And neither can Big Baloney. First,  Sarah Palin

Murdered Ambassador Christopher Stevens, whose corpse was dragged through the streets of Benghazi.

Apparently President Obama can’t see Egypt and Libya from his house. On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on America, our embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi were attacked by violent Islamic mobs. In Cairo, they scaled the walls of our embassy, destroyed our flag, and replaced it with a black Islamic banner. In Benghazi, the armed gunmen set fire to our consulate and killed an American staff member. The Islamic radicals claim that these attacks are in protest to some film criticizing Islam. In response to this, the U.S. embassy in Cairo issued a statement that was so outrageous many of us thought it must be a satire. The embassy actually apologized to the violent mob attacking us, and it even went so far as to chastise those who use free speech to “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” (Funny, the current administration has no problem hurting the “religious feelings” of Catholics.)

But where is the president’s statement about this? These countries represent his much touted “Arab Spring.” How’s that Arab Spring working out for us now? Have we received an apology yet from our “friends” in the Muslim Brotherhood for the assault on our embassy?

…our nation’s security should be of utmost importance to our Commander-in-chief. America can’t afford any more “leading from behind” in such a dangerous world. We already know that President Obama likes to “speak softly” to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a “big stick” to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one.

Zing!

You’d think Obama would get right on this, if only for political cover.

Tony Harnden writes in the Daily Mail:

The Obama administration is engulfed in a full-blown foreign policy crisis just two months before the presidential election with the two campaigns trading angry accusations over events in Libya, Egypt and Israel.

Footage of the body of Christopher Stevens, United States ambassador to Libya, slung over the back of a protester, was reminiscent of the 1993 ‘Black Hawk Down’ incident in Somalia in 1993 when militia fighters lynched American aircrew in the streets of Mogadishu.

President Barack Obama’s staff will also be mindful that a shadow was cast over Jimmy Carter’s presidency by the Iranian hostage crisis after the US embassy in Tehran was stormed by Islamist extremists following the Iranian revolution.

Tony, it’s only crisis if Big Baloney says it is. The so-called paper of record, the New York Times, had the story on page 4.

Today’s LA Times had the story on page 3. The headline: “American Diplomat Killed in Libya” Diplomat??!!

They murdered our ambassador!

Obvious to conservatives, not obvious to Democrats: Palin got biased coverage in 2008.

Of interest: the research was done at the University of Wisconsin, Madison — a stronghold of ultra-liberalism.

…Coverage of Palin was more likely to include references to her family, physical appearance and social issues, particularly in newspapers and by political blogs, while coverage of Biden dealt more with foreign policy and the economy.

“Each of these differences could have had important influences on public opinion formation and the public’s voting decisions in this particular race,” write Leticia Bode, a former graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who is now an assistant professor at Georgetown University, and Valerie M. Hennings, an assistant professor at Iowa State University, in the study published in the journal Politics & Policy. She conducted the research while at UW-Madison.

“Without an examination of vice presidential contests, our understanding of the intersection of political communication and the experience of women as political candidates is incomplete,” Bode and Hennings write. “If gender stereotypes in media coverage have the ability to negatively affect women candidates, this calls into question the American political system’s ability to produce elected representatives in a fair and democratic manner.”

Bode and Hennings tested three theories: The amount of coverage Palin received was greater than Biden; gender stereotypes would be reflected in the substance of coverage and emerge on such issues as family, electability, policy issues and physical appearance; and the amount and substance of coverage Palin and Biden received would differ across media.

They performed a content analysis that included coverage from Aug. 16 to Nov. 11, 2008, the period just before the Democratic National Convention to the week after the general election. News coverage mentioning the candidates was gleaned from the New York Times, the Washington Post and USA Today; transcripts from the three major broadcast networks’ evening broadcasts, as well as the equivalent periods on CNN and Fox News; and entries on nearly 400 political blogs…

From the Sarah Palin emails, a message to her family written in the voice of God.

To the Sisters, Brother, Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins, and Friends of Trig Paxson Van Palin (or whatever you end up naming him!):

I am blessing you with this surprise baby because I only want the best for you. I’ve heard your prayers that this baby will be happy and healthy, and I’ve answered them because I only want the best for you!

I heard your heart when you hinted that another boy would fit best in the Palin family, to round it out and complete that starting five line-up.

Though another girl would be so nice, you didn’t think you could ask for what you REALLY wanted, but I knew, so I gave you a boy because I only want the best for you!

Then, I put the idea in your hearts that his name should be ‘Trig’, because it’s so fitting, with two Norse meanings: “True” and “Brave Victory”. You also have a Bristol Bay relative with that name, so I knew it would be best for you!

Then, I let Trig’s mom have an exceptionally comfortable pregnancy so she could enjoy every minute of it, and I even seemed to rush it along so she could wait until near the end to surprise you with the news – that way Piper wouldn’t have so long to wait and count down so many days – just like Christmastime when you have to wait, impatiently, for that special day to finally open your gift? (Or the way the Palmas look forward to birthday celebrations that go on for three, four days_ you all really like cake.) I know you, I knew you’d be better off with just a short time to wait!

Then, finally, I let Trig’s mom and dad find out before he was born that this little boy will truly be a GIFT. They were told in early tests that Trig may provide more challenges, and more joy, than what they ever may have imagined or ever asked for.

At first the news seemed unreal and sad and confusing. But I gave Trig’s mom and dad lots of time to think about it because they needed lots of time to understand that everything will be OK, in fact, everything will be great, because I only want the best for you!I’ve given Trig’s mom and dad peace and joy as they wait to meet their new son. I gave them a happy anticipation because they asked me for that.

I’ll give all of you the same happy anticipation and strength to deal with Trig’s challenges, but I won’t impose on you… I just need to know you want to receive my offer to be with all of you and help you everyday to make Trig’s life a great one.

This new person in your life can help everyone put things in perspective and bind us together and get everyone focused on what really matters. (more…)

What an embarrassment to see the news media go after Sarah Palin’s emails lie vultures. Embarrassing for them.

Toby Harnden of the U.K. Telegraph writes:

The trove of more than 13,000 emails detailing almost every aspect of Sarah Palin’s governorship of Alaska, released late on Friday, paints a picture of her as an idealistic, conscientious, humorous and humane woman slightly bemused by the world of politics.

One can only assume that the Left-leaning editors who dispatched teams of reporters to remote Juneau, the Alaskan capital, to pore over the emails in the hope of digging up a scandal are now viewing the result as a rather poor return on their considerable investment.

If anything, Mrs Palin seems likely to emerge from the scrutiny of the 24,000 pages, contained in six boxes and weighing 275 pounds, with her reputation considerably enhanced. As a blogger at Powerline noted, the whole saga might come to be viewed as “an embarrassment for legacy media”.

Mrs Palin, who suddenly resigned as Alaska governor in July 2009, is no longer a public official. She holds no position in the Republican party. Despite the media hubbub that surrounds her every move, she is unlikely to be a candidate for the White House in 2012.

She is, however, viewed with a kind of horrified fascination by many in the media, who faithfully records everything she says and does while at the same time decrying her as ignorant and even evil.

Whether or not she runs for the White House – and the solid consensus among Republican leaders is that she won’t – the scramble over the Palin emails confirms her status as a pivotal figure in the race to challenge President Barack Obama next year.

It comes at a moment when the battle for the Republican nomination appears set to be transformed by the late entry of Governor Rick Perry of Texas, a social conservative and Palin ally who could almost immediately leap to the front of a currently lacklustre field.

Sources close to Mr Perry have confirmed that he is “highly likely” to announce a presidential run in the coming days. Intriguingly, they have also hinted at a something they believe would increase immeasurably Mr Perry’s chances of winning the White House – an endorsement from Mrs Palin. (more…)

Some good stuff that’s been open in Firefox too long.

Evan Sayet explains “Why Jews Support the Democratic Party.”

Richard Epstein explains “ObamaCare’s Next Constitutional Challenge”

Greg Pollowitz has an excellent roundup of stories about fracking in “Some Good Fracking Reading”

The NYT appeals to its readers to comb through Sarah Palins’ emails to look for dirt. No budget to DIY? Guess the Times is feeling the Pinch.

Palin knows her history. Her critics do not.

Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere “warned the British” during his famed 1775 ride — remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed — is actually historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up.

Palin prompted howls of partisan derision when she said on Boston’s Freedom Trail that Revere “warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”

Palin insisted yesterday on Fox News Sunday she was right: “Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there. That, hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms.”

In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”

Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”

If you have any doubt that calls for civility in America were a sham, this will dispel it.

The Stir:

In a low that hardly seems possible in this age of civility, the online DC gossip site Wonkette has viciously attacked the disabled toddler of a former politician. Trig Palin celebrated his third birthday on April 18, and to mark the occasion, Team Sarah posted a birthday poem to the former Alaskan Governor’s youngest son.

In a completely unwarranted response to the gesture, the folks at Wonkette questioned Trig’s parentage, implied incest within the Palin family, called the little boy a retarded political prop, and recommended that he get drunk to deal with his family that’s even stupider than he is.

Also, he licks strangers just like his big sister Piper licked her fingers to smooth down his hair on camera once. That must mean all the Palin children are morons because … because why, exactly? What mother hasn’t smoothed down her kid’s hair with spit on occasion, and what big sister hasn’t mimicked mommy with her younger siblings?

It breaks my heart that there is even one person in America that would say such heartbreakingly awful things about a Down syndrome child (or any child!), regardless of who his parents are. But the author is obviously not alone, as the comments are just as bad and even worse than the original post.

Anyone who has known a Down Syndrome person understands that they are often sweet, loving and happy people. I’d rather spend time with them than the sour, nasty creeps whose Palin hatred is unbounded.

Business Insider:

Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a “dumb twat,” launching Presidential campaigner Michel Bachmann into a rage that there is a double-standard when it comes to conservative women.

But how does the former Governor feel?

Eh, she does not seem to be offended.

“I need NOW’s defense like a fish needs a bicycle,” she told Greta van Susteren. “I don’t want them to defend me.”

She feels that there might be a double standard — or maybe not — but the important thing is to keep focused on her goals.

“So what? Let’s just work harder, produce more, produce better, and get over it,” she said. “I’m through whining about a liberal press that holds especially conservative women to a different standard.”

“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

~Irina Dunn, 1970, commonly misattributed to Gloria Steinem who had quoted Dunn

Barbara Kay in the Canadian National Post:

The feminist revolution began as a necessary reform movement, but unfortunately evolved into a marxism-imbued, revolutionary one. Second-wave feminism’s focus soon shifted from women’s equal rights (which are limited to those defined by law) to women’s interests (which are limitless), as perceived through a victim’s lens.

For decades, the people that instruct our children; mould our lawyers, social workers, psychologists and health professionals; train our judiciary; control (and misinform) the domestic-violence industry; shape the views of journalists; and counsel politicians: All have been marinating from early youth in feminist correctness.

The consequence has been a culture that, if not overtly man-hating, is always man-blaming — in which, to our collective detriment, the rights of boys and men (especially fathers) are scanted for the sins of a few, and their contributions to the family and society trivialized.

That changed on September 3, 2008, when Sarah Palin accepted her vice-presidential nomination at the Republican convention in Minneapolis/St. Paul. Her speech electrified the nation.

Before 39-million viewers, Palin was the first public figure to openly and successfully ridicule the hitherto untouchable Barack Obama. She also was the first American woman to campaign for high office by paying homage, but no ideological dues, to the Sisterhood. This Alaskan small-town huntin’, fishin’ God-fearin,’ abortion-hatin’ mom of five showed that a woman can break through any glass ceiling she wants without the imprimatur of the feminist politburo.

Palin’s mockery of the sainted Barack Obama probably accounts for much of the animus the left has toward her.

How dare she point out the emperor was naked?

Sarah Palin’s map with crosshairs.

From the Democratic Leadership Committee website circa 2004

More from Verum Serum

Byron York:

On November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at a troop readiness center in Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 people.  Within hours of the killings, the world knew that Hasan reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar!” before he began shooting, visited websites associated with Islamist violence, wrote Internet postings justifying Muslim suicide bombings, considered U.S. forces his enemy, opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, and told a neighbor shortly before the shootings that he was going “to do good work for God.”  There was ample evidence, in other words, that the Ft. Hood attack was an act of Islamist violence.

Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not “jump to conclusions” about Hasan’s motive.  CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.

“The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions,” said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on CNN the night of the shootings.

“We cannot jump to conclusions,” said CNN’s Jane Velez-Mitchell that same evening. “We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever.”

“I’m on Pentagon chat room,” said former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN, also the night of the shooting.  “Right now, there’s messages going back and forth, saying do not jump to the conclusion this had anything to do with Islam.”

The next day, President Obama underscored the rapidly-forming conventional wisdom when he told the country, “I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”  In the days that followed, CNN jouralists and guests repeatedly echoed the president’s remarks.

“We can’t jump to conclusions,” Army Gen. George Casey said on CNN November 8.  The next day, political analyst Mark Halperin urged a “transparent” investigation into the shootings “so the American people don’t jump to conclusions.”  And when Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra, then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the Ft. Hood attack was terrorism, CNN’s John Roberts was quick to intervene.  “Now, President Obama has asked people to be very cautious here and to not jump to conclusions,” Roberts said to Hoekstra.  “By saying that you believe this is an act of terror, are you jumping to a conclusion?”

Fast forward a little more than a year, to January 8, 2011.  In Tucson, Arizona, a 22 year-old man named Jared Lee Loughner opened fire at a political event, gravely wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, killing a federal judge and five others, and wounding 18.  In the hours after the attack, little was known about Loughner beyond some bizarre and largely incomprehensible YouTube postings that, if anything, suggested he was mentally ill.  Yet the network that had shown such caution in discussing the Ft. Hood shootings openly discussed the possibility that Loughner was inspired to violence by…Sarah Palin.  Although there is no evidence that Loughner was in any way influenced by Palin, CNN was filled with speculation about the former Alaska governor.

Sarah Palin sure keeps things fun. This is from her Facebook page, ridiculing the news media for double standards on gaffes.

My fellow Americans in all 57 states, the time has changed for come. With our country founded more than 20 centuries ago, we have much to celebrate – from the FBI’s 100 days to the reforms that bring greater inefficiencies to our health care system. We know that countries like Europe are willing to stand with us in our fight to halt the rise of privacy, and Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s. And let’s face it, everybody knows that it makes no sense that you send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma and they end up taking up a hospital bed. It costs, when, if you, they just gave, you gave them treatment early, and they got some treatment, and ah, a breathalyzer, or an inhalator. I mean, not a breathalyzer, ah, I don’t know what the term is in Austrian for that…

Of course, the paragraph above is based on a series of misstatements and verbal gaffes made by Barack Obama (I didn’t have enough time to do one for Joe Biden). YouTube links are provided just in case you doubt the accuracy of these all too human slips-of-the-tongue. If you can’t remember hearing about them, that’s because for the most part the media didn’t consider them newsworthy. I have no complaint about that. Everybody makes the occasional verbal gaffe – even news anchors.

