Note: Bill McAllister of KTUU-TV in Anchorage, Alaska, was kind enough to interview me today regarding Sarah's candidacy for V-P. It will be part of tonight's news show. He asked me the Big Question, related to the President-elect not being able to finish his term: "Do you think there could be a(n effective) President Palin?" I said, "Absolutely." I emphasized that being a good President -- or a great one -- is mainly a matter of character and decency, as well as a willingness to learn. I said that Sarah got an "A" in all those characteristics. I do believe at some point in the future Sarah Heath Palin will be President of the United States, and she has the qualities to be an outstanding one. "Now, she belongs to America."
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Friday, August 24, 2007
Steve Maloney and David Shribman on "Political Narratives"
As those of us in the "Draft Palin" effort write our "narrative" (see the Shribman article below) one issue we need to deal with is the notion that the presidential nominee has total say in who his running mate will be. Frankly, I've gone through 50-plus years of Republican nominees operating in that way, and it's not a pretty sight.
We're the Party that nominated twice the following: Richard Nixon (resigned later as President), Spiro Agnew (resigned because of a bribery scandal), and Dan Quayle (uncontested winner of "deer-in-the-headlights" look). We also nominated Dick Cheney, who had no interest in running for President.
But don't the nominees take a lot of time in determining who their running-mate will be? Not exactly. In 1968, how did Richard Nixon nominated Spiro T. Agnew, a little-known Governor of Maryland? Reportedly, Nixon allowed his political adversary, Nelson Rockefeller, to make the choice. In his Machiavellian way, Rockefeller apparently knew about Agnew's corruption in Maryland, and figured he would eventually have to drop out, leaving the vice-presidential role open for . . . Nelson Rockefeller.
What about Nixon's second term, when he was under pressure to dump the profoundly unimpressive Agnew? Why didn't he choose someone else?
When John Ehrlichman, the President's counsel and assistant, asked him why he kept Agnew on the ticket in the 1972 election, Nixon replied that “No assassin in his right mind would kill me."
On October 10, 1973, Spiro Agnew resigned from the vice-presidency as a result of charges of tax evasion, bribery, and money laundering. Apparently, he had taken bribes in excess of $250,000. Did Nixon know Agnew had been on the take? If he didn't, he was in the minority.
How does this related to Sarah Palin's narrative? Obviously, Sarah Palin -- a scrupulously honest person who has fought corruption throughout her political career -- is no Spiro T. Agnew.
Those of us in the Palin Movement don't want the presidential nominee to choose anyone roughly resembling Agnew -- or, for that matter, Nixon. Eisenhower didn't "need" Nixon to win two landslide elections. Nixon didn't "need" Agnew to win 49 states against George McGovern in 1972. But they nominated them anyway.
Adam Brickley, a 20-year-old college student from Colorado, was the individual who started writing the narrative for Sarah. Adam researched the possible candidates and came to the conclusion that Sarah Palin, governor of a state that's small in population and far away from the "lower-48," was exactly what the GOP needed.
Frankly, Adam (and others in the movement) have given a great deal more thought to the vice-presidency than either Eisenhower or Nixon did. In so many cases over the past 50-plus years the presidential nominee would have done a better job picking a name out of s hat.
Sarah's narrative deals with her absolute honesty and strong religious faith. It encompasses her role as a faithful wife (who married her high-school sweetheart, Todd). It focuses on her willingness to take on -- and overcome -- corruption in her own Party. It highlights her electability, illustrated by her defeating both an incumbent Republican governor and a former Democratic governor. It recognizes her willingness to take on the big oil companies and their minions, who've generally had their way in Alaska politics.
Knowledgable national media figures like Fred Barnes, Les Kinsolving, Ted Koenniger, Dimitri Vassilaros, and SJ Reidhead are looking at Sarah and see her as a great national candidate. They're helping produce a narrative -- a story -- that happens to be true. That narrative should make Sarah an irresistible choice for the Republican ticket in 2008.
The presidency is a unique position. There's no other role -- in government or business -- remotely like it. The people who excel as President, individuals like Washington, Adams, Lincoln, and Reagan, are individuals who possess great character and manifest real decency toward those they govern. They are quick learners and great listeners. That sounds very much like the narrative of a job description for a certain governor of Alaska.
Even St. Paul wrote part of the narrative 2,000 years ago. He said, "For all have sinned, all have fallen short of the Glory of God." What he meant was that when it comes to human beings, no one is perfect. However, Sarah Palin certainly seems to come close.
Stephen R. Maloney
National Coordination Team Palin 4 VP
Political candidates and their supporters are busily engaged in helping write/shape "narratives" (stories) that advance one or more candidates. If those narratives are done very well, they remain memorable long after the demise of the candidate. For example, every American knows the story about George Washington (supposedly) cutting down the cherry tree, a narrative that end with him saying, "I cannot tell a lie." We also know the story about "Honest Abe," walking miles to return a penny to someone. Of course, a candidate's opponents are also writing their own version, a much less favorable one. I'll be posting more over the next three days (through the weekend) about the "narrative" Sarah's supporters are writing for her -- an extension of the one she's "writing" for herself. At the same time, Sarah's political enemies -- of whom she has a handful -- are working to construct an unkinder tale. (See my previous comments on the odious Sheila Toomey of the Anchorage Daily News.) The following is a column by David Shribman, executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, who wrote a fine piece on political "narratives."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07231/810388-372.stm
(August 19, 2007)
Narratives of the nattering classes, by David Shribman, executive editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [In Britain, the "chattering classes" refer to people who make their livings "chattering" in the media. The word "nattering" reminds us of Spiro T. Agnew's condemnation of the media through calling them "nattering nabobs of negativism."]
Presidential candidates are busy defining themselves and their opponents. Hillary Rodham Clinton is rigid, cautious and steely private. Barack Obama is dangerously inexperienced. John Edwards is a narcissistic hypocrite. Joseph R. Biden Jr. can't express a thought in less than 25 minutes. Christopher J. Dodd is making sense but nobody's paying attention.
But, then again, Rudolph W. Giuliani is hot-tempered and not particularly solicitous of civil liberties. Mitt Romney is a flip-flopping opportunist. John S. McCain III is a doomed defender of the Iraq war. Sam Brownback is a hopeless religious conservative. Mike Huckabee, too, except that he's lost a lot of weight, has a wicked sense of humor and, because of his second-place finish in the recent (utterly meaningless) Iowa Straw Poll, might not be the dead-man-walking everyone thought he was. [Note from Steve to my Huckabee friends: Shribman is NOT saying the Ames Straw Poll is meaningless, only that Huckabee's opponents will try to portray it as such.]
That's the 2008 race in a nutshell, and if the candidates (and the press) aren't careful, that's about all that's going to be written, thought and said about the whole thing. This isn't the first time an entire presidential campaign has been distilled down to the simplistic.
Remember John F. Kerry? He was a phony Vietnam War hero who couldn't make up his mind about the Iraq war. And Bob Dole? An old guy with a World War II injury stuck in a World War II reverie with a World War II view of life.
The greatest danger any of the 2008 candidates face is to be caught in a narrative not their own, to have every misstep and every remark forced into an established storyline that brooks no change. Mitt Romney's father, Gov. George Romney of Michigan, is the classic prisoner of a narrative. Mention his name to even the most sophisticated member of the political class and, in a peculiarly cruel version of word association, the phrase "brainwashed on Vietnam'' will spill from the lips. George Romney's 1968 campaign was sunk when he used the word "brainwashed'' in connection with the war.
Right now the narrative machine is at work on Sen. Obama, who has the bad luck to be young (thus the "inexperienced'' notion) and a bit impulsive (thus the "irresponsible'' label, tossed by Sen. Clinton, who added, for good measure, the words "frankly naive''). This episode provides an unusually stark case study of how a candidate's narrative is built by a rival and by the press despite the efforts of the candidate, his staff and his advertising advisers to construct an entirely different narrative.
The narrative that Mr. Obama and his handlers are trying to nurture is one of a deeply committed one-time community organizer whose brilliance took him to the editorship of the Harvard Law Review and whose own background (father from Kenya, mother from Kansas) is a metaphor for American diversity and an eloquent expression of American hope. For a while, Mr. Obama was doing quite well with that, a theme that is to be underlined (along with a faintly negative exposition on another American trait, ambition) in a forthcoming biography of the Illinois Democrat by Chicago Tribune writer David Mendell.
But Mr. Obama, like every other presidential contender, doesn't get to write his own narrative, though the amount of money these candidates throw into television advertising and Web sites must make them wonder why they can't prevail in this image battle.
Just as the candidates are devoting hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more, into burnishing their stories, their rivals and the reporters who cover politics are writing narratives of their own. The problem, for the candidates, is that their foes and commentators are fitting everything they do into the rogue narrative, not the official narrative.
Here's how it's rolled out in the Obama case. In a July 23 debate, the senator, in response to a question, said he'd be willing to meet some of America's foreign-policy and security foes such as the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Sen. Clinton said she would make no such pledge and the political establishment, a Greek chorus all its own, roared: Whoa there, Sen. Obama is being a bit too eager.
Then Mr. Obama said he might consider using military strikes on al-Qaida positions in Pakistan. Sen. Clinton's reaction: "You can think big, but remember you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president, because it has consequences around the world.'
'In these episodes Sen. Obama no doubt wanted to show his creativity, his independence from the starched shirts and striped pants of established diplomatic procedure and his willingness to take on tough national-security issues. But Sen. Clinton wanted to make sure the very people who pay attention to early political maneuvering saw that Sen. Obama was inexperienced, maybe naive, certainly a little too quick off the draw, in rhetoric if not in actual military action.
Sen. Obama tried to define himself. Sen. Clinton tried to define Sen. Obama.In this case, as in so many, the candidate who tried to take the offensive has been put on the defensive by a candidate who sensed an opening, or an opportunity, or a chance to transform the characteristic that one candidate thought was a virtue into a liability that will dog him for the rest of the campaign. Advantage: Sen. Clinton.
I mention all this because I have sinned myself -- the job of a political correspondent is to commit this sin of creating a narrative from time to time, just not to make a bloody habit of it. Creating a narrative is how humans make sense of a complex, confusing world.
But being a prisoner of a narrative is how humans surrender observation and thought for the sake of simplicity. Sen. Obama needs to break out of his narrative. We need to watch to see if he can.
We're the Party that nominated twice the following: Richard Nixon (resigned later as President), Spiro Agnew (resigned because of a bribery scandal), and Dan Quayle (uncontested winner of "deer-in-the-headlights" look). We also nominated Dick Cheney, who had no interest in running for President.
But don't the nominees take a lot of time in determining who their running-mate will be? Not exactly. In 1968, how did Richard Nixon nominated Spiro T. Agnew, a little-known Governor of Maryland? Reportedly, Nixon allowed his political adversary, Nelson Rockefeller, to make the choice. In his Machiavellian way, Rockefeller apparently knew about Agnew's corruption in Maryland, and figured he would eventually have to drop out, leaving the vice-presidential role open for . . . Nelson Rockefeller.
What about Nixon's second term, when he was under pressure to dump the profoundly unimpressive Agnew? Why didn't he choose someone else?
When John Ehrlichman, the President's counsel and assistant, asked him why he kept Agnew on the ticket in the 1972 election, Nixon replied that “No assassin in his right mind would kill me."
On October 10, 1973, Spiro Agnew resigned from the vice-presidency as a result of charges of tax evasion, bribery, and money laundering. Apparently, he had taken bribes in excess of $250,000. Did Nixon know Agnew had been on the take? If he didn't, he was in the minority.
How does this related to Sarah Palin's narrative? Obviously, Sarah Palin -- a scrupulously honest person who has fought corruption throughout her political career -- is no Spiro T. Agnew.
Those of us in the Palin Movement don't want the presidential nominee to choose anyone roughly resembling Agnew -- or, for that matter, Nixon. Eisenhower didn't "need" Nixon to win two landslide elections. Nixon didn't "need" Agnew to win 49 states against George McGovern in 1972. But they nominated them anyway.
Adam Brickley, a 20-year-old college student from Colorado, was the individual who started writing the narrative for Sarah. Adam researched the possible candidates and came to the conclusion that Sarah Palin, governor of a state that's small in population and far away from the "lower-48," was exactly what the GOP needed.
Frankly, Adam (and others in the movement) have given a great deal more thought to the vice-presidency than either Eisenhower or Nixon did. In so many cases over the past 50-plus years the presidential nominee would have done a better job picking a name out of s hat.
Sarah's narrative deals with her absolute honesty and strong religious faith. It encompasses her role as a faithful wife (who married her high-school sweetheart, Todd). It focuses on her willingness to take on -- and overcome -- corruption in her own Party. It highlights her electability, illustrated by her defeating both an incumbent Republican governor and a former Democratic governor. It recognizes her willingness to take on the big oil companies and their minions, who've generally had their way in Alaska politics.
Knowledgable national media figures like Fred Barnes, Les Kinsolving, Ted Koenniger, Dimitri Vassilaros, and SJ Reidhead are looking at Sarah and see her as a great national candidate. They're helping produce a narrative -- a story -- that happens to be true. That narrative should make Sarah an irresistible choice for the Republican ticket in 2008.
The presidency is a unique position. There's no other role -- in government or business -- remotely like it. The people who excel as President, individuals like Washington, Adams, Lincoln, and Reagan, are individuals who possess great character and manifest real decency toward those they govern. They are quick learners and great listeners. That sounds very much like the narrative of a job description for a certain governor of Alaska.
Even St. Paul wrote part of the narrative 2,000 years ago. He said, "For all have sinned, all have fallen short of the Glory of God." What he meant was that when it comes to human beings, no one is perfect. However, Sarah Palin certainly seems to come close.
Stephen R. Maloney
National Coordination Team Palin 4 VP
Political candidates and their supporters are busily engaged in helping write/shape "narratives" (stories) that advance one or more candidates. If those narratives are done very well, they remain memorable long after the demise of the candidate. For example, every American knows the story about George Washington (supposedly) cutting down the cherry tree, a narrative that end with him saying, "I cannot tell a lie." We also know the story about "Honest Abe," walking miles to return a penny to someone. Of course, a candidate's opponents are also writing their own version, a much less favorable one. I'll be posting more over the next three days (through the weekend) about the "narrative" Sarah's supporters are writing for her -- an extension of the one she's "writing" for herself. At the same time, Sarah's political enemies -- of whom she has a handful -- are working to construct an unkinder tale. (See my previous comments on the odious Sheila Toomey of the Anchorage Daily News.) The following is a column by David Shribman, executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, who wrote a fine piece on political "narratives."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07231/810388-372.stm
(August 19, 2007)
Narratives of the nattering classes, by David Shribman, executive editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [In Britain, the "chattering classes" refer to people who make their livings "chattering" in the media. The word "nattering" reminds us of Spiro T. Agnew's condemnation of the media through calling them "nattering nabobs of negativism."]
Presidential candidates are busy defining themselves and their opponents. Hillary Rodham Clinton is rigid, cautious and steely private. Barack Obama is dangerously inexperienced. John Edwards is a narcissistic hypocrite. Joseph R. Biden Jr. can't express a thought in less than 25 minutes. Christopher J. Dodd is making sense but nobody's paying attention.
But, then again, Rudolph W. Giuliani is hot-tempered and not particularly solicitous of civil liberties. Mitt Romney is a flip-flopping opportunist. John S. McCain III is a doomed defender of the Iraq war. Sam Brownback is a hopeless religious conservative. Mike Huckabee, too, except that he's lost a lot of weight, has a wicked sense of humor and, because of his second-place finish in the recent (utterly meaningless) Iowa Straw Poll, might not be the dead-man-walking everyone thought he was. [Note from Steve to my Huckabee friends: Shribman is NOT saying the Ames Straw Poll is meaningless, only that Huckabee's opponents will try to portray it as such.]
That's the 2008 race in a nutshell, and if the candidates (and the press) aren't careful, that's about all that's going to be written, thought and said about the whole thing. This isn't the first time an entire presidential campaign has been distilled down to the simplistic.
Remember John F. Kerry? He was a phony Vietnam War hero who couldn't make up his mind about the Iraq war. And Bob Dole? An old guy with a World War II injury stuck in a World War II reverie with a World War II view of life.
The greatest danger any of the 2008 candidates face is to be caught in a narrative not their own, to have every misstep and every remark forced into an established storyline that brooks no change. Mitt Romney's father, Gov. George Romney of Michigan, is the classic prisoner of a narrative. Mention his name to even the most sophisticated member of the political class and, in a peculiarly cruel version of word association, the phrase "brainwashed on Vietnam'' will spill from the lips. George Romney's 1968 campaign was sunk when he used the word "brainwashed'' in connection with the war.
Right now the narrative machine is at work on Sen. Obama, who has the bad luck to be young (thus the "inexperienced'' notion) and a bit impulsive (thus the "irresponsible'' label, tossed by Sen. Clinton, who added, for good measure, the words "frankly naive''). This episode provides an unusually stark case study of how a candidate's narrative is built by a rival and by the press despite the efforts of the candidate, his staff and his advertising advisers to construct an entirely different narrative.
The narrative that Mr. Obama and his handlers are trying to nurture is one of a deeply committed one-time community organizer whose brilliance took him to the editorship of the Harvard Law Review and whose own background (father from Kenya, mother from Kansas) is a metaphor for American diversity and an eloquent expression of American hope. For a while, Mr. Obama was doing quite well with that, a theme that is to be underlined (along with a faintly negative exposition on another American trait, ambition) in a forthcoming biography of the Illinois Democrat by Chicago Tribune writer David Mendell.
But Mr. Obama, like every other presidential contender, doesn't get to write his own narrative, though the amount of money these candidates throw into television advertising and Web sites must make them wonder why they can't prevail in this image battle.
Just as the candidates are devoting hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more, into burnishing their stories, their rivals and the reporters who cover politics are writing narratives of their own. The problem, for the candidates, is that their foes and commentators are fitting everything they do into the rogue narrative, not the official narrative.
Here's how it's rolled out in the Obama case. In a July 23 debate, the senator, in response to a question, said he'd be willing to meet some of America's foreign-policy and security foes such as the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Sen. Clinton said she would make no such pledge and the political establishment, a Greek chorus all its own, roared: Whoa there, Sen. Obama is being a bit too eager.
Then Mr. Obama said he might consider using military strikes on al-Qaida positions in Pakistan. Sen. Clinton's reaction: "You can think big, but remember you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president, because it has consequences around the world.'
'In these episodes Sen. Obama no doubt wanted to show his creativity, his independence from the starched shirts and striped pants of established diplomatic procedure and his willingness to take on tough national-security issues. But Sen. Clinton wanted to make sure the very people who pay attention to early political maneuvering saw that Sen. Obama was inexperienced, maybe naive, certainly a little too quick off the draw, in rhetoric if not in actual military action.
Sen. Obama tried to define himself. Sen. Clinton tried to define Sen. Obama.In this case, as in so many, the candidate who tried to take the offensive has been put on the defensive by a candidate who sensed an opening, or an opportunity, or a chance to transform the characteristic that one candidate thought was a virtue into a liability that will dog him for the rest of the campaign. Advantage: Sen. Clinton.
I mention all this because I have sinned myself -- the job of a political correspondent is to commit this sin of creating a narrative from time to time, just not to make a bloody habit of it. Creating a narrative is how humans make sense of a complex, confusing world.
But being a prisoner of a narrative is how humans surrender observation and thought for the sake of simplicity. Sen. Obama needs to break out of his narrative. We need to watch to see if he can.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Sarah and Todd Palin and BP: Conflict of Interest?
I support Sarah both as a person and as a symbol of the kind of person we need leading this country. If the new Republican President were to pass away unexpectedly, Sarah would do a good job as POTUS. Then, she would begin doing a great job, because her character and basic decency would attract wide support from the American people. Obviously, the woman is a sponge when it comes to soaking up wisdom.
I'D LIKE TO URGE EVERYONE WHO VISITS THIS SITE TO TAKE A LOOK AT http://palintology.com/, A SITE RUN BY TRISH IN ALASKA, A PERSON WHO STRONGLY SUPPORTS SARAH PALIN. SHE TALKS ABOUT A GOSSIP COLUMNIST AT THE ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS, ONE SHEILA TOOMEY, WHO WROTE OBVIOUSLY FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT TRISH AND HER WORK. SHEILA TOOMEY SEEMS TO BE COMPETING FOR THE SCUM-OF-THE-EARTH AWARD, A TRUE GUTTER JOURNALIST CONSUMED WITH HATRED FOR SARAH AND WILLING TO GO TO ANY LENGTH TO TARNISH HER BETTERS. WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON AT THE ADN?
R. A. Dillion (see the link to his blog at the right) seems to be a good man and a fine journalist. However, he recently wrote about Todd Palin (Sarah's husband) going back to work for BP in a production job. Dillon wondered if this might not give the appearance of "conflict of interest" since Gov. Palin will be holding a special session to raise the taxes on oil profits, including those of BP. (There are three companies -- BP, Exxon-Mobil, and Conoco-Phillips -- who produce the oil on Alaska's North Slope. Long ago, I worked for Phillips, which has since merged with Conoco.)
When I read Mr. Dillion's piece, I went mildly ballistic and left him the following comment:
R. A. Dillon: "Let not Beltway thinking color thy views."
What do I mean by that? I mean that the Beltway thought is that such things as "conflict of interest" appearances (inventions?) are very grave. In fact, Sarah Palin and "First Dude" (Todd) are people of modest means who have to work for a living. Being of such means should NOT be a disqualifying factor in running for high office.
I realize that money isn't a problem with Senator Herb Kohl (who bought a Senate seat from WI), Jay Rockefeller (who bought the WV seat), John Corzine (who bought the NJ seat), John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi (married the super rich guy), Jane Harman (hubby maybe even richer than Pelosi's), and Dianne Feinstein. Mrs. Heinz-Kerry inherited hundreds of millions from her deceased first husband.
