In case you didn't see it, a week ago, Sarah spoke to Sean Hannity on Fox News about the decision by the Obama administration in bringing about a form of amnesty for illegal immigrants via executive order, as well as reaffirming her Anybody But Obama stance in the case of the 2012 election:
The latest buzz involving Sarah since speaking to Hannity has to do with statements she has posted online, particularly her defense of former First Lady Laura Bush (the fact anybody is criticizing Mrs. Bush for just about any reason baffles the hell out of me), her vindication over the heat she got for using the term “death panels” while discussing the dangers of ObamaCare becoming reality and her 2¢ on the matter of war games in the Arctic being conducted by the Russians.
The big news, lately, has involved Bristol. In addition to her reality show, Life's A Tripp, beginning its run on Lifetime, she also not too long ago had to give it to Mike Huckabee (another one of those baffles-the-hell-out-of-me moments), who apparently has problems of his own concerning his radio show. Then there's the lawsuit filed by some loudmouth who badmouthed Sarah, was confronted by Bristol, and is now suing because the verbal bout was filmed and included in an episode of Life's A Tripp (which aired last week). Talk about another baffles-the-hell-out-of-me moment. Anyway, the show airs on Tuesdays at 10 p.m., and you can also read Bristol's “Second Thoughts” on each episode at her blog.
Speaking of reality shows, it was reported a short time ago that Todd will be appearing in a reality show as well, as part of a military-themed celebrity competition called Stars Earn Stripes, which will premiere on NBC in August. It sounds similar to a short-lived series from USA called Combat Missions, and that was a good show as I remember. Here's hoping Todd wins the competition.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Monday, June 18, 2012
RightOnline & Other Recaps
Americans For Prosperity Foundation held their annual RightOnline conference in Las Vegas this past weekend, with Sarah as a keynote speaker for their Friday schedule:
Tony Lee published what he considered the top 10 quotes from Sarah's speeches (special thanks to Conservatives4Palin), but the one quote I enjoyed came not from the speech, but from an interview she had with POLITICO shortly afterwards in which she took Barack Obama to task for his description of “law-abiding illegal immigrants”: “‘That is a contradiction right there,’ she said in the interview. ‘I think we need to characterize it and describe it more accurately. It’s called illegal for a reason’.”
And if you missed any of Sarah's appearances on television in the course of June, here they are:
Tony Lee published what he considered the top 10 quotes from Sarah's speeches (special thanks to Conservatives4Palin), but the one quote I enjoyed came not from the speech, but from an interview she had with POLITICO shortly afterwards in which she took Barack Obama to task for his description of “law-abiding illegal immigrants”: “‘That is a contradiction right there,’ she said in the interview. ‘I think we need to characterize it and describe it more accurately. It’s called illegal for a reason’.”
And if you missed any of Sarah's appearances on television in the course of June, here they are:
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Bridges Are Burning
Sarah herself anticipated there would be disagreements over her choice to endorse Orrin Hatch over Dan Liljenquist in the U.S. Senate primary in Utah. Unsurprisingly, there were negative reactions to her endorsement which resulted in attacks, but alarmingly, some of those attacks came from Palinistas against those who didn't approve of Sarah's endorsement, which Jedediah Bila recently wrote about.
Thinking back to some of her past endorsements, this is nothing new. One woman I recall from Kentucky had been a volunteer of Sarah's until she endorsed Rand Paul for the U.S. Senate in 2010. Her opposition to Senator Paul was enough that she stepped down from her position within the pro-Sarah community and supported the establishment-preferred candidate, Trey Grayson.
I also recall the criticism lobbed at Sarah during that same election cycle because of her endorsing Senator John McCain over former Congressman J.D. Hayworth in the Arizona Senate primary and Carly Fiorina over then-State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore in the California Senate primary. And as with her endorsing Senator Hatch, her ideological credentials were called into question (even though there were questions about whether Hayworth was a true alternative and if DeVore was truly ethical).
About her latest endorsement, a key thing to consider is that she and Senator Hatch are friends. Much like with John McCain, Sarah has come to know the Senator well and holds him in high regard. Her loyalty to her friends is one of the many reasons why I and countless others admire Sarah, and to ask her to support someone else under these circumstances is unthinkable. It furthermore should be remembered that even if there was no friendship of any kind between them, when Sarah decides on something, it's always for a darn good reason; she is not prone to rash decisions.
Those who have attacked Sarah for her endorsements are wrong to do so, but equally wrong are the actions of fellow Palinistas against those of us who continue to oppose Orrin Hatch's bid for re-election. A look at what Senator Hatch has done in recent years has led me to not join Sarah and some of my fellow Palinistas in voicing support for him; that is also a darn good reason and should be remembered as well. To see some of my own fellow Palinistas attack those of us still opposed to Senator Hatch, however, has shocked me; I expected better from them.
In the end, much of the reaction to the endorsement has served no purpose. What all of us, Palinistas and Tea Partiers alike, need to do is acknowledge the disagreement amongst ourselves and move on without burning the bridges in the process.
Thinking back to some of her past endorsements, this is nothing new. One woman I recall from Kentucky had been a volunteer of Sarah's until she endorsed Rand Paul for the U.S. Senate in 2010. Her opposition to Senator Paul was enough that she stepped down from her position within the pro-Sarah community and supported the establishment-preferred candidate, Trey Grayson.
I also recall the criticism lobbed at Sarah during that same election cycle because of her endorsing Senator John McCain over former Congressman J.D. Hayworth in the Arizona Senate primary and Carly Fiorina over then-State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore in the California Senate primary. And as with her endorsing Senator Hatch, her ideological credentials were called into question (even though there were questions about whether Hayworth was a true alternative and if DeVore was truly ethical).
About her latest endorsement, a key thing to consider is that she and Senator Hatch are friends. Much like with John McCain, Sarah has come to know the Senator well and holds him in high regard. Her loyalty to her friends is one of the many reasons why I and countless others admire Sarah, and to ask her to support someone else under these circumstances is unthinkable. It furthermore should be remembered that even if there was no friendship of any kind between them, when Sarah decides on something, it's always for a darn good reason; she is not prone to rash decisions.
Those who have attacked Sarah for her endorsements are wrong to do so, but equally wrong are the actions of fellow Palinistas against those of us who continue to oppose Orrin Hatch's bid for re-election. A look at what Senator Hatch has done in recent years has led me to not join Sarah and some of my fellow Palinistas in voicing support for him; that is also a darn good reason and should be remembered as well. To see some of my own fellow Palinistas attack those of us still opposed to Senator Hatch, however, has shocked me; I expected better from them.
In the end, much of the reaction to the endorsement has served no purpose. What all of us, Palinistas and Tea Partiers alike, need to do is acknowledge the disagreement amongst ourselves and move on without burning the bridges in the process.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
On The Record (May 22nd, 2012)
The night after Sarah spoke to Sean Hannity, she appeared On The Record to speak with Greta Van Susteren Tuesday night about more acts of crony capitalism by the Obama administration, as well as her 2¢ on Joe Biden's comments about the Tea Parties, the primary races in Texas and Utah, and the recall race in Wisconsin.
Her endorsement of Senator Orrin Hatch in the Utah Senate primary certainly was the headline-grabber of the night (I've written my own 2¢ on the matter of her endorsement and the primary here). Later that night, SarahPAC published a note of support for Senator Hatch written by Sarah. I agree with her that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch will overcome the efforts of the Left in trying to remove them from office.
Why One Palinista Says No To Orrin Hatch
(Note: This was originally written for the Sarah Palin Web Brigade's blog on May 24th of this year. -Morgan, June 18th, 2012, 1:23 AM EDT)
I was surprised when I heard Sarah endorsed Utah Senator Orrin Hatch for re-election while speaking to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Tuesday night. I was not surprised by the reaction of most of my fellow Palinistas, who have since joined Sarah in supporting Senator Hatch over his primary opponent, former State Representative Dan Liljenquist. I'm one of the few (if not the only one) who has not joined the bandwagon, and I have no intention of doing so.
Not only Sarah, but also Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, have stated their reasons for supporting Senator Hatch, his efforts to secure a balanced budget, his support of Ronald Reagan at a time when it was needed and his crucial role in the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Mr. Hannity, in particular on his radio show, stressed the importance of looking at the whole of Senator Hatch's record. I have a problem with that because of what happened here in Indiana.
As you all know, we had our primary election over two weeks ago, with another six-term incumbent, Dick Lugar, running for re-election against our State Treasurer, Richard Mourdock. Senator Lugar's supporters made the same argument for why he should be re-elected to a seventh term, stressing the importance of looking at the whole of his record. The problem was that the Dick Lugar of 35 years ago was not the same man who was defeated May 8th by Richard Mourdock, and indeed, the Orrin Hatch of 30 years ago who supported Ronald Reagan for President, the Orrin Hatch of 20 years ago who helped to give us one of the best Supreme Court justices we've seen in a long time, is not the same man we see now running for re-election.
Philip Klein at The Washington Examiner and Michelle Malkin at her own blog have presented some key reasons for opposing Senator Hatch, which include votes in favor of No Child Left Behind, SCHIP, earmarks (including the Bridge to Nowhere), and his support for confirming Eric Holder and Tim Geithner. Mr. Klein, in particular, creates the impression that Senator Hatch is more of a rubber stamp Republican than a principled conservative (it was noted he supported SCHIP when introduced, then for its extension in 2007, but against it in 2009, after Barack Obama became President).
The idea he is a principled conservative is also called into question when you consider something Sarah herself wrote:
I don't hold it against Sarah for her decision to support Senator Hatch; in fact, I support her decision, but I cannot in good conscience join her in voicing support of him. If I will be supporting a candidate in the Utah Senate primary, it will be for the better candidate, and that candidate is Dan Liljenquist. I conclude by quoting Michelle Malkin: "we’ll just have to agree to disagree".
I was surprised when I heard Sarah endorsed Utah Senator Orrin Hatch for re-election while speaking to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Tuesday night. I was not surprised by the reaction of most of my fellow Palinistas, who have since joined Sarah in supporting Senator Hatch over his primary opponent, former State Representative Dan Liljenquist. I'm one of the few (if not the only one) who has not joined the bandwagon, and I have no intention of doing so.
Not only Sarah, but also Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, have stated their reasons for supporting Senator Hatch, his efforts to secure a balanced budget, his support of Ronald Reagan at a time when it was needed and his crucial role in the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Mr. Hannity, in particular on his radio show, stressed the importance of looking at the whole of Senator Hatch's record. I have a problem with that because of what happened here in Indiana.
As you all know, we had our primary election over two weeks ago, with another six-term incumbent, Dick Lugar, running for re-election against our State Treasurer, Richard Mourdock. Senator Lugar's supporters made the same argument for why he should be re-elected to a seventh term, stressing the importance of looking at the whole of his record. The problem was that the Dick Lugar of 35 years ago was not the same man who was defeated May 8th by Richard Mourdock, and indeed, the Orrin Hatch of 30 years ago who supported Ronald Reagan for President, the Orrin Hatch of 20 years ago who helped to give us one of the best Supreme Court justices we've seen in a long time, is not the same man we see now running for re-election.
Philip Klein at The Washington Examiner and Michelle Malkin at her own blog have presented some key reasons for opposing Senator Hatch, which include votes in favor of No Child Left Behind, SCHIP, earmarks (including the Bridge to Nowhere), and his support for confirming Eric Holder and Tim Geithner. Mr. Klein, in particular, creates the impression that Senator Hatch is more of a rubber stamp Republican than a principled conservative (it was noted he supported SCHIP when introduced, then for its extension in 2007, but against it in 2009, after Barack Obama became President).
The idea he is a principled conservative is also called into question when you consider something Sarah herself wrote:
"For the past two years, Orrin has received a 100 percent rating from the American Conservative Union. He’s staunchly pro-life – receiving a 100 percent rating from the National Right To Life Committee. The NRA has given him an A+ rating. Club for Growth listed him as one of the most conservative U.S. Senators and gave him a 99 percent rating." (emphasis mine)The emphasis is on the past two years, which looks convenient since two years ago, his former colleague, Senator Bob Bennett, was defeated by now-Senator Mike Lee during the Utah GOP convention. In other words, there's the possibility Senator Hatch is only covering his bases. It was because of my principles that I ultimately chose to support Richard Mourdock over Dick Lugar because Senator Lugar had done too many things as a Senator for me to vote for his re-election, and to support Orrin Hatch now would go against those same principles. The reasons brought up to support him are not sufficient enough to support his bid for re-election.
I don't hold it against Sarah for her decision to support Senator Hatch; in fact, I support her decision, but I cannot in good conscience join her in voicing support of him. If I will be supporting a candidate in the Utah Senate primary, it will be for the better candidate, and that candidate is Dan Liljenquist. I conclude by quoting Michelle Malkin: "we’ll just have to agree to disagree".
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
“The Fighting Instinct Of Mr. Snuffleupagus”
That's the best description I've heard yet of Republican operatives, and it was described by none other than Sarah when she spoke a few hours ago to Sean Hannity on Fox News (much thanks to the guys at SarahNET for providing the video).
The subjects discussed included comments made by Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker about Mitt Romney's business record, the need to address Barack Obama's past connections, the problem of Republicans allowing their hands to be tied behind their backs by Democrats when waging campaigns, and the recent episode of a teacher telling a student one can get arrested for criticizing the President (there are some things nobody could make up!).
If what Greta Van Susteren has slated for her show tonight is correct, we'll be able to see Sarah speak again real soon. Here's hoping she makes a quick recovery from her cold.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
The Power Of Sarah (and Other News)
(UPDATED; Scroll down for updates below)
The great news out of last week here in Indiana was the victory of Richard Mourdock in the Republican primary against Dick Lugar for the U.S. Senate. To those of you who voted for him on the 8th and/or showed your support for his candidacy, my deep thanks to you all. The race will now be between Mourdock, Joe Donnelly (D) and Andrew Horning (L), and Donnelly has already begun his attacks, but as I wrote on my personal blog, I have a reaffirmed sense of confidence that Mourdock will pull off a solid win come November.
As is well known, Sarah endorsed Richard Mourdock on April 27th, and this endorsement is cited by columnist Tony Lee over at Big Government as further proof of the impact Sarah's endorsement continues to have on elections. He further notes the surges in polls after she endorsed two other U.S. Senate candidates, Deb Fischer in Nebraska and Ted Cruz in Texas. I certainly agree with Tony Lee's assessment, especially since the Howey/DePauw poll which put Mourdock ahead by 10 points (and turned out to be the tip of the iceberg) was released one week after Sarah's endorsement.*
The big news from yesterday was the announcement made by the Ron Paul campaign about their plans for the remainder of the primaries. Some have called it his announcement of withdrawal, but Breitbart News described it best: Ron Paul is going Galt. The objective is to continue to secure as many delegates to the national Republican convention as possible, but his campaign will not be campaigning in upcoming primary states. Does this mean Mitt Romney is a shoo-in for the Republican nomination for President? Not necessarily. What will happen will be determined in Tampa this August.
And to conclude the other news in this post, the online Presidential effort, Americans Elect, is coming to an end due to a lack of “sufficient support” (can't say I'm shocked; their leading contender was a former Louisiana Governor who was defeated for re-election in 1991). Meanwhile, two prominent minor parties held their national conventions; the Constitution Party nominated former Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode for President in mid-April, and the Libertarian Party nominated former New Mexico Governor (and Republican candidate) Gary Johnson at the beginning of May. The Green Party will hold their convention in July.
Update (May 16th, 12:41 AM EDT): More proof of the power of Sarah's endorsements; Deb Fischer defeated a sitting Attorney General and a sitting State Treasurer to become the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska. On to Texas.
*In addition to Sarah's endorsement, another major factor (my 2¢) in Richard Mourdock's surge in the polls was the negative campaigning done by Senator Lugar and his supporters, which attacked Mourdock's character repeatedly and mercilessly throughout the primaries.
The great news out of last week here in Indiana was the victory of Richard Mourdock in the Republican primary against Dick Lugar for the U.S. Senate. To those of you who voted for him on the 8th and/or showed your support for his candidacy, my deep thanks to you all. The race will now be between Mourdock, Joe Donnelly (D) and Andrew Horning (L), and Donnelly has already begun his attacks, but as I wrote on my personal blog, I have a reaffirmed sense of confidence that Mourdock will pull off a solid win come November.
As is well known, Sarah endorsed Richard Mourdock on April 27th, and this endorsement is cited by columnist Tony Lee over at Big Government as further proof of the impact Sarah's endorsement continues to have on elections. He further notes the surges in polls after she endorsed two other U.S. Senate candidates, Deb Fischer in Nebraska and Ted Cruz in Texas. I certainly agree with Tony Lee's assessment, especially since the Howey/DePauw poll which put Mourdock ahead by 10 points (and turned out to be the tip of the iceberg) was released one week after Sarah's endorsement.*
The big news from yesterday was the announcement made by the Ron Paul campaign about their plans for the remainder of the primaries. Some have called it his announcement of withdrawal, but Breitbart News described it best: Ron Paul is going Galt. The objective is to continue to secure as many delegates to the national Republican convention as possible, but his campaign will not be campaigning in upcoming primary states. Does this mean Mitt Romney is a shoo-in for the Republican nomination for President? Not necessarily. What will happen will be determined in Tampa this August.
And to conclude the other news in this post, the online Presidential effort, Americans Elect, is coming to an end due to a lack of “sufficient support” (can't say I'm shocked; their leading contender was a former Louisiana Governor who was defeated for re-election in 1991). Meanwhile, two prominent minor parties held their national conventions; the Constitution Party nominated former Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode for President in mid-April, and the Libertarian Party nominated former New Mexico Governor (and Republican candidate) Gary Johnson at the beginning of May. The Green Party will hold their convention in July.
Update (May 16th, 12:41 AM EDT): More proof of the power of Sarah's endorsements; Deb Fischer defeated a sitting Attorney General and a sitting State Treasurer to become the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska. On to Texas.
*In addition to Sarah's endorsement, another major factor (my 2¢) in Richard Mourdock's surge in the polls was the negative campaigning done by Senator Lugar and his supporters, which attacked Mourdock's character repeatedly and mercilessly throughout the primaries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)