Obviously, I would have been even more impressed if the media showed some consistency on this issue. Unfortunately, it seems they couldn’t resist the temptation to turn a simple one word slip-of-the-tongue of mine into a major political headline. The one word slip occurred yesterday during one of my seven back-to-back interviews wherein I was privileged to speak to the American public about the important, world-changing issues before us.

Count Shelley Ross at Newsweek as another victim.

Watching Sarah Palin’s new reality show Alaska is like listening to Sgt. Pepper. You want to play it again, slow it down and then try it backwards to find the “hidden” messages. For example, while attempting to flee a real mama-grizzly bear by boat, she says, “Of all times, we’re snagged on a rock.” Or did she say, “We’re snagged on Iraq?”

Cue the theme from Twilight Zone.

As a broadcast journalist for three decades, I’ve been steeped in both raw politics and the image making that enhances it. I’ve produced countless interviews with presidents, their running mates, first ladies and political opponents. So I speak with some experience when I say last night’s premiere of Palin’s TLC reality show was so full of subliminal communiques, you’d need a seance with Marshall McLuhan to decipher them all. But if I’m right that this medium is Sarah Palin’s message, it is truly a flash of political brilliance.

Sarah Palin is so much fun.

…imagine my dismay when I read an article by Sudeep Reddy in today’s Wall Street Journal criticizing the fact that I mentioned inflation in my comments about QE2 in a speech this morning before a trade-association. Here’s what I said: “everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher.”

Mr. Reddy takes aim at this. He writes: “Grocery prices haven’t risen all that significantly, in fact.” Really? That’s odd, because just last Thursday, November 4, I read an article in Mr. Reddy’s own Wall Street Journal titled “Food Sellers Grit Teeth, Raise Prices: Packagers and Supermarkets Pressured to Pass Along Rising Costs, Even as Consumers Pinch Pennies.”

If nothing else, Sarah Palin brightens the world of politics because she drives liberals nuts. Here’s a vido from liberal Emily’s List.

Palin responded via Facebook:

On this anniversary of women’s suffrage, let’s take a moment to be grateful for the diversity of the debate. Women don’t walk in lockstep with each other in politics, any more than men do. We should be proud of our ability to engage in a civil discussion and healthy debate. I know I am. Unfortunately, I’ve recently come under attack for speaking up for sisters who seek to serve in public office.

The sad part is that the attack comes from other sisters who happen to be on the other side of an issue that has been of great importance to American women from the time of our feminist foremothers, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, down to today. I’m speaking of the issue of life. I feel compelled to offer some advice to our sisters who like to throw stones at those of us who respectfully disagree with them on this issue (and they sometimes refuse to even countenance the fact that some of us can call ourselves feminists and disagree with those who claim the mantle of “real feminists”).

First, ladies, it’s hard to take a critic seriously when they lecture you wearing a bear suit. So, it’s difficult for me to drum up much outrage at this latest ad. But, really, lying about a sister while wearing an Ewok outfit is no way to honor our foremothers on the eve of the 90th anniversary of their victory. But, that aside, I’d love to know where you got those get-ups. Halloween is just around the corner, and Piper and Trig would look adorable as little grizzly bears.

She later Tweeted this:

Who hijacked term:”feminist”?A cackle of rads who want 2 crucify other women w/whom they disagree on a singular issue; it’s ironic (& passé)

Tigerhawk:

Sarah Palin’s breasts are suddenly the objects of great interest on the left, not because of their obvious appeal, but as an opportunity to accuse her of having enhanced them with implants. This controversy follows an earlier obsession with Sarah Palin’s medical care, the election-year spat over whether she is indeed the mother of her son Trig or (alternatively) was reckless in flying back to Alaska to give birth to him.

I suppose I have two small observations.

First, does the left enhance — and I use the word advisedly — its appeal among the electorate by suggesting that we ought to ridicule women for getting breast implants? The boobery need no further reminder that the left disdains their sense of aesthetic, but if liberals want to beat them over the head with it, fine. This may, in the end, be Palin’s greatest contribution to conservative political fortunes: She suckers the chattering left in to reminding everybody that they are, well, snots.

Second, we note that privacy in medical matters is the legal foundation of the Constitutional right to abortion, per Roe v. Wade. This right to privacy is apparently so sacred that (so says the left) it is reasonable to sacrifice fetuses to defend it. One would think that the left, therefore, would be reluctant to intrude on even Sarah Palin’s medical privacy. Of course, that would require some measure of intellectual honesty, which is apparently beyond the capacity of many liberals when Sarah Palin is involved.

Tunku Varadarajan

…On the right, by contrast, there are commentators who err in the opposite direction—partly in reaction, no doubt, to all the Palin-abuse of the last 20 months (who can forget Andrew Sullivan’s foul ravings, for instance). In an op-ed that was one part treacle and two parts overreach, Norman Podhoretz—conservative capo di tutti capi—likened Palin to a rough-diamond version of Ronald Reagan and declared that he would “rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama.” Bill Kristol has, at earlier times, espoused Palin with a corresponding vigor—a vigor that was, like Podhoretz’s paean, strikingly at odds with Palin’s apparent abilities and achievements.

So we have, on the one hand, a rejection of Palin by liberal intellectuals that can border on the hysterical, and, on the other, a clearly overblown evaluation of her by her proponents on the right. Both sides, I reckon, are quite wrong. (A question for Podhoretz: What should one do if one wants neither Obama nor Palin in the White House?)

Part of the liberal hatred (or fear) of Palin lies in her ability to draw passionate crowds that are impassioned by the wrong kind of politics. Although American elites are not inherently suspicious of crowds, they are, quite naturally, fearful of those that are ungovernable. And since Palin’s crowds—many of whom are adherents of the Tea Party movement—do not respond to the slogans and shibboleths of the liberal elite, the latter views them as alien (ergo, ungovernable). It is but a short leap from that conclusion to one that holds that these crowds are incendiary, intolerant, and, inevitably—this being a put-down that confers pariah status in America—racist. Once these crowds have been characterized as such, it is easy to strip them of their relevance to civilized political discourse. And so it is that a swath of America has come to be declared beyond the pale; and it is no surprise that this group sees itself as disenfranchised in some important way.

Palin’s biggest gift—or her most disconcerting feature, if your politics are liberal—is her ability to connect with this group of Americans. As her personal story makes clear, she started out with nothing—no money, no blue-chip education, no parental or spousal connections. She built her political career in the most isolated place imaginable, and reached high office while rearing five children. She has certain strengths that our “postmodern” elites no longer value—grit, endurance, practicality, community—but which many ordinary Americans continue to inculcate in their children.

Americans tend to love public figures who are not pretentious, who look them straight in the eye and say what they mean, and a lot of Palin’s appeal lies in her closeness to this American archetype. Palin is a very talented populist, and, as such, a brilliant tool for the Republicans to wield against a president who has made a fetish of the cerebral. All this does not make Palin qualified, per se, for the highest office, and one’s anger at Beltway snobbery should not translate into uncritical encomiums for Palin. With all due respect to Podhoretz, she is not a Reagan in the rough. Reagan inspired; Palin champions the angry. The anger may be perfectly valid, but she seems unable to take her crowd to a higher plane, one that would be broadly inspiring.

David Broder writes glowingly of Sarah Palin.

(The WaPo’s web editor seems to have dug deeply to find an unflattering photo to run with the column.)

…This was not the first time that Palin has impressed me. I gave her high marks for her vice presidential acceptance speech in St. Paul. But then, and always throughout that campaign, she was laboring to do more than establish her own place. She was selling a ticket headed by John McCain against formidable Democratic opposition and burdened by the legacy of the Bush administration.

Blessed with an enthusiastic audience of conservative activists, Palin used the Tea Party gathering and coverage on the cable networks to display the full repertoire she possesses, touching on national security, economics, fiscal and social policy, and every other area where she could draw a contrast with Barack Obama and point up what Republicans see as vulnerabilities in Washington.

Her invocation of “conservative principles and common-sense solutions” was perfectly conventional. What stood out in the eyes of TV-watching pols of both parties was the skill with which she drew a self-portrait that fit not just the wishes of the immediate audience but the mood of a significant slice of the broader electorate.

Freed of the responsibilities she carried as governor of Alaska, devoid of any official title but armed with regular gigs on Fox News Channel and more speaking invitations than she can fulfill, Palin is perhaps the most visible Republican in the land.

More important, she has locked herself firmly in the populist embrace that every skillful outsider candidate from George Wallace to Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton has utilized when running against “the political establishment.”

It doesn’t always win. There are more John Edwardses and Mike Huckabees than I can count. But it wins more often than you’d guess and for a greater variety of people, especially when things are not going well for the country.

Palin’s final answer to Wallace showed how perfectly she has come to inhabit that part. When he asked her what role she wants to play in the country’s future, she said:

“First and foremost, I want to be a good mom, and I want to raise happy, healthy, independent children. And I want them to be good citizens of this great country.

“And then I do want to be a voice for some common-sense solutions. I’m never going to pretend like I know more than the next person. I’m not going to pretend to be an elitist. In fact, I’m going to fight the elitist, because for too often and for too long now, I think the elitists have tried to make people like me and people in the heartland of America feel like we just don’t get it, and big government’s just going to have to take care of us.

“I want to speak up for the American people and say: No, we really do have some good common-sense solutions. I can be a messenger for that. Don’t have to have a title to do it.”

It’s fascinating to see how much Sarah Palin gets under the skin of virtually all liberals (and some conservatives.)

Lefties were foaming at the mouth this weekend after discovering (aha!) that Palin had some notes written on her palm.

When I first saw the headline, I thought they meant Palm as in Palm Pilot etc. But no, Palin went old school.

Powerline notes:

We haven’t written about the faux controversy over Sarah Palin’s writing a few words on the palm of her hand at the Tea Party convention, apparently as reminders for her speech or the Q & A session that followed. Liberals purported to find the presence of phrases like “tax cuts” significant. It isn’t clear why; pretty much everyone who gives a speech uses notes if he doesn’t actually read a prepared text, and Barack Obama seemingly can’t order a cheeseburger in a restaurant without his Teleprompter. So the Left’s huffing and puffing was pointless.

Which didn’t stop Palin from getting the last laugh. Campaigning for Governor Rick Perry in Texas yesterday, she wrote “Hi Mom!” on her palm:

You have to love the sense of humor, particularly when it’s directed at the humorless left.

Palin also delivered a speech at the Tea Party convention. I haven’t watched but a few minutes, but one is clear: this woman has rare political skills. I can remember a politico who seems so comfortable at the podium.

Just listen to how she pronounces “Hello” to C-SPAN — it’s in the opening minute of the speech.

Sarah Palin at the Gridiron Club dinner:

If the election had delivered a different result, she said Barack Obama’s balding vice-president, Joe Biden, could be in her shoes. “I could be the one overseeing the signing of bail-out cheques and vice-president Biden could be on the road selling his book Going Rogaine,” she said.

by J.C. Phillip

If indeed former Alaska Governor and Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin is the joke the new left claims her to be, one wonders why they don’t simply ignore her. On the contrary, they devote an unusual amount of energy into making her the butt of their jokes and seeking every opportunity to discredit her and cover her with political dirt. The Associated Press for example assigned 11 reporters to fact-check her new book “Going Rogue.” The AP assigned exactly 2 reporters to read through the more than 4 thousand pages of the Obama healthcare bills. So much attention seems to belie the New Lefts claims that Palin is a light-weight– not worthy of our respect or attention.

Such a focus of energies seems a tacit acknowledgement that Palin and the principles she represents are a force to be reckoned with.

The primary knock against Palin is that she is dumb, or what is more politely called an anti-intellectual. Of course, the new liberal narrative views all conservatives as not only evil, but downright stupid – not ill informed or teachable, but simply intellectually inferior. From Carter to Obama the new left has consistently claimed a superior intellect.

I can’t help but smile when I recall a conversation I had with a professional friend during the early part of last year’s presidential campaign. She was excited about her opportunity to meet then candidate Barack Obama. “What do you like about the candidate?” I queried. “He is brilliant,” she responded. “He understands the issues so clearly.” Fair enough. But would she, I wondered, be as excited if the candidate were a Republican? “Suppose you were preparing to meet candidate Condoleezza Rice?” I asked. There was a pause and then she responded, “Well, she is very bright.”

‘Nuff said.

Brilliant liberals and “bright” conservatives is the window through which leftists view the world because their vision of America is one that relies on appeals to authority and claims of moral and intellectual superiority. The administrative state posits that the cure for a world teeming with poverty and injustice is within our grasp. There exists a community of anointed intellectuals, trained in our finest universities that can solve all of society’s ills and bring our lives into moral order if only they had the power; if only the rest of us would conduct our lives as they wish.

Witness Democratic Party leader Howard Dean recently standing before a group of French journalists extolling the virtues of this president. According to Dean the battle between socialism and capitalism has been settled. (I will give you 3 guesses which side he believes won.) It is Dean’s belief that our current President and the party he represents understands that American benevolence demands socialist policy. The question therefore is no longer whether or not we will have socialism, but how much socialism we will have. Dean is proud of the Democrat party for its political clarity.

The problem for Dean and the rest of the new left is that Americans tend to have an independent streak that leads them to largely reject the idea of a centralized intelligentsia deciding how best they should live their lives. Palin represents the American individualist that says, “I know what is best for my family and what is in agreement with my faith. I would rather do things my way.” The administrative state is incompatible with such independence and can only thrive by stamping it out.

Palin and those that root for her may not have graduated from Harvard, but they are smart enough to know that Howard Dean is wrong and Ronald Reagan was correct when he said the question was one of moving “Up to man’s age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.” We are indeed bright enough to know that just as there was no moral good in slavery, there is nothing benevolent about socialism. The barbed wire around socialist utopias is there to keep people in – to force them (in the name of liberty) to do what the intellectuals say to do.

It is not Palin’s grit, her good looks or her “you betcha” small town persona that drives the new left to distraction. Rather it is her elementary ability to recognize the danger in putting too much trust in the smart guys– especially when their solutions require that we place our liberties at their disposal. “Palinism” is not a rejection of intellect; it is however, to say in no uncertain terms that some of us regular folk might just know a bit more about how to run our lives and this country than a room filled with Ivy educated czars.

Dan Calabrese in the Appeal Democrat:

You can’t help but notice that just about everyone who is part of the political establishment detests Sarah Palin. And you can’t help but notice that Palin couldn’t care less.

Early in the second chapter of “Going Rogue,” a chapter titled “Kitchen-Table Politics,” you learn everything you need to know to understand why. This is the way Palin has been wired for a very long time. During her two terms on the Wasilla City Council, followed by two terms as the city’s mayor, she consistently demonstrated a refreshing immunity to the insider mentality that tends to afflict people who serve in government at any level.

Recruited to run for the council in 1992 by local power broker Nick Carney, Palin was seen as an attractive face who would support the usual way of doing business in Wasilla. She wasn’t.

In one of the first tests of her independence, Palin opposed a proposal touted by Carney, her political patron, to force residents to pay for neighborhood trash pickup rather than hauling their garbage to the dump themselves, as most did, and as Palin says she still does.

Why was this so important to Carney? Because he owned the local garbage truck company. If you’ve never had much exposure to local politics — and this is largely true anywhere you go — it’s a pretty big deal for a young, inexperienced politician (especially a woman) to so blatantly go against the person who recruited you into politics and supported you in your first campaign. You come under tremendous pressure to fall into line. Most cave, right then and there, long before they ever sniff politics at a higher level.

Palin didn’t.

During her terms on the council, she consistently opposed heavy-handed community planning initiatives and burdensome taxes. But she was not anti-government, as she explains:

As a council member, I focused on what I believed to be the key functions of government: infrastructure development, fiscal responsibility and simply being on the side of the people.

She continued this emphasis after being elected mayor in 1998, supporting the building of roads and sewers, which helped to attract stores like Walmart and Fred Meyer to Wasilla for the first time. She also spurred the paving of the city’s airport runway. You read that right: Wasilla’s airport had a gravel runway before Palin worked to get it paved.

It was as Wasilla’s mayor that she encountered the kind of insider resistance to responsive government that would also await her later in Juneau. After she defeated the incumbent mayor, Palin recalls assembling her cabinet for the first time. These were holdovers from the previous mayor. As they sat with their arms folded, glaring at her, she received little enthusiasm as she talked about reviewing budgets and looking for places to cut in order to redirect money to building roads and sewers.

The chief of police flat-out refused to even look for budget savings, beginning a chilly relationship that ultimately resulted in Palin firing him and — get this — being sued by him for sex discrimination. (It took three years, but Palin was vindicated — another harbinger of things to come.)

Among Palin-haters, one of the most popular canards is that she is an airhead, and clearly not capable of dealing with the intricacies of government. As this chapter demonstrates, nothing could be further from the truth.

Palin not only has a keen grasp of the details of governing and budgeting, she also understands the political difficulties inherent in making government responsive. Many of her antagonists at the national level scoffed at the notion that her experience in Wasilla was of any value. Quite the contrary, local government is where a public official’s decisions have the most direct impact on the electorate. It’s where you really have to understand the ins and outs of what you’re doing.

No voting for bills without reading them first.

As I’ve said many times before, and will say again now, I have no idea if Palin ever wants to run for president, and it is not my intention here to either tout her for president or argue for (or against) her qualifications.

But it has become widely accepted conventional wisdom that Palin is nothing more than a populist sloganeer who has no serious grasp of governing substance. Even a fair number of conservative commentators have bought into this notion, and are warning against the support of Palin as the mere embrace of empty style over substance.

Bullshit.

When it comes to the nuts and bolts of governing, Palin is one of the most substantive politicians to arrive on the scene in quite some time. And when it comes to having the intestinal fortitude necessary keep the interests of the people at the top of the agenda, I can’t think of a single person anywhere in politics who is Palin’s equal.

If you disagree with Palin’s philosophy of governing because you are a political liberal, that’s fine. But if you’re an honest person, stop trying to pretend she’s some sort of good-looking moron.

The more you read about Palin’s experience in governing, the more you understand why the national political establishments of both parties hope to smother her political career in its crib. She knows how to govern — better than most of them do, in fact. She just won’t do it the way they do it, and that scares the crap out of them.

Sarah Palin in the WSJ:

Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans “talk with one another, and not over one another” as our health-care debate moves forward.

I couldn’t agree more. Let’s engage the other side’s arguments, and let’s allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats’ health-care proposals should become governing law.

Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that “no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.” Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.”

With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it’s a promise Washington can’t keep.

Let’s talk about specifics. (more…)

James Taranto:

The first we heard about Sarah Palin’s “death panels” comment was in a conversation last Friday with an acquaintance who was appalled by it. Our interlocutor is not a Democratic partisan but a high-minded centrist who deplores extremist rhetoric whatever the source. We don’t even know if he has a position on ObamaCare. From his description, it sounded to us as though Palin really had gone too far.

A week later, it is clear that she has won the debate.

President Obama himself took the comments of the former governor of the 47th-largest state seriously enough to answer them directly in his so-called town-hall meeting Tuesday in Portsmouth, N.H. As we noted Wednesday, he was callous rather than reassuring, speaking glibly–to audience laughter–about “pulling the plug on grandma.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that Palin has won a legislative victory as well:

A Senate panel has decided to scrap the part of its healthcare bill that in recent days has given rise to fears of government “death panels,” with one lawmaker suggesting the proposal was just too confusing.

The Senate Finance Committee is taking the idea of advance care planning consultations with doctors off the table as it works to craft its version of healthcare legislation, a Democratic committee aide said Thursday.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the committee, said the panel dropped the idea because it could be “misinterpreted or implemented incorrectly.” . . .

The Palin claim about “death panels” was so widely discredited that the White House has begun openly quoting it in an effort to show that opponents of the healthcare overhaul are misinformed.

You have to love that last bit. The fearless, independent journalists of the Los Angeles Times justify their assertion that the Palin claim was “widely discredited” with an appeal to authority–the authority of the White House, which is to say, the other side in the debate.

One suspects the breathtaking inadequacy of this argument would have been obvious to Times reporters Christi Parsons and Andrew Zajac if George W. Bush were still president. And of course this appears in a story about how the Senate was persuaded to act in accord with Palin’s position–which doesn’t prove that position right but does show that it is widely (though, to be sure, not universally) credited.

…with a well reasoned argument, shocking for someone we’ve been told is a dolt.

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore….It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.” [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

Speaking before a friendly crowd at a park here Friday night, two days before she resigns, Palin invoked her soldier son to assure supporters that she is not downcast over the political frustrations that are prompting her to quit before her term is up.

She told the hundreds gathered in a military “Honor Garden” that she wanted to “do something… more worthy than speaking politics” before sharing a story about a reporter who had asked her about how she handles difficult days.

“I said, ‘Oh no,’ it is not a down day – my son called this week from Iraq,” Palin recalled, referring to her son, Track, an Army enlistee. “He is safe, he is sound. It is always a good day when my son calls.”

Interrupting the applause, Palin said: “I wish that some in the media would keep things like that in perspective, what is really important in our country. And what is important is our freedoms, America’s security, our liberty.”

Later, citing military families that have lost loved ones, she again drew loud applause by saying: “Let us continue to love our country, be proud of our country, never apologize for our country.”

Hey, Junior, you listening?

From Red Planet Cartoons.

Tastes change as you mature. When Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid came out, I thought it was quite funny and cool. We rewatched it recently in stone silence, astonished at how bad it was.

Early on, I thought David Letterman was funny — his ironic humor, almost anti-humor — hit the spot.

That all ended when he hosted the Oscars. I rarely watch that spectacle of the over-celebrated celebrating themselves, but tuned in because of Letterman. Then I saw this:

It was so lame I pitied him. Never again have I found him very funny.

Now his ugly joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter has focused attention on him. He openly disdains Sarah Palin like much of the media elites do. Inside their echo chamber, this joke is harmless. Just as WASPs once told Jew and nigger jokes, thinking they were harmless fun.

Sarah Palin is not one to take it. She watched as the elites marginalized her as a doofus during the campaign while ignoring Joe Biden’s legacy of embarrassments — a legacy he’s eagerly adding to.

Palin’s appearance on Today touches on the politics. It’s amusing to see Matt Lauer concern himself about Letterman being tagged a dirty old man.

Victor Davis Hanson imagines a different media world…

WASHINGTON (AP) — The first 100 days of the Palin presidency, according to a consensus of media commentators, have proven a near disaster. Perhaps it was Palin’s scant two years’ experience in a major government position that has eroded her gravitas, or maybe it was her flirty reliance on looks and informal chit-chat. In any case, the press has had a field day, and it is hard to see how President Palin can ever recover from the Quayle/potatoe syndrome. Here is a roundup of this week’s pundit mockery.

LET THEM EAT MOOSE
“Ted Stevens may have gotten off,” wrote Bob Herbert in the New York Times, “but he taught our Sarah something first — like using $100-a-pound beef for her state dinners. And what’s this $50 mil for her inauguration gala? Since when do you fly in your favorite pizza-maker from across the country on our dime? Or send the presidential 747 for a spin over the Big Apple for a third-of-a-million-dollar joyride? Does Palin think she’s still in Alaska and has to have everything flown in from the South 48 by jumbo jet?”

WASILLA CHIC
Also in the Times, Gail Collins weighed in on the already-tired yokelism of the new commander in chief. “What we’re getting is Wasilla chic. That’s what we’re getting. She arrives in the Oval Office, and first thing sends back Blair’s gift of the Churchill bust as if it’s a once-worn Penney’s outfit. Then she gives the Brits some unwatchable DVDs as a booby prize — as if she idled the old Yukon and ran into Target’s sale aisle. Did Sarah send Bristol into Wal-Mart back in Anchorage for that ‘engraved’ iPod for the queen? And what’s this don’t-bow-to-the-queen stuff, but curtsy for a Saudi sheik? Maybe that explains why she brags to Stephanopoulos about her ‘Muslim faith.’ So far, the best things going for her are Todd’s biceps.”

IT’S THE MATH, STUPID!
“Well,” lectured Paul Krugman, again in the Times, “we were worried that they didn’t teach math at Idaho U., and now we know for sure they don’t. Is it $1.6 trillion, $1.7 trillion, or $2 trillion in red ink this year? Are we supposed to be impressed that she offers ‘fiscal sobriety’ by cutting 0.003 percent of the budget? She gives out money to those who don’t pay taxes and calls it a tax cut. And now Queen Sarah tells us that in four years she’ll ‘halve’ the deficit, as if she hasn’t borrowed another $5 trillion in the meantime. Does she think we’re morons? How many ‘Drill, baby, drill!’ oil wells can she tap into up there in Alaska to pay for the extra $11 trillion in debt she’s saddling us with?”

Read it all.