History repeats itself as latest anti-Palin books bomb

'The Rogue' was supposed to have found success where the Dunn and Bailey efforts met failure
*
The left's latest one-two literary punch against Sarah Palin is proving to be an ineffective combination that misses its mark. Disgraced author Joe McGinness' The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin and Caribou Country clown Levi Johnston's Deer in the Headlights: My Life in Sarah Palin's Crosshairs were both released on Tuesday, but the book-buying public apparently couldn't care less. At the time of this writing, McGinness' hardcover hit job is sales-ranked #74 by Amazon and #208 at Barnes & Noble. Johnston's joke of a book fares even worse, at #888 in sales at Amazon and #20,049 at Barnes & Noble.

It's not like both books and their respective authors suffered any from lack of promotion by their publishers and left wing advocate bloggers. Random House/Crown conducted a major roll out campaign for The Rogue, lining up appearances for McGinnis to promote his book on NBC's "Today Show" and ABC's "The View," among other small screen venues. Cartoonist Garry Trudeau even signed on to a rather unique agreement to excerpt McGinness' drive-by character assassination of Sarah Palin in his "Doonesbury" strip. And The Rogue also got featured reviews by liberal newspaper mainstays The New York Times, Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. Granted, the reviews were much harsher than Random House had expected, but as they say in the PR world, any publicity is good publicity. And speaking of publicity, McGinness and his 300-plus pages of Palin smears is currently in the vortex of a major controversy of firestorm magnitude, yet sales still remain tepid at best.

The massive hype surrounding McGinness has overshadowed the promotional effort for Johnston's Deer in the Headlights, but both Palin character assassins benefited from friendly television venues where they hawked their books, and nutroots left blogs have hyped both volumes as the knockout punches that would surely spell the political end of the first woman to govern Alaska and campaign as the Republican Party's vice presidential candidate once and for all. Yet despite all of this, both books have failed. What went wrong?

The left is already deep into the spin cycle, attempting to explain away the poor performance of the McGinness and Johnston books as a waning of the public's interest in all things Palin. But the Wasilla Warrior's name in the headlines still draws viewers to their television screens, sells magazines and guarantees web page traffic, so that excuse doesn't hold water. We submit that the public has not lost interest in Sarah Palin, but it recognizes a smear job when it sees one. The left, which can always be counted on not to learn a thing from history, has been to this well so many times that John and Jane Q. Public are no longer buying the lies.

A similar one-two combination was tried against Sarah Palin in the spring, and it was an utter failure then, as Steve Flesher wrote May 29 at American Thinker:

Palin-flamethrower, Geoffrey Dunn of the Huffington Post released The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power May 10th and Frank Bailey, former Aide to Palin, teamed up with Palin critic Jeanne Devon to release Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin: A Memoir of Our Tumultuous Years on May 24th. Ardent opponents of Sarah Palin have been highly-anticipating these books which promised to tear down Palin's public image for the long-term.

Interestingly, Geoffrey Dunn's book has not even hit Amazon's top-100 list since its release; and after a week of media coverage including appearances on NBC, ABC's The View, Fox News, CNN, and many more, Frank Bailey's "memoir" disappointingly debuted at #40 and has already fallen to #75.

While reasonable voters notice that perhaps Americans are beginning to tire of the anti-Palin volume, others are sure to argue that Americans simply don't care about her at all, even though the latest headlines which seem to be tracking her every move impeccably could be enough to put that idea to rest.

One thing is sure for Palin as she moves toward making her 2012 decision. She enjoys the luxury of knowing she has been thoroughly vetted and scrutinized for the last two years. While anti-Palin readers have lined their ammunition up one year before a presidential campaign, her supporters are left wondering who is left in Alaska to interview. Because on the basis of Geoffrey Dunn's and Frank Bailey's accompanying Palin-bombs, what they've come up with so far doesn't seem to be effectively extinguishing the grassroots energy Sarah Palin has uniquely created and maintained.

The Rogue was supposed to have found success where the Dunn and Bailey efforts met failure, but McGinness made a fatal mistake. The author bet his book on hollow promises from an Alaskan blogger who fed McGinness a long list of juicy allegations, but few real people were willing to put their names behind the rumors. McGinness claims that the reason for the lack of any compelling evidence in his book is that people were fearful for their very lives. Were this the case then why are Jesse Griffin and the members of his gang of Palin-hating bloggers still alive and well in Alaska? No, the reason that McGinness' book is such a joke is that there's literally no there there. The rumors are anonymous and unsubstantiated because there's no truth to them, much less a single shred of compelling evidence to support them. Even liberal reviewers, who would otherwise be favorably disposed toward McGinness in his attempt to take down Clan Palin, recognize a lack of substance when they read it. Like the Dunn and Bailey assaults on Sarah Palin in May, the attempted September slayings of the Mama Grizzly by McGinness and Johnston are doomed to be abject failures.

- JP

EPIC FAIL: Anti-Palin author faces O'Reilly, strikes out

"But people aren't -- with all due respect -- that interested in you..."
*
Disgruntled ex-employee FAIL:


- JP

Critics: Griffin's 'Glee' cameo 'went over like a lead balloon'

Richenthal : It was like the producers "lost a bet to Kathy Griffin"
*
Bully "comic" Kathy Griffin, whose idea of quality material is to attack Sarah Palin's children, made her appearance on the Fox hit show "Glee" this week. Sadly for the Palinophobes, the cameo, which had been hyped by gossip blogs and other Palin-hatin' leftist websites, appears to have been a FAIL, even if not of EPIC proportions. At Mediaite, which is anything but a Sarah Palin fan site, Matt Schneider reports:

Given the rhetorical back and forth between Griffin and Palin, the cameo was highly anticipated, but went over like a lead balloon. EW’s television critic Ken Tucker called Griffin’s bit part “the evening’s dud moment in the episode written by show co-creator Ryan Murphy.” Tucker continued “It’s hard to believe that Murphy couldn’t come up with any better lines than, “I am not a witch” (a snicker at Christine O’Donnell) and ‘Obama is a terrorist.’”

While Glee plays with topical themes and hot-button opinions regularly, the hit show rarely enters political territory in such a blatant fashion. Yet given that Griffin’s appearance was so quick, many “Gleeks” (the term affectionately(?) describing fans of the show) probably didn’t even know who or what Griffin was attempting to mock. Especially since a line like “I twittered that Obama is a terrorist” likely takes a comedic backseat for most to fellow guest star Loretta Devine’s former stripper, who became a nun just because she needed a place to live.

Glee’s Executive Producer Ryan Murphy is a fairly brazen contributor to what some call the “culture war” dialogue, and it certainly seems like he and Griffin had conspired to score some cheap points by reducing Palin to a one-dimensional caricature. The irony is that this particular scene is far more likely to create good-will for the flagging former Governor because of an unfair portrayal, only fueling the notion that the “liberal Hollywood elite” are out to get Ms. Palin. Scenes like this make such a comment seem less a by-product of paranoia, and more of a legitimate case.

TIME’s TV critic James Poniewozik also panned Griffin's potty-poor performance:

"Glee can be sharp and topical enough that I thought it could actually do something clever with the much-publicized cameo. Instead, the performance hinged on expected gags ('I am not a witch') and Griffin delivered it all with a stiffness that felt more like a recitation than a performance. As one line in the judges' deliberations said, I mostly felt pandered to. (And I can only guess what Glee's conservative viewers—and to anticipate the response, Glee has conservative viewers—would have thought.)"

And Entertainment Weekly's Ken Tucker quipped:

"In an otherwise above-average episode of Glee, the much-publicized appearance of Kathy Griffin guest-starring as a Sarah Palin parody fell as flat as Brittany’s speaking voice... Palin has called the comedian a 'bully,' but after seeing Griffin meekly recite a lame joke about gay rights not being in the Constitution, the former Alaska governor must be feeling pretty cheery..."

Even critic Matt Richenthal at TV Fanatic, who was hoping for "some good Sarah Palin mockery," had to admit that Griffin's "Glee" appearance:

"...felt shoved in and out of place here, like producers lost a bet to Kathy Griffin and had to pay up via such a cameo."

Heh. Looks like it's back to the D-list for has-been never-was, no-talent, no-class Griffin.

Update: More commentary from NewsBuster Noel Sheppard here.

- JP

Lamestream media blame game FAIL

Thanks for playing, journos...
*
According to a CBS News poll, the corrupt media's tactic of trying to blame Sarah Palin and "harsh political rhetoric" for the shootings in Tuscon is not working:

Overall, 57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did. Republicans were more likely to feel the two were unrelated - 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part. Democrats were more split on the issue - 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.

Independents more closely reflected the overall breakdown - 56 percent said rhetoric had nothing to do with the attack; 33 percent felt it did.

Even among Democrats, more of those surveyed don't believe the media narrative than those who do.

FAIL

-JP

Don Surber: Obama should have listened to Palin

*
Charleston Daily Mail columnist Don Surber:

Boycott Copenhagen, she told him.

But did he listen?

Nooooooooo!

He’s a big smarty pants with degrees from Columbia and Harvard who is surrounded by a bunch of other smarty pantsed people with degrees from the Ivy leagues.

So what did he do? He braced a blizzard to speak on global warming.

That makes no sense.

And it won him no friends.

FAIL

Read the rest here.

Canadian "Comic" FAIL

From Mediaite:

During a book signing event in Columbus, Ohio, Canadian Comedian Mary Walsh ambushed Palin with camera crew and microphone to seek her thoughts on the Canadian health care system (and ostensibly embarrass her as well.)

While the event security detail prevented a meaningful interview, Palin did provide some basic comments consistent with her conservative position. While many websites are now presenting this video clip as evidence of her naivete, the video actually acquits Palin quite well, and makes the comedian look far more foolish than her target. Perhaps more stunning is that this clip has received a lot of play on numerous news sites, despite the fact it comes from a comedy show.

Dan Riehl agrees. 

And so we. After watching the clip, we have to wonder if Mary Walsh, whom we've never heard of, is really a "comic" as the story suggests. Aren't comics supposed to be funny? Walsh comes off as just another leftist tool. Her claim that "every word" in Going Rogue "is a lie" only demonstrates how unhinged she is, while Sarah Palin, as Mediaite says, did nothing more than express the opinion she was asked for.

That a number of nutroots blogs and liberal media outlets are trying to graft legs onto this torso of a non-story only reveals their desperation. All of the Wyle E. Coyote attempts by the Left to rain on Sarah Palin's book tour amount to a collective FAIL. Not an EPIC FAIL, but a FAIL nonetheless.

Update: At Big Hollywood, John Nolte's take:

"She was kind to this woman … twice. In the feeding frenzy of a book tour, America’s favorite Hockey Mom didn’t blow off or pretend not to hear someone who looked like she might be lucky to have a cable access show, she gave her a serious, thoughtful soundbyte…"

"Leftist snobs laugh because in their cruel little pompous bubble no one would dream of taking a moment to talk to the Marg Delahuntys of the world..."

- JP

Vanity FAIL: No solidarity on the Left for Levi's lies

*
Usually the leftist media can be counted upon to unite, seize upon an anti-Palin meme and run with it. That liberal solidarity, however, has all but vaporized in the wake of Levi Johnston's latest round of charges against Sarah Palin and her family, as promoted by Vanity Fair magazine.

The first cracks in the liberal media wall appeared when only CBS of the big three alphabet television networks bought into the myth Vanity Fair's editor Graydon Carter had hoped to spread to take down Palin, as NewsBusters' Kyle Drennen reported:

"Teasing an upcoming segment on Thursday’s CBS Early Show about new attacks on Sarah Palin by the father of her grandson, Levi Johnston, co-host Maggie Rodriguez exclaimed: 'And shocking allegations that could shatter former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s conservative family image...'"

[...]

"Unlike the Early Show’s accepting coverage of Johnston’s outrageous claims, NBC’s Today and ABC’s Good Morning America raised serious questions about his credibility."

Oops! Only one for three with the morning big three.

FAIL

The crack in the wall of lies spread a bit more with this Reclusive Leftist post titled "Did Bristol Palin dodge a bullet or what?":

"Levi is singing his song again to Vanity Fair, the song of course being, 'so, like, what do you want me to say about Sarah Palin? Cause, you know, whatever you want. Hey, do I get to keep the limo?' Levi is about as believable as The Pathological Liar on Saturday Night Live."

[...]

"No wonder Bristol has decided that abstinence is best."

Attention: Blogger not on board.

FAIL

Another crack in the wall appeared after this from a site which has been hyper-critical of Sarah Palin, Business Insider:

"Is America's most famous teen dad getting his revenge for being forced to shave off his mullet and hold Bristol's hand at last summer's Republican convention instead of partying the night away?"

"No!"

[...]

"Johnson has actually managed to help Sarah Palin's cause."

FAIL

The next crack in the wall for Levi's lies came from another unlikely source. Liz Smith wasn't falling for Levi's deception, and the columnist, who is in the habit of slamming Sarah, even felt the need to ask her liberal readers to cut her some slack for not joining in the feeding frenzy that Vanity Fair was trying to get started:

"Don't kill me here on this eve of the Labor Day weekend, but I am actually beginning to feel a bit sorry for Sarah Palin. At least in the matter of her estranged, almost-son-in-law Levi Johnston. This kid just can't keep his mouth shut."

[...]

"I just don't see the wish to protect a teenage child as terribly evil or Machiavellian. Sarah Palin could play her well-worn 'Good Mom' card and even I would buy it."

[...]

"...I don't think Bristol tossed away endless nights of effervescent conversation when she broke up with him."

"Now, her mother is nobody to mess with. There is a Medusa behind those Foster Grants; an atmosphere of Faye Dunaway barking in 'Mommie Dearest,' -- 'Don't f*** with me, fellas. This ain't my first time at the rodeo!'"

When you're trying to smear Sarah Palin and you lose Liz Smith, you've lost one of your strongest potential allies.

FAIL

The cracks grew much longer, deeper and wider when the Washington Posts' Ruth Marcus, who prefaced her column by admitting that she had been less than charitable toward the 2008 GOP vice-presidential candidate:

"Finally, though, I find myself in Palin’s corner -- pushed there by Levi Johnston, her former future son-in-law, and the father of her grandson."

[...]

"Is any of this true -- the talk of divorce, Sarah’s secret plan to adopt Tripp? I don’t know. Would anybody’s household look especially attractive if its inner workings were splashed on the pages of Vanity Fair by someone with every motive to accentuate the negative? I know mine wouldn’t."

"Johnston is an opportunistic creep..."

Remember that WaPo was founded in 1877 as an organ of the Democrat Party and has never strayed far from its original mission. When even the Post won't get on board your ship to score points against a prominent conservative who it otherwise delights in bashing, your boat is taking on water.

FAIL

But the unkindest glass cutter of all turned out to be the real jaw dropper of the bunch. Gail Collins, columnist for the mother of all liberal media outlets -- the New York Times -- exposed Levi's lack of cred in her September 2 column:

"For the first time in my life, I feel sympathy for Sarah Palin."

[...]

"Given the fact that Johnston is a 19-year-old high school dropout whose mother was arrested last year on six felony drug counts, it is conceivable that he is not the perfect arbiter of normal families."

[...]

"So it would be helpful to know if Palin was 'always in a bad mood and she was stressed out a lot,' as Johnston claims. But really, we’re going to have to wait for a more reliable witness."

If you can't convince the NY Times to buy what you're selling to beat Sarah Palin up with, your ship is headed for the bottom.

FAIL

So, two of the three major alphabet networks, the Washington Post, the New York Times and a smattering of liberal bloggers, all of whom can usually be counted upon to join in any attack on Sarah Palin, refuse to be convinced by the Levi line of BS offered up by Vanity Fair.

SERIOUS FAIL

And if all of that wasn't enough bad news for Vanity Fair, its parent, the Conde Nast publishing empire, is drowning in a sea of red:

"Conde Nast is reeling from what is expected to be a loss of 5,000 ad pages this year, translating into a revenue shortfall of between $275 million and $350 million -- and very likely pushing the publishing giant into the red."

"After Condé Nast's ad-page tally last year fell 10.5 percent to 34,966 from the previous year, according to Media Industry Newsletter, the company behind mags like Vogue and Vanity Fair is expected to see the ad-page count fall more than 20 percent this year."

EPIC FAIL

Update: Yet another columnist who is a longtime Palin critic weighs in against VF and lyin' Levi. Ana Veciana-Suarez of the Miami Herald:

"Johnston is not the sort of person someone in my business would call a credible source. This is his shot at the limelight, and he cares little about its consequences."

EPIC FAIL OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS

- JP

DSCC Anti-Palin Attack Ad FAIL

What were they thinking? Some genius at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) cooked up a plan to link Gov. Sarah Palin, by virtue of her announced intention to resign, to New Hampshire attorney general Kelly Ayotte and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Ayotte is resigning to explore a run for the Senate, and Crist has already announced that he's running for a Senate seat.

How does this tactic FAIL? Let us count the ways...

1. NBC's Mark Murray points out:

"Ayotte and Crist are officially (or close to it) running for a different office. We don't know yet if Palin will run for president."

2. The Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (RSCC) did a little googling and found that Barack Obama once pledged to serve his full six-year term in the Senate. The Chicago Sun-Times, edition of November 4, 2004:

"I was elected yesterday," Obama said. "I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I've never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I'm immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn't make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I'm the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois."

3. Kyle Munzenrieder of the Miami New Times has a good question for the DSCC:

"What about all those Democratic governors who so eagerly resigned to take positions in the Obama administration? Not to mention the dozens of Democratic candidates who are attempting to ditch one elected office for a better one."

4. Munzenrieder also notices a less salient, but nonetheless humorous detail about the ad:

"The voices are a major fail. There are so many decent Sarah Palin impersonators out there, and this is what you got? Was this lady not available? And since when does Charlie Crist sound like a voice over artist from a PBS Civil War documentary?"

Perhaps the DSCC thought no one would notice any of the above discrepancies.

FAIL

- JP

HuffPo FAIL

In a NewsBusters expose of what passes for "journalism" at the Huffington Post, my fellow RS front page contributer Warner Todd Huston includes this example:

Then there is the political news that appears every day on HuffPo. For example, a straight out opinion was recently presented as fact by HuffPo writer Jennifer Donahue whose piece makes the claim that the Republican grassroots is lining up behind Mitt Romney, forsaking Sarah Palin, for the 2012 presidential election.

Donahue says it's Mitt rising in the GOP and has two quotes in the story to support her assertion. However, there are no names attached to the quotes and no sources for them is given. She has no pundits from the right pointing to Mitt, no party members saying they like him and no seated politicians raising Mitt's banner. She just says it is so and we are supposed to take it on faith. The whole story is thin as tissue paper. It may be true, but we get nothing to make us sanguine of the fact in Donahue's story. Just her assertions.

Yet, Donahue is billed as the "Political Director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics" and sports a journalism background. She may do a fine job for Saint Anselem College, but for HuffPo, at least, this piece is junk.

WTH is absolutely right. Not only is Donahue's post pretty thin gruel, it flies in the face of the latest polling by Pew Research, which shows Gov. Palin well ahead of Romney (by double digits) with the GOP conservative base (grasssroots) Meanwhile, she has actually improved her favorability ratings among independents (+6 percent) and even among Democrats (+7 percent) since October and November.

HuffPo wants its readers to believe that Romney has the base all fired up, while the empirical data suggests that it's Sarah Palin who continues to be the grassroots favorite, and by no small margin. Reaching beyond the base, she is improving her standing with independents and Democrats. Advantage: Palin (not Romney).

HuffPo FAIL.

- JP

Poetic Justice: Conde Nast Portfolio FAIL

Remember Portfolio, the supposedly business magazine that Conde Nast sank $100 million into? No, I didn't think you would. Here's a link to refresh your memory.

Yes, that Portfolio. Nicholas Carlson of Business Insider reports that the venture is down the tubes, and Portfolio is history. Carlson says the problem was that the editors could not stay on topic. In the midst of a major financial collapse, the magazine was printing vicious attack pieces on Sarah Palin, when it should have been examining the economic trends responsible for the recession and discussing strategies for business survival.

The FAIL, although not Epic, is just another little sign that using expensive resources for hate propaganda instead of running a business like it's a business is not a winning proposition.

- JP

Phoned-in Palin attack FAIL (Updated)

*
Many years ago, when I was a teenage college student, my political science professor taught me a valuable lesson. He returned a paper I had written with a grade of 37 on it and the following scribbled in the margin in angry red ink:

"Your paper is all supposition. Where is your supporting evidence?"

I learned from the experience. You can't just phone it in and expect to be taken seriously.

In today's Politico, another college professor, Jeremy D. Mayer, phones one in. We are told in italics at the bottom of his article that he's an associate professor and director of the master’s program in public policy at George Mason University.

Early on in his piece, Prof. Mayer claims that Gov. Sarah Palin is unelectable as a presidential candidate. He presents no supporting evidence for that claim. No poll numbers, nothing.

He then says that Palin as a presidential candidate would be like Rev. Jesse Jackson was to the Democrats in the 1980s. The professor does list a number of reasons why Jackson was unelectable and concludes that no other candidate could criticize Jackson without the risk of losing the support of black voters. He says criticism of Palin would similarly cost her opponents the evangelical vote.

But Mayer follows that with another unsupported claim:

Her inability to appear even minimally competent made her one of the rare vice presidential nominees to damage the ticket in November.

What credible evidence does he offer for this? None. Perter Kirsanow wrote at National Review's The Corner that Palin actually helped the ticket:

Prior to the selection of Palin, McCain's campaign wasn't exactly lighting up the Republican base. The names Romney and Pawlenty were generating mostly yawns. Palin's selection electrified the base like no other candidate on a GOP ticket since Reagan. It caused many wary and dispirited conservatives to reconcile with the top of the ticket. Even though the media onslaught against her may have had an effect on the ticket's final numbers, I'm not sure there's any evidence that those numbers would've been higher had someone else been the VP nominee. My guess is the reverse is true.

But a guess is not good enough. Let's look at some numbers:

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republican voters say Alaska Governor Sarah Palin helped John McCain’s bid for the presidency, even as news reports surface that some McCain staffers think she was a liability.

Only 20% of GOP voters say Palin hurt the party’s ticket, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Six percent (6%) say she had no impact, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Only eight percent (8%) have an unfavorable view of her, including three percent (3%) Very Unfavorable.

When asked to choose among some of the GOP’s top names for their choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin. The next closest contenders are two former governors and unsuccessful challengers for the presidential nomination this year -- Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 12% support and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts with 11%.

Three other sitting governors – Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Charlie Crist of Florida and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota – all pull low single-digit support.

These findings echo a survey earlier this week which found that Republicans were happier with their vice presidential candidate than with their presidential nominee. Seventy-one percent (71%) said McCain made the right choice by picking Palin as his running mate, while only 65% said the party picked the right nominee for president.

But these are Republicans. What about swing voters? Mayer says:

Palin’s vapidity, inexperience and hard-right social views drove many moderates and conservatives into neutrality or the Obama camp.

He furnishes no evidence to support the claim, of course. Are you seeing the pattern here?

Mayer's unsupported claim is shot down by statistics:

Of the 60 percent of voters who told exit pollsters Sarah Palin was an "important factor" in their decision, 56 percent voted for Sen. McCain. Those who said she was not an important factor voted for Sen. Obama by a 64 to 33 percent margin.

People who thought that Palin was a factor did make up a quarter of Obama's vote. But that doesn't mean that opposition to Palin "drove" those voters away from McCain. There could have been any number of other factors at play. It's not exactly the mass exodus of voters claimed by Mayer and other political hit men who are gunning for the governor.

Now you would think that an associate professor and director of the master’s program in public policy at George Mason University could at least present a more compelling case against Sarah Palin than what he offers in this article. But, like most attacks on the governor, this one was phoned in, and it's just another Politico hit piece.

Which begs the question, Where is Professor Mayer coming from? Some insight may be found by examining his political financial contributions (h/t: commenter ugafish). For some reason, Politico left Mayer's 2004 donation to John Kerry out of their all-too-brief bio information in the italicized line at the end of the article. I wonder why? Perhaps the good professor's credibility as an "unbiased political expert" would be somewhat diminished if the reader suspected he might be shilling for the Democrat Party. Gee, do ya' think?

In another Politico article mayer argued for a McCain-Lieberman "fusion" ticket. The professor needs to fire his graduate research assistants. As J.A. Culvahouse explained, there were legal roadblocks to Lieberman's viability as a potential McCain running mate:

"Five states have sore loser statutes," he said, "[making] it very difficult for someone who's not a member of the Republican Party to become the vice presidential nominee if they only switch parties to become a Republican shortly before the convention."

Mayer is one of those who argue that liberalism is what the Republican Party needs to solve all of its problems. Yet none of them can tell us how more liberalism will bring considerable numbers of disaffected Reagan Democrats and social conservatives angry with McCain back into the Republican Party.

The Democrats and Vichy Republicans are going to have to do better than this to take out Sarah Palin. I'll give it a grade of 37 out of a possible 100:

FAIL

Update: Manly also calls BS on the professor.

- JP

Cross-posted at RedState.com

Anti-Palin political posturing FAIL in Alaska

As TX4P reported here, Anchorage television station KTUU conducted an online poll Monday regarding Gov. Sarah Palin's travel plans. Alaska Democrats and a few Republicans had
strongly criticized the governor for her intention to travel to Indiana at the end of this week, accusing Palin of shirking her duties in the final days of the legislative session.

To measure public opinion on the matter, the poll asked just one question:

Do you approve of Gov. Sarah Palin traveling Outside during the last week of the legislative session?

The Palin Phenomenon of late last year appears not to have abated at all, as the station's survey received about three times the normal number of respondents to its online poll.

Over 4,500 people voted, and 80% of them, an overwhelming majority, indicated that they approved of Gov. Palin's decision to attend the two charitable events in Evansville, IN. Only 20% answered in the negative.

Though not scientific, the results of KTUU's poll supports the opinion expressed by the governor's supporters that her political enemies claimed outrage over her plans to leave the state for two days are nothing more than political posturing.

The numbers also suggest that Sarah Palin is still an immensely popular public figure, despite the non-stop campaign against her since September by her political opponents, leftist bloggers and the media.

- JP