Sarah Times Two

I had missed her the previous times she had visited Kansas City. I was not skipping this opportunity.  Sarah Palin and her family, Todd, Willow and Piper, were visiting Friday to stump for Sarah Steelman. The event took place at The Berry Patch outside Cleveland, MO—the largest Blue Berry farm in the state, Friday evening.

We took our friend, Jim W, along. He’s a big Sarah Palin fan. The notice we received said the “gate” would open at 5PM, and the event would start at 6PM with BBQ and music afterward.

We arrived early; a bit before 5PM. There was around a hundred people already there, excluding the vans and setup for two local TV stations, and a large truck from the AFP, the Americans For Prosperity.  Thirty minutes later the crowd had swelled to several hundred more. I would estimate the crowd to be in excess of 500 people at its peak.

The first Sarah Steelman campaign worker we saw was a friend, Jason Smith, a Missouri State Representative from Salem, MO. Jason has visited our church many times and has friends in our area.

We talked with Jason for awhile and with Sarah Steelman who had joined us. After we had talked for a few minutes I noticed a large RV parked near some trees. I don’t remember if it was Jason or Sarah who mentioned, “That’s the Palin RV. Todd drove it down from Iowa. Sarah will be flying in to the Executive Airport (Olathe, KS) and then they will take the RV to Sarah’s next event.” It was a really nice RV!

At 6PM, Steve Tilley opened the event.

Steve Tilley, MO Speaker of the House

Yes, it’s a poor photo. A smartphone camera doesn’t zoom worth a hoot. At least, it’s my photo. Not one I found on the ‘net.

Sarah Steelman was next. She spoke for fifteen to twenty minutes. Sarah Palin landed around 5:30PM at the closest airport and was being driven to the event site. I don’t know if she had arrived yet when Sarah Steelman started speaking.

Sarah Steelman

The Finale was Sarah Palin. Her remarks hit the internet, Newsmax and others, before the local TV stations aired her.  I don’t know who fed the audio and photos to Newsmax but they were fast!

Sarah Palin at The Berry Patch, Cleveland, MO, Friday, August 3rd, 2012

            Sarah Palin Supporting Sarah Steelman

Sarah Palin was wearing a “Super Sarah” t-shirt. I don’t know which Sarah was super—probably both.  The local news people put a lot of emphasis on the t-shirt. They seemed to think it was a big deal.

The BBQ was from KC Masterpiece. The Two Sarahs served the people along with Sarah Palin’s daughters, Willow and Piper.

Sarah and Sarah

Sarah Steelman and Sarah Palin serving BBQ to the crowd at The Berry Farm, August 3rd, 2012

Sarah, Willow, Piper Palin

Our friend, Jim W, took a baseball with him and asked for Sarah Palin’s autograph. She called for Todd and both signed it.  The baseball is one Jim caught at a Cardinals game—a foul ball that landed right in his hand.

I saw a number of ‘Pub pols at the event. Many took advantage of the photo opportunity while others just wanted to wheel ‘n deal with the establishment. One, who knows I’m voting for his opponent, snubbed me. I thought it was funny and proved my opinion of him.

It was a great evening. Too bad it takes an election for such events and gatherings to happen.

The election tomorrow will be interesting. The Tea Party has been in the background, working from inside. I wonder if they will surprise the establishment come tomorrow night.

A quickie

Just a quick post before I take off…

I was over at Hot Air when I saw this.  This article really made me curious.

It begins: Radio ad asks Iowans to caucus for Palin

posted at 10:35 am on December 28, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Iowans might feel a bit overwhelmed by the choices for next Tuesday’s Republican caucuses for the GOP presidential nomination, but one independent group has begun running radio ads insisting that there is still room for one more choice. Calling itself “Sarah Palin’s Iowa Earthquake,” the group will target specific markets in Iowa asking voters to line up behind the Republican Party’s most prominent non-candidate, and other ads will apparently follow.

Here’s another source from Breitbart on the same subject.

Now wouldn’t that just put a twist in the Establishment’s nickers?                           

Friday Follies: A Positive OpEd on Sarah Palin in the New York Times

Really, I wouldn’t have believed this if someone had told me. As usual, I brought up Drudge this morning and what do I see?
 The New York Times, known for falsifying and fabricating news, has something positive to say!  And—remarkably unbiased.

Published: September 9, 2011

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS — Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it.
That is not how we’re primed to see Ms. Palin. A pugnacious Tea Partyer? Sure. A woman of the people? Yup. A Mama Grizzly? You betcha. 
But something curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa. Along with her familiar and predictable swipes at President Barack Obama and the “far left,” she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment — left, right and center — and pointed toward a way of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide. 

So here is something I never thought I would write: a column about Sarah Palin’s ideas. 
There was plenty of the usual Palin schtick — words that make clear that she is not speaking to everyone but to a particular strain of American: “The working men and women of this country, you got up off your couch, you came down from the deer stand, you came out of the duck blind, you got off the John Deere, and we took to the streets, and we took to the town halls, and we ended up at the ballot box.” 
She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private). 
In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital. 
Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money. 
“Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?” she said, referring to politicians. “It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.” 
Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words. 
Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs. 
Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin’s having said them. 
“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.” 
Is there a hint of a political breakthrough hiding in there? 

The political conversation in the United States is paralyzed by a simplistic division of labor. Democrats protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big money and enhanced by government action. Republicans protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big government and enhanced by the free market.

What is seldom said is that human flourishing is a complex and delicate thing, and that we needn’t choose whether government or the market jeopardizes it more, because both can threaten it at the same time. 
Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism. 
On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better. On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more anonymous it becomes; they would press to live in self-contained, self-governing enclaves that bear the burden of their own prosperity. 
No one knows yet whether Ms. Palin will actually run for president. But she did just get more interesting.

I have always been a Palin fan.  I makes me grieve when I hear her bad-mouthed by Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and other ‘Pubs.  The establishment of both parties fear her; perhaps the ‘Pubs more.  Why? Because she has the potential to upset and eliminate the status quo.  She does not travel the country with her family, speaking here and there, suddenly appearing at a park, zoo, touring the country and listening to people, just for the fun of it. 

The “lamestream” media, as she calls it, still has power.  Too many still have their opinions formed by the media and the establishment.  The proof of that are some polls that says Palin could not win any electoral race.  I find that hard to believe.
Why do I not believe those polls?  Because everywhere Sarah Palin goes, crowds gather.  Even in the rain in Indianola, IA, thousands stood in the drizzle and rain to hear her speak.
Palin has power.  Whether it is as a candidate, or as an issue strategist, when she speaks, the country listens.

That Wascally…

It’s almost summer. The elections arrive next year.  It’s Palin season again.  The New York Times and the Washington post have asked readers to examine Palin’s e-mails while she was Governor of Alaska and dig some dirt.

The only problem—there’s no dirt!
It’s strange the MSM fears someone who is not in office, whose marriage is strong and stable, a mother who refused to kill her Downs Syndrome child, and…has not announced she’s running for office. A private citizen.
As Rush Limbaugh often says, “The left will tell you whom they fear.”  That, my readers, is a truism.  If Sarah Palin decides to run, she will be the front-runner.  The media knows that.  That is why it is Palin season.

Libs expose their ignorance…again

Over the weekend, Sarah Palin visited Boston’s Freedom Trail, she was quoted as saying that when stopped by British soldiers, Paul Revere warned them of the coming Minutemen.  The libs had a field-day.  “See, see! She’s stooopid!”

Sarah Palin was correct.  When stopped, he did warn the British against proceeding to seize the arms and powder at Lexington and other villages.                             
From the Boston Herald.

Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account

You betcha she was right!

By Chris Cassidy
Monday, June 6, 2011 –
Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere “warned the British” during his famed 1775 ride — remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed — is actually historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up.
Palin prompted howls of partisan derision when she said on Boston’s Freedom Trail that Revere “warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”
Palin insisted yesterday on Fox News Sunday she was right: “Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there. That, hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms.”
In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”
Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”
Patrick Leehey of the Paul Revere House said Revere was probably bluffing his British captors, but reluctantly conceded that it could be construed as Revere warning the British.
“I suppose you could say that,” Leehey said. “But I don’t know if that’s really what Mrs. Palin was referring to.”
McConville said he also is not convinced that Palin’s remarks reflect scholarship.
“I would call her lucky in her comments,” McConville said.

‘I would call her lucky in her comments,’ McConville said.”

Even when she proves the libs are wrong, when their own academics say she was right, “She was lucky.”
What spite.

This is just an example why we must win every election come 2012 and then permanently remove these…well you complete that sentence.  The Libs will show you whom they fear.

Chasing the bus.

The lib MSM is outraged!  Again!

Sarah Palin won’t give them interviews (except for Fox who pays her—MSM), nor will she give an itinerary for her tour bussWhy, why, some of these young reporters could get killed—CBS. And…and…her red, white and blue bus violates Federal law—MSNBC.

It’s farcial.  I don’t blame Sarah Palin a bit.  If she gives interviews, the MSM will twist her words or lie.  Why should she give them anything?  She’s doing quite well all by herself.

On a parting note, this little bit by Lisa Benson.

Little dogs chasing after the Big Dog.                           

Friday Follies for Friday, May 27, 2011

My Tahoe is back in my garage.

I feel like Linus when his blanket is returned to him.

The political sphere is all agasp!  Palin is on the road again in her Red-White-Blue tour bus.  What does it mean!?!?

She’s not saying at the moment.  The tour will start with the Rolling Thunder Motorcycle Rally. From there it will travel the east coast visiting historical sites—and meeting folks all along the way.

Regardless of the sentiments of the MSM and the ‘Pub establishment, Palin is a money raiser and vote getter.  When word began to be leaking that Palin was running for Prez, her poll ratings jumped.  Dramatically.  Earlier polls placed Palin well down in the pack of potential ‘Pub candidates.  Now, when it appears that she is really going to run, she bounces to within two points of Romney, the current leader.

Despite all the dissin’ she gets from the establishment of both parties, no one can deny that her name has drawing power.

She has my vote.  I’d have preferred she ran for Prez the last time instead of that worthless RINO from Arizona.


Speaking of Romney…

He has a 20-ton Albatross hanging around his neck called Romney care.  Yes, he has a business background. Yes, he did well running the Salt Lake City Olympics.  But when it came to governing Massachusetts, he revealed his RINO core—then denied it.

Let me count the ways.  From the Washington Examiner.

The Massachusetts plan was a free market approach, but ObamaCare is a government takeover:
In December 2009, when the so-called “public option” went down in flames in the U.S. Senate, so too did Romney’s ability to distinguish the structure of his plan from President Obama’s in any meaningful way.
Both plans force individuals to purchase insurance under the threat of a penalty, expand Medicaid, and provide subsidies for individuals to purchase government-designed insurance policies on a government run exchange.
One of the main architects of the Massachusetts plan, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, went on to be a paid consultant for Obama and a booster of his health care plan. He recently told the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin that Romney’s plan “gave birth” to ObamaCare.
It’s the Democrats fault:

The attempt to shift blame to Massachusetts Democrats normally has several iterations. One argument is that Romney used his line-item veto to remove many of the mandates and other objectionable items from the bill, but was overruled by the Democratic legislature. Another is that it fell on Democrats to implement the plan because he left office before the law went into effect, and they messed it up. Neither of these arguments stands up to much scrutiny.

While Romney may have used his line-item veto to reject certain provisions of the law, this was purely symbolic because he knew he was dealing with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature that would override him. Whatever his frustrations were with the final bill, it didn’t stop Romney from holding a high-profile signing ceremony with Sen. Ted Kennedy at his side five years ago today, or from boasting of his accomplishment in the WSJ op-ed quoted above, entitled, “Health Care For Everyone? We found a way.” (Emphasis mine. – Crucis)

Trying to deflect criticism by pointing to flawed implementation is an even weaker argument. To start, the version of the health care law that he signed had the key features that have drawn the most criticism. Beyond that, Romney announced he wouldn’t seek reelection in December 2005 – months before he signed the health care law. Thus, he signed it knowing full well that he wouldn’t be there to implement it, and that it would almost definitely fall on a Democratic successor. If it was so important to him that the health care law be implemented properly, he should have sought reelection.


It’s the best he could have done in Massachusetts:
This argument, a close relative of the blaming Democrats defense, suggests that given the overwhelmingly liberal legislature, he got as good a deal as could be hoped for. This is a bizarre argument for Romney defenders to advance for several reasons.
To start with, it’s not as if, sometime in the spring of 2006, the Democratic legislature plopped down a health care plan in front of him and Romney had the option of either signing it, or getting what he could in exchange for his support. By Romney’s own account in the WSJ op-ed, he decided to take on health care after the CEO of Staples urged him to do so weeks after he was elected in November 2002, and soon he “assembled a team from business, academia and government.” In other words, this was to be his main legislative ambition in office, something that he spent years developing. Once it was obvious that the end result would be a liberal, government-dominated plan, he could have decided that it was no longer worth doing. But he ploughed ahead anyway.
He didn’t raise taxes to pay for it:
Depending on whether or not you consider the penalty for non-compliance with the mandate a tax, Romney could argue that technically, his health care plan didn’t raise taxes. However, what it did do was lead to massive cost overruns that ended up triggering future tax increases.  As the New York Times reported in 2008, “The legislature and (Gov. Deval) Patrick filled a health care spending gap that approached $200 million for this fiscal year by increasing the tobacco tax by $1 a pack, levying one-time assessments on insurers and hospitals, and raising more money from businesses that do not contribute to their employees’ insurance.”
RomneyCare was right for Massachusetts, but ObamaCare is a one-size fits all Washington solution:
This is the argument that we’re likely to hear the most. Romney himself has come out and said that he wouldn’t use the Massachusetts plan as a national model for reform and that he would sign a repeal of ObamaCare if elected. Although, it must be said, this wasn’t always so clear. In a February 2007 speech, Romney said, “If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.” And here was the exchange he had with Charlie Gibson in the ABC debate also cited above:

GIBSON: But Government Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts, although you backed away from mandates on a national basis.

ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.

The bottom line: Political analysts keep saying that Romney will have to find a way to address the health care issue. But the reality is, he has no coherent defense to offer and it’s too late to disavow the law. As I’ve written before, Romney’s only hope is to simply survive the issue by attrition, hoping that the primary electorate’s attention is diverted elsewhere and that no viable alternative candidate emerges.

Needless to say, Mitt Romney can’t be trusted.  When examining candidates like Romney, we must realize that what is said, counts little compared to what has been done.