In the summer of 2006, I was surprised to see the Democrats running TV ads…in the GOP primary. The ads targeted a candidate (whose name escapes me and Google can’t find) who was the GOP’s preferred successor for the retiring Jim Kolbe.

Perhaps those Democratic ads in a GOP primary helped: the targeted candidate lost the primary. The primary winner, Randy Graf, turned off enough voters in CD8, a purple district, to allow Gabrielle Giffords to win the seat.

Fast forward to 2010. Giffords is vulnerable, and there’s a tight GOP primary in CD8 between Jonathan Paton and Jesse Kelly.

This weekend, I noticed that Paton signs were starting to sprout…well, an awning of sorts.

Very narrow signs were springing up directly behind Paton signs. The signs were just tall enough—what a coinky-dink!—to sit right on top of the Paton sign. They also were strategically placed so they didn’t touch Paton’s original signs. (IIRC, it’s against the law in AZ to physically attach something to another candidate’s sign).

The signs say “PayDayPayton.” They list a website (http://www.paydaypayton.com) that criticizes “lobbyist Jonathan Paton” for “lin[ing] his pockets lobbying for payday lenders.”

Scroll to the bottom of the website, and what do we see?

PAID FOR BY THE ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, 2910 N. CENTRAL AVE., PHOENIX, AZ 85012.
WWW.AZDEM.ORG. HQ 602-298-4200. NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE COMMITTEE.

I’ll start checking the Arizona Daily Star, Tucson’s daily newspaper, to see if the intrepid reporters there are covering this story. IMO, the fact that one party is OVERTLY playing in the other party’s primary should be a newsworthy story.

I suspect, though, that the Arizona Democratic Party is counting on the Arizona media’s silence to cover up what they’re doing. Something tells me the local media will find they just don’t have the time to cover this story. Or, what’s more likely, they’ll cover it in detail—AFTER the election is over. Much in the same way that Howard Kurtz, lead apologist for the MSM runs exposes after every election, decrying the bias the MSM showed in its reportage and calling on them to NEVER do it again. (Until the next election, that is).

If so could someone please tell Andrew Alexander, the WaPo’s ombundsman?

If someone takes the major step of giving up their job, so that they can speak out on an issue, I’d think that gives that person at least some measure of credibility, don’t you think?

So, shouldn’t you mention that when you’re raising questions about someone’s credibility. To the whole online world?

Read More →

Paul Rubin’s WSJ Op-Ed proposes some damning answers to one of the summer’s Biggest Questions: Why is the Gulf oil cleanup taking so long?

As you’ll see, the reasons for the delay relate directly to Democratic Party policy and interest group preferences. And the people, wildlife, waters and fauna of the Gulf are paying the price.

Someone should investigate. With the current Democratic administration and Congress, we all know no one will. Answer: put the GOP in charge of the House. THEN we’ll get investigations.

When you’re arguing on behalf of GOP House candidates this fall, feel free to use this as another justification for voting GOP for the House in November.

From Rubin’s Op-Ed:

The press and Internet are full of straightforward suggestions for easy ways of improving the cleanup, but the federal government is resisting these remedies.

First, the Environmental Protection Agency can relax restrictions on the amount of oil in discharged water, currently limited to 15 parts per million. In normal times, this rule sensibly controls the amount of pollution that can be added to relatively clean ocean water. But this is not a normal time.

Various skimmers and tankers (some of them very large) are available that could eliminate most of the oil from seawater, discharging the mostly clean water while storing the oil onboard. While this would clean vast amounts of water efficiently, the EPA is unwilling to grant a temporary waiver of its regulations.

…

Next, the Obama administration can waive the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from operating in U.S. coastal waters. Many foreign countries (such as the Netherlands and Belgium) have ships and technologies that would greatly advance the cleanup. So far, the U.S. has refused to waive the restrictions of this law and allow these ships to participate in the effort.

…

The Obama administration can also permit more state and local initiatives. The media endlessly report stories of county and state officials applying federal permits to perform various actions, such as building sand berms around the Louisiana coast. In some cases, they were forbidden from acting. In others there have been extensive delays in obtaining permission.

Now, Rubin turns to the obvious question: Why might the government drag its feet, when faced with such a monumental catastrophe as the Gulf oil spill?

One possibility is sheer incompetence. Many critics of the president are fond of pointing out that he had no administrative or executive experience before taking office. But the government is full of competent people, and the military and Coast Guard can accomplish an assigned mission. In any case, several remedies require nothing more than getting out of the way.

Another possibility is that the administration places a higher priority on interests other than the fate of the Gulf, such as placating organized labor, which vigorously defends the Jones Act.

Finally there is the most pessimistic explanation—that the oil spill may be viewed as an opportunity, the way White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said back in February 2009, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Many administration supporters are opposed to offshore oil drilling and are already employing the spill as a tool for achieving other goals. The websites of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, for example, all feature the oil spill as an argument for forbidding any further offshore drilling or for any use of fossil fuels at all. None mention the Jones Act.

(All emphasis was added).

