While it is true we of the Palin posse are prone to defend her, the notion that such stems more from reflex than reflection upon points of consideration is inaccurate. No doubt great surprise will be found by the aforementioned nattering nabobs of Nerdprom in that most of us have actually taken the time to study Palin’s record and policies in something more than a drive-by fashion.

Which decidedly puts us one up on them.

A recent example of same comes from Jennifer Rubin, as we are oft told conservative blogger for the Washington Post. In a post earlier today generating such frenetic worldwide interest it presently has zero comments, although this is no doubt assigned by Washingtonius insiderus to the belief that Palin supporters can’t read, Rubin assails Palin for adopting an isolationist world view akin to that held by Ron ‘the Rampage’ Paul.

Uh-huh.

Let’s break this down based on what Palin said last night in a speech. In comparison to Ms. Rubin’s take on it drawn from an article by that legendary purveyor of journalistic integrity and fair play Politico, what she actually said, word for word:

I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women—America’s finest—into harm’s way should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be in five points.

First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period.

Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that, we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.

Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.

Fifth, sending in our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual. When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom.

We are not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We are always on the side of both. But we can’t fight every war. We can’t undo every injustice around the world. But with strength and clarity in those five points, we’ll make for a safer, more prosperous, more peaceful world because as the U.S. leads by example, as we support freedom across the globe, we’re going to prove that free and healthy countries don’t wage war on other free and healthy countries. The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example.

Wow, what an isolationist Sarah Palin has become! I mean, really! Have an objective? Have a plan? Use our armed forces for our interests? Crazy talk if ever there was such. Just because this has been the foundation of every successful military philosophy in history… come on. Next I suppose Palin will throw some hair-brained goof out there like, oh, not overextending yourself militarily. Some people, I tell you.

And we, the Palin supporters, are supposed to be the naive ones.

None of this should come as the slightest surprise. We can, and do, read for ourselves that Rubin makes no bones about her negative view of Palin. Nevertheless, we are a generous people, unwilling to engage in the circular firing squad suicide or automatically throw people under the bus but rather extending a hand to join us. There is always room for healthy debate; such is welcomed. As soon as someone engages in such we’ll be there. Junk like what Rubin wrote, not so much.

We do not all march in lockstep with Sarah Palin on every issue (endorsing Rand Paul? Really?) . We are neither drones nor zombies. Which, considering the omnipresent drumbeat of Palin as dum-dum emanating from the Jennifer Rubins of this world — rather, their world — when in fact she is anything but, is a status happily left to her critics.

ADDENDUM: Thanks to Whitney Pitcher at Conservatives4Palin for the link.

(Cross-posted at POWIP)

Today’s epic philippic comes from one Rachel D’Oro of the Associated Press, who breathlessly blurts out news of a scandal of scandals: Bristol Palin was paid $262,000 last year by the Candie’s Foundation to speak about the ill-advised nature of teenagers getting pregnant. A subject with which she has some familiarity.

Obviously, this is news because… because… well… did you see how much money she made?

Which is no one’s business but hers and the Candie’s Foundation, which despite the best efforts of the current administration to regulate who can be paid what is still free to pay whatever amount it wants to whomsoever it wants. But back to the story.

If you dig down, down, down — all the way to the eleventh paragraph — you discover this line:

The blog Palingates first reported the compensation figure.

Palingates.

Uh-huh.

The blog that even freakin’ E! Online, in an article about the subject loaded with snark, manages to identify as an anti-Palin site. Apparently this was missed by Ms. D’Oro.

She apparently also missed, on said blog, its link to a document screaming that Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy with Trig.

Uh-huh. Again.

Obviously a qualified source for hard facts.

Really, Associated Press? Really?

You’re so desperate for anything to throw against the Palins, even as your favorite son Obama would rather shut down the federal government than stop spending the country into financial ruin you troll a demented hate blog for “research” into a non-story?

Really?

Wow, you’re awesome.

She’s written a most interesting political column today about the dangers of creating a cult of personality around a politician, in the course of doing so singling out the obvious subjects, namely Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. It’s well worth a read.

That said, there is a bit of a stretch in one part:

Her supporters do not, thankfully, regard Palin as some sort of transcendent humanoid, but to her base, Palin and her family have become sacrosanct to a troubling extreme that echoes the Obama cult: Jokes made at Palin’s expense are not jokes but “hate.” Constructive criticism (even when rendered mildly, and with acknowledgments of both her strengths, and the savaging she endured throughout the ’08 campaign) is categorized as “hate.” One either loves Palin unconditionally, or one is a heretic; doubt, or even a reasonable reservation, is an occasion of sin.

I cannot speak for all Palin supporters, and yes, I am a Palin supporter through and through. Yes, I do adore her. Not worship. Adore. For this I make no apology.

That said, I strongly suspect there are many here among us who, like myself, do not subscribe to the notion of her being 100% above reproach and everything she says or does is Holy Writ times ten. It’s an easy assumption to make that lack of criticism equals fanboy worship. No, not really. It means someone hasn’t said or done something lately that warrants criticism. If Palin says or does something I don’t like, yes I will say so.

The above duly noted, it warrants mention that a lot of people I interact with on a daily basis, be it in person or online, say and do things I don’t like. I’ve learned to let it slide. Unless their words and/or actions are an egregious affront — and it takes a lot to pull that off in front of this old outlaw — or are a direct danger to themselves and others, why get cranky? Not my style. Not anymore, anyway. I used to view every disagreement as a battle that had to be one at all cost and by any means necessary. Now? Not so much as I’ve embraced my heritage. I’m a California man. Laid-back fun in the sand and sun. Catch a wave and feel the good vibrations. You do your thing, I do mine. I don’t apply litmus tests to people, the least little failing of any earning immediate banishment from the kingdom. Who cares about such things when the surf’s up, dude?

I know more than a few conservatives who can’t stand Palin. It’s not that big of a deal to me. However, should she run in 2012 and win the nomination, I do expect them to 1) shut up about it and 2) fully support her. Also, should she not run, or run yet someone else wins the nomination, I will 1) shut up about it and 2) fully support whoever is the nominee. ‘Nuff said.

There’s a bit of an overstatement further along in the post:

To Obama or Palin cultists, any critique must be invalidated because if you find a fault with them, you are de facto finding fault with the values and ideals of those who have invested so much of their identities into supporting and yes, “believing in” their heroes.

As opposed to the legendary for all the wrong reasons “fake but accurate” meme issued by the New York Times, this comment is accurate but not illustrating the whole picture. Yes, there are people — plenty of them — who immediately go into counterattack mode the moment someone, anyone, says anything negative about Palin. They’ve become conditioned to respond that way given how much of the negativity against Palin comes not from political or philosophical differences, but rather cheap, degrading personal shots. When this inevitably slops over — Palin is dumb, you support her, therefore you are dumb –  what on the surface can appear like fanboy blather is actually legitimate self-defense.

I’m inclined to give Palin supporters the benefit of the doubt in this matter. I believe they are more than intelligent enough to support her based on her track record and political views, not a cult of personality. And, in fact, this is what they do.

Yes, a healthier dose of “eh, whatever” would be welcome when people come down on the negative side of opinion about Palin. However, it’s well worth mentioning this fact: she doesn’t need your approval. Or mine, for that matter. She does what she believes to be best, and more power to her for doing so.

P.S. Speaking of cult of personality…

Last year, the band released its most recent album, titled The Latest. It garnered rave reviews and respectable sales among the band’s small but faithful fan base. The music buying populace at large paid it little mind, as is far more often than not the case when a veteran act releases new music. Your average teenager is not going to buy music made by the people their parents were listening to at their age. At least not when they’re looking.

The fact every fan of a veteran artist or act must face is that it is more than likely their favorite, no matter how loved, is no longer relevant to pop culture. They can be producing work as good as, or better than, what they were putting out back in the day when they were the rave fave. It doesn’t matter. Time will shift the spotlight elsewhere. Accept it, cherish what you hold dear, and let the world move as it may. You can’t stop the tide.

This came to mind twice yesterday, first when reading the New Yorker story on Karl Rove and later when catching up on the fallout over a tweet by Tucker Carlson about Sarah Palin. First, the Rove article.

I don’t have political litmus tests, the slightest slip-up on any of which immediately causes me to cast someone outside where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. Even as I want to be considered as a whole, with individual acts examined individually, so I do my best to consider others the same way. Philosophical and/or political purity is an unaffordable luxury. You agree with something someone does or says, you disagree with something else the same person does or says. You don’t discount the former because of the latter. That is, not if you hope to get anything done.

That all said, I have nothing against Rove as a whole. He’s had his moments of being a superb political strategist. But his slams against Christine O’Donnell after she won the primary, and his continued snarks against Sarah Palin… dude. Come on. Give it a rest. They’re more conservative than you, and they do things on a far more grass roots level. Quit being a jerk, swallow some pride and use your skills for good. Different does not equal deficient.

As to Carlson, it’s difficult to know what he thinking when he made a crude sexual joke on Twitter yesterday about Palin. Since when is that okay anytime, anyplace, anywhere, about anyone? He deleted the tweet, but it was nevertheless preserved for all to see. Worse yet, he’s doubled down on stupid by making a lame Charlie Sheen joke in an effort to deflect the criticism now coming his way. Opening your mouth just long enough to change feet somehow doesn’t come off as a sound operational practice when you’re trying to turn yourself into a major online player.

When you say something you shouldn’t have, offer an apology. A genuine apology, not one of the “if I have offended anyone” non-apologies. Then move on. First trying to hide what you said, then joking about it… again. Dude. Is appearing hip and cutesy to your fellow Washington insiders who hate Sarah Palin’s guts for being everything they aren’t — self-made, walking the talk when it came time to stand up to corruption, loved by those not in the same cocktail party inner circle as you — so utterly important to you that cheap-shot misogyny is acceptable political currency?

If you have a policy difference with Sarah Palin, say so. Lay out your facts and make your case. Instead, both Rove and Carlson have gone schoolyard by speaking like immature little boys who get back at the prettiest girl in class for not going out with them by attempting to make fun of her. Enough. If you want to be the big man, be a man and man up. Starting with growing up. If not, you make yourself as irrelevant to today’s political landscape as Cheap Trick is to the teen music market. And for the record, Cheap Trick is far better at what they do than you are when you behave like children.

Given how blogging at HotAir apparently requires more words per square inch on every topic under the sun than anywhere this side of Huffington Post, Eddie chimed in today on Sarah Palin not attending CPAC. Which is good, or else we’d never know this was the case… oh, wait…

Okay, so Morrissey is late to the party. He’s been that way ever since the Smiths broke up. But I digress; let’s dive in.

After his obligatory preamble of rambling off facts cut and pasted from elsewhere, padded with quotes from writers who actually say something such as Jim Geraghty and laced with his inimitable style that threatens to put Novocaine manufactures out of business, Eddie gets busy with the snark cleverly disguised as bland babble:

If Palin was boycotting the conference over issues with Keene or the other groups participating at the conference, then Palin would hardly set up shop at the conference, with or without her personal presence (NOTE: SarahPAC is co-sponsoring an evening reception for high rollers on the conference’s opening night). She may be choosing to skip the podium for other reasons, but disapproval doesn’t seem to be one of them.

Hmm. Gee. Might the purpose of co-sponsoring a reception for high rollers be to… oh, here’s a wild hare… speak directly to movers and shakers, particularly if they might be willing to cut a check SarahPAC’s way? The fact said people will be in attendance is why SarahPAC will be there. Its presence there in no way implies, infers or indicates Palin herself is any more enamored with CPAC or the ACU than in years past.

Rachel Weiner at the Washington Post more correctly deduces that Palin doesn’t need the appearance to raise her profile, especially with conservatives attending this conference.

Now there’s some Captain Obvious for you.

That suggests, though, that Palin isn’t terribly interested in stoking support for a presidential run. This particular CPAC will be key for those considering a run in the Republican presidential primaries, as the next CPAC and the large gathering of conservative activists needed to do the necessary organizing won’t convene again until the middle of the primaries themselves.

Oh, get the eff over yourselves, CPAC and CPAC toadies (here’s looking at you, Eddie). Palin has proved time and again she needs the same old tired loser lot of “conservative activists” — inactivists is more like it — to get out her message, and voters, about as much as Jimmie Johnson needs people telling him how to drive. For the uninitiated, Johnson has won the NASCAR championship five years in a row.

Let me repeat this again for those so deafened by the sound of their self-righteous babble they can no longer hear the truth: Sarah Palin does not need you. Period.

Her former running mate, John McCain, made a huge strategic error in skipping the 2007 CPAC in favor of an appearance on Jay Leno’s Tonight Show, and then had to return to a clearly diffident crowd in 2008 to beg for support.

The crowd was diffident because McCain wasn’t a pure enough conservative for their taste. And appearing at CPAC sure propelled him to victory that fall, now didn’t it.

McCain had a lot less credibility with conservatives in 2007 than does Palin, of course. However, if Palin is seriously considering a presidential run, she would still need to do some retail politicking in person with the groups gathered at CPAC, and also to win the talent race for a presidential campaign.

The “talent race.” Isn’t that usually called a list of accomplishments in life? I’m thinking Sarah’s got that one pretty well nailed down. Which is a nice way of saying to the Doug Mataconises of this world that no, we who support Sarah Palin aren’t starry-eyed fanboy zombies drooling over Caribou Barbie. We support her because she has a track record of kicking ass, beating down corruption on both sides of the aisle and governing out of solid, conservative principles. As opposed to your track record for saying stupid stuff just to get a rise out of people, then whining like a spoiled five year old when called out for it.

That’s also true for Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, and everyone else mulling a run. Skipping events, especially with large draws among the activist base, sends a signal that campaigning may not be a priority.

I quote from an earlier post: “How Palin will survive such a grievous self-inflicted wound to her political future is a matter of conjecture. It’s not like she can draw a crowd, or raise money, or demonstrate popularity with the public or anything…

“Sarcasm aside, it must stick firmly in the throat of Washington insiders and wannabes that Sarah Palin can bypass them without missing a beat. She can pick her spots, selecting such prizes as being the keynote speaker at a high profile sanctioned event marking Ronald Reagan’s one hundredth birthday. She speaks to more people in a second with one Facebook page than all the speakers at CPAC combined will reach in a year. Simply put, Palin doesn’t need CPAC. And she doesn’t seem all that inclined to make an appearance there because it’s been elevated to mandatory status by those seeking to enhance their own status.”

If that’s too many words for people, allow me to simplfy. Sarah Palin does not need you. Period. Now, please take a healthy dose of Get Over Yourself. It’s for your own good.

If Palin plans on an activist path for this cycle, however, getting her PAC into the mix would be more than enough exposure. This decision, along with her lack of traditional organization in Iowa, makes it look as though she’s aiming at a kingmaker role in 2012 — which will be fascinating to watch, if so. Whatever her strategy, it’s certainly not to play it safe.

Or listen to twits rambling about what they do not know.

Gee, Eddie, your logic is as sound as Sean Hackbarth somehow drawing from my original post about why I’m not going to CPAC that it’s all about him. No, God’s gift to self-gratification, it has nothing to do with you or your letter supporting CPAC. I have legitimate reasons for not going. None of which involve whether you follow me on Twitter. That has everything to do with you being an elitist ass.

Going to say this one more time: Sarah Palin does not need CPAC. Frankly, given its cost and how it will be overrun by Ron Paul worshipers, I don’t blame her for finding something better to do that weekend.

P.S. I’m seeing notes here and there heralding that over 10,000 people will be attending CPAC last year, these being used to buttress the argument that it is a Very. Big. Deal. Uh-huh. Here’s a comment on attendance: I am a Golden State Warriors fan. They routinely pack 17,000 rabid, über-enthusiastic fans into Oracle Arena for home games. Which is great. But it doesn’t mean they’re going to be winning an NBA championship anytime soon. Neither does 10,000 people at CPAC mean it matters to the general public. You know — the ones who vote and already know who Sarah Palin is?

ADDENDUM: Thanks to Lisa Graas, Dan Riehl and Dan Collins for the links.

Namely, who won’t be there.

And not due to a boycott, either.

Namely, Sarah Palin.

According to various reports, Palin’s beef with CPAC centers on David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union and thereby CPAC as it is their conference. The reasons are twofold: Keene’s asking for a substantial donation from FedEx ($2M to $3M) in return for his assistance in a legislative matter between it and UPS, and his trashtalking Palin after she resigned from her position as governor of Alaska. Hence, she wasn’t there last year, and it appears she won’t be there this year either.

How Palin will survive such a grievous self-inflicted wound to her political future is a matter of conjecture. It’s not like she can draw a crowd, or raise money, or demonstrate popularity with the public or anything…

Sarcasm aside, it must stick firmly in the throat of Washington insiders and wannabes that Sarah Palin can bypass them without missing a beat. She can pick her spots, selecting such prizes as being the keynote speaker at a high profile sanctioned event marking Ronald Reagan’s one hundredth birthday. She speaks to more people in a second with one Facebook page than all the speakers at CPAC combined will reach in a year. Simply put, Palin doesn’t need CPAC. And she doesn’t seem all that inclined to make an appearance there because it’s been elevated to mandatory status by those seeking to enhance their own status.

Sarah Palin has had more figurative sticks and stones thrown at her than any politician in recent memory, yet she continues on undaunted. A look at her career shows she is as opposed to Republican corruption as Democratic misguided policies. In saying no to CPAC, Palin is doing what she’s always done.

Namely, the right thing.

A few days ago, Earl Wilson, public editor of the New York Times, wrote a column about his employer’s coverage of the Tucson shootings. Titled Time, the Enemy, it is a masterpiece of the non-apology.

A little background. Like most of you with one or more siblings, my parents were of zero tolerance when moments came where they found themselves being petitioned for redress of grievances, one offspring leveling a charge against another. The aggrieving party would swiftly and surely find themselves in a most uncomfortable situation, phrases such as “you march right over there and apologize” along with “don’t just say it — mean it” being prominently featured in the parental discourse. Granted, such times occasionally brought on maximum exertion of whatever youthful thespian skills were available, but by and large the apologies were sincere. Fear of what would take should they be anything but was a powerful motivation.

Alas, Mr. Wilson (no relation that I know of) apparently was raised in a different fashion.

Shall we?

Jim Roberts, the assistant managing editor who has helped create today’s NYTimes.com, likes to call it the 1440/7 news cycle — 1,440 minutes every day, seven days a week, each one of those minutes demanding news for delivery to a networked world.

See how hard these poor folk slave for us ungrateful cretins?

Unfortunately, during a few of those minutes on Jan. 8, The Times had the story wrong.

No! Really?

In that brief window of time, NYTimes.com was reporting that Representative Gabrielle Giffords was dead of gunshot wounds. The error and some other aspects of the coverage of the Tucson shootings illustrate how difficult it is in the current environment to be both timely and authoritative.

“Some” other aspects? Like, say, accusing the right in general and Sarah Palin in particular of inciting the shooting? Do tell. But we should give them a pass. After all, being timely and authoritative is h-a-r-r-r-d. (Authoritarian, not so much. But I digress.)

The circumstances were these: A major breaking news event, occurring on a Saturday afternoon with a small staff on duty, with print deadlines to worry about and a Web site that needed to be fed as fast and as frequently as possible.

And if we ingrates would start buying more ads with the Times instead of selling our junk on eBay they’d be fully staffed!

The Times’s first online posting came at 1:47 p.m., followed by two quick updates — at 1:53 and 2:16. These stories, pieced together from other news organizations that were on the ground in Tucson, reported the shootings and other basic facts, attributing word of the shooting to the congresswoman’s spokesman, C. J. Karamargin. At this point, her condition was described as “unclear.”

Timely! Authoritative! Letting others do the reporting for you! Gee, when bloggers do that they’re called lazy plagiarists.

At 2:27, though, the story was revised to say Ms. Giffords had been shot and killed, attributing the information to Mr. Karamargin and “news reports.” Lower in the story, those news reports were identified as coming from NPR and CNN. As it turned out, the information was incorrect. The Times compounded the error by appearing to attribute it in part to Ms. Giffords’s own spokesman, who was not the source of the error.

I recall an interview I did a few years ago with the late David Poole, who was the NASCAR beat writer for the Charlotte Observer. He used a phrase I’d never heard before: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” In other words, trust only to a point, but always verify. Too bad no one at the Times followed his advice.

Here’s how the error was made.

Bet the reason won’t be “we made a mistake — no excuses.”

It was hectic in the newsroom with many news reports flowing in as Kathleen McElroy, the day Web news editor, was trying to decide whether The Times was ready to report Giffords’s death. She decided against it and was telling Web producers to hold off reporting it in a news alert when J. David Goodman, who was writing the story, told her he had a few changes he wanted to make.

Don’t you understand? It was hectic! Which never happens at any other workplace.

Ms. McElroy said, “I should have looked at every change,” but she thought Mr. Goodman was referring to small stuff. Mr. Goodman told me he then erred by reporting Representative Giffords’s death in the lead as though The Times itself were standing behind the information. In any event, Ms. McElroy had said O.K. without seeing that change, so Mr. Goodman pushed the button.

So working for the Times requires the ability to play Tweedledee and Tweedledum when the pressure’s on? Gee, who knew.

The result was a news story with changes that were not edited. Less than 10 minutes later, a new story appeared with the words “and killed” stricken.

An old-time editor would have been striking McElroy and Goodman’s heads together.

“Nobody should self-publish,” said Philip B. Corbett, standards editor for The Times. “Everything should go through an editor. Ideally, it should go through two editors.”

Or, if you’re a blogger, go through everyone and their grandmother who won’t for a moment hesitate to call you out if you flub.

I agree with him, but that takes time. In the 1440/7 news cycle, and in the environment of the newsroom on Jan. 8, time seemed unavailable. On this particular day, things were happening quickly and simultaneously, and a mistake was made.

Um, dear New York Times. I bring news. You’re not the only news source in the western world. Should you be a few minutes behind others, no big. What is big is this: if you can’t follow your own rules, using the tyranny of the urgent as an excuse, why should we believe you double-check and fact-check everything even when you’re working at your own leisure?

The Tucson shootings afforded another, quite different illustration of the pressure of time in news coverage — not pressure measured in seconds and minutes, but pressure that news organizations feel to define the context of a story, to set up a frame for it, sometimes before the facts can be fully understood.

Because the narrative must be adhered to all times, inconvenient truths notwithstanding.

The Times’s day-one coverage in some of its Sunday print editions included a strong focus on the political climate in Arizona and the nation. For some readers — and I share this view to an extent — placing the violence in the broader political context was problematic.

Hmm. Might this be problematic because THERE WAS NO POLITICAL CONTEXT TO THE VIOLENCE?!!

C. Wenk, a reader in Alexandria, Va., criticized “an egregious rush to judgment in the Times coverage of the Arizona shooting, specifically aimed at linking the shooting to various conservative or Republican political rhetoric.”

Mr. or Ms. Wenk was being kind. The Times perpetrated a 100% falsehood, falsehood of the most vicious kind. It declared innocent people to in fact have blood on their hands. It was, is and always will be a filthy lie. One which the paper has not once apologized. Not once.

A second reader, Kevin O’Donnell of Greenbrae, Calif., saw it as a case of The Times jumping too quickly: “I understand the larger point about coarse speech raising the potential for violence. By offering that debate within hours of events, doesn’t The Times risk starting at the conclusion end of the argument?”

No, it risks revealing its pathetic bigotry against and hatred of Sarah Palin. Which we already knew, but had not previously been revealed to such an obscene extent.

The Times had a lot of company, as news organizations, commentators and political figures shouldered into an unruly scrum battling over whether the political environment was to blame.

Didn’t the “they did it too” excuse get thrown out in grade school for these people? Apparently not.

Meanwhile, opportunities were missed to pick up on evidence — quite apparent as early as that first day — that Jared Lee Loughner, who is charged with the shootings, had a mental disorder and might not have been motivated by politics at all.

And why were the opportunities missed? Because the Times was and is addicted to its own meme: conservatives bad, liberals good, Palin worst of all. Note how even in the face of overwhelming evidence there was zero political motivation to Loughner’s madness the Times still slips in the insinuation (“… might not have been…”) that it was correct after all.

“If I were a reporter on this story, my very first call would have been to a mental health professional willing to consider the nature of Mr. Loughner’s illness,” Max Etchemendy of East Palo Alto, Calif., wrote. “The ‘political’ angle has been beaten to death, and ‘medical’ angle has been ignored completely.”

Mr. Etchemendy should work for the Times.

So why does a story get framed this way?

Here, let me answer that for you. Because you’re addicted to your mantra, you don’t give a rat’s ass about the truth and you’re disgusting biased hacks.

Journalism educators characterize this kind of framing as a storytelling habit — one of relating new facts to an existing storyline — and also as a reflex of news organizations that are built to handle some topics well, and others less well.

I do believe “less well” translates into any story involving those pesky facts.

Jerry Ceppos, dean of the journalism school at the University of Nevada, Reno, said journalists’ impulse to quickly impose a frame on a story is “genetic.”

Try pathetic. Just report the story. We’re not so flippin’ stupid we need you to put things into context for us, you condescending arrogant self-worshiping jerk.

“Journalists developed automatic framing protocols generations ago because of the need to report quickly,” he said. “Today’s hyper-deadlines, requiring journalists to report all day long and all night long, made that genetic disposition even more dominant.”

So it’s okay to lie when you’re in a hurry?

To be fair, there were some good reasons to steer the coverage initially in this direction.

I was unaware that “rubbing our hands together in glee that it looks like we’ve finally got the opportunity to nail those racist violent teabaggers and especially Caribou Barbie” qualified as a good reason.

As Rick Berke, the national editor, said: “Our coverage early on was broad and touched everything from the possible shooter to the victims to the reaction to, yes, the political climate in Arizona.

Which had not a single thing to do with the shooting, but hey — it made for some awesome editorials!

“By our count, there were 49 stories in the paper the first six days after the tragedy, of which only 14 were political in nature.

The fact they were pure slander is apparently negated by there being fewer of them.

“But it would be ridiculous for us to neglect that. After all, a politician was shot in the head while meeting with constituents.

And Sarah Palin owns a gun. Obvious connection!

“That same lawmaker had her office vandalized during an especially rancorous campaign.

Which is reprehensible. However, without proof it was in any fashion connected to the shooting, irrelevant.

“And after the shooting the sheriff called his state the capital of hatred and bigotry.”

The same sheriff that five minutes on Google would reveal is a partisan Democratic hack.

Still, I think the intense focus on political conflict — not just by The Times — detracted from what has emerged as the salient story line, that of a mentally ill individual with lawful access to a gun.

That’s it, then? That’s your response to flat-out lying? Be thankful my Mom is in heaven now, Mr. Wilson, or else she’d grab you by the ear with one hand, Paul Krugman with the other, and march you right over to Sarah Palin to apologize.

But no. Not you. You’ll never apologize. You lied because it suited your purpose. You falsely accused because it correlated with your despising any and all things conservative. And when your lies and false accusations were exposed, you ignored it like it never happened. You hurled your bile, and when it was proved to be utterly untrue washed your hands and went on, believing that a mealy-mouthed non-apology is more than sufficient to cover your sins. Guess again.

Whether covering the basic facts of a breaking story or identifying more complex themes, the takeaway is that time is often the enemy. Sometimes the best weapon against it is to ignore it, and use a moment to consider the alternatives.

Gee, wish I could use the clock as an alibi.

Mr. Wilson, kindly get lost and don’t be found until you find integrity.

P.S. The pictures have nothing to do with the song (“Portrait of an Apology” by Jars of Clay), but they’re nice nature shots.

A week ago yesterday, I was in Corona attending a concert that featured Undercover, Crumbächer, the Lifters, Mike Roe of the 77s and Lost Dogs, and the Choir Acoustic. I was positioned in the lobby with my book, of which I sold a few copies. Not many, but a few.

The day’s news was dominated by the horror that had taken place in Tucson. A madman, one about whom one cannot easily dismiss the thought of demonic possession, had shot a Congresswoman, subsequently fatally shooting and wounding others before being subdued. It was a dark day. The concert was a welcome relief.

I preface this next statement by noting I’ve never been a believer who sees demons in every ill-timed sneeze and Beelzebub lurking behind every corner waiting to strike. That said, I sensed during Crumbächer’s set an oppressive spirit, the kind that drives people into isolation from each other. Others there that evening sensed it as well.

Still, the spirit did not prevail despite its best efforts. During Undercover’s set, the closing song “Devotion” moved me into a rare state, one of being overwhelmingly aware of the Spirit and God’s love in my life. As noted above I’ve never been a holy roller, but the depth of what swept through me during the song is inexpressible with mere words. Those of you who have tasted God’s presence in your life know. Everyone else? I pray one day you also will have the kind of moment that transcends mental and physical boundaries. You can’t live there, nor should you waste your and God’s time in perpetual pursuit of such moments. Rather, let them come to you. And then get back to the daily, flush with knowledge that the daily is never all there is to life.

The political daily has been obscenely hideous since the Tucson madman’s bloody rampage. There was an immediate cry that the gunman must have — must have — been fueled by the right. Even as evidence quickly mounted that his actions stemmed from nothing of the sort, but rather a madman’s jumble of Christ- and Christian-hatred, bizarre cult-like teachings and utter failure to grasp reality, pundits both amateur and professional became borderline madmen themselves as they hurled baseless accusations against Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and others. The public rejected their rants. Palin masterfully answered the charges:

Sarah Palin: “America’s Enduring Strength” from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Yet they raged on, never once apologizing when the weight of evidence became so great it was too much to continue with the lies.

Now, despite the overwhelming evidence that political discussion had nothing to do with Tucson, the left is chanting the mantra of civility and bipartisanship. Strange, since those words never once crossed their lips when they held the full reins of power. Now that the House has a Republican majority, all should be lovey-dovey.

But of course.

The left spent a week attempting to implement the same oppressive, isolationist spirit that sought to drag down the concert in Corona. They failed, even as the spirit at the concert failed. Instead, what took place was a unification of the right, one where silly squabbles over RINOs versus purists were set aside in favor of a unified front against the lies and venom. The subsequent calls for civility have been mocked as the facetious, disingenuous tripe they are. They are the bleating of pathetic sheep who attempted to mount a baseless attack, were soundly thrashed, and responded by calling for an illusionary truce.

