Question for Sarah Palin The Republican Party without its conservative base is nothing but a mutual admiration society of Washington cocktail swizzle sticks and their doting pundits pontificating losing strategies. John McCain had a lousy message and was a lousy messenger to boot. I wrote in September that he was the media choice because he would lose. I also wrote that Sarah Palin was the only thing that gave his campaign a chance against his own McCain-Feingold booby trap, which the artful dodger Obama handily side stepped. I expect the media and inside the Republican Party know-it-alls to blame the loss of this election on Palin. The media, having failed to defeat her in open combat, is going to weasel their way behind the lines to defeat her in the Republican Party with their gratuitous (and useless) advice. If they succeed, the road for at least two decades of Socialist rule will be secured. Meanwhile, the know-it-alls on the inside will claim that the Big Tent wasn’t stretched far enough because of Palin. Actually, it’s stretched so thin it has the integrity of tissue paper hanging on toothpicks in a hurricane. The fact is, without Palin, the Republicans would have lost in all 57 states (I have that on the authority of the Messiah). With Palin, the Republicans did quite well considering the campaign chest "The One" accumulated from his foreign admirers. Hugo et al certainly got the best president money could buy. People like Sarah Palin and Thaddeus McCotter are the future of the Republican Party, if there is to be a Republican Party. The insiders are understandably upset because Palin isn’t particularly enamored with corruption or privilege, right or left. The Washington cocktail swizzle sticks might lose their dedicated line of sycophant and special interest butt smoochers (it isn’t polite to say ass kissers, so I won’t) funding there campaign treasuries, retirement funds, plumbing needs and salaried family staffers. Palin might upset a good thing, so let’s heed what the media has to say and make sure the next Bullwinkle she shoots is closer to Juneau than Washington. I certainly understand the need to maintain unity on the ticket, and I have the firm belief that Sarah Palin had to bite her tongue many times, almost to the point she choked on it. McCain meandered left and right. When he popped that $300 billion proposal to buy up and renegotiate home mortgages during the second debate, I had to scramble for the Saran Wrap to fashion a custom barf bag for his transparent attempt to buy votes. That isn’t conservatism. For me, a telling and disturbing moment was earlier when McCain endorsed the Bush Bailout Plan that attempted to disguise corporate welfare as economic warfare to combat a colossal failure of financial markets. Has the CRA been repealed? No. Has the threat of government prosecution for failing to make unsound loans been lifted? No. Is Franklin Raines facing criminal prosecution? No. Is the crisis over? No. Is Paulson a left-wing mole with a good sense of strategic timing to sway an election? Yes! Sarah Palin also endorsed the bogus bailout plan. So my question to Sarah Palin is this – what would you have said about that plan if John McCain said it’s up to you and I’ll do whatever you say? For me, the answer to that question determines the future of the Republican Party. Not that the Washington cocktail swizzle sticks should be concerned about what I think. I’m just one of the 80% of Americans who saw that bailout, and its pork trimmed successor for what is was. If I do hear the right answer, it’s Palin in 2012 and damn the cocktail swizzle sticks, full speed ahead. |
