# Sarah Palin snubbed at major GOP fundraiser



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

> Sarah Palin in, then out, back in -and now again out of fundraising dinner
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sure looks like the GOP is a cohesive unit to me! "course I'm just a layman at politics and haven't got the foggiest clue about their secret strategies


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

> Sure looks like the GOP is a cohesive unit to me! "course I'm just a layman at politics and haven't got the foggiest clue about their secret strategies


Unfortunately, Ryan, neither do they.

Jim


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gingrich is a fool, he has lost his way and become incoherent and gutless

heres a good read about why the republican party needs some tough conservatives

*Washinton times article starts below*

The Democratic Party's attitude to elections is admirable: Win. And recent history has shown it will do anything to do so.

When, if not now, will Republicans develop such a fighting spirit?

Democrats invest - with taxpayer money, mind you - in groups like ACORN that, among other sordid tactics, seek out Skid Row bodies and wheel them to polling places. All the Democratic National Committee needs are vans and smelling salts. Pop culture and the "education system" have done the rest, making "D" the default choice on Election Day.

Democrats brazenly take policy positions - think government services and even amnesty for illegal immigrants - not because they are the right thing to do, but because they are time-tested demographic bribes. Forget cigarettes and beer, Democrats would distribute needles, methadone, medical marijuana and biscotti in voter goodie bags if they could get away with it.

Democrats long ago jettisoned America's melting-pot ideal - E Pluribus Unum ("Out of Many, One") - because it imperils their campaign for permanent rule. Splitting the country into separate identity groups and playing them against each other works a lot better. And anyone who disagrees is a racist. 

Win. Win. Win.

One of the first things President Obama attempted to do after taking office was to take control of the Census Bureau, an act that could redraw congressional districts and ensure Democratic majorities for years to come. The new president also etched out an enemies list, focusing on conservative talk-radio hosts, including Rush Limbaugh. He also appears to have singled out Fox News. Comedians and mainstream journalists who are usually contemptuous of government bullying and First Amendment threats also continue to do the president's bidding.

These overt political gestures were done amid economic chaos and mainstream media delirium to ensure permanent victory for a newly radicalized Democratic Party. Moveon.org, George Soros and the ghost of Saul Alinsky are in charge now. It's not just "tea party" protesters who think we've tilted far left. Self-avowed anarchists and open socialists proudly brandished Obama placards at well-attended May Day parades.

When elected, the Democrats dole out billion-dollar bonuses to their core supporters at taxpayers' expense. Witness the $787 billion stimulus package, an orgy of special-interest payback for labor unions, liberal activist groups and multinational corporations. One would be hard pressed to name a Democratic policy that is motivated more by principle than by winning.

Where is the media to expose this blatant corruption when the media are in the middle of the pile? NBC News, whose parent company General Electric is getting billions in stimulus cash to perpetuate Democrat-friendly "green" technologies and health care information systems, is at the forefront of a bizarre campaign to act as a check on the party that is out of power, not the party in power. NBC anchor Brian Williams bowed to the new president; MSNBC is a Fellini-esque exercise in liberal triumphalism.

With Democrats holding comfortable majorities in the House and Senate, as well as controlling the executive branch, it's only logical that the mainstream media to focus their scrutiny on Mr. Limbaugh, ex-Rep. Tom DeLay, former President George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, the governor of one of the least populous states. Right?

NBC News and MSNBC are certainly not alone among the government watchdogs that have been tamed. The New York Times expends its considerable yet waning clout to ensure that our future is in a one-party state. Vocal, liberal Hollywood celebrities - on the same page as the Huffington Post and Keith Olbermann - spread the venom by making membership in the Grand Old Party seem like an anti-social act for young voters.

Such brazenly reprehensible Democratic lawmakers as Nancy Pelosi, John P. Murtha, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and Christopher J. Dodd are not trotted before the media because of their telegenic appeal and oratorical skills, but to act as symbols of what politicians can get away with it. It's a big-league taunt - like gang members in prison sporting "tear" tattoos under their eyes to brag about their kill count. Yeah ... What are you going to do about it, Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell?

Yet Democrats at least wield a logical and workable strategy to defeat their enemy. And "enemy" is precisely how they view the Republican Party.

Republicans, on the other hand, act like a snobby condo board and appear to seek out potential voters for their savoriness. The party expects pre-existing respectable organizations, Protestant churches in particular, to do the heavy lifting. In this day of dwindling Republican appeal, the party's ace in the hole is heard at the end of the polling day: "Have they counted the overseas military vote yet?" It's amazing Republicans ever win.

*Most disturbing, Republicans seem to think Democrats can be their friends*. Not only does the Republican Party not have a Ronald Reagan, the Democratic Party has no Tip O'Neill. Washington doesn't have end-of-the-day, cross-party social sessions over single-malt scotches. There is no bipartisanship that doesn't end in Republicans acquiescing in defeat of their core principles. A coordinated Democratic campaign against mainstream middle-of-the-road Republicanism is here to stay. And our strategy, as best as I can decipher it, is to be more liked than the last go around.

In the next election cycle, things need to be drastically different. Democracy is not Augusta National Golf Club. It's a messy free-for-all, and in a two-party system, the GOP will not survive if it doesn't accept the fact that the Democrats are its enemy and that it must begin to play for keeps. That means finding another Lee Atwater - only meaner - and not apologizing when we get him.

• Andrew Breitbart is publisher of the news portals Breitbart.com and Breitbart.tv. His latest endeavor, Big Hollywood, is a group blog off of Breitbart.com on Hollywood and politics from the center/right perspective


----------



## Candiru (Aug 18, 2005)

I believe it is time for Newt to be put out to pasture. They need to stop re-living the past.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

> Splitting the country into separate identity groups and playing them against each other works a lot better.


And thus, the term "elitist" was enlisted by the Republican party.

Lee Atwater pretty much invented the class warfare BS for HW in '88. Rove followed right along. What do you think trying to whip Christians into a frenzy is?

I'm not saying that the Democrats don't do it, too, but that's pretty hypocritical.

Face it. People don't want smaller government when things are going poorly. If the Republican party doesn't find a message that isn't "smaller government", they can say "Hi" to the Whigs at the next defunct political parties convention.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

yeah right My God I cannot believe anyone thinks like you it is inconcievable to me that anyone raised in this country wants more government in their lives.

This country is in serious decline due to that type of thought

you are absolutely wrong and after Obama gets done with his marxist lunacy the Dems will be the ones that disappear

and if the republicans dont get with the conservative movement they will be right behind them


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

I don't want more government in my _life_. I want government doing things it makes sense for the government to do. As an example, Bush outsourced the collections department of the IRS, when the IRS actually did it in house better, for CHEAPER. Saying that less government is universally the answer absurd. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. The rigid adherence to "classical economics" relies on two things that don't exist: rational people, and perfect markets.

Both extremes, left and right, are absolutely ridiculous. We absolutely need the debate. We need people tugging on both sides to determine where the line should be. Not compromising is like giving up in the tug-of-war and going home.

Tell Millard Fillmore I said "hi"


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Bigger govt is never the answer.

The framers never intended for the fed govt to be this big. Case in point the 14th amendment. We have all seen what the feds have done in recent decades. People rely on the govt for too much. Smaller govt and states rights is the ticket.

Omegax's post shows the problems with both parties and why the fed govt needs a shake up and a lot of downsizing


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

omegax said:


> As an example, Bush outsourced the collections department of the IRS, when the IRS actually did it in house better, for CHEAPER. Saying that less government is universally the answer absurd. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.
> 
> I remember this as a attempt to use contract resources to collect unpaid taxes and the result would be more revenue collected. The IRS agents were used to collect unpaid taxes and contract agencies were used as a last resort when the normal procedures failed. The IRS agents were understaffed or probably more people decided to not pay taxes. Just look at the cabinet appointees that were making a mistake on their tax returns
> 
> ...


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Is that the best you can come up with? Ryan, you so funny!...


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Half-Baked Alaska
Sarah Palin's Dysfunctional Organization May Be Her Undoing

By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska and GOP "It" girl, can warm up the Republican base like a hot toddy in a duck blind. But further inside the party organization, the air is a little nippy.

What happened? In a word, bungling.

Everyone seems to have a Sarah Palin story of ignored calls, mishandled invitations or unanswered e-mail. Disorganized is how one might charitably describe the Palin operation.

"Basically, it's just rude," says one political operative who is a Palin fan. "They've been running the great snub machine. That's the reason the boys in the Republican Party are unhappy with her."

That unhappiness has been building gradually in the past seven months, and it was on full display this week as the party faithful gathered for a fundraising dinner at which Palin originally was invited to speak. She was later uninvited, and Newt Gingrich took her place.

Watching the dinner-speaker spectacle develop, then unravel, then redevelop (Will she or won't she speak/attend?) felt like watching a middle-school romance in which a friend tells another friend that so-and-so has a crush on you-know-who, but don't tell anybody. A little silly, in other words. And embarrassing.

The "tick-tock" of what happened is a byzantine exercise in blame-shifting. Briefly, someone in Palin's "organization" accepted the original invitation in March, whereupon the dinner hosts issued a press release announcing that Palin would be the keynote speaker.

Yay!

But then, no, Palin had not accepted. In fact, the press release was the first she'd heard of it. The official story suddenly became that SarahPAC had jumped the gun and that Palin wasn't sure she could make the event. Enter Newt Gingrich. Then last week, so-and-so said she'd like to come, but you-know-who said, "We like someone else now."

There's more -- and stories vary -- but a common theme emerges: Seven months after the election, Palin still can't shoot straight. Unless something changes dramatically and soon, "Missed Opportunity" should be the title of her memoir.

By the time Palin returned to Alaska last fall, her popularity and fundraising ability were second only to Barack Obama's. Instantly, she was drowning in speaking requests. Boxes and boxes of invitations stacked up -- and went unprocessed.

Without any effort on her part, 75,000 to 80,000 fans around the country organized pro-Palin groups. Said a frustrated Palin promoter: "All she had to do for those 75,000 people was hold an electronic town hall, and she couldn't get around to it."

Of course, it's not that Palin has nothing else to do. But her problem is the same as it was a year ago. She isn't ready. For whatever reason -- skittishness, distrust or, quite possibly, executive weakness -- Palin has been unable to make the transition from Alaska politics to the Big Game Hunt of the national arena.

Plenty of experienced people have tried to help. Veteran operatives created SarahPAC to raise money for staff to at least open mail and return phone calls. It was a Kevin Costner field of dreams: Create the Web site, and they came, all right. The PAC raised $400,000 in its first month without so much as asking.

What happened next?

Nothing.

"We couldn't get them to decide on office space," says my source. "You couldn't get them to be professional."

Palin's fiercely independent streak is part of her charm but also may be her undoing. It's one thing to campaign on an anti-inside-the-Beltway platform. But to play in the big leagues, you need people who know what they're doing.

You don't flirt and say "yes," and then say "no," and then say "maybe," and then show up expecting a bouquet. The tease is a risky business. Palin did get to walk across the stage with Gingrich -- to appreciative applause and a few whistles -- but she wasn't allowed to talk. Something about upstaging Gingrich.

Palin also managed to get in a few words during an interview with Fox's Sean Hannity, which aired Monday night during the fundraising dinner. But anyone listening to both Gingrich and Palin would find preemption concerns ludicrous. Palin may be more fun to watch, but Gingrich dominates on the battlefield of ideas.

Whether Palin can rally her resources by 2012 remains in serious doubt, even among her fans. Said yet another Palin admirer: "The problem is, she has had months to get it together and they haven't. They could have had an excellent national team and state team working seamlessly."

But they didn't.

[email protected]


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

> Quote
> 
> "They could have had an excellent national team and state team working seamlessly."
> 
> But they didn't. "


Don't worry about that election, the one in 2010 is whats going to organize to get the progressive liberals out of power.

Three years left to get the GOP candidate for president figured out.



> Quote
> 
> "After being invited - for a second time - to speak to the annual joint fundraiser for the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Palin was told abruptly Saturday night that she would not be allowed to address the thousands of Republicans there after all. "


No big surprise here. The American voters haven't elected a Senator to the presidency since Nixon, except for last November and I have no idea how the voters were so ignorant to vote the way they did. And we had two senators to chose from for president last year. Some of the republican Senators are trying to position themselves for a shot as the republican candidate and some of the republican governors are trying the same thing. I don't expect them to be united until after the 2010 election.

Since Nixon the American people had enough brains to elect a Governor for president because a governor at least has some experience in fiscal responsibility. The two choices we had last year, one new how to spend money from years as a Senator and the other one new how to spend money on social programs. What a choice!

Palin has plenty of time to get the experience needed to run a good campaign, just look at the lack of experience that the current president has and a majority of the voters voted "him" president!


----------

