The trashing of Sarah Palin

[Dr. Shane]

The really ironic thing is that liberals got what they want. (Guys like Chris Matthews) And yet they still can't stop spewing hate. Eight years of hating G.W. Bush wasn't enough for them. I am beginning to wonder if they really wanted Obama to win. Who are they going to hate now? Perhaps they are going to set up camp in Alaska to give us daily hate doses of Palin.

[Neil D]

No it's not. It is called "reporting" and it comes from sources that have actually seen it happen and they are "journalists"...It's something that they are charged to do, report as they see what is happening.

Gosh, Shane...get real...Just because your favorite political character is nothing more than an ambitious ol' boys crony doesn't mean that you have to lie to defend her...

If you don't like what is said about her, let her defend her own record.

[Dr. Shane]

No. The reporters are getting it from "sources" that do not want to be identified. Hmmmmm, wonder why. These sources are from the McCain campaign. That means they're losers. They lost. Obama won. So they are looking for a scapegoat. They say that Palin didn't know some pretty obvious things and Palin released a statement saying that is not true. So we have unidentified sources making outlandish claims and Palin denying them. Repeating that is not gossip. That is reporting. However... repeating the outlandish claims as if they are fact is gossip. If someone is going to repeat the outlandish claim they have to also point out it is from an unidentified source looking for a scapegoat and that Palin has denied it is true.

[jasd]

>>When someone can't name one newspaper or magazine they regularly read (and this came from her own mouth),<<

Gunshy? Might there be reason that the Palin may have been put off her game? You betcha!

“Hollywood savaged Palin. Journalists mocked her. Liberal blogs slimed her. Opponents cursed her, Photoshopped her, hacked her e-mail, hanged her in effigy, called her bigot, Bible-thumper and bimbo, and attacked her husband and children. But nothing Palin endured during the election season compares to the treatment she's receiving from these backstabbing blabbermouths who worked on the same campaign she poured herself into over the last three months.

Sarah Palin worked her heart out. She energized tens of thousands to come out when they would have otherwise stayed home. She touched countless families. I didn't agree with everything she said on the campaign trail. But she vigorously defended the Second Amendment and the sanctity of life more eloquently in practice than any of the educated conservative aristocracy. And she did it all with a tirelessness and an infectious optimism that defied the shameless, bottomless attempts by elites in both parties to bring her and her family down.

Liberty needs a virtuous people to survive; self-governance requires virtuous leaders. "Knowledgeability" is a necessary trait in political life, but it is not sufficient. The elitist critics of Palin, so blindly enamored of Barack Obama's ability to hold forth for hours on theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, ignored the Founding Fathers' counsel: Character counts. In times of adversity and crisis, it counts more than IQ points, instant trivia recall and bloviation skills.”

Not to mention such as – accusing her husband of incest with her daughters. Those of questionable qualities are still fragging her. Tchah! Absolutely and totally reprehensible.

Though having fought a good fight and lost – she still stands proud. She displays the dignity that absolutely eludes her detractors. I don’t know where her ragamuffin detractors received their upbringing but – definitely, their mums forgot to, both, brass their testaments and to apprise them of savoir-faire. Men have no need to continually rag on one who’s fought well and departs with grace – let alone, to do so re a woman. But then,

per the qualities which define a man, well, ipso facto... prima facie. (present company excepted, of course) :-o

Per “one newspaper or magazine regularly read”: seems many America are ignoring our printed press nowadays – given the fact that their circulation and revenues are tanking. The avant garde seem to be looking elsewhere for informational input.

>>...it's legitimate to wonder how informed they can posibly be.<<

If the abstract metrics obtain, yes.

[Neil D]

Quote:

No. The reporters are getting it from "sources" that do not want to be identified. Hmmmmm, wonder why. These sources are from the McCain campaign. That means they're losers.

Well, maybe the sources that YOU are listening to are "un-named" but mine are direct observations who are reporting. They were charged to not say anything, or it was off the record until after the election.

Quote:

They say that Palin didn't know some pretty obvious things and Palin released a statement saying that is not true.

Palin is saying that it's not true as she doesn't want to look like she was a poor choice. If she had the integrity that you all say that she had, she would have told McCain that she was not qualified. And all those sources are confirming my observations from all those interviews that she did. She was literally a "deer in the headlight" VP who had conservative viewpoints. And when asked a question that was NOT a regurgitation from the McCain/republican script, it was evident that she had not a clue.

Quote:

However... repeating the outlandish claims as if they are fact is gossip. If someone is going to repeat the outlandish claim they have to also point out it is from an unidentified source looking for a scapegoat and that Palin has denied it is true.

Those "outlandish claims" are facts, every one of those that I have put up. Just because you can't and refuse to look at your "precious cannidate" being made to look bad by HER OWN WORDS and ACTS, doesn't mean it that you need to accuse us of being scumbags. What it does it make you look even more outlandish ....and uncreditable...

[jasd]

>>I am sorry, but Sarah Palin is found wanting....<<

Character is noblesse oblige. Character is conduct becoming a gentleman.

An aside: NAFTA. North American Free Trade Association.

America, Canada, and Mexico. Oops, Mexico? ain that Central America?

Say what!? --Pogo

The Kakification of the proletariat.

[fccool]

>>I am sorry, but Sarah Palin is found wanting....<<

Oops, Mexico? ain that Central America?

oops...

[fccool]

It has nothing to do with scapegoating, or shifting the blame around. There should be a better standards to determine our political leaders. We have standardized tests to get into Universities, or to get a Job...

I think it's a commonly understood by our founding fathers that people in leadership would be held to a certain degree of understanding and education, that's why there were no requirements in constitution.

Although generally I don't consider lack of extensive geographic knowledge as a sign of ignorance... I think it is an expected quality for a candidate running for office.

If candidate is ignorant of geography, do you really think he/she would have a thorough understanding of geopolitical issues? It's more than "Good guy/bad guy" mentality of Palin. That's what I find disturbing... people generalize the entire countries based on few sound bites of their leaders... some of whom can't give you basic details about the same countries that they are fighting against.

I honestly don't think that Palin realizes that guys like Ahmedinejad and Chavez are democratically elected leaders. Quoting Bush from couple years ago....

Quote:

"The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And one such goal is a democracy in Germany." --George W. Bush, D.C., May 5, 2006

Sure, the "character" qualities IS something that is of value... but can't we have a leader with both... character and knowledge? Would you hire anyone to run your business if he/she has a character, yet lacks basic knowledge? I hope not! Why would you do the same for a country?

I just don't see how people can defend that based on "character". Character in politics is just a slogan. They know that they will have to lie and hide and play into certain amount of deception. It's not a football game... we are talking about espionage, intelligence gathering, war .... classified information, making promises that one can't possibly fulfill... public opinion manipulation. That's a reality of politics. That's why people like Clinton and Rove are successful.

So, the least I can expect from them is to know what they are talking about... instead of speech writers and campaign managers creating a political celebrity.

[Bravus]

I oppose abortion strongly, late term abortion even more so. (I do not however that late term abortions typically become necessary when early term abortions are denied, but that is a sidelight.) I believe no abortion should ever occur for contraceptive reasons. (I feel differently in relation to "women's health" - thanks J. McCain for the scare quotes, having experienced one such issue in relation to my wife.)

The claims made in relation to Obama's position on abortion are just as much scurrilous lies as some of those claims made about Palin that have been disputed in this thread, and those so hot to defend Palin against lies ought also to be willing to defend Obama against a false description of his opinion. I understand his position to be that abortion should be discouraged strongly and made as rare as possible, and that contraception should be available, education provided (and before you start, not to 5 year olds except in relation to protection from predators) and adoption and other support services available, but that the final decision is most safely made between a woman, her partner if he is on the scene and her medical team. Quality counselling services should be available.

OK, that's your one example, which you emphasised was just one example. Got any others?

[olger]

When someone can't name one newspaper or magazine they regularly read (and this came from her own mouth), it's legitimate to wonder how informed they can posibly be.

:)

I'll take someone who reads the Bible anyday over someone who dines on magazines. A N Y D A Y,

og

[Dr. Shane]

Those "outlandish claims" are facts

Unsubstantiated gossip are not facts. It is hateful rhetoric. Those that repeat it are simply being puppets. I have my own mind and am not so gullible to buy into such silly notions.

"The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly." Prob. 18:8

"He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets: therefore meddle not with him that flattereth with his lips." Prob. 20:19

"Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth." Prob. 26:20

[Dr. Shane]

oops...

Off topic but...

Actually the southernmost state of Mexico, Chiapas, is considered to be part of Central America. So that map is not entirely accurate. Chiapas was divided in 1823 when Central America gained independence from Mexico. Mexico continues of have problems with the indigenous people that do not identify themselves as Mexicans.

OK, that is probably more than Palin knows. [tic] I only hopes it makes some of her critics feel as stupid as they are accusing her of being.

[Dr. Shane]

It has nothing to do with scapegoating, or shifting the blame around...

I honestly don't think that Palin realizes that guys like Ahmedinejad and Chavez are democratically elected leaders...

Wow! Yes, it is about finding a scape goat. This unsubstantiated gossip is coming out of what was the McCain campaign. The media is picking it up, especially the left-wing outlets, but it is coming from the moderate Republican wing that was running McCain's campaign.

Ahmedinejad and Chavez were not elected in what is considered to be free elections. Those elections were rigged. I think Palin understands that.

[Dr. Shane]

The claims made in relation to Obama's position on abortion are just as much scurrilous lies as some of those claims made about Palin that have been disputed in this thread, and those so hot to defend Palin against lies ought also to be willing to defend Obama against a false description of his opinion.

During the campaign I defended Obama's record on abortion against the unfair attacks from the McCain campaign when McCain was pointing out that Obama voted against a partial-birth abortion ban. Obama did vote against it but because it did not have a provision to save the life of the mother.

I am a bit nervous with Obama on this issue because I am afraid he will be like Clinton and try to pander to the pro-choice groups by making abortion-on-demand legal. Time will tell.

[fccool]

Originally Posted By: fccool

It has nothing to do with scapegoating, or shifting the blame around...

I honestly don't think that Palin realizes that guys like Ahmedinejad and Chavez are democratically elected leaders...

Wow! Yes, it is about finding a scape goat. This unsubstantiated gossip is coming out of what was the McCain campaign. The media is picking it up, especially the left-wing outlets, but it is coming from the moderate Republican wing that was running McCain's campaign.

Ahmedinejad and Chavez were not elected in what is considered to be free elections. Those elections were rigged. I think Palin understands that.

Rigged? Sounds like a "conspiracy theory" to me, Shane. Or does rigging only a reality of the foreign countries?

I'm sure Palin would not know anything about the operation AJAX either, and how USA "loves" democracy that they are willing to overthrow it. If you don't know about AJAX, look it up, and feel likewise "stupid"... along side with Palin . PS...

56x32 = 1792 ... I just did it in my head

and I know the names of all of the Russian tzars... and Palin does not. Let it be a great comparative example of her inferior intellect. ahahahahah

Come on, Shane!

[Nan]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

When someone can't name one newspaper or magazine they regularly read (and this came from her own mouth), it's legitimate to wonder how informed they can posibly be.

:)

I'll take someone who reads the Bible anyday over someone who dines on magazines. A N Y D A Y,

og

While I would like my physician to be a Bible reader, I would also like him to have studied medicine.

Ditto for my car mechanic, plumber, and any other tradesman or profession - they need to be informed about the

details of their work.

The impression out there is that Sarah Palin is not informed about those things she should know before she considers public office.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted By: fccool

It has nothing to do with scapegoating, or shifting the blame around...

I honestly don't think that Palin realizes that guys like Ahmedinejad and Chavez are democratically elected leaders...

Wow! Yes, it is about finding a scape goat. This unsubstantiated gossip is coming out of what was the McCain campaign. The media is picking it up, especially the left-wing outlets, but it is coming from the moderate Republican wing that was running McCain's campaign.

Ahmedinejad and Chavez were not elected in what is considered to be free elections. Those elections were rigged. I think Palin understands that.

No kidding those elections were rigged.

[Dr. Shane]

Rigged? Sounds like a "conspiracy theory" to me, Shane. Or does rigging only a reality of the foreign countries?

No one can run for President of Iran unless the Guardian Council approves of them. The Council has a history of disqualifying reformist candidates. "Change You Can Believe In" is not a good campaign slogan in Iran.

The Carter Center was not able to validate the 2000 Venezuelan election due to lack of transparency. In 2006 Chavez appointed all the election workers and did not allow the foreign press access. I think it safe to say those were not fair elections.

[Dr. Shane]

The impression out there is that Sarah Palin is not informed about those things she should know before she considers public office.

And that is not by any type of accident. The opposition decided to paint her that way and defending her doesn't bring in the ratings so the media had no incentive to do so. Time is what will justify or condemn her. If she comes back in for or eight years we will see her in her own light and not under the shadow of others.

[olger]

Originally Posted By: olger

:)

I'll take someone who reads the Bible anyday over someone who dines on magazines. A N Y D A Y,

og [/quote']

While I would like my physician to be a Bible reader, I would also like him to have studied medicine.

Ditto for my car mechanic, plumber, and any other tradesman or profession - they need to be informed about the

details of their work.

The impression out there is that Sarah Palin is not informed about those things she should know before she considers public office.

I don't read magazines, and am the founder of a successful roofing company for 24.5 years. Am I excluded from the realm of profesionalism somehow..? Your analogy has a fundamental incoherence - elevating as it does cursory academics over real experience.

Like saying BB King is not a guitarist because he doesn't read music, and Bill Gates is not successful because he is a college drop out.

oG

[Taylor]

Originally Posted By: fccool

Rigged? Sounds like a "conspiracy theory" to me, Shane. Or does rigging only a reality of the foreign countries?

No one can run for President of Iran unless the Guardian Council approves of them. The Council has a history of disqualifying reformist candidates. "Change You Can Believe In" is not a good campaign slogan in Iran.

The Carter Center was not able to validate the 2000 Venezuelan election due to lack of transparency. In 2006 Chavez appointed all the election workers and did not allow the foreign press access. I think it safe to say those were not fair elections.

Thank you Shane. Agreed.

[Bravus]

If Ms Palin, like me, reads her news online more often than not, she could have said that. The bottom line is that she needs to know about the world, and she was not able to answer a simple question about how she finds out about the world. The answer, as every politician knows, is not delineated by the question. She was not limited to talking about newspapers and magazines. The question was about how she learns about the world, and she failed to answer it convincingly.

Look, it's fairly simple: can you think of any other reason why the campaign refused to allow her to confront the press, except that it felt she was not prepared? Whatever you want to say about Obama and experience/preparation, he was accessible to the press and talking to the press, and doing so credibly. Palin, for all her vaunted experience, was being actively shielded from the press: and the press is the public's only means of deciding whether a candidate deserves the position.

[Bravus]

And, lest we forget, it's the *Republicans* who are actively trashing Palin at the moment. Most Democrats are just trying to forget her.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

When someone can't name one newspaper or magazine they regularly read (and this came from her own mouth), it's legitimate to wonder how informed they can posibly be.

:)

I'll take someone who reads the Bible anyday over someone who dines on magazines. A N Y D A Y,

og

Yes. Sarah started her 'career' by leading Christian groups before going forward as a public servant. She knows her Bible better than where the country of South Africa is.

[Bravus]

I'd love to see that interview...