Andy Barr's Strange Definition of "Fans"

First of all, I would like to boldly state that I take offense when people refer to Palin supporters as "fans." The notion that we are "fans" infers that we are not serious in what we do. It also infers that Governor Palin is not serious, as if she is just some celebrity with a fan-club. Nonsense. We are serious activists with a serious cause. Governor Palin is a serious leader, during a serious time. Don't let them diminish any of our efforts by downplaying our motives.

That said, Andy Barr wrote a piece recently for Politico titled "Palin fans tire of 2012 question." The title itself insinuates that supporters or "fans" (because that's what the leftist media calls us) of Governor Palin are tiring of the governor, and are running to Andy Barr to go on record about it. Rubbish.

As you look through the list of people he cites as alleged "fans," you will notice that they all have something in common. Every one of them are current or former GOP officials. Since when has Sarah Palin had a large number of "fans" within the Republic establishment, on any level? Um, try never.

Barr writes (emphasis):

And the frustration is starting to build: key early state players are tiring of trying to read the tea leaves about whether she’s in or out. They’ve reached the point where they just want to know the answer.

“Trying to figure out Sarah Palin reminds me of the ancient practice of extispicy, divination by examining entrails for meaning,” said former New Hampshire GOP chairman Fergus Cullen.

“I’ve become convinced that there is no grand strategy behind Palin’s activity,” Cullen added. “There is no rhyme. There is no reason. The only common theme to her schedule of activities, statements and appearances is her seemingly unending ability to attract media coverage."

Now, there is nothing to say that a former GOP official couldn't be a supporter of Governor Palin. I'm sure she would appreciate the support, and I know her real supporters would as well. However, in Mr. Cullen's case, he appears to be a pretty big "fan" of somebody else. Back in May of this year, Cullen wrote a piece for the New Hampshire based Union Leader called "Why I’m giving Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt." In it, he writes:

Conservatives rightfully celebrated the defeat of Hillarycare in 1994, but then they failed to move market-based alternatives to big-government healthcare. Meanwhile, people had the audacity to keep getting hurt and sick. Others worried about affordable coverage and staying insured. Swelling costs threatened federal, state, and local budgets. The issue didn’t heal itself. It metastasized politically while most Republicans did little.

An exception was Mitt Romney, who tried to address the public’s desire to bring predictability to insurance, cover the uninsured, lower costs, and protect taxpayers. We can, and should, debate aspects of his approach and whether it’s worked, but Romney deserves more credit and less criticism than he’s getting for addressing an enormously complicated issue, and the benefit of the doubt for trying when others would not. Governors and Presidents are elected to lead. Romney did.

It’s not enough for Republicans to say they want to repeal Obamacare. It’s not enough for Romney’s opponents to shoot at the Massachusetts model. Candidates need positive plans to replace Obamacare with something better, that relies on market forces instead of government, that expand coverage and lower costs.

Does he sound like a Sarah Palin supporter to you? Me neither.

Nice try Andy, but you are going to have to coordinate your story better with the headline writers at Politico to get a bogus meme like this to stick. At the very least, next time pick a Romney "fan" who hasn't been so public with their support.

We Palin supporters aren't 'tiring' and we aren't running to reporters to talk about our feeeeelings. We know what we're doing, and if Governor Palin wants to drive the press mad for awhile making them wait on her decision, it's fine by me.

Andy Barr Gets the "Who" Very Wrong in His Rolling Thunder Coverage

Andy Barr offered us another fine example of excellence in journalism during his coverage of the Rolling Thunder event on Sunday, in Washington DC. He writes in the first paragraph (emphasis):

Only one advance staffer was on hand to wrangle the fans and reporters hoping to get close to the former vice presidential nominee, who arrived at Sunday’s Rolling Thunder rally on a motorcycle driven by her daughter Willow.

Wait, what? Willow Palin is 16 years old. The woman who drove Governor Palin to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial looks young, but she certainly looks old enough to vote.

I actually know the name of the woman driving and it isn't "Willow Palin." She lives in my city where she does NOT attend High School, but in fact, owns a small business. I'm not going to publish her name here however, due to the fact that she has not released it through any media agency or otherwise in connection with the Rolling Thunder event.

That said, the best part of the Andy Barr piece is that he already posted a correction about who was driving the motorcycle. At the end of the article, he wrote (emphasis):

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story mistakenly indicated that Sarah Palin was driving a motorcycle when she arrived. Willow Palin was.

He really got this obvious, yet basic fact wrong TWICE!

A San Diegan who is not Willow Palin and Governor Palin riding to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial during Rolling Thunder event in Washington DC, 2011.

I'm not going to launch into some tirade by insinuating some sort of bias on Andy Barr's part here. Clearly it wasn't Andy's, nor his editors political leanings at work here. This is actually the same problem I alluded to the other day when I wrote the piece about ABC's horrendous reporting. This is pure laziness and sloppiness on the part of Barr and his editors.

It's bad enough that we as Americans have to deal with the constant diet of bias from the leftist media mills. But when they can't even get the basic who, what, where, when, why, and how of a story correct, it makes you wonder why they exist at all. We're accustomed to reading news and filtering out the bias, just to grab on to a fact or two. As it turns out, that might not be a good idea either.

The "E! True Hollywood Story" on Sarah Palin Misses the Mark

The E! entertainment network chose to use Governor Palin as the subject of the Thursday episode of their "True Hollywood Story." Strangely enough, most of the show was based out of Alaska...

The entire purpose of E! doing this show is clearly to push the narrative that Governor Palin is more of a "celebrity" than she is a political figure. I lost count of the number of times the show actually referred to Governor Palin as a "celebrity." Given Hollywood's general political affiliations, it would make sense that they would apply their resources to continue the theme.

Salon.com seems to think that this hurts her with the electorate, even though she had nothing to do with the production of the show. The clips that E! shows of Governor Palin being interviewed are from John Ziegler's 2009 movie titled "Media Malpractice." Unfortunately, viewers who have not seen Ziegler's documentary will have the false impression that Governor Palin agreed to be interviewed by E!. She was not interviewed by them for this show, nor were any of her family members or staff.

Having learned some of the names of the people E! chose to interview for the show prior to it's airing, I was prepared to see a skewed version of Governor Palin's biography, which I did. They opened the show talking about Governor Palin's younger years growing up in Alaska, at which time they got the actual name of the town the Heath family moved to when the governor was just small child, wrong. There were much more than geographical errors in their reporting, but mix-ups that obvious should serve as a warning flag to viewers that what they were watching wasn't very accurate.

One of the first faces to appear being interviewed by E!, was a woman by the name of Anne Kilkenny. Oddly enough, they ran a segment of Kilkenny discussing Governor Palin's religious background. This is odd because Kilkenny is a Wasilla resident most known for filling part of the vacuum created when the McCain campaign fumbled media coverage of the VP selection roll-out in 2008. Kilkenny, an active Democrat, submitted a highly inaccurate, politically motivated email to national news agencies during that time. She is responsible for establishing some of the earliest misnomers and outright lies about Governor Palin, many of which hinting that the governor is some sort of religious extremist. On the E! program, Kilkenny also repeats the meme she helped to create, that Governor Palin wanted to ban books in the Wasilla Library while she was Mayor. Thankfully, E! also interviewed the former Wasilla Deputy Mayor, Judy Patrick who shot down that lie by stating "I can not say that strongly enough, that she did not ask for any books to be banned."

Another face featured throughout the only slightly true Alaska story, was Andy Barr of Politico fame, and someone I affectionately refer to as "Skippy." Barr does his part to downplay the level of corruption Alaskans were dealing with at the time that Governor Palin resigned in protest from the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. This subsequently downplays her actions to bring that corruption to light, and discounts the effect she had in helping clean up the states business.

Barr also brings up the ridiculous Bush Doctrine clip from the Charlie Gibsin interview, during the 2008 presidential campaign. According to Skippy, the Bush Doctrine is specifically "using force before a situation escalates." It's amusing that liberals tried to make a political point with this in 2008, and it still is today. The left are the only people who used that phrase. Republicans as a whole, had no idea what Gibson specifically meant by that question, as he condescendingly peered over his glasses at the governor.

The E! show used some of the journalists they interviewed (including Skippy) to discuss what is known as "Troopergate." Overall the program did a very poor job of covering this topic. Barr said that the ethics commission found that Governor Palin "probably violated ethics rules" in the matter but in all actuality the Alaska Personnel Board cleared Governor Palin of any wrongdoing, and that was never disclosed on this show.

