David Letterman provoked a great deal of criticism last week when he personally attacked Sarah Palin’s daughter with a crude “joke” that she was “knocked up” during a Yankee’s game by one of the Yankee’s players. Letterman finally apologized, and the next few weeks may determine whether this damages his career or if the notoriety helps him in the ratings. There’s not much to say about the “joke” that hasn’t already been said, but the determination of some Leftists to defend Letterman deserves to be addressed.

Letterman stepped over the line with a crude and sexually themed “joke” that personally attacked the family of a political figure. While elected officials and candidates for public office can expect to be attacked, personal attacks on a someone’s family should be off limits. Why is this so difficult to acknowledge? Why are some Leftists so determined to defend Letterman’s personal attack on Palin’s daughter? Do they hate Sarah Palin so much that they truly believe that any attack on her is somehow justified? Letterman at least showed some class in his apology, something many Palin-haters seem incapable of doing.

(Read more after the leap)

Hotair.com reports that a blogger for Playboy published a list of conservative women they’d like to “hate-f**k” – in other words, a rape fantasy. It is one thing to insult or personally attack political opponents, but this is just beyond the pale. This misogynistic sicko is actually advocating that women who disagree with him politically should be subjected to sexual violence and terrorism. Is this what we expected from Leftists when President Obama promised a much more civil tone in political discourse?

Of course, this is not new. Three years ago, Ann Coulter spoke at IU Auditorium on the Indiana University campus. In addition to trying to shout her down, a number of Leftists near the back of the auditorium chanted “we want rape” on several occasions. This is sick and depraved. As I said at the time, what if notorious traitor Jane Fonda spoke at IU and “conservative” students led that despicable chant? You better believe there would be numerous forums, lectures and teach-ins about sexual violence, and the students who chanted would likely be subject to disciplinary action. Coulter carries a gun, so what if someone charged the stage, given the chants and previous aggression toward her?

(Read more after the leap)

Did you know Alaska Governor Sarah Palin tortures animals for fun? Neither did I. Shocking, ain’t it? While I’m using hyperbole here, that is not too far removed from the accusations made in he campaign against Palin by the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, which dispatched actress Ashley Judd to attack Palin on Alaska’s program to reduce the wolf population.

As the owner of two dogs, the DOW video was not easy to watch. I do not want to see animals suffer needlessly. However, I know two things that caused me to take the criticism with a grain (well, more than a grain) of salt. First, many Leftists have an unholy hatred of Sarah Palin and some are not above spreading untruths in the campaign against her. (Remember the accusations about her son, Trig?) The credibility of a number of Palin-haters leaves a lot to be desired, and this is obviously a politically-motivated campaign to damage Palin’s prospects of becoming the Republican Party’s nominee for President in 2012.

Second, animal-rights activists have been waging a jihad against hunting for years now. In response to a 1993 deer hunt in Brown County, “an anonymous letter was sent to the DNR and selected media organizations threatening that people dressed in deer colors and wearing fake antlers will infiltrate the park during the kill.” The stupidity and irresponsibility of such tactics are obvious. Make no mistake: the philosophy behind this campaign (other than smearing Palin) is that all hunting is bad, not a question about tactics.

(Read more after the leap)

Leftists in the Democratic Party and “moderates” in the Republican Party are pointing to Sarah Palin as the reason John McCain lost, and both groups are arguing that the Republican Party needs to jettison or marginalize social conservatives if the GOP hopes to be successful in future elections. The argument lacks factual basis and ignores recent political history, including the election results of last week. Republicans will do great damage to their chances of victory in 2010 and 2012 by pushing social conservatives aside in favor of a more “big tent” party.

When Palin was announced as McCain’s choice for Vice President, she immediately closed the “enthusiasm gap” between the Republican and Democratic activist bases. Palin’s life story, especially regarding Trig Palin, resonated with social conservatives and provided a significant contrast with Barack Obama’s aggressive advocacy of abortion “rights”. Had it not been for Palin, McCain’s margin of loss would probably have been larger than it was. Had McCain picked abortion “rights” advocate Joe Lieberman as his Vice Presidential nominee, it would have been a disaster.

Are social conservatives hurting the Republican Party? How quickly we forget 2004, when “values voters” pulled President Bush out of the fire and were a major reason why he was re-elected. How quickly we forget 2006, when Democrats recruited a number of anti-abortion candidates to run for Congress, including Brad Ellsworth and Joe Donnelly in Indiana. Ellsworth and Donnelly unseated Republican incumbents John Hostettler and Chris Chocola two years ago, and both won re-election by comfortable margins this year. If social conservatives are harming the Republican Party, why were Democrats openly recruiting anti-abortion candidates to run for Congress?

(Read more after the leap)

For all the moderate haters of Sarah Palin and the conservatives in the GOP, Rasmussen speaks:

From Nov. 4:

Republicans are happier with their vice presidential candidate than their presidential nominee, while Democrats feel good about both candidates on their ticket, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of Republicans say John McCain made the right choice by picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate…

From today, Nov. 7:

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republican voters say Alaska Governor Sarah Palin helped John McCain’s bid for the presidency, even as news reports surface that some McCain staffers think she was a liability.

Only 20% of GOP voters say Palin hurt the party’s ticket, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Six percent (6%) say she had no impact, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Ninety-one percent (91%) of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, including 65% who say their view is Very Favorable. Only eight percent (8%) have an unfavorable view of her, including three percent (3%) Very Unfavorable.

When asked to choose among some of the GOP’s top names for their choice for the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, 64% say Palin. The next closest contenders are two former governors and unsuccessful challengers for the presidential nomination this year — Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 12% support and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts with 11%.

These findings echo a survey earlier this week which found that Republicans were happier with their vice presidential candidate than with their presidential nominee. Seventy-one percent (71%) said McCain made the right choice by picking Palin as his running mate, while only 65% said the party picked the right nominee for president.

So just in case you were thinking Palin was a drag to the ticket (and this part goes out to the lefty trolls as well), the choice of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s VP actually enhanced his chances of winning. If he had chosen someone different, one could postulate that McCain could have performed far worse on election day.

Words cannot express my pleasure at this project that they are undertaking.

RedState is pleased to announce it is engaging in a special project: Operation Leper.

We’re tracking down all the people from the McCain campaign now whispering smears against Governor Palin to Carl Cameron and others. Michelle Malkin has the details.

We intend to constantly remind the base about these people, monitor who they are working for, and, when 2012 rolls around, see which candidates hire them. Naturally then, you’ll see us go to war against those candidates.

It is our expressed intention to make these few people political lepers.

They’ll just have to be stuck at CBS with Katie’s failed ratings.

Initial list:

1. Nicolle Wallace
2. Steve Schmidt
3. Mark McKinnon

I have a feeling some Romney people will be ending up on that list as well.

Very late in the game, the Alaska Personnel Board investigator has released his report clearing Governor Palin of violating any ethics rules in the “reassignment” (leading to him quiting) of the Public Safety Commissioner Monegan.

The story is fairly complicated with enemies of the Governor involved in the initial investigation. This should be the report that is relevant. It is a shame that it did not come out earlier, but at least they got it put out prior to the actual election.

If it matters to your vote tomorrow, head over to RedState and read an excellent review of the reports and the entire situation. It appears to me to be a thorough review of the situation.

Yesterday Mike posted a video of Fred Thompson giving us a simple breakdown of the candidates we have before us for president.  Today, we show his wife Jeri defending Sarah Palin against these stupid attacks about the clothes she wears when we actually have issues to discuss.  Basically, she points out how dumb the question is that Colmes asks.

That Thompson pair makes a good team.

“Bless your heart sir, my son is in Iraq fighting for your right to protest.” – Sarah Palin addressing a heckler.

This is beyond disgraceful, but this proves the level that liberals will go to take down Sarah Palin.  And don’t think that this is just some isolated incident.  Remember in 2005 when the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee published Republican candidate for Maryland Senate’s social security number?  It’s called identity theft you liberal morons and I hope you get sued and get prison time!

Via Michelle Malkin:

Sarah Palin’s private e-mail hacked, family photos raided
By Michelle Malkin

Scroll for updates…Wired News confirms…

Sometime early this morning, between approximately 3:00am – 4:00am, members of an infamous group of hackers broke into Gov. Sarah Palin’s private Yahoo e-mail account. The incriminating discussion threads included screenshots of Palin’s e-mail and private e-mail addresses of her contacts. The threads have since been deleted.

Hacking e-mail is a federal crime. A TV anchor who broke into his colleague’s e-mail account recently pleaded guilty and faces a maximum five years in prison.

The law will catch up to the hackers, but what about the lowlifes who are now gleefully splashing the alleged contents of Palin’s private e-mail account all over the Internet?

The Gawker smear machine — see here for all the background you need — has posted private family photos of Palin’s children that were apparently stolen from the e-mail account.

They have used Bristol Palin’s illegally obtained private cell phone number from her mom’s private account, recorded her voicemail message, and posted it on their website.

(Read more after the leap)

I have seen most of the aired interviews with Governor Palin by ABC’s Charlie Gibson. For the most part, I thought that Palin did OK and Gibson came across as an arrogant, elitist jerk. But NewsBusters has published an unedited version of the interview from Thursday which reveals that ABC did a major hatchet job to the interview for the purpose of making Palin look less knowledgeable.

Some of the shameful edits after the break: