Today, I'd like to discuss two things: (1) basic conservatism; (2) my comments to Douglas Gibbs, of Political Pistachio radio (see blogroll), about my appearance (July 28) on his show:
Basic Conservatism (Health Care)
From time to time, I’ll write my thoughts about conservatism in the 21st century.
Any decent political philosophy in a free society must emphasize having people do as much for themselves as possible. When individuals become too dependent on an elected government, it destroys the relationship between the governed and the governors. When large groups of people become excessively dependent on government, the society becomes increasingly less free.
In all candor, you won’t hear that from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. They genuinely believe that government consists largely of redistributing income – mainly TO their supporters FROM the supporters of others. Of course, they don’t explain it that way. Instead, they talk about “doing good for people.”
With an issue like health care, they point out that number of people without health insurance might total 47 million. (Admittedly, that figure is an exaggeration, but let that pass for now.)
What they don’t note is the number they use means the people with some form of health coverage must total 253 million (with the U.S. population being 300 million).
Is their solution to provide care to the 47 million uninsured? No, it’s to provide coverage (through some form of universal health care) to all 300 million. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. If your roof leaks, you fix it. You don’t start to restore the entire house from the foundation up.
There IS a problem with health care in the U.S., a fact we conservatives sometimes fail to acknowledge. However, the problem exists mainly for 15% of Americans, not for everyone.
Democrats tend to focus on the doughnut hole – the 47 million – and not on the doughnut, the 253 million. They emphasize fixing both the problem and the non-problem. They demand a universal solution to a localized matter.
Another thing the Democrats do – and Michael Moore is a major ally – is to suggest that their proposals will make health care free. The other night on CNN, filmaker Moore insisted that health care in other developed countries (Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Cuba, and the like) is FREE. You get sick; you go to the doctor or hospital; you get care; and you don’t get a bill.
Free, right? No, wrong. The countries I mentioned expend trillions of dollars in tax revenues on health care. It’s not in any sense free. It comes out of the taxes people pay. In most of those countries, people who can afford it also are paying for private coverage, because they don’t get the care they want from the public system.
We conservatives have not done a good job explaining these simple facts to the American people. Somehow, we’ve fallen into the trap of appearing to be the nasty individuals who don’t want sick people to receive adequate care.
So, the Democrats generally are in denial about the costs – and the problems (such as long lines for treatment) – of universal-coverage (single-payer) systems. We Republicans occasionally tend to be in denial about the existence of a problem.
The solution is for Republicans to admit there’s a problem – one that’s finite and fixable. Then, we need to come up with effective, appealing ways to fix it. We should avoid rhetorical bluster and come up with clear, simple solutions that will allay fears on the part of voters. That’s how to win elections.
Note to Douglas Gibbs
I sent the following to Douglas Gibbs, host of Political Pistachio, where I'll appear as a guest on July 28, 2007. I'll write more about that later.
Doug, on Friday I wrote a column about vice-presidential candidates (Republican emphasis) back to Eisenhower's first-term. It was a depressing experience -- one candidate impeached and resigned (Nixon), one resigned in disgrace because of accepting bribes (Agnew), others who added little or nothing to the ticket (Goldwater's Bill Miller, George HW's Dan Quayle, and Nixon's first running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge).
Also, we had Bob Dole running for President in 1996 at age 73 with Jack Kemp, a good man but someone who never took hold nationally. Dick Cheney is a good man and more, but as I say in my column, he's been invisible much of the time, something of a "Phantom of the Opera" and he will never again be a candidate for anything. Gerald Ford was President (and managed to appoint John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court; GHW Bush appointed Souter).
Doug, what's wrong with this picture? Gee, you and I could have thrown darts at names on a board and done better.
On your show, I'd like to go through the above "VP history" (quickly, so as not to bore anybody) and point out why Sarah and some others (with real ability, character, and political futures) appeal to many -- perhaps for V-P slot now and for the presidency down the road.
Lorie Byrd had a Townhall essay a few weeks ago highlighting Michael Steele, former Lt. Gov. of MD and a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2006, as somebody who should get serious consideration for V-P.
I believe Sarah should be on the ticket for V-P. However, she would be able to take over and do well as President if necessary. Being a good Prez is a question of character/honesty, energy, decisiveness, and love of country, and she has all of them. I'd say the same about Michael Steele.
I also point out in my column how the Republicans have a concept that candidates are supposed "to wait their turn," leading to a situation where Republican Prez and V-P candidates are much older than their Democrat counterparts. It's extremely unlikely that someone like a Republican version of Obama (say, a J. C. Watt or a Steele) would be a top candidate.
As for Fred Thompson, I've questioned his candidacy -- mainly because of issues related to age (he'd be 67 on Inauguration Day) and energy-level. Admittedly, age didn't work against Reagan (although it might have to a degree in the latter stages of his presidency).
It takes tremendous energy to run for President -- and to govern the country. People are always waking the Prez up in the middle of the night, and he (or she) is taking trips that would wear out most 40-year-olds.
As for someone like McCain, an American war hero with a prickly personality and a maverick streak: at the end of his second term he would be nearly 80. Admittedly, 80 now isn't what it was even a generation ago, but it's still too old to be President (for the vast majority of people). It's hard to talk candidly about this issue since we're all sensitive to offending groups (including older people), but it is a factor.
Interestingly, the Buffalo Bills hired Hall-of-Fame football coach Marv Levy as team general manager . . . at age 80. However, Marv, whom I met in 1967 at William & Mary College, is an extremely unusual octogenarian
I will send out 100 or so e-mails to Palin supporters and others asking them to listen to the show.
Stephen R. Maloney
Ambridge, PA
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
The Aged, The Corrupt, and The Unelectable: Avoiding Them
"Winning isn't everything? Well, losing isn't anything." (Vince Lombardi)
A variation on Lombardi's point is that a winning candidate may not agree with you on all things. However, you want to avoid at all costs allowing the winner to be someone who disagrees with you on just about everything. Presidencies have long-lasting consequences, such as in the appointment of Supreme Court justices.
To Section 9 (see "comments"), I really do appreciate your comments, and I'm not as uncompromising as I sometimes may seem. I just see ourselves falling into the same pattern where we nominate the wrong candidates, with the result that we lose elections we should win.
Habitually, the Republican Party sometimes operates as if it has a mandate that says, "Wait your turn!" Thus, we end up with 73-year-old Bob Dole running for President, and Fred Thompson (who will be 67) on Inauguration Day.
The Democrats don't wait their turn, and they win elections. There was no way untested John Kennedy (much too young) . . . or unknown Jimmy Carter (too Southern! too religious!) . . . or womanizing Bill Clinton (from Arkansas?!) could win, right?
In 2004, John Edwards, with experience mainly as a trial lawyer, was a serious contender. Now, Barack Obama, with no executive experience and a year-or-so in the Senate, is the leading money-raiser and in second place to Hillary.
We Republicans back ourselves into these corners, and we end up with the depressing list of candidates I had in yesterday's column -- the aged, the corrupt, and the unelectable, people like Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, and Dan Quayle. Ironically, Mrs. Quayle, a brilliant woman, would have been a great candidate, but she suffered from the deficiency (?) of being, ahem, a woman.
I truly hope Sarah Palin, Mike Steele, J. C. Watts, and Mike Huckabee don't have to wait their turns, at which point they'll be too old, tired, and baggage-laden to have much effect on the country. Nominating people like them will show that we're serious about wanting the votes of female professionals, Blacks, younger people, and evangelicals, a point that's very much at issue now.
Section 9 (my commenter), I apologize for saying you worked for the RNC! I get very irritated by the national Party's (and the pundits') assumption that the next election is not winnable. At the same time, I don't underestimate Hillary Clinton, who won big in two elections in NY state.
Yes, Hillary's favorabilities are not the best. But remember, in the last election, GWB's approval rating never went above 49%, and he still won by 3 million votes.
I agree that Giuliani could win FL, PA (Bush lost it by 1% in 2004), and probably NJ, which would make him President-elect. Reagan, being deceased, can't run again, so we will not get the much-desired "perfect" candidate.
My friend, congressional candidate Diana Lynn Irey, often looked at as the ideal wife, mother, and candidate, once said to me about supposedly "perfect" people, "I can't stand them!" Wise woman. She recognized that imperfection is our human condition.
As St. Paul put reminded us: "For all have sinned, all have fallen short of the glory of God." As usual, he said a mouthful.
Stephen R. Maloney
A variation on Lombardi's point is that a winning candidate may not agree with you on all things. However, you want to avoid at all costs allowing the winner to be someone who disagrees with you on just about everything. Presidencies have long-lasting consequences, such as in the appointment of Supreme Court justices.
To Section 9 (see "comments"), I really do appreciate your comments, and I'm not as uncompromising as I sometimes may seem. I just see ourselves falling into the same pattern where we nominate the wrong candidates, with the result that we lose elections we should win.
Habitually, the Republican Party sometimes operates as if it has a mandate that says, "Wait your turn!" Thus, we end up with 73-year-old Bob Dole running for President, and Fred Thompson (who will be 67) on Inauguration Day.
The Democrats don't wait their turn, and they win elections. There was no way untested John Kennedy (much too young) . . . or unknown Jimmy Carter (too Southern! too religious!) . . . or womanizing Bill Clinton (from Arkansas?!) could win, right?
In 2004, John Edwards, with experience mainly as a trial lawyer, was a serious contender. Now, Barack Obama, with no executive experience and a year-or-so in the Senate, is the leading money-raiser and in second place to Hillary.
We Republicans back ourselves into these corners, and we end up with the depressing list of candidates I had in yesterday's column -- the aged, the corrupt, and the unelectable, people like Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, and Dan Quayle. Ironically, Mrs. Quayle, a brilliant woman, would have been a great candidate, but she suffered from the deficiency (?) of being, ahem, a woman.
I truly hope Sarah Palin, Mike Steele, J. C. Watts, and Mike Huckabee don't have to wait their turns, at which point they'll be too old, tired, and baggage-laden to have much effect on the country. Nominating people like them will show that we're serious about wanting the votes of female professionals, Blacks, younger people, and evangelicals, a point that's very much at issue now.
Section 9 (my commenter), I apologize for saying you worked for the RNC! I get very irritated by the national Party's (and the pundits') assumption that the next election is not winnable. At the same time, I don't underestimate Hillary Clinton, who won big in two elections in NY state.
Yes, Hillary's favorabilities are not the best. But remember, in the last election, GWB's approval rating never went above 49%, and he still won by 3 million votes.
I agree that Giuliani could win FL, PA (Bush lost it by 1% in 2004), and probably NJ, which would make him President-elect. Reagan, being deceased, can't run again, so we will not get the much-desired "perfect" candidate.
My friend, congressional candidate Diana Lynn Irey, often looked at as the ideal wife, mother, and candidate, once said to me about supposedly "perfect" people, "I can't stand them!" Wise woman. She recognized that imperfection is our human condition.
As St. Paul put reminded us: "For all have sinned, all have fallen short of the glory of God." As usual, he said a mouthful.
Stephen R. Maloney
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Memo to RNC: Beg Sarah to Run
Partly in response to the comments by Section 9, who works (has worked?) for the Republican Party, I'd like to review Republican selections for the vice-presidency, going back to Dwight D. Eisenhower. Without understanding the dismal choices made over the years, it's hard to understand the depth of my passion (and that of many others) for ensuring that Sarah Palin makes it onto the ticket in 2008. Section 9 talks about the Republican National Committee's (RNC's) "A-list" of vice-presidential candidates, which presumably includes: Jeb Bush, Condi Rice, and (perhaps?) Fred Thompson. I've said that my own "A-list" is much different, consisting of Sarah Palin, Michael Steele (former lieutenant governor of Maryland), and Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas and currently a presidential candidate.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, elected 1952 and 1956, choose Richard M. Nixon twice as V-P. Nixon later lost to John F. Kennedy in 1960, but was elected in 1968 (against Hubert Humphrey) and in 1972 (against George McGovern). Nixon resigned after being impeached in 1974.
Richard M. Nixon in 1960 choose Henry Cabot Lodge of Massaschusetts as his running mate. Lodge quickly faded from the scene after the Kennedy-Johnson victory in the general election.
Barry Goldwater, the party's 1964 nominee, chose an obscure conservative congressman, William Miller, who had represented the Lockport area (nearly Buffalo). Goldwater suffered a loss of historic proportions to Lyndon Johnson, and Miller apparently went back to Lockport to do something or other.
Richard M. Nixon ran in 1968 against Johnson's V-P Hubert Humphrey (in a campaign where George Wallace of Alabama won four Southern states) and won a very narrow victory. Nixon's V-P choice in 1968 and 1972 was the former governor of Maryland, Spiro T. Agnew, a darling of conservatives (and someone for whom Pat Buchanan wrote speeches). After the 1972 election, it became clear Agnew had accepted bribes from various contractors, and he resigned in disgrace. Nixon then appointed Gerald Ford as his V-P and Ford assumed office when Nixon resigned in August, 1974.
Ford named Nelson Rockefeller as a short-term V-P.
Ford ran with V-P nominee Senator Robert Dole in 1976 and lost to the Jimmy Carter-Walter Mondale team. One of Ford's notable accomplishments was naming John Paul Stevens, the most liberal justice, to the Supreme Court.
Ronald Reagan named George H. W. Bush as his V-P in both 1980 (when they defeated the Carter-Mondale team) and in 1984, when they defeated Mondale & Ferraro.
George H. W. Bush picked Dan Quayle, an Indiana Senator, as his running mate in the campaign against the Dukakis-Bentsen team. A remarkably inarticulate man, Quayle was an embarrassment almost from day 1 but Bush named him again as his V-P choice in 1992. The most memorable moment of the debates in 1988 occurred when Senator Lloyd Bentsen told Quayle, who had compared himself to JFK, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." At the behest of New Hampshire advisor John Sununu, Bush named fanatical leftist David Souter to the Supreme Court.
William Jefferson Clinton, running with Al Gore, defeated the Bush-Quayle team in 1992.
Robert Dole, then age 73, and former congressman Jack Kemp lost badly to Clinton-Gore in 1996.
George W. Bush has run successfully twice with former congressman and former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. In my previous column, I said that the rarely visible Cheny has been something of a Beltway version of the "Phantom of the Opera."
Going back through a generation's worth of V-P nominees reminds us just what an undistinguished group it is. It looks less like an "A-list" than a "D-list."
Nixon and Agnew were forced to resign. Minor figures like Miller, Lodge, and Quayle quickly dropped off the radar screen. Cheney, a good man in very ill health and extreme political disfavor, has become fodder for late-night comedians. George H. W. Bush turned a 90% approval rating into an electoral loss. Gerald Ford was one-unelected half-term and done. Bob Dole ran as the Ghost of Politics Past ("The American people know ole Bob Dole"). They knew him just well enough to reject him handily.
Sarah Palin would be a much better choice than any of the individuals I've mentioned, going back to Goldwater's strange choice of William Miller. She's honest, competent, a ferocious campaigner, and extremely popular -- none of which should be held against her.
With all due respect, the RNC should be on its knees asking a rising star -- the most popular political figure in the nation -- like Sarah Palin to run. When they get tired of looking at various geriatrics ("What's Don Rumsfeld doing these days?"), maybe they will.
Let's nominate someone not notable for being a character but rather for having character. I ask the RNC and the presidential candidates to re-read the Fred Barnes article. Then, they should ask themselves: what Republican vice--presidential nominee in the past 50 years would have merited such a piece?
Stephen R. Maloney
Dwight D. Eisenhower, elected 1952 and 1956, choose Richard M. Nixon twice as V-P. Nixon later lost to John F. Kennedy in 1960, but was elected in 1968 (against Hubert Humphrey) and in 1972 (against George McGovern). Nixon resigned after being impeached in 1974.
Richard M. Nixon in 1960 choose Henry Cabot Lodge of Massaschusetts as his running mate. Lodge quickly faded from the scene after the Kennedy-Johnson victory in the general election.
Barry Goldwater, the party's 1964 nominee, chose an obscure conservative congressman, William Miller, who had represented the Lockport area (nearly Buffalo). Goldwater suffered a loss of historic proportions to Lyndon Johnson, and Miller apparently went back to Lockport to do something or other.
Richard M. Nixon ran in 1968 against Johnson's V-P Hubert Humphrey (in a campaign where George Wallace of Alabama won four Southern states) and won a very narrow victory. Nixon's V-P choice in 1968 and 1972 was the former governor of Maryland, Spiro T. Agnew, a darling of conservatives (and someone for whom Pat Buchanan wrote speeches). After the 1972 election, it became clear Agnew had accepted bribes from various contractors, and he resigned in disgrace. Nixon then appointed Gerald Ford as his V-P and Ford assumed office when Nixon resigned in August, 1974.
Ford named Nelson Rockefeller as a short-term V-P.
Ford ran with V-P nominee Senator Robert Dole in 1976 and lost to the Jimmy Carter-Walter Mondale team. One of Ford's notable accomplishments was naming John Paul Stevens, the most liberal justice, to the Supreme Court.
Ronald Reagan named George H. W. Bush as his V-P in both 1980 (when they defeated the Carter-Mondale team) and in 1984, when they defeated Mondale & Ferraro.
George H. W. Bush picked Dan Quayle, an Indiana Senator, as his running mate in the campaign against the Dukakis-Bentsen team. A remarkably inarticulate man, Quayle was an embarrassment almost from day 1 but Bush named him again as his V-P choice in 1992. The most memorable moment of the debates in 1988 occurred when Senator Lloyd Bentsen told Quayle, who had compared himself to JFK, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." At the behest of New Hampshire advisor John Sununu, Bush named fanatical leftist David Souter to the Supreme Court.
William Jefferson Clinton, running with Al Gore, defeated the Bush-Quayle team in 1992.
Robert Dole, then age 73, and former congressman Jack Kemp lost badly to Clinton-Gore in 1996.
George W. Bush has run successfully twice with former congressman and former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. In my previous column, I said that the rarely visible Cheny has been something of a Beltway version of the "Phantom of the Opera."
Going back through a generation's worth of V-P nominees reminds us just what an undistinguished group it is. It looks less like an "A-list" than a "D-list."
Nixon and Agnew were forced to resign. Minor figures like Miller, Lodge, and Quayle quickly dropped off the radar screen. Cheney, a good man in very ill health and extreme political disfavor, has become fodder for late-night comedians. George H. W. Bush turned a 90% approval rating into an electoral loss. Gerald Ford was one-unelected half-term and done. Bob Dole ran as the Ghost of Politics Past ("The American people know ole Bob Dole"). They knew him just well enough to reject him handily.
