also:

The Big Lie About the Israel “Delegitimization” Threat

By Barry Rubin*

Golda Meir, Israel’s prime minister, once memorably said, “Better a bad press than a good epitaph.” In the Western world, where a cushioned elite increasingly mistakes headlines or academic studies for the real world, the difference between the material world and words is often lost.

At the same time, we are getting something along these lines: “Joe [Israel] is a stupid, lazy, dishonest, lying, no-good criminal who deserves to be punished. And you know what his main problem is? People saying stuff like that about him.”

Let me give two examples and then point out why this tells us a great deal about the Western world’s malaise and why Israel should ignore such advice. Keep reading because the last point is the most important of all.

One can always depend on Roger Cohen for a good quote since he never seems able to open his mouth without saying something stupid that he thinks his wisdom. Here’s how he begins his latest column:

“I took a short break for my daughter’s bat mitzvah, Israel killed nine activists on a Gaza-bound ship in international waters, and its bungled raid prompted international uproar and Jewish soul-searching.”

He couldn’t be more obvious. First, he lets us know that he’s a Jew (bat mitzvah) and then he let’s forth with no less than five anti-Israel points in 21 words:

Killed nine (no mention of the attack on the soldiers) activists (no mention of lots of evidence that they were radical Islamist Jihadists seeking martyrdom), international waters (implication this is some kind of piratical aggressive act and no mention that this is how blockades are conducted, international law experts point out it was legal, see Cuban Missile Crisis, British operation in the Falklands, etc.), bungled raid (it is Israel’s fault that it went in without lethal force and faced greater violence than expected), Jewish soul-searching (Oy! Where have we gone wrong! We used to let people beat us up and murder us and now Israel-gasp!-defends itself).

There is an Arab proverb to the effect that the guy hits me and then runs off screaming that he was assaulted. (more…)

From Michelle Malkin

Obama’s FCC, liberal churches, and the “media justice” mob

My syndicated column today (reprinted below) probes the FCC/left-wing church alliance to silence conservative critics of illegal immigration through “hate speech” regulation. Tip of the iceberg.

Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator first broke the story of how United Church of Christ officials met with kindred spirit/FCC Commissioner Michael Copps earlier this month before launching a nationwide campaign to pressure the FCC to crack down on cable TV and talk radio figures.

The motto of the “So We Might See” anti-”hate speech” campaign is: “Without media justice, there will be no social justice!” The same Marx-loving “social justice” crowd is behind the “media justice” mob — including George Soros’s Open Society Institute, Media Democracy Fund, and Media Matters; the Ford Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; etc., etc., etc. Their goal: government redistribution of media wealth. As “The Media Justice Fund” put it: The movement “is grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies.” And there’s that phrase “transformative change” again:

* Media change of all kinds must expose and directly confront the mechanics of structural racism and systemic oppression.
* Leaders from historically marginalized communities must be developed as effective media activists and strategic movement communicators.
* Media policy advocacy and strategic communications are more effective when clearly relevant to the primary justice issues of the movement for racial justice, economic and gender equity, and youth rights.
* Compelling communications and media activism campaigns must be both rooted in critical issues and coordinated across issue, sector, and region for national impact.
* When justice sectors strengthen communications strategies, center the use of culture as a communications tool, employ winning frames and messages, and strengthen their influence over media rules and rights, the possibilities for transformative change skyrocket.

“Transformative change” = a media landscape purged of the Right’s most powerful voices.

The White House communications shop gives two thumbs up, no doubt.

***

How the FCC and liberal churches are scheming to shut you up
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

The war on conservative speech has moved from the White House to your neighborhood pews. Left-wing church leaders want the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on “hate speech” over cable TV and right-leaning talk radio airwaves. President Obama’s speech-stifling bureaucrats seem all too happy to oblige.

Over the past week, an outfit called “So We Might See” has conducted a nationwide fast to protest “media violence” – specifically, “anti-immigrant hate speech, which employs flawed arguments to appeal to fears rather than facts.” Their ire is currently aimed at Fox News and conservative talk show giants. But how long before they target ordinary citizens who call in to complain about the government’s systemic refusal to enforce federal sanctions on illegal alien employers or the bloody consequences of lax deportation policies?

The “interfaith coalition for media justice” is led by the United Church of Christ. Yes, that’s the same church of Obama’s race-baiting, Jew-bashing ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright. Other members include the Presbyterian News Service, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the National Council of Churches. (The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has denied being a part of the campaign, despite being listed as a coalition member. So has the Methodist church.) These religious liberals have partnered with the National Hispanic Media Coalition, which filed a petition in January demanding that the FCC collect data, seek public comment, and “explore options” for combating “hate speech” from staunch critics of illegal immigration.

Open-borders groups have sought to marginalize, criminalize, and demonize those of us who have raised our voices for years about lax immigration enforcement — and to impose an Orwellian Fairness Doctrine-style policy on illegal alien amnesty opponents. During the presidential campaign, the National Council of La Raza launched a “We Can Stop the Hate” project to redefine tough policy criticism from the Right as “hate.” La Raza president Janet Murguia called for TV networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves and argued that hate speech should not be tolerated, “even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights,” according to the NYTimes.

Now, the gag-wielders have a friend in the White House – and they won’t let him forget it. Their FCC petition calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration critics cites Obama’s own words in a fall 2008 speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Obama told his amnesty-supporting audience that he knew they were “counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling the airwaves.”

Unsurprisingly, far Left billionaire George Soros’s money is backing the “So We Might See”/National Hispanic Media Coalition effort. And remember that the Soros-funded Center for American Progress has provided the Obama White House with its Fairness Doctrine-embracing “diversity czar,” Mark Lloyd.
(more…)

From Jerry Breen

From Big Hollywood

The NEA, The White House, The Lies and The Cover-Up
by Patterico

Big Hollywood today reveals the extensive proof that shows the White House used the National Endowment for the Arts to push a political agenda favorable to President Obama. But it gets worse: the Administration lied about it, and tried to cover it up.

You already know the background: an NEA spokesman participated in a conference call designed to encourage artists to further Obama’s legislative agenda. This was revealed back in August at Big Hollywood. What is new today is the full transcript of the call — and how clearly the NEA was involved in urging artists to propagandize for Obama.

Naturally, the NEA and the Obama administration denied this. According to the Los Angeles Times (in a blog post, of course, and not an actual newsprint story), the NEA denied any purpose to further a legislative agenda:

The NEA issued a statement saying that it took part in the conference to help inform arts organizations about opportunities to sponsor volunteer service projects themselves, or have their members take part in other volunteer efforts. “This call was not a means to promote any legislative agenda, and any suggestions to that end are simply false,” the statement said.

The White House similarly denied any desire to further a legislative agenda:

Responding by e-mail Wednesday, White House spokesman Shin Inouye said the Aug. 10 teleconference “was not meant to promote any legislative agenda — it was a discussion on the United We Serve effort and how all Americans can participate.”

Oh really?

If Big Media had been paying attention, it could have demonstrated these denials to be rank lies. But Big Media fell asleep, leaving isolated organs of conservative media to pick up the ball and run it down the field. So, now, today, the full transcript is revealed, showing how badly Big Media missed the story.

The newly revealed full transcript of the call clearly demonstrates that the NEA participated in an unseemly (and possibly illegal) effort to influence artists to propagandize on behalf of the president’s political agenda. Let’s look at some aspects of the call that make it clear that, as Patrick Courrielche says with admirable restraint: “The NEA and the White House did encourage a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address issues under contentious national debate.”
(more…)

By Lou Pritchett

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America’ crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. (more…)

By Dick Morris

In an effort to promote liquidity and boost the economy, the Federal Reserve yesterday announced plans to grow the money supply by another 50 percent to 60 percent. This ignores the profound observation of Gen. George Patton: “You can’t push a string.”

When the Fed expands the money supply, it doesn’t pass out $100 bills on Broadway. It gives lines of credit to banks and other financial intermediaries to generate some money and also buys up Treasury bills in circulation to pump out more cash.

But the money supply has already expanded by 271 percent in the past five months. Why does the Fed expect what hasn’t worked to suddenly start working?

Right now, there is about $800 billion plus currency in circulation sitting in wallets, purses and cash registers around the country. Another $800 billion is sitting in a vault at the Federal Reserve Board, for a total monetary supply of about $1.6 trillion.

In a vault? Yes. When Congress voted the TARP program to bail out banks, the banks actually took only a small part of the money. The rest they used to offset losses on their balance sheets while letting the Fed hold onto the money.

Why didn’t the banks want the money? Because they’re not about to make loans in this economy. They’re more than happy to let the cash sit at the Fed earning them interest. (The Fed decided to start paying interest last November).

So now the Fed will, in essence, be creating another trillion of money supply to sit in the vault alongside the $800 billion already there. The new money will remain idle for the same reason the old money has because banks won’t make loans in this environment.

And what of the money that is going out the door to buy Treasury bills? Those selling Treasuries won’t run out and spend the money on flat-screen TVs. With higher taxes coming up next year and the economy in the tank, they won’t spend it or lend it they’ll probably just turn around and buy more T-bills.
(more…)

From Red Maryland

Last month I wrote about how Governor O’Malley and his green allies are working hard to raise our energy costs. Well the Green House Gas Reduction Act of 2009 has been filed SB 278/HB 315. It aims to reduce the state’s GHG emissions 25% from 2006 levels by 2020. The Department of Environment would be tasked with producing a plan cough—cap and trade—cough. The bill exempts the state’s manufacturing base. Obviously they caved and joined the greens in passing the costs on to…us.

Section 2-102 states:

“MANUFACTURING” DOES NOT INCLUDE:
(I) ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PRIMARILY A SERVICE;

(II) ACTIVITIES THAT ARE INTELLECTUAL, ARTISTIC, OR
CLERICAL IN NATURE;

(III) PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES, INCLUDING GAS, ELECTRIC,

So energy production, in particular electricity, is not excluded. By far, the cheapest form of electricity is from coal fired plants and will come under this regulatory tax. Whereas wind and solar, which produce no GHGs—and are more expensive to generate and transmit—will be favored under this new mandate. Well heeled and politically connected alternative energy barons like former Maryland Democratic Party Chair Wayne Rogers, and Clipper Windpower’s James Dehlsen (a delegate to Kyoto) stand to reap major windfalls. Annapolis will pick the winners and losers.

In another example that political reality in Annapolis is the direct opposite of the economic reality working families face, section 2-1206 (4) reads:

IN DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN REQUIRED BY § 2–1205 OF THIS SUBTITLE, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL:

ENSURE THAT THE PLAN DOES NOT DECREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF RELIABLE AND AFFORDABLE ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND STATEWIDE FUEL SUPPLIES…

What kind of Orwellian newspeak is this? Increased electricity costs will be a direct consequence of this bill.

The inanity doesn’t stop there:

DO NOT DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACT LOW–INCOME, LOW– TO MODERATE–INCOME, OR MINORITY COMMUNITIES OR ANY OTHER PARTICULAR CLASS OF ELECTRICITY RATEPAYERS;

It will disproportionately affect low income ratepayers.

PRODUCE A NET ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE STATE’S ECONOMY AND A NET INCREASE IN JOBS IN THE STATE; AND

It will do the exact opposite.

ENCOURAGE NEW EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE STATE RELATED TO ENERGY CONSERVATION, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SUPPLY, AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES.

It will do that, but only by destroying other jobs in the process.

Here is a list of your legislators, who want to foist this economic albatross on the state.
(more…)

by Regina Sztajer

The other day I saw a magazine cover with Barack Obam’s picture front and center surrounded by the likenesses of Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. So who will Obama really be as president? Will it be the messiah or some past president? Or will it be a combination of them all?

Let’s take Roosevelt on first!! Obama has unveiled a 21st century New Deal copying from FDR’s model of the first new deal of the Great Depression in the 1930’s. Number one, we are not in a depression but rather a recession. It is the doom and gloom of the mass media that is terrifying the life out of the American people.

Obama has added a New Deal to his economic agenda. He plans to wed job creation with infrastructure upgrades. He will also “launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen,” ( dyn.politico.com 12/6/08.) His key initiatives are education, energy, and health care that are all tied back to jobs. Roads and bridges, energy, schools, broadband and electronic medical records are the five key points of the economic plan and he plans that will save 2.5 million jobs in the next two years. Obama, as the old saying goes your no FDR and his New Deal did not get America out of the depression it was World War 2.

I’ll tell you wants wrong with the economy it’s greed!!! House Ways and Means Chairman (D) Rep. Charles Rangle is currently facing four investigations by the House ethics panel for possible misuse of his office. He paid $57,500 from his campaign account to a web design company owned by his son for over two years. He paid more for Internet services than any other House member during the same period. His son ran the company from his home in Maryland. Compound that with hundreds of our legislators who used their power and influence to obtain money for pork deals to satisfy the folks back home in their states so that they will be assured being re-elected. Millions possibly billions were wasted on bridges to nowhere. Another raw deal was that corporations were paying their CEO’s millions for hush money to keep the fact quite they were facing bankruptcy.

Obama hold onto you seat your not having your face on Mt. Rushmore yet because the honeymoon your on will not last forever. Nope we are not ready to have a national holiday for your birthday just yet.This country is facing terrorists, like those who killed about 200 people in India last week. People are hurting economically in this recession and your talking about your rosy future plans. It is now that we need a defensive plan against extinction from our enemies and an economic plan to keep people in the jobs they have and the possibility to return to the jobs they were laid off from.

No the Mayors and state governors can’t tax, spend and then come for hand outs when they run dry of funds. Bailouts and handouts we the citizens are not entitled to and neither are they. He keeps on promising but will you pay up? He raised money for his election fine and dandy but how will he do at tackling the real problems this country has gotten itself into? (more…)

From Jerry Breen

From Jerry Breen

From Jerry Breen

Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Some reactions to the debate tonight from the blogosphere and the MSM (transcript to debate here). But first….Joe Biden’s outright lies during the debate:

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people’s health insurance coverage — they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska — she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it’s not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation — he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won’t pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

And now onto the reactions.

Hugh Hewitt:

After the wave of assalts on her , Sarah Palin shows the nation why John McCain picked her and why the center-right loves her. She has a great night. Joe Biden does well too, but this was all about Sarah Palin, and she delivered a strong, strong message of energy and change.

The one great line of the debate: “It is so obvious that I am a Washington outsider,” Palin says, “soemone not used to the way you guys operate” as she points out Joe Biden’s attempt to doubletalk his way to Obama’s position.

Ramesh Ponnuru:

Any conservative who was white-knuckled going into this is relaxing by now. There were some points where she was a bit more platitudinous than one would ideally want, but overall–she’s cleaning up. Biden is sighing more as the night goes on, and I can see why.

Jim Geraghty:

My thinking is that it’s a tie or near-tie, which is very good news for Palin. Both played to their strengths. Biden was a bit less of a blowhard than I expected, but I’m pretty sure he got some basic facts wrong. His “I was taken out of context” excuse on the “no coal plants here in America” line is laughable. He had some classic Biden moments, confusing Articles I and II in the Constitution and saying America spent more in less than one month in Iraq than in seven years in Afghanistan” off by, oh, 2000%, says the Western Standard.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand… I was a Gloomy Gus heading into this. I continue to wonder how so many Americans were instantly triggered to a frothing rage by this woman’s debut on the national stage. But after some subpar television interviews, I braced for a rough debate.

Instead, she provided much crisper answers, much more professional. She didn’t seem overbriefed; in fact she was able to rattle off a level of policy detail that worked for the conversational style of her answers.

Did she pass the could-she-lead-in-a-time-of-crisis test? Let me put it this way. I could picture the woman on stage tonight leading in a crisis. I couldn’t picture the woman interviewed by Gibson and Couric doing that.

She’s a natural saleswoman. She certainly saved her prospects for national office in 2012, if she so chooses. She certainly, my guess is, reenergized the GOP base and independents, centrists, and undecided, if they’re honest with themselves, will conclude that they witnessed an impressive woman tonight. Many Democrats will continue to loathe her.

Erik Erickson:

Sarah Palin just field dressed Joe Biden like a moose. She was awesome. She connected with the people. She had fun. She was relaxed. She was awesome.

Biden literally blew this debate — sighing heavily in the microphone. Rolling his eyes. Being condescending. Flagrantly lying about policies that Palin repeatedly called him on.

Ifill herself did wind up showing her bias. She rarely gave Palin the last word. By the end of the debate it was almost 3 to 1 with Biden getting the last word. She also tried to disrupt Palin’s relationship with evangelicals by framing gay marriage around Alaska, mischaracterizing it too. LIkewise with global warming.

The line of the night will be “Say it ain’t so, Joe.” Palin was willing to break with the GOP and show how Biden and Obama have not ever broken with the Democrats.

She was smiling, gregarious, and clearly enjoying the night.

Michelle Malkin:

First, I would like to see all the Sarah doubters and detractors in the Beltway/Manhattan corridor eat their words.

Eat them.

Sarah Palin is the real deal. Five weeks on the campaign trail, thrust onto the national stage, she rocked tonight’s debate.

She was warm, fresh, funny, confident, energetic, personable, relentless, and on message. She roasted Obama’s flip-flops on the surge and tea-with-dictators declarations, dinged Biden’s bash-Bush rhetoric, challenged the blame-America defeatism of the Left, and exuded the sunny optimism that energized the base in the first place.

McCain has not done many things right. But Sarah Palin proved tonight that the VP risk he took was worth it.

Markos Moulitos from the Daily KOS:

Sarah Palin won!

Amanda Carpenter:

Palin was at her strongest debating Biden on foreign policy… Palin deftly reminded viewers, over and over, Biden had openly criticized Barack Obama’s positions on the war, funding and withdrawal throughout the Democratic primaries. “I watched those debates, so I know what that was about,” she grinned. She knowingly gave the media an open invitation to replay those old tapes against the contradictory statements he made this evening.

McCain camp:

“Tonight, Governor Palin proved beyond any doubt that she is ready to lead as Vice President of the United States. She won this debate, putting Joe Biden on defense on energy, foreign policy, taxes and the definition of change. Governor Palin laid bare Barack Obama’s record of voting to raise taxes, opposing the surge in Iraq, and proposing to meet unconditionally with the leaders of state sponsors of terror. The differences between the Obama-Biden ticket and the McCain-Palin ticket could not have been clearer. The American people saw stark contrasts in style and worldview. They saw Joe Biden, a Washington insider and a 36-year Senator, and Governor Palin, a Washington outsider and a maverick reformer. Governor Palin was direct, forceful and a breath of fresh air.” –Jill Hazelbaker, McCain-Palin 2008 Communications Director

Stop the ACLU:

Both Biden and Palin did considerably better then McCain and Obama did during their debate. Biden kept most of the cocky foot in mouth disease missing, but, some of his heavy breathing, and his near meltdown at the end is a small worry. Palin started out OK, but then really picked it up, matching life and executive experience with direct talk to middle America. Joe kept going back to Bush, Bush, Bush. All in all, they both worked it, but, Sarah was on topic, on point, and really wacked Joe with a stick. I saw him move a few times like she pulled out a Birch switch to the hamstrings a few time!

The Anchoress:

I thought both debaters helped their candidates a bit tonight, and I will always like Joe Biden, but I will call Palin the winner, first because she had to prove she is not the caricature being developed by the media, and she did that, but also because of the stunning consensus of the Frank Luntz audience in St. Louis, who declared her the hands-down winner and expressed a real connection. When I saw that audience response to Palin I thought: here in a nutshell is why the other side has worked so vociferously to destroy her, so quickly. What the folks in St. Louis were talking about tonight (and they said they now thought she was “qualified” to be president is what Camille Paglia saw in Palin’s first, informal speech at her introduction. Sarah Palin unfiltered, is a force to be reckoned with.

Mark Levin:

I have been involved in and observed politics for a long time. Governor Palin is a truly unique national figure. She is down to earth, personable, and smart as hell. That’s right. She has been on the national scene for a little over a month, she has been campaigning everywhere, she has had to bone up on all kinds of national issues, and she has shown class throughout. Too often too many are persuaded by the mainstream media’s opinion and react to that. This should be another lesson in that regard. As for some of her populist views, she cannot openly campaign against the positions of her presidential running mate. She is the bright light in this campaign from my perspective.

Kathryn Jean Lopez:

Sarah Palin won this debate and puts the campaign in a great position to rail against the media. Whatever she did before this debate — prayed? – is what she should always fall back on. And my impression is what she does. And why she’s come so far so fast.

Sarah Palin is the breath of fresh air on the political scene so many hoped she is. And she’ll be honored to beat the guy who’s been in the Senate since she was in the second grade.

JammieWearingFool:

Poor old Joe looked defeated and tired, spewing his talking points in repetition while Governor Palin appealed to mainstream Americans.

No colossal gaffes from either side, but I was struck by the odd look on Biden’s face. When did he have plastic surgery? He looks very strange now.

Paul Mirengoff:

I thought that Joe Biden and Sarah Palin were both excellent tonight. Biden hammered McCain relentlessly, which is the traditional role of the vice presidential candidate. Palin, forced by circumstances to prove her merit to an increasingly skeptical electorate, accomplished that mission and then some. Having done so, she is once again in a position to help the ticket by energizing the conservative base and appealing to at least a segment of the undecided vote.

From a technical standpoint, it was Biden who had the more detailed command of the facts (and the greater ability to fudge them). He was able not just to hammer McCain, but to do so at a level of specificity that Palin could not address. And, on occasion, Palin missed easy opportunities to defend her running mate. I got the sense that, while Palin was getting up to speed on the basic issues, Biden was being prepped for an all-out assault on McCain. Palin got in her share of his shots at Obama, and some of them were quite effective. But, as I suggested, she could not afford to be as single-minded as Biden because she had a greater need to sell herself. Nor, it seems, is it in her nature to be purely a hatchet-woman.

~~~

In any event, Sarah Palin deserves tremendous credit. Three of the four candidates in this race have been debating off and on for a year and a half. All of them performed quite well in their latest round. Palin was entirely out of the loop until about a month ago. Yet her performance was mostly equal, and in some ways superior to, that of McCain, Obama, and Biden.

Ramesh Ponnuru again:

The big loser tonight was Tina Fey.

John Hawkins:

Palin wins, gets more great soundbites off, reassures Americans that she’s up to the job, and helps the ticket about as much as she could have during the debate. All in all, I was very happy with her performance.

Jules Crittenden:

Palin on style, general lifelikeness, failure to drone, ability to speak in simple declarative sentences. Shout out to her peeps was big. Biden might have had it on substance, though with the constant droning about percentages, intermingled with mumbling about amendments and double-reverse voting intricacies, it’s impossible to tell. Game effort to note that once upon a time, he was a real person. He gets points for the choke-up moment, however.

Considered take: Palin, darting around in a cute little coupe, handles all the foreign policy curves nicely and even negotiates that gay-marriage oil spill to get the checkered flag. Approximately one zillion American viewers who have been told for the past two weeks she’s a tongue-tied ignoramous are now wondering why they ever paid any attention to that MSM Palin and most other Americans love to hate. Biden’s Oldsmobile spun out at the starting line, never quite got that engine chugging on all eight cylinders, took his turns a little wide but managed to avoid the rail. No crash, but then again, turns out she didn’t need him to.

Stephen Spruiell:

I thought Palin did well, even though she missed some big opportunities. For instance, when Biden blamed the mortgage meltdown on deregulation, Palin mouthed some platitudes about greed and predatory lenders. She should have responded that no financial players needed stronger regulation more than government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that the Democrats consistently opposed any limitations on Fannie and Freddie’s activities. She did point out that McCain called for greater oversight of the GSEs in 2005, but I would have liked to have seen her convey in stronger terms the extent to which the GSEs caused this crisis, and how the Democrats bear a lot of responsibility for that.

Her folksiness was cloying at times, but no more so than Biden’s incessant references to his kitchen table and how much time he spends hanging out at Home Depot. And she dominated Biden on Iraq, because — like Hillary in those last few Obama-Clinton debates — he couldn’t come up with a convincing way to square his early support for the war with his later opposition to it. He found it even more difficult to square his shifting positions with Obama’s consistent opposition.

Andy McCarthy:

She’s the real deal. I admit: the bit about predatory lenders infuriated me, and I am concerned about her seeming adoption of Condi foreign policy. But both those positions are McCain’s positions — it’d be impossible for her to criticize them if she believed they should be criticized … I just wish she didn’t seem so enthusiastic about them.

All that said, though, she OWNED the last half of the debate, and when she — as a representative of normal people outside Washington — laughed at Biden for being for the war then being against the war, I thought she seemed in such total command she was wishing they could start the debate all over again. (And how moronic of Biden to counter that McCain voted against funding for the troops — does anyone on the planet earth outside the procedure-mongering Lilliputians on the Hill actually think McCain didn’t want the troops funded?)

Palin’s a star. Her instincts are practical and conservative, so I wish she weren’t so bound to McCain. (McCain should wish that too — that’s what’s made her so popular and given him a shot.) Watching her is fun. It’s like watching a rookie who’s taken the league by storm and is hitting .290, and you just know that in two years, she’ll be hitting .340 … while Biden is hitting .210 and belongs back in Double A.

Michael Graham:

For a typical American who had been convinced by the Partisan Press that Sarah Palin is an illiterate redneck who didn’t know Afghanistan from Alabama, she won this debate. She debated a geezer from the Washington establishment to a standstill and forced him into several erroneous statements (I would say “false,” but Sen. Biden talks so much without knowing what he’s talking about, he could be clueless rather than malicious).

Biden did vote for a war resolution. McCain did not vote, as Biden claimed, for the Obama tax hike. And Obama did absolutely nothing about the subprime mess at Fannie Mae except take record amounts of their money.

Sarah Palin wasn’t brilliant. She wasn’t able to adlib like Sen. Biden could to score additional points. She let quite a bit of Biden nonsense go unchallenged.

But six weeks into the race, she went toe-to-toe with a guy who’s run for president twice, and she held her own and even pushed him around a few times.

For the average voter, content was a wash which means this ended up as a personality contest. Which means she wins.

And that means John McCain goes into the next debate on a level playing field. She didn’t leave him in a hole.

More to come…

also:

Is America Ready for a Cylon President?

…not our usual focal point here at FA, and I apologize to any and all who are upset with this intermission, but I simply HAD to post this!!!! I’m an unapologetic BSG fan, and the irony of a McCain/Palin vs Tigh/Roslin ticket is just too amazing to ignore.

link

Finally:

Obama’s Fishy $200 Million

FUNNY MONEY
An auditor for the Federal Election Commission is attempting to have his bosses seek a formal investigation into the collection by the Obama for President campaign of more than $200 million in potentially illegal political donations, including millions of dollars of illegal, foreign donations, and has sought a request for assistance from the Department of Justice or Federal Bureau of Investigation. But the analyst’s requests have largely been ignored. “I can’t get anyone to move. I believe we are looking at a hijacking of our political system that makes the Clinton and Gore fundraising scandals pale in comparison. And no one here wants to touch it.”

One reasons cited by his superiors, says the analyst, is that involvement by the Justice Department or FBI would be indicative of a criminal investigation, something the FEC would prefer not take place a month before the presidential election. Such actions, though, have been used to scuttle Republican campaigns in the past, the most famous being the Weinberger case in the days leading up to the 1992 re-election bid of President George H.W. Bush.

$200 MILLION dollars?! wow. That’s not really a big CHANGE, but we can HOPE.

link

From Jerry Breen

I’m voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job
of spending the money I earn than I would.

I’m voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is
offended by it.

I’m voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad
guys will stop what they’re doing because they now think we’re good people.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it
will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten
years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

I’m voting Democrat becau se I’m not concerned about the slaughter of
millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed
to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away
to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe three or four pointy headed elitist
liberals need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe
kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe that when the terrorists don’t have
to hide from us over there, when they come over here I don’t want to have any
guns in the house to fight them off with.

I’m voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry what ever
I want. I’ve decided to marry my horse.

I’m voting Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a
gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15%
isn’t.
(more…)