Tag Archives: Sarah Palin

Sarah tells POS to “grow one”

It’s a sad day for America when a woman tells the man in the Oval Office that he’s got no cojones and needs to “grow one”.

H/t FOTM’s Grouchy Fogie

~Eowyn

Apparently President Obama can’t see Egypt and Libya from his house. On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on America, our embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi were attacked by violent Islamic mobs. In Cairo, they scaled the walls of our embassy, destroyed our flag, and replaced it with a black Islamic banner. In Benghazi, the armed gunmen set fire to our consulate and killed an American staff member. The Islamic radicals claim that these attacks are in protest to some film criticizing Islam. In response to this, the U.S. embassy in Cairo issued a statement that was so outrageous many of us thought it must be a satire. The embassy actually apologized to the violent mob attacking us, and it even went so far as to chastise those who use free speech to “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” (Funny, the current administration has no problem hurting the “religious feelings” of Catholics.)

But where is the president’s statement about this? These countries represent his much touted “Arab Spring.” How’s that Arab Spring working out for us now? Have we received an apology yet from our “friends” in the Muslim Brotherhood for the assault on our embassy?

It’s about time our president stood up for America and condemned these Islamic extremists. I realize there must be a lot on his mind these days – what with our economy’s abysmal jobless numbers and Moody’s new warning about yet another downgrade to our nation’s credit rating due to the current administration’s failure to come up with a credible deficit reduction plan. And, of course, he has a busy schedule – with all those rounds of golf, softball interviews with the “Pimp with the Limp,” and fundraising dinners with his corporate cronies. But our nation’s security should be of utmost importance to our Commander-in-chief. America can’t afford any more “leading from behind” in such a dangerous world. We already know that President Obama likes to “speak softly” to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a “big stick” to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one.

  • Sarah Palin

https://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/11/Palin-Libya-Egypt-Grow-Big-Stick

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Washington State Candidate Clint Didier – Tackling Agenda 21

Finally, someone great to vote for! 

Two-time NFL Superbowl winner and wheat rancher, Clint Didier, is running for the position of Commissioner of Public Lands in Washinngton State. 

With the support and advice of active and retired employees of the Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) , his campaign is our best chance to beat the incumbent; a politically correct, U.N. ass-kisser who is closing down the forests, putting loggers and mills out of business.  Our state constitution specifies that public schools are to be built from state timber sales.   
  [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-z2rLHS5JE]
He was endorsed by Sarah Palin and Ron Paul when he ran for the US Senate in 2010.  His loss then may have been a blessing.  If he wins this absolutely vital position in State Government, it would really strike a blow for freedom from the shackles of Agenda 21.

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

TEA Party candidate defeats RINO in Texas!

A reason for celebration!

Yesterday, TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party candidate Ted Cruz won  the Senate Republican primary runoff election in Texas!

The Christian Science Monitor reports:
Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz upset Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst in a Republican primary runoff for an open U.S. Senate seat, the Texas Tribune projected on Tuesday.
Cruz, 41, a former state solicitor general who has never held elected office, is the third insurgent Republican this year to defeat an establishment Republican in a U.S. Senate primary.
Dewhurst, 66, a wealthy businessman who had the support of top Texas Republicans, including Governor Rick Perry, started the race as the front-runner. But Cruz drew support from conservative stars like former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and money from national conservative groups like the Club for Growth.
“Ted Cruz won because he clearly articulated the pro-growth message that Republican voters across the country have responded to,” Club for Growth President Chris Chocolasaid in a statement. Club for Growth’s political action committee spent $5.5 million to support Cruz, the organization said.
The Senate seat is being vacated by Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison. Cruz, whose father is from Cuba, would become the first Hispanic U.S. senator from Texas if he defeats the Democratic nominee in November. Texas has not elected a Democrat to statewide office since 1994.
The Texas Tribune also projected that Paul Sadler won the Democratic U.S. Senate primary runoff on Tuesday.
Dewhurst, who presides over the state Senate, spent $19 million of his own money on the race, his campaign said. The former state land commissioner has served in the U.S. Air Force and worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. He dismissed Cruz as not having enough experience and running a campaign that depended on groups from outside Texas.
Cruz, a Houston lawyer, said Dewhurst is not conservative enough and compromised too much with Democrats in the state Senate.

