Is It Time Yet For The Tea Party To Form A Third Party?

When this election season began, I felt no particular affinity for any specific candidate.  I looked forward to the Republican campaign for the nomination to shake out who was best qualified to be our President.  But that campaign has turned into an intellectually dishonest horror show that leads me to question whether the leaders of the Republican Party represent my interests as a conservative.  

As to the horror show, the story of Newt Gingrich's time in the House is ably recounted by Jeffery Lord at American Spectator. It, and the Byron York piece on the ethics complaints against Gingrich, draw an incredibly stark contrast to the screed coming out of much of the right wing punditry - NRO, Coulter, Hinderaker, etc. - and most of which you will find headlined over Drudge today. If you were to read this utterly dishonest tripe, you would think that Gingrich was a Reagan hating neo-progressive who lacked ethics above and beyond the adultery issue and who resigned from his position as Speaker of the House because of valid ethics charges.

There are many legitimate arguments for preferring Gingrich as the Republican nominee. Indeed, Thomas Sowell makes many of those arguments in his latest column. And there are many legitimate arguments for preferring Romney, particularly for the risk averse and for those comfortable with our nation as it is.  A handful of people, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg and several others have made respectful and fair arguments in this regards.

But in the main, we are not being given honest arguments by the Republican elites. Instead, what we have been fed for months has been dishonest demagoguery and demonization of Gingrich.  And just today, that great conservative Bob Dole came out today to tell us that if we elect Gingrich, it will mean political suicide for the Republican party.  It is all nothing more or less than the same intrinsic dishonesty that we saw mirrored in the left's efforts to destroy Sarah Palin as a viable candidate and that has been aimed at delegitimizing Clarence Thomas since the day he was nominated to the Supreme Court.

And not only have the elites engaged in these disingenuous attacks, but they invariably coupled their screed with complete and utter contempt for Republican voters and the Tea Party movement especially. We are the uninformed rubes, too easily swayed by passion, unable to see reason.  We are calls for fiscal discipline are simply ridiculously unsophisticated.  It is arrogance unbound.  Apparently, it is they, not the voters, who own the Republican Party.

For the past two decades in which I have been politically informed and active, I have always believed that the single starkest difference between the left and the right was intellectual honesty. We on the right had it while those on the left dealt mostly in demagoguery and demonization. We on the right were ever willing to debate the facts, those on the left were ever willing to cherry pick the facts and use the race card or its many variants to end debate. To use the words of Bookworm Room: "Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts."

I see now, I have been fooled for decades. I feel nothing but disgust and utter contempt for much of the Republican Party today, and those who have held themselves out to be its champions. I think Mitt Romney, motivated by unlimited ambition, is willing to do or say anything to be elected President of the United States. Were it just him carrying on these disingenuous attacks against Gingrich and the rest of the Republican Party looking on with an objective eye, than my angst would be far less at the moment. But those who should be the party's neutral arbiters have wholly dispensed with intellectual honesty in an effort to destroy Gingrich.

So what of this?

The days of accepting the Republican Party as it is are over. It is not a party founded on intellectual honesty - and thus it is every bit as fatally flawed and destined to fail the American people as are Obama and the Democratic Party.  It is not a "conservative" party.  The reality is that, since the days of Gingrich, we have not not had a conservative option for government, we have had a choice between big D and small d Democrats.

We are in desperate need of a third party - an actual Conservative Party - founded upon intellectual honesty and dedicated to Constitutionalism, balanced budgets, a strong national defense, and doing away with the onslaught of progressivism in the social sphere. We are in desperate need of a party dedicated to making the systemic changes that would restore the Constitutional balance to our government envisioned by our Founding Fathers. The grass roots Tea Party is precisely the vehicle for such a third party.

The Tea Party was courted by Republicans in 2009 and, in the end, agreed to support them. That trust was badly misplaced. It should now be withdrawn and real consideration given to starting a third party at the grass roots level.  I say that irrespective of how the 2012 election ultimately turns out.

Read More...

Summary only...

Heh

(H/T Maggie's Farm and Theo Spark)

And in the same theme, Gerard Van Der Luen at American Digest channels Dirty Harry about all these calls for civility:

My nice, reasonable right guy is all used up these days. I've got compassion fatigue. I see the left dealing, once again, from the bottom of their media marked card deck (when do they do otherwise?), and I’m not feeling too civil about them and their plans these days. I've seen enough of their "handful of 'gimme' and mouth full of 'gimme more'."

Speaking for myself -- in a calm and rational tone as I reach to upset their crooked card table and draw my metaphoric popcult pistol -- I have to say, “I know what you're thinking. ‘Did he fire six insults or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as we're playing for the future of the Republic, and being as this is a 2010 iMac, the most powerful personal computer in the world, and would blow your premise clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? ”

Read More...

Summary only...

Palin: "Within Hours Of A Tragedy Unfolding, Journalists And Pundits Should Not Manufacture A Blood Libel"

Below is Sarah Palin's video commentary on the mass murder in Arizona. She strikes, I think, the right tone, both in mourning for the losses and responding to her critics and others who have seized on this event to delegitimize their opposition. The text of her speech is here.

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

I imagined that blood libel remark, wholly accurate, would shake the left wing hornet's nest. And yet again, I see it is Rep. Clyburn, the left's leading player of the race card and the man who wants to use this event to shut down right wing talk radio, who is among the first to respond. This from Rep. Clyburn:

"You know, Sarah Palin just can't seem to get it, on any front. I think she's an attractive person, she is articulate," Clyburn said on the Bill Press radio show. "But I think intellectually, she seems not to be able to understand what's going on here." . .

Clyburn said that Palin didn't grasp why such rhetoric was so troubling, regardless of the motivations of the alleged shooter of Giffords. The No. 3 House Democrat referenced the Civil Rights Era, and said that some of the shrill rhetoric in modern politics are reminiscent of that time in history.

"I have some experiences that maybe she does not have," he said. "When I see and hear things today that are reminiscent of that period of time, I am very, very concerned about it, because I know what it led to back then, and I know what it can lead to again."

