Darvin Dowdy, in his Townhall.com blog Street Level, recently wrote the article "Who's Crazy Enough to Oppose Obama in 2012?" in which he suggested perhaps Glenn Beck.

My comments:

Although I understand you're just throwing spaghetti against the wall at this point, I agree with other commenters who say Beck is probably unelectable, as well as those who say he's probably doing just what he needs to be doing, both now and in the future, in exposing and questioning things as an "outsider."

However, you do us all a good service by providing the focus and raising the issue of: If not Beck, then who? And, I agree with you and others, it "don't look pretty out there." Between libs who run to the center only to govern from the left, Blue Dogs, RINOs, so-called moderate conservatives, conservative moderates, yadda, yadda, yadda, it's hard to tell all the leopards by their spots, especially when they go behind the Wizard of Oz curtain after getting elected and DO change their spots after all.

As much as I love Palin (and I just love the very IDEA of Palin and how twisted up she got the liberal lamestream media, as well as other libs, to pull their hair out -- or at least run around like it was on fire), she needs to do a lot of serious prep on multiple subjects before being a serious front-runner. She's got the right instincts and common sense but needs some in-depth prep as well, And, so far as I can tell, she's not doing that right now. She is the kind of firebrand with star power that we need, but she also needs more than that, especially at the top of a ticket. Obama used his star power, along with his lawyerly parsing of language and soaring but insubstantial rhetoric to slick talk his way in, and we all see where that's gotten us -- even those of us who saw it coming as far back as the Summer of '08.

I also agree -- Pawlenty, Jindal, Huckabee, Romney, etc. -- capable, smart, experienced -- but yawn, yawn, yawn. All good second tier candidates for VP, but not any exciting (read: motivating) star power, much less being a firebrand, among them. DeMint could possibly be an exception, but even there, so far, I haven't seen the type of fire in the belly I'm looking for. Jeb Bush would probably be another one, but I think he's just doomed (however unfairly) by his last name alone.

We need an experienced person who is a good speaker and debater, who is plain-talking, hard-fisted, take no prisoners, call 'em like I see 'em, let the chips fall where they may, almost apolitical person but who knows how to play politics with the best of them. A combination of Sarah Palin charm and star power, former ambassador John Bolton plainspokenness, Harry Truman directness, Abe Lincoln brevity, Ronald Reagan delivery, with maybe a little Southern preacher firebrand and Mitt Romney presidential good looks thrown in for good measure. Someone who would look directly at Katie Couric during an interview, smile and say, "Katie, I'm offended by that question," or would call Chris Matthews out for the liberal lapdog that he is while appearing on his own show, or would briefly but clearly explain after the Charlie Gibson interview that Charlie obviously hadn't understood his own question about which part of the still evolving (at that point in time, at least three-part) so-called "Bush doctrine" he had wanted me to respond to.

OMG! IMNSHO, I just described ..... MYSELF! ..... but from about 15 years or so ago. Just kidding. Anyway, that's the kind of person I'm looking and hoping for. Not just some warmed over "moderate" Republican or pseudo-conservative, but a real conservative who is (even more of a liberal's worst nightmare) also a Federalist and a Constitutionalist.

Ann Coulter recently wrote about Kathleen Parker, the formerly alleged conservative columnist, going on MSNBC and other "fair and balanced" news shows and talking about being a real Southerner and that Southern resistance to Obama's massive and expensive health care/insurance reform is linked to racism rather than it being simply because it's a really, really bad idea.

I knew KP had gone off the tracks a couple of times during the campaign, and a couple more since then, and, shall we say, "strayed" from really being a conservative columnist, but claiming to be of and from the South when you're actually from Winter Haven, Florida, and just happened to marry a South Carolinian is like thinking Northern Virginia, where I live now, is also the South, when nothing north of Richmond even comes close. I'm from Georgia, and I KNOW what's Southern! It's in my DNA, even the Cherokee part.

So, as we say in the South, "bless her heart," KP first gave up her bona fides as a real conservative columnist and is now playing at being a real Southerner.

Well, KP, you don't speak for me, or any other real Southerner, about things Southern. And, bless your heart, please don't claim to be a conservative columnist while appearing on liberal lamestream media outlets and making liberal left-wing leaps of logic that simply objecting to what's just not a good idea has anything to do with racism. As we also say in the South, that dog just won't hunt, and you just sayin' so makes you look dumb in the bargain.

And also do please try to get over your obvious female version of "weiner" envy with Sarah Palin. It's, as we would say in our understated way in the South, a little bit more than just unbecomin'. It's becomin' downright embarrassin'.

The alleged conservative columnist Kathleen Parker recently wrote an article entitled "A League of Her Own" about Sarah Plain. Herewith, my comments in response to Ms. Parker's article:

Comments From the Right? I think not. Kathleen's drifting Left again, just as she did, and over Palin then, too, during the campaign. I know guys allegedly sometimes have what may be called "weiner envy." I don't know what the equivalent is for gals, but I think Ms. Parker's got it where Palin is concerned.

Parker is another one who questions Palin's REAL reasons for resigning, most often characterized as "quitting," as governor. What does Kathleen really KNOW about Palin's current financial, or even overall, situation? It appears Parker is engaging in the same speculation as many others. Palin says it's cost her state and her individually hundreds of thousands of dollars to contend with the 18 or so ethics investigations and/or law suits which have been brought, not as Ms. Parker suggests by "normal" Alaskans dissatisfied with Palin's performance as governor, but by Democrats and some of her former defeated good ole boy Republican adversaries in the state legislature. In other words, not by people simply dissatisfied with Palin's performance but by people who want to "get her" any way they can -- much like liberals in general and the lamestream liberal media, and seemingly Ms. Parker, in particular.

Taking the time and money to fight all those investigations has not only cost her state and Palin personally thousands of dollars but has also interfered with and hampered her ability to effectively govern. And none of them -- not one -- has proven to have any merit.

Besides, she knows she has a stalwart Republican conservative in her lieutenant governor, so why not remove herself as a magnet for all the dysfunctionality and resign "for the sake of Alaska," so at least her lieutenant governor can get on with what needs to be done? Would that some Democrats -- and some other Republicans as well -- would "step down" for the betterment of their party, constituents, whatever. But, it takes real courage to do something like that, so who am I kidding?

So, I take Palin at her word -- that she is stepping down so her and her lieutenant governor's conservative program can progress for the sake of Alaska, that frivolous investigations have already cost her and her state too much money, and that she finally just got tired of all the negativity against her family in the media. That's her being a responsible office holder AND mom. And what she does next is entirely up to her, as it should be.

If you give President Obama the benefit of the doubt on so many things, as you have, Kathleen, why not give Palin the same benefit of the doubt? I mean, it's not like we don't already know that Obama has shown he often doesn't mean what he says, because he changes it so often to fit what he currently thinks we want to hear. I won't go into a list of all the things he's said and then changed -- is that the "change" we "hoped" for? -- but it's lengthy, and getting longer by the day, as anyone paying attention must acknowledge.

CNN's Drew Griffin has admitted "botching" his quote of National Review's Byron York's article in an on air interview with Governor Palin, in which Griffin took a quote from York's article totally out of context and misconstrued what York was saying about the unfair press coverage of Palin to make it appear to be something someone had written about Palin herself. At the time, Palin asked Griffin who had written the article he was "quoting" from and Griffin stumbled and did not answer her question. Now, Griffin has admitted making a mistake and has apologized to National Review's editor and York, the author of the article. So, where is Griffin's apology to Governor Palin, the person he tried to sandbag with the misquote on air? Hello? I guess admitting you were wrong only goes so far.

I'm sorry to hear that Senator Obama's grandmother is ill and hope the best for her. But I've got a couple of questions. I know it's been reported she's ill, that she recently broke her hip and that her 86th birthday is Sunday, October 26th, and she might not "make it" until then. But what is she so "gravely ill" with? Is it just old age? Is it cancer, or a heart condition, or what? If it's been reported, I missed it. And, I don't know about the Obama family, or their values, but if my grandmother was about to die, I and my whole family - including my wife and our daughters - would be going to Hawaii to see her. Doesn't she deserve to see her grand-daughter-in-law and her great granddaughters, as well as her grandson, before she leaves this earthly plane?

Much has been made lately in the liberal TV and print media about the RNC spending $150K on Sarah Palin's wardrobe, makeup, etc. Why, the New York Times even had an article about it on Page One! - instead of in the Style Section where it would belong, that is, if you were going to "report" on it at all. But, gee, I don't remember much coverage at all - anywhere in the MSM - about Michelle Obama who, while recently staying in New York's Waldorf Astoria Hotel and waiting for her husband to finish up some campaign business, ordered champagne, lobster and Iranian caviar for her afternoon repast. First - what? - Russian caviar isn't good enough any more? Second, I wonder who paid for that little "snack"? Did Michelle put it on her personal credit card? Was it charged to the campaign? To the DNC? And, by the way, who pays for Michelle's custom-made business suits, dresses, makeup, hairstyling, etc.? Of course, Mrs. Obama is a millionaire, unlike Mrs. Palin who is not, so Mrs. Obama can easily pay for her own. But, hmmm, I think we might just have a real campaign issue here! Why don't you jump on that, NBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, and see what you can find out? After all, "inquiring minds want to know." Oh, I'm sorry. I think that's the motto of the National Inquirer - you know, the outfit which broke the story on Democrat John Edwards' infidelity? - not all of you upstanding and outstanding real "news" outfits. What was I thinking?

 

 

I like Charlie Gibson. I've liked him for a long time. I liked him when he was on Good Morning America, and I still like him. Charlie Gibson is not only a charming man but also a proven, serious journalist, with a long career and credentials to back it up. And, as he is at ABC, he's not been as much a part of the mainstream media's almost blatant liberally slanted coverage of the current presidential campaign. In descending order, at least so far as TV is concerned, that would be: NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS and then ABC. Of course, all of the alphabet networks have been liberally partisan but to varying degrees.

So, liking and respecting Charlie Gibson as I do, I was pleased that Sarah Palin's first interview with a network anchor was going to be with him. Did you watch the interview? Did you watch the whole thing, partialed out over two days as it was to maximize its ratings draw for ABC? (Nothing wrong with that, of course. Bill O'Reilly and FNC partialed out his interview with Barack Obama over more nights than that, and for the same reason. But, the real reason Obama finally did that interview at all is the subject of another whole discussion.)

Well, if you think you watched the whole thing, first, you should realize, you didn't. Since it was a taped interview, what you watched, even if you watched all of what was shown on both days, was an edited version of the entire interview. And, as any honest Hollywood producer (is that an oxymoron?) will tell you, there's magic in the editing process. You can do all sorts of things to make what a person says appear almost the opposite of what they really meant. You can cut out full answers to questions. You can even rearrange the order of the questions asked and answered.

Was Sarah Palin nervous at the start of the interview? Yes, fairly obviously. But wouldn't you be also, if you were new to the national scene and knew this was your first stand-alone interview with a nationally known and experienced journalist who was probably going to ask you at least some "gotcha" questions which were then going to be shown on national TV? Did she wind up handling the overall interview well? Yes, I think so. She didn't hit it out of the park, like she did with her convention acceptance speech, but she hit some to the outfield and got on base, and even scored a few runs.

However, my former fan fave Charlie didn't fare so well. Even given ABC's editing favoring him as their anchor and interviewer and disfavoring her as the interviewee, it became quickly apparent that he not only intended to conduct a tough interview (and a tough but fair interview would have been okay) but also one intended to embarrass Governor Palin if he could. Aside from his overall demeanor being that of a tenured college professor having to deal with a fresh, know-nothing, and therefore irritating, upstart of a student, the first real substantive indicator of bias was his complete mischaracterization, taken out of context (and made even worse by his emphasizing that he was quoting her own words), of her deployment event comments about her son and his fellow comrades going off to fight in Iraq. Clearly, if you watched her address to those troops, she did not say they were going off to fight God's war, or even that they were on the right side of God in doing so. What she said was that she hoped they had God on their side while they were deployed. But, by editing her actual comments and taking them out of context, Gibson intentionally made it seem otherwise.

Many on the left have also made a big deal about her "fumbling" of Gibson's question on the so-called Bush Doctrine. He asked her what she thought about it, and she asked him to clarify what he meant. First, he purposefully was unhelpful in specifically explaining what he meant and led her into some awkwardness of guessing what he meant. Finally, while looking at her over his glasses (and down his nose), he condescendingly clarified he was asking about Bush's concept of preemptively striking an enemy before they strike us. In this, Gibson revealed not so much her ineptness at responding to a vague question as his own misunderstanding about his own question. Gibson obviously shared the liberal view that the only Bush doctrine was the one about preemptive strikes. Yet, I think it was nationally syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer who first used the term "the Bush doctrine" and he himself has said that "the Bush Doctrine" has been an evolving one, of which the preemptive strike concept is the third concept of four, the last and most current one being the spreading of democracy. So, did Gibson reveal Palin's ineptness at answering the vaguely posed question or his own ineptness in misunderstanding what the Bush doctrine has included and currently is? Think about what I just pointed out and decide for yourself. But, to me, Palin did okay and came off better than Gibson at his own game. So, Sarah, overall you got a B, but, Charlie, overall you got a D, and if I included the cheating, it would be an F.

Lastly, I would like to know when, if ever, Senator Obama is going to receive such an interview from a network news anchor, or, for that matter, from anyone else? Gibson and his cohort George Stephanopolous even got some heat from their fellow liberals in the mainstream media back during the primary season for daring to take Obama to task about his no longer wearing a US flag pin on his lapel. Oh, horrors, how impolitely confrontational -- and on such a significant and substantive issue, too!

Sarah Palin has been on the national scene for less than three weeks and is running for vice president, the second place on the Republican ticket, and has now done her initial interview with a network news anchor -- and one who intentionally asked her some obviously "gotcha" questions. Barack Obama has been running for president for over 20 months, most of his time in the US Senate (or out of it, depending on your perspective) -- oh, and by the way, about the same length of time that Sarah Palin has been making executive decisions as the governor of Alaska. And while he has done many interviews (with sympathetic and softball throwing TV hosts), when is Barack Obama going to get his first really tough, "gotcha" question interview? The closest we've come to that so far was his interview with FNC's Bill O'Reilly, and O'Reilly, to his credit, didn't ask any real "gotcha" questions of the Illinois freshman senator. So, when is Obama going to get "grilled" by anybody in the mainstream media? After all, he is running for president, you know, and many people are still asking (as unbelievable as it may seem after all this time), who is Barack Obama, really? If you think it's appropriate that the second place person on the Republican ticket withstands a tough interview, don't you think the person in the first place on the Democratic ticket should withstand the same? Or is expecting that just being too, uh, democratic? Or, perhaps, given the liberal bent of the mainstream media, just too unrealistic to expect at all? Sadly, especially for us voters, I think it's the latter.