We’ve all lost faith in the MSM to truly pursue this story; they’re too committed to the success of Democratic Party politics. 

Therefore, make the case that SOMEONE has to investigate—and the best “someone” that’s close at hand is a GOP-led House of Representatives.

Therefore, if you want an investigation, vote GOP for the House in November.

I’d especially make this argument against any House Democrat who represents a district in a Gulf Coast state.

Food for thought…

If so, you’re stupid stupid stupid. (Emphasis added)

Palin headlines Va. rally alongside Allen, North

Associated Press
06/27/10 10:05 AM EDT NORFOLK, VA. — Sarah Palin is speaking at a Norfolk rally for conservatives, with two heroes of Virginia’s Republican right serving as warm-up acts.

The former John McCain running mate who bailed as Alaska’s governor to prosper politically and financially on the talk circuit speaks Sunday at Old Dominion University’s Ted Constant Center.

The star-spangled event starts at 6:30 p.m.

With her will be 1980s Iran-Contra figure and former Virginia Senate candidate Oliver North and former governor and U.S. Sen. George Allen. Allen lost his Senate seat in 2006 in a “Macaca” moment.

Allen has published a book for what Republicans say is a bid to win back his Senate seat from Democrat Jim Webb in 2012.

who bailed as Alaska’s governor to prosper politically and financially on the talk circuit.

Gee…does “bailed” sound like objective, professional language to you? It certainly doesn’t to me.

MSMers, if you’re still smarting from the Weigel incident, take note of this AP report.

The Associated Press, supposedly an objective arbiter of the news, writes stuff like this.

I don’t think the AP hires dumb people. Therefore, I have to conclude that (a) the reporter wrote this deliberately and (b) the AP’s editors de facto endorsed this article’s tone by allowing it to be published in this form.

Yet one more reason why we conservatives think that the MSM is openly in sympathy with Democratic party politics…and, what’s worse, it no longer cares to hide that ever-more-obvious fact.

Apparently, the Palins are now reaching out to Kathleen Parker. If they are…well, thanks for nothing, Sarah.

Y’all remember Kathleen Parker? The conservative columnist who, in the middle of the 2008 Presidential campaign made a oh-so-noble-but-totally-implausible call for Sarah Palin to drop out of the race—again, right in the middle of it!—because she wasn’t qualified. Palin was supposed to say that she’d decided to spend more time with Trig and Piper…and of course, everyone in American and international politics would accept that. Of COURSE they would… What a practical suggestion. Do it for your country!

Then, when a lot of us pointed out that Kathleen was selling a huge load of BS, she responded by playing the martyr. Literally.

Short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette.

Then, she started cashing in.

A full-time gig at the WaPo. A ride on Air Force One. New-found respect among the MSM. And, last but not least, a Pulitzer Prize.

Kathleen Parker was one of the loudest conservative pundit voices giving credibility to the Obamaphiles. She gave cover to the Palin-bashers. “If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.” (Hat tip to Allahpundit). After all, if conservative writer Kathleen Parker was down on Palin, then you could be, too! Parker made Sarah-bashing chic.

And now, Todd Palin reaches out to Kathleen Parker. If I were Kathleen Parker (and her employers at the WaPo), I’d be laughing my backside off. I get my cake and eat it too.

For those people who shot back at Kathleen Parker, in defense of Sarah Palin, I wouldn’t blame them if they felt a bit let down. I do.

Nolte, the editor-in-chief of Breitbart’s Big Hollywood blog, is one of the harshest critics of Hollywood for its liberal bias.  One thing Nolte really dings Tinseltown for:  the cheap anti-conservative shots spread throughout TV and movie scripts.

You’re sitting there, watching a movie, having a good time losing youself in the story line and enjoying the characters when BAM!  Some character makes a cheap, uncalled-for comment about Bush or Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh.  You blink, you sit there for a moment in slightly-stunned surprise…and, all of a sudden, you find that some (if not all) of the good feelings you were having, were gone.

I just got a little of that in the premiere of the second season of “Glee.”  Did you catch it?

My wife and I love “Glee.”  My toddler son can’t get enough of the music.  Some nights, he won’t go to bed unless we play our DVD with McKinley High’s Sectionals championship-winning numbers at least twice.  I gave my wife tickets to a performance in “Glee’s’ upcoming tour.

I’m feeling a little less “Glee” right now.  Maybe it’s because my face is stinging a wee bit from the cheap shot slap in tonight’s episode.

Sue, the tyrranical cheerleading coach, was taunting two of her cheerleaders  Calling them dumb, she remarked on the difficulty of coaching dumb cheerleaders.  Then, Sue remarked quickly, almost in passing, that she had once coached a young Sarah Palin.

The message was clear:  Sarah Palin is dumb!

Why the cheap shot at Sarah Palin, Fox?  What, can’t we conservatives enjoy a TV program in peace?

John Nolte, you’re one wise cookie.

I got a chuckle out of this story on Gateway Pundit, which made it appear that President Obama needed a teleprompter to address an elementary school class.

Ace of Spades—the place where I saw the story originally—posted a clarification…as well as a retort that I think we should use, over and over again in the months ahead.

Update: Apparently the teleprompter was set up for a presser held afterwards. Still I’m inclined to show as much charity to Obama as the left gave to Bush i.e. none. And even if it was for a presser, needing a teleprompter is still kind of embarrassing. We’re talking about giving a prepared statement and answering a few questions here, not the Gettysburg Address.

I’m inclined to show as much charity to Obama as the left gave to Bush i.e. none.

BINGO! Two sides can play this game!

Remember President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln? How the Dems twisted that event into something it was never, ever intended to be?

Remember how the press chose to let those insinuations stand, with barely a challenge from reporters who knew better? (Apparently their loyalty to The One and disgust with Bush the cowboy overrode their professional responsibilities to keep their readers fully and accurately informed.)

Remember just this past week, when Chris Matthews embarassed Alan Grayson for saying foolish things? Imagine if a high-level MSM reporter or Sunday talk show host had aggressively challenged a liberal talking head who was mischaracterizing Bush’s speech. I bet a lot of that insinuating would have stopped in its tracks.

I remember those things, too. And so should you.

If I were you, I’d feel free to use that image of Obama in front of the teleprompter, and describe it this way: “Here’s the President, with his teleprompter, ready to address an elementary school class. The President uses the teleprompter to make sure he uses the right words, and it helps him stay on his prepared message.”

That’s accurate. I didn’t come out and say the President WOULD USE the teleprompter to address the kids. If I left that impression…oh well…

Now, I can go off and talk about something else. Meanwhile, the image stays in people’s minds, of a man who brings a teleprompter to an elementary school.

Unfair? Maybe. Do they deserve it? You betcha.

Let the OTHER side spend time correcting the record.

And, when the MSM rises up in uutrage over the misleading impressions this image conveys…ask politely but firmly how aggressively the MSM tried to correct the record about the “Mission Accomplished” speech.

A great, great movie is Martin Scorcese’s Gangs of New York, a story about 19th-century New York City. I’m reminded of Boss Tweed’s bit of wisdom from the movie—it doesn’t matter how many people vote, what matters is who counts the votes.

I’m guessing (fearing, actually) that it will be mostly Democrats counting the votes on Tuesday.

And checking voter IDs (if they even do that in Massachusetts)

And running the polling stations.

And deciding which absentee ballots get counted and which ones don’t.

In a close election, where every vote counts, there are plenty of opportunities for chicanery.

So, I’m hoping that Scott Brown has MORE than enough poll watchers on standby for Tuesday morning. Along with plenty of alternative media, ready to broadcast ASAP any indications of voter fraud, or voter intimidation, or just plain chicanery.

Everyone needs to take cameras with them to the polls, especially if you’re an official poll watcher. Preferably, take a video camera. Make it known—well known—-that you’re watching, and you plan to report any tricks you see.

I’m heartened by all the police unions endorsing Brown. Perhaps that means the police will be less willing to support local election officials who make trouble for Brown voters and supporters on Tuesday…

Scott Brown campaign, I hope you are ready for Tuesday. If not, please get ready.

Greetings Redstate Activist.  Looking for just the right Christmas present for that earnest, naive voter who fears that Earth is overheating, due to the evil pollutants created by capitalism and the breath of Dick Cheney?  Courtesy of Canada’s Financial Times, I have just the thing:  an eye-opening expose.

What’s the most widely-used reference source today, especially among tech-savvy young people?  Wikipedia of course. 

So, if you’re an activist, who wants to “sell” the voting public on your particular point of view (e.g., the Earth is heating dangerously because of man’s activity), it sure would help if one of your guys controlled whose viewpoints on the subject got read and whose didn’t.

Come to think of it, it would really rock if you could even rewrite history.  Or, more to the point, erase inconvenient things that happened in the past.

Meet William Connolley, Wikipedia’s climate doctor.

From Saturday’s Financial Times :

The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.

The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

Apparently, some of the client scientists pushing the “hockey stick” theory realized that, eventually, they’d be challenged.  In anticipation of that, they created “RealClimate.org,” a venue from which they could launch counterattacks against their critics.

I’ll let the Financial Times tell you the rest.

One person in the nine-member Realclimate.orgteam — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties. Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known -Wikipedia.

Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug. 11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

William Connolley’s Wiki bio is here. IMO, anyone reading it (or just looking at his picture) would question this fellow’s objectivity. Here’s an interesting tidbit from Wiki’s own description of Connolley:

A July 2006 article in The New Yorker reported that Connolley briefly became “a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming”, in which a skeptic repeatedly “watered down” the article’s explanation of the greenhouse effect.[10] The skeptic later brought the case before Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, claiming that Connolley was pushing his own point of view in the article by removing material with opposing viewpoints. The arbitration committee imposed a “humiliating one-revert-a-day” editing restriction on Connolley. Wikipedia “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about”, Connolley told The New Yorker.[10] The restriction was later revoked, and Connolley went on to serve as a Wikipedia administrator from January 2006 until 13 September 2009.[10]

Apparently, Wikipedia knew they had a fox guarding the climate history henhouse…and were just fine with it.

The Financial Times piece was written by Lawrence Solomon.  For any trolls itching to paint him as a no-name Halliburton tool-for-hire, here’s his page on the FT website. Apparently he’s a regular over there.

Redstate Activist, please put this in your ammo pouch. There are lots of naive minds out there, just waiting to be awakened in time for 2010.

Rush Limbaugh got treated unfairly, because no one—the NFL, the media—feel they have an obligation to treat him fairly. 

If you’re on CNN, what’s the downside of lying about Rush Limbaugh’s quotes?  A tut-tutting critique by The Cleaner Howard Kurtz on Reliable Sources?  After which, it’s all forgotten because The Word is out among the chattering class to drop it and move on.

Sadly, I think the NFL has sized us up well.  What can we do that will have an impact, really?

Stop watching the NFL?  Doubtful.

Turn in our season tickets? There are waiting lists of thousands of people, ready to buy them.

Complain about the obvious double-standard of Rush Limbaugh being too divisive to be a minority stakeholder in an NFL team, but Keith Olbermann is okey-dokey for all of us to watch every Monday night? 

We all know what’s going to happen.  The obliging, liberal, Limbaugh-hating sports media will ask Commissioner Goodell one or two questions on the subject.  He’ll dodge them, they’ll drop the matter, and that will be that.

They will expect us to suck it up.  They will pee on us in a way that would never happen to liberals.

And we are supposed to take it.

If anyone can think of an effective way to respond, I’m all ears.  I’m tired of being peed on and being told it’s the rain. 

It’s one thing for Hollywood to do it.  But…the NFL???!!!

What can we boycott?  What subscriptions can we cancel?

I hope Limbaugh sues.  Who cares if he only gets a dollar in judgements?  Maybe he can bankrupt a few of those jerks.  And make a lot more sweat, at the thought of a man with millions to spend on legal fees and a score to settle gunning for them.

Who can he sue?  Rick Sanchez?  Commissioner Goodell, for his comments?*  The Pulitzer Prize winning journalism professor on MSNBC?

Yes, I know this suit won’t go anywhere.  But the thought of forcing Roger Goodell to sit through a deposition makes for fine schadenfreude, IMO.

…the image of John Boehner as a shameless junketeer.

Why is this bad? I can think of two ways, off the top of my head:

1) Very few people know John Boehner, and even fewer have yet to form an opinion of him.
2) If the House GOP hopes to make significant gains in 2010, it will need a leader the public thinks it can trust and respect. As of now, that leader will be John Boehner.

See where I’m going here? You can bet that David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel and Chris Matthews do.

Thank you very little, Chris Muir.

From Muir’s Day By Day cartoon of this weekend: A scene of a smiling politician, who looks an awful lot like John Boehner, waving to an airport crowd. To his left is this caption (all emphasis added):

Remember how the Republican Party rallied us in 2009? How John Boehner flew back from his taxpayer-paid junket in Europe, and lifted our spirits by delivering that stirring anti big-government speech on the tarmac?

The cartoon is one big snark-filled jab at top Republicans, whom Muir thinks aren’t doing enough over the summer recess to fight Obamacare. (I’ll omit any more details, in case you want to read the cartoon for yourself).

OK…presuming that John Boeher is indeed on a junket (I can’t imagine Muir writing this cartoon if he wasn’t)…yes, that’s a politically tone-deaf thing for him to do.

BUT—Boehner is the presumptive Speaker of the House, if indeed the GOP Jets beat the DNC Colts and reclaim the House in 2010.

IMO, in order to win in 2010, we’ll need a visible leader figure. Someone whom the American people can look at, again and again between now and November 2010, and grow comfortable with. Someone who the American electorate is willing to think of as being “in charge” in the House of Representatives. (Remember—we need FORTY seats to beat the Colts).

Unless someone else comes forward soon, our quarterback will be John Boehner.

Axelrod, Emmanuel, Matthews, etc… know that, if you can’t make the voters like your guy, the next best option is to make them dislike the other guy. You de facto salt the earth with charge after charge after allegation after innuendo after rumor after whisper after ad nauseum. If your opponent can’t gain traction, he really can’t strike you, can he?

Expect the sliming of John Boehner to start soon. If you thought Hardball went wall-to-wall with Birther coverage, wait until the Boehner Stinks Saga begins.

And, if I were Matthews, if any Republican were to complain, I’d point to Muir’s cartoon and say “Hey! YOUR side brought it up in the first place!”

John Boehner doesn’t have a friendly MSM to cover for him, as Nancy Pelosi did. Nor do many Americans know him. First impressions matter. And, you can be sure, Team Axelrod will do their best to be the ones who create that all-important first impression most Americans will have of Speaker-in-waiting Boehner.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the folks on our “side” (as I’m presuming Chris Muir is) could refrain from giving the other side ammunition? I mean, they have such a big lead on us already…do they really need any more help?

I’m sure Muir didn’t mean to help Team Axelrod/Obama. But he just did.

We have to be smarter about this, people. Our margin for error is so small.

Ref. mbecker’s RedHot today about GOP leaders’ drive-by/drive-away-and-don’t-look-back postings here…I agree to some extent with mbecker.

Sorry for not putting this in the comments section of the appropriate Redhot diaries—those comments are closed (for now).

I certainly want the leadership to keep posting here.  That adds value to this site, and it gives us a chance to respond directly to GOP leadership’s thoughts and opinions.  Maybe the leaders won’t see our responses—but other Redstaters will, and the staffers for those leaders should read those comments.

Here’s a recommendation; establish this policy:  Make it known to a GOP leader that, once he posts on Redstate, we expect the courtesy of some responses from his staff.  No, the staff doesn’t have to answer every comment, and they certainly can ignore the trolls. 

But, I don’t think it’s unfair to ask for some feedback from someone in the rep’s office.  If they’re too busy to have a staffer reply to our comments, then IMO we should politely recommend they post elsewhere.

My 0.02…

From what I can tell, Palin’s legal bills stemming from this incessant stream of ethics charges are over half a million dollars. If she has to pay those bills herself, instead of the state of Alaska, IMO that’s reason enough to quit.

So, in the interest of helping to focus the discussion, what’s the answer to this question: Is Sarah Palin personally responsible for seeing that those bills get paid?

Here are some thoughts on the subject:

1. So what if she has a lucrative book deal?

Where does anyone get off saying that Palin should be expected to spend huge amounts of her money from a book deal on lawyers? It is HER money. Same goes for her earnings on the speaking trail.

2. Does anyone think this string of endless ethics complaints is going to end anytime soon?

I’m confident that Alaska Dems have a string of complaintants lined up, all ready to go. Funding those complaints isn’t an issue—I’ll bet Soros has a branch office in Juneau by now. The Alaskan government and press—all loyal Democrats first, Alaskans last I’ll bet—aren’t going to put a stop to this. If I were her, I wouldn’t want to sit still for another 18 months and have all the life sucked out of me by these Soros-funded leeches.

3. Why should we EXPECT her to rely on a Legal Defense Fund?

Some commentators make the idea of a Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund sound so simple: Open up the fund and waves of cash will come flooding in!!! Is it really that simple? Does Palin have people who can run such a fund full-time? Does she have lawyers and staff who can fight off the inevitable lawsuits/ethics allegations/legal challenges the Dems will mount, in an effort to throw a monkey wrench in the legal fund’s gears? Can she be sure she’ll earn enough money to pay her current legal bills, plus the extra ones the Dems will certainly run up? If there aren’t easy enough answers for this, I can’t blame her for leaving office early.

4. Can she count on the Alaskan government and MSM giving her relief?

I’ll answer that question—NO! It’s been apparent for several months not that Palin’s political opponents are using the ethics charges process to harass and potentially bankrupt her. Has the legislature stepped in? Has the Alaskan MSM spoken up forcefully? Apparently, no and no. Apparently a fair number of Alaskans feel that Sarah should just stay silent and pay. Well, I think that exceeds the duty requirements of any public servant.

If Alaskans won’t back Sarah, then I don’t blame her for moving on.

The floor is open, fellow Redstaters….what are your thoughts?

Happy Fourth of July
smagar

Ever watch Veggie Tales? Sure you have. Especially if you have kids.

On one of the show’s episodes, in which Larry the Cucumber plays Sherlock Holmes and Bob the Tomato plays Dr. Watson, two other vegetables play the roles of London constables guarding a crime scene. Whenever Holmes and Watson try to approach the crime scene, those “constables” always say “Move along…nothing to see here.”

NLT tomorrow, I expect the WaPo and its MSM allies to be saying “move along…nothing to see here” IRT Flyer-gate.

Howard Kurtz has spoken. The Post has explained that it was all a misunderstanding. And, after all, they are The Washington Post. If they say it was a misunderstanding, who are we to disagree. Therefore, any further discussion of this unfortunate matter (and all that it implies) would be much ado about nothing.

Not so fast. I’m an intelligence analyst by training. We intelligence analysts are supposed to connect the dots. And, IMO, there are plenty of dots to connect IRT the WaPo’s conduct since Barack Obama won his party’s nomination and then the Presidency.

John Hinderaker posed the question of the day: Where does the Obama administration end and the Washington Post begin?

Well…let’s connect the dots, shall we?

What dots do you see? My suggestions are below—what are yours?

(Posted earlier as a comment under Erick’s front page story on this topic):

1) Doug Feith’s War and Decision.

If that book had captured popular attention, it might have started a popular discussion that helped McCain and hurt Obama. Especially since, in the 2008 election cycle, we were well on our way to WINNING the Iraq War. Hey, if you can’t say bad things about Iraq, the next best thing is to make sure that nobody says much about it at all.

It turns out the WaPo did a rush-job review of the book…and then claimed it couldn’t give Feith’s book a more thorough reading, because the paper had already reviewed it! I remember Academic Elephant and other Bush supporters looking forward to the MSM’s review of Feith’s book, because Feith directly addressed lots of the criticisms levied against Bush 43′s war policies. That discussion never really happened, largely because the MSM starved the story of oxygen. The WaPo was a leading player in that.

2) Obama’s threat to “bankrupt” coal-burning plants and make energy costs “skyrocket.”

Ummm—aren’t some of the states in the WaPo’s part of the country big producers and users of coal? (WV, PA, VA)? Hmmmm…best not to make too much of that speech from The One, and (IIRC) the WaPo didn’t make a big deal of it. Good thing he gave it in San Francisco…

3) The Obama campaign’s alteration of its online donation software to allow millions of dollars in contributions that were most likely illegal.

Compare the amount of coverage the WaPo gave to that story, as opposed to “macaca.”

4) The paper’s editorial and reportorial soft touch toward Porkulus, in the weeks before it passed.

Remember Obama’s prime-time news conference before the Porkulus vote? The WaPo had one question to pose to the president, at a time when Porkulus was the hot topic in DC and the country. What subject did the WaPo, “the” newspaper of the capital city of the Free World, ask the president about, at this critical time in the national debate on Porkulus? (Drum roll…) A-Rod and steroid use! I’ll bet Rahm and Valerie and David Axelrod were thrilled to take that question, instead of a more journalistic one.

And, remember the week of the Porkulus vote itself? As the Dems tried to get that travesty of a bill passed, before evidence of all of the problems in it leaked out…imagine how powerful and influential a stern WaPo editorial on the bill could have been, prior to the vote. In fact, if the WaPo’s editorial page had spoken forcefully about the many flaws in the bill, it might have compelled Team Obama to revise the bill. A debugged bill could have saved our grandkids—the ones who are really paying for Porkulus—billions of dollars.

Well, the WaPo editorial on Porkulus came out on Saturday, the day after the Senate vote. What a coinky-dink!

Those are the dots I see, and IMO they’re building a pretty convincing trail of evidence to support this conclusion: The WaPo really, really wanted Barack to win. Now, after we’ve seen that flyer, maybe we know why: Obama in the White House + Dems in control of Congress = money, money, money for the WaPo!!!

There’s no way the WaPo could have run as successful a Salon racket if McCain had won and the GOP still controlled Congress. No way. Am I wrong?

Anyway, that’s how I see it. Specifically, those are the dots I see. What other dots do you see?

Let us flood this story with oxygen.

Sorry, this will be short—but you posted your bit about Politico’s attempt to whitewash Playboy’s you-know-what list in a Redhot.  This is really a comment…but you can’t comment in Redhots.   So…anyhoo.

I am so VERY glad that you don’t plan to let this drop.  Enough is enough.

If we stand here and let them slap our faces, and all we do is turn the other cheek…at some point we stop being people and we start being sheep.

We need to talk about this…a lot.  I hope you can get this onto Hannity and O’Reilley. 

IIRC, Amanda Carpenter is a regular on Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz on CNN. While I think Howard’s a clear liberal, I don’t think he appreciates this kind of gutter “journalism,” and wouldn’t mind embarassing Playboy a bit if given the chance.

What’s say Amanda talks about what it feels like to be singled out for revenge sex in an internationally-read publication, because she views the world differently from Guy Cimbalo? I’ll bet Howard wouldn’t mind humiliating Playboy in public for a bit. Let’s give him the chance.

As for “let the thing be pressed”—on the road to Appomattox, Grant sensed that Lee’s forces might break if he pressed the Union attack against them. Grant sent a note to Lincoln that read: “If the thing is pressed, I think Lee will surrender.”

Lincoln’s timeless reply: “Let the thing be pressed.”

Over the past week, I’m sure that many of you have seen me take Senator Cornyn’s side in the Crist-Rubio endorsement debate. Specifically, I’ve pointed out the difficult questions that Cornyn must tackle, given, (a) his specific responsibilities as NRSC chair and (b) the overwhelming constraints he faces leading a 40-seat GOP coalition.

I’m disappointed that, IMO of course, many Redstaters seem to be ignoring Cornyn’s responsibilities, and especially the constraints upon him. After twenty-plus years in the military, I’ve learned that decisionmakers often adopt an unpalatable Course of Action, if they feel that the alternatives are worse.

Many of you have expressed your desire to see Senator Cornyn succeed in his efforts to revive GOP fortunes in the Senate. OK, then: help him out by giving him some idea of what risks you’re willing to accept elsewhere, in order to run Marco Rubio for Senate in Florida.

I’m sure many of you will disagree with the assumptions behind this scenario—but, play along with me. I think these assumptions accurately reflect the constraints upon Senator Cornyn, and how those constraints impact his choices of action options.

Rubio isn’t nearly as well-known as Cornyn is. He also doesn’t have the experience Cornyn does. Therefore, he’s going to have to work harder to gain the acceptance, and then the support, of FL voters.

FL is a big state, so TV ads are important in a political campaign. Rubio will need lots of ads, not only so FL voters get to know him, but also so they decide he’s worthy of election to the Senate.

The Dems will be flush with cash. They’ll blanket the state with ads. Those ads will not only introduce their candidate; they’ll tell all sorts of tails about this fellow Rubio, whom few Floridians really know. Cornyn will then have to spend extra money on defense, rebutting the tall tales the Dems and their allies are telling.

Enter Barack Obama. Expect him to spend lots of time in Florida, raising money and generating PR. If the Florida local media is as addicted to Hopium as the rest of the MSM is, expect fawning coverage.

From all that, I can see where GOP leadership would conclude that it’s going to be a lot more expensive to elect Marco Rubio than Charlie Crist.

IIRC, in 2010 several currently R seats are viewed as on life support, if not doomed. Off the top of my head: Voinovich’s in Ohio, and perhaps Gregg’s in NH. In those Northeastern, union-friendly states, expect Team Obama to flood those D election efforts with cash. If it’s at all possible to hold those seats for the GOP, it’s going to be very very expensive.

Pretend you’re John Cornyn. Your staff has crunched the numbers and determined that, if the NRSC has to commit large amounts of money to elect Rubio in FL, it has to be ready to lose another GOP seat elsewhere. The resources simply aren’t there to win both fights.

Which do you pick?

For me, I pick Rubio. I accept the risk that I’m going to lose a Senate seat for six years in OH or NH, in order to have the chance (not the “guarantee”) of electing a bright future GOP star in Florida.

BUT, I accept the risk that I may lose that seat to a concerted Dem election efforts that outspends me. I also accept the risk that I’ll lose another Senate seat elsewhere in the country, and be that much less able to fight cloture efforts.

I also accept the risk that I’ll be less able to influence treaties, executive branch appointments and judicial appointments. I accept the risk that, when the GOP does return to national power, it is more likely to find:

• a lifetime federal judiciary united in opposition to conservative ideals.
• a regime of international treaties—to which the US has agreed to—that impinge upon our soverignty and make us weaker abroad
• a depleted Federal treasury

Those are big risks to take. Is it worth it?

What say you? It’s easy to criticize. Pretend you have to make the decisions Cornyn has to make, facing the challenges he faces. Is it worth it?

I have to give it to CNN, for once. Last night they gave a pretty good smackdown to the Speaker and her Mini-Me trio (Hoyer, VanHollen and that other underling) who played the role of Motion to her Denny Terrio in that faux press conference she staged.

The real question is…MSM, will you do what the Speaker wants and drop it? Or, will you do what reporters are supposed to do and follow the story?

I’m asking those questions because…that same CNN segment I referenced above makes me wonder if you will, indeed, follow the story.

Kudos to Dana Bash, the lead reporter on that CNN segment. She mocked Pelosi and Motion for turning a press conference into a PR session.

CNN ran a clock on the screen, showing how much time Pelosi and Motion took up in reciting talking points about all the good things the Democratic Congress had done. None of which were germain to the reason those reporters were really there—to ask the Speaker in detail about her criticism of the CIA.

It quickly became apparent that this whole press conference was structured to ensure that the Speaker was not compelled to defend her accusations. As Bash pointed out, the press conference only allotted FIVE minutes of time for questions.

And, when the MSM tried to ask about CIA-gate, the Speaker refused to discuss it meaningfully.

Bash noted how Steny Hoyer, who is perceived by many as one of the few adults in the House Democratic leadership, responded meekly to Pelosi’s commands during the press conference. Cesar Milan would have been proud of the way Hoyer responded to Pelosi. She has clearly trained him well.

So, once Dana Bash laid her smackdown on Pelosi and Motion, what did the CNN anchor, Kitty Pilgrim, and her producers do?

They dropped that story like a hot potato and moved on to other topics. Which is exactly what Nancy and David Axelrod want.

As usual, John Hinderaker at Powerline says it better than I could ever hope to:

Nancy Pelosi made the absurd claim that the CIA “lied” to her and “misleads Congress all the time,” without offering any support for her explosive assertions. I think everyone understands that Pelosi offered no evidence because she has none. Now, naturally, she wants to forget the whole thing: she says that she will have nothing more to say on the matter.

Think about it: the Speaker of the House of Representatives claims that the CIA, on which both Congress and the Executive Branch rely in making vital, life or death decisions, “lies” and “misleads Congess all the time.” If that were true, it would be a fact of astonishing importance. It would be vitally important to investigate and get to the bottom of why the Agency “misleads Congress,” so that we can sweep the liars and misleaders out of office and clean up the Agency. Right?

…

Nancy Pelosi is a fool and a liar, which is why she says: never mind. Anyone who saw her self-destructive press conference must wonder, further, whether she requires medication to get through the day and sometimes forgets to take her pills. There is no other obvious explanation for her bizarre performance, for her wild charges, or for her current, pathetic plea to forget the whole thing.

The country, to put it mildly, is not in good hands.

If our MSM does not follow up, forcefully, than our MSM is not in good hands, either.

The clock is ticking…

Because of the anti-terror campaign George Bush and Dick Cheney waged after 9/11, New York City residents (and the tri-state area surrounding it) were spared a repeat of the horror they went through that awful September day.

No repeats of the months-long series of funerals, day in and day out.

No need to once again sift through mountains of rubble and dust to look for the thimbleful of human remains that would allow a family to finally achieve closure.

For 7 1/2 years, George W Bush and Dick Cheney shielded New Yorkers from having to relive that terrible experience. 

How did New Yorkers repay the Bush administration?  They feted Will Ferrell. And more.

Next time these folks get hit, I’m going to find it a wee bit harder to muster sympathy for them. What an ungrateful bunch.

In order to learn how intensely New Yorkers protested Ferrell’s play, I did the following Google searches:

• will ferrell george bush broadway protest
• will ferrell george bush broadway criticism
• will ferrell george bush broadway mayor
• will ferrell george bush broadway bloomberg

(I included the last two search strings because I figured that, if anyone, the mayor of New York City would publicly express his discomfort with such a mean-spirited play being hosted in a city that George Bush and Dick Cheney had kept safe for more than seven years.)

Well…

• I found no evidence of a public statement or press release by Mayor Bloomberg.  To make sure, I added “statement” to the last string above and re-Googled.  No joy *.
• I did find lots of criticsm about the quality of Ferrell’s performance.  NONE from major news outlets about the mean-spiritedness of the play itself.
• I did find lots of evidence that the play was wildly popular in New York City.   I didn’t find any evidence of any meaningful protest outside the theater.

In more current events, Representative Jerry Nadler, of NY’s 8th Congressional District, is leading the Congressional push to investigate Cheney and the Bush administration.  Here’s what Nadler said following the Obama/Cheney speeches on Thursday:

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is leading the charge for investigating Cheney, called Obama’s speech “powerful.”
“There are some areas where he didn’t go into detail, but I’m very hopeful, given his recognition of civil liberties and values questions,” he said.

According to his Congressional website, Nadler’s district encompasses:

most of Manhattan’s Upper West Side, and continues south to include most parts of Clinton, Chelsea, SoHo, Greenwich Village, TriBeCa, and Downtown Manhattan. In Brooklyn, the 8th District includes parts of Boro Park, Sunset Park, Bay Ridge, Bensonhurst, Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Gravesend, Dyker Heights, Bath Beach, and Seagate.

Silly me…I thought those areas lost people—lots of people—on 9/11. I guess not…

How disgraceful of these people. How ungrateful. How juvenile.

It’s hard not to feel contempt for them. The next time they get hit, I might find that my give-a-dang is a little slow to respond.

* I did find this Mayor Bloomberg press release, about a previous Will Ferrell effort:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg Declares Friday, November 7 ‘Elf Day’ in New York City
November 07, 2003

At an appearance on NBC’s “Today” show this morning, Mayor Bloomberg declared Friday, November 7 “Elf Day” in New York City. New Line Cinema’s holiday film “Elf,” which shot partially in New York City, premiered in the City at Loews Astor Plaza on Sunday, November 2 and opens wide in area theatres on Friday, November 7. Directed by Jon Favreau and starring Will Ferrell and James Caan, “Elf” is the story of a toddler, Buddy, who accidentally ends up in one of Santa’s bags and is whisked away to the North Pole where he lives out his entire childhood.

The article goes on to say that the movie production of Elf did employ hundreds of New Yorkers and bring millions of dollars into the city. That’s good.

But it would be nice if the mayor could have said something good about the men who helped keep his citizens safe, so that people like Will Ferrell could come enjoy the wonders and freedoms that still persist in NYC today…

…thanks, in no small part, to the man Will Ferrell mocked for considerable profit, to the considerable adulation of the people who slept safely behind the walls that George Bush safeguarded for them.

It’s in Washington DC, the weekend of 16 and 17 May. 

Perhaps some of us can meet up?

Have you noticed that CNN has shown a lot of interest in John Murtha’s porkbarreling recently?

Wasn’t Murtha contemplating retirement one or two election cycles ago?  Isn’t it likely that he’ll leave the Congress within a few years anyway?

Isn’t his district pretty safe for the Dems?  I.e., if Murtha turns out to be too toxic to keep around, isn’t it a pretty safe bet that the Dems can hold the seat if they nominate a more palatable pol for it?

Come to think of it…Murtha’s a gaffe machine, isn’t he?  And, with the House now firmly in D control, his vote isn’t nearly as important as it was just four years ago.

Meanwhile, CNN’s ratings are slipping.  Perhaps, one reason for that is a growing public perception that CNN wants to see Democrats succeed.  News organizations aren’t supposed to be openly sympathetic to one side or the other in a debate, are they?

Well, one way to counter that would be for CNN to skewer and help bring down a big name Dem pol.

Especially one that many Dem leaders wouldn’t mind being rid of in the first place.

Plus…if the Tea Party crowd and conservative bloggers get a scalp they can hang on their wall, maybe their “blood lust” will be satisfied a bit.  Maybe they’ll be distracted a bit…

It wouldn’t surprise me if ideas like this are hinted at (NOT said out loud) in those regular conference calls Rahm Emmanuel has with Paul Begala and James Carville.  You know, those two CNN employees…

Who knows…maybe ABC News might go after Murtha as well…

I’m just sayin…