Seven Minutes or 58 Days -- Contrasts in Presidential Leadership

by Clio

September 11, 2001: President George W. Bush waited seven minutes before excusing himself from a classroom full of school children – and the liberal media excoriated him for not rushing out of the room to take command of the crisis.

58 Days after the oil rig explosion, Mr. Obama, in the wake of public criticism, reluctantly meets with BP’s Chief Executive Officer… for 20 minutes.

9:05am, September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush was in Sarasota, Florida at the Emma Booker Elementary School visiting a class of second graders when Andrew Card, the White House Chief of Staff, approached the president and whispered in his ear that a second plane struck one of the World Trade Center Towers (he was informed by Card that a plane had crashed into one of the towers at 9:00am, but, at that time, no one knew whether it was an intentional act or an accident).

The media covered the visit to the grade school and the nation watched as the president, sitting in a chair next to a podium, absorbed the reality of Card’s news and waited for an appropriate moment to leave without alarming the children. His visage is grave. Still and stoic, he sat for seven minutes …

Seven minutes…

9:30am, the President meets with his National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice.

9:57am, per pre-existing Secret Service protocol, the President boarded Air Force One, en route to Barksdale Air Force base in Louisiana. Vice President Dick Cheney puts America’s military on high alert. An hour later, he speaks with Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld and New York Senator Charles Schumer.

1:04pm, three hours and fifty-nine minutes after learning of the second plane crash, President Bush placed our military on world-wide high alert status and asserts: "Make no mistake: The United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts."

1:14pm, the President telephones New York’s Mayor, Rudy Giuliani and Governor George Pataki and assures them "I know your heart is broken and your city is strained and anything we can do, let me know."

During the next few hours, the President has a number of telephone conversations and conferences with his national security staff, the vice president and administration staff while en route to Washington, D.C.

8:30pm, 12 and half hours after the first attack, President George W. Bush addressed the nation. He told us what happened, what was learned within the past 12 and a half hours and the actions taken within this time frame:

“Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans. Our military is powerful, and it's prepared. Our emergency teams are working in New York City and Washington, D.C. to help with local rescue efforts.

Our first priority is to get help to those who have been injured, and to take every precaution to protect our citizens at home and around the world from further attacks...”

“The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice…”

Twenty-six days after the terrorist attacks, October 7, 2001, President Bush addressed the nation and announced that military strikes were underway in Afghanistan against the Taliban, identified as linked to and headquarters for Al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the September 11th attacks. Below are excerpts from the president’s speech:

"More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps. Hand over leaders of the Al Qaeda network. And return all foreign nationals, including American citizens, unjustly detained in their country…”

"None of these demands was met. And now, the Taliban will pay a price.
The president closed his speech with the following statement:


"The battle is now joined on many fronts. We will not waiver, we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail.

"Thank you. May God continue to bless America."

Oil Rig Explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, April 20, 2010

On April 20, 2010, an explosion occurred on an oil rig, Deepwater Horizon, in the Gulf of Mexico. The rig, owned by Transocean Ltd. and operated by BP, collapsed, killing 11 people and spewing over 42,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf. The flow of oil continues at approximately that rate each day since the explosion. (Some experts disagree on the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf – most estimates are much higher than 42,000 gallons per day.)

April 22, two days later, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is questioned about the explosion by the press aboard Air Force One…"Has [the president] reached out to anyone in Louisiana over the oil rig explosion?" Gibbs responded, "Let me check on that. I don't believe so . . .

April 26, six days after the explosion of the rig, Mr. Obama tasked Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar with investigating the cause of the accident and proposing new regulations within 30 days.

April 28, Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton said, "The president is very closely monitoring the situation . . .
April 30, Obama placed a moratorium on permits for new offshore drilling sites until after the BP spill investigation is concluded.

May 3, thirteen days after the explosion and spill, the media asks White House press secretary Robert Gibbs if Mr. Obama has spoken to BP. His answer: "I don't believe the president has spoken with anybody at BP.”

May 11, twenty-one days later: Mr. Gibbs said, "I would say the president is deeply frustrated that we have not plugged this leak. Secretary [of Energy Steven] Chu is heading to the area to work with the response team to make sure that we have some of the best and brightest minds down there trying to think through next steps for doing so."

May 22, twenty-two days after the event, with over 40,000 gallons of oil continuing to befoul the Gulf waters each day, the president announced the creation of a national commission, led by former Sen. Bob Graham and former EPA Administrator William K. Reilly, to investigate the government's response to the spill.

May 28, Mr. Obama makes a second trip to the Gulf.

June 8, Mr. Obama appears on NBC’s “Today,” and tells host Matt Lauer, "I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers - so I know whose ass to kick."

(Thuggish language from the inhabitant of the Oval Office – did you cringe upon hearing this lame attempt at taking a strong position on the issue?)

What else was on Mr. Obama’s agenda during this crisis?
April 20: attended fundraiser for Senator Barbara Boxer, California
April 22, hosts Rose Garden reception to honor Earth Day
April 23, vacations in Asheville, NC: has lunch, hike and a round of golf
April 24, golf, dinner at the Biltmore
April 25, brunch at Grove Park Resort
April 26, hosts NY Yankees at White House reception
April 28, visits Iowa for pie
April 29, attends DNC fundraiser at private residence
May 1, joins Jay Leno for comedy routine at WHCD
May 2, visits Louisiana -- first trip
May 3, hosts Navy football team
May 4, private lunch with Nobel Laureate, Elie Wiesel
May 5, Cinco de Mayo party at White House
May 8, more golf at Fort Belvoir
May 9, commencement speech Hampton University
May 11, golf with the vice president
May 12, private reception for President Karzai
May 13, flies to Buffalo for Duff's hot wings
May 14, makes a speech in the Rose Garden regarding the oil spill
May 15, golf, May 16, golf
May 17, hosts University of Connecticut Women's basketball team
May 18, tours factory in Ohio
May 19, hosts state dinner
May 20, meets with rock star/activist, Bono
May 21, visits Pittsburgh Steelers
... golf, golf, party, fundraiser, golf, hosts party, golf, weekend vacation, golf, basketball, barbecue, skips Arlington wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington, hosts part for Paul McCartney at the White House.

June 1, day 43 after leak begins, Mr. Obama meets with Bob Graham regarding the oil spill … more parties, events, golf, fundraisers

June 16, Mr. Obama finally meets with BP Chief Executive Officer Tony Hayward for 20 minutes. Mr. Obama obtains a compensation guarantee of 20 billion dollars, placed in an escrow account.

58 Days … later.

In fairness, all presidents have long days of meetings, special events (including meeting sports teams and rock stars), bestowing awards and visiting various private and public affairs.

Nevertheless, when a disaster strikes and the country suffers, it is incumbent on the nation’s leader to prioritize his agenda, attend to his people, ensure that his administration meets with state or local leaders, coordinates efforts with federal agencies, as well as offer aid and comfort to those in distress.

Contrasts in Leadership: Action and Accountability

President Bush’s actions in response to the September 11th attacks are measured in minutes, hours and days. Within three weeks of the terrorist acts, military strikes began in Afghanistan where the terrorist group was based.

Barack Obama compared the BP oil leak to the Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 (perhaps a more apt comparison is with Hurricane Katrina in 2005 – see note below).

There is no doubt that the BP oil spill is a disaster of undetermined magnitude, with over 7 million barrels of oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico thus far and endangering its ecosystem including Bluefin tuna, brown pelicans, shrimp, dolphins, sea turtles and plankton.

The Gulf region’s economic outlook is precarious: per the National Ocean Economics Program, approximately $1 billion of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is attributed to fishing; $13 billion in tourism and $11 billion in oil. Furthermore, this region yields about 20 percent of America’s oyster production and 75 percent of the domestic shrimp output. As the oil sullies the waters and beaches, the effect on tourism for both Louisiana and Florida, may be catastrophic.

The reality in the Gulf is indisputable; this is an extraordinary ecological and economic disaster that demands immediate and effective efforts. The White House has failed to meet the challenge. It appears that its attempts to manage the situation are a consequence of public and media disapproval.

Real leadership requires immediate, decisive action in response to calamitous events. As president, reassuring constituents that you are in charge, concerned and responding appropriately is a vital element of the job.

Clearly, the timelines shown above highlight a sharp contrast in leadership styles (or lack thereof) between Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama.

America needs a leader who will arrange his priorities according to their significance: pushing fair work compensation for illegal aliens; summoning a general, in the midst of prosecuting a war, to the White House to account for unflattering statements made to Rolling Stone magazine or summoning all assets and experts to a devastating domestic disaster, already in progress.

Recent reports indicate that the situation may have repercussions that span beyond the noted and predicted effects on the Gulf coast area. Scientists are evaluating scenarios, but only time will tell if this oil spill ranks as one of the worst natural disasters in American history.

Time will also tell if the current president failed to act promptly and effectively on behalf of his country, perhaps Mr. Obama’s greatest “ego”-logical disaster.

One more note about presidential timelines: General Stanley McChrystal, in August 2009, asked Mr. Obama for the deployment of 40,000 additional troops (some reports indicate that the number was as high as 80,000) to Afghanistan. Mr. Obama launched a three-month review: December 2009, the Commander-in-Chief finally decided to send 30,000 troops.

