You Are Invited-RNC Chair DC EVENT
PLEASE SHOW UP AND SUPPORT YOUR CANDIDATE FOR RNC CHAIR!
If you care about who the next RNC Chair is come to this free event in DC and out ask the candidates questions.
Event Info Host: Americans for Tax Reform
Type: Meetings - Club/Group Meeting
Network: Global
Time and Place Date: Monday, January 5, 2009
Time: 12:00pm - 2:30pm
Location: National Press Club - 13th Floor - Ballroom
Street: 529 14th St. NW
City/Town: Washington, DC
Simply RSVP to debate@atr.org.
Description
I would like for you to join me Monday, January 5th at 12:00pm at the National Press Club for a RNC Candidates Forum.
The event is being hosted by Americans for Tax Reform. The debate is open to all supporters. Simply RSVP to debate@atr.org.
They are also allowing people to submit questions -- go to www.RNCdebate.org.
For those of you that cannot attend, the forum will be on C-SPAN and streamed live at www.RNCdebate.org.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Happy New Year Gov. Paterson
Y Democratic advisers talk up 'caretaker' senator
By MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Writer
54 mins ago
ALBANY, N.Y. – Sen. Bill Clinton? Sen. Mario Cuomo? Don't completely rule it out. The former president and the former New York governor are among several boldface names being touted as possible "caretakers" for New York's Senate seat — people who would serve until the 2010 elections but wouldn't be interested in running to keep the job. As the process of picking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's replacement gets messier, the option may become increasingly attractive to Gov. David Paterson, who has sole authority to name a successor.
A spokesman for Bill Clinton, Matt McKenna, said Wednesday that the former chief executive isn't interested in the job and plans to continue the work of his foundation. Cuomo declined through a spokesman to discuss the Senate seat.
A big name could have an immediate impact for New York in the Senate while letting the large field of hopefuls duke it out in 2010, according to three Democratic Party advisers in New York and Washington who are close to the discussion with Paterson's inner circle on this issue. Two others in the party confirmed that Paterson is still considering the caretaker option. The advisers spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to comment. "You could find a very senior person who could serve New York well" on an interim basis, said Gerald Benjamin, a political scientist and dean at the State University of New York at New Paltz. "Then you can say to Caroline Kennedy, `You know, you'd make a good senator. Run for it.' And you can tell everyone else that it's a level playing field."
Paterson has made it clear in recent days that he's getting annoyed by the constant jockeying by supporters of high-powered hopefuls including Kennedy, half a dozen members of Congress and state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, son of the former governor. The candidates — especially Kennedy — have made daily headlines as Paterson tries to focus on a fiscal crisis of historic proportions, his first budget proposal and preparations for his first full legislative session as governor. He took office last spring after disgraced Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned.
The caretaker option was exercised last month by Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner, who picked a former aide to Vice President-elect Joe Biden to succeed him in the Senate until a new senator is elected in 2010. By then, Biden's son, state Attorney General Beau Biden, will have returned from a tour in Iraq with the National Guard — just in time to run for his father's seat.
A week ago, Paterson said he favored appointing a senator soon after Clinton is confirmed to start building seniority, and he ruled out an interim placeholder. Under state law, there will be an election to fill the last two years of Hillary Clinton's term in 2010 and another for a full six-year term in 2012.
The process, however, wasn't supposed to be a big distraction.
Some of the other names circulating as possible caretakers among party operatives include the state's retired top jurist, Judith Kaye, and former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, now president of the New School in New York City. Kaye declined through a spokesman Tuesday to discuss the Senate seat; Kerrey and Paterson did not respond to questions Tuesday and Wednesday.
Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College poll, said the caretaker option wouldn't surprise him. "To pick a caretaker is to say ... win it in the court of public opinion." An interim appointment also could sidestep an internal struggle in New York's Democratic Party. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver — the longest-serving and most powerful legislative leader in the state — has reservations about Kennedy, and Paterson needs Silver if he wants to battle powerful labor interests to turn around the state's fiscal problems.
But Kennedy's supporters include New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent who is another important ally for Paterson. Meanwhile, the handicapping continues about the prospects of some of the lesser-known contenders. Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York City, who is known as a tenacious legislator, has been endorsed by three women's advocacy groups: the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and the National Women's Political Caucus. Political observers say Paterson is under pressure to pick a woman because all the state's top leaders — except Clinton — are men.
In the political blog Connecting.the.dots, media critic and editor Robert Stein wrote Sunday that a caretaker would show that Paterson has the best interests of the state in mind during the fiscal crisis, while letting powerful political families fight it out in an election two years down the road. Doug Muzzio, professor of politics at Baruch College, isn't convinced.
"If in fact you are looking to appoint a senator who can be an effective advocate for the people of the state, those two years you can learn a lot and to give that up is problematic." But Muzzio also sees some benefit to Paterson in picking a caretaker.
"If he is feeling trapped about this Caroline Kennedy thing, this gives him, in a sense, a way out ... without naming someone else that would really anger the pro-Kennedy people," he said.
By MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Writer
54 mins ago
ALBANY, N.Y. – Sen. Bill Clinton? Sen. Mario Cuomo? Don't completely rule it out. The former president and the former New York governor are among several boldface names being touted as possible "caretakers" for New York's Senate seat — people who would serve until the 2010 elections but wouldn't be interested in running to keep the job. As the process of picking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's replacement gets messier, the option may become increasingly attractive to Gov. David Paterson, who has sole authority to name a successor.
A spokesman for Bill Clinton, Matt McKenna, said Wednesday that the former chief executive isn't interested in the job and plans to continue the work of his foundation. Cuomo declined through a spokesman to discuss the Senate seat.
A big name could have an immediate impact for New York in the Senate while letting the large field of hopefuls duke it out in 2010, according to three Democratic Party advisers in New York and Washington who are close to the discussion with Paterson's inner circle on this issue. Two others in the party confirmed that Paterson is still considering the caretaker option. The advisers spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to comment. "You could find a very senior person who could serve New York well" on an interim basis, said Gerald Benjamin, a political scientist and dean at the State University of New York at New Paltz. "Then you can say to Caroline Kennedy, `You know, you'd make a good senator. Run for it.' And you can tell everyone else that it's a level playing field."
Paterson has made it clear in recent days that he's getting annoyed by the constant jockeying by supporters of high-powered hopefuls including Kennedy, half a dozen members of Congress and state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, son of the former governor. The candidates — especially Kennedy — have made daily headlines as Paterson tries to focus on a fiscal crisis of historic proportions, his first budget proposal and preparations for his first full legislative session as governor. He took office last spring after disgraced Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned.
The caretaker option was exercised last month by Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner, who picked a former aide to Vice President-elect Joe Biden to succeed him in the Senate until a new senator is elected in 2010. By then, Biden's son, state Attorney General Beau Biden, will have returned from a tour in Iraq with the National Guard — just in time to run for his father's seat.
A week ago, Paterson said he favored appointing a senator soon after Clinton is confirmed to start building seniority, and he ruled out an interim placeholder. Under state law, there will be an election to fill the last two years of Hillary Clinton's term in 2010 and another for a full six-year term in 2012.
The process, however, wasn't supposed to be a big distraction.
Some of the other names circulating as possible caretakers among party operatives include the state's retired top jurist, Judith Kaye, and former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, now president of the New School in New York City. Kaye declined through a spokesman Tuesday to discuss the Senate seat; Kerrey and Paterson did not respond to questions Tuesday and Wednesday.
Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist College poll, said the caretaker option wouldn't surprise him. "To pick a caretaker is to say ... win it in the court of public opinion." An interim appointment also could sidestep an internal struggle in New York's Democratic Party. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver — the longest-serving and most powerful legislative leader in the state — has reservations about Kennedy, and Paterson needs Silver if he wants to battle powerful labor interests to turn around the state's fiscal problems.
But Kennedy's supporters include New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent who is another important ally for Paterson. Meanwhile, the handicapping continues about the prospects of some of the lesser-known contenders. Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York City, who is known as a tenacious legislator, has been endorsed by three women's advocacy groups: the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and the National Women's Political Caucus. Political observers say Paterson is under pressure to pick a woman because all the state's top leaders — except Clinton — are men.
In the political blog Connecting.the.dots, media critic and editor Robert Stein wrote Sunday that a caretaker would show that Paterson has the best interests of the state in mind during the fiscal crisis, while letting powerful political families fight it out in an election two years down the road. Doug Muzzio, professor of politics at Baruch College, isn't convinced.
"If in fact you are looking to appoint a senator who can be an effective advocate for the people of the state, those two years you can learn a lot and to give that up is problematic." But Muzzio also sees some benefit to Paterson in picking a caretaker.
"If he is feeling trapped about this Caroline Kennedy thing, this gives him, in a sense, a way out ... without naming someone else that would really anger the pro-Kennedy people," he said.
Sweet Caroline
Here are some interesting points regarding backlash...
Getting back to Caroline Kennedy, the advisor of one of Kennedy's main rivals for the post recently commented, "It's a tough thing, you can't run against the little girl at the funeral. If she wants it, I don't see how anyone will stop her." So, since Caroline Kennedy is President John Kennedy's daughter, the U.S. Senate seat from New York is hers for the taking. For the past years, Ms. Kennedy has written children's books and worked for charitable causes, while raising her family. All well and good. But does it mean she should coast into a U.S. Senate seat? Kennedy's qualifications - none. Media scrutiny - none. Political family connections - priceless.
The final decision is up to the Governor of New York, David Paterson. However, the scandal surrounding Obama's Senate seat and Governor Blagojevich' attempts to sell it may actually help Kennedy. If Governor Paterson picks Kennedy to fill Clinton's vacancy, he will spare himself any allegations that he's been bought off. Insiders are saying the Kennedy pick can help both Paterson (who's got issues of his own with state budget problems and a shaky political future at this point) and Barack Obama. Kennedy campaigned for Obama, and everyone knows who she is. She would have easy access to the President-Elect.
So all is well and good. People love the Kennedy's. And there would be the added "Camelot" connection that Obama has so aspired to. Only thing is, in addition to Obama, the American people once again may be getting another politician in office who knows nothing about the job. And what about the hypocrisy? Imagine if this were a Republican Senate Seat up for grabs and one of George Bush's daughters wanted it. There is little doubt that the mainstream media would blow a gasket. They'd be outraged. We'd hear all about the arrogance! the lack of experience! How could a Bush daughter expect to be handed a seat in the U.S. Senate?!? How in the world is she qualified to be a U.S. Senator!?! Yet, isn't that what is going on here?
And the mainstream media will let this fact slide because Caroline Kennedy is a Democrat!....or a Kennedy!.....or a Democrat AND a Kennedy!!!
Getting back to Caroline Kennedy, the advisor of one of Kennedy's main rivals for the post recently commented, "It's a tough thing, you can't run against the little girl at the funeral. If she wants it, I don't see how anyone will stop her." So, since Caroline Kennedy is President John Kennedy's daughter, the U.S. Senate seat from New York is hers for the taking. For the past years, Ms. Kennedy has written children's books and worked for charitable causes, while raising her family. All well and good. But does it mean she should coast into a U.S. Senate seat? Kennedy's qualifications - none. Media scrutiny - none. Political family connections - priceless.
The final decision is up to the Governor of New York, David Paterson. However, the scandal surrounding Obama's Senate seat and Governor Blagojevich' attempts to sell it may actually help Kennedy. If Governor Paterson picks Kennedy to fill Clinton's vacancy, he will spare himself any allegations that he's been bought off. Insiders are saying the Kennedy pick can help both Paterson (who's got issues of his own with state budget problems and a shaky political future at this point) and Barack Obama. Kennedy campaigned for Obama, and everyone knows who she is. She would have easy access to the President-Elect.
So all is well and good. People love the Kennedy's. And there would be the added "Camelot" connection that Obama has so aspired to. Only thing is, in addition to Obama, the American people once again may be getting another politician in office who knows nothing about the job. And what about the hypocrisy? Imagine if this were a Republican Senate Seat up for grabs and one of George Bush's daughters wanted it. There is little doubt that the mainstream media would blow a gasket. They'd be outraged. We'd hear all about the arrogance! the lack of experience! How could a Bush daughter expect to be handed a seat in the U.S. Senate?!? How in the world is she qualified to be a U.S. Senator!?! Yet, isn't that what is going on here?
And the mainstream media will let this fact slide because Caroline Kennedy is a Democrat!....or a Kennedy!.....or a Democrat AND a Kennedy!!!
Monday, December 29, 2008
Bristol's A Mommy!
Congrats to BRISTOL & SARAH PALIN & THE PALIN FAMILY!
Bristol gave birth to Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston 7lb 4oz!
According to People.com.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Bleeding Heart Tightwads!
NYTs Op Ed
Nicholas D. Kristof writes:
This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.
“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”
Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.
Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.
(Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays. Researchers believe that is because they are less likely to have rapacious heirs pushing to keep wealth in the family.)
When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.
It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.
According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.
In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)
Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.
Of course, given the economic pinch these days, charity isn’t on the top of anyone’s agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.
So, even in tough times, there are ways to help. Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are.
Nicholas D. Kristof writes:
This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.
“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”
Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.
Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.
(Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays. Researchers believe that is because they are less likely to have rapacious heirs pushing to keep wealth in the family.)
When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.
It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.
According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.
In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)
Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.
Of course, given the economic pinch these days, charity isn’t on the top of anyone’s agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.
So, even in tough times, there are ways to help. Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are.
Monday, December 22, 2008
PC Christmas Cards
h/t smartgirlpolitics.ning.com member
For My Democratic Friends and Family:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to observe religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the generally accepted calendar year 2009, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures.
For My Republican Friends and Family:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and may God bless you and yours in 2009!
HO! HO! HO!
For My Democratic Friends and Family:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to observe religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the generally accepted calendar year 2009, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures.
For My Republican Friends and Family:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and may God bless you and yours in 2009!
HO! HO! HO!
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Hannah's Story: Worthwhile Reading
Hannah is 4 yrs old and was diagnosed in late October 2008 with a rare and aggressive cancerous brain tumor called glioblastoma multiforme. To date (November 20) she has had 2 surgeries to remove the tumors. She is in therapy to work on her walking, which has been effected by the tumor. She has frequent headaches from the pressure on the brain. She is on steroids to help with the inflammation, which is causing her to gain weight rapidly. The doctors have given Hannah 2-3 months to live without treatment and approximately 11 months with radiation. She needs a miracle! Hannah's father's name is Darin and she has two older siblings - Brittany and Jordan. She has 3 sets of grandparents, 2 sets of great-grandparents and a large extended family and supportive church family. Her mother, Chris, passed away several years ago from cancer. Please pray for the family as they deal with cancer in the family once again.
Here is the unedited noted posted by a fellow blogger.. Thanks for praying for Hannah and adding her to your Christmas Card List:
I would not normally put this story on the front of the site, but this is a true story. It is a friend of one of my friends. Please help SGP make this little girl's Christmas wish come true.
Many of you may remember my dear friend, Chris Garman, who lost her battle with breast cancer 2 years ago. When she was first diagnosed with breast cancer, she was pregnant with her third child. Her doctors didn't think
Chris would live through her pregnancy without treatment, so they took a chance & gave her chemo while shewas pregnant. Chris survived her pregnancy & had a beautiful, healthy little girl named Hannah Faith.
Chris died when Hannah was three.
Hannah is now five, and this breaks my heart all over again, but In October, Hannah has been diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme, a rare and incurable brain tumor.
She was given about 12 weeks to live. She was going to be the flower girl in a wedding in May, but was diagnosed A week after she was asked.
Right now she has lost most of her motor skills. She is confined to bed
And cannot really do anything or play with the gifts she is getting from
people, but she LOVES getting cards - she has gotten so many from people she does not know and jus t loves to have grandma read about the people who send Them and see their pictures and is so proud of all her cards. Her room is just filled with cards.
When asked what she wants for Christmas she said she wants to see how
Many Christmas cards she can get. Many people have passed this wish along to their churches, prayer groups, friends and family. There are school groups where children are making her cards. People are including pictures so she can see who it i s that i s sending her the card.
If you would like to help with her wish, please send her a card at:
Hannah Garman
704 Orchard Rd
Lititz, PA 17543
THANKS! Feel free to pass this along to your own prayer group, church,
school, etc. Let's see if we can have the cards coming in big postal bags
for her this Christmas, since it will be her last holiday.
Please pray for her family. Her older brother & sister watched their mom go through This just two short years ago and now they are watching their baby sister.
P.S. You can also send my email to anyone you forward this to, if they
Have questions. sheripie@hotmail.com read more about Hannah, see pics, & stay updated on her progress at http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/hannahgarman
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Hating Palin: Words of Wisdom from Reagan
Hating Palin: Words of Wisdom from Reagan
By Dr. Paul Kengor
September 15, 2008
It has taken me a couple of weeks but I think I’ve finally gotten handle on why Sarah Palin’s bravado Republican convention speech was such a smash among conservatives: After nearly eight years of watching President George W. Bush curl up in the fetal position each time he was savaged by the angry left, it was positively invigorating to see a conservative Republican finally fight back—and with wit and charm. Palin was a throwback to Ronald Reagan, with that unique ability to deliver a memorable dig with a smile. She went on offense, entertainingly and engagingly so, and it was fun to watch.
At the same, Palin made herself prey for the secular left. They don’t like her. They despise her simply for what she represents. Her nice life of happy choices angers them. They are eager to destroy her. This gives the hard left pleasure, albeit only momentarily, as their restless hearts seek another void.
She will witness their hatred when she turns on the TV, picks up a newspaper, or walks by a magazine rack. What’s the solution to deal with their revulsion? Ignore it. It is what it is; always the same.
Turn off the TV: As George W. Bush told reporters in the early weeks of the invasion of Iraq: “I don’t have time to sit around watching TV.” Smart.
Don’t read the New York Times, which harbors the worst of prejudices: a concealed one. At least conservative talk-radio is open about its biases.
The one politician who had this ability more than any I’ve encountered was Ronald Reagan—a truly liberating quality for a conservative Republican. I could point to numerous examples, but here’s one of my favorites, shared by the late columnist Rowland Evans.
Evans was having lunch with Reagan in 1987, six years into his presidency, a milestone by which the previous five presidents had been defeated, resigned in disgrace, refused to consider reelection, or assassinated. Somehow, Reagan was shining through, making it look easy, and was enormously popular. Evans, a tough old newsman, was in awe. He looked Reagan in the eye and said, “You know, Mr. President, I’ve known you for more than twenty years. I first met you in 1966, and the amazing thing is that you don’t look any older now than you did back then. How do you do it?”
In response, Reagan offered a parable:
Let me explain it this way. Let me tell you the story of the two psychiatrists—the old psychiatrist and the young psychiatrist—who had a practice together. They’d come into their office every day just bubbling with enthusiasm, always happy, upbeat, smiling, and chipper. Then they’d go into their separate suites and have patients come in and lie on the couch all day and talk about the woes in their lives. At 6:00 p.m. they’d come out and the young psychiatrist would be devastated, wiped out by the day, with a stomachache, and just miserable. The old psychiatrist would be just as chipper and smiling and upbeat as he was when he went in that morning. This went on for a number of months.
Finally one day they came out at 6:00 p.m., the young psychiatrist devastated as usual, and the old psychiatrist just as happy and smiling as he was when went in. The young psychiatrist stopped him and said, “I don’t understand it. We do the same thing every day, and I leave wiped out by hearing patients all day, and you come out after patients have been streaming in and out of your office just as upbeat as ever. How do you do it?” The old psychiatrist paused a minute and said, “I never listen.”
Critics on the left would have uncharitably seized upon Reagan’s explanation as evidence of their demeaning assertion that he did not pay attention during White House meetings. Reagan, of course, did not intend the story that way, and would be unfazed by their insulting interpretation—which is precisely the point.
The parable contains a secret to Reagan’s content: When he was dubbed a warmonger and an idiot, blamed for everything from homelessness to AIDS, when it was asserted that he was engaging in an arms build-up not to draw the Soviets to the negotiating table but to launch nuclear war, when protestors staged “die-ins” dressed as mock coffins outside the White House, Reagan simply ignored them. When they screamed, he never listened.
Such accusations drove other men crazy. One president driven over the edge by the left’s rage was Richard Nixon. “Others may hate you,” said Nixon in his White House farewell, “but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.” Nixon let the hate of his enemies consume him, and then they won.
I sense that Sarah Palin understands these things.
Her virtues are destined to bring out the vices in her opponents. She loves, and they envy how she loves. She chooses life, and they assail her choice.
Her temperance and fortitude tempts their pride. Her faith, hope, and charity, inspires their disbelief, despair, and disdain. Her happiness fuels their anger.
Often, maintaining sanity and surviving means simply ignoring the haters. That’s where Ronald Reagan was before he stepped foot in the White House. And that’s a good place for a conservative Republican like Sarah Palin.
V & V
Please feel free to add yourself to our distribution list above if you haven't already done so. See the "send to a friend" option as well. If you are interested in learning about supporting the efforts of The Center for Vision & Values, please click here. Thank you.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include God and Ronald Reagan (HarperCollins, 2004), The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007), and The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (HarperPerennial, 2007).
Email This Page to a Friend
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Palin's Perspective on US and 2012
Finally! I am very pleased that Governor Palin is keeping the options open for her political career. It is important that she uses her influence to challenge Americans speak out and stand up for what we believe. It is awesome that she was able to weigh in on Obama's recent actions without our msm spin. Bravo to CTV for giving her nearly 10 minutes to share her perspective, particularly on 2012.
Even at the height of her political career, she shrugs off notions of 2012. Politics are "Not the be all end all" for me either Sarah, but thanks to you, I am motivated to use my influence to support my conservative values politically and publicly.
(especically if the POTUS office is slaughtered like the Chicago meat houses, er, political processes )
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Power vs Panic
My understanding of the blogosphere is slowly but surely expanding. I happened upon this good work from a blog that is relatively inactive but inspiring. The Power vs Panic narrative is compelling and prophetic because these images were posted in September and even with the outcome of this election, the reality of the seat of power is causing panic in the land.
Equally compelling are two of the most hilarious bloggers who creatively reminds us that, a Merry Heart Doeth Good Like A Medicine (Proverbs 17:22). The first can be found here and following video and others like it can be found here:
Bottom Line: Embrace YOUR power
Friday, December 5, 2008
Taking a Stand against Anti-Christmas
Below is an email I received on TeamSarah Kudos to all who are taking open steps to challenge (ultimately silence) foolishness.
Hey All,
I am just so excited. As you all may know there was an atheist group that placed a sign next to a nativity display in our state's {Washington} capitol. Well today, I learned that a very outspoken Pastor has place a sign exalting and uplifting our LORD and Savior. He seems to take on most of the craziness on this end alone and I am so glad to see him stepping out. I had tried to rally people to do the same but I don't care how things get done as long as they get done. But I am sure that this Pastor would appreciate knowing the his works are greatly appreciated and would also be blessed by words of encouragement.
I am asking you all to send an email to Pastor Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church to encourage him in his stand for Christ and just send him some Kudo's. His email address is:
info@abchurch.org
Thank you all,
Mary
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Deception + Manipulation – Political Expediency?
While my technical glitches were in high gear this past Sunday, I happened upon Hannity Hour. Rarely do I watch TV and when I do, news would not be among the shows I selected. Perhaps it was the panel (most likely it was the fact that my TV was not made with a remote-the channels actually are on a turn knob-while my 20 year old VCR changes the channels—it also does not use a remote) You understand why I let the channel remain.
To my surprise, the discussion was about whether BO’s broken promises were more about his political expediency or about his “sincere” attempts to govern from the center. The apples to oranges comparison aside, what difference does it make?? I was happy to hear someone besides we faithful bloggers bring up the Ayers debacle, to which all of the panel agreed was highly inappropriate, going so far as to unanimously agree that NONE of them would work with the unapologetic terrorist, two of the three panelist shrugged if off as political expediency explaining that it in Chicago, “you only have friends on the left” in order to survive “there is room to associate with everyone—it is just what you do” (of course I am paraphrasing, watch it for yourself to get the details).
Special shout out to Hannity for inviting Ayers on for the whole hour, in a way that suggests Hannity eats terrorist for snacks! But here is the issue: why the pass on the numerous deceptions, BO performed?
It is not okay, in my opinion, to spend approximately 10 public years, supporting terrorists, clergy, ACORN, special interests groups, former foes, planned parenthood, etc., only to throw them all under a Chicago style bus.
My opinion aside, a bigger elephant on Hannity’s set was his conservative ideals that perhaps could have checked him and his guests on this notion that Chicago style politics should so blatantly be okay and used to win National elections. It is beginning to make sense to me now, having been born and raised in the south, the appeal southerners have had in national elections, all of these guys on his panel appeared slimy…makes one wonder what BO had to exchange for the support of so many…and what will happen, when the “masses” get the down-winded extent of BO’s public character?
If anyone finds the link on youtube (as in, you are more tech savvy than me) feel free to post so that I can reference/source this "rant"!
To my surprise, the discussion was about whether BO’s broken promises were more about his political expediency or about his “sincere” attempts to govern from the center. The apples to oranges comparison aside, what difference does it make?? I was happy to hear someone besides we faithful bloggers bring up the Ayers debacle, to which all of the panel agreed was highly inappropriate, going so far as to unanimously agree that NONE of them would work with the unapologetic terrorist, two of the three panelist shrugged if off as political expediency explaining that it in Chicago, “you only have friends on the left” in order to survive “there is room to associate with everyone—it is just what you do” (of course I am paraphrasing, watch it for yourself to get the details).
Special shout out to Hannity for inviting Ayers on for the whole hour, in a way that suggests Hannity eats terrorist for snacks! But here is the issue: why the pass on the numerous deceptions, BO performed?
It is not okay, in my opinion, to spend approximately 10 public years, supporting terrorists, clergy, ACORN, special interests groups, former foes, planned parenthood, etc., only to throw them all under a Chicago style bus.
My opinion aside, a bigger elephant on Hannity’s set was his conservative ideals that perhaps could have checked him and his guests on this notion that Chicago style politics should so blatantly be okay and used to win National elections. It is beginning to make sense to me now, having been born and raised in the south, the appeal southerners have had in national elections, all of these guys on his panel appeared slimy…makes one wonder what BO had to exchange for the support of so many…and what will happen, when the “masses” get the down-winded extent of BO’s public character?
If anyone finds the link on youtube (as in, you are more tech savvy than me) feel free to post so that I can reference/source this "rant"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