No, there will be no truce. No compromise of the truth. No retreat from important positions strongly held and defended.

Even as there will be no failure to embrace the love and fellowship of the concert, or the moment it brought of sweet communion with God Himself.

No madman, no pundit and politician wolf pack seeking to cast others into hell can triumph against those whose eyes are set on heaven.

Never.

Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell. Fellow politicians, fellow believers.

Ever since Christine O’Donnell won the GOP nomination in Delaware for U.S. Senator, much has been made of her faith. At times, much too much. It’s the nature of things that come from those who, as Jesus told the Sadducees, know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

There is delicious irony in how those who profess themselves to be conservatives, and/or conservative-leaning libertarians, oft moan “God — that is, if there is one, and I’m too much of a wuss to decide; or, I’ve decided there isn’t one because I didn’t get the pony for Christmas I prayed for one year — forbid people should live out their faith when it comes to their politics.” They’re missing the point. Namely, it’s precisely because of these politician’s faith they are who they are politically.

It’s not a case of believing in Christ automatically leading to being on the conservative side of politics. As an example, an argument can be made concerning the mandate of Christ to His followers that as much as they are able, they must take care of not only the spiritual needs, but the material needs (that’s needs, not wants) of the poor. The reasoning goes this can, and should, be applied to the concept of social justice, which in turn can, and should, be acted upon by government. That said, consider for a moment the core principles of conservative thought: individual freedom, corresponding personal responsibility, limited government. Let’s break these down a bit.

The freedoms set forth in the First Amendment — speech and with it the press, worship, to peacefully assemble and with it petition the government for a redress of grievances — reflect the freedom found only through the new life, available solely through Christ. This duly noted, life in Christ also requires the embrace of personal responsibility, both in how we conduct ourselves as individuals and in our interactions with others. As mentioned above, we are commanded to take care of each other. This means caring for, caring about and protecting one another. Which for some leads to participation in a government that does not prohibit doing so through destroying the ability to do business and acquire financial security, while it does provide for a strong national defense both militarily and economically. In other words, focused. Limited.

Certainly it is possible to develop political beliefs along these lines without knowledge of Christ. However, these beliefs rest atop the shifting sands of human reason. They do not have roots in the authority of Scripture, evidenced by love in action.

There is another factor to consider, one completely missed by those who completely miss God’s presence, plan and power in anything and/or everything. People of a like faith love Sarah Palin not solely because of her position on the issues. It’s also because of who she is: loving wife and mother, courageous, not one to suffer fools lightly. Similarly, as more people come to know who Christine O’Donnell is, they are coming to love her for her determination. And, yes, her humanity. We can relate to someone who hasn’t had a smooth ride, who’s been ridiculed for living out her faith along with having ups and downs in their life. Those who do not see with the tired eyes of faith, as Terry Scott Taylor so brilliantly said, cannot see this in O’Donnell. Or, for that matter, anyone else.

Which is much to their loss.

The Kings and Chronicles illustration is useful in considering how swiftly O’Donnell has been embraced by so many while others view her as a walking freak show. Consider how the history of Israel is depicted in both books. While both cover the same time period, the viewpoints are completely different. It’s best described as Kings being history from man’s point of view, whereas Chronicles is history from God’s point of view.

As an example, note how the life of David is documented in each. In Kings it’s all there, good and bad. Including the whole story of David and Bathsheba, which at its beginning is as sordid as it gets. In Chronicles? Not a word about the whole affair.

Why? Was God attempting to rewrite history so the man described as being after His own heart would look good? Did He turn a blind eye to it all? No. David and Bathsheba paid dearly for their sin. The child born as a result of their adultery died a few days after he was born. However, the child they had after they married was Solomon, who succeeded his father as king and wrote the book of Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes plus two Psalms. That’s what Chronicles talks about. God has always been in the sin-forgiving business.

Even for politicians.

Circling back to the beginning, be it the lamestream media on the left or those on the right whose understanding of politics and politicians lacks the Spirit, the genuine fear of all things O’Donnell, and Palin at first before and now alongside her, is rather amusing. They huddle together in terror, dreading the tyranny of the non-existent tyranny that exists solely in their fevered imagination. They believe the believers, even the ones with whom they are politically aligned, are out to mandate their view of life, love and God under the guise of public policy.

Ironically, they’re right even as they’re wrong.

The believer’s mandate isn’t to impose, but rather to insert an active implementation of Christ’s love for all. This is the heart of their politics even as this is the core of their being. Others will miss this, even as they miss the extended nail-scarred hand of Jesus. It is their loss. Hopefully, prayerfully one day they will come to understand.

In the meanwhile, all we who believe can do is keep on smiling.

First and foremost, Sarah Palin remains the barracuda to everyone else’s guppy. Her endorsement of Joe Miller in the Alaska GOP Senate race was crucial in his upset win over incumbent Lisa Murkowski despite her heavily outspending, plus enjoying far greater public recognition than, Miller.

While it can be safely argued Palin’s support of Miller stemmed from her preferring his far more conservative political stance than that evidenced by Murkowski, this falls by the wayside when one considers she also supported the highly unpopular among conservatives John McCain, who crushed J.D. Hayworth in what many had thought would be a much closer Arizona GOP Senate primary than turned out to be the case. Granted, Hayworth was a bit of a clown. Actually, more than a bit. Yet despite this, he was highly favored among those who have labeled McCain the symbol of all that is evil in the Republican party. The opinion of voters strongly indicate otherwise. It should also indicate to those who blame McCain for everything under the sun that maybe they should get over themselves and their precious litmus tests. The enemy of your enemy may not be your BFF, but they sure ain’t your enemy either.

Anyway, an even stronger message was proclaimed in one of the Arizona GOP House primaries, where cyberspace sweetheart Pamela Gorman came in fifth with Dan Quayle’s son Ben taking the win. Ouch. For the record, Palin never endorsed Gorman despite her, on the surface, being everything one would want in a mama grizzly. Why?

Palin is seldom given credit for her political savvy. Or much of anything else, even by more than a few of her most ardent supporters who have become so enraptured by her aura they fail to see the person behind them. Palin is not addicted to pleasing those who measure everything by their aforementioned private political litmus tests. She pays little attention to pundits, professional or amateur, on either side of the aisle. Instead, time and again she has demonstrated pragmatism without sacrificing principals. Palin has never failed to explain her choices for those she endorses. When she doesn’t endorse someone… again, as the Scripture says wisdom is proved right by her children. More than once — Gorman, prior to that Chuck DeVore in the California GOP Senate primary — Palin has withheld an endorsement, in the case of DeVore endorsing a candidate (Carly Fiorina) who ostensibly should have been the last person to receive a nod, let along a wink and a smile.

Let’s break this down a bit.

When ostensibly solid candidates turn into dots on the horizon when the ballots are tabulated, the question of why naturally arises. Sometimes it’s due not to their being disliked, but rather to the opposition being more preferred. However, more often than not it’s due to the losing candidate, regardless of how in many cases they generate tremendous enthusiasm among the faithful, running a terrible campaign.

Bringing in one of my favorite topics, namely NASCAR, the parallels being succeeding in it and succeeding in politics are numerous. Examples, you say? Sure.

Race the track. A winning driver in NASCAR is running not so much against the other drivers as they are running against the track, and to a degree themselves. Each track in NASCAR is unique, with its own characteristics brought about by an assortment of factors: length, shape, degree of banking, configuration of turns and so on. How well you negotiate each track determines your success far, far more than how the other drivers are taking care of business. If you do your job well, you do well. Period.

Similarly, in politics, especially a primary, a successful candidate spends far more time defining themselves than running against or so much as acknowledging the other candidates. You can’t be the best of the people running in the primary and leave it at that. You have to be the best person for the job period. Using another sports analogy, running full bore against the other people in your party is the equivalent of a starting pitcher laying it all on the line… in the pre-game warmup.

Next, stay focused on the local. There isn’t a NASCAR driver out there who’s turning laps at a short track like Martinsville while thinking about their strategy for the upcoming race at a restrictor plate track like Talladega.

Far too many candidates are becoming bedazzled by the bright lights of social media and nationwide attention. While it’s definitely important to effectively use social media as part of your campaign efforts, devoting too much time and energy toward making appearances with, and winning acclaim from, the more popular practitioners of preaching to the choir generates tremendous applause from said choir. And nothing from the overwhelming majority of those who will actually be going to polling places where your name appears on the ballot.

Social media goes only so far. It doesn’t reach all that many people compared to traditional methods, and especially in politics is primarily received solely by those already in tune with the given message and its backing philosophy. They’re already voting for you. At least, the tiny number of people eligible to do so will be doing so. The old-fashioned way of shoe leather and direct local contact still rules. Think global? Sure. But campaign local.

Every driver is identified with their crew chief. While the driver is the one mashing pedals and turning the steering wheel, at every race the crew chief is the one who gets information from the driver about how the car is responding. From this, they prescribe what changes, if any, need to be made to the car during the next pit stop.

The person or persons who oversee a candidate’s campaign efforts are very much in the same vein as a NASCAR driver’s crew chief. If they are a hired gun, a carpetbagger whose apparent loyalty extends solely to padding their resume, you’ve got problems.

The best crew chiefs, even when directly questioned, talk up nothing and no one but their driver. Same deal goes for campaign managers, strategists and everyone else. Anonymous. Assistance. Always. Anyone who says “look at me” while ‘helping’

Is not helping. Period.

Substance first, style second. A driver might connect wonderfully with the fan base based on different factors — looks, mannerisms and the like. But if they can’t drive, they won’t be around for long.

Taking this to politics, kitsch makes for horrible advertisements. We’ve had some doozies this year. The unifying factor behind them all? The candidate who made them got smoked. Issues, issues, issues. Not machine guns.

Sell yourself, but not solely yourself. Have a personality, but it must be mainly demonstrated through policies and practices. Substance.

And that’s how NASCAR and politics work together.

By the way, Sarah Palin is a huge NASCAR fan.