Fireweednectar’s Weblog

Views from The Last Frontier

Palin on SNL: Chevy Chase desperate for damage control

“Stuck in between the tip of Bethesda and Mazza Gallerie?” I was asked. No, no, no, wrong Chevy Chase. Although I could understand that person’s confusion, since that part of Wisconsin Avenue is probably more well-known than the washed-up actor who now is trying to backpedal for his alma mater, Saturday Night Live, in the wake of an apparent Palin popularity surge.

Sarah Palin appeared on SNL last weekend after much speculation and received a respectable welcome from the audience. Alec Baldwin, perhaps best known these days for breaking his promise to leave the country, stood alongside her but his most noticeable trait that night was his seeming inability to read his lines without a teleprompter. And at some moments, even with. He also looked, if you don’t mind the bluntness, rather skanky.

As for Sarah, well she was her usual classy self. She stood alongside the great buffoon as he insulted her up and down, playing his role of pretending not to realise she was the real Palin (knows his great friend Tina really well, hey?). Meanwhile Palin just let it all bounce off of her–don’t let the role playing fool you, she knows these are not merely “scripted insults,” and is sure-footed in her ability to blow them off–knowing, probably, Baldwin was the one who would appear the fool, in and outside of his persona of the night.

In the second skit with Palin, “Weekend Update,” Amy Poehler, about 15 months pregnant God bless her and keep her, said she thought she could perform Palin’s rap routine. According to the script, the governor had been doing some thinking and decided that her role in such a routine would not bode well for the dignity of the presidential campaign. (In “real life” not a few silly people believed Palin was actually supposed to do it and really refused.) Instead she grooved to the music with arm gesticulations and facial expressions that…well, I better leave that alone. Let’s just say she is really attractive and knows how to dance.

So back to Chevy Chase. (I know, I know.) Here he is via Hot Air trying to say it was a “mistake” to allow the popular Palin to appear on SNL:

“Quite frankly, it’s a big mistake to let her go on,” Chevy told Access Hollywood at the Give Food a Chance benefit in New York. “What was brilliant about [‘SNL’ chief] Lorne [Michaels] was that he had nothing written for Sarah and that apparently she cannot improvise herself out of a paper bag!”

“On ‘Weekend Update,’ that was her big chance,” he said. “Nothing.”

What a dork. (There’s a word I learned over at Ace’s blog that seems so fitting for Chase at this moment, but I’m not ready to make that leap.) Palin is not a comedian and that’s why there’s a script, you knuckle dragger. What’s more, she didn’t have to say anything for people to love her, which is more than can be said for him. Imagine that: someone can receive such positive attention for being herself. It should be noted the nation has been abuzz about the appearance and ratings for SNL went up higher than what they had been in 14 years. Lorne Michaels admits to some gratitude for Palin:

“I think the gods smiled on us with the Palin thing. Like if he [John McCain] had chosen Romney, I think it would be completely different,” “SNL’s” executive producer Lorne Michaels told The New York Times.

Personally I think Chase is sincere when he says it was a “mistake,” but disingenuous as to why: he can’t stand Palin, obviously, and his preference is that she do something stupid to make herself look bad. Not only did she not fulfill his dream during the Saturday appearance, but also she came off as very likable and didn’t put much effort into it. She was just herself, had fun, and was loved for it. Even many who don’t care for her have expressed appreciation for her appearance and carriage, and complimented her ability to be a good sport. Chase tries to pass off his “concern” as being for the show’s creative integrity (or some such crap), but it is painfully obvious he is concerned not only about the ratings boost, but a potential rise in popularity amongst those who didn’t like her before. Or maybe that they got a glimpse of the real Sarah, as opposed to the caricature he and his ilk try so desperately to pass off, and may start to think for themselves.

Monday 20 October 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , | 3 Comments

The continuing saga of leftist vitriol, anger and violence

Uh, thanks, Allah. Almost lost my breakfast.

That was really funny, Terry Tate, did you think that up all by yourself? Or did you have to have Sandra Bernhardt in on a brainstorming session with you?

Well, Allah gives some background on this joker who apparently has some fans, although I personally can’t imagine what sort of humans could find this remotely amusing. “Unfunny” doesn’t even begin to describe how vile and disturbing not only this piece is, but anyone who could like it.

So let me review this again: there’s Madonna telling an audience of thousands how she is going to kick Sarah Palin’s person, Sarah Bernhardt raging-fantasising about Palin being gang raped, an artist’s depiction of Sarah Palin’s faced being punched so hard a tooth is knocked out and the glasses fly right off her face, and a mock up of someone pointing a gun at Palin’s head. And now this joker with his own twisted damp dream acted out to the framework of an already perverted Reebok commercial spot. How long ’til this becomes mainstream?

It’s not an unreasonable question given how there has been such a small amount of outroar coming from the press–if any at all. And why? Because they don’t like Palin’s political positions? Isn’t this supposed to be a country in which people can openly speak and tell their ideas–protected by the First Amendment? Since when do we go around perpetuating violence against those we disagree with? Of course there have always been “hits” on political figures, i.e. assassinations and attempts, and while not getting into any discussion on the merits of those, what I’m looking at here is the alarming phenomenon of public and private figures promoting and almost advocating physical aggression and violence–because they don’t like what someone said.

What happened to the days when you just didn’t vote for them?

We all know about schoolyard bullies and the routine theories re: how insecure they are, etc. Could these otherwise ordinary (word use relatively in some cases) beings be so threatened that killing or severely harming Palin makes them feel better about themselves and their insecurities? There’s an imbalance in this description, because “insecurity” seems too small a word to stand parallel and in partnership with the violence being promoted these days.

I also have to wonder: “Why Palin?” No, I’m not saying that in consideration of why Hillary wasn’t the object of such attacks. (Although Clinton did endure some abuse coming from self-hating idiots.) No, what I’m thinking about is that surely some of these people dislike John McCain as much as they do Sarah Palin. So how come nobody’s making the moves against McCain? Not that I am asking for it to happen, of course; it would be just as despicable. But the fact that he is a man can’t stop itself from crossing my mind, and the horrible consideration that even amongst the female population, violence against women not only is still acceptable, but also can be considered funny, especially when the intended target is someone who disagrees with them.

This is perhaps nowhere better reflected than in some of the video responses at the YouTube site itself, such as:

montalvomachado
Maaan, she deserved that! Hilarious.

or

jaeastman
pretty sure dr. king would find this pretty lol-worthy

or

MudkipRex
Get used to having a black president, you racist moron. Obama is going to win. And he’s the better candidate too.

Not only were there few comments that directly objected to the depiction of a large man crashing into a small female (what in real would have killed her), but there were ones such as the last (above) that justified it with the implication that she had it coming because of the alleged racism inherent in the McCain campaign and its supporters. In fact, the first reply I quoted above comes out and says, “[S]he deserved that!” And in failing to recognise their own out-of-control behavior and irrational ways of, erm, thinking, there even is the assertion that Martin Luther King would have approved.

By the way, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was Joe Biden’s baby. Why isn’t he speaking up against this monstrous trend?

With the Obama scare measures against freedom of speech already happening, a bunch of pre-pubes dressing up in fatigues to worship their candidate, children being indoctrinated to sing love songs to him, the proposal of some sort of civilian gang (funding same as the actual military’s) and now tacit approval of violence against Obama critics, I’m not only still wondering how far this will go, as I wrote last time, but also when the American Cultural Revolution starts.

Oh yeah: The media are spreading fears about “Republican anger” on election night. Snort.

Sunday 19 October 2008 Posted by | Politics | , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Tasergate report out

First reports coming from the Eddie Burke Show say the legislative report from the Tasergate investigation shows Sarah Palin was within her rights to fire Monegan and did not abuse her power, although she did violate an ethics law. This may refer to what appears to be Monegan’s statements that Palin started to speak to him about Trooper Wooten; Monegan warned her against this and she never spoke of it again.