Let’s hope Cruz’s win is the beginning of a gigantic surge and groundswell to retake our country on November 6th!

Remember this:


~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

GOP lineup for November 2012!

How about this for a Republican slate!!
Here is a winning strategy that would set Skippy and his Cronies way, way back on their heels. If Romney would take this advice, it would clearly send a message to the Republican establishment that conservatives aren’t going to do business as usual any more.
It would shake the establishment, and pull together and really energize conservative voters. Here is a little something else this would do…It would shake the Obama campaign to its core.
Rather than a leisurely march toward a VP nominee or a surprise VP announcement like we got in 2008, vet the possible VPs NOW and stand ready to announce the running mate in a nationally televised press conference the day after the delegates are in hand.
Allen West, Vice President
Having Congressman West in the VP slot makes him a TRIPLE THREAT and a VP who WILL redefine the role. Triple threat?

  1. As the Vice President he would attend to the regular duties and be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
  2. Vice President West would also act as a second Secretary of State in difficult diplomatic negotiations.
  3. AND…A Vice President West would work in concert with the Secretary of Defense to realign our military and redefine its role.

Triple threat. Oh but this is just the START of the strategy!!!
As soon as Romney has introduced West as the running mate…ROMNEY WOULD THEN INTRODUCE HIS CHOICE FOR SECRETARY OF STATE!…
John Bolton, SECRETARY OF STATE
As a former Ambassador to the United Nations there is nobody with a better handle on the world’s issues or more familiar with the players. John Bolton is tough, straight forward, and not likely to appease ANYONE.
Now, you have the nominees on stage, the VP choice and the Secretary of State nominee…Let’s not stop there. Next to walk onto the stage…
Sarah Palin, Secretary of Energy
Palin’s directive…Set us on the path toward energy independent in 10 years. Anyone more invested in that goal? Anyone who is more knowledgeable or adept? Can you feel the ground starting to shake? Next out of the wings and onto the stage…
General David Petraeus, Secretary of Defense
The nominee for Secretary of Defense. Enter General David Petraeus. As great as he was fighting a PC war, imagine what he’ll be like once he and West have pressed the reset button on our rules of engagement. In Petraeus we will have a Secretary of Defense whose mission will be to win. PERIOD. When our case is just, VICTORY IS NOT A BAD WORD!
Oh…but we’re not done yet…
Attorney General – Pam Bondi
Bondi is a no nonsense fighter who has taken on the current administration over Obamacare and WILL clean out the corruption rampant in that office today.
Okay, where are we? Who is now standing on the stage? The nominees so far are: Allen West, John Bolton, Sarah Palin, General Petreaus and Pam Bondi. How about a Secretary of the Treasury? We would need someone who has worked for YEARS in the tax field who understands the overwhelming burden of tax codes and who has, for years fought to restructure those codes.
Michele Bachmann, Secretary of the Treasury
By now, fissures should be opening in the ground, rumbling coming from the sky and the faint odor of ozone should be in the air. We will need someone new…someone with new ideas to head up the Fed.
Please welcome Ron Paul. Do ya’ think he’d kick butt? Do you think the Fed would tremble? You betcha!
Governor Bobby Jindal, Secretary of the Interior…
COME ON DOWN!!!!!
And finally…We need someone to head up the Department of Homeland Security. We must have someone who understands the issues we face. Someone who has worked in federal law enforcement. Someone who won’t take any crap from anybody.
Please…a round of applause for…!
Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Department of Homeland Security
Never before has a presidential nominee entered the full-on campaign with a fully assembled team. Can you even imagine the shock-and-awe wave which would be sent through the Obama regime were the Romney to do this? Think about it.
Instead of just Romney against Obama we would have:

Allen West vs. Joe Biden

John Bolton vs. Hillary Clinton

Sarah Palin vs. Stephen Chu

General Petraeus vs. Leon Panetta

Pam Bondi vs. Eric Holder

Michele Bachmann vs. Tim Geithner

Ron Paul vs. Ben Bernanke

Bobby Jindal vs. Ken Salazar

Sheriff Joe Arpaio vs. Janet Napolitano

Think about that!
Let that sink in…all of them campaigning at once. There would be no way out for Obama as each and every key player on his team would be exposed and held to account from the word GO.
It’s bold, brash and completely against any business as usual strategy. Imagine! An entire assembled team of key cabinet positions. Each one a pit-bull on a T-Bone, hammering their liberal counterparts on every issue, every day, from the word GO until November 6th, 2012.
Well, a girl can dream! Not saying I would support each choice yet you have to admit, these choices would have the liberals’ heads exploding! (And some of them might actually do a decent job.)
h/t Kelly
DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Palin-endorsed dark horse bucks GOP establishment to win Nebraska primary

After the downing of RINO Dick Lugar in the GOP primary in Indiana, the Conservative grassroots are demonstrating our clout again in another state primary.
TEA Party Nebraska state Senator Deb Fischer rocketed out of nowhere to win the GOP senate primary on Tuesday, sending shockwaves across the political world from Nebraska to Washington, D.C.

Deb Fischer (l); Sarah Palin in 2008 (r)

Tony Lee reports for Breitbart.com, May 16, 2012:
The Republican establishment spent nearly $3 million to support state attorney general Jon Bruning. The Washington conservative establishment spent nearly $3 million to prop up their candidate, Don Stenberg, who never got traction despite all of his endorsements. But it took just 135 words from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to propel Fischer to the head of the pack and give her the momentum, buzz, and name identification to capitalize on some of the groundwork she had diligently laid.
The message was clear: the conservative grassroots are fed up and candidates favored by both the Republican and the Washington conservative establishment are not safe. 
Fischer received 41% of the vote to Bruning’s 36% and Stenberg’s 19%.
“I never planned to run for the United States Senate, and most of you are the reason why I jumped in,” Fischer said in her victory speech on Tuesday night. “I wasn’t happy with what was happening in Washington, and I don’t think anyone is.”
Until Palin endorsed Fischer by writing her a note, nobody thought Fischer had a chance of entering the general election to become Nebraska’s next Senator. 
Palin wrote in a Facebook note:
““As recently as a week ago, Deb Fischer was dismissed by the establishment. Why? Because she is not part of the good old boys’ permanent political class. The message from the people of Nebraska is simple and powerful: America is looking for real change in Washington, and commonsense conservatives like Deb Fischer represent that change. I applaud Moms like Deb Fischer who are bold enough to step up and run on a conservative platform to restore America and protect our children’s future. Congratulations to the people of Nebraska. As the Huskers’ fight song goes: ‘The eyes of the land, upon every hand, are looking at you. Fight on for victory!’”
Fischer was also helped when The Ending Spending Action Fund, an independent group focused on electing “common-sense fiscal conservatives who understand the need to fundamentally reform our government,” ran $200,000 worth of ads for Fischer last weekend.
Brian Baker, president of the Ending Spending Action Fund, told Breitbart News, “The lesson here is simple: the people are in charge and they are sick of business as usual.”
And She-PAC, the new conservative group that was recently formed to help elect more women to Congress, seeded the ground for Fischer. ShePAC was her first national endorsement, and the group made two ads on behalf of Fischer and also promoted the ads with social networking buys that were smartly micro-targeted toward conservative women in Nebraska.
Suzie Terrell, a co-chair of She-PAC, told Breitbart News that her organization “learned of the ranching mom from the Nebraska Sandhills” when she was at 2 percent in the polls. Terrell noted that Fischer’s “positive, issue-based grassroots campaign represented the exact type of conservative woman we helped to promote – and we are proud to have been her 1st national endorsement.”
“As the other candidates quarreled over trivial issues like who’s following whose teenage daughter on twitter, Deb focused on voters and the issues and won,” Terrell said. “We look forward to continuing to support Deb Fischer and the four other conservative women who will Stop Harry Reid in 2012.”
Fischer will now face Democrat Bob Kerrey, who won his party’s primary, in the general election. Kerrey had been Nebraska’s Senator before leaving the state to take on various ventures, such as being president of a liberal university in New York.
Fischer alluded to this in her victory speech when she said, “we don’t need the same type of person who supposedly is going to represent Nebraska.” She said she would be a “different,” “tough” and “effective” Nebraskan who represents Nebraska in Congress.
Last week, Fischer’s campaign manager Aaron Trost told Breitbart News that because she could not match Bruning and Stenberg dollar for dollar, they laid a grassroots foundation, hoping they could surge in the final weeks of the campaign. Fischer was also helped by former Nebraska Gov. Kay Orr and Congressman Jeff Fortenberry.
Her final surge began, though, when Palin single-handedly leveled the playing field with her endorsement and proved her endorsement effectively wipes out the financial advantages and the endorsements other candidates have. Fischer’s victory should be noted as more proof that Palin — and the Tea Party — have not faded, and their influence is only growing. 
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

See pro-Obama actress' face morph

Lindsay Lohan was a child actress and, at one time, one of Hollywood’s brightest rising stars.
This creepy photo-morph video shows the changes in her face over the years, from a cute freckle-faced girl to a collagen-lipped bleached blonde looking far older than her 25 years. A sober testimony to the effects of drugs (3 rehabs), alcohol (two DUIs), cigarettes, and promiscuity.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_0Mi5Q-ExZ8]
A big supporter of Barack Obama in 2008, Lohan bashed Sarah Palin on her blog of September 14, 2008:

“I really cannot bite my tongue anymore when it comes to Sarah Palin….

Is it a sin to be gay? …Or to have sex before marriage? Or even to have a child out of wedlock?

I find it quite interesting that a woman who now is running to be second in command of the United States, only 4 years ago had aspirations to be a television anchor. Which is probably all she is qualified to be….

Is our country so divided that the Republicans best hope is a narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe?”

Lohan offered to stump for Obama in 2008, but was turned down. A top source on the Obama team told the Chicago Sun-Times, Lohan ”is not exactly the kind of high-profile star who would be a positive for us.”
Ouch.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

HBO blatantly lies…

No political agenda, riiiiight

HBO says no political agenda behind Palin film

KOMO News:  In a politically polarized country, the people behind HBO’s upcoming movie on Sarah Palin’s vice presidential campaign are being careful not to take one side or the other.  “There is no agenda here,” Danny Strong, writer of the film “Game Change,” said at a news conference Friday. Filmmakers said they sought historical accuracy.
The movie debuts March 10. It is based on John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s book about the 2008 presidential campaign, but focuses specifically on Palin. Director Jay Roach said he wrote a long letter to the former Alaska governor seeking an interview with her to help the film, “but I got a very quick email back from her attorney saying, `I checked, she declined.”‘
“I don’t think this movie is going to change people’s minds one way or another,” Strong said. “People are very polarized. It’s not designed to change people’s minds.”
Actress Julianne Moore looks strikingly like Palin in her depiction. Asked what she thought of Palin after getting so close to the story, Moore said she had “profound respect” for the historical nature of the candidacy. (Notice how she didn’t directly answer the question, coward.)  “There was a tremendous amount of pressure,” Moore said. “That was what I was trying to capture, the pressure that she was under.”
Do tell, Ms. Moore, how you were able to capture the pressure she was under since you never spoke directly with Sarah Palin herself?  Remember this comes from an actress (part of the 1%)  that suggested “leadership is not about making more noise but about electing people who will take care of us.” 
HBO airs the disgusting Bill Maher show “Real Time” in which he and his panel once discussed having violent hate sex with Michele Bachman and Rick Santorum. 
HBO has no political agenda behind this movie?  Yeah, riiiiiight.  And I’m the Toothfairy. 
DCG

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Mitt Romney, job creator or corporate raider?

Now that Mitt Romney is the front runner in the race to be the GOP’s presidential nominee, his Republican rivals are piling on with attacks.
Mitt touts himself as a super-capitalist who “created” 100,000 jobs while he was CEO of Bain Capital. Wikipedia describes Bain as:

“a Boston-headquartered alternative asset management and financial services company that specializes in private equity, venture capital, credit and public market investments…. Beginning in 1989, the firm, which began as a venture capital source investing in start-up companies, adjusted its strategy to focus on leveraged buyouts and growth capital investments in more mature companies.”

In 1977, after graduating cum laude with an MBA and a J.D. from Harvard University, Mitt began working for Bain & Company, a management consulting firm in Boston, and became vice president a year later. In 1984, Romney left Bain & Company to co-found the spin-off private equity investment firm, Bain Capital, which began with fewer than 10 employees. Romney headed Bain Capital as its general partner and CEO for 14 years. (Read more here).
Here is how Wikipedia describes Romney’s time at Bain:

“In 1991, Mitt Romney temporarily left Bain Capital to rejoin and lead Bain & Co. as interim CEO. Bringing along two executives from Bain Capital, Romney began a traveling campaign to rally employees at all Bain offices globally. Romney also negotiated a complex settlement between the Bain partnership and the firm’s lenders, including a $10 million reduction in the $38 million Bain owed the Bank of New England. Although in the role for just one year before returning to Bain Capital, Romney’s work had three profound impacts on the firm. First, ownership was officially shifted from the owners to the firm’s 70 general partners. Second, transparency in the firm’s finances increased dramatically (e.g. partners were able to know each other’s salaries). Third, Bill Bain relinquished ownership in the firm that carried his name. Within a year, Bain & Company bounced back to profitability without major partner defections and the groundwork was laid for a period of steady growth.”

But Rick Perry says what Romney practiced at Bain was “vulture capitalism” instead of venture capitalism. Though she’s not running, Sarah Palin too says criticism of Romney‘s record at Bain Capital is fair game and that voters should get “proof” of the 100,000 jobs Romney said he had helped create while he headed the private equity firm. Sarah’s husband, Todd, recently endorsed Newt Gingrich.
Here’s a video created by WinningOurFuture.com, which claims the video is “Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.” However if you go on its website, you’ll see that’s it’s a pro-Newt Gingrich SuperPAC.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE]
Assuming this video is true, it’s a case of a pot calling a kettle black because Newt not only can’t claim to be a “job creator,” he actually contributed to the tanking of the U.S. economy. After he left Congress, between 2001 and 2010, Newt was a consultant to the government-sponsored home mortgage company Freddie Mac, netting a total $1.6 million in remuneration. Freddie Mac, together with its twin, the similarly cutsey-named Fannie Mae, recklessly extended mortgage loans to people who were unqualified. In so doing, Freddie and Fannie contributed much to the housing bubble and the disastrous bursting of that bubble which began America’s plunge into the Great Recession in 2008.
Newt is going after Mitt with a viciousness that verges on a personal vendetta. So much for Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not attack a fellow Republican.” Earlier in the Iowa campaign, Newt had also declared that he would not vote for Ron Paul should the latter become the GOP nominee.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

Bachmann is the Voice of America's Conscience

“It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people.” –Richard Henry Lee, letter to Colonel Martin Pickett, 1786

Dr. Daren Jonescu has a good article in the Canada Free Press , Dec. 12, 2011, on Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. I highly recommend you read it in its entirety. Below are excerpts.
It is noteworthy that Bachmann, unlike Rep. Allen West with whom so many conservatives are enamored, was one of the 66 Republicans in the House who voted against the debt deal with Obama last August — the legislation with the oxymoronic name of the Budget Control Act of 2011, which immediately further ballooned the U.S. national debt.
H/t beloved fellow Tina.
~Eowyn

