I will be the first to admit that Sarah Palin’s recent pandering to the right has turned me off to her politically.  She had an excellent opportunity to forge her “maverick” style by ignoring left-wing or right-wing purity standards and just doing what’s right.  Her record as Governor of Alaska revealed shades of this type of independence and until now I held out hope that she would resist the temptation of using ridiculous and useless rhetoric to fire up that base.  Unfortunately she seems to have embraced the extreme elements of the tea-partiers in a quest for what, I don’t know.  Maybe she thought joining these ultra-right forces was the best defensive posture against the heinous sexist treatment she’s regularly pelted with by the failbot liberal elitists.  Maybe she thinks that she will be treated better by those on the right.  She’s wrong.  Dead wrong.

Sexism clearly knows no political boundaries.  Case in point are the recent comments by Glenn Beck.  Apparently Sarah responded to a question regarding the possibility of a presidential pairing of her and Beck.  In a display of naivete, Palin remarked in so many words that such would be “a hoot.”  So, was Beck flattered?  Hell no.  He wasted no time spewing sexist insults meant to demean her status simply because she has a vagina.  In a “make me a sammich woman” moment, this penis-wearer scoffed at the idea of playing second fiddle to a woman.  *gasp*  This needs no intro or explanation.  Just have a listen.

Maybe Sarah will see this moment as her opportunity to grasp the painful truth that she will not escape sexism by clinging to any political party; and she will not be spared their misogynistic wrath even if she spreads their empty, ideological, parasitic mind-viruses.  Hopefully she will put 2 and 2 together and realize the right will savage her as viciously as the left no matter what she does or what she says.

The people of America are looking for independent thinkers who do something because it’s the right thing to do, not because it’s in line with some Madison Avenue-designed left or right talking point.  So many women whose eyes were opened during the 2008 primaries are newly independent and fiercely protective of their rights in this democracy.  This was a golden opportunity for Sarah Palin, yet for some reason she has chosen to align herself with and parrot talking points written by those who will attack and degrade her with the same ferocity as the left did and continues to do.

Because of these things I offer the following advice to Sarah Palin:

Sarah, please drop these losers – the Becks, the Limbaughs, the Hannitys, the Cheneys and all the partisans they carry water for.  Many of us did the same on our side of the aisle when we realized they were full of shite regarding their alleged dedication to women’s rights.

Do yourself a huge favor and follow the lead of Hillary Clinton.  Support issues that raise women up regardless of political affiliation.  Abandon those who want to hold women down and who use sexism and misogyny to keep women from their rightful place in society.  If for no other reason, do it for your daughters.

Let this be your final wake-up call.  Quit knocking on the door of the He-man wimmen haters club — they won’t let you in.  Join us and we’ll help you kick the door down.

Carpe diem, my friend.  Carpe diem.

digg!!! tweet!!! share!!!

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

Matt Taibbi

1) The political media has always taken it upon itself to make decisions about who is and who is not qualified to be taken seriously as candidates for higher office. Without even talking about whether they do this more or less to Republicans or Democrats, I can testify that I witnessed this phenomenon over and over again in the primary battles within the Democratic Party. It has always been true that the press corps has drawn upon internalized professional biases, high-school-style groupthink and the urging of insider wonks to separate candidates into “serious” and “unserious” groups before the shots even start to be fired.

[...]

2) When that does happen, when the press corps decides to abandon all restraint and go for the head shot, it usually tells us a lot more about the reporters’ bosses and what they’re thinking than it does about the reporters themselves. Your average political reporter is a spineless dweeb who went to all the best schools and made it to that privileged seat inside the campaign-trail ropeline by being keenly sensitive to the editorial wishes of his social and professional superiors.

[...]

The tone for all this behavior is always set somewhere way up the corporate totem pole, and it always reflects some dreary combination of simple business considerations (i.e. what’s the best story and sells the most ads) and internalized political calculus (i.e. who is a “legitimate” candidate and who is an “insurgent” or a “second-tier” hopeful). It’s not that the reporters are making this judgment themselves, it’s that they have to listen to what the apparatus Up There is saying all day long — not just their bosses but the think-tank talking heads they interview for comments, the party insiders who buy them beers at night, the pollsters and so on.

And when all these people start getting in their ears about this or that guy doesn’t have “winnability,” or doesn’t have enough money to run, or has negatives that are insurmountable, all that thinking inevitably bleeds into the coverage. It’s not that the reporters are “biased.” They just don’t have the stones, for the most part, to ignore all the verbal and non-verbal cues they get from authority figures about who is “legitimate” and who isn’t.

[...]

That said, even back at the very beginning of the campaign, before the signal came down that it was okay to start giving Obama big sloppy blowjobs on the air, when reporters were all slamming the one-term Illinois Senator for being a “lightweight” prone to “rookie mistakes” (those among us whose version of recent history imagines Obama being handed the 2008 election by the campaign press seem always to forget that part, but go back and look — the “Hillary is the presumptive frontrunner” period lasted a solid nine or ten months), Obama’s press handlers observed the prime directive. They did not interfere with the reporters’ civilization. There was a “let the chips fall where they may” attitude that helped out a lot when the Beltway consensus finally shifted and the money started pouring in behind the candidate; there was no bad blood to overcome when the press had to change its mind again and embrace an “Obama is now the presumptive frontrunner/We are now at war with Oceania” posture.

(emphasis added)

Matt is being a little disingenuous. He writes for Rolling Stone magazine, and they were treating Obama like a top-tier candidate way back in February 2007, when he barely had two years in the US Senate.  But Matt’s post still begs the question – who sent the signal telling reporters to treat Obama as a contender?

In a sane and rational world Obama would never have been considered a viable candidate.  He was certainly a rising star and a possible Vice-Presidential candidate, but considering his lack of experience and accomplishment, he should never have been taken seriously as the Presidential nominee.  The media made him a contender – so who decided that the media should do so?

Matt also ignores the fact that Obama raised $99 million in 2007 – more than all the other Democratic candidates except Hillary raised combined.  He raised that in approximately equal amounts in each quarter throughout the year, even though he was running a distant third behind Hillary and Edwards until late in the year.  Where did that money come from?

(Hint: It wasn’t from college kids sending in their lunch money.)

Matt Taibbi obviously knows more than he is telling.  The secrets he’s keeping would reveal how the leaders of the Democratic party and the media conspired to ignore the voters and make Obama the nominee.

The same people who selected Obama are trying to destroy Sarah Palin.  Who are they, and why are they doing these things?

Whose democracy is it anyway?

digg!!! tweet!!! share!!!

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

The Democratic National Committee has been, for days emailing reporters gleefully about Sarah Palin’s media blitz, feeding the flames of what officials there see as a distraction for and a threat to the Republican Party.

This morning, they’re circulating a memo to local press in the places where Palin’s book tour is stopping, summarizing the voluminous Palin coverage and making the case that the memoir is “political payback” and “fiction.”

Here is the beginning of the DNC Memo:

In advance of Sarah Palin’s stop in Michigan today, please find below everything you need to know about Going Rogue – a memoir that has been received as 1) political payback for Palin’s rivals that adds to the tabloid nature of her profile rather than provide a display of substantive policy chops that would reset her ability to be taken as a serious leader; and 2) substantively more fiction than fact compounding the credibility problems she earned during the 2008 campaign. These factors are reflected in recent polling which shows extraordinary disapproval numbers and small minorities who feel she’s qualified to be President. The sensational nature of Palin’s book continues to dominate news cycles – and does so to the detriment of the Republican Party. Combined with her dismal polling numbers and Republican willingness to cede the party to her and her polarizing tea party following, the political impact of her re-emergence, spells political disaster for the GOP going into 2010 and beyond.

It sure is nice of the DNC to be so concerned about the future of the Republican party. If Sarah Palin is really that bad, you would expect the Democrats to keep quiet, wouldn’t you? So why are they pushing so hard?

Dr. Bostonboomer told us it’s called “reaction formation.”

In psychoanalytic theory, reaction formation is a defensive process (defense mechanism) in which anxiety-producing or unacceptable emotions and impulses are mastered by exaggeration (hypertrophy) of the directly opposing tendency.

Another term for it is “Palin Derangement Syndrome.”

digg!!! tweet!!! share!!!

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

Good Morning Conflucians! Here is my frantically rushed summary of the latest news. I may add a few more odds and ends.

Politics and Politicians

Paterson Says He Will Run Despite White House Pressure

At a parade in Harlem, the governor refused to discuss his conversations with President Obama’s political team, which has made clear to Mr. Paterson in recent days that it has lost confidence in him and does not believe he can be elected next fall.

Asked how he would run as a Democrat without White House support, Mr. Paterson said, “I am running for governor right now. I have no idea — I am a candidate for governor.”

“I have had a number of different conversations with a number of different people,” he added. “They are confidential.”

Still, even as Mr. Paterson publicly vowed to continue, two prominent Democrats who had spoken to him over the weekend described him as mulling his options and open to the possibility of withdrawing from the race. The two spoke on condition of anonymity because the conversations were intended to be confidential.

RNC chief thinks it’s “curious” that Obama would ask a black governor to step aside.

“I found that to be stunning, that the White House would send word to one of only two black governors in the country not to run for reelection,” Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), said on CBS’s Face The Nation.

Steele was commenting on a report in The New York Times that said an intermediary of President Barack Obama sent word to Paterson that he should not run, considering his low approval ratings. Asked by host Bob Schieffer if race played a role in the White House’s decision to ask Paterson to back off from campaigning, Steele said he didn’t think so.

“It raises a curious point for me. I think Gov. Paterson’s numbers are about the same as Gov. Corzine’s. The president is with Gov. Corzine,” Steele said. The RNC chairman was referring to Gov. Jon Corzine, the Democratic New Jersey governor who is facing a tough reelection bid this year.

Obama’s Sunday Media blitz

He made appearances on five different TV networks yesterday, and I missed every single one of them.

Speaking on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and Univision, the president spoke on everything from Afghanistan to race, but his main purpose was to continue his campaign-style push convincing Americans why health care reform is necessary this year.

Some analysts say the president inundating the airwaves is a risky strategy.

“Conventional wisdom will tell you that if you’re doing five shows as the POTUS [president of the United States] you’re doing four too many,” said political analyst David Gergen to ABC.

“No president ever wants to become video wallpaper,” said Larry Sabato, director of Center for Politics. “People do tune you out because they simply assume you don’t have anything new to say.”

President Obama is about even with Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton on the number of press conferences he’s given. However, on interviews, both Bush and Clinton gave around 40 by this point in the presidencies, but Mr. Obama has done about three times as many — 124 interviews so far.

Next up, Dave Letterman show.

This week, the world is watching Obama

Obama’s appearances at the U.N. meetings in New York, and with Group of 20 leaders later this week in Pittsburgh, offer him a “unique opportunity” to burnish his image as an effective and commanding leader, said a White House official who asked not to be named in order to speak freely. If Obama does this successfully, the White House hopes it could help the president as he wrestles for the confidence of an American public that is still deeply divided over his healthcare legislation.

John Edwards continues his downward spiral.

…a federal grand jury in nearby Raleigh is investigating whether any crimes were committed in connection with campaign laws in an effort to conceal his extramarital affair with a woman named Rielle Hunter. At the same time, Mr. Edwards is moving toward an abrupt reversal in his public posture; associates said in interviews that he is considering declaring that he is the father of Ms. Hunter’s 19-month-old daughter, something that he once flatly asserted in a television interview was not possible.

Friends and other associates of Mr. Edwards and his wife of 32 years, Elizabeth, say she has resisted the idea of her husband’s claiming paternity. Mrs. Edwards, who is battling cancer, “has yet to be brought around,” said one family friend, who like others spoke about the situation on the condition of anonymity, pointing to the complicated and delicate nature of the issue.

The situation may become more fraught, as people who know Ms. Hunter said she was planning to move with her daughter, Frances, from New Jersey to North Carolina in coming months.

Good Lord! Elizabeth needs to dump the jerk and get on with her life.

Resolution of Rielle Hunter’s paternity claim would cap John Edwards’ political career

Mike Lupica thinks the Edwards story parallels a new TV series with Chris Noth, The Good Wife. Maybe I’ll have break my TV fast and check this show out. I do like Chris Noth.

The timing for “The Good Wife” is perfect, of course, with the current wave of stories about creepy John Edwards, who reportedly might be ready to admit he fathered a child out of wedlock. Edwards is also in the news because a federal grand jury is trying to decide whether an actual crime – other than one of passion or just sheer stupidity – was committed when Edwards tried to cover up the affair.

Originally, one of Edwards’ aides, someone named Andrew Young, claimed to be the baby’s father. Now Young, with a book to sell, is ready to tell the whole story about that, how he even “facilitated” an affair between Edwards and a political groupie/ documentary filmmaker named Rielle Hunter that took place while Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth, was already battling cancer.

So first Young fixes Edwards up on the road. Now he is willing to throw Edwards under the nearest bus to sell a book. You know what brought a sleazebag like this together with Edwards? Destiny, that’s what.

Health Care

Amid health reform, massive Medicare agency is still headless

Nine months into his term, President Barack Obama has yet to nominate someone to head an agency that will play an enormous role in implementing any healthcare reform legislation Congress passes this year.

The agency has 4,400 employees, a $676 billion annual budget and a duty to provide healthcare to 44.6 million people enrolled in Medicare, 51 million in Medicaid and 6.3 million in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). In effect, the nation’s largest health insurer has been without a CEO for three years.

New York Health Care Workers Resist Flu Vaccine Rule

Across the country, federal health officials say, only about 42 percent of all health care workers get an annual flu shot. That is little better than the overall national average of 33 percent and far below the 65 to 70 percent rate for the elderly.

That’s why the emergency regulation adopted this summer by the State Health Department making all hospital, home health and hospice workers get seasonal and swine flu vaccinations was a startling and radical step….Local unions reacted angrily, saying they had not been consulted.

Joel Shufro, executive director of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, a coalition of 200 union locals, said the change was presented to them “as a done deal” on Aug. 17. His coalition is still debating suing to stop it, he said.

The unions do not oppose vaccination “but we oppose a mandatory program,” he said. “This is: ‘You don’t get the shot, you’re fired.’ ”

Economics

Another bailout?

Obama open to newspaper bailout bill

The president said he is “happy to look at” bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

The prez says he’s worried about blogs:

“I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding,” he said.

Oh brother! Doesn’t Obama’s administration already have enough influence on the so-called news media?

Obama wants G20 to rethink global economy

“We can’t go back to the era where the Chinese or the Germans or other countries just are selling everything to us, we’re taking out a bunch of credit card debt or home equity loans, but we’re not selling anything to them,” Obama said in an interview with CNN television.

For years before the financial crisis erupted in 2007, economists had warned of the dangers of imbalances in the global economy — namely huge trade surpluses and currency reserves built up by exporters like China, and similarly big deficits in the United States and other economies.

With U.S. consumers now holding back on spending after house prices plunged and as unemployment climbs, Washington wants other countries to become engines of growth.

Afghanistan

This even brought out Bob Woodward. I haven’t seen any stories by him lately, have you? He’s on this one:

McChrystal: More Forces or ‘Mission Failure’

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict “will likely result in failure,” according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”

His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.

I wonder who leaked this to Woodward? Something tells me it wasn’t the Obama administration. Lately it’s been sounding like the generals aren’t too happy with Obama’s policies. I wonder if he’ll start firing them like Bush did? My guess is he’ll just give them whatever they want. Vietnam II here we come!

Changes Have Obama Rethinking War Strategy

Although Obama endorsed a strategy document in March that called for “executing and resourcing an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency strategy,” there have been significant changes in Afghanistan and Washington since then. A disputed presidential election, an erosion in support for the war effort among Democrats in Congress and the American public, and a sharp increase in U.S. casualties have prompted the president and his top advisers to reexamine their assumptions about the U.S. role in defeating the Taliban insurgency.

Instead of debating whether to give McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, more troops, the discussion in the White House is now focused on whether, after eight years of war, the United States should vastly expand counterinsurgency efforts along the lines he has proposed — which involve an intensive program to improve security and governance in key population centers — or whether it should begin shifting its approach away from such initiatives and simply target leaders of terrorist groups who try to return to Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, back in the other endless war:

US military deaths in Iraq war at 4,345

Is there a news blackout on Iraq or what? It seems the focus is all the focus on Afghanistan, and there seems to be no coverage of what’s happening in Iraq. It’s disquieting.

Odds and Ends

The Lost Symbol and The DaVinci Code Author Dan Brown’s 20 Worst Sentences

Pretty funny. Dan Brown is a terrible writer!

Meet the man who changed Glenn Beck’s life

Cleon Skousen was a right-wing crank whom even conservatives despised. Then Beck discovered him

Even if the turnout wasn’t the 2 million that some conservatives tried, briefly, to claim, it was still enough to fill the streets near the Capitol. It was also ample testament to the strength of a certain strain of right-wing populist rage and the talking head who has harnessed it. The masses were summoned by Glenn Beck, Fox News host and organizer of the 912 Project, the civic initiative he pulled together six months ago to restore America to the sense of purpose and unity it had felt the day after the towers fell.

In reality, however, the so-called 912ers were summoned to D.C. by the man who changed Beck’s life, and that helps explain why the movement is not the nonpartisan lovefest that Beck first sold on air with his trademark tears. Beck has created a massive meet-up for the disaffected, paranoid Palin-ite “death panel” wing of the GOP, those ideologues most susceptible to conspiracy theories and prone to latch on to eccentric distortions of fact in the name of opposing “socialism.” In that, they are true disciples of the late W. Cleon Skousen, Beck’s favorite writer and the author of the bible of the 9/12 movement, “The 5,000 Year Leap.” A once-famous anti-communist “historian,” Skousen was too extreme even for the conservative activists of the Goldwater era, but Glenn Beck has now rescued him from the remainder pile of history, and introduced him to a receptive new audience.

“Palinite?” How did Sarah Palin become part of this? Did I miss something?

Ex-Miss California says she’s not a “hater”

Tallest man in the world – 8-foot-1 Sultan Kosen – visits New York City

Insane killer recaptured after escaping during field trip

Bears upset Steelers

The Bears never led the Steelers until 15 ticks remained on the clock Sunday. And then Robbie Gould made it all good with a 44-yard field goal that gave the Bears a 17-14 victory over the defending Super Bowl champion Steelers.

Have a great Monday, even if you’re feeling manic like I am!

We all know that Barack Obama is famous for speechifying.  Until he was elected to be Reader of the  TOTUS it was the first and foremost item on his skimpy resume.  But for all the swooning of the fanboiz in the media and blogosphere have any of his speeches made a difference?

Obama’s first great speech was allegedly his 2002 anti-war speech in Chicago.  I say “allegedly” because there don’t seem to be any contemporaneous accounts or live recordings of it (his campaign recorded him reading a copy of the speech and dubbed in crowd noise.)  We pretty much have to take Obama’s word for what he said and it certainly didn’t stop the invasion of Iraq from taking place.

When Obama gave the keynote speech at the 2004 DNC convention it was the first time he ever used a TelePrompter.  Not only did he receive national name-recognition for the speech but in the minds of many it qualified him to be President.  It didn’t do much for John Kerry however, he lost the election to a booger-eating moron.

According to Obama’s cult followers deranged followers enthusiastic supporters the Iowa victory speech was the greatest victory speech in the history of the Iowa caucuses and proved he was a force to be reckoned with.  A few days later Hillary won an upset victory in New Hampshire.

Next up was The Greatest Speech On Race EVAH!  I was over at Balloon Juice the day Obama read the speech to the adoring media and I swear on the lives of my ex-wives that two different people claimed to have been moved to tears just reading a transcript!  A few weeks later Obama disowned the man he could never disown.  According to the OFB racial strife in this country has increased since then, and they are constantly finding new examples of racism.

Obama’s “Free Beer and Bratwurst” speech doesn’t seem to have been much of a success, Obama didn’t receive any votes from Germany in the election and they still haven’t apologized for bombing Pearl Harbor.

Obama decided that the Staples Center in Denver wasn’t grand enough for his coronation acceptance speech, so his supporters in the banking and telecom industries rented Mile-High stadium for him and built him his own faux-Grecian temple.  After being carried to the stage in a sedan chair by a team of oiled-up and stripped-down fanboiz, Obama gave the greatest speech of his life up until then.  The speech was so good that Chris Matthews couldn’t control himself and began humping Keith Olbermann’s leg on the air.

Shortly thereafter John McCain named Sarah Palin as his running mate and shot into the lead in the polls.  Her acceptance speech at the RNC convention attracted more viewers and got higher approval ratings.

As you can see, all of Obama speeches except the first one (which nobody listened to) follow the same pattern.  He reads a speech, his fanboiz swoon, nothing changes.  The reason for that is simple – all his speeches are “just words.”

Including the one he gave last night.

digg!!! share!!! tweet!!!

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

Hong Kong Broker Pulling A “Borat” On Sarah Palin

Hopefully Sarah Palin realizes she’s been invited to Hong Kong as a practical joke.

CLSA, the Asia-focused broker who invited Mrs. Palin as keynote speaker for an Asian investment conference, is well known for their cheeky takes on investment research.

In the past, they’ve polled Asian fortune tellers for index targets, hired anime cartoonists to draw Japanese research, and generally love to push the boundaries between entertainment and analysis. They are a real research firm, it’s just that they love to sprinkle in some hilarity every now and then as a smart marketing gimmick.

Sarah Palin is this year’s big laugh for them.

Her invitation as keynote speaker in Hong Kong is so ridiculous that its absurdity can’t be accidental.

Alaskan PDS bloggers Shannyn Moore and The Mudflats try to postpone their irrelevancy by repeating the story.  Unfortunately for them, their 15 minutes are over.

Let’s see, CSLA offers Sarah Palin $100,000 to make a speech and this is obviously a big joke because . . .  why?  Do the Palin haters think that in the middle of the speech a clown will run out and hit her in the face with a pie?  Kinda pricey for a few laughs, and they’ll never get anyone worth a damn to give a speech again.

From the CSLA website:

Global leaders and industry specialists use CLSA Investor Forums as a platform to examine the economic, political, environmental, technological and financial trends impacting global markets. In the past, keynote speakers have included Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, Al Gore, Henry Kissinger, Lee Kuan Yew and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, to name a few.

It sounds to me like Sarah will be doing what many other notable names have done – she will get paid to make a speech.

I don’t know if Sarah will write the speech but I’m sure she will do a pretty good job delivering it.  If it were Obama reading the speech from his Teleprompters the Failbots would point to the speech (“He gave a speech!“) as evidence of his mastery of international finance.
BTW – I have the Borat DVD on a shelf somewhere. If someone was “pulling a Borat” it would have to be Sarah.  The correct cultural reference would be Punk’d.

Zaki claims Sarah bought property in Montana and is going to move there with the kids.  There is lots of juicy trash, including allegations of multiple affairs on both sides and Sarah angrily throwing her wedding ring into a lake.  Real Jerry Springer stuff.

The story gets picked up by some lefty blogs, including Firedoglake and Hullaballoo. Digby at least acknowledges the tabloid nature of her post but the tone at FDL can only be described as gleeful.  The rumor begins to go viral.

So Sarah responds by having her spokeswoman (Meg Stapleton) post the following message on Sarah’s Facebook page:

Yet again, some so-called journalists have decided to make up a story. There is no truth to the recent “story” (and story is the correct term for this type of fiction) that the Palins are divorcing. The Palins remain married, committed to each other and their family, and have not purchased land in Montana (last week it was reported to be Long Island).

Less than one week ago, Governor Palin asked the media to “quit making things up.” We appreciate that the more professional journalists decided to question this story before repeating it.

Rightwing blogger Robert Stacy McCain receives this message from Sarah in response to his query about the story:

“Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd? I may be just a renegade hockey mom, but I’m not blind!”

You would think that should end the story, but here comes Jonathan Martin at Politico:

By having her spokeswoman repeat the charges to rebut them in a public form, Palin effectively guaranteed coverage from the mainstream media that otherwise would not report claims attributed to unnamed sources on an anonymous blog.

It’s all Sarah’s fault for denying an untrue story!

She made us do it!

Even if you forget the fact that Zaki is a stringer for CNN it’s kinda disingenuous for a blogger to act like internet rumors are harmless, especially in the case of Sarah Palin. The PDS blogs started most or all of the vilest lies about Sarah, including the rape-kit smear, Trig-trutherism and the bogus ethics complaints.

I guess the Palinstalkers were upset that Sarah had “gone dark” since she left office last weekend.  They needed a hate- fix so they created a story.  If she hadn’t acted quickly to debunk the rumor they would be talking about her failure to deny it as confirmation that it was true.

Digg!! Tweet!!! Share!!

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

I’m liberal. I’m not ashamed to say it. In fact, I’m proud of it.

Wikipedia defines liberalism as:

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.^[1]

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term “liberal” and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for political liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual’s right to private property,^[2] and a transparent system of government.^[3][4][5] All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.^[6]

According to author and philosophy professor Peter Vallentyne, “Liberalism comes in two broad forms. Classical liberalism emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and contemporary (or welfare) liberalism tends to emphasize some kind of material equality.”^[7] In Europe, the term “liberalism” is closer to the economic outlook of American economic conservatives. According to Harry Girvetz and Minoque Kenneth “contemporary liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic outlook”.^[8] In the United States, “liberalism” is most often used in the sense of social liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest. A philosophy holding a position in accordance with Scottish pioneer of political economy Adam Smith, that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or an invisible hand that benefits the society, is referred to as “classical liberalism.”^[9], of which US-style libertarianism may be considered an extreme example.

Liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism.^[10][11][12] Instead, it founds itself on the assumption of the equal dignity and worth of individuals.

By that standard, this is a liberal blog. I’d say we’re pretty obsessed with equality of opportunity and a transparent system of Government around here.

Wikipedia defines Progressivism as

Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.

In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.^[1]

Ideologically, that makes me and this blog a Progressive blog. And ideologically, therefore, I am a Classical Liberal Progressive (or a “Moderate Liberal”), if you want to get down to the nitty gritty technical term of liberalisticims.

But I am not, in fact, a Progressive by identity. I am a liberal. Because in today’s American Political Culture, being a “Progressive” makes you a Right Wing Fundie in liberal drag. Sad, but true.

Liberals have been demonized for quite a while in this country. I’d say it probably started with the Reagan Era, when Religious zealots and Conservative Southern Democrats took over the Republican Party. Around that time, a lot of wealthy and privileged former self described College “Liberals” moved to the Republican Party, declaring themselves “Conservatives.” Publicly, they took up the cause of Militarism and Religious Fundamentalism, but privately they were hypocrites, and their activities are well-documented in one of my favorite books, Blinded By the Right, by David Brock (I quote it often).

Hillary Clinton called their politics of personal destruction political activism “A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.” She was mocked for it in the media, but she wasn’t wrong. Ever since Nixon’s Resignation, these kooks had been using corporate sugar daddies like Richard Mellon Scaife to fund their agenda in the media and in interest groups.

Old farts like Pat Robertson and James Dobson and Newt Gingrich come to mind, but they weren’t the only tools involved in the process. Jokers like Andrew Sullivan, Ariana Huffington, and Chris Matthews cheered for some of the worse disasters of my Generation: CDS and the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the election of George W. Bush, and the War in Iraq. And they did it all under the guise of their Gung Ho “Conservatism.”

Then, around the time of the mid term elections in 2006, they had a Come-to-Jesus moment and left the Republican Party, hilariously declaring themselves icons of the “New Left,” and by extension liberalism itself. Most of them had gotten their starts by smearing the Clintons, whom they declared were Republicans in drag. Sadly, the irony was lost on them and their projection continued. And even worse, they gained an audience. They and their followers coined themselves “The Progressive Movement.”

It wasn’t long until “The Progressive Movement” began cheering for their new standard bearer, Barack Obama. Again, the irony was lost on their audience. These imbeciles had spent the past two decades decrying all things liberal and good, why would anyone vote for the candidate they were peddling on places like Politico, the Huffington Post, and Daily Kos?

Well, I’m not like a lot of people. I don’t actually think Americans are stupid. Hillary won the popular vote. But the damage is still done. We have Bush the Third as our POTUS.

Today, these “Progressives”- Right Wing Fundies in liberal drag- and their allies in the media do the same thing to Sarah Palin and her family that they did to Bill Clinton and his family. The tactics are exactly the same. They slander her, spread rumors about her, and attack her and her children in the most gratuitous and revolting ways imaginable. They accuse her and they accused Bill Clinton of doing and being exactly what they are- power hungry, morally depraved, and ruthless- capable of doing and saying anything to obtain their victories.

I don’t believe in coincidences, and neither should you. The media is neither “liberal” nor “conservative.” The media is corporate. Since the emergence of a twenty four hour news cycle, they’ve depended on their sponsors and their ratings for profit, and don’t you know? Follow the money! You just have to watch CNN for one day to understand. The graphics in Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room are eerily similar to the graphics from Obama’s campaign and the DNC and RNC. A panel of all-male, white reporters will solemnly declare that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are just whining- the Political coverage of them isn’t sexist and they are just trying to score political points with women. Then they go on a break and in the first commercial a woman is debating a Swiffer mop. A special about Al Gore’s Global Warming Documentary is solemnly discussed and Al Gore’s credibility is questioned with deep concern. Then they disappear and the screen explains, “This program has been sponsored by GM and Chrystler Motors.”

And again, the irony is lost on the audience.

Hillary’s famous “Right Wing Conspiracy” disguised as a Left Wing Conspiracy isn’t gone. It’s been with us this whole time, mouth breathing down our necks and leering at us like a bothersome lover.

And it’s rick rolled us once again.

Cross Posted at Age of Aquarius

Digg!!! Tweet!!! Share!!!

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

Don't let their Vaginas eat you!

Sarah Palin is not qualified to be the President of the United States. She is dreadfully inexperienced. She is a Fundie. That alone is normally a disqualify, but let’s continue. When it comes to women’s reproductive freedoms and choices, she disappoints. Her energy policies are mediocre at best, and her obsession with drilling in ANWR is at times annoying. She doesn’t get that there isn’t much oil there to begin with, and drilling there will degrade the natural habitat. She is not as supportive of LGBT rights as she should be, and she would probably sell out our Health Benefits to jackoffs in the Insurance Industry, given the opportunity. I could go on, but you get my point.

But she has also, correct me if I’m wrong, taken on her own party Establishment and been elected as the youngest and first lady Governor of the largest and most beautiful state in the union, raised taxes on oil companies and created a state budget surplus, which she gave back to Alaskans. Her first veto in office was a bill that would deny gay couples health benefits (and you know how those lesbians love Alaskan Cruises. Good call, Sarah!). She appointed a pro choice member of Planned Parenthood to the Alaskan Supreme Court in favor of a bible humping Fundie Blowhard, and she supports funding Head Start. She is, contrary to popular belief, pro-contraception, and has said so many times. She is a Feminist. Her husband is an Eskimo Union man who owns a commercial fisherman business. She is personally socially Conservative, but based on her performance as Governor, does not use her office to inflict those beliefs on her constituents. She has stated that she believes in Science and Evolution. In fact, her father was a Science Teacher and track coach, and her mother was a school librarian, so she likes books too.

Let’s face it: Bible Spice isn’t all that Conservative. Oh sure, she says she’s a Conservative, but in today’s political environment, that’s what you say if you’re a Republican. The word “liberal” has probably not been uttered by any politician for about 40 years. Not to say that Sarah is liberal, Goddess no. “Maverick” is code for “Moderate.” Like Riverdaughter always says, we have to pay attention to what politicians say. But honestly, it’s more important to pay attention to what they do. If Teleprompter Jesus taught us anything, he taught us that.

On the fourth of July, Violet Socks said it best when she marveled at the phenomenon that is Sarah Heath Palin.

The only thing Palin is commonly accused of that is actually true is her anti-abortion stance, though, as I’ve pointed out several times, her political position is that “the will of the people” should decide the law. She has also expressed sympathy for women choosing abortion and has said that she is totally opposed to any woman ever being criminalized for it. I’m not pretending she’s anything other than what she is (an adamant “pro-lifer”), but I am trying to be as clear and honest as I can be about her actual stance.

The fact is, that stance alone is not enough to explain the kind of frenzied hatred and feminist repudiation that Palin has attracted. Notice the example of Hugo Schwyzer, who, as I pointed out in my comment at IBTP, is allowed to call himself a feminist and even cross-post at RH Reality Check — while Sarah Palin is endlessly slandered and ridiculed for having the same beliefs. Notice, too, that the Republican Party (and even the Democratic Party) is full of other “pro-life” politicians, none of whom have ever been crucified and slandered Palin-style.

Speaking of slander, that brings me to my next big puzzlement: what is it with the feminists who just freely make shit up about Palin? The lies had to start somewhere, and they didn’t all hatch in the bowels of the Obama campaign (though a bunch of them did). Some of them were incubated by feminists, particularly the ones about Palin being an anti-sex “purity queen,” the kind of batshit Christian who believes in Purity Balls and abstinence pledges and is opposed to sex ed. None of that is true.

When I first started investigating Palin, I was very relieved to discover that she’s not nearly as nutty as she might be, given that she’s a Christian. I was pleased to learn that she’s not one of those fundies who thinks wives have to submit or that Adam and Eve rode on dinosaurs. She’s not into that whacked-out purity or abstinence-only stuff. That’s good. It’s good that she’s not a nutjob. So…why aren’t other feminists also happy that she’s not a nutjob? Why do they, in fact, spread lies to make her seem worse than she is?

Are people simply confused about the differences between Christians? Do they think all Christians are alike? I doubt it. I’m no godbag and I personally wish that Christianity would evaporate from the face of the earth, but I still recognize that not all Christians are alike. I think most other people do, too. I think most people in this country understand that Tennessee snake handlers don’t go to Catholic mass, and that the Quiverfull people are not the same as the Episcopalians. Being a Christian, even a conservative Christian, doesn’t automatically mean you’re a young earth creationist in a calico dress with a purity ring on your finger.

But to get back to the original point, Sarah Palin is not qualified to be President of the United States. And I think most everyone here, including me, would probably not vote for her, depending on the alternative. She is qualified to be VICE President of the United States, as is our current Disappointment in Chief. When we all thought the Democratic Nomination wasn’t going to be jacked from Hillary in a rigged nominating process, many of us here thought he would make a good VPOTUS. He could run around on Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien, making fun of the Special Olympics and talking about who would win in a fight (Ninjas or Pirates?!) while Hillary busied herself with ramming Single Payer Healthcare through Congress and down all of our collective grateful throats. So vital were his potential talents for distraction.

To reiterate, Sarah Palin is, in fact, no more qualified to be President of the United States than Barack Obama is. As David Harsanyi says

Can you believe the gall of these Sarah Palin cultists? Presidential aspirations? This is a woman who named one of her kids “Track,” for God’s sake. (Well, if it really is her kid.)

William Buckley once wrote that he rather would “entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”

But running government is no longer a suitable vocation for the bumbling proletariat. It’s for folks with schoolin’ and such. It’s a job for herculean thinkers with degrees from Ivy League schools. In other words, no one from Alaska need apply.

Former sports reporters certainly won’t do. We need former constitutional scholars. Who else, after all, has a better understanding of how to undermine the document?

He’s right of course. Our last “Herculean Thinker” President from an Ivy League School was Dubya. And he was the greatest a great President. So the fact that Governor Palin doesn’t have a pretty Harvard degree is just a point against her, as far as America is concerned. In fact

If Palin were president, chances are we’d have a gaffe-generating motormouth for a vice president. That’s the kind of decision-making one expects from Miss Congeniality.

The job of building generational debt is not for the unsophisticated. Enriching political donors with taxpayer dollars takes intellectual prowess, not the skills of a moose-hunting point guard.

The talent to print money we don’t have to pay for programs we can’t afford is the work of a finely tuned imagination, soaring gravitas and endless policy know-how.

Palin is so clueless she probably would have rushed through some colossal stimulus plan that ended up stimulating nothing.

If Palin were president, no one doubts this nation would have continued the Bush-era policy of indefinite detention of enemy combatants and the CIA’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights. Be thankful you have a president who makes you think this nation doesn’t.

If Palin were commander in chief — and, again, can anyone imagine anything so preposterous? — the United States still would be fighting endless and expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s true that Palin’s first veto as Alaska governor was of a bill that would have blocked state employee benefits and health insurance for same-sex couples, but does anyone doubt her true intentions?

If she were president, brave American soldiers still would be living under the dark specter of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Palin even might have instructed her Justice Department to file a brief in defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. Such is the depth of her depravity.

Does anyone believe that Palin possesses the competence to nationalize entire industries without the consent of the people? A housewife from Wasilla isn’t equipped with political brawn to shake down banks and bondholders.

Palin never would be able to convince Americans that a trillion-dollar government-run health care plan would save taxpayers money or have the rhetorical ability to convince even a single person that a European-style cap-and-trade scheme has any benefit at all.

Palin is such a goofball that she probably believes oil will continue to be a vital American energy source.

And how is anyone as simplistic as Palin going to help change the habits of all these fatsos in America? We need a mommy … but, you know, not a real mommy.

It’s fairly obvious to everyone with a shred of certifiable sanity that Obots are one fry short of a Happy Meal. Projection is a common psychological phenomenon, and Obots seem to use it often. They have called Sarah Palin silly, narcissistic, bumbling, rambling, and an intellectual lightweight who cannot utter three consecutive sentences without the aid of a teleprompter. Gee. I think one could make a lot of money in this recession by declaring themselves kool aid prevention counselors.

Ever since Sarah Palin resigned (and again since she gave her farewell speech) an enormous, slightly pointless debate has erupted on the PUMAsphere about Sarah Palin. It is very easy to say, “I do not support Sarah Palin politically, even though I like her and will defend her against personal, misogynistic, and unfair attacks.” Bam. Done. Simple Pimple. In fact, I have yet to meet anyone on this blog who has not stated that as their official Palinpalooza position.

The fact is, Sarah Palin, like Hillary Clinton, is provocative. I don’t mean their personalities are provocative. They both seem to be pretty normal, straightforward women. Hillary taught Sunday School at her Church in Little Rock, and she grew up in 1950’s Suburbia, playing softball, wearing poodle skirts and trying to convince her dad to let her go on dates. She goes shopping with Chelsea and watches Hospital Dramas with Bill on weekends.

Sarah Palin was a point guard basketball champ. She won the “Miss Congeniality” Award in the Alaska Beauty Pageant, which helped her pay for college. She eloped with her childhood friend because she was in a family way, and it would have embarrassed her dad. She goes to a normal Fundie Church, emails her mom on her blackberry and listens to Gretchen Meyer on her morning jogs.

But like Violet Socks says

it is striking to me how much of the political discourse in 2008 revolved around people who don’t exist. The main players last year, if you recall, were Obama, the genius messiah whose perfection and purity would save the planet; Hillary, the evil racist lesbian who killed Vince Foster with her bare hands before plotting the Iraqi invasion and then attempting to have Obama assassinated; and Sarah Palin, a crazed dominionist who hates polar bears and personally arranges for Christian girls to be raped by their fathers just so she can charge them for their rape kits.

Think back to the reactions to Sarah Palin’s speech at the convention. Remember the gal at Jezebel whose head throbbed with hate blood as she listened to Palin speak? The one who said she wanted to “murk that cunt”? What the hell is that? I cannot figure it out. I look and look, and it’s like trying to see someone else’s hallucination. No matter how hard I squint, I can’t see whatever it is they’re looking at. What is so horrifying?

Violet couldn’t wrap her head around it, and neither could her commenters. What is it about Sarah Palin (and even Hillary Clinton) that drives people into such frenzies of lunacy? So many took a crack at it. It’s Sarah’s working class background. It’s her hot husband. They’re upset because she chose to have her child.

The truth is, it’s not any of those things. Hillary and Sarah are two very different people who evoke the same violent, misogynistic reactions from people. I call bull shit on people who claim Sarah has it worse than Hillary did. Bull. Shit. Not that it matters, since misogyny is something that has to be called out no matter how varying the degrees.

Remember the Nineties? Remember Rush Limbaugh holding up a picture of Chelsea and saying she was the White House Dog? Remember all those reporters sniffing through Arkansas (the same way they would later sniff through Alaska) looking for dirt and a list of Hillary’s lesbian lovers? Remember John McCain calling Hillary and Chelsea ugly pigs? Remember the Internet graphics showing Hillary being raped by a donkey and flying on a broom? Remember Newt Gingrich’s mother calling her a bitch? Remember Hickman Ewing, one of Ken Starr’s goons, saying she was “a little woman,” and claiming the whole Whitewater “scandal” was just a cover up for her love affair with Vince Foster, who she later murdered? Late night comedians have and still do make countless nasty, unfunny jokes about her. I could go on and on, but that’s only the Nineties. 2008 was worse, as we all know.

And it will never end. Sarah Palin suffers the same fate as her. I could list the offenses against her too, but it was exhausting enough listing the ones against Hillary, and I don’t want to be in a bad mood. The point is that it is a fate Sarah Palin will continue to suffer, for as long as her political career lasts. But why?

Never fear, I have the answer for you, but I’m not telling yet. You’ll have to wait for Part 2.

To Be Continued….

Cross posted at Age of Aquarius

Digg!!! Tweet!!! Share!!! why, yes, even FACEBOOK!!!! this post and others here at TC!!!!

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position in seeking money for legal fees, in the latest legal distraction for the former vice presidential candidate as she prepares to leave office this week.

The report obtained by The Associated Press says Palin is securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust, set up by supporters.

An investigator for the state Personnel Board says in his July 14 report that there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain because she authorized the creation of the trust as the “official” legal defense fund.

The practical effect of the ruling on Palin will be more financial than anything else. The report recommends that Palin refuse to accept payment from the defense fund, and that the complaint be resolved without a formal hearing before the board.

The fund aims to help Palin pay off debts stemming from multiple ethics complaints against her, most of which have been dismissed. Palin says she owes more than $500,000 in legal fees, and she cited the mounting toll of the ethics probes as one of the reasons she is leaving office.

The investigator, Thomas Daniel, sided with Palin in her frustration with having to defend herself against a barrage of ethics complaints. He suggested that Alaska lawmakers may need to create a law that reimburses public officials for legal expenses to defend complaints that end up being unfounded.

Palin’s friends and supporters created the Alaska Fund Trust in April, limiting donations to $150 per person. Organizers declined to say how much it has raised, and had hoped to raise about $500,000. A Webathon last month brought in about $130,000 in pledges.

In his report, Daniel said his interpretation of the ethics act is consistent with common sense.

An ordinary citizen facing legal charges is not likely to be able to generate donations to a legal defense fund, he wrote. “In contrast, Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure. Were it not for the fact that she is governor and a national political figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would donate money to her legal defense fund.”

The ethics complaint was filed by Eagle River resident Kim Chatman shortly after the fund was created, alleging Palin was misusing her official position and accepting improper gifts.

“It’s an absolute shame that she would continue to keep the Alaska Fund Trust Web site up and running,” Chatman told the AP.

At least 19 ethics complaints have been filed against Palin, most of them after she was named the running mate for GOP presidential candidate John McCain. Most of those have been dismissed, and Palin’s office usually sends a news release with the announcement.

The multiple ethics complaints include an investigation by state lawmakers over Palin’s firing of her public safety commissioner in the so-called Troopergate scandal.

John Coale, a Washington lawyer who helped set up the fund, called the probable cause finding “crazy,” adding that if upheld, it would mean that no governor could ever defend themselves against frivolous ethics complaints.

“If this complaint is true, there’s no way to defend yourself” as governor, Coale said. “Anybody can keep filing ethics complaints and drive someone out of office even if you’re a nut.”

Coale said that unlike other states, Alaska’s governor has no legal counsel’s office to defend the governor from allegations brought against the governor in her official capacity.

Coale said he recommended creation of the legal defense fund, a common practice in Washington. The Web site for the Palin fund cites similar accounts created for Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and other prominent politicians.

People take advantage of Alaska law to make bogus, petty ethics complaints. Sarah Palin runs up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills defending herself from those complaints. Her supporters donate money to help pay those bills. Someone complains that that is unethical.

It’s Kafkaesque.