Sarah Palin--The GOP's "Maggie Thatcher"?
I was thinking it, but Brit Hume said it first publicly on Fox News--Sarah Palin could be the Republican Party's Maggie Thatcher. Last night Governor Palin stood up to the media elites and lefty commentators, and proved that she is an "Iron Lady." It is noteworthy that the British media and political elites, including some in her own Conservative Party, repeatedly underestimated Margaret Thatcher, the daughter of a shop owner, when she took the helm first of the Tories and then of Britain, and returned both to greatness. Moreover, Sarah Palin is only 44--in 8 years, when President John McCain is completing his second term, she will be only 52. She could be a Republican Party leader, along with other GOP young guns, such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, for decades to come.
If more proof is needed, check out the article in today's Los Angeles Times, relating how Governor Palin has stood up to Big Oil in defense of the State of Alaska's interest in its natural resources. According to the Times:
Since becoming governor in December 2006, Palin has tripled production taxes on oil and seized control of a proposed $30-billion natural gas pipeline from the traditional oil giants.Now, I am not normally an advocate of tax increases on energy companies, but this story underscores what Newt Gingrich said today on CNN--the McCain-Palin ticket may be the toughest reform ticket fielded by the GOP since Teddy "the Trust Buster" Roosevelt. When the voters begin to compare the records of Senator McCain and Sarah Palin in defying entrenched special interests in their own political party to the non-record of Barack Obama in that regard, they may realize who represents real change.
The Palin administration now stands in a nerve-racking faceoff with the multibillion-dollar oil industry interests that have for 40 years been the bedrock of the state's politics and economy. Who blinks first -- Palin, or companies like BP Alaska, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil -- will determine who controls transport of Alaska's massive untapped gas resources and future tax revenues for a state dependent on petroleum revenues for 85% of its budget.
Most analysts are predicting that it won't be Palin who yields.
posted by The Kosher Hedgehog at 12:56 PM
|
5 Comments:
WHAOU!! Amazing how wrong and blind you can be. Instead of putting your trust too much on overly partial newspapers, I suggest you do further research about Palin to get back to reality.
How about this link: http://nailingjello.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/the-sarah-palin-chronicles-myth-1-ethics-reformer/
And I'll even make your research effort easy by giving you other links to the same INDEPENDENT blog:
http://nailingjello.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/the-sarah-palin-chronicles-maverick-reformer-not-so-much/
http://nailingjello.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/the-sarah-palin-chronicles-myth-4-environmentalist/
Because I always verify information (you should too), I'll suggest this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/palin-also-supported-the_n_123991.html
Comparing Palin and Thatcher is like putting her at the same level as Sarkozy, Blair, Brown, Merkel...
a total INSULT.
Get REAL. really.
Fred: Your credibility sort of crashed and burned when you referred to the Los Angeles Times as an "overly partial newspaper." Actually, it is an overly partial newspaper--overly partial to Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. The liberal orientation of the L.A. Times is not exactly a state secret, Fred. To suggest that the article to which I linked reflects L.A. Times political partiality in favor of McCain-Palin strains incredulity, to say the least. However, I assume you are employed by the Obama campaign to watch out for posts like mine on the Web and to post responses--the WWW equivalent of a seminar caller to a talk radio program.
Wrong, because I'm criticizing the partial/overly subjective source of news (LA Times and others) does not mean I favor one candidate over the other. As a matter of fact, I have the double citizenship and consider myself a proud European rather than an ashamed Yankee when I see such poor candidacy all across the board. So let me make it clear again: the way you praise Palin based on those mainstream newspapers (which ever they are) is pathetic and very low, considering the very obvious flaws of that lady which of course those crappy papers and yourself are happy to ignore.
Fred: The first rule of holes is: When you are in one, stop digging! First you criticize our reference to the L.A. times based on that paper's partiality to a Republican. As Ralph noted, that's laughable. Now you cite to . . . The Huffington Post! Please. And I won't even get into the lefty blog you cite to.
I am impressed, however, that the Obama campaign has people out there monitoring blogs.
"First you criticize our reference to the L.A. times"??! Reread: "trust too much on overly partial newspapers" is WHAT I say in my first post because I can see well you base your analysis on a few newspapers, not only the LA Times. So you're losing your point here.
I conclude that you do not want to hear from INDEPENDENT, UNBIASED sources which is pitiful.
No wonder why you fell in love so much with Palin!
Finally, I must also repeat that I am not an Obama campaigner just in case you haven't paid enough attention to my 2nd post.
The main point is that you draw false conclusions on Palin's "skills" by looking at one side of the whole picture only. Kids are taught not to do that...
Post a Comment
<< Home