New Contact Email

adambrickley.brickyard@blogspot.com

Monday, October 27, 2008

"Rogue"

First off, The CNN interview went well and I am working on getting a video for you. I should be able to put it up soon. But first, I wanted to address another issue that has been jumped on by the media..."anonymous McCain staffers" saying that Palin has gone "rogue".

There seems to be no real evidence of tension between McCain and Palin, just tension between Palin and the staffers which were assigned to her (mostly ex-Bush staffers). Everyone in the media seems to be placing the blame on Sarah (as always), but lets take a look at this situation:

Staffers are complaining that Palin isn't taking their advice...advice which led to the Katie Couric editing spree, the Charlie Gibson chop-job, and the abandoned "makeover". Now that Sarah is finding her feet and doing what she does best, suddenly the bad-advice people think they have a right to get mad at her?! Please. These people work for Sarah, not the other way around. She's their boss, not their science project. There's nothing wrong with trusting your advisers, but when the advisers steer you wrong, it's time to get a second opinion. Sarah is the candidate, meaning that she cannot "go rogue" on anyone (except McCain himself), or veer off her own message. The only people "going rogue" are the staffers who wanted to keep Sarah under wraps and hide her from the electorate. Considering their handling of the situation, they should be grateful that Sarah is keeping them around at all.

37 comments:

Mountain Mama said...

Right you are, Adam, as usual! Good point about how "going rogue" doesn't apply when the advice given isn't working! Sarah Palin is instead doing what SHE knows is authentic for her, and what she knows does WORK to show people how she will advocate for THEM!

This Nazi-skin-head mess is no doubt a very real concern----but it will be sickening if Obama's staff uses it to gain sympathy votes.
MCCAIN certainly deserves sympathy votes----not many people could endure what he did as a POW----but he's too decent a person to WANT sympathy votes, much less seek them.
Besides, I guarantee there are plot against MOST politicians, especially the most famous ones, so hopefully liberals will FOR ONCE quit leaning on their feelings (BO-RING!).
The Point is: law enforcement prevented it, so it's over... Hopefully liberals will move on......
THANK GOD nothing horrible has happened to ANY candidate!

Scott said...

Reminds me of that Movie "Dave" where the substitute Dave was brought in to play the president and the handlers got upset when he started acting on his own.

That didn't sound the way i thought of it but i think you get the point.

Scott said...

were they from western pennsylvania? :p



yeah i know, not the best place for a joke..

I don't think it's any shock that we still have racist people in this country... of both and all races. I don't agree with the guy but in no way would i ever want anything bad to happen to him.. He most likely means well but he's going about it all wrong for this country.

Patriot1776 said...

There are nuts all over the place. How many 'nuts' out there want Bush and Cheney dead? I am happy the Feds got them. Lock 'em up.

Now, this Rogue garbage...I have to say, I am sick of these former Bushites thinking they know best. I am THRILLED Sarah has told them to step aside.

Much as Clinton set the Democratic Party back, Bush on spending and much of his administration has set back the Conservative movement. I dont 'hate' Bush by an stretch. He has done great things keeping us safe all this time. But many of the people around him really turn out NOT to be conservatives at all and then turn and attack people like Sarah Palin.

We need to stay focused with 8 days left. We can still win this. Fl, MO, NC are all right there for the taking. We need some work and little luck to turn CO and VA back to Red, but I believe Sarah Palin can do that.

I notce CNN no longer covering Palin Rallies on cnn.com/live? Wonder why that is???

We have to win this for Ronald Reagan. Everything he fought so hard for in the 1980s could be washed away in the next week. Obama/Reid/Pelosi would spell disaster for our nation. Carter and LBJ where the last Dems to have a 60 seat Senate Dem majority. That could be the reality if we fail to elect McCain/Palin next week.

And if you think things are bad now, hold on to your hat AND your wallet.

Scott said...

i think they need to stop using the term "redistribution of wealth".. middle to lower class people are seeing this as that which the rich, or more well off, "wealthy" have. Like a guy i saw make a comment on youtube to one of McCain's videos.. he said "I'm joe the plumber and i make $40,000 per year and Obama's plan is going to help me put my kids through college". The point is that those making less money aren't really feeling very sorry for those more well off being taxed more, especially when they see it as benefiting them.. and this is why so many follow obama. His plan appeals to the majority of americans who make less than 250k per year. So when you tell someone that the "wealth" is going to be spread around.. it doesn't sound much like a bad idea to them. Instead he needs to use the word "income"... and not just that, he needs to point out to everyone what the effect of this spreading of the income will be on everyone... how it will affect their decrease of pay, or worse the loss of their job by a company that seeks to not pay more in taxes, but to compensate their bottom line by cutting their work force, or raising prices. I don't know.. i just think the "keep your wealth" tour doesn't appeal to the lower to middle class who won't be affected by the tax increases of obama.

Jill said...

Palin knows she and McCain are asking the American people to hire them and that they will be working for us, but you are right, Adam. Her staff is supposed to work for her, and problems they have with her message are their own problems and they need to zip it. Perfect words to use, that she is not their science project. I also caught you on CNN, and thought you were looking pretty stern and I realized it may have had something to do with that harsh "drag on the ticket" comment you had to follow. Still, you put on a good show in your short time allotted. As always, well spoken, just as you write.

Yeah Scott, that's right. Whether the word is spread or redistribute, it's the wealth part that needs to go, and the word income that needs to be used. For one thing, "the wealth" isn't personal enough. If someone wants to take YOUR income and start throwing it here and there, it becomes a personal issue. I think Huckabee said that lately, that it would be a better term, income. The other thing, is that if we think "the wealth" is dwindling now, I'm afraid we ain't seen nothin yet. The wealth may not be there to spread, no matter how much half our population or more may want to do it. Funny thing is, they don't, according to polls. Gallup says it's 84 to 13%. If 84% of Americans don't want their incomes (wealth) spread, I'm not clear why so many are going right over that cliff where Obama is leading them.

Concerning that audio from 2001, I read a comment on one of the news sites that about summed up the NON-outrage people seem to have in response to it. I didn't clip it, so going from memory, "Barack Obama could run naked down the street yelling 'I'm a Communist!' and people would comment that he has a cute butt."

I wanted to let all of you see this worshipful video someone made about Obama called "Obama Be Thy Name" and it pretty much approaches sacrilege ("thy will be done") if anyone was going to ask my opinion. The music is great, the message is... you decide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PDehlPWsdQ

Scott said...

the cnn live site has mccain/palin tomorrow twice in PA

12thMan said...

I'm really beginning to have my doubts, is a win really better than a loss?

Fine, say McCain wins (read Sarah, Joe, Rush, Sean, Great One, and the gang win it for him), we'll celebrate Nov 4 and Jan 20, but what's going to happen on Jan 21?

We'll doubtless see a savage bloodletting of all sorts of RINOs in the Senate like Smith, Chambliss, and Coleman (although I cannot truly believe Minnesota would be that @$$-backwards to elect Stuart Smalley) next week, but we still got the king of RINOs at the head of the table! Why would we have any reason to believe McCain will stand up to (Can't)Reid and Pelousy? He hasn't done it before, and he can't be bothered to bring up the fact that these losers have controlled Congress for the last two years, immediately making everybody's life worse than when we were still worried about Mark Foley's morals.

SP will be great of course, but unless McCain decides to reach across the aisle for the last time, she'll be nothing more than an activist, and while her pres prospects look better as the VP (even though it hasn't happened since 88) how realistic is that if all the sudden RINOs like Graham convince the RNC that the aisle strategy is the way to go? Do we WANNA see Sarah morph into McCain four years from now? It'd be a damn tragedy!

I'm almost to the point now where it's put up or shut up (it's merely the dems turn again: the "new" Congress wasn't worth a damn, and then McCain ends up doing his best impression of Jerramy Stevens in the SB three years ago). Rebuild the brand, get rid of the RINOs. There's a strong base of young libertarians/conservatives right there. All they need to do is be unified. 2010 (and then 2012) is our year when that happens. Anyone worried about SP not being a legitimate pres candidate because of the track record of losing VP candidates should take their history books and shred them, because first-term senators don't win the presidency either.

After all, a Ford (moderate-liberal R) victory in 76 prob means no Reagan, which means no growth, which means the era of liberalism's probably into its third DECADE (with no end in sight) by now, and perish the thought; but our lady's probably one OF them.

Last but not least, didn't we see Republicans declared "invincible" four years ago? How well did that work out again?

knowitall said...

instead of wealth or income, why not simply call it "money"?

I am still curious about my question on California. The poll today says Obama is up by 27% there. Let's for a minute say it is correct.
Will that add a percent or two in the national polls? Does anybody know? Does it mean that M/P is actually down by 1or 2% and not 3 or 4?
I wish I knew.

Patriot1776 said...

12th man, normailly I might agree with you. However, we are staring at Pelosi/Reid/Obama...this kind of alignment with a possible 60 seat majority in the senate only has happened 2 times in the last 50 years...Jimmy Carter..and LBJ...We got Great Society - still paying for that from the 60s...and economic ruination in the 1970s....

No, we need Sarah and John just to bring some balance to a left wing effort to destroy the foundations of our country. John will have NO choice but to oppose them on important issues.

Ray said...

The Republican party is not a Ronald Reagan/George Bush Senior only party (not that I dislike them). Some are TRs, some Lincolns, and some are Ikes. There are even some Goldwaters. Some are not close to any candidate. Many people support these candidates, because they know that they will keep the country's interests in mind (and of liberty in general), and that is the appeal. I don't like Reagan's politics that much, but I respect him. I would even vote for him. I have that respect for McCain, only he is closer to me in the issues.

The whole RINO thing is crazy. The Republican part does not have a base. Believe me, the other parts of the party voting for McCain and McCain himself are not fans of the Pelosi Congress.

Why you think McCain won't stick to his own principles is rather strange to hear. The guy is known for not always going with the flow. I wouldn't expect him to bow down to anyone. He goes with his gut and not what is always popular.

Larry Jackson said...

I am not so sure it would be a bad thing if Sarah Palin did go rogue on them. Maybe we would see a change in the way this campaign is being ran.

Should Sarah Palin go rogue?

Larry Jackson said...

I have heard that the staffers in question originally worked for Mitt Romney. That might explain a lot right there.

Mountain Mama said...

PLEASE PRAY:

Even the best conservative pundits (Karl Rove, Dick Morris, etc.) seem unaware of the sort of study results that an article on Lynette Long's blogsite (www.lynettelong.com ) recounts; it's the article (names always escape me) with a photo of NUN DOLLS near its title.

THE POINT of this article is that People Don't Believe What They Don't SEE!---no matter what information is given them to help them face reality accurately.

(The pundits keep suggesting that we try to persuade Obamaites with written materials or verbal prowess: those alone won't work!)

So to WIN this election, we need videos (or audios at least) of Obama HIMSELF, when he is SAYING or DOING things that reveal his true, liberal-socialist (or worse) self!

In other words, the ONLY way to beat Obama is WITH HIMSELF, when he's saying extremely liberal things, OR videos of him when he's in the company of others who are doing so.

I'd LOVE to see a video of Obama and his family, sitting in Rev. Wright's congregation, listening and nodding their heads in agreement----right when Rev. W. is ranting against the USA or white folk, or saying crazy stuff such as the US gov't created AIDS to commit genocide against people of color! C'mon, Obama agreed with him or he wouldn't have stayed there for OVER 20 YEARS!

Short of visual or audio confirmation of these Obama traits, McCain-Palin will find it VERY difficult to get people to BELIEVE that Obama is all this liberal----which is SAD, because Obama TRULY IS whacko-liberal!

Thanks for your PRAYERS. Winning this election will take miracles, but God might provide!

knowitall said...

Sitting here after work, i had a chance to look at the ibd/tipp numbers and found something very encouraging.

on 10/18/2008, obama's lead peaked at 7.3%. At that time the undecided vote was 13.0%. Obama had 47.2%.

Today the lead is down to 2.8%. The undecideds are down to 8.8%. Obama's # is DOWN to 47.0%.

Where did the undecided vote go? well, mccain is up from 39.8% to 44.2%. The shift apparently went completely to M/P.

The undecided vote will decide this election. And as long as they break to M/P, that's all we can pray for.

knowitall said...

ray,
i always appreciate your notes. they are very good.

i may have insulted you by accident when i did not recognize your name a few weeks ago. i am glad i had a chance to touch base with you again.

although i have never lived in Jersey, i have a certain soft soft for it. My second cousin, Robert Meyner, as a two term democrat governor of the Garden State from 1954 to 1964.
He ran for POTUS, backed by the NYC machine, but lost in the primaries to JFK.
He was married to Adlai Stevenson's niece or cousin or whatever. She was a congresswoman into the 1990s, i believe.

Anyway, thank you for your coments. they are very good. please keep them coming.

Jill said...

mm, while I was at the site you linked, reading the Nun story, The Eyes Have It (which was an accurate take on the problem we're up against), I started reading Hillary Backers Decry Massive Obama Vote Fraud that is about the fraud committed during the primaries. It was pretty eye-popping, but one little thing in there just added to my outlook on Biden. He was just a non-factor to me in my opinion of the Obama presidency, good old Joe Biden, but the more I think about it, the more disturbed I am by his about-face once he was tapped as VP. His belief about BO's inexperience, his respect for McCain, it all changed.

In this case, he saw this fraud and did nothing:

Obama’s flagrant busing of out-of-state caucus participants from Illinois was so obvious that even Joe Biden – today his running mate, then his rival – pointed it out at the time.

At a campaign stop before the Jan. 3 caucus at the JJ Diner in Des Moines, Biden "said what we were all thinking when he got on stage and said, ‘Hello Iowa!’ and then turned to Barack’s crowd and shouted, ‘and Hello Chicago!’" another precinct captain for Hillary told Dr. Long.

Mountain Mama said...

JILL, I noticed that exact same part of that article, re. Biden and his little dig at Obama, BACK WHEN!

WE NEED VIDEOS of Obama's speeches. HELP, LORD!

techno said...

With 8 days left to go to election day I find it fitting to recap what has happened during the last 52 days of the campaign to provide insight to where John and Sarah might want to take it for the last 7 days of the campaign. Let me though first go back even further to the week before the Democratic Convention when Obama chose Joe Biden as his running mate. In retrospect it was a poor pick and may cost Obama the Presidency. Biden is gaffe-prone and has only brought political embarrassment and ridicule, bad press, and perhaps a slight softening of support for Obama, who question his judgment for picking Biden over Hillary. In choosing Biden, Obama and his advisors must have calculated that the PUMA's (disenchanted Hillary supporters)would eventually wander back to the fold en masse, because they would have no where else to go (similar to a battered wife that always returns back to her husband). Remember John McCain had not chosen his VP yet. Obama's advisors must have figured that although John might go maverick with the selection, the Republican party apparatus would finally rein him in and tell him who was boss, thus making it clear that he had to pick a 'boring white guy' to complement the ticket. And the Obama people must have figured whoever McCain picked (Romney, Pawlenty, Ridge, Lieberman) would be comparable to a Jack Kemp type (Bob Dole 1996) and that with the narrative of Obama being the first black President would easily carry the day with voters who would see no reason to be turned on by a 72 year old man who is the not most eloquent speaker and a 50-60'ish white guy who would play to a blase base and be lucky to draw a 1000 people to a VP rally. After the Democratic Convention and the coronation of Obama, I truly believe that Obama's advisors saw the way clear for Obama to win the election in a landslide, with the campaign being anticlimatic. In this awful political climate for Republicans and the media promoting Obama as a transformational candidate, McCain was not going to beat Obama and any one of the usual suspects put forward by the media as potential VP picks for McCain did not engender any major concern to Obama either. Now even though I think Obama's people are despicable, sinister creatures I don't believe they're dumb. They must have kicked around the possibility of McCain throwing a hail Mary pass by putting a woman on the ticket a la Geraldine Geraldine Ferraro to try to attract Hillary voters; perhaps they felt that the chances were remote (the GOP has been known as a male dominated party) and secondly who on the Republican female roster would you really have to fear anyway: RINO's like Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe, a doyenne like Kay Bailey Hutchinson, tainted businesswomen like Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman, or not-well-known Congresswomen like Marsha Blackburn or Michele Bachmann (Condi Rice didn't want the job). Of course Sarah wasn't even on the Dems radar and was virtually unknown to most of the Republicans in the lower 48 as well. Yes, Sarah Palin was the darling of the right wing blogs and had done well in various VP polls in July and August, but she had virtually no support from the party establishment, was deeply up to her neck in the Troopergate affair at the time, and neither John McCain nor his advisors had ever mentioned her name or even hinted that she was a serious contender for the job, although her name from time to time would come up when she appeared on Larry Kudlow or was mentioned on Fox News Sunday by Bill Kristol as a potential VP pick. Nobody in the MSM press gave Sarah any notice and Fox gave her scant attention. As talk-show host Hugh Hewitt put it when questioned about Sarah by callers:'Sarah Palin is only a one-term governor of Alaska, I'm sure she's a lovely woman and I hear she's very popular in her state; I've never met her, but she doesn't bring much else than the 3 electoral votes from Alaska and he even implied that it would be a ridiculous notion that McCain would even consider Sarah and something completely out of the realm of reality-a pure fantasy. And Hewitt has an insider's knowledge of politics and has being involved in politics for over 20 years. Overconfidence does strange things to people. When the Dems heard that Sarah was the choice, it was like a bombshell hit the Democratic party. They became defensive and overreacted.Also immediately, the MSM media abandoned the 'coronation story' and picked up the Palin narrative for the entire weekend and took the story into the convention for the bulk of the following week.Of course we all know what subsequently happened to Sarah: the distortions. lies, smears, and vilification of Sarah Palin orchestrated by the Obama campaign, left-wing blogs and the MSM to destroy her candidacy and to force McCain to consider the Eagleton option. We also know that Sarah's convention speech was brilliant and at the time was compared to the speech Reagan gave to the Republican convention in 1980. In turn that speech allowed McCain and Sarah to emerge from the convention as united-a team of mavericks with an enthusiastic base to provide a needed infusion of cash and volunteers to GOTV. In the next two weeks John and Sarah took off in the polls and were tied with Obama in some polls until the beginning of the financial meltdown around September 19. During those two weeks John and Sarah teamed up mostly in rallies and town halls; in retrospect this was the right move to make; Sarah needed time to learn more about McCain's various positions as a Senator and needed time to get used to the grind and rigors of a national campaign. By the way her popularity was now skyrocketing and McCain's crowds were sometimes 10 times as large as he had ever played to when he was on his own. However the McCain momentum stopped during the 2 weeks that the meltdown was front and center in the news; Obama, because the public blamed the Republicans for the mess in Washington, began to surge in the polls; his lead jumped to anywhere from 8-10 points. In addition during this time Sarah had her interviews with Gibson and Couric that many pundits, liberal and conservative, were critical of her performance. Kathleen Parker even went as far as saying that 'this woman can't even string two sentences together.' This period was definitely the low point in the campaign. Unexpectedly from the MSM point of view, McCain began to make a slow climb back after the bailout was passed and after Sarah's unexpected winning performance and exquisite repartee at her debate with Joe Biden. However, I will admit that I firmly believe that if the election was held during the first week of October McCain would have lost by about 6-7 points and being blown out. Then came Obama's fateful meeting with Joe the Plumber 2 weeks ago and the phrase 'spread the wealth' entered the popular American lexicon. John then used and reinforced this theme against Obama in the 3rd debate pounding him on it and went on to imply Obama was a socialist, while having his best debate performance. We don't know yet, but Obama's meeting with Joe the Plumber might have been the turning point of the campaign. Next came Sarah's appearance on SNL which I believe legitimized her candidacy in the eyes of many undecided or young swing voters. Finally came Biden's gaffe about 'the testing of Obama' in an international crisis. We now have a 3-4 point race which is in the MOE. Obama should be much farther ahead. He had his chance during the meltdown crisis to blow the game open and couldn't do it-Biden didn't help with his sub-par performance in the debate; perhaps when historians look back at this election cycle and try to decide what the pivotal factor was in allowing McCain to win, if he does go on to win, it might be Sarah's awesome performance in the debate against Biden where she showed a total command of domestic issues and tore Biden apart on foreign affairs issues, which allowed McCain to keep his base intact and allowed him to stay in the game until Obama met Joe. For the next week I would recommend that Sarah and John pound the themes of spreading the wealth and redistribution of income and use Obama's words in the 2001 interview against him. Allow surrogate advertisers to do the dirty work for you regarding Obama's questionable associations with Ayres, Rezko, Odinga and Khalidi unless you have solid evdience or a bombshell to present that will literally blow open the campaign or change the outcome of the election. Let the NRA and anti-abortion groups hit Obama where it hurts. Stay positive and optimistic to attract independent voters and have John look presidential at all times. But first and foremost get Sarah on TV to promote the campaign; heck she used to be a former sportscaster. Finally just let Sarah by Sarah. In the eyes of her supporters she can do no wrong. I don't think you can say that about many politicians.

Mountain Mama said...

All true, Techno----except that the Dems AND the Republicans DID know tons about Sarah Palin 'way earlier this year.
We know this is true on the Republican side because McCain has said that he considered hiring Palin as early as Jan. or Feb. (whichever month he first spoke to her)!
And the Democrats? They were TERRIFIED all along that she would be selected. Some credible witnesses observed that several of the Troopergate instigators met for several hours just after M's firing----so did they decide there to start Troopergate as a safety measure, to ruin Gov. Palin's image, in case McCain DID select her?

Please pray. Remember how everything horrible these past few years is always Bush's fault? Well, the MSM and many Dems seem to be conspiring to blame everything on Sarah Palin.
(Shh! You watch: eventually someone will blame the skin-heads' sick plans on Sarah's speeches!)

Tbone said...

I agree with everything you said. I am glad that Sarah is going against a couple of staffers that handled her wrong. Sarah is starting to come into her own as a national candidate. She is the real deal. What I like the most about her is I feel like I can relate to her.

They mishandled her with the interviews she gave. They should have had her get her feet with conservative commentators first. Then had her only do live interviews first with Couric. so they couldn't edit them. Sarah is taking control of her campaign and doing it her way.

No matter what happens on Nov 4th I still believe that we are looking at a future great president in Sarah Palin. She is the real deal.

Tbone said...

A big reason the MSM is so hard on Sarah is because she is a conservative women. The MSM and the Liberals do not want any part of a conservative pro-life women.

Oppie Stop said...

But... who wrote her so successful speech at the Convention? Weren't they the "bush" staffers?

Erin said...

I look at this issue a little differently. Palin has said some things that don't match McCain's policy--abandoning Michigan, attacking Jeremiah Wright, as well as others that Steve Schmidt and Nicole Whatever-her-last-name-is mentioned. But whose policy is it to do these things? I doubt McCain's. I suspect his aides made these decisions and presented them to him as the best course of action.

It's not a secret that McCain is running the worst campaign since George H.W.'s re-election effort, and we all know how THAT turned out. So why shouldn't McCain's senior aides throw someone under the bus? These staffers are directly to blame for much of the decision making that has gone on. The American people will fault McCain and not vote for him. Republican politicians seeking election in the next cycles will correctly fault these yokels, labeling them as incompetent--and with plenty of evidence to support that position. Doesn't make their employment prospects too bright.

So where does Sarah fit into this? If Schmidt and company had their way, she'd be the scapegoat. She veered from their established line, and that cost McCain. She's a diva who has no trust amongst her staff AND family (seems a bit far fetched--especially on the latter, don't you think?). She is interested soley in her own political future.

Well, I look at it this way. She was correct about Michigan. It was too early to give up. She was correct on Jeremiah Wright. He's racist, and he's been a cornerstone in Obama's life. She IS interested in her political future, because it becomes clearer by the day that McCain's staff is not and needs her to quietly get run over so they can avoid the blame for this mess.

They said she's ruining this election. I ask this; where would McCain be without her?

Scott said...

concerning the spiritual battle that goes on.. you can tell what side is what... the world doesn't pick on its own... the enemy doesn't mess with his friends.

Mountain Mama said...

OMG, THANK you, Erin, for a great post! You are so right!
And I was LI-VID to read that some McCain staffers (who might or might not have previously served Bush; not sure) were blabbing about their feelings, ignoring the negative impact on this KEY election! How SELFISH of them, to care more about their stupid careers!?
And how do THEY know that Sarah's family doesn't trust her? What a presumptuous thing to suggest!
I can't wait for this election to be FINISHED! (Although we need this coming week, so McCain can overtake Obama and WIN!)

Jan said...

I agree with so many of the comments on here. I don't think McCain would be anywhere close in this election without Sarah. And the more she steps out and is herself, the more people like her. Those that don't like her tuned her out after the first 2 interviews. I've been able to change some minds, but not all. But those who listen to her now definitely see the difference.

I make considerably less that $250,000 a year--but no way do I want a hand-out. All I want is a fair shot at making a living and making ends meet. I've been trying to start a new business that will hopefully change things dramatically, but it's on hold until the election is over. I see no point in putting all this time and effort into a business just to have it given to someone else.

A friend was telling me last night that she had lunch with friends the other day and the bill was around $50. The waitress was wearing an Obama pin. The person paying asked if she understood and agreed with Obama redistributing wealth, and she said yes. He told her that we was going to take 45% of her tip and give it to the drunk on the corner. She got mad and got the manager, but that's what he did.

Bigceltic said...

I think it funny all the talk about Palin being a "drag" on the ticket. Everyone I know considers MCCAIN to be the "drag" on the ticket. McCain should announce that he will only serve 1 term. My motto has been since the Palin VP announcement - "Vote McCain and get Palin in 4!" Gov. Palin is THE REASON I have contributed to McCain and will vote McCain.

Tbone said...

I don't think Palin is a drag on the ticket like everyone says. Sarah did the right thing by taking control of her campaign. The McCain staffers were mishandling her. They did not let Sarah use her strengths.

The reason's that the MSM says that she is a drag on the ticket is that she is to coservative for Moderate Repubicans and Independents. Also Independents don't think she is qualified to be President. I disagree with both of those opinions.

If Obama wins I believe that Sarah would be the best chance of beating Obama in 2012. What do you think Sarah would need to improve on to attract the Independent voters and to win a Presidential election? It would get easier for her if McCain wins.

Tbone said...

Here are some daily tracking polls for 10/28
Rasmussen 51-46 Obama
Zogby 49-44.7 Obama
Gallup 50-43 Obama
Gallup Likely
Traditional 49-47

Here are some Rasmussen swing states on 10/27
Colorado 50-46 Obama
Florida 51-47 Obama
Ohio 49-45 Obama
Virginia 51-47 Obama
Missouri 48-47 Obama
North Carolina 49-48 McCain

The good news in all of this is that McCain is still close in all of these states he must win to win the election. The bad news is that he is behind in 5 of these 6 states. What blue state if any can McCain steal from Obama? I say his best chance is New Hampshire. If McCain can be within .5 to 1% of Obama on election he can still win this election. These state polls prove that McCain can still win.
We can't give up.

12thMan said...

"Tbone said..."

To let you know this is exactly what I say, but I guess because I don't to see Sarah hampered down by a weak McCain for four years and rather she was at the head of the next movement that will DESTROY the Obama leftists (just like RWR did to the Carter clan) I'm supposedly some supporter of a POR admin.

"The reason's that the MSM says that she is a drag on the ticket is that she is to coservative for Moderate Repubicans and Independents."

Here's another angle. At the end of the day McCain is STILL the media/liberal's favorite Republican. It couldn't god forbid be HIS fault he's such a mess! I'm reminded of Susan Ostrich saying how she was so afraid of a McCain candidacy.

"If Obama wins I believe that Sarah would be the best chance of beating Obama in 2012."

Got that right. I'm sticking to my claim that Barry's getting Clintoned in two years (as long as we stay on our game and get the next movement going) and will be prime pickings for Sarah by 2012. Not only that Plugs will make Dan Quayle look like Nostradamus!

"What do you think Sarah would need to improve on to attract the Independent voters and to win a Presidential election? It would get easier for her if McCain wins."

It would in theory, but probably not as easy as it looks on paper since McCain insists on the same loser "big tent/aisle" strategy that will enable Reid/Pelousy just as much is if they had Puppet Barry. You're stuck to the thinking that losing VP candidates are never heard from again, well you need to take all those history books and burn them cause first-term senators don't win the presidency either.

As far as Sarah goes (and this is why losing won't be the near-catastrophe everyone thinks), she'll be free of McCain and be able to speak on her own accord. Independent voters respect and admire strong people, like I do (Reagan and Truman, both of whom who Sarah's already invoked repeatedly, being my all-time top two). She'll have no problem.

And personally I can't wait three years to see her in the primaries to see what phony conservatives she gets to go up against.

12thMan said...

BTW Sarah completed the hat trick today and was on with Levin. Go listen to it at www.marklevinshow.com

On a related note, Michele Bachmann (she's 52? Sarah ain't got nothin to worry about!) is very much someone who I would consider "the new movement". I'd have liked to seen her stand by her comments a little more and just say she used the wrong term (socialism has a way of doing that to people), but other than that go Michele!

Erin said...

AOL has an interesting article about Palin's chances in 2012. It touches upon this topic in depth as well, and it's well worth the read. I've included salient bits as well as a link at the bottom.

"It is clear that while trying to bond with voters, John McCain and Sarah Palin have not managed to bond with each other. Perhaps we should not be surprised. They barely know one another....

The discomfort between the two can be palpable. Chuck Todd, the NBC News political director, was in the room when Brian Williams interviewed Palin and McCain recently. “There was a tenseness,” Todd said later. “When you see the two of them together, the chemistry is just not there. You do wonder, is John McCain starting to blame her for things? Blaming himself? Is she blaming him?” I am guessing one and three. John McCain is blaming Palin for demonstrating her inexperience and lack of knowledge. And Palin is blaming McCain for running what she views as a bad campaign — a campaign that did not go after Barack Obama over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and did not exploit Obama’s statement about how small-town people “cling” to guns and religion — and for never picking a clear message that had any traction with voters."

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/is-palin-preparing-for-a-2012-run/229009?icid=200100397x1211638114x1200716121

Mountain Mama said...

Rats----I posted my reply to you, Erin, on the most recent thread.
Basically, CHUCK Chuck Todd, who is in the tank for Obama....

Rose said...

The mains-stream media is at its worst by using the poisonous-powers of their pens and liar tongues...

Join Sarah Palin's conference call this Saturday November 1

NObama! NObama! NObama!

McCain-Palin '08 Victory!

Read Sarah Palin's letter and send in your support -- a $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000 or morewill go a long way...

http://palin-vp.blogspot.com/
.

Erin said...

Mama, I wandered over to your other comment. :) Whether it's accurate or not, it's an interesting piece about her future.

So I have to get one last thing in on this issue. I apologize in advance for ranting the better part of the day about Rogue-gate. :)

McCain staffers must have had a big ol' bowl of Stupid if they thought they could "handle" Sarah. She has made a career of eating people for lunch who disagree with her--and not just any people--those in her own party! McCain's been running a shoddy campaign, albeit with significant improvements the past week, and they DIDN'T SEE SARAH COMING?!

She has spent her political life taking a line-in-the-sand, bombs-away, like-it-or-lump-it approach, and they actually thought she'd CHANGE just because she was on the national stage?!

THAT'S what McCain signed her up to do! And that's why we love her. I'm thrilled that she's taking McCain on. She's being professional about it, all the while showing that she's not a doormat.

I've loved Sarah from the day I first heard about her because she put people before her political career. For all intents and purposes, she should be watching hockey games right now, finished in AK politics because she blew the whistle on her own party and was drummed out. How many people would do that?! Would I? I don't like that I don't have a good answer to that question of myself. More than putting people ahead of herself, she put her trust first in our Sovereign G-d to control her future. In some ways, her story reminds me of Job. He lost everything with no knowledge of how the future would play out. He was given HORRENDOUS advice. He NEVER surrendered and was ultimately restored. Sarah walked away from her party with no idea that in a couple of years she'd be running the show. It's jaw-dropping to see this in a politician. It's nothing short of miraculous.

I may be one of the few Republicans who will say this, but I'd rather McPalin lose the election and retain their principles than see them sacrifice EVERYTHING to win. She's never done that before, and I don't want to see her start now.

Rob said...

The problem is, Rick Davis' campaign strategy has allowed Gov. Palin to be defined for many people by media folks who've never met her and know nothing about her; and that's hurt the campaign. What was necessary from the beginning, as this short piece by Elaine Lafferty, former editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine, shows, was simply to turn her loose and let people see for themselves that she's more than up to the job:

It's difficult not to froth when one reads, as I did again and again this week, doubts about Sarah Palin's “intelligence,” coming especially from women such as PBS's Bonnie Erbe, who, as near as I recall, has not herself heretofore been burdened with the Susan Sontag of Journalism moniker. As Fred Barnes—God help me, I'm agreeing with Fred Barnes—suggests in the Weekly Standard, these high toned and authoritative dismissals come from people who have never met or spoken with Sarah Palin. Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart. . . .

Now by “smart,” I don't refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don't really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.

For all those old enough to remember Senator Sam Ervin, the brilliant strict constitutional constructionist and chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee whose patois included “I'm just a country lawyer” . . . Yup, Palin is that smart.