tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-42281939816815314752024-03-05T19:58:06.684-08:00MIGHTY SERFUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger216125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-61969989172737300522012-07-16T15:54:00.023-07:002012-07-16T23:45:35.936-07:00The Atlantic Pushes the "Irrelevant" Meme in Wake of "No Invite" Newsweek StoryThe left has spent years trying to convince Americans that Governor Palin is "irrelevant." The fact that they are still claiming the same garbage in the year 2012, proves how ridiculous the claim is and has always been.<br /><br />Today, <a href="http://m.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/07/sarah-palins-shrinking-act-almost-complete/54631/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Atlantic</span></a> used the revelation that Governor Palin has not been invited to the Republican National Convention to rehash this old, laughable attack-line. The article they published to "prove" their case is titled, "<span style="font-style: italic;">Sarah Palin's Incredible Shrinking Act Is Almost Complete</span>." Oh, how they wish it were so...<br /><br />The piece began:<br /><blockquote>Last December, after Sarah Palin announced in October she wouldn't run for president, we started to notice she was shrinking. Now, four months ahead of the election, she seems smaller than ever. The latest sign of her diminished political significance is that Palin hasn't even been invited to the Republican National Convention by Mitt Romney, Newsweek's Peter Boyer reports. But it doesn't appear that it's because she's too busy with other things.</blockquote>The writer of this piece, Elspeth Reeve, seems to have missed some key parts of <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/15/sarah-palin-still-waiting-for-romney-invite-to-tampa.html">Peter Boyer's piece</a>. Such as the history of Palin-bashing from the Mitt Romney camp, the tenuous relationship between Romney and grassroots base voters, and this key paragraph towards the end of the Newsweek article that stated:<br /><blockquote>Palin’s admirers—and they are many, judging by Facebook and Twitter metrics, where her numbers are far greater than Romney’s—still hope for a rapprochement. “Palin is the female Ronald Reagan of our time,” says Kremer of the Tea Party Express. “There’s no one that excites the base, and energizes the base, the way that Sarah Palin does. There’s just not.”</blockquote>None of that information fits the absurd narrative that <span style="font-style: italic;">The Atlantic</span> is trying to sell to their readers by cherry-picking the pieces of Boyer's article that they wanted to spin. Reeve continues:<br /><blockquote>The chief of staff for her SarahPAC quit, ABC News' Shushannah Walshe reports, because he didn't have enough to do. Palin hasn't totally endorsed Romney and she hasn't done any campaign events for him, and the worst part is, hardly anyone's noticed.</blockquote>This person obviously hasn't discovered the joy of breaking ideas into separate paragraphs, but I digress...<br /><br />First of all, Governor Palin hired Michael Glassner while she was still considering running for office. After she made her decision, I'm sure she down-sized her payroll a bit. Why wouldn't she? And what does the size of her staff have to with the relevancy of her message? The answer is that it doesn't because people are still very much drawn to Governor Palin, and what she stands for.<br /><br />Just ask anyone who has seen her speak in person, within the last few months. Or ask one of the 1,500 people who gathered in 100 degree heat to see her speak in Michigan last weekend. Governor Palin is still very much a movement leader with "rock star" popularity, and the lefties can't stand it.<br /><br />The piece continues:<br /><blockquote>Palin's headlines have all announced a steady decline, even when we couldn't tell that's what was happening.</blockquote>Yes, Reeve now offers up <span style="font-style: italic;">"even when we couldn't tell"</span> as evidence that Governor Palin's headlines have "<span style="font-style: italic;">announced a steady decline.</span>" Pure rubbish, on a day that saw hundreds of "Palin" headlines, most of which found a way to trash her for getting snubbed (thus far) by her own party.<br /><br />Next, Reeve dives into a long string of sentences with no time-lines attached, or context added about some of Governor Palin's staff changes, and employees who have protected Twitter accounts. The sad thing is that <span style="font-style: italic;">The Atlantic's</span> left-wing audience is willing to accept a protected Twitter account as proof that she's <span style="font-weight: bold;">finally</span> irrelevant. It's pathetic and it's reaching.<br /><br />Governor Palin didn't get passed over by Mitt Romney and the RNC because she's losing her influence, quite the contrary. If Governor Palin did attend the Republican Convention, and delivered a prime-time address, she would outshine their candidate a hundred times over. She didn't mean to upstage John McCain in 2008, but she did, just by being herself. There is no doubt that Romney's advisers aren't aware of that. It's nothing more than a left-wing pipe dream to think she wasn't invited because she's losing her stature.<br /><br />The bottom-line is that she wasn't invited to the GOP Convention because their 2012 nominee hasn't extended an invitation. It fits the way Mitt Romney has treated Governor Palin, ever since his staff started publicly <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/07/habitual-palin-basher-to-get-bigger-role-in-romney-campaign.html">trashing</a> her before the 2008 election. It also fits the way the GOP establishment treats outsiders and reformers.<br /><br />I hope <span style="font-style: italic;">The Atlantic</span> is proud that they did their part to assist the <span style="font-style: italic;">good ole boys</span> in the GOP establishment cover their backsides, with this scatterbrained hit-piece.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-56730530112287910402012-07-07T20:34:00.035-07:002012-07-10T10:34:20.465-07:00Trashing Governor Palin; The Fiscal Times EditionProving that the media lives in an echo chamber, <a href="http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/07/06/After-the-Palin-Fiasco-Will-Romney-Risk-a-Woman-VP.aspx#page2" target="_blank"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Fiscal Times</span></a> published an article last week that was a virtual repeat of every article written about the speculation surrounding Mitt Romney's vice presidential pick. It began by mentioning some current Republican women who these authors think might be considered for the ticket. Then predictably, it descends into the typical Palin bashing that the media is so <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/07/study-proves-media-bias-against-governor-palin.html" target="_blank">well-known</a> for. The authors collected quotes from some left-wing academics, and Republican talking-heads, who seem to think that Governor Palin cost John McCain the election, even though <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm" target="_blank">poll numbers</a> from the time prove otherwise.<br /><br />We all know that the McCain campaign had serious management issues, combined with a horrible economy leftover from the Bush years. The authors ignored all of that, and instead, proceeded to interview a man who refuses to take any responsibility for the 2008 election outcome:<br /><blockquote>Steve Schmidt, a senior strategist with the McCain presidential campaign who was instrumental in recruiting Palin, has been widely quoted as saying that the McCain-Palin ticket was a testament to an inadequate, hasty review of Palin. “The vetting process did not disclose what would become obvious afterward,” Schmidt told <em>The Los Angeles Times </em>earlier this year. “We had a person who fundamentally lacked the knowledge and basis – at a very, very deep level – to be a plausible commander in chief.”</blockquote><br />And I'm a millionaire...<br /><br />Writers from Breitbart News, C4P, members of Governor Palin's staff who where there, and others, have already taken Schmidt down a few notches in the credibility department, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/07/was-steve-schmidt-qualified-to-be-mccains-campaign-manager" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/05/07/media-and-political-permanent-class-attempt-to-rewrite-2008-election" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/03/09/top-10-lies-game-change" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/03/14/game-change-mental-instability-meme-crushed-by-facts" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/06/no-surprise-steve-schmidt-now-buddies-with-the-obama-administration.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/03/mark-levin-talks-about-the-schmidt-memos.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/03/joseph-curl-game-change-a-made-up-narrative-from-two-axe-grinders.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/03/schmidt-memos-prove-game-change-author-was-targeted-to-save-his-reputation.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/03/john-nolte-on-hbos-selective-sourcing.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/03/janine-turner-the-real-game-change-isnt-a-movie.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/03/guest-submission-sarah-palin-radio-exposes-more-game-change-lies.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/03/john-nolte-reviews-game-change.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/03/jedediah-bila-palin-video-sets-record-straight.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/03/flipping-the-script-on-game-change.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/03/sarahpac-releases-game-change-we-can-believe-in-video.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/02/palin-aides-slam-hbos-game-change-media-roundup.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/02/steve-schmidt-admits-role-in-hbo-smear-u-drama.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/01/moronic-quote-of-the-day.html" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/12/behind-the-smears-of-hbos-game-change.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Any "journalist" who uses Steve Schmidt as a source, with <span style="font-weight: bold;">this</span> much information at their disposal, is a fraud. End of story.<br /><br />Now that we've established that the writers of this <span style="font-style: italic;">Fiscal Times</span> article can't be trusted to report facts or context, the article continues with a jab at Governor Palin from Larry Sabato:<br /><blockquote>"Romney wants people to look at his VP and say, ‘This person is qualified to be president if called upon. Palin never passed that test. Some women and men being mentioned today may not qualify either.”</blockquote><br />Perhaps Sabato believes <em>"Palin never passed that test"</em> because the media, McCain staffers, and people who still work for <a href="http://race42012.com/2008/10/29/will-romney-and-his-supporters-ever-learn/" target="_blank">Mitt Romney</a>, did everything in their power to distract people from Governor Palin's actual record. It was, after all, Steve Schmidt's job to educate America about Governor Palin's record, and lo and behold, Steve managed to mess that up too.<br /><br />If you read <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/06/governor-palins-executive-accomplishments.html" target="_blank">Governor Palin's record</a>, you can see that she was more than qualified to serve, if need be. She also had more executive experience than anyone on either ticket. So, the notion that she was "unqualified" is just another false narrative being perpetuated by the elites. They obviously judge qualifications differently than do most Americans. It's not about actual governing experience, it's how long you've been in D.C. and you're friends with in that swamp.<br /><br />Another thing that stood out about this article; just as Steve and Mary Beth pointed out in their post about the recent <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/07/palins-effect-on-women-vs-obamas-effect-on-black-americans.html" target="_blank"><em>U.S. News</em> hit-piece</a> on Governor Palin - The Fiscal Times also used failed left-wing politician, Jennifer Lawless as a source. In case you didn't know, Lawless ran for office as a Democrat in 2006, for <a href="http://www.nowpacs.org/2006/060606lawless.html" target="_blank">U.S. Congress in the 2nd District in Rhode Island</a>. Steve and Mary Beth wrote:<br /><blockquote>Jennifer Lawless is portrayed in the article as an author who writes books on women in politics. Further, she’s lauded as a Director of American University’s Women and Politics Institute.<br /><br />Nowhere in the article does it mention that Jennifer Lawless actually ran a <a href="http://womensenews.org/story/campaign-trail/060911/lawless-tests-political-legs-rhode-island" target="_blank">failed Congressional</a> campaign back in 2006 against a sitting Rhode Island incumbent. In fact, running against the popular Democrat incumbent in the primary, Lawless was ultra-pro-choice which awarded her the endorsements of NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC and Planned Parenthood Action Fund.</blockquote><br />Needless to say, the authors of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Fiscal Times</span> article failed to disclose Lawless' political history and associations with left-wing organizations to their readers, and instead, present her as simply the <span style="font-style: italic;">"director of American University’s Women and Politics Institute." </span><br style="font-style: italic;" /><br />It's no wonder why nobody trusts the media anymore. Governor Palin has been lied about repeatedly, by the same people over and over again, who possess no discernible credibility. And it certainly doesn't help when people like Larry Sabato, who should know better, repeats the garbage as though he forgot how to do his own research. It just smacks of lazy, beltway group-think.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-20720295198083648992012-06-23T22:46:00.033-07:002012-06-25T15:29:43.841-07:00Hollywood Honors Julianne Moore for Her PoliticsI have never seen another industry hold as many award ceremonies to honor itself than the narcissist-class in Hollywood. Most professionals don't have the the low self-esteem required to devote so much time, effort, and money on events for the purpose of patting themselves on the back. To each their own, I guess.<br /><br />Recently, Julianne Moore was <a href="http://www.showbiz411.com/2012/06/22/re-sarah-palin-julianne-moore-thanks-the-republicans-for-a-great-american-story" target="_blank">honored</a> at one such event, the "Critics Choice Television Awards," for her role in HBO's anti-Palin movie, <span style="font-style: italic;">Game Change</span>.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjMJzuUDiuWLxaSvzU10TIqEFOKIvfh9C_yQoxfqbKTbN651HAd59MDs1oqg8xNPKhT8Rhi1HFJMUuKHxjuwVvfTjBCqU6aHYcFpPlSKn_RIjPrgNuF0ZEDwpeoC8XJ0KG8lF2VmJYbx4/s1600/Lefty_Film_Critic.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5757481828612353554" style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: hand; width: 255px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjMJzuUDiuWLxaSvzU10TIqEFOKIvfh9C_yQoxfqbKTbN651HAd59MDs1oqg8xNPKhT8Rhi1HFJMUuKHxjuwVvfTjBCqU6aHYcFpPlSKn_RIjPrgNuF0ZEDwpeoC8XJ0KG8lF2VmJYbx4/s400/Lefty_Film_Critic.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Moore took home a little trophy in the "Best Actress in a Movie or Mini Series" category. Upon receiving her award, Moore stated:<br /><blockquote>“You can’t give a great performance without a great story. So I thank the Republican Party for fostering such a truly amazing American Story.”</blockquote><br />I have some news for Ms. Moore... It wasn't a "great performance." Far from it actually. She portrayed Governor Palin's accent completely wrong (Moore sounded like she was portraying someone from Minnesota), and she didn't pick up on any character traits or mannerisms that the Governor possesses. Then there's the fact that Moore played a character in that movie who doesn't even exist. This "truly amazing American story,” is actually a truly amazing political hatchet job. But yes, by all means, Ms. Moore, thank the Republican Party for your new trinket. Especially the ones who used that "truly amazing political hatchet job" to cover their own behinds after they failed at their jobs. And the ones who stood by and watched silently as those covering their backsides, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/03/09/top-10-lies-game-change" target="_blank">lied and maligned</a> one of the people representing their party on a national ticket. Moore owed them a thank you.<br /><br />Now that she has been given her first award for misrepresenting Governor Palin (in every aspect) to millions of Americans, she is being called "<a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/emmys/la-en-julianne-moore-20120621,0,4763475.story" target="_blank">the 'get' star</a>." From Randee Dawn at the LA Times:<br /><blockquote>[W]hen HBO, Roach and Strong approached her about playing Sarah Palin in "Game Change" — a movie based on a portion of the book of the same name by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin — the opportunity was impossible to resist. At least, in the first few seconds.<br /><br />"I got a phone call saying, 'They just offered you Sarah Palin, and can you talk to Jay,' and it all happened really fast," recalls Moore, a leggy fair-skinned redhead who does not, initially, call to mind the rogue Republican 2008 vice presidential nominee. "So I kind of said yes before I really thought about it. My first thought was, 'OK!' and my second thought was, 'Oh, no! I really, really, don't know how to do this.'"</blockquote><br />And she never figured it out... Dawn continues:<br /><blockquote>Capturing any real-life individual on film is one thing; when she's still living is yet another; when she's as polarizing as the former Alaska governor is — and you're part of the "liberal Hollywood elite" — it's on another plane altogether.</blockquote><br />At least the writer had the decency not to insult her readers intelligence by suggesting that Moore is anything but a left-wing elitist. But Hollywood can cloud one's vision of reality, and it certainly did in this instance. Moore didn't capture anything remotely close to the real world, or a "real-life individual." The the writer states:<br /><blockquote>Moore in many ways is the polar opposite of Palin: Committed to LGBT rights...</blockquote><br />Stop right there... No, Governor Palin doesn't support gay marriage, but she certainly supports the <span style="font-weight: bold;">rights</span> of every American. The left has trouble discerning the difference between rights and privileges though, don't they? Trust me, if Governor Palin was the "polar opposite" of someone who supports the "rights" of gay people, she wouldn't have the support she does have from the <span style="font-weight: bold;">non-left-wing</span> "LGBT community."<br /><br />If anyone from the LA Times is reading this, I implore them to email me at <a href="http://www.blogger.com/stacy@conservatives4palin.com" target="_blank">stacy@conservatives4palin.com</a> so I can put you in touch with some of the numerous gay Palin supporters that I know. It would probably make an interesting article.<br /><br />She continues:<br /><blockquote>...getting rave reviews for edgy roles in such films as "The Kids Are All Right"and "Boogie Nights"</blockquote><br />Okay, there she' totally right on this point. Governor Palin <span style="font-weight: bold;">is</span> the polar opposite of someone who would play a whore in a horrible movie about the porn industry. Yep.<br /><br />The article continues goes on for a long time about how they got Moore to look like Governor Palin using makeup and dress. Then it goes on to discuss how excited all of the Obama fundraisers who made the film, were when Moore put on the wig and glasses. Danny “<a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/12/behind-the-smears-of-hbos-game-change.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-style: italic;">Victory Fund</span></a>” Strong stated:<br /><blockquote>"Other actors are essential in the piece, but the whole film rode on her performance. If Sarah Palin didn't work in the film, the film was not going to work."</blockquote><br />Gee, I wonder why that is? The book wasn't even about her, but the movie certainly was. And it certainly was (in the planing stages anyway) about the election in 2012.<br /><br />The next part of the LA Times article is where it gets interesting. Dawn writes (emphasis):<br /><blockquote>Moore's out-of-the-park performance surprised many viewers not only because she was spot-on with her characterization but also because she tapped into the emotional well she and Roach were aiming for, <strong>creating a level of empathy for Palin</strong> that gave her a common humanity among even her detractors.</blockquote><br />These people put together an entire movie to trash Governor Palin's character; they <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/03/14/game-change-mental-instability-meme-crushed-by-facts" target="_blank">LIED</a> about her having a nervous breakdown, and then claim they were actually "creating empathy" for their victim. If this movie created any empathy for Governor Palin, I would hate to see what the opinions were of the people it created it in, before they saw the movie.<br /><br />This isn't the first time someone has been awarded for attacking Governor Palin, and it probably isn't the last trinket Julianne Moore will receive from her industry for doing the party's dirty work. They will continue to perpetuate their lies, while lowering their standards to honor the talentless and agenda-driven.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-67421689290308423662012-05-22T10:54:00.008-07:002012-05-22T15:35:51.841-07:00Political Wire Blames Palin for Automated Robocall Dialing sOne would think that a political news site such as <span style="font-style: italic;">Taegan Goddard</span><span style="font-style: italic;">'s Political Wire</span>, would comprehend a rudimentary political task such as the robocall. Either he does not, or he is playing the part in an effort to knowingly make Governor Palin look bad with the headline. I'm certain that in this case, it's the latter.<br /><br />Yesterday, Taegan linked to a story written by a snarky columnist from the <span style="font-style: italic;">Topeka Capital-Journal,</span> which stated that some robocalls that the Governor recorded for the Ted Cruz campaign in Texas, had been dialed to numbers in Kansas. Taegan's headline read, "<a href="http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/05/21/palin_robocalls_wrong_state.html" target="_blank">Palin Robocalls Wrong State,</a>" as if she not only had anything to do with the call placement, but also single-handedly dialed the numbers.<br /><br />So, let me go ahead and clear this up for the slow people who read Taegan's headline as some sort of verification that Governor Palin is "stupid." According to <a href="http://www.macmillandictionary.com/buzzword/entries/robocall.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-style: italic;">Macmillan</span></a> and reality, a robocall is:<br /><blockquote>An <strong>automated</strong> telephone call which plays a <span style="font-weight: bold;">recorded</span> message</blockquote><br />Governor Palin recoded one message that was sent to numerous numbers, of which she played zero role in selecting. For whatever reason, some numbers set up by the company handling the calls, were in fact, directed to Kansas. It was a mistake by the company, not Governor Palin.<br /><br />Goddard's left-wing commenters bought into his headline however, and responded as you can imagine they would. The fact that this puts them into the position of completely misrepresenting the robocall process, never dawns on them. Unlike Taegan Goddard, I'm not convinced that they know better. They just aren't very bright people.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-80685720830848869352012-05-16T17:12:00.022-07:002012-05-16T21:43:11.032-07:00Dave Weigel's Predictable, Pathetic Response to Deb Fischer's WinLast night, Steve <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/05/fischers-victory-proves-the-power-of-palins-endorsement.html">wrote</a>:<br /><blockquote>As it became clear these past few days that Governor Palin’s endorsement had succeeded in catapulting Fischer past Stenberg and into a position where she had a legitimate chance to defeat Bruning, panic set in among those wishful thinkers in the DC Establishment on both sides of the aisle who’ve been telling us that her time had passed, that she was irrelevant.</blockquote><br />Predictably, Dave Weigel tried to outdo the other "wishful thinkers" in trying to make his handful of readers believe that Governor Palin had nothing at all to do with Deb Fischer's win in Nebraska. Yesterday, in a post titled "<span style="font-style: italic;">Nebraska: Prepare Yourself for Stories About Sarah Palin, Kingmaker</span>," he <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/05/16/nebraska_prepare_yourself_for_stories_about_sarah_palin_kingmaker.html">wrote</a>:<br /><blockquote>State Sen. Deb Fischer has won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Nebraska, making her the odds-on favorite to replace Ben Nelson. What you will hear: Sarah Palin endorsed a Mama Grizzly and pushed her over the top. The larger backstory: Fischer benefitted from a yearlong, bloody, stupid primary between state Attorney General Jon Bruning and Treasurer Don Stenberg. The former, working his way up the greasy pole for years, had spooked Chuck Hagel out of running for re-election in 2008, then gotten chased out of the primary by then-Agriculture Sec. Mike Johanns. The latter had lined up conservative support -- Jim DeMint, Rick Santorum, Erick Erickson. The two of them tore chunks out of each other, leaving Fischer alone.</blockquote><br />I write that this was predictable because this is what Dave Weigel does anytime Governor Palin is in the news. He downplays her success, takes numerousjabs at her on <span style="font-style: italic;">Slate</span>, and uses childish snark by writing <span style="font-style: italic;">"who?"</span> next to any story he retweets about the Governor on Twitter. It's rather pathetic that a grown man would spend this much time and effort to try and convince the world that someone else is "irrelevant." Normally, you don't have to spend any time or effort persuading the public that a person is irrelevant, people just know that they are.<br /><br />Weigel may have been correct by stating that the Nebraska GOP primary was "bloody" yearlong process, but that doesn't explain why Fischer picked up so much steam in such a short time period. Just ten days ago, she was polling <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/nebraska_senate_race.html">16 point</a><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/nebraska_senate_race.html">s</a> behind Jon Bruning.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/?attachment_id=42252" rel="attachment wp-att-42252"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-42252" title="Bruning_Fischer_Poll" src="http://conservatives4palin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Bruning_Fischer_Poll1.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="191" /></a><br /></div><br />Also, a few days ago, Tony Lee wrote the following over at <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/11/palin-evens-playing-field-in-nebraska-republican-senate-race">Big Government</a>:<br /><blockquote>This is the first attempt at seeking statewide office for Fischer, a 61-year-old state Senator who has not been a career politician, who needed Palin’s endorsement to level the playing field against her well-funded opponents.<br /><br />Fishcer’s campaign manager Aaron Trost told Breitbart News that Palin’s endorsement had a “big impact on publicity” and would “help educate a lot of people who the true conservative reformer in the race is.”<br /><br />Two recent polls show Bruning with the lead, with Fischer in second followed by Stenberg. In a <a href="http://www.omaha.com/article/20120507/NEWS01/705079911">poll commissioned</a> by the Fischer campaign, Bruning led with 30 percent, followed by Fischer with 25.6 percent and Stenberg with 18 percent. Twenty four percent of those polled were still undecided. The primary is on Tuesday.<br /><br /><strong>Palin Power</strong><br /><br />Fischer e-mailed Palin in December of 2011 while Kay Orr, the first female Republican governor ever to be elected and who is one of Fischer’s statewide co-chairs, also contacted Palin to ensure Fischer stayed on the former governor’s radar screen.<br /><br />When Palin decided to endorse Fischer, Trost said it led to “an awesome day.”<br /><br />“Gov. Palin has tremendous support in this state; there were a lot of people excited with the endorsement and wanted to get involved with the campaign,” Trost said, noting that there was a big surge in online contributions and phone calls in the office but would not disclose how much the campaign raised.<br /><br />“Gov. Palin supporters are not only volunteers but they are workers; supporters of Gov. Palin are in the office every day, going door to door, really into running a grassroots campaign,” Trost said. “They are not into an establishment-type campaign.”</blockquote>So, Weigel can spend his time trying to convince his readers and Twitter followers that Governor Palin is "irrelevant," and that she had nothing at all to do with the victory in Nebraska, but the campaign manager of the victor in that race disagrees. He, after all, doesn't live in a false reality where he's surrounded by chronically Palin-obsessed leftists, who spend a big chunk of their time trying to convince themselves and each other that she's "irrelevant."<br /><br />I don't think they can see the irony here.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-64698352672411815282012-05-03T21:10:00.016-07:002012-05-03T22:57:35.722-07:00GOP Insiders Trying to Marginalize Governor Palin & Her SupportersFor weeks, members of the GOP establishment have been busy rewriting history by trying to diminish Governor Palin's record, and her real contributions to the 2008 presidential race. Without her on the ticket, McCain would have lost by 20 points.<br /><br />The facts no longer matter when you have a herd of Republican operatives, speaking from the same script to rid their party of one of its most outspoken reformers. Now these same spineless creeps are not only attempting to marginalize her, but also us, her supporters.<br /><br />According to Reid Wilson at the <a href="http://nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/convention-al-wisdom-20120503">National Journal</a> (emphasis):<br /><blockquote>Several insiders interviewed for this story said former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will present a unique challenge to Romney's team: Will they give her a prime spot to satisfy her fans, or reduce her role because of her <strong>polarizing nature?</strong></blockquote><br />You've got to hand it to the anonymous GOPe "insiders"... They sure know how to sell a line of garbage to the left-leaning media. They just repeat the lines of garbage the left themselves created. Who else would think that a Governor who held an <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/03/john-mccain/she-wins-popularity-contest/">80% approval rating</a>, 18 months after being inaugurated, has a "polarizing nature" but someone from the other party.<br /><span id="formatbar_Buttons" style="display: block;"><span id="formatbar_CreateLink" class=" down" style="display: block;" title="Link" onmousedown="CheckFormatting(event);FormatbarButton('richeditorframe', this, 8);ButtonMouseDown(this);" onmouseup="" onmouseover="ButtonHoverOn(this);" onmouseout="ButtonHoverOff(this);"><br />Then one of the GOPe's professional liars said:</span></span><br /><blockquote>"You want people to generate interest and passion," said one Republican who has organized conventions before and who, like others, didn't want to be named. <strong>"Sarah Palin goes to a very small segment, relatively speaking, of the Republican Party.</strong> And you're trying to put together a rainbow coalition."</blockquote><br />I gather "goes" is the coward's way of saying "appeals," but all one has to do is watch Governor Palin's last speech at <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkEQ-cMO7pw">CPAC</a> to know that is a lie. She spoke to a full house, who spent much of the time on their feet. Also, a recent <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/03/romney-holds-small-lead-nationally.html#more">poll</a> showed:<br /><blockquote>She [Palin] is seen positively by Gingrich voters (85/7), Santorum supporters (80/10), and Romney ones (57/27) alike. That's a contrast to Romney who is disliked by both Santorum (38/48) and Gingrich (32/54) voters and Santorum who is disliked by Romney (38/48) voters and only seen narrowly favorably by Gingrich (46/42) backers.</blockquote><br />And another thing, as <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/TheTonyLee/status/198175740599074816">Tony Lee</a> pointed out on Twitter:<br /><blockquote>“Sarah Palin goes to a very small segment, relatively speaking, of the Republican Party"...LOL, then why does person quoted want anonymity?</blockquote><br />There would be no need for these people to say these things anonymously, if there were any truth in what they're saying.<br /><br />The frequency with which GOP operatives are attacking Governor Palin, and their willingness to marginalize her supporters, should tell you all you need to know about the current Republican party. They have put us in a very bad situation and hurt the party, but don't forget that <span style="font-weight: bold;">they</span> are the ones who chose to go down this road.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-4114191167359476582012-03-20T18:25:00.006-07:002012-03-20T20:19:27.357-07:00Bristol Palin: Bill Maher is More Than a ComedianBristol Palin published a new <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2012/03/responding-to-the-viral-sensation-loving-my-brother/">piece</a> today on her blog titled "Responding to the Viral Sensation, Loving my Brother." She responded to some of the numerous comments people left on her "<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2012/03/mr-president-when-should-i-expect-your-call/">Mr. President, When Should I Expect Your Call</a>?" post, but she also pointed out how the left is giving Bill Maher a pass by stating that he's merely a "comedian." She wrote:<br /><blockquote>Bill Maher is much more than a comedian. He’s a big-time political player who hides behind the “comedian” label whenever he gets criticized. His guest list represents a huge chunk of the Washington establishment and sometimes even includes prominent Republicans. And as I said in my original post, he’s put himself straight in the middle of presidential politics by giving $1,000,000 to President Obama’s SuperPAC. Bill Maher isn’t just some guy behind a microphone in a seedy comedy club in the middle of nowhere. He’s a comedian and political commentator like Rush is an entertainer and political commentator. He’s a little bit less popular, but his professional failure compared to Rush doesn’t make him any less accountable for his vile speech.</blockquote>You can read her entire post <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bristolpalin/2012/03/responding-to-the-viral-sensation-loving-my-brother/">here</a>.<br /><br />Also, John Nolte points out Bristol's piece over at <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/03/20/Bristol-Palin-Bill-Maher-Rush">Big Hollywood</a>.<br /><br />Plus, check out <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293941/front-row-seat-palin-power-david-french">this</a> article over at NRO by David French<span style="font-style: italic;">, </span>who is married to the editor of<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;">Patheos. </span>It seems they had a little server melt-down yesterday due to Bristol's blog:<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span><em></em><blockquote>Nancy tweeted it to her few hundred followers (she and I have a rather pathetic contest for twitter followers; right now I’m barely in the lead with a whopping 776), and Bristol facebooked it. Within hours, it had been shared 8,000 times. Already it was taking off.<br /><br />Then Sarah Palin tweeted.<br /><br />Patheos’s server promptly melted down. One of the most-trafficked religious sites on the web, its server still spontaneously combusted. A small mushroom cloud was spotted over the server farm. Eleven additional servers had to be brought online to handle the traffic flow, and by the end of the day, 8,000 shares had turned into more than 85,000 (update: 100,000), and the story of Bristol’s challenge to the president had been reported not just in the political and mainstream media but also in the Hollywood media as well. Thousands of tweets, and tens of thousands more Facebook shares from Fox to the Huffington Post to the Hollywood Reporter took the post well beyond the familiar and comfortable enclaves of the conservative blogosphere.<br /><br />That, in essence, is Palin power. No other name in the conservative movement can instantly break through the wall of separation between conservative punditry and popular culture. Bristol powerfully and concisely told the truth — and reached an audience so large it resides only in most pundits’ wildest dreams. </blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-24184931348582098912012-03-18T10:34:00.027-07:002012-03-18T17:30:44.715-07:00Cal Thomas Buys Into, Repeats HBO's 'Game Change' LiesOn<span style="font-style: italic;"> Fox News Watch</span> last Saturday, Cal Thomas made it painfully <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-watch-panelists-defends-game-change-palin-was-a-sympathetic-figure/" target="_blank">obvious</a> to those of who have, that he didn't research HBO's '<span style="font-style: italic;">Game Change</span>' very well before discussing it on the show. He said that he watched the movie, and he obviously tuned in to MSNBC to get their take, but it's clear that he really didn't comprehend what that movie was all about, or the motives behind those who made it.<br /><br /><iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content=7DQ67Y23YP9DL9KR&content_type=content_item&layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" height="421" scrolling="no" width="420"></iframe><br /><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jon Scott</span>: As the left is touting this supposed "war on women," what about the war on Sarah Palin? The 'Game Change' movie got big numbers. She was not exactly portrayed in a flattering light, and the other half of the book essentially gets left out.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cal Thomas</span>: Well, I saw the movie and I'm probably going to surprise some people. I thought it was very sell done. I thought she came off as a sympathetic figure. She was put into a situation, she was not prepared for. She was not able to be a quick study on a lot of the issues. Forced out in front of interviewers like Katie Couric, and she wasn't ready for the job. I was very sympathetic. She went on that, she got picked less than a year after having a baby. And all of these pressures on her, I thought it was extremely well done.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Alan Colmes</span>: Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt both said it was realistic.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cal Thomas</span>: Yeah.</blockquote>The main problem is that Thomas accepted HBO's version of events. In fact, he <a href="http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/halperin-game-change-film-sympathetic-of-job-palin-did/6xgpj97" target="_blank">repeats</a> Mark Halperin, the author of the book that the movie was based, by saying it was "sympathetic" to Governor Palin. No, it was not.