“My eighty-percent friend is not my twenty-percent enemy.”
-Ronald Reagan
Obviously some people out there in the political blogosphere don’t agree with the former president on that. It seems a mere one percent is enough for these people to, not only pick up their bags and leave from their former place of activism, but to also bash the integrity of the other ninety-nine percent of where they once stood. I’m speaking of those people that feel so let down by Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Rand Paul that they have thrown their hands in the air calling it quits on her, all the while making sure that at least one of their middle fingers was prominently displayed as they voiced their frustration.
Does anybody reading this know anyone they agree with 100% of the time? I sure don’t, and if I did, and that person so happened to be a politician I would start to wonder about myself. I don’t agree with Governor Palin about everything. I certainly don’t agree with all of the candidates she is supporting. But guess what? I’m not going to sit here on my little soap box and have a hissy fit because she didn’t respond with time and resources to my email. I actually never sent her PAC an email about any candidates but if I did, I wouldn’t expect her to put all of her judgment and consideration aside because an activist told her to.
My main problem isn’t with any disagreement former supporters have with Governor Palin’s picks. As I just stated, I take little with issue with disagreement on it’s face. However, when one turns that disagreement into ugly, dishonest smears, I take serious umbrage with that. Perhaps the most disturbing example that I have seen so far was a post by a member of “Smart Girl Politics” Monday night titled, “It turns out that Sarah’s not such a ‘smart girl’ after all.” The self proclaimed expert candidate vetter, and research gatherer has concluded that because Governor Palin didn’t back her candidate, she isn’t ‘smart’ like her. She also seems to suggest that Governor Palin isn’t living up to her own standards by backing Paul. So I feel it’s safe to assume that “Sue” wears a pretty healthy ego. Considering she think she knows Governor Palin’s values better than Sarah herself know them.
The piece rambles on about what a terrible person Rand Paul is and what a wonderful “Ronald Regan Republican” Bill Johnson is but then it slips into some rather dark territory. She writes, “While I was searching for information on Palin’s endorsement statement, I also ran into lots of Palin-bash sites.” Did you NOW? Rather curious how that happened… Considering when I Googled the words “Sarah Palin endorses Rand Paul,” NO dedicated anti-Palin pages (and I know them all) came up within the first ten pages. NONE! I stopped looking after number ten because I knew this lady was full of rubbish. She didn’t just so happen upon the anti-Palin hate-o-sphere while innocently performing some of that expert “research.” No, she went looking for trash and trash she found. Vindictive action at it’s core.
She then goes on to quote verbatim, smears put out by the most vile, lying left-wing attack dogs that have been hounding Governor Palin for well over a year. The same people that push ugly insane rumors about her family and her life in general. Over time, I have watched these amoral creatures bash every single aspect of Govenor Palin’s life, both personally and professionally. Whether they are political operatives for the DNC or just a collective group of psychopaths, is beyond me.
For a fellow conservative to reach to the level of repeating left-wing lies only serves to give credence to such. It fuels the left and legitimizes their depraved efforts. So, take a bow “Sue,” you are the only conservative to date to post quotes from the Alaskan lunatic squad as if they held an ounce of water.
It’s just another way to attack Governor Palin’s character rather than accept that perhaps, just maybe, she knows a thing or two about politics. I have been observing this woman for some time now and I can safely say that Sarah Palin doesn’t do anything on the level of an endorsement without careful consideration. She has the ability to look at something as complicated as a primary race in a very important year and come to what she thinks is the best decision for the cause as a whole.
I am no expert on Kentucky politics but from what I’ve read Bill Johnson is a long shot. So realistically this is a race between Rand Paul and Trey Grayson. To those dreamers that think Johnson stands a chance, considering his poll numbers, you’re wrong. Believe me, I live in the land of Chuck Devore. He seems on the surface to have mountains of support but when you break down the numbers the guy doesn’t stand a chance. You have to base any political strategy for the end goal. Incremental victories only carry to the next phase. Supporting Johnson only helps Grayson in the long run by taking votes away from his real competitor. Almost ensuring a victory for Mitch McConnell part II.
Now tell me how that fixes anything in Washington, especially after you consider Rand Paul’s real stance on the issues? First of all, Rand is not Ron. While he shares his father’s distrust of the Federal Reserve (shouldn’t we all?) he does not share the same ideology concerning national defense. He is a strong fiscal conservative, pro-gun rights, against the ever expanding size of government, he does not support amnesty for illegal aliens, he’s against the government takeover of health care, for tax cuts, “energy innovation,” against federally funded abortions, for promoting personal liberty, and dedicated to protecting America’s national sovereignty.
Sounds like a lot better option than a county club, career politician who represents the elite establishment, not the people of this country.
M first instinct was to compare this to Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama
In April 2008, after Mr. Obama made "the speech" and openly admitted that he did know that Wright was making inflammatory comments, I thought his politcal career was finished. Not so as he proceeded to re-invent the thrown under the bus comment. His supporters including the media thought he was Mr. Wonderful for doing so but as we all know, it continues to be a pattern to cover for his true nature.
I'd prefer Sarah Palin not try to save her skin or shrink from her own ideals in the interest of any type of media coverage or blog hype. If you say it, mean it, if you offer support, stick to it.
That I can recall, I've never witnessed Ms. Palin exercise the kind of routine backpedaling used by the new progressives and I don't want to see it here. She is very good at speaking the truth and I applaud her for that.
Sue's comments speak more to herself than Sarah Palin.
Very well said, Ron, and without the over-apologetics of certain other Palin sites.
"Sue" sounds like a phony, to be sure. The Left has literally ZERO sense of propriety in their politics. It goes to their entire philosophy, but that's a matter for another time.
How does one deal with someone like her? It's difficult, as the nature of matters political will always favor such people. But there are ways, and we need to learn them.
Anyone rember Colin Powell? He had a high popularity until he started to aspouse certain viewpoints and endorsements (like backing Obama in 2008). In a way, Sarah is at the point now. True, we pretty much know her stances on policies, but now that's she's out there on the stump, endoring candidates and so forth, she was bound to dissapoint some.
Some are just hacks looking for an excuse to unload on her, some are thinned skinned wimps while others are just naive.
Great post, Stacy!! You hit the hammer on the head. This former supporter must not have been a true supporter all along. I trust Sarah's decisions and agree with her endorsement of Rand Paul. You have to look at the big picture, and Sarah definitely does so.
Stacey,
I hope you feel fully vented now, and feel like you have adequately defended Sarah Palin against the big bad "fair weather friend".
It may come as a surprise to you, but I really have not followed Sarah Palin like a star struck teenager. I appreciated her enthusiasm during the election, and I liked her spunk and vivacious personality…and I believed that she was a genuine conservative. I also liked that she could shoot and enjoyed hunting…but other than that, she was way out of my mind.
Sure, I saw all the Sarah reports, and the pictures passing by and heard of the way all the libs hated her…which I thought was disgusting…but I was more focused on the mess going on in Washington than to be following the Palin fan club.
Push back against Obama's tyranny was my main focus for the whole of 2009. Primarily I worked like a horse trying to fight Obamacare on any front I could. And over the course of the year I learned a lot. One thing I learned is that Politicians in both parties in Washington are hard to distinguish from one another. I wrote to the Democrats, imploring them not to vote for the health care reform. I wrote to the Republicans in the Senate imploring them to obstruct the vote, and use the parliamentary rules available to them to stall….all of them ignored the hundreds, maybe thousands of faxes sent from Smart Girl Politics.
I really didn't think about Palin at all. She was on a shelf in my head labeled: lovely, confident, principled conservative woman. I heard all the fuss over her book coming out, and noticed as women tittered with glee at the chance to drive 200 miles just to get to stand in line for a signature. It was hard not to notice with all the buzz. But it didn't change the label on that shelf in my head. I wished her well, and many books sold.
Then I heard that she was endorsing McCain for yet another return to Washington…and then she had my attention. After fighting for a year with the likes of RINOs like McCain, and "moderate" Liberals…my first thought when I heard this was WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?! I couldn't believe it!! It was one thing to resolve not to run the man down after the failed election, but now to endorse a man who is the epitome of the problem in Washington for decades and this supposedly "conservative" woman was endorsing him!! Talk about "fair weather friend", what did her endorsement say to all the tea party activists who have shouted and pushed back against the likes of McCain? What finger did SHE have raised in the air after proclaiming herself to be of like mind with the tea partiers, and Congresswoman Bachmann only to then to do this?!!
And now that brings you to the blog post that I wrote that has you so upset.
Here we are fighting against Big Government as usual in Washington. We're looking to find candidates that will truly "represent" us and not ignore us. Looking to restore Conservatism to the GOP in order to defeat the Socialistic Obama policies…and along comes Sarah, throwing out her high profile endorsements to men that reflect the opposite of all we have fought against all year.
Here in Kentucky we've got big Washington politics going full steam. Bill Johnson is one of us (I don't know where YOU stand) little folks. He's not backed with Republican Senate Committee funds, or boatloads of money from all the Congressman Paul supporters, now supporting his son, Rand.
Bill risked his own money to run his campaign and is being aggressively denied any radar with the media (sound vaguely familiar?). But slowly, surely Bills grassroots support is growing. Then along comes Sarah, again!
She doesn't come to speak with Rand Paul, has never met him, but she donated money to his campaign and backed him with her endorsement…her "qualified" endorsement. Saying that there are some issues they don't agree on but she thinks it will help "shake things up".
Is she KIDDING?! Who just came to Washington last year on the "shake things up platform"? My God, help us! Is this woman even thinking about these endorsements? Rand Paul is not a true conservative, he's not a Republican…this is Rand Paul: http://conservativekygal.blogspot.com/ scroll down for all the info. And here's what someone much much smarter than me and you says about her endorsement: http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/2010/02/by-end…
I'm not going to apologize to you or anyone else for calling Palin on this big betrayal. She's snuggling up to the tea party movement, declaring herself a conservative, while she 'calls it in' on endorsements for candidates with questionable principles…certainly not representative of genuine conservatism. And Stacey, I can tell you that nobody was more convinced of Sarah's straight arrow conservative politics than the woman I reference in my blog on SGP. She would have walked on glass for her, and then even she could no longer deny that what we see in Sarah ain't necessarily what we're gettin'.
You may not like me, and have all sorts of preconceived notions about me, but I wouldn't lie about writing that I "happened" to stop on the Mudflatts post. I wasn't digging for dirt, I was looking for evidence that she actually "verbally" endorsed Rand Paul. It may not sit well with you, but
the fact that Sarah has failed to "vet" the candidates she endorses does not sit well with ME!
This is mainly between Sue and Stacy, and Stacy should provide the bulk of the response, but I'll just add some of my own thoughts to this:
Sue…have you checked SarahPAC's FEC disclosures? Michele Bachman received money from Gov. Palin's PAC.
John McCain introduced Gov. Palin to the world so to speak. He put her on the international stage. Had he not chosen her as a VP candidate she would still be an unknown governor from Alaska…a virtual nonentity. She made clear in Going Rogue her respect for him. And SarahPAC gave McCain money toward the end of June 2009. The facts related to the PAC's donation were covered in mainstream media stories. Her support of McCain is old news.
Though you did not mention Scott Brown, I think he is worth mentioning here. She withheld a full endorsement of Scott Brown, because she did not want to incite people in a liberal state who would not be positively predisposed to her to vote for the liberal. If all she cared about was her own celebrity, she would have thrown her name out there — and risked his election in that case.
You see, the calculus in endorsing a candidate is not just principles. It also has to do with things like whether the candidate being endorsed is running an effective campaign, has a chance of winning and what is at stake. You mentioned your efforts in fighting the Obama administration's agenda. All the right principles are meaningless if the candidate who possesses them is far from winning. Ever notice that banks don't make loans to people who need them? They make loans to people who can pay them back. Perhaps on principles, Bill Johnson would have been the better candidate. But, Rand Paul has a better chance of beating the Obama liberal opponent. Who would you rather see? Rand Paul or an Obama flunkie?
I'm a nobody, but I was "endorsing" — Michael Bloomberg over his liberal opponent for Mayor of NYC. There were no credible candidates running against him. I hate what Bloomberg did with gutting term limits — something I voted for. I hate his full-out assault on the Second Amendment. He won't fix the roads. And he is in many regards — a RINO. But…his opponent was an all-out Obama flunkie. So…I held my nose and pulled the lever for Bloomberg and advised my friends to do the same. Sometimes, you have to go with the lesser of two evils.
You've already indicated in much of your email that you were never a big supporter of Gov. Palin to begin with — not even a fair weather one really. I think that's pretty clear. I find your remark about "women tittered with glee" to be a little sarcastic. I'm a man and flew 350 miles to be there. Others traveled much further. One woman came from Hong Kong. There were at least as many men as women. We did not do it just for a signature. It was to spend a few moments with her. A $100 donation to SarahPAC would have gotten you a signed book without the meeting — if all you wanted was a signature (for all other readers, that promotion is long finished).
Finally…it's Stacy's name does not have an "e" in it.
Both Ron and Sue are my friends on Smartgirlpolitics.ning.com.
I am what I describe as a Recovering-SarahPalin-fan. Like Ron, and unlike Sue, I did ardently support Palin from the moment she was introduced on television as McCain's running mate.
I still like Sarah Palin the woman, the wife, the mother, the friend, and the Christian. But the political decisions she has made recently have compelled me to re-think my support for her political career. I once told Ron that I was with Sarah Palin all the way, all the way to her running for president in 2012. That is no longer the case.
John McCain is an incorrigble Progressive. I don't want him to be re-elected to a fifth term in the Senate. Rand Paul is a Libertarian down to his socks, but he knows he can't get elected to office as a Libertarian; so, like his father Ron, he runs for office as a Republican with a hidden Libertarian agenda. No, Rand is not different from Ron. They are cut from the same piece of cloth. Make no mistake about that. The apple didn't fall far from the tree.
Sue's blog on SGP attracted more than 60 serious comments. It also attracted two or three vitriolic comments. She presented her facts brilliantly. They are facts. Nobody has to like them, but many people are interested in knowing them.
Newsentinel
NewSentinel,
I'm sorry that you are "recovering" from being a Sarah Palin fan. Reasonable people may disagree on political endorsements. I wrote about this in significant detail at Modern Conservative.
Stacy and I disagree with Sue. She explained her position here and we explained ours.
For myself, I have pledged my absolute loyalty to Gov. Palin. When she signed that shirt over my heart in PA, that pledge was executed. That pledge nearly landed me in divorce court. To say that my wife was rather upset that while she was out of the country, I lit out and did that — is quite an understatement. And — no disrespect to my wife — but I would do it again — and again — and again. When you sign on to support a leader, that leader is deserving of loyalty, trust and respect, barring outrageous behavior, egregiously poor judgment, acts of grave moral turpitude, or illegal acts. None of that is operative in the matter of Gov. Palin's candidate endorsements.
I understand the rationale behind Gov. Palin's endorsement and financial support of these candidates. And, I am satisfied that Stacy did a fine job in delineating the salient points pertinent to it.
As a mid-range donor to SarahPAC, I have a stake in those endorsements — and quite frankly a lot more say in the matter than anyone who has not donated at all. I am satisfied that SarahPAC is using its donated funds correctly. If I was not, I would not be donating and running fund-raisers — I wouldn't be doing any of this. The authors on this blog have risked their jobs, have cut into family and hobby time, and put in considerable effort to do this work. A friend of mine (who does not blog at at all) was almost assaulted a few times for her support of Sarah Palin. So, when Stacy or an another author express no patience with or tolerance of fair-weather friends and support, that should give a better perspective of where we're coming from. The authors of this blog don't just say they support Sarah Palin. They actually do support her.
The bottom line is, the Jindals, Huckabees, Romneys, etc. of this party would be lucky to get 50 people in a room. No one travels 500 miles to see Jindal. No one spends the better part of $1,000 and camps out in front of a bookstore to have Romney sign a book. We do this for Sarah Palin, because we believe in her. The notion that's all the message is absolute nonsense. If it was all the message, then you could run or I could run and we wouldn't even have to have this conversation. Some people can enunciate and execute the message better than others. We choose them to represent us.
I take issue with your use of the word "facts."
Sue quotes left-wing operatives that have told nothing but lies (I could provide about 100 links to back up that claim) in her piece.
Facts are fine to use but she is not entitled to her own or those she regurgitates from the same hideous women that helped force Governor Palin out of office by filing a mountain of frivolous "ethics" complaints… Same crowd.
I'm sorry Governor Palin did not live up to your false assumptions.
How silly that the author doesn't consider that different browsers will prioritize search results differently and instead assume bad faith and vindictive action.
Rainman,
Whether Stacy used one browser or every browser on the market to look at search results is not the point. Sue, by her own admission in her commentary was at the least rather lukewarm towards Gov. Palin — not even a fair weather supporter really. There is a also a prior history related to this that goes beyond search results, and both parties discussed that history on the comment boards, and I weighed in as well.
Most people use a preferred browser for their work, usually MSIE, FireFox, or Chrome, once in a while Safari. There are others, but those are the big four. I have them all. I don't take the time to corroborate a search in all four browsers and don't know anyone who does. I certainly am not going to start requiring my authors to load multiple web browsers on their machines and duplicate the search in each one on the off chance that a result might come up differently. The main search results will be the same across browsers. What will change is sponsored results and ads — and that's even in the same browser over time.
I did consider it, Rainman.. That’s why I went through multiple pages.
I also considered the time frame she was working on. The left-wing attack machine had little concern with the Rand Paul story.
Notice Sue doesn’t quote their blogs regarding that topic.
Hit job.
Stacy, Please do accept my appology for spelling your name with an ‘e’ in it.
I corrected that here: http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/ive-been-named-sarah-palins?id=2488056%3ABlogPost%3A404023&page=-1#last_comment
Rob, I have nothing against anyone driving any amount of distance, or flying around the world to get Palin’s signature. I do think there is a problem of letting our eyes get so engaged with the personality, that we fail to see the reality.
I’ve heard it again and again that “Palin sees the big picture”, or as you state, “the calculus in endorsing a candidate “, as though she has some inner sanctum knowledge that will make it all work out okay in the end. Well, that’s the kind of faith I only reserve for my God, not politicians.
You dare to excuse Palin’s endorsement of McCain as though we should all be grateful to the old RINO for bringing her to the forefront! Good grief man, you do have stars in your eyes! We’re in a fight for our very existance as a free country and you are weighing Palin’s political ambitions with that? I for one would have been grateful if she had stayed in Alaska and not decided to step into Kentucky politics to “shake things up”!
The tea party activists are getting rolled over by the same machine they’ve been shouting about all last year. Now is no time to be complacent, and think to ourselves…”Oh, there’s a ‘good’ politician…they can carry the ball now”.
And in regards to the 80/20% philosophy of politics. Maybe this will give you a little different perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbHDgRtUIPM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K4ULNMwLVc
Sue,
I'm Ron, not Rob, but I've been called worse.
Just don't call me late for dinner.
Seriously, I'm writing a piece for Modern Conservative about endorsements. It will be up within the hour, so for the rest of my response, I'll refer you to that piece. Also…remember, I butted into the dialogue between you and Stacy, so the main response now needs to originate from her.
Sorry Ron!
I want to clarify one thing.
This may be hard for you to believe, Sue but my blog wasn't written about you alone. In fact it was a direct response to seeing your blog posted on a former supporters site that prompted me to write it.
My problem with you was what you did by re-posting those left-wing lies.
I did address the fundamental argument itself for those people that made me aware of your piece in the first place.
Those that projected their own beliefs onto Governor Palin.
Sue,
Please read the piece again and see what exactly it is I had a problem with..
You go on and on in this comment section about your disagreement. I said I don’t have a problem with that disagreement.
My problem is YOU and those that linked to you, who once claimed to support Governor Palin trashing her character with repeated smears provided by George Soros Inc!
Yes, the quotes you provided in your blog post where provided by a group of individuals that have worked with Soros funded (Moveon etc.) groups and work for HuffPo.
That is my problem!
You are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the left after doing that.
One more problem I do have with you, after reading your comments here is your bigoted, demeaning comments toward Palin supporters. Once again, another tactic used by the left. You have denigrated a wonderful group of activists to “star struck teenagers.” Pathetic considering they and I were fighting that health care bill tooth and nail with you.
You may want to research Governor Palin’s role in that, by the way.
I come from the city where Governor Palin talked to God on a grassy hill. We don’t have campaign rally’s or book signings here. There is nothing shallow about my support of this woman that I have supported much longer than you were even aware of her existence.
Bottom line, you swim in the gutter with the leftist trash that have made careers out of lying and trying to tear down about Governor Palin, I’m going to call you out on it.
Stacy Drake, you should not pay much mind to this "Sue" nor to Smart Girl Politics. You are directing personal effort at a person and at an organization both of whom and which are already amongst the known laughingstock of political blogs.
I am from the "inside" of Smart Girl Politics. I know this organization well. You are dealing with an outfit which would impose a tyrannical theocracy upon our America and bring about a resurgence of White Supremacy. This Smart Girl Politics, led by Stacy Mott and Teri Christoph, is truly nothing more than a circle jerk of self-righteous girls who spend their time sitting around patting each other upon their heads.
This Sue is a textbook megalomaniac whose behavior is best likened to a loco weed crazy Duroc hog which tramples over everyone and everything in a mindless rage. Privately, sensible members of this religious fanatic group, Smart Girl Politics, often comment to me using descriptive words which cast Sue as not being amongst the brightest colors in the crayon box.
You have her pegged just right as a fair weather friend who is quick to slip a butcher knife between your ribs the moment you turn your back. Same is true for a majority of members of Smart Girl Politics along with Stacy Mott and Teri Christoph. This Smart Girl Politics is well known for being predominately populated by religious fanatics, bigots and racists who are bent upon squashing our America under its authoritarian thumb.
You will do better to beat your head against a brick wall than to work at having those girls develop a bit of common sense. I well know this after a months long investigation of this Smart Girl Politics from deep inside.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
Publisher's Note:
U4P has a number of friends on Smart Girl, and the website has been good to us in letting us post our Sarah Palin material there. I am not aware of the inner workings of Smart Girl, but certainly US for Palin would be against theocracies and racial supremacy of any type — as would Sarah Palin herself be against those things. Many of our Smart Girl friends are also active on Team Sarah.
What is clear from Okpulot's account; however, is that it corroborates Stacy's assessment that Sue — by her own admission — was no supporter of Gov. Palin in the first instance.
Okpulot Taha has been dining on sour grapes for months and months. She was banned from Smartgirlpolitics because of her personal attacks. Exhibit A: Taha's incendiary personal attack against Sue on this blog. Taha has an ax to grind with Stacy Mott and Teri Christoph–after all, they are the ones who banned her from SGP.
Taha is clearly intelligent. It's a shame she doesn't use her skillful writing for better purposes than the examples we find here.
NewSentinel,
Apparently what has happened with Okpulot Taha and SGP is an internal matter to be resolved between that site's administration and her. The commentary is up, because it is pursuant to a story that Stacy wrote, and several people got involved.
My position on SGP is that Teri has been very gracious. SGP is a generic-conservative site, not a "Sarah-centric" site. I have posted, be it by full cross-post or daily digest, the content of this blog and its predecessor (which is "Sarah-centric"), including ads and fund-raisers for SarahPAC and the Alaska Fund Trust. I have built a good network of friends there. So long as SGP does not become an "anti-Sarah" site as a matter of policy or environment, I will continue to post there, and I'm not going to start running down the site's administration or getting involved in squabbles related to the site.
New Sentinel writes, "Taha is clearly intelligent."
First actionable rule of tyranny is silencing intellectuals.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
Okpulot Taha, Choctaw Nation, Puma Politics is the original PurlGurl at http://www.purlgurl.net
She/he is also a dude…Billy Ray Bice
She was never a professor of anything
He used to be a teacher
Ron writes, "Many of our Smart Girl friends are also active on Team Sarah."
There are some good girls over there, a few boys to boot. Readers should not assume my comments to mean all are disagreeable over at Smart Girl.
Founding principles of Smart Girl are good but Mott and Christoph do not hold to a conservative philosophy, especially related to censorship and free speech. Smart Girl is a highly controlled web site, purges of participants occur on a regular basis. Another problem is Smart Girl has been taken over by extremists and the intolerant.
Ron, I am a fierce independent conservative but I know there is a need to make compromises in political philosophy and know there is a need to play the political game if to successfully advance a given political cause. We cannot have all things our way all the time. Nonetheless, basic conservative principles should not be compromised. Almost all of us who are conservative will agree fiscal issues, our economy and jobs, we cannot compromise our conservative approach.
Social issues, this is where we should compromise a lot. Examples are abortion and gay marriage. Those issues are meaningless compared to our economic crisis. We are to focus on what is critical, our economy, and fret over social issues after Americans are back to work and doing well.
Over at Smart Girl, there is no compromise; intolerance rules.
On Sarah Palin, we should give the girl a break. I strongly support Palin and I know I will disagree with some of her positions and actions. Sarah is politically savvy, she knows the game. Palin will take actions some will find disagreeable, but Sarah is looking at her future goal and how to best arrive there; fixing our economy and restoring our national pride.
This girl "Sue" over at Smart Girl is a "my way or the highway" type of person. She is a classic school yard bully. She is intolerant and serves to damage our conservative cause.
I am far right of center, do not much cotton to moderates and certainly dislike RINO types but, again, I know we must negotiate and must compromise if to be successful at swinging America back to a conservative philosophy. I am calling for a common sense approach rather than extremism and intolerance. Common sense calls for us to support Sarah Palin even when in disagreement on some issues.
Over at Smart Girl Politics, although there are some good people there, extremism and intolerance rules. This does not benefit our nation.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
Okpulot Taha,
Thanks for your input. I really don't know much about SGP because I am not a member but I have friends and associates that are. Seems like a lot of good intentioned activists. Although, there are clearly the "schoolyard bully" types present as well.
I agree that politics is a measured endeavor and not one well suited for hard-line actors. That is a losing strategy and displays a level of ignorance that doesn't sit well with most American's and obviously not Governor Palin.
Stacy writes, "I agree that politics is a measured endeavor and not one well suited for hard-line actors."
Yes, ma'am, sure enough. Politics is a fine art of nuance and persuasion along with challenging strategy. A path to a political office is never straight and clear and requires negotiation and diplomacy along the way. While we would prefer no games being played, this is inescapable. Politics is like a game of chess which allows cheating. However, there are rules to this cheating which must be honored.
Sue up there violated even the cheating rules by pulling in dishonest commentary of a known wacko left liberal who displays no ethical values. Her tactic of using both questionable and untrue claims from Mudflats is not a hit below the belt rather is a sneaky and a cowardly stab in the back of Sarah Palin. Sue simply sold out her dignity at a cheap price during her fit of rage and what little credibility she enjoyed is now none; she has tossed her lot in with tin foil hat wearing paranoid conspiracy theorists.
Stacy adds, " That is a losing strategy and displays a level of ignorance that doesn’t sit well with most American’s…."
Deceit and ignorance walk hand-in-hand. Sue has dirtied her hands with both which has tarnished her character beyond repair and redemption. I am exceptionally amused by her invoking the name of God to lend weight to her impotent defense of her sinful behavior. Rather clear Sue believes God is on her side and nothing more is needed, like smarts and truthfulness.
My view is Sue is enraged Palin did not endorse her candidate of choice. She is taking this personally and Sue believes she is always right, believes she knows better than any others. Not only am I amused by Sue invoking God as her right hand consultant, I am also amused by Sue claiming expertise at "vetting" a politician. Hers is a dire display of ignorance.
Good vetting of Sarah Palin informs us she is the most powerful politician of our modern times, even more powerful than Scott Brown. Sarah touching a politician can be a curse or a blessing. Sarah displays cunning and skill in this game of politics. She knew endorsing Scott Brown would set Ted Kennedy left liberals to screaming and hollering. Sarah wisely remained silent about Scott Brown which was a benefit for him. Sarah knows who not to touch and who to touch. Hers is a display of both humility and wisdom. She humbles herself by acknowledging she can be a curse, she displays wisdom by acknowledging she is not infallible. Sarah also displays political savvy by staying away from Scott Brown and by endorsing Rand Paul. This is a good political strategy.
Sue displays neither humility nor wisdom and as you write, Stacy, this strategy of Sue employing unethical deceit is a "losing strategy". This is well evidenced by a preponderance of comments around the blogs about this disparaging article of Sue and about Sue as person, a preponderance of comments being quite negative; Sue has angered a lot of people, rightfully so. This Sue is now effectively tossed into the loser bin.
Stacy Drake, I look forward to reading more of your commentaries and opinions, you are a truth speaker.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
Okpulot Taha,
I totally agree with your assessment.. Thank you so much for your kind words.
Make sure to bookmark us!
Take care.
Always enjoyable to lend a helping hand, Stacy. Yes, bookmarked and reading.
This will drive you crazy. Today's front page of Smart Girl Politics announces a partnership with Anita MonCrief of ACORN.
Although proclaimed an ACORN "whistle blower", this MonCrief is still a hardcore ACORN left liberal. MonCrief describes herself as "the most liberal person in the world", a strong supporter of gay rights, abortion, socialism and says she "cried" when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House being so happy about this. MonCrief is also an extreme Obama supporter! She is an icon of ACORN socialism.
MonCrief is a Smart Girl Politics member and is endorsed by Mott and Christoph, owners and administrators of Smart Girl Nation.
My word! This is plumb crazy!
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
I've enjoyed reading this thread. So many viewpoints, so little time to absorb all the opinions out there. Many of us from all different Conservative blogs have varying opinions of Sarah Palin. I blog at SGP but follow Red State, Hot Air, Breitbart, Drudge, etc. on a daily basis. I love Sarah Palin and find her to be so much more refreshing than typical politicians. But I don't think she's ready now for a Presidential run, although 2012 is two years off, and there's nothing that doesn't say she couldn't be ready by then. What I love the most about her is how afraid the liberals are of her, and the more they attack her, the more popular she gets. This also serves to coalesce the Tea Party movement in support of her. So I would have to say that I hope the liberals continue their ridiculous and frenzied attacks on her, because the more they do, the more popular Palin becomes.
As far as undying loyalty toward any politician, I find that to be a little scary. Just as so many people fell to the feet of Obama, I think that Messianic fervor for any politician is dangerous. I don't even think Sarah Palin would be in favor of that. It goes against everything she stands for. She certainly wouldn't do anything to upset her husband for some political candidate, so why would she be in favor of people doing that for her? Her number one priority is for her own family, as she has said so many times, and I would think that her supporters would feel the same about their own families. It seems that there's a danger in putting any human being on such a high pedestal, Sarah Palin included. I have too much respect for her to make unreasonable expectations of her. She's a human being, not a deity.
As far as Sue goes, I read her blogs on SGP on a regular basis. She has worked tirelessly fighting government run healthcare on SGP. She has successfully organized SGP members to fight the Health Care bills, and she commands my respect for her activism. She doesn't deserve the attacks I've read about her on this blog, and it seems like some on here are doing to her what they accuse her of doing. Calling someone like Sue a "bully" is in itself a "bullying" tactic to shut her up. Seems like we can all have a discussion without the name calling and ad hominem attacks. Oh well, that's my two cents.
Kathy,
Even absolute loyalty has limits and I spelled those out. Those limits are are: outrageous behavior, egregious bad judgment, acts of grave moral turpitude, illegal acts, or wide swings in political positions for the sake of expediency. If anyone is involved in the foregoing, then continuing to support them under such a circumstance would be foolish. I certainly have no intention of developing a toxic cult of personality around Gov. Palin or anyone else. The flip side to absolute loyalty is a duty on her part to not be involved in the things I mentioned. And I certainly don't regard her as a deity….guardian angel yes — but deity — no.
As to Sue…I've spoken my piece on her.
Ron, I was referring to your comments about your wife. You said:
"For myself, I have pledged my absolute loyalty to Gov. Palin. When she signed that shirt over my heart in PA, that pledge was executed. That pledge nearly landed me in divorce court. To say that my wife was rather upset that while she was out of the country, I lit out and did that — is quite an understatement. And — no disrespect to my wife — but I would do it again — and again — and again."
Maybe you were just kidding about that. I must have taken that wrong. Who would place more loyalty to a politician than to their spouse?
Kathy,
There is more to the story than that. A lot more. My wife is very liberal — I would in fact regard her as socialist. I'm a Reagan Conservative. We were having marital and financial problems to begin with, so my entire involvement in this became a flash point or a catalyst — bringing to the fore underlying problems that were there long before I even knew of Sarah Palin's existence. My wife is a rather jealous type also, so she regarded my trip out there as being unfaithful ("you drove 100 miles at 3:30 in the morning — for another woman?!?!"). Combine that with her hatred of Sarah Palin and what she represents, and the whole thing was just a tinderbox waiting to explode. She freaked when she saw the campaign stash, and I took it out of the house and kept it — including and especially — the signed shirt — in my truck for three weeks. Oh…and clipping a $26 tube of a discontinued lipstick to write my signs did not go over too well either, but I did buy her back three of them.
We've long since resolved most of the marital problems; the financial problems are being resolved, and my wife is slowly warming up to and accepting Sarah Palin and my involvement with matters related to her. The stash is secured in a section of our finished basement, where we agreed it would go.
While I wrote about loyalty to a leader in my first two responses, a lot of that for me also involved "to thine own self be true." My wife had wanted to impose her views on me. By the way, the same thing happened with George Bush, my support of whom was rather lukewarm — I merely voted for him — no blogging, campaigning, etc., There had to be an understanding that for this to work, she had to respect and accept me for who I was; as I do her. I'm not going to compromise my beliefs for anyone. I normally don't go into this much detail, but since I mentioned part of it in my prior response, I had to provide the underlying context. Hopefully now the prior comments make more sense.
Yes they do.
Kathy Barkulis comments, " She [Sue] doesn’t deserve the attacks I’ve read about her on this blog…."
Sue should not have attacked Sarah Palin by citing material known to be false, known to be a work of deceit. Sue made a freewill choice to employ deceit as part of her attack upon Sarah Palin. Sue is to be held accountable for her actions; this is the conservative way. Sue is refusing to be held accountable for her actions, you are engaging in excuse making for Sue as a defense. You are both displaying inappropriate behavior. You are not abiding by our traditional American way of life, specifically truth and justice. We are to be truthful, we are to administer justice without exception. None are to be exempted.
Sue was not truthful. Now she is receiving justice.
Kathy Barkulis continues, " Calling someone like Sue a 'bully' is in itself a 'bullying' tactic to shut her up. "
Sue behaves as a bully, she is to be labeled a bully. This is accountability.
You are calling for political correctness which is poorly veiled censorship. Your call for political correctness is a tactic predominately employed by left liberals. Political correctness is overt suppression of our right to free speech. Smart Girl Politics and most participants at Smart Girl Politics are well known for Iron Fist Censorship. This is contrary to our American way of life; this is tyranny.
There is a distinct difference between personal insult and truthful critique. You are working at blurring the line between the two. Sue engaged in personal insult against Sarah Palin through cited deceit and through her own deceit. I am holding her accountable through blistering critique. Holding ourselves accountable and holding others accountable, this is our American way of life.
I have noted Sue removed all of her articles from public view, or Smart Girl Politics removed her articles from public view. I would say my blistering critique of Sue has been very effective. I am holding her accountable. I am not a slave to political correctness. I am a patriotic American. I am an American Indian truth speaker.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
Taha,
So much fun to see you on here. You're a stitch. I never fail to get a laugh at your posts! Keep up the good humor, "American Indian truth speaker", or whatever you're calling yourself nowadays!
Are you still pushing those penny stocks on-line? I bet you're making a fortune off of gullible and inexperienced investors. Have fun, Purl Gurl.
Ron,
Your honesty in your explanation is exemplary. I salute you and respect you. Thanks for that.
Kathy Barkulis comments, "So much fun to see you on here."
I am frequently advised of this notion by many sincere people across the web. I cannot, in good conscience, reciprocate your compliment.
Your words here at this people friendly web site, those words of your friends and supporters from Smart Girl Politics, serve well to reveal this true nature of your exclusive club. Least this time you, Sue and your friends did not refer to me as an "Oreo" nor other racially motivated expressions as many of you have in the past and continue to be well known for doing over at Smart Girl Politics.
à bon chat, bon rat.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
Taha, "American Indian Truth Speaker":
I have never spoken to you or anyone else in racial terms, ever. Your ethnic/racial heritage has nothing to do whatsoever with your views, and how you present them. Yet you continue to manufacture false racial overtones when people disagree with you. That is one bad habit you've picked up from the liberals. It's unbecoming of your wit and intelligence when you fall back on false racial claims in order to bully people into adopting your point of view. As I recall, you incited verbal attacks at SGP when you attacked the Christian members at SGP. So your response is to do exactly to others what you felt they did to you. Not very intelligent for an intelligent "truth speaker." Additionally, you undermine your arguements when you bring up your ethnicity with every post you write, as if it should have an impact one way or the other. The only people who seem to be obsessed with racial or ethnic excuses for everything are liberals, and you. As a conservative, I would think you would not fall back on lame excuses for your perceptions of other people's viewpoints. If they disagree with you, they disagree no matter what color you are. With that said…..I agree with you on one thing for sure:
Sarah Palin is fantastic.
Kathy Barkulis comments, "I have never spoken to you or anyone else in racial terms, ever."
You are doing so right now, just as you and others of Smart Girl Politics have done in the past.
Kathy Barkulis invokes racial overtones, " Your ethnic/racial heritage has nothing to do whatsoever with your views, and how you present them."
My American Indian heritage and my traditional cultural mores have everything to do with my traditional way of thinking and my peoples traditional way of thinking. You are again invoking a racially tinged viewpoint all peoples are to both behave and think like mainstream White America. I am offended.
Barkulis continues, " As I recall, you incited verbal attacks at SGP when you attacked the Christian members at SGP."
You are again displaying your selective memory. This is evidenced by your omission of Good Christians at Smart Girl Politics slinging racial slurs at me, specifically the "Oreo" incident.
I am to share a couple quotes from Smart Girl Politics with readers, two quotes of hundreds just like these. I have removed more offensive racial slurs in deference to readers but have retained grammar and spelling errors made in these quotes.
"I set out (next week) to search for the Kan-T-Lokkata, I feel these poor native American's must lead such a migratory life style that they must be poor and in need of government services, I mean how do the kids go to school? … I think we should find those poor Indians and help them buy radios or something so they can listen to 'Rush' like the rest of us … Anyway I'm loading up my SUV, packing my peace pipe, and I'm going hunting for Indians. Give em a battery radio if I find any."
- Dave MacInnis, Smart Girl Politics, July 4, 2009
I will close by quoting you, Kathy Barkulis, from Smart Girl Politics:
"Racist comments are revolting. I have left SGP for weeks at a time when I've seen an overload of this type of commentary. Sorry, but I think most of us are better people than that, so why engage in trash talk?"
- Kathy Barkulis, Smart Girl Politics, August 3, 2009
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
Kathy, Okpulot,
There are obviously issues that need to be settled between you. I'm going to politely ask that you both bring the conversation back to topic and settle any scores on email or elsewhere (without cyber-bullying one another of course). This also applies to matters related to SGP. Any comments related to this beef henceforth will be deleted. Thank you for your understanding.
No problem, Ron. I understand completely. I won't respond anymore to Taha's rants.
Ron,
There are already a lot of attacks against SGP in this thread which are one person's opinion who has a beef with them for banning her, and are without the benefit of response from the founders of SGP, Teri Christoff and Stacy Mott. It seems to me that is unfair. Just sayin…
Kathy,
I agree that it was not fair to Teri Christoff and Stacy Mott; who were not here to defend themselves, though if they want to post something, they are most certainly welcome. There was a lot of back-and-forth between Taha and yourself and I posted all of it….well for the simple reason of fairness to both of you, for one and to not have gaps in the conversation for another.
I think we can all agree on the following:
1. You and Taha don't like each other (no kidding!).
2. Taha was banned from SGP, because the administrators determined she violated their TOS.
3. SGP is a generic conservative site. As such, not everyone there likes Gov. Palin. I know that going in. SGP is not Team Sarah. My friends who are on SGP (who also tend to be on Team Sarah), have no issue with my content, and those who don't like Gov. Palin probably don't read my content — or read it and don't comment. It works well.
I will state again that both Teri and Stacy (Mott) have been gracious with me and have let me post my Sarah stuff on SGP without issue….to include fund-raisers for SarahPAC and the AK Fund Trust. If SGP were so rabidly anti-Sarah, they would not be permitted to post that stuff there. I will state categorically that posting these fund-raisers got me banned from another site. The other site also probably took umbrage with my many edits to a particular article that they had to post and re-post (because all blogs there were moderated). Guess what? I hardly hear about the other site anymore, and I could care less about them. I'm getting kick-butt numbers here on U4P, and the other site was a blip on the radar.
A certain well-known generic conservative site that is operated by Romney supporters is a toxic environment for Sarah stuff. I haven't posted at that site in nearly a year and won't go back there till there is some fundamental change. I wasn't banned, but one could say I self-banned. I have a whole host of Sarah-friendly venues to post to, and close friends and colleagues.
The point of all this is that life goes on. Taha needs to move on from SGP now. And…both you and Taha need to stop sniping at each other here. That has to stop and it has to stop now.
The one thing you both agree on is your support of Sarah Palin. Everything here should proceed on that basis.
For readers, here is the latest Smart Girl Politics "hit piece" on Sarah. Another "fair weather" friend speaks out against Sarah using a number of deceitful premises as a basis.
http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/…
Some quoted highlights to perk reader interest:
"…I don't see a lawmaking politician in her future."
"…Katie Couric interview."
"…debate with Biden."
"…daughter getting pregnant…."
"…scandal concerning her family…."
"…abuse of her power."
"…resignation as Governor…."
"…71 percent of Americans do not believe that Palin…."
"…naive…unprepared…."
"…Palin is officially null and void…."
I am reading a sudden increase in hit pieces against Sarah Palin over at Smart Girl Politics. Appears to me Smart Girl Politics has set a goal of removing Sarah from the political landscape through use of deceitful left liberal tactics. This prompts me to question if Smart Girl Politics has America's best interest in mind, or their own political agenda in mind.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
The person that wrote that blog doesn't understand Sarah Palin very well but she's more than capable of letting the media mold her perceptions.
There will be ignorant detractors out there… Comes with the territory.
One of the best attributes of Sarah Palin's is that she doesn't let any of that slow her down or change her mind. Those of us that follow her career and respect Governor Palin don't listen to the media's spin because we already understand better than they ever could.
Stacy–
The irony of the media attacking her is that she becomes more popular the more they attack her. No matter what people think of Sarah's political future as a Presidential contender, and there are varied opinions on that, her popularity as a person is extremely high among conservatives. Besides, the mainstream media doesn't matter much anymore. Their relevance has plummeted.
Stacy Drake responds, "The person that wrote that blog doesn’t understand Sarah Palin…letting the media mold her perceptions."
Alyssa Bonk is a "Headline Groupie". Her method of research is to glance at headlines then squawk back those headlines like a mindless parrot. The girl has not the slightest clue if what she squawks is true or untrue. Bonk is a highly stereotypical blogger often found at Smart Girl Politics and far too many political blogs around the web.
I will use one of Bonk's comments to headline how bloggers at[Ed Note: eliminated ref to a specific website] around the web are simply clueless.
Bonk: "…71 percent of Americans do not believe that Palin…"
Hers is an indirect reference to an ABC / Washington Post poll conducted by TNS Global, specifically a question if Sarah is qualified to be president. There are obvious problems pointing to Bonk not being the sharpest pencil in the official No. 2 Pencil Box.
This reference of hers is pulled from an article written by Eugene Robinson over at Real Clear Politics. Robinson is a well known fringe element extreme left liberal. He is a full on Marxist who is so deep in the tank for Obama the boy will never be able to surface for a breath of fresh air. Robinson routinely writes "hit pieces" about Palin, the Tea Party and independent conservatives. Robinson is beyond biased, he is a bigot. Nonetheless, Alyssa Bonk cites Robinson as a credible factual source.
This ABC / Washington Post poll is conducted by TNS Global a company which specializes in consumer marketing; cheesy "info-mercial" junk and TNS is known for being tangled up in scams. TNS is not qualified to conduct polls related to social issues nor political issues. TNS is headquarter in London, England. I would think ABC / Post would hire an American company as a display of patriotism. ABC and the Washington Post are well known left liberal "Yellow Journalism" media outlets which report opinion as factual news.
This TNS poll itself is highly flawed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/pol…
Readers will note 22 questions are asked before getting around to Sarah Palin. Those previous 22 questions are of a nature which has respondents in a bad mood; bring about negative thoughts. By the time this poll asks about Sarah, respondents are mad.
There is inconsistency in questions 25, 26 and 27 as with many other question series. Results raise so many questions this poll is to be considered invalid.
Question 25 displays 35% have a favorable impression of the Tea Party, 40% not favorable. Question 26 displays 35% know something about the Tea Party, 64% know "little to nothing" about the Tea Party. Question 27 displays 45% agree with the Tea Party, 36% disagree with the Tea Party.
Readers here at Devito's web page can instantly recognize this dire problem with poll results for those questions; direct contradiction. A most silly contradiction is a majority do not have a favorable impression of the Tea Party yet a majority agree with the Tea Party.
Hello! Those people are as inconsistent and fickle as my own feminine gender; crazy makers!
A large majority know "little to nothing" about the Tea Party. How could those surveyed offer valid opinions about favorable, unfavorable and agreement, disagreement? A majority of respondents know "little to nothing" yet offer opinion assumed by TNS to be valid.
I would surmise those folks knowing "little to nothing" about the Tea Party reflects they know "little to nothing" about Sarah Palin.
For each item listed by Alyssa Bonk, I could mount the same type of questioning critique. Bonk of [snip], like Sue of [snip], both are Headline Groupies who do not have enough sense to independently verify the veracity of their cited sources; both cite sources which are either deceitful in nature or biased or simply invalid.
This is plague upon our peoples. Participants at [snip] most political blogs, are Headline Groupies who mindlessly parrot fabricated sensational headlines.
Those political parrots only serve to inflict harm upon our America.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
Okpulot Taha,
I edited this last comment to remove references to another website that this blog is cross-posted to. Please refrain from airing dirty laundry or your personal issues from other sites here. I permitted it as part of your back-and-forth with Kathy. That conversation is finished. Your thoughts about the other site are more than well-published. U4P also posts on the other site and we have not had any problems there. We want to keep it that way. Enough with the grievances. Next comment containing a grievance about the other site will be deleted, not edited.
Now…back to your points….yes, polls are to be taken with a grain of salt. We run them from time to time, but unscientific polls in particular are problematic, especially Internet polls. The same person can vote hundreds of times. You pointed out where questions can contradict one another within the same poll. We have issues of sample sizes and who gets sampled and how. The only polls that are somewhat accurate are Qunnipiac, Rasmussen, and Zogby.
Okpulot Taha,
You wrote,
"This is unfortunate. I am a sincere independent conservative much like Sarah Palin. I will not participate at a web site which practices unwarranted censorship just as Sarah Palin would not participate."
That is your choice. My position on this is first — I am paying for and operating this site. I am putting a tremendous amount of effort into its operation and maintenance. My authors devote a lot of effort to their work. Freedom of the press belongs to the owner of the press. We are now on 48 comments in this thread. How many are from the back-and-forth related to another website? I think I was very fair to both you and Kathy and let you both speak your minds and vent your spleens. Kathy has since moved on from this subject to other things. It's time for you to do the same. You're welcome to come here anytime and show your support of Sarah Palin, but this other stuff is finished now.
"I support reasonable commonly expected censorship of material which has no socially redeemable value."
We're on the same page there, nothing to belabor.
"I fiercely oppose censorship which is employed to suppress truth"
We had 48 comments now in which there was plenty of back and forth about your grievance. None of it was censored…till the last comment, because I've come to realize that if I don't take this step, this will perpetuate. And if I have not made myself abundantly clear, I will state it again. U4P cross posts at the other site. And I'm not going to start getting into problems there — because someone who was banned does not like the site. You had this thread to air your grievances — they've been aired. Now, it's enough. Like I said — you can come here any time to support Sarah Palin, but you will not use this comment board to launch daily invective against a site that I post U4P's material on. Get it? Got it? Good.
"I am an American Indian truth speaker."
And I am an Italian, German, Polish, Russian, with a little tinge of American Indian thrown in truth speaker. I have two black truth speakers who author on the site. And several white ones. My wife is Mexican. So, what's your point? Race and ethnicity have nothing to do with anything. I can't stomach Obama and Carter almost equally. One is half black/half white, the other is all white. The politics of both are socialism. It's the socialism I can't stand. I couldn't care less if Sarah Palin were black, white, brown, yellow, red, green or purple. Or if she were "Sam Palin". I'd support her all the same. We're Americans. Not Indians — or more properly Natives — blacks, Hispanics, whites, whatever. We're Americans and part of one human race.
Wonderful post! You havemade some very interesting observations and I appreciate the time you've taken in your writing. It's clear that you know what you are talking about. I am excited to read more of your sites content.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }