Day By Day (April 25, 2011)

Randy Shrugs
*
Good morning! It's a wonderful life if we just take it Day By Day:


Please support Chris Muir's pro-Palin Day By Day.

- JP

Quote of the Day (April 24, 2011)

A raft of economists have concluded that Mrs. Palin’s early warning was right
*
The New York Sun:

“Disappointment in the Fed’s policies is being reported this morning at the top of page one of the New York Times... It’s a terrific story, and well-timed, given that on Wednesday Mr. Bernanke will break tradition and meet with the press. It is part of the Fed’s effort to get ahead of what is emerging as a public relations catastrophe, as gasoline is nearing six dollars a gallon at some pumps, the cost of groceries is skyrocketing, and the value of the dollars that Mr. Bernanke’s institution issues as Federal Reserve notes has collapsed to less than a 1,500th of an ounce of gold. Unemployment is still high. Shakespeare couldn’t come up with a better plot. But how in the world did Mrs. Palin, who is supposed to be so thick, manage to figure all this out so far ahead of the New York Times and all the economists it talked to?”

- JP

The LSM finally notices Wonkette's attack on Trig (for 2 minutes)

"Beyond the bounds of reasonable"
*
After a week of silence from the legacy media on the subject, one program on a single lamestream media outlet finally paid a little attention to Wonkette's Trig meltdown. It was the subject of a two-minute roundtable on CNN's weekly media analysis program "Reliable Sources." Host Howard Kurtz, Washington Post columnists Jennifer Rubin and Clarence Page, and Michael Wolff of Adweek were on the panel:


Mediaite's Tommy Christopher criticized the discussion as "disappointingly superficial," opined that Kurtz "perhaps" gave Wonkette too much credit for its "apology," and opined that overall, "the effect was a failure to convey the true character of the Wonkette post."

A transcript of the program is here.

- JP

More Quote of the Day Honorable Mention, Part 260

Special "A Question of Balance" Edition
*

Moe Lane at RedState.com:

"It’s actually very entertaining to watch The Daily Beast try to offer a ‘balanced’ look at the Trig Palin situation... The Left is starting to realize just how bad Trig Trooferism looks, you see. The not-totally-brain-dead portions of it don’t want this issue getting any more press... particularly since it will complicate any sort of ‘look at the crazy Birthers’ narrative. So… suppress the Trig Troofers now, and keep them suppressed. Which is the primary reason for The Daily Beast’s damage control efforts, of course. You see, The Daily Beast recently hired Andrew Sullivan away from Atlantic.com, and Andrew Sullivan is easily the most notorious Trig Troofer out there. And I do mean‘most notorious’: Andrew Sullivan obsesses over Sarah Palin’s reproductive system to a degree that puts most heterosexual Casanova-types in the shade. It’s not going to be all that great for Tina Brown if her prized ‘get’ shows up just as the controversy that he’s most known for is being slammed for the pernicious nonsense that it is, all across the blogosphere…"

Dana Loesch at Big Journalism:

"Apparently mothers and fathers standing up for a special needs child is a ‘mob,’ according to Sullivan. Birther Sullivan calls mocking a toddler ‘fearless free speech?’ No, it’s cowardice asinine rhetoric. You cowards pick on the toddler because you’re outmatched by the child’s mother."

Cliff Kincaid at Family Security Matters:

"What drives a left-wing blogger to mock a little boy with a disability? Is it just hatred for Sarah Palin, a pro-life mother who exposes what is at stake in the battle over the ‘right to choose?’ Or is it that a mother would bring a child with Down syndrome into the world? This controversy is important because of what it says about the progressive mentality. The progressives, who like to think of themselves as guardians of the most vulnerable and defenseless among us, do not have any sympathy for people they believe should not exist or be born. They believe that a mother should terminate the life of a baby with potential defects. This is not only because of their belief that women’s rights always trump the rights of the unborn, but because it is too costly to take care of them, once they come into the world. They support Big Government and higher spending, except on babies whose visible and active lives would make left-wing feminists, a key part of their constituency, feel uncomfortable. The Wonkette controversy goes far beyond a blogger with bad taste and no conscience. It tells us a lot about the mentality of the progressives in charge of the federal government who are moving ahead with implementation of Obamacare."

Andrew Marcus at Big Government:

"It hadn’t occurred to me before, but it’s the tiny minority of progressive Democrats who are knuckle-dragging, mouth-frothing, and terminally deranged with hatred for Sarah Palin, who were the original birthers! The Obama birthers are knock-offs of the original birther movement."

Susannah Fleetwood at Parcbench:

"Every liberal entertainer, professor and pundit that most liberals respect call Republicans ‘teabaggers’ and ‘racists’, say horrific things about Sarah Palin, and even spread internet rumors about her son... or her husband... (and yes -- Andrew Sullivan and Bill Maher are both mainstream liberal figures -– they are not the fringe). Therefore, many of them don’t know anybody who doesn’t think that this is unacceptable behavior, so they assume that ‘everyone is doing it’ or would approve of it. So now, they think that anything goes for liberals expressing their point of view... If someone is disagreeing with you, shout them down. If you don’t like a politician, call them a four letter word and attack their family. If someone is arguing with you at a protest, then curse them out–and maybe even hit them in the head with a sign for good measure. Who is going to call you out on it, The New York Times? Please... And as far as Sarah Palin goes, well, you can pretty much say anything that you want about her, because The New York Times thinks that she’s an accessory to murder for using the same kind of target maps that Democrats use, because… well, they don’t agree with her. (See how it works?)"

Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters:

"Maybe this will finally teach these vulgarians that children shouldn't be used as pawns in this dirty game of politics."

Little Miss Attila:

"The only thing left is to challenge the often-repeated assertion, recycled by Layne and Steuf, that Palin uses Trig as a ‘political prop’. We’ve been told this for a long time, originally by Mr. Andrew Sullivan... What these jokers need to tell us is what their suggested policies are for handling infants on the campaign trail, and for handling the mentally challenged on the campaign trail. What. Are. Your. Rules? They won’t do it, because 1) if they spelled them out, they’d have to follow them, and 2) if they spelled them out, they would look completely absurd."

Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit:

"Stay strong, Wonkette. We are all enjoying your humiliating public meltdown."

Peter Ingemi at Datechguy's Blog:

"One might think that would be a story, and it likely would be if the major public figure was named Clinton or Obama and the web site involved was conservative. Alas, the public figure is Sarah Palin and the Web Site is Wonkette. This makes it a twofer. It portrays the left in a poor light for a start and any such story might create sympathy for her at a time when the Republican Nomination is up in the air. So starting with ‘Morning Joe’ and continuing with all the MSM’s morning shows this has become a non-story. Not even a scroll at the bottom of the screen."

Herman Cain via Twitter:

"All life is precious. @SarahPalinUSA, you have many friends on both sides of the aisle standing with you. #trigscrew"

B. Daniel Blatt at Gay Patriot:

"It’s not anti-gay to hold someone to account for crossing a certain line. And Wonkette went way over the line in mocking the child of a prominent conservative leader reviled on the left. As would a conservative blogger who mocked the president’s children — or the children of any Democratic politician. It’s one thing to criticize Sarah Palin and take issue with her ideas, it’s quite another to attack her children. It is telling that they’re now playing the anti-gay card. Their critics have won the argument. Instead of conceding the point and acknowledging their error, they choose to personalize the matter. They just can’t let the right win. But, here it’s not the right that’s ‘won’, but common decency that’s won out."

Jennifer Harper at The Washington Times:

"Yes, there are limits, even in the blogosphere."

Rick Moran at American Thinker Blog:

"I didn't think anything I read on the internet could shock me. This did... Where's Think Progress on this scandal? Or Digby? Or Steve Benen? Or Jane Hamsher? Or Kos? Or any other liberal blogger who can find the time to trash the right for even the most minuscule of transgressions, but stays silent as a colleague attacks a baby in the most shockingly illiberal manner. No outrage about making fun of a special needs child? Or the insinuation of incest?"

Steven Nelson at The Daily Caller:

"Wonkette post mocking Trig Palin drudges up Journolist"

William Jacobson at Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion:

"Don't Cheer Wonkette's Removal of Latest Post Mocking Trig Palin... First, the point for me was not to get the post taken down, it was to hold Ken Layne, the owner of Wonkette, responsible for a long history of mocking Trig Palin at Wonkette. The most recent post was not even the worst. The other posts mocking Trig Palin, linked in my prior posts, remain active. The writer this time, Jack Stuef, did nothing worse than other Wonkette writers and editors have done repeatedly. Second, there is no true regret or acknowledgement by Layne. Even in this belated removal, in reaction to advertisers pulling ads from Wonkette, Layne cannot hide his disdain. The actions of Layne are nothing more than a post-conviction apology from someone who is upset only that he got caught."

- JP

Sarah Palin: Happy Easter

From Gov. Palin and her family via Facebook
*

Happy Easter

Easter is the celebration of what hope really means. In Jesus’ triumph over death through His Resurrection, we believe that death was defeated and hope became the expectation of eternal life with God.

Hope is the great driving force in many of our lives, and it has been the driving force in our country’s history. America has always had a strong sense that God’s providence is abundant, that no challenge can ever be too great and no enemy too strong. It was this hope that inspired us to carve a nation out of the wilderness, to appreciate opportunities to responsibly utilize nature’s resources, to engineer skyscrapers towering over our gleaming cities, and to fly to the moon.

As a country and as individuals, we can always have true hope to guide us. Our best days remain ahead of us. And working together we will leave this country to our children a better place than we received it from our parents.

On this blessed day let’s remember our Lord’s sacrifice that led to the Resurrection; and from the whole Palin family, have a wonderful Easter!

- Sarah Palin

- JP

Mark Levin: IAPB is the death panel Sarah Palin warned about

"Sarah Palin was exactly correct when she called this a death panel."
*

h/t: theblogprof

- JP

Day By Day (April 24, 2011)

Living Atlas Shrugged
*
Good morning! It's a wonderful life if we just take it Day By Day:


Please support Chris Muir's pro-Palin Day By Day.

- JP

Quote of the Day (April 23, 2011)

The Angels Who Stood Guard over Trig
*
Uncoverage.net:

“The angels were and are standing guard over Trig Palin. Mama and Papa 'Grizzly' Palin, should NOT have had to defend their baby from this vitriolic attack. There were conservative bloggers who took up the shield and brought the right results. Some of Trig Palin’s 'angels' standing guard, IMHO, were our wonderful St. Louis bloggers, Jim Hoft... Dana Loesch... John Nolte... Steven Ertelt of LifeNews... Kudos, of COURSE, to conservative, pro-life bloggers and all of our outraged readers who stood shoulder-to-shoulder to back these dogs into the corner where they belong. SHAME on the liberal media who sit silently on the sidelines as if it didn’t happen.”

- JP

Stacy McCain: The perfect storm which spawns Trig troofer twisters

An overwhelming impulse among Dems to destroy Sarah by any means necessary
*
Several of the many who have commented on the Trig conspiracy madness which descended to the bottom of the septic tank that is the leftosphere have asked how it could have come to pass. Or, as Nat Brown at NRO's Media Blog phrased the question:

One has to ask; just how did we get to a point where making fun of a small child for having a mental disability is acceptable simply because of his mother’s politics?

Stacy McCain has a theory of how it all developed:

1. Palin’s surprise choice – Almost nobody expected Sarah Palin to be chosen as John McCain’s running mate. I remember that the DNC had a page devoted to oppo-research on all of the likely GOP VP picks, and Palin’s name wasn’t on that list. So, in the immediate aftermath of her selection, there was a very small supply of information to meet an overwhelming demand.
2. The Alaska sources — The choice of Palin suddenly elevated this tiny handful of Palin’s Alaska enemies, led by Shannyn Moore, to the status of authoritative sources. This was their 15 minutes of fame, and they were eager to capitalize on it.
3. The “Save Obama” panic — Prior to the announcement of Palin as John McCain’s running-mate, Democrats had been confident that Barack Obama was cruising to victory. Within a week of the Palin pick, however, the Republican ticket surged ahead in polls and — by the time I covered a McCain-Palin rally in Ohio September 9 – it was obvious that Palin had struck a spark with the GOP grassroots. So there was an overwhelming impulse among Democrats to destroy Sarah Palin by any means necessary.

This combination of factors created a ”perfect storm” environment in which such bogus narratives as Trig-Trutherism could flourish. There was a media updraft by which the most worthless pissant bloggers, like Jesse “Gryphen” Griffin, could be catapulted to national importance. A credulous willingness on the part of liberals to believe anything that made Sarah Palin look bad — a near-infinite appetite for anti-Palin “news” — was the essential element of this updraft.

[More]

Or, in a more simplistic way of looking at things, it could just simply be that, with a precious few exceptions, those on the left have, as our USMC friends say, "no code."

- JP

Stephen Crowder: No Laughing Matter

Cowards
*

Crowder's FoxNews.com op-ed is here.

- JP

Day By Day (April 23, 2011)

ObamaCAIR
*
Good morning! It's a wonderful life if we just take it Day By Day:


Please support Chris Muir's pro-Palin Day By Day.

- JP

Quote of the Day (April 22, 2011)

'A grave danger to America'?
*
Stacy McCain at The Real McCain:

“It is Palin’s 'grave danger' that, in Layne’s demented mind, justifies the no-holds-barred anti-Palin attacks... Hillary had the temerity [to] oppose the anointing of Obama and, just as Ken Layne says of Sarah Palin, that made Hillary a 'grave danger to America' in the eyes of the Obamaphiliac press. Liberals think we’re stupid, but we’re not too stupid to see what they’re doing or to understand why they’re doing it.”

- JP

More Quote of the Day Honorable Mention, Part 259

"Honesty" Edition
*

Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road:

"To do as you've said you'll do is a mark of trustworthy character... Your Curmudgeon has been a Palin admirer and booster since he first became aware of her... above all, for being exactly who she says she is, and doing exactly as she's said she'll do. The coverage of Governor Palin since the 2008 elections has demonstrated this repeatedly. It's made her the most terrible threat to the Left, which is aware of how magnetic perceived, confirmed sincerity can be to the public. Thus, it must bend its efforts to her destruction, and "civility" be damned... It must denigrate her performance as a governor. It must attack her religious convictions. It must question her ethics. It must insult her children. It must invade her privacy in every conceivable manner. To those who worship power, all other considerations are dismissible. 'Civility' doesn't even register on their radars; at least, not as decent Americans understand it. It's merely one more indication that one cannot simultaneously be a decent American and a Leftist -- and the twenty percent of American voters who decline to align with either political party in an enduring fashion are becoming ever more aware of it. Keep the pressure on."

Patrick S. Adams at Patrick's World USA:

"The hits on Sarah Palin are ramping up again. The Palin hate tweet traffic was also up. Even the mainstream media was starting to lie about her again. Sarah Palin is back!"

Tina Hemond at Degrees of Moderation:

"Nothing drives the establishment press and Beltway pundits (from all political affiliations) around the bend more than someone whom they feel is not 'up to snuff' attempt to throw a proverbial hat into the ring of political ring as a candidate for higher office – be it a Senator or in this case a run at the Presidency. It is evident, and has been since one Sarah Palin hit the stage in 2008 at the GOP convention as the Vice Presidential Candidate that there was something 'not quite right' about Sarah. For starters she didn’t have an Ivy League degree, nor was she a Washington Insider, she didn’t speak in the manner to which both East and West coast academics were accustomed, rather used language and colloquiums that were more in tune with those whose education and class might be suspect to those who consider themselves America’s Elite. The fact that she was a woman and conservative, that was too much to bear – from the right and from the left came barbs from the ludicrous to the just plain crass – and it continues today, with little known professors writing tomes about Palin that are more fiction than fact."

Dan Riehl at Riehl World View:

"The point, lil' Davey, is that the media loves to cover Palin when they can somehow spin the news to make it seem bad for her. That the Madison speech went over so well, especially on the Right, is the reason people might feel compelled to point out the relative lack of coverage in this particular instance."

Peter Ingemi at Datechguy's Blog:

"Mr. Weigel is read by people on the left and independents, to include these links would defeat the purpose of the article (Mocking Palin and her supporters) rather than inform them of what she actually said or did. Thus he Mattie Fein‘s her, turning the story of an effective speech in a key battleground state into a story of her supporters as petulant children, fitting the MSM/Journolist approved template. This is more evidence to me that Sarah Palin is not only a viable candidate, but that the media still (as Rush has suggested) fear her. People who are paying $4+ a gallon for gas and lining up to get jobs at McDonalds are looking for strong leaders. The last thing the MSM wants to do is highlight one."

John Nolte at Big Government:

"Twitter Power: Mock the MSM and Watch Them Launch Phony Attacks against Sarah Palin..."

Moneyrunner at The Virginian:

"That panel of experts will decide that at some point you should be given a pain pill or a shot and left to die. We all die, and individuals or families face end-of-life decisions. But to have the plug pulled by a government panel who doesn’t know you or care about you but only about the cost of keeping you alive is repugnant. That’s why Sarah Palin was brilliant, and right, to call them 'Death Panels.' That’s their job, no matter how you try to disguise their function."

Uncoverage:

"Remember how Sarah Palin was demonized by the left for pointing out there were 'death panels' to ration health care mandated by Obamacare? The Obamacare legislation now in effect has a death panel. It is here. It is called IPAB."

ZIP at Weasel Zippers:

"Liberal Columnist Cynthia Tucker Has a Change of Heart, Now Advocating in Favor of ObamaCare Death Panels... 'Cynthia Tucker: Yes, we need *death panels*... Jay Bookman had a very thoughtful post on why rationing health care — *death panels,* if you will — is quite necessary. I wrote on a similar subject in my Sunday column. If we keeping spending our health care dollars disproportionately on the elderly, we will have little left to spend on children. That makes for an upside-down society that cannot thrive for long.' Flashback: It took me all of five minutes to dig up this column by Tucker in 2009 where she denounces Sarah Palin’s 'lies' about death panels..."

Just A Grunt at JammieWearingFool:

"Cynthia Tucker, the Maureen Dowd of the south, in her column today admits that death panels will be fact of life under Obamacare... Back in August of 2009 Ms Tucker of course called Sarah Palin's claim of death panels a lie... Well gee Cynthia somebody was lying."

Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit:

"No wonder they hate her. Sarah Palin went on 'Hannity' Tuesday night and talked about a variety of topics including Donald Trump, the Tea Party, potential presidential candidates and Barack Obama. Speaking on Obama’s record, she said, 'I have spoken out about his lies… he has lied to the American public and we’re saying enough is enough.' Agreed. Enough is enough... It’s about time someone confronted this dishonest man. Heavens knows, the media won’t do it."

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ:

"Salon Debunks Deranged Trigtherism Conspiracy Theory..."

Nathan Jurgenson at OWNI.eu:

"Who Will Be the First Facebook President? ... Go to Obama’s Twitter account and ask yourself if he is really using the medium in an effective way? It is clearly ghostwritten and not at all in the style of mainstream Twitter users. In contrast, we can look at his opponents on the right. For example, looking at Sarah Palin’s Twitter account reveals that she uses the medium more in line with Twitter norms and appears to be Twitter-savvy in style. She better understands the medium compared to Obama... All of this also speaks to the fact that the right has caught up (surpassed?) the left when it comes to utilizing social media politically."

The ADN:

"Bristol Palin will be the guest of People magazine April 30 at the annual White House Correspondents' Association Dinner..."

Patrick S. Adams at Liberty's Lamp:

"If you have someone that you support and trust as much as I support and trust Sarah Palin, stick with them. But if you don’t, join us. It will be a nerve-racking ride, but it will be fun. Following Sarah Palin is a thrill of a lifetime. It is the same thrill we had when Ronald Reagan was on his way in the late 1970’s. Believe it. Believe that we can once again be that shining city on a hill. It will take a unity of purpose and a unity of vision. Picture it. Picture Sarah Palin with a running mate that unites our movement and revives the Republican Party by rallying us like she did in Madison Wisconsin. If you can take the leap of faith, you are ready to take back our country. If you are courageous enough to stand behind Sarah Palin and take on the arrows that will fly from the media, we will win. If we have her back the whole way, she can succeed."

- JP

How Sarah Palin can defeat Barack Obama

Taking a page from the Clinton War Room
*
In 1992 incumbent president George H. W. Bush, despite enjoying relatively strong approval ratings as high as 89 percent right after the Gulf war, was deprived of a second term in large part thanks to one man, but it wasn't Bill Clinton or H. Ross Perot. Although Perot's independent effort did its damage, analysis of Perot voters shows that the damage he did affected Bush and Clinton in proportions not sufficiently out of balance to have made the difference for Clinton:

Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for Bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.

If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

As for Clinton, he was mostly remembered for his rambling speech at the DNC convention four years earlier, a marathon address which was cheered when it was over mostly because it was finally over. Otherwise, he was relatively unknown on the national stage before primary season began. He quickly gained notoriety, however, and not in a good way, when allegations of his affairs began to surface in the press. There were also rumors of draft-dodging and marijuana use floating around about Clinton, and the Bush team decided to push hard on the character issue. But Clinton's moral failings were scarcely a minor blip on voters' radar screens. According to exit polling, something else was foremost on the minds of the electorate. 75% had said that the economy was Fairly Bad or Very Bad. After having pledged, "Read my lips, no new taxes," in a 1988 campaign speech, Bush later became concerned with the rising federal deficit and agreed to a budget compromise with Congress to raise taxes in the mistaken belief that higher taxes would reduce the deficit. The Clinton campaign flooded the airwaves with a series of ads which showed Bush repeatedly asking the American people to read his lips, while Clinton was on the campaign trail slamming the incumbent for raising taxes. Ironically, the net effect was to make the same voters who seemed uninterested in character issues begin to question Bush's honesty.

So who was the man who denied George H.W. Bush a second term? It was Clinton strategist James Carville, who never doubted for a minute that the recession and its impact on the electorate were the keys to a Clinton victory. To insure that everyone in the Clinton War Room -- including both Clinton and Carville himself -- was on the same book and page, the aide had hand-written a list on a white board and hung it on the wall. It read:

1. Change vs. more of the same
2. The economy, stupid
3. Don't forget healthcare

Nearly two decades later, 70 percent of voters now say the country is on the wrong track, and 57 percent disapprove of the way Obama has handled the economy. The lesson here practically writes itself. We're no fans of Carville. Our memories of him scurrying from network interview to network interview during the 2008 RNC convention with a blown-up photo of the modest structure that is Wasilla City Hall babbling on about how "dat don't look like no gubmint building. Dat look like a bait stand in south Luzianna" still rankles. We don't agree with much of what he has to say most of the time, but in the run up to the 1992 election, Carville was right as rain after a long Texas drought about the economy and how to exploit the issue.

It's the economy again, stupid. It's not about where Barack Obama was born, and it's not about any social issue, at least in the minds of the voters. They aren't just concerned about the economy, they're very worried about it. So economic issues -- whether it's the price of gasoline and other goods and services, the federal deficit, looming inflation, the budget, the debt ceiling, the housing market, and what Vice President Biden referred to as a "three letter word - j-o-b-s" -- are the keys to making sure Obama's further presidential ambitions will suffer the same fate as those of Bush41 twenty years ago. Just reminding voters of these issues won't be enough, of course. The successful GOP candidate will have to present real solutions to these fiscal problems, solutions which voters believe will work.

If and when Sarah Palin gets into the 2012 race for president, James Carville's short list of three items should be plastered all over the walls at her election headquarters.

1. Change vs. more of the same

Carville's first point can be very effectively driven home by taking a page out of Ronald Reagan's playbook. The governor should ask voters in every stump speech, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Most aren't, so they will pay attention when she explains how she can make things better.

2. The economy, stupid

She can pound away at Obama as the bus driver who's got the economy headed over a cliff. She already knows from the 2008 election that voters don't care who he used to hang out with, where he was born, or how much of a deranged Marxist his former pastor is. They're all valid points to conservatives, but the larger electorate tuned out and didn't listen last time, just as they weren't interested in Clinton's character in 1992, and they're not likely to want to hear such talk now. But if she talks about the pain at the pump, when filling up the family ride takes the lion's share of a $100 dollar bill, it will hit home. So will talk of higher prices and smaller servings at the grocery store and the the family's favorite restaurants. Abortion is an issue close to the governor's heart, and justifiably so. But talking about how domestic drilling makes us more energy secure and has the side benefit of creating jobs will resonate with the voters, while condemning Planned Parenthood will only make their eyes glaze over. To be able to appoint justices who will strike down Roe. v Wade, she will have to first get elected, and managing the debate over the economy successfully will go a long way toward helping her to do that.

3. Don't forget healthcare

This one takes on a whole new meaning now that ObamaCare has been rammed through. The results of a poll released April 18 show that this is still an unpopular measure, with 52 percent of Americans in favor of its repeal. But the issue is strongly tied to the economy, and treating it not just as a matter of government intrusion, but as an economic issue as well will hit home with voters if they understand how ObamaCare will affect their lives and those of their family members. For many Americans, their aging parents will be ill served by ObamaCare, while their children will have to pay for it.

Staying focused on the economy will require no small measure of campaign discipline of Gov. Palin and her team, but the rewards will be great. She will need some well-defined plans which she can present as white papers on energy, health care, debt and the deficit, the budget, jobs and much more. But we don't doubt that she is capable of doing this and building a team of problem-solvers to help her.

Game On!

- JP

Trig Conspiracy debunked by an unlikely investigator

Six independent witnesses, none of whom have a reason to lie for Palin, all say she was pregnant
*
The last person we would have expected to step forward to debunk the conspiracy theory which has been trumpeted for years now, mainly by pothead Andrew Sullivan and a number of Palin-deranged Alaska bloggers, that Trig is not Sarah Palin's son, but actually her grandchild, is a reporter for the online left-wing magazine Salon. But stranger things have happened, and Justin Elliott is one of those few progressive journalists who seem to have maintained his intellectual and honesty and journalist integrity. Make no mistake, Elliot has a consistent record of criticizing Gov. Palin, but he's investigated the Trig conspiracy theory and found compelling evidence that there is no truth to it. Here are some excerpts from the report of his investigation, which was published Friday at Salon's War Room blog:

In light of the recent attention this subject has received and the considerable passion it has stirred, Salon embarked last week on an investigation of the circumstances surrounding Trig's birth. The exhaustive review of available evidence that we conducted, along with new interviews with multiple eyewitnesses who interacted with a pregnant Sarah Palin up-close in early 2008 -- most of whom had never spoken publicly about the matter before -- has produced one clear conclusion: Sarah Palin is, indeed, Trig's mother and there is no reason to suspect any kind of a coverup.

We've learned, for instance, that an Associated Press reporter in Alaska who was covering Palin during her pregnancy in early 2008 (before she became a national figure) thoroughly investigated rumors that the pregnancy was a hoax. The reporter directly questioned Palin about the matter in a private meeting in her Juneau office before she gave birth. Gov. Palin responded by voluntarily lifting her outer layer of clothing, offering a clear look at her round belly. The reporter quickly concluded that there was no truth to the rumors and never wrote about them.

So why dive into this old conspiracy theory now?

After all, there's a strong argument to be made that politicians' private lives should not be subject to investigation unless there is suspicion of hypocrisy (e.g., Larry Craig) or some public policy implication (e.g., Mark Sanford). As Atrios put it, "if Trig was sired by Lucifer and birthed from a hippopotamus it's really none of our business." Sullivan has claimed that the birth of Trig, a baby with Down syndrome, played a key role in Palin being chosen for the GOP's 2008 ticket, because it solidified her pro-life credentials. But the idea that this had anything to do with John McCain's decision to tap Palin is easily debunked.

[...]

You can believe that Palin was wearing a pregnancy suit and Hollywood-quality makeup for weeks, all before she had a national profile. You can believe that she fooled all of those journalists with her pregnancy costume, including the AP reporter who literally inspected Palin's belly in her office. You can believe that Palin, and her entire family, and her doctor, and her disgruntled former aide Frank Bailey, have been lying to the press in a tightly organized and mind-bogglingly elaborate conspiracy. You can believe that the medical workers who were involved in Trig's delivery were paid off or have simply kept inexplicably quiet about the hoax. You can believe that Bristol Palin gave birth to Trig and then had another child just eight months later.

Or you can believe that Trig is Sarah Palin's son.

[More]

Will the evidence detailed by Elliot in the course of his investigation convince Sullivan and the deranged Alaskans that they have been barking up the wrong tree lo these many months? We doubt it. Their all-consuming hatred of Sarah Palin is a berserker bullet train which long ago left the station. Not even logic and reason can bring it back, because it has gone well off the tracks.

- JP

Day By Day (April 22, 2011)

Disabled
*
Good morning! It's a wonderful life if we just take it Day By Day:


Please support Chris Muir's pro-Palin Day By Day.

- JP

Quote of the Day (April 21, 2011)

Chin up, Ken. Now you get to be a martyr.
*
Jim Treacher at The DC Trawler:

“I’ve never understood the charge that Palin 'exploits' Trig. It started from the moment she held her baby onstage at the Republican National Convention. What was she supposed to do, leave him in the car?”

- JP

Meet dedicated Palin activist Peter Singleton (Updated)

"The guy is everywhere."
*
California lawyer Peter Singleton is working hard for Sarah Palin in Iowa, but it's all being done on his own dime and not in any official capacity. This is the kind of individual initiative we've seen again and again among Palin supporters. There are some in Iowa who interpret Singleton's dedication as a sign that she will run in 2012, and others who who are convinced of just the opposite. The Wall Street Journal's Neil King Jr. has written a profile of Singleton, from which we drew these excerpts:

"When it comes to Palin in Iowa, it's pretty much Peter Singleton," said Iowa Tea Party Director Ryan Rhodes. "The guy is everywhere."

Crisscrossing the state in a series of rented cars, the 56-year-old Mr. Singleton has spent the better part of five months visiting obscure county GOP chairmen, befriending tea-party activists, buttonholing lawmakers in the lobby of the state Capitol, and amassing a database of potential Palin supporters. His base camp is the Days Inn in West Des Moines, where he washes his shirts in the sink.

Deepening the mystery: Mr. Singleton swears he has never met Ms. Palin and has no contact with her team. "I'm just a dedicated activist working on my own," he said.

Ms. Palin's aides concur, insisting that she hasn't met with Mr. Singleton and that he is in no way coordinating with her political-action committee.

[...]

The tall, sleepy-eyed Silicon Valley lawyer and former Oracle salesman seems to have found his calling in Iowa's political byways. Until last year, he had never worked on a political campaign.

A Northern California native, he spent a decade as a small-time investor after leaving Oracle in the mid-1990s. He then got a law degree and clerked for a Nevada Supreme Court justice, at age 52.

He first traveled to Iowa in August with a map of the state, and one contact at a tea-party group. "I drove around to the big counties and went into the election offices to shake hands and meet people," he said.

[More]

Singleton's mission seems to be to convince Iowans that Gov. Palin will get into the race, win the Iowa caucuses and capture the Republican nomination for president. He argues, as does his fellow Palin supporters, that the GOP's 2008 vice presidential candidate is the better suited than her potential GOP rivals to make Barack Obama a one-term president in 2012.

Update: Organize for Palin, a grassroots effort not affiliated with any PAC, candidate or campaign, confirms that Peter Singleton is the O4P Iowa state coordinator. You can contact him at iowa@organize4palin.com.

- JP

Tonight's the night for 'True Hollywood Story' Palin profile

9PM Central Time, 10PM Eastern on E!
*

h/t: The TV Column

- JP

Red Eye Names Jack Steuf 'Tool of the Night'

"What a hideous, pathetic tool"

*
Greg Gutfeld makes the announcement:


Don't pull your punches, Greg. Tell us what you really think.

Associated story here.

- JP