Anyone who wants to see how "The Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" play out in Washington, DC, should go to the OpenSecrets site (link on my blogroll). You will find one Senator or Congressman (and the same is true of most governors) who is worth tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions. Most of this people inherited the money, never being called up to earn a dollar on their own. Sarah and Todd Palin are NOT among this group.
Hopefully, all candidates for high state and federal office will not have to be filthy rich in order to qualify for such positions. Ms. Heinz-Kerry never worked a day in her life. Neither have people like "Teddy" Kennedy or Jay Rockefeller, most of whose fortune derives from his grand-grandfather's oil fortune made at Standard Oil (the original company of which Exxon-Mobil is an offshoot). I predict that the next time you hear about Rockefeller having a "conflict of interest" will be a very warm day in Fairbanks, Alaska.
I know the "conflict of interest" (possible) line on the Palins is a natural one, but in fact it's something of a cheap shot. Once in great while it's nice to have a candidate whose husband (or wife) is a working stiff.
Is your point that Todd's job constitutes a possible conflict, while the vast stock and bond holdings and corporate tie-ins of the super-rich souls I've mentioned (and the many mega-rich people I've left out) don't? That doesn't strike me as fair at all.
In fact, it strikes me as case being made for Government by Plutocracy. You fell into a trap, but you aren't alone there. If BP prospers mightily in Alaska, the benefits (in the form of money from taxes on profits) go in significant quantities to the people of the state.
At the same time, no one in his right mind believes that Sarah isn't going to propose a large increase in Alaska's tax on oil profits. Nothing in her career indicates that she won't consider the people of Alaska first, last, and always. She has built her political life on opposing the kind of corruption that plays much too big a role in Alaska politics.
There is no conceivable conflict of interest with Sarah Palin. She's as far-removed from your usual sef-dealing politician as Jersey City is from Anchorage.
Here are the ranges of net worth reported by some of the individuals I've mentioned above. I think you can the problem. Is it possible for a candidate of modest means -- or even of somewhat immodest means -- to afford to run for a national office? Very few of the people listed below actually earned more than a small portion of their assets. People like Jay Rockefeller and Ted Kennedy inherited their great wealth, while people like Kerry, Harman, and Pelosi married into it. By the way, Mitt Romney's net wealth adds up to more than $250 million. The following is the link to opensecrets, which reflects the disclosures of net worth. Sociologist Thorsten Veblen once talked about "the sheer vulgar fatness of great wealth." Read and meditate on these numbers and you will see what he meant.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp
Name
Minimum Net Worth
Maximum Net Worth
Herb Kohl (D-Wis)
$219,098,029
$234,549,004
Jane Harman (D-Calif)
$168,651,649
$289,045,000
John Kerry (D-Mass)
$165,741,511
$235,262,100
Darrell Issa (R-Calif)
$135,862,098
$677,230,000
Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa)
$78,150,023
$101,579,003
Donald H. Rumsfeld
$57,089,104
$174,672,011
Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
$38,198,170
$90,733,019
John McCain (R-Ariz)
$20,571,136
$32,043,011
Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
$19,978,175
$67,170,000
Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass)
$19,189,049
$93,043,004
Dick Cheney
$17,120,041
$79,588,010
John Campbell (R-Calif)
$16,504,086
$76,512,000
Nita M. Lowey (D-NY)
$14,987,069
$60,881,000
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif)
$14,246,107
$54,085,000
I'D LIKE TO URGE EVERYONE WHO VISITS THIS SITE TO TAKE A LOOK AT http://palintology.com/, A SITE RUN BY TRISH IN ALASKA, A PERSON WHO STRONGLY SUPPORTS SARAH PALIN. SHE TALKS ABOUT A GOSSIP COLUMNIST AT THE ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS, ONE SHEILA TOOMEY, WHO WROTE OBVIOUSLY FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT TRISH AND HER WORK. SHEILA TOOMEY SEEMS TO BE COMPETING FOR THE SCUM-OF-THE-EARTH AWARD, A TRUE GUTTER JOURNALIST CONSUMED WITH HATRED FOR SARAH AND WILLING TO GO TO ANY LENGTH TO TARNISH HER BETTERS. WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON AT THE ADN?
R. A. Dillion (see the link to his blog at the right) seems to be a good man and a fine journalist. However, he recently wrote about Todd Palin (Sarah's husband) going back to work for BP in a production job. Dillon wondered if this might not give the appearance of "conflict of interest" since Gov. Palin will be holding a special session to raise the taxes on oil profits, including those of BP. (There are three companies -- BP, Exxon-Mobil, and Conoco-Phillips -- who produce the oil on Alaska's North Slope. Long ago, I worked for Phillips, which has since merged with Conoco.)
When I read Mr. Dillion's piece, I went mildly ballistic and left him the following comment:
R. A. Dillon: "Let not Beltway thinking color thy views."
What do I mean by that? I mean that the Beltway thought is that such things as "conflict of interest" appearances (inventions?) are very grave. In fact, Sarah Palin and "First Dude" (Todd) are people of modest means who have to work for a living. Being of such means should NOT be a disqualifying factor in running for high office.
I realize that money isn't a problem with Senator Herb Kohl (who bought a Senate seat from WI), Jay Rockefeller (who bought the WV seat), John Corzine (who bought the NJ seat), John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi (married the super rich guy), Jane Harman (hubby maybe even richer than Pelosi's), and Dianne Feinstein. Mrs. Heinz-Kerry inherited hundreds of millions from her deceased first husband.
Anyone who wants to see how "The Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" play out in Washington, DC, should go to the OpenSecrets site (link on my blogroll). You will find one Senator or Congressman (and the same is true of most governors) who is worth tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions. Most of this people inherited the money, never being called up to earn a dollar on their own. Sarah and Todd Palin are NOT among this group.
Hopefully, all candidates for high state and federal office will not have to be filthy rich in order to qualify for such positions. Ms. Heinz-Kerry never worked a day in her life. Neither have people like "Teddy" Kennedy or Jay Rockefeller, most of whose fortune derives from his grand-grandfather's oil fortune made at Standard Oil (the original company of which Exxon-Mobil is an offshoot). I predict that the next time you hear about Rockefeller having a "conflict of interest" will be a very warm day in Fairbanks, Alaska.
I know the "conflict of interest" (possible) line on the Palins is a natural one, but in fact it's something of a cheap shot. Once in great while it's nice to have a candidate whose husband (or wife) is a working stiff.
Is your point that Todd's job constitutes a possible conflict, while the vast stock and bond holdings and corporate tie-ins of the super-rich souls I've mentioned (and the many mega-rich people I've left out) don't? That doesn't strike me as fair at all.
In fact, it strikes me as case being made for Government by Plutocracy. You fell into a trap, but you aren't alone there. If BP prospers mightily in Alaska, the benefits (in the form of money from taxes on profits) go in significant quantities to the people of the state.
At the same time, no one in his right mind believes that Sarah isn't going to propose a large increase in Alaska's tax on oil profits. Nothing in her career indicates that she won't consider the people of Alaska first, last, and always. She has built her political life on opposing the kind of corruption that plays much too big a role in Alaska politics.
There is no conceivable conflict of interest with Sarah Palin. She's as far-removed from your usual sef-dealing politician as Jersey City is from Anchorage.
Here are the ranges of net worth reported by some of the individuals I've mentioned above. I think you can the problem. Is it possible for a candidate of modest means -- or even of somewhat immodest means -- to afford to run for a national office? Very few of the people listed below actually earned more than a small portion of their assets. People like Jay Rockefeller and Ted Kennedy inherited their great wealth, while people like Kerry, Harman, and Pelosi married into it. By the way, Mitt Romney's net wealth adds up to more than $250 million. The following is the link to opensecrets, which reflects the disclosures of net worth. Sociologist Thorsten Veblen once talked about "the sheer vulgar fatness of great wealth." Read and meditate on these numbers and you will see what he meant.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp
Name
Minimum Net Worth
Maximum Net Worth
Herb Kohl (D-Wis)
$219,098,029
$234,549,004
Jane Harman (D-Calif)
$168,651,649
$289,045,000
John Kerry (D-Mass)
$165,741,511
$235,262,100
Darrell Issa (R-Calif)
$135,862,098
$677,230,000
Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa)
$78,150,023
$101,579,003
Donald H. Rumsfeld
$57,089,104
$174,672,011
Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
$38,198,170
$90,733,019
John McCain (R-Ariz)
$20,571,136
$32,043,011
Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
$19,978,175
$67,170,000
Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass)
$19,189,049
$93,043,004
Dick Cheney
$17,120,041
$79,588,010
John Campbell (R-Calif)
$16,504,086
$76,512,000
Nita M. Lowey (D-NY)
$14,987,069
$60,881,000
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif)
$14,246,107
$54,085,000
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Letter to Fairbanks News-Miner Re: Draft Palin Movement
R. A. Dillion, who authored the piece I'm responding to below, was kind enough to put my response on his blog and forward it to the editor of the Fairbanks News-Miner for possible inclusion in that newspaper. I informed him that if our Draft Palin group is a cult, that it is very nice one indeed. You can find Mr. Dillon's blog (a good one) on my blogroll. He's recently written a column on AlaskanAbroad about Sarah's husband, Todd, going back to work for BP, with the suggestion that it might have the appearance of a "conflict of interest." I responded vigorously with a comment on his blog. See this space tomorrow for my comment. Mr. Dillon has a beautiful Siberian husky dog, and I have one living next door, Sasha.
Hello Mr. Dillon:
I read with interest your Fairbanks News-Miner piece titled "Cheers to The Cult of Palin." I have been for many months a strong supporter of Sarah Palin for Vice-President on the Republican ticket. I've spent perhaps a thousand hours on this project, and will spend a lot more time, but I don't regard myself as a member of a cult.
Instead, I'm committed to getting the very best individuals -- people who are honest, decisive, and forthright -- out front as Republican candidates. I've written many columns on "Why Sarah" on my blog: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/ explaining why I believe Sarah is the best choice for the second spot on the Republican ticket.
At a time when the Democrats will have a woman at the head of their ticket, there are some obvious practical reasons for the Republicans, my Party, doing likewise.
As you suggest, many national writers, including Fred Barnes, Les Kinsolving (a Pultizer Prize Nominee), and SJ Reidhead, along with important regional writers like Tom Koenniger (The Columbian) and Dimitri Vassilaros (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review), agree with us. Dozens of bloggers, some of them with huge readerships, have also signed on. The Republican Governors Association has featured her on its website, and important advocates for Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani are strongly advocating that Sarah be on the ticket.
Recently, a gossip columnist in Anchorage suggested that at least one of our number must be getting "paid" by someone. Trish in Alaska (http://palintology.com/ replied that she certainly is not getting paid. No one, none of the columnists, and certainly none of the bloggers, is getting paid a nickel to advocate Sarah Palin.
Also, no one in the Palin Administration has any say in our activities. We are an independent group committed to doing what is best for our country. As for Gov. Palin's supposed lack of experience: right now, she has more executive experience than several national candidates widely regarded as viable, including Hillary Clinton.
Being a good vice-president or President is mainly a matter of character and willingness to confront tough issues, both of which Sarah has in abundance. There's no reason to believe she wouldn't do as good a job in Washington, DC as she obviously has in Juneau.
The people in Alaska generally strike us as wonderful souls. The state is playing a crucial role in the nation's struggle for energy security and environmental protection, as well as for nutritious, healthful food. Don't sell the state, or its wonderful governor, short.
If you or any of your staff would like to talk directly about this, I'm available.
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
National Coordination Team, Palin 4 VP
Stephen R. Maloney is a national coordinator in the Palin 4 VP effort. He has been a political activist and operative for 40 years and has written for Fortune, National Review, The American Spectator, and many other publications. Formerly a college teacher in Virginia and Georgia, as well as a speechwriter for many of America's largest corporations, he has a Ph.D. in English and American Literature from the University of Rochester.
Hello Mr. Dillon:
I read with interest your Fairbanks News-Miner piece titled "Cheers to The Cult of Palin." I have been for many months a strong supporter of Sarah Palin for Vice-President on the Republican ticket. I've spent perhaps a thousand hours on this project, and will spend a lot more time, but I don't regard myself as a member of a cult.
Instead, I'm committed to getting the very best individuals -- people who are honest, decisive, and forthright -- out front as Republican candidates. I've written many columns on "Why Sarah" on my blog: http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/ explaining why I believe Sarah is the best choice for the second spot on the Republican ticket.
At a time when the Democrats will have a woman at the head of their ticket, there are some obvious practical reasons for the Republicans, my Party, doing likewise.
As you suggest, many national writers, including Fred Barnes, Les Kinsolving (a Pultizer Prize Nominee), and SJ Reidhead, along with important regional writers like Tom Koenniger (The Columbian) and Dimitri Vassilaros (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review), agree with us. Dozens of bloggers, some of them with huge readerships, have also signed on. The Republican Governors Association has featured her on its website, and important advocates for Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani are strongly advocating that Sarah be on the ticket.
Recently, a gossip columnist in Anchorage suggested that at least one of our number must be getting "paid" by someone. Trish in Alaska (http://palintology.com/ replied that she certainly is not getting paid. No one, none of the columnists, and certainly none of the bloggers, is getting paid a nickel to advocate Sarah Palin.
Also, no one in the Palin Administration has any say in our activities. We are an independent group committed to doing what is best for our country. As for Gov. Palin's supposed lack of experience: right now, she has more executive experience than several national candidates widely regarded as viable, including Hillary Clinton.
Being a good vice-president or President is mainly a matter of character and willingness to confront tough issues, both of which Sarah has in abundance. There's no reason to believe she wouldn't do as good a job in Washington, DC as she obviously has in Juneau.
The people in Alaska generally strike us as wonderful souls. The state is playing a crucial role in the nation's struggle for energy security and environmental protection, as well as for nutritious, healthful food. Don't sell the state, or its wonderful governor, short.
If you or any of your staff would like to talk directly about this, I'm available.
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
National Coordination Team, Palin 4 VP
Stephen R. Maloney is a national coordinator in the Palin 4 VP effort. He has been a political activist and operative for 40 years and has written for Fortune, National Review, The American Spectator, and many other publications. Formerly a college teacher in Virginia and Georgia, as well as a speechwriter for many of America's largest corporations, he has a Ph.D. in English and American Literature from the University of Rochester.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Sarah Palin: "She's Honest, and They Aren't"
Adam's provocative slogan for Sarah Palin is "New Energy for America." I've suggested two: "Now she belongs to America" and "She is fresh, and everyone else is tired." At times, as I read about the scandals lappinjg at the heels Alaska's two U. S. Senators (Ted Stevens & Lisa Murkowski) and its one congressional representative (Don Young, creator of "The Bridge to Nowhere"), I think of modifying my latter slogan to: "She is honest, and everyone else is tarnished."
From the Anchorage Daily News, Tuesday, August 21
A new era trailing Stevens? Now comes another national voice, this one The Christian Science Monitor, weighing in on federal authorities’ investigation of Sen. Ted Stevens and the potential political consequences. Coupled with other investigations of political figures, the Stevens affair could mean a changing political climate in Alaska, the newpaper’s writer says.“The state has long abided by the slogan, ‘We don't care how they do it outside’ – ‘outside’ being any place that is not Alaska. But now, it must address national perceptions.
‘Alaskans had better grow up and be very responsible and prove ... that we can be contributors,’ says Governor (Sarah) Palin.”
"And one Republican wants the new era soon. In a letter to the editor of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Republican state Rep. Mike Kelly of Fairbanks says Stevens and Rep. Don Young should quit after their current terms end. S en. John Cowdery should also go, as should Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich, Kelly says."
“'Seeing these positive steps the popular and conservative Governor Palin may feel more comfortable working with a team of Republican leaders to restore the confidence of Alaskans in their government and lead Alaska to a bright future,' Kelly says."
From the Anchorage Daily News, Tuesday, August 21
A new era trailing Stevens? Now comes another national voice, this one The Christian Science Monitor, weighing in on federal authorities’ investigation of Sen. Ted Stevens and the potential political consequences. Coupled with other investigations of political figures, the Stevens affair could mean a changing political climate in Alaska, the newpaper’s writer says.“The state has long abided by the slogan, ‘We don't care how they do it outside’ – ‘outside’ being any place that is not Alaska. But now, it must address national perceptions.
‘Alaskans had better grow up and be very responsible and prove ... that we can be contributors,’ says Governor (Sarah) Palin.”
"And one Republican wants the new era soon. In a letter to the editor of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Republican state Rep. Mike Kelly of Fairbanks says Stevens and Rep. Don Young should quit after their current terms end. S en. John Cowdery should also go, as should Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich, Kelly says."
“'Seeing these positive steps the popular and conservative Governor Palin may feel more comfortable working with a team of Republican leaders to restore the confidence of Alaskans in their government and lead Alaska to a bright future,' Kelly says."
Monday, August 20, 2007
Michigan Moves Up: Will There Be a Primary Next Week?
Stephen R. Maloney says... This situation (see below in italics) will change many things. Part of this is an effort by Mitt Romney (who's really from MI and has his national HQ there) to get a good start. Rudy is nipping at his heels in MI and there are some complicated factors going on (i.e., trying to get Rudy to spend money where he would prefer not to). The current primary schedule, with pro-Rudy Florida holding its primary on Jan. 29 and a lot of other pro-Rudy big states (New York, New Jersey, California) set to hold primaries on Feb. 5, strongly favored Giuliani. Seethe end of this piece for the Sarah Palin implications.
I found the following on http://race42008.com
Michigan to Hold Primary on 1/15/[2008]
“Michigan blows up the calendar” is the headline on Jonathan Martin’s blog over at the Politico, and that’s about the long and the short of it. Just when IA, NH, and SC thought they had everything worked out for a nice day swimming at the pool, both the Republican and Democrat parties of Michigan had to go and cannonball into the deep end and upset the water.
Both parties have agreed to hold primaries on January 15th, provided they can get the appropriate legislation through the MI state legislature. According to Martin, it’s “all but a done deal and is now just a matter of when the legislature moves the bill making it so.”
This will put additional pressure on Iowa to hold their caucuses in 2007, something Governor Culver has said he does not want to happen
I found the following on http://race42008.com
Michigan to Hold Primary on 1/15/[2008]
“Michigan blows up the calendar” is the headline on Jonathan Martin’s blog over at the Politico, and that’s about the long and the short of it. Just when IA, NH, and SC thought they had everything worked out for a nice day swimming at the pool, both the Republican and Democrat parties of Michigan had to go and cannonball into the deep end and upset the water.
Both parties have agreed to hold primaries on January 15th, provided they can get the appropriate legislation through the MI state legislature. According to Martin, it’s “all but a done deal and is now just a matter of when the legislature moves the bill making it so.”
This will put additional pressure on Iowa to hold their caucuses in 2007, something Governor Culver has said he does not want to happen
Stephen R. Maloney adds: The first Republican presidential hopeful who can get a commitment -- even a favorable look or a winsome smile would do -- from the GOP's hottest political property, Sarah Palin, will be in a very good position. Are you listening Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney? You darn well should be. As for Sarah, keep the cell phone handy.
Old-Style Politics and New-Style Sarah
Welcome to Campaign2008VictoryA. If you come here with some regularity -- or just from time-to-time -- and would like weekly updates on what's going on with the campaign to draft Sarah Palin for V-P, give me your e-mail address. You can leave it in the comments or send it to me at TalkTop65@aol.com.
One thing Adam Brickley (also called "The New Karl Rove") often talks about is "old-fashioned politics" -- also called "old-style politics." It refers to people swearing by political truisms that are no longer true, if in fact they ever were.
One criticism the Draft Palin Effort sometimes gets is that Alaska is not a traditional source for vice-presidential nominees. Also, the state has only three electoral votes. The idea is that naming Sarah as the nominee would not significantly influence the outcome of the national election.
That is classic "old-fashioned politics."
The sitting vice-president, Dick Cheney, is from Wyoming. That state has . . . three electoral votes. Also, like Alaska, it's a strong red state. In fact, either state would turn "Blue" only if all the residents held their breath for several hours.
Here's a question: who was the last vice-presidential nominee that clearly helped a presidential running mate carry an important state? The presidential candidate was John F. Kennedy, the vice-presidential candidate was Lyndon B. Johnson, the state was Texas, and the year was 1960!
In a strange way, however presidential candidates (aside from Al Gore) do seem to have a tendency to carry the states where they reside. In 1972, George McGovern carried South Dakota, and nothing else. In 1984, Walter Mondale won in Minnesota -- and lost the other 49 states.
The notion that a vice-presidential candidate brings along with him (or her?) the state of residence? It's just old-style political thinking, and it should have no influence on a choice of a superb candidate: Sarah Heath Palin.
We see Sarah as a major factor in helping the Republican nominee carry states like Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Florida, all of which have a lot more than three electoral votes.
The big news this week has consisted of the following (all of them included in the blog material below):
- A major endorsement of Sarah for V-P by Pulitzer Prize nominee Les Kinsolving;
- An extremely positive character study of Sarah by the "Queen of the Blogosphere," SJ Reidhead;
- A story in the Anchorage Daily News featuring (and quoting members of) the Draft Palin Movement;
- A KTUU-TV (Anchorage) feature on Adam Brickley's "DraftPalinforVP" web page, along with phone comments by Adam; and,
- A story in the Fairbanks News-Miner newspaper about the Draft Palin effort and its effect (positive) on Sarah and Alaska.
In short, this has been a big week for those who believe that Gov. Sarah Palin is exactly what America needs. As a group, we have accomplished a few "minor miracles," but the best is yet to come for Sarah, her family, and the nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
