In a previous post Politico was shown as conducting a vendetta against Sarah Palin and along with much of the media continues the baseless bashing of Palin. It is as though Politico, TPM and the phonies at WaPo get wee-wee’d up any time Palin lands a right cross on Barack Obama. They then have editorial hissyfits in retribution for anyone daring to besmirch their leader.
For someone who (according to the left wing media) is supposed to be stupid, Sarah Palin is pretty sharp.
And funny.
She observed that Obama’s “Win the Future” jingle could be properly abbreviated to
That’s good stuff.
Side note: Does “Win the Future” sound familiar? It ought to.
Palin was critical of Obama’s “Sputnik moment” speech. In an interview with Greta Susteren, Palin said
And his theme last night in the Speaker of the House was the “WTF,” you know, “Winning the Future.” And I thought, “OK, that acronym, spot on.” There were a lot of “WTF” moments throughout that speech, namely, when he made the statement, Greta, that he believed that we can’t allow ourselves to, I guess, eventually become buried under a mountain of debt.
When asked if she agreed with Obama about this being “our moment” Palin had this to say:
That was another one of those WTF moments, when he so often repeated this Sputnik moment that he would aspire Americans to celebrate. And he needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space, yes, they won, but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union.
Read carefully what Palin said. No one in the left wing media did.
Stephen Stromberg in the WaPo
In her rant, Palin wildly misconstrued the president’s argument, which was not about emulating the Soviets in the 1950s but instead about the Americans who responded to early Soviet success in space exploration by educating themselves and out-innovating the Soviets. Did she listen to the speech?
It is Stromberg who has it wrong. The “Sputnik moment” was a loss for the US. If Obama wanted to draw the correct analogy, then he should have said what we need is a “Kennedy moment” as Kennedy responded to the Sputnik moment with a new challenge.
Then there’s Ryan Reilly over at TPM, who goes bipolar within a few paragraphs. First he asserts Palin doesn’t know what she’s saying
‘WTF?’ Sarah Palin Thinks The USSR Won The Space Race?
And then immediately goes on to admit that Palin was right.
Yes, the Soviet Union won many of the early contests in the space race
And then goes wrong again
(including putting the first man in orbit, which may have been what Palin meant by “race to space”).
No, Ryan. The Soviets won the race to space just as Palin said. Sputnik was the first man made object launched into outer space. What exactly did Palin say again?
And he needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space…
In that race to space. The race to be the first in space. The Soviets won that race.
Palin made a reference to a bakery in Richland, Washington by the name of “Spudnut”
So I listened to that Sputnik moment talk over and over again, and I think, No, we don’t need one of those. You know what we need is a “spudnut” moment. And here’s where I’m going with this, Greta. And you’re a good one because you’re one of those reporters who actually gets out there in the communities, find these hard-working people and find solutions to the problems that Americans face.
Eric Kleefeld at TPM sprang into action when he heard this comment. Apparently he was determined to uncover a connection between Palin and Spudnut.
There was none. Kleefeld’s disappointment was palpable.
These people hate Palin because she scares the hell out of them. She makes sense. She’s logical.
Businesses like this coffee shop don’t receive big government bailouts. They produce something with their own ingenuity and hard work.
She makes their idol Obama look bad, and that’s simply unacceptable.
Playing Curly to Reilly’s Moe and Kleefeld’s Larry was David Kurtz who posted this about Palin:
Don’t Know Much About History …
The three writers all clearly believe that space programs cost nothing.
I have grown to loathe Politico. It is a self-serving group of Journolistas masquerading as real news people. Today Jonathan Allen put out a hit piece hacking at Michele Bachmann. And it employed a typical slimy Politico technique- anonymous derision.
When Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann was named to the House Intelligence Committee earlier this year, one of her Republican colleagues responded this way: “Is that a punchline?” Another simply said, “Jumbo shrimp. Oxymoron.”
Neither dared to attach his name to his comment.
Politico has a history of using anonymous sources to damage Republicans, especially those named Sarah Palin.
I believe that the leftist media has a strong interest in discrediting Sarah Palin. She burst onto the scene in 2008 and caught the media completely off guard. Obama and his campaign then did what they do best in Chicago.
Democrats understand Sarah Palin is a formidable political force who has upset the Obama victory plan. The latest Washington Post/ABC Poll shows John McCain taking a 12-point lead over Barack Obama among white women, a reversal of Mr. Obama’s eight-point lead last month.
It’s no surprise, then, that Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin’s hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background. My sources report the first wave arrived in Anchorage less than 24 hours after John McCain selected her on August 29.
Palin was definitely not ready for the attacks that were to be unleashed upon her and she was not properly prepared for her role. She was not granted sufficient time to learn details of the world. Yet even when she was right, she was wrong. Charlie Gibson oozed with condescension as he wrongly pressed Palin about the Bush doctrine. On the other hand, Gibson was disgustingly obsequious toward Obama.
GIBSON: It’s an enormous responsibility. And before Gulf War I, I went to Kuwait, and I talked to the commanders, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and I asked them, what does it feel like to commit kids to war? And they all said, “We don’t. The president does. It’s his job. We just carry out his order.”
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And I thought, “Holy God, what a weight that is on your shoulders.”
Not one question about the Bush Doctrine. Charlie Gibson is a jackass.
The media has its reputation staked in Sarah Palin being an idiot. Palin is not an idiot. She is very bright. She is witty. She is politically astute. And she is capable. Politico and the rest of the left wing media do not want this to become common knowledge. They are engaged in a cover-up- a cover-up of their own bias, malpractice and incompetence.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
In what sense is Palin-bashing any different from Obama-bashing?
They have an excuse, they want Demoncraps to win, what excuse does the Republican establishment have for trashing Sarah, and Bachmann etc.
Greg if you have to ask, well then there is no help for you. It’s the difference between truth and spin, can’t have Palin calling out the “ONE” when he lies and falls all over his self with bullcrap. No, better to shoot the messenger than to read the message.
@Greg: 1. She’s not the President. 2. There is no Obama-bashing in the left wing media.
Good points. Let’s all pray in the next couple years the Loons bust many an uninsured veins from their concerted apoplectic hatred for Palin once reserved for George Bush and Darth Cheney
we’ll just have to keep watching her back to help soften the blows of having 99.9999 % of the dinomedia lodge baseless, ceaseless and libelous attacks your family right down to the girls and Downs Child during their seemingly endless crystal meth binges.
Excellent article, DJ.
@Greg: “In what sense is Palin-bashing any different from Obama-bashing? ”
That perhaps Palin is a private citizen and Obama’s supposed to be the first Kenyan Born African American President and not some dimebag Local Alderman back in ‘Chee Cago mang’ …si?
It’s sort of obvious to the most casual observer at this point, the Palin non stop attacks by the Media midgets protecting their El Presidente. Ya gotta be pretty stupid not to notice, but in today’s internet world with instant access to Facts, and immediate answers to casual questions via the internet……, Americans are wired for truth in reporting, and get very little of same from CNNABCMSNBCCBS and company.
The Tea Party still has some butts to kick, but its a full time job with no rest in sight for the near future. She’s no George Bush, she doesn’t take BS from the JournOlistas.
@Gary Kukis: Thank you, Gary!
@Greg: The difference is that Palin is, has always been self-supporting, self-reliant, and moved to the governorship by starting in the PTA, Mayor’s seat, etc. While Obama, on the other hand, has never held a real job (but expects to know how to create them), and his greatest accomplishment prior to being a Senator was in being a rabble-rousing “community organizer”. And he’s lived off the public dole ever since then. One other stark difference is Obama makes one mistake after another in his policies, cares not one WHIT what the American people want and therefore has negatively affected the entire population of all “57” states (his words, not mine). Whereas, Sarah continues to earn her living in the free market enterprise and gets NO support from my astronomical taxes that Obama continues to raise. There. There’s the difference, got it?
Gee Greg, maybe the difference is that there isn’t a coordinated campaign among obama opponents to bash him no matter what. Leftists like yourself cannot say as much.
So Greg, if the attacks on Sara are so wrong, why aren’t you speaking out about them? I guess it’s because you are a far left hypocrite who will defend the left no matter what they do. Not once have you ever criticized the left.
“Winning The Future” is indeed a WTF! moment , as in WTF! have we been doing the last few decades so as to have lowered our country’s standards to the point we now have to catch back up to the rest of the world! Would it have anything to do with the screwed up policies of this administration and it’s leftist slant? WTF!
Oops! Forgot the rest of my comment
Now, two points as to the media coverage. First we have the usual debasement and hostility not only towards Sarah Palin but also Michelle Bachman, something that one would fully expect from the Obama propaganda industry. One thing that strikes many of us is the open hostility toward Republican female politicians. While it’s beyond strident to say the least, I also remember the same liberal propagandists going after Geraldine Ferraro, one of their own when she ran for vice president. They destroyed her only because she was a woman. Funny isn’t it? The so called party of the people is in fact a racist, anti-feminine political entity and the media pushes that agenda!
In his speech, President Dodo used the term ”Winning The Future”. While I first would like him to explain why he and the rest of the liberal establishment allowed (I say Pushed) this country into mediocrity in the first place, I must say I loved Sara’s response and in turn the media’s shock. Sara hit a homer with this one. Something the people can understand.
Hardright….Perhaps we should give greg some facts from Hollywood…..Hollywoodreporter.com
by Paul Bond in the Hollywood Reporter:
Olbermann first mentioned Palin on his show July 1, 2008…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…
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.
So, with that type of coverage, are you sure she isn’t a president of something ?
“Obama Bashing” almost ALWAYS has to do with his bad policies which are destructive to America. With “Palin Bashing” it has to do with distorting, denigrating, and lying about her positions and standing up for time tested American values and policies which helped create the greatest nation on earth. It’s too bad your Selective Logic does not allow you to see the difference.
Actually, John, it is you (along with Palin) who are wrong about the definition of the idiom “Sputnik moment”. I suggest you do a little research before criticizing people who are simply pointing out that Palin didn’t understand the President’s reference as it commonly understood. Is it wrong in this instance for the media to point out that Palin’s criticism of the President’s choice of words is based upon her own ignorance of the phrase and thus makes no sense? Embarrassing for her, but it didn’t need be for you if you’d simply Googled “Sputnik moment definition” and read what it means instead of implicitly trusting Palin.
from Usingenglish.com
@Greg #2, #16:
I seem to recall something Ms. Palin said about death panels:
“And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”
No lying or distortion there, of course…
I suppose that and similar comments may have given some Obama supporters a less-than-positive attitude about Palin.
Ummmm Tom, that wasn’t a defeat? Really, your reading comprehension is piss poor.
So Greg, how about proving she was lying or distorting. Seeing as how your word is less than worthless we want proof of what you claim.
@Greg:
You are correct, there was no lying or distortion in her position. The law was re-written after she pointed them out. Talk about a selective memory.
Al, Greg and Tom are all about spreading leftwing propaganda.
Hey Tom, Sputnik Response would have been correct. Not Sputnik Moment.
As for googling the definition, only ONE site has a definition and it seems rather subjective at that. Unsurprisingly you used it since it fit your purpose. We know you wouldn’t have if it didn’t support your claim. Ooops.
Obama has been touting that the recession is over for some time now.
Next Obama will probably want to brag about how our GDP is finally topping what it was before, meaning we are either in an economic expansion OR starting into another BUBBLE.
http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4d4431a7ccd1d5c1443e0000/chart-of-the-day-the-us-economy-is-no-longer-in-recovery.png
We’ve seen the tech bubble.
We’ve seen the Bank/big finance bubble.
We’ve seen the housing bubble.
Are we now seeing the first federally financed bubble?
The Fed Bubble, as it were.
The Fed has pumped trillions of freshly printed dollars into the US economy.
With that new money the Fed has bought toxic debt.
Then it transfers that toxic debt into the US Treasury.
So, it is ON US!
We are holding the bad paper!
Oh, goody!
This is what the media is covering up with EVERY diversion it puts out there for him, be it Sarah, or anything else.
You might want to consider venturing outside of the insular context of far-right media once in a while for a quick reality check.
Hey Greg, where is your proof that Sara lied or distorted anything on the death panels? Put up proof or shut up.
@Hard Right:
Who really knows if Palin is as ignorant of the term “Sputnik moment” as DJ and HR have proven themselves to be? What this really tells us is that maybe she knows it doesn’t matter whether what she says about Obama is true or makes logical sense. There’s a market for anything anti-Obama and she’s filling orders. Rather than use reason and context to understand the President’s point, there are obviously those who will just jump on the word “sputnik”? Obama said “Sputnik” so he must be for communism! I’m sure there are plenty willing to overlook the dubious genesis of the claim and agree. If this is all it takes to get her followers fired up, why would she even bother trying to construct a rigorous argument. Her fans don’t seem to care.
How amusing, Tom thinks he knows the definition of something he doesn’t. What a shock. Tom, was the Russians getting Sputnik into space first a loss for the U.S. or not? If you can’t answer it, how about having your significant other Greg do so for you?
Tom it’s funny you accuse Sara of not “constructing a rigorous arguement” when you have yet to do so yourself. You are only proving leftists like yourselves to be flaming hypocrites.
@Hard Right:
Perhaps you need to invest in a copy of “Googling for Dummies”.
Hard Right, even if one doesn’t know what “Sputnik moment” means, are you telling me that a reasonably intelligent person can’t figure out what the President means by the context of how the term is used in his speech?
Who in her right mind hearing this is going to think he’s referring to emulating the Soviet Space program? Is that what you think he means??
@Hard Right:
Of course it was a loss: that’s the President’s point. We were behind, how did we get back into the lead. The fact that you still don’t understand what he meant is stunning to me. By all means disagree with the man, but you can’t even fathom what he’s trying to say.
And, yes, I understand that you’re calling me gay again. Haha. You really got me.
Hey Tom, how about answering the question? Was Sputnik a loss for us? 2nd, if that definition is sooo widely acknowledged as the answer there should be other sources out there, right? So how about producing those sources?
What’s amusing is that folks like yourself attacked Sara for “Blood Libel”, but defend obama for incorrectly using Sputnik Moment.
Obama was wrong to use the term. I know what he meant, but for someone who others think is so smart, it’s an embarrassing error.
So how about answering instead of ducking?
EDIT: We actually got an answer! So how about the other question now. What other sources say that definition is correct? I mean really, have you not learned NOT to trust everything on the web?
I’ll respond to this when I get home from VT. We’ll demonstrate why the term was inappropriate and why this argument changes nothing.
I have long ago given up on arguing with uninformed progs. “Don’t argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience”. I won’t repeat the vulgar moronic statement uttered on TNT last week but here is their response. TNT issued an extremely rapid apology in the wake of Tracy Morgan’s vulgar comment about Sara Palin during a live basketball broadcast. The progs media is beyond contempt they are the equivalent of prissy teen age girls who mock those that they cannot accept.
The only place on the web that claims the definition Tom posted is that site. There are no others that do. Unsurprisingly Huffpo uses it too. Again, only because it fits their purpose.
This is just too easy.
That Sputnik Moment that Obama wants us to reflect upon was, as I remember, not so great. Russia proved, in that moment, that they could use their missile technology to destroy any of our major cities. The great oceans no longer protected America. We were all 15 minutes from death. We learned to duck under our desks if the horns announced their incoming ICBMs.
What is Obama trying to tell me? WTF
@Hard Right, #24:
The burden of proof generally rests on the one who makes the preposterous statement. Sarah Palin never provided a shred of evidence supporting her “death panels” allegation, which arguably might have crossed the line that separates slander from libel.
I find it singularly amazing that the very people so invested in proving Sarah Palin to be intellectually deficient, who will parse every nuance of every expression looking for their “gotcha!” moment, will at the same time allow any inane or false utterance from the lips of Obama to go unmentioned and unchallenged. Whether Palin’s uses of “death panels” or “blood libel” were in their proper literary and historical context are deemed to be oh so much more news worthy than Obama’s falsehoods and outright lies, not to mentioned the total media blackout over his closely guarded, impenetrable past.
When deriding the Pharisee’s for their obsession with legal minutia at the expense of the true intent and spirit of the God’s Law, Jesus stated that the Pharisees would “strain at the gnat, and swallow the camel” (See Mat. 23:24). Well, today these modern journalistic Pharisees would strain at the microbes and swallow the whole caravan!
Shocka. Greg dodges the question because he knows he’s lying or at least spewing partisan BS.
Again Greg, where did she lie or distort? You make it sound so easy to prove, yet refuse to do so. Answer the question or it will look like you know you’re wrong.
“Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance.”
If Palin asserts that “death panels” are part of–or somehow follow from–health care reform, then the burden of proof is hers. It’s not up to someone else to prove that what she’s saying is false. If I claimed a flying saucer landed in my back yard, I wouldn’t expect everyone to take me at my word simply because nobody can prove one didn’t.
@Hard Right:
Dude, honestly, are you seriously still questioning the definition of this term? Prior to Obama’s use in the SOTU speech, it’s been used many times, by many different people (regardless of political affiliation) to mean the same thing.
WSJ Opinion page: A Sputnik Moment for U.S. Education
Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty
Rep Bart Gordon in 2008
Rep Frank Wolf (R-VA) in 2006
Is that enough for you, buddy, or do you need more? Wondering where all your friends are? Do you think any intelligent person on this board is going to come to your rescue? They probably cringe every time you post. Your lack of reading comprehension, your seeming inability to use a computer, your pathetic gay-baiting: It all just adds up to what an embarrassment you are
Bart Gordon. ? Big Sis ? Wow, that’s reaching for a Sputnik moment……..LOL
WTF IS MORE FAMOUS now.
Greg, YOU asserted she made a false statement. The burden IS on you to prove it. Thanks for showing you are a partisan wh*re unable to back up your claims.
@Tom: Tom
What you have offered is the evolution of the term “Sputnik moment.” I can see your point but I am guessing you didn’t live it. I did. I remember the “shock and awe” (to coin a phrase) my parents expressed in learning of the launch of Sputnik. It put the country into a depressed mental state. Sputnik was not intended to be a lesson. It was meant to be an overture of superiority.
We actually were on the edge of beating the Russians and Eisenhower pretty much allowed the Soviets to win the race to space. An Atlas A was launched in June of 1957 with a dummy second stage and it could have gone on to orbit. Eisenhower did not want the first missile to be military since ICBM’s were being developed for use in delivering nuclear payloads and he was worried about the Russians’ response to being overflown by a military missile. Thus we had the Vanguard program developed from scratch. 8 out of 11 Vanguards failed, including a spectacular televised failure. It was called “kaputnik.” The second attempt also failed. It compounded the national embarassment.
In September of 1956 a Jupiter C missile put drove a payload of 86 pounds to a speed of 16,000 mph. That’s notable since 17,000 mph is the speed to achieve orbit.
The point of this is that we could have won this race but we lost it instead. It was a shock. It was a loser moment. That’s the way I remember it and Sarah Palin referred to “that” race, not the more current evolved definition.
But really the message from Palin was “Spudnut.” Her point was that the solutions to the current dismal economic climate spring from the private sector and not from the government. Obama believes that only the government can “invent stuff and build stuff.” If Bush had said that he’d have been derided as an idiot.
So while I can see where you’re coming from I side with Palin.
@Hard Right: It is as common for liberals as it is false to demand a negative be proved.
@Hard Right: Lefties like Greg do not lie. Lying is knowingly telling an untruth. The left is so entangled in their ideology that they do not know that they are telling an untruth. This is more apparent when I talk to lefties about AGW. They really believe that the cold weather and increased snow levels are a result of global warming. They also believe that Sarah Palin is lying since she doesn’t subscribe to their religion.
Good post Curt!
@Greg:
It is you who is putting forth the contention that Palin is incorrect no?
Here are some things you should be familiar with:
Now, back to you.
@Aye, #44:
The rules of logic generally don’t allow us to assume that any out-of-the-blue assertion is true until it has been proven to be false. The burden of proof always belongs to the one making the positive assertion.
Palin has stated that health care reform will lead to death panels. That’s a positive assertion and it’s her burden to prove it. Apparently she feels absolutely no need to do so. She offers nothing in the way of supporting fact or argument to back the claim up. Instead, she appeals to emotion:
That’s transparent demagogic manipulation, folks. It’s not a rational argument supportive of a positive assertion.
People seem to forget that we are not under ObamaCare….yet….thankfully.
We are under the 4 years of taxation to make the first 6 years of ObamaCare LOOK good on paper.
No 10 year period after this first phony one will even approach looking good on paper, or in reality.
Hence the talk of ”death panels,” as a euphonism for rationing health care under ObamaCare.
G.K. Chesterton once wrote that vulgar notions (and jokes) invariably contain a “subtle and spiritual idea.’’
The subtle and spiritual idea behind “death panels’’ is that life-prolonging medical technology is an expensive, limited commodity and if the market doesn’t determine who gets it, someone else will.
Call it what you like.
Sarah called it ”death panels.”
But you can’t ”prove” her wrong or right unless, Hal 9000-like, we allow it to be used until it proves itself.
And, personally, I prefer not to go that route.
@Greg:
Greg…it’s becoming more and more obvious that you haven’t made the effort to read about the things that I referenced for you in post #44.
If you had, then you, too, would understand precisely what Gov. Palin was referring to because all of those things work in tandem with the end of life provisions that were ultimately stripped from HR3200 to create exactly what she was talking about.
If, on the other hand, you had been reading background information and paying attention to the facts that abound on this then you, like the rest of us, would have known about the death panels prior to Palin commenting on them.
The death panels were in HR 1, i.e. the stimulus bill.
Very, very, wrong Greg. Way to show that people should ignore your posts. I’d say go watch a video, but we saw how that went last time.
@Aye, #47:
I’m not about to let Ms. Palin “connect the dots” for me. She has the pictures that she wants to display in mind before she picks up her pencil.
I don’t find tools used for the quantitative and qualitative analysis of health care practices to be particularly sinister. They play an important part in optimizing any health care system–in making sure we get the most good out of every public health care dollar spent. I don’t see either Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel or John Holdren as sinister figures. The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research seems like an entirely reasonable idea, though it also seems like a good idea that someone should be monitoring the cost-effectiveness of the Federal Coordination Council itself. If anything should be expected to pay for itself with cost reductions, it would be that.