Picture of the Top Tier Democratic Candidates at Yesterday's Debate

“I’m looking forward to voting for the first REPUBLICAN woman President.”  (Laura Bush on CNN, June 20, 2007)

 

“Mrs. Bush, do we have a deal for you!”  (Me, along with the other Palin supporters)

 

 

Hi Steve (e-mail to me from a potential Palin Supporter):

Thanks for the rousing endorsement of my blog! I appreciate your enthusiasm, conviction and positive words.

I haven't had much time to read everything about Gov. Palin yet, but after the little ones are in bed later, I will spend some time on it.

I wanted to ask you a couple questions ... looking for your gut reactions and honest opinions here ...

1. Gov. Palin, being from Alaska, is as unknown as a candidate could be (unless I was running of course .... talk about "unknown"!). Do you see that as something that could truly be overcome? There are people in the US that view Alaska as another country (same with Hawaii).

2. Gov. Palin is VERY young (politically speaking) ... goodness, she's younger than me! Little national political experience. People who look seriously at the VP candidate, look for someone who would be able to take over as President and represent the US on a world stage.

3. I have heard some rumblings/rumors that JC Watts from Oklahoma might make an excellent VP candidate. I am more familiar with Congressman Watts and wonder what your thoughts might be on that, and maybe give your comparison between the former congressman and Gov. Palin.

OK - enough for now. Suddenly I feel like I am giving a final exam to a Civics Class!

I look forward to your thoughts.

 

“Mommie with a doctorate”

 

 

Hi MommieDoc:  Good questions.  As you'll note on my site and others, we've talked a lot about the need to "change the code."  The Democrats could be running (Pres.) a woman and a Black man (VP) or a white woman and a Hispanic (Richardson).  Few Americans would have imagined that even a few years ago.  Mike Huckabee is an ordained minister, and he’s a serious candidate for the ticket.  

As I've said, we shouldn't run against the Dems the same two "older white guys in gray suits."   I'm an older white guy, but in shorts because it's 85 degrees here.

(1) Our governor in PA is Ed Rendell, and the guy in NY State is Elliott Spitzer, and I doubt many people known them.  I think Sarah is pretty well-known in the National Governors Association.  She's a very aggressive leader in Alaska.  I think she could get known in a hurry, much as has happened with Obama.  She’s an expert on energy.  Her husband is a "normal" guy, a commercial fisherman and oil field production worker.  He's now a "house husband."   People ask me what's her position on immigration.  I seriously doubt she has a position, and that may be a plus.  (They want people to come to Alaska, not to stay out.)  She is Christian, pro-life,  pro-family, and pro-traditional family. 

Age: She will be nearly 45 when she is inaugurated as VP in January, 2009.  Here are some comparisons:  John Edwards just turned 54, and he was was 51 when he ran for V-P in 2004 and basically had little "national" experience

Barack Obama will be 46 soon.  He's been a Senator for two-plus years.  Sarah's children are mostly older than Obama's.

Sarah is 43, the same age JFK was when he was elected Presiden.

(2)  She’s been Mayor of Wasilla, a small but fast-growing city for two terms.  Before that, she served on the City Council.  She ran for LT. GOV and lost (see the picture on my site).  She ran for governor in the primary against Republican Frank Murkowski, the incumbent, and won (to everyone's amazement).  She then ran against a guy named Tony Knowles, a former Democratic governor, and won by 8 percentage points (again, amazing a lot of people).  

Her major issue has been taking on the Big Oil companies in Alaska (who are used to running everything) and telling them she now runs everything.  The key issue in Alaska is a natural gas pipeline to take huge amount of gas to the lower-48.  I believe she can deal with the "big boys."  You will hear she is a conservative "populist."  What that means is that she is very people-oriented and believes that the state's resources should go in large part to the benefit of Alaskans.

(The palinforvp.blogspot.com, linked on my blogroll, has information about the politics of Alaska and some of the political battles she's been in.)

(3)  I have mentioned J. C. Watts in talking about V-P candidates.  The other ones I've mentioned are, of course, Sarah, Michael Steele (Black man, former LT. GOV. of Maryland and a candidate in 2006 for the U.S. Senate, wonderful man); Condi Rice (you know who she is, but she’s not a candidate) and Mike Huckabee. 

The polls say Mrs. Clinton has an unfavorability rating nationally of about 45%.  Right now, Sarah's unfavorability rating nationwide is about zero. 

Sarah is very ambitious -- hey, you better be in that business!  I expect her to surface in a big way later this summer.  I believe there's a good chance she will be a candidate for President in 2016, or maybe 2012 if Hillary Clinton wins the next election. 

I think the  pictures on my site tell a lot about Sarah Palin. 

I hope you'll endorse her today.  If you change your mind later, I'll still like you just fine, but we're at the point where we are establishing a foundation.  Supposedly, once you have a foundation, the house sort of builds itself. 

Sarah appeals to some groups where the Party has trouble, including women like you (professionals, mothers concerned about what's going to happen in regard to their children's futures, etc.)   I expect Hillary Clinton to go after Sarah at some point, and I expect Mrs. Clinton to lose that one.  In her campaign for Governor, she said Alaska politics was "dominated by an Old Boys Club."  She closed down the Club.

Would love your support.

steve maloney

Sanity102 (http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com) is a woman who's written on her blog about Sarah, including one amazing column called "The White Goddess."  You'll find a link to Sanity on my blogroll.

Is Sarah aware of all this activity?  I believe she and her staff are very aware.  They have said nothing, and I don't expect them to until maybe this fall.

When you have some time, take a look at www.irey.com.  It's the site of a candidate I worked with in her race for Congress (against John Murtha).  Diana is another candidate who's 44 but looks 34.  She's wonderful and has national aspirations herself. 

Thanks for your interest.  C'mon in, the water's fine. 

 

Later today, I’ll add some comments about “regional identity,” and whether the GOP will insist on having a Southerner on the ticket.

NOTE TO VISITORS LEARNING ABOUT GOV. SARAH PALIN AND CONSIDERING WHETHER TO ENDORSE HER:  I'M GOING TO LEAVE THE PHOTOS "CURRENT" AND ADD TO THEM, BECAUSE I THINK THEY TRULY ARE WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS.  THE EFFORT TO BRING THIS FINE WOMAN TO NATIONAL PROMINENCE IS ONE BY A RELATIVE FEW PEOPLE NOW -- AND MANY PEOPLE LATER -- TO CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF OUR BELOVED (BUT CONTENTIOUS) NATION.  TOMORROW (WELL, ABOUT MIDNIGHT TUESDAY) THERE WILL BE A COLUMN ABOUT QUESTIONS PEOPLE HAVE RAISED CONCERNING THE VIABILITY OF SARAH'S CANDIDACY.  (SHORT VERSION: SHE'S VERY VIABLE.)  PLEASE AVOID THE RUSH AND GIVE HER YOUR BACKING NOW. 

Today's (Tuesday's) Campaign2008Victory has a guest column from Madeline's Dad on Sarah Palin, as well as several graphics of Sarah and her family.  My favorite is Sarah as a basketball star at the Wasilla state championship city.  If you're interested in being a "Blogger 4 Palin," please let me know in the comments section or in an e-mail to TalkTop65@aol.com.  Thanks for your support!


The following post is from Madeline's Dad.  Thanks, "Mad's Dad" 

Note:  Thanks to Christopher, a YoungRepublican (http://youngrepublican.townhall.com) for signing up today as a "Blogger 4 Palin."  People supporting Sarah are part of what Ronald Regan called a "Big Tent," a diverse group of people supporting the Republican ticket.

Today, BlackTygrrrr - four "r's" please - asked me to: (1) check out his blog; (2) put it on my blogroll - if I thought my viewers might like it.  I've done both.  In return, I'm going to ask "Black" to review the Sarah Palin (Governor of Alaska) material and, if he agrees with it, to become a "Blogger 4 Palin."   It's a reasonable request.

Why would I do such a thing? First, because I believe strongly in Sarah's candidacy.  Second, because I know it's essential to get people - many of them - to find out who Sarah is.  Third, if you don't ask people to take an action - in this case, to support Sarah - they won't act on their own.  As generations of salespeople have observed, "You have to close the deal." 

Townhall, like other political sites, is - or should be - all about coalition-building.  It's not really about aging white guys pursuing a self-directed course in "Anger Management."  It's not about repeating the same slogans over and over again in the "Comments" section.

Rather, it's about people with similar views getting together to influence the making of public policy, which certainly includes supporting specific candidates.  "Supporting" means voting for such candidates, asking others to do so, and SENDING THEM MONEY - even if it's only a few bucks.  In fact, sending a candidate $20 is a lot better than writing 200 comments in the essay section of TH. 

Half the people on TH - and we know many of them - by name border on uselessness.  They recite the same slogans (against amnesty, against liberals, against feminists, against homosexuals) endlessly.  They never make a reasoned, fact-based argument for their "opinions."  They just intone them, as if they were so many "Popes" speaking ex cathedra (with infallibility). 

Don't get me wrong: it's absolutely critical to "talk up" candidates.  It's essential to present simple, coherent, fact-based arguments for them. 

I've talked recently about the importance of "viral marketing."  In this case, that means I - along with a growing number of others - want support for Sarah to spread quickly among people.  We want Sarah to become the hottest political commodity in America.  We want so many people to support her that the Republican presidential candidates won't be able to ignore her.

We want Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt and others to compete to get Sarah on their talk shows.  We want the MSM media (including FOX) to start talking about the "Sarah Phenomenon." 

Who's this "we" I'm mentioning?  Right now, it includes Elephantman (Palin for VP), Sanity102, GenXDad, Appletonian, Will, Young Republican, and other bloggers.  It's not exactly a mass movement - yet - but it could soon be exactly that.

Bloggers are the key, because they're magnets.  They attract other bloggers.  Also, they're people who take actions - regularly doing their blogs - designed to influence others.  In fact, blogging at its best is not about "expressing" oneself.  It's about making converts.

Will Sarah be the next candidate for vice-president on the Republican ticket in 2008?  I don't know the answer to that question.  But I do know that the Republican Party couldn't come up with a better candidate.

Many years ago, Father Keller of something called the "Christophers," used to say this on the radio:  "It's better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness."  In this case, the way you create a wildfire is to start lighting matches.

To that end, I'm committed to being a pest, a lighter of matches.  If you're a blogger, or even if you're not, I'm asking you right now for your support for Sarah.   She needs you, and the country needs her.

BlackTygrrrr, among many others, this means you!

Contact Stephen R. Maloney at TalkTop65@aol.com


The Case For Rudy

Note:  This is actually my column for tomorrow (Tuesday), but I think it’s important to get it out today because it raises important issues.  I’m responding in part here to Sanity102, who questioned if the NRA and the Christian Coalition would allow Rudy to win the nomination and the election.  Here’s what I replied:

 

Because TH has gone so completely in the tank for Romney, who has no chance of winning the nomination, it's sometimes hard to get truly accurate assessments of the presidential race. The old Republican "strategy" for winning the nomination may not hold this time -- in fact, I'd say it has no chance of holding. Rudy is trying to win the nomination by doing well in the Super Tuesday primaries, most of which he has a good chance to win.

 

Candidates who are pandering to the extremist elements of the supposed Republican “base” are making a bad mistake.  They will paint themselves into an ideological corner that will make it impossible to win the national election.  Someone like Romney seems to believe he can head the Republican ticket with a slogan like:  “America, I was only kidding!” 

 

The influence of the NRA and the old Christian coalition in critical states like NY, CA, NJ, CA, and FL is questionable. For 35 years, the leadership (key word) of the Christian Coalition has been pursuing a somewhat curious anti-abortion strategy (NOT a full pro-life approach unless we define life as existing only in the womb). It has failed to change much of anything.

 

Is there another direction that will save more lives of the unborn -- AND ALSO BRING THE STRATEGY TO A "WHOLE-LIFE" APPROACH?

 

The primary focus for any Republican or thoughtful Independent has to be defeating Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee.  All other considerations are secondary.  If Hillary gets in, she may appoint three or four more Ginsburg-Breyer types to the Supreme Court, and that will make the pro-life issue moot for at least another generation.    If we narrowly focus on which Republican candidate passes this or that pro-life litmus test, then we’re putting ourselves on a downward slope to a major defeat. 

One reason I'm backing Rudy is my strong belief that he will prevent more abortions than any of the supposed "pro-life" candidates, some of whom  are incredibly cynical on this issue. The real pro-life candidates (Huckabee, Hunter, Gilmore, Tancredo, Paul) have ZERO chance of winning a national election. 
 

Rudy has said he will appoint strict constructionist judges.  That means he would be positively inclined toward justices whose judicial philosophies resemble those of Roberts and Alito. 

(I meant what I said in my previous column about Rudy needing to bypass the extremist segment of the Republican base. He regards such people as a liability in winning the general election. They probably should go to a third party, which might get 2% of the national vote.)

This issue is a lot more complicated than most people on TH could imagine. One reason I'm so strongly for Sarah Palin is that she's a pro-life candidate with staying power. Right now, we don't have a compelling pro-life candidate on the national scene, and if we don't bring Sarah front-and-center, I don't see another such candidate emerging.  I want Sarah elected to two terms as President (2016 and 2024) during which period she can appoint pro-life judges.    

Will the NRA oppose Rudy if he wins the nomination?  NO!

 

Frankly, the NRA doesn’t want an overwhelmingly liberal – and anti-gun – national government, which would be the case if Hillary wins.  The NRA has recently shown a gratifying desire to compromise on certain issues, especially prohibitions on selling guns to people with mental disorders (“The Cho Factor”).

 

As the campaign unfolds, The Fred Thompson element will be intriguing to watch, but I haven’t seen any evidence that he could win against Hillary.  Also, right now he's the "none-of-the-above-candidate," and he will lose that status as soon as he formally enters the race.

 

About McCain (my second choice)?  Don't write him off just yet.  He's strong on national security, and that's a critical issue.

 

Every Sunday until Labor Day I’ll have a continuing series on the best blogs on Townhall.  Occasionally, I’ll feature blog from other sites.  Currently, TH has about 4500 blogs, the vast majority of them inactive.  I’m taking a look at all of them and will choose the best ones.