Dr. Jonescue begins by pointing out:
the most serious female presidential candidate in U.S. history—and the one most similar in principles to the early [Magaret] Thatcher—has been treated as an also-ran by both the mainstream and Republican-leaning media, as well as subjected to unfounded accusations of incompetence or instability—from conservatives. 
There was Tim Pawlenty’s suggestion that her susceptibility to headaches (an ailment she shares with Thomas Jefferson) renders her unfit to govern.  Then there was George Will’s judgment, apparently pulled straight out of the ether, that she could not be trusted with her finger on the nuclear trigger.  (They said the same of Reagan.)[…]
No, I do not believe that the Republican Establishment’s objection to Bachmann is that she’s a woman.  The objection, rather, is that she is not a man—where by “man” I mean “an accredited member of the Washington Insider’s Club.”  She doesn’t talk the way we expect modern politicians to talk.  Her public persona, in debates and interviews, does not fall easily within the accepted norms of TV-age politicians.  She tends to speak in bold colors.  She talks about over-arching issues much more comfortably than about niggling details.  She delineates issues with a view to their long-term ramifications, where long-term does not mean two years, but two decades, or two generations.  Worst of all, she infuses all issues about which she speaks with a moral tinge—which is to say that she instinctively hones in on the moral implications of public policy, rather than merely on the pragmatic, outcome-oriented aspect of decision-making.
This last trait, the morality-colored glasses, is particularly troubling to today’s Establishment types, for whom politics is about winning, at least as much as it is about being right.  Bachmann speaks to those who would lose the fight without losing their souls, rather than win a hollow victory.  A Gingrich or Romney presidency would be hollow victory on a grand scale, sucking the wind out of America’s burgeoning constitutionalist revival while doing little—or, more likely, nothing—to change the fundamental premises of the Establishment’s workings.  That is to say, the multi-generational project of rekindling the notion of a constitutional republic, not only in rhetoric but in practice, will require more than lip-service critiques of the current Establishment’s follies.  It will require the slow, bottom-up creation of a new Establishment.  Establishmentarianism, per se, is not the problem; George Washington was the Establishment in his time.  The challenge is to transmogrify the Establishment into something noble, something with purposes and ideals higher than the next election cycle.
[…] civilization needs women.  To put it more simply, America manifestly does not need more “big ideas,” “big schemes,” and “big hopes,”—i.e. more big government.  What she needs is a voice of conscience to speak to the present crisis as a moral crisis of historic proportions. 
It is certain that among this year’s primary contenders, Bachmann has the most credibility as this kind of moral conservative.  By “moral conservative,” I do not mean a Christian conservative, or a social conservative.  (Rick Santorum is also strong in these latter areas, of course.)  I mean someone who can articulate the economic crisis as a moral crisis, and who can propose financial solutions that are grounded in an understanding of the moral nature of the problem.  For this is the only way to change paths in the permanent manner that is required.  The goal cannot be merely to balance the budget, for example.  The goal must be to demonstrate to the electorate that a balanced budget is a practical manifestation of a particular moral position on the relationship between government and citizen.  This is what Bachmann’s manner of articulating the issues achieves most effectively—if people will listen.
Bachmann’s practical problem is that, in the age of TV ratings and Twitter politics, her strength, which is the strength most needed at this time, is obscured.  The superabundance of repetitive, sound-bite-focused debates is most beneficial to the cute talkers, the Six Point Plan guys, the “ironists” in the modern sense.  How would Lincoln, Jefferson, or Madison have fared in such a setting?  It is impossible to know, and speculation is futile.  What can be said, however, is that the ideas that have allowed those men to be regarded as giants today would not have played well in the modern debate format, in which one must make all of one’s arguments in the form of one minute speechettes […]
When Bachmann talks about the impact of the debt on national security, by way of interest owed to China, the audience goes quiet.  When she says 2012 will be America’s last chance to repeal socialized medicine, the audience goes quiet.  When she says she is running for President because she sees that the nation is on the brink of collapse, some think she sounds silly.  When she says the United States is living in a fantasy of being a wealthy nation, while in fact being broke, listeners stare at their hands.  When she says every adult citizen should pay some taxes, some people may cringe a little, thinking, “Oh, she just alienated the 47% who don’t pay taxes.”
Many will regard her as a schoolmarm, a nagging wife, “Nanny Michele.”  In the Christian era, the traditional role of women has indeed included the function of settling men down, civilizing them, reminding them of their responsibilities.  “Eat your peas” is a mother’s dictum.  Men don’t like to be reminded of their souls, which means of their future, but women remind them anyway—and men, along with society as a whole, are better off for it.
Sarah Palin was appealing to many Tea Partiers precisely because of her ability to fight with the boys.  She could take as good as she got, and she wouldn’t back down.  Michele Bachmann’s is a somewhat different appeal.  Attack mode seems unnatural to her.  In the stand-up debates, she looked small among all those men, and seemed uncomfortable trading shots.  […] Like a good wife or mother, she plays the role of conscience very well.  In other words, she is the moral advocate at the table, and in your head, who, if you are not already too far gone, keeps you on the righteous path.  To state this another way, she embodies the best elements of the Tea Party.
At this moment, which, as Bachmann consistently reminds Americans, may truly be the penultimate moment for their nation, it is not enough to have some pretty good policy ideas, as a few of the candidates do, or to look and sound like a politician (not to say statesman) in a way that appeals to the cynics.  One must also know why winning is necessary, and be able to explain it to the voters.  What’s more, one must be able to instill in the citizens of a pop culture world a sense, not only of history, but of the faint death-cry of a too long-neglected future.  The task is Herculean—perhaps, in fact, too much to hope for from any one man.  So how about trying one woman?”

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

A German's View of Our GOP Candidates

Truth be told, among the writers and readers of Fellowship of the Minds, there is no great enthusiasm for the current crop of GOP presidential candidates. That being said, this German’s view of the candidates is nothing less than brutal, calling the candidates “liars,” “demagogues,” “ignoramuses,” and downright “farcical.”
He is Marc Pitzke, the U.S. correspondent for the German weekly news magazine Der Spiegel. Before we totally dismiss him, I say it’s still interesting to find out how an outsider perceives us.
~Eowyn

A ship of fools? (photo by Reuters)


The Republicans’ Farcical Candidates: A Club of Liars, Demagogues and Ignoramuses
A Commentary by Marc Pitzke – Der Spiegel – Dec. 1, 2011
Africa is a country. In Libya, the Taliban reigns. Muslims are terrorists; most immigrants are criminal; all Occupy protesters are dirty. And women who feel sexually harassed — well, they shouldn’t make such a big deal about it.
Welcome to the wonderful world of the US Republicans. Or rather, to the twisted world of what they call their presidential campaigns. For months now, they’ve been traipsing around the country with their traveling circus, from one debate to the next, one scandal to another, putting themselves forward for what’s still the most powerful job in the world.
As it turns out, there are no limits to how far they will stoop.
It’s true that on the road to the White House all sorts of things can happen, and usually do. No campaign can avoid its share of slip-ups, blunders and embarrassments. Yet this time around, it’s just not that funny anymore. In fact, it’s utterly horrifying.
It’s horrifying because these eight so-called, would-be candidates are eagerly ruining not only their own reputations and that of their party, the party of Lincoln lore. Worse: They’re ruining the reputation of the United States.
‘Freakshow’
They lie. They cheat. They exaggerate. They bluster. They say one idiotic, ignorant, outrageous thing after another. They’ve shown such stark lack of knowledge — political, economic, geographic, historical — that they make George W. Bush look like Einstein and even cause their fellow Republicans to cringe.
“When did the GOP lose touch with reality?” wonders Bush’s former speechwriter David Frum in New York Magazine. In the New York Times, Kenneth Duberstein, Ronald Reagan’s former chief-of-staff, called this campaign season a “reality show,” while Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan confidante Peggy Noonan even spoke of a “freakshow.”
That may be the most appropriate description.
Tough times demand tough and smart minds. But all these dopes have to offer are ramblings that insult the intelligence of all Americans — no matter if they are Democrats, Republicans or neither of the above. Yet just like any freakshow, this one would be unthinkable without a stage (in this case, the media, strangling itself with all its misunderstood “political correctness” and “objectivity”) and an audience (the party base, which this year seems to have suffered a political lobotomy).
Factually Challenged
And so the farce continues. The more mind-boggling its incarnations, the happier the US media are to cheer first one clown and then the next, elevating and then eliminating “frontrunners” in reliable news cycles of about 45 days.
Take Herman Cain, “businessman.” He sat out the first wave of sexual harassment claims against him by offering a peculiar argument: Most ladies he had encountered in his life, he said, had not complained.
In the most recent twist, a woman accused Cain of having carried on a 13-year affair with her. That, too, he tried to casually wave off, but now, under pressure, he says he wants to “reassess” his campaign.
If Cain indeed drops out, the campaign would lose its biggest caricature: He has been the most factually challenged of all these jesters.
As CEO of the “Godfather’s” pizza chain, Cain killed jobs — but now poses as the job-creator-in-chief. Meanwhile, he seems to lack basic economic know-how, let alone a rudimentary grasp of politics or geography. Libya confounds him. He does not believe that China is a nuclear power. And all other, slightly more complicated questions get a stock answer: “Nine-nine-nine!” Remember? That’s Cain’s tax reduction plan that would actually raise taxes for 84 percent of Americans.
Has any of that disrupted Cain’s popularity in the media or with his fan base? Far from it. Since Oct. 1, he has collected more than $9 million in campaign donations. Enough to plow through another onslaught of denouements.
No Shortage of Chutzpah
Then there’s Newt Gingrich, the current favorite. He’s a political dinosaur, dishonored and discredited. Or so we thought. Yet just because he studied history and speaks in more complex sentences than his rivals, the US media now reflexively hails him as a “Man of Ideas” (The Washington Post) — even though most of these ideas are lousy if not downright offensive, such as firing unionized school janitors, so poor children could do their jobs.
Pompous and blustering, Gingrich gets away with this humdinger as well as with selling himself as a Washington outsider — despite having made millions of dollars as a lobbyist in Washington. At least the man’s got chutzpah.
The hypocrisy doesn’t end here. Gingrich claims moral authority on issues such as the “sanctity of marriage,” yet he’s been divorced twice. He sprang the divorce on his first wife while she was sick with cancer. (His supporters’ excuse: It’s been 31 years, and she’s still alive.) He cheated on his second wife just as he was pressing ahead with Bill Clinton’s impeachment during the Monica Lewinsky affair, unaware of the irony. The woman he cheated with, by the way, was one of his House aides and 23 years his junior — and is now his perpetually smiling third wife.
Americans have a short memory. They forget, too, that Gingrich was driven out of Congress in disgrace, the first speaker of the house to be disciplined for ethical wrongdoing. Or that he consistently flirts with racism when he speaks of Barack Obama. Or that he enjoyed a $500,000 credit line at Tiffany’s just as his campaign was financially in the toilet and he ranted about the national debt. Chutzpah, indeed.
Yet the US media rewards him with a daily kowtow. And the Republicans reward him too, by having put him on top in the latest polls. Mr. Hypocrisy, the bearer of his party’s hope.
“I think he’s doing well just because he’s thinking,” former President Clinton told the conservative online magazine NewsMax. “People are hungry for ideas that make some sense.” Sense? Apparently it’s not just the Republicans who have lost their minds here.
The Eternal Runner-Up
And what about the other candidates? Rick Perry’s blunders are legendary. His “oops” moment in suburban Detroit. His frequently slurred speech, as if he was drunk. His TV commercials putting words in Obama’s mouth that he didn’t say (such as, “Americans are ‘lazy'”). His preposterous claim that as governor of Texas he created 1 million jobs, when the total was really just about 100,000. But what’s one digit? Elsewhere, Perry would have long ago been disqualified. But not here in the US.
Meanwhile, Michele Bachmann has fallen off the wagon, although she’s still tolerated as if she’s a serious contender. Ron Paul’s fan club gets the more excited, the more puzzling his comments get. Jon Huntsman, the only one who occasionally makes some sort of sense, has been relegated to the poll doldrums ever since he showed sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators.
Which leaves Mitt Romney, the eternal flip-flopper and runner-up, who by now is almost guaranteed to clinch the nomination, even though no one in his party seems to like or want him. He stiffly delivers his talking points, which may or may not contradict his previous positions. After all, he’s been practicing this since 2008, when he failed to snag the nomination from John McCain. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
As an investor, Romney once raked in millions and, like Cain, killed jobs along the way. So now he says he’s the economy’s savior. To prove that, he has presented an economic plan that the usually quite conservative business magazine Forbes has labeled “dangerous,” asking incredulously, “About Mitt Romney, the Republicans can’t be serious.” Apparently they’re not, but he is, running TV spots against Obama already, teeming with falsehoods.
Good for Ratings
What a nice club that is. A club of liars, cheaters, adulterers, exaggerators, hypocrites and ignoramuses. “A starting point for a chronicle of American decline,” was how David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, described the current Republican race.
The Tea Party would take issue with that assessment. They cheer the loudest for the worst, only to see them fail, as expected, one by one. Which goes to show that this “movement,” sponsored by Fox News, has never been interested in the actual business of governing or in the intelligence and intellect that requires. They are only interested in marketing themselves, for ratings and dollars.
So the US elections are a reality show after all, a pseudo-political counterpart to the Paris Hiltons, Kim Kardashians and all the “American Idol” and “X Factor” contestants littering today’s TV. The cruder, the dumber, the more bizarre and outlandish — the more lucrative. Especially for Fox News, whose viewers were recently determined by Fairleigh Dickinson University to be far less informed than people who don’t watch TV news at all.
Maybe that’s the solution: Just ignore it all, until election day. Good luck with that — this docudrama with its soap-opera twists is way too enthralling. The latest rumor du jour involves a certain candidate who long ago seemed to have disappeared from the radar. Now she may be back, or so it is said, to bring order into this chaos. Never mind that her name is synonymous with chaos: Sarah Palin.

Please follow and like us:
error0