CPAC and Sarah Palin mark a turn to unity


A vintage fiery performance: Palin told delegates we'll keep our guns, God and Constitution, and Obama can keep the change.

The most remarkable event of today’s CPAC was Sarah Palin endorsing unity. Instead of showing her support for any one candidate, she called for unity, saying that whoever the nominee is the GOP must defeat Obama. Whoever the nominee is conservatives must work together, she told an ecstatic audience, and the nation will have a true conservative in the White House.

The unity message, great!

It followed the announcement that Mitt Romney had narrowly won the CPAC Straw Poll, following his mission to the conference to prove his conservative credentials. It seems it may be mission accomplished. Certainly Romney will be feeling a lot better about his appeal to the conservative base after today.

The other remarkable performance came from the ever-popular Daniel Hannan, British Member for the European Parliament. Warning America not to go down the European road, he was amazed that while Europe is driving off the cliff they can see America in their rear-view mirror and overtaking them!

After his talk, I had a good conversation with him, as we walked through the hotel, including a detour through the kitchens! I asked him if he endorsed any candidates? He, just a little coyly, suggested it was difficult to choose, but stressed it was important for the party to unite behind a candidate and get Obama, who earlier in the day John Bolton called the “first post-American President”, out of the White House.

Daniel Hannan warns America not to follow Europe down a path and off a cliff

Hannan also urged me to write that the GOP must stop having so many debates, as it is only serving to divide the party. He also said Republicans need to focus on the budget, not all the side issues that divide conservatives. With that he headed for the airport, though many didn’t want him to leave and asked if he could be made an honorary American instead.

This has been an important few days for conservatives, and may finally signal the road to unity. Romney should start to pull firmly into the lead, and though Santorum and Gingrich will no doubt continue, they will see their numbers dwindle.

The New York Times carried a report ahead of Sarah Palin’s speech that she didn’t think a brokered RNC would be a problem. This is just a liberal wet dream. The reality is, Sarah Palin has signalled this important moment, and shown that there is less stomach for infighting.

I picked up my media credentials on Thursday at CPAC fearful of a divided party that would succeed only in rolling out the red carpet for President Obama. After three days, I happily left making my way through the handful of sorry-looking OWS protesters feeling that I can see November from here.

The GOP Debate Disconnect

Moments ago, the Republican candidates finished yet another debate.  This time, CNN and the TEA Party Express were the odd couple sponsors.  Blitzer was in liberal heaven, getting every question the left wanted the candidates to quarrel about on the record.  But there were some very bright spots, which brings us to our debate winner:

I call Newt as winner

Newt Gingrich.  The GOP debate disconnect seems to be how Newt consistently delivers stellar debate performances, and in fact directs the flow of the debate away from where the moderators want to go, and yet continues to flounder in the polls.  Other candidates were taking their cues from Newt, and Newt was again successfully making the case that every candidate on that stage was better than Obama.  At the same time, he was showing why at least in debates, he is the best candidate on the stage.  Newt hit a couple home runs.  The first was in the Social Security squabble between Perry and Romney where Newt reminded us that it was Barack Obama who threatened twice to cancel Social Security checks if Republicans didn’t vote for his liberal budget policies.  Gingrich’s second big home run came again when other candidates were arguing about job growth.  Newt pointed out that Americans create jobs, not government.  He then gave credit to other candidates for what they did to create job growth, but ultimately gave the credit to the American people.  Lastly, on green energy tax loopholes for GE, Newt destroyed Obama’s attacks on the oil industry.  Newt showed that he is the smartest and most studied candidate on the stage.  When asked about whether he would compromise with Democrats in power, his answer was perfect.  Whether or not that reflects in the polls will be seen.

Michele Bachmann was on the attack, but her strikes were good conservative strikes and they hit their

Bachmann had a good showing

targets.  Bachmann came across as the conservative constitutionalist on the stage with a balanced approach to getting our nation back to the constitution.  Her strikes landed on Perry with Social Security, and the HPV vaccinations, she struck Romney on the constitutionality of his healthcare plan, and she landed shots on Perry and Huntsman for their help to illegal aliens.  She did not come across as someone struggling to take down the frontrunners ahead of her, but more like a principled conservative attacking the liberal tendencies of her opponents.  And no one hit her back on anything.

In this debate, Santorum finished a solid third place.  I had a feeling Santorum would do well with the TEA Party audience.  He looked far more relaxed and in control than in the last debate.  He maintained his conservative credentials, but introduced a new element: how he won multiple times in a blue state.  He also was able to identify himself with some of Gingrich’s success.  Santorum hit hard on Perry’s HPV issue and delivered a deadly blow on it.  Santorum and Bachmann are key elements in where I score Perry tonight, and both walked away unscathed.

Mitt Romney took some tough shots.  But despite the tough shots, he continued to show class and to handle attacks.  He was hit hard on Social Security, and in fact his position on Social Security was easily exploitable in front of this TEA Party audience.  Overall, he did a good job at taking some clean shots and his seven things we need to do to fix the economy and budget were spot on.  Romney fell into the expected trap and tangled with Perry too much on Social Security, and Romney’s support for Federal Social Security won’t win him TEA party support.

Herman Cain did a good job, but he continues to look amateurish compared to some of the more experienced heavy hitters.  Cain did well to expound on his 999 plan this time around, and he picked up the Perry/Romney social security fumble and ran it back for a touchdown.  But other than that his performance was unremarkable.  When Newt talked about private accounts for Social Security, he connected far better than Cain’s repeating of Neal Boortz talking points on Chile and Galveston.

Perry took it on the chin

Rick Perry took another beating, and this was a good one.  On social security, HPV and illegal immigration, Perry seemed to slip into his deer in the headlights slo-mo’ mode.  Perry’s argument that his state’s version of the dream act for illegal aliens was somehow a states rights issue was off-base and will not sit well with the TEA party.  Santorum and Bachmann nailed him on HPV and that one will stick.  At the same time, Perry’s role as the attack dog against Romney has soured this race somewhat.  Perry looked kind of amused/detached for a good part of the debate.  That mixed with his slow, Texan accent will remind some voters of a previous Texas Republican Presidential candidate, however unfair that comparison may be.

Ron Paul redeemed himself somewhat from his last debate performance.  However, his dodge on the Medicare Part D question may spark some serious questions that have been lingering in the darkest cellars about Ron Paul.  Is he as much of a purist as he seems?  Instead of quickly putting Medicare Part D on the chopping block, Paul kind of hemmed and hawed about other programs that should be cut first, including his biggest applause getters of the wars, the department of education, etc.  Paul, who is normally eager to take on unconstitutional spending programs, seemed to give an “if I get to it” response on Medicare Part D, which was one of the biggest social spending programs under George W. Bush.

Jon Huntsman just has nothing left in the tank.  His good answers were echoes of other candidates, and his bad answers were echoes of Barack Obama.  His Kurt Cobain joke fell completely flat.  His tax plan sounds exactly like Obama’s.  His stance on illegal immigration was wrong.  His Afghanistan rhetoric was meant to sound like the Afghan people needed to take more responsibility, but instead came across like America just wasn’t strong enough to fight anymore.  The best thing that happened to Huntsman tonight was no one asked him about global warming.

If debates drove polls, Newt Gingrich would be the front runner after tonight.  How Perry remains such a strong front runner with debate performances like these speaks to his clout and ability to run a public campaign away from the debate stage.

Emily’s Little List Sets Woman Back Decades

Bookmark and Share    It’s pathetic.

These days no matter what Sarah Palin does, the left just refuses to give her credit.  Take the leftwing femi-Nazi movement.

For them it is great to be a strong, independent woman with an opinion, so long as that opinion is in sync with theirs. But demonstrate that you can break away from their groupthink mentality and stereotypes and right away, you’re ostracized and demonized.

When David Letterman went beyond Sarah Palin and crudely made a joke about a baseball player molesting her daughter in the dugout, not a single feminist group said a word. In fact they all laughed. Yet when in 1984 when then Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush was overheard saying to someone that  “we kicked a little butt last night” in reference to his Vice Presidential debate with Geraldine Ferraro, women’s groups were practically throwing their burning bras at the Vice President for his remark. For days there was nothing else heard about accept for what the femi-Nazi’s were calling the Vice President’s sexist remarks.

And when a group of liberal women come out with a list of other liberal women candidates that they want to endorse and support with financial contributions, that is noble and righteous. But when Sarah Palin wants to do the same thing for conservatives and conservative women, that is something to be “rejected”.

This typically hypocritical conduct of the left and their feminist wing, reached a new height when Emily’s List, a group of liberal women who endorse other liberal women, decided to attack Sarah Palin for her endorsements of conservative women.

According to Emily’s List;

“We call upon women — and men! — to let their voices be heard and to reject Palin’s reactionary candidates and backward-looking agenda. We’re asking Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans who have no home — to join us in our new campaign, Sarah Doesn’t Speak for Me.”

Instead of using their resources to support their fellow liberal feminists, the group invested their time and money into even creating a website for their new anti-Palin campaign. According to Jes McIntosh of EMILY’s List, the new campaign and website called “Sarah Doesn’t Speak For Me” was created because;

“We wanted to respond to Sarah Palin and her candidates’ assertions that they were speaking for all women with a community of women who are speaking for themselves,”

On the site you will find one of the most asinine and embarrassingly vindictive videos imaginable.  It is complete with tired old liberal cliché, after cliché, and in my opinion sets the feminist movement back twenty years by essentially producing what looks like a “cat fight” that plays right into the hands of those who try to project women as being stereotypically “catty”.

I thought the woman’s movement and Emily’s List was suppose to portray women in a positive light, not in the stereotypical light that the feminist movement tries to counter so much?

And insofar as the claim that Sarah doesn’t speak for women,….. ahem,…… excuse me,  but does Emily’s little list actually believe that Barbara Boxer, whom they endorse with pride, represents the views of most women? Most women that I know, do not support abortion being used as a form of birth control or believe that abortions should be so readily available and that their underage daughters should be able to have as many of them as they want and performed by any disreputable doctor or their assistant.

Most women that I know don’t control their purse strings with endless federal spending binges that approve spending money on anything that their friends propose.

What this new Emily’s List campaign is actually trying to say is that conservative women should have no say on the issues of the day and that is a message that I believe is contrary to the feminist cause. It is also a shameful one. But all in all, I for one do not mind this latest campaign. While Sarah is out their raising money for candidates in the midterm elections who reflect conservative views of personal and fiscal responsibility, Emily’s List is dumping their time, money and resources into campaigning against Sarah Palin who is not running for anything in 2010.

The situation begs the question, which women are smarter? The women of Emily’s List who are fixated with smearing a conservative woman for her success and strength or Sarah Palin who is using her strength to elect conservatives of both genders?

All in all, this new campaign against Sarah Palin is a good thing. While the women of emily’s list continue to portray themselves as political victims in society, there anti-Palin campaign helps point out just how hypocritical the left and the feminist movement are.  This  only helps to portray Sarah as a strong woman, who thinks for herself and does more for advancing the causes she and candidates that she believes in , than does an entire group of catty, stereotypical women who are so threatened by a difference of opinion that they would throw one of their own under the bus and set their own feminist movement back a few decades.

Way to go Emily’s List or should I say……way to go Sarah!!!!

Bookmark and Share
%d bloggers like this: