WaPo's Facts Perform a Disappearing Act

Rachel Weiner, a writer for the Washington Post's The Fix, posted a very disingenuous piece on Wednesday claiming that Governor Palin had somehow 'disappeared' from the debt debate. To suggest such a thing indicates that Weiner hasn't been paying much attention to what the governor has had (on many occasions) to say bout the matter. Which in the WaPo's writer's case, might benefit her in more ways than one.

Weiner writes:

During Washington’s long-running debt debate, one name you didn’t hear very often was that of Sarah Palin.

Googling the words "Palin Debt Ceiling" gives you a pretty good indication how out-of touch with reality that first sentence is. The search yields many results, all which could have aided Weiner's research efforts had she chose to engage in such a task. She goes on:

But then, just as the debate lurched to a final close on the day the country threatened to default, the 2008 vice presidential candidate suddenly reemerged on the political scene.

On Tuesday’s Fox News’ “Hannity,” Palin seemed to take it very personally when Democrats compared tea-party House Republicans to “terrorists” in referring to their tactics in the debt fight.

“I'm not just going to roll over with a sticker plastered on my forehead that says, hit me baby one more time, call me a terrorist again, call me a racist,” she told Hannity.

“And I'm going stand up for those fiscally conservative patriotic independent Americans who want the best for this country.”

Palin also criticized former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a potential rival in the 2012 presidential race, saying he “waited until it was a done deal that we would increase the debt ceiling” before coming out against the compromise.

Those kind of headline-grabbing comments raise questions about Palin’s future plans. But the former Alaska governor has a tendency to insert herself into debates with a splash and retreat just as quickly as she appeared, going dark for weeks at a time. Given recent history, it won’t be long before Palin disappears again.

Don't they wish...

And yes, Weiner is suggesting that Governor Palin hadn't weighed in on the debt debate until Tuesday's interview with Sean Hannity... Somehow Rachel missed that whole episode when some in the establishment wing of the Republican party got somewhat wee wee'd up over a certain statement she posted on Facebook. Maybe she also missed these interviews the governor gave to Greta Van Sustren here and here, and this one on Fox Business here.

She continues:

As other 2012 presidential candidates ramp up their campaigns heading into next week’s Ames straw poll and this fall’s debates, Palin is barely a presence in Iowa or any other primary state. She has shot down reports that the high-profile bus tour that took her to New Hampshire in June is over, but two months later it has yet to restart.

The end of that tour was her last major media blitz. On June 2nd, wrapping up her trip, Palin criticized Romney in New Hampshire. She appeared on “Hannity” on June 3rd and on “Fox News Sunday” on June 5th. A few days later she was on the cover of Newsweek saying she could beat President Obama.

Wait a minute, she wrote that the governor did interviews on June 3rd & 5th and that a "few days later she was on the cover of Newsweek saying she could beat President Obama." A few days? The Newsweek article that Weiner links to was posted on July 10th, which is nowhere near a "few days" after June 5th. That's more than month! That is some horrible reporting.

Here's more:

Then Palin disappeared — even as archives of her emails from her time as Alaska governor were released and pored over by the media. On June 28th, she went to Pella, Iowa, for the premiere of “The Undefeated,” a movie about her governorship, but said little. At no point did she get back into the political debate.

Oh really? Not only did Weiner not read the date of that Newsweek article, she didn't read any of the content either. From the Newsweek article:

"I believe that I can win a national election," Sarah Palin declared one recent evening, sitting in the private dining room of a hotel in rural Iowa. The occasion for her visit to quintessential small-town America was a gathering of the faithful that would have instantaneously erupted into a fervent campaign rally had she but given the word. Instead, it had been another day on the non–campaign trail, this one capped by a sweet victory: she had just attended the premiere of a glowingly positive documentary about her titled The Undefeated.

Talk of winning a national election would certainly indicate being part of "the political debate."

It continues:

On Twitter, Palin promoted her daughter Bristol’s book and little else. Her other comments on the debt ceiling were via a couple vague Facebook notes.

Did she or did she not read the Facebook notes? Those were Governor Palin's statements regarding the debt ceiling, which indicates that she is engaged in the current debate. Weiner tries to downplay them but there was nothing "vague" about what Governor Palin was saying. Just ask Laura Ingraham.

Then Weiner implies that the governor didn't weigh in on the debate via Twitter by writing "Palin promoted her daughter Bristol’s book and little else." In reality, Governor Palin had tweeted the following:

@BarackObama wants us to contact Congress. Great idea! Tell them to rein in our dangerously unsustainable debt to protect our credit rating.

@BarackObama wants us to support a "balanced deficit solution." Great idea! How about a balanced budget amendment?

@BarackObama you're wrong, threatening to throw seniors under the bus because you refuse to prioritize govt spending.Time to #womanup & lead

After stating at the beginning of her article that Governor Palin had "reemerged" on August 2nd to talk with Sean Hannity, Weiner curiously writes this paragraph towards the end of her piece:

Then, Palin reemerged. On July 26th, she was on Greta van Susteren’s show. Two days later, she posted a Facebook comment that included a threat to House Republicans at the end: “P.S. Everyone I talk to still believes in contested primaries.”

So she did see at least one of the interviews with Greta, and she indicates that she's read the Facebook note that caused some in the establishment wing of the GOP to get upset. But her whole article is centered around the notion that Governor Palin had been entirely absent from the debate. So which is it?

This maddening article continues:

Yes, Palin explicitly positioned herself as an observer of the debt debate, saying that “out here in proverbial politico flyover country, we little folk are watching the debt ceiling debate with great interest and concern.”

Hey Rachel, Governor Palin stated she was watching the debate WHILE she was weighing in on it. Your whole point moot.

Weiner ends the article by writing:

“Doggone it, I want these candidates who are in there,” Palin said of Romney yesterday. “I want them to not be sitting back.” Her sporadic involvement in the political debate suggest that she won’t be one of those candidates. If she does, it would still shake up the race in a major way — but she would be forced to follow her own advice.

She has been following her own advice, despite Rachel Weiner's messy attempt to make Governor Palin look like a hypocrite. Unlike Romney, Governor Palin has been giving her opinion about the debt debate since it became an issue in the realm of politics. Well before the debate had wall-to-wall coverage on the 24-hour news cycles, she spoke about the matter. She's also remained consistent throughout the debate in her position. Something else Romney would have a hard time doing, on any issue.

From start to finish, the whole piece is designed to create a perception that the meat of the article doesn't back up. Weiner gives the impression that she's following some sort of time-line in her reporting, leading her to make this conclusion. But that time-line doesn't match reality and it doesn't even match her own story. Pay attention to detail when reading anything the Washington Post publishes considering their "facts" are nothing more than empty props.

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.

The Strategy of the Media's Bias

The Associated Press and Politico found it necessary to report Bristol Palin's honest wages to the broad public, via their respective front page. Whether their reporting was honest, is another matter. It's hard to tell considering that Rachel D'Oro (a name longtime C4P readers are familiar with), author of the first MSM piece, used the Trig Truther freaks at "Palingates" as a source. Using terms like "rakes it in" and getting a "payout," these so-called "news" articles are clearly designed to sell a narrative that the media has been pushing about Bristol's mother for a long time. There is nothing wrong with what Bristol did for the foundation she worked for. This "story" belongs nowhere near a front page, much less a news publication. It isn't a story, it's one young woman's life. Running this piece, with vile conspiracy theorists as the source, is disgraceful behavior by an already close to illegitimate press.

Kelsey has more on Bristol here.

For many years I believed that the media had a blanket left-wing bias towards all Conservatives. It has been proven lately that there is more of a strategy at play, in regards to what the media reports and what they don't, versus knee-jerk ideology. Take for instance this story that popped up a few days ago on Mother Jones:

Send a public records request seeking documents from his 12-year stint as Arkansas governor, as Mother Jones did recently, and an eyebrow-raising reply will come back: The records are unavailable, and the computer hard drives that once contained them were erased and physically destroyed by the Huckabee administration as the governor prepared to leave office and launch a presidential bid.

In 2007, during Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, the issue of the eradicated hard drives surfaced briefly, but it was never fully examined, and key questions remain. Why had Huckabee gone to such great lengths to wipe out his own records? What ever happened to a backup collection that was provided to a Huckabee aide?

Huckabee is now considering another presidential run, and if he does enter the race, he would do so as a frontrunner. Which would make the case of the missing records all the more significant. These records would shed light on Huckabee's governorship—and could provide insight into how a President Huckabee might run the country. Meanwhile, observers of Arkansas' political scene—including one of Huckabee's former GOP allies—say the episode is characteristic of a politician who was distrustful and secretive by nature.

A truly fascinating piece of information, especially for a "GOP front-runner," is it not? Yet, there were no corresponding stories from AP and the only thing Politico had on it was a link buried on Ben Smith's blog page. Why didn't the media cover this? Doesn't the public have a right to know what kind of behavior a potential candidate for the presidency took part in? Can you imagine if Governor Palin ever would have done such a thing? I would bet every dollar I have ever made, and ever will make, that that story wouldn't be buried in a link in the blog section. It would be Top Story news, in every media publication, and on every network.

Speaking of 'what ifs'... What if Governor Palin had said this:

Bachmann, who's flirting with a presidential run, was in the early-primary state of Iowa last week for the Rediscover God in America conference. Bachmann was born in Iowa, as she told the crowd. But she couldn't leave it at just being an ordinary Iowan:

"I'm actually even more than just an Iowan," she told her audience. "I'm a seventh-generation Iowan. Our family goes back to the 1850s, to the first pioneers that came to Iowa from Sognfjord, Norway."

[...]

Unfortunately, the story doesn't hold water, as researcher Chris Rodda ably points out at OpEdNews.

"I was watching her speech, and it was when she said that she was a seventh-generation Iowan that I knew something was wrong," Rodda tells City Pages. "She's in her fifties--there's no way there could be seven generations between her and ancestors in the 1850s."

So Rodda, who has a background in genealogical research, decided to do a little digging. Without too much trouble, she found that Bachmann is actually a fourth-generation American, not seventh, as she claimed. And that's just the start.

Bachmann's immigrant ancestors didn't make a pilgrimage straight to the promised land of Iowa. From Quebec, they went to Wisconsin. That's where the 1860 census found them. From there, they moved to the Dakota Territory.

Bachmann claims that her people "kept going, and they persevered" through floods and crippling winters. Well, kind of. After enduring those trials in the unforgiving Dakota Territory, they actually turned tail and retreated to the relative ease and safety of...Iowa.

"Okay," Bachmann apologists may be saying at this point, "but history is hard and stuff! Maybe this was just an honest mistake."

Not a chance, Rodda says.

"The only historical sources where she could have found some of the details of her story--like the 13-week ocean passage--also clearly show that her family went to Wisconsin, not Iowa," Rodda says. "She couldn't have known those things without knowing that the whole premise of her speech was a lie."

You really can't blame Bachmann for that though. Tuesday night on O'Reilly, she stated (4:32 mark) that she just reads whatever is on the teleprompter. She also indicated during the interview that she isn't "afraid" of media attacks on her. After the mainstream media let a whole speech full of pandering distortions, slide on by without mere mention, I wouldn't be afraid if I were Bachmann either. At least, not at this point.

I think my Twitter buddy, Val said it best today:

Liberals & Dems SHOULD fear @SarahPalinUSA in 2012, b/c she is thee ONLY candidate who will NOT have an October surprise!

Clearly that has a lot to do with the strategy being implemented by the media, in this pre-primary season.

Here we have three possible contenders for the GOP nomination in the upcoming presidential election of 2012. While all three claim the mantle of "Conservative," one is treated very differently than the others. The reason for this is something I eluded to in my last blog post. The media and the left will promote and omit news that will help them in the long-run. For Governor Palin, there will be no "October surprise." Every little detail of her life is already out in the open. She would be the most intensely scrutinized candidate in our nation's history. With the other two possible candidates, that is simply not the case.

Let's face it, the other two Republicans here don't have the same name recognition as Governor Palin. Huckabee has been largely unscrutinized for years, and most people outside the world of politics, don't know who Michele Bachmann is. Governor Palin and her family are recognizable faces to rake over the coals.

With Governor Palin, the leftist media is forced to throw everything at her, as soon as they can. They do whatever they can think of to try and damage her in any way possible. With the others, they can afford to wait. This is after all, a strategy with the re-election of Obama in mind. The left, and their partners in the press know what's at stake. They don't want to face Governor Palin in a general election, but the others look like walk in the park in comparison. They will save their bias and garbage reporting for a more strategically significant date. At the right time, they will unload all the information they held from the public on these candidates, given the opportunity. Let's not give it to them.

New Rules to Deal with Frivolous Ethics Complaints Begin Today in Alaska

Last week, I wrote about Governor Palin's resignation, and the "tidal-wave" of politically motivated ethics complaints that lead up to that event. As of today, that avenue of attack is no longer available to the Alinsky-ites of Alaska. The new ethics rules are now the law of the land. They will effect the executive branch and stem directly from the events that I wrote about in the post I just mentioned.

Just a couple observations...

The Associated Press published an article about the new rules back on December 8th. As usual, the AP dropped the ball when it came to performing their standard journalistic function of providing their readers with the "five W's" of the story. This time, they completely omitted the "why" part. C4P readers understand the context and origin of the new rules, but unfortunately many people not familiar with our site, rely on one of the news outlets that release AP stories such as that one, as is. The AP is biased and lazy, but thankfully more Americans realize this than ever before.

In the end, it is good to know that no other governor in the state of Alaska will ever have to endure what Governor Palin and her family went through in those months following the 2008 presidential campaign. Given the conspicuous timing of the frivolous claims (after the 2008 campaign) and the sudden disinterest of the Democrat party machine in the comings and goings of Alaska's Governor, I think it's safe to say that use of the new rules will be minimal.

Lamestream Media Falsely Attributes Boos from Crowd to Governor Palin (Updated)

Left-wing reporters and so-called "mainstream" media publications, are falsely reporting that Governor Palin was "booed" by the audience Monday night when she attended the taping of Dancing With the Stars to watch her daughter Bristol again with her partner Mark Ballas. While the audience did boo, they actually booed at the low score given to Jennifer Grey and her partner after a very well performed routine. After the score was given to Grey and her partner, the show transitioned to Tom Bergeron giving a brief interview to Governor Palin as she sat in the audience. After Bergeron announced the governor, the audience applauded. You would think that an audience hostile to the her would pick up their heckling once her name was announced. However, the opposite happened as they all clapped their hands. According to some in the press, the audience was just getting controlled, or something.

It should be noted that the false reports written about this where all written by people who were not there. However, a reporter who was there told a much different story. Mikey O'Connell from Zap 2 News reported:

That was booing you heard after Jennifer Grey and Derek Hough got their scores, and though Internet conspiracy theorists would have you believe it was directed at Sarah Palin (Really, Internet? Really?), it was definitely aimed at the judges. We understand it's too early to dole out the really high numbers, but a 24 for that incredible jive didn't make sense to anyone in the studio.

I don't know what a "jive" is supposed to look like, but apparently Jennifer Grey and her partner did a good job. The guy who covers this stuff ought to know.

Governor Palin wanted to attend the taping to lend support to her daughter during this important time in her life. The media couldn't control themselves enough to just let the governor be a mom for once, and instead used a transition in the program (that could easily be twisted) to attack her instead. This is really low... Even for these people.

Update: Tom Bergeron appeared on the Jimmy Kimmel Show later Monday night and said that the boos were indeed directed at the judges for giving Grey a bad score. He said:

"They felt that Jennifer Grey got screwed," Bergeron said. "They felt that she should have gotten 9s because [the judges] had just gushed about her - they felt that they had underscored her."

(Update H/T, David)

Mediaite Proves Governor Palin's Point

Glynnis MacNicol from Mediaite posted a piece today called, "Sarah Palin: The ‘Lamestream’ Media Is Hurting Our Troops." The article is a hostile effort to deflect attention from what Governor Palin actually said. She never said that the "media is hurting our troops," although I do believe she called the press 'lame.' She said:

"We've got to hold the press accountable when you know they're making things up and telling untruths. We've got to do this together.

By the way, I am the biggest proponent of freedom of the press in this country. Our young men and women in uniform willing to fight and die for our constitutional rights including that right to a free press. It's why I am hot on this lamestream media issue. It's why I am adamant that they tell the truth. How dare anyone disrespect our troop’s sacrifice by claiming the right to print and to say anything without a corresponding responsibility to truth."

The media's role is supposed to be one that tells the populace the who, what, when, where, and why's of any given story. However, we have seen the media stop doing that and instead they use their platform to push an agenda and distort the truth. What Governor Palin is clearly saying, is that the media has a huge responsibility to uphold the ethics of their trade. These people would not be able to practice their professions without the sacrifices of the people who serve our country in the military. The media has a big responsibility and they owe every ability they have to freely communicate to our troops. They trash that responsibility every time they overlook their ethics and instead try to push that agenda.

Governor Palin gave a great speech Friday night in Iowa. You can see it in it's entirety here. You knew the media would be upset by her calling them out. This article is a clear display of their displeasure, and by referring to her as "Frankenstein" at the end, they merely prove her point.

Steve Chapman Doesn't Know Much About Sarah Palin

Steve Chapman, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, wrote an article (also posted at Townhall and RCP) this weekend titled, "If Palin runs for president." After reading it, I have to wonder why Mr. Chapman felt qualified to write such an article. The piece is filled with nothing more than his distant, uninformed, condescending opinion. However, I gather 'professional' columnists are paid to do just that these days. It would help if these writers did some research before penning articles, but that is clearly not a requirement, especially if the target of your condescension is Governor Palin.

He starts his piece in an effort to build up Governor Palin, but only in certain areas and giving her snarky titles. He begins:

It turns out Sarah Palin left the governorship of Alaska for a better position. She's become king -- King Midas, to be exact. Everything she touches turns to gold.

Her memoir, "Going Rogue," was the best-selling hardcover nonfiction volume of 2009. She's got a TV gig with Fox News that reportedly pays $1 million a year. She commands $100,000 for a speaking appearance.

But it's not all about the money. Palin has also become the fairy godmother of the Republican Party. In the Aug. 31 primaries, all five candidates she tapped with her wand came away victorious -- including Joe Miller, who upset incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Those she passed over turned into pumpkins.

Referring to Governor Palin as both "King Midas" and a "fairy godmother" is nothing more than his attempt to simplify her role within the current political atmosphere. Giving her the attributes of characters from fairy tales, has no basis in reality. She simply "touches" best-selling books and constitutional conservative candidates running for office, and they 'turn to gold.' No credit is given to the hard work she, her staff, and her supporters put in to each accomplishment. He also doesn't give any credit to the winning candidates who she has lent her support too. No, just pixie dust and the 'Midas touch' provide Mr. Chapman his explanation for Governor Palin's success. His article continues (emphasis mine):

All that looks like the perfect prelude to something even bigger. After steadfastly refusing invitations for political gatherings in Iowa, site of the first presidential contest in 2012, she's going to Des Moines Sept. 17 for the Republican Party's annual Reagan Day dinner. To run for president, one local GOP official was quoted saying, "she needs to be here -- and she's doing that with a big, high-profile event."

If she enters the race, Palin will have the inside track. A recent Gallup poll found that among Republican voters, she's more popular than Abraham Lincoln, with a 76 percent favorable rating -- higher than any other potential GOP presidential candidate listed by Gallup. The nomination is starting to look like it's hers for the asking.

But appearances are deceiving. Palin would more likely be one of those outwardly formidable candidates whose campaigns peak on the day they announce. The qualities that have made her a media star threaten to make her a dismal candidate.

Mr. Chapman is operating under the presumption that Governor Palin is more like Barack Obama than who she actually is. She is not a "media star," although the press is certainly fixated on her. She is not an empty suit that can merely give a rousing speech, yet lacks substance on the issues. Quite the opposite in fact. While she can give a great speech, that is because her message (when received unfiltered) resonates with Americans. She is deeply patriotic, preaches constitutional standards, and believes that public service should be just that. She agrees with most Americans on most issues, and she has a record of reform no other political figure on the stage today can touch. These are not the characteristics of someone whose campaign (if she so chooses to have one) would become obscure on the second day. Americans, once they become familiar with the real Sarah Palin, past the nonsense Mr. Chapman's colleagues push, will get behind her. They will do so because of all the things Governor Palin stands for, all the things Mr. Chapman doesn't take into account. He goes on:

What is overlooked is that she would have big handicaps in a Republican presidential contest as well. Palin has made her name railing against Obama, congressional Democrats, mosque-builders, the news media and other conservative targets. In a GOP primary, those positions would make her stand out about like one Cheerio stands out from the others. So other considerations -- competence, experience, temperament, judgment, electability -- would dominate, not to her advantage.

Instead of making the case that she would be an improvement on Obama, she'd have to explain why she would be preferable to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty or former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, among other possible contenders.

It's one thing to Tweet your thoughts about Obama and Nancy Pelosi or endorse candidates on Facebook while hiding from skeptical reporters. It's another to match wits on issues with smart, well-informed, politically savvy conservative opponents who are determined to expose your shortcomings.

If Palin couldn't handle an interview with Katie Couric, how would she handle debates? Those come fast and furious in the primaries -- and both Romney and Huckabee can draw on their 2008 experience.

In that kind of setting, winks and one-liners won't take you far. Her opponents will ask her questions she would rather not answer, such as "Why were you for the Bridge to Nowhere until you were against it?" and "If you walked away from the governorship, how can we count on you not to quit the presidency?" They will also display a grasp of substance that Palin doesn't have and shows no interest in acquiring.

This last reality is a clue that those who want her to run will be disappointed. If she were serious about a White House bid, she would have spent the past two years making herself plausible as president. All Palin has done is make herself a major media phenomenon, as well as a wealthy woman.

Right now, she's a hot commodity that has soared in value and seems destined to get even hotter. But the same was once true of housing. Palin is another bubble, which a race for president would soon burst

There are so many regurgitated memes and false premises listed in that last part, it's hard to know where to begin.

The notion that Governor Palin couldn't compete with the current crop of possible 2012 GOP Presidential contenders is laughable. Especially after you analyze each of their records and then compare them with Governor Palin's record. Something I'm pretty sure Mr. Chapman has never done.

His assertion that she cannot "match wits" with "smart candidates" is just proof to me that Mr. Chapman was stupid enough to fall for the "Palin is stupid" meme. Sexist at its core, exasperated by the left-wing press, and repeated by a drugged up Hollywood, this meme is the one that will bite its believers in the butt. There is a golden rule in sports, war, and politics... "Never underestimate your opponent." They break this rule every time they repeat the lie.

He says "they will also display a grasp of substance that Palin doesn't have and shows no interest in acquiring" about her potential GOP male rivals. Mr. Chapman obviously doesn't spend much time on Facebook. Governor Palin has shown much more interest on the topics that concern all Americans than most of her poll taking fellow republicans. She has weighed in on almost every important issue, yet she doesn't sit there waiting to see which way the wind is blowing before she speaks her mind. She gives you her informed opinion, like it or not, at the given time she feels obligated to speak up. I implore Mr. Chapman to go to her Facebook page. Read the many statements and posted speeches to get a better understanding of who the real person is that you chose to demean in your article.

I could pick apart virtually every sentence Mr. Chapman wrote in those last few paragraphs. The bottom line however, is that this is entire article is nothing more than the uninformed opinion of one man. He is a victim of believing that the only way to run a campaign is through conventional avenues. He believed what the press told him about her intelligence, and he never informed himself about her actual record or opinions.

Governor Palin is not a conventional politician, and she has certainly never been a conventional leader. If she does run for President, I guarantee Mr. Chapman will be proven wrong in every aspect of this over publicized drivel.

How the Media Used to Treat Sarah Palin

After discussing with a friend, the horrid hit-piece from Michael Joseph Gross in this week's Vanity Fair, he reminded me of an old article published by a different magazine, from a different time.

Back in February 2008, Vogue featured a much different sort of article about Governor Palin. The piece was titled "Altered State" and it highlighted many different elements of the governor's life, both personal and professional. The beginning of the piece says a lot about who exactly Sarah Palin is as a person, and how the media has changed in regards to their treatment of her since then. The piece starts:

The editor of Alaska magazine had a problem. State governor Sarah Palin, with her historically high approval rating and natural good looks (one blogger called her Tina Fey's sexier sister), seemed a natural choice for the cover of his magazine. Problem was, the picture they had shot in her Juneau office showed Palin smiling. The official governor's portrait of her? Smiling. The pictures for her campaign against the incumbent Republican governor? Also smiling. That time she won the Miss Wasilla beauty contest 24 years ago? Probably smiling too.

This time, they were shooting her in her Anchorage office on the seventeenth floor of a downtown skyscraper overlooking the snow-covered Chugach mountains. "I don't want you to look mean," the editor told the governor when she arrived. "Just don't smile."

"OK." Palin looked skeptical. "I'll try." She folded her arms and looked straight into the lens. As the camera clicked, the corners of her mouth began to twitch.

"This is really hard for her," her spokesperson observed from the back of the room. "She is always smiling."

After a dozen or so clicks, the tension was too much. "OK," the editor relented. "Go ahead and smile."

"Thank you!" she answered, releasing the expression like a caged animal. Outside, the dying winter sun briefly lit the mountains with a rosy light and then was gone. "She really is a breath of fresh air," the editor said as the photographer packed up his equipment. "It feels like a new era in Alaska."

The rest of the article goes on to talk about Governor Palin's efforts to clean up Alaska's government, and her courageous decision to expose the antics she witnessed at the Oil & Gas Conservation Commission by members of her own party. It also talks a lot about her family life, including a trip over to her parents house by the writer. It is quite the contrast in character between the person interviewed by Vogue in 2008, and the person not interviewed, just seriously maligned by Vanity Fair in 2010. You can read the entire Vogue article here.

It's pretty clear at this point, that nobody with a serious or sane bone in their body believes anything Vanity Fair tried to sell with that garbage article. As has been noted throughout the day, even people on the left are shunning the eight pages of libel they published. I do hope Vanity Fair loses some readers over this episode. They don't deserve your hard-earned money, America! Lies are lies... Who wants to pay someone to lie to them?

I realize that Vogue and Vanity Fair are two different publications. However, I do not think it can be disputed that Governor Palin's treatment by the press dramatically changed the day she was announced as John McCain's running mate in 2008. The levels the media has sunk since to distort America's perception about her, is perhaps something that psychology majors should consider a study in. They are low-down, mean spirited, delusional, they attack her children, and they leave their own credibility in a pile of ashes in their quest.

Then they wonder why she won't sit down for an interview with them.

(Reminder H/T Gary Jackson)

The Media's Anti-Palin Head Games

Last Sunday, Governor Palin said in an interview with Chris Wallace, "I don't blame people for not knowing what I stand for. If I believed everything I read in the media, I wouldn't like me either."

I've wondered before what I would think of Governor Palin if I wasn't a conservative political junkie who had already formed an opinion of, and had been familiar with Sarah Palin's record before John McCain chose her to be his running mate back in 2008. If all I knew about her was what I caught on the news after the announcement, or whatever some lamestream publication wanted me to think about the former Governor of Alaska, I definitely wouldn't spend so much time defending her. I am thankful I was paying enough attention in 2007, a time when I was growing tired of the ways of Washington, and was looking for reformers (especially pro-domestic energy ones) to hear about and conduct my own research on.

Much has changed since those days, and the media lynch mob has dedicated itself to distorting the narrative about Governor Palin and her family. They have put on a disgusting clinic in character assassination. But don't tell them that! They will have none of that kind of talk from the peasant class.

Just as Jack Cafferty...

Earlier this week, Jack hosted a segment in which he brought up the quote I just mentioned from Governor Palin. He scoffed at the notion that the media had any culpability in framing a negative opinion about her. He then went on to read five emails from his left-wing audience, who proceeded to display the fact that they are brainwashed haters that seem to take particular joy in calling Palin childish names. By reading these comments on air, Cafferty was using CNN's "news" platform to continue the behavior he had scoffed at just minutes earlier. He proved himself wrong because he, like the others cannot seem to control their hatred long enough to pull off a believable lie.

As we are all well aware of now, this started on the first day she joined McCain on the campaign trail. It has been said here before, but it bears repeating... What Katie Couric did during the prep for her coverage of the RNC Convention was rude, tasteless, and juvenile. However, what she later robbed her viewers of in the actual broadcast, was what I call journalistic fraud. She never once mentioned Governor Palin's professional record. A record of public service that dates back to 1992. While Couric did talk about the Governor's family (holding back her snobbish laughter, no doubt) everything else she told her audience was nothing but little irrelevant 'fun facts.' For a nation going through very rough economic waters, wars, and ongoing major energy issues, that sort of coverage sold Governor Palin short and robbed Americans the opportunity to see what she actually brought to the table. So, YES, Jack...It's the media's fault!

That brings me to a piece written on Tuesday by disgraced Journolist member, Greg Sargent titled, "Still more proof Sarah Palin is toxic outside her bubble." In it, he cites a few polls that say Governor Palin's "negatives" are high. The same figures Chris Wallace asked her about when she replied with the quote I mentioned above. Sargent, a onetime member of a group of left-wing ideologues, who used their journalistic platforms to coordinate attacks on Palin, now laughably says those numbers look the way they do because she's "toxic." No Greg, the only people Governor Palin is "toxic" to are you and your left-wing cohorts. Considering her commonsense conservative principles, I think that is sort of a given though, isn't it? I believe that once the American people, or "Joe Mainstreams" as Sheya called them the other day, learn the truth about her record of reform, her standing on the issues of the day (she stands with the majority), her commonsense methodology, and the fact that nobody (special interests included) owns Sarah Palin, they will come around.

The media's lies cannot live forever. Governor Palin continues to take hits from the press on a daily basis and is still standing, regardless of their efforts. In fact, even Greg Sargent had to admit her high approval numbers with Republicans. As much as Sargent wishes, he and his fellow travelers from the lefty media cannot contain Governor Palin to a "toxic bubble." The new media is alive and well, and something Palin has a knack for using to get her message out. She is going to need the help of her supporters to get the truth to the American people, and get around the head games the media play with this nation. Governor Palin can rest easy knowing she has many dedicated people who 'have her back,' ready to help spread that message of truth along with her.

Don Surber, Refudiating Palin’s Journolist Critics

Don Surber posted a great piece today to 'refudiate' the former Journolist member, Greg Sargent for effectively blaming readers for the way he and other members in the media treat Governor Palin. Surber writes:

Consider the admissions by Politico and Greg Sargent that they regularly run items on Sarah Palin simply to drive traffic.

From Politico: “More traffic comes from an item on Sarah Palin’s ‘refudiation’ faux pas than from our hundreds of stories on the complexities of health care reform or Wall Street regulation.”

Perhaps if Politico were as vigilant in its coverage of health care reform and Wall Street regulation as it is every slip by Sarah Palin readers would be interested.

Come on, we should not have to wait 4 months after its passage to learn that by Obamacare means any business transaction of $600 or more must be reported to the IRS; just what that has to do with health care is beyond me. If Politico had reported that in March in as entertaining a manner as it covers Sarah Palin, maybe it would not have to go around sliming Sarah Palin just to get hits.

Then there is this from Greg Sargent: “Frivolous items about Sarah Palin do degrade our discourse, but we need to do them, because the simple fact is that people click on them in droves.”

Sellout.

Seriously, if it is all about hits then just run photos of Miley Cyrus — or Britney Spears nude.

That’s what Perez Hilton does, right?

No, Greg Sargent and Politico waste a lot of time mocking Sarah Palin because that is what they like to do — and they blame readers for it. Once again, a liberal refuses to take personal responsibility. What degrades our discourse is a lack of candor.

One more thing, is it not telling that 2 years after she burst on the world scene, people still cannot get enough of Sarah Palin? I don’t seem to recall John Edwards, Joe Lieberman or Jack Kemp working up that much excitement 2 years after their failed VP candidacies.

You can read Don Surber's piece in it's entirety here

Anyone who has followed the unfolding saga that is the fall of the left-wing listerv "Journolist," knows very well that ratings and internet "hits" where never the reason the media treated Palin so grossly unfair. There is no denying the fact that Governor Palin generates interest with the public. She does have the ability to draw attention to an issue, thereby drawing attention to any site covering that issue. However, these writer's are no longer covering issues, they are using their forums in an attempt to create negative perceptions in that public's mind about a political figure they wish to destroy. Such is the state of the modern day media.