Just some brief thoughts on Sarah Palin’s resignation as Governor of Alaska.
First I watched a few talking heads on CNN and thought, “Man. What a quitter.”
Then I checked out Fox News and watched her actual news conference. I got a totally different skew on the story. My take is that she is tired of fighting the leftist media who are intruding on her private life. Her energy and attention is taken up with that instead of being able to focus on her duties as Governor.
She will be working for the State and the country but more behind the scenes.
Howard Kurtz has a column ready for tomorrow’s Washington Post – Maybe she got tired of the full-court press.
Indeed.
But when even the National Post throws her under the bus, I can’t help wondering if they would have done the same thing to a man.
The sad thing is that it will probably discourage even more women from entering politics – especially those with young families.
* * * *
Related: Associated Press and Sarah Palin – At Home in Hespeler.
* * * *
Saturday Update: The Sicko Attacks on Sarah Palin’s Baby – Tennessee Guerilla Women.
Palin’s Brother: “Negative Media” Has “Weighed On Her For a Long Time” – Real Clear Politics video
Sarah Palin - SDA
Palin is Alaska’s ‘greatest gift’ to U.S., her successor says - CNN
McCain says resigning Palin will play leadership role – National Post
Stick a Fork in Palin… – You Know I’m Right.
* * * *
Monday Update: Jonathan Kay: Right-wing culture warriors are putting Palin’s martyred political career up on a cross – National Post (I sense a bit of defensiveness – or as the first comment suggests, projection.)
Secrets of Vancouver – Sarah Palin Decides To Return The Favor
I thought palin quit so as to get ready for a run at President?
I wonder what the voters in Alaska will think when they discover that all those ethic charges cost them 2 million dollars or more. As she said, money that could have been spent on teachers, roads, hospitals. And she said they would keep coming up with this crap (my word) and it was not fair to Alaska.
I wonder if any of the so called media that have attacked her from day one feel any responsiblility. Funny how her so called inexperience was a major reason to diss her, but O’s inexperience was a good thing. After all, he was going to visit all 57 states and visit the President of Canada.
If the media had investigated O like they did Palin, he would never be President.
“My take is that she is tired of fighting the leftist media who are intruding on her private life.”
That sounds like a good reason to quit politics. And I would have understood if that’s what she actually said. But that’s not what she said at all. Instead, she gave a succession of grade-school metaphors about quitting, swimming upriver, passing the basketball, being a winner, not being a loser etc etc and ultimately said nothing. The speech sounded like someone desperate to sound principled and defiant, but had nothing to actually offer except mismatched cliches. Not sure why you read into this speech martyrdom at the hands of the big bad MSM
First I watched a few talking heads on CNN and thought, “Man. What a quitter.”
I find it very interesting that you would form an instant opinion by listening to CNN only. If an apparently intelligent conservative like you would do so explains quite clearly how most people of leftist persuasion form their opinions.
Kinda frightening, really.
“I can’t help wondering if they would have done the same thing to a man”
If that man were as incompetent, vacuous and ill-informed as Palin, then very likely. If that man were as far out of his league as Palin was during the last presidential campaign, then almost certainly.
This isn’t about whether her genitalia are convex or concave, this is about her lack of character for the job. Period.
Save the touchy-feely “she’s a victim” for the left wing crowd. (Not that I expect they’ll try it in this case.)
Yes, she said there was a small group of people up in Alaska who were constantly filing ethics complaints against her. Frivolous ethics complaints. They are not wealthy people, so that could not go on forever, seeing as how expensive it was to defend against never ending crapola.
But I don’t think we’ve heard the last of her. The left is deathly afraid of her and that’s why they are trying so hard to run her down.
She’s destined for bigger and better things, IMHO.
CNN is not worth watching anymore. And that’s why their ratings are tanking.
An example of how sick and deranged the left is when it comes to Sarah Palin:
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGJmNjRjZWIwNzY4ODg0NTVjNjE4MjZhNTk3ZjQ1MTk=
“Palin will run in ’12 on More Retardation Platform” by Erik Sean Nelson, supposedly a comedy writer.
There is absolutely nothing funny about his article. Apparently it has been removed and National Review Online has the screen capture.
These people are evil. Pure evil. So now they are picking on her youngest child. A not-even two year old special needs child.
There’s a special place in hell for people on the left like Nelson, I do believe. Right next door to Hitler.
The USA needs this woman as President.
I find it very interesting that you would form an instant opinion by listening to CNN only.
R MacDonald @ #4 – I think we need to differentiate between ‘first impressions’ vs. formulating an ‘opinion’. The latter is usually (and hopefully) the result of an attempt to gather information from various sources and integrate it into some kind of coherent pattern.
Hence, my first thoughts or impression were being disappointed that she didn’t stick it out as Governor, but as I watched the actual news conference I began to see the issues she had been battling that were taking her attention away from her job, not to mention the toll it was taking on her family.
Ouch! David Frum seems to agree with Jonathan Kay.
Peter @ #5:
I will go out on a limb and guess that you have no idea of what the Governor accomplished in her short time in politics.
I am struck by the contrast:
On one hand , you have a list of accomplishments, but her speeches are possibly not the best.
On the other hand you have the President, who can deliver a great speech (as long as the teleprompter is working) And prior to the election, had never accomplished ONE THING.
Wow – the left MUST be afraid of Palin – look how they are here in a flash using the same degrading talking points to further denigrate her.
Peter and Ilk – just why are you so afraid of Sarah Palin?
Palin resigned. She gave her reasons.
How many of us could have our minds on the job when their family is being affected, constantly being targeted by the media?
It would be nice if the media would first report the simple facts, no spin, no speculation. They could then go on by saying “this is my opinion”.
When an article is seamless, opinion become fact.
We are all capable of forming an opinion if all the facts are presented.
First I watched a few talking heads on CNN and thought, “Man. What a quitter.”
Then I checked out Fox News and watched her actual news conference. I got a totally different skew on the story.
Joanne, as you notice the difference in the reporting-now you know why is it of great necessity that we get a FOXNEWS LIKE in Canada.
Jen, you’re right. We have nothing even close to Fox in Canada.
“Afraid” of Sarah Palin?
Good grief.
Look, she has (had) political assets. She appeals to the wing of the Republican party that feels disenfranchised. She’s attractive, energetic, and can be funny.
But she’s not very bright, poorly informed, poorly read, and her shtick does NOT play well in a playground not composed of the Rush Limbaugh wing of the party. She embarassed many Repbulicans, amused a lot of Democrats, and, I suspect, caused a great many American of both parties to heave a sigh of relief when they realized she would not be representing America on the world stage.
“Afraid”? Heh. I assure you that most of us leftists would like nothing better than to see the Republicans put Sarah up for political annihilation in 2012.
What is she actually doing now? Reality may have intruded. I suspect she’s a bigger asset to the Republicans as a critic out of office than as an actual working politician with slightly soiled hands and a state to run.
My take was almost exactly the same as yours, Joanne because the CNN takes that I saw were only the basketball analogy.
I then saw the entire interview and understood her reasons with the clarity that she was clearly stating. Particularly the nastiness about her son.
The media have attacked her and her family with a viciousness that I have never seen. They continued to do it yesterday, not listening to the emotional words of the messenger but dissecting and framing only portions of the message.
I finally saw what she lives.
I would agree, they are afraid of her and need to demonize her. They would never do it to a man the way they have done it to her.
“Ouch David Frum…..”
In that case, we are good!
@AlbertaGirl
With regard to “being afarid” of Palin, see Balbulican’s commentary. I agree with it, except for the part about being delighted to see her nominated for the 2012 election. It it that idea that gives me the shudders…since I am a conservative.
If you truly believe that Palin is qualified to be president, I’d be interested in hearing why. If she can’t take the media exposure now, imagine her discomfort after being elected…
“But she’s not very bright, poorly informed, poorly read”
Says who?
Saturday Night Live?
CNN?
Obama’s campaign team?
Hollywood?
Oprah?
David Letterman?
Come on – have you ever met her? Or are you forming your opinion from the “editing” and “spin” of gotcha moments set up to make her look like a fool.
This was a designed take down to destroy someone the left saw as a threat.
The sad thing is – it seemed to work. And how good you must all feel knowing that you have destroyed someone’s life and the lives of their innocent family members. I bet you feel pretty powerful, huh.
Unfortunately, those who think that Sarah Palin is a “fool” obviously do not do any critical thinking on their own but get all their ideas and information from those who want you to think along a certain line.
It is sad that you can’t seem to think for yourself.
BTW – that last comment was directed at #16
jeez wouldn’t the msm bow down and kiss her ass much it has done with obama. oh wait she’s republican.
“But she’s not very bright, poorly informed, poorly read”
Says my own eyes and ears, after having watched her performance during numerous interviews during the presidential campaign, and on one or two occasions since.
“This was a designed take down to destroy someone the left saw as a threat.”
Uh-huh. It’s all a commie plot, right?
If you want to think this was some kinf of left-wing conspiracy, go right ahead. I’m about as left-wing as Ghengis Khan, and I am glad she’s gone. She wasn’t competant for the job. It’s as simple as that.
“And how good you must all feel knowing that you have destroyed someone’s life and the lives of their innocent family members.”
Funny, but I don;t see how pointing out the manifest unsuitability of a candidate is “destroying lives”. Yes, there were some things in the media that were out of line. So were the old PC ads that made fun of Chretian’s physical disability, and numerous other examples from both sides of the political spectrum. It goes with the territory.
“Come on – have you ever met her?”
Why, no. Have you?
“Or are you forming your opinion from the “editing” and “spin” of gotcha moments set up to make her look like a fool.”
Nope. I’m forming my opinion from the coverage I’ve seen in multiple media, both supportive and critical, and from the commentary I’ve read from both conservatives and progressives – probably in much the same way you formed your opinion.
As noted, she has assets. Intelligence and political vision do not appear to be among them.
“The sad thing is – it seemed to work. And how good you must all feel knowing that you have destroyed someone’s life and the lives of their innocent family members. I bet you feel pretty powerful, huh.”
Me? Uh…no, not particularly. I’m a lesser Canadian blogger. That doesn’t impart much power I fear. As for Ms. Palin’s “ruined life” – ummm, Ms. Palin may or may not being groomed for a second run in 2012, makes more money than me, is now part of history, and has quite a few years of productive life ahead of her. She’s a politician who took knocks. Deal with it.
‘Unfortunately, those who think that Sarah Palin is a “fool” obviously do not do any critical thinking on their own but get all their ideas and information from those who want you to think along a certain line.”
With all due respect, Alberta Girl, you haven’t shown much evidence of independent thought; nor have I seen much interest on the part of Ms. Palin’s supporters in digging deeply into her political vision or philosophy. She appeared to be a competent politician in a minor jurisdiction, but I’m afraid even her most passionate supporters never suggested she was much of an intellectual spark.
“It is sad that you can’t seem to think for yourself.”
Yes, for that I turn to the Palin supporters whose reasoned, well-informed and thoughtful, in-depth analyses of her complex political philosphies have led them to support her purely on the basis of her wisdom.
(Pause for appreciate chuckles. Thank you.)
She was a bet by McCain that didn’t pay off. Poor choice, bad ploy, game’s over.
“jeez wouldn’t the msm bow down and kiss her ass much it has done with obama. oh wait she’s republican.”
Well, they did for about a week or so. Go back and read the coverage. Then, unfortunately, she began to speak.
It is fine to mess with the candidate although compare the coverage of her as Governor of Alaska to that of Mark Sanford, (double standard indeed) but under no circumstances do you mess with her kids.
They have in the most despicable manner, imaginable.
It is clear that she is a Mother, first and never saw that coming and why would she?
There is no precedent for it in American politics. None.
I wonder if you saw the nude photos that blogger like Wendy Sullivan (Right Girl) and others alleged, without any evidence, were supposed to be pictures of Obama’s mom?
There was enough vileness to go around on both sides, I think.
I have no control over what other bloggers have allegedly done, but I was told just a few posts back by one of your playmates that two wrongs don’t make a right.
I guess now the media have to find another victim to scandalize since they are afraid of their own kind OBAMA, who is demanding that all reporters send their questions to him ahead of time. what a dud.
Helen Thomas says that they meaning the media, are treated like puppets-no kidding.
Thanks for the link Joanne. Nice catch yourself.
[...] Update: Welcome to readers of Blue Like You, who is noticing the bias on the television coverage. [...]
Ok, Peter and Balbulican, Your opinion of The Governor of Alaska is low. I get that.
What i dont get is why both of you refuse to acknowledge what she has acheived.
You cite interviews which indicate her ineptness.
The flip side of that is of course what she has actually done.
I will take real action every time over the media smear.
Just a month ago, Ms. Palin announced the beginning of the biggest pipeline project ever. This in a down economy.
This project got about 3 minutes on CNN, then was never heard about again.
Oh, yes, shes inept alright.
She rose to the Governors position without help from her own party.
The good things she got done for Alaska make a lengthy list.
Yep, real stupid.
Of course there is a very smart person in the white house now, who rules over all 57 States, cant form a coherent thought without the teleprompter, is well on the way to destroying the economy of America, and Canada along with it.
Lets not even discuss the foreign policy.
Ill take inept and stupid every time.
“I was told just a few posts back by one of your playmates that two wrongs don’t make a right.”
“Playmates”? Shall we keep things at an adult level for those who are willing to speak as adults? Thanks.
Two wrongs most certainly do not make a right, a point implied by my use of the term “vileness” to describe the appalling personal attacks on both Palin and Obama.
The media and other urban elites had a hate-on for Palin from day 1. I suspect that a big part is that she simply refused to accept her MSM-assigned place in society. Journalists rarely find kind words for those who do not rigidly conform to their scales of worthiness which, not coincidentally, are designed around J-school tastes.
The very same words the media uses to describe her failings could be used to describe their favorite politicians. Obama and Ignatieff are full of empty words over substance and both have had more than a few blonde moments of their own. I guess empty Ivy League metaphors are far superior to “grade-school metaphors…about nothing” and MI would never sound “like someone desperate to sound principled and defiant, but had nothing to actually offer except mismatched cliches.” Yet, the media would never dare portray those guys in the same way as they did Palin. After all, MI and O have VIP papers from VIP schools.
Palin’s political record and accomplishment, of which O and MI have far less, was ignored while the media focused exclusively on her personal life and “stupidity”. No person could survive the viscous and obsessive nature of the attacks. All I saw was the media’s character assassination and career sabotage of Palin in a way never seen before. It was in a word, disgusting.
The difference between Palin’s supporters and opponents clearly shows one of the major fault lines in modern politics and media culture.
Lee:
“What i dont get is why both of you refuse to acknowledge what she has acheived.”
I haven’t, Lee. However, the theme of this thread appears to be bias in media coverage. Ms. Palin has achieved many interesting things, not the least of which was her historic candidacy. You’re welcome to form whatever impression of her intellect you want, or to disparage the need for intelligence in politicians altogther. That, however, is probably a different topic for a different thread.
“The media and other urban elites had a hate-on for Palin from day 1.”
Nope. Her coverage was extremely favourable for the initial days of the candidacy.
‘The difference between Palin’s supporters and opponents clearly shows one of the major fault lines in modern politics and media culture.’
No. I’d say the fault line lies between those who think that slander and vicious propaganda is only practiced by those OTHER guys, and those who are worried that it’s becoming the new norm in political discussion.
Well, it would seem that Ms. Palin is about to be indicted. Something about a contractor “helping” Mr. Palin build their house.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-03/did-a-scandal-sink-the-uss-palin/?cid=hp:mainpromo2
Wow, watch the lefties circle like vultures even here in this blog to attack Palin. I would like one of these freaks to acknowledge that the MSM and Hollywood has been mercilessly cruel to this woman and her family.
But they don’t have the balls to do that. And here I thought the left championed women and people who can’t help themselves (special needs kids like Trig). Wow, was I wrong.
Shame on all of them.
Yeah, Joanne, don’t worry too much about David Frum. He’s what we call a “progressive” conservative. In other words, a liberal.
“Freaks”?
Funny. I was just commenting about the declining level of intelligence in political discsourse…
Nope, Balbulican, your opinion is wrong.
Her coverage was far from extremely favorable. The media was caught off guard and did not yet have any ammunition. The MSM immediately sent a team of reporters to dig through Alaskan garbage and interview every personal and political opponent. They then proceeded to engage in their unrelenting and disgusting attacks on her and her family.
No. I’d say the fault line lies between those who think that slander and vicious propaganda is only practiced by those OTHER guys, and those who are worried that it’s becoming the new norm in political discussion.
The MSM attacks on Palin and her family were atypical even by the media’s low standard of treatment for conservatives. Innuendo and rumor (like Trig’s true birth mother)were presented as fact. Derogatory terms, whose equivalent would never be used against a minority, joyfully flew off the keyboards of journalists. It was rank class bigotry. The readers and viewers saw it and reacted. Joe the Plumber and Tito the Construction worker became the spokesman. After the media attacked those blue collar spokesman, news organizations were booed by angry crowds. I have no doubt that the MSM does not want to see the fault lines but its reverberations can not be ignored, no more than the bankers avoided their self-induced earthquake.
@32:
I’m not even sure where to start on that.
1. You might do a little digging into when and how that pipeline project came into existence (Hint: The “when” is long before Palin became governor, the “how” I’ll leave to your no doubt competent research.)
2. “The good things she got done for Alaska make a lengthy list.”
I keep hearing that. Unfortunately, I never get a list to go along with it.
3. You assume (incorrectly) that I support Obama. I did, but only because he was the only candidate who seemed serious about ending the chancre on this planet otherwise known as Gitmo and possibly, just maybe, bringing to justice those responsible for it. That hasn’t happened, nor is it likely to happen at this point. Call me naive, but I have this attachment to due process…
4. “Ill take inept and stupid every time.”
That’s obvious. I’d rather leave stupid and inept in the obscurity it deserves.
@LC Bennett:
“I suspect that a big part is that she simply refused to accept her MSM-assigned place in society.”
Yeah, I saw the way the MSM raked Hillary over the coals for daring to run…Damned uppity woman…why couldn’t she stay in the kitchen where she belongs?
(Posted tongue-in-cheek, in case you missed it).
Re:#36
Your link just reinforces Joanne’s original post. No facts, just some idle gossip, and yet looking at the comments apparently she is already guilty. Yep, I’m sure she resigned to focus on running for president in the next election due to scandal.
As for balbulican, perhaps you can point me to the media addressing Obama’s gaffes throughout the campaign, such as getting the number of states wrong. Or focusing on his relative who was being investigated for some kind of housing fraud like they did attacking Joe the plumber.
“The MSM immediately sent a team of reporters to dig through Alaskan garbage and interview every personal and political opponent. ”
And this differs from any other vice-presidential candidate somehow? You think the MSM didn’t do that to everyone else involved?
Right down to the campaign volunteers, in most cases. That’s just the reality of politics. It isn’t even something new, it has been going on since the good ol’ days in Athens.
Lmao, Southern Quebec.
That old canard was dealt with last year.
Geez, are you ever behind the times!
Let’s take Peter’s comment and substitute in Iffy, and watch the lefty groupies switch sides on the fly,
because I bet every one of these ‘playmates’ screamed blue bloody murder over the Iffy ‘truth ads’:
”If you truly believe that Ignatieff is qualified to be prime minister,
I’d be interested in hearing why.
If he can’t take the media exposure now,
(refer to Aardvark’s law, where the more damaging Iffy’s quote is, the faster the response ” taken out of context”)…”
http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.com/2009/07/ardvarks-law-on-michael-ignatieff.html
“You think the MSM didn’t do that to everyone else involved?”
Come on, the Big Zero got a free pass from everyone except Fox News.
Remember “thrill up my leg” Chris Matthews? Only one fine example of the left’s love affair with Zero.
And yes, when the left starts picking on Down Syndrome children, that is freakish. The Freakish Left. Sounds perfect to me.
As the mother of a DS child, I have the right to say that.
Damned uppity woman
Peter, I said class bigotry not sexism. Besides, Hillary did not have to endure even a fraction of the vile spewed at Palin.
And this differs from any other vice-presidential candidate somehow? You think the MSM didn’t do that to everyone else involved?
Really…The media attacked anyone who dared question THE ONE or his connections. The official media was too busy playing Obama’s defense, being leg-tingled and orgasmic over his speeches to do any similar investigative reporting..
“Come on, the Big Zero got a free pass from everyone except Fox News.”
I guess we’re back to the “It’s a commie plot” here.
@Wilson:
What makes you think I believe Iggy would make a good PM?
LC Bennett:
“Nope, Balbulican, your opinion is wrong.”
I suggest you actually avail your self of the archives and take a look at coverage – especially the major newstand magazines.
“The MSM immediately sent a team of reporters to dig through Alaskan garbage and interview every personal and political opponent.”
Uh…yeah. That’s their job.
“The MSM attacks on Palin and her family were atypical even by the media’s low standard of treatment for conservatives.”
I’m sorry, but you’re betraying your prejudice in your statement of the problem.
I realize it’s an article of faith in some circles that the MSM despise all conservatives, with a special loathing for Ms. Palin. That’s a simple way to explain bad coverage.
I have a somewhat different view.
a) She was hastily selected and inadequately screened by the McCain team prior to the nomination. The campaign was clearly blindsided when a number of issues were brought to light by media. The response was very poor (from a communications perspective); it ranged from denial to truculence, and lapsed very quickly quickly into the aggrieved kind of “stop PICKING on her” we’re seeing in this thread.
b) She was inadequately prepared for the run. The persona they chose to highlight (and, to a large degree, the real Palin) was high energy, feisty, funny, combatative – theoretically a good balance to McCain. In practice she came off looking uninformed, naive, inarticulate, and shallow from a policy perspective. Now, you can easily counter that by pointing me to a media clip where she really impressed you with her intelligence and policy acuity. Please do.
In short – a ploy by a faltering campaign hoping to pick up some good ink with an exciting candidate who could hopefully scoop some of the disaffected Clinton supporters.
It didn’t work.
Credible journalists by and large remained credible in their coverage of both candidates. Shoddier journalists got ugly and personal. Bloggers on both sides got downright disgusting.
BTW, if I have any further responses, I am not ignoring you or running away from debate. I love a good argument but I have my own VIPs who I need to attend to.
@LC Bennett:
“Peter, I said class bigotry not sexism.”
Oh…okay. I DO seem to recall the MSM coverage dumping all over Obama, since his father ran out on the family and he didn’t go to the right schools and all…
(Also posted tongue-in-cheek)
Did it ever occur to you that Palin drew negative coverage simply because she didn’t have a clue how to function at the level she was involved in?
She just isn’t competent for the job, and she made that clear just about every time she opened her mouth. That isn’t some sort of MSM plot, that’s just the reality of the situation.
Soccermom said:
July 4th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
“You think the MSM didn’t do that to everyone else involved?”
Come on, the Big Zero got a free pass from everyone except Fox News.
===
Yeah I never saw Reverend Wright on CNN etc on a continuous loop, nope never saw it.
“The media attacked anyone who dared question THE ONE or his connections. The official media was too busy playing Obama’s defense, being leg-tingled and orgasmic over his speeches to do any similar investigative reporting…”
Leaving aside the silly hyperbole, I’ll note that Obama actually published two volumes of autobiography, wherein he disclosed and discussed pretty much everything the press could otherwise have had a field day with. It was a pretty adroit manoeuver. What was left was the Reverend Wright and the Mysterious Kenyan Birth.
Palin was a pure unknown, underscreened and underprepped.
“And yes, when the left starts picking on Down Syndrome children, that is freakish. The Freakish Left. Sounds perfect to me.As the mother of a DS child, I have the right to say that.”
You have the right to say anything you want, any time – as do we all. However, referring to those of us who criticized Sarah Palin because we did not find her a credible candidate as “freaks” is a bit extreme. Thanks.
“Did it ever occur to you that Palin drew negative coverage simply because she didn’t have a clue how to function at the level she was involved in?”
That’s a conclusion you can only reach if you actually watch her and read her, Peter. You’re coming at it backward. You have to start with the assumption that the MSM hated her before they even met her. After that, it’s easy.
“Credible journalists by and large remained credible in their coverage of both candidates. Shoddier journalists got ugly and personal. Bloggers on both sides got downright disgusting.”
And that pretty much sums up the siuation about every politician everywhere these days.
“Yeah I never saw Reverend Wright on CNN etc on a continuous loop, nope never saw it.”
One could make the argument that CNN isn’t mainstream media. As evidence, I offer the Nancy Grace fiasco that spews forth nightly on HLN.
But yes, there’s one example. Rev Wingnu…er…Wright appeared on other MSM as well.
Jonathan Kay @ #3 – All I know for sure is that her family has taken an awful lot of abuse over the last while. I feel sorry for them.
I honestly don’t know if I would endorse Sarah Palin as my personal choice for presidential candidate in 2012, but I think attacks against her family should be off-limits.
“All I know for sure is that her family has taken an awful lot of abuse over the last while. I feel sorry for them.”
On that we can agree. However, it doesn’t invalidate the legitimate criticism of her suitability as a national leader, nor does it indicate some sort of MSM plot to discredit her. It just means there are a lot of knuckleheads in the blogosphere…and that comes as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention the last few years.
“You’re coming at it backward. You have to start with the assumption that the MSM hated her before they even met her. After that, it’s easy.”
My apologies. I’m old enough to remember when we cons laughed at the lefties for blaming “The Man” for bad press, and thinking it was all some sort of Establishment plot. My, how times have changed…
Peter – I think everyone agrees that the timing of the announcement is strange, and that there may be more here than meets the eye.
Well, actually Joanne #58 they were off limits for the Obama family.
As for the media scrutiny:
Even most media people do admit that negative coverage of Ms. Palin was, and continues to be, over the top. Howard Kurtz had a show with some media big wigs (sorry, cant remember who) who all agreed that the coverage was unprecedented.
One has to wonder at the spate of columns that preceded this latest announcement. I guess they had some inside information
How could she possibly be considered presidential material when she can’t even fulfill her first term as Governor? I think one of the reasons she gave for stepping down was that she didn’t want to be a lame duck. That is truly bizarre…
“Well, actually Joanne #58 they were off limits for the Obama family.”
So the “nude” phots of the woman supposed to be Obama’s mother…?
“Even most media people do admit that negative coverage of Ms. Palin was, and continues to be, over the top.”
I guess I missed that poll of “media people”. Care to link?
It’s interesting that no-one is actually contradicting the suggestion that Ms. Palin was underscreened and a bit of a political lightweight. I’d be delighted to review and comment on any of the material she has written or delivered that seems to have convinced her loyal supporters that she was, indeed, a serious political contender. Links, anyone? Seriously?
Reverend Wright should have been brought up re Obama. That is not a personal attack. Same with Bill Ayers. These are associates of Zero’s. People who say these are attacks are the same people who believe the truth ads re Ignatieff are attack ads, when they just repeat verbatim quotes of his.
We’ll never agree on Sarah Palin. I don’t know if she is presidential material, either, but the attacks on her were over the top. She is much better than the MSM portrayed her. Obama is not living up to his hype, though, and daily more and more people are coming to this realization.
Hell, even Madonna, that paragon of virtue, said “F*** Sarah Palin” at one of her concerts.
I guess when you consider the source of these attacks, one can understand why it happens. And I’m talking about more than elite Hollywood types here.
Bottom line, I believe the left hates her for being pro-life and not being afraid to admit it and show it.
One of the left’s big heros, Tommy Douglas, was a eugenics supporter. No surprise there that the left would pick on handicapped people, and feel there should be less of them on this earth.
And I’m done here for the day. I have better things to do than argue with leftist trolls. Sayonara.
Have a good day, Joanne.
It would be interesting to see how much scrutingy all those media talking heads could take. Funny, when Letterman did his thing re Palin’s daughter, he never mentioned that he was an unwed father for many years, or lived with an unwed mother for years, before finally getting married. I think there are a lot of unwed mothers in Hollywood. But, they are on tv or in the movies so it is ok.
“Even most media people do admit that negative coverage of Ms. Palin was, and continues to be, over the top.”
Really? You’ve done a survey? I’d appreciate a link to the results of that survey, along with some information as to the size of the sample and the actual questions asked.
Call me a skeptical citizen (or a suspicious old bastard if you prefer) but I’d like to evaluate the raw data myself.
“One has to wonder at the spate of columns that preceded this latest announcement. I guess they had some inside information”
It’s a commie plot, redux.
“Hell, even Madonna, that paragon of virtue, said “F*** Sarah Palin” at one of her concerts.”
Naturally, I look to Madonna for all my political opinions. She’s articulate, well educated, and successful, so why wouldn’t I let her tell me how to think?
(My tongue is once again firmly in cheek)
“I have better things to do than argue with leftist trolls.”
I’m a right-wing troll. Or is it too much to ask you to believe that a conservative could actually agree with some on the left? (Not all, I might add. There are plenty of those on the left of the spectrum who would love to see Palin run in 2012. For the same reason they’d like to see Bush run again in 2012…)
“Reverend Wright should have been brought up re Obama.”
Ms. Mom, do you read the Globe and Mail or listen to CBC? Are you under the impression that these stories were not covered?
“I believe the left hates her for being pro-life and not being afraid to admit it and show it.”
Shrugh. Well, this lefty, and pretty much every lefty this lefty knows, doesn’t hate her at all. Her pro-life stance is a function of her religious beliefs, which are fine with me, although she and I would probably not agree on the degree to which they should inform public policy.
“I have better things to do than argue with leftist trolls.”
Gosh, best go do those better things, then.
I thought this discussion was unusually civilized and substantive. How about it, Joanne? Do you consider our participation here “trolling”?
“It would be interesting to see how much scrutingy all those media talking heads could take.”
Probably not much. That might be one reason they don’t often run for public office, where that matters.
Frankly Peter, I’m not crazy about Palin running in 2012 either. I just hate to see her family put through all this.
It just underscores how tough it is for a woman with a young family to be in politics.
“It just underscores how tough it is for a woman with a young family to be in politics.”
It’s tough for anyone, male or female, with a young family to be in any demanding career. Including soldier (I speak from personal experience on that one). But what does that have to do with her suitability as a national leader? Or even a minor politician?
Well, here is the lesson that i take from all of this:
If you are wanting to run for National Office in America, you had better have the following qualifications:
1-Must not be Conservative, or
2-must be single
3-must be an atheist
4-Women are ok as long as requirements #2 and #3 are met.
5-must be a graduate of a college that is suitable to the board.
6-experience is not required as long as all of the requirements above are met.
Unless all of these requirements are met, the Liberal Media can and will spare no effort to destroy you and anyone close to you.
I wonder if all these attacks on Palin will deter a lot of liberal women with children to fulful his request of 1/3 female candidates.
Oh, they would be liberal and above reproach.
Yeah, Liberal women are perfect. The media told us so.
I think what I’m seeing here is a kind of grieving – a wake at which a bereaved community gathers to extol the virtues of the departed, rail at their foes, and assert the solidarity of the community.
It’s probably not the best time to actually discuss the possibility that Ms. Palin was a poor choice for VP, that media coverage of her rather serious limitations was, in fact, due to the regrettable fact of her actually having limitations.
However, take heart. I, for one, will be praying for her to run in 2012. And I truly mean that.
Joanne, as you notice the difference in the reporting-now you know why is it of great necessity that we get a FOXNEWS LIKE in Canada.
Jen, we already have it in the Fixed News North Corus Network.
she’s an embarrassment to anyone with a half a brain.
she is so 1942.
can’t wait to hear more about her sports complex & house that was built.
think she had governance issues?
Good riddance SP. You’re a crook/liar and it’s caught up to you.
Richer in Chains.
The natural end result of socialism: railroaded*.
“Prisoners built road.”
…-
*Lost railway in Siberia
In 1949 the Soviet leadership accepted the solution of building of polar railroad Igarka – Salekhard. Prisoners built road. In general what was planned was a long road – it is 1263 km long and it lies 200 kilometers inside the Arctic circle. The problems of building were abutted not only against climatic and geographical problems – permafrost and ten month winter…”
…-
“Kelly McParland: Toronto, the workers’ paradise where nothing works
Toronto at the moment is a shining example of a major city operating along leftwing principles. Nothing works.
It’s a workers’ paradise, paradise in this case being a place where you no longer have to do your job. The services that two million people have paid for aren’t being delivered, because two city unions can’t get what they want and are on strike. The interests of the majority are subverted to the demands of a small, privileged minority. It’s the Family Compact in reverse. The unions, ultra-conservative in their left-wing zeal, resist change at all costs. They want a world that remains forever unchanging, if change requires acceptance of fewer personal privileges. The state, according to the striking city workers, is them. The rest of us are supplicants.
Toronto has ceased functioning. The daycares aren’t open. The community centres are closed. The pools don’t operate. City-run camps are shut. Parks aren’t maintained.
Families that counted on services to help amuse the kids over the summer are out of luck. Working families — the sort the left is supposed to care about, more than hard-hearted right-wingers — are on their own, forced to juggle jobs, in a recession, with unexpected and unnecessary childcare complications. Small businesses, the kind that fuel the economy and employ the sort of people unions champion, are suffering. The normally left-friendly Toronto Star reported on Sam Sinnthurai, a restaurant owner who spent $7,000 adding an outdoor patio for customers, but now can’t open it because he can’t get fire and safety approvals from the city. (Why you’d need a fire or safety inspection for a concrete slab surrounded my a metal fence is another issue). “I’m a hardworking man and we’re losing business,” he complains.
Do the city unions care? Nope. Because unions, despite their rhetoric, care only about themselves, public sector unions in particular.”
urlm.in/crpx (NP)
*http://www.moscowtopnews.com/?area=postView&id=896
“Liberal women are perfect”
Are you people myopic or just willfully ignorant?
Hillary Clinton?
Because when I think of how she was treated by the media I think to myself “oh, what a lovely walk in the park she had!”
Cameron, my own impression is that Hillary Clinton was not subjected to the same level of vicious media attacks as Sarah Palin.
However, I suppose it is a subjective observation. ie. it would be difficult to measure.
Frankly whether Palin runs or doesn’t run it has NOTHING to do with Canada, she will not be on any ballot here.
Further I have no time to argue with Leftists with attitudes beyond their ability to reason. They like us to believe they’re all for families and women in particular but they sure belie their ideology with their tenacious tearing down of Sarah Palin. Not many could tolerate such abuse.
Their newest idol here in Canada, Obama, can do no wrong, he’s above reproach in their minds even though he’s unproven and they know very little about him.
Sarah Palin did not do any favours for women running for office. She has never finished any job she started and is not a good role model for anyone — male or female.
balbulican @ #75
“However, take heart. I, for one, will be praying for her to run in 2012. And I truly mean that.”
I guess you don’t have much confidence in Obama, do you?
“The trouble with lefties is that they are not right!!” You can take that both ways.
I think the problem with lefties is that they do not see well from the left.
Subjective? Try Selective. Joanne, articles about how disgusting she was, about her mouth, about her fashion, about what a bitch she was (Gingrich called her that, publicly), suggestions that she helped murder people who weren’t murdered.. a fishing expedition/witch hunt about a real estate deal that turned into a witch hunt about … what was it about again?
All before she ever stood for office….
So yeah, Palin had it much worse..
Please.
So in view of what you just said Cameron, do you think women in general have a tougher time in politics? If so, what do you think can be done about it?
Some women, yes.
But take examples like Gary Hart, or someone like Agnew or Quayle who are either hypocritical or utterly, totally incompetent for the job they are running for.. they get savaged.
It’s the nature of the beast, same as it ever was.
The difference is when it’s based on what the person is running on (Palin’s total ignorance of virtually every subject beyond the reach of her finger tips) it’s fair game… attempts to turn it into something else (they are picking on her because she’s a woman) are just pathetic.
She got a rough ride cause she’s an arrogant, ignorant, vindictive blowhard who came along at the end of a period when the US had been run into the ground by an arrogant, ignorant, vindictive blowhard…
Bad timing, bad attitude, to bloody bad for her.
Oh, another thought: one can’t run, in part, based on being attractive etc (though I don’t really get that part of the package) and then complain when people talk about your physical appearance…
“And this differs from any other vice-presidential candidate somehow? You think the MSM didn’t do that to everyone else involved?”
Peter – please provide links where they “did that” to anyone else like they did it to Palin.
Think about this Joanne.
Think of the hard work that the Governor put in on the energy file. Her hopes for American energy independence. Her hopes for a prosperous Alaska.
All shot to hell with this “cap and trade” bill that just passed in the house.
She is now free to go to the lower 48 and lobby the Senators who will soon be considering this bill, and whatever else she can do to kill this incredible piece of folly.
Even Ms. Palin’s detractors admit to her extensive knowledge of the energy file.
Ill bet thats her goal.
That bill was the trigger.
Re #78.
Joanne, I posted that here in error. I’ve got too many tabs open.
It should be on the thread: “That was then, this is now”.
“Peter – please provide links where they “did that” to anyone else like they did it to Palin.”
You do realize that’s a meaningless directive, don’t you?
Maz2, don’t worry. I’m getting mixed up myself. Way too many active threads.
Lee @ #89 – Fascinating. That is an angle I never thought of. Thanks.
Frankly it’s astounding to have so many people here with such hostility towards an American politician. What did she do that affects their lives or ours in any way?
Would they treat her the same if she were a Democrat?
“Would they treat her the same if she were a Democrat?”
I can’t speak for the rest, but personally I’d be a lot quieter if she were a Democrat. I can’t think of a better way to help re-build the Republican party than to nominate such a non-entity for the Dmeocratic candidate. So, I suppose you have a point…
Peter and Balbulican sound like another tag team that used to invade your blog occasionally, Joanne, back around 2006 I believe. The same kind of aggressively dismissive arguments delivered with imperious diktats like “that’s a meaningless directive.” That’s merely one person’s opinion, considered either meaningless or meaningful depending on whether one shares it or not, just like any other opinion.
Ms. Palin has her strengths and weaknesses, like any other politician – or human being, for that matter. But the vicious attacks unleashed upon her and her family with such untrammeled savagery are beyond the pale. Unfortunately, some of those attacks also came from her own party. So much for party loyalty.
I don’t know what her plans are, but I hope Ms. Palin eventually joins the punditry so that she can give as good as she got (then watch out, Letterman). In her case, I believe the adage “Don’t get mad, get even” is completely justified.
Gosh, Liz; you’re pretty easily “astounded”. So far I’ve heard the posters here accused of “hating” Sarah Palin and of being “freaks”. When I actually read the criticism above of Ms. Palin, I don’t see a lot of “hatred”, or even much “hostility”.
I’m critical of Ms. Palin because I don’t think she was particularly bright, or particularly skilled.
I’ve asked twice for a link that particularly impressed her supporters with her political brilliance or acuity. No response.
I respectfully suggest that you’ll actually get somewhere when you stop excusing her massive failure as an evil MSM conspiracy, and start looking at what went wrong: a lousy, rushed candidate review process, a party with a collapsing campaign under desperate pressure, a very poor strategic choice, and a VP candidate without the wit or smarts to unite the party behind her.
…back around 2006 I believe.
I’ve been blogging that long?
In her case, I believe the adage “Don’t get mad, get even” is completely justified.
I totally agree. And I sure wouldn’t count her out yet.
BTW, I was fairly lenient with the ‘tag team’ today, because I felt that it supported my argument.
“The same kind of aggressively dismissive arguments delivered with imperious diktats like “that’s a meaningless directive.”
Unfortunately, it WAS a meaningless directive, Gabby. AG asked Peter to “please provide links where they “did that” to anyone else like they did it to Palin.”
Who’s “they”? What’s “that”? What did “they” “do”, like “they” “did” to Palin? How many links?
As for Peter and I being a tag team: I suggest you read more carefully. He and I routinely tear strips at each other at my site and others. He’s a – gasp – conservative. However, he’s also exceptionally thoughtful, and unlike several blind Palin supporters, a commenter capable of acknowledging mistakes on his side of the fence.
The definitive site for everything Palin . . . include an official response to latest ridiculous rumours. . .
http://www.conservatives4palin.com/
Joanne @ #97 ” I was fairly lenient with the ‘tag team’ today.”
Of course, it’s better to allow commenters have their say, as long as they don’t use foul language or use nothing other than insults in their comments and replies.
Didn’t you archive all the posts of your blog when it was called “Joanne’s Journey”?
I believe I discovered your blog in 2006, or maybe even late 2005. Tempus fugit!
How can anybody say that Palin is not very bright? That just goes so far beyond the pale. I could say the same thing about a lot of politicians but, really, it does take a certain brand of intelligence to even become a candidate. I may dislike a politician but I would never accuse him or her of being less than bright.
If I were, for example, to base a judgement of intelligence on a politician’s public statements or behaviour, I would have to judge Chow as less than intelligent for some of the things she has said publicly. I could base my judgement of intelligence on Chretien’s throat grab of that protester a few years back. I could judge Martin as less than bright based on his ill-fated promise to Williams. All of these people are bright but they made some very stupid mistakes in public.
So, no, Palin is not less than bright. In the last election, she was thrown into the campaign virtually at the last minute, not well-advised, not well-handled…etc. Give the woman props for rising to the challenge and making the best of a very bad situation.
As for her personal life – I sure didn’t see the press delving into Obama’s personal life except to rave on and on about what a wonderful women is Michelle (and she is a very intelligent and competent woman).
And to make fun of her baby – that is lower than pond scum.
I believe that there is a lot of jealously concerning Palin: she is very attractive, married to an attractive man, has attractive children, rose to become governor of a state (how many people could do that), balanced her family and career, is determined and strong…the list goes on and on. She is a very accomplished lady and whether one agrees with her politics or not, there is no way anybody can take away her accomplishments.
Anybody who disses her intelligence is a fool, in my opinion.
“Of course, it’s better to allow commenters have their say, as long as they don’t use foul language or use nothing other than insults in their comments and replies.”
There are actually Conservative blogs that don’t allow opinions contrary to the blog owner. Don’t you find that strange from a bunch of “free speech warriors?”
Usually my decision to delete comments is based on (a) excessive profanity or (b) personal attacks on those who comment here or (c) pointless drivel or (d) excessively long posts with way too many links that I have to check out before allowing or (e) anything that could be considered libelous or (f) anything from a short list of notorious bloggers who are permanently banned from this site.
Or (g) depending on my mood.
“But when even the National Post throws her under the bus, I can’t help wondering if they would have done the same thing to a man.”
In a heartbeat. For Pete’s sake, are we going to make this a an issue about being a woman?
“He’s a – gasp – conservative.”
Forgive me father, for I have sinned… (tic)
“a commenter capable of acknowledging mistakes on his side of the fence.”
I’m sad to say that has become all too easy in the last few years.
@East of Eden
“How can anybody say that Palin is not very bright?”
Easy. I watch television, and actually research the issues. It’s more work than being spoon fed my opinions, but in the end it’s worth the trouble.
“I may dislike a politician but I would never accuse him or her of being less than bright.”
I suppose it would be considered impolite to bring up the name Quayle in this context.
“If I were, for example, to base a judgement of intelligence on a politician’s public statements or behaviour”
You mean there’s another way to jusge someone’s intelligence? What’s that? Tarot cards? C’mon…
“balanced her family and career”
So why did she resign again?
“whether one agrees with her politics or not, there is no way anybody can take away her accomplishments.”
Except that your list of her accomplishements uses the word “attractive” three times, and contains a statement that is somehwat questionable (I refer to her “balancing family and career”…obviously she hasn’t.)
If it makes you feel any better, I’ll admit she’s a babe. I just don’t see how that’s an “accomplishment”.
She did, however, become the governor of a minor state. That still doesn’t add up to the qualifications necessary to be president, or even vice president.
Tag team? Bulbulican and I are a tag team?
“You do realize that’s a meaningless directive, don’t you?”
Of course it isn’t a meaningless directive.
He made the statement that everyone did the same thing to everyone else. I disagree.
Prime example – Obama made a statement there were 57 states.
If Sarah Palin had made that statement (think Russia) – it would have been headline news, it would have been on Saturday Night Live, it would have been the but of jokesters like Letterman and it would have been one more nail in the reputation of stupid Palin.
Yet – none of that happened.
Juxtapose that to Stock Day saying the Niagara River runs in a southerly diretion – think about the headlines, the jokes, the “he’s not suitable for office”. Juxtapose that to Martin saying Norway instead of Normandy.
There was a plot afoot to get Obama elected – no one was going to stand in their way – the viciousness towards Sarah Palin – and her family – was vicious.
Given that she rose to be Governer of the State of Alaska – you contention that she isn’t very bright is just stupid. But she was certainly made out to be that way.
I guess I take a look at those who are spreading the information and what their motive is and take a look at what the woman achieved and question that the two do not compute.
So I would still maintain that links can be provided that show any other candidate being subjected to the same inane questions, set ups, jokes, interviews, headlines, background digging that Sarah Palin was subjected to.
It is only a meaningless directive because it cannot be done.
“There are actually Conservative blogs that don’t allow opinions contrary to the blog owner.”
That sort of numbskullery isn’t limited to any one portion of the politcal spectrum.
“There was a plot afoot to get Obama elected – no one was going to stand in their way”
Sigh. A “plot” huh? A plot so widespread, and so pervasive that it fraudulently elected a president, yet not a single person involved in the “plot” has come forward.
Do you get a shiny new conspiracy theory every time as the prize in your box of Cracker-Jack?
(Apologies to admin for the personalities, but some ideas are just too silly to let pass…)
Well, I for one plan to leave the discussion here. I don’t think we’re accomplishing anything.
But feel free to carry on.
Just one more thing.
Peter @# 9
I don’t want to get into the mean spiritedness that I have sensed from the exchanges here but I agree with AG.
When Oprah endorsed Obama, in the form of a suggestion he run for the Presidency, the process began.
For 2 years, you could feel the buildup and it was celebrity driven.
With Oprah’s open, never been done before endorsement, that set the stage for the end result. She is a well connected, marketing machine and that cannot be disputed.
Add to that, the anger towards the Bush administration and you have a rock star election.
It may not have been a “plot” in the Hollywood movie sense but it certainly was orchestrated.
That much was obvious.
Joanne @ # 111
That is abysmal! Point proven and there have been so many of those.
Balbulican @ #99:
“Who’s “they”? What’s “that”? What did “they” “do”, like “they” “did” to Palin? How many links?”
Come on, the topic of this thread was the media – liberal vs. conservative leaning – and the kind of coverage given to Ms. Palin.
It surely was very easy to understand who “they” are, and what “they did” to Palin as well.
====
“As for Peter and I being a tag team: I suggest you read more carefully. He and I routinely tear strips at each other at my site and others.”
Maybe you do elsewhere; I cannot speak to that, since I don’t remember ever reading your nor Peter’s comments anywhere else, and I don’t visit your site. I can only judge from your performance here.
In any event, I said you and Peter sound like another tag team; I did not say you and Peter are a tag team.
“He’s a – gasp – conservative.”
If he says so … but I can have my doubts, can’t I?
And even conservatives have been known to behave … rudely. I’m sure you’d agree.
““There was a plot afoot to get Obama elected – no one was going to stand in their way”.”
Indeed. I understand that literally thousands of Americans were involved, some actually contributing money. A “campaign”, I think they call it.
Joanne, you seem to reiterating a point that no-one is disputing – that bloggers and writers are capable of exceptional cruelty and vulgarity.
If, however, you’re suggesting that’s limited to “the left”, may I remind you of Wendy Sullivan’s comments on Aboriginal fathers and their daughters, Kathy Shaidle’s characterization of Muslims (no distinction) as “f—— retards”.
Or this: http://girlontheright.com/2008/10/22/obamas-naked-mama/
Or this: http://www.chimpout.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42806
So please. No sanctimony about “the left”.
Southern Quebec @ #103, I actually agree with you that bloggers who accept only those comments that coincide with their own are being inconsistent, particularly if they’ve championed the “freedom of expression” cause.
Personally, I believe in self-censorship. Disagreeing with someone’s POV need not bring out one’s disagreeable side, although it is sometimes inevitable. Sometimes one has to fight fire with fire.
You say there are actually conservative blogs (note the small-c: the upper case would denote the Conservative Party) that do this. I visit only a very limited number of blogs, and all of them, by and large, allow differing opinions.
However, if a commenter begins to take over the blog, it is the blog owner’s prerogative to limit that commenter’s access, IMO.
I always liken a blog to a dinner party, where guests are welcome as long as they abide by the rules of civility. If a guest becomes unruly, the host/ess is within his/her rights to no longer invite that person.
OTOH, I disagree with blog owners who arbitrarily erase blog posts and comments along with them. But, never having had the technical headaches a blog apparently involves, maybe my disagreement is misplaced. The blog owner’s prerogative to manage his/her blog the way s/he wants, and the commenter’s prerogative to no longer visit there. To each his own.
BTW, I’ve also read some comments about liberal blogs not allowing opinions contrary to the blog owner’s. And some newspaper sites regularly reject “unfavourable” POVs, while allowing practically illiterate rants. So, everyone upholding the free speech banner needs to practice what s/he preaches.
Anyway, I think I’ll follow Joanne’s lead, and leave it there. Sometimes discussions tend to go around in circles, achieving little.
@Bec:
Celebrities have been endorsing presidential candidates for a long time.
I’m not entirely certain I’d agree that this campaign was “celebrity” driven, but if it was, then so was Kennedy’s, Clinton’s, Regan’s (especially Regan’s) and a host of others. How does that equate to some sort of MSM plot?
“Add to that, the anger towards the Bush administration”
You don’t suppose that anger was justified do you? Aside from Bush’s complete disregard for the founding principles of the republic, he also sold a war based on a lie (unless those I’m not aware of WMDs actually being foundnin Iraq).
“She is a well connected, marketing machine and that cannot be disputed.”
So was Arnie, when he ran for governor of California. Come to think of it, so was Regan (again). What’s your point? Again. celebrity endorsements of candidates goes back at least as far as the Roman Republic, and likely a lot further.
“I don’t want to get into the mean spiritedness”
I’m not sure what you mean by “mean spirited”, but merely disagreeing with another commentator doesn’t rise to that level.
@Bec (redux):
“That is abysmal! Point proven and there have been so many of those.”
One knuckleheaded blogger “proves” your point? You’re kidding, right?
“that it fraudulently elected a president”
OK – I admit – “plot” was the wrong word. What I should have said was that the media wanted Obama elected and when Palin came on the scene – she posed a threat to their desire for a democrat in the White House. The media went to every length – including vicious attacks on her family – to discredit Palin and make her appear unfit for office.
Given how many, many, many people seem to believe that – even though she did manage to reach the governers office – she is a nincompoop.
Like I said before – she faced much more than any of the others – and still does.
I think we are going around in circles talking about two different things. Some are focusing on Palin herself while others – myself included – are focusing on what may have made her decision – the vicious and seemingly neverending attacks on her family.
That is my problem, the media’s tabloid style of bringing someone down when they sense blood. For what?
“So please. No sanctimony about “the left””
Really??
The difference being that “Obama’s mamma” was one blogger – it was not picked up by the MSM – headlined for days on every news channel – picked apart by the various media – made fodder by the late night pseudo jokesters.
Even Letterman’s rude joke gone awry became fodder for days and days of Palin jokes.
Puleeeze- the media treat left and right politicians differently – That is a fact. That is the topic of this post.
“(unless those I’m not aware of WMDs actually being foundnin Iraq).”
I am sure you heard the recent reports whereby it has come out that Saddam did “leak” that he had WMD because he wanted to appear powerful to Iran.
“A new report reveals Saddam Hussein in order to prevent an Iranian invasion which he believed could happen, faked possession of weapons of mass destruction. The truth was Iraq had none. Saddam did not believe such strategy would draw the wrath of the U.S. with an invasion for his disarmament. He concealed the fact that he didn’t have WMD to prevent an Iranian invasion. Eventually the perceived threat of a nuclear armed Iraq led to the invasion by the U.S. and Britain in 2003. Saddam was captured, tried and hung for crimes against humanity and not for possession of WMD as none was found.”
here is another link
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/13+saddam+wmd+bluff+was+aimed+at+iran-za-04
“The difference being that “Obama’s mamma” was one blogger – it was not picked up by the MSM – headlined for days on every news channel – picked apart by the various media – made fodder by the late night pseudo jokesters.”
It was actually picked up by multiple bloggers; Wendy Sullivan was just the link I provided. But if you’re looking for other examples, shall we talk about the myth of Michelle Obaman’s “Whitey” comment, Obama’s “Kenyan Citizenship”, secret Muslim worship, and so on?
“That is a fact.”
Shrug. No, it is not a fact. It is an assertion of your opinion, widely held among those who share your opinions. You’re entitled to your beliefs: just don’t mistake them for facts.
Alberta Girl, thanks for the link on Saddam. It’s intersesting support for those of us who doubted the existence the legendary WMD, and who pointed out that a link between Osama Bin Laden, an Islamist zealot, and Hussein, a secular socialist, was extremely improbable.
@soccermom:
So I guess that means that you and the other folks here are going to give up using the label “leftard?”
Your welcome #124 – although you seem to have missed the point – or perhaps decided to shift the focus???
“So I guess that means that you and the other folks here are going to give up using the label “leftard?””
That’s different! It just is so shut up.
#126: Heh. Nope, I didn’t miss the point. Just wanted to make sure that the readership didn’t miss the larger implications of this interesting interview: I have the strangest feeling some might have been among those who disparaged us back then for holding views that seem to have a bit more validity.
(All of which, of course, is contingent on the degree of credibility we choose to accord to the late Mr. Hussein, which is close to zero.)
To all those that are posting here, JNW and others, trying to defend the media treatment of Palin, check out the article at SDA. Sickening does not describe it.
After 128 comments, one would think the message is getting through. Apparently not.
MaryT: not ONE commentator on this site, unless I missed it, “defends” the media treatment of Palin, especially excrement like the Huffington repost.
128 comments? Wow.
Do we get a t-shirt? Coffee cup? Certificate, at least??
Sorry, late to the party.
AB girl: “So I would still maintain that links can be provided that show any other candidate being subjected to the same inane questions, set ups, jokes, interviews, headlines, background digging that Sarah Palin was subjected to.”
FWIW I was completely immersed in the primary coverage of both parties in the US elections. Biden was running in the primary as well, but left early. Biden has 30+ years experience as a senator and lots of history – some good, some not-so-good (eg. running of the mouth) and has taken many hits from the media over the years (i.e. he’s been vetted, many times over).
Coverage of the Obamas (B&M, not the kids) was brutal pretty much all around until he won Iowa and almost won in New Hampshire. Prior to that he was written off as an “also ran, but WTF is he thinking.” While he was only a US senator for a year or so prior to jumping into the primaries, he WAS a state senator for at least one term (not sure if that’s 4 or 6 years).
Hillary took massive hits, particularly toward the end of the primary when she refused to give up. She took a LOT of flack over Bill.
While I have some sympathy for the Palin family, I would point out that she chose to parade them all, bringing them on stage all the time, etc. And when the first hits were made against her daughter, BO was the first to say “the kids are not fair game.” Note that he did NOT parade the kids around, have them on talk shows etc and stated, after the one & only televised interview with them, that he’d made a mistake in doing that and would not do that again.
Sarah, on the other hand, has used her family as political props. Has the media been fair to her family? Probably not, but she set them up. A misjudgement on her part.
As for her accomplishments, they aren’t that great (signing a pipeline deal and then leaving before the details are worked out isn’t something “fully accomplished”). If you read either the Juneau or Anchorage papers, you’ll see that the citizens of Alaska are not all that happy with her performance, particularly since she didn’t want to live in the state capital and spent most of her days in Wasilla. She has had to repay expenses to the state for flying family members around on political trips. She has charged the state for the nights she stayed in the family home in Wasilla. The biggest cost to the state for defending ethics charges were for Troopergate, an investigation that SHE initiated. The town of Wasilla is in debt for the sports centre and will be for some time. And btw, the town of Wasilla has a population of +/- 7,500. To think that being mayor of a small town, and governor of a small state for less than 2 years (when picked by McCain) compares in ANY way to a full term in the state senate (a much bigger state) and 1-2 yrs in the US senate is a bit of a stretch IMHO.
I doubt that many women either in politics or considering entering into politics would think of Sarah as any kind of a role model, not even as a “cautionary tale.” If anything, she is an example of how NOT to run a campaign if you have a family, young or otherwise. Keep the kids at home and away from the fray. It’s not rocket science.
Fox News conservative commentator Liz Trotta:
“It’s easy to say that the Liberal media are caving in on her, and, yes, yes they are. But the woman has given them a lot of raw meat. She’s inarticulate, undereducated…I think a lot of this criticism is well deserved. She just begs for adjectives like flaky and whacky… This is a woman who has used her good looks and her gender to get ahead in the poltical world…We’re not talking about a great statesman of profound experience: we’re talking about a flashy person who, right from the get-go, gets in a lot of trouble, and really has no credentials for any job.”
I repeat, this is a Fox News commentator – the one who [allegedly] called for the assassination of Obama.
Face it, folks – Sarah has tanked.
[edited by blog admin]
“Do we get a t-shirt? Coffee cup? Certificate, at least??”
How about a nice Conservative t-shirt!! Liberal t-shirts have been returned due to fraud. LOL
“Face it, folks – Sarah has tanked.”
And that. I think, is the real objection many of the commentators here have. She lost, therefore it was some kind of plot.
The fact that she isn’t particularly articulate, lacks vision and isn’t qualified for the job is irrelevent; it was all some kind of liberal plot…
Sheesh…
“Sickening does not describe it.”
You are correct. “Sickening” doesn’t describe it. However (assuming you are referring to the comments, since the article itself is one line) irrational, illogical and mind-numbingly stupid (on both sides) strike me as good adjectives.