Opinions expressed on this site are solely the responsibility of the site's authors and any guest authors whose material is posted here. This site is not authorized or operated by Governor Palin, her staff, or any other candidate or committee.

Monday, December 21, 2009

Battleground Poll: Conservatives Make Up 63 Percent Of America: What It All Means



Here is the latest polling from Battleground. This comes right on the heels of Gallop polling that also shows the majority of Americans consider themselves conservative. This is no fluke either. And as much as we’d love to say that Obama is driving people away from his and his party’s rapidly dying ideology, the truth is Battleground polling, since 2002, has consistently found similar results. Battleground, a bipartisan polling group, has a record of being very accurate.

Bruce Walker over at the American Thinker has some great analysis:


The Battleground Poll and the Battle for America

There's good news for conservatives in the latest Battleground Poll. The political implications are profound...if the already-energized conservative base takes even more initiative.

In August 2008, I wrote an article on "The Biggest Missing Story in Politics." The article explains that conservatives are an overwhelming majority of America. One year later, I wrote an update on that theme, this time based on the Gallup Poll which showed that conservatives outnumber liberals in virtually every state in the union. I have been writing about the remarkable Battleground Poll results in many articles for many years.

The Battleground Poll reveals the internals of its poll. It also asks respondents the same demographic questions in each poll: What is your education level? What is your age? What is your religious affiliation? What is your marital status? Question D3 asks respondents to describe their ideology. The choices are "very conservative," "somewhat conservative," "moderate," "somewhat liberal," "very liberal," and "unsure/refused." Those asked by the Battleground Poll -- if they dislike the liberal label -- can call themselves moderates, they can refuse to answer, and they can express an uncertainty about their ideology. Only those certain of their ideology and willing to label themselves are considered conservative in the poll.

The Battleground Poll is not a Republican polling organization. It is, rather, one of the few bipartisan polling organizations. Republican and Democrat pollsters agree on the language of the questions for respondents, so that the questions asked are not only fairly worded, but unusually fairly worded. Republican and Democrat pollsters agree on the population sample, so that polls results are not skewed because too many Democrats, too many Republicans, or too many independents are included. The Battleground Poll also has proven very accurate over many elections.

The responses to Question D3 have been remarkably consistent. Respondents have changed dramatically about what they thought of President Bush or of the state of the economy or the most important issues facing our nation. Respondent may swing quite a bit about which party they support or trust the most. But in one single area of this long list of polling data, the American people have not wavered at all from Battleground Poll to Battleground Poll: About sixty percent of the American people, in poll after poll, year after year, describe themselves as "conservative."

On December 16, 2009, Battleground released its latest poll. In this one, 63% of the American people described themselves as "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative." The rest of America -- not just liberals, but moderates and people who were unsure about their ideology or chose not to respond to that question, totaled only 37% of America. A measly one percent of Americans called themselves moderates; 25% of Americans called themselves "somewhat liberal"; and 8% of Americans called themselves "very liberal."

This is no aberration. Consider in Battleground Poll results since June 2002 the percentage of Americans who have described themselves as conservative: June 2002 (59%), September 2003 (59%), April 2004 (60%), June 2004 (59%), September 2004 (60%), October 2005 (61%), March 2006 (59%), December 2007 (58%), July 2007 (63%), May 2008 (62%), August 2008 (60%), September 2008 (59%), and October 2008 (56%).

In the November 2008 Battleground Poll, for the first and only time, the straight question of "conservative" or "liberal" was not posed to respondents. Instead, the poll asked respondents two separate questions: fiscal ideology was asked in Question D6 and social ideology was asked in Question D7. The Battleground Poll clearly intended to refine Question D3. What were the results? Fiscal conservatives in Question D6 were 69% of respondents. Social conservatives were 53% of respondents and social liberals were 39%. While that sounds like social conservatism is a weak link, that is misleading: a whopping 34% of all Americans described themselves as "very conservative" on social issues, by far the largest very intense group in any Battleground Poll.

What does this mean for American politics today? It ought to boldly empower conservatives. The "right," which every Democrat leader reflexively attacks whenever political opposition to his plans grows strong, boasts the overwhelming majority of Americans. This explains why the left's ballot initiatives in California last year failed, in some cases, in every single county of the state and why the gay marriage ballot measure failed in liberal Maine. This also explains why Obama runs away from "labels" (all leftists do, and have for many years).

What it means in politics is that any true conservative against a true leftist should carry every state and win by a landslide. But it means more than that. Conservatives in the areas of culture, media, entertainment, and education are treated like unwanted stepchildren, or worse (despite the fact that conservatives on average are better-educated than liberals).

The worst victims of invidious bigotry in America today are conservatives. Only a tiny percentage of professors are conservative. The same is true for government-supported media like NPR, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the National Endowment for the Arts. Libraries are dominated by the minority left. How different would America be if fifty or sixty percent of teachers, librarians, professors, public media producers, and staff in government-supported organizations were conservative?

That ought to be a goal for conservatives. Winning elections is fine, but how much more vital is it for us to recover at least an equal voice in colleges, media, schools, libraries, and entertainment? What is wrong with us, the overwhelming majority of Americans, demanding not to be consigned to a ghetto or treated by Jim Crow standards? We begin by pointing out the obvious: conservatives are the majority of Americans, but we are almost invisible in our public and private institutions of education, information, entertainment, and study.

Then demand that those who want our tax dollars, our commercial business, our donations -- anything, really, from us -- treat us fairly, portray us honestly, and invite us into the halls of influence. It is a modest demand, but it is very important. It is a cultural "game-changer," and that, more than anything, is what we need.



Walker nails it here. This is more than just about who wins elections. This polling shows that conservatism is greatly under represented in this country. The implications, for business, media, entertainment, and marketers are incredible.

Let’s take the media first. It’s no secret that liberals make up the bulk of those who choose “journalism” as their career. Even at the so-called “Republican” Fox News, liberals far out number conservatives on the payroll. Everywhere else, conservatives are almost non-existent.

Oh sure, every network and big newspaper has their “token conservative.” They all have their David Brooks or David Frums. But none are actually conservative. Most are “progressives” masquerading as conservatives. Is it any wonder that the newspaper industry is collapsing and the two cable news networks that aren’t Fox are going virtually unwatched?

A smart operator would shake things up and get back to being a news agency rather than a shill for the democrat/communist party. Their profits would soar, and America would be better for it.

The same goes for Hollywood. You ever notice that when Tinseltown makes a movie or television show that is family friendly that folks flock to them in droves? Shows like American Idol and Dancing With The Stars are huge hits because they appeal to a conservative audience. Now that’s not to say every show should be a version of these two, but it shows that Americans enjoy more wholesome fare than what they are generally served up.

Frankly, I enjoy films and shows that are considered “edgy.” There is absolutely a place for these sort of things. Where Hollywood loses me is when they turn otherwise entertaining and delightful movies and TV shows into nothing more than vehicles for liberal propaganda.

One has to look no further than the NBC/Universal to see this on display. Although under new management, NBC/Universal is the poster child for unrelenting propaganda. Owned by General Electric, whose CEO is an adviser to Barack Obama, NBC/Universal has pushed the global warming hoax to the max for years, going so far as having “green weeks” where all of their shows, and entertainment work the global warming shtick into the story line.

NBC uses their long running series Law and Order to bash conservatives, Christians, gun owners, pro-life advocates, and so on. Portraying them as evil and unstable.

It’s easy to see the motivation behind Law and Order. They despise conservatives and use tactics right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules in order to demean and marginalize the object of their scorn. While the far left eat this up, conservatives, by nature, are too timid to act. This needs to change, and change big time.

Of course, for GE, it’s all about the money. NBC pushes “green” as much as possible because GE makes most of the implements of this movement. By hammering viewers constantly with propaganda, they hope to convince people to fall for the global warming scam. Hundreds of billions of dollars are riding on this deal for GE alone. Big Global Warming, if not stopped, will be a trillion dollar industry built on the back of the American people.

Again, smart operators in the entertainment industry would take a pass on all of the propagandizing and get back to just entertaining. The ones who do that will have great success and loyal viewers.

Now this is not to say that TV shows shouldn’t have messages built in. The greatest movie ever made, Casablanca, is one of the most patriotic films ever made. Whether it was intentional or by accident, this movie stirs great emotions, even to this day.

Years ago, television was leading the way with socially relevant programming. TV tackled tough subjects like racism and sexism. Important issues of the day and issues Americans agreed needed addressing. That was responsible and appropriate. What we see now is just pushing an agenda that most of the country doesn’t care for.

Liberals always have to force their agenda on the people, because few would willingly submit.

With all of that said, this has the greatest implications for the Republican Party. The Party is in shambles. For decades the so-called “moderates” have attempted to marginalize conservatives, and conservatism. It’s why they are completely out of power in Washington.

The country club, blue blood, Rockefeller Republicans, the RINOs and DIABLOs (Democrats In All But Name Only) are, and always have been, “progressives.” This is worse than liberal, and frankly all of us are guilty of labeling “progressives” as liberals. The “progressive” movement goes all of the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, a Big Government Statist. “Progressives” totally control the democrat/communist party.

Conservatives, when in power within the Republican Party, have always come out as winners. One has to look no further than the Great Ronald Reagan, who won two unprecedented landslide elections to the presidency, to see that conservatism is attractive to the American people.

We are seeing the same sort of buzz around Sarah Palin, an unapologetic conservative icon. Not since Reagan has a single politician truly aroused the American people.





Oh sure, Barack Obama achieved pop star status, but it was all smoke and mirrors. There was absolutely no substance. In fact, as it is now painfully clear, Obama had to lie about his actual agenda in order to win the election. Obama had to work over time to keep his radical associations from derailing his run for office. Of course, he had plenty of accomplices in the willing media to carry his water and hide the real Barack Obama. Now that he is in, the American people are mortified by the incredible mistake that was made. The American people are horrified now that any pretense that Obama isn’t an out and out communist is gone.

Bounce this off of Sarah Palin’s incredible popularity. Unlike Obama, she actually has decades of experience as an executive level leader. She has an actual public record, going back 20 years, that can be examined by all. She is quick to state her position on any given subject, and all one has to do is look back at her actual record as a public servant to see that she’s pretty consistent in her beliefs and agenda. In other words, if she is saying it now, she has a record of doing before. She doesn’t have to hide behind trickery and the slight of hand. She is what she is.

Sarah doesn’t have to hide from the American people who she is. She is genuine. In this way, Sarah Palin is just like Ronald Reagan: Outspoken and unabashedly conservative. People see this, and respond favorably.

The implications for the Grand Old Party are many, and great, but the biggest is the myth that the GOP needs to “moderate it’s message” to win elections. The current GOP wisdom, or what passes for it, is that we need to pander to the oh so precious “moderate” vote to win. (A whopping 1 percent of the population, according to this poll!) That we need to be a “big tent party” to regain power. The end result is a party that is nothing more than democrat/communist light.

Yes, there are differences in the parties, but on many issues top candidates from our party sure sound a lot like the democrat/communists, and certainly vote with them in their misguided effort to be bipartisan. Our last presidential candidate made one of his center piece talking points the fact that he was known for “reaching across the aisle.” You see where that got us! And I’m not just talking about the election!

Conservatism is the big tent. Always has been. In 1984 Reagan won crushing victories in 49 states by governing as a true conservative in his first term. A feat that hasn’t been, and may never be, duplicated. Running as an unbridled conservative, Reagan “only” won 44 states in 1980.

If you look around at the current political landscape, all of the stars are unabashedly conservative. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Jim DeMint, James Inhofe, Michael Williams, and Lt Col. Allen West are all solid conservatives and not afraid to say so.

Speaking of Michael Williams:





Williams is the Railroad Commissioner of Texas, a very powerful job, that among other things, regulates energy in Texas. Hmmm.....Sarah Palin had a powerful job in Alaska doing pretty much the same thing!

Williams is wildly popular in Texas, and a shoe-in to take Kay Baily Hutchison’s seat, giving Texas an actual conservative in the Senate for the first time, in some time. Make sure you check out his You Tube channel that is filled with inspiring speeches.

Then you have Lt Colonel Allen West, from Florida, who is running for Congress:





This is the message of conservatism. This is the message of liberty and freedom. This is the message of America. One of the most powerful speeches you’ll see.

The video below is what is considered the best speech given by any leader since Ronald Reagan’s iconic 1964 address to the Republican National Convention. In this speech Sarah Palin solidified her position as the new leader of the conservative movement:





Of course, the original is still the blueprint for greatness in America. I’ve always considered this “must see TV” and go so far as to say that schools need to teach an entire subject based on this speech alone, and no one should graduate high school without a working knowledge of it’s concept.





It’s amazing how much of what Reagan had to say still applies today. It’s chilling what decades of liberal control of our culture has done to us, as a nation. The destructive nature of liberalism is seen all over the fruited plain. It touches our lives daily. It makes our lives just a little less whole, just a little less free.

Few, if any, in Washington get it. Our nation has been taken over by the most radical elements on earth. Vicious elements that have no problem using brute force, as well as trickery and deceit, to see their agenda prevail.

Liberty and freedom are the enemy of the liberal movement. The current communists in Washington are the enemies of liberty and freedom. They only bring tyranny and oppression to the table. The opportunity is ripe for true conservative leaders to step forward and assume the mantle of freedom and liberty, of the American way.

America sorely needs conservatives to answer the call at every level We need conservatives to step up to the plate in local and national races. We need conservatives to seek careers in education, journalism, and the arts. Most importantly we need conservatives to stand up and speak out. You are by far the majority in this nation, it’s about time you realize this, and no longer remain passive, no longer remain silent.

America is a conservative nation and it’s time that our conservative nature is both respected, and celebrated. It’s time for our government to respect the will of the people. It’s our duty to replace those that won’t, with those that will.

“Screw political correctness. Stand up, speak up, and be bold!”

_____Sarah Palin

Flying into 2010

I hate a fly. Yes, hate is a strong word...my dad said so. But truly, I do. I hate a fly.

That fact was reiterated to me as I was reading Dickens this week. I know now that my dislike for a fly is not just due to the fact that they aggravate me. It's deeper. They are stupid.

Charles Dickens in A Tale of Two Cities sets up a scene in the wine-shop as so...

There were a few customers, drinking or not drinking, standing or seated, sprinkled about. The day was very hot, and heaps of flies, who were extending their inquisitive and adventurous perquisitions into all the glutinous little glasses near madame, fell dead at the bottom. Their decease made no impression on the other flies out promenading, who looked at them in the coolest manner (as if they themselves were elephants, or something as far removed), until they met the same fate. Curious to consider how heedless flies are!

Yeppers. I surmise the heedless flies that are currently in office do not see their impending fate in 2010. They only remember that President Obama can swat them and brag about it as he did during his famous fly killah interview. Keep him happy by circling the Hill and landing on all carrion placed before them, and everything will be fine. Veer off course by rejecting the offerings and be called into the Flight Controller's office for a flight plan adjustment.

I perceive they are told to ignore the other flies that just met their doom this past November.

Are our elected officials so very sure they can continue to promenade in defiance of the majority of Americans with no recourse in view? Do they truly see a bright future ahead for them? As they are lured into the spider's web of presidential deceit, is there a chance, a very minute chance, they feel any fear?

Gov. Sarah Palin, in a recent SarahPAC missive, stated:

"After all our travels, it's even more obvious to me that the winds of change are blowing strong. At every stop people talked about the need to take our country back. So let's do it! 2010 is just around the corner and with it will come one of the most critical elections of our lifetime. With important House and Senate races across our nation and dozens of gubernatorial races we have the chance to make a positive difference throughout our country."


Drink up, flies, to your hearts' content, but just as the maggots you derived from, you will once again be bottom dwellers...this time in the dregs of the wine glass you once embraced, in a drunken stupor, as life giving.

Impression-less. Heedless. Stupid. I hate a fly.

(Image by shanik on flickr)

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Palin Slays Climate Fraud in Under 140 Characters ...tweetleydee

by Pamela Geller

Atlas Shrugs -- http://www.atlasshrugs.com



Sarah Palin has chalked up the just-concluded Copenhagen climate change summit to the "arrogance of man." In the early morning hours (Texas time) Saturday, the former governor tweeted:
Copenhgen=arrogance of man2think we can change nature's ways.MUST b good stewards of God's earth,but arrogant&naive2say man overpwers nature

Earth saw clmate chnge4 [eons];will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng

Palin Tweets on Copenhagen
In a Facebook Notes op-ed posted December 3, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate had urged President Barack Obama to boycott the conference in Denmark. Her opinion piece published in the Washington Post December 9 warned Americans to "be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference":
"Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science."
You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still Obama. h/t: The Hill Blogs

Beltway ‘Conservative’ Blowhards Do Little to Impact Iowa Republican Opinion

Reeling Conservatives I was over at The Bean Walker and noticed an op/ed by David Mastio at The Des Moines Register.  Who is David Mastio you may ask?  I’m not familiar either, but he is the “Senior Editor for Online Opinion” at The  Washington Times, and obviously he thinks we should care about his opinion regarding who Iowa Republicans support in 2012 and who we give our money to.

He chastises Iowa Republicans, and what is our crime?  Not only did Iowa Republicans give Sarah Palin a high approval rating in a recent Iowa Poll, but we also spent too much money on her book, Going Rogue: An American Life, as well as, time waiting in line for her book signing in Sioux City.  I’m also sure he’s wondering why establishment darling, Mitt Romney, still isn’t as well liked as Palin or Mike Huckabee here in the Hawkeye State.  As he peers down his nose at the unwashed masses who identify with the Republican Party of Iowa the Iowa Politics “expert” Mastio bloviates:

Once I thought there couldn't be anything dumber than the Democrats' combo of a giant auto bailout and "Cash for Clunkers." We'll squander untold billions, but completely fail to change the reality that there are fewer and fewer auto jobs, factories and dealers. When U.S. sales plummet from 17 million cars a year to around 10 million, there's not much a bailout can do other than slow the rout.

I was wrong. Iowa Republicans have come up with something worse. Call it "Cash for Quitters." A whopping two-thirds of self-identified Republicans have a positive view of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, according to the Iowa Poll, and, as a result, they're willing to line up in the cold by the hundreds while shelling out cash for her new book.

But every dollar that goes to Palin - in book sales now or campaign donations later - is a dollar that can't be used to help a Republican who actually has a prayer of being president.

What is his reasoning?  Because she left office early.

There's no getting past the fact that Palin is a quitter. In more than two centuries, nobody has ever been elected president when their only turn in high office was aborted in the middle just because doing the people's work got to be too much of a drag.

Now if she decides to run, a big if, no doubt that will be an item of discussion.  But to say “doing the people’s work got to be too much of a drag,” tells me that Mr. Mastio doesn’t have a clue about what was going on in the State  of Alaska, and he further proved it by writing:

Conservatives can say a lot of bad things about Bill Clinton, but one thing we can't say is that he ran from a fight. When voters took the House of Representatives and the Senate from his party, he still came in to work. When Republicans impeached him, he didn't give up and walk away, he bombed the former Yugoslavia. Liberals can say a lot of nasty things about George W. Bush. Even if he was a dumb warmonger, he kept right on dumbly warmongering, no matter what voters or the Democrats threw at him…

…If anything, politics in Washington, D.C., is tougher than the game they play in Juneau. If Palin can't handle cold politics on a glacier, she's not going to fare much better in the hot politics of the D.C. swamp.

In many ways, the 1994 elections did President Clinton a favor.  He got to govern from the center which is what he wanted to do anyway.  As far as his impeachment, fair or not, it was his behavior that led to that point.  Let’s not paint President Clinton to be an innocent victim or holding on to his position as not running from a fight.  I’m glad he was able to function and continue to accomplish the role of Commander-in-Chief.  As did President Bush… that is precisely the point.

Juneau is not D.C., and Governors do not have as much protection, or in many ways, power to continue to govern when their administration is in gridlock.  Governor Palin accomplished her agenda in the 2 1/2 years she was in office.  She stepped down to make sure that agenda would progress under an administration that wasn’t having frivolous ethics charges & FOIA filed against them left and right.  Her administration was in gridlock, and the state was wasting taxpayer money.  Governor Sean Parnell, so far, has had a pretty smooth tenure.  When she stepped out of the Governor’s Mansion she was able to take the fight to the next level.

She wouldn’t have been able to speak out on the health care debate, cap and tax, climate change, Afghanistan, and common sense conservatism in general if she were still Governor.  She wouldn’t be able to campaign in 2010 for good candidates, why?  Until the Alaksa Executive Ethics Act is addressed she’d still be incurring more complaints and incurring more debt (which this book I’m sure helped her pay off since her legal defense fund is frozen due to… you guessed it, another ethics complaint).

Perhaps wasting taxpayer money in order to be in a better political position is ok with Mastio.  That shouldn’t surprise us as he’s used to operating within the Beltway and that is how the game is played.  We in Iowa, if I can be bold enough to speak on behalf of those who do have a favorable opinion of Palin, are sick of politics as usual.

If she decides to run, and Iowa Republicans give their backing to her it won’t because of “just hope.”  It will because we see her as the real deal, and that we believe she has the right policies and experience to undo the damage that has been done.  It’ll be because we trust her over plastic, change as the wind blows, type of candidates like Mitt Romney.  Snarky and condescending op/eds won’t do much to change our mind.

In the meantime, I encourage all Iowa Republicans (and any Republican, independent, or conservative Democrat anywhere) to continue to “waste” their money by purchasing her book or by donating to SarahPAC.  It will be money better spent than sending it to anyone Mastio supports.

Shane Vander Hart is the editor of Caffeinated Thoughts.  He loves to connect with fellow rogues so feel free to follow him on Twitter or friend him on Facebook.

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Going Rogue Jacket Auction Winner Announced

The winner of Governor Palin's red Going Rogue jacket has been announced. The $57K winning price will be donated to the Wounded Warrior Project. Following is the complete audio transcript from the Laura Ingraham show:


Laura Ingraham Announces Going Rogue Jacket Auction Winner


Editor's Note:

The winner of the auction is best-selling author, John G. Miller. Additional information can be found here. Thank you, Mr. Miller, for your support of the troops!

Gov. Palin to Speak at National Conservative Symposium

Tea Party Support will be hosting a National Conservative Symposium from January 22 to 24, 2010 at the Hyatt Hill Country Resort in San Antonio, Texas. Governor Palin will be a keynote speaker there, and Saundra Hadley who works for Tea Party Support confirmed that the Governor's speech is arranged through the Washington Speakers Bureau. Other well-known conservative speakers on the schedule include: Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, and Kevin Jackson.

The $749 base cost of the event includes three nights (double occupancy) at the five-star resort, meals, access to resort facilities, and training materials. VIP access is available at additional cost.




We are pleased to announce our lineup of keynote speakers for the National Conservative Symposium. 




The National Conservative Symposium will be held at the Hyatt Hill Country Resort in San Antonio, Texas, January 22-24, 2010. It will provide training, networking and strategy sessions to attendees. Networking and strategy focus sessions for attendees will develop for the first time the road map for success in the battle to restore conservative constitutional governance and fiscal responsibility to America.


                    
                               Sarah Palin                                                   Sean Hannity





                 
   Laura Ingraham                        Michelle Malkin                         Kevin Jackson



Following is a complete transcript of the event's goals, objectives and methodology extracted from the main event page:

The National Conservative Symposium will bring together conservative grass-roots leaders and community organizers from across America at one of the nation’s premiere resorts for a weekend of intense discussion, education and training. Ideally we would like to have two leaders from each tea party, 9-12 or other like minded conservative groups to attend due to the extraordinary amount of information and training that we will be offering. The objective of the Symposium is to inspire and empower conservative activists to take back their political party and to take the country back to constitutional governance and fiscal responsibility by organizing for political action in their local communities and then projecting their voice and actions all the way to Washington, DC (Tea Party Support, 2009, ¶1).

The National Conservative Symposium is the first venture of this type, designed to inform, train and inspire conservatives who share a common belief in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the role our Founding Fathers played in drafting these core documents (Tea Party Support, 2009, ¶2).

The Symposium will go beyond inspiration and raising expectations. It will provide attendees the tools and strategy for liberty that will enable grass-roots leaders and organizers to launch their organizations on a course to success when they return home (Tea Party Support, 2009, ¶3).



References:

Event details. (2009). Tea Party Support. Retrieved December 19, from: http://teapartysupport.com/national-conservative-symposium/event-details/

National Conservative Symposium. (2009). Tea Party Support. Retrieved December 19, from: http://teapartysupport.com/national-conservative-symposium/

Speakers. (2009). Tea Party Support. Retrieved December 19, from: http://teapartysupport.com/national-conservative-symposium/speakers/

Friday, December 18, 2009

Dissolving the Palin Prejudice

By Adrienne Ross - www.motivationtruth.com

I don't agree with everything Stephen H. Dinan has to say about Governor Palin, but I am willing to listen to what he has to say. The reason is simple: he's chosen to listen to what she has to say. In so doing, he has taken the road less traveled by the mainstream media. He chose to travel down Going Rogue Lane to find out who the Governor really is, rather than who the haters want people to believe she is. He chose to get to know her himself. The best way to do that, obviously, is to read her memoir and hear her words "unfiltered," as she says. He does just that. For this I commend him.

So what led Dinan on this journey?

Over Thanksgiving, I was hiking with my brother-in-law when he commented that he only knew two kinds of people: those who loved Sarah Palin and those who hated her. Nobody was in the gray zone. While I didn't consider myself a "hater," I also knew that she had triggered intense reactions in me when she joined the Republican ticket. After Obama's victory, the fear of her becoming President subsided along with the negative charge, but I had to confess to a lingering prejudice beneath the surface.

One week later, I bought her autobiography, Going Rogue. Why? To dissolve my own prejudice and to better understand how we as a culture can go beyond the extreme political polarizations that have so paralyzed our country.

[...]

So reading Going Rogue was something of a test for myself - could I find the place of appreciation, respect, and even love for Sarah Palin?

What I found is that it wasn't really that hard, actually, simply by taking the time to meet her on her own turf rather than through sounds bites, spin, and polarized media battles. Reading someone's personal memoir is an intimate journey into their inner sanctum, and I developed a real appreciation for Sarah in reading the book.

This brings to mind a quote from my favorite novel, To Kill A Mockingbird. Atticus Finch taught his six year old daughter, Scout, a very important life-lesson when he said:

You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view...until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.

This further reinforces my philosophy that most of the lessons one needs to learn can be gathered from Harper Lee's classic novel.

Stephen H. Dinan came away from Going Rogue with a deeper understanding of Governor Palin, her upbringing, her love for family, her patriotic passion, and her desire to serve. He acknowledges, too, the prejudices she continues to face. He admits what liberals have been loath to admit--that she arouses fear and worry in people--and he doesn't exempt himself from those same emotions. Furthermore, he states that this has led to

a barrage of distorted stories, inflated fears, and downright misrepresentations, some of which were quite damaging to her family.

It's the sad truth, yet it's refreshing to finally hear someone confess what we've always known to be true.

The bottom line is that Dinan had the courage to put aside his own prejudices in favor of the truth. And when he did, he discovered the Governor Palin who always existed, but one he had heretofore been deaf and blind to because he had been listening to and looking at others who themselves didn't know her. Going Rogue allowed him to get a real look.

Although he doesn't agree with every position Governor Palin takes, he has come to find what Scout finds at the end of To Kill A Mockingbird when she finally sees Boo Radley, the man she has known only through the rumors and smears of her neighbors. Scout realizes Boo cannot be honestly defined by others. The real Boo Radley would write his own story for Scout Finch to read.

To Kill A Mockingbird ends with this exchange between Scout and her father, Atticus, when she realizes Boo is not the monster he has been made out to be:

"When they finally saw him, why he hadn't done any of those things...Atticus, he was real nice..."

"Most people are, Scout, when you finally see them."

Dinan made the effort to see Governor Palin.

Stephen H. Dinan's article is a good one--and it's published in the Huffington Post, of all places. Maybe they'll get the message and take a look also.

Read the full article, Dissolving the Palin Prejudice.

(H/T Fay)