JOHN PARTIPILO / FILE / THE TENNESSEAN

That’s how many dollars Emerson’s for-profit company — Washington-based SAE Productions — collected in 2008 for researching alleged ties between American Muslims and overseas terrorism. The payment came from the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, a nonprofit charity Emerson also founded, which solicits money by telling donors they’re in imminent danger from Muslims.

Emerson is a leading member of a multimillion-dollar industry of self-proclaimed experts who spread hate toward Muslims in books and movies, on websites and through speaking appearances.

Leaders of the so-called “anti-jihad” movement portray themselves as patriots, defending America against radical Islam. And they’ve found an eager audience in ultra-conservative Christians and mosque opponents in Middle Tennessee. One national consultant testified in an ongoing lawsuit aimed at stopping a new Murfreesboro mosque…

That ‘national consultant’ is the subject of the below.

Crossposted from Care2.com ~ Originally published 6 October 2010

AARON THOMPSON / FILE / GANNETT TENNESSEE

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration Frank Gaffney appeared in a Tennessee courtroom Monday, Sept. 27, to offer his “expert” testimony on behalf of four plaintiffs seeking an injunction to prevent the construction of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, commonly referred to as the Murfreesboro mosque.

From the Murfreesboro Post:

“I’m here to warn this community of seditious acts of Sharia Law,” Gaffney said.  “And that threat has trickled down to local governments.”

Gaffney’s testimony carried little weight with the Judge, the witness having clarified the true nature of his expertise to the court:

“I don’t hold myself out as an expert on Sharia Law,”  Gaffney told the court on the witness stand.  “But I have talked a lot about that as a threat.”

This is exactly what Gaffney is an expert at — scaring the crap out of people regarding a topic, on which, he is decidedly NOT an expert.

Two days after his court testimony, Gaffney went on CNN to discuss the Murfreesboro case with Anderson Cooper and Akbar Ahmed, former Pakistani diplomat, presently the chair of Islamic studies at American University (h/t TPMMuckraker).  In the below clip, Cooper starts with Gaffney, asking the  president of the Center for Security Policy to elaborate on the “red flags” signaling the onset of Sharia infiltration.

Gaffney’s opening was curious.  “Well, several were introduced into evidence during the court proceedings,” Gaffney told Cooper.  While such items may have been introduced into evidence, it doesn’t mean they’ll have any bearing on the Court’s conclusions.  And, as the Murfreesboro Post reported, much of Gaffney’s testimony was objected to by the County attorneys and their objections were subsequently sustained by the Judge.

What follows from Gaffney is the standard neoconservative misrepresentation of Sharia and overstatement of the threat, which, in Gaffney’s warped view, poses an existential threat to America by way of “stealth jihad.”

Watch the clip or read the CNN transcript for the details of Gaffney’s foolish paranoia.  Also be sure to read Rachel Slajda’s Sept. 23 TPMMuckraker piece recounting the origins of the neoconservative war on Sharia.  Here, however, consider Ahmed’s response to Gaffney on CNN as he puts the likelihood of Sharia replacing the U.S. Constitution in its proper perspective:

If every Muslim in the United States of America, which is about 2 percent of the population, wanted Sharia — which is not the case at all — even if they wanted it, could they impose it over a population of 98 percent who are not Muslim in a democracy?

In my country where I come from, Pakistan, 98 percent of the population is Muslim. There is no Sharia law. I’ve been a commissioner in charge of large parts of the country. Our laws are criminal and civil procedure codes derived from British colonial law which go to Westminster, which in turn has influenced the U.S. Constitution.

So the notion of Sharia being implemented in America with about 2 percent of the population, to me, is mathematically absurd.

(CNN clip via Media Matters Action)

The court battle over the Murfreesboro mosque is in recess until Oct. 20, but its outcome is a foregone conclusion.  The legal arguments presented by opponents of the project — that county officials didn’t provide sufficient public notice during the approval process — are baseless.  The whole sorry episode, much like the inflated controversy over the Park 51 community center in lower Manhattan, is sideshow propaganda from one group of clash-of-civilization types directed at another.  For a sideshow, however, as Glenn Greenwald, Greg Sargent, and Jonathan Chait argued last month, its pursuit could have significant, possibly dire, consequences for America.

Most concerning at present, though, is that Gaffney’s convoluted conspiracy spew, once relegated to the neocon fringe, is now treated as plausible.

Salon’s Joe Conason recalls Gaffney’s 2003 alarmism aimed at prominent conservative Grover Norquist and the Bush administration for “… engagement with Muslim groups that [Gaffney] and others [anti-Park51 crusader Pamela Geller among them] had identified as jihadist or radical.”  Few conservatives paid them any mind back in the day.  ”All that has changed since the inauguraton of a president whose middle name is Hussein and whose father was Muslim,” Conason writes, “because he provides a central focus for a politicized campaign against Islam…”

Now, potential 2012 GOP candidates for president seem content to wear their hatred of Islam on their sleeves.  Whether it’s Sarah Palin’s petty invocations of the president’s middle name, or Newt Gingrich’s steadfast adherence to the neocons’ fear mongering message, Islamophobia stands to be a prominent feature on the Republican policy platform for the foreseeable future.

Related on Care2:

• Tenn. Mosque Opponents: “Islam Is Not A Real Religion”
• Mosque That Was Hit By Arson Now Attacked Via Bureaucracy

Related Elsewhere:

• TIMELINE: Nine months of the right’s anti-Muslim bigotry | Media Matters for America
• Confronting Islamophobic Conspiracy Theories | The Plum Line

                          

You had to wonder if Palin, who is nothing if not cunning, had sprung a trap. She knows all too well that the more the so-called elites lampoon her, the more she cements her cred with the third of the country that is her base. Her hand hieroglyphics may not have been speaking aids but bait.

If so, mission accomplished. Her sleight of hand gave the anti-Palin chorus another prod to deride her as an empty-headed, subliterate clown, and her fans another cue to rally…

Read More–> Frank Rich, “Palin’s Cunning Sleight of Hand.” NYTimes.com, 13 Feb. 2010

While my take on this matter is nowhere near as well written as Rich’s , I suggested similarly on Feb. 11… and took bunch of crap for it.  (Just sayin’)

                          

The National Journal conducted a poll of 109 Republican Party leaders, asking them to “rank 5 candidates in the order of likeliness to capture the GOP nod.”  That former MA Governor Mitt Romney topped the lists of those polled with 81 points, 62 per-cent of which were first place votes, is unsurprising.  Were it not for half-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s poor showing (25 points) it probably wouldn’t be worth talking about.

Not one of the party leaders or pundits polled selected Palin to top their list.  Taking into account the ideological nature of her supporters — distrustful of government, adherents to the myth of a liberal media, and, most importantly, a profound disdain for the GOP elite — this was the best outcome Palin could have hoped for.

Talented FiveThirtyEight.com political prognosticator, Nate Silver, likes Palin’s chances to win 2012 Republican presidential nomination.  Silver posted “10 reasons that Palin Could Win,” last Nov. 18.  In his Jan. 7 reaction to the Insider’s Poll, Silver reiterated his number eight reason from last year:

…If the Establishment, owing to electability concerns or whatever else, tries to put hurdles in her way by re-structuring the primary or delegate allocation process, it may only play into the victimization complex of Palin and her supporters.

Silver’s commentary is apt, and though the poll doesn’t represent any direct effort to “neuter” Palin’s potential candidacy, that doesn’t mean they wont (see video, below).  “Although the Establishment’s concerns about Palin’s viability as a general election candidate are well grounded,” Silver notes, “mostly they’re just terrified of her because she doesn’t need them. “

It might be wiser for establishment Republicans to remain hands-off, and wait for Palin to self destruct.  Her supporters have proven themselves willing to keep their blinders on, content to cling to the dazzling façade rolled out at the 2008 Republican National Convention.  However, Palin’s high visibility — albeit, NEVER in a critical forum — increases the probability of a politically fatal mistake.

Indeed, she may have already made it.  I’m not referring to Palin’s recent doubling down on her “death panel” analysis of health care reform efforts in Washington – a turn of phrase awarded “Lie of the Year” for 2009 byPolitifact.com, Pulitzer winner in that same year.  Palin’s deceit in this matter will go unnoticed by her supporters.

However, Palin’s snubbing of the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has got much attention.  Much more interesting is her commitment to speak at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Feb. 4-6.

Muriel Kane posted an excellent summary about how different factions are reacting to Palin’s curious positioning at RawStory.com, Jan. 8.

Missed opportunity, simple greed, or shrewd calculation? Only time will tell the real meaning of Sarah Palin’s Tea Party gambit.

Another aspect that has, thus far, received little attention from the media pertains to whom Palin will share the stage with at the Tea Party Convention.  Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America, Eric Boehlert, posed the question in a Jan. 9 post:  “Will the press question the ‘Palin – Farah’ ticket?”

The Beltway press still refuses to raise questions about Palin’s decision to attend the first annual Tea Party convention in Nashville next month and share the stage with a fringe radical like Joseph Farah, who is an avowed gay and Muslim-hating extremist, and whose wingnut publication, [World Net Daily], remains obsessed with the loony, and thoroughly debunked, conspiracy claim that Obama was not born in America.

Of course, Kane was correct – only time will tell how this will play out.  There is a long way to go, but the potential for Palin to become the 2012 GOP nominee still exists.  So, too, does another outcome which I suggested the day Palin announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska:

If Palin does still have national aspirations, her only hope of success (in her mind, mind you) would be to position herself at the head of some third-party, the radical right-wing of the GOP finally throwing off its remaining moderate faction.

See Also:

• David Weigel, “Is Palin Getting $100,000 to Speak at the Tea Party National Convention.“ WashintonIndependent.com, 7 January 2010.

• Here’s a teaser for the Jan. 10 ‘60 Minutes‘ segment on Sarah Palin:

Palin Inaccurate says McCain Strategist

Related on Care2:

• Palin Quits – Could GOP split be in the offing?

• The Death Panel Lie – Conservative Dishonesty in the Health Care Reform Debate

                          

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.4458451&w=425&h=350&fv=config%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykostv.com%2Fw%2F002470%2Fvxml.php%3F448]

Digg This

                          

From Angie Drobnic Holan, published 18 December 2009:

Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this year, one stood out from the rest.

“Death panels.”

The claim set political debate afire when it was made in August, raising issues from the role of government in health care to the bounds of acceptable political discussion. In a nod to the way technology has transformed politics, the statement wasn’t made in an interview or a television ad. Sarah Palin posted it on her Facebook page…

Read More ~  PolitiFact | PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year: ‘Death panels’.

Politifact’s treatment gives me occasion to crosspost my own assessment of the “Death Panel” meme, published Aug. 18, 2009, at Care2.com:

The Death Panel Lie ~

Conservative Dishonesty in the Health Care Reform Debate

So the opponents of health care reform are sticking with the “death panel” talking point and the mob tactics it inspires.  Admittedly, the strategy has yielded some results for…  well, it’s unclear what they want aside from railing against President Obama.  Regardless, the anti-reform crowd finally landed a punch.  Good for them, I suppose.  Conservatives have been flailing wildly since Obama took office with little to show for it, save a lot of embarrassing You Tube clips.  Despite this, there is reason to remain optimistic about getting a reform bill ready for Obama’s signature this year.

Among the ethically challenged Republicans maintaining the “Death Panel” myth are Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Iowa senator, Chuck Grassley.  All three of them are political opportunists, frankly, playing upon the fears of their dwindling, radical constituencies.  At this time and in this debate, it is a losing political strategy.

Grassley’s Folly:

Grassley’s jumping on the crazy train isn’t much of a surprise, but it was unnecessary.  Representing one of the most aged state populations in the U.S., the senator must have felt safer stoking the fear, rather than rebutting it.  However, during his recess town halls, Grassley has failed to mention he — along with many other Republicans — voted in favor of a similar measure in 2003.

From Amy Sullivan at TIME.com’s Swampland Blog, August 13, 2009:

Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let’s go to the bill text, shall we? “The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary’s need for pain and symptom management, including the individual’s need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.” The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

Palin’s Density:

As much as I would prefer not to mention Sarah Palin, her peculiar insistence upon furthering the “Death Panel” lie demands it.  It is fitting, though, that her efforts are now publicized via Facebook rather than Governor’s Office press releases.  Her August 7, 2009 post on the subject is the one that really gave the term “Death Panel” its legs within the mainstream media:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil…

Palin followed up this lunacy with a call for civility during the health care reform town halls scheduled by Alaska’s representatives in an August 9 Facebook post.  While it wasn’t a reversal of her previous post, it was a tacit admission that her rhetoric, at least in part, added fuel to the thuggish nonsense displayed by the right-wing at town hall discussions elsewhere.

Then she did something remarkably dense.  Sarah Palin, following the above mentioned comments from Sen. Grassley, declared victory against the dreaded death panel legislation within her August 13 post:

I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.

Forget for a moment that Sarah Palin had, to put it kindly, a questionable record as Governor of Alaska when it came to elder care.  Her above assertion displays a profound ignorance, not only of the present health care reform debate, but also of the basic mechanisms of the legislative process.

First, the Senate Finance Committee has nothing to do with HR 3200.  The “HR” is for House of Representatives, of course, and HR 3200 is but one of five health care bills being considered by that body.  Second, there is a Senate bill being considered by the Finance Committee, however both Houses of Congress are presently in recess.  They are not presently “removing” provisions, or adding them for that matter.

Finally, Palin’s suggestion that the “provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation,” is simply another fear tactic.  One she likely learned from her new mentor:  Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich’s Hypocrisy:

Gingrich is supposed to be the conservative with the most formidable intellectual chops; yet, when he attempted to defend Palin’s comments on ABC’s August 9 broadcast of This Week, he complained about the bill’s length.  “The bill is a thousand pages of setting up mechanisms,” he said. “You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.”

Sounds scary, right?  However, consider the former House Speaker’s own words from a July 2, 2009 article at The Washington Post:

More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life. Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin has developed a successful end-of-life, best practice that combines: 1) community-wide advance care planning, where 90 percent of patients have advance directives; 2) hospice and palliative care; and 3) coordination of services through an electronic medical record. The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and direct their care. The Dartmouth Health Atlas has documented that Gundersen delivers care at a 30 percent lower rate than the national average ($18,359 versus $25,860). If Gundersen’s approach was used to care for the approximately 4.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who die every year, Medicare could save more than $33 billion a year.

The emphasis added to the above — again, they are Gingrich’s words — describes, in general terms, what the current health care legislation-in-progress is designed to do.  It is the same idea for reform.  It is the same proposal which Sen. Grassley told his constituents they were right to fear, that Sarah Palin claimed victory for killing, and Newt Gingrich thought was such a good idea just a few short months ago.

Reasons For Optimism:

The “death panel” talking point has absolutely no basis in fact.  It is a false argument, and its success is contingent upon fear:  frightening the oldest among us into thinking their country wants to kill them.  (Wow!  I had to wash my hands after typing the preceding sentence…  Stay classy, conservatives).

The hypocrisy, fear mongering, and intellectual dishonesty described above have been employed by conservatives for years.  They are the same cynical strategies that have been employed in the fight against health care reform since the Truman administration.   They are also the same tactics that were employed against Obama during the 2008 campaign.  Obama’s election, then, is proof positive that this cynicism can be defeated.

Progressive advocates for health care, myself included, and members of the punditocracy have been highly critical of the president for pursuing this reform agenda in an bipartisan fashion.  As Thom Hartmann often says, “We have to hope that Obama is playing chess and not checkers,” with this contentious issue.  Without going into further detail, Obama doesn’t strike me as a checkers man.

In closing, it is important to note that, while optimism for health care reform is warranted, complacency is not.  Tell your representatives you want meaningful reform by signing this petition:  Support Historic Health Care Bill

Crossposted at Care2.com‘s Political Causes Blog – 18 August 2009

                          

Fortunately, this is as close as she’ll ever get.

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.3983677&w=425&h=350&fv=config%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.liveleak.com%252Fflash_config_new.php%253Ffile_embed_tag%253D9a52ae645081%2526width%253D570%2526%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.liveleak.com%2Fd-related.swf%26drelated.dxmlpath%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.liveleak.com%2Fmore_videos.php%3Ftoken%3D8b8_1258874260%26drelated.dposition%3Dcenter%26drelated.dskin%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.liveleak.com%2Fgrayskin.swf%26drelated.dtarget%3D_self]

                          

Originally posted on Care2.com’s Political Causes Blog 16 August 2009:

So the opponents of health care reform are sticking with the “death panel” talking point and the mob tactics it inspires.  Admittedly, the strategy has yielded some results for…  well, it’s unclear what they want aside from railing against President Obama.  Regardless, the anti-reform crowd finally landed a punch.  Good for them, I suppose.  Conservatives have been flailing wildly since Obama took office with little to show for it, save a lot of embarrassing You Tube clips.  Despite this, there is reason to remain optimistic about getting a reform bill ready for Obama’s signature this year.

Among the ethically challenged Republicans maintaining the “Death Panel” myth are Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Iowa senator, Chuck Grassley.  All three of them are political opportunists, frankly, playing upon the fears of their dwindling, radical constituencies.  At this time and in this debate, it is a losing political strategy.

Grassley’s Folly:

Grassley’s jumping on the crazy train isn’t much of a surprise, but it was unnecessary.  Representing one of the most aged state populations in the U.S., the senator must have felt safer stoking the fear, rather than rebutting it.  However, during his recess town halls, Grassley has failed to mention he — along with many other Republicans — voted in favor of a similar measure in 2003.

From Amy Sullivan at TIME.com’s Swampland Blog, August 13, 2009:

Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let’s go to the bill text, shall we? “The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary’s need for pain and symptom management, including the individual’s need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.” The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

Palin’s Density:

As much as I would prefer not to mention Sarah Palin, her peculiar insistence upon furthering the “Death Panel” lie demands it.  It is fitting, though, that her efforts are now publicized via Facebook rather than Governor’s Office press releases.  Her August 7, 2009 post on the subject is the one that really gave the term “Death Panel” its legs within the mainstream media:

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil…

Palin followed up this lunacy with a call for civility during the health care reform town halls scheduled by Alaska’s representatives in an August 9 Facebook post.  While it wasn’t a reversal of her previous post, it was a tacit admission that her rhetoric, at least in part, added fuel to the thuggish nonsense displayed by the right-wing at town hall discussions elsewhere.

Then she did something remarkably dense.  Sarah Palin, following the above mentioned comments from Sen. Grassley, declared victory against the dreaded death panel legislation within her August 13 post:

I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.

Forget for a moment that Sarah Palin had, to put it kindly, a questionable record as Governor of Alaska when it came to elder care.  Her above assertion displays a profound ignorance, not only of the present health care reform debate, but also of the basic mechanisms of the legislative process.

First, the Senate Finance Committee has nothing to do with HR 3200.  The “HR” is for House of Representatives, of course, and HR 3200 is but one of five health care bills being considered by that body.  Second, there is a Senate bill being considered by the Finance Committee, however both Houses of Congress are presently in recess.  They are not presently “removing” provisions, or adding them for that matter.

Finally, Palin’s suggestion that the “provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation,” is simply another fear tactic.  One she likely learned from her new mentor:  Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich’s Hypocrisy:

Gingrich is supposed to be the conservative with the most formidable intellectual chops; yet, when he attempted to defend Palin’s comments on ABC’s August 9 broadcast of This Week, he complained about the bill’s length.  “The bill is a thousand pages of setting up mechanisms,” he said. “You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.”

Sounds scary, right?  However, consider the former House Speaker’s own words from a July 2, 2009 article at The Washington Post:

More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life. Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin has developed a successful end-of-life, best practice that combines: 1) community-wide advance care planning, where 90 percent of patients have advance directives; 2) hospice and palliative care; and 3) coordination of services through an electronic medical record. The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and direct their care. The Dartmouth Health Atlas has documented that Gundersen delivers care at a 30 percent lower rate than the national average ($18,359 versus $25,860). If Gundersen’s approach was used to care for the approximately 4.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who die every year, Medicare could save more than $33 billion a year.

The emphasis added to the above — again, they are Gingrich’s words — describes, in general terms, what the current health care legislation-in-progress is designed to do.  It is the same idea for reform.  It is the same proposal which Sen. Grassley told his constituents they were right to fear, that Sarah Palin claimed victory for killing, and Newt Gingrich thought was such a good idea just a few short months ago.

Reasons For Optimism:

The “death panel” talking point has absolutely no basis in fact.  It is a false argument, and its success is contingent upon fear:  frightening the oldest among us into thinking their country wants to kill them.  (Wow!  I had to wash my hands after typing the preceding sentence…  Stay classy, conservatives).

The hypocrisy, fear mongering, and intellectual dishonesty described above have been employed by conservatives for years.  They are the same cynical strategies that have been employed in the fight against health care reform since the Truman administration.   They are also the same tactics that were employed against Obama during the 2008 campaign.  Obama’s election, then, is proof positive that this cynicism can be defeated.

Progressive advocates for health care, myself included, and members of the punditocracy have been highly critical of the president for pursuing this reform agenda in an bipartisan fashion.  As Thom Hartmann often says, “We have to hope that Obama is playing chess and not checkers,” with this contentious issue.  Without going into further detail, Obama doesn’t strike me as a checkers man.

In closing, it is important to note that, while optimism for health care reform is warranted, complacency is not.  Tell your representatives you want meaningful reform by signing this petition:  Support Historic Health Care Bill

                          

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.2893193&w=425&h=350&fv=video%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.tdbimg.com%2Ffiles%2F2008%2F11%2F21%2Fvid-sarah-palin-pardons-turkey_084554325513.flv%26still%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fstatic.thedailybeast.com%2Ffiles%2F2008%2F11%2F21%2Fimg-081120-palin-turkey-interview-384_084430568165.jpg%26title%3D]

                          

Esquire‘s Chris Jones offers his assessment of what causes historians will attribute to the collapse of the McCain campaign in 2008.   Of course there are numerous causes for the McCain/Palin loss to Obama/Biden, but Jones tracks a personality transition following the Republican’s surprising primary victory in New Hampsire.

For Jones, who had extrordinary access to the campaign throughout the primaries and general election, the final straw was McCain’s selection of the governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, as his running mate.

From Esquire.com, posted by Chris Jones, 5 November 2008:

(emphasis added)…Then he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. I’d like to think someone else picked her for him, but how’s that the better option? She represented everything wrong with the Republican Party — the same intolerant elements that McCain had fought so hard against years earlier — and now there she was, smiling on the stage beside him. Historians will no doubt cite the collapsing economy and the legacy of George W. Bush as impossible obstacles for McCain to overcome. But for me, he lost the election when he picked Palin, because he lost the last vestige of his former self…

read more | digg story

                          

Like many political addicts/observers, I was shocked when John McCain hastily selected Sarah Palin as his running mate.  I totally lost sleep the night the Alaskan Governor gave her acceptance address at this year’s RNC in Minneapolis.  Between her naming and acceptance it was already clear that Palin’s resume was -putting it kindly – thin.  The speech was pure political theater, packed with crap designed to rally the base, and it was delivered in a – again, kindly – sarcastic tone. (continued below Daily Show clip)

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1592994&w=425&h=350&fv=videoId%3D184095]

I’m sleeping better now that the Palin/convention bump in the polls has faded, and while the McCain team has effectively sheltered her from MSM scrutiny, the top of the ticket is keeping the campaign compettitive, they are only doing so by spouting half-truths and outrigt lies.  It is not a sustainable strategy.

Now my sleep will improve further thanks, mostly, to the below article (excerpt below).  Paul Gough describes Burns, whose comments were solicited at panel discussion associated with this week’s Emmy Awards, as appearing firm in his assessment.  I don’t always buy in to historian commentary when present or future events are at issue, but in this case, I believe Burns is spot on.  Historians - or any astute observers willing to focus beyond the MSM lens – are perfectly qualified to recognize that Sarah Palin is not the caricature presented and protected by the GOP.

From the hollywoodreporter.com September 22, 2008 post by, Paul J. Gough:

“He (McCain) selected someone who is so supremely unqualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency and he has turned the selection process into a high school popularity contest and an ‘American Idol’ competition,” Burns said. He said that McCain made a “cynical” pick in what he said was the most important decision of his presidential candidacy.

Burns, whose lifelong work is in American history, said that “in the whole history of the Republic there has been no one with as thin a credential” as Palin. He said it was, for McCain, a “Hail Mary pass” that will be decided in November…

read more | digg story

Related Video:  If you have 12 minutes to spare, view the below clip.  In it, Lawrence Lesig compares Palin’s experience to every American Vice President.

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1593138&w=425&h=350&fv=]

                          

Author of Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and Colbert discuss past political conventions while touching upon this week’s Republican National Convention.

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1534821&w=425&h=350&fv=videoId%3D180288]