Oct 21 2008

Sarah Palin Is The GOP Leader For The Future

Let me remind all those frustrated conservatives across the spectrum who, in one way or another, allowed the Democrats to take Congress in 2006. Many stayed home, others were tired of being belittled as impure conservatives and voted democrat. Both the moderate and far right were going to teach each other a lesson with Democrats in charge and screwing up our country.

Let’s end that nonsense this year. We don’t need to see what Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried will do to illustrate the fact liberal policies are dangerous and naive when compared to reasonable conservative policies. Enough of the infighting and petulance. Let the Noonans and Brooks and Frums implode. This is the year the heartland conservatives can take control from the talking heads of the Political Industrial Complex.

This is the year we could begin the conservative age of Sarah Palin – America’s version of Maggie Thatcher. Sarah Palin will do at least one stint as VP, maybe two. She will do two stints at President, mark my words. And there is no reason to delay that time coming to America. Look at the enthusiastic crowds she garners in debates (a record viewing audience) on the trail (record crowds for a VP) and on SNL (record ratings). Just look at how well she just did in Colorado recently with 22,000 people attending!


John McCain did the GOP and America a huge favor in selecting Palin. He established the next conservative wave, and it will be coming straight out of the heartland and Main Street USA. We will take this country back from the elites in the Political Industrial Complex if we simply get off our butts, grab about 5 friends and march to the polls. Because when the broad conservative movement marches to the polls, we will be symbolically marching on DC and the corruption and cronyism that has become so entrenched it has led this nation into a rut.

I have a special message to all American women, Palin is going to shatter that glass ceiling once and for all, and yes that alone is worth a lot to this country. Remember, your daughters and sisters could grow up in a country where women are now absolute equals. Or we can wait another quarter of a century and let men run the country. I for one don’t feel like explaining to my three daughters why their sex has to be perfect to lead this country when we have seen so many flawed men strive for and win the job. There is no perfect woman coming to win the presidency. There never will be since one doesn’t exist.

We can change DC – vote McCain-Palin.

37 responses so far

37 Responses to “Sarah Palin Is The GOP Leader For The Future”

  1. Newton says:

    The VP is designated as the president of the Senate in article 1 of the US Constitution: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” It does not further define the role of President of the Senate.

  2. owl says:

    norm……you just had to throw in that Joe is not licensed. Thanks. My Dad was a ‘licensed’ worker that paid his Union dues until the day he died. Thank goodness, in the midst of all that, he started a small successful business. Also thank goodness, he never had to unionize his employees, otherwise, he would never have gotten off the ground. Just the flip side of that coin. I think it’s a CRIME that someone forces you to pay money to WORK.

    Joe asked a question of a politician that likes to talk about dreams. Did you ever see the entire thing? Obama was knocking on doors. He was getting all this free media and showing he was the common man. Joe was in own street, in front of HIS home. He asked his dream question to the dreamer. He never said he owned a business. He never said he made 250. The Dem’s media soldiers attacked. He answered back. He was not afraid of having his dirty laundry aired by their army. I really admire Joe. He’s the kind of guy that if he had to choose between saving his dog or his son, he would not consider that a hard choice. Neither would Palin. You are probably right about the bridge. So?

  3. conman says:


    You are raising a really good point and I’d especially like AJ to respond since he has been so critical of the so-called immigration ideologues. I’ve thought for some time that AJ and others are increasingly taking the same approach with respect to anyone who dares question or criticize Palin. Long time conservatives who raise questions about Palin’s ability to be POTUS are routinely shouted down as traitors, idiots or possessing some malicious ulterior motive simply for disagreeing. Even well-respected GOP heros, like Colin Powell, are thrown under the bus in an instant and reduced to nothing more than their race (because everyone knows that all black people vote only for other blacks) simply for expressing his opinion about McCain/Palin (to AJ’s credit, he has not adopted this sad tactic with respect to Powell). AJ even invented a new group – the Political Industrial Complex – so that he can neatly categorize everyone who doesn’t fawn over Palin as not being true conservatives in the first place. I see no difference between the Palin ideologues and the immigration ideologues – both presume there belief is central to being a conservative and the future of the GOP, and anyone who questions or disagrees is marginalized as not being a true conservative.

    I also believe that the Palin ideologues are going to have the same effect on the GOP in 2008 that the immigration ideologues had in the 2006 election. They continue to divide the Republican party at a time when the party desperately needs to unite in order to right itself. The Palin lovers don’t admire her because she has the economic or foreign policy credentials to deal with the major economic and foreign policy crises our country faces. They love her because she is an outsider, a regular person and holds strong core Republican values. But the moderate wing of the GOP doesn’t care about these issues during these times – they care about solving these crises and above all else want someone capable of handling it. They also want to break from the old style Republican base approach because it’s no longer working and is not as important given the more immediate problems our country faces. Palin offers neither and yet when they try to push the party back to the middle they are thrown out by AJ and other Palin purist.

    If Palin is truly the future of the GOP and the best they have to offer, which I feel confident will not be the case, then prepare yourselves for a long ride of Democratic rule.

  4. norm says:

    owl…licenses and unions have nothing to do with each other. i have fought unions. more than once.
    i never said what you say i said. sam the unlicensed plumber claimed he was going to buy a plumbing business and that obama’s tax plan would make it impossible. it turned out that he had no real plan to buy the business, was not licensed to run that business, and would actually benefit from obama’s tax plan. joe the plumber, like sarah the reformer, is a myth…a shiny object to distract the far right from the real issue(s).

  5. Newton says:


    I agree I would like AJ to post on why he marginalizes all those that disagree with him on any given issue in this way.

    I don’t agree that Palin’s not the face of the GOP. I feel that conservatives are elected when they act conservative. This is based on a common philosophy, not just “economic and foreign policy credentials” (whatever that is).

    The GOP lost it’s conservative principals and that is the reason they lost in ’06, not the opposite. They lost because they weren’t idealogical enough. It is easier to call anyone that you disagree with a “purist” than to advance a well reasoned argument. You first decry the use of this tactic and then use it to marginalize those you disagree with!

  6. Doesn’t it bother you folks how Joe is being investigated?

    How much longer are you people going to miss the bigger issues.

    The Nazi’s, Commies, Evil ones are investigating a private citizen minding his own BI.

    What are we waiting for? Should we wait till they march him off to a camp for being a subversive?

    If Obama gets in talk radio is finished. So where does the truth or information of what is going on come from.

    The News Media. ROTFLMAO. The internet, anything detrimental is deleted.

    Please start using logic, not ego.

  7. conman says:


    I think your mixing apples and oranges when you suggest I’m using the same tactics I’m decrying. I’m not a conservative or a Republican. When I disagree with AJ and many others on this site it is usually because I have different beliefs/positions on many of the core issues. That is a different circumstance than the issue you raised, which involves disagreements over a single issue among people that largely share the same beliefs. When a conservative/Republican attacks a fellow conservative/Republican for not being a true conservative simply because they disagree on a single issue, despite the fact they share the same essential beliefs or values, that is what I call marginalizing. Two totally different circumstances in my book.

    While you are correct that part of the problem with the GOP is that it lost its conservative principles, I don’t think it is that simply. There are a number of contributing factors. One reason the GOP has declined is that some of its bread-and-butter policies are not nearly as much of a draw to voters. For instance, family value issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) have been a core principle of the GOP that has been very effective in attracting voters prior to the 2006 election. I don’t think the GOP abandoned these principles, I think the problem has been that more and more voters began to realize that these social issues are not nearly as important to their daily lives as other issues, such as economic policies, foreign policies, etc. That is what I meant by economic and foreign policy credentials – voters are more concerned about candidates positions on economic and foreign policy issues and don’t care as much as they previously did about the fringe issues.

    Another problem is that some of the core conservative beliefs have been called into question based on the last few years and recent events. For example, the GOP has long been the strong free market/deregulation party. While there is a lot of argument as to what really caused the current economic problem, I believe that a growing segment of voters are concluding that the lack of regulations is the primary cause or significantly contributed to the current economic situation and that the pure “free market” theory is a farce when you have the government bailing out the private industry when things fell apart. I must say that I get quite a laugh seeing conservatives warn about a socialist Obama at the same time Bush is nationalizing banks and throwing billions of dollars at Wall Street.

    Finally, I think that the GOP has in certain respects attempted to redefine conservative principles in a way that has hurt them. The Iraq war is the best example. Historically, conservatives have been generally against foreign intervention, nation building and being the world police unless it is absolutely essential to our security interests. The GOP abandoned these principles when it came to Iraq – adopting for the first time ever a preemptive strike theory that we should invade countries to take out hostile leaders even if there is no immediate security threat, advocating the necessity of being the world cop responsible for freeing oppressed people and supporting endless nation building efforts even if it is a major drain on our economy and military. And yet it is largely assumed that supporting the Iraqi war is a conservative position. I don’t think the majority of the country agrees – that is why there is still a majority of the country that does not support the current Iraq policy notwithstanding the significant improvements brought about by the surge.

    There is one position that AJ has consistently advocated that I agree with – the country is tired of divisive partisanship and wants our leaders to govern from the middle. The Democrats have been slowly moving to the middle since they lost big in 1994. Clinton ran and governed as a moderate Democrat and the blue dog Democrats are increasingly influential. These efforts to moderate the party have been part of the reason the country has been shifting to the Democrats side. The GOP needs to adopt this same strategy moving forward – stop playing to the base and become a more inclusive party. That is why I think that despite Palin’s popularity with the GOP base, she has hurt the party because she provides nothing for moderate conservatives to get excited about. And when these moderates are cast aside as traitors for not embracing her, they begin to think that maybe they should support the Democrats and/or risk the further decline of the party so it can be remade into something that reflects more conventional conservatism.

  8. BarbaraS says:

    but all of the Conservatives that are looking for a pure conservative (or whatever they think is a pure Conservative)

    According to these pundits a conservative is anyone who agrees with them. I never understood why these pundits moaned and groaned about McCain winning the primary and trashing him. What did they hope to accomplish? He was the nominee and the alternative was so bad. Did it help for them to turn other republicans against McCain? I have no patience with them. McCain was never my choice but in many elections I have voted for the lessor of two evils and probably will again in the future.

    These pundits need to get real about Palin too. The real problem with them is they feel she is not sophisticated enough for them and she did not go to an ivy league college. Their whole attitude is if a person went to a college in middle American that degree is worthless which in turn alienates all of middle America who went to these colleges or to no college at all. I have known people with personalities like Palin. Very outgoing and sure of themselves. I am glad to see someone like her on the political scene because I feel she will not be swayed by the Washington DC cocktail circuit as so many other republicans have been. She is real and does not depend on the opinions of others to guide her actions. I like her very much and am proud that she draws the crowds she does. I do feel she is the future of the party and will do great things for this country.

    BTW, the trolls seem to out in force today. What’s the matter? Are they worried about something?

  9. LJStrata says:

    Just thought I’d let ya all know that AJ is in a different time zone so he’ll be sure to comment once the sun comes up.

  10. bush_is_best says:

    Yeah, we’re worried that a certain half of America might pull the upset, and embarrass the rest of America in front of the world, again.

    Here’s a question for you:

    Why do world citizens support Obama over McCain 4 to 1?

    The president has been called the “leader of the free world”, and while we know (so don’t use this as an answer) that it is our vote alone to cast, many people around the world see the American election as having an effect on their lives, or at least a passing interest.

    Lets hope at least one person out there has the ability to answer this question objectively, fairly, and honestly. My guess is that there is not even one person who fits that description here. But then again, this is undoubtedly the same half of America who don’t have passports. Surprise me, someone, please.

    Since you dismiss all polls with information counterproductive to your beliefs, go choose another one, any one, anywhere, or visit any other country and see for yourself. Go on… Here it is anyway:


    Its just a question. Answer it.

  11. missy1 says:

    “World citizens” do not pay our taxes, support our Constitution or protect our shores. What do you see the “world citizens” doing for this country that compares to what we have regularly done for them? Some actually show their appreciation by denigrating this noble nation, perhaps the majority like three fourths.

    I don’t live my life to please the next door neighbor and don’t see the need for this country to run according to the wishes of “world citizens.” Evidently they lack enough confidence in their own countries to view us as the “leader of the free world.” They should stop whining about the neighbor with the big house and focus on bringing their own up to speed at least show appreciation for the neighbor that has always been there to help them.

  12. dave m says:

    So called world citizens support Obama because they think he is
    like them. And they are shiit scared. A period of peace is coming to
    an end and they can sense it though they don’t want to talk about it.

    Snipped from an essay “The Peace of Vichy” over at
    “They don’t hate us because of Bush; or even because of Iraq; they hate us because we are one of the last bastions of hope for freedom and democracy in the world and we’re willing to fight for it, to put our lives on the line for it. We’re an embarrassing reminder, we represent something they have long ago abandoned: manly honor and moral integrity. So they want an nonthreatening Muslim-friendly Chamberlain to represent them in the world court and to sue for peace with the Devil.”

    Europe supports Obama because they think they’ll have a few more years
    of peace. Declining freedoms, yes of course, but please let us dance
    a bit longer, please.

    Europe supports other nonsense, the idea that trillions should be thrown
    at “climate change”, though the dreaded global warming trend is
    already over. It was due to natural phenomena, ocean currents
    and sunspots. We didn’t have anything to do with it.

    Europe wants to throw hundreds of billions at Africa, because the
    money we sent there before has done such good.

    If these were just fairy stories, they would be expensive but of not
    too much harm. But there is more.

    Despite all the hoping, Obama cannot change the level of the seas
    anymore than he can stop the neutrons in a fission chain reaction,
    and several of those are coming to America. Sooner if we elect
    Obama. So sorry NYC. So sorry DC. So sorry London.
    We gave peace a chance. Don’t ya just feel all warm and cuddly?
    Liberals – it’s like they all have Amy WInehouse syndrome.

  13. Newton says:


    I don’t think you could be more wrong. The Republicans have lost influence because they have abandoned the core conservative principals of smaller government and lower taxes for “compassionate conservatism”. The democrats have made partisanship part of the fabric of Washington and yet not been held accountable at the ballot box. Look at the very vocal and very strident partisan rhetoric of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other prominent Democrats. If the American people wanted less partisanship why not throw out the Democrats? They are saying by way of the ballot box that they want more, not less partisanship.

    The Republicans lost in 2006 because there was a pervasive opinion among the electorate that they been corrupted by Washington – does “culture of corruption” ring a bell?. Abandoning conservatism to become Democrats has been tried and has not worked. Conservatives may have to allow the Liberals to plunge the country once again into malaise that culimnated in the 70’s – upper tax rates were over 70% and unemployment was 10%, interest rates were 14% and inflation was 10%. These facts followed 70 Years of Liberal rule ( Ford and Nixon were liberal Republicans) that began in the depression.

    Only a Liberal would believe the current financial crisis has been caused by too little regulation. The Community Reinvestment act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Mark to Market rules and blockage of reforms by Democrats caused the crisis. Congress required relaxation of underwriting rules, Sarbanes-Oxley required Mark to Market and “Greedy” Wall Street CEO’s walked through the door opened by congress by Securitizing mortgages, Mark to Market required the immediate write down of mortgage securities to prevailing market price rendering the banks holding them insolvent (without Mark to Market the banks would hold the securities at their book value). Liberal Democrats oversaw the entire process. Walter Reins ran Freddie Mac, Bill Clinton appointed Mario Cumo to HUD while Chris Dodd and Barney Frank blocked all reforms. All the time Republicans either participted or stood by in the name of bipartisanship.

  14. bush_is_best says:

    The citizens of the entire world are all dumb, except for the ones who live in rural America and believe the same things you do. Riiiiiight. That’s what I thought you’d say… and you wonder why the election isn’t tipping in your favor…

  15. conman says:


    I don’t have time to respond to all of your points, so we will have to agree to disagree on many of these issues. Although you may be surprised to know that I agree that the Democratic Congressional leadership is too partisan and quite frankly I’d like to fire Pelosi and Reid because I hardly think they are the best the Democrats have to offer.

    But I do need to respond to your comments about the cause of economic crises because it is indicative of the typical Republican response that I believe is misleading. I don’t disagree that Democrats and Republicans are both partially responsible for the crises, but I do believe that Republican policies/legislation and the lack of regulation are the major causes of the current crises.

    You, like most Republicans, place the primary blame for the subprime loan problem that precipitated the crises on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The problem with that theory is that the 2008 Federal Reserve Board data shows that: (1) more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions; and (2) Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. It also demonstrates that only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the Community Reinvestment Act regulatory reforms that Republicans repeatedly cite as the cause behind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html. Blaming the entire subprime loan crises on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a red herring – they were only responsible for a small percentage of the overall subprime loans.

    While the Community Reinvestment Act certainly may have contributed to the current problems, you conveniently overlook the fact that the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (sponsered by McCain’s economic advisor, Phil Gramm), also known as the “Financial Services Modernization Act,” repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act prohibiting a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act. This act of deregulation, allowing banks for the first time since 1933 to get involved in more risky investments, commercial banking, and insurance services, is a major reason that our banks took on such risky investments that are causing such huge losses today.

    Your point about Sarbanes-Oxley and Mark to Market rules has two problems. First, Sarbanes-Oxley was passed in 2002, when Republicans controlled the House and White House. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act. Democrats certainly supported the bill, but Republicans took the lead on it. Second, while Sarbanes-Oxley required the use of Mark to Market rules (in an attempt to combat the Enron accounting scanadal), Mark to Market rules have been around and being used by big banks and corporations since the 1980s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_to_market. I find it hard to believe that its impact on our current economic crises laid dormant for almost 30 years.

    You also completely overlook the problems associated with the use of financial leverage mechanisms, in particualr the credit default swap (CDS) market. On September 23, 2008, Christopher Cox, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, placed the worldwide CDS market at $58 trillion, and stated it was “completely lacking in transparency and completely unregulated.” To put that number in perspective, the U.S. GDP for 2007 was $13.8 trillion and the world’s GDP for 2007 was estimated at $54.3 trillion. The size of this market increased four-fold in the last 3 years alone. Sorry, but I think this approximate $60 trillion completely unregulated market has something to do with the current problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap.

  16. missy1 says:

    bib, good grief. I live in the suburbs of Chicago and Davem lives across the English Channel from…….Europe!

    Neither of us insulted anyone’s intelligence in our replies. Your response makes no sense.

  17. Newton says:


    The basic point was that more regulation or relaxed regulations did not cause the problem. I have never pinned the primary cause of the financial crisis on the GSE’s – but they were a part of the problem. The root cause was relaxed lending standards. The CRA was a contributor, by applying constant regulatory pressure (through HUD and Treasury) to relax lending standards for 30 years. Banks were alternatively incentivised and punished for redlinning. Credit was made cheap by the fed, lending standards were relaxed, and mortgages were securitized. All three pieces had to be in place. Relaxed regulations very little to do with it…nor would more regulations have prevented it.. Mark to Market caused bank ratios to go upside down when the market value of mortgage securities tanked. Yes it does gall me that Republicans had a hand in this.