They were not going to report this blockbuster unless they were forced to. And they were. What’s more, it ain’t over yet. Not every hint I dropped in that piece about what was to come has played itself out yet.Stay tuned.

When filmmaker and provocateur James O’Keefe came to my office to show me the video of him and his friend, Hannah Giles, going to the Baltimore offices of ACORN – the nation’s foremost “community organizers” – dressed as a pimp and a prostitute and asking for – and getting – help for various illegal activities, he sought my advice. In the past, Mr. O’Keefe created brilliant social satire that rocked his college campus and even made its way on to the talk-radio and cable-news shows, but the magnitude of his latest adventure had the potential to rock the political establishment.

I was awed by Mr. O’Keefe’s guts and amazed by the footage, but explained that the mainstream media would try to kill this important and illuminating expose about a corrupt and criminal political racket, and that the well-funded political left would go into “war room” mode, with 25-year-old Mr. O’Keefe and 20-year-old cohort Miss Giles in the cross hairs. I felt I had a moral obligation to protect these young muckrakers from the left and from the media, and to devise a strategy that would force the media’s hand.  (more…)

And that’s kind of amazing. I`ve never done 600 of anything – and that includes reverse tricep curls (which I invented, by the by). But from the day we began, on February 5th, 2007 to tonight –we`ve witnessed some pretty amazing events. And thankfully, Red Eye was there to cover them – when no one else would.

–

I mean, who can forget the dog that barked like a cat? It was the story Katie Couric wouldn`t touch – but we were there – covering the dog that barked like a cat.

And what of our in-depth coverage of John McCain`s election sweaters? While everyone else focused on irrelevant issues, we asked the tough questions about those ugly sweaters.

Hell, while people chose to examine Barack Obama’s qualifications, we were the first show to reveal startling photos of an octopus that could open beer bottles with its tentacles. You tell me: what`s more important, now?

And then there was the man who had sex with a table. And the man who had sex with a car. And the man who had sex with balloons. Whenever a man was having sex with an inanimate object, Red Eye was there to bear witness. And sometimes take pictures.

And who can forget the nude car thief, the nude ice skater, and the nude rambler? When it came to stories about nude people doing things nude, Red Eye was the go-to source. If there were a Pulitzer for the perverse, we would have won that trophy. And ended up in the ER, trying to get it removed.

Of course, we covered bigger stories, and at times we were way ahead of the pack – the piece on the German underwear thief springs to mind – but I prefer that Red Eye not take itself too seriously on this momentous occasion. Instead, I would rather salute all our amazing fans, who stood by this unusual little show – when everyone else just stared at it, confused – or ran screaming.

You deserve the congratulations – not us.

And if you disagree with me, you`re probably a racist Nazi who`s worse than Hitler.

TONIGHT: We’ve got a great show!

Oderus Urangus! from Gwar

Governor Huckabee!

Bill Hemmer!

Andrea Tantaros!

Alison Brie from Mad Men and Community!

Moments after I heard the news I did a radio interview and predicted that the news media would destroy her in their transparent quest to pave the way for Barack Obama’s historic election. I had no idea just how right that “blink” calculation would be and I certainly never would have guessed that I would become a small part of that story by dedicating my life and fortune to documenting just how unbelievably bad it would get.

The last twelve months of Sarah Palin’s life truly bring new meaning to the phrase “what a difference a year makes.” I strongly believe that no public figure in modern America has ever endured more stress, pressure and unfair scrutiny in a more dignified fashion than she has over the past year (though what George W. Bush tolerated over the last three years of his presidency probably comes in a close second).

On August 28th of last year Sarah Palin was a largely unknown governor considered to be a rising star largely because of her willingness to take on Republicans in a way that had endeared her to Democrats. Today she is an ex-governor wrongly perceived by most of the country and virtually all of the news media as an erratic, unqualified, lightweight and ultra-partisan Republican who can’t even mange her own family. 

What did she do exactly to deserve this unfortunate perception? I have literally gone around the country (screening my film “Media Malpractice” which features an exclusive interview with then Governor Palin) and asked numerous media outlets that question and I have yet to get a remotely sensible answer.

The best I can come up with (oddly, this is hardly ever mentioned when the topic comes up) is that, after having to deal with three or four sittings with a Katie Couric who was clearly out to get her, she did not name a supreme court case with which she disagrees other than Roe v. Wade. Other than that, my documentary proves that every other alleged transgression that she committed has been either blown out of proportion or simply made up by a news media that obviously had both a political and financial agenda against her. When you consider all of the whopper-sized blunders committed by her campaign counterpart Joe Biden, the unfair treatment of Palin does become, at least based on the live audience reactions to my film, rather hilarious.

On top of this, I wish you to consider the unique circumstances Palin was dealing with while she went through the last year, circumstances that a remotely fair media would have considered a remarkably successful and nearly error-free year.

If, in just one spin around the sun, you had given birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome (that even mainstream media outlets would not fully accept as really belonging to you even though there was no other biological possibility), had your unmarried teenage daughter’s pregnancy (and later, her sex life) become fodder for massive worldwide coverage, had your first child sent to Iraq, had your fourteen-year-old, non-public figure daughter become the subject of rape jokes on national television, had your reputation and character destroyed by lies intended to foster the election of a man you knew would forever change/destroy the country you love, were prevented from doing your day job by a group of loser bloggers who lay awake at night (probably under the roof of their parents’ homes) dreaming of being interviewed by Keith Olbermann, and were thrown under the bus by numerous people on your “side” because they decided it was in their self-interest to do so — what are the chances you would not be left in the fetal position in a pool of your own drool?

But instead of cracking under this unprecedented pressure, Sarah Palin has proven her courage (and perhaps wisdom) by simply pivoting. While I disagreed with the timing of her decision to resign as Governor (mostly because I knew it would be misperceived as “quitting” by those who didn’t understand the facts on the ground in Alaska), I know it was done out of intentions that in a just world would be rewarded and not condemned. So far, it has also proven to be remarkably effective. After all, what other housewife from Wasilla, Alaska could have possibly altered the course of the health care debate (and possibly the entire Obama presidency) by simply posting some strong and well-footnoted opinions on her Facebook page?!

So, what have we learned from Sarah Palin’s remarkable year? Hopefully, we have learned a lot.

Among other things, we should have learned…

That surprise announcements can often create more long-term perception problems than they are worth (at least when they come from Republicans).

That to the media if you are a young, good looking, charismatic,  non-white male without a long resume and  are a conservative running for Vice-President, you are an embarrassment to the country. But if you are a young, good-looking, charismatic, non-white male without a long resume and are a socialist running for President, you are the Second Coming.

That the candidate who told the truth the most during the 2008 campaign was Sarah Palin.

That the media is perfectly willing and able to destroy someone’s character simply because it suits their political and economic agenda and will stop at nothing to do so.

That there are far too many high-profile “conservatives” willing to sell out their “cause” to gain favor with the news media and that there is almost no accountability for their treason.

That the left understands that this is a war where “assassinating” leaders of the other side is perfectly acceptable, while the right seems to still think that this is a picnic and that the Sarah Palins of the world grow on trees.

That the only people more threatened by a highly successful and good looking mom than liberal women, are Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, David Letterman and Bill Maher.

That the power of being a celebrity is far greater than the power of being Governor of Alaska.

That the ex-boyfriend of the daughter of the ex-Governor of Alaska can get treated as a media star if it is perceived to hurt a prominent conservative.

That more character was revealed in Sarah Palin over the past twelve months than America probably deserves in a politician.

That August 29th, 2008 was a seminal moment in our politics and media which has changed, perhaps forever, the rules of engagement in a way that may make it impossible for conservatives to ever fully recover and should truly frighten all fair-minded Americans.

If we don’t heed these lessons, then we will deserve what we will inevitably get.

What a shock that Maureen Dowd devoted her New York Times column Sunday to attack Sarah Palin. It did not so much criticize Alaska’s governor for prematurely stepping down from her official duties as to finish off what sister snipers Katie Couric and Tina Fey began last fall.

The assassination of Sarah Palin – by media.

For those who didn’t pay attention, Mrs. Palin’s unexpected stratospheric rise as a national political figure threatened the media’s preordained presidency of Barack Obama.

In light of how the Obama machine took down Hillary Clinton, which unsettled many feminists who believed 2008 was their time, many who saw sexism at play – the destruction of an ascendant Republican female icon was an urgent imperative for the Democratic Party.

In conjunction with the laws of political correctness as perfected by the Democratic Media Complex, it would take prominent women to take down an unlikely and unexpected conservative feminist symbol that threatened to steal away Mrs. Clinton’s votes from the Chosen One.

While the vanquished then-senator from New York conspicuously removed herself from this task – going so far as praising Sen. John McCain’s running mate as “a very composed and effective debater” – a trio of media partisans, each with a unique skill set, rose to the task of tearing down Sarah Palin.

Misses Dowd, Couric and Fey – Mr. Obama’s Angels (featuring Joy Behar in the role of “Bosley”) – used a potent mix of mockery, snobbery and vitriol to undermine Mrs. Palin’s feminist bona fides.

You can read the column in full here.

Not to go an analogy too far, but Sarah Palin seems to be taking a page from the Hollywood playbook of George Lucas.  She has just completed her own introductory trilogy, and it was an astonishing success.  

First, she was a fantastically successful conservative governor lurking beneath the mainstream media’s radar.  Next, she was a vice-presidential candidate who, even though she lost, still did more to electrify the base than the headliner.  Third, she has now drawn the curtain on her post-election career as a sitting governor, a period that saw her deftly turn the tables on mainstream haters like David Letterman.   Like “Star Wars,” she’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but her fans are rabid and chomping at the bit for the next installments.  And as to these future installments, the question is whether the next step is going to be “The Phantom Menace” or something that doesn’t suck.

I’m betting on “A New Hope.”  Sarah Palin has taken every hit the left and its smug media lackies can dish out – from bogus ethics claims designed to bankrupt her to attacks on her kids.  Some of the haters seem to think they drove her from office, and are congratulating themselves that they have somehow driven her off the stage forever.  Not quite. 

Again, a “Star Wars” analogy:  Remember when Darth Vader faced off with Obi-Wan Kenobi?  “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine?”  She’s now immune from bogus legal claims and her book will not only raise her profile but set up her family financially for life.  Now Sarah is unbound, freed from the need to be up in Juneau and able to network, fundraise and even (maybe) campaign without limitation.  And the modern media environment will let her do these things without even a nod to the mainstream media (Do you think Katie Couric will ever get to ask Sarah another question?  Ha!) 

–

Lefties, if you were responsible for her doing this, you just unleashed your strongest opponent and made her immune from your strongest attacks all at once. Ouch. It must hurt to know a woman you pride yourself on seeing as a drooling Neanderthal nitwit so thoroughly out-maneuvered you. You do see it, right?

There’s plenty of talk out there about her somehow being a “quitter” for only serving as governor for three years, as if resigning as the Chief Executive of Alaska was like cutting to the head of the women and children’s lifeboat line on the Titanic.  Personally, I was unaware of the urgent moral imperative of serving out one’s full term as governor but, if it makes the lefties feel better, when she’s elected president I’m pretty confident she’ll serve a full term.   Maybe even two.

First, let me tell you what really happened, and then I can explain what we should all learn from this.  Here’s the timeline… 

Monday, June 8th: Letterman uses Palin’s trip to New York to unleash a torrent of  ”comic” attacks on her and her family. The entire “Top Ten” list is devoted to the Governor and includes cracks about her updating her “slutty” wardrobe and possessing illegal drugs. The monologue includes a “joke” about Palin’s “daughter” getting “knocked up” at a Yankees game by Alex Rodriquez during the 7th inning stretch while her mother and a stadium full of spectators presumably watched.  

Tuesday, June 9th: As I’m getting ready for the second edition of my new Los Angeles radio talk show, I see a story on the Drudge Report about Letterman’s “Top Ten” list. Governor Palin was previously scheduled as a guest on that show because she’s basically the “star” of my documentary. I wanted her as my first guest on my new program and she was gracious enough to make the time for that to happen. When I speak to her off the air just before we go live, I ask if she’s aware of what Letterman had done the night before, she says she’s not. I quickly tell her about the “Top Ten” and the “slutty” comments but say nothing about the “daughter” “joke” because I wasn’t yet aware of it. 

During my extensive interview with Governor Palin I ask her about Letterman’s “slutty” comments and she, as usual, takes the high road and offers only a mild rebuke of Letterman, calling him “pretty pathetic.”  

While that clip from my interview makes the rounds for the rest of the day, the “spat” really doesn’t get that much play at first and Drudge even takes the entire issue off his site. However, it is important to note that there was plenty of information out in the public domain before Letterman’s taping that night which should have given the host and his staff all the facts they needed to realize that the only “daughter” with Palin on her New York trip was a 14-year-old, non-public figure, Willow. There is no apology from Letterman that night. 

Wednesday June 10th: Much to my surprise I’m asked on MSNBC to discuss my interview with Governor Palin and the Letterman comments. I’m particularly stunned when I’m told I’ll be interviewed by Norah O’Donnell, with whom I’ve had on-air tussles in the past. Well, clearly O’Donnell either gets cold feet or simply chickens out when she finds out it’s her job to interview me (I was laughably told by the MSNBC producer that this change of plans – a plan I was given 25 minutes before the show — is due to “breaking news” of the Chrysler Supreme Court decision from the previous evening!).   

Instead I’m “interviewed” by Contessa Brewer, and you can judge for yourself how that went: 

– 

I later find out that what Brewer thought was an analogous situation in her own life was when Don Imus (oh, the irony!) said she had a large ass. Yeah Contessa, that’s pretty much the same as what Letterman said about Palin and her family! 

Rush Limbaugh plays the highlights of what is likely my last MSNBC appearance (twice) on his show, and the video of this exchange is quickly all over the Internet. 

Later, Governor Palin and her husband Todd release scathing statements condemning Letterman for his “rape joke” about Willow.  That night Letteman mocks their statement, lamely claims that the joke was about Bristol not Willow (which, by the way, I think is a valid distinction but one which is not consistent with the facts), invites Governor Palin (while creepily urging Todd to stay home) on his show to further increase his ratings, and proceeds to retell the very same jokes for which he is allegedly “apologizing.” 

Thursday June 11th:  Governor Palin’s spokesperson (contrary to Contessa Brewer’s claims, that is NOT me) says she will not be coming on Letterman’s show and half jokingly says that it would probably be a good idea to keep Willow away from Letterman. This last statement would not (surprise!) be put in the proper context by the news media because they either didn’t know, or didn’t care, that Letterman had been making numerous overt references to his sexual attraction to the Governor for an extended period of time and of course he has just joked (whether he realized it or not) about a public sex act with Willow. 

During most of the day the leftwing media goes into overdrive in their efforts to protect Letterman and even demonize Palin for having the gall to protect her daughter’s dignity. The bogus apology is largely accepted by the media and receives almost none of the scathing criticism it so richly deserved. At this point Don Imus must have been thinking back to his groveling to Al Sharpton after the “nappy headed hoes” outrage and wondered, “What the hell is going on here?!” 

Shockingly, Keith Olbermann (who is both a Letterman sycophant and possessor one of the nastiest cases of Palin Derangement Syndrome in captivity) is one of the worst offenders in this crusade.  He calls the Palins “opportunists” and his guest Margaret Carlson sells out her entire gender for future spots on Olbermann’s show by declaring that Palin should be considered “one of the worst people in the world” for having strongly stood up (in a written statement for heaven’s sake!) for her 14-year-old daughter.  The National Organization for Women of course says nothing and does not call for Letterman’s firing as they did for Imus. 

Friday June 12th: Governor Palin goes on The Today Show to discuss a major development in her efforts to get a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48.  Matt Lauer, like a kid being forced to wait at the top of the steps before being allowed to see what’s under the Christmas tree, barely makes it through the “substance” so he can grill Palin about why she’s so offended by the host of a major show on CBS making rape jokes about her 14-year-old daughter. For some reason Lauer asks her how she found out about the Letterman attacks and she accurately (of course) mentions the events exactly as they happened on my show and gives my program an unnecessary, but still appreciated, mention. 

Later that day I’m made aware of a website (that contrary to numerous allegedly reputable news outlets is NOT mine) www.firedavidletterman.com which is planning some sort of rally outside of Letterman’s theater early the next week. Long story short, I agree to be one of their spokespeople/advisors and promise to speak at the rally if my new radio station can get a studio in New York City in time. 

Monday June 15th:  I make an appearance on Fox News Channel to discuss the rally and why I think what Letterman did was far worse than what Imus was fired for. My radio station (KGIL in Los Angeles) is able to get a studio for me to do my show the next day in NYC, so that afternoon I head to LAX to catch the next flight across the country so I can speak at the rally. 

As I am getting on the plane I get a call from a producer of the CBS Early Show telling me that Letterman had “sincerely” apologized and asking me if the rally is still on with the clear implication that this should be enough to call the whole thing off (the same presumption would dominate nearly every one of the dozens of media inquires I would field after that). The producer books me on the show for the next morning, but I’m pretty sure he’s going to cancel once he puts it up the flag pole and CBS makes it clear from the higher ups that they’re still supporting their guy (one of the obvious signs the Imus MSNBC show was toast was when NBC news spent an entire first segment of the Nightly News obsessing over the “nappy headed hoes” issue). Sure enough, I soon have a message on my voicemail canceling my booking on the CBS Early Show. 

No one involved with the movement/rally/website really gives any thought to canceling because of Letterman’s belated apology. I’m just glad he essentially admitted that we were right. I also wonder what new information or event (other than watching Mark Shields on PBS criticize him; who knew Letterman watches PBS, or that Mark Shields was still alive?!) has suddenly changed the circumstances since Letterman had all the information he needed to apologize a week earlier and did no such thing.  However, knowing the media like I do, I’m sure they’ll use this as the “move on” moment they are desperately searching for and that the environment for Tuesday’s rally is going to be even more difficult than I previously feared.   

Tuesday June 16th: I’m awaken very early with media calls for me to react to Governor Palin “accepting” Letterman’s apology (contrary to the claims of Contessa Brewer and others, I am not part of Sarah Palin’s decision making process nor even in the loop). While I totally understand why she did it (one of the thousands of disadvantages she faces, thanks to the media agenda against her, is no flexibility when it comes to not taking the highest of roads. She would surely have been skewered had she had done anything other than show how classy she really in fully accepting Letterman’s second apology), I must confess that I knew her acceptance of the apology was going to derail our message. The media now had everything they needed to move on from a story that made them very uncomfortable because it forced them to either defend Sarah Palin or expose themselves as blatant hypocrites. Of course, this would mark the first time in recorded history that the national news media has accepted as credible anything Sarah Palin has said. 

In-between numerous radio and television interviews, and in the wildest kind of irony, I was able to do my radio show from, I kid you not, the CBS News building.  This is hilarious not just because Letterman’s show is on CBS, but because I was just arrested at USC for trying to expose Katie Couric’s Walter Cronkite Journalism Award for her Sarah Palin interview as the fraud that it is. For most people this situation would be off the charts on the bizarro meter, but my life is so strange and I was so busy that the whole thing barely fazed me. Sadly, Katie and I didn’t run into each other in the lobby.  

After my show, I take a cab to the Ed Sullivan Theater. My expectations for what is about to transpire are extremely low. None of the heavy hitters in the conservative media (not to mention NOW) had stepped forward to help out the cause, and thus far most of the coverage of the rally was national and not local. The people who were organizing this event (again, contrary to numerous “news” accounts, that was NOT me) did not seem to have their act together and I was very concerned that even the basics for this kind of happening would not be properly in place.  I warned them many times about various aspects of the basic logistics and they assured me it would be taken care of. They also seemed confident that the crowd would be at least a couple hundred people (over 300 had indicated they would be there), which I thought would be fine. To me the size of the crowd had nothing to do with anything. This was about right and wrong. But I also know the way the game is played. 

When I arrived about 10 minutes before the scheduled start time, it was clear this thing would be a disaster. The small crowd was splintered by numerous members of the news media who were clearly dedicated to interviewing the craziest people they could find to represent “all” the protesters. One guy (later determined to be a plant from a satellite radio show) screamed and carried on like a lunatic. Things only get worse from there. 

I immediately recognized that some of the people the owner of fire-david-letterman.com (a guy in Nashville, of all places) had put in charge of organizing the event were the same individuals who had royally screwed me in a NYC screening of my film originally intended for the “PUMA” organization (a pro-Hillary faction that I soon learned was mostly full of complete lunatics with racist and man-hating tendencies who had absolutely no ability to get people to any event of any kind). Now I’m sure we’re doomed. 

Sure enough, no large crowd arrives. Worse than that, the audio set-up lacks a speaker system and there’s no power source (Fox News originally offered to plug the extension cord into their live truck but then apparently decided that might not send the right message; I’m quite sure that CNN and the local stations who were there would have fallen over themselves to help — without fear of repercussion — if Al Sharpton needed electricity). The woman who was supposed to know how to set up the audio system hadn’t yet arrived and the back-up bullhorn could barely outdo a church mouse. 

It is a nightmare. 

Seeking to make the best of a horrible situation and with no other viable options, I call a press conference. About half the media not distracted by the nut-jobs, gather and I proceed to give an address and then take questions. Here’s the video: 

Part 1: 

– 

Part 2:

– 

After I finish up and sign autographs for a few fans of my film, I have a decision to make: Either stay and watch the rest of the ship sink, or make a scheduled appearance on CNN Headline News. I decide on the TV show (some bloggers have charged that I just left, never even spoke, or split early for no reason — neither of which is remotely accurate). But even though I had to endure some jackass faux “independent” on the CNN television panel outrageously claim that this was all an attempt at publicity for Governor Palin and me, it was probably the right call.   

As I fly back to LA that night I’m very depressed. I know the left-wing nuts on the Internet are going to have a field day with what happened and that the true point of all of this is likely to get lost. I get in too late to catch David Letterman do a somewhat humorous “Top Ten” list on the things overheard at the Fire David Letterman rally. He should have added, “Who’s that geeky white guy who wishes he had never spent $1,000 and 14 hours traveling from LA to be here?”  

Wednesday June 17th : Though sure the media will let the story completely  die, I’m shocked when e-mails arrive indicating Olive Garden restaurants has pulled their advertising from the Letterman show. I leak the strongly worded e-mails to Politico.com and they indicate that the story will break as soon as they can verify it. 

Thursday June 18th:  Sure enough, Politico confirms the Olive Garden story and it runs prominently (it gets the most page views that day). Drudge runs it, as well as Big Hollywood and Hotair. Weirdly, the article they run has several inaccuracies about me (once again, I did not organize the rally, and the firedavidletterman.com website is not mine). The reporter promises to correct the errors, but never does. He also never adds to the story our verification that Hellman’s/Whole Foods has pulled online advertising from Letterman.  

The reporter claims this is because he’s too busy dealing with a New York Times report (from a reporter who has written a book largely about Letterman) that indicates Olive Garden is denying the story. Politico does not back off the story, but does let Olive Garden off the hook for their obvious reversal/disingenuousness. The media’s allowing Letterman to dodge another bullet. My guess is that the chamber is now empty. 

In conclusion, I wish to share some general thoughts and observations on this whole saga. 

For a guy who’s received WAY more hate mail in my life than 99.99% of the population, even I’m shocked by the volume and intensity of angry e-mails over this matter.  They’re almost all the same; high on profanity and insults (for some reason “douchebag” is a favorite with this crowd) and extremely low on substance and logic. 

The left-wing blogs have been seemingly obsessed with me — as if anything about me changes the basic facts of the story – but it’s obvious they can’t win this argument on the facts so they’ve chosen to make me the issue. Here’s an incomplete list of reasons they give for why my role in this story is illegitimate. 

1. I’ve been fired many times for saying things on talk shows. (Ah, hello! That’s exactly why I am credible on this issue, and nothing I got fired for was nearly as egregious as what Letterman said. If I had said something as bad or worse and NOT gotten fired, THEN that would be a legitimate issue.) 

2. I wrote a little-noticed book called ‘The Death of Free Speech.” (In which I lay out the “rules” for broadcast speech as determined by the news media, many of which were clearly violated by Letterman. I was simply trying to either get some equity or at least expose the massive double standard when it comes to the arbitrary enforcement of these rules, especially when the target is Sarah Palin.) 

3. In an out of context interview for a reality show (which I doubt ever aired) put together by a left winger trying to make me look bad when I suddenly became someone they cared enough about to attack, I once said that most women are irrational and that the key to dating is to find a woman with a manageable degree of irrationality. (It is a shame they missed the section where I joke about a 14-year-old girl getting raped in public by an adult while her mother watches, because THAT might have been remotely relevant to this matter.) 

4. I’m just a media whore. (So is there another way to get one’s message out when you don’t have a national television talk show? Please let me know if there is, because frankly no one hates the absurdity of appearing as a guest on TV talk shows more than me.)

5. I’m doing this simply to make money from my film. (Really? If anyone knew how much money and work and risk I have put into this film/cause and how little money I’m likely to make when all’s said and done, or how many copies of the film I’ve donated because that’s how strongly I believe in the message, they couldn’t possibly think money is anywhere near my prime motivation. I can also assure you that I have made no profit from this specific episode.) 

6. I personally like Sarah Palin. (Yep. You got me. I guess we should wait for one of the millions who seem to hate her to devote their time, money and reputation to defend her. Yeah, that makes sense. I guess I should just shut up about the truth of the media agenda against her – a mission I’ve devoted my life to exposing — because, after all, I am biased, and even worse, actually know what I’m talking about.) 

7. Other comedians had said things almost as horrible about Palin and her family and there was no outrage. (This might be my favorite bit of liberal “logic.” So, because others got away with verbal manslaughter, we should Letterman get away with comparative murder??) 

Yes, much vitriol has been thrown my direction, but I’m not as bothered by that as I am by what has been once again allowed to happen to the Palin family because — despite what you might read on left-wing blogs — this is obviously NOT ABOUT ME. 

This is about a woman who has seen her character and reputation attacked relentlessly and illegitimately by a news media with a clear agenda. She’s been accused of faking the pregnancy of a down-syndrome baby, had the details of her teenage daughter’s sex life discussed on Larry King Live (well after the election), watched one of her previously unscathed children joked about in the most heinous way imaginable, and then gets accused of trying to get media attention when she releases a statement expressing outrage. Is there another parent in this country who wouldn’t have completely lost it at this point, even if they weren’t also the highly successful governor of our largest state? 

Regardless of your political persuasion, what happened to the Palins should be of grave concern. What should sadden and frighten all of us is that we are now in the process of clearly setting a precedent that there are no rules or standards when it comes to attacking a particular public person (and their private family). Sarah Palin and her family have done absolutely nothing to deserve this treatment. The media simply decided they don’t like them. 

Thankfully, my sense is that the Palins are probably uniquely suited to survive and prosper through an unprecedented firestorm that has gone on for almost a year now. But just because they are tough enough to take it, doesn’t make it right and doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be stopped or at least condemned.

The world view, or philosophical perspective, of Sarah Palin versus say, David Letterman’s or Katie Couric’s, is profound at its core. Not only are the philosophical differences profound, but the political implications of those differences are as equally profound.

Palin is the philosophical descendant of those who created this country’s constitution; Couric and Letterman,  on the other hand, like much of the Bi-Coastal Media/Entertainment Left, are more consistent with the self annihilating philosophy of moral relativism. While Palin is intelligent and constant in her views, I make no similar claims specifically about Letterman and Couric, relative to their views. They strike me as shallow and weak. Palin implicitly understands the limitations of Reason. Moral relativists do not. Our founding fathers also understood man’s limitations and established a constitution whose core principle was Liberty, supported strongly by laws to protect this Liberty. The Left, on the other hand, believe that “truth” can be imposed on individuals and society as a whole. Many have commented on the futility of the latter. Frederich Hayek’sThe Road To Serfdom is the clearest explanation of how that view ultimately and logically has lead to totalitarianism; the ultimate expression of political nihilism and its philosophical antecedent, moral relativism.

This philosophical divide is one reason for the Left’s hysteria over Palin’s very existence. It is as if, somewhere down in the lizard portion of their brain (You Have Three Brains), they understand her way of thinking could lay bare the implicit nihilism in theirs. The more ignorant element of the Left pretends that Palin is so obviously stupid, vapid and reactionary that she is fair game for dehumanization. Not all in the Left leaning Media-Entertainment complex can be categorized as such. Lorne Michaels, for example, understands Palin’s strengths, even as he disagrees with her (Lorne Michaels Praises Sarah Palin). But he is a rare exception among this group. Couric and Letterman have other problems. Their respective ratings have been consistently lower than their competition. ABC and NBC Nightly News ratings are higher than Couric’s by an average of 50%; and Leno consistently had ratings approximately 30% higher than Letterman. We will see how O’Brien fares. But lets get right to the immediate controversies.

The Couric Pomposity

Even as Couric continues to fail, she gathers awards and honors at a rapid pace. Most recently, she gave the commencement address to this year’s graduating class at Princeton, in my home state of New Jersey.  She chuckled in her speech how “she can see New Jersey from her house”. This was a supposed ironic reference to Palin’s comment in Charlie Gibson’s interview about being able to see Russia from certain parts of Alaska. Palin’s comment was one of many “proofs” of her stupidity. Yet, any person with an IQ above 65 obviously understood her comment as a simple existential observation. Proximity makes things less abstract. Is this hard to understand?

If one has any doubt about the logical implications of moral relativism run amok, one need look no further than Princeton’s “Bioethicist”, Professor Peter Singer. Singer believes in a concept called “speciesism“. The simplest way to understand this philosophy is to watch a Geico Caveman commercial.  Speciesism believes no one species (for example, humans) have superior rights over any other species (for example, rodents).  Singer also believes families can kill their own disabled babies. Singer is a true idiot, even as his views are, in fact, logically consistent with much of what is believed by the Left. He simply is drawing out some of its philosophical implications. But people like Palin already know that at “the end of that path” is nothingness. People like Couric do not. Couric reached the pinnacle of her self regard after her interview with Palin prior to the ‘08 election. This interview, so the mythology goes, indisputably laid bare the complete lack of qualifications of Sarah Palin to be Vice President. She was excoriated by the media for that interview even though she did not say; “I don’t speak Austrian” (Obama says he doesn’t speak Austrian) or say her bowling is “like the Special Olympics.” (there is a little “Peter Singer” in that quote, don’t you think?). Even the “Mr. Jones” wing of the Republican Party was highly critical.

The essence of Couric’s speech was simple, pointless, cringe inducing pandering. Katie Couric: My Speech To Princeton’s Class of 2009. People whose beliefs or principles are on flimsy grounds, or even non existent, can be very insecure. They emotionally survive by seeking the approval of others. So she played it safe. She praised Sonia Sotomayor and mocked 20 year old Carrie Prejean. She praised Michelle Obama and mocked Rush Limbaugh and Donald Rumsfeld. She quoted approvingly from Malcolm Gladwell’s awful book “Outliers”. She seemed frighteningly desperate in her initial comments. She clearly studied hard to appear “modern” and “young”. It was self conscious and artificial. She voiced opinions which she assumed were mainstream for Princeton graduates, and I am sure they were. She was a pure parody of herself.

But Sarah Palin is supposed to be the idiot.

David “Louis” Letterman

Recall the movie, Jackie Brown, Quentin Tarantino’s adaptation of Elmore Leonard’s novel, “Rum Punch”? In one of the funniest “dark humor” scenes in cinematic history, Samuel L Jackson (”Ordell”) had just shot the bungling Robert DeNiro (”Louis”) in the head for losing $500K. Staring at his dead friend in the driver’s seat of their car he said; “What the f**k happened to you man? S**t, your ass used ta’ be so beautiful”. His point was Louis used to be smart and energetic. Now he had degenerated into a lethargic empty husk of his old self. So much so, that despite every benefit of the doubt he had extended to Louis, he was just too far gone. In their world, that meant he simply had to be killed. Louis is David Letterman. He should just walk off the set. He used to be really funny. He now seems to be aware, unlike Louis who was blissfully unaware, that he too has lost it. Apparently, this makes him very angry.

As with Couric, he goes for the pandering stuff. Palin is supposed to be easy pickings. His frustrated self awareness has begun to cloud his judgment. If you watched his monologue, you can literally see him try to restrain his anger, even hatred, as he leads the audience up to the Alex Rodriguez-Willow Palin “joke”. The audience seemed to love it. He now is apologizing for supposedly not knowing the difference between Willow (age 14) and Bristol (age 18), implying that the same joke about Bristol would have been fine. I guess in Louis’ world, all white trash tramps and their slutty looking mothers look alike. Misogyny is perfectly good when applied to people like Sarah Palin. Do you see what I mean by moral relativism? Ultimately, it leads to nihilism. Lost in the shuffle was the racial stereotyping of Alex Rodriguez. That is itself interesting.

The fact that she was in NYC for a charity supporting research for Autism was ignored. I am surprised Letterman did not have Peter Singer on to discuss his views on childhood Autism. Perhaps he can get Obama on to discuss the Special Olympics with Singer while he is at it.

Sarah Palin Speaks English

Read the following response carefully from Palin about Letterman; “Laughter incited by sexually perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity aimed at a 14-year-old girl is not only disgusting, but it reminds us some Hollywood/N.Y. entertainers have a long way to go in understanding what the rest of America understands – that acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl, who could be any one’s daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others.” What is different about this statement then statements made by many, if not most, politicians? It is judgmental. She uses the words “perversion” and “disgusting”. Her language is morally charged. Peter Singer does not believe in “sexual perversion”. Palin did not refer to the sexual perversion merely as a function of Letterman’s comment being directed at a 14 year old. Letterman’s comments themselves were sexually perverted “aimed” at a 14 year old. How many politicians use the term “sexual perversion” or the word “disgusting” regarding sex? Every one shrinks from such judgments. Yet there was no hidden agenda in her comments. What you saw, was what you got.

Obama’s speech in Cairo was a quintessential representation of pandering “moral relativism”. This is the nature of the “Great Palin Divide”.  Palin’s language is always the same. She speaks about everything in a straight forward manner without straining for audience approval. She is direct. She does not use tortured logic, cheap philosophical tricks, or desperate techniques. She speaks English.

For some reason, this drives the Left nuts.

For those that may have missed the incredible video of the incident, here is how the episode was played on Fox News Channel: 

While that report provided a good overview of what happened, there is a lot more to say about this situation, largely because there has been so much misinformation, so many irresponsible accusations, and so much blatant hypocrisy in the general reaction to the remarkable videotape. 

Now, one would think that there wouldn’t be much confusion about a situation that was videotaped in its entirety by not one but two cameras who were acting largely independently of the primary actors (we have posted a nearly real-time version of the entire affair at www.HowObamaGotElected.com), but unfortunately that is clearly the case. I would like to try to address some of these issues here. 

First, one of the ways that those on the left have used to try to avoid having to hold their nose and support the free speech rights of a rabble-rousing “conservative,” is that USC is a “private” school and therefore they had the right to kick me out for no purpose. I even saw one prominent blog with the headline “Ziegler Arrested for Trespassing on Private Property,” which is just laughably false. 

While USC is indeed a “private” school, this does not in any way legally make their property like that of a private residence. First, they take federal tax money, and second it has a very “open” campus and the area I was in has direct access from a public street without even a gate blocking the way. At any given moment there are many people walking on the sidewalks where I was arrested who are neither students, faculty nor invited guests of the University. I had every right to be there (outside the building where the award ceremony took place) and I did nothing to provoke or warrant being handcuffed, arrested or removed from the property. It is very clear the only reason that happened was because of my previously expressed political opinion on what was going on that day. In short, I was targeted for different treatment because of my beliefs. 

The next tactic many have tried, in order to avoid facing their own politically induced hypocrisy on free speech, is to minimize the incident by saying that I was not “arrested” and that what happened was not a big deal. 

While in the end I was not charged (I was told that I would indeed be booked at LAPD headquarters), that was only because higher authorities saw that the campus police “arrest” was clearly problematic if not completely bogus. After I was already “arrested,” they shifted gears and told me that I basically had two choices: leave the premises or be charged along with the two photographers who did not work for me and who in no way bargained for such a situation. Not wanting to put them in jeopardy and seeing that I could not possibly do anything further to achieve my original goal of educating those attending the awards, I decided, under threat of prosecution, to leave the grounds. 

But make no mistake, I was arrested. I was handcuffed and detained against my will for an extended period of time with my microphone and blackberry taken from me. The photographers were also told to stop shooting under threat of arrest themselves. And, as the video clearly shows, my wrists were significantly bruised by the handcuffs that I had rightly complained were put on way too tight. 

All of this happened obviously not because of my actions but because of my political view on the proceedings. In effect, I was being punished, repressed, and physically harmed as a form of prior restraint because they anticipated that I might do something to disrupt the proceedings based on my prior writings and commentary on the event (in which I never claimed I would do anything more than exactly what I tried to; give away copies of my film as an educational exercise). No matter how hard liberals try to rationalize it, this makes this a very obvious case of a blatant free speech violation. 

Another way that commentators (including some on the right) have attempted to ignore the very serious First Amendment implications of this case, is to say that I set this up as some sort of publicity stunt to promote my film. 

First of all, this could not be more irrelevant to the constitutional issues involved here. Second of all, I ask you to consider how the media would have reacted if the exact same events had happened to Michael Moore (which of course it wouldn’t because as a liberal he would never have anything to get upset about at a major academic institution and, even if he did, he would automatically get far more leeway from the authorities). I don’t think anyone could possibly argue that vast portions of the new media would ignore the episode despite the amazing video and the fact that it was up on Drudge for well over 24 hours. 

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, while obviously I welcome anything that raises awareness of my film and its truth, THIS WAS NOT A PUBLICITY STUNT and I had absolutely zero intention or expectation of anything like this happening. I honestly thought that I would go, ask a few embarrassing questions of the authorities, give away my film, and hopefully be able to speak to some of those who were going to the event so that I could share with them the real truth of the matter. 

For those cynics out there (I am one, by the way) who still don’t believe me, I ask you to answer the following questions. 

If this was a publicity stunt, why didn’t I force the authorities to book me so that I would get a mug shot and face formal charges which would exponentially increase the media coverage of the event? 

If I anticipated anything like what occurred, why did I park my car in a metered parking space where if I was gone for more than an hour the chances of my car being towed would be extremely high? 

If I wanted this to occur, why did I not have any scripted lines ready to go or any sort of publicity machine mobilized to take advantage of the news potential of the incident? Why did I have to call my lawyer after I got kicked off the property to see if what the law said about what one could do at a “private” university. 

While I completely understand the skepticism, any objective look at the facts or at who I am as a person will force you to conclude that my motives were actually rather pure here. 

The last bastion of scoundrels looking to distract from the real issues in this case is to focus on me as an individual and transparently distort some of the more colorful stories of my past as a way of destroying me personally. Not only is this a deceitful and clearly politically motivated scheme, but in many ways it is also the most dangerous tactic. For if we do not protect the free speech rights of the most unpopular or misunderstood among us, then we allow the free speech rights of everyone to be precariously weakened. 

As you can see in the videotape, I am essentially laughing through most of the ordeal. I think this was out of shock more than anything else.  Since this happened, my emotions have turned much more towards anger and sadness for what this means for the state of our freedoms in this rapidly changing country. 

One of the things that has infuriated me most since the arrest has been USC’s e-mail response to the many people who have complained on my behalf over what they saw on the videotape. 

Here is the e-mail that the Dean of the USC journalism school is sending out. In bold is where I have commented on the parts that are lies, distortions, or nonsensical statements. 

Thank you for your communication about the recent incident that took place at the Cronkite Awards ceremony involving an individual named John Ziegler. I want you to know the background of the situation. 

In the days before his appearance on our campus, Mr. Ziegler publicly stated an intention to “demonstrate” (not true. I used the word ”protest” and later sent out a private e-mail to my website’s mailing list telling my “followers” NOT to come or protest, my op-ed and press release on the matter said only that I would be giving out copies of my film) against the presentation of a journalism award to Katie Couric. USC was happy to accommodate Ziegler and provided him with a designated area where he could register his protest (not true. that was not offered until after I was handcuffed and was irrelevant because I was not “protesting” but rather asking questions), be seen by attendees at the event, as well as students, and pass out whatever materials he wished.  
 
On the day of the award ceremony, Mr. Ziegler arrived on campus with two cameramen (not true. we arrived separately and they did not work for me), not as a demonstrator, but as a journalist (really?? that’s very interesting and certainly not how they treated me), and demanded (false, I asked and never even pursued entering, only asking for a rationale for why I was not allowed to) that he and his cameramen be allowed to enter the Davidson Center to cover the event. There was in fact, pool coverage set up because the room was not large enough to accommodate multiple camera crews. He was told he could have that feed, which he refused (not true, I would have been happy to have the feed and inquired as to how to get it).  After being told repeatedly that the event was by invitation only, he contended he had a right to roam up and down the entryway with his cameramen (I didn’t have the right to be on an “open” campus that takes federal money??!), and he persisted in refusing to comply with the University’s request that he stay within a designated area (not true, that was after I was handcuffed) . After repeated requests for compliance, Mr. Ziegler was given the choice of either being arrested or leaving campus. He chose to leave campus (false, after being handcuffed. I was told I was under arrest and would be booked, then the LAPD and some higher ups arrived and I was told to leave or I would be booked and the camera people would be as well).
 
The University both respects and facilitates freedom of speech and expression on campus (just not for conservative filmmakers asking about bogus awards given to liberal media members), but also reserves the right to set reasonable ground-rules to avoid disruption to its operations and protect the rights of others (which was in no way endangered in this situation). We at the Annenberg School have a powerful and evident commitment to protecting and promoting freedom of expression and the rights of the press (really??). I respect your feelings about how this incident was handled (gee, I wonder why!).

Sincerely,

Ernest J. Wilson III

Dean and Walter H. Annenberg Chair in Communication

Wow. If that that e-mail is any indication of the type of journalism Dean Wilson is teaching future journalists at USC, things are far worse than even I thought! What is most amazing to me is that the whole thing is on videotape and they are still blatantly lying about how things transpired!

The bottom line here is that what happened to me was a grave injustice that should concern every freedom-loving American regardless of their political persuasion.

Just like I will not be intimidated in my crusade to correct the historical record about what really happened with regard to the media coverage of Barack Obama and Sarah Palin in the 2008 Presidential election, I will not allow media hypocrisy, apathy and hatred of conservatives to stop me from making sure the free speech rights of all Americans are as fully protected as possible.

I plan to aggressively pursue my legal rights in this matter (already, USC has stupidly rejected an incredibly generous settlement offer that included no money, but rather only an apology and a full page in the school newspaper) and intend to formally announce those plans soon. 

John Ziegler is the author of the “The Death of Free Speech” and the producer of “Media Malpractice…How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted.”

Now, for there to even be such a thing as an prize for “Excellence in Television Journalism” in an age where a desperate thirst for ratings has caused most TV “news” to become little more than glorified infotainment, is a bit like passing out awards for fiscal responsibility to members of Congress.  But for Katie Couric, the poster child of this “infotainmentification” of news, to be the recipient of such an oxymoronic honor is much like if that aforementioned trophy for frugal spending in Congress went to John Murtha or Barney Frank. 

But what makes this situation so particularly galling is the specific reason why Couric is being honored for her “excellence in journalism.”  Couric is being presented with the award for “Special Achievement for National Impact on the 2008 Campaign.” 

What was it that Couric did that was so “special?” The judges singled her out solely for “her extraordinary, persistent and detailed multi-part interviews with Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.” 

Of course there is no disputing that the perception created by that interview and the ensuing media and entertainment coverage of it clearly had enormous impact on how Barack Obama got elected, but is this the kind of “achievement” that journalism is supposed to be honoring? (If it is, shouldn’t the award really go to Tina Fey?)  And is there any doubt whatsoever that had Couric asked the exact same questions and Palin had been perceived as having performed well (or if one of her softball interviews with Barack Obama had brought down his candidacy) that there would be no awards for her from USC or anyone else of note? 

So it’s obvious Couric is being rewarded for the political result of her interview (the shooting down of a conservative superstar just in time to save the Obama campaign) and not the “journalism” of it, but that truth is not even the most outrageous aspect of this absurdity. That lies in the reality that not only shouldn’t Couric be getting rewarded for that Palin interview, in a world where journalism still mattered at all she would have been roundly condemned for it. 

How do I know this? Because I have devoted most of the last eight months of my life to telling the real story behind the media coverage of the 2008 election with my documentary “Media Malpractice…How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted.” The focal point of my film is the exclusive interview I did with Governor Palin from her home in Wasilla where she reveals more than enough evidence to completely discredit Couric’s USC award.     

Even though my Palin interview has gotten a ridiculous amount of media coverage, nearly every TV “journalist” has somehow missed the most important revelation regarding the Couric/Palin showdown. That dealt with how Couric’s agenda-driven obsession with trapping the Governor on the abortion issue convinced Palin that she was in enemy territory and that nothing Couric asked was to be trusted or taken on face value. 

Here are two clips on this specific topic from my interview with Palin.

Palin on Couric’s questioning on abortion issue

Palin on disagreement with Couric over abortion

Abortion was not the only issue where Couric’s intentions were clearly not “journalistic” in nature. Here, Katie bizarrely asked Palin for an example of when John McCain had ever been in favor of tighter regulation in the financial realm other than his outspoken efforts with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which is was kind of like inquiring, “other than that Mrs. Lincoln how was the play?” 

Couric’s question to Palin

But it wasn’t just the very odd tactic of taking by far the most important answer off the table (rendering the question meaningless except for its “gotcha” quality) that put this episode into the level of “Media Malpractice.” The way that the exchange was played on the air made it seem to many (including at least one prominent Fox News reporter), that Palin could not answer the question at all and was only able to meekly respond, “I’ll have to get back to you on that one.” 

Here, Palin says the false notion that she hadn’t cited the obvious “Fannie and Freddy” example wasn’t the only misimpression left by the editing of the CBS interview. 

Palin on how the Couric interview was edited

Selective editing also left the impression (thanks to an in-artful Palin attempt to actually answer the question the way Couric asked it) that the Governor mistakenly thought that the Wall Street bailout bill was actually about “health-care.” 

Here’s what really happened there. 

Palin on being taken out of context

The most infamous moment of the Couric/Palin interview was the unforgettable, “What do you read?” question (and the very quick and not nearly as innocent as it might appear, “but which ones specifically, I’m curious…” Couric follow up). Here is Palin’s perspective on why her non-answer was so misunderstood. 

Palin on the “what do you read” issue

Other than the abortion answer which is the key to unlocking the context of the Couric interview, the two Palin clips from my interview that have been vastly under-reported (obviously because they couldn’t possibly compete with the “substance” of the “catfight” clips involving Plain taking on Couric, Fey and Caroline Kennedy) deal with the overall magnitude of what transpired here and why anyone who cares about the truth or the nature of our news media should be open to the overwhelming evidence in my film, regardless of their political persuasion.

Palin on the media’s “seek and destroy” mission against her candidacy

Palin on the state of the media

USC and Walter Cronkite should be embarrassed giving this award to Katie Couric. Of course, it is quite possible they just don’t know the facts of why that is so obviously the case. I hope to take care of that ignorance (the corresponding liberal agenda I can’t do anything about) on the day of the awards ceremony. While I was not able to get a ticket, I plan to be at the event handing out copies of “Media Malpractice” to any of the attendees who want to know the facts.   

I am sure I will be received warmly. After all, isn’t getting the facts what journalism is supposed to be all about? 

John Ziegler can be reached at talktozig@aol.com and you can find out more about the film at www.HowObamaGotElected.com

Outrage, hysteria, fire and brimstone followed, most of it from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, who demanded an apology. Never mind the fact that Bennett had clarified, “That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do,” this was a situation that, like slavery, apparently, could only be rectified with an apology. What good would an apology do, anyway? He still said it. It’s not like court, where it can be stricken from the record. And would it really satisfy Reid and Pelosi? Of course not, they just wanted to see a talk radio host begging forgiveness.

Liberals like to support things, like abortion, and do a quick about-face when the things they support are presented in an unfavorable light. Now, all of the sudden, Reid and Pelosi care if aborted babies are black or white? A hypothetical from a talk radio host is treated with more disdain than, oh, I don’t know, yanking a baby feet first from the uterus and stabbing its head with scissors. They argue that Partial Birth Abortion is rare, but rarer still is the practice of mass-abortion on the basis of race, so what got them so irate? Bennett is against abortion, and was speaking hypothetically. They’re for it! They want the government to fund it! It’s like in “Falling Down,” when Michael Douglas says, “I’m the bad guy?” Bennett presented a hypothesis, shot it full of holes – holes that Reid and Pelosi roundly dismiss when they’re not presented in the context of race. To quote William “D-Fens” Foster, “How did that happen?” In this case, it was the liberal-pet-issue-bait-and-switch.

Take affirmative action. I know it’s more complicated than black and white, but again, it’s an issue that liberals are largely for, and conservatives are largely against. But just suggest, I dare you, make even the slightest hint that oh, say, Michelle Obama got into Princeton and subsequently landed a job at a prestigious law firm, all because of affirmative action. Wait. Before you say it, you better pull a Kate Winslet: practice a speech in front of the mirror. Grovel. Plead. Offer to take sensitivity training. Actually, I believe Michelle is a smart woman who has achieved everything on her own merits. She navigated her way through a racist system, earned her way, and deserves everything she got as a result. But other minorities need the help of affirmative action and other programs, because they’re not on a level playing field? This is the elitism of the Democratic Party. They achieve without the programs that they support, because they’re special.

Look at Michael Moore (sorry, easy target), who claims in his book “Dude, Where’s My Country,” that the American people need to let go of the rags to riches Horatio Alger myth. Get that? The college dropout who scraped together money to make several entertaining fantasy films and now lives in the lap of luxury polishing his Oscar is telling you, America, that there’s no American Dream, when in fact, he is the living, breathing, eating, and eating, and eating embodiment of said Dream! He made it. Because. He’s special.

This is why they trumpet public education and send their kids to private school. They’re special. In fact, instead of crying sexism at suggestions that, say, Katie Couric needed affirmative action to achieve her post, liberals should respond much differently. “Yeah,” they should say, “Katie Couric did make it because of affirmative action, and it proves that the system works.” Maybe Katie Couric isn’t a good example, but how refreshing would it be if Democrats weren’t embarrassed about giving such paltry sums to charity? What if Al Gore had said, “True, I didn’t. It’s because I think the gov’ment’s supposed to take care of people.” Do you know how sweet that’d be? Sweet as ten gay ninjas on a sugar high.