In an editorial billed as “The Cold Hard Truth about Sarah Palin,” Memphis Liar circus barker Marty Aussenberg assails what he considers protective, fawning treatment of John McCain’s “mean” running mate by Republicans, and tepid criticism or indulgence from Democrats and the media. What he fails to offer, however, is even one “cold hard truth” about the Alaskan Governor. Once again, the “Gadfly” offers little more than innuendo, supposition, personal insults and conjecture.

Aussenberg preemptively attacks what he assumes will be a “kid gloves” conversation with “journalist” Charlie Gibson (scare quotes included in the original), followed only by other sycophantic interviews and superficial investigations:

If the press and the public (and especially the Democrats) don’t do the job of seriously examining who this flash in the pan the Republicans are trying to foist over on us really is, then we’ll deserve having her be a “heartbeat from the presidency.”

Of course, we should note that such an examination of the “cold hard truth” appears to be above Aussenberg’s pay grade, not to mention his apparent lack of interest in the “flash in the pan” the Democrats “are trying to foist over on us” as President.

Aussenberg also submits the size of Palin’s family as evidence of her lack of judgment:

[W]hy it isn’t fair game to ask Palin herself why, in a world of diminishing resources, four children weren’t enough, and why, at the age of 44, she subjected her child to the known risks of a pregnancy with a substantially increased incidence of genetic defects? Isn’t judgment always an issue for a candidate?

Finally (and, yes, that’s basically all the editorial says), Aussenberg predicts that Palin will be dropped from the Republican ticket and mocks religious prayer:

While I don’t think “Flailin’ Palin” will even survive on the ticket to election day, I am implementing a contingency plan of praying (something I am really not used to doing). I do earnestly entreat any and all deities that, should the GOP succeed in fooling the American public (or worse, stealing this election), like it has so many times before, her sponsor should turn out to be neither as senile nor as sickly as he… seems… right… now.

Failing to include any “cold hard truths” in the editorial, Aussenberg makes a follow-up attempt in the comments:

Now that they’ve removed the muzzle from the pit bull (i.e., the first part of the Charlie Gibson interview) what did she do? Bite herself on the butt, of course. She lied about Alaska being responsible for 20% of the country’s energy production, she didn’t have a clue about the policy that her mentors (Bush and McCain) have implemented (the “Bush doctrine”), she actually repeated the pathetic rationale for her foreign policy experience (i.e., she lives next to Russia—I was fully expecting her to say next that she stayed at a Holiday Inn Express one night), and, worst of all, she’s apparently ready and willing to start a war with Russia. Can you imagine this woman with her finger on the nuclear button? It’s a scene straight out of “Dr. Strangelove.” Someone, please save us from being “imPalined.”

Taking this “cold hard truth” line by line:

1. “She lied about Alaska being responsible for 20% of the country’s energy production…”

To be exact, Gov. Palin said her state, “produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy…”

The Huffington Post, in criticizing John McCain for flubbing the same line, supports the truth of Palin’s statement, which means Marty Aussenberg is the liar.

2. “She didn’t have a clue about the policy that her mentors (Bush and McCain) have implemented (the “Bush doctrine”)”

Actually, what Palin did was attempt to clarify the question, saying “In what respect, Charlie?” This clarification was necessary because the “Bush doctrine” can and does refer to multiple concepts: the policy of pre-emption, the policy of treating harboring states as enemies, the policy of spreading freedom in the Middle East as a means to defeat terrorism, the policy of facing terrorism on the battlefield rather than the courtroom, and the policy of staying on offense against Islamic terrorism until it is defeated.

Once again, the person who doesn’t “have a clue” is Marty Aussenberg.

3. “She actually repeated the pathetic rationale for her foreign policy experience (i.e., she lives next to Russia—I was fully expecting her to say next that she stayed at a Holiday Inn Express one night)”

I’m confident Sarah Palin wasn’t selected for her foreign policy experience, as was the rationale for picking Joe Biden, given the vast disparity of foreign policy experience between the two respective Presidential candidates. But there’s no reason to deny her what little experience she does have. One would expect Alaskan leaders to be far more attuned to Russian activities than politicians from Illinois.

4. “She’s apparently ready and willing to start a war with Russia. Can you imagine this woman with her finger on the nuclear button? It’s a scene straight out of ‘Dr. Strangelove.’”

All Palin did was answer a hypothetical question about an attack on a NATO ally. In response, she simply referenced Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

5. “Someone, please save us from being “imPalined.”

That’s the radical Left for you, still treating BRCK BM as a savior.

SEE ALSO: Fore Left!, Tennesseefree, Bill Hobbs, Byron York, Glenn Reynolds