Categorized | Sidebar Open Thread

Open Thread


Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • BrianusBerkleianus

    My Dear Friends in Sarah,

    Happy Saturday to you all!!

    The Governor, IMV, stands at a "Rubicon" today. However, HER Rubicon has two branches, two streams, each of which she must measure and plumb and probe before deciding to cross one or both of them.

    The first question, of course, is whether to run for POTUS for 2016.

    Closely tied to this question is the one that follows: If she does decide to run, does she attempt it within the structure of the GOP, or does she try to form a third party?

    Against the GOP option is the argument that the Republican Establishment is manifestly bankrupt, and is beyond repair or reclaiming or redemption.

    In favor of the GOP option is the argument that she has not yet tried this path, since she did not run this year, and that her hero, Ronald Reagan, in lieu of forming a third party, successfully, if all too briefly, wrested control of the "Grand Old Party" from the political hired hands and hacks.

    If she does decide to run, here are a few considerations on each side of the second question, the second "Rubicon." First follow some thoughts that could suggest trying to initially work within the GOP structure against what will likely be a WEAKENED Dem party in 2014 and 2016:

    1) obama is thoroughly EVIL, IMV; nevertheless, he does possess a certain false "charm" and "charisma" that have tricked and deceived a large segment of the US population–especially when he can read from his dear and beloved and precious teleprompter. Further, this figure has had the massed might of the mainstream media at his back, at his beck, at his call. The commie Dems may want to, but I do not believe they are going to be able to find ANOTHER obama for 2016, or anytime soon!

    2) The Dems will be divided against themselves leading up to 2016, as various ambitious politicians vie for their Party’s nomination for ’16. This is in contrast to this year, when all were united behind their "messiah."

    3) Against the objection that in 2016 she will be facing a "deep" and young GOP "bench," Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, et al. and that it will have been too long (2009) since she last held public office, I assert an emphatic NO on these grounds:

    Sarah has the stamp and seal of AGELESS GREATNESS on her. None of these other figures possesses these marks and characteristics.

    The words of great men and women ENDURE in the ears and the hearts of their countrymen/women forever. They have the timeless quality of GOLD. The oratory of Sir Winston Churchill lives on, even today (e.g., his "their finest hour" speech). The orations of Demosthenes, clothed in their immortal Greek, the orations of Cicero, vested in their deathless Latin, the "winged words" of Patrick Henry retain the freshness and vigor of vital and green and glorious youth–centuries and millennia later!!

    We will NEVER forget her 2008 RNC "Lipstick" speech, her "Game On" speech pronounced in Madison, Wisconsin last year, and other orations!! They live always in America’s collective "deep heart’s core" (William Butler Yeats).


    4) The Lefty Dems are savoring their "triumph" right now, and are sticking it to us in ungracious gloating and glee.

    However, all too soon obama will begin to serve as a malignant cancer on his Party, as the situation of our country deteriorates, both in terms of the economy, and in terms of foreign affairs.

    This is going to lead to massive CONSERVATIVE gains in Congress in 2014, a la 2010.

    This cancer will continue to fester in its fury, and will lead to even further conservative Congressional gains in ’16–just in time for the Governor to have a far more Constitutionally Conservative House and Senate than she might have had if she had run and won for this year.

    Under these arguments and considerations, she can take advantage of the weakened Leftist situation WITHIN THE GOP, though it will require a stiff fight.

    On the other hand, it MAY WELL BE THAT A THIRD PARTY IS THE WAY TO GO, in spite of what has been written above.

    I do believe that Sarah is the only public figure in the country that would have even a slight chance of successfully launching such an effort, and, as INTELLECTUAL AMMUNITION for such a venture, I offer a crucial and cutting DISTINCTION:

    If the Governor does decide to launch a new party or movement …


    Rather, she will be launching a FREEDOM PARTY against two entities, GOP and Dems, that have, in reality, become two sides of the same rotten and counterfeit coin, two aspects or wings of ONE PARTY ONLY, the BIG GOVERNMENT PARTY.

    Many people may raise the objection against a third party that it cannot work, that it would only divide conservatives, and keep Democrats in power.

    We respond that such a Party or Movement would have the power and potential to draw in huge numbers of disaffected Democrats, disaffected Republicans, disaffected Independents, AND large numbers of citizens who have IGNORED or DROPPED OUT of the political process altogether, in dissatisfaction and disgust–and hence have not been measured in polls, surveys, voting-pattern analyses, etc.!!!

    Our answer then is: It would really be a SECOND PARTY: FREEDOM VERSUS BIG GOVERNMENT, not a "third" party at all.

    Let us pray unceasingly for the Governor as she stands poised before her Two Rivers Rubicon, and says to her God, "Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth."

    God bless you all always!!



    • technopeasant

      BB, thank you for all you do at C4P.

      • BrianusBerkleianus

        You are most welcome, old friend … going back to Adam Brickley/Palin for VP days.

        Dittos to YOU for all that you do!!!

        • Mountain

          You are a treasure, Brian—-ole Palin for VP pal.
          I agree with you about your post above—–but don’t forget HILLARY, who will be a prominent candidate for 2016.

          Also, many prominent Republicans will run for the 2016 nomination:  Ryan, Rubio, Christie, etc.
          The problem is:  most of them are pseudo-conservatives!

          I agree with creating a new party.  Many Americans want NOTHING to do with the current Republican Party—-led as it is by Elites who care most about their own money and power.

          So it’s best to create a NEW "Constitution Party," based on that document’s PRINCIPLES.
          With God’s help, Sarah will be one of its leaders, and many other patriots will join!

          We should create it BEFORE the 2014 elections.  Constitution Party winners could caucus with Republicans—-dragging them into conservative voting to win against the Dems’ socialism.
          Keep praying!

          • BrianusBerkleianus

            Thank you so much, dear Sister, both for your garcious words and for your thoughts!!

            May the good Lord grant our Sarah deep wisdom and strength in this time!!

            God bless!

      • Anno76

        Yes, thank you so much Brian for all you do – you are a treasure and a blessing.

        • BrianusBerkleianus

          Thanks, Ann!

      • Mountain

        For you, too, techno—-we give thanks!

    • onparade

      if she renews her contract with fox foe another four years you have your answer…

    • Anno76

      Good morning my dear Brian,
      Great post as usual. We have just suffered a huge defeat but I believe it will make us stronger. Which ever way of the two paths suggested I will support. The dems/rhinos have morphed into one, it is just finally out in the open where people can see. We all need to stand together now more than ever and show the country in many ways that there is nothing that can tarnish our "Shining North Star" – it didn’t disappear in the Old Testament, the New Testament and it still shines "brightly" today – look up and let US go forward "for I am with thee saith the Lord."


      • BrianusBerkleianus

        Thanks and AMEN, Ann!!!

    • palin45potus

      Very good stuff as per usual.

      I’m unable to be as gracious as you are, my friend!  My anger at the know-it-alls who led the GOP to the Tuesday disaster knows no bounds.

      • BrianusBerkleianus

        I hear ya, 45!!!!

        Fools … no fools is too complimentary for these people!!

        God bless.

    • BrianusBerkleianus

      And, guys, sorry for the misspelling. It’s William Butler YEATS, of course.

      I must have been thinking of Clint Eastwood as Rowdy Yates in the old TV series "Rawhide"!!

      LOL at myself :-) !!–Misspelling corrected!

      God bless.

  • ZH100

     Good morning all.

    Long before "public spending" became a topic of national debate Gov. Palin has fought to reduce spending and to enforce fiscal discipline as governor of Alaska.

    Gov.Palin has drastically reduced the growth of the state budget, which has helped to produce a record budget surplus.
    Alaska had its bond rating raised to AAA for the first time in the state’s history, largely due to fiscal improvements brought about by Sarah Palin while she was governor.

    Some links with information about Gov.Palin’s (impressive) fiscal record.

    ‘Palin’s Jobs Record Beats All Others in the GOP Field’

    From the article:

    "In terms of bringing down state unemployment rates versus the national average, Palin leads all other governors and former governors in the GOP field"

    ‘Governor Palin–Leading the Fight on Debt and Liabilities ; comparing and contrasting the records of Governors Palin, Perry, Pawlenty, Romney, and Huntsman in dealing with state debt and liabilities’

    Sarah Palin: A Record of Fiscal Conservatism (Part 1)

    From the article:

    "Sarah Palin served as Mayor/City Manager of Wasilla, Alaska from October 14, 1996 to October 14, 2002. As such, Palin was responsible for preparing, submitting, and executing the City’s annual budget for fiscal years 1997 through 2003. During this seven-year period, the City’s General Fund averaged an annual surplus of roughly $2.5 million, as illustrated in the chart below. Palin inherited a surplus of just $350,000 from her predecessor John Stein (fiscal year 1996). By 2003 she had grown the surplus to almost $3 million, with a 22.4% increase in revenue and a 15.6% reduction in spending."

    Sarah Palin: A Record of Fiscal Conservatism (Part 2)

    From the article:

    "Sarah Palin served as Governor of the State of Alaska from December 4, 2006 to July 26, 2009. As such, Palin exercised authority over the State’s annual budget for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010. At the end of fiscal year 2007, Gov. Frank Murkowski, Palin’s immediate predecessor (whom she defeated in the 2006 Republican gubernatorial primary), left the State’s General Fund with a balance of roughly $7.6 billion. During the three fiscal years for which Gov. Palin oversaw the budget, the General Fund averaged an annual surplus of more than $2.6 billion, resulting in a total increase of $7.9 billion ? more than 100% ? over the fiscal year 2007 balance."

    Sarah Palin: A Record of Fiscal Conservatism (Part 3)

    From the article:

    "Requests for federal earmarks declined dramatically in each of the fiscal years for which Sarah Palin exercised budgetary authority for the State of Alaska. In FY2007, Gov. Frank Murkowski requested $350 million in federal appropriations, which Gov. Palin reduced to $256 million in FY2008, $198 million in FY2009, and $69 million in FY2010. Overall, Palin cut earmark requests by more than 80% during her tenure as Governor."

    ‘Governor Palin on the Issues: Monetary Policy’

    From the article:

    "Governor Palin stands firmly against the actions of the federal government in policies which simultaneously devalue our dollar, drive up our debt and leave us dependent on foreign sources of energy. She also stands against the actions of the Fed which inflate prices at a time when Americans are already on tight budgets and do nothing to aid employment."

    Another credit rating agency, Standard and Poor’s upgraded Alaska’s credit rating to its highest possible rating of AAA. The agency gives several reasons why it felt confident enough in Alaska’s fiscal climate to make such an upgrade. A few of these reasons are due directly to the policies implemented by Governor Palin.

    Paul Gigot: Governor Palin “Leading the Pack” on Monetary Policy  (November ,2010)

    From the article:

    "In a Wall Street Journal editorial  the editors noted the degree of sophistication Governor Palin is bringing to the table as she attempts to focus the nation’s attention on the disastrous repercussions which must result from a further inflating of the currency.

    Specifically, she referred to QE2, the Fed’s plan to pump another $600 billion to as much as $1 trillion into the economy via the purchase of U.S. government securities. Paul Gigot, editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, discusses the editorial and Governor Palin in the video."

    Palin v. Bernanke.
    Her Warning To the Fed Chairman Puts Her Out in Front on the Debate on the Dollar

    From the article:

    "One of the questions in respect of 2012 is how it has happened that the only major Republican figure, aside from Congressman Ron Paul, to stand up and be counted on the dollar is Sarah Palin."

    • BrianusBerkleianus

      Thank you as always, ZH, and good morning!!

      • ZH100

        You are welcome, Brianus and good morning!

  • mark1955

    Good Morning. Everyone please read the Pundit Press article in the Headlines section titled: "Obama wins dozens of Cleveland districts with 100% of the vote". If anyone has any doubts as to the fraudulent nature of this past election and that Obama has NO Mandate,this piece ought to go along ways to clearing things up. While we can’t change the results of the election,but we can motivate the American people to fight with everything they have,against the illegitimate and Freedom destroying policies of the tyrannical Obama Administration. We cannot accept this!

  • ZH100

    Ian, thanks for posting the video!!

  • ZH100

    ‘Poll: Americans Reject Crony Capitalism, 3-1′

    From the article:

    "In a recent Boston Herald column, pollster Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports cited poll findings that show strong bipartisan opposition to cronyism and its effects on free markets."


    Long before "crony capitalism" became a topic of national debate Gov. Palin has fought against corruption and crony capitalism.

    Taking on corruption and crony capitalism has always been a cornerstone of Gov. Palin’s agenda.

    Here are some links with information about Gov.Palin’s consistent fight against corruption and crony capitalism.

    ‘Institutionalizing Crony Capitalism’   (by Governor Palin)  

    From the article:
    "We need to be on our guard against such crony capitalism. We fought against distortion of the market in Alaska when we confronted “Big Oil,” or more specifically some of the players in the industry and in political office, who were taking the 49th state for a ride.
    My administration challenged lax rules that seemed to allow corruption, and we even challenged the largest corporation in the world at the time for not abiding by provisions in contracts it held with the state. When it came time to craft a plan for a natural gas pipeline, we insisted on transparency and a level playing field to ensure fair competition.

    Our reforms helped reduce politicians’ ability to play favorites and helped clean up corruption. We set up stricter oversight offices and ushered through a bi-partisan ethics reform bill. Far from being against necessary reform, I embrace it. "

    ‘Crony Capitalism on Steroids from GE to Solyndra’ (by Governor Palin)

    From the article:

    "This crony capitalism and government waste is at the heart of our economic problems. It will destroy us if we don’t root it out. It’s not just a Democrat problem or a Republican problem. It’s a problem of our permanent political class."

    ‘How Congress Occupied Wall Street’  (by Governor Palin)

    ‘Palin: Congress, it’s time to stop lining your pockets’ (by Governor Palin)

    ‘Governor Palin’s Consistent Fight against Corruption and Crony Capitalism’  (by Whitney Pitcher)

    From the article:

    "Governor Palin’s strong stance against crony capitalism, bureaucrats picking winners and losers, and a lack of transparency is not just words; it’s action.

    Citizen candidates do indeed bring a fresh perspective to a campaign and even to public office. However, there is something to be said for someone who took on corruption while in elected office. Such an individual has governed or legislated in an atmosphere of corruption, back room deals, and cronyism and has not only weathered such an atmosphere, but has effected change for the better. It is one thing to act as a citizen watchdog; it is another to make sure that legislation and projects are transparent and are void of back room deals and crony capitalism. Governor Palin is such a person."

    ‘Some of Sarah Palin’s Ideas Cross the Political Divide’ (by Anand Giridharadas)

    From the article:

    "But something curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa. Along with her familiar and predictable swipes at President Barack Obama and the “far left,” she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment — left, right and center — and pointed toward a way of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide. "

    ‘How Governor Palin Reformed Alaska’s Ethics Laws and Made Crony Capitalism a Crime’ (by Gary P)

    From the article:

    "With all of the talk of corruption and crony capitalism these days, this is a great time to talk about some of the things Sarah Palin did to reform Alaska politics. She worked with the Alaska Legislature to pass tough, sweeping ethics reform "

    ‘Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute praises Sarah Palin for highlighting Washington’s rampant crony capitalism ‘

    ‘How Palin Beat Alaska’s Establishment’ (WSJ)

    From the article:

    "If you’ve read the press coverage of Sarah Palin, chances are you’ve heard plenty about her religious views and private family matters. If you want to know what drives Gov. Palin’s politics, and has intrigued America, read this."

    ‘Sarah takes on Big Oil: The compelling story of Governor Sarah Palin’s battle with Alaska’s
    ‘Big 3′ oil companies’
    (by Kay Cashman and Kristen Nelson)

    Gov. Palin’s successful efforts to stop the cronyism and reform the energy business in Alaska were so impressive Kay Cashman, the publisher and executive editor of Petroleum News, wrote the book entitled: “Sarah Takes On Big Oil” .

    This is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the leadership Sarah Palin has exhibited in the area of reforming government and industry.

  • AmazedOne1

    For some unfathomable reason, ZH100 thinks it’s a smear of Sarah to mention the simple and basic and life-changing fact that Sarah is a Christian who is seeking God’s will in her life.

    Here’s just one quote from her on the subject:

    Sarah Palin on Seeking God’s Path for Her Life in Time Magazine
    August 29, 2008

    Time: Where do you see yourself going? Staying on in Alaska. Washington?

    Sarah: You know, I don’t know. I knew early on that the smartest thing for me to do was to work hard, do the best that I can, make wise decisions based on good information in front of me. And then put my life, get myself on a path that could be dedicated to God and ask Him what I should next. That will be the position I will be in as long as I’m on earth — that is, seeking the right path that God would have laid out for me.,8816,1837536,00.html

    • ZH100

      There you go again.  As I expected.  On the other thread you even posted a video the left was using during the 2008 election to smear Gov.Palin and twist her words and portray he as a religious extremist.

      You didn’t read "Going Rogue" , because if you did you knew what Gov.Palin had said about that video you posted on the other thread.

      You have been searching the Internet and Palin hating blog to find something to attack and smear Gov.Palin or take her word out of context.

      This is what Gov.Palin said:

      "I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words."—-Sarah Palin.

      PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words. But what Abraham
      Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side."

      Gov.Palin wrote in "Going Rogue": (bold emphasis mine)

      "Another one of these stories that surfaced early on was that I had been invited to visit Wasilla Assembly of God church to speak to graduates of a missionary program.

      I asked the congregation to "pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, fot this country, that our national leaders are sending [U.S. soldiers} out on a task thar is from God."

      The Huffington Post ludicrously described this as: "Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord."

      In reality, I was invoking Abraham Lincoln’s admonition that we should pray that we are on God’s side-not that He is on ours."

      • Anno76

        Are we really going to go through another thread re "Sarah’s belief in G-d" and nit pick and dissect every statement she ever made? Please stop.

        Keep posting Z

        • ZH100

          You are right, but when AmazedOne1 is twisting Gov.Palin words or portraying Gov.Palin in a false way I will correct it and set the record straight.

          • Anno76

            Z – I wasn’t suggesting at all that you stop – keep defending! I just want Amazed to Stop!!!

            • ZH100

              Thank you, Anno76.

          • Laddie_Blah_Blah


            Both AmazedOne1 and wpmwindsong are anti-Palin trolls. When they first showed up here 2 years ago they were virulent and outspoken critics of the guv and employed the usual Alinsky tactics to ridicule and demean her in the usual ways we are all so familiar with. That was when the guv was thought to be a candidate for POTUS in 2012, so they tried to diminish and belittle her accomplishments and abilities in order to hurt her chances as much as possible.

            When they reappeared here some months ago, they used different methods, pretending to be Palin supporters while transparently trolling for votes for Romney as part of an ABO effort to put the RINO in the WH.

            I had thought they would just disappear after the election was over, as I thought they were from the Romney campaign, and they may have been, then. But they are both still here. Maybe it was the RNC acting on behalf of Romney, or Rove’s bunch. Regardless, they are still with us.

            Now AmazedOne1 and wpmwindsong are posing as evangelicals. Whatever the pose, no matter how the methods evolve, they are here to undermine Sarah Palin, in any way they can.

            Engaging with such people is like trying to converse with Obama about fiscal responsibility or with Chris Mathews about the Tea Party. Those two are as cynical as they come, and have absolutely no moral compass, either one of them.

            • AmazedOne1

              First and foremost, Laddie, my moral compass comes from Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior.

              Second, I have been here CONSISTENTLY almost every day (as life allows).

              Third, the thing that you claim "diminishes and belittles her accomplishments" is the simple fact that I said that Sarah worked with a ghost writer. Well, she did. Lynn Vincent helped Sarah through the trials and tribulations that a first-time author has to navigate. On Vincent’s website, "Going Rogue: An American Life" is listed as "By Sarah Palin with Lynn Vincent."

              Fourth, no matter what you imagine, I have NOT EVER shown support for Romney.

              • ZH100

                You are wrong; Gov.Palin did not use a ghostwriter but a collaborator. And Lynn Vincent was that collaborator.

                "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has chosen a collaborator for her memoirs from among more than 30 applicants, including top names in the field. Palin, in consultation with superlawyer Robert Barnett, picked Lynn Vincent, the Christian conservative WORLD magazine’s features editor, and a bestselling nonfiction co-author from San Diego. Vincent will go to Alaska for long
                stretches to work on the book, including taping interviews with Palin, who has already written 20,000 words on her own. "


                • AmazedOne1

                  *Pssst* — They’re essentially the same thing.

                  Ghostwriter or Co-Author: What’s The Difference?
                  By Graciela Sholander

                  As far as the writing goes, there’s no difference, really. But in your association with your client, there’s a world of difference.

                  Whether you’re the ghostwriter or co-author of a book, your job is to work with your client to get her messages across. It’s a collaboration. You may take her input and write the entire book yourself, if you’re given this degree of freedom. Or it may end up a back and forth process: she gives you a rough draft, which you modify and send back. She makes changes and additions and returns it. You edit her changes and add new material. And so it continues, each of you taking a turn until the final draft is done and both of you are satisfied with the end result. As a co-author or ghostwriter, you follow this process. Or you develop whatever writing and revising process works best for you and your client.

                  Where the difference comes in is how your client regards you. If you are the invisible, unknown writer behind the scenes, you’re technically a ghostwriter. If you are a publicly known collaborator with the author, then you’re considered a co-author.

                  The biggest distinction between the two roles involves a not so trivial matter called confidentiality. Some authors who hire professional writers don’t want others to know they’re getting help. It’s a matter of image or perception. For any number of reasons, there’s a genuine need to be perceived as the sole creator of the book. These authors will seek out ghostwriters who know how to be discreet. For other authors, confidentiality isn’t an issue, so having a visible co-author is perfectly acceptable.

                  A ghostwriter, then, must be adept at working behind the scenes. He must take confidentiality seriously, which means he can’t tell people who he’s writing for – he’s not allowed to disclose the name of his client or the specifics of the project. When the book is published, he can’t claim any ownership or association. On his resume he can state generalities such as, "Ghostwrote a book about new gardening techniques." But he can’t divulge the title of the book or the name of the author.

                  With a co-author, secrecy is not required. Since the co-author’s name is listed on the cover right next to the author’s name, there’s no need to hide the collaboration. On her resume, the co-author is free to list the book title and author.

                  My additional thought — Lynn Vincent is free to list the book title and author on her resume.

                  • Sharon May


                    • AmazedOne1

                      Sharon, you’re right.

                  • ZH100

                    There is a difference.  That is why a ghostwriter is called a ghostwriter and a collaborator is called a collaborator.

                    For instance, Hillary Clinton used a ghostwriter and Gov.Palin used a collaborator.

                    And if you read the link I posted you will see that Gov.Palin had already written 20,000 words on her own.

                    • AmazedOne1

                      Read the article. The only difference is that one is behind the scenes and the other is out in public.

                      Edited to add: Maybe you don’t understand the business. "Ghost writers" don’t necessarily do the whole book and then just stick a famous person’s name on the cover. BOTH types of writing (ghost and collaboration) include the client in the writing process if the client wants to be a part.

              • Laddie_Blah_Blah

                "Third, the thing that you claim "diminishes and belittles her accomplishments" is the simple fact that I said that Sarah worked with a ghost writer. Well, she did. Lynn Vincent helped Sarah through the trials and tribulations that a first-time author has to navigate."

                Oh, brother, who’s lying now? I just spent the last hour painstakingly going back into the Disqus archives, and fortunately for you, I could not access anything prior to January 2011. If I could have retrieved your posts from over 2 years ago then everyone here could have judged for themselves what kinds of things you said about Sarah Palin back then. I remember you very well, and I took the time to drive both you and wpmwindsong from this site because of your vitriol and condescending attitude towards a woman so much more accomplished than either of you will ever be.

