Memo to Rick Perry: Next Time, Read Your Palm Like Sarah Palin

.

.
By MARC McDONALD

Texas Gov. Rick Perry suffered one of the most spectacular debate fiascos in history Thursday night when he was unable to name the third of three government agencies that he'd eliminate, if elected president.

A couple of quick observations about Perry's latest idiocy. One: in the future, he should follow the example of Sarah Palin. Next time, Perry should write down notes on his palm, like Palin did in a TV interview in 2010 (see above video).

A second, and less funny, observation: I disagree that this latest episode dooms Perry's campaign. After all, Perry still has the most potent weapon in U.S. politics: lots of deep-pocketed financial backers. These are ruthless, powerful people who are used to getting their way.

Another advantage Perry enjoys: tens of millions of fanatical GOP voters who are chomping at the bit to cast their vote for anyone besides President Obama in 2012.

Think I'm exaggerating? Consider this: in 2004, George W. Bush was presiding over one of the most disastrous terms that any president has inflicted upon the nation in history. And what did voters do? They turned around and sent Bush back to the White House for another four years.

We should remember: it's still a long, long ways to Election Day, 2012.

Palin Book Author Joe McGinniss Unfairly Attacked By "Liberal" Media Outlets

By MARC McDONALD

I have to admit, I'm baffled by the hostility coming from "Liberal" media outlets toward The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin, Joe McGinniss's new book.

For me, the only question is whether McGinniss's revelations about Palin are true or not. If Palin wants to dispute their accuracy, then fine: she can file a libel suit. Otherwise, she needs to STFU.

Another question is this: is it really important whether Palin snorted coke? Yes, I believe it is. Palin is a Bible-thumping, holier-than-thou, right-winger and a member of a political party that supports a harsh "lock-them-up-and-throw-away the-key" approach to drugs. That idiotic stance accounts for a large portion of the $200 billion that taxpayers are forced to pay yearly to keep 2.2 million Americans behind bars.

If Palin was a true Libertarian and openly supported decriminalization, then her personal drug use would not be that important. But given that she is on the far-right of a GOP party that has been responsible for the insane Drug War over the decades, then, yes: I do think people should know whether or not she's a hypocrite on this issue.

I also find it interesting how "Liberal" outlets like Salon are suddenly feeling so sorry for Poor Little Sarah. They're taking Mean Old Man McGinniss to task over his bare-knuckles expose of Palin's hypocrisy.

But all McGinniss is doing is serving up a big dose of what Palin has always served up to others in her bare-knuckle style of politics.

In fact, what Palin has done to others is far worse. After all, nothing McGinniss has written has proven to be wrong.

By contrast, Palin routinely lies and smears her opponents with outrageous falsehoods. Recall how she smeared President Obama's health-care bill with her despicable lie that it provided for "Death Panels."

Over the years, Palin has repeatedly smeared Obama with various malicious attacks. Recall how she claimed that Obama was "palling around with terrorists."

And let's not forget Palin's infamous "target" map that illustrated Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' 8th district with target crosshairs

As Giffords herself put it in an MSNBC interview 8 months before she was shot, "The way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that action."

Frankly, the Democrats who are falling over themselves to slam McGinniss sicken me.

Increasingly since 1980, the GOP has come after the progressives with a switchblade. And we think we can fight back with politeness and good manners.

The increasingly rabid right-wing has gotten pretty much everything it wanted since 1980 with bare-knuckle tactics and fighting tooth and claw. They even stole at least one presidential election, simply because they were more aggressive in claiming they "won." And now, they're systematically tearing down what remains of America's social safety net.

And what have progressives gotten for all their politeness and good manners over the decades? Nothing. We've taken it up the ass over and over while the GOP has driven this nation over a cliff.

Look, progressives, if you want to criticize "bad" journalism, please give McGinniss a break. Instead, take the fight to Fox "News" and other right-wing propaganda outlets that are committing the real outrages in this country.

All McGinniss is doing is giving Palin a well-deserved dose of her own medicine. And by exposing her contemptible hypocrisy, he's doing the nation a favor.

Sarah Palin Reveals Hypocrisy In Wisconsin Union Debate

By MARC McDONALD

Perhaps it was inevitable, but Sarah Palin has finally waded into the Wisconsin union controversy. But her comments have only revealed her ignorance and hypocrisy on the union debate.

As she has constantly pointed out, Palin's family has long had union connections. Her husband, Todd, was a long-time United Steelworkers union member, enjoying a nice salary and generous union benefits. (For example, Todd Palin earned $102,716 in 2006, working for BP, as a union member).

Clearly, the Palin family has long enjoyed the benefits of union membership. But instead of doing anything to help unions in return, all Palin has done is try to exploit her family's union ties in an effort to boost her political standing with union members.

In short, Palin has cynically used organized labor as nothing more than a prop (just as George W. Bush often used the military as a prop, in publicity photos, to further his own career).

On Friday, Palin waded into the Wisconsin union debate, with a typically ignorant and ill-informed Facebook post. In her post, Palin managed to simultaneously try to polish her labor credentials, even as she blasted the Wisconsin public employee union and urged its members to break away from their leadership.

In other words, while sucking up to the union members (even repeatedly addressing them as "brothers and sisters") Palin secretly pulled out a knife and stuck it in the back of the union workers. She must think these people are really stupid.

Union members must "sacrifice and carry our share of the burden," Palin wrote.

Ho, hum.

Palin is nothing is not predictable in her comments. And she's also dishonest. Her buddies like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would never address union members as "brothers and sisters." At least Limbaugh and Hannity are being honest in their open contempt for organized labor.

Palin tries to have it both ways. Her husband enjoyed a nice, well-paid union job. She then uses this fact to try to bolster her cred with union members. And then, at the same time, she embraces the extreme far-right policies of today's GOP: a party that has a pathological hatred of unions and seeks to abolish them completely.

In 2008, United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard got so sick of Palin's hypocrisy on unions that he blasted her "worker-savaging positions" in a statement and called upon her to stop using her husband's union membership as a "prop."

Indeed, Palin's 2008 running mate, John McCain, has had a long history of extreme hostility toward unions. In 2007, he voted against the Employee Free Choice Act, for example. In 1994, he also voted against a bill protecting discrimination against workers who go on strike.

But for all her professed love of her union "brothers and sisters," Palin apparently believes they're so stupid that they'd support a fire-breathing, far-right extremist like her.

And it's easy for Palin to ask that the Wisconsin union members accept "sacrifices" and tighten their belts. After all, this is a woman who has made an enormous fortune since she quit as Alaska's governor. In a mere 9 months after she quit, Palin raked in an incredible $12 million.

Yet she insists that the Wisconsin union members need to "sacrifice."

If Palin's "Crosshairs" Map Was Really Harmless, Why Was It Scrubbed From Web?

By MARC McDONALD

Sarah Palin has drawn criticism for her infamous "target" map that illustrated Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' 8th district with target crosshairs. A Palin spokeswoman has defended the map image, claiming that it was never meant to evoke guns or violence.

But if that's true, then why did Palin's camp rush to scrub the site with the image from the Internet only minutes after Giffords was shot? And why, in March, when Giffords criticized what she called a "gun sight" graphic, did Palin not rush to dispute this description back then?

Clearly, Palin doesn't have the courage of her convictions---which is ironic, because she portrays herself as a rugged "mama grizzly bear" who proudly stands her ground against the wimpy Dems and the "lamestream" media. But now, she's cowering in fear over what the latter might have to say about her crosshairs map.

It's notable that Giffords herself had previously raised concerns about Palin's map. Last March, Giffords, who had been the target of threats over her vote on health care reform, told MSNBC: "The way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that action."

Note that Giffords' comments were scrubbed from Palin's Facebook page on Sunday.

Incidentally, anyone who expects the Giffords tragedy to cause GOP hate-mongers to tone down their heated rhetoric is dreaming. Right-wing radio continues to spew hate and bile and indeed, has reached a new low in the aftermath of the shooting.

On Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh said the suspected shooter, Jared Loughner, was smirking in his latest photo for a reason.

"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame."

Keep it classy, Rush.

Sarah Palin Flunks Once Again In Her Advice on Dealing with BP Disaster

By MARC McDONALD

Recall back in May when the BP oil disaster was raging? On May 31, Sarah Palin drew chuckles when she tweeted advice to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal about how to avoid having a "ravished coast."

Palin's moronic tweet read thusly:

"Gov.Jindal:to avoid ravished coast, build the berms.Ask forgiveness later;Feds are slow to act,local leadership&action can do more for coast"

Palin's use of the word "ravished" drew howls of laughter at the time. Indeed, it was so embarrassing that Palin later deleted the tweet from her timeline.

But now, it turns out that her advice (to "build the berms") was wrong as well.

On Thursday, an independent, non-partisan commission appointed by President Obama to investigate the oil spill concluded that "the berm project was a total bust that succeeded in capturing virtually no oil."

Predictably, Jindal blasted the report as "partisan" (which it wasn't). In any case, as a target of Jindal's wrath, the commission is in good company. Note that when the scientific community earlier pointed out "the inefficiency of the berms as a means of containing damage from the enormous spill," Jindal attacked the scientists, as well.

But then, the wingnuts have long had disputes with science on everything from climate change to evolution.

Progressives Underestimate Palin's 2012 Prospects At Their Peril

.

.
By MARC McDONALD

It's easy to laugh at Sarah Palin. Then again, it was easy to laugh at Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush: two lightweights who wound up occupying the White House for a total of 16 years. I believe progressives underestimate Palin at their peril.

As Keith Olbermann has pointed out a number of times, Palin is an idiot. The video above proves it.

However, progressives shouldn't casually dismiss Palin---or her prospects to be elected president in 2012.

Personally, I believe Palin will indeed run in 2012. And if we Democrats don't take Palin seriously as a candidate, we deserve to lose the election.

After all, Palin has a rabidly loyal following that is enjoying growing momentum. She is a genuine political phenomenon. And most importantly, she has a formidable fund-raising machine in place.

If you doubt the loyalty of Palin's base, consider this: Palin's 2009 book, Going Rogue: An American Life sold nearly 3 million copies. It is one of the best-selling political memoirs in U.S. history.

It's clear that Palin is a political and intellectual mediocrity. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that Palin has no chance at winning the presidency.

After all, the American people elected Bush/Cheney twice. (Well, not really, but enough people voted for Bush/Cheney to where the GOP could steal the vote).

If you doubt Palin could win in 2012, consider this: in 2008, nearly 60 million Americans cast their vote for Palin to be a heartbeat away from the White House.

If the U.S. economy is still in the toilet in 2012 (and I believe it likely will be), then the nation will be in an angry mood, come election time. The horrendous poison-pill economy that Obama inherited from Bush could well simply be unfixable, no matter what action Obama takes between now and then.

If 2012 still sees America mired in an economic rut, then the Tea Party and Palin will be well-positioned to take advantage of the crisis.

Anyone who doubts Palin's prospects for success in 2012 is simply blind to the reality of American political history (and the dumbing-down of U.S. culture) since 1980.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid: The Right-Wing Lunatic Fringe Loves Palin

By MARC McDONALD

What was your reaction to John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his VP pick? Curiosity? Indifference? Bafflement?

The more one learns about Palin, the more afraid we progressives ought to be.

After all, a quick scan of the lunatic fringe blogosphere reveals that the wingnuts adore Palin. And anything that these nutcases cherish should be something that the rest of us fear and dread. (Remember, these are the same people who also love torture, illegal wars, and Constitution-shredding).

Palin's selection on Friday was predictably greeted with raves by the lunatic right-wing fringe.

On Friday, Michelle Malkin was among the wingnut bloggers cheering Palin's selection. And Malkin is about as crazy as they come on the right-wing fringe these days. As Glenn Greenwald noted, Malkin once wrote a book "defending the ethnicity-based imprisonment of innocent American citizens in internment camps."

Of Palin, Malkin wrote, "Yes, I’m impressed. Very impressed." Malkin also linked to a YouTube video showing Palin firing a military rifle. (Apparently that alone gets these wingnuts excited these days---which is curious, as most of them are chickenhawks who have never served).

Meanwhile, the wingnuts who run RightWingNews.com took time out from their busy schedule of bashing Obama and claiming global warming is a "hoax," to cheer Palin's selection. As one writer there noted, "I watched Sarah Palin's roll-out today and it was real home run. She has a great family, a great resume, and for the first time in more than a year, the crowd at a John McCain event seemed genuinely excited."

Hugh Hewitt over at Townhall.com was similarly enthused, as he raved about Palin in a piece titled, "An Extraordinary Choice." Reading his piece, one might think Palin was nothing less than the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan.

It's all rather interesting: the vast majority of America had never heard of Palin before Friday (and I'd suspect most wingnuts had never heard of her either). But now, they're suddenly falling all over themselves to assure us that she's a solid pick and has the credentials to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.