As a longtime voting “Republican,” I am going the way of the first dude. Keeping it “commonsense” and ignoring party affiliation in choosing which candidates best serve my interests and values the most.
It goes without saying that Barack Obama is the worst president in history. We know that. But what most of us also know is the environment in Washington which has plagued and threatened the health of our Republic for decades. It includes affiliations to political interests, corporate interests, and the returning of favors to fat-cat campaign donors.
It was this environment along with the media’s power to manipulate facts accompanied by a few sissies in the Republican Party that led to Obama’s election to begin with.
It’s because of money and these same circumstances that we are faced once again with settling for one chosen candidate. If we are forced in choosing between two candidates we don’t like in a general election, of course they know we’re going to vote for the less dangerous of the two. Yet, it doesn’t mean – nor does it guarantee – that the chosen candidate has the average voter’s best interest at heart over perhaps that of the fillers of their campaign coffers.
Where I have been stuck is mostly derived from the warnings of the Republican elite. You know them: Why not unite and get behind this candidate? Do you want four more years of Obama? Or my personal favorite: Well, of course he’s not my first choice, but c’mon…our country surely cannot withstand four more years of Obama!
So, we have our marching orders: don’t ask questions, don’t you dare challenge the process, and don’t cause us to lose to Obama in November.
I don’t buy it. I still don’t because of the way I am continuously seeing some in the media who insist on calling themselves “Republican strategists” feed the false media narratives about Sarah Palin.
Just this week on ABC, a no-name alleged thinker portraying himself as a “strategist” is buying into the false narrative of Palin’s negative impact on McCain’s 2008 ticket.
In the land of reality, we know it was Sarah Palin who brought out the crowds in 2008. We know it was Sarah Palin who brought in 70 million viewers to the VP debate in 2008. We also know it was Sarah Palin who beat Katie Couric in the ratings very recently just as she gave SNL and Oprah their biggest ratings in years when she appeared on their shows.
Yet, with all her charisma and likability, I can honestly say none of us had thrills going up our legs. Instead, we were refreshed to see a true-blue America-loving candidate with the right principles step forward and talk like we talked — for once! And to sweeten the deal, she had a record of accomplishment, principle, and experience that blew the other players out of the water. The important parts!
And of course, Steve Schmidt himself admitted that the McCain campaign benefited from her presence on the ticket even though he attempted to pack his own parachute by re-writing history in lieu of simply admitting that he and Nicolle Wallace were guilty of attempting to morph one of the most brilliant politicians and public servants of our time into a cardboard copy of Olympia Snowe.
Further on that same ABC piece, the narrative now suggests that Palin’s presence on the VP ticket in 2008 is a haunting element to possible female VP choices for 2012 like Kelly Ayotte, Senator from NH or Nikki Haley, Gov. of South Carolina.
Again, here in the land of reality, we all know that Ayotte and Haley were virtually unknown in 2010. We also know that despite some vessels of support both then-candidates received in 2010, that it was the endorsement of Sarah Palin and the support of the tea party energized by her voice throughout that process which catapulted both women to victory in their respective races.
In fact, today, even after serving their posts as Senator from NH and Governor of SC, neither one of them carry one morsel of the experience of Governor Palin when it comes to prior full terms of executive experience, energy expertise, a proven resolve in standing up to big oil companies or corrupt members of their own party, or winning against powerful incumbents on nothing but a message of reform and decency without the money required to buy your way up the ladder.
Merely claiming to have the same convictions as Governor Palin doesn’t make one entitled to proclaim equal experience, it just makes you an understudy.
Why I bring these blatant mischaracterizations up is to paint a factual bigger picture, not to diminish our chances of winning in November.
While GOP “strategists” prattle on about unity, they could start by showing a little respect to the only member of the Republican Party who gave us enough energy to win a midterm election with historic measure in 2010. Until they can decide to be men-enough and have character enough to look the media in the eye and call them out on their nonsense is when they can start to think about asking me to settle for who they’ve decided to force on me.
Not that it will work.
You don’t say: Obama is so terrible, we have to settle. Instead, you say with confidence: Obama is so terrible; we can actually run a real conservative who inspires all to be better Americans and win in a landslide like Reagan did.
The Tea Party embodies enough common sense to know that if the Republican mouth-pieces really want unity, they have to lead by example and not sacrifice the good names of true conservatives like Sarah Palin in their mission to find a candidate that the media is going to miraculously approve of.