Curious

I'm curious to know whether my Republican blog brothers regard Sarah Palin's success in helping candidates get elected as a good thing for your party.

Culture clash

Adam Lambert, Shaun White, and Sarah Palin appear tonight on the second night of Leno's return to the Tonight Show. Here's a little video of the guests backstage.

Update: Whisper1111 on Twitter names Shaun/Sarah/Adam "the lion, the witch, and the wardrobe".

Update II: Adam's performance here (illegitimate) and here (legit Leno video, but takes forever to load).

Update III: Embedding from Hulu:

As I was saying...

McCain/Palin in a squeaker, global warming is a fraud, Ayers wrote Barry's book, and ACORN is a corrupt organization.

Three out of four ain't bad.

Sarah's family

Can I just say to Sarah Palin that, under Obama's plan, her parents and Trig are welcome to keep their current health care coverage. Sorry to spoil her frothing and ranting fun.

Shatner does Palin

Sarah watch

Sarah Palin shows us what she's going to be doing until she runs in 2012. As Ezra puts it:

You could no more argue with this op-ed than you could drive a car made out of candy. Though it looks like one thing, it's actually another. And that other is a declaration of political intent: Palin is going to spend the next couple of years trying to act as leader of the opposition. She'll start with what she knows: Drill, baby, drill. And she'll start where she knows. In the media.

She's going to be everywhere, all the time, spewing stuff that is one cell deep, until she's got her patter down on the big national issues.

I can't believe NOTHING about Sarah on SSJ

I'm gone for a few days and almost totally cut-off from the news of the world with one exception: Wimbledon. Thankfully, no MJ. And when I get back to a newspaper yesterday, I see where Palin has "resigned" (i.e. quit). And there is not one word on SSJ about that?????

I read a great piece in the paper I saw by Maureen Dowd on this - it was so right on. If I get motivated, I'll try to find it and link it.

Where is Scooter on this? Where is "Anonymous" who was the biggest SP cheerleader around?

UPDATE: link to Dowd op-ed.

Feral Hogs Beware!

Gov. Palin would be proud.

Per the Houston Chronicle:


AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas House on Thursday tentatively approved a bill encouraging hunters to take on wild pigs from the air.

Blog integrity

Blog integrity matters to me. I don’t want to post anything untrue. When I get a fact wrong, I want to be corrected, so I can post an update and offer an apology. (I’m speaking for myself, but I believe that everyone who posts here has the same ethic and in fact have demonstrated that commitment to truth here.)

In November, I posted an entry about a Sarah Palin story that had been reported in the mainstream media. I’ve learned that it was this post that led to our blog brother Michael opting to end his participation here. Specifically, it's my understanding that he felt he couldn't participate in a blog that perpetrated a falsehood and perpetuated it in the face of the truth. I, for one, miss Michael here and would like to coax him back. I don't think I committed the ethical violation he thinks I did.

Let’s start with the underlying facts about that Sarah Palin story. (I know, I know... it feels like such ancient history.)

Actually, there were two mainstream media stories on the topic. First, there was Story A. On Nov. 5, 2008, Fox News and others reported that according to unnamed sources within the McCain campaign, Sarah Palin did not know that South Africa was a country and that she didn’t know which countries were part of NAFTA.

Story B came out a few days later stating that Martin Eisenstadt was the source for Story A.

Then, on Nov. 10, the news came that Martin Eisenstadt was a prankster; he had no connection to the McCain campaign. This meant that Story B was a hoax. In some news accounts, the distinction between stories A and B was blurred, giving the impression that Story A had also been proved a hoax, whereas really only Story B was disproved by the revelation of Eisenstadt’s true identity. Fox still stands by Story A: they have sources, still unnamed who are not Martin Eisenstadt, who claim Sarah Palin didn’t know the countries in NAFTA.

Now, turning to my blog entry about the story...

On Nov. 5, I posted this
entry:


This is phrased in an “if this is true” construction. Set that aside for the moment (I’ll come back to it) and take the post as a pronouncement of the truth of the story. On post date, Nov. 5, I had no reason to believe it wasn’t accurate; there had been no reporting counter to it. And I don’t think anyone thinks it wasn’t OK to post it the day I posted it.

In the following days, when the Eisenstadt hoax was perpetrated and uncovered, the news stories were fuzzy. It wasn’t clear to me then whether the hoax was limited to Story B (the identity of the sources) or if Story A was also a hoax. Michael’s interpretation was that Story A was a hoax.

On Nov. 11, Michael posted on it, citing Hot Air.

Michael also commented on my post, wondering if we could agree that my post should be retracted and quoted this text:

He says there’s no way she didn’t know Africa was a continent, and whoever is saying she didn’t must be distorting “a fumble of words.” He talked to her about all manner of issues relating to Africa, from failed states to the Sudan. She was aware from the beginning of the conflict in Darfur, which is followed closely in evangelical churches, and was aware of Clinton’s AIDS initiative. That basically makes it impossible that she thought all of Africa was a country._On not knowing what countries are in NAFTA, Biegun was part of the conversation that led to that accusation and it convinces him “somebody is acting with a high degree of maliciousness.” He was briefing Palin before a Univision interview, and talking to her about trade issues. He rolled through NAFTA, CAFTA, and the Colombia FTA. As he talked, people were coming in and out of the room, handing Palin things, etc. She was distracted from what Biegun was saying, and said, roughly, “Ok, who’s in NAFTA, what the deal with CAFTA, what’s up the FTA?”—her way, Biegun says, of saying “rack them and stack them,” begin again from the start. “Somebody is taking a conversation and twisting it maliciously,” he says.

Michael provided no link to this. The quoted source, “Biegun”, wasn’t familiar to me and the text included no explanation of who he was. Given the absence of background info, I admit I didn’t pay any attention to it. That was an error on my part and I apologize. In preparing this post, I Googled the text from Michael’s comment to see if I could determine where it came from and I learned that it came from a National Review story and that Steve Biegun was involved with briefing Palin during the campaign.

So there was and there remains a discrepancy between professional media reports: a) Fox has two unnamed sources that say Story A is true; and b) National Review has a named, credible (as far as I know) source that says that Story A is not true. What’s an amateur blogger to do with such a situation?

Sure, one should be skeptical of unnamed sources. Someone may be lying or they may have misinterpreted something Palin said during debate prep. (Of course, the Watergate story was revealed by unnamed sources while others who were on the record lied to cover the story up.) It’s also possible that all the sources are telling the truth and both Fox and National Review are correct; maybe Biegun didn’t converse with Palin on these topics until after the unnamed sources had had a first discussion with her about them during which she learned some things.

Given the muddiness of the situation, I don’t think I had an ethical obligation to update or retract my post about the Palin Story A (and I did not post on Story B, so had nothing to correct in that regard). I’m open to input from my blog brothers on this, though. If we have a rule that we need to post on every competing version of stories we post about, I think we may have a lot of remedial blogging to do.

Yet another issue raised by my post is one of construction. I framed my post with an if-this-is-true format. It was a hedge, because I had some skepticism about whether it could be true. Michael made the case, using a hyperbolic example, that couching a post in an “if it’s true that...” construction doesn’t cure the post of being unethical if the “that” is untrue. I think he's generally right about that; and I agree that correction is warranted when it turns out to not be true. I do think, though, that hypothetical questions (that are by definition in an “if true” format and typically conjure something not true or not proven) are useful in finding the limits of others’ positions.

Fun with Fox

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Fox News Fear Imbalance

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

The Inauguration

As the rather lonely right-wing nutcase of my office, I must say the mood here is something else. Free ‘que in the kitchen in 20 minutes for those who want to watch there. I don’t remember getting a free lunch for the Reagan funeral.

This is an email making its rounds today:

Last Official Act as President

In what he hoped would be the capstone to his eight years as President, George W. Bush today signed an executive order repealing the English language.

Scrawling his name on the official document, Mr. Bush said that in abolishing English he had vanquished his "greaterest enemy."

For Mr. Bush, the executive order represents the realization of a longstanding dream that began in 2001 when he declared an official War on Grammar.

The President followed up that declaration of war in 2003 when he signed an executive order cancelling the agreement between nouns and verbs.

Mr. Bush's decision to repeal the English language could complicate matters for his successor, President-elect Barack Obama, who is scheduled to deliver his inaugural address tomorrow, presumably in English.

But thoughts of Mr. Obama seemed far away during today's jubilant Oval Office ceremony, which Mr. Bush summed up in four words: "I can has legacy."

Mr. Bush's executive order also drew high praise from a fellow Republican, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska: "Being that the English language can and has been used in confusing and also too in harming ordinary Americans, knowing that it no longer can or will be used in doing that is something positive that this is doing also."

Saracuda

John O'Sullivan in the WSJ on the Prime Minister and the Governor of Alaska:

Inevitably, Lloyd Bentsen's famous put-down of Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debate is resurrected, such as by Paul Waugh (in the London Evening Standard) and Marie Cocco (in the Washington Post): "Newsflash! Governor, You're No Maggie Thatcher," sneered Mr. Waugh. Added Ms. Coco, "now we know Sarah Palin is no Margaret Thatcher -- and no Dan Quayle either!"

Jolly, rib-tickling stuff. But, as it happens, I know Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher is a friend of mine. And as a matter of fact, Margaret Thatcher and Sarah Palin have a great deal in common.

Stewart on bailouts

John Stewart comments on the difference between Congress' attitude about bailouts for the auto industry as opposed to its attitude about bailouts for the financial industry:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Autoerotic Explanation

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

While I don't agree with his conclusion that Congress should give Detroit the money, I suspect he's right about why the financial industry was treated differently.

Holy Cow

CLARIFICATION: Everything in this post is a HOAX/PARODY.


"While a state congressman, Barack Obama used to pimp out his wife Michelle and his two young daughters on the streets of Chicago for dime bags of crack."

Stunning, if it's true. Steph, I think you should be able to get your money back. I'm guessing you wouldn't have contributed had you known that he was pimping out his wife and two young daughters on the streets of Chicago for dime bags of crack. True or not, the party is destroying him by telling these tales.

This reporting is coming from various sources, including Newsweek. I guess they will now be lumped into the ever-expanding list of "conservative media" outlets. He is woefully un-qualified for the office of president. If he pimped out his wife and two young daughters on the streets of Chicago for dime bags of crack, I would suggest to you that he isn't qualified to be the mayor of Chicago. Then again, Chicago has been electing corrupt politicians forever. Guess things are VERY different up there.

There's speculation that the sources for these stories were fans of Hillary’s so they're sandbagging him on behalf of Hill with an eye to 2012. But the DNC is dispatching lawyers to Illinois to look into it which sounds more like a full-party effort to undo him.

I heard this subject discussed today on a leftie radio program. Their answer was, of course, no they did not have a duty to replace him. Here was the reasoning: If you (Biden) felt that you were better for the country as Vice-President than Palin, then you say nothing because if you do, you lose. If you win and Obama becomes President, the WH has people that can and will tell him to stop pimping out his wife and two young daughters for dime bags of crack.

Not quite sure I followed that logic, but they are grasping at anything try and not blame Cokehead Barry.

Not that I'm a prayerful person, but if I were, I would pray to whomever that Obama runs in 2012. If he is the best the lefties can come up with, THAT is the ultimate clue to show how far the Democrat party has fallen. Talking about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Can we agree on this?

If it is true that campaign staff learned that Obama pimped out his wife and two young daughters for dime bags of crack, did they not have a responsibility to the people of this country to replace him on the ticket? Was it OK for them to view this as simply an adversarial process where they had the right to try to win with him?

I say they had a duty to replace him.

And what I'm trying to ask shouldn't be a partisan question. Does a party have a smidgeon of a fiduciary duty to provide candidates with enough crack so they don’t have to pimp out their wives and young daughters for dime bags of crack? (And, btw, I would not be surprised if his crack habit started at Columbia with Ayers.) I suspect we haven't thought about it before because the parties have never submitted someone so thoroughly hooked on crack.

Hey I’m not slandering Obama, the DNC did. I'm asking an earnest question: did your party have a fiduciary duty to remove him when they learned he was pimping out his wife and two young daughters for dime bags of crack?

Per CNN, on the Obama infighting:

One source involved in preparing him for interviews and the presidential debate told CNN "he had been pimping out his wife and two young daughters for dime bags of crack for 10 years."

Priceless.

Gloating post of the day

Per CNN, on the Palin infighting:

One source involved in preparing her for interviews and the vice
presidential debate told CNN "she had not paid attention to a single policy debate that's gone on in this country for 10 years."

Priceless.

Can we agree on this?

If it is true that campaign staff learned that Sarah Palin a) believed that Africa was a country, not a continent OR b) that South Africa was a region of Africa rather than a country, OR c) that she could not identify the parties to NAFTA, did they not have a responsibility to the people of this country to replace her on the ticket? Was it OK for them to view this as simply an adversarial process where they had the right to try to win with her?

I say they had a duty to replace her.

She's healthy

No news in Palin's medical summary. Why not release this earlier?

Steph would have posted this

in the interest of "fairness" since she posted the first report*, but I beat her to it:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- A report has cleared Gov. Sarah Palin of ethics violations in the firing of her public safety commissioner.
The report, released Monday, said: "There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters."

*Semi-correction: I can't find it, but I know Steph raised it somewhere. Unless she didn't.

What's with Palin's medical records?

They were promised, but haven't yet been provided. Strikes me as odd.

Scared

I know that no one's defending Palin on her stunning amendment views, but I just can't get over my horror, so I'll offer more on on the topic. This is A. Serwer writing at Tapped who says it better than I can:

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
This understanding of the First Amendment, not as freedom of speech, but as freedom of speech limited to me and those who share my political views, coupled with a freedom from criticism of those views, is the most frightening interpretation of the Constitution I've ever heard in my life. Those "attacks" from the MSM are protected under the Constitution, Palin's "right" to be "free" from such "attacks" (read: critical coverage) is most definitely not.

But this bizarre interpretation is at the core of the right's complaints about unfavorable media coverage. Rush Limbaugh typically invokes this "understanding" of the First Amendment when criticizing groups like Media Matters, accusing them of being "Stalinist" for recording his nationally broadcast programming and calling him out on inaccuracies or flagrant bigotries. In Limbaugh and Palin's minds, the First Amendment protects not only their speech but shields any criticism of said speech.

And as Ben Smith points out, the First Amendment exists to protect people from government, not the other way around, which is what makes Palin's interpretation of the Constitution so deeply alarming.