Approximately, 116 troops died in Afghanistan between August and December, while Mr. Obama “dithered,” and delayed his response to General McChyrstal’s request for soldiers.

Note:
Hurricane Katrina
President Bush was soundly criticized for his lack of action as Hurricane Katrina approached the Louisiana coastline. While some of the criticism may have been warranted, it should be noted that on Saturday, Aug 27, 2005 – two days prior to Katrina’s landfall, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco asked President Bush to declare a State of Emergency for the state of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina Bush complied, authorizing the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA "to coordinate all disaster relief efforts…" and freeing up federal money for the state.


© The Bold Pursuit, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Why do American Politicians Have Such a Fascination With Amnesty? - Patriotic Perspectives

by John Wayne Tucker, a Baptist Minister and former teacher/professor. He is currently running for the United States Congress in Missouri's 3rd Congressional District

By now, everyone knows that there is a United States Congressman who fears that an additional 5,000 American troops in Guam would capsize the small island. As funny as that is, it scares the pants off me to think that the leaders of our country can be that stupid. Perhaps the Congressman is lying awake worrying now about H.R. 4321 which is an amnesty bill. Perhaps the Congressman is worried that America might capsize or just sink into the ocean because of all the illegals we will allow to come into the country and stay.

As stupid as that is, is it any less stupid of our Congress to consider an amnesty bill that by its own description would allow 11 million illegal immigrants to stay here with virtually free legal status? Especially when by most accounts, the number is closer to 40 or 50 million people. This bill includes portions of two other amnesty bills that have already been vetoed by the American people; not just once, but twice. Now, they hope to include those two bills wrapped up in a new package with even more ridiculous legislation hoping that Americans will be fooled.

In a time period when our own economy is faltering badly and jobs are more scarce than they have ever been in my lifetime, why would a government that cares about its people propose to basically absorb another country that is more economically depressed than our own? They have told us that illegals do the jobs that Americans don’t want to do. But just a week or two ago, there was a major protest at UPS because they were requiring people to verify that they were here legally. There were many who had worked there for a long time and would not be able to provide the evidence. I think a UPS jobs is something that a lot of Americans would like to have right now. Several illegals were caught right here in Missouri doing construction and the police were required to let them go. I think construction jobs are something a lot of people in Missouri would like to do. Who knows what jobs illegals may be doing that take food from the tables of American workers who cannot find jobs?

Let’s take a look at some of the provisions of this bill that Congress thinks is good for America:

1. First, the proponents argue it is not amnesty because there is a penalty. If you are caught here illegally, you must pay a $500 fine. Of course, if you cannot afford to do that, there are ways around it. That seems sufficient penalty for people costing us $10,000 per year per person, don’t you think?
2. By the way, there is no enforcement in place to take care of the fines and there is no provision to protect the border. That fence at the border. We won’t be needing that.
3. Border patrol would undergo special training so as not to scare children.

4. Immigration and Customs Enforcement could still pick you up, but don’t worry. There are provisions to help you out with that.

1. If you have medical or mental health needs? You are free to go.
2. Pregnant, nursing or have children? You are free to go.
3. Supporting children or others or 65 years old? You are free to go.
4. Victim of a crime, abuse, or violence? You are free to go.

5. And enforcement by the Immigration and Customs officials may not occur in the vicinity of:

1. Any place of worship
2. School Day Care Center
3. Legal service provider
4. Hospital or health care clinic
5. Funeral home or cemetery
6. College, University or junior college
7. A day care center, head start center or school bus stop
8. Recreation center or community center
9. A mental health facility


So, am I the bad guy for thinking this is ridiculous? Let me be clear that I have as much compassion as anyone for human suffering and need. The United States has a historical background of giving until it hurts to help the people of the world. Look at these statistics from 1980 to 2007 from the Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/foreign_commerce_aid/foreign_aid.html

It can never be said that America does not care. But we cannot just give away our country. I know that I have much to thank God for. I was born here and am thankful for it. But there are countries all over the world who struggle with this same issue every day and they have chosen to protect their borders. I have no problem with legal immigration. But there is a significant and well thought out process for that system. How is it remotely fair to tell the rest of the people in the world that they must wait and pay money and get health checks, etc. in order to come here legally, and then let 40 or 50 million people sneak in the back door?

When I am in Congress, there will be no sneaking by ridiculous amnesty bills without an outcry from me. My goal is to protect our borders, our Sovereignty, and our economic prosperity. No Amnesty, No Socialism, No Fascism, No Communism.


John Wayne Tucker
http://www.johnwaynetucker.com/
The 2010 Statistical Abstract: Foreign Aid
www.census.gov

*The Bold Pursuit presents “Patriotic Perspectives” as a forum for candidates and others to express their views and positions on local and/or national affairs. Publication in Patriotic Perspectives is a public service, not an endorsement. We urge our readers to thoroughly review the candidates and issues and cast their votes accordingly.

STAND UP! Now is the time for choosing; Global Citizen or Real American?

by Thomas S Schmitz, Special to The Bold Pursuit

Our republic is at a crossroads. We are faced with a turning point of fundamental transformation. Those in the beltway mistakenly continue to see this moral compass we are challenged with as left and right. They could not be more wrong. What we are confronted by is two opposing world views battling to the dying end for the essence and conscience of our American republic. This battle is certainly not a new one, but as history shows us countries have fallen and transformed for the worse when an exaggerated crisis is coupled with enormous debt, high unemployment, inflation and financial uncertainty.

What makes this looming conflict unique is that for the first time in modern history these two opposing world views are fantastically embodied by two unparalleled superstars on the world stage. Sarah Palin and Barack Obama actually bring to life the two embattled comprehensive viewpoints Americans must choose between. Branding has taken on a whole new meaning in our political discourse and Americans are faced with a question. Whose America do you want to belong to?

Curiously during the 2008 presidential campaign Barack Hussein Obama standing on foreign soil called for a new world order and smugly crowned himself a, citizen of the world. This self important and self bestowed title was trumpeted in the media as progressive and modern. Yet many Americans were confused and raised their eyebrows as the media worked in full force to pass off this alleged morally superior globalist philosophy as mainstream.

Now, two years later, citizens have quickly learned that our identities as Americans, and the proud love of country that unites us, are not necessarily shared by our commander in chief; American exceptionalism has been publically trivialized, foreign leaders have been bowed before, foreign countries have been endlessly apologized to and warned of American arrogance, terrorists born on foreign soil have been given rights reserved for American citizens, and our president has stood next to a foreign head of state and gleefully joined him in condemning an American law passed to protect our citizens.

We have been told by our president that he desires to intentionally put the coal industry out of business for the well-being of the global community, and that the world will no longer tolerate Americans driving any type of car they desire and deciding for ourselves what temperature to keep our thermostats on.  American sovereignty be damned. Let me be clear: in Barack Obama’s America, citizens must obtain a global permission slip before practicing American individualism.

As the Obama problem continues, the essence of American individualism has taken human form. With her Reaganesque charm and bold American spirit, Sarah Palin is singlehandedly holding the torch of liberty.  By her mere existence, Sarah Palin has proven that in America you don’t need a title to make a difference. This new Momma Grizzly feminist has rallied the troops from coast to coast and handpicked candidates to send to the front lines of next November’s battle. Sarah Palin has enkindled a fire in grass roots common sense conservative activists and effected positive change for our country by throwing herself into the national debate and forcing delay to Barack Obama’s dangerous globalist agenda.  Her role as Shadow President provides Americans with a consistent contrast to every issue the administration attempts to solve with big government globalist solutions.  Sarah Palin is a constant reminder of that shining city on the hill where a smaller, smarter government lives within its means.

America’s crossroads have been clearly defined. Now is the time for choosing. Whose side will you be on? Is American sovereignty outdated? The stakes have never been higher. Do you want to belong to an America bordered by Mexico and Canada? Or do you want to belong to an America bordered by Venus and Mars?

Thomas S Schmitz

Team Sarah

Be the first to read STAND UP! Join the Thomas S Schmitz Facebook fan page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Los-Angeles-CA/Thomas-S-Schmitz/237375134338?v=app_23474718

                                                                                                         

A Political Cynic Asks: What If ?

by guest blogger, Bruce O’Hara, Special to The Bold Pursuit

What if America elected a President who was immersed in Communism from birth? A man whose known associates and organizations were all radical and anti-American?

What if that President was expert in, and actually taught, Alinsky tactics as a "community organizer"? A title, for what, in earlier times, was known as a rabble-rouser.

What if every economic policy that he initiated as President appeared to be obviously unsustainable, and appeared to be following the Cloward-Piven strategy, which outlines how to overwhelm the financial capabilities of the American government, a strategy conceived and designed to deliberately bring down that government with the goal of rebuilding a Socialist/Communist Centralized government from the ashes?

What if, while implementing this economic strategy, a major environmental disaster occurred? A disaster that is destroying two out of the three major forms of income for a large region of the country, fishing and tourism.

What if that President then issued a moratorium on the third major source of income for the region, drilling for oil, to effectively issue an economic coup dé grâce to their local economy?

What if the entire country still didn't get it about this President? What if they were thinking that his foot-dragging, which has guaranteed a worst-case scenario, was due to incompetence?

What if, though, instead of seeing this as a disaster, this President saw it as a boon towards his personal goal of economically bringing the country to its knees?

What if?

Sarah Palin: Super Tuesday’s Biggest Winner

by Clio

Sarah Palin was not a candidate for office on Super Tuesday, but that’s hard to ascertain from hundreds of news reports and blogs published today.

I thought I’d begin this piece with a cerebral and sophisticated title: “Chicks Rule!” and, indeed, the ladies made the biggest headlines during last night’s Super Tuesday primary results. However, the biggest story of the Super Tuesday mid-term primaries appears to be Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska.

"Palin is a queen or kingmaker within the Republican Party," said former Republican New York Sen. Alfonse D'Amato.

After perusing dozens of articles, a theme began to emerge – the Palin effect (not to be confused with Palin Derangement Syndrome): almost all made note of Palin’s picks and the significance of her endorsements in paragraph one or within the first few paragraphs of the story.


Few major news outlets failed to mention Governor Palin’s efforts in Tuesday night’s primaries (three out of four of her candidates won) although several attempted to downplay her role or deflected attention from her successes by focusing on Palin supporters who were unhappy with her picks, dredging up the failed McCain/Palin ticket or her endorsement of New York Senate Independent, Doug Hoffman.

Hoffman entered the race as a dark horse, but soon led the Republican candidate, DeDe Scozzafava in the polls. Scozzafava withdrew from the race and threw her support behind challenger, Democrat Bill Owens. Hoffman lost by a few points; however, one might conclude that Hoffman could have won if Scozzafava had given her support to him instead of the opposition candidate.

Palin’s Facebook fans, according to NYMag.com, are “full of dismay, disenchantment, and even some disgust…” (link below).

This afternoon, I visited Sarah Palin’s Facebook page. After sifting through several pages of enthusiastic messages, I found a few mildly unhappy comments. Granted, some of her Facebook fans didn’t care for all of the candidates she chose to endorse. This may come as a shock to some liberals, but the Palin devout (the Palinistas or Palinbots, as some detractors like to call the former governor’s followers), are not brainless lemmings. Some may not agree with her choices in this primary, but that doesn’t diminish their approval of Governor Palin.

Below are a few excerpts from today’s primary coverage (for the full article, click on the link):

Fox News:

Sarah Palin's still got it.
After a few strikeouts during the campaign season, the former Alaska governor saw three of the four candidates she endorsed sail to victory ….

WashingtonPost.com:

Can Sarah Palin claim credit for last night?
It's irresistible for many in the press to look for Sarah Palin angles on election night…

AsssociatedContent.com:

Whitman, Fiorina, Haley, Angle , Lincoln Score Wins
Primary night was ladies' night on June 8, with the victories of Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina in California, Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Sharron Angle in Nevada, and the unexpected win of Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas.

But the biggest winner may be someone who was not even on the ballot: Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska, potential Presidential candidate, and political queen-maker…

Newsmax.com:

Gillespie: Palin Factor Was Crucial to GOP Victories

CSMonitor.com:

…The “outsider” role in this year’s primaries has been played up big by Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor, whose famous stump line is now “mama grizzlies, they rise up.” Her endorsement of four female Republican candidates may have helped three of them win or proceed to a runoff. And by her association with the “tea party” movement, she has helped prevent that conservative group from being stamped as antiwoman…

CBSNews.com:

…By my count, former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has endorsed 14 Republicans in 2010. Last night, Palin's candidates went two-for-three. California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina and Iowa gubernatorial nominee Terry Branstad won the GOP primaries, while one of her "mama grizzlies" -- Cecile Bledsoe -- went down to defeat in a congressional primary in Arkansas. (South Carolina GOP gubernatorial frontrunner Nikki Haley was forced to a runoff)…

Politico.com:

Some of Sarah Palin’s riskiest endorsements scored major victories Tuesday for the former Alaska governor, showing off her power in Republican primaries.


Palin had four primary endorsements in play – Carly Fiorina, Nikki Haley, Terry Branstad and Cecile Bledsoe – and three won or moved on to a runoff. 

Palin served different roles for each candidate – sometimes spotlighting conservatives not well known to the national scene while at others validating conservative credentials to an unsure grassroots and even stepping in to deflect nasty attacks…

Negative reviews of Palin are de rigueur in the predominantly liberal mainstream media (or “lamestream media – a term used by Governor Palin and other conservatives). NYMag.com focuses on Palin’s disgruntled devotees; Huffington Post offers a compendium of anti-Palin blogs and features on the primaries and her (supposedly altered) mammaries. The Bold Pursuit suggests HuffPo report on the incompetency of the boobs running the White House rather than unsupported rumors intended to detract from a clearly powerful, influential woman.


NYMag.com:

It's usually difficult to find a more Palin-friendly place than the comment threads for Sarah Palin's own Facebook notes (standard message: "Go get 'em Sarah!"), but today, Palin's Facebook page is full of dismay, disenchantment, and even some disgust. It's all because Palin endorsed former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly "Demon Sheep" Fiorina over the more conservative Chuck DeVore in California's Republican Senate primary…

The real story is that three out of four candidates endorsed by Governor Palin won their primaries: Carly Fiorina: California, US Senate, Nikki Haley: South Carolina, Governor, and former Governor Terry Branstad: Iowa, Governor. The only candidate Palin endorsed in Tuesday's primaries who lost was Arkansas House candidate Cecile Bledsoe.

Sarah Palin's choices for governor and the U.S. Senate are, for the most part, conservatives selected by SarahPAC for having the best chance to prevail in the primaries and general elections. Occasionally, as in the case of Carly Fiorina, that means bypassing the more conservative choice.

Why would Sarah Palin choose a moderate over a more conservative candidate? She’s looking to the future, for the party and, perhaps, herself.

The Electoral College Map indicates that California will have 55 delegates – always pivotal state and especially so in the upcoming 2010 and 2012 elections. If Fiorina and Meg Whitman both win in November, there is a strong possibility that California may provide the crucial electoral and popular votes that conservative candidates need to win. Granted, that’s premature speculation at this point, however, one can see the strategic need for conservative wins in 2010 and 2012.

Of course, we do not know if Governor Palin’s popularity will continue to grow or maintain. Will she win back the support of her ‘dismayed, disenchanted, and disgusted’ fans? The Bold Pursuit asserts that her core base is strong and the demand for her endorsements and speaking engagements will continue. There are reports in the media that other candidates are seeking her seal of approval; many of her Facebook fans are begging her to consider their city/state/national candidates.

Will Governor Palin continue to wield her scepter as queen/kingmaker or seek her own throne in 2012? Readers, what do you think?

Photo Credit:  
May 22, 2010 - Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images North America



© The Bold Pursuit, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Sarah Palin; American Citizen

Special to The Bold Pursuit, guest blogger, Thomas S. Schmitz, TeamSarah



STAND UP: Sarah Palin; American Citizen
By Thomas S Schmitz

“If there is a threat that I represent, it is that average, everyday, hardworking Americans, their voice is going to be heard!”
- Sarah Palin

America has reached a point in history when it is time to hit her reset button. Our elected leaders have gone too far. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do not serve us. They attempt to rule us. The gilt-edged Washington political class now resembles the disconnected court of King Louis XVI, who failed to listen to the voice of the people. It is now time for we the people to take matters into our own hands and regain control of the republic. The era of the over educated elite politician is over. The era of the citizen politician has begun.

Enter Sarah Palin; the ultimate citizen politician. Never in the history of America has a politician been feared and demonized more than Sarah Palin. Why? Simply put, the elites see Sarah Palin as a threat. She represents the end of elitism rule. Armed with the sword of her common sense politics, Sarah Palin reflects and defends the values of average everyday hardworking Americans. Her sword of common sense cuts right through their fancy Ivy League degrees and ponderous resumes boasting meaningless laureates and “think tanks” which have nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with endless education. If you want to balance America’s budget it shouldn’t take a college degree to tell you that not spending more money than you make is a good place to start.

Truth be told, Washington’s political class doesn’t want real change. The current elitist administration, who have accomplished nothing except attending college, have an arrogant and superior view of us. In their eyes the formerly silent majority of Americans who make up the conservative American populate should remain silent because they know better than we do. But the political tides have shifted and it has now become clear that we the people are silent no more. We the people demand that our voices be heard and applied to our government. Unlike this administration and those in the beltway, we the people understand the role of government. Sarah Palin’s platform of free enterprise, smaller government, strong national security, energy independence, support for our troops, American individualism, liberty and life are the right platforms for the re-founding of our republic. They are the platforms of we the people. Like Sarah Palin these platforms reflect the principles and values of the majority of Americans who are we the people.

If you ask Sarah Palin why she entered politics she won’t drivel away with some enlightened scholarly thesis about fairness, mankind, or “healing the planet”. She’ll simply tell you she volunteered for the PTA because her kid’s school was messed up, and then ran for city council because she didn’t like seeing her families hard earned tax dollars being wasted on silly unsustainable government programs. These are exactly the issues the Washington elite do not want the electorate discussing. They are happy letting the people think that you need a title to bring about change, and since they are the ones with the titles they get to decide or invent the so called change. Make no mistake America real change is coming, but the change is not coming from Washington the change is coming from we the people. Because we the people have spoken and we the people nominate Sarah Palin.

- Thomas S. Schmitz
Team Sarah

The Bold Pursuit Responds ...

“I was bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in their way.”
Thomas Jefferson

I discovered this quote while doing research for a blog last year; it was a new introduction to the words and wisdom of, arguably, our country’s greatest president, Thomas Jefferson. Since finding the quote, I’ve delved deeper into the words and deeds of our Founders. Their bold and brave acts laid the foundation for a new nation; we can learn so much from these great men – Mr. Jefferson’s quote inspired the title and mission for this blog.

Each week, The Bold Pursuit publishes a quote from a Founder, such as Thomas Jefferson. I find it, at the very least, remarkable that their words are as relevant today as they were during the birth of our country.

Having said that, the purpose of this article is to respond to comments made by a reader that I deemed inappropriate and deleted. As stated in the new TBP Comments and Blog Submissions policy, I “will reject any comment that threatens violence, uses hate speech, personal attacks, attempts to contact or provoke confrontations with other posters or is irrelevant to the content presented.

The Bold Pursuit aspires to a higher level of political commentary and discourse. If you don’t like the information presented, by all means, post a comment and, politely, present your argument – we do not guarantee publication. Kindly remember that The Bold Pursuit is a conservative political blog and our content reflects our core beliefs.”

While I don’t wish to impinge on anyone’s right to free speech, I do intend to keep TBP free from hate speech, trolls, antagonistic posts and irrelevant comments. It’s my blog, thus my rules.

I strive to “walk my talk” regarding The Bold Pursuit of knowledge and never fearing to follow truth and reason, per Mr. Jefferson’s quote. The integrity of this blog (and my integrity as a writer) is of paramount importance to me. So, let me put my hardline stance in perspective:

A year and a half ago, I joined a network devoted to supporting Governor Sarah Palin. During my first week in this group, an email arrived with the subject line: “too funny, you gotta see this…” Unfortunately, I opened the email and saw a photo of a man who was, apparently, a “victim” of a sexual assault. I can’t find a more delicate way of describing that disturbing and sickening image.

The email was sent through our network to over 70,000 members because they support a woman who is, illogically, “hated” by so many liberal Americans (and others, to be fair) – this email wasn’t an isolated event.

I joined the network’s media watchdog group, a community that attempts to confront and correct inaccurate media reports regarding Governor Palin. After working with the group for several months, I tired of trying to reason with vicious and juvenile posters who had no regard for the truth – they just wanted to trash Sarah Palin. This mind-set makes little sense to me.

Having this experience taught me a few things, some of which I was already aware: you can’t convert anyone to your beliefs – there must be an open and inquisitive mind that seeks more knowledge or truth.

Some people get their jollies out of baiting those who disagree with their ideologies (if, indeed, they actually have ideologies of their own) – facts are meaningless to them. Just try arguing with this type (and these people exist throughout the political spectrum; no one has cornered the market on idiocy); when confronted with facts they resort to insults and epithets.

The Bold Pursuit was born out of a need to interact with other conservatives who share my reverence for our Founding Documents and concerns about the current administration and its agenda for this nation. TBP was never intended to be a troll magnet or a place for angry confrontations. Play nice and you can post your dissenting POV. My mind isn’t closed, so if you provide a convincing, articulate argument I may change my mind and embrace your views. It’s happened before…

Below are some comments (I wasn’t able to retrieve all of his comments) made by the aforementioned poster (he sent another comment while I was writing this blog. I will answer THAT comment at the end of this note). My responses are inserted within his comments.
------

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Obama: AWOL at Arlington on Memorial Day":

Facts are not conservative or liberal. Ideology, opinion, and interpretations of facts can be considered to carry those labels.

The simple facts, without the baggage of labels are: Obama did pay tribute to the fallen soldiers, at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetary. It is misleading to imply that he did not pay tribute because he did not attend Arlington.

Reagan missed 4 Memorial Day ceremonies at Arlington out of his two terms.

George H.W. Bush missed all 4 Memorial Day ceremonies at Arlington, 3 while on vacation in Maine, one while in Rome, during is single term. (Again, he was only president for one term, so all of his absences were indeed during his first term.)

George W. Bush missed one, during his first term and after the start of the Afghanistan war, and skipped the Veterans Day service at Arlington in 2007, to vacation at his ranch in Texas.

Like I said in my first attempt to post here, I can understand one having the opinion that presidents have an obligation to be at Arlington on Memorial Day. Personally, I believe that all fallen soldiers are equally deserving of respect, and Obama attending a ceremony at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Chicago is not an insult.

(TBP: You’re entitled to your opinion, Springfield, but Mr. Obama opted for a personal vacation instead of the traditional Arlington ceremony. We’re a nation at war and that factors into whether his absence was appropriate or not.)

Many past presidents, including the last three republican presidents, have not attended Arlington, and failed to attend any other National Cemetery ceremonies. Obama attended ceremonies at a large National Cemetery.

(TBP: no one is disputing that other presidents have missed the event. However, the blog begins with “For the first time since 1992…” A reader did point out that President George W. Bush was absent in 2002, so I amended the blog, with gratitude, to reflect that fact.)

Again, I understand that one may have the opinion that all presidents ought to be at Arlington. But I am of the opinion that judging presidents’ actions ought to be done in a fair way, with an open mind.

Where was the uproar between 89 and 92 when George H.W. failed to attend a single ceremony at Arlington? The fact is that this appears to be a new standard being used to insult and question the President of the United States, and it is not being fairly applied. Rather, it is being used as political fodder in a most disingenuous way.

(TBP: Again, the blog begins “For the first time since 1992…” There is no new standard to insult and question the presidency; if you read the rest of the blog, you’ll see that Mr. Obama has established a pattern of disrespect for our military and our national security. That’s TBP’s position and, apparently, an opinion shared by many conservatives, as well as military veterans and those currently serving in uniform (many have contacted me).

There seems to be a double standard in how this is being treated. I want people to have all the facts and have the opportunity to make their assessments fully informed. One does not need to change their opinion of Obama in light of these facts, but they may need to reassess their opinion of past presidents and of the context of the situation.

(TBP: this is why I don’t want antagonistic debate on TBP: whining about double-standards. If I decided to engage in a debate with you on this issue, I’d run out of bandwidth while citing incidents of double-standards in the media against conservatives. I have no argument with the full presentation of facts; I conduct extensive research for every blog – and, no, Fox News is NOT my only source. I send my blog to a number of individuals for review. However, mistakes happen and I’ll take responsibility them when/if they happen.)

Mostly, I would hope that one may understand how the media manipulates facts and withholds important information in order to manipulate the beliefs and ideas of viewers. Today, it really is necessary to do a little extra leg work before believing things we hear and read.

(TBP: as noted above, I research facts, using multiple sources, for each blog that I write. Please, don’t lecture me about media manipulation of the facts. I was a publicist for 10 years – I know the media. I also know that most mainstream media malfeasance is primarily on behalf of liberals. If you review my earlier blogs, you’ll find documentation that supports what most of us know: journalists are predominantly liberal and many admit to using their medium to influence opinion.)

Again, I apologize if you thought my previous post was an attack. I agree that hostile comments have no place and do not further our understanding. However, refusing to contemplate other points of view and denying relevant facts is more dangerous and suspect than hostile comments, in my opinion. While we may seek to reinforce our beliefs and challenge the beliefs of others, it does us no good if we refuse to see where we might be wrong. Our goal should not be to defend conservatism or liberalism at any cost. The goal should be to be correct in what we know as often as possible and make judgments and decisions based on well examined evidence.

(TBP: your apology is noted and appreciated. I agree with the last sentence of your paragraph and always endeavor to bring objectivity to my work. If you were more familiar with my blogs, you would know that I strive for accuracy and fairness, regardless of my political beliefs. In fact, I, precipitously, as it turns out, posted a blog supporting Senator Bart Stupak prior to the health care reform vote.)

Regarding "Trolls, hostile comments, and censorship"

If you are referring to the post I made regarding the facts of presidents and Arlington Cemetery Memorial Day attendance, then I would like to respond. I can understand how my last post seemed hostile. It was a little, I am not denying it. Anyway, I apologize for my hostility, and I will attempt to make my points again, sans hostility. Please, post my comment, consider what it says, and let your readers consider it as well. However, I have only posted one day, not two days, and I never attempted to "reach" anybody, so maybe you are referring to another poster. Anyway, you have not posted my comment, so I am assuming you mean me.

(TBP: Again, apology accepted. Also, I noted in an additional comment that it seems “Sacramento” was the culprit in the attempt to make contact with and provoke another poster, so I owe you an apology : )

Since I began writing this note late this morning, you’ve written another comment, noting that you’re “certainly not used to having to wait for comments to be approved before being posted…” Well, TBP’s comments are moderated and for good reasons. As for the lack of immediate response; I am a small business owner and have personal responsibilities that supersede comment approval or deletion on my blog. Perhaps in the future, TBP will have a staff that can respond more quickly to your remarks.

We’ll end this here, Springfield; your comment was posted and I responded. I believe we are at a stalemate. I appreciate the apology and articulate response. I don’t agree with most of your arguments, but you’re entitled to them. I hope you will continue to visit The Bold Pursuit and share your thoughts with us; if presented politely, I will publish them.

Best,
Clio
Publisher, The Bold Pursuit







© The Bold Pursuit, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED