Medved Turns on Limbaugh-Palin, Feeds Left’s Disinformation Machine

Oh no you didn’t! Michael Medved, who came to fame as a conservative commentator when Hollywood dumped him for taking the industry to task on content, joined the chorus of clueless Republicans to go off on Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin today, calling their criticisms of Barack Obama “especially distasteful — and destructive to the conservative cause.”

In his WSJ op-ed, “Obama Isn’t Trying to ‘Weaken America,’” Medved laments conservatives who think Obama has less than honorable intentions for the nation. Which explains why conservatives are burning up the airwaves to dial out his daily radio program to listen to Limbaugh, who, incidentally, gave Medved his start in talk radio. Happy Valentines Day, Rush.

Palin and Limbaugh, both of whose stock seems to increase by the nanosecond, have been pointedly critical of Obama as possibly purposely undermining the government. Theirs is not an isolated position; Glenn Beck has floated the theory that Obama is a proponent of the Cloward-Piven strategy to collapse the American republic into a democratic socialist state-type government.

The thing is, the evidence is on Limbaugh and Palin’s side. Whether Obama is deliberately trying to collapse the government or not, he has employed both Saul Alinsky and Cloward-Piven strategies consistently from the beginning of his term. His takeover of the American healthcare system is a classic example of the former; he used Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals, rules numbers 5, 8 and 10 in pushing through his package, and continues to use rule 11 now to implement it.

As honorable as Medved’s intentions may be, in publishing the attack on his conservative radio mentor and the former vice presidential candidate, he is fueling the Left’s disinformation machine by giving weight to the spurious argument that their criticisms are fantastical.

Medved piously declares:

Moreover, the current insistence in seeing every misstep or setback by the Obama administration as part of a diabolical master plan for national destruction disregards the powerful reverence for the White House that’s been part of our national character for two centuries.

Which of course plays right into Obama’s hands. By joining the lines of moon howlers on the left who suggest that Limbaugh and Palin are among the loonies propagating malicious or ignorant untruths about the President, Medved strings swimmingly to the tune of Alinsky’s fifth rule. Make them look ridiculous with ridicule.

But Medved doesn’t let conservative loyalty get in his way:

Regardless of the questionable pop psychology of this analysis, as a political strategy it qualifies as almost perfectly imbecilic. Republicans already face a formidable challenge in convincing a closely divided electorate that the president pursues wrong-headed policies.

Oh really?

Currently only 29 percent of voters approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president; nearly 40 percent strongly disapprove. Fifty-seven percent are for the repeal of health care, and similar numbers disapprove of his stance on immigration, cap and trade and just about every foreign policy decision he has made. Workers in the Gulf Coast petroleum industry are on the verge of revolt because of his drilling moratorium.

If the Republicans have a problem selling their message in 2012, one is safe to bet that it will be John Boehner, Mitt Romney, or dare I say Michael Medved, who miss-sell it, not Plain or Limbaugh.

The fact remains that whether or not Barack Obama is trying to harm the nation, he is without question doing just that, and what is decidedly not needed at this juncture, is another inside-the-box Republican to help him with his task.

Can Palin Win? Michael Steele: ‘Sure, Why Not?’

News e-zine Politico’s journalistic credibility was challenged yesterday when talk show host Laura Ingraham questioned journalist Mike Allen’s largely un-sourced piece claiming that the Republican establishment’s first order of business after the midterm election would be to stop Sarah Palin.

“If you’re going to have a piece about stopping Palin,” said Ingraham, “you better have a little more in terms of on-the-record commentary.”

In his article, Allen says, “Top Republicans in Washington and in the national GOP establishment say the 2010 campaign highlighted an urgent task that they will begin in earnest as soon as the elections are over: Stop Sarah Palin.” The article goes on to quote many anonymous sources within the GOP but names few, other than Karl Rove, who’s on-the-record comments seemed reserved and Michael Steele, who, when asked if Palin could win said, “Sure, why not?”

In another statement on CNN’s American Morning today Steele said, “These Republican leaders who don’t put their names in print but make comments in shadows need to shut up. We’re focused on winning elections tomorrow night,” Steele said. “Get out here, get out to this building at the RNC, help us make phone calls, help us dial into districts so we can turn out our vote. That’s what folks should be doing not focusing on Sarah Palin. She’s focused on winning elections and seats tomorrow night.”

Allen’s article went on to declare: “Interviews with advisers to the main 2012 presidential contenders and with other veteran Republican operatives make clear they see themselves on a common, if uncoordinated, mission of halting the momentum and credibility Palin gained with conservative activists by plunging so aggressively into this year’s midterm campaigns.” Again, few on the record quotes were cited. The piece cites unnamed advisors in the Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney camps.

“That’s a big statement—their trying to stop Sarah Palin and no one will be brave enough to have a quote attributed to them?” exclaimed Ingraham.

Ingraham also challenged the Politico writer when he said that Palin would run outside the mainstream without GOP establishment support. “So you think, if Sarah Palin were to run … she would want the Washington establishment,” said Allen.

“Do you think Sarah Palin can win if she doesn’t pull together the intellectual conservatives … foreign policy conservatives … Tea Party…?” asked Ingraham incredulously. “Whoever wins will have to appeal to all of those groups. …”

Palin slammed the e-zine for its “yellow journalism,” saying of Allen and his co-writer Jim Vandehei, “They’re jokes.” In an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren Palin, who was a journalism major in college, said, “I learned back in the day that who, what, when, where, why of journalism. You report that facts; you let other people decide what their opinion is going to be. So having unnamed sources in an article like this is very, very disappointing, you know. And it doesn’t do anybody any good. It doesn’t educate anybody. … I’m getting used to it though.”

Ingraham went on to say that the article sank beneath the standards she had come to expect form Politico.

Palin’s Shot Across Newt’s Bow

Anybody see Newt Gingrich’s comments on Sarah Palin’s new YouTube video on Greta the other night?

(Laughter) … I like the video overall. How many women wanna think of themselves as a momma grizzly? … A lotta what she does is a very Alaska, very down home feel to it, ah … She’s saying, ‘You can be a conservative feminist … you can be a prolife feminist … ’ she’s pretty smart and very tough, ah …

In other words: “How rurally … quaint,” right Newt?

It was a chuckle. What would this esteemed conservative icon have said about Abraham Lincoln and his rough-hewn folksy vernacular in 1858? Not that Palin possesses Lincoln’s keenness on the vernacular, but she undeniably possesses his fix on the contemporary American mindset.

No Newt, she is not saying, “Look women, we can all do a load of wash, cook up a batch of moose chili, be prolife and still be feminists.” She is saying, “I’m running for president in 2012, dude, so don’t get under my wheels.”

The truth is, Newt knows what less astute political thinkers do not, or at least refuse to admit: Palin is a formidable obstacle to anyone’s aspirations for the GOP nomination.

For all you Orange County Republicans who think Wasilla was a Polish labor leader during the 1980s, here’s one to get your IBS raging: Either Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin will be the GOP nominee in 2012, and both will likely be on the ticket.

Here’s why: with the defeat of John McCain in 2012 the moderate wing of the party is finished for the foreseeable future. They cannot unify the base vote much less draw independents, and they need a win more desperately than anytime in modern history to preserve the party in any viable way. At best, Mitt Romney or, say, Mitch Daniels, will attract the moderate base and a smidgen of conservatives but not nearly enough independents for a win.

Enter Gingrich. Newt is granted a conservative, but he is also a party elitist, as evidenced by his ridiculous endorsement of liberal Dede Scozzafava against Palinites in the New York 23rd District special election last year. Not only did Scozzafava fail to pull it off, but she did what any good RHINO would do—she withdrew and threw her support to the Democrat, allowing him to eek out a narrow win over Palin’s conservative candidate.

Whatever the perception, Palin won that contest. Newt walked away with a red butt.

Palin is the only potential candidate who can deliver a large significantly unified bloc of voters—Tea Party conservatives and a humongous number of women—to the convention in 2012. Newt is the only party line conservative with the political finesse to coalesce the two wings of the party.

And limp-wrist liberal Republicans will trip over one another getting to the polls to vote for them when they feel the tread marks of Obama’s tax hikes up your backsides in 2011.

Regardless of one’s position on Palin or Gingrich this is the only calculus that makes sense in the current political climate. The backlash against incumbents has never been greater. If the party goes with Mitt or a less-known brand, running up the middle, against either Obama or Hillary (I believe Hilly will be the Democrat’s nominee in 2012), it will lose hands down.

Acknowledge is the fact that Palin could dead end all of this speculation by taking the RNC chair—a job that is well below her pay grade—should the committee draft her, but it is doubtful she will.

If you live in Laguna Niguel and drive a BMW X5 with a “Baby on Board” placard in the rear window, you need to listen here.

Republicans have woefully underestimated Palin, while she has gone about her business undaunted, forging strong alliances both inside and outside the party. Only someone who considers the New York Times crossword puzzle as their greatest challenge in life could possibly believe this is a stupid woman. She is—for Democrats and liberal Republicans—the most dangerous thing on two legs since the colonist who fired the first shot at Lexington-Concord.

Gingrich is a warhorse and he will undoubtedly make a strong play for the lead slot on the ticket. He is arguably the most brilliant politician in modern U.S. history and has done much to redeem himself after a bad patch of sheer egoism during the 1990s. He could well be the presidential nominee and no sane Republican can reject him out of hand. However, Palin presents an undeniable and very formidable obstacle.

No one can guess how a race between Palin and Gingrich will turn out, but one of them will be the nominee in 2012.