 

I regard this as something of a public service.  Most blogs – including even the best ones – get relatively few visitors.  How would people even know they existed?  As my title suggests, it’s a little like looking for a diamond in a landfill.  It’s my assignment – and I do choose to take it – to tell you where those diamonds are. 

 

Frankly, I’m not concerned with blogs that appear to be a self-prescribed form of anger management therapy.  Relatedly, I also pass by those that are nothing more than a collection of right-wing slogans and name-calling.  Instead, I’m most interested in blogs that emphasize originality of ideas and images.  I like the blogs that make me think, not those that try to reinforce prejudices.  If a blog does a good job capturing my attention, it may very well appear in this series. 

 

About 10 a.m. each Sunday you’ll see 2-3 blogs featured on this site.  I hope you’ll visit them.  I also urge you to look into the ones already on my blogroll, especially the ones containing the designation “4 Palin,”  which means they support the candidacy of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for the vice-presidential slot on the Republican national ticket.

If you have your own favorite blogs, please don't hesitate to recommend them for inclusion in this series.  Comments are welcome.

This Sunday I’m focusing on three blogs by Pennsylvanians: Kelley Smith, Scott Ott, and Skye. 

 

Kelley Smith, a senior political science at Grove City College, does http://kelleysblog.townhall.com.  Kelley, a summer intern at Townhall, is new at blogging. She doesn’t yet have one of the best blogs, but it’s a good one, and she shows great promise. 

Her first three blogs are titled:  "I'm Conservative Because"; "Flying the Gay Old Skies"; and "The Fine Line Between Judgment and Opinion."

Kelley's a talented young writer but has an occasional tendency toward verbal sloppiness.  She needs, for example, to remember the difference between the possessive "its" and the contraction “it’s” ("it is”).

I like the fact that she's willing to examine her conservatism in an effort to find out why precisely she embraces that point-of-view.  She avoids Christian judgmntalism, especially as it relates to gay and lesbian people. 

Her comments on judgment and opinion reminded of Pat Moynihan's famous comment:  "We have a right to our opinions, but we don't have a right to our own facts."  We live in a country overloaded with "opinions" -- one of the dubious contributions of "talk radio" -- and underloaded with facts. 

On the "gay" issue: Kelley's bright enough to discover that one of the major failings of conservatives has been a tendency to dismiss various groups as unworthy of the "movement," including Blacks, gays, lesbians, working women, and -- recently -- Hispanics.  That's an approach which will end up making conservatives a permanent minority, one that complains ceaselessly but has little influence.

(I read yesterday that the gay vote -- 4% of the electorate -- was the reason Bush won the presidency in 2000.  Nationwide, Bush got 23% of that vote.  As you remember, he won the crucial state of Florida by roughly 600 votes.  Without the efforts of gay Republicans in FL, Al Gore would have won the election.) 

One concept I hope Kelley tackle in a future column is the tendency of some conservatives to rely on buzz-words ("liberal . . . feminist . . . amnesty") and slogans ("gay agenda . . . Rudy McRomney") rather than discussing issues. 

She’s a work-in-progress but is off to a good start with her blog. 

A truly superb blog is one by Scott Ott:  http://scrappleface.townhall.com.  This is a very funny man, a conservative counterweight to someone like Jon Stewart.  Few people on Townhall know that Scott exists, and that’s a real shame.

 

As someone who's tried, I know that writing good humor -- funny, insightful stuff -- is difficult.  Scott Ott (great name for a humorist) is excellent.
 
Here’s how he describes himself:  “Scott Ott is editor-in-chief and anchor overseeing the vast editorial staff of ScrappleFace.com, the daily news satire site which covers the globe like a patina of dental plaque. Author of the good-selling book, Axis of Weasels, Mr. Ott works from an undisclosed location where he is crafting his next book, tentatively titled The Lost Speeching of George W. Bush.

His most recent piece on his blog is "Poll: Majority Say Paris Hilton's Plight Good for America"

In it, he quotes a (fictional) resident of Pittsburgh as saying, "Just knowing that rich, famous, beautiful people can be miserable, pathetic losers gives me hope that my own troubled existence may have meaning.  I can't get enough of this story on TV.  Every moment is like a multivitamin for my ego." 

He adds, "Researchers say their findings show: 'What's bad for Paris Hilton is good for America.'"

He continues, "The CBS News/New York Times survey showed that 58 percent of Americans were willing to see Ms. Hilton suffer further disgrace, prolonged imprisonment, or even death for the good of the nation."
 
In another column Scott informs us that, in response to appeals that he pardon Scooter Libby, President Bush instead pardoned (former State Department official) Richard Armitage, "who actually leaked Valerie Plame's name to the media."

Writing about the problems Democrats are having with Iraq War funding, he gives some tips from Hillary and Obama on saving money, including having the military use the "economical Toyota Priuses" rather tan "gas-guzzling HumVees." 

When you visit Scott's site, check out some of the comments.  At least two of the respondents (including one outraged Mormon) seem to have no idea that he's writing humor.

Please visit Scott frequently.  Why on earth Townhall doesn't have him doing regular columns for it is beyond me.  His talent enables him to make us look at some tired news stories in new ways, and that's a major contribution. 

Townhall delights in publishing the geriatrics of the conservative movement, Wm. F. Buckley, Jr., Bill Rusher, pat Buchanan, and others who long ago ran out of interesting things to say.  Conservatism badly needs some fresh blood.
 

The third Pennsylvania blog I recommend is Skye’s Midnight Blue, a dedicated web site that has a link from Townhall:  http://midnightbluesays.blogspot.com.

 

Midnight Blue is a creation that deserves the designation of “gorgeous,” with its rich and colorful array of colors, images, and words.

 

Skye Describes herself as a “conservative Democrat,” which I guess makes her a member of a rather small minority group.   She says that attachment “makes life interesting in Philadelphia,” a major stronghold of liberal Democrats. 

 

If you want to do a blog – and have lots of money to spend on professional designing – you might come up with something as good as Midnight Blue, but I doubt it.

 

Please take a look at this site to get a sense of the “limits of the possible” in blogging.  You won’t regret it.

 

Kelley, Scott, and Skye, you all have my permission to take a bow! 

 

Today, I’m reprinting an essay “GenXDad” wrote about why he’s a blogger supporting Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska for the Republican vice-presidential nomination.  To me, GenXDad is one of the shining stars on Townhall.  He’s a centrist Republican who actually thinks about issues rather than just chanting angry slogans.  GenXDad has one of the very best blogs I’ve ever seen.  He puts some of the supposed “stars” of TH to shame.

Find him at http://genxdad.townhall.com.   He’s worth reading every day.

 

I salute GenXDad for the following piece on Sarah Palin, a remarkable American and a great candidate. 

 

 

Palin for VP?

Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:41 PM

 

For those of you new to the latest center-right blog phenomenon, a "blogroots" movement is growing in support of Alaska governor Sarah Palin for the 2008 VP spot.

I have to admit, I was originally skeptical of the idea of putting a governor of one of the reddest states in the nation on the 2008 ticket, but I'm warming up to the idea, and not just because I'm blogrolling one of her biggest fans but because she has the look and feel of someone who could very well be the future of the Republican Party.

And she might even help the ticket win.

Let me break down that last point first, because to me, it's the most important.  We cannot - absolutely cannot - throw away 2008, and every little thing matters, including the choice of VP.  So how can a little-known conservative governor from a solidly Republican state help put the GOP ticket over the top?  Three reasons:

1.  She is the ideal contrast to Hillary Clinton (who I believe will be the Democratic nominee).  Think about it, a young, beautiful, charming, articulate woman who represents the "flyover mother" with a blue-collar husband and four kids next to the shrill attorney married to a philandering ex-President with only one kid.  You cannot draw up a clearer contrast between "red state mom" and "blue state mom."

2. It solidifies the biggest weakness of the current GOP field: the gender gap.  For Republicans to win, we don't need to win over single moms, DINK wives and urban mothers.  We do, however, need to get a large percentage of the wives whose husbands will vote Republican.  Right now, Rudy, and Fred have some problems with that demographic.  Well, guess what, Palin IS that demographic!  She can talk directly to the women we absolutely must get to the polls to win and calm their concerns with Rudy's marital difficulties and Fred's cradle-snatching.  (I'm leaving Mitt out of this one, not because I don't think he can win, but because he has ZERO baggage on this issue, but he'd benefit from having someone like Palin on the ticket for the same reasons, just to a much lesser extent than the other two.)

3. Cheney proved that picking an intelligent and competent VP choice from a "safe" state won't hurt your campaign.  Palin has intelligence and competence nailed down, and a personality to boot, which means she'd be at least as strong as Cheney was for Bush in 2000.

So that covers the "how Palin could help us win."  Now, let's look at the other side - the future of the GOP.  Regardless of what happens in 2008, the GOP needs to build a Presidential bench.  Palin is smart, charming and brilliantly successful in Alaska.  She has over an 80% approval rating in a state that elects Democrats to the statehouse and where a GOP senator found herself in a difficult race.  You have to earn that kind of support, and you don't earn it by being a mediocre governor.

She's right on the issues - she fits right in with the GOP's core values.  Pro-life (a good balance if Rudy is the nominee), lifetime NRA member, fiscally conservative with strong religion and family values.  She's the Republican's Republican on the issues that matter, and she's been able to parlay that conservatism into sky-high approval ratings among those who know her best.

Her one drawback is she comes from a small state, and thus lacks the national stage.  But this is the kind of person who deserves a national stage.  If the rest of the nation got to know her, she could possibly find herself on the top of the ticket in a couple election cycles.  Putting her on the ticket puts the small-town, small-state girl on the national stage and she could develop a large following in no time.

Obviously, I couch my endorsement with the caveat that she passes the background tests and whatever else the eventual nominee throws her way.  Being from a small state, there's a risk she could stumble badly or something in her background that Alaskans don't care about could come out and damage the ticket.  But assuming she passes the vetting process, there's also a very good chance she could be a very pleasant surprise for the GOP, and a welcome alternative to Hillary.

 

Note from Steve:  I believe Sarah will pass those “background tests” with flying colors.  Alaska is a state with more than its share of political corruption, but Sarah has always been on “the side of the angels” and has fought hard against political lawbreakers.  As I’ve said about her and others, we have a right to demand that our candidates be honest – which she is – not that they be perfect, which no one is. 

 

______________________________________________

"I Don't Read That Slop"

When I complained about some (not all) of the essay on TH, that was the response of one of the best-known names on the site.  Any essay that attempts nothing more than to confirm people in their prejudices is contemptible.

Frankly, some of the TH essays -- including most of those on the subject of immigration -- are journalistic versions of dumbness pills.  "Why don't we just enforce the laws we have?" is a frequent question.  The answer is that the nation, for good reasons and bad, doesn't have the political will to enforce those laws.  Somehow, throwing nursing mothers in jail while their infants are home doesn't go over very well with the nation.  Also, at a time when our jails are full, we don't really have any place to put an additional 12 million people.  What's more, since we don't have a tamper-proof I.D. card, it would take the Oracle on the Mount to decide who's actually illegal.  Finally, how do we conduct a search for "illegals" (a term that basically means Mexicans) with irritating the nation's 45 million legal Hispanics, who might demonstrate their ire in the voting booths?

Of course, the much celebrated "Base" doesn't have answers any of these questions.  The Base consists not of people who answer hard questions, but rather individuals who whine and threaten. 

The following is a comment I wrote in response to one of the many essays on immigration.  I give it the head "Base Making Us a Permanent Minority?"

Even though this essay [by Rich Tucker] is beautifully done in part, like all discussions on TH of immigration, it misses the point. Republicans who generally favor the immigration bill (I'm one) see the victory of the base as an awful development. Let me explain: in 1964, key Republicans (especially Barry Goldwater) opposed the Civil Right Act. That decision caused us to lose the Black vote, seemingly forever.

Apparently, we are doing the same thing with the Hispanic vote. We are offending a large majority of the 44 million American Hispanics, the biggest minority group in America. Somehow, getting great visceral satisfaction from so doing is supposed to be compensation for a political disaster. Why do Tucker and others ignore this rather significant political reality?

On my own blog, I've been cosidering these inconvenient truths, along with some others. Somehow, the name-calling and sloganeering that have been the responses have convinced me that I'm probably right. As the "base" pats itself on the back, perhaps it might give a moment or two to considering the real issues involved. We are setting ourselves up to be a permanent minority, and that shouldn't be a cause for celebration.

Friday Night: 

In Saturday’s column, I’m going to talk one more time about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin the “Bloggers for Palin” campaign.  Sarah’s candidacy for vice president on the Republican ticket will continue to be a regular topic on this site, as well as on many others. 

 

This Sunday – and every Sunday through the summer – I’ll be talking about the “Best of the Bloggers,” with emphasis on people who blog on Townhall.  As part of my Palin efforts, I’m going through every blog here, all 4500-plus of them. 

 

I’m finding diamonds in the rough, almost literally.  So far, I’m been through approximately 300, including all those from PA (148), NJ (66), Idaho (20), and Utah (53).  Why there are nearly as many bloggers from Utah as there are from New Jersey (a much more populous state) is a question I can’t answer. 

 

How many of those 300 blogs are worth your attention?  Unfortunately, fewer than 10 of them.  Blogs don’t seem to follow the legendary Bell Curve, which would lead to a few excellent ones several more qualifying as “good,” and many falling in the “fair” category.  In fact, the typical blog is no-longer-active.  That was a surprise to me.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In regard to Sarah Palin’s candidacy for the vice-presidential slot on the Republican ticket, all of us in the Palin movement are delighted by the number of people signing up to support her.  You can find links to them on my blogroll and on Elephantman’s blogroll (at http://palinforvp.blogspot.com).  Some excellent material about Sarah is appearing on various sites, including Sanity102’s and GenerationXDad’s (see links). 

Please pass along (to me or to Elephantman) the link to any blog that endorses Sarah's candidacy.  We'll list them on the blogrolls.  As we get into the fall, we'd like to have 100 bloggers (or more) supporting Sarah.  The way that will happen is for each blogger who backs Sarah to find one (or two) more allies for her.  "Each one find one (more)" is the way this movement will proceed.  No one is a follower; everyone is a leader. 

So far, Sarah's backers include people who support one of the following:  Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul.  Supporters of any of the Republican candidates are welcome in the Palin Movement.  The emphasis is on what she could bring to the eventual Republican ticket, no matter who heads it.  By February 5, 2008 ("Super Tuesday"), we presumably will know the name of the Republican presidential nominee, and we want that gentleman to decide that his best possible running mate would be Gov. Sarah Palin. 

Of course, this effort will have its ups and downs, but there be more of the former than of the latter.  We strongly believe that at some point Sarah will in fact hold the nation’s highest offices, including the presidency.  We’re asking everyone who blogs or participates in any way in the blogosphere to endorse Sarah.  Her staff is aware the “draft” movement is going on, but it is taking place independent of any effort on her part.  In this sense, it is one of the purest “draft” movements ever to occur.

Before Independence Day, we will have the names of many additional bloggers who support Sarah.  Stay tuned.
 

At some point, Sarah will have to make her own decisions about which steps to take in actively seeking the nomination, and we wish her – and our country – only the best.  Please encourage your friends and Internet contacts to participate in this undertaking!  This is a nation “of, by, and for the people” – and YOU are the people.

 
________________________________________________________________________
Why Sarah? A Short -- and Sad -- Trip Down the GOP's Vice Presidential Memory Lane

I’d like to take a little different approach than I planned.  One commenter asked GenXDad, a strong Palin supporter, why Sarah wasn’t running for President.  He indicated that it’s unusual for someone to run for vice-president, which has a small degree of truth to it.

 

As a first-term Governor, Sarah is not ready – yet – for the “Ultimate Prime Time,” a full-fledged run for the presidency.  From all evidence, however, she's a very fast-learner and shows every sign of being ready to assume the presidency – if necessary – by Inauguration Day in 2009. 

 

It’s critically important that Republicans play an active role in determining their vice-presidential candidate.  In the past, some very curious choices have been made for vice-president, and they haven’t advanced the Party.  In fact, they’ve done damage – sometimes great damage – to the cause of Republicans.

 

Go way back to 1964.  Barry Goldwater chose as his running mate one William Miller, a congressman from Western New York.  No one denies that Miller was a good husband and father, but he added basically nothing to the ticket.  He was a “just-say-no” Republican, mainly noted for his opposition to what became the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  His opposition, coupled with Goldwater’s, to that proposed legislation was an important factor in turning Black voters away from their historic allegiance to the Party of Lincoln.

 

What about the next vice-presidential choice?  That would be Richard M. Nixon’s naming of Spiro T. Agnew.  A popular figure with the Republican “base” of that era, Agnew established a dubious “first.”  Just as Watergate became a national scandal, Agnew resigned in the face of bribery allegations.  Thus, as Nixon clung by his fingernails to the Presidency, he had no vice-president (until he appointed Gerald R. Ford).

 

Ford then named Nelson Rockefeller, a good man but someone who was an interim appointment.  In the 1976 election, Ford ran with Robert Dole, a war hero and a good Senator, but a terrible campaigner at the national level.  He had a habit of saying things like:  “People know where good ole Bob Dole stands.”  If they did know, apparently they weren’t impressed.

 

In 1992, George W. Bush – not exactly showing political acumen – named young Indiana Senator Danforth Quayle as his V-P running mate.  Quayle was a national joke, “Mr. Potato Head,” and never became a serious candidate for the Presidency.

 

As for Dole’s running mate, even as a political junkie, I couldn't remember who it was!  In fact, the answer to this political trivia question is:  economics wonk Jack Kemp.   As was foreseeable, he and Dole lost badly to Bill Clinton.  If that campaign had a point, no one could figure out what it was. 

 

In 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush ran with Dick Cheney.  For a good part of Bush’s first-term V-P Cheney spent much of his time “in an unknown location.”  Some people think it might have been if he’s spent the remainder of the Bush presidency in said “location.”   (Note:  I'm part of the world's smallest fraternity, people who like Dick Cheney.)

 

You’re getting my point: Republicans have done an abominable job in choosing vice-presidential running mates.  It’s hard to imagine any Party doing a worse job over more than a generation.  It also makes you wonder how we won a majority of the presidencies during the time.

 

The vice-presidency should be a road to the presidency.  For Republicans since 1964, it’s been anything but that.  More often, as with Miller, Agnew, Kemp, and Quayle, it’s been a path to oblivion.

 

Can we do better than Sarah Palin?  I don’t believe we can.  We could name better-known candidates, true, but we couldn’t name one with her reputation for honesty, charisma, and popular appeal. 

 

Leaving the choice of a running mate entirely in the Presidential nominee’s hands hasn’t worked well at all.   It has damaged the growth of the Party and its reputation among voters. 

 

Those of us who back the Alaska Governor so strongly think it’s time to go in a dramatically different direction.  That direction leads directly to Sarah Palin.  “Now she belongs to America.”

TODAY, TWO VERY FINE BLOGGERS -- GENERATION X DAD AND SANITY102 -- WROTE COLUMNS ENDORSING SARAH PALIN FOR V-P.  YESTERDAY, WILL SIGNED UP "FOR PALIN."  YOU'LL FIND ALL OF THEM IN MY BLOGROLL (WITH THE INDICATION '4 PALIN' AFTER THEIR NAMES).  WE'RE LIGHTING "MATCHES," BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE WILDFIRE YET.  IT WILL COME.  I'LL REPRINT GENXDAD'S COLUMN EARLY NEXT WEEK AND DIRECT YOU TO TRY OUT HIS EXCELLENT BLOG, ALONG WITH SANITY'S AND WILL'S.   


I'd like to welcome those interested in the candidacies of "Rudy," Fred Thompson, John McCain, and others to this site.  I hope you'll bookmark it and return often.  This week's columns are all about Sarah Palin, Govenor of Alaska, and a remarkable woman.  Please scroll down and read about why so many people support Sarah as the best possible vice-presidential nominee.  Your comments are welcome.  If you'd like to join "Bloggers 4 Sarah," please let me know.
 

 

Historically, the Democrats have been better at developing “rock stars” than the Republicans.  Franklin Roosevelt was a rock star, a man with tremendous popular appeal.  He was jaunty and optimistic when few men were in a Depression-era.  He smoked his Chesterfields in a cigarette holder, gave off a sparkling smile, and exuded optimism even in most dire of times. 

 

Who were his opponents?  One was Herbert Hoover, the slightly overweight guy with the starchy collar and sour look.  The next one was Alf Landon, who carried Maine and Vermont, but not his native Kansas, a state not known as “the cradle of rock stars.”  The third opponent was Wendell Wilkie, who believed in “One World” (as opposed to three or four?) and wore rumpled suits. 

 

The final political rival was Thomas E. Dewey, Governor of New York.  I don’t know FDR’s height, but he gave off an impression of being tall.  Dewey was about 5-5 with a moustache.  Someone once said he looked “like the little man on the wedding cake.” 

 

JFK was a rock star.  Bill Clinton was a rock star – complete with the mistresses.  Obama is a rock star.  Tommy Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and Jim Gilmore are not.  Mike Huckabee is trying to become the first Baptist preacher ever to become the political version of “Elvis.”

 

Sarah Palin is a rock star.  Sanity102 put it well:  Sarah has a speaking voice that’s strong but feminine.  She’s pretty.  She has four “adorable” kids.  Her husband has one of the last of the macho occupations: fisherman.  

 

Sarah is something of a Scarlet O’Hara type also, someone who excels at beating the “guys” (including the then-current Republican governor and his Democratic predecessor) at their own game.   As a former point guard in basketball, she likes to run things, and her sky-high approval rating shows she does it well.

 

Ergo, an authentic “rock star.”

 

What are the odds that Sarah is going to realize our “impossible dream” and get the vice-presidential nod from Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, or whoever?   Those odds may be a lot better than some people think.

 

You can’t market a used politician – unless you’re Richard Nixon in 1968.  But Sarah is a new politician, a first-term governor after serving two stints as Mayor of “metropolitan” Wasilla, Alaska. 

 

Sanity102’s business partner asked: “Isn’t Sarah too good to be true?”   Good question. 

 

Someone once said of an American politician (Daniel Webster?), “No man could be as GREAT as he LOOKS.”   In terms of appearance, Sarah looks a lot better than Daniel Webster.  Also, she has a kind of charisma that, as Sanity102 observed, you couldn’t buy for a billion bucks.  The one thing she has in common with Gov. Dewey is that, like him, she’s also a crime-fighter.

 

With her small town background, the fisherman husband, and the number of children far exceeding her standard allotment of 2.2, Sarah is a throwback to an earlier America.  Even though very few of us live anymore in such benign times, we all yearn for them.  We want to retain at least a piece of that “Father Knows Best” world when things were simpler, kinder, and gentler.

 

If Sarah is at least partly an illusion – that is, if Sanity’s partner is right – well, so what? Wasn’t it Ralph Waldo Emerson who said that our illusions are critically important?   At their best, our illusions may be pretty close to what we call our ideals.

 

Sarah reminds me a lot of my friend and political ally Diana Lynn Irey, who ran for Congress against John Murtha.  Diana a tiny woman with a big voice – one of the best speakers in the country.  At 5-feet-tall and 99 pounds, one of her strongest supporters was a member of “Rolling Thunder,” a Viet Nam vet was about 6-4, 280. 

 

Was she as devout a Christian as she seemed?  She told me in all sincerity that her two favorite books were: (1) “The Holy Bible”; (2) “Listening to God.”   To her, God is a friend, someone Who might just decide to move in next door. 

 

“Little Diana,” my friend, my heroine, tiny in body but huge in spirit, became a leader among American servicepeople and their families.  She became a symbol of hope to people who saw that everything seemed to be falling apart.  Diana talked the talk, and she walked the walk.