Lashing Out

The Democrats appear to have sent in their big guns against Sarah Palin on the Sunday talk show circuit. Personally, I watched none of the shows, being busy yesterday, but what I’m reading this morning over at Memeorandum indicates they went bonkers bashing merrily away at the Governor of Alaska. Why the full frontal assault? The answer may well be in Today’s Wall Street Journal. Peter Brown, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, usually has very insightful analysis of polls and polling numbers. His take on what is happening may very well be the reason for the panicky behavior of the Democrats. It may be about women.

It is worth remembering that Hillary Clinton got about 10 million votes from women in the Democratic primaries, but expectations are that roughly 62 million women will vote this November. Most of those 52 million are among the majority of American women who shy away from calling themselves feminists because they see it as having a negative connotation, and most of those who didn’t vote in the primaries tend to be more moderate and less interested in politics.

The fact that Gov. Palin doesn’t come from Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco; that she didn’t go to an Ivy League school; that her husband works with his hands; and that she has family problems to which many of these 52 million can relate on a nonpolitical plane makes her attractive to them.

Much more so than Sen. Hillary Clinton or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who are now the country’s highest-profile women politicians. Their views, values and way of life could not be more different from those of Gov. Palin.

If Gov. Palin becomes Vice President Palin, the clearly political National Organization for Women, the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood, as well as a host of other officially nonpolitical but left-leaning women’s groups, have a problem.

How could such groups and their political allies claim to speak for American women when the country’s highest-profile female politician represents everything they don’t?

To be sure, there are conservative women’s groups who have backed antiabortion female candidates, almost always Republicans. But they are smaller and less known than their more prominent left-leaning counterparts.

These conservative women are overjoyed by Gov. Palin’s selection, using it to argue they are more in touch with the typical American woman.

The polling data Brown cites indicates a huge - really huge - problem for the Democrats. Prior to Palin’s selection, Obama led among white women by eight points. Since Palin came onto the national stage, McCain is now up by twelve in that group.

If Brown is correct, as I rather suspect that he is, then it explains much, including Obama’s decision to launch direct, personal attacks on Palin - a strategy that has usually indicated desperation on the part of Democrats running for the highest office. It also explains the media’s rabid reaction to Palin.

Watching The Watchers

Glenn Reynolds has advice for Sarah Palin and John McCain: bring your own camera.

But there’s a remedy now, with technology being what it is. If I were a candidate, I think I’d bring my own camera to interviews, shoot the whole thing and post the unedited raw video on the Web.

The technology for this is easy - I’ve got a little Sony HD video camera that records on a chip and fits in a coat pocket or purse - and putting video on the Web is a snap, too.

Of course, the knowledge that this will happen is likely to be enough to keep people honest - but if anything is edited unfairly, the full video will tell the tale. No need to wait for Groundskeeper Willie to appear.

TV journalists won’t be happy with this, of course, but it’s hard to see a principled basis for objecting.

In the past, the tools for broadcast newsgathering were expensive and specialized, and much of the media’s power came from the fact that no one else had them. Those times are long gone, and candidates, and journalists, are going to have to adapt.

It would be very, very interesting to see the journalist’s reaction to such a tactic. Puffed up outrage disguising naked fear would be my guess.

Slapdown

It’s Charles smacking heck out of Charlie. That’s Krauthammer and Gibson respectively. Charles Krauthammer beats Charlie Gibson about the head and body over Gibson’s completely wrong definition of the Bush Doctrine. Krauthammer should know, incidentally - he is the person who first used the term Bush Doctrine. The Bush administration has never used the term.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

So, Charlie Gibson went all schoolmarmish on Palin for not knowing which of four distinct - and different - things that have been called the Bush Doctrine over the past eight years old Charlie was referring to. The left went psycho (with the exception of a single voice of sanity), the New York Slimes ran it front and center and much noise was made.

All if it about nothing. They look like idiots, Charlie and the lot of the left. (Big Tent Democrat is the only voice on the left that got this one right as far as I know.) Charlie Gibson attempted to make Sarah Palin look foolish with a trick question that he did not even know the correct answer to. The left - and the Times (redundant) - went belligerent over a term coined by a hated voice from the right.

The Wall, And How To Hit It

Wow, this is sort of like watching an old Warner Brothers Road Runner and Coyote cartoon. In those classics, the super-genius coyote always made out so well in his quest to dine on the roadrunner, didn’t he? So it is with the latest “revelation” from the Obama campaign - that Obama is fully qualified to be the President of the United States because - wait for it - HE CAN TYPE. (Unlike, mind you, his opponent who has war injuries that limit his ability to do so.)

Well, what else has Wile E. Obama’s campaign come up with as a winning strategy for Obama? This jaw-dropper:

Obama Implies McCain Puts Other Countries First

“So, when American workers hear John McCain talking about putting ‘Country First,’” Obama said, “it’s fair to ask –- which country?”

Says the super-genius who:

….took off on a world tour victory lap before he had even won the nomination? (Accompanied by the fawning members of the MSM.)

….Who refused to visit wounded servicemen in Germany when he found out he couldn’t bring his media circus?

….Who gave a speech in which he proudly proclaimed himself a “Citizen of the World.” In front of a column moved there by none other than a regime that shall remain nameless, lest the Crabitat violate Godwin’s Law.

….Says the man who had his seat in his private campaign jet embroidered with the word “President” before he won the nod for his party’s nomination? (Which has nothing to do with the country theme, but I couldn’t pass it up).

Yes, Wile E. - er - Barack - do tell us what country you put first. And see if this sound seems familiar:

Beep, beep.

Well, Of Course They Don’t Give Away Their Money

They’re too busy thinking up ways to spend yours. Joe Biden has proven to be even more of a skinflint than Barack Obama when it comes to charitable giving. TaxProf has the numbers in a handy-dandy table that shows that Joe doesn’t part with his money - at least to charity.

It is jarring that a couple earning over $200,000 per year would give as little as $2 per week to charity. This giving compares very unfavorably to John McCain, whose tax returns show that he gave 27.3% - 28.6% of his income to charity in 2006-2007. During the same period, the Obamas’ tax returns show that they gave 5.8% - 6.1% of their income to charity.

Perhaps the Obama-Biden campaign needs a new slogan: “Change You Can Believe In (As Long As Someone Else Pays For It)”

Meanwhile, the hardhitting Obama campaign lashes out at John McCain, triumphantly screeching that McCain can’t use the internet to send email. Of course, that might have something to do with John McCain’s inability to use a keyboard due to the horrific injuries he received at the hands of North Vietnamese torturers.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by “extraordinary.” The reason he doesn’t send email is that he can’t use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain’s encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He’s an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can’t raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

In a similar vein I guess it’s an outrage that the blind governor of New York David Patterson doesn’t know how to drive a car. After all, transportation issues are pretty important. How dare he serve as governor while being ignorant of what it’s like to navigate New York’s highways.

Next up: The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight will shortchange a blind person, just for grins and high-fives at their keyboards.

Giants

Kathleen Parker writes about an event in South Carolina organized for four living recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

CAMDEN, S.C. — While the political class was focused on the meaning of pigs wearing lipstick, a few fortunate South Carolinians were riveted by the meaning of valor.

The occasion was a celebration of four of the state’s living recipients of the Medal of Honor — Charles Murray Jr., (Army, WWII, 1944), John Baker (Army, Vietnam, 1966), James Livingston (USMC, Vietnam, 1968) and Michael Thornton (Navy, Vietnam, 1972).

The four appeared in Camden (at an event my husband helped organize) to raise awareness and funding for the Congressional Medal of Honor Museum in Charleston, S.C., and for the Medal of Honor conventions to be held in Chicago in 2009 and Charleston in 2010.

To hear their stories, as recounted by Vice Admiral Edwin R. “Rudy” Kohn, Camden resident and retired deputy commander of the Pacific Fleet, against the backdrop of today’s political noise was to be reminded of how rare personal courage really is.

There are giants among us. Some 108 living members of one of the most exclusive rolls of honor that has ever existed. Here’s a link to the Congressional Medal of Honor Museum noted by Parker.

No Parking On Street

So a British police officer decided to park in a basement.

Funny picture at the link.

Arc

Charles Krauthammer today maps out the arc of Barack Obama’s candidacy. Plotting out the points through Obama’s speeches over the last four years, Krauthammer draws a picture of the rise and fall of Barack Obama.

But Palin is not just a problem for Obama. She is also a symptom of what ails him. Before Palin, Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate. For no presidential nominee in living memory had the gap between adulation and achievement been so great. Which is why McCain’s Paris Hilton ads struck such a nerve. Obama’s meteoric rise was based not on issues — there was not a dime’s worth of difference between him and Hillary on issues — but on narrative, on eloquence, on charisma.

The unease at the Denver convention, the feeling of buyer’s remorse, was the Democrats’ realization that the arc of Obama’s celebrity had peaked — and had now entered a period of its steepest decline. That Palin could so instantly steal the celebrity spotlight is a reflection of that decline.

It was inevitable. Obama had managed to stay aloft for four full years. But no one can levitate forever.

Too soon to write off Obama? Maybe. With the rabid press helping him, he may yet be dragged across the finish line. But there is bad news again today in the Gallup Daily poll. McCain is still ahead by four points. (No wonder reporters have gone mad.)

Obama’s rise has been described by the media as “meteoric”. They appear not to realize that meteors only flare brilliantly when they are crashing to earth.

Mad Reporter! Mad Reporter!

Howard Kurtz is mad!

The media are getting mad.

Whether it’s the latest back-and-forth over attack ads, the silly lipstick flap or the continuing debate over Sarah and sexism, you can just feel the tension level rising several notches.

Maybe it’s a sense that this is crunch time, that the election is on the line, that the press is being manipulated (not that there’s anything new about that).

News outlets are increasingly challenging false or questionable claims by the McCain campaign, whether it’s the ad accusing Obama of supporting sex-ed for kindergartners (the Illinois legislation clearly describes “age-appropriate” programs) or Palin’s repeated boast that she stopped the Bridge to Nowhere (after she had supported it, and after Congress had effectively killed the specific earmark).

Now, despite the camouflage of that second sentence, what Howie is mad about is only one of the two campaigns. The entire column is one long rant against John McCain. Howie approvingly quotes left wing blog posts to support his thesis of media anger.

Well, I agree that the media is indeed exhibiting signs of being mad. In the “mad dog” sense of the word. They are, more and more, showing their rabid partisanship for Obama. They are so intent on dragging their chosen candidate across the finish line that they are now unleashing vicious attacks on Cindy McCain. (Yes, Howie, that was your newspaper that put the hit on her. And no, I’m not linking that tabloid trash.)

What Howie and the press fail to notice is that their foaming muzzles are more and more obvious to average voters. People are turned off by the vile behavior of the press these days and are seeing the madness in the media’s eyes.

Others: Powerline, TigerHawk, Ed Driscoll, Mark Steyn.

Incidentally, Steyn also points out this little gem from The Boston Phoenix which warns of a backlash over MSNBC’s obvious dive into the tank for Obama. My one quibble with the article is that the author repeatedly says it is not Obama’s fault that MSNBC (and the media) are in the tank for Obama. I think the Obama campaign is very closely allied with their media buddies.

I Have To Give Credit Here

The latest shrieking from the left is that “Sarah Palin doesn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is!!!!!!!” Memeorandum has multiple links up at this moment from various left wing sites. The astroturfroots are busily plastering comment sections of non-left blogs with their talking point spew on this. But there is, actually, one voice of sanity on the left at the moment. I may not agree with his (her?) politics, but I respect the integrity on this one:

This is seriously nuts. Palin asked Gibson to define what HE meant by it. (NOTE: Stellaa points out that Gibson tried the same game with Obama and Media Matters ripped Gibson for it then. Guess Sargent is ok with it when it is done to a Republican.) Indeed, her eventual answer to the question is extremely sensible (unlike Bush and McCain’s actual policies) and smart politics. She did not accept the premise of Gibson’s question and then gave a sensible answer to the question. This type of stuff is what is killing the Left blogs right now. They look like fools when they act this way.

I agree, they do look like fools - actually, many of them look totally deranged. (I think that it was Big Tent Democrat who also tried to warn against the left going overboard on attacking Palin in the first place.)

This is an honest take from a left-leaning blog. Credit is due.

Vicious Warmongers

The words of the vicious warmongers trying to take over the White House in November:

“Ukraine and Georgia have also been developing their ties with NATO. Their leaders have declared their readiness to advance a NATO Membership Action Plan, MAP, to prepare for the rights and obligations of membership. They are working to consolidate democratic reforms and to undertake new responsibilities in their relationship with the Alliance. I welcome the desire and actions of these countries to seek closer ties with NATO and hope that NATO responds favorably to their request, consistent with its criteria for membership. Whether Ukraine and Georgia ultimately join NATO will be a decision for the members of the alliance and the citizens of those countries, after a period of open and democratic debate. But they should receive our help and encouragement as they continue to develop ties to Atlantic and European institutions.

“NATO enlargement is not directed against Russia. Russia has an important role to play in European and global affairs and should see NATO as a partner, not as a threat. But we should oppose any efforts by the Russian government to intimidate its neighbors or control their foreign policies. Russia cannot have a veto over which countries join the alliance. Since the end of the Cold War, Republican and Democratic administrations have supported the independence and sovereignty of all the states of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and we must continue to do so. President Putin recent threat to point missiles at Ukraine is simply not the way to promote the peaceful 21st century Europe we seek.

And this:

Earlier this month at the NATO summit, the United States sought to win support for the extension of Membership Action Plans (MAPs) to Ukraine and the Republic of Georgia. These plans are the final preparatory step for states seeking to join the Alliance. Both Ukraine and Georgia have established themselves as Western-looking democracies and are worthy candidates for NATO membership

Unfortunately, some NATO members balked in the face of strong Russian opposition, and because NATO works by consensus, both countries’ bids failed. While the United States failed to secure MAPs, the administration did succeed in securing a pledge in the final communique that in the future, Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO” and that MAPs could be extended as early as December. This was a major success after a damaging setback. While MAP is a tangible step, it does not promise membership. The communique signed by NATO leaders did.

These vicious warmongers want former Soviet territories to join NATO. This is vicious warmongering at its absolute worst, right?

Yeah, but the first quote is from Barack Obama and the second is from Joe Biden.

Yet when Sarah Palin says that Ukraine and Georgia should be admitted to NATO, the left - and the media (same thing) - screech that she is a warmonger. That she is “taking a hard line” that she wants “war with Russia”.

Fact: Here is the exact wording of Articles 5 and 6 of the NATO Treaty:

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Joining NATO means a member has the expectation of a mutual, armed response to aggression against the member. War against one is supposed to be treated as war against all. Period.

The left insists on having it both ways here. But their candidates called for the exact, same thing Palin did.

There is a word for this. It starts with an “h”. Figure it out.

Via Memeorandum and The Corner.

Fitting Tribute

Through the tireless efforts of the families of the 184 victims of the 9/11 attack on The Pentagon, a memorial has been built. Today is the dedication of that monument, built with private donations right next to the spot where the airplane hit the building.

It must be a terrible and a wonderful day for those families.

The Big Mistake

Notice anything about the presidential race in the past two weeks? I have. Barack Obama is spending a lot of time attacking Sarah Palin. A real lot of time. After first vowing to ignore Palin, suddenly, Obama just can’t stop talking about her. Other people have noticed this as well. Jay Cost thinks the Obama campaign is seeing numbers it just doesn’t like in the polls:

The ABC News poll that set tongues wagging has McCain up 12 among white women - about the same margin as the final result in 2004. I had been inclined to write those results off, as I figured a post-convention poll like that is not indicative of where the race is heading. However, the course correction of the Obama campaign inclines me to believe that there might be something going on here. On September 4th, his campaign said that it was not planning to directly criticize Palin. On September 8th, it released an ad directly criticizing her. You don’t do that kind of 180 unless something is up.

Karl Rove thinks Obama is making a disastrous mistake. Other presidential candidates in other years have spent their time and energy going after the opposing VP pick, with bad results:

Michael Dukakis spent the last months of the 1988 campaign calling his opponent’s running mate, Dan Quayle, a risky choice and even ran a TV ad blasting Mr. Quayle. The Bush/Quayle ticket carried 40 states.

Adlai Stevenson spent the fall of 1952 bashing Dwight Eisenhower’s running mate, Richard Nixon, calling him “the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, and then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.” The Republican ticket carried 39 of 48 states.

If Mr. Obama keeps attacking Mrs. Palin, he could suffer the fate of his Democratic predecessors. These assaults highlight his own tissue-thin résumé, waste precious time better spent reassuring voters he is up for the job, and diminish him — not her.

The risk of a backfire is enormous, but Obama is continuing the attacks. Obama managed to take the wheels off the Clinton Campaign Juggernaut by diminishing Clinton - but a lot of women did not like that at all. Nor the way he managed to do it. Compounding that, Obama completely ignored Clinton in his search for a VP - not even vetting her. Now he is spending precious campaign time attacking a candidate for a the office below the one he is supposed to be running for. Since Palin is, after all, a woman, it begins to look like Obama has a problem with women candidates.

I rather suspect that the candidate and his campaign misunderstand why his numbers have slipped in a demographic group he needs for a victory in November.

Keep up the good work, guys!

Please Read This

No, not the post, the piece I am linking here.

I had no idea that the statistic had gotten this bad. A 90% abortion rate.

My mother - and her mother before her - worked extensively with children with Down Syndrome. My grandmother at the Sunmount State Hospital, my mother with a group that her church sponsored. They both got more out of their involvement with those people - and they are people - with an extra chromosome than they gave away to them.

This bit of news saddens me in a way that I cannot begin to describe.

Bringing The Base

Byron York at NRO details a McCain/Palin rally in Northern Virginia today. It sounds as if it was impressive, indeed:

When McCain and running mate Sarah Palin appeared this morning at Van Dyck Park, in the city of Fairfax, Virginia, the people spilled out of the natural amphitheater, over the sides, out the back, and nearly all the way to the Old Lee Highway. The rally had originally been scheduled for Fairfax High School, but some school board members objected. With controversy brewing, the McCain campaign moved the event to the park. It was a good idea; the high school facility could handle 6,500 people, which would have been a huge crowd in pre-Palin days. But today, the school wouldn’t have been nearly big enough. After the rally, McCain officials told me 23,000 people had been there. Even if that estimate was a little high, it was still McCain’s biggest rally ever — and that, at mid-morning, on a weekday……

…..And that depends entirely on enthusiasm, which, at least for the moment, depends a great deal on Sarah Palin. After the rally, I put a brief item in The Corner, remarking on the size of the crowd. I began to get a lot of emails from people who had also been there. Many of them confessed previous disenchantment with McCain, or the Republican party, or both. But no longer. “In the space of a week,” one woman wrote, “I went from vowing to disengage myself from the general election to volunteering for McCain and sitting in an hour of traffic just to hear Palin speak.” If she still feels that way on November 4, McCain just might win.

Read the whole thing. Palin came across as knowing - really knowing - energy. That’s a strong, strong plus in this of all years. More importantly, she’s bring the base to life, energizing them and giving them hope. That means one thing:

Ground game.

If Sarah Palin is the key that brings the engine of the Republican ground game to life, Obama’s in real trouble. It doesn’t really help when Joe Biden admits he was the wrong choice for VP, or when Obama’s numbers have actually begun to slide in the Gallup daily.

By the way, don’t expect Obama to get Hillary to join him on the ticket. That bridge is burned and Hillary has to be seeing a chance for herself in 2012 right now. And she HAS to be laughing at Obama’s plight right about now.