Flying Pigs Alert: The NYT Notices That Sarah Palin Said Something Important

Well, I guess I can die happy now. I've seen it all. Nothing could possibly surprise me now: not George W. Bush moving to Boston, not Martians landing and demanding to be taken to our leader - in Beijing, not the UN voting to condemn racism somewhere other than in Israel, not the Toronto Maple Leafs winning the Stanley Cup. Nothing. The New York Times actually noticed that Sarah Palin said something profound and important.

Get up off the floor and keep reading; naturally, I intend to offer proof for such a far-out, incredible assertion. Here it is, from the Sept. 9 edition, "Some of Sarah Palin's Ideas Cross the Political Divide":

Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it.

That is not how we’re primed to see Ms. Palin. A pugnacious Tea Partyer? Sure. A woman of the people? Yup. A Mama Grizzly? You betcha.

But something curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa. Along with her familiar and predictable swipes at President Barack Obama and the “far left,” she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment — left, right and center — and pointed toward a way of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide.

The next day, the “lamestream” media, as she calls it, played into her fantasy of it by ignoring the ideas she unfurled and dwelling almost entirely on the will-she-won’t-she question of her presidential ambitions.

So here is something I never thought I would write: a column about Sarah Palin’s ideas.

There was plenty of the usual Palin schtick — words that make clear that she is not speaking to everyone but to a particular strain of American: “The working men and women of this country, you got up off your couch, you came down from the deer stand, you came out of the duck blind, you got off the John Deere, and we took to the streets, and we took to the town halls, and we ended up at the ballot box.”

But when her throat was cleared at last, Ms. Palin had something considerably more substantive to say.

She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.

Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.

“Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?” she said, referring to politicians. “It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”

Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.

Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.

Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin’s having said them.

“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”

Is there a hint of a political breakthrough hiding in there?

Of course it is snarky and snide; it is the New York Times after all. But it notes that Palin is saying things that make her something other than a shill for corporate America. Who knows, if this keeps up maybe Times journalists someday will discover that fly-over country actually is inhabited.

The column continues, in the breathless tone of an anthropologist announcing at a live news conference the discovery of a previously unknown civilization under the ice of Antarctica:

Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism.

On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better. On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more anonymous it becomes; they would press to live in self-contained, self-governing enclaves that bear the burden of their own prosperity.

It obviously has never occurred to this writer, even by the end of this article, that maybe - just maybe - Palin is expressing ideas that are widespread in the Tea Party Movement and other esoteric sects such as the Founding Fathers, for example. If only journalists who pontificate about American culture and politics had to read de Tocqueville's Democracy in America during their university years in between learning how to be disdainful of the bitter clingers who do so much to impede "progress."

Sarah Palin did not think up these ideas last Wednesday. She is not the only one thinking this way. If you want to consult on-line resources that frequently discuss in depth ideas like these, you can check out these links, which will provide links galore to further writings in these areas.

American Principles Project

Intercollegiate Studies Institute

City Journal

Public Discourse (The Witherspoon Institute)

Peter Hitchens Blog (Daily Mail)

Steyn Online (Mark Steyn)

You could also look at conservative writing in National Review, The Weekly Standard, Human Events and The University Bookman. Of course these journals bash Obama and think Marxism is evil. But if you think that is all there is to them, I pity you.

It is a measure of the isolated, in-grown, smug, poorly educated nature of the American permanent governing class that my argument here - that Sarah Palin is articulating ideas that are widespread in the conservative underground - would be news to them. No wonder political debate can't even get started in America.

The Left Keeps on Attacking Trig Palin and Proving How Depraved They Actually Are

Yet again, a left-wing website has attacked one of the Palin children. This time it is baby Trig, the Downs boy who recently turned one and the culprit was the left-wing site Wonkette, which mocked Trig hatefully and cruelly.

But this time outraged conservatives used Twitter and other forms of social media to turn up the heat on sponsors of this website. According to The Daily Beast:

Starting with Papa John’s Pizza, the companies began to run. It grew from there. As of Friday afternoon, the list was 30-some strong, and includes brands like Huggies, Vanguard Group, Nordstrom, Bob Evans, and StarKist Charlie—the tuna mascot. [See the list of Wonkette’s remaining advertisers.]

As the outrage gained steam on Wednesday afternoon, Stuef updated the original post with an apology, but later Wonkette’s Layne made the decision to pull the post entirely.

Both actions would come too late. The group wasn’t stopping until every one of Wonkette’s advertisers had left, and they were dedicated to posting the proof—screenshots of the company’s tweets like the pixilated scalps of fallen brands.

“I’m flabbergasted,” writes Nolte when asked about the effectiveness of the campaign over email. “I’ve never seen anything like this.”

Moe Lane at Red State has a good analysis of this whole incident:

It’s actually very entertaining to watch The Daily Beast try to offer a ‘balanced’ look at the Trig Palin situation. The short version of said [situation], for those who missed it: one of Wonkette’s more unhinged writers said a variety of disgusting things about Trig Palin; and in response, the Internet took Wonkette out into the alley and administered a curb-stomping made all the more entertaining by the obvious, nervous need of various liberals to join in. The Left is starting to realize just how bad Trig Trooferism looks, you see. The not totally brain-dead portions of it don’t want this issue getting any more press any more, particularly since it will complicate any sort of ‘look at the crazy Birthers’ narrative. So… suppress the Trig Troofers now, and keep them suppressed.

Which is the primary reason for The Daily Beast’s damage control efforts, of course. You see, The Daily Beast recently hired Andrew Sullivan away from Atlantic.com, and Andrew Sullivan is easily the most notorious Trig Troofer out there.

Read it all here.

Can you believe that the Left spent three weeks lecturing and hectoring conservatives about civility after the tragic shooting of Gaby Giffords? They were so sure that the key to avoiding violence was civility and maintaining an elevated "tone." I guess that three weeks was as long as they could keep up the pretense.

As of Apr. 16, Paul Krugman of the New York Times entitled his blog post: "Civility is the Last Refuge of Scoundrals." I'm reminded of the Communist Parties in various countries routinely doing 180 degree u-turns in the the Cold War era according to the latest orders from Moscow. The Left is capable of contradicting itself routinely in its propaganda. It doesn't seem to bother them since they have a view of truth that is, shall we say, flexible.

It is really funny except when it is disgusting.

Sarah Palin and the Fears of Feminists

Barbara Kay's National Post column on how Sarah Palin exposes the hypocrisy and sterility of contemporary, second-wave feminism is a great piece of writing.

The feminist revolution began as a necessary reform movement, but unfortunately evolved into a marxism-imbued, revolutionary one. Second-wave feminism’s focus soon shifted from women’s equal rights (which are limited to those defined by law) to women’s interests (which are limitless), as perceived through a victim’s lens.

For decades, the people that instruct our children; mould our lawyers, social workers, psychologists and health professionals; train our judiciary; control (and misinform) the domestic-violence industry; shape the views of journalists; and counsel politicians: All have been marinating from early youth in feminist correctness.

The consequence has been a culture that, if not overtly man-hating, is always man-blaming — in which, to our collective detriment, the rights of boys and men (especially fathers) are scanted for the sins of a few, and their contributions to the family and society trivialized.

She is right on the money in asserting the contemporary feminism is more about Marxism than about equality for women. It is not reformist and constructive, but revolutionary and destructive. It is not idealistic and gripped by a vision of justice; it is nihilistic and motivated by hate and envy. She then describes the impact Sarah Palin had on feminism:

That changed on September 3, 2008, when Sarah Palin accepted her vice-presidential nomination at the Republican convention in Minneapolis/St. Paul. Her speech electrified the nation.

Before 39-million viewers, Palin was the first public figure to openly and successfully ridicule the hitherto untouchable Barack Obama. She also was the first American woman to campaign for high office by paying homage, but no ideological dues, to the Sisterhood. This Alaskan small-town huntin’, fishin’ God-fearin,’ abortion-hatin’ mom of five showed that a woman can break through any glass ceiling she wants without the imprimatur of the feminist politburo.

Feminists watching Palin’s stunning performance knew a stake was being driven through their movement’s heart. They went ballistic. Feminist blogger Jessica Grose wrote on her Jezebel web site: “When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded … What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay murderous, rage.” Judith Warner wrote in The New York Times that Palin was an “insult to women.” Comedian Sandra Bernhard riffed on YouTube: “Turncoat bitch! You whore in your cheap f***ing … cheap-ass plastic glasses.” Academic Wendy Doniger opined, “Palin’s greatest hypocrisy is her pretense that she is a woman.”

The reason so many ordinary, middle-class women resonate with Palin is because they are angry and resentful that "official feminism" imposes cultural Marxism on them and says you can't be liberated unless you toe the revolutionary line. They reject the revolutionary line and they love their families, their country and God. And they don't think that makes them oppressed or stupid. In fact, they think contemporary feminism is a joke. Hence, for them, watching Sarah Palin make feminist heads explode is a refreshing change.

Kay is especially insightful when she shows that the Palin phenomenon is one of a series of corrections to Utopianism that arise from time to time in American society. This is one of the ways we see the inherent dynamism and strength in America that keeps that country from sliding down the chute of nihilism and despair that currently grips Europe.

No wonder feminists mired in the superannuated shibboleths of revolutionary feminism are shocked. As always happens with utopian revolutions, its pendulum, propelled outward by theories and ideology, can only swing so far from human nature’s permanent verities, and cause so much social damage, before corrective populist movements force it back to the middle.

What the revolutionary new leftists who came of age in the 1960s and 70s are finding it difficult to come to grips with is their justified fear that if the Revolution has not happened yet in America, it may never happen. In fact, it may die with the baby boomer generation. Aging hippies find themselves co-opted by capitalism and the only sign of rebellion they have left is their sexual bohemianism. Take that away and there is no way to fool oneself into believing that the Revolution is not a failure. Maybe they fought the Law (i.e. Reality) and the Law (i.e. Reality) won.

So when a woman with five children and a handsome husband, who espouses traditional beliefs and is a proud Christian, rises to prominence, you can see how she would be a threat to the carefully nurtured illusion that people who sleep around and encourage their children to do so as well are truly the vanguard of the Revolution. She is the incarnation of their deepest fears and insecurities.

One of These Things is Not Like the Others

Here is a hatchet job on Sarah Palin that tells us nothing whatsoever about Sarah Palin, but quite a lot about the leftist mind and the way in which it views the world.

David Hughes writes a post on his blog at the Daily Telegraph entitled: "What do Sarah Palin and fundamentalist Muslims have in common?" in which he notes that hardline Muslims in Britain have mounted a campaign of fear and intimidation against a Muslim academic who come out in favor of Darwinism:

The hounding of Dr Usama Hasan, a science lecturer at Middlesex University and a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, following a lecture he gave on evolution is turning ugly. The First Post reports that Hasan has been forced to retract his assertion that Darwinism is compatible with Islam after receiving death threats. He delivered his message in a lecture at the Masjid al-Tawhid mosque in Leyton and was accused of “blasphemy” by some in the audience and even branded an apostate who should be killed. His father, Suhaib, head of the mosque’s committee of trustees, has now issued a statement on his son’s behalf which read: “I seek Allah’s forgiveness for my mistakes and apologise for any offence caused.” The climbdown exposes the depth of feeling on this issue among some Muslims.

He then has the temerity to assert that Sarah Palin is just like these illiberal brutes. And why does he think this? Has Palin issued death threats to Christian scholars who teach evolution? No. Well, has she called for making the teaching of evolution illegal? Actually, no. Does she advocate the killing of anyone who abandons the Christian religion? No, she hasn't done that either.

So how exactly is she "just like" these 7th century fanatics? Well, you see, she expressed doubts about the holy book of Darwin and said that teaching creation and evolution side by side in schools would be a good idea so that people could make up their own minds. Imagine, freedom of thought for the masses! No wonder liberals get the shakes and fear the apocalypse.

Let's look at the difference between Palin and Islamists.

Palin: She is a conservative, which means she stands for classical, 19th century liberalism in which there is free speech, free association, freedom of religion and so on. The role of government is not to inculcate a secular or a Christian or an Islamic worldview into the population; the role of government is limited to what parents and churches and local communities cannot do such as national defense and a few other things. She believes everything that possibly can be done at the state level should be. She is a woman who demonstrates that women are competent and equal not sniveling victims. She is a Christian who is not ashamed of her faith and she is a patriot who loves her country.

Islamists: They believe in imposing their religion on everyone else by force and want to establish a theocracy in which Sharia Law reigns supreme. They do not accept free speech and want anyone who criticizes Islam to be fined, jailed or worse. They do not accept freedom of religion and believe that apostates from Islam should be killed. They oppress women mercilessly and cannot accept individual freedom or democracy (except as a means to a totalitarian theocracy as in Iran and Gaza).

Now, these two things are pretty different, I'm sure you would agree. But let's look at one more thing: Liberalism.

Liberalism: Now, by liberalism I meant the 20th century version which has been hijacked and twisted out of recognition by progressivism and socialism - the kind represented by Democratic Socialists of America, political correctness, and Barack Obama. They want to impose their secularist creed on everyone and they do not believe in freedom of religion. They do not believe in freedom of speech; in fact, they are constantly pushing speech codes that force people to speak in politically correct ways or face punishment, harassment and shaming. They are intolerant of Christianity and love to promote Islam as a counterbalance to Christianity. Multiculturalism is a great excuse to systematically eradicate Christianity from the public square in the West. They are collectivists and do not trust individuals with too much freedom.

Now, as they say on Sesame Street, one of these things is not like the others. Which one?

Why, it seems to me that Liberalism and Islamism are much closer in spirit to one another than either is to Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin Shoots a Caribou and Makes A Liberal's Head Explode

The Guardian, which specializes in treating liberal hypocrisy with a seriousness it does not deserve, devotes several column inches to the incoherent raging of Aaron Sorkin over the fact that Sarah Palin went hunting and killed a caribou.

West Wing creator Aaron Sorkin today gave Sarah Palin both barrels over her US TV reality show, accusing the contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination of shooting an animal "for political gain".

Sorkin, writer of the recent Facebook movie The Social Network, also accused the Fox News contributor of making a "snuff film" after the latest episode of Sarah's Palin's Alaska featured the politician going hunting with her father and shooting a caribou.

He described Palin as "deranged", a "witless bully" and a "phony pioneer girl". He also said The Learning Channel, the US cable network, "should be ashamed of itself" for broadcasting her "truly awful reality show".

Sorkin was responding to a post on Palin's Facebook page in which the former governor of Alaska reacted to criticism of Sunday's episode by accusing her detractors of hypocrisy: "Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation."

"I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather ... I'm able to make a distinction between you and me without feeling the least bit hypocritical," Sorkin wrote in an incendiary comment piece posted on the Huffington Post website early today.

"I don't watch snuff films and you make them. You weren't killing that animal for food or shelter or even fashion, you were killing it for fun. You enjoy killing animals," he added.

Good grief! What kind of perverted mind supports a law that enables men to pressure their girlfriends into aborting their baby just because that baby is a girl or might have Downs Syndrome or has just come along at an inconvenient time and then gets this bent out of shape over killing a caribou? I mean, there is something seriously pathological about the liberal conscience for it to be aroused to fever pitch over an animal and utterly unfeeling and apathetic over a fellow human being.

Liberals must not just think the fetus is non-human; they must think that when we were fetuses we were somehow lower than the animal level - vegetables perhaps. Then suddenly on the way down the birth canal just before crowning presto: the vegetable magically skips the animal level and suddenly turns into a human being: you and me. Unless, of course, you are Peter Singer in which case you don't think it becomes human until two years of age or so.

So all hunting shows are now "snuff films?" All hunters are morally evil? Well, rural America and Canada, now you know how the Ruling Class regards you. It sure explains a lot - like gun control for example. And here I was laboring under the misunderstanding that they wanted the gun registry because they were afraid people would be killed by guns. Turns out they were afraid you might sneak off and shoot a rabbit or deer. The horror!

I just think it is sickening to assert that there is something morally evil about killing an animal for sport. It betrays a lack of clear thinking about what makes killing evil. The human versus non-human distinction is vital to clear reasoning and moral evaluation. Once it is blurred all sorts of weird and contradictory conclusions are drawn by those who have lost their moral compass.

Mr. Sorkin, save your outrage for the murder of your fellow human beings. And take your anti-rural, anti-hunter, anti-anybody different from you prejudice back with you to the jungles of urban America where the only hunting that is done is the hunting of women by predators empowered by the sexual revolution that liberals like you consider to be progressive.

But what can be expected from a druggie who supports MoveOn and has reportedly dated Maureen Dowd? And he thinks Sarah Palin is wacky . . . for going hunting?

Paul Krugman versus Sarah Palin

Paul Krugman is a Nobel-prize winning economist, professor at Princeton and columnist for the New York Times. His resume ticks all the right boxes and demonstrates that he socializes with all the right people. He is part of the Ruling Class, the progressive elite that runs America.

Sarah Palin has not won the Nobel Prize, has a journalism degree from a state university and writes on Facebook. She is a TV star and a best-selling author, but she lives in Alaska. Her resume ticks none of the right boxes and she definitely does not socialize with the right people. She is part of the Country Class, the majority of Americans who do the work, create jobs, get things done and keep America running so that the elites can be supported by their efforts.

Sarah Palin was excoriated mercilessly by the Ruling Class for saying that there were death panels in Obamacare. While denying categorically that there were death panels in Obamacare, the Democrats quietly took that part of the law out. Now, Paul Krugman has called for putting them back in and has basically said that of course in socialized medicine you absolutely have to have death panels and higher taxes.

Nat Hentorff summarizes the facts of the case:

Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in economics and an influential New York Times columnist, also has a blog, "The Conscience of a Liberal." On ABC's This Week (Nov. 14), during a discussion on balancing the federal budget against alarming deficits, he proclaimed the way to solve this problem is through deeply cost-effective health care rationing.

"Some years down the pike," he said, "we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes." That would mean the U.S. Debt Reduction Commission "should have endorsed the panel that was part of the [Obama] health care reform."

Sarah Palin was one of the first, and the most resounding, to warn us of the coming of government panels to decide which of us - especially, but not exclusively, toward the end of life - would cost too much to survive.

She was mocked, scorned from sea to shining sea, including by the eminent Paul Krugman for being, he said, among those spreading "the death penalty lie" as part of "the lunatic fringe." (Summarized in "Krugman Wants 'Death Panels,'" Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Nov. 15.) Soon after he had left the ABC studio, someone must have alerted Krugman that - gee whiz - he had publicly rooted for death panels!

Swiftly, on his blog, Krugman admitted he had indeed said those dreaded words, but:

"What I meant is that health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they're willing to pay for - not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we're willing to spend for extreme care."

"Extreme care," Professor Krugman? To be defined by government commissions, right?

Noel Sheppard of media watchdog Newsbusters was not fooled by the professor's attempt to extricate himself from embarrassment.

"As the government has deep budgetary problems," Sheppard reminded Krugman, "the cost-benefit analysis will naturally morph toward financial restraint thereby further limiting a patient's options and therefore his or her rights."

Are these Obamacare cost-benefit boards and commissions - for example, the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board penetratingly judging Medicare's cost-effectiveness (without judicial review) - not going to determine whether certain Americans are going to continue living?

'Fess up, Krugman, you owe Sarah Palin an apology for so often scandal-mongering her.'

Krugman apparently is used to saying that of course there must be death panels, but he forgot he wasn't supposed to say so openly on TV because the Country Class is known to watch TV. He appears to be a shameless liar and a defamer of Sarah Palin and he should be denounced up and down all over the media. But he won't be. Of course not. He is part of the Ruling Class after all.

I don't know. Sarah Palin grates on my nerves from time to time. Maybe she is as dumb as a bag of hammers. Maybe she is too uneducated to be President. Maybe she is all that they say she is. But the problem with this argument is that people like Paul Krugman would be better choices to run the government and I just can't see how that could be true.

Krugman and his ilk are arrogant and ideologically driven. They are not thoughtful or willing to change their minds on the basis of empirical evidence about what works and what does not. They remind me of nothing so much as the "looters" in Atlas Shrugged. And they are bent on imposing a political system on Americans that the majority of Americans don't want.

What a choice! I'd prefer a third alternative than either Obama or Palin. Couldn't Paul Ryan run? If Mike Pence runs he would be terrific. But Palin might beat them. And if it comes down to it and there is no other choice, I'd say that America would be better off with Palin. That is less a ringing endorsement of Palin than a complete and utter lack of confidence in Mr. Death Panel and his tax-and-spend, liberal fascist friends.

Conservative Women Challenge Feminism in the Name of Reality and Common Sense

Sarah Palin has aroused furious and hateful opposition from feminists used to being regarded as speaking for all women because she dares to speak in public from a conservative, rather than a liberal, viewpoint. Contemporary feminism is a decadent and negative version of a once proud movement that made many contributions to modern society.

The angry, anti-family, anti-men, socialist feminism of today may speak for socialists of both sexes but it does not, and never has, spoken for the majority of women. For decades, for example, more women than men have opposed abortion. Yet, since abortion is part of the cultural Marxist assault on the oppressive family, it is a non-negotiable absolute for feminists.

The recent US mid-term elections featured the election of a number of strong, conservative women like Senator-elect Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire and Governor-elect Nikki Haley in South Carolina. Sarah Palin will one day be regarded as a trailblazer as conservative women increasingly challenge the old, cynical, 60s left-overs for the role of speaking for women.

Interestingly, this trend is going on in Germany as well. This news report describes a new trend in which conservative women move to the attack instead of allowing themselves to be put on the defensive by Marxists using gender to advance their ideology.

They are perhaps the most high-profile women in Germany after Chancellor Angela Merkel: Kristina SchrÖder, the young, glamorous minister for families, women and pensioners, and Alice Schwarzer, the seasoned feminist intellectual and campaigner. And they're embroiled in an unseemly, vitriolic war of words over sex, the role of women and feminism. Played out in the mass media, the slanging match is providing titillating fodder for the press - but many German women fear it is also undermining their ongoing struggle for equality.

It all started when SchrÖder - at 33 the youngest member of Merkel's cabinet - attacked the 1970s feminist movement, telling Der Spiegel news magazine on Nov. 7 that early feminism "overlooked the fact that partnership and children can provide happiness." The conservative minister, who's known for her prim and proper attire, went on to say: "For me, emancipation will only be truly reached if a woman can wear make-up and skirts without having her abilities doubted as a result." (See Merkel in TIME's top 10 female leaders.)

Then SchrÖder took a dig at Schwarzer, 67, Germany's doyenne of feminism, claiming that many of Schwarzer's theories were too radical: "For example, that heterosexual sex was hardly possible without the subjugation of women." She added: "It is absurd if something that is fundamental for humanity and its survival should be defined per se as subjugation. That would mean that society can't carry on without the subjugation of women."

The comments provoked a fast and furious response from Schwarzer, author of the 1975 bestseller The Little Difference and Its Big Consequences and publisher of the feminist magazine Emma, who on Nov. 8 posted a fiery open letter on her website accusing the minister of "incompetence." Schwarzer couldn't resist pointing out that it was only thanks to the feminist movement that women like SchrÖder had managed to climb up the career ladder. And in a personal gibe, the feminist icon said the minister was "simply unsuitable" for the job, having failed, Schwarzer claimed, to introduce any policies to improve the rights of women and families in Germany since she was appointed last year: "Chancellor [Merkel] appointed you ... and whatever her motive was, it couldn't have been competence or empathy for women." (See a profile of Angela Merkel.)

Schwarzer's letter, which was published by the mass-market daily Bild, also slammed SchrÖder's initiative to help boys perform better at school and her reluctance to introduce quotas for women in leadership roles, despite the fact that out of 185 board members listed on the DAX stock index, only four are women.

After concluding that SchrÖder was a "hopeless case," Schwarzer delivered another personal blow: "The only exciting news to come out of your ministry this year was your name-change." (SchrÖder traded in her maiden name, Koehler, after getting married in February. SchrÖeder hit back, telling Bild on Nov. 9 that she thought it was a "pity" that Schwarzer had personally attacked her.(Comment on this story.)

Schroder's main point, that heterosexual sex cannot be inherently oppressive since it is essential to the survival of the human race shows that contemporary feminism is not only fighting culture, but also nature and reason. Her views seem moderate and reasonable; those of her opponent seem like a caricature of a crazy feminist drawn by someone opposed to feminism.

Schroder is "a hopeless case" because she took her husband's name and cares about boys succeeding in school? What is this, most normal people would ask, some kind of joke? I wonder if contemporary feminists realize how out of touch they are with ordinary middle-class people. And I wonder if they realize how inevitable it is that - given their extreme ideology - sooner or later the majority of women are going to rise up and tell them that they only speak for themselves.

If you don't believe me, ask a conservative woman. It is not like they are hard to find these days.

If I Were an Oppressed Middle Eastern Woman, I'd Rather Have George Bush on My Side Than Alll the Feminists in the World

After - what has it been now, four long years - of listening to that little man Obama blame Bush for absolutely everything, while taking responsibility for nothing himself, it is getting to the point where parody becomes inevitable. Lori Ziganto has a hilarious post on George Bush's inaugural address - on Facebook. She writes:

After taking a quick rest from breaking up Al Gore’s marriage and from magically tricking President Obama into being an utterly incompetent failure, President Bush is now nefariously insinuating his way onto Facebook and Youtube. He recently released a video on the popular video sharing website, discussing his delving onto the Facebook scene and a little summary of what he’s been up to since leaving office. Well, besides the manufacturing of hurricanes and arranging for oil spills and such. . . .

It’s fabulous seeing President Bush relaxed and the way that I always picture him. When feeling most depressed at the atrocious lack of leadership – or anything of substance at all – from our current President, I often imagine George Bush, relaxing on his porch with Laura, feet up on the rails, saying “How do you like being President now, genius?” Said while doing that cute little shoulder-shaking snicker that I miss so much, of course.

But Ziganto is not merely mocking "The One," she is also delighted to point out one of the issues being taken up by the George W. Bush Institute, namely, working to alleviate the suffering of, and empowering women, in the Middle East:

Also, it turns out that President Bush is still leading and doing, instead of just spouting increasingly inane rhetoric, unlike the current office holder. President Obama will talk about unclenching fists and give lip service as to how For The Women he is. Meanwhile, it’s President Bush who is literally reaching out his hand to those who need it, not to dictatorial regimes. It is he who is continuing to aid the women in the Middle East who are truly subjugated. Women who need a first wave of feminism and whom our irrelevant modern Feminists, also known as Femisogynists, ignore. They are no longer needed, nor wanted here, yet they’d rather make up things over which to feign outrage than aid women who truly need our help. Because, George Bush.

Well, no worries. Bush will continue to do what is right, with or without their help. The George W. Bush Institute has a woman’s initiative, chaired by Mrs. Laura Bush, that is focusing on empowering women in the Middle East, where it is needed most. Former President Bush understands that freedom is what truly empowers and he understands that the women of the Middle East are not free, no matter how much the multiculturalism worshippers try to claim otherwise, under the guise of tolerance. Oppression and subjugation should not and cannot be tolerated and they won’t be, on his watch. A watch that is, thankfully, continuing with The George W. Bush Institute.

Read it all and see Bush's speech from Facebook here.

Women in the Middle East should expect no help from Western mainstream feminists, like Libby Davies, who are too busy cheering on the Iranian Ayatollahs, the Turkish Empire-restoring Islamicists, Hamas and Hizbullah in their war of extermination against Israel - the only country in the Middle East where women are not ritually mutilated so they can't enjoy sex, where they can walk down the street wearing what they want and where they can legitimately aspire to be Prime Minister when they grow up if they want.

Obama is clearly on the side of the woman-oppressing, genocide-seeking, democracy-hating thugs who want war, bloodshed and violence. Bush is on the side of women and freedom.

The only reason so many "Feminists" oppose Bush is because they are ideologically leftist. It has nothing to do with actual, living, breathing women and their well-being. That is why Palin is just as bad in their opinion as Bush even though, as a successful woman politician, she embodies everything the "Feminists" profess to believe. It is not about women; it is about ideology.

Feminist Hypicrisy and Sarah Palin

Cassy Fiano's post called "Sarah Palin Brings Out the Hypocrisy of Jessica Valenti and the Feminist Left" at Hot Air is a rational explanation of how the hard left uses feminism as a vehicle for its own ideological agenda and has no interest in actual women or their interests whatsoever.

Sarah Palin is the feminist Left’s favorite target. It seems strange to anyone not entrenched in a radical, extremist feminist agenda. Feminists once fought for equality between the sexes — the right for women to vote, giving women a fair chance to go to college and get a job without fear of discrimination, and the choice to either stay at home with her children or work full-time. Fighting for equality has long since fallen by the wayside though, and the leftist agenda has fully set in. Women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin, therefore, cannot be feminists.

Daring to call Sarah Palin a feminist will make radical modern feminists’ heads explode. Currently screeching with rage is Jessica Valenti, angry that someone might think that Sarah Palin is indeed a feminist.

Seriously, y’all – how many times does it have to be said? Sarah Palin is not a feminist. I thought we had covered Palin’s gross appropriation of feminism and feminist rhetoric during the election, but media coverage of Palin’s recent speech for the anti-choice PAC the Susan B. Anthony List has reignited the debate. (Incidentally, the whole thing about Anthony being pro-life has been debunked.)

So, simply declaring oneself a feminist is all that it takes to be a feminist? Methinks not. Under this standard of feminism anyone – a racist, a misogynist, etc – could be a feminist just because they identify as such.

Sarah Palin’s crime against modern feminism is that she is a political conservative who is pro-life. This makes her anti-woman, because all conservatives are apparently anti-woman. Valenti writes:

[W]hile I’m sympathetic to the idea that abortion shouldn’t be a litmus test for feminism – I believe, for example, that one can be personally pro-life and feminist – there is simply no way that you can advocate for the limitation of other women’s rights and access to health care and call yourself a feminist.

The line about being “personally pro-life” is meant to mislead. You can’t be personally pro-life and still support abortion, and Valenti knows it. This is exactly why Valenti phrases it this way. It comes across as a much more moderate position, yet still argues that all feminists must support abortion. The feminist Left believes it isn’t good enough to just believe in equality between the sexes. You have to toe the “progressive” line, as Amanda Marcotte recently showcased in an interview, saying that real feminists are devoted to a very specific set of issues.

Interestingly, Valenti’s screed against Palin is so extreme that not all of her readers could get behind her. Feministing usually serves as a leftist echo chamber, but several commenters actually disagreed that all feminists need to think a certain way in order to be considered feminists. Valenti had to jump in to defend herself five times before closing commenting on the post.

Perhaps it’s because she isn’t following her own rules of feminism. In her book, Full Frontal Feminism, Valenti had this to say about people defining what feminists should be:

[L]ike many feminist authors before her, Valenti quickly expands feminism to include a wide array of liberal pet causes. If you don’t agree with them, guess what? You’re not really a feminist — you’re an anti-feminist. According to Valenti, feminists demand government-funded preschools and universal childcare, think American culture “breeds a society where rape is expected and practically okayed,” and proudly wear shirts that say “I don’t f*** Republicans.”

Valenti vents that she’s “so f***ing sick and tired of people telling [her] how to be an appropriate feminist.” Maybe so, but Valenti is happy to dish out a feminist litmus test herself.

So it isn’t OK for someone to tell Jessica Valenti what makes an appropriate feminist, but it’s OK for her to tell other people what makes an appropriate feminist? Quite the hypocrite, I see.

Read the rest here.

Remember, mainstream contemporary feminism is not about equality for women, but rather about encouraging a revolution to tear down Western civilization so that some kind of utopian fairy tale can emerge in its place. It would be better understood as an expression of cultural nihilism. If you want a high view of women, try Christianity. If you want revolution and rage against the West, try Jessica Valenti.

Rex Murphy on Sarah Palin . . . and Those Who Hate Her

Rex Murphy writes about Sarah Palin in today's National Post, but not really about Sarah Palin per se, but about her vociferous critics - especially those cocktail party going, abortion loving, silk stocking socialist, trendy nihilists who dominate the Democratic Party, and the "lamestream" media. Here is how it begins:

Among the many delightful characteristics of Sarah Palin is her seemingly unfailing capacity to capture Barack Obama's angry attention. This week, she criticized his new nuclear policy. Obama responded by saying "I really have no response to that," which was, I think we'll all agree, an awkward prelude to his ... response. He went on with: "The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues." Well, colour me huffy.

The reason she gets under Barack Obama's skin is that he is terrified of her. He knows - even if many Republicans don't - where the true danger to his potential second term lies. Murphy puts his finger on what separates her from her deranged haters (I almost said "detractors" but that just doesn't do them justice).

I side with those who venture that the nerves Palin hits have more to do with class -- where she's from, how she speaks, where she was educated, what she likes (the moose-hunting), than her politics or her gender. She's rural, she came into national politics from (ugh) Alaska. She and her husband have the unerasable stigmata of the modern working class. She would not be embarrassed to be seen walking into Wal-Mart.

It is most definitely a class thing. And the danger to the Democrats lies in the fact that Lincoln (whom Murphy quotes) pointed to when he quipped that "God must love the common man since he made so many of them." This is the fear elitists of every century and nation always have to deal with: there are more of them than there are of us.

Murphy points out the nature of the danger she poses to the leftist goal of making the US into a European style social democracy:

Palin is simply not supposed to be a player. She's not only from the wrong side of the tracks, she's so far over on the wrong side she can't see the railway station.

But there she is, in all her roughness and candour, and her spiky wit and ability to irritate her self-nominated betters. She also happens to be the most naturally charismatic politician at the moment in the United States. She is the one major figure who can claim authenticity without morally choking on the word. That makes her the populist rallying point of a nascent rejection of the fervid partisanship and Washington insiderism that is eroding the consent on which American politics is founded.

America has always despised inherited privilege and viewed its success as a nation as having been built on the ability of a poor person with innate ability to rise to the top. This is why the majority of Americans simply won't listen to their betters and join in despising Sarah Palin.

And this is why she must be destroyed.

It is either her or Obama: American politics isn't big enough for both of them and there can be no permanent compromise between the ideals they represent.

More on the Media's Double Standard and Ideological Bias

Neil Braithwaite, writing on the American Thinker blog makes a sensible point that any reasonable observer of liberal media bias would have to concede in this post entitled: "Media ignoring Obama 'gotchya moment' from Fox News interview."

"When Charlie Gibson interviewed then Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and asked her about the "Bush Doctrine," it was apparent that she had been stumped by the question. The newbie "national" politician's answer revealed a weakness in her understanding of President Bush's national security policy.

Palin's response of, "In what respect?" was blood in the water for Gibson. Intent on pursuing Palin's weakness on the subject, Gibson immediately asked, "Well, what do you interpret it to be?" Palin went on to beat around the bush (pun intended) and never answered Gibson's question. Charlie Gibson got exactly what he had hoped for from the Palin interview and delivered a potent "gotcha" moment for the liberal media to highlight at every chance they could get - which turned out to be every time they opened their mouths until election day.

Bret Baier of Fox News delivered a similar "gotcha" moment in his interview with President Obama earlier this week. In a line of questions about "special deals" in the health care bill, President Obama answered that he knew, "...what was in and what was not in" the health care bill. Baier immediately asked the President, "Is Connecticut in?" President Obama's answer of, "Connecticut, what are you specifically referring to?" should be a stark reminder to everyone - especially the media - that President Obama isn't always the smartest person in the room. Taking a page from the Gibson book on interviewing, Baird's immediate follow-up question to the president was, "The $100 million for the hospital?"

Inheriting Sarah Palin's strategy on answering questions you don't know the answer to, President Obama proceeded to beat around the bush (pun intended again), proving beyond a doubt, that he doesn't really know what's in the health care bill.

So where is all the mainstream media coverage of that "gotcha" moment with the smartest person ever elected President of the United States of America?"

Well, the answer is, of course, that there is one standard for those who are perceived as advancing the interests and worldview of the liberals who dominate the mainstream media in the US and another standard for those who are perceived as threats to those interests and the worldview of the left. And Sarah Palin was (and still is) a threat.

Sarah Palin, John Edwards and Media Bias

Here is a very interesting story from the New York Daily Post by Jamie Weinstein called: "Palin versus Edwards: A Case Study in Media Bias." Weinstein makes the valid point that the media bias against the conservative worldview that Sarah Palin holds it the real reason she is so vilified and hated. John Edwards is not objectively smarter or better qualified than Palin, but since he represented the worldview held by the liberal media he was not attacked or ridiculed as Palin has been:

"No one can confuse me for someone who is an enthusiastic supporter of Sarah Palin. I think Sen. John McCain's selection of Palin as his 2008 running mate will be counted among the very worst legacies in the Arizona senator's long and storied career.

Nonetheless, there is little question that Palin has been treated unfairly by the press, at least in comparison to other politicians.

And no comparison best illustrates the double standard the media has with Palin than how they treated another former vice-presidential nominee, Sen. John Edwards.

When in 2004 John Kerry picked Edwards, whose entire resume in public life at that point consisted of six years in the U.S. Senate, to be his vice-presidential nominee, few questioned whether Edwards was qualified for the post.

Search "Edwards is unqualified" in Lexis-Nexis from the time Edwards was tapped by Kerry through Election Day 2004, and you get 11 results. Do the same for Palin and you get 174 results - and the search period is nearly two months shorter for Palin, because she was picked by McCain much later in the 2008 election cycle.

We now definitively know just how much of a liar, cheat and phony John Edwards is. But if the media had been one half as interested in exposing Edwards as a fraud as they have been in excoriating Palin, perhaps it would not have taken the National Enquirer to discover the truth that has led to the downfall of a politician who had a very real chance of becoming President.

One of the media's favorite attacks against Palin revolves around her failure to tell Katie Couric what magazines and newspapers she regularly reads. The clumsy answer was an early flash point that led many to scoff that the Alaskan governor didn't read anything at all.

But guess who doesn't read very much either? That would be John Edwards, if you believe John Heilemann and Mark Halperin's new book "Game Change." According to their reporting, when a friend inquired if John Edwards read a particular tome, his wife, Elizabeth, apparently found the idea of her husband reading laugh-out-loud funny, saying, "Oh, he doesn't read books."

Yet this impression of her husband as an anti-intellectual "hick," as Elizabeth reportedly referred to him, never became a common undercurrent during his his 2004 campaign for vice president or his later run for President.

So why did Palin get painted so quickly as a bombastic dunce and Edwards escape without such a negative characterization?

It probably has to do with the fact that most members of the media bought Edwards persona. They liked his world-view.

They believed in his claim that there were "two Americas." So they didn't dig deeper to see if there was any substance beneath his shiny surface.

Palin was never given the benefit of the doubt, in large part because the world-view to which she subscribes is anathema to the one held by so many pundits and reporters."

Now there is nothing wrong with members of the media holding political opinions. But there is something wrong with pretending to be objective and then being allowed to get away with trying to manipulate public opinion by biased news reporting. There is a reason why Fox News exists and why it is now trusted by more Americans than the so-called "mainstream media." Things have come to a pretty pass when Fox is not the most biased media outlet in the US.

A Review of Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions"

Thomas Sowell, in this book, distinguishes between the "unconstrained vision" of human nature and the "constrained vision" and identifies these two visions as being at the heart of much of the political conflict that exists in modern times.

The constrained vision sees limitations to human nature and considers human sinfulness to be ineradicable (at least in this life). This is the traditional, pre-modern vision of human nature. Social progress is possible for this vision is not one of a purely static society, but such progress will always consist of a series of trade-offs, rather than solutions. Human knowledge is widely dispersed in society and no one person possesses even a large percentage of it, which means that it is reasonable and even necessary for individuals to trust in tradition and to defer to common sense. Spokesmen for the constrained vision include Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Alexander Hamilton, F. A. Hayek and other conservative.

The unconstrained vision sees man and society as infinitely perfectible and views reason as the key engine of perfecting society. This is the Enlightenment, modern vision of human nature. Social progress consists of identifying disatisfactions in society (which Harold Laski claims are expressions of "serious ill in the body politic") and then producing solutions to the problems by means of technical reason applied to the problem. The knowledge needed to produce such solutions is not that which is possessed by the common man, but is rather the knowledge of the "expert," the "intellectual," the "educated and specialized person" who can apply the advanced theories to society and thus spur on progress. Spokesmen for the unconstrained view of human nature include J. J. Rousseau, Thomas Paine, Baron D'Holbach, John Stuart Mill and Harold Laski, John Dewey and other "progressives," "socialists" and "liberals."

Having just read Sarah Palin's autobiography and then turning to this book, it occurs to me that all this has a great deal to do why Sarah Palin is rejected out of hand so vehemently by liberals. It is not just that they hate her policy positions, it is not just that they are snobs, it is not just that they hate anybody who defies their narrow stereotypes of Evangelicals and pro-family women - although there is something in each of those reasons - but it is ultimately because they are utterly convinced that an ordinary person of above average intelligence who makes no pretense of being an intellectual is qualified for high public office. And the reason they are so sure of this is because they embrace the unconstrained vision of human nature as described by Sowell.

To admit that Sarah Palin (or anyone remotely like her) could ever be qualified for high political office would be to betray their worldview. She shows no sign of being properly deferential to either modern, "scientific," socialist ideology or to the expert class of bureaucrats that modern liberals believe ought to run society. She is dangerous because she would be prone to rely on common sense, traditional morality and political tradition in making decisions, rather than on advice from the "experts" who operate out of the modern vision of human nature as infinitely malleable by the application of technical reason to social problems.

I can certainly sympathize with their problem. It is little wonder that she is a challenge to their worldview in a way that most conventional politicians never will be. And I can see that, from their perspective, it is not a matter of this or that policy or idea she embraces or rejects. It is the whole pre-modern worldview that she embodies.

When the venom and hatred started being spewed out by the mainstream media against Sarah Palin last year I thought it was primarily being directed against her Christian faith, especially her pro-life stand. I still think it is related to that; but I can now see that she represents a kind of politics that is anathema to liberals that goes beyond being an Evangelical Christian. An agnostic or a Muslim or a Jew who embodies the traditional, pre-modern, unconstrained vision of human nature would be just as much of a threat to the rule of the experts and their vision of "progress."

A Review of "Going Rogue" by Sarah Palin

This is not a formal review but just a few random reflections on the book. It was an enjoyable read and those who read it will find it hard to hate this person, (which, I suspect, is precisely why many liberals will not read it and work hard to keep others from doing so.)

1. Sarah Palin comes across as a happy person. She seems to be enjoying her life; there is no bitterness or resentment and not a hint of the whining professional victim image that some women in politics display. She seems grounded in family, friends and community and secure in her own skin. A lot of the venom directed her way by feminists seems to be rooted in jealousy. But look at her family; no wonder man-hating, childless careerists are jealous.

2. The book is light on policy and philosophy and written in a folksy and engaging way. No wonder it has sold 2.7 million copies in less than 2 months and become one of the best-selling political autobiographies of all time. Those who criticize her for not writing it for the policy-obsessed, professional politician crowd may criticize her for ignoring their priorities, but it must grate them that she is basically talking over their heads to the voters. My impression is that she knows her audience very well and talked to the kind of middle-class, religious, family-oriented person she was trying to reach. The thing the liberals need to remember is that America is a center-right country in which liberals are a minority. She knows this.

3. Some reviewers accused her of being defensive and whiny about the campaign. But I thought that, given what she went through, she was extremely positive and upbeat. She reiterates over an over again her respect for John McCain and she obviously knows that she owes him an awful lot. Conservatives don't share her enthusiasm for McCain, but they do respect loyalty and will respect her for treating John McCain as a hero and a patriot, which after all, no matter what you think of his various policy positions, he is.

4. I thought her explanation of why she resigned as Governor made perfect sense. It is very interesting that the coordinated, professional, well-funded attacks on her using the state freedom of information and ethics legislation were attempts to destroy her politically by liberal interests. She wanted out of the straight jacket of elected office so she could make money to pay of campaign and legal bills, be an independent voice and support whoever she wants whenever she wants. It might have been wiser for her opposition to have left her alone in Alaska.

5. It is clear that the left fears and loathes her and regards her as the one Republican who could defeat Obama in 2012 (although it may require sodium pentothol to get them to admit it). All that propaganda about how she is unelectable, not presidential material, too dumb to be president etc. is their first line of defense. They hope she never runs for anything again. But political professionals know that she is dangerous for several reasons:

(a) She is a woman and therefore able to attack a black president more easily than a white male could do. (She proved that she could insert the knife with a smile on her face and look innocent doing so in her convention speech.) This means that she would be free to go negative when a Huckabee or Romney or whoever would hold back, just as McCain did in the campaign.

(b) She is a populist capable of rallying the base against Obama, who will not be able to pretend to be a centrist next time around after governing from an ultra-left position. This means that conservative leaning independent voters are ready to embrace an alternative; the question is if they will listen to the Democratic politics of destruction unleashed on Palin or if they will embrace her as the anti-Obama. Polls right now show independents flocking to the Republicans.

(c) Like Ronald Reagan, she projects an attitude of real optimism about the future, which may well appeal to a country snowed under excessive debt, struggling to emerge from recession and suffering from a loss of confidence on the world scene. She genuinely likes America and Americans; many Americans sense that Obama is more of an internationalist with an American base. Ironically, she may well steal the "Hope" theme that Obama used successfully last time.

(d) She also embodies decisiveness in foreign policy and a resolute determination to confront the enemy of global terrorist networks in a way that Obama struggles helplessly to project.

6. I thought that her account of the campaign made sense and rang true. Many of the kind of people who supported and worked for McCain were uncomfortable with her and one can see why. But she proved to be a team player and one got the sense that she was not nearly as vindictive as she could have been. She kept McCain from being humiliated in a year that was not to be for the Republican Party.

Conclusion:
The book was definitely lightweight when compared to many other conservative political philosophy and policy books, but it was clearly written by a populist politician rather than a policy wonk. Maybe after four years of policy wonks running Washington, the American people are going to be looking for someone as different as possible from Obama in 2012. Will it be Sarah Palin? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't think anyone should hyperventilate about the possibility. America could do worse - much worse - and the truth of that proposition is being hammered home day after day. It is hard not to conclude that anyone who despises and hates Sarah Palin hates and despises Americans in general and that means that, regardless of elite opinion, she cannot be lightly dismissed.

Sarah Palin versus Barack Obama: Two American Originals

Rex Murphy lives up to his reputation of being someone who refuses to let the herd tell him what to think. He always has an interesting and contrarian perspective that is free of cant and politically correct mush. Here is his take on the Sarah Palin.

"There are two great political speakers in the America today. Sarah Palin is the other one. Barack Obama's speaking skills are his signature talent. He's a platform performer, a speechmaker in the great tradition, a kind of teleprompter Cicero. The campaign to become President owed more to Mr. Obama's oratorical mastery than to any other element. His speech on race in America, necessitated by revelations of the ugly thoughts and sentiments of his hometown preacher, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was the most important event of his campaign. If it had failed, his candidacy would have been doomed. Under pressure – the great test of the real speechmaker – he delivered.

The other great speech of the U.S. campaign season was Sarah Palin's on receiving the vice-presidential slot on the McCain ticket. This was a speech delivered under even greater pressures than that of Mr. Obama. John McCain's choice of Ms. Palin had been early and widely criticized, and in some quarters ferociously reviled. She had never really been under the national spotlight before. The entire media were focused on her with an intensity almost unseen in the annals of vice-presidential politics. If she'd been just “okay,” or messed up, John McCain's campaign was over. It was the highest of high-stakes gambles.

Did she deliver? She soared. She was the very acme of self-confidence and ease. She mixed a natural charm with a mischievous edge of sarcasm toward her opponents – even daring the unthinkable by pinging The One himself. It was her “first serve” on the national stage and she delivered an ace. The backwoods hick knocked it out of the hall that night – not only did she not sink the McCain campaign, she gave it the only real vitality and spark that gloomy, tight, fussy little campaign had from start to finish.

Her speech, in fact, was the rhetorical equivalent of Mr. Obama's crucial one. They do not as speakers, it is obvious, share the same idiom. Mr. Obama is utterly composed, deliberate down to gesture and word, very conscious that he is a “figure” on a stage. Mr. Obama “bestows” himself on an audience. Ms. Palin has none of that. She will never speak in front of faux Greek columns. She walks on the stage much the same way she'd go into a gas station. But she's shrewd in her choice of themes, has a marvellous feel for her audience, and a confidence that will never be confused with arrogance."

Murphy goes on to explain that all the incredible venom spewed out against Palin actually demonstrates how much liberals fear her.

"Ms. Palin is in the hurricane's eye again with the publication of Going Rogue. The Associated Press assigned no fewer than 11 reporters to “fact check” Ms. Palin's memoir, a concentration of scrutiny AP would never presume to exert over the man who's actually in the White House. Elements of the press mock and scorn her with a fury that is near inexplicable. Rather fewer extol her gifts. But pro or con, the media cannot get enough of her.

A truly dumb and witless person would not have the demure columnist David Brooks hissing dismissively, angrily in fact, on a Sunday morning talk show that Sarah Palin “is a joke.” Poor Mr. Brooks gets intellectual hives just thinking about her. Empty vessels do not inspire such venom and fury. . . . Those who call her a joke are expressing an anxious hope not offering a rational description."

Before Ronald Reagan became president he was attacked and mocked mercilessly by the liberal media. But by the end of his presidency he was regarded as one of the greatest presidents of the century. He was polarizing before he became a symbol of unity. And he had the same ability that Sarah Palin has to "connect" with the average American, which gave him the power to go "over the heads" of the media.

I think the fear and loathing (and desperation to bring her down) on the part of the liberal establishment arises from this same quality. They sense that she has the ability to disrupt business as usual and speak directly to the grass roots in such a way as to disrupt the script written by big government, big business and the media elite who do their bidding. So she is dangerous; which is to say that she is dangerous in every way that any populist is dangerous, except more so, because of her ability to speak over the heads of the media. Populist movements can be controlled, manipulated, distorted and hidden in plain view. But a leader and speaker who can personally embody populism is a different matter.

I think the Republican Party establishment is as afraid of her as is the Democratic Party. There is no telling what she will do. Support conservative candidates of both parties? Form a third party? Take over the Republican Party? Who knows? She is not a conventional politican who owes her importance to the Washington chattering class or the party bosses. Look at the simpering senators now being systmatically bought by Harry Reid to support his health care takeover with its stealth abortion expansion provisions (100 million was the price for the senator from Lousiana). They owe their souls to the money the Democratic Party establishment will gladly provide them with if only they vote as good little robots no matter what the polls back home say. Sarah Palin's popularity and power wasn't given by Washington and it can't be taken away by Washington, nor by Hollywood, nor by Wall Street.

No wonder she reduces the party hacks to whining, whimpering, slobbering attack dogs. Regardless of what happens to Sarah Palin, it's actually nice to see them sweat it out.

Andrew Sullivan in the Grip of the Culture of Death

Andrew Sullivan thinks he has a knock down argument against social conservatives. So what is this terrible and horrifying thing of which social conservatives are guilty? He argues that statistics show that more fundamentalist teens give birth. Horrors! Don't those mothers have the decency to take their daughters to the abortionist and then get them on the pill like upper middle class liberal mothers do?

Continuing his pathological Sarah Palin obsession (I think he is secretly in love with her!), he says "Sarah Palin's pattern is not anomalous." Never mind that Sarah Palin did not have a teen birth; her daughter did. Oh well, it must be her fault; everything else is.

Sullivan does not seem even to be capable of grasping the fact that there are worse things in the world than giving birth - many, many, worse things, in fact. I know, I know . . . giving birth as a teen mom is difficult. But all things considered, if only that were the worst evil our society was perpetrating.

Andrew Sullivan is so caught up in glorious raptures over the culture of death that he thinks that promiscuous, sterile sex and abortion are preferable to the struggle of parenting. And his charge against us social conservatives is that we presume to disagree with him. This is pathetic, to put it mildly. I'm afraid he will have to come up with something a lot worse than giving birth to a new, unique, human being made in the image of God to hurl as an accusation against social conservatives to prove how evil we are. If that is our worst fault, we are not doing too badly, all things considered, especially considering the alternatives.

Life is not the problem; sterility, shallowness, loneliness, individualism, hedonism, boredom and death are the real problems facing Western culture. The logical implication of Sullivan's outrage is that we should put every girl on the pill at puberty and then say to teens: "Go to it." The result of that could only be an exacerbation of these problems. Social conservatives are the last group of people in the West saying no to the full realization of the brave new world of the sexual revolution and, while we are imperfect, inconsistent and open to all sorts of swipes from our opponents, at least we still have the right idea: that sex and babies naturally go together, as inconvenient and messy as that might be.

HT - Dan at City of God

Climbing Out of the Tank?

I read somewhere the other day a caustic comment about Jim Wallis by someone (I forget who) to the effect that it is one thing to be in the tank for Obama but it is another to swim down to the bottom of the tank and chain oneself to the grate until one drowns. Well, there are signs that The New York Times may be struggling to climb out of the Obama tank - or at least keep its head above water.

The gripping saga of the "How the Newspaper of Record's Faith in the Messiah Began to Waver Ever So Slightly" begins with a story by Jim Rutenberg on Aug. 13 headlined "False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots." Written in the breathless style of an intrepid reporter uncovering the news that Hilary Clinton's "Vast Right-wing Conspiracy" has raised its ugly head again, it began:

"The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored “death panels” to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks.

Advanced even this week by Republican stalwarts including the party’s last vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, and Charles E. Grassley, the veteran Iowa senator, the nature of the assertion nonetheless seemed reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet campaigns that dogged Mr. Obama last year, falsely calling him a Muslim and questioning his nationality."

Now, the fact that this story was written by Jim Rutenberg is significant because, as Richard Baehr points out:

"There is perhaps no other Times "news writer" who has proven himself so willing and able to prostrate himself in service to the political agenda of the New York Times. Rutenberg was the lead author for another front page New York Times whopper in 2008 -- a fake story that slimed John McCain, insinuating that he had an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iselin, and was no more than your basic Congressional influence peddler."

The Aug. 13 Rutenberg story then accused the Washington Times of being anti-Obama in its reporting:

"The specter of government-sponsored, forced euthanasia was raised as early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama, The Washington Times."

That questioning of their journalistic integrity did not sit too well with the editors of the Washington Times and they "complained" to the New York Times. Lo and behold, on Aug. 15, The Washington Times published this statement:

"A senior editor of the New York Times apologized to The Washington Times for publishing a front-page story Friday that accused The Washington Times of being "decidedly opposed" to President Barack Obama.

Dean Baquet, Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, telephoned Washington Times editors, offered an apology to the staff and said he would run a correction. "I would never say your paper has been anything but absolutely fair and objective to Obama," Mr. Baquet told The Washington Times' Managing Editor-Print David Jones.

"We agree and accept the Times' apology," Washington Times Executive Editor John Solomon wrote to his staff. The New York Times story examines the genesis of the accusation by Obama critics that the pending health-care reform proposal in Congress includes "death panels."

The story asserted: "The specter of government-sponsored, forced euthanasia was raised as early as Nov. 23, just weeks after the election and long before any legislation had been drafted, by an outlet decidedly opposed to Mr. Obama, The Washington Times."

Mr. Solomon called that shorthand, "wrong, inaccurate, irresponsible and insulting." Mr. Baquet telephoned Washington Times editors after Mr. Solomon complained.

Then, on Aug. 20, we find a story on The New York Times headlined: "A Basis Is Seen for Some Health Plan Fears Among the Elderly." The story begins:

"White House officials and Democrats in Congress say the fears of older Americans about possible rationing of health care are based on myths and falsehoods. But Medicare beneficiaries and insurance counselors say the concerns are not entirely irrational.

Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient.

President Obama has sold health care legislation to Congress and the country as a way to slow the growth of federal health spending, no less than as a way to regulate the insurance market and cover the uninsured.

Mr. Obama has also said Medicare and private insurers could improve care and save money by following advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on “what treatments work best.”

The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life."

Read the rest here.

So in the space of a week, the Palin "Death Panel" accusation went from being a "stubborn yet false rumour" to "not entirely irrational." Quite an amazing turn around, that. In other words, "kindly disregard what we said the other day. Sarah Palin just might be right after all, though it is too painful for us to come right out and say so."

When even the New York Times begins to waver in its fervent worship of "The Messiah" you know the wheels are coming off the Obama bandwagon.

The Pathetic Bill Maher Piles On in a Desperate Bid for Attention

Bill Maher couldn't let David Letterman have all the spotlight so he had to attack the Palin family too. I've never watched his show because I don't watch TV but reports are that his lechery is just as bad and his language worse. Do they really let this stuff on TV these days? Boy, it is really getting stupid out there.

The issue is not how evil Letterman and Maher are. (That is obvious.) And the issue is not whether their right to free speech should be tolerated. (It should.) The issue is what kind of a society finds them entertaining and rewards their anti-women antics with megabucks and fame? Folks, it is about what is wrong with us.

Some people thought that I was trying to start a debate about whether or not Sarah Palin is a good politician or a good candidate for the GOP in 2012. That has nothing to do with my point; in fact, it is a distraction from it. She could be the worst politician in the world and wrong on every public policy issue, but the ferocity and crudity of the liberal and mainstream media attack on her places the spotlight right on the media, not on her. I'm not interested in debating Sarah Palin's electability, though that will be an interesting story to watch unfold over the next few years. I'm concerned about three things:

1. Liberal hypocrisy for simultaneously claiming to be pro-women while wallowing in hatred of women to sell itself.

2. Blatant liberal bias in the media and how it is harming democracy by destroying the credibility of the press with the population.

3. The liberal hatred of Christian ethics and lifestyle (eg. resisiting the abortion temptation, embracing the handicapped child, speaking openly of faith)

Letterman Apologizes - Palin Graciously Accepts His Apology

I commented the other day about David Letterman's bad case of "Palin Derangement Syndrome" and criticized him for crossing the line between humour and savage attacks on women that no one should find the least bit funny. Here is Jill Stanek's blog with both the video of the apology and a transcript.

He still maintains that he never intended to make a joke about the 14 year old, Willow, but only about the 18 year old, Bristol, as if it is pefectly fine to joke about the sexual lives of 18 year olds as a way of getting at their mother. Maybe that is the moral standard of the crowd he runs in. And he clearly still despises Sarah Palin, as evidenced by the fact that there was no apology for the "slutty flight attendant" slur.

Nevertheless, Palin graciously accepted the apology on behalf of young women like her daughters who were offended. I think she was more than gracious to do so. I think I would have let him stew in his juices. A lot of fathers are definitely going to be less gracious than Sarah Palin has been about the whole thing.

What is most telling in all of this is that at least one CBS advertiser has pulled its ads and there have been numerous calls to fire Letterman, who just happens to be on the cusp of signing a contract extension with CBS. So it looks like he took a week to "find religion" on this and that in the end money talked. So he calculated that some humble pie in return for his millions in salary was a good deal for him. I still don't think he cares about women or integrity or modesty or crudity. He has come out of this looking worse and worse.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, looks more confident and like someone you can picture wiping the floor with scum like Letterman. And that only boosts her stock. All those "Feminists" who looked the other way during this little episode are big losers in terms of credibility, along with Letterman.

One last point; there was obviously a well-organized campaign to respond to this incident and it was lightning fast getting out of the gate. That is an interesting development that the pros won't fail to note. The next media thug who assumes Sarah is an easy target might just wait until after his contract is signed and the money in the bank. That isn't much, but it is progress.

Quick Update:
The Times of London nails this story with its headline: "Letterman Forced Into Palin Apology."

A Proposed Explanation for "Palin Derangement Syndrome"

Jay Valentine, over at American Thinker, has an explanation for what makes left-wingers so crazy when you mention the name of Sarah Palin. He writes:

"The left is telling us something many feel, many find as a hunch, that Sarah Palin is the most dangerous threat to the Obama administration with no close second. The left is telling us this by their "over the top" attacks. Not just the Letterman assaults, but the constant barrage of grievances filed against her in Alaska. The attacks every day on Palin for no apparent reason -- except that the left seems to see her quite differently from any Republican candidate. A difference of kind, not of degree.

They would never do this to Romney, Huckabee or Newt, at least not to this level. There is a clear reason -- these guys couldn't fill up a high school stadium unless they were giving out free beer.

What is the Sarah difference? Well, it's not the issues, at least that is not all of it. It is the charisma factor. Charisma is not learned, it is innate. One is born with it and no amount of training can inject it. Jack Kennedy had it. So did Reagan. Now Obama. Out of the thousands of politicians who have come and gone over the last generation, not one other person has shown "it.""

If you think about it, did Ronald Reagan in 1976 look like he had a chance to become president in 1980? How does Palin's situtation today compare to his in 1977? Is Valentine right to put her in the same category as Kennedy, Reagan and Obama as far as charisma is concerned? Is he right that charisma trumps big money in the internet era?

I'm not usually one to hesitate to express an opinion, but in this case I am not sure. I admire Sarah Palin as a person and she is definitely a symbol of middle America. I admire her beliefs, her tenacity and her cheerfulness in the face of stuff most of us could not put up with. But is she the right candidate for the Republican Party? Is she presidential material? Does she look like the only option just because the leadership of the Republican Party is in such bad shape? I don't know.

What I do know is that she is certainly smarter than Joe Biden. But then . . .