E!! The True Conservative Story™

If you are a word-smither, political junkie, media critic (professonal or homegrown) or even an avid reader, don’t miss this great satirical piece by Iowahawk on Joe the Plumber’s foray into the publishing world.

Obama visits the White House while the echoes of McCain’s can’t-say-that (or That either) (and definitely not THAT!) protestulations and admonishments still ring in our heads. 

This makes it hard to understand why The Maverick has been so quiet on the snarkfest re: Palin.

Says a new blog pal:  Your silence, sir, is deafening!

Over the past few weeks, the dissenting views of conservatives Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, and Christopher Buckley et al have stirred up quite a storm.  All have disavowed Palin, McCain, or both, to some degree or another.  Liberals are gleeful that the conservative movement is “falling apart” and many heretofore like-minded and friendly conservatives are thoroughly irritated with one another.

For the record, unlike Jonah Goldberg (with whom I usually agree), I have no problem with these debates, whenever they may occur.  People are free to vent their emotions, push their agendas, explain their motivations, and air their grievances anytime they like.  I do think we should keep cool heads and let pragmatism rule when possible, but those who find they cannot are free to do what punditry permits.  Should they later feel some regret, they can retract and re-state as needed.

I do agree with Jonah on this point, though: 

We’ll all know what we need to know after the election and if McCain and the GOP come out the losers we’ll have a luxurious amount of time to argue amongst ourselves about which way forward and which wrong turns we may or may not have taken. If David Brooks wants to be oncologist in chief of the GOP and tell us where the cancers are, he’ll be free to do so. If some of my colleagues want to crack the whip on the ideological slackers in our midst, they’ll have plenty of elbow room. 

But it’s worth pointing out that if McCain loses and the Democrats surge in the Congress, we’ll also have some greater reminders of what we agree on to help us keep our disagreements in perspective.

Note:  Look closely at ALL the faces.  LOL

Source:  This photo was forwarded to me via email.  I have no idea who originally photoshopped and sent it.  If that person wanders by E!!, drop me a note and I’ll be glad to give you credit.

These bumper stickers are kind of fun.  Pick one up for just $2.99 plus mailing costs.

Whether you love or hate Bush policy, make sure you read Charles Krauthammer’s column re: Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin and the Bush Doctrine question. 

Krauthammer pointed out what most of us probably didn’t think about while we were figuring out whether Gibson’s glasses could slide any further down his condescending nose:  there have been at least four working definitions of the so-called “Bush doctrine” over the past eight years, none of them official.  

So, neither Palin nor Gibson nor Santa Clause could say for sure what it is without some sort of clarification.  Which is why Krauthammer called the NYT’s view that Gibson ”informed” Palin of the meaning of the Bush doctrine (anticapatory self-defense) “rubbish.”

Krauthammer knows a little something about this because (he points out) he was the one to 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,” Krauthammer wrote that the Bush policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol (and others) amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called “the Bush doctrine.”

Then came 9/11.  In his address to Congress nine days after that event, Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This policy re: terror became the essence of “the Bush doctrine.”

Until Iraq. When Bush offered his major justification for the war vis a vis the necessity of a preemptive act. (This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks of as ”the Bush doctrine.”)

And then there’s the fourth (current) definition of “the Bush doctrine”:  as Krauthammer puts it, “the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world.”  It was clearly enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

Near the end of his piece, Krauthammer wrote, “If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

So, ok, Sarah Palin doesn’t know what “the Bush doctrine” is.  But apparently neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least Palin didn’t pretend to know — while, as the New York Times noted, Gibson “looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher.” 

Seems Gibson is the one in need of a teacher - and I’d say Krauthammer schooled him real good.

Victor Davis Hanson writes:

If we wished to ensure that a bright, ambitious, and capable woman would not make it in contemporary national politics, as practiced by most successful contemporary office-holders and adjudicated by the New York-Washington media, then we would insist on the following ten requisites:

Two pictures are worth two thousand words.

This post by Yuval Levin is well worth reading.

Some excerpts if you choose not to click through:

I have never seen, and I admit that I could never have imagined, such shameful, out-of-control, frenzied, angry, condescending, and pathetic journalistic malpractice. The ignorant assault on Palin’s accomplishments and experience, the breathless careless airing of deranged rumors about her private life, the staggeringly indecent mistreatment of her teenage daughter in a difficult time, the ill-informed piling on about the vetting process, the self-intensifying circle of tisking nodding heads utterly detached from a straightforward political event, have been amazing and eye-opening…

The spectacle reveals a deep rot at the heart of the political press, and has been among the most shameful chapters in the history of modern American journalism. Not everyone has joined in, of course, but essentially all of the important institutions of our political press have played their part in one way or another…

…the treatment she has received is not what just any VP candidate would get, and the attitude and assumptions underlying this week’s amazing assault raise very troubling questions about the cream of the crop of political reporters. They have shown themselves to be too insulated and too solipsistic to help the public better understand our politics, and too self-important to report on events as they happen. This is far more than media bias. Let us hope it is a passing episode.

“(Sarah Palin) brought down Alaska’s governor, attorney general, and state Republican chairman. She killed the ‘bridge to nowhere.’ She used increased tax revenues from high oil prices to give Alaskans a rebate. She slashed government spending. She took on the biggest industry in Alaska, the oil companies, to work out an equitable deal on building a new gas pipeline. Obama can’t match even one of these accomplishments.”

- Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard, 8/30/08

Here’s her speech.  And here’s some video from an interview with Newsweek earlier this year.  And nice, detailed piece on her from the Anchorage Daily news from 2006.

And then there’s this cute/funny tribute by my friend @ PragmaticallyPolitical:  10 Things I Love About Sarah Palin

PS  The graceless statement put out by the Obama camp re: Palin this morning was uncalled for.  McCain went out of his way to congratulate Obama on a historic nomination last night; Obama should have done the same for Palin.  But he didn’t.  And so Mr. Self-Proclaimed Non-Partisan shows us just how little class he really has.  

For those of you who want to know more about Palin, start with this WaPo piece and learn how she’s made a name for herself as a fiscal Reformer.  Among other things, she teamed up with McCain against $453 million in earmarks for a couple of bridges in Alaska – including the now infamous Bridge to Nowhere. 

 And now for a few Cons:

Politically speaking, it sort of undermines a large part of the case against Obama:  inexperience, lack of credentials, lack of foreign policy and national security know-how.

She has never worked in D.C. so there will be a steep learning curve – and probably a few slip-ups.  (Then again, McCain will make sure she has a great staff.)

And then to all those on the Right who have called the Obama candidacy an example of Tokenism, there’s this question:  Would Palin would been picked if she were a man?

And the Unknowns:

How will the female thing play?  The pro-choice feminists will all hate Palin, but the female Republican base might show up in never-yet-seen numbers.  Bitter and disaffected Hillary supporters might vote for her out of spite.  Or they might see her as a threat to Hillary in 2012 and decide they don’t want her anywhere near D.C.

(And what about the guys?  Will men vote for her because she’s got great legs and is just waaaay better looking than Biden?)

Also, how will she do on the stump?  Can she hold her own?  Will she make any major gaffes (which will cause the opposition to Shriek and Point at her Inexperience)?  Will Biden handle her well or come off looking like a bully when he goes up against her?

On the subject of my dismal (0-3) election prediction record:

Jack Pitney only got it one-quarter right with this prediction last year:

Republicans nominate Rudy Giuliani for president. To hold GOP women who might vote for Hillary and to stress his commitment to reform, Giuliani surprises the political class by picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton makes a move into GOP territory by picking Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. Giuliani-Palin wins with 52 percent of the popular vote and 293 electoral votes.

All the news outlets were reporting it as I walked out the door at 7:30 a.m.  Personally, I like the pick and think this is good news for the GOP.  Here are some pros:

She’s a principled fiscal conservative who beat an incumbent by promising to cut government waste in Alaska – and did it.  She slashed pork spending, cancelled hundreds of millions of dollars of unnecessary construction projects, and sold the gubernatorial private jet on eBay (for $2.7M).

She’s for responsible drilling.  I heard a clip from a speech she gave on “the small sliver of coastal terrain” that is ANWR and how/why drilling could/should be done there and elsewhere.  It was good. 

She’s a social conservative and pro-life (but not rabid about it) which will energize the GOP base.  She’s happily married and has five children, the most recent born in April (a Down Syndrome baby she gladly and willingly chose to have).

Any attacks on her lack of experience – she’s been governor for only two years – can be turned around:  she has more senior executive experience than Obama, or Biden (or McCain, for that matter).  Plus, she’s the #2  and not running for POTUS.  Yet.

She’s plain spoken “regular folks” so should connect well with the middle class.  And she’s got a fairly compelling personal story and family life:  athlete, beauty queen, hunter, former professional fisher person (LOL), married her high school sweetheart, son about to deploy to Iraq.

On a more personal note, I like that she’s a Hockey Mom.  (My brother played hockey for years, so we spent many winter weekends hanging around in Michigan and Canadian hockey arenas.)  Not that it has anything to do with politics.  Then again, someone who enjoys a fast-moving, hard-hitting, sometimes down-and-dirty sport like hockey must have a tough streak, right?

I’ll do some Cons later after I think more about it.

6:19 a.m.

ABC is saying Palin has NOT left Alaska.

And in re: to the Foreign Affairs Experience (or lack thereof) of Palin (or any candidate), Andy McCarthy said this:

…a lot of the experience talk is overblown when it comes to foreign affairs.  John O’Sullivan is the expert on this, but I don’t think Lady Thatcher had much foreign affairs experience to speak of when she became PM.  In contrast, Sen. Biden has a ton of foreign policy experience — enough to have been wrong on just about every major issue over the last 30 years.

Seems to me the people with loads of foreign policy experience are drenched in the Kennedy School/Wilson School/internationalist view of the world.  As between that and someone who’s smart, has sensible instincts, and has a healthy Washingtonian suspicion of international entanglements, I’ll take the latter, thank you.

6:01 a.m. (Pacific)

Politico is reporting that Pawlenty says it’s Not him.

A few on The Corner are saying that this morning Alaska Governor Sarah Palin left Anchorage and landed on Dayton, OH.

And:  Romney will be in Dayton today.  (?!)

Whatever the case, McCain’s team has done a great job keeping this one under wraps (no leaks:  amazing!)