McCain

Piling on Palin

by Bill O'Connell on November 6, 2008

Share and Recommend:

You have to wonder.  Now that the election is over you would think that the focus would be on the president-elect and his transition.  That is newsworthy and is being covered, but the continuing focus on Sarah Palin is surprising.

Finishing Her Off?

Could it be that the left is so fearful of Sarah Palin and her ability to energize crowds that they feel they must finish her off, so she does not come back stronger and more popular?  Could it be that they can’t imagine facing her with four more years of experience under her belt?

Do the Attacks Pass the Smell Test?

A Fox news story said that the McCain campaign became increasingly disenchanted with Palin toward the end of the campaign.  It said that her lack of knowledge of the most basic facts about civics and geography were alarming.  This raises some interesting points:

  1. In vetting Sarah Palin, no matter how quickly or superficially it was done, how could they possibly miss issues so allegedly glaring?
  2. The opposition, which included the main stream media, descended on Alaska from north to south to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin.  Bill O’Reilly reported that the National Enquirer went up there checkbook in hand, to get any good story they could.  What did they come up with? Nothing. The only thing that came close to a story was Troopergate.  Try as they might to make it a big story and even an October surprise, it flopped.  She was later completely exonerated by the proper investigative authority in Alaska (not the Democrats in the legislature).  Interestingly, the vindication didn’t make much of a news splash even though the findings were released before the election.
  3. Her approval ratings as governor were the highest in the nation.  Could a complete dunderhead be so widely approved of?

Just How Thin Was Her Experience?

Ironically, in an article that was used to sandbag Sarah Palin in a CNN interview, Byron York wrote in National Review (“Sarah Palin, Governor”):

… a look at Palin’s 20 months in power, along with interviews with people who worked with her, shows her to be a serious executive, a governor who picked important things to do and got them done — and who didn’t just stumble into an 80 percent job-approval rating.

She took on her own party when she saw ethics problems.  How many Democrats can say that?  The typical Democratic response to scandal is circle the wagons, stonewall, and counter attack.  Just think Bill Clinton, Gerry Studds, Tim Mahoney, the Keating Five, et al.

She renegotiated a pipeline project with major oil companies that was originally negotiated by her predecessor on terms unfavorable to Alaska.  She overhauled the state ethics laws, working with both Democrats and Republicans in the Alaska legislature.  She also vetoed spending on things that she determined were not a state priority, for such things as “dealing with killer shrubs and Zamboni blades.”

Byron York distilled how she approached governing with three points:

  1. She hires well.  “There was a pretty good team of people assembled right away to come in and start with her big-picture principles and develop a process and legislation to carry that out,” says Joe Balash, the governor’s oil and gas advisor, “I would say that her management style is to give her staff, her cabinet, a pretty long leash, but with very high expectations — and she’s not afraid to tell you that you didn’t get it right.”
  2. She is involved in details in big things but not on everything.  In other words, she doesn’t get lost in the weeds.  She keeps focus on the the important things.
  3. She is dead set on fulfilling campaign promises.  Imagine that! A politician who actually cares about what they say on the campaign trail and says what they mean and means what they say.

Sarah Barracuda

Sarah has shed the muzzle of the second fiddle in a presidential race.  She no longer has to pull her punches so as not to conflict with the top of the ticket.  She is back to being governor and the chief executive of Alaska.  So she can now set the record straight and she should do so enthusiastically.  She should take advantage of media outlets that are fair and balanced, rather than lying in wait for her.  She should come out swinging and really let the left know that if they were frightened of her before, they have awakened a sleeping giant.

Share and Recommend:
Share and Recommend:

Some insights into the inner workings of the Obama campaign from someone who says she’s seen enough to vote for McCain.  She says she became a strong Hillary supporter.  Interesting… and frightening

What do you think?

Share and Recommend:

How Could He Pick Such a VP Candidate?

by Bill O'Connell on October 21, 2008

Share and Recommend:

One of the first tests of a presidential candidate’s judgement concerns who he or she picks for their running mate.  It’s hard to imagine how this presidential candidate could have possibly made a bigger mistake, and I am not talking about John McCain.

Much has been made about Sarah Palin’s qualifications, with Colin Powell being the latest to weigh in saying, “I don’t believe she’s ready to be President of the United States.”  But what about Joe Biden?  I am guessing that by now the Obama campaign has scheduled Joe Biden’s appearances over the next two weeks in Outer Mongolia.  For the Republicans, he’s the gift that keeps on giving.  His latest prognostication gave us the following:

“Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you – not financially to help him – we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

So let me get this straight, if we elect Obama, his Vice President guarantees we will have an international crisis on our hands and it won’t be apparent that they will do the right thing.  Would that be like when Russia invaded Georgia and Barack Obama’s first comment was for both sides to exercise restraint.  When he came to the realization that one country invaded the other, he offered up that the U.N. Security Council should debate this issue and offer a resolution.  When he came to the realization that Russia has a veto over any U.N. Security Council resolution, he then lined up with John McCain’s position, that Russia should get out.

To summarize what Joe Biden said:

  • Obama is inexperienced
  • Our adversaries will see this inexperience as an opportunity for advantage and will purposely test the United States under a President Obama
  • It will be like when John Kennedy was President (where we came the closest in our history to nuclear war)
  • Whatever Obama does will probably be wrong
  • We need to stand behind Barack Obama until he finally figures it out and gets it right

This is the experienced half of the Obama-Biden ticket, telling us about an impending crisis and we’re supposed to pull the lever for Obama and what? duck for cover?

I don’t want leave you on such a depressing note so let me share some of the lighter Biden gaffes:

  • “Stand up, Chuck, let ‘em see ya” to wheelchair bound Missouri State Senator Chuck Graham.
  • “Hillary is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be Vice President of the United States of America.  Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me”
  • “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t talk about the, you know, the princes of greed.  He said, “Look, here’s what happened.”  When the stock market crashed, Herbert Hoover was president, not FDR, and television had not yet been invented.
  • “Look, John’s last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S.” Uh, that’s four letters, Joe.

If Barack Obama wins, I can only quote Bette Davis, “Fasten your seatbelts.  It’s going to be a bumpy ride.”

Share and Recommend:

The Untold Story

by Bill O'Connell on October 21, 2008

Share and Recommend:

This Sunday morning brought the news that Colin Powell had endorsed Barack Obama.  This was deemed as anywhere from a major setback for the McCain campaign to the final nail in his political coffin.  However, to most people paying attention to Powell’s career this is not really a surprise.    Colin Powell’s is a great American story.  Someone who rose through the ranks to the top of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  He wasn’t a West Point graduate, but rather went to City College in New York and joined the Army Reserve Officers Training Corps.  His service is worthy of our admiration and gratitude.

Politically, Colin Powell is not a conservative.  He is an advocate of Affirmative Action and he is pro-abortion.  He didn’t campaign for black conservative candidates like Michael Steele in Maryland or Lynn Swan in Pennsylvania.  He didn’t speak out about the treatment of Clarence Thomas in his Supreme Court hearings and the way those hearings where conducted by Joe Biden.  So his endorsement of Obama should neither be surprising or earth shattering.

In his Sunday interview he “expressed displeasure with the direction of the Republican Party.”  This, according to the New York Times, was “another dispiriting setback to Republicans.”  Really?  When do Republicans win elections and when do they lose them?

When Republicans remain true to conservative principles they tend to win elections.  When they move to the center to appeal to moderates they tend to lose.  Why is that?

A Battleground poll taken this past August shows it quite clearly.  When  asked the question, “When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be…”

  1. Very Conservative
  2. Somewhat Conservative
  3. Moderate
  4. Somewhat Liberal
  5. Very Liberal
  6. Unsure or refused to answer

The poll results were:

  • Very Conservative — 20%
  • Somewhat Conservative — 40%
  • Moderate — 2%
  • Somewhat Liberal — 27%
  • Very Liberal — 9%
  • Unsure/Refuse to Answer — 3%

What is most interesting is that only 2% consider themselves to be moderate, and yet conservatives are being repeatedly counseled to reach out to moderates.  Why put forth all that effort for 2% of the population?  If you combine the first two categories, those who consider themselves to be conservative or very conservative, it totals 60% of the population.  Republicans should be able to win elections all day long with those numbers.

The Battleground Poll is a well respected bipartisan poll jointly conducted by a Democratic polling group and a Republican polling group.  What is even more interesting is that they include this question in every survey, and the results have been very consistent over time.  In the thirteen Battleground polls taken between June 2002 and August 2008, those who consider themselves conservatives have ranged from a low of 58% to a high of 63%, pretty consistent indeed.

When Republicans stick to core conservative principles they generally win elections.  When they took control of Congress for the first time in forty years it was because they ran on Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America.  It advocated smaller government, personal responsibility, tort reform and term limits among other things.  This resonated with people who are fed up with Washington and a government that grows without bound.  When they got in power and started spending like liberals, they got tossed out on their butts, as well they should.  If the choice in the voting booth is between a professional liberal (Democrats) and the amateur liberal (moderate Republicans) most folks are going to go with the pro.

Reagan, the truest conservative won the Presidency twice, and easily.  George Bush senior won his first term and then raised taxes breaking his “Read My Lips” pledge.  Out he went.  Clinton won two terms and neither time garnered a majority of the popular vote.  George W. Bush ran as a conservative and won two terms, but they were close races.  Why?  He talked about being a “compassionate conservative” which many took as a code word for being a moderate and not that great a difference from the Democrats.

The untold story is that a significant majority of Americans consider themselves conservative and the closer the candidate adheres to conservative principles (e.g., Reagan) the larger the margin of victory.  The further they move a way, the closer the final tally.

Share and Recommend:

When is a Death Threat Not a Death Threat?

by Bill O'Connell on October 19, 2008

Share and Recommend:

The old adage goes, if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make any noise? I guess today you could say, if a death threat is made toward Barack Obama at a McCain rally and the Secret Service agents who were present neither heard it nor can find anyone who did, did the threat really happen?  If you are holding a deck full of race cards, apparently so.

Race has overshadowed this campaign from the moment Barack Obama won his first caucuses.  The interesting twist is that those assumed to be the real racists in America, conservatives and by extension all Republicans, have scrupulously avoided any discussion of race whatsoever.  The ones who can’t stop talking about race are those on the left.

By continually bringing the subject up and the keeping the whiff of racism in the air, they hope to force those who fear being called racist to vote for Obama just to prove they are not racists!  Has John McCain given any speeches that brought up Obama’s race?  However, after the Reverend Jeremiah Wright blew up in his face, Barack Obama went on to give a major speech in Philadelphia on race in America (A More Perfect Union).

What prompted the speech was the anti-white, anti-American sentiment expressed by Obama’s minister.  In that speech Obama said that despite the positive and historic start to his campaign, race crept in.  “We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary.”  Wasn’t that Bill Clinton, a liberal Democrat, who was accused of that?  He went on to describe his candidacy as seen by some as, “the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap.” it’s pretty self-explanatary who’s talking about race here.  In another speech Obama talked about how he looked different than the Presidents whose faces were on our currency.

Congressman John Lewis, a hero of the Civil Rights movement, compared McCain and Palin to George Wallace.  Based on what?  Personal attacks, of course.  What were the nature of these personal attacks?  Well the Republicans said that Barack Obama was lying about his relationship with Wiliam Ayers.  I fail to see that as a personal attack.  Obama has hardly been forthcoming about his relationship with Ayers and only reveals another piece of the puzzle when he is forced to do so.  At first Ayers was just a guy in the neighborhod, but as more and more facts were revealed about the extent of their relationship, Obama would release another “clarification” such as, yes they served on the same board, but seldom met.  How is calling Obama on this considered a personal attack and where is the racism?  If you want to know what a personal attack feels like, ask Sarah Palin.

Now Sarah Palin is being attacked as a racist because she uses the terms “Joe six-pack” and “Hockey Mom.”  Apparently because blacks don’t play much hockey or drink six packs of beer, it is really a code word for “whites only” rather than meaning average Americans.  I guess to be politically correct she should should say, “Hockey Moms, Basketball Moms, Football Moms, Cricket Moms, Soccer Moms, Badminton Moms…”  and I don’t even want to get into the favored adult beverage of minorities for fear of that being a racist stereotype in and of itself.  I’d rather listen to a speech that has a good cadence and is well written and delivered than something leaden that touches all the politically correct bases.

The latest race card drawn from the bottom of the deck is the death threats at McCain and Palin rallies.  The U.S. Secret Service was unable to corroborate anyone shouting out “kill him”.  But that hasn’t stopped the Obama camp from playing it for all it is worth.  Why would they do that?  One reason would be to get some independents to move his way out of sympathy and guilt.  Another would be to keep those who are in his camp who are getting cold feet to stay in his camp rather than going over to the racists.  I thought the term was Commander in Chief, not Manipulator in Chief.  How do you feel?

Share and Recommend:
© 2008 Liberty's Lifeline. All Rights Reserved.