There was, however, also criticism re: her lack of acting upon her husband’s failure to stop speaking about the incident.

Fox news is also reporting this incorrectly as saying the council found her to have abused her powers; currently it is being discussed on Eddie Burke’s show at KBYR, a locally-owned Alaska radio station.

Update to follow.

Update: AP is hyperventilating in their crusade against Palin and they have reported incorrectly of her guilt.

Glen Biegel of KBYR is having a conniption fit over Hollis French who is the one who is guilty of abuse of power and anybody telling Todd Palin he is not entitled to utilise his First Amendment rights. Steve Branchflower, it should be noted, made his recommendations in his report and Biegel is enraged, accusing Branchflower of being “judge, jury and executioner.”

Local Anchorage news is also reporting she abused her power, despite a state senator having just discussed this on live radio.

Whatever the case may be, there’s something seriously amiss when an Alaska resident can’t get straight news about the Alaska governor.

OK, freak out moment over when someone here finally admits to self that reading and listening [add: and type] can’t be done simultaneously. At least not by her.

Steve Branchflower, as I’m sure you know by now, has released his report saying that, as Allahpundit sums it up, “Palin abused power but had the right to fire Monegan.” That’s very reassuring. Um, no.

You know what’s going to get gobbled up by the country starting tomorrow? Three big, fat, phat for Obama, words:

Palin abused power.

As you can see here, “independent and unbiased” Steve Branchflower, who was paid $100,000 to perform this investigation, writes:

Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

The AP was so delirious with joy they could hardly write:

A legislative committee investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has found she unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state’s public safety commissioner.

You could have put the winning lottery numbers in at any point after that but none of the other 49 states would have any winners because nobody would see past that, the first sentence in their minuscule piece that acts as a ginormous shout of triumph. Alaska would have no winners because we have no lottery. But Alaska has no winners anyway, because Branchflower was paid to act as a judge, jury and executioner–just as Biegel states–and even he didn’t have to wear the black bag over his head. Sarah Palin didn’t get to face her accusers; what she did experience is people such as Hollis French foaming at the mouth about how there may be an “October surprise” (oh that’s very subtle, isn’t it) and Todd Palin was basically put on notice that because he occupies an unusual position in the state–husband of the governor–he is supposed to keep his mouth shut. He is not allowed to register any kind of complaint. As far as whether Sarah aided him by allowing access to government–that’s been viewed and ruled upon by Branchflower, the multi-tasker. Exactly what kind of government do we have here in Alaska?

And what kind of police do we have on this land? Officer Wooten still has his job, after five days lost work for tasering a child, drinking in his patrol car and poaching moose. And a radio host who gave out phone numbers on a press release received the same suspension–five days. I realise these are different agencies administering the punishments, but it still stands as a major disgrace that a radio show host is held to a higher standard than a state trooper.

How many people will come to know the crucial details of this farce? That Monegan wasn’t even fired, for starters? That he was re-assigned, declined the offer and quit? That Wooten threatened to kill Chuck Heath, Palin’s father? That even this started before Palin became governor? That not a few Alaskans wouldn’t stop for Wooten if he tried to pull them over? Will people across the country ever know these and other details and, especially if they are pathetic sufferers of Palin Derangement Syndrome, will they ever care that Wooten is still walking around Alaska with a gun? While Barack Obama has tea with terrorists and plays semantics to excuse his proposed visits to the rogue leader of a nation whose government is intent on destroying us? Maybe they won’t have to because if this crap keeps piling higher every day, as it seems to be, pretty soon we will bury ourselves.

Oh yeah: I should add this very important part of Branchflower’s report, which is buried on pages 80-81. This I don’t really fault him for, but rather the MSM who are too lazy to look any further than the first sentence that “confirms” the answers they want to hear, and can’t be bothered to read on:

In this case there has been much said about the level of frustration that existed on the part of Sarah Palin’s father Chuck Heath who filed the original complaint against Trooper Michael Wooten, and on the part of Sarah and Todd Palin, who attempted to learn the status of the investigation only to be told by Colonel Grimes that the matter was confidential by reason of AS 39.25.080. I believe their frustration was real as was their skepticism about whether their complaints were being zealously investigated…[T]he law prevented the troopers from giving them any feedback whatsoever.

When a citizen files a complaint against a peace officer, there should be a balance in our law that on the one hand seeks to protect the confidentiality of the investigative process, but on the other recognizes that someone may have been aggrieved. At the very least, the law should provide for the release of some information to the complainant regarding the status of the case. When citizens are told no information can be released, it has the potential of engendering skepticism about whether the complaint was taken seriously. There is likewise a great potential that the confidence we need to have in our law enforcement agencies will be undermined, and respect for those institutions will be eroded. This is especially so because in most instances, as was the case here, the officer is an employee of the very same agency that was conducts [sic] the investigation.

What do you suppose the chances are the MSM will admit Todd Palin had a right to doubt the claims were being investigated and felt he had to pursue it as strongly as he did?

I’ll probably win the Alaska State Lottery before that happens.

Friday 10 October 2008 Posted by | Politics | , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Illinois rape victims billed for kits?

While I have been busy learning about the brain’s language map and all the things any six-month old knows about communication, the blogging world has gone on merrily without me and I’ve missed some of the best and funniest blog entries of All Time. Although I probably needed the break anyway–my brain is oversoaked with Ayers these last days, uffff–I was planning to read a few more entries before I fell on the floor. I couldn’t do any writing tonight.

And then I saw one entry that made my spine stiffen:

There has been a nasty rumor going on that during Palin’s tenure as mayor of Wassila, female rape victims were required to pay for their own rape kits. It was supposed to be another example on how Palin was really a man and hated women and wanted them all to stay home barefoot and pregnant.

Imagine my surprise when you find out that this is not true.

In reality, and had any journalist in the MSM outlets bothered to do their job instead of working for the Obama campaign 24/7, there was a state law forbidding charging victims of rape for their rape kits since 2000. As for where it all came from, the chief of Police( chief of police, not Palin) in Wasilla wanted to have the Insurance companies(Insurance companies, not the victims) to pay for them, with the intention of billing it ultimately to the rapists eventually. However, there isn’t a single piece of record that shows that a single victim’s insurance was ever billed for it. If this practice still seems creepy or exclusive to macho,
rough-and-tumble Alaska, well, it happens to be the practice in other
states, too, like North Carolina (until recently) and … Illinois.

And can you guess who co-sponsored that bill in Illinois?

Can you say Barack Obama?

Have a nice day!

I realise this is an old story, so far as the whole rape kit thingie goes. But the Illinois statute is news to me. My only consolation for the fact that an Egyptian blogger had the better sense than me to find this is that I know I’m not alone. (OK, cold comfort, but I haven’t seen this exactly sprung all over the blogs here either.) I wonder how many citizens of Illinois are aware of this?

To be honest, this is also an example of how numbers bandied about in debates sway people, regardless of how accurate they are or are not. For example, Joe “Come with me to Katie’s” Biden frequently pulls numbers from the air that only a few people know off the tops of their heads are outright fabrications. But how many average citizens will actually have the wherewithal not only to question the assertions–how would they reckon he is lying about McCain’s votes?–but to go look all these up? They are like statistics in a way: people have a feeling for them that is a combination of reverence and fear, and they think the ones who can spout the best must know the most.

So it is here: although rape is more common than reported, there still are people who are untouched by the experience and if they are not presented with the fact that Obama is more dirtied by the accusations than Sarah Palin ever could come close to being, they may always go on erroneously believing she is bad for women. And that is the real point, not that Sandmonkey failed in his reading of the Frontiersman article. At worst he may have failed to tell us that he knows what any (truthful) Alaskan will concede: that the practice in fact happened in other cities besides Wasilla. Not to mention other US cities.

Moreover:

If current Police Chief Long’s information is correct, then Mayor Palin didn’t know that rape victims were charged for rape kits, because none were.

and that person who commented in reply to Sandmonkey’s post never bothered to read this, even when it was provided to him by said Sandmonkey via direct link.

It’s more astroturfing to get the Internet dish out in the same way MSM and other goons have been up here in Alaska rifling through people’s trash in their desperate attempts to have some new and dirty scandal to spin on CNN to get their Oprah moment. If any of them had a shred of intellectual honesty they would stop yammering about Palin’s lipstick and start looking for the truth. Really, if this is this is all trained journalists can find on Palin and much of this can be caught by bloggers of all levels (including yours truly, a newcomer), then maybe I’m studying language awareness of the wrong group of people. The sandbox set are as forthright as you can get and the media have built the Tower of Babble.

Friday 10 October 2008 Posted by | Politics | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama: Outclassed, underinformed, über defensive

Not having TV (by choice) I’ve had to rely on the radio for this debate–the feed was about a minute off real time and the break up was slightly annoying, so I chose to forego that as well. It was a bit of a disadvantage since I’m a very visual person, but I was trying to pay close attention for audible squirms, and Obama provided me with many.

First of all, as Ed Morrissey points out below, what’s with this “John” business? Senator McCain is many years Obama’s senior in age as well as experience and the reference by first name really put me off. I am aware this doesn’t matter to some people who don’t believe being an elder can actually mean something, so I will grant that and move on.

Next, Obama was at a clear disadvantage when it came to Georgia–which he wouldn’t be if knew what he was talking about…or maybe if he hadn’t spoken first. He spoke in very general terms about Aggressor Russia with phrases and logic any high schooler could have posted on a chat forum. (No offense to high schoolers.) I wasn’t really sure what to expect from McCain, but when the hits came they were sure and swift. Point after point he hammered into Obama’s holes and I could practically hear the sweat poring from the Obama pores. When the Illinois senator began to speak, he seemed to borrow some of his newfound knowledge to make some talking points. If he thinks he gained any momentum it’s because he used what McCain had said to do a quick study.

Obama also seemed in the attack mode with his frequent interruptions, which McCain was tactful enough to indulge. Perhaps he knew he didn’t need to win the “I can talk louder than you” game because his victory would come later when people talked about how insecure Obama was with all that jumping into McCain’s points. It’s a bit of a shame I couldn’t see what the facial expressions were that each wore, but I did hear how secure and authoritative were the words of McCain, whereas Obama–especially in the latter half of the debate–stammered relentlessly. Clearly he had lost his cool. It seemed perhaps most apparent when he couldn’t remember the name of the serviceman whose mother had given him a bracelet, and I believe this will not be forgotten by the American people. There simply are too many who have contact with the military, whether they be families and friends, or neighbors, civilian-military contacts or even passing encounters in stores, fairs, parent-teacher meetings and so on. Over a year ago a Fort Richardson soldier tore a patch right off his shoulder and gave it to my son (now five). Children remember lots, of course–parents complain about it all the time. But at that age they also prioritise their memories, just as we do. Nevertheless, even more than one year later my son still recalls the soldier’s name and rank, as well as many of the details about that night at the airport. And he is not a United States senator. In my estimation it is shameful, degrading and disrespectful that of all names Senator Obama could not remember off the top of his head, it would be this one.

I also was incensed that Barack Obama claimed to have all along been saying Iran is a danger. (Note the date references in upper left corner of video below.)

This is an appalling claim to make given not only what he said, but also what he didn’t say. He didn’t bother to show up at the New York rally to demonstrate against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and said nothing about how Sarah Palin was so shamelessly disinvited because the left considers partisan politics more important that defending the United States against a madman who can stand on our own soil and plan our destruction. Melanie Morgan wrote about how Obama has campaign connections as well to a group who brags about having met with Ahmadinejad, thinking they are actually achieving somethings besides putting this country at risk.

“Obama recently put his seal of approval on Evans’ attempt to storm the stage during the acceptance speech of Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska when he welcomed her to his two Hollywood fundraisers last week, the exclusive $28,500 per person event and the $2500 per person event Barbra Streisand sang at the same evening.”

I’m sure others will have many more things to say about this than I did, and I await them all. Now on to Debate # 1 wrap up.

Given the uncertainty surrounding the presidential debate tonight, I wasn’t sure exactly what to expect. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have had to fly more than they expected in the last couple of days, and neither got a chance to focus on preparation, at least not to the extent they planned. I figured we’d see at least one major gaffe or breakdown from one of the candidates, and honestly, I wasn’t looking forward to seeing it.

However, I think both men did better than I expected. Neither seemed to show any effects from the hectic pace of the past week, and both appeared ready and relaxed at the start of tonight’s debate. I’d also include Jim Lehrer in that description, even though he had to rewrite part of his script to accommodate the economic crisis. Lehrer gave the debate a light touch as moderator, allowing the candidates plenty of space to talk and encouraging dialogue rather than speechmaking. It was perhaps one of the best presidential debates I’ve seen in this cycle, maybe the best.

With that said, McCain clearly got the best of Obama tonight. After a shaky couple of minutes to start the first question, McCain jabbed at Obama all night long — and he got Obama obviously flustered. While McCain kept his equanimity and never raised his tone or pitch, Obama got visibly upset, his voice pitched higher when responding to McCain, and Obama interrupted more. Obama also kept calling McCain “John” while McCain used the more proper “Senator Obama”, a difference that grated as the evening wore on.

Substantially, McCain also bested Obama on both economics and foreign policy. On the former, it was most apparent when Lehrer asked both candidates what they would cut as President after the bailout package passes. Obama could not bring himself to commit to one single cut, and instead talked about all of the funding he wanted to create for pet programs. McCain noted that he has long championed spending reductions and proposed a spending freeze on all but the most vital programs. When challenged on this point, Obama refused to say whether he would accept a freeze.

I did have a moment of frustration with McCain on the first question, a round I think Obama won. He never challenged Obama’s assumptions that the current credit crisis came from too little regulation. I kept expecting McCain to talk about the disaster of the Community Reinvestment Act, and the mandates from Congress that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encourage bad lending by buying up bad paper. Instead, he tried to out-populist Obama, and Obama sounds more authentic as a populist.

On foreign policy, Obama did better than expected, but still fell short. I think his response on the decision to go into Iraq was quite good (even if I disagree with it), but he kept trying to argue that he didn’t demand a precipitous withdrawal in 2007 when the record clearly shows he did — and he beat Hillary to death with it in the primaries. McCain drew blood when he pointed out that for all of Obama’s talk about the priority of Afghanistan, he never once bothered to visit that front until last July, even though his Senate subcommittee has jurisdiction on NATO issues. Obama spluttered in response but never did explain why such an important theater wasn’t worth a single visit from him.

On Georgia, Russia, and eastern Europe, McCain proved himself the master of detailed foreign-policy thinking. While Obama talked briefly about the potential for NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine and pledged to “rebuild Georgia’s economy”, McCain explained the geopolitical realities of the entire region, and Russia’s intentions for it.

If Obama expected the old man to be too tired to debate properly, he is surely disappointed tonight. McCain kept Obama on defense all night long, made Obama lose his composure, and maintained his own in a very presidential performance. This one is a clear win for McCain.

Friday 26 September 2008 Posted by | Politics | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Obama’s ‘achievements’

Lars Larson, conservative radio talk show host, interviewed NYT columnist Roger Cohen, who mocked Sarah Palin for not having had a passport until last year, not enough credentials for being “a heartbeat away from the presidency,” and “overuse” of the word exceptional.

Larson asked Cohen what Obama has done that could be considered significant and Cohen, after an uncertain pause, had to know he was hard pressed. Eventually he stammered, “He’s a guy who was born into pretty simple circumstances in Hawaii…and in 47 years he’s achieved a fair amount.”

Larson pushed Cohen on this: “What has he achieved? Name a significant achievement of Barack Hussein Obama”

“A significant achievement?”

“Just one.”

“Well, I think he’s put himself in very close range of, uh, of the White House.”

“So his achievement has been–”

“He’s spoken out on issues…”

Dear readers, I cannot go on. It pains me that someone who is supposed to have some intellectual base can only come up with these “qualifications” for handing someone the keys to the White House. Oh there was something about two bills he has passed, bills that, as Larson says, “don’t require a lot of heavy lifting” because everyone agrees on it.

But there you have it, the same thing time after time after time after time after time…ad nauseum. Someone is asked what Obama has ever done that is worthy and if they can come up with anything at all, it is something as lame and insignificant as, “He spoke out.” If they can stop stammering and acting like they are trying to convince their mother they were at the library and not smoking under the railway bridge.

NYT columnist Roger Cohen joins Lars to discuss his dislike of Palin

Friday 26 September 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , | 1 Comment

Sarah Palin roams the streets of New York (not)

A Sarah Palin impersonator hired by the New York Daily News was charged with walking around the city as a test to see how locals and tourists respond.

People waved and cheered at her, some even asking for autographs. A gaggle of tourists gathered round and others aimed their cameras from tour buses. A Lehman Brothers employee stopped to chat and a passer-by shouted, “You’re hot! But I hope you lose!”

One man out for a stroll allowed his granddaughter’s photo to be made, but only after an opposition button was prominently placed on the child. “If her parents see her with anyone who even looks like Palin,” he said, “they’ll strangle me.”

So, does this mean New Yorkers have switched to milk from their favorite wine?

Not quite. Somehow New Yorkers never struck me as mean-spirited or absurd enough to boycott something for a resemblance. They bicker with each other when trying to give out-of-towners proper directions (I’m speaking from personal experience here) and old ladies pass out hard candies to people who give up their seats for them. (With the looks people get when they try to ignore them, you might be hard pressed to find someone unwilling to relinquish that seat!)

But let’s be realistic. I am sure the Daily News, whose rag factor remains unknown to me, thought they were having a spot of fun, but a few random passersby a survey does not make. And the “‘Palin’ by Comparison” table they inserted in the article’s center is designed to bias. I know, I know, to some it might seem I have no sense of humor. But the truth is bias trickled into society, in deliberately small amounts, has a real effect. Such entries as “countries visited”–which recalls the outlandish assertion that somehow having obtained a passport only last year is practically a personal deficiency–combined with the table’s title disregards the fact that millions of Americans are not in possession of a passport.

And, shocking as it may seem to lots of New Yorkers, some Alaskans have never been Outside. So what? They would be able to spot Kristy Webb as a fakester from opposite ends of Manhattan, as she in reality looks nothing like the real Sarah.

Thursday 25 September 2008 Posted by | Politics | , , | Leave a comment

Sarah Palin disinvite: Hillary, 1; Malcolm Hoenlein, big fat zero

Key points in the Pamela Geller article

The notorious disinviting of Sarah Palin from an anti-Ahmedinejad rally in New York is a product of the secret war Hillary Clinton is waging against the Obama presidential campaign.

The catalyst that set the disastrous events in motion was Hillary Clinton’s withdrawal.

Many weak and nonsensical excuses were made for Clinton’s withdrawal. It was said she pulled out because she thought the event was partisan, or because she did not want to appear with Palin. She was unhappy that the organizers did not tell her that Palin also was going to attend.

Actually, what Clinton signaled was her chances of seizing the nomination and the White House in 2012 were more important than presenting a united front against Ahmadinejad.

So what happened to set the ball rolling? Hillary’s pull out had nothing to do with Palin. It was an implicit hit at Obama. Hillary did not want to be the one to represent Obama. Obama’s position on Iran is sophomoric, idiotic and dangerous. Hillary has been more responsible and she was not going to clean up his mess.

