Sarah And Todd Palin: The Big Winners?

12 11 2010

By Timothy D. Naegele[1]

The biggest winners in the 2010 American elections may prove to be former Vice Presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and her husband Todd.  She became the darling of the Tea Party movement, which energized the moribund Republican Party and may decide its future—and that of its “establishment.”  While there is a long list of other potentially-strong GOP candidates, the often-outspoken Sarah Palin has “caught fire” and connects with her audiences like few politicians can.[2] Barack Obama did this prior to the 2008 elections, but he has lost his luster and credibility, and faded.[3]

Palin has established herself as a force to be feared and reckoned with in Republican politics, and is formidable.  As Michael D. Shear noted in the New York Times:

Ms. Palin wasn’t on any ballot. But the self-described “Mama Grizzly” had plenty at stake  . . .  as she sought to bolster her credentials as the Republican Party’s most powerful kingmaker and the voice of the newly empowered Tea Party movement. Ms. Palin was anything but timid in the midterm elections, endorsing dozens of candidates, including in some of the most high-profile races.[4]

Indeed, most candidates won whom Sarah Palin had endorsed—resulting in “plenty of victories that Ms. Palin and her allies have already begun to point to as evidence of her political prowess and her ability to shape and direct the unwieldy frustration that is fueling American politics.”[5] A political analyst for CBS News, Nicolle Wallace, stated: “My observation of Sarah Palin is that she is one of the shrewdest political figures in our country at this moment.  She’s also one of the most electric.”[6]

Germany’s SPIEGEL ONLINE observed:

“If there was one true victor on election night  . . .  it was the Tea Party movement. . . .  What matters now is whether the Tea Party can manage to establish itself as an independent power in Washington, as a voice of dissent next to the Republicans—in order to profit even more from the wave of dissatisfaction that is sweeping the land.”

“Then anything would be possible in two years. Even the prospect of the former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, as the first female president of the United States.”[7]

If Sarah Palin is a winner, one might ask: why include Todd Palin too?  Because he is a man’s man; and for many men such as yours truly, the Palins are running as a team—as they did in Alaska—and Todd adds legitimacy to Sarah Palin’s candidacy and potentially brings in male voters.  For far-Left and mainstream Democrats alike, especially women, Hillary Clinton provided legitimacy to Bill Clinton’s runs for the presidency, amidst almost non-stop allegations of peccadillos, adultery and worse.

As the 2012 elections loom, and as Barack Obama’s presidency effectively ends[8], Hillary and Bill Clinton represent a team to which many Democrats may flock once again.  For members of the Tea Party movement and Republicans and “disenchanted” Democrats, the Palins represent a breath of fresh air too.  Indeed, it is not beyond the pale to believe that two women might face off for the American presidency in 2012, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, which would be historic!

© 2010, Timothy D. Naegele

[1] Timothy D. Naegele was counsel to the United States Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and chief of staff to Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal recipient and former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke (R-Mass).  He practices law in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with his firm, Timothy D. Naegele & Associates, which specializes in Banking and Financial Institutions Law, Internet Law, Litigation and other matters (see and  He has an undergraduate degree in economics from UCLA, as well as two law degrees from the School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, and from Georgetown University.  He is a member of the District of Columbia and California bars.  He served as a Captain in the U.S. Army, assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency at the Pentagon, where he received the Joint Service Commendation Medal.  Mr. Naegele is an Independent politically; and he is listed in Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who in Finance and Business. He has written extensively over the years (see, e.g.,, and can be contacted directly at

[2] Right after the 2010 elections, the Rasmussen polling organization released the following results, looking ahead to the 2012 elections:

On the Republican side, it’s a dead heat between the ex-governors—Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Sarah Palin of Alaska, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely GOP Primary voters.

Asked who they would vote for if the Republican presidential primary were held today, 20% say Romney, 19% Huckabee and another 19% Palin. . . .

Romney and Palin are tied among male GOP voters, while Huckabee has a slight edge among female voters.

In October 2009 when Likely Republican primary voters were given a choice of five potential presidential nominees, Huckabee led with 29% support, followed by Romney with 24% of the vote and Palin at 18%.

Rounding out the list of seven candidates chosen by Rasmussen Reports for the question, with their levels of support, are former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (13%), Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (6%), Texas Congressman Ron Paul (5%) and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (3%).  Seven percent (7%) prefer some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided.


Thus, Sarah Palin has moved up in the polling results; and the full effects of Tea Party-supporter voting in the GOP primaries may not be reflected in the Rasmussen polling data.

[3] See, e.g., (see postings beneath the article as well)

[4] See

[5] See id; see also

[6] See

Among the winners whom Palin endorsed: John Boozman of Arkansas for the U.S. Senate; Rand Paul of Kentucky for the Senate; Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire (which holds the first presidential primary) for the Senate; Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania for the Senate; Susana Martinez of New Mexico for governor (who may prove helpful with the growing block of Hispanic voters); and Nikki Haley of South Carolina for governor (who may be helpful when Palin’s presidential campaign moves to South Carolina).

As the New York Times’ Michael D. Shear points out, there were losers too:

In Delaware, Ms. Palin all but created the Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell, helping thrust the young woman onto the national political stage over the strenuous objections of the Republican elite in Washington. And in the end, Ms. O’Donnell never had a chance, handing what most likely would have been a Republican Senate seat to Democrats.

And in Nevada, Republican celebration was muted when their top target—Harry Reid, the Senate’s majority leader—handily defeated Ms. Palin’s chosen candidate, Sharron Angle, to return to Washington.

In Ms. Palin’s home state, Alaska, political turmoil still reigns thanks to her support of Joe Miller, the Tea Party favorite who defeated Senator Lisa Murkowski in the state’s  Republican primary this year. But with “write-ins” leading Mr. Miller, Ms. Murkowski may retain her seat.

Still, as potential 2012 presidential contenders begin lining up support and cashing in chits, Ms. Palin will have plenty of places to look for support. In addition to the Senate and governors’ races, there are dozens of lesser-known House candidates who had earned her blessing.


[7] See,1518,727235,00.html

[8] See, e.g., (see postings beneath the article as well)



14 responses

12 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Will Hillary (And Bill) Run Against Obama?

Political pundit and former adviser to Bill Clinton, Dick Morris, argues:

She is far too cautious and intertwined with the Administration to be the first to move against Obama. Just as Bobby Kennedy needed a Eugene McCarthy to test the waters for a primary challenge to Lyndon Johnson in 1968, so Hillary Clinton will look to others to try out Obama’s vulnerability to a liberal challenge. As with Kennedy, if it works, she’ll probably jump in. If it doesn’t, she’ll stay on as Secretary of State.

There are three possible contenders who might enter Democratic Primaries against Obama: Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, and Jerry Brown.

. . .

Whoever rises to the occasion, nature abhors a vacuum and politics likes it even less. As Obama struggles to compromise with the GOP House and to keep support from his terrified and slim Senate majority, his drift to the center is likely to spark greater left wing animus. They won’t like his budget cuts and they will be outraged by his likely extension of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. His compromises on the right will incite a candidacy on the left. Just watch.


Obama’s failed policies in Afghanistan are apt to trigger far-Left animus as well, similar to what happened to Lyndon Johnson in 1968, when he was prevented from running for reelection because of Vietnam.

See, e.g.,; see also and


12 11 2010

I’ve been watching Palin to see what kind of opinions comes out of her quick study preparations for a run at the presidency. I doubt she’s studied foreign policy, military or monetary issues in any depth before she was suddenly pushed onto center stage in 08. She’s clearly gifted on the campaign and in her ability to connect with conservative crowds (and she does have an ability to stir up those on the left too). Here’s a quote from a recent speech that confirms that she’s been successfully absorbing a good monetary/economic background.



12 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thanks so much for sharing this article, which is excellent and sets forth her policy conclusions and reasoning.

I agree with her, and believe she is getting sound advice. Also, I recommend that readers of the article above take time to read her comments. They represent another step along the path of her political maturation.


14 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Views From The UK

A commenter named “Peter” had the following to say at the UK Daily Mail’s Web site:

Sarah Palin has got the mad Marxists running scared. Bomber pilots used to say that they knew they were over the target when the flak got heaviest. Sarah is over the target.

Sarah Palin is an unusual phenomenon—she is a decent, honest, truthful politician with a moral compass.

The UK was fortunate in having Margaret Thatcher to pull the UK back from the abyss. Sarah Palin is the Thatcher of the US. She may not run in 2012, but she will decide the election, and rescue the US from Obama’s radical socialist destruction.


It is likely that more comparisons with Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, will be made in the future.


7 12 2010

Please, look up the definition of socialist and then tell me what about Obama is truly socialist. If anything, he’s just being liberal with capitalism. Even though that’s you quoting someone saying it, it’s as good as you saying it because you acknowledge it as being your position. And Palin? If she’s nominated for Republican presidential candidate I’ll know there’s no hope for America. She’s a laughing-stock for the whole world, she acts as a puppet for big industry and capitalistic megalomaniacs, and has less qualification for president than Obama. Just because she has good moral values doesn’t mean she should be President; so do many priests and good-hearted Americans, but I wouldn’t say they are all President material. Lincoln was KNOWLEDGEABLE. Roosevelt was KNOWLEDGEABLE. It’s what makes a good president: wisdom. And frankly, I’ve never seen true wisdom from this woman other than what has been spoon-fed to her.


8 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Thank you, Patrick, for your comments.

First, I never said that Barack Obama was a socialist, period. Like every person, he is complex, and has views across the political spectrum, as most people do. His core beliefs are set forth in his book, “Dreams from My Father,” which I have written about in another article.


Second, there is always hope for America. Many people thought there was no hope when Obama was elected, and when George W. Bush was elected, and when Clinton was elected, and when Reagan was elected . . . and the list goes on and on, including both Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.

See, e.g.,

Third, Sarah Palin is not the laughingstock of the world. People are intrigued by her, at the very least.

Fourth, she does not have less qualifications for the presidency than Obama. He had been a state senator, and hardly set foot in the U.S. Senate because he spent all of his time running for the White House. Palin has been a city council member, a mayor and governor, which involves actually governing and administrative experience, not merely pontificating.

See, e.g.,

Fifth, Palin has true wisdom and “street smarts.” Among other things, she was smart enough to marry Todd Palin, and to never let him go. He is a man’s man.

Sixth, the article above is not a “stump speech” for Palin, nor do I know how I will vote in the 2012 elections. I am an Independent, after having been a Democrat and then a Republican. I do not like either party, and expect to see the day when an Independent is elected president.


14 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Sarah Palin To Obama: Bomb Iran If You Want To Be Reelected In 2012


Such rhetoric smacks of comments during the Vietnam war attributed to now-deceased vice presidential candidate and former U.S. Air Force General Curtis LeMay; namely, his response to North Vietnam would have been to demand that “they’ve got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.”

See, e.g.,

Presumably Palin is shilling for AIPAC and the Netanyahu regime, and trying to garner contributions from Jews, which is understandable. However, her statements are irresponsible to say the least. Former Vice President Dick Cheney criticized Palin for engaging in such war-mongering with respect to Iran, and rightly so—certainly when America is engaged in two wars already, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cheney took issue with Palin’s suggestion that President Obama could help himself politically if he declared war on Iran:

“I don’t think a president can make a judgment like that on the basis of politics,” Cheney said. “The stakes are too high, the consequences too significant to be treating those as simple political calculations. When you begin to talk about war, talk about crossing international borders, you talk about committing American men and women to combat, that takes place on a plane clear above any political consideration.”

See and

Like Curtis LeMay, Palin’s sentiments on the issue of Iran alone may be enough to disqualify her from ever becoming America’s president or vice president.


22 11 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Barack Obama Does Not Deserve A Second Term, American Voters Say

According to a Quinnipiac poll:

President Barack Obama does not deserve a second term, American voters say 49-43 percent, and he is in a statistical dead heat with possible Republican challengers Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. President Obama leads Sarah Palin 48-40 percent.

. . .

Democratic voters say 64-27 percent they do not want anyone to challenge President Obama for their party’s nomination in 2012.

“The Democratic base remains squarely behind President Barack Obama when it comes to his re-election, but his weakness among independent voters at this point makes his 2012 election prospects uncertain,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

See; see also

Independent voters, such as your truly, are the swing voters who make the difference!



9 12 2010
Timothy D. Naegele

Sarah Palin’s Senseless Killing Of Animals?

I am not a wimp, and I was trained to shoot guns as an Infantry officer during the Vietnam war, even though I ended up serving at the Pentagon in intelligence. I was trained to kill, not because I wanted to, but because it was the training that the Army gave me. I have been a fisherman since I was a kid, because my parents were born in Minneapolis, and my father loved fishing; and we did lots of it in Northern Minnesota when I was a kid. In later years, I did it in Montana, the Chesapeake Bay, South Florida, the Bahamas, Hawaii, Mexico and California.

My father hunted for ducks and other birds too. I did it once in Maine, as the guest of a lawyer in Boston, who invited me to join him for the opening of the season, when we sought Canada geese as they migrated south on the “Atlantic Flyway” into the United States. I flew to Boston from Washington, D.C. where I worked full time. The two of us went to a Ducks Unlimited dinner in the Boston area, and then drove to L.L. Bean’s old flagship store with its wood floors in Freeport, Maine about midnight, before reaching my host’s cold stone house somewhere in Maine in the wee hours of the morning. After a few hours of sleep, we got up and shot some clay pigeons, and then took his large and playful Lab puppy to an old duck blind where we cut reeds to “camouflage” it, and waited for the geese to arrive.

And we waited and we waited and we waited. Finally, one showed up ahead of us in some reeds, and my host went near to it in the hopes of having it fly in our direction so we could shoot it, and instead it flew in the opposite direction. After spending most of the day trying to stay warm, and seeing nary a goose, a perfect “V” formation of them flew over us, seemingly at 30,000 feet, as if to say “screw you.” I was never so happy that our hunting had come to naught; and I never went hunting after that. My father had bird hunting equipment including a fancy shotgun, which I got rid of after his death.

No, I do not begrudge hunters the right to kill game if they abide by the laws. And yes, I believe most of the American laws protect the various species from destruction. However, viscerally I do not like to kill animals. For example, on trips to Ireland, I followed herds of deer in the breathtakingly-beautiful Wicklow Mountains south of Dublin when I was hiking there on four trips, and I “shot” them with my camera. They were majestic, and I could not kill one of them if my life depended on it.

See, e.g.,

Thus, when I saw Palin kill an animal, I understood it . . . but it was not my “cup of tea.” To my way of thinking at least, there is no “sport” in sighting a caribou through a rifle’s long-distance lens, pulling the trigger and killing it. And no, I am not a member of any animal rights groups such as People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals (or “PETA”) or the Defense Of Animals. I can understand both sides of the issue; and my gut reactions are my own, and I do not expect anyone to agree with me, nor do I condemn Palin for hunting. It is a way of life in Alaska and other parts of America, and a tradition; and I understand that.

See also (“Why Have Some Hunters Declared Open Season on Sarah Palin?”) and


10 01 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

The Tragic Events in Tucson Are Politicized, Which Compounds The Tragedy

Among other media organizations, the UK’s Daily Mail has reported that Sarah Palin and the Tea Party’s “vitriolic rhetoric” are being blamed for the tragic events in Tucson, which resulted in the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others.

See; see also and (“Sarah Palin Is Right About ‘Blood Libel'”)

It is totally absurd and politically motivated to assert that Palin or “political vitriol” were behind what happened. Just like the killing of John Lennon in New York City, and Yitzhak Rabin in Tel Aviv, we have witnessed the acts of a deranged killer.

A Wall Street Journal editorial states in part:

In a better world, no one would attempt to exploit [Jared Lee Loughner’s] madness for political gain.

. . .

But the shooting news had barely hit the wires on Saturday before the media’s instant psychoanalysis put the American body politic on the couch instead of Mr. Loughner.

. . .

Politico, the Beltway website, chimed in by quoting a ‘veteran Democratic operative’ advising the White House “to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” just as “the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people” in 1995.

. . .

Taking such an argument seriously will only encourage more crazy people to believe they can trigger a national soul-searching if they shoot at a political target. We should denounce the murders and the murderer, rather than doing him the honor of suggesting that his violence flows in any explainable fashion from democratic debate.


The Journal’s editorial represents totally-responsible journalism, unlike the hate mongering that has arisen elsewhere in the media and our society, and around the world, in the wake of the tragic events that took place in Tucson. This is what responsible media organizations in the United States and elsewhere should be saying; and as the editorial concludes, it is what President Obama should be saying too.


14 01 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Reckless, Scurrilous Political Discourse, Unsupported By Evidence

This is the conclusion of the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer, in a brilliant column of his about the tragic shootings in Tucson entitled, “Massacre, followed by libel.” It is worth reading in its entirety:

The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the “climate of hate” created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.

The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.

As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos and other ravings—and in all the testimony from all the people who knew him—there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.

Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.

A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. “His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world,” said the teacher of Loughner’s philosophy class at Pima Community College. “He was very disconnected from reality,” said classmate Lydian Ali. “You know how it is when you talk to someone who’s mentally ill and they’re just not there?” said neighbor Jason Johnson. “It was like he was in his own world.”

His ravings, said one high school classmate, were interspersed with “unnerving, long stupors of silence” during which he would “stare fixedly at his buddies,” reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warns of government brainwashing and thought control through “grammar.” He was obsessed with “conscious dreaming,” a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.

This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder—ideas disconnected from each other, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.

These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that, she e-mailed friends and family, she expected to find his picture on TV after his perpetrating a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class “I sit by the door with my purse handy” so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.

Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner’s fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to at least 2007, when he attended a town hall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who had begun an article thus: “I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it.”

Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” he was hardly inciting violence.

Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power—military conquest. That’s why the language persists. That’s why we say without any self-consciousness such things as “battleground states” or “targeting” opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest—”campaign”—is an appropriation from warfare.

When profiles of Obama’s first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, noted that he once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, a characteristically subtle statement carrying more than a whiff of malice and murder, it was considered a charming example of excessive—and creative—political enthusiasm. When Senate candidate Joe Manchin dispensed with metaphor and simply fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill—while intoning, “I’ll take dead aim at [it]”—he was hardly assailed with complaints about violations of civil discourse or invitations to murder.

Did Manchin push Loughner over the top? Did Emanuel’s little Mafia imitation create a climate for political violence? The very questions are absurd—unless you’re the New York Times and you substitute the name Sarah Palin.

The origins of Loughner’s delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman’s?

See (emphasis in original)


16 01 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

Sarah Palin Under Attack

The UK’s Daily Mall is reporting:

‘There has been an incredible increase in death threats against Mrs Palin since the tragedy in Arizona, since she’s been accused of having the blood of those victims on her hands,’ [Sarah Palin’s] aide Rebecca Mansour told USA Today.

. . .

The former vice presidential candidate became a lightning rod for criticism after the Tucson massacre over her aggressive political posturing.

. . .

Sarah Palin has shrugged off suggestions that she should tone down her rhetoric by going ahead with her planned sell-out speech at a marquee gun rights event in Reno, Nevada later this month.

The Safari Club International, a group that calls itself ‘the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and promoting wildlife conservation worldwide’, runs the annual conference.

Mrs Palin is an outspoken advocate of the Second Amendment.

She will address a sold-out crowd of 20,000 people with as speech based on ‘her past hunting experiences and how politics affect the current state of hunting and fishing.’

The former Alaska governor will be closely watched to see if she mentions the Tucson shooting that left six dead and fourteen injured, including Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

. . .

Attacking critics who said the vitriolic political climate contributed to the killings, she spurred more controversy by branding the media’s treatment of her as a ‘blood libel.’

. . .

Fox News host Glenn Beck has already called on Mrs Palin to increase her security in light of the anger against her.

‘An attempt on you could bring the Republic down,’ he said.


The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer was correct: the Tucson massacre was not a consequence of the “climate of hate” created by Sarah Palin or anyone else. It was the work of a deranged killer, similar to the men who killed John Lennon in New York City, and Yitzhak Rabin in Tel Aviv.


Also, it is tragic to think that politicians, other public figures, or anyone with whom we might disagree would be targeted by anyone else for death.

In an article of mine entitled, “Washington Is Sick And The American People Know It,” I mentioned the vitriolic climate of hate and personal destruction in Washington today, which is far beyond anything that I dealt with when I worked in the U.S. Senate on Capitol Hill.


I did witness the “politics of personal destruction” though, when senators, congressmen, and their staff members went after political “targets” who were seeking Senate confirmation. There was a conscious effort to find “dirt” on the people and destroy their reputations to prevent the confirmation process from going forward. It was unseemly when I first encountered it; and it is not the American way.

In my article, I referred to Peggy Noonan’s use of the word, “Enraged,” and I described Barack Obama’s detractors and opponents as being “angry, livid, galvanized and motivated.” Also, I wrote:

The handwriting is on the wall—and the blood is in the water—that he is likely to be a one-term president.

And I described Washington as “a corrupt, politically-polarized toxic city.”

Charles Krauthammer is correct: many Americans use the metaphors of war to describe sports, politics and daily discourse in this great country; and rereading my words, I realize that I am just as guilty of this as anyone.

I believe Obama is leading America in the wrong direction, for all of the reasons that I have discussed in my articles; however, I do not wish him ill in terms of his physical safety or that of his family. Quite to the contrary, people often become martyrs when they are struck down, which is what happened to John F. Kennedy who has been “deified”—and wrongly so, in my opinion—since he was assassinated in Dallas just before Thanksgiving in 1963. History has been distorted, and continues to be, right up to this day.

See, e.g.,

I was stunned when Kennedy was shot; and I will always remember when I learned about it, walking from my law school class at Berkeley—before it was announced that he had been killed. People worldwide remember the moments when John Lennon and Yitzhak Rabin were killed too.


30 01 2011
Timothy D. Naegele

GOP In Tight Spot If Palin Is Not Nominated?

Sarah Palin is a political force to be reckoned with:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% of Likely Republican Primary Voters who favor Palin say they are at least somewhat likely to vote third-party if she isn’t nominated. That includes 22% who say it is Very Likely.

That puts the GOP in a tight spot since one-third (33%) of all likely primary voters say Palin is the front-runner they least hope wins the party’s presidential nomination.

Among all likely Republican Primary voters, 35% say they are at least somewhat likely to vote for a third-party candidate if their favorite candidate doesn’t win the nomination, with 13% who are Very Likely to do so.

. . .

While the third-party feeling runs strongest among Palin supporters, 35% of those who support former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee feel that way, including 13% who say they are Very Likely to vote third-party if he doesn’t get the nomination. Among those who back former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, 31% say a third-party vote is likely, but only nine percent (9%) say it’s Very Likely.

Typically, voters who say they will abandon the party if their nominee doesn’t win eventually support the nominee. For example, during the 2008 Democratic Primary season, a fairly sizable number of Hillary Clinton supporters said they wouldn’t support Barack Obama if he won the nomination. But, given a choice between Obama and McCain, those voters came around and supported the Democratic nominee.

See (emphasis added); see also (“Poll: Palin near top of re-shaped GOP field“) and (“Palin starts stirring the pot“) and (Gallup: “Romney, Palin Lead Reduced GOP Field for 2012“)

The fact that Barack Obama was elected proves that anyone, literally anyone, can be president of the United States!

See, e.g., (see also the footnotes and comments beneath the article)


7 03 2012
Timothy D. Naegele

Rethinking Sarah Palin

I use to like Sarah Palin; and in fact, I voted for John McCain because she was on the GOP ticket and provided a breath of fresh air in American politics. She and her husband Todd seemed like a great couple; and as a man’s man, he added legitimacy to her candidacy and potentially brought in male voters.

However, I would probably vote against her now, and believe that Mitt Romney will be the GOP’s presidential nominee—and may be America’s President-elect in November. She has lost her luster and credibility, and faded. Indeed, she just revealed that she voted for former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in the Alaska Republican presidential primary, who is a true “Neanderthal” and the darling of Tea Party wackos.

See and and


What do you think?

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: