True Colors: Red State Shows Anti-Palin, Pro-Perry Bias

Two months ago, The Atlantic ran a piece called “The Tragedy of Sarah Palin.”

The author, Joshua Green discovered something seemingly only Limbaugh and Levin listeners and viewers of The Undefeated were aware of until then: that Palin was a great governor whose outstanding governing record endeared her to Alaskans. Joshua Green “explained” that Palin’s many achievements and high approval rating stemmed from her moderate stance on the issues, and blamed her “turn” toward conservatism when picked for VP as the cause of the public’s current hostile treatment.

Imagine my surprise and shock last week to come across another attack against Palin but this time coming from the complete opposite direction. The article was written by Leon H. Wolf, a front-page writer at Red State. The claim: Sarah Palin started out as a true conservative who has made a U-turn, became a moderate, and linked hands with the establishment.

The absurdity of Green’s article is mirrored in Wolf’s piece. Palin has been, still is, and will continue to be a staunch conservative, often taking on the establishment in order to promote conservative ideology.

Their attacks seem to be geared to sway readers who think positively of Palin while currying favor with readers already against Palin. The Atlantic’s readers obviously dislike conservatives in general and Palin in particular. Green thus provided them the perfect explanation to defend their hate towards Palin despite her outstanding record. Red State, on the other hand, is a conservative site whose audience disagrees with the liberal ideology and opposes moderates for not remaining true to conservative beliefs. Wolf’s piece thus gives Republicans who dislike or fear Palin for whatever reason, a decent-sounding excuse for their opposition towards one of the most conservative, fearless, and articulate individuals in this day and age.

Since Red State is not the Atlantic, and it holds sway with many conservatives who can’t see through its phony pretense of neutrality, I therefore felt obligated to dissect Wolf’s article and point out the simple truth: his piece makes as much sense as the foolish column at The Atlantic. I also apologize for calling someone a hypocrite but lack an alternative accurate description that would do justice of Red State’s actions of late.

Wolf criticized Sarah Palin for not yet announcing her decision whether or not she’s running for president claiming it ties up her supporters at a time when all appearances suggest she’s either not running or running without plans of winning.

Whoa! I always thought the GOP rules regarding who may run in a presidential election include something called a primary complete with a deadline until which one may announce their candidacy. Since when has the primary become the result of the hand-picked competition between two individuals courtesy of the establishment? What happened to allowing the people choose the candidate of their choice in the primary? Where are the hit pieces on Giuliani for having not yet made up his mind? The field is far from complete and there’s no reason to rush the process.

Wolf’s argument is quite surprising given that Erick Erickson “proved” in an article written just one day prior to Wolf’s piece that Palin won’t win even if she joins the primary since she polls only 12 percent in Gallup national. Erickson then admitted that her poll figures would probably increase if she announces a presidential run since some of her supporters who believe she won’t run are supporting their second choice.

Wolf, did you perhaps miss that? The Palin supporters who don’t believe she’s running have already chosen another candidate, and if Palin’s decision ends up being negative the rest will follow suit. When the people will head to the election booths, she either will or won’t be in the race allowing everyone to make their decision based on the current facts. Although it’s obvious you don’t want her to run, Palin will choose that which she’ll feel is best for her and the country at the time she deems right, and her supporters have every right to tie their allegiance to Palin since they strongly believe she will run.

The arguments used in the article to support her non-candidacy are 100% nonsense and you must know that. She has the largest boots-on-the-ground force and will be bombarded by donations the day she’ll announce her campaign. If she isn’t running, why would she encourage O4P’s actions? Why would she have a foreign policy advisor? Why would she visit Iowa’s State Fair and be returning there again Labor Day weekend? What is the ultimate purpose of her One Nation tour and the documentary, The Undefeated?

Besides, isn’t it funny how the same individual Wolf describes as not likely to run and incapable of winning, is then described as depleting the oxygen supply in the room simply by entering? Sucking the oxygen out of a room is not something Santorum, Cain, Huntsman, or even Perry and Romney are known to do. If Palin can’t win whether she does or doesn’t run, as Wolf and the others at Red State claim, why do they dread an impending Palin announcement?

Furthermore, Wolf’s ignores facts in order to reach his conclusion that Palin is a moderate. It is shocking and shameful to say the least.

Palin endorsed 64 conservative candidates in the 2010 elections, many of them long before Red State and others glanced their way, including Susana Martinez — the current Governor of New Mexico, Allen West – a congressman of Florida, Rand Paul – Senator of Kentucky, and Joe Miller. Wolf, however, pounced upon her endorsement of two candidates in the primaries, Carly Fiorina and Kelly Ayotte, as proof of Palin’s drift towards the establishment. Never mind that her endorsements made absolute sense if one only bothers looking into the facts.

Palin’s endorsement for Fiorina requires a bit of background. The California Republican Senate primary was a three-way race with Fiorina opposed not only by Chuck Devore which Red State endorsed but also by Campbell, a candidate with ties to radical Muslims and a more moderate than Olympia Snowe. Campbell was leading the polls with Fiorina lagging behind and Devore a far third. A Campbell victory would portray the Republican Party as the water-downed version or even the mirror image of the Democrat Party. A debate between Tom Campbell and Boxer would result in who has done more to save the environment and expand government programs.

Palin’s endorsement of Fiorina, who was the conservative candidate with greater chances of beating Campbell, gave Fiorina the necessary push to win the primary thus resulting in a conservative representing the Republican Party in the debate and campaign against Boxer. Although Boxer was reelected, voters in California have been exposed to conservative talk and to a clear differentiation between the ideologies of the two parties.

Regarding Palin’s endorsement of Kelly Ayotte, the primary consisted of two conservatives. While Red State and some others pumped Lamontagne as the stronger conservative Palin and others supported Ayotte as the true conservative. Each had their minor flaws as every human being does with different people ultimately preferring different choices. If your favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla, is the next guy who prefers chocolate wrong with his choice? Are people no longer allowed to disagree peacefully? How does Palin’s endorsement of Ayotte brand her as a moderate? Is Ayotte’s current record in the senate not enough proof of her conservatism? She co-sponsored a bill to repeal Obamacare and voted against the debt ceiling deal. What liberal bill did Ayotte vote for? (And if she did vote “moderately” in one instance she would probably apologize just as Perry – Red State’s favorite — has apologized regarding Gardasil, thus negating her vote.)

Sorry, but having candidates’ opponents endorsed by Red State, make neither the candidates nor their endorsers un-conservative.

Wolf questioned Palin’s endorsement of Christine O’Donell who was less electable than Mike Castle, since Palin based the above two endorsements partly on electability. The comparison however is equivalent to a comparison of apples and oranges.

Palin’s endorsement for O’Donnell is unlike her previous two endorsements since the primary didn’t consist of two conservatives; Castle cannot be described as a conservative by any stretch of imagination. He had voted for Cap and Trade which threatened to destroy America’s economy and supported campaign financing rules that would favor unions while putting businesses at a disadvantage. Mike Castle would be only slightly better than a Campbell in Senate, and would jump to “compromise” with the Democrats in exchange for some media attention.

In Washington, Sarah Palin endorsed the more conservative candidate, Clint Didier, who signed the pledge not to raise any taxes while Dino Rossi who was endorsed by Red State refused to do so. Does that make Red State a moderate site?

Wolf’s continued comparison of Palin’s recent support of Orrin Hatch in light of her opposition to Mike Castle is ludicrous. Castle’s lifetime ratings according to the American Conservative Union is 51.62% and only 38% in 2010 while Hatch was one out of 11 senators to earn a perfect score in the American Conservative Union’s 2010 ratings and a lifetime rating of 89.47 percent. How can one even attempt to compare the two? Now throw into the equation that Hatch happens to also be an excellent debater and extremely articulate of conservative ideology, a true rarity amongst conservatives these days.

Most importantly, Hatch is currently the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. If the Republicans take control of the senate, that will make him chairman. This is the committee that writes tax policy and has jurisdiction on Social Security and Medicare. If Hatch loses his seat and the Republicans take the senate, the new chairperson would be OLYMPIA SNOWE! (h/t bradkarr.)

Shocking, huh? One may disagree with Hatch on certain issues, but to say he’s not a true conservative is not being very honest. How about instead of slamming Palin for speaking positively of Hatch’s seventeen attempts to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, or attempting to oust Hatch in exchange for some low-ranking Congressman with an unknown record, onetake all facts into consideration?

If Wolf’s article were the only disgraceful one on the Red State site, it would perhaps be somewhat understandable as one writer who overstepped the bounds and deserving of a scolding of his editor. However, the editor himself, Erick Erickson is the one leading this hypocrisy.

Erickson wrote an article January 3rd drafting Mike Pence to the race, with the explanation that although he’d wish Palin would be the next president she’s too polarizing and he feels she won’t be able to win the primaries.

… I am not excited by or inspired by any of them save Sarah Palin and, as much as I love Sarah Palin, I am adamantly convinced that she cannot win given the ridiculous smears and hate thrown her way by Democrats and, frankly, by a lot of Republicans. She has been made radioactive.

I would, however, still gladly vote for her and support her. I’d rather go down with her than up with some of the others.

…I’d have rather gone down swinging with Barry than sell out with Nelson any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I feel the same way with Palin.

Erickson then posted an additional column reiterating his support for Palin provided Pence doesn’t run:

Third, and I think this is the key point:

I’d have rather gone down swinging with Barry than sell out with Nelson any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I feel the same way with Palin. (Emphasis by Erick)

As it stands right now, if the election were held tomorrow and Mike Pence isn’t in, Palin has my vote. Don’t get me wrong, I can be persuaded by any of the other candidates in all seriousness. And the odds are in the favor of several of them. But my heart is with Palin.

This was obviously a load of nonsense aimed at fooling his readership since Erickson has since jumped onto almost every bandwagon but Palin’s. As soon as Pence’s decision not to run was final, Erickson, who had written he supports Palin even if it would mean going down with her as by Goldwater, didn’t attempt to draft her even once. He toyed first with Huckabee and then placed his hopes on Mitch Daniels, although that came to a halt after Daniels put out a “truce” on social issues. Erickson then turned his entire energy towards drafting Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas. Erickson’s efforts were rewarded with Perry’s announcement at the Red State event, with Erickson introducing Perry. Red State, though, continues to play uncommitted to any candidate for the 2012 Republican primary.

There are three basic kinds of political sites. The first kind is a general site, say — a conservative site, that will jump to defend all conservatives on the receiving end of criticism for outright fabrications, believing it is crucial for all honest individuals to fight for and defend the truth whether or not you support the person’s positions, policies, or candidacy. The Breitbart sites model of this type of behavior, as seen in their defense of all candidates and conservatives facing media falsehoods and exposing lies from the liberal left. Examples are their exposure of the doctored video Ed Schultz used against Perry, the falsehood of Ziegler’s rumors about Palin, and the calling of Bachmann a flake.

The second kind is a political site whose focus is to support and defend a specific candidate. Such a site’s focus is obviously on that specific candidate’s achievements, as well as attacks thrown their way. This behavior is also the expected of such a site and doesn’t cause any raised eyebrows.

The third kind of site masks their real agenda. Red State has unfortunately joined this third group with their pretense of judging all conservatives equally and “vetting” Perry’s record, while unofficially having thrown their support behind Perry. Red State should switch over to being the second of these three groups in order to be considered an honest site who acts with integrity.

Update: Dan McLaughlin penned a piece today endorsing Perry, stressing that it is a personal endorsement and not on behalf of Red State.

Erickson’s underhanded manner of supposedly supporting Palin while running after everyone else is just the tip of the iceberg. When honest conservatives question Perry’s executive order regarding Gardasil, it’s hypocritical of Red State to claim that an apology wipes away a candidate’s past record. Attention all candidates seeking reelection or a different office and in want of Red States’ endorsement: All you’ve got to do is apologize for any negative item on your record, say that you erred and regret it.

It wasn’t enough to only have Erickson respond to the Gardasil gate, as is usually the case with others. Everyone jumped into the “protect Perry” mode, as each took a different angle in whitewashing Perry’s attempt to ram down this shot via executive order against the protests of the legislature. Ben Howe posted a piece titled “Vetting Rick Perry” which more likely should have been called defending, excusing, or exonerating Rick Perry. Repair_Man-Jack played undecided in his support of Perry’s candidacy. Streiff and again Streiff showed his true colors, calling for Perry or else.

Streiff even went so far as to issue a “fair warning” announcing his intention “to treat those making those allegations in a way indistinguishable from the way birthers and truthers are treated.” (banned from the site.) Erickson re-posted his article of 2007 where he slammed Perry for the executive order, and explained that although he disagreed with the executive order, it still had the opt-out factor. Combined with the apology, and the fact that it never happened, the issue should be laid to rest. Erickson also noted that: 

 …this issue (Gardasil) only really resonates on the right.

Really now. Was anyone here waiting with bated breath for the left to call out someone expanding the control of government? Of course it resonates only with the right; it’s the right that’s concerned about the current size of government. We got primaries for a reason; it’s a time to vet the candidates to see who matches your ideology before sending the winner off to compete in the general election. If we want to call out Obama on his expansion of government, we must present someone who’s the antithesis of big government.

Red State and Erickson in particular have hidden their political interests until recently and still pretend to vet and treat Perry as any other candidate. Erickson has pretended to have no problem with Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee,and so has Leon Wolf. Yet, they take issue with the fact that she hasn’t yet made her decision although there’s still plenty of time to do so. At the same time, Red State continuously “discovers” phantom evidence and statements proving that Palin is not going to run and that she’s become a member of the establishment. Since when does speaking positively of a Senator with one the most conservative records turn you into a moderate?

I’ve always been honest and straightforward in my articles expressing my support of Sarah Palin for the presidency. Perry is not my first choice for other reasons disregarding Gardasil. Although I’ll admit Perry’s remorse in the campaign shows a savvier political sense than Romney’s refusal to regret Romneycare, regretting one’s previous actions during a campaign is not sufficient proof of true regret. Perry signed the executive order against the protests of the legislature. He was only forced to abandon the measure when when it was voted against by a veto proof majority. If Romney would’ve apologized for his Romneycare bill, would that be sufficient for us to forgive him? Who decides when and where apologies must be accepted across the board by all? How about, and this is entirely rhetorical since it won’t happen, if Obama decided to “admit he erred” in order to win the elections?

Erickson’s two-sidedness is also obvious when glancing at his review of The Undefeated where he found it necessary to write this:

The film concludes with a comparison between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin. Just as the Republican establishment attacked and tried to shut down Reagan, they are doing the same to Palin. I’m not sure I buy the extent of the comparison and issues within the conservative establishment highlighted toward the end, but I have frequently said myself that Palin taps into something with conservatives that no one since Reagan has done.

While Erickson didn’t “buy the extent of the comparison” in The Undefeated made by Stephen Bannon, he wrote this, the past Saturday:

Next time you hear some Republican consultant say Rick Perry can’t win because he is too much of a cowboy, understand that it is probably a national Republican consultant fearful they will be shut out of work if Perry wins and, more importantly, understand that the same dynamics were in place in 1980 with Reagan’s “boys from California” team of consultants and the national consultants back them said the same about Reagan — he’s too much of a cowboy conservative who will alienate key voting blocks.

That’s not to say Perry is Reagan. It is to say the GOP national consultants have been pulling the same stuff since 1980.

So Erickson’s not sure whether the establishment is actually as hateful and condescending to Palin as they were to Reagan, but the attacks on Perry – boy, that’s an exact repeat of 1980.

Additionally, when Perry gets attacked, Red State is quick to point out the fear the left has for Perry which drives them to falsify information against him. The endless attacks against Palin though, have caused her to become radioactive.

Add to the above that Erickson’s original issue with Palin was the endless smears the media threw her way which, in his opinion, has made her radioactive. If Perry ends up being the frontrunner he too will face similar endless attacks. Will Erickson consider him as radioactive as Palin thus necessitating him to be dropped for another candidate? Whoever wins the Republican nomination will face the hate from the left, and it’s to Palin’s advantage that the left has already emptied their ammunition against her.

It’s a tragedy for a conservative website to behave like Green of The Atlantic in an attempt to control the Republican primary in 2012. People have had enough of phony conservatives pretending to be altruistic while pushing their private agenda. I therefore believe 2012 will be a bottom-up election where people make their own decisions based on the candidates’ records.

This article is cross-posted from Conservatives4Palin.

According to The Atlantic standards The Undefeated is picking up additional theaters because some liberal reporters haven’t watched it yet, while Dave Weigel argues it’s because of the lack of traffic.

According to The Atlantic standards The Undefeated is picking up additional theaters because some liberal reporters haven’t watched it yet, while Dave Weigel argues it’s because of the lack of traffic.

I was skimming through “Palin” tweets yesterday for the latest about Sarah Palin and The Undefeated when I came across a funny phenomenon from the left.

David Weigel and others were tweeting with glee that there isn’t traffic in L.A. – hence proof that no one’s heading to see The Undefeated.

@daveweigel daveweigel RT @benschwartzy: LA traffic is great. No one left the house. No crowds anywhere. I wish Palin opened a movie every weekend.

It struck me as funny since I’ve always understood and assumed everyone else did as well, that it’s never been the crowds that came to see Obama that causes the terrible traffic that accompanies Obama at every step as the crowds are usually nonexistent. Rather, the closing of many streets due to security.

When Obama treated Michelle to a Broadway show, gridlock hit NYC. Cars were crawling turtle-paced not because of the number of people headed to the movies nor because people wished to see Obama. The honking horns were the direct outcome of the many blocks and highways that were designated for the Obamas while the rest of the city was forced to go without them. When the Obamas head out to eat obesity-free burgers or ice cream creating no-drive zones, does that too symbolize the crowds?

Besides, since when does L.A. get overwhelmed when hundreds or even thousands of people head towards the movies? From their tweets one can think the talk is of a teeny hick town with narrow single-lane roads!

Is it possible that the left in their blind support for Obama are oblivious to the above facts and are convinced the non-existing crowds are the true cause to the traffic jams? Perhaps that's why the media constantly reports the traffic when Obama comes to town, viewing it not as a hindrance and pain to the people, but as the greatness of Obama.

Thus when thousands of people head to movies in cities across America, instead of focusing on the gross per theater or number of tickets sold which indicate success; they turned to the lack of traffic as proof of its failure.

Anyone remember the success of any past movie based on a glance out of the window or a turn to the traffic stations? Or were they based on the amount of tickets sold and attendees?

The Atlantic had an article written by Conor Friedersdorf a day before the official nationwide launching of The Undefeated, who pretended to have gone to interview viewers of the documentary while choosing to go to an unadvertised unknown viewing shown after midnight at the very same time as the release of the heavily advertised and long awaited final chapter of Harry Potter. He then used the empty auditorium as proof of the failure and non-attendance of the entire documentary.

Hmm… for some reason his attempts to portray himself as an open-minded non-biased reporter that simply wanted to hear from the audience directly isn’t very convincing. How did he hear about this unadvertised viewing? Why would a reporter give up a night of sleep to watch a documentary and then write an article throughout the rest of the night? Wouldn’t a true reporter logically attend the advertised viewings the next day which were far from empty?

And why would an innocent reporter find the only sentence worth repeating from the entire documentary is Sarah saying that “in politics you’re either eating well or sleeping well,” followed by a derogatory remark. Besides, he doesn’t mention why or where she said it, clearly taking out of context the one sentence he could make fun of out of a two hour documentary!

If Obama could celebrate his birthday weeks in advance and say it is next week, then the left can announce the failure of a documentary as having no viewers before it has yet been shown and Kyle Smith from the New York Post can give negative critic to an unfinished film.

Conor Friedersdorf received forty nine thousand recommends on his article that he, a reporter, was the only one in sitting in the entire auditorium. If forty nine thousand people fell for Friedersdorf’s piece, then they must assume that the 2.6 million people who bought Palin’s book, the 3 million 192 thousand Palin facebook friends, the 600 thousand Palin twitter followers, and the 88 percent positive Palin approval rating in Alaska are all liberals and reporters that are forced to follow the Palin news.

Otherwise, how else can one believe that the from the entire Los Angeles area Friedersdorf was the only individual interested in viewing The Undefeated?

The Undefeated will be expanding the upcoming weekend to another five cities plus at additional theaters in the original locations. These showings are obviously strictly for Conor Friedersdorf and Dave Weigel, no?

This article was cross-posted at Conservatives 4 Palin.

Romney is the Bump in the Road

Romney & Obama are busy with the bumps on the road when the U.S. is no longer on a road; America is at the edge of a cliff.

It’s pretty pathetic to see how this country might have to choose between two cool looking candidates who focus on slogans and rhetoric rather than substance.

Romney released his first campaign ad several weeks ago which was based on Obama’s quote; “There are always going to be bumps on the road to recovery.” It played a dramatic scene of “I’m an American, not a bump in the road.” It’s brilliant and flashy, but after watching it, you don’t come away with a message or plan that Romney has for the future, nor what he’s done in the past. In two words: Empty Rhetoric.  In one word: Slogans. Almost like the three words of ’08: Hope and Change, or in his case, Believe in America.

This country is no longer speeding down a dangerous road; it has veered off course and is at the edge of a cliff with its front wheels hanging over the abyss.

Is this truly the level this country has reached after having committed this very mistake last election? With millions of people out of jobs and the economy looking so bleak; with so many countries undergoing government upheavals and the radicals gaining more and more control; do the citizens of the U.S.A. still place their confidence in appearance rather than experience and substance?

Even more astonishing is that many of the Republican Party which has always been the party of thinking voters, not the “what will you give me” attitude, but “what is your record” attitude, is falling for flashiness.

Will the upcoming election be a choice between neon and glitter?

Romney is not running on the issues because he doesn’t want the voters to know his history and true beliefs. His solutions to problems his state had faced were solved in leftist fashions and he has no intention or capability in shrinking the size of our federal government.

•    Ethanol

 Instead of Mitt Romney focusing on the issues such as the economy, he’s pandering to voters in typical liberal fashion, as seen in his support of ethanol subsidies in Iowa – a state he lost in ‘08.

We have enough oil & gas if the federal government will allow 

us to drill, so that we don’t have to resort to ethanol. So many farmers are planting corn instead of wheat or other crops in order to be eligible for subsidies from the government. It then results in higher food costs because of the lack of wheat. This is a perfect example of the government involving themselves in the private sector -- farmers and what they plant -- messing up the supply and demand capitalist system that has been in place previously with overwhelmingly negative results. 

Only government officials with no clue how capitalism works have been able to create such a system. After all, if ethanol is truly such a great invention, then people will demand the ethanol just as they demand everything else, so why the need for government subsidies? I love how politicians attempt to force their will onto the people, and then say repeatedly how deeply they care for their constituents.

•      EPA

The EPA has been exposed over the last few years as an agency with the intention to destroy thousands of private businesses all in the name of saving the environment. One has to fool themselves in to thinking that Romney, who has recently said that humans have a hand in global warming, will stop the EPA from passing new regulations. After all, someone that believes that global warming is a man-made disaster can’t shrink or abolish the EPA, because they’re saving the world. Can you see him veto a cap & trade bill?

•    Obamacare

Romneycare claims he’s against Obamacare and would repeal it because it was done on a federal level, but defends his plan because it was enacted through the state government. He’s also compared his plan, which didn’t cut Medicare, to Obama’s which did. Of course he couldn’t cut Medicare – it wasn’t in his power to do so. And besides, is the cut of Medicare from the ten worst things Obama has done? The rest of Obamacare is all fine and dandy?

Romney has taken away the freedom from the citizens with his mandates on health insurance and has taken away the liberty of insurance companies to reject patients with preexisting conditions. Is this the guy we need to sit in the oval office? Imagine if the majority of the Governors would’ve enacted such a bill; the entire health care system in the United States would’ve been destroyed!

So he has no solutions to the economic issues that plague our country. What about moral issues, does he know where he stands?

He ran in Massachusetts as pro-choice aka pro-abortion and had a sudden change of mind when he launched his first presidential run and became pro-life. However, he refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony List pledge which asked candidates to pledge to appoint pro-life appointees to cabinet positions, end Planned Parenthood funding, and appoint judges who will rule solely based on the constiitution.

America’s problems are not the bumps in the road. America’s problems are politicians like you, Romney, and Obama are candidates who look good on camera and TV but are destructive for the freedom and democracy of this nation.

This article was cross posted at Red State

A Great Review of "The Undefeated"

Since I haven't yet watched “The Undefeated”, I've been reading the reviews and reactions to those who have already seen it.

The more I've read, the more obvious the tremendous impact this may have. Josh Painter, the editor of Texans for Sarah Palin wrote a great review in which he articulates it in three clear and concise points.

You can click here for the entire article.

The first of these is the initial "Three Minute Hate" sequence, which has a powerful emotional impact on the viewer. Much has been made of the foul language used by some of the more notorious among the Palin-hater demographic and how it will require director Stephen Bannon to market two versions of his film so PG audiences won't miss out on the opportunity to view it. The angrier extremists of the far left can't seem to communicate without resorting to gutter language, like so many of today's stand up comedians who use filthy epithets as a crutch to get through their acts. Lacking the creativity and talent of great comics such as Bill Cosby, Bob Hope, Jonathan Winters and Bob Newhart, this generation of comics are more than just several cuts below the greatness of the masters of their craft. But I suspect general audiences who see "The Undefeated" will find the intensity of the hate for Sarah Palin to have more shock value than the four-letter words used to express it. Coming at the beginning of the film as it does, the Three Minute Hate overwhelms the viewer with the irrationality and pathology of the attacks made against Gov. Palin. Viewers with a conscience will not be able to avoid the feeling of revulsion and even outrage over the extreme degrees of nastiness pursued in the efforts to destroy the woman. Those left of center, but of good character, will instinctively want to distance themselves from such vileness, which is exactly what the filmmaker wants them to do. Only then can these viewers, the main targets of the documentary, give Sarah Palin an even break and grant her a fresh appraisal.


Moving from the emotional to the intellectual, audiences can't help but be impressed by the accomplishments of the governor they see on the screen, as they witness the fiscal restraint, "servant's heart," and overall competence which rewarded her with impressive approval ratings in office, at least before the 2008 presidential campaign. Energy independence has always been a top issue for me, and as we see in "The Undefeated," it is for Gov. Palin as well. It is this issue which initially pulled me into her political orbit when I first began to pay attention after reading "The Most Popular Governor" by Fred Barnes nearly four years ago. Before I was even made aware of Sarah Palin, I was on board with her on the security and economic necessity of this nation deriving much more of its oil and natural gas from domestic exploration and production, while importing much less of it from potentially unreliable foreign sources. Not only would it be a shot in the arm to our ailing economy, it would help create hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of jobs. This made economic sense even back when the unemployment rate was almost half of what it is now. Today, it is nothing less than mission critical if we want to put America back to work.

Finally, the film impressed me with its great potential to change minds and thus change the game. Even if it does not move them 180 full degrees from the media-created Palin perception, that's not a problem. "The Undefeated" doesn't need to have that much of an impact on everyone who experiences it. The hard left will never give Gov. Palin an even break, but they're only about 20 percent of the population, so they aren't relevant to the mission of the this documentary (aside from the fact that they helped to perpetuate the media-driven lies about Sarah Palin by repeating them over and over again). Very few radical leftists, members of an even smaller subgroup, will even bother to watch the movie anyway. All this film need do is persuade those who sit for it to give her a second look, one not contaminated by media misrepresentation. Given that criteria, I believe that it will be a great success.

As a committed Palin supporter, it's difficult to put myself in the mind of a fence-sitter, and as a Reagan conservative, just as hard to try to image the thinking of a moderate or independent who fell for the anti-Palin media hype and accepted it as Gospel. But I do know a few things about communication and the psychology of marketing, and I'm convinced that if enough people - registered voters in particular - get the chance to see this powerful documentary they cannot help but be moved by it and have it challenge their preconceptions. Again, change enough minds, and you have changed the game. That's the emotional and intellectual power of "The Undefeated."

 I just hope that the film will reach enough Americans, especially those not already a part of the Palin camp, so it should have an impact.