A View From the Cheap Seats

September 10, 2008

Barracuda

EXAMINER PUBLICATIONS – SEPTEMBER 10, 2008

By Rich Trzupek

“I put it on eBay.”

The measure of the effectiveness of those five words is how much they inflamed liberals. Leftist commentators and bloggers fell over themselves to disprove the statement, knowing how much it resonated with the average American voter. They soon “discovered” that their suspicions were correct: Sarah Palin is a liar.

“She didn’t sell the jet on eBay. She sold it to a businessman in a private transaction. Hah!”

Oh. Okay. She did “put” the jet on eBay, and she did find a buyer for the jet when it didn’t sell on eBay, and she didn’t say that she actually sold it on eBay, all of which makes the critics wrong not only in terms of the technicalities, but most importantly, in terms of the implications.

Her message resonated so loudly that the echo continues to drive the left to cover their ringing ears. Here is a woman who understands the “service” part of public service and who will not tolerate personal frivolity at the taxpayer’s expense. She’s a governor who doesn’t mind cooking for her family, or getting rid of an extravagance like a private jet.

“Well, it was also used to transport prisoners,” the critics huffed. “Don’t you know that Alaska is – like – big? How are you supposed to transport prisoners?”

Gee, I wonder if there are any other planes in Alaska? Planes that, you know, can be hired as needed for prisoner transportation? I wonder how many charters you would have to book before you came even close to the $2.1 million that Palin’s sale added to state coffers, not to mention all of the maintenance, personal and fuel savings?

Unless Alaska is overrun with prisoners (and we know that can’t be the case, since the left assures us that nobody actually lives there anyway) the math here should be easy enough for even a liberal to do.

We crabby conservatives watched in amusement as the Palin story developed. The timing of the announcement was designed, of course, to steal The Chosen One’s thunder the day after the Democratic National Convention closed, and it did just that.

This angered liberals everywhere (actually let’s say “further angered”, since they seem to spend their entire lives miserable) and their first reaction was a dismissive sneer. “The Governor of Alaska? What a dope McCain is! She’s been a small town mayor and governor of the least populous state in the union! What kind of qualifications are those?”

It seemed like a head scratcher on our side too, for all of five seconds, before it dawned on us that our number two is more qualified than their number one. Good Lord – McCain is brilliant! Please go after her lack of experience boys and girls, we said to the left. And, since you seem to agree that experience matters, exactly what experience does your guy have?

In terms of executive experience: zero.

In terms of negotiating deals with foreign governments: zero.

In terms of fighting corporations and corrupt commissions to get more dollars back in taxpayer’s pockets: zero.

Compare that to a woman who has actual executive experience, who has negotiated deals with Russia and Canada, who quit the oil commission in her state when it wouldn’t come around and eventually shamed it into cutting a fair deal for taxpayers. I could go on, but if you love Palin, you already know this stuff, and if you despise her, you’re covering your ears and shouting “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

By any measure, Palin is more experienced in running government than Oprah’s favorite community organizer. The only hope that the libs had was that Palin would be so intimidated by the spotlight that she would stumble all over her “coming out” speech.

That was not to be.

Even the extreme left, like MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann, had to admit (reluctantly) that Palin nailed it. Following “The Speech”, Michael Reagan anointed the Alaska governor as the reincarnation of his father. While that analysis doesn’t hold up when one compares birth and death certificates, it is hard to argue with the comparison. Palin is tough, unimpressed by the trappings of power, and has the courage to say what is on her mind, no matter who it offends.

And so, the left has had to search for another card to play. The “inexperienced/incompetent” message is clearly not going to find traction. In desperation, they have resorted to some truly remarkable, not to mention despicable, ploys.

Palin’s teen-aged daughter is unmarried and pregnant? Can’t let that pass! Liberal commentators and bloggers gleefully attacked the mother for her child’s mistakes, a move that even Obama condemned – to his credit.

“How can she take care of five children and be Vice President at the same time!” the libs shouted. This was a truly remarkable tack. First of all, they once again proved that they are arithmetically-challenged. Palin has a son going into the military and a daughter about to get married. So that’s three kids at home, not five.

More troubling: did I miss something, or isn’t the left the penultimate supporter of the working mom? Shouldn’t a woman Vice President of the United States be an affirmation of this policy, not a condemnation of it?

The left’s spurious arguments against Palin are all the proof that is needed to show how this remarkable, self-made woman has shaken up the political landscape in our county. The Reagan analogy is not without foundation. The left knows that. And they hate it. Having realized that it’s counter-productive (to their cause) to call her “inexperienced” and now knowing that it’s fruitless to label her “incompetent”, they will spend the rest of the campaign trying to label her a lying, arrogant bitch.

Good luck with that libs. When McCain announced his choice for VP, you assumed that you would chew her up and spit her out. How ironic that the reverse will prove to be true.

Advertisements

24 Comments »

  1. I love these liberals who bash Palin. Obama is toast.

    Comment by themikeyreport — September 10, 2008 @ 5:53 pm | Reply

  2. Sounds like your goal is to anger liberals 🙂

    Oh well, not too worried, as the Dems are expected to pick up 5 to 8 Senate seats and retain control of congress.
    But I think ol’ Obama has a trick or two up his sleeve.

    This Palin surge is what I call a Trojan Horse.
    You put a pretty face in there and expect the Libs to think she is harmless, but she is Bush in a bra.

    The GOP IS good at deceiving.
    They got Clarence Thomas, the only black judge in America who hates civil rights. Palin is the same kind of traitor.

    Comment by christianliberal — September 10, 2008 @ 5:59 pm | Reply

  3. Mr. Cheap:
    I often wonder why so-called “conservatives” such as yourself are unable to speak or write on politics or social issues without telling a string of whoppers and spewing silly personal insults at anyone who does not agree with you. Oh, I don’t wonder for long; if “conservatives” had to stick to the issues they wouldn’t have anything to talk about.
    If John McCain and Mayor Palin are your models of “family values,” ethics and honesty – I say: Thanks, but No Thanks!

    Comment by Poindexter — September 11, 2008 @ 10:53 am | Reply

  4. Rich,
    I agree with Mr. Cheap in that so-called “conservatives” are unable to speak on political or social issues without spewing silly personal insults. Take for example Matt Damon who recently demanded to know whether Sarah Palin believes that dinosaurs roamed the Earth 4,000 years ago. [What, Dear?… Oh… that Damon idiot’s a Lib?] Never mind.

    OK, how about Sean Puffdaddy Diddy So-Rock Obama Combs, who recently stated, “Sarah you need to be down with the whole cabinet. You are not ready to be no vice president. What is the reality in Alaska? There isn’t even any crackheads in Alaska. There isn’t any black people, no crime. There isn’t even any foreign policies in Alaska. You need to get versed on black policies. We are the future.” [What?…. Puffdoody is a Lib, too?]

    Well! Maybe I don’t agree with Mr. Cheap after all. It appears that the Libs are the ones spewing personal insults. What a shocker that is? Like my Granddaddy used to say, “You can put lipstick on a Lib, but it’s still a Lib.”

    Comment by Brad — September 11, 2008 @ 6:44 pm | Reply

  5. Brad,

    Thanks for the post. I should clarify the comment that prompted your comment. When Poindexter starts his comment with “Mr Cheap”, he is not identifying himself, he is offering a salutation to me. The distinction between an adjective (“cheap”) and a noun (“seats”) is kind of difficult for him, as is the difference between the author of a column and the title of a column. It is confusing, I know. Liberal humor, like liberal thought, (and I’ll distinguish here, as does Paul Johnson, between classical Gladstonesque liberalism, and today’s socialist Liberalism) is difficult to follow.

    That said, isn’t it a riot to see liberal Hollywood lose their minds as McCain – Pailin’s numbers rise? It’s still a long fight, and I am not at all sure of the result. By all logic, this should be a Democrat year. But – who knows? With a little luck, and if Hollywood keeps foaming at the mouth, we just might pull this one out.

    Cheers,

    Rich

    Comment by trzupek — September 11, 2008 @ 8:33 pm | Reply

  6. Christian,

    No, my goal is not to anger liberals. I know that many correspondents think that, but – in my family – satire was an accepted (and enjoyable) means of debate. I poke fun, realizing that some people take it WAAAYYYY too seriously, but I do enjoy the interplay.

    At the end of the day, I enjoy discussions with the liberal-minded who can accept the premise that they and I hope to get to the same place, although we disagree on the best route to get there. That’s cool, and I suspect that’s you. (Hell, “even some of my best friends… etc.) But those who go down the “you’re all just a bunch of evil sum-a-bitches” road deserve nothing but contempt and, ultimately, to be ignored.

    Is Nancy Pelosi “evil”? No, at least in my view. But she is – in my humble opinion – terribly deluded and/or ignorant. Accordingly, I have no trouble making fun of her (or Obama, or Reid, et al) but I would have no problem having a beer with any of them. Evil is a rare commodity in this world, I think, but also a terribly powerful one. It should be attached more properly to idealogies than to individuals in most cases. And then, only indirectly. It is the effects of Marxism, for example, that are evil, not the intent. But, if we are to battle those evil effects, one must attack the principle, no matter how high-minded the principle is. Satire is one of the only weapons I have in my utility belt, so I wield it as best I can.

    And that’s what I know. Which ain’t much!

    Cheers,

    Rich

    Comment by trzupek — September 11, 2008 @ 8:49 pm | Reply

  7. Ah, you’re right. I “mis-read” the post. What can I say? I don’t live in Hollywood, thus I’m not very smart.

    Comment by Brad — September 11, 2008 @ 8:50 pm | Reply

  8. Call me a Hollywood liberal if you would like, but I will be joining Matt Damon, Babs, and all the others in Canada if McCain & Palin are elected. In spirit, anyway. While putting Air Force Two on eBay and dismissing the staff at the Naval Observatory might shave a few dollars off the federal budget, I just don’t believe that voting in that team would result in a net gain for the country.

    To respond to the topic of the article: you’re right. Liberals should not engage in spurious attacks on Palin – especially when there are so many legitimate questions about her qualifications and positions that need to be answered. For example:

    If the ‘executive experience’ that she has (6 years as mayor, slightly less than 2 years as governor) is such an important qualification, then why isn’t she at the top of the Republican ticket? You know – above McCain, who has exactly the same amount of executive experience as Obama & Biden. Perhaps she will be the shadowy puppetmaster running the administration from an undisclosed location a la Dick Cheney. (If so – I have to give Governor Palin credit for doing a better job of hiding her nefarious side than Cheney does.)

    Governor Palin espouses abstinence-only sex education. Recent events in the life of someone close to the Governor – which do not constitute a stigma or cause for attack on that person – cast doubt on the efficacy of the policy. Why hasn’t she disavowed the policy?

    What deals has she negotiated with Canada and Russia? The only Canadian candidate I have found are the natural gas pipeline, which she negotiated with (or at least accepted a bid from) TransCanada, a Canadian oil company. The only mention of any deal with Russia I have found was in an unsubstantiated comment on a blog saying that she negotiated fishing rights.

    Spurious attacks from both sides should be stopped – serious discussion of the best people and methods to get us to our shared goals (I agree with Rich on this point) should commence immediately.

    Comment by Mike Pajeau — September 11, 2008 @ 11:44 pm | Reply

  9. Poinie,

    Thanks for delineating examples of the “string of whoppers” in the column; that sure helps to substantiate your credibility.

    However, you are correct as regards the “personal insults” – those are certainly gratuitous, since anyone can judge for himself the intellectual depth of the liberal mindset just by reading the “Comments” section.

    Comment by David Johansen — September 12, 2008 @ 11:28 pm | Reply

  10. Please demonstrate the intellectual depth of the conservative mindset – ignore alleged insults and provide a reasoned argument that the Republican candidates’ policies will benefit the country more than the Democrats’.

    Comment by Mike Pajeau — September 13, 2008 @ 11:33 am | Reply

  11. Governor Palin espouses abstinence-only sex education. Recent events in the life of someone close to the Governor – which do not constitute a stigma or cause for attack on that person – cast doubt on the efficacy of the policy. Why hasn’t she disavowed the policy?

    Tell me, Mike, why does a pregnancy arising from two teenagers not abstaining from sex call into question the efficacy of sexual abstinence? :^)

    Comment by Templar — September 13, 2008 @ 5:32 pm | Reply

  12. I don’t doubt that abstinence is 100% effective when done correctly. 🙂 I doubt that abstinence-only sex education programs work as well as more comprehensive programs in reducing the number of sexually-transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancies.

    Comment by Mike Pajeau — September 13, 2008 @ 10:41 pm | Reply

  13. I doubt that abstinence-only sex education programs work as well as more comprehensive programs in reducing the number of sexually-transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancies.

    I doubt you quite realize what you wrote there. 😉

    Comment by Templar — September 14, 2008 @ 7:44 am | Reply

  14. Um.. OK.. I know what I wrote and I know what I meant and IMHO they agree. Is there something you’re not clear on?

    Comment by Mike Pajeau — September 14, 2008 @ 10:17 pm | Reply

  15. Here’s a litte research from Factcheck.org that erases the lies told about Governor Palin.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

    Comment by Wild Bill — September 15, 2008 @ 2:44 pm | Reply

  16. Um.. OK.. I know what I wrote and I know what I meant and IMHO they agree. Is there something you’re not clear on?

    No, there’s something that you are not clear on. You claimed that abstinence-only sex education is not as effective as “more comprehensive programs”, which you would realize, if you actually knew what wrote, is more or less equivelent to claiming that a “comprehensive” suit of body armour is more effective at protecting against rifle-fire than a reinforced concrete wall. 😉

    Comment by Templar — September 15, 2008 @ 4:15 pm | Reply

  17. I don’t agree with your interpretation of what I wrote. I am not talking about the effectiveness of abstinence as a form of contraception. I am talking about the effectiveness of education programs that only discuss abstinence. My measure of effectiveness is how likely the education program is to prevent STDs and unintended pregnancies. I call abstinence-only programs less effective because in addition to not greatly increasing the likelihood of abstinence they also decrease the likelihood that people will use any other form of contraception since they won’t have learned about any. An effective sex education program discusses abstinence as the only way to be guaranteed no disease and no pregnancy, but would also present the additional facts about STDs and condoms needed for the learners to protect themselves should they decide not to abstain.

    Also, here’s a litte research from Factcheck.org that erases the lies told by Governor Palin.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html

    Comment by Mike Pajeau — September 15, 2008 @ 11:26 pm | Reply

  18. I don’t agree with your interpretation of what I wrote.

    Likewise. 😛

    I am not talking about the effectiveness of abstinence as a form of contraception.

    Neither am I.

    I am talking about the effectiveness of education programs that only discuss abstinence.

    I know.

    I call abstinence-only programs less effective because in addition to not greatly increasing the likelihood of abstinence they also decrease the likelihood that people will use any other form of contraception since they won’t have learned about any.

    I call “comprehensive” sex education programs less effective because in addition to greatly increasing the likelihood of teen sex they are also not guaranteed to be 100% effective, unlike simple abstinence. The “Pill” doesn’t always work as advertised, and produces numerous unpleasant long-term side-effects, condoms break alarmingly frequently, or over-eager youngsters don’t bother with them in the heat of the moment, and in any case are no sort of guarantee against picking up some sort of STD, and so on and so forth.

    To summarize, when practiced as intended, abstinence is completely effective in preventing unintended pregancies and the transmission of veneral disease. When practiced as intended, the alternatives are not.

    Comment by Templar — September 17, 2008 @ 8:37 pm | Reply

  19. I attempted to post a reply last night and it hasn’t shown up here yet. It had several links in it – Rich, are comments with multiple links held for moderation or should I just try to post it again?

    Thanks!

    Comment by Mike Pajeau — September 18, 2008 @ 3:13 pm | Reply

  20. OK – I’ve tried posting this twice now and both times it has disappeared. I’m going to post it again, one bit at a time and see if that makes a difference.

    I apologize for making the assumption that we were talking about different things. I’m afraid I still don’t agree with you, however. 🙂 Here are a few groups who side with me:

    American Psychological Association: “The research on adolescents’ sexual behavior shows that comprehensive sexuality education programs that discuss the appropriate use of condoms do not accelerate sexual experiences. On the contrary, evidence suggests that such programs actually increase the number of adolescents who abstain from sex and also delay the onset of first sexual intercourse. Furthermore, these programs decrease the likelihood of unprotected sex and increase condom use among those having sex for the first time.”
    http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html

    Comment by Mike Pajeau — September 19, 2008 @ 11:12 pm | Reply

  21. American Medical Association: “Urges schools to implement comprehensive, developmentally appropriate sexuality education programs that: … (c) include an integrated strategy for making condoms available to students and for providing both factual information and skill-building related to reproductive biology, sexual abstinence, sexual responsibility, contraceptives including condoms, alternatives in birth control, and other issues aimed at prevention of pregnancy and sexual transmission of diseases; ”
    http://www0.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-170.968.HTM

    Comment by Mike Pajeau — September 19, 2008 @ 11:12 pm | Reply

  22. National Association of School Psychologists: “Abstinence Plus programs, which impart accurate information and comprehensive social skills training in addition to sending a strong abstinence message, have been shown more effective than Abstinence Only programs in reducing pregnancy, reducing sexually transmitted disease, and increasing resilience to other risk factors;”
    http://nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_sexed.aspx

    Comment by Mike Pajeau — September 19, 2008 @ 11:13 pm | Reply

  23. Society for Adolescent Medicine: “Schools and health care providers should encourage abstinence as an important option for teenagers. “Abstinence only” as a basis for health policy and programs should be abandoned.”
    http://www.adolescenthealth.org/PositionPaper_Abstinence_only_edu_policies_and_programs.pdf

    Comment by Mike Pajeau — September 19, 2008 @ 11:13 pm | Reply

  24. American Academy of Pediatrics: “Programs that encourage abstinence as the best option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control.”
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/108/2/498

    Comment by Mike Pajeau — September 19, 2008 @ 11:14 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: