Leading Leftist Magazine Does A Sarah Palin Rethink

*
At The Nation, the leading leftist magazine's Washington correspondent John Nichols argues that Sarah Palin will have to be taken seriously. Of course to get to Nichols' backhanded praise, the reader who eschews drinking the "progressive" Kool-Aid has to wade though the usual leftist smears and distortions.

The author states, for example, that he "has reported on her ethically-challenged tenure as Alaska’s governor," but never bothers to mention that every ethics charge made against her was politically motivated. Indeed, of the twenty-something bogus claims and lawsuits filed against Gov. Palin, most all were dismissed as frivolous, lacking not only evidence, but any real substance. What remained were a couple of minor molehills rather than mountains which were settled and explicitly cleared the governor of any wrongdoing.

Nichols also labels Sarah Palin "a quitter" while ignoring that Barack Obama quit his job as a U.S. Senator to run for president, even after promising in 2004, "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." The "best possible senator" then quit after just half a term to run for president.

But once he tells the obligatory leftist lies and makes the usual distortions, Nichols moves on:

But Palin’s endorsements in Republican primaries – her most significant political initiative since resigning her post in Alaska last year – have been more adventurous and more successful than her critics (and some of her allies) choose to imagine.

[...]

Now, an even bigger test is about to play out in Georgia, where Palin has endorsed former Secretary of State Karen Handel in Tuesday’s crowded GOP primary for governor. Here is evidence of Palin Power...

[...]

If Branstad wins in Iowa, Palin will have a friendly governor in the first caucus state of the 2012 Republican presidential race. And if Fiorina wins, she will have an important ally in the state that will send the largest delegation to the party’s convention.

If she brings a solid base out of the south – with help from the likes of Haley in South Carolina and Handel in Georgia – it will be a lot harder to write Palin off.

[...]

The safer bet until recently was that Palin would opt out of the 2012 race, in order to keep making money and, perhaps, to position herself for a future run. But, like Ronald Reagan heading into the 1976 and 1980 Republican presidential primaries, she is beginning to establish a network of connections – and evidence of political savvy and influence – that make it harder and harder to dismiss her as a real prospect.

Juxtaposed against the gang-that-couldn’t-shoot-straight nature of the rest of the Republican 2012 pack, Palin is emerging as her party’s most potent prospect. A favorable result from Georgia will merely add to the argument that it is time to accept that Palin is becoming the definitional player in the GOP – much as another conservative outrider, and former governor, named Reagan was in the late 1970s.

We have written about the media's new Palin narrative here and here, citing evidence of it at liberal lamestream outlets TIME and The New York Times. Now the narrative seems to be spreading to more overtly leftist publications, as this piece in The Nation indicates. It's a fascinating phenomenon to observe, as the media, while continuing to take potshots at Sarah Palin, concedes that which we have been saying for two years now: she deserves to be taken seriously.

- JP

More On "Bucks For Brazil"

First it was a spokesperson for the Export-Import Bank of the U.S to try to deflect attention away from the fact that no one in the Obama Administration had given a satisfactory answer to Sarah Palin's question:

"So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than two billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil...?

That tactic having failed, Fred Hochberg, the bank's president and CEO, had his letter to the editor appear in the Thursday edition of The Wall Street Journal:

"The mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that."

"That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that American—not foreign—workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years."

[...]

"Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress."

We think that Mr. Hochberg's language here was carefully constructed. Notice that he says "increases the likelihood" that U.S. workers will be hired by Petrobras. There is no guarantee that the state-owned Brazilian oil company will employ Americans.

Another thing about the Hochberg letter's language that we find interesting is in his claim that the bank is self-sustaining, therefore "does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress." Yet it is entirely possible for Ex-Im Bank to use taxpayer money without needing to get Congress to appropriate the funds. According to West's Encyclopedia of American Law (link):

"The bank is authorized to have outstanding at any one time dollar loans, guarantees, and insurance in an aggregate amount not to exceed $75 billion. The bank is also authorized to have a capital stock of $1 billion and may borrow from the U.S. Treasury up to $6 billion outstanding at any one time. Subsidy costs of the bank's programs are appropriated on an annual basis."

Correct us if we're wrong here, but that money in the federal treasury that Ex-Im can tap came from the American taxpayers, the government not having any real money of its own.

If the bank "does not rely on taxpayer money" -- as spokesman Cogan told Politico -- then someone needs to inform Bernie (emphasis ours):

"The great irony of Ex-Im policy is not just that taxpayer support goes to wealthy and profitable corporations that don't need it, but that in the name of "job creation" a substantial amount of federal funding goes to precisely those corporations that are eliminating hundreds of thousands of American jobs."

[...]

"... your Ex-Im taxpayer dollars at work..."

[...]

"Since 1994 the Ex-Im Bank has provided $673 million in loans and loan guarantees for projects related to the Enron Corporation, leaving taxpayers exposed to $514 million."

[...]

"American citizens have better things to do with their money than support an agency that provides welfare for corporations that couldn't care less about American workers."

We're sure that Bernie Sanders never dreamed that his op-ed would be used to vindicate a Reagan conservative such as Sarah Palin. The Vermonter is hardly a right-winger. In fact, he's rather proud to be a socialist. And The Nation, the leftist magazine in which his opinion piece appeared in 2002, is one of the former Alaska governor's harshest critics. But the fact remains that at least one sitting United States Senator is under the impression that the Ex-IM Bank uses taxpayer money.

Finally, we have to point out that Sarah Palin's question is still deserving of an answer. This is not Mr. Hochberg's fault. As he said in his letter, neither he nor anyone else working for the bank makes policy. The policy which called upon Ex-Im to make the loan was made by the Obama administration. As we said in our earlier post, the president or someone who is authorized to speak for him needs to answer the lady's question.

Related: American Thinker's Michael Lisle has more on the Soros connection here.

Update: Watchdog Politics Examiner Martha Gore: "Answer the question"

- JP

MSNBO, the network of low blows

NewsBusters.org's Scott Whitlock reports:

Nation magazine sports editor Dave Zirin appeared on MSNBC’s News Live on Tuesday to discuss college football and ended up trashing Sarah Palin. Talking with host David Shuster about a new SEC regulation stopping fans from using social networking sites at games, Zirin frothed that odd sports rules are like

"Sarah Palin considering herself a college graduate. Just ‘cause you call yourself that, doesn't mean it means anything."

It's one thing for The Tingly Leg Channel to smear Sarah Palin while reporting (yes, it's a bit of a stretch to call what MSNBO does "reporting") a story in which she is a newsmaker. But to so gratuitously inject her into a totally unrelated discussion in this manner suggests DNC oppo talking points which creepy people like Zirin feel they must use before their expiration dates. But after reflecting on why The Nation has a sports editor in the first place, we conclude that smearing Palin is one of the leftist magazine's favorite sports. It probably ranks up there with beating up vendors at town hall rallies and intimidating little girls.

BTW, the left wing NBC stepchild increasingly appears to be preaching to only the choir moonbats in the belfry, as Fox News pulls ratings higher than MSNBC, CNN and HLN combined.

- JP