Archive for July, 2010

I saw the clip today on Morning Joe where Chris Matthews declares that Palin will win the nomination in 2012 if she runs, Newsbusters was surprised:

An unexpected prediction, and an even more surprising admission from Chris Matthews this morning . . .

Appearing on Morning Joe, the Hardball host predicted that Sarah Palin would seek the Republican presidential nomination, and painted a path to victory for her. In a moment of candor, Matthews admitted that “the media will try to destroy her, of course.”

Matthews made his comments in the course of a pre-taped Mojo Midterm Exam segment that aired on today’s Morning Joe.

Newsbusters is shocked SHOCKED that Matthews would say what he says. They should not be. If they paid attention to what followed they would understand.

Barnicle maintained that if Palin is the nominee that Obama wins re-election automatically. Matthews believes this too.

Matthews is a hyperpatrisian but he is no fool. He knows what both 2010 & 2012 have in store for Democrats in general and this administration in particular. He wants Palin running not because he thinks she can win, but because he thinks she can not.

Newsbusters is reading Matthews wrong but Matthews is reading Palin wrong and Joe Scarborough God bless him hits the nail on the head. When Scarborough points out that Matthews claims concerning Palin’s ignorance are the same thing that was said about Reagan, Matthews declares Reagan well read and substantive.

Unfortunately for Chris like myself Joe read Tip O’Neill’s Autobiography and reminded Chris what his old boss said about Reagan. It was the liberal line for decades until he died. I remember the arguments, I believed them at the time, the difference was when the facts didn’t support those beliefs I changed my opinion, they haven’t.

Here Joe was able to see what Chris Matthews had wrong. Matthews and Barnicle are assuming that the nation won’t accept a Sarah Palin, they assume she is some kind of dunce that people will see right through. However what people see right through are the media types who think this.

2010 may be 2004 redux but 2012 has the potential to be 1980 all over again. A Carter like president facing crises that he can’t cope with, a republican field with one or more established faces (Romney, Huck) and an outsider, a former governor who is considered by the intelligentsia just a lightweight celeb. The left was delighted when Reagan was the front runner, convinced that he couldn’t win, remember how that turned out?

Will the left learn from history? I see no reason why they would start doing so now.

Update: Captain Ed’s take, he notices something too.

Notice that no one objects to this characterization of the media on this panel of, er, media personalities. No one questions whether that is actually the media’s job, to intentionally try to destroy political candidates. It’s all just a given. Palin runs, media will attempt to destroy her — and it serves as an implicit admission that the media did exactly that in 2008.

Solid point.

You know if’s really nice of the MSM to try to save work for Byron York:

From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the New York Times: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program in the Washington Post: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on NBC Nightly News: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on ABC World News: 0.

Total words about the NASA Muslim outreach program on CBS Evening News: 0.

If you were to receive your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving the Obama administration redefining the space agency’s mission to feature outreach to Muslim countries, your response would be, “Huh?” Among all the news these distinguished outlets have seen fit to cover in recent days, the NASA story has not made the cut.

So nice of them to allow him to recycle his Van Jones column from Sept 4th of last year with simply a find and replace.

You know Fox’s News best friend is their competitors.

An even better question. How much longer in an internet age can the MSM decide that a story on the front Page of Drudge for two days will not be seen if they ignore it? How long can the MSM decide that Memeorandum doesn’t exist?

And why is Byron York the only journalist calling them out on it?

Who made this business model? The guy who marketed the Edsel?

BTW the actual NASA story is here.

…he is capable of making an interesting argument and is not afraid of making them.

Today on Morning Joe he has teamed with Ron Paul and now Pat Buchanan and is making the argument on base cutbacks in Europe and elsewhere.

The question he and Ron Paul (and now Pat) make is an interesting one: At what point do we let Europe defend itself?

It’s a fair conversation to have. He talked about the financial costs for us and the subsidy that it , but he actually neglected one of the more important arguments in his favor.

Culturally you have a change in Europe where you have nations that have forgotten how to defend themselves. Recall the famous line from Oscar van den Boogaard quoted in this column and Mark Steyn’s America Alone:

“I am not a warrior, but who is?” he shrugged. “I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it.”

and to show that the attitute is not just owned by Dutch gay humanists here is a doozy:

Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. “The dominant ethos,” he told De Volkskrant, “is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death.”

Why would we expect a culture that doesn’t have to defend itself to do so? If we want this to change we would have to take the hand away. The question becomes are they too far gone already? Would Europe change or fold if our defensive blanket was removed? This is the true cost of American defense.

And then comes the other end of the coin. The benefits of our forward bases. Can a re-armed Europe be able to defend against a newly re-aggressive Russia? Would a re-armed Europe decide to go back to fighting among themselves? Would a Newly re-armed Europe’s military infrastructure become an Islamic military infrastructure in a generation?

Even more important are all of those problems not taking place simply because US troops are there? There were no US bases in Serbia when the war took place, is that a coincidence?

Or put another way: Will US troops and treasure in even greater quantities have to be spent to re-impose peace and re-take territory once we leave?

Or to put it another way, everything costs something. Both positions carry price and risks. Which price and which risk do we as a nation want to incur?

Memorandum doesn’t say what Joy Behar will do?

“Last year, after Bristol and I broke up, I was unhappy and a little angry. Unfortunately, against my better judgment, I publicly said things about the Palins that were not completely true,” he tells PEOPLE exclusively. “I have already privately apologized to Todd and Sarah. Since my statements were public, I owe it to the Palins to publicly apologize.”

Don Surber asks a relevant question:

He apologized. Will the goons who used him?

Nyah. They haven’t grown up.

Nope they haven’t

Update: Not only have they not grown up they are in Denial to the nth degree

Update: 2 Doug Powers: News you won’t hear on MSNBC