How worried are the Sarah Palin Haters?

This worried:

We know that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin can hunt, and even field-dress a moose, but how will she take to poachers on her book sales? Start-up publisher OR Books has announced plans to publish Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare, a collection of essays about the maverick Republican with a title — and cover design — remarkably similar to Palin’s upcoming memoir. What’s more, OR’s paperback tome will be released on Nov. 17, the same day that Palin’s own Going Rogue: An American Life hits shelves — and one day after Palin’s just-announced, first-ever appearance on Oprah Winfrey’s show. (A shout-out to Ron Hogan at GalleyCat for the tip.)

Going Rouge is compiled by Richard Kim and Betsy Reed, two top editors of the left-leaning weekly The Nation, and includes essays by Nation regulars like Katrina vanden Heuvel, Naomi Klein, and Katha Pollitt. It’s the first release from OR Books, a fledgling outfit founded earlier this year by publishing veterans John Oakes and Colin Robinson that “embraces progressive change in politics, culture and the way we do business,” according to its website.

via Attention, Sarah Palin bashers: Lookalike book ‘Going Rouge’ is coming! | EW.com.

One word to describe something like this; pathetic. This is why I have such a disdain for the far socialist left and even the Libertarian left; because they have an ingrained hatred for anything or anyone who happens to represent traditional or dare I say it? — Conservative Christian values.  I will concede one point, that this is not anything really new, the far socialist left has always had this sort of hatred towards the Traditionalists and Christians; It just does not seem that they have been as vocal and outward about it. This could be because in the last 20 years, we have seen the advent of cable television and the internet, and it now seems that their message is getting out more. Plus, society has changed, people are less polite and are more eager to slam others than they used to be.

I thin capitalism is fine, but capitalism at the expense of another person, is just morally wrong. But then again, we are talking about socialist liberals, they have no morals. 🙄

NY23 Update

For all of you that give a hoot about what’s happening up in upstate New York’s NY23 special election. There are a good amount of updates.

Robert Stacy McCain’s Blog is on top of it. Please, Go Here, Here, Here, and Here.

Check this woman’s nutty Presser:

…and finally from Day By Day with Chris Muir:

Some advice that Obama should really listen to

Seeing that the running meme in the political Blogosphere is the fact that Obama White House is trying to marginalize its critics. I thought I would post a very well done speech: (H/T to HotAir for Video and Transcript)

Transcript:

In 1969 and during the first half of 1970, I was a wet-behind-the-ears, 29-year-old staff aide in the West Wing of the Nixon White House. I was working for the wisest man in that White House, Bryce Harlow, who was a friend of President Johnson, as well as the favorite staff member of President Eisenhower, and President Nixon’s first appointee.

Based upon that experience and my forty years since then in and out of public life, I want to make what I hope will be taken as a friendly suggestion to President Obama and his White House: don’t create an enemies list.

As I was leaving the White House in 1970, Mr. Harlow was heading out on the campaign plane with Vice President Spiro Agnew whose job was to vilify Democrats and to help elect Republicans. The Vice President had the help of talented young speechwriters, the late Bill Safire and Pat Buchanan. In Memphis, he called Albert Gore, Sr., the “southern regional chairman of the eastern liberal establishment.” He labeled the increasingly critical news media, “nattering nabobs of negativism.”

Those phrases have become part of our political lore. They began playfully enough, in the back and forth of political election combat. After I had come home to Tennessee, they escalated into something more. They eventually emerged into the Nixon enemies list.

In 1971 Chuck Colson, who was then a member of President Nixon’s staff and today is admired for his decades of selfless work in prison reform, presented a list of what he called “persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration.” He said he thought the administration should “maximize our incumbency . . . [or] to put it more bluntly, . . . use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” On that list of 20 people were people like CBS correspondent Daniel Schorr, Washington Star columnist Mary McGrory, Leonard Woodcock, the head of the United Auto Workers, John Conyers, the Democratic Congressman from Michigan, Edwin Guthman, managing editor of the Los Angeles Times, and several prominent businessmen such as Howard Stein, of the Dreyfus Corporation and Arnold Picker, vice president of United Artists. The New York Times and the Washington Post were made out to be enemies of the Republic.

Now make no mistake, politics was not such a gentlemanly affair in those days either. After Barry Goldwater had won the Presidential nomination in 1964, Daniel Schorr had told CBS viewers that Goldwater had – quote – “travel[led] to Germany to join-up with the right wing there” and – quote “visit[ed] Hitler’s old stomping ground.” — unquote. Schorr later corrected that on the air.

What was different about Colson’s effort, though, was the open declaration of war upon anyone who seemed to disagree with administration policies. Colson later expanded his list to include hundreds of people, including Joe Namath, John Lennon, Carol Channing, Gregory Peck, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Congressional Black Caucus, Alabama Governor George Wallace. All this came out during the Watergate hearings. You could see an administration spiraling downwards. And, of course, we all know where that led.

Now the only reason I mention this is because I have an uneasy feeling, only ten months into this new administration, that we’re beginning to see symptoms of this same kind of animus developing in the Obama administration.

According to Politico, the White House plans to “neuter the United States Chamber of Commerce,” an organization with members in almost every major community in America. The Chamber had supported the President’s stimulus package and some of his early appointments, but has problems with his health care and climate change proposals.

The Department of Health and Human Services imposed a gag order on a large health care company, Humana, who had warned its Medicare Advantage customers that their benefits might be reduced in Democratic health care reform proposals—a piece of information that is perfectly true. This gag order was lifted only after the Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said he would block any future nominees to the Department until the matter was righted.

The White House Communications director recently announced that the administration would treat a major television network, Fox News, as “part of the Opposition.” On Sunday White House officials were all over talk shows urging other news organizations to “boycott” Fox and not pick up any of its stories. Those stories, for example, would include the video that two amateur filmmakers made of ACORN representatives explaining how to open a brothel. That’s a story other media managed to ignore until almost a week later when Congress decided to cut ACORN’s funding.

The President has not stopped blaming banks and investment houses for the financial meltdown even as it has become clear that Congress played a huge role, too, by encouraging Americans to borrow money for houses they couldn’t afford.

He was “taking names” of bondholders who resisted the GM and Chrysler bailouts.

Insurance companies, once the allies of the Obama health care proposal, have suddenly become the source of all our health care problems—because they pointed out, again correctly, that if Congress taxes insurance premiums and restricts coverage to those who are sicker and older, the cost of premiums for millions of Americans is likely to go up instead of down.

Because of that insubordination, the President and his allies have threatened to take away the insurance companies antitrust exemption.

Even those of us in Congress have found ourselves in the crosshairs:

The assistant Republican leader, Sen. John Kyl of Arizona, said to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the stimulus plan wasn’t working. The White House wrote the governor of Arizona and said, “If you don’t want the money, we won’t send it.” Sen. McCain said that this could be perceived as a threat to the people of Arizona.

Sen. Bennett of Utah and Sen. Collins and I as well as Democratic Senators Byrd and Feingold all have questioned the number and power of the 18 new White House czars who are not confirmed by the Senate and have suggested that is a threat to constitutional checks and balances. The White House refused to send anyone to testify at congressional hearings. Sen. Bennet and I found ourselves “called out” on the White House blog by the President’s communications director, Anita Dunn.

Even the president, in his address to Congress on health care, threatened to “call out” members of congress who disagreed with him.

This behavior is typical of street brawls and political campaign consultants. It is a mistake for the President of the United States and the White House staff.

If the President and his top aides treat people with different views as enemies instead of listening to what they have to say, they’re likely to end up with a narrow view and a feeling that the whole world is out to get them. And as those of use who served in the Nixon administration know, that can get you into a lot of trouble.

This administration is only ten months old. It’s not too late to take a different approach – both at the White House and here in the Congress.

Here is one opportunity. At the beginning of this year, shortly after the President’s inauguration, the Republican leader, Sen. McConnell, addressed the National Press Club. He proposed that he and the President work together to make social security solvent. He said that he would make sure the President got more support in that effort from Republicans than President George W. Bush got from Democrats when he tried to solve the same problem. President Obama held a summit on the dangers of the runaway costs of entitlements which I attended. Every expert there said making social security solvent was essential to our country’s fiscal stability. There is still time to get that done.

On clean energy, Republicans have put forward four ideas: build 100 nuclear plants in 20 years, electrify half our cars and trucks in 20 years, explore offshore for low-carbon natural gas and for oil, and double energy research and development for alternative fuels. The administration agrees with this on electric cars and research and development. We may not be far apart on offshore exploration. And, at his town meeting in New Orleans last week, the President said the United States would be “stupid” not to use nuclear power. He is right, since nuclear reactors produce 70% of our carbon free electricity. So why don’t we work together on this lower-cost way to address clean energy and climate change instead of enacting a national energy tax?

On health care, the White House idea of bipartisanship has been akin to that of a marksman at the state fair shooting gallery: hit one target and you win the prize. With such big Democratic congressional majorities, the White House figures all it needs to do is unify the Democrats and pick off one or two Republicans.

That strategy may win the prize but lose the country. Usually, on complex issues, the President needs bipartisan support in Congress to reassure and achieve broad and lasting support in the country. In 1968 I can remember when President Johnson, with bigger majorities in Congress than President Obama has today, arranged for the Civil Rights Bill to be written in open sessions over several weeks in the office of the Republican leader, Everett Dirksen. Dirksen got some of the credit; Johnson got the legislation he wanted; the country went along with it. Instead of comprehensive health care that raises premiums and increases the debt, why should the White House not work with Republicans step by step to reduce health care costs, and then, as we can afford it, reduce the number of Americans who don’t have access to health care?

The President and his Education Secretary Arne Duncan have been courageous— there is no better word for it— in advocating paying teachers more for teaching well and expanding the number of charter schools. These ideas are the Holy Grail for school reform. They are also ideas that are anathema to the labor unions who support the President. President Obama’s advocacy of master teachers and charter schools could be the domestic of equivalent of President Nixon going to China. I, among others, admire his advocacy and have been doing all I can help him.

Having once been there, I can understand how those in the White House feel oppressed by those with whom they disagree, how they feel besieged by some of the media. I hope the current White House occupants will understand that this is nothing new in American politics—all the way back to the days when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson exchanged insults. The only thing new is that there are today multiple media outlets reporting and encouraging the insults 24 hours a day.

As any veteran of the Nixon White House can attest, we’ve been down this road before and it won’t end well. An “enemies list” only denigrates the Presidency and the Republic itself.

Forty years ago, Bryce Harlow would say to me, “Now Lamar, remember that our job here is to push all the merely important issues out of the white house so the president can deal with the handful of issues that are truly presidential.” Then he would slip off for a private meeting in the Capitol with Democratic leaders who controlled the congress and usually find a way to enact the president proposals.

Most successful leaders have eventually seen the wisdom of Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who said, “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies.
The British writer Edward Dicey was once introduced to President Lincoln as “one of his enemies”. “I did not know I had any enemies,” was the Lincoln’s answer; And Dicey later wrote, “I can still feel, as I write, the grip of that great boney hand held out to me in token of friendship.”

So here’s my point. These are unusually difficult times, with plenty of forces encouraging us to disagree. Let’s not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list. Let’s push the street-brawling out of the White House and work together on the truly presidential issues: creating jobs, reducing health care costs, reducing the debt, creating clean energy.

Now, do I believe that Obama was listen to this advice? Most likely not, as his White House is doing that same thing that Bush’s did; except for Obama has a bigger share of the media on his side, Bush did not. It is quite obvious that Obama is in full campaign mode, which will be to his own downfall. You watch and see.

Pat Buchanan has a point, BUT!

I was reading Pat Buchanan’s latest over on WorldNetDaily. It seems that again, Pat has invoked the ire of some on on the Liberal Left; and rightly so. Pat always writes his articles in the same format. A incendiary title, a thought provoking beginning, historical context in the middle and finally his real point and/or assertion at the end.

In his latest missive, he writes the following for his assertion:

Moreover, the alienation and radicalization of white America began long before Obama arrived. He acknowledged as much when he explained Middle Pennsylvanians to puzzled progressives in that closed-door meeting in San Francisco.

Referring to the white working-class voters in the industrial towns decimated by job losses, Obama said: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Yet, we had seen these folks before. They were Perotistas in 1992, opposed NAFTA in 1993 and blocked the Bush-Kennedy McCain amnesty in 2007.

In their lifetimes, they have seen their Christian faith purged from schools their taxes paid for, and mocked in movies and on TV.

They have seen their factories shuttered in the thousands and their jobs outsourced in the millions to Mexico and China. They have seen trillions of tax dollars go for Great Society programs, but have seen no Great Society, only rising crime, illegitimacy, drug use and dropout rates.

They watch on cable TV as illegal aliens walk into their country, are rewarded with free educations and health care and take jobs at lower pay than American families can live on – then carry Mexican flags in American cities and demand U.S. citizenship.

They see Wall Street banks bailed out as they sweat their next paycheck, then read that bank profits are soaring, and the big bonuses for the brilliant bankers are back. Neither they nor their kids ever benefited from affirmative action, unlike Barack and Michelle Obama.

They see a government in Washington that cannot balance its books, win our wars or protect our borders. The government shovels out trillions to Fortune 500 corporations and banks to rescue the country from a crisis created by the government and Fortune 500 corporations and banks.

America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right.

Now, let me clear, this is not an attempt to defend Pat’s (and no, that is not me… I wish I had Pat Buchanan’s money!) assertion. I simply will offer the the following: Factually, Pat is correct; America is no longer a Anglo-Saxon Nation anymore, America is a culturally diverse nation. It always has been, as long as I have been alive.  Now, as for his assertion, that America ever was the “White Man’s” America, or as if they ever owned it —- is factually wrong on its face and smacks of a racist mentality. To explain further, Pat Buchanan is a Paleo-Conservative or someone of the “Old Right”.  The difference between Paleo-Conservative and a Libertarian can be distilled down to one simple word: Protectionism. Pat Buchanan is a protectionist; Pat yearns for the days, back in the 1940’s and 1950’s, when America was at war and the industrial revolution was in full swing and everything was being built here in America. Some, but not all, of the Paleo-Conservative right; yearn for the days, back before the depression and FDR’s new deal. Before all of the Governmental controls were put into place.

The problem with Pat Buchanan’s and all of the Paleo-Conservatives ideals is this; they are not rooted in modern day reality. In other words, the Paleo-Conservatives are living in the past. Their isolationist mentality is one of pre-World War II. In other words, times have changed. Some for the good, and some for the bad. It is a fact of reality. We are now a Globalist Nation, with a Economy that is global as well, we just cannot go back to the way things used to be. It is a sad fact of reality, but it is the truth.  Again, this is not a defense of Pat’s article. It is more of explanation as to why Pat wrote what he did; I truly do not believe that Pat is a racist, I think he is simply writing in the vein of a protectionist.

However, let me also offer this; While I do agree with Pat’s take on economics, which is basically the Austrian School. I highly disagree with his take on World War II, Hitler and such. Some of that nonsense that he writes, quite frankly, makes me squirm. I tend to believe that he is a Hitler Apologist. That I cannot and will not defend.

It is quite obvious I am in the wrong profession

I wonder if they are hiring?

After you practice for years and get to Carnegie Hall, it’s almost better to move music stands than actually play the piano.

Depending on wattage, a star pianist can receive $20,000 a night at the 118-year-old hall, meaning he or she would have to perform at least 27 times to match the income of Dennis O’Connell, who oversees props at the New York concert hall.

O’Connell made $530,044 in salary and benefits during the fiscal year that ended in June 2008. The four other members of the full-time stage crew — two carpenters and two electricians — had an average income of $430,543 during the same period, according to Carnegie Hall’s tax return.

At Carnegie Hall, which has featured on its three stages such varied musicians as Duke Ellington, Bob Dylan and the Berlin Philharmonic, only Artistic and Executive Director Clive Gillinson makes more than the stagehands.

Gillinson earned $946,581 in salary and benefits in the fiscal year that ended in June 2008. Chief Financial Officer Richard Matlaga made $352,139, while General Manager Anna Weber received $341,542.

via Carnegie Hall Stagehand Moving Props Makes $530,044 (Update1) – Bloomberg.com.

Of course, there is a good explanation for this:

The stagehands benefit from a strong union: Local One of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees demonstrated its clout in November 2007 when its members walked off their Broadway jobs and closed 26 shows for almost three weeks. The strike ended after stagehands and producers agreed to a five-year contract that both sides called a compromise.

Joshua B. Freeman, a U.S. labor historian at Queens College and author of “Working Class New York,” said the union’s power to shut down a vital part of New York’s entertainment industry gives it leverage in negotiations.

“They have a credible threat of withdrawing their labor,” Freeman said.

Not that I have anything against Unions as a rule; as my Dad is a retired General Motors worker and a U.A.W. member. But holy Moses, most my Dad ever pulled out that job was $20.00 an hour at the time of his retirement; and these guys are making three figure salaries? The funny thing is, my Dad most likely did more work than this turkeys ever do in a day. Let me tell ya, that assembly line business is tough work, at least it was back when my Dad started back in the day. My Dad drove Hi-Low for the most part or as it is called in some circles; a Forklift, which he loved to do, he hated that line, he did work on the assembly for a while, and it just about killed him. Dad would always tell me; “Son, you do not want to work on that line, it is tough.”

It is good work, when you can get it! Speaking of which, where I do I sign up for a job there? 😉

Others: Fausta’s Blog, Gothamist, ArtsBeat, and The Corner on National …

ABC's Jack Tapper calls the White House out

This is why I really like good ol’ Jack Tapper. The man is just not drinking the Kool-Aid. I got to give the man props for that:

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC –

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

via Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 10/20/2009 – Political Punch.

That is their opinion; the problem with that is this, that is the White House, not a campaign office; what the White House says affects many things. Besides all that, this is still the United States of America; and we still have a two party system. Just because Fox News is not getting in lockstep with the President’s stupid socialism does not give them the right to fling around extremely stupid statements like this.

Folks, if I have told you this here once; I have told you a million times. This President Administration is totally overextending itself and it is totally gone of the rails with arrogance. Possibly as bad as, if not, worse than the George W. Bush Administration. There are some that read this blog, that might think that I am Bush fan. I am not, nor was I ever. I believe that his War in Iraq was wrong. Having said that, I am glad that he sent the surge in there and won the damn war. I just hope like hell that THIS President does the same thing in Afghanistan; as I would like to see some justice to those Al-Qaeda terrorists for what they did to those 2,996 people that died on 9/11. This is what separates me from the idiotic libertarians; they believe that 9/11 was a false flag operation carried out by the evil JEWS Neo-Conservatives to cause an excuse to go to war. Which is, of course, a bunch of bunk. I do not believe that our Government is smart enough to do something like that —- much less cover it up.

I know, that the rest of sane America know that 9/11 was carried out, by a group of criminal thugs, who hate our Country and everything that she stands for. These thugs hijacked a Religion as a recruitment tool. But yet, Obama wants to extend his hand these blood thirsty killers and give them a “Place at the table” as it were. George W. Bush called it correctly at the U.N.; that is nothing more than appeasement and it results in nothing more than dead people.  Just ask Neville Chamberlain. He tried that with Hitler, and you see what that got him.

It is a pity that this White House has no grasp on history and the lesson that Neville Chamberlain learned.

Update: Fixed my rather humorous name error in the posting. Ooops! 😛 I have zero idea why I called him Wilt.