The "Palinization" of Paul Ryan Begins

Wait for it...

Before Mitt Romney even made the official announcement that Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan would be his pick for vice president, the mere speculation was enough to fire up the Liberal punditry and begin the assault. Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker  filed the first attack piece just hours before the news was known, and the hypocrisy of it was instantly apparent.

In the opening paragraph of his piece, Lizza speculates that if the pick is Ryan, Romney will have "made the most daring decision of his political career." Lizza's reason is because he believes that there are many "risks" in a Ryan pick, the most ominous of which is what Lizza cites as Ryan's lack of "significant private-sector experience". (Sarah Palin redux, anyone?).

Lizza sniffs that Ryan's jobs at McDonalds, the family construction business or "waiting tables as a young Washington staffer" are meaningless, as private sector experience goes. He even "worries" aloud that Ryan is a comparable light-weight for the business-savvy Romney. But then Lizza doubles down on absurdity when he also complains of the lightness of Paul Ryan's Washington experience.

As I read the piece, I immediately thought of the comparisons to then-senator Obama in 2008 and his own qualifications to be president of the United States. Obama never had any job, not even at McDonalds, and he was running for POTUS after only 143 days as a U.S. senator. Ryan has been in Congress for fourteen years. Naturally, I wondered how Mr. Ryan Lizza felt about the chances of an even lighter Barack Hussein Obama in 2008.

It didn't take long to find out. I found an article by Lizza  in The New Yorker from July 21, 2008 in which the author took fifteen pages to gush about the rising star of Barack Hussein Obama. Throughout the entire article there is not one bit of evidence that Lizza was concerned over the lack of experience in the candidate to actually become president, yet now he frets that Ryan lacks the experience to be a "potential president". The reasoning behind the absence of Lizza's concern in 2008 is stunning:

Pritzker, whose family, one of the wealthiest in Chicago, owns the Hyatt hotel chain, was as crucial to Obama’s next campaign as Toni Preckwinkle’s was to his first. “We were talking about whether he was ready to do this or not,” Pritzker told me. She was blunt, telling Obama, “As I see it, the two things that you’re going to need to address are your executive leadership skills, because your résumé doesn’t have that in it, and the second would be your credentials in national security.” Obama returned with an organizational chart indicating how the campaign would be structured—one of his great tactical advantages over the disorganized Clinton campaign—along with a list of advisers. Pritzker agreed to become his finance chair. 

That "Pritzker agreed to become his finance chair" after her concerns over Obama's experience were apparently allayed by his production of an organizational chart seems to be good enough for Lizza. The hypocrisy is blinding.

This is only the beginning, too, and we can expect to see the mainstream media throw all they've got at Paul Ryan in the coming months. How fortunate for them this time that they only have to travel to Wisconsin for their dumpster-diving forays, instead of trekking all the way up to Alaska.

Hey, maybe they'll even find an old picture of Paul Ryan shooting a moose!

Sphere: Related Content

A Meandering Musing

Normally my MO is to pick a subject and write about it, offering all of the information I have managed to find on the subject while adding my own opinions into the mix. Today, I want to touch on a variety of subjects -- all politically oriented, of course -- simply because there is too much happening too fast with which to keep up.

Sarah on the Loose

I'll begin with Sarah Palin's decision not to enter the presidential race, a decision that apparently has many of her fans disappointed. While I understand the sentiment, I happen to agree with her choice and the reasons for it, for it was the one I personally hoped she would make.

Based on her performance as Governor of Alaska, I have no doubt she would have made an excellent president, but I believe that she is correct in her own assessment of her effectiveness on the "free range", so to speak. Left unencumbered by the pomp and protocol of the office, Sarah can be a fierce advocate for the principles we hold dear, and a potent champion for those who seek office to that end.

She has a huge following that she will now be free to remain connected without the hindrance of being "president of all the people", not that that has proved much of a deterrent to the current occupant of the Oval Office. To that end, I would hope that all of those who have expressed dismay over her decision not to run will not shun her now out of some feeling of abandonment. Sarah hasn't abandoned you, she has ensured her best chance to fight your battles. Here is the audio of her decision as told to Mark Levin.

Morgan Freeman Broke My Heart

Next up is Morgan Freeman, who cut me to the quick with his recent comments on the Piers Morgan show. To me, Morgan Freeman was one of those beautiful actors who remained above the political fray and, more importantly, out of the racial divide. He is a fabulous actor, of that there is no question, and part of his personal appeal was that one never knew his ideological proclivities.

In all the years I have watched his work, he could have either been a flaming Liberal or a hardcore Conservative. It never mattered much because he never let on, and no one ever asked. And he never appeared to let race impede him. Then he gets on the show and denigrates the entire right of the political spectrum as racists, and he broke my heart. I was heartened, then, to learn that Ali Akbar, a 26-year-old TEA Party organizer, invited Morgan Freeman to meet in Tennessee, in a letter that can be seen here. As far as I'm aware, there has been no response from the actor.

The main crux of Freeman's accusation is that the TEA Party has one goal; to get "this black man out of here", referring to Obama and the White House, respectively. I wonder how Mr. Freeman -- and apparently Samuel L. Jackson has joined the chorus now -- would reconcile the fact that one of the people the TEA Party would love see "this black man" replaced with is...Herman Cain. Truly perplexing.

A TEA Party Hopeful

Herman Cain is a clear TEA Party favorite who has managed in a few short weeks to change my entire perspective on political possibilities. From the moment I was "introduced" to the man, I liked him and his message, but the practical half of my brain had no choice but to dismiss him as a candidate without a prayer. Since only three U.S. Senators have ever been elected President, and no one has ever been elected straight from the House, what chance could even the most qualified and charismatic person have of attaining the Oval Office with virtually no political background?

Then Cain kept pressing ahead, performed well in debates, and won the Florida Straw Poll. Still, I felt it was a momentary glimpse of a very brief glory for a fine man who nonetheless was tilting at windmills while destined to suffer a bitter disappointment in the end. As it turns out, Herman Cain is not accustomed to brief success, nor ever content to rest on his laurels. This man has the practical half of my brain ceding territory to cautious hope. Part of that hope is that this condition spreads amongst the electorate, for it is we who ultimately decide who is president, not the pundits who try to steer our choice.

As President Obama stokes the Occupy Wall Street protests with his class warfare rhetoric, Herman Cain offers those misguided kids some tough love, telling them to blame themselves if they are poor and unemployed. Imagine that...a self-made Black man telling a bunch of privileged white kids to get off their asses and better themselves. Compare that image to a carefully cultivated Black president who incites those same kids to riot against the "wealthy".

So I am sorry to disappoint Morgan Freeman, but the main goal of the TEA Party is not to get a black guy out of the White House simply because he's Black. The goal is to replace him with perhaps another Black man who can restore the people's faith in America and the abilities of the individual as opposed to the current preaching of the futility of life without dependence on the Government.

Sphere: Related Content

It Must Be a Bad Dream

Just a Bad Dream

Since the Democrats reclaimed Congress in 2006, reality has taken a beating, and the truth has been as hard to find as an honest politician. The media - print, audio and video - split into bitterly opposed camps, and veracity slipped into a coma. Once Barack Obama completed the Democratic triad, someone pulled the plug, and probity passed into the Great bye and bye.

I'm reminded of Dallas, a prime time soap opera - conceived in the '70's, and launched in 1978 - about a Texas oil family. Patrick Duffy played the role of Bobby Ewing, the younger brother of J.R, played by Larry Hagman.

In the 85-86 season, Duffy decided to leave, and the producers killed off the Bobby Ewing character. The remainder of the season centered on his grieving wife Pamela (Victoria Principal), woven into the other plot lines. Ratings dropped off because Duffy's was a popular character plot, his marriage to a daughter of the Ewing family's arch rival mirroring Shakespeare's Montague-Capulet tragedy. The producers had to bring Duffy back.

In a move that drew disbelieving howls from fans - even those who were Duffy's biggest fans - the show opened the 86-87 season with the scene where Pamela Ewing awakened to the sound of Bobby in the shower. The entire previous season, in which Bobby died, was just a bad dream. I was not a big fan of the show, but its influence was inescapable at the time. Everyone talked about it on the job, and I found myself incredulous at the move, as well.

Now? Now, since 2009, when major news organizations such as ABC News have succumbed to the charms of Obama, I find myself praying that the past two years have been a bad dream. I hope to awake one morning to the sound of George W. Bush in the shower, figuratively speaking of course. The reason for this is the latest piece on an ABC News blog titled The Note.

Written by Michael Falcone and Amy Walter, the piece titled Obama, Palin And Arizona: A Tale Of Two Speeches briefly mentions Obama's speech in Arizona about the tragic shooting there over the past weekend. The rest is a whining complaint about Sarah Palin and her gall in hitting back at the ridiculous claims that she bears some culpability in that shooting. At the end of this pathetic tag-team rant, the duo offers a summary subtitled The Bottom Line, in which they make the most absurd assertion imaginable.

Their conclusion begins thus:

Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story. And she may well face further criticism for the timing and scope of her remarks.

That one nearly had my brain banging against the inside of my skull as a result of the involuntary and vigorous head shake that ensued. I believe I may also have alarmed my wife with a barely audible shout of "WHAT?!?"

Before the shooter in Arizona was even identified, commentators were dragging Palin and others into the story, blaming them while agonizing over some desperate motive for the actual perpetrator, seeking to portray him as a victim of an ideology opposed to their own. To now suggest that Sarah Palin had somehow thrust herself into the middle of this - when she was probably shooting her TV show from Alaska - is somewhat akin to blaming a bear for getting caught in the trap that you set.

Ah, Sarah would get the reference. Meanwhile, I just want to wake up in the real world, if it still exists.

Sphere: Related Content

Gingrich "Gripping & Grinning"

As much as I've always liked Newt Gingrich, there was a time - 2008, for example - when even I realized that he was perhaps too toxic to be a candidate for president. Still saddled unfairly with the false stigma of wanting to "kill Medicare", it seemed that Newt would have been a drag on the Republican party's chances of succeeding George W. Bush.

At the time, I never imagined that John McCain would win the nomination, but even then it seemed more unimaginable that Barack Whatshisname had a prayer of becoming president at all. With a past shrouded in mystery, what little we did know about Obama suggested no acumen or experience that would guide him to the Oval Office. Well, look at us now.

The man running our country seems hell-bent on our demise - barely concealing the contempt that half us knew was there prior to his election - and yet enjoying adulation in lieu of scrutiny from the press. The few organizations and individuals that actually sound the alarm bells are cast as dangerous heathens, the serious message dismissed out of hand.

Thankfully the ranks of the dismayed have expanded well beyond talk radio hosts and Internet news outlets, spawning the Tea Party movement and, now, emboldening potential 2012 contenders to speak up. Heaven knows our current Republican representatives have been more than timid in their opposition to the Obama, Reid and Pelosi agenda.

With Obama spearheading the radical transformation of America, he immediately set out to create the impression that this nation is just like any other, no better and no worse, which is undoubtedly how he and his wife have viewed it. His early Forgive Us Our Trespasses tour, in which he winged around the world in order to apologize and bow to foreign leaders, was the beginning.

He then accelerated an insane spending spree, the likes of which are unprecedented, and perpetrated a government takeover of private businesses. His economic policies have stifled job growth, he has raised taxes, broken promises, and quarterbacked a hurry-up offense in legislation, all the while claiming to be doing "the peoples' work" despite the fact that more than half of the people kept shouting "NO!" and "STOP!".

He has coddled our enemies while alienating our allies, ignoring the taunts of North Korea and Iran while chastising and ostracizing Israel and Great Britain. His treatment of his counterparts has been an embarrassment, to put it mildly, and would be laughable if they weren't so sad.

Now he has ordered the term "Islamic jihad" removed from threat assessments, telegraphed our intent to remain passive when attacked, and cavalierly announced that we'll be severely reducing our defense capabilities. Apparently he sees no threats from without, but seems more than eager to attack as potentially dangerous the Tea Parties and Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. History has shown that tyrants typically engage their critics on such a personal and intimate level.

So it is with pleasure that I now see Newt Gingrich dipping his toes in the campaign waters in New Orleans. If ever the time was right for a serious contender in 2012, it is now. Perhaps Newt knew this in 2008 as well, although I'd wager he never expected the need now to be as crucial as it is.

There is already speculation of a Gingrich/Palin ticket emerging in the near future. Sarah would need some heavy exposure as a competent leader as governor of Alaska, and it's doubtful the New York Times or Newsweek would offer any help; or truth.

But Gingrich, along with whomever should be his running mate, is emerging as the right man at the right time. Whatever toxicity there may have been has dissipated. Combined with the obvious disaster that has been inflicted upon us, the triad of Obama, Reid and Pelosi has infuriated so many people that whatever attacks they may level at Gingrich leading up to 2012 will likely be largely ineffective.

There is also the great possibility that Obama will be damaged beyond repair when forced to deal with a hostile Congress for the last two years of his reign. Newt, I hope you hear us. We need you desperately.

Sphere: Related Content

Silent Screams

I have long been loathe to stray too far from the Republican party in support of a third party candidate simply because of the prospect of spoiling any chance of unseating a Democrat. Ross Perot comes to mind for he was instrumental in giving us President Bill Clinton. My mind is slowly changing, however, as I come to realize that the party to which I have been a lifelong member has demonstrated lately that it is not all that different from the Democrat party, it is only a different hue.

This was in evidence in New York's 23rd Congressional district on Saturday when Republican Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the race with Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative party member Doug Hoffman. On Sunday, rather than embracing Hoffman, she threw her support to the Democrat Owens, betraying the Conservative wing of the Republican party and revealing that she was a liberal RINO who would have done us no good at all had she stayed in and won. Since Sunday, Hoffman - a third party candidate - has surged in the polls.

Politico is also reporting that this is not an isolated movement, as Conservatives are lining up even now in preparation for 2010, and plan to challenge Republican incumbents and candidates alike. Dick Armey, chairman of FreedomWorks, an organization that has been closely aligned with the tea party movement, refers to it as the "tip of the spear". While developing inroads into national politics is most definitely an uphill battle, it is not only possible but, as we're seeing of late, more likely by the day.

The reasons are plain to see. There are many amongst the Republican party who yearn for a return to Conservative ideals for the brand, keeping the party alive while transforming it back to the days of Reagan. But with betrayal after betrayal, such as those of Arlen Specter and Dede Scozzafava, no assurances will any longer suffice. If the mere threat of a serious challenge by Conservatives appears to alter the current course of the Republicans, what guarantees do we have that, once elected, they won't revert back to their liberal ways?

We allowed the left to basically thrust John McCain upon us, thus ensuring the election of the most radical person ever to occupy the White House. After ten months on the job, the only positive Obama has produced is the tardy fervor of ordinary Americans, once reticent to mobilize, to suddenly become a genuine force to be reckoned with, as evidenced by the spate of Town Hall meetings last summer. Certainly it was Democrats who bore the brunt of America's fury but Republicans couldn't possibly ignore it.

But they did, and they continue to ignore it at their own peril. Third party candidates historically have come to the fight naked and alone, offering little challenge and receiving nothing but scorn. Now they lead an army of angry citizens disgusted with the state of our nation and frustrated at their once silent screams; legions of people infuriated at Congress for their refusal to obey the halt order. As we demand that they leave our health care alone, they plow ahead defiantly, not forgetting but arrogantly denying that they work for us.

Well, it is no longer party time. The party is over, but we'll leave the lights on so that a brave new wave of true representatives can see the mess they will have to clean up without tripping over the debris. And the debris is strewn across the nation as the wreckage of a mid-flight explosion of an airliner, on a much grander scale.

Through their obsequious manner - even when they controlled Congress - the Republicans have abandoned us and the nation, paving the way for every imaginable fetish to be normalized. Now these once deviant thoughts and lifestyles are no longer normal, they are preferential in the eyes of government. What was once unspeakable is now portrayed as mainstream, and those who oppose it are the weird ones. How in God's name did we get to this point?

Forty years ago it would have been political suicide to publicly revere someone like Mao Tse Tung, but now a White House official speaks loving of the monster and those who gasp at such a thing are considered the kooks. It is quite astounding.

The only alternative left is to shun both parties and start from scratch. This is as good a time as any to start.

Sphere: Related Content

What Does Sarah Have Up Her Sleeve?

CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE II EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 8. Powers of Governor as commander-in-chief of land and naval forces of State.
The Governor shall be the Commander in Chief of the land and naval forces of the State; and may call out the militia to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and enforce the execution of the Laws; but shall not take the command in person, without the consent of the Legislature.

How much foreign policy experience does Sarah Palin really have? Aside from cute Tina Fey jokes - "I can see Russia from my house!" - how much does Alaska's proximity to Russia and her being Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard matter? While we all sleep snug in our beds at night, probably more than you'd care to know.


Fort Greely in Alaska has eleven ground-based interceptor missiles buried in underground silos that represent a key part of a multi-layered defense system designed to protect the United States from a ballistic missile attack. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It's on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units. Governor Sarah Palin is the Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard.

According to a website called Blackfive, Palin may be better qualified than Biden in matters of foreign policy:

As governor of Alaska, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden's.

She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans.

Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska's proximity to Russia, she may have security clearances we don't even know about.

Don't let that cute face fool you. It just may well be that Palin and the McCain Campaign have a devastating sandbag prepared for the vice presidential debates. One other point worth noting, also from the Blackfive site; According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets.

We'll have to wait until Thursday to see how many she can use in the debate.

Sphere: Related Content

More Signs Of The Rope-A-Dope

Sarah Palin Being Rolled Out



When fishing, especially for the big ones, the tried and true tactic after hooking one is to let the fish take the line and run; let it think it may win for a short time while it swims frantically and then jerk the line once more and start reeling it in. It will still flail about in vain, tiring itself out even more as you bring it closer to the boat. Then rinse and repeat, until you have achieved victory.

Muhammad Ali had another term for the tactic; The Rope-A-Dope. In both cases the idea is to trick your enemy into a false sense of easy and impending victory while causing him to expend vast amounts of energy on a fruitless pursuit. Give him a little of what he wants until he feels over-confident and then put him away.

The McCain campaign gave the public a taste of Sarah Palin and they loved her. At least those inclined to love her, did. The other side, not so much. They pounced almost at once and began demanding more of her, and right away. When the campaign implied that she'd be unavailable for a short spell the line was set, the fish hooked, and it began taking line. Bloggers and main stream media outlets alike began asking why she was unable to face scrutiny. Just when the media they thought they'd burst from self-righteous indignation, the campaign announced that Palin would be more than available, for two days worth, and this week.

Charles Gibson of ABC News will have all the access he, or anyone else questioning her "seclusion", could have asked for, and they will then see that "the Barracuda" can also hold a fishing rod.

According to The Politico:

Campaign aides said the anchorman will get extensive, repeated access to Palin throughout her first trip home since becoming the nominee.
“ABC News will have plenty of time to question her and examine her and spend time with her,” a campaign official said. “They’ll do multiple interviews over two days. No topics are off-limits – there are no ground rules. There’s tons of time to talk to her about every topic.”

That doesn't sound like a candidate being sequestered. It sounds like a candidate about to lay a smack down on her critics. As the old axiom goes: "Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it". Or, as George W. Bush might say, "Never misunderestimate your opponent".

Sphere: Related Content