Pick One Dems: Is Alaska Important or Unimportant?

The main crux of the attacks and criticisms of Alaska Governor and McCain running-mate Sarah Palin (aside from her daughter being used as an example of the tragic consequences of what can happen to teenage girls if they don’t take part in Democrats’ free condom programs or Planned Parenthood counseling sessions) is echoed in a Richard Cohen column in the Washington Post.

Here’s one argument against Palin: Alaska is an irrelevant state — an out-of-the-way nothing and an empty beer in the national cooler — and as such, governing it provides little in the way of executive experience.

For starters, I’ll take a governor of any state over a Senator any day of the week, and so will most Americans. Of our past five presidents, 80% of them were governors. Bush was a governor. Clinton was a governor. Reagan was a governor. Carter was a governor. Not that I’m a fan of some of these guys, but there is a lesson here that recent voters prefer governors in the national executive branch.

As for governors, nobody will ever convince me that running Arkansas as it existed when Bill Clinton was in office was more of a qualification to be president than somebody who governs Alaska — not unless somebody’s figured out a way to pay down the national debt with corruption and illiteracy.

In assessing Palin, Democrats are also doing what they always do: confusing sheer numbers as signs of effectiveness and competence. If it were a race for U.S. president between Palin and the governor here in Michigan, I’d choose Palin hands-down. Of course Jennifer Granholm “governs” more people. Big deal. The captain of the Exxon Valdez was responsible for more lives and property than the skipper of a charter fishing boat in Key West, but guess which one I’d trust more to take my family on a boating trip.

Think about it this way: The Mayor of Detroit “governs” more people than the Governor of Alaska. Yeah, I think we can drop the “size equals competence, integrity and positive experience” argument now.

Democrats are picking on Alaska — mocking the state as a great, big nothing that nobody would notice if it were gone.

But… talk about drilling there and watch what happens. Most Democrats act as if we just proposed demolishing the FDR Memorial and destroying the nation as we know it. Some liberals even appear willing to die for Alaska. Based on this, Alaska doesn’t look too irrelevant to me.

Democrats, is Alaska important, or unimportant? That’s all we need to know. The drilling teams are waiting for a prompt answer.

McCain and Palin’s Red Herring

Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is going to have a baby? Yeah, yeah. They say the news was released to put down lefty rumors that Palin was claiming a baby as her own so she wouldn’t have to admit her teen daughter got pregnant.

Get the Daily Kos people on the phone, because my theory is that’s all just a red herring to throw the media off the real scandal. I call it “Salmongate”: Sarah Palin was once busted for fishing without a license!

This is unbelievable news, and the McCain campaign will be singing a different tuna from now on. There hasn’t been a similar scandal involving a VP nominee since Muskie.

Democrat bloggers also have a great new headline that isn’t even a lie: “Sarah Palin was a hooker!”

null

The Alaska governor, pictured above, with her illegitimate fish

(h/t JammieWearingFool)

Update: The left will probably fall into a spastic lib-fit when they read about the father of Bristol Palin’s baby:

Doe-eyed Bristol Palin, 17, and ruggedly handsome Levi Johnston, an 18-year-old self-described “f—in’ redneck,” have been dating a year, locals in Wasilla, Alaska, told the Daily News.

The GOP’s chances in November are better than ever.

Fringe Group of the Day: PPEHRC

nullFortunately, the hurricane skirted just west of New Orleans, and it would appear that major disaster was averted — but now Hurricane Moonbat has left Denver and is now bearing down on Minneapolis.

Protests are expected to bring traffic to a standstill. Apparently the way to achieve world peace and to end poverty is to make accountants, bartenders and hotel maids late for work.

While reading a story about all the fringe groups that would make their presence known, I ran across this one:

Cheri Honkala, a national organizer for the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign, said she expected violent confrontations between anarchists and police.

My curiosity piqued, I managed to find their website.

Here’s the PPEHRC’s mission statement:

The Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign is committed to uniting the poor across color lines as the leadership base for a broad movement to abolish poverty. We work to accomplish this through advancing economic human rights as named in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights– such as the rights to food, housing, health, education, communication and a living wage job.

I can shorten this mission statement a great deal and still say the same thing (with apologies to Dire Straits) — “Money for nothing, chicks for free.”

And if you’re in Minnesota this week, don’t forget to visit Bushville.

By the way…

Normally I upload photographs to my Photobucket account and link to them there, or upload them to the server that supports this site. That way I’m not linking to the photo at the site it’s from and stealing their bandwidth, which costs the siteowner money. For the picture above, I tried linking to the picture directly from the PPEHRC site. I was going to use their bandwidge. Why? Because I believe that we all have a right to “free” bandwidth.

If it’s okay for them to want me to pay for everybody’s “free” groceries, schooling, food and healthcare, the least they can do is pay for me to show that picture to a few thousand people via “free” bandwidth, right?

They didn’t view it that way. I posted the picture for a few minutes, and they can obviously detect sites that are using their bandwidth and make the picture look like a broken link. So much for my “right” to “free” bandwidth. Back to using Photobucket.

null

Did Alan Colmes Mother Take Proper Prenatal Care?

This kind of thing was bound to happen, and it will again: Alan Colmes wrote a blog post (that has since been removed but the following link is a cached page) entitled “Did Palin take proper prenatal care?”

If you’re unfamiliar with McCain’s running-mate, Sarah Palin and her husband have a child who was born with Down syndrome. The couple knew this was the case before the baby was born. Their son was born this April, but they learned that he would most likely have Down syndrome last December. They’re against abortion, so this was not an option. They didn’t run away from a challenge and they’re glad they had their son.

But Colmes — and others we will come to discover — question A) if the baby’s disorder was her fault, and of course B) if the Palin’s were irresponsible to allow the baby to live.

Well, heaven forbid a child not as perfect as Alan Colmes — goofy hair, mantis body, mutant face, lazy eye and all — be born into the world.

It must be hilariously strange for Palin to have the prenatal care she gave her child questioned by a man whose own mother appears to have taken her pregnant stomach which carried a fetus soon to be named Alan and pounded it with a sledge-hammer while riding a Tilt-a-Whirl, all while smoking Marlboros and swigging cheap vodka.

But Colmes isn’t alone. Here’s another article entitled “Sarah Palin’s questionable judgment.” Isn’t it strange how goofy some “pro-choicers” get when you exercise your choice and they don’t like it?

This is pathetic on so many levels, the least of which being that Down syndrome is cause by an extra chromosome, and really has nothing to do with prenatal care. Liberals often falsely associate Down syndrome with whatever phenomenon cuts off a newborn baby’s oxygen supply for so long that they end up as liberals who don’t know what causes Down syndrome.

Isn’t a pro-abortion liberal questioning a mother’s prenatal care a little like a Nazi concentration camp guard accusing the one person who survived the gas chamber of breathing wrong? That’s how it comes across to me.

Remember, this is from the political party that claims sole proprietorship over caring for those who can’t help themselves. This is from the political party that wants to control the health care of all Americans. No thanks.

By having a child that will require extra care instead of taking the “easy” way out, Sarah Palin has told the world more about herself without saying a word than all the empty liberal rhetoric about “choice” ever uttered.

I believe that the only mothers who didn’t take proper prenatal care — or postnatal care for that matter — are the mothers of these pro-abortion liberals whose life philosophy is to use their own existence as the baseline for what should be considered perfection. If that doesn’t make you laugh, then you’re a liberal.

Update: Colmes attempts to explain himself. “I never mentioned Down syndrome in the post.” Well, he must have been referring to hair color or something. As if the baby was born completely “normal” he still would have been questioning Palin’s prenatal judgment. Funny.

(h/t LGF, HotAir)

Monday’s Column: What McCain Must Say

The Republican National Convention may be delayed a bit due to the hurricane, but it will go on at some point, and in today’s column at WorldNetDaily I outline a few things that John McCain needs to point out when he accepts the nomination.

Give a read to “McCain’s challenge” for some relatively non-laborious reading on Labor Day.

You can give it a Digg here.