Exclusive: The Washington Post Receives Coveted Fishwrapping Contract with Seattle's Pike's Place

Washington D.C.--The Washington Post announced in a press conference today that they  received a coveted contract with Seattle's famous fish market, Pike's Place, to become the exclusive provider of fish wrap for the market.  

The Post's Kevin Merida, who was just named managing editor earlier this month, said, "this is a step in an exciting and bold direction for the Post. We want the Washington Post to reach not just to the District of Columbia, but also to Washington state as well. We do share the same name, and we want our excellent news coverage and in depth analysis to reach from the Potomac River to Puget Sound". 

A press release from Pike's Place noted that the market was thrilled with the partnership: "We are known for having fun at Pike's Place, and we think that this new relationship will added need depth and seriousness to our efforts to bring fresh fish to Seattle and its tourists." The release also noted, " we are glad that the Post takes diversity so seriously as to expand their outreach to new species".  

The Sierra Club also was pleased to hear of the contract. Their executive director, Michael Brune, noted that the Washington Post prints their newspaper on post consumer recycled paper and uses soy based ink. Brune also stated, " Pike's Place previously used non-recycled fish wrap. This is a step in right direction to make sure that our nation's precious trees are being preserved". 

The contract begins in March of 2013. The Washington Post beat out the New York Times and Politico's print edition for the contract. Newsweek had to withdraw their proposal after recently suspending their print edition. 

The above passage is quite obviously satirical. However, when a "journalist" is operating with a biased agenda, satire appears like legitimate news. Earlier today, Suzi Parker of the Washington Post based and entire post around a "story" at a satirical website that claimed Governor Sarah Palin had signed on with Al-Jazeera to reach out to religious people. The article's overarching point was that Governor Palin was supposedly trying desperately to hang on to relevancy, yet if she were truly irrelevant, why would the media have to grasp at straws to find something to pin on Palin?

For the Washington Post, this is par for the course. Since Palin burst on to the scene in 2008, the Washington Post has aimed to smear the Governor at every turn. During the 2008 election, then blogger Dave Wiegel, who covered conservative politics at the site, operated an email list among journalists to coordinate stories. Later, in 2010, it was revealed that these email exchanges included discussion on how to cover speculation that Governor Palin was not the mother of her son, Trig. Weigel left the Washington Post shortly after the news of this email list hit only to be replaced by "conservative" Jennifer Rubin. Rubin was complementary of Palin when she wrote at Commentary, but within eight days of signing on at the Washington Post, she began to slam Palin. As I wrote nearly two years ago:

Last November, the Washington Post hired Jennifer Rubin to replace journolister, Dave Weigel, as their "conservative" blogger. Yes, those quotation marks are needed. Many, including Newsbusters, saw this hire as a step in the right direction for the Washington Post, as Rubin replaced the unscrupulous Weigel and had a great tenure writing for the neoconservative outlet Commentary. In fact, prior to her departure from Commentary, Rubin wrote at least four lengthy pieces supporting and defending Governor Palin. Rubin wrote articles supporting Governor Palin's non-elitism, highlighting her as a strong Tea Party voice, offering high praise for Governor Palin's political instincts, and defending Governor Palin against those who criticized her Restoring Honor rally speech.  

 What a difference a new employment contract makes! Rubin was announced as a new conservative commentator for the Washington Post on November 23, 2010 writing a blog called "Right Turn" and eight days later, wrote her first anti Palin screed arguing that Governor Palin was not a front runner for the GOP presidential nomination and poo pooing Governor Palin's use of the term "death panel"--a phrase that Rubin was supportive of in her articles at Commentary.

This kind of anti-conservative coverage has continued, as Rubin bashed Senator DeMint when he resigned from the Senate and knocked Senator Ted Cruz's early days in Washington D.C. Those who don't wear the conservative moniker,and some who even claim to be objective have engaged in this type of behavior as well. When Governor Palin's emails were released in the Summer of 2010, the Post's "journalists", obviously averse to the idea of performing due diligence and actual research, crowd sourced the emails, asking readers to find juicy tidbits about Palin. During the 2012 election, shortly after writing a piece on how sexist it was that the media focused on Michelle Obama's clothes, one Washington Post "She the People" blogger spent most of a post criticizing what Governor Palin wore at a rally for Missouri Senatorial candidate Sarah Steelman.

