Democratic Congressman Slurs Palin – Warns Jews, Blacks to Beware of Palin

Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings on Wednesday warned two minority groups to beware of Sarah Palin because “anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and Blacks.”

Hastings, who is black and a Democrat, made the comment in Florida at a panel discussion hosted by the National Jewish Democratic Council. The group recently criticized Palin’s invitation to an anti-Iran rally held during Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad’s visit to New York to speak before the U.N. General Assembly.

Hastings was explaining what he intended to tell his Jewish constituents about the presidential race.

“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” Hastings told the audience, which burst into laughter and applause, according to individuals present.

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella declined to comment.

The Republican Jewish Coalition strongly condemned Hastings’ statements.

“Rep. Hastings stooped to the worst kind of divisive politics yesterday,” RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said in a written statement. “Hastings’ unconscionable remarks do nothing but sow seeds of fear and divide people. There should be no place in our country for this sort of political discourse. We can constructively disagree on the issues without denigrating others.”

Other members of the panel were Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen, who is Jewish and represents a mostly black district; Alabama congressman Arthur Davis, who is black; and Peter Edelman, a law professor at Georgetown University who was a legislative assistant to Robert Kennedy.

Davis denounced Hastings’ comments.

“Alcee Hastings is a friend and I know Alcee well enough to know that he uses provocative humor to make a point. In this instance, however, I didn’t like his comments when I heard them and they don’t sound any better reading them in print,” he said in a written statement sent to FOXNews.com.

“I have repeatedly said that …… it is a great mistake for Democrats to ridicule her cultural roots,” Davis added. “I don’t know how many Americans strip moose, but a lot of the ones I know tote guns and the Democratic Party had better win enough of those gun toters if we are to be successful.”

Hastings, a former federal judge, was impeached and removed from the bench in 1989 for perjury and corruption. Elected to Congress in 1992, he supported Hillary Clinton during the primaries until she conceded the race.

Obama also came under fire in April for describing small-town Americans during a closed San Francisco fundraiser as people who are “bitter” over job losses and who “cling to their guns and religion.”

Hastings’ office and the Obama campaign did not immediately respond for this story.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/25/congressman-warns-jews-blacks-to-beware-of-palin/

Obama: Bailout Cannot Be ‘Welfare’ for Wall Street. Is That It? His Plan?

CLEARWATER, Fla. — Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday any plan to rescue Wall Street from its financial woes must ensure that taxpayers are reimbursed and corporate executives are not further enriched for mismanagement.

Obama outlined several principles that he said should be included in the bailout to ensure that troubled financial firms and their executives don’t take advantage of taxpayers.

1). Companies that take financial aid from the government must slash their executives’ salaries, he said. 2).Taxpayers must be treated like investors who can share in any Wall Street recovery, perhaps with an ownership stake in the companies that are bailed out, and a 3). new fee on financial services should be created to repay the government aid.

4). “This plan cannot be a welfare program for Wall Street executives,” he said at a news conference.

Is that it? The Obama Plan! After taking a week he says; cut executives salaries, make taxpayers investors, add fees on the services and “no welfare for Wall Street”, whatever that means.

I thought this guy went to Harvard.

This isn’t a plan – it is 4 short sound bites run together.

Did Obama really put this togther or is it a media creation? A creation cobbled together by Obama’s supportive media who were embrassed that Obama hadn’t produced a plan one week into this news cycle?

How do we stop this so called crisis from happening again? When is Obama going to quit blaming de-regulation for the mess? Is Obama in favor of continuing NINJA and LIAR Loans? Is Obama in favor of increasing the underwriting standards for mortgages? Will Obama now support the additional regulation suggested by John McCain in 2002 & 2006? Will Obama now support the reforms the Bush Administration asked for?

SNL Palin Incest Attack – It can’t get any lower!

Politics you can believe in!  You think so?   Its time to boycott NBC.

SNL’ Palin-Incest Joke Falls Flat In Sketch Lampooning New York Times

In Saturday Night Live’s second attempt to mock this year’s vice presidential race, a sketch lampooning The New York Times as out of touch has instead touched off a firestorm by throwing out a much more insidious inference — incest — between Todd Palin and his pregnant, teenage daughter, Bristol.

While SNL fans had widely anticipated the return of Tina Fey in an edgy yet endearing role as Sarah Palin, Saturday’s sketch has managed to reignite the furor sparked by claims early this month that the Republican vice presidential candidate is not the mother of her 5-month-old son, Trig.

The sketch, say supporters, was supposed to accentuate how disconnected The New York Times is from anything west of the Hudson River, particularly Alaska. But critics say that the sketch backfired by suggesting that Todd Palin committed incest.

In the sketch, New York Times reporters are sitting around an assignment meeting discussing what about Palin to investigate next.

One reporter asks: “What about the husband? You know he’s doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It’s Alaska.”

Guest host James Franco, who played the assignment editor, sets up the joke of proving a negative, saying, “He very well could be. Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin.”

After three of the reporters agree to go to Alaska, one sues for sexual discrimination after being called “sweetie” by a school board member, one is killed by a polar bear and a final reporter wins a Pulitzer for “unproven, yet un-disproven incest in the Palin family” and then is killed by a polar bear driving a “snow machine.”

The final shot in the rambling joke is an image of a New York Times page, featuring headlines: “While No Direct Evidence of Incest in Palin Family Emerges, Counter Evidence Remains Agonizingly Elusive” and “In a Small Alaska Town, Doubts Still Linger.”

Conservative bloggers are infuriated over the incest joke, most particularly because it plays off claims earlier this month that 17-year-old Bristol Palin is the mother of Trig Palin.

Bristol Palin is five months pregnant and therefore could not be Trig’s mother, John McCain’s campaign noted earlier this month in efforts to diffuse widespread and unfounded gossip that surrounded Trig’s maternity.

Still, left-wing conspirators dissatisfied with that response, have argued that Trig Palin, who was born with Down syndrome, a much more frequent occurrence in women over 40, could have been the outcome of incest, which also increases the odds of the disability.

Now, some bloggers are urging protests of the show be sent to producer Lorne Michaels. The video was not posted on the SNL Web site.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/22/snl-palin-incest-joke-falls-flat-in-sketch-lampooning-new-york-times/

Sara Palin’s Unedited Answers to ABC’s Charlie Gibson – ABC’s Mischaracterization of Palin

ABC News Edited Out Key Parts Of Sarah Palin’s Answers

A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin’s website. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. The first edit shows Palin responding about meeting with foreign leaders but this was actually in response to a question Gibson asked several questions earlier:

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.
 

Next we see that Palin was not nearly as hostile towards Russia as was presented in the edited interview:

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

 

We also see from Palin’s following remark, which was also edited out, that she is far from some sort of latter day Cold Warrior which the edited interview made her seem to be:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

 

Palin’s extended remarks about defending our NATO allies were edited out to make it seem that she was ready to go to war with Russia. 

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

 

That answer presented Palin as a bit too knowledgeable for the purposes of ABC News and was, of course, edited out. Palin’s answers about a nuclear Iran were carefully edited to the point where she was even edited out in mid-sentence to make it seem that Palin favored unilateral action against that country:

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

 

Laughably, a remark by Gibson that indicated he agreed with Palin was edited out:

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

 

Gibson took her point about Lincoln’s words but we wouldn’t know that by watching the interview since it was left on the cutting room floor. I urge everybody to see just how the unedited version of the first interview compared to what we saw on television  by checking out the full transcript. It is a fascinating look into media manipulation via skillful editing.

Compare this interview with Gibson’s 2007 Obama Interview Here: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/obamas-2007-interview-abcs-charlie-gibson-you-can-compare/ 
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview

MAD LIBS – Palin Derangement Syndrome Overwhelms Media

THE WEEKLY STANDARD

by William Kristol
09/22/2008, Volume 014, Issue 02

The liberal media are angry. Very, very angry. How do we know? Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post‘s chronicler of all things media, says so:

 

The media are getting mad. Whether it’s the latest back-and-forth over attack ads, the silly lipstick flap or the continuing debate over Sarah and sexism, you can just feel the tension level rising several notches. Maybe it’s a sense that this is crunch time, that the election is on the line, that the press is being manipulated (not that there’s anything new about that).

 

Of course, politicians are always trying to manipulate the media. And the liberal media are always allowing themselves to be manipulated by liberal politicians. So why the foot-stamping snit by liberal journalists? Not because “the press is being manipulated.” Rather, because the American people are resisting manipulation by the media.

For, as Kurtz goes on to say, the media “are increasingly challenging false or questionable claims by the McCain campaign.” In other words, the media are going after McCain. In his piece Kurtz cites two allegedly false claims from McCain ads that are in fact basically true–or, at least, no more one-sided than dozens of other campaign ads. Back when Barack Obama was coasting toward victory, normal campaign exaggerations (“You know, John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years”) didn’t fill the media with loathing for Obama. Now the McCain camp’s exaggerations do.

Why? Because McCain is doing well. And because Sarah Palin is surviving–even flourishing in the midst the liberal media onslaught.

When the media get mad, they don’t just pout. They pounce. How? By any means necessary. The day of Kurtz’s article, September 11, ABC’s Charlie Gibson conducted his first interview of Sarah Palin. Gibson asked: “You said recently, in your old church, ‘Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.’ Are we fighting a holy war?”

Palin responded, “You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”

“Exact words,” Gibson triumphantly retorted.

Not so fast. As Palin explained, quite eloquently, what she was saying was in the spirit of Lincoln: “Let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.” The tape of Palin’s church appearance bore out her interpretation and revealed Gibson’s mischaracterization. “Pray for our military men and women,” she had said, “who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God.” Gibson had made it sound as if Palin were claiming to know God’s will, rather than praying that U.S. actions might be in accord with God’s will and in a cause worthy of God’s blessing.

No doubt the mere fact of Palin’s asking for any kind of blessing on our troops and our national leaders at some backwoods Alaska church was sufficiently distracting to the scripters of Gibson’s questions that they didn’t look closely at the wording. God knows (so to speak) what they believe at a place like that! Why, their kids probably even enlist in the Army to fight our enemies. Speaking of enemies: Within hours of the ABC interview, the Washington Post distorted straightforward remarks made by Palin that same day to U.S. soldiers deploying to Iraq. She praised them for going over to help “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.” Palin clearly meant that our soldiers would be fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq–a group connected to the al Qaeda central command responsible for 9/11. The Post claimed to believe that Palin was asserting a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11–as if she thought soldiers now heading to Iraq were going to fight Saddam’s regime–and triumphantly noted that even the Bush administration no longer asserted such a connection (it never did, in fact).

 

Palin’s remarks should have been unexceptional: We’ve been fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq for several years now. But the media are desperate to try to make her look foolish. In the same interview, she praised Ronald Reagan for having won the Cold War. What a gaffe, some media watchdogs barked. The Soviet Union didn’t collapse until three years after Reagan left office! Gotcha!

Not a chance. Sarah Palin is quickly proving to be more than a match for the mad, mad media. Having foolishly started a war with her that they can’t win, the liberal media would be well advised, for once, to implement their own favorite war-fighting strategy: cut and run.

–William Kristol

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/558zdiqa.asp?pg=2

 

Give ’em Hell, Sarah: Sarah Palin, Harry Truman & Elitism in American Politics

THE WEEKLY STANDARD -09/22/08 – By: Steven F. Hayward

Give ’em Hell, Sarah – Like Truman, a natural-born executive 

Lurking just below the surface of the second-guessing about Sarah Palin’s fitness to be president is the serious question of whether we still believe in the American people’s capacity for self-government, what we mean when we affirm that all American citizens are equal, and whether we tacitly believe there are distinct classes of citizens and that American government at the highest levels is an elite occupation.

It is incomplete to view the controversy over Palin’s suitability for high office just in ideological or cultural terms, as most of the commentary has done. Doubts about Palin have come not just from the left but from across the political spectrum, some of them from conservatives like David Frum, Charles Krauthammer, and George Will. Nor is this a new question. To the contrary, Palin’s ascent revives issues and arguments about self-government that raged at the time of the American founding and before. Indeed, the basic problems of the few and the many, and the sources of wisdom and virtue in politics, stretch back to antiquity.

American political thought since its earliest days has been ambiguous or conflicted about the existence and character of a “natural aristocracy” of governing talent. If the ghosts of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are watching the storm over Palin, they must surely be revisiting their famous dialogue about America’s governing class. Adams’s widely misunderstood argument that there should perhaps be an explicit recognition and provision for an aristocratic class finds its reprise in the snobbery that greeted Palin’s arrival on the scene.It’s not just that she didn’t go to Harvard; she’s never been on Meet the Press; she hasn’t participated in Aspen Institute seminars or attended the World Economic Forum. She hasn’t been brought into the slipstream of the establishment by which we unofficially certify our highest leaders.

The issue is not whether the establishment would let such a person as Palin cross the bar into the certified political class, but whether regular citizens of this republic have the skill and ability to control the levers of government without having first joined the certified political class. But this begs an even more troublesome question: If we implicitly think uncertified citizens are unfit for the highest offices, why do we trust those same citizens to select our highest officers through free elections?

In his reply to Adams, Jefferson expressed more confidence that political virtue and capacity for government were not the special province of a recognized aristocratic class, but that aristoi (natural aristocrats) could be found among citizens of all kinds: “It would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society.” Jefferson, moreover, trusted ordinary citizens to recognize political virtue in their fellow citizens: “Leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi, of the wheat from the chaff. In general they will elect the really good and wise.”

Today’s establishment doubts this. The establishment is affronted by the idea that an ordinary hockey mom–a mere citizen–might be just as capable of running the country as a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations. This closed-shop attitude is exactly what both Jefferson and Adams set themselves against; they wanted a republic where talent and public spirit would find easy access to the establishment.

Part of what bothers the establishment about Palin is her seeming insouciance toward public office. Her success with voters, and in national office, would be n affront and a reproach to establishment self-importance. Anyone who affects making it look easy surely lacks gravitas and must not grasp the complexity or depth of modern political problems. Partly this is the self-justification for establishment institutions and attitudes, but partly it represents the substantive view that the size and complexity of modern government require a level of expertise beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. Some of the doubts about Palin are doubts about self-government itself.

 

So far no one has picked up on the significance of Palin’s invocation of Harry Truman in her convention speech. Her reference was more than just a bridge to a heartland-versus-Beltway theme. Truman, recall, was the only president of the 20th century who was not a college graduate. Less than two months after abruptly taking over from FDR with no preparation, Truman wrote his wife Bess describing his quick progress in taking the reins: “It won’t be long before I can sit back and study the whole picture and tell ’em what is to be done in each department. When things come to that stage there’ll be no more to this job than there was to running Jackson County and not any more worry”.

In retrospect it is clear that Truman “got it.” He didn’t need any more “experience” to master the job. “Well I’m facing another tall day as usual,”he ended that letter to Bess; “But I like ’em that way.”

Ronald Reagan evinced the same attitude toward office as Truman and Palin. In fact, on closer inspection, one can hear in the criticism of Palin the echo of the same kind of complaint made against Ronald Reagan throughout his political career. Never mind that he’d been governor of California. That this graduate of Eureka College–where?–had made his career in Hollywood, a place as exotic and peculiar as Alaska, was decisive with the establishment. “Reagan’s election,” John P. Roche, a former head of Americans for Democratic Action, wrote in 1984, “was thus an 8-plus earthquake on the political Richter scale, and it sent a number of eminent statesmen–Republican and Democratic–into shock.” It wasn’t only liberals who found Reagan incomprehensible. “No previous president of the United States,” Rowland Evans and Robert Novak wrote shortly after Reagan’s election in 1980, “had so bizarre a preparation for political office.”

John Sears, whom Reagan had unceremoniously fired from his campaign in 1980, later put his finger on a key aspect of Reagan’s strength, “Since the primary prerequisite for handling the presidency is to ignore the immensity of it, a president must find the confidence to do so in self-knowledge.   .  .  .   Reagan knows himself better than most presidents and has kept his identity separate from politics. Reagan knows who he is and therefore he possesses the first prerequisite for being a good president.”

In his third summit meeting with Gorbachev, Reagan wondered aloud what would happen if the two of them closed the doors to their office and just quietly slipped away: “How long would it be before people missed us?” Can one imagine Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (or John McCain for that matter) wondering such a thing?

For Truman and Reagan the key ingredient to successful statecraft was simplicity. “I say there are simple answers to many of our problems–simple but hard,” Reagan liked to say; “It’s the complicated answer that’s easy, because it avoids facing the hard moral issues.” Churchill wrote that he immediately liked Truman when they met for the first time in Berlin in 1945 because he could see that Truman possessed the “obvious power of decision.” We can see already from Palin’s record–unseating a governor of her own party, delivering a long-blocked pipeline deal–that she shares this trait; another six years in the governor’s office isn’t likely to tell us anything we can’t already discern if we don’t let status bias get in the way.

Reagan and Truman forced their way into grudging acceptance and eventual recognition by the establishment through genuine and hard-earned political success, and Palin too will have to prove herself. She shows signs of sharing their humility, power of decision, and simplicity toward self-government.

In her first innings, Palin has offered a unique display of the capacity that John Adams described as the essence of a “natural aristocrat” in America: “By an aristocrat I mean every man who can command two votes–one besides his own.” Here Adams was reminding us of the centrality of substantive persuasion in political life, something Republicans haven’t been very good at of late. The talking heads of the establishment deprecated Palin’s debut. “Sure, she gives a good speech, but  .  .  .” They should be saying to Palin, “Welcome to the aristocracy, governor.”

Steven F. Hayward is F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counter-Revolution, 1980-1989, to be published in early 2009.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/552kbtvz.asp?pg=2

Pentagon General Confirms Palin Visited IRAQ / Boston Globe – Obama Attack discredited

In response to false accusations in a Boston Globe Article, Governor Palin’s Campaign has issued a sharp rebuke to those who claimed that the Governor did not travel into Iraq during her trip to the Middle East last summer. Governor Plain made the trip to visit Alaskan National Guard troops.

The Globe reported today that Palin’s trip into Iraq was just a border crossing between Kuwait and Iraq. The question is this, if the Globe new she crossed into Iraq, why would they run a story with a headline implying Palin had, in fact, not been to Iraq? The Globe asked the Palin Campaign to confirm the border crossing. The Campaign confirmed the border crossing.

The Globe noted that in Palin’s ABC interview Thursday night with Charlie Gibson, Palin did not mention Iraq when talking about the trip. Palin mentioned visiting the troops in Kuwait and then visiting injured soldiers in Germany.

The Globe could not know if Palin had in fact mentioned a visit to Iraq. ABC edited Palin’s comments during the interview and there would be no way to know if Palin mentioned Iraq only to have those comments end up on the editing room floor. ABC admits to editing out Palin’s objection to being misquoted during the questioning and that several vidoes used in the televised portion of the ABC interview were, in fact, edited.

The Palin campaign has responded in detail, stating that Govern Palin did cross into Iraq, her stay was brief, she attended a re-enlistment ceremony for a member of the Alaskan National Guard.

The Palin Campaign confirmed, “Last summer, Governor Palin traveled to Kuwait where she visited Alaskan National Guard troops deployed to the war in Iraq at Camp Arifjen. While she was there she traveled to the K Crossing on the Kuwait-Iraq border, and a quarter mile into Iraq.”

The Pentagon General who traveled with Governor Palin and presided over the re-enlistment ceremony of the Alaskan National Guard soldier, confirmed that Palin did, in fact, travel into Iraq. 

During the return trip to the United States Governor Palin had a stop-over at the Ramstein Air Base in Germany. Governor Palin used the stop-over as an opportunity to visit wounded soldiers at the Landstuhl military hospital.

Is there no limit to the falsehoods and smear attacks that the media will direct at Governor Palin?

It is 11:45 PM – On 09/13/04 and the Washington Times has joined the attack to spread this false rumor. The Washinton Times Article notes that Palin was accompanied by a General –  

OBAMA CAMP SUGGESTS LIES OVER PALIN VISIT TO IRAQ                                           Glen Johnson – Associated Press

Originally Published 11:42 p.m., September 13, 2008 –                                         Updated 11:41 p.m., September 13, 2008

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/13/obama-camp-suggests-lies-over-palin-visit-to-iraq/

%d bloggers like this: