Palin said that she wanted the vetting process to continue, as the current occupant of the Oval Office had not been thoroughly vetted before the election in 2008.

Did Palin’s ‘endorsement’ help put Gingrich over the top?

No doubt, outstanding debate performances coupled with Gingrich’s blistering of the media and Mitt Romney’s collapse due to missteps regarding the release of his taxes influenced the results to a great degree.

But one has to wonder whether Palin is playing the role of kingmaker in this election. She certainly still maintains a great deal of political capital.

It appears evident that she is not a Romney supporter. She chided him for withholding the release of his taxes. She has challenged his job creation record.  And she said that scrutiny of his tenure at Bain Capital is fair game because Barack Obama will certainly bring it up should Romney become the nominee.

At the same time, Palin said that last week’s ABC News interview with Gingrich’s ex-wife Marianne would actually serve to help him.

In South Carolina, that was apparently the case. Gingrich won big among women, evangelical Christians, independents and democrats. These groups were expected to run from him like the plague (especially women, in light of what was supposed to be a very damaging interview with Marianne.)

Could Palin be a factor in Florida and beyond?

Polls show Gingrich leading Romney in Florida heading into that state’s primary on January 31st.

To be sure, it won’t be a cakewalk for Gingrich. Romney has a huge machine set up there.

However, if Romney continues to collapse nationally as Gallup trends show him doing, and Gingrich continues to give stellar performances in the debates, the entire dynamic of the race could change.

And should Sarah Palin continue to talk up Gingrich, the establishment GOP’s desire to hand Romney the nomination on a silver platter may run into a serious roadblock.

Listen to America Talks weeknights at 8 pm Eastern Time and Saturdays at 9 am Eastern Time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks and at americatalks.com.

Rick Santorum.

By all accounts, Rick Santorum is a conservative ideologue’s dream candidate. He’s socially conservative, being staunchly pro-life. He wants to reinstate “Don’t ask, don’t tell”. He’s fiscally conservative,  having opposed the out-of-control spending by congress and was totally against the bailouts on Wall Street. Unlike some of his fellow contenders, his knowledge of foreign policy is second to none.

When called on in the debates, he is articulate and forceful. He does not stumble on any issue, or have ‘senior moments’ when follow-up questions are asked.

Even Sarah Palin, who has the ability to play kingmaker in this election since she herself decided against running, has stated that Republican voters concerned with “ideological consistency” might end up turning to him.

In an appearance on Fox News, Palin said, “If voters start kind of shifting gears and deciding they want ideological consistency, then they’re going to start paying attention to say, Rick Santorum, who has been consistent on being a hard-liner against Iran to help protect Israel, he’s been consistent in wanting to protect the most vulnerable and the sanctity of life, he’s been consistent in saying we need to slash the federal income tax.”

Why then, has Santorum failed to gain any traction in this race? Why hasn’t he once yet risen to the top tier?

A number of different explanations have been offered.

Some have attributed it to Santorum’s failure to defeat Bob Casey, Jr. in the 2006 Senate race. His fundraising abilities as well as his chances to build a strong organization suffered.

Others have said news organizations have given short shrift to Santorum, while choosing to focus their attention on what they perceive to be more interesting candidates, such as Cain and Gingrich, whose lively battles with the media are legend.

But there is another aspect of Santorum’s lack of traction that seems somehow to be highly overlooked.

He’s just not likable.

He comes across as too angry, too strident. He doesn’t appear the happy, conservative warrior akin to Ronald Reagan.

While it’s true there is much to be angry about, this attitude is a real turn-off.

All of the other candidates smile more, laugh more, and despite the condition that Barack Obama has left this country in, seem positive and upbeat about the future under their leadership.

Santorum doesn’t seem to get that.

Perhaps the 2006 Senate defeat has left him bitter. But the electorate doesn’t want an angry man heading to Washington. They want solutions to problems being articulated by a cheerful leader.

There is another troubling aspect to Rick Santorum that may also be hurting him, especially with women.

He comes across as sexist.

Santorum told S.E. Cupp, who hosts an online radio show on Glenn Beck’s website, that Sarah Palin skipped CPAC because of her “business opportunities” and “other responsibilities” such as raising her five children.

“I don’t live in Alaska and I’m not the mother to all these kids and I don’t have other responsibilities that she has,” said Santorum.

Now while that alone doesn’t qualify Santorum as a chauvinist, his stance on a woman’s place is well documented in his book It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good. Working women and single moms might not take too well to being preached to.

It’s not too late for him yet to turn things around. In an election season that has seen roller coaster rides for several of the candidates, it’s not inconceivable for Santorum to have his turn in the sun.

But it would behoove him to heed tow words of advice from here on out.

Lighten up!

Listen to America Talks weeknights at 6 pm Eastern Time and Saturdays at 9 am Eastern Time at blogtalkradio.com/americatalks and at americatalks.com.

As many of you know, we have been doing this radio program for quite some time. The show debuted in October of 1999, and has been heard on many venues since its inception.

We have managed to become an excellent source of news and information, as well as an open forum for discussion on the issues that affect many Americans.

As we have demonstrated, our government is completely out of control. Barack Obama and the Democrats in Washington have succeeded in fundamentally transforming America into something unrecognizable from what the Founding Fathers intended.

They have done so through the erosion of our rights under the United States Constitution, the implementation of progressive and punitive tax policies, and the redistribution of wealth at lightning speed.

They have done all of this in the cloak of darkness, with no transparency and with a complete lack of accountability.

Our radio show has shed light on the criminal activities they have been engaged in, and the immunity from all laws which have enabled them to get away with their deeds.

Thanks to your involvement, we have helped in some small way to hold their feet to the fire. But unless we can get the word out even further, they will continue to work their evil on the very foundations of our nation.

They can destroy this country.

In order to prevent that from happening, we want to expand the radio show, and take it to the next level.

And we need your help.

In addition to broadcasting the show on blogtalkradio.com, we would also like to begin doing a live broadcast using a Shoutcast server. This will make the show more accessible to people who wish to listen to the show via their cellphones, or (soon) in their cars.

More importantly, we wish to improve the sound quality of the show and present it to you in high definition full stereo. BlogTalkRadio does not have the capability to provide that feature.

The purchase of  a Shoutcast server is a minimal investment, and can be funded through advertising on the program. But we are also looking to purchase broadcasting software known as the Sam Broadcaster, which will enable us to stream the show over the Internet to the server, as well as providing us with an audio mixing board to combine a microphone with audio files, the ability to take telephone calls, etc.

The cost of this software is around $300.00.

We are asking your help in obtaining this software. On the homepage of our website, www.americatalks.com, locate the donate button, and click the link to donate $1, $5, $10, or any amount you are able to afford. When we reach the $300 mark, we will be able to purchase the software and begin using it to broadcast the show in far greater quality than that which is currently being broadcast. We would like to achieve this goal by December 24th if possible so we can begin expanding the show right after the first of the year.

In addition, you can also help support the show by visiting our online store powered by Amazon.com. With the holidays fast approaching, use our store to purchase gifts such as CDs, DVDs, books, electronics, appliances and more. A portion of the proceeds goes to fund the radio show.

For additional information on our need for your help, check out this week’s featured video on our homepage, or click here to view the video.

We thank you so much for being a loyal listener to the show, and hope you will help us take to the next level by donating to the show today.

David Zublick

Listen to America Talks weeknights at 6 pm Eastern Time and Saturdays at 9 am Eastern Time on blogtalkradio.com/americatalks and at americatalks.com.

America Talks

Please visit our new page and ‘like’ us on Facebook. As soon as we reach 25 ‘likes’, we can get a personalized URL for our page. You will also be able to listen to the show and watch our upcoming streaming TV show very soon right from the fan page.  Plus, you’ll have a chance to win prizes just for visiting our page. So please visit our new Facebook Fan page and ‘like’ us on Facebook today. Go to http://www.facebook.com/pages/David-Zublick/200964309938795.

Thanks!

Listen to America Talks weeknights at 6 pm Eastern Time and Saturdays at 9 am Eastern Time at blogtalkradio.com/americatalks and at americatalks.com.

Those who admire and respect her believe she wields a tremendous amount of power with regard to the choice of the candidate who will eventually end up facing Barack Obama in what can only be the most important election of our lifetime.

But that candidate should not be Palin. And the reason is blatantly obvious.

She can’t win.

It has nothing to do with any lack of political gravitas. Despite how her critics and detractors have attempted to portray her, Palin is intelligent, articulate and politically astute. She understands the issues facing America under Barack Obama as well as if not better than any of the declared candidates.

On the economic meltdown that has metastasized under the current president’s lack of leadership, Palin’s message of lower taxes, deregulation and free market principles has resonated loud and clear.  She understands that Obama’s Keynesian policies of government intervention and redistribution of wealth will never solve the malaise that has overtaken our nation’s economy. Palin knows government cannot create wealth or permanent employment. Only the private sector can do so. And yes, revenues can be raised by creating more taxpayers, not by raising taxes.

Palin also realizes that our debt problem is out of control. We are passing a tremendous burden on to our children and grandchildren. Eventually the note will come due. She knows that the fiasco our nation just endured with raising the debt ceiling without real spending cuts, will only result in a further erosion of our status as a world economic leader.

On foreign policy, Palin understands that Barack Obama is trying to diminish our role in the world, by apologizing for our wealth, our military strength, and most importantly, our sovereignty.

Sarah Palin also perceives the threat that Sharia law poses to the United States, and is keenly aware of Obama’s attempts to reach out to the Islamic world in such a way that would create an atmosphere in which Sharia might be incorporated into our society and our justice system.

Of course, no one understands energy policy better than Palin. High gasoline prices could soon just be an unpleasant memory if we just used the resources we have in this country. Domestic drilling, coupled with research into alternative energy sources, could easily make us energy independent in just a few years. But Obama’s hard line stance on domestic and offshore drilling has only made us more dependent on foreign oil, and has added to our economic woes.

Yes, Sarah Palin has the knowledge and political savvy to be an effective president. So with all of this going for her, why can’t she win?

Perception.

When Palin was thrust into the limelight in 2008, it was because of a floundering John McCain candidacy. In an act of desperation, she was brought in to do what McCain himself could not or would not do, namely to attack Barack Obama on his associations and his socialist beliefs. She was the barracuda sinking her teeth into every aspect of  a man who fashioned himself a messiah, sent by some higher power (George Soros) to fundamentally transform America into something unrecognizable from what the Founding Fathers intended.

The mainstream media immediately began marginalizing her. Palin found herself facing condescending interviews by the likes of Katie Couric and Charles Gibson.  In the end, it was McCain himself, refusing to go after Obama, that lost the election. Unfortunately, Palin was left holding the bag.

Since that time, Sarah Palin has had the opportunity to bring home the message that everything she talked about during that ill-fated campaign regarding Obama’s character and ideology has proven true. And her down-to-earth, folksy delivery still resonates with a lot of people, mainly but not limited to the Tea Party, who see our nation slipping away from us at an alarming rate under the current regime.

One would think that this would only serve to make Palin a viable candidate for the GOP 2012 race.

So why doesn’t it?

Two things.

The media has a longer memory than most of main street America. No matter how she might like to shake the perception that she is somehow an airhead, Palin cannot escape the scrutiny that has and would be placed not only on her, but also her family during a presidential campaign. She is well aware of this, and it may be the reason that, despite her bus tours, etc., she has yet to throw her hat into the fray, choosing instead to tease her followers about mounting a bid while continuing to chastise Obama from a position from which criticism from the media and the far left is minimal.

Palin’s detractors are not limited to the left, however.

The mainstream wing of the Republican Party also fears a Palin candidacy. They view her as a threat to the status quo. In recent years, Republicans have strayed away from their conservative roots. Palin reflects a return to the core values of limited government, fiscal responsibility and American exceptionalism. This scares many RINOs in the GOP, who prefer more government and compromise.

These elements will do everything in their power to keep her from getting the nomination.

There is another factor to be considered here as well. With Michele Bachmann already in the race, a Palin run might eclipse Bachmann’s candidacy, or at least the two of them might cancel each other out. Bachmann has already been overshadowed in recent days by Rick Perry, and as she struggles to make news above the fold, Palin might only serve to make her more obscure.

If Palin had declared before Bachmann, there might be a different story emerging here. But she may have waited too long.

Sarah Palin would best serve the party and her country by remaining a strong voice for conservative values. Her influence in the 2012 race could be monumental. She could be a kingmaker.

It isn’t clear yet whether Sarah Palin will get into the race. But what is clear is that Obama needs to be defeated in 2012. The country cannot survive four more years of his presidency.

But with all of her strengths, a Palin candidacy is a no win proposition.

Palin’s time has come and gone.

Listen to America Talks weeknights at 6 pm Eastern Time and Saturdays at 9 am Eastern Time at blogtalkradio.com/americatalks and at americatalks.com.

But before Republicans start salivating too heavily, it is important to examine Perry closely. His conservative bonafides leave much to be desired.

Let’s examine his record.

Prior to 1989, Rick Perry was a Democrat, who supported Al Gore for president. Perry was Gore’s campaign manager in the state of Texas that year.

As Governor of Texas, Perry would have us believe he is a small government guy. But the facts say other wise.

Total spending in Texas the year he became governor in 2000 was approximately $49 billion. Last year it was approximately $90 billion. That is hardly reducing the size of government over a 10 year period.

The total debt of the state of Texas has more than doubled since he became governor. The debt to GDP ratio in Texas is 22.9% and the debt per citizen is $10,645. That’s worse than California.

Perry claims he is for keeping taxes low. Not true. He has raised taxes repeatedly during his tenure as governor. Texans have higher taxes and fees than they had before he was elected.

While everyone lauded Perry’s leadership by pointing to the low unemployment rate in the Lone Star State, it should be noted that 23 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas. And Texas has the highest percentage of workers making minimum wage out of all 50 states. In 2007, 221,000 residents of Texas were making minimum wage or less.  By 2010, that number had risen to 550,000.

The education system in Texas is abysmal. Barbara Bush, in an op-ed piece in the Houston Chronicle, wrote:

•  We rank 36th in the nation in high school graduation rates. An estimated 3.8 million Texans do not have a high school diploma.

•  We rank 49th in verbal SAT scores, 47th in literacy and 46th in average math SAT scores.

•  We rank 33rd in the nation on teacher salaries.

What does that say about the stewardship of Rick Perry with regard to education?

Rick Perry also claims to have a tough stance on illegal immigration.  But the facts indicate otherwise.

He signed the DREAM Act in 2001, giving in-state tuition to undocumented students. Perry said at the time, “We must say to every child learning in a Texas classroom, ‘We don’t care where you come from, but where you are going, and we are going to do everything we can to help you get there”. This measure is similar to the one the Democrats are pushing at the federal level, one which conservatives vehemently oppose.

Perhaps the biggest issue people opposed to the nanny state should be concerned about is Perry’s issuance of an executive order back in 2007 that would have forced almost every single girl in the state of Texas to receive the Gardasil vaccine before entering the sixth grade. Perry was in the tank with Merck. There were apparent financial connections between Merck and Perry reported by news outlets, such as a $6,000 campaign contribution and Merck’s hiring of former Perry Chief of Staff Mike Toomey to handle its Texas lobbying work.

The Texas legislature put the kibosh on that idea by crafting a bill that overturned the executive order.

Subsequently, very serious safety issues with the vaccine came to light. The biggest problem with regard to the Gardasil issue was that Perry appeared to be condoning premarital sex, or at least assuming that middle school girls were going to be engaging in sexual activity, which is the only way that the cervical cancer that the vaccine prevents can be contracted. Many parents and conservatives were justifiably outraged.

When one takes into account these facts about Rick Perry, the only conclusion that can be reached is that Perry is for the expansion of government and its intrusion into our lives.

On Perry’s run for the White House? We’ll see. The jury is still out.

Listen to America Talks Monday through Friday at 6 pm Eastern Time and Saturdays at 9 am Eastern Time on www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks and at www.americatalks.com.

Bachmann seemed perturbed by the question, and rightly so, and then proceeded to answer the question with coherence, grace and dignity. She responded by saying “well, I think that would be insulting, to say something like that, because I’m a serious person”. Bachmann pointed out that she has been married 33 years, is a lawyer, has a post-doctorate degree in federal tax law, worked in the U.S. federal tax court, has five children, raised 23 foster children and opened a charter school for at-risk youth.

Wallace’s question was an ugly example of shoddy journalism, the kind of “gotcha” question reserved for Republicans, and especially Republican women, in what can only be described as a double standard set by the mainstream media that gives liberals a pass.

Wallace asked the question because in some circles Bachmann is perceived as gaffe prone. To be fair, she has made a few mistakes, but has come a long way since the “anti-American” comment in November of 2008.

But where was the media when Barack Obama, while campaigning for president in 2008, said he had visited “57″ states, referred to a “bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor”, declared that Memorial Day honors “an unbroken line of fallen heroes – and I see many of them in the audience here today”?

Yes, political candidates do make embarrassing remarks on the campaign trail, but once elected, every speech, every move will be without flaw, because should something go awry, the media will be all over it, such as when Obama picked the name of a dead hero as a live Medal of Honor winner, referring to a military medic as a “corpseman”, and botching a toast to Queen Elizabeth II, right?

Maybe not.

Wallace did offer one of those back-handed apologies on the Fox News website, the kind where one says “if anyone was offended, I’m sorry”.

That’s not good enough. This was a hit job on Bachmann, one for which she should be insulted. But journalists should also be insulted, as should every American. There is no place in the news media for this kind of attack.

And although we have come to expect this sort of thing from the talk hosts at MSNBC, or the writers at the Huffington Post, one would expect better from a Sunday morning news and analysis program, especially one on Fox.

Shame on you, Chris Wallace. That question was flaky journalism.

Listen to America Talks Monday through Friday at 6 pm Eastern Time and Saturdays at 9 am Eastern Time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks and at www.americatalks.com.

Americans are angry at Barack Obama, high gas prices, unemployment, congressional Republicans, and even God.

And some of that anger is justified.

New figures released last week show unemployment is at 9.1 percent. Employers added only 54,000 jobs in May,  the fewest jobs in eight months, down from 232,000 in April. This is an abysmal figure.

And what does Obama have to say about it? He called the jobless report a “bump in the road”. This from an administration that promised unemployment would be below 8 percent by the end of his first year in office.

How’s that Stimulus 2 workin’ out for ya?

Gas prices are on the rise. Americans are angry at the prospect of $5 a gallon gasoline some time this summer. Cancel that road trip.

And partly due to high gas prices, grocery prices are also going up. Have you bought coffee, milk , juice or bread lately? It’s enough to make you lose your appetite.
Trying to buy a home? Trying to sell one? Good luck with that.

Three quarters of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and over 80 percent say the job market is nowhere near where it should be. Half of the respondents to the poll do not believe that Obama has a plan to balance the budget, and almost 60 percent think the Republicans have no plan either.

According to the results of this poll, anger is affecting Americans’ everyday lives. Many say that cannot sleep at night. Their sex lives are affected. Twenty-six percent of married respondents said that the country’s economic woes have taken a toll on their marriage, half of them saying it has made their marriage worse.

Americans needs to take this anger and focus it like a laser beam on the one responsible for the problems we are facing. And it’s not God or the Republicans.

It’s Barack Obama.

It’s Obama’s policies that have triggered the anger. He is responsible for the high unemployment rate. His failed stimulus policy has failed to ignite the job market, and his ideas on raising taxes on high income earners and businesses will definitely not result in job growth.

Gas prices are also the result of Obama’s failed energy policy. Yes, we should be looking at alternative forms of energy, but Obama’s refusal to consider drilling in places such as ANWR is abominable. Drilling domestically would not necessarily bring down prices at the pump immediately, but it would send a clear message to foreign oil companies that we are becoming energy independent.

Food prices would also stabilize with falling gasoline prices. Food prices are expected to soar up to 4 percent this year, after rising only 0.8 percent in 2010, according to the U.S. Consumer Price Index. Transportation costs play a major factor in the steep price hikes.

As for balancing the budget, that will never happen under a president whose economic policies are heavy on taxing and spending. Congressional Republicans do indeed want to balance the budget. Paul Ryan’s plan to cut $4.4 trillion dollars from the federal deficit has been met with strong opposition from the Obama administration and the Democrats, going so far as to paint the plan as throwing seniors over a cliff, even though Medicare as it stands now is unsustainable.

As for the housing market, again, the blame can be placed firmly at the feet of Obama.

The slump in the housing industry is directly tied into unemployment. People without jobs cannot afford to buy homes. Before purchasing a home, buyers want to be sure they have good job security and a stable income. And younger people, finding the working world increasingly hostile, are choosing to live with their parents until they can find steady employment.

Obama’s failed policies keep the housing market thin.

Americans need to take their anger out on the person responsible for placing them in the predicament they now find themselves in. Barack Hussein Obama.

And the best way to vent that anger is to carry it to the polls in 2012, and elect a true fiscal conservative to the presidency, as well as replacing the Democrats in the Senate and the House.

Otherwise, the anger will only get worse, and could result in the types of situations we have witnessed in Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Algeria.

And that type of civil unrest would be a disaster for this nation.

Listen to America Talks Monday through Friday at 6 pm Eastern Time and Saturdays at 9 am Eastern Time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks and at www.americatalks.com.

But Romney has some very serious baggage in mounting a successful campaign against incumbent Barack Hussein Obama. He implemented a health care plan in Massachusetts which he said at the time would be the model upon which a national plan could be based. And the architects of ObamaCare have said that indeed, their bill was modeled in part after RomneyCare.

Romney delivered a speech in Michigan last week in which he defended the decisions he made in Massachusetts, rather than distancing himself from them. He said that his plan was fundamentally different from the national law loathed by conservatives.

“Our plan was a state solution to a state problem and his is a power grab on the federal government to put in place a one-size-fits-all plan across the nation,” he said.

“I know some of my more liberal friends don’t find that a compelling difference,” he said. “But those of us who believe the decision to make America a federalist system was not just a throwaway decision on an important fundamental element of what makes America such a successful nation and that is something of course is lost in ObamaCare.”

The kudos should be divided equally among three parties.

The strategic credit clearly goes to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the Bush administration for the policies that were put in place subsequent to the 911 attacks, which enabled us to pursue and ultimately kill bin Laden. Enhanced interrogation techniques, including the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others, proved to be very effective tools in gaining valuable information for tracking down bin Laden’s whereabouts. CIA Director Leon Panetta and US Senator Richard Burr, member of the US Senate Intelligence Committee, have both admitted as much.

Shamefully, the Obama administration has elected to continue an investigation into the CIA use of these techniques, something that former Vice President Cheney considers an outrage.

And rightly so.

For a president of the United States to pound his chest and bask in the limelight of a tremendous victory in the ongoing war on terror while showing righteous indignation towards the very people and techniques used to carry it off is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

The tactical credit, one would assume, should go to Barack Obama for having the guts to pull off the dramatic raid that led to bin Laden’s death. Yet in the days after the operation was carried out, it was revealed that Leon Panetta, not Obama, actually made the call. In fact, it took our illustrious commander-in-chief 16 hours to decide whether or not to go ahead with the mission. This, despite promising during the 2008 presidential campaign that we would go after bin Laden without hesitation should we ascertain that he was in Pakistan, without the help of the Pakistani government.

The tactical credit should be shared by our intelligence community, the Navy SEALs and all of the fine men and women of the United States military, without whom this very dangerous mission would not have been possible.

So does Barack Obama deserve any of the credit that he appears to be taking for this success?

Of course.

Obama gets the credit for the photo op. Despite saying that we should not be “spiking the football” and doing a victory dance in the end zone over bin Laden’s death, his appearances Thursday at Ground Zero proved to be exactly that. Obama is an opportunist who would use the still inconsolable grief of the families of the victims of 911 to gain political traction.

And that is a crying shame.

Listen to America Talks Monday through Friday at 6 pm Eastern Time and Saturdays at 9 am Eastern Time at www.blogtalkradio.com/americatalks or at www.americatalks.com.