I hope that other Tea Parties around the nation are doing the same thing we are. We encouraged people to bring cameras and recorders, so the nastiness of the unions was well documented. A few of them would have started fist fights had the police not been there.

Also, let’s get one thing straight right now. Scott Walker is not trying to abolish anybody’s collective bargaining rights. He is trying to give people the choice whether to pay union dues or to use that money for pensions and healthcare. If the unions think that this will lead to nobody joining their union, isn’t that automatically an admission that public employees are doing just fine?

(X-posted)

Based on a quick youtube search, the Tea Party has finally matched and surpassed the digital ability of the left. Cameras were everywhere at the event, and the results are now plastered all over the web. Here are a few of the best clips. The Tea Party hasn’t had a good opportunity to do much protesting lately (thanks WI unions – we appreciate what you’ve done for our movement). These videos will warm the cockles of your heart!

Andrew Breitbart:

Herman Cain:

General Footage:

(crossposted to Coloradans4Palin)

OK, JSob, I finally got around to writing down my thoughts on the matter:

One of the most oft-repeated criticisms of Sarah Palin is that she doesn’t have any “accomplishments”. The usual line of attack, borrowed from the Lamestream Media, is that she couldn’t hack it as governor for more than two years, resigning in tears when confronted with the evidence of her unethical dealings (somehow she simultaneously gets blamed for the ethics laws themselves), and fleeing the state of Alaska in order to rake in the cash from her rabid cult following in the lower 48. Or something. Nary a mention of the Vice Presidential campaign, the long knives of the media and the Chicago mob machine, the dismissal of all ethics complaints, the crushing financial burden of defending herself from these charges, or her desire to serve her country at the national level. The fraudulent allegations of these cynical bystanders deserve a rebuttal.

Governor Palin has “accomplished” many things not only as governor, but also as a city councilwoman, mayor, and oil and gas commissioner. During  her time in Wasilla, she cut property taxes, opposed unnecessary government regulations, prioritized infrastructure development, and attracted jobs and businesses to the city. Under her leadership, the town was grew and prospered. Her terms as city councilwoman and mayor are chronicled here and here. As a governor, Palin cut spending. She had two major legislative accomplishments: AGIA (Alaska Gasline Inducement Act), which restarted a stalled project to build a pipeline to deliver Alaska’s oil and natural gas to the lower 48, and ACES (Alaskans’ Clear and Equitable Share), which restructured a disastrous system of taxing oil comapnies to one that worked better for both the people of Alaska and the oil companies. Some of Palin’s opponents (such as members of the CBC that were abusing the tax system) have criticized this plan as “redistributing wealth” since it taxes oil companies and gives individual Alaskans a check from oil revenues. However, the Alaskan Constitution specifies that the resources of Alaska belong to the people (not the state, which would be socialist), oil companies were already taxed (but corruption flourished under Murkowski), and in reality a shareholder model would be the more appropriate analogy. Instead of the state wasting the money, citizens are given back their tax dollars (more on this later). More information about her actions in office can be found here and here.

All this is great. But none of it gets to the heart of Palin’s true accomplishments. Her true legacy lies in her steel spine, her faith and values, her unwavering dedication to standing up and speaking out for the little guy against those who would seek to take advantage of him (or her), and her unrelenting commitment to always doing the right thing, no matter the personal or political cost.

Finally, someone has chronicled these intangible attributes, as well as some of her more concrete achievements, in one succinct article. Whitney Pitcher of C4P articulates better than I ever could 47 reasons why Governor Palin is preeminently qualified to be President, in honor of Palin’s 47th birthday. I highly recommend that you read through the list, and I challenge you to name one other candidate whose accomplishments measure up to Palin’s. It is increasingly clear that she is the only person for the job.

(crossposted to Coloradans4Palin)

The Tea Party was raked over the coals for calling Obama a socialist, but we were right all along. At least now that the elections are over, Democrats are beginning to admit it openly.  As the “best radio talk show host in Colorado”, with a regular morning show on 760 AM, David Sirota is part of the public face of the left. He is the equivalent of the right’s Mike Rosen in Colorado. And he admits we live in a socialist society.

This Reagan-inspired paradox of cheering anti-socialist platitudes while supporting socialism in practice was the tale of Super Bowl XLV. The game began with a jubilant Reagan biopic that approvingly flaunted his red-baiting past, including his 1964 warning about America “tak(ing) the first step into a thousand years of darkness.” The game ended with victory for professional sports’ only publicly owned nonprofit organization, the Green Bay Packers — a team whose quasi-socialist structure allows Wisconsin’s proletariat to own the means of football production.

Green Bay’s win, though, doesn’t tell the Super Bowl’s entire socialist tale. The game was held in one of the NFL’s government-funded stadiums. Additionally, training for many Super Bowl players was subsidized by taxpayers when those players honed their skills at public high schools and universities.
Meanwhile, fans arrived at the event on public roads, the contest was broadcast on public airwaves, and the Navy spent $450,000 of public monies flying jets over the game in order to stage a momentary TV image.

[..]

Yes, even though we clearly embrace socialism in everything from professional sports to telecommunications, the politicians and corporations who frame our public dialogue have long stifled honest discussions of our socialist reality because they know such discussions would show that America primarily champions a particular form of socialism — a corporate socialism leveraging public resources for private profit.

Like the few municipal services that still remain in today’s era of Reaganomics, the publicly owned Green Bay Packers are a rare exception to this norm. That’s why the story of the team’s organizational structure is suppressed — because it shows the most important question facing our nation isn’t about accepting or rejecting socialism. We’ve already accepted it. Instead, the real question is about what specific type of socialism we want: the current kind that works only for those in the luxury box, or the kind that starts working for the rest of us?

I actually happen to agree with Sirota’s analysis of our society. Obama has been foremost in facilitating this leveraging of public resources for private profit. Companies like GE, GM, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. are government run entities, benefiting from bailouts and tax subsidies (with huge government strings attached) at the expense of the rest of us. This has had a detrimental effect on the economy, as those small businesses which account for 70% of all jobs are forced out of business, unable to compete with the tax dollars behind the big guys.

Read More →

David Catanese, one of the last holdouts over at Politico, has a great tidbit today. Pretty funny, and a rather good move for someone who usually drinks the kum-bay-yah kool-aid of the left:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is happy to go along with the bipartisan seating arrangements at President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, but he’d like both sides to reign in the cheerleading that’s become a staple of such addresses.

“Might be nice, maybe we cut back a little bit on all the jumping up and down, which I think frankly distracts from any president’s speech when it’s interrupted every 30 seconds by people jumping up and down,” McCain said Sunday on CBS’ “Face of the Nation.”

Calling it a “good idea” that’s been a bit overblown, McCain said he would sit with Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) Tuesday night, but appeared more interested in reducing the amount of applause during the speech.

Oh, you want to be all bipartisan and hold hands while the president speaks reads the teleprompter? I think that’s a mighty fine idea. And you know what else? Let’s all of us not cheer for a man who clearly doesn’t deserve applause.

Sadly, McLame is probably too old to realize that he’s just falling for another liberal trap. No doubt the lefties will be carrying on like it’s the second coming of Christ. Oh well, at least he tried.

The following is a form letter which could be sent to Democratic senators up for re-election in 2012 in order to persuade at least four to vote for repeal of Obamacare. It may be a bit, shall we say, more effective than the typical form letter:

Dear Democratic Senator,

I am a conservative activist in Colorado (insert state here), and I would like you to vote for repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, also know as Obama care. I’m not going to re-hash a laundry list of the problems with the bill – if you need ask, please talk to Paul Ryan. Rather, I am going to explain why it is in your best interest, and the best interest of the staffer reading this letter, that you vote for repeal.

There are roughly 20 Democratic senators up for re-election in 2012. As you very well know, 2012 will be a tough year to get re-elected, as evidenced by the difficulties your party had finding someone to head up the DSCC this cycle. The election of November 2010 resulted in the largest Republican gains in the house in decades. Nationally, the GOP picked up 63 seats in what your own President admitted was a “shellacking”. The American people, needless to say, are not impressed with your actions in office. Do you remember the day health care passed the House? Do you remember the throngs of angry, disenfranchised citizens who descended upon Washington D.C. that day? Do you remember their vociferous opposition to the bill in town halls across America that summer? No, they did not come to love the bill once it was passed so they had a chance to see what was in it. They are still seething at the fact that Democrats ignored the will of the American people, and they are currently plotting your defeat in the next election.

I am one of those people. There will be a list, circulated far and wide across this great nation, of Democratic senators who must be defeated in 2012. Your name will be on it. There will be fundraising appeals, volunteer drives, and phone calls from all across the nation targeting (politically) your state. Even though I live in Colorado (insert your state here), I will be part of this movement. I will make sure that your opponent has what it takes to win, no matter if that candidate is the top young up and comer in the GOP or mbecker’s dead white cat (insert culturally relevant reference here). You know that this is not an empty boast because of the success of your colleague Senator Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund, which succeeded in unseating not only Democratic senators, but also GOP senators who had strayed from conservative principles. Moreover, starting today I will be tracking all of your staff, especially those that screen letters. I will do my utmost to shine a spotlight on them and their activities, whether they go on to work as a lobbyist or as an adviser to another elected official. I will attempt to make their names so politically toxic that they will never be able to get another political job again.

You have one chance to redeem yourself. If you and your staff would like a future in politics, you must vote to repeal the health care bill. Much like Joe Manchin saved his senate race by literally destroying the cap and trade bill, you can save your seat by admitting that the American people do not want Obama care, and voting accordingly. If you do this, you will hold on to the independent voters who gave you the seat in the first place and take your name off the list of the worst offenders in the senate which will be targeted by conservatives. It’s your choice. The nation awaits your vote.

Sincerely,

(insert name here)

Just days after the Arizona tragedy, Democrats are yet again attempting to profit politically from the massacre. I’m not talking about Sarah Palin. Or gun control. Or kicking off a 2012 campaign at what was supposed to be a memorial service. No my friends, I’m talking about seating arrangements.

Congressional Democrats have proposed a plan for bipartisan seating at the President’s upcoming State of the Union address. You see, there has been some very mean and hurtful rhetoric hurled the Democrats’ way recently, and that has resulted in the shooting of Congresswomen Giffords not made them feel very good about themselves. After all, they deserve the adulation of the masses for their heroic efforts over the last two years in fighting the evil rich oppressors of the nation (meanies!), which, of course, completely justifies their nasty rhetoric. But this presents a problem for the State of the Union, because it is not going to look very good for them when the vast majority of congress does not swoon at the sound of their dear leader’s dulcet tones. In fact, the Democrats might look just downright silly cheering his lofty rhetoric all by themselves. (How did those other guys get elected anyway? Must have been that nasty rhetoric again.)

So they have hit upon a simple solution, which is to mix up the seating. That way, maybe a few RINOs won’t stick out so much if they applaud the president, and the illusion of presidential success can be preserved. The idea was first proposed, according to the Politico article, by the “centrist-Democratic group Third Way”, which is a good indicator that it’s sure to further the goals of radical Marxism. Beyond that, I’m ashamed to say that it has been promoted by my very own senator from Colorado, Mark Udall. And now, reports Politico, it has been accepted by House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer. After all, what could be more natural than America coming together in the wake of a national tragedy? A few lines of kum-bay-yah fluff ought to seal the deal:

“I believe Congress has a responsibility to set an example of less-ugly, less-divisive debate,” Hoyer said in his statement.

