (Political) Box."

Please tell S. J. Reidhead at: http://ivotetheelephant.blogspot.com/ that you're either a conservative, or moderate, or liberal Republican voter who wants a place on her blogroll. Following are e-mails I sent to SJ and various candidates -- Melissa Hart for Congress (4th District, PA), William Russell for Congress (12th District. PA, Diana Irey for County Commissioner (PA) and "other" offices, Heather Wilson for U.S. Senate (New Mexico), and Bobby Jindal for Gov. of Louisiana. Make sure to tell your online friends about SJ's critically important blog site.

See detailed contact information at the bottom of this posting.


Note to Diana Irey and Melissa Hart: S. J. Reidhead ("Cindy"), of New Mexico, is an online friend and a political ally. She is known as "The Queen of the Political Blogosphere," and we've worked together in advancing the cause of Gov. Sarah Palin, whom we both want to be the first female President of the U.S. (POTUS).

Cindy, Melissa Hart is a conservative Republican who held the 4th congressional district seat (my district) in Pennsylvania, and lost in the Republican collapse of 2006. She is running against Jason Altmire, who took the seat by burying Melissa in a cascade of Moveon.org lies. I'm strongly backing Melissa in every way possible.

Diana Lynn Irey is a friend and political ally who ran in 2006 against "The Prince of Pork," John Murtha. She's a County Commissioner in the 12th congressional district of PA. Both of these women have very bright political futures. Cindy, I'm asking Melissa and Diana to visit your extremely important web site at:

http://Ivotetheelephant.blogspot.com/

William Russell is an Iraq war vet who is seriously considering a race against the odious John Murtha in PA's 12th congressional district.

Bobby Jindal has been an excellent member of Congress from Lousiana, and he's now the favorite to win the Governor's seat.

Cindy, you are a critically important figure in building coalitions for outstanding Republican candidates, including Heather Wilson for U.S. Senate in New Mexico and Alaska Gov. Sarah Heath Palin for national office, and you can be extremely helpful to Melissa and Diana -- and vice versa.

I'm also sending a copy of this letter to Josh Schultz at the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee). I hope Josh will make your pro-Republican web sites known to everyone on his (extensive) mailing list.

Cindy, your efforts in the blogosphere were critical to George Bush's winning the presidency in 2004. As Republicans in an extremely challenging environment (to say the least!), we need to remember Ben Franklin's comment regarding American Independence: "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately." I hope Diana and Melissa will both add their web sites to your (rapidly) growing blogroll.

The future of the Republican Party rests with running truly outstanding candidates, and Melissa, Diana, Sarah, William, Bobby, and Heather fit right into that exclusive category.

Cindy's web sites: http://Ivotetheelephant.blogspot.com/ & http://ThePinkFlamingo.blogharbor.com/blog/
William Russell's web site: http://williamrussellforcongress.com/ e-mail: william.russell@williamrussellforcongress.com/
Josh Schultz's web site: http://nrcc.com/ email: jschultz@nrcc.com
Melissa Hart's e-mail: mhart@kwbhlaw.com
Bobby Jindal's web site:

Steve Maloney's web site: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/

Diana Irey's web site: http://irey.com/

P.S. I'm going to ask approximately 50 Republican bloggers not currently on Cindy's blogroll to make sure they do so. More information to come on contacting Heather Wilson of New Mexico.

Rudy Giuliani Gets Rave Reviews in Debate

What They’re Saying … About Mayor Giuliani, Part Two


ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “If There Was A Winner Tonight I Think It Was Mayor Giuliani.” (ABC, “World News Tonight,” 10/9/07)

Stephanopoulos: “Mayor Giuliani Got The Better Of That Exchange … And I Think He Was Helped By The Focus Of The Economy In This Debate …” (ABC, “World News Tonight,” 10/9/07)

CNBC’s John Harwood: “I Thought That Giuliani Overall Had A Good Night.” (CNBC, “Kudlow & Company,” 10/9/07)

Harwood: Giuliani “Set The Tone For A Lot Of The Economic Discussion.” Harwood: “[I] thought also Giuliani had a nice moment in mixing up with our own Maria Bartiromo when she asked a question about London potentially supplanting New York. He says ‘No How, No Way.’ And he says ‘get your head up, come on, let’s be optimistic’ and that kind of set the tone for a lot of the economic discussion.” (CNBC, “Kudlow & Company,” 10/9/07)

CBN’s David Brody: “Giuliani Continues To Be Solid In Every Debate. He’s The Frontrunner For A Reason.” (David Brody, CBN’s The Brody File Blog, “The Republican Debate In Dearborn: Reaction,” http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/246895.aspx, 10/9/07)

Brody: “When It Comes To Debates, [Giuliani] Doesn’t Make Mistakes And Takes Advantage Of The Opportunities Presented To Him.” (David Brody, CBN’s The Brody File Blog, “The Republican Debate In Dearborn: Reaction,” http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/246895.aspx, 10/9/07)

NRO’s Jim Geraghty: “I Liked [Giuliani’s] “Getcha Head Up!” To Maria Bartiromo When She Asked If London Would Replace New York As The World’s Economic Capital.(Jim Geraghty, National Review Online’s Campaign Spot Blog, “The Republican Debate In Michigan: The Wrapup,” http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWM3OTU2MTM3ZTEzYjI2MmUyNjQ4MDg2ODNlZWM5NjQ, 10/9/07)

The American Spectator’s James Antle: “‘Where Will Canadians Get Healthcare?’ Best Giuliani Line Of The Debate, And An Important Point.” (James Antle, The American Spectator’s AmSpecBlog, “Where Will Canadians Get Healthcare,” http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=8615, 10/9/07)

TownHall.com’s Matt Lewis: “Rudy says being energy independent is a matter of national security. We haven’t built a nuclear plant in 30 years ... Says the President needs to treat this ‘like putting a man on the moon.’ Good stuff...” (Matt Lewis, “Live Blogging the Debate,” www.townhall.com, 10/9/07)

Captain’s Quarters Ed Morrissey: “Romney Pulled Rudy Into A Catfight … Rudy Shrugged It Off Anyway. He Showed Poise, Humor, Energy, And Personality. He Continues To Show His Mastery Of The Format.” (Ed Morrissey, “Fred Wins, Chris Loses,” Captain’s Quarters Blog, www.captainsquartersblog.com, 10/9/07, Accessed 10/9/07)

The American Spectator’s Jennifer Rubin: “Rudy Is A Prepared And Confident Debater.”

Rubin: “[Giuliani] Won The Dust Up With Romney And His Hillarycare Jibe Reminded Us (As If He Would Let A Day Go By Without A Reminder) There Is No One Better At Hillary Bashing.” (Jennifer Rubin, The American Spectator’s AmSpec Blog, “Debate Wrap,” http://www.spectator.org/blogger.asp?BlogID=8616, 10/9/07)

National Review Online’s Mark Hemingway: “Giuliani Appears To Be Leading The Field By Virtue Of Being The Most Consistent Guy In The Field.” (Mark Hemingway, National Review Online’s The Corner Blog, “The Wrap-Up,” http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2YxMmJjODIwNzMyMmY1OGFlMzY5ZmM5MjQ4YTY3MzQ, 10/9/07)

NEWSWEEK SALUTES SARAH PALIN: EXCERPTS FROM COVER STORY

The following is from Newsweek's October 15, 2007 cover story saluting Gov. Sarah Palin as one of the leading elected officials in the United States.

Now This Is Woman's Work

There are more female governors in office than ever before, and they are making their mark with a pragmatic, postpartisan approach to solving state problems

In 1998, voters in a focus group were asked to close their eyes and imagine what a governor should look like. "They automatically pictured a man," says Barbara Lee, whose foundation promoting women's political advancement sponsored the survey. "The kind you see in those portraits hanging in statehouse hallways."

They most certainly didn't visualize Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a former beauty-pageant winner, avid hunter, snowmobiler and mother of four who was elected to her state's highest office last November.

New research shows that voters give female governors significantly higher marks than their male counterparts on such qualities as honesty, cooperation and caring—as well as toughness. And at a time when the national debate has become poisonously partisan, governors like [Arizona Governor Janet] Napolitano, 49, and Palin, 43, are making their mark with a pragmatic, postpartisan approach to solving problems, a style that works especially well with the large numbers of independent voters in their respective states.

In Alaska, Palin is challenging the dominant, sometimes corrupting, role of oil companies in the state's political culture. "The public has put a lot of faith in us," says Palin during a meeting with lawmakers in her downtown Anchorage office, where—as if to drive the point home—the giant letters on the side of the ConocoPhillips skyscraper fill an entire wall of windows. "They're saying, 'Here's your shot, clean it up'."

For Palin, that has meant tackling the cozy relationship between the state's political elite and the energy industry that provides 85 percent of Alaska's tax revenues—and distancing herself from fellow Republicans, including the state's senior U.S. senator, Ted Stevens, whose home was recently searched by FBI agents looking for evidence in an ongoing corruption investigation. (Stevens has denied any wrongdoing.)

But even as she tackles Big Oil's power, Palin has transformed her own family's connections to the industry into a political advantage. Her husband, Todd, is a longtime employee of BP, but, as Palin points out, the "First Dude" is a blue-collar "sloper," a fieldworker on the North Slope, a cherished occupation in the state. "He's not in London making the decisions whether to build a gas line."

In an interview with NEWSWEEK, Palin said it's time for Alaska to "grow up" and end its reliance on pork-barrel spending. Shortly after taking office, Palin canceled funding for the "Bridge to Nowhere," a $330 million project that Stevens helped champion in Congress. The bridge, which would have linked the town of Ketchikan to an island airport, had come to symbolize Alaska's dependence on federal handouts. Rather than relying on such largesse, says Palin, she wants to prove Alaska can pay its own way, developing its huge energy wealth in ways that are "politically and environmentally clean."

It's no coincidence that two of the nation's most popular women governors come from frontier states (Arizona and Alaska were the 48th and 49th, respectively, to join the Union) without established social orders that tend to block women from power.

As women reach these top jobs, even more women enter the political pipeline. "When voters perceive things are bad, they expect a woman candidate to come in and create change," says Debbie Walsh of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. "Voters give them license not to fit the mold."

Although she has been in office less than a year, Palin, too, earns high marks from lawmakers on the other side of the aisle. During a debate earlier this year over a natural-gas bill, State Senate Minority Leader Beth Kerttula was astounded when she and another Democrat went to see the new governor to lay out their objections. "Not only did we get right in to see her," says Kerttula, "but she asked us back twice—we saw her three times in 10 hours, until we came up with a solution."

Next week in Juneau, Alaska lawmakers will meet to overhaul the state's system for taxing oil companies—a task Palin says was tainted last year by an oil-industry lobbyist who pleaded guilty to bribing lawmakers.

Kerttula doesn't expect to agree with the freshman governor on every step of the complex undertaking. But the minority leader looks forward to exploiting one backroom advantage she's long waited for. "I finally get to go to the restroom and talk business with the governor," she says. "The guys have been doing this for centuries." And who says that's not progress?

Stephen R. Maloney -- Committed to making Sarah Heath Palin America's first female President.

SARAH PALIN IN NEWSWEEK, HILLARY ON EGO TRIP

Sarah in picture in Juneau, Alaska, followed by daughter Piper, as well as sister Molly and niece.

BULLETIN: THIS WEEK'S NEWSWEEK FEATURES GOV. SARAH PALIN IN ITS FEATURE STORY. YOU CAN FIND IT ONLINE AT: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21162322/site/newsweek/#storyContinued
(Tomorrow, I'll reprint the large chunk of the story about Sarah.) Is she vice-presidential material? Yes. Is she presidential material? Sooner than most people imagined.

"America's middle-class families have been invisible to the President." (Hillary Rodham Clinton in her "There she goes again" mode) Is it true? Not really, but it makes for "good campaign rhetoric" in the words of Barack Obama.

"She's [Mrs. Clinton] doing pretty well, but she's not really saying anything . . . She vacillates on the issues. . . . She doesn't speak from deep conviction She [has been] critical of her own husband's trade policies. " (Two political analysts on CNN, October 9, 2007)

In yesterday's column, I pointed out that the three leading Democratic candidates -- Clinton, Obama, and Edwards -- all say they can't promise that American troops will be out of Iraq by the end of their (hoped-for) first term.

That would mean an indeterminate number of U.S. soldiers would still be in Iraq in January, 2013.

Frankly, this is an amazing admission by the Democrats. We all remember Mrs. Clinton shouting -- in her classic "old Democrat" style that "This is George Bush's war." But why would that be so? Mrs. Clinton voted for the authorization of force in Iraq -- and she did it based on the exact same information President Bush had.

That information was provided by Clinton appointee George Tenent, a terrible choice as head of the CIA.

For Mrs. Clinton to blame Geroge Bush for the War is thoroughly irresponsible. Apparently, it's something she believes must be done if she is to win the Democratic nomination. Her statement is one that al-Qaeda, which has become almost a Democratic interest group, will love. It's also a comment that will chip away at the morale of U.S. soldiers, who are under the impression (a correct one) that they're fighting America's war.

William Jefferson Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton went into government with a plan that involved: (1) Becoming the first husband-and-wife presidential team; (2) Accumulating a small fortune.

They've certainly accomplished half of point 1 -- and all of point 2. When the Clintons went to Washington in January, 1993, they had a net worth of $700,000, a relatively modest figure for a presidential couple.

However, in the most recent Federal Electoral Commission report, the Clintons had moved up in the world. The FEC requires financial disclosures within a broad range of assets. Hillary Clinton declared a net worth of between $10 million and $50 million. Those aren't Rockefeller, Kennedy, or Heinz-Kerry numbers, but they're still impressive numbers.

Let's contrast the Clinton family's dramatic rise in wealth to that of Gov. Sarah Palin's family. During my own strong support of Gov. Palin, I've considered the point that her family's lack of wealth could work against her in a campaign either for the presidency or vice-presidency. When Mrs. Palin went to Kuwait to visit Alaskan soldiers, she wore a "Juneau [,Alaska]" tee shirt -- not an expensive Hillary-like pants suit outfit.

When it comes to getting rich -- a consideration driving many political figures -- Sarah and Hillary are from different planets.

Consider what Sarah replied in response to an Anchorage Daily News question 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."

Somehow, it's impossible to see Mrs. Clinton saying such words -- or celebrating a political figure having "a servant's heart."

Sarah Palin's oldest child, Track, is now in the Army, training at Ft. Benning for a military career in the infantry. It's almost a certainty he will serve in Afghanistan or Iraq, or both.

I submit that the prospect a Chelsea Clinton would join the military is about the same as the chance she would join the KKK. Or perhaps about the same as the chance she would have attended a DC public school.

My point: The Palin family is grounded in the American middle-class experience -- and the Clinton family is not.
Sarah's husband is a real working man, someone who truly earns his living "in the sweat of his brow." His children, and Sarah's, go to public school.

Mrs. Clinton's husband has a career as a high-priced speaker and ex-President. Her daughter went to a $30,000 per year public school -- before she went to a much-more-expensive private university.

Yet we have Mrs. Clinton running for office as a champion of the middle-class that she departed from many years ago.

She's also running as someone who withdraw the troops from "George Bush's war." However, we learn that the withdrawal, if there is one, will occur many years down the road.

The situation leaves us with a profound question: Why on earth should anyone vote for Mrs. Clinton when there are potential candidates like Sarah Heath Palin? What exactly has Mrs. Clinton done that rivals the accomplishments of Mrs. Palin.


Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA

IRAQ & THE MEDIA: GOOD NEWS IS NO NEWS

Question: Why is the media seemingly losing interest in the Iraq War?

Answer: According to columnist Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the reason is simple: because of the Petraeus strategy, coupled with growing support from former Sunni insurgents, the U.S. is winning the war -- and al Qaeda is losing.

For a first-rate analysis of the emerging situation in Iraq, read Jack Kelly's column in the Sunday, October 7, 2007 "Forum" section of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. You can find it at: http://post-gazette.com/forum.

Kelly's Conclusion: What's good news for America is no news for the media.

On Monday and Tuesday, I'll talk more about Iraq, and the surprising influence it might have on the election.

Tomorrow (Tuesday) I'll write about Mrs. Clinton's shrill, old politics line that "This is GEORGE BUSH'S WAR." I'll discuss what her position on Iraq, which is not profoundly different from George Bush's by the way, says about her as a person and a candidate.

NOTE THE FOLLOWING NY TIMES STORY FROM 9/26/2007


By JEFF ZELENY and PATRICK HEALY Published: September 26, 2007 HANOVER, N.H., Sept. 26 — The three leading Democratic presidential candidates refused on Wednesday night to promise that they would withdraw all American troops from Iraq by the end of their first term, saying in a televised debate here that they could not predict the future challenges in Iraq.

Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards agreed that it would be wrong to promise that they could get all American forces out of Iraq by 2013. But some of the candidates still tried to highlight differences in their approach to ending the war.


Steve says: By 2013??? Now they tell us! Why are the "leading candidates" saying this now, after indicating previously that they wanted us out by yesterday?

Because we're winning the war, and they are trying to reserve a seat on the bandwagon.


JACK KELLY ON SUCCESS IN IRAQ:

Jack Kelly's Sunday column on Iraq has the headline: "On a Roll in Iraq." The sub-head is: "The U.S. and its Sunni Allies are Dismantling al-Qaeda."

For her own political reasons, Nancy Pelosi is still muttering about "the rising level of violence" in Iraq, but the realities on the ground are quite different. The only rise in violence is that directed against al-Qaeda, which is suffering heavy losses that are causing its infrastructure to unravel.

The first paragraph of Kelly's column begins with these words: "The last days on earth of Abu Osama al-Tunisi apparently were filled with anxiety. 'We are desperate for your help,' he said in a letter to al-Qaeda chieftains."

Kelly continues, "A copy of the letter was found by U.S. troops sifting through the rubble of the building in Musayh, about 40 miles south of Baghdad, where on Sept. 25 Mr. Tunisi had been meeting with two local al-Qaeda operatives when an [American] F-16 cut their discussion short."

Columnist Kelly points out that dramatic decline in the number of U.S. deaths that has occurred since Sept. 1. Somehow, most of the media in this country seem to have missed this striking positive development. It just doesn't fit with the media "narrative" we've been hearing for years.

The American military have been busily involved in capturing and killing key al-Qaeda figures, including Tunisi. U.S. forces are being assisted in this effort by Sunnis, especially in formerly hostile locations like al Anbar and Diyala provinces.

Here's how Investor's Daily interprets the media's non-response to the good news in Iraq: "That the media are no longer much interested in Iraq is a sure sign things are going well there."

Kelly cites comments by British Mideast expert Bartle Bull who's recently written an article called "Mission Accomplished." Bull observes, "With most Sunni factions now seeking a deal, the big questions in Iraq have been resolved positively. The country remains one; it has embraced democracy and avoided an all-out civil war."

If success in Iraq is no news for the media, it's also bad news for House and Senate Democrats. They have largely surrendered in the battle with al-Qaeda in Iraq, while the U.S. military is going successfully about the business of winning the War.

The main-stream media will have to look elsewhere for stories that reflect badly on the U.S. Of more importance, Democrats will have to invent another issue to sustain their electoral successes in the recent past.

(More to come on Tuesday, October 9. Thanks for visiting. Your comments are always welcome.)

Stephen R. Maloney

COMMENT & RESPONSE:

Danielk said...
To be fair though, the message coming from most of those people is that we've been winning continually since 2004. If we're winning more now, how is that news?

October 8, 2007 3:33 PM
Stephen R. Maloney said...
To be extremely fair . . .Who exactly are "those people?" They aren't most of the media; they aren't Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. They aren't even Jack Kelly, who has presented a mixed view. They also aren't me. And they certainly aren't Gen. Petraeus. Are they perhaps somebody you have invented? A variation on my theme of "good news from Iraq is no news to the media" is that good news from Iraq is bad news for certain Democrats, apparently including one Daniel K.

steve maloney

CA's MAYOR SAM SALUES SARAH PALIN . . . AGAIN

Mayor Sam's Sister City, one of the most-visited blogs in California, is a major supporter of Sarah Palin for the vice-presidency of the U.S. MayorSam, as is his style, refers to Sarah as a "hottie," which causes a few people to wince, but in this column he even explains what that term means. I guess when "you're hot, you're hot," and that's true both of Mayor Sam and of Sarah Palin. Here's his column, which you can find in the 10/5 (Friday) postings:
http://mayorsam.blogspot.com/2007/10/hotties-could-save-republican-party.html. Please be sure to visit Sam and tell him he's pretty hot himself! -- Stephen R. Maloney


Hotties Could Save Republican Party

Usually Republicans are wizzened old white guys with the charisma of a wet blanket. But perhaps not for much longer as young, talented, strong, intelligent Republican hotties are coming on the scene.We've talked before about Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

Enormously popular, the 43 year old Republican has fought back against dinosaur, tax and spend Republicans in her home state and there's no doubt she could do the same at the national level. Many speculate that Palin could easily challenge bridge to nowhere builder Republican Senator Ted Stevens but a grassroots movement is growing to encourage consideration of Palin as a potential GOP Vice Presidential candidate.

Palin who has what is probably the highest approval rating of any politician in America at 84% has shaken up the GOP old boys club in Alaska, putting a stop to pork barrel politics and ending old sweetheart deals. She even put an end to the bridge to nowhere; killing what some considered to be the poster child for Congressional pork.

Some pundits who like Palin think she needs more experience. However some of her supporters posit that were Palin a male and a Democrat, she'd be considered the next JFK. Indeed, she has more executive experience and is of the same generation as Barack Obama.

Another young, female GOP power player of late is Jeri Kehn Thomspon, 41. The former media consultant and Republican National Committee staffer is considered to be the svengali behind her Presidential candidate husband, Fred Dalton Thompson. As the Thompson campaign kicks into high gear, Mrs. Thompson has become more prominent.

The Republican Party could be revived by turning leadership over to youngsters such as Palin and Thompson. Sure, Thompson's husband is the candidate and yet another wizzened old white guy, but should he be elected there certainly is a model for a first lady to follow to a political career of her own. Given that both Palin and Thompson are of my generation I agree its high time to turn things over to their peers.

By the way before any of you go nuts, when I refer to Palin and Mrs. Thompson being hotties, its the whole package, not just their looks. It refers more to a state of mind, intelligence and ability. Indeed, if Palin or Thompson were just clerks at the Piggly Wiggly, they'd probably just be considered of average attractiveness.

Indeed, Henry Kissinger may have been correct when he said power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

Labels: california republican party, fred thompson, jeri thompson, sarah palin

Posted by Mayor Sam @ 10/05/2007 12:56:00 AM

READ PATRICK RUFFINI'S SALUTE TO SARAH PALIN ("THE GOP'S NORTH STAR") AT TOWNHALL

http://townhall.com/columnists/PatrickRuffini/2007/09/29/the_gops_north_star



FRED THOMPSON: WIFE HOT, HIM NOT

Here's the 10/05/07 Matt Lewis column about Fred Thompson

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/f53dcebd-0ee9-4a74-8d68-ed4c3fbdc440

Fred Thompson Falls Flat, by Matt Lewis


"... Fred Thompson's speech at the American's for Prosperity conference pretty much fell flat. While Thompson was greeted with the best applause, his speech seemed to under-perform -- which seems to be an analogy for his entire campaign.Thompson's style (which one reporter I talked to referred to as "Hollywood") seemed to rub many reporters -- and potential supporters -- the wrong way. His entourage hurried him in to the green room before any reporters or bloggers could ask him any questions. What is more, I'm also told that his team "swept" the green room -- essentially kicking everyone out that wasn't associated with his campaign. While other candidates such as Giulaini, Huckabee, Brownback, and Paul didn't mind sharing the green room with others, Thompson's team asked people to leave ...

SCROLL DOWN TO FIND THE LINK TO THE PETITION TO DRAFT SARAH. PLEASE SIGN IT!

(LATER TODAY) HOW YOU CAN HELP YOUR FAVORITE CANDIDATE TO WIN!