It Was Third and Long For The Republicans

And the Democrats nearly had the White House in their grasp.







But then something amazing happened. Fighting for dear life, the Republicans somehow managed to elude the Democrats' death grip.







. . . And launch one down field. . .








Got it! What a catch! Palin pulls a David Tyree!




* * *
It's a whole new ballgame, folks.

Biden Telling Tales Again

Joe Biden, aka the gift that keeps on giving, is at it again. Here's the latest tall tale from Biden:

Fact check: Biden spins a helicopter tale

WASHINGTON (AP) - When Joe Biden tells voters he understands the threat posed by Afghan extremists, he dramatically illustrates one reason why: His helicopter was "forced down" on "the superhighway of terror." Actually, snow, not the enemy, persuaded the helicopter pilot to land and wait out a storm.

The Democratic vice presidential candidate has repeatedly left that part out, in an episode that Republicans hope will become an echo of Hillary Rodham Clinton's errant tale during the primaries of landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.

Ah, Joe Biden. He's full of crap and entirely unqualified to be vice president. Now, there's a winning combination.

Meanwhile, since we're on the subject of veeps and heading into tomorrow night's debate, it seems appropriate to revisit this post where I suggested Palin merely needs to beat the points spread to "win" the debate. But given Palin's rather uninspiring recent performances with Couric and elsewhere, I'd say she's now a solid two-touchdown underdog. How will she do? I predict she covers the spread, but that may no longer be enough. Indeed, with the recent Obama surge, we may need a flat-out win from Palin to get back into this thing.

Will it happen? Ya never know -- the Giants were nearly two touchdown underdogs heading into the Superbowl against the Pats. I'll certainly be watching to see if Palin can pull a Tyree.

NY Times Own Public Editor Admits Hit Piece on Palin Was Unfair

You know things are bad at the NY Times when its own Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, is forced to admit that the paper is biased against Republicans. It keeps happening. One notable incident was when the Times ran that ridiculous hit piece about McCain and a lobbyist, which Hoyt ripped to shreds. The latest incident involves a hit piece on Palin -- Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes -- which the Times published on its front page on September 13. Today Hoyt acknowledged that the attack on Palin was unfair:

It began with a sweeping assertion: “Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.” Scott Blum of Atlanta said, “To justify stating this conclusion so forcefully in a front-page news article, the body of evidence had better be so compelling that most reasonable people would agree.” But Blum found the article “largely one-sided” and unconvincing. I think it presented a series of unflattering anecdotes, some confusing and incomplete, but never made the connection between style and results necessary to judge a politician who was overwhelmingly re-elected mayor and has an 80 percent approval rating as governor.

So even Hoyt realizes the Times is in the bag for the Democrats. I think the Times should adopt a new logo: "All the news that's fit to print ... if you write for the Daily Kos."

Will Palin's "Bush Doctrine" Answer Actually Help the Republicans?

There has been much discussion about whether Sarah Palin committed a "gaffe" during the ABC interview when she did not seem to immediately understand interviewer's reference to the "Bush doctrine." To be sure, a reasonable argument can be made that Palin committed no such gaffe insofar as the term "Bush doctrine" does not have one set definition. Even so, Palin gave no indication of having any familiarlity with the various meanings of the term, and all in all, did not impress. In short, after her amazing performance during the Republican Convention, Palin has been knocked down a peg.

But might this be a good thing for the Republicans? The next big test for Palin is the debate with Joe Biden. But "success" in a debate is generally determined not by which candidate gives the strongest answers, but by which candidate performs above expectations. In other words, to "win" the debate, Palin must merely "beat the points spread." The Bush-Gore debate from the 2000 campaign was a classic example of this phenonemon. Four years later, Gore was still whining about it.

Since Biden is the elder statesman, he'll definitely be considered the heavy favorite coming into the debate. But the smart money is on Palin and the points.

Can a Beauty Queen Save Our Democracy?

Imagine a world without Hugo Chavez. That's right, imagine Venezuela *not* aligning with Iran, holding joint exercises in the Caribbean with Russia, supporting the Colombian terrorist group FARC, and fomenting revolutions in Bolivia and elsewhere in Latin America.

You know, it didn't have to be this way. In fact, during the 1998 Venezuelan presidential election, it looked for a brief shining moment that Irene Saez, a former beauty queen-turned mayor with a reputation for fighting corruption (sound familiar?), might actually win. As Wikipedia notes:

In the early 1990s Sáez served two terms as the mayor of Chacao, one of the five municipalities that make up Caracas, and gained notoriety by modernizing the municipal administration, raising its efficiency to an unprecedented (and still unsurpassed) level, at par with any modern private enterprise. . . . In 1997, she formed the Integrated Representation of New Hope (IRENE) party as a launching pad for her run in the 1998 elections. For a while, she shocked the Venezuelan political establishment when she led in opinion polls in the race for president and was the most popular politician in the early days of the race. She ran on a platform to end corruption, reducing bureaucracy and refinancing the public debt.

Had the Venezuelan people smiled on Irene Saez and not Chavez, the world would be a much better place today. So I see nothing wrong with mixing beauty and politics. In fact, unlike all the hysterical left-wing pundits out there, I am all for it.

What's Wrong With Calling Yourself a "Hockey Mom"?

Remember the hockey mom/pit bull joke? John McWhorter, a regular in the NY Sun, doesn't get it. His piece yesterday in the Sun tries to understand why Gov. Sarah Palin has to refer to herself as a "hockey mom." He doesn't get why the governor of a state needs to describe herself in terms that remind him of "gym shoes and bag lunches."

Mr. McWhorter, have you ever noticed how we like to bunch people up and refer to them as a group? Have you heard of focus groups? Have you noticed how the media likes to refer to baby boomers or soccer moms (and now hockey moms)? It's human nature. These group monikers are used by the media, Madison Avenue, and R&D departments. And of course, we use them to refer to people and relate to others.

So what's the big deal if Sarah Palin likes to refer to herself as a hockey mom? She spent a few years doing the things many hockey and soccer moms find themselves doing and if it means that more than a few people will relate to her on that level, then all the better. The fact that she's also a sitting governor won't be missed by most hockey and soccer moms; they'll just relate to her experiences as a mom better than those of being a governor. It's just a way to connect to people. That's why it's much more effective than calling yourself a "community organizer" but that's another post...

Mr. McWhorter, the hockey mom/pit bull joke was just that--a joke! As in "HaHa." If you worry too much that women have not come far enough because they commonly refer to their domestic duties, then save your pen for something else. Gov. Palin, like millions of other working moms, manages to accomplish such a diverse list of things that she could call herself many things -- wife, mom, hunter, coach, chauffeur, executive, public official, and now spokesperson and role model. Hockey mom is just one aspect of her life. Mr. McWhorter, lighten up!

"Intelligent" Women Doing Stupid Things

I am flabbergasted at the latest group sweeping Facebook, Intelligent Women Against Sarah Palin. The group, which has more than 11,000 members, describes itself as follows:

This is a group for all the women (and men) whom John McCain thought he could sway just because he picked a woman for VP.
Palin is against women's rights and is by far the least feminist candidate McCain could have picked. She has no foreign policy experience and has been proven to be a corrupt governor.
Palin has nothing to offer this country; especially this country's women.

Since I consider myself an intelligent woman, I'll take them on.

First, these "intelligent" members take issue with Gov. Palin's lack of foreign policy experience. Did Gov. of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, have any foreign policy experience before being elected President? Does their presumptive choice Sen. Obama have any? Not if you don't count his Greatest Hits Tour of Europe.

Second, they allege that she's proven to be a corrupt governor, though they fail to cite any evidence for such an accusation. She has unprecendented approval ratings which shows Alaskans are pretty happy with their lady governor. (Some say it's as high as 90s.) She put the jet her predecessor used on eBay, drives herself to work, and has the reputation of being a reformer for having blown the whistle on officials in her own party. She first blew the whistle on an oil and gas commissioner who later paid thousands in fines for an ethics violation. She then filed an ethics complaint against the attorney general who was also close to the Republican governor. Gov. Palin was again vindicated when the official later resigned. Corrupt is the last thing that comes to mind.

Third, Gov. Palin's speech at the convention gave us a hint of what she can offer this country. A mother of five, one with special needs, she governs a state that has enormous amounts of oil and other resources. Her independent, roll-up-your-sleeves, get-the-job-done attitude is just the kind of public official we need in D.C.

And finally, the issue of Gov. Palin's pro-life stance does not negate her feminist credentials. These are not mutually exclusive. The issues of when life begins, protecting the unborn, and a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy do not define a feminist. One's belief in a woman's equal rights does. I consider myself a feminist and I am pro-life. And I see Gov. Palin, a governor and VP nominee at the age of 44, as a quintessential feminist.

Isn't "having it all" what feminism was supposed to be all about?

NARAL's Seeing Things

There's something about the notion of "choice" that gives me that nice feeling. Maybe "change" does the same for others... but I digress. NARAL, the abortion rights group, which talks a lot about choice and how conservative politicians are anti-choice, is taking a stand against the hypocrisy and irony of Sarah Palin's actions as governor. Gov. Palin, who is an advocate for protecting life from the moment of conception and thus pro-life (but anti-choice for those keeping track) is apparently an example of hypocrisy because she used her line-item veto power to slash funding intended for an organization that supports teenage moms. If you still don't see the hypocrisy, don't bother re-reading this paragraph. I read the NY chapter of NARAL's statement a few times until I realized the only hypocrisy I saw was the one NARAL used to issue such a statement.

NARAL takes Gov. Palin to task for being hypocritical because she cut the expenditure of public funds going to a program meant for young mothers. That means she refused to let some of Alaskans' tax dollars go towards a program that is doing what families should be doing--and that is helping and supporting each other out. But the only hypocrisy I see is that Gov. Palin let any public monies go to such a program. After all, Gov. Palin is a Republican and that means she's a fiscal conservative who believes government and tax dollars should not do what families and communities can--for themselves. That means that we take care of our loved ones and help those in our community the best we can, while government tends to those things for which it is best positioned, such as building roads and protecting us from crime.

In sum, NARAL has it all wrong. Gov. Palin acted in accordance with her conservative beliefs that public dollars are not the panacea for everything, especially matters relating to home and family. She was not acting with the pretense of having a virtuous character and moral principles, while not really possessing them, which is the definition of hypocrisy. She was acting with a servant's heart, as she likes to say, for the taxpayers of Alaska who do not need millions of their tax dollars going to teenage mothers. Just becasue Gov. Palin's daughter may have been eligible for such a program does not mean that Gov. Palin has to now endow such a program with millions of Alaskan tax dollars. On the contrary, Gov. Palin and her family are showing us what Republican and conservative beliefs look like in practice. Tending to and taking care of one's family first.

Mothers of Young Children Need Not Apply

I'm starting to see a pattern. This past week, I couldn't help but think of Hillary Clinton every time the "mainstream moron media" took another jab at Sarah Palin for daring to run for VP while being a mother of 5 at the same time! Now if you doubt my disbelief at the obvious sexism and double standard expressed by the media, continue reading.

A large contingent of the media continues to dwell on how Sarah Palin is a poor choice for VP because she can't possibly support John McCain in the White House while continuing her breastfeeding and child carpooling duties. Did anyone consult a mother of a young child as part of their research? If they had and there is no dearth of them, at least not here where I live in Manhattan, they would find that working moms today have assembled a whole team of people to support them as they try to juggle a very important job (raising a child) with another one (their job outside the home). There are husbands, nannies, grandparents, extended family, close friends, and daycares. And considering Sarah Palin is the current governor of a state and the nominee for vice-president, I don't think she will be without resources at her disposal. So unless the folk writing about the inadequacy of "Sarah Palin, VP nominee" know about a breastpump (at the very least) or about how millions of working moms juggle family and work commitments every day, then I'll have to read their reporting while having to hold my nose from the stench of double standard.

After all, has Mr. Obama been questioned as to how he can stand at the helm of the free world while raising two young daughters? Of course not! And neither was Bill Clinton. No one blinked at these omissions since men with political careers aren't responsible for raising their children. Is that really where we are in America today? So here we have it, today's media, long on supporting the ideas of a woman's right to try to have it all, is actually only comfortable with that feminist idea in theory and definitely not with regard to female politicians. Apparently, the media's ranks, with abundant women among them, continue to support the pre-suffragette creed that women better stick to baking cookies and minding their young while letting their men take care of all that policy business.

Young women all across the country are getting the message that it's fine to aspire to become a public servant as long as they don't do it while having and raising babies. This is ludicrous and the hypocrisy of it all should not be overlooked. Gov. Palin was blamed for daring to have a high-powered political career while "allowing" her 17-year-old daughter to get pregnant. Now seriously, very few parents would actually allow their teenage daughters to get pregnant and I doubt Gov. Palin is an exception. Gov. Palin has also been criticized for not putting the needs of her newborn son Trig first. Again, I ask media folk of both genders to consult any of the working moms out there who pump and run to work, leaving their children in the hands of loving caretakers. It is certainly not easy, but for some women, it is a necessity and a privilege.

Now I can't say that the liberal media is guilty of this double standard alone. Both parties have been guilty of it. I remember being shocked at the conservative media's attacks of Hillary Clinton for being career-minded. Remember the howls they made at her for daring to bake cookies? Now, I've known many a working mom who has not only baked cookies, but cooked dinner, helped with homework, and so on. That attack on Mrs. Clinton, like the one on Gov. Palin now, is a covert one made at women everywhere who are trying to make the most out of their choices in modern life. That the liberal media is attacking a modern and accomplished female politician like Gov. Palin cries hypocrisy. Isn't this the same media that has championed the ideas of feminism and encouraged women to seek accomplished careers?

I guess I'll take a cup of hypocrisy to wash down those cookies.

Palin's Scarlet Letter

The Scarlet Letter was set in the late 1800's in Puritan America. And though I haven't refreshed myself with Hawthorne's novel since high school, I couldn't help but think of it this morning while listening to the mainstream moron media's* coverage of Gov. Sarah Palin. The coverage has been bugging me very much. And why?

Is it because the media would rather focus on Palin being the mother of a daughter who got pregnant at the age of 17 and intends to keep the baby and marry the father? Maybe scandalous in 1850 Puritan America. But now? Many families the modern world over have dealt with this issue and it's how they handle it that will determine whether it turns into a personal triumph or a family disaster.

So instead of covering the facts that underlie the real issues of this campaign, I have to continue to listen to the "scandal" of Bristol Palin. Listen up, media people: Please cover the facts and stories of the important issues of today, i.e., becoming independent of foreign oil, having executive experience, and having the judgment and integrity to act in America's interests. As a proven reformer in her own party, Gov. Palin seems to offer Americans many positive attributes, regardless of political stripe. And as a female candidate in a very important political race, she shouldn't have to wear a scarlett letter around her neck.

So why is the media running over itself trying to choke her with a scarlet letter? Is the media's message that Gov. Palin does not set a good example because she is busy running the state of Alaska instead of supervising her almost-adult age daughter every waking minute? Really?!? Is the message that she's shown poor judgment in raising at least one of her children? Since when is that a political issue when the race involves supporting the leader of the free world? I really don't get it. As many families who have had to face teenage pregnancy know, you teach your children the best that you can. But in the end, children sometimes make decisions that will impact their lives irrevocably and following them around every minute of the day is not only ridiculous but probably a futile way to prevent it.

So my question remains, why is a teen pregnancy trumping media coverage that could be put to better use??? I give up. Maybe I should revisit Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter to familiarize myself with the proper manners and mores of 1850's Puritan America.

*Thanks to Tony Blankley for the term.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13777