Another topic E! touched on but failed, was Palin's resignation from the governorship. They amusingly interviewed a well known personality in Alaska, named Shannyn Moore to talk about it. For those of you who don't know who Moore is, this would be the equivalent of interviewing Rush Limbaugh to discuss Barack Obama's term as Senator... Moore states that when Governor Palin returned to Alaska from the 2008 campaign, she "came home to absolutely no friends." And by "fiends" Moore means her own friends in Democrat politics. E! never discusses the avalanche of frivolous "ethics" complaints that Moore's friends were filling against the governor, nor do they mention the toll that this was taking on conducting state business.

During the interview, Shannyn Moore tries to imply that Governor Palin was torn between her role as Alaska's Governor, and national politics. In another geographical error for the program, Moore states that Palin was attending "anti-choice rallies" in "Ohio" and "California." But in reality, Governor Palin had only attended one pro-life event in Indiana. Moore and her friends pitched public fits any time Governor Palin did anything, much less leave the state for 36 hours after discussing it with legislators.. They created phony controversies out of nothing, and trashed Palin on a daily basis. One wouldn't get that impression from watching the E! program.

Many people were interviewed over the course of the show. While I am happy that they spoke to a couple of people who defended the governor, I am still astonished by the particular critics they chose to talk to. Granted the show was only an hour long, and I will concede that they cleared up some old rumors about the governor; however, viewers won't come away with very accurate picture about who Sarah Palin is.

As stated above, I think the main reason to produce such a show about Governor Palin is push into the public conscious that she belongs in the world of celebrity, over the world of politics. While it's true that the governor did an eight-part series for TLC, mostly showcasing her state of Alaska, she isn't currently on any non-news related television, nor is she taking part in anything related to Hollywood. Anybody who saw or read her speech from Wisconsin, or keeps up with her on Facebook, knows where Governor Palin's strengths are. This is a woman who has battled corruption, has been the first to take on the current administration on major issues, and has proved her strength by helping many commonsense conservatives get elected last November. She isn't going to be marginalized into some meaningless celebrity status just because the entertainment industry wishes it so.

Frank Bailey's Betrayal of Sarah Palin

The story of the leaked manuscript of former Palin aide Frank Bailey is getting a lot of traction as the mainstream media finds ways to maximize and defend the indefensible. Andy Barr and Ben Smith from Politico have taken it upon themselves (obviously without legal council) to run a story repeating distorted claims by a troubled ex-employee, with the goal of smearing Governor Palin in mind. Barr and Smith ponder why it is that no publisher has signed on to print Bailey's manuscript, which he has been trying to sell for almost 18 months. On top of the legal ramifications, there are many reasons.

They do note that Bailey chose an anti-Palin writer and a "critic" of Governor Palin to help pen the text. What they didn't state is that "critic," a man by the name of Ken Morris, is a known leftist who has a history of pulling obsessive stunts directed towards Governor Palin, and that the other writer, Jeanne Devon, is a legend in the Alaskan left-wing blogoshpere for her unhinged, freakish behavior aimed at hurting the governor. These aren't just people who disagree with her politics. These are people who have spent a lot of time, money, and integrity trying to damage Governor Palin.

Now, just who is Frank Bailey? Other than what's on the surface - that being his connection as a former employee of the former Governor of Alaska. What was his role in her administration and why did he chose to publicly stab his former employer in the back? The Politico article notes:

A Palin ally, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that Bailey and Palin corresponded and that the former aide had access to Palin’s passwords and her email account. But the Palin ally said that the content should be viewed through the lens of Bailey being “the quintessential disgruntled employee” who had been denied senior jobs he sought, cut out of Palin’s vice presidential campaign, and been caught up in the “Troopergate” scandal.

This man felt as though he had been denied a senior post in the administration. I have read his manuscript by the way, and can tell you that this guy thought he was doing a bang-up job for the governor. However, the evidence doesn't support his assertion. After all, Bailey was the only member of Governor Palin's administration who had ever been recommended to receive ethics training by a state investigator. I am not going to release any detailed information that isn't public already, but there are some pretty pointed lies within this manuscript that only take a few minutes on Google to figure out.

While working for Governor Palin, part of Bailey's job was to set up and maintain her email accounts. He had direct access, by way of knowing her password codes, to all of her messages. What he did with that access was highly unethical, a serious breach of trust, if not the law. If indeed all the emails are actually hers in the first place.

Throughout the manuscript, Bailey voices frustration about feeling shut out. That indicates that the governor's staff knew Frank's limits and understood his character. So, here we have a "quintessential disgruntled employee” teaming up with far-left activists for profit. After a public spat between the writers and the leaker of the manuscript, the media is seeking to pick up the pieces, for their own profit essentially. And nothing would give the press more power to do so than to lend credibility to Bailey's manuscript. The first line that stood out for me in the Politico piece was when they wrote:

"But in Bailey’s manuscript it’s her own apparent words that do the greatest damage."

Having read the manuscript as I mentioned above, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the majority of the emails contradict the claims made by Bailey, via Devon and Morris. The filler in-between the emails is full of innuendo and colorful words designed to make it seem as though Governor Palin possesses any number of negative character traits. What I found in reading her actual messages was a normal person, with normal emotion, usually with a great sense of humor. It was quite a stretch for these writers to insinuate the things that they did.

Next up, the guys from Politico write:

"Much of the proposed book’s text focuses on the topic that, he writes, ultimately consumed her governorship: The maintenance of her public image, an obsession with rumors about her family, and her frustration with her portrayal in the media."

Governor Palin is a politician. Public image is sort of a vital aspect of consideration in that field. That's just a reality. But to say that it "ultimately consumed her governorship" is defamatory and wrong. Sure, you can release a very small percentage of my own emails, toss in some adjectives, and lead readers to come to the conclusion that all I care about is the status of the restroom renovations at my office. Yes, it's true. I have dedicated many emails to various individuals about water pressure, light fixtures, and automatic hand dryers. It's amazing that I still know how to do artwork at all.

Then Barr and Smith make this assertion:

"In the months before she resigned the governorship, when her poll numbers began to slip, Palin’s advisers sought to bolster her spirits by making the unsubstantiated case that she was being targeted by the Obama White House and Democratic National Committee."

Just watch the 11 minute clip I linked under the word "behavior" (in the Jeanne Devon paragraph) and see if Governor Palin was wrong to assume that Democrats were coordinating attacks against her. It wasn't to "bolster her spirits" but rather to try and put their finger on just why Democrat operatives kept filing charges against her, then (in violation) leaking their charges to the press.

Barr & Smith then go on to repeat claims (and post stolen emails) asserting that Governor Palin doesn't like the media very much.... What a revelation! Must I repeat why? At this point, I don't think any honest person could blame her for distrusting the press.

After reading this manuscript, my only conclusion is that Frank Bailey is a horrible person. A good person, as Frank likes to sell himself as, doesn't have the capacity to do what he did. Even if Governor Palin was twice the monster he and his leftist allies made her out to be, he still had no right to attempt to have this pile of garbage published. She provided him with a job, which allowed him to provide for his family. At any time, he could have walked away if he felt he worked for someone he could not morally support. Anyone who cannot see this man for what he is, is being willfully ignorant. They are turning a blind-eye to the obvious motives that drove him to betray his former boss.

UPDATE: Now Sushannah Walshe at the Daily Beast has weighed in on the manuscript, and repeated an absurd accusation by Bailey that "Palin Broke Election Law." Walshe writes:

Bailey accuses Palin of blatant illegal activity. During her 2006 campaign for governor, Bailey alleges that Palin broke election law by working with the Republican Governors Association to shoot a campaign commercial. State candidates are not legally allowed to work with groups like the RGA, which ran ads at the time on her behalf, though supposedly "independent" of the Palin gubernatorial campaign.

The suggestion that Governor Palin broke any election laws is simply not true. Ian Lazaran (who has also read the manuscript) wrote about this the other day:

Even assuming the e-mails are authentic for the sake of argument, the bigger problem for Bailey is that he fails to produce even one e-mail from the Governor to support his argument that she coordinated with the RGA in the production of the ad. He even fails to quote anything that the Governor allegedly said that would support his argument that she coordinated with the RGA to produce the ad at issue. What Bailey essentially does is accuse the Governor of breaking a campaing law without citing to an e-mail that she allegedly wrote or to anything that she allegedly said that would support his claim.

The Knowles campaign complained about the RGA ad and the Alaska Democrat Party filed a complaint against Palin alleging illegal coordination with the RGA in the production of the ad. The complaint was subsequently dismissed. The funny thing is that the e-mails that Bailey claims to have come from Governor Palin after the ad ran are clearly exculpatory. The two e-mails that allegedly come from Governor Palin show someone who doesn't have the foggiest idea about why the Tony Knowles' campaign and the Alaska Democrat Party would be making such an allegation.

Now why would Governor Palin write what she did in these e-mails if she really did coordinate with the RGA to produce an illegal ad? If she was guilty, wouldn't she be sending her closest confidantes e-mails about how to cover up the misdeed?

Bailey's explanation for these Palin e-mails is that the Governor was purposefully playing dumb and trying to cover up her tracks. Why would she play coy when communicating with people she absolutely trusted? In order to believe Bailey's theory, one would also need to believe that the Governor envisioned a day when one of her confidantes would turn on her and that she prepared for such a scenario by making sure the e-mails she sent to the confidantes she expected to turn on her were purposefully dishonest.

In this video, her campaign spokesman Curtis Smith says he wrote in his diary about the degree of animosity that he held towards the RGA for producing the ad at issue (at around the 10:30 mark):

In Bailey's mind, Smith must have purposefully played dumb in his diary in the same way Governor Palin purposefully played dumb in her e-mails in order to protect himself from the day Frank Bailey would release an incoherent manuscript that failed to produce substantiated evidence that a wrongful act was committed.

Once again, we have a member of the media, who is willing to repeat the claims of this horrible character, that were written into an unpublished manuscript, by known leftists. This is not a "tell-all" book as they keep saying, but rather a 'tell whatever we like' piece of fiction.

No, Sarah Palin Did Not Compare Obama to Hitler

What is it with the left and their friends in the media? Why is it that they cannot apply reason when processing information in regards to Sarah Palin? I'm just going to presume that it's a political tactic designed to confuse possible future voters. Otherwise, I'd be left to believe that we have an unhealthy number of ignorant people in our society.

Last night, Governor Palin posted a link to a Thomas Sowell article called, "Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?" In which Mr. Sowell said the following:

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

I think the point Mr. Sowell was trying to make is clear. Throughout history, despots have used "useful idiots" to grow their regime's power and influence. He provided TWO examples of historical reference to back up his claim, by listing both Adolf Hitler and V.I. Lenin in the beginning of his post.

Yet somehow, the media missed this obvious point as the following article written by Andy Barr in Politico today proves, called "Sarah Palin praises column linking Obama, Hitler" (please note that the original title of this article was "Sarah Palin praises Hitler column" but I guess that meme wasn't working for them) It says:

Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin on Friday encouraged her supporters to read an article comparing the BP escrow fund to Nazism.

[...]

The article Palin points to was published on Monday and was widely criticized for writing that, like Adolph Hitler, President Barack Obama is stripping away the freedom of his citizens without mass protest.

Wait a second... Where did Lenin go? Why didn't I see 1,000 tweets directed at Governor Palin from left-wing drones on Twitter (known as #p2) saying she compared Obama to Lenin? Where is the article form Politico or any other media outlet with the reference to Lenin? Perhaps it's because they have a little soft spot for the former Communist dictator, and although Lenin is responsible for millions of deaths, it just doesn't have the same punch as a reference to Hitler in their minds. I don't know...

If the mental midgets on the left and in the media (sorry for the repetition) weren't playing politics here and bothered to read the rest of Mr. Sowell's piece, they would be able to see what his point was. Such as this:

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.

And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

Franklin D. Roosevelt! Now that's THREE historical references that Mr. Sowell makes in his article talking about governmental power grabs. Yet, there where no "lamestream" articles with headlines that read "Sarah Palin praises column linking Obama, FDR."

Well, we know that would never happen because FDR is a hero to the American left. Time magazine even mocked up a cover superimposing Barack Obama's face on an old FDR photo, back in November of 2008.

Mr. Sowell's piece ends this way:

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?

Useful idiots, indeed... They give away their identity by calling out Governor Palin for merely linking to this well written, well thought out article by my own favorite intellectual, Thomas Sowell. To try and pass a perceived notion of what she was linking to, rather than actually discussing the points made in the piece, the left proves themselves incapable on any honest debate.

For the record, Governor Palin replied tonight to all of this on her Twitter page. She said:

"Lamestream media: I never compared Obama to Hitler. Quit making things up"