Jeff Goldstein: Losing More Slowly is Now Nearing Lost

Jeff Goldstein recently wrote a piece regarding the release of Governor Palin's emails, highlighting the now famous message she sent a few days before Trig Paxson Van Palin was born to friends and family. Goldstein then shares his views of the current media culture that is so damaging to our nation, in reaction to said message. He writes:

It is profoundly saddening to me to reflect on what the media — and many on our own side — have tried to do to this woman, who clearly embodies the very principles conservatives and classical liberals claim to embrace and fight for, and who is clearly (in my mind) qualified to lead this country back from the brink of socialist hell, so comfortable and committed is she to constitutional authority, and so battle-tested is she after having had to endure a 3-year pop-cultural attempt to destroy her and her family.

I hope in their most private moments, Kathy Griffin or Andrew Sullivan or Janeane Garafalo or Jen Rubin — and a host of others I can name — feel wash over them the sudden rush of shame and embarrassment they so richly deserve.

And I hope it fucking burns.

The truth is, we have allowed a media culture to form in this country that is rotten to its core. It is petty, spiteful, vindictive, triumphalist, arrogant, profoundly biased, and undoubtedly left-leaning. We have given this media the power to shape our narratives, inform our decisions, and — because there are few if any consequences for doing so — create and destroy individuals with the impunity of a hive minded mob embarking on a wilding.

Helping the media along in such a project — as many “conservatives” do, by accepting as a matter of nature, unchangeable as a hurricane, the premises the media advances — is the kind of intellectual dereliction that has brought us to this point in our nation’s history, where 20% or less of the population controls the reins of political power, as well as the vast majority of our cultural institutions, from the media and the academy, to putative moral authority to champion the environment, the working man, the poor.

Losing more slowly is now nearing lost. And yet still we’re hearing from some on “our” side that we need to find an “electable” candidate that will appeal to “moderates” — someone who doesn’t represent the kind of “extremism” that, in an Orwellian turn, has become synonymous with the very legal conservatism and classical liberalism around which this country was founded, and which provided the template for the most free and prosperous country the world has ever known, with the most free and prosperous people history has ever produced.

I noted this before, but let me note it again: the antidote to Carter was not Howard Baker or George HW Bush. We’re at the brink. And if we can’t articulate the enormous CHASM that separates classical liberal and legal conservative principles from those on witness by the democratic socialists in power — who are actively working to increase government’s size and the people’s dependence on it, intentionally sabotaging energy production and private sector job growth while putting in place the bureaucratic structure to control us through our healthcare decisions and through regulations on the very exhalation that comes from our bodies, or the dust we kick up when we walk — we have lost our country anyway, and it’s damn certain that Mitt Romney and his carbon emission-sensitivity or his ethanol panders isn’t going to do dick structurally to help us get it back. At best he’s a kind of cultural procrastination. And at worst, he comes (courtesy of the press — and likehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif George Bush did in his two terms) to count as the benchmark of right-wing “extremism,” against which the next leftist candidate positions himself.

The GOP is content being the more frugal, more incremental, of the two big government ruling parties.

I’m not content with that as a choice.

And so I fight on.

I'm with him 100% in that... You can read the entire piece here.

Goldstein hits the nail on the head when writing about the influence the DC establishment media class has on the direction of the country. He is especially poignant when discussing the "conservative" side of that coin, and their role in picking the types of candidates we put up against big government leaders on the left. What good does it do us to give Americans a choice between the type of overbearing statists in the Obama administration, and someone like Mitt Romney, who obviously believes that the solutions to this nations ills can be found with federal intervention? None!

As Goldstein states, politicians like Romney are a type of "cultural procrastination." While they don't force us into a system of more government-less freedom, at quite the pace of a Barack Obama, the end result is the same. And if you look at the current state of the economy, our energy situation, and the size of the federal government, you quickly realize that we are on a path that is unsustainable. We do not have time for these big spenders, their cronies, or their expensive hair-brained "solutions," which more times than not come at the price of our liberties.

I have to be honest with you... It absolutely drives me nuts to watch conservatives fall for media narratives. Don't we, of all people, know better? We cannot trust the media, and that goes for FOX News as well as many "conservative" publications. None of them are worthy of our trust. We have to weigh everything we hear and read. We have to consider the source, and stop giving these tin-can pundits the power to force real reformers out of the debate. There is a reason that people like Governor Palin are shunned by them. She would never accept their big state compromises, and she would never continue us down this path. The status quo has become dangerous, and the only solution is to ignore those who preach it.

Governor Palin Will Decide Her Own "Role"

Yesterday, Ian Lazaran posted this in response to Jennifer Rubin's most recent Washington Post, anti-Palin installment. Is it just me or does it seem like Rubin always posts these pieces directed at Governor Palin, on a Wednesday? Anyway, in Rubin's latest she writes (emphasis mine):

[W]hen one talks to Republicans in private gatherings, on the Hill, and even in Tea Party gatherings it is rare to find anyone who labels Palin as the party's leader or who looks to her for guidance on major issues. This is not a slur on Palin; she has an important and essential role in rallying the base, getting under Obama's skin and debunking much of what passes for conventional wisdom.

It is laughable to think that Jennifer Rubin is spending much time at tea parties talking to the folks about who they look to for "guidance on major issues." I'll happily retract my last sentence if anyone has attended a Tea Party and personally witnessed Jennifer Rubin taking pulse of the people there. But for now, I'm not buying it.

Now, concerning what Republicans say in "private gatherings"... I really have no idea what the sort of Republican Rubin must spend her time with, say in their private gatherings. Most of the registered Republicans I know happen to be Palin supporters, but once again, I think Rubin is pulling her conclusions from her own vivid imagination.

Rubin's fables are not the issue however. What she did in that paragraph was to suggest that Governor Palin is good for the party in a certain "role," just not a leading one. This is becoming a familiar tone with some in the Republican establishment.

Last Sunday, Bill Kristol said on the Fox News Sunday Panel that:

She could play a big role supporting someone else and articulating issues - and not running this time.

It seems that the talking heads are trying to push a 'Sarah Palin as activist, not candidate' narrative. At least they admit that she is "important" and has the ability to "rally" Conservatives. They especially like when those rallies turn into money for the Republican party.

What these over-sized egos of the pundit class do not seem to understand is that Governor Palin is an effective leader, and not just in an activist role. They ignore her many accomplishments as an executive, and show disdain for her unconventional approach. They downplay her support with conservatives in their columns and on their panels, but they themselves are not members of the grassroots, which is where Governor Palin receives most of her support. So, how would they really known what kind of support Governor Palin truly has? Their criticism is condescending at best but it also lacks credibility, most notably when they cite Daily Kos pollsters as their "empirical evidence."

Nobody knows if Governor Palin is running for President or not. Thankfully, it is not up to "chattering class" to declare what "role" she will play now, or in the future. Governor Palin will decide her own roll.

Jennifer Rubin is Confused

Jennifer Rubin, the new "conservative" columnist for the Washington Post, has taken the time to write another condescending piece about Governor Palin. This would be Rubin's second anti-Palin article in her first eight days since joining that publication. This time she dedicated her space to ranting about a tweet Governor Palin sent on Wednesday. Actually, it was two tweets but that's of no consequence. Rubin writes:

The problem with conducting a public policy debate on Twitter is that issues don't have 140-character solutions. Moreover, by relying on Twitter to pronounce on major issues, one runs the risk of being misunderstood or not understood at all.

Sarah Palin tweets:

Obviously Obama is so very, very wrong on the economy & spins GOP tax cut goals;so fiscal conservatives: we expect you to fight for us &......America's solvency

What is she talking about? It is obvious that an extension of the Bush tax cuts is wrong? Or is it obvious that Obama is adopting ideas that were once Republican positions? If the latter, it should be a good thing, one would think. This is Palin at her worst -- reflexively anti-deal making, grandstanding, imprecise and unreasoned. If she has a specific policy argument -- e.g. the payroll tax "costs" too much for too little job growth -- then you'd think she, who has been accused of being light on policy knowledge, would want to spell . . er . . . tweet that out.

Let me first start off by saying that Governor Palin was not conducting a full public policy debate on her Twitter account. Nobody does. It's Twitter. Those 140 characters provided for each tweet pretty much ensure that you get only a portion of any debate recorded at once. It's simply a way to state a shortened opinion and maybe provide a link with more detailed information to your followers.

She says, "by relying on Twitter to pronounce on major issues, one runs the risk of being misunderstood or not understood at all." Speak for yourself, Jennifer Rubin. How is it that I understood at the time what Governor Palin meant, and you did not? Perhaps that's because I read all of Governor Palin's tweets. You see, as with any person's Twitter timeline, context can be found within a strand of tweets.

Which would have answered the next set of questions she asked, had she looked. She writes, "what is she talking about? It is obvious that an extension of the Bush tax cuts is wrong? Or is it obvious that Obama is adopting ideas that were once Republican positions?" Uh, no and no.

On Governor Palin's Twitter timeline, just below the tweet about Sue Aikens, the governor "retweeted" Jedediah Bila who posted:

Thank you, @JimDeMint - DeMint comes out against tax deal, says GOP must do ‘better than this’ - dailycaller.com/2010/12/08/dem…

And below that, she retweeted Amanda Carpenter who wrote:

Full transcript of DeMint's interview with Hewitt is available here: http://bit.ly/gdBLuy

If Jennifer Rubin would have viewed these tweets and clicked on the links, there should have been no question what the Governor Palin meant. Since there was confusion on Rubin's part, I'll go ahead and help her out by dissecting the governor's words for her.

Governor Palin starts by saying:

"Obviously Obama is so very, very wrong on the economy"

Do I really need to dissect that part? Fine... I'll do it with two words - Keynesian Economics.

Next, the governor writes:

"spins GOP tax cut goals"

This very important part is the key to what left Ms. Rubin so confused.

A permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts, for every tax bracket is what was originally sought by republicans. However, after meeting with the president, the republican leadership in Congress gave in on many counts. They allowed for another deadline to be imposed on the tax rates, which will only allow the uncertainty investors have to continue. They also accepted an extension of jobless benefits for the 9.8% (so far) of unemployed workers. This creates all kinds of problems for our nation's economic health in both the short and long term. I think Michael Ramirez did a good job illustrating this issue in his latest cartoon for Investors Business Daily.

The last part of Governor Palin's tweet(s) said:

"so fiscal conservatives: we expect you to fight for us &......America's solvency"

She was simply asking "fiscal conservatives" in Congress to stand strong and fight for their ideals. To not give in to demands that may cost the nation dearly, for the sake of 'going along to get along.' To not take part in the dangerous Washington habit of back-scratching and cocktail drinking, in the name of "bipartisanship" that only leads to the detriment of the country through big government "solutions." Which are never really solutions and always bring about more problems that need more of their "solutions." That is the nature of government largess.

Jim Demint, who was cited both by Jedediah Bila and Amanda Carpenter above, went into further detail about the problems with the tax deal and standing strong on principle, during his interview with Hugh Hewitt:

HH: I’ve got some quick questions for you. The first is if the deal reached between the President and the Republican leadership yesterday makes it to the floor of the Senate in substantially the same form, will you vote for cloture to allow a final vote on it? And would you vote for it on that final vote if it cleared cloture?

JD: No.

HH: On both counts?

JD: On both counts. I’m glad the President recognizes that tax increases hurt the economy. I mean, I guess that’s progress. But frankly, Hugh, most of us who ran this election said we were not going to vote for anything that increased the deficit. This does. It raises taxes, it raises the death tax. I don’t think we needed to negotiate that aspect of this thing away. I don’t think we need to extend unemployment any further without paying for it, and without making some modifications such as turning it into a loan at some point. It then encourages people to go back to work. So there’s a lot of problems with it. I mean, and frankly, the biggest problem I have, Hugh, is we don’t need a temporary economy, which means we don’t need a temporary tax rate. A permanent extension of our current tax rates would allow businesses to plan five and ten years in advance, and that’s how you build an economy.

If Jennifer Rubin wanted to debate the deal made between republicans and the president on taxes, she had a whole column to do so. Instead, she was reflexively grandstanding, in that familiar condescending tone we hear and read so often from the Washington establishment. She may be correct that you cannot have a full public policy debate in 140 characters. Nonetheless, it is recommended that if you are confused by a particular tweet, to check the timeline and maybe click on the links provided. They may just answer your questions, and stop you from wasting perfectly good Washington Post column space to voicing your own bewilderment.