Sarah Palin would be a much better choice than any of the individuals I've mentioned, going back to Goldwater's strange choice of William Miller. She's honest, competent, a ferocious campaigner, and extremely popular -- none of which should be held against her.
With all due respect, the RNC should be on its knees asking a rising star -- the most popular political figure in the nation -- like Sarah Palin to run. When they get tired of looking at various geriatrics ("What's Don Rumsfeld doing these days?"), maybe they will.
Let's nominate someone not notable for being a character but rather for having character. I ask the RNC and the presidential candidates to re-read the Fred Barnes article. Then, they should ask themselves: what Republican vice--presidential nominee in the past 50 years would have merited such a piece?
Stephen R. Maloney
Thoughts on Condi, GenX Dad, and Townhall
Note: I got a comment saying the Republican ticket should be some variation of Giuliani-Rice (Condoleeza) or Thompson-Rice (or, less likely, with Jeb Bush in the V-P slot). Or perhaps we might return to the "Grumpy Older Men" ticket (Giuliani-Thompson). I don't see any evidence, from polls or elsewhere, that anyone associated closely with George Bush (e.g., his brother or Sec. Rice) could be part of a winning ticket. I'm personally a great admirer of GWB, but in that affection I'm part of a very small minority of Americans. I've expressed my views about Thompson -- and my support for GenXDad's devastating critique of the man. If the Democrats offer a dynamic ticket, which they will, and we don't, then we will lose badly. We don't need another Nixon-Agnew, Dole-Kemp, or GHW Bush-Quayle fiasco. That's why I support Sarah -- period.
NOTE 2: I am getting good comments from someone (Section 9) who apparently works for the national Republican Party. I disagree with him on most things, but I'm happy that he commented in such detail. I might move my second response to him up to "blog central" tomorrow. In my responses, I talk more about the Republican Party's choice of V-P candidates, which has been appalling for more than a generation. I say that Dick Cheney (who did me a major favor once and is a good man) has been, as V-P, something like a Beltway version of the Phantom of the Opera. The people who support Sarah Palin are trying to keep the Party from making yet another disastrous choice for the V-P slot. The Democrats have done a much better job in choosing vice-presidential nominees who have at least a fighting chance to move up to the presidency.
My main interest this election cycle is making sure that Governor Sarah Palin gets the Republican nomination for vice-president. Today, however, I'm going to talk about three other matters: (1) The http://thinkcondi.net/ organization's efforts to get the vice-presidential nomination for Secretary Rice; (2) The continuing excellence of one of our "4 Palin" people, GenXDad (see link below); and, (3) The increasing general uselessness of Townhall.com, which is little more than the"Know-Nothing" element of conservatism.
First, my response to one of the operatives from "Think Condi," who was asking basically why I don't support Secretary Rice:
Regarding Condi Rice: (1) Laura Bush said she had given up on Condi running for President (or, presumably for any top office). I haven't seen Sec. Rice indicating ANY interest in a top political office. (2) Condi is very closely associated with President Bush on the Iraq War, which would be an albatross around her neck in running for a top office. I wonder if she's not good and tired of Washington, DC and politics in general.
President Bush (and Laura) would support her in running for a top office, but I don't see how that would be a benefit right now. Given the situation in Iraq, it's very hard for a Secretary of State to get any traction on major issues, including the Palestine-Israel conflict.
I've talked a good deal on my blog about the URGENT need for Republicans to stop offering the American people the same geriatric white males who come with a great deal of baggage and strong links to failed policies of the past. Specifically, that means more female candidates and more minority candidates (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans). However, in Condi's case, she's too associated with Iraq policies that no longer even have the support of a majority of Republicans.
The future of the Republican Party rests with people like Sarah Palin, Diana Lynn Irey, Michael Steele, Linda Chavez, and J. C. Watts. I will vote for Fred Thompson if he is the nominee, but I see him largely as a self-absorbed windbag.
There's a great need to develop fresh faces and new perspectives on issues. "The same old same old" is not a winning approach.
My hope is that the "Think Condi" organization will "Think Sarah" -- and soon.
http://thinkcondi.net/
Regarding GenXDad: He's a moderate Republican, which means that on Townhall.com, he's a fish-out-of-water. Recently, "Dad" wrote the best piece -- a very long one -- on the candidacy of Fred Dalton Thompson. Dad went through every essay Fred D. has written for Townhall, and he pronounced himself extremely unimpressed. Basically, he said Fred D.'s "insights" were pedestrian and designed apparently to pander to the "Know-Nothing" crowd on TH.
As a middle-ground Republican, GenXDad is speaking to the people who will determine the winner of the next presidential election: moderate Republicans, independents, and "Reagan Democrats." He will exasperate the single-issue types on TH, particularly the Mexican-haters, but what he's saying is extremely important.
http://genxdad.townhall.com/
Regarding Townhall.com (as separate from most individual bloggers), which comes in for a lot of criticism on GenXDad's site, I wrote the following comment to him:
I wonder if Salem Communications realizes what damage TH does to Republican and conservative causes? If so, it just doesn't care.
When I saw that one Lindsay Boyd was "Coalitions Director" at TH, I wrote her an e-mail mentioning I was in Coalitions Building and I'd love to work on various projects with her. No answer. None.
About the same time, I sent two articles to TH head honcho Jonathan Garthwaite -- one of them later published by the Republican National Congressional Committee. Jonathan never responded. No rejection; no acceptance; no nothing.
GenXDad, you mentioned that the blog hosting was terrible. What's even worse is that bloggers get no instruction or encouragement -- except for a favored few -- and thus 90% of them either never post or stop after one or two. Of course, the racist and nativist comments on the site drive away any visitors who may be minorities -- or have more than half-a-brain. Gee, that's a great way to build "coalitions."
One blogger (HeartlandPatriot) talks about how babies of immigrants should not have citizenship and how anyone from south of the border comes from a 'cesspool.' Somehow, those comments don't qualify as "offensive."
On the children of immigrants: it's all well and good to be "pro-life," and in fact I am, but how it is pro-life to be concerned only about the unborn? Life does go on beyond the womb after all.
There are 40 million Black citizens in the U.S. and 45 million Hispanics (the fastest-growing minority in America), but many people at TH believe we can get along fine without their votes. At one point in recent history, the Hispanic vote in California split roughly 50-50 (check the Feinstein-Wilson election for Governor in the early 90s). Now, it goes to Democrats by as much as 80-20, and recent events suggest a Republican candidate (Arnold aside) will never again win a statewide election in California. A similar situation is developing in Florida, Arizona, and Colorado.
If TH's goal is to destroy the Republican Party, it's making steady progress.
Finally, because I found it increasingly difficult to put up or edt posts, I left for Blogspot, which doesn't have the terrible hosting problems found on TH. Many people are leaving it, but I doubt TH even notices.
Stephen R. Maloney
NOTE 2: I am getting good comments from someone (Section 9) who apparently works for the national Republican Party. I disagree with him on most things, but I'm happy that he commented in such detail. I might move my second response to him up to "blog central" tomorrow. In my responses, I talk more about the Republican Party's choice of V-P candidates, which has been appalling for more than a generation. I say that Dick Cheney (who did me a major favor once and is a good man) has been, as V-P, something like a Beltway version of the Phantom of the Opera. The people who support Sarah Palin are trying to keep the Party from making yet another disastrous choice for the V-P slot. The Democrats have done a much better job in choosing vice-presidential nominees who have at least a fighting chance to move up to the presidency.
My main interest this election cycle is making sure that Governor Sarah Palin gets the Republican nomination for vice-president. Today, however, I'm going to talk about three other matters: (1) The http://thinkcondi.net/ organization's efforts to get the vice-presidential nomination for Secretary Rice; (2) The continuing excellence of one of our "4 Palin" people, GenXDad (see link below); and, (3) The increasing general uselessness of Townhall.com, which is little more than the"Know-Nothing" element of conservatism.
First, my response to one of the operatives from "Think Condi," who was asking basically why I don't support Secretary Rice:
Regarding Condi Rice: (1) Laura Bush said she had given up on Condi running for President (or, presumably for any top office). I haven't seen Sec. Rice indicating ANY interest in a top political office. (2) Condi is very closely associated with President Bush on the Iraq War, which would be an albatross around her neck in running for a top office. I wonder if she's not good and tired of Washington, DC and politics in general.
President Bush (and Laura) would support her in running for a top office, but I don't see how that would be a benefit right now. Given the situation in Iraq, it's very hard for a Secretary of State to get any traction on major issues, including the Palestine-Israel conflict.
I've talked a good deal on my blog about the URGENT need for Republicans to stop offering the American people the same geriatric white males who come with a great deal of baggage and strong links to failed policies of the past. Specifically, that means more female candidates and more minority candidates (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans). However, in Condi's case, she's too associated with Iraq policies that no longer even have the support of a majority of Republicans.
The future of the Republican Party rests with people like Sarah Palin, Diana Lynn Irey, Michael Steele, Linda Chavez, and J. C. Watts. I will vote for Fred Thompson if he is the nominee, but I see him largely as a self-absorbed windbag.
There's a great need to develop fresh faces and new perspectives on issues. "The same old same old" is not a winning approach.
My hope is that the "Think Condi" organization will "Think Sarah" -- and soon.
http://thinkcondi.net/
Regarding GenXDad: He's a moderate Republican, which means that on Townhall.com, he's a fish-out-of-water. Recently, "Dad" wrote the best piece -- a very long one -- on the candidacy of Fred Dalton Thompson. Dad went through every essay Fred D. has written for Townhall, and he pronounced himself extremely unimpressed. Basically, he said Fred D.'s "insights" were pedestrian and designed apparently to pander to the "Know-Nothing" crowd on TH.
As a middle-ground Republican, GenXDad is speaking to the people who will determine the winner of the next presidential election: moderate Republicans, independents, and "Reagan Democrats." He will exasperate the single-issue types on TH, particularly the Mexican-haters, but what he's saying is extremely important.
http://genxdad.townhall.com/
Regarding Townhall.com (as separate from most individual bloggers), which comes in for a lot of criticism on GenXDad's site, I wrote the following comment to him:
I wonder if Salem Communications realizes what damage TH does to Republican and conservative causes? If so, it just doesn't care.
When I saw that one Lindsay Boyd was "Coalitions Director" at TH, I wrote her an e-mail mentioning I was in Coalitions Building and I'd love to work on various projects with her. No answer. None.
About the same time, I sent two articles to TH head honcho Jonathan Garthwaite -- one of them later published by the Republican National Congressional Committee. Jonathan never responded. No rejection; no acceptance; no nothing.
GenXDad, you mentioned that the blog hosting was terrible. What's even worse is that bloggers get no instruction or encouragement -- except for a favored few -- and thus 90% of them either never post or stop after one or two. Of course, the racist and nativist comments on the site drive away any visitors who may be minorities -- or have more than half-a-brain. Gee, that's a great way to build "coalitions."
One blogger (HeartlandPatriot) talks about how babies of immigrants should not have citizenship and how anyone from south of the border comes from a 'cesspool.' Somehow, those comments don't qualify as "offensive."
On the children of immigrants: it's all well and good to be "pro-life," and in fact I am, but how it is pro-life to be concerned only about the unborn? Life does go on beyond the womb after all.
There are 40 million Black citizens in the U.S. and 45 million Hispanics (the fastest-growing minority in America), but many people at TH believe we can get along fine without their votes. At one point in recent history, the Hispanic vote in California split roughly 50-50 (check the Feinstein-Wilson election for Governor in the early 90s). Now, it goes to Democrats by as much as 80-20, and recent events suggest a Republican candidate (Arnold aside) will never again win a statewide election in California. A similar situation is developing in Florida, Arizona, and Colorado.
If TH's goal is to destroy the Republican Party, it's making steady progress.
Finally, because I found it increasingly difficult to put up or edt posts, I left for Blogspot, which doesn't have the terrible hosting problems found on TH. Many people are leaving it, but I doubt TH even notices.
Stephen R. Maloney
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Bloggers 4 Palin: Making History
In the past two days, we've had three new bloggers join the "4 palin" group, and they're listed on my blogroll. See Kerry (OneMom) (Kerry), dox^2 (doxdox), and Chip (sandbox), our first military blogger -- but not by any means our last. Please leave the newbies a welcoming comment on their blogs.
Also, much of the success of the Palin Movement comes from the tireless efforts of Elephantman, whom people used to call 'crazy," but who now looks crazy-like-a-fox. He reached out to palintologist (http://palintologist.com/, a person with superb blogging skills, and she's now a key player in this effort.
Our goals are "modest" (ha!): to transform the world in a positive way. If not now, when? If not us, who? Carpe diem ("seize the day").
There's an old saying: "If you don't like the world, change it." We're doing just that. People like Sarah have an aversion to just playing politics. In essence, she told Fred Barnes that God put her on earth to do good things, and she's proceeding aggressively based on that understanding. Imagine that, a politician who actually believes in serving the public!
The people on the blogroll are making a powerful, compelling case for Sarah Palin. Believe me, this is a fact not lost on individuals at the Republican National Committee and important figures in the presidential campaigns. In short, there are other voices out there in addition to Fred Barnes and us who are talking up the necessity of getting Sarah on the ticket.
Some of the bloggers listed to the right don't have the "4 palin" designation, but everyone on the blogroll is friendly to the Sarah Palin effort, including Madeline's Dad (http://wherearemykeys.townhall.com/ ), who has made significant contributions to this movement, including getting Hugh Hewitt to mention Sarah. When you get a chance, give a nod to "Mad's Dad."
Blacktygrrr (Eric) will have a column tomorrow (I think) on Sarah. I'll have a link to it when he posts.
At some point in the not-too-distant future, Sarah Palin will be President of the United States. However, before she gets to "Point A" (the presidency), she'll have to get to "Point B," the vice-presidency. Right before your eyes, you're starting to see this historical process begin to unfold. Talk about fun times!
Stephen R. Maloney
Also, much of the success of the Palin Movement comes from the tireless efforts of Elephantman, whom people used to call 'crazy," but who now looks crazy-like-a-fox. He reached out to palintologist (http://palintologist.com/, a person with superb blogging skills, and she's now a key player in this effort.
Our goals are "modest" (ha!): to transform the world in a positive way. If not now, when? If not us, who? Carpe diem ("seize the day").
There's an old saying: "If you don't like the world, change it." We're doing just that. People like Sarah have an aversion to just playing politics. In essence, she told Fred Barnes that God put her on earth to do good things, and she's proceeding aggressively based on that understanding. Imagine that, a politician who actually believes in serving the public!
The people on the blogroll are making a powerful, compelling case for Sarah Palin. Believe me, this is a fact not lost on individuals at the Republican National Committee and important figures in the presidential campaigns. In short, there are other voices out there in addition to Fred Barnes and us who are talking up the necessity of getting Sarah on the ticket.
Some of the bloggers listed to the right don't have the "4 palin" designation, but everyone on the blogroll is friendly to the Sarah Palin effort, including Madeline's Dad (http://wherearemykeys.townhall.com/ ), who has made significant contributions to this movement, including getting Hugh Hewitt to mention Sarah. When you get a chance, give a nod to "Mad's Dad."
Blacktygrrr (Eric) will have a column tomorrow (I think) on Sarah. I'll have a link to it when he posts.
At some point in the not-too-distant future, Sarah Palin will be President of the United States. However, before she gets to "Point A" (the presidency), she'll have to get to "Point B," the vice-presidency. Right before your eyes, you're starting to see this historical process begin to unfold. Talk about fun times!
Stephen R. Maloney
A V-P Like Us?
The one (paper) magazine I still read is The Economist, a British publication that provides a good deal of information both about “the Emerald Isle” and the United States. Yes, it writes from a mildly liberal stance, but it authors always know what they’re talking about – and demonstrate a capacity to think clearly about difficult subjects. There’s nothing like it published in America, although The Weekly Standard at its best can come close.
In a recent edition, The Economist talks about the emerging electoral struggle between Labor Party head Gordon Brown and Conservative (“Tory”) leader David Cameron. The publication says, “Mr. Cameron and Mr. Brown are embarked on a battle for Middle England” – the upwardly mobile middle class that Tony Blair appealed to – “a legendary land that is hard to find and harder still to talk to.”
In America, Ronald Reagan, The Great Communicator, famously knew how to “talk to” that group, including the conservative Democrats who supported him in such great numbers. Bill Clinton also had a knack for appealing to Middle America, including the people Nixon called “The Silent Majority.” Most Americans really didn’t want Clinton hanging around their 20-something daughters, but they didn’t mind his extended presence as President.
One reason so many us – see the rapidly growing “4 Palin” blogroll on this site – support Gov. Sarah is that can communicate effectively with the great “middle” group of Americans. One reason she can do so is that she’s one of them – more accurately, one of us.
She’s not a child of privilege. Unlike Nancy Pelosi, she didn’t take the traditional political step of marrying a mega-rich man. Unlike Hillary Clinton, she didn't base a political career based on her husband's accomplishments.
She’s a public school graduate, the mother of four, and married to a man with occupations – as a commercial fisherman and oil field worker – that are almost mythic vocations in this country. “First Dude” Todd Palin (her term for her spouse’s current role) couldn’t be more of a classic American male unless he also moonlighted as a cowboy.
If you’ve been reading about Sarah, you may have heard her economic views described as conservative, libertarian, and even populist. Can she truly be all of those very different things? She describes herself as “pro-growth” and “pro-business,” both of which she clearly is.
However, this is a woman whose broad appeal is reflective of her freedom from ideological rigidity. In the Fred Barnes article, you’ll see that she fired the State Agriculture Board so that she could fire the “State Creamery” officials who wanted to abolish their function. The Creamery institution distributes products generated by the state’s important group of dairy farmers.
Many conservatives are uncomfortable, as a matter of economic principle, with state-owned businesses. Gov. Palin obviously believes Alaska benefits from the Creamery enterprise. As Barnes explained, she doesn’t want her state to become one with just two industries – energy and (cruise-ship-driven) tourism. Agriculture must be a strong and growing part of the state’s economic mix, and if the Creamery is essential to that, so be it.
Serving the public should generally trump ideological purity.
She has taken on Big Oil in her state. How can she do that as a conservative? Perhaps she recognizes that huge businesses tend not to be very conservative or especially interested in private enterprise.
Overall, the Governor understands something important: that modern life shows signs of becoming increasingly insecure. We don’t live anymore in a country where we remain with one employer, who usually provides great health care and pension benefits, for a lifetime. We change jobs; we occasionally lose health benefits; and pensions are becoming increasingly rare.
Also, we’re living longer. Many Americans wonder how they’re going to afford to live to a ripe old age. They also recognize that children living in Texas or California aren’t going to be readily available to provide assistance to aging parents in Pittsburgh or Chicago.
Also, no older person wants to end up in a nursing home, but that will continue to be the fate of many people. You may have a quarter-million dollars in the bank, but a decent nursing home will consume that rapidly.
This is the world inhabited by people not only in “middle England,” but also in “middle America.”
In fact, in our country, that’s a group vulnerable to appeals by liberal Democrats. As you listen to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, their message goes something like this: “WE WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU.”
When they talk about health care, for example, they’re advocating the state-sponsored variety. They’ll also talk about safeguarding your pension, by of course having the government be the pension provider of last resort. They won’t talk about having the government – and the American people – bite the bullet on the nation’s vast unfunded liability for Medicare and Social Security. Like Scarlet O’Hara, they’ll “worry about that tomorrow” (i.e., hand it off to the next generation).
The Democrats basically advocate one policy: redistribution of income. They’re modern Robin Hoods, although they end up essentially taking from their opponents in the middle class and giving to their supporters.
With the occasional exception of someone like Reagan, we Republicans have not been good communicators. We talk philosophy to people who want to hear practicality. All too often, we come across as grumpy defenders of the supposed status quo – perhaps one that no longer exists given the social and economic volatility of our time.
Sarah Palin is not a rich woman. I suspect one reason she didn’t run for the U.S. Senate in 2004 is that she probably wondered how her family could afford to live in the expensive DC area. Most of us would have the same concern.
However, that’s precisely the woman’s greatest strength: the life she has experienced is the one familiar to most Americans. She knows when political ideology works – and when it’s impractical. As a female professional of relatively modest means, she can’t afford to hire pricey nannies to mind her children. Her husband Todd is now a stay-at-home-dad.
Sarah Palin will be vice-president of the United States – and, sooner rather than later, President of our land. The American people – tens of millions – are going to look at her and say, “This is one of us. This is a person who understands our life, our fears and insecurities, and can reassure us that leaders at the highest level actually care about ordinary people.”
Yes, we’re asking a lot of Sarah. But as everything in her life demonstrates, she has a seemingly endless capacity to give.
In a recent edition, The Economist talks about the emerging electoral struggle between Labor Party head Gordon Brown and Conservative (“Tory”) leader David Cameron. The publication says, “Mr. Cameron and Mr. Brown are embarked on a battle for Middle England” – the upwardly mobile middle class that Tony Blair appealed to – “a legendary land that is hard to find and harder still to talk to.”
In America, Ronald Reagan, The Great Communicator, famously knew how to “talk to” that group, including the conservative Democrats who supported him in such great numbers. Bill Clinton also had a knack for appealing to Middle America, including the people Nixon called “The Silent Majority.” Most Americans really didn’t want Clinton hanging around their 20-something daughters, but they didn’t mind his extended presence as President.
One reason so many us – see the rapidly growing “4 Palin” blogroll on this site – support Gov. Sarah is that can communicate effectively with the great “middle” group of Americans. One reason she can do so is that she’s one of them – more accurately, one of us.
She’s not a child of privilege. Unlike Nancy Pelosi, she didn’t take the traditional political step of marrying a mega-rich man. Unlike Hillary Clinton, she didn't base a political career based on her husband's accomplishments.
She’s a public school graduate, the mother of four, and married to a man with occupations – as a commercial fisherman and oil field worker – that are almost mythic vocations in this country. “First Dude” Todd Palin (her term for her spouse’s current role) couldn’t be more of a classic American male unless he also moonlighted as a cowboy.
If you’ve been reading about Sarah, you may have heard her economic views described as conservative, libertarian, and even populist. Can she truly be all of those very different things? She describes herself as “pro-growth” and “pro-business,” both of which she clearly is.
However, this is a woman whose broad appeal is reflective of her freedom from ideological rigidity. In the Fred Barnes article, you’ll see that she fired the State Agriculture Board so that she could fire the “State Creamery” officials who wanted to abolish their function. The Creamery institution distributes products generated by the state’s important group of dairy farmers.
Many conservatives are uncomfortable, as a matter of economic principle, with state-owned businesses. Gov. Palin obviously believes Alaska benefits from the Creamery enterprise. As Barnes explained, she doesn’t want her state to become one with just two industries – energy and (cruise-ship-driven) tourism. Agriculture must be a strong and growing part of the state’s economic mix, and if the Creamery is essential to that, so be it.
Serving the public should generally trump ideological purity.
She has taken on Big Oil in her state. How can she do that as a conservative? Perhaps she recognizes that huge businesses tend not to be very conservative or especially interested in private enterprise.
Overall, the Governor understands something important: that modern life shows signs of becoming increasingly insecure. We don’t live anymore in a country where we remain with one employer, who usually provides great health care and pension benefits, for a lifetime. We change jobs; we occasionally lose health benefits; and pensions are becoming increasingly rare.
Also, we’re living longer. Many Americans wonder how they’re going to afford to live to a ripe old age. They also recognize that children living in Texas or California aren’t going to be readily available to provide assistance to aging parents in Pittsburgh or Chicago.
Also, no older person wants to end up in a nursing home, but that will continue to be the fate of many people. You may have a quarter-million dollars in the bank, but a decent nursing home will consume that rapidly.
This is the world inhabited by people not only in “middle England,” but also in “middle America.”
In fact, in our country, that’s a group vulnerable to appeals by liberal Democrats. As you listen to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, their message goes something like this: “WE WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU.”
When they talk about health care, for example, they’re advocating the state-sponsored variety. They’ll also talk about safeguarding your pension, by of course having the government be the pension provider of last resort. They won’t talk about having the government – and the American people – bite the bullet on the nation’s vast unfunded liability for Medicare and Social Security. Like Scarlet O’Hara, they’ll “worry about that tomorrow” (i.e., hand it off to the next generation).
The Democrats basically advocate one policy: redistribution of income. They’re modern Robin Hoods, although they end up essentially taking from their opponents in the middle class and giving to their supporters.
With the occasional exception of someone like Reagan, we Republicans have not been good communicators. We talk philosophy to people who want to hear practicality. All too often, we come across as grumpy defenders of the supposed status quo – perhaps one that no longer exists given the social and economic volatility of our time.
Sarah Palin is not a rich woman. I suspect one reason she didn’t run for the U.S. Senate in 2004 is that she probably wondered how her family could afford to live in the expensive DC area. Most of us would have the same concern.
However, that’s precisely the woman’s greatest strength: the life she has experienced is the one familiar to most Americans. She knows when political ideology works – and when it’s impractical. As a female professional of relatively modest means, she can’t afford to hire pricey nannies to mind her children. Her husband Todd is now a stay-at-home-dad.
Sarah Palin will be vice-president of the United States – and, sooner rather than later, President of our land. The American people – tens of millions – are going to look at her and say, “This is one of us. This is a person who understands our life, our fears and insecurities, and can reassure us that leaders at the highest level actually care about ordinary people.”
Yes, we’re asking a lot of Sarah. But as everything in her life demonstrates, she has a seemingly endless capacity to give.
Stephen R. Maloney
Monday, July 9, 2007
Gov. Sarah Palin: A Brief Intro.
Thanks to Kerry (see OneMom on blogroll) for joining the Sarah for VP effort. She sent me the following note Monday a.m.: "Good morning Steve ... I am writing to encourage you in your efforts to bring Sarah Palin to the national spotlight, and ultimately to the Republican Ticket in 2008 in the role of VP. I am officially joining you today in the 4Palin campaign. I have linked to your blog on my page and will be opening a new category on my blog to post information and updates about Gov. Palin. I know you realize that most of my writing time is spent on the Huckabee campaign (A Huckabee/Palin ticket in 2008 would be dynamic and unstoppable!), but will keep my readers updated on the 4 Palin efforts and hopefully get some more people taking a look at this amazing Governor." I hope all of you will visit Kerry's site and give her a salute. She's a person dedicated to family and faith -- and Mike Huckabee, a fine man who is making inroads with his campaign, is lucky to have people like her in his corner.
Basic Facts About Sarah Palin
Name: Pronounced Pale-in
Age: 43 (youngest Alaska Governor and first female)
Governor's Race: Defeated incumbent Republican Frank Murkowski in primary and then former governor (Democrat) Tony Knowles in general
Home: Wasilla, Alaska (outside Anchorage)
Husband: Todd Palin, commercial fisherman and North Slope oil worker
Children: 4, boy (Track) and 3 girls (Bristol, Piper, and Willow)
College: Degree in Journalism from University of Idaho
Economic views: libertarian, pro-growth, with tinge of Alaska populism
Social views: conservative -- pro-life and lifetime member of NRA
Religion: non-denominational Christian
Approval Rating: Recently, 90%
If you want to learn more and just have five minutes, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
If you want to learn still more, go to Fred Barnes's article in The Weekly Standard ("The Most Popular Governor"), available on: http://palintology.com/ (scroll down to July 8 entry). The Wikipedia and Barnes pieces provide a basic understanding of who Sarah is and what she's about.
If you want to learn more about Sarah and Alaska-related issues, go to the Palintology site and to:
http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/
Various bloggers (see my blogroll) have written on Sarah. In addition to the site you're on (with many articles), you might go to:http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com/ (scroll down for "The White Queen") and to http://wherearemykeys.townhall.com/ (scroll down on this site for some excellent columns in June and July about Sarah)
On my old Townhall site, there are some striking pictures of Sarah, her family, and her supporters. Go to: http://camp2008victory.townhall.com/ (site is now inactive)
The Anchorage Daily News and the Fairbanks News-Miner (see links on blogroll) provide daily coverage of Gov. Palin.
If you would like to join Bloggers 4 Palin or subscribe to the newsletter, please leave your e-mail address on the comments section. We are seeking 100 bloggers by Labor Day and at least 1,000 by Super Tuesday (Feb. 5, 2008). We are asking all Republican presidential candidates to name Sarah as their prospective running mate.
This is a pure grass-roots effort, and it has no financial backing or direction from Gov. Palin or her representatives.
Basic Facts About Sarah Palin
Name: Pronounced Pale-in
Age: 43 (youngest Alaska Governor and first female)
Governor's Race: Defeated incumbent Republican Frank Murkowski in primary and then former governor (Democrat) Tony Knowles in general
Home: Wasilla, Alaska (outside Anchorage)
Husband: Todd Palin, commercial fisherman and North Slope oil worker
Children: 4, boy (Track) and 3 girls (Bristol, Piper, and Willow)
College: Degree in Journalism from University of Idaho
Economic views: libertarian, pro-growth, with tinge of Alaska populism
Social views: conservative -- pro-life and lifetime member of NRA
Religion: non-denominational Christian
Approval Rating: Recently, 90%
If you want to learn more and just have five minutes, go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
If you want to learn still more, go to Fred Barnes's article in The Weekly Standard ("The Most Popular Governor"), available on: http://palintology.com/ (scroll down to July 8 entry). The Wikipedia and Barnes pieces provide a basic understanding of who Sarah is and what she's about.
If you want to learn more about Sarah and Alaska-related issues, go to the Palintology site and to:
http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/
Various bloggers (see my blogroll) have written on Sarah. In addition to the site you're on (with many articles), you might go to:http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com/ (scroll down for "The White Queen") and to http://wherearemykeys.townhall.com/ (scroll down on this site for some excellent columns in June and July about Sarah)
On my old Townhall site, there are some striking pictures of Sarah, her family, and her supporters. Go to: http://camp2008victory.townhall.com/ (site is now inactive)
The Anchorage Daily News and the Fairbanks News-Miner (see links on blogroll) provide daily coverage of Gov. Palin.
If you would like to join Bloggers 4 Palin or subscribe to the newsletter, please leave your e-mail address on the comments section. We are seeking 100 bloggers by Labor Day and at least 1,000 by Super Tuesday (Feb. 5, 2008). We are asking all Republican presidential candidates to name Sarah as their prospective running mate.
This is a pure grass-roots effort, and it has no financial backing or direction from Gov. Palin or her representatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