<br /><br />The entire movie is based on distortions and lies. The writers at <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood" target="_blank">Big Hollywood</a> (including myself) have documented these lies, and made a case against the claims of the filmmakers using facts, eye-witness accounts, and press reports from the 2008 election. To repeat, Thomas said:<br /><blockquote>"I thought she came off as a sympathetic figure. She was put into a situation, she was not prepared for. She was not able to be a quick study on a lot of the issues. Forced out in front of interviewers like Katie Couric, and she wasn't ready for the job."</blockquote><br />Unfortunately for <span style="font-style: italic;">Fox News Watch </span>viewers, he just repeated a fabricated version of events. From the "<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/03/09/top-10-lies-game-change">Top 10 Lies of HBO's 'Game Change'</a>" piece I wrote for Big Hollywood (emphasis):<br /><blockquote><em>"</em>Game Change" also depicts Palin as highly forgetful. Around the 70 minute mark, Mark Wallace tells Steve Schmidt that Palin couldn't remember "any" of the information he used to prep her for the debate. As it turns out, another Democrat didn't get the memo. In 2008, former editor in chief of Ms. magazine, Elaine Lafferty <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2008/10/27/sarah-palins-a-brainiac.html" target="_blank">wrote</a>:<br /><blockquote>I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts.</blockquote><br />Lafferty also said Palin was "smart" and "<span style="font-weight: bold;">more than a quick study</span>." She, however, was not interviewed by "Game Change" screenwriter Danny Strong for the film.</blockquote>Also:<br /><blockquote>A.B. Culvahouse has also stated on <a href="http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/04/mccains_palin_pick_high_risk_r.html" target="_blank">record</a> that the Katie Couric interview left viewers with the "wrong impression" about Palin's knowledge of the Supreme Court. He said:<br /><blockquote>She clearly did ... My law firm represents Exxon in the Valdez matters,'' he noted. "Until she became governor, Gov. Palin was a plaintiff in that case...</blockquote>Regarding foreign policy, the movie depicts the Director of Foreign Policy and National Security for the McCain campaign, Randy Scheunemann, as teaching Palin as if she were a child learning about geography for the first time. The movie implies that using maps while discussing foreign policy and national security with a political leader was necessary because she was so dumb. However, during a press conference last week, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-palin-game-change-preview-20120222,0,3639066.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29" target="_blank">Scheunemann</a> said:<br /><blockquote>I always use maps as a briefer and did so even with McCain.</blockquote>Around the 46 minute mark, the filmmakers portray Palin as unfamiliar with basic knowledge pertaining to World War I and World War II. During that same press conference, Scheunemann said:<br /><blockquote>The idea that at any point that Gov. Palin expressed any uncertainty as to who were the various sides in World War I or World War II, or any other war, is absolutely untrue. She was incredibly intelligent. She asked very informed questions. She was very interested and she wanted to understand John McCain’s view of foreign policy because she wanted to be the best possible vice presidential nominee.</blockquote>Scheunemann went on to explain that his discussion with Gov. Palin about these historic topics was in the context of the historical roots of John McCain's foreign policy world views, not a history lesson.</blockquote>Thomas then went on to say:<br /><blockquote>"She went on that, she got picked less than a year after having a baby. And all of these pressures on her, I thought it was extremely well done."</blockquote>Am I to take this to mean that Thomas bought into the notion that Governor Palin really did have a mental breakdown? He associates her pregnancy and the "pressures on her" saying it made him sympathetic towards her. Clearly, Mr. Thomas didn't know that this part of the movie has been proven false, given the time-stamp in the movie.<br /><br />From the "<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/03/14/game-change-mental-instability-meme-crushed-by-facts">'Game Change': Palin Breakdown Meme Crushed by Facts</a>" piece I wrote for Big Hollywood:<br /><blockquote>At the 68 minute mark in the movie, the filmmakers show Palin (Julianne Moore) at a table with campaign staff going over material to prep for her debate against Joe Biden. The movie depicts Palin as being detached and unresponsive. She mutters to herself about missing her baby.<br /><br />They want you to believe that she had a complete mental meltdown. Just like most of the movie, this simply isn't true. As a matter of fact, it's impossible. Keep in mind that at the beginning of that scene, the filmmakers stamp the bottom left-hand corner of the screen with the location and date they claim the events took place. It says "Philadelphia September 27."<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />According to the makers of "Game Change," Palin spent Sept. 27, 2008 losing her mind while prepping for the upcoming debate with campaign staff, and then in a "catatonic stupor" in her hotel room later that evening. But according to <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/27/palin-takes-questions-during-cheesesteak-run" target="_blank">Peter Hamby</a>, the real Palin was actually taking questions in a Philadelphia restaurant:<br /><blockquote>Sarah Palin partook in an established political ritual on Saturday night when she headed to Tony Luke's in south Philadelphia to order a pair of cheesesteaks with whiz and onions.<br /><br />But as the kitchen sizzled and orders were barked out, Palin found herself talking politics, calling McCain's debate performance "awesome" and taking questions from a voter about the hunt for terrorists in Pakistan.<br /><br />[...]</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>Also, the night before the phony mental breakdown, the <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/Where_was_Sarah_Palin_last_night_you_ask.html" target="_blank">real Palin attended a Presidential debate watching party</a> at an Irish Pub:<br /><blockquote>Fresh off an afternoon jog along the Schuylkill River, Sarah Palin stopped by a debate watching party at The Irish Pub on Walnut Street in downtown Philadelphia. It was an invite-only event that pulled in about 450 McCain supporters who had been drinking and eating for several hours before the candidate arrived (around 7:20PM EST). It was Palin's first campaign stop in Philadelphia this cycle.</blockquote></blockquote><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bBkC6d18_qc" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe><br /><blockquote>How do the makers of "Game Change" explain the fact that Palin was (according to their sources) losing her mental grasp, yet at the same time, attending campaign events and talking to the press? People who are truly mentally ill and "constantly falling into catatonic stupors" cannot turn off their symptoms to take questions from CNN...</blockquote>The worst part of Mr. Thomas' analysis however, is that he agrees with Alan Colmes when he claims that the movie is credible because Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt said so. Could it be that Cal Thomas doesn't know that Steve Schmidt was the main <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/02/steve-schmidt-admits-role-in-hbo-smear-u-drama.html">source</a> used by both the book's authors and the filmmakers, to gain their dirt on Governor Palin? Is it possible that Mr. Thomas overlooked the glowing portrayal of Schmidt in the movie, and completely white-washes his role in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/magazine/26mccain-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all">failure</a> of the McCain campaign? Did Cal Thomas not see the <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/03/schmidt-memos-prove-game-change-author-was-targeted-to-save-his-reputation.html">leaked memos</a> from last week, proving that there was an effort by Steve Schmidt's cronies to save his reputation (even before the campaign was over,) by talking to members of the press "off the record," including one of the writers for the book?<br /><br />For some reason, Cal Thomas bought into HBO's propaganda, and even the spin they delivered after they came under scrutiny. He neglected the fact that many of Governor Palin's current and former staff (as well as <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/18/curl-game-change-a-made-up-narrative-from-2-axe-gr/?page=1">others</a> around her at this time) have repeatedly said the movie is <a href="http://sarahpac.com/posts/statement-on-game-change">false</a>. Thomas didn't take into consideration the motives behind the left-wing book authors, the <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/game-change-sarah-palin-john-mccain-donations-297350" target="_blank">left-wing filmmakers</a> (in an election year, no less), or the two main axe-grinding sources of information that each used to produce their product.<br /><br />I don't believe that Cal Thomas was being intentionally malicious while discussing this movie. I do however, believe that he is ill-informed and would certainly benefit from a better research staff. Or perhaps, getting his own hands dirty and researching it for himself. Is it too much to ask that <span style="font-style: italic;">Fox News Watch</span>, watch the news (no matter where it is) instead of repeating lines of propaganda by people with known agendas?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-8253387794360464902012-03-11T09:07:00.037-07:002012-03-11T22:34:02.213-07:00Media Helps HBO While Nicolle Wallace 'Squirms'Sunday morning, Zeke Miller, a writer who works for Ben Smith at Buzzfeed, (re) tweeted the <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/ZekeJMiller/status/178865601517854722">following</a>:<br /><blockquote>Uncanny Valley! RT <a class=" twitter-atreply pretty-link" name="TPM" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/TPM" rel="nofollow"></a><s>@</s><strong>TPM</strong>: McCain-Palin adviser: Game Change was "true enough to make me squirm" <a href="http://bit.ly/y5y2D7">http://bit.ly/y5y2D7</a></blockquote><br />The article he links to is from the left-wing site, TPM, or "Talking Points Memo." The actual headline for the piece is titled "<span style="font-style: italic;">Nicolle Wallace: Game Change Film 'True Enough To Make Me Squirm'</span>." So, TPM tweets out a link excluding the name of the "McCain - Palin adviser" then on their site, don't explain to readers who Nicolle Wallace is, or what role she played as one of the primary sources that the 'Game Change' book authors and screenwriter used to create their fiction. Of course Nicolle Wallace is going to say that the movie 'Game Change' was "true enough." Many of the lies they tell are lies SHE told them!<br /><br />Tony Lee caught what they were doing on Twitter and <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/TheTonyLee/status/178868942121611265">responded</a>:<br /><blockquote>See what MSM does there? "McCain/Palin Adviser" instead of "Nicolle Wallace" and idiots who tweet w/o reading just RT headline. <a class=" twitter-hashtag pretty-link" title="#WeSeeYall" href="https://twitter.com/#%21/search/%23WeSeeYall"><s>#</s><strong>WeSeeYall</strong></a></blockquote><br />Yes we do.<br /><br />ABC News is even worse in their <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/former-sarah-palin-adviser-says-game-change-was-true-enough-to-make-me-squirm/">reporting</a> about the Wallace appearance. They don't explain who Wallace is, that she has a history of having <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/279301/mccain-adviser-wallace-s-fiction-robert-costa">no credibility</a>, or that she is one of the main people responsible for the lies told by HBO in an effort to cover her own tail.<br /><br />Now, the reference to the words "Uncanny Valley" in Miller's tweet relates to a "movie review" he wrote last week for Ben Smith's Buzzfeed. Miller's piece is a good example of what the left's little helpers in the MSM have done to promote and lend credibility to HBO's smear-u-drama. He <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/game-change-lands-in-the-uncanny-valley">wrote</a>:<br /><blockquote>The first thing you need to know about “Game Change” is that the acting is great — so great, in fact, that Americans who followed the 2008 presidential campaign may have trouble watching it.</blockquote><br />Such wishful thinking from Zeke. The acting in 'Game Change' by Julianne Moore was atrocious. The accent is totally wrong, her mannerisms were off, she clenches her teeth during the entire movie, and the personalty of the character she's trying to emulate isn't that of Governor Palin. If anyone thinks the character played by Julianne Moore bares any resemblance to the governor, they have no clue who she is, and obviously haven't spent any effort trying to learn.<br /><br />Miller <a href="http://www.blogger.com/Though%20the%20acting%20is%20remarkably%20close%20to%20life,%20the%20plot%20is%20stylized.%20Game%20Change%20is%20an%20epic%20tragedy,%20with%20Schmidt%20as%20the%20classical%20hero">continues</a>:<br /><blockquote>Though the acting is remarkably close to life, the plot is stylized. Game Change is an epic tragedy, with Schmidt as the classical hero.</blockquote><br />And there's Schmidt's payoff for telling the screenwriter what he wanted to hear. The Steve Schmidt character (played by Woody Harrelson), is portrayed as a level-headed, dedicated, overall good guy who's only mistake was bringing Governor Palin into the campaign.<br /><br />In 2008, Politico <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Schmidt_takes_control_of_daytoday_operation.html">described</a> Schmidt as a "bald and barrel-chested operative known for his aggressive brand of political combat." During the same year, the New York Times wrote an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/us/politics/07schmidt.html?_r=1">article</a> about Schmidt which described him as having a "street-brawling style of politics." They wrote:<br /><blockquote>Mr. Schmidt, a thick tower of man with a shaved head who can go from jovial to belligerent in an instant.</blockquote><br />Michael <span class="reference-text"><span class="citation news">Scherer referred to Schmidt as the "<a href="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1841131,00.html">Lord of Outrage</a>."</span></span> And Meg Stapleton, who also worked on the 2008 campaign trail with Governor Pain, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/sarah-palins-allies-take-pre-emptive-strike-at-game-change-movie/">described</a> Steve Schmidt as "abusive," "abrasive," and stated that he is "nothing short of a world class bully.” Hardly the mild-mannered, grapefruit-eating "hero" that HBO attempts to depict in their movie.<br /><br />While Miller won't go as far as HBO is laying all of the blame on Governor Palin for the 2008 loss, he ends his "review" by writing:<br /><blockquote>The worst thing about this film may be being forced to come to grips with the fact that it isn’t exactly fiction.</blockquote><br />No, the worst thing about this movie is that it <span style="font-weight: bold;">is</span> fiction being sold as truth to the American public by HBO, and the MSM. It's classic propaganda.<br /><br />Zeke Miller is not alone. He's one of many in the media who have been trying to aid HBO in selling this garbage as "reality" to the public. The press is doing back-flips to get you to believe that HBO has credibility and that this movie is accurate. They don't dare tell their readers and viewers anything about the source of HBO's information. They repeat the line put out by the entertainment company that 'Game Change' portrays Palin in a "sympathetic" light, and that the film is "balanced" because Danny Strong lifted one line out of 'Going Rogue.' It's nonsense. The media is carrying water for their fellow-travelers in the entertainment industry. They don't care about the truth. They want people to believe that the person in that movie is the real Governor Palin. They need her to be some sort of monster, not who she really is because her success and her true character prove their entire world-view, wrong.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-5450184224275866122012-03-07T17:19:00.018-08:002012-03-07T23:16:52.118-08:00Karl Rove's Endorsement “Not Worth Snot”Karl Rove, otherwise known as "<a href="http://www.cafepress.com/thewhitehouse/438933" target="_blank">Turd Blossom,</a>" was overheard on a conference call today equating Governor Palin's "endorsement" of Newt Gingrich to nasal mucus. In a piece titled "<span style="font-style: italic;">Rove: Palin Endorsement “Not Worth Snot” For Gingrich,</span>" Zeke Miller <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/rove-palin-endorsement-not-worth-snot-for-g">wrote</a>:<br /><blockquote>Karl Rove mockingly dismissed the value of Sarah and Todd Palin's endorsements on a private conference call today, noting that their backing of Newt Gingrich in Alaska "demonstrated that endorsements don’t mean snot."</blockquote><br />Is it possible that the overrated "architect" meant to say that no endorsement is "worth snot?" Perhaps, but why use the Palins as an example? If he didn't have a history of taking cheap-shots at Governor Palin, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. But he does, so I won't.<br /><br />Governor Palin <span style="font-weight: bold;">NEVER</span> gave a full GOP primary endorsement to Newt Gingrich. Her husband did, but she did not. She never helped Gingrich campaign, she never attended rallies, nor did she do any fundraising or record any robocalls. She only released the name of who she was going to vote for, <span style="font-weight: bold;">AFTER</span> she had already voted for him. Also, that was after most Alaskans had already voted, so what kind of effect could she have truly had?<br /><br />Alaska also has a 'closed primary' for Republicans, who only make up <a href="http://www.elections.alaska.gov/statistics/vi_vrs_stats_party_2010.08.03.htm#state">roughly</a> <a href="http://www.adn.com/2012/01/10/2256025/number-of-alaska-independent-voters.html">26.8%</a> of an entire population, which isn't very large to begin with. Governor Palin made the statement a few hours before the polls closed. So, what percentage of the 26.8% of Alaskans waited until the evening to vote, and how many of them watched FOX before voting? My point here is that Governor Palin didn't "endorse" Gingrich, she openly voted for him and didn't do so until it would have virtually no effect on the outcome in her home state.<br /><br />What is sort of funny about all of this is that back in 2010, Governor Palin endorsed (and campaigned for) Rick Perry in Rove's home state of Texas. At that time, Rove <a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/08/betting-on-rick-perry">endorsed</a> Kay Bailey Hutchison. We all know how that turned out. Apparently, it's Karl Rove's endorsement that isn't worth snot.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-70510934698178915142012-03-01T21:13:00.014-08:002012-03-04T10:36:43.007-08:00The Reccurring Omission of 'Game Change' DefendersI have been witnessing a trend with those in the media who are defending HBO's movie, '<span style="font-style: italic;">Game Change</span>.' They keep repeating the same line about Governor Palin's aides, the ones who stood up for her last week to correct the record, not seeing the film yet. Therefore insisting that these people simply cannot speak on the matter. Never mind the fact that anybody can see from the trailers what this movie is trying to imply, it's funny that these film critics would use this line to defend the movie. Especially when you consider that HBO spoon-fed it to them in a letter that accompanied their copies of the film to screen. Via <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73454.html">Politico</a>:<br /><blockquote>In a letter to news editors that accompanied “Game Change” screeners, HBO’s Executive Vice President for Corporate Communications, Quentin Schaffer, writes:<br /><br />“There has been some noise about the film … Much of it has come from several Palin aides trying to discredit it even though they haven’t yet seen it.</blockquote><br />As Adrienne noted in <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/03/flipping-the-script-on-game-change.html">this</a> fine take-down of Rachel Weiner, "<em>The Fix</em>" writer used the line, and so did <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/z-on-tv-blog/bal-sarah-palin-hitting-back-at-hbo-game-change-20120301,0,2949055.story" target="_blank">David Zurwik</a> from the Baltimore Sun. I'm sure there will be more, if there isn't already. HBO sent it to everyone and considering they're all on the same team, it stands to reason.<br /><br />The same writers in the media who repeat HBO's talking point regarding Governor Palin's aides not seeing the entire movie, completely omit from their analysis the fact that some of these people asked HBO to screen the film but were denied. Why didn't HBO address this in their letter since their statement was meant to address the comments made by these aides?<br /><br />John Nolte took HBO to task again, for their latest attempt to save face. He <a href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2012/02/29/hbo-defends-game-change-again-and-heres-what-hbo-is-afraid-to-tell-you/" target="_blank">writes</a>:<br /><blockquote>Before we get to HBO’s latest lame defense, here’s what the network (and Politico) won’t tell you…<br /><br />Below are the names of eight people who have gone<strong> on the record</strong> to declare the book “Game Change” a falsehood, and what they’ve seen of the film (HBO refuses to screen it for them — but never mentions that in the statement) is just as false:<br /><blockquote>1. Governor Palin, who detailed life on the campaign trail in her autobiography “Going Rogue.” (In an obvious attempt at a publicity stunt, HBO did offer to screen the film for the Governor but, for some creepy reason, only at her home.)<br /><br />2. Meg Stapleton, the Governor’s former spokeswoman.<br /><br />3. Jason Recher, who handled vice presidential road operations for the McCain-Palin campaign and was with the governor during nearly every waking moment of the campaign.<br /><br />4. Tim Crawford, Treasurer of Governor Palin’s PAC.<br /><br />5. Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy adviser who advised Palin during the ‘08 campaign and who vigorously disputes the book and film’s portrayal of her as anything other than engaged and informed on foreign policy matters.<br /><br />6. Thomas Van Flein, the Governor’s former lawyer, who was in almost daily contact with Palin during the ‘08 campaign.<br /><br />7 and 8. Aides Doug McMarlin and Andy Davis.</blockquote><br />That’s EIGHT people declaring <strong>on the record</strong> that it’s all a load of bull.<br /><br />Here’s all HBO has:<br /><br />1. Steve Schmidt, a top adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign who only now has come out as one of the book’s “background sources.” This was the genius who suggested McCain suspend his campaign during the financial crisis which, as we all know, is one of the main reasons for the loss. Furthermore, even before the campaign ended, both Schmidt and Nicholle Wallace were openly suspected of leaking lies meant to embarrass the Governor and blame her for their mistakes. Today, both are considered pretty toxic in party circles.<br /><br />2.Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s, the authors of “Game Change” who never spent a moment with Palin during the campaign.<br /><br />3. An untold number of background sources (Schmidt? Wallace?). The book is about 450 pages long and somewhere around 10 percent of it is about Sarah Palin, and yet….<br /><br />There is not <strong>a single on-the-record source</strong> with respect to anything written about her. Not one.<br /><p style="text-align: center;">—–</p><br />Both HBO and the authors had the choice of choosing between telling the story told by those willing to stake their reputations and word on the record, or those who chose to throw rocks while cowering behind a cloak of anonymity. And we all know which way they chose to go.<br /><br />So here’s the latest <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73454.html" target="_blank">from HBO’s</a> Executive Vice President for Corporate Communications, Quentin Schaffer:<br /><blockquote>“There has been some noise about the film … Much of it has come from several Palin aides trying to discredit it even though they haven’t yet seen it. HBO has a long track record of producing fact-based dramas, going to great lengths to get the story right. I want you to know about the efforts taken on this film.</blockquote><br />That’s because HBO is afraid to let them see it. What the Palin aides are disputing is both the book and what they have seen of the film in the form of the trailer and other snippets that have been released.<br /><br />If the 90 seconds or so that these aides have seen are filled with falsehoods, what will the entire film look like?<br /><br />If the book upon which the film is based is all falsehoods, what will the film look like?<br /><blockquote>“It is based on the acclaimed book by well-respected veteran political reporters Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, both of whom served as consultants, checking every draft of the script to ensure its historical accuracy and thoroughness. When their book came out in 2010, it went unchallenged and unrefuted by the Palin camp. The script for Game Change was written by Danny Strong who also wrote the HBO Film Recount which was praised by both sides for its accurate portraits.</blockquote><br />First off Halperin and Heilemann weren’t with Governor Palin during a single moment of the campaign and they are CHOOSING to rely on sources who refuse to go on the record as opposed to those willing to go on the record.<br /><br />What does that tell you?<br /><br />Secondly, to say that the book went unchallenged is provably false. Governor Palin<br /><blockquote>“In the process of writing Game Change, Strong spoke to 25 people intimately involved in the campaign, including the most senior advisors. He also reached out to Governor Palin and Senator McCain who declined to talk to him. They were also offered a chance to see the finished film but again declined. Secondary sources included Palin’s own memoir ‘Going Rogue,’ a beat-by-beat account of how she felt throughout the race, as well as other books on the campaign and many newspaper and magazine articles.</blockquote><br />Who are these 25 people? Are they willing to go on the record? Because the eight people who are on the record have only seen about 90 seconds of the film and that was enough for them to cry foul.<br /><br />More and more it is becoming glaringly obvious that what HBO and the book’s authors did was to CHOOSE who they were going to listen to based on what they wanted to hear.</blockquote><br />In another eye-opening piece, Big Hollywood writer Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, does some more digging into the political donations of HBO management. He turns up some pretty predictable information. You can check it out <a href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jsshapiro/2012/03/01/game-change-meet-the-lefties-who-turned-hbo-into-a-pro-obama-superpac-part-2/" target="_blank">here</a>.<br /><br />This whole thing boils down to credibility. The people who spoke in defense of Governor Palin last week, consisted of both current and former aides. Objectively speaking, it's safe to say that her former aides had nothing to gain or lose by speaking in her defense. They spoke for the sake of the truth and if you read Meg Stapleton's words, with much conviction. These are people who dealt with Governor Palin for long stretches of time, on a close, personal basis. They <span style="font-weight: bold;">have</span> credibility. The two jokers on <a href="http://www.sarahpac.com/posts/game-change-we-can-believe-in" target="_blank">this</a> video, <span style="font-weight: bold;">don't</span>. Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace said one thing to cameras and something different to leftist authors behind the scenes, once they knew they weren't going to win. They certainly had something to gain by trashing Governor Palin. That being, her as their scapegoat for a failed campaign.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-61245777717507692002012-02-17T23:36:00.000-08:002012-02-18T21:12:41.537-08:00Steve Schmidt Admits Role in HBO Smear-U-Drama<p>Last December I wrote about a piece titled <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/12/behind-the-smears-of-hbos-game-change.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-style: italic;">Behind the Smears of HBO’s “Game Change.”</span></a> While writing about the authors of the book that the fictional HBO smear-u-drama is based on, I noted:</p><blockquote><p>They claim to have interviewed over 300 people during their research, but not one of those people are named. Heilemann and Halperin do however, name the people who where present during each instance during the ’08 campaign that they claim happened. I found it interesting that within the Palin chapters of the book, Nicolle Wallace, her husband Mark Wallace, Steve Schmidt, and or the mysterious “famous GOP strategist” are always present.</p></blockquote><p>After reading the book, it was pretty obvious to me that the unnamed sources for the book were primarily Steve Schmidt, Nicolle, and Mark Wallace. That was verified in Saturday's edition of the Los Angeles Times when Schmidt and Wallace finally signed their names to this deal. Entertainment writer <span class="toolSet" style="width: 335px;"><span class="byline">James Rainey <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-gamechange-20120218,0,2687105.story" target="_blank">notes</a>:<br /></span></span></p><blockquote><p>Schmidt and a chief Palin '08 aide, Nicolle Wallace, said they found it highly credible. Wallace said the film "captured the spirit and emotion of the campaign."</p></blockquote><p>Of course they did! They sold their souls and their careers to the enemy in an effort to save their sorry reputations. I am happy to see that none of the current GOP presidential candidates were dumb enough to hire any of these losers.</p><p>And now here's proof that Schmidt sold his garbage to two left-leaning book authors, in a publication that essentially glorifies Barack Obama, right after he failed in his job (emphasis):</p><blockquote><p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Schmidt and most of the other top operatives from the McCain campaign</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">gave extended interviews to John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, the book authors.</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Many of the same sources also spoke to Danny Strong, writer of the film, and to director Jay Roach</span>, who also teamed on the Emmy-winning docudrama "Recount," about the razor's edge 2000 election finish. Chris Edwards, one of Palin's 2008 staffers, served as a technical advisor to the filmmakers.</p></blockquote><p>I don't know who "<span class="toolSet" style="width: 335px;"><span class="byline">most of the other top operatives" are supposed to be, but I assume he's talking about Nicolle and Mark Wallace, as well as Chris Edwards mentioned above.</span></span> <span class="toolSet" style="width: 335px;"><span class="byline">These former "consultants," (who destroyed their own careers by running a horrible campaign in 2008, losing the election to a junior Senator from Illinois) sold their version of events to writers with an agenda. They were trying to restore their own reputations by passing the blame on to Governor Palin, making up details and accounts to make her look culpable. But any honest observer could clearly see that Governor Palin was not the problem in that campaign. Under Schmidt's "expertise" the McCain campaign fumbled the economic meltdown and were absolute cowards when dealing with Obama's history and associations. And I don't need to falsify accounts of Steve Schmidt having a his own mental meltdown to prove that he was incompetent. The facts speak for themselves.<br /></span></span></p><p><span class="toolSet" style="width: 335px;"><span class="byline">Is there any question why Governor Palin always makes it a point to encourage the current crop of GOP presidential contenders to be wary of campaign consultants?<br /></span></span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-20479979782756359712012-02-06T17:42:00.000-08:002012-02-07T08:10:27.340-08:00'The Blaze' Writer Trashes Governor Palin for Writing Trig ArticleMonday, a writer for Glenn Beck's website <span style="font-style: italic;">The Blaze</span>, took upon himself to trash Governor Palin for writing that beautiful <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/02/05/life-with-trig-sarah-palin-on-raising-a-special-needs-child.html">article</a> that was published over the weekend on the Daily Beast. Quite frankly, Beck's writer shocked me with his tone and lack of reason for posting the piece. So why did <span style="font-style: italic;">The Blaze</span> host this nauseating garbage? Why did Beck's editors permit someone (a small man who writes just like a "progressive<span class="st">™"</span> btw) to attack Governor Palin in this fashion, on this website?<br /><br />The writer, who goes by the name "Eddie Scarry" <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/02/06/somehow-santorums-family-troubles-relate-to-sarah-palin/" target="_blank">wrote</a>:<br /><blockquote>What’s the first thing that came to mind when you heard that <strong>Rick Santorum</strong>‘s special needs child was in the hospital with pneumonia late last month? I bet all of <strong>Mitt Romney</strong>‘s money it wasn’t <strong>Sarah Palin</strong> unless you <em>are</em> Sarah Palin.</blockquote><br />He clearly tries to suggest that Governor Palin used the Santorums troubles to bring attention to herself. A disgraceful suggestion, especially since the Daily Beast reached out to Governor Palin to write the article, not the other way around. From <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/sarah-palin-newsweek-trig-andrew-sullivan_n_1255761.html" target="_blank">HuffPo</a> (emphasis):<br /><blockquote>But a Daily Beast spokesperson says the Palin piece was assigned last week following the news that Rick Santorum's daughter, Bella, had been <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/bella-santorum-pneumonia-trisomy-18_n_1241392.html" target="_blank">hospitalized</a> and he was briefly leaving the campaign trail.<br /><br />"<span style="font-weight: bold;">We asked Sarah Palin if she would like to share her personal story about life with a child with special needs upon learning about Senator Santorum's decision last week to place his campaign on hold to be with his daughter,</span>" the spokesperson emailed.</blockquote><br />Scarry continued to embarrass himself by writing:<br /><blockquote>Of the roughly 900-word article, 123 of them relate to Santorum and his daughter <strong>Bella</strong> who was born with Trisomy 18, a disability similar to Down syndrome.<br /><br />It’s all downhill from there. For more perspective, the names “Rick” and “Santorum” appear three times total and are all found in the first paragraph. The word “my,” in reference to Palin herself, appears 15 times throughout the rest. I didn’t bother searching for “I” and “I’ve.”</blockquote><br />That would be because the Daily Beast asked her to <span style="font-weight: bold;">"share her personal story," </span>Mr. Scarry! And just how is it "downhill from there?" Did he even read her article? If so, does he possess a heart? Only an empty person could read the governor's words regarding her son and think they were a downhill track to anywhere. It was a touching piece, written from the heart by a mother who loves her son. Something that anyone with a special needs child could truly appreciate.<br /><br />Which leads me back to Glenn Beck, who also has a child with special needs... He, of all people, should be able to empathize with what Governor Palin wrote in her article. Yet, his website allows this very small human to trash and demean the message she was sending. It's truly sad, but what else should we expect from website run by a man who once made his money from the Tea Party, and now suggests they're <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/glenn-beck/2011/12/13/beck-suggests-tea-party-racist" target="_blank">racists</a> just like the progressives<span class="st">™ do?</span><br /><br /><span class="st"><strong>Update: </strong>John Nolte weighs in over at <a href="http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2012/02/07/beck-site-attacks-sarah-palin-over-trig-article-writer-calls-palin-supporter-whore/" target="_blank">Big Journalism</a>:</span><br /><blockquote>What the Blaze is intentionally doing here, is misleading its readers into believing Governor Palin was supposed to write a piece about the Santorum family and their daughter Bella. Moreover, The Blaze obviously wants their readers to believe that Palin selfishly exploited what happened to the Santorums so that she could write something all about herself.<br /><br />That’s the only explanation for why the Blaze counts the number of times “Rick” and “Santorum” are used, or why there’s a count of how many words are dedicated to the Santorums. Why would those word counts matter otherwise?<br /><br />The lie the Blaze tells here, is one of omission. But it’s a lie nonetheless, because the truth happens to be the COMPLETE opposite. Which leads me to a bigger question…<br /><br />What are we to make of the fall of Glenn Beck when we’re forced to use <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/sarah-palin-newsweek-trig-andrew-sullivan_n_1255761.html">the Huffington Post </a>to correct his site’s misinformation … about Sarah Palin?<br /><br />Yes, what just flew past your window was a pig, because today ”the truth has no agenda” at <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/sarah-palin-newsweek-trig-andrew-sullivan_n_1255761.html">the Huffington Post</a>:</blockquote><br />Nolte also mentions the little scuffle I got into with Eddie Scarry yesterday on Twitter, wherein he called me a "whore." I initially left this part out of my piece because I didn't want to distract readers from my purpose for writing it. That, and I really don't care what this person calls me. I've been called many names in the past for supporting Governor Palin, all by folks who don't know a thing about me. And I'll admit that I'm not totally innocent in this either. I did refer to Mr. Scarry as a "jackass." Where I come from, that's what you call someone for doing something stupid but it's not an indictment on their character. It turns out that Mr. Scarry is worse than a "jackass" but I'll refrain from anymore name-calling.<br /><br />The important thing to remember is that as long as Mr. Scarry posts on <em>The Blaze</em>, Glenn Beck is essentially endorsing his words. All of them. The most troubling of course, were those words used to trash Governor Palin for doing what was asked of her.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-82997929176262533442012-02-03T21:41:00.000-08:002012-02-04T09:17:53.906-08:00Peter Schweizer Reacts to the STOCK Act Passing in the SenateLast Thursday, the US Senate passed the <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1148:">STOCK Act</a>, legislation that would ban members of congress from insider trading. From <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57370812-503544/stock-act-passes-in-the-senate/">CBS News</a>:<br /><blockquote><p>Members of Congress are already subject to insider trading laws. But it is currently within the law for a lawmaker to buy a company's stock after learning, for example, that an upcoming bill will grant that company a large government contract.</p> <p>The ultimate fate of the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act, which comes in the wake of a <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57323527/congress-exempt-from-insider-trading-laws/">"60 Minutes" story on potential congressional insider trading</a>, remains unclear - though its prospects are relatively good. Passage in the Senate was complicated by a flurry of amendments added to the legislation, including a proposal that <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57370812-503544/stock-act-passes-in-the-senate/www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57369914-503544/senators-we-shouldnt-buy-and-sell-stocks/www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57369914-503544/senators-we-shouldnt-buy-and-sell-stocks/">senators be prevented from owning individual stocks unless they are in a blind trust</a>, and another that senators who become lobbyists lose their pensions. Some lawmakers expressed skittishness at the efforts to broaden the scope of the legislation...</p><p>One criticism of the original legislation - raised by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor - was that the original bill did not also focus on the executive branch. That issue seems to have been addressed: An amendment to extend the new rules to cover the executive branch passed on Thursday 58-41.</p>In a statement following the vote, Cantor said he was "pleased" with the Senate action -- but added that that the version of the bill passed Thursday still needed to be reviewed. The Virgina Republican said the House would take up the legislation next week; if the House passes an amended version of the bill, it will have to go back to the Senate for another vote. </blockquote>C4P readers are <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/tag/peter-schweizer">familiar</a> with Peter Schweizer's work, shining a spotlight on members of Congress for abusing their positions. In a piece published at <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/03/throw-them-all-out-author-lauds-insider-trading-ban-move-by-congress.html?fb_ref=article&fb_source=home_multiline"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Daily Beast</span></a> on Friday, Schweizer reacts to the STOCK Act bill's passage in the Senate:<br /><blockquote>The <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/02/02/senate-passes-insider-trading-ban.html">STOCK Act</a> to ban insider trading by members of Congress has sailed through the Senate, 96-3, and many members of the U.S. Senate were no doubt kicking and screaming as they voted for it. Heck, some of the most prominent cosponsors were <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/11/13/how-obama-s-alternative-energy-programs-became-green-graft.html">people that I identified in my book</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0547573146/thedaibea-20/" target="_blank"><em>Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Priso</em>n</a>, as having <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Lucky-Break-Novel-Esther-Freud/dp/0547573146/thedaibea-20" target="_blank">stock-trading activities</a> that correlated nicely with their legislative work.<br /><div class="text parbase section"><p>But let’s not let any of that sour the moment. The U.S. Senate has finally passed an important piece of legislation that reminds us all that members of Congress should abide by the same rules the rest of us do, including those involving insider trading.</p></div> <a name="body_text2" style="visibility:hidden"></a><div class="text parbase section"><p>I’ve made a lot of enemies in Washington over the past three months. I’ve been called names (by members of both political parties) and threatened with litigation. (My response was “go right ahead.”) But let’s take a moment to talk positively about some of those who made a difference in making this happen. After all, the American West was won by wagon train, and it took a team of dedicated and courageous people to bring us to this point.</p><p><b>The media:</b> There were three news outlets that were determined to get to the bottom of this story regardless of who they ticked off: one on TV, another in print, and a third online. <i>60 Minutes</i> producers Ira Rosen and Gabrielle Schonder, as well as correspondent Steve Kroft, got a lot of heat when they were working on <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388130n" target="_blank">this story</a>. But despite distorted attacks by very powerful people in Washington, who took an “attack the messenger approach,” they didn’t blink. Bravo. <i>Newsweek’s</i> <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/contributors/peter-j-boyer.html">Peter Boyer</a> (The Daily Beast is the online home of Newsweek magazine) was equally committed to getting to the truth and fought for this story to get out and took a lot of ground fire for it. If these individuals don’t win journalism awards for their work, there is no justice. Online, <a href="http://www.breitbart.tv/schweizer-political-class-only-group-in-america-immune-from-illegal-insider-trading-laws/" target="_blank">Andrew Breitbart</a> (with whom I work), was all over this story from the beginning and was willing to go wherever it led, which meant going after both Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals. He was essentially alone on this story. The actions of all of these individuals stand in stark contrast to many members of the Washington media who simply ignored the story or actually attacked it in an effort to curry favor with the Washington establishment. Unfortunately, there are a lot of lapdogs and too few watchdogs.</p> </div><div class="text parbase section"><p><b>The politicians:</b> The STOCK Act was introduced several years ago, but could never garner more than nine co-sponsors. Congressmen Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Walter Jones (R-NC), Tim Walz (D-MN) , and Brian Baird (a Democrat who represented Washington state, but who has since left) were doing the early lifting on this bill. They were against congressional insider trading before it was cool. They should be applauded. Once the battle was on, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) introduced a similar bill and became one of the most fierce in making sure the issue would not go away. Another warrior is <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2010/06/28/real-world-star-eyes-house-seat.html">Rep. Sean Duffy</a>, a freshman from Wisconsin who recognizes that the STOCK Act is not nearly strong enough by itself and has proposed the <a href="http://biggovernment.com/whall/2012/01/31/rep-sean-duffy-says-restrict-act-provides-greater-transparency-than-the-stock-act/" target="_blank">RESTRICT Act</a>, which must be passed next.</p></div> <a name="body_text5" style="visibility:hidden"></a><div class="text parbase section"><p><b>The American public:</b> In all the people I spoke to about this problem, not one thought that members of Congress should be allowed to do this. And there were plenty of people who went further than simply being angry: they took action. In Birmingham, Ala., more than 100 Tea Party protesters showed up at Rep. Spencer Bachus’s office to protest his stock-options trading. Within two hours of doing so, Bachus declared his desire to hold hearings on the matter. He is now facing a serious primary challenger.</p><p>The passage of the STOCK Act in the Senate is just the first battlefield victory in this war for reform. The STOCK Act makes congressional insider-trading illegal. But let’s be clear: it alone doesn’t go nearly far enough to deal with the problems of cronyism and corruption that we face. It deals only with publicly traded stock, not equity buys in private companies. It does nothing to close the sweetheart deals involving IPO shares that can make politicians more money in one day than a bribe ever could. And insider-trading cases are very hard to win. On top of that, the Securities and Exchange Commission and Justice Department are unlikely to go after a powerful politician. Just look at what happened to the FBI when they were investigating Rep. William Jefferson, who famously took bribes and <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2009/11/13/former-la-congressman-gets-13-years.html">put the money in his freezer</a>. There were threats to cut the FBI budget!</p></div></blockquote>Schweizer then mentions importance of passing Rep. Duffy’s <a href="http://duffy.house.gov/columns/duffy-op-ed-restrict-act">RESTRICT Act</a> and the need to apply these same ethical standards to the executive branch.<br /><br />You can read the entire article <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/03/throw-them-all-out-author-lauds-insider-trading-ban-move-by-congress.html?fb_ref=article&fb_source=home_multiline">here</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-56091415234312020802012-01-25T10:39:00.000-08:002012-01-25T13:27:15.635-08:00Obama Says He'll Sign Bill Banning Insider Trading on Capitol HillAs many of you are aware, Peter Schweizer, Governor Palin's adviser and an editor for Breitbart, has been leading the fight in <a href="http://amzn.to/tysteY">exposing</a> the insider trading and abuse of power by the nation's lawmakers. To the surprise of many of us, President Obama took up the issue of insider trading on Capitol Hill in last night's State of the Union speech.<br /><br />Consider me skeptical, yet encouraged by Obama's statement on this particular issue. The other 99% of his speech was just more of the same class warfare, leftist drivel that we've come to expect from the current commander-in-chief, and thus, not very encouraging at all.<br /><br />Via <a href="http://biggovernment.com/whall/2012/01/24/victory-breitbart-editors-battle-against-insider-trading-forces-presidents-hand/">BigGovernment</a>:<br /><blockquote>In a State of the Union speech devoid of clarity or specifics, President Barack Obama offered but one shining exception: a direct call for members of Congress to send him a bill to ban congressional insider trading.</blockquote><br /><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/McbqyUZ_MVE" allowfullscreen="" width="420" frameborder="0" height="315"></iframe><br /><blockquote>“Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress and I will sign it tomorrow,” President Obama said to applause. “Let’s limit any elected official from owning stock in industries they impact.”<br /><br />Since the release of “Throw Them All Out,” Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer has been a one-man battalion fighting for members of Congress to abide by the same insider trading laws that apply to all Americans. President Obama’s speech Tuesday night is evidence that Schweizer’s battle against congressional insider trading and cronyism has scored a critical victory.<br /><br />“It appears that our message has finally broken through,” said Schweizer in an interview Tuesday night with Breitbart News. “Thousands of citizens across America have called and written their representatives and the White House demanding a ban on congressional insider trading. The President’s speech tonight is proof that their efforts were not in vain. Now is the time to apply maximum pressure and get behind Rep. Sean Duffy’s (R-WI) RESTRICT Act. It’s the best proposal I’ve seen to date.”<br /><br />The RESTRICT (Restoring Ethical Standards, Transparency, and Responsibility in Congressional Trading) Act (H.R. 3550) would require members of Congress to either establish blind trusts or submit to a three day public disclosure of any and all investments. According to Schweizer, the bill is preferable to other bills, such as the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act, which Schweizer believes do not go far enough to remedy the problem...<br /><br />“There’s still much work to be done,” said Schweizer. “We need to get behind Rep. Duffy’s RESTRICT Act and let our leaders know that we will not stand idly by as members of Congress profit off of access to material, nonpublic information.”</blockquote>You can read the entire piece by Wynton Hall <a href="http://biggovernment.com/whall/2012/01/24/victory-breitbart-editors-battle-against-insider-trading-forces-presidents-hand/">here</a>.<br /><br />While this is indeed a "victory" in the fight against corruption in government, I'll believe that the president is serious about signing a bill when I see it. I'd also like to read any bill he does sign if it ever does land on his desk. Obama is good at selling one thing as another, and since the media rarely calls him out on this, why wouldn't he be?<br /><br />One last thing that struck me about the president's comments was his sheer hypocrisy. Towards the end of the clip above, he says:<br /><blockquote>Let's make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can't lobby Congress, and vice versa – an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.</blockquote>Yes it does, Mr. President. However, the same should apply to the executive branch, shouldn't it? If you recall, Obama's bundlers were at the heart of the Solyndra scandal.<br /><br />From the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-e-mails-show-obama-fundraiser-discussed-lobbying-white-house/2011/11/09/gIQAqPsq5M_print.html">Washington Post</a>:<br /><blockquote><p>A major Obama fundraiser strategized with one of his associates last year about how to get White House and Energy Department assistance for a solar company in which his family funds had a substantial interest, according to e-mails released Wednesday by House Republicans.</p> Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser advised on how to press officials for federal contracts and additional loan assistance for Solyndra, the failed solar company that left taxpayers on the hook for $535 million in federal loans, the e-mails show...<br /><br />Kaiser was a bundler for Obama’s 2008 campaign and has been a frequent White House visitor, using meetings with top officials to seek stimulus funds for Tulsa-based projects and to discuss his charitable projects, he has said. His family foundation was the biggest investor in Solyndra, but he has denied that he had any involvement in discussions of Solyndra’s 2009 federal loan...<br /><p>The new e-mails suggest more contact between Solyndra officials and White House officials than was previously known. They suggest that Kaiser and his advisers had hopes that Solyndra would secure a second federal loan. </p></blockquote>I do commend Obama for talking about the "corrosive influence of money in politics," I also recognize that the current administration is just as 'corroded' as Congress. My advice to voters is to do as the title of Schweizer's book suggests and "throw them all out" come November, and that includes Obama.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-33251904736845070212012-01-19T22:21:00.000-08:002012-01-19T23:44:03.616-08:00Romney Lacks Credibility to Attack Crony CapitalismAt Thursday night's GOP presidential debate in South Carolina, Mitt Romney rightly attacked Barack Obama on the issue of crony capitalism. As noted by NBC's <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/mmurraypolitics/status/160169491140063232">Mark Murray</a>:<br /><blockquote>And Romney adopts the Palin/Perry "crony capitalism" line against Obama, and dings president on Keystone</blockquote>Good for him!<br /><br />Unfortunately, Romney's history shows that he lacks the credibility to make this a real issue during the general election. While serving as the Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney handed over $4.5 million in state government money to cronies of his very own, for companies that failed. Via the <a href="http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1385034">Boston Herald</a> (emphasis):<br /><blockquote>GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has hammered President Obama for his administration’s tax-funded investment blunders — but <span style="font-weight: bold;">when Romney was governor, the state handed out $4.5 million in loans to two firms run by his campaign donors</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">that have since defaulted, leaving taxpayers holding the bag.</span><br style="font-weight: bold;"><br />The two companies — Acusphere and Spherics Inc. — stiffed the state on nearly $2.1 million in loans provided through the state’s Emerging Technology Fund, a $25 million investment program created while Romney was governor in 2003 that benefited 13 local firms.<br /><br />Acusphere, a biotechnology firm headed by a Romney campaign donor, got $2 million in 2004 that it was supposed to put toward a $20 million manufacturing facility in Tewksbury, which never became fully operational. Calls to Acusphere’s headquarters in Lexington were not returned...<br /><p>Spherics Inc., meanwhile, was lured from Rhode Island to Mans–field with much fanfare from the Romney administration, partly through a $2 million loan in 2005. By 2008, the company laid off all employees and completely shut down. The state received about $300,000 when the company liquidated its assets, but the firm defaulted on more than $1.5 million of the state loan, Abbruzzese said.</p> <p>Together, the two companies’ investors and executives donated more than $7,000 to Romney’s past campaigns.</p></blockquote>The hypocrisy didn't go unnoticed by a pro-Obama Super PAC called "American Bridge." NBC's Domenico Montanaro <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/05/9984534-pro-obama-super-pacs-hit-romney-for-own-solyndra">reports</a>:<br /><blockquote>Democratic-aligned Super PACs are going after Mitt Romney on what they depict as essentially his own Solyndra, a further sign that Democrats see the writing on the wall and that they believe Romney will be President Obama's opponent this fall.<br /><br />A video produced by American Bridge, called “Romney’s energy loan hypocrisy,” hits Romney for loans made while he was governor of Massachusetts to two companies that eventually failed or moved away – and had ties to Romney campaign donors.</blockquote>They certainly didn't do a very good job of exonerating Obama, but I digress.<br /><br />Couple this information with what we already know about Romney's inclination to grow and link government with certain businesses. As Timothy Carney wrote in the <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/05/mitt-romney-big-government-good-business?utm_source=feedburnerdcexaminer%2FPolitics">Washington Examiner</a> last May:<br /><blockquote><p><span class="BodyCopy">Examine Romney's dalliances with big government that have caused him such grief, and you'll see a trend: They all are described as "pro-business," they all amount to corporate welfare, and they all reflect the technocratic mind-set you'd expect of a business consultant. Romney's record and rhetoric show how managerialism veers away from the free market and into corporatism.</span></p> <p><span class="BodyCopy">Begin with health care. Romney last week defended his Obamacare prototype in Massachusetts by pointing to the findings of a think tank that was "funded by business." In a similar vein, the Boston Globe attacked Romneycare's critics in an April editorial: "if they weren't hyperventilating about the national law, they might come to recognize that the role Romney played on the state level was skillful, creative, and business-friendly."</span></p> <p><span class="BodyCopy">Yes, the legislation was business-friendly -- in a big-government way: It required individuals to buy health insurance, and it provided taxpayer subsidies for health insurance, helping insurers and employers at the expense of taxpayers and patients...</span></p><p><span class="BodyCopy">Romney didn't compete for business through lower taxes and regulation: He tried to entice them to the state with special subsidies. In 2005, Romney lured Spherics, a pharmaceutical company, away from Rhode Island by offering a $2.5 million direct loan from the state's "Emerging Technology Fund." That same year, he signed a bill creating the Massachusetts Film Office that was empowered to hand out special tax credits to studios filming movies in the Bay State.</span></p> <p><span class="BodyCopy">Romney's corporatism isn't limited to the state level. In his 2010 book "No Apology," he lays out a national energy plan including more federal funding for energy research and supporting subsidies for "infant industries." He has supported that favorite of Iowa caucus-voters, ethanol subsidies.</span></p></blockquote>On one hand, it's great that Romney is going after Obama for his crony dealings, failed energy policies, and kowtowing to special interests. On the other, how is he going to make the case against Obama during a general election when the president's supporters (as they already have done) can point right back at Romney and invoke rule #4 in Alinsky's book? Mitt Romney needs to ensure the country that he will not partake in crony capitalism on a national level, if he is elected as the GOP nominee. For now, his record indicates that he lacks the credibility to do so.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-4921773983113937762012-01-16T12:15:00.000-08:002012-01-16T21:51:05.895-08:00Imploring Mitt Romney to Release His RecordsLast week, Governor Palin urged Mitt Romney to be release his tax records and back up his "job creation" claims.<br /><br />Via <a href="http://biggovernment.com/publius/2012/01/11/breaking-palin-urges-romney-to-release-tax-returns-provide-proof-of-100000-jobs-created-at-bain-capital/" target="_blank">BigGovernment</a>:<br /><blockquote>“Governor Romney has claimed to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain, and people are wanting to know: is there proof?” Palin told Sean Hannity on Fox News.<br /><br />Rick Tyler, former Gingrich aide and head of Newt Gingrich’s Super PAC, has already accused Romney of having created those 100,000 jobs in Asia and Mexico. Earlier this week, Big Government pointed out that Romney’s claim to have created 100,000 jobs contrasts with claims he made during his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, when he claimed to have created 10,000 jobs at Bain. Romney retired from Bain Capital in 1999.<br /><br />Palin said that Romney needed to come clean about his record, given the likelihood that Democrats would probe the tax issue and Romney’s tenure at Bain if he were to become the Republican nominee.</blockquote><br />While being interviewed again last Saturday, Governor Palin restated why she believes Mitt Romney needs to be more transparent about his record:<br /><br /><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/A-XZYdynmo0?rel=0" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe><br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">"Let's talk about job creation claims by a candidate and get to the bottom of it. And the candidate who is being accused of maybe not creating all of the jobs that they have claimed, well he can capitalize on it and he can explain what his record is."</blockquote><br />Governor Palin is absolutely correct. Mitt Romney can use the opportunity of people calling on him to release his records to make his case. By releasing his tax records, the data he used to come up with the number of jobs he "created" at Bain Capital, and even the names of his bundlers, he can "inoculate" himself for what is sure to come.<br /><br />As the front-runner in this GOP primary cycle, the left is presently storing up ammunition to use against Mitt Romney come general election season. They are fully aware that Romney has yet to release these very important documents. Without them, the left is free to assume any reason they want as to why he hasn't.<br /><br />As Eleanor Clift did over the weekend, via <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/01/14/eleanor-clift-romney-withholding-tax-returns-because-theyd-show-offsh" target="_blank">Newsbusters</a>:<br /><br /><iframe title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/109156" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe><br /><blockquote>ELEANOR CLIFT, NEWSWEEK: Romney’s refusal so far to release his income tax returns will be linked to probable investments in the Cayman Islands and the likelihood that he paid a very small percentage of his income in taxes.</blockquote><br />I'm not here to debate the use of offshore accounts. I personally feel that taxes should remain low on principle, but it is a line of attack that Democrats will use to vilify Romney in the general. Another line of attack will be Romney's refusal to release information pertaining to his bundlers. This can been seen in a Washington Post editorial titled "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-wont-romney-show-his-money-trail/2012/01/11/gIQAcSZ5qP_story.html" target="_blank">Why won’t Romney release his tax returns?</a>" from January 11th:<br /><blockquote>Tax returns offer information not available on the financial disclosure forms that are legally required of candidates, including their charitable deductions and use of tax shelters. Tax information could be especially revealing in the case of Mr. Romney and his extensive investment income, which may be why he has been reluctant to release it. During his 1994 Senate race, Mr. Romney called on Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D) to release his tax returns and show he had <a href="http://boston.com/community/blogs/less_is_more/2011/12/romneys_income_taxes.html" target="_blank">“nothing to hide.”</a>Neither candidate released his tax information. Such secrecy will not stand for a presidential nominee.<br /><br />The identity of a candidate’s bundlers is similarly important. Campaign finance laws limit individual contributions to a candidate to $2,500 per election ($5,000 if you include the primary and general election campaigns), but bundlers haul in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by tapping extensive donor networks. Knowing to whom and for how much candidates are indebted is essential information, of which candidates and their advisers are exquisitely aware. Yet under current law the only bundlers whose identities candidates must disclose are registered lobbyists. That information is useful but insufficient: A CEO who bundles $500,000 for a candidate can have as much influence as the company’s Washington lobbyist. Why should this knowledge be kept from voters?</blockquote><br />The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/opinion/taxes-and-transparency.html?_r=1&src=tp" target="_blank">New York Times</a> agrees:<br /><blockquote>It is not too much to ask someone seeking the nation’s highest office to sacrifice some personal privacy to reassure voters that they have no hidden entanglements.<br /><br />And this is not the only place where secrecy has been a problem. Unlike Mr. Obama or John McCain, or George W. Bush in earlier contests, this year’s presidential hopefuls have refused to identify the “bundlers” who reel in many hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions for their campaigns, disclosing only those bundlers who are registered lobbyists, as the law requires.</blockquote><br />Only Mitt Romney's campaign can save itself (and possibly the GOP as a whole) a lot of future headaches by releasing the information in question. If they continue to stone-wall, the left and their friends in the media can imply anything they want the general public to believe, as to why Romney is being so secretive.<br /><br />I implore Mitt Romney's campaign to release Romney's tax records, his jobs numbers claim, and the information about his bundlers, in a day in age when crony capitalism and insider trading rules Washington DC at the expense of the nation.<br /><br />You can do the same by emailing the Romney campaign at: <a href="mailto:info@mittromney.com" target="_blank">info@mittromney.com</a><br /><br />Via snail mail at:<br /><blockquote>Mitt Romney for President<br />P.O. Box 149756<br />Boston, MA 02114-9756</blockquote>Or by phone at: 857-288-3500Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-8406900854444252492012-01-05T20:11:00.000-08:002012-01-07T00:29:04.083-08:00Dear Hot Air, What Did Palin Ever Do to You?I'm wondering what Governor Palin ever did to garner the level of caustic snark she has received from the writers at Hot Air. Aside from Ed Morrissey, who has generally covered the governor in a respectful and substantive manner, the other writers seem to have a bad case of PDS.<br /><br />For example, while <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/05/sarah-palin-to-keynote-cpac/">covering</a> the CPAC keynote address announcement yesterday, Tina Korbe took the opportunity to rehash old memes and linked to a couple deranged Palin-haters. Why the need for this kind of "analysis" just to cover a simple announcement? I guess it would make more sense if Hot Air were a lefty rag, or a regular MSM page, but it's not. It's one of the top conservative blogs online, so this attitude held by most of it's writers isn't based on ideological grounds. Or is it? I really don't know because I don't understand it, hence the title of this piece.<br /><br />Korbe began by stating:<br /><blockquote><p>For the past four years, she has swayed, danced and dodged around the Conservative Political Action Conference, but, this year, Sarah Palin says she has committed to deliver the keynote address Feb. 11, the last day of the conference. ABC’s The Note recounts the rocky history between the former vice presidential candidate and CPAC’s sponsor, the American Conservative Union:</p> <blockquote><p>She declined to keynote the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cpac-goers-praise-sarah-palin-question-presidential-potential/story?id=12886938#.TwXB7zU9Cf4" target="_blank">event in 2011</a>, citing a scheduling conflict. But her refusal to participate fueled speculation that she wasn’t going because of GOProud, a gay Republican group, that planned to attend. She denied that was the case. Her political action committee, SarahPAC, did sponsor a reception at the convention.</p> <p>In 2010, Palin cited <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/sarah-palin-cpac-conference-turns-down-keynote-speech/" target="_blank">ACU’s business dealings</a>, particularly those of its then-chairman David Keene, as the reason for dodging CPAC.</p> <p>In 2009, she initially accepted an invitation to kick off the convention, but then dropped out, saying that she had to attend to the “duties of governing.” She sent a taped message instead.</p> <p>And in 2008, Palin cancelled her speech just two weeks before the event. By then, she had not been named Sen. John McCain’s vice presidential candidate, but in 2007, the man who would eventually become her running mate was booed by the crowd.</p></blockquote></blockquote>Yes, in <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2009/02/heartbreak-palin-will-not-be-at-cpac-this-year.html">2009</a> Governor Palin had her hands full in Alaska, not to mention she was getting sued every time she even thought about leaving the state. In <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2010/01/jay-tea-sarahs-sense-of-smell.html">2010</a>, there were some issues with CPAC head, David Keene. In <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2010/01/jay-tea-sarahs-sense-of-smell.html">2011</a>, the CPAC keynote address took place on the same day as the Iron Dog banquet, so there was a scheduling conflict. That's not exactly what I would refer to as 'swaying,' dancing,' or 'dodging' the event, and it certainly had nothing to do with GOProud's participation. Both Tina Korbe and ABC could stand to do a little research before writing their articles. Then again, that wouldn't help them distort perceptions, so why would they?<br /><br />Korbe continues:<br /><blockquote>Why now? It’s fun to speculate. Could be that she’s keen to recover her standing in the CPAC straw poll, in which she’s fallen over the years.</blockquote>Um, no. We all know how Governor Palin feels about <a href="http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/09/03/palin-polls-are-strippers-and-cross-country-skiers#ixzz1ihbTLbZk">polls</a>:<br /><blockquote>"Polls? Nah... they're for strippers and cross country skiers,"<br /></blockquote>It's laughable to suggest that Governor Palin would accept an invitation to give the keynote address at this years CPAC conference, all because she wanted to get higher numbers during the event's straw poll. During a year in which she's NOT even running for office, no less. Korbe continues:<br /><blockquote>Could be that she doesn’t have quite so many opportunities to nab headlines as she once did.</blockquote>Governor Palin can "nab" a headline anytime she wants to. Korbe is obviously a person who doesn't understand Governor Palin very well. The governor doesn't "nab" headlines to get attention for herself. She has always used her platform to push a message of reform, fiscal sanity, and responsible government. If people would just get over their media-driven, false perceptions they might just hear what Governor Palin has to say. Next:<br /><blockquote>Could be that she thinks CPAC could be an ultra-dramatic setting to drop an endorsement.</blockquote>Ah yes, we all know how Governor Palin uses "ultra-dramatic" settings to make announcements. After all, she announced she was running for the Governor of Alaska from her kitchen, and announced she wasn't running for president by calling in to a radio talk show. Try again, Tina:<br /><blockquote>Or it could be that she still believes strongly in the message of limited government that she’s articulated from her first day on the national scene — and sees this as a timely opportunity to remind voters of that message.</blockquote>Bingo! She finally gets it. So why all of the meme-driven, garbage speculation on the way to reality? Because that's what Hot Air does. She goes on (emphasis replaces links in original piece):<br /><blockquote>It’s certain, though, that she’s still a lightning rod for emotion and opinion. As just one recent example, her remark to the effect that Michele Bachmann should drop out of the presidential race drew exceptional <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/03/palin-maybe-bachmann-should-think-about-endorsing-someone-and-get-out/">cheers</a> and <span style="font-weight: bold;">jeers</span>. Today, Twitter and the blogosphere are alight with folks who say they’re <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/dcfilmgirl_/status/155031626936627202">excited</a> to hear Palin speak at CPAC and those who say they saw this coming and, frankly, <span style="font-weight: bold;">consider Palin a little passé</span>.</blockquote>These highlighted examples that I removed the links from, were not from honest people who really took issue with Governor Palin over her Bachmann statement, or just some folks who only now consider her "a little passé." No, the former link was to John Ziegler's website, who has flipped his own script in trying to obtain relevancy and a meal. The latter is a link to someone who has always had an irrational hatred for Governor Palin, by the name of Doug Mataconis. Yet, Korbe links to them without any context as if they are honest brokers without the need to include their background information to her readers. It's an old dirty trick that requires readers to be informed before they actually read the piece. If not, they may walk away from the article without all of the facts.<br /><br />I guess it makes sense that a site run by an anonymous PDSer like "Allahpudit" would seek other writers who share his disdain for the reformer from Alaska. What I don't get is why that disdain exists in the first place. If she were running against their candidate in this year's GOP primary, it would make sense, but she isn't. Whether people such as Jazz Shaw and Tina Korbe like it or not, Governor Palin is a leading voice in the Republican party and with grassroots conservatives. Just this week, Mr. "Electable" himself, Mitt Romney <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57353012-503544/romney-blasts-obama-as-crony-capitalist/">referred</a> to Obama as a "crony capitalist." That never would have happened had the governor not made this an issue during this election.<br /><br />Governor Palin and her family have endured more crap from the media and the left than anyone who writes for Hot Air ever has. She has been calling Obama out since 2008, and has been a major voice shaping the issues that concern our movement and our nation. She deserves more respect than she gets from GOP, and most certainly from a group of bloggers who supposedly agree with her on those very issues.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-48208028645519084462011-12-22T16:42:00.000-08:002011-12-23T14:59:33.113-08:00Behind the Smears of HBO's "Game Change"Many months ago, HBO announced it was planning to make a movie based on the book, "Game Change" by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin. After reading John Nolte's <a href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/03/09/just-in-time-for-the-election-hbo-to-release-film-based-on-sarah-palin-hit-job-game-change/">article</a>, which indicated that the movie would be focused primarily around Governor Palin and it wouldn't be portraying her in a very positive light, I decided to study up on it. I purchased a copy of the book, read the TWO chapters based on Governor Palin, and took down some notes.<br /><br />As Nicole recently <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/12/game-change-trailer-hbo-documents-mccain-palin-victory-oh-wait.html">noted</a>, HBO decided to release a trailer to that movie during this holiday week. The actual movie doesn't air until March of 2012, or as John Nolte wrote in his follow-up <a href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2011/12/21/trailer-talk-hbos-game-change-is-all-about-sarah-palin/">piece</a> on Wednesday:<br /><blockquote>The one dynamic HBO probably didn’t count on was Palin’s decision not to run for the 2012 nomination. The film’s promotion and the cable news chatter that’s sure to follow seems timed to hit on, before, and around March 6, which is Super Tuesday.<br /></blockquote>The one line from the notes I took back in March that stood out as I was reviewing them for this piece, was:<br /><blockquote>Even though this book is supposed to be a story about 2008, it's really all about 2012.</blockquote>This movie was orchestrated from start to finish as a way to damage Governor Palin during an election year by people who are not merely "artists & entertainers." Just look at the people involved in the making of the movie. First you have the director, Jay Roach who donated <a href="http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&oldest=1&lname=Roach&fname=Jay&search=Search">$2,300</a> to Barack Obama in 2008. Danny Strong, the person who wrote the screenplay, gave Obama <a href="http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=CA&last=strong&first=danny">$2,500</a> in 2008. Julianne Moore, the woman who does a poor impression of the governor, only gave $250 to Obama in '08 but shelled out <a href="http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Julianne_Moore.php">$2,500</a> to the DNC in 2010. And then there's the film's producer, Tom Hanks, who has one of the most nauseating donation lists I have ever seen, including giving a staggering sum of <a href="http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Tom_Hanks.php">$345,000</a> to Obama. It's safe to say that these people only donate large sums of money to causes they believe in. By looking at their donations, it's easy to see what it is that they believe in.<br /><br />Danny "<span style="font-style: italic;">Obama Victory Fund</span>" Strong, based his HBO screenplay on a book that came under significant <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Change#Response">scrutiny</a> after it was published, even by MSM types. The thing that stood out amongst most of it's critics was the fact that Heilemann and Halperin didn't source any of the accusations they made. They claim to have interviewed over 300 people during their research, but not one of those people are named. Heilemann and Halperin do however, name the people who were present during each instance during the '08 campaign that they claim happened. I found it interesting that within the Palin chapters of the book, Nicolle Wallace, her husband Mark Wallace, Steve Schmidt, and or the mysterious "famous GOP strategist" are always present. It's no secret that Nicolle Wallace has been <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29437">trashing</a> and undermining Governor Palin since the 2008 race. Most recently, she was caught in a lie by a former senior adviser to the McCain campaign, Charlie Black. From <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/279301/mccain-adviser-wallace-s-fiction-robert-costa">National Review Online</a>:<blockquote>Over at the Washington Examiner, Byron York reports that Wallace is claiming, in a new Time interview, that McCain’s team considered bumping Palin from the veep slot. “There certainly were discussions — not for long because of the arc the campaign took — but certainly there were discussions about whether, if McCain were to win, it would be appropriate for her to be sworn in,” Wallace tells the magazine.<br /><br />[Charlie] Black says that’s nonsense. “Nicolle, like any author, is trying to sell books. This comment to Time, like her book [It’s Classified], is a piece of fiction. There were never any such discussions. At no high level of the campaign was there ever such talk. She’s probably doing this to sell her book.”<br /><br />“Look, I was with McCain 90 percent of the time. If I wasn’t around, I knew what was happening. And nothing like this happened.” Wallace, he says, “is one of the few dissidents,” one of the “disaffected” staffers who continues to criticize Palin, and “she is inaccurate in doing so.”</blockquote>Steve Schmidt also has a long history of trashing Governor Palin. In a 2010 post, <a href="http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/01/schmidt-trashes-sarah-palin-again.html">Dan Riehl</a> pegged the source of Schmidt's animosity (emphasis):<blockquote>The only modest bit of news in all this is that the pathetic Steve Schmidt continues to lack the class and intelligence required to simply shut up. Look at the basic facts even Schmidt is forced to confess. He would make it seem as though Palin was the absolutely worst thing about the McCain campaign, then he turns around and admits that, without her, things would have been much worse. That makes no sense.<br /><br />On top of that, the fools running the campaign, including Schmidt, continued to consider Joe Lieberman for VP up until the very last minute, absolutely without realizing what a disaster that would have been. It took reactions outside the campaign to finally give them a clue how foolish they were in formulating and managing the campaign. Now suddenly, Schmidt is the all wise and wonderful know it all with the reputation, intellect and credibility to dump on Palin yet once, again? That makes no sense, either.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">In continuing to not take responsibility for what a colossal failure he, as much, if not more than anyone else, was</span> - all Schmidt has managed to accomplish with all his blathering is to put every potential national Republican candidate on notice that hiring Schmidt for perhaps anything other than coffee and sandwich fetching, would be an unmitigated disaster dooming them and their campaign to eternal hell across the Republican base.</blockquote>It's clear that McCain's campaign failed on many levels. But former staffers who were responsible for that failure, used the leftist media to shift blame from themselves on to Governor Palin, and that is reprehensible. Both the left and these former staffers had a motive to run this trash against the governor. They simply made up anything they thought sounded really bad then leaked it to an eager, Obama-rooting media who was more than happy to take their word for it. So, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the Wallaces and Schmidt are consistently present during Heilemann and Halperin's tales. But what does that say about Heilemann and Halperin as journalists?<br /><br />Can you really be a "respected journalist" if you never cite your sources? Sources are used so that readers can judge for themselves the credibility of each claim. Without them, "journalists" are doing nothing but repeating rumors, which usually earns one the title, "Gossip Columnist." What about bloggers? Personally, I try not to write on an important topics without listing my sources and posting links to back up claims. It's one reason that I've never wrote a piece about all of the rumors I've heard about Mark Halperin sexually harassing and making inappropriate comments to female professional acquaintances. After all, they're just rumors, right? (note: I have actually heard these rumors before, I didn't just make them up for effect)<br /><br />For years now, I've held to the notion that Governor Palin's foes will do whatever it takes to destroy perceptions of her in the eyes of Americans. From ex-staffers with an axe to grind, to smear merchants like Heilemann and Halperin, to the left-wing activists who "produce" all things Hollywood, this book and the movie that followed shows how folks with an agenda can work in concert to achieve their ends. While each player may have a different overall agenda, the goal is the same. In the United States, <span class="st"><a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-netflix-narrows-subscriber-gap-with-hbo/">28.2 million</a> households subscribe to HBO. That's a lot of people who, by and large, are not familiar with the antics of the Wallaces, Schmidt, the rumors about Mark Halperin, or how devoted Tom Hanks is to pushing liberalism with campaign contributions and through the use popular culture. A fact not unnoticed by those responsible for this production.<br /><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-39070964506022441782011-12-04T10:07:00.000-08:002011-12-04T10:37:28.848-08:00New York Times Pushes Ban on Congressional Insider TradingThe New York Times published an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/opinion/profit-taking-inside-congress.html?_r=1">editorial</a> today supporting a bill banning the common practice of insider trading on Capitol Hill. They wrote:<br /><blockquote> <p>A long-languishing bill to ban stock trading on inside information that lawmakers glean at private hearings and discussions has begun moving toward passage. The bill was lifted from hibernation by a new study from the Hoover Institution and a report on “60 Minutes” detailing the apparent freedom lawmakers have long enjoyed from the insider trading ban that applies to the rest of America.</p> <p><span id="more-384892"></span></p> <p>The reports question the trading practices of leading legislators in the House like Speaker John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic minority leader, and Spencer Bachus, chairman of the House financial committee, when issues like health care reform and the financial crisis occupied center stage. All deny any wrongdoing but, with many others, are jumping aboard legislation offered five years ago by Louise Slaughter, a Democrat of New York.</p> <p>Ms. Slaughter first proposed the bill when a Republican staffer privy to inside information was discovered making thousands of day trades from his office. The measure gathered dust and only nine co-sponsors — until the “60 Minutes” report was broadcast Nov. 13. Since then, more than 130 other members have signed up.</p> <p>That report complemented research by Peter Schweizer of the Hoover Institution tracking the stock profits and legislative activities of lawmakers who wind up millionaires. Earlier university studies had found stock-trading legislators smartly outperforming the market by 6 percent to 12 percent in the 1980s and 1990s.</p> <p>The potential for trading on insider information from the halls of Congress is undeniable and needs to be policed. Indeed, Congress should have protected itself long ago.<br /></p></blockquote>Read the entire piece <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/opinion/profit-taking-inside-congress.html?_r=1">here</a>.<br /><br />Peter Schweizer <a href="http://www.breitbart.tv/sec-may-not-prosecute-congressmen-for-fear-of-budget-cuts/">discussed</a> the bill on Fox News Business, but doesn't believe it goes far enough. He doesn't think that the SEC will prosecute congressmen once the bill is passed out of the fear of having their own budget cut.<br /><br /><iframe title="MRC TV video player" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/107947" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-75189058012333036482011-12-03T23:47:00.000-08:002011-12-04T10:05:48.420-08:00Leading Without a TitleTwenty-three days after Governor Palin posted a statement to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150364849368435">Facebook</a> calling for Eric Holder to be fired in the wake of the "Fast and Furious" scandal, Mitt Romney took the <span style="font-style: italic;">bold</span> step of echoing her call. Just as Rick Perry (using much of her language) <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/11/rick-perry-echoes-governor-palin-on-eric-holder.html">did</a> almost two weeks after her statement, Romney said, via <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/romney-calls-for-resignation-holder-brought-shame-to-justice-department/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Blaze</span></a>:<br /><blockquote>“Either Mr. Holder himself should resign, or the president should ask for his resignation or remove him... It’s unacceptable for him to continue in that position given the fact that he has misled Congress and entirely botched the investigation of the Fast and Furious program.”</blockquote>This cycle's GOP presidential candidates have a history of echoing Governor Palin, while very few (okay maybe only one of them) actually attributing her as their source.<br /><br />Back in September, I wrote a <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/09/gop-candidates-endorse-governor-palin.html">piece</a> after a republican debate about this occurrence. I showed examples of <a href="http://www.newt.org/news/newt-goes-record-after-cnntea-party-express-debate">Newt Gingrich</a> and <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63343.html">Michele Bachmann</a> taking on crony capitalism, and <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/story/2011-09-11/Rick-Perry-Social-Security/50362610/1">Rick Perry</a> adopting the governor's language to push for Social Security reform.<br /><br />During an <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/09/palin-takes-aim-at-gop-presidential-candidates-during-interview-with-greta-van-susteren.html">interview</a> with Greta Van Susteren, Governor Palin remarked:<br /><blockquote>“I’m getting kind of a kick out of … getting out there, giving a speech, making some statements about things that must be discussed and then the very next day watching some of the candidates get up there and discuss what it was that we just talked about, like the corruption, the crony capitalism, the waste, the fraud – some of those things that are going on right now. It’s like, come on, candidates, it’s about time you started talking about that!”</blockquote>It's a good thing that Mitt Romney has finally joined the chorus calling for Eric Holder to resign, even though he avoided the topic for weeks. It would behoove candidates to listen to Governor Palin on the issues, and if they have the credibility to do so, take them on for themselves. The earlier, the better. The longer they delay expressing their positions on such blatant examples of Obama administration incompetence like Eric Holder, the more they look like nothing more than politically expedient, issue-polling machines.<br /><br />Governor Palin has political instincts that are second to none. This is because she understands the concerns of Americans and the problems that we face as a nation. She isn't compromised by being part of the DC '<span style="font-style: italic;">in-crowd'</span> and she doesn't mind ruffling their feathers. She doesn't conduct surveys across the country telling her how to feel about the topics of the day. She appears to only "poll" her gut, and her gut seems to reflect that of most Americans. Although she is not running in this presidential election, Governor Palin has expressed the desire to continue pushing for reform in government, also keeping issues such as energy and tax reform front and center.<br /><br />We, her supporters must help Governor Palin continue to define the debate on a national level. We should get behind her when she makes a statement on an important topic or brings matters to light that should be a part of our national discussion. We should also encourage GOP candidates to continue adopting her issues as their platform, truly without even caring too much about who gets credit. The bottom-line is that it is vital that this nation get on track. We can only do that if our elected officials hear our concerns and we as a people, make demands on them to start fixing the problems. The governor has identified and brought to the public's attention many of the larger issues that plague our country. If we join Governor Palin in this fight, we can all make a difference leading from the outside, and without a title.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-9422901255232351182011-11-28T10:20:00.000-08:002011-11-28T10:44:26.620-08:00John Daly: The Media Can’t Bring Themselves to Detach Palin from GiffordsJohn Daly posted an article on <a href="http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/the-media-cant-bring-themselves-to-detach-palin-from-giffords/">BernardGoldberg.com</a> last night, about the ridiculous trick that the media keeps trying to fool their audience with by linking Governor Palin to the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Daly calls out those in the press who once again, tried to assign blame to Governor Palin, as if she had anything to do with the violent actions of the crackpot who committed the crime. He wrote:<br /><blockquote>Now, it’s lame enough when the media speculates on influences to murderers based on who authored the books that sat on their shelves at home, or who sang the songs they enjoyed listening to. But this was far more of a stretch. At the time the Palin connection was being suggested, the media knew practically nothing about the shooter. They had absolutely no idea of his political leanings. They had no idea if he even had access to the internet, let alone had ever visited the website of Palin’s political action committee.<br /><br />And despite the concept of targeting districts being used for decades by numerous political strategists (often accompanied with visual representations off cross-hairs, targets, and bulls-eyes), its metaphorical context was selectively disregarded by many in the mainstream media for the purpose of creating a link to Palin. In their well-documented disdain for the former Alaska governor, many despicably went ahead and suggested that she could have been some sort of spiritual accomplice to the shooter.<br /><br />In the end of course, Loughner was found to be a complete nut-case who former friends actually described as a “liberal” who regularly welled up in anger at the sight of George W. Bush. His longstanding, dangerous fixation on Congresswoman Giffords predated the Tea Party and Sarah Palin’s introduction onto the national scene. Palin was of no influence on him, nor was any coherent political ideology.<br /><br />One would have thought that the revelation would have put to rest the reckless and politically-motivated media assault on Palin, but as we’ve found out over the last two weeks, it didn’t.<br /><br />On November 15th, ABC ran a widely praised special on Giffords’ inspirational recovery. The special featured the congresswoman’s grueling rehabilitation and the strength of her marriage. Gabrielle Giffords’ story was a testament to the human spirit, but host, Diane Sawyer chose to cap off the program with these final comments: “After she [Giffords] voted for healthcare, she faced people in her district calling her a traitor, booing her in townhalls. Someone even fired a gun into her office door. And you may remember Sarah Palin targeted her district with an ad that had a gunsight on it.”<br /><br />Unbelievable. What relevance did any of that have to what happened to Giffords? Did ABC decide that Giffords’ amazing story of triumph after tragedy couldn’t stand on its own? Did they feel the need to concoct a few more villains? A few more hurdles? The answer is no. They just saw another opportunity to take a few political cheap shots (while they had the attention of a large audience) at the supporters of an ideology they abhor.<br /><br />But it didn’t end there. On November 23rd, Piers Morgan brought up Palin again in a CNN interview with Gabrielle Giffords’ husband, astronaut Mark Kelly.<br /><br />“Sarah Palin doesn’t come out of this very well, I don’t think, because there was a woman who at the time had been putting these cross hair things on her website and stuff, including Gabby”, said Morgan. “And in her haste to take responsibility didn’t even bother to pick the phone up, to write, do anything.”<br /><br />When Kelly confirmed that he and his wife were indeed not contacted by Palin, Morgan responded, “I find that extraordinary.”<br /><br />Extraordinary? Really? Is it customary for someone falsely accused of a crime to reach out to the victim? If anyone owed the Giffords an apology, wouldn’t it be those in the media who used the horrific tragedy to fuel a witch-hunt against those they see as their political opponents?<br /><br />Sarah Palin didn’t contact the Giffords for the same reason that I didn’t, Piers Morgan didn’t, and hundreds of millions of other Americans didn’t: We didn’t know her or her family. We kept them in our thoughts and prayers instead. Any notion that it would have been responsible for Palin to contact them is absurd. If she had, fine. But she had no moral responsibility to do so. She had no more to do with the Arizona shootings than the very people who unjustly yanked her into the story in the first place.</blockquote>You can read the entire piece <a href="http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/the-media-cant-bring-themselves-to-detach-palin-from-giffords/">here</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-61301661484419070272011-11-22T09:02:00.000-08:002011-11-22T17:53:41.006-08:00Rick Perry Echoes Governor Palin on Eric Holder<p>As of November 18th, 2011, GOP presidential contender Rick Perry had refused to state his position concerning Eric Holder in the wake of the "Fast and Furious" scandal.<br /></p><p>Via the <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/18/perry-won%E2%80%99t-call-for-holder%E2%80%99s-resignation-but-finally-takes-a-slight-stab-at-fast-and-furious/">Daily Caller</a>:</p><blockquote>For weeks, The Daily Caller has been asking Perry staffers, including chief spokesman Mark Miner, for comment on what the border state governor thinks of the operation. Perry and Miner have not commented.<br /><br />TheDC has also asked Miner if Perry thinks Holder should resign immediately — the stance of 51 congressmen so far. Perry has continued to not answer the question.<br /></blockquote><p></p><p>Today, Perry came out with a much more decisive stance calling on Eric Holder to <a href="http://www.rickperry.org/news/rick-perry-eric-holder-must-go/">resign</a>. He starts off by writing:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>Ever since the Department of Justice’s gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious became public, the Obama administration’s response has been slow and infuriating. Of particular concern is Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s lack of candor concerning what he knew and when he knew it.</p> <p>This is not a typical case of bureaucratic bungling. A 40-year-old Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry, and possibly a U.S. immigration agent, are dead because of a horribly ill-conceived Justice Department operation that went tragically wrong.</p></blockquote>Wait a second... This looks awfully familiar, doesn't it?<br /><br />Back on <span style="font-weight: bold;">November 10th, 2011</span>, Governor Palin released a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/fire-eric-holder/10150364849368435">statement</a> titled "Fire Eric Holder." She wrote:<br /><blockquote><p>When the stories about Operation Fast and Furious first broke, it sounded too crazy even for this administration.</p><p>Why would any government official with an ounce of common sense think it’s a good idea to facilitate the smuggling of thousands of guns into the hands of violent Mexican drug cartels? That’s what Operation Fast and Furious did.</p><p>You might think Eric Holder’s Department of Justice was setting up a sting operation in which our federal agents would swoop down and arrest the bad guys the minute the guns traded hands. But that’s <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282606/fast-furious-was-bushs-fault-andrew-c-mccarthy" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">not what happened</a>. Eric Holder’s DOJ had American gun dealers sell weapons to “straw purchasers” tied to drug cartels without actually following the movement of the guns as they were then sold to Mexican drug lords. They apparently thought this so-called “gun-walking” operation would help them chart the path of gun smuggling, but they didn’t have a plan to actually control the weapons’ movements as the guns were allowed to “walk” into Mexico. All Holder’s DOJ did was arm violent criminals. What manner of fools do we have working in this administration? What’s next? Supplying nuclear weapons components to the Iranians so we can track their activities?</p><p>Fast and Furious isn’t just your typical government incompetence. This is a deadly tragedy. U.S. border agent Brian Terry was gunned down with weapons connected to Holder’s debacle. At least 200 Mexican citizens were also killed by criminals using Fast and Furious weapons. We can only imagine how many more people will be murdered by criminals our government armed.</p></blockquote>And back to Rick Perry's statement:<br /><blockquote><p>Hundreds of Fast and Furious firearms have been implicated in criminal activity, and another 1,400 firearms are on the street because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives engaged in gun-walking – the selling of firearms to straw purchasers in an attempt to locate major weapons traffickers in Mexico. This controversial tactic, involving thousands of weapons, means that brave law enforcement personnel along the border remain at risk.</p> <p>As details come to light, a larger shadow has been cast on Mr. Holder. When initially asked under oath to say when he first knew about Fast and Furious, Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee on May 3, “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”</p> <p>But the evidence casts serious doubt over that claim. First, President Obama had commented publicly on the operation, noting on March 22 – more than a month before Mr. Holder’s sworn statement – that an inspector general had been assigned to investigate the matter. [...]</p><p>Perhaps more damning is that records show Mr. Holder was briefed about the operation as far back as July 2010, when the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, Michael F. Walther, sent Mr. Holder a written memo that his agency would assist in the investigation of a gun trafficker who had acquired weapons under Fast and Furious. Another memo, from Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, notified Mr. Holder of a sealed Justice Department indictment against weapons traffickers in Arizona.</p> <p>Mr. Holder’s proclaimed ignorance leaves Americans to draw one of two conclusions: Either he is guilty of extraordinary bureaucratic incompetence or he is guilty of a cover-up meant to shield him from the consequences of an operation that has left at least one federal agent dead and continues to imperil many more.</p> <p>Either way, it is high time for Mr. Holder to step down. If he refuses to resign, Mr. Obama must fire him immediately.</p></blockquote>And Governor Palin's statement from <span style="font-weight: bold;">November 10th</span> reads:<br /><blockquote><p>And where is President Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder in all of this? When did he first know about the operation? In his testimony to the House Oversight Committee on May 3, 2011, Holder stated, “I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” But the DOJ’s <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">own documents</a> prove that Holder had been receiving briefings on Fast and Furious for nearly a year before that date. In other words, our government’s top law enforcement official, Eric Holder, lied to the American public. He finally admitted this week to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “In my testimony before the House committee [on May 3], I did say a few weeks. I probably could have said a couple of months. What I said about a few weeks was inaccurate based on what happened.”</p><p>When the nation’s highest law enforcement official lies to the American people, he must go.</p><p>And if he claims that he didn’t lie, then how else do we explain this situation? He’s either lying or he’s so grossly incompetent and lazy that he didn’t read important life and death briefings from his deputy attorney general and didn’t know about this deadly operation run by people under him. So, which is it? Incompetent, lazy, or lying? No matter which explanation fits, he needs to go.</p><p>Holder conceded this week, “I have ultimate responsibility for what happens in the department.” He can prove it by resigning. And if he refuses to resign, then President Obama – with whom the bucks ultimately stop – can prove that he respects honesty, transparency, and accountability in his administration by firing Holder.</p></blockquote>Don't get me wrong... I'm happy to see that Rick Perry finally made his mind up on the issue and added his voice to those calling for Eric Holder's resignation. And it is always nice to see any presidential candidate echo Governor Palin on anything, but some attribution would have been nice.<br /><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-2731035087081316282011-11-13T22:50:00.000-08:002011-11-14T00:06:23.448-08:00Newsweek Highlights More Revelations from "Throw Them All Out"<p>In this week’s edition of <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/11/13/peter-schweizer-s-new-book-blasts-congressional-corruption.html" target="_blank">Newsweek</a>, Peter Boyer takes a look at the new book by Peter Schweizer, “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Peter-Schweizer/dp/0547573146" target="_blank">Throw Them All Out</a>” and uncovers even more revelations about the way US lawmakers conduct their own personal business from their seats of public “service.” He writes:</p> <blockquote> <div class="text parbase section" style="display: block;"> <p>While examining trades made around the time of the 2003 Medicare overhaul, Schweizer experienced what he calls his “Holy crap!” moment. The legislation, which created a new prescription-drug entitlement, promised to be a huge boon to the pharmaceutical industry—and to savvy investors in the Capitol. Among those with special insight on the issue was Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the health subcommittee of the Senate’s powerful Finance Committee. Kerry is one of the wealthiest members of the Senate and heavily invested in the stock market. As the final version of the drug program neared approval—one that didn’t include limits on the price of drugs—brokers for Kerry and his wife were busy trading in Big Pharma. Schweizer found that they completed 111 stock transactions of pharmaceutical companies in 2003, 103 of which were buys.</p> </div> <div class="text parbase section" style="display: block;"> <p>“They were all great picks,” Schweizer notes. The Kerrys’ capital gains on the transactions were at least $500,000, and as high as $2 million (such information is necessarily imprecise, as the disclosure rules allow members to report their gains in wide ranges). It was instructive to Schweizer that Kerry didn’t try to shape legislation to benefit his portfolio; the apparent key to success was the shaping of trades that anticipated the effect of government policy.</p> </div> </blockquote> <p>Senator Kerry’s office responded:</p> <blockquote><p>“Senator Kerry does not buy, sell, or trade stocks,” says Jodi Seth, Kerry’s spokeswoman. She notes that Kerry’s holdings are in family trusts and managed by independent trustees with whom he does not communicate. Further, Seth says, Kerry is not a beneficiary of Teresa Heinz Kerry’s trusts, which were established before they were married. In any case, Seth adds, Kerry was running for president when the Medicare bill was passed, and he missed much of the debate.</p></blockquote> <p>Schweizer replied:</p> <blockquote><p>“It’s not that I think John Kerry is calling up his broker, on health care, and saying, ‘Buy this company, sell that company,’?” Schweizer says. “The issue is one of a double standard.” He notes that if the executive of a health-care company were in discussions with the White House over pending legislation that would affect his industry, and then made a series of unusual stock transactions related to the industry, the SEC might well open an insider-trading investigation. “The only group in America that we exempt is politicians, who are probably the last people about whom we should be saying, ‘Oh, we’ll take their word for it,’?” he says. “That’s what’s so amazing to me.”</p></blockquote> <p>The article continues:</p> <blockquote> <div class="text parbase section" style="display: block;"> <p style="display: block;">The Kerry trustees’ impeccable timing in drug company trades was evident again in 2007, when the federal government was weighing whether to discontinue Medicare reimbursement for certain anemia drugs used by cancer patients. When the government announced that it would limit reimbursements, shares in Amgen, one of the drugmakers at issue, dropped 15 percent. Kerry’s wife happened to be an Amgen stockholder but avoided losses; her shares, valued at between $500,000 and $1 million, were unloaded more than a week before the government’s announcement.</p> </div> <div class="text parbase section" style="display: block;"> <p>Schweizer, an unabashed conservative and a foreign-policy adviser to Sarah Palin, has written books about Reagan and the Bushes as well as polemics about the ruinous ways of liberalism. But this latest book is not an overtly partisan work; as the title, <em>Throw Them All Out,</em> suggests, it should discomfit conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans, alike…</p> </div> </blockquote> <p>Boyer then moves on to the underhanded activities of Rep. Spencer Bachus, of Alabama:</p> <blockquote> <div class="text parbase section" style="display: block;"> <p>One of the more dramatic episodes in the book recounts the trading activity of Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus, of Alabama, who, as the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, was privy to sensitive high-level meetings during the 2008 financial crisis and proceeded to make a series of profitable stock-option trades.</p> </div> <div class="text parbase section" style="display: block;"> <p>Bachus was known in the House as a guy who liked to play the market, and in fact he was pretty good at it; one year, he reported a capital gain in excess of $150,000 from his trading activities. More striking is that Bachus boldly carried forth his trading in the teeth of the impending financial collapse, the nightmarish dimensions of which he had learned about first-hand in confidential briefings from Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. On Sept. 19, 2008, after attending two such briefings, Bachus bought options in an index fund (ProShares UltraShort QQQ) that effectively amounted to a bet that the market would fall. That is indeed what happened, and, on Sept. 23, Bachus sold his “short” options, purchased for $7,846, for more than $13,000—nearly doubling his investment in four days.</p> </div> <div class="text parbase section" style="display: block;"> <p>Around the time Congress and the Bush administration worked out a TARP bailout, Bachus made another options buy and again nearly doubled his money. The House turned down the TARP proposal, and Bachus’s own Financial Services Committee remained clued in to revisions of what became the final TARP package. In the earlier closed-door briefings, Bernanke had warned the congressional members that a “meltdown in the global financial system” was imminent and that it would spill over into the broader economy if something wasn’t done. With TARP completed, Bachus seemed confident in its effect, now buying options that effectively bet that the market would rise—to mixed results.</p> </div> <div class="text parbase section" style="display: block;"> <p>Bachus was hardly the only member of Congress trading as the government was coming to grips with the financial crisis. After the first briefing from Bernanke and Paulson, brokers for Democratic Congressman Jim Moran, of Virginia, and his wife sold their shares in 90 companies, dodging the losses that others who stayed in the market would soon face. Republican Rep. Shelley Capito, of West Virginia, sold between $100,000 and $250,000 of Citigroup stock the day after the first meeting, recording capital gains on Citigroup transactions in that rocky period.</p> </div> </blockquote> <p>Let me just say that I stand with <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/AndrewBreitbart/status/135923422659231744" target="_blank">Andrew Breitbart</a> and call on Representative Bachus to resign. Had he been a member of the general public, he would be going to prison for his actions. He’s a disgrace to this nation, as are all other members of Congress who engage in this behavior.</p> <p>May I also remind C4P readers that Rep. Bachus was the man who <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/11/gop-rep-sarah-palin-cost-us-co.html" target="_blank">blamed</a> Governor Palin for the GOP not taking over the Senate in 2010. Never mind his twisted reality, at least we now know why he took that cheap shot at her… He’s one of<span style="font-style: italic;"> them</span>.</p> <p>You can go <a target="_blank" href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/11/13/peter-schweizer-s-new-book-blasts-congressional-corruption.html">here</a> to read the entire Boyer article where he also covers more detail concerning Nancy Pelosi’s very profitable Visa IPO.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4228193981681531475.post-52281358869146538902011-11-12T13:32:00.000-08:002011-11-12T13:54:14.367-08:00Peter Schweizer Exposes More of Obama's Green CorruptionYesterday, I posted a <a href="http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/11/cbs-report-to-expose-insider-trading-on-capitol-hill.html">piece</a> about this weekend's episode of 60 Minutes on CBS which will highlight insider trading on Capitol Hill and showcases the new <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Peter-Schweizer/dp/0547573146">book</a> written by Governor Palin's adviser, Peter Schweizer.<br /><br />Today, Schweizer released an excerpt from his new book that will also be available in this weeks edition of Newsweek. In this portion, he goes far beyond the the Solyndra scandal and gives Americans a detailed picture of just how the Obama administration operates, and how they manage to hand over BILLIONS of tax dollars to cronies for political kickbacks. He <a href="http://thevictorychronicles.com/2011/11/12/how-obamas-alternative-energy-programs-became-green-graft/#.Tr7PXbN09sM.facebook">writes</a>:<blockquote>Where did green-energy cash go? Straight to campaign donors. Read more about Peter Schwiezer’s Throw Them All Out in the new Newsweek on sale Monday.<br /><br />When President-elect Obama came to Washington in late 2008, he was outspoken about the need for an economic stimulus to revive a struggling economy. He wanted billions of dollars spent on “shovel-ready projects” to build roads; billions more for developing alternative-energy projects; and additional billions for expanding broadband Internet access and creating a “smart grid” for energy consumption. After he was sworn in as president, he proclaimed that taxpayer money would assuredly not be doled out to political friends. “Decisions about how Recovery Act dollars are spent will be based on the merits,” he said, referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. “Let me repeat that: decisions about how recovery money will be spent will be based on the merits. They will not be made as a way of doing favors for lobbyists.”<br /><br />Really?<br /><br />It would take an entire book to analyze every single grant and government-backed loan doled out since Barack Obama became president. But an examination of grants and guaranteed loans offered by just one stimulus program run by the Department of Energy, for alternative-energy projects, is stunning. The so-called 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program channeled billions of dollars to all sorts of energy companies. The grants were earmarked for alternative-fuel and green-power projects, so it would not be a surprise to learn that those industries were led by liberals. Furthermore, these were highly competitive grant and loan programs—not usually a hallmark of cronyism. Often fewer than 10 percent of applicants were deemed worthy.<br /><br />Nevertheless, a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers … a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008. Their political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy. It brought them returns many times over.<br /><br />These government grants and loan guarantees not only provided access to taxpayer capital. They also served as a seal of approval from the federal government. Taxpayer money creates what investors call a “halo effect,” in which a young, unprofitable company is suddenly seen to have a glowing future. The plan is simple. Invest some money, secure taxpayer grants and loans, go public, and then cash out. In just one small example, a company called Amyris Biotechnologies received a $24 million DOE grant to build a pilot plant to use altered yeast to turn sugar into hydrocarbons. The investors included several Obama bundlers and fundraisers. With federal money in hand, Amyris went public with an IPO the following year, raising $85 million. Kleiner Perkins, a firm that boasts Obama financier John Doerr and former vice president Al Gore as partners, found its $16 million investment was now worth $69 million. It’s not clear how the other investors did. Amyris continues to lose money. Meanwhile, the $24 million grant created 40 jobs, according to the government website recovery.gov.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br /><p style="text-align: justify">The Government Accountability Office has been highly critical of the way guaranteed loans and grants were doled out by the Department of Energy, complaining that the process appears “arbitrary” and lacks transparency. In March 2011, for example, the GAO examined the first 18 loans that were approved and found that none were properly documented. It also noted that officials “did not always record the results of analysis” of these applications. <a href="http://www.creditnowusa.com/" class="ml-smartlink" target="_blank">A loan</a> program for electric cars, for example, “lacks performance measures.” No notes were kept during the review process, so it is difficult to determine how loan decisions were made. The GAO further declared that the Department of Energy “had treated applicants inconsistently in the application review process, favoring some applicants and disadvantaging others.” The Department of Energy’s inspector general, Gregory Friedman, who was not a political appointee, chastised the alternative-energy loan and grant programs for their absence of “sufficient transparency and accountability.” He has testified that contracts have been steered to “friends and family.”</p> Friends indeed. These programs might be the greatest—and most expensive—example of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism" class="ml-smartlink" target="_blank">crony capitalism</a> in American history. Tens of billions of dollars went to firms controlled or owned by fundraisers, bundlers, and political allies, many of whom—surprise!—are now raising money for Obama again<br /></blockquote>There will be a lot of revelations coming out in Schweizer's new book, which hits shelves this <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Throw-Them-All-Peter-Schweizer/dp/0547573146">Tuesday</a>. For now, you can read the entire released excerpt <a href="http://thevictorychronicles.com/2011/11/12/how-obamas-alternative-energy-programs-became-green-graft/#.Tr7PXbN09sM.facebook">here</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0