Tag Archives: 2012

The Republican Party’s Political and Policy Pyramid Scheme

by Whitney Pitcher

On Saturday, Tony Lee wrote a piece at Breitbart highlighting a recent speech by Pat Caddell where he discussed the reasons behind the Republican party’s defeat in the presidential election. Among the many things that Caddell noted is that the Romney campaign bowed to the “consultant-lobbyist-establishment” complex. However, this is not only the GOP’s political modus operandi, it is also their policy approach. This is why, although the Democrats may seem to resonate with voters more on messaging (Caddell also mentioned that voters didn’t think Governor Romney “cared about them”), the differences on policy between the two parties appears to be shrinking. Of particular note, Caddell said:

“Why are Republicans not the anti-establishment party?,” Caddell asked.

Caddell emphasized a “narrative is a story” that comes over a period of time and “not just a single message.”

He cited Ronald Reagan as someone who knew how to speak to Democrats and “ordinary and common” Americans and bring them over to his side because Reagan had been one of them and came from regular Americans and shared their experiences.

“That is a quality that has been missing a long time in a search for alternative candidate,” Caddell said, in reference to Reagan’s ability to resonate with blue collar Americans.

[...]

“As long as the establishment wants to preserve the establishment and their special deals, you will lose,” Caddell said.

Caddell, of course, is correct. The Republican party’s political approach has been inept attempt of self-preservation of the Establishment. They have been rudderless, inarticulate, and out-of-touch. I wrote last week about the need for the Republican party to do a better job at messaging and selling the winning product of conservatism, but the keys to victory of course, goes beyond this. One of the Republican party’s failures has been that they have seen politics along a single axis–right and left–between the seemingly arbitrary boundaries of political parties. In reality, politics and policy both have a vertical component to them—top to bottom–not in the terms of political party, but of political connection and personal benefit.

As Caddell notes, “why are Republicans not the anti-establishment party?”. They are not because they willfully ignore their own devotion to that “consultant-lobbyist-establishment” complex. Caddell also noted:

“No presidential campaign should be run by consultants,” Caddell said. “They should be run by people who are committed to the candidate and not into making big money.”

However, the past two losing presidential campaigns has been run by people who saw they could make money even in losing. Despite running a horrible campaign in 2008, Steve Schmidt saw he could continue to make money as a consultant and later as a political analyst at MSNBC as a “Republican” who trashes Republicans. The same can be said for Nicolle Wallace who works now at ABC and has attempted to capitalized on the notoriety of defeat by writing political fiction (which is the same genre as her political commentary). Through mid October, the Romney campaign had paid  $134+ million to political firms tied to his aides, including funding a  failed GOTV software. Karl Rove’s “Crossroads” group brought in and spent more than one hundred million dollars, only to have every candidate they supported lose. The GOP establishment has turned the Republican party into a pyramid scheme–where the few at the top (the Establishment and their consultants) eat well at the expense of their own base. The political game is not simply “right vs. left”; it is a game where the establishment does not care if they win politically (and the country wins on the basis of ideology and principle) so long as they win monetarily.  They eschew their own base and ignore the entire electorate to pad their bank accounts. They do not realize the need for “free market populism”, which is the solution for the “vertical” political and policy problems the GOP has.

Policy must be viewed on a vertical plane as well. Cronyism and corporatism must be rejected. Both of these “isms” allow for the politically connected at the top of food chain to benefit at the expense of the taxpayers at the bottom. This goes beyond the infamous problems with Solyndra and the other green energy companies tied to political donors. This also includes political institutions like the ExIm Bank, which provides taxpayer backed loan guarantees for American companies who sell their product overseas. The ExIm bank is supported by many Republicans, and its re-authorization was one of the few things that flew through the House and Senate with ease before being signed by President Obama. The Republican party is not distinguishing themselves from the Democrats when they choose to subsidize business on the backs of ordinary Americans.

Economic ideas must not be the “pro-government” ideas of the Democrats, nor the purported “pro-business” ideas of the Republicans. Rather, they must be “pro-market” ideas. Pro government ideas are founded in expanding government at the expense of the taxpayers’ money and liberty. Pro business ideas are founded in expanding government and some businesses at the expense of both other businesses and taxpayers. Both of the ideologies empower either government or specific businesses or industries, but “pro market” ideas empower the consumer as their purchasing power, not government taxation, bailouts, or subsidies, drives the market. Take, for example, ethanol subsidies. The EPA refused to ease ethanol mandates for fuel following a year of drought which negatively affected the corn harvest. What does this do? It makes fuel more expensive, and it has even made livestock farmers resort to feeding candy to their animals because increased corn prices have made livestock feed more expensive, which continues to occur in part because corn is being used for ethanol in fuel rather than in livestock feed. What does this have to do with the Republican party? Again, ethanol subsidies have bipartisan support, and the Republican party has not distinguished themselves from Democrats.

The concept of populism is not often seen as a conservative concept, and to some, free market populism may seem like an oxy moron. However, it is not the populism of liberals who pit Americans against each other through class warfare. It is a populism that desires to wage a war of sorts against the permanent political class (and the “consultant-lobbyist-establishment” complex) through a new brand of policy and politics. It is a brand guided not by the clinched fist of socialism, nor the hand-in-hand relationships of business and government, but of the invisible hand of the free market where the individual is empowered by lower taxes and smaller government.

In order to win elections and subsequently support for policy, the Republican party must realize that the battle lies in their message and the directionality of their focus, not in the hands of establishment consultants. If they ignore the vertical plane of their political and policy battles, they will lose not only their political base, but the electorate as a whole, and their pyramid scheme will come crashing down.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Under the Magnifying Glass: A Tale of Two Vice Presidential Candidacies

by Whitney Pitcher

In the weeks following the election, Republicans are assessing what went wrong that led to their defeat. Much to the criticism of some in the party, Governor Romney has hypothesized that President Obama won because of the “gifts” that he offered minorities. Others have speculated that the GOP was not able to effectively reach out to the changing demographics of America or that the party misinterpreted polls and got cocky. Others have pointed to poorly designed and implemented GOTV technology.Compared to the 2008 election, there is one reason for defeat that is conspicuously missing from the “Wednesday morning” political strategizing — blaming the GOP choice for vice president.

Paul Ryan, of course, was not the reason for Mitt Romney’s defeat. His nomination provided a spark for many in the Republican party. He was an articulate voice for the GOP ticket and a seemingly good fit for a Romney campaign nearly singularly focused on the economy. He is an intelligent Congressman who has shown leadership in the House on the budget and making strong stances against Obamacare, particularly the IPAB—the unelected board of bureaucrats tasked with managing how Medicare pays. Ryan has served as a Congressman in Washington DC since 1999 and worked for House members for several years during the early and mid 1990s as well. However, despite his strong stance against the Obama administration’s profligate spending, he also supported  the TARP bailout during the Bush administration and the auto bailout set in motion during the Bush administration. He has been a good Republican soldier in Washington D.C. for nearly twenty years, which made him ideal for Romney, especially as someone from the same state (a swing state too) as the current RNC chair.

In 2008, Sarah Palin was quite the opposite in some respects. She was the governor of Alaska–about as far away from Washington D.C. as one can get. She had garnered a reputation for bucking her own party– calling out the Alaska GOP chair for doing party business on state time, taking on and defeating an incumbent governor in her own party, cleaning up the ethical mess caused by that incumbent she defeated, and even suing a GOP presidential administration to enable energy development in Alaska. During the campaign, she wanted to abandon the micromanaging of her handlers and speak on passion and principles rather than talking points. She was the embodiment of the feminist ideal–a great family, a successful career, not to mention a state basketball championship and the ability to shoot a moose and cook it up for dinner. This proved to be a perfect target for the media, the Democrats, and GOP Establishment to go after Governor Palin, not only for the blamecasting loss, but also the treatment and coverage throughout the campaign, which was much harsher than what was shown Paul Ryan.

The Romney campaign was, of course, smart enough not to hire the likes of Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace (unlike MSNBC and ABC), so the source of much of the redistribution of blame of the 2008 campaign was missing from the 2012 campaign. Ryan was not a threat to the GOP machine, because in many ways, he was already a part of it. There was no need for Romney campaign staffers, some of whom had trashed Governor Palin during the 2008 general election, to send out emails to coordinate a strategy to shield themselves from blame if they lost, as Steve Schmidt had done.So far during the 2012 election fallout, Romney advisers are blaming strategy and messaging, not directly their own candidates.

The media and the Obama campaign, however, did go after Paul Ryan with spurious attacks. Prior to the campaign and during the campaign, they tried to portray his budgetary roadmap as one that would throw grandma over the cliff. The Obama campaign tried to conflate Todd Akin’s comments on rape with Paul Ryan’s stance on abortion. The media and Democrats both turned a visit by Ryan to a soup kitchen into a ridiculous mini-scandal. However, this was nothing compared to the barrage that Governor Palin received four years ago from within her campaign, the Democrats, and the media. Like Ryan, Palin also had false accusations launched at her regarding who rape–specifically who paid for rape test kits when she was mayor. However, with Governor Palin claims seemed more pointed and numerous. Ridiculous claims were made that she wasn’t the mother of Trig, her youngest son. False claims were also made regarding Palin’s associations with the Alaska Independence Party (AIP), which has succession as part of its platform. This supposed AIP-Palin connection was also falsely cast onto to Governor Palin by an employee of a Democratic PR firms. Claims were made that she cut funding for special education when she actually increased spending for special education substantially.She even was falsely reported to have banned books like Harry Potter when she was mayor--before the books were even written.

For Governor Palin, it went beyond false claims surrounding policy and into false charges regarding her character– charges that she abused her power by pressuring a commissioner to fire a state trooper who once was Palin’s brother-in-law. State senator, Kim Elton launched a legislative inquiry into the matter, deeming it an “October surprise”(i.e. he intended it be political). During the inquiry process, the Obama camp even made contact with the troopers’ union of Governor Palin’s former brother-in-law.Ultimately, the politically motivated legislative inquiry found her as abusing power, while the personnel board, who were all appointed by Governor Murkowski, no friend of Governor Palin, exonerated her. Following President Obama’s election, Kim Elton was given a cushy job in President Obama’s Department of Interior. Elton had also allowed former chief of staff to then Senator Obama and once interim chief of staff to President Obama, Pete Rouse, to use Elton’s Alaskan address so that  Rouse could vote in Alaska even after he hadn’t lived there for more than twenty years. Democrats sought to destroy her character, not solely mislead on her policy.

During the campaign, Governor Palin was criticized for being held back from the press–a poor campaign move by operatives like Schmidt and Wallace. Prior to her becoming the VP pick, emails obtained by the Anchorage Daily News noted that she was to be a McCain surrogate across several networks, yet the campaign held her back when she was picked. When she did talk to media embeds, she was criticized for “going rogue”. Meanwhile, Paul Ryan only spoke to the traveling press corps four times during the campaign and never gave formal press availability. Ryan’s limited press interaction never became a major story, however, only the subject of a singular tweet from a member of the traveling press corps.

Not only was Governor Palin more harshly covered by the media, her family was as well. Todd Palin’s voter registration became a huge news story when he inadvertently checked the box for the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) when he simply intended to note he was an independent (he later corrected this). However, Paul Ryan’s wife was not placed under the same intense scrutiny–despite the fact that she had been a congressional staffer and a corporate lobbyist in the past.  During their respective campaigns,  Governor Palin’s children was the mother of a four school aged (or younger) children and a son in the military while Congressman Ryan’s children were all under the age of 10. The young age of his three children and a busy campaign schedule were never a reason for faux concern from the media, as it was for Governor Palin.  Not to mention how Bristol Palin was put under the spotlight by the media and the Left during her concurrent pregnancy.

Despite claims made by McCain campaign staffers even prior to the campaign’s end, Governor Palin was not reason for the McCain-Palin ticket’s defeat. In fact, she helped the ticket. Among those who noted Palin’s presence on the GOP ticket affected their vote, 56% voted for McCain-Palin compared to 43% for Obama-Biden. John McCain and Sarah Palin received 59,934, 814 votes while  Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan received 59, 142,004 votes–a more than three quarters of a million vote difference in favor of McCain-Palin. This was despite the fact that the Romney campaign made more contacts with voters on a grassroots level than the McCain campaign. These vote differences are in no way an indictment of Paul Ryan’s candidacy, nor does an indictment lie in the context of solely a presidential campaign. The indictment lies with the GOP Establishment, Democrats, and the media who all seemed to have the same goal of destroying Governor Palin–a goal they haven’t achieved despite continued efforts. Revisiting the 2008 campaign is not an attempt to rehash the past, but to put it in greater perspective. This month’s election now provides an even bolder contrast to further reveal how much the media, the Democrats and even her own party wished to smear and discredited Governor Palin–and how much they continue to do so.

During this election cycle, GOP Establishmentarian, Karl Rove disingenuously represented Palin’s effect on the ticket by saying McCain was leading prior to picking her as VP and he poo-pooed the effect of her endorsement as “not worth snot”. In the end, Rove’s endorsement successes were non-existent while Governor Palin had great success. The Democrats still reference Palin, in attempts to diminish her, but their reference to her only shows her influence and their fear. John Kerry referenced Governor Palin  in his speech at the Democratic convention when discussing Mitt Romney’s policy on Russia. Obama campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, referenced Palin in response to Rudy Guliani questioning Joe Biden’s mental capacity. This past week, the head of Obama’s SuperPAC and former deputy White House press secretary, Bill Burton took a shot at Palin in response to John McCain’s criticism of Susan Rice’s comments on the attack on the American consulate in Libya.She still remains a target for and a threat to both parties.

A willingness to serve in the capacity of vice presidential nominee means that your record, your family, and your character will be put under a magnifying glass–as it should. With Governor Palin, however, the GOP establishment, Democrats, and the media used (and continue to use) the magnifying glass the same way a mean kid uses it to direct sun’s rays to an ant hill–to destroy. A magnifying glass can be revealing for objects on either side of it though, and thankfully, Governor Palin has used the magnifying glass to further reveal the corrupt nature of the very people who seek to destroy her.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Rejecting “Crystal Pepsi” Conservatism and Embracing People and Principle Centered Conservatism

by Whitney Pitcher

“It was a tremendous learning experience. I still think it’s the best idea I ever had, and the worst executed. A lot of times as a leader you think, “They don’t get it; they don’t see my vision.” People were saying we should stop and address some issues along the way, and they were right. It would have been nice if I’d made sure the product tasted good. Once you have a great idea and you blow it, you don’t get a chance to resurrect it.”

Those were the words of Yum Brands CEO, David Novak, . His “great idea” was that  of revamping Pepsi as a clear soda called Crystal Pepsi. Crystal Pepsi was introduced to the market in the early 1990s and proved to be a massive flop. Why did it flop? Because they tried to change a winning product. However, Novak and Yum Brands took Crystal Pepsi off the market because it failed. They knew they could not get customer buy-in on a poor imitation of a solid product. Perhaps the Republican party could learn a lesson from those in marketing. When you match a good product with the right messaging, the product sells.

However, the Republican Establishment and Beltway campaign operatives think that the way to improve conservatism is to change it, rather than to do a better job of marketing conservatism. This kind of “Crystal Pepsi conservatism” is pushed by Establishmentarians like Governor Jeb Bush who wrote a piece at the National Review this past summer indicating that Republicans need to become the “Grand Solutions party” and abandon the “black lines of ideology”. However, in Governor Bush’s attempt to make the GOP big tent, he has tried to drive the ideological pegs into the swampy ground of moderation, rather than the solid ground of principle. Following the electoral loss last week, Republicans like John Boehner and conservative pundits like Sean Hannity have called for immigration reform. Bill Kristol is encouraging the GOP to give in to tax increases. All of these men are trying to re-package a failing “Crystal Pepsi conservatism” that betrays principles. Instead, the party ought to follow the advice of Governor Sarah Palin that she shared following the 2010 GOP victories, ” a winning conservative message must be careful crafted” just as Reagan changed his messaging between his 1976 and 1980 campaigns. The message may need to be re-crafted, but the conservatives principles need to remain. 

The Republican Establishment would do well to replace their high investment, but low return DC/NYC political strategists and operatives with conservatives who are in the field of marketing. Those in marketing don’t change good products; they only seek to provide the product with the right message in the appropriate media so that it sells. Conservatism is a great product. Individual freedom, free men and free markets are marketable to every demographic. It just needs to be messaged appropriately to our diverse American melting pot. Those in marketing and advertising use market segmentation research to reach our diverse popularity by tailor the message by race, income, education, urbanicity and other factors. Just as Pepsi isn’t sold to baby boomers using the same commercial advertising and advertising platforms as millennials, so conservatism shouldn’t be marketed to white empty nesters in the same manner as it is marketed young Hispanic business owners. Free market conservatism is the product, but the message to empty nesters might be one of reduced capital gains taxes to protect their retirement while the message to young Hispanic business owners might be one of reduced corporate taxes and fewer government regulations that provides a better life for their family. This enables conservative coalition building, and is something that would have served the Romney campaign well. However, Hispanic and black conservatives approached the campaign with coalition building ideas that were turned away.  The campaign did not effectively engage the consumers of conservatism. There is no need for pandering, but there is a place for engaging all segments of the electorate a candidate ultimately aims to represent.

Our Republic was founded on “we the people”, and that is what conservatism’s messaging should be founded upon as well. This is a  messaging concept that Margaret Thatcher understood an ocean away and nearly 40 years ago, when in 1975, the Tory party suffered considerable political defeats. She wrote (emphasis added):

Politicians should not be either professional efficiency experts or amateur industrial consultants. Their concern is with people, and they must look at every problem from the grassroots, not from the top looking down.

[...]

My kind of Tory party would make no secret of its belief in individual freedom and individual prosperity, in the maintenance of law and order, in the wide distribution of private property, in rewards for energy, skill and thrift, in diversity of choice, in the preservation of local rights in local communities.

Size is not all, any more than economic growth is all. Even efficiency is not enough. People come first—their needs, their hopes, their choice, their values and ideals. We have to understand these first—to be seen to be listening with sympathy and concern. It is important to be able to lead, certainly. But you cannot for long lead people where they do not want to go.

Conservatism must be framed in the context not in the white papers based theory of policy, but in the reality and application of those policies in individual’s lives.People must come first, and as Thatcher said, politicians must look at problems not from the top down, but from the grassroots–the people, not the consultants.The message medium has changed as well, and the Republican Establishment must adapt. Texas conservative grassroots activist Michelle McCormick characterizes the current GOP as ” Blockbuster in the age of Netflix”. Both the brick and mortar Blockbuster and Netflix have the same product of “rentable” movies, but Netflix acts within the framework of the internet while Blockbuster operates in the last century framework of tangible DVDs. Conservatism must operate in a new media, entertainment age. As Andrew Breitbart famously emphasized politics is downstream from culture, and this is something the Republican party must capitalize upon.

William F. Buckley famously noted that he’d rather be governed by the first 400 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard. In the same way, conservatism would be well served to employ conservative marketing strategists instead of beltway strategists and blue blood politicians who insist on single minded and poor imitations of the winning product of conservatism.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Re-visiting Benjamin Franklin’s Discussion of a Chair

by Whitney Pitcher

On the last day of Republican National Convention, actor Clint Eastwood gave part of his speech in conversation with an empty chair, which represented the empty leadership of President Obama. In his “dialogue” Mr. Eastwood noted that we, as Americans, own this country, and politicians work for us:

Nonetheless, following that speech President Obama tweeted the following from his campaign Twitter account:

Yes, the seat may currently be occupied by Barack Obama, but it belongs to the people of America. One of the great things about our constitutional Republic is that we are afforded the opportunity every four years to vote on who occupies that seat–it’s not a throne. Our leaders are accountable to us.

Nearly two hundred and twenty-five years ago, in the city of Philadelphia, another octagenerian–Benjamin Franklin– had his own discussion about a president’s chair. Even at the age of 81, Franklin was one of the Pennsylvania delegates at the Constitutional convention. George Washington presided over this convention and sat at in a chair at the front of the hall. The chair had the a gold painted piece on the back fashioned in the shape of a sun (seen below):

Franklin had some remarks about this chair that George Washington sat in for the duration of the convention:

As the representatives signed the Constitution, Franklin watched. The president’s chair was at the front of the hall, and a sun was painted on the back of the chair. Franklin told some of the members near him that it was always difficult for painters to show the difference between the rising sun and the setting sun. He said that during the convention he had often looked at the painted sun and wondered “…whether it was rising or setting. But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun.”

It was a rising sun–rising on the greatest nation on earth following the crafting of the best political document ever to be written. This document starts with “We the people”; the power of the government that this document outlined was with the people. During the convention, the Founders thought there were seats that deserved to be discussed prior to that of the presidency–the legislative branch. The first article of the Constitution is devoted to the elections, requirements, and functions of a bicameral congress. (Don’t let Joe Biden’s 2008 vice presidential debate performance confuse you–the executive branch is discussed in the second article of the Constitution, not the first).This means that with our current Congressional system there are 535 seats (435 House and 100 Senate seats)–representing the individual states– that our Founders thought were of first priority to mention. Unfortunately, the promise of that rising sun has been eclipsed over the last two centuries by unconstitutional power grabs from presidents and misguided abdication by the legislative branch itself. Nevertheless, the power to write laws, develop budgets, and other tasks lie constitutionally with this branch. Their role is extremely important.

In this year’s election there are 435 House seats, 33 Senate seats, and 1 president’s seat up for a vote. While executive power within in the United States and a representation of leadership worldwide lie with the president, we cannot forget not only that this seat belongs to the people of America, and that there are 468 other seats up for a vote this year that are of extreme importance. Our constitution states that all bills for raising revenue must begin in the House of Representatives. Because of a lack of leadership, our Senate has not passed a budget in three years, despite the work of the House to present them with a budget. This lack of leadership and dire need for fiscal responsibility is just one of the many reasons I wrote a few months ago about the importance of the Senate races in this year’s election. Regardless of who is elected to the presidency in November, a conservative, reform minded  House and Senate is necessary to help ensure that proverbial sun is neither eclipsed, nor sets. All of this is not to diminish the important role of the presidency, but to put it in constitutional perspective.

Whether it is the seat of the presidency or of Congress or any other seat at any level of government, those who occupy those seats  must remember to whom that seat ultimately belongs–the people who elected them.  Is the sun that Franklin spoke of continuing to rise on America? Is it morning in a America? Or is it a time where the clouds of a presidential fiats, Congressional abdications, and arrogant leadership darken the promise of the Founding Fathers? Thankfully, the answer lies with us–with our vote–with our desire to truly make this a nation of  “We the People”.

 

Follow me on Twitter @whitneypitcher.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dan Bongino: Principles Matter

by Whitney Pitcher

On Thursday, Governor Palin encouraged supporters to donate to Maryland Senatorial candidate Dan Bongino, noting that he could be the Senate candidate to help put Republicans over the top in the Senate. Bongino has the support of Governor Palin and Senator DeMint, the two leaders who are putting forth the strongest effort to ensure that Republicans regain a majority in the Senate. Following that tweet from Governor Palin, Bongino tweeted a thank you:

Principles matter.

This is something that Bongino understands very well. When Governor Palin endorsed Bongino, she noted, “Dan is not a politician, but he’s spent his career protecting them”. Bongino was a Secret Service agent serving under three presidents, while his opponent has been in political office since before Bongino was born. He touts his lack of political experience as a “badge of honor” and is glad he hasn’t “made  any deals” like a politician. He got into the race in 2011 with the backing of businessman and 2010 Maryland  gubernatorial candidate, Brian Murphy (whom Governor Palin endorsed in the 2010 primary).

Bongino puts principles over party, and notes, “I’m a conservative first, and a Republican as a method to get on a ballot”. He understands that crony capitalism is a major issue through all aspects of our government. When the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, Bognino released a statement noting not only the massive bureaucracy in Obamacare, but also its crony capitalism. This is something he also notes in  his stance on other key issues–such as energy policy and tax reform. He does not support energy subsidies, and he is in favor of simplifying the tax code because it’s “been riddled with ‘crony capitalist’ deductions for favored industries” and supports removing loopholes.

Principles matter, and Bongino realizes that. He won the GOP primary because of those principles, not because he kowtowed to the Republican establishment. One conservative Maryland blogger called Bongino a “defibrillator for a party in cardiac arrest”:

It wasn’t too long ago that Delegate Pat McDonough–who was also running for the Senate nomination,then wasn’t running, then was running again, then wasn’t running again but was still handing out campaign literature saying he was–accused Bongino’s campaign of being a “novelty act.”

“He’s done absolutely nothing for the Republican Party or for his community,” McDonough said. “You have these unknown people who come out of the woodwork who want to run for high office. It’s like joining the Catholic religion and wanting to be pope.”

This sort of petty narcissism seems endemic to the Republican Party nationally but seems particularly virulent in Maryland. Given that the so called “Free State” is being run over rough-shod by a Democrat Party monopoly, I’m not sure what these party insiders claim to have done for the party themselves. Dan Bongino has made it exciting to be a Republican in the state of Maryland, which is far more than some of his detractors have done. Dan is like a defibrillator for a state party in cardiac arrest.

He aims to win this Senate seat in deep blue Maryland because principles matters. Please take check out his latest web ad below, and visit his website here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hope and Change Re-Visited

by Whitney Pitcher

Recently,when Governor Palin released a statement indicating that she wouldn’t be speaking that RNC, she noted:

Everything I said at the 2008 convention about then-candidate Obama still stands today, and in fact the predictions made about the very unqualified and inexperienced Community Organizer’s plans to “fundamentally transform” our country are unfortunately coming true.

She is right. What Governor Palin predicted in her speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention has unfortunately come to fruition. In September of 2010, Stacy Drake and I  put together a post highlighting the prescience of just a three minute portion of her speech. Stacy put together the following video with that segment of the speech:

Nearly, two years have passed since we put together that post, and President Obama has fundamentally transformed our country even further. I’ve re-visited that portion of Governor Palin’s speech below to indicate what Governor Palin predicted that has actually come to pass over the past more than three and a half years. The text of her speech is in blue italics; President Obama’s “achievements” are in bold:

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word “victory” except when he’s talking about his own campaign

·          When President Obama has gave a major speech on the war strategy in Afghanistan at West Point in December 2009 without mentioning the word “victory” once.

·         In 2011, when he talked about ending US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, he mentioned the word victory only once in each speech—to reference the killing of Osama bin Laden during his administration which has been a key talking point of his campaign.  

But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed … when the roar of the crowd fades away … when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot — what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger:

·         The Obama administration has taken far greater regulatory and inhibitory control over:

·         Government growth

o    Under President Obama, government spending has been 24% of GDP, which is higher than the last 40 year average of 20.7%.

o    The number of federal employees has increased 6.2%.

take more of your money … give you more orders from Washington … and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world:

·         The ineptness of the Department of Homeland Security and the corruption of Department of Justice has left the border insecure, border control personnel dead, and American guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels under “Fast and Furious”.

·         During the Obama administration our debt has increased 50%, with about third of that debt held by foreign countries.

·         President Obama signed the START treaty which called for reduction of our nuclear arsenal. 

·          He also made cuts to our missile defense program. 

·         Under looming budget sequestration, the Defense budget would be cut by $500 billion over the next decade.

America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it. 

·         President Obama has doubled down on a jobs killing drilling moratorium  in the Gulf in spite of court rejection.

·         He has reduced drilling permitting 36%.

·         Energy development on federal land has decreased to its lowest levels since 2003.

·          While development on private lands has increased, even the LA Times concedes this is due to “decisions energy companies made during the Bush administration to develop key reservoirs”.

·         He opposed legislation to increase energy development in Alaska.

Victory in Iraq is finally in sight … he wants to forfeit.

Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions.

Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America. He’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights? 

·         Both the Christmas day bomber in 2009 and Time Square bomber in 2010 while both thankfully unsuccessful, had ties to al-Qaeda, and both men were read Miranda Rights.

Government is too big … he wants to grow it.

Congress spends too much … he promises more. 

·         In February 2009, President Obama signed a nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill.

·         An additional $17 billion stimulus bill in March 2010.

·         In July, President Obama signed a $105 billion transportation bill.

·         Continuing in the footsteps of President Bush, all three years of the Obama administration to date have included more than a trillion dollar deficits.

Taxes are too high … he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes … raise payroll taxes … raise investment income taxes … raise the death tax … raise business taxes … and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. 

·         President Obama has raised taxes or instituted new taxes 21 times since taking office, namely through cigarette tax hikes and Obamacare.

·         Additionally, his budgets, which haven’t gotten Congressional support, have called for tax increases:

o    In FY 2010, nearly a trillion in tax increases over a ten year period.

o    In FY2011, as Governor Palin predicted, Obama proposed to increase the death tax and investment taxes.

o    In FY 2012, President Obama proposed $1.5 trillion in tax increases over the next decade and 43 tax hikes.

o    In FY 2013, President Obama proposed $1.8 trillion in tax increases over the next decade.

·         Obamacare includes 18 new tax hikes, and  75% of  the “mandate” tax will fall on families earning less than $120,000, meaning President Obama broke his promise to not increase taxes on those making less than $250,000. 

My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that’s now opened for business — like millions of others who run small businesses.

How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you’re trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio … or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia … or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota. How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?

Those two questions were rhetorical questions in her speech, but they are questions that were facing today as well. She may have asked “how are you going to be better off”, but today, the question has expanded to include what are we going to do about it?  Governor Palin gave us her answer in the aforementioned RNC statement:

 I support Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in their efforts to replace President Obama at the ballot box, and I intend to focus on grassroots efforts to rally Independents and the GOP base to elect Senate and House members so a wise Congress is ready to work with our new President to get our country back on the right path. This is imperative.

Let’s get to work, grassroots!

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

President Obama: Distractor-in-Chief

by Whitney Pitcher

Last week, President Obama issued an executive order that would prevent deportation of illegal immigrants under the age of 30. Not only is this a grasp of unconstitutional power, it is a politically motivated, not a pure policy motivated decision. In the first nearly two years of his presidency, President Obama had a Democratically controlled House and a filabuster proof Senate until early 2010. He had every opportunity to push through immigration reform, but didn’t. Now, he has chosen to circumvent Congress and legislate from the executive branch in order to pander to a voting bloc. However, it is more than just pandering; it is distraction, just has been nearly every politically motivated decision he has made. While the economy remains in the toilet, people become distracted by President Obama’s newest shiny voting bloc du jour. It has become a pattern–both for the President and those of us who vehemently oppose his policies and approach.

Class warfare has been a part of President Obama’s rhetoric throughout his political career. However, it has ramped up as the election has drawn nearer. There was his “Kansas speech” which focused on income inequality and the rich paying their “fair share”, but nothing in his speech provided economic empowerment for the middle class he purports to stand with. Instead, he aimed to breed envy by pitting the wealthy against the middle class. Just as in his proposed “Buffet rule”, there was nothing that lowered Buffet’s secretaries taxes, only ideas that would raise Buffet’s taxes, which does extremely little for denting the deficit. While President Obama attempted to divide Americans into classes–a distraction–there was still nothing that would have provided more job opportunities, empowered the middle class by allowing them to keep more of what they earn, nor reduced the deficit. It was yet another political distraction.

Earlier this year, President Obama pounced on a poorly worded comment from Rush Limbaugh to fabricate a political meme of a Republican “war on women” when Republicans advocated for religious freedom for Catholic employers. Instead of focusing on economic empowerment of women by aiming to improve the economy, he again aimed to distract by turning those who supported contraceptive mandates against those who did not.He tried (and failed) to show how his policies would support women through the character of “Julia”, who really wasn’t economically empowered, but instead was government dependent. Meanwhile, the economy still suffered, and President Obama continued to try to distract using divisive issues.

He has done this with other demographic groups as well.  Obama has flip flopped on his views on gay marriage throughout his political career, yet at a time when 1 in 6 of his big donors are gay and following a mistimed statement by VP Biden, he felt the need to “evolve” yet again.  Again, another attempt to distract from a poor economy and pander to a voting bloc. He continues to push for student loan rate reductions in order to distract from a poor economy and pander to young voters. However, the rate reduction would only reduce monthly payments by an average of  just $7 a month. Also, with a poor economy, what jobs will these graduates have the opportunity to apply for or receive? Again, distraction.

President Obama promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term has instead increased the deficit dramatically. Also, as I noted in a previous post at Breitbart:

Additionally, his $862 billion stimulus package passed in January of 2009, which his administration claimed would prevent unemployment from going over 8%, has left a record of  39 straight months of unemployment over 8% in its wake. Fifty-six percent of likely voters want Obamacare—the President’s signature piece of legislation—repealed. Solyndra? Lightsquared?
Both are now bankrupt companies with campaign donor ties to President
Obama that received either loads of taxpayer dollars or preferential
treatment from the Obama administration. Fast and Furious?
A gun walking scheme that has left a border patrol agent dead, more
than a thousand guns missing, and the Obama administration culpable.

All of those issues are just a small sampling of his administration’s failures. It isn’t any wonder that he wants to distract and pander. He has lost an advantage is those voting blocs he won in 2008. He wants to distract and divide because if the electorate is focused on our differences, then we can’t be focused on the poor economy and unethical government that affect us all.  The socially charged issues the President brings up are indeed important, but they are a solely political means to an electoral end for this President. Distraction. With any policy, the policy itself must be the ends, not the means for for political expediency. The economy is bad for both citizens and illegal immigrants,rich or middle class, Catholic and non-Catholic, male and female, recent graduate or non-recent graduate, married or single, gay or straight. Don’t buy into the the divisive distraction.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Wayne Mazza: Are We United or Are We Divided

Publisher’s Note:

There is a bit of a an ongoing division among supporters of Sarah Palin. While most have accepted that she did not run for president, and will not be the Republican nominee for president, there is a still a group that refuses to accept this hard, cold fact.

These people see Mitt Romney as the Great Satan™ and think he’s as bad, or worse, than Barack Obama.

I don’t subscribe to that thinking. Like many Conservatives, I’m more concerned about the future of our country, than settling old scores. And believe me, there are plenty of old scores to settle with Team Romney, when it comes to Sarah Palin. And I do mean plenty.

Personally, I’m quite disturbed by those who refuse to accept that Mitt as the Republican nominee. It’s counterproductive, and wastes time that could be spent supporting actual candidates who are running for office. I’ve been and will continue to be quite vocal about this.

The only way we are ever going to reform the Republican Party, and ultimately government itself, is to support and elect principled Conservatives to Congress.

Sarah herself has constantly said one can’t place their hope in any one politician, and she’s right. You can’t tie your hopes and dreams to any politician. No matter who they are, they will let you down. All you can do is make the best of the situation in front of you.

Wayne Mazza is someone who’s thoughts we’ve shared with readers before, been well received. He’s a member of many Palin oriented groups on Facebook. Though he’s talking to these groups, he’s also talking to the rest of us as well.

While I don’t share Wayne’s idea that somehow there will be a divine intervention that will make Sarah the presidential nominee, I do share, and applaud, Wayne’s common sense approach to it all. He knows what is most important.

Sarah has a strong, passionate group of supporters. More loyal than I’ve seen to any candidate since Ronald Reagan. But there are some who get highly upset every time she endorses someone they don’t like, even though Sarah always explains herself and makes a solid case for that endorsement. Then there are those who refuse to accept reality, and for them it’s either Sarah or nothing.

Here Wayne tries to bring everyone together, and reminds everyone we must work toward the common goal of defeating Barack Obama. In order to defeat Obama, we’ll have to elect Mitt Romney. That’s our only option.

That doesn’t mean we can’t be critical of Romney, Lord knows I’m not going to let up on him one little bit. But I understand the future viability of the United States, as a nation, hangs in the balance. We have to decide which is more important, holding grudges as we watch America destroyed, or do something to stop the bleeding and at least get us back on the road to recovery.

The best way to honor Sarah Palin is to do everything in our power to help elect Conservative across the nation.

~ Gary

With that, take it away Wayne:


Are we United or are we Divided

By Wayne Mazza:

There are many groups and pages on Facebook dedicated to supporting Gov. Palin. It is great to see all the enthusiasm in spreading the ideals of this wonderful Northern light from Alaska, our Sarah.

Many of us have tried and continue to try to see that Gov. Palin is our nominee for president and insist she will be our next president. Others have accepted the fact that she will not be our nominee and are continuing to support her in other ways. Some of these ways are making contact with candidates she has endorsed to promote their election, putting together a game plan to see that if 2012 is not viable, she is our nominee in 2016.

These are good efforts on both sides of the coin. The important thing is that WE ALL ARE STILL SUPPORTING GOV. PALIN. That is where we are United in cause.

However, some are allowing emotion, not thought, to interfere and this is dividing us. I have seen groups disappear, people leaving one group for another, people being outright rude and cruel because other peoples thoughts do not line up with theirs.

There are people being criticized that have put a lot of effort into not only trying to get Gov. Palin elected, but to provide us all information to chew on. There are people leaving groups, going to other groups and using the new group as a platform to criticize the people of the group they left. What good is it to tear fellow conservatives down when we should be building them up. Hell, the DNC, LSM, and RNC is already doing that.

None of us are experts, at least I know I am not getting paid for my political knowledge, but we are all trying one way or another to support the most honest, trusted, and accomplished ex-politician since Reagan to see she becomes president this year or at another time.

This is no time to cannibalize one another just because we have differences. What we need to remember is to have respect and follow the rules of each group. In other words, if you want to talk “Sarah for president”, do it on groups that are pushing it, if you want to support her in other ways, go to the groups supporting that. We can do both, its not that hard.

How can we say we are supporters of Gov. Palin when you hear things like:

1. If Gov. Palin supports Romney, I am done with her.

2.She supported Hatch, she is a sellout, I am through with her.

3.If she is not the nominee, I am not voting.

I myself have had a change of thought. I myself had said I would do number three above, but I know in my heart that is foolishness and letting emotion rule my thoughts.

For Christians, we know the rules of this world mean nothing to God, that all things are possible with God regardless if Mitt Romney has 1144 delegates or 2000 hard delegates.

I know we are all praying for a miracle at the convention and I will hold strong for Gov. Palin. If it is God’s will for her to be the nominee it will be, but if that is not to be, then after that convention my priority shifts to what is best for this country.

I will not sit home on Nov. 6, 2012. My sole responsibility will be to go into that booth, and pull the lever for the Mittster if he is our nominee. But, and hear this but loud and clear, I will continue to help Gov. Palin in any way I can to save this country and that includes helping her get elected in 2016.

Try and look at the situation like a football team. Not everyone plays offense, or defense, or special teams. Not everyone is a quarterback or a running back, or a line backer or a lineman. But they all have one thing in common, they are a cohesive unit with the goal of winning. And winning is not the result in all games, but the big picture is to win enough to qualify for the Super Bowl, to win all the marbles “THE BIG PICTURE”.

Are we not all in our individual groups doing the same thing? The only difference is we are a bunch of parts trying to operate separately instead of together.

When I say together, I mean we can continue to work in our groups & pages but also help out in others and respect each other.

This bickering solves nothing, it only makes enemies. Good Grief, that is the DNC way not conservatives.

Again, I remind you all, if you truly support Gov. Palin, remember what Gov. Palin has said numerous times “ANYBODY BUT OBAMA”!!

I am sure what has been done to her and her family has been a bitter pill, but she has NOT LOST FOCUS ON THE PRIZE, and that prize is removing Obama from office.

We made two big mistakes this year, failure to educate the public on the her accomplishments, and getting state delegates early for her. We will not repeat those mistakes.

If we really have faith in Gov. Palin, follow her lead, help where you can, keep her and her family in your prayers. I trust her political instinct much more than myself.

I have made many friends on Facebook, and I will continue to have respect for your points of view.

God bless all of you, God bless Sarah and her family, and God Bless America.

8 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Why Senate Races Are the Most Important Races of 2012

by Whitney Pitcher

In an election year when there is a presidential election in addition to Congressional and statewide races, the presidential election often takes center stage. In some respects, this is understandable. The president comprises the head of one of the three branches of our constitutional republic.However, the focus on the presidency is indicative of a government whose balance of power has gotten out of whack. For starters, we have crept away from our Constitutional foundation where the federal government’s power is limited, and the states’ power is appropriate. Even in our federal government, the scales of power have been tipped. Congress has willingly abdicated its legislative powers to unelected executive branch agencies who legislate under the guise of regulation. Couple the extensive powers of agencies and departments like the EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security with the increasing frequency of executive orders in the last 100+ years, it is clear that the branches of government have been twisted. Additionally, with each Supreme Court decision, judicial precedence becomes the new guiding force rather than the true precedence–the Constitution.

One of the reasons our Founders created this three branch system of government was to provide a check and balance, not only to provide a check to each branch’s adherence to the Constitution or ideology, but also to each branch’s power. The election later this year has the potential to re-elect an extremely progressive president or elect an unprincipled “Republican”. This election year also will indicate whether we maintain a GOP House or flip it, Somewhat lost in the shuffle is that this election year also determines whether or not Republicans regain control of the Senate or at least pick up some seats. Regardless of who is elected President, there are several reasons why the Senate is especially crucial, as the Constitution has given Senators different powers or responsibilities than their counterparts in the House.

One of the responsibilities that the Senate specifically has is the ratification of treaties. In late 2010, we saw a Democratic majority Senate (with a good deal of moderate Republicans joining in) ratify the START treaty . This treaty with Russia was rushed through by America, only to have the Russians sit on the treaty before ratifying it themselves. With President Obama recently noting to Russian President Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility after the election”, this would prove to be a motivator for conservatives if Obama were to be re-elected. A strong conservative Senate would be crucial in preventing the President from entering into more treaties that may not be in America’s best interest, nor in the interest of an ally like Poland. Between President Obama scrapping a missile defense program in Poland on the 70th anniversary of Soviet invasion of Poland and his gaffes in discussing “flexibility” with the Russian President and in referring to Nazi death camps as Polish death camps, it would be important to have a Senate who would stand with America’s allies and not aim to weaken our country. In the same vein, discussion has opened up again recently over the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) in the Senate. If this treaty were to be ratified, it would require that America pay royalties ,which would be distributed to poor underdeveloped countries, on energy development done in certain arctic regions. This would abdicate American sovereignty by implementing a global redistribution of wealth from energy production on what are really American seas. This is in addition to the limits on sea travel and naval activity. If this is ultimately not voted upon during this session, a conservative Senate would be a big deterrent in its ratification regardless of whether Obama’s Secretary of State were to push for the treaty again or if a Romney administration were to advocate for its approval.

Another  important responsibility given to the Senate is the approval of judicial and cabinet appointments. A strong conservative Senate would help keep President Obama in check when he attempts to appoint a new Secretary of State, if he is re-elected. Current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, although quite liberal, was palatable enough to be confirmed by the Senate in 2009. However, she has opted not to serve in Obama’s second term if he is re-elected. A conservative Senate would ideally help ensure that President Obama would appoint a more palatable liberal, rather than one who is a radical. We saw earlier in his term when President Obama attempted to appoint radical Donald Berwick to head Medicare, the blowback from Republicans and conservatives was strong enough to prompt President Obama to appoint Berwick during a Senate recess. Berwick later resigned from his post.  This check and balance would be even more pronounced if the Senate were to not only become more Republican, but more conservative as well. Additionally and probably most importantly, a strong conservative is needed when a new Supreme Court nominee is appointed. There is the potential for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg to retire. Would a President Obama appoint another justice to perpetuate judicial activism for even longer in that seat? Additionally, there is potential that if a Republican were to win, Justices Roberts and Scalia would retire in order for more justices to be appointed by a Republican president. For the most part, with the blocked appointment of Robert Bork being a notable exception, the Senate confirms the President’s nominees to the bench. However, would Senate confirmation hearings of Obama’s appointees be more rigorous with a conservative Senate, or would they be bold enough to block a radical appointee? On the flip side, would a conservative Senate hold a Romney administration accountable in appointing a true originalist judges to the bench, even in spite of his poor record of judicial appointments as governor? Romney often blames Democratic control in Massachusetts as a source of his failings. Would a conservative Senate hold him accountable to make wise decisions? Not only in potential judicial appointees, but also in his own cabinet, as again, he did a poor job with some other appointees as governor and even to date as the presumed GOP nominee.It is important that the Senate provides a conservative and constitutional check to whomever is elected President in November.

Suffice it to say, the 33 Senate seats up for grabs this November are extremely important, not only in working with their bicameral buddies in the House, but also in providing a much needed check to whomever occupies the White House and whomever may be placed on the judicial bench. In order to slowly but surely try to bring our nation back to its true Constitutional foundation, we must ensure that principled conservatives are elected in 2012. Most conservatives are disenchanted by our presidential prospects, but we have every reason to be inspired by the foundational principles found in our Constitution. We must remember, though, as the father of our Constitution, James Madison, once noted, “if men were angels, no government would be necessary”. Men are not angels, and yet another blessing of our republic is that we get to elect our leaders from amongst our fallible selves. It is inherent in our human nature that our leaders will be flawed.Therefore, it is important for us to elect from among the flawed human candidates out there those who have the best grasp of our Constitution so that they may exercise those powers and responsibilities that they swear an oath to uphold to the best of their abilities. Let’s remind our leaders that the Constitution still begins with “We the People”, and let’s ensure we have a Senate that lives that message out in their leadership.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Phillip Klein: Romney is Lucky Santorum, not Sarah Palin, was His Rival

By Gary P Jackson

My guess is we are about to see a lot of articles stating the obvious. Of course, had Sarah Palin ran for the Republican nomination, things would look quite different right now. There is no doubt that she would have been the leading “Not Romney” candidate, but it goes farther than that.

If you look back to last year, after Palin announced she wouldn’t run, you had nothing but “flavor of the week candidates rise to the top at breakneck speed, only to crash and burn with the same velocity.

About the only thing any of these candidates had going for them was they were not Mitt Romney. Santorum just happened to be the last somewhat viable “ flavor of the week” still standing.

Yes, I know Newt is still out there, but the guy is nearly $5 million in debt and bouncing checks. He’s done.

Sarah Palin, unlike the others, would have brought something to the table other than being a “Not Romney” candidate. Sarah has two decades of successful public service. She was an accomplished mayor, and oil and gas regulator, as well as the highest rated governor in the country. She has the best fiscal record of any governor who ran. Her Conservative bonafides are beyond question, as are her leadership skills.

One thing more, unlike Romney, or any of the other candidates, Sarah Palin has a strong base of dedicated supporters. The kind of supporters who don’t just vote, or donate money. Palin supporters are the type who get out and knock doors, man phone banks, and find other ways to actively support her.

Sarah energized a dead McCain campaign in 2008. She was far and away the one Conservatives wanted to see run against Obama. To this day she is more popular than Mitt Romney, or any of the other candidates in the race, and thought to be the unity candidate had there been a brokered convention.

Here’s what Klein has to say:

As he approaches the task of uniting the Republican party ahead of his all but official general election campaign, Mitt Romney will benefit from the same reality that’s worked to his favor the entire race — the composition of the Republican field. Specifically, Romney is fortunate that he had to beat out Rick Santorum to claim the nomination rather than Sarah Palin.

When Romney decided to seek the presidency for the second time, his moderate to liberal record in Massachusetts was bound to trigger a challenge from the right and set up a showdown, framed in shorthand, as the establishment of the party versus the conservative base.

Had Palin been in the race as the conservative alternative, it would have been very difficult for Romney to attack her given the passionate following she has among many conservatives, because he wouldn’t want to risk alienating them. Even if he had ultimately triumphed after a brutal primary fight, a lot of her loyal supporters would have found it difficult to bury the hatchet for the general election.

By contrast, Santorum came into the race with a very small following and was polling in the low single digits early on. Only when a number of other hopefuls fizzled did he emerge as the conservative alternative to Romney. Don’t get me wrong, as I wrote earlier, I think Santorum raised his profile over the course of the race and proved to be a tenacious campaigner. But the point is that Santorum’s support was as much about him being a vehicle for those who wanted to stop Romney than it was about a groundswell of support for him personally. His defeat is a disappointment to his supporters, no doubt, but less likely to sting as badly for as many people as a Palin defeat would have. Now that the primary is over, it will be a lot easier for Santorum voters to get behind Romney in the general election than it would have been for Palin given her built in fan base.

There is already a built-in animosity between Palin supporters and Romney’s hard core supporters. Romney has a reputation of using surrogates to do his dirty work, and even during the 2008 campaign, some of those closest to Romney were attacking Sarah Palin. It’s Romney people that still spout the left wing talking points when talking about Sarah.

While most of us, including Sarah herself, will support Romney if he is the nominee, only because beating Obama is that important, you can bet had Sarah ran for president, Mitt Romney would have been beaten and beaten badly.

Sarah would have been the nominee, and the next President.

You can also bet you’ll see a lot more authors, and party leaders, lamenting the fact Sarah didn’t run, before everything is said and done

3 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin