I believe that Governor Sarah Palin had the potential and many opportunities over the last 3 years to unite us in much the same way that Ronald Reagan did when he built his coalition between 1976 and 1980. The fact that she did not isn’t because Governor Palin herself is divisive, but because we Conservatives are a cantankerous and factious bunch who tend to eat our own and fight over degrees of commitment to the principles we hold dear.
“We’ll keep our God, we’ll keep our guns, we’ll keep our Constitution.”
Palin gave what should be a unifying, landmark speech at the Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC). She warned against turning on our candidates,
“We know that the far left and their media allies can’t beat us on the issues, so instead, they distort our records,” she said. “They’ll even attack our families. Let’s not do the job for them. OK, Republicans? OK, independents?”
The news contains report after report about Palin’s passionate speech to an overflow crowd who cheered her with even more passion. Human Event’s Tony Lee is not the only one who asked, “. . . how many who were listening to the speech were coming to the realization that Palin should be the GOP nominee for president?”
The problem is that Palin refused to be the candidate. Worse, she still has not supported any of the candidates, and her words at CPAC are being used to “do the job.”
Palin delayed her announcement about whether she would run for too long, adding to – or at least enabling – the very division and conflict within the Conservative movement that she told us to avoid in her CPAC speech.
While Mitt Romney,Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum were visiting Iowa and New Hampshire long before announcing their candidacies, Palin coyly deferred any commitment to running. The very loyal and enthusiastic Palin supporters went on the attack against anyone who looked like a possible candidate in their hope that she would run. The rhetoric continued even after the announcement that she would not run, with those same supporters interpreting Palin’s comments to justify building up or tearing down through many re-shufflings of the front-runners.
And now, rather than calling for unity among Conservative voters, Palin seems to be supporting a brokered convention. Well, just as I called for her to make a decision about running for President, I’m asking her to use her power and skills to bring us together behind one of the Conservatives, whether an announced candidate or not.
I have a little crush on Big Government’s Andrew Breitbart. In “The Undefeated” documentary on Sarah Palin that was released last year by Steve Bannon, Mr. Breitbart chastised the rest of the Republican men for their failure to defend and protect Governor Palin. And Mr. Breitbart delivered my favorite line of the entire week in his speech on the “silver pony tail gang,” that morphed from the anti-war movement to the Occupiers : “Ask not what the candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate!”(full video here)
Governor Palin, please join Mr. Breitbart and me in our march against the Occupiers and Barack Obama.
Governor Rick Perry was grilled by Wolf Blitzer on CNN‘s Situation Room on Wednesday, December 7, with frequent interruptions and repetitious questions. (Full transcript, here.) “Blitz” once again earned the nickname given to him by Herman Cain.
The Houston Chronicle, which leans far to the left, reported on the interview in a blog entry entitled, “Perry talks about pain meds, gay Scouts and the VP job”
[Perry] Asserted that his July spine surgery, which he noted involved the use of his own stem cells, was “incredibly successful.”
Blitzer’s question included the issue of pain medication, and Perry said, “I’m back running again, three to four miles, four to five times a week and I was off for 10 weeks. I probably took pain medication for the first 10 days, two weeks. And after that, the surgery has been awesome. … You guys are a bigger pain than the back surgery.”
But of course, the real problem for both Blitz and the Chronicle’s blogger is the Governor’s statements concerning pro-life, faith-based Catholic hospitals and adoption services, the lawsuits against the Boy Scouts who refuse to admit openly gay scout leaders and the limits on Catholic aide to victims of human trafficking. The Chronicle and Blitz each call these acts of “discrimination.” Blitz even asked Governor Perry whether “separation of church and state, does that mean anything to you?”
Perry pointed out the difference between “freedom *of* religion” and “freedom *from* religion. The question should be whether the First Amendment phrase “and the free exercise thereof” means anything.
Under the Bush Administration, Catholic Charities and hospitals weren’t forced to provide adoption services for homosexual couples or to pay for abortifacients like EllaOne or refer to abortionists in order to provide adoption assistance or prenatal care.
The Obama Administration is doing just the opposite. On top of the policies of the States of Illinois, Massachusetts, and others that are limiting Christian, pro-life adoption agencies, the Obama Administration is moving forward on regulations to severely restrict conscience.
Must every agency that receives tax money provide an absolutly full range of services? Lay aside the fact that adoption and abortion are not compatible with one another. It seems evident that birth mothers and and adoptive parents that go to Catholic charities and adoption agencies would have a pretty good idea about the philosophy of the group based on religious tenets.
That’s probably the fear of the prospective gay adopters: as the Governor says, “People will vote with their feet.” Why would a prolife Catholic girl who finds herself an unplanned pregnancy – who admittedly has most become pregnant by committing what she considers a sin – “choose” to have her baby raised in a home that doesn’t share her values? And why on earth would she ever “choose” to seek care for herself and her baby from a doctor who also kills the babies of other women?
The advocates for choice must, in fact, hate choice – they certainly fight to prevent it, even to demand that we act against our own “choice” and conscience.
L.L. Lewis has written about her experience as a 17 year old college freshman, My surreal experience reporting staff sexual molestation to my college administration,” published in today’s American Thinker website.
“How many will blame this woman for writing her story now and claim that she’s exploiting Herman Cain’s “troubles” or the Penn State sexual molestation cases? She’s just asking for it, right?
Ms. Lewis did the right thing, even as a 17 year old, and was treated as though she was the perpetrator, not the victim. “Blame the victim” is common in sexual harassment and that is one reason why the perpetrators get by with it.
What’s often overlooked when we discuss sexual harassment is that the abuse is not due to sexual needs or attraction. At its base is the power and control that the abuser believes he has. He does it because he can, because he’s smarter than the rest of us, and – because of the sexual element introduced by his actions – he can get his thrills (even without actual sexual acts) and she will be intimidated, limited and/or humiliated – even more than she already is – if she objects.
The abusers are usually in positions of some power, but not always. They like to take advantage of hourly wage earners and students, but even professional women are not immune. The common thread is that there is some element of “deniability.” — because who would believe them? “He said/she said” is a powerful accusation as well as a comment on the circumstances.
Like this doctor: it’s just part of his job, he was just being friendly and helpful, making a joke, or it was just a compliment, etc. She misinterpreted, needs a sense of humor, or is fantasizing or is just plain ol’ crazy. And – wait for it – she hates men or is prejudiced for some reason against the man.
There is also an underlying theme among those who should react and protect that “There but for the Grace of God go I,” and the very real liability that lawsuits could bring. That’s why the Dean of Students in this story made such a point about the doctor being a good husband and family man: part defense, part inoculation against similar accusations. Who among us has not had some moment when we were tempted or inadvertently found ourselves in a near-compromising position? And everyone has heard the stories about the litigious, gold-digger, the temptress who becomes the scorned woman and exploits laws against sexual harassment for money, advancement or out of meanness.
One of the best things my parents did was to teach me to speak up for myself and to protect myself. I remember Daddy teaching us girls “where to kick” when we probably were too short to kick “there.” We certainly didn’t have any idea *why.*
I’m not saying that every act of sexual harassment is really threatening or requires a response. I would be willing to bet that every woman and most men remember some episode when they knew that they were made uncomfortable because of their gender, whether in a sexual way or professionally. Most of us let it slide, ignored it and learned to deal with it. I’m proud of similar times in my life. But my cheeks still burn at the memory of others and a couple are just confusing. I am also proud of times when I stood up to harassers and of the couple of times when I defended others.
There are certainly times – as with Mr. Cain’s troubles – when we must judge who is the victim and when “He said/She said” is all we have to go on. My wish is that we who call ourselves Conservatives will attempt to lay aside our own prejudices and emotions to defend the true victims.
Are Conservatives comfortable with the promotion of special interest groups by our candidates, with distinctions made on the basis of race and ethnicity? How Conservative is it to propose a complicated new tax scheme based on rewarding failure and corruption?
In a bloggers’ forum sponsored by TexasGOPVote.com, Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain answered questions last night after the debate in Houston.
Mr. Cain was explaining his “Opportunity Zones,” which would help the “poorest Black Americans” and the “poorest Hispanics” (no other demographics were mentioned) when I heard myself blurt out, “How is that different from a bailout?”
Mr. Cain scowled and said Opportunity Zones are not a bailout because no money would be sent to the cities: the businesses and the people would get tax breaks and incentives, instead.
Okay, we wouldn’t send checks to the cities in Mr. Cain’s scheme. But those of us who pay 9-9-9 would subsidize the beneficiaries of the 3-3-3 and 9-0-9 tax categories. In the case of the cities, we would be rewarding them very same people who have destroyed those inner cities with their corruption. How soon would the “Chicago Way” corrupt OZ?
Empowerment Opportunity Zones
for Corrupt Inner Cities