Sarah Fuckin Palin.....

[Silcc69]

Sarah Palin says she wants to help "clean up" the sorry state of journalism and won't "waste my time" (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/11/palin-i-wont-waste-my-time-wit.html) with the likes of CBS news anchor Katie Couric if she runs for president in 2012.

In an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html), Palin claimed some expertise in journalism and looked forward to "being more open than I already am" -- but only with reporters that understand the "cornerstone of our democracy, that expectation that the public has for truth to be reported."

"I want to help clean up the state that is so sorry today of journalism," she told the conservative commentator. "And I have a communications degree. I studied journalism, who, what, where, when and why of reporting."

Palin's performance in an interview with Couric during the 2008 presidential campaign was a low point for her as the Republican vice presidential nominee. Asked then what newspapers she read, she couldn't name a single publication.

On Fox Monday night, she didn't say what her journalism clean-up project would entail, other than ignoring Couric and any other reporter "who is so biased and will, no doubt, spin and gin up whatever it is that I have to say to create controversy. I swear to you, I will not waste my time with" such journalists. She often denounces the print and broadcast news business as the "lamestream media."

As for 2012, Palin, onetime governor of Alaska, has already been lumped in a "top tier" of potential Republican presidential hopefuls (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/22/watch-out-sarah-palin-barbara-bush-is-the-original-mama-grizzl/) by the Washington Post (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/sarah-palins-mike-huckabee-pro.html). The others are former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- a 2008 candidate whom the Post sees a likely Palin rival for the votes of religious conservatives.

Watch the Palin interview:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/23/sarah-palin-wont-waste-time-with-katie-couric-or-other-biase/

This dumb b!tch needs to STFU and just say only anybody from Fox News can interview her.

[african1]

Actually Silcc69, if Sarah P wins the nomination for the Republican Party it will be a repeat of Christine's O'Donnell debacle for Republicans and hence an easy win for Obama. We should encourage her to run and win the nomination.

Her interviews are classics in stupidity and ignorance. They remind me of a senile member named dgs925. YouTube - Sarah Palin Holds Forth on Bush Doctrine, Pakistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU)


She's so dumb she thought Nicolas Sarkozy was going to waste his valuable time calling her ass. Doesn't she know it is an unwritten rule and a cardinal political sin for foreign leaders to get involved in the elections of other countries. Hilarious. :mrgreen:

YouTube - Palin pranked by fake Sarkozy! Hilarious! (Full Version) Sarah Palin Phone Prank Call Best Ever! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV_IphAIGPg)

[Ben]

Sarah Palin along with her entire family cannot possibly be taken serious about anything especially something like running for President of the USA. Please Sarah, understand your in over your head and will fuck everything up just like you have with your family. Keep looking over at Russia and watch for missiles coming. Phone them in.

Sarah Palin, as Naomi Klein has said, is essentially George Bush in drag.... And she definitely is.
We'd survive a Palin presidency. We survived, albeit barely, a Bush presidency. Although the president, one could argue, was Dick Cheney.
So, Sarah Palin would pick a strong, capable and fairly intelligent running mate. And that person would become the de facto president. (But as Gore Vidal has said: the U.S. is run by the National Security Council. Which is the Pentagon and the C.I.A.)

[Silcc69]

Sarah Palin, as Naomi Klein has said, is essentially George Bush in drag.... And she definitely is.
We'd survive a Palin presidency. We survived, albeit barely, a Bush presidency. Although the president, one could argue, was Dick Cheney.
So, Sarah Palin would pick a strong, capable and fairly intelligent running mate. And that person would become the de facto president. (But as Gore Vidal has said: the U.S. is run by the National Security Council. Which is the Pentagon and the C.I.A.)

That's pushi it Ben Palin is actually kinda hot for a middle age white woman and Bristol the things I could do to her.

[Ben]

Joan Rivers Calls Out Sarah Palin


YouTube - Joan Rivers Calls Out Sarah Palin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om5Ca__bRB8)

[NYBURBS]

Ben, you're really going to go to commentary by Joan Rivers? LOL, I'm no Sarah Palin fan (though she is hot as hell), but Joan Rivers is kinda bottom of the barrel when it comes to political thought.

[banane18021802]

i think she is hot...

http://www.wikifeet.com/pictures/Sarah-Palin-Feet-46713.jpg

[Ben]

Ben, you're really going to go to commentary by Joan Rivers? LOL, I'm no Sarah Palin fan (though she is hot as hell), but Joan Rivers is kinda bottom of the barrel when it comes to political thought.

ha! ha! I guess -- ha! ha! ha!
And that's a given: Sarah Palin is hot.

[hippifried]

Ben, you're really going to go to commentary by Joan Rivers? LOL, I'm no Sarah Palin fan (though she is hot as hell), but Joan Rivers is kinda bottom of the barrel when it comes to political thought.
Why not? Just consulting one bottom feeder about another.

[russtafa]

hopes she takes her guns to the white house

[Johnny O]

She couldnt even handle an interview with Katie Couric!!
All she can do is post on facebook and interview with the bitch Sean Hannity.I cant believe anyone takes her seriously.

[Jackal]

She's a narcissist...everything is about her and if anybody says anything vaguely intelligent(hence, above her realm of understanding), challenging or disagreeing with her is beyond the pale and a threat to America. When a Jewish Democratic congresswoman is shot in the head, she claims to be the victim of the week and a target of a blood libel. Christ, she is an arrogant moron!

[trish]

...and an ignorant moron. She complains her reputation is being "THRASHED" rather than trashed. And she's a lying morn. She complains that the left is misinterpreting her tea-party cry to "take up your arms," and grabs at the first thing that comes to her teensy, feeble, lying mind claiming it means "take up your vote." Yeah, right. Who ever says, "take up your vote?" WTF does that even mean? You can say "take up your markers and vote," or you can say "take up your pens and vote," or even "take up your computers and vote." "Take up your arms" means "take up your arms." Taken literally it is an invocation to violent action, though I presume Sarah never intended to be taken that way. She only endorses the phrase to enhance her persona as a gun toting revolutionary from the wilderness of the starkly stupid. She's not hot, she's to die for.

[smilingbutt]

To be fair, no politician says much of anything that isn't written for them. Never met her myself, but wouldn't want to either. Anyone who kills anything for sport is kinda nuts if you ask me....
But I think it's said best as:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdFJ-hFFdI8

[onmyknees]

Why not? Just consulting one bottom feeder about another.

Moronic...just plain moronic. You and Ben , and others are so blinded by your hate for this woman, you make yourselves sound foolish, spiteful and frankly ignorant and worse than all that.... misogynistic.

So what is it....her politics? Is it that she won't back down from ignorant haters like you? Yet you all are the first ones to wail or cry racism when the opposition treats Obama unfairly, so besides all the rest of it...you're hypocrites as well. You have an issue with strong assertive conservative women? Surely anyone who compares Joan Rivers to Palin has some serious issues they need to deal with. LMAO

You may disagree vigorously with her world view, her domestic politics, and her vision...that's your right. But much of the criticism of her is deeper than political, and it says more about her detractors than it does her.
As is well documented, I disagree with Trish on nearly everything ( but there's always hope for some commonality) but she doesn't engage in this sophomoric , Letterman like Palin bashing . She's straight up in her political criticism of her.

You're the same parrots that will call for the right wing to cool the heated rhetoric when it hits too close to someone on your side of the aisle, but all bets are off when it comes to Sarah Palin. That's flat out hypocrisy. There are few if any deep thinking responses to Palin's political positions I've read on here. It's all grammar school level garbage. As Burbs has stated....I'm not the biggest most ardent Palin supporter either, but most, if not all of the criticism is cheap and gratuitous and makes you sound like you read The National Enquirer far more than the NY Times or Wall St. Journal. From the moment she stepped on stage as McCain introduced her, there has been a concerted effort not to take her down not on her politics, but on everything else. Ironically...I'm probably more disgusted by what's been done to her more than she herself is. She's far more optimistic than I'd be. My brother lives in the next town over from Wasilla and sees Todd Palin regularly. He tells me they're as decent a family as he's ever met. Not too unlike any family in any neighborhood in any town in the country, but of course if you don't like her politics, I suppose that gives you license to attack her and her family personally.

But in the end...it's a sport we play in this country. Blood Politics.....destroy the opposition at any cost, by any means....you'll just have to work a lot harder if you're going to tear this one down...she's got more balls than most men I know ! But in the end there's sort of a cosmic an ebb and flow to this sort of politics , and what goes around comes around.

[onmyknees]

...and an ignorant moron. She complains her reputation is being "THRASHED" rather than trashed. And she's a lying morn. She complains that the left is misinterpreting her tea-party cry to "take up your arms," and grabs at the first thing that comes to her teensy, feeble, lying mind claiming it means "take up your vote." Yeah, right. Who ever says, "take up your vote?" WTF does that even mean? You can say "take up your markers and vote," or you can say "take up your pens and vote," or even "take up your computers and vote." "Take up your arms" means "take up your arms." Taken literally it is an invocation to violent action, though I presume Sarah never intended to be taken that way. She only endorses the phrase to enhance her persona as a gun toting revolutionary from the wilderness of the starkly stupid. She's not hot, she's to die for.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/anderson-cooper-has-frustrating-exchange-with-nazi-comparing-rep/


Oops....I take back all those complimentary things I said about you Trish..LMAO...you're up to your old tricks.....weaving a narrative out of completely unrelated events to suit your political ajenda. It's political speech Trish not a call to arms for christ sakes !! Only a few "clingers" like you are still trying to make the connection...hey I must have missed that post where you broke ranks with your progressive ilk in an attempt to quell hate speech and took Rep Cohen to task for his vile rant in the wake of Obama's transparent call for civility. What's that?? You never made such a post? No....I didn't think so. Because in the end, you're not interested a cordial political discourse. Sadly you're a political hypocrite with a tin ear, just like the rest of them.... only smarter. Firey rhetoric only disturbs you when it's coming from Palin....case closed guilty as charged!!!!!!!!!!

When a guy says..."if they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun"....that's
hyperbole Trish....it's not to be taken literally, and it wasn't....so stop trying to make the case in reverse...it's intellectually dishonest and politically transparent to most of us.

[Faldur]

It is so hilarious how one Alaskan MILF can get progressives panties in such a bunch. I hope she runs in 2012 just so we can have the comedy relief watching you guys melt down.

http://arsenal.mojo4m.com/userdata/arsenal/gunbabes/Sarah_Palin_Sighting.jpg
http://images1.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/5054746/Guns-dont-kill-people-Sarah-Pailin-Kills-People.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Sarah-Palin

[trish]

It's political speech Trish not a call to arms for christ sakes !!There you go again...you really can't keep yourself from drawing a line from Sarah's intention to the attempted assassination in Tucson. I never claimed Palin was calling people to arms. I claim and she admits that she literally used the phrase "call to arms" but meant it as a metaphor. My contention is that literal calls for violence, even if they're intended as metaphors, increase the risk of political violence. My further contention is even if Palin didn't mean the phrase to be taken literally, she herself had no idea how she meant it to be taken. She so stupid, that when asked, all she could come up with is she meant it to be a call to "take up our votes." Take up our votes!!! What kind of English is that???

[hippifried]

Moronic...just plain moronic. You and Ben , and others are so blinded by your hate for this woman, you make yourselves sound foolish, spiteful and frankly ignorant and worse than all that.... misogynistic.

Jumpin' to more bizarre conclusions? I wouldn't expect anything else from you. Truth is that aside from a few feelings of ambivalence, I find her uninteresting.

[Ben]

Moronic...just plain moronic. You and Ben , and others are so blinded by your hate for this woman, you make yourselves sound foolish, spiteful and frankly ignorant and worse than all that.... misogynistic.

So what is it....her politics? Is it that she won't back down from ignorant haters like you? Yet you all are the first ones to wail or cry racism when the opposition treats Obama unfairly, so besides all the rest of it...you're hypocrites as well. You have an issue with strong assertive conservative women? Surely anyone who compares Joan Rivers to Palin has some serious issues they need to deal with. LMAO

You may disagree vigorously with her world view, her domestic politics, and her vision...that's your right. But much of the criticism of her is deeper than political, and it says more about her detractors than it does her.
As is well documented, I disagree with Trish on nearly everything ( but there's always hope for some commonality) but she doesn't engage in this sophomoric , Letterman like Palin bashing . She's straight up in her political criticism of her.

You're the same parrots that will call for the right wing to cool the heated rhetoric when it hits too close to someone on your side of the aisle, but all bets are off when it comes to Sarah Palin. That's flat out hypocrisy. There are few if any deep thinking responses to Palin's political positions I've read on here. It's all grammar school level garbage. As Burbs has stated....I'm not the biggest most ardent Palin supporter either, but most, if not all of the criticism is cheap and gratuitous and makes you sound like you read The National Enquirer far more than the NY Times or Wall St. Journal. From the moment she stepped on stage as McCain introduced her, there has been a concerted effort not to take her down not on her politics, but on everything else. Ironically...I'm probably more disgusted by what's been done to her more than she herself is. She's far more optimistic than I'd be. My brother lives in the next town over from Wasilla and sees Todd Palin regularly. He tells me they're as decent a family as he's ever met. Not too unlike any family in any neighborhood in any town in the country, but of course if you don't like her politics, I suppose that gives you license to attack her and her family personally.

But in the end...it's a sport we play in this country. Blood Politics.....destroy the opposition at any cost, by any means....you'll just have to work a lot harder if you're going to tear this one down...she's got more balls than most men I know ! But in the end there's sort of a cosmic an ebb and flow to this sort of politics , and what goes around comes around.

Sarah Palin is providing answers for disenchanted Americans. If you like her, well, that's fine. If you think she'll serve your interests, well, you should support her.
I think she's a mere PR creation. But I think she's savvy. Her views are too far to the right for me... and too far to the right for the vast majority of Americans.
The problem with Palin and Bush and Obama and Clinton (Bill and Hillary) is, well, they're to the right of the vast majority of the population. (And we should remember that we don't elect leaders. We should cringe at that notion. We elect representatives.)
Most Americans, whether they're so-called liberal or conservative, are social democratic. They want universal health care, increased taxes on the rich and corporate sector. Cuts in military spending. This is what Americans want. But we don't live in a meaningful democratic society.
When Obama talks about how single-payer health care isn't politically possible, well, he means insurance companies and big pharma don't want it.
I like the likes of Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul. They are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. But they're principled and honest. They care about issues. I mean, there aren't many politicians who are principled and honest and have core values.

[Silcc69]

onmyknees why on earth do you liek this political novelty? I dont think the republican party is even that interested in pushing this quitter to be a candidate in 2012. I mean WTF is she presidential candidate or a right wing celebrity? I don't think I have ever seen anything liek this and I wouldnt even count Ronald Reagan. Palin biggest moment was failure to as a VICE PRESIDENTIAL candidate for John McCain. Now all of the sudden she is charging 100K a show, has her own reality show (HAD), her knocked up daughter is on dancing with the stars. (REALLY) But then again America has a tendecies to turn talented nobodies into somebodies.

[onmyknees]

onmyknees why on earth do you liek this political novelty? I dont think the republican party is even that interested in pushing this quitter to be a candidate in 2012. I mean WTF is she presidential candidate or a right wing celebrity? I don't think I have ever seen anything liek this and I wouldnt even count Ronald Reagan. Palin biggest moment was failure to as a VICE PRESIDENTIAL candidate for John McCain. Now all of the sudden she is charging 100K a show, has her own reality show (HAD), her knocked up daughter is on dancing with the stars. (REALLY) But then again America has a tendecies to turn talented nobodies into somebodies.

You ask why I like her??? Because libs like you don't ! It's nearly that simple. LOL She drives you liberals to absolute distraction and I enjoy that. Failure?? I think not. Other than possibly Obama, there isn't a politican that can fill a stadium or have people wait for hours in freezing tempatures just to get a book signed. You can poo-poo it all you like, but those are the facts.

I actually wish I was back in college because my thesis would be why she
engenders so much hate on your side. It's very instructive and I'll post a fascinating piece later . It's required reading for you haters...sort of a look into the mirror. If you're an honest person, I mean truly honest, and pay attention to politics, you must admit that from the moment she walked on stage in Minnesota the shit that's been heaped on her is unprecedented. I mean libs hate her so much they hate her entire family....even the little guy with downs syndrome and the family dog! There's something too that. If she was the buffoon ya'll love to say she is....you wouldn't give her the time of day...The fact of the matter is she was the driving force behind the 63 seat house turn over in November, and you all know that. Elections are about turn out and passion. Look............it's irrelevant what I think of her. Would I support her is she ran? Maybe...maybe not, but she is without question the most powerful political force in the country at the moment. Whatever you or I think of her....that's just simply the reality and the phenomenon is the more vitriol that the left heaps on her, the more the right embraces her.

[Silcc69]

Who said I was liberal to begin with. I liked alot of Rob Paul was saying but he had a snowball chance at hell at going anywhere. And Fred Thompson was an ok candidate who took all day to make up his mind. Palin was simply used as a pawn against Obama. It didn't exactly work but she has used that momentum she gained to get a cult following. And that fact that you may or may not support is interesting to say the least.

[onmyknees]

Who said I was liberal to begin with. I liked alot of Rob Paul was saying but he had a snowball chance at hell at going anywhere. And Fred Thompson was an ok candidate who took all day to make up his mind. Palin was simply used as a pawn against Obama. It didn't exactly work but she has used that momentum she gained to get a cult following. And that fact that you may or may not support is interesting to say the least.


ok ok I take it back...you may not be a lib...you're just a Palin hater. Is there a distinction ?? LOL

[hippifried]

You ask why I like her??? Because libs like you don't ! It's nearly that simple.

Wow! You're sure easy to manipulate.

[arnie666]

I have noticed that the vitriol put on women by both sides in politics is terrible. They often referred too as bitches, cunts dumb and comments are often made about having sex with them even raping them. But it is more than that, it's like when they do or say things that are contraversial the utter venom that the opposite side will indulge in is unreal. It almost becomes hysterical. I seriously think many men and women cannot cope with women in politics. I think it's brings in emotions of jealously, sexualisation of the woman, and sexism.

I am prepared to accept that some conservatives , really do bring this venom into it when talking about some lefty liberal female politicians. This venom is often spewed anonoymously where they can be brave as they know full well they could never get away with saying these things about a woman in real life. However I have never ,ever seen this amount of hate targetted at one woman ,sarah Palin in my life. It is also said anonoymously in the main.

Now as the thread is about Palin I will level my critcism at the left, but as I have already acknowledged the right can be just as bad .I think if the left had a sarah Palin, the right would also be just as bad but for different reasons.

The fact is,to the left, they believe a woman with conservative values ,her views on abortion in particular makes them so so angry. Because to them women can only be pro choice if they believe a woman had the right to kill life within her womb. They cannot choose to be against this and moreover campaign on being against it, and if they are against it even if it is for religious reasons as it is in Palin's case , they are a disgrace and a traitor to women. Palin also being attractive gets them into even more of a state.

You can see this also in another group (the left love putting people in groups, rather than treating them as individuals). Black conservatives. Take allen west, and the smears levelled against him in his campaign. He was called a house nigger, he was called a black nazi and completely false rumours were put out that he was friends with white nationalists, he was a gangster ,a pimp who had sex with prositutes in a basement at his house. His and his families private details were made public by the opposing campaign and he had a left wing lunatic make a blog full of hate, where he said he was going to skin him alive. Which the FBI had to take care of. But threats of violence only come from the right don't they. ..

The reason I think Palin gets all this hate,is because like west she challenges their core beliefs, I also think she is the most prominent republican out there with huge financial resources. It is a joke when the left say she isn't a threat. Of course she is, even if she doesn't run in 2012, she has massive power to influence the republican ticket in my opinion with her base of support. I think if the left had a Palin the likes of o'reilly ,rush, savage would be just as bad as the left are to Palin. all those anon right wing bloggers would be just as viscious.

In conclusion ,if she was no threat she would be ignored,and please don't say, she attracted all that crap after the shootings, and made it all about her.As soon as the story broke it was Palin Palin Palin by the lame stream media. Don't lie to yourself.She didn't respond at all for days,to the extent some in the left were criticising that.

[Silcc69]

ok ok I take it back...you may not be a lib...you're just a Palin hater. Is there a distinction ?? LOL

I would'nt kick her out of the bed though. She is the hottest politician out there by far.

[Ben]

I would'nt kick her out of the bed though. She is the hottest politician out there by far.

A swimsuit pic of Sarah Palin... circa 1984.
And Michelle Bachmann is pretty hot too.
And hopefully one day Lindsay Lohan will enter the political arena. She has made some political statements in the past. With regard to Sarah Palin she wrote, ""I get Sarah Palin's views against abortion, but i would much prefer to hear more about what she can do for our country rather than how her daughter is going to have a child no matter what."
And Lindsay Lohan, when she hits the 35 mark, will hopefully run for President. I mean, doesn't President Lohan sound good? ;)

[onmyknees]

I have noticed that the vitriol put on women by both sides in politics is terrible. They often referred too as bitches, cunts dumb and comments are often made about having sex with them even raping them. But it is more than that, it's like when they do or say things that are contraversial the utter venom that the opposite side will indulge in is unreal. It almost becomes hysterical. I seriously think many men and women cannot cope with women in politics. I think it's brings in emotions of jealously, sexualisation of the woman, and sexism.

I am prepared to accept that some conservatives , really do bring this venom into it when talking about some lefty liberal female politicians. This venom is often spewed anonoymously where they can be brave as they know full well they could never get away with saying these things about a woman in real life. However I have never ,ever seen this amount of hate targetted at one woman ,sarah Palin in my life. It is also said anonoymously in the main.

Now as the thread is about Palin I will level my critcism at the left, but as I have already acknowledged the right can be just as bad .I think if the left had a sarah Palin, the right would also be just as bad but for different reasons.

The fact is,to the left, they believe a woman with conservative values ,her views on abortion in particular makes them so so angry. Because to them women can only be pro choice if they believe a woman had the right to kill life within her womb. They cannot choose to be against this and moreover campaign on being against it, and if they are against it even if it is for religious reasons as it is in Palin's case , they are a disgrace and a traitor to women. Palin also being attractive gets them into even more of a state.

You can see this also in another group (the left love putting people in groups, rather than treating them as individuals). Black conservatives. Take allen west, and the smears levelled against him in his campaign. He was called a house nigger, he was called a black nazi and completely false rumours were put out that he was friends with white nationalists, he was a gangster ,a pimp who had sex with prositutes in a basement at his house. His and his families private details were made public by the opposing campaign and he had a left wing lunatic make a blog full of hate, where he said he was going to skin him alive. Which the FBI had to take care of. But threats of violence only come from the right don't they. ..

The reason I think Palin gets all this hate,is because like west she challenges their core beliefs, I also think she is the most prominent republican out there with huge financial resources. It is a joke when the left say she isn't a threat. Of course she is, even if she doesn't run in 2012, she has massive power to influence the republican ticket in my opinion with her base of support. I think if the left had a Palin the likes of o'reilly ,rush, savage would be just as bad as the left are to Palin. all those anon right wing bloggers would be just as viscious.

In conclusion ,if she was no threat she would be ignored,and please don't say, she attracted all that crap after the shootings, and made it all about her.As soon as the story broke it was Palin Palin Palin by the lame stream media. Don't lie to yourself.She didn't respond at all for days,to the extent some in the left were criticising that.

Arnie...you're onto something, and your words are well thought out. I have been researching, reading and studying the nexus of all this hate directed Palin's way , and I think you're getting close. If you go back 2 1/2 years, the initial vitriol came from women on the left. What you and I might call those from the old left wing woman's movement. From comedians like Sarah Bernhard, to Gloria Steinum, and countless others, their criticism was withering and furious. Liberal men and columnists hesitated for fear of being labeled misogynistic by the liberal woman's movement, but soon took their cue from the those women and the bashing was in full swing. Liberal old guard feminists never stepped forward to defend Palin, rather they increased their rants. Why? She seemed to be a product of everything they had worked for ... Here is a very attractive, self assured, smart , confidant married, mother and career woman, and balanced both wonderfully who gave credit for climbing on the shoulders of the woman before her...but she is unlike them. She lived her values and was fearless in defending them to the point of giving birth to a child with downs syndrome. She was an anathema to everything they stood for. Gun control, unfettered abortion rights, big government social programs, the entrenched bureaucracy. She spoke of her faith, and her belief in god elequently and convincingly.
There was no contradiction in the way she lived her every day life, and the left knew it. She had to be discredited, but there was nothing there to discredit, so the politics of personal destruction was the only tool left in the tool box, and they used it, and continue to do so. I believe they don't necessarily see her as a threat to Obama, although some do..but her ability to raise money, awareness, and bring other conservative women to the forefront has to be stopped, although seemingly they have met thier match.

There is an incredibly informative and insightful article currently in the City Journal that just nails it. I will post the link tomorrow.

[Ben]

I have noticed that the vitriol put on women by both sides in politics is terrible. They often referred too as bitches, cunts dumb and comments are often made about having sex with them even raping them. But it is more than that, it's like when they do or say things that are contraversial the utter venom that the opposite side will indulge in is unreal. It almost becomes hysterical. I seriously think many men and women cannot cope with women in politics. I think it's brings in emotions of jealously, sexualisation of the woman, and sexism.

I am prepared to accept that some conservatives , really do bring this venom into it when talking about some lefty liberal female politicians. This venom is often spewed anonoymously where they can be brave as they know full well they could never get away with saying these things about a woman in real life. However I have never ,ever seen this amount of hate targetted at one woman ,sarah Palin in my life. It is also said anonoymously in the main.

Now as the thread is about Palin I will level my critcism at the left, but as I have already acknowledged the right can be just as bad .I think if the left had a sarah Palin, the right would also be just as bad but for different reasons.

The fact is,to the left, they believe a woman with conservative values ,her views on abortion in particular makes them so so angry. Because to them women can only be pro choice if they believe a woman had the right to kill life within her womb. They cannot choose to be against this and moreover campaign on being against it, and if they are against it even if it is for religious reasons as it is in Palin's case , they are a disgrace and a traitor to women. Palin also being attractive gets them into even more of a state.

You can see this also in another group (the left love putting people in groups, rather than treating them as individuals). Black conservatives. Take allen west, and the smears levelled against him in his campaign. He was called a house nigger, he was called a black nazi and completely false rumours were put out that he was friends with white nationalists, he was a gangster ,a pimp who had sex with prositutes in a basement at his house. His and his families private details were made public by the opposing campaign and he had a left wing lunatic make a blog full of hate, where he said he was going to skin him alive. Which the FBI had to take care of. But threats of violence only come from the right don't they. ..

The reason I think Palin gets all this hate,is because like west she challenges their core beliefs, I also think she is the most prominent republican out there with huge financial resources. It is a joke when the left say she isn't a threat. Of course she is, even if she doesn't run in 2012, she has massive power to influence the republican ticket in my opinion with her base of support. I think if the left had a Palin the likes of o'reilly ,rush, savage would be just as bad as the left are to Palin. all those anon right wing bloggers would be just as viscious.

In conclusion ,if she was no threat she would be ignored,and please don't say, she attracted all that crap after the shootings, and made it all about her.As soon as the story broke it was Palin Palin Palin by the lame stream media. Don't lie to yourself.She didn't respond at all for days,to the extent some in the left were criticising that.

Most Americans, if you look at public opinion polls, whether they label themselves conservative or liberal, are social democratic.
And if you really believe that Sarah Palin will serve your specific interests, well, you should support her.
The Palin phenomenon seems like mere hero worship. (I don't get why anyone would rally behind a leader. I mean, one should shiver at the word leader. We don't elect leaders. We elect representatives. Their role or job is to serve the interests of their constituents. It's that simple. Politicians do the antithesis of this. We all know that big money corrupts politics.)

[arnie666]

Most Americans, if you look at public opinion polls, whether they label themselves conservative or liberal, are social democratic.
And if you really believe that Sarah Palin will serve your specific interests, well, you should support her.
The Palin phenomenon seems like mere hero worship. (I don't get why anyone would rally behind a leader. I mean, one should shiver at the word leader. We don't elect leaders. We elect representatives. Their role or job is to serve the interests of their constituents. It's that simple. Politicians do the antithesis of this. We all know that big money corrupts politics.)

To be honest, Palin probably wouldn't be my pick in 2012, but I do believe out of all the others who will probably run she is the best of the bunch.I believe if the darlings of the good old boy network and those who the mainstream media like , such as romney or pawlenty,huckerbee run Obama will easily beat them barring the economy getting very much worse, . . I see her as new ,fresh and I like members of the tea party are sick of the established political system in my own country. I also agree with her political bent and think she is actually a very nice person who's heart is in the right place.

I think she has some glaring weakness's, I think at times she ought to have risen above some of the criticism and not got into the gutter with them, if she is serious about a presidential run. I think she could have responded to it, and made her case without being as aggressive. She does have a strong hard core significant base of supporters who the republican party will have to acknowledge or they are doomed in 2012,they should not take tea party support for granted either. However, she has failed as of yet to appeal to the independents, which she must do if she is to beat Obama. I think she could beat Obama , I think she has the best chance out the ones who will probably run, but right now she would lose.

My comment really wasn't so much about her running for president or my support for her, but a general point about women in politics and what I see is the unfair treatment they get . This thread was started about Palin,which is why I discussed Palin and I see some of the very same attitudes that annoy me. I think the left should take a leaf out of bill hillary clintons and joe bidens book ,you can disagree with her ,you can disagree with everything she says, but they can remain respectful when she is mentioned. Why? because they know she is a political figure in her own right like them,an extremely impressive woman and they respect her.

[onmyknees]

Here's one for ya Ben....and it's from "The Hollywood Reporter" hardly The Weekly Standard ! LOL
As we've been saying for some time now...It's the left who's obsessed with her. Looks like that sicko, Chris Matthews' warped obsession continues.


MSNBC's Sarah Palin Sickness

4:00 AM 1/26/2011 by Paul Bond
share


Comments (140) (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/msnbcs-sarah-palin-sickness-75184#comments)

224

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2011/01/04fea_palin-ipad-a-p.jpg
Illustration: Kat Shady

This week's Hollywood Reporter magazine tallies how many times the left-leaning network discusses her (it's more than Fox) and how a reality star with sinking approval ratings is vital to its survival.

The following article appears in this week's issue of The Hollywood Reporter on newsstands Thursday.
Now that Keith Olbermann has left MSNBC, perhaps cable news can begin weaning itself from its addiction to Sarah Palin. Sure, it will be tough, even expensive — withdrawals usually are — but we all know that reporters themselves are aching for some Palin-free airtime, and audiences seem willing to give it a try as well, judging from her sudden drop in popularity polls.
From a high of 80 percent a little over two years ago, Palin's approval rating sits at just 38 percent. That pollsters routinely collect such data on a woman who doesn't hold office (unless you count being the star of a nonrenewed TLC reality show a perch) and isn’t running for anything other than her next private plane for an appearance speaks to the media’s dysfunctional obsession with her. After all, it’s been more than two years since she was Sen. John McCain's vice-presidential candidate. Hence calls from some prominent columnists to publicly declare their intention to ignore her, at least for a while.
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, in his Jan. 21 column, went so far as to propose a "Palin-free February" of news coverage after confessing he had written 42 columns about her since 2008. "Though it is embarrassing to admit this in public, I can no longer hide the truth. I have a Sarah Palin problem," Milbank wrote.
Admitting you have a problem and doing something about it, though, are two different things. The main problem in media? Profitabilty, especially for cable news. They just can't quit her. She drives ratings, and in an age of shrinking news staffs and foreign bureaus, she doesn't require much producer manpower save for a script with some plain old on-air commentary. You don't even have to pay for a stand-up shot in front of Congress anymore.
And the narrative and conflict is self-perpetuating. Palin is MSNBC's No. 1 target, and Fox News has become her chief protector. CNN does neither to the extent of its rivals, forever milk-toasting about under the guise of "balance," and it's probably no coincidence that its ratings are third among the three. All this talk about civility — especially in the wake of the Tuscon massacre — is boring in cable-news land. Consider CNN's John King, who apologized to his audience after a guest used the word "crosshairs" in an entirely benign context and was roundly criticized for political correctness run amok. Compare that to Olbermann, who in response to Jon Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity" call for more civil discourse, suspended his caustic "Worst Person" segment, only to quickly reverse course when audiences said they missed it.


"Take Sarah Palin, add guests, some hatred, and mix. No other topic can replace her ... that would require actual reporting." — John Ziegler, documentary filmmaker Olbermann first mentioned Palin on his show July 1, 2008, when his guest, conservative columnist William Kristol, recommended that McCain make her his vp choice. Since then, he talked about the former governor of Alaska in a total of 320 separate segments during his former MSNBC show, according to data compiled by LexisNexis. That's at least one story about Palin for every two episodes. The ex-governor who has become a lightning rod for left-wing criticism was such a frequent target of Olbermann's that the news of his Countdown show being canceled had one blogger joking: "It's Sarah Palin's fault. I'm sure she's behind this!"
But if the attention Olbermann gave to the diminutive and perky hockey mom from Wasilla sounds excessive, think again. LexisNexis indicates that MSNBC's Chris Matthews has reported on her during a whopping 420 segments of his Hardball show since she burst onto the scene as McCain's running mate two months after Kristol's Countdown appearance.
And MSNBC is no cable-news outlier. The hosts at CNN and Fox News are only slightly less obsessed with Palin, though the coverage at CNN attempts objectivity, and at Fox it is downright favorable — a given since most of its hosts lean right and Palin is employed there as an analyst. So basically, the 24-hour news cycle on any given week might go like this: Olbermann attacks Palin. Fox then attacks Olbermann for attacking Palin. Olbermann counterattacks by calling either Palin or Rupert Murdoch the "worst person in the world." And so on. You see, it never gets tired. Except it does: Primetime ratings for MSNBC, Fox News and CNN are all down.
Palin didn't respond to requests for an interview. Fox also declined comment, at least on the record, though several insiders there explained their theories as to why cable news is so focused on Palin.
"If MSNBC and CNN stopped talking about her so much, Fox would, too," one insider said. "Then she could behave like any other political analyst at Fox News and give her opinion about the issues."
Says another Fox insider: "Detractors are more obsessed with her than supporters are. And they can’t even explain why they hate her. Ask them about it, and they mumble something about her being stupid. But I'd hook her up to an intelligence test against Joe Biden any day."
♦♦♦
MSNBC vp primetime programming Bill Wolff maintains that his network covers Palin because she’s newsworthy. Period. End of story.
"She’s powerful and important, even if all you measure her by is her ability to raise money," he says. "She matters. Her blessing and her endorsement mean something.'
Wolff called it "nonsense" that MSNBC is driven by politics or even profits when it comes to how much airtime it devotes to Palin.
"MSNBC does not have a political agenda. The idea that we’re beholden to one side or the other is ridiculous," he says. "And if Sarah Palin is so good for business, why would we want to destroy her? We tell the truth. We hold up a mirror and say, 'This is what’s going on.' We’re not so crass to think that she’s good for business, therefore we'll talk about her."
Wolff is also executive producer of The Rachel Maddow Show, which ran 90 segments on Palin in 2009 and 99 in 2010, according to LexisNexis.
Wolff says the uptick isn't a trend but is based on the fact that Palin was more newsworthy last year than she was the year before (must be that reality show again).
"Sometimes we hear: 'Oh please don't cover her. We already know what she thinks,' " he says. "Some viewers say she's not an elected official so we should talk less about her."
Not happening. At Fox and MSNBC, every major program at those networks has been ratcheting up the Palin coverage, according to LexisNexis. In 2008, Olbermann mentioned her in 67 news segments, a year later it was 146 and a year after that 179. In 2009, Hardball ran 141 stories mentioning Palin and a year later it ran 184. Over at Fox, Hannity ran 94 stories mentioning Palin in 2009 and 145 the following year. The O'Reilly Factor ran 82 Palin stories in 2009 and 108 in 2010.
It appears that only a couple of hosts at CNN are actually trying to wean themselves off of Palin. Wolf Blitzer of The Situation Room talked about Palin 123 times in 2010, down from 157 times the year before, and the discussions of Palin at Anderson Cooper 360 dropped from 144 to 128 year-over-year.
CNN declined comment.
Despite the few exceptions, Pew Research Center says that Palin was by far the No. 1 newsmaker in 2010 (President Obama excluded, since Pew lumped him in with all mentions of his administration). On a percentage basis, cable news stories about Palin were as prevalent as were stories about the next two newsmakers on the list combined: Sen. Harry Reid and defeated Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell (who at times filled a similar punching-bag role to Palin's on MSNBC). MSNBC led the charge with the most Palin coverage, followed by Fox News, then CNN, according to Pew.
During the run-up to the 2010 elections — a topic that was second to the economy as the story covered most by the mainstream press that year — the biggest story line was the influence of Palin and the Tea Party.
"They accounted for more coverage than the role and impact of President Obama himself, even though many observers saw the election as a referendum on the president," Pew noted.
♦♦♦
So perhaps it’s time to dial down the coverage. Political pundit Gloria Borger, for example, penned an article recently at CNN.com that began, "OK, you’ve got Palin fatigue. Not to worry. So does much of the country." Eric Boehlert, senior fellow at the left-wing Media Matters for America, predicts that "2011 will be a watershed year. The coverage will change and she won’t be as good for business. We’ve reached a saturation point."
Even comedian and renowned Palin-hater Kathy Griffin has tired of hurling insults at the Momma Grizzly, and has vowed to attack her 16-year-old daughter, Willow, instead. "In 2011 I want to offend a new Palin," Griffin said.
But it won't be as easy for cable news to break its Sarah Palin habit.
The dirty little secret is that Palin has become the go-to topic that requires very little work and no boring background explanations for audiences, says John Ziegler, director and writer of the documentary film Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted.
"She is already known by everyone, which is very rare in this era,” he said. "She creates beautiful pictures and she riles up the extreme partisans."
Plus, MSNBC and, to a lesser extent, CNN viewers are overwhelmingly partial to Democrats (73 percent of MSNBC viewers and 63 percent of CNN viewers voted for Obama, according to a Wilson Research Poll) and like all good TV, drama is necessary to keep it going. They crave a boogeyman to fill the void created when President George W. Bush left office, and she’s now the face of the opposition. Palin fits the bill nicely, given her presentability (just imagine seeing John Boehner’s face all the time on TV), malapropisms and endless stream of controversial tweets and Facebook posts. And when there wasn’t that to rely on, MSNBC, especially, turned focus onto daughter Bristol’s stint on ABC’s Dancing With the Stars, as well as Sarah Palin’s reality TV series.
"MSNBC will never find anything like Sarah Palin," Ziegler says. "It's much cheaper than real news. Just take Sarah Palin, add guests, some hatred, and mix. No other topic can replace her right now because that would require actual reporting."
MSNBC’S dependence on Palin was best displayed with the recent shootings in Tucson that left six people dead and Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords critically wounded. MSNBC was crucial in driving the narrative that the killer was egged on by violent political rhetoric, particularly from Palin. Even after it was learned that the shooter was an atheist, flag-burning, Bush-hating, 9/11 Truther who enjoyed joking about abortion (not exactly the portrait of a Palin supporter), MSNBC still did not let up on that story line.
"When Sarah Palin puts targets on people’s districts ... when the vitriol and the rhetoric is so violent, we have to connect consequences to that," Matthews intoned on Hardball three days after the shooting.
"Why is it so difficult here for Sarah Palin to say what should be an easy thing, like, 'I regret my political imagery, that I had a potential to inspire violence,' " Olbermann said that day.
Indeed, four days after the shooting, the day Obama cautioned the nation to discuss the issue "with a good dose of humility rather than pointing fingers," MSNBC over the course of five hours mentioned Palin in connection with the massacre 166 times while mentioning the alleged killer, Jared Loughner, only 18 times.
Of particular concern to MSNBC hosts that day was Palin's video response to those in the media who had been insinuating that she had inspired Loughner’s killing spree.
"Instead of showing any leadership or taking any responsibility for her ugly rhetoric, or talking about the real victims, Palin used this opportunity this time to play the victim," Ed Schultz said on MSNBC’s The Ed Show that day. "Her game plan all along has been very simple — no apology, no toning it down, just attack."
Of course, the right maintains it’s Palin who is being unfairly attacked by progressive journalists at MSNBC, CNN and elsewhere in order to fulfill not only a business agenda but a political one, as well: the destruction of Sarah Palin. Naturally, Sean Hannity wasted no time getting Palin on his Fox show to defend herself some more. And so it goes.
Still, says Boehlert: "Imagine if the press didn’t pay attention to Palin. The right-wing response would be that they’re ignoring Palin in order to destroy her."
Conservative author Ann Coulter wrote that on four occasions, Olbermann complained that Palin was suspiciously quiet. "The next day, Palin posted a video response, and Keith immediately attacked her for 'the worst-timed political statement ever.' It's almost as if liberals would attack Palin whatever she did."
While the left and right hash out the "real" reasons for dragging Palin and her infamous electoral map with crosshairs on it into the Tucson discussion, the theory holds that bottom-line business prevailed. (And frankly, filling hours and days with fresh information on a big story without constant breaking news, real news, is challenging at best.)
"In the case of MSNBC, ideological bias and smart business are the same thing. The viewers want Palin-bashing, the network cheerfully supplies it," said John Pitney, professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College.
♦♦♦
So if the first step in quitting an addiction is admitting a problem, many in the media are on the right track. Politico wrote a year ago that "it’s a symbiotic affair — built on mutual dependency and mutual enabling,' and acknowledged that "clicks go up" when the website publishes Palin stories. "We know we’re part of the problem," the article stated.
More recently, The Colbert Report's Stephen Colbert analyzed a segment of Morning Joe on MSNBC where co-host Mika Brzezinski acknowledges that she hates that they are compelled to talk about Palin.
"At what point do we just ignore?" she asked co-host Joe Scarborough.
"Clearly, Mika is experiencing what journo-psychologists call Palin-fatigue," Colbert said after playing the clip.
Said Colbert to the camera afterward: "Mika, you need to buck up. I know you think this story has no purpose other than keeping Sarah Palin’s name in the headlines for another news cycle. … I know you think Sarah Palin is at best a self-promoting ignoramus and at worst a shameless media troll. … I know that when you arrive at the office each day, you say a silent prayer that maybe, just maybe, Sarah Palin will at long last shut up for 10 f---ing minutes."
Whether Fox, CNN or MSNBC can successfully wean themselves off of Palin — or whether they even want to — remains to be seen, but momentum for such a scenario is clearly building among journalists in general. What happens to ratings, however, is another question.
Dana Milbank's column followed one from Ross Douthat in the New York Times five days earlier that made the case that the frenzy to tie Palin in with the Tucson shootings — an episode he called "a little bit obscene" — was the final straw.
Douthat began with this: "In every twisted, wretched, ruinous relationship, there are moments so grim, flare-ups so appalling, that they offer both parties a chance to step back, take inventory, and realize that it’s time — far past time, in fact — to go their separate ways. For the American media and Sarah Palin, that kind of a moment arrived last week."
From his lips to God's ears.
http://edit.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2011/01/palin_smaller.jpg

[Ben]

I, actually, agree with Sarah Palin in this short YT clip:

YouTube - Sarah Palin: "How's That Hopey-Changey Stuff Working Out For Ya?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y02iZcTjHo)

[onmyknees]

I, actually, agree with Sarah Palin in this short YT clip:

YouTube - Sarah Palin: "How's That Hopey-Changey Stuff Working Out For Ya?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y02iZcTjHo)


Here's one for ya Ben, and some of the other Palin Haters ( and you know who you are !! LMAO)

Check this out...MSNBC is so hatefully obsessed with her, they fall for a fake story and report it as news...simply because Palin's name is involved. Can you believe these assholes? If it wasn't character assanation, it might be humorous !!

As I've said many times, there's more bullshit heaped on her than any politician in history. If the left isn't trying to tie her to violence, they're reporting fake stories. They're sick and getting sicker !!!!!!! What a joke they are on that network. One down and 4 to go !!!!!! LOL


The Internet’s finest satirists hooked a big fish in the media world last night. In an embarrassing segment on her MSNBC show, Rachel Maddow slammed conservatives for attacking President Obama’s Egypt policies. Her targets included Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, former ambassador to the UN John Bolton and Stephenson Billings at ChristWire.org. Only problem is Stephenson Billings is not a real person. He’s a fictional byproduct of a website that also warns readers that the Xbox Kinect is a terrorist training tool and the Japanese have created scary robot babies which “threaten humanity.”
The article that caught Maddow’s eye called for an “American-led invasion” into Egypt and begged former Alaska governor Sarah Palin to lead the war cry.
“The escalating crisis in Egypt could become a defining moment for Sarah Palin,” Billings wrote. “Governor Palin needs to speak out publicly and forcibly for an American-led invasion to protect our interests in North Africa.”
In the following clip (which MSNBC scrubbed from its website) Maddow falls for the article hook, line and sinker.




YouTube - Christwire on Rachel Maddow HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwK35y4kr_E&feature=player_embedded)

[trish]

Here's some more good stuff from ChristWire.

http://christwire.org/2010/08/is-my-husband-gay/

http://christwire.org/2010/05/how-to-spot-a-masturbator/

[Cuchulain]

The Internet’s finest satirists hooked a big fish in the media world last night. In an embarrassing segment on her MSNBC show, Rachel Maddow slammed conservatives for attacking President Obama’s Egypt policies. Her targets included Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, former ambassador to the UN John Bolton and Stephenson Billings at ChristWire.org. Only problem is Stephenson Billings is not a real person. He’s a fictional byproduct of a website that also warns readers that the Xbox Kinect is a terrorist training tool and the Japanese have created scary robot babies which “threaten humanity.”
The article that caught Maddow’s eye called for an “American-led invasion” into Egypt and begged former Alaska governor Sarah Palin to lead the war cry.
“The escalating crisis in Egypt could become a defining moment for Sarah Palin,” Billings wrote. “Governor Palin needs to speak out publicly and forcibly for an American-led invasion to protect our interests in North Africa.”
In the following clip (which MSNBC scrubbed from its website) Maddow falls for the article hook, line and sinker.




YouTube - Christwire on Rachel Maddow HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwK35y4kr_E&feature=player_embedded)

Wow! Some really damning stuff there. Rachel spent less than a minute quoting the site and laughing about it. Didn't hear her mention Billings' name and she pointed out that those were not Palin's words. It took Ms. Maddow all of an hour or so to tweet that she had been had and call Christwire brilliant satirists.

Btw, KO may have moved on, but it looks like MSNBC has a bright new star on the horizon - none other than Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks. Cenk is a bigger bomb thrower than Olbermann ever was.
http://www.theyoungturks.com/

[Ben]

Sarah Palin considers herself another Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher was and is an intellectual. Mrs. Thatcher truly believed in free markets. She believed in Friedrich Hayek. She had a utopian vision. She thought that if you could let free markets reign then you'd have a perfect world, as it were.

YouTube - Milton Friedman remembers Friedrich Hayek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKkehoC5khc&feature=related)

[onmyknees]

Wow! Some really damning stuff there. Rachel spent less than a minute quoting the site and laughing about it. Didn't hear her mention Billings' name and she pointed out that those were not Palin's words. It took Ms. Maddow all of an hour or so to tweet that she had been had and call Christwire brilliant satirists.

Btw, KO may have moved on, but it looks like MSNBC has a bright new star on the horizon - none other than Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks. Cenk is a bigger bomb thrower than Olbermann ever was.
http://www.theyoungturks.com/


She got sucked in....scammed. Period ..She and the other sycofants over there can't help themselves. Have you seen Matthews lately? He's completely unglued . It's fucking hilarious !!!!!! It's like comedy central over there !

[onmyknees]

[QUOTE=Cuchulain;872476]Wow! Some really damning stuff there. Rachel spent less than a minute quoting the site and laughing about it. Didn't hear her mention Billings' name and she pointed out that those were not Palin's words. It took Ms. Maddow all of an hour or so to tweet that she had been had and call Christwire brilliant satirists.

Btw, KO may have moved on, but it looks like MSNBC has a bright new star on the horizon - none other than Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks. Cenk is a bigger bomb thrower than Olbermann ever was.


Looks like The Young Turk didn't get the memo from Maddow, Matthews, Sargent Shultz, Brokow and the rest of the gang over there. He's new....He'll learn fast ...you WILL NOT chide Obama.........EVER !!!!!!!!

Egypt: Cenk Chides Obama For Not Being Like . . . Reagan!

By Mark Finkelstein (http://www.newsbusters.org/bios/mark-finkelstein.html) | February 02, 2011 | 20:59
It was 16 degrees warmer in my upstate New York town this morning than it was in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. If any further portent of the apocalypse is necessary, consider that on his MSNBC show this evening, Cenk Uygur compared Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan . . . and clearly came down on the side of Ronaldus Maximus.

The subject was Egypt. Uygur played the clip of Reagan's immortal "tear down this wall," and contrasted it with Obama's wan words on the need for "orderly transition" in Egypt.

View video after the jump.


Watch the video, be amused by Uygur's unmistakable upbraiding of Obama, and above all recall Reagan and remember what a real leader looked like.
CENK UYGUR: When Pres. Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in November of 2009, he said it was premature, since it was at the beginning of his work as a leader. Well, now is his chance. Mr. President, this crisis in Egypt is your opportunity to earn your Nobel Peace Prize. Barack Obama already had a sense of history when he was running for office. During his campaign, candidate Obama spoke looking towards the Brandenburg Gate, where JFK told Nikita Khrushchev we are all Berliners, and where Ronald Reagan famously challenged the Soviets. [Cut to clip.]

RONALD REAGAN: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.

UYGUR: Will Pres. Obama have his "Mr. Mubarak, tear down this regime" moment? Last night he said this. [Cut to clip.]

BARACK OBAMA: Now, it is not the role of any other country to determine Egypt's leaders. Only the Egyptian people can do that. What is clear, and what I indicated tonight to President Mubarak, is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.

UYGUR: Now, he's definitely pressuring Mubarak to leave. But does talk of "orderly transitions" reverberate throughout history? I'm not sure.

Ouch! Pres. Obama, you've been dissed. One of your normally dependable cheerleaders has compared you with Ronald Reagan, and found you weak and wanting.

[onmyknees]

Busy News Day. Hypocrites everywhere...Here's the latest one for ya Ben...Think we can call it Obsession yet ???????? LMAO

Media Washington Post Columnist Breaks His Palin Vow On Day One of Sarah-Palin-Free Month


Posted on February 2, 2011 at 4:02pm by http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/userphoto/mikeopelka.thumbnail.jpg Mike Opelka (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/author/mikeopelka/)
Print » (javascript:window.print();)
Email » (?subject=TheBlaze.com%20-%20Washington%20Post%20Columnist%20Breaks%20His%20 Palin%20Vow%20On%20Day%20One%20of%20Sarah-Palin-Free%20Month&body=I%20thought%20you%20would%20like%20this%20sto ry%20from%20TheBlaze.com%0A%0Ahttp://www.theblaze.com/stories/washington-post-columnist-breaks-his-palin-vow-on-day-one-of-sarah-palin-free-month/)




Back on January 21st of this year (11 days ago), Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank made a pledge (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/20/AR2011012004349.html) to not mention former Alaska Governor and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin for an entire month. His hope was for a “Palin free February” and he also wished that others would join him. Milbank made no secret of his intentions or motives, he wanted Sarah Palin out of the spotlight forever:

“I hereby pledge that, beginning on Feb. 1, 2011, I will not mention Sarah Palin — in print, online or on television — for one month. Furthermore, I call on others in the news media to join me in this pledge of a Palin-free February. With enough support, I believe we may even be able to extend the moratorium beyond one month, but we are up against a powerful compulsion, and we must take this struggle day by day.”
He went on to say;

“if we treat her a little less like a major political figure and a little more like Ann Coulter — a calculating individual who says shocking things to attract media attention — it won’t matter”
Pardon me? Look in the mirror Mr. Milbank or at the title of your last book, “Tears of a Clown: Glenn Beck and the Tea Bagging of America.” One could easily say that calling for a month-long media blackout of a major political figure is… the work of ”a calculating individual who says shocking things to attract media attention.” Very few in the media have lined up to sign the pledge or wear the Palin-free Promise Rings being pitched by Dana Milbank. He wrapped up the column with this final, clarifying paragraph;

“And so I pledge to you: Sarah Palin’s name will not cross my lips — or my keyboard — for the entire month of February. Who’s with me?”
Yesterday, February 1, 2011, at 3:45pm, as the rest of the world was watching for the highly anticipated statement from Egypt’s President Mubarak, Milbank posted online the following;

“I survived Day One of my February Sarah Palin moratorium (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/20/AR2011012004349.html), defeating the evil plans of ABC News’s Rick Klein. Only 27 days to go…”
Note to Mr. Milbank, putting Sarah Palin in your headline and starting the column by using her name clearly violates your pledge. You almost made it 16 hours. FAIL.

[Cuchulain]

Looks like The Young Turk didn't get the memo from Maddow, Matthews, Sargent Shultz, Brokow and the rest of the gang over there. He's new....He'll learn fast ...you WILL NOT chide Obama.........EVER !!!!!!!!


Where do you get this stuff, Breitbart?

KO, Rachel and Ed regularly voice their disappointment with Obama. Cenk (who was a repub before he saw the light) calls Obama out daily, both on MSNBC and his TYT show on the net.
YouTube - TheYoungTurks's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/u/62/i5akAf7fkqA)

[onmyknees]

Where do you get this stuff, Breitbart?

KO, Rachel and Ed regularly voice their disappointment with Obama. Cenk (who was a repub before he saw the light) calls Obama out daily, both on MSNBC and his TYT show on the net.
YouTube - TheYoungTurks's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/u/62/i5akAf7fkqA)


Perhaps a little Buyers Remorse?? Because that crew did everything except parade around the set with "Yes we can" Signs to get him elected....You might say they do it regularly, but I'd say it was ocassionally !!!!!!!!!!!

[Cuchulain]

Perhaps a little Buyers Remorse?? Because that crew did everything except parade around the set with "Yes we can" Signs to get him elected....You might say they do it regularly, but I'd say it was ocassionally !!!!!!!!!!!

You can sat whatever you want. It's still a semi-free country. However, you're saying it doesn't make it so. The various MSNBC hosts have never been shy about criticizing Obama. The first line of this TYT vid is Cenk saying "Our President continues to be a milquetoast".

YouTube - TheYoungTurks's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/u/6/b4VsYNmtzFo)

The MSNBC crew supported Obama for the same reason I did - he wasn't as bad as the alternative. That pretty much sums up my feelings about every Dem I vote for.

[onmyknees]

You can sat whatever you want. It's still a semi-free country. However, you're saying it doesn't make it so. The various MSNBC hosts have never been shy about criticizing Obama. The first line of this TYT vid is Cenk saying "Our President continues to be a milquetoast".

YouTube - TheYoungTurks's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/u/6/b4VsYNmtzFo)

The MSNBC crew supported Obama for the same reason I did - he wasn't as bad as the alternative. That pretty much sums up my feelings about every Dem I vote for.

Man...one guy got a tingle up his leg, and then told Joe Scarborough "Yes it is my job to help Obama succeed", and he's the moderate of the group !!!!!!!! With all due respect...that's revisionist history. They weren't saying he was the lesser or 2 evils in Sept and Oct. of '08...they were in full campagin mode ! I think thier ever so mild scorn for him is new found to be honest....ever since he started to move towards the center in preperation of the 2012 campaign.

[Cuchulain]

Man...one guy got a tingle up his leg, and then told Joe Scarborough "Yes it is my job to help Obama succeed", and he's the moderate of the group !!!!!!!! With all due respect...that's revisionist history. They weren't saying he was the lesser or 2 evils in Sept and Oct. of '08...they were in full campagin mode ! I think thier ever so mild scorn for him is new found to be honest....ever since he started to move towards the center in preperation of the 2012 campaign.

Change the argument as you go, eh? You said Cenk didn't get the memo to not chide Obama EVER. I correctly pointed out that they do it regularly, so now you say that they didn't do it during the campaign. Not the same thing, is it?

I don't remember every word of every MSNBC broadcast, but I'm pretty sure KO, Rachel and probably Ed had some misgivings about Obama prior to his election. I know Cenk did. Still, anyone who watched the Bush years closely would have given their right arm to get Obama elected. Even Purgatory would be a welcome relief after Hell. Rachel and Cenk's (I'm less familiar with the others) current 'mild scorn' for Barry O has been far from mild in many instances. Imo, despite his in some cases Liberal campaign rhetoric, the Pres has always been in the middle and is now moving frighteningly to the right - witness today's sucking up to the clowns at the Chamber of Commerce.

[trish]

Witness too how modern conservativism is reluctantly drawn to the Obama perspective on foreign affairs; e.g. Douthat says,

“his foreign policy has owed far more to conservative realpolitik than to any left-wing vision of international affairs.
Many Republicans have been loath to admit this. In the first year of the Obama presidency, conservatives rushed to portray the president as a weak-kneed liberal who would rather appease terrorists than fight. They accused him of abandoning the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies, taking the pressure off Iran, and playing at being president of the world while giving his own country’s interests short shrift. They insisted that his distrust of American power and doubts about American exceptionalism were making the country steadily less safe.
But this narrative never really fit the facts. On nearly every anti-terror front, from detainee policy to drone strikes, the Obama administration has been what The Washington Times’s Eli Lake calls a “9/14 presidency,” maintaining or even expanding the powers that George W. Bush claimed in the aftermath of 9/11. (Dick Cheney himself admitted as much last month[ http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=3285&NewsAreaId=2 ], effectively retracting his 2009 claim that Obama’s terrorism policies were undermining national security.) Time and again, this president has proved himself a careful custodian of both American and presidential prerogatives — and the most perceptive critics of his policies, tellingly, have been civil libertarians rather than Republican partisans.”

Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/opinion/07douthat.html

[onmyknees]

Witness too how modern conservativism is reluctantly drawn to the Obama perspective on foreign affairs; e.g. Douthat says,

“his foreign policy has owed far more to conservative realpolitik than to any left-wing vision of international affairs.
Many Republicans have been loath to admit this. In the first year of the Obama presidency, conservatives rushed to portray the president as a weak-kneed liberal who would rather appease terrorists than fight. They accused him of abandoning the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies, taking the pressure off Iran, and playing at being president of the world while giving his own country’s interests short shrift. They insisted that his distrust of American power and doubts about American exceptionalism were making the country steadily less safe.
But this narrative never really fit the facts. On nearly every anti-terror front, from detainee policy to drone strikes, the Obama administration has been what The Washington Times’s Eli Lake calls a “9/14 presidency,” maintaining or even expanding the powers that George W. Bush claimed in the aftermath of 9/11. (Dick Cheney himself admitted as much last month[ http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=3285&NewsAreaId=2 ], effectively retracting his 2009 claim that Obama’s terrorism policies were undermining national security.) Time and again, this president has proved himself a careful custodian of both American and presidential prerogatives — and the most perceptive critics of his policies, tellingly, have been civil libertarians rather than Republican partisans.”

Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/opinion/07douthat.html

So is this vindication of Bush's War on terror ????? That's not what Douthat and others were screaming around the time of the Patriot Act !

I'll conceed Obama's left some Bush Policies in place , no doubt. But what choice does he have really? He's committed in Afghanastan, NYC won't allow terror trials, nobody wants the Gitmo detainees, and the war was essentially over in Iraq when he took office. What other major foreign policy victories can you sight for this adminastration? And hold the applause for the START Treaty.

One huge difference that I'll bet the NYT omits was at the moment of truth in Iran last year when young students took to the streets in protest, Obama folded. Silent....yet he's made 3 speeches already encouranging the protestors in Egypt. Strange. Compare that to what Reagan did in Poland, and the results.

You guys tickle me....you smashed Bush every day all day on foreign and domestic policy, nothing, and I mean nothing he did was right..yet Douthat laments how we're loath to give credit to Obama, as if we're obligated to give him some credit for leaving the same policies you despised in place....What short memories, and wonderful irony you really have. Remember this gem....???
"The War is Lost" !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[trish]

Hey, don't complain to me, I just posted what the conservative wonder-boy is writing these days. The issue, if you read the last several posts of the thread, is not whether the wars were or continue to be justified or that Obama should or shouldn't be given credit for continuing them. The issue is whether Obama is a wild-eyed, radical socialist...a far left liberal...or merely a left leaning centrist. I offered the above article by a conservative centrist columnist as evidence that Obama is centrist.

[Faldur]

My vote goes to wild-eyed radical socialist.. or if you want to save some carbon "communist".

[Cuchulain]

My vote goes to wild-eyed radical socialist.. or if you want to save some carbon "communist".

What's he done to make him a wild-eyed radical socialist or a communist? Not health care reform certainly. He didn't even try for a Single Payer program, nor did he put any real effort into a public option, both of which would only be mildly socialistic. America's only socialized Medical program is the VA, and Barry O certainly didn't start that. You could say that ol' John Adams laid the groundwork for the VA when he signed the Act for the relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen, which created the Marine Hospital Service, a series of hospitals built and operated by the federal government. Was Adams a wild-eyed radical socialist?

[onmyknees]

Change the argument as you go, eh? You said Cenk didn't get the memo to not chide Obama EVER. I correctly pointed out that they do it regularly, so now you say that they didn't do it during the campaign. Not the same thing, is it?

I don't remember every word of every MSNBC broadcast, but I'm pretty sure KO, Rachel and probably Ed had some misgivings about Obama prior to his election. I know Cenk did. Still, anyone who watched the Bush years closely would have given their right arm to get Obama elected. Even Purgatory would be a welcome relief after Hell. Rachel and Cenk's (I'm less familiar with the others) current 'mild scorn' for Barry O has been far from mild in many instances. Imo, despite his in some cases Liberal campaign rhetoric, the Pres has always been in the middle and is now moving frighteningly to the right - witness today's sucking up to the clowns at the Chamber of Commerce.

I guess it's a matter of degree. I conceed he's come under
criticism, but I categorize it as mild. Sorta like a mom scolds a child..with love ! I don't watch that Turk guy...my daily allotment of MSNBC is about 8 minutes, and it's not about the politics...it's the players. And again.....The reason they're criticizing him at all is because he's moving away from the left....I've said it before...He has a progressive problem. The 20-25% of those hard left supporters are not where the vast majority of the country is...That's just a political fact. If he has any hope of viability in 2012, he has to move to the center. Do I believe that's where he wants to be??? Not for a second. So my question to you is...since the progressives were by far his most ardent supporters, (As are the Tea Party is to the Right) and NO ONE was criticizing him on any network in the year leading up to the election....was the left duped..... or did you get what you thought you were getting? ?? Because as his most ardent supporters, they're the most vocal against him at the moment.

[Cuchulain]

The reason they're criticizing him at all is because he's moving away from the left....I've said it before...He has a progressive problem. The 20-25% of those hard left supporters are not where the vast majority of the country is...That's just a political fact. If he has any hope of viability in 2012, he has to move to the center. Do I believe that's where he wants to be??? Not for a second. So my question to you is...since the progressives were by far his most ardent supporters, (As are the Tea Party is to the Right) and NO ONE was criticizing him on any network in the year leading up to the election....was the left duped..... or did you get what you thought you were getting? ?? Because as his most ardent supporters, they're the most vocal against him at the moment.

First, I'll say that, without going Google-happy and digging through the net, I've seen numerous polls showing that if you ask people about Liberal/Progressive positions, without labeling them as such, the general public gives them broad support. FOX and the radio crazies have done a great job of demonizing the term Liberal.

Did we(the Left) get what we expected? I did. I always expected Obama to be another Clinton and we all remember Greenspan saying Clinton was a pretty good republican President. I guess a lot of old posts got lost when HA switched servers, but I said that here in the poli section many times. I also said that Obama gave me hope that he might be so much more.

But Hell yeah, I think many Liberals allowed their enthusiasm to get the better of them. They were so happy to hear a candidate speaking their language that they got carried away and Hell yeah, they're angry and disillusioned now. Will he lose Progressive support in 2012? If there is a good candidate that opposes him in the primary, he'll have a fight on his hands. Will Progressives return to him after he get's the nomination because he'll be the lesser of two evils? Probably.

Has the most recent MSNBC criticism of Obama been mild? I haven't been watching the network as much since KO left. I've seen Rachel hammer him several times. I don't always catch Cenk's tv show, but I try to listen to The Young Turks on the net every day and Cenk has been pounding Obama there.

[onmyknees]

First, I'll say that, without going Google-happy and digging through the net, I've seen numerous polls showing that if you ask people about Liberal/Progressive positions, without labeling them as such, the general public gives them broad support. FOX and the radio crazies have done a great job of demonizing the term Liberal.

Did we(the Left) get what we expected? I did. I always expected Obama to be another Clinton and we all remember Greenspan saying Clinton was a pretty good republican President. I guess a lot of old posts got lost when HA switched servers, but I said that here in the poli section many times. I also said that Obama gave me hope that he might be so much more.

But Hell yeah, I think many Liberals allowed their enthusiasm to get the better of them. They were so happy to hear a candidate speaking their language that they got carried away and Hell yeah, they're angry and disillusioned now. Will he lose Progressive support in 2012? If there is a good candidate that opposes him in the primary, he'll have a fight on his hands. Will Progressives return to him after he get's the nomination because he'll be the lesser of two evils? Probably.

Has the most recent MSNBC criticism of Obama been mild? I haven't been watching the network as much since KO left. I've seen Rachel hammer him several times. I don't always catch Cenk's tv show, but I try to listen to The Young Turks on the net every day and Cenk has been pounding Obama there.

Honest post. I enjoyed it. I never not once thought of him as Clinton like , but I'm not left of center either. I can't imagine someone saying he's a moderate with respect to social issues ( abortion, spreading the wealth around, health care, big over reaching centralized government, his de-emphysis on faith based groups etc).

[onmyknees]

More diligent fact checked reporting from out main stream media folks !


http://www.mediaite.com/online/lamestream-us-weekly-presents-satirical-sarah-palin-story-as-real/

[thombergeron]

Really? Us Weekly? You're getting bent our of shape because a trashy supermarket tabloid ran a thinly sourced gossip piece on Sarah Palin?

You spend a lot of time fact-checking gossip rags? Jennifer Aniston might need your help, too.

That's... just... really... kind of.... pathetic.

[Ben]

Sarah Palin's bizarre view of the First Amendment

She blasts the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church

By Justin Elliott (http://www.salon.com/author/justin_elliott/index.html)


http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/02/palin_first_amendment/md_horiz.jpg AP/Spencer Weiner
Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin, who has more than once invoked the First Amendment when she or her allies faced criticism, today denounced the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling allowing the Westboro Baptist Church to protest outside soldiers' funerals with signs reading "“God Hates Fags" and the like.
Tweeted (http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/43004543126093824) Palin in response to the ruling:

Common sense & decency absent as wacko "church" allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers' funerals but we can't invoke God's name in public square
The second part of Palin's tweet -- the bit about invoking God -- centers on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# Text) and is really a separate issue. The ruling today on Westboro was in a classic free speech case.
Chief Justice (and conservative hero) John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, a stirring defense of free speech, even speech that is widely considered to be hurtful. From the Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html?hp=&pagewanted=all):

But under the First Amendment, he went on, "we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker." Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
...
Chief Justice Roberts used sweeping language culled from the First Amendment canon of foundational decisions in setting out the central place free speech plays in the constitutional structure. "Debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and wide-open," he wrote, because "speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values."
So Palin's counter-argument here is that "common sense" requires that offensive protests be banned.
The former Alaska governor has a history of invoking the principle of "free speech" at odd times. Here she is in October 2008 during a radio interview:

If they convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.
In response, Glenn Greenwald noted (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/10/31/palin) at the time: "The First Amendment is actually not that complicated. It can be read from start to finish in about 10 seconds. It bars the Government from abridging free speech rights. It doesn't have anything to do with whether you're free to say things without being criticized, or whether you can comment on blogs without being edited, or whether people can bar you from their private planes because they don't like what you've said."
Palin made a similar remark last year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/18/sarah-palin-supports-dr-laura_n_687148.html) when defending Dr. Laura, who retired after she faced intense criticism for using the N-word on her radio show. Palin tweeted then:

Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")
And then:

Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!
Again, Palin seemed to be equating what was (in her opinion) unfair criticism as somehow an infringement on First Amendment rights. The government, of course, had no role in forcing Dr. Laura to retire following her controversial remarks.
So to review: Under Palin's interpretation of the First Amendment, criticism of public figures threatens free speech, but peaceful protests she doesn't like should be banned.

[onmyknees]

Sarah Palin's bizarre view of the First Amendment

She blasts the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church

By Justin Elliott (http://www.salon.com/author/justin_elliott/index.html)


http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/02/palin_first_amendment/md_horiz.jpg AP/Spencer Weiner
Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin, who has more than once invoked the First Amendment when she or her allies faced criticism, today denounced the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling allowing the Westboro Baptist Church to protest outside soldiers' funerals with signs reading "“God Hates Fags" and the like.
Tweeted (http://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/43004543126093824) Palin in response to the ruling:

Common sense & decency absent as wacko "church" allowed hate msgs spewed@ soldiers' funerals but we can't invoke God's name in public square

The second part of Palin's tweet -- the bit about invoking God -- centers on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# Text) and is really a separate issue. The ruling today on Westboro was in a classic free speech case.
Chief Justice (and conservative hero) John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, a stirring defense of free speech, even speech that is widely considered to be hurtful. From the Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/03scotus.html?hp=&pagewanted=all):

But under the First Amendment, he went on, "we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker." Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
...
Chief Justice Roberts used sweeping language culled from the First Amendment canon of foundational decisions in setting out the central place free speech plays in the constitutional structure. "Debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and wide-open," he wrote, because "speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values."

So Palin's counter-argument here is that "common sense" requires that offensive protests be banned.
The former Alaska governor has a history of invoking the principle of "free speech" at odd times. Here she is in October 2008 during a radio interview:

If they convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.

In response, Glenn Greenwald noted (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2008/10/31/palin) at the time: "The First Amendment is actually not that complicated. It can be read from start to finish in about 10 seconds. It bars the Government from abridging free speech rights. It doesn't have anything to do with whether you're free to say things without being criticized, or whether you can comment on blogs without being edited, or whether people can bar you from their private planes because they don't like what you've said."
Palin made a similar remark last year (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/18/sarah-palin-supports-dr-laura_n_687148.html) when defending Dr. Laura, who retired after she faced intense criticism for using the N-word on her radio show. Palin tweeted then:

Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")

And then:

Dr.Laura=even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!

Again, Palin seemed to be equating what was (in her opinion) unfair criticism as somehow an infringement on First Amendment rights. The government, of course, had no role in forcing Dr. Laura to retire following her controversial remarks.
So to review: Under Palin's interpretation of the First Amendment, criticism of public figures threatens free speech, but peaceful protests she doesn't like should be banned.


Ben...you should have linked to Palin's tweet so I could read it myself, and not have it interpreted by someone else. Having said that, the first part of her tweet does raise some interesting inconsistencies regarding freedom of speech and expression as it relates to the Court's ruling and the use of the word god or prayer in let's say public schools. It's at least a discussion worth having and perhaps she should have made that point more discernable.

And she's not totally out in left field my friend. You should read Judge Alito's dissent. I think she was trying to relate the revoltion most of us have for the Westboro church and the respect she has as a mother of a serviceman, ( you did know that...right?) but she could have done it better....but again I did not see her full comments. I mean a first amendment argument seems a little benign to a parent trying to lay to rest a young son cut down in the prime of his life . No greater honor can a family give then a son or daughter to the cause of freedom. You do understand the emotions surrounding the argument...don't you? We all live with court decisions that we think are just flat wrong. I'm not making that argument here, but I can understand her emotion. It's a classic case of the heart versus the head.

[hippifried]

Sarah Palin's irrelevance is growing daily.

[onmyknees]

Sarah Palin's irrelevance is growing daily.


LOL..wishing it so doesn't make it factual, but then again facts are not you strong point, so I take your statement as an opinion, to which I say.....:loser:

[hippifried]

Kinda like your blather about MSNBC folding up... But that's another thread.

Let's see:
She's not running for office.
She was about 50/50 in her picks last november, & there's no evidence that she had any real influence.
She's not mentioned by anybody other than FOX or the flapping gums on AM radio, as anything but the brunt of a joke.
She'd be faded off this board altogether if not for you & your alter-ego Ben.
So... How's she relevant?

[beandip]

SP will be the next POTUS. Count on it. The fix is in. It matters not to me because all Presidents are bought and paid for.....look at Obummer. Without exception he went against every single item he campaigned on.

I just want SP to win so I can have a POTUS I can fap too. That......and it'll piss off Libtards to no end.

[trish]

SP can't even spell POTUS let alone tell you what one is.

[Ineeda SM]

SP can't even spell POTUS let alone tell you what one is.

She does now because she wrote it on the palm of her hand after she saw one in Russia from her back yard. She is now trying to deal a foriegn trade policy with it.

[onmyknees]

SP can't even spell POTUS let alone tell you what one is.

No...but I'm quite sure she can spell TWAT, even if Bill Maher can't. Each and every day my thesis is confirmed that folks like you, Bill Maher, and Tingles Matthews have a twisted obsession with her.

So...if SP is a twat according to Maher, and the women's groups and the far left are silent to this type of discourse ....( because they obviously agree) What then will you say when Limbaugh rakes Michelle over the coals ? I'm sure you'll remain silent because you're so even handed...right?
It smells of hypocracy in here again. I'm about to leave the room !! LMAO

[trish]

No...but I'm quite sure she can spell TWATYeah, but she thinks it's the past tense of TWEET.

[south ov da border]

yeah, but she thinks it's the past tense of tweet.
zing!

[onmyknees]

Yeah, but she thinks it's the past tense of TWEET.


Cute, but as usual misses the point....which is now, as it always has been....foul mouthed liberal hypocrates.
I think you libs use her to mask your dissatisfaction with your chosen one...you know.......the Nobel Peace Prize Winner and the new war monger ! NO BOOD FOR OIL....wasn't that the progressive battle cry for 8 years of Bushie Middle East interventions? Funny how things come around to bite you in the ass ! LMAO

How's that closing of Gitmo workin' out for ya ?? :dancing:

[trish]

I don't think Hippocrates was foul mouthed or liberal.

[Ineeda SM]

How come every time a liberal makes fun of something stupid that Sarah did or said, conservatives have to come back with childish comments aimed at all liberals?

SP remembers by writing notes on her hand. She explains that her foriegn policy experience is because Alaska is next to Russia and she can see it from he back yard. She said every time Putin travels to America, he comes over her state.(Even though he goes from Moscow on a plane across Europe and the Atlantic ocean because it's a much shorter route). When asked simply what she reads to keep up on current events, she can't answer because she doesn't want to admit she doesn't read anything. She would have been better off if she lied and just popped out the names of a few known newspapers. She said that John Adams (Our 2nd president) was a major player to the end of slavery, even though John Adams had been dead for a few decades when slavery was abolished.........

I could go on and on with all of the stupid things SP has said and done. Sarah is the one who did and said them. Not us liberals. She has proved to the world what a dullard she is with her own words and actions. She didn't get her bad rep from us liberals. She got it all by herself with her own mouth and actions. So why jump on liberals for mentioning them? That's just childish.

And the worse part is when conservatives can only fire back at liberals with lies about other liberals instead of just owning up to the truth about Sarah. They just make up shit out of thin air just to respond in a nasty way. Can you imagine if Obama had said his foriegn policy experience was because his home in Chicago was next to Canada, and he could see it from his back yard? Or if during an interview he had to look at his hand to remember a name of an important person? He would have been crucified by every republican in the country throughout the entire campaign and beyond.

Sarah is just Sarah. She is who she is. In private she may be the nicest person you could ever want to know. But as a politician, she is totally clueless fer sure. Why can't conservatives just stop and admit that she wasn't the best choice for McCain, and be done with it, then move on. Shit, I hope she does run for president and becomes the republican nominee. Obama would be a shoe-in. He wouldn't even have to campaign hard. SP is the best thing to happen to the democratic party since Dan Quayle.

[Ineeda SM]

Cute, but as usual misses the point....which is now, as it always has been....foul mouthed liberal hypocrates.
I think you libs use her to mask your dissatisfaction with your chosen one...you know.......the Nobel Peace Prize Winner and the new war monger ! NO BOOD FOR OIL....wasn't that the progressive battle cry for 8 years of Bushie Middle East interventions? Funny how things come around to bite you in the ass ! LMAO

How's that closing of Gitmo workin' out for ya ?? :dancing:

Are you actually comparing the illegal war that Bush started with lies and false evidence, going against the UN and the world, killed almost 5,000 Americans, just so he could impress his daddy,... to our involvement as one part of a UN and world sanctioned action against a psycho dictator who was about to slaughter a few million of his own people to stay in power? Did I get that right?

And how is Obama a war monger? He didn't start the attacks in Libya. France and the UK were the first to bomb anything for the whole first day.

You say we use SP as a mask to hide our choice of Obama. Do you even read what you post? Are you closely related to Sarah? Your logic (?) is starting to sound like hers. Every lie you invent to badmouth Obama and us liberals makes you sound like Sarah. That's what she does. I'll bet you still think the health care bill has death panels that will pull the plug on grandma, and that Obama is not American born. You and Sarah should be close friends. You could compare bull shit lies together and make up some new things instead of the same old lies you've been spreading.

Remember who built Gitmo, and why. It was your boy King George. If King George would have kept our ass out of Iraq in the first place like he should have done, there wouldn't be a Gitmo jail.

[Faldur]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/2852142216_8b0ff8b02b.jpg

[Prospero]

The view of Sarah from over here would be one of the best comedies to come from the US in years - if the prospect of her actually becoming POTUS didn't make us all quake. I recall peple saying you couldn't get a worse president than Nixon and you gave us Reagan, that he was the worst and then you delivered Bush. Keep em coming. The USA and free world is still suffering from the insane Foreign policies of Dubya in the Mid East (to which our little PM Blair was an eloquent and squeaky cheerleader).

[Ineeda SM]

The view of Sarah from over here would be one of the best comedies to come from the US in years - if the prospect of her actually becoming POTUS didn't make us all quake. I recall peple saying you couldn't get a worse president than Nixon and you gave us Reagan, that he was the worst and then you delivered Bush. Keep em coming. The USA and free world is still suffering from the insane Foreign policies of Dubya in the Mid East (to which our little PM Blair was an eloquent and squeaky cheerleader).

Looks like you UK boys got us figured out. Many of us here are not proud of the republican party senators, governors, and presidents here. Reagan taught the republicans to use absolute lies and propaganda the way the Nazis did in the late 30's Germany. And there is enough stupid easy to brainwash people in this country to listen to them. We used to be a nation of very smart people destined to be great leaders of the world. But not anymore. Greed and power is the main goal of republican party politics in America. We were equally disappointed at Mr. Blair as his nose was planted firmly up Bush's ass. I hope your new PM serves the UK people well.

[Silcc69]

I jsut Michelle Bachmann on C-Span and man she can get it along with Pailn. They do have some nice lookin white woman over there.

[Ben]

http://images.findlaw.com/writ/john.dean.jpg (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean) Sarah Palin and The Dumbing Down of the American Presidency

By JOHN W. DEAN
(http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean) Monday, November 29, 2010 Sarah Palin's new book was written for two reasons: to make money for the author (and publisher) and as a paean to her loyal supporters (who will surely buy a copy for themselves and a copy to give as a Christmas gift). If you have not noticed, Mrs. Palin is on a sixteen-state book tour. Given her racially-tinged attacks on President Obama in the book -- proving to her base that she will play the race card that other politicians will not -- many believe this is Sarah's opening salvo for a 2012 presidential run.
I disagree. So allow me a few preliminary thoughts about the coming presidential-election cycle, which is just now getting underway.
What Is Sarah Palin Doing?
I don't believe that Sarah Palin has a clue what she is doing -- other than making easy money, and more of it than she ever dreamed she might, by cashing in on her celebrity. She keeps those dollars coming her way by flirting with a presidential bid, for she is very savvy, and she knows that by playing this game, she keeps herself relevant, as well as in the news. I reached this conclusion just before the Thanksgiving holiday, when the New York Times Magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/magazine/21palin-t.html) did about as favorable a profile of Palin as she has received from any mainstream news outlet that is not owned by Rupert Murdoch.
The author of the Times piece, Robert Draper, a Texas-raised freelance writer who had done a largely favorable history of the Bush II presidency, appears to have had good access to Palin. Draper's kindly look at Palin, however, actually reveals that she is no more prepared (or qualified) to run a presidential race now than she was to run her vice- presidential race two years ago. While Palin clearly has the outsized personality and ego that are necessary for a person to want to attain the highest office in the land, she is conspicuously lacking in presidential skills. If she could get the GOP nomination without a fight, or with just a little fracas, she would take it. But she has yet to show the stuff that is truly needed to win a nomination.
More importantly, too, Palin has shown -- as several Nixon biographers have mentioned to me since she entered the political arena in 2008 -- a decidedly Nixonian nature. But as one historian, who understands Nixon well, noted, Palin has "all Nixon's downsides without his upside, because she lacks his knowledge and intellect." I agree.
In truth, it is way too early to know what might happen in 2012. But it is not too early to think about the good, the bad, and the ugly of a Sarah Palin run for the presidency.
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly Of A Palin Presidential Bid
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, and Jeb Bush have all agreed that rather than fight with "momma grizzly," they will help her get the nomination and win the contest with President Obama. (If you think that could really happen, then you have overdosed on tryptophan at Thanksgiving dinner, but we're only being hypothetical now, to get Sarah nominated for illustrative purposes.)
Some good would come of this, as follows: Vice President Joe Biden would likely become Secretary of State, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would surely become President Obama's running mate, as the vice-presidential nominee. This would nullify the gender issue, not to mention place in the contest a woman who is fully capable of taking over the presidency. Hillary would make Sarah appear second-rate, and the race would be over before it began. Moreover, Hillary's showing would very likely make her an even more viable future candidate.
The bad that would come from a Palin presidential bid, however, is that it would cheapen the office of the presidency. George W. Bush pushed his own brand of anti-intellectualism during his 2000 and 2004 presidential races. Unfortunately, that stance did not end with Bush's election and reelection; rather, he made this attitude part of his presidency. This is a troubling trend that has been growing since the Reagan years --as Elvin T. Lim has described in his book The Anti-Intellectual Presidency: The Decline of Presidential Rhetoric from George Washington to George Bush (http://books.google.com/books?id=2ZTBVCsTAB4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Elvin+T.+Lim,+The+Anti-Intellectual+Presidency:+The+Decline+of+Presidenti al+Rhetoric+from+George+Washington+to+George+Bush&source=bl&ots=UNfg25bOvw&sig=kx4TmbVOYJOytBZyJlzCLJ4iCeg&hl=en&e). In short, a serious presidential bid by Palin would be a dumbing down of the presidency.
Finally, to complete our analysis of the good, the bad and the ugly, the ugly is what would follow a Palin candidacy. Such a race would be about as divisive as imaginable, because her supporters -- those Tea Party folks who are not always reasonable, and who keep talking about Second Amendment solutions and revolution -- do not care that she is totally unqualified for the job. Yet an overwhelming majority of Americans (between 67 percent (http://thepage.time.com/2010/10/29/poll-two-thirds-say-palin-unqualified-to-be-president/) and 71 percent (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/28/cnn-poll-71-say-palins-unqualified-to-be-president/)) currently believe Palin is not qualified to be president. If she runs, there will an ugly standoff between die-hard Palin supporters and everyone else.
Do Not Worry About Sarah
Barbara Bush has it right: Palin should stay in Alaska -- at least for now. She is making millions upon millions of dollars. She can run her lucrative celebrity scheme for a couple of election cycles, and in 2016, she might be a viable candidate. She is learning now about the real world. She is doing some serious reading. She is not stupid, just more interested for the moment in making money while taking shots at the opposition from the sidelines, rather than entering the playing field.
To pursue the presidency, Palin needs to get serious and become somewhat more mainstream. A presidential race is not a reality show. Helping the GOP presidential candidate in 2012, and devoting herself to another round of boosting House and Senate candidates in 2012 and 2014, could stand her in good stead in 2016. Being a radical gets you the support of only about 25 percent of the voters -- those folks who would elect anyone who told them what they want to hear.
No one can win the presidency or govern the nation, however, with 25-percent support, particularly when that support is from those holding the most extreme views about government. But Palin can get a real education while playing the role she has assumed. For now, she would be quite smart to continue playing that role. Not only will it make her a fortune, so that she and her family will always live well, but it would also prepare her for a serious run for the presidency, ensuring that she would enter the arena after she has paid her dues, and acquired a true understanding of what is involved in governing the nation.
Do Worry About The American Presidency
We must stop encouraging candidates who require the dumbing down of the job of the nation's chief executive, because in the real world -- and I have been there -- you must know what you are doing (or be a very fast learner) to deal with the myriad difficult, and sometimes novel, issues that reach a president's desk. It is a tremendous challenge to face the day-to-day grind of running that office in a manner that actually serves the nation and the world.
My greatest worry with Barack Obama when he ran in 2008 was that if he won, he would not really be ready to govern. While he has great talent, desire, and intellect, he entered the job with little real experience. As is now clear, my concerns were well-placed, for he is still learning on the job, and he has yet to realize his great potential. Experience is needed not merely because the job is difficult and complex, but also due to the nature of the contemporary presidency.
There has been a pattern in recent history that goes as follows: We elect a conspicuously-able president and he does not magically cure all the nation's ills (for instance, Bill Clinton). Then, we elect a new president (for instance, George W. Bush) who is not so able, and who not only fails to solve all the problems before him, but also creates new problems. What no one seems to notice, in this pattern, is that the able presidents spend most of their time cleaning up the mess of their predecessors who were not so able. Thus, in dumbing the office down, we are creating a legacy of increasing the unsolved problems that call for presidential attention.
One thing I am confident Sarah Palin could do as President of the United States, and I find the thought of that prospect horrifying, would be to make a terrible (if not fatal) mess of things. She is not prepared to solve problems that have accumulated over the years. Nor would she be up to the task of governing, even if President Obama were somehow able to solve those inherited problems before he departed -- which will not happen either. It takes more than a 140-character tweet to be president.

[arnie666]

The view of Sarah from over here would be one of the best comedies to come from the US in years - if the prospect of her actually becoming POTUS didn't make us all quake. I recall peple saying you couldn't get a worse president than Nixon and you gave us Reagan, that he was the worst and then you delivered Bush. Keep em coming. The USA and free world is still suffering from the insane Foreign policies of Dubya in the Mid East (to which our little PM Blair was an eloquent and squeaky cheerleader).

Actually most people that I speak to don't even know who Sarah Palin is, the BBC of course with it's biased newsreporting are always going to dislike Palin just like they do other republican politicians and figureheads. So I expect due to how thick many people are over here they will just read what the BBC or some guardian hippy says about her and believe it!

Although they do know who Barack Obama is, people disliked Bush but with Obama it is a different kind of dislike.The only president who people liked in quite recent times was Bill clinton.Everyone loved bill. The media became more critical of Obama after his election due to some of his well publicised gaffes and blunders that did make him seem anti British.Then it all came out about his grandfather who was 'tortured' by us.

In reality he was flogged for stealing rifles,a common punishment in those days given out to native thiefs .There was no torture ,he was given a flogging. Indeed,in the UK at the time thiefs were flogged and not for anything as serious as stealing firearms . So I suspect his grandfather somewhat sexed up his encounters with the British to Obama. There was his non support over the falklands despite the fact those who live there want to determine their own futures.

People just see Obama as carrying on the policies of Bush,with an anti British resentment mixed in. And no one sees his wife michelle as a 'beauty' but a manly looking transvestite. In fact under Bush while people hated him,thought he was stupid people hated Blair more for taking the country into wars that may not have been in British interest (we will never know for sure having no access to intel our wonderful leaders had and have) .But under Obama, I hear talk of how the special relationship is dead, (the special relationship was quite one sided anyway, more valued by the Brits) but under Obama the reality has hit home.

Thats what I get from British people who don't read the guardian. In a way Obama might be good for us ,in that we become more independent ,however knowing our politicians distance from America will just push us further into the arms of the EU.

I just find it quite amusing that people rant on and on about Palin when she is no longer governor and is just a talking head right now on fox news, and doing trips to israel and india as well of deciding whether to run in the republican primary. Yes the republican primary, where I predict they might as well bring a big spit to roast people on as it will be brutal.There is huge tension in the ranks right now. She has not even declared she is running yet and if she does she will have an uphill battle to get on the ticket. In fact all candidates will as they all have their detractors.

People would rather talk about the sideshow of Palin and not about a very inept president who has no clue what he is doing when there is huge international turmoil , and trying to remain as hidden as possible. Who I have a conspiracy theory that after the dems did so poorly in the past election, was told to take a back seat and the clintons are running things as the dems want a second term.Which is a gamble in itself.

[arnie666]

I jsut Michelle Bachmann on C-Span and man she can get it along with Pailn. They do have some nice lookin white woman over there.


I have noticed for some reason in the states there are many goodlooking conservative women out there as politicians or commentators. Michelle Malkin is another one. On fox even the female lawyers they get on there are pretty, leggy and blonde. Can't say the same for the left.

That is not the case in this country. female politicos on all sides ,left and right are dog rough.

YouTube - Who Let the Dogs out??- Baha men Original version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He82NBjJqf8)

[arnie666]

SP will be the next POTUS. Count on it. The fix is in. It matters not to me because all Presidents are bought and paid for.....look at Obummer. Without exception he went against every single item he campaigned on.

I just want SP to win so I can have a POTUS I can fap too. That......and it'll piss off Libtards to no end.

While I do like what I have seen of Palin, I under no illusions that she has political ambitions and just like those who supported Obama found when he was elected you might not get what he and his campaign team said you would get. Of course they make out ,all the libs had unreasonable expectations of Obama, and 'man at least he isn't Bush or that doddery half mad mcain',when it was him and his campaign team with the help of the media that made him out to be a god and the man who will bring 'hope' and 'change'. I think this is why the left,represented well by many on this forum attack Palin to this day,because deep down they know they were lied too and now feel stupid.


So if there was a Palin presidency, I wouldn't be all that surprised if all the big talk turns into a bit of a damp squib. That is why the left should not be that afraid of her. The sinister string pullers in the background will get to her like they have Obama,so the change will be not much.If they haven't already. But she might surprise, she is very headstrong and has a history of not following the party line. One of the reasons I like her and the republican establishment don't.She isn't that easy to control.

So in any event I agree, might as well have someone pretty as a figure head who annoys the hell out of the left. The world is fucked anyway doesn't matter who is in charge.

[Ineeda SM]

I have noticed for some reason in the states there are many goodlooking conservative women out there as politicians or commentators. Michelle Malkin is another one. On fox even the female lawyers they get on there are pretty, leggy and blonde. Can't say the same for the left.


Female GOP politicians are chosen for their beauty to catch your eye. Also they are rich and can afford to look good. All of the females on FoxGOP channel are hired because they are sexy. They are actresses just reading the scripts that are written for them. They know that sex sells in America.

The women in the democratic party are real life people who actually look like real life people. By the way, have you seen the hot women anchors on MSNBC and CNN? They are babes, but real jurnalists that have been in news for a while. They are not acting. They write their own on-air reports.

MSNBC and CNN are real news channels. CNN is owned by TimeWarner/Turner, and is very in the middle politically. The usually just tell the good and bad about both parties.

MSNBC is a co-venture of NBC news and Microsoft. NBC news is owned by NBC/Universal who is now owned 51% by Comcast. NBC has always been left of center, and Microsoft owned by Bill Gates is a rich republican. But Comcast is also known for being right of center. So there is some balance in news, but their prime time anchors are obviously left of center. But when they see a liberal making mistakes, they don't hesitate to point it out loudly. So they ARE objective.

Fox news is owned and operated by Rupert Murdock. An extreme right winger who owns several rag newspapers and all of the FOX movie, TV and sports networks. Murdock gives a million dollars each year to the GOP, and uses his Fox News channel as nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the GOP. Murdock has a team that checks all Fox news scripts before they air live.

And now you know the rest of the story.

[Faldur]

Ineeda if you indeed believe that, sir you are a complete idiot.

[Ineeda SM]

Ineeda if you indeed believe that, sir you are a complete idiot.

Really? Which part is not true, and prove it?

[Faldur]

Really? Which part is not true, and prove it?

"MSNBC and CNN are real news channels. So they ARE objective."

To have MSNBC and the word objective in the same post is all the proof I need. Oh wait I think that was a tingle that just shot up my leg.

[Ineeda SM]

"MSNBC and CNN are real news channels. So they ARE objective."

To have MSNBC and the word objective in the same post is all the proof I need. Oh wait I think that was a tingle that just shot up my leg.

Just saying it is what you think, is not proof of a statement with nothing to back it up. For you to say that, only proves you never really watch MSNBC. Your response is based on that fact that you are a right winger, and nothing a liberal says could ever be true, even if you didn't hear them say it. You can say you have watched MSNBC, but it's obviously not true. If you did, you would know better. The only proof is in actually listening to MSNBC and hearing it for your self.

There is no question that the anchors on MSNBC obviously lean left. No argument here. But they do something that Fox anchors are not allowed to do. And that is, MSNBC anchors will put any democrat over the fire if they are wrong. On many occasions, Chris, Rachel, Ed, Lawrence, Dylan, and Keith when he was still there, had raked Obama and other dems over the coals for not acting, or over reacting. During the end of the campaign, the MSNBC crew was practically telling Hillary to get out while she still had some dignity. I watched Chris Mathews grill democrats over and over until they gave a straight answer to his question. Dylan Rattigan is a conspiracy nut who clearly and openly hates both parties, and all politicians. He jumps Obama everyday. When Bill Clinton got a blow job from Monica, the MSNBC crew was all over Bill for being so stupid. That kind of objectivity about any republican would NEVER be allowed on FoxGOP.

Being objective means that no matter how you lean to one side, you can put your personal feelings aside and say what needs to be said against them when they deserve it. The MSNBC anchors do this often.

If you have ever watched CNN at all, you would clearly see that their anchors don't really promote one side over the other. They report the news as it has happened. The way Wolf Blitzer talks, I am sure he is a conservative. The same about John King.

At least the anchors on MSNBC and CNN are real journalists who are well known in the news business and write their own reports. All of the people on FoxGOP are entertainers and personalities that have never been in news. They are acting and reading scripts that are written by republican script writers.

If one FoxGOP channel anchor were to speak out against any republican or GOP policy, Rupert Murdock would fire them instantly. They all have to follow the partyline scripts. That is a fact. The UN and the world declared Bush's Iraq war illegal. Every media outlet and news channel agreed and openly said so. Except FoxGOP channel of course. They were not allowed to call it an illegal war. They and the right wing radio freaks were the only news media defending it with lies and bull shit.

[Ben]

I'm starting to grasp the appeal of Sarah Palin: she's very telegenic.

YouTube - Sarah Palin: Donald Trump Is Being Treated Unfairly In The Press (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wyO2WbVjOI)

[Ben]

This is the focal point of politics -- or political theater: concentrate on a single issue. And repeat. Ad nauseum.
That's the essence of advertising. And politics is run by the advertising industry.

YouTube - Donald Trump, Sarah Palin Unite Over Obama Birth Certificate Issue (04.11.11) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ6TdBldJd0)

[onmyknees]

Just saying it is what you think, is not proof of a statement with nothing to back it up. For you to say that, only proves you never really watch MSNBC. Your response is based on that fact that you are a right winger, and nothing a liberal says could ever be true, even if you didn't hear them say it. You can say you have watched MSNBC, but it's obviously not true. If you did, you would know better. The only proof is in actually listening to MSNBC and hearing it for your self.

There is no question that the anchors on MSNBC obviously lean left. No argument here. But they do something that Fox anchors are not allowed to do. And that is, MSNBC anchors will put any democrat over the fire if they are wrong. On many occasions, Chris, Rachel, Ed, Lawrence, Dylan, and Keith when he was still there, had raked Obama and other dems over the coals for not acting, or over reacting. During the end of the campaign, the MSNBC crew was practically telling Hillary to get out while she still had some dignity. I watched Chris Mathews grill democrats over and over until they gave a straight answer to his question. Dylan Rattigan is a conspiracy nut who clearly and openly hates both parties, and all politicians. He jumps Obama everyday. When Bill Clinton got a blow job from Monica, the MSNBC crew was all over Bill for being so stupid. That kind of objectivity about any republican would NEVER be allowed on FoxGOP.

Being objective means that no matter how you lean to one side, you can put your personal feelings aside and say what needs to be said against them when they deserve it. The MSNBC anchors do this often.

If you have ever watched CNN at all, you would clearly see that their anchors don't really promote one side over the other. They report the news as it has happened. The way Wolf Blitzer talks, I am sure he is a conservative. The same about John King.

At least the anchors on MSNBC and CNN are real journalists who are well known in the news business and write their own reports. All of the people on FoxGOP are entertainers and personalities that have never been in news. They are acting and reading scripts that are written by republican script writers.

If one FoxGOP channel anchor were to speak out against any republican or GOP policy, Rupert Murdock would fire them instantly. They all have to follow the partyline scripts. That is a fact. The UN and the world declared Bush's Iraq war illegal. Every media outlet and news channel agreed and openly said so. Except FoxGOP channel of course. They were not allowed to call it an illegal war. They and the right wing radio freaks were the only news media defending it with lies and bull shit.

The only reason the anchors "rake democrats over the coals" as you put it is because they're not far enough left....it's not from any sense of fairplay, and the reason they were pounding Hillary was they wanted a clear path for thier chosen one. And I'm convinced Matthews is schizophrenic. He told Jay Leno with a straight face that he doesn't want to get into the partisan battles and wants to be seen as non partisan. Does this fucking guy ever watch his own show? I have no problem whatsoever with thier deep ideological bent...I have the freedom to change the channel, and usually do as do most Americans, but please don't try to pass them off as reporters or neutral observers. That's fucking insulting. And they're not even good at what they do. Every show is in 3rd or 4th place behing the Home Shopping Channel for christ sakes. You like 'em? Fine ...fill your belly with second rate talent as you please, but let's not pretend they're something they're not. I'm starting to see what your affliction is. You have no sence of proportionality. You get spoon fed hour after hour of one sided bilge by such heavyweights as Sergeant Shultz, and you start believing it as fact.


And you're so ill informed it's actually becoming tedious. Certainly Fox comes at issues with a conservative slant on their opinion shows, just as the NY Times comes at issues with a liberal slant, but to say they can't speak out against Republicans for fear of losing their jobs is laughable. Shep Smith does it nightly. And by the way....It's Roger Ailes who runs that network for your information. Rupert Murdoch is hardly monitoring Bill O'reilly to be sure he tows the party line . Get a fucking clue.
Think CNN plays it down the middle? Ask Lou Dobbs. Outside of John King they're partners in crime with MSNBC. There isn't one conservative that works at that network. You can look on conservative talk radio with disdain, and probably do...but they're straight up about thier views and thier ajenda and don't try to pretend they're non partisan. You are what you are. Not that you will, but you should read Bernie Goldberg's book, "A Slobbering Love Affair". In it he factually chronicles with footnotes the cheerleading of MSNBC, CNN and the press during the campaign. Or you can continue to be deluded by lapdogs and sycophants...it's a free country.

[onmyknees]

Well Ben...Most Liberals don't share your transormation, in fact they're so blinded by hate, they've stooped to attacking her learning disable toddler. Classy bunch those libs!

Liberal Wonkette Editor Comments on Reprehensible Birthday Greeting to Trig Palin

» 133 comments (aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#comments)
by Tommy Christopher (http://www.mediaite.com/author/tommy-christopher/) | 5:09 pm, April 20th, 2011
Update: Wonkette’s editor responds later in the post, but also, a reader hilariously bought the domain name JackStuef.com (http://jackstuef.com/), which now redirects to the National Down Syndrome Society donation page. Lemons into lemonade.
Political humor website Wonkette has long been trending toward nihilistic snark for snark’s sake, but Jack Stuef’s column “honoring” Trig Palin’s birthday (http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-internets-understandable-fury-over-wonkettes-inappropriate-trig-palin-birthday-post/) is about the most irredeemably vile, unfunny thing I’ve ever seen. As if jokes about Trig’s Down Syndrome aren’t bad enough on their own, Stuef goes the extra mile to pen kneeslappers about incest, child rape, and fetal alcohol syndrome. I don’t want to reproduce too much of it here, but this quote is fairly representative:

Today is the day we come together to celebrate the snowbilly grifter’s magical journey from Texas to Alaska to deliver to the America the great gentleman scholar Trig Palin. Is Palin his true mother? Or was Bristol? (And why is it that nobody questions who the father is? Because, either way, Todd definitely did it.)
Hey, that’s really funny, calling Trig a gentleman scholar because he has Down Syndrome. And the speculation that Todd Palin may have raped his daughter? Pure comedy gold. You know what will be even funnier? The first time Jack Stuef runs into Todd Palin. That one practically writes its own punchline.
When I first heard about this, I was, of course, outraged. Who wouldn’t be? I’ve read a lot of offensive things (http://dailydose.us/2009/07/03/huffpo-statement-on-the-deleted-huffington-post-story/) in my career (and even been fired over them (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/05/was-aol-reporter-tommy-ch_n_211837.html)), but I am hard-pressed to think of anything that comes close to this. If there is any expression of disgust that I have failed to convey, consider this my signature on it.
That is not to say that edginess, and even poor taste, have no place in political writing. One of the most famous pieces of political satire ever was basically A Modest Proposal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal). George Carlin set out to prove that cancer is funny, and succeeded. Those examples, though, had redeeming value beyond their shock value.
I emailed Wonkette Chief Editor Ken Layne to see if he had any comment, or if Wonkette intended to take the post down. Here was his response:

On whose account are you requesting that Jack Stuef remove a post mocking Sarah Palin’s well-documented use of her special needs child as a political prop? Is this coming from Mediaite? Which editor?
Apparently, Layne (and presumably, Stuef) think it’s okay to attack a baby if they have a good reason not to like his mom. The logic seems to be that by attacking Trig, they’re demonstrating why Palin shouldn’t have put Trig “out there.” It’s definitely not a cheap pretext to do retard and rape jokes.
I responded, “I’m not asking THAT you remove it, just if you’re going to.”
He hasn’t answered back, so I guess that’s a no. That’s not surprising. Wonkette’s entire brand is staked on pure, unapologetic id, so taking down a post because people found it offensive would be completely self-canceling. (full disclosure: Layne and I worked on the same blog a few years ago, AOL’s Political Machine. Ironically, his column was called “Ken Layne’s Outrage (http://www.politicsdaily.com/category/ken-laynes-outrage/).”)
The beautiful thing about the First Amendment, though, is that everybody gets it. Wonkette gets to publish what it wants, and people get to express what they think about it. On principle, I’m not even in favor of campaigns like the one that was mounted against Playboy when I was fired from Politics Daily. I don’t want anyone to censor themselves based on public pressure, but rather, to do the right thing because it’s the right thing.
If Ken Layne really believes in retard jokes as a vehicle for the public good, he should absolutely stand by them, and I’ll stand where I stand.
Update: Layne responds to my second email:

So Mediaite wants you to encourage political satire websites to remove items that offend those who support the targets of the mockery? That seems awfully strange for Mediaite. Which editor is encouraging this, is what I’m asking.
My response:

Well, Ken, I’m not doing that, and I find it strange that you think a baby has supporters and opponents, but I get your underlying question. This story was not assigned to me, I chose it. I asked you for comment, and whether you were taking it down, in the interest of presenting your side of the story. You can reach my editor here
Great. I guess I’m in a feud with Ken Layne now. Get in line (http://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/statuses/60415456678383617), pal.
Update 2: I’ve received another reply from Ken Layne, and in the interest of fairness, I’m going to include my response to him. Two things about that: First, there’s some strong language.
Second, I divulge to Layne that I’m the parent of two special needs children. I don’t generally include that information in my commentaries (and didn’t intend to here) because I don’t wish to use that fact to gain moral authority, or to be emotionally manipulative. I believe an argument should stand on its own merit. I include it here because it would be unfair to Layne to publish his responses, and not my own.
Here’s Ken Layne’s response to me:
But there’s already a Mediaite story, which is why I’m asking what Mediaite’s interest is in having a post taken down.

You *honestly* don’t know of the Palin fanatics’ Cult of Trig? I find that hard to believe, if you’ve been on the Internet before. In any case, spend a day at Team Sarah and then try to tell us there’s no Cult of Trig. Where do you think the pictures and poems Jack always mocks comes from? (He links to them.)
And my response to him:

I told you, I’m writing a piece of commentary, and wanted to present your side of the story. I guess you have. My interest in writing commentary is that I was deeply offended by the piece, and as the father of two special needs children, felt compelled to write about it. You and Jack think your satirical point redeems the vile child-fucking and retard jokes, I disagree.
Update 3: Ken Layne responds again, and concedes that targeting Trig was wrong, but isn’t all that apologetic, otherwise. Here’s his response in full. I will add my response once I’ve sent it:

Oh I didn’t follow this very well, sorry! Trying to read mail on my phone.
Well, you should obviously write your opinion about it. I don’t care for Jack’s reaching here, because whatever the meta-satire it’s going to be lost with Palin fans riled up about Trig. I have, in fact, admonished Jack about this. Write about Sarah Palin, yes. And we should always — it is a *moral duty* — show how reprehensible it is to be using *any baby* and especially a special needs baby as a political prop. That is gross, and sane people know it’s gross. It is not even worth mocking the very creepy “Cult of Trig” on the Team Sarah website, because how can you do that and *guarantee* that you’re not mocking the kid? Who will vouch for such a guarantee? Nuance is not exactly a common reading-comprehension skill in this country. So I have told Jack to cool it with that, you just have to make things so clear when writing about *certain subjects* because who wants to waste 3 hours on email about this? It’s not like those people are readers of Wonkette. It’s not like they’re going to suddenly become fans of a leftist website utterly dedicated to mocking the fringe right.
I have been editing and writing for political satire websites for 15 years, including on AOL where not a single AOL subscriber ever had *any idea* what I was doing and the whole point was to drum up as many insane comments as possible. People are going to act outraged about things on the internet. I’m pretty sure you are aware of this, if you work on the internet. And with two kids of my own and another on the way, I am obviously a great fan of children, especially mine. And I respect the rights of children to not be mocked on the internet just because their mom is a cow-demon. It’s not the kid’s fault. Who gets to pick their parents? I sure didn’t.
As for taking down the post, as you know on the internet there is no “taking down the post.” Why even try that? So people like you can get another freelance internet column out of it by feigning outrage again? (“They tried to take down the post, but we found it on Google cache!”) There is nothing in “political media” approaching even the most basic intellectual honesty, so why would any website fall for that “You should take down the post” thing? Wouldn’t that be crazy? So of course you never take down a post. But in this case, like all such cases over the decades, you sometimes put a note on the post apologizing for offending anyone, and making it clear that your target is Sarah Palin, an empty grifter and dollar-chaser and tabloid-fame monster with a delusional following of poor white people who somehow think her interests converge in any way with their interests. It is certainly not about her innocent child.
By reading this email, you agree to post the entire thing in your Mediaite post.
Update 4: My response to Ken Layne: (again with the language)

Ken,
I want to thank you, sincerely, for responding. The outcome you’re suggesting is just about perfect. I could give a shit what you do to Jack. If your response, and his punishment, are merely to avoid wasting time on email, rather than out of a suddenly-learned sense of decency, then this will surely happen again. I don’t think that’s really the case, though. Being who you are, and writing where you write, you have to stay “in character,” so you can’t very well go all Jimmy Swaggart on me. I think (or hope) that despite your Wonkettitude, you and Jack have learned some empathy today.
I also agree that most of the people who were offended by this probably don’t read Wonkette. I do, or did, but most probably do not. I’m also not a big fan of advertiser boycotts, for the same reason. I don’t want a bunch of people who hate what I love deciding what I can or can’t see on the interweb, or the TeeVee, or those paper thingies. I think ideas should liver or die on the merits. As a longtime satirist myself, I understand the special thrill you can derive from people who don’t get the joke. They’re better than the ones who do. Just so we’re clear, I got the joke here. I just found it lacking. Lacking in humor, decency, or even a coherent satirical premise.
You’re also right, there is no “taking down the post,” and even though I realize you’re in character, fuck you very much for this: “So people like you can get another freelance internet column out of it by feigning outrage again?”
Imagine it was a child just like one of your two (soon to be three) kids who were attacked here. Maybe if I was a dick Wonkette writer, I’d think you were an oversensitive pussy for getting your booty-shorts in a twist, but as a fellow parent, I wouldn’t assume you were just a craven opportunist. You think I relished the thought of emailing a former colleague like this? You think I want to be in a feud with the Inglorious Basterds of internet dickheads? I don’t. Whatever you think of my outrage, know that it is sincere.

[maaarc]

I'd love to be FUCKING Sarah Palin she's hot and that's all that matters LOL

[smilingbutt]

To quote an aussie mate, "I don't believe in religion, but after looking at Sarah Palin, I'm not sure not I believe in evolution either"

Don't think I can add much to that, to be honest.

[natina]

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/images/icons/icon4.gif Hypocrite Watch the pregnant teen daughter of a VP hopeful who preached abstinence
Perhaps the most confounding of these politico and faux-politico speech fees is that of Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol. Bristol Palin is most famous for being the pregnant teen daughter of a VP hopeful who preached abstinence, and though her mother is no longer involved in politics, Bristol Palin is attempting to spin her situation into a career. The younger Palin is reportedly asking for $15,000-$30,000 to speak at conferences (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#) and fundraisers, abstinence and "pro-life" programs. At 19, with very specific experience, it goes without saying that a name can cost a lot more than the substance of the speech. (Bad behavior is all too common in the workplace, but it can't match the drama of these celebrities' stunts.

Bristol Palin’s Nonprofit Paid Her Seven Times What It Spent On Actual Teen Pregnancy Prevention (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/05/bristol-palin-profiteer-teen-pregnancy/)
(http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/05/bristol-palin-profiteer-teen-pregnancy/)

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=55554 (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=55554)
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=55554 (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=55554)
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=55554 (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=55554)
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=55554 (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=55554)

[onmyknees]

To quote an aussie mate, "I don't believe in religion, but after looking at Sarah Palin, I'm not sure not I believe in evolution either"

Don't think I can add much to that, to be honest.

Read you post again mate....it doesn't make any fucking sense. Get your grammer together before you're going to knock somebody for being stupid. Here's a quote for ya.......stupid is as stupid says. LMAO

[TJ347]

I like Sarah, in that she reminds me of several women I've dated. Easy on the eyes, handy with firearms... and annoying as hell whenever they talk for more than thirty seconds.

Palin's not what with this or any country needs in a leader, but that's of no concern to me because I know she'll never be elected president despite ironically having more qualifications than the guy in office presently. Bottom line with respect to her is that a seven with a gun is a ten... This is all really making me miss Tennessee right about now.

[robertlouis]

Read you post again mate....it doesn't make any fucking sense. Get your grammer together before you're going to knock somebody for being stupid. Here's a quote for ya.......stupid is as stupid says. LMAO

Makes perfect sense to me, and you don't spell "grammar" with an "e".

Hoist, as they say, with your own fucking petard.

[onmyknees]

Makes perfect sense to me, and you don't spell "grammar" with an "e".

Hoist, as they say, with your own fucking petard.

probably makes sense to you because you relate to 5th grade grammar...it makes no sense...regardless of your contentions to the contrary.

[trish]

Oh yes it does.

[onmyknees]

I like Sarah, in that she reminds me of several women I've dated. Easy on the eyes, handy with firearms... and annoying as hell whenever they talk for more than thirty seconds.

Palin's not what with this or any country needs in a leader, but that's of no concern to me because I know she'll never be elected president despite ironically having more qualifications than the guy in office presently. Bottom line with respect to her is that a seven with a gun is a ten... This is all really making me miss Tennessee right about now.

Here Here....she's an American who threw her shit into the ring....she has every right to do so....she's certainly qualified...and she has more balls then most men. Here's what she has to deal with for entering into the political arena...Sick fucks these liberals are. .

( from Mediaite)


Los Angeles Times Editorial Refers To Sarah Palin As A ‘Special-Needs Case’ (http://www.mediaite.com/online/la-times-editorial-column-refers-to-sarah-palin-as-a-%e2%80%98special-needs-case%e2%80%99/)

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/malcolm_1-040711_jpg_470x420_q85-150x100.jpg (http://www.mediaite.com/online/la-times-editorial-column-refers-to-sarah-palin-as-a-%e2%80%98special-needs-case%e2%80%99/)by Tommy Christopher (http://www.mediaite.com/author/tommy-christopher/) | April 25th, 2011
In the wake of last week's Wonkette/Trig Palin controversy (http://www.mediaite.com/online/wonkette-editor-comments-on-reprehensible-birthday-greeting-to-trig-palin/), people keep sending me updates, related stories, and new slights against the special needs population, the latest of these being a Los Angeles Times editorial (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum-palin-20110417,0,7272287.column) that calls Sarah Palin (http://www.mediaite.com/power-grid/person/?q=Sarah+Palin) a "special-needs case." This is as good a time as any to clarify a few things about the issue of special needs-bashing.

[robertlouis]

probably makes sense to you because you relate to 5th grade grammar...it makes no sense...regardless of your contentions to the contrary.

Of course it makes absolute sense from a grammatical perspective. It parses, it has proper sentences with verbs and everything.

And I have a Masters in English Language, so please, fuck off.

[onmyknees]

Of course it makes absolute sense from a grammatical perspective. It parses, it has proper sentences with verbs and everything.

And I have a Masters in English Language, so please, fuck off.

Masters in English...??? Impressive . Maybe among the crowd you hang out with....but here it don't mean a fucking thing....you're just another lightweight chaser who finds it necessary to respond to every single post ...no matter how inane , like your silly brother Indeeda. So take that sheepskin off the wall and wipe your ass with it...it's as irrelevant to me as you are RobertLouis. How's that for the Queen's English ?? LMAO

[robertlouis]

Masters in English...??? Impressive . Maybe among the crowd you hang out with....but here it don't mean a fucking thing....you're just another lightweight chaser who finds it necessary to respond to every single post ...no matter how inane , like your silly brother Indeeda. So take that sheepskin off the wall and wipe your ass with it...it's as irrelevant to me as you are RobertLouis. How's that for the Queen's English ?? LMAO

I have to admit, that made me laugh.

By the way, everyone knows that the Queen is German.

[onmyknees]

I have to admit, that made me laugh.

By the way, everyone knows that the Queen is German.

Well at least you have a sense of humor about yourself. Now....for those other qualities.....LOL

[w1s2x3]

The conservatives need a candidate that has the "scare factor" that Sarah has but also has the depth of knowledge on problems facing our country. The "free ice cream" approach as in problem ignoring that has occurred since FDR isn't going to work. The left are really good at telegraphing who they are afraid of. Watching the mass extinction of the left if Sarah got elected would be fun.

[Prospero]

This is a terrific line

"I don't believe in religion, but after looking at Sarah Palin, I'm not sure not I believe in evolution either"

I think that Palin for President is a wonderful idea....

I can see Russia from my bedroom. Er yes Sarah.
I think we all have to support North Korea. Absolutely Sarah.

[Faldur]

Kind of funny your putting down a woman who probably is twice as qualified as our current president. Oh, I'm sorry was that racist?

[Prospero]

How so twice as qualified? You suggesting being stupid is a key qualification?
No that wasn't racist - you Faldur I exonerate totally from that, having read your posts.

[Faldur]

In my opinion, I think her experience as city mayor and state governor "trumps" his experience in the state and national senate. Albeit twice is a stretch.

[Prospero]

But his intellect compared to her dumb-ass parochialism leaves her miles behind. If sheer ignorance is a good measure that should make her perfect. A turkey for president indeed.

She's got street smarts for sure - especially at promoting herself and appealing to prejudices - but her lack of knowledge of the world and her cynicism disqualify her.

She was an embarrassment to McCain - and would surely ensure Obama's return to the White House if the Republicans were foolish enough to nominate her. Which they surely wont. Nor Trump.

[Silcc69]

A Trump and Palin ticket would be pure GENIUS!

[Prospero]

Trump and Palin as a dream ticket. For the democrats yes - since this dynamic duo's chances of getting to the white house (despite the dumbness of their supporters here) would be infinitesimally small. but if by some corruption in the laws of physics, they did make it, it would be a nightmare for the entire world.

[Ben]

A Trump and Palin ticket would be pure GENIUS!

I doubt either will run.
Donald Trump is doing it, well, because he's a pure attention seeker.
And Palin, well, she can't beat Obama. I mean, it'd be highly unlikely. I could be wrong.

YouTube - Is Sarah Palin's Political Career Over? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY_pNyO2Kl8)

[robertlouis]

I doubt either will run.
Donald Trump is doing it, well, because he's a pure attention seeker.
And Palin, well, she can't beat Obama. I mean, it'd be highly unlikely. I could be wrong.


If Palin did somehow beat Obama, it would prove that the USA had finally gone irrevocably to hell. I mean, Dubya was bad enough, but Palin????

[Ben]

If Palin did somehow beat Obama, it would prove that the USA had finally gone irrevocably to hell. I mean, Dubya was bad enough, but Palin????

She's a biker chick now... :)

YouTube - &#x202a;Sarah Palin Joins Rolling Thunder Ride To Honor The Troops !!! AC- DC Thunderstruck&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYiAcRYrjus)

[Ben]

YouTube - &#x202a;Rolling Thunder spokesman: Sarah Palin was "not invited," her bus tour a "big distraction"&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjCqTs741Ss)

[natina]

Sarah Palin Family Meeting
YouTube - &#x202a;Sarah Palin Family Meeting&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLJS9yoHQms)



Sarah Mania! Sarah Palin's Greatest Hits

YouTube - &#x202a;Sarah Mania! Sarah Palin's Greatest Hits&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E)


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3021/2913027042_43bfcc1809_o.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3021/2913027042_43bfcc1809_o.jpg




An Alaskan hockey mom becomes Vice President in the wackiest family comedy of the year! Sound familiar? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reRTXJSyTjo)

[natina]

(Provideniya, Russia) Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, has said that she can see Russia from her house. Across the Bering Strait in Provideniya Bay sits the town of Provideniya, Russia and its mayor Dimitri Andropov. He says that he can see Palin showering from HIS house. "And it is very nice."
Mayor Andropov added that his small town, like America, is transfixed with the buxom Governor. "We have a shower watchman on duty 24/7. And when the delightful Palin turns on the water and lets down her hair, the alarm sounds, telling everyone to rush to my house for a show. The kids love it."
Leonid Andropov, the Mayor's brother, said that the ability to see Palin shower has given him and the other men a newfound respect for her. "She's a very thorough cleaner, which is tough when one is dealing with moose guts, wolf blood and oil. And she doesn't have a mustache, which is just a big plus for us."
In a spontaneous Q&A at a Phoenix donut shop, Sarah Palin said that she's okay with the Russians watching her shower. "I'm flattered. And hopefully my cleanliness can inspire them to go after freedom, liberty and democracy...so that they can create jobs, get more freedom and liberty to help the economic job search, then hunt down the terror loving terrorists and change their nation of human people for the better."
"All I heard from that speech was change, and change to us is bad," said Mayor Andropov. "Change means John McCain will win the election and take our water princess to shower in Washington D.C. We don't want that to happen. Everything else Governor Palin said was over our small town heads. But that's okay, because we like to watch Sarah the same way she likes to watch Saturday Night Live, with the sound turned down."
In other news, Bill Clinton announced his candidacy for Mayor of Provideniya.




http://burntees.blogspot.com/2008/10/mayor-in-russia-says-he-can-see-sarah.html

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_iQCAsffwSy0/SPimS-0jF1I/AAAAAAAAAK0/-c3AtS5mksM/s400/1715d9.jpg (http://burntees.blogspot.com/2008/10/mayor-in-russia-says-he-can-see-sarah.html)

[Ben]

YouTube - &#x202a;If Sarah Palin Was Fat, Would She Get Same Attention?&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l180WhZeADU)

YouTube - &#x202a;Sarah Palin's Paul Revere Gaffe, Pathetic Explanation&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbUqKVlVX3U)

YouTube - &#x202a;Sarah Palin&#39;s Paul Revere BS On Fox News&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R8hPXJqpE0)

[arnie666]

YouTube - &#x202a;If Sarah Palin Was Fat, Would She Get Same Attention?&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l180WhZeADU)

YouTube - &#x202a;Sarah Palin's Paul Revere Gaffe, Pathetic Explanation&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbUqKVlVX3U)

YouTube - &#x202a;Sarah Palin's Paul Revere BS On Fox News&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R8hPXJqpE0)

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/06/historians-agree-palin-was-right-about-revere/

Seems like everyone who rushed to say she was wrong about Paul Revere didn't know what they were talking about either.

This is some professor from Suffolk university in boston giving an interview on left wing NPR of all places.

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did. And remember, she is a politician. She’s not an historian. And God help us when historians start acting like politicians, and I suppose when politicians start writing history.

So what is all this about again?

[arnie666]

And in other news here we have some lefty freak talking about assassinating Palin

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/06/07/chris-titus-id-assassinate-sarah-palin-if-she-was-elected/

After the Giffords shooting I thought we were going to have an era of civility? How quick the left forgets poor Congress woman Giffords after the line of blaming Palin for it becomes tired.

As usual the left gets a pass.

[Ben]

Sarah Palin is simply George Bush in drag. She's intellectually incurious. I mean, that's okay if you're a quarterback. But not one seeking high political office.
Anyway, even Chris Wallace of Fox (no lefty) said to Sarah, "YOU REALIZE THAT YOU MESSED UP ABOUT PAUL REVERE, DON'T YA?"

YouTube - &#x202a;Sarah Palin Stands By Her Correct Historical Account of Paul Revere's Ride&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJgcDaOlbQ)

[arnie666]

Sarah Palin is simply George Bush in drag. She's intellectually incurious. I mean, that's okay if you're a quarterback. But not one seeking high political office.
Anyway, even Chris Wallace of Fox (no lefty) said to Sarah, "YOU REALIZE THAT YOU MESSED UP ABOUT PAUL REVERE, DON'T YA?"

YouTube - &#x202a;Sarah Palin Stands By Her Correct Historical Account of Paul Revere's Ride&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJgcDaOlbQ)

So you take wallace over academics opinions on Sarah Palins history lesson? Oh well I suppose siding with 'fixed news' suits certain people at times.

And I wouldn't base my opinions of Palin on charles Kraufthammer who got it famously wrong about Reagan. Still smarting about it ,probably.

And george bush much as I disliked him and his neo con pals being stupid was not one of his faults. Palin is very conservative on most issues but from listening to her foreign policy views on afghanistan and libya for instance certainly isn't what would strike me as a neo con.She seems less of a one than Obama is right now. That is one of her greatest obstacles, many of her policies especially on energy,energy which has turned into a national security issue where she is somewhat of an expert make a huge amount of sense but people just like to focus on this paul revere crap and who her daughters might be fucking. No wonder she hates the media.

Maybe one of the reasons why she is disliked by some in the republican party and increasingly fox news is that she isn't a neo con .Fox news are probably going to do a job on her like they did ron paul.

[arnie666]

Pastor Manning now also hates her.Obama is the long leggeded mack daddy and she is the long leggeded gold digger according to him. Funny shit.

YouTube - &#x202a;ATLAHWorldwide's Channel&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/user/ATLAHWorldwide#p/u/13/WjUOz7IiQ4w)

I particularly liked him talking about his dominatrix fantasys. Reminds me Of Michael Savage and his fascination with the 'pre operative transvestite' lady ga ga.

Attention whore? coming from him?

[Ben]

So you take wallace over academics opinions on Sarah Palins history lesson? Oh well I suppose siding with 'fixed news' suits certain people at times.

And I wouldn't base my opinions of Palin on charles Kraufthammer who got it famously wrong about Reagan. Still smarting about it ,probably.

And george bush much as I disliked him and his neo con pals being stupid was not one of his faults. Palin is very conservative on most issues but from listening to her foreign policy views on afghanistan and libya for instance certainly isn't what would strike me as a neo con.She seems less of a one than Obama is right now. That is one of her greatest obstacles, many of her policies especially on energy,energy which has turned into a national security issue where she is somewhat of an expert make a huge amount of sense but people just like to focus on this paul revere crap and who her daughters might be fucking. No wonder she hates the media.

Maybe one of the reasons why she is disliked by some in the republican party and increasingly fox news is that she isn't a neo con .Fox news are probably going to do a job on her like they did ron paul.

Palin strikes me as being intellectually incurious, intellectually inattentive, as it were.
Is she smart? Depends what we mean by smart. Obama is often praised for being smart, clever -- for havin' quick mental agility. One can say smart means: a certain quickness, a certain nimbleness. I think a politician should understand/grasp policy issues. Both, of course, domestic and foreign. Have a basic understanding of history, of economics. Also, I think, be fairly well read.
Anyway, I'd agree that Obama is hawkish. (Daniel Ellsberg coined the term: stalemate machine. Which is: afraid to be seen as losing the war. I mean, that'd be Presidents Johnson and Nixon with respect to Vietnam. That could and probably does apply to Obama.)
Switching to alternative sources of energy (even if you staunchly believe global warming is a hoax) would mean LESS reliance on foreign oil, less pollution (always a benefit, a human health benefit) and you'd free up the marketplace (which is at present tightly controlled by the oil sector and is the antithesis of market principles) and bring about competition. Which is the basis of so-called capitalism. (But we should bear in mind that we don't live in a pure capitalist country. Pure capitalism means: no state intervention. And as we know the state does have a big influence on the overall economy. From police services to building highways and schools etc. etc. etc.)
I do respect Palin's position on abortion. Even though I disagree with her.
And Sarah Palin probably is a very nice person.
And I, actually, agree with Palin here:

YouTube - &#x202a;Sarah Palin: "How's That Hopey-Changey Stuff Working Out For Ya?"&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y02iZcTjHo)

[smilingbutt]

can I add my favorite and most important info about Sarah that is to be seen?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8hlj_UFi-g

or should I elaborate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdFJ-hFFdI8

[Cuchulain]

Every day my hopes for the future of the human race grow a little dimmer. It shouldn't take any rational person more than five minutes of listening to Palin to see her as a self-serving bag of hot air.

Hell, I can understand someone denying that for partisan reasons. But anybody who truly can't see right through her act is on a different wavelength than I am. Christ, they have a totally different perception of reality.

I shouldn't even have to qualify this, but I'll just toss one item out there - and there's absolutely no need for any more. Death panels; Sister Sarah and the other CONs took a simple provision in the Obama healthcare proposal which allowed a doctor to get paid for having a consultation with a patient and his family about end-of-life care and started raving about 'death panels'. An innocent, vital step in everyone's life turned into an obscene scare tactic. Case fucking closed.

[Ben]

Every day my hopes for the future of the human race grow a little dimmer. It shouldn't take any rational person more than five minutes of listening to Palin to see her as a self-serving bag of hot air.

Hell, I can understand someone denying that for partisan reasons. But anybody who truly can't see right through her act is on a different wavelength than I am. Christ, they have a totally different perception of reality.

I shouldn't even have to qualify this, but I'll just toss one item out there - and there's absolutely no need for any more. Death panels; Sister Sarah and the other CONs took a simple provision in the Obama healthcare proposal which allowed a doctor to get paid for having a consultation with a patient and his family about end-of-life care and started raving about 'death panels'. An innocent, vital step in everyone's life turned into an obscene scare tactic. Case fucking closed.

We'd survive a Sarah Palin presidency. She'd be Bush all over again.
So, to the right of Obama. Remember Obama is a moderate Republican. (Dennis Kucinich would've aligned himself to public opinion on a whole host of issues.
He, I think, would've responded to the majority will. Hence democracy. Which, if people forget, is rule by the people. Not the state or the corporate sector. But the people.
And, I think, public policy should reflect public opinion. Hence, again, democracy.)
You may or may not subscribe to Frank Zappa's view -- circa 1986. He said that we were moving toward a fascist theocracy. Well, America is an extremely religious country. Perhaps the most religious country in the whirling world.
And the definition of fascism -- coined by Mussolini -- was the nexus or link between state/political power and corporate power. That's fascism.
Economist Paul Craig Roberts said the term Police State is: that some people are above the law. Think: Bankers -- ha! ha! ha!

YouTube - &#x202a;Frank Zappa, Howard Zinn, and Noam Chomsky on American Fascism&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwRPBZOssDg)

[Cuchulain]

We'd survive a Sarah Palin presidency. She'd be Bush all over again.
So, to the right of Obama. Remember Obama is a moderate Republican. (Dennis Kucinich would've aligned himself to public opinion on a whole host of issues.
He, I think, would've responded to the majority will. Hence democracy. Which, if people forget, is rule by the people. Not the state or the corporate sector. But the people.
And, I think, public policy should reflect public opinion. Hence, again, democracy.)
You may or may not subscribe to Frank Zappa's view -- circa 1986. He said that we were moving toward a fascist theocracy. Well, America is an extremely religious country. Perhaps the most religious country in the whirling world.
And the definition of fascism -- coined by Mussolini -- was the nexus or link between state/political power and corporate power. That's fascism.
Economist Paul Craig Roberts said the term Police State is: that some people are above the law. Think: Bankers -- ha! ha! ha!

YouTube - &#x202a;Frank Zappa, Howard Zinn, and Noam Chomsky on American Fascism&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwRPBZOssDg)

Thankfully, a Palin presidency is just a nightmare that won't ever come true. Maybe we could survive it the way we survived Bush/Cheney, but it seems to me that would be like living through one bout with a terrible cancer only to be diagnosed with an even worse one. We may have survived the Bush years; I dunno if we'll ever recover from them.

Sarah would be a blank slate like Dubya that the plutocrats could manipulate, but I think she'd come in with a much bigger ego than Bush. She'd be much more likely to stamp her little feet and demand things her way just to prove that she was 'the boss'.

Good ol' Zappa, Zinn and Chomsky. I just gave Zinn's 'People's History of the US' to a friend's daughter as an off-to-college present.

I don't know about the theocracy part. I think the REICHwing has simply played up the religious angle to grab votes from gullible fools. We are definitely becoming a country that is completely under the thumbs of the wealthiest few. Those fuckers always had most of the power; now they want it all.

[Stavros]

This thread amazes me, I can't think of another living politician who has generated so much discussion with so little content. If Ms Palin doesn't run, or doesnt get nominated it will merely signify a fad that came and went, though I guess if she wants to remain a public figure she will get her own tv show. Obama came to the UK last month with en entourage of 1,500 (when Mrs Thatcher went to the US she took 20, trying to compute the cost of the former makes my eyes water); all Presidents rely on teams of advisers and often they are a key part of the decision-making process (consider the influence of Dennis Ross on Obama), so maybe this thread should be about the people running the shop rather than whoever is in the shop window...

[Ben]

Thankfully, a Palin presidency is just a nightmare that won't ever come true. Maybe we could survive it the way we survived Bush/Cheney, but it seems to me that would be like living through one bout with a terrible cancer only to be diagnosed with an even worse one. We may have survived the Bush years; I dunno if we'll ever recover from them.

Sarah would be a blank slate like Dubya that the plutocrats could manipulate, but I think she'd come in with a much bigger ego than Bush. She'd be much more likely to stamp her little feet and demand things her way just to prove that she was 'the boss'.

Good ol' Zappa, Zinn and Chomsky. I just gave Zinn's 'People's History of the US' to a friend's daughter as an off-to-college present.

I don't know about the theocracy part. I think the REICHwing has simply played up the religious angle to grab votes from gullible fools. We are definitely becoming a country that is completely under the thumbs of the wealthiest few. Those fuckers always had most of the power; now they want it all.

I don't think Palin runs for President anyway. I mean, she's like Paris Hilton. In that she's famous for being famous.
Oh, I forgot. Being Governor of Alaska for half a term.... Plus I really don't think she can go toe-to-toe with Barack Obama. She, I think, doesn't have the nimbleness, as it were.
Plus she is making a very comfortable living being famous for being famous. Would she want to give that up???
Plus Mitt Romney is way ahead in the polls. So far. Even though he lacks charisma. And appears as stiff as a board. I mean, he lacks charm. God knows how he became Governor of Massachusetts. I thought one needed some level of charisma. I mean, Sarah Palin is personable. Romney just isn't.
Howard Zinn is amazing. :)

[onmyknees]

Thankfully, a Palin presidency is just a nightmare that won't ever come true. Maybe we could survive it the way we survived Bush/Cheney, but it seems to me that would be like living through one bout with a terrible cancer only to be diagnosed with an even worse one. We may have survived the Bush years; I dunno if we'll ever recover from them.

Sarah would be a blank slate like Dubya that the plutocrats could manipulate, but I think she'd come in with a much bigger ego than Bush. She'd be much more likely to stamp her little feet and demand things her way just to prove that she was 'the boss'.

Good ol' Zappa, Zinn and Chomsky. I just gave Zinn's 'People's History of the US' to a friend's daughter as an off-to-college present.

I don't know about the theocracy part. I think the REICHwing has simply played up the religious angle to grab votes from gullible fools. We are definitely becoming a country that is completely under the thumbs of the wealthiest few. Those fuckers always had most of the power; now they want it all.

You're funny......While I understand you reserve the right to disagree with Obama...let's face it you voted for him, and you bought his hope and change bullshit...you know you did.

I also understand it's sport for you malcontents on the left to plaster Palin from everything from her family , to what she wears, to what she says....and I have no problem with that, as long as it stays on politics and not family and not misogynistic. I like her not for her intellect, her politics, her positions, but I like her because you hate her...it's that simple really. So let's play your supposition out to it's logical conclusion ( the one that Palin is a dunce in a dress) and let's also put credibility in the narrative that you, and all the media led us to believe ( that O'bama is bordering on genius) Now let's look at how he has applied all that professorial intellect....

>26 States have filed suit against the Federal Government in Federal Court about the legality of the individual mandate . No time in history has that ever occurred.
> Unemployment hovers around 10% and real unemployment if 17-18% and new claims continue to raise despite billions in stimulus and promises of below 8% unemployment
> A historic mid term election with the party in power loosing a record number of congressional seats.
>Nearly a billion spent in Libya and still no regime change and no approval from Congress
> Afghanistan still remains largely in question despite Obama's claim it was the "Right War" and his expressed support for that war
> Wall Street and big Banks continue unabated and continue to enter the revolving door in the West Wing carrying big campaign checks for Obama. Not one Wall Street fat cat has been brought to justice. The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill pushed by Obama fails to deal with the root causes of the sub prime crisis
> The Southern border remains porous with no cogent immigration policy put forward by Obama.
> Despite the claims of concern of Medicare and SSI the administration has not put a plan on the table that deals with solvency
> Bankruptcies and foreclosures have escalated under Obama with no plan in place to deal with it
> The trade deficit with China continues to skyrocket as China devalues their currency with little or nothing said by the administration
> Food and Energy prices have risen 20-30% since Obama has taken office and he has no plan to deal with either.

>The US Chamber of Commerce has tabbed this administration as the most anti business in 50 years
>Iran rushes towards developing a nuclear weapon throwing the entire balance of power in the Middle east in turmoil.
> The once praised "Arab Spring " by Obama has turned into anything but promising as Yemen and Syria slaughter thier citizens.
> The Strongest US ally in the middle east, Israel, had it's Prime Minister school our president on the folly of his Arab-Israeli policy on American soil.
> Bond rating agencies are threatening to down grade the US bond rating because of the Obama deficit.
> Obama care , this administration's hallmark piece of legislation has not delivered on any of it's promises and remains so unpalatable to businesses, many have obtained exemptions .

> We're borrowing money from China to bail out Greece

So I ask you....if Palin is a dunce....just what does that make Obama?????????

[Faldur]

So I ask you....if Palin is a dunce....just what does that make Obama?????????

http://www.sussexcountian.com/archive/x12076894/g12c000000000000000338fd6d7e84fe8a80b06cad671ba4e2 6f695862f.jpg

[Cuchulain]

You're funny......While I understand you reserve the right to disagree with Obama...let's face it you voted for him, and you bought his hope and change bullshit...you know you did.

I also understand it's sport for you malcontents on the left to plaster Palin from everything from her family , to what she wears, to what she says....and I have no problem with that, as long as it stays on politics and not family and not misogynistic. I like her not for her intellect, her politics, her positions, but I like her because you hate her...it's that simple really. So let's play your supposition out to it's logical conclusion ( the one that Palin is a dunce in a dress) and let's also put credibility in the narrative that you, and all the media led us to believe ( that O'bama is bordering on genius) Now let's look at how he has applied all that professorial intellect....

>26 States have filed suit against the Federal Government in Federal Court about the legality of the individual mandate . No time in history has that ever occurred.
> Unemployment hovers around 10% and real unemployment if 17-18% and new claims continue to raise despite billions in stimulus and promises of below 8% unemployment
> A historic mid term election with the party in power loosing a record number of congressional seats.
>Nearly a billion spent in Libya and still no regime change and no approval from Congress
> Afghanistan still remains largely in question despite Obama's claim it was the "Right War" and his expressed support for that war
> Wall Street and big Banks continue unabated and continue to enter the revolving door in the West Wing carrying big campaign checks for Obama. Not one Wall Street fat cat has been brought to justice. The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill pushed by Obama fails to deal with the root causes of the sub prime crisis
> The Southern border remains porous with no cogent immigration policy put forward by Obama.
> Despite the claims of concern of Medicare and SSI the administration has not put a plan on the table that deals with solvency
> Bankruptcies and foreclosures have escalated under Obama with no plan in place to deal with it
> The trade deficit with China continues to skyrocket as China devalues their currency with little or nothing said by the administration
> Food and Energy prices have risen 20-30% since Obama has taken office and he has no plan to deal with either.

>The US Chamber of Commerce has tabbed this administration as the most anti business in 50 years
>Iran rushes towards developing a nuclear weapon throwing the entire balance of power in the Middle east in turmoil.
> The once praised "Arab Spring " by Obama has turned into anything but promising as Yemen and Syria slaughter thier citizens.
> The Strongest US ally in the middle east, Israel, had it's Prime Minister school our president on the folly of his Arab-Israeli policy on American soil.
> Bond rating agencies are threatening to down grade the US bond rating because of the Obama deficit.
> Obama care , this administration's hallmark piece of legislation has not delivered on any of it's promises and remains so unpalatable to businesses, many have obtained exemptions .

> We're borrowing money from China to bail out Greece

So I ask you....if Palin is a dunce....just what does that make Obama?????????

Once again, the old kneeler accuses me of being an Obama fan, and launches a deluge of CON talking point horseshit. That's ok lad, I know all the spinning you do has left you permanently dizzy. I've gotta say though, pathetic corporate whore that Barry O has turned out to be, I give him kudos for all the hate he generates from the scum down at the chamber of commerce. I guess he's just not ENOUGH of a corporate whore for those pigs - which means that he's not quite the monster that a full-fledged repub would be. Don't give up hope, though. As Obama chases corporate cash for the 2012 elections, he may spend more time on his knees than you do.

BTW, I doubt your beloved Sarah will actually run. She's just staying visible to keep her speaking fees rolling in.

[onmyknees]

Once again, the old kneeler accuses me of being an Obama fan, and launches a deluge of CON talking point horseshit. That's ok lad, I know all the spinning you do has left you permanently dizzy. I've gotta say though, pathetic corporate whore that Barry O has turned out to be, I give him kudos for all the hate he generates from the scum down at the chamber of commerce. I guess he's just not ENOUGH of a corporate whore for those pigs - which means that he's not quite the monster that a full-fledged repub would be. Don't give up hope, though. As Obama chases corporate cash for the 2012 elections, he may spend more time on his knees than you do.

BTW, I doubt your beloved Sarah will actually run. She's just staying visible to keep her speaking fees rolling in.

I have no particular love for Palin...I explained why I admire her. Is it your misogony or your politics that engenders such hate for her?

You know you got duped by that fucker Obama...you were right there with him for all the hope and change...you would have pulled the lever twice for him if you could have...you ain't shittin' anybody here ! And I've explained my screen name multiple times to you, but you obviously don't understand the meaning behind it...or the obvious double entendre ...I realize it's difficult for gullible dupes like you to grasp anything not expressly spelled out to you by Ed Shultz or your other American Idols over at MSNBC, but you must try ....otherwise you remain one of what some call "the uninformed masses" LMAO.

[onmyknees]

Just for you avid Palin haters...more press fabrications...but don't let the truth get in the way of the narrative spoon fed to you by a lazy, ideological left wing press. They feed you, and you lap it up like puppies. LMAO


Nile Gardiner (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/nilegardiner/)

Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR.



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2009/07/nile_gardiner_140_small.jpg (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/nilegardiner/)



Margaret Thatcher did not ‘snub’ Sarah Palin: The truth about the Iron Lady and the former Governor of Alaska


By Nile Gardiner (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/nilegardiner/) World (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/category/world/) Last updated: June 13th, 2011
138 Comments (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100092054/margaret-thatcher-did-not-%e2%80%98snub%e2%80%99-sarah-palin-the-truth-about-the-iron-lady-and-the-former-governor-of-alaska/#disqus_thread) Comment on this article (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/#dPostComment)

In the past few days a number of hugely misleading reports have circulated in both Britain (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/jun/07/margaretthatcher-sarahpalin) and the United States (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/margaret-thatcher-refuses-to-meet-with-sarah-palin.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef01538f05d98f970b) alleging that Margaret Thatcher snubbed Sarah Palin. It all began with a blog post in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/jun/07/margaretthatcher-sarahpalin)claiming the former prime minister had refused to meet with Mrs. Palin on her upcoming visit to London, on the grounds that she was “unworthy of an audience”, and quoting an anonymous “ally” of Lady Thatcher.
According to The Guardian, in a piece entitled ‘Margaret Thatcher to Sarah Palin: don’t bother dropping by’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/jun/07/margaretthatcher-sarahpalin):

Her (Lady Thatcher’s) allies believe that Palin is a frivolous figure who is unworthy of an audience with the Iron Lady. This is what one ally tells me:
“Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts.”
This was followed up by another Guardian piece: ‘Sarah Palin snub by Margaret Thatcher aides infuriates US rightwing’ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100092054/margaret-thatcher-did-not-%E2%80%98snub%E2%80%99-sarah-palin-the-truth-about-the-iron-lady-and-the-former-governor-of-alaska/), which declared:

The ally who criticised Palin said the Thatcher circle would not change their minds despite the backlash.

“Margaret will not be meeting Sarah Palin. If necessary we will make sure that Margaret has an off day when Palin is in London.”
I have spoken to Lady Thatcher’s Private Office regarding the story, and they confirm that the attack on Sarah Palin definitely did not come from her office, and in no way reflects her views. As a former aide to Margaret Thatcher myself, I can attest that this kind of thinking is entirely alien to her, and that such remarks would never be made by her office. She has always warmly welcomed like-minded figures in the United States, and has in the past met with numerous US presidential candidates and political dignitaries when they have visited London. But at the age of 85 she is now able to receive very few visitors at all.
There was never any snub of Sarah Palin by Lady Thatcher’s office. However, there has been a great deal of mischief-making and unpleasantness from sections of the liberal press in a vain and futile attempt to use Margaret Thatcher’s name to smear a major US politician.

[natina]

http://i36.tinypic.com/bi2hjt.jpg

[Stavros]

1) Margaret Thatcher has not been active in public for several years, she is struggling with dementia so its rather unfair of people to make claims about her diary appointments, assuming she has any. A low blow if you ask me, for both Palin and Thatcher.

2) A school report card? Is this what they call scraping the barrel? Have we come to this? Why not judge a politician on how old they were when they first started to walk or talk -with video evidence ratified by an independent third party- but then judge them on what it was they said, and how far they walked. The one who spoke in polysyllables and went five yards instead of two gets the vote? How many college graduates would want to be judged when running for Congress on their first-year essays? Blimey, give it a rest Natina!

[Ben]

YouTube - &#x202a;Bachmann/Palin: Can Media Handle Two Hot Women?&#x202c;&rlm; (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbmt10YaO3E)

[Ben]

GOP Women Better Looking than Dem. Women? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSok1PMAhgs)

[Willie Escalade]

GOP Women Better Looking than Dem. Women? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSok1PMAhgs)
Unfortunately Faux News' ladies are a lot hotter.

And I would still analize Sarah Palin.

[robertlouis]

Unfortunately Faux News' ladies are a lot hotter.

And I would still analize Sarah Palin.

Analysing that woman would keep a whole college of psychologists going for a year or two. :geek:

[Prospero]

This thread reeks of necrophilia

[LABiM75&StrF51]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5jp7fncHe1rxd4u4o1_400.gif
....and none come much more mental
and lovely
then SarahPalin.

[Willie Escalade]

Analysing that woman would keep a whole college of psychologists going for a year or two. :geek:
Seriously...I'd ANAL-lize her...

[Ben]

Seriously...I'd ANAL-lize her...

Who's Nailin' Paylin?

Who's Nailin' Paylin? (Sarah Palin) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxlAhlHqrrc)

[Willie Escalade]

Who's Nailin' Paylin?

Who's Nailin' Paylin? (Sarah Palin) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxlAhlHqrrc)

I have my copy autographed by Lisa Ann herself...:dancing:

[Ben]

Why can't we be more like Sarah Palin?

Why can't we be more like Sarah Palin? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDv1SYnM5w8)

[Ben]

Sarah Palin Leaves Fox News For "Larger Audience," Heads to...Breitbart? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st-bKmUZUUw)

[Ben]

Sarah Palin's Embarrassingly Hypocritical PAC Expenses - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKJybXhmEEI)

[Ben]

Sarah Palin Is Really Back on Fox News:

Sarah Palin Is Really Back on Fox News - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZF7Jhh92So)

[robertlouis]

Palin vs Hillary 2016.

Anyone? :whistle:

[Prospero]

No no no

[robertlouis]

No no no

I suppose so. After all, intellectually would it be fair for Hillary to take on an otherwise unarmed opponent?

[Willie Escalade]

Palin vs Hillary 2016.

Anyone? :whistle:

Hillary would wipe the floor with that bitch.

[Prospero]

I suppose so. After all, intellectually would it be fair for Hillary to take on an otherwise unarmed opponent?

You forget these are the people who elected Nixon, Reagan, and George Bush twice!!!

[robertlouis]

You forget these are the people who elected Nixon, Reagan, and George Bush twice!!!


.... which is why I'd hesitate before following Willie's line on this.

The irrational - and largely misogynist - hatred of Hillary knows no bounds.

Don't discount it.

[Prospero]

.... which is why I'd hesitate before following Willie's line on this.

The irrational - and largely misogynist - hatred of Hillary knows no bounds.

Don't discount it.

But does Palin really plan to run... Tina Fey you might be needed once again

[Willie Escalade]

And people thought Romney was a bad candidate...

[Prospero]

The moron and the man thrown out of the army... what a winning team

[broncofan]

Robert brings up an interesting point. The hatred of Hillary is largely misogynistic. She's a talented, intelligent, ambitious, political maneuverer who knows the ropes and can play hardball with the best of them. So people make judgments about her pantsuits and whether she made the right decision to forgive her husband. They are downright nasty with a woman who quite admirably has succeeded in a man's game on merit.

On the other hand, the Republicans tried to accuse detractors of Palin of misogyny shortly after the embarrassing Katie Couric interview. Let's see here. We have a woman who knows nothing about public policy despite being a governor, who cannot think of a single publication she reads, who doesn't understand the holding of Roe v. Wade, and is incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation on issues she's supposed to take the lead on. If objecting to that is misogynistic, then this is what Republicans think women should aspire to. They must believe women should not be as qualified as their male counterparts, and that those who are should be detested.

Take a look at the Republican women and minority candidates they've offered up in local and national elections and only then can you get a sense of what they think of these constituencies.

[Stavros]

Towards the end of the Clinton era I recall an American on BBC tv pointing out that the Republicans did not just hate the Clintons, they hated them absolutely. Hillary Clinton probably should not have led the task force on health care reform in 1993 because she was unelected, but she has at least proven since then that she can both win elections and master one of the toughest jobs in US politics. To do this, she has had to overcome both the loathing of the Clintons as well as the misogyny referred to in other posts. You could claim she is a savvy politician having initially rejected Israel's claim that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel before reversing that opinion when deciding to run for the Senate in New York in order to court the 'Jewish vote' in New York, as if Jews were the only Americans who cared (I wonder who exactly it is that considers this a key issue anyway). Again, while she has proven that she is not merely 'Mrs Clinton', it is not clear to me what she and/or her team were doing when the first signs of a breakdown in Syria began to raise it as an important issue in both Middle Eastern politics and US-Russian relations. I also wonder if people are making an assumption that the Republicans are so divided, so out of touch with the American people that the next Presidential election is a shoe-in for the Democrats. The mid-term elections next year will be interesting in this regard.
Perhaps the Democrats need a fresher face, perhaps a woman, I think it is still to early to call. One thing that resonates is the shabby way that Julia Gillard has been treated in Australia in the last few weeks; I don't care for her myself but the personal nature of the abuse levelled at her had little to do with policy and was designed to be hurtful. I hope any woman running in the US is given space to debate policy rather than being forced to defend the facts of her gender.

[broncofan]

Hillary Clinton is flexible when it comes to playing politics. There's no doubt and it comes across as insincere a lot of the time. There's the complete backflip on Jerusalem. There were the ridiculous attacks on Obama during the primaries as an elitist because he didn't understand the importance of guns to mainstream Americans. I understand the objections to her as being too slick an operator or as someone who will do whatever is necessary to get elected. I think a lot of the vitriol though is based on the fact that she is a woman who is seen as intelligent and manipulative. But I didn't vote for her in the primaries because I couldn't stand some of her attacks on Obama. I was undecided until she jumped on the "elitist" bandwagon in 2008.

[Stavros]

Interesting post Broncofan. If the trend is towards a woman, are there any other strong women in the Democratic Party who could come through that point of momentum in the primaries when the challengers fall away? I suppose the question is, who else wants the job?

[broncofan]

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/212406931.html

I'm going to look into that Stavros. While looking up female democratic challengers I found this interesting article. Now, it was only a Republican official who made this statement but I find it telling. Called a fellow, female Republican primary candidate a "street walker" and someone who could fill a minority quota at a law firm if she loses the election. A window into their soul.

Democrats hopefully will run a talented female candidate as Republican disdain for women couldn't be more obvious.

Edit: found a better article. Tells a bit more about Ms. Harold's story and her accomplishments.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-harold-20130621,0,7386131.story

[Stavros]

Well I hope she gets elected! Sarah Palin was a beauty queen once -you would have thought it was no longer an issue, but it once again exposes how far some of us have come in the last few decades, leaving others behind. I think some pretty ripe rubbish has been mouthed off about women in politics in this country, so the US is not unique in this.

[buttslinger]

It's not really Sarah Palin's mental abilities people like, as much as the fact that she's the biggest political name that is actually in favor of deporting all Mexicans back to Mexico immediately, bombing Syria, and eliminating Welfare. She speaks DIRECTLY to the Fox News audience. The only reason she exists is because John McCain is as stupid as she is.
Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, all the intelligent Republican Businessmen hate her more than the Democrats who kinda like the fact she is there. She's bad business for the Republicans. Good ratings for FOX.

Bush got elected because of Monica, Obama got elected because of Bush. Republicans are making up stuff to pin on Obama!! Not gonna happen.

Republicans do very well on state elections, but they don't have any face for the National picture. And as long as Palin is around to deepen the divide between the Wall St Republicans and the Trailer Park Republicans, Hillary can ski up Everest.

[VictoriaVeil]

Sarah Palin Is Really Back on Fox News:

Sarah Palin Is Really Back on Fox News - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZF7Jhh92So)



Yes!!!!!!!!!

[robertlouis]

Yes!!!!!!!!!

Err, WTF, VV? :confused:

[Ben]

Yes!!!!!!!!!

I actually agreed w/ Sarah Palin when she said this:

Sarah Palin: "How's That Hopey-Changey Stuff Working Out For Ya?" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y02iZcTjHo)

[Ben]

Ted Cruz Divides Republican Party, Sarah Palin Weighs In - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCiarEIK3HA)

[Ben]

FOUND Sarah Palin Sex Tape! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QlJC6pwxVk)

[yodajazz]

Thanks for bring this tape to my attention. This meant for my private enjoyment, and I never expected, that these moments between her and I, to be released to the public. I will be taking definitive steps to withdraw this video from public viewing. That is if it does not get 20,000 views by the end of the month.

[Ben]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1yAEHc6AlA