Let's see, stunning arrogance - yep. Condecension to his political opponents - yep. Race card against all those who oppose the left rather than address the specific issue - yep. It's a Clyburn trifecta. What an absolute scumbag.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Tradgedy In Arizona, Politics On The Hudson

Today, in Arizona, Jared Loughner, 22 years old, walked into the middle of a public meeting being held by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Az) and opened fire, killing five, including a 9 year old girl and Arizona's senior Federal District Court Judge, John Roll. He injured many more, including Rep. Giffords whom he shot through the temple at point blank range, the bullet passing through her brain before exiting her skull. Rep. Giffords is currently in critical condition, but apparently able to talk which, according to physicians, is a very positive sign.

----------------------------------------------------------



Update: The child murdered was Christina Taylor Greene. See her bio at Weazel Zippers. The total number killed is now six.

----------------------------------------------------------

No sane American can do anything other than mourn this act of brutal mass murder. Why Loughner committed this act is as of yet not known, though his internet rants suggest that he was delusional at best. This from Fox News on some of Loughner's internet postings:

"Hello, my name is Jared Lee Loughner," one of the videos says, in words appearing on the screen. "This video is my introduction to you! My favorite activity is conscience dreaming; the greatest inspiration for my political business information. Some of you don't dream - sadly. . . . The majority of citizens in the united states of America have never read the united states of America's constitution. You don't have to accept the federalist laws," the video's titles say. "In conclusion, reading the second United States constitution, I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications: the government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar. No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver! No! I won't trust in god!"

. . . In other videos, Loughner calls the people of District 8, his Ariz. district, illiterate.

In a bizarre equation that Loughner appears to mean as example of deductive reasoning, he concludes that "the police are unconstitutional."

In yet another rant verging on the paranoid, he says:

“I know who’s listening: Government Officials, and the People. Nearly all the people, who don’t know this accurate information of a new currency, aren’t aware of mind control and brainwash methods. If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn’t have happen.”

He lists reading under interests, as well as "conscience dreams," and among his favorite books are "Mein Kampf," the "Communist Manifesto," "Animal Farm" and "Brave New World."

In a comment posted on MySpace three months ago in connection with a video about Pima Community College, Loughner wrote: "Hello, I know you’re illiterate! This is the greatest protest for exposure into a wrongful act. The school is breaking the constitution. If you watch the video then you’ll understand. The teachers are taking advantage of you in the first and Fifth Amendment. The United States Constitution, which is the law, can be broken at this school. Thank you and goodnight! Jared"

---------------------------------------------------------

Update: From of Legal Insurrection, ". . . a women who claims to have known the shooter claims that he was fairly left-wing as of a few years ago . . ."

Update 2: This from the Arizona Daily Star on Loughner's apparent mental problems:

A former classmate of Loughner at Pima Community College said he was "obviously very disturbed."

"He disrupted class frequently with nonsensical outbursts," said Lynda Sorenson, who took a math class with Loughner last summer at Pima Community College's Northwest campus.

Sorenson doesn't recall if he ever made any threats or uttered political statements but he was very disruptive, she said. He was asked to leave the pre-algebra class several times and eventually was barred from class, said Sorenson, a Tucson resident.

Another Pima classmate, Lydian Ali, said Loughner would frequently laugh aloud to himself during the advanced-poetry class they attended. Only about 16 people were in the class, so Loughner's behavior stood out, Ali said.

"It almost seemed like he was on his own planet, because his comments would have nothing to do with what we were talking about," Ali said. . . .

--------------------------------------------------

This was, quite simply, a horrendous act by a person deep in the throws of psychosis. This mass murder was political only in the sense that psychosis can be considered political - which it cannot. Indeed, given the facts above, it would be the height of irresponsibility to attempt to assign any sort of blame to either side of the political spectrum for the actions of Mr. Loughner. But that has not stopped the NYT, with the blood still wet on the street and the bodies not yet cooled in the morgue, from firing the first salvos suggesting Loughner's violence is tied to the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin:

. . . Last March, after the final approval of the Democrats’ health care law, which Ms. Giffords supported, the windows of her office in Tucson were broken or shot out in an act of vandalism. Similar acts were reported by other members of Congress, and several arrests were made, including that of a man who had threatened to kill Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington.

And in August 2009, when there were demonstrations against the health care measure across the nation, a protester who showed up to meet Ms. Giffords at a supermarket event similar to Saturday’s was removed by the police when the pistol he had holstered under his armpit fell and bounced on the floor.

During the fall campaign, Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice-presidential candidate, posted a controversial map on her Facebook page depicting spots where Democrats were running for re-election; those Democrats were noted by crosshairs symbols like those seen through the scope of a gun. Ms. Giffords was among those on Ms. Palin’s map, which later removed the crosshairs symbols. . . .

So someone tell me how any of that is germane to Loughner's motivations or obvious psychosis? None of it is, but I am sure the NYT's not so subtle attempt to link Loughner to the Tea Party and Sarah Palin is only the first of many efforts to come. It is intellectual dishonesty on a despicable scale. These people have no shame and will twist / politicize anything for political gain.

All this despite the fact that the vast majority of political violence in Obama's America, to the extent it arises from a discernible ideology, arises from the left. No need to let facts get in the way of the narrative, however. And do recall that it was a left wing strategist who opined in November that "what Obama needs is another Oklahoma City moment."

Update: At Crooks and Liars, "We don't yet know why the shooter -- identified as a 22-year-old man named Jared Laughner -- shot Giffords and a number of other people; we'll learn more as the day progresses. But it's impossible to survey the events so far and not come to the preliminary conclusion that this was yet another awful act inspired by right-wing hate rhetoric."

