Sarah Palin Helped Oprah: Better Ratings Than With Obama!
Wednesday, November 18th, 2009Wow. That’s gotta be galling for Oprah to know that coddling Obama cost her so much. Meanwhile, a visit by Sarah Palin nets her the best ratings in years:
Monday’s episode of “The Oprah Winfrey Show” drew a 8.7 household rating and 13 share — the best since Oprah had the entire Osmond family on the show in 2007.
That means Palin also topped Oprah’s heavily viewed interviews with Whitney Houston at the start of the season.
Sarah Palin causes a press tsunami. Even Andrew Sullivan can’t absorb it all, poor dear. Fans wait breathlessly in lines for Sarah.
Maureen Dowd is predictably churlish. She’s defensive about her elite, insider status [humor, Sarah, make fun of these empty pumps, they can't take humor]:
“We felt our very normalcy, our status as ordinary Americans,” she writes, “could be a much-needed fresh breeze blowing into Washington, D.C.”
It is also real hard to be a real, ordinary, hard-working American if you are part of “what used to be called ‘mainstream’ national media,” as Sarah scornfully writes. “The time has come to acknowledge that it is counterfeit objectivity the liberal media try to sell consumers,” she says. “A period in the great American experiment has passed.”
I was beginning to panic. I pored over the book to see if there was anything that I shared in common with this apotheosis of traditional American values.
Let me answer that for you: No. You have nothing in common with Sarah. Now that that’s solved…
Sarah Palin causes serious heartburn.
Oh, Levi, Levi, Levi
Tuesday, November 17th, 2009Dan Riehl is right, this is not going to end well. Levi Johnson keeps parents of teenage girls awake at night–and it’s not because they’re looking at his scintillating Playgirl pictures. He’s exactly the kind of guy they don’t want their daughters to consort with ever. And here he is, exploiting his child’s family yet again. And he’s disgusted?
Jim Hoft says: “Maybe Levi should call Cindy Sheehan to find out how this story ends.”
Indeed. And I feel as sick watching him in the exploit-cycle as I felt watching Sheehan. It is as though neither of them are self-aware enough to know they’re being used. At the same time, their messages are so rank, that it’s difficult to feel sorry for them.
And Jules Crittendon notes how irrelevant Sarah Palin still is and has this comment on the polls:
It’s not so much that only 23 percent like her, or that 38 percent don’t like her, but that after going through the wringer as the designated target in a presidential campaign and being kicked around ever since, she still has 37 percent who haven’t heard enough or are undecided. That’s a pretty big soft area to work on over the next couple of years, while Obama keeps doing what he’s doing to his own numbers. As I heard some commentator remark the other day, a lot of people thought Ronald Reagan was a fringe joke around this time in Jimmy Carter’s presidency, too. Ball’s in her court.
I’d just like to point out that independents in New Jersey and Virginia overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama a year ago. Now, they gave conservatives huge wins. The independents are fickle pickles. It’s kinda cool to Palin hate, but that will change as Obama’s policies get less popular.
I have more on Sarah Palin’s recent interviews here. [Oh, here's Rush's transcript, by the way.] Decided to give old Ricky Hollywood his own post. It will be one of the last ones he gets.
Also, I find this statement by John Zieglar amusing: “For many reasons, this is by far the best book and greatest literary achievement by a political figure in my lifetime.”
I am all for effusive praise, but come on. I found those sorts of reviews of Obama’s books embarrassing. This is weird, too. But John has his reasons for being so enthusiastic. He says:
Among other things, we discover that Sarah Palin has a ridiculously good memory. People who know me say that I have an amazing ability to recall events and I have written two books, but I was blown away by the level of detail in this project, which encompasses her entire life. Since the timing of Going Rogue did not allow for massive amounts of time and resources to be put into research it had to all be put together — in incredibly short order — by Palin’s own memory and notes. The notion that numerous “news” outlets thirsting to find inaccuracies have yet to find one of major significance (no, a disagreement over the definition of “vetting” does not count) may to be the greatest testament to the book’s remarkable credibility.
We’ll see. I have the book sitting here. Received it today and will read it and review it.
In the meantime, I’ll be thankful that my kids aren’t yet dating age.
