Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin with troops at Ft. Wainwright
Dear Californian:
On June 21 (Thursday) I sent the following e-mail to a noted conservative author regarding as column he'd written about what seems to many "the inevitability of President Hillary Clinton." I urge you to read it and take the action I suggest.
Dear Dan:
A growing number of bloggers have been working hard to build up support for conservative Gov. Sarah Palin (Alaska) for the vice-presidential slot on the Republican ticket. Dan, I noticed you had a column in TH today that said the Republicans needed to nominate a "good candidate" like Fred Thompson to beat Hillary.
Dan, with all due respect, Fred Thompson (age 65 now), running with another older white guy (and I'm an older white guy) on a traditionally "balanced ticket" is NOT going to defeat Hillary Clinton. For all his strengths as an individual, Fred is not the kind of dynamic, high-energy candidate that, on his own, can defeat a ticket headed by Mrs. Clinton.
We might wish that were not true, but "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride." Even Rush Limbaugh has admitted that it's very likely that, given the current crop of Republican candidates, the next President will be Mrs. Clinton.
Clearly, we need to take decisive actions to change the dynamics of this campaign, and the best way to do that is by focusing on the vice-presidential slot.
I've spent many hours working to sign up bloggers and other supporters for Sarah. Take a look at the material on my blog (http://camp2008victoryA.townhall.com) about Sarah -- and check out what some of the other Bloggers 4 Palin (links on my site) have said about her.
My point: Running a conventional campaign with conventional candidates isn't a winning strategy. A Fred Thompson-Sarah Palin ticket would have a chance and so, I believe, would other tickets including Sarah.
Many surveys of recent elections show the Republicans have problems with women voters, especially those working as teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, and journalists. Since 2004, we've also had trouble with younger voters -- and, in 2006, even with evangelical Christians.
Sarah is a professional (journanlist), a dedicated Christian, a lifetime member of the NRA, a wife and a mother of four. She can reach out to several groups where we desperately need support. She's a charismatic figure who, in the last election, defeated the best-known Republican in the state (Frank Murkowski) and then polished off the best-known Democrat (Tony Knowles). She's very feminine in appearance, but she's a tough cookie (as Murkowski and Knowles discovered).
Sarah is the person who should be the first female vice-president. After that, about 2012 or 2016, she could be the first female President. If that scenario doesn't hold, then the nation's initial female President will be Hillary Clinton.
We Republicans have NO other female alternative than Sarah, whose approval rating in Alaska has been 80%-plus.
To reiterate, we need to take a different approach in this election. If we don't, then we had better get used to eight years of President Hillary Clinton. The choice is just that stark.
I hope you'll agree with me on the key points -- and that you'll join the Bloggers 4 Palin. Let me know your decision either by return e-mail or by leaving a comment on my site at
http://camp2008victory.townhall.com. Thanks for your consideration.
steve maloney
ambridge, pa
national coordinator of "Draft Palin 4 VP"
P.S. I firmly believe the time to act is now -- and not when the "iceberg" (one of Mrs. Clinton's nicknames) looms right in front of us. Yes, our "ship" may go down, but only if we allow it to.