The Birthers New Game

Dave Weigel notes how a new smear campaign launched from the right wing echo chamber has exploded across the usual media dumping grounds like Drudge and Fox News. The reports claim that Newark Mayor Cory Booker doesn't live in Newark. In fact, they go on to claim that he's never lived there and that his neighbors have never seen him around.

It's a rather fanciful tale, but the warning flags about these claims should come up from the byline on down.

For starters, let's look at who's peddling this particular story. It's Joel Gilbert, a director who's best known for putting together birther conspiracy films about how President Obama isn't an American citizen and should not be president. He's now doing the same thing with Cory Booker (another African American politician at that). It's meant to be disruptive, but it doesn't take much to rebuff this kind of transparent smear job that's worthy of James O'Keefe.

Substantively, these claims about Booker not living in Newark can't pass the smell test. Booker's presence in Newark is well documented on social media - especially Twitter. There are hundreds of messages relating to hyperlocal activities of Booker and his neighbors in Newark including helping out neighbors around the corner when the power went out during Hurricane Sandy. In particular, there's this exchange.

https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/statuses/263990447205122048

Local media reports and national media outlets followed the reporting and provided photos and interviews with those who stayed over at Booker's Newark home or came by to recharge phones, etc. It was widely reported. For instance, Huffington Post carried this story as part of the larger context of what people were doing to cope with the storm's effects. Time had a similar report, indicating that 12 of his neighbors crashed at his place, getting food delivered and watching kid-friendly DVDs.

Now, we've got Steve Lonegan aligned right wing media outlets peddling a smear about how Booker isn't a Newark residence. In fact, we've even got political operative Dick Morris pushing this nonsense and going beyond it to claim that he's got a plan to deny Booker a seat in the Senate based on lack of residency.

Politicker indicated that Booker gave his neighbors free reign to use an entire floor, including kitchen and bathroom, complete with photos. That's from November 2, 2012.

An easy Internet search disproves this nonsense, but that's actually besides the point. Lonegan and the right wing are trying to delegitimize candidates in any way, shape, or form. Birther and conspiracy theories all fit into the strategy to undermine their political opponents. It makes it easier to attack their political achievements when claiming that they aren't legitimate either. Putting this out there with less than 24 hours to go before the special election is meant to give Booker little time to counter the smear and take Booker off message.

It all comes at a time when Lonegan's long-shot chance at winning is getting longer. Lonegan's supposed closing rally in the polling is just that - supposed. He hasn't come any closer than double digits in any polls, and a few are indicating that Booker has regained a significant and comfortable lead.

Part of the reason that the spread has grown is that Booker has rightfully called Lonegan and his fellow travelers as the extremists as they are. Lonegan didn't help his cause any when he got Sarah Palin to stump for him. That only burnished his extremist credentials.

Lonegan's attack ads also attempt to throw every conceivable buzz word at Booker, even calling him corrupt. It hasn't worked, but it only shows that Lonegan is a one-trick pony who can gin up interest only by whipping right wingers into a frenzy.

While that can help rally the base, it wont peel off independents who are flocking to Booker and reinforces the fact that Lonegan is a tea party extremist who's comfortable with shutting down government and threatening default in order to extort the kind of defund/delay/destroy Obamacare demands that his fellow travelers in the House and Senate are pushing.

Lonegan is all kinds of wrong for New Jersey, and wrong for the country. Tomorrow's election should seal that fate.

Polls open in New Jersey's special election tomorrow at 6 am through 8pm.

Cross Posted at LGF

Sarah Palin's Comments About the Giffords Shooting Spark Controversy

Here's the full video:


Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel (emphasis added: ed) that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

The comments that spark controversy begin when she claims that she's the focus of a blood libel. The attempted assassination is not about her, but postings on her website were highlighted as a means of showing the coarseness of the political debate and this is part of her response.

I can't disagree with Ed Morrissey or Glenn Reynolds  enough about their interpretation that "blood libel" is somehow a political term. Reynolds points out to Politico’s Ben Smith that Israel uses "blood libel" today to rebut charges of deliberately killing Palestinians, and Tony Blankley used it in a column to describe John Murtha’s accusations against Marines about murders in Haditha that it's somehow a functional political term.

Tony Blankley was wrong in his usage as well. Murtha libeled those Marines, but it was not a blood libel.

Differentiate that from the fact that Israel is responding to ongoing and persistent claims made by Palestinians that the Israelis are purposefully targeting and murdering Palestinian children and other Arab regimes perpetuate the blood libel annually - typically around Passover.

Those Palestinian claims are the blood libel. Israel is rebutting those offensive and odious claims. Israel has not turned it into a functional political term. Israel is defending itself against one of the most offensive memes in history.

Words have meaning. Blood libel has a very specific meaning and when you start taking words and concepts out of their proper usage you reduce the word's value and usage.

I'd say that Palin's usage was incredibly stupid, particularly when the victim of the attack was herself Jewish. Palin isn't a victim here, and she certainly wasn't the victim of a blood libel under any tortured reading into the meaning of that concept.

Had Palin claimed that the media and bloggers were engaging in libel and ascribing to her blame for the Loughner attack, she may have had a point. Pundits and the media began pointing fingers moments after the shooting took place and have not stopped since. Loughner's motivations are still unknown and he isn't cooperating with authorities. But when she used "blood libel", which has a very specific meaning and is a loaded term, especially those who understand the religious significance of the term, it showed tremendous insensitivity particularly because Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish.

UPDATE:
The ADL has issued a statement:

The ADL has issued a statement.

It is unfortunate that the tragedy in Tucson continues to stimulate a political blame game. Rather than step back and reflect on the lessons to be learned from this tragedy, both parties have reverted to political partisanship and finger-pointing at a time when the American people are looking for leadership, not more vitriol. In response to this tragedy we need to rise above partisanship, incivility, heated rhetoric, and the business-as-usual approaches that are corroding our political system and tainting the atmosphere in Washington and across the country.

It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.

Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase “blood-libel” in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term “blood-libel” has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history.

UPDATE:
The ADL's comments are weak and contribute to undermining the meaning and weight of the concept of blood libel compared to those made by others (HT: OOOG at LGF):
National Jewish Democratic Council: Palin’s Incendiary “Blood Libel” Reference: Wrong Time, Wrong Place, Wrong Always
J Street Responds to Palin’s “Blood Libel” Statement
Jewish Funds for Justice: Stop Fanning the Flames of Division

What A Boob Job

The media is busy asking the real tough questions these days.

Has Sarah Palin gotten breast implants? The questions began surfacing following her appearance at the Belmont Stakes in New York and appeared to show a curvier than usual Palin.

Really? That's what people want to know or care about?

The former Alaska Governor is busy pursuing her own agenda and is seen as a major voice of the GOP, but the media focusing on whether she's had implants gives the media a booby prize for stupidity.

There are far more important and pressing questions that they should be asking of the former governor - including how Alaska dealt with the oil companies and the situation in the Gulf, her position on various science-related subjects, or the effect of her endorsements (real or imagined) on primary races around the country.

And for the record, Palin says that they're real - and they're fabulous.

New Poll Finds Sarah Palin Not Presidential Material With High Unfavorables

ABC News/Washington Post ran a poll over the past week, and the results are not what Sarah Palin would like to hear if she actually had any intention of running for President in 2012.

Most Americans don't think she's President material, and 55% have an unfavorable review.

Palin's own ratings are weaker, apparently hurt rather than helped by her return to the spotlight. Fifty-five percent of Americans see her unfavorably, the most basic measure of a public figure's popularity, and 71 percent believe she's not qualified to serve as president, a position she said Sunday she'll consider seeking. Both negatives are at new highs.

Palin's more popular in her own party -- 69 percent of Republicans see her favorably. But far fewer, 37 percent, do so "strongly." (By contrast, in an ABC/Post poll last month, 70 percent of Democrats had a strongly favorable opinion of Barack Obama.) More problematic for Palin is that even in her own party 52 percent think she's not qualified for the presidency -- up by 16 points from an ABC/Post poll in November, shortly before the publication of her memoir, in which she criticizes the strategy of the 2008 Republican presidential campaign.

Far more Americans see Palin strongly unfavorably, 38 percent, than strongly favorably, 18 percent. Among independents -- swing voters in national politics -- just 36 percent see her favorably overall, vs. 53 percent unfavorably, and only 29 percent think she's qualified for the presidency.

The poll also looked at the Tea Party movement, and here too the Tea Party wasn't exactly viewed favorably even though some folks did agree with the issues raised by the Party.

One problem with the poll is the geographic distribution and political affiliations of those polled was not included in the release. I can't tell whether this is a representative sample, or whether this is skewed because of some bias within the poll. Still, the results show that Palin would have a tremendous hurdle to overcome in gaining the nomination for the GOP, as the poll seems to indicate significant resistance to Palin within the GOP.

Friday Night News Dump: Gov. Palin To Resign

Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican governor from Alaska, is stepping down. It had been rumored that she wasn't going to seek reelection, but this takes things to a whole different level.

Gov. Sarah Palin will resign her office in a few weeks, she said during a news conference at her Wasilla home Friday morning.

Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell will be inaugurated at the Governor’s Picnic at Pionner Park in Fairbanks on Saturday, July 25, Palin said.

There was no immediate word as to why she will resign, though speculation has been rampant that the former vice presidential candidate is gearing up for a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Palin made the announcement flanked by Parnell and most, if not all, of her cabinet.

It's only a matter of time before word gets out as to the reason why she's resigning. It would be better if she had done so up front, so as to reduce the speculation that is sure to swirl.

She's going to have to explain her reasoning for resigning instead of serving out her term. You can bet that the left wing is salivating over possible reasons. I can only hope that it isn't something wrong medically or family related.

UPDATE:
It's one thing to prepare to run for the Presidency in 2012, which has long been rumored. It's quite another to step down from her current office to do so. It's not like other politicians have campaigned for higher office while serving in other political positions. We'll have to see what the real deal is here.

Media Taken In By Palin Hoaxer; Blogosphere Blamed

That's right. Fox News, New York Times, MSNBC, and other media outlets bought the nonsensical line about how Gov. Sarah Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent. That was part of a bunch of recriminations proffered by unnamed sources coming from the McCain-Palin campaign following their loss on election day.

The problem? None of it was true.

It was all part of an elaborate ruse.

It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.

Now a pair of obscure filmmakers say they created Martin Eisenstadt to help them pitch a TV show based on the character. But under the circumstances, why should anyone believe a word they say?

“That’s a really good question,” one of the two, Eitan Gorlin, said with a laugh.

(For what it’s worth, another reporter for The New York Times is an acquaintance of Mr. Gorlin and vouches for his identity, and Mr. Gorlin is indeed “Mr. Eisenstadt” in those videos. He and his partner in deception, Dan Mirvish, have entries on the Internet Movie Database, imdb.com. But still. ...)

They say the blame lies not with them but with shoddiness in the traditional news media and especially the blogosphere.

The blogosphere sniffed out the story and was immediately questioning it - although the pro Obama people, anonymous emailer among them, had no problem accepting it word for word. It fit their view of Palin as an ignorant backcountry neophyte, and they were among those pushing the story. It was simply too good to check.

I didn't bother covering this particular story sooner because I didn't think there was anything to it.

Yet, the Times article goes on and on about how the blogosphere was taken in by this hoax, and that it is somehow our fault for this being spread in the newsrooms across the country.

Hogwash.

All these media outlets, with all of their claims to fact checking and sourcing materials, didn't seem to notice there is no such thing as the Harding Institute (named after one of the worst Presidents in history). No one bothered to find out if Eisenstadt was actually a McCain staffer. All of those layers of fact checking were for naught as the story was repeated like a bad game of telephone.

UPDATE:
Apparently Fox News and Carl Cameron still stand by their assertion that Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent. Stay tuned. Who is the unnamed source? If it wasn't Martin Eisenstadt, the now exposed bogus source to other media outlets, who then? Does Cameron and Fox not want to admit that they were taken in by the same guy who lied to the other news outlets?

Washington Post Admits Obama Bias

Well now that the election is over there is no harm in admitting that your nationally acclaimed newspaper was biased for a political candidate.

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

***

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

The Post had good coverage of voters, mainly by Krissah Williams Thompson and Kevin Merida. Anne Hull's stories from Florida, Michigan and Liberty University, and Wil Haygood's story from central Montana brought readers into voters' lives. Jose Antonio Vargas's pieces about campaigns and the Internet were standouts.

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.

The Washington Post, and all most all of the media outlets in this country, let the American people down. They failed to report on every major issue regarding Obama, and by extension, Biden. If Sarah Palin said that America would be tested by its enemies in the first six months of a McCain presidency, the media would have been all over it. Biden mixes up Lebanon and Libya, Hezbollah and Hamas, and the media doesn't blink. McCain mixes up Sunni and Shite and the entire media claims he knows nothing about world religion. The double standard was incredible. Not only Obama's relationship with Rezko, but his relationship with Ayers and Reverend Wright were poo pooed by media cadre all to happy to worship at the Obama altar. Does anyone really think that if the LA Times had a damaging video of McCain at a dinner for a known associate of Yasir Arafat, former PLO spokesmen, toasting him and laughing at derogatory jokes against Jews, that the video wouldn't be all over the media?

The Washington Post needs to not only admit its problem, but to set up safeguards to ensure that this does not happen again. I am not saying that an editorial board cannot endorse a candidate. But the media must remain objective and impartial. To skew the results of an election by unfair and unbalanced reporting is tantamount to ACORN organizing voter fraud -- oh and where was the unbiased reporting of that issue in the Washington Post?

No Bias Here

Which story is far more important?

(1) Democrat running mate to Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Joe Biden, basically says that an Obama Presidency invites terrorists and our nation's enemies to engage in attacks and behavior that might lead to serious harm of US interests within the first six months of his taking the oath of office and that Obama might not be up to the task

or

(2) Republican Sen. John McCain's running mate Gov. Sarah Palin spent $140,000 on clothes, courtesy of the RNC?

Well, by the way that the blogosphere is running these days, it's clearly the latter.

Try finding a story on MSNBC about Biden's latest utterances, and you'd be hard pressed to find them. Yet, Palin gets headlines for her wardrobe upgrade. It's amazing how that works.

Which story is more important in figuring out which candidate is best likely to lead the nation in a time of crisis? Clearly it's the Biden comments, but you'd be hard pressed to find coverage since it's deemed by the media to be not nearly as important as anyone would normally consider because it was Biden making those comments.

That's a curious situation. Biden was chosen supposedly because of his foreign policy experience (I call it tenure since time spent in office does not equate with experience, knowledge, or judgment), and yet he repeatedly shows that he doesn't exactly have a firm grasp of the facts, logic, or reasoning. It's also a stunning display of Obama's lack of judgment in choosing such a supremely unqualified running mate.

Still, everyone will instead focus on Palin's wardrobe makeover. I guess when you look great (and even Tina Fey has admitted as much) and need clothes, it's an excuse for everyone to try and fill Mr. Blackwell's shoes (RIP).

UPDATE:
Speaking truth to media, Gov. Palin rips the media a new one by noting that if she had said what Biden did, Palin would have been torn to shreds by the media.

Compare that with the crickets as the media simply ignores and/or buries Biden's latest statements.

When Headlines and Facts Collide

The New York Times and other media outlets, like CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, etc., all claim the same basic headline - that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power in the allegations that she fired a state trooper.

Here's the text of the 263 page report that was written by a single individual charged to do so by a partisan hack. 263 pages of essentially saying that Governor Palin was within her rights to do so.

Consider that the report states clearly:

I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, 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.

So, if it's within her rights to hire and fire executive branch department heads, where's the ethical breach?

There isn't one. She had the authority to do so, and carried out her obligations. The fact that the report claims there is an ethical lapse, but then turns around and says that there is no reason to sanction Gov. Palin shows that there is nothing to these charges. It is simply designed to embarrass Gov. Palin and score points politically, nothing more.

The headlines carried by the media outlets is where the damage is done. Most people will not read deeper into the story, let alone read the actual report, as folks like Beldar have done. Beldar eviscerates the entire story and breaks it down into its component parts.

I can't say it better than Beldar can:

Here's a note to Mr. Branchflower, who clearly is verbose, but obviously none too keen a scholar of logic: Gov. Palin's so-called "firing" of Monegan (it wasn't a firing, it was a re-assignment to other government duties that he resigned rather than accept) can't simultaneously be a violation of the Ethics Act and "a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority." This, gentle readers, is a 263-page piece of political circus that actually explicitly refutes itself on its single most key page!

This report was produced by a single individual, and the Alaska Legislature did nothing more than have a single 12 member committee of legislators vote to release the contents of this report.

The McCain-Palin campaign has issued a press release refuting the report and pointing out the clear partisan nature of those pressuring the legislature to investigate this matter despite that it was clearly within the rights of the Governor to do.

So, what do we have here? A report that doesn't say what its proponents want it to say in as clear a language as they needed, but a media that is more than willing to overlook the deficiencies to run headlines that claim that Gov. Palin abused her power.

The Palin Family Tax Problem?

A number of tax law professors have reviewed the newly released tax returns for Gov. Sarah Palin and Todd Palin, and have come to the conclusion that they may have underpaid their federal taxes by tens of thousands of dollars. TaxProf has the details.

The Palins relied on a tax preparer at H&R Block to complete the return, and the preparer might be in trouble for underreporting certain items of income, and the Palins may have additional penalty liability.

I think this story has legs.

Gov. Palin Attacks Obama On Ayers Ties; Media Covers For Obama

This is something that the McCain campaign should have done months ago, but it's better late than never. Sen. Barack Obama has worked closely with Bill Ayers, a Weather Underground terrorist whose cohorts bombed the Pentagon, sought to bomb the US Capitol, and attack numerous other institutions and individuals involved in tracking down and bringing those terrorists to justice. His cohorts firebombed the house of a judge involved in the case against several of the terrorists, nearly killing the judge and his family (including an eight year old who recounts the story here).

Of course, that isn't how the New York Times and CNN would like to portray the situation. No, they think that working together on multiple charitable boards over a period of several years, being introduced to politics at the house of Ayers (and Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers wife and fellow Weather Underground terrorist), counts as a passing acquaintance.

So, Breitbart runs a story about Gov. Palin attacking Obama on his questionable associations, and has the stones to question Gov. Palin about where she got the information based on the fact that she didn't answer a question in an interview with Catie Couric over what papers or magazines she reads. Palin cited the New York Times in referring to Ayers:

Palin told a group of donors at a private airport, "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." She also said, "This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America."

Palin, Alaska's governor, said that donors on a greeting line had encouraged her and McCain to get tougher on Obama. She said an aide then advised her, "Sarah, the gloves are off, the heels are on, go get to them."

The escalated effort to attack Obama's character dovetails with TV ads by outside groups questioning Obama's ties to Ayers, convicted former Obama fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko and Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He and Obama live in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood and served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based charity that develops community groups to help the poor. Obama left the board in December 2002.

Obama was the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school-reform group of which Ayers was a founder. Ayers also held a meet-the-candidate event at his home for Obama when Obama first ran for office in the mid-1990s.

Palin cited a New York Times story published Saturday that detailed Obama's relationship with Ayers. In an interview with CBS News earlier in the week, Palin didn't name any newspapers or magazines that had shaped her view of the world.

Summing up its findings, the Times wrote: "A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.'"

The Times clearly downplays the longstanding role that the Ayers took in Obama's early political career, and the fact that the true extent of that relationship is being hidden from view by all those involved. If Obama ever did express comments in support of Ayers overtly, it would mean the end of the Obama politically.

The sad fact is that the media is in the tank for Obama and refuses to truly dig into these relationships. Maybe it's because the Illinois and Chicago political machines have so readily accepted Ayers into their own circles - to consider it acceptable to engage in terrorism against our nation one day, and to be worthy of running multimillion dollar charitable foundations doling out money to failed education schemes for Chicago's public schools the next. Perhaps Obama didn't think anything of the Ayers links at the time because everyone around him was so accepting of Ayers. After all, he somehow managed to become a college professor and was actively engaged in politics.

The problem with all that is that Obama should have known better that to associate with Ayers precisely because of his terrorist past. But for a botched prosecution, Ayers and Dohrn would have been rotting away in prison for their activities. Ayers first wife was killed when a bomb Ayers designed blew up as she and two others were assembling the bomb. [ed: that bomb was actually meant to be detonated at Fort Dix in New Jersey.]

All of these attacks are factually based and go directly to Obama's character and fitness to serve as President of the US. There is no way that someone who is entrusted to protect the nation from all threats, foreign and domestic, should ever have associated himself with a terrorist who wanted nothing less than to start a revolution here in our country. The fact that both Ayers and Obama are appearing to hide the extent of their relationship and friendship is suspicious and disconcerting.

And if you're wondering who that guy in the photo is, that is Bill Ayers standing on a US flag for a photo spread associated with an article in Chicagomag.com. The article, written for the August 2001 edition, notes that Ayers is unrepentant about his terrorism and how he wished he could have done so much more, even though he claims that he never sought to kill anyone with his actions. That's utter bunk as the firebombing of the judge's family shows.

UPDATE:
As if to hammer home the point of the media bias at the NYT and CNN, Stanley Kurtz, who is trying to sort through all those records at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge where Obama and Ayers were working together for several years, notes that CNN completely whitewashed his statements on the situation, and had the audacity to claim that National Review was trying to debunk Gov. Palin's statements. In fact, it's just the opposite. National Review is trying to shine light on the Ayers-Obama ties that the media refuses to do in any meaningful way.

UPDATE:
Don Surber doesn't mince words on Ayers and his longstanding terrorist ties.

UPDATE:
As I wrote at LGF a short time ago, there's a good reason why Obama didn't think there was anything wrong with Ayers.

Ayers had been recycled and rehabilitated by the academic leftists who allowed him to become a professor at a major university. Politicians in Chicago didn't seem to have a problem with his terrorist past.

Ayers was enabled to become a major player in Chicago politics, and Obama wouldn't think anything of Ayers for that reason. I think it's a damning indictment of the academic system and Chicago politics that they would think to mainstream Ayers at all.

Obama's problem is that he didn't do his own homework on Ayers to find out his background or anything else about his terror past (or if he did, chose to continue associating with him and working closely with him for all those years at Woods and the CAC).

Now, we face a situation where Ayers and his past are being downplayed by the media, the left, and the very institutions that enabled Ayers to become a player in Chicago politics. Pointing out those connections is going to ruffle plenty of feathers - which is precisely why we're seeing the pushback from the media on this.

Oh, and Obama is going to try and claim that McCain is too erratic to make sound policy decisions? Are you kidding me? Obama could have made that argument against his running mate - Joe Biden!

UPDATE:
Charles at LGF points out that Obama and Ayers served on the Woods Fund Board at the time that Ayers did that interview and took the photo above. Their paths overlapped at the board for three years. Again, this isn't merely passing acquaintances, but a pattern of working together on various projects:

Deborah Harrington, president of the Woods Fund, a philanthropic organization in Chicago, said Obama was a director from 1994 through 2001. That overlaps Ayers’ time as a director by three years. It also means Obama served with Ayers for the final months of 2001, after Ayers made his comments to the New York Times.

It means that Obama knew, or had reason to know of Ayers terror ties even at that late a date.

Are the Gloves Finally Coming Off?

Republicans have been waiting to see what Gov. Sarah Palin would do next, and it appears that those who were hoping that she would finally start attacking the Obama campaign for their gaffes, inconsistent positions, and the untoward statements that have been buried by a media that lists heavily to the left are finally going to have red meat to sink their collective teeth into.

She interviewed with Carl Cameron after the debate and let's just say that she's taking the gloves off.

She then aimed to defend herself for some of the criticism she got for the Couric interview. She was blasted for not answering Couric’s question on any of the periodicals she reads or even a Supreme Court decision that she disagreed with. She defended some of the circular answers she gave the CBS anchor saying that she did not get to cover some of the topics she saw as important, “But in those Katie Couric interviews I did feel that there were a lot of things that she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a V.P. candidate stands for. What the values are represented in our ticket. I wanted to talk about Barack Obama increasing taxes, which would lead to killing jobs. I wanted to talk about his proposal to increase government spending by another trillion dollars.”

She then slammed Barack Obama calling him disqualified to be President of the United States, “Some of his comments that he has made about the war that I think may — in my world– disqualifies someone from consideration as the next commander in chief.” Palin said, “Some of his comments about Afghanistan and what we are doing there supposedly– just air raiding villages and killing civilians. That’s reckless. So I wanted to talk about things like that. So I guess I have to apologize about being a little annoyed, but that is also an indication of being outside that Washington elite and being outside the media elite also and just wanting to talk and just wanting to talk to Americans without the filter and let them know what we stand for.”

The media would rather try and focus on the fact that Gov. Palin didn't get the name of a general in Afghanistan correct, while ignoring the facts that Sen. Biden doesn't know his US Constitution, the situation regarding Hizbullah, the Arab-Israeli conflict, or that taxing Americans and their businesses is a recipe for disaster in a down economy.

The media would rather not point out that Sen. Biden completely got Sen. Obama's stance on dealing with Ahmadinejad wrong.



And for all those folks who are concerned about Gov. Palin's experience, how exactly is Sen. Obama getting a pass on the fact that he's got the least experience of any Presidential candidate of at least the past 100 years. Even Harry S. Truman had more experience. Sen. Biden didn't think Obama had sufficient experience. Even Obama was forced to concede he was inexperienced. And yet, here we are because the media had decided that Obama's experience isn't an issue.

The Biden-Palin Debate Wrap

I managed to watch the debate last night and saw that Gov. Sarah Palin did a more than credible job in handling Sen. Joe Biden, whose lifelong ambition to be President has meant he's been preparing for these kinds of debates practically his entire life.

Of course, all that preparation means that he's able to smooth talk his way through all kinds of issues on which he completely blows key facts and information.

Gov. Palin's problem wasn't that she didn't respond or respond effectively. She did. It only appears that Gov. Palin didn't do nearly as effective job in responding to all of Biden's gaffes because she could have spent the entire debate eviscerating Biden's positions, particularly on foreign policy.

Let's start with the top whopper of the night from Biden. It relates directly to Sen. Obama's declaration and preference to meet with Iran's Ahmadinejad and other dictators, tyrants, and thugs without any preconditions.



Biden says that isn't the case.

Obama has said that, and reiterated as much on several occasions.

Biden then goes on to talk about how Hizbullah was kicked out of Lebanon. That's not only the most bizarre statement of the night, but it's so clearly wrong that someone who supposedly has the foreign policy acumen that Biden supposedly does should hang it up right now. Hizbullah has been prominent in Lebanon since the Lebanese Civil War at the end of the 1970s. Hizbullah was responsible for the 1983 Marine barracks bombing, and have never left Lebanon. Not even Israel's invasion of Lebanon to thwart Hizbullah and PLO attacks against Northern Israel and subsequent occupation of Southern Lebanon did anything to remove Hizbullah from Lebanon. Hizbullah is stronger now than it has ever been, precisely because of its support from not only many Lebanese, but because of Syria's and Iran's support.

No one has kicked Hizbullah out of Lebanon, and Hizbullah's ongoing presence is a cancer on the Lebanese society that has the potential to metastasize and infect Turkey as well.

Ed Morrissey thinks that Palin hit a home run. I'm thinking that it was a stand up triple. She did everything she needed to do, but then again, I was expecting a moment where Palin would eviscerate Biden and Obama in one fell swoop, particularly about the financial meltdown.

Palin was weak when talking about the financial crisis and the crooks on Wall Street. She engaged in populist talk, and it would have been more effective to not only mention the crooks on Wall Street, but that those same people, including Raines and Johnson, are advising Obama's campaign, and helped pick Sen. Biden as Obama's running mate. Further, as Palin is the only Washington outsider, she could have slammed Congress for failing to engage in proper oversight over Fannie and Freddie, which was precisely the kind of law that Sen. McCain had proposed but was thwarted by Congressional Democrats on a party line vote. Far from trying to deregulate the system, McCain was looking to target regulations to prevent the very meltdown we're now witnessing.

Sen. Biden did a decent job parrying that line of attack by claiming that McCain had not seen this crisis coming, but again, that ignores the legislation introduced by McCain to increase oversight over Fannie and Freddie.

There were tax gaffes on both sides, and Palin was weaker here than I would have liked.

The Moderate Voice has a solid roundup.

Instapundit notes that there were multiple constitutional law gaffes, particularly by Sen. Biden and the role of the Vice President, but ABC glosses over that in favor of pointing out that Gov. Palin didn't know the name of a general in Afghanistan. It's all about priorities.

What is truly telling is how the media and punditry were focusing on how Palin would be an abject disaster or wouldn't be able to hold her own against Biden in the debate, and yet when it's more than apparent that she could do so, and got in her shots, that the media declares that there's nothing to see.

UPDATE:
I think Palin would have been better served going after Obama and Biden for Democrats blocking regulation that would have increased oversight over Fannie and Freddie, to say nothing of their campaign relying on Johnson and Raines as advisers - asking them for information about the housing market or using Johnson as part of the VP search committee rather than referring them to the Department of Justice for investigation into fraud and other missteps that make Enron look like child's play.

I would have attacked on the issue of affordable housing and wondered how Congress can honestly say that this current situation is affordable given Congress and past Administrations' penchant for expanding lending to those who could not afford to ever repay, let alone when markets inevitably engaged in corrections.

UPDATE:
Dick Morris seems to think that Palin hit it out of the park. So does Rich Lowry. Even the New York Times columnists had to acknowledge that she regained control over her image. That much is apparent, but she missed out on a chance to truly do lasting damage to the Obama campaign, particularly on the financial mess.

UPDATE:
Don Surber showcases what the media elites had to say; they have a narrative and they're sticking to it.

UPDATE:
James Pethokoukis at US News sums up the problem I had with Palin's performance on the financial crisis questions, and notes that this is part of McCain's general reluctance to deal with the issue straight on - attacking Obama for his cozy relationship with the very individuals who propagated this mess in the first place at Fannie and Freddie.

Palin Responds To Rally Kerfuffle

Yesterday, I wrote about the absolute stupidity of all those involved in the mess that saw Sen. Hillary Clinton withdraw from attending a rally supporting Israel and opposing Iran in New York City to coincide with the United Nations General Assembly opening session.

Clinton could have made a very diplomatic statement claiming that she was withdrawing to keep the focus on the issue of supporting Israel and opposing Iran rather than the politics of having Gov. Sarah Palin attending at the same time Hillary was there.

Clinton did no such thing. She made a huge stink about it.

Don't think for a moment that it wasn't planned. I question her commitment and support to Israel, but this was done with multiple motives in mind, not the least of which was to make life harder for the Obama campaign, not easier.

Today, Palin has responded. And she's right - this is an issue that should unite people against the evils perpetrated by Iran against its own citizens, the ongoing threats to its neighbors, and the terrorists it uses by proxy, including Hizbullah and Hamas. That the Democrats have decided to make a fuss over her presence shows that their intentions towards Israel are less than honorable and are purely political in nature. They should be welcoming everyone to support Israel against a totalitarian regime that repeatedly calls for Israel's destruction.

Moreover, how exactly is Hillary's presence at this event nonpartisan, but the moment a Republican like Palin shows up, it becomes partisan. It's a good question that has no satisfactory answer unless you like your politics served up with a heaping pile of hypocrisy.

UPDATE:
Gothamist has some reaction from NYC area politicans:

City Councilman Dov Hikind who said, "This is insulting. This is embarrassing, especially to Gov. Palin, to me and I think it should be to every single New Yorker." Last night, at the State of Israel Bonds dinner where Clinton said, "We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Observer found Iranian Jews split over her decision to skip the rally. And Representative Anthony Weiner weighed in, too, "I don’t believe this was a grand conspiracy. It was a complete mess by the organizers. It got too political. The casualty here? Me.

Hikind and Weiner are both Democrats. Hikind is a strong supporter of Israel, and he's clearly peeved about this mess and how this should be an issue on which people can unite against a common foe. Weiner? He's more interested in his own self interest and that someone decided to stick a camera in front of him.

Stupidity Abounds

There's no other way to explain this. Gov. Sarah Palin was invited to attend a pro-Israel/anti-Iran rally in New York City coinciding with the United Nations opening session. So was Sen. Hillary Clinton.

That got Clinton all twisted in knots, and she refused to attend.

So, now the Jewish groups that put together the rally have decided to disinvite Gov. Palin.

Organizers of an anti-Iran demonstration in New York next week were planning to un-invite Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin after criticism that the event was being used for partisan political purposes.

The decision comes after aides to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced she had canceled her appearance at the demonstration after she learned organizers blindsided her by inviting Palin.

How stupid is this? This is supposed to be a rally to support Israel and to stand as one against the Iranian mad mullahs and Ahmadinejad who again leveled nonsensical charges that Israel is commiting a Holocaust against the Palestinians and calling for Israel's destruction is a regular feature here. Party affiliation shouldn't matter, but apparently Hillary's support for Israel is limited to depending on who she has to share the stage with. She's much more comfortable hanging with Suha Arafat than she is with Gov. Palin, even though Palin was to be there to support Israel, while Arafat's husband did everything imaginable to destroy Israel.

The Jewish groups, and Sen. Clinton's office are playing politics over who was invited? It's silly. More to the point, it's stupid and it undermines the legitimacy of these Jewish groups. These groups, including Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, did not immediately return messages Tuesday seeking comment, nor did other organizers of the rally. Other event sponsors are the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now, The Israel Project, United Jewish Communities, the UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.

Shame on them.

Sen. Clinton Skips Pro-Israel Rally In NYC

That news, by itself, would not raise too many eyebrows. However, the reason she's doing so should. It's apparently because Gov. Sarah Palin will be attending the same pro-Israel, anti-Iran rally scheduled for next week to coincide with the opening session of the United Nations:

Malcolm Hoenlein, executive director of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, earlier said the McCain campaign confirmed Palin would attend the rally Monday, which coincides with the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.

The Jewish group's Web site listed Clinton, Palin, Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel and Iranian dissidents as speakers at the midday rally at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza off First Ave., which Hoenlein said will protest the expected UN appearance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as "a state sponsor of terrorism."

Hoenlein couldn't immediately be reached for comment Tuesday night on Clinton's decision to skip the rally.

Clinton, who lost the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama, has been campaigning for him against the McCain-Palin ticket.

McCain also is New York-bound next week. He is expected to attend former President Bill Clinton's annual Global Initiative forum next Tuesday on challenges facing the global community and possibly join with Palin in meeting world leaders in the city for the UN session.

Well, doesn't that beat all. That's a very disappointing turn of events for Sen. Clinton and should make Jewish voters further question her commitment to supporting Israel and holding the line against Iranian aggression in the region.

UPDATE:
For those who wonder why I question Clinton's commitment to Israel should look no further than her smooch fest with Yasir Arafat's wife:



It's all about the company you keep. Clinton simply can't put aside her political differences with Palin to appear at a pro-Israel rally to oppose the very presence of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York for the UN, a man who poses a clear and present threat to US interests in the region, and who has made repeated threats against Israel.

UPDATE:
Well, doesn't that beat all. The Democrats are looking to pressure Malcolm Hoenlein's group to disinvite Gov. Palin from the pro-Israel rally if Obama or Biden aren't in attendance. Nice. Very classy. (HT: kynna at LGF)

Of course, the comments at Ben Smith's post on the Politico is quite classy. Racist, sexist, elitist (and many other -ists). These people are clueless and have so put partisan politics ahead of foreign policy and everything else that they simply are blind to what they're doing not only to the Democratic party, but to US foreign policy and making a strong statement of support for Israel and against Iran's ongoing militarism. Gov. Palin has so gotten under their skin that these people are coming unhinged in more ways than one (up to and including hacking into Gov. Palin's personal email accounts).

"Progressive" Family Values

The idiots Daily Kos and the other insane asylums where Democratic party leaders often congregate continue attacking Gov. Sarah Palin and her decision to serve as GOP Sen. John McCain's running mate even as she has five children, including an infant, Trig, who has Down's Syndrome.

Let's just say that their arguments fall flat.

Nancy Pelosi has five children. No one claimed her family got in the way of her serving the constituents of San Francisco. She's now the House Majority Leader.

Al Gore had four children.

John Edwards, who ran as John Kerry's running mate for the same position as Gov. Palin, and who later sought to be President in the 2008 election season, had four children. One died in a car crash, and his youngest son was born in 2000.

FDR had five children (a sixth who died in the first year of life), an affair, and a dysfunctional marriage to Eleanor. He's consistently ranked as one of the greatest Presidents in the history of the nation. He raised those five kids despite being bound to a wheelchair later in life and running for office for much of his adult life - as State Senator in NY, Governor of New York, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and finally as President.

Sen. Barack Obama has two young girls. Do those girls need their father to fawn over them and be available to them? Or do we want to perpetuate a double standard?

Well, flat out - the answer coming from the "progressives" (aka leftists) is yes, they want a double standard. No wonder feminists are caught in a bind. Their progressiveness has been shown to be nothing but empty platitudes where only their kind of woman can serve at the highest levels in government. Any woman who doesn't meet their political tests doesn't qualify.

I agree that it's hypocritical of the "traditional values" crowd to suddenly lionize Palin, when they've been arguing for years that a mother's place is with her small children. (Dr. Laura, to her credit, has been consistent on this, and is duly critical of the Palin pick.)

But for the media to claim that there's no double-standard in how they treat Palin's family obligations and how they treat Obama's (or other male politicians, for that matter) just can't withstand scrutiny. Either it's okay to delegate one's parenting responsibilities to pursue political ambitions, or it's not.

As far as the media is concerned, they clearly believe that it's okay for Democrats to pursue higher office, but that it isn't okay for Gov. Palin. In that respect, I find the media's continuing focus on this to be offensive and that reflects itself in the latest polling that shows that the McCain-Palin ticket continues to do well.

The Gaffes Keep On Coming

The Obama campaign can't get out of its own way quick enough. These are unforced errors that do nothing but galvanize the GOP base and get people thinking about the character and fitness of the respective tickets. People are starting to realize that Obama simply doesn't have anything to offer beyond empty words.

Well, empty words except when he goes and makes still more unforced errors and personal attacks. Alluding to Gov. Palin as a pig? Are you kidding me? That's the kind of red meat that GOPers just love to sink their teeth into. These are unforced errors on top of unforced errors galore by the Democrats.

L-L-L-Let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change too. Exce... an-an-and so I guess his whole angle is, watch out, George Bush! Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics, we're really gonna shake things up in Washington! That's not change. That's... that's just calling some... the same thing, something different. But you know, you can... you-you can put, uh, lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig.

See for yourself. The Democrats will try to claim that the reference isn't to that of Gov. Palin, but if you note that Obama also refers to McCain as the old fish. He's using a rhetorical device, but for someone who is supposedly good with words, he gets in trouble because he sounds sexist in the process.

Sen. Barack Obama isn't getting any help from his running mate either:

Stay classy Democrats. You'll be scratching your head in November wondering where it all went so wrong. Still, you've got time to get back on your game, if you stop attacking Palin personally and stick to the issues, but even there, it would be nice if you stuck to the facts instead of inventing scandal where none exists.

UPDATE:
Instapundit has a good roundup, and notes that the Obama campaign is clearly rattled and off its game. These attacks are all meant to energize the base, which raises questions over what the campaign is seeing in their internal polling. While McCain and Palin are both targeting independents, Obama looks like he's shoring up his base. That's not a good sign with two months until the election. Throw in the fact that the Obama attacks on Palin galvanize the GOP base to come to Palin's defense, it makes it even easier for McCain and Palin to go after independents and moderates because their base has their back. OODA loop, and McCain is clearly inside Obama's.

UPDATE:
It's unforced error on top of unforced error - and it shows a lack of judgment and an inability to figure out how to adjust to the changed circumstances of the campaign.

If he can't do that now, how can we expect him to change and adapt as President.

The campaign season is a marathon. It's also a test of character and fitness. And it's a test to see whether the candidates can adapt to changed circumstances, such as they might face as President.

Obama is failing on those grounds.

What Does Gov. Palin Owe To Media

Don Surber asks an interesting question. What does Governor Palin owe the media. He responds nothing even as the media pundits decide otherwise (and here).

While Palin doesn't owe the media anything, she does owe the American people something - to let us get to know her better.

Democrats can and will use and are using the fact that she has yet to appear on the Sunday shows as proof that she's little more than an empty skirt. The McCain campaign is going to have to send her on those shows sooner or later to respond. I think it will be sooner.

There is something to be said for having a positive relationship with the media, and running a campaign wholly on the basis that the media is the enemy will sooner or later backfire, because the media will stop at nothing to be proven right since they can outlast the politician on the national stage.

Still, those Sunday show hosts will likely find themselves sorry for it because they'll get their hats handed to them (although the ratings will likely be among the highest in the history of those shows). So, even if the talk show hosts lose, they win in big ratings.

Oprah's Big Mistake

Oprah Winfrey, Queen of daytime television, has said that Gov. Sarah Palin would not appear on her show until after the elections are over. She claims it is because she wants to appear nonpartisan, even as she's gushed over her chosen candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

Still, Winfrey has a brand to protect, which makes it plausible that she might reverse course and have Palin on at some time before the election. She's already said that she would love to have Palin on after the election. That may be too late for her show's ratings going forward and her ability to reach audiences. Don't think for a moment that Winfrey doesn't know what this could do to her ratings and her brand image.

This situation is a disaster in the making for Winfrey. Who does she think listens and watches her show? They're going to see what Winfrey is saying, what she is doing, and how she's spinning furiously.

There is a way out of it. She could have a sitdown with both Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Palin to discuss some issue.

In some ways, Winfrey's problems are the Democrats' problems in microcosm. All of their preconceived notions of who the Republicans are and what they represent have suddenly gone out the window as we see what the Democrats have to offer is just words.