“Coming together to hear an address on the state of our union in a few weeks is an especially important moment to recommit ourselves to approaching our public life with the respect and honesty that our serious, shared problems demand.”

The most encouraging thing so far is that no congressional Republicans have weighed in on the plan yet. Let’s make it clear to them, and especially to the weak-kneed moderates who might want to cave in despite knowing better, that the Democrats should not be able to cover for two years of failed government by hiding out among Republicans while the President reads his teleprompter.

In the minutes following Jared Lee Loughner’s ghastly shooting spree, the left immediately jumped to the conclusion that this was all the fault of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin’s facebook page. Never mind the fact that they knew nothing about the shooter or his motives, that the congresswoman was a moderate Democrat who voted against Obamacare and had formerly been a Republican, or that a Republican judge had been killed. Forget the fact that hypocrite-in-chief Markos Moulitsas had himself posted a graphic targeting Giffords, or that the Democratic Party regularly posts bulls-eyes on states. No, the congresswoman (assumed dead, of course – how could there be any other outcome?) had a D after her name, and therefore it was Sarah Palin’s fault. Because Sarah Palin. And… Sarah Palin. Thus, Sarah Palin.

And it wasn’t just pundits that rushed to lay the blame on Palin’s doorstep. The Pima County Democratic Party and Democratic sheriff had their mugs up on CNN just as quick as they could condemning the Tea Party. It’s as if the left was gleefully anticipating something like this happening in order to further their political agenda. Oh wait, they were most definitely gleefully anticipating something like this happening in order to further their political agenda.

Those on the right (a.k.a. the sane) recognized this was probably the work of a crazy person, perhaps a conspiracy theorist with leftist leanings, as is usually the case in such tragedies, and decided to wait for the facts to come in before pronouncing judgment. Lo and behold, this was indeed the case. Finally, a picture as emerged of the mental status and motivations of the shooter, and it turns out we were right again.

What we have here is a pot-smoking, binge-drinking, mentally disturbed 22 year old male, who showed all the signs of turning out to be a sociopathic mass murderer. A classmate regularly cowered in fear near the door of the classroom, anticipating the day when he finally carried out the inevitable. A Walmart clerk was afraid to sell him ammunition. His rantings made it increasingly clear that he believed our world was a sham, and its people sheep who mindlessly followed the dictates of government and religion, oblivious to the reality which existed only in their dreams. He was living in the matrix, and fighting Mr. Smith.

And the left thinks it was Sarah Palin’s facebook page. Maybe that’s why the American people doesn’t trust them with congress, just as they don’t trust Jared Lee Loughner with a loaded gun.

My last diary exposed some differences in viewpoint that at times led me to wonder if everybody here supports the same things. So, I thought I would share my thoughts on the direction of the GOP in the near future, issues-wise, and get your input in the comments. I promise not to call anyone on this site names, although I can’t make that promise about everybody in the GOP (for example, Mike Castle is a RINO; there’s just no getting around it).

The GOP, like any major party, is composed of a number of constituencies. Disagreements in the party often form along those lines, and must be dealt with. This involves either a compromise, or one side leaving the GOP. Ideally, the GOP would stick to conservative principles, but there is often disagreement about what those principles are, or even if we should compromise on principle in the hope of attracting more people to the party. It’s a delicate balance. With that in mind, here are my thoughts on the way I would like to see the GOP proceed in the upcoming years with regard to these factions:

1. Libertarians

I mention libertarians first because they are a key part of the Tea Party, which will be an important party of the party, if not the majority of the GOP, for some time to come. I suppose Ron Paul got the ball rolling, but he also made a lot of enemies in the GOP as older members reacted negatively to the revolutionary nature of his campaign. However, in the big government age of Obama, large numbers of people recognized the harm in the overreach of government, and the Tea Party was born. Despite opposition from the media and perhaps the establishment wing of the GOP, the Tea Party proved to be a force to be reckoned with in the last election, as figures like Bob Bennett, Mike Castle, Lisa Murkowski, etc. were defeated in primaries. Other more debatable GOPers like Jane Norton and Trey Grayson also defeated in primaries. And, a few establishment people like John McCain and Lisa Murkowski slipped through in the end. There were many issues at play in these races, but I would say that the one overarching theme was the debate over the size of government. People voted, in the main, for smaller government in the age of Obama. I hope we can all agree on that. Put simply, if you are favor of a large bureaucratic government, you should not be in the GOP. Democrats will be happy to have you, and we will not shed a tear as you leave (case in point: Arlen Specter). Deficit and debt, Obamacare, etc. are all very real and dangerous and must be dealt with, but they are merely symptoms of the root problem, which is the expansion of government control of our lives. Libertarians have tended to support the party out of power, mostly because the party in power has tended to grow government in the past. They should be welcomed into the GOP, even if we don’t agree on them with everything. If the House can prove that it is serious in rolling back the size of government, they will stand with us.

2. The Establishment

This means many things to many people, and usually refers to whatever the current crop of GOP legislators and party bosses are promoting. In the past, i.e. under Bush, this group of people got a bad reputation because they compromised with the left on some matters of bigger government, including Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, bailouts, etc. They did not stand on the principles they were originally elected on in 1994, and the American people threw them of office. Only due to the overwhelming idiocy and incompetence of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi was the GOP given another chance. As many have noted, the recent election was not a wave of support for the GOP, but a restraining order on the Democrats. It will take time to regain the trust of the American people, but if the current congress holds true to the principles they were elected on, the American people may be willing to give us back control of the white house and the senate in 2012. The establishment IS needed to some degree because they understand the inner workings of government and how to get things done. I believe the establishment should hold fast to conservative principles and smaller government. The people have rejected the Democrat-progressive vision of America and do not want us to compromise.

3. Business

Traditionally, when people think about the constituencies in the GOP, they think of the three-legged stool of Reagan: fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and defense hawks. One group which doesn’t necessarily fit into any of those categories is business, which can be further divided into big business interests and small business owners. You might think that they would fall under the category of fiscal conservatives, but that is not necessarily true any more. Over the last decade or more, many businesses, particularly the larger ones, have turned to the government for subsides, tax loopholes, and bailouts. I believe this is a major problem in the GOP that needs to be rectified. Another major reason the GOP lost the trust of the people, and now the Democrats have, is that lobbyists made closed door deals with legislators to benefit their specific company. Of course TARP and the bailouts really brought this to a head, with major companies like GE, AIG, and others getting massive chunks of cash at the expense of the taxpayer. The large bonuses these companies gave to their executives, while they may or may not have been sound business decisions, were a PR nightmare. More recently, Obama worked with insurance and drug companies to get healthcare passed, and guess what, premiums are going up, while these companies are doing better than ever. These companies were key in getting the bill passed. I could go on and on about crony capitalism, but the bottom line is that the government should stay OUT of the private sector. No bailouts, government run companies, subsidies, etc. Keep taxes low. Beyond that, if a company can’t make it on its own, it is a bad business model and should not be encouraged. Goverment involvement in running companies is, after all, the very definition of socialism. That’s not to say there aren’t a lot of great business people in the party. But they, like everyone else, should not want other companies to get preferential treatment by the government. The only role the government should have in the private sector is to ensure a level playing field by preventing fraud.

4. Social Conservatives

Social conservatives, of which I am one, have always been a crucial block of GOP voters. Historically, however, they have come into conflict with other groups in the GOP such as libertarians. The debate has raged on both sides between social conservatives who have felt ignored and social moderates who either oppose them on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and DADT, or who simply feel that they make Republicans less electable. There is a fine line to be walked here, and it is difficult to establish any sort of compromise. I would hope that the GOP could support the right to life, while perhaps taking an incrementalist approach to this issue. Babies are dying every day, and while it may make you feel good to take a hard line position on banning abortion even in the case of rape and incest, it will do nothing to save those babies’ lives. Yes, I know, it’s murder. You don’t have to believe it’s ok in some circumstances in order to support candidates who will work to roll back abortions in a way the public can accept. First ban federal funding of abortions, then educate the public on the harmful effects of abortion on women, work to end abortions of convenience, etc. Make it your aim to put Planned Parenthood out of business. This will be far more effective than alienating independents. The other big issue here is gays. For too long the left has been able to use the gay vote to further their agenda. I propose that you can support the traditional definition of marriage, while still treating gays with civility. If you are a Christian who thinks homosexuality is sinful, please go share the gospel with gays and invite them to attend church, rather than wasting your time trying to use government to bludgeon them. (Defending the traditional marriage is fine because it is defense, not offense.) Your efforts will be more effective that way.

5. Military/Defense

This is another area of disagreement within the GOP as of late, due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan dragging on. Many younger voters are tired of fighting and question why we must spend so much time, blood, and treasure “policing the world”. Other hawks remind us of the threat of terrorism and the need for a strong military as a deterrent to the enemies of freedom and democracy. I would hope that most people could embrace some sort of middle course here. Nobody likes the deaths that occur in war, but we are grateful for their sacrifice. Lets do what is necessary to win the wars now, and then bring our troops home as quickly as reasonably possible. Beyond that, perhaps we should focus more on defense than on offense in the future?

Anyway, this diary is already far too long. What do you think?

Yesterday, Erick started the political year off with a bang by endorsing Pence for President, in an attempt to push Pence into the presidential race, rather than the Indiana governor’s race, in order to stop Palin from winning the nomination. I overreacted a bit and I must apologize for calling Erick’s character into question, as my state of mind caused me to misinterpret a comment he meant as a compliment to Palin. However, the reason I was so worked up is not because he endorsed Pence, but his reasons for doing so. He was quite clear in saying that his heart was with Palin, yet because of the media and the establishment GOP he felt that she would have a tougher race, and therefore we should promote Pence in her stead. This, to me, is not only grossly unfair to Palin but also a miscalculation as to the electability of Pence.

One of the things that we as grassroots conservatives and/or Tea Party activists must do is to hold each other accountable, and tie each other to the mast of conservative principle when the siren song of the left grows too loud in our ears.  Right now I believe we are in the middle of an unofficial grassroots primary, the winner of which gets to take on Romney (or whoever wins the establishment primary), in the real primary. Let me be clear, either Pence or Palin is preferable to any of the other candidates, but I believe Pence has some  drawbacks that make Palin the better candidate. We do need to hash this out now in order to avoid a split vote of the sort which led to McCain being our 2010 nominee. Hence the need for this diary, and a closer look at the relative merits of Palin vs. Pence as presidential contenders in 2012.

1. Values

Both Palin and Pence pass this test. Both have solid grassroots conservative credentials and are able to effectively articulate the conservative message, a few minor gripes notwithstanding. Pence is rumoured to have supported some form of amnesty, but the details on that are not clear, and I have not taken the time to research that issue yet, in part because I don’t think there’s probably much there. Palin has backed some more establishment types like McCain and Fiorina, but there are good explanations for each. There was really no way she could avoid endorsing McCain after campaigning for him in 2010, and Fiorina was a mama grizzly (in California, to boot!), part of Palin’s effort to bring more women into the GOP,  so I’m not overly concerned about that one either. She’s faced some criticism for spending in Alaska, but that state is quite unique. Their constitution explicitly states that the natural resources of Alaska are owned by the people of Alaska. What she did was to take on the big oil crony capitalists and lobbyists who had so tied up the state government that the average citizens were not being well served. She returned to the people the resources that were constitutionally theirs, while simultaneously managing to promote energy development! That takes talent, if you ask me.

2. Experience

Pence has been a radio talk show host and congressman. In my opinion, that is a great start, but not enough to win the presidency. In order to be successful in that endeavor, it is imperative that you have been able to build a statewide coalition before. Historically, almost all of our presidents have been governors or senators, who had experience running and governing on at least a statewide, if not national stage. Those that weren’t were often generals who likewise had abundant executive experience on the national stage. Pence has the right values, but the most logical next step for him would be to run for governor, a seat which he is virtually sure to win. This would set him up perfectly for a future run at the presidency or some other national position after having gained some valuable statewide executive experience. Palin, on the other hand, has advanced slowly and steadily up the ladder of public service as a councilwoman, mayor, energy commission member, governor, and VP candidate. She has faced the tough battles time and again, and proven her mettle at each level. Although it’s become a cliche, it is true that Sarah Palin doesn’t retreat, she reloads. She’s media saavy and able to combat their attacks, which leads me to my last point.

3. Electability

This is where I think Erick has miscalculated on Pence’s relative merits compared to Palin’s. Let’s imagine, for a moment, that Pence has won the nomination. Although he’s spoken the national media before, he is not really prepared for their vicious onslaught, having only previously served as a congressman. Honest answers that make perfect sense to us are twisted beyond recognition by the media and woven into a national narrative that makes him into a monster who eats little kids’ health insurance for breakfast. He is made to look incompetent, a failure as a legislator, and a thousand other things we haven’t even thought of yet. Though he repeatedly tries to explain himself and clear his name, he is vilified and savaged beyond belief by a left fearful of losing both houses of congress and the presidency to the GOP. The left points out that he has even less experience than Obama had when he was elected, since Obama had been a senator first. People are leery of changing horses midstream with another president who needs on-the-job training and independents begrudgingly hand Obama four more years. Now suppose Palin, with a strong record of successful public service as a governor, wins the nomination instead. The left explodes in a fit of apoplectic PDS. They hurl every attack they can think of at her, but it doesn’t work. Why? Because they’ve already tried everything they can think of. More ethics complaints, attacks, etc. have lost their power to harm her, because she’s already proven she doesn’t need the media to get her points across. In fact, by October/November 2012, their strategy is backfiring. They have cried wolf one too many times and the public doesn’t buy their alarmism anymore. It gets so bad that the public begins to feel not only sympathy for Palin, but wholehearted support for her criticisms of the media and the left. Some of the media, in fact, begin to realize how ridiculous they look and how fast they are becoming irrelevant, and give Palin a fair shake due to her rising popularity. Her hard working, can-do, independent American spirit contrasts sharply with Obama’s big government statism, and Palin wipes the floor with Obama in the debates a. la. Reagan vs. Carter. Her previous campaign experience pays off well, but now unfettered by the McCain campaign, she is able to convey her ideas and common sense solutions much more clearly to the American public. Reagan Democrats and blue collar union workers identify strongly with her and Todd against the backdrop of Obama’s condescending elitism, and she ends up winning handily, establishment GOP begrudgingly in tow.

Finally, there’s one last reason to support Palin over Pence. She’s walked the walk, and talked the talk. She’s put herself out there at a time when most people were hanging back and testing the wind. No matter how banged up she got, she stayed in the fight and came out on top, with regards to the media. She’s tough and she sure ain’t a quitter, despite whatever people say about her governorship. She’s politically astute, but she doesn’t compromise on her values and she’s not afraid of what anyone says about her. Personally, I would much rather have an outspoken defender of the American dream with a solid record of success at the state level as our candidate rather than a guy who so far hasn’t done a whole lot other than make a few good speeches to some friendly audiences. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure he’s voted the right way in the House most of the time. But it takes more than that to successfully run our country in an executive position. Sarah Palin has what it takes to go the distance.