Governor Palin's Twitter account recently eclipsed the 200,000 follower mark, and her Facebook page will soon have more than 2 million fans. That calls for a celebration, doesn't it? How about a SarahPAC money bomb?
There are still several state primaries left to go this summer and fall, as well as the very important general election in November. Conservatives have a very good shot at taking back control of the House, and perhaps even the Senate. Not only that, conservatives are in good position to take control or maintain control of state houses across the country. Supporting SarahPAC is a great way to help support candidates who will help put our nation back on the right track, including the mama grizzlies:
So, as the day when Governor Palin's Facebook page passes 2 million fans approaches, let's help support SarahPAC and the candidates the Governor has chosen to endorse. Funds are tight for many of us, but any amount that is given will be a help in bringing fundamental restoration, rather than fundamental transformation to Washington D.C. and state houses throughout the country. If you can give $100, give $100. If you can give $5, give $5. Heck, you can even have some fun with your donation amount! How about donating $16 in honor of MSNBC host, Mika Brzeznski's favorite Founding Father, the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln? You could donate a dollar for each of the 41 rounds of golf that President Obama has played since taking office. What about donating a few dollars for each of the 14 "mama grizzlies" whom Governor Palin has endorsed to date?
Be thinking of ways that you can support SarahPAC and the conservative movement in the coming days as Governor Palin rapidly approaches 2 million Facebook friends.
Let's take our country back!
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Governor Palin's Twitter account recently eclipsed the 200,000 follower mark, and her Facebook page will soon have more than 2 million fans. That calls for a celebration, doesn't it? How about a SarahPAC money bomb?
Before we get to the few news items for the day, here's a message from the Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund:
Are you Sarah Palin’s biggest supporter?
The Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund needs your help to find her biggest supporter and spread the word about the effort to alleviate Governor Palin of these legal burdens.
Click here to send a quick note and see how far your chain of support stretches for Sarah.
Using our online tools, you can send a message about The Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund to your family and friends. Each person who participates will be added to a map as a red dot. With your help, we can cover the map with Sarah’s supporters throughout the country!
Not only will you be able to see how far your chain of support stretches for Sarah, but we’ll also discover Sarah Palin’s biggest supporter in the country.
Are you curious to see how many people in America stand with Governor Palin?
Click here to join Sarah’s network of support through The Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund.
Across the country, thousands of Americans have stepped forward to help relieve Sarah Palin from the burden of her legal fees.
Will you help us spread the news?
-Mason-Dixon finds that only 33% of Missouri registered voters have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama while 55% of Missouri registered voters have an unfavorable opinion of Barack Obama.
-Courtesy of Uffda, here's the promo for the Women of Joy event that she's headlining in San Antonio this October:
A reminder that the "2 Million on Facebook" money-bomb will likely occur next week. Tell everyone you know about it. What's going on today?
Update by Doug: On the topic of the legal defense fund, I received 5 separate checks today which totaled to the maximum $150 I had contributed to the Alaska Fund Trust (Governor Palin's original legal defense fund) in 2009. Along with these checks was a note from the trustee of the new "Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund", Tim Crawford. Tim's note included the following instructions on how best to forward this "refund" to the new legal defense fund:
All you need to do is write "Pay to the order of the Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund" on the back of your check, sign your name underneath, and mail the check back in the enclosed envelope.
I promptly did just that and put all five checks in ONE (and only one) of the aforementioned enclosed postage-paid envelopes. I suggest you do the same. If you mail the checks back separately, the legal defense fund will incur needless expenses as each individual postage-paid envelope costs the fund money. An even better option is to use a stamp.
Yesterday we linked to an article Jedediah Bila wrote in the Daily Caller on the mainstream media's collusion to distort Governor Palin's record in an effort to help the Obama campaign. Last night Jedediah was part of Sean Hannity's panel (guest hosted by Rich Lowry). If you're in a hurry, fast forward to about the 3:00 mark where Journogate comes up. If you aren't pressed for time, in the first part of the video the panel discusses the latest hypocrisy by John Kerry (who, I've heard, served in Vietnam):
Update: (h/t Josh Painter) The Daily Caller's Jamie Weinstein discusses Journogate with Megyn Kelly of Fox News:
When I sat down to write about the Know-It-Alls this past Spring, I described them as a "clandestine syndicate of snobs in the highest echelons of media and government" ... I had no idea I was describing the real-life members of the leftwing "JournoList." Truthfully, I had no idea an actual nationwide secret enclave of biased journalists and progressive activists existed, though it seemed plausible given the Alaska ankle-biters' club. Talk about fact being stranger than satire. Call me intuitive. (I think we're all realizing that what we sense in our gut is going on, really IS going on. That reminds me that I need to buy Glenn Beck's new novel, The Overton Window. The parts of it I read at my mom's house are chilling. I also need to finish reading the brilliant American Spectator piece on America's Ruling Class, another glimpse into the Know-It-All world.)
And, in honor of what we now know was nothing short of a media conspiracy to sink Governor Palin from Day One, I'd like to share what I wrote in the introduction to my book, Advice to Sarah Palin From the Know-It-Alls. It's an ode to the 2008 election from the gloating, yet slightly sheepish, perspective of one of these arrogant elites. Apologies to those who have already read it in the book! This exerpt hasn't been posted to
C4P before. And remember, I'm a bit more on the whimsical side than most, which comes from being a recovering liberal, perhaps. Apparently I'm like Bristol Palin in one regard: I believe strongly in redemption. Which is why I hold out hope for even the worst lefties in the media. Hey, if I can get off the liberal Kool-Aid with help from conservative friends, anyone can.
Introduction: Crisis in Eliteville
It’s 3 a.m. Aug. 29, 2008, and we’ve received an alarming communiqué from our Ohio bureau: A private jet just touched down transporting the 44-year-old governor of Alaska and her sprawling family to a stunning announcement ceremony adding her to the McCain presidential ticket. Mavericky McCain had struck again, throwing us in the elite media and pompous punditry an unhittable curve. We had no facts, no narrative, and most importantly, no prior experience with Republican feminism. Was it a trick? Like telling us there are conservatives who listen to Coldplay? Was it a devious ploy to win over disgruntled Hillary voters? It was all-too-frightening, all-too-out-of-the-box, and decidedly above our pay grades. Sarah Palin was not the typical white-rich-old-overweight-Southern-male-seven-house-owning Republican-stereotype we’d mocked mercilessly over the last 40 years. She was a woman, this was a crisis. And, by Hillary, we weren’t ready. What to do?
What we did on that fateful August morning not so long ago is no secret, and nothing short of heroic. We in the elite media and know-it-all precincts everywhere sprung to greet the Palin challenge – head-on. Caught off guard initially, we quickly mobilized to assist newcomer Sarah Palin in her once-in-a-lifetime career opportunity. While welcoming an accomplished role model to the national stage, we did what any misogynistic, borderline psychotic group of people would do in our places: we gave her helpful advice on her fashion budget, counseled her on the real qualifications for vice presidents, and extended friendly tips about balancing her overwhelming maternal demands. And that was just the PG-13 stuff! Yes, Sarah Palin, with only eight years executive experience in government – eight more than anyone else on either ticket – needed our help, and badly.
In that glorious two-month advice-athon, one of the first things we pointed out was that Palin, a moose hunter, recently enjoyed an 88% approval rating governing a libertarian-leaning, independent-minded, energy-rich, virulently unreligious state. This meant clearly she was too popular to ever be vice president. We hastened to caution, however, that as a female candidate for higher office, Palin was naturally polarizing – and not just in a good, crisp-Alaskan-morning kind of way. Her classy shout-out to Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro, notwithstanding, Palin left many of us female know-it-alls inexplicably apoplectic. No doubt, before we would ever consider a woman like Palin for national office, she’d have to work much harder to pass major bills with less than her customary 95% bipartisanship. That type of near unanimity in important legislative work would never fly in D.C. where life-altering laws get done with vote bribes to achieve the magical “51.” Oh, but who really cares about actual governing records anyway? Certainly not us know-it-alls.
We also noticed that the spunky, energetic Palin had accomplished almost too much in too little time, as if she were privy to a constantly-ticking clock inside her head that forever chastened: “Don’t waste time, because time is precious.” Indeed, she was the youngest and first female mayor of her hometown, and the youngest and first female governor in Alaskan history. You might just think, “Hey, maybe there’s something to that.” Perhaps Palin possessed superior administrative skill, deft executive talent or a sublime toughness that eludes most people.
Making it to the top of a classically male-dominant state and unseating an incumbent governor from your own party is the stuff of legends. Ah, but who needs legends? Since Palin was not liberal, we just settled on calling her a lightweight, and left it at that. Indeed, adapting to Palin’s novelty proved interesting to say the least. One of the little details we noticed right away as we descended on her state like vultures to a kill, was that Palin kept a four-year digital countdown clock in her governor’s office labeled, “Time Left to Make a Difference.” This struck us as quaint but entirely unnecessary. After all, we in Know-It-All-Ville are completely comfortable with public servants who can’t seem to make a difference in five decades let alone four years. Truly, who wants politicians to work quickly for the good of the people they serve and return to private productive lives? We like it when our leaders continuously raise cash for their perpetual re-election campaigns, and hang out clocks that read: “Money Raised to Date.”
We also noted that while Palin commendably fought corruption in her own party, she displayed an embarrassing tendency to “quit” – under the auspices of not accepting “politics as usual.” In our opinion as upholders of moral decency, the middle-class Palin shouldn’t have felt the need to forfeit her six-figure government paycheck to promote ethical behavior. Obviously, being married to a hunky blue-collar union worker, she needed that money. Furthermore, she also should not have felt any compunction to quit because of the confidentiality rules that she couldn’t breach while serving in her position. That kind of courage and adherence to the rule of law makes everyone feel, well, awkward. Principled whistleblowers, whether they are Palin or the legendary Erin Brockovich, are buzz kills. We prefer public servants and concerned citizens who keep the broken system we know and love running as smoothly as possible for as long as possible. Palin should have just kept her mouth shut as chair of the state oil and gas commission. And she should have left the ethics problems to her boss, the governor, who wasn’t doing anything about them. It’s what they were paying her for, right? (Oh, you were thinking of the more recent time she “quit” … the governor’s job? Just goes to show how well we vetted Palin for you, the fact that you know so little about what matters in her public record, and so much about what doesn’t. We’re quite proud of that, actually. Had we done a better job telling the truth, Palin might have a movie named after her, and Julia Roberts another Oscar-winning performance.)
About the vetting we did, there may have been one or two other little “gaps” in our coverage. To our conservative friends, we feel a duty to report to you now that while, yes, Palin indeed slashed spending and balanced her budgets in Alaska, she also governed with a surprisingly light touch on social issues. In one of her first acts as governor, she granted benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees – against the wishes of the majority in the Republican-controlled legislature, but in accordance with an Alaskan Supreme Court ruling. As mayor, Palin resisted pressure from others to impose earlier closing times on the Wasilla bars. She let ‘em close at the traditional 3 a.m., seeing no need to micromanage. Palin also frequently praised the liberal Title IX law that allowed millions of young girls, including, apparently, Palin herself, to participate in sports at publicly-funded schools and universities. Of course, you’ll never know about any of these socially moderate views Palin holds because it contradicts our painstaking efforts to portray her as radically intolerant. Hey, that’s just the price you pay for being an openly devout Christian VP candidate in America, isn’t it?
Looking back, our fair, yet unhinged coverage of Sarah Palin was remarkable and historic – if incompetent in so many ways. It certainly kept us know-it-alls busy back in the fall of ’08, so busy, in fact, we were forced to delegate the reporting of former presidential candidate John Edwards to The National Enquirer. This was only so we could devote more time to investigating Palin’s pregnant unmarried 18-year-old daughter. Naturally, we published three NY Times front-page-stories about the “Palin Teen’s Crisis” the first week of her mother’s candidacy. The Edwards’ mistress, who received actual campaign funds, did not merit our scrutiny nearly as much as a vulnerable teen who just happened to be the daughter of someone we didn’t like. So we left EM (Edwards’ Mistress) alone when we first heard rumors about her unplanned pregnancy, even though her boyfriend was not a horny teenager, but actually a horny former VP candidate, who just happened to be running for president at the time.
Yes, between all the children, the clothes, and being from somewhere northwest of nowhere, Palin was a tough handle. We had never seen a vice presidential candidate like Palin before – a Republican with ovaries – so while we may have erred on the side of caution, we did the best we could, in the midst of a complete panic. In the past, we’d mostly ignored veep picks, inconsequential as they are. Did we dig up anything terrible on Jack Kemp, god rest his soul? Of course not. And, despite the unfair potshots we took at Dan Quayle, we left his family alone, and pretty much avoided printing outright fabrications about him, in favor of merely encouraging merciless exaggeration and heartless caricature. But Palin intrigued us in an entirely new and special way. She made us feel inspired about our work again. We could not just let her tell her own story without our help in distorting her record, ignoring her accomplishments, and obsessing about her weird accent and pricey wardrobe.
Truly, the entire Palin candidacy boiled down to this: Was America ready for a VP who spoke like that crafty police chief lady from the movie Fargo, but dressed like an executive-version of Jackie Kennedy? We didn’t think so. So, we made up stories about her banning books and belonging to an Alaskan secessionist party – knowing that most people wouldn’t bother to check out the corrections we printed later. We distorted the facts surrounding the decades-old Alaska wolf-culling program to leave some with the crazy false notion that Palin herself shot wolves from helicopters – just for sport. Ah good times. We also trumped up Palin’s perfectly legal dismissal of an under-performing cabinet member and gave undue coverage to her acceptance of per diem money while the Juneau governor’s mansion was being repaired. Obviously, even if it cost more, Palin should have hauled her family of seven to an Anchorage hotel, and billed it to the state, right? Staying in her nearby Wasilla home eating moose chili with a modest allowance for food and travel showed a stunning lack of fiscal irresponsibility – as did her layoffs of the governor’s chauffeur and chef, and the selling of the governor’s costly private jet.
Fortunately for you, we scrutinized every expense report Palin ever filed as if our lives depended on it, discovering that she only slashed the governor’s personal travel budget 85% from her GOP predecessor. No doubt, she could have cut more if she’d left her large brood at home despite their being asked to attend some of her out-of-state official functions. And speaking of kids, we talked to every grade school chum Palin ever offended during recess and even to some of the more childlike Alaskan legislators. It’s safe to say that we left no Palin stone unturned. You never can be too careful with female VP candidates – especially if they’re Republican. We certainly rose to the gargantuan task of vetting Sarah Palin, even if it gave us less time to report on the less-than-stellar records and non-existent executive experience of our presidential candidates. Oh well, nobody’s perfect. No doubt we’ll try to do better next time.
We've written extensively on the idiocy which characterizes Obama's approach to the economy in general and businesses in particular. These misguided economic policies are the result of a complete lack of practical business experience combined with a visceral hatred of liberty and free market capitalism by Obama and those who have shaped is view of America. Governor Palin has correctly noted that the Obama Administration's outright hostility to business and the enormous tax increases they have in store for us on January 1st will ensure either a double dip recession or, at best, anemic economic growth for the foreseeable future. In a piece late yesterday Steve Forbes Obamanomics in perspective:
A comedian or satirist could not have come up with the recent scenario of Treasury Chief Timothy Geithner and other Administration officials suddenly trying to reassure corporate chieftains that the Obama Administration is pro business and loves free enterprise. A close and powerful Obama aide, Valerie Jarrett, sent Verizon CEO (and Business Roundtable chairman) Ivan Seidenberg a letter declaring: "While we may disagree on some issues, we have an open door and are always willing to consider input and ideas from everyone, including the business community." That's like Dracula saying he prefers bottled water to blood.
Consider the letter's condescending tone regarding the Administration's open door extending even to the "business community." The business community employs 110 million workers. Companies and the people who work for them pay most of Uncle Sam's taxes. They are the font of the innovations that enable us to enjoy an ever improving standard of living. Now the Administration deigns to entertain input from the business community! How wonderfully nice and tolerant of the Obamaites to do so.
No sooner had the charm offensive been launched than the government showed its true colors by defiantly reimposing a ban, which had been overturned by a federal court, on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and by straight-facedly proclaiming that all the stimulus spending has saved or created upwards of 3.6 million jobs and is a huge success.
The truth is that not even the Franklin Roosevelt Administration was as hostile to and ignorant about free enterprise as this Administration is. Almost every action Obama officials take underscores their belief in the stereotype that businesspeople are mostly amoral, corner-cutting, consumer-shafting, pollution-loving menaces. The economy itself needs to be tightly controlled and rigidly guided by Washington mandarins because free markets are inherently and destructively unstable.
One hesitates to bring up the economics of Benito Mussolini and his ilk because fascism means ugly nationalism and racism, as well as mass murder and aggressive war. So let's label the economic part of that ideology as neosocialist, corporatist, statist or--to be sophisticated and use a French word--dirigiste.
Under the corporatist state, private companies exist but take their direction from government. Competition is seen as wasteful and destructive and therefore must be "managed." There is a basic hostility toward small businesses precisely because there are so many of them, making them harder to regulate and more apt to do things without government permission.
Mr. Forbes, who would make a great Secretary of the Treasury, has written an excellent piece. Read the whole thing here. Obama and his liberal allies clearly distrust free markets as something they can't control. And that's what it's all about for them: control. They will say they're all for capitalism but it's not true, free market capitalism. It's something else entirely. Call it statism, soft-core socialism (as Forbes does), corporate capitalism, or crony capitalism, or whatever euphemism du jour you want but it involves ultimate decision making authority being vested in the government, not free markets. Liberals fear the unpredictability of change which inevitably results from free markets; what the great Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter (no, he didn't speak "Austrian") referred to as "creative destruction":
Capitalism, then, is by nature a form or method of economic change and not only never is but never can be stationary. And this evolutionary character of the capitalist process is not merely due to the fact that economic life goes on in a social and natural environment which changes and by its change alters the data of economic action; this fact is important and these changes (wars, revolutions and so on) often condition industrial change, but they are not its prime movers. Nor is this evolutionary character due to a quasi-automatic increase in population and capital or to the vagaries of monetary systems, of which exactly the same thing holds true. The fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumers, goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates.
The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop and factory to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation–if I may use that biological term–that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. It is what capitalism consists in and what every capitalist concern has got to live in. . . .
Every piece of business strategy acquires its true significance only against the background of that process and within the situation created by it. It must be seen in its role in the perennial gale of creative destruction; it cannot be understood irrespective of it or, in fact, on the hypothesis that there is a perennial lull. . . .
What Schumpeter is saying is that capitalism can be messy and uneven: that the creation of new, innovative products by entrepreneurial capitalists necessarily results in the destruction of those industries these new products replace. These new innovations produce tremendous benefits to society overall, but those employed in the newly obsolete industries are hurt. Liberals naively believe they can shield society from this creative destruction by having the government control or manage the economy, but what they don't understand is that without it, innovation and rising living standards are impossible. I'm sure when the automobile was created many jobs in the horse and buggy industry were destroyed, but does anyone (other than perhaps Al Gore) think we'd be better off without cars?
An excellent example of the waste associated with government attempts to manage creative destruction is with toll roads. Both the Ohio Turnpike and the New York Thruway employ thousands of overpaid unionized government workers, unnecessarily wasting tens of millions of dollars in order to "protect" non-economic jobs. Raytheon has developed a new technology making these employees and toll gates obsolete. If you've ever been to Toronto, you may have driven on the ETR. The ETR is what's known as an "open access all electronic toll highway". I've been on it many times. I drive on and off like any freeway. No stopping, no fiddling in my wallet for money, no long lines at toll booths. If they could do this in Ontario (not exactly a hot bed of free-market capitalism) thirteen years ago, why not here?
A colossal waste of resources such as this would never happen if these toll roads were privatized. If they were outside government control, this new technology would have revolutionized toll roads throughout America, creating many new, hi-tech jobs in the process. Instead, we're stuck with the inconvenience and loss of productivity of waiting in long lines at toll booths while we subsidize thousands of unnecessary public employee union members. The government never misses an opportunity to protect the politically connected few at the expense of the many. This is what inevitably occurs when the state owns or manages industries that they have no business being involved in. Backasswards statist economic thinking like this is the essence of Obamanomics or, as Forbes calls it, soft-core socialism, and the reason the economy will continue to suffer until Obama's policies are refudiated at the ballot box. You can't "control" free markets, nor should you want to.
On July 29th, 2008, K. did a TV spot for CBS here in Chicago reacting to the announcement of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate. We’d been advocating Governor Palin as the ideal McCain VP choice for some time, and the McCain campaign in Illinois called K. up that morning and asked him to do a man-on-the-street reaction to the announcement, since he’d been studying Governor Palin and writing about her. After he did the spot, shortly before Governor Palin was introduced to America by McCain in Dayton, K. walked over to the big screen TVs in the square off Michigan Avenue where the NBC studio sits. There, he watched the Media coverage of Palin’s introduction with a crowd of Chicagoans.
K. remembers seeing Palin emerge and walk onto the stage, dressed in a sharp black suit, as the crowd in Ohio went wild.
In Chicago, the Liberals around him cringed, as that excitement and energy reverberated through the large screens and smacked them in the face.
K. will never forget two Liberal women, clutching each other, faces blanched, with true dread in their eyes.
“What are we going to do now? She’s incredible. He can win now, with her. What are we going to do?”.
“We need to destroy her. We need the media to destroy her”.
“They need to do their job. They need to destroy her”.
And try to destroy her the Media did.
Just like those two Chicago Libs wanted them…expected them…to do.
Read the whole piece here.
Cristina Goizueta: Obamanomics 101: Failure Explained
Kevin Williamson: Deficits vs Unemployment
Veronique de Rugy: Swing Districts Spending 13.5 Million More of Stimulus Than Non-Swing Districts
Kathryn Nix: Side Effects: Obamacare Encouraging Insurers to Cut Corners
Stephen Spruiell: Public Option Redux
NYT: U.S. Challenges China on Island Chain
Bill Kristol writes in the Weekly Standard:
Just before noon on Sunday, July 18, 2010, Sarah Palin enriched the English language...So let us celebrate the new term “refudiate.”
Not that there’s anything wrong with “refute.” It means, according to Webster’s Third, “to overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof; prove to be false or erroneous.” Nor is there anything wrong with “repudiate,” meaning “to cast off . . . to refuse to accept as having rightful authority . . . to refuse approval or belief to.” And they’re distinct. To refute is primarily an intellectual act; a thinker refutes a claim or an argument. To repudiate is a practical or political act; a political party repudiates a sect that holds a discredited (and perhaps refuted) argument. A refutation that isn’t followed by a repudiation is just talk. A repudiation that doesn’t include a refutation is just arbitrary action.
The case for linguistic innovation is this: We need a word that captures and conjoins the meanings of refutation and repudiation. And we need it now. To save the country from the ravages of contemporary liberalism, we have to refute liberal arguments and see liberal politicians repudiated at the polls.
So the conservative agenda is, in a word, refudiation. Indeed, given the dramatic moment at which we have arrived, one might say that we now have the prospect of a grand refudiation of liberalism.
The meeting of intellectual refutation and political repudiation is, after all, the usual prerequisite for the establishment of a new political order. The Tea Partiers—the most striking political development of our day—have understood this well. The movement is an assemblage of arguers and activists. Indeed, they might be called refudiators avant la lettre.
The original Tea Party was followed, of course, by the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims certain truths—that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. These truths are based on a rejection of other claims to rule, monarchical and aristocratic claims—a refutation of them based on “the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born, with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god” (in Jefferson’s famous words). And the proclamation of irrefutable truths is combined with the assertion of a particular act—that the American people repudiate “all allegiance to the British crown” and “political connection” with Great Britain.
The Declaration of Independence—and the successful struggle for freedom that followed—depended, then, on a grand refudiation of the existing arrangements under which America labored. The Constitution similarly depended on a refudiation of the Articles of Confederation. It required both an argument as to why they were failing and action to replace them. Each of our big, realigning elections—in 1860, 1896, 1932, 1980—reflected a refudiation of the political status quo. Politics is both argument and action. Realignment depends on refudiation.
We are conservatives. We ordinarily shun novelties of all kinds, including new words. But desperate times call for desperate measures. The Obama project is one of noxious ideology and wild political overreach. The challenge before conservatives is to beat back both. So say it loud and say it proud: Refudiate liberalism now!
Friday, July 23, 2010
Now that The Daily Caller has exposed the Journolist group for their collaborated effort to destroy Governor Palin on the day Senator McCain announced her as his running mate, members of the lamestream media are spinning to cover their tails. David Corn of Politics Daily is one such yahoo. Rather than admit that deciding to affect an election by scheming and lying about one candidate while covering up the buttocks of another is just, well, nasty, he points his finger at Palin as if she had no reason to take umbrage at the media's behavior. In typical Lefty fashion, Corn attempts to turn the tables and writes a hit piece called "Palin's Shocking Admission: Not Tough Enough to Be President."
Sarah Palin can't expect anyone to take her seriously as a presidential candidate -- not after what she said this week.
In recent days, the former Alaska governor and Tea Party fave has been on a tear against Journolist, a list-serv for nearly 500 journalists, policy wonks and academics, most of whom are self-identified liberals working for self-identified liberal outfits. The participants on this off-the-record e-mail chain promoted their work, debated politics and policy (occasionally quite sharply), and traded and tested ideas for articles and columns. Last month, The Daily Caller, a conservative website, began running articles based on Journolist archives it somehow obtained. Some conservatives immediately denounced Journolist as a secret cabal that established a party line for the dreaded liberal media.
Palin's blast revealed deep ignorance. Journolistas were generally not prominent MSMers. And the few prominent journalists who were part of Journolist were mostly already known as commentators of a liberal bent. Yet Palin was pretending that Journolist was evidence of an MSM cabal. Worst, she tweeted, "forget freedom of speech and freedom of the press if these yahoos ever get their way in America."
During an interview with The Daily Caller, she went further, calling Journolisters "sick puppies" -- as she reacted to another article on the now-defunct list-serv revealing e-mail messages sent the day John McCain surprisingly picked Palin to be his running mate. In these e-mails, several participants -- including two Mother Jones reporters who worked for me at the time -- pondered why McCain had picked Palin and what would be an effective critique of her. That liberal reporters would privately discuss how best to criticize a conservative politician whose policies they oppose does not strike me as shocking. In fact, I am certain that during the 2008 campaign journalists at conservative media outfits talked among themselves about how best to puncture Obama.
So is David Corn arguing that Governor Palin showed deep ignorance because she expected liberal journalists to behave ethically? Perhaps he has a point there--if he's saying that many have shown of late to be incapable of ethical behavior. Surely he isn't making the case that liberal journalists are supposed to purposely impact an election, is he? He blasts the Governor for commenting on the sick puppies' sessions brainstorming "how best to criticize" a candidate. He couldn't possibly be equating criticizing a politician with campaigning to destroy one, could he? Does he think we're that stupid? David Corn, rather than revealing any ignorance on Governor Palin's part, places his own on display.
Furthermore, to excuse the behavior of his group, he points his crooked finger at conservative media outlets, saying he is "certain" they plotted to hurt Obama. Well, Mr. Corn's certainty means absolutely nothing. Where are those emails? Where's his proof? Where are the articles exposing conservatives for such despicable behavior? I imagine if these things existed, we'd all have heard about it by now--if not before, certainly after the Journolist emails became public knowledge. So, I'll just make an educated guess and say they don't exist, and since they don't, David Corn has no leg to stand on. He's simply talking out of his butt to divert attention from the real issue.
Final note to this loon: Governor Palin is not tough enough to be president? Dude, you couldn't possibly stand up under the weight she has endured--wife, mother of five, hunter, running a city, governing a state, energy expert, VP nominee, Tea Party activist, and survivor of the likes of you who conspire daily to pick away at the toughness you say doesn't exist. Dude, you couldn't carry the Governor's shoes, much less her resume'. Go sit down 'cause we don't take you seriously.
If you can stomach it, the full Corn-y article is here.
(h/t Josh Painter)
Please spread the news about the "2 Million on Facebook money bomb" that we are planning for her PAC. Whitney had a post up about it earlier today. It's likely Governor Palin will hit the number sometime next week. We want to be prepared for it. Let's show everyone what a true grassroots fundraising effort looks like.
In any event, here's the news:
-Citing how many people in one of the most liberal areas of the country side with Governor Palin regarding the Ground Zero mosque doesn't get old.
-Governor Palin recommends that you read the following article from William Kristol.
-The National Review has an article about "Palin's Granite Grizzly."
-From The Economist: The Palin effect and Toward a more perfect Palin.
-Even a liberal like Roy Peter Clark, vice president and senior scholar of the Poynter Institute and founding director of the National Writer's Workshops, writes for CNN that he has no issue with "refudiate."
-Fox News reports on the radicals who tried to take down her Facebook post yesterday.
-Paul Bedard from US News writes that the "'Journolist' Affair [is] Worse Than Clinton Conspiracy." Jim Geraghty says that "the violent tone of the revealed JournoList comments is disturbing...and the fact that it doesn’t bother more people is more disturbing." I think Ace has the best perspective on what this scandal is all about.
-Gov. Bob McDonnell has appointed Tito Munoz -- better known as 'Tito the Builder' -- to the Virginia Board of Housing and Community Development. However, Governor McDonnell, like Christopher Christie, is struggling with his constituents.
I hope everyone has a good weekend. What's going on?
These are heady days for Sarah Palin, who is wielding considerable clout within the Republican Party in the run-up to November 2 U.S. congressional elections.
The conservative, self-styled "mama grizzly" from Alaska, who loves to pick a fight with Democrats and the news media, is branding herself as a national leader of a Republican Party that currently lacks one.
Will she run for U.S. president in 2012? Her supporters would love her to do so, but until she announces a decision, Palin is promoting conservative political allies in the race for seats in the midterm vote.
Consider the case of Karen Handel. She is among Republicans running for the party's nomination to become the next governor of the state of Georgia.
Palin, the former Alaska governor who was the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008, endorsed Handel with a Facebook posting. Then she recorded a "robo-call" telephone message for her that was called out to Georgia voters.
Palin never set foot in Georgia. But the effort she made catapulted Handel, who had been trailing opponent Nathan Deal before the July 12 endorsement. Handel won the most votes in Tuesday's election and faces Deal in an August 10 runoff.
Palin's endorsement of Nikki Haley in South Carolina's Republican primary for governor had a similar outcome. Haley overcame charges of marital infidelity to win the nomination.
"Governor Palin's decision to get involved -- and stay involved - in the race here was a huge boon to our campaign," said Haley spokesman Rob Godfrey.
These political favors doled out by Palin may mean that she will come calling for their support one of these days.
"She's certainly picking up some IOUs," said Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta.
She offers slashing opinions on Fox News Channel, Twitter and Facebook, and is following up last year's best-selling memoir with a second book, this one about "faith, family and patriotism." Palin is making a fortune and is much in demand as a speaker and ally to candidates, often from the conservative Tea Party movement that backs small government and low taxes...
Various groups have sprouted up in support of her, such as "Conservatives 4 Palin," which met in San Diego last weekend.
"From now until November when they say 'yes we can,' we need to stand up, stand together, and we need to say 'oh no you don't,'" Palin said in a speech she telephoned in to them.
You can read the entire article here.
Mark Levin talks to Debra Burlingame of 9/11 Families for America about the man behind the proposed mosque near Ground Zero:
Governor Palin posted about Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf on her Facebook page:
To build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks. Just days after 9/11, the spiritual leader of the organization that wants to build the mosque, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, suggested that blame be placed on the innocents when he stated that the “United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened” and that “in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” Rauf refuses to recognize that Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of our ally, Israel, and refuses to provide information about the sources of funding for the $100 million mosque.
Rauf also plays a key role in a group behind the flotilla designed to provoke Israel in its justifiable blockade of Gaza. These are just a few of the points Americans are realizing as New York considers the proposed mosque just a stone’s throw away from 9/11’s sacred ground.
On July 19, Palin endorsed Bob McConnell for Congress in CO-3. Bob is running against Scott Tipton in the primary, and if he wins he will be facing John Salazar (a member of the Health Care 20) in the general.
Following Palin's endorsement, he got some national attention, including an interview with Time. The article isn't exactly Palin-friendly (shocker, I know), but Bob had this to say:
“It's huge and the timing could not have been better,” he says, noting the proximity of the primary... “The power of what she brings to this national debate is important to me.
"I'm a man of courage and faith, and she's a woman of courage and faith, and I like that. And I will stand beside her.”
He put out this statement yesterday:
With Sarah Palin's endorsement comes a monumental wave of intense interest in my campaign and the Third District of Colorado... The spotlight is on this District and on the front running candidate who can take this seat back...
Time calls me "A New Papa Grizzly" - I LOVE that!...
Here's more great news from the Palin endorsement: John Salazar is scared! He knows I'm the guy to beat and he's begging hard for "more money" - a politician's answer to everything. John says:Unfortunately, Sarah Palin's endorsements receive national attention and national money will follow. We must send a message to Palin - a message that says we do not want her brand of extreme politics in Colorado.... Help me fight back against Sarah Palin and the radical and negative politics she embraces. Your contribution will help me defend against the onslaught of negative attacks that are coming.
Extreme politics? I guess to John Salazar the Constitution is "extreme." "Radical and negative?" He's scared of losing his seat and he should be, because I'm coming for it.
There's a reason Sarah Palin called my campaign "dynamic" and "prudent." We are on the national radar and I am the candidate leading the fight against Salazar. Help me hold up the banner of freedom. And I will never forget that the most resounding and important endorsement of all is you, the people.
Thank you, God bless you and our country. Keep the faith.
Bob was recently interviewed by Moe Lane of Redstate. He talks about the endorsement at around 2:20 -
McConnell's website is here. If you want to tick Salazar off, you can donate to Bob here.
I can't say that I agree with Bob on every single issue, but I greatly admire his boldness and his honesty. I would love to hear this guy give a speech on the House floor.
Vote for Bob McConnell. I dare ya.
Investor's Business Daily has weighed in with an editorial on the coordinated effort by the mainstream media to smear Governor Palin which commenced on the morning of August 29, 2008 and continues to this day:
Ever wonder why 2008 VP candidate Sarah Palin was so ridiculed before much was known about her? Turns out liberal journalists engaged in a coordinated smear campaign to aid the Democratic ticket.
When we talked with Alaska's then-governor in the summer of 2008 about plans to develop her state's energy resources, she came across like most other Alaskans we've met — frank, down-to-earth, colloquial, but more than technocratically knowledgeable about the energy field.
The issue then for Gov. Palin was how to balance the development of Alaska's bountiful resources with its near-pristine environment. She also wrestled with how to create a healthy business climate in a state with a history of political corruption involving oil companies.
We detected a sense of duty as Palin spoke of bringing natural gas to the Lower 48, and we were impressed with the way she spoke authoritatively about Alaska's polar bear population and compassionately about the well-being of native Alaskans. We also interviewed longtime nonpolitical Alaskan bureaucrats who raved about working with the governor and praised her executive ability.
Sound like the Sarah Palin you read about when she was chosen as John McCain's running mate that fall? Hardly.
Suddenly Palin became a backwoods Christian fundamentalist hillbilly with five kids who couldn't possibly be who she said she was. Her intelligence was attacked, her accomplishments belittled, her verbal slips ridiculed, her family's privacy invaded and her clean record smeared with accusations of corruption, all of which proved false.
The editorial then goes on to cite some of the examples obtained from the Journolist emails before closing with this:
And so it went — journalists from the Nation, Mother Jones, Time, Politico, Bloomberg cooking up approaches, arguments, "narratives" and templates to paint a false picture of the candidate.
There are so many things wrong with this, we hardly know where to start. Nominally competitors, these supposedly impartial media mavens colluded in a way that would put airline or insurance officials in the dock for anti-competitive practices. They engaged in activism instead of fact-finding and mixed incestuously with activists whom they also should have been covering impartially.
Worst of all, they deprived millions of Americans of the information they needed to size up this new face on the political scene and determine if she really was a candidate who represented their interests.
That still remains to be done — and the country is poorer for it.
This sorry state of the media in the Age of Obama is why Governor Palin's strategy of "starving the beast", which she articulated yesterday in her interview with the Daily Caller's Jonathan Strong, makes so much sense. Why provide the mainstream media, for whom information gathering and objectivity are secondary to pushing Obama's agenda, the opportunity to further distort the record of the individual they see as the greatest threat to their Dear Leader? For most ordinary politicians, a starve the beast strategy with the MSM would be self-defeating as they would struggle to get their message out.
But Sarah Palin is anything but ordinary. Her appearances on Fox News (and everywhere else) are a ratings bonanza. Her documentary series, which debuts later this year, will introduce her to an entire new audience. A simple Tweet or Facebook note gets seen by millions. The mainstream media, whose declining ratings are commensurate with their declining credibility, need her far more than she needs them. By ignoring them, she can take her message straight to the American people without being distorted by those who wish her ill. And best of all, the mainstream media will report everything she says or writes anyway. They can't help themselves. This "rube" from Alaska is playing them like a Stradivarius, they can't do anything about it, and it absolutely drives them crazy.
Update: (h/t Kelsey) Jedediah Bila has a piece in today's Daily Caller in which she provides her take on the coordinated attempt by Team Obama the mainstream media to distort Governor Palin's record in order to assist the Messiah:
As The Daily Caller’s coverage of the now-defunct liberal listserv Journolist’s 2008 Obamamania campaign grew more intriguing each day this week, a slew of emails hit my inbox asking variations of this: “So, when do you think the P-bomb’s going to drop?”
Of course, they were referring to the fact that there was no way in heck Sarah Palin could’ve steered clear of scathing remarks. I responded with, “My guess is it’s on its way.” And whad’ya know? Yesterday’s headline read: “Liberal journalists swapped their best lines of attack for coordinated ‘non-official campaign’ against Palin selection.”
I salute The Daily Caller for publishing a series that lays it all out, plain and simple. Not only were so many in the media nauseatingly awe-struck by Obama, but some formed an organized coalition to target his opponents and to suppress news stories that might have brought down the hope and change brigade.
I guess they didn’t take the time to consider that the man they were tirelessly promoting wasn’t fit for the job. Or that the woman they were targeting was.
Read the rest of Jedediah's piece here. She connects a lot of dots in the coordinated campaign by the mainstream media to destroy Governor Palin.
Update II: (h/t Pat) Via Ann Kane at David Horowitz's NewReal Blog:
Daily Caller’s Jonathan Strong has exposed Journolist’s gang-up against Palin as the only way to usher in their pick for the White House. Imagine that. All the biggies in the mainstream, the Economist, Time, Newsweek, Politico and many others worked together to influence voters in a “non-official campaign” for the future President Obama.
Journolist colluders homed in on the target, Sarah Palin, and kept their boots on her neck until their man was in the Oval Office. We the American ‘herd’ should respond with the best of Alinsky: pick the Journolist group, freeze them, isolate them, and send them into a collective oblivion buried inside the back pages of their soon-to-be outdated publications.
Update III: Below is the inteview Investor's Business Daily conducted with Governor Palin in 2008 to which they referred in the above IBD editorial (courtesy of PalinTV):
Update IV: Amy Siskind's take on the "the Media’s Orchestrated Hit Job on Palin":
Those of you following this blog are well aware of the sexism directed at Hillary Clinton during her presidential run. In case, you need a reminder, watch here.
The Daily Caller now reveals that there was an orchestrated attack on Sarah Palin when she was chosen as John McCain’s running mate.
Despite was so obviously sexist attacks on Palin in 2008, The New Agenda was the ONLY women’s group to defend Sarah Palin in her run to become the first woman vice president, calling the attacks a “smear job”:
Stay tuned for a busy 2011 – and if you have not already, please join The New Agenda as a member.
Blackwell and Klukowski: Why the ObamaCare Tax Penalty Is Unconstitutional
WSJ: Liberal Tax Revolt
IBD: Rebooting America
Veronique de Rugy: The private sector cost of increasing public sector employment
Bloomberg: Geithner Sees `Basic Confidence' in U.S. Economy
Reuters: Bernanke Says Fed Will Intervene if Hiring Does Not Improve
Just 20% of Likely Voters Disagree With Governor Palin's Stance on the Ground Zero Mosque/Over 57% of Israelis Believe Obama Favors the PalestiniansBy Ian Lazaran
Just 20% of U.S. voters favor the building of an Islamic mosque near the Ground Zero site of the World Trade Center in New York City, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Fifty-four percent (54%) oppose the planned building of a mosque near where Muslim terrorists brought down the skyscrapers by crashing commercial airliners into them on September 11, 2001.
According to this poll, even a plurality of Democrats agree with Governor Palin's position.
Another poll finds that our strongest ally in the Middle East doesn't hold Barack Obama in much regard:
Most Israelis – 57.5 percent – think that US President Barack Obama favors the Palestinians
It's no wonder Obama's team has admitted that the Israelis would prefer that a certain person replace him in 2012.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
This week's Economist/YouGov poll finds Governor Palin leading the 2012 presidential race:
Sarah Palin 28%
Mitt Romney 18%
Newt Gingrich 17%
Mike Huckabee 13%
Mitch Daniels 4%
Tim Pawlenty 1%
Mike Pence 1%
Haley Barbour 1%
John Thune 1%
No preference 17%
Even if you factor in all Democrats and independents, rather than just conservative Democrats and Republican-leaning independents, she still leads the field. It's unlikely that anyone but Republican-leaning independents and conservative Democrats will vote in the 2012 Republican presidential primary.
Nate Silver writes that this poll "is no less scientific than the way Rasmussen does telephone polling."
Update: In case you were wondering why Governor Palin didn't do as well on the other questions, consider that the sample for this Economist/YouGov poll found 11% more Democrats than Republicans.
Update #2: If we just changed the party identification numbers in the Economist/YouGov sample to the party identification numbers found in the last Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, she would be trailing Obama by only a 40-37 margin.
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza speculates that Governor Palin may have trouble in the New Hampshire GOP primary in 2012. Before we dive into Cillizza's speculation, I'll note that if the media treated Governor Palin the same way it treated then Senator Barack Obama in 2008, it would treat the necessity of Governor Palin performing well in the New Hampshire GOP primary the same way it treated the necessity of Barack Obama performing well in the West Virginia Democrat primary in 2008. Since the media regarded Barack Obama's performance in the West Virginia Democrat primary as non-essential to his chances of winning the Democrat primary, it should likewise treat Governor Palin's performance in the New Hampshire GOP primary the same way if she does not perform well in the state. However, there is reason to believe that Governor Palin would perform significantly better in New Hampshire than Obama performed in West Virginia for the following reasons.
Cillizza argues that Governor Palin's "brand of in-your-face social conservatism might not be the best fit for the flinty fiscal conservatives who tend to carry the most influence in the state's presidential primary." First of all, there is absolutely no evidence that being socially conservative is anything but a positive with any GOP electorate. In fact, there is no evidence that being socially conservative is a negative anywhere but the most radically liberal states, let alone a swing state like New Hampshire. Take for example the fact that an overwhelming majority of the country supports parental consent and believes this country is a Christian nation. Even Democracy Corps' polling shows that the NRA and pro-life groups are popular.
Now let's assume for the sake of argument that being an "in-your-face social conservative" is a negative in the eyes of the New Hampshire GOP electorate. What evidence is there that Palin is an "in-your-face social conservative?" If supporting parental consent, believing that the country is a Christian nation, and approving of the NRA and pro-life groups makes one an "in-your-face social conservative," then an overwhelming majority of the country is comprised of "in-your-face social conservatives."
Keep in mind too that the e-mails revealed by the Daily Caller prove that the media wanted to radicalize Governor Palin by focusing on her non-controversial view on life. These radicals were pushing the same meme that Cillizza has accepted as truth about her social conservatism. Instead of asserting that Palin is an "in-your-face social conservative," Cillizza should have asked any neutral political analyst in Alaska about whether Governor Palin has ever run in the past as a social conservative. The answer that any neutral Alaskan political analyst will provide is a resounding no. No "in-your-face social conservative" would endorse of all people Steve Forbes for president in 1996. She barely discussed social conservative issues in the 2008 campaign. She was busy delivering what voters deemed the best convention speech of the past 14 years with a broken teleprompter, as was reported in Game Change (the rule of thumb that I use with that book is that I believe everything that hasn't been denied. Nobody has denied that the teleprompter broke or that Obama fell apart emotionally after her speech, as the book reports).
Cillizza then cites the front-page editorial from Joseph W. McQuaid of the New Hampshire Union-Leader as evidence that Governor Palin will have issues with the Granite State's GOP electorate. In a rambling editorial that made no sense, McQuaid seemed to take umbrage at the fact that Governor Palin compared Alaskans to New Hampshire voters. One has to wonder why McQuaid would take umbrage at such a comparison considering that voters from both states are very similar as Governor Palin asserted:
-A plurality of voters identify themselves as independents in both states.
-New Hampshire and Alaska are two of the least religious states in the country.
-The electorates in both states are comprised of "a high percentage of residents aged 18 and up who are women with their own children living in the same household."
As you can see, there are plenty of similarities between Alaska and New Hampshire. Governor Palin rose in Alaskan politics. There's no reason to believe she cannot do the same in New Hampshire considering she did it against tougher competition in Alaska. But if she doesn't, it's no different than Obama failing to win the West Virginia Democrat primary in 2008. And should she perform significantly better in New Hampshire than Barack Obama performed in West Virginia, she'll have likely won the nomination.
Ian linked to this in the open thread but I think it deserves its own post. One of my favorite politicians, MEP Daniel Hannan of the UK, is impressed by Governor Palin's coining of the term "refudiate". Via the UK Telegraph:
I am thoroughly taken with Sarah Palin’s neologism. People often incorrectly use the word “refute” to mean something like “deny” or “reject”, only stronger. We could do with a new word to fill this gap and, since both “refute” and “repudiate” are already occupied with their actual meanings, neither can be pressed into service. “Refudiate” occupies the space perfectly, and deserves to become part of every politician’s vocabulary.
The handsome Alaskan politician is quite right to say that Shakespeare came up with countless new-fangled words – including “countless” and “new-fangled”. Among his coinages, as far as we can tell, are accommodation, assassinate, denote, dislocate, equivocal, eventful, hobnob, inauspicious, lacklustre, laughable, perplex, raw-boned, submerge, time-honoured, unmitigated and zany.
Hannan, you'll recall, starred in that viral video from a couple years ago in which he ripped British Prime Minister Gordon Brown for wasting money like...er...Barack Obama is doing now:
I can easily see Governor Palin saying something along these lines in a future debate...
Even Andrew Sullivan Acknowledges that Journolist E-Mails Show a Coordinated Attempt to Frame the Media Narrative Against Governor Palin/Open ThreadBy Ian Lazaran
Even a hack like Andrew Sullivan acknowledges that the e-mails revealed by the Daily Caller prove that members of the Journolist list-serv were trying to push media narratives about Governor Palin. Sullivan writes:
I mean: what is the point of putting out an email with the subject line "The Line On Palin" if there isn't an actual line? And what is this if not organizing a media narrative
In any event, here's the news:
-Fox News: Journalists Reportedly Plotted to Pillory Palin
-Palin and Gingrich in 2012?
-We already reported on this but in case you missed it, she'll be in Jacksonville on August 26th.
-Daniel Hannan agrees with Governor Palin.
-Tucker Carlson responds to the liberals whining that the truth is being revealed in their own words.
-A profile of Clint Didier is the headline article in today's Seattle Times.
-State Senator Robert Hurt, one of the candidates that Governor Palin has endorsed, leads incumbent Congressman Democrat Tom Perriello 58% to 35% in Virginia's 5th Congressional District.
-Karen Handel has called for the resignation of Georgia Right to Life leaders for comments that they made about Governor Palin.
What else is going on today?
Here’s another non story that’s making its rounds on the blogs. Governor Palin put a post up on her Facebook page the context of which was endorsing a candidate with common sense solutions. The post had 444 words, three of which were part of a side note telling her supporters that she is now with her family sightseeing America’s largest island.
The Lamestream media got all wee-weed up again. Gotcha Governor, Kodiak is not Americas biggest island, Hawaii is 25 square miles bigger. You can almost hear them singing like children: Kodiak issss noooooooot Americas biggeeeeeeeest island bla bla bla bla bla...
I have no intention of defending this as this is such a stupid non-story that it doesn’t even warrant a defense. For good measure Ian has already dealt with this here.
But the media hypocrisy is astonishing, so much so that Jimmy Kimmel found it so amusing that he created a video mocking the Governor on how it would look like if she got together with the guys of "Schoolhouse Rock". In the video the various states pop out some with question marks on them.
I want to remind Mr. Kimmel that Governor Palin never had a problem naming the 50 states. If I recall correctly, it was President Obama who added an additional 7 states that he still needs to name. Perhaps Mr. Kimmel was confused.
Sarah Palin forgets to write one word "second" -- as in "America's second largest island," and Mr. Kimmel thinks she needs to be schooled on the entire fifty states. Here's a newsflash: She wasn't the politician who said that we have 57 states! That was your Dear Leader, Barack Obama.
The media and the entertainment industry hates you, America. They think you're stupid. They think they can manipulate you into believing "Sarah Palin, stupid" and "Barack Obama, genius." Sarah Palin's Alaska created jobs. Barack Obama's America is bleeding them. We'll see in two years who gets to say to America, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" And we'll see the answer to that.
This is all a tactic by the media to silence her. They do this with everything she says or writes; nick-picking on every little thing gives them an excuse to avoid talking about her actual message.
In case the left and the media missed it while they were plotting to bring down Governor Palin, let’s play a little game: who can name all the 57 states?
1) Alabama. 2) Alaska. 3) Arizona. 4) Arkansas. 5) California. 6) Colorado. 7) Connecticut. 8) Delaware. 9) Florida. 10) Georgia. 11) Hawaii. 12) Idaho. 13) Illinois. 14) Indiana. 15) Iowa. 16) Kansas. 17) Kentucky. 18) Louisiana. 19) Maine. 20) Maryland. 21) Massachusetts. 22) Michigan. 23) Minnesota. 24) Mississippi. 25) Missouri. 26) Montana. 27) Nebraska. 28) Nevada. 29) New Hampshire. 30) New Jersey. 31) New Mexico. 32) New York. 33) North Carolina. 34) North Dakota. 35) Ohio. 36) Oklahoma. 37) Oregon. 38) Pennsylvania. 39) Rhode Island. 40) South Carolina. 41) South Dakota. 42) Tennessee. 43) Texas. 44) Utah. 45) Vermont. 46) Virginia. 47) Washington. 48) West Virginia. 49) Wisconsin. 50) Wyoming. 51) ??? 52) ??? 53) ??? 54) ??? 55) ??? 56) ??? 57) ???
The winner receives an Austrian dictionary, a map of the country Europe and a framed copy of the constitution written 20 centuries ago.
Update by Doug: Today President Obama once again provided his Journolist fans with an example of his magnificent intellect. Via Twitter:
I thank the senators who stood on the side of working families and voted to extend the unemployment insurance that is critical to millions.
Er...an ordinary barbarian like me may not be as brilliant as our illustrious president but since when do unemployment benefits go to those who are working? Don't unemployment benefits go, by definition, to the unemployed? Just asking.
Earlier today, Governor Palin tweeted that she had reposted her Facebook note expressing disapproval about the building of a Ground Zero mosque. She ended that post with a note that said the original one was "somehow unintentionally deleted by mistake or technical glitch."
It was not a mistake, and it was no glitch. It was another collaborated effort to silence the most feared threat to the radical leftist agenda. Earlier today, the story emerged exposing the lamestream media's decision to go after Palin in order to get Obama elected. I covered that controversy here, and C4P covered it here and here. This Facebook situation is simply more of the same anti-Palin tactics.
So let's take a closer look at who was behind this attack on free speech.
Brian Ries, a writer for The Daily Beast, led the campaign to censor the Governor because he didn't like her viewpoint that a mosque built on "hallowed ground" would be "a stab in the heart of the families of the victims" of 9-11. So instead of dealing with the issue itself, he did what all far Left yahoos do: he sought to shut her up by putting the "racist" label on her. Perhaps he picked up this antiquated antic from members of the Journolist group. (Just a thought.) He rallied the troops on his blog with the title, "Let's Report Sarah Palin's Facebook Rant for Being Hate Speech, Yes?" He went on to write:
Some insane woman from Alaska is ranting on Facebook about how an Islamic community center built near Ground Zero would be a “stab in the heart of the families of the victims.”
Quite frankly, she’s being a racist loon.
Go report her post on Facebook for being “Racist/Hate Speech” to the admins. Let’s see if Mark Zuckerberg has any balls left.
See his full rally cry here.
As a journalist, Mr. Ries should be committed to the expression of free speech, not the snuffing out of it. There is nothing hateful or racist in Governor Palin's Facebook note. The idea that the multitudes of people who remember the pain of Ground Zero and oppose the building of a mosque there are responding out of anything other than the purest of motives is both dangerous and diabolical. Thinking of this nut, I am reminded of the Governor's words as reported today by Jonathan Strong:
There are some pretty sick puppies in the industry today. They really need help.
I think Ries qualifies.
Apparently at least one reporter has questioned Mr. Ries' actions, for he posted here:
This is not really about ‘refudiating’ Sarah Palin. It was a social experiment to explore the boundaries of Facebook’s government-like Terms and Conditions and the power of the Tumblr community.
Free speech on the internet is still a work-in-progress.
And yes, I started it. But Tumblr launched it.
— My response to a reporter asking, “Were you gaming Faacebook to suppress free speech? Or was this really hate speech that shouldn’t be allowed on there?”
We, the people, are tired of these clowns using Governor Palin as their "social experiment." And this was the wrong day for yet another media yahoo to mess with her. We level-headed, truth-seeking, honest-working Americans are fed up with these loons' inability to even feign decency regarding the Governor. We're not going to let this stuff go. We're finding the hatred where it is, and we're dragging it front and center--even more vehemently than before.
* You can find Brian Ries on Twitter and read what he's been saying about this here. In case you want to check him out over at The Daily Beast, click here.
A few videos for your afternoon. Glenn Beck talks about the first JournoList revelations:
Rush weighs in on the latest bombshell:
And Mike Gallagher fully supports Governor Palin's Facebook statement about the proposed mosque at Ground Zero:
And I've got a hunch that this video may be the first spoof of many:
CNN: Facebook Apologizes for Deletion of Palin Post (Update: Far-Left Extremists Appear to Be Responsible for the Post Being Taken Down Initially)By Ian Lazaran
Social networking site Facebook issued a bit of a mea culpa Thursday after a post by former GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin was deleted from the massive site.
In a statement given to CNN, Facebook said a "note" by Palin about her opposition to building a mosque near New York City's Ground Zero had been deleted by an automated system.
"The note in question did not violate our content standards but was removed by an automated system," Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in the statement. "We're always working to improve our processes and we apologize for any inconvenience this caused."
After the original post was deleted, Palin re-posted the note Thursday morning.
Update: Far-left extremists seem to be the ones responsible for the post being taken down initially.
She called in while filming her Alaska show this morning:
For a while this morning, Governor Palin's Facebook Note in which she rightly criticized the asinine idea to build a mosque at Ground Zero was deleted in what appears to have been a coordinated effort by the paragons of tolerance on the left. Apparently they think questioning the wisdom of sticking thumbs in the eyes of 9/11 survivors and their families is hate speech. Via Ben Smith at the Politico:
Sarah Palin's attack on a mosque two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center vanished from Facebook amid an online campaign to brand it "hate speech."
Her note, which was reposted soon after a reporter's inquiry Thursday morning, questioned the views of the builders of a planned moque and community center on the "hallowed ground" and called the plan a "tragic mistake."
Neither Facebook nor Palin's camp was immediately sure what happened, but automated systems for reporting abuse have been used effectively in the past to take aim at political speech. Palin's note now contains a footnote saying the original was "somehow unintentionally deleted by mistake or technical glitch."
A spokesman for Facebook, Andrew Noyes, said the company was looking into the matter:
"We're investigating this incident to determine whether the content in question was removed by an automated system as a result of user reports that it violated our terms. We want Facebook to be a place where people can openly discuss issues and express their views while respecting the rights and feelings of others. The goal of our policies is to strike a very delicate balance between giving people the freedom to express their opinions and viewpoints – even those that may be controversial to some – and maintaining a safe and trusted environment."
It's inspiring to see the Left standing up for America's first amendment rights. It's amazing how much they fear Governor Palin and her commonsense message.
Via Jonathan Strong at the Daily Caller:
From a remote location on an island off Alaska’s coast, former Governor Sarah Palin is blasting what she describes as the “sick puppies” in the media who immediately and ruthlessly attacked her when Sen. John McCain picked her as his running mate during the 2008 presidential campaign.
In exclusive remarks to The Daily Caller, Palin described “hordes of Obama’s opposition researchers-slash ‘reporters’” descending upon Alaska in the days after she was picked by McCain.
She said the media became a key reason she decided not to finish out her term as governor and faults, in part, the McCain campaign for failing to vigorously defend her.
Palin chose to be a public figure at the highest level, as a candidate in a presidential campaign, arguably inviting the most intense scrutiny imaginable.
Yet TheDC revealed posts from Jounolist that show liberal journalists coordinating attack lines against Palin from the moment McCain picked her, suggesting she may have had the deck stacked against her.
Palin said she sensed the vitriol coming from campaign reporters at the time.
“It was too obvious to me, my family, my administration and anyone else who knew me (and my record) that we were in a defenseless position the minute I gave my acceptance speech and the hordes of Obama’s opposition researchers-slash ‘reporters’ had descended upon Alaska,” Palin told The DC.
Palin, whose conflicts with key McCain campaign staffers are infamous, said the campaign could have stood by her more firmly.
“To not have had the McCain campaign staff defend my record was an insurmountable challenge, because once a bell is rung, it’s impossible to un-ring,” Palin said.
Regarding a television interview with Katie Couric widely seen at the time as a turning point in the public’s perception of Palin, which critics argued illustrated Palin’s inexperience, Palin said the interview was selectively edited.
“It didn’t help, either, that the hours and hours of interviews with the likes of Katie Couric resulted in a few minutes here and there of selected snippets of my annoyed answers. (I naively had not believed at the time of some of the badgering questions [for example, questioning my pro-life position] that the editing process would fulfill their biased purpose),” Palin said.
Palin says the feeding frenzy culture of the media galvanized her political opponents in Alaska. “The media incentivized political opponents to file false ethics charges and expensive, wasteful, frivolous lawsuits against me, my family and my staff, in an obvious attempt to destroy us,” Palin said.
When those lawsuits — which Palin said she won, but the media didn’t cover — caused legal costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, Palin had finally had it, she said.
“I said, ‘Enough. Political adversaries and their political friends in the media will not destroy my State, my administration, nor my family. Enough.’ I knew if I didn’t play their game any longer, they could not win. I would not retreat, I would instead reload, and I would fight for what is right from a different plane.”
JONATHAN STRONG ON FOX DISCUSSING JOURNOLIST TARGETING PALIN
Read the rest of Strong's piece here.
(h/t Jerry and Pat)