In plain terms, Hillary Clinton was not going to be the face of Obama’s Iranian foreign policy. Obama has said he would meet with Ahmedinejad without condition — essentially rewarding him for his nuclear arsenal and genocidal threats. No way was Hillary going to pave that road for him, so she pulled out forcing Obama to face the jihad music. In withdrawing she forced him send someone in his stead — but who?

Clinton could not have known that Jewish lay leadership would cave to their left wing activists, but that was of little import to her. Her action was taken to shine the spotlight on Obama’s complete failure on Iran, and she accomplished this. Claiming that by inviting Palin (and Clinton, Biden and Wexler), the organizers were in danger of losing their tax-exempt status was ridiculous. It was not a political rally and Hillary attended and spoke in 2006 when she was running for the Senate. Was that political? Those who make that argument insult our intelligence.

I do not forgive Malcolm Hoenlein for caving to the leftist Jews. The buck stops with him and he blew it. Israel is in Iran’s nuclear cross hairs. Full weaponization is either here or imminent. American Jews need real leadership and that is why Malcolm Hoinlein must resign. He is tired and gutless. As executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations since June 1986, it was his decision to make. Hoenlein has demonstrated he is not capable of leading the Jewish people as the world prepares for a second holocaust. The left wing politics of yesterday cause irreparable harm.

The real issue is why Obama didn’t send anyone to represent him at the Anti-Ahmedinejad rally? Having no one there for Obama makes it seem he did not want to upset the Hitler wannabe, or that he was pandering to his widespread support in the Muslim world or his 22% lead over McCain among Muslim Americans.

Hillary wanted these question raised in the subconscious of Jewish and other pro-Israel/anti-Iran voters.

In this Presidential race, Hillary is a McCain operative even if he doesn’t know it.

Thursday 25 September 2008 Posted by | Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

‘Sarah Palin is no Margaret Thatcher’… Really?

I’m going to have to disagree with Patterico, who was bothered by Sarah Palin’s response to the Pakistani president’s moronic fumbling for words once he set eyes on her.

“A little gravitas, please,” Patterico wrote. “I think Palin is bright, but she should model herself after Margaret Thatcher. In the unlikely event that some sexist jerk from Pakistan had praised her looks, Maggie wouldn’t have said “Tee hee.” Even if she had been pretty, she still would have found a way to cut the guy off at the knees.”

Ehem…excuse me? Cut him off at the knees? Sarah Palin seemed to know full well that such a reaction (as opposed to response) really would have served no purpose. I sense Zardari is in for some bit of mockery for having lost his focus in front of the world, and publicly shaming him would have done Palin no good. She knows when not to shoot herself in the foot.

I’m not suggesting that Sarah should engage in prostituting her charm or allow herself to be insulted in order to get her way. It’s practicality I’m talking about here. And for the record, “tee hee” is most definitely not the way I interpret her replies. Her body language and tone of voice convey a sort of respectful dismissiveness–but again, not too dismissive. At one point she waved him away with her hand, but the gesture was soft enough not to offend. And he appeared not to be put off by it because it looked to me like he wanted her to be comfortable–you can see how she sort of fumbled with her hands and tried to sit down but then realised she shouldn’t until invited–and gestured quickly for her to sit down.

And I hate to be the bearer of bad news but to some people a statement such as, “Now I know why all of America is crazy about you” is a compliment and nothing more. I’m sure some would see it as lacking the “deep” thought and I won’t be able to convince them otherwise, even when they find time to be critical of Margaret Thatcher’s looks. But I’m also not going to buy the line that the Iron Lady would have dressed him down. I think she too would have been bright enough to play it down as Palin did.

Feminism isn’t always about jumping down people’s throats. There’s a time for diplomacy and allowing people to realise their mistakes and cultural gaffes in private. Sarah has proven yet again she is one step ahead of those who are so eager, as are some in the media, to preserve offended antagonism over reaching mutual understanding.

Thursday 25 September 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment