More Fallout from Tucson

Some interesting developments/revelations regarding the tragic Gabrielle Giffords shooting:

As I predicted just last night, proposals for legal restrictions on free speech are already sprouting up like spring flowers (and it's only January). For example, a Democratic Congressman, Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.), is planning to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to "use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress." In an interview with CNN, Brady referred to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in remarking, "You can't put bull's-eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official." Of course, as I showed in last night's post, she did no such thing. I suppose, under the proposed legislation, I could go to jail for posting this:


Oh, wait . . . I already did. My bad. It's not a cross-hair symbol, but you get the idea, right? ;-) Unless you're a pot-smoking, demented anarchist, in which case, please disregard this post. Please.

And as you might expect, South Carolina Dem. Congressman James E. ("Jim") Clyburn says that in the wake of the Tuscon attack, he "wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine." Curiously, Clyburn's daughter Mignon Clyburn is an FCC commissioner; it's reported that she took a stand on the issue during her confirmation hearings and said that she opposed such a policy in "any way shape or form."

We've also been reminded that after Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at an Army base in Ft. Hood, Texas last November, killing 13 people, legions of news media types and government officials issued statements imploring the public not to "jump to conclusions" that the shooting was an act of Islamist violence--even though, within hours of the attack, it emerged that Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before he began shooting, visited violence-oriented Islamic websites, wrote Internet posts justifying Muslim suicide bombings, opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, and told a neighbor shortly before the shootings that he was going "to do good work for God." Now--despite steadily mounting evidence that Giffords shooting suspect Jared Loughner has been a paranoid leftist-anarchist and angry with Giffords for at least three years, before anyone south of Anchorage had ever heard of Sarah Palin--many of the same people are insisting that the shooting was an act of terrorism prompted by Palin's right-wing political vitriol, and are clamoring for limits on free speech. Where was all this righteous indignation when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were being hung, drawn, quartered and burned in effigy on an almost daily basis by left-wing zealots? Where were the calls for "better judgment" and "cooler heads" when Bush was being angrily blamed for everything from Hurricane Katrina to swine flu to economic collapse to Democratic failure at the polls--as he still is today?

Speaking of limits on speech, you might be surprised to learn that the father of nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green, Jared Loughner's youngest victim, regards this terrible tragedy as part of the price of living in a free society, and does not want more restrictions on our liberties. I can't fathom this man's grief, or his nobility.



The lesson we need to take from the Tucson tragedy is Mr. Green's, not Rep. Clyburn's or Brady's. We must NOT let the violent act of a lone madman, acting for no one's twisted purpose but his own, become the excuse for a stifling of free expression by the powers of law or of political correctness. Everyone must speak and act with common decency and common sense. But we must not delegate to any governmental agency or social/political elite the power to decide in advance, for everyone else, just what expressions fall within and without those limits.

Christina Taylor Green

I (and Sarah Palin) Shot Gabrielle Giffords

It's distressing to start off a new year's posts with commentary on a tragic event like the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 other people in Tuscon, Arizona yesterday. Needless to say, we all pray for the families of the slain and for the full recovery of the wounded, and that the perpetrator(s) be brought to justice.

But what most appalls and frightens me now, observing others' reactions to this event--in the media, and in comments to online articles and Facebook posts--are the wild and irresponsible conclusions people are leaping to that this single act of violence was somehow "caused" by the angry rhetoric and hostility toward politicians stirred up by conservative critics of government. By some hysterical pretzel-logic, most of the blame-throwing seems to be directed at--who else?--Sarah Palin. Their "reasoning" goes something like this:

PREMISE: An atmosphere of incivility and hostility toward government and politicians prevails in America today.
PREMISE: That atmosphere has been fostered by Sarah Palin (among others, including Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and members of the Tea Party movement).
FACT: Someone committed an act of violence against a government official.
CONCLUSION: Sarah Palin and her allies are responsible for that act of violence.

In other words, anyone who has publicly and angrily criticized the government and its officials in recent years--presumably including me, and maybe you too--is at least jointly responsible for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.

Before the suspected shooter had even been officially identified, and without the slightest evidence of what his motives might have been, mainstream media news stories (for example, this one from the AP) were noting that "Giffords has drawn the ire of the right in the last year, especially from politicians like Sarah Palin over her support of the health care bill"; that "[h]er Tucson office was vandalized a few hours after the House voted to approve the health care law in March"; that "Palin listed Giffords' seat as one of the top 'targets' in the midterm elections because of the lawmakers' support for the health care law"; and that "[t]he shooting comes amid a highly charged political environment that has seen several dangerous threats against lawmakers," including one by "a San Francisco man upset with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's support of health care reform" and one by another California man "known for his anger over left-leaning politics" who shot at highway patrol officers and planned to attack the ACLU. It was pointed out that Rep. Giffords' opponent in the November elections, a former Marine, was pictured on his website in military gear holding an automatic weapon.

Left-leaning Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, in several press conferences and interviews only hours after the shooting, referred to it as evidence that his own state had become a “mecca for racism and bigotry”, and blamed the act on "the vitriol that comes out of certain people’s mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country" (this is the same county sheriff who, a few months ago, called the new Arizona Immigration law unwise, stupid and racist and that he would not enforce it).

A lead article in Sunday's New York Times makes this incredible statement:

While the exact motivations of the suspect in the shootings remained unclear, an Internet site tied to the man, Jared Lee Loughner, contained antigovernment ramblings. And regardless of what led to the episode, it quickly focused attention on the degree to which inflammatory language, threats and implicit instigations to violence have become a steady undercurrent in the nation’s political culture.

"Regardless of what led to the episode"? This statement encapsulates the problem with the current debate over the Arizona shooting's relationship to the "emotionally charged political climate" and who's responsible for it. Even though Loughner's motivations are presently unclear, at best, and may have little or nothing in particular to do with Ms. Giffords' politics or current government policies--and almost certainly nothing to do with Sarah Palin or campaign ads ran months ago which this youthful, mentally disturbed suspect probably never saw--liberals in the government, media, and general populace are eagerly leaping to the conclusion that they do, with no factual basis whatever. "What led to this episode" should have everything to do with the debate, and if investigation shows that this was the irrational act of a raving lunatic, that should be the end of it.

Of course, the Left won't let that be the end of it; by some twisted quasi-logic "Sarah Palin and her allies," through their passionate rhetoric and antigovernment attitude, will be fixed with responsibility for inspiring, emboldening, or enabling an unbalanced individual to commit such an act. As far as they're concerned, the case is already closed.

But we're thinking people. So, let's look at what evidence there is at the moment before we make judgments. And what little there is doesn't lend much credence to the wave of self-righteous indignation against conservative political rhetoric. An article on MSNBC last night, which quotes Loughner's YouTube videos and MySpace postings extensively, says that:

The videos are not blatantly political, in the sense that they do not mention the congresswoman or federal judge that he's suspected of shooting, nor any specific legislation. They do complain that too few people in the area speak English — immigration has been a hot-button political issue, particularly in the border state of Arizona, and the federal judge who was killed had handled high-profile cases about immigration, after which he received threats. (The sheriff said Saturday night that it appears the judge was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the gunman went first for the congresswoman.)

If you proceed to read the article's own quotes of Jared Loughner, you'll find that he complains that too many people are "illiterate"--he never once mentions Mexicans or the Spanish language, or that people can't speak English, and he talks more about "grammar" and how the government is using it for "mind control." He says absolutely nothing about immigration.

In fact, here's essentially all he says about government or politics:

I know who's listening: Government Officials, and the People . . . Nearly all the people, who don't know this accurate information of a new currency, aren't aware of mind control and brainwash methods. If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn't have happen . . .
*****
I can't trust the current government because of fabrications. The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.
*****
The majority of citizens in the United States of America have never read the United States of America's Constitution. You don't have to accept the federalist laws. Nonetheless, read the United States of America's Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws.
*****
In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can't trust the government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.

No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver!

No! I won't trust in God!

What's government if words don't have meaning?

The MSNBC article lists among Loughner's favorite books, as indicated in an online profile, "Animal Farm," "Brave New World," "The Wizard of OZ," "Aesop's Fables," "The Odyssey," "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland," "Fahrenheit 451," "Peter Pan," "To Kill A Mockingbird," "The Communist Manifesto," "Gulliver's Travels," "Mein Kampf," and "The Republic." This article, and another posted this evening, quotes a former friend of Loughner who described him as a "pothead" and his past politics as "left wing, quite liberal, & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy."

I don't know about you, but I find it hard to see what in all this suggests any responsibility for Loughner's actions on the part of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party movement, the Republican Party, or political conservatism in general. Given that several of the authors of Loughner's favorite books were critical of governments and social systems of their day, it seems just as logical to infer that Aldous Huxley, Kurt Vonnegut, Lewis Carrol, Karl Marx, or Plato inspired him to shoot Gabrielle Giffords.

Sarah Palin has been singled out for criticism by liberals and the media for publishing a "target map" on her PAC website using small "cross-hairs" symbols to roughly identify the districts of 20 House Democrats up for election in last year's mid-term elections, including Rep. Giffords'. The Congresswoman's face is not on the map, nor is anyone else's, and her name is only one of twenty listed on the map. The map doesn't mention "targeting" or shooting anyone. Interestingly, the ultra-left blog Daily Kos also posted what it called a "target list" identifying Giffords in a 2008 post, which listed Giffords as one of dozens of representatives with "a bull's-eye on their district" for being a "bad apple" Democrat.

The Left's and media's response to the Arizona shooting evinces the sort of political scapegoating and witch-hunting that liberals claimed to abhor back in the 1950s and '60s. Today, they're all to happy to pin responsibility for a lone maniac's actions on certain individuals (other than the actual perpetrator), and a whole class of people (conservatives), they don't like. Presumably, they would find the many vocal critics of John F. Kennedy's policies complicit in his assassination by Lee Harvey Oswald. Oddly, I haven't heard anyone on the Left condemning Muslim leaders or the atmosphere among Muslims of hate against Christians, Jews, and Americans generally for Nidal Malik Hasan's massacre of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas in November 2009. Nor have I heard any of them denounce the attitude of divisiveness that drove the "New Black Panthers" to intimidate voters in Philadelphia in 2008, or the spirit of hate that impelled SEIU thugs to terrorize a bank executive's children in their own home last May.

The point of this post, however, isn't so much to defend Sarah Palin or Tea Partiers against hysterical, groundless attacks as it is to warn my readers about the impact that these denunciations and demands for "civility" could have on free expression and the political future of this country.

We should remember that in 1933 the Nazis used the setting of a fire in the German Reichstag building, by an unemployed, mentally disturbed Communist sympathizer, as an excuse to push through the German Parliament a suspension of civil liberties and for mass arrests of political opponents, which enabled the Nazi party to consolidate its hold on power. Five years later, the Nazis used the shooting of a minor German diplomat in Paris, by a young Jewish man upset at his family's forced deportation from Germany, as an excuse to launch the Kristallnacht, a nationwide pogrom against Jewish homes, businesses and synagogues that marked the beginning of the Final Solution and the Holocaust.

Today in the United States, the Giffords shooting and the "uncivil, antigovernment atmosphere" from which it supposedly sprang will undoubtedly fuel a campaign to have the Federal Communications Commission and other government agencies regulate talk radio and the Internet (the latter move has already begun on transparently innocuous grounds, as discussed here and here) so as to prevent the spreading of "divisive", "hateful," or seditious rhetoric. The FBI and the Treasury Department (including the IRS and Secret Service) will be called upon to "investigate" people and organizations who do the spreading and to threaten their funding and tax-exempt status. At a minimum, open and forthright criticism of the government and of political figures will be discouraged as "uncivil" and as a potential incitement to violence. This will be true not only for high-profile figures like Sarah Palin, but also for ordinary folks like you and me, who like to express our opinions in easily-monitored online forums like this blog, or on Facebook (or in bars, buses, or anywhere else snoops might be employed).

Of course, everyone wants peace and civility. But people aren't angry for nothing, and it wasn't Sarah Palin or any other conservative spokesperson who "made" them angry. Their fury was, and is, the direct result of the relentless campaign within governments, the media, and other elements of society to negate the Unites States Constitution and fatally undermine all that this country has traditionally stood for. Let's deal with the causes of popular anger, not merely the symptom.

It's sobering to think that the American Revolution might never have happened if the plainly inflammatory antigovernment statements of firebrands like Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, and Patrick Henry had been suppressed. Career politicians, bureaucrats, socialists, public employee unions, and their running dogs in the media and academia would like nothing better than to make sure that ordinary people in this country could never rise up against their masters again. They'll use any excuse--even the impulsive shootings of a Congresswoman, a judge, a little girl, and some old ladies in a mall parking lot by a crazed, pot-smoking loser like Jared Loughner--to stifle dissent and advance their agenda.

Don't let them. Don't shut up. Don't hide. Don't stop exposing their corruption and evil schemes. Don't stop defending your liberties, whatever it costs, and no matter what others try to embarrass you with. Don't surrender, and don't retreat--not one inch.

Celebrating the Palin Effect

A good Facebook friend of mine, and an otherwise staunch conservative, complains: "Sarah Palin's endorsement of Christine O' Donnell cost the GOP that Senate seat and her endorsement of Sharron Angle didn't work out either. Harry Reid was very beatable. Sarah Palin needs to fade away. She's not needed any further." I heartily disagree, and for several reasons.

Mrs. Palin isn't some sort of witch who blows into town on a broomstick, casts a spell on local Republicans, and by her fiat alone causes them to vote for candidates who can't win a general election. Republicans in Delaware and Nevada used their own free judgment to nominate the people who really animated them and inspired in them more trust and confidence than the "establishment" candidates. Let those candidates, and the party leaders who back them, stop whining about Sarah Palin and do a better job of selling their brand to the rank and file. Are Republican voters somehow too gullible to be trusted with control of their own party? Is the party to be run exclusively by top-level operatives who choose its candidates in back rooms according to what they think would best advance the organization's interests (which might or might not coincide with the country's)? Obviously, frustration with the RINO "elite" played a big part in Delaware, Nevada, and many other primary races, and in the general election helped propel many true conservatives into national and state office. Palin-sparked Tea Party enthusiasm may have "cost" the Republican Party some seats here and there, but I wouldn't trade that dynamic force on a nationwide basis for anything right now. It's what is providing the energy, leadership, and vision pulling "independents" and heretofore apathetic or non-political people in the right direction.

In any case, as CBS News points out, "most of the candidates Sarah Palin endorsed chalked up victories Tuesday." She backed 43 candidates for the House of Representatives and at least 30 of them won, while she endorsed 12 Senate candidates and seven of them won. Among the winners Palin endorsed were Nikki Haley for governor of South Carolina, Pat Toomey for Senate in Pennsylvania, and John Boozman for the Senate, in Arkansas. "My observation of Sarah Palin," says CBS News political analyst Nicolle Wallace, "is that she is one of the shrewdest political figures in our country at this moment. She's also one of the most electric." Without question, Mrs. Palin carries the torch and brings home the bacon better than anyone else in the GOP or the conservative movement generally.

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln's famous 1862 endorsement of the then-widely-criticized Ulysses S. Grant, "We can't spare this woman--she fights."

The Sarah Palin Derangement Survey

Her whirlwind book-signing tour of the United States now concluded, I've been reflecting on some aspects of Sarah Palin's soaring profile--and popularity. Despite all of the calumny heaped upon her since her Vice-Presidential nomination 16 months ago, some by high-ranking members of her own party, Mrs. Palin is now approved of by nearly as large (and perhaps, even larger) a segment of the American population as is President Obama himself, and by a much larger percentage of Americans than is Congress. Her book, Going Rogue: An American Life, has sold more than a million copies. And Democrat front organizations, characterizing Mrs. Palin as "dangerous," are pleading with their supporters for money to fight the "threat" she poses. That's heavyweight treatment for someone whom they've so long roundly dismissed as a ridiculous flyweight.

Which raises the question: why can't they let go of this obsession with her, and get a real life? What is it about Sarah Palin, non-entity that she supposedly is, that still sends so many people (now mostly diehard liberals and establishment/elite media-academic types) into waves of apoplexy? I've tried to isolate several factors that might contribute to what some have dubbed "Palin Derangement Syndrome," but I'm not sure how they interplay and how much weight each carries in relation to the others. If my liberal friends would help with some of the answers, we might gain enough knowledge to find a cure someday--or better, the formula for an invigorating tonic to distribute to aspiring political leaders.

So, just what is it that gets their knickers in such a hopeless twist?

Is it her down-home, breezy, wink-and-you-betcha, non-intellectual way of connecting with people? Do you assume that that's all a put-on and that she's really a snob like other public figures (except the ones you like, of course), or are you appalled that she really IS like that and that millions of people seem to like it? Would she bother you less if she had a style and charisma level more akin to, say, John McCain's (plain-vanilla, Wonder-Bread, human sleeping-pill)? If that's the case, wouldn't the solution be for those upon whom she grates just to tune her out and ignore her? There are legions of REALLY annoying people out there of all political stripes--what is it about her style, more than others', that provokes such visceral dislike?

Is it her supposed ignorance? As we know, America is choked with ignorant people, and many occupy high positions in government and other walks of life (we won't name names, but the current line of Presidential succession comes to mind). What is it about Sarah Palin's ignorance that's so much more objectionable than theirs? Is it because hers isn't dressed up in Ivy League clothes?

Is it her assumed ambition to high office? Again, you can't swing a dead cat around your head these days without hitting someone who's preening him- or her-self for the Presidency. What is it about Sarah Palin that makes her ambition a matter of special concern? Would you relax if you knew for a fact that she wasn't seeking the Presidency?

Is it her femininity? Are you of the opinion that a young, attractive, motherly woman who adheres to traditional family values could not possibly be considered a feminist and therefore has no valid place in politics?

Is it her goody-two-shoes, girl-next-door, Honest-Abe, shamelessly patriotic image? When you were a kid did you hate the teacher's pets and Eagle Scouts? Are you among those who believe that morality is all relative or a product of social class, that everyone has a price at which he or she will sell out, and that we're all more or less degenerate (and that only those who are honest about it are trustworthy)?

Is it her openly professed religious faith? Does everyone who talks freely about his/her faith rub you the wrong way? Do you reflexively assume that all such people are hypocrites? Do you react to Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists the same way as you do to outspoken evangelical Christians or traditional Catholics? Are you among those who believe that there is no proper place for any religious faith, or for anyone who professes one, in public affairs (from what I can tell, there are many people who think that)?

Is it her conservative, traditional, values-oriented political philosophy? There are hosts of prominent and not-so-prominent people out there who hold such views. Why is Sarah Palin singled out from among them (say, from William Kristol or Fred Thompson) for such intense loathing?

Is it her popularity? There are lots of people in America who are more popular (though steadily fewer, it seems). Are you shocked or concerned--do you feel threatened?--that someone like Mrs. Palin, with such Neanderthal views and so lacking in cultural and intellectual refinement, appeals to so many people?

(It's really that last one, isn't it?)

If it's so obvious to her critics that Sarah Palin is nothing but an empty-headed gasbag and pathetic quitter, wouldn't it be just as obvious to everyone? And if so, can't we expect that she'll simply sink into political oblivion? Then, why are Democrat activists begging for money to fight the "threat"she poses? Why is she still the main attraction on all those Posts, Huffington and Washington et al, and still the favorite punching bag of countless comedians and pundits? Shouldn't they just ignore her? Isn't that how most people deal with those who annoy them--rather than dispatch legions of reporters and fact-checkers to microscopically analyze every word they write or speak and every gesture they make?

I think it should be obvious by now that liberals and know-it-alls can't ignore Sarah Palin. No matter how much it infuriates them, and despite all their attempts to dismiss and destroy her, Mrs. Palin has survived and prospers at the head of a growing movement of otherwise ordinary middle-class people committed to traditional values, simple patriotism, self-reliance, and disdain for intrusive government. There are a lot of votes there, there's anger behind them, and they're not tied irrevocably to either major party. Elites and establishments of all stripes (and their hangers-on) are--or should be--very concerned. Whether or not Mrs. Palin ends up running for President, she now has political influence that must be respected. Opponents of her movement will keep trying to demolish her, but in doing so risk adding to her steel, her popular appeal, and her power.

Derangement has its price.

Welcome, Sarah!

Today former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin swung into Rochester, New York (the closest city to my home in Brockport) on her national book-signing tour. The excitement, and controversy, have been building around here for days. This was Mrs. Palin's only stop in New York State, so people downstate who wanted a chance to see her--yes, there are some--had the unaccustomed burden of traveling all the way up here to commune with a star. The line started forming yesterday afternoon at Borders Books & Music, and hundreds of people spent the night waiting to get one of the 1,000 wristbands that would get them into the signing, which didn't start until 6 p.m.

UPDATE 11/22/2009: The Rochester book-signing was a huge success! As reported in the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, Mrs. Palin signed twice the 1,000 books originally expected. Attendees report tat she looked everyone in the eye, shook their hands, and greeted them warmly. But the really exciting thing about this event was that Sarah's parents, as well as Piper and Trig, were there too! What a special gift to all those people who traveled far and braved the damp and chill to camp out at the bookstore for 24 hours or more for a chance to meet Mrs. Palin! Now I really wish I could have been part of that wonderful experience. I was there in spirit, anway.

What's so refreshing--and politically astute--about Mrs. Palin's tour is that it ignores big cities and the other usual venues of power, concentrating instead on the smaller cities, towns and nearby military bases where she can connect directly with the grassroots ordinary Americans with whom she's most concerned (a strategy that's been referred to as "an open slap to liberal America").

Moreover, everyone who wants to meet her has to stand in line, big shot or little shot; there are no VIP receptions or photo-ops with the politically connected. It's just about her and her people, and the things they believe in together. It's a block party in flyover-land, and we're all just neighbors.

A gentleman at the Grand Rapids, Michigan tour stop explained: "She's one of us. . . . We're hard-working, 9-to-5 Joes and like her we didn't go to the elite universities that other politicians went to. She understands real life and she understands America." A teenage girl at the same event said that Mrs Palin was her hero. "She's shown me that I can achieve anything, and be anything I want to be." A Canandaigua, NY resident waiting in line at the Rochester event observed: "She's like us . . . You insult her, you insult us."

And that, I think, sums up why Sarah sends a shiver down the backs of the political and social elites that despise her so. They have little to fear from her personally--she lacks an impressive resume, has no particular wealth or inside connections, is not a profound thinker or a great orator. What they're really appalled, and feel threatened, by is the growing influence she has over the hearts and minds of millions of Americans, who daily grow more determined to replace the prevailing culture of moral and political corruption with the kind of faith, honesty, initiative, resilience, and patriotism that Sarah Palin embodies. They know that she's one of "us," as her admirers everywhere stress, and it's an aware and aroused "us" that they fear most.

The elites' never-ending obsession with Sarah Palin, and their hysterical efforts to destroy her and blunt the movement she represents, are growing truly pathetic. For example, a full year after the general election and three years before the next one, the Associated Press assigned 11 reporters to "fact check" all 432 pages of her new book, Going Rogue: An American Life--although they'd done no fact-checking at all of books by Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Bill or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama (AP was sharply criticized for the move by the Columbia Journalism Review). Newspaper editorial pages still sprout tired-sounding denunciations of her--usually by local Democrat politicos or assistant poli-sci professors--as "ignorant" and "divisive," whenever and wherever Mrs. Palin appears in public. On the one hand they airily dismiss her as a transparent fool who appeals only to a narrow, marginal class of "extremists." In the very next breath, they warn in dire tones that she's "dangerous" and that the "hateful" hosts she commands threaten to tear apart the very fabric of American society. But they long ago shot their bolt, and are now squirming helplessly because their calumnies have no more effect than water off a duck's back.

I love watching Sarah drive liberals and stuffed-shirt Republicans insane! I revel in their apoplexy as her popularity grows with every interview and whistle-stop (47 percent favorable in a recent Fox News poll) while President Obama's approval rating steadily falls (down to 49 percent in a recent Gallup poll). It warms my heart to contemplate their anxiety as she upsets the status quo, rewrites the political equation, and exposes the establishment elites for what they are. Mrs. Palin's detractors in the media/entertainment complex, academia, and "mainstream" politics are going to realize, if most of them haven't already, that their libel campaign has only made Sarah a martyr in the eyes of millions of Americans, and that they're alienating more and more of the very people whose votes they may need to stay in power.

In the end it doesn't really matter if she runs for or is elected President in 2012. If she helps bring legions of Americans into the camp of limited government, individual freedom, and traditional values, she'll have a positive impact far beyond that of a Presidential term or two. This is the real danger Mrs. Palin poses to the liberal establishment and their fellow-travelers. Right now she's turning legions of otherwise politically inactive people (i.e., those who haven't the time, resources, or inclination to be politically active) into a real, passionate, vocal grassroots movement. She gives them inspiration, hope, a symbol, a voice--and the determination to make that voice heard loudly in the halls of power. Who was the last conservative to do that?

For now, we can all bask in the friendly sunshine brought down here from Alaska by one classy hockey mom!

*****

ONE MORE THING: I don't know what Newsweek thought they were pulling when they recently put on their cover a picture of Sarah Palin in modestly abbreviated running garb. Maybe they thought it made her look ridiculous. Sarah herself complained that it was "sexist." Well, Sarah, for once I have to part company with you--I thought it was flattering! You look young, feminine, fit, and all-American. Yet another attempted slam on you turned into a positive!

Adios, Not Goodbye

"I want to work, right now, for people who are going to work either in office or out of office for the right things. Those principles that build up America, those who are inspired by the values of America, and will not deride or apologize for the values we hold as Americans." -- Sarah Palin, interview July 6, 2009

Here it is four and a half days since Sarah Palin announced her impending resignation as Governor of Alaska. I've wanted to comment on this stunning development, but held back in case it turned out to have been prompted by some emerging controversy or "scandal." If there was, surely it would have come out by now. Perhaps it's not too early to conclude that no such thing is in the offing, and that Sarah's decision was a carefully considered, independent, and deliberate one. I've been pretty confident of that all along.

The know-it-all pontification, dismissive second-guessing, and flustering outrage over this by pundits and the news media is amusing and revolting at the same time. They all seem deeply offended that Mrs. Palin didn't notify them, consult with them, or clear it with them first. "It's not fair! She's not following the script! She's not playing by The Rules!" So affronted are they by her impertinence that they're all clamoring to declare her "erratic," "clueless," "a quitter," and Politically Dead. They can't wait to close the book on her. A sense of smug satisfaction seems to run through all of this. Or is it more like the nervous laughter that masks deep anxiety?

The reasons for resigning that Sarah gave in her July 4 statement are clear enough, and make great sense to me. Her status as the Prime Target for every left-wing wacko, libel-monger, lame comedian, and partisan hack (Democrat and Republican) is simply causing more collateral damage to her family and the State of Alaska, financially and otherwise, than she's prepared to make them suffer any longer. She can't be effective as a mother, wife, or Governor and continue fending off the endless barrage of bullsh_t, which is being hurled at her precisely to have that effect. If she's "quitting" for the sake of her family, she's doing exactly the right thing. If she's "quitting" on the people of Alaska, they have the media, the political elites, and their worthless fellow-travelers (including a few Alaskans, and the Republican establishment in the lower 48) to thank for it. In any event, as William Kristol observes:

[W]hy is it more admirable to run for national office while a sitting governor (or senator), spending a fair amount of time out of your state (or away from Congress), necessarily neglecting or delegating some of your duties -- than to turn the office over to your constitutional successor so your constituents have someone working full time on their behalf? Palin will have to endure some fair criticism for abandoning her office before her term ended. But she should also get credit for not using her state office as a means of campaigning for a higher one.

Regardless, Mrs. Palin is no longer a stationary target for her adversaries. She seemed happy and refreshed yesterday in her first interview since announcing her resignation. given while out fishing with her family in the Alaskan wilderness. She's now free to pursue her vision and "be all she can be," whatever she might choose that to be. If a life of peaceful obscurity for herself and family is what she has in mind, that's just fine--she's earned it in spades, and even if she never seeks or obtains the Presidency, she's done a priceless service by setting the model for the kind of walks-the-walk, connects-with-the-people leader that millions of right-thining Americans are panting for. And if she still wants to be that leader, or help find and promote the person who will be, she has the time, the freedom, and (by and by, at least) the money to do it. Now she can fight, and fight back. Now she can learn, develop, and mobilize a new political movement that gathers in all who share her values and her vision for an American Renaissance.

Which, I suspect, is what REALLY bothers the nay-sayers. Sarah's people are ordinary people, who couldn't care less about the Elites and are tired of being betrayed by Establishments of all types, Democrat and Republican, at every turn. Thanks to the current administration and its minions, they're "Mad as Hell and They're Not Going to Take This Any More." Her legions of followers aren't discouraged, but newly energized. The Powers That Be are simply terrified of being marginalized, and they know that Sarah can help make that happen. They HAVE to dismiss her, even destroy her. Who else on the Right energizes and inspires people like she does? Who else so effectively personifies our values and dreams? Who else among conservatism's leaders has the enthusiasm, the charm, the grit, and the confidence to bring forth a tidal wave from the dispirited masses?

Once again, Mrs. Palin has confounded and unnerved the Fat Cats. She doesn't play by their rules or seek their approval. She takes her marching orders from God and her own best judgment. If she has to take some risks and some lumps, she'll take them. She can't be controlled, manipulated, programmed, or pigeonholed. And the Elites can't abide that! So, tongue-waggers who couldn't think their way out of a wet paper bag will continue to fret and declare thier bewilderment or contempt, from Inside the Box. Sarah is already Outside the Box, ready to toss it into the nearest dustbin.

Afterthought: One recent story about Sarah's resignation, from the Associated Press, nearly made me fall out of my chair with laughter. According to the article: "Political observers [have] struggled to make sense of the decision and its effect on a potential 2012 campaign for the White House. Even her rival during the last election, Vice President Joe Biden, seemed confused by the move." WHAT? Even JOE BIDEN--CONFUSED?? Not Joe--no way! Stop the presses! Hold the phone! "We bring you a special bulletin--in a stunning development, it's been revealed that the Pope is: Roman Catholic!! Further details as they become available." Sheesh.

Actually, Biden said something more sensible than almost all the other observers: "It maybe had a lot to do with what the state of their life was, and the state of their family, et cetera. . . So I'm not going to second-guess her."

There's Something About Sarah . . .

This is a post I've been mulling for some time. I would have written it way back in the fall, during the Presidential campaign--if I had been blogging back then. But I didn't start until three weeks after the election. By the time I found my "voice," the party was over. Oh, well--as if my opinion, even broadcast to the world, would have changed the outcome! But it makes me feel better to get my thoughts out there where they might get others to think, and maybe think like I do. A small beginning, but that's how revolutions get started.

So now, in honor of her birthday on February 11, I thought it might be appropriate to share with you why I was so taken with Sarah Palin during the 2008 election campaign, and why she still matters to me. I know many, many other people share these feelings, so this might give you some insight into the Sarah Phenomenon, and why she seems still to strike abject terror into the hearts of far-left wackos (and intellectual snobs) everywhere.

I first saw Sarah (and had barely heard of her before) when she addressed the crowd upon her announcement as John McCain's running mate in late August, 2008. I had been skeptical when I first heard of her selection, as I had assumed it would be one of the better-known names like Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, and this pick seemed at first like a crazy stretch. But I was floored when I saw her speech in Dayton, Ohio, and yet again at the Republican National Convention. I had never seen nor heard a politician--especially a Republican--quite this appealing, this exciting. More than just being relatively young, and quite attractive (I'm a guy after all), she was positive, optimistic, exuberant! She spoke proudly of faith and family, home and country; from the heart, not from abstract ideology. She was completely uncontrived, utterly genuine and sincere. She connected with us common people instantly, in our language, on our level. She was the girl next door, the hometown beauty queen, the hockey mom, your sister--she was your own, the one you rooted for. One of US.

What really cinched her for me, even more than all those things, was her family. The bond of love among them was obvious. They were proud of her, and she of them, warts and all--which is how good families are. Todd is a good, solid husband and father, and Piper and Trig are just precious (I can hear the snobs sniggering now)! And to know that Sarah chose Trig's life despite the enormous challenges of raising a special needs child--and what that might mean for her family and career--elevated her that much higher in my estimation. What better schooling to understand the importance of family, and the challenges that families face today, than to be surrounded by such a good and strong one?

Other traits emerged in the course of the campaign. Despite a torrent of mockery and falsehood unprecedented in Presidential campaign history--not to mention a hostile and shamelessly biased press--Gov. Palin was unflappable and kept her grace, charm, and good humor. She didn't take and eye for an eye, but also didn't run away, and met some of her most cynical critics on their own turf (e.g., Saturday Night Live). She wasn't ashamed to profess her faith, or to let us know that she sought Divine guidance in her public as well as private life. She didn't apologize for America or for being American, but exulted in them. She didn't pull punches in calling her opponents to account for their positions and associations. She never deferred to the demands of political correctness.

Of course, Gov. Palin had her shortcomings. Not a trained lawyer like Obama or Biden and not having positioned herself for high federal office for years, as they had, she was less well-versed on some national issues, particularly foreign policy (though the policies she did advocate were wiser by light years than those advanced by the Democratic ticket). She wasn't thoroughly prepared for being ambushed by "journalists" who never thought of giving her opponents the same kind of treatment. And she was reined in far too much and too long by a McCain campaign team who clearly didn't appreciate the incredible asset they had in their hands, or were surprised and frightened by the fire she ignited.

But none of them, and none of what she endured and still confronts today, have kept her down, or will. She remains a potent symbol and inspiring leader for millions of Americans who "cling" to their religion, their families, their country, and the way of life that their ancestors lived and died to make possible. She's a self-made woman who got where she is by faith, hard work, confidence, and daring to do what's right--nothing inherited, nothing bestowed on her for complying with some elite's preferences or expectations (i.e., left-leaning feminists and intellectuals). And it's fear of this--that Sarah, or someone like her, could lead an irresistible movement away from the Left and back to America's founding values--that animates all those doing their best to destroy her. Given who she is, and who we are, that's just not going to happen.

Perhaps it's only a coincidence that Sarah's birthday falls on the eve of that of another figure from a "frontier" state who burst onto the national stage with little experience in national issues, was widely demonized by Democrats, was condemned by self-styled "moderates" in both major parties for his "divisive" policies, and was dismissed as a rube by the intellectual elite of the day for his awkward, homespun speech and ways.

Then again . . .

Happy Birthday, Sarah!

Lay Back and Enjoy It?

The media war against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin marches on, with a new twist. This past Wednesday, the Associated Propagand . . . er, "Press," reported that Gov. Palin has recently criticized news organizations for focusing inordinate attention on the educational shortcomings of her 18-year-old daughter Bristol (who recently gave birth) and the girl's fiance, and denouncing bloggers perpetuating claims that her 9-month-old son, Trig, is actually Bristol 's child from a secret previous pregnancy. Gov. Palin is quoted as saying that "It's all about the family." . . . I'm wired in a way that I can take the criticism. I can take the shots. But any mother would want to protect their children from lies and scandalous reporting." The "story" then dishes up some of the most cynical garbage I've ever seen in print:

. . . Leonard Steinhorn, a professor of communications at American University in Washington and an expert on the presidency . . . and other experts believe the first-term governor is engaged in a campaign to keep her name in the spotlight. A newcomer to national politics when she was nominated, Palin energized the Republican base but also attracted intense criticism that she had little substance. "I think she's exploiting and cultivating the anti-intellectual and anti-elitist side of the Republican party," Steinhorn said. "She's trying to salvage her reputation, so she attacks the messenger."

. . . Palin is fueling the stories she condemns by talking about them instead of ignoring them, said Janis Edwards, an associate professor of communication studies at the University of Alabama and an expert on women candidates. One of Edwards' classes monitored Palin's role in a project called "The Palin Watch." Palin "does seem to have ambitions, and this is one way of staying in the public eye," Edwards said.

This is one of the worst examples of "blame the victim" I've ever seen. By trying to defend herself and her family against a media/Internet smear campaign that proceeds unabated although the election she did not win concluded almost three months ago, Gov. Palin is, in the media's eyes, inviting and justifying further attacks. The more she fights back, the more punishment she deserves. Thus, she's in the position of the rape victim who's cynically counseled to just lay back and "enjoy" being ravished, because resistance will only provoke more violence by the rapist.

It should be noted that this "story" appeared over the byline of Rachel D'Oro, an Anchorage, Alaska-based "news"-person who has been producing for AP, since at least the announcement of Gov. Palin's Vice-Presidential candidacy early last fall, a steady stream of articles highly critical of and clearly biased against her--including one suggesting, with no supporting evidence, that a suspicious fire at Gov. Palin's home church in December was provoked by the church's association with a conference that encouraged gays to get counseling to overcome their homosexuality. It should also be noted that the two "experts" quoted in the story are fixtures in left-wing academia, who've made a nice living in the press and on the lecture circuit grinding axes against anything right of the political center (google their names for a sampling). What kind of "expertise" enables one to see inside another's mind and divine his or her "real" motivations? How does one get such expertise? Who annointed these characters to pontificate and pass judgment on another's defense of her family's privacy and reputation?

I also wonder whether, in denouncing what they think is Gov. Palin's appeal to "anti-intellectual and anti-elitist" elements, these academicians are trying to defend the intellectual elites--of which they're members--whose prestige and influence is most directly threatened by her popularity?

The opinions of these "experts," together with Ms. D'Oro's echoing criticism of Gov. Palin as insincere, make up almost the entire article. Thus, it could not possibly be characterized as "objective" reporting--it's a scathing editorial, a hit-piece. Why can't AP just tell us that up front? Because then the Emperor could not pretend to be clothed. Because this once-respected "news" service wants you to keep accepting the swill it churns out uncritically; it wants to mold your opinions for you, in the form it chooses. For me, exposure of the Mainstream Media as a shameless prostitution ring was the most disturbing aspect of last year's Presidential election campaign. And obviously, the Media and its minions aren't interested in recovering the least shred of the dignity and respect they once had.

So, if you are ever elevated to some level of public distinction and the Media doesn't like you, be warned--you could end up, like Gov. Palin and her family, without a right of self-defense. Or, if you try to exercise one, you'll pay an infinite price. It's always open season on you, and there's never a bag limit.

Why Do They Hate Sarah Palin--Still?

Here it is, Inauguration Eve, and I'm writing about--well, not Barack Obama. It's not that I'm bitter about his election; in fact, I hope and pray that his administration deals successfully with the many problems confronting our country. That would be good for everybody, as long as it's done honestly and consistently with our Constitution and free enterprise system. Today, I'd like to reflect on someone who was a "loser" in the last election--someone who was not even at the top of her ticket--but who, oddly, remains one of the hottest items in our political discourse: Gov. Sarah Palin.

A recent article from Fox News noted that Gov. Palin continues to attract widespread comment and often hysterical scorn, even as the No. 2 on a losing presidential ticket. She's generated roughly twice the news coverage as Vice President-elect Joe Biden, and long before the campaign was over had prompted infinitely more negative ink (and bandwidth) than another widely-dissed Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, Dan Quayle, who all but vanished from public consciousness after winning election beside President George H.W. Bush in 1988. Legions of "intellectuals," including some who call themselves Republicans or conservatives, continue going out of their way to criticize her, demonize her, and blame her for the Republican Party's seeming downfall. Scores of web sites are devoted to ridiculing her (although she continues to attract enthusiastic supporters at sites such as TeamSarah and Sarah Palin for America). And months after the election, she's still having to defend herself publicly against false and ridiculous accusations reported all too eagerly by the mainstream media.

One wonders: why do they hate Sarah so much, and so personally? And why do they still hate her, and continue to expend so much energy denouncing her?

The first question may be easier to answer than the second. People well to the left of center, of course, despise the values that Gov. Palin represents: religious faith, patriotism, family, individualism, initiative, responsibility, self-reliance, hard work. Of course, they expect that such values would translate into policies that they abhor: tolerance for religious expression in public forums; a vigorous, America-first foreign policy; strict limits on abortion, sex education, and "gay rights"; limited government; development of natural resources.

But I think there is something more, lying deeper, that explains not only liberals' revulsion toward her but also the disdain of self-described "moderates" and intellectuals on the right as well as the left: she's not "one of them." Her detractors across the political spectrum tend to ridicule and mock her small-town background, her folksy speech, her sometimes giddy exuberance, her girl-next-door looks, and her goody-two-shoes, "hockey mom" image. They universally deplore her big, boisterous, rather "untidy" family (at least privately, one suspects, that a professional woman in her mid-40s would choose to give birth to a "defective" child). Those further to the left seem disgusted and outraged that people like this exist at all, let alone that they be given an opportunity to attract popular support and campaign for one of the nation's highest offices. Even Gov. Palin's so-called "moderate" critics seem thoroughly put off by her lack of pedigree or advanced "education" at a "prestigious" institution, and by the fact that she hasn't "paid her dues" on their lecture/think-tank/book-signing/cocktail-party circuits. They are dismayed by the firmness of her traditional values and that she doesn't seem to share their non-divisive, "big tent" views. They'll insist that their real objection is to her lack of "experience" in national affairs, although then they'd have to admit that Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and even Barack Obama were similarly handicapped when elected. No, I think what really offends them is her non-intellectualism (not anti-intellectualism), her non-elitism, and her lack of deference to the sacred cows of the day--including, of course, them.

Why do the elites of politics, academia, and the media, as well as the left loonies, continue to vilify Sarah Palin? Because they sense her continuing appeal to a large portion of the American public, despite all the calumnies that they have heaped upon her (for example, in a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Dec. 12-14 2008, Gov. Palin was a strong second on a list of the most-admired women in America, behind Hillary Clinton but ahead of Oprah Winfrey). They recognize, despite their insistence to the contrary, that many still share her traditional values and her conservative principles. What's more, she's pretty, personable, gives a good speech (for example, her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention), and connects with crowds as effectively as The One himself (her introduction speech when presented as John McCain's running mate in Dayton, Ohio was one of the most stunning political moments I've ever seen). The Left and the Elites are clearly unnerved by her, by the way she electrified people all over the country with her friendly, plainspoken, enthusiastic manner and her unashamed espousal of things they deeply believe in. They clearly fear that the values Gov. Palin represents will become the foundation of a movement that could spread across the nation like a prairie fire, with charismatic leaders like her. And that would cripple the power and authority of the Elites.

So, they must continue to marginalize her, to portray her as a ditz, a crook, a degenerate, or all of these. They must keep the pathetic rumor-mills cranking day and night, in hopes that it will be enough to finally kill off this Rasputin in lipstick. The relentless din, they hope, will eventually get us all to swallow the Big Lie and submit unthinkingly to their infallible Leadership.

Perhaps Sarah Palin wasn't quite ready for the office of Vice-President at this time. Or, maybe the country wasn't quite ready for her. Because or regardless of the Left/Elite hate campaign, she might not run for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2012, and might not come out on top even if she does. But those who shared her vision of America and felt the excitement she generated--about which I'll write more soon--must remember the formula she revealed, much to the discomfiture of the Left/Elite, for the ultimate political triumph of that vision. If our new President loses his way, we'll need it.