For the second month running Sarah Palin is out in front of the pack in the latest opinion poll of Republicans, and now Tea Party supporters as the presidential candidate of choice.
According to the just released Magellen Strategies poll Palin is the choice of 28% of likely Republican voters with Huckabee second on 24% and Romney rounding out the top three at 16%. Republicans have a very high opinion of Tea Party supporters-67% expressing a positive opinion, and Tea Party supporters chose Palin above all other candidates by the same 28% of likely voters.
Of much interest is the fact that Palin polled best, amongst all candidates amongst female voters, a group which the MSM wisdom has categorized as being the most anti-Palin.
This poll goes a long way to negating the one off, structurally distorted poll, which the liberal MSM has touted which purported to show Palin had strong negatives and over 70% didn't think she was qualified to be President. This poll makes.of course, a mockery of the CPAC straw poll which was representative of no reality outside of the convention hall.
The other theme,which has just be launched as policy by the DCCC that Palin is a negative for Republican candidates in 2010 with an endorsement by her, or a Democratic party campaign tying a Republican candidate to her, is also exploded by this poll. Rand Paul, endorsed by Palin for the Senate polls at 44% whilst Grayson, the other primary candidate polls at 23%.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Crooks And Liars Anti-Palin Screed Fails Again
Our good friends at the Texas4Palin blog advised that the people who booked Sarah for the Get Motivated seminar in Houston were so pleased with the result apparently that they have booked her again in Beaumont in March which event "will likely draw a record crowd".
This seems to be a bit at odds with what the ultra-lefty kiddies site Crooks and Liars (sic) reported "Sarah Palin's debut as a motivational speaker: Houston attendees rate her a 'fail'.They go on to quote their correspondent thusly 'I wasn't motivated,one man said to me'.
This is the site which ran the 'Palin wears a black bracelet' post which was roundly debunked, but didn't have the grace to apologize for the article simply posting a 'correction' . If you can bear to read trash, especially the kiddies trying to justify the article-even when it was proven false, it is here .
Crooks and Liars and here is the adults blog Texas4Palin
This seems to be a bit at odds with what the ultra-lefty kiddies site Crooks and Liars (sic) reported "Sarah Palin's debut as a motivational speaker: Houston attendees rate her a 'fail'.They go on to quote their correspondent thusly 'I wasn't motivated,one man said to me'.
This is the site which ran the 'Palin wears a black bracelet' post which was roundly debunked, but didn't have the grace to apologize for the article simply posting a 'correction' . If you can bear to read trash, especially the kiddies trying to justify the article-even when it was proven false, it is here .
Crooks and Liars and here is the adults blog Texas4Palin
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Sarah Palin Shows Unerring Political Skills By Not Speaking At CPAC
Derided, mocked, called an idiot, " not ready for the big time" by the elitist lame stream old timey (to use a Palinism) establishment commentators (from the left and right) Sarah Palin once again shows that her "from the people" political instincts are correct.
When Palin declined to speak at CPAC the media critics attacked her on two levels. Firstly her "avarice" for only (supposedly) speaking at events where she gets $100,000 and secondly for her supposed poor political judgement in passing up an opportunity to speak to the opinion makers and movers and shakers of the Republican party.
The avarice slur is of course well exploded, as one example amongst many, Palin will not be paid to speak at the forthcoming Southern Republican Leadership Conference . In respect of which it is an absolute delight to see a Palin critic having to publicly apologize for her poorly researched article stating Palin was being paid-these people are so caught up in their bias they rush into print and make fools of themselves.
As regards CPAC it is clearly understood that Palin did not speak because of the conventions associations with an extremist group-in other words she passed up the publicity opportunity to stand on principle. The MSM simply can't grasp that aspect of her character and as always looks for underlying motives which simply are not there.
Well the result of the straw poll are in and to everyone's astonishment and the complete surprise of the punditry Ron Paul ran away with the voting for most preferred candidate for President ! The media will explode and tar all attendees, especially the putative candidates, with the brush of extremism "nut jobs by association". Palin alone escapes this and at the end of the day Paul is not a serious contender for the nomination.
By not attending she was not in competition with the Paul followers in active vote solicitation and her third place ranking can be put down to the fact of her not being there. Who is the dumb one now eh?
When Palin declined to speak at CPAC the media critics attacked her on two levels. Firstly her "avarice" for only (supposedly) speaking at events where she gets $100,000 and secondly for her supposed poor political judgement in passing up an opportunity to speak to the opinion makers and movers and shakers of the Republican party.
The avarice slur is of course well exploded, as one example amongst many, Palin will not be paid to speak at the forthcoming Southern Republican Leadership Conference . In respect of which it is an absolute delight to see a Palin critic having to publicly apologize for her poorly researched article stating Palin was being paid-these people are so caught up in their bias they rush into print and make fools of themselves.
As regards CPAC it is clearly understood that Palin did not speak because of the conventions associations with an extremist group-in other words she passed up the publicity opportunity to stand on principle. The MSM simply can't grasp that aspect of her character and as always looks for underlying motives which simply are not there.
Well the result of the straw poll are in and to everyone's astonishment and the complete surprise of the punditry Ron Paul ran away with the voting for most preferred candidate for President ! The media will explode and tar all attendees, especially the putative candidates, with the brush of extremism "nut jobs by association". Palin alone escapes this and at the end of the day Paul is not a serious contender for the nomination.
By not attending she was not in competition with the Paul followers in active vote solicitation and her third place ranking can be put down to the fact of her not being there. Who is the dumb one now eh?
Outstanding Analysis of The Obama Administration By A.Barton Hinkle-Palin Inference
Writing in the Richmond Times Dispatch op-ed writer A. Barton Hinkle sets out an outstanding exposition of the real driving forces behind the Obama administration .It is "Their program is premised on believing a select group of superior people should be empowered to organize everyone else’s affairs".
The article has many clear and concise expansions of this premise and is, in my opinion outstanding and worthy of wide dissemination-the final quote from Longfellow is one that will give pause for thought and reflection as well.
There is little I could ,or would wish to, add to this brilliant article except to say that in my lifetime we have been down this path once before with similar disastrous results that we are seeing unfolding in front of us. The "brightest and the best" elite ended up with PhD’s firing off rounds in the jungle in Vietnam-who knows what will be the final act of tragedy from this administrations elite.
The article has many clear and concise expansions of this premise and is, in my opinion outstanding and worthy of wide dissemination-the final quote from Longfellow is one that will give pause for thought and reflection as well.
There is little I could ,or would wish to, add to this brilliant article except to say that in my lifetime we have been down this path once before with similar disastrous results that we are seeing unfolding in front of us. The "brightest and the best" elite ended up with PhD’s firing off rounds in the jungle in Vietnam-who knows what will be the final act of tragedy from this administrations elite.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
George Will's Ridiculous Goldwater/Palin Comparison
George Will advises that (in respect of Sarah Palin) "She is not going to be president and will not be the Republican nominee unless the party wants to lose at least 44 states."
He goes on to compare a putative Palin presidential run with that of Barry Goldwater, whom he describes as a similar "maverick" in terms of his perceived failings being ascribed to her. This is somewhat ameliorated by a courtly exposition on her terrible treatment by the liberal media which is, in reality, damning with faint praise.
However, his grasp of electoral college realities is what is in question. For someone who has lived, as he has, through the campaign of 1964 I can confidentially state that it is ludicrous to extrapolate the presidential run of Barry Goldwater to a Palin run in 2012.
In 1964 Lyndon Johnson was basking in the glow of a martyred president, the country was prosperous, the Congress, with Johnson's deft handling based on years of experience in the Senate as Majority Leader, was instituting the large spending of the "Great Society" and America's prestige in the world was unquestioned, especially after Kennedy's handling of the Cuban missile crisis.
No Republican candidate-left, right or centrist, could have come anywhere near defeating Johnson. The fact that Goldwater won six states (5 from the deep south plus his own Arizona) is in fact a remarkable achievement. In similar races against a hugely popular incumbent McGovern and Mondale were slaughtered.
Where Will goes off the track is not only disregarding the historic context of presidential popularity but also the shifting forces of historic political identity in the south. The deep south was a democratic party stronghold from the reconstruction era to 1948 when the first cracks appeared. These initial movements were to States Rights candidates (Thurmond and Byrd) who won a majority of electoral votes in a number of states (four states for Thurmond in 1948 and two for Byrd in 1960). The shift of the south to the Republican party commenced in earnest with Goldwater in 1964 with his five state win (matched by Wallace as an independent in 1968)
Since Goldwater's run in 1964 the south has seen a majority of states go Republican in every subsequent election- not exempting Obama's huge electoral vote pile in 2008 (including southerner Clinton's two runs) except for Carter's sweep of the south in 1976,
Thus to think that Palin (or any Republican candidate for that matter) would not do at least as well as McCain did in the south and border states in 2012 when every factor that Johnson had going for him is, to this date, not mirrored or applicable in respect of Obama's presidency, is utterly ridiculous and not worthy of someone of Mr. Will's experience.
Further there is no reason not to believe that if the Obama administration continues on its present course, and decline in the polls, that the Midwest states which went for McCain would also not go for Palin. The reality is that Palin would have every chance of holding the McCain states, bringing those states which usually vote Republican but went for Obama, back to the Republican fold and picking up the few additional states required to obtain a majority in the electoral college. A detailed exposition of the manner of this electoral victory for Palin, including the positive affect for her of the changes in electoral vote distribution from the forthcoming census, was set out and expanded on previously.
He goes on to compare a putative Palin presidential run with that of Barry Goldwater, whom he describes as a similar "maverick" in terms of his perceived failings being ascribed to her. This is somewhat ameliorated by a courtly exposition on her terrible treatment by the liberal media which is, in reality, damning with faint praise.
However, his grasp of electoral college realities is what is in question. For someone who has lived, as he has, through the campaign of 1964 I can confidentially state that it is ludicrous to extrapolate the presidential run of Barry Goldwater to a Palin run in 2012.
In 1964 Lyndon Johnson was basking in the glow of a martyred president, the country was prosperous, the Congress, with Johnson's deft handling based on years of experience in the Senate as Majority Leader, was instituting the large spending of the "Great Society" and America's prestige in the world was unquestioned, especially after Kennedy's handling of the Cuban missile crisis.
No Republican candidate-left, right or centrist, could have come anywhere near defeating Johnson. The fact that Goldwater won six states (5 from the deep south plus his own Arizona) is in fact a remarkable achievement. In similar races against a hugely popular incumbent McGovern and Mondale were slaughtered.
Where Will goes off the track is not only disregarding the historic context of presidential popularity but also the shifting forces of historic political identity in the south. The deep south was a democratic party stronghold from the reconstruction era to 1948 when the first cracks appeared. These initial movements were to States Rights candidates (Thurmond and Byrd) who won a majority of electoral votes in a number of states (four states for Thurmond in 1948 and two for Byrd in 1960). The shift of the south to the Republican party commenced in earnest with Goldwater in 1964 with his five state win (matched by Wallace as an independent in 1968)
Since Goldwater's run in 1964 the south has seen a majority of states go Republican in every subsequent election- not exempting Obama's huge electoral vote pile in 2008 (including southerner Clinton's two runs) except for Carter's sweep of the south in 1976,
Thus to think that Palin (or any Republican candidate for that matter) would not do at least as well as McCain did in the south and border states in 2012 when every factor that Johnson had going for him is, to this date, not mirrored or applicable in respect of Obama's presidency, is utterly ridiculous and not worthy of someone of Mr. Will's experience.
Further there is no reason not to believe that if the Obama administration continues on its present course, and decline in the polls, that the Midwest states which went for McCain would also not go for Palin. The reality is that Palin would have every chance of holding the McCain states, bringing those states which usually vote Republican but went for Obama, back to the Republican fold and picking up the few additional states required to obtain a majority in the electoral college. A detailed exposition of the manner of this electoral victory for Palin, including the positive affect for her of the changes in electoral vote distribution from the forthcoming census, was set out and expanded on previously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)