Just recently, Chris Cillizza, who has been less-than-objective to Governor Palin in the past wrote a lengthy post declaring Palin irrelevant following her decision not to renew her contract with FoxNews. Just a few short weeks later, Cillizza invoked Palin's name to take a shot at both Palin and the Pope when the Pope announced his resignation. While Palin is still supposedly irrelevant in his eyes, she was still relevant enough to mock.

To be sure, the Washington Post is known to smear and misrepresent many conservatives, but it is especially   apparent and pointed when it comes to Governor Palin. When Palin gave her acceptance speech at the RNC  in September 2008, she looked right into the camera and noted that she wasn't aiming to seek the media's approval; she was aiming to serve the people of the country. That is what she has done. She served Alaska as governor leading to multiple credit upgrades, ethics reform, and strong budgets for the state. She has supported conservative candidates, rallied the Tea Party faithful, helped in tornado relief in Alabama, visited Haiti after a devastating earthquake, flew thousands of miles to attend the memorial service of a fallen hero on her birthday. Palin often notes that only dead fish go with the flow. Palin is no dead fish, but the media who continue to claim her irrelevance may find their writing only serve to wrap actual dead fish, proving that real irrelevancy lies with the legacy media.

Crossposted here and here. 

The Washington Post: Palin a "Definite Renegade" on Big Oil

As the MSM and their readers continue to search through Governor Palin's emails searching for non-existent bombshells, let me be one of the first to welcome the Washington Post to 2008. As Ian mentioned earlier, the Washington Post recognized that Governor Palin's emails showed that she budgeted frugally and was opposed to pork barrel spending. Now, the Washington Post recognizes that Governor Palin did not have a buddy-buddy relationship with Big Oil. Both of these supposedly new revelations are not new at all to Palin supporters who have followed her political rise after Senator McCain chose her as his VP nominee or even prior to that.

The Washington Post reports:

But on one issue in particular — the party’s long-standing ties to large oil and gas companies that have helped underwrite its attempts to seize and hold power in Washington — the Palin that emerges from e-mails during her Alaska governorship is a definite renegade.

[...]

While a book she published last year still displays her animus for “Big Oil” and proudly recounts her decision not to “pal around” with its lobbyists, these criticisms feature less frequently in her rhetoric now. And on the national political stage, she’s been supportive of the industry’s aspirations to expand deep-ocean drilling, famously telling a crowd of Florida supporters before the 2008 election, “Drill, baby, drill.”

The article later goes on to highlight several emails between Governor Palin and her staff noting her dislike for Big Oil. One email recounts how Governor Palin took joy in choosing to read to a kindergarten class rather than meet with oil company executives, and additionally shares the role of corruption in Big Oil relationship with Alaskan politicians:

The oil industry’s influence in the state was at the heart of a corruption scandal involving top legislators that emerged during her governorship, an issue on which Palin was privately briefed by the FBI. But it is clear from the e-mails that Palin’s resentments, and those of her top aides, ran deep and were not opportunistic.

It should be noted that the indictments for the corruption scandal came during her tenure, but the corruption scandal itself took place during Governor Murkowski's term. Murkowski's oil tax plan was a behind closed door deal that aimed to give preferential treatment to certain companies. Some Alaskan legislators took pride in their cozy relationships with oil companies, some of them forming a club known as the "Corrupt B*****s Club". Fighting this corruption and ensuring transparency in any oil company -government interactions was paramont in her administration. Transparency was two of her key pieces of legislation-ACES (the oil tax mechanism) and AGIA (the transcontinental natural gas pipeline), as Governor Palin noted in a March Facebook post. In fact, regarding AGIA, one of the released emails revealed how serious Governor Palin was about transparency (emphasis mine):

So that everyone is clear and we’re consistent , despite what some of the press is saying and already criticizing us for , I WILL release the number and name of applicants tonight, and will always err on the side of MORE transparency, not less, when dealing with applicants and proposals and the public ‘ s expectations that they’ll be privy to all AGIA info (unlike murkowski ‘ s tactic).

One thing that the Washington Post fails to reconcile is Governor Palin's pro-development, yet anti-Big Oil stance. Governor Palin has always advocated for increased development. As Governor, she did so in part because she is a strong constitutionalist, and the state constitution called for Alaska's natural resources be developed for the "maximum benefit of the people", who are the resource owners. Both as a state and national voice, Governor Palin has advocated for increased development to help ensure energy independence for Americans, which would help make America more physically, economically, and monetarily secure. She does not stand for crony capitalism, however, and her support for drilling remains for the interest of all Americans, not for government selected oil companies.

These emails only further confirm Governor Palin's consistent stance on the issues. Whether it's budgeting, earmarks, or crony capitalism. It's nice to see that the Washington Post is beginning to catch up to 2008.

Please remember to join in C4P's project to search the emails for things that re-affirm Governor Palin's strong gubernatorial record and governing skills.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Media Hypocrisy in the Review of Governor Palin's Emails

As the media sifts through the thousands and thousands of emails from Governor Palin and her staff and family, it has only proven to affirm what SarahPAC aide, Tim Crawford's statement yesterday when he said that he hopes everyone reads the emails because it shows what an "engaged CEO of Alaska" Governor Palin was. Even in their broadcast yesterday, CNN conceded that Governor Palin was very hardworking and was responsive and polite with both her constituents and her staff. Yet, at the same time, CNN opens their segment by reminding their viewers that these emails were requested by them and other news outlets and individuals upon the announcement of Governor Palin as Senator McCain's running mate in 2008, proving that from day one of Governor Palin's appearance on the national scene, the rules changed and the hypocrisy of the media ramped up. Such emails were never requested of other politicians, not even of either of the presidential nominees. At the time of his announcement of his presidential run, then Senator Obama was not particularly well known, much like Governor Palin, yet the media barely even looked into his associations, his record, and his worldview, much less request emails from either his time as a state senator in Illinois or as a US Senator. However, as Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief, notes at the National Review:

The deafening roar of nothingness emerging from the Sarah Palin email trove points up the media’s hypocritical lack of interest in Barack Obama’s pre-presidential record.

Just as Palin’s emails were released, Slate’s David Weigel pointed out that Barack Obama’s State Senate records are not available. Weigel quotes Obama’s statement to the effect that he didn’t have the staff or financial resources to preserve office paperwork. As a result, Obama claims, his State Senate records may have been thrown out.

In fact, Obama could easily have preserved his State Senate records had he wanted to. The papers of many Illinois legislators are preserved at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library. I know, because I went through many a box there. The records are in various states of completeness and (dis)organization. Often, chaotic boxes of papers have been handed over to the archivists with little effort at cataloguing. Nonetheless, many records from state legislative offices are preserved.

[...]

I’m not the only one who’s noticed Obama’s desire to hide his record, as well as the reluctance of mainstream outlets to investigate such sources as do exist. Obama fan and sympathetic Obama biographer Sasha Abramsky writes:

Much of the media, including his biographers, have concluded that the community organizing period of Obama’s life should be accorded relatively little space, assuming those years simply reflected the radical foibles of a young man trying to find himself.

Abramsky goes on to argue, in opposition to the media’s implicit judgement, that Obama’s community organizing years were actually the key to who he became. I agree. Yet the media continues to ignore important documentary revelations from a sitting president’s political past, while devoting enormous attention to the emails of an unsuccessful candidate for the vice-presidency.

Isn’t it obvious that the media’s lack of interest in Obama’s radical past–noticed even by a supporter like Abramsky–is a simple case of political protection, not to mention journalistic abdication?

The double standards are glaring. Think of the media outrage if the response to the request for Governor Palin's emails had yielded as empty a response as the inquiry into President Obama's early political career-- by both critics and sympathizers alike. The double standard does not lie in the emails request themselves, but also in the media's handling of the receipt of the emails. The New York Times, Washington Post, and LA Times all asked that their readers to do the work of the media and wade through the emails and send them any "interesting" things they find that have the potential to be made a story. The Real Feminist notes an extra layer of hypocrisy with the LA Times:

Curiously though, this same L.A. Times has – for 3 years running – repeatedly, despite numerous requests, refused to release a video it possesses of Barack Obama reportedly praising Palestinian radical Rashid Khalidi at 2003 Chicago dinner. The same Khalidi who has called Israel a “racist” state and who called suicide attacks a justified response to “Israeli aggression”. The same Khalidi who organized a 2000 fundraiser for Barack Obama’s unsuccessful congressional bid, and whose Arab American Action Network received a $75,000 grant from the Woods Fund of Chicago, while Mr. Obama served on its board.

Yes, THAT Rashid Khalidi, the lavish praise for whom by then-candidate and now-President Barack Obama the L.A. Times apparently finds less relevant than Sarah Palin’s emails sending Merry Christmas wishes, or updating staff on the latest techniques in waste management.

As Governor Palin once said in an interview, " if it wasn't for double standards, some liberals wouldn't have standards". The entire process of the email inquiry only further affirms the hypocrisy of an increasingly irrelevant Old Media. Despite the best efforts of these newspapers and their shrinking readership, the revelations of these emails have likely left a deflated media feeling much like Geraldo Rivera after his special on Al Capone's vault or Andree McLeod after yet another frivolous ethics complaint was dismissed.

Additionally, this only further confirms that Governor Palin is indeed the anti-Illinois politician. She strove to truly make her administration as transparent as possible by ridding the state of the crony capitalism and corruption of the past. She budgeted frugally and prudently. How many other governors even had the opportunity to receive emails from his or her constituents with suggestions and thoughts on what to do with a state surplus? When in Washington for the Rolling Thunder motorcycle rally last week, Governor Palin said she likes the smell of the emissions. I think she might like the sound of backfiring as well.

H/T Doug and Nicole

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Jennifer Rubin's Wrong Turn on Governor Palin's Foreign Policy

Last November, the Washington Post hired Jennifer Rubin to replace journolister, Dave Weigel, as their "conservative" blogger. Yes, those quotation marks are needed. Many, including Newsbusters, saw this hire as a step in the right direction for the Washington Post, as Rubin replaced the unscrupulous Weigel and had a great tenure writing for the neoconservative outlet Commentary. In fact, prior to her departure from Commentary, Rubin wrote at least four lengthy pieces supporting and defending Governor Palin. Rubin wrote articles supporting Governor Palin's non-elitism, highlighting her as a strong Tea Party voice, offering high praise for Governor Palin's political instincts, and defending Governor Palin against those who criticized her Restoring Honor rally speech.

What a difference a new employment contract makes! Rubin was announced as a new conservative commentator for the Washington Post on November 23, 2010 writing a blog called "Right Turn" and eight days later, wrote her first anti Palin screed arguing that Governor Palin was not a front runner for the GOP presidential nomination and poo pooing Governor Palin's use of the term "death panel"--a phrase that Rubin was supportive of in her articles at Commentary. Rubin's criticisms have become commonplace ever since as Ian, Stacy, and Doug have addressed in recent months.

Fast forward to today where Governor Palin's new foreign policy hire and the news of a clear cut "Palin doctrine", if you will, unveiled last night, and neoconservatives throughout the Beltway, like Rubin, have their proverbial panties in a wad, and for no good reason. In her latest piece today, Rubin charges that Governor Palin's recent comments about Libya and her speech last night have Governor Palin "sounding like Obama's liberal critics". Then she states that this supposed shift in policy and worldview is something that " careful observers of Palin" have picked up on.

First, Rubin charges that Governor Palin's latest Facebook post on President Obama's mishandling of Libya was "incoherent"and claimed that she couldn't ascertain whether Governor Palin supported action in Libya or not. If Rubin were truly a "careful observer" of Governor Palin, as she claims, she would have remembered that Governor Palin was the first high profile political voice to call for a no fly zone in Libya in February, three weeks before President Obama went along with a UN decision to institute a no fly zone. In the supposedly incoherent post that Rubin references, Governor Palin made it very clear she supported a no fly zone, but questioned the real incoherency regarding Libya--President Obama's actions. Governor Palin writes (emphasis mine):

Please make up your mind, Mr. President. You can’t vacillate when spending America’s human and fiscal resources in yet another foreign country without good reason. You said that Libyan leader Gaddafi has got to go. Many of us heard that as your call to action and agreed, “Okay, you’re right. He’s an evil dictator who kills his own innocent people, so enforce a no-fly zone so he can’t continue an aerial slaughter.” But then you said our mission in Libya isn’t to oust Gaddafi after all. (Or vice versa on the order or your statements. Between you and your advisers the public has been given so many conflicting statements on why we’re intervening in Libya that I apologize if I can’t keep up with the timing and rationale of your murky foreign policy positions.)

Governor Palin was quite clear that she believes that Gaddafi needs to go, which she has consistently said in interviews. What is truly incoherent is President Obama's mission in Libya, as Governor Palin said.

Rubin then goes on to refer to Governor Palin's speech yesterday in support of the troops in Colorado. In doing so, she relies heavily on the account of another supposed "careful observer" of Governor Palin, Politico's Andy Barr. Politico is indeed an incessant observer of Governor Palin, but to characterize them as careful is far from the truth--biased is more like it. Barr spent so much of his piece focusing on the venue of the speech that he grossly misquoted Governor Palin's statements claiming Governor Palin said, "we can't undo every justice in the world" when she clearly referred to the injustice in the world.

Rubin goes on to claim that Governor Palin had an about face in her foreign policy stance, yet doesn't articulate what those change are, other than parroting Bill Kristol in his wrong headed opposition to Governor Palin. Kristol's rant, which Rubin heavily quotes, touts the success of the surge in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere and then infers that Governor Palin thinks that America, in her strength and leadership, needs to "back off". This, of course, is categorically false, which Rubin would be aware of if she viewed, listened to, or read an account of the speech for herself. Governor Palin both praised the efforts in Afghanistan that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden, and America's strength in her speech (emphasis mine):

God bless all the brave men and women in our military and our intelligence services who carried out the successful mission to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice and all those who had laid the groundwork over the years to make that victory possible. The historic action that was announced last night was the result of the diligence, hard work, and character of countless American warriors who know that those who spread evil, those with murderous intentions must be contained. Those who would kill in the name of religion must be stopped.

[...]

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

There is nothing in those statements or anywhere in Governor Palin' s speech where she indicates that she has walked back her support for the surge in Afghanistan and Iraq, or believes in any kind of wet noodle spined foreign policy or "Obama lite" foreign policy as Kristol and Rubin laughably claim.

Rubin' s last "careful" observation is that Governor Palin is a now Paulian isolationist. Another wrong assertion that Rubin would not have claimed had she actually listened to Governor Palin's speech herself. Governor Palin very clearly both denounced isolationism and called America to be a global leader in her speech (emphasis mine):

I believe that America must never retreat into isolation. The world would be less safe and less free without our leadership. And we must never forget that America has a responsibility to lead. “To whom much is given, much is expected.” We cannot be the world’s policeman granted, or the world’s ATM. But we can lead by example. By our words and, when necessary, by our actions, we must and we will remain the world’s abiding beacon of freedom.

Jennifer Rubin has proven to be an observer of Governor Palin, but a careful one she is not. As mentioned earlier, following Governor Palin's Restoring Honor Rally speech, Rubin wrote a piece defending Governor Palin against supposed "feminists" and praising her foreign policy stances in response to a opinion piece in the New York Times. She closed that piece with this statement:

But I give the Times gals credit — they know they are losing the battle to discredit Palin. Now they need to figure out what to do about it. They might start with examining whether their agenda has as much sell as hers.

I give the Post girl credit, in her short time at the Washington Post, Rubin may not yet realize that her about face in intellectual honesty has her in a losing battle to discredit Governor Palin. She needs to figure out what to do about it. She might start with examining whether her now Palin bashing agenda has as much sell as Governor Palin's consistent foreign policy.

Jerry Wilson has a good piece on Rubin's article here (H/T JimR)

Updated: On a related note, HotAir has a great piece outlining Governor Palin's foreign policy doctrine and describing the differences between that policy, the current actions in Libya, and what many have described as neoconservative actions in the past few decades.

Crossposted here, here, and here.