“Fix The Docs” Without Driving Up The Deficit

November 13th, 2009 Bob Moffit

Congress and the Administration are breaking records. They just piled up a deficit of over $1.4 trillion in 2009 alone. Needless to say moderates and fiscal conservatives in both political parties have cause for very bad night’s sleep.

The Doc Mess. The latest chapter in this crazy drama is to be played out next week when the House deals with the Medicare Doc Fix. At issue is the congressionally created formula for annually updating Medicare physician payment. The congressional formula ties physician payment to general economic growth: if physician payment increases faster than economic growth, payment is proportionally reduced. Of course, the basic concept is bizarre: there is no rational relationship between the supply and demand for medical services and the performance of the general economy, any more then there is a relationship in the demand for tonsillectomies and the phases of the Moon. But this official stupidity is the law; expect similar stupidities if Congress is successful in creating another government-run health plan made in the image and likeness of Medicare.

So, to avoid its own prescribed draconian cuts in Medicare doctors’ payments, Congress goes through an annual Chinese fire drill to prevent its goofy formula from being implemented each year. As a budgetary matter, the accumulated cuts now amount to an automatic reduction in physician payment of 21 percent effective next year. That prospect has the professional medical organizations in a tizzy, and they are willing to do anything – anything, mind you- to avoid that fate worse than death, even to the point of formally embracing H.R. 3962, the gargantuan 2032 page House health care bill.

Bigger Deficits. To lure the desperate doctors into bed with the liberals, their big ugly “public option” and all (analogously, a longer prison sentence, but better food and more yard time), the Congressional leadership included a “permanent fix” to Medicare physician payment in the original version of the 1018 page House bill, small increases, no cuts. But they carved it out because its cost made the House health care bill appear too expensive. So, to keep that version “looking cheaper”, they created another vehicle (H.R 3961), a companion bill, that would provide for a permanent Medicare “doc fix” at a ten year cost of $210 billion. Under the rule for debate in the House, however, as Byron York points out in November 13, The Washington Examiner, this $210 billion “fix” is not “paid for”; like a similar (but unsuccessful) Senate attempt, it would simply add hugely to the deficit. In fact, a former Medicare Trustee says that it will also add trillions to the already crushing unfunded obligations of the Medicare program.

Paying for the Spending. As President Obama warned, Congress should not add one dime to the deficit. If it is going to increase Medicare payment by over $200 billion over the next ten years, it should offset those increases with cuts elsewhere, preferably within the Medicare or other government health care programs.

Fortunately, the Obama Administration has surfaced a potential solution: the introduction of competitive bidding in Medicare Advantage. The Administration projected an estimated $177 billion in savings over ten years. But Obama’s Medicare savings were not earmarked for Medicare, but rather would finance his health care agenda. Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) proposed a variant on Medicare competitive bidding that would benchmark government payment to Medicare Advantage plans to actual plan costs rather than Medicare’s administrative pricing for Medicare Part A and B services. CBO estimated a $117 billion savings from that change.

This is a start. Congress could build on the Baucus proposal and secure the projected savings, while creating a “robust” Medicare competitive bidding system. Government payment to health plans in Medicare would based on the weighted average costs of actual health plans, as Baucus has proposed, but the competition would be extended to traditional Medicare fee for service program itself. As former Senator John Breaux (D-LA) has suggested, traditional Medicare should be granted managerial flexibility. This would enable the traditional Medicare program to compete effectively with private health plans, guaranteeing a level playing field, and thus keep the rest of the private health plans “honest”, as they say.

Not only would such an approach guarantee payment for the “doc fix”, but it might even reduce the deficit and ease the pressure on long-term Medicare costs. Such an approach should have direct appeal, not only to moderates and fiscal conservatives in both political parties, but also to the many members of Congress who identify themselves as champions of a “public option” that would compete fairly against private health plans; it would provide an excellent test of such public-private health plan competition, as well as the sincerity of its advocates. All options would compete fairly on a level playing field and guarantee real Medicare savings and rational physician reimbursement in the process.

More from the Heritage Foundation

Rating: 2.5/5 (10 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Is Anita Done?

November 11th, 2009 Cheeky Redhead

Anita Dunn once proved to be one of Obama’s greatest assets; now, she is one of his greatest missteps. As a campaign consultant she boasted boldly during a Jamaican interview that “Obama’s camp controlled the media, ALL the media” and still does today…well, perhaps, aside from FOX News.

As a Democratic strategist, communications consultant, and a partner of Squier Knapp Dunn Communications, a Washington-based consulting firm, Anita Dunn has most recently been Obama/the White House’s communications chief.

Recently she quietly stepped down from her post and is attempting to tip-toe out of the administration.  No doubt, her past revelations will haunt her career in the future.

What is her future? She is no longer the White House Communications Chief; however she is still on staff as a “consultant.” How many of you are wondering if this has affected her financial status? You may also be wondering how I can say that her past “revelations” will continue to haunt her and I will happily explain by using her own words against her.

In an interview titled “The Buying of the Presidency” Anita Dunn stated the following about “who” actually makes money during presidential campaigns:

“Let’s be honest: The money goes to TV stations. The people who make a lot of money off of presidential campaigns are the television stations in targeted states. I’ll give you an example: Alaska Senate race 2004. At the beginning of the Senate race, it cost $25 a gross rating point to be on the air in Anchorage, Alaska. By October of 2004, it cost $500 a gross rating point, which is more, or comparable to the city of Philadelphia.”

So, when Anita Dunn bragged about “controlling ALL the media” during the election she also was well aware that manipulating the media was really about manipulating funds. Where does money for campaigns come from? I will let her tell you:

“A $2,300 check is a lot of money to me, but it is a drop in the bucket for a statewide competitive race. The amount of people in this country who can afford to write checks like that and who do write checks like that is relatively small, and they tend to be very wealthy. So the amount of time the candidates and elected officials have to spend talking to rich people — calling them to ask them to hold an event, calling them to ask them to raise money, to share their Rolodex, getting on the phone with 50 of their friends, calling them to ask them for money — skews their perspective. The amount of time it takes is so significant that: a) They have less time to go out and actually campaign with people who don’t have that kind of money, and b) they tend to get a skewed sense of what the issue concerns are.”

Wow. There is no confusion here about why a “consultant” is so valuable to a campaign or a candidate. They obviously need someone to remind them “why” they are actually running for office aside from begging for money. Just how much impact does a consultant have on a candidate’s platform? I will let her tell you herself:

“In terms of the role of the consultant theme, there are small races and there are big races. Most of them, at the end of the day, present you with the same fundamental challenges that I believe that any consultant in this business faces, which is working with a candidate and trying to get out of them what they want to do, why they want to hold an office, and then presenting that. And it is frustrating, as a consultant, when a candidate doesn’t know and expects that to be my job to tell them. … And I’ve worked with a lot of candidates who say, “What’s my message?”

Now I pose this question about how much our legislators, leaders, and basically all politicians really know or are able to communicate what they have determined as “their views” when they so readily pay others to build that “view or platform” for them. As voters we listen to candidates and seem to have the idea that what they say they are representing is genuine. We are being led down the proverbial path largely constructed by the ideals, agendas and special interests of those often faceless minions.

Who organizes and focuses these views for those in office? Largely it is those consultants who so recently have been named as “czars” who have very specific agendas and the ears of our leaders.

Anita Dunn has stepped down as the Communications Officer for the White House but is still on the payroll as a “consultant”. She still has the ear of our president and leaders, but without the accountability publicly demanded in an official capacity. During such financially difficult times in America you’d think that our president would be cutting excess out of the payroll instead of simply changing titles.

As Anita Dunn stepped down from her official capacity many of us thought “Good, we aren’t paying her to continue doing such a poor job of hiding the ineptness within political agendas, but that is simply a mirage. She is now a consultant again with an ear of our president so that he can continue to get his much-needed guidance.  Just how much does a consultant make? Let us look to Anita Dunn for an explanation:

“I’ll tell you, the people who by and large overpay for consultants are Senate, gubernatorial, and congressional campaigns in expensive media markets that do percentage-of-the-buy [typically, a 15 percent commission of the total advertising buy]. I mean, I can totally justify percentage-of-the-buy at a pretty high rate in a cheap state, where I’m going to end up producing 35 or 40 ads, have 18 debates I’ve got to be prepared [for], and just work a huge amount of time for a relatively small amount of money because TV is inexpensive. On the other hand, if you’re doing a New Jersey Senate race, you’re going to produce five ads for a $15 million media buy; you’re not working that hard.”

Okay, so those who overpay consultants are those in the top positions in our government. I can’t help but wonder how much she is now getting paid. She is creating the platform for candidates and then making money on how well her agenda is being pushed. This is not what American voters voted for; nor what they believe their money is actually being spent on.

Ultimately we have to consider if anyone in any political office is actually genuine. It sure explains why so many seem to falter when it comes to actually representing their constituents. Suddenly, we realize why so many did not bother to read the Obamacare initiative when it was presented. They were waiting for a consultant to explain it to them and let’s face it—based upon the expertise and demonstrated acumen of Anita Dunn, they are all in a pickle.

While Dunn bragged about controlling the media, the internet, and her candidates, Americans were looking for truth that no longer could be controlled by the media minions of Obama’s truth squad. No wonder the Obama camp was so ticked off at FOX and the internet.

Since the presidential campaign, I have had my personal email address barraged with requests to donate to Obama and the truth squad. It is astounding to what extent these people will go to in order to get you to fork over some cash for their cause. It is also shocking the lies they perpetuate for their own agenda. How do they get away with asking for money while not being actually connected to a candidate? Let’s ask Anita:

“There are a lot of people who feel that the amount of money that can be raised on the Internet, which is primarily ideological money, is also problematic because of what they see as the left-wing push. Bill Bradley was the first candidate to raise over a million dollars on the Internet. He was actually the candidate who went to the FEC [Federal Election Commission] in 1999 and said, “Can Internet donations be qualified for matching funds?… “What generally happens for presidential campaigns, because you have multiple firms coming in. So, you create a separate corporation that has only one client, which is the campaign. But it’s a way to make sure that the money is made by that. Everything gets distributed. But what the Republicans do, which is more interesting, because they are much more aggressive under the law, is they actually in the past have set up for-profit companies that don’t make any money. They’re not 527s. But the Republicans take a very different attitude toward election law, because they actually don’t believe in it. By and large, our clients believe in this law.”

So you are propably thinking, “What?” Essentially all those emails from groups that are officially not connected to a candidate are raising money for who and for what? Where exactly is that money going to and what is it being spent on? Are their laws in place to somehow govern these funds or at least make them abide by any set of rules which represent any form of truth in spending? Nope. That is what we pay consultants for and we had no idea.

Are we to believe that the Democrats are not working as diligently as Anita Dunn leads us to believe that the Republicans are in that virtual gold mine of the internet? Are we to think Democrats are not as internet savvy and legally bound by law as Anita Dunn asserts merely by stating they “believe in this law” and so they are not benefiting from internet donations nearly as much as the Republicans? Well, I have yet to receive any emails from any Republican requesting a donation. I also haven’t gotten one from a Republican demanding I ignore and boycott FOX News. As a registered Independent I have gotten nothing from the Republicans in my email.

I am thinking perhaps the Democrats are as aggressive and controlling as FOX news asserts. They are not interested in truth. They are not interested in American and our needs. They are listening to the consultants whispering into their ear, “You know, I should really be paid more for doing your job.”


Rating: 3.0/5 (8 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Urban Conservative Officially Relaunches

October 29th, 2009 Billy Hallowell

Hello, America!  I am extremely excited to be writing to you this evening, as I officially begin my journey as editor-in-chief of UrbanConservative.com.  My name is Billy Hallowell and I am honored to introduce myself to you all.  

I have been a contributor to this site for the past two years.  I am a journalist and commentator who has been working in media for nearly 11 years (I’m 26, so I started fairly young).  In 2003, I founded Pathufind Media and I am currently the host of RENEWtv, a web show devoted to renewing American conservatism.  And now, I’m officially a member of the Urban Conservative family!

But enough about me.  You can surely read more on my Web site, but I’m guessing you’re most interested in what will be happening here on UrbanConservative.com!  Tomorrow, we will become a daily publication.  Many of you have been actively reading UC for years.  This new change will afford you even more access to valuable news and information!

You’ll notice we’ve launched a plethora of new topics.  While these subjects are of great importance to American politics, please be patient as we build our content around them (i.e. there may be a lag before all topics have streaming content).  But, we will be branching into new and uncharted news categories, as you can see.

Also, in November, my show — RENEWtv - will officially join forces with Urban Conservative.  

These are just some of the changes in store as we move forward!  Please be patient as we transition, add new blogs to the CONLIST and forge our path moving forward.  I thank you for your support and readership and I look forward to serving you!

- Billy Hallowell, Editor-in-Chief

Rating: 3.0/5 (22 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Obama’s Greatest Challenge Yet to Come: Replacing Ben Bernanke

May 27th, 2009 Jr Accountant

Perhaps you haven’t noticed this important little bit as you have been too distracted with digging your way out of debt, busting your ass at work just to keep up and grateful for your job regardless, or this nonsense about Obama’s choice for Supreme Court Justice. All of this noise is important, of course, because it further exposes Obama’s weaknesses; the poor cabinet choices (unless a crack team of tax cheats was the intended goal), the recklessly destructive attempts at economic repair thanks to his incredibly blind “advisers,” and the tendency to take on far more than “The State” was ever meant to handle.

Obama himself has insisted that though it may appear the opposite, he would prefer that the United States stay out of corporate affairs. Let us keep in mind that he said this just as GM was being led to the lethal injection chamber by Obama’s own team. Let’s face it, being owned by the United States government at this point is akin to a death sentence - just one more tumor devouring the host. What next? We’ve taken on the banks (who are still wandering aimlessly down Wall Street growling for braaaaaiiinnns), the automakers, the auto PARTS makers, the insurance companies; we have, at this point, even taken on ourselves. You did understand that this is what the Federal Reserve decision to buy Treasury bills on a massive scale equates to, right? Just making sure we are on the same page here.

How is that working out, by the way? Badly. The consensus amongst the armchair economists is that the bond market has begun its not-so-delicate unraveling and will shortly implode. Without this, one of the last “safe” investments remaining in a tumultuous and almost hallucinatory global financial market, Obama will have few options left to fund his promises, like the $787 billion Stimulus (no, it hasn’t been paid for).

But let us set aside the financial crisis momentarily and ignore the dollar’s red flags. Obama’s true challenge, disregarding the rest of the noise, is still ahead. Soon, he will have to start considering who he would like to replace Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Fed.

Bernanke’s term expires on January 31, 2023 and Obama’s people have certainly made it clear that the President does not intend to keep him in his post beyond that date. The first sign Obama wasn’t too keen on another term for Helicopter Ben? Sticking Timmy the Two Bit Tax Cheat Geithner in the Treasury, leaving ex Harvard President Larry Summers’ calendar free for “Take Over the Federal Reserve” on February 1st, 2010.

So, you say?

So, Larry Summers is, as one blogger put it, “a walking, talking conflict of interest.” Summers has collected millions in speaking fees from firms like Citigroup (multiple bailouts ring a bell?), Goldman Sachs (NY Fed/Goldman scandal sound familiar?), and Bank of America (CEO Ken Lewis working with ex Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke to possibly mislead investors, anyone?).

The New York Times paints a lovely picture of Summers saying “Mr. Summers, who will be 54 on Nov. 30, is universally described as brilliant, but is also renowned for being arrogant, occasionally rude and sometimes difficult to work with.” The article goes on to discuss Summers’ infamous reputation as a sexist after “girls don’t do economics” comments were, according to him, taken out of context some years ago.

All of this being said, please do not misconstrue my feelings for Ben Bernanke. Though a declared Republican, he does not subscribe to the exuberant idealism his predecessor Alan Greenspan brought to the Fed Chairman position. Someone described Bernanke’s politicism as being “asexually Republican” - the Ken doll with a bump of plastic under his suit and no expressed or obvious political affiliation to be found. Printing the United States into bankruptcy is certainly not a Republican trait I am familiar with.

So it cannot be Ben Bernanke’s politics which would motive President Obama to let his term expire. And even when we get rid of Bernanke, he’ll still stay on at the Fed board through 2020. 2020 until we can get rid of this money-printing manic depressive!

The Fed is failing and hard (see Treasury bills above). Whether or not this burden should rest entirely on Bernanke’s shoulders has not yet been decided. From the eyes of the funny-money-hungry Obama administration, it appears as though that doesn’t matter. Perhaps Bernanke doesn’t print quickly enough to keep up with President Obama’s promises and Summers will be better equipped to implode what remains of the dollar?

This will be interesting to watch. I sincerely hope Mr Obama manages to find a Fed Chairman who at least knows how to pay his taxes; if he picks a 7th tax cheat, and to head the Fed none the less!, I will have officially lost my faith in any chance this administration has at digging us out of this total economic disaster.

Rating: 3.2/5 (37 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Republicans surpass democrats on twitter

February 17th, 2009 Urban Conservative

Interesting story in the Washington Times about how Republicans are jumping on the technology bandwagon by joining in on the fun with twitter; and they are even beating out the democrats on Capitol Hill  Ha!  This is a moot story and I will tell you why.  Current Republicans in the Senate and Congress aren’t going to win us any future elections.  I will tell you what it is – it’s the thousands upon thousands of conservatives who are using twitter to converse, build relationships, and spread the conservative message; specifically the Top Conservatives on Twitter — #tcot.

Granted, twitter only has about 14 million registered users but that number is growing exponentially month over month and I believe it will be mainstream in the next couple of years. Mark my words folks … the conservative movement has just begun!

If you enjoyed this post, plese follow me on Twitter.

Rating: 2.6/5 (38 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Novel Idea: Let’s let the homeless in America decide who will be the next President

October 7th, 2008 Urban Conservative

In Cleveland, Ohio a volunteer group supporting Obama picked up hundreds of homeless people at shelters, soup kitchens and drug-rehab centers and drove them to a polling house yesterday on the last day that folks in Ohio could register and vote on the same day, with almost no questions asked.

One convicted felon noted, “I never voted before, without this service, I would have had no way to get here.”

Every decent law abiding citizen in this country — democrat or republican — should be angry and ashamed of this vile attempt to gain votes, however insignificant the number really is. The law against registering and voting the same day was on the books in Ohio, yet the democratic controlled court made this determination because they are — of course in bed with their political party. Yet another example of how democrats put their party before their country.

Sure, these people can vote for their candidate when they are in the booth, but there’s nothing preventing the fraud of voting in multiple locations. Is one homeless guy who’s bought off for a box of smokes or a six pack of beer worth 3 or 4 of your informed votes?

Let’s not only exploit the children in this country but also the homeless. Who’s next, the mentally disabled?

Tags: convicted felons voting for Obama, homeless people voting for Obama, Obama supporters in Ohio


If you enjoyed this article, please subscribe to our feed. You can also follow Urban Conservative on Twitter. Let us know if you need blog marketing or social media consulting. And, if you want some serious traffic to your site, you can also buy advertising on Urban.

Rating: 2.6/5 (68 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Who won the 2008 Vice Presidential Debate, Joe Biden or Sarah Palin

October 2nd, 2008 Urban Conservative

I am sure tonight’s festivities will be much more interesting than last weeks; assuming Palin has the heart to look her enemy square in the eyes.

Tonight’s hotly-anticipated debate between their picks for vice president will be seen as a critical test for Republican Sarah Palin and for Democrat Joe Biden. Concerns about Sarah Palin’s readiness to take the national stage have grown in recent days following very poor interviews in which she fumbled her words when faced with tough questions, specifically from Katie Couric who is probably one of the softer interviewers in the media. If Sarah can show one ounce of articulation and at least pretend she knows what she is talking about, she may do just fine.

But some Democrats must also be worried.  Biden, a 35-year veteran of the Senate who has a bigger ego than most in Hollywood has in the past displayed a low level of restraint and tolerance when talking with (or at) the opposition.  He will lose points by bullying, patronizing or appearing to condescend during the debate (I heard on the radio this morning that he will only refer to her as Governor Palin.)

By the time you read this, the debate will be over. So tell me, who do you feel won the vice presidential debate tonight and why? Chime in and let your voice be heard.

Tags: who won the VP debate?, who won the vice president debate, 2008, vice presidential debate, Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, who won the vp debate, who won vp debate, vice president debate 2008, vp debate 2008


If you enjoyed this article, please subscribe to our feed. You can also follow Urban Conservative on Twitter. Let us know if you need blog marketing or social media consulting. And, if you want some serious traffic to your site, you can also buy advertising on Urban.

Rating: 2.7/5 (37 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Who won the first 2008 Presidential Debate, McCain or Obama?

September 26th, 2008 Urban Conservative

So Drudge is running a poll right now and McCain is blowing Obama out of the water.  Out of 118,000 votes 69% have voted that McCain won tonight’s CNN Presidential Debate.  They battled over federal spending, taxes, the economy, Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. Who do you think won and why? Chime in.

UPDATE — here is what Kissinger really said:

Kissinger: “Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we — we know we’re dealing with authentic…”


Tags: CNN Presidential Debate, Poll, Obama or McCain, Who won the 2008 Presidential Debate?, who won debate mccain obama, presidential debate polls, who won the debate 2008, presidential debate who won, cnn presidential debate

If you enjoyed this article, please subscribe to our feed. You can also follow Urban Conservative on Twitter. Let us know if you need blog marketing or social media consulting. And, if you want some serious traffic to your site, you can also buy advertising on Urban.

Rating: 2.7/5 (65 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

BlogWatch: Social Security in Peril, Candidate Avoidance & Other Budgetary Debacles

September 5th, 2008 Billy Hallowell

The BlogWatch is a weekly piece that is published on the non-partisan web site Facing Up to the Nation’s Finances.  Stay tuned for more weekly, non-partisan fiscal recaps brought to you by Billy Hallowell and Facing Up.With the discussion primarily focused on both the Democratic and the Republican national conventions, the blogosphere has been quite distracted. With that said, we were still able to dig up some interesting discussion about issues related the federal budget:To begin this week’s BlogWatch, the Economist Mom blog covers the current absence of candidate discussion surrounding the federal budget in the current political conversation. On the EM blog, Stan Collender’s most recent “Fiscal Fitness” piece is highlighted and paraphrased, as he explores the reasons why the federal budget isn’t on the candidates’ radar:

“You have to ask yourself why the budget isn’t being discussed more often in this year’s election. All polls show the economy as the No. 1 issue for most voters, and federal spending accounts for more than one-fifth of the economy…Shouldn’t voters be demanding to hear more?”

A few weeks back, the director of the Congressional Budget Office posed a very interesting blog entry on America’s Social Security debacle. We missed it in our last BlogWatch, but it’s surely worth noting here. According to the entry, a recent study conducted by the CBO substantiated some scary projections:“…the number of Social Security beneficiaries will grow considerably as the baby boomers become eligible for retirement benefits. Absent legislative changes, spending for the program will therefore climb substantially and exceed the program’s revenues.”And over at the Mises Economic Blog, talk is centered upon the fiscal weight of the American vice-presidency, as the entry takes on the position and explores its worth. Interestingly, the cost associated with the position comes into play:

“Why is there an Office of Vice President at all? There’s little compelling reason for the taxpayers to spend over $200,000 in salary and several million dollars more on staff, housing and transportation for a person who does little more then serve as an emergency backup.”

In other budgetary news, OMBWatch blogged about a Sunlight Foundation piece by executive director Ellen Miller. As per OMBWatch’s budget blog, Miller penned a piece about the legacy of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 — a bill that requires that all federal spending be logged and searchable online. According to Miller, the bill has also affected policy at the state level:

“Since 2007, 11 states…have established, via legislation or executive order, free and searchable Web sites that give access to state spending. And 24 other states are working on it, with more than half introducing spending transparency bills this year.”

That’s all for today’s BlogWatch. Check back next week for more updated news and information about America’s fiscal challenges.

Technorati Tags: facing up to the nation’s finances,election 2008,billy hallowell

Rating: 3.3/5 (28 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

The Day After: The stories unfold about Sarah Palin

September 4th, 2008 Urban Conservative

Since Sarah Palin’s magnificent speech last night at the Republican Convention, there have been a multitude of articles about her performance and character; way too many to post here but some initial articles caught my attention.

If you missed the speech, you can read the excerpt here or watch below. According to Drudge, 37,244,000 million people watched the speech last night, which is probably the greatest number ever to watch a candidate for the Vice Presidency, and just 1 million shy of Obama.  It’s becoming clear to me that in less than 6 days, Sarah Palin has been able to energize Republicans and conservatives; something John McCain has struggled to do.

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mary Mitchell says that although Palin is from the backwoods of Alaska, she has the heart of a street fighter; and that she is on the Republican ticket because she is a woman and isn’t afraid to go toe to toe with the Democrats. Our friends in the UK kinda like her which is surprising. Some aides from the unemployed Clinton camp spoke out and said that Palin has been treated unfairly and has been subjected to a sexist double standard by the media and Democrats, but what else is new. Even Ann Coulter decided to vote for McCain because of Palin; and this comes after a statement that “she would rather vote for Hillary than McCain.”

Even the left wing types like Gloria Steinem at the LA Times got it right when she said that “Sarah Palin shares nothing on common with Hillary Clinton but a chromosome”.   I applaud this statement and couldn’t agree more even though the rest of the article is full of crap.  Even the loonies in Hollywood chimed in like Annette Bening (who?). Her opinion, well … doesn’t really count since she is just a “B” grade actress anyway and isn’t in the same league as say a Susan Sarandon. 

I was also surprised to read an article about her hair style, which I think is just fine; Sarah-wear products arriving on the scene (my favorite one is ‘Our mama beats your Obama’); and yes, she did make an attempt to sell the “private jet” on eBay. 

Here is a 4 minute video highlighting Sarah’s speech.

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Tags: Governor Sarah Palin, Main Stream Media, hockey mom, Sarah palin, Ann Coulter, Gloria Steinem, selling a jet on eBay, Our mama beats your Obama t-shirts

Rating: 2.9/5 (33 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!