Headliner

December 5, 2008
Headliner

And so she goes. Just when I am convinced that I'm going to stop talking about Sarah Palin for awhile (because there are other very important things happening in the world and my writing time is limited) ... she goes and does something that makes it impossible to ignore her.

I'm not the only one having this problem. The national media, who would probably much prefer that she hole up in an igloo someplace, find that they can't avoid talking about her either. There are at least two reasons for this. One is that she keeps doing newsworthy things that are simply not things that people in the news business can ignore and, secondly, she simply has an uncanny grip on our imagination. This appears to be true even among the pundits who claim they can't stand her.

We start to write about Obama's economic policy is shaping up [2 + 2 = what?!?] and we realize that it is critically important, will have tremendous impact on the country's present and future, affects all of us dramatically ... and is highly boring; both to us and to our readers.

Then along comes Sarah Palin. On her way to meet with the President-elect, she takes a brief side-trip at the behest of a desperate Senator about to lose his seat and a Party desperate to not let the Democrats get a 60 vote majority. She then, spending less than a day on it, personally causes the election of the Senator and saves the Republican party. Having answered their call when they asked her to lend her "star power" and succeeding beyond all reasonable or rational expectations, she then she meets the new President to-be and a bunch of admiring Governors, dusts off her apron and scoots back to continue "fixin' up" a state that is, aside from her, in total political melt-down shambles. And, of course, to fix up another pot of moose stew for her hubby and kids.

And we realize that we have "just one more" Palin column in us demanding to get out. And our fingers start talking about her.

The thing is ... both (reasons) are true. She has that "I can't stay away fromness" that is so rare, and when that sort of charisma is contained in a beautiful woman we're all helpless: male, female, black, white, liberal, conservative, Palin-politics haters and Palin-politics lovers. It makes no difference. It is the Princess Di effect. Back in the day ... even stuffy people who wouldn't stoop to admitting knowing who Princess Di was couldn't help but to surreptitiously read the "entertainment magazines" at the checkout stand if they had her picture on it.

But unlike Princess Di or Paris Hilton or Britney Spears who were famous mostly for being famous, Sarah Palin is also legitimately important and is famous for doing valuable newsworthy things. It is a remarkable combination.

She isn't some "famous for being famous" celebrity out looking for a "cause" so she can actually do something important. Palin got famous by doing things that were important.

Nor is she important because of who she married. Princess Di would never have raised a headline if she hadn't "married well" :-) Frankly, although she has neither the beauty nor the charisma of the "crowd" I'm discussing, to a lot larger extent than supporters would ever want to admit, the same is probably true of Hillary Clinton.

Nor is Palin important because she is a knock-out. That just happens to come with the package. But she would be just as legitimately important if she ... well ... if she wasn't.

But Palin has become such a phenomenon, she tops the charts at search engines and YouTube and anywhere people go, that it has even the mainstream media types scratching their heads and continuing to write, in addition to "newsworthy stuff" she does, about her popularity itself. That "phenomenon" has become a newsworthy event in it own right which is something I cannot recall ever happening to a vice presidential candidate on the losing ticket!

Quickly now ... who was Bob Dole's running mate? That isn't what's happening to Sarah. In 20 years the question about the 2008 election will be: "Now who was the presidential candidate that Palin was running with? It's right on the tip of my tongue ..."!

This is particularly mind-boggling because of the image that the punditocracy attempted to paint of her during what they all seemed to believe was her "15 minutes of fame". Even following the election the media claimed that Sarah had lost votes for McCain!

Um. Uh ... media people? Knock, knock. Excuse me, but if she is so toxic then why did Saxby Chambliss beg her to come save him and why did the Republican National Party beg her to save Chambliss to save them from a 60 seat Democratic majority in the Senate?

And more to the point ... why did she succeed so dramatically?

You don't suppose that it is at all possible that it was the pressosphere who ripped Palin so badly before people had a chance to know otherwise that cost McCain those votes do you?

"I can't overstate the impact she had down here." So says the Senator who was about to be unseated in the run-off election. This election was crucial to the Republican party because it appeared likely that if Martin beat Chambliss ... the Democrats would have a filibuster-proof majority. Similarly, and for the exact same reason, the race was just as important to the Democrats. So all the big guns were unholstered. John McCain went down and campaigned for Chambliss ... but no one noticed. Mike Huckabee went down and stumped for him; as did Governor Romney and Rudy Giulani and essentially everyone who was anyone in the Republican party (and who, btw, are all in contention for being the "party leaders" and starting to jockey for possible 2012 presidential runs; which btw, polls now show Republicans care most that Palin runs in the next presidential election! ) ... but nobody noticed. "I went to see Mitt Romney a week ago and I think there were only about 100 people there." said one somewhat awed audience member interviewed after a huge "many thousands of people" Palin rally for Chambliss.

Al Gore went down and campaigned for Jim Martin. So did Bill Clinton. President-elect Obama taped phone messages and a radio ad and turned over his awesome vote-gathering machinery ("probably 100 or more of the Obama people came down"). Even the rapper Ludacris came down to help Martin. But nobody noticed.

Then, on the last day of the campaign, Palin swung by. She only did four short rallies in one day. And the entire world noticed.

Suddenly, Georgia was on everyone's mind. "When she walks in a room, folks just explode," Chambliss gushed after whomping Martin. "And they really did pack the house everywhere we went. She's a dynamic lady, a great administrator, and I think she's got a great future in the Republican Party."

And he kept gushing. He was grateful to all who helped ... but he made it crystal clear that it was Palin's appearance that "really did allow us to peak and get our base fired up". She has (another) serious fan in the Senate now. And the Republican National Committee isn't likely to ever think of her as a light-weight again.

She has done a better job of changing her "media-created" image (which is a remarkably difficult thing to do ... just ask Dan Quayle how to spell potato) in the few weeks since she has been out from under the thumb of the McCain staff than I can remember ever happening.

You have to hope that McCain had intelligent enough people working for him that they are now realizing what an incredibly dumb thing they did by keeping her under wraps. They bought into the ditz image also and were embarrassed that their boss had done something so foolish, so they tried to hide her as though they were ashamed to have McCain associated with her. If they had turned her loose ... well, we'll never know ... but I've a hunch that if they had ... it may well have been the vice-president elect who was drawing those huge crowds for Chambliss last week.

Biden His Time

December 2, 2008
Biden His Time

There are some very good, well-meaning people out there who are still fighting the last war.

The election is over. McCain and Palin lost. Obama and Biden won. That isn't going to change. There are many people who are absolutely convinced that Obama is not legally qualified for the office. The primary theory being that he was born in Kenya as his grandmother and other family members claimed. If indeed, he was not ... if he was born in Hawaii ... why not produce the "vault" birth certificate and simply shut everyone up instead of using every imaginable twist and turn to avoid doing so ... even in legal actions where he has been sued to make him produce it or face disqualification. There is a major ongoing petition drive to force him to produce it.

At this point, however, despite the best of intentions, this effort seems worse than useless as can be demonstrated by "editing" the competing bumper sticker contingents:

What people don't seem to realize is that if they actually managed to tilt over the windmill, we would be in at least as bad a position and actually, it would likely be worse. Perhaps significantly so.

The petition in itself may be worth signing. Not because it will do any tangible good but because it is important to keep the heat on and make people realize that not everyone is a kool-aid drinker.

That said … the answer to the question that many of the "still hopefuls" are gleefully asking: "What would happen if Obama was really proven to not qualify for the office?" is quite simple, clear-cut, and … not something to look forward to.

I don’t think it makes any difference whether it happened before or after he was sworn in, although I’m not positive about that. But certainly after January 20 what happens is: Joe “open mouth to change feet” Biden becomes President. Who knows? He may even have signed the petition under a pseudonym. Just Biden his time.

We all know a lot about Joe Biden and his record. It is hard not to since the man has been in the Senate for something like 36 years. There are few such well-known people whose views and philosophies are more antithetical to "truth, right and good" than Biden’s. And he’s not some wishy washy populist. He is dead set in his beliefs and ideologies by now. He is known as, and proud to wear the mantle of “liberal internationalist”. He is … well, in addition to itemizing his well-documented flat-out lies, I could spend an hour describing Biden’s politics, but suffice to say that I don’t think Obama ever flanked him to the left.

Don’t get me wrong. I think Obama is likely to prove to be a disaster for America. But the election is over; the Democrats won and even if we got rid of Obama we don’t get another crack at electing someone else. We get Biden. I fear that Obama may be as bad as Biden would be … although it would be hard to be much worse.

But(!) At least Obama, being younger, is, perhaps, not as set in his ways or as committed to his ideologies as Biden is. With him there is at least a chance that he will be “less terrible” than Biden. (Although I think Obama is really just a puppet anyway, so it probably makes no difference.)

If I sound like I’m defending him or even that I think he might be “ok” … I’m not. I'm an optimist at heart, however. It may be that someone elected on such a liberal platform is the only one who could get away with doing some things that the conservatives and libertarians would like to see done. Like only Nixon could go to China. Perhaps only Obama can actually tackle the Big Boy globalists and kneecap them before they destroy life as we know it. Only time will tell with Obama.

But there is no question with Biden. He is as set in his ways and beliefs as one can be. There is no "roll of the dice and hoping" like we (optimists in spite of all the reasons why we shouldn't be) are (having to do) with Obama.

All I’m saying is that even if we were successful in tossing him … I don’t know that we’d be in any better position than we are now. In fact ... I'd say the chances that things would improve are zip. I for one ... after some contemplation of the matter ... have decided that I should change horses in the middle of the stream since ... I finally realized we aren't in the middle of the stream any longer. We're on the far bank and the Dems won. Biden would be at least as bad as Obama and probably worse.

Ergo ... At this point, I think we are likely to be better served to do what we can to keep Obama in office!

A "Con"stitutional Question

November 16, 2008
A "Con" stitutional Question

Ok. We've had our election. The national media gave Obama his Rolls Royce ride to the white house. The people" (represented by a much larger percentage of street people bussed to the polls in the weeks before and during election day than had ever been seen in the past :-) have made him the "President-elect". (Republicans have little ability to counter this new form of electioneering except to work to stop all the early voting and make absentee voting much more difficult. It wouldn't stop the election day busing, but it would put an end to the huge numbers that get dragged to the polls in the weeks preceding an election. This is the Republicans only real solution since there are probably very few street people who would vote Republican unless for a specific quid pro quo and Republicans tend to get squeamish about outright vote buying.)

Being president-elect, however, is not a long term position. It is supposed to come to an end, according to the Constitution, on January 20 of the year following the election. But we have over two months left before the scheduled occasion.

So what happens if Obama is disqualified from holding the office before that date arrives? And, even more interestingly, what if the courts were to so determine after he is sworn in as President? I doubt that it will happen but this election has been so strange that nothing would surprise me. I think most people believe it is too late. All those lawsuits challenging his standing to be the U.S. President are generally thought to have gone "poof" with his election. But they didn't.

Interestingly the lawsuits have not been dismissed as frivolous either, which is the common response to the wing-nut lawsuits that pop up virtually unnoticed at other elections. In fact, despite the best attempts by the media to ignore them, the lawsuits have a pesky way of showing up and are not proving susceptible to being swept under the rug. I don't know if it is true or not since it is just an unverified comment, but at least someone apparently counted and says there are 17 cases in the Federal courts on this issue, two of which are currently before the Supreme Court. I assume there are "a bunch" in state courts as well seeking to stop certifications or whatever in the individual states.

Nor are these all nut-case lawsuits. Everyone has heard of the Phillip Berg lawsuit. It has been fairly well scoffed off the table by the mainstream media suggesting just that ... that it is just another nut-case action. Part of the problem with that argument is that Phillip Berg isn't your typical nut-case. Indeed he is the former Deputy Attorney General for Pennsylvania.

Although that is probably the most famous of the cases, perhaps the most fascinating and compelling case is the case brought in California by, among others, Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes. Dr. Keyes (a PhD from Harvard is not one to be brushed off easily. He also overcomes the big problem that Phillip Berg has with his case is that the court is questioning his "standing" to bring the action. I think the court is hopelessly wrong on that. Any citizen of the United States has standing to bring a lawsuit alleging that a presidential candidate (or president-elect) does not qualify for the office.

However that is ultimately decided, Dr. Keyes does not face that problem. Perhaps fortuitously, he was on the ballot in California as a candidate for President running as the nominee of the American Independent Party. It would be difficult to imagine who would have standing if a citizen of the country who was competing with Obama for the election as President, does not.

You would think that Obama would stop trying to win all these law suits on procedural grounds and just wipe them out on the merits ... if indeed he is right on the merits. All he has to do is wipe out the "vault birth certificate" (the real one ... the kind you probably have to show to get a driver's license! Not that phony certificate of live birth that the experts are split on but that appears there is a good chance it is a forgery).

I have a hunch that Obama may not even have known where he was born until questions came up about it! It isn't like he remembers it. And things were such a whirlwind he probably didn't even take it all seriously when it started. But the wheels of justice grind slowly ... but they do grind away. But even though it isn't the kind of thing one is likely to remember, ignorance absolutely is no excuse.

I can see it, though. His Mom (who was a bit of a wild card anyway) wanted him to have U.S. citizenship as a "born in the U.S.A. type, not as a "naturalized by moving here so young" type, so claimed he was born in Hawaii and told him that. His Grandmother said he was born in Kenya. She certainly had nothing to gain by saying that. Only the vaulted certificate knows for sure. And by now, probably Obama. Or he would have produced it. He was recently in Hawaii for his Grandmother's funeral [no, I'm not enough of a wing-nut to go there :-)]. But I bet he checked the certificate while there. And instead of producing it as he has been court ordered to do and which would make all the lawsuits go "poof" ... he fights them on procedural grounds and keeps the birth certificate in the vault.

But the "no standing" argument presumably won't work against Dr. Keyes. Nor will the screams of racism by his proxies. The fact that Dr. Keyes is a nationally syndicated columnist and a black man who stands about 6' 7" adds a bit to the drama. He has also held substantive governmental positions, particularly in the Reagan administration. And he was on the ballot for President in California.

The interesting question really is whether the issue gets decided before or after January 20. He can't very well pardon himself if he is not the real president (which he wouldn't be if he was not constitutionally qualified to hold the office). He would be, in the words of the Keyes' suit ... a usurper to the office. I don't know what the punishments are. Is it treason? Would the U.S. be after him just as all the Islamic world will be because he is an apostate?

He is forming an army to answer solely to him ... do you suppose he'll put up resistance if the courts order him to get the *%&#$)% out of the President's chair? :-)

But here's the thing. I don't know if Keyes or Berg has thought through. Clearly, if he is found to be ineligible before being sworn in, he gets booted. The Constitution is clear on that. But what if it doesn't happen until after he is seated? Would Pelosi become VP?! :-) Nah. Even the Forefathers would have thought far enough ahead to save us from that! Presumably it would be the same result.

However ... I'm still not certain that Keyes and Berg and the others have thought this through sufficiently! Obama could take his platform and run comfortably in the Socialist party of most countries of Europe. But behind the rhetoric he has shown some surprisingly conservative thoughts. And there is nothing like "real life" to make one more conservative!

He is an unknown. Usually that is bad. Except this time we know who his replacement would be: Joe "no longer Biden his time". And we do know his record. I'm not so sure but what I'd rather take my chances with the unknown!

Fates Having Fun

November 13, 2008
The Fates are Having too much Fun!

Barack Hussein Obama. President-elect of the United States of America; a country that is fighting two wars each of which was primarily designed to "take out" an individual. In Afghanistan it was Osama, whose name is a tiny typo away from being the same as that of the president-elect. In Iraq, it was Hussein.

Is there a Barack running an Islamic country anywhere? If so, I'd be real nervous were I him :-)

Could the Fates have played a stranger trick? Not only is the name tie-in to our two wars beyond coincidental comprehension ... but in both wars we are fighting (radical) Muslims ... and the Islamic and Christian nations and religions have not been so close to falling back into the Crusades mentality since ... the Crusades?

It has, in any event, been a long time. Most Americans never thought of Islam in a negative fashion before Osama sent the planes into the buildings. Most Americans never thought of Islam at all. Or if they did, it was along the lines of "Isn't that the religion that the Cat Stevens dude adopted?" [It is. On Muharram, in 1398 by the Islamic calendar. Indeed his name now is Yusuf Islam. What most folks don't know is that he never was "Cat Stevens"; that was just a stage name. He was born Steven Demetre Georgiou.]

In any event, we are at war for all practical purposes, in two different countries and in a third sort of generic "War on Terror", with the radical arm of Islam. And we elect, for the first time in the history of the nation, a presidential candidate who has an extensive Muslim background.

Indeed, his Muslim background is another of those "hazy" areas surrounding the man. He acknowledges being born to a Muslim father and that his stepfather was also Muslim. It appears likely that he was enrolled as a Muslim at a child in the Muslim school he attended in Indonesia. I wrote one column on apostasy and will soon do a follow-up to that now that he is president-elect. But in any event, his "Muslim background" is the greatest of any U.S. President to date ... and likely greater than any serious presidential candidate in the past. And we elect someone with that background ... now?

This is beyond mind-boggling. The Fates have got to be rolling in the aisles ... of wherever it is the Fates hang out.

And yet this man not only stridently proclaims that he is Christian ... but he stained his reputation badly by being a member of such a radical Christian church (and it would have been much worse had not the press been giving him, in Bill Clinton's words, that Rolls Royce ride to the White House as noted in my last post). If the press had tackled Obama the way it did Palin ... you'd know every sermon that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ever preached that could be taken negatively in any way.

But my point here is not to complain about the disparate press treatment. I've spent plenty of time in this blog doing that.

My point is that he joined the radical arm of his religion. He isn't just someone who grew up in a church and continued on in the religion he was raised in. He actively sought a place for his spiritual side and specifically selected this Church, which was more to him than just a "show up at Sunday, visit with the congregants, hear a bland sermon on doing good and believing, and maybe attend the annual potluck". This Church filled a deep hunger and he took it much more seriously spiritually than socially. "Obama was searching for an identity and a community, and he found both at Trinity. And he found a spiritual guide in Wright."

And Wright was radical! [He still is, but he has now retired.] Obama's continued association with (and pronounced affections for) him long after he reasonably should have rejected Wright and all that he stood for (assuming it was even defensible to have joined the Church in the first place) was faulted by even the most liberal of columnists. This man who Obama claimed was his "spiritual advisor" vehemently preached (to, ultimately, a huge audience) about how 9/11 was America's fault and how the U.S. was intentionally spreading the Aids virus. This man who married Obama and his wife said in one famous speech "God Damn America" at least three times. Yet Obama says it was this man's words that were the inspiration for his book "The Audacity of Hope"!

My point here is not to regurgitate that oft-repeated point that Obama's various "associations" have shown a remarkable lack of judgment. While that is clearly a true statement, my point was really to show that Obama, more than any prior president, is a member of the "radical fringe" of Christianity ... while we are fighting wars against the "radical fringe" of Islam.

It strains credulity that all these are coincidences. And yet, this is all acknowledged mainstream information. Those tending closer to the wing-nut position will tell you many more things too strange to be coincidence (including many apparently strange numerical synchronicities). I'll refrain from giving those print space here at the moment. But it all does make one wonder.

Is there something going on that none of us truly understand?

I am not a mystical nor religious person. But even I am tempted to research what the Bible says about the Anti-Christ! :-)

No. I very much doubt that Barack is the Anti-Christ. And I presume that the Fates are just having fun at our expense. But the more one ponders the impossibilities surrounding this election (imagine if, before you had heard of Barack Hussein Obama that such a person could be elected president at this time in our history). If you look at it in that context ... you will have to concede that the chances of it ever happening would be too silly to even consider.

It makes me more curious than anything. Is this truly God playing a joke on us? Could it be that these coincidences are just coincidences? Perhaps someday I'll manage to satisfy my curiosity about this most curious of elections. But somehow, I doubt it.

Sarah Palin - A Star is ... Created

November 9, 2008
Sarah Palin - A Star is ... Created

Well, she has legs! No, no ... I'm referring to the continuing stories about Sarah Palin, not the beauty queen herself!

It isn't enough that the press, in Bill Clinton's own words [bottom of 9th paragraph], acted as Obama's "personal chauffeur" on the election trail, but they now seem determined to utterly destroy Sarah Palin and any potential political future she might have on the national stage.

The attacks continue in the pressosphere unabated. I think today Obama finally got more national press coverage than Governor Palin did ... but not by a whole lot.

I have been "consciously aware" of presidential elections since the Goldwater debacle of 1964 [well, semi-conscious for the first couple ... and for some really boring ones since]. But I remember the election of '64 very clearly. Even though age-wise, I was only a short distance into double figures, I was flabbergasted that the media could destroy someone so completely. I knew things about Goldwater that the media didn't know (nor do most people even today!) ... indeed, I knew things about the John Birch Society (which was the primary limb from which the media hung him), that the media didn't know! How could that be?

Obviously now that I'm old and cynical I realize that the media knew everything I did all along and simply lied on the theory that most people really didn't know and even if they did, perhaps they could be made to question their own knowledge. Those were different times and the media and "the people" had a different relationship. There were very few sources of news. Essentially there were three television stations and "local" newspapers. Oh, there were a few national newspapers out, but few "regular people" read them and they tended to be specialized and their readership similarly specialized. For example, although it has been published since 1889, to the best of my recollection I had never seen anyone reading the Wall Street Journal.

The press had inordinate power. As mentioned, there were very few options for obtaining national news back then and, perhaps vastly more critical, "the people" as a whole had not yet realized that the newspapers regularly and intentionally lied to us. We were taught in school that the news in newspapers was just that: news. Boring facts unadulterated by the personal opinions of the reporters or the political positions of the owners. All opinions were on the Editorial Page and were clearly marked as such. Oh, there were small muckraking newspapers whose single editor/owner/typesetter often broke such rules and let his opinions run rampant. But those were not considered "real newspapers" by "real journalists". Indeed, newspapers were held to such a high standard that they hired proofreaders to make absolutely certain that no error or typo or misspelling made it into print. And, indeed, few did.

But after the press had done their job and destroyed Goldwater's reputation and successfully elected Lyndon Johnson by a landslide ... they talked about ... Lyndon Johnson. They didn't talk much about Goldwater and they certainly didn't talk much about [you don't have a clue do you? :-)] his VP candidate, William Miller. I remember Johnson won that election by using the "old" Cold War and the "new" television to scare the public in the first example of true dirty"negative" advertising on national TV (such as the "daisy ad"that convinced people that Goldwater was a militaristic loose cannon and if he were elected we would be annihilated by Atom Bombs)!

Johnson ran as the peace candidate (and of course, immediately upon winning the election cranked up the Vietnam "situation" where we had "peacekeepers" and "advisers" into a full-blown war).

I do remember one somewhat famous mention of Goldwater in regards to the election that included an early "shot" at the media sometime afterwards: "They told me that if I voted for Goldwater, we'd be in war in 6 months. Well, I did, and we are."

But I have never seen anything like the Palin phenomena. It suggests that either the left is remarkably scared of her and desperately want to destroy and bury her or that the right is fascinated and delighted and wants her to play on the national stage without being "held down" by a hopeless candidate (who, perhaps wisely, particularly after the national economic meltdown seemed to be working to lose the election). Or, most likely ... both factors are at work.

It is clear, however, despite the idiocies of the pundits in trying to "kill two birds with one stone", (and McCain's people trying to shift blame as effectively as possible) that McCain's loss was not due to Sarah Palin ... nor was his potentially psychologically throwing the election due to his remorse about putting someone "so unqualified" a heartbeat away from the presidency. (Although it certainly is possible that he didn't want to give any unhinged Palin backers ... and every candidate has them ... a reason to get rid of that heartbeat that was keeping her from the main office.) More plausible is that he realized that because of her, he might actually win! And that scared him more than being shot down by enemy aircraft!

Yet two things are happening that the "Hate(fear) Palin" crowd did not anticipate. First, the simple fact that they are continuing to berate and lampoon her keeps her in the national news and in the public's mind. They would be well served to remember the old saying: "I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right." There is a sense that if the liberal elites are still this concerned about her ... perhaps there are reasons why they should be.

So there is that sort of "obvious" backlash. If there had been any working brain cells left, the punditocracy would have instantly and immediately ignored Palin as though she had never existed. With no national press coverage she would have quickly "sunk back" into that distant Alaska pond from where she emerged. The pressography did Palin a huge favor ... one that they would not have had they been paying attention in class in Journalism 101 or remedial Psychology.

Yet, there is something else going on as well. Palin has been so viciously castigated by out-and-out lockstep lies ... lies that are patently obvious to those of us who knew a lot about Sarah Palin before most of the nation had ever heard of her. The witch-hunt has been so unrelenting and so intense, that it has spawned an entirely different sort of backlash: the good kind. People are obviously still fascinated with her. Many would like to believe better of her than the media does. And so we now have people who are going to tell the world the truth!

It is much more likely that Obama was born in Kenya than it is that Palin is a pawn of Big Oil, for instance. Yet because the press pooh-poohed the stories about Obama and, indeed, ripped anyone (including Sarah) who suggested that there was anything amiss that perhaps the press should look into, such stories never got traction.

Yet "everyone" seems to "know" that Sarah is a pawn of Big Oil who sold out her own state. This is ludicrous of course for any who know the facts ... but we are few and far between. However, the public's fascination and the media's refusal to let go of a bone that, had it any sense it would have spit out on election night, have led to what I believe may only be the beginning of a Palin resurgence. Presidency in 2012? It is not as crazy an idea as the elitists would have you think. Especially if people start learning the truth (and therefore start learning how badly they've been lied to)!

I haven't read this book yet. But it looks as if this is an example ... a first salvo as it were ... in the beginnings of the public redemption of Sarah Palin ... which will doubtlessly be helped along by the realization of how badly the punditocracy lied about her.

If so ... and considering the issues he faces, the unbelievable lack of experience, and the most socialistic agenda of any candidate in the nation's history ... President Obama may find himself badly beaten by a woman with lipstick and a great wink in 2012.

Rumor Mongering

November 8, 2008
Rumor Mongering

While we are on the subject of how dishonorable it is to be a "bad winner" and kick someone while they are down, there appear to be more stories in the national media about Sarah Palin ... the losing Vice Presidential candidate, that there are about our President-elect, his running mate, Joe Biden-His-Time, or John McCain! It is virtually all incredibly negative and nasty, but she still elicits more coverage (which equals interest) than the rest of them! The nastiness is inexcuseable, however, and only understandable in the context of extreme fear by the liberal elites that Sarah is indeed the long-awaited return of the Messiah ... oops, sorry, that was Obama. Sarah is apparently feared to be the long-awaited return of a Ronald Reagan. It seems that anyone running for anything in the Republican party has tried to claim that title (including the outgoing President Shrub). Sarah hasn't tried. She hasn't had to. She has excited the Republicans (and a lot of Democrats) beyond anything anyone has seen on the Republican side since ... well ... since Ronald Reagan! Realize the media did its best to paint him as a mental pygmy his first couple of runs at the presidency as well. Now ... he is the most likely 5th face to be carved into Mt. Rushmore! No wonder the liberal elite is scared of her and is desperately trying to make her look stupid and vindictive even after she lost! They desperately need to bury her politically. But they won't.

Even this latest nonsense: an anonymous (way out-of-date) report allegedly by some disgruntled McCain staffer that Sarah didn't know whether Africa was a country or a continent is total bunk. As I understand it, what she really asked(according to unnamed anonymous sources :-) during the debate preparation for her one-on-one with Biden, was something like "Are we talking about the country of South Africa or the continent of Africa?" which, in the context of the conversation at the time was perfectly reasonable. I haven't discovered for sure yet whether a staffer misheard the comment and missed the "South" or if it was just an intentional hatchet job. But I'm working on it.

I am not alone in the realization that the media intentionally painted a caricature of Governor Palin and even nationally well-known Democrats who got to know her well flatly do not believe that Sarah could have been confused as to whether Africa was a country or continent. This story conveys the following (and more): a Democrat reporter, Greta Van Susteren, who interviewed Sarah Palin twice says that she was "enormously impressed at how smart she was". The Democrat who was the former communications director for Citizens for McCain, Elaine Lafferty, traveled with Sarah and got to know her well. She was also incredibly impressed at her intellect ... and that, far from being a diva, the staff absolutely loved her. Assuming that someone on the staff actually did tell Cameron about the alleged Africa confusion and other nastiness about Sarah, it would have to be, according to those who know, "sour grapes from one or two people".
I guess my latent [latent? :-)] cynicism finally emerged in full bloom after watching the press march so diligently to the beat of the exact same drummer; who was (is!) drumming a bizarre concoction of outright lies and half-truths. As noted above, for instance, even if someone associated with the campaign did mishear something that they turned into the utter nonsense that Sarah didn't know whether Africa is a country or continent, it was not a newsworthy event. Biden said dumber things daily. Obama is going to be President of all of the 57 states he had visited. But the media -- you know -- the folks that have been telling you about evey misstep that Sarah took whether it happened or not? The folks who mix the kool-aid? They would never make a mistake that could look dumb like that, could they? [Btw: I'm not a fan of political correctness (obviously :-), but the kool-aid comments started from Barack himself. See bottom line of third main paragraph.]

Let's take a quick glance at just a few of the articles from the pressography that attempt to make her look the fool on that specific issue of Africa's "continentalism":

Fox News started it all in an apparent attempt to boot-lick the winner of the election and to erase any suggestion that it had any conservative leanings, so let's start with them. Here is the headline and the opening sentence:

Fox: "Palin didn't know Africa is a continent"
06-11-08, 04:43 PM

"As Fox News's Carl Cameron reported Wednesday, that Palin thought Africa was a continent -- not a country –"

Now I realize that I am apparently too stupid, in the view of the press, to see how dumb this makes Palin look. Silly me! I thought it made Fox look dumb instead. Last time I checked ... Africa WAS a continent! Now obviously we can't blame the press for one little mistake that ... oops ... that's what they were attempting to skewer Palin for doing! Only they were probably wrong and only "name" some unnamed anonymous source for their allegations. Even though they probably have changed it by now, however, their "stupid mistake" was made in print and in plain view of millions of people. And not only in this country! As we can see from this exact quote (copied and pasted ... no editing by me at all) from the left-wing BN Village in the U.K.:

"So just how woefully unqualified was Sarah Palin? Now that the election's over, aides to John McCain's campaign are starting to dish on the former Republican vice presidential nominee. The Alaska governor who bragged about being able to see Russia from her home state was pretty uninformed on even the most basic details of the world, it appears. As Fox News's Carl Cameron reported Wednesday, Palin allegedly thought Africa was a continent -- not a country ..." [Bold emphasis was in the original, as cut and pasted.]

I obviously have erred in referring to the lock-step Palin bashers as the "national media". Clearly they were mixing kool-aid from the identical recipe "internationally"! Here's another from across the pond (although Newstin reports reports of news stories more than actually reporting news).


"Sarah Palin, R-Alaska, returned to the 49th state and denied reports that ... she thought Africa is a continent, not a country, as Fox News's Carl Cameron reported."
Closer to home, it was Newsweek that was one of the first to jump on the "kick Sarah under the bus" bandwagon:

"She was angry at [reports that she did not know that Africa].... is a continent, not a country, as Fox News's Carl Cameron reported."

I could go on at some length; there were many who used that exact quote. Apparently many "theoretically competent" news outlets and bloggers just ran with what they were given without even bothering to see if it made any sense, let alone to fact check it. And yet these are the people who think we should trust the truth and accuracy of what they tell us? Even Cameron's report was so wishy-washy it shouldn't have even been National Enquirer material. [Actually, perhaps I should apologize to the National Enquirer for that. There standards may be higher!] "Folks told us ..."? "We were told ..." all by unnamed sources weeks ago. This is trash journalism folks. And incompetent trash journalism to boot!

Opening the Troopergate

November 3, 2008
Opening the Troopergate

Now that it is essentially too late the non-partisan (and procedurally valid) investigation of the nonsense the punditocracy labeled "Troopergate" has been released. The only truly remarkable part of it is that the McClatchy-owned Alaska Daily News titled their article on it: "New Troopergate Report Clears Palin".

Apparently now that it is too late for most of the electorate to learn about it in time to make a difference they decide they can be honest with the title.

As was crystal clear all along to those of us who were paying attention, the new legitimate!) report finds that:

- There is no cause to believe Palin violated the state ethics law in deciding to dismiss Monegan as public safety commissioner.

- There is no cause to believe Palin violated the state ethics law in connection with Wooten.

- There is no cause to believe any other state official violated the ethics act.

- There's no basis to conduct a hearing to "address reputational harm," as requested by Monegan.

As a matter of fact, I read the inital "Troopergate report" and it also exonerated Governor Palin, although not quite as definitively. And I said so! I titled my article "Mediagate aka Troopergate Report" because I thought the real travesty was the fact that the Alaska McClatchy News (aka Alaska Daily News) decided to entitle the article on the initial report "Troopergate report: Palin abused power" even though the primary finding of that first report was that what Palin did was "proper and lawful".

In fact, much of the coverage of this entire election by the jack-booted punditocracy marching in lock-step to destroy Palin's reputation should be a tremendous "Mediagate" scandal.

I would rail at some length about that, but time is too short. The world frankly needs to know about this even though it is probably too late to do any good. So, excuse me while I go attempt to inform them :-)

The Final Lap (was "Construction")

November 1, 2008
The Final Lap (was "Construction")

I've been doing some work on the site. I hope to have a real menu system working soon. Meantime ... most of the best material regarding Governor Palin and this election is in the September and October archives, so just hit the > on the >9(16) and/or >10(14) above to get a list, or just scroll down.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obviously, I'm not going to have this function fixed before the elections, so it will simply have to wait. I haven't posted much here for the last few days either; although I think I've written as much in the last week as this entire blog contains! I've instead been writing comments in the blogs of others or in news stories. Sometimes Muhammad must go to the mountain. [Oops. That might not be an appropriate phrase to use at this critical juncture of history, religion and politics!:-)]

But 1/3 of the electorate will vote before election day in this brave new experiment we are attempting to enable even more people who have no clue what the issues are to be hauled to the polls. (Sorry, was my cynicism showing? :-) As a result ... we are already effectively on election eve. We must focus our efforts in convincing those who vote the way I Christmas shop (making all my decisions and purchases the day before Christmas :-)! For those that vote that way, we need to get them the word and quickly!

Please remember [see below post as to why this is true] this is not over! The liberal elite knows it isn't also and they are scared. So scared that there are warnings (even to folks in foreign countries) that if Obama loses there will be blood in the streets and civil war. Read this, then let's win this thing and we can all be remorseful that we caused Jane Fonda's back to hurt even worse: Erica Jong Freaks Out.

I accidentally ran into something I must construe as complimentary, btw. If you run the word "ridda" on Google, you will find a summary of an article from this blog published by nowpublic.com with proper attribution and requests for comments and fact checking! On page 1 of Google! I had no idea we'd made nowpublic or that we would be on the first page of Google in any form at this point. [Ed. note: we got bumped from page one to page three on Google; oh well :-)] On the nowpublic site they make an excellent comment that ... if such is true, we need this to go viral essentially immediately. I agree.

At the moment, I seem to be able to reach more people more quickly by commenting elsewhere than blogging here (although I usually do refer folks here for a fuller discussion of a point I've made elsewhere). A result of all my postings elsewhere is that I've drafted enough new material to add greatly to this blog, both in substance and quantity. Unfortunately, by the time I could get it here and edited into shape for this blog, the election would be over! :-)

The apostasy issue is huge and the press has intentionally kept it as hidden as possible. American Muslims that speak out simply are not reported. And the Islamic countries have their own reasons (sometimes different ones for different countries) for not wanting the issue raised. It is also possible that some Islamic countries have been trying to get the word out and our lockstep press has been ignoring them. That issue, and so many others, have simply not reached the public yet. It is critical to get word out as quickly as possible. Chain letter it if necessary. Send the site url and a "teaser" paragraph on a topic that you find important to 10 of your friends and ask them to each send to 1o and so forth. A valid and helpful use of the "pyramid" technique.

The second most important thing we must do is NOT GIVE UP (sorry about the shouting). That is what the Obamanation wants you to do. If McCain/Palin supporters figure it is hopeless they aren't as likely to brave the rainstorm or line up a baby-sitter or do whatever they need to do to get to the polls. Make them understand ... use the article below ... that it is not hopeless and that we desperately need a huge turnout. The democrats will be busing people for days on the "vote early, vote often" theory. Well, let's hope I was joking about the "often" part. But we must do the same.

Despite the above cite where Erica Jong demonstrates the level of panic among the liberal elites, my belief remains that the Obama camp, and likely voters, suffer from overconfidence which is their possible undoing. It is time for us to do all we can to help Senator McCain pull off his Lazarus imitation one more time and win this thing. Thanks folks. Let's do this!

The Fat Lady Ain't Singing

October 25, 2008
The Fat Lady Ain't Singing

I’m starting to run into a sense of defeatism - or at least tangible pessimism - by the pro-McCain/Palin camp. It runs from hard-core solid McCain supporting bloggers (eg: TexasFred's comment beneath the linked story) to the few pro-McCain journalists that run in the mainstream media (eg: Krauthhammer talking of all the conservative "ship-jumpers" who want to be on the winning side.) Only a few days from the elections and polls are showing Obama having a nearly double digit lead. In fact, some polls are showing Obama has a double digit lead.

McCain supporters are beginning to lose hope and Obama backers are already breaking out the champagne.

This article should help the McCain folks regain some of that hope and should convince the Obama folks not to pop any corks yet.

I certainly wouldn’t want to wager my retirement income [oh wait, that disappeared in the financial meltdown and is already gone ... never mind] on McCain and Palin pulling this off. But I don't think the McCain/Palin supporters should be ready to throw in the towel yet. I’m listening really closely and the fat lady isn’t singing yet.

To some extent it is realistic to believe that McCain never really had a chance because he was playing in a rigged game with marked cards. Or, as Newt Gingrich and I separately said on the same day purely coincidentally [at least I doubt he’s getting his guidance from my blog and I hadn’t seen his comment when I first wrote mine] ... "the fix is in".

Well, the fix has been in from the beginning. There is no way that Obama on his own could have made it to the point of being a presidential contender. He is way too young, fresh, unknown and inexperienced. No ... he didn’t get there on the merits. He was chosen. Ultimately "by whom" is a fascinating question. Who is the real puppeteer? Who pulls the strings? Who are we really electing when (if!) we swear Obama in as President? I don’t know. But he was selected and then handed to the Chicago machine and used as a charming, naive front man. I think Obama probably believes he got where he is on his own merits ("woke up on third and thought he must have hit a triple"). But he’s just a pretty face with the ability to read a teleprompter speech well.

I know I’m beginning to sound like Hilary and her "vast right-wing conspiracy". But whoever is running the Chicago machine (or perhaps is even the puppet master of the Chicago machine as well), has the national pressography in lock-step compliance. Virtually the entire mainstream media (with some possible exceptions ... or perhaps only a few "apparent" exceptions so that it doesn’t look any more obvious than it does) is acting as campaign workers for Obama. "Someone" even managed to "get to" Powell and convince him to turn on his very good and close friend of decades. After much thought ... I cannot believe that Powell truly believes what he said, (although it is true that he has clearly shown extremely bad judgment before). He does not appear to be an easy man to intimidate and I’ve always believed he was too honorable to be bribed. So I don’t know how they did it. But I believe "someone" must have.

In a rigged game ... did McCain ever stand a chance?

Oddly, the answer is yes. And oddly I believe that is largely due to something that is widely perceived as a dangerous character flaw in McCain: he is a gambler. Literally, as in spending time playing the craps tables in Vegas; and figuratively in that he is willing to roll the dice on decisions that drive the RNC and his own staff up the wall (his selection of Governor Palin as running mate is an excellent example). McCain has been playing in rigged games all his life and knows how to beat the house even when the cards are stacked against him.

He had (by all appearances) zero chance prior to his Palin selection. The question was just how badly he was going to be beat. Obama was the anointed one. To suggest that Obama's ego got a little carried away with itself is putting it much too mildly :-) He was so certain that he was selected by "higher powers" to this role he gained a Messiah complex. He is right that he was selected by higher powers. But they are very earthly powers. They deal in back rooms and hide, perhaps in plain view. But whoever they really are, these the Powers that Be ("PTB") possess enormous power and influence.

Vegas wouldn’t have even run a line on McCain at that point. He was "just another Bush"; an ultimate Washington insider who had voted with the President way too often for his own electoral good. Essentially anyone that was on the bandied about list of his "likely choices" would have assured the defeat that looked like a forgone conclusion.

So he did what all experienced gamblers do when they see the cards are marked: he brought out a new deck and shuffled. He chose someone the Obama camp and the PTB had not anticipated nor planned on how to respond. And he caused absolute and total panic among all the Obama supporters, the media, the left-wing blogs ... and Obama himself (who allegedly took up smoking again very shortly after hearing the news).

After the initial panic, the entire "vast left-wing conspiracy" [:-)] went to work bringing their considerable resources to attempt to destroy the public image of Palin and to use her as an example of McCain’s poor judgment. As one who actually knows a fair bit about our Governor (and did long before she was selected - see various posts below), it is mind-boggling to me the lengths to which the media has gone to attempt to discredit her as a credible candidate. She is nothing like the caricature the media has painted of her. No negative rumor, no matter how bizarre and unsubstantiated, is too loony for the punditocracy to print about her. If there is absolutely no substantiation, the press can (and does) go with their standard fall-back position by pointing out that there isn’t much to substantiate the rumor. It is a journalistic trick as old as the profession of muckraking.

"The widely reported story that, yet again, Sarah Palin was found passed out from booze and pills in a hotel bathroom has not been sufficiently documented that we are able to attest to its veracity."

I haven’t actually seen that headline yet, but it wouldn’t surprise me if I did.

And it has had an enormous effect. The PTB are back in apparent control, Obama is warning against overconfidence, which is excellent evidence that he is overconfident!

But the fat lady ain’t singing yet.

John McCain has been dead and buried, only to rise again, so many times that Lazarus is jealous. Based on that alone I wouldn’t count him out. But there are other reasons not to believe the fight is over or that McCain can’t pull it off.

The first is that a lot of polling is done with the express purpose of attempting to show whoever the pollsters (or whoever hires them) wants to win is doing so. This is because there is a widely held belief (which I don’t know is accurate, but don’t dispute), that, in general, Americans (or perhaps anyone) are sheep that want to be on the winning side and so if the poll shows that Obama has a comfortable lead and the lead is widening ... people will be more inclined to vote for him. I’ve never truly understood that psychology (but as I say, I don’t dispute that it is real), but that may simply be because I’m inherently a contrarian who tends to float upstream and swim against the tide.

Poll results are all manipulated to "adjust" the raw data for such things as the pollster’s belief in the likelihood of whether certain identified groups of respondents are likely to vote, or to make the sample mirror the actual population in things such as gender, party affiliation, race, age, etc. Beyond that, the exact wording of the question is critical and minor changes in what is asked and how it is asked can bring dramatic changes to the final results. Ultimately this means that a poll can be heavily manipulated to produce desired results.

So I take all national polls with a grain of salt. I don’t know what McCain’s own pollsters are discovering. But he isn’t looking discouraged enough for me to believe that they agree with Pew or McClatchy.

There is another, very powerful, reason to not give up hope. People lie.

It is PC now to be an Obama backer and very un-PC to think highly of Palin or to suggest that you might actually vote for the McCain ticket. And, sheep that we are, people don’t want to appear un-PC. So they lie. They lie to their friends, they lie to their co-workers, they lie to reporters ... and they even lie to telephone pollsters (because no one is ever really sure that their responses will be kept confidential).

This is particularly true in this race for several reasons, one of the main ones being that Obama is black. There is a sense that if you oppose Obama, you must be a racist and in this day and age that is the last thing that anyone would want to be accused of. So they tell everyone that, of course, they are going to vote for Obama. But in the privacy of the voting booth, many of those people will pull the lever for McCain.

And then they’ll lie to the pollsters on their way out of the voting place.

This same thing happened four years ago. I predicted then that, even though Kerry was comfortably ahead in the polls, that once inside the booth, a lot of people who said they were Kerry supporters would vote for Bush and would lie about it afterwards. I said that if I was correct, the exit polls would be way off and that the actual vote would be much higher for Bush than the exit polls show.

I was dead on.

When I re-tooled this blog a couple months ago, I brought along some of my old postings. Many of the links didn’t survive the transfer or the linked site is gone now, but they are still sufficient to show, not to put too fine a point on it, that I was absolutely, unarguably, "I told you so" right! :-).

I don’t know whether this phenomenon will be sufficient to put McCain in the winner’s circle. I’m not ready to call the election on his behalf yet. But I do believe that it will have a very real effect and that, once again, the Republican ticket is going to do significantly better at the actual ballot box than they do in the polls.

So it isn’t time for McCain's supporters to give up. That alone can become a self-fulfilling prophecy; whether because of the sheep phenomena by which people want to be on the winning side to just not bothering to vote since it is a "lost cause" anyway. Between McCain’s gambler instincts and his Lazarus imitations ... and my belief that people lie to pollsters, I’m not at all convinced that Obama has this one in the bag yet. And there still could be an "October surprise" which may make a major difference in the election (whether in McCain or Obama’s favor, I have no idea).

But the election isn’t over until it’s over. The fat lady isn’t going to sing until the 4th of next month. No matter what the pollsters and the media tell you.

Smeared Lipstick; the Media's Attempt to Destroy Sarah Palin

October 22, 2008
Smeared Lipstick; the Media's Attempt to Destroy Sarah Palin

As they say in boxing: the fix is in. [I discovered after writing this that I wasn't the first one to use that phrase to describe the current situation.] The pressography will do anything it can to destroy the public image of Governor Palin.

We are in the midst of two wars and the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression. We have major issues regarding how to provide our energy needs and our health care and so many other issues. We are only a few days before the election between candidates with dramatically different ideologies and proposed solutions to those problems and others ... and the main political story of the day in the mainstream media and left-wing blogosphere is the cost of Sarah Palin's wardrobe!

There are only two possibilities: either the game is rigged or the media are chock-full of blithering idiots.

I'm not paranoid by nature, but I'm beginning to believe option one!

This is a total "nonstory" and is completely consistent with the phony caricature image the media has been trying to paint of Sarah. This is just another attempt by the punditocracy to make Palin look as bad as possible. No one's tax money was spent. The RNC has the right to do whatever it wants with money that people have contributed to it. If anyone has a right to gripe it could only be contributors to the RNC. No one else has any legitimate interest or complaint. And people who contribute to the RNC do so giving the RNC full discretion on how to spend those funds. It may or may not have been money well spent. If it helps bring in votes because she looks more "professionally acceptable" to the urban and urbane voters, it absolutely was good judgment, if it doesn't, it wasn't. But contributors to the RNC let the RNC make such judgments. They are pros. They have a better idea of how to allocate funds to maximize the votes they bring in than any of us armchair analysts.

Virtually every Alaskan quoted about her in the national media is opposed to her and has terrible things to say about her, including utter lies about her racism towards the Native people that make absolutely no sense (the reporter for this article apparently didn't realize that her husband was part Yupik when he made up the racist lies. This from a state where she had an absolutely unreal 90%+ approval rating. That should be enough to make any thinking person understand and realize that the national smear campaign is on.

In addition to the serious issues facing the country, there are also critical, significant unanswered questions about Senator Obama. There is a serious question as to whether Obama is an apostate. There are legitimate questions, complete with lawsuits, on whether he is a lawful resident of the U.S. There are major questions regarding his his judgment in his choice of long-term friends, associates and mentors; some of whom are truly scary people including avowed communists, his "hate America" pastor and convicted terrorist felons. These allegations may turn out to be valid or the may turn out to be invalid. But they need to be brought out into the light of day and examined. Can it truly be that the cost of Sarah's shoes is a more important topic than these?

Governor Sarah Palin has, alone among the four candidates, actually run a government. Being in the legislature where you have "opinions" and a vote and then another vote and an "I voted against it before I voted for it" mentality is completely different from being the head administrator of the government. Aren't Sarah's accomplishments as Governor on issues such as free trade (along with the other candidate's "opinions") more important than the cost of her suit jacket? Apparently not according to the punditocracy. The costs of her wardrobe were on the front page of the New York Times!

It is clear that until McCain made the surprising and shockingly brilliant selection of Palin for a running mate, Obama and the puppeteers behind him were certain they had the Presidency locked up. And ... if McCain had chosen almost anyone else, Obama would have been correct. But they had never suspected that Palin was a real option and were not prepared to campaign against her. The absolute and obvious panic of Obama and the left-wing Democrats was fascinating.

There was no way they could beat her on the merits. She is probably better qualified than any of the other three to be President. She was the head of the Oil and Gas Commission in Alaska (a powerful position in this State). She resigned in protest over the rampant corruption; ran for Governor on a "throw out the crooks" platform; won by a landslide ... and did just that. She teamed well and comfortably with the honest Democrats. She fought Big Oil. The bad guys got indicted, she instituted a windfalls profit tax which hurt the oil companies, but was more fair than the deals that they'd received in the past from their bought and paid for Legislature. And then she gave a bunch of that money to every person in the state to help offset the huge rise in fuel and energy costs. Along the way she gained great respect from the Big Oil companies and works well with them. Once they learned that she was uncorruptible; that she couldn't be bullied or bought ... they played the game legit. She has had tremendous executive experience that none of the other three could hope to match. Obama's only chance was to convince the punditocracy to lie and destroy her by a constant barrage of negative, indeed nasty, vicious images of her even if they had to be "made up" or repeat as gospel totally unverifiable (and wrong) rumors. The mainstream press absolutely refuses to give the public any sort of balanced picture about her. I'm sure he and the press feel somewhat secure in doing so because Alaska is far away and little known. Lying about it and people from it is easier than from any other state.

And lie they did. Certainly there are honest reporters and bloggers who simply disagree with her. That's fine. I'm all for competition in the marketplace of ideas. What scares me (and I'm not a man that frightens easily) is that way too much of the pressosphere [the press and the big blogs that, through links and advertising have simply become "part of the system"] is too willing to lie in lockstep. There is more going on here than we are aware. I'm not of the paranoid persuation, but the attempted destruction of Sarah Palin is too widespread and too well coordinated to be legitimate reporting.

The woman I know as Governor of this State does not resemble the image you have of her if you have listened only to the media. Read the articles in this blog. Many of the best background articles on her are in the September archives. Just press the >9(19) button at the top under archives for a list of titles, or just scroll down and see what strikes your fancy. Follow my links. You will discover an entirely different person than you thought she was. And you will, I hope, wonder how this could be. I don't know the answer to that ... yet. But I do know that "when elephants play, the grass gets trampled". There are hidden elephants behind Obama's improbable rise. And you and I are grass.