More at Memeorandum
Sarah Palin Interviewed By Rush And Oprah, A Study In Contrasts–UPDATED
Tuesday, November 17th, 2009The Sarah Palin – Oprah interview couldn’t have been more different than the Sarah Palin – Rush interview. I watched the Oprah interview yesterday after having not watched the Oprah Show in years. I listened to Rush today after listening intermittently for years. If I tell you how long, you’ll realize I’m older than I look, so I won’t tell you.
Anyway, before I get into the details, my overarching impression wasn’t related to Sarah Palin at all, but rather to the state of the press in general. For example, here’s Sarah Palin going into hostile Obama-loving territory on Oprah. She was on edge, and fought defensiveness, much like her interview with Katie Couric. But she did it. Unlike Barack Obama, who has studiously avoided any interview from anyone who isn’t a “friendly”, Palin demonstrates some gumption. [Barack Obama has decided to grant Fox an interview tonight, reportedly.] Luckily for him, that’s a rather small group and only one network who are fair and balanced–which is to say they’re not kissing his ass 24/7–but if any conservative did the same, the conservative wouldn’t ever be on TV or interviewed by any newsweekly, period. There are no even remotely neutral media sources. Who? MSNBC? NBC? ABC? CNN? CBS? Newsweek? Time? The New York Times? Who is fair? Who doesn’t lean so far left that they’re imploding for lack of viewers and/or readers and the ad dollars eyeballs drive? [UPDATED: Texans for Palin calls out USA Today for their bias today. It never ends.]
Right.
So, here’s Sarah Palin going forward into Oprah’s female den of iniquity. Oprah needs Sarah like Sarah needs Oprah. Sarah Palin needs to appeal to a broader slice of the electorate. Oprah needs ratings. It’s mutually beneficial and one of the bile-inducing decisions politicians make. Oprah doesn’t ask Sarah Palin substantive questions. Oprah asks Oprah questions–about Levi coming to Thanksgiving [More on Levi here], about her marriage, etc. Rush Limbaugh called the questions “soap opera stuff”, but that’s Oprah’s audience. Palin did relatively well. The Anchoress sums it up this way:
Palin struck me as too guarded and needlessly defensive. Toward the end, Oprah asked if she had anything else to say, and Palin unwisely blurted out, “you can’t turn off my mic…” which was very revealing. As I said over two twitters:
there is a brittle defensiveness to Palin that was not there before; she’s clearly carrying scabs from being savaged in ‘08 BUT…you can’t do that in politics. She was treated (IS still treated) abominably by press, but if she can’t transcend that she’s out
Okay, political analysis in 140 characters doesn’t really work, but yeah, it seems to me that Palin is showing her scars from the detestable way the press descended on her and her family like a pack of rabid canines and worked to literally destroy Palin when she emerged in ‘08.
But the press tried to destroy Reagan, and they tried to destroy Bush; they could only get so far, because both men were able to shake the rutting mutts off their legs with aplomb, and look forward. It is a quality of character, part of it comes from knowing who you are and -as we see happening- it encourages people to take a second look, or a third, if need be.
I have suspected that Palin does know who she is, but she’s been rattled, and it shows. And so, she is talking about media mistreatment; her charges are not untrue, but tonguing the wounds will not help her with the people she needs to win over. They will see it merely as an unattractive, vindictive quality, rather ala Obama. Who wants more of that?
Sarah Palin needs to deal with this den of vicious beasts better. And they are vicious. Camille Paglia, who The Anchoress quotes, says succinctly:
She also needs a shrewder, cooler take on the mainstream media, with its preening bullies, cackling witches, twisted cynics and pompous windbags. The Northeastern media establishment is in decline, and everyone knows it.
Rush’s interview, in contrast, made Sarah Palin sound like a wise elder statesman. He didn’t throw softballs. To the contrary, he asked her substantive policy questions. [Transcript here and here's the audio.] Guess what? She didn’t stumble. She flowed. It was great to listen to, really, and heartening. Rush asked her questions on everything from national security, foreign policy, oil exploration, health care and illegal immigration. Not one stutter. Not one hiccup. She was flawless.
It wasn’t just her form. Her substance was pure, unapologetic small-government conservative. It was like taking a breath of fresh political air, if such a thing exists. D.C. smells gives off the fetid fumes of months dead fish in the still undrained swamp. Sarah Palin is not D.C. She brings the brisk, clean Alaskan air and sends a chill down the spines of Democrats and Republican establishment types. They are right to fear her. She is formidable.
I want Sarah Palin to succeed.
Sarah Palin must though, find a way to be at ease answering any question that the superficial, bigoted, condescending North Eastern blue bloods throw at her. Underneath, these people are insecure. It rattles them to their bones that a state college educated, wife, mother, politician and governor could best them. Their insecurity will get more piqued as President Obama continues to waffle, avoid and hide–from unfriendly press, from dictators, from tough decisions, from failure.
Sarah Palin will have to get used to wearing the mantle of leader. That means that she’ll have to own the fact that she’s so formidable that Barack Obama has finally, at long last, decided to man up and face Fox. (It won’t be much of a feat. Geeze, O’Reilly already loves him and the rest of the cast like him, too. It’s only the talking heads like Beck and Hannity that dislike the guy. What a weenie Obama has been avoiding Fox. So typical, though.)
Obama illustrates the point though. He’s weak. He will only take the easy road. Sarah Palin, by nature of being conservative, chooses the more difficult road. It’s just the way it is. She needs to own it. She needs to march down the road with cheerful grace. These self-important press and establishment types cannot handle good humor. They have no sense of humor about themselves. A well-placed gentle jibe will do more than 100 well-circumscribed answers and cluck-clucking back-tracking. The circumlocution is Obama’s forté. Sarah Palin needs to own everything, be direct and have a ball.
Really, what does Sarah Palin have to lose? What more can they say? The left has shot its load, not they won’t try to reload and make more bullcrap out of whole cloth. Let them. Really. Now is not the time to be defensive or afraid.
As a side note: When Oprah asked her invasive family questions, I noted that Sarah turned and looked at her daughters with love and pain in her eyes. It is disgusting to me that they have to hear the b.s. Some will say, “Well, it’s Sarah’s fault for bringing them.” Really? If Barack and Michelle Obama brought their daughters on Oprah, would she ask them, in front of the girls, about fight rumors and rumors of divorce? Somehow I doubt it.
There is a double standard. It’s despicable. In order to succeed, though, a conservative candidate, man or woman must, as The Anchoress says, transcend it. No doubt, Sarah Palin will have plenty of opportunity to do just that as she faces more hostile interviews.
More at Memeorandum
Sexy Sarah Palin: Leftist Sexists At It Yet Again–UPDATED, UPDATED AGAIN
Monday, November 16th, 2009How ribald can you be? Newsweek will show you:
The CBN’s David Brody says:
You’ve got to hand it to the folks at Newsweek. They have accomplished being biased and sexist at the same time. Quite a feat. This cover has got to be a new low right? They don’t use a photo of Palin on the campaign trail. No instead they take the sexy Runners World photo. Yes she posed for it but don’t tell me they didn’t purposely use that photo to make a point? I predict this cover will become a bigger story over the next 24-48 hours and let’s face it. This isn’t JUST about media bias. This cover should be insulting to women politicians. Where’s the sexy photo of Mitt Romney? Why not a picture of Tim Pawlenty with an unbuttoned shirt relaxing on a couch in the Twin Cities?
We see Obama with halos hovering over his head. We see Sarah in running shoes. The whole purpose is to diminish, denigrate and destroy a woman who differs politically.
As if fair-minded Americans needed more evidence of press bias.
Updated:
Sarah Palin responds to the cover from Facebook:
The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this “news” magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner’s World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness – a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention – even if out of context.
- Sarah Palin
After this post got fed to Twitter, I got into an argument with a leftist feminist there about this cover. She brought up Hillary Clinton. She believes that Sarah Palin did this to herself by posing for Runners World. What serious politician or man would pose for that sort of cover?
What serious newsweekly would put a degrading picture, say of Obama frolicking in the surf or Bil and Hill dancing in the sand for the camera, on the cover of a magazine? Only conservative politicians need worry about being portrayed as trivial and sexy (Sarah), mean and old (McCain), mean (Cheney), mean and stupid (GWB). A Democrat gets gravitas-portraying treatment.
Always.
And that’s why conservatives view the press as biased. They don’t even attempt, even feebly, to hide it anymore.
UPDATED AGAIN:
Well, I knew this story had legs. Sorry, couldn’t help myself. Anyway the feminists are coming out against Newsweek. It’s about damn time. It is heartening to see them facing this bias. Women should be evaluated on their content, beliefs and actions. When Sarah Palin is reduced to her legs, the men don’t have to evaluate her on her merit.
Julie Millican of Media Matters [!] says:
There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize Sarah Palin, her new book, and her policies, but you don’t have to stoop to sexism to do it. Newsweek’s November 23 issue, however, does just that by publishing on its cover a photo of Palin in short running shorts and a fitted top, leaning against the American flag. Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo — “How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?” — presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, “Maria,” in which nuns fret about “how” to “solve a problem like Maria,” a “girl” who “climbs trees” and whose “dress has a tear.”
When will the media stop this degrading nonsense? I think it’s when those within the ranks start holding them accountable. That’s happening, thankfully, at long last.
The Sarah Palin Storm Begins: Will Her Book Bring Her Back?
Monday, November 16th, 2009The jealous ovary hater Andrew Sullivan froths again. Sarah Palin must be peeking her head out of Alaska and Facebook. How DARE she?!
Still, I can’t help but imagining the envy among fellow Republicans. Rick Perry spouting about Obama’s socialism won’t get the press that Sarah Palin’s discussion about anything will get. And still Sarah Palin faces trouble according to ABC. Overall, 52% of Americans view her unfavorably. She needs to overcome this.
Will her book do this? Will a genteel interview with Oprah and an emotional one with Barbara Walters push her into favorable territory?
Sarah Palin is supported by the Republican party base. From Rasmussen:
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republican voters say former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin shares the values of most GOP voters throughout the nation.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% of Republican voters disagree and think the 2008 vice presidential candidate does not share their values. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.
By contrast, 74% of Republicans say their party’s representatives in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters nationwide over the past several years. Only 18% of Republican voters believe their elected officials have done a good job representing the base.
To win, though, Sarah Palin needs all Americans, particularly women. To win, though, Sarah Palin needs all Americans, particularly women. Are women ready for a woman in charge? I’m not sure about that.
Sarah just needs to keep plugging, I guess. She is driving the argument. Her Facebook posts push the news cycle, because she’s the only consistent voice calling the administration on their nefarious deeds. She is also going at the press. Dan Riehl has an interesting take:
Sarah Palin seems to be spoiling for a fight with the media in her latest Facebook posting. There are going to be people, assuming political consultants are people, that are going to call this foolish. They’ll rely on conventional, read old, wisdom that says you don’t pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel. But does that alleged wisdom still apply?
Reagan didn’t fight with the media. The usual descriptor for what he did is, he went over the media’s head directly to the American people. Is Sarah Palin really doing anything different, except for having Facebook, blogs and a great many other New Media resources today to which Reagan didn’t have access? Just imagine how even more effective his communication strategy would have been if he had?
Because of media advances made in the last several years, Sarah Palin doesn’t have to go over the media’s head. She can go right through them. It appears to me that’s precisely what she intends to do. Don’t be surprised if it works, even as the media and some old-line politicos point how what a bad idea it is.
Well, time will tell if Sarah Palin’s strategy will work. She’s not going away and she’s not hiding. I’m wondering if she wins some good will and grudging respect through her book and softer interviews, if she’ll go on a Sunday talk show. That’s what many politicos seem to want. First, though, she needs to have a conversation with the people, win them and then they might be more interested in listening to a wonkier Sarah Palin.
Also, and this shouldn’t be underestimated, Barack Obama is doing more to make Sarah Palin viable than anyone else. Her Facebook posts are straight-forward, self-evident common sense. Meanwhile, President Obama is so “smart” and his impulses are exactly wrong. He seems ashamed of America and American principles. No doubt about Sarah Palin’s allegiance. That may well be enough, after it’s all said and done.
Sarah Palin’s Qualification…
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009CNN conducts a poll about Sarah Palin and 70% view her as unqualified to be president. But the more important part of the poll comes after that:
The poll indicates that about half of the country, 51 percent, has an unfavorable view of Palin, with 42 percent seeing her in a positive light. Nearly two-thirds of those questioned say Palin’s not a typical politician, and feel she’s a good role model for women. Fifty-six percent add that Palin cares about people, and a similar amount think she’s honest and trustworthy. But the survey indicates Americans are split over whether Palin shares their values, agrees with them on the issues, or if she’s a strong leader.
“Sarah Palin has one advantage that many past Republican candidates have not shared – Americans think she cares about people like them,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “But her biggest Achilles heel is the number who think she is not qualified to be President. Those numbers are similar to what Dan Quayle got in 1993, when only 23 percent thought he was ready for the White House.”
Give Obama’s policies some more time, and the only thing that voters will care about is that there is a candidate who actually seems concerned about them. Right now, all parties are very disconnected from the electorate.
Sarah Palin can learn, grow, speak, hone her message and demonstrate qualifications over time. The other candidates have a much tougher time with demonstrating that they care for the people. It might take getting personality transplants–which is what would be required to change the public perception.
UPDATE: More on her “high risk, high reward” strategy here.
What Is Sarah Palin Up To?
Friday, October 23rd, 2009In my editorial at Pajamas Media today, I talk about Sarah Palin’s decision to endorse the conservative, rather than the Republican candidate and what it all means:
With her decision to endorse Doug Hoffman, the conservative (not Republican) candidate, Sarah
Palin sends the Republican Party a very clear message. She will be using her considerable fundraising ability to fund candidates who ideologically match what it used to mean to be a Republican. Since the Republican Party, from its toes to its nose, has difficulty identifying candidates with those credentials, she’ll help them do it.
The Republican Party has a choice. They can continue to antagonize those who vote them into office or they can start paying attention. They mistakenly buy the D.C. bubble philosophy that moderation is the way to find good candidates. What they’re seeing is a base willing to lose if the Republican Party doesn’t change its ways.
I also talk about identity politics and how it is blowing up for the Republican party. The love the party has for Sarah Palin has less to do with her beauty or gender than her beliefs and ideology. So the Republican party, while looking for women candidates needs to remember what’s most important: the beliefs. The base is sick of people who pay lip service to ideas like small government and fiscal responsibility and then turn around and govern like drunk liberals spending other peoples’ money.
Palin & Romney: Heart & Head? More Like, Heart & Soul…less
Thursday, October 22nd, 2009Matt Lewis wrote a thoughtful piece about the Republican party and what the two leaders mean for the future of the party:
The most often repeated template is for Republicans to select the person whose “turn” it is to run for president. That’s how the Grand Old Party opted for Richard Nixon, John McCain, Bob Dole — and even George H.W. Bush. The other, less frequently employed model, says: “If you’re going to send up a long shot candidate anyway –perhaps a ‘sacrificial lamb’ — why not go with your heart?” That’s how the GOP chose conservative firebrand Barry Goldwater as its standard-bearer in 1964, a decision that guaranteed a landslide victory for Democrats.
Today, the perfunctory, “next in line” theory suggests that the most likely GOP nominee will be former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. While Romney dropped-out of the 2008 campaign earlier than Mike Huckabee, most conservatives concede that Romney finished in secondplace – and that is certainly the view held by the McCainiacs. So, by the logic that led to the nominations of McCain and Dole, it’s Romney’s turn. Even if rank-and-file conservatives find him less than perfect concede that he’s paid his dues.
But what about the other model? Who is this year’s Goldwater – and, just maybe, our Reagan? Who is the person movement conservatives really want? It sure ain’t Mike Huckabee. And it might be Sarah Palin.
Further, he says this [and yes, I'm heavily quoting, go read the whole thing]:
With three years to go, predictions are a risky business. Palin may not even run. And perhaps someone such as Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour will emerge as the conservatives’ darling. If recent elections are any guide, the Republicans’ heads will tell them to choose Mitt Romney. Their hearts whisper something else. Is “Sarah” the name of this siren song?
There is an implication in this analysis that nominating Romney would be a “smart” thing. I would suggest, that is false. Mitt Romney, it should be remembered, lost to John McCain. Anyone who lost to John McCain should be discounted, in my opinion. John McCain was a weak and flawed candidate and everyone knew it. The Republican primary voters felt that the other candidates were weaker and/or more flawed.
Voting for Mitt Romney in 2012 would not only be not using one’s head, it would be outright stupid. Sure, he’s got the economic turnaround thing going, but he has the look and feel of someone a person just can’t trust. He is, dare I say it, unelectable. And everyone, but the most devoted Romney-ites knows it.
As for Sarah Palin being the luring conservative temptress, bidding the GOP to crash into the shoals of death, pain and panic…now, that is wrong, too. While the verdict is still out on Sarah Palin, she could be a very good or a very bad choice. How can anyone know that yet?
Sarah Palin has to delineate herself from not only McCain’s policies, she has to define herself as a Republican. Or is she going really rogue and starting her own party? We’ll find out soon enough.
Right now, I don’t think Romney makes sense on any level. Really, I can’t think of one Republican candidate for president who would be a good choice. But it is early yet. Strange times can lead to stranger candidates. These are strange times.
Sarah Palin Just Keeps Reinforcing Her Irrelevence
Wednesday, September 30th, 2009Man, don’t you wonder whatever happened to this political has-been? No one cares what she thinks. Except for the millions of people putting her on the best sellers list weeks in advance.
You know, I don’t believe in political saviors. Politics and those who practice the art, are by definition, hmmm… how to say this delicately…. malleable creatures. Politics often boils down to expedience and ruthless pragmatism. Still, there are good and better ones.
If the gnashing of teeth by those on the left is any indication, Sarah Palin is one of the best.
Sarah Palin V. Barack Obama: Round Whatever
Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009As President Obama pontificates before the UN talking about his four pillars, the first one being disarmament, also known as defanging the West so they’re helpless before an enemy that will never disarm, Sarah Palin talks about what is important to the American people and the economic world: It’s the economy, stupid.
Foreign policy often hinges on economic policy. The guns just back up the message.
Did Sarah Palin’s message work? No one can fully say. The press wasn’t allowed in to hear it. But here are a few of her words via the Wall Street Journal:
“We got into this mess because of government interference in the first place,” the former Republican U.S. vice presidential candidate said Wednesday at a conference sponsored by investment firm CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets. “We’re not interested in government fixes, we’re interested in freedom,” she added.
Is Barack Obama’s speech before the UN working? He is saying some interesting things, but the meta-message, weakness, will trump all words. No wonder the UN members like him, says the UK’s Nile Gardiner:
It is not hard to see why a standing ovation awaits the president at Turtle Bay. Obama’s popularity at the UN boils down essentially to his willingness to downplay American global power. He is the first American president who has made an art form out of apologizing for the United States, which he has done on numerous occasions on foreign soil, from Strasbourg to Cairo. The Obama mantra appears to be – ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do to atone for your country. This is a message that goes down very well in a world that is still seething with anti-Americanism.
It is natural that much of the UN will embrace an American president who declines to offer strong American leadership. A president who engages dictators like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez will naturally gain respect from the leaders of the more than 100 members of the United Nations who are currently designated as “partly free” or “not free” by respected watchdog Freedom House.
The UN is not a club of democracies – who still remain a minority within its membership – it is a vast melting pot of free societies, socialist regimes and outright tyrannies. Obama’s clear lack of interest in human rights issues is a big seller at the UN, where at least half its members have poor human rights records.
The United States has a study in contrasts–as does the world. There will be those who dismiss Sarah Palin’s quaint provincialism and extol Barack Obama’s egalitarian moral equivalence. Eventually, though, a world economy driven into the ground by soft-socialistic policies makes even the most ruthless tyrant hunger for the good old days when there was food and riches and wealth.
It’s a good day for evil world leaders if America goes down the toilet, but it’s a suicidal impulse. Americans, too, might want a softer place to land economically, they might desire big spending Eurpoean social programs, but that makes America weak and beholden to foreign nations. Suddenly, American foreign policy is dictated by dictators and those who hold the economic power.
In the end, Sarah Palin’s speech and philosophy will mean more for American security and sovereignty than President Obama’s empty words to a heedless world. They adore Obama but they disrespect the United States because we are buried in debt.
Foreign policy and economic policy are so wrapped together, one can’t be discussed without the other one. President Obama’s philosophy is making America weak both ways.
More on Obama’s policy objectives here:
Undermine our allies. Embolden our enemies. Diminish our country.
Those nine words define the Obama doctrine with respect to American security policy. All three elements were much in evidence in the president’s benighted decision last week to cancel the “third site” for intercontinental-range missile defenses in Eastern Europe. They will be on display as well during this week’s several conclaves with foreign leaders.
The cumulative effect is predictable: A world in which the United States has fewer friends, more enemies and fewer options for assuring its security.
