Andrew Breitbart takes on the elitist media, specifically the three female “feminists” who have been on the trash Sarah bandwagon from the beginning, and he does it with gusto:
What a shock that Maureen Dowd devoted her New York Times column Sunday to attack Sarah Palin. It did not so much criticize Alaska’s governor for prematurely stepping down from her official duties as to finish off what sister snipers Katie Couric and Tina Fey began last fall.
The assassination of Sarah Palin – by media.
For those who didn’t pay attention, Mrs. Palin’s unexpected stratospheric rise as a national political figure threatened the media’s preordained presidency of Barack Obama.
In light of how the Obama machine took down Hillary Clinton, which unsettled many feminists who believed 2008 was their time, many who saw sexism at play – the destruction of an ascendant Republican female icon was an urgent imperative for the Democratic Party.
~~~Misses Dowd, Couric and Fey – Mr. Obama’s Angels (featuring Joy Behar in the role of “Bosley”) – used a potent mix of mockery, snobbery and vitriol to undermine Mrs. Palin’s feminist bona fides.
They are what my wife calls “pad throwers,” an allusion to the shower room scene in the Stephen King film “Carrie,” in which the popular girls throw sanitary napkins and tampons at the film’s namesake.
Simply put, they are bullies. And female bullies – “Mean Girls” as Miss Fey’s film calls them – are the cruelest kind.
Primarily motivated by a desire to keep abortion “safe, legal and rare,” female liberals in the media have carte blanche to do and say anything.
But since Mrs. Palin, a mother of five including a boy who was known to have Down syndrome before he was born, is a potent symbol of the pro-life movement, which means the female Alaska governor can’t have it.
Miss Dowd’s attempted takedown of Mrs. Palin is less skillful surgery than it is name calling using fun noun and adjective pairings. Think “Mad Libs.” And, that’s exactly what Misses Dowd, Couric and Fey are. Once the ladies did their job, liberal men like Jon Stewart and David Letterman had the cover to join the hate campaign.
While Mrs. Palin is at ease with her gender, as well as her place in the workplace and at home, Misses Dowd, Couric and Fey convey a base insecurity in their feminine skin. Their rage is fueled by liberalism’s false feminist dogma and they take it out on a woman who chose not to join their angry sorority.
The governor of Alaska’s compelling narrative – athlete, beauty queen, wife, mother, hunter, successful politician – shows adherents of narrow leftist dogma that, perhaps, women really can have it all. Most importantly: freedom of thought.
In calling Alaska’s governor “Caribou Barbie,” Miss Dowd used beauty as a weapon to diminish Mrs. Palin’s achievements. A man would be reprimanded for this, but Miss Dowd is a Pulitzer Prize-winning pad thrower and is licensed for such vindictive pettiness.
“Caribou,” of course, is a stab at Mrs. Palin’s backwater, Red State ways, attacks on which an Upper Westside liberal snob can never get enough. Miss Dowd goes on to ridicule “Sarah’s country-music melodramas.” This is her barely veiled attempt to call Mrs. Palin “white trash.” And this has been the loathsome subtext of all media criticism of the Palins. They even went after their children. Mercilessly.
And Mrs. Palin during the Letterman saga finally cried, “Enough!”
Exposed in the relentless Palin attacks is not just political bias, but unmitigated class bias.
I know the readers understand why I put feminists into quotations above because there is no way, no how, someone who is a real feminist would throw such insults at a female who is strong, independent, and successful. But the feminist movement has always been a leftist breeding ground, or has been as long as I’ve been alive. It’s not women rights they cherish, but the liberal ideology.
But there are still a few sane feminists out there and I happened upon one recently. Violet at The Reclusive Leftist (h/t Brutally Honest). I know her and I would disagree on much, but on this subject it appears we agree…or agree on having no answer why they hate Sarah so:
I don’t usually comment on other blogs; I have little enough time to keep my own gig in working order. But the other day I was over at I Blame The Patriarchy, where I was dismayed to find in the comment threads some of the same Palin-bashing that has become drearily familiar from the rest of the inner tubes. Now, IBTP is just about the best feminist blog going, with a genius proprietor and a thoughtful commentariat. Hence my dismay. Even here? I thought. Fortunately, some of the commenters there did try to set the record straight, though they got significant guff from others.
This is the comment I left, which I’m dragging back here to the smoking lounge for your perusal (the first bit in italics is a quote from Jill):
“Mang, when I wrote this post, I sure never expected it would result in blamer support for a skeevy antifeminist politician.”
It seems that some blamers know that the bullshit published about Palin (and unfortunately repeated here) was just that — bullshit. Palin considers herself a feminist, and except for the abortion thing, she’s more explicitly feminist than the average American. When a regular Jane with that kind of background proclaims her feminist sympathies, it doesn’t seem terribly productive to ridicule her or indulge in the misogynist slander put out by the political hacks running against her. I mean, sure, by the standards of pure feminism, she’s an enabling godbag. But so are most American women. On the other hand, by the standards of the Republican Party or evangelical Christianity, she’s Twisty Faster.
Pheenobarbidoll responded that abortion rights are a cornerstone too important to overlook, to which I replied:
Abortion rights are important. But it’s interesting that Hugo Schwyzer, a male “pro-life” feminist and former member of and financial contributor to Feminists For Life, is allowed into the feminist community. He even blogs at RH Reality Check, and has been befriended by Amanda Marcotte.
Schwyzer’s awkward pro-feminist/anti-abortion stance is the same as Sarah Palin’s, yet only Palin is reviled and ridiculed. How dare she call herself a feminist!
Someone else then loftily announced that Palin cannot be a feminist since she “believes in keeping children ignorant of the facts of their reproductive rights and responsibilities.” To which I replied:
She doesn’t believe that. She’s fully in favor of sex ed and contraception.
I imagine you consider yourself a feminist. What I’m wondering is why, if you’re a feminist, you don’t even give Palin the courtesy of finding out what she actually believes, rather than simply accepting the lies created by political hacks? This is bizarre to me. It’s really not difficult to google and discover that Sarah Palin is in favor of contraception and sex ed, that the whole “abstinence-only” thing is a smear spread by Obama supporters.
It’s a bit weird to drag all this back here to the lounge, but it’s the setup for the giant, rambling brain dump that’s about to follow. Sarah Palin’s surprise resignation has brought out the crazy again, and reading through the blogs I’m reminded of how much pure bullshit has been said and believed about her and continues to be said and believed. I’m reminded of how so many feminists seem possessed of a wholly irrational hatred for this woman.
Why?
This isn’t going to be the kind of post where I sketch out a pattern and then give you The Key To Understanding It All. This is going to be more like a stream-of-consciousness tiptoe through the violets of my reclusive thought processes. I’ve been puzzling over this stuff since last August. One reason I’ve written as many posts as I have about Palin is because I’m so baffled by the reaction to her. I can’t figure it out. It’s like quantum entanglement or dark energy: I make myself sick trying to understand it and worry that I’ll die before I get it sorted. (I know: Xanax.)
Of course, the first answer you’ll get if you ask feminists why they hate Sarah Palin is that “it’s because she ____” — and then fill in the blank with the lie of choice: made rape victims pay for their own kits, is against contraception or sex ed, believes in abstinence-only, thinks the dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, doesn’t believe in global warming, doesn’t believe in evolution, is stupid and can’t read, etc., etc., etc., etc.
But none of those things is true. None of them.
Which brings me to my first puzzlement: why don’t people bother to find out what Sarah Palin really believes? I don’t mean people as in the usual sexist freaks; I mean feminists.
Sarah Palin is only the second woman in the history of this country to run on a major party’s presidential ticket. That alone makes her, to me, a fascinating figure worthy of serious investigation. When McCain announced Palin as his choice for VP, I immediately tried to find out as much about her as I could. I wanted to know who she was, what she believed, what her politics were. It never occurred to me that this interest would make me in any way unusual among feminists, but apparently it did. Apparently most feminists — at least the ones online — are content to just take the word of the frat boys at DailyKos or the psycho-sexists at Huffington Post. That amazes me. Aren’t you even interested in who she really is? I want to ask. She’s only the second woman on a presidential ticket in our whole fricking history!
But even weirder is what happens when you try to replace the myths with the truth. If you explain, “no, she didn’t charge rape victims,” your feminist interlocutor will come back with something else: “she’s abstinence-only!” No, you say, she’s not; and then the person comes back with, “she’s a creationist!” and so on. “She’s an uneducated moron!” Actually, Sarah Palin is not dumb at all, and based on her interviews and comments, I’d say she has a greater knowledge of evolution, global warming, and the Wisconsin glaciation in Alaska than the average citizen.
But after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate. That’s why they keep reaching and reaching for something else, until they finally get to “she winked on TV!” (And by the way: I’ve been winked at my whole life by my grandmother, aunts, and great-aunts. Who knew it was such a despicable act?)
It’s much longer then I have quoted above, so read the whole thing. Violet may be horrified that a conservative blog would quote her approvingly seeing as how we are on the opposite political spectrum (her fans can be assured we still disagree on much), but I am just as confused as she is about why a true feminist like Sarah Palin can be drawn and quartered by those who purport to be feminists.
One last quote from Violet:
it has not escaped my attention that many of the things Palin is accused of, falsely, are actually true of Obama. This is a guy who, as a U.S. senator from Illinois, didn’t even know which Senate committees he was on or which states bordered his own. (And don’t even get me started on Joe “The Talking Donkey” Biden, who thinks FDR was president during the stock market crash and that people watched TV in those days.) I’m not saying Obama’s a moron, but he’s sure as hell no genius. People say Sarah Palin rambles; excuse me, but have you actually heard Obama speak extemporaneously? As for being a diva, surely we all remember the Possomus sign and the special embroidered pillow on the Obama campaign plane. The fact is, Obama is an intellectually mediocre narcissist with a thin resume who’s lost without a teleprompter and whose entire campaign had all the substance and gravity of a Pepsi commercial. Yet people say Sarah Palin is a fluffy bunny diva.
Hit the nail on the freakin head there.
Myself, I believe it comes down to the liberal, leftist, ideology trumping feminism. Because any honest feminist would be proud of Sarah…..it appears there are very few honest feminists unfortunately.
See author page
Great post!
I’d be very happy if you’d provide an easy way to e mail your posts. I tried to send this via “Digg” and got nowhere.
Us technically challenged can further disseminate your good stuff via a simple e mail setup.
Hope you can provide!
Ron T
@Ron T: Your wish is my command. I’ve added a new share button and took the old ones out.
No matter what your color on the Political spectrum, and feminist or not, very basic human decency should rail against the very personal attacks Palin has been subjected to.
The accumulation of frivolous law suits on top of typically left leaning/falling media crowding the motels and spare tents of Alaska to find scraps for feeding the Beltway, overruns the fact that here is a mother who has been saddled with a special-needs child, quickly followed with an early grandchild surprise. This pressure would have caved any of her attackers.
The Courics, Lettermans, and Dowds should have lost all and any respect they might have enjoyed. Unfortunately, that is not so, and the idiocy continues unabated.
Thanks for the great post! Clear as a bell.
I think it’s time to return the favor towards the left.
What’s so funny is that they are so used to the gutless Reps not fighting back that they don’t see how they are creating a group of opponents who will gleefully use their own tactics against them. Whenever we stepped up our game we won. The dems had to take it a few notches higher to win. The problem is, there is no place higher for them to go. While it is taking time, we are elevating our game and we know how the left fares against such a situation-poorly.
What’s wrong with a comedian like Tina Fey mocking a politician? If Tina Fey was so hurtful why did Palin choose to appear on Saturday Night Live?
Violet’s essay was great!
WRT Tina Fey – Her stuff was funny. The problem I had with it was it was SOOOO biased and one sided. They ignored ALL of the gaffes and blunders by Obama, and just ripped on Palin therefore made the show completely one-sided, and unfair. Had they been more balanced, it would have been funny – but because of the complete slant, it left many people angry.
SNL did some funny funny stuff back in the Bush/Gore primary *lock box* and it felt more balanced. This was an attack job, which was too bad. It could have been a very funny season. Obama provided PLENTY of material, they just chose to ignore it.
And the outcome of their one sided slant was that Obama’s idiot supporters used SNL as a news source… (did you see how obama got elected, or listen to howard’s interviews???)
Boo hoo – let the Governments ensure that all comedians have to be balanced and fair. All their jokes should be veted & rated. Problem after Dennis Miller – who else is there on the right of note?
You guys preach free market and then cry foul when it doesn’t reflect your views.
I’m not crying over it, i am just stating my opinion. They can be as bias as they want – they just lost some long time viewers over it.
@sarainitaly
Exactly – vote with your remote control. But the above article which makes out that Tina Fey is somehow a ‘pad-throwing’ bully is ridiculous. She’s just a comedian, remember… Maybe Rush could say something funny about Obama.
I too have had a hard time understanding where the hatred for Sarah Palin comes from. I spent Friday and the rest of the weekend arguing with my liberal friends about all the outrageous lies they’ve chosen to believe about her. Of course, being liberals they still didn’t believe the truth even when I showed them the evidence. I think this article and Violets goes a long way towards explaining what it’s really all about.
I do wish someone would write an article or put up a website that would clearly show all the lies about Palin (especially the one that says she’s stupid) It’s been really hard to find all the info needed to convince people. The stuff Violet said about Obama saying dumb things and being a diva is good stuff too.
@GaffaUK:
It becomes a little more serious of an issue when the brainwashed public interprets ‘comedy’ for truth (the whole, I can see russia from my house line – from snl). Either way, I don’t cry foul and believe they can make fun of whomever they want. In my opinion, if anyone cries foul its the leftnazis. For a group that prides themselves on moral high-grounds and intellectually superior brains, it seems they are mostly one dimensional crybabies. Whhaaaa, Fox News is evil, take it off the air (Obie would like nothing more). Boo hoo, “[differing opinion] is just the stupid CONservatives saying [insert lie here].” So formulaic and boring.
Anyway, its just a shame – while the left is learning their facts from idiot comedians like fey and garofalo, the right is creating a grassroots movement based on returning to our foundation. At some point the two will meet. When they do, I have a feeling the left leaning media will start sacrificing their own to keep making that precious dollar. Just like Hollywood preaching against war, guns, and animal cruelty, there is no shortage of shoot-em-ups, thrillers, animal fur clothing and hypocrisy flowing from the epitome of the leftist agenda.
The democraps tried to destroy Clarence Thomas, they tried to destroy Miguel Estrada lest he be eventually placed as first Hispanic on Supreme Court, they attacked Bush’s attorney general (hispanic) they attacked PA Gov Nominee Lynn Swann, and Gov Palin. Any minority or woman who doesn not kow tow at the liberal reservation and who has independent mindset must be destroyed by democraps and liberals. Maureen Dowd is just a self loathing woman as is her comrade in arms, Katie Couric.
What I find offensive about the feminist smears of Palin is their very own hypocrisy. I graduated from High School and went to college in the 80s. I am two years younger than Mrs. Palin, and from where I came from, there are lots of women like her in my generation. Women who got married, had children, had careers, had kids who had kids out of wedlock and some are even raising their grandkids. We all grew up with the feminist dogma shoved down our throats. Many of us rejected a lot of that dogma not because we didn’t beleive that the dogma was bad for us, but we didn’t see how it greatly benefitted from us. So many of the radical feminists that we knew and who came to our colleges were bitter, angry women who said hateful and nasty thnings about men. They made women feel like they were weak and needy if they actually wanted to get married and have children. They called women who wanted large families baby factories. They failed to understand that women had needs and they seemed to see those needs as weaknesses rather than who and what women were.
I resented the fact that these women claimed to speak for all women and seemed to demand that we had to follow their three steps to feminists enlightments and any other path to personal fulfillment was considered a waste of a woman’s talents. They have no idea how many women that they turned off and are still turning off. Sarah Palin is a wonderful lady who is doing her best to serve her family and her country and that is all we can expect. I admire her choices with regards to her family. She lovingly welcomed into her family children and grandchildren that would be considered outcasts by society and who would have been terminated for convenience. If a woman can lovingly welcome those children despite the costs to herself, she can and will defend the downtrodden and those who truly need her.
I think she is amazing.
Go Sarah.
Great Post
I will revel on the day when Dowd is in the unemployment line still without a clue of what sunk the NYT.
GaffaUK.
You may be on to something. Vote with your remote. After all the people here in the US did tune out Air America and cancelled Al Franken. Waite he was just elected a freeken US Senator, never mind.
TIME TO PUSH BACK. HARD.
Liz Trotta, on Fox News, disagrees with you, Curt:
As far as she’s concerned, she says Palin has given them, the left, the “raw meat” to make the attacks; she calms Palin is “inarticulate and under-educated.”
I disagree with Liz Trotta assessment. Sara can make her point very plainly. She doesn’t need a ton of big words to make herself understood. The sign of intelligence is the ability of a person to understand, break down and communicate their ideas in a way that others can understand them. She is a great communicator. As far as education is concerned, how educated do you have to be for a position, and who decides what undereducated is? What are the qualifications? As you can see, I disagree with Liz Trotta on this issue.
@GaffaUK: Exactly – vote with your remote control.
==================================
I am not sure how the advertising-to-show thing works there in the U.K. but here it NEEDS to go more than voting with your remote. You need to mail the station AND more importantly – those who advertise on said station to let them know of your displeasure and how this will impact your decision to buy their brands.
Once enough impact is felt, then and only then will Stations react. Trust me. Letterman really did not apologize because of his conscience. He saw what was coming his way. You should have seen the hate directed his way on MANY feminist blogs which had set up an e-mail form to send to the powers that be.
@Jason A Clark:
==================================
I do wish someone would write an article or put up a website that would clearly show all the lies about Palin (especially the one that says she’s stupid) It’s been really hard to find all the info needed to convince people. The stuff Violet said about Obama saying dumb things and being a diva is good stuff too.
==================================
I hear what you are saying. It would be great! But you also say something that is soooo true:
“…being liberals they still didn’t believe the truth even when I showed them the evidence.”
TammyL:”The sign of intelligence is the ability of a person to understand, break down and communicate their ideas in a way that others can understand them.”
And ONE of the FIRST rules we ever learned in speech class was …
Know Your Audience – and Speak To Them!
And that includes using a vocabulary that they should understand. For all these nimrods that get up and speak $10 words to an audience that is only good for $5 words … they just shows their inability to connect to the audience.
14 TammyL, right on. herman 18, ref Liz Trodda
I am not surprised by the woman who choose to denigrate Palin. Regardless of their political bent they all have one thing in common. They have a superior attitude and a belief that they are of a higher status than most. Their beliefs are nurtured, starting in high school, they are the sorority sisters, the cheer leaders, the beautiful as defined by themselves. This is carried on through college. In journalism 101 they learn such pleasant catch phrases like, bandy legged, or pock marked. They are quick to correct your spelling, grammar. But not so quick when a tradesman filling out their bill for a repair on a device that they couldn’t fix if their life depended on it. They won’t correct his grammar they will however make fun of him at their mandatory cocktail hour after he is gone. Shame on all of them. I am thankful that I live in the west (not too far west) away from the snobbery of these pompous asses.
Add old bag Liz Trotta to the “pad throwers.” Forced to spend her waning days giving Lewinskys to Roger Ailes in order to have an eensy-teensy paycheck from Fox News, she, like Maureen Dowd have gone off the deep end, spending their old age thinking about the lives as real women they sacrificed on the altar of faux feminism. Ms. Palin, on the other hand, has a husband, children, and is a true feminist, which enrages the has-beens who actually think they are members of “the elite.”
@Hawk
To state the obvious – advertisers want to reach as many people as possible – particular within their targeted group. So if viewers dramatically drop – then that will be enough for them to cancel. What you suggest just speeds up that process. Of course how many things do you see that get complaints which are a tiny fraction of the audience. And besides SNL figures went UP due to Tina Fey. Seems like the Americans lapped it up. Care to explain that?
Hi Gaffe,
I am not sure how it works in the UK but here in the states, we have more choices and channels than we know what to do with. Many people have never heard of Tina Fey or even watched her. Very few of the programs ever get significantly high ratings like they used to before cable TV and satellite TV came out. Now the most popular shows out there may at most get 13% market share which is nothing. So I am not sure where you are getting the impression that Americans lapped it up. So boycotting advertisers here doesn’t really work as well unless enough people watch and are offended enough to do that. And that usually happens when enough media call attention to it so that people notice.
Hey GaffaUK
Americans also elected Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Barny the Frank to name just a very few.Let’s not forget the brightest one Al Franken. We as a collective nation are not short of morons.
@TammyL
In the UK and Australia (where I currently live) there are terrestial channels as well as cable/satellite just like the US.
Because there are more channels (as well as the internet now) – doesn’t mean advertisers have given up. Now they have to target more as well spread out more. So if a channel prime-time normally gets 13% of the audience and that gets halved then that show will most likely be cancelled. Income is the channel’s lifeblood and that is based on ratings – which is true today as it was 50 years ago.
So if SNL got a 42% boost in ratings then that is noticeable.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122325372696006429.html
And apparently a video of Fey’s impression got 6 million hits.
http://canberra.citysearch.com.au/tv/1137609703658/Tina+Fey+Makes+an+Impression+on+SNL's+Ratings
A boycott only does damage if enough people participate. Again unfortunately for some of you here – the opposite happened. And I’m sure there are Americans who haven’t heard of Fey – as no doubt, there are Americans who haven’t heard of Palin.
Whereas a show like Life on Mars is cancelled….because of falling ratings.
http://www.tvsquad.com/2008/10/17/life-on-mars-ratings-falling-to-earth/
And if SNL is so inconsequential and/or offensive why did McCain and Palin appear on it and make fun of themselves?
@Curt
Ka-ching! When the going gets tough – follow the money.
Dare I say man-hating, baby factory-hating liberal “feminists” = lesbians.
Palin is definatley not one of them so they hate her.
Gaffa what do u think?? I know you’ll need to chime in. Just so u know, I vote with my mouse: I ignore all your typical liberal malarkey. Feel free to type away tho……yawn
vote in this Palin poll….
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/category.asp?C=81466
Feminists… who are they really? Who do they represent? Do women even relate or like them? I have no idea. (I am woman by the way) Yes, I am educated (college) and have worked since I graduated from college in 1985, happily married, all along while having a family (five children).
Feminists are beyond me. What are the reasons for this hatred? Trig (having a baby knowing the baby will have special needs), marriage to a strong (and good looking) man, starting in government at the lowest level and working up (no family ties or inheritance), life (not abortion), hunting, no ivy league education, looking good (pretty). I really don’t know.
The jokes or comedians. Let’s hear a bunch about President Obama (kind of like they did Bush). No that won’t happen. They’re all afraid. Afraid to be called racist. Afraid to say anything. I mean the teleprompter alone should be there for all of the comedians. You know that won’t be coming any time soon. And Vice President Biden. Come on…. the man is a gaffe machine. Yet silence.
Does anyone read Maureen Dowd? Listen to Katy Couric? Have you ever seen more unhappy people? The “men have a… women have a… ” crowd and they can’t get past the only thing we have in common is a piece of female anatomy? I keep waiting for a man to say something so stupid.
I can’t speak for women but sincerely doubt that these feminst have any type of following or that they represent American women.
The Palin deranged hating left just don’t get it. They are so enslaved in their own lies, self-loathing, and false beliefs that it’s inconceivable to them that anyone would by choice, give up POWER. Well, at least what they think is power.
Palin, like all faithful Christians knows what they, in their blindness, can’t know: That the only “power” of any significance is that which comes from a strong faith and trust in God. It’s called, WISDOM. That’s why she could easily say (and mean it). “If I die I die.”
Yeah, that’s a head spinner for the narcissistic elite. Unlike them, Palin is able to happily live with who SHE is, not driven into obsession over titles, awards, fame, “winning at any cost”, and most of all, needing the validation of others (which is all an illusion anyway). I take her at her word, consistent with her actions, that she is putting faith and family first.
I suspect in time she will run again, but not with the GOP. What should really scare the hell out of the left is Palin becoming a national talk show host; especially against the Oprah time slot. Preferably she will do this before new age false Christianity Oprah leaves daytime TV to go dictate with Obama (trust me, its coming; she just has to finish out her contract).
What could be sweeter than Palin (who is far more popular than Oprah), rebuilding the “dummying down and new age, false mentality” that Oprah and friends have so cleverly built over the years?
( Oprah fans how’s that ‘secret’ working for ya? Remember, we were all going to get filthy rich and get anything we wanted, IF of course we bought that ‘Secret’ book you were pushing. )
IMO, her next few years would be best spent on national TV, restoring reality. Perhaps even better than a talk show, replace Katie Couric with Palin on CBS, and finally give America a MSM source that is real unbiased news (and CBS a rating boost that Couric will NEVER deliver). Had only the MSM done their job, we wouldn’t have this loser for a president.
@PDill
That’s right – we really need another right-wing pundit to join Coulter, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity et al – being a cheerleader whilst not being a participant. She’s swapped power for money. Who can blame her? Too much hassle – easier to quit. Judging by the reaction to her bizarre decision to give in – looks like she has even less chance of getting back on to any 2012 GOP ticket.
But being a pundit rarely constitutes any power to change. In 20 years time she will probably be an interesting footnote of history like Geraldine Ferraro. Meanwhile she will be the darling of the right wing of the GOP & earn lots of dollars – but she will hardly be a kingmaker. Maybe she can give Republican candidates all her knowledge of foreign policy based on Alaska’s proximity to Russia;) And in 20 or so years will people remember the TV and radio pundits of today? Whereas all you Obama-haters will have to put up with the fact that Obama has already made history, is in the White House and will be remembered and is far more likely to have impact on history than Palin.
Really, Gaffa? I didn’t realize we had to have a “quota” on free speech. And I am continually amazed at your “we” stuff, Kemosabi. You aren’t an American citizen, so I genuinely resent your suggestions we change our elections laws of succession, or decide how many politically tilted pundits are “needed” in the American press. I suggest you police your own backyard first.
@MataHarley
lol – er…you can have free speech as an elected official as well as a pundit – so no quotas there. It just seems the conservatives in the US have more pundits than they do credible candidates for 2012. Which figures have emerged so far? Sure there’s some time to go and well I guess that Palin wasn’t that credible especially as she’s more damaged now that she has quit.
As for you taking umbrage at my opinions of your country, systems & politicians – that’s sheer hypocrisy on your part. You comment on countries besides the US. Indeed you voiced your opinion on the UK’s ex-home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s decision to ban certain Americans. Well that’s British policy so why are you commenting on that? And you have commented on Honduras political system. Free speech isn’t neatly contained and isolated by every national border y’know.
There’s “more” conservative pundits? Listened to MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC of late? Or don’t they come thru Down Under?
Cable “conservative” pundits are sorely outnumbered. Most reside on FOX… the much maligned station that has the highest ratings. Radio talk hosts are predominately conservative. But do not confuse that with our public broadcast channels and two out of three of the main cable news stations.
Palin “more damaged now that she has quit”? And you’re basing this one what, per chance? Your opinion? News flash… not interested in your opinion vs reality. Quite in fact, as a foreigner, I give your opinions expressed on this blog less consideration than I do the leftist opposition. You are, in my opinion, an interested observer only. Sometimes you add to the conversation, and sometimes you are just an unsubstantiated partisan who really has no “party” (as you’ve said before) because you aren’t an American. Express an opinion? Fine. Take the repercussions of that opinion? Absolutely. Part of the package.
As far as your statement as fact that “Palin is more damaged”…. l ook again, Bubba. Wall to wall news on Palin that rivals Michael Jackson. Negative? Perhaps on the surface. But it’s all “speculation” crap, like you’re doing. Only takes a big of patience to show you to be the gleeful fool.
INRE my “umbrage”. I don’t expound in my posts that you *change* your laws to suit my beliefs, as you did when you had the chutzpah to say that the States or the US feds should alter their succession laws. There is a massive difference between expressing an opinion, and dictation of what you deem is the correct law. Mind your own bloody business and let the States decide their own fates.
Jacqui Smith’s choice to “ban” individuals is policy, not law… as you pointed out. That changes with the next admin. Do not mix those up as well. Nor did I suggest in my post that she change them. I suggested, quite nicely in fact, that she is being an ass. Must be a national trait….
And to clarify and substantiate that of what I speak, here is the link to the post and comments.
Perhaps you’ll point out where in the post, or my ensuing comments, that I suggested you change your policy and/or laws to suit my opinion… as *you* did?
And another damn thing, Gaffa. My comments on Honduras are as they relate to a POTUS who is not recognizing Honduras law. Tell me where I suggested that Honduras should change their laws to suit me?
@MataHarley
Apologies for the long response but you brought up some interesting points…
I didn’t say there are more conservative pundits than liberal pundits. I believe the GOP needs more potential leaders in the fight to regain power and not more people like Palin adding hot air like the rest of us (americans and ‘foreigners’). But why would I say this? What do I care about the GOP? Well true – not much currently. But I believe it can be unhealthy to have domination of one party for too long especially it the opposition is weak. And what happens in the US – still the only superpower – effects us all. Again using a UK comparison – in the UK for over a decade we were lumbered with New Labour and the Tories were weak, divided and just pathetic. Fortunately they have finally got back into shape – so much so – that I would vote (from abroad if I’m still here) for them. I’m glad Reagan defeated Carter and Mondale – and Bush Sr was better than Dukasis. And I prefered Clinton over Bush Sr and Dole. I would rather Gore beat Dubya through the electoral college than by just beating him by the popular vote. And Kerry was just wooden. But still. But of course that’s just my opinion by a non-voting non-american, johnny-foreigner. Point is I would be interested to see if the GOP really do have a star that can take on Obama. Economics is where the right can win – not the moralising.
Absolutely it’s my humble opinion. Do you really believe in your heart of hearts the GOP are more or less likely elect her as their nominee now that she has quit? If you’re not interested in my opinion why engage in debate with me? I’m interested in your opinion. I’m just hoping we can keep it civil.
I don’t mind you calling me a foreigner if you so feel the need to. Why now though? Just to remind me what we both know? If the debate gets too tricky I guess it’s a way out. And I don’t consider myself Left – more centrist. In the UK I vote between Conservative and Liberal parties but NOT Labour. Well I guess we are all partisans on here. I did belong to a party but I quit that as I didn’t agree on their overly pro-stance on the EU (they broke an election promise). Yep I’m quitter too;) Not sure yet about Australian politics. Happy to not be associated with a party for the time being. But I still have my political convictions and annoying argumentative style;) Not sure what you meant by ‘repercussions of that opinion’. I enjoy debate. Go ahead.
‘
Well someone said ‘all publicity is good publicity. Not so sure that is true – I’m sure Jacko could of done without the publicity around his trial and Palin without the focus on her and her family, the ethics complaints etc. I don’t think how many column inches you get equates to likelihood of becoming 2012 GOP nominee – otherwise you would have nominated someone like Britney Spears. Is it speculation – of course. That’s what the big bad MSM (and most, if not all, of us on here do). That’s what make politics interesting. Otherwise it’s just history. I am gleeful. Yes – kind of – as much as you guys would be if Obama lost then decided to quit. But I don’t wish ill on her – she livened up ‘your’ election for us foreigners. I hope she gets out of debt. I genuinely believed she should of finished her term – and that’s what I believe whether it’s conservatives or socialists (like Blair).
Hmm – saying that I am ‘dictating’ is you putting a spin on my opinion. I don’t think the States or the US feds will change because I say so. I was interested in others opinions to see if any of you agreed. I believe changing leader makes a big difference – whether it’s Major replacing Thatcher or Ford replacing Nixon as PMs or Presidents – or at a State level. Expense sounds like an excuse. If Obama quit – would you be fine with Biden running your country for the rest of the term – even if he pushed through different or even more radical reforms? Or would you meekly accept things as they are – because that’s the way it is. As for minding my own bloody business – well I’ll do that as soon as you and the rest of America does the same;) And besides are you living in Alaska? If not – then surely as you have a federal system – it’s not your business either.
So you can comment on any foreign country EXCEPT for it’s laws? Why not? Would you like to see the laws of Iran changed? Or would you never comment on such a thing? Personally with free speech I reckon we (Americans and those ‘foreigners’ who live in a generally free society) can and should be able to comment on other countries laws – be it Nazi Germany laws or Middle Eastern Sharia laws. Any way MataaHarley – I’m sure you don’t respect me – but actually respect your views. I may not agree with all of them but it’s interesting – that’s what good debates should be about.
In response, Gaffa
We got a Queens v Colonialist English problem again, eh? “Pundit” espouses opinions, usually via mass media and thus is usually reserved for the talking heads, and not their interviewees. And as for Palin adding more “hot air”… I guess that’s a personal opinion.
But in your continued comments after that. i.e. knowing the ill effects of a dominate party in control for too long. We have gone thru that here. Right now, it’s a two party system, but in name only. And perhaps this is where I should clarify that I don’t consider Palin “Republican”. She is conservative, but she’s bit the ass of many a GOP’er. Thus her mixed reaction in the beltway. She’s not a “team player”. And frankly, I like that.
As an aside, and pay no attention to this but as an offhand comment, I don’t think the GOP will either have anyone to run against Obama, nor care to run against Obama in 2012. It will be a time when American’s don’t really know what is happening to economy since the government spending will start to kick in, but the repercussions in national debt and dollar tanking won’t quite be as obvious. That will happen in a potential Obama 2nd term. All this spending was timed to hit when the 2012 election came around because it will look like things are getting better… until the bill is delivered to the table for the meal, of course.
The GOP has a choice. They need to return to what they are supposed to stand for, or morph into another party. Having a Dem-lite party is not a long term battle to be won. And while the leaders may be ostracized… in the media’s opinion… most of the country is still a center right mentality. And the longer Obama is POTUS, the more right leaning they will become. Except for the youth college types, of course. That’s because they still live off the system or mommy and daddy. They won’t morph until they have to start paying the bill for their fantasy utopia.
And I’d say that takes care of your question as to whether I think the “GOP” will nominate Sarah. I think they’ll pick a throwaway candidate in 2012. And I also think if they don’t change, they will be thrown away with their “throwaway” candidate and something new will emerge.
I’ve always considered you a foreigner, along with our former Craig. I never mind your opinions. I mind when you attempt to tell us what to do. There is a big difference between the two. As an American, I don’t need moral lectures from a foreigner on our laws when yours are just as appalling to me. Yet I really attempt to *not* tell you to change your laws. Just comment they are FUBAR.
I’re referring to your comments on the “I’m with Sarah” thread”, which is excrutiatingly painfull to scroll thru because of that idiot, ghost guru’s, 3000 one liner comments and a 3 dimensional OT tangent. You were speaking of the unethical aspect of our individual States and federal laws INRE succession, and how no one elected the #2 to be the #1.
While that may be true, since McCain would have won handily over Biden in a “which would you like to be President” contest, our #2 person – plus our laws for succession to the seat of power – are what they are. The chain of command is not out of line, and is a necessity. And that’s under control of the original States, and of our Constitution for ascention to the POTUS.
You said, in no uncertain terms, that should dictate a new election… which, as Aqua most graciously pointed out, is absurd in reality for taxpayer/electoral costs with the executives that resign, thrown out for scandal, etal.
Now I may not like some UK policy or new legislation, but I’m not about to tell you how your laws should be written because I am a foreigner to your country and government. And I expect that same foreigner hands off respect from you. I believe you, like Craig used to do, cloud it with this “we don’t need” stuff… which is why I have lately said to you… “what’s this ‘we’ stuff, kemosabi ?” You aren’t American, and I’m not British. When it comes to British law, I don’t say “we”, as you tend to do when talking about American law.
First, I didn’t say I didn’t respect you, Gaffa. I think you know enough about me by now that I don’t mince words and hide my opinons about someone’s thought. As I said, I just want to rein in this “we” stuff from you… and I would expect the same from you if I suggested to you how to change your laws to suit my tastes.
That said, I don’t care about the “laws of Iran”. I care about the leadership of Iran, respecting the votes and desires of their citizens. I’ve been watching that country for years… waiting for the youth to assert their western ways on the “ol’ white guys” (so to speak) of Islam. Now that they have, they are being murdered in the streets, and I understand that Ahmadinejad and crew have mandated that all satellite dishes for homes must come down by a deadline.
Do I want to change their laws? Nope… *they* can change their laws. What I want is for the population to be able to have effect on their laws. And with their currest government structure, that is not possible. I may advocate an entire change of government (when they are despots and engage in abominable human rights), I will not tell them what laws they need to enact.
I think I managed to comment on Jacqui’s policy and express my displeasure without assuming to tell your government what to change. In fact, what you said to me is not dissimilar to what I am saying to you now. So let me remind you of the exchange:
Get the difference between telling us our laws are not ethical because someone was “not elected to that position” (i.e. Veep not POTUS, and Lt. Gov, not Gov)… and merely expressing an opinion about the leadership and/or policy? If you don’t like Parnell.. who I’m quite sure you know little about… that’s one thing. Express away about how you feel he’s inadequate.
But to tell us that Parnell’s ascension to the Governorship is not okay, or not legitimate, is another.
Gaffe, I’m really glad that you posted this because it makes my point of just how powerful Palin would be as a CULTURE CHANGER.
You are just as clueless as the rest if you think for a minute that Palin is in the same ballpark as Hannity, O’Reilly, Coulter, or Limbaugh, who are for the most part, ” conservative entertainers.”
The left’s worst nightmare, is to “deoprahize” (my new invented word for our times), the culture.
In fact, I think I will try to make time today to write a post about it in detail.
For now, know that nothing will change the future of politics more in this country than the mentality of our pop culture. Palin absolutely could change that, and the left are scared s****** that she just might!
Without question, Palin, at least at this time, would serve America best going head to head with Oprah, starting the much needed, deoprahization, of America.
More on that later…
@MataHarley
Apparently Palin doesn’t like those who aren’t team-players…firing the Police Chief of Anchorage, Walt Monegan and saying…
http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/492964.html
As for commenting on other countries laws – I don’t see a problem in that. If you are interested in politics – then law-making is central to this. And don’t for a minute believe I am lecturing you in the belief that I think the UK’s laws are any better. If you don’t like any of the UK laws – go ahead say what you think. I might even agree with you. People have commented on here about Sharia law being put in place in the UK in certain areas of the Muslim population. Although I don’t believe anyone has had any of their anatomy chopped off – I certainly think this is stupid. And the UK has a upper chamber where no ibe is elected by the public + of course we are lumbered with a monarch.
And I think the term ‘we’ is pretty harmless – as in ‘we don’t need anymore right wing pundits’. These American pundits like O’Reilly aren’t just American pundits who talk only about American issues and are only broadcast within the States. They discuss foreign issues – sometimes with no or little connection to US interests and these programmes are broadcast in countries like UK and Australia. So in this new global world – I’m not just on the outside looking in. In the same way – an American might say ‘we don’t need any more scientists promoting the theory of evolution’ in regards to Richard Dwarkins. But hang on he’s English – you can’t say ‘we’? lol
As for laws – yes there are certain laws I want countries to change. I don’t want Middle-Eastern countries stoning women for adultery. I don’t shrug and say it’s up to them to sort it out. I’m glad certain groups and governments get involved. A lot of laws – even within democratic countries are put in place with little input from the general public. And populations don’t think as one – so maybe the majority of Saudi Arabia (even if women could vote)- thinks it’s ok to stone adulterers etc. Sorry but I don’t think therefore that’s makes it any less of a subject to have and express an opinion on – whether it’s direct or not.
And in your quote – my position isn’t contradictory. I believe a country should have the right to bar anyone BUT I don’t believe that means ‘foreigners’ such as Americans aren’t allowed to express their opinion on such laws or policies.
@PDill
‘deoprahize’- yep…right. Be interested in your post on that. Can’t see how Palin is going to create some new culture. Sounds a bit like a messiah syndrome to me. Now that’s sound familar….
America LOVED SNL when they ripped Palin they had by far the highest ratings numbers This is just more of the typical right wing self pity.