| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
Happy Independence Day
Enjoy the fireworks, and never forget the reason for the holiday. 
(Click above to read the text of the Declaration of Independence)
Sarah Palin’s resignation: The morning after
If we in the blogosphere thought this holiday weekend was going to be a slow news weekend, Sarah Palin sure threw a wrench into that, eh? The reax to her resignation are still piling up at Memeorandum as people continue to speculate on the reasons she did it and what it means for her political future.
After sleeping on this, the more I think about it the more I believe her resignation had nothing to do with her wanting “time to prepare” for a 2012 run. It just doesn’t make sense, for all the reasons mentioned by myself and others yesterday:
1) Leaving before you have completed your first term as governor leaves you with little more executive experience than you had when you were picked to be the vice presidential running mate of the Republican nominee, experience that was a bone of contention primarily with the opposition (we’ll just ignore for this post anyway the fact that their candidate had even less experience, but I digress).
2) The “political” thing to do would be to stay in office through your first term, and possibly run for a second term to have additional executive experience under your belt. Sarah didn’t strike me as the type who would run for a second term, as she would have had to immediately begin running for President since her 2nd term as governor (assuming she would have been reelected) would be starting at the beginning of 2011. These days, presidential candidates get started on the campaigning very early.
3) If you’ve got presidential aspirations in mind and you’ve just resigned a year and a half before your first term as governor ends – well before the next presidential race, that is some powerful ammunition for your opponents to use against you. Regardless of whether or not she is a ‘quitter’, that is the perception (as ST reader GWR noted here) and these days perception is reality in politics (remember how Obama was – and still is – perceived as being “capable” of being President without a shred of evidence to back it up?) Not only that, but it looks like you were willing to abandon the post you were elected to out of sheer personal ambition for something bigger. It just doesn’t look good.
I know the left is hoping and salivating over the possibility that there is a “secret, emerging scandal” behind all this but I really don’t believe that’s what has happened here. Barring some as-yet undisclosed serious health issue with either her or a member of her family (which I pray is not the case), I really do think the routine attacks on her from a spiteful, hateful segment of the left, the ethics complaints, and the scapegoating of her by former McCain higher-ups all contributed to her deciding that “enough was enough.” The Vanity Fair hit piece which quoted mostly unnamed former McCain staffers was probably the straw that broke the camel’s back. It became too much.
Yes, all political candidates, especially those with their eyes on the WH, go through unrelenting scrutiny while running, but the viciousness against not only Palin but her family as well went beyond that and crossed a line. As Jim Geraghty reminds us, those types of attacks can get to even the strongest among us:
There was a lot in Palin’s meandering speech announcing her resignation that didn’t quite make sense, but one brief part that did was her mentioning of the ridicule of her infant son, Trig. Also note that in the past month or so, we’ve seen David Letterman joke about Alex Rodriguez knocking up one of her daughters. [...]
It’s one thing to step into the public spotlight and know that people are going to ridicule your intelligence, your appearance, your judgment, your voice and accent, etc. But it’s another to know that your loved ones will get that scrutiny, too, and in particular your children. Kids don’t pick their parents. I wrote about this here.
That spurred this terrifying thought: The lesson that the ruthless corners of the political world will take from the rise, fall, and departure of Sarah Palin that if you attack a politician’s children nastily enough and relentlessly enough, you can get anybody to quit.
Mark Steyn weighed in with a similar, even more depressing thought (via ST reader MD):
So Occam’s Razor leaves us with: Who needs this?
In states far from the national spotlight, politics still attracts normal people. You’re a mayor or a state senator or even the governor, but you lead a normal life. The local media are tough on you, but they know you, they live where you live, they’re tough on the real you, not on some caricature cooked up by a malign alliance of late-night comics who’d never heard of you a week earlier and media grandees supposedly on your own side who pronounce you a “cancer”.
Then suddenly you get the call from Washington. You know it’ll mean Secret Service, and speechwriters, and minders vetting your wardrobe. But nobody said it would mean a mainstream network comedy host doing statutory rape gags about your 14-year old daughter. You’ve got a special-needs kid and a son in Iraq and a daughter who’s given you your first grandchild in less than ideal circumstances. That would be enough for most of us. But the special-needs kid and the daughter and most everyone else you love are a national joke, and the PC enforcers are entirely cool with it.
Most of those who sneer at Sarah Palin have no desire to live her life. But why not try to – what’s the word? – “empathize”? If you like Wasilla and hunting and snowmachining and moose stew and politics, is the last worth giving up everything else in the hopes that one day David Letterman and Maureen Dowd might decide Trig and Bristol and the rest are sufficiently non-risible to enable you to prosper in their world? And, putting aside the odds, would you really like to be the person you’d have to turn into under that scenario?
National office will dwindle down to the unhealthily singleminded (Clinton, Obama), the timeserving emirs of Incumbistan (Biden, McCain) and dynastic heirs (Bush). Our loss.
Indeed.
Had McCain/Palin won, she wouldn’t be having to deal with the backstabbing McCain campaign officials because they wouldn’t be having to try and make excuses for why their candidate lost. Had they won, the “ethics complaints” filed against Governor Palin wouldn’t have happened, because she would no longer be Governor. Had they won, I believe you would have seen less scrutiny on Palin’s children, because the WH press corp has an unwritten rule about the children of presidents and vice presidents: hands off.
But they didn’t win, so it became open season part 2 not on McCain, but on Sarah Palin and her family from mostly the same crowd who would go ballistic if the types of attacks waged against both her and her children were made on Michelle Obama or any other female Democrat.
Her resigning stinks, but then again, so does the hypocrisy surrounding the jerks who took personal pleasure out of tearing her family down to the point where she decided that enough was enough.
Related:
Friday links – Palin resigning “within weeks,” Obama slammed on Honduras stance, etc
(Scroll for updates on Palin’s resignation)
Hey ya’ll – got a late start today on my errand running and am just now getting back. I suspect many of you are headed out of town for the holiday weekend, are already out of town, or are gearing up for fireworks displays. Whatever you do, have fun and be safe and – as always – remember the reason for the holiday: to celebrate out independence from those filthy Brits 
(and I say that with much love to our strongest ally on the world stage!).
Here are some links for your perusal this afternoon:
—– Obama is being slammed on his stance on the Honduras “coup”: Octavio Sánchez, a former public official in Honduras, writes in today’s CSM that what is going on in Honduras is not a “coup” but instead a “triumph” of the rule of law. Of course, anyone reading Fausta’s blog would have known this within hours of the so-called “coup” that it wasn’t – that gals’ on top of things, as always. James Kirchick pens a blistering attack on Obama’s Honduras “meddling” and proclaims that our celebrity President has chosen the wrong side. Erick Erickson takes a similar position, writing that “[Obama] aligns us with the interests of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and a long list of South American drug cartels.”
Hey, maybe it’s all part of the schmooze plan he embarked on during the Summit of the Americans conference he disgraced this country at earlier this year.
—– In other news, Gov. Palin is scheduled at any moment to make an announcement from Wasilla about whether or not she will seek reelection next year. CNN is reporting that “sources” say she will not. As to why? Hmmm. Some suggest she may be gearing up for a 2012 presidential run, but I wouldn’t be so sure – having another term as governor under her belt (or partial term, anyway) would boost her executive experience creds. Maybe she’s had enough of the rough and tumble life of politics and wants some time away from the limelight? I’m sure we’ll find out in due time.
Ok – as I’ve been writing this, I see that Palin not only will not seek a second term as governor, but she will be resigning “in weeks” (via MM). What is going on?
More links to come in a few minutes.
—— The Washington Post is still obsessed with pLamegate. Sigh.
—– Will Colin Powell soon be joining the growing list of other Republicans who are second-guessing their decision to vote for Barry O?
—– Would you stand on this glass balcony/”skydeck” 103 floors up on the Sears Tower and be able to look down without losing your lunch? Count me out.
—– Please say a prayer for our military abroad this July 4th eve. The AP reports on how the Marines are “pushing deeper” into Southern Afghanistan towns in order to root out the Taliban. Close to 8 years later, the war in Afghanistan rages on.
—– The WSJ reports that the Christian left has launched a campaign on Christian radio stations urging church-goers to … support the President’s agenda on issues like “global warming” and “healthcare reform” by painting both issues as issues of “Biblical morality.” I know the left normally frowns on interjecting God into the political debate but if it helps them win over a few votes on their pet issues, I’m sure that’s another “principle” they won’t have any trouble abandoning.
—– Ben Smith notes that a second SC Congressman has called on Governer Sanford to step down.
——-
Update on Palin – 4:19 PM: Fox is showing a tape of her news conference now. She addressed her administration’s accomplishments, and is now addressing the unprecedented media scrutiny and hatefulness she’s had to fight since she was announced as McCain’s running mate last year and how it’s taken a lot of her time and money, and the state’s time and money as well to combat.
Jim Geraghty hits on a point I hinted at earlier about the executive experience issue:
David Schuster is offering a typical sneering tone, but it doesn’t make it any less accurate: “If it’s true that she’s leaving the governorship before her first term is complete, her national political career is done.”
A broken clock can be right twice a day, and Schuster is right here. If Sarah Palin wishes to someday be President of the United States, then she had to serve at least one full term in statewide office. (Yes, Obama had been in the Senate for about two years before running for president, but he had a lot of stars align for him at the right moment. Beyond that, at some point, “but Obama did it that way” isn’t a persuasive argument.)
Departing with little or no warning, after about 30 months in office, is beyond surprising. I’m sure the Lieutenant Governor will do fine, but there’s definately a sense of leaving with work unfinished and as her career was just beginning to take off.
I know we’ve heard a lot of chanting “Governor, it’s time to resign,” but we meant Mark Sanford.
Indeed. Bill Kristol’s on Fox suggesting that this might have been a political move on her part in an effort to start work on a 2012 run. I doubt it.
So – Steele’s been a major disappointment as RNC Chair, Sanford’s presidential hopes have been dashed and political career all but over because he couldn’t stay faithful to his wife nor his state, ditto for Ensign in Nevada, and now Palin is (arguably) out of the race for 2012. If this was supposed to be the year that the GOP was supposed to launch its comeback, I’ve yet to see any evidence of it.
4:32 PM: By the way, best wishes to Palin on however she decides to conduct her life in the coming months. I think she endured more scrutiny in her two months of being McCain’s running mate (and beyond) than our President did in two full years of being on the campaign trail and she held up remarkably well in spite of it. That she’s decided to step down – whether it’s for her state, for her to get back to basics, both, or whatever – is a disappointment for the party obviously, but I hope she will finally get some peace away from the noise machine commonly known as the mainstream media and their cohorts in the Dem party, and at last be able to step back a bit and take a deep breath.
4:39 PM: More wise words from Geraghty:
Not finishing her first term will provide a major, major, major obstacle to any presidential bid. I thought a 2012 campaign would be a mistake; from today’s comments, it’s not clear whether Palin is still interested in that option.
But the moment she expresses an interest in a presidential bid, every rival, Republican and Democrat, will uncork the ready-made zinger: “If elected, would she serve the full four years, or quit sometime in the third year again?”
But as noted, Palin is 45. Life will go on, after this upcoming presidential election, and the next. People thought Richard Nixon was through after the 1960 election. When Ronald Reagan failed to dislodge President Ford in 1976, people thought he had blown his best chance at the presidency. People thought Bill Clinton destroyed his political future with an endlessly long-winded speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention.
If Palin decides to seek the presidency at the age that Hillary Clinton was when she ran in the 2008 cycle, she will be running in… 2024. That’s a half a generation, and several political lifetimes, away.
Palin is departing the national political scene. But that does not discount a comeback, as a quite different figure, at some far-off date. She quoted Douglas MacArthur in her resignation announcement, referring to “not retreating, but advancing in another direction.” But the words most associated with Douglas MacArthur in American minds are “I shall return.”
We shall see.
Thursday/Friday Open Thread
Time for me to go (attempt) to hook up the new HD-ready DVD player I bought earlier today. What’s up in your world?
A butterfly rests on a flower in Nakhon Sawan province, 270 km (167 miles) north of Bangkok, July 2, 2009. REUTERS/Chaiwat Subprasom
(THAILAND ANIMALS SOCIETY)
Informal poll: Should Mark Sanford resign?
The “lovestruck” Governor Mark Sanford, in the midst of embarassing himself even further – as if that were humanly possible after his affair confession a couple of weeks ago, is resisting calls from GOP bigwigs in his state to resign.
Do you think he should? Please explain why or why not.
The WaPo or the WaHO? (PM UPDATE: “SALONS” CANCELLED)
This is surely a sign of the times, and not a good one:
For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.
The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it’s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.”
The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — is a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.
And it’s a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.
“Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate,” says the one-page flier. “Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. … Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders …
“Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. But does this really surprise anyone? The WaPo was unashamedly pro-Obama last year – seeing fit to officially admit it a few days after he was elected, and about a month before his inauguration they were soliciting the public for the chance to have their own personal announcement posted to Obama in their classifieds section in time for his swearing-in ceremony. The catch? The message had to be “congratulatory in nature.” The prices started at $10 per ad for their “floating” Congrats-to-Obama section.
But even though it’s not exactly surprising, that doesn’t make their latest attempt at cashing in on their pro-Obama bias any less distasteful. Hell, for that matter, the liberal McClatchy news outlet been working hard at making money on Obama’s election for months now via selling a book full of Obama glossies and articles taken and written on the campaign trail, as well as a DVD commemorating his “historic run.” Gee – no wonder they gave him such fawning coverage last year. Liberal bias + the need to raise $$=a complete loss of critical objectivity. Follow the money.
Interestingly enough, Ed Morrissey notes that a Hot Air reader dug up a WaPo editorial from 2001 in which they decried the very types of “bending over and taking it” they’ve done to make $$ in the Age of Obama.
My oh my. What a difference a President can make. I guess we can call this a “change” in media standards you can believe in – what few “standards” they have left, anyway.
Update 1 – 11:32 AM: Malkin’s got the WaHo’s response to the Politico story. Suffice it to say that it doesn’t pass the smell test.
Update 2 – 1:46 PM: Howie Kurtz reports that the “salons” have now been cancelled (via ST reader steveegg). Here’s the explanation:
Washington Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth today canceled plans for a series of policy dinners at her home after learning that marketing fliers offered lobbyists access to Obama administration officials, members of Congress and Post journalists in exchange for payments as high as $250,000.
“Absolutely, I’m disappointed,” Weymouth, the chief executive of Washington Post Media, said in an interview. “This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren’t vetted. They didn’t represent at all what we were attempting to do. We’re not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom.”
Moments earlier, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said in a separate interview that he was “appalled” by the plan, and he insisted before the cancellation that the newsroom would not participate.
“It suggests that access to Washington Post journalists was available for purchase,” Brauchli said. The proposal “promises we would suspend our usual skeptical questioning because it appears to offer, in exchange for sponsorships, the good name of The Washington Post.”
LOL – a show of hands how many of you believe that this salon series would have been cancelled had it not been for the leaked reports about it?
I didn’t think so.
Our celebrity President and his staged “town hall” meetings
Tom Maguire and Mary Katharine Ham both take the mainstream media to task on how they framed Bush’s “orchestrated” town hall meetings versus Obama’s, the latter of which took part in a town hall “discussion” on healthcare earlier today in Virginia.
Of course, it’s not surprising to see how the mainstream media is painting the issue of “orchestrated” town halls in a positive light in The Age of Obama. As Allah Pundit put it so well:
“It’s in keeping with the media’s narratives about Dubya and Obama, though, the former shifty and stupid and therefore dependent on softballs, the latter “open” and ingenious and no longer required to prove his ability to handle tough questions.”
Yep.
And I note for the record that the cries of the usual whiners on the issue of “pre-screened” questions go oddly silent about it everytime it happens with Obama. With one exception: Believe it or not, Helen Thomas gave Robert Gibbs hell about it today at the daily WH presser (watch the video here). Wonders never will cease.
Related/Prior:
Sarah Palin: The verbal hits just keep on comin’
The 2008 elections are long over but apparently some are already gearing up for a potential 2012 run by Palin to write long ad hominem attacks on the Alaska governor, case in point – Todd Purdum in Vanity Fair, who recently wrote a 9,800 word rambling diatribe that played fast and loose with the facts, and contained more personal attacks – including those by disgruntled “former McCain staffers/higher ups” who are now engaged in a nasty public he said/she said battle – than constructive criticisms.
Jim Geraghty wrote a mini-fisking of Purdum’s piece here in a must-read. Bill Kristol wrote a defense of Palin here.
But the morning Palin news round-up wouldn’t be complete without mentioning that Andrew Sullivan, a “hero” to many for his tireless Iran election liveblogging, is back to what he does best: slimy, baseless, tabloid-style “speculations” about – you got it – whether or not Trig Palin is really Sarah Palin’s son, or rather Bristol’s – attacks that are better suited for the pages of gossip rags like “Star” and the disgusting “Wonkette” than on the pages of the respected Atlantic magazine.
Bill Jacobson takes on Sully here and provides a list of all the people who’d have to be in on the “conspiracy” to keep Bristol’s alleged “first pregnancy” a secret. Bill- you’ve got a hell of a lot more patience than I, and many others, do.
Meanwhile, check out this great interview of Sarah Palin from Runner’s World and this absolutely adorable pic of the Gov. with her son Trig.
You betcha!
(Some links via Conservatives4Palin)
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats