Tag Archives: Jennifer Rubin

Jeff Goldstein: Losing More Slowly is Now Nearing Lost

By Stacy Drake:

Jeff Goldstein recently wrote a piece regarding the release of Governor Palin’s emails, highlighting the now famous message she sent to friends and family just a few days before Trig Paxson Van Palin was born. Goldstein then shares his views of the current media culture that is so damaging to our nation, in reaction to said message. He writes (Warning: Language):

It is profoundly saddening to me to reflect on what the media — and many on our own side — have tried to do to this woman, who clearly embodies the very principles conservatives and classical liberals claim to embrace and fight for, and who is clearly (in my mind) qualified to lead this country back from the brink of socialist hell, so comfortable and committed is she to constitutional authority, and so battle-tested is she after having had to endure a 3-year pop-cultural attempt to destroy her and her family.

I hope in their most private moments, Kathy Griffin or Andrew Sullivan or Janeane Garafalo or Jen Rubin — and a host of others I can name — feel wash over them the sudden rush of shame and embarrassment they so richly deserve.

And I hope it f***ing burns.

The truth is, we have allowed a media culture to form in this country that is rotten to its core. It is petty, spiteful, vindictive, triumphalist, arrogant, profoundly biased, and undoubtedly left-leaning. We have given this media the power to shape our narratives, inform our decisions, and — because there are few if any consequences for doing so — create and destroy individuals with the impunity of a hive minded mob embarking on a wilding.

Helping the media along in such a project — as many “conservatives” do, by accepting as a matter of nature, unchangeable as a hurricane, the premises the media advances — is the kind of intellectual dereliction that has brought us to this point in our nation’s history, where 20% or less of the population controls the reins of political power, as well as the vast majority of our cultural institutions, from the media and the academy, to putative moral authority to champion the environment, the working man, the poor.

Losing more slowly is now nearing lost. And yet still we’re hearing from some on “our” side that we need to find an “electable” candidate that will appeal to “moderates” — someone who doesn’t represent the kind of “extremism” that, in an Orwellian turn, has become synonymous with the very legal conservatism and classical liberalism around which this country was founded, and which provided the template for the most free and prosperous country the world has ever known, with the most free and prosperous people history has ever produced.

I noted this before, but let me note it again: the antidote to Carter was not Howard Baker or George HW Bush. We’re at the brink. And if we can’t articulate the enormous CHASM that separates classical liberal and legal conservative principles from those on witness by the democratic socialists in power — who are actively working to increase government’s size and the people’s dependence on it, intentionally sabotaging energy production and private sector job growth while putting in place the bureaucratic structure to control us through our healthcare decisions and through regulations on the very exhalation that comes from our bodies, or the dust we kick up when we walk — we have lost our country anyway, and it’s damn certain that Mitt Romney and his carbon emission-sensitivity or his ethanol panders isn’t going to do dick structurally to help us get it back. At best he’s a kind of cultural procrastination. And at worst, he comes (courtesy of the press — and like George Bush did in his two terms) to count as the benchmark of right-wing “extremism,” against which the next leftist candidate positions himself.

The GOP is content being the more frugal, more incremental, of the two big government ruling parties.

I’m not content with that as a choice.

And so I fight on.

I’m with him 100% in that… You can read the entire piece here.

Goldstein hits the nail on the head when writing about the influence the DC establishment media class has on the direction of the country. He is especially poignant when discussing the “conservative” side of that coin, and their role in picking the types of candidates we put up against big government leaders on the left. What good does it do us to give Americans a choice between the type of overbearing Statists in the Obama administration, and someone like Mitt Romney, who obviously believes that the solutions to this nations ills can be found with federal intervention? None!

As Goldstein states, politicians like Romney are a type of “cultural procrastination.” While they don’t force us into a system of more government-less freedom, at quite the pace of a Barack Obama, the end result is the same. And if you look at the current state of the economy, our energy situation, and the size of the federal government, you quickly realize that we are on a path that is unsustainable. We do not have time for these big spenders, their cronies, or their expensive hair-brained “solutions,” which more times than not come at the price of our liberties.

I have to be honest with you… It absolutely drives me nuts to watch conservatives fall for media narratives. Don’t we of all people, know better? We cannot trust the media, and that goes for FOX News as well as many “conservative” publications. None of them are worthy of our trust. We have to weigh everything we hear and read. We have to consider the source, and stop giving these tin-can pundits the power to force real reformers out of the debate. There is a reason that people like Governor Palin are shunned by them. She would never accept their big state compromises, and she would never continue us down this path. The status quo has become dangerous, and the only solution is to ignore those who preach it.

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Governor Palin and the Changing Rules of the Establishment

by Whitney Pitcher

Authors from several publications– the Atlantic, Commentary and the Washington Post have finally caught up on the political history of the past 5+ years–Governor Palin had an excellent record during her tenure. For some reason, the Atlantic writer, Joshua Green, finally realized in May of 2011 what Governor Palin accomplished as an oil and gas commissioner in 2003-2004 and as Governor 2006-2009. She took on the corruption in her own party in both roles. She revamped the oil taxation plan in Alaska by cleaning up the corruption of her predecessor and helping leave Alaska with what is currently a $12 billion state surplus. She initiated a natural gas pipeline project,bringing it further than any of her predecessors. John Podhoretz at Commentary and Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post concede Green’s points in articles they write using Green’s piece as a springboard.

The concessions and praise end there, however, aside from backhanded compliments regarding her political talent. These authors then go on to trash Governor Palin’s actions during the past nearly two years. Green labeled Governor Palin as the embodiment of “right wing resentment”and driven by “virulent animus”. Jennifer Rubin, whose tone deafness to Governor Palin’s true influence and policy prowess as  Conservatives4Palin have highlighted several times, asserts (wrongly of course) that Governor Palin has made the choice “to bear grudges, to forgo serious policy study, to reject the advice of all but a handful of advisers”. Podhoretz, however, makes the most uncalled for and backhanded claim about Governor Palin in his piece at Commentary:

In some ways, the story of Palin is a story of temptation. Rather than sticking to her guns and deepening her political credentials and her knowledge base, she embraced her celebrity instead. And in doing so, she didn’t defeat her critics and enemies; she capitulated to them. Listen, it’s her life and her fortune and she is free to do what she wishes with it. And there’s no telling what the future holds for anyone in America. But she had and has more raw political talent than anyone I’ve ever seen, and, alas, as phenoms go, it looks like she is headed for a Darryl Strawberry-like playing career.

William A. Jacobson has a great piece at the Legal Insurrection where he calls in to question Podhertz’s absurd comparison:

Podhoretz’s explanation, much like that of Green, pays only passing attention to the unprecedented and relentless attacks on Palin since the moment she was nominated. Attacks joined in with glee from a broad swath of the media, and most importantly, the entertainment industry which to this day cannot resist mocking Palin.

Rather than a thin skin, Palin showed a mental toughness which few if any politicians could muster in the face of the cultural, political and journalistic forces aligned against her from the get-go.

By using the analogy of the Darryl Strawberry, who truly self destructed from drug addiction, Podhoretz not only uses a bad analogy, he piles on with a cheap shot.

And I have zero tolerance for that.

As Jacobson points out, Podhoretz uses a poor baseball analogy. Darryl Strawberry was an outfielder who played for several Major League baseball teams in the 80s and 90s. Strawberry showed a lot of promise in the early and mid stages his playing career, winning the National League Rookie of the Year in 1983 and being named to the All Star team eight times, before getting involved in cocaine use in 1994 and dealing with a several run ins with the law and a jail term following his career. Jacobson is right–it was both a bad analogy and a cheap shot.

It is more fitting to compare Governor Palin to Bob Gibson— an outstanding pitcher for the St. Louis Cardinals from 1959 to 1975 and one of the fiercest competitors to play the game. Gibson had a storied playing career racking up multiple all star appearances, Cy Young awards, Gold Gloves, and World Series rings and was elected to the baseball Hall of Fame in 1981. The 1968 season proved to be Gibson’s most successful season. He won the Cy Young, MVP, and Gold Glove awards that year by having an incredible 1.12 ERA with 22 wins (13 of them shutouts) and 268 strikeouts. However, Gibson’s dominance (along with that of a few other pitchers) led Major League baseball to lower the pitching mound from 15 inches to 10 inches following the 1968 season. Gibson’s pitching prowess led the league to change the rules, thinking he and others were too dominating on the mound. Lowering the pitching mound was intended to remove that advantage. The major league changed the rules.

The same could be said of Governor Palin. Because of her political abilities (something Podhoertz actually acknowledges) and her success, the rules changed. No longer were children off limits. No longer was policy prescience recognized. No longer were political achievements and principles compared as apples to apples with others. Instead, Governor Palin’s children have been mocked. She has been subject to never-before-seen undeserved scrutiny, vitriol, and disrespect. Her political prescience has been largely ignored by Establishment and the press. Her political achievements generally only used a a springboard for criticism while the political missteps of others are overlooked in deeming them the next GOP nominee for President.

The latest Gallup poll shows that the percentage of Republicans and Republican leaning independents view Governor Palin “favorably” or “very favorably” is 71%, which is higher than any other Republican. This is a higher percentage than those who even know who Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, Tim Pawlenty, or Rick Santorum are. For all the criticism that the chattering class levels at her, the everyday conservative overwhelming sees her favorably. Beyond that,  the children of other potential candidates have been rightfully left alone, while Governor Palin’s son,Trig, who has Down Syndrome, has become a political prop of the hatred that the Left harbors for Governor Palin.

The intellectual dishonesty of the likes of Green, Podhoretz, and Rubin proves to be the most politically egregious aspect of their writings. They all assert in one form or another that Governor Palin has not studied up on the issues and hasn’t deepened her political understanding. Of course, this is the furthest thing from the truth. Governor Palin has been prescient on every major political issue. On the issues of foreign policy, Governor Palin has been fully cognizant of the threats of Iran, has warned of the problems of signing the START treaty with Russia, and has being rightfully skeptical of the uprising in Egypt. She is the only potential candidate to lay out a foreign policy vision for the appropriate use of force in engaging the US military. On economic issues, she has predicted the inflation that was bound to follow QE2 by the Fed and was a consistent and early critic of the Obamacare. Of course, there is no doubt that no other potential candidate can match her when it comes to energy issues. Governor Palin’s “political education” may not have retroactively involved her receiving a degree from an Ivy League school, and her recent change in foreign policy advisers now has her ties from the political Establishment essentially severed. These are the defining characteristics of true intellectual curiosity, according to the likes of the authors mentioned. Governor Palin has taken a different route, of course. She has written books highlighting her political achievements and delineating the principles that guide her personal and political decision making. She has criss crossed the United States speaking to business, trade, pro life, college, and Christian groups. She has traveled abroad speaking to groups in Hong Kong and India and engaging in humanitarian efforts in Haiti.

Despite this, Governor Palin is seen as “too unserious” to contend for the presidency. Meanwhile, Governor Romney is still defending a health care reform measure passed while he was governor of Massachusetts. It has failed with an average appointment wait time of 7 weeks and a staggeringly low number of doctors who accept the state provided insurance coverages–which has deemed him “Obama’s running mate” in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today. Governor Pawlenty’s record includes former support for cap and trade and a push for a mileage tax. One of the latest Establishment’s favorites, Governor Daniels, has called for a truce on social issues, would consider supporting a value added tax and oil tax hikes, and has openly admitted that he isn’t ready to debate President Obama on foreign policy. Sure these guys are serious–seriously wrong. However, these men are often touted as the next GOP presidential nominee. The rules have indeed changed.

These authors have recognized–albeit a few years late–that Governor Palin indeed has a stellar gubernatorial record marked by a strong fight against corruption, major energy initiatives, and a large state budget surplus. One day, they may look back at the past two years and see that Governor Palin was deeply serious about the pressing policy issues of the day, and she was extremely prescient about the foreign and domestic problems we face as Americans. Given that it has taken these individuals a few years to recognize her gubernatorial success, don’t be surprised if takes them a few years to recognize her seriousness and prescience as well. It just may be during her first presidential term.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Jennifer Rubin’s Wrong Turn on Governor Palin’s Foreign Policy

Last November, the Washington Post hired Jennifer Rubin to replace journolister, Dave Weigel, as their “conservative” blogger. Yes, those quotation marks are needed. Many, including Newsbusters, saw this hire as a step in the right direction for the Washington Post, as Rubin replaced the unscrupulous Weigel and had a great tenure writing for the neoconservative outlet Commentary. In fact, prior to her departure from Commentary, Rubin wrote at least four lengthy pieces supporting and defending Governor Palin. Rubin wrote articles supporting Governor Palin’s non-elitism, highlighting her as a strong Tea Party voice, offering high praise for Governor Palin’s political instincts, and defending Governor Palin against those who criticized her Restoring Honor rally speech.

by Whitney Pitcher

What a difference a new employment contract makes! Rubin was announced as a new conservative commentator for the Washington Post on November 23, 2010 writing a blog called “Right Turn” and eight days later, wrote her first anti Palin screed arguing that Governor Palin was not a front runner for the GOP presidential nomination and poo pooing Governor Palin’s use of the term “death panel”–a phrase that Rubin was supportive of in her articles at Commentary. Rubin’s criticisms have become commonplace ever since as Ian, Stacy, and Doug at Conservatives4Palin have addressed in recent months.

Fast forward to today where Governor Palin’s new foreign policy hire and the news of a clear cut “Palin doctrine”, if you will, unveiled last night, and neoconservatives throughout the Beltway, like Rubin, have their proverbial panties in a wad, and for no good reason. In her latest piece today, Rubin charges that Governor Palin’s recent comments about Libya and her speech last night have Governor Palin “sounding like Obama’s liberal critics”. Then she states that this supposed shift in policy and worldview is something that ” careful observers of Palin” have picked up on.

First, Rubin charges that Governor Palin’s latest Facebook post on President Obama’s mishandling of Libya was “incoherent”and claimed that she couldn’t ascertain whether Governor Palin supported action in Libya or not. If Rubin were truly a “careful observer” of Governor Palin, as she claims, she would have remembered that Governor Palin was the first high profile political voice to call for a no fly zone in Libya in February, three weeks before President Obama went along with a UN decision to institute a no fly zone. In the supposedly incoherent post that Rubin references, Governor Palin made it very clear she supported a no fly zone, but questioned the real incoherency regarding Libya–President Obama’s actions. Governor Palin writes (emphasis mine):

Please make up your mind, Mr. President. You can’t vacillate when spending America’s human and fiscal resources in yet another foreign country without good reason. You said that Libyan leader Gaddafi has got to go. Many of us heard that as your call to action and agreed, “Okay, you’re right. He’s an evil dictator who kills his own innocent people, so enforce a no-fly zone so he can’t continue an aerial slaughter.” But then you said our mission in Libya isn’t to oust Gaddafi after all. (Or vice versa on the order or your statements. Between you and your advisers the public has been given so many conflicting statements on why we’re intervening in Libya that I apologize if I can’t keep up with the timing and rationale of your murky foreign policy positions.)

Governor Palin was quite clear that she believes that Gaddafi needs to go, which she has consistently said in interviews. What is truly incoherent is President Obama’s mission in Libya, as Governor Palin said.

Rubin then goes on to refer to Governor Palin’s speech yesterday in support of the troops in Colorado. In doing so, she relies heavily on the account of another supposed “careful observer” of Governor Palin, Politico’s Andy Barr. Politico is indeed an incessant observer of Governor Palin, but to characterize them as careful is far from the truth–biased is more like it. Barr spent so much of his piece focusing on the venue of the speech that he grossly misquoted Governor Palin’s statements claiming Governor Palin said, “we can’t undo every justice in the world” when she clearly referred to the injustice in the world.

Rubin goes on to claim that Governor Palin had an about face in her foreign policy stance, yet doesn’t articulate what those change are, other than parroting Bill Kristol in his wrong headed opposition to Governor Palin. Kristol’s rant, which Rubin heavily quotes, touts the success of the surge in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere and then infers that Governor Palin thinks that America, in her strength and leadership, needs to “back off”. This, of course, is categorically false, which Rubin would be aware of if she viewed, listened to, or read an account of the speech for herself. Governor Palin both praised the efforts in Afghanistan that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden, and America’s strength in her speech (emphasis mine):

God bless all the brave men and women in our military and our intelligence services who carried out the successful mission to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice and all those who had laid the groundwork over the years to make that victory possible. The historic action that was announced last night was the result of the diligence, hard work, and character of countless American warriors who know that those who spread evil, those with murderous intentions must be contained. Those who would kill in the name of religion must be stopped.

[…]

We are not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We are always on the side of both. But we can’t fight every war. We can’t undo every injustice around the world. But with strength and clarity in those five points, we’ll make for a safer, more prosperous, more peaceful world because as the U.S. leads by example, as we support freedom across the globe, we’re going to prove that free and healthy countries don’t wage war on other free and healthy countries. The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example.

There is nothing in those statements or anywhere in Governor Palin’ s speech where she indicates that she has walked back her support for the surge in Afghanistan and Iraq, or believes in any kind of wet noodle spined foreign policy or “Obama lite” foreign policy as Kristol and Rubin laughably claim.

Rubin’ s last “careful” observation is that Governor Palin is a now Paulian isolationist. Another wrong assertion that Rubin would not have claimed had she actually listened to Governor Palin’s speech herself. Governor Palin very clearly both denounced isolationism and called America to be a global leader in her speech (emphasis mine):

I believe that America must never retreat into isolation. The world would be less safe and less free without our leadership. And we must never forget that America has a responsibility to lead. “To whom much is given, much is expected.” We cannot be the world’s policeman granted, or the world’s ATM. But we can lead by example. By our words and, when necessary, by our actions, we must and we will remain the world’s abiding beacon of freedom.

Jennifer Rubin has proven to be an observer of Governor Palin, but a careful one she is not. As mentioned earlier, following Governor Palin’s Restoring Honor Rally speech, Rubin wrote a piece defending Governor Palin against supposed “feminists” and praising her foreign policy stances in response to a opinion piece in the New York Times. She closed that piece with this statement:

But I give the Times gals credit — they know they are losing the battle to discredit Palin. Now they need to figure out what to do about it. They might start with examining whether their agenda has as much sell as hers.

I give the Post girl credit, in her short time at the Washington Post, Rubin may not yet realize that her about face in intellectual honesty has her in a losing battle to discredit Governor Palin. She needs to figure out what to do about it. She might start with examining whether her now Palin bashing agenda has as much sell as Governor Palin’s consistent foreign policy.

Jerry Wilson has a good piece on Rubin’s article here (H/T JimR)

Updated: On a related note, HotAir has a great piece outlining Governor Palin’s foreign policy doctrine and describing the differences between that policy, the current actions in Libya, and what many have described as neoconservative actions in the past few decades.

Leave a comment

Filed under sarah palin

Governor Palin Will Decide Her Own “Role”

By Stacy Drake

Yesterday, Ian Lazaran posted this in response to Jennifer Rubin’s most recent Washington Post, anti-Palin installment. Is it just me or does it seem like Rubin always posts these pieces directed at Governor Palin, on a Wednesday? Anyway, in Rubin’s latest she writes (emphasis mine):

[W]hen one talks to Republicans in private gatherings, on the Hill, and even in Tea Party gatherings it is rare to find anyone who labels Palin as the party’s leader or who looks to her for guidance on major issues. This is not a slur on Palin; she has an important and essential role in rallying the base, getting under Obama’s skin and debunking much of what passes for conventional wisdom.

It is laughable to think that Jennifer Rubin is spending much time at tea parties talking to the folks about who they look to for “guidance on major issues.” I’ll happily retract my last sentence if anyone has attended a Tea Party and personally witnessed Jennifer Rubin taking pulse of the people there. But for now, I’m not buying it.

Now, concerning what Republicans say in “private gatherings”… I really have no idea what the sort of Republican Rubin must spend her time with, say in their private gatherings. Most of the registered Republicans I know happen to be Palin supporters, but once again, I think Rubin is pulling her conclusions from her own vivid imagination.

Rubin’s fables are not the issue however. What she did in that paragraph was to suggest that Governor Palin is good for the party in a certain “role,” just not a leading one. This is becoming a familiar tone with some in the Republican establishment.

Last Sunday, Bill Kristol said on the Fox News Sunday Panel that:

She could play a big role supporting someone else and articulating issues – and not running this time.

It seems that the talking heads are trying to push a ‘Sarah Palin as activist, not candidate’ narrative. At least they admit that she is “important” and has the ability to “rally” Conservatives. They especially like when those rallies turn into money for the Republican party.

What these over-sized egos of the pundit class do not seem to understand is that Governor Palin is an effective leader, and not just in an activist role. They ignore her many accomplishments as an executive, and show disdain for her unconventional approach. They downplay her support with conservatives in their columns and on their panels, but they themselves are not members of the grassroots, which is where Governor Palin receives most of her support. So, how would they really known what kind of support Governor Palin truly has? Their criticism is condescending at best but it also lacks credibility, most notably when they cite Daily Kos pollsters as their “empirical evidence.”

Nobody knows if Governor Palin is running for President or not. Thankfully, it is not up to “chattering class” to declare what “role” she will play now, or in the future. Governor Palin will decide her own roll.

3 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin