sarah palin: Page 1
Amnesty author Mike Pence for president? Dick Armey, Club for Growth, others hype him (UPDATE: he's out) - 01/21/11
Back in 2006, Indiana Congressman Mike Pence proposed his own "compromise" amnesty plan. He may have gotten the idea for that plan from a proposal by billionaire heiress Helen Krieble, and also in 2006, Krieble, Pence, and Dick Armey of Freedomworks appeared at an event to promote comprehensive immigration reform.
The latest bad idea from their general camp is to try to draft Pence to run for president. Those backing the idea include Armey, Chris Chocola of the Club for Growth (known around here as the "Club for Profits at Any Price"), former Rep. Jim Ryun, and Brent Bozell.
“What I see across the board, especially with the party activists, the energetic people, is a sharp division between those personalities you would call ‘old news’ personalities and newcomers... And almost anybody, if you said, ‘who will be on the field for the presidential sweepstakes from the Republican side,’ all the names you would name today - (Newt Gingrich), (Mike Huckabee), Sarah Palin and (Mitt Romney) - these are all old news names and, quite frankly, I don’t think they have much of a chance.”
While Jonathan Martin and Kasie Hunt of the Politico try to claim (link) that the appeal to Armey and Chocola is due to the claim that Pence "is viewed as a politician who would actually govern as a social and fiscal conservative" and that the "Draft Pence coalition can be best described as a group of insiders that prefers outsiders - and especially those focused on social issues like abortion and gay rights".
It's more likely that Armey and others in the "Profits at Any Price" school don't really care all that much about social issues; the tea parties - a group more or less controlled by Armey, the Koch family, and other "fiscal conservatives" - have deliberately avoided social issues. Rather, Armey et al see Pence as a salable commodity who'd be "good for business" (if you know what I mean).
1/29/11 UPDATE: Pence has decided against running for president. Whether he'll run for something else isn't yet known.
The gunman, who may have come from inside the Safeway, walked up and shot Gifford in the head first, "point blank". According to [an eyewitness, Steven Rayle], who is a former ER doctor, Gifford was able to move her hands after being shot... After shooting Gifford, the gunman opened fire indiscriminately for a few seconds, firing 20-30 rounds and hitting a number of people, including a kid no older than 10 years old... The gunman was young, mid-to-late 20s, white, clean-shaven with short hair and wearing dark clothing and said nothing during the shooting or while being held down, although he struggled at first. He was "not particularly well-dressed"; he didn't look like a businessman, but more of a "fringe character," Rayle said.
There are certainly many possible motivations, and just one of the many is that the shooter is affiliated with the tea parties or libertarians movements. Both of those groups haven't shied away from painting their opponents in the worst terms possible and engaging in apocalyptic language. Sometimes that's included implied violence, such as in the two following graphics.
The first is from Sarah Palin's website and shows several Congressmen's districts in what appear to be gun crosshairs. Palin has since removed this from her site.
In March, Giffords spoke out about a window being broken at her office and various death threats, saying (link):
"Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action."
The second is from Giffords' former opponent, Jesse Kelly announcing a June 12, 2010 campaign event:
"Get on Target for Victory in November
Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office
Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly"
Once again: this might be completely unrelated to the teaparties, to Palin, or to politics at all. However, the atmosphere of implied violence that the teaparties have helped create is not helpful to those who want to oppose the far-left in constructive ways such as with the question authority plan.
1pm UPDATE: The Associated Press reports that the suspect's name is Jared Laughner.
1:12pm UPDATE: The suspect's name might actually be Jared Lee Loughner.
1:25pm UPDATE: The video below appears to be from the suspect (cached in case it's deleted). In it he says:
You don't have to accept the federalist laws... read the United States of America's Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws... I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar... No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver... No! I won't trust in God!
3:15pm UPDATE: @caitieparker claims she "went to high school, college, & was in a band with the gunman". I was skeptical because she initially spelled his name "Laughner", but she now says "it's loughner just checked my year book". She also says (in successive tweets):
He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in '07, asked her a question & he told me she was "stupid & unintelligent"
he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix,The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven't seen him in person since '07 in a sign language class
As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy
he had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in '06, & dropped out of school. Mainly loner very philosophical.
more left [wing]. I haven't seen him since '07 though. He became very reclusive.
I haven't seen him since '07. Then, he was left wing.
1/9/11 UPDATE: Doctors are optimistic that Giffords will recover, however six other people are dead. The gunman had a second magazine that jammed; otherwise it might be even worse.
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is using this as an opportunity to try to smear opponents of illegal immigration, stupidly focusing on the higher-level white racial separatist group American Renaissance (Maggie Haberman, Politico, link).
A Department of Homeland Security memo quoted by Fox News says the agency is looking into whether Loughner is “possibly linked” to the fanatical group American Renaissance... The group promotes views that are “anti-government, anti-immigration, anti-ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government), anti-Semitic,” the memo says... Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the target of Loughner’s firing frenzy, is “the first Jewish female elected to such a high position in the U.S. government. She was also opposite the group’s ideology when it came to immigration debate,” according the memo.
Jared Taylor called DHS' views "scurrilous" and took especial issue with the reference to his group being "anti-ZOG."
"That is complete nonsense," he said. "I have absolutely no idea what DHS is talking about. We have never used the term 'ZOG.' We have never thought in those terms. If this is the level of research we are getting from DHS, then Heaven help us."
Taylor, who earned a BA in philosophy from Yale in 1973 and a master's degree in international economics from the prestigious Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris ("Paris Institute of Political Studies," in English) in 1978, says he had never heard of Loughner until yesterday. Taylor says he checked his organization's records going back twenty years and Loughner never subscribed to AmRen's publications.
Taylor says he also has no indication that Loughner ever attended any of AmRen's events, all of which have been held on the East Coast.
I'm not that familiar with AmRen, but any ties Loughner had would probably be to libertarian-oriented groups on the far fringes. The DHS is just showing yet again how incompetent they are.
Also, Giffords' announcement of the event is here. She doesn't mention anyone else who'd be attending, and cops have said that she was the target. One of those killed was Judge John Roll who was involved in immigration issues (including deciding against rancher Roger Barnett, link). Death threats were made against Roll over that, but at least at this time it doesn't appear that it was public information that he was going to be at the event.
1/9/11 UPDATE 2: AmRen responds here:
American Renaissance condemns violence in the strongest possible terms, and nothing that has ever appeared in it pages could be interpreted as countenancing it.
AR is not anti-government, anti-Semitic, or anti-ZOG, as is clear from the 20 years of back issues that are posted on our website. The expression “ZOG” has never appeared in the pages of AR, and we have has always welcomed Jewish participation in our work. Many of the speakers at American Renaissance conferences have been Jewish.
Google shows just eight other pages mentioning her at their site and none focus on her or contain any questionable mentions of her.
1/9/11 UPDATE 3: Loughner's first Youtube video was uploaded on November 22, 2010. That's the anniversary of the JFK assassination; whether it's just a coincidence isn't known.
And, Giffords' Youtube account (youtube.com/user/giffords2) has just two subscriptions, one to Rep. Ike Skelton and the other to Loughner. Image attached. How exactly that happened is not clear.
ADDED: See also
* FAQ: Is Jared Lee Loughner linked to Tea Party, conservatives, or libertarians? (Gabrielle Giffords shooting)
* Jared Loughner: anti-Bush, pro-small government? Intellectually dishonest Tea Party defenders
* Claims by Tea Party enablers that Pima Sheriff Dupnik could have stopped Loughner are false
* Loughner's "Genocide school" video
* Friend's claim that Loughner wasn't political is two years out of date
* Jared Loughner's AboveTopSecret postings show no clear political slant
* Arizona state Fusion Center uses Giffords shooting to smear American Renaissance)
* Glenn Reynolds denies Tea Party's history of intimidation
Earlier today, Glenn Beck held a "Restoring Honor" rally in Washington DC which was attended by somewhere around a few hundred thousand people; certainly an impressive turnout (UPDATE: see below). Thankfully I didn't watch it, but Part 1 of Beck's speech is at peekURL.com/vqlzrtm and Part 1 of Sarah Palin's speech is at peekURL.com/vyn3lcr
Any response to the borderline lunacy offered by Beck would become novel-length; for the novella version, see the dozens of tea parties posts.
A few quick notes:
1. Apparently Beck unveiled or was planning on unveiling something called a "Black-Robed Regiment", a reference to religious leaders prior to the Revolutionary War. It's also a class at Glenn Beck University (link).
2. The original Washington Post story on the event featured a photo showing a very small crowd and referred to the "thousands" of attendees and also highlighted that most were white. Part and parcel of their fringe ideology is that the tea party types - to be frank - aren't smart and sane enough to take effective action against those like the WaPo. The picture in question is here, and that's also an example of how the tea party types are ineffective: that post isn't going to change how the WaPo does things in the least. (That post also helps the WaPo in a way that I won't describe). I've actually described here on a few occasions how to do things in more effective ways, but long experience shows that the teaparty types aren't capable of or interested in learning.
The Washington-based FreedomWorks planned a large event Friday evening to raise money for candidates such as Mike Lee, a tea-party favorite who defeated the incumbent Utah Sen. Republican Bob Bennett in a May primary election vote. FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey, a former Republican House Majority leader, said the group is working with Mr. Beck to promote shared causes."We've got a complementary relationship," Mr. Armey said. "Glenn Beck is the instructional arm, and we are the action arm."
Armey will also be sticking up for Beck on a future NewsHour show (link).
4. There may be an even more direct link between Beck's rally and the Koch family. Americans for Prosperity - a tea party organizer and key part of the Koch apparatus - bused people into the rally as AFP volunteers discuss at the end of peekURL.com/vk5mabz
If you oppose illegal immigration, the teaparty/Beck follower types are either standing in your way or are consorting with those who aren't on your side.
McCain trounces JD Hayworth in GOP primary; who's to blame (tea parties, Palin, Scott Brown...) - 08/25/10
In last night's GOP Senate primary in Arizona, John McCain trounced JD Hayworth with 59% versus 29% for Hayworth (and 11% for Jim Deakin). To a certain extent, McCain's win was due to him spending around $20 million on advertising and him pretending to be tough on immigration matters. Defeating McCain would have sent a strong message to the Beltway establishment, the mainstream media, and other amnesty supporters. Instead, those who should have opposed him either didn't oppose him, didn't take a position, or engaged in useless or counter-productive activities.
Who shares the blame?
1. Hayworth isn't exactly a prize catch, no matter ones political affiliation. So, he bears part of the blame.
2. The four major Arizona tea parties groups that decided not to endorse McCain, Hayworth, or Deakin also shares some of the blame.  The "Arizona Tea Party" - which might be an umbrella group including some of those listed at  did support Hayworth, at least in twitter dot com/azteaparty. However, the Tucson Tea Party has a post explaining that they don't endorse candidates; the reason given differs from that in their press release.
3. The one other teaparty group that decided to hold a border event - instead of doing things in smarter ways - shares part of the blame.
4. Sarah Palin, Grover Norquist, Scott Brown and perhaps tea parties chief leader Dick Armey all supported McCain, thus sharing part of the blame.
5. And, starting over four and a half years ago, I've been trying to get people to go to McCain's events and ask him tough questions. Video of McCain being put on the spot could get hundreds of thousands of views on Youtube and might have prevented him from being the GOP's 2008 nominee and might have prevented him winning yesterday's primary.
There are plenty of videos of people asking McCain questions, the problem is that the questions and the questioners are invariably weak. McCain is able to bowl them over and launch into stock speeches; some members of the mainstream media have asked him tougher questions than regular citizens at his public events. See the question authority page for an action plan and more information.
Those sites that get more traffic than me and that have (except in one or two brief cases) completely refused to encourage their readers to follow that plan bear a good share of the blame.
One lesson to learn from the above is not to put trust in those who don't know how to do things in the right way, or who can't figure out the best outcome, or who are only interested in feathering their own nests.
 From a press release (link):
The organizers of the four largest Arizona Tea Party organizations – including the Tucson Tea Party, Greater Phoenix Tea Party, Flagstaff Tea Party, and Mohave County Tea Party – issued a joint press release regarding their unified decision to decline endorsing a candidate in the Arizona Senate primary race between John McCain, J.D. Hayworth, and Jim Deakin.
“The Tea Party is a non-partisan, grassroots movement that stands for limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility. Both McCain and Hayworth’s records during their many years in Washington leave much to be desired on these issues,” said Robert Mayer, co-founder of the Tucson Tea Party. “It is their job to hold themselves up to these values and fight for our votes.”
The reason that the Tucson Tea Party (TTP) does not endorse any one candidate in the primaries is because we are made up of a diverse group, which include constitutional, fiscal, and social conservatives, we also have many that are simply free market thinkers... So, if the Tucson Tea Party were to pick one candidate over another, or over many others, we would simply be creating a situation of conservative bloodletting and infighting that would serve no purpose for conservatives in general or the Tea Party specifically.
Sarah Palin has some good qualities, but also bad qualities. And, some of the many latter involves her knowing nothing about immigration, Palin supporting McCain's position on immigration during the campaign, and her just today supporting McCain's worthless posturing on immigration.
Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Grover Norquist, Scott Brown support John McCain; what J.D. Hayworth supporters can do - 02/15/10
Sarah Palin, Dick Armey of Freedomworks (see the update), Grover Norquist, and newly-elected senator Scott Brown are all supporting John McCain in his Senate re-election bid. Meanwhile, Chris Simcox dropped out of the GOP nomination earlier today, and has endorsed McCain's strongest rival, JD Hayworth. The last is running as the True Conservative against the RINO McCain.
1. This is yet another example of how the tea parties types are useful idiots; all four of those first listed above are associated with that movement: Armey helped organize the major Washington DC protest, Norquist has helped organize other protests, Palin recently spoke at their convention, and Brown was elected in part due to their efforts. Yet, they're supporting a RINO whose loose border policies will lead to more spending and less power for those in the tea party base.
2. McCain is - as always - very vulnerable on the immigration issue. The problem is that few want to challenge him to his face and show how he's wrong, and those who do ask bad questions. If you'd like to reduce McCain's chances, follow the question authority plan and find a smart, experienced questioner who's familiar with immigration to really press him on immigration, then upload videos of the exchanges to video sharing sites. You have to follow the plan to the letter: the person who asks the questions has to be smart, experienced with "cross-examining" people, familiar with immigration matters, and has to ask the right questions.
For starting points, see our immigration questions for Republicans and our coverage of his former (?) advisor Juan Hernandez. I'm willing to help craft questions specific for McCain if anyone is willing to follow the plan above. If you are, leave comments here and on the front page until I notice you; I don't review every comment on this site so you'll need to leave a few.
UPDATE: In comments, Steve points out that Armey has released the following statement (freedomworks.org/blog/bstein80/dick-armey-did-not-endorse-john-mccain):
The New York Times reported recently that FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey has endorsed Sen. John McCain in the GOP primary in Arizona. This is not the case, although this story has been picked up and repeated by countless media personalities and reporters around the country.
This seems to be a good case study in how false information can make its way around the internet and the airwaves before it can be corrected. But we wanted to post a quick statement for all of you who have asked us about this.
A clarification of his position would be appreciated; if he's not endorsing McCain does he still support him, or will he support the pro-borders Hayworth, or will not support anyone?
"I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue... I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers... I think it's a fair question just like I think past associations and past voting records. All of that is fair game... ...the McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area. We didn't call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I don't think that was fair to voters to not have done our job as candidates and a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now we're seeing manifest in the administration."
UPDATE: She's commented on this on her Facebook page, see .
Meanwhile, her supporters will most likely do things that are ineffective and things that won't strike back at her detractors.
If you're a Palin supporter, here's what you have to do: point out that many of those detractors have lied about the basic, easy-to-understand facts of this matter. You have to work to discredit those detractors. Simply saying they're wrong won't cut it: you have to take steps to discredit them and point out to their audience that they aren't credible. That is the only way to blunt attacks from those detractors: point out to their audience that they can't be trusted. And, you have to do that while only discussing facts, not wild theories.
Note that you don't have to believe that Obama was born outside the U.S. All you have to be able to do is understand what a fact is and how it differs from belief. Believing that Obama was born in Hawaii is perfectly valid, but claiming that he's definitively proved it is not because, while he's provided evidence, he has not provided definitive proof. That doesn't mean he was born outside the U.S. or isn't eligible to be president. I'm not trying to prove he was born outside the U.S. or isn't eligible. My angle on this story involves those who can't get their facts straight. My goal is to discredit those sources in order to improve their coverage of this and a myriad of other issues.
There's a list of those who've lied about the facts in the Obama citizenship issue. What I need Palin supporters to do is to find those listed discussing this issue and then in comments on their posts point out to their readers how they lied about the basic facts of this matter. Please do not engage in wild theories, only facts. Point out to their readers that they lied or misled about the basic facts of this matter and point out to their readers that they aren't credible.
UPDATE 2: Once again, this isn't about "kicking Obama out of office", at least from my perspective. This is about using this issue to discredit MSM and sub-MSM sources who've lied about the basic facts of this issue. Whatever someone's position on this issue, the MSM and others are going to use it against Palin time and time again. And, when they do that, they're going to link to "debunkers" like FactCheck. If people would concentrate on helping me discredit FactCheck using the fact that they've lied about this and other issues, that would blunt their attacks. It would also, for instance, reduce FactCheck's ability to mislead about illegal aliens and healthcare. And, it would send a message to the Beltway establishment that they can't just make things up, which they have done about aspects of this issue. They're going to attack Palin and others over this issue, and her supporters and others aren't fighting back in the right way but are more or less just helping the attackers. I made that point over four months ago, but few others have caught on.
UPDATE 3: Beth Fouhy and Justin Juozapavicius of the Associated Press offer "Sarah Palin's fans push for 2012 presidential run" (link). It shows a) how the MSM will use this issue to try to discredit Palin, and b) how her supporters who aren't trying to discredit the MSM are in effect helping the MSM with their goal. These are the 9th through 11th paragraphs:
"B.O. scares me," said Miki Booth, 59, of the president, adding that Palin "is as American as it gets."... Palin played into that fear on a radio show Thursday, telling host Rusty Humphries that voters "rightfully" have questions about the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. The so-called birther conspiracy around Obama's U.S. citizenship has been widely discredited, and state health officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that the president was born there in 1961... Palin later backed off the comment on her Facebook page, saying she had never questioned Obama's citizenship but believes that voters and reporters had a right to ask candidates whatever questions they wish.
Most of those who are undecided on Palin or who could be persuaded will read those paragraphs and probably side with the MSM in thinking she might be a bit "off". And, her supporters can't do anything about it unless they actually take the steps to discredit the MSM. For an example of that, Beth Fouhy and Justin Juozapavicius are lying: there's only been one statement from Hawaiian officials in which they stated he was born there, the one from 7/272009. The first statement, from 10/31/08, only said they had a valid certificate on file and, since Hawaii issues valid certificates for those born outside their state the 2008 statement was ambiguous. Fouhy and Juozapavicius said there were multiple confirmations, when in fact there was only one. If Palin supporters don't like AP articles such as the above, they need to start pointing out lies like that. The AP and the rest of the MSM are extremely vulnerable when it comes to their credibility, but if few are willing to point out their lies they'll just keep on lying.
 On Facebook, Palin has posted the following:
Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.
That's not going to have much of an impact: the HuffPost, HotAir, the MSM, and all the rest are still going to call her a "Birther", whether her supporters like it or not. The only way to blunt their attacks is using the method discussed above.
William Kristol has some advice for Sarah Palin here, and it's not only hilariously bad but it doesn't serve the national interest. Discussing the fact that John McCain is currently just barely beating JD Hayworth in the 2010 primary, he says:
Still, who could help McCain beat back a populist conservative challenger? Sarah Palin. I predict that Palin will come to Arizona next summer to campaign for McCain, will make an impassioned case for him, and will help him win. She will thereby repay McCain for his confidence in picking her last year, help keep McCain as a crucial voice in the Senate for a strong foreign policy, and get credit for being a different kind of populist conservative - a Reaganite, not a Buchananite, populist - than the immigration-obsessed, voter-alienating (he was ousted in 2006 in a Republican district) Hayworth.
1. McCain's fundamental concepts - mostly those involving immigration - would do harm to the U.S., and the GOP base knows it as can be seen by the fact that he's losing out to J.D. Hayworth. While Palin should be nice to him, going out of her way for him would make her look bad to the GOP base.
2. The idea that Hayworth losing indicated support for amnesty is a myth that Kristol and Fred Barnes - both of the Weekly Standard - were pushing back in 2006. That publication later seemed to backtrack. Kristol and those like him will basically say anything to support amnesty, even if it changes from time to time.
3. The idea that Palin should ignore immigration or be McCain-like is even worse than the rest. That and trade are the issues that separate the elite from those they rule, and by taking pro-American positions on both Palin - if she slightly moderated her fiscal positions - could gain broad support from Independents and even Democrats. And, by taking those pro-American positions she could help to some extent clean up DC. She would have to do it the right way, and - frankly - whether she's capable of doing that is a bit doubtful. Part of her effort would have to involve showing how the other side is wrong and doing it in a way that discredits the other side. That isn't that difficult, people just need to think things through and do the actual work.
Even if Palin is right about "death panels", will her supporters be able to do anything about it? - 08/13/09
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
What I do know is that a wide variety of MSM and non-MSM sources have already mocked her over this. And, I also know that her leading supporters won't be able to do much about it because actually doing things isn't their "forte". They aren't the "doer" type.
If those leading supporters had a clue, they'd follow the tips here, adapting them to the present situation. Specifically, they'd encourage their readers to help discredit those MSM figures who haven't told the truth about this issue.
For a tangible example, the Spectator link claims that the New York Times didn't tell the whole truth about this matter, but without providing the name of the NYT reporter and without attempting to show that reporter's readers how she's misleading them. As can be seen from recent posts like this, this, or this, that's not how we do things around here. If we discussed that, we'd feature her name in the title of the post in a bid to show her readers how she's misleading them (if she is; the NYT report is here). Or, the Spectator could encourage their readers to point out in the comments sections of blogs and newspaper sites how those discussing the panels aren't being truthful.
McCain campaign - not Palin - came up with "palling around"; Schmidt regrets largely true ad - 07/10/09
That allowed the mainstream media to mislead about the relationship between the two, dismissing that relationship by pointing out that they weren't close friends and using that distraction to cover up the series of past links between them. See the contemporaneous coverage of the article from Scott Shane of the New York Times. Despite the fact that that article tried to cover up the relationship, Wallace wrote the following:
"Governor and Team: rick [Davis], Steve [Schmidt] and I suggest the following attack from the new york times. If you are comfortable, please deliver the attack as written. Please do not make any changes to the below without approval from steve or myself because precision is crucial in our ability to introduce this."
Actual "precision" would have involved pointing out that they had a series of affiliations and that the NYT wasn't telling the whole truth about that. Wallace's idea of "precision" hurt Palin and the McCain campaign.
Further, Ambinder says:
At a post-campaign discussion I attended a few months ago, Schmidt said that he regrets two attacks: an ad linking Obama with an Illinois sex-ed program and the decision to go after Obama's friendship with Ayers.
The Illinois sex-ed ad - the one Schmidt regrets - was largely true.
GOP consultant and former John McCain advisor Mike Murphy offers "To go forward, GOP must snap out of its Sarah Palin spell" (link). While his bad advice this time isn't as bad as his horrible immigration advice, he's still on the wrong side:
Unfortunately for McCain, the actual swing voters, the independents who do determine the winner of the election, didn't buy into this fantasy at all. After a three-week sniff, most couldn't run away from Palin fast enough.
He certainly has access to more polling data than I'll ever have, but what he completely fails to note is just how incompetent and bent on self-destruction the GOP was. Shortly after Palin was selected, the smears against her began.
She was selected on August 27, and then, just as a couple examples, the Washington Post smeared her on September 2, the Associated Press the next day, and Charlie Gibson on the 11th (last two here). The self-defeating incompetents - starting at McCain and including Murphy - did very little if anything to counter-act the smears. McCain postured against the New York Times when the biggest spreader of smears were Washington Post reporters; the McCain campaign said nothing that I recall about them. In fact, I probably did more to fight back against the Paul Kane smear than the entire GOP establishment. Me.
On Thursday, a group of putatively moderate Republicans will announce a new effort called "National Council for a New America". While they claim that they're non-partisan, it's clearly a GOP effort. And, the list of those involved that CNN has obtained (link) includes several supporters of comprehensive immigration reform.
From July 2007 (link):
For the past decade, John Weaver had been Senator John McCain’s chief strategist, the man behind the whole Straight Talk barnstorming shtick that made the conservative Arizonan a media star. Then, after building McCain into an apparent shoo-in for the Republican nomination—a maverick savior for his party—he sank the campaign into debt and disarray, leading to his resignation last week.
From today (link):
John Weaver... said that Republicans must be careful not to allow their Democratic rivals to paint them all with the brush of (Rush Limbaugh). "The Democrats and the far left will do all they can to grab electoral turf," said Weaver. "And one sure way to do it is take some of the most controversial voices on the extreme right -- like Limbaugh and (Sarah Palin) -- and try to insist they speak for all members of the center/right movement."
You don't have to be a conservative or a Republican to be opposed to Barack Obama. Here are some of the reasons that almost anyone should oppose him:
Alexander Lane and Amy Hollyfield of Politifact continue to show that that "fact checking" site might as well be working for the Barack Obama campaign by offering 'Obama would "experiment with socialism."/The McCain campaign experiments with dishonesty' (politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/826). It's another example of the MSM taking a statement that wasn't phrased in a painfully legalistic fashion, playing dumb, and then spinning things Obama's way.
In this case, they discuss the following Sarah Palin statement:
"Senator Obama says that he wants to spread the wealth, which means - you know what that means... It means that government takes your money, (handed) out however a politician sees fit. Barack Obama calls it spreading the wealth, and Joe Biden calls higher taxes patriotic. And yet to Joe the Plumber, he said it sounded like socialism. And now is not the time to experiment with socialism."
They then go on to point out correctly that progressive taxation is not socialism, and give her statement their ultra-classy 'Pants on Fire' animated GIF.
If she'd said that Obama's statements to Joe the Plumber were socialistic instead, one wonders how they would have spun it for the benefit of what's clearly their candidate, because what Obama stated was very clearly socialistic.
There's a huge difference between progressive taxation and just spreading the wealth around "because it's good for everybody". The first is to pay for things like roads. The second is a socialistic notion that attempts to normalize incomes. And, the second is what BHO supports. He didn't say the government should tax people just to pay for needed infrastructure. He specifically supported redistribution in and of itself. That doesn't mean he's a socialist, but he does have socialistic notions above and beyond progressive taxation.
Sarah Palin was recently interviewed by Jorge Ramos of Univision , and she repeatedly asked him why he - a citizen of Mexico who has no interest in becoming a U.S. citizen - keeps interfering in our internal politics. She repeatedly asked him why he was allowed to take up valuable time during a CNN debate where he wasn't even identified as a foreign citizen.
Unfortunately, I'm kidding.
Scott Shane of the New York Times offers "Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths" (originally titled "Obama Had Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close"). If you believe the NYT, then everything's fine and dandy, and Barack Obama and 60s radical Bill Ayers are not close. The fact that they aren't close and never were close and nothing funny went on and there's nothing to see here is especially important because Ayers is a former and allegedly unrepentant terrorist who's since been, in Shane's words, "rehabilitated".
On the other hand, if you actually want the truth, compare the second paragraph on page 2 ("In fact, according to several people involved...") to the email here. Why, it's almost like Shane is reading from a script provided by Ken Rolling, the former executive director of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
See also this from Steve Diamond:
an exchange of letters in late 1994, copies of which I obtained from Brown University, between Vartan Gregorian, then President of Brown and the individual responsible for assessing applications for grants from the national Annenberg Challenge, and Bill Ayers, the founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, demonstrates that Ayers played a direct role in "composing" the Challenge's board of directors... I was interviewed at length by the New York Times for today’s story. In fact, this was the third Times reporter to interview me about the Ayers/Obama relationship - and I provided the Times with the letters I discuss here. They are not mentioned in the story at all.
See also "Ayers Was on Woods Fund Board with Obama When He Stepped on Flag" (LGF, peekURL.com/zab252h). That links to this August 2001 Chicago Magazine article entitled "No Regrets"; it includes a picture of Bill Ayers stepping on a U.S. flag. It also links to 'Obama served on a board with former Weather Underground member William Ayers and "that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11"', a fact check of a Hillary Clinton statement about Obama's association with Ayers (link). They agree that her statement was truthful.
And, see this:
It turns out as these ten key points confirm what I have argued all along - that Bill Ayers was responsible for the elevation of Obama to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge board and the New York Times reporting on this story actually supports my conclusion, though inadvertently.
10/9/08: Obama lies again, with this being the latest explanation for his actions: "The gentleman in question, Bill Ayers, is a college professor, teaches education at the University of Illinois... That's how i met him -- working on a school reform project that was funded by an ambassador and very close friend of Ronald Reagan's" along with "a bunch of conservative businessmen and civic leaders... Ultimately, I ended up learning about the fact that he had engaged in this reprehensible act 40 years ago, but I was eight years old at the time and I assumed that he had been rehabilitated." (link) As indicated above, Obama continued working with him after 9/11/01, when even the most willingly blind person could see what Ayers was all about.
~ Who's helping the NYT spread their spin? ~
The people listed below all share one thing in common: they pretend that that NYT was actually trying to write an investigative report rather than a cover-up, and they all come to the conclusion that there's nothing there because the NYT says there's nothing there. Whether they actually believe that or whether they're just trying to sell the NYT's lies isn't clear.
* Steve Benen of Washington Monthly says the NYT "couldn't find any dirt", trying to make his readers think the NYT was looking for dirt rather than covering for BHO (washingtonmonthly. com/archives/individual/2008_10/015024.php). A comment I left was later deleted.
* Ben Smith from The Politico tries a similar technique: "though the Times has pinned down a couple of new details on the relationship, there's no real news, and the main new detail is exculpatory: A different Chicago figure picked Obama to chair an education fund. The conservative blog reaction to the story is outrage, as it has failed to turn up the secret Rosetta Stone that many seem to believe will reveal some deeper truth about Obama's politics." (politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Republicans_again_reading_the_Times.html?showall)
* Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post (voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/04/palin_turns_to_nyt_citing_arti.html). She starts out with snark and a lie: "It turns out GOP vice presidential nominee does like the mainstream media after all -- at least, when it's publishing unflattering stories about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama." The NYT article isn't "unflattering", it's an attempt at a cover-up.
She then spins the story the same way the BHO campaign does: "In fact, both a Washington Post article in April and today's New York Times piece revealed Obama and Ayers to have had only a casual association: the former radical hosted a coffee for Obama's first bid for state Senate, they served together on an educational charity board and both live in Chicago's Hyde Park."
The WaPo article she mentions is "Former '60s Radical Is Now Considered Mainstream in Chicago" by Peter Slevin (link). That WaPo article is even more of a cover-up than the one from the NYT; in fact, almost everything in there tries to portray Ayers as an upstanding member of his community, and the only link to Obama is this cozy scene: The two men served for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group. The board, which Obama has since left, was small and collegial, said chair Laura Washington, who served with them. It met four times a year for a half-day, mostly to approve grants, she said. The atmosphere was "friendly but businesslike." Needless to say, a real reporter would try to determine what Washington isn't saying, but that leaves Peter Slevin out.
* Michael Shaw of the Huffington Post - who concentrates on a lightweight interpretation of images - basically reads from the card he's been handed: "all kinds of long hashed-over and discredited innuendos... resuscitating feeble allegations -- all then discounted..." (huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/reading-the-pictures-emny_b_131855.html)
* Martina Stewart of CNN references the NYT article and then says: "Several other publications, including the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic, have debunked the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship." (says) However, an earlier version of the article - the change not noted - had "The National Review" in place of "The New Republic". (link) Presumably that was just a mistake and not (like their other coverage) an attempt to deceive.
* Sockpuppets, various. BHO supporters are clogging up MSM comments boards with Winner-style attacks. See, for instance, the 04:15 PM comment from "John" and the 04:26 PM comment from "Larry" at latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/sarah-palinbill.html and the 8:06 PM comment from Luke2 and the 7:34 PM comment from seemstome at voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/04/palin_turns_to_nyt_citing_arti.html. If I didn't think they were just citizens voicing their opinions I'd think they were actually paid workers for the Obama campaign.
* Izvestia, aka CNN, offers a "Fact Check" that discusses Sarah Palin's comment that BHO is "palling around with terrorists" (link). Obviously, Palin should have put it in the correct legalistic format: "in the recent past, Barack Obama has worked with and associated with known and unrepentant terrorists". If she had, CNN wouldn't have been able to pretend that her non-legalistic formation was binding: 'Verdict: False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.' No really: they actually try to pretend that her imprecise wording is more important than BHO's past collaboration with and association with a terrorist.
* Todd Beeton links to both CNN and the NYT and continues the trends discussed above: mydd.com/story/2008/10/5/164214/299
* Obsequious toady, repeat liar, and supporter of illegal activity Joe Klein offers "Embarracuda", an obvious attempt to deceive (time-blog.com/swampland/2008/10/embarracuda.html). Needless to say, he downplays the Obama-Ayers connection and even works in a BHO talking point about how BHO was just a child when the Weather Underground were terrorizing the U.S.: Over the weekend, [Sarah Palin] picked up on an article in The New York Times, which essentially says that Barack Obama and the former terrorist Bill Ayers have crossed paths in Chicago, served on a couple of charitable boards together, but aren't particularly close. To Palin--or her scriptwriters--this means that Obama has been "palling around" with terrorists. Now, I wish Ayers had done some serious jail time; he certainly needed to pay some penance for his youthful criminality--even if most people in Chicago, including the mayor, have decided that he has something of value to say about education. But I can also understand how Obama, who was a child when Ayers was cutting his idiot swath, would not quite understand the enormity of the professor's background...
* Scott Conroy of CBS News offers "Lagging In The Polls, Palin Shifts To Fear Tactics" (cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/06/politics/fromtheroad/entry4503812.shtml), which follows 10/4's equally biased "Palin Says She Wants To Talk About Issues, Adds That Obama Pals With A Terrorist" (cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/06/politics/fromtheroad/entry4503812.shtml). In the first article he says: '[Palin] said [Obama and Ayers] had a relationship akin to being "pals," even though the Associated Press and many other news outlets have concluded that Obama and Ayers' relationship added up to far less than a close friendship.' Needless to say, that's extremely disingenuous.
10/6/08 UPDATE: The latest lie from the BHO campaign is that BHO had little knowledge of the radical past of Ayers and the Weatherman group. This was presented by David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs (thepage.time.com/mccain-campaign-release-on-obama-and-ayers); see Joe Klein retailing their lie above.
Summary: Palin "won", in that she held her own, which was much better than the MSM and the "pundits" expected (and hoped). She didn't eviscerate Biden (even though she got in a subtle dig against Michelle Obama), but simply by being able to match him she hasn't doomed the McCain campaign and her folksy ways probably helped a good deal. She's also shown herself not to be the monster that the MSM has tried to portray her as.
Biden implies that madrassas aren't schools. I'm sure he knows, but...
Palin had a "good conversation" with Henry Kissinger. Oh my. Was David Rockefeller there too?
TROUBLE IN POWER GLUTES PARADISE! Andrew Sullivan says:
Palin has very little substance but is killing him stylistically. And Biden sounds very liberal. He's throwing this debate away so far... Biden is just foundering... Biden is just dreadful...
Palin points out that she isn't a DC insider; points out that she withdrew state money from a fund that had invested in the Sudan...
CNN's "uncommitted" Ohio voters sure seem to like everything Biden says. In fact, they just redlined when Biden was speaking, and plummeted just as Palin was starting to speak. It picked up again, and it hasn't redlined during a later Biden speech. However, it's not like CNN is above doing things like I suspect they're doing with those "uncommitted" voters... Oddly enough, afterwards several of those "uncommitted voters indicated that the debate had helped them make up their minds. Nervous but gap-toothed Becky Mock was the only one who'd decided to vote for McCain. How incredibly odd that there'd be so many crypto-Obama supporters among CNN's pool of "uncommitted" voters!
Joe Biden spends a lot of time at Home Depot. Most days you can find him in the lumber department, just shootin' the breeze...
"Oh, Joe, there you go again!" Biden laughs at himself...
Palin's specialities will be energy and "working with special needs children", all under the watchful eye of John McCain...
Biden says Dick Cheney has been the most dangerous VP in history. He's probably right, but he said it like he expected a laugh from other DC insiders, only realizing that wasn't who he was speaking to DC insiders...
Inner thought: Is America ready to elect a vice president who talks like a Canadian?
The ticket of "Drastic Change to the Left" and "No Change in 35 Years"...
Biden's house is his total investment? Someone double-check...
Was Biden cracking up or cracking up? Someone get him a Ricola...
McCain voted against "My Heat" program for seniors to allow them to heat their homes? The only search for that brought up a program in England. Is Biden in the right country? [SEE UPDATE 4]
Sarah Palin says she's always been proud to be an American, and so has McCain (and, by implication, she's referring to Michelle Obama's statements and, well, pretty much everything BHO says...)
THE POWER GLUTES HAD A MOOD SWING:
10.23 pm. I'm changing my mind about this debate. Biden is now cleaning up... 10.29 pm. She's just whirring now... 10.30 pm. Biden's sobriety and authority and call for fundamental change is both reasonable and solid. It will resonate, I think...
P.S. Why is Campbell Brown's leg in the foreground on CNN's coverage? I'm sure it's not just eye candy or anything!
UPDATE: A commenter says this unconfirmed bit at meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/media_bias.php:
Media not covering Biden's Lebanon gaffe... First he said Hezbollah was kicked out of Lebanon... Biden's suggestion of moving Nato forces into Lebanon is not practical... Nato is seen as a puppet of the U.S in the middle east and that idea of moving nato into lebanon has long been rejected... Sounds like a good idea but the UN blue hats are the only thing the shia in Lebanon will agree to... This was discussed two years ago and Nato and Hezbollah were both against it.
UPDATE 2: Nine out of ten sockpuppets/BHO supporters posing as "reporters" agree: Biden won the debate (despite unmentioned gaffes). They agree that Palin held her own, but she didn't really answer any of the questions. Plus, she got the name of Gen. David D. McKiernan wrong; she said McClellan, presumably having a minor mix-up with the Civil War general. Oh, my. How will Ahmedinejad respect her now?
Kos says (dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/2/21471/4403/39/618299) "So who won? Who cares. Nothing happened to change the dynamics of this race." Sully, whose mood swings have temporarily stablized, says (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-bottom-line.html) "The campaign's trajectory remains unaltered."
Translated from Obamaian, those mean that Palin clearly won.
UPDATE 3: Reuters says:
Biden, who is known for his verbal miscues, managed to only have one major gaffe, apparently erroneously referring to Hezbollah instead of Syria when he talked about the United States and France coming to the aid of Lebanon... "When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said, and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know — if you don't, Hezbollah will control it,'" Biden said.
However, whether the issue in the first update is another gaffe remains open.
Biden might have also gotten his Constitution wrong.
And, straight outta the McCain campaign comes a list of 14 alleged Biden lies (link).
UPDATE 4: Biden was refering to the LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program) program above, not "My Heat". There are a lot of pages taking him to task for voting against increased for that program and it took a while to find this McCain quote:
"Of course I favor increases in LIHEAP or whatever is necessary to help people meet literally incredible challenges this winter. I have always supported whatever is necessary to help those who can't care for themselves." But he said with spending "out of control," such programs should be paid for rather than add to the deficit.
UPDATE 5: There's more on the Lebanon bit at americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/and_now_the_mother_of_all_bide.html. FactCheck says they both got things wrong here. Fact-checking them is left as an exercise. And, there are eight more Biden "Errors/Lies/Hallucinations" other than those from the McCain campaign here. That points out that the Katie's Restaurant Biden mentioned in his "I'm one of you" speech shut down in the 80s, changing names and owners. Only recently was it reopened as Wings to Go at Katies. He might have meant to refer to a different restaurant, or maybe all the time he spends hanging out in the lumber department at Home Depot has warped his mind.
VP debate moderator Gwen Ifill: in the tank for Barack Obama? (didn't tell CPB, plays race card) - 10/01/08
Gwen Ifill of the Public Broadcasting Service program "Washington Week" is promoting "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," in which she argues the "black political structure" of the civil rights movement is giving way to men and women who have benefited from the str
Horrors: Jake Tapper says Sarah Palin was member of "fringe" party (Alaskan Independence Party) - 09/01/08
Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that Palin was once so independent, she was once a member of their party, which, since the 1970s, has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States.Oh, horrors! Here's their platform, and I'll bet if you lived in Alaska it wouldn't seem so "fringe", unless your point of reference is the Beltway establishment. While I'm sure some of their members are indeed "fringe", their platform isn't all that extreme. It's not like they're running around in robes, supporting race-based irredentism, consorting with foreign countries, supporting illegal activity in order to gain race-based power, or supporting giving the UN their own army or things like that. Those would be, in the eyes of hacks like Tapper, not just acceptable but admirable.
And while McCain's motto -- as seen in a new TV ad -- is "Country First," the AIP's motto is the exact opposite -- "Alaska First -- Alaska Always."
And, it's not like the article has endeavored to find out the extent to which Palin supported their platform, nor does he provide a then-current copy of their platform. And, it's not like their ideas don't deserve serious consideration rather than being smeared as Tapper does, even if someone disagrees with some or all of their ideas.
UPDATE: As it turns out, while her husband might have been and might still be a member, Sarah Palin was never a card-carrying member (link):
In recent press reports, Lynette Clark, the AIP's chairman, has been quoted as saying Palin was at an AIP convention in 1994 and was an official party member at the time. Other sources within the party tell Mother Jones that the only way to become a member of the AIP is to register to vote with the AIP. Yet the state of Alaska released records confirming what the McCain-Palin campaign had maintained: Palin never registered as an AIP member.
Todd Palin - the husband of John McCain's vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin - and I share a common bond.
Todd (as I call him) is part native Alaskan, that is, part Eskimo.
Distant relations of mine are also part Eskimo.
Todd understands the trials and tribulations of those distant relations of mine. I don't know what those trials and tribulations are because I've only seen those relations in photographs, but I'm sure they are several.
While I am not part Eskimo, they are. And, when I look at Todd, I see them. They are me, and I am they. Todd and I share a common bond.
Perky Katie Couric is going to be attending the Republican National Convention next week, and she's looking for questions she can ask. Now, I'm not expecting much of anything, but I did leave four suggestions for her, and so can you. Leave a comment here:
digg . com/2008_us_elections/Katie_Diggs_the_Conventions_Part_II