The Hate for Sarah Palin

By Mark Levin - March 14, 2011

The corporate hate for Sarah Palin at Politico is obvious. The latest is here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51218.html

But if you google Politico and Palin, the evidence of a Politico agenda is overwhelming. And the manner in which Politico’s editors pursue their hate-Palin agenda is to cherry-pick the individuals they quote to make the point they want made.

A couple of quick things: 1. As I demonstrated last week, remarkably George Will missed the Reagan Revolution not only in 1976 but as late as 1980.  In the 1979 Republican Presidential Primary, his first choice was Howard Baker, his second choice was George H. W. Bush, and his third choice was Reagan.  Not until days before the 1980 general election did he write on November 3, 1980 that Reagan deserved election.  For all his wonderful columns, the Republican electorate better understood the needs of the nation and the excellence of a potential Reagan presidency than Will.  It is hard to believe he was so wrong about a matter of such great import, despite Reagan's presence on the national scene for many years.  2. Charles Krauthammer was not only wrong about Reagan, as late as 1980 he was a speech-writer for Vice President Walter Mondale.  Krauthammer, like Will, not only missed the significance of the Reagan candidacy, but was putting words in the mouth of a terribly flawed politician from a philosophical perspective. I certainly do not begrudge, but in fact encourage, liberals becoming conservatives or Democrats becoming Republicans.  Reagan was a Democrat who famously changed parties.  But I do not believe that individuals touted by a left-wing "news" site as two of the leading conservative intellectuals, who stunningly opposed Reagan's candidacy while both were of mature age and mind, are necessarily reliable barometers in this regard.  The "non-intellectual" voters knew better.  3. It is apparent that several of President George W. Bush's former senior staffers are hostile to Sarah Palin, including Karl Rove, David Frum, and Pete Wehner, to name only three. (Even Barbara put her two cents into the hate soup!)  Pete is a good friend and a very smart guy.  That said, Bush's record, at best, is marginally conservative, and depending on the issue, worse.  In fact, the Tea Party movement is, in part, a negative reaction to Bush's profligate spending (including his expansion of a bankrupt Medicare program to include prescription drugs).  And while Bush's spending comes nowhere near Barack Obama's, that is not the standard.  Moreover, Bush was not exactly among our most articulate presidents, let alone conservative voices.  I raise this not to compare Bush to Palin, but to point out only a few of the situational aspects of the criticism from the Bush community corner.  (If necessary, and if challenged, I will take the time to lay out the case in all its particulars, as well as other non-conservative Bush policies and statements.  No Republican president is perfect, of course, but certainly some are more perfect that others, if you will.)

This is not to say the folks cherry-picked by Politico are without accomplishment and merit.  They clearly are accomplished.  But that's not the point.  Most were not involved in either the Reagan Revolution or the Tea Party movement, and were not, to the best of my knowledge, early outspoken supporters of either.  What is necessary is a fulsome debate on each candidate's substance and policy positions.  Most of these Politico stories are little more than excuses to attack Palin, intended to damage her early on in case she should decide to run.  This has been going on for some time now.  If she is as weak as some think, why the obsession?  Why the contempt?  Moreover, Palin has used social media and other outlets to comment substantively on a wide range of issues and policies.  In fact, she has spoken on a wider array of issues than Youtube governor Chris Christie, popular among most of these folks, and her positions have, for the most part, been solidly conservative.  (Christie's positions on numerous issues important to conservatives are all but ignored by some of those complaining about Palin; indeed, the same could be said of potential presidential contenders Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitch Daniels, among others.)  My purpose in mentioning Christie here is to juxtapose the demands by "the intellectuals" on one politician versus another.  Their inquisitiveness seems influenced by their political bias.  That's not unusual, but it requires underscoring lest their opinions be viewed or promoted as objective.

As a Reaganite pre-dating Reagan’s 1976 candidacy, the contempt for Palin does, in fact, reminds me of the contempt some had for Reagan, especially from the media and Republican establishment, although no comparison is exact. I’ve not settled on a favorite would-be presidential candidate, but I also know media hit-jobs when I see them. I am hopeful more conservatives will begin to speak out about this or, before we know it, we will wonder why we are holding our noses and voting for another Republican endorsed by “the intellectuals” but opposed by a majority of the people.

A Tale of Two Speeches: Sarah Palin and Barack Obama on the Tragedy in Tucson

The Audacity of American Exceptionalism

Fear Factor: Palin Derangement Syndrome

See:  Journolists: The Truth of Media Fraud Confirmed

White House Initiates “Snitch” Program On What They Call Misinformation Being Disbursed on Healthcare Reform

Is the White House Attacking Democracy??

The White House has initiated a program to have people inform them of and forward anything they consider misinformation to them on Healthcare Refrom. HMMM… I believe it is unconstitutional for the White House (government) to spy on or investigate people for exercising their First Amendment Right?!? Sounds a bit like Communist Country… but they are doing it anyway. :-(

The White House launched a coordinated effort Tuesday to combat what it calls a “viral whisper campaign” to torpedo health care reform. Its playbook: the same one Barack Obama’s campaign used in 2008 to shoot down rumors and questions about his citizenship, faith and patriotism. The new offensive started early Tuesday morning when the White House posted a video response to a hodgepodge of clips on the Drudge Report that portrayed President Obama as favoring the elimination of private insurance. On the White House blog, Obama’s director of new media, Macon Phillips, asked supporters to send in leads for debunking chain e-mails or anything else that “seems fishy.”

White House launches attacks on attacks

Linda Douglass, David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs are key players in the new offensive.Photo: AP photo composite by POLITICO

The White House launched a coordinated effort Tuesday to combat what it calls a “viral whisper campaign” to torpedo health care reform.

Its playbook: the same one Barack Obama’s campaign used in 2008 to shoot down rumors and questions about his citizenship, faith and patriotism.

The new offensive started early Tuesday morning when the White House posted a video response to a hodgepodge of clips on the Drudge Report that portrayed President Obama as favoring the elimination of private insurance. On the White House blog, Obama’s director of new media, Macon Phillips, asked supporters to send in leads for debunking chain e-mails or anything else that “seems fishy.”

It continued through the day with press secretary Robert Gibbs and Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse both saying a series of confrontational town hall meetings were manufactured by Republicans, conservative groups and lobbyists who are paid to drum up opposition.

Woodhouse described them as “angry mobs of rabid right-wing extremists” that populated McCain-Palin rallies last year.

Tuesday was just the start of the offensive, White House aides said.

The White House and its allies are developing a clearinghouse website to debunk rumors and myths — similar to the FightTheSmears.com site used during the campaign. They plan to use more video, Twitter, e-mail lists and other new media tools to “combat the right-wing noise machine” and dedicate new resources to rapid response on health care, according to a White House official.

Dan Pfeiffer, the deputy White House communications director, who served as the campaign communications director, is also expected to take an increased role in the stepped-up operation, the official said.

“We are going to be very aggressive,” said David Axelrod, a White House senior adviser. “The last thing we want to do is let misimpressions fester because we were laggard in responding.”

Former President Bill Clinton attempted to overhaul health care before the Internet and cable news were mainstays in most American households. He had to worry most about TV ads featuring a middle-class couple named “Harry and Louise.”

But this time, the threats come on multiple levels, severely complicating efforts to explain an already confusing and challenging set of policy prescriptions to the average voter.

Obama’s health care overhaul has been dogged in recent weeks by what the administration has called a “disinformation campaign” waged through the Internet, chain e-mails and talk radio. Conservatives have charged that Obama’s health care proposal would promote euthanasia, encourage federal funding of abortions, end private insurance and force every American into a public insuranceplan. The White House and Democratic congressional leaders dispute each charge.

The opposition has manifested itself in a series of confrontational town halls in which proponents of the president’s health reform effort are shouted down and booed.

“Much like we saw at the McCain-Palin rallies last year, where crowds were baited with cries of ‘socialist,’ ‘communist,’ and where the birthers movement was born, these mobs of extremists are not interested in having a thoughtful discussion about the issues — but like some Republican leaders have said, they are interested in ‘breaking’ the president and destroying his presidency,” Woodhouse said in a statement.

In his daily briefing, Gibbs went after Rick Scott, founder of Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, for reportedly taking credit for the town halls.

“You’ve got somebody who’s very involved, a leader of that group that’s very involved in — in the status quo, a CEO that used to run a health care company that was fined by the federal government $1.7 billion for fraud,” Gibbs said. “I think that’s a lot of what you need to know about the motives of that group.”

Conservatives for Patients’ Rights has posted lists of town halls — and videos of disrupted town halls — on its website, and it’s sending out “town hall alert” notices to people on its mailing lists.

Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, called the DNC’s accusation about a concerted effort “offensive.” Scott said in a statement that his group did not need to manufacture anger, as Gibbs and others have charged.

“It is a shame that Mr. Gibbs chooses to dismiss these Americans and their very real concerns, instead opting to level personal attacks,” Scott said. “The simple fact is that the more Americans learn about the president’s public-option plan, the more they realize it is a massive government takeover that will mean higher taxes, bigger deficits and interfere with their current coverage, resulting in delayed or denied medical care for them and their families.”

With the same circle of advisers in the White House as in the campaign, Obama knows how quickly something that he views as ridiculous and unworthy of a response can spiral into something unavoidable.

Early in the general election campaign, Obama press aides refused to respond to some of the more outlandish claims that circulated through e-mail inboxes and the far reaches of theInternet. They did not want to fuel any story line by providing a rebuttal that would then generate more attention from mainstream reporters.

But a question from a McClatchy reporter directly to Obama about one of the unsubstantiated allegations — that his wife, Michelle, had been recorded using the word “whitey”— prompted the campaign in June 2008 to shift tactics and go for a more aggressive attack.

Within a week of fielding the question, the Obama campaign started FightTheSmears.com, which served as a clearinghouse for challenging any and all rumors — from questions about his birthplace, his patriotism and his religion to an allegation that Michelle Obama had ordered lobster and caviar from room service at a hotel (she hadn’t).

“Unanswered, erroneous charges tend to settle because they are not challenged,” Axelrod said of lessons learned from the campaign. “So we are not going to allow that to happen.”

The partisan fighting stood in contrast to a call for bipartisanship that Obama issued to the Senate Democratic Caucus on Tuesday, during an almost two-hour lunch meeting aimed at preparing them for the August recess.

“The president discussed how the current tone and culture in Washington made it more difficult than it has been in the past to work in a bipartisan fashion,” according to a White House official who attended the lunch. “In particular, he singled out Republican senators who are trying to work in a bipartisan fashion even in the context of a vocal minority in their party who doubt that the president was born in the U.S.”

Obama also added that he did not like seeing “left-wing groups attack fellow Democrats,” the aide said.

Some in the room expressed concern with how Democrats would maintain support for health care reform through the break.

“The president urged them, as they were holding town hall meetings, to make the case clearly about why this is important, why it’s important to our economy and our fiscal situation as a country and how it would benefit Americans looking for health insurance and how it would help those who have it,” the aide said.

Patrick O’Connor and Amie Parnes contributed to this story.

Original Article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25808.html#ixzz0NLRFUjc8

Source: Politico / Fox Nation

“Isolate Your Enemies and Ridicule Them!!” … Saul Alinksy in Rules for Radicals

Rules for Radicals

Related Resources:

• Go Ahead and Report Me – I’ll Shout Louder
• Tea Party Bashers Gone Wild
• Man Yells at House Majority Leader – You are Lying to Me!
• Why is the White House Attacking and Making Fun of Americans?
• Judge Andrew Napolitano Speaks to 10,000 at Columbus Ohio Tea Party – Media Ignores
• We Figured Him Out - Ben Stein
• Obama Told Us This Was Coming… America Wasn’t Listening
• Reparations By Way of Health Care Reform
• Nobody Took Barack Obama At His Word
• Rep Conyer's Probe of Acorn Blocked by Powers That Be
• Michelle Obama Wants More Input on the Presidents Agenda
  • Michelle Obama is Building Her Boot Camps For Radicals with Tax-Payer Money
  • What’s Behind Obama’s Sudden Attempt to Fire the AmeriCorps Inspector General??
  • Plotting America's Downfall
• Acorn Cracked: Exposes ACORN’s Push for Socialized Medicine
• A Look at What is Really in the Health Care Bill (HR 3200): Chilling!
• ObamaCare for Seniors: Sorry, You’re Just Not Worth It
• Op-Ed: Obama’s Census Castrates Caucasians
• Jewish Leader Banned From Obama Meeting
• Obama’s Record of Apologies and Diminishment of his Country Continues
• The Humbling of a Superpower
• The Ten Commandments According To Obama
• DeMint: U.S. Like Germany Just Before WWII
• $23.7 Trillion to Fix Financial System?
• Stop Cap and Trade - “the biggest tax in American history”
• Meet Your Science Czar – A Must Read
• Welcome to Obamaland
• The Case Against Barack Obama
• Culture of Corruption
• American Progressivism
• Catastrophe
• Glenn Beck's Common Sense
• Nineteen Eighty-Four

Join the Tea Party Express

'Disgusting' Bias for Obama, Time Writer Admits

These admissions of extreme-bias beginning to surface by their own admission should be a raised flag for all future reading and listening to "so-called mainstream media" coverage and for future elections.  It should also be a lessen well-learned, for everyone.  Media bias is unacceptable in a free-society, and even if it went you way this time, it won't always. The mainstream media's support for Barack Obama's presidential campaign was so biased that even major insiders are now admitting they were shocked by its depth and depravity. Last week, Time magazine's Mark Halperin called the media's performance during the campaign simply "disgusting." Halperin told a panel of media analysts at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election, "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war." He added, "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage." According to the Web site Politico, Halperin, who edits Time's political site "The Page," zeroed in on two New York Times articles near the end of the campaign that profiled both Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama. "The story about Cindy McCain was vicious," Halperin said. "It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it cast her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn't talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that's ever been written about her." But the Times gave Michelle Obama red carpet treatment, "like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is." Halperin, a former ABC News political director, allowed that some of the press coverage simply reflected the extreme efficiency of Obama's presidential campaign. "You do have to take into account the fact that this was a remarkable candidacy," Halperin said. "There were a lot of good stories. He was new." Obama also had a lot of money and outspent Republican John McCain by more than 2 to 1. The press never bothered to hold Obama accountable for reneging on his promise to use public financing. McCain kept his promise to do so. During the campaign, conservatives criticized the pro-Obama coverage, but it had little effect. Columnist David Limbaugh noted: "Never has that been clearer than in the 2008 presidential election, during which they are covering up rather than covering Barack Obama's shady past and alliances, his knee-deep involvement in corrupt practices threatening the very core of our democratic system, and his many policy misrepresentations." Limbaugh noted that the press went into a tizzy over Sarah Palin's wardrobe, but ignored extravagances like Obama's "obscenely idolatrous million-dollar Greek coliseum mirage." Now that the election is over, Halperin is not alone in admitting the bias. The Washington Post's ombudsman recently conceded that the paper’s coverage was skewed strongly in favor of Obama and against the McCain-Palin ticket. Posted:  NewsMax

The Case Against Obama Reviewed

Editorial Reviews

Review
Obama a Lefty, Not a Reformer

The first serious negative biography of Senator Barack Obama casts the Democratic nominee as a fake reformer and a real liberal.

The Case Against Barack Obama by National Review's David Freddoso, blasts Obama for failing to take on the Chicago machine, for listening to "radical advisors," and for backing "doctrinaire liberal" causes from teachers unions to abortion rights.

It does not, however, compare him to Paris Hilton, or dwell at length on his religion or race - making the substance of The Case Against Barack Obama sound a bit unfamiliar amid a campaign cacophony of hyperbolic web ads, alleged race cards, and viral smears.

Freddoso says John McCain's campaign and Republicans at large are making the wrong case against the Illinois senator.

"I don't think you beat Obama by saying that he's Paris Hilton," said Freddoso, a reporter for the conservative magazine National Review, referring to McCain's latest advertising campaign. "The more important thing is really to look at is he who he says he is? Is he really this great reformer?"

Freddoso's book, released today by the conservative publishing house Regnery and provided exclusively to Politico by the publisher, occupies a small island in the often-shrill sea of criticism of Obama. As a range of conservatives suggest that Obama is a closet radical, and as McCain's campaign aims to disqualify him from the White House on the grounds of his international fame, Freddoso makes a case that conservatives should look at the presumptive Democratic nominee's record.

His thesis: "It's not that Obama is a bad person. It's just that he's like all the rest of them. Not a reformer. Not a Messiah. Just like all the rest of them in Washington. And just like all the other liberals too."

Freddoso's is one of two new books harshly attacking Obama. The other, by Jerome Corsi, reportedly covers some of the same territory as the viral emails that have plagued the Democratic candidate, making much of his slender connections to Islam and his teenage drug use.

Freddoso opts largely for a fact-based critique, and writes that the viral and overt smears have allowed Obama to evade substantive criticism.

"Too many of those criticizing Obama have been content merely to slander him," he writes. False rumors about Obama's religion and ancestry have produced, Freddoso writes, "an intellectual laziness among the very people who should be carefully scrutinizing Obama."

His book comes with Republican popularity at a historic low, amid widespread disenchantment with Republican ideals of limited government and hawkish foreign policy. Many - including, apparently, McCain's strategists - doubt a Republican can win a policy face-off. But as the real campaign hones in on the character of the candidates, Freddoso's book attempts to build an alternate case against Obama. Freddoso's argument begins in Chicago....Though Obama's first political steps were in Hyde Park's reformist politics, Freddoso focuses on the smooth accommodation he made to the machine.... -- Politico, Ben Smith, August 4, 2008 

Review
Here's Looking at You, Kid

If find yourself believing that "we are the ones we've been waiting for", or that "this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow" or even, tout court, that "yes we can", the chances are that you are suffering from a severe case of Obamamania.

Tens of millions of Americans and an even larger number of Europeans have fallen victim to the syndrome, which involves a belief that a young black senator from Chicago can cure the world's ills, in part because of his race, in part because of his obvious intelligence and rhetorical skill; but in no part because of any record of achievement in the past. Fortunately, an inexpensive remedy is at hand.

It comes in the form of a new book by David Freddoso, The Case Against Barack Obama. Unlike the authors of some of the cruder attacks on Mr. Obama, Mr. Freddoso works for a well-respected organization, the online version of the National Review. Although it is a conservative publication and the author makes no secret of where his political sympathies lie, this is a well-researched, extensively footnoted work. It aims not so much to attack Mr. Obama as to puncture the belief that he is in some way an extraordinary, mould-breaking politician.

The Obama that emerges from its pages is not, Mr. Freddoso says, "a bad person. It's just that he's like all the rest of them. Not a reformer. Not a Messiah. Just like all the rest of them in Washington." And the author makes a fairly compelling case that this is so. The best part of the book concentrates on Mr. Obama's record in Chicago, his home town and the place from which he was elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, before moving to the United States Senate in 2004. The book lays out in detail how this period began in a way that should shock some of Mr. Obama's supporters: he won the Democratic nomination for his Illinois seat by getting a team of lawyers to throw all the other candidates off the ballot on various technicalities. One of those he threw off was a veteran black politician, a woman who helped him get started in politics in the first place.

If Mr. Obama really were the miracle-working, aisle-jumping, consensus-seeking new breed of politician his spin-doctors make him out to be, you would expect to see the evidence in these eight years. But there isn't very much. Instead, as Mr. Freddoso rather depressingly finds, Mr. Obama spent the whole period without any visible sign of rocking the Democratic boat.

He was a staunch backer of Richard Daley, who as mayor failed to stem the corruption that has made Chicago one of America's most notorious cities. Nor did he lift a finger against John Stroger and his son Todd....Cook County, where Chicago is located, has been extensively criticized for corrupt practices by a federally appointed judge....

Take a break from the hugs, hopium with a good read

If what you want from Sen. Barack Obama's historic Democratic convention speech on Thursday night is to give yourself up to profound emotion and to join others in common passion and release, then guzzle some hopium and enjoy. Or you can enrich the experience by reading The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate by David Freddoso. Freddoso's book, on the best-seller lists, is the anti hopium. It is the pin of reason to the Obama balloon.