Craig McCullough Challenges Big Names in Louisiana

Via The Other McCain, here's a pretty darn good message:



That's Craig McCulloch and he's running for Congress in Louisiana's 6th district.  He'll be challenged by a plethora of other candidates.

There are at least seven Republican candidates in this race, one of which is Paul Dietzell II, a name most in Louisiana will recognize.  Most folks in this state can tell you all about his grandfather's Chinese Bandits

and his career as head coach at LSU.  You just can't buy name recognition like that.

Another candidate with great name recognition in this race is state Senator Dan Claitor.  Claitor's Bookstore has been a respected publisher in the state for years with a focus on important cultural, literary, and historical subjects in Louisiana.  Dan Claitor was elected in 2009 for the seat vacated by Bill Cassidy who is now running against Senator Mary Landrieu.  (In that particular race, Sarah Palin has endorsed Col. (Ret.) Rob Maness.)  The district has been redrawn in this convoluted image via NOLA.

There are two Democrats in the race right now and anything can happen, but Craig McCulloch has a very good message.  This one will be interesting to watch.

Liberal Logic 101

Liberal Logic 101:

It is acceptable to ridicule a child if that child is from a Republican or a conservative family (see:  Trig Palin, Willow Palin).

As part of its year-in-review show, MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry welcomed a panel of comedians to ridicule Mitt Romney, his family, and their adopted black grandson. One panelist poked fun at Kieran Romney’s appearance compared with the rest of the family by mockingly singing “One of These Things Is Not Like the Other” as the others laughed along. 

Meanwhile, comedian Dean Obeidallah joked that the Romney family photo “sums up the diversity of the Republican party . . . they found the one black person.”

On the other hand, if it's a liberal family, the mocking of children that are "different" is not considered.

Reminder:  Progressivism is the party of tolerance.

The Lemonade Stand Metaphor

I watched some of the talking head Sunday shows today.  What is Stephanie Cutter's strategy here?  If you lie and you stick with that lie no matter the proof to the contrary, people will eventually believe you?



I think it's a losing strategy.  She is going to have a difficult time retaining any credibility.

Not to make too much of a small thing, but I thought this piece by Andrew Malcolm was interesting.  It's just one example of a growing number of signs that the Obama campaign isn't living up to 2008 expectations.  Malcolm writes about Obama's Iowa trip last week:

Obama's experienced advance team had a bunch of flubs. That farm family with all the windmills that President Quixote loves to laud turns out to be Republicans and informed reporters after Obama's visit that he sure wasn't getting their votes this time. 

There was the state fair beer tent where Obama bought a round of Bud Lights for everyone, except the guy with the Mitt Romney sign. Great summertime photo op. Except it turns out the Secret Service closed down the guy's tent long before Obama's arrival and the small business owner lost thousands in sales. 

Then there was the caterer who wore a "Government Didn't Build My Business" T-shirt to work the president's event. 

I don't think that trip went exactly as planned.  But, more telling, according to Malcolm's piece,  was Team Obama lumbering past a little girl's lemonade stand in Marshalltown.  The big, black armored bus drove right past the child who "fell to her knees" as Obama drove by.

As Malcolm notes, "spontaneous" stops are often very coordinated, and an important president does have a schedule to keep, but imagine the photo op that would have been.

The story is more a metaphor, it seems to me, of a campaign and a man that is oblivious to real America.

The Romney/Ryan campaign, by contrast, seems the polar opposite of the Obama campaign.  On one side we have demagoguery and negative attacks and on the other side, Romney/Ryan seem to offer the optimism that we can "turn this thing around" as Ryan likes to say.  To be sure, Romney will get his share of attacks in on Obama, but it seems that the Obama campaign is particularly aggressive awfully early.

Shannen Coffin at NRO pointed out that so far Romney has been accused of:

...complicity in the death of a cancer victim, failure to pay taxes owed the United States, wanting to return the American populace to shackles, poisoning the common man with e coli, and, generally, being a very mean white guy who mistreats animals. With his selection of Paul Ryan as vice president, we are reminded that Ryan relaxes by throwing grandmothers in wheelchairs off of cliffs. 

Arguments on policy are one thing, but character attacks are another.  I've never been a fan of that approach.  Love her or hate her, what the media did to Sarah Palin in 2008 was unconscionable.  Don't remember that?  A refresher course from Professor Jacobson is here.

Mark Steyn points out that the addition of Ryan to the Republican ticket has already raised the level of the Obama campaign in that we're no talking about Joe Soptic's wife now, but about Medicare:

Underneath the poseur narcissism, the half-wit demagoguery, and the 13-figure innumeracy is bleak reality: a flatline economy, underwater property, declining social mobility, half the population getting a check each month from the government and with minimum-wage service jobs as the only alternative to long-term dependency. 

If you seriously think this election is about gay marriage or affordable contraception, you’re about to do to America what Gavrilo Princip did to the Habsburg Empire. 

The truth is, nobody cares about Mitt Romney's tax returns, his dog, or his wife's horse.  It's clear that the Obama campaign can't run on his record and so demagoguery is all they have.

I think the American people will see through that.  I think in a debate on the issues, Obama will lose.

Will Common Education Standards Nationwide Solve America's Education Problems or Is It Another Obama Power Grab?

There is growing concern over the federalization of the nation's education systems.  Louisiana is set to implement the Common Core standards in 2014-2015 which has prompted me, as an educator, to bury myself in dozens of articles, studies, and reports on the issue.

There are two issues of concern:  the first is the intrusion of the federal government into what most agree should be a state issue.  The other issue is whether or not Common Core Standards will work at all.

Is Common Core Legal?

Start with the first issue:  is CCSSI (Common Core State Standards Initiative) treading in unconstitutional waters?  Is this initiative really a power grab and nationalization of education policy?

The initiative was developed by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).  The general idea is to create a national set of educational standards so that kids in every state are all learning the same thing; if a kid moves from Florida to California he will still be studying the same material wherever he goes.  The purpose is theoretically to close achievement gaps between states.  So far, 46 states and the District of Columbia have signed on.  

The holdouts as of this writing are Texas and Alaska.  Virginia and Nebraska decided to join the initiative but not adopt the standards; Minnesota adopted the standards for English but not for math.

All of this ties in to Obama's Race to the Top which is funded by the 2009 stimulus, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  The Race to the Top Fund awarded lucrative educational grants based on a point system; to get a lot of points in this system, and to earn grants, states had to adopt Common Core:

While the standards have been touted as “voluntary” by proponents, the Obama Administration’s heavy promotion of the standards—tying Race to the Top dollars to a state’s adoption of the standards, by suggesting that federal Title I money for low-income schools could be tied to their adoption, and, most recently, by making No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers contingent upon a state’s adoption of common standards—makes them anything but “voluntary.”

Quin Hillyer reports on a study by Robert Eitel and Kent Talbert (PDF):

Nonetheless, without statutory authority, the authors explain how the Obama administration has begun issuing “waivers” of expensive federal mandates, along with providing cash grants, in return for adoption of national standards. The administration then defines the national standards in such a way that only one initiative actually fits the definition – namely, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), a supposedly voluntary national effort that easily morphs into a form of compulsion.

South Carolina adopted Common Core in July 2010 but Governor Nikki Haley is having second thoughts.  She is now supporting a bill to block implementation of the standards in her state:

“Just as we should not relinquish control of education to the federal government, neither should we cede it to the consensus of other states,”Mrs. Haley wrote in a letter expressing her opposition to Common Core. “I firmly believe that our government and our people should retain as much local control over programs as possible. … Our children deserve swift action and the passage of a clean resolution that will allow our state to reclaim control of and responsibility for educating South Carolinians.”

Cost estimates to implement the program are only part of the concern.  Estimates to put the program in place in Washington state, for example are around $300 million.

At Education Week, Rick Hess restates the law:

Remember, the General Education Provisions Act stipulates (in SEC. 438. ø20 U.S.C. 1232a), "No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system." Common Core skeptics like Cato's Neal McCluskey and the Hoover Institution's Bill Evers have argued compellingly that rewarding states for adopting the Common Core and funding the consortia to develop Common Core-friendly curricula amounts to "directing" curricula and programs of instruction. 

Also addressing the legality of CCSSI, in a February 2012 report (PDF),  authors Eitel and Talbert conclude:

Unfortunately, in three short years, the present Administration has placed the nation on the road to a national curriculum...The Department has simply paid others to do that which it is forbidden to do. This tactic should not inoculate the Department against the curriculum prohibitions imposed by Congress.

Will Common Core Work?

Well, legal or not, CCSSI is here and ready to roll.  So is it going to be effective?  Will it help raise the nation's education levels?  Will American students be smarter and better off?

Many say no, and not just conservatives. The left-leaning Brookings Institute published a report by Tom Loveless which forsees "little to no impact on student learning."

The state of Massachusetts has taken a step backward by adopting Common Core:

Massachusetts watered down its current standards by adopting the Common Core, and students across the country will be affected by what some content matter experts have decried as the low quality of the standards . For example, Ze’ev Wurman, a former official in the U.S. Department of Education, also notes that the standards don’t expect Algebra I to be taught in eighth grade “reversing the most significant change in mathematics education in America in the last decade.” 

One of the conclusions reached by the Brookings Study is that common standards will only affect variation between states but not necessarily raise scores.  Within each state there are wide disparities and gaps in student assessment - within a single city, even.  Why is that, given that each state uses a unified curriculum throughout the state?  If common standards were the answer, wouldn't every child in any given state achieve at the same level?

Molly Bloom is equally skeptical:

But the Common Core won’t fix everything that’s “wrong” with American schools. 

The Common Core is just a set of expectations about what students should learn and be able to do. That’s it. 

It doesn’t include new state funding for schools. It doesn’t include better training for teachers. It doesn’t necessarily mean that a Kentucky high school graduate will be at the same level as an Ohio graduate. And it doesn’t come with wrap-around social services for students and families.

I've compared the current Louisiana standards and they seem, to my eye, much better and more specific than the Common Core standards for the same grade.  Common Core leans more toward technical and non-fiction writing and less to the literature side but as far as specific goals and objectives the Louisiana standards seem much more clear to me.  And as mentioned above, states like Massachusetts which already have excellent standards are adopting standards with CC that are inferior to the ones currently in place.

In this election year it is sure to be an issue that will come up, especially if governors like Nikki Haley begin pushing back on the plan or withdrawing from the initiative.

Conclusions:

It's clear that education in America needs improvement but for my buck, I say leave it at the state level as it was intended (and is legally directed).  Federal interference in local education has seldom worked (see No Child Left Behind) and has created more problems than solutions.  What is needed are good, motivated, well trained teachers and adequate resources.

What good are Common Core State Standards when a kid is in a crumbling school with little technology and an out of date library or other resources?  (No, I'm not referring to my school - there are plenty of inner city schools across America that lack proper resources).

Governors across the country should revisit the idea of CCSS.  Both Texas and Alaska have resisted Common Core:

On May 31, 2009, then-Gov. Palin announced Alaska would adopt a "watch and wait" attitude: 

"If this initiative produces useful results, Alaska will remain free to incorporate them," Gov. Palin said, adding that "high expectations are not always created by new, mandated federal standards written on paper. They are created in the home, the community and the classroom." 

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, to his credit, was the next to recognize a federal boondoggle when he saw one: "I will not commit Texas taxpayers to unfunded federal obligations or to the adoption of unproven, cost-prohibitive national standards and tests," Gov. Perry wrote in a Jan. 13, 2010, letter to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

Other states should do the same.

Further reading:
Sarah Palin Was a Prophet About Obama's Education Takeover
The Road to a National Curriculum
How Well are American Students Learning?
National Curriculum Plan May Face Challenge
Conservatives Oppose National Standards
School Standards Pushback

She Says "No!"...And Now The Quest For the Palin Endorsement Begins

She's not running.  

The field is set.


So who will get her endorsement?

Update:  Professor Jacobson:

Palin had the opportunity to be a game-changer in the direction of this country; someone who really understood at a gut level how far down the road we are on the path to a country we will not recognize; someone who understands that the political class holds the country by the throat, and that removing the grip is necessary not just changing who holds the grip.

Statement here.

Audio here.

Memeorandum thread.

Allahpundit:

My guess is that Cain benefits the most from her absence. Like her, he’s a Beltway outsider, and like her, he seems like a real person, not a talking-points machine like the Romneybot or a back-slapping gladhander like Perry. Authenticity has always been key to Palin’s appeal among her supporters and that’s Cain all over.

And Rick Perry is first out of the gate with a statement.

Who is IT?

I'm in a funk about the Republican field.  I don't love any of 'em.

Chris Christie says he isn't running, to no one's great surprise.  I don't think I'd have loved him, either.  I don't care about his weight;  I think we disagree on some issues.  What I really want is to take parts of each of the candidates and make the perfect candidate.

Christie had not stepped out of the television lights today before the pundits were back to speculating on a Palin run.  Rick Perry seems to have peaked and burned so fast we hardly knew he was there.  And all the while Mittens is sitting comfortably in the lead:  a flip-flopper who says what he has to say and seems to have little conviction of anything.

A Palin entry won't change things for me.

Is this the best we can do?

One day last week, or maybe it was the week before, Rush Limbaugh suggested that Obama is going to lose so big in 2012 that Republicans ought to be putting up the most conservative candidate possible rather than some to-the-center "big tent" sort of person. 

A co-worker asked me last week, "Well, who's it going to be?!"

I have no idea.  My feelings about this election are about the same as the last one.  Anyone but Obama.  I would love to be able to enthusiastically get behind a candidate right now, but I can't.  I had a foot on the Perry train, but I've stepped back a little.

What's bothering me about Perry?  I'm not sure.  Maybe his poor debate performances.  He seems unprepared for the questions which I find troubling.  I was troubled by his in-state tuition position for illegals, and am still even after the reports that it amounts to so few students.  It's the principle for me.  Why should the illegal alien get preferential treatment over the impoverished student from another state who wants to come to Texas?  Oh, I've heard Perry's defense; it just doesn't convince me.

The tuition issue and the poor debate performances are enough to give me pause.  But there are other nagging things about Perry, too.  Nothing major; maybe he'll improve through the campaign, but with states now moving their primary dates up and up and up, we'll be voting before we know exactly who we're voting for.

Should Paul Ryan have run?  Maybe.  Would he have won?  Doubtful.

Should Rubio have run?  Too early?  Should he take a VP position if asked?  Should he waste his talents attending state funerals for four years?  Or eight?

Why doesn't Rick Santorum have more charisma?  But then again, Rick Santorum is almost too conservative for me, and that's going some.

Why do we expect charisma in our president, anyway?  Is that a prerequisite?

How can Herman Cain get the nomination with so little foreign policy experience or know how?  Oh, snap!  Experience is now a non-issue after Obama!  So can Cain get the nomination?  Do we want him to?  Is he IT?

I don't know.

I don't have answers to any of these questions yet, even after watching all the debates so far.

I hope things clear up.

Added (10/5/11):  Rubio says he will NOT be a VP candidate.

Paul Ryan Isn't Running

I can't say that this surprises me.  I like Paul Ryan but I just didn't see him getting the nomination right now.  Plus, he's been very clear in the past about not wanting to run.  My position has always been that he's too "wonky" for that battle and that he's happier where he is.  So far as I know, he has no executive experience at all, and it's very difficult to get elected from the House.

Yes, yes, I know.  Obama had no experience either, but I think this time, as screwed up as things are, voters might be ready for a grownup in the Oval Office.  Not that Ryan isn't, but he is, for now, serving us better where he is.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Palin is about to get in there.  That will make things interesting; I can't wait to see Palin and Perry go head to head on the issues.  Heh!

It Might Be Part of Her Bus Tour...

...but it sure looks like a campaign ad to me.

Obama is Not Paying Attention...

The Hill quotes Obama pressman Jay Carney who says that Obama isn't paying any attention to Palin's bus tour:

"I don’t think he's paying much attention to that," he told reporters during his daily briefing.

Sort of reminds me of how he also wasn't paying any attention to the Tea Party.  

The man needs to learn from his mistakes.

(H/T:  Memeorandum)

Sarah Palin Drives the Media

Love her or hate her, Sarah Palin is driving the media crazy and she gets props for that from me.  As she takes her bus tour around the country, the media is feeling slighted because she isn't keeping them informed or talking to them.  She only talked to us for three minutes!  screams this NYT piece.   The New York Times notes:

It was a surreal situation given the fact that Ms. Palin and her advisers had shown an almost complete contempt for the press corps and its usual rituals. But the grumbling among the press corps notwithstanding, reporters and camera crews continued to follow her across three states and hundreds of miles over the long holiday weekend.

Why should she have anything but contempt for the press corps when that's all they've ever held for her?  Because she's a candidate?  She's not.  Not so far as we know, anyway.  Why should she make herself available to them?  Because she might run for president?

MSNBC pouts that Palin was a "no-show" at the Gettysburg battlefield, even though, as others have noted, she never announced plans to go there:

Palin was a no-show for several hundred supporters, celebrity-watchers and media who turned out in hopes of seeing her at the Civil War battlefield of Gettysburg on Monday. She and her entourage arrived at a hotel outside the town late in the day and spoke to a smaller group of people gathered there.

A non-story.  But for a non-story, it's at the top of Memeorandum.  Palin's travels are all over Twitter (even with its own hashtag: #wherespalin).  Savvy political move or just a family vacation?

The only thing that is certain right now is that Palin is in a big, bright bus traveling the country with her family.   The press is hovering because they are consumed with Palin and there might be a story if she decides to announce along the way.  If she decides to announce her candidacy in the 2012 race they all want to be there.

And why is that?

2012 Looks Grim

I'm so disgusted with the current GOP field of potential challengers for 2012.  This, in turn, makes me totally disgusted with the GOP in general.  More so than usual, I mean.

Where in the hell are the challengers to Obama that can actually get elected!?!  Our front runner right now is Donald Trump?  Seriously?  In what ridiculous world is THAT ever going to happen? 

Newt Gingrich?  Puh-lease.  No fricking way.

Mitt Romney?  A reject from last go-around?  Nope. 

Haley Barbour?  Nobody north of the Mason-Dixon line would vote for him.

Mike Huckabee?  Can you say B-A-G-G-A-G-E?  Can you Google "Maurice Clemmons"?

Even if Sarah Palin throws her hat in there, she can't get elected.  Sorry, folks, but it's true.  She can't.  She has a fired up base, she has a role to play in the party, but candidate isn't it.  It's just not. 

I'm furious at Mike Pence for NOT running because he's one I think could actually get elected.  What's he doing, anyway?  Waiting for the safer bet in 2016?  What's the field going to look like then?  Rubio?  Ryan?  Pence?  We're saving all our good candidates for a year when only one can get elected? 

I know, it's too soon now for Rubio.  It just is.  He has to prove himself.  I'd vote for Ryan right now, though.  And Pence. 

But instead, I've got Donald Trump.

The GOP needs to get their act together and fast.  Obama is already in full campaign mode and somewhere ACORN is organizing something nefarious. 

We can't stand another four years of Obama.  He's ready to "finish the job" and that doesn't bode well for freedom, free enterprise, capitalism, or democracy. 

Pence is Out

So Mike Pence decided not to run in 2012.  This disheartens me.  Apparently he was finally persuaded by a bunch of Republican governors.  I rather expect he'll give it a go sometime in the future, but 2012 is beginning to make me a little nervous despite Charles Krauthammer's statement last night that it's still early.  He's right.  It is.  But I don't much like what I'm seeing out there so far.  I was really hoping Pence would be that strong conservative dark horse that would rescue us from the inevitable Romney, Gingrich, and yes, Palin runs. 

I know...this raises the ire of many of my conservative friends.  I can hear the "Not you, too SIGIS!  No!" 

Look, I like Palin just fine.  I do.  I think she's got strong conservative views and the right positions on many issues.  I just don't think the White House is her destined role.  Palin has a vital role to serve in the conservative community and I think she can be more effective in a number of other positions. In addition (and I'll probably lose 15 followers over this), I just don't think she's electable.  She's too polarizing.

So there. 

Seriously, even my mom, who is more conservative than Reagan, saw Palin flash across the screen the other day and said, "I don't like her."  I said, "Why, mom?"  (We seldom discuss politics).  She said, "She talks too much.  She's always got something to say."

Now, admittedly, that's not necessarily a bad thing.  We need someone talking...screaming to the hills about about what's going on in Washington.  I'm glad Palin is doing that.  She has a role.  But she puts a lot of folks off, like my mom, by her tone and her hyper-visibility. 

That said, I think there's much about Palin to like.  I'm the one who called her a ROCKSTAR! after her nomination speech.  I thought that speech was great!  I'm a fan.  I just don't think the White House is where she will end up.

And so.  I wanted Pence to jump in there.  I just can't bear the thought of the retreads.  I don't think Jindal will run, although he would probably go for a VP slot, if asked.  Christie isn't indicating a run, and I'm not sure it's his time. 

I'm waiting for the Rubio run.  That's the ticket!

Blood Libel, James Clyburn, Sarah Palin, and the Boycott Continues

Arghhhhhh!  This is why I just won't/can't blog on the Arizona shooting - because this kind of ignorance displayed by James Clyburn makes my head explode!  Pot, meet kettle.

Clyburn said that Palin didn't grasp why such rhetoric was so troubling, regardless of the motivations of the alleged shooter. The No. 3 House Democrat referenced the civil rights era and said that some of the shrill rhetoric in modern politics is reminiscent of that time.

"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."

My boycott continues.  What else can we talk about?   How's the weather where you are?

Decision Points is the Literary Equivalent of a Chia Pet According to MSNBC

 Have you read Decision Points?  Do you own a copy?    As you may have read a few days ago, George Bush's memoir is selling like hotcakes:

Former U.S. President George W Bush's memoir has sold an astonishing two million copies since it was released in early November - and it's not even in paperback yet.   'Decision Points', published both in hardcover and e-book form, is flying off the shelves, the Crown Publishing Group says.  By contrast, former president Bill Clinton's memoir, 'My Life', has logged sales of 2.2million copies since it was first published in 2004.

Now let's see....

What could be the reason for this?

Could it be that there are Bush supporters out there who are interested in his time in The White House?  Nah!
Could it be that there are political junkies who are interested in reading about Bush's policy decisons?  Nah!

According to MSNBC, people are buying Decision Points as a joke, a gag gift.  Or maybe because they hate Bush so much they want to know just "What was he thinking?!"  

Norah O'Donnell interviewed Alex Pareene of Salon who suggested:

It may be the fact that he was hated by so many people actually helped fuel his book sales because people wanted to hear him actually justify himself and explain some of his decisions that he made. And, you know, there are, I mean, you can imagine that some people bought it as a gag or some people got it, received it as a gift and didn’t really want it.

By that logic there must also be a lot of liberals buy Sarah Palin's books.  Palin's America By Heart, dubbed "a flop" by the media, is currently ranked #6 and #7 on Amazon's non-fiction Political books list, behind The Federalist Papers and Glenn Beck's Broke.  It's currently #8 on the NYT Non-Fiction list (two slots ahead of Glenn Beck.).  Palin's Going Rogue was at the top of the NYT Best Seller list for six weeks and sold over one million copies.

By Alex Pareene's logic, that's a lot of liberals buying gag gifts.  Or a lot of liberals filled with a lot of hate who want to line the pockets of politicians they despise.  

What about Ann Coulter's best selling books?  Or Michelle Malkin's?  

Pareene's explanation of Bush's memoir as the literary equivalent of a Chia Pet is lame by any standards and further embarrasses MSNBC, if that were possible.

Pence/Palin 2012?

I've been thinking about Mike Pence today.  It's George Will's fault; he got me going. 

I'm not sure about his chances, should he decide to run, because I'm not sure he has the name recognition that someone like, say Romney or Huckabee has.  But, Pence seems to be one of the strongest truly conservative contenders out there.  He did recommend a somewhat squishy immigration bill which some equated to amnesty, but on all other fronts Pence seems to be solid.

So what do you think?

Pence/Palin?

Pence/Jindal?
 

Keep Maureen Dowd Away From the Nutmeg

I think Maureen Dowd has had enough nutmeg...

The caribou that waited too pliantly in the cross hairs is doomed to become stew for Palin and an allegory for politics. The elegant animal standing above the fray, dithering rather than charging at his foes or outmaneuvering them, is Obambi. Even with a rifle aimed at him, he’s trying to be the most reasonable mammal in the scene, mammalian bipartisan, and rise above what he sees as empty distinctions between the species so that we can all unite at a higher level of being.

Palin’s father advises her to warm up her trigger finger. And trigger-happy Sarah represents the Republicans, who have spent two years taking shots at the president, including potshots, and tormenting him in an effort to bring him down. 

An intervention may be necessary.

Joe Scarborough Has Palin Derangement Syndrome

Joe Scarborough's Palin Derangement Syndrome is showing:

What man or mouse with a fully functioning human brain and a résumé as thin as Palin’s would flirt with a presidential run?

Uhm.....Obama, maybe?  

Pundette and The Anchoress have both noted that it might be a good time for Sarah Palin to draw back a little; she's everywhere.  I'm with them.  While I like a scrapper and someone who fights back, defends themselves, and the country, I'm weary of Palin's Twitter, Facebook and Fox News snipes.  I know I'm going to draw fire from my conservative friends, but the over exposure is real.  I'd even venture to say that it's not "presidential" to be sniping at everyone all the time.

Now, that said, Scarborough represents the other side of the coin. Scarborough misstates Palin's actions and intentions.  He says she is "charging ahead manically" with her potential run and says she adds "audacity to this dopey dream...." .  Now, when did the "dream" of becoming president become "dopey?"  Only when you're Palin. 

Scarborough says Palin "mocked" President Reagan's credentials but this misrepresents what she said.  She said that others dismissed Reagan as "only an actor."  Palin wasn't dismissing him.  It's true that Palin did take some shots at the Bush's this week, but Scarborough loses this point when cloaking in the falsehood of the first one.

Palin is polarizing - there's no question about that.  You love her or you hate her.  But if she's going to be out there, let's have an honest discussion about her qualifications and positions and stop characterizing her as "maniacal," "dopey," and "audacious." 

We aren't talking about other candidates that way; why Palin?

Richard Cohen Suffering from Palin Derangement Syndrome

Richard Cohen has an especially vitriolic attack on Sarah Palin this morning in his column at The Washington Post.  Cohen has apparently been sparked this morning by a HuffPo piece which criticizes Palin for taking a "cheap shot" at Michelle Obama.  Both Cohen and Geoffrey Dunn of HuffPo suggest Palin is an ignorant racist.

Cohen also manages to take a swipe at Cindy McCain:

It is Sarah Palin who brings back these memories [of America as an "apartheid nation"]. In her new book, she reportedly takes Michelle Obama to task for her supposedly infamous remark from the 2008 campaign: "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback." Instantly, Republicans pounced. Among the first to do so was Cindy McCain, who said, "I have and always will be proud of my country." It was a cheap shot, but her husband's selection of Palin for the ticket and plenty of cheap shots from Palin ("death panels," etc.) were yet to come.

For all the explanation and walk backs of Michelle Obama's much discussed remark, I still contend that no matter the context, it still means the same thing.  She wasn't proud of America until Barack started doing well in the primaries. 

As much as Cohen chooses to criticize Palin for her failure to "appreciate the history of  the Obama family," it seems to me that Cohen is turning an equally blind eye to what Michelle's comment really meant.  If Palin doesn't appreciate the history of the Obamas, isn't it equally true that Michelle was not appreciative of American accomplishments or American history?

Yes, slavery was a nasty chapter in American history.  Yes, Michelle's ancestors were slaves. Does this preclude her from appreciating anything else about American history since then?  Or before?  According to Cohen, it does:

Why do politicians such as Palin and commentators such as Glenn Beck insist that African Americans go blank on their own history - as blank as apparently Palin and Beck are themselves? Why must they insist that blacks join them in embracing a repellent history that once caused America to go to war with itself?

Nobody is suggesting that African Americans "go blank on their own history."  In fact, last time I checked my calendar, February is devoted to African American history.  In fact, earlier this year Beck did a series on African America Founders to highlight the accomplishments of black founders not normally covered in American History classes.

No, all this comes down to is Cohen displaying his Palin Derangement Syndrome:

Sarah Palin teases that she might run for president. But she is unqualified - not just in the (let me count the) usual ways, but because she does not know the country. 

I'm guessing he isn't voting for Bristol in Dancing With the Stars.

Update:  Powerline concurs.

Where's the Outrage?

It's Friday!

The usual Friday sift:  Noonan explains how we all have to be accountants now, regardless of our actual profession.  It's the deluge of new forms, rules, and regulations.  Nothing new, she says, just worse.  We know, Peggy, we know.

Krauthammer takes note of our incompetent Congress, citing their failure to pass, or even offer, a budget, the failure to extend the Bush tax cuts leaving all of America in uncertainty as to their tax rates on January 1, and on top of all that, the buffoon who invited Stephen Colbert to speak to Congress.  Fail.

My reading stack (of articles, not books, this time) is pretty full; there's been some great analysis out there lately and I'm going to get caught up on it this weekend.  My blog mojo is coming back after nearly two weeks of Oktoberfesting.

I'm ready to get back to "hand to hand combat" as Obama said yesterday.  Where's the outrage on THAT one?  When Sarah Palin suggested that the Tea Party not retreat, but reload, CNN accused her of "inciting violence."  Where's the outrage?  You can ignore the Joe Biden comment about "strangling" Republicans because, well, it's Joe Biden, and anyone can take a joke, right?  I mean, he was joking, wasn't he?

CNN accused Palin of "inciting violence" with her "don't retreat, reload" comment, but it's okay now to say if Republicans take the majority in November there will be "hand to hand combat" on Captiol Hill?  Okay.  Double standards in the media - alive and well.

I can see November from here!

Gail Collins Pens Another Incoherent Screed on Palin

Gail Collins has penned another rambling, incoherent column for the New York Times today.  It is a perfect example of how the Times has degenerated; quite sad, really.

Collins begins what seems to be a feminist rant on female politicians which of course leads her straight to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, two powerful, dynamic women who seem to threaten Collins.  She lauds Hillary Clinton, of course, but laments the fact that it's "not the smart and steady women" who get all the attention.  That's her segue into her screed on Palin and Bachmann.

Of Palin, Collins says:

The problem is that they’re all wow and no substance. Palin is living proof that you can be popular without having to try very hard. It appears she’s never going to respond to all the pundits who urged her to go back to Alaska and read up on current events.

I'd disagree with Collins on Palin's work ethic; I think she works very hard at what she does.  She travels all over the country giving speeches and working for conservatives.  I suspect Collins would just like for Palin to go back to Alaska, period; she really could give a damn what Palin knows about current events.

On Bachmann, Collins says:

Bachmann sounded like a combination of an ancient Roman matron preparing to send her sons off to die for their country, and one of those people who walk around yelling that enemies implant secret radios in their brains while they’re sleeping.

Again, Bachmann has done more for the conservative cause than many people out there and worked tirelessly against the unconstitutional, job-killing, deficit expanding behemoth that is Obamacare.  

Collins is perfectly free to disagree with the politics of both women, as she clearly does.  Yet her column seems to only express personal dissatisfaction from a personality standpoint.  Bachmann and Palin have the elusive "Wow!" factor that Hillary Clinton lacks.  Is it that same Wow! factor that the media said Obama had?  Because when Collins said Palin was "The problem is that they’re all wow and no substance," I thought she was talking about Obama.

Collins closes her disjointed rant with some babbling about Carly Fiorina's Demon Sheep ad and some nonsense about Tim Pawlenty and snowshoes, but in the end she just comes of as yet another disgruntled liberal jealous of Palin and Bachmann's popularity and spunk.