The Associated Press got an advance copy of Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue, and assigned eleven reporters, apparently, to try to find errors in it. The eleven collaborated on an article titled "FACT CHECK: Palin's book goes rogue on some facts." In fact, though, the AP's catalogue of alleged errors--six in total--is thin at best. The AP starts with this one: PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking "only" for reasonably priced rooms and not "often" going for the "high-end, robe-and-slippers" hotels. THE FACTS: Although she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard) for a five-hour women's leadership conference in New York in October 2007. With air fare, the cost to Alaska was well over $3,000. This is frankly pathetic. Palin says she didn't "often" stay at high-end hotels, and the AP counters by saying she did, once. Yes, that's why she said "not often" rather than "never." What is indisputable is that Palin sold the Governor's private jet and flew commercial, thereby saving the taxpayers a large amount of money and qualifying her as a frugal traveler. The rest are about as lame. Here is another: PALIN: Rails against taxpayer-financed bailouts, which she attributes to Obama. She recounts telling daughter Bristol that to succeed in business, "you'll have to be brave enough to fail." THE FACTS: Palin is blurring Obama's stimulus plan--a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs and government contracts--and the federal bailout that President George W. Bush signed. Palin's views on bailouts appeared to evolve as John McCain's vice presidential running mate. In September 2008, she said "taxpayers cannot be looked to" to bail out Wall Street. The next month, she praised McCain for being "instrumental in bringing folks together" to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said "it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in." The AP doesn't quote Palin, so it's hard to say whether she "blurs" the bailouts or not. But by the AP's own account, Palin has consistently opposed bailouts, except that during the Presidential campaign, she loyally supported McCain's position on the initial TARP program. That's what a Vice-Presidential candidate is supposed to do, and this is not a "fact-check." This one, I simply don't believe: PALIN: Welcomes last year's Supreme Court decision deciding punitive damages for victims of the nation's largest oil spill tragedy, the Exxon Valdez disaster, stating it had taken 20 years to achieve victory. As governor, she says, she'd had the state argue in favor of the victims, and she says the court's ruling went "in favor of the people." THE FACTS: That response is at odds with her reaction at the time to the ruling, which resolved the case by reducing punitive damages for victims to $500 million from $2.5 billion. Palin said then she was "extremely disappointed" and it was "tragic" so many fishermen and families put their lives on hold waiting for the decision. Again, the AP doesn't quote Palin but rather asks us to take their word for the fact that Palin "welcomes" the Supreme Court's Exxon Valdez decision in her book as a "ruling [that] went 'in favor of the people.'" I would bet that the AP is mischaracterizing what Palin says in her book. She criticized the Supreme Court's decision at the time, as did most Alaskans, and cited it as a Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed in the Katie Couric interview. I seriously doubt that she contradicts that position in her book, although I wouldn't doubt that she called the verdict against Exxon (which was slashed by the Supreme Court) as a decision "in favor of the people." It appears to be a tribute to the factual accuracy of Palin's book that eleven hostile AP reporters can't come up with anything better than this. It's funny how the press fact-checks some things but not others. Here is just one of thousands of examples one could cite: John Kerry, arguing for the cap-and-tax bill that he co-sponsored with Barbara Boxer (these are two of the least intelligent legislators of modern times, by the way), claimed that "over the last eight years, emissions in the United States of America in greenhouse gases went up four times faster than in the 1990s." This is a typical example of a "fact" that John Kerry just made up. In fact, carbon emissions rose much faster in the 1990s than over the last eight years:
Untethered to the governor’s desk in Alaska, Sarah Palin addressed the CLSA Investors’ Forum in Hong Kong. The Associated Press had the most complete and likely most accurate coverage of the speech, including actual quotes from Mrs. Palin’s speech. The speech was closed to the press, which gave the rest of the media reports on it a blind-men-describing-an-elephant quality. “She was brilliant,” said a European delegate, on condition of anonymity. “She said America was spending a lot of money and it was a temporary solution. Normal people are having to pay more and more but things don’t get better. The rich will leave the country and the poor will get poorer.” Two US delegates left early, with one saying “it was awful, we couldn’t stand it any longer.” He declined to be identified. Another attendee said: “It was almost more of a speech promoting investment in Alaska. As fund managers we want to hear about the United States as a whole, not just about Alaska. And she criticised Obama a lot but offered no solutions.” Hmm. (What solutions should she have offered? Vote him out?) “She started the speech with the Alaskan fishing industry, which I think is a safe topic for her,” said Suyeon An of RCM Asia Pacific Ltd, who left before Palin stopped talking. “She was avoiding the important economic issues. She tried to talk some about Hong Kong in general, but it was nothing specific. It was a very safe speech, boring I have to say.” Double hmm. “The speech was wide-ranging, very balanced, and she beat all expectations,” said Doug A. Coulter, head of private equity in the Asia-Pacific region for LGT Capital Partners. “She didn’t sound at all like a far-right-wing conservative. She seemed to be positioning herself as a libertarian or a small-c conservative,” he said, adding that she mentioned both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. “She brought up both those names.” Triple hmm. I suspect some people expected Joan of Arc while others expected Tina Fey. I think they got Sarah, a bright person from middle America who is more mainstream than the geniuses we have in Washington, more intelligent than the media gives her credit for and more informed than even her supporters think she is. It is too bad our current president did not face the same scrutiny before he was elected. As I said earlier, the AP did the best job (Read the AP story here).
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
"considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had a few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern the disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable....When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.
...[Sarah] Palin’s background has caused issues for her. She is what most politicians pretend to be: just a regular person who climbed up through the ranks. She doesn’t come from old money or a famous family. She didn’t go to an Ivy League school. She hasn’t spent decades kibitzing at New York and D.C. cocktail parties with people who view themselves to be the elite of American society. To the contrary, Sarah Palin is a PTA mom, hunter, and Wasilla beauty queen from small town America who attended five different colleges. With a pedigree like that it wouldn’t matter if she cured cancer and turned lead into gold; to some elitists in both parties she will never be acceptable. (Excerpt from "Why They Hate Sara Palin" by John Hawkins)
On "The O'Reilly Factor" tonight, a segment featured a researcher from Florida who conducted a study concluding that Sarah Palin cost the McCain/Palin ticket votes because she was too attractive to be taken seriously.
The current media frenzy over Caroline Kennedy’s possible appointment to Hillary Clinton’s soon-to-be vacant senate seat demonstrates media hypocrisy and elitism at its worst. While there are some concerns being vocalized about Caroline’s qualifications to be a senator, most of them are coming from political opponents in New York who covet that senate seat for themselves or someone close to them. In other words, their main motivation is not Caroline Kennedy’s inexperience, but rather their own need for political power. The mainstream media, however, has decided that this is a non-issue. Many of the same “pundits” who decried the nomination of Sarah Palin based on qualifications are the same talking heads out there defending the possible appointment of Caroline Kennedy. Looking at each situation, a case can be made on qualifications for each. It is true that Sarah Palin has only been governor for 2 years. It is reasonable that some could find this a thin resume for the Vice Presidency. It is not without precedent, however, as the political resume of Teddy Roosevelt reveals a mere 2 year stint as governor of New York before assuming the Vice Presidency, and after the assassination of President McKinley, the presidency. It is unreasonable, however, that those same folks would unequivocally support Barack Hussein Obama for President of the United States and Caroline Kennedy(Schlossberg?) for senate. The One we’ve been waiting for was only a senator for 3 years (the last 2 years of which were spent largely campaigning for president and ignoring his senate responsibilities.) Before his U.S. Senate career he was a mere state senator in Illinois. Yet, somehow this was enough to qualify the BFF of Bill Ayers, the protege of Rev. Wright and Saul Alinsky, and the kept man of Tony Rezko for the highest office in the land despite having absolutely no executive experience. Similarly, Caroline Kennedy’s political experience is having a father who was president and giving speeches over the years. Sarah Palin’s executive experience as a mayor of Wasilla, the head of the Alaska Oil & Gas Commission, and 2 years as Governor of Alaska just weren’t enough to offset the years spent as a community organizer and as a state senator securing funding for socialist educational agendas proposed by Bill Ayers and money for the corrupt slumlord Tony Rezko in Obama’s case; or in the case of Kennedy, being the daughter of a former president. To liberals the answer to that question is a resounding “WORDS!” It is the media’s elitist attitude that is at the heart of this issue. Sarah Palin did not go to law school. She didn’t attend an Ivy League indoctrination center. As such, she is just one step above being in a vegetative state in the eyes of most liberals. To liberals, actual experience and accomplishments don’t count if you haven’t kissed the ring of the liberal academic world. It is a worldview that celebrates study and not action. Debate but not leadership. Propaganda but not freedom of speech. One must agree with Marx and Alinsky and recite chapter and verse the liberal/socialist worldview. It is a matter of memorizing the propaganda and sticking to the script. Words are held in higher esteem by liberals than actions. It doesn’t matter if you make things worse so long as you said the right thing and that you “cared.” Caroline Kennedy is certainly qualified to run for Senate based on her education. She is a lady of words. What she lacks is actual political experience. Living in the White House for 3 years as a small child is not really experience. She hasn’t really accomplished anything from a political perspective. She is an author and has accomplishments in other areas, but personally she lacks political accomplishments. She represents a complete polar opposite of Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is a celebration of action over words. She is today’s political action figure. Sarah Palin does have a college degree, but not from an Ivy League school. She has worked her way up in a system that was not only closed to her, but downright hostile. She overcame the political establishment in her party and her state to achieve a very commendable record of accomplishments in her 2 year tenure as governor. So to liberals, you can be fresh out of law school and be qualified for the presidency so long as you graduated from Harvard, Yale or Columbia and have memorized the socialist talking points. There is certainly nothing wrong with holding education in high esteem, but it should not be the sole authority in electing our leaders. There are also two assumptions built into the “education is king” philosophy that need to be refuted. The first assumption is that anyone who does not go to Harvard or Yale is somehow unqualified for anything but dog-catcher. Under this assumption, Harry Truman would have been ineligible for the presidency as he didn’t even have a college degree. Ronald Reagan’s degree from Eureka College would also fail to pass the test. It is quite possible to be intelligent without attending an Ivy League school. That is not putting down the Ivy League schools, but it is giving other institutions of learning the credit they deserve. A law degree is certainly helpful in a political career, but it can only go so far. Words are important, but words without actions to back them up are nothing more than hot air and empty rhetoric. The second assumption is that everyone who does attend those schools is ready to lead. Leadership requires a certain moral clarity, integrity and personal courage. It requires clear-sighted vision and decision-making. It demands one to be able to set aside political opportunism to do what is right. These are qualities that have virtually nothing to do with a college education. These qualities are forged in every day life as ordinary citizens seek to do the right thing and to make a positive difference in their community. Action is needed by a leader. Barack Hussein Obama is good at reading from a teleprompter, but take away the script and what do you get? Besides a lot of “uhs” we have yet to see. In fact, when Israel was attacked by Hamas the other day, the next leader of the free world was silent. He simply had no comment. Every other day of the week, he has had no problem weighing in on everything from his appointments, his stimulus package, his shirtless physique and SPAM. The day Israel is attacked by terrorists, he suddenly has nothing to say. Why? Because that might require him to act. He is a man of words, not actions. So, the media has revealed its hypocrisy in the issue of Sarah Palin time and time again. Perhaps that is why so many of the Ivy League graduates who work in the mainstream media are finding their jobs eliminated as their newspapers and media outlets continue to lose revenue and relevance. Perhaps the American people aren’t totally convinced that mere talking is the way to go. Barack Obama and Caroline Kennedy will have to prove to the voters with their actions that they are capable leaders worthy of their offices. If their record fails to mirror their rhetoric, the American people will have a decision to make. So, let Caroline Kennedy become a senator. Let her stand on her own and stand for re-election in 2010, but please don’t tell me that she’s more qualified than a woman who can raise a family of five, and run a state government while hunting both the moose and the corrupt business-as-usual politicians of the Alaskan landscape with ease. In my world and that of mainstream America, actions still speak louder than words.At the heart of the media hypocrisy is elitism. Why does Sarah Palin’s years of executive experience not count, while Obama’s nonsensical career of no accomplishments and countless “present” votes set him up to be the world’s messiah?Why does Sarah Palin’s record of accomplishment not count as much as Caroline Kennedy’s family name and law degree? It comes down to the old debate of which matters more: actions or words.
© Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
