Note: Thanks to Christopher, a YoungRepublican (http://youngrepublican.townhall.com) for signing up today as a "Blogger 4 Palin." People supporting Sarah are part of what Ronald Regan called a "Big Tent," a diverse group of people supporting the Republican ticket.
Today, BlackTygrrrr - four "r's" please - asked me to: (1) check out his blog; (2) put it on my blogroll - if I thought my viewers might like it. I've done both. In return, I'm going to ask "Black" to review the Sarah Palin (Governor of Alaska) material and, if he agrees with it, to become a "Blogger 4 Palin." It's a reasonable request.
Why would I do such a thing? First, because I believe strongly in Sarah's candidacy. Second, because I know it's essential to get people - many of them - to find out who Sarah is. Third, if you don't ask people to take an action - in this case, to support Sarah - they won't act on their own. As generations of salespeople have observed, "You have to close the deal."
Townhall, like other political sites, is - or should be - all about coalition-building. It's not really about aging white guys pursuing a self-directed course in "Anger Management." It's not about repeating the same slogans over and over again in the "Comments" section.
Rather, it's about people with similar views getting together to influence the making of public policy, which certainly includes supporting specific candidates. "Supporting" means voting for such candidates, asking others to do so, and SENDING THEM MONEY - even if it's only a few bucks. In fact, sending a candidate $20 is a lot better than writing 200 comments in the essay section of TH.
Half the people on TH - and we know many of them - by name border on uselessness. They recite the same slogans (against amnesty, against liberals, against feminists, against homosexuals) endlessly. They never make a reasoned, fact-based argument for their "opinions." They just intone them, as if they were so many "Popes" speaking ex cathedra (with infallibility).
Don't get me wrong: it's absolutely critical to "talk up" candidates. It's essential to present simple, coherent, fact-based arguments for them.
I've talked recently about the importance of "viral marketing." In this case, that means I - along with a growing number of others - want support for Sarah to spread quickly among people. We want Sarah to become the hottest political commodity in America. We want so many people to support her that the Republican presidential candidates won't be able to ignore her.
We want Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt and others to compete to get Sarah on their talk shows. We want the MSM media (including FOX) to start talking about the "Sarah Phenomenon."
Who's this "we" I'm mentioning? Right now, it includes Elephantman (Palin for VP), Sanity102, GenXDad, Appletonian, Will, Young Republican, and other bloggers. It's not exactly a mass movement - yet - but it could soon be exactly that.
Bloggers are the key, because they're magnets. They attract other bloggers. Also, they're people who take actions - regularly doing their blogs - designed to influence others. In fact, blogging at its best is not about "expressing" oneself. It's about making converts.
Will Sarah be the next candidate for vice-president on the Republican ticket in 2008? I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that the Republican Party couldn't come up with a better candidate.
Many years ago, Father Keller of something called the "Christophers," used to say this on the radio: "It's better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness." In this case, the way you create a wildfire is to start lighting matches.
To that end, I'm committed to being a pest, a lighter of matches. If you're a blogger, or even if you're not, I'm asking you right now for your support for Sarah. She needs you, and the country needs her.
BlackTygrrrr, among many others, this means you!
Contact Stephen R. Maloney at
TalkTop65@aol.comThe Case For Rudy
Note: This is actually my column for tomorrow (Tuesday), but I think it’s important to get it out today because it raises important issues. I’m responding in part here to Sanity102, who questioned if the NRA and the Christian Coalition would allow Rudy to win the nomination and the election. Here’s what I replied:
Because TH has gone so completely in the tank for Romney, who has no chance of winning the nomination, it's sometimes hard to get truly accurate assessments of the presidential race. The old Republican "strategy" for winning the nomination may not hold this time -- in fact, I'd say it has no chance of holding. Rudy is trying to win the nomination by doing well in the Super Tuesday primaries, most of which he has a good chance to win.
Candidates who are pandering to the extremist elements of the supposed Republican “base” are making a bad mistake. They will paint themselves into an ideological corner that will make it impossible to win the national election. Someone like Romney seems to believe he can head the Republican ticket with a slogan like: “America, I was only kidding!”
The influence of the NRA and the old Christian coalition in critical states like NY, CA, NJ, CA, and FL is questionable. For 35 years, the leadership (key word) of the Christian Coalition has been pursuing a somewhat curious anti-abortion strategy (NOT a full pro-life approach unless we define life as existing only in the womb). It has failed to change much of anything.
Is there another direction that will save more lives of the unborn -- AND ALSO BRING THE STRATEGY TO A "WHOLE-LIFE" APPROACH?
The primary focus for any Republican or thoughtful Independent has to be defeating Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee. All other considerations are secondary. If Hillary gets in, she may appoint three or four more Ginsburg-Breyer types to the Supreme Court, and that will make the pro-life issue moot for at least another generation. If we narrowly focus on which Republican candidate passes this or that pro-life litmus test, then we’re putting ourselves on a downward slope to a major defeat.
One reason I'm backing Rudy is my strong belief that he will prevent more abortions than any of the supposed "pro-life" candidates, some of whom are incredibly cynical on this issue. The real pro-life candidates (Huckabee, Hunter, Gilmore, Tancredo, Paul) have ZERO chance of winning a national election.
Rudy has said he will appoint strict constructionist judges. That means he would be positively inclined toward justices whose judicial philosophies resemble those of Roberts and Alito.
(I meant what I said in my previous column about Rudy needing to bypass the extremist segment of the Republican base. He regards such people as a liability in winning the general election. They probably should go to a third party, which might get 2% of the national vote.)
This issue is a lot more complicated than most people on TH could imagine. One reason I'm so strongly for Sarah Palin is that she's a pro-life candidate with staying power. Right now, we don't have a compelling pro-life candidate on the national scene, and if we don't bring Sarah front-and-center, I don't see another such candidate emerging. I want Sarah elected to two terms as President (2016 and 2024) during which period she can appoint pro-life judges.
Will the NRA oppose Rudy if he wins the nomination? NO!
Frankly, the NRA doesn’t want an overwhelmingly liberal – and anti-gun – national government, which would be the case if Hillary wins. The NRA has recently shown a gratifying desire to compromise on certain issues, especially prohibitions on selling guns to people with mental disorders (“The Cho Factor”).
As the campaign unfolds, The Fred Thompson element will be intriguing to watch, but I haven’t seen any evidence that he could win against Hillary. Also, right now he's the "none-of-the-above-candidate," and he will lose that status as soon as he formally enters the race.
About McCain (my second choice)? Don't write him off just yet. He's strong on national security, and that's a critical issue.