OMG! Escandalo! Sarah Palin had the State pay for her Wasilla-Juneau trips?!

DailyKos provides the hilarity.

But the Washington Post provides the meat tofu.

WaPo:

"The governor's daughters and husband charged the state $43,490 to travel, and many of the trips were between their house in Wasilla and Juneau, the capital city 600 miles away, the documents show."

First of all -- does anyone understand that Juneau, AK is not accessable by car or train? She's not able to hop the Amtrak like Saint Joe Biden.

What's more fun is that they attack the Palin family for writing off their childrens' travels as State expenses:

"In separate filings, the state was billed about $25,000 for Palin's daughters' expenses and $19,000 for her husband's.

Flights topped the list for the most expensive items, and the daughter whose bill was the highest was Piper, 7, whose flights cost nearly $11,000, while Willow, 14, claimed about $6,000 and Bristol, 17, accounted for about $3,400."

So let's see.

Youngest daughter has the highest expense. Second youngest, second highest. Eldest? Lowest expense.

Do we see a correlation? You elect a mother to office with young children you bet your eye that those kids will travel with her. And if Sarah Palin flies somewhere on State business (in Alaska, where air-transport is basically the only way to get around the State, no less) her children fly with her.

So what is this? Sexist double-standard. You want mom to be with the kids, but cry foul when the State -- whose population elected her knowing she's a mother -- pays to have the kids tag along.

Give me something real. "Sarah Palin uses taxpayer money to send Piper Palin to boarding school," or something real. Then we talk.

"Piper Palin flies around with mom," is a non-starter. That line is sexist, anti-woman, and anti-working mother.

In a world where "progressives" think that the private sector should afford day-care services to mothers (on their own dime) it's now suddenly fair game that a mother elected to office dare bring her children with her for the same reason.

But, it's okay to attack on this angle. After all: Sarah Palin is a Republican! And as the Obama-Left warrants: the wrong kind of woman.

Give me a break. You elect a family, you pay for a family. You elect a working mom? Working mom brings the kids. What's the "progressive" alternative? A glass ceiling for working-mom politician? "Working moms must PAY THEIR OWN WAY?"

I don't see that double-standard for working dad politicians, or the media scrutinizing their wives' travels, or his children's travels.

But then again: in the "real world" of politics, mom stays home, smiles, bakes cookies, and doesn't need to travel. Well, unless it's travelling from the kitchen to the restroom for a "short break."

Get bent.

But the Kos diary puts it best:

"This isn't the magic bullet, but it's yet another in the line of drip-drip mini-scandals that, framed correctly by the Democrats, should completely destroy Palin's claims of being a different kind of Republican.

Me? I think it's more in the line of the "drip-drip-drip" of sweatbeads running off the noses of O-Bots nationwide that are terrified of Palin-mania.

You choose.

John Aravosis is an idiot.

I want to be nice about it. I really do. But I mean, Johnny here gives me so much material. His milkshake brings me to the yard.

And yes, it's better than yours.

And yes, I realize that song is tragically old.

But ANYWAY. His latest:

SNOPES SAYS THE LETTERS ABOUT SARAH PALIN ARE TRUE!

Holy cripes! Snopes?! Well, I mean, now really. Well, then, next I hope he turns to Perez Hilton for his politics, because, well, gee!

Maybe next he'll link to me as the definitive source on all things true an earnest, since I'm all about debunking Sarah Palin smears. Why, I have authority!

Anyway, check this hot mess:

Check out Snopes.com - they are THE independent site on the Internet for snooping out urban myths - Snopes says the letter is real.

Well, let's look at the Snopes' piece, shall we?

Well, lookit that! They just re-post the e-mails. And if you parent up by clicking the "Soapbox" link at the top, what do you get in the list?

Why, this graphic.

And below the second bar expands on what that red/green logo means.

And then below the third shows how the overall story was rated.



Snopes basically confirmed Kilkenny wrote it. And that it exists. And?

And?

Does that mean the letter has veracity? Authenticity? You think an Alaskan Maverick who made enemies within her own party and community by challenging them might not have someone willing to write a "personal letter" about the "truth" on Sarah Palin?

Yeah. 'Kay. And we all took Larry Sinclair so seriously, didn't we?

Or did we just say he was a fame-seeking nut?

Knife cuts both ways. That's not veracity. That's seeking anyone who will verify your own smears without a shed of proof, Johnny.

Even something like Snopes.com.

So funny.

Will this go down the DKos Memory Hole, too?

NEW PALIN SMEAR! KLANG THE KLAXONS!

From the DailyKos:

Mayor Palin Charged Victims for Their Own Rape Kits.

Yep! There's the headline! Now for the nuance.

The diarist quotes an article from the Frontiersman in 2000:

"Gov. Tony Knowles recently signed legislation protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime, but one local police chief said the new law will further burden taxpayers.

While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams."

But here's the fun admission:

"Sarah Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002. Whether this practice started before she was mayor, it's unclear."

Again: nuance.

But let's parse: The Obama-Left argues that Wasilla, AK is some "hicks in the sticks" community of 23 people. Now they want to warrant that Wasilla is like some metropolitan behemoth like Detroit, MI. "PAY FOR YOUR RAPE KIT!" as if, well, everyone ever is getting raped.

MORE: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THIS LAW WAS IGNORED BY WASILLA UNDER THE PALIN ADMINISTRATION POST-2000! None. Nada.

Listen to the quote from the Police Chief: "the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams."

Does that mean that Wasilla itself said: "Forget you, State law! We're chargin our wimmin'!" No. Not at all. The Police Chief -- NOT SARAH PALIN -- voiced disagreement. And it didn't mean they rejected the mandate.

But even if you want to argue that Wasilla was some sinsiter, evil, women-hating community for not being on-board prior to to the State law, check it:

Let's look at some facts on crime in Wasilla, per their own police department web site.

Sexual assaults by years Palin was mayor (mind, the law went into affect in 2000!):
96: 3
97: 0
98: 1
99: 1
00: 7
01: 6
02: 8

Total: 26. That's a statistic of 4/year. And before the law? 5. That's slightly over ONE CASE per year.
And, mind, police reports of sexual assault do not necessarily indicate insertive, vaginal sex.

And, MORE importantly, aside from the "Wasilla/Detroit" fallacy -- these were the words of the then police chief -- not Sarah Palin herself. And there is no indication that they defied the State law. None.

Sarah Palin appointed this loudmouth? Sure. Was the practice he described in place before Gov. Knowles struck it down? Yes.

In no way am I attempting to undermine the severity of sexual assault, especially rape. Each of those numbers represents a woman (or man) who has been violated. Yet let's face the matter squarely: what we're seeing is a projection that this "small town" is now a giant municipality that is denying the poor women of America right to free access to a rape kit. Look at the matter with a clear eye, and see if this initiative was a compelling community need:

Did the community of Wasilla see a need for this social program? No. The median income for a small town of 5,500 in year 2000 had a median income of $48,000/year. We're not talking minimum wage inner-city. And we're talking about a practice that occurred before the state law took effect, and is something the Obama-Left cannot refute. Then-Mayor Palin, the Wasilla Police Department, and the City Council did not try to reject the State law.

The Obama-Left projects.

They project that Sarah Palin is against assisting rape victims, when Sarah Palin has no quotable record or policy on this position and complied with State law.

More to the point: a police chief says this is a tax burden. Not Sarah Palin.

Prior to 2000, this was not a salient topic for a small-town community.
It did not have public support for enforcement.

No one was denied, or charged heavily, for a rape kit, aside from Obama-Left un-cited anecdotes of:

"At one point in the past, Wasilla charged the costs to the victim's insurance company."

"One point in the past" can mean before Palin's tenure as mayor. Or it can be a fabrication, like so many anecdotes can be.

Wasilla, AK is not an urban community with impoverished areas that require this type of assistance to be on the books, no questions asked, prior to State mandate.

To expect otherwise shows the Obama-Left's hypocricy in calling Wasilla "bumfuck nowehere" on the one hand, and now expecting them to have social programs at the fore for the benefit of a non-existant "urban poor" on the other.

The smear is the smear. It says nothing about Sarah Palin.

And expect this one to go down the DKos memory hole like "Sambo" did.

Marching Orders.

Since the smearing of Sarah is backfiring, Daily Kos are sending their incindiary users' diaries down the memory hole.

Ace of Spades HQ is blogging about this.

Maybe the Netroots are getting a clue? Or maybe they're just taking their marching orders from Camp O, much as they did from them with regard to Hillary Clinton. But see, those smears worked. The ones against Sarah Palin are backfiring.

Delete 'em away all you want, but you can't stuff that genie back in the bottle, Blogger Boyz. Own your sexism.

Andrew Sullivan lies through his keyboard.

Oh, Andy! I shall now go to bed dreaming of carressing your wonderfully soft face. You send tingles up my leg the way that thinking up new and vicious ways to smear Sarah Palin sends tingles up yours.

Anyway, let's have some fun with my loving Andy.

Round 1:

"In Joe Biden, Obama revealed his core temperamental conservatism. It was a safe choice of someone deeply versed in foreign policy, and with roots that connected to the working class white ethnics he needed. It wasn't flashy; and was even a little underwhelming; but it was highly professional.

What we have learned about John McCain from his selection of Sarah Palin is that he is as impulsive and reckless a decision-maker as George W. Bush."

Highly Professional would have been for Obama to reach out to Hillary Clinton to create the "dream ticket" pundits went on about since, oh, MARCH. It would have cemented the base and never given Palin an opportunity.

Obama's recklessness is what allowed for Sarah Palin to rise to prominence. And now? America loves Sarah Palin -- as do I. I consider that less professional, and more reckless.

As far as McCain? I consider his selection the best electoral strategy I've seen from a political candidate in my lifetime.

Round 2:

"We know this not because of what we have learned about this Pentecostalist populist since she exploded on the scene last Friday morning (and God knows we have learned more than we ever wanted)."

And that's a bold-faced lie. You would love to gossip on-and-on endlessly about Sarah Palin's tragically Republican lady-bits. Because it's juicy, and you're a filthy sensationalist.

You learned more than you ever wanted to? Is that why you basically wanted to violate HIPPA and have Palin's OBGYN refute your outlandish charges that her youngest child is not her own?

Homegirl, please.

Round 3:

"The recklessness was much more fatal in the new media world than in the old one. [...] Palin's reality show family life, her vendetta against her ex brother-in-law, her endorsement of a mayoral candidate who ran against her own mother-in-law, her attempt to ban books in her local library, her friendship with one of her husband's former business partners, and on and on: this was the first major campaign event that was covered by the underground media before it reached the mainstream."

He smears away, repeating his goofy half-truths, but more to the point:

That strategy has backfired, and backfired dramatically. What's that, Andy? McCain is up amongst white women quite handily? Huh? McCain's ahead in the polls?

Fatal indeed.

And in that, we have a winner. Spin, spin, spin goes the Obama-Left carousel. As Obama dashes to the center, trying to distance himself from the Obama-Leftroots' character smears that fed him for so long, people like Andrew Sullivan will disregard it and continue on drum-beating, spinning, and lying.

What was originally just feeding the Obama goose campaign is now becoming a force-feeding. Obama owns his surrogates that propelled him to Primary "victory." And these surrogates will continue feeding him "great talking points on Sarah/McCain!" until the Obama goose explodes.

Just wait for that foie gras.

They Fail; McCain-Palin Win.

Here's Huffington Post's latest attempt at total and utter fail.

A "morph-manip" of Sarah Palin as George Bush. And, visually, it's fail. It doesn't look like a blend of the two at all, but rather an attempt to say "Not a beauty queen, but an uglier woman!"

Sarah Palin = George Bush?

Again, Obama-Left. You make Sarah Palin out to be the Presidential candidate, you make Obama look weaker, less experienced, and give John McCain a free ride into the White House.

Smearing Sarah is a losing battle. There is nothing about Sarah Palin that is George Bush. Unless "Republican" makes her the same person as George Bush.

By that token, "Democrat" should make Barack Obama "Harry Reid," "Nancy Pelosi," and "Dennis Kucinich."

Fun!

DailyKos on Sexism. It's rich, but so TL;DR.

Again: TL;DR is internet shorthand for "too long; didn't read."

Meteor Blades over at DailyKos (who is quite a supplier of Palin Derangement Syndrome himself) carries on:

"The party that defeated the Equal Rights Amendment, that has whittled away women’s reproductive choices for 35 years, that obstructs gender pay equity, despises sports equity, worked to sabotage affirmative action, objects to guaranteed family leave, panders to right-wing religionists’ views of women, wants to invade women's privacy, thinks violence against women isn’t worthy of legislation, and embraces at almost every opportunity to maintain the "traditional" role for women in society, now dares present itself as the party of feminist enlightenment."

And you know what? They're also the party that put a woman on their ticket, defended her against sexist smears (and it's funny to watch this guy spin that they aren't really sexist smears -- just smears), and selected a woman with conservative values but has never used her platform to dictate those beliefs as policy.

It bears repeating:
Sarah Palin has never used her elective office to enact any policy on abortion, same-sex rights (except, you know, vetoing a measure that would ban them in State employment), evolution in schools, or any other social platform that the Obama-Left wants to scream is "RELIGIOUS"!

Not. One.

More, no one -- lest of all Republicans -- are saying that Sarah Palin is "feminist enlightenment." By the same token, me saying Sarah Palin is not a gay hater does not mean I think she's some Republican gay-rights pariah.

But when you go into tirades such as this:

"They chose a creationist-backing, choice-denying, gay-rejecting, middle-class-wrecking, environment-ignoring, secession-promoting, right-wing religionist and second-string rookie who is so gravely unprepared for the job for which she has been selected out of the blue that she must be kept under wraps except when delivering a script."

Sarah Palin has "backed creationism" (subtext: CREATIONISM OR DEATH!) when?

Sarah Palin has "denied choice" (subtext: YOU MUST ALL HAVE YOUR BABIES OR DEATH!) when?

Sarah Palin was "gay rejecting" (subtext: INTO THE INCENERATOR WITH ALL HOMOS!) when?

Sarah Palin was "wrecking the middle class" (subtext: SHE IS ONLY FOR BIG OIL... but she wasn't?) when?

Sarah Palin was "environment ignoring" (subtext: SARAH PALIN WANTS TO TURN ALL OF ALASKA INTO A STRIP MINE) when?

Sarah Palin was "succession promoting" (subtext: SHE DOES NOT WANT TO BE A PART OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH IS WHY SHE RAN FOR GOVERNOR ON THE TICKET OF ONE OF AMERICA'S TWO MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES!) when?

Sarah Palin was "a right-wing religionist" (subtext: SHE BELIEVES ONLY IN THE BIBLE BUT NOT THE RULE OF LAW! Except, er, when she, er, said her State Supreme Court was right and signed same-sex State worker partner benefits into law...) when?

Sarah Palin is a "second-string rookie" (subtext: KILL HER! AAAHHH!! INEXPERIENCED!!!) compared to who again? Barack Obama? Is that right?

Check please.

They smear and smear, and then say the Republicans are full of it because they defend a woman of their own party. For me? Supporting a strong woman -- especially into the White House -- is a support of feminism. And I'm so glad that "Meteor Blades" acknowledges some surrogates are sexist. But that acknowledgement means little when you go on and on, defaming Sarah Palin and warping her into something she isn't.

He twists and turns, saying "Sarah Palin would never have been considered" if she were "Sam Palin." And? Geraldine Ferraro already beat you on that score years ago.

To wit: Would Barack Obama be where he is right now if his name were "Bernard O'Malley?"

I think not. You say that "some" people were sexist. Yeah, and by some, I hope you mean all of the Obama-Left. You pounced, and stroked your egos (amongst other things) salivating that "Women could NEVER identify with a Republican!"

It bears repeating:

I'm gay, and I identify with Sarah Palin. And your framing of her as some crazy-right, abortion-hating, religious fundie is because you fear her.

Just as you and your ilk feared Hillary Clinton, and smeared her by saying she was some war-mongering, secretly Republican, racist insider prone to cronyism.

The smears are still smears. Even if against that woman and Republican Sarah Palin.

Read this entire thing if you want, but it is hella TL;DR.

DailyKos Wreck List: People like Palin because they're RACIST!

Or, conversely, people dislike Obama because they're racist (this includes you, Hillaryites!).



And it is at the top of "Recommended Diaries." Make no mistake, the Obama-Left will smear Sarah Palin and her supporters any way they can. While the DKos front-pagers and even people like my fantasy-man John Aravosis have calmed down (probably per marching orders from Camp Obama), the "Obama Base" can't help but reach for any -- any! -- reason why people just won't vote Barack Obama. Self-inflicted delusion.

After all, Alaska was a swing state, right Markos? Even when Alaska was the only State Obama has never visited. Heh.

Anyway, here's one fun part of this mess:

"So if your anecdotal experience is that some people you know are moving to McCain who you though were available to Obama, don't be alarmed because they were never available to Obama they just didn't want to tell you why. Palin has given them cover for their decision, but please know that the decision was made already. Palin is a good excuse because she is a woman, but when they got into the voting both, alone with their racism, they were not going to vote for Obama. Ever."

Everybody understand? Palin being a female candidate is a "good excuse," but if you know someone who won't vote Obama, it's obviously because they're racist. So if you say you're voting for a female on the ticket, you're being dishonest -- it's really about being a racist! Even if it's about being pro-Palin, it's really about being anti-Obama's skin color.

And the Obama-Left scoffs at criticisms that they don't take issues of gender seriously.

The comments are a fun exercise in delusion, by the by.

I think it's a "good excuse" to say that if Barack Obama loses the general election it will be because of -- shock! -- racism.

After all, it was always a great Netroots excuse every time he lost a primary election.

Make no mistake: the Netroots are no friend to Progressivism.

I read this filth so that you don't have to. But here's the link if you have the stomach."

For those that don't, here're highlights:

"John McCain: Climbing the Ladder One Woman at a Time"

"Does anyone besides me think that Cindy McCain's eyes are weird?"
"Oh yes. If you stare at them too long your soul will liquify."

"You ever pull a cat's ears back? They get a weird staring look like a Martian. That's the Cindy McCain look."

Or you can have fun with this:

"You can put lipstick on a pitbull... but it's still a nasty, brutish, and cruel beast."
"Pitbulls really don't deserve that bad rap nearly as much as Palin does."

"isn't lipstick usually reserved for the pig?"

Yeah. Markos Moulitsas allows this type of attack, unquestioned. It's a good way to "energize the base."

The Netroots are no friend to progressives, and in allowing and courting their support, neither are the candidates they seek to hold office.

LOL @ Kos. Again.

Hat tip HotAir. I glazed over this entry when I was doing my last Kos-centric post.

Markos can't stop with the Palin Derangement Syndrome. Why, no! He prophetically understands that "THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT!!!" love Sarah Palin, so dips into his smear-machine of commentors to find what he calls a "pithy" observation:

"Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor."

Barack Obama is Jesus.
And Sarah Palin? An evil, authoritarian woman.

This is probably the silliest metaphor I've ever heard in, well, ever. Although their metaphor of Hillary Clinton/Fatal Attraction was pretty stellar on the scale.

I think Gov. Palin should give that Bridge to Nowhere to the DailyKos. After all, that's where their commentary is going.

Nowhere.


UPDATE:

They even have a logo.



As if that's going to go over real well. Obama = Jesus. Why don't you post some more heavenly Obama-Halo-Glow photos while you're at it?

Jesus also included the strong women around him in his mission. Can you say the same for Obama?

Markos Moulitsas and Sabre Rattling

Oh, DailyKos. Founder Markos Moulitsas said the following to Salon on Governor Palin:

"Not just on choice, but she's a book burner. We just found out today, she was banning books at the Wasilla Public Library. She's virulently anti-choice. Go down the list, it's pretty crazy stuff."

"The issue is, of course, that Sarah Palin is a strong supporter of abstinence-only education."

"They saw that she was attractive and very popular in Alaska -- remember, Alaska is actually a swing state."

"The Christian right loves her. They've decided she is practically the second coming."

"To take somebody who's been so warmly embraced by the Christian right and then to dump her for somebody who's more palatable to the center?"

"And let's not forget another important point that I almost forgot because it's so obvious, is that they've completely negated the experience argument. That was probably the only argument against Obama that had any salience."

"Well, we're talking John McCain who's, you know, 200 years old, and suddenly his age has become even more of a factor than it was already. It's pretty amazing because this pick single-handedly makes his age a factor and eliminates the experience argument. It absolutely matters; it's not like there's on-the-job training as V.P. for the president's slot. We're not talking shift manager at Burger King."

More nuanced, but more. of. the. same. from the Obama-Left. My Hillary sisters out there -- you know what I'm talking about, right?

The sabre-rattling is a sign of fear. "She's abstinence only!" Except Governor Palin isn't abstinence-only. After all, my mother -- a pro-choice feminist -- told me that "abstinence is 100% effective against STDs and pregnancy!" Well, that was before the gay thing. But it's still 100% effective. Palin wants sex education to include abstinence. And you know what? I think any responsible human being would encourage abstinence, too.

Saying "explicit sex-ed programs" will not find her support is not "radical" or anti proper sexual education. It's not "abstience or bust!" as Markos would have you believe.

More, the sabre-rattling on "The Christian Right loves her!" And? Rapper Ludacris loves Obama:

"Hillary hated on you so that bitch is irrelevant."

Do we really want to go down this road, Markos? Sabre rattling, sabre rattling, sabre rattling. Of course the Christian Right loves her -- Sarah Palin is the strong, working supermom. Pro-life, five children, and is strong in her personal faith.

Because the Christian Right loves Gov. Palin does not mean that Governor Palin will do whatever the Christian Right says. Well, perhaps unless you keep trying to push her into becoming the radical you desperately want her to be.

Experience? See my below post. Really, now. You may fantasize that this is "off the table" but it's not.

Alaska was a swing state? Okay. NedLamontNedLamontNedLamont delusion alert.

And, while more nuanced, McCain's Age is just another "She's a heartbeat away!" argument.

However, Sarah Palin will still be that one heartbeat away.
Should Obama be elected, he will be that heartbeat.

Again, a tip: focus on McCain. Smearing Sarah Palin will only serve as a reminder of your vicious thuggery.

Go back to the echo chamber. Once you leave it to do interviews like this, you expose how laughable and transparent you are. I feel bad, though. Markos clearly wants to be right for once regarding an electoral victory, and will stoop to any depth to do it. Even smear Gov. Palin.

Just remind little Kos: NedLamont.

DailyKos Needs a Babysitter

Latest smear:



HOLY CRAP! THAT WOMAN!

She needs some support. Because, after all, how could a woman run for office...

... or... something...

... yeah.

And McCain in PEARLS?! Why, let's not just be sexist -- let's be homophobic, too! Because we know those evil republicans eat up sexism and homophobia!

Lick it, netroots. I've gotten enough pro-gay commentary from Republicans for me speaking out -- and that's more than I would ever get for cow-towing a line for manipulating us as a base. Americans stick by American principles, and not sabre-rattling.

Anyway:
The Obama-Left -- and I call it the OBAMA-Left, so my conservative bretheren understand we gays amongst you, we women amongst you (even if I'm not a woman), and we Hillary supporters on the left amongst you aren't quite the same as the Obama-Left -- don't get it and won't get it.

Sarah Palin hit it out of the park. And so -- they (the Obama-Left) spin. Ultimately: to smear Sarah Palin as a "babysitter" only proves that the Obama-Left hate women, hate strong women, and definitely hate strong conservative women.

Prove 'em wrong Palin. Fight for America.

DailyKos delivers again! Champions of "Sexism."

Hey. DailyKos. Go chew glass.

"Nice, convenient, catch-all excuse. If you say anything bad about poor Sarah Palin, it's sexism, which is most likely a word most Republicans never even considered using until today.

Yeah. Okay. "Sexism" is also a word that the Obama-Left didn't use until today. Or, more appropriately, until the day they denied Hillary Clinton a proper roll-call vote -- and even before that, stole the votes of Michigan Primary voters such as my own.

You want to champion women's rights after denying even attempting to vet Hillary Clinton for the VP position?

You want to talk about sexism when you championed Jesse Jackson Jr. questioning Hillary Clinton's tears as being inauthentic?

Eat the shards of that glass ceiling. Eat the shards. It's Sarah Palin's day, and it's the Republicans who brought her to the electorate. Women were not good enough for you. And now, a conservative, pro-family woman is "wrong for America."

Chew on those shards and swallow. Swallow hard.

No matter how you want to quantify it, I see you as the drum-beating straight men that you are:

"Women are wrong for America." Not Hillary Clinton. Not Sarah Palin. But for you, it's women.

But I'm sure you'll eventually scream at Hillary, DEMANDING she fix your own, chauvinist, sexist, wrong-for-America ills. She wasn't good enough for the Presidency -- or even Vice Presidency -- but she's now so important that she needs to defend you from that "hick" from "Wasilla, Pop: 131."

We will prove you and your neophyte Greek God-Child wrong. And by "we," I mean America.

The Obama-Left is Reaching

Here you go:

Note the highlighted section in Green, a "Kossack" pleads.

I'll stick to the headlines. "Palin comes out throwing punches"!

Kinda says it all, doesn't it, women-haters?

Johnny keeps it coming with his PDS.

Palin Derangement Syndrome!

John Aravosis loves tabloid journalism.

And, from his comments section, from "MalibuBarbie":

"My goodness, that cover picture of Sarah Palin is ... disturbing. Rather mesmerizing I must say. On first glance she looks like a proud momma but when I stare into her eyes she seems a tad .. aggressive, like she is getting ready to rip out somebody's jugular with her teeth."

Gays-on-women, and "MalibuBarbies"-on-women. Sarah Palin is going to TEAR OUT YOUR JUGULAR! And the Obama-Left sinks further into the gutter.

Sexism abound. Sexism rampant. Palin Derangement Syndrome? That's forever on the "America"blog.

I hope Palin doesn't wear hoop earrings tonight, lest Johnny-boy's fine tuned progressive values find them disappointing.

Absolute joke. Would Aravosis have reacted the same if this had been the US Weekly cover?

Doubt it.

More on "THE PREGNANCY" and then I'm done.

... Done until John Aravosis opens his fat mouth again. But hey, he's already backpeddling. He sounds like Obama! "I didn't say it! It wasn't me! It's just the thousands of my readers who I allow to say such things! It didn't come straight from my mouth!"

Anyhoot, Netroots, take note. Because David Brody of CDN News gets it:

"Look, this development will actually be positive for the most part with Evangelicals. First they hear that Sarah Palin chooses the life option even though she had a Downs Syndrome baby and once again the family (and Bristol) has chosen the life option in this recent case. That’s a double “ca-ching”. Let’s call this the Evangelical daily double. If anything, this whole situation will probably make more people around the country relate to her and her family. It makes them more real."

DING DING DING! Brody wins the Daily Double!

The Netroots set themselves up for this PR trap. Again. They attack the maternity of Sarah's 5th child. The Palins unveil that their daughter is pregnant and is keeping it.

The Palins live by example. They demonstrate that they live by the principles they believe. And did Sarah Palin use this as some political launchpad into "WOMEN OF AMERICA: KEEP YOUR BABIES!!"? Short answer is "No":

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."

Yep. Sarah acknowledges that this will be hard for her daughter, future son-in-law, and the rest of the Palin family. She did not wax poetic or involve politics.

And the Netroots just want to drag politics into this, as though keeping a child is somehow an "anti-choice," "anti-sex-ed" referendum. And that linked article, by the way, is written by "Bitch!" and "Proud Feminist!" Taylor Marsh. And she's way off base. Again: if only that "dumb" "hick" Bristol had a "real, liberal (read: "educated") Mom who would have told her that condoms exist in the Universe. ... or fitted her for a diaphragm.

Grow up.

This doesn't damage Sarah Palin. This makes her look more like America's everywoman.

But feel free to keep on smearing and digging yourself into that hole.

Sarah Palin: Netroots Still Not Getting It

I don't even know where to begin concerning the Netroots high holy day, otherwise known as Bristol Palin Day. But I'll start somewhere.

First, here is the front page of the Huffington Post. I despise the Huff-Po, but they're king supreme on smears:



Palin Derangement Syndrome indeed. At least Michelle Malkin gets it.

On the left, Riverdaughter gets it, too.


But for the rest of the Netroots, this is the juiciest, greatest, most damaging occurrance that could ever happen for the GOP ticket. Why?

Because men just don't get it. Specifically, "liberal" men and (and some "feminist" women) just don't get it.

All these digs into Sarah Palin's body only strengthen the prevailing thought: the "liberal left" are a bunch of sexist pigs. Being so far down their hole of "Palin Derangement Syndrome" they press on attacking -- believing that Americans' prodimant thought process is as such:

"What? A baby? Outside of marriage? Well, she's just a bad parent!"

Naturally, this type of thought process is a whole lot of bunk. As riverdaughter put it, "life happens." Most Americans agree "life happens." And the Palins are dealing with life, and rather admirably. Their daughter is pregnant. Their daughter is having her baby. They support their teenage daughter. And her teenage daughter is going to marry the child's father.

Is that story really so sinister? Well, yes -- because Sarah Palin is a Republican.

You hear enough fun "anecdotal" evidence from your liberal friends: "Republicans are anti-choice, but if their daughters get pregnant, they will have access to an abortion! Unlike those sad, poor women."

By contrast, PDS is in high gear. Why? Because Bristol Palin is having her baby, and Sarah and Todd Palin support her decision. Cue the conspiracy theories now that Sarah Palin locked poor Bristol in a dark room, feeding her only saltines until Bristol agreed to keep the baby. The Netroots want to frame this story as earth-shattering, but all they do is demonstrate their anti-woman crusade, justifying it this time because Sarah Palin is a Republican!

This hypocricy is staggering. This type of story only speaks to the Palins' character and ability to live their personal beliefs by personal example.

But noOoOOoo. As Markos would argue with a shit-eating grin:

"Maybe one more abstinence-only supporting politicians will realize the limits of such an approach. Teens will do what they will do. It's obvious Bristol would've been better served with a discussion about safe sex. Instead, she's now facing a shotgun wedding to the baby's father."

Brilliant. I love to know that Markos is psychic. Bristol got pregnant, and it's obviously because Sarah Palin never taught her daughter what a condom was.

The Netroots are hopeless.

Huffington Post: TL;DR, but they demonstrate their PDS.

TL;DR stands for "too long; didn't read" for those of you not in the cyber-know. But fear not! Despite this suffocating article by Drew Westin, the title pretty much sums it up:

Brand First, Equivocate Later: The Message of Denver and the Importance of Defining McCain-Palin Before They Define Themselves.

And that's exactly the point. Don't let that woman! speak. Don't let Sarah Palin demonstrate her own voice. She's Republican! Ergo, she's evil!

Palin Derangement Syndrome, indeed.

This is the whole purpose of this blog, and why I'm here. Because the Obama-Left will do anything -- anything -- to frame Sarah Palin as some crazy-right-wing-force-your-daughter-to-have-a-pregnancy Beelzebub rather than have Palin, you know, make her case to the voters on why she is qualified.

After all (Huff-Po caught on to the Obama meme!) she's A FORMER SPORTS ANCHOR! KILL IT!!!! INEXPERIENCED BEAUTY QUEEN!!

Anyway, to highlight from this TL;DR mess (and I only pick one quote, because it is total TL;DR):

Rather than deciding what's best for their own families based on their own faith, values, and circumstances, McCain and Palin would force married couples as well as single women to take any baby to term no matter how serious, painful, or debilitating the birth defect, or no matter what the impact on their lives, because McCain and Palin, like President Bush, believe they have to the right to use the government to force one person to live by another person's faith--specifically, their own.

Lies, lies, lies, smears, smears, smears.

Point me to one -- ONE! -- comment from Sarah Palin where she believes this in any way, shape, or form. And by "believes" I mean her desire to enshrine this into law. Not her personal beliefs.

At least chuckles got his title right: "Defining McCain-Palin Before They Define Themselves."

Because to let America know the real Sarah Palin would be such a terrible thing.

A terrible thing for Barack Obama, mind.

Huffington Post -- Staying Classy

I love saying "classy." Simply because I find the word "classy" to be antithetical to the meaning of the term "classy." So when I call you classy, it's an insult. Check it.

Anyway, via the front page of the Huffington Post (I won't link for your sanity; Google it yourselves you sad, sick voyeurs!):



OH! What a coincidence!

Some "Conservatives" air "Concerns" over Governor Sarah Palin!

And the advertisement right below? Why, it's a Sarah Palin mock-up, rocking (well, I guess I shouldn't say "rocking," really) a shirt that says:

"Assistant Regional Manager."

What a lovely, subtle dig at Governor Palin's "experience." Because we all know Barack Obama is the most prophetic, experienced man in the land.

Want me to advertise a shirt saying "Walgreens Assistant Manager" with an African American who looks suspiciously like Barack Obama? Oh, is that racist?

Then stop your sexism on Palin.

Troll elsewhere, Huff-Po.

Attack Palin on policy. Not on her identity or resume. This is beyond ridiculous.