The 80% Solution

Does Sarah Want The Presidency?

"Unfortunately, some "conservatives" believe Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP's one authentic star, is a "20% traitor.  Of course, Sarah is the one Human Events declared "The Conservative of the Year."  Sadly, some conservatives value ideological purity more than the little detail of winning elections." 

"Liberals give money and time, conservatives advice."

On Sarah's "disinvitation" from the June Republican fundraiser: she apparently hadn't accepted the invitation.  I'd speculate that there's a lot more going on in the life and mind of Gov. Palin than we might imagine.

The big question is: does she want to compete for the presidency in 2012?   Some of her staunchest supporters, including my blog partner Cindy Reidhead and Ann Coulter, have observed that Sarah would be wise to wait for 2016, at which point she'd have completed two terms as Governor -- and had two years to campaign for President.   She might look at a 2012 run as "fool's errand." 

Also, she has to decide whether she could both run for Governor of Alaska, where she will be asked to make a four-year commitment (Alaska being what it is), and then campaign for President.  Of course, to do so, she'd have to break her commitment to stay in Alaska.  

Third, she has some heavy family responsibilities in Alaska.  She has two babies, Tripp and Trig, in the house, and she has other children who need her attention.  She has a son who's much in harm's way in Iraq.  Oh, and she's also the Governor of a state that has many important issues.

Fourth, she may wonder at times where the Republican Party and all those conservatives were when she was under ceaseless attack during (and after) the campaign.  They didn't come close to providing the resources she needed and deserved.  She may even think they need her more than she needs them -- on which she'd be right.

Fifth, as a political centrist, Sarah may wonder if she will ever be "pure" enough to get sufficient money and grassroots support from those conservatives -- small in number, loud in voice -- that she supposedly needs to be elected President.  "Liberals give money and time, conservatives advice."

On Sarah's turning down the CPAC invitation, I disagreed with Katie O., whom I revere, about that forum.  Katie likes the people there, but I wonder if they're not akin to the aforementioned conservatives who rarely (if ever) encounter a candidate enough to the right to merit money, ground support, and votes. 

As Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said, Sarah has "great political instincts," and I wonder if those instincts aren't telling her to run for re-election as Governor and serve out her second term, which would end in 2014.   In 2016, Sarah would turn 52, a young age in presidential politics. 

Palin Says GOP Must Stand Together!

It sounds like Sarah Palin is an 80%er!

"...Gov. Sarah Palin called for a unified front among Alaska's GOP, while taking a swipe at fellow Republicans in Juneau for ceding too much control to Democrats.

Palin spoke to party members at the annual Lincoln Day dinner in Anchorage.The Alaska Republican Party has posted videos of the Friday speech on its Web site.

Palin says Republicans need to advance a conservative agenda. She says it makes no sense for Republicans to hand over "gavels and control" to members of other parties...."

Why the "Middle" Likes Democrats

Cindy Reidhead and Steve Maloney agree with blogger and guest columnist Malia Nash (of Hawaii) at least 80% of the time, so she's a major "friend and ally."  Thanks again Malia, a friend, a patriot, and a lover of life.  She was also one of the first people in America to see that Sarah Palin would make a great choice for the vice-presidential nod. 
 

Even before the loss of the 2008 election, conservatives were pondering why Liberals seem to get away with so many "sins."   Surely, the hypocrisy and the bias of the Left is so obvious that good and decent Americans should reject Democrats at every poll!

 

Only, most Americans stand in the middle, leaning Left on some issues, Right on others.  Most Americans do not pay attention to politics.  Most couldn't tell you who the Vice President is; what state Speaker "Nancy" is from, and exactly what are the three branches of government.  They are more likely to know who got eliminated on American Idol, who won the Super Bowl, and how many Mission Impossible movies there are.

 

Now, perhaps the worst president to ever occupy the oval office is finishing first 50 days in office.  And many who would like to see the GOP take back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012 are starting to understand that ideological purity is a luxury serious grown ups know they cannot afford.  They've learned that only the winner gets to decide who defines marriage, gun rights, how much to spend and where to spend it, and what kind of defense this nation will mount if attacked.

 

And most importantly, they are finally beginning to comprehend that despite all the claims to the contrary, NEITHER Democrats nor Republicans can win WITHOUT the middle.

 

So it's cram time: to win the middle, you need to understand, REALLY understand just how the middle segment of America views Democrats and Republicans.

 

I have written many posts trying to get conservatives to see that from where I sit (and I believe where most Independents are),  that if the base of the GOP has loyalty as an option, it does NOT bode well for Republicans...loyalty, yes even blind loyalty is what we expect to give to the company that signs our paychecks, to the family that nurtures us, and to the nation where we live.  It is the least of the requirements of decent folk--and to view it as something that is optional makes all claims to having "values" and "principles" appear empty rhetoric.

 

But, conservatives love saying that surely those on the Right are much more morally superior than the Left.

 

They say that because they see Democrats through the eyes of conservatism.

 

So to win the middle to the GOP in 2010 and 2012, let me tell you how Democrats appear to most Americans.

 

--When Democrats close ranks and defend one of their own, they appeal to every voter who wants and expects "true" friends and co-workers to do the same.

 

--When Democrats want to take everyone's money and pay someone to take care of the homeless and the sick, voters who are a pay check away from losing it all think it's a good idea.

 

--When Democrats want to take care of grandma and help our children pay for college, voters know that without these social programs, parents and grown children may have to come and live with them--and baby boomers (the largest voting block) like their freedom and the idea that the family obligation of previous generations can be "shared" by all.

 

--When the MSM shows bias toward Democrats, voters find it hard to see bias since there doesn't seem to be another side to the story when conservative pundits, bloggers, and talk show hosts start every half hearted defense of the GOP and Bush with the words: "I don't agree with everything that he/they've done but..." and "I agree with you that Bush failed/did wrong/spent too much/should have done something else but..."

 

--When Democrats get caught in a lie--or doing something unethical, voters think, well they ARE politicians, not nuns--and haven't we ALL sinned, lied, did something that was not quite right?

 

--When Democrats want to talk about domestic issues (aka social programs), voters see Democrats as taking care of business at HOME.  Most voters have never been to Europe or the Middle East and couldn't care less what was going on half-way around the world.  The tremendous courage of Iraqis' purple fingers only made a fleeting impression, like the high of winning a come from behind game or watching someone from your home town win a gold medal at the Olympics. 

 

Does this mean that the Dems can't be beat?  Of course not.  But to beat any opponent, one must learn the first rule of any competition: KNOW your opponents' strengths...respect them, and never underestimate them.

 

My next post (on http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com) will deal with the Dems' weaknesses--and how Republicans can exploit them

 

(Note: Malia Nash blogs at the site highlighted in the previous paragraph.)

Obama Moves Toward Internet Takeover

"Of all tyrannies,
a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive...."
– C.S. Lewis

Olympia Snowe Enabling Obama to Take Over Net

My blog partner, Cindy, sent me the following about the latest outrage from the Obama Administration.

"CNET News informs us that Jay Rockefeller (WV) and Olympia Snowe (ME) have sponsored a bill to create an office of National Cyber-security Advisor as part of the West Wing.  They would pull it from Homeland Security, and put it in Obama’s incompetent little hands, just in time to pull the plug on the Net.  I think we now know why the Dems have been so busy with AIG, keeping it in the headlines all week.

"This development, all of course in the name of "national security," is truly terrifying.  It would give the White House the ability to shut down any offending ISP or Network if it were considered “dangerous” to national security.Can you say Dictatorship?"

Cindy adds, "I think it's time to face the reality that Olympia Snowe needs to be booted out of the GOP.  I am a strong believer in the 80% Solution, but I think Snowe has betrayed not only the GOP, but the entire nation."

This bad situation with cyber-secruity could provide an opportunity for people who believe in the "80% Solution."  Any American -- conservative, moderate, or liberal -- who believes in the Internet as a forum for free speech will oppose Obama's new power grab.  We don't need Rahm Emmanuel controlling both the Census Department and the Internet.

Let's see:  we have in essence a bank czar (the hapless Geithner), a car czar, an energy czar, an education czar, a health czar (Sibelius), a performance cazr, an education czar, and soon, an Internet czar.  Eventually, we'll have more czars than Russia chalked up in its pre-revolutionary history. 

Cindy's full article on the cybersecurity takeover is at her main blog:  http://thepinkflamingoblog.com. Please visit it often. 

Tomorrow:  A guest column by Internet whiz and author Katherine Morrison from New Hampshire.

 

WHY GOP WON IN 2004

 Why GOP REALLY Won in 2004. by Malia Nash

 

From 2000 to 2004, we had a GOP-President in the White House.  He gave us "no child left behind" and the "prescription drug plan for the elderly."  Under him, there was no line-item veto....and no grand communication with the American people.

 

We had a GOP Congress that spent tons of money...that didn't solve a three decade-long illegal immigration problem, and that continued to work with Democrats instead of launching the "nuclear option."  We had Senators who gave birthday wishes at a private party [for Strom Thurmond] that might have -- could have -- implied something racist--well sort of.

 

Every complaint conservatives launched at Bush and the Republican Party  was true -- before the 2004 election.

 

Yet in that election, the GOP managed to swell the both number of seats in Congress and on State and local level, AS WELL AS keep the White House.

 

If all the supposed  "sins" of GWB and the GOP Congress caused Republicans to lose in 2006 and 2008, then why did they win so decisively in 2002 and 2004?

 

And if NONE of those “sins” bothered most voters, then exactly what issues moved cross- over Democrats and Independents to vote with Republicans?

 

Or maybe the question that should be asked is: what turned these voters off in the last two national elections?

 

As one of those Independents I can tell you pre-2004 and after:

 

Pre-2004, the turnoffs were the courts, the economy, and most especially, the war.

 

After 2004: what turned me off and almost made me want to stay away from politics period was the sanctimonious demand for conservative purity -- from politicians of all people!  That is so unrealistic, it borders on irresponsibility and stupidity.

 

Obama and his gang are practically gift wrapping 2010 for the Republican Party. Republicans.  The only thing that could mess up this is allowing conservative s to once again decide the tone of the Party of Republicans..

 

Right now, each conservative has to ask himself or herself if their "principles" are more important than the survival of this nation.  If they are, then they must END the unhealthy relationship between them and a Party they have no faith in and cannot feel any loyalty toward. 

 

If the conservatives principles aren't the most important thing, if they understand the destruction the Democrats will bring down on this nation, then they must DEFEND the only viable party that can stop and undo all the damage.  Conservatives must defend the GOP against anyone that would bring it down as they would against anyone attacking

America

.

 

And if that little voice in their heads would object about giving "blind" loyalty to a political Party, remind it that we practice "blind" loyalty to an imperfect

America

that sometimes makes bad decisions...and remind themselves that only Liberals seem to have difficulty understanding that type of loyalty to our nation.

 

Malia Nash, an fiercely proud American from

Hawaii

, wife, mom, business woman...Independent, pragmatic, she leans mostly Right on issues.  She publishes

as "Sanity 102" at http://outsideofthebox.townhall..

Republicans: Was Reagan a "RINO?"

"Humankind cannot bear very much reality."  (poet T.S. Eliot) 

What Eliot didn't say is that, in politics, the Party that deals most effectively with reality -- things, including voter attitudes, as they are -- is the one that will win elections.  The Party that fantasizes about how voters think and, especially, feel, will have little if any success.

My fellow conservatives need to stop "blowing smoke."  They must stop saying that the defeats across America of conservative candidates indicate that we must go farther and farther Right.  If there's any statistical or intellectual evidence that's the case, I'd love to see it.  But none exists. 

Re-read my recent essay on rightist congressman J. D. Hayworth, who was conservative to a fault but lost a "safe" Republican district.  The Hayworth approach is a recipe for defeat across the land.

We may not like the expressed attitudes of some voters -- or many voters -- but if we ignore them, we will condemn ourselves to becoming a tiny, regional Party. Ronald Reagan faced reality, as in his "80%" dictum, and he won the presidency twice by huge margins.  Nowadays, I realize, Reagan would be characterized many right-wing people (are you one?) as a "RINO." 

As the Declaration of Independence reminds us, this country has a government "of, by and, for THE PEOPLE."  It is not a government "of, by, and for people exactly like us."  Sarah Palin's motto, in line with the Alaska constitution, is to "Serve the People!"  If she hadn't taken that approach, she might still be the Mayor Wasilla.  She has conservative values, but she governs as a centrist, and that's why she's become America's Most Popular Governor.

I want my fellow conservatives to do more than look at politics with an ideological twitch.  I want them to face up to the shifts in attitudes that have taken place over the past generation.  We must start listening to people rather than yammering at them.

Ignoring that simple point means, unfortunately, that we will position ourselves for defeat in every important election.  Ignoring the problems we face is not a solution.  Frankly, we can't win elections by appealing only to one-third of American voters.  If we win a majority of the "angry white males," that doesn't give us nearly enough votes to prevail in key.  And if we don't win elections, a lot of them, we end up where we are now:  with no real say in government policies.

Also, if we basically reject huge blocs of voters, then our actions fit the definition of insanity -- "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."  We've seen the results in 2006 and 2008.  Will we be satisfied with similar outcomes in 2010 and 2012?  For the country's sake, I hope not. 

Toxic Conservatives & GOP Decline

What do I, as a long-term (very long-term) conservative do when I encounter right-leaning candidates who have no chance of winning -- and might do more harm than good?  I shake their hands; I smile; I engage in idle chit-chat; and then I flee -- in controlled terror -- without either donating funds or volunteering my time.   I call such individuals "toxic conservatives," people who have poisoned Republicans' opportunities to be anything more than "the incredible shrinking minority."

Consider: Arizona's Fifth [Congressional] District is comprised mainly of Tempe, Mesa, Scottsdale, western Chandler and Fountain Hills, suburbs of Phoenix.  (from Wikipedia, in other words, a classic "safe" Republican district.)

J. D. Hayworth is a former congressman from Arizona's 5th, one that should be very safe for Republicans.  Alas, itnow has a Democratic congressman who may be there, unless God is unwilling, for quite a while.  Hayworth's main claim to fame is his anti-illegals stand and a book he wrote about the subject called Whatever it Takes.   He's now a talk-show host on a Phoenix radio station.  (Talk radio has become something of an Elephant Burial Ground for defeated Republicans.)

On the very lively Tammy Bruce group on TeamSarah, one member wrote that Hayworth should take on John McCain in Arizona's Republican primary.  Her words:   "I hope J.D. Hayworth does run against McCain in the primaries. Remember that McCain almost lost to Romney in the primaries in his own state! I hear from a lot of Republicans in Arizona that they despise McCain. Especially on illegal immigration, cap and trade, and biting conservatives to win liberal love. We need conservatives in Capitol Hill. It's time for McCain to go."

As a member of the lively Tammy Bruce Group, I wrote the following response:

With all due respect, the notion that J. D. Hayworth could defeat John McCain (or perhaps defeat anybody) is laughable. Hayworth lost his seat in AZ, one with a huge Republican majority, by more than 8,000 votes. Hayworth outspent his opponent by $3 million to $2 million. Michael Barone, certainly not a liberal, described Hayworth as "bombastic." The Arizona Republic, which had previously endorsed him, called Hayworth a "bully."

In contrast, John McCain won his last two Senate races: in 1998 by 69% to 37% and, in 2004, by 77% to 21%. Hayworth was closely linked to Jack Abramoff, the jailed lobbyist.

The AZ population (legal citizens) is about 27% Hispanic origin, and that number is rising fairly rapidly because of birth rates. (The Hispanic population in Hayworth's old district is about half the state average.)  No candidate perceived (key word) as anti-Hispanic will ever again win a statewide race in AZ.

If we just ignore all these things, we can sing the praises of J. D. Hayworth. And then we can pretend that he would have more than a snowball's chance against John McCain, which of course he would not. I blame people like Hayworth for the GOP's devastating defeats in 2006 and 2008. McCain's ACU voting record over nearly a generation is about 80% -- not great, but certainly not terrible.  To use Ronald Reagan's immortal words about people who are with us 80% of the time, McCain is "a friend and ally," not a "traitor."

However, it is a free country, and people can lionize Hayworth if they wish, but the facts (see above) show he has been a liability to the GOP.   He's a classic "toxic conservative," someone who may "talk the talk," but who walks us -- electorally speaking -- straight to the gallows.

John McCain will be the next U.S. Senator from Arizona. If for some unforeseen reason he's not, then the next Senator from AZ would be a liberal Democrat. If we need conservative heroes (and we do), let's choose some that can actually win elections.  In a state like AZ, the choice is not between a conservative and  moderate.  It is a choice between a Republican who has record of winning -- and one who does not.

Note:  Please take a look at the previous column about "The 80% Solution," as well as our first comment and my reply.  I have two other blogs (as well as very tired arms).  They're at:  http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com and http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com.  Hope you'll visit them.

 

80% Solution, Pro-Palin Groups

Cindy Reidhead, this site's developer, and I will be sending out some information this week about our new web site called "The 80% Solution."  It's based on an important statement by Ronald Reagan:  "The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally - not a 20 percent traitor." 

It will be pro-Sarah Palin but will not be "anti" other possible Republican candidates.  It will solicit columns from bloggers who agree generally with the "80% Solution," as well as from some national writers, such as Elaine Lafferty, Tammy Bruce, and others. 

The site will take a dim view of those who practice "single-issue" politics or demand ideological rigidity from candidates.  People who advocate "circular firing squads," including those enamored of the destructive term "RINO," will not feel comfortable at "80%."  The site will have pieces from people who identify themselves as conservative, moderate, or liberal, as well as pro-choice and pro-life.  People who are pro-Obama should stay away

On the recent controversy regarding TeamSarah's founders and their criticism of Sarah Palin and disparagement of the judge (Morgan Chretien) she appointed to the Alaska Supreme Court:  the comments not only angered me, but threw me into deep depression, a new and very unpleasant experience.  It was symbolic of the harm single-issue politics does to good candidates and fine causes.  Of course, the Obama camp ("The Perpetual Hate Machine") immediately picked up the criticism and has been running with it.  What Gov. Palin thought of it I can only imagine. 

Frankly, when those using the Palin-brand want to do "constructive" criticims of  the Governor, her family, or her policies, they should expect Sarah to ask them to remove her name. . 

There are various groups using the Palin name, and pro-choice, pro-life isn't the only hot button issue.  Another group promoting a Palin presidency (supposedly) is advancing a hard-line on immigration, a position Gov. Palin should never adopt.  As  "80% Solution" will point out, there are 40 million legal Hispanics in America.  McCain lost the Hispanic vote by approximately 70% to 30%.  If Gov. Palin were to do as poorly with Hispanics, she would lose not only California, but also FL, CO, NJ, NM, and NV.  If she lost all those states, she could not prevail in a presidential election.

I hope Sarah (probably through sarahPAC) takes effective control of all groups using her name.  Otherwise, they inevitably will be putting words in her mouth (and policy arrows in her "quiver") that will severely restrict her chances ever to become President. 

So what is the link between "80%" and Sarah, founded by two of her earliest and strongest supporters (Cindy and me)?  It will focus on getting Republicans (including of course Sarah) a great deal more support from critical groups:  (1) women (especially pro-choice single women and all women living in large urban and suburban areas); (2) young people -- those below 30 -- a group McCain lost 71% to 29%; (3) Hispanics (especially women); (4) former Hillary Supporters, four million of whom voted for McCain-Palin; and, (5) gays and lesbians. (a group whose support in FL in 2000 was critical to George W. Bush's carrying that state -- by 600 votes). 

I will continue to support Gov. Palin for President in 2012.  Cindy has recommended that Sarah hold off on a run for the presidency until 2016.  I also believe, however, that Gov. Palin should think very hard about the damage done to her and the Palin family by the ceaseless hate campaigns by Obama and the media.  Frankly, is the end, running for the presidency, worth the harm done to the family, especially the children?  

Moreover, she needs to examine carefully whether some of her "friends," particularly the single-issue folks, are going to do her more harm than good.  In politics, one's enemies are "reliable" in that at least they're consistent; however, when "friends" are unreliable, they're basically worthless.

Cindy and I hope you will return often to "80% Solution."  Our primary goal will be to support candidates of integrity and help them win elections. 

Stephen R. ("Steve") Maloney