Hewitt, Levin, Riehl pound Politico's prejudiced anti- Palin pitching

"The evidence of a Politico agenda is overwhelming"
*
Bravo Hugh Hewitt, Mark Levin, and Dan Riehl, all of whom stepped up to the plate for Sarah Palin Monday against leftist Politico's latest disingenuous and vicious attack on her. All three hit it out of the park.

First, Hugh Hewitt, via his blog hosted by Townhall.com:

Sarah Palin tweets a shout-out for my Washington Examiner column.

[...]

Sarah Palin is right. The MSM remains awestruck, and for the obvious reason: The president is one of them --glib as they define it, credentialed with that which they value, and unburdened by any set of skills they don't have and thus find threatening (for example, successful business experience.)

Having foisted the president on us in 2008, the elite media will be working overtime to keep him propped up on the theory that a second term couldn't be any worse and might even get better.

The country couldn't afford that.

[...]

Governor Palin is herself under one of the periodic attacks ginned up by her permanent opposition --nested among the MSM that isn't doing its job covering the president's whoppers. The MSM Presidential Praetorian Guard is quick to strike out at any critic of the president's --Michele Bachmann, for example, is also getting the treatment for a gaffe far less significant than the never-mentioned 57 states pratfall or similar Obama slips.

Incredibly, Politico.com did not dissect the president's press conference on Friday, but is leading this week's coverage with a relentlessly negative story on Palin.

The president is presiding like Chance the gardener over a Middle East in flames, refusing to do anything about skyrocketing deficits and a debt time bomb, is disconnected from the reality of why gas prices are soaring, all while his signature "achievement" has been declared unconstitutional, and the first news day after an eye-rolling White House presser and in the middle of a horrific disaster, the big feet of Politico are doing what? Blasting Sarah Palin?

The MSM is arrayed around the president, ready to defend him from any critics. That's the lay of the 2012 land. Get used to it.

[More]

Next up, Mark Levin, in a Facebook Note:

The corporate hate for Sarah Palin at Politico is obvious. The latest is here.

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.

[...]

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 [George Will and Charles Krauthammer] 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.

[...]

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. 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.

[...]

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, remind 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.

[More]

Our third batter is Dan Riehl, in this post at Riehl World View:

Matt Labash ... must make good coffee as I see he's been with the Weakly Standard for a while.

The name floats by on Twitter occasionally, if anything, causing me to wonder, who the hell is that guy, when it does. Frankly, I've never bothered to find out ... before now. So his beyond sophomoric to pitifully stupid and inaccurate shot at Sarah Palin is priceless, if insignificant. I wonder if Kristol will give him an extra fifteen minutes for lunch for a week, given that he provided the headline for Palin-obsessed Jonathan Martin's latest hit piece on her.

[...]

He obviously strained to be clever, but is it even remotely accurate - even assuming you think the worst of Palin? No, of course it isn't, not in the least if you actually know anything, or pause to think, about who Sharpton and Palin are as personalities.

You see, the substance didn't matter at all to Labash. He knows the Beltway establishment and his bosses don't approve of her and she's been treated as fair game. Rather than say anything genuinely insightful, even if critical, he simply went for what might get him the most chuckles and pats on the back at some watercooler in Washington. That's not an action representative of someone considered to be a serious conservative voice. It's a wannabe, or, more accurately, a never will be. Really, now, how weak, how pathetic is such a misguided comparison? Frankly, using it is a tactic of someone with a genuine character flaw and over-riding need for approval and acceptance within the circles he calls home.

The criticism is so over the top, it would be beneath a serious person. It really is that pathetic, as well as wrong. Palin doesn't rush in to localities. She doesn't take up individuals as causes, file lawsuits, or promote herself outrageously like Sharpton. There simply is no comparison at all. It was purely a mechanism for Labash to flatter himself and try to impress ... friends, not say anything at all relevant to Sarah Palin.

And let's please dispense with this whole "influential conservative" meme, not only for Labash, but for most of the rest of the all too often foolish, self-congratulatory and self-professed elitists at TWS and many of our other Beltway publications.

[...]

As I recently pointed out, combined, Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin reach upwards of 40 million people a week. Those people vote, a fact sometimes lost on the Beltway set - until they want the exposure each of them can offer. Then suddenly, it's all good! But no way would I characterize any of the popular talkers who actually are influential across the population as near fully in line with much of what one reads at our Beltway pubs like TWS and others

When you boil it all down, Labash and company talk to the inside the Beltway set and a relatively small number of individuals who give certain campaigns money.

[...]

The vast majority of America doesn't even know who these people are.

But they do know who Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton are, not to mention that even Sharpton's income probably dwarfs that of a Labash, or some other Beltway hack. Ah, but they're important ... they're influential. Yeah, right. We know that because Jonathan Martin at the Politico told us so. Now that, ... that's a joke. When was the last time any serious conservative took that Palin-obsessed lightweight at his word?

[More]

Three batters up. Three home runs against Politico's prejudiced pitching. The leftist website should just drop all pretense and change its name to Politiburo.

- JP

Hugh Hewitt: Sarah's setup for 2012

A review of "America By Heart"
*
Hugh Hewitt reviewed Gov. Palin's America by Heart for the Washington Examiner's Monday edition and found it to be "a very fine read, one that displays a unified theory of America and a complete understanding of the key currents that will swirl through the politics of the next two years." He also judges it to be "a near perfect setup for a presidential run":

If the book has a target, it is in fact the coastal elites that define and drive so much of American culture. The big foots of Manhattan-Beltway-Los Angeles media aren't going to be familiar with Charles Stanley or Max Lucado, but Palin is comfortable quoting them in support of her points. Some of those elites might recognize the names of Fred Barnes, Arthur Brooks, Jonah Goldberg, Kathryn Jean Lopez, and Rich Lowry, but they may blink at Palin's quick references to the Brooks' key book, "The Battle." The odds are good that these elites are not regular readers of National Review or the Weekly Standard and thus not remotely familiar with the arguments that powered the red wave this past November.

Palin's grasp of the current political moment is comprehensive. She knows the conservative movement. She is generous about those who lead it with her, spending time praising Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, for example. And contrary to press reports, she allots very little ink to direct criticism of the president.

"America by Heart" is an upbeat, positive affirmation of traditional American values. I have often thought and said that not since Richard Nixon can any Republican divide a room more quickly than Sarah Palin, and this is because she is so completely the anti-anti-American, totally comfortable with and confident in her assertion of American exceptionalism. Palin is also very much the counterforce to Al Gore, not only as the repudiation of his ideology and his politics, but also as a base-rousing, media-driving original whose appeal cannot be blunted by the endless abuse she receives from the unwatchable washed-ups on "The View" or elsewhere.

[More]

Hewitt rains on the hopes of liberals who wish she would just go away, calling Sarah Palin "a powerful American voice, one that will remain that way for years to come, whether she runs for president in 2012 or not."

- JP

Hugh Hewitt: 'You Can't Trust Journalists'

*
Hugh Hewitt, a professor of Constitutional Law at Chapman University and popular syndicated talk radio host, discusses the untrustworthy, arrogant lamestream media and its treatment of Sarah Palin in this clip with Fox News' Megyn Kelly:



- JP

Gov. Palin rallies crowd of 6,000 in Denver (Updated)

*
Sarah Palin rallied a crowd of thousands to their feet in Denver Saturday night with a "red meat" speech criticizing President Obama and Congressional Democrats:

But Palin didn't mention any of Colorado's testy political fights.

In a speech to about 6,000 at the University of Denver, Palin criticized President Barack Obama and sounded classic conservative themes of smaller government and a stronger national defense.

What the outspoken conservative favorite didn't do was take sides or even mention politics in Colorado, where she's listed two House Democrats as targets for defeat, Reps. John Salazar and Betsy Markey.

Gov. Palin proved false the rumors being pushed by The Huffington Post that during her speech she would endorse Jane Norton over Ken Buck in Colorado's GOP primary race for the Senate:

Both Norton and Buck attended Palin's speech, but neither was on stage nor got a mention in Palin's remarks. Norton met privately with Palin before the speech.

Palin confined her remarks to national politics. She defended Arizona's immigration law. She said Obama's foreign policy was too weak against nuclear threats posed by North Korea and Iran. And she criticized the health care reform law and warned of peril caused by federal spending deficits.

"It's time for an awakening in America," Palin said.

The 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate was joined on state by Salem media talk show hosts Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt, who also spoke. The three participated in a brief question and answer session after the governor's address.

Here's how Fox 31 (KDVR) covered the event:



Update:In a published story on its webstite, KDVR listed three quotes ostensibly from the governor's Denver speech. But after reviewing a video of the address at The Right Scoop, it seems that two of them were taken from or paraphrased from other Palin speeches. Only the "America got snookered" quote was actually part of Gov. Palin's Denver speech. Thanks to the Palin staff's R.A. Mansour for being the first to catch that. And shame on KDVR for, as Gov. Palin says, "making things up."

More coverage from KUSA and the Denver Post.

- JP

Steve Schmidt talks Gov. Palin with Hugh Hewitt

McCain senior campaign strategist Steve Schmidt was Hugh Hewitt's guest on his talk show Monday night, and among the questions he was asked were several having to do with his boss' former running mate. Schmidt said that he, unlike most Sarah Palin's supporters, considered her treatment by ABC's Charlie Gibson and CBS' Katie Couric to be fair, although he did admit that overall, she was treated unfairly by "a lot of the media" during the campaign.

When Schmidt was asked why McCain staffers waited so long to allow Gov. Palin to appear on conservative radio talk shows, environment which would be friendly to the governor, Schmidt said that she delivered "one of the great convention speeches of the last generation by a candidate of either party," Team McCain kept her away from the talk show circuit to "build suspense."

In Schmidt's opinion, the McCain campaign staff "served her well." yes, we all noticed how well-served Gov. Palin was by the leaked lies that she didn't know that Africa was a continent and couldn't name the member countries of NAFTA, even though she had to know at least two of the three to handle the trade negotiations she concluded with Canadian company Trans Canada for a major gas pipeline deal.

When Hewitt asked Schmidt if he had to do it over again, would he still pick Gov. Palin, Schmidt reminded the talk show host that it was John McCain who ultimately made the decision to choose her:

"Well, Senator McCain made the pick. I…and it’s been reported that I was a, that I was an advocate of it, and I was. And politically, I believe it was the right thing to do in the time. [...] But no, I don’t regret it, and I still believe electorally, her pick helped the Senator in the election. And I think that when you look at all the things that we had stacked up against us, I believe it was the right pick to make, politically, still."

Read the full transcript of the interview here.

h/t: Team Sarah

- JP