Sarah Palin's endorsement of Todd P'Pool may be too little, too late. Her endorsement of Rand Paul actually helped him in the Republican primary against Trey Grayson, and might have given P'Pool a boost in name ID when he really needed it early on. It's odd that Palin's endorsement comes at this point, when Republicans have all but given up. Maybe it will motivate a few people to go to the polls, but certainly not enough to change the inevitable outcome.
Meanwhile, a local tea party group is running a radio ad during a.m. rush hour on 970 AM, the Bill Bennett Morning in America Show. The ad promotes P'Pool and Jamie Comer -- but not David Williams. It's like he doesn't exist. Williams has evolved from radioactive to invisible.
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Friday, November 4, 2011
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Politico Craziness
Somebody has added something to the coffee over at Politico this morning. One article suggests that Michael Steele is a viable candidate for President (of the United States, that is). Another article suggests that Sarah Palin should replace Michael Steele as RNC Chair.
I see both of these scenarios as about as likely as Al Gore becoming the next Bachelor on ABC.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Palin Can't Keep Her Pauls Straight
CQ Politics notes that Sarah Palin confused U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Rand Paul with his father, career politician Ron Paul:
Sarah Palin of Alaska provided a less than vigorous defense of her endorsement of Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul’s campaign on Sunday, vaguely referencing his “domestic” agenda while mixing him up with his father, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.
“I don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything,” Palin told “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace. “His domestic policies I do agree with for the most part.”
Palin's confusion is understandable, given that she endorsed Rand Paul without ever meeting him or speaking to him, and given that Rand Paul has said that he and his father agree on nearly all the issues.
The Grayson campaign was quick to exploit Palin's mistake, and issued the following release:
“No wonder she mixed them up. Ron and Rand’s positions on closing Guantanamo Bay, leaving Iraq and Afghanistan, the attacks on September 11th , and drug enforcement are identical, and dangerous,” said Grayson campaign manager Nate Hodson.
Rand Paul has said repeatedly that he does not disagree with his dad except on minor issues:
Rand Paul Agrees That He Is Just A Chip Off The Old Block. Alex Jones: “You're basically what I would call a chip off the old block, your policies are basically identical to your father's, correct?” Rand Paul: “I'd say we'd be very, very similar.” (Rand Paul on the Alex Jones Show, 5/21/2009)
Rand Paul Said He Disagrees With His Dad Only in Minor Issues. Washington Wire: Are there any areas where you disagree with your father’s views on issues? Paul: There are some minor areas where we disagree. (Peter Wallsten, “Q&A with Rand Paul: Shaking Up the Kentucky Senate Race,” The Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire Blog, 11/12/09)
When Asked On What Rand Paul Disagrees With Ron Paul, His Response Was About Taking Money From Medicare And Medicaid, Not Policy Issues. “I couldn’t resist this: is there any issue on which the younger Paul disagrees with his father? ‘Yes,’ he said with a laugh, recalling how his father would do medical work free of charge rather than take payments from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. ‘I do participate in both programs. With my particular practice as an opthamologist, I have to or I couldn’t keep my practice going.’” (John Gizzi, “A ‘Dr. Paul’ In The Senate, Too?” Human Events, 8/15/09)
Rand Paul Said We Should Send the Terrorists at Guantanamo Back to Their Home Countries. “I think they should mostly be sent back to their country of origin or to tell you the truth I’d drop them back off into battle … if you’re unclear, drop ‘em off back into Afghanistan. It’d take them a while to get back over here.” (YouTube video of Rand Paul speaking in Paducah, KY, 5/8/09)
Rand Paul is Unsure of the Mission in Afghanistan. “After eight years in Afghanistan, several questions arise: 1. Is our National Security still threatened by terrorist training camps?; 2. Why haven't Afghanis begun to provide their own security?; 3. Are we there because of a threat to our security or to build a nation?” (Rand Paul Statement on Afghanistan, 12/1/09)
Rand Paul Does Not Support the Troops in Iraq. “Yeah I say not out of Iraq now, I say out of Iraq two or three years ago and or never go in, even better. But I think that when you get out the only thing that you need to propose and that people will accept is that you do it in an orderly fashion.” (AntiWar.com’s “Antiwar Radio With Scott Horton,” www.youtube.com, May 15, 2009)
Rand Paul Refused to Answer if He Thinks the United States Caused 9/11. “I think that’s a complicated situation, that there is truth on both sides,” David Adams, Rand Paul’s campaign manager, said. (Joe Gerth, “Paul Spokesman Quits Over Web Remarks,” The Courier-Journal, 12/17/09)
Rand Paul Wants to Eliminate Federal Drug Laws. “It’s a state issue. All issues of crime are better addressed at the state level.” (Peter Walsten, “Q&A with Rand Paul,” Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire Blog, 11/12/2009)
Monday, February 1, 2010
Yes, She Really Did Endorse Rand
Sarah Palin, in a statement to Politico, said that she is "proud" to endorse Dr. Rand Paul. Paul had issued a press release earlier today announcing Palin's endorsement and a contribution from her political action committee, but the lack of a statement from Palin caused speculation about whether she had in fact endorsed Paul.
Palin said "While there are issues we [she and Paul] disagree on, he and I are both in agreement that it's time to shake up the status quo in Washington and stand up for common sense ideas."
Sarah Palin Endorses Rand Paul
Dr. Rand Paul has been seeking Sarah Palin's endorsement for months and he finally got it -- along with a donation from Palin's political action committee. This is huge.
The Grayson campaign, in a most unfortunate coincidence, has announced that Trey Grayson has been endorsed by 28 state legislators. Grayson's made his announcement 23 minutes before Paul upstaged him with the Palin endorsement. Ouch.
Update: Dan Seum withdrew his endorsement of Grayson (though he contributed to Grayson's campaign) and is now endorsing Paul.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Sarah Palin Coming to Louisville
WHAS 11 is reporting that Sarah Palin is coming to Louisville April 16 as part of the Women of Joy Conference.
Hmmmm . . . that's one month before the Republican primary, and just three days before the deadline to register to vote.
Last Fall, Former Rand Paul spokesman Chris Hightower said that the campaign was trying to get Palin to endorse Paul. Hightower maintained the the Kentucky primary is similar to special election in New York's 23rd Congressional district. Palin endorsed the Tea Partier in that race after the Republican establishment picked a liberal Republican as its candidate. The Democrat won.
So in addition to speaking at Women of Joy and promoting her book, will Sarah Palin campaign for Dr. Rand Paul?
Monday, July 6, 2009
Sarah's Next Step
CBS News would do well to replace Katie Couric with Gov. Sarah Palin. The ratings could only go up and the justice would be poetic. Now, some media snobs might submit that Palin is not bright enough. They would be wrong, though intellect did not seem to be a job requirement when CBS hired Couric. In any event, it's much easier to ask questions than to answer them.
Think of the joy that seeing Palin's smiling face every night would bring to the likes of Maureen Dowd. Speaking of Mo Dowdy, I cannot improve on Andrew Breitbart's rebuttal to the yesterday's hit piece on Palin:
Misses Dowd, Couric and Fey - Mr. Obama’s Angels (featuring Joy Behar in the role of “Bosley”) - used a potent mix of mockery, snobbery and vitriol to undermine Mrs. Palin’s feminist bona fides. . . .
Primarily motivated by a desire to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare," female liberals in the media have carte blanche to do and say anything.
But since Mrs. Palin, a mother of five including a boy who was known to have Down syndrome before he was born, is a potent symbol of the pro-life movement, she is considered an enemy of the sisterhood. . . .
While Mrs. Palin is at ease with her gender, as well as her place in the workplace and at home, Misses Dowd, Couric and Fey convey a base insecurity in their feminine skin. Their rage is fueled by liberalism's false feminist dogma and they take it out on a woman who chose not to join their angry sorority.
The governor of Alaska's compelling narrative - athlete, beauty queen, wife, mother, hunter, successful politician - shows adherents of narrow leftist dogma that, perhaps, women really can have it all. Most importantly: freedom of thought.
In calling Alaska's governor "Caribou Barbie," Miss Dowd used beauty as a weapon to diminish Mrs. Palin's achievements. A man would be reprimanded for this, but Miss Dowd is a Pulitzer Prize-winning pad thrower and is licensed for such vindictive pettiness.
"Caribou," of course, is a stab at Mrs. Palin's backwater, Red State ways, attacks on which an Upper Westside liberal snob can never get enough. Miss Dowd goes on to ridicule "Sarah's country-music melodramas." This is her barely veiled attempt to call Mrs. Palin "white trash." And this has been the loathsome subtext of all media criticism of the Palins. They even went after their children. Mercilessly.
And Mrs. Palin during the Letterman saga finally cried, "Enough!"
Exposed in the relentless Palin attacks is not just political bias, but unmitigated class bias. The American mainstream media in its current free-fall is begging for more comeuppance when it continues to berate the values and lifestyles of the folks in flyover country who in simpler times used to be considered valued customers.
Maureen Dowd is the reason that the New York Times has stock prices to rival that of Government Motors. It and CBS News are dying as institutions, and none too soon. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has a bright future. Perhaps not in politics. Maybe we'll get to watch Palin yank the anchor chair out from under Katie Couric.
Think of the joy that seeing Palin's smiling face every night would bring to the likes of Maureen Dowd. Speaking of Mo Dowdy, I cannot improve on Andrew Breitbart's rebuttal to the yesterday's hit piece on Palin:
Misses Dowd, Couric and Fey - Mr. Obama’s Angels (featuring Joy Behar in the role of “Bosley”) - used a potent mix of mockery, snobbery and vitriol to undermine Mrs. Palin’s feminist bona fides. . . .
Primarily motivated by a desire to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare," female liberals in the media have carte blanche to do and say anything.
But since Mrs. Palin, a mother of five including a boy who was known to have Down syndrome before he was born, is a potent symbol of the pro-life movement, she is considered an enemy of the sisterhood. . . .
While Mrs. Palin is at ease with her gender, as well as her place in the workplace and at home, Misses Dowd, Couric and Fey convey a base insecurity in their feminine skin. Their rage is fueled by liberalism's false feminist dogma and they take it out on a woman who chose not to join their angry sorority.
The governor of Alaska's compelling narrative - athlete, beauty queen, wife, mother, hunter, successful politician - shows adherents of narrow leftist dogma that, perhaps, women really can have it all. Most importantly: freedom of thought.
In calling Alaska's governor "Caribou Barbie," Miss Dowd used beauty as a weapon to diminish Mrs. Palin's achievements. A man would be reprimanded for this, but Miss Dowd is a Pulitzer Prize-winning pad thrower and is licensed for such vindictive pettiness.
"Caribou," of course, is a stab at Mrs. Palin's backwater, Red State ways, attacks on which an Upper Westside liberal snob can never get enough. Miss Dowd goes on to ridicule "Sarah's country-music melodramas." This is her barely veiled attempt to call Mrs. Palin "white trash." And this has been the loathsome subtext of all media criticism of the Palins. They even went after their children. Mercilessly.
And Mrs. Palin during the Letterman saga finally cried, "Enough!"
Exposed in the relentless Palin attacks is not just political bias, but unmitigated class bias. The American mainstream media in its current free-fall is begging for more comeuppance when it continues to berate the values and lifestyles of the folks in flyover country who in simpler times used to be considered valued customers.
Maureen Dowd is the reason that the New York Times has stock prices to rival that of Government Motors. It and CBS News are dying as institutions, and none too soon. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has a bright future. Perhaps not in politics. Maybe we'll get to watch Palin yank the anchor chair out from under Katie Couric.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Calling Gloria Steinem
Still waiting for the feminists to rise up in outrage over the Sarah Palin mannequin hanging from a noose outside a West Hollywood home.
If the effigy were of Hillary Clinton, Gloria Steinem et al would demand the Justice Department to launch an investigation into the hate crime. But once again, feminists demonstrate that the freedom they would bestow on women does not include the freedom to disagree with feminist orthodoxy.
How about Joe "I Wrote the Violence Against Women Act" Biden -- surely he will denounce lynching Sarah Palin in effigy. Just as soon as he peels off the duct tape.
If the effigy were of Hillary Clinton, Gloria Steinem et al would demand the Justice Department to launch an investigation into the hate crime. But once again, feminists demonstrate that the freedom they would bestow on women does not include the freedom to disagree with feminist orthodoxy.
How about Joe "I Wrote the Violence Against Women Act" Biden -- surely he will denounce lynching Sarah Palin in effigy. Just as soon as he peels off the duct tape.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Awaiting Feminist Outrage
Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez revealed himself to be a male chauvinist pig when it comes to Gov. Sarah Palin, but no feminists have denounced his hate speech.
Chavez characterized Palin as: "poor thing;" "beauty queen;" "figurehead;" "she knows not what she's saying."
Venezuela depends on its oil income, which means it depends on foreign countries to import its oil; Venezuela supplies 11 percent of America's oil.
Sarah Palin has made clear that she would drill now to make America energy independent while renewable fuel technologies become commercially available. In fact, Palin would go further than Sen. John McCain on domestic drilling by allowing drilling in ANWR, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. Palin therefore poses a bigger threat to Venezuela's oil market and Chavez's stronghold than anyone else on either ticket.
Sen. Joe Biden opposes drilling in ANWR but boasts that he is the champion of women because of his role in the Violence Against Women Act. It would follow that Joe the Gaffer will denounce Chavez's sexist comments about Palin. But first, his staff will have to rescue Veep wannabe from his undisclosed location and peel the duct tape off his mouth.
Chavez characterized Palin as: "poor thing;" "beauty queen;" "figurehead;" "she knows not what she's saying."
Venezuela depends on its oil income, which means it depends on foreign countries to import its oil; Venezuela supplies 11 percent of America's oil.
Sarah Palin has made clear that she would drill now to make America energy independent while renewable fuel technologies become commercially available. In fact, Palin would go further than Sen. John McCain on domestic drilling by allowing drilling in ANWR, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. Palin therefore poses a bigger threat to Venezuela's oil market and Chavez's stronghold than anyone else on either ticket.
Sen. Joe Biden opposes drilling in ANWR but boasts that he is the champion of women because of his role in the Violence Against Women Act. It would follow that Joe the Gaffer will denounce Chavez's sexist comments about Palin. But first, his staff will have to rescue Veep wannabe from his undisclosed location and peel the duct tape off his mouth.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Disavow This, Barry
ABC News has verified the accuracy of a photo from a Philadelphia hotel. It shows four people wearing T-shirts that read, "Palin is a [expletive deleted that begins with a "C"]."
Turns out the politics of post-partisan hope looks like what Democrats, in other contexts, call hate speech.
Sen. Joe Biden, who likes to boast about his role in passing the Violence Against Women Act, has yet to comment.
Turns out the politics of post-partisan hope looks like what Democrats, in other contexts, call hate speech.
Sen. Joe Biden, who likes to boast about his role in passing the Violence Against Women Act, has yet to comment.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Sarah Did Just Fine
What a relief to see the return of the Gov. Sarah Palin who thrilled us with her convention speech. I was afraid that the handlers had brainwashed her, or substituted a clone (where was Tina Fey during the Katie Couric interview, and does she have an alibi?)
Right from the start, we could see that Sarah was back. She took to the stage, shook Sen. Joe Biden's hand and asked if she could call him Joe. It underscored that she is not a Beltway insider, and also her cheekiness.
Then as Biden was giving one of his first responses, the split screen showed Palin busily taking notes. Until she suddenly looked up, directly into the camera, and smiled at America. It was so distracting from Biden that the camera quickly cut away.
Biden was much better than I had expected. He wasn't a jerk. His sentences were comprehensible. He only leered twice. We didn't have to look at the hair plugs overly much. And I didn't hear any major mistakes, other than confusing Hezbollah with Hamas.
In fact, Biden was better than Sen. Barack Obama at making the charge that McCain-Palin has not distinguished itself from the Bush Administration. To some extent, he's right. Team McCain has to say what all know to be true: the Bush Administration failed because it abandoned conservative tenets. McCain-Palin implicitly have made this point when they promise to control spending and the like.
Time is running out; it's time to be explicit. Cut the Bush Administration loose. It would not be possible to throw it under the bus, because it's been road kill for a long, long time.
Right from the start, we could see that Sarah was back. She took to the stage, shook Sen. Joe Biden's hand and asked if she could call him Joe. It underscored that she is not a Beltway insider, and also her cheekiness.
Then as Biden was giving one of his first responses, the split screen showed Palin busily taking notes. Until she suddenly looked up, directly into the camera, and smiled at America. It was so distracting from Biden that the camera quickly cut away.
Biden was much better than I had expected. He wasn't a jerk. His sentences were comprehensible. He only leered twice. We didn't have to look at the hair plugs overly much. And I didn't hear any major mistakes, other than confusing Hezbollah with Hamas.
In fact, Biden was better than Sen. Barack Obama at making the charge that McCain-Palin has not distinguished itself from the Bush Administration. To some extent, he's right. Team McCain has to say what all know to be true: the Bush Administration failed because it abandoned conservative tenets. McCain-Palin implicitly have made this point when they promise to control spending and the like.
Time is running out; it's time to be explicit. Cut the Bush Administration loose. It would not be possible to throw it under the bus, because it's been road kill for a long, long time.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
We Need Betty Baye On The Case
Courier-Journal columnist Betty Winston Baye wrote a piece a few weeks ago in which she expressed outrage that persons unknown had given in her name to Republican campaigns. Baye became aware of the donations when the candidates sent her thank-you notes, and she wants to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law:
Sure, the amounts involved are piddling, but it's the principle of the thing. It's a form of identity theft which I intend to do all I can to get to the bottom of and then, if possible, pursue legal remedies.
We're sure that Baye must be similarly outraged that more than 48,000 people have donated to Planned Parenthood in the name of Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. John McCain, according to Amanda Carpenter for Townhall.
The donations to Planned Parenthood, as the email that solicited them notes, are tax-deductible. The contributions made in Baye's name to Sen. John Thune and Brett Guthrie are not deductible. Taxpayers actually subsidize Planned Parenthood.
In addition to the difference in tax treatment, the donations in Palin's name are much more hateful than the ideological "identity theft" that infuriated Baye. What's at issue is not just a political difference of opinion but an affront to Trig Palin's right to exist.
In theory, the donations to Planned Parenthood puport to protect a woman's right to " choose." But it's become clear that what infuriates the feminasties about Palin is her "choice"to carry Baby Trig to term -- even after learning that he has Down Syndrome.
And lest there be any doubt about where Planned Parenthood's allegiance lies in the campaign, the email suggests that if at all possible, an additional donation should be sent to the Obama campaign.
Baye noted when her own name was used for donations she did not like,
Whoever made those contributions and possibly others in my name (using The Courier-Journal's address) is breaking the law and quite possibly could make trouble for the campaigns that have accepted these donations.
And will accepting those 48,000 donations similarly "make trouble" for Planned Parenthood? Perhaps Baye can expand her investigation to look into Planned Parenthood's tax-exempt status.
Sure, the amounts involved are piddling, but it's the principle of the thing. It's a form of identity theft which I intend to do all I can to get to the bottom of and then, if possible, pursue legal remedies.
We're sure that Baye must be similarly outraged that more than 48,000 people have donated to Planned Parenthood in the name of Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. John McCain, according to Amanda Carpenter for Townhall.
The donations to Planned Parenthood, as the email that solicited them notes, are tax-deductible. The contributions made in Baye's name to Sen. John Thune and Brett Guthrie are not deductible. Taxpayers actually subsidize Planned Parenthood.
In addition to the difference in tax treatment, the donations in Palin's name are much more hateful than the ideological "identity theft" that infuriated Baye. What's at issue is not just a political difference of opinion but an affront to Trig Palin's right to exist.
In theory, the donations to Planned Parenthood puport to protect a woman's right to " choose." But it's become clear that what infuriates the feminasties about Palin is her "choice"to carry Baby Trig to term -- even after learning that he has Down Syndrome.
And lest there be any doubt about where Planned Parenthood's allegiance lies in the campaign, the email suggests that if at all possible, an additional donation should be sent to the Obama campaign.
Baye noted when her own name was used for donations she did not like,
Whoever made those contributions and possibly others in my name (using The Courier-Journal's address) is breaking the law and quite possibly could make trouble for the campaigns that have accepted these donations.
And will accepting those 48,000 donations similarly "make trouble" for Planned Parenthood? Perhaps Baye can expand her investigation to look into Planned Parenthood's tax-exempt status.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Say It Isn't So, Tina
Contrary to my earlier post, it appears that Tina Fey is no Sarah Palin fan. According to myway news, Fey said:
"I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5. . . So if anybody can help me be done playing this lady Nov. 5, that would be good for me."
Talk about a stab to the heart for this Tina Fey fan!
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
"I want to be done playing this lady Nov. 5. . . So if anybody can help me be done playing this lady Nov. 5, that would be good for me."
Talk about a stab to the heart for this Tina Fey fan!
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Tina Fey Must Be Rooting For Sarah Palin To Win
The buzz of praise continues for Tina Fey's dead-on imitation of Sarah Palin on the last Saturday Night Live. As Canwest News Service reports:
Lorne Michaels and the gang at Saturday Night Live may be Barack Obama lovers at the core, but they might not be overly upset if GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is a heartbeat away from a John McCain-occupied White House. That could mean Tina Fey doing "Seer-ah Pay-linn" impressions for at least the next four years.
Thanks in large part to Fey slipping seamlessly into the psyche of near-look-alike Palin on SNL's season premiere this past Saturday, the show drew 64 per cent more viewers than it did in last year's season opener. Millions more have caught, and are still catching, the Fey bit on the Internet.
. . . .
[T]here's no denying that the five minute skit which paired Fey as Palin with SNL cast member Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton will go down in the annals as one of the best-ever in the history of the show, which is saying something in light of the contributions made by Bill Murray, John Belushi, Steve Martin, Gilda Radner et al over SNL's 34 years.
For those who missed the skit, the Huffington Post has it here.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Lorne Michaels and the gang at Saturday Night Live may be Barack Obama lovers at the core, but they might not be overly upset if GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is a heartbeat away from a John McCain-occupied White House. That could mean Tina Fey doing "Seer-ah Pay-linn" impressions for at least the next four years.
Thanks in large part to Fey slipping seamlessly into the psyche of near-look-alike Palin on SNL's season premiere this past Saturday, the show drew 64 per cent more viewers than it did in last year's season opener. Millions more have caught, and are still catching, the Fey bit on the Internet.
. . . .
[T]here's no denying that the five minute skit which paired Fey as Palin with SNL cast member Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton will go down in the annals as one of the best-ever in the history of the show, which is saying something in light of the contributions made by Bill Murray, John Belushi, Steve Martin, Gilda Radner et al over SNL's 34 years.
For those who missed the skit, the Huffington Post has it here.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Sarah Palin Discombobulates Eva Longoria
Sadly, for all Desperate Housewives fans, it appears that Eva Longoria really is desperate -- at least in her politics. As reported by Rush:
RUSH: Here's Eva Longoria Parker. This is a promo for tonight's 2008 La Raza awards airing on ABC.
LONGORIA: After four years of sex and treachery in Desperate Housewives, I thought I was a perfect pick for vice president.
RUSH: So they keep putting Sarah Palin down. "After four years of sex and treachery in Desperate Housewives I thought I was the perfect pick for vice president." Let 'em go, folks, let 'em go, we could not write a better script for these people for them to say these things if we tried. They are just fit to be tied, they're discombobulated. . . .
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
RUSH: Here's Eva Longoria Parker. This is a promo for tonight's 2008 La Raza awards airing on ABC.
LONGORIA: After four years of sex and treachery in Desperate Housewives, I thought I was a perfect pick for vice president.
RUSH: So they keep putting Sarah Palin down. "After four years of sex and treachery in Desperate Housewives I thought I was the perfect pick for vice president." Let 'em go, folks, let 'em go, we could not write a better script for these people for them to say these things if we tried. They are just fit to be tied, they're discombobulated. . . .
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
It Was Charlie Gibson, Not Palin, Who Flunked The "Bush Doctrine" Test
Today Charles Krauthamer defines the "Bush Doctrine" as the term was originally used. As Krauthamer notes, he was "the first to use the term":
In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.
That was the "Bush Doctrine" until September 11, 2001:
Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.
The third "Bush Doctrine" -- the one Charles Gibson apparently was referring to in his interview with Governor Palin -- emerged with the invasion of Iraq:
. . . A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.
But Gibson's definition of the "Bush Doctrine" is not the one currently being used:
[T]he third in a series . . . was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
So which definition was Palin supposed to assume that Gibson meant when he asked the question: "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
Cynics would say it was a trick question. I don't think that was Gibson's intent. As Krauthamer argues, and I agree, Gibson asked an ambiguous question that he didn't even know was ambiguous. He was like the kid who thought he was smarter than he was and didn't need to study for the test:
Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.
Gibson, not Palin, missed the question.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.
That was the "Bush Doctrine" until September 11, 2001:
Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror -- first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan -- became the essence of the Bush doctrine.
The third "Bush Doctrine" -- the one Charles Gibson apparently was referring to in his interview with Governor Palin -- emerged with the invasion of Iraq:
. . . A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.
But Gibson's definition of the "Bush Doctrine" is not the one currently being used:
[T]he third in a series . . . was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
So which definition was Palin supposed to assume that Gibson meant when he asked the question: "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
Cynics would say it was a trick question. I don't think that was Gibson's intent. As Krauthamer argues, and I agree, Gibson asked an ambiguous question that he didn't even know was ambiguous. He was like the kid who thought he was smarter than he was and didn't need to study for the test:
Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.
Gibson, not Palin, missed the question.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Sarah Survives Charlie Gibson
Gov. Sarah Palin's much anticipated interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson went well, all in all. The context did not allow the dynamic Saracuda that wowed us during the convention, but nonetheless, she proved, once again, that she is literally ready for prime time.
Palin has taken the most criticism from the mainstream media for asking Gibson to be more specific when he asked her what she thought about the "Bush Doctrine." Supposedly, this was Gibson's "gotcha" moment.
Palin, however, handled the question just like any attorney would instruct a witness: never guess at the questioner's meaning; if you don't understand the question, ask for clarification. It was therefore not only appropriate but wise for Palin to ask Gibson "what respect" of the Bush Doctrine he wanted her to address.
Gibson's question showed the extent to which the networks and The New York Times form their own echo chamber. Gibson forgot that the term "Bush Doctrine" came from the media elites; it's a made-up name.
And as Karl Rove -- who knows a little about the Bush Administration -- said on the O'Reilly Factor tonight, there are four different foreign policy applications that get characterized as "The Bush Doctrine." Rove observed that Gibson used iteration number two of the doctrine as the premise of his question, whereas Palin's answer seemed to refer to the fourth iteration. Bottom line: the question was unclear without defining the term "Bush Doctrine", and Palin was correct to force Gibson to be more precise.
Gibson was reasonably fair. He was more condescending the first night. Gibson's lowest moment came when he asked Palin to detail all her overseas travel for her entire life, and forced her to admit that she's never met a genuine "head of state." Implicitly, Gibson seemed to looking down at Palin for not having taken a World Tour, like Obama. Gibson was too polite to call Palin a hick, but he made clear his judgment: Obama is cosmopolitan and international; Palin is not. Gibson's elitism contrasted nicely with Palin's spunky populism.
Palin was stronger tonight on domestic issues. Her deeper knowledge of issues like energy and cutting local property taxes allowed her to relax and answer more spontaneously.
Gibson seemed ready to say "gotcha" again when the discussion turned to the federal budget, and how a McCain budget would differ from the Bush administration's budget. Palin responded in a very Reaganesque manner: cut waste, increase efficiency. Gibson pressed her on entitlements and made the bizarre assertion that agencies have nothing to do with entitlements. Palin refused to be intimidated and insisted that savings could be found in the agencies themselves. And she's right. Social Security checks don't spring from the ground; they are generated by a massive bureaucracy that undoubtedly can be streamlined.
Perhaps Palin's best moment occurred when Gibson tried to draw a wedge between her views on energy and Sen. John McCain's, particularly with respect to drilling in ANWR. It was a moment when Palin was Palin. She acknowledged that McCain opposes drilling in ANWR but said she's working on him. And the twinkle in her eye suggested that she'll be relentless on the subject -- almost pit bull-like -- until she has convinced McCain to drill.
Palin has taken the most criticism from the mainstream media for asking Gibson to be more specific when he asked her what she thought about the "Bush Doctrine." Supposedly, this was Gibson's "gotcha" moment.
Palin, however, handled the question just like any attorney would instruct a witness: never guess at the questioner's meaning; if you don't understand the question, ask for clarification. It was therefore not only appropriate but wise for Palin to ask Gibson "what respect" of the Bush Doctrine he wanted her to address.
Gibson's question showed the extent to which the networks and The New York Times form their own echo chamber. Gibson forgot that the term "Bush Doctrine" came from the media elites; it's a made-up name.
And as Karl Rove -- who knows a little about the Bush Administration -- said on the O'Reilly Factor tonight, there are four different foreign policy applications that get characterized as "The Bush Doctrine." Rove observed that Gibson used iteration number two of the doctrine as the premise of his question, whereas Palin's answer seemed to refer to the fourth iteration. Bottom line: the question was unclear without defining the term "Bush Doctrine", and Palin was correct to force Gibson to be more precise.
Gibson was reasonably fair. He was more condescending the first night. Gibson's lowest moment came when he asked Palin to detail all her overseas travel for her entire life, and forced her to admit that she's never met a genuine "head of state." Implicitly, Gibson seemed to looking down at Palin for not having taken a World Tour, like Obama. Gibson was too polite to call Palin a hick, but he made clear his judgment: Obama is cosmopolitan and international; Palin is not. Gibson's elitism contrasted nicely with Palin's spunky populism.
Palin was stronger tonight on domestic issues. Her deeper knowledge of issues like energy and cutting local property taxes allowed her to relax and answer more spontaneously.
Gibson seemed ready to say "gotcha" again when the discussion turned to the federal budget, and how a McCain budget would differ from the Bush administration's budget. Palin responded in a very Reaganesque manner: cut waste, increase efficiency. Gibson pressed her on entitlements and made the bizarre assertion that agencies have nothing to do with entitlements. Palin refused to be intimidated and insisted that savings could be found in the agencies themselves. And she's right. Social Security checks don't spring from the ground; they are generated by a massive bureaucracy that undoubtedly can be streamlined.
Perhaps Palin's best moment occurred when Gibson tried to draw a wedge between her views on energy and Sen. John McCain's, particularly with respect to drilling in ANWR. It was a moment when Palin was Palin. She acknowledged that McCain opposes drilling in ANWR but said she's working on him. And the twinkle in her eye suggested that she'll be relentless on the subject -- almost pit bull-like -- until she has convinced McCain to drill.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
For National Security, McCain-Palin Beats Obama-Biden Any Day
According to ABC News, Senator Barack Obama had this to say when asked today by ABC News commentator George Stephanopoulos about whether he had ever considered military service:The Democratic candidate said he briefly considered joining the military after graduating high school, but decided against it.
"I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren't engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it's not an option that I ever decided to pursue," he said.
What a wimpy answer, and further confirmation that the "Community Organizer" has no real grasp of national defense. Obviously Senator John McCain is far and away the better choice to protect the country -- not simply because McCain understands the military from having served with bravery, but also from his having strongly advocated national defense for many years.
Obama apparently needs a refresher course about 1979. That year was the low point of Democratic appeasement policy of the Carter administration. It was in the middle of the Iranian hostage crisis and the point in the Cold War when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. For youngster bloggers, rent "Miracle on Ice" and you will get a taste of what a mess the country was in under Democratic rule.
That Obama claims he considered joining the military but didn't in 1979 only demonstrates that he, like Carter, lacked an understanding of the importance of a strong military to protect the nation's interests. It took President Ronald Reagan, with the support of congressional leaders like John McCain and Mitch McConnell, to restore strength to a military that had been so depleted during the Carter years.
Palin, like Obama and Biden, did not serve in the military, but she has raised a son who understands the value of military service and, in fact, has enlisted to serve in Iraq. And though she is three years younger than Obama, Palin thus far has exhibited a toughness that instills far more confidence in the public than that exhibited by Obama, who shows disturbing Carter-like tendencies on foreign policy issues.
And, of course, when it comes to the gut check of who you would trust to protect you, McCain-Palin wins hands down over Obama-Biden.
Obama probably knows more about bowling than he does about the military.
(Photograph by Sgt. Jacob A. McDonald, U.S. Dept. of Defense)
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Friday, September 5, 2008
This Swim Mom Hearts Sarahcuda
Gov. Sarah Palin walked out to the Convention podium and drove a four inch stiletto heel through the heart of the Obama-Biden anticipated coronation.
Palin took to the stage to such thunderous applause that I worried she would not be able to deliver her speech in prime time. The crowd would not sit down or stop clapping.
I had no idea that the applause interruptions threw off the teleprompter's timing, forcing Palin to speak from memory. None of us noticed, so poised was her delivery. This woman was under tremendous pressure to deliver after being villified day after day, report after report. She surpassed all hopes and expectations.
The sound-bites from Palin's speech are still reverberating. "Conventional wisdom," that is, the media elites, remind us that the vice presidential candidate makes no difference to the outcome of the election. Not this year, not with this candidate. It just makes Palin's nomination historic in yet another respect.
Leaving the convention after her speech, delegates kept repeating their favorite zingers. Like one Texas delegate, who may have been an original Suffragette. This lady climbed on the bus and announced to the crowd, "I'm visualizing a pit bull with lip stick!"
There were as many good lines as passengers, and no consensus on which was best. What was undisputed, however, was that it had been a historic speech, not just because of Palin's gender, but because she had breathed life into the conservative movement. This speech was simply too good to be confined to just one election cycle.
Throughout the speech, I was reminded of Ronald Reagan. Her humor, her willingness to take on her critics directly, her ability to not just roll with the punches she'd endured but to give as good as she got -- it was all classic Reagan. This woman is a great communicator, and as with Reagan, cut through the media and spoke directly to the American people. Like Reagan, the media have mocked her for being unqualified, and make clear that they think she's not very smart. What a gift to the GOP.
When Palin confronted the media on their treatment of her, the crowd started chanting "NBC" and pointed up to that network's anchor booth. Somewhere in Rockefeller Center, heads rolled.
With every zinger, people around me yelled things like "Out of the park!" and "That's gotta hurt!" Palin stood up for herself and her family, and made us laugh at the same time. She created a humor gap between the two tickets that underscores Obama's pretentiousness and McCain's and Palin's genuineness. (Biden is unintentionally funny.)
At the speech's conclusion, when Palin's entire family -- including her future son-in-law, and Baby Trig -- took the stage, the mood changed. The applause continued to thunder, but people teared up. No amount of hate speech or media mockery could strip this family of its dignity, fortified by love and faith. Anyone who thinks this mother has put career before family has only to see her hold her baby.
Then McCain showed up. To be sure, the Convention crowd was pleased to see the presidential nominee and applauded his intuition and boldness in choosing Palin. McCain has been criticized for not saying more when he joined the Palins on stage. Here's what he did do. He spoke to each member of the family, and took extra time with the expectant couple. We could not hear the words exchanged but the body language spoke volumes: McCain wanted to make sure that they were holding up all right despite ridicule that no person --let alone a 17-year old -- should have to endure.
Palin's speech was fabulous. In the end, however, the images counted more. McCain's solicitousness with this couple honored their decision to choose life for their baby. Palin's refusal to marginalize her baby, bringing him on the stage to share the moment with the rest of the family, reaffirmed the dignity of all human beings and the sacredness of life. It was breathtaking; lives will be saved as a result. That's a change for the better.
Palin took to the stage to such thunderous applause that I worried she would not be able to deliver her speech in prime time. The crowd would not sit down or stop clapping.
I had no idea that the applause interruptions threw off the teleprompter's timing, forcing Palin to speak from memory. None of us noticed, so poised was her delivery. This woman was under tremendous pressure to deliver after being villified day after day, report after report. She surpassed all hopes and expectations.
The sound-bites from Palin's speech are still reverberating. "Conventional wisdom," that is, the media elites, remind us that the vice presidential candidate makes no difference to the outcome of the election. Not this year, not with this candidate. It just makes Palin's nomination historic in yet another respect.
Leaving the convention after her speech, delegates kept repeating their favorite zingers. Like one Texas delegate, who may have been an original Suffragette. This lady climbed on the bus and announced to the crowd, "I'm visualizing a pit bull with lip stick!"
There were as many good lines as passengers, and no consensus on which was best. What was undisputed, however, was that it had been a historic speech, not just because of Palin's gender, but because she had breathed life into the conservative movement. This speech was simply too good to be confined to just one election cycle.
Throughout the speech, I was reminded of Ronald Reagan. Her humor, her willingness to take on her critics directly, her ability to not just roll with the punches she'd endured but to give as good as she got -- it was all classic Reagan. This woman is a great communicator, and as with Reagan, cut through the media and spoke directly to the American people. Like Reagan, the media have mocked her for being unqualified, and make clear that they think she's not very smart. What a gift to the GOP.
When Palin confronted the media on their treatment of her, the crowd started chanting "NBC" and pointed up to that network's anchor booth. Somewhere in Rockefeller Center, heads rolled.
With every zinger, people around me yelled things like "Out of the park!" and "That's gotta hurt!" Palin stood up for herself and her family, and made us laugh at the same time. She created a humor gap between the two tickets that underscores Obama's pretentiousness and McCain's and Palin's genuineness. (Biden is unintentionally funny.)
At the speech's conclusion, when Palin's entire family -- including her future son-in-law, and Baby Trig -- took the stage, the mood changed. The applause continued to thunder, but people teared up. No amount of hate speech or media mockery could strip this family of its dignity, fortified by love and faith. Anyone who thinks this mother has put career before family has only to see her hold her baby.
Then McCain showed up. To be sure, the Convention crowd was pleased to see the presidential nominee and applauded his intuition and boldness in choosing Palin. McCain has been criticized for not saying more when he joined the Palins on stage. Here's what he did do. He spoke to each member of the family, and took extra time with the expectant couple. We could not hear the words exchanged but the body language spoke volumes: McCain wanted to make sure that they were holding up all right despite ridicule that no person --let alone a 17-year old -- should have to endure.
Palin's speech was fabulous. In the end, however, the images counted more. McCain's solicitousness with this couple honored their decision to choose life for their baby. Palin's refusal to marginalize her baby, bringing him on the stage to share the moment with the rest of the family, reaffirmed the dignity of all human beings and the sacredness of life. It was breathtaking; lives will be saved as a result. That's a change for the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)