Two Years Till Ceremonial Neutered Presidency Ends Then Return To Normalcy Under Palin

The rebalance, or rather return to normalcy which commenced in November 2010 with the massive reaction-or shellacking- of the Democrats will be complete in November 2012.Then we only have a couple of months to wait until America returns to the traditional conservative roots.

As well as the presidency and house, the senate, with so many Dem's up for re-election, should be safely back in Republican hands. Presuming the Supreme Court has no further changes the situation will be as it was under Bush with Congress, the executive, the judiciary and the majority of governorships proving once and for all that America is a right of center nation.

It will prove also that the Obama presidency was an accident of history. That so many events could come together at the same time is remarkable. Two wars not yet satisfactorily concluded, an unpopular president, a skilled orator, an unprecedented turnout in Black voters and beguiled youth all contributed to Obama's victory.

However, so strong is the traditional political conservatism of America
that even with all those factors if it wasn't for the economic crisis hitting just before the election then McCain, who had pulled into the lead, might have won.

The missteps of the untried and inexperienced Obama administration, the pull of the radical "progressive' wing and the hubris of a badly misunderstood victory led to one of the biggest defeats in history for the policies and standing of the president, his team, who have departed one by one, and over 60 congressmen.

For all the hubris and energy of the first two years the results have been a real unemployment rate of up to 17% instead of the 8% the administration promised (before their economic advisors have also joined the revolving door). The wars continue seemingly to no purpose and the pledges to the radical left-removing the Bush tax cuts, closing Guantanamo remain flip flopped and unacted upon respectively.

Effectively all the Obama administration has to show for its two years, apart from incipient inflation, is its vaunted health care bill.

The people have spoken loud and clear as to what they think about this bejewelled centerpiece which will be picked apart bit by bit and, if the courts rule against the commerce clause, it will be as neutered as the president will be for the rest of his term.

The neutered administration appears to have no legislative policy going forwards, certainly nothing that can get through the house and probably the senate to where a number of Democrats in conservative states will not want to endanger their re-election hopes.

Should Palin be the nominee the path to her election, based on nothing more than historical realities as per the map below should ensure her election.

The common sense conservative policies she represents, and in fact instituted during her successful Governorship will, in conjunction with a supportive congress see America return to prosperity and even more importantly, as an underpinning of that prosperity, a regaining of its moral compass.

Let President Obama continue on as mourner-in-chief, foreign dignitary welcomer, trade ambassador
And good speech maker but leave the running of the country to the conservatives whose hands rightly belong on the tiller of the ship of state until a new pair of hands, in a dress this time, takes over as captain.

Latest Poll Shows Palin/Huckabee At 40% For GOP Nomination-Romney at 17%. Clear Sailing For Palin

In a new Washington Post poll
21% of respondents advised they would support Huckabee 19% Palin and 17% Romney as detailed below.

No one else got into double figures and the latest left wing media selections for the GOP of the month Thune and Daniels hardly rated at all.

The 40% shared between Palin and Huckabee-a statistical tie are the only poll results that matter at this point in time for the 2012 election. The polls showing Palin 10 points behind Obama for example, two years out are meaningless as the Reagan polling below shows.

All that matters for Palin is,should she choose to run, how well will she do in the early primaries. Clearly, despite all the massive negative left wing media attacks she is still very popular with the base (80% in polls).

Polling has also shown that should Huckabee choose not to run, a strong possibility, then Palin is his supporters next choice. The numbers then, at this point, and should Huckabee not run, are very much on her side. Even Andrew Sullivan in a moment of lucidity when the PDS uterus fog lifted, said this week that he thinks the "nomination is still hers to lose" even given the media attacks and supposed general low poll rating.


37. (ASKED OF LEANED REPUBLICANS) I’m going to read a list of possible candidates for the Republican nomination for president in 2012. After you hear the list, please tell me, if the 2012 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, for whom would you vote? Which candidate would you lean toward?
NET LEANED VOTE

1/16/11 7/18/09
Mike Huckabee 21 26
Sarah Palin 19 19
Mitt Romney 17 21
Newt Gingrich 9 10
Chris Christie 8 NA
Rick Perry 3 NA
Mitch Daniels 2 NA
Tim Pawlenty 2 4
Mike Pence 2 NA
Haley Barbour 1 1
Jim DeMint 1 NA
Jon Huntsman 1 NA
Rick Santorum 1 NA
John Thune * NA
Other (vol.) 1 2
None of these (vol.) 6 5
Would not vote (vol.) * 1
No o

pinion 6 6

Liberal Men From Mars,Women from Venus, But From An Alternate Universe Where Palin Derangement Is "Normal"

In a brilliant analysis by James Taranto in the WSJ, with an equally brilliant excerpt from feminist Jessica Faller, titled "Palinoia, the Destroyer. What's behind the left's deranged hatred" The major root cause behind the left's madness is discussed.

The conclusion, born out by polling analysis is "Liberal women are the active, driving force behind hatred of Sarah Palin"

The basic reasons behind this,seemingly blind hatred are twofold;

Jealousy (Palin has it all whilst other women have to work, cook, clean up etc.) and, above all, abortion. The fact that Palin walks the talk on abortion is incendiary to liberal women.

That's the liberal feminist Palin Derangement Syndrome explained. What about the liberal male PDS?

If there was any doubt amongst liberal males regarding the fitness of Sarah Palin and in fact any and all women to run for office it has been put to bed.

We have John Heilemann and Mark Halperin,in their book "Game Change" about the 2008 election, to thank for ending this age old question. Not only is Palin untruthful, an ignoramus, divisive (amongst a myriad of other faults) but she is apparently mentally unstable.

The great news is that this mental instability is not linked to any particular psychosis or neuroses, rather it is the inherent situation of her being a female and thus "post partum depressed" and also, one would infer, pre-menopausal. Thankfully the Daily Kos liberal posters have warned everyone to more or less turn away from television when Palin appears when she is post-menopausal as the image (heaven help a woman who gets old) may be too distasteful.

This now makes voting easy, no one of the female gender is by fact of birth suitable for public, especially high, office.The occasional lowly female Assemblyman (we can now dispense with Assemblyperson) might not do too much harm, especially if there are lots of male colleagues to help out or a doctor always on hand "to observe her" as the book suggests was the case with Palin.

We can now deny any woman high office,removing the danger of the concomitant 3:00 a.m. call (might be menstruating) diplomacy (time of the month) and heaven forbid, the nuclear codes (might be having irrational mood swings, or worse, be in a " catatonic stupor").

We can see another of Bush's crazy decisions-as a conservative male-was appointing Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State (not only a youngish female but a Black to boot). This in contrast to liberal Clinton's pick Madeleine Albright who, although limited by being a woman, was clearly post-menopausal and, possibly as a sop to Hillary, not beautiful-almost as good as a man.

At least we can say that PDS transcends male/female differences-not only are men from Mars and women from Venus they are,liberals that is, also from another universe where logic doesn't exist and pure irrational emotion is the norm.

Progressive Support for Episcopal Church Gay Marriage Ceremony By Attacking Christian Traditionalist

Right Wing Watch attacks Michael Youssef, the head of Leading the Way Ministries, with this blaring headline "Religious Right Leader: Episcopal Church No Longer Christian Because It Supports Gay-Rights".
As a conservative watcher of right wing watch lets see what Youssef said in part;

Episcopal Church: Christian?
Based on everything I am currently reading and what I experienced firsthand in that Church in the past, my answer to this question is a forceful, "No!"
Perhaps the last nail in the coffin of that once-vibrant Christian church came as no surprise to many of us when M. Thomas Shaw, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, kicked off the new year of 2011 by performing a lesbian marriage ceremony at St. Paul's cathedral in Boston. Two "priestesses" of the church -- Katherine Hancock Ragsdale (dean and president of Episcopal Divinity School, no less) and Mally Lloyd (canon to the Ordinary at St. Paul's) -- were united in homosexual bliss in the presence of 400 guests. The whole debate of homosexuality has deteriorated into an emotional argument on equality with total disregard to God's created order that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
Taken from that point of view and in relation to scripture then yes, everything he points out in that paragraph is opposed to St.Paul and the Hebrew Bible's teachings in relation to this moral issue. Thus, using pure logic he is correct-the Episcopal Church as figured in these actions is not Christian.
Nowhere does Youseff make an attack on "gay rights"-he does not deny gays civil unions, access to education, health care etc-Right Wing Watch is being dishonest in their rant which on moral issues is the lowest of the low.
I addressed this matter from my own observations some time ago which, being pertinent to the matter at hand I reproduce below;
*************************************************************************
Being of a conservative nature I found the Presbyterian church amicable. I liked the simplicity of surrounds, of ceremony, of vestments. I liked the plain spoken "person in the street" congregation and the lack of structure-no Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals etc, and the democratic nature of church decision making.
The basic Protestant emphasis on The Word as the guiding light for person and church without any appeal to or direction from ecclesiastical hierarchy fitted, again, a conservative nature.
However, I reached a point where all this basicness, to coin a word,
was, I found, rather boring. As  Giovanni Guareschi  put it in 'The Little World Of Don Camillo'  "Even the eye needs some satisfaction, and in matters of religion its the same as with a doctor, there's a lot to be said for personal sympathies and moral impressions!"
So as an happy alternative I started attending the Episcopalian church. Here there was color, an uplifting ceremonial and, since the hierarchy of the church never entered into any aspect of my personal life, I was more than happy to disregard that aspect of the church structureBut, sadly I find it impossible to continue in the congregation.

I was impressed with the Cardinal from Washington D.C. who,when questioned on television about the Catholic church attitude to more or less advised that that was a line in the sand they had to adhere to.Otherwise they had no reason to exist as a faith if in effect their doctrine was so malleable on matters of life and death that it could change with the political/cultural ethos of the moment. His answer on DADT which he advised was a political question, I found less convincing however.


But he is absolutely right the church has to have some basic,bottom line premise. For the Episcopalian hierarchy to accept women at all levels is grand,although in matters of church leadership I personally would prefer to attend a church with a male pastor-only because in matters of ceremonial e.g. funerals/weddings "the eye needs something to look at " and the ear needs gravitas-but that's just my point of view-and I am entitled to "shop around" of course.

The Episcopalian church is in turmoil and in danger of splitting apart
On the other hand I can't accept having male or female homosexuals as Pastors/Bishops etc. I would have absolutely nothing against them as individuals in any shape or fashion, and like many families I have gay relatives whom I love and admire, but I wouldn't support them for ordination, a matter which is clearly against biblical injunction. On which subject I would feel confident that Catholics would concur. Again, if we accept the lead of the Episcopalian church on this then there is absolutely no end to having any variation in "lifestyle" acceptable for any position,nor matter of faith which is not malleable. 


So it's back to the rather plain trappings of Presbyterian worship again-unless I move to England where the Anglicans have not gone down the Episcopalian path, at least for now. Why not the Catholic church? To much color I'm afraid, too much structure and there are a few doctrinal positions which are not for me e.g. transubstantiation and letting priests marry. I think it no accident that all the many troubles the Catholic church has experienced lately stem from the lack of that particular option for their clergy.


At the end of the day the important thing is that one's faith is exercised and we are fortunate, I believe, in having a number of options where one can do that. At the end of the day unless a faith has a bedrock of immovable core structure amicable to its founding values it is "salt that has lost its saltiness and should be cast aside"

If Romney Not Palin Is the Nominee How Might Conservatives Vote In 2012?

The question for many conservatives who are strong Palin supporters is what might they do if Palin is not the 2012 nominee? The answer depends on how the nomination was decided.



If Palin is not the G.O.P.’s 2012 presidential nominee because she chose not to run, and who could blame her given the ceaseless, remorseless attacks she has been under, then it may behoove her followers to do as she would-work and vote for whomever is the nominee.


Palin has already given, by her example, the direction to do exactly that. This by her strong vocal support and her campaign activity for John McCain, who is hardly the darling of the Tea Party, for his succesful senate seat re-election bid.


That is what would be expected of Palin given her strength of character. Which character attributes include loyalty-loyalty to person and party even though this has brought her some degree of criticism. As always, where moral issues come into play Palin can be trusted to do what is right even though it might cost her support.


If Palin is not the nominee the 2012 election shapes up to be a nondescript affair. This is especially so if there are no primary battles, thus giving a campaign redolent of the Clinton versus Dole 1996 snore fest-even more so if the economy has improved. However, there are significant strategic aspects which come into play for 2016.


Firstly the Republicans 2008 electoral college results across the states must be held in 2012 as a solid base for 2016. It is possible that there could be gains for the G.O.P. in a non-contentious election as well if the impetus to vote by the black community is not as strong as it was in 2008


If Obama’s election in an improved economic situation looks certain, and the historic aspect of his being the first black elected to the presidency no longer has the driving force value it did, then North Carolina, Indiana and perhaps Virginia might swing back to the Republicans. These gains, plus the six  gains for the G.O.P. in electoral college votes due to population shifts, would provide a decent showing and platform for 2016. It is unlikely that Florida/Ohio/Colorado would swing to the Republicans under this scenario and Obama would have his second term.


Voting rather than sitting it out is also important as it would guarantee more votes for down ballot senate candidates. This would ensure, given the Republicans hold the gains the House from 2010, that Congress could be captured, which would prevent the implementation of further radical polices and that Obama would effectively be a lame duck president from day one of his second term. It would also put a block on his ability to ram though the senate radical choices for any Supreme Court vacancies.


If in 2012 the economy is still in dire straights and Obama has proven beyond doubt he is a second Jimmy Carter (worse actually, at least Carter did not have a radical agenda) then it will not matter how conservatives cast their primary ballots as there will a landslide to the G.O.P no matter who is the candidate. It would be hoped there would be a significant position in the incoming government for Palin, if she is not the nominee, which would serve both the country and her long term interest well.


If Palin chooses to run but does not get the nomination things get a lot tougher for conservatives. Under this scenario the number one priority would be to ensure that they got out to work for, and vote for, those down ticket candidates who reflect conservative principles.


If by not voting for the presidential candidate the Republicans suffered an electoral college disaster like McGovern’s in 1972 for example, it would be of little consequence taking the longer term view, especially if the Republican’s controlled Congress.


Again, whomever the nominee is conservatives must vote for the down ticket candidates as a check on Obama’s radical agenda. Electoral college disasters of even McGovern's magnitude can easily be turned around, as the Democratic party did just four years later, when they won in 1976. Turning around House and Senate losses is a much harder proposition.


As far as the top of the ticket is concerned there is no doubt that Palin would loyally campaign, as Reagan did for Ford, for the candidate the party chose ahead of her. That said,should the party choose an out and out RINO then all bets are off.


However, no such imperative weighs on the shoulders of the millions of her supporters which include Independents and Democratic party supporters-especially the Hillary Clinton Supporting “Puma’s”.


Our loyalty as conservatives goes beyond the person of Sarah Palin to the transcendent ideals which she embodies. These include freedom, free enterprise, life, a fair economy with opportunity for all and a small, lower tax government and an America First attitude in foreign affairs. Above all it looks to seeking the guidance of God.


If Palin does not get the nomination due to primary battles lost on a one against one basis we can support the nominee whilst believing in our hearts that the Republican voters were mistaken. This without being in the slightest subject to the ridiculous accusation of being elitists or sore losers and prepare to do battle for her in 2016 or 2020.


If the primary battle losses are caused by a multitude of candidates on the right splitting the vote Palin supporters will have every right to be angry. This is especially so if the multitude includes candidates who in reality have no chance of winning the nomination but are just there to ensure she also does not get it. If by this method, or by old guard insider establishment machinations Palin is denied the nomination then to me there is only one course open.


That will be to vote the down ballot ticket and write in Palin’s name for president and the day after the election go to work to ensure she gets the nomination for 2016.One other scenario remains. If Romney is the nominee then even if not voting guarantees Obama's re-election I will not vote for him. If it was a matter of a policy disagreement then when push came to shove I might have held my nose and pulled the lever for him-possibly. However, given his total silence when Palin was being unjustly attacked over the Arizona horrors, when he could have defended a colleague and received recognition from his detractors for an  act of magnanimity, I cannot vote for him on the transcendent moral grounds.