Palin Announces Support for Three Additional Female GOP Candidates – Women Rising in GOP

FromPolitico this morning, comes the announcement that Sara Palin is backing three more GOP candidates – all women. The source - Palin’s Facebook profile - where Politico took Palin’s “Mama Grizzlies” tag-line to headline article and their political analysis the three candidates chances of winning an election.

The three women: Mary Fallon, an Oklahoma House Rep running for Governor, Star Parker, political analyst, running for the California 37th and Cathy McMorris, running for reelection to the Washington 5th, are found by Politico to be an “odd collection when it comes to winning”.

According to Politico, Star Parker’s candidacy is a “long-shot”.
Parker, who is seen by the local press as a rising GOP Star, may be a long-shot by Politico’s standards, but then again, so was Scott Brown (R-MA). Parker is challenging, incumbent Democrat, Laura Richardson, who is a solid progressive, second term congressional representative. Richardson’s “edge” over Parker is the districts “ethnic” makeup as well as the fact that Obama won the district by large margin (again refer to Massachusetts, Senator Scott Brown and the Eastern Massachusetts districts). The fact that incumbents, or Democrats in general, especially in districts where Obama won handily in 2008, have been having a bit of a problem in election bids, is lost on Politico (and the rest of those who consistently use “Obama” math to predict outcomes. Additionally, Richardson who voted for the massive Health Care legislation, also brings a slew of pork to the district, all of which can be found on her website here . The question now remains, can a conservative, African American GOP candidate, with name recognition, who would reign in government growth and spending, running against an apparently “run-amok, tax-and-spend liberal” who has only two terms under her belt, and has consistently voted with the Obama administration win? Yes, even in California.

Palin’s recent support of female candidates running in primaries has been spot on – apparently, regardless of how one feels about Sarah Palin, personally, she sure can pick them. It has less to do with the fact of Palin’s endorsement being a negative or positive for these particular candidates, but more to do with Palin’s handi-capping skills. Palin is, despite the detractors, politically savvy, and with the homey Alaskan” (or possibly Western) tag line of “Mama Grizzlies”, which drives those who cannot stand Palin “speak” crazy, is apparently resounding with the “regular folks”.

Local colloquialisms are defined as an informal phrases or expression on a local or regional basis. One may say “pop”, while the other prefers “soda”, apparently, with so many non-politico’s running for office across the country, one can anticipate a good deal of “colorful expressions” being denigrated outside of the region by those who sport an Ivy League pedigree, and have never stepped foot into a backyard barbecue. "You betcha".

The fact that the number of women running as Conservatives (i.e. Republicans), is in itself, heartening, and as one can imagine, the face and possibly the tone of Congress will be altered considerably, for the better, as these candidates would join the small contingent of Democrat Women, who are currently serving (and in some cases, (see Star Parker) replacing them). Will all women running under the GOP banner succeed? Not necessarily, as the anti-incumbent mood is as strong as the anti-establishment Tear Party movement. Dana Walsh, who was, in this blogs opinion, possibly in the best position to defeat incumbent Nancy Pelosi, in the California 8th Congressional district lost in the primary to John Dennis, a solid conservative candidate backed by the Tea Party.

Tea Party Candidates, however, cannot be counted out, especially in California and Nevada, where the movement has its roots. California Chapters can be found here. Although Dennis and the three women mentioned above may not be “Tea Party Candidates” per se, the additional backing of Tea Party chapters certainly helps more hurts, especially in states where Liberal has recently been replaced by “Liberty”. Of note, as the media’s misrepresentation of those “tea-party” activists as fringe –right –wing activities, continues, one should expect a journalist to leave the office and find out exactly where the party affiliation of those who join a “tea party”. Should they take the time, they would find: Democrats, Green Party, Libertarians, Republican’s and a slew of those who are either designated “unenrolled” or “independent”.

The change, therefore, in the political landscape of American Politics will be evidenced by the primaries yet to be held and the general election in November. As to Palin’s Picks, take a closer look at each candidate and their opposition – in the New York 23rd, Palin backed the Conservative Candidate who lost to the Democrat, in a three way race, which included the Republican who was more liberal than the Democrat who won, in fact, before dropping out of the race, the Republican candidate, whose name was still on the ballot, endorsed the Democrat over the Conservative Party candidate. There will be a rematch in November. In the Pennsylvania 12th, Palin endorsed Burns, the conservative over Critz, the Democrat who ran as a conservative and eventfully won that race. Again, there will be a rematch in November. Otherwise, Palin’s been spot on. I’d not count Parker out prematurely.

Arizona – Lawmakers Reviewing State Repeal of “Automatic Citizenship” - Analysis

Arizona Border - photo MSNBC

(AP) Arizona lawmakers are considering a bill that would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, as the Federal Government continues to ignore pleas from the Governor to defend the border. In passage of Senate Bill 1070the State of Arizona mirrored Federal Laws, going a step further by softening portions of the legislation that might have included “racial profiling” in order to pass U.S. Constitutional muster. Since the passage of that bill, the State has come under fire from special interest groups, the White House and administration (who had not read the bill), and municipalities small and large within States and Commonwealths that lean left and support “open borders”.

The situation in Arizona (and other border states) had risen to the extreme: murders, home invasions, kidnapping (In fact, Phoenix, AZ now leads the nation in cases involving kidnapping), destruction of property, et al. In a state of virtual siege, Arizona’s lawmaker and Governor Jan Brewer, had to do what they could to bring attention to the situation as well as protect the citizens of the state.

The Federal government, which has, on the one hand, demonized the Arizona law, while on the other hand, doing little in way of the Fed’s actual duty to protect the border, now finds the Arizona Legislature looking at other ways to stop the influx of illegal aliens into the state.

Russell Pearce (R) State Senator is introducing legislation that would ban citizenship to children born to parents here illegally. The premise, at least one of two parents would have to prove legal citizenship status in order for the child to gain citizenship. The cry of “foul” to the 14th amendment is being shouted from the rooftops over this new angle on curbing illegal immigration in the State.
The 14th Amendment, which ensures citizens, rights reads as follows:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

“The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868 (757 days).

Therein lays the gist of the problem: although the language does state that anyone born on U.S. soil is considered a citizen, it was the intent of the amendment at the time that is fueling the Arizona legislature to write a contrary bill.

The AP story includes a quote from one family who felt this bill was out of hand:

Araceli Viveros, 27, and her husband, Saul, 34, are illegal immigrants from the Mexican state of Guerrero. He has been in Phoenix for 20 years, she for 10, and their 2- and 9-year-old children are U.S. citizens.
"I am so proud my children were born here. They can learn English and keep studying," Viveros said in Spanish.
She said her husband has been working hard in Phoenix as a landscaper, and their children deserve to be citizens. The lawmaker's proposal "is very bad," she said. "It's changing the Constitution, and some children won't have the same rights as other children."

The inclusion of a viewpoint from an illegal husband and wife, one of which is working as a landscaper (either illegally through an employer, or “under-the-table”, thereby paying no taxes, another crime), speaks about her children’s rights to citizenship, due to her husband’s hard work. Additionally, the non-English speaking wife, (services for Spanish language costs to the Federal Government – unknown), talks about changes to the U.S. Constitution, under which, she personally has no protection. Perhaps the AP author might have found a more sympathetic “victim”, or not.

Unfortunately, as the economy worsens, legal citizens of the United States view those who enter illegally, work her illegally paying no taxes, and have children here in order to gain access to our schools (while not paying taxes), as just another drain on the economy.

Is life so bad in Mexico? One has to ask, aside from the constant drug wars, crime, corruption, etc.,(similar to Arizona) why are they here? Mexico does not have the same generous welfare benefits, medical benefits, and prior to NAFTA, employment opportunities as the U.S. However, those in the U.S. that purchase anything from groceries to cd’s, are likely to find that “product of Mexico” label slapped firmly on the item.

The aforementioned makes it difficult for those here legally to feel for those who take advantage of the continued failure of the U.S. Federal government to enact the immigration laws currently on the books. If the Federal government would do its job, lawmakers in Arizona would not be compelled to write the attention grabbing, state saving, legislation that is so maligned by the majority of the press, as well as the estimated ten to twelve million individuals that are in this country illegally. That being said, if one expects the current administration to move to do its job protecting the border, think again, or more precisely look at day whatever of the gulf oil spill – it is this feeling of “no confidence” by the state of Arizona, and a growing majority of American’s that has prompted this state’s legislature to produce laws, conflicting or no (as States rights are also guaranteed in the Constitution, the 14th amendments intent was specific to the time, and it is a question of whether or not States’ rights trump subsequent amendments), in order to protect themselves.

E Tu MSNBC? Chris Matthews, Obama Honeymoon Ends with Gulf Oil – “No Executive Command” – Fox, O’Reilly Defends!

USA Officially Enters The Twilight Zone -image foundation stone blog - Barack Obama photo Portland art

MSNBC political pundits, in reviewing the President’s address to the nation last night, were uncharacteristically harsh in their assessment of Obama’s “performance”. This change in tone from a network known in Conservative and Moderate circles as “in the tank” for the Obama administration, included a tirade of sorts by the top Obama cheerleaders (Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman), which included invoking a Carter comparison (whereby Carter actually comes out on top).

Transcript from Real Clear Politics

“Olbermann: "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days."

Matthews compared Obama to Carter.

Olbermann: "Nothing specific at all was said."

Matthews: "No direction."

Howard Fineman: "He wasn't specific enough."

Olbermann: "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all. It's startling."

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a "commander-in-chief."

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. "I'll barf if he does it one more time."

Matthews: "A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk."

Matthews: "I don't sense executive command."

Over at Fox News, where one would think a total thrashing would take place, Bill O’Reilly gave the President the Benefit of the doubt. In a segment with pundits Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley, O’Reilly acknowledges things may have been done differently, however, points out that no-one knows how to stop the oil spill. He includes Governor Sarah Palin in that segment, where she outlined options in dealing with the clean-up, but was harangued by O’Reilly as far as a continual question: “Do you know how to stop the oil spill?” Palin, whose patience was clearly running thin, gave him a thin lipped glare, and went onto outline what should have been done in dealing with BP executives. That segment is also shown below for those who are unaware of the former Alaska Governors’ ability to deal with Oil Executives and her extensive knowledge of the industry.

Palin, carefully parses her words when basically trashing the “government” over the clean-up, and outlines what she might have done differently – she does go into political rhetoric regarding Obama’s “never let a crisis go to waste” and his subsequent call for “Cap and Tax”, which would add more economic burdens than the general public can handle at this point.

The polls will tell, currently the President, has a job approval rating (according to Rasmussen Reports of 24% strongly approve, with 41% strongly disapproving, the overall adjusted to account for those who are leaning one way or the other but not fully committed to approving or disapproving of his performance, gives the President a 45% approval. As this scenario in the Gulf plays out, along with a myriad of other issues facing American’s (unemployment, the economy, border issues and illegal immigration), may drive that number downward to unseen depths. The question now remains, which phoenix will rise from the ashes to take the mantel of the Presidency and fix this mess in 2012
Comparing the two networks and videos, is akin to watching Rod Serling at his best. The Obama administration has officially entered the Twilight Zone.


MSNBC Video



Fox News Video O'Reilly Colmes


Fox News O'Reilly - Palin


For those unfamiliar:
Rod Serling - We have officially entered the Twilight Zone of American Politics.

Deep Division in Democrat Party 2010 Elections – Polls: 48% Democrats Likely to Vote GOP in the Fall – 65% Feel Congressional Overhaul in Order.

A blog article from April 21, at Public Policy Polling, revealed a poll taken on political party loyalty going into the 2010 general election. Polling showed that 54% of Republicans feel their party is headed in the right direction, the balance that were either undecided or not happy with the direction of the party, plan to vote for a GOP candidate. Conversely, 83% of Democrats polled are happy with the direction of their party – the kicker – 48% plan on voting GOP. The article, by Tom Jensen, concludes:

"So despite the fact that there are far more GOP voters mad at their party than Democrats, the number of angry Democrats planning to vote Republican is actually larger than the number of angry Republicans planning to vote Democratic. It's just one more thing the party is going to have to cope with for this fall.”

This is in line with a recent Rasmussen Reports survey released Friday that concludes 65% of voters believe the country would be better off with a Congressional overhaul. Booting the incumbent appears to be a trend going into the fall election, with the repeal of the Health Care Bill and economy primary in voters’ minds. – 41% of those polled believe a person chosen at random from a phonebook would do a better job on the economy than those currently holding Congressional seats.

Rasmussen polling reportedly trends Conservative, while Public Policy Polling is reportedly more liberal. What this suggests is that most of the voting public, regardless of party affiliation, are unhappy with the current Congress, with Democrats more willing to change affiliation than republicans, combined with Independents (addressed in Rasmussen Reports) trending towards the GOP. While still extremely early in terms of political polling to predict November outcomes (primaries will be help up through September depending upon the State or Commonwealth), trending showing disgust with Congress has continued to remain fairly steady the past year. Factors such as a weak incumbent, the state of the economy overall and by individual state, will tell in polls beginning in September.

Amherst Massachusetts jumps on Arizona Boycott Bandwagon

The college town of Amherst, MA the boycott of Arizona follows a long tradition of lunacy photo: greatrealtyusa.com

The small college town of Amherst, Massachusetts, is at it again – the Board of Selectmen approved a boycott of Arizona with the following stipulations: they will not buy goods or services in Arizona, official travel to Arizona is prohibited, and the town cannot do business with transportation companies headquartered in Arizona. Amherst is politically left of center - and was one of the few hamlets in the Bay State that voted overwhelmingly for Democrat Martha Coakley in the Special Senate Election that saw Republican Scott Brown elected to the “people's seat”.

The fact that the town’s primary income is derived from colleges and students, makes this decision by the Board of Selectman, of little surprise and or consequence. This is the same Amherst where in 2004, the high school ditched a production of “West Side Story” in 1999because it was too racists and might offend (source UK Guardian), and in 2004, the same high school decided the best play for that particular age group would be the Vagina Monologue .

The town is home to the main campus of the University of Massachusetts (affectionately known as “Zoo Mass” by parents whose offspring have considered attending), Amherst College, and Hampshire College (an alternative college) in South Amherst. It is, what it is, a hotbed of commonly held liberal believes in the ugly white American, anti-corporatism and the imperialism of the United States. The select board (as noted on the official Amherst web site) includes: Stephanie O’Keeffee, Alisa Brewer, Aaron Kayden, Diana Stein, and James Wald all of whom will not be visiting Arizona anytime soon, nor will they be flying United Airlines, as it is based in Arizona.

The article by the Springfield Republican, begins with cheerleading Amherst's decision: Joining a growing list of communities across the state and country, Amherst will no longer knowingly engage in business with the state of Arizona because of its recently enacted immigration law.”


Springfield Republican Readers who differ on the Amherst Arizona Boycott

That recently enacted law, mirrors the current Federal Law on the books and goes one step further to protect the rights of those “illegal immigrants” who are murdering, robbing and otherwise preventing the citizens of Arizona to live peacefully.
The comments section of this particular article speaks to the disparity between the people of Massachusetts and the Republican and the sleepy hollow of Amherst. With the article receiving 186 comments (a high number of comments for this particular news site), this blogs favorite follows:

“Just another meaningless political gesture by guilt-ridden neurotic white people.
Hey! That's what Amherst is all about!”

That says it all.