Sarah Palin In Charge Obama Taking Cover

Great post at Stop The ACLU, by Warner Todd Huston, tells us like it is: Old Media Whines That Palin is Mean to Them

Get the pity party violin music warmed up because Ezra Klein and Dave Weigel are whining that Sarah Palin has forced them, the press, into a “submissive role” because she is so mean to them.

Klein favorably cites the analysis of Weigel who whined that the “Palin problem” has “put the press in a submissive position:”

• The problem is that Palin has put the political press in a submissive position, one in which the only information it prints about her comes from prepared statements or from Q&As with friendly interviewers. This isn’t something most politicians get away with, or would be allowed to get away with. But Palin has leveraged her celebrity — her ability to get ratings, the ardor of her fans and the bitterness of her critics — to win a truly unique relationship with the press. She is allowed to shape the public debate without actually engaging in it. [...]

However, Klein’s whining about Palin aside, he does have a good point about the failure of the press to place the news in the greater context of the reality of the world even as he papers over the fact that newspapers are, indeed, working hard to pass lies as news:

• For one thing, newspapers work very hard to report things that are true, but they are less concerned with whether the overall impression from their reporting is a true impression. Shark attacks, for instance, happen very rarely. But if you report excitedly on every shark attack that happens, people will think they happen quite a bit. [...]

For instance, the “news” has been floating the idea that the recent unemployment numbers did not grow and newspapers have marked that as an “unexpected drop” in unemployment as if it’s all good news. However, few papers have bothered to mention that this has been a tiny drop in rates during a steady years-long rise in unemployment. The impression is that good news was had, but the facts prove otherwise. Context is ignored in order to make Obama seem a success.

Anyway, it is amusing to see the Old Media crying that Palin is messing with them like this. An unexpected Christmas present if there ever was one.

Full Post At:

Old Media Whines That Palin is Mean to Them

Publish Post

Congressional Budget Office To Reid: Bill Would Reduce Access To Care (Death Panels)

Interesting how the nonexistent or “Lie of the Year” death panels are popping up all over the place, even the non-nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Sarah Palin’s Response To Harry Reid:

Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change wit h a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to “bend the cost curve” and keep health care spending down?

The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost. In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted  that the bill’s calculations call for a reduction in Medicare’s spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:

“It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”  “A provision that would increase Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services by 0.5 percent for 2010 was eliminated. Instead, the 21% reduction in those payment rates that is scheduled to occur in 2010 under current law would take effect”

Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.

Glenn Reynolds, from Pajamas Media, had this to say: “It’s not a scary “Death Panel” that determines who’s denied medical treatment and dies. It’s a friendly “Life Panel” that determines who gets treatment and lives! Mostly friends of the regime, I’d guess, based on recent history.”

CBO Letter To Harry Reid:

Congressional Budget Office

Canada Free Press: The Left “Why is she popular? This is Sarah Palin, not Barack Obama, why”?

A Great Article from the superb Canada Free Press by Jim Byrd: Why Does Sarah Palin Get So Much Media Attention? 

The Left, since the release of Sarah Palin’s book, Going Rogue, and its million plus sales in a matter of weeks, have been wandering the streets in a benighted stupor, tugging at their unkempt hair, and shrieking at whomever will listen with their question of “why”? “Why is she popular, why is she on television, why is she on magazine covers, why, why, why?” “This is Sarah Palin, not Barack Obama, why?”

Despite the equitably challenged mainstream media’s shilling Barack Obama like snake-oil out the back of a mountebank’s wagon, and the very same media’s non-stop offensive on Sarah Palin, the latest Rasmussen poll finds that 51% have a favorable view of Sarah Palin while 43% have an unfavorable view, vis a vis Obama’s 49% favorable and 51% unfavorable. How accurate are these numbers in actuality, when almost the entirety of the media—print and television—dominate their coverage with fawning accolades about Obama, and when Sarah Palin is mentioned, she is an uneducated and unsavory hick? Why are Obama’s numbers dropping like the blood pressure of a Buddhist Monk in meditation, and Palin’s numbers rising faster than Nancy Pelosi’s botoxed eyebrows? If the 2008 presidential election were held today, Obama would lose to any unnamed Republican opponent. A Rasmussen survey finds that only 45% of adults would be a least somewhat likely to vote for Obama if he was up for re-election right now, while 4% would not vote for him, without naming an opponent. This is why Sarah Palin gets so much media attention. Sarah Palin B+, Barack Obama, F.

[...]

Sarah Palin has been accused of not being able form a coherent sentence. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has uttered these nuggets of coherency:

• “From the discussions we had, it’s clear that we are on the precipice [sic] of an achievement that’s eluded Congresses and presidents for generations.”

• “It’s like — it was like Special Olympics, or something.”

• “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll was 12.

• “I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

• “Because of Selma, they got together (his parents), and Barack Obama Jr. was born.” ;Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965

• “I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any séances.”

Sarah Palin’s sentences sure do seem to be coherent as of late, Obama, not so much. This is why Sarah Palin gets so much media attention. Sarah Palin, B+, Barack Obama, F

[...]

Sarah Palin gets media attention because, currently, she is very relevant. She is popular. She has a voice. The Left’s obsessive fascination with Sarah Palin is also a contributing factor for her media attention. When one is as hated, despised, and feared as Sarah Palin is by the Left, and driven into a frenzy by jealousy, one could expect to be front-paged every day. So B+ for Sarah Palin.

Jim Byrd nails it.  The LameStreamMedia sold millions of gullible and naive Americas: Obama genius/savior and Palin dumb.  In reality Obama is the slow-witted ignoramus and Sarah Palin the smart one.  Obama is a disaster because every decision he has made has NOT been based on what is best for America but on politics.

Full Article At:

Why Does Sarah Palin Get So Much Media Attention?