At Jack & Jill Politics, "Tea Party Sympathizer Shoots Rep. Giffords, Kills/Wounds Others"

Gawker: "Shot Congresswoman Was In Sarah Palin's 'Crosshairs'"

Firedoglake - "Sarah Palin's Hit List"

Politics Daily - "Sarah Palin Blamed By Bloggers For Shooting Of Gabrielle Giffords"

Enron Advisor Paul Krugman - "We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist. (Her father says that “the whole Tea Party” was her enemy.) And yes, she was on Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” list.

Just yesterday, Ezra Klein remarked that opposition to health reform was getting scary. Actually, it’s been scary for quite a while, in a way that already reminded many of us of the climate that preceded the Oklahoma City bombing."

Andrew Sullivan - "An Assassination?" - highlighting Sarah Palin's likely culpability for this political violence.

And much more from the venomous left-wing twittersphere at Flopping Aces . .

Much more from Instapundit: "Let me be clear, as a great man says: If you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Sarah Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting — which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie — or you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. So which is it?"

Update: Loughner's internet vids, compliments of Legal Insurrection:

Read More...

Summary only...

Idiocy On Parade

Members of the left wing Emily's List have done a video attacking Sarah Palin. They appear in the video as actual Momma Grizzlies, listing a number patently false complaints in between near hilarious growls. Do enjoy.



Stolen shamelessly from Bluegrass Pundit.

Update: Ace of Spades has the Top Ten Problems With Emily List's Ewok Ad. My favorites:

7. If Sarah Palin's so dumb and silly, why is it you who are dressed up in the bear costumes?

6. Video confirms age-old stereotypes that liberal women are nothing but half-witted scruffy-looking nerf-herders

Read More...

Summary only...

Palin, Religion & Left Wing Dogma

Steve Benen writing at Washington Monthly has his panties in a bunch. Apparently, he can't believe that Sarah Palin, actually believes that there was a role for religion within the outer ambit of the state at the time of our nations founding. This from Mr. Benen:

THE THEOCRATIC WING OF THE GOP.... A certain former half-term governor appears to be drifting even further away from the American mainstream. Over the weekend, appearing at an evangelical Christian women's conference in Louisville, Sarah Palin rejected the very idea of separation of church and state, a bedrock principle of American democracy.

. . . She denounced this week's Wisconsin federal court ruling that government observance of a National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional -- which the crowd joined in booing. She asserted that America needs to get back to its Christian roots and rejected any notion that "God should be separated from the state."

Palin added that she was outraged when President Obama said that "America isn't a Christian nation."

The amusing aspect of this is the notion that the United States would return to its roots with support for National Day of Prayer observances. That's backwards -- Thomas Jefferson and James Madison explicitly rejected state-sponsored prayer days. I'll look forward to the conservative explanation of how the Founding Fathers were godless socialists. . . .

But far less amusing is the fact that Palin and others of her radical ilk reject any notion that "God should be separated from the state." It's the 21st century, for crying out loud. There are some countries that endorse Palin's worldview and intermix God and government -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan under Taliban rule come to mind -- but they're generally not countries the United States tries to emulate.

The separation of church and state has long been a concept that all Americans could embrace, and has served as a model for nations around the world to follow. For Palin to publicly denounce this bedrock American principle suggests she might actually be getting worse. . . .

. . . Update: Greg Sargent obtained a transcript, and it's worse than I thought. Palin not only thinks the Founding Fathers opposed church-state separation -- in other words, she thinks those who came up with the idea opposed the idea -- she also suggests religious people necessarily reject the constitutional principle. This is just astounding.

What is astounding here is the degree of Mr. Benen's historical ignorance. As to Madison and Jefferson vetoing a "national day of prayer," I wait to see that bit of historical fantasy. Lastly, as to the charge that Palin seeks to make America a theocracy, perhaps if Mr. Benen knew a bit more about Madison and Jefferson, he would understand how utterly ridiculous such a charge actually is. Mr. Benen is a pawn in the left's two centuries old war on religion - and not a particularly intelligent one.

Update: Greg Sargent, running a WaPo blog, the Plum Line, made a similar argument to Mr. Benan. Do they still teach history to journalists these days? Apparently, for these journalists, the history of religion in America begins with Everson.

Update: JP, writing at Texas For Sarah Palin, has a superb post up on the history of religion in America, and in particular, the history of "days of prayer" called by our government.

Update: Plumb Bob Blog also has an excellent post on this issue, take a deeper look at the Court's decision on the issue and some of the arguments the radical secularists are using to remove religion generally and Christianity in particular from the public square.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Tale Of Two Conservative Parties: Part 2 - The US

As I wrote in a companion post below:

At a time when the left has swung the pendulum hard to the left in both the UK and the US, at a time when the electorate of both US and UK appears poised for a massive move to the right, the "conservative" parties - the Tories in the UK, the Republicans in the U.S. - seem far from up to the task. When we need Churchill and Reagan, we instead have leaders in the mold of Clement Attlee and Herbert Hoover. The problem is particularly acute in the UK.

In the post below, I address the problems of the UK and its "conservative party." By comparison, our problems in the U.S. are not as dire as those of Britain's, largely because our democracy is much more representative than is their's. Yet in some ways, our problems are not dissimilar. In both countries, the left has pushed our nation's so far to the left that the economies and the very fabric of our societies are threatened. Further, today, neither in the UK nor in the U.S. is there a sufficiently strong leader on the right to stem the tide. For the UK, four weeks from their next election, that fact is disastrous. For we in the U.S., it is not yet at that point given that we are about two years out from having to decide who will be the Republican nominee. Yet the problems that they will face will be every bit as daunting as those faced in the UK:

- Between massive deficit spending and out of control entitlement programs, our economy is approaching a potentially existential crisis:

The U.S. government has $12.5 trillion of funded debt, almost 90% of last year’s GDP. That is a critical level according to Reinhart and Rogoff based on their 800-year study of sovereign bankruptcies. Serious, funded debt is not the major problem. Unfunded entitlements (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) are. These are estimated to be $106 trillion.

And still Obama continues a world record spending spree.

- the left wars on business (non-union businesses, at least) and the profit motive. Given the Obama plan to let many of the Bush era tax cuts expire and given the murmurings about a VAT tax, it appears that Obama's next grand act will be an attempt to tax us into prosperity.

- the war on business has resulted in persistent and staggering unemployment in America. "The U-6 unemployment number . . . is at 17.5%, within 0.5% of its all-time high. This figure includes discouraged workers who've stopped looking, marginally attached workers, and workers that are forced to work part-time because full-time jobs are not available."

- the enactment of Obamacare portends to only worsen our fiscal crisis while doing nothing to alleviate the severe crises posed by are already existing entitlement programs - Social Security, Medicare, Medicade and S-CHIP to name but a few.

- Public sector unions, only allowed in America since the days of JFK, are a toxin in America. They have perverse incentives to push for bigger government and higher taxes and they operate unchecked by market forces. They degrade performance in every aspect of the government where they exist and are a particular problem in education. The average public sector union worker now makes significantly more than their private sector counterparts - and they are destroying state and local economies with massive unfunded pension liabilities.

- Regulatory burdens, particularly in the area of environmentalism where the left has handed the keys to the courthouse to the radical greens, with untold costs to our economy. Moreover, in a move that bypasses Congressional refusal to enact cap and trade, the EPA recently announced that they will begin regulating carbon - in what portends to be a significant cost to our economy.

- Proposed regulatory changes to our financial structure that will place significantly greater racially charged lending standards on our financial institutions, despite the fact that this same degradation of lending standards led in large part to our current financial meltdown.

- The removing of any caps on the liability that will be underwritten by the U.S. government from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

- The left continues to feed the race baiting industry beyond long after we passed any rational justification. It is time to bring an end to affirmative action as well as any and all use of the disparate impact theory to punish entities for racism despite no evidence of any act of racism. It should be noted that Obama wants to expand the disparate impact theory as part of the new financial regulations.

- our Courts are regularly legislating from the bench, reinterpreting Constitutional provisions in a manner far outside of the original intent of the drafters to bypass the ballot box on contentious social issues, ripping at the fabric of our nation. We could really use a Constitutional Amendment on this issue to provide some guidance to the Courts on how to execute their Article III duties.

All of the above are simply domestic problems - and the last two our my own issues that are not as pressing as the rest, but that do need to be addressed as part of a radical reorientation of our domestic polity. None of this even begins to touch upon the problems Obama and the left are causing in foreign policy.

Whoever is to tackle all of these problems in a decisive manner will have to be highly intelligent, articulate, and sufficiently driven by internalized conservative idealism to withstand the type of massive assault in the left wing MSM that will come with applying conservative solutions to the above problems - many of which will of necessity mean reorienting America away from the left wing path it has been on since at least FDR. Moreover, we are going to need a reorientation that has as its absolute focus the growth of businesses of all size - we are in a hole where the only answer to both our deficit and our undemployment problem is to grow ourselves out of both. Do we have a leader that strong on the horizon to accomplish all of these things?

Perhaps we do. I think New Gingrich fits that bill. I would also watch closely Paul Ryan and Chris Christie. I think all others are a level below these three in intellect, if not also in the intestinal fortitude needed to lead the type of radical reorientation our nation needs to survive, let alone to remain as first among equals.

Newt Gingrich - He is an absolutely brilliant man and a highly articulate speaker. Compliments of the MSM smear machine in the 1990's, many in the left and center have negative views of Gingrich, though it is doubtful those general views are today sufficiently strongly held to disqualify him from making a run. Of all the potential candidates, I would think him most qualified and the most likely to be able to address the many problems of our country itemized above.

Paul Ryan - I do not know enough about him yet to put a gold star next to his name, but his performance during the televised dog and pony shows with Obama have shown him to be articulate and in possession of a first class intellect. It is also notable that he is the only one, of all the Republicans in Congress, to actually publish an alternative to Obamacare. He is one to further evaluate.

Chris Christie - This man impresses ever more on a daily basis. He faces many of the problems in governing New Jersey that our nation faces on a grander scale. He is demonstrating daily a strong intellect and an even more impressive hard as nails approach to the problems of New Jersey. If he succeeds in turning around New Jersey in any cognizant fashion, he will definitely be a person to watch - if not in the 2012 election, then in 2016 and beyond. He has already demonstrated the combativeness and cajones necessary to push through the radical reorientation our country needs and he, unlike George Bush and much of the Republican Party, has also shown a willingness to push back hard against the smears of the left.

Then there are the lessers and the long shots:

Sarah Palin - as much as I like her, I don't see her as sufficiently rounded to make a run for the Presidency. I think her decision to give up her governership not even half way through her term was fatal to a bid for 2012. Perhaps in 2016 she might have a chance.

Mitt Romney - His claim to fame was his economic smarts. But the simple fact is that he designed Obamacare for Massachusetts. Either his economic smarts are vastly over-rated or this man is an incredibly cynical political opportunist. Regardless which, we can afford neither in office beyond 2012, and thus I won't be pulling a lever for him under any circumstances.

Mike Huckabee - his foreign policy views were what turned me against him during the last primary and nothing since has occurred since that would lead me to believe that he has gained strength in that area. That said, I do like his Fox shows.

Ron Paul - I would vote for Obama before I would vote for Paul. He really is a few McNuggets short of a Happy Meal.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty - I do not know enough about him at this point to make a decision on Pawlenty. I have heard him speak a few times and have not walked away with either a positive or negative impression. Perhaps that itself says all that needs to be said.

We will see who rises to the top over the next year. The other critical issue will be gaining conservatives in sufficient numbers in Congress. At any point in my lifetime, I would not have thought that possible. But today, given the path to the far left Obama is pushing us and the strength of the Tea Party movement - I now think it very possible.

Read More...

Summary only...

TPM, Slime, Sarah and the Tea Parties

What's the difference between TPM Muckraker and Andy Sullivan when it comes to Sarah Palin? In terms of their obsession with sliming Palin - none. In terms of how they go about their attacks, about the only difference appears to be that TPM is not obsesessed with Palin's genitals.

TPM Muckraker is a left wing site that has long professed their love for Obama and hatred for the right. But they, like virtually all on the far left, hold a special place deep in their dark, dark souls for Sarah Palin - and the Tea Party movement, for that matter. Lacking any semblance of intellectual honesty, they are quite willing to go to great lengths to attack Gov. Palin and the Tea Party movement, while utterly ignoring the screaming cognitive dissonance that creates when one looks at their treatment of the home team.

First up from TPM yesterday was Man Charged With Stockpiling Weapons Was Tea Partier, Palin Fan. It is the story of an obviously mentally unbalanced man,Gregory Girard, who happened to support Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Movement - something upon which TPM focuses upon in this "guilt by association" hit piece.

But there was no indication that anyone in the Tea Party movement supported Girard, nor that Sarah Palin even knew of his existance. The same cannot be said of other murders and radicals who have associated with political figures that TPM seemed to have missed over the past two years.

There was of course the murderer and anti-America radical who quite literally launched Obama's political career in a fund raiser at his home:



Then let's not forget Obama's twenty year association with a virulent racist



And then there are the thugs Obama didn't associate with - but whom his administration did protect in their efforts to commit voter intimidation:



And what of his long association with - and his employment during the campaign of - an organization whose members have been found guilty of vote fraud in numerous states:



TPM Muckrakers hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty hardley ends there. They also ran another story the other day - "'Warning: Tea Party In Danger': Leader Slams Palin As 'Wolf In Sheep's Clothing'." They report that "Dale Roberston," a person they characteris as a "Tea Party leader," is complaining that "the movement 'is becoming nothing more than a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party,' and slamming Sarah Palin as representing 'a growing insider's attack to the heart of the Tea Party.'" The problem with this report is that it has long been known that Robertson is a con artist, he holds no leadership position in any recognized Tea Party organization, and indeed, the local Tea Party organizations have explicitly disowned any association with him.

That said, if TPM wanted to report on real rifts between party leaders and a party's titular head, they certainly could have reported on the criticism of Obama coming from Senator Rockefeller the other day - essentially calling Obama's promises worthless in the video below:



But doing something like that would take a bit of intellectual honesty. TPM Muckraker is all about the spin. And the screaming cognitive dissonance.

Read More...

Summary only...

Climategate Update 16: Copenhagen'$ Goal$, Palin Weighs In, As Do Scientists,

The goals of the post modern left - virtually all of whom can be found in the middle of the AGW movement or acting in full support thereof - are the accretion of power that will allow them to exercise near complete control over the lives of their subjects and the redistribution of wealth from "corrupt" capitalist countries. They make no real effort to hide their goals, though they frame it in the words of benevolent Kings acting wholly in the best interests of their ignorant subjects. As the IPCC's Chairman Mao said not long ago, the West is "corrupt" and must be made to "change its ways." A column in the NYT today is instructive. This from John Broder:

If negotiators reach an accord at the climate talks in Copenhagen it will entail profound shifts in energy production, dislocations in how and where people live, sweeping changes in agriculture and forestry and the creation of complex new markets in global warming pollution credits.

So what is all this going to cost?

The short answer is trillions of dollars over the next few decades. It is a significant sum but a relatively small fraction of the world’s total economic output. In energy infrastructure alone, the transformational ambitions that delegates to the United Nations climate change conference are expected to set in the coming days will cost more than $10 trillion in additional investment from 2010 to 2030, according to a new estimate from the International Energy Agency.

As scary as that number sounds, the agency said that the costs would ramp up relatively slowly and be largely offset by economic benefits in new jobs, improved lives, more secure energy supplies and a reduced danger of climate catastrophe. Most of the investment will come from private rather than public funds, the agency contends.

“People often ask about the costs,” said Kevin Parker, the global head of Deutsche Bank Asset Management, who tracks climate policy for the bank. “But the figures people tend to cite don’t take into account conservation and efficiency measures that are easily available. And they don’t look at the cost of inaction, which is the extinction of the human race. Period.” . . .

Read the entire article.

We really are in an existential struggle at the moment. The plans of the AGW socialists will have us making a massive transfer of wealth and a vast expansion of the power of governments to regulate the economy and our lives, all based on unproven science. They ask this of us so that they may "save us from extinction."

Their plans will have us destroy our energy infrastructure and move into reliance on "green energy which, other than nuclear power, is both far more costly and unproven at scale. While the reality of green energy's inefficiencies will keep us dependant upon fossil fuels, our own fossil fuel industries will be attacked and dismantled - as the Obama administration is well on its way to doing with the coal industry in America. To quote from Don Suber, the "Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson has not only stopped future [coal mining] permits but she went back and retroactively pulled 79 existing mine permits, including 23 in West Virginia." Similarly, recall that Obama promised to allow greater domestic oil exploration during the campaign. That promise did not survive the swearing in. Thus, it is a virtual certainty that we will become ever more dependant upon foreign oil, and that the cost of that oil will rise exponentially once world wide demand reaches and surpasses 2007 levels.

The "cost savings and efficiencies" claimed by the individual quoted in the above NYT article are wholly illusory. The new "green jobs" foisted upon us would create a market distortion and come at the cost of a loss of "old jobs." Indeed, a Spanish study found that "[e]very “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job."

Likewise is the massive market distortion of cap and trade. There is no better example than that discussed in a post at EU Referendum. It concerns the decision made last week to close a seemingly cost efficient steel plant employing 1700 workers in Britain. As Dr. North writes, "[t]he EU's emission trading scheme (ETS) may have been the deciding factor in the closure of the Corus Redcar steel-making plant – . . . giving the company a windfall bonus of up to £1.2 billion from the plant closure – on top of other savings." In other words, the value of carbon credits exceeded the profit from actually producing steel with an otherwise viable profit margin for the industry. Dr. North explains the nuances of how this works, and further tells us that the slack in the companies steel production will be "off shored" to India, where the cost of carbon credits is significantly lower. Thus, through the perverse incentives of Europe's carbon trading scheme, 1700 British jobs were lost, no global carbon reduction was realized, manufacturing jobs were moved to a developing country, and the company that took these acts made a windfall profit in carbon credits. If that is not market distortion, nothing is. And the ones who bear the brunt - those sacrificed on the dual alter of greed and green - are the rank and file who likely stand no chance of finding work for similar wages.

It does get worse though. The carbon trading scheme has proven in Europe to be ineffective in reducing carbon, it is corrupt and it is an invitation to large scale fraud. To quote again from Dr. North, "I don't think the majority of people even begin to realise quite what how big a scam the "carbon" market really is."

As to "improved lives," you can ask the now unemployed British steel workers about that. The reality is that the only lives that stand any chance of being improved by this insanity are the lives of politicians and their "rent seeking" cronies. The average American struggling to make ends meet would see his costs of living going up significantly while Gore and his profiteering ilk would be enriched beyond their wildest dreams. The only way to make the average person sign up for this madness is, one, threaten them with the ultimate in dire consequences if they don't accept it, two, do not allow any dissent to creep in (thus making this a political, not a scientific issue) and "hide the decline," and three, if you cannot institute it by democratic means, then do it otherwise and present it as a fait accompli. That is what the far left has now managed in America through an activist Supreme Court and Obama's EPA. When someone as serious as Charles Krauthammer bandies about words such as "revolution" as a response to such an act - at least should the EPA begin unilaterally carbon regulation - it is a marker as to how existential this whole matter truly is.

As Daniel Henninger points out in today's WSJ, one of the significant ramifications for Climategate is to the perceived credibility of all hard sciences:

Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once.

I don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. . . .

As Henninger points out, the reality is that left wing post modernism has crept into the hard sciences. I blogged a few days ago on the politicization of anthropology to further the ends of our post modern left. Who knew that anthropologists who helped our military were demeaning their discipline, or that anthropology research leads directly to the conclusion that we should enact card check to resuscitate the ever shrinking unions. But that said, there are also signs that many highly respected academics are waking up to the dangers to their professions exposed by Climategate. One such example is memorialized in an article by CBS's Declan McCullagh - a journalist rapidly approaching, in my estimation, the rarified ground of an honest reporter in the MSM - a ground heretofore occupied by only Jake Tapper. Mr. McCullagh reports on the fallout from Climategate and how it has effected the American Physics Society. This from Mr. McCullah:

The professional association for physicists is facing internal pressure from some of its most distinguished members, who say the burgeoning ClimateGate scandal means the group should rescind its 2007 statement declaring that global warming represents a dire international emergency.

. . . Pressure on this venerable society of physicists, which was founded in 1899 at Columbia University, is coming from members who are squarely in the scientific mainstream and are alarmed at the state of climate science revealed in the leaked e-mail messages and program files from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

Those files show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and discussed how to conceal apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law. Internal investigations are now underway at East Anglia, Penn State, and the British government's weather forecasting unit.

One APS dissenting member is William Happer, a physicist who runs the Happer Lab at Princeton University. Another is Hal Lewis, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. A third is Robert Austin, another Princeton physics professor and head of a biophysics research group.

They've been circulating a letter saying: "By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen... We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done."

Some of the same scientists had asked the APS, pre-ClimateGate, to revise its climate policy statement. To the applause of like-minded bloggers who dubbed the petition "a silly distraction," the APS shot down that idea on November 10.

In the aftermath of the embarrassing data leaks, however, Princeton's Happer says that about half of the APS members they've contacted now support the petition (which, after all, is only asking for an independent analysis of the science involved).

Of the signatories so far, Happer says, 77 are fellows of major scientific societies, 14 members of the National Academies, one is a Nobel laureate, and there is a large number of authors of major scientific books and recipients of prizes and awards for scientific research. He adds: "Some have accepted a career risk by signing the petition. The 230 odd signatories can hardly be dismissed as lightweights compared to those who spread the message of impending climate disaster."

This has become a common refrain: Hans von Storch, director of the Institute for Coastal Research, calls the climate change axis a "cartel." A colleague, Eduardo Zorita, went further and said the scientists implicated in the e-mails "should be barred" from future United Nations proceedings and warned that "the scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas." One estimate from a free-market group says that 12 of the 26 scientists who wrote the relevant section of a U.N. global warming report are "up to their necks in ClimateGate."

Below are excerpts from e-mail messages that the scientists behind the petition to the APS sent me on Monday:

Princeton University's Robert Austin:

I view it as science fraud, pure and simple, and that we should completely distance ourselves from such unethical behavior by CRU, and that data files be opened to the public and examined in the full light of day. We as taxpayers pay for that work -- we are owed examination of the analysis.

. . . Hal Lewis of the University of California, Santa Barbara:

I think it behooves us to be careful about how we state the science. I know of nobody who denies that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years without our help (and specifically since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago), and is most likely to continue to do so in its own sweet time. The important question is how much warming does the future hold, is it good or bad, and if bad is it too much for normal adaptation to handle. The real answer to the first is that no one knows, the real answer to the second is more likely good than bad (people and plants die from cold, not warmth), and the answer to the third is almost certainly not. And nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century, but the disobedient temperature seems not to care very much. And nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with other gases like water vapor, but despite the claims of those who are profiting by this craze, no one knows whether the temperature affects the CO2 or vice versa. The weight of the evidence is the former.

So the tragedy is that the serious questions are quantitative, and it's easy to fool people with slogans. If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and if you say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels you are on thin ice. If you say that the Earth is warming and therefore catastrophe lies ahead, you are pulling an ordinary bait and switch scam. If you are a demagogue, of course, these distinctions don't bother you -- you have little interest in that quaint concept called truth.

So it isn't simple, and the catastrophe mongers are playing a very lucrative
game.

I vastly over-quoted that entire article, but it is so good I wanted to preserve it on this blog.

In the same vein is an open letter sent to the UN's Secretary General by 141 scientists calling upon the UN to require climate scientists to answer some basic questions before the UN enacts any additional agreements regarding "climate change:"

Specifically, we challenge supporters of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused climate change to demonstrate that:

1.Variations in global climate in the last hundred years are significantly outside the natural range experienced in previous centuries;

2.Humanity’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHG) are having a dangerous impact on global climate;

3.Computer-based models can meaningfully replicate the impact of all of the natural factors that may significantly influence climate;

4.Sea levels are rising dangerously at a rate that has accelerated with increasing human GHG emissions, thereby threatening small islands and coastal communities;

5.The incidence of malaria is increasing due to recent climate changes;

6.Human society and natural ecosystems cannot adapt to foreseeable climate change as they have done in the past;

7.Worldwide glacier retreat, and sea ice melting in Polar Regions , is unusual and related to increases in human GHG emissions;

8.Polar bears and other Arctic and Antarctic wildlife are unable to adapt to anticipated local climate change effects, independent of the causes of those changes;

9.Hurricanes, other tropical cyclones and associated extreme weather events are increasing in severity and frequency;

10.Data recorded by ground-based stations are a reliable indicator of surface temperature trends.

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.

In a surprising move, CNN has apparently taken a very fair and balanced look at Climategate. I did not see it, but Media Matters is effuse in their praise of CNN's work:

CNN made a real, day-long effort on Monday to address the climate-change debate as a debate, giving skeptics of manmade climate change a series of chances to match the leftist view, especially during its evening programming. CNN is also the only U.S. TV news outlet so far to send an anchor to the Climate Research Unit at the center of the ClimateGate controversy . . .

Read the entire post for all of the details.

Lastly, Sarah Palin weighs in on Climategate in the pages of the Washington Post, where she reminds the President of his promises regarding science and calls for him to boycott the Copenhagen conference. This from Ms. Palin:

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue. . . .

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development. . . .

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs -- particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen.

Well said, Ms. Palin.

Prior Posts:

Climategate and Surrealism
More Climategate Fallout
Climategate Update 3
Climategate Update 4: CRU Records Worthless
Climategate Update 5: IPCC's Chairman Mao
Climategate Update 6: Climategate In Video
UNEP, Green Religion & Global Governance
Climate Update 7: IPCC's Chairman Mao Plays The Obama Card, Peer Review Analyzed, Scientific Method Explained For Paul Krugman
Climategate Update 8: The NYT Reports
Climategate Update 9: CRU Head Phil Jones Steps Down During Investigation, An MIT Prof Explains The Holes In AGW Theory, And Climate Fraud Is Everywhere
Climategate Update 10: Climategate Reverberates From The UK To Down Under
Climategate Update 11: Finally An AGW Consensus, "Hockey Stick" Mann Attacks Jones, Gore Goes To Ground
Climategate Update 12: The AGW Wall Starts To Crumble, The Smoking Code & The Tiger Woods Index
Clmategate Update 13: Hack Job Alert - Washington Post Leads With Climategate and A Complete Defense Of Global Warming
Climate Update 14: A Tale of 4 Graphs & An Influential Tree, Hide The Decline Explained, Corrupt Measurements, Goebbelswarming at Copenhagen
Climategate Update 15: Copenhagen, EPA Makes Final Finding On CO2, Courts & Clean Air

Read More...

Summary only...

Farewell Sarah

In a bizarre decision, Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, announced today that she will step down from her post effective 26 July. It is not clear precisely what is driving this decision, and the reasons she gave in the speech above seem, as Ed Morrisey describes them, near "incoherent." If its because she is fed up with the unprecedented personal vitriol leveled at her and her family by a media gone wild, that's understandable. If she is dropping out with an eye towards running for the Presidency at some point in the future, she just shot herself in the foot. She ran and was elected governor in Alaska. She has a duty of loyalty to the people of her state. If she is now putting that aside for her own personal ambition, that would be an extremely poor decision indeed. At this moment, we are getting more than our fill of narcissists with extremely poor judgment in the White House. I doubt many will want to trade one for another in 2012.

Read More...

Summary only...

AP Charges Gov. Palin With Racism (Updated)

AP plays their part as the MSM wing of the Democratic Party today. They recast substantive criticism of Obama as an ad hominem attack upon his race. The AP calls Gov. Palin's attacks on Obama as unready to lead and stating that his vision of America is fundamentally negative and out of the mainstream are "racially tinged" and "unsubstantiated."
___________________________________________________

The AP goes over the top today, playing the race card in an attempt to delegitimize Gov. Palin's attacks on the one:

By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is "palling around with terrorists" and doesn't see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign.

And though she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.

What, if anything in the above attacks, is a racially tinged subtext?

"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," Palin told a group of donors in Englewood, Colo. A deliberate attempt to smear Obama, McCain's ticket-mate echoed the line at three separate events Saturday.

"This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America," she said. "We see America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism."

A smear is a false or grossly overhyped accusation. The only smear here is AP's labeling of Palin's attack. Obama's whole life has been spent amongst people who see in America a nation that is inherently bad and in need of fundamental change. And that Obama and his spouse share that view regularly slips out into public view in unguarded moments. The most recent example that comes to mind is Obama's answer a few weeks ago to a nine year old child who asked Obama why he wanted to be President. Back to AP:

Her reference to Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were "pals" or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.

You can go to Stanley Kurtz to fact check the AP on this one. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was the brain-child of Ayers that he created to inject his radical views into the classroom. The person who was allowed to head up the board for this project, almost assuredly with the assent of Ayers, was Obama. And when Obama went on from that into politics, the first fundraiser was thrown by Ayers. The importance to all of this is that Obama shares Ayers views that America is not an exceptional nation, it is a bad one bordering on evil that needs to be changed fundamentally and radically to the left.

But all of this is meaningless in the AP's world, where to challenge this or any of Obama's associations on substantive grounds is simply racist:

"The four weeks that are left are an eternity. There's plenty of time in the campaign," said Republican strategist Joe Gaylord. "I think it is a legitimate strategy to talk about Obama and to talk about his background and who he pals around with."

Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

This last four weeks is going to get ugly. As Republican criticisms of Obama become more pointed and cutting, expect this insipid broadside from the AP to become the norm as the MSM tries to protect their candidate. Obama won't play the race card again - he does not need to. The MSM is holding decks of race cards and is starting to deal on Obama's behalf.

Update: Via Hot Air, the McCain camp responds:

“The last four weeks of this election will be about whether the American people are willing to turn our economy and national security over to Barack Obama, a man with little record, questionable judgment, and ties to radical figures like unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers. Americans need to ask themselves if they’ve ever befriended an unrepentant terrorist, or had a convicted felon help them buy their house — because those aren’t smears, those are true facts about Barack Obama.” —Tucker Bounds, spokesman McCain-Palin 2008

Obama and the MSM are clearly going to play 52 race card pick-up with the McCain camp between now and 4 Nov. With that in mind, there should be absoluteky nothing stopping the McCain camp from coming out swinging over the subprime crisis. Yes, race cards are going to come fast and furious - but, as the above clearly indicates, they are going to get played anyway.

Read More...

Summary only...

Finally, A Fair & Balanced Article On Gov. Palin's Background

While its some of the finest work I've seen, this fair and detailed work is not from the MSM. It is from the blogger Baseball Crank. It really is a must read, particularly after a month of reading the Washington Post try to take down Palin for taking per diem expenses or the New York Times give the narrative of every Palin enemy they could find for their own front page story. Baseball Crank does the work an objective MSM should have done. Read it here.

(H/T Soccer Dad)

Read More...

Summary only...

She's Back

The Palin-Biden Vice Presidential debate is in the history books. You can find the transcript here. My overall impression – Biden did well and did not hurt himself; Ifell did a reasonable job as moderator; Sarah Palin did very well. She had a grasp of most of the issues and got much stronger as the debate progressed. She was confident and she was Reaganesque in her ability to communicate with clarity and optimism. This was not the woman that I saw stumble with Katy Couric or assume the deer in the headlights position with Charlie Gibson.

Tonight was make it or break it for Gov. Palin. She made it. That said, her performance was not uniformly good. She was weak in response to the first few questions on the economy. She was strong in response to the foreign policy questions.

Some thoughts –

Biden - strong out of the gate, charging the last eight years with being the cause of today's economic crisis. Palin's answer to this was very poor. Like McCain last week, she wholly failed to rebut this charge.

Palin - her populism is fine, but the economic problem is much more systemic than simple greed and predatory lending. The subprime crisis is a systemic crisis created by Fannie Mae and CRA.

Biden - was telling tall tales indeed about Obama and the subprime crisis. While McCain, two years ago, was sponsoring legislation to reign in Fannie Mae, Obama was AWOL. He was at the bank cashing Fannie Mae campaign contribution checks. Palin just completely miffed the response to this.

Palin - missed the opportunity to talk about deregulation. Her answer should have been regulation is neutral. Over-regulate and you shrink the economy. Under-regulate and you bring the economy to the brink of crisis. That is the perfect lead in to the subprime crisis which McCain and Palin have to educate the public on if they are going to win.

Biden - his claim to have always supported clean coal technology is just ridiculous. He’s given several interviews were he has spoken against clean coal – during his presidential campaign and again as recently as two weeks ago.

Palin - her support for carbon emissions caps left me shivering.

Biden - nothing is more counterproductive than a windfall profits tax on oil. It would only further punish an energy sector and increase the cost of energy. That combined with Obama's embrace of high prices for gas would be a knife in the heart of our economy. Palin never supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska. That is a gross mischaracterization.

Palin - very strong in the Iraq argument, though she could have quoted Biden from 2005 when he was still saying that we had to win in Iraq because the cost of failure would be unimaginable.

Palin - she should have eaten Biden alive over his claim that McCain voted against funding the troops when he voted against a plan that would have legislated surrender. That was weak.

Palin - forgot the name of the leader of al Qaeda – though she didn’t get called on it.

Biden - pointed out that Ahmedinejad does not control the power in Iran. Palin did not know enough to respond that, while Supreme Guide Khamenei holds true power, his mouthpiece is Ahmedinejad. It would be naive bordering on ludicrous to believe that, in theocratic Iran, the policies of Ahmedinejad vary from those of the Supreme Guide.

Biden – Hezbollah has been driven out of Lebanon? To the contrary, they are a state within a state the likes of which Iran has been trying to establish in Iraq also. That was a potentially major gaffe, but Palin did not call him on it.

Palin – I am pretty sure that Palin got the name of the commander of the ISAF in Afghanistan wrong. Gen. McClellan hasn’t said anything about counterinsurgency since he was relieved of command by Lincoln. Gen. McKiernan, on the other hand, may well have said that the general principles of counterinsurgency strategy are applicable to Afghanistan.

Palin – allowed Biden to claim as a strength what he has done as the head of the Senate Judiciary committee. She really missed a perfect opportunity to discuss how its been Joe Biden, more than anyone else, who has turned judicial appointments into a partisan circus and to discuss Obama’s embrace of activist judges.

Biden – Article I of the Constitution pertains to the Executive Branch? Wow.

Best line of the night – Palin: “Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future.”

Dick Morris, in the video below, gave this as a hands down win for Sarah Palin, making the comparison to Reagan in her ability to communicate. Its also fun to watch as Morris goes for the throat of Alan Combes.



(H/T Stop the ACLU)

According to a Frank Lunz focus group of undecided voters, Palin was the clear winner – to the extent that Luntz said there should be a significant movement in the polls over the next 48 hours.



Over at TPM Central, they note that a CBS snap poll of 473 undecided voters gave Biden a clear victory. Obviously, one of these two findings is incorrect. Polls over the next few days will tell us.

Protein Wisdom has posted a McCain camp response noting 14 half-truths or untruths uttered by Joe Biden tonight

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people’s health insurance coverage — they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska — she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it’s not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation — he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won’t pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

Read More...

Summary only...