Palin: Media Shouldn't "Manufacture a Blood Libel" That Only Incites Hate, Violence

Sarah Palin, finally, responded to the shooting of Rep. Giffords and others in Tuscon, Arizona (transctipt here):



She focused on not throwing blame around to score political points, when discussing the tragedy in Tuscon, and called it "irresponsible". She quoted Reagan saying that "society" wasn't guilty, when a mad man does something like this. The mad man is.

She, also, pointed out that Giffords and the other victims were exercising the same first amendment rights that Giffords recited, when the House read the Constitution aloud last week, and people shouldn't use this to stifle others from exercising the same free speech rights that they were enjoying that fateful morning.

This was a very good speech that made Palin look "above the fray" and, dare I say, presidential. She was calm the whole time, and she didn't go after anyone in particular. There was no lashing out at the media or Democrats that might have looked like she was getting back at them for their attacks on her and her character.

Ed Morrissey had a very good synopsis of how he felt about the speech and how she presented it:

Earlier this week, I told a reporter that a public response would be tricky for Palin. She needed to defend herself but without being seen as descending to the level of the debate as it stood at that moment. Plenty of others were defending conservatives already, but Palin needed to engage the debate on her own terms at some point in a manner that allowed her to rise above the accusatory morass that the media encouraged almost from the hour in which the shootings took place.

This video message affirms the wisdom of that approach. Palin does an excellent job in making her point without lashing out in anger over the attacks, and underscores the importance of personal responsibility rather than group guilt in a free society, the priority of free speech as an underpinning of democracy, and the determination of Palin and the rest of the conservatives to defend those principles. It’s precisely what Palin needed to say, and precisely the manner and forum in which she needed to say it.

Now, some have gone after her use of the term "blood libel":

Some are criticizing Palin’s use of “blood libel,” saying that it refers to a specific anti-semitic charge from centuries ago that Jews supposedly used the blood of Christian children in preparing ritual food. But as Glenn Reynolds points out to Politico’s Ben Smith, Israel uses “blood libel” today to rebut charges of deliberately killing Palestinians, and Tony Blankley used it in a column to describe John Murtha’s accusations against Marines about murders in Haditha. It’s a functional political term.

I think that it is a odd choice of words and could have chosen something better, but it is a minor gripe. She didn't use the term to mean what it might have meant regarding the Jews. I doubt that it had even been aware of that possible connotation.

If any one is focusing on those two words and totally ignoring the rest of the almost 8 minute speech, they are missing the forest for the trees. They should look at the speech as a whole, too, which was very thoughtful and insightful.

Palin: People Would Not Take It Easy On Me If I Cried As Much As Boehner Because I’m a Woman

Sarah Palin took a swipe at incoming Speaker John Boehner for crying and said that people wouldn’t be so kind to her for crying because she a woman:

Sarah Palin says there's a double standard when it comes to politicians who cry in public.

The former Alaska governor and possible 2012 Republican presidential candidate says she would be "knocked a little bit" if she cried while giving a speech. But Palin tells ABC's "Good Morning America" that House speaker-in-waiting John Boehner gets a "pass" when he cries in public.

Palin says that's OK, but that it makes women in politics work harder and "be that much tougher."

I don’t think that he has really gotten a pass. The media, especially the left-wing media, has ridiculed him for his overly-emotional nature. For example, some have said that it might be a sign that he’s an alcoholic. In reality, I think that most of the media doesn’t really know what to think of it.

She is somewhat right, though. If she cried as much as Boehner does, people would say that she cries too much and couldn’t handle the stress of the office of the presidency because of how much she cries. However, I think that people might say the same thing of Boehner, if he ever ran for president. Palin is considered one of the lead-runners for the GOP nomination next cycle, and presidential contenders will be held to a different standard than those in the Speakership. So, it not exactly an even comparison.

Sarah Palin’s PAC Releases Video With “Campaign Feel”

This video just came out on Sarah Palin’s YouTube channel. It doesn’t mention a candidate by name. This seems to be a generic spot is for the many female GOP candidates running for federal office this November. but it, also, feels like she may be testing the waters and laying the groundwork for herself 4 years from now.

It’s probably both:



Exit question: What is Sarah Palin’s fascination with Mama Grizzlies?

Heartache: Almost 2 out of 5 Iowa Republicans Don't Like Palin

While it is still very early and no one has even officially declared their candidacy, yet, this is still very telling on where Palin stands, if she decides to take the plunge:

You thought it was too early for the 2012 presidential campaign to start? Worry not -- the Des Moines Register has a poll of the state's Republicans, testing their feelings about potential GOP nominees. They tell us that "62 percent of Republicans who identified themselves as likely to vote in this week's primary election are very or mostly favorable toward [Mitt] Romney. [Sarah] Palin follows, with 58 percent very or mostly favorable about her, with [Newt] Gingrich at 56 percent." Nothing too alarming there -- before the campaign begins, it's mostly about name recognition. However, the story doesn't comment on the unfavorable numbers. Who wins there?

Hands down, it's Palin: 39 percent of Iowa Republicans have an unfavorable view of her. This is somewhat surprising given that Iowa Republicans are a socially conservative bunch, and you'd think they'd be Palin's base.

Since the Iowa Caucus is the first test for presidential hopeful to pass, a poor showing in Iowa could make or break a campaign. This could be a disaster for Palin, if she can't win a socially conservative state like Iowa. Still, we have a long way to go before the Iowa polls open. She has time to turn thing around. I would not be surpeised that, after seeing this poll, she'll be spending a lot more time in the Hawkeye State.

Winner of the Yesterday's Primaries: Sarah Palin

Last night was a very big night for women, specifically Republican women. Even though she wasn't on the ballot anywhere, one woman in particular won the day in a big way for the GOP. The candidates that were endorsed by Sarah Palin faired very well in the primaries:

Some of Sarah Palin’s riskiest endorsements scored major victories Tuesday for the former Alaska governor, showing off her power in Republican primaries. 

Palin had four primary endorsements in play – Carly Fiorina, Nikki Haley, Terry Branstad and Cecile Bledsoe – and three won or moved on to a runoff.

This shows the former governor of Alaska still has a lot of political pull, especially among the conservative base:

Perhaps Palin’s most powerful demonstration came in South Carolina, where her endorsement propelled a major swing in the polls for Haley’s primary campaign for governor and sustained the state representative through accusations of two separate affairs. 

"Her decision to get - and stay - involved in the race here in South Carolina was a huge boon to our campaign, because it caused a lot of South Carolinians to take a second look at a rising in the polls but once-little known state legislator who was fighting to give them back their government,” Haley spokesman Tim Pearson said of Palin.

This will give Palin more confidence that she could make a legitimate run for the White House in 2012, but will the adoration that conservatives have for her translate into votes in 2012, especially from independents? It's too early to tell, but if the candidates are received well and people believe that they have performed well in office on their behalf, then, it could parlay her into people giving her a chance. She has a long way to go to repair her national image after it was damaged during the debacle of her various disastrous interviews during the 2008 election. While it won't completely repair her image, it is a good start.

McCain's Chief Campaign Advisor Preemptively Calls Palin's Possible Presidential Run "Catastrophic"

With Palin's already #1 Bestseller, "Going Rogue", set to be released in a few weeks, John McCain's chief strategist from his 2008 presidential campaign, decided to throw Alaska's former governor and potential presidential candidate in 2012 under the bus:

Steve Schmidt, John McCain's former chief campaign strategist, said today that if former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin were to be the Republican nominee, it would be "catastrophic" for the Republican Party.

"I think that she has talents, but my honest view is that she would not be a winning candidate for the Republican candidate in 2012, and in fact, were she to be the nominee, we would have a catastrophic election result."

"In the year since the election has ended, she has done nothing to expand her appeal beyond the base. ... Th[e] independent vote is going to be up for grabs in 2012. That middle of the electorate is going to be determinative of the outcome of the elections. I just don't see that if you look at the things she has done over the year ... that she is going to expand that base in the middle."

This isn't the first time that Mr. Schmidt has gone off against Gov. Palin. Even though they have denied repeatedly, Steve and Nicole Wallace have been called "prime suspects" in the search for the origination of the leaks that said there was in-fighting in the McCain camp. After all, the main source of information that was leaked was an exchange of emails between Palin and Schmidt "magically appeared" in the media's inbox. So, it was either someone close to Palin or Schmidt, and Palin had nothing to gain at all from their release. So, that leaves Schmidt.

As Allahpundit points out, the upcoming Palin memoir will, more than likely, include some unsavory comments about her experiences on the 2008 campaign trail. Many of those comments may be directed at Mr. Schmidt, and may be trying to get the first shot in before Palin drops her bombshell on November 17.

What gets me the most about what he said above is that he seems so certain that a Palin candidacy would be a disaster based on her lack of exposure and action now, over three years away from the next presidential election, but later on in the same interview he says this:

"What counts politically is where we are a year from today." Schmidt said that while he thinks 2010 will be a "good Republican year," it won't be a referendum on President Obama.

So, let me get this straight. Since Palin isn't calling a press conference once a week or attacking Obama's policy everyday in the news today, she is going to lose three years in the future, but for Obama, what happens now won't affect him much, politically, a year from now. That's a bit of a double standard.

Sarah Palin is, probably, doing the smart thing, right now. She is, for the most part, keeping a low but not invisible profile. She'll release a statement about something that is going through Congress or being pushed by Obama every few weeks.

If she exposed herself more this far before 2012, people would be tired of hearing her name by the time the election came around. She has plenty of time to get her agenda across the voting public.before the Iowa primary. What's the rush?

Of course, there is a chance that she could have a Couric-like moment, and it'll sink her chances. However, how would that sink the whole party as Schmidt suggests?

Sarah Palin: Any Health Care Reform Must Include Tort Reform/Exactly, This Is What GOP Should Be Preaching

For a while, I have been preaching that tort reform is mandatory for any meaningful health care reform. I have been wondering why Republicans weren't talking about it. With all of this discussion about "real" reform, very little has been said about it. Finally, someone has said what needs to be said about this very important issue..

Sarah Palin posted an article on her "Facebook page" this morning which is a very well thought out explanation as to why tort reform is needed.

President Obama's health care "reform" plan has met with significant criticism across the country. Many Americans want change and reform in our current health care system. We recognize that while we have the greatest medical care in the world, there are major problems that we must face, especially in terms of reining in costs and allowing care to be affordable for all. However, as we have seen, current plans being pushed by the Democratic leadership represent change that may not be what we had in mind -- change which poses serious ethical concerns over the government having control over our families’ health care decisions. In addition, the current plans greatly increase costs of health care, while doing lip service toward controlling costs.

She goes on to explain what she (and I) believe is an important part of improving not just the cost and availability but, also, the quality of health care.

So what can we do? First, we cannot have health care reform without tort reform. The two are intertwined. For example, one supposed justification for socialized medicine is the high cost of health care. As Dr. Scott Gottlieb recently noted, “If Mr. Obama is serious about lowering costs, he'll need to reform the economic structures in medicine—especially programs like Medicare.” Two examples of these “economic structures” are high malpractice insurance premiums foisted on physicians (and ultimately passed on to consumers as “high health care costs”) and the billions wasted on defensive medicine.

She quotes Dr. Stuart Weinstein of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons here to he'll explain:

Access is affected as physicians move their practices to states with lower liability rates and change their practice patterns to reduce or eliminate high-risk services. When one considers that half of all neurosurgeons—as well as one third of all orthopedic surgeons, one third of all emergency physicians, and one third of all trauma surgeons—are sued each year, is it any wonder that 70 percent of emergency departments are at risk because they lack available on-call specialist coverage?”

The good doctor listed some estimates by the good doctor as to how much we could save, if we included tort reform.

“If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine. Excessive litigation and waste in the nation’s current tort system imposes an estimated yearly tort tax of $9,827 for a family of four and increases healthcare spending in the United States by $124 billion.

Sarah goes on to give from her own state of Alaska and Texas as shining examples of how real tort reform can decrease costs while increasing the quality and availability of healthcare:

So I have new questions for the president: Why no legal reform? Why continue to encourage defensive medicine that wastes billions of dollars and does nothing for the patients?

Do you want health care reform to benefit trial attorneys or patients? Many states, including my own state of Alaska, have enacted caps on lawsuit awards against health care providers. Texas enacted caps and found that one county’s medical malpractice claims dropped 41 percent, and another study found a “55 percent decline” after reform measures were passed.. That’s one step in health care reform. Limiting lawyer contingency fees, as is done under the Federal Tort Claims Act, is another step. The State of Alaska pioneered the “loser pays” rule in the United States, which deters frivolous civil law suits by making the loser partially pay the winner’s legal bills. Preventing quack doctors from giving “expert” testimony in court against real doctors is another reform.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry noted that, after his state enacted tort reform measures, the number of doctors applying to practice medicine in Texas “skyrocketed by 57 percent” and that the tort reforms “brought critical specialties to underserved areas.” These are real reforms that actually improve access to health care..

Dr. Weinstein’s research shows that around $200 billion per year could be saved with legal reform. That’s real savings. That’s money that could be used to build roads, schools, or hospitals. If you want to save health care, let’s listen to our doctors. There should be no health care reform without legal reform. There can be no true health care reform without legal reform.

Wow! Someone from the right (other than Paul Ryan) is actually thinking about how to counter the Obama and the Democrats' abysmal plan and public option. This is long overdue.

PDS Sufferers Lament: 13th Ethics Complaint Against Alaska Gov. Palin Dismissed

The crusade against Sarah Palin has hit a dead end, yet again:

May 27, 2009, Anchorage, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin today welcomed the news that yet another ethics complaint against her has been officially found to lack merit and has been dismissed.

Michael Geraghty, investigator for the State Personnel Board, concluded that there is no need for a hearing on the complaint filed in March by Andree McLeod, who has been a vocal critic of the governor since being denied employment with the state last year.

This is the 13th ethics complaint against the governor or her staff that has been resolved with no finding of a violation of the executive ethics act. A few more are pending.

When will those that suffer from PDS give up? Liberals are so scared of Palin that they are obviously desparate to create a scandel involving the Alaskan governor even if they have to make one up as they did with the Bristol baby farce.

As Expected Alaska Democrats Chastise Palin For Stimulus Money Rejection

Alaska Democrats pile on Palin over stimulus money
By DAN JOLING Associated Press Writer
Mar 21, 5:30 AM EDT

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- Gov. Sarah Palin reinforced her conservative credentials when she announced she would not accept nearly one-third of the federal stimulus money offered to the state, but Democrats are charging the move will hurt Alaskans.

Palin on Thursday said she would accept only 69 percent of the estimated $930 million dollars that could flow to the state. Palin said she would accept money that did not create strings binding the state in the future.

Palin's harshest critics said Friday that in rejecting the stimulus money, the former GOP vice presidential candidate was making a play to match other Republican governors who may run for president in 2012 run, such as South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

"We think it is outrageous that we have a governor who is willing to turn down Alaskans' fair share of federal stimulus money, money that would go to education, public safety, unemployment resources, health programs," said Patti Higgins, chairwoman of the Alaska Democratic Party. "It is very clear that the governor is doing this just to further her own narrow political national agenda and ambitions."

But Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell said Palin had no political agenda for the stimulus money and did not "reject" it. Instead, Parnell said, any "growing government-type" money will be considered in the legislative process, he said.

"The whole purpose of the governor not requesting all these operating budget funds is so that this very discussion could occur," Parnell said. "It could be done publicly. I think this is healthy for us."

South Carolina Gov. Sanford last week said he may reject nearly a quarter of the stimulus money available to his state. Perry, Jindal, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour have said they would reject a portion of the money that would expand unemployment benefits to those not currently eligible to receive them.

Palin on Thursday was free to make the announcement to "not accept" stimulus money, and enjoy the publicity that ensued, knowing the Alaska Legislature likely will do so. Senate President Gary Stevens, a Republican, signaled that probability last month.

"I think the governor has taken the high road here and I appreciate that," he said at a press conference Feb. 17. "She's spoken her mind and made it clear she's concerned that we may be getting ourselves in trouble down the road by taking monies that we can't sustain. I think I'd rather personally take the low road here and say I don't want to leave any money on the table."

Any money that will help Alaskans, even if it cannot be sustained, would be advantageous, Stevens said.

Palin said Alaska would not be "bound by federal strings in exchange for dollars" and would not dig itself a deeper hole in two years when the federal funds were gone.

"For instance, in order to accept what look like attractive energy funds, our local communities would be required to adopt uniform building codes," she said. "Government would then be required to police those codes. These types of funds are not sensible for Alaska."

A Democrat who wants Palin's job, Bob Poe, said former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens had bragged for years about scoring federal money for Alaska.

"Federal spending represents about one-third of Alaska's economy each year," Poe said. "The federal government owns 59 percent of Alaska, and Sarah Palin is rejecting this $288 million because she thinks it will give the federal government too much control over Alaska? Personally, I find that kind of incomprehensible."

Matt Claman, Anchorage's Democratic mayor, and Carol Comeau, the superintendent of schools, stayed away from Palin's intentions at a news conference Friday but restated why not accepting more stimulus money would hurt.

Unlike previous federal grants, Claman said, there's no obligation to continue programs started with federal seed money.

Claman said $7.2 million in statewide public safety money would not put more officers on the street but would pay for programs helping victims of domestic violence, a measure that might prevent future crime.

Comeau, who oversees a school district larger than Seattle's, said Anchorage schools were in line for $12.9 million in special education money and a similar amount for Title I programs that serve economically disadvantaged children. The latter money, she said, could give educators latitude to try "innovative best practices" to help students at risk of failing. Comeau's personal preference: an expansion of pre-kindergarten programs to prepare economically disadvantaged children for learning.

Expansion would not saddle the district with additional costs two years from now if the federal money ends, she said. If the programs were successful, she said, district planners could swap out something else.

"That's like any grant we ever get," Comeau said.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PALIN_STIMULUS?SITE=PASUN&SECTION=H OME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Palin is a force that the Democrats are going to deal with in order for them not to lose power. They will attack her for this as hard as they can.

Sarah Looks Ahead to 2012; Rejects 30% Stimulus Money

Palin Rejects Nearly 30 Percent of Stimulus Funds
Alaska governor said Thursday that she would accept only 69 percent of the estimated $930 million dollars in federal stimulus funds that could flow to the state.
AP Friday, March 20, 2009

JUNEAU, Alaska -- It's up to the Alaska Legislature to request hundreds of millions of dollars in federal stimulus funds from the federal government.

Gov. Sarah Palin said Thursday that she would accept only 69 percent of the estimated $930 million dollars that could flow to the state, including $514 million for capital projects and $128 million for a hike in Medicaid reimbursement.

Palin said she would accept money that is "timely, targeted and temporary" and does not create strings that will bind the state in the future.

"I can't attest to every fund that's being offered the state in the stimulus package will be used to create jobs and stimulate the economy, so I'm requesting only those things that I know will," Palin said at a news conference at the Capitol. "Public discussion will have to ensue on all those other dollars that some will say 'you left on the table."'

Some other Republican governors have also announced reservations about accepting the federal money, particularly when it comes to expanding jobless benefits.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry last week announced that he turned down $555 million of federal stimulus funding that would expand the state's unemployment benefits. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has said he would not accept nearly $100 million to expand unemployment benefits. And South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has said he only wants to use the federal money to pay down debt.

Other Republican governors including Charlie Crist of Florida and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California have welcomed the stimulus bounty.

Palin's rejection of $160 million for education drew a rebuke from Anchorage Superintendent of Schools Carol Comeau, who said she was shocked and disappointed.

"We believe that we can make very good use of the funds, not only in job preservation but also in adding new positions to ultimately use these funds to increase student achievement for our neediest children," she said in a news release.

Comeau pointed to money that would have gone into training for special education teachers and additional programs and support for needy preschool children.

The governor has until April 3 to formally request funds from the stimulus package. It's unclear if legislatures are under the same deadline but Alaska lawmakers likely will stick to the same date to be safe.

Overall, Palin rejected almost $288 million and many, such as Senate Finance Committee Co-Chairman Bert Stedman, were surprised.

"I think the Legislature will take a good hard look at the impact on Alaska," said Stedman, a Republican. "The governor might have a broader view."

With so little time left before the April 3 deadline, Stedman expects the Legislature will ask for the full amount, and if they determine later that it would have adverse long-term impacts on the state, to decline it then.

Alaska has been somewhat cushioned from the effects of the global recession, but the state faces a $2.6 billion deficit over this year and next from low oil prices and declining oil production on the North Slope. Oil makes up about 90 percent of state revenues.

Sen. Hollis French, a Democrat, said the governor was breaking with a long tradition in Alaska.

"The state has made its business to get as many federal dollars as possible to help us create an infrastructure and build our state," he said. "I just really think the governor made a mistake here."

Palin on Thursday sent a spending bill to the Legislature laying out funding for capital projects that she is willing to accept, on top of the $262 million transportation stimulus spending bill that is already under debate.

The additional money Palin said she would accept includes $116 million for a University of Alaska Fairbanks research vessel, $68 million for water and sewer projects, $39 million for public housing projects and $21 million for education and job training.

Palin did not request funding for energy efficiency and conservation block grants, an expansion of unemployment insurance eligibility, weatherization money, employment services, among others.

The five-member conservative Republican minority in the Senate supported the governor's decision. Sen. Con Bunde, a Republican, compared the package to having too much to drink."

A good time may be had by all, but the hangover the next day, and the consequences of what you did while you were drunk, may be with you for a long, long time," Bunde said.

Palin said she was acting in the best interests of Alaskans but Democratic Rep. Les Gara questioned the motives of the former Republican vice presidential candidate.

"I read it that she's going to be running for national office and has a campaign position that unfortunately conflicts with the state's interests," he said.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/20/palin-rejects-nearly-percent-stimulus-funds/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Good for her. As ALLAHPUNDIT said, "She’s up for re-election next year and this move won’t do her any favors inside the state, so I can only assume it’s a sign that she’s keeping her options open for 2012." I believe that in the end she is doing the right thing for Alaska by not increasing their dependence on federal money.

Sarah Palin V. Ashley Judd

Wildlife group, Ashley Judd take aim at Gov. Palin

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — An animal rights group is getting help from actress Ashley Judd in its campaign to try to stop Alaska's practice of killing wolves and bears from airplanes.

Judd appears in a new Internet video for Defenders of Wildlife, and targets not only the state's predator control program but also one of the program's chief supporters, Gov. Sarah Palin.

"It's time to stop Sarah Palin and stop this senseless savagery," Judd says in the video posted on a Web site operated by the political arm of the group, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.

Palin, the former Republican vice presidential candidate, countered that the program is scientifically based and an important tool to sustain moose and caribou populations for Alaska subsistence hunters.

In Alaska, private citizens are permitted to shoot wolves from the air or conduct land-and-shoot hunting of wolves in rural areas. Defenders of Wildlife says more than 800 wolves have been killed since the program began almost five years ago.

Along with Judd's videotaped segment, the animal rights group asks for donations to help end the predator control program, possibly through federal legislation.

Palin said it was "reprehensible and hypocritical" that the group would use the state and her administration as a fundraising tool.

It's not the first time Defenders of Wildlife has targeted Palin. Last fall, when Palin was John McCain's running mate, it ran ads in several states denouncing Palin and the predator control program, and raised more than $1 million. Judd had campaigned for President Barack Obama during the campaign.


-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ikB-F1WquMPpjffzBg7FKCV2yJWgD965C10O0
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ashley Judd: Breathless

By Jeff Dufour and Kiki Ryan

POSTED January 27, 2009 | 4:20 PM
Ladies room

Among the millions of people who are excited by the election of President Obama is Ashley Judd, as she demonstrated at the 40th birthday luncheon for NARAL Pro-Choice America at the Hilton Washington Tuesday.

After flubbing a few lines, Judd, who emceed the event, stopped and said, "I need to take a breath. I get so excited."

After a brief slide show featuring Bush and other anti-abortion politicians, during which the crowd booed and hissed, Judd remarked, "It's so nice to live in America again."

NARAL President Nancy Keenan, whom Judd called the "Barbra Streisand of the pro-choice movement" because "she does it all," had the mostly female crowd cracking-up during her speech, as she showed a picture of the bathroom at NARAL's headquarters, which sports a photo of President Bush signing anti-abortion legislation.

"Can you think of a better birthday gift?" Keenan questioned as the picture morphed into the new president and this year's newly elected Democratic senators.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/YeasandNays/Ashley_Judd_Breathless_0127.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/06/ashley-judd-clown-in-wolf-guardians-clothing/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts
If Ashley cared half as much about human babies as she cares about the wolves, I might actually care about what she says.

Just for your information Ashley: if they didn't control the wolf population in Alaska, the wolves would take out all of the moose and caribou. If all the caribou and moose were killed, there would be nothing for the wolves to eat and all of them would die out anyway. It would, also, cause a severe food shortage for people as many Alaskans rely on moose and caribou for everyday food.

"According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, predators kill more than 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die there in a given year."

Wolves are the main predators. If it was not kept in check, it would be disasterous for Alaskans and their environment.

"Alaskans depend on wildlife for food and cultural practices which can't be sustained when predators are allowed to decimate moose and caribou populations," Palin said in a statement, "Our predator-control programs are scientific and successful at protecting vulnerable wildlife."


Think before you talk, Ms. Judd. A little research wouldn't hurt either.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=palin-shooting-wolves
-----------------------------------------------------------