Home > Uncategorized > MR. PROGRESSIVE MORAL KILLER SAYS SARAH PALIN IS IN TROUBLE IT MAY BE HE WHO IS IN TROUBLE

MR. PROGRESSIVE MORAL KILLER SAYS SARAH PALIN IS IN TROUBLE IT MAY BE HE WHO IS IN TROUBLE

“I think Sarah Palin is in trouble” the popular “conservative host proposes adding “you can’t get in bed with Progressives”.  This was in response to Palin’s endorsing John McCain and Governor Rick Perry. The conservative base has rejected John McCain, as one caller to a Billy Cunningham show said “he has been sticking a finger in our eye for years, I am not voting for him for president”.  Rick Perry is more of a moderate Republican, also drawing objections from the grass roots movement.  We absolutely hope that candidates with a much better conservative foundation emerge, but the notion that Palin is “selling-out” by endorsing them is short sided. 

It is understandable that people are disappointed in this, but that is the nature of the primary process.  Even though Palin is “Going Rogue” she is still a high profile personality who used to be the governor of a state.  When she said that she was not advocating a third party, Palin was clear about working toward a conservative recreation of the Republican Party.  That is the overwhelming consensus among the Tea Party members and the most of the other grassroots conservatives.  There are those who want to see the true conservative Republicans lose so they can make a statement, or to sell more books about what a lowly situation the nation is in.

Well, how will she accomplish this conservative reconstruction?  Simply hanging out with people on the “approved list” will not do anything.  In our local organizations we call this “preaching to the choir”.  Preaching to the choir is great for the ratings of hosts who claim to be above the whole thing, and it is great for those hosts if he is “the only person telling you this!”  But when you are trying to spearhead the electorial wing of the citizenship movement, then doing the popular outcast thing doesn’t work. 

But Mr.Progressive Moral Killer demands that she does play the role of the in crowd punk rock politician.  That works out great for him, bad for her, and worse for everybody else.

And were your frequent sittings with Al Sharpton and D. L. Hugeley, “getting in bed with the progressives”.  If they are not progressive, no one is. Oh wait, that was good for business. Oh I see. You’re excused.  NOT!

Earlier this month Mr. Progressive Moral Killer said that “everyone was in on it except for Reagan”. He went on to explain that since 1980, every American leader other than Reagan was part of the Progressive conspiracy.  That is ridiculous.  He knows this is not true, it is hyperbole, but it serves his purposes. 

Now, you better check with him before you work with someone in Congress that he doesn’t like, or we will tell his listeners that you are  a progressive too.  Last Tuesday, he said that Palin was compromising her authenticity by advocating the impure.

Only one problem, bra.  Ronald Reagan did the exact same thing.

Reagan was the anti-establishment candidate of the 1970’s.  The GOP country club establishment considered him dangerous.  George Bush and Gerald Ford both made him out to be knowledgable and unhinged.  However, the Goldwater faithful thought Reagan was not conservative enough.  And Reagan was far fro the most conservative governor in the nation.  His spending and position on abortion earned him the “moderate Republican” tag from some conservatives before his 1976 presidential runs. 

Jessie Helms and his powerful southern conservative organization, The Congressional Club, were essential in reviving Reagan’s campaign in the 1976 primaries against Ford.  Political historian Craig Shirley contends Helms and the group “furiously organized for Reagan in the Tar Heel State, with mailings, literature drops, phone calls, voter registration drives, and advertising. ”  But Helms and his people almost did not endorse Reagan in 1980 because of they questioned his committment to the movement, based on his choice to have John Sears as his campaign manager.  They “did not trust that snake in the grass Sears” insisting “that we would stab us in the back. If we can’t trust Sears, we can’t trust Reagan.”  They also complained that everything Reagan said came from Sears.  Helms withheld his support until Reagan proved “worthy” of his endorsement by dumping Sears (for his not Helms’ reasons).

Ironically, Jessie Helms actually turned out to be one those Republicans “in on it”.  Helms advocated John McCain’s amnesty bill, and when talk radio rallied the American people to kill it, he called for the Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated.  The Fairness Doctrine was one of the most authoritarian, anti- free speech, anti-American policies in our nation’s history.  This would certainly qualify the late Jessie Helms as  a progressive right?

But he was essential in Reagan’s victory in 1980.  Shirley reveals “Reagan would not have run at all in 1980 hadn’t been for Helms and his top political aide, Tom Ellis,” because without that late 1976 comeback against Ford, his political gravitas would have faded away.  But the Reagan Revolution happened, in part because he worked with someone who turned out to be a Progressive.  

We don’t like what Helm’s did in 2006, but we are sure glad he helped Reagan in 1976.

Then their is Bill Brock, the RNC chair in 1980. Bill Brock was a moderate Republican at best, and did not like Ronald Reagan very much.  He originally opposed Reagan as a presidential candidate,  and strongly disliked Ronald Reagan.  But he was also probably the best RNC chair in history, making it a viable fundraising and promotional machine. 

Brock never really changed his political outlook or distaste for Reagan, but he was brought around by Reagan’s powerful influence.  Reagan had members of his team placed in key RNC positions, and they dragged Brock and the committee to Reagan’s cause.  Reagan and Brock worked well together, but that was business.  Brock organized effectively for Reagan because once the Gipper took off, he had the power to have Brock replaced. 

That was not selling out, it was Reagan playing to win. 

Sarah Palin has the same latitude that Reagan had.  If she wants to pull the party to the people, she has to engage the people who may not be where we would like them to be.  If she endorses them, maybe she is planning to call for them to embrace the grassroots movement more vigorously.  We do not know, and honestly, if she is as independent as we hope she is, she isn’t going to give in to peer pressure in EITHER SIDE!

We all do business with people who we do not share values with, they are still Americans. And I am sorry dude, but their is a stark difference between Perry and Barbra Boxer.  We are smart enough to see that without it making us want to vote for a “progressive”.  If you call everyone you disagree with a progressive, the term starts to loose its meaning.  You start to sound like the SMURFS.  And we know what happened to them last time they got mixed up with you!

Kind of  like what you told Bill O’Reilly about those who call everything “racism”.   Just saying. 

Reagan’s conservative purity was also challenged by some Christian political groups.  He opposed the Briggs Amendment, a law that would ban overtly gay people from being public school teachers, the Christian Right voiced their objection to Reagan.   But Reagan stuck to his guns on free speech, even though it led some value voters to question his social conservative credentials.

Later Reagan lost the support of several major pro-life groups because of his choosing George Bush as a running mate.  But after winning the support of over 1300 local Christian stations as the “holy warrior against the atheist Communist USSR, he won the endorsement of the Christian Right, and even had a member of the Moral Majority “Robert Billings” as a hired liason.  In 1980 the Washington Post reported that Evangelicals were “…… flocking to the Republican mother church this year where they feel they have a friend in Ronald Reagan.”

If Reagan had given in to the religious political base on Briggs or Bush, then he may have been taken for granted by them.  Their would have never been the great unification that made the Reagan Revolution so special.  By standing up to those on the “right” of him, he allowed nonreligious  fiscal conservatives and the “yuppies” to join the movement without fear of being squeezed. 

But he never wavered on his position on protecting the lives the unborn, or his Christian faith.

Sarah has to do a lot more than give interviews to hosts who spend most of the time plugging themselves, asking them  questions like “whose your favorite founding father (favorite, like whose your favorite hair metal band), and “can I trust you?”. 

Her answer to the latter was exceptional.  Palin told him that we were not meant to put that kind of trust in anyone other God and maybe your spouse. 

Not self-absorbed talk show hosts. 

And as far as the “Founding Fathers” go,  Jefferson stretched the powers of the presidency delineated by the Constitution to make the Louisiana Purchase. Was he a progressive?   By the way, we are glad  that he did!

Conservative  Mark Levin, author of  Liberty and Tyranny, rejects this hosts high brow  pretension:

To say you don’t support anyone, that both sides are the same and everyone is corrupt, that is to self promote. The fight for America did not start in the early 1900’s against the progressives.” Also “the founders had to compromise to get the Constitution done, while still maintaining core principles. …You can’t surrender the battlefield of politics.

Yeah he gets its.

Hey Mr. Progressive Moral killer, you say Palin is in trouble, but we’ve been talking to the local conservative internet community, you know the ones who have to bust their tale for a living.  You say Palin is in trouble, but from what I am getting from the  people it may be you who are in trouble!   

A member of the St. Louis School said “it seems like he will do and say anything for money.” 

Just saying.

http://sonoranalliance.com/category/pacs/

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. Bruce Shell
    February 12, 2010 at 11:40 am

    I will always vote my conscience, which tells me to vote in a direction when given a choice between “the lessor of 2 evils”, but our country will not be able to “mock God” corporately without reaping what WE sow!!! Doxology in many churches “Praise God from Whom ALL blessings flow….”! God “Choose ye this day, choose blessing or choose cursing, choose life or CHOOSE death” When we vote fiscal conservative and social liberal, we are actually choosing cursing!! Still I, after the primaries I have had to hold my nose.

  2. February 16, 2010 at 12:28 am

    Eh he lost me a while back when he started sprouting ron paul-esque foreign policy.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: