Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Going Rogue?

As we watch his administration unravel, it’s becoming apparent to the whole world that Barack Obama wasn’t prepared to become President of the United States. Many of us knew that and said so months before the election. During the campaign, however, the mainstream media covered up his glaring lack of experience, but they focused like a laser on Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s. Why?

Palin had been a mayor and governor - of a small city and a small state, yes - but she was a successful executive in both capacities. Barack Obama had been a “community organizer,” whatever that is, and a senator. Unlike executives, senators don’t do things. They discuss things. What do community organizers do? We could look to the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) for clues. Obama worked with them for decades.

We heard much about Obama’s Ivy League education at Columbia and Harvard because our media elite were impressed by that. Ordinary Americans aren’t. They adhere more to what William F. Buckley said about Ivy Leaguers: “I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2000 members of the faculty of Harvard University.” The state of our union after the first nine months of the Obama Administration only lends credence to Buckley’s assessment. It’s been a disaster and getting worse. Obama’s poll numbers are plummeting faster than those of any other president in history as Americans realize how the mainstream media have sold them a pig in a poke in the totally unvetted chief executive. The media elite anointed Obama as their candidate, and when Palin’s emergence threatened their anointed one, they had to take her down.

According to a recent Sacred Heart University poll, nearly 90% of Americans believe the mainstream media got Obama elected and 70% believe they’re actively promoting his presidency. Nearly half “have permanently stopped watching a news media organization, print or electronic, because of perceived bias.” Liberal, big-city broadsheets all over the country are hemorrhaging readers. Some are being sold and others have filed for bankruptcy. Meanwhile, Americans are turning to other sources for news and political analysis.

Despite the media airing of every aspect of Sarah Palin’s life, despite the ridicule elitists have continuously heaped upon her over the past year, Americans like Sarah Palin. A surprise pick for McCain’s vice presidential running mate, she electrified voters with her convention speech, so Democrats - but especially their mainstream media minions - went after her relentlessly. In the face of this onslaught, the inept McCain campaign did just about everything wrong. While you’d never see Obama go on Fox News Sunday, for example, the McCain campaign set up interviews with liberal alphabet networks anxious to slice her up. In spite of all that, and because of it as well, Americans like her and identify with her.

It’s not all good for Palin though. Several women whose opinions I listen to with respect have doubts about Palin’s political ambitions, given that she has young children - one with a severe handicap. They like her positions on the issues of the day, but question her judgement in her seeming quest for national office in 2012 given her family obligations.

Palin’s book won’t be out until November 17th, but it’s already number one on Amazon, having sold a million and a half copies. Called Going Rogue, it would seem to be an account of her frustration over how certain key McCain aids seemed to sabotage her. It was bad enough being hounded by the other side, but her own as well? That would have been too much for anyone new to the national political spotlight, but this woman from Alaska has taken all the best shots either side can deliver, but - not only is she still in the ring - she’s still throwing punches. When David Letterman chased some cheap sexual laughs at her daughter’s expense, Palin went after him. Letterman offered a semi-apology, but continued trying to squeeze out chuckles from his liberal-elite friends with whom it’s the height of fashion to ridicule her. Since then, Letterman’s own indescretions have people calling for his dismissal. He had President Obama on his show two weeks ago, but Obama's ratings are nose-diving while Palin’s are climbing.

It was Palin Obama referred to in his desperate speech before a joint session of Congress last month, trying to salvage his doomed health-care “reform” bill. He claimed her “death-panel” comments were lies. The president had sent Rahm Emanuel’s brother Ezekiel after her on that point, but he couldn’t take her down. Liberal Democrats vehemently denied anything like “death panels” were in the bill, while they quietly removed them. All Palin did was send a message on Twitter to send Obama and his party minions scrambling.

Quite possibly, Sarah Palin is reading the political landscape more accurately than Democrats, mainstream media pundits, and Republicans as well. The title choice of her new book may portend more than any of them are considering at present. Could she be considering a third-party run?

Whatever else Sarah Palin may be, she’s certainly interesting. I’m keeping an eye on her.


Anonymous said...

A great quote from blogger a few months back.."Sarah is a shark and she smells blood in the Potomac"..she has more power now than ever..her speech in China got great reviews internationally...she stands for "capitalism"...not redistribution ..Beltway is petrified of her. American Thinker had a great op-ed called "God and Sarah Palin". A great article that explains who she is accountable to. I pray she doesn't form 3rd party. The divide will kill conservatives. Laurie from Bartlett

Anonymous said...

No argument from this conservative leaning hard nosed, hard a**ed, Damn Old Yankee mugwump.
I have one "I told you so" for the Obama lovers, and one "Go for it" to Sarah". Unless she really screws up she has my vote already.
Meanwhile protect us from a President named Joe.

Anonymous said...

This article is a classic example of America's proud anti-intellectualism. Why, even the word "intellectual" conjures up feelings of distrust. Sure, there are plenty of "elitist" who think they know what is best for everyone, but there are even more "regular folk" who fear and distrust people with an education. Sarah Palin has taken over where George Bush left off -- appealing to the paranoid and uneducated that the big bad latte-sipping, abortionist, atheistic, educated libs want to take away their bible and guns.

Anonymous said...

Well-said about the anti-intellectualism! This Mclaughlin guy seems to pride himself on being dumb, rude and dishonest! I welcome people like him though - they do such a great job of ruining the Republican party and giving conservatives a bad name!

Babble on, Tom!!!

Tom McLaughlin said...

Thanks for the feedback, Anonymous wimps.

The idea that global warming is caused by human activity - and can be reversed by such pork-barrel bills like Cap and Trade - is so ridiculous, only intellectuals like Nobel Laureates Gore and Obama would believe it.

Babble on wusses.

DAWN said...

First I'd like to say I love Sarah Palin believing she is a breath of fresh air. I like what she stands for and what she believes in but I too have concerns given her family life and obligations to such a young family.

I'm torn between wanting her to run for President and wishing she'd stay home for the sake of her children. Palin is still young. She has plenty of time for political aspirations but her kids need her more than we do.

The mother is the heart of the home. What happens when the heart isn't there? I think we saw the manifestation of this in Bristol.

Anonymous said...

My apologies for not leaving my name. I mistakenly thought signing into my google account would provide my name. I am the one who chastised you for your seemingly anti-intellectual rant. I also responded to your article in the Daily Sun that was printed yesterday. My name is Anthony Tiani and I am no "wuss", sir. I hope you won't be a "wuss" and respond to my letter without changing the subject like you just did with global warming. Let's see if you have the courage to respond to my specific inquiries instead of finding a new subject.

Anonymous said...

I really love seeing Tom's moronic, juvinile column get ripped apart with facts and common sense every single week by the letters to the editor! How embarrassing it must be for him to get called out for the non-thinking buffoon he is in a public forum where all his students and fellow teachers can laugh!!!

Anthony Tiani said...

I would also like to call something out in your column that I couldn't in my letter to the paper due to space constraints. The so-called "death panels" that you refer to have been debunked over and over by unbiased sources such as (take a look if you don't believe me, I have no issue citing my sources). They have been proven to be lies conjured up and spread by people like Mrs. Palin. They weren't taken out of the bill because they were caught red-handed, as you suggested. They were taken out because of the unbearable taint of bad press that had been put upon it by the fear-mongering neo-cons.

Tom McLaughlin said...


I'm not going to respond in this venue to something you wrote in a paper carrying my column, and I don't use my column to respond to letters to the editor either. I'm content to let readers decide what they believe. Some will have read both you and me. I'm not worried about what they'll conclude.

As for the supposedly non-existent death panels you refer to here? Various versions of the Obamacare bill called them "end of life" panels. Calling them death panels is more concise.

You call of the St. Petersburg Times unbiased? There's no such thing as unbiased, especially in a newspaper.

As for intellectuals? I'll offer you another quote, this from George Orwell: "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."

The Liberal/Democrat/Euroweenie community's thinking they can control climate is likely to become the all-time biggest affirmation of Orwell's observation.

Anonymous said...

Tom, here are the facts of your so-called "death panels".

The provision would allow Medicare to pay doctors or other health-care providers for sessions when a patient chooses to discuss advanced care planning, such as living wills, choosing a health care proxy, or learning about hospice care. The measure blocks funding for counseling that talks about suicide or assisted suicide as an option, the AP says. The sessions would not be required.

Shrieking about this being a "death panel" is an obvious attempt to mislead people. A scare tactic with no merit.

Here is what Johnny Isakson, a Republican Senator from Georgia, has to say about it: “How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts,” he said. “You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up.”

That's right - a Republican Senator is calling you nuts!

So explain yourself if you can, Tom. How did you get so mixed up? I challenge you to explain how this provision is a bad thing, because all you are doing now is trying to make it SOUND bad with the stupid "death panel" talk.

As to your being content with letting your readers decide what is true - that's great. What choice do you have? You can't make people believe all your lies and misinformation, can you?

The title of your piece sums it up perfectly - Going Rogue. “Rogue” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a dishonest or worthless person" - something you seem to be proud about, along with being unintelligent!

Tom McLaughlin said...

Maybe you trust government to make life and death decisions about what kind of health care you and your loved ones are entitled to, Anthony. [assuming that's you above] I sure don't.

That's the basic difference between your world view and mine, I suspect.

Anonymous said...

Tom, are you saying that Johnny Isakson, the Republican Senator from Georgia is wrong or a liar? He said (and you ignored) that this provision is "putting the authority in the individual rather than the government".

I have read the plans and there is nothing in there that will force me to change the health care I am getting. As a teacher with the wonderful health benefits that you get courtesy of your strong union, you will not have to change plans either. There ARE people though that currently make life and death decisions about the health care I and my loved ones (and you and yours) enjoy - greedy insurance companies who's sole aim is to increase profits with little to no consideration for individuals and their health. I sure don't like that. It appears that you trust them. I guess that is where we differ in our views.

Back to the "death Panel" question that you avoided. What was it specifically that gives them control over your health? Can you back up your empty words and prove Senator Isakson and myself wrong?

The challange remains.

Anonymous said...

If you get to use the argument...

"greedy insurance companies who's sole aim is to increase profits with little to no consideration for individuals and their health."

as a reason why you're in favor of some sort of government run "public option" then I'm using similar reasoning.

I'm against a government run "public option" because the people writing the bill and administering the plan are, corrupt politicians who's sole aim is to procure as many tax dollars as possible for their union cronies back home with little to no consideration for Constitutional limits, fiscal responsibility, or the law.

Tom McLaughlin said...

I don't know Senator Isakson, Anthony. That he's a Republican doesn't impress me. I live in Maine and I'm not impressed at all with our two Republican senators. I'm a conservative. You and they are entitled to your opinions.

If you're inclined, I'll refer you to James Taranto's column: "We're Going to Let You Die" in today's Wall Street Journal Online at

The subtitle is: "Who said it? Hint: It wasn't Sarah Palin."

It was Obama advisor Robert Reich talking about health care "reform" in a 2007 speech at University of California - Berkeley. Lots of intellectuals there Anthony. You'll very likely agree with them strongly. They loved what Reich had to say.

As for your challenge? I'm content to let it remain, but I encourage you and your friends to keep sending in those letters to the editor. I enjoy reading them.

Anonymous said...

Ah, you will "let the challenge remain". What a wimpy way of saying that you give up and are
waving the white flag when it comes to the facts about so-called "death panels".

I don't know Robert Reich, nor are his comments relevant to the facts of what is actually contained in the health care reform bill. Senator Isakson, on the other hand, is commenting on what is actually IN the bill. And no, Tom, what he says is not an opinion, but fact. As a teacher you should know the difference. Reading the bill reveals the truth to the fact - that there is nothing in the bill that takes away our rights to life and death decisions. As the Senator says, it is just the opposite. I wonder if you are truely ignorant about this or are being purposely deceitful.

And of course you love those letters to the editor Tom. Who DOESN'T enjoy having their ignorance and/or lies pointed out to them in a public forum!

Anthony Tiani said...

I want to clear the air for a moment. Although I tend to agree with whomever the anonymous poster is, it is not me and I wish the person would say who they are, or at least be upfront about not being me.
Having said that, you don't seem to see the hypocrisy in saying you don't wish to respond here, then responding anyway. That's OK though, I'm glad you are responding to my charges. You still are misleading on the "death panel" charge. I can't blame you for not wanting more government control or interference. But it's not as if they are aliens hell-bent on our destruction -- they're humans just like you, me, and insurance employees. The only difference being that I have a democratic voice in my representatives. I have no such power when insurance companies deny coverage to even infants. To also suggest that the government will have a say in an end of life decision is a lie at best. The measure would have simply PAID for the consult. Do you really despise our president so much that you think Obama wants to start snuffing out old folks?

Anthony Tiani said...

And why is it you don't trust government to provide us with services, but you do(assumingly, since you're a conservative) trust them to invade other countries and tell them how to run their lives?

For that matter, I guess you would prefer that their government-provided health care be dropped in favor for a private insurance company that can deny them for "pre-existing conditions" like severed limbs.

Anthony Tiani said...

I was referring to combat veterans in my previous post.

Anonymous said...

My apologies, Anthony, I guess I should have cleared up Tom's identity misconception. It just seemed so obvious that I wasn't you (I mistakenly thought that Tom would take a clue from the Heading "Anonymous said..." as opposed to "Anthony Tiani said...").

Anyway, carry are expressing yourself much better than I... may have scared him off though. It must be tough his having to argue the side without all the truth and common sense... so maybe we gotta give him some credit.

Tom McLaughlin said...

You fellas have scared the hell out of me. Good thing my wife is a therapist or I'd have completely fallen apart.

Government should exist only to run police, courts, interstate infrastructure and national defense - including border security. Everything else should be up to individuals to do on their own. We have the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That last is not guaranteed. People have to chase it down for themselves.

Health care is not a right. People must work for it on their own. If others wish to help out, fine, but it should be voluntary - not imposed by government.

Yes, we should invade other countries that harbor/support terrorists planning to attack the United States. The alternative would to sit back and wait for them to explode a big one in one of our cities.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad to see that you have stopped trying to defend your lies and misinformation about health care reform and have retreated to a more basic arguement - that you don't believe that government should be involved. That is fine - you are certainly entitled to your opinion on what government should or should not be involved in. I wonder why you didn't just state your honest concerns from the beginning instead of resorting to spreading lies and misinformation about the facts. I am more than happy to stop the arguement and leave you with your opinion....after all, everybody has one.

Until your next lie....Cheers!

Anonymous said...

How are diggin' Palin's new poll numbers, Tom?


She has now slipped so drastically that 70% say she is unqualified to be president!

Knowing that there are so few of you ignorant radicals out there really brings me comfort!!!

Palin in 2012!!!!!


Tom McLaughlin said...

They look fine to me. See here: