News about Gov. Palin that comes out of the 49th state tends to be the bad, as the media is not very interested in disseminating the good. Her accomplishments tend to go unnoticed or quickly get pushed off of the screen in favor of the sensational. Recall her trip to Texas to conclude the deal which brought ExxonMobil into a cooperative agreement with TransCanada to get Gov. Palin’s pet pipeline project off the ground. She granted interviews to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and NBC’s Matt Lauer, but both were more interested in getting her to talk about David Letterman’s hot air than Alaska’s natural gas.

Emphasis added.  (Oh, and read the whole thing.)

If this is true that Palin granted these interviews to talk about the pipeline deal, something she actually accomplished when doing her job as chief executive of the Last Frontier, and those two journalists chose to focus instead on that media sideshow, then this anecdote becomes truly emblematic of the way the media has treated Sarah Palin.  They’re not interested in her record.*  They’re interested rather in the sensational aspects of her story.

No wonder so many intelligent and otherwise well-informed people treat Sarah Palin they would a celebrity regularly featured in the tabloids.  They know almost nothing about her actual record as Governor of Alaska because the media hasn’t reported her accomplishments, treating Palin instead as they would a pop culture phenomenon.

Those on the left might be better informed if they didn’t limit themselves to the MSM.  At least FoxNews and the conservative media reported her accomplishments.

*Recall the celebrated Katie Couric question which stumped the outgoing Alaska Governor, “Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on [reforming financial sector]?”  Note this was not a question about her record, but about what she knew about John McCain’s.  As a point of comparison, check the transcript of Couric’s interview with Joe Biden, Palin’s campaign counterpart, to see if she asked him to provide examples of legislation his running mate supported which might have prevented the financial crisis?

(And since we’re on this subject again, note how Couric just assumes it was absence of regulation which caused the financial crisis.  It’s clear she was trying to blame McCain for the financial crisis since he supposedly opposed increased regulation.)

Recall, that first as candidate, then as President, the Democrat offered to meet with the Iranian oligarch without conditions and Ahmadinejad wouldn’t give him the time of day. Now, in the wake of his government’s violent suppression of popular demonstrations against his supposed reelection, it’s clear his regime lacks the legitimacy many assumed it had.

We now know that the Iranian people do not support the regime.

Let us hope that, given that violent suppression, our president knows better than to agree to such a meeting.  I doubt the Iranian would have talked about such a meeting if he did not feel threatened by the protests by his people.  Perhaps, he seeks the legitimacy from world leaders than he cannot find at home.

UPDATE:  Here is another sign why Ahmadinejad might feel less secure than he once did, a leading clerical group is at odds with the oligarch’s religious patron over the election.  A split seems to be emerging among the nation’s clerics:

The most important group of religious leaders in Irancalled the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country’s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country’s clerical establishment.

A statement by the group, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, represents a significant, if so far symbolic, setback for the government and especially the authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is supposed to be final.

And that eagle, long since hatched, has been flying high and proud for the better part of 233 years. Let’s just make sure not to keep her majesty tethered. For, in flight, she has not only embodied the principles of liberty our founders fought for over two hundred years ago, but has also inspired people around the world, including those who protest today in Iran.

PatriotPartner and I will be attending the Charlotte Tea Party between 11am and 3pm. I’ll try to blog or live-tweet from the event.

Follow me on Twitter for updates on the Charlotte Tea Party.

UPDATE: We have about 2,500 strong here in Charlotte on a beautiful July 4th in the Queen City.

In the past month or so, as polls have shown increased public dissatisfaction with President Obama’s policies, revealing that the American people have a predilection for the small government ideas the Republican Party ostensibly champions.  I say “ostensibly” because in the past few years (as many have noted), the GOP has lost sight of its principles and signed on to the ways of Washington.

Yet, at a moment when conservative ideas are in the ascendancy (at least in terms of public opinion), conservative politicians seem not to be.  What has been a good month for conservative ideas has been a bad month for conservative politicians, with a principled small government Governor disgracing himself by acting like a geeky teenager suddenly discovering that girls really like him, a responsible moderate conservative losing a Senate seat to an irresponsible name-calling left-wing former comedian and an (up until yesterday) up-and-coming Governor with a a natural charm and stage presence, stepping down.

While people may be flocking to our banner, there seems to be fewer and fewer people ready, willing and capable of carry that banner into battle.  We may be winning the ideological battle in the public square, only doomed to lose it at the ballot box.  Ideas may rally the troops, but they can’t win election to office.

Tea parties continue to draw large crowds.  They have clearly tapped into something, an idea which resonates across the country.  But, who is going to harness the energy unleashed at these rallies?

Wondered if they were referring to something reader to which Peter Hughes alerted me two weeks ago when he e-mailed me a link to Sean Hannity’s interview with comedian Paul Rodriguez.  That funny man, whose mother and family farm in the San Joaquin Valley (the southern part of the Central Valley), has spoken out as federal authorities, under the cloak of the Endangered Species Act, have “shut down vital pumps to farmers to help preserve” the delta smelt, a two-inch minnow.

This government action is costing many farmers their livelihood.  As it prevents them from farming their land, it means the overall harvest decreases which means less food for all of us which means higher prices.

Oh, yeah, and if there’s less food, more people go hungry.  All to save a tiny minnow.  And I bet there are better ways to save this species, less costly to our own.

Sorry I couldn’t get a better picture, but snapped this in very slow traffic.

Then, he and his Mommy took me for a walk through Golden Gate park. And every time I looked at him, he responded with a smile.

And like one of his cousins, he has his own blog.

It’s amazing how much bigger he’s gotten since the last time I saw him (back in February) — when he hadn’t yet learned how to smile.

UPDATE:  As my sister wished me good night, she said that her son’s smile makes “all the sleepless nights worth it.  I’ll just say that the smile more than pays for the cost of the trip and having to wait nearly an hour to make it to the toll booth for the Bay Bridge.  I sure got lucky in the nephew (and niece) department.  (And not just this one–his cousins are all pretty amazing.)

I remain a fan of the good Governor, but don’t think this is a wise move.  Perhaps, my mind will change as I learn more about her motives, but for now, I will just say I am very disappointed with a woman I admire and respect.

ADDENDUM:  As I read the AP article, I note its anti-Republican slant, talking about this coming “after several recent blows to the Republican party.”  Wonder if AP reports on the latest Democratic scandal to emerge as coming after several recent blows to the Democratic Party–if it even reports such scandals.

UPDATE: Via Michelle, some speculation on the toll the personal attacks have taken:

Chuck Heath, Palin’s brother, on FNC talking about incessant attacks. Very emotional. “It’s weighed on her a long time.” Couldn’t effectively govern when having to defend herself against attacks.

Kind of makes sense, given the nuisance ethics cases childish leftists were filing in an attempt to damage this good woman.

It would be interesting to study the nastiness of the Palin-haters and see if any prior candidate for national office has been subject to as much vitriol as she–after her defeat. The juvenilia of her adversaries is a fascinating cultural phenomenon.

UP-UPDATE: I apologize for the haphazard nature of this post. I had some ideas for posts while driving across the Golden State including one sign which I had to stop to photograph and thanks to traffic outside the toll booth, arrived during my nephew’s nap, so am sort of just posting thoughts as I scan the blogs.

While I wondered above whether any unsuccessful candidate for national office had been subject to as much venom as she, Glenn contends that she has been “ been subjected — along with her family — to more abuse than any other non-national-officeholder I can think of.”

UP-UP-UPDATE:  The Anchoress says she predicted this:

Either she or someone in her family is ill, and she wants to keep it private and not subject it to the vulgarity of the Palin-hating beasts in the press, who savaged her last year, or…she and Todd are on the rocks, and she doesn’t want to subject her children and her marriage to the same vulgarity.

She has lots of links, so is a great source.

ONE LAST UPDATE:  If she did resign because of the nasty attacks not just on her, but also on her children, Jim Geraghty (via the Anchoress above) fears it sets a terrible precedent:

It’s one thing to step into the public spotlight and know that people are going to ridicule your intelligence, your appearance, your judgment, your voice and accent, etc. But it’s another to know that your loved ones will get that scrutiny, too, and in particular your children. Kids don’t pick their parents. I wrote about this here.

That spurred this terrifying thought: The lesson that the ruthless corners of the political world will take from the rise, fall, and departure of Sarah Palin that if you attack a politician’s children nastily enough and relentlessly enough, you can get anybody to quit.

If this is the case, then her resignation will surely spur those from the fever swamps of the left who delight in leveling mean-spirited attacks on their political adversaries and demonizing  religions they don’t like.

OK, I had said the above was going to be my last update, then Glenn Reynolds linked Mark Steyn:

In states far from the national spotlight, politics still attracts normal people. You’re a mayor or a state senator or even the governor, but you lead a normal life. The local media are tough on you, but they know you, they live where you live, they’re tough on the real you, not on some caricature cooked up by a malign alliance of late-night comics who’d never heard of you a week earlier and media grandees supposedly on your own side who pronounce you a “cancer”.

Then suddenly you get the call from Washington. You know it’ll mean Secret Service, and speechwriters, and minders vetting your wardrobe. But nobody said it would mean a mainstream network comedy host doing statutory rape gags about your 14-year old daughter. You’ve got a special-needs kid and a son in Iraq and a daughter who’s given you your first grandchild in less than ideal circumstances. That would be enough for most of us. But the special-needs kid and the daughter and most everyone else you love are a national joke, and the PC enforcers are entirely cool with it.

Read the whole thing.  He, sums it up better than anyone else I’ve read on this topic–as is often the case.

Dismal Numbers
14.7 million: People unemployed in June, the most ever in records dating to 1948.  (GP Ed. Note - obviously there were more during the Great Depression)

12.1 million:  People unemployed in December 1982, the record before the current downturn.

August 1983:  The last time the unemployment rate hit 9.5%

24.5 weeks: The average length of unemployment, also a record.

What happened to the Obama Stimulus money?  What jobs is it creating?  Where are these “shovel-ready” projects Obama promised?

Say what you want about President George W. Bush — but after he entered office in a recession, then our economy absorbed the 9/11 attacks — he still had a NET INCREASE in jobs in his term.  At this rate, it will be a miracle — sans massive tax cuts — for Obama to say the same thing.

Obama is a failure of epic proportions.  We need to take America back before Obama spends us into oblivion for good.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Have you noticed a change in the economic news over the past year or so? It’s a deliberately ambiguous question: The actual news has gotten worse, but the coverage of it has changed in tone. Today, reporters are eagerly looking for the light at the end of the tunnel. A year ago, and for a long time before that, they couldn’t wait to get into the tunnel.

The media, as Glenn put it, seem to be desperately seeking silver linings in dismal economic news yet during the eight years preceding January 20, 2009, they seem to have aggressively been seeking dark clouds despite robust economic performance for the better part of that period.

It seems that media coverage of the economy–and economic policies–of the incumbent President may have prolonged his honeymoon and perhaps even inflated his poll numbers.  By contrast, their coverage of his precessor may have helped keep his favorables down while explaining why he regularly got mediocre marks on the economy even as it grew and unemployment remained at–or below–the levels of the 1990s.

I wonder how much worse the incumbent’s numbers on the economy if the MSM did as the conservative media and blogosphere is doing, showing the amount debt which will accrue with Obama’s policies–and contrasting the unemployment figures projected by the Administration when they pushed passage of the “stimulus” and those we see today.

Makes me wonder if media coverage of the economy affects the way we perceive the economy.  That is, if the media is always looking for dark clouds amidst general good numbers, do we perceive the economy to be worse than it is?  Similarly, if they’re always looking for a silver lining, do we become more optimistic about an imminent recovery?

While I certainly castigate the gloom and doom coverage, I don’t fault them for the optimism, indeed, see it as a good thing.  I just wonder that they wouldn’t want to give us hope of continued prosperity when a Republican is in the White House.

E-mail me for information.

Today, the Labor Department released figures showing unemployment hitting new highs, continuing to exceed even the level the Obama Administration forecast it would have attained without the “stimulus”–and considerably higher (considerably, considerably) than Democrats promised if Congress passed the legislation which may well have ended Arlen Specter’s political career. (Hey, ya’ gotta find a silver lining somewhere.)

(Chart courtesy of Innocent Bystanders.)

No wonder the President’s support is taking a hit, particularly on the economy.

Apparently, Obama is more interested in exploiting the economic crisis to achieve his own political goals* than to first accomplish what he was elected to do.  Recall, how the polls started shifting in the Democat’s direction as the scope of the financial meltdown became clear.  He used the economic downturn to his political advantage.  People trusted him to fix the economy.

But, now instead of focusing on the economy, he continues forward a myriad of initiatives, many of which would place burdens on private industry, you know, companies which tend to create new jobs.  Instead of getting us out of the mess that Obama “inherited,” the “stimulus” has made it worse.

Small businesses aren’t hiring because they are “paralyzed by regulatory uncertainty.” If they had greater confidence in the Administration’s economic plans, were less skeptical about its attitude toward the private sector, these employers might be expanding their businesses, hiring new workers and spurring economic growth.

Given the regulatory schemes proposed by the Obama Administration and the legislation proposed by the Democratic Congress, no wonder the economy continues to stagnate.  Unless the President develops economic plans which work, based on models of successful recoveries, rather than adhere to theories similar to past policies which failed to end economic crises, expect unemployment to continue its upward climb.  But, then again, if the economy fails to recover, expect Obama’s failures should help end the political careers of Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Patty Murray and Hary Reid.

Like I said, ya’ gotta find a silver lining.

*As i  was finishing writing this post, I had this thought–do you the Administration insisted on moving with such haste on the “stimulus” so they could focus on those regulatory schemes close to their hearts?

On my way to Malden’s star, just east of Hollywood & Vine, I passed Michael Jackson’s star just in front of Grauman’s Chinese Theater. The sound trucks that had been there the last time I drove through the heart of Hollywood were gone, but the barricades — and the crowds–remained, with posters expressing people’s affection for the King of Pop and sadness at his passing. There were also balloons and flowers, a marked contrast to Malden’s star–near an empty Hollywood cafe.

Ed Morrissey sums it all up nicely over at HotAir.

Rasmussen’s new poll, taken before the release of June’s unemployment numbers, shows significant slippage for Barack Obama on the economy, his central issue.  Only 42% of American voters give him excellent or good marks on handling the economy, the lowest ratings he has yet received.  His personal approval rate has fallen to 53%.

The demographics of his decline portend more bad news for Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress.  Only the youngest voters support him on fiscal policy, and only barely, 52%-46%. Every other age demographic above 30 years of age has majorities now showing disapproval.  Independents have begun to run away in massive numbers; they now oppose him 75%-23%, a huge break away from Obama and a sign that his supposed moderate stances have been exposed as shams. Every income level except the lowest also has majorities disapproving of his handling of the economy.  Voters outside the “political class” oppose Obama 65%-33%.

Obama doesn’t fare well on national security, either.  Rasmussen reports that Obama only has 44% approval on these issues, and 55% opposing him.  Majorities of both women and men view him disfavorably.  Every income level has majorities opposed to Obama, and independents disapprove 68%-31%.  Obama only wins within the $60K-$75K income level; even his base of support among the lowest income earners narrowly reject Obama’s national-security policies, 52%-47%.

Obama isn’t just coming back to Earth in the polling.  He’s losing independents and demonstrating his radical bent on policy, and more and more Americans have begun to see it.

Perhaps the grown-ups in America are waking up before it is too late.  The awakening will only increase over the July 4th weekend as talk of our shared economic disaster will trump Michael Jackson around the patio.

As I said on Twitter earlier today…

Is it 1979 again??? 10% unemployment. Americans being taken hostage by Islamists. President coddles dictators.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

CAMP LEATHERNECK, July 2 — A U.S. soldier missing from his base in eastern Afghanistan since Tuesday is believed to have been captured by Taliban militants, the military said Thursday.

In a statement issued from U.S. military headquarters in Kabul, officials said “we are exhausting all available resources to ascertain his whereabouts and provide for his safe return.”

The soldier was not part of the large-scale assault launched on Taliban forces in southern Afghanistan early Thursday. That operation, which involves about 4,000 troops from the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, was encountering only light resistance, officials said. But the military expects the Taliban to respond more harshly once troops move into towns and begin patrols.

Military officials in Afghanistan, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the situation, said the missing soldier appears to have walked off his base into an unsecured area.

A U.S. official in Afghanistan said the soldier’s absence was discovered when he did not show up for morning formation. It is highly unusual for a U.S. soldier to leave a military base unaccompanied by other American troops.

A member of the Taliban linked to insurgent leader Sirajuddin Haqqani in Pakistan said that the soldier is in the custody of militants from the Haqqani network who are operating on the Afghan side of the border.

10% unemployment, Americans captured by Islamists and the US President coddles dictators.

Is it 1979 all over again?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

He made up for his ordinary looks by his extraordinary performances, distinguishing himself in three films directed by Streetcar director Elia Kazan, including his (in my view) his greatest performance (and that’s saying a lot) as Father Barry in On the Waterfront. Kazan had first met the actor in New York in the 1930s where he him “in a host of successful Broadway shows.“

He later starred alongside Michael Douglas in the 1970s television show, “The Streets of San Francisco.”  He served as President of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences from 1989-1992.  His acting range was incredible, from the pathetic older man trying to control his younger wife in Kazan’s Baby Doll, to the level-headed “G.I.’s general,” Omar Bradley, in Patton, to the persistent police inspector in Hitchcock’s under-appreciated I, Confess.

He was truly protean, able to play almost any character.  In the three film he did with Kazan, he assumed three entirely different guises.  He could be a nebbish, manipulated by those around him–or the moral force of one of the grestest movies of all time.  He could hold his own again more charismatic screen legends like George C. Scott, Montgomery Clift and Brando.

Word cannot capture the true greatness of this man, so let me offer two scenes from Waterfront where he really shows his acting chops. I can’t watch the first without crying. All you need do is look at his face at the end of the second clip to see that a good actor doesn’t need dialogue to express his character’s emotions.

UPDATE:  From the comments:

An actor who could play characters at opposite ends of the moral and emotional scales and all points between — from Dad Longworth in “One Eyed Jacks” to Omar Bradley in “Patton” and Father Barry in “On the Waterfront” — and make them rock solid believable, is an actor that comes along maybe two or three times in a century.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Recall the hysteria of the protests last fall against the passage of Prop 8?  The activists directed their ire at the Mormon Church.  And now, as we debate means to repeal the proposition, it seems sometimes that they would rather attack Mormons than make the case for gay marriage.

In that process, they would alienate those Mormons who, while they love their church, do not always agree with its teaching, individuals who might buck church elders and vote for gay marriage.  If the issue is about the qualities of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints, then they lose those votes–as well as those of others truly tolerant of the great variety of religions which flourish in the United States.

Last month, Law Professor William A. Jacobson noted how some bloggers were singling out one of the signatories on the Obama Justice Department brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because that lawyerThey  is Mormon:  “Even though others also signed the brief, and the brief must have gone through a vetting process at DOJ, Aravosis chose to single out the one person who was Mormon for scorn“.

Why is it that gay marriage activists are so determined to use the debate on their issue to vilify members of a particular faith instead of making the case for the social change they advocate? It’s almost as if their real issue is not promoting gay marriage, but demonizing cetain social conservatives.

With his polls slipping and Congressman Joe Sestak having all but announced a bid to challenge the Senator in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary, the odds against the Republican-turned-Democrat returning to the 112th Congress are increasing every day.  Had he sacrificed his eagerness to be at the center of attention during the “stimulus” debate and joined his party’s opposition to budgetary profligacy, he might have been able to win renomination as a Republican, simply by sticking with his party on issues which draw media attention.

Simply put, had he voted against the “stimulus,” his opponent wouldn’t have garnered the support he did among rank-and-file Republicans, upset at our party’s past profligacy and eager for a return to fiscal sanity.

Opposition to the “stimulus” may have brought him less time in the limelight, but secured him a longer tenure in the Senate.