Every once in awhile, I review past decisions and then decipher how those decisions have affected the present. Like a football fan that follows his favorite team’s draft selections, the fan reviews those draft picks based on current performance and examines if his team’s selections panned out or not.
Well, I am reviewing the country’s pick of Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin. Despite the obvious failure of team Obama/Biden, it seems the media will never relent with acrimonious remarks directed at Sarah Palin. I mean, what is wrong with her? What has Sarah Palin done for her to receive such derisive comments emanating from the media?
Maybe the Democrats are jealous of Sarah Palin. She is a successful woman who is attractive, smart, married with a good husband, blessed with a happy family, was elected several times in state politics, was a Governor, and a Vice Presidential nominee. One would think the media would be touting her success, blowing her horn, epitomizing Sarah as the modern women who can and DID have it all, a successful career, marriage and family, the veritable troika that the liberal media always touts as a women’s goal to achieve, but too few obtain. Sarah represented and obtained all three; what those in the media want for women, the barometer, the goal, the mantle of success. But since Sarah has an “R” after her name, the media attacked her. It appears the only woman acceptable to the Presidency or Vice Presidency MUST be a Democrat!
Geraldine Ferraro, yes. Hillary Clinton, of course! Sarah Palin, no way!
Sarah went to college, got married, and had children; the last one she gave birth to has Down Syndrome. Despite his medical condition, she gave birth to her child anyway. Ask a liberal pro choice women running for political office what she would have done if she were in a similar situation.
She became a city councilman from 1992-96; then was elected Mayor for ten years where she was also President of the Alaskan Conference for Mayors. Sarah was elected Governor of Alaska for two years until McCain chose her as a running mate. They lost.
I can only think of two comments she made, which were taken out of context, that the media grievously exploited to her detriment. Some people exaggerate to make a point, and I think she was when she said “she can see Russia from my porch.”
The second comment was her answer when Katie Couric’s barraged her with questions asking how many newspapers she read. Does it really matter how many newspapers, or which ones? The sentiment seems if one does not read the Democrat’s PR Firm’s daily, aka, The New York Times, they one is not qualified for higher office. If one does not follow the marching orders from The New York Times, well then, forget about receiving our endorsement! Media hypocrisy reigns when they attack the reading habits of one candidate, but refuses to discover the college transcript of another.
So, someone inform me, illuminate me to what Sarah Palin did that was so wrong, besides any media created bias. I can tell you what she did do.
While Governor, Mrs. Palin, passed the AGIA Bill, signed into law in Aug 2008 for a 1,715 mile trans-Alaskan pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Alberta Canada. Native Alaskans had tried for thirty years to develop the pipeline project, but Sarah accomplished it in two! Obama and Biden have had five years to pass Keystone and they have either failed or refused to do so. Either way, disallowing passage is wrong.
Another bill, SB 4002 signed in August 2008 provided the means for Native Alaskans who qualified to receive $1,200 a year from natural resource revenue. Imagine that, Mrs. Palin used gas revenue to distribute to Alaskan residents. Sounds similar to Democrats philosophy of redistribution of wealth, only they do it by first stealing from the taxpayer in higher taxes! Mrs. Palin also eliminated the tax on gasoline.
As for eliminating wasteful spending, one of the first things she did as Governor was fire her chef. She does not like to spend taxpayer’s money on excessive projects. How refreshing. I wish CT State Treasurer Denise Nappier would think of that with her chauffeur.
Since she lost in 2008, Sarah Palin has endorsed over 100 candidates for political office, with a 75% success rate. For Congressional seats, of the 53 candidates she backed, 33 won and 20 lost. She helped elect 5 Republican Governors, giving the GOP a 30-20 margin in Governors in the country. Pretty good success rate for someone the media said was not qualified to be anything! The media backed Biden, so let’s see how that draft pick worked out.
Biden has had some confusing moments. Biden referenced Katie’s restaurant in the VP debate but this was strange considering the restaurant had closed twenty years before. Is this an example of selective amnesia, or was he exaggerating about seeing the restaurant from his porch?
Biden claimed the US and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. We didn’t; Hezbollah remains in Lebanon. Biden wants NATO forces in Lebanon. Well, Lebanon is not part NATO and no NATO country was ever attacked by Lebanon. With Biden’s past statements and the Middle East currently in turmoil, why did the media believe Biden was a Foreign policy expert and Palin was not?
Biden once stated that Vice President Cheney’s belief that he is part of the legislative branch revealed that Cheney is getting too old. Guess what; VP Cheney is part of the legislative branch, by constitutional proclamation stating the VP is President of the Senate. Biden is a 30+ year veteran of Congress and he still doesn’t know the rules?
Biden voted against the 1973 Alaskan pipeline, and is still against drilling. Is Biden Economically deranged? Sarah built a pipeline, employed many, and gave proceeds back to citizens. Biden halts passage of Keystone, keeps more people unemployed, and takes in higher taxes, money from citizens!!
So here I am just sitting around like a disgruntled football fan watching the demise of my team because of bad draft picks, bad decisions and wrong choices; only in this case, my team is the US. While Presidential elections are not annual events like draft picks, they are similar to the World Cup or Olympics, where nurturing prospects is vital for the main event. By supporting candidates and winning in state and city elections, isn’t that what Sarah Palin is doing, nurturing prospects for the main event?
I am tired of Democrats claiming the GOP is dead. I cannot pick up a newspaper without seeing some column about the death of the GOP, or how the Republican Party is on deathwatch, or how irrelevant the party has become.
The Democrats win one election in 2008 and they think the GOP is on life support. They win re-election 2012 and they think the GOP is dead; call the undertaker. According to the Democrats and its PR firm, aka the media, The GOP will not be a relevant party unless and until they adopt a more liberal platform approved by the Democrats.
Not so fast Democrats. I think these articles declaring the GOP dead are premature. It is as if the resurgence of the GOP is imminent, and the Democrats are aware of that and are attempting to persuade the gullible into believing it before the GOP returns to glory.
The GOP is not dead, any pronouncement from the Democrats is their attempt to portray that we are, is misleading. In their vitriolic comments, the democrats appear more afraid about resurgence in GOP popularity. They are trying to keep a good man down, before the resurrection. It is Easter week!
The Democrats are getting nervous about the prospect of losing the Senate in 2014 and then the White House in 2016. These attacks on the GOP reminds me of last gasp attempts to survive, like Japanese kamikazes attacks or Hitler’s gamble in the Battle of the Bulge. These media attacks are a desperate Democrat attempt because they have no other choice. Instead of promoting their policy, pushing their agenda, the Democrats are attacking their opponent because they cannot run on their record. They know it, some in the media know it, and midterm elections prove it.
Returning to the political picture in 1980, the Reagan Revolution ushered in practically 30 years of prosperity. After four dismal Carter years where two new phrases were coined describing the failed economy; “economic malaise,” and “the misery index,” Reagan won election limiting an incumbent Carter to one four year term.
In Reagan’s eight years as President, he enjoyed a GOP Senate majority for six of those years, until the Democrats won back Senate majority in 1987, enough time to really go after Reagan for Iran Contra, and to break their pledge with Reagan about spending cuts for tax hikes. Reagan never enjoyed a GOP House majority in eight years. Reagan’s communicative skill and his working relationship with House leader Tip O’Neil provided an economic juggernaut.
In contrast, Jimmy Carter presided over four years with Democrat majority in both the Senate and the House and he failed; lasting only one term.
Reagan passed on his legacy to George H.W. Bush, but unfortunately, Bush 41 never had a GOP majority in the Senate or the House. With Reagan’s deficits, and a faltering economy brought by aforementioned Democrat control with the 1986 midterm, Bush wanted to decrease Government spending, and cut taxes to spur growth, but the Democrats in both houses were unconvinced, increased spending, and taxes forcing Bush to go against his “No new Taxes” pledge. When the economy suffered, the Democrats blamed Bush, not themselves, for the tax and spend policies and recession. Sound familiar today?! During the 1992 election, I can still hear James Carville exclaiming, ”It’s the economy stupid.” For comparison sake, at this time Bush’s unemployment was 7.8% and the economy was growing at a paltry 2% while Obama has as high, or higher unemployment depending on which calculations one uses, and the 4th quarter economy contracted and he wins re-election!
Clinton won in 1992 with Democrat control in both the Senate and the House for his first two years…only! With six years of Democrat control of Congress, four prior with Bush 41 and two for Clinton’s first two, the citizens regained their senses. To stem the liberal tide and restore economic vitality, the GOP won election in both Houses in the 1994 midterm elections. In came the Gingrich Revolution which restructured Welfare, cut taxes, especially the Capital Gains Rate, and the economy, for which Democrats like to hold Clinton responsible, was really orchestrated by the GOP controlled Congress.
In 2000, George W. Bush, Bush 43, was elected President over a sitting Democrat VP, Al Gore. If the Democrats and their policies were looked upon favorably, especially after the media fawned over and protected Bill Clinton, Gore as the sitting VP, should have won, much like Bush 41 did in 1988, who was the first sitting VP to be elected President since Martin Van Buren in 1836. In fact, Bush won 426 electoral votes; Gore didn’t even win his home state of Tennessee; now that is pathetic! I mean, how dead are Democrats, I thought? Even Mondale won his home state in 1984. Ok, it was his only state he won, Reagan winning the other 49 in his re-election.
After twenty years of GOP dominance since Reagan in 1980 until 2000, I felt at this time the Democrat Party was dead. Republicans had won four presidential elections with three different people, Reagan, 1 and 2, Bush I and Bush II. The GOP would have held the Presidency for a record 28 (1980-2008) years if Clinton did not win; and he only won because of two vital reasons which over rate Democrat popularity. If Ross Perot had not entered the race, his 21% of the vote would have provided for Bush 41’s second term. Secondly, Clinton won with a plurality of the votes, not a majority. Clinton won with just over 40% of the popular vote, this means 6 in 10 people did NOT vote for him. This 40% of the popular vote, and the GOP control of both Houses after just two years of Clinton’s Presidency, also reveal the majority of the population did not adhere to Democrat philosophy.
Much like what happened to his father in 1988, the Democrats blamed Bush 43 for the failed economy in 2008, conveniently forgetting a strong economy he produced after entering the White House with the economy in shambles, from the tech bubble induced recession in 2000 and the 9/11 bombings, which further shattered a weak economy.
Like Clinton, Obama appeared out of no where as a bright shinning light wrapped by the media into the savior which he has not become! Sensing his extreme liberal bent from taking the country further left, the population restored the House to GOP control in the 2010 midterms. Unfortunately, the GOP did not gain control of the Senate. However, 21 Democratic Senate seats are up for grabs in 2014, seven in states Mitt Romney won in the 2012 Presidential Election. The GOP also has 30 Governors, and with the current second term not looking promising for Democrats, the GOP could win big.
What the GOP needs to do is solidify the party, solidify the message, and take small steps to retain the House and win the Senate in 2014. Controlling Congress will reinvigorate the population, and stem the democratic attacks on the GOP. The Democrats can only win when they attack, blame and destroy the opponent, like they did in 1988 against Bush 41, and in 2008 and 2012 with McCain and Romney respectfully. They cannot win using their platform, or their record; so they distract and blame the GOP opponent. Furthermore, the GOP has a rich bullpen of presidential candidates unlike the Democrats who have….?…?… Bueller, Bueller? Hillary?
The GOP cannot allow the Democrats and the media to divide the party. They need to realize that that is the Democrats only platform, blame the GOP, why? Because they cannot run on success, because they never had any!
Having written my face blue about economic and political policy, I felt a change was needed. With my Bequi friend’s birthday and the election of a Pope, I felt a comment about new beginnings was required, so I decided to comment about the media’s coverage of the Pope.
I was amazed at the media’s enthusiastic coverage of Vatican City and the election of a new Pope. Every news station flew a correspondent in, who constantly updated viewers with any trivial event, be it the red shoes, the workers assembling the chimney out of which the black or white smoke would flow determining the election of a new Pope, or just reporting on the every minute detail of the proceedings leading up to the Conclave.
My surprise at the amount of news coverage placed on the election continued; I thought what is the big deal? The liberal media hates the Catholic Church and never fails a chance to disparage it with any reporting, so why all the interest?
News anchors eventually reported from Vatican City. Newspapers wrote articles about the several Cardinals as leading candidates, outlining each one’s biographical detail, pros and cons, age, beliefs, as if these Cardinals were similar to college athletes awaiting the NFL draft. The excitement was far- reaching; people placing bets in Vegas; even a live video stream of the chimney was available. Fawning over the process, the media seemed to soak up the traditions and rituals of the church
The media reported each Cardinal’s arrival to Vatican City as if it was an actor’s arrival to the red carpet on Oscar night. Here comes Cardinal O’Malley from Boston, oh there is Cardinal Dolan from New York they screamed with alacrity.
But then, a thought dawned on me. Thinking of a new Pope, one from the US perhaps, the media seemed thrilled with the prospect that a new Pope would bring reform to the church, an out with the old and in the with new mentality.
Then, the coverage began to make sense to me. Thinking of the media hype and how thrilled they might be with the prospect of a more liberal Pope, I understood the media’s excitement. I began to imagine. Gone would be the misogynist ways of the Church. Maybe, I thought the media thinks; the Cardinals would elect a Pope with more modern ideals, meaning liberal progressive ideals, as perpetrated by them. A Pope more lenient with the four big reforms liberals want: acceptance of gay marriage, women priests, tolerance of abortion rights and allowing priest to marry is the media’s desired goal. The media has been striving to get the church out of the 19th, or 18th century some might say, and more in line with modern ideals, and here was their chance!
Then I laughed when I thought whatever happened to the separation of church and state? If the state removes Catholic Church doctrine from policy, why does the state feel compelled to interfere and inject their philosophy in Catholic Church policy? The media has been trying for years to alter the Catholic Church’s teachings but to no avail. Why can’t the media just accept the Catholic Church as is, and let it be?
So, the new Pope is from Argentina and he was not even one of the media’s candidates. The media was wrong in failing to select Francis as a candidate just as much as they are wrong in thinking they can reform the church. I mean how could they omit from their prospective list the Cardinal who garnered the second most votes last time? That’s because the second place Cardinal is too conservative, so let’s not mention him, despite his runner up performance seven years ago. Will the media forget Hillary Clinton’s second place finish in 2008 if she runs for President in 2016? I think not, so how could they fail to mention Francis? Being conservative and an adherent to traditional church doctrine and philosophy, the media conveniently forgot about him.
With the new Pope in place, I just laughed at the media’s coverage and attempt to reform the Catholic Church. I shook my head at the hypocrisy. If one is so interested in following the Church’s proceedings, the traditions and rituals, why does one NOT follow the Church’s teachings? There is respect on one side, yet disrespect on the other.
If the media respectfully reported the cherished traditions and rituals of the proceedings, why do they take it upon themselves to disrespect and attempt to alter the teachings of the Catholic Church? Why do the media suggest the Church should loosen their stance on Gay Marriage, Abortion, Married Priests etc? Why not let the Church be?
The church hasn’t strayed towards liberalism, the people, complicit with the media’s persuasive message, have strayed from the church. And what happened when the new Pope was elected? The media resorted to their old ways of disparaging anyone whose religious beliefs are contrary to theirs. The chastising began shortly thereafter; they dug up past discriminating stories like they did with Pope Benedict before. Remember the stories about Benedict working with the Nazis? Well, apparently, Pope Francis worked with the Communists! So what, the event occurred in a different time, all in past, minor sins looking out for greater good. I am just waiting for the next victim the media attacks.