Jonah Goldberg on Palin's Robust Defense of Democratic Debate

National Review's Jonah Goldberg:

"Lost in all of the squabbling about the use of the term “blood libel” is an under-appreciated fact. Palin’s statement yesterday was actually the most robust, unapologetic defense of vigorous democratic debate and the American system we’ve heard from any politician since Saturday, and that goes for President Obama’s speech as well. I don’t fault Obama by saying this. Obama was speaking at a memorial service (or at least that was his plan).

"Palin did exactly what her detractors claimed she both must do and couldn’t do: give a grown up, mature statement. The timing was arguably ill-considered, given that it was bound to be overshadowed by the president’s remarks last night. But such criticism is hard to take from people who demanded that she speak up and then denounced her for doing exactly that. Likewise, the objections that she “injected herself into the story” are hard to take seriously from the same people who insisted she was the cause of the story in the first place. If she had waited a day and released her statement today, she would have been twice as vilified for re-opening the “wound” Obama the Healer had mended."
[emphasis added]

Sarah Palin: America's Enduring Strength

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

UPDATE: Daniel Foster of National Review:

"My two cents: She starts off a little shaky but really comes into her own here. Palin in gravitas mode like we’ve never seen her. Of course, it’s a video that should not have had to be made."

The text of Governor Palin's speech:

Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.

I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.

Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.

There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.

Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.

President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.

It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.

Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.

America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.

Mapes' Loose Links

The Oregonian's Jeff Mapes is known for good political reporting. That can be seen in articles like this published last month on why Rep. Dave Hunt, House Speaker in the last legislative session, is not the Democrats' choice to repeat as their co-speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives this session.

But, every so often Mapes wanders into a sort of stream of consciousness reporting.

Just two days ago Mapes wrote that the Arizona shooting makes him wonder about an interview between Lars Larson and former Nevada senatorial candidate Sharon Angle broadcast a year ago.

"The horrible shooting in Arizona is putting new attention on an interview Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle gave Portland talk show host Lars Larson a year ago.

"Angle, who was defeated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November, said that if Congress - then dominated by Democratic majorities in both houses - kept going in the same direction, people may resort to 'Second Amendment remedies.'"

Why is a Nevada candidate's position important to Oregonians? Especially one who lost the election and who Mapes never interviewed in the first place? No disrespect to Lars Larson, but shouldn't the source for in-depth understanding of Angle's views, be Angle herself?

The connection of this with Oregon politics or the actual shooting in Arizona is never made clear. No evidence is presented that Jared Loughner ever heard of Lars Larson, let alone listened to this interview. And since Angle was a candidate in Nevada, and no Oregonian ran as an Angle-endorsed candidate, the link with Oregon politics is less than sketchy.

One guesses that Larson's broadcasting on an Oregon station and that a gun was used in Arizona were sufficient links for Mapes.

Free association of ideas is intriguing for parlor games, but not a bedrock of political analysis or reporting.

Daily Kos Two Days Ago on Rep. Giffords: My CongressWOMAN Voted Against Nancy Pelosi! And Is Now Dead to Me!

Yep. The same Markos Moulitsas now blaming Sarah Palin for the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is founder of the site which only two days ago had a posting headlining that Giffords was "dead" to the post's author. (The unfortunate post was removed from the Daily Kos today for obvious reasons.)

Sheya has laid out the case against Moulitsas as well as pointed out that blaming an unbalanced shooter's killing spree on standard political rhetoric is both stupid and reprehensible.

In 2008 Moulitsas himself targeted Giffords in the 2010 elections by putting a "bullseye" on her and her district for having "sold out the constitution".

"Who to primary? Well, I'd argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I've bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis."
. . .
"Donnelly, Joe (IN-02)
Edwards, Chet (TX-17)
Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08)
Emanuel, Rahm (IL-05)
Engel, Elliot (NY-17)
Etheridge, Bob (NC-02)
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)
Gillibrand, Kirsten (NY-20)
Gordon, Bart (TN-06)
Green, AL (TX-09)
Green, Gene (TX-29)
Gutierrez, Luis (IL-04)"
. . .
"Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district."
[all bolding is original; emphasis added in bolded italics]

Moulitsas and his site have done a great deal more to incite personal opposition to Rep. Giffords than any of her political opponents--especially those who don't live or vote in Arizona. Unfortunately it's clear from Moulitsas' tweet today, he hasn't learned a thing about living in a glass house and throwing stones.

UPDATE: Verum Serum on Democratic "targeting" of Republicans way back in 2004 (not to mention in 2009 and 2010).

Media Advertising Up in 2010--Except for Newspapers

More bad news for local newspapers like the Oregonian.

Kantar Media reports that the first nine months of 2010 showed a growth in media advertising in all sectors except newspapers.

Though national newspapers ("primarily from gains at the Wall Street Journal") showed a 6.8% increase in advertising and Spanish language newspapers a 2% increase, local newspapers pulled the average down with its -4.4% decrease.

This is the 20th consecutive quarter in which spending on local newspaper advertising has declined.

Peggy Noonan: Ow! That Hurts!

Peggy Noonan - November 28, 2010

Last Sunday Peggy Noonan made a very revealing statement.

She was a panelist on NBC's Meet the Press. Others in the discussion were centrist Tom Brokaw with Doris Kearns Goodwin and Bob Woodward leaning liberal. Only Noonan was on the conservative side. Here's what she said (full transcript below*):

"MS. NOONAN: I got to tell you, I'm one of those who thinks Palin will not run, and I happen to think if she runs, it will not work. Her people love her, support her, watch her on TV, read her books, love to cheer her. They especially love to defend her when people like us criticize her. They will not vote.... They won't vote for her for president."
[emphasis added]

First, there's the strange idea that people "love to defend" a major political figure they wouldn't vote for. When's the last time you heard of that? I'm an activist, and I can't remember the last political figure I vigorously defended who I wouldn't vote for. I would defend someone with opposing views, but probably not vigorously enough for a pundit to notice. Certainly not in a manner to be described as loving to defend the political figure. That's just strange analysis.

What's also interesting is the second part of the emphasized text: "when people like us criticize her."

What Noonan meant was "when people like me criticize her." I'd be surprised if Bob Woodward, Doris Kearns Goodwin or Tom Brokaw get much static, let alone vitriol, for criticizing Palin. Certainly not from their base. They more likely get cheers.

But, Peggy Noonan doesn't get cheers from her base when she criticizes Governor Palin. Unfortunately for Noonan, it turned out that she was the only one of the four who implied that Palin was not "[a] credible alternative, a serious man or woman, someone with experience and some weight and heft who can get through Iowa and South Carolina."

Opinions like that get Noonan on liberal-leaning talk shows and give her spikes in page views of her Wall Street Journal columns. Her normal page view volume is a fourth or even an eighth of what her anti-Palin columns draw. To gin up interest, Noonan usually has to say something controversial, but the overall effect of that has been to further cut her off from the conservative base.

Noonan is no longer admired as a woman of gently persuasive opinions. That's what happens when you talk about "patriotic grace" on the one hand and yet call people "nincompoops" on the other. The two don't mesh. So, she no longer gets invited on the major audience conservative shows.

I and many others only read her column when she says something boorish or silly that grabs headlines. Poor Peggy Noonan. How the mighty have fallen, and it hurts enough that she can't help thinking that even the liberal panelists must feel the pain of criticizing Sarah Palin.

But they don't. Instead they lure Peggy into doing the criticism (notice Bob Woodward's leading below). Even if they did criticize Palin themselves, their natural base agrees with them. Brokaw, Goodwin and Woodward are spared the ire of conservatives. But, Peggy Noonan is not.

Now if Noonan had David Brooks and George Will with her, they could all feel the pain. But who would watch them? Well, maybe Kathleen Parker. (I wonder if any of them watch Parker's show?)

Update: Post edited for clarity by extending initial quotation.

----
*MS. NOONAN: Gosh, what do the, the Republicans need to beat Obama? A credible alternative, a serious man or woman, someone with experience and some weight and heft who can get through Iowa and South Carolina.

MR. WOODWARD: And so, not Sarah Palin, you're saying, is that right?

MS. NOONAN: Thank you, Bob, so much...

MR. WOODWARD: Yeah, yeah.

MS. NOONAN: ...for clarifying that.

MR. WOODWARD: Yes.

MS. NOONAN: I got to tell you, I'm one of those who thinks Palin will not run, and I happen to think if she runs, it will not work. Her people love her, support her, watch her on TV, read her books, love to cheer her. They especially love to defend her when people like us criticize her. They will not vote...

MR. GREGORY: But it almost, as a matter of fact, I mean, she...

MS. NOONAN: I'm telling you, they will vote for her.

MR. GREGORY: ...she could run without running. She could be a factor without running.

MS. NOONAN: They won't vote for her for president.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

MS. NOONAN: What I think she'll do is sit back. She's a realist, she'll know she's not going to--this isn't going to work. And so she will sacrifice herself and support somebody else...

To Win Palin Only Needs to Be as Good as George H. W. Bush

Ian Lazaran:

"Some people think it’s a stretch to claim that Governor Palin can comeback against Barack Obama in the same way Ronald Reagan came back against Jimmy Carter because Reagan is an once-in-a-lifetime political talent. What some of these people don’t recognize is that Palin doesn’t need to be as great as Reagan to comeback against Barack Obama. All she needs to be is as good as George H.W. Bush.

"What a lot of people don’t remember about the 1988 presidential contest between Vice President Bush and Michael Dukakis is that Dukakis led Bush by huge margins at a late stage in the election. Dukakis even led by Bush by 10 in Texas in the summer of 1988! (By contrast, Palin leads Obama by 15 in Texas)

"Under the logic that some employ against Palin, George H.W. Bush should have been toast. After all, he was a completely known figure as Vice-President just as Palin is now. People had allegedly already formed their opinions on Bush. And yet, Bush came back to defeat Dukakis handily despite the fact that Bush never possessed anything close to Reagan’s political talent.

"The point of this post is that those arguing that Palin is not as politically talented as Reagan are arguing against a straw man. She doesn’t need to be as good as Reagan to win. All she needs to be is as good as George H.W. Bush and nobody would ever mistake Bush for an incredible political talent."

Good point, Ian. And Palin is a phenomenal political talent. Only she and Barack Obama can generate enthusiastic crowds in the tens of thousands.