Archive for November, 2009
Sarah Palin Interviewed By Rush And Oprah, A Study In Contrasts–UPDATED
Tuesday, November 17th, 2009The Sarah Palin – Oprah interview couldn’t have been more different than the Sarah Palin – Rush interview. I watched the Oprah interview yesterday after having not watched the Oprah Show in years. I listened to Rush today after listening intermittently for years. If I tell you how long, you’ll realize I’m older than I look, so I won’t tell you.
Anyway, before I get into the details, my overarching impression wasn’t related to Sarah Palin at all, but rather to the state of the press in general. For example, here’s Sarah Palin going into hostile Obama-loving territory on Oprah. She was on edge, and fought defensiveness, much like her interview with Katie Couric. But she did it. Unlike Barack Obama, who has studiously avoided any interview from anyone who isn’t a “friendly”, Palin demonstrates some gumption. [Barack Obama has decided to grant Fox an interview tonight, reportedly.] Luckily for him, that’s a rather small group and only one network who are fair and balanced–which is to say they’re not kissing his ass 24/7–but if any conservative did the same, the conservative wouldn’t ever be on TV or interviewed by any newsweekly, period. There are no even remotely neutral media sources. Who? MSNBC? NBC? ABC? CNN? CBS? Newsweek? Time? The New York Times? Who is fair? Who doesn’t lean so far left that they’re imploding for lack of viewers and/or readers and the ad dollars eyeballs drive? [UPDATED: Texans for Palin calls out USA Today for their bias today. It never ends.]
Right.
So, here’s Sarah Palin going forward into Oprah’s female den of iniquity. Oprah needs Sarah like Sarah needs Oprah. Sarah Palin needs to appeal to a broader slice of the electorate. Oprah needs ratings. It’s mutually beneficial and one of the bile-inducing decisions politicians make. Oprah doesn’t ask Sarah Palin substantive questions. Oprah asks Oprah questions–about Levi coming to Thanksgiving [More on Levi here], about her marriage, etc. Rush Limbaugh called the questions “soap opera stuff”, but that’s Oprah’s audience. Palin did relatively well. The Anchoress sums it up this way:
Palin struck me as too guarded and needlessly defensive. Toward the end, Oprah asked if she had anything else to say, and Palin unwisely blurted out, “you can’t turn off my mic…” which was very revealing. As I said over two twitters:
there is a brittle defensiveness to Palin that was not there before; she’s clearly carrying scabs from being savaged in ‘08 BUT…you can’t do that in politics. She was treated (IS still treated) abominably by press, but if she can’t transcend that she’s out
Okay, political analysis in 140 characters doesn’t really work, but yeah, it seems to me that Palin is showing her scars from the detestable way the press descended on her and her family like a pack of rabid canines and worked to literally destroy Palin when she emerged in ‘08.
But the press tried to destroy Reagan, and they tried to destroy Bush; they could only get so far, because both men were able to shake the rutting mutts off their legs with aplomb, and look forward. It is a quality of character, part of it comes from knowing who you are and -as we see happening- it encourages people to take a second look, or a third, if need be.
I have suspected that Palin does know who she is, but she’s been rattled, and it shows. And so, she is talking about media mistreatment; her charges are not untrue, but tonguing the wounds will not help her with the people she needs to win over. They will see it merely as an unattractive, vindictive quality, rather ala Obama. Who wants more of that?
Sarah Palin needs to deal with this den of vicious beasts better. And they are vicious. Camille Paglia, who The Anchoress quotes, says succinctly:
She also needs a shrewder, cooler take on the mainstream media, with its preening bullies, cackling witches, twisted cynics and pompous windbags. The Northeastern media establishment is in decline, and everyone knows it.
Rush’s interview, in contrast, made Sarah Palin sound like a wise elder statesman. He didn’t throw softballs. To the contrary, he asked her substantive policy questions. [Transcript here and here's the audio.] Guess what? She didn’t stumble. She flowed. It was great to listen to, really, and heartening. Rush asked her questions on everything from national security, foreign policy, oil exploration, health care and illegal immigration. Not one stutter. Not one hiccup. She was flawless.
It wasn’t just her form. Her substance was pure, unapologetic small-government conservative. It was like taking a breath of fresh political air, if such a thing exists. D.C. smells gives off the fetid fumes of months dead fish in the still undrained swamp. Sarah Palin is not D.C. She brings the brisk, clean Alaskan air and sends a chill down the spines of Democrats and Republican establishment types. They are right to fear her. She is formidable.
I want Sarah Palin to succeed.
Sarah Palin must though, find a way to be at ease answering any question that the superficial, bigoted, condescending North Eastern blue bloods throw at her. Underneath, these people are insecure. It rattles them to their bones that a state college educated, wife, mother, politician and governor could best them. Their insecurity will get more piqued as President Obama continues to waffle, avoid and hide–from unfriendly press, from dictators, from tough decisions, from failure.
Sarah Palin will have to get used to wearing the mantle of leader. That means that she’ll have to own the fact that she’s so formidable that Barack Obama has finally, at long last, decided to man up and face Fox. (It won’t be much of a feat. Geeze, O’Reilly already loves him and the rest of the cast like him, too. It’s only the talking heads like Beck and Hannity that dislike the guy. What a weenie Obama has been avoiding Fox. So typical, though.)
Obama illustrates the point though. He’s weak. He will only take the easy road. Sarah Palin, by nature of being conservative, chooses the more difficult road. It’s just the way it is. She needs to own it. She needs to march down the road with cheerful grace. These self-important press and establishment types cannot handle good humor. They have no sense of humor about themselves. A well-placed gentle jibe will do more than 100 well-circumscribed answers and cluck-clucking back-tracking. The circumlocution is Obama’s forté. Sarah Palin needs to own everything, be direct and have a ball.
Really, what does Sarah Palin have to lose? What more can they say? The left has shot its load, not they won’t try to reload and make more bullcrap out of whole cloth. Let them. Really. Now is not the time to be defensive or afraid.
As a side note: When Oprah asked her invasive family questions, I noted that Sarah turned and looked at her daughters with love and pain in her eyes. It is disgusting to me that they have to hear the b.s. Some will say, “Well, it’s Sarah’s fault for bringing them.” Really? If Barack and Michelle Obama brought their daughters on Oprah, would she ask them, in front of the girls, about fight rumors and rumors of divorce? Somehow I doubt it.
There is a double standard. It’s despicable. In order to succeed, though, a conservative candidate, man or woman must, as The Anchoress says, transcend it. No doubt, Sarah Palin will have plenty of opportunity to do just that as she faces more hostile interviews.
More at Memeorandum
Podcast: Making Fun Of Liberals With John Hawkins
Tuesday, November 17th, 2009Too much fun. We talked Al Gore and his indulgences, The Bow, “V”, and toothless vampires.
Download MP3
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
When Melissa isn’t on the radio, you can find her at melissaclouthier.com and on Twitter. Her username is MelissaTweets.
Sexy Sarah Palin: Leftist Sexists At It Yet Again–UPDATED, UPDATED AGAIN
Monday, November 16th, 2009How ribald can you be? Newsweek will show you:
The CBN’s David Brody says:
You’ve got to hand it to the folks at Newsweek. They have accomplished being biased and sexist at the same time. Quite a feat. This cover has got to be a new low right? They don’t use a photo of Palin on the campaign trail. No instead they take the sexy Runners World photo. Yes she posed for it but don’t tell me they didn’t purposely use that photo to make a point? I predict this cover will become a bigger story over the next 24-48 hours and let’s face it. This isn’t JUST about media bias. This cover should be insulting to women politicians. Where’s the sexy photo of Mitt Romney? Why not a picture of Tim Pawlenty with an unbuttoned shirt relaxing on a couch in the Twin Cities?
We see Obama with halos hovering over his head. We see Sarah in running shoes. The whole purpose is to diminish, denigrate and destroy a woman who differs politically.
As if fair-minded Americans needed more evidence of press bias.
Updated:
Sarah Palin responds to the cover from Facebook:
The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this “news” magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner’s World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness – a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention – even if out of context.
- Sarah Palin
After this post got fed to Twitter, I got into an argument with a leftist feminist there about this cover. She brought up Hillary Clinton. She believes that Sarah Palin did this to herself by posing for Runners World. What serious politician or man would pose for that sort of cover?
What serious newsweekly would put a degrading picture, say of Obama frolicking in the surf or Bil and Hill dancing in the sand for the camera, on the cover of a magazine? Only conservative politicians need worry about being portrayed as trivial and sexy (Sarah), mean and old (McCain), mean (Cheney), mean and stupid (GWB). A Democrat gets gravitas-portraying treatment.
Always.
And that’s why conservatives view the press as biased. They don’t even attempt, even feebly, to hide it anymore.
UPDATED AGAIN:
Well, I knew this story had legs. Sorry, couldn’t help myself. Anyway the feminists are coming out against Newsweek. It’s about damn time. It is heartening to see them facing this bias. Women should be evaluated on their content, beliefs and actions. When Sarah Palin is reduced to her legs, the men don’t have to evaluate her on her merit.
Julie Millican of Media Matters [!] says:
There are a lot of legitimate reasons to criticize Sarah Palin, her new book, and her policies, but you don’t have to stoop to sexism to do it. Newsweek’s November 23 issue, however, does just that by publishing on its cover a photo of Palin in short running shorts and a fitted top, leaning against the American flag. Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo — “How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?” — presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, “Maria,” in which nuns fret about “how” to “solve a problem like Maria,” a “girl” who “climbs trees” and whose “dress has a tear.”
When will the media stop this degrading nonsense? I think it’s when those within the ranks start holding them accountable. That’s happening, thankfully, at long last.
The Tough Liberal: NY Is A-OK With Being A Terrorist Target–Updated
Monday, November 16th, 2009Glenn Greenwald and his sock puppet said this on Twitter today, articulating, the self-congratulatory meme within the leftosphere:
RT @AnonLib “Strange that being ‘tough on terror’ = publicly soiling yourself at thought of being in same state as an imprisoned terrorist”
Newsflash lefties: You can’t have it both ways. Either these guys are scary dudes wanting to kill everyone and have buddies wanting to do the same or they’re hapless criminals who aren’t terrorists at all–they’re just misunderstood criminals. If it’s the latter, there’s no reason to be concerned which really means only a lame-o would be afraid. Therefore, you can’t claim extraordinary courage and bravery out of one side of your mouth, while diminishing the threat of these hardly-dangerous petty criminals out of the other side.
At least people who see terrorists for what they are–homocidal maniacs driven by psychotic ideology–rationally see the implicit threat to other innocent Americans, too. It is not cowardly to note a threat and protect the innocent from it. It is smart.
Sending KSM and his terrorist minions to New York City doesn’t demonstrate the lefts’ bravery, it demonstrates their stupidity. They would put innocent citizens at risk while costing the state millions. Oh yeah, brave.
UPDATED:
And this goes for you, too.
UPDATED AGAIN:
Brian Faugham notes that Mike Lupica has turned against the terrorist transfer to NY for civilian trial:
Is it truly so hard to see – as Lupica does – that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is getting exactly what he wants – the attention of the world as he mounts his own defense? Recall: the first thing Mohammed said after his capture was that he wanted to go to New York to consult with his lawyer. Rather than keeping him buried in a cell, the White House is rewarding him with the show trial of the century – one which will allow KSM to make his case to the entire world. How does this further American interests?
The great irony in this is that this process began when liberals told us that the prison at Guantanamo Bay had to be closed because it was the greatest terror recruiting tool Al Qaeda had ever had. Thanks to Barack Obama and Eric Holder, they’re getting a better one.
And that’s why the libs like Greenwald are so disingenuous. They lick their chops at making Bush look bad and fail to recognize that they kill the country in the process and feed Al Qaeda along the way. Or, maybe they do see those implications and seek the destruction of their own.
The Khalid Sheik Mohammed Folly & The Obama Administration
Monday, November 16th, 2009For the best analysis, listen to this Brass Balls Radio podcast. The lawyers Clyde Middleton and Bill Dupray, Jimmie Bise of Sundries Shack and Steve Schippert of Threatswatch discuss the trial and what is up with Obama. I encourage you to listen.
James Joyner says this about the civilian trial:
First, these men are not citizens of the United States. Second, they’re accused war criminals. They simply should not be tried in U.S. civilian courts. Rather, they should either be held accountable in a Nuremberg-style international forum or treated as war criminals by a U.S. military tribunal under the mechanisms provided by Congress and approved by the Supreme Court.
Aside from the virtual certainty that the trial will devolve into a media circus, there’s an incredibly good chance that Mohammed and his comrades will go free. The fact that KSM was repeatedly waterboarded would seem to taint any subsequent evidence, including his own confession.
It’s only a head-scratcher if you don’t consider that this is an indirect way for the Obama administration to put the Bush administration on trial without putting Bush directly on trial. Although, I can see the defense wanting to depose President Bush about his decision to okay water boarding. This is a bone thrown to the hard left.
Bogus Jobs: An Awesome Map From The Washington Examiner
Monday, November 16th, 2009Wow. Want to participate in this map? Go to the link and send your information.
Here’s my contribution via a reader on Twitter who pointed to me this from Doubleplusundead:
Well, lookie here. Sure enough, the O-bots are claiming that five jobs were saved in the 14th MO Congressional District. Only problem? Missouri only has nine Congressional Districts.
This made me guffaw. Another reader said that the five counties are found in those extra seven states that exist only in Barack Obama’s head.
Yeah, job loss is hilarious unless you’re one of the over 10% of Americans without a job. Don’t worry, though, President Obama will be talking about your pain in December. That will make it better.
The Tea Party Movement Is Not A GOP Creation
Monday, November 16th, 2009The Tea Party movement is a reaction against the Republican party. Sorry to keep beating this drum, but this truth needs to be said loudly and often. It is popular among the press, the left and even some within the Republican party to paint the Tea Party movement as an Obama-hating reaction to socialistic impulses. That is part of it. The heart of it, though, is that many Americans, across the spectrum, felt betrayed by the GOP for abandoning fiscal conservatism and ethical governance.
So here’s a letter from a Texas blogger friend and typical Tea Partier attacking this meme in a letter to the editor of the Houston Chronicle:
Ms. Burton (It feels weird typing that BTW).
My name is Stan Burton (no relation that I am aware of, but we Burtons have multiplied like rabbits, so it is entirely possible that we are related somewhere back in the depths of time.). I am both a Harris County GOP Precinct Chair as well as one of the founding members of the Texas Chapter of the American Conservativer Party. Your story today makes a bad assumption that is simply unsupported by the facts.
The tea party movement is not, and never was “created by the GOP”. If anything, it was created in response to the GOP as it exists today. The GOP contingent in Congress has over the last few years attempted to move to the left and has become virtually indistinguishable from the Democrats. The Tea Party movement was created by the grass roots in order to show our leaders in Washington DC that the people are not leftist, we are by huge majorities, right of center. I realize you may not understand the true meaning of the words “Grass Roots” because it has been misappropriated and misapplied to groups that are in fact “astroturf” groups. Most of these astroturf groups are in fact promulgated by democrat organizations to support democrat causes. The most famous of these is ACORN and it’s hundreds of front organizations, including SEIU. Let me be clear here, the true meaning of a grass roots organization is one that SPONTANEOUSLY forms by individuals, not by groups in order to give political cover to said groups. The Tea Party movement is just such a spontaneous group, as is the ACP.
The Tea Party movement was not formed by the GOP, at least not intentionally. It was formed BECAUSE of the GOP and it’s shift leftward. It is not in of itself partisan, but it does lean to the right, on both fiscal as well as social issues. The ACP however IS partisan and it too was formed as a response to the GOP’s shift leftwards.
You really should do a bit more homework before you dive off into such rhetoric because you just look like a democrat toady and hack propagandist instead of an actual unbiased journalist. Frankly your biases are showing in spades. Talking to your leftist co-workers over beers at some trendy bar is NOT research. You really should have contacted Felicia Cravens or someone else in the tea party movement before you went and stuffed both of your feet in your mouth.
The Tea Party movement is a problem for many in the GOP. They did not create it, nor do they control it, much to their chagrin.
The Sarah Palin Storm Begins: Will Her Book Bring Her Back?
Monday, November 16th, 2009The jealous ovary hater Andrew Sullivan froths again. Sarah Palin must be peeking her head out of Alaska and Facebook. How DARE she?!
Still, I can’t help but imagining the envy among fellow Republicans. Rick Perry spouting about Obama’s socialism won’t get the press that Sarah Palin’s discussion about anything will get. And still Sarah Palin faces trouble according to ABC. Overall, 52% of Americans view her unfavorably. She needs to overcome this.
Will her book do this? Will a genteel interview with Oprah and an emotional one with Barbara Walters push her into favorable territory?
Sarah Palin is supported by the Republican party base. From Rasmussen:
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republican voters say former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin shares the values of most GOP voters throughout the nation.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% of Republican voters disagree and think the 2008 vice presidential candidate does not share their values. Twenty percent (20%) are undecided.
By contrast, 74% of Republicans say their party’s representatives in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters nationwide over the past several years. Only 18% of Republican voters believe their elected officials have done a good job representing the base.
To win, though, Sarah Palin needs all Americans, particularly women. To win, though, Sarah Palin needs all Americans, particularly women. Are women ready for a woman in charge? I’m not sure about that.
Sarah just needs to keep plugging, I guess. She is driving the argument. Her Facebook posts push the news cycle, because she’s the only consistent voice calling the administration on their nefarious deeds. She is also going at the press. Dan Riehl has an interesting take:
Sarah Palin seems to be spoiling for a fight with the media in her latest Facebook posting. There are going to be people, assuming political consultants are people, that are going to call this foolish. They’ll rely on conventional, read old, wisdom that says you don’t pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel. But does that alleged wisdom still apply?
Reagan didn’t fight with the media. The usual descriptor for what he did is, he went over the media’s head directly to the American people. Is Sarah Palin really doing anything different, except for having Facebook, blogs and a great many other New Media resources today to which Reagan didn’t have access? Just imagine how even more effective his communication strategy would have been if he had?
Because of media advances made in the last several years, Sarah Palin doesn’t have to go over the media’s head. She can go right through them. It appears to me that’s precisely what she intends to do. Don’t be surprised if it works, even as the media and some old-line politicos point how what a bad idea it is.
Well, time will tell if Sarah Palin’s strategy will work. She’s not going away and she’s not hiding. I’m wondering if she wins some good will and grudging respect through her book and softer interviews, if she’ll go on a Sunday talk show. That’s what many politicos seem to want. First, though, she needs to have a conversation with the people, win them and then they might be more interested in listening to a wonkier Sarah Palin.
Also, and this shouldn’t be underestimated, Barack Obama is doing more to make Sarah Palin viable than anyone else. Her Facebook posts are straight-forward, self-evident common sense. Meanwhile, President Obama is so “smart” and his impulses are exactly wrong. He seems ashamed of America and American principles. No doubt about Sarah Palin’s allegiance. That may well be enough, after it’s all said and done.
Genocide In India: The Logical Conclusion When Life Is Devalued
Saturday, November 14th, 2009I’ve written about this before [read here] and received this comment today from Rita Banerji:
I lived in the U.S. for many years and I was and am still pro-choice. Yet, when I returned to India as an adult even my pro-choice mind could not comprehend the absolute horror of the fact that in less than a century India has eliminated more than 50 million women from its population. It is targetted elimination and by definition a genocide. That’s when I started the 50 Million Missing Campaign. Our website is www.50millionmissing.in
And you are absolutely right Melissa. There is a big block in the west regarding female genocide in India. It is not an anti-abortion issue. The Soroptimist International just last week took on this cause. And I hope other feminist and human rights groups will.
More so it is not just about female feticide. There is infanticide, dowry murders, under 5 mortality rate and abortion related MMRs (1 woman every 5 minutes in India). I just published an article for the Australian journal Intersections. Here is the link:
http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue22/banerji.htm
At the link [Go read the whole thing]:
The public reservation, however, is with the actual likelihood of such a mass-scale elimination occurring. Occasionally one reads in Indian papers about baby body parts being found in a well in the compound of some clinic, or a young woman dying of burns under suspicious circumstances due to a supposed kitchen accident, but there is nothing in the news that suggests a blood-bath on the scale of a genocide. To drive home the point to my Rotary audience, I put up on the overhead a two columned table relating to the annual rates of female homicide in India. This slide included the means of elimination, and the estimate for the annual rate for each category.
Table 1. Annual Rates of Female Homicide in India
Female foeticide approximately 1 million[5]
Female infanticide approximately 25000 in the State of Kerala alone[6]
Dowry-related murders approximately 25000[7]
Preadolescent mortality 1 in 6 dies before 15 yrs (CRY)[8]
Mortality rate 40% higher for girls under 5 than boys the same age (UNICEF)[9]
Maternal mortality rate (MMR) 136,000
(1 woman dies every 5 minutes due to pregnancy-related causes) (WHO)[10]# The number one means of elimination I pointed out, is female foetal abortions. An estimated 1 million female foetuses are selectively eliminated in India each year, and that number is expected to rise to 2.5 million within the next few years.[11] Method number two is female infanticide, a practice that has a long history in India. So far there has been no national average estimated for female infanticide, largely because it is difficult to track down with there being no administrative compulsion for citizens to register births. Nevertheless, existent data gives an indication of the scale of the practice. In the state of Kerala, one of India’s most progressive states, with a literacy rate of over 90 per cent, it is estimated that about 25,000 new born girls are killed every year.[12] In other states like Bihar, where the issue of gender bias is plainly discernable, one survey reveals that mid-wives interviewed admitted to being paid to kill almost 50 per cent of the baby girls they delivered.[13] As the number three method of elimination I listed dowry murders, also known as ‘dowry deaths.’ Despite the fact that a majority of dowry-related homicides of young married women in India are never even filed with the police, in the late 1990s it was estimated that at least 25,000 young married women were cold-bloodedly murdered by their husbands and in-laws in dowry extortion cases.[14] That number has continued to rise, as the practice of dowry itself spreads to communities, like tribal groups, that traditionally never had the custom of dowry.
What happens when an evil element of a culture meets up with technology? Genocide.
There is a disconnect for Western women. Because of cultural relativism and their own desire to have the power of life and death over another human, they avert their eyes when the same motivation is used on a grand scale to engage in the most misogynistic of ventures: killing women because men are better (and, in India, cheaper).
But the choice to eliminate a life for gender seems like just one reason among many to have an abortion. 90% of mongoloid children are aborted in America. In America, that child is viewed is dysfunctional, less than, and wrong. In India, women babies are viewed that way. It’s just a different culture. All over the world, people want the “useful”. In India, women aren’t very useful. In America, retarded children aren’t very useful.
At some level, mostly unconscious, Western women know they are little different than their Indian counterparts which is why they stay silent in the face of the biggest female genocide in history.
Is Trying 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed The Dumbest Obama Idea Yet?
Friday, November 13th, 2009Trying the evil Sheikh in New York City under the American legal system is the dumbest idea ever in the history of dumb presidential legal ideas and that’s when compared to the biggest poop pile of dumb Obama ideas generally which are the worst in any American presidency ever.*
If you disagree, please share an example of a dumber Obama idea.
*I keep wondering if perhaps that I might be being hyperbolic here. Maybe I should rewrite that obnoxious run-on sentence and couch a little. Maybe I should say,”It seems most unwise to bring a mastermind terrorist to New York City, home of the injustice, try to seek a fair trial, give him the right to explore all evidence against him, fund his defense by the taxpayers, etc. Most, problematic, that.” But no. It’s just plain dumb. Or insane.
