The former governor of Alaska wowed them last night in Turlock, California as she helped raise money for California State University (CSU), Stanislaus.
It was a terrific speech, one of her best to date, and thanks goes to CNM founder John D. Villarreal for capturing the proceedings on film for the best copy of the video that exists on the internet, to our understanding. Here is the full speech, in four parts from YouTube. We will list the individual YouTube links after the videos for those who wish to embed the videos on their own sites.
Conservative New Media is very proud and appreciative to have been able to attend Governor Palin’s brilliant night. The fundraiser set a school record which will help numerous Stanislaus students, and the crowd gave the governor a well-deserved, and sustained, standing ovation at the completion of her address.
Note: We will make a very detailed post with background, links and citations, so please bookmark this article and check back soon.
In the meantime, here are our video responses to Lisa Vorderbrueggen’s Sunday, December 20, 2009 article. Her front-page piece named Conservative New Media and CNM founder John D. Villarreal:
Part 1
*
Part 2
*
Part 3
*
Part 4
*
Part 5
*
Part 6
*
Part 7
*
Part 8
*
Part 9
*
Part 10
*
Part 11 – Final
*
*
*
On Sunday, Dec 20, 2009, the Contra Costa Times (CCT) print edition ran a lengthy front-page-of-the-second-section story which we feel unfairly smeared Conservative New Media (CNM) and its founder, John D. Villarreal. That story was written by CCT political editor Lisa Vorderbrueggen.
CNM had anticipated how Ms Vorderbrueggen would portray us in her piece. We actually had scooped the CCT editor on what we figured was to be her originally-planned story with a series of videos we posted on Tuesday, December 15, 2009.
The video series discussed Robert Beadles‘ affinity for controversial talk radio host Alex Jones. Mr. Beadles, a Republican, is running as a candidate for the United States House of Representatives. He is one of several potential challengers to Democrat Congressman Jerry McNerney in the pending 2010 election for the 11th district of California.
That 5-part video series can be viewed here. If you are short on time, we recommend parts 4 & 5 for a synopsis of the series:
As we detail in this series of videos, we believe that our advanced derailing of the preferred narrative for her Dec 20 story irked Ms. Vorderbrueggen. Her apparent displeasure, we feel, was borne out in what she ended up writing about CNM in her piece.
Our new, 11-part video series critically examines Ms. Vorderbrueggen present article. It also discusses Ms. Vorderbrueggen’s background as a reporter, as well as some controversies and criticisms which have dogged her over the course of her political reporting career.
The following are links which we either allude to in the new video series or else ones which will provide further information on Ms. Vorderbrueggen and additional background on the present situation between her and CNM.
* The title for the print version of Lisa Vorderbrueggen’s Dec. 20, 2009 page A-19 (front page of the ‘East Bay & Bay Area’ section of the Contra Costa Times) article was “Anonymous Blog Sniper Comes Clean.” This is the article in which Ms. Vorderbrueggen mentions CNM and John D. Villarreal.
The online version of Ms. Vorderbrueggen’s piece is now available. The title has been changed to “Blog sniper turns out to be CD11 campaign consultant.” It can be viewed here: http://bit.ly/4zkowl
* Purportedly objective CCT political editor and reporter Lisa Vorderbrueggen is a “fan” of candidate Robert Beadles on Beadles’ Facebook page: http://bit.ly/69l9y9
* Lisa Vorderbrueggen called out for allegedly being biased towards Democrats, and specifically towards certain Democrats over others in the recent California CD-10 race to replace Congresswoman Ellen Taucher:
* Lisa Vorderbrueggen’s colleague was taken to task by, of all sources, MSNBC for giving money to the Democratic National Committee. MSNBC didn’t see anything wrong with the donation and, according to the quote, apparently there is no policy against such partisan donation-giving at Vorderbrueggen’s employer, the Contra Costa Times:
* It appears that even the CC Times’ readers perceive the publication as biased. On the paper’s own site, this comment thread of Times perusers upbraids the periodical for its stilted coverage:
In fact, at least one reader felt so strongly about what he or she believes are the Times’ partisan leanings that there is now an entire blog devoted to monitoring and answering the supposed liberal bias found in the Contra Costa Times. Of course, this is a group of anonymous blogger(s) that Lisa Vorderbrueggen can’t assail by name and who are trying to act as watchdog(s)/whistle-blower(s). This may account for some of her apparent dislike of anonymous bloggers:
* “Lisa Vorderbrueggen to address Coco Taxpayers luncheon, Nov 30″ (2007) http://bit.ly/4voE9A
Was Ms. Vorderbrueggen paid to address the Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association? If so, by whom? Was the event partisan? If Ms. Vorderbrueggen was paid for her appearance, how might this have affected her remarks?
* Why did none of the following, or similar, information appear in Vorderbrueggen’s article about Conservative New Media? These pieces show that the practice criticized by Lisa Vorderbrueggen — being surreptitiously paid or volunteering to provide a particular point of view on the internet, anonymously or otherwise — is widespread on the political left and, indeed, on the largest blog (Daily Kos, a far-left site) in the political space. In fact, Lisa never mentions anyone on the left engaging this practice, which gives the wholly false impression that this phenomenon is confined to the right. Ha ha, the left invented it! Truth be told, the left practically owns the internet and new media, which is why we founded CNM.
“Blogging for Dollars” — Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga paid by Howard Dean campaign in order to induce Zuniga to write and say favorable things about Howard Dean
Background part 1 (note parts 2 & 3 are linked to this video so you can check them out as well). This breaks down the history of this silliness. Also, note you MUST double click on the link to go directly to the You Tube page to see & read the description where we lay out all the facts & links. That says it all peeps & there is no escape. It’s Beadle’s & Alex Jones’ own words on AJ’s show.
Here is part 4. This is the REALLY good stuff you will die laughing. It’s freakin classic!
Part 5 conclusion
Parts 4 & 5 are some of the funniest stuff I have seen/heard in a long time. There is a ton more to say & I may or may not say it depending on the contents of a news article that is supposed to be coming out soon. We’ll review that & respond as needed.
Full disclosure, I am a paid staff member of the Goehring for Congress campaign. This article is solely meant to reflect my personal views as a political observer. I apologize for any misunderstanding arising from the lack of a disclosure on initial publication. David Creager (dcreager123@yahoo.com).
Anyone who paid attention to high school level American History learned about carpetbaggers, northerners who went to the south to run for office after the civil war. It’s an old tactic for cheap political victory and personal gain, but does it still mean that? In my home congressional district there are two Republicans carpetbagging in order to run against a vulnerable incumbent. Thus the question arises, are they running because they are a good candidate, because they represent their potential constituents, or are they running for personal enrichment and a political job?
These two candidates, Larry Pegram and Tony Amador are both from outside of the 11th district as recently as within the last month or two. Furthermore, they are way out. The district is comprised of the east bay area and the San Joaquin valley, yet Larry Pegram lives in San Jose, and Tony Amador recently moved from Sacramento. Neither of which have any tie in any sense to the 11th Congressional district. They don’t like to talk about this fact, yet the fact remains they don’t even know our district. Pegram was even quoted recently as claiming McNerney rode the Obama wave into office, even though he was elected two years before Obama even ran for president. Obviously he is out of touch with even the most basic history of the district. None of the candidates have a background in transportation, a key issue in the east bay, and only one Republican, Brad Goehring, has a history in Ag and Water issues, the key issues in the valley. Just recently in that much talked about special election in NY-23 where the conservative party candidate took on a Democrat head to head after Scazzofava the liberal Republican dropped out the conservative lost. Not because he didn’t represent the district, the district is a strongly conservative district, but because Congressional elections are local elections, and the Conservative candidate was not a resident of the district.
So what causes a candidate like Larry Pegram or Tony Amador to run for a district in which they have no history, no name ID, no knowledge of key local issues, and no ability to raise money?
Here’s what I want to know, and I would love your feedback on this issue, does it bother you to see candidates relocate simply for a job? Should constituents demand their candidates for office be local to the position they are running for? And, should state law be amended to bar candidates from running who do not have an established residence in a district, at least at the time they file for office, and possibly for 3-6 months in advance?
The early returns from Sarah Palin’s reemergence onto the public stage are in, and Barack Obama and Democrats should be very concerned. Watch the video for more:
Any plans that Obama and other of her opponents had to halt the Palin Momentum have been shattered. Like her or not — and we at Conservative New Media love her — Sarah Palin is a political and cultural force of nature who simply cannot be ignored.
Miguel Cotto had an excellent first round in his long-anticipated match-up with Filipino superstar Manny Pacquiao.
Unfortunately for the Puerto Rican great, the first round was about as good as it would get for him on this Saturday night.
A sellout crowd of 16,200 at the MGM Grand hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada watched Pacquiao, or “Pac-Man” as he is colloquially known, take Miguel Cotto apart with his speed and power.
Cotto was sent to the canvas in both the third and fourth rounds, and he was forced to try to merely survive in the latter part of the fight. In that endeavor, the former welterweight champion succeeded until the 12th and final round.
Pacquiao also displayed excellent punch resistance in the bout. Cotto, a precise boxer with superb timing, landed on Pacquiao repeatedly, but the smaller man was never seriously hurt or even seemingly bothered by Cotto’s blows.
By winning Cotto’s WBO World Welterweight Championship belt, Pacquiao has become the first man in boxing history to claim titles in seven different weight divisions.
The fight was anticipated as boxing’s Fight of the Year for 2009, and it did not disappoint in build-up or in execution. Before the main event, a long video was played to hail boxing’s long history of dramatic fights and storied rivalries. This package was intended to give the sport a boost with its fans as it competes for the same pay-per-view dollars as the rising mixed martial arts world.
Jim Lampley, one of the fight announcers, said that pay-per-view sales for the bout are expected to be quite good. HBO ran several weeks of its award-winning 24/7 series to serve as an extended promotion leading up to the match.
At the time of the stoppage, CNM had the fight scored 108-99 for the winner, Manny Pacquiao.
A devastating critique by the well-respected political strategist Dick Morris.
Morris says that Barack Obama’s decision to essentially neuter the American intelligence community (through Eric Holder’s investigation of the CIA, among other actions) set the stage for the massacre at Fort Hood:
THE FOLLOWING VIDEO IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE
These are very strong words by Morris. However, given the information now emerging that American intelligence officials knew that Fort Hood suspect Nidal Malik Hasan attempted to contact at top Al Qaeda recruiter yet did not act on that information, Morris’ thesis may have merit.
This is, at best, incredibly insensitive and disrespectful.
It takes Barack Obama something like 2 minutes to even address the massacre at Fort Hood. And before he does so, he gives a “shout out” to one of the attendees of a White House conference. See for yourself:
THE FOLLOWING VIDEO IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE
Barack Obama has now had his own “My Pet Goat” moment, and no “Beer Summit” is going to make this go away.
There is an unsurprising trend taking place among the liberal elite as 2009 Election Day nears. Here is a recent headline to help demonstrate the phenomenon:
The commonality in all of these stories is that the Republican Party is imperiled, and is in danger of further “marginalizing” itself if it dares to return to its conservative roots.
Nothing could be further from the truth. And the, as Andrew Breitbart accurately deemed it, Democrat-Media Complex knows this better than anyone.
The most important concepts in analyzing this Republican Party criticism is to understand who is offering these assessments and to what end.
As noted above, one of those opining on the state of the GOP is Valerie Jarrett, Senior White House Advisor to Barack Obama. Today Joe Biden got into the act, asking for “moderate” Republicans to support liberal Bill Owens in the New York special election.
Most of the other critiques are coming from a heavily-left-of-center media and a few nominal conservatives such as David Brooks.
Why, then, would the left and its allies seek to “help” a Republican Party which they do not wish to see succeed?
Answer: They wouldn’t. And this supposed strategy advice and analysis by the left is to be ignored, except as it can be used to understand exactly what the left most fears.
The very public advice being offered to the GOP by the left is intended to help keep the Republican Party fragmented and to try to convince the American people that conservatism is “extreme” and undesirable. It is a transparent and predictable ploy.
A good and longstanding example of this kind of misdirection attempt is the exhortation by liberals for conservatives to have Sarah Palin be Barack Obama’s opponent in 2012. The refrain goes something like this: If Palin is the nominee, Obama will win in a landslide. So please pick her.
The goal of such pronouncements is to make the right believe that Palin isn’t viable, and that the left doesn’t fear her at all. This is, to any astute political observer, total nonsense. The left fears nobody more than Sarah Palin, but one has to be able to interpret how that fear is manifested. Among the Alinskyites and their media enablers, the fear is often currently expressed as mocking, condescension and dismissal.
What the left most fears at this time is the coming together of a strong, unified and no-nonsense (read: non-elitist or -apologizing-for-itself) conservative opposition to Barack Obama. That movement is well underway, as this summer’s Tea Party protests showed. However, we may be on the doorstep of the first major electoral victories based at least partially upon this coalition.
In Virginia, Bob McDonnell seems a near-lock to defeat Democratic Party challenger Creigh Deeds. In upstate New York, conservative Constitution Party candidate Doug Hoffman may win a Congressional seat in a district which voted for Obama and despite his GOP adversary, Dede Scozzafava, dropping out of the race and endorsing Obama-backed liberal Bill Owens. Finally, the solidly-blue state of New Jersey may vote out Democrat Governor Jon Corzine in favor of Republican Chris Christie.
It would appear conservatives and the GOP aren’t doing so poorly, then. And this is this is the point for those left of center. The last thing they want is for an invigorated right wing to find its footing and gain momentum heading into the 2010 midterm elections.
The first of the three articles I linked to above is meant to quell any possible good feelings conservatives may have after tomorrow’s elections. It is, to use the slang, a buzzkill piece. Don’t get too excited, GOP, it says. Even if you win big.
Stephanopoulos’ report is intended to play up the Republican Party infighting in the New York special election so as to take the emphasis off of the incredibly strong and unified support behind Doug Hoffman. The tactic here is to accentuate the negative.
Finally, Jarrett’s gambit is to try to dissuade people from voting for GOP candidates tomorrow lest they be part of that “extreme” fringe no one wants to be identified with. Why be a radical, she implies, when you could be such a good and decent — and accepted — person and vote Democrat.
As the reconstituted conservative moment continues to strengthen and build, you will see many more such “free advice” articles and TV spots from the right wing’s opponents. When you see them, just smile to yourself and listen to see what the left is most exercised about in their talking and writing. This will let you know what it is that Obama’s allies fear most.
For a genuine conservative and Republican Party resurgence, the right must get back to its roots. Rush Limbaugh, from his appearance on this past Sunday’s FOX News Sunday puts the matter succinctly (go to the 2:50 mark of the video):
THE FOLLOWING VIDEO IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE
It is the Reagan Coalition, not the blue blood/country club set who will lead the right wing back to prominence. The “Democrat Lite” strategy is a failing one and only plays into the hands of the right’s opponents. Those, that is, who are now so freely providing their unsolicited advice.