                You did not just say that Lynn Vincent "helped" Sarah write "Going Rogue," you and wpmwindsong insisted that Vincent wrote it for her, because Sarah was just too dumb to ever write a book, and that anyone who thought that Sarah could write a book was just as dumb as she was, or words to that effect. I caught the both of you in lie after lie about Vincent’s actual role of editing the material written by Sarah – even found a picture of Sarah sitting by a pool in southern California writing the book.  You two acted as a duo reinforcing each other’s lies about Sarah Palin, and attacking anyone here who challenged you. I didn’t mind the challenge – actually enjoyed a battle of wits with two unarmed opponents at the same time.  You two finally slinked back off into the internet slime pit from whence you came, just when I was starting to enjoy the exercise. I really, really do not like snide, lying, arrogant trolls.  I really don’t.  Especially when it comes to Sarah Palin.

                You can call yourself whatever you wish.  I call someone who tries to undermine and diminish Sarah Palin on this site, off and on for over 2 years, a troll.  And that’s about as polite as I will get where you and wpmwindsong are concerned.

            • AmazedOne1

              When ZH100 called me a troll, Stacy Drake replied:

              Please don’t call other commenters names, ZH. AmazedOne1 isn’t a troll.


              • Laddie_Blah_Blah

                And you just called ZH a liar. That makes you a hypocrite who does not shrink from calling other posters names. From you to ZH:

                "LIE. Time stamps PROVE that you are LYING.
                No matter how many times you say things, it won’t make them true. However, people don’t bother to go back and read the original thread. They think your FALSE presentation of it is true because they think you’re trustworthy.
                Yet, you have simply repeated the lie."As I personally have witnessed, once a bell is rung by a biased ZH100, it’s impossible to un-ring it."

                • AmazedOne1

                  Not calling names at all.

                  He has repeated lied. I have repeatedly stated that he his words are lies. By his actions, he is "lying."

                  Never once did I say he was a "liar."

        • AmazedOne1

          Anno76, I do not understand what is suddenly wrong with saying that Sarah seeks to follow God’s will.

          Is that now a secret? Is it something that you and ZH100 are ashamed of?

          • ZH100

            You know very well that this has nothing to do with saying that Gov.Palin seeks to follow God’s will, but everything with a false representation of what she’s saying and/or a wrong interpretation of what Gov.Palin is saying.

            P.S and using these "religious" comments as a means of discouraging people to donate money to SarahPac or/and discouraging a possible 2016 run.

            • AmazedOne1

              "False represtation"??? I’ve said that SARAH SEEKS GOD’s WILL. How is that "false"?????

              I’ll edit to answer your edit — I have said that we need to not rush into things. Wait and see where God directs Sarah. If you think that my little comment is going to stop her from a possible run, then you think I have a LOT more power than I do.

              And, I can prove that ON MY OWN — WITHOUT your urging, I did NOT (as you repeatedly LIE and claim) discourage donations to SarahPAC. In fact, I clearly said, "Then again, donating’s a good idea since SarahPAC can always use the money for Sarah to travel to make speeches and to support other conservative candidates as she picks them.

    • ZH100

      "For some unfathomable reason, ZH100 thinks it’s a smear of Sarah to
      mention the simple and basic and life-changing fact that Sarah is a
      Christian who is seeking God’s will in her life."

      No , I don’t think that is a smear to mention the simple and basic and life-changing fact that Sarah is a Christian who is seeking God’s will in her life.

      I think its a smear to use "religious" comments in order to discourage people to support a 2016 run and to discourage people to donate money to SarahPac. (what you are doing)

      I think its a smear to post a video ( the video the left was using to smear Gov.Palin as a religious extremist during the 2008 election)  that portray Gov.Palin in a false way; without clarifying what Gov.Palin said about that video in "Going Rogue" and in the Gibson interview.

      After the election you suddenly started with posting many "religious" comments as a reply on people who want to donate money to SarahPac or as a reaction on comments that talked about a possible 2016 run.

      You used these "God" comments as a means of discouraging people to donate money to SarahPac or/and discouraging a possible 2016 run.

      • AmazedOne1

        First — I have ALWAYS mentioned God. He is the center and core of my life and my heart. There has NEVER been a time in any of my posts that He was not a consideration. 

        In fact, in past posts I’ve quoted Scripture, presented the plan of salvation and my own personal testimony. 

        There is NOTHING "sudden" about incorporating the Lord in my thinking.

        Second — you’re lying about the content of my posts. Here’s what I ACTUALLY said:

        SarahPAC is NOT set up for Sarah to use for her own presidential run. Legally, it can only donate $5,000 to each candidate (including Sarah, if she were running). 

        Personally, I think we need to see what God’s will and where He guides Sarah. I don’t want to get outside of His plan. Of course, if it’s His will that Sarah run, then she’ll be unstoppable.

        Then again, donating’s a good idea since SarahPAC can always use the money for Sarah to travel to make speeches and to support other conservative candidates as she picks them.

        AFTER that, you lied and said that I only added the closing thought after you replied and said that I was discouraging people. But that is false. The time stamps PROVE that I edited my post BEFORE you replied.

        Third — I didn’t post a video at all. I posted a prayer that Sarah made at her church. Sarah didn’t discuss the prayer when she was talking to Gibson.

        EVERYTHING I said has been a COMPLIMENT to Sarah and her faith in God and following His leading.

        In fact, the quote that you bolded at the end of your diatribe is EXACTLY what I have been saying. That Sarah seeks to be following God’s leading:

        "We should pray that we are on God’s side-not that He is on ours."

        • ZH100

          You edited you comment after my reply. By the way, you posted that same comment several times.

          Anyway, I’ve said everything I wanted to say about this topic in my other comments.

          • AmazedOne1

            LIE. Time stamps PROVE that you are LYING.

            No matter how many times you say things, it won’t make them true. However, people don’t bother to go back and read the original thread. They think your FALSE presentation of it is true because they think you’re trustworthy.

            Yet, you have simply repeated the lie.

            "As I personally have witnessed, once a bell is rung by a biased ZH100, it’s impossible to un-ring it."

    • John_Frank

      It is unfortunate that you would quote from an article that twisted what the Governor said.

      • AmazedOne1

        What did the Time magazine article say that was wrong?

        Edited to add — the article that you link to in this note is NOT the one (as ZH100 FALSELY states) that has some of Sarah’s words edited out. The article that *I* originally quoted yesterday was the one that fairly and accurately quoted Sarah’s remarks.

  • Lou Welz

    Sarah Palin 2016 !

  • Guest

    St. Lucie County, Florida  had 141.1% Turnout. Obama won the County.

    St. Lucie County, Florida is located in Lt. Col. Allen West’s new district where 6000 votes MYSTERIOUSLY switched from West to his challenger, duh!

    • Guest
      • wodiej

        the corruption in our election process and our society is beyond belief.

        • Guest

           I know. We live in a banana republic and the gopE just refuses to fight and rolls over and plays dead. Romney should have never conceded. I didn’t vote for him but look, there was gross fraud and he didn’t even fight back! Sorry, wodiej, that’s disgusting! So the blacks riot! So, freakin’ what! We are supposed to allow them to get away with massive fraud?

          I think that because Romney conceded it’s a done deal. I wonder if the citizens can bring a suit.

          There was gross fraud in all of the swing states!

          • Exgunman

            Romney was not, Is not, and never will be a fighter, unless he is fighting against a conservative…………………………..

    • John_Frank

      I suspect Allen West will not let this go in light of the overwhelming evidence of serious monkey business.

  • 1776er

    The Fiscal Cliff—what the heck is it?  Why is it so bad?

    Peter Schiff has some interesting observations on the big bad fiscal cliff.

    Here is the interesting part to me:

    "Fresh from his victory, the President took time today to let the nation know how he proposes to avoid the cliff: to raise taxes on those Americans who make more than $250,000 per year. He made clear than no one making less than that will be asked to pay any more. The two percent of taxpayers that the President is targeting earn 24.1% of all income and pay 43.6% (as of 2008) of all personal federal income taxes. Sounds like a fair share to me. But the four or five percent tax increases on those earners that are being proposed would only yield around $30 to $40 billion per year in added revenue, a drop in the federal bucket. Even if they were to double the amount that they pay our deficit would only be cut by about one third (even if those increases did not trigger an economic slowdown)."

    With over a trillion dollar deficit I don’t know how $60 to $80 billion of additional tax revenue translates into a 1/3 deficit reduction.  But that’s not the point.  The point is that creaming the top 2 percent of income earners only yields "a drop in the bucket" against our problem.  

    Obama views tax increases on "the rich" as the answer to his problems.  Say what?  Doesn’t compute.  The "problem" he sees is not an economic one.  It is a moral one.  The moral problem is to punish the wealthy.  It is the revenge he urged voters to act upon.  Voting is the best revenge–against whom?  "The rich" who will now be made to pay.  Made to pay for "fairness" sake.  

    Not surprisingly, Obama has never outlined a single dime of spending cuts to my knowledge.  Yet he piously sold a "balanced" approach of a moral jihad against the $250,000 income class combined with "prudent" spending cuts to address our national economic nightmare.  So where is the balance part?

    The punitive drop in the bucket tax increases that make for Voter Revenge of the 47%ers on "the rich" is on the table.  Where’s Obama’s balanced spending cut proposals?

    Schiff brings up the rather novel view of "So what’s so bad about the deal that automatically cuts the $1.2 trillion annual budget deficit to $641 billion?"

    Isn’t that just exactly what all we Conservatives are arguing for?

    Huge military cuts?  If we are going to lead from behind and send our young people into harm’s way all around the world and then leave them to die a la Benghazi then why do we need a huge military?  If American retreat is the order of the day then military cuts only make sense.  Why pay for a huge military if you are unwilling to use it?  Does that make sense?

    Huge entitlement cuts?  If entitlements are bankrupting the nation then sooner or latter there will be no entitlements at all for anybody.  A big anonymous cleaver whacking entitlement benefits with no mama, no papa and no Uncle Sam to "freeze" with the accountability and responsibility for the pain and discomfort wrought upon the public may be the only way to forestall total national collapse a la Greece.

    So, maybe the fiscal cliff is not so bad after all.  Placing America "back on track" is going to have to entail a massive de-leveraging of irredeemable debt  both public and private that will inevitably be  associated with economic recession.  Pop the bubble.  Take the hit.  Make it sharp, damn sharp, but make it short.  The fiscal cliff may be the last opportunity to limit the damage to a "managed crash landing" for America flames and all.  

    A managed crash landing is the best we can hope for at this point.  A disorderly catastrophic implosion is a far more probable outcome as a result of Obama’s re-election and the Big Republican Cave In now on the horizon. 

    The Bush tax cuts–temporary reduction of the Social Security tax–will likely be allowed to expire.  So much for Obama’s tax pledge to the middle class.  Obamacare tax hikes will kick in.  Spending goes over the automatic sequester cliff.  The recession ensues.  

    Maybe Boehner should stick to his guns.  No tax increases.  Maybe Obama should stick to his guns.  No tax increases no deal to kick the can down the road.  

    Obama doesn’t get the "revenge" he seeks on the evil "rich" families in America having the moral impudence to make $250,000.  The can doesn’t get kicked down the road.  America experiences a necessary sharp, painful, heartbreaking for many, devastating recession.  Debt bubble bursts.  Stock market crash. Lives tossed.  Savings lost. Jobs lost. Homes lost. Dreams lost.  Tears and suffering for perhaps millions of Americans.  

    Horrible recession was the price Paul Volker was willing to pay to save America in the Carter/Reagan years.  A huge price in pain and suffering to save America from the ravages of virulent, deadly, mortal inflation.  Managed crash landing.  Volcker put America through the wringer.  It was called Paul Volker’s Unwilling Army of The Unemployed.  Many of us were drafted unwillingly into his army.  It hurt.  It hurt a lot.  But we rose from it.  The medicine worked. 

    There are no more Paul Volker’s in America.   Now we have Commissions.  Anonymous, bi-partisan  Super Committees of former so and so’s no longer subject to voter "revenge".   Bitter medicine delivered by nobody to blame.

     A "Fiscal Cliff" forged by nobody to blame replaces a living, breathing Paul Volker. 

    But just maybe, a  tyrant unveiled, a tyrant put on a leash, a tyrant emasculated, the consequences of Marxist Socialism viewed in the crystal light of reality– and perhaps a Nation saved. 

    A Nation brought to its knees and to tears by 70 years of Marxist Socialist policies since the days of FDR may just be ready and thirsting for a fresh new message of renewal through Sudden and Relentless Reform.  

    Perhaps God is preparing the way.  America may yet endure.

    • Laddie_Blah_Blah

      Obama’s tenure is eerily similar to FDR’s failed administration. There was a modest recovery by 1935, but then FDR doubled down on anti-business rhetoric and anti-business policies. By 1939, things were just as bad as they were when he took office in 1933. WWII saved his administration, and he finally re-allocated precious national capital to the industrialists who knew how to use it productively.

      It would take another WWII for our bonehead in the WH to come to his senses. Maybe the Iranians will start WWIII in the Middle East. If not, we will have to wait until 2017 to finally rid the nation of our worst national threat, the one we just re-elected.

    • dave7777

       Wonderful analysis. Remember what Sarah Palin said when she was asked if she would have voted for raising the debt ceiling…."HELL NO!"

  • ZH100

    ‘Setting the Record Straight – Sarah Palin and Sex Education’

    From the article:

    "NPR got it wrong back in 2008. As did the The Washington Post, MSNBC, ABC News and The Wallstreet Journal .Unfortunately, many feminists have followed the misinformation of the mainstream media."

    • Anno76

      Good morning Z – thank you:)

      • ZH100

        You are welcome,Anno76 and good morning.

  • gilamonster8

    1. The Romney campaign gambled that excluding certain Tea Party players like Sarah Palin would give them enough credibility with the mainstream media for their candidates to get the conservative message out.

    Read more:

    • Pete Petretich

      When the Condi Rice/ Romneyite/ Bush Clan tent is not big enough to fit Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, OR Sarah Palin, OR the Tea Party, I think it’s time to get a new freakin’ TENT!

      • gilamonster8

        There’s something wrong when your pup tent won’t hold your teaparty base!

        • cudaforever

          Yeah a mistake of historical magnitude when the group most responsible for bringing you victory in 2010 is left on the sidelines 2 years later. All to appease the establishment and the LSM.

    • Anno76

      Hi gilla – That worked well for him .huh?

      • gilamonster8

        About as we’ll as Gen Betrayus naming his book ALL IN

        • Mountain

          I know!

          The IRONY!

        • dave7777

           I have to say: that’s the best line of the day. I love it.

  • Pete Petretich

    (no comment)


    Palinista Jukebox (Version 4.3)

    “Gretchen Wilson: Redneck Woman”

    “Carly Simon: Nobody Does It Better”

    “Heart: Barracuda”

    “Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers: American Girl”

    “Sarah Palin: Ride"


    “Sarah Palin: America”

    “Krista Branch: I Am America”

    “Sarah Palin: One in a Million”

    “Sarah Palin: The World’s Greatest”

    “Nancy Sinatra: These Boots Are Made For Walkin"

    "Lisa Mei and Big Dawg: Change You Won’t Regret"

    “I made it”

    “The Lady Who Can Make the Sun Shine"

    “Shania Twain: She’s Not Just A Pretty Face”

    “Minstrel Boy: Closing Credit Music from The Undefeated”

    “Notre Dame Bagpipe Band: The Minstrel Boy”

    “Crazies for Sarah Palin Hey Hey”!

    “Krista Branch: Can You Hear Us Now?”

    “Natasha Bedingfield: Pocketful of Sunshine”

    “Van Morrison: Someone Like You”

    “Stevie Wonder: Isn’t She Lovely?”

    "Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska (FULL MOVIE)"

    • Anno76

      Good morning Pete – great selection :)

  • Pete Petretich
    • freeperjim

      The English & spelling needs to be reviewed and corrected (horrible grammar) – appears 3rd grade level and definitely NOT the image we need to project.

      Who created this group?

      • Pete Petretich

        I have no idea. There’s lots of pro-Palin groups on Facebook.

  • technopeasant

    10 random thoughts on the election:

    1) Yes, I predicted Obama would win "by a nose." But let me tell you why I believed Obama would win regardless of the margin: I could NOT emotionally envision or intellectually buy into or get past the idea of "President Romney." I just never saw Romney possessing the requisite Presidential timber or being Commander-in-Chief material. Instead all I saw was another victim of The Peter Principle–adequate governor–lousy presidential standardbearer. Am I the only one who felt this way?

    I’m not saying this because Romney is a moderate. So are McCain and Dole or even Ford. I never felt that way about them.

    2) For those who strongly advocated for Mitt Romney after he clinched the nomination in summer 2012, can you folks now objectively admit or confess your political stratey of making a vote for Mitt Romney a Hobson’s choice based on ABO failed miserably and that we should forever more send that political strategy down to Davy Jones’ locker?

    Did Ronald Reagan win the presidency in 1980 because the electorate "hated" Jimmy Carter or was it due to Reagan showing the American people "he possessed a better mousetrap"  or by convincing the American voters through emotional and rational argument that he could build a better mousetrap?

    Also what nobody is bringing up is the possibility that a greater majority of the 3 million Republicans who according to Rush Limaugh did not vote did not hate Obama singularly but may have hated both Obama and Romney equally or may have hated neither because politics is not their cup of tea and saw little difference between the two candidates as Rasmussen indicated just before the election. As the expression goes: The difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

    Common sense: You like or prefer neither–you don’t vote.

    3) I know many of you had your knives out for me when I suggested earlier in the election cycle that President Obama and his team were conducting a nefarious campaign of suppressing the white vote.

    Ironically it was the Left who raised high hell and accused our side of attempting to suppress the non-white vote. By virtue of the results on Tuesday with the non-white vote accounting for 28% of the electorate I hope that prominent Republicans/conservatives on our side can proclaim that hogwash but I dont expect that to happen. Too chicken!

    Anyway back to my original point. I posted a link yesterday from Ace of Spades:


    Based on this piece and my own ideas I believe Obama’s political strategy to suppress the white (mainly conservative white) vote was two-pronged:

    a) To give evangelicals enough time and room to emotionally and intellectually process the idea that Mitt Romney is a Mormon and to above all not to do anything to interrupt or disturb that process or to rock the boat, especially by calling attention to Romney’s religion in speeches or in ads. In adopting this strategy Obama and his team relied on polls since 1967 which have clearly shown a certain percentage of the American electorate (also broken down by political affiliation) would never, never vote for a Mormon presidential candidate.

    And for that reason, Romney’s religion did not become a central issue during the general election. I think Obama was told that if he were even to subtly degrade Romney because of his religion he risked a political backlash from some evangelicals who also question Obama’s own religion (the pot calling the kettle black) and in additon might have created COGNITIVE DISSONANCE and may have convinced them to vote for Romney on the rebound to wreak vengeance on Obama for his religious intolerance. Obama was so, so clever not to invoke this possibility. But imho he knew what he had in his hands: a powder keg that he knew or at least strongly suspected would blow up in Romney’ face on election day.

    b) For non-evangelicals Obama took the direct approach of a community organizer and played the class warfare card which is Obama’s forte. In the above piece, it refers to Obama accusing Mitt Romney of being "an evil, uncaring plutocrat", an anathema to average voters, and a man who did not deserve the vote of white working class voters, who in 2010 (which he did not mention) voted in large numbers for the GOP House candidates, the margin being 30 points (63% to 33%) over the Dems. Obama knew these folks would never vote for him but he made damned sure a lot of them wouldn’t vote for Romney either. Addition by subtraction.

    For over two years, I posted consistently at C4P to this issue and voiced in the strongest terms I could that the only way Oama could win re-election based on the polls was if the white vote did NOT show up in sufficient numbers or if Romney did not win the white vote by at least 20 points.

    Honestly, I really thought the probable scenario would be that whites would show up at the polls in huge numbers (at least 75% of the electorate) but Romney would fall short of the 20 point margin. I never in my wildest dreams envisioned a scenario where Romney would win the white vote by 20 points but the white vote would only come in at 72% of the electorate.

    But this is not a mea culpa. I was always headed in the right direction. I was never in denial about the possiblity of a depressed white vote on Tuesday. Unfortunately, the people who should be delivering a mea culpa, Romney, his team and the GOP establishment and their surrogates, will never admit the screwed up big time by not taking the issue seriously enough or that they should have formulated more conservative political policies or made a greater attempt to woo conservatives/evangelicals to Romney’s tent. 

    4) And why didn’t Mitt Romney or his team take this issue more seriously. Check your Bible. Pride goeth before a fall. Or psychologically, the Greeks coined a word to describe those who drive down the road recklessly towards monumental defeat or abject failure and through excessive ambition and arrogance bring about their own tragic downfall in a classic or Shakespearean sense: HUBRIS.

    There is now word Romney was "shell-shocked" by the results. Quod erat demonstrandum.

    5) Now back to Rush’s comment that "3 million Republicans did not show up" on election day.

    Rush made this point:

    "We didn’t lose the election on Tuesday because we’re pro-choice or pro-life; we did not lose the election because single women hate us. That’s not why we lost. We might not be getting a majority of those votes, but when 3 million OF OUR OWN PEOPLE don’t show up it doesn’t matter who on the Democrat side we’re not getting…"

    6) Rush went on and discussed the "electability issue" and related it back to John Kerry in 2004 and why based on perceived "electability" the Democrats decided to lay their hands on Kerry.

    "The "electability: reason to nominate somebody is flawed from the get-go because the reasons that people think somebody can win are flawed (refer to my first point in this post)…you get to Romney and these people all said (after dismissing all the other candidates chances of winning) …Now, there’s a guy who sounds smart. He’s seasoned. He’s been at this for a number of years. He’s composed, he looks good and he could beat Obama in a debate."

    "And in every one of these instances folks what’s been frustrating to me is NOT one reason rooted in policy has been cited as a reason to support or not support somebody…I was recounting my frustration (on Jan 6/2012) listening to my friends tell me why none of the Republican nominees had a prayer, why they wouldn’t support them, and in no instance was anybody rejected because of policy. And in no instance was anybody supported because of policy. IT WAS ALL ABOUT WHO THEY THOUGHT COULD AND COULD NOT WIN."

    And finally I offer you another one of my NFL analogies. When decisions are taken by a team on which quarterback or player to draft high in the first round, a team’s decision can be made based on two critieria: whether the player has a winning atttiude, winning demeanor or talks like a winner or whether the player possesses the requisite abilities, skills and talent to perform in his position and what level he brings to the table.

    I know there is a sound argument to give importance to the former and "how badly a player wants to win". But I think if you ask Bill Belichick of the NE Patriots and his team of scouts, the main criteria the Pats use to determine who to select is whether the player has the ability and talent to do the job given where he is chosen. In other words a NFL player can run his mouth off as much as he wants about how much he cares about winning, but it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans if he can’t do the job.

    Has Tom Brady kept his job as a starting QB for the Pats for over a decade because of his competitive desire to win or is it because he is one of the most accurate passers in the history of the NFL and one of the smartest QB’s ever in reading defenses and making adjustments on the fly when called for and then deciding who he should throw the ball to on a particular play?

    I have always maintained Mitt Romney lacked the political ability and talent to run a successful presidential campaign and the more we learn about his campaign the more I think I will be proven right.

    7) Political enlightenment from a caller named Ken from Livonia, Michigan who phoned in to Rush Limbaugh after Rush made the comments in (6):

    Here is the exchange:

    Ken: "…Rush, the establishment Republicans just don’t understand us voters out here. I’m a conservative, a constitutionalist. I believe in the traditional view of marriage, and I’m also pro-life. I’ve always voted, up until now, Republican. But I’m telling you, Rush, and I’m telling Republicans out there that they don’t get it. I will NOT vote for another MODERATE. If you want to lose my vote, all you have to say is, "I’m willing to reach across the aisle."

    Rush: "…last three weeks Romney started…using the phrase "reaching across the aisle". Now were you with Romney at any point in this campaign and then decided not to vote, or were you always opposed after Romney got the nomination?"

    Ken: "I was opposed to Romney because I knew he was a MODERATE from the beginning…"

    Rush: "I want your opinion. Of the three million Republican voters that stayed home, do you think most of them are like you, that they are just dissatisfied that the Republicans nominated what you thought was a MODERATE?"

    Ken: "Yes, I really believe…from our point of view, the MODERATE is NOT going to fix the problems that our country needs to have fixed, but continue along the same lines…"

    Rush: "…Did you not believe him (Romney)…what he said about creating jobs and reducing government…you didn’t believe him?

    Ken: "Well, Rush, the last 4 years for example every time the debt ceiling was hit, the Republicans, unfortunately voted to raise it again. We need to get conservative Republicans in Washington. AND IF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WANTS THE VOTE, THE SUPPORT OF CONSERVATIVES LIKE MYSELF, THEY’VE GOTTA GET CONSERVATIVES TO RUN. IF THEY DON’T WANT TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE, IF THEY DON’T WANT TO CONTROL WASHINGTON, THEN JUST KEEP DOING WHAT THEY’VE BEEN DOING…I think the way 3 million people looked at it, a MODERATE Republican will still lead our country over the cliff. Not as quickly, not as fast, but over the cliff. If we’re gonna be going over a cliff at a hundred miles an hour which is under Obama, or 70 miles an hour which is under a MODERATE Republican, we’re still going over the cliff."

    8) Another idea I haven’t heard brought up, So many people are focused on Romney losing Ohio or Florida. The facts are even if Romney had won Ohio, Florida and Virginia he still would have fallen 4 EV short of victory at 266 EV. Romney is now at 206 EV. With the above 3 states in the bag, he would have still needed NH (4), Iowa (6), Nevada (6) or Colorado (9) to prevail. And the results show Obama defeated Romney by 6 points in NH, Iowa and Nevada and by 4 points in Colorado. 

    The numbers don’t lie. Romney was not close to prevailing.

    9) The GOP establishment (party hierarchy, RINO politicians, Fox News, right-wing blogosphere etc.) need to be called out in a timely fashion for their misrepresenation of the facts or lies regarding the reason fewer "right-wing voters" showed up at the polls (calling them stupid, misguided or uninformed) or why Romney lost the election, attributing it to "the entitlement mentality, not addressing issues important to Latinos. being insensitive to women’s issues etc.)

    Instead the simple reason why Mitt Romney lost the election was that not enough voters "bought’ what Romney was trying to "sell" ( a problem of philosophy or ideology), did NOT take to or like the person acting as the pitchman for the product (Romney’s lack of personality or charisma) or Mitt Romney was not able to articulate or communicate his message in an effect or cogent manner or was unable to close and seal the deal with the voters (lack of talent). Of course it could be a combination of all three.

    10) And finally here is a frank assessment of the results of the election and I’m going to strive to be as objective as I can be:

    The polls were basically right in predicting a result similar to 2004 where the winner would prevail with less than a 3% margin. The writing was really on the wall since 2010. Yes, the eternal optimist might have predicted a Romney blowout of Obama, but most people on our side never predicted that, especially when polls consistently showed only a 1-3 point difference in head to head polls.

    However, I do think Hurricane Sandy did widen Obama’s margin by .5%-a full point but I still believe even without Hurricane Sandy Obama would have still won.

    Again Romney would have had to draw to an inside straight to get to 270 EV and my friends according to the 2012 exit polls, 69% of voters had already made up their minds before September who they were voting for. It broke 53%–46% for Obama. Essentially in football terms Romney was down 2 touchdowns to Obama at halftime (convention season) and that over the 60 day campaign Romney was always trailing and playing catch-up and in the end came up a little short in trying to mount a final charge. Romney ended up losing by one score but as we know in presidential politics there are no moral victories.

    Would Mitt Romney narrowed the gap even further if he had sucked it up and enlisted the aid of Sarah Palin? I think he would have, but we’ll never know.

    And in regards to 2008 and the McCain-Palin ticket vs. the Romney-Ryan ticket:

    As I write this via Wikipedia, Mitt Romney has won 47.9% of the popular vote. As most of us know the McCain-Palin ticket won 45.7% of the vote. But here’s the deal: Romney’s share of the popular vote is higher than McCain-Palin due solely to Obama falling 2.2% off his own popular vote in 2008. This is wnen math can be used to deceive people.

    For we all must know by now, Romney received fewer votes on Tuesday than McCain-Palin got in 2008–about 1.45 million fewer votes.

    And there was no wardrobe issue, Katie Couric interview or financial meltdown that sent the stock market down by 700 points in a week during the general election campaign that caused Romney to underperform.

    • Emerson_C

      There is nothing in this analysis with which I can disagree.  The question is what now? 

      I still see characters like Steve Schimdt, Mike Murphy and Matthew Dowd popping up and asked to comment!!!  Unbelievable!!!  But why just wring hands?

      What was begun in 2010 must continue to grow with the unfortunate "Romney interregnum" regarded as an unfortunate mistake and a mere ‘bump on the road’.   Let Gov Palin now resume her pevious and rudely interrupted trajectory. 

      • dave7777

         What now? Rubio is on his way to Iowa to begin the fix for 2016. He needs to be taken out at the knees right now! We need to start the campaign….no Rubio.

    • Mountain

      I thought of you constantly this past week, Techno, because you predicted the election results so well.

      Remember, though, that Sarah herself advised ABO.  I believe she voted for Romney, too.

  • Pete Petretich

    Somebody on Facebook is claiming that Allen West won his election. Is that true?

    The only news I see is that his motion to impound the ballots was denied…

    • c4pfan

      I would go to his facebook!  I wouldn’t rely on some faceless poster!

  • technopeasant

    The 10 nuggets pertaining to Sarah Palin that must be spread far and wide to all corners of America:

    1) Via the 2008 exit polls, 60% of voters claimed that the presence of Sarah Palin on the McCain-Palin ticket influenced their vote. Of those voters: 56% voted for McCain–43% for Obama.

    Conversely 33% of voters claimed Palin had no bearing on their vote: Those folks voted Obama 65% McCain 33%.

    2) When Sarah Palin was in the mix in PPP polls of GOP prospective candidates in 2012, she consistently polled higher than any other candidate with Hispanics.

    3) Sarah Palin did not say: "I can see Russia from my house."

    Tina Fey did on SNL.

    4) As Governor of Alaska, Palin received a much higher security clearance that the other 49 governors due to silos being present in Alaska.

    5) Yes, Sarah Palin got into political hot water when the concept of " political crosshairs" was linked to the Giffords shooting. What is lost is that 18 of the those 20 Democrats targeted in her political crosshairs lost their election or re-election bids. And that Bob Beckel, a long-time Democratic operative acknowledged the term was long-standing and used by both Dems and Republicans.

    6) Palin’s political blueprint to win the 2012 election, written two days after the midterm election must become the rallying cry for going forward and must embraced by all conservatives. Obviously the ideas surrounding Obama no longer apply for 2016 but will still apply to 2014.

    Here is the link:

    If conservatives ignore this blueprint again in this next election cycle, we deserve to lose again and again.

    7) Sarah Palin won the recent Gretawire poll for who is now the (titular) leader of the GOP.

    Current results:

    Palin                                    41.96%

    Rubio                                   16.23%

    Boehner                               12.81%

    Ryan                                      7.93%

    Romney                                 7.63%

    8) Mitt Romney did NOT want Sarah Palin’s "endorsement". If he did covet it, the right-wing blogosphere would have made a bigger deal about Palin not endorsing Romney to embarrass Palin.

    Think about it: If they made a huge fuss about the issue, Palin easily could have "endorsed" Romney but then Romney would be faced with either accepting it or rejecting it, neither bridge he wanted to cross publicly.

    Don’t let the narrative of Palin being disloyal to the party nominee be accepted as gospel.

    9) Many conservatives and Tea Party members gradually abandoned Sarah Palin in 2011, politically speaking, because of the Giffords shooting and polls showing her to be unelectable against Obama.

    See my post below on Rush Limbaugh’s opinion about how the primary voters bought into the narrative that Romney was "electable."

    To deny that had nothing to do with Palin’s decision not to run in 2012 is asinine. I’m NOT saying it was the only reason but common sense will tell you when folks of your ilk don’t rally around you, you have a major political problem on your hands.

    Conservatives who abandoned Palin in 2011, they that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.

    For those in Rio Linda, the phrase refers to having serious problems in the future for something stupid you did in the past.

    If conservatives don’t rally around Sarah Palin in the next election cycle they deserve all the misery that they will face in the future.

    10) REJECT MEDIOCRITY must become our calling card.

    SARAH PALIN OR BUST must become our rallying cry.

    In other words, if America is to be saved all conservatives must vow to stand shoulder to shoulder and four-square behind Sarah Palin to be the next GOP presidential nominee and do so without ever wavering or giving an inch.

    In other words, if Sarah Palin decides not to run again, it will not be our fault because she knows if she does run we will have her back 24-7.

    Frankly I’m sick and tired of conservatives abandoning their warriors on the political battlefield and then complaining later when some RINO presidential candidate didn’t have the right stuff OR the gonads to take the fight to the enemy in a super-aggressive fashion.

    F*ck you! It’s time to get on board the train or get run over.



    • palin45potus

      Point number 6!

      The silence of the GOP media regarding Sarah Palin’s absence from the Romney campaign is "The Dog that didn’t bark" to me.  

      If they had offered her a respectable speaking position at the convention and she had turned them down, then they’d have unleashed an unbelievable tirade against her, don’t you think?  Especially after they lost?

      It’s obvious to me that they either never made an offer or that it was so insulting that it was even worse than no offer at all.

      • dave7777

         You’re on a roll this morning 45! keep it up.

        • Elwanda Burrell

          45 was also on a roll yesterday……I love it!!!

      • Elwanda Burrell

         45, you are so smart and tell the truth……keep up the good work!!!

      • Banda31

        While watching  Martha McCullum’s show yesterday @ Fox News, she asked someone (I cannot remember the person’s name), " who are the candidates that the Repubs may be looking at for 2016″, and a number of names were called, no mention made of Sarah Palin. I noticed also that when that question is asked of any of the talking heads for the GOP, the first name out of their mouth is Marco Rubio.
         Anyway, I also saw an article @  Yahoo in which they said that Chris Christie is leading the pack for the GOP and Hillary for the Dems for the chief candidates in 2016 election bid. They also had a picture of Jeb Bush as the one most people are interested in. But doesn’t the Gretawire poll show Sarah as leading the pack with 41% and Chris Christie with 3.7%.
         These people are such dangerous liars. They think they are so slick! That’s why the American people should do their own research instead of relying on the LSM.

      • BrianusBerkleianus

        Thanks, 45!!

    • Ory Hebert

      SarahPAC honestly needs to pick you up and put you on the payroll.  You could be a really huge asset for Sarah.

      (Talking to you Chuck Jr.!!)

    • BrianusBerkleianus

      "10) REJECT MEDIOCRITY must become our calling card.SARAH PALIN OR BUST must become our rallying cry."


      Thanks, techno!!

  • technopeasant

    This is in response to Emerson C down below:

    The ten things conservatives can do to demonstrate our unqualified support for her being the leader of the GOP and the 2016 GOP presidential nominee:

    1) Take the pledge never, never to waver supporting her no matter what happens (unless she bows out) and encourage others to do the same.

    2) E-mail all your conservatives buddies and acquaintances consistently and bombard their computers with how wonderful a candidate Sarah Palin would be. Also send along data and info.

    3) Point out the stats I listed below and what I and other have posted re Palin’s accomplishments and successes. Don’t assume anything including folks know the real Sarah Palin story.

    4) Promote The Undefeated and debunk and destroy the credibility of Game Change and any other work that seeks to destroy Sarah Palin with lies and propaganda.

    5) Post consistently on right-wing blogs and especially remind conservatives/Tea Party members of the mistakes some of them made in 2011 by abandoning Palin and embracing Romney or dividing the conservative vote and the how they reaped the whirlwind as a result.

    6) Promote the idea of a conservative convention separate from any GOP convention where conservatives can unite around solid conservative principles and conservative leaders

    7) Point out the similarity of the 1996, 2008 and 2012 defeats:

    A white male moderate senior citizen without charisma.


    8) Donate to SarahPAC, encourage people to sign up to Sarah’s Facebook, encourage more web sites that promote Sarah’s candidacy in 2016.

    9) Go on the attack against anyone who unduly criticizes Sarah or lies about her and mentally be prepared to defend her to the death.


    I pound this theme over and over again because imho, conservatives allow themselves to be manipulated by CM and many of them don’t even realize it is happening.

    It’s time conservatives declare independence from their colonial masters in terms of rejecting being in a submissive or subservient position.

    However I am NOT for a third party. Take back the GOP. Return it to the days of Reagan.

  • palin45potus

    Obama, Hillary and the press are asking us "Suspend Disbelief" and accept the Petreaus resignation at this particular moment with no questions asked?

    They have concluded after Tuesday that we really are as stupid and weak as they thought.  They are just being more open about their contempt for us.

    • Mountain

      I swear, some Obot slipped Petreaus a mickey……  He hasn’t been himself for 2 months!

      This decent patriot hero ….  how COULD he have colluded with the Obots? 
      HE was the FIRST to state the LIE that a stupid video caused the attack in Lebanon….
      Rice’s many public statements in agreement with that ruse came AFTER Petr’s remarks!

      Of course we all are suspicious about Petreaus’ resignation—-its content AND its timing. 

      Did the Obama administration know for the past 2+ YEARS about Petr’s affair?
      Did the Obots let Petr. believe that he had succeeded in hiding his affair—-when actually, the Obots were quietly holding onto that information—-for later use, if needed?

      And did the Obots hold that affair over Petr’s head this past week, promising him that, if he resigned now by using the pretext of his affair, then he wouldn’t have to ruin his professional reputation through testifying that he had LIED on behalf of the Obama administration?

      And will the Obama administration successfully keep Hillary from testifying, too?
      They are sending her overseas next week, saying she won’t be available to testify.

      How many rats do YOU smell here?!?

      • juju341

        I posted last night…."I do believe Petreaus was blackmailed.  But, it came from the Admin.  First he was to go along with it was that stupid video…and if he didn’t do that they would expose the FBI findings.  And/or as a career high ranking military person…BO said to him… "Remember Gen., I am your Commander in Chief…I give the orders and you follow them..and I am telling you this is what you say…it was the video"   Well, he followed orders.  Then they insisted he do the same thing when he was to go to the hearing this next week.  Well…he was not about to do that when he was under oath.  So…he resigned.  

  • polarfan

    To do list!

    #1  Call your congressman/woman and tell him/her NOT to vote for John Boehner as Speaker of the House

    This guy isn’t a leader -HE MUST GO!

    • waterview

       Here’s a scary thought.  It seems that Hillary is gone after Jan and Kerry will probably become SOS.  Holder is also stepping down, is he going to the CIA?

      • barracuda43

        Didn’t Kerry serve in Vietnam? Lol!

  • palin45potus

    Boy it’s a good thing that the GOP muffled Sarah Palin for this election, huh?  

    If she’d have been out on the stump, there’s no telling what kind of things she might have said!  Maybe she’d have told a fib about her marathon time!  Or failed to follow through during a debate when the opportunity to throw a knockout punch was sitting right there, just waiting to be thrown!  Or perhaps she’d have said something mind-numbingly stupid and insensitive about abortion and rape!

    • hrandym

       I wholeheartedly agree with what Sarah could have brought to this campaign.  On the other hand, I suspect widespread fraud and vote tampering.  I am suspect that many of the voting machines were serviced by ‘Union’ workers.  It wouldn’t take may loyal Union workers to fix things in BO’s favor.  Just look at the BO strongholds.  Big Union areas.  Isn’t that just a little suspicious?

      • c4pfan

        Colorado isn’t a huge union.

        • hrandym

           Thanks for pointing out one exception.

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets