Palinhate: gossip as news
In the summer of 1978 I traveled to Europe. My first stop was London, a place I’d never visited before.
I was surprised at some things I found there. One was that in July the weather was really nice—sunny and clear and warm but not too warm. Another was that the bathrooms were dirty and the toilet paper strangely rough or slightly waxy. Still another was that I witnessed nearly constant altercations of a racial/ethnic nature in the subways and on the street.
But the most surprising thing to me at the time were the newspapers. It seemed that no serious newspapers remained; they were all tabloids. Partial nudity and screaming headlines about this or that sexual escapade of famous persons, and trivia and gossip galore—this was what now passed for news in that previously-staid previous-capital of the world.
The fact that I was surprised and even shocked seems rather quaint and almost amusing now, because that type of news coverage has become commonplace in the mainstream media here, too—perhaps minus the more salacious photos, but otherwise very similar (unless, of course, your name is John Edwards, in which case it’s limited to the Enquirer).
Journalistic standards were always far from perfect. Nevertheless, in my youth they used to be better. For example, the use of the anonymous source was rare rather than commonplace, unlike today. Gossip was published on the gossip page, and it mainly concerned Hollywood celebrities rather than rumors about politicians.
In the treatment of Sarah Palin, the press has reached a new high (or low, depending on how you look at it) in the elevation of gossip and malicious rumor-mongering couched as news, or at least newsworthy speculation. I have decided to call the phenomenon “Palinhate.”
The sheer scope and breadth and the relentless nature of the assault has no precedent in public life, as far as I can tell, and that includes anything launched against President Bush or his predecessor (see this). The attacks on Palin began almost immediately after her nomination, have continued unabated to this day, and have taken a huge toll on her reputation, which is the goal.
This rumination of mine today was prompted by this Politico piece by Kenneth P. Vogel. The impetus for Vogel’s article is a flurry of Palinhate books due to come out soon, just in time to attempt maximum damage for the 2012 election:
A number of forthcoming books promise to delve deeply into ”” and, they believe, give mainstream credibility to ”” some of the more salacious Palin rumors and conspiracy theories that have sprouted in the anti-Palin blogosphere and on supermarket tabloid stands but have mostly been rejected by the mainstream media.
“We’re at a tipping point, where her character and her lack of ethics will be revealed on the national stage,” asserted Sherry Whitstine, a 49-year-old grandmother who lives in Palin’s hometown of Wasilla, Alaska, and has infuriated her famous neighbors with blog posts and online comments accusing Palin of being unfaithful in her marriage and corrupt in her political career.
These books will most likely be based on either anonymous sources or identified disgruntled neighbors and former associates with a grudge. This is what passes for journalism today. Why is it so popular? Because very often it works, and very often it sells.
And it’s why electing Palin is the best remedy not only for our politics but for the refudiation of those who murder the soul.
Wouldn’t a tell all about Krugman or Friedman be fun. Full of salacious gossip and anonymous sources telling us all about their neo-Marxism and hatred of the United States. Wild parties set up by the Chinese government and the Russian mob that ensnared them. Their twisted relationship with Pinch Sulzberger, wink, wink and their even dodgier relationship with Nazi kapo and currency trader George Soros, all intended to brig America to her knees and enrich themselves. The book just writes itself. And the screaming and self-righteousness would be hilarious. They might think twice about Palin hate after that.
I followed the link back to the 2005 article, and found it interesting as well.
The question isn’t whether the press has the right to publish what it does, but instead whether the 4th estate mythology that so many of us grew up with, and saw crash with Dan Rather, et al, is in need of even a more scathing revision.
I don’t know if Palinhate is actually popular — it’s being pushed, and pushed hard, by the liberal establishment, but will that really sell any books?
Prediction: the Palinhate genre will be like the rash of “Iraq quagmire” films that kept coming out during Bush’s term of office. Nobody will pay money for it.
When Palin’s nomination as veep was announced, I remember being aghast at the venom that was unleashed immediately and hasn’t really let up at all since then.
It was a bit of a watershed moment for me. Before that, I thought charges of media bias were often overblown. Not anymore.
I remain impressed at Palin’s strength in holding her own against the onslaught. However as neo says the goal is to damage her reputation permanently and that’s why it will NEVER lessen as long as she remains in public life.
They reached a new low with the revolting mocking of three-year-old Trig over on the Wonkette site a few days ago. Fortunately, it looks like the bulk of their advertisers have pulled out as a result.
It really leaves one speechless. Like a dark force is driving these people…
I agree with Curtis.
It is the remedy.
How to make it happen?”??”
For some it was born of the fear of God and Christians.
Like Nyom for example.
I’m not particularly religious – though I do not understand why there is such hatred for Christians or Jews or the so-called “religious right”.
I don’t understand it whatsoever so don’t even try to explain it. I’ve heard all the explanations. They don’t add up.
Two issues here: One is to damage Palin, which demonstrates that there is enormous fear in the left about her. In other words they’re afraid she might either win or continue to be so influential.
The other is to warn future candidates what can be done to you if you annoy the left.
” This is what passes for journalism today. Why is it so popular? Because very often it works, and very often it sells.”
— neo
The really sad thing is what this says about our collective culture.
Today the media is filled with celebrities who have become famous — for nothing more than becoming famous — and that drives sales.
Just as reality TV overload has also become mainstream: people flock to watch all kinds of shows just so long as they serve up any number of exhibitionists who want their 15 minutes, no matter if it is as subject of derision or humiliation, or complete ineptness.
(Never ceases to amaze me where these people come from!)
(And to think it all actually began when the airwaves first brought us The Jerry Springer Show, or Sally Jesse Rafael and their seemingly endless supply of willing guests).
“It really leaves one speechless. Like a dark force is driving these people…”
“I’m not particularly religious – though I do not understand why there is such hatred for Christians or Jews or the so-called “religious right”.
“I don’t understand it whatsoever so don’t even try to explain it. I’ve heard all the explanations. They don’t add up.”
The operating word here is “Evil.” Remember that.
Why should anyone pay for Palinhate when there is so much available for free?
There’s a book out called Infamous Scribblers which describes the state of newspaper journalism around the time of the American Revolution. If we remove the nudity, the state of journalism to which we are descending resembles the state of journalism at that time. In fact, the old days may have been a bit worse.
The animosity directed toward Sarah Palin makes a lot more sense if you look at it not as political thought, but rather as the kind of tension one sees between rival fandoms. Liberals and independents don’t loathe Palin because of her political beliefs or even because of her public appearance; they hate her because she represents a threat to their popularity. Ms. Palin provides a convenient focus for their derision.
– G
Richard Aubrey says, “In other words they’re afraid she might either win or continue to be so influential. The other is to warn future candidates what can be done to you if you annoy the left.”
Yes, fear and threat. The bright side is that the MSM is not doing so well financially. Alternate sources of info are proliferating and gaining new audiences as we chat.
1. Palin unabashedly praises American civilization, its founding principles, and the American character. These are anathema to the multiculti PC Left, but they cannot say so outright. Their virulent ad feminam attacks on Palin are an attempt to surreptitiously condition public opinion.
2. The foregoing should not be taken as support for a Palin presidency. It should not be taken as condoning the behavior of some of her supporters.
Lies only work when the target of those lies remains silent and doesn’t fight back.
By all past measures, Palin should be hiding in a cave in Alaska … instead, she’s stronger and more vocal than ever.
Progressive communists are used to people wilting under their attacks, so they keep doing the same thing without realizing Palin isn’t wilting.
Anything but deal with ideas.
I have a couple of thoughts, nothing very profound.
The whole cultural deterioration phenomenon is partly our own fault. We tolerate it. Our responses are feeble. For instance, although I rail against the Washington Post, I still toddle down and pick it up at the street for my wife; although I made her start paying for it if she wanted it to continue several years ago. Minimal stand. I refuse to watch any news other than FNC; and I do not solely depend on them for news. I get chastised, but respond that I need not watch that which I don’t trust. Hooray for the web! Does anyone notice? Oh, i doubt it. The Palin Hate Syndrome has driven me to a little more activist role. Although I quit wearing my Palin ball cap after the campaign, and scraped my bumper stickers, partly because I closed that chapter; it is also true that I didn’t want confrontation. Lately, I wear the cap everywhere as a small gesture to stand with her against the hate. On this issue, I now welcome confrontation. There hasn’t been any–yet.
Why don’t we get angry? Why don’t we hit back? Why do we avoid confrontation? (Well, personally I am old; but I do have a concealed carry permit.)
We are soft, and we are complacent. We are afraid of being labeled; pick your poison, there are many to choose from. We are letting our culture drift away. Hooray, for the Tea Party. We need something comparable to stand up for our culture.
Neo. My experience in England in general, and London in particular, back in the 80s was a bit different. It was a bit threadbare, but I certainly felt safe at all times. People in public were not as outgoing as I was used to. On the other hand, I do recall laughing at the deteriorating public scene, and abrasive public behavior in Italy back in the ’50s through ’70s. I don’t laugh at them any longer because we have caught up.
Hey GS. What supporters? What in the world are you referring to? I didn’t see your entry until now because I left mine unfinished to go to supper. I am totally mystified here.
njcommuter is right, neo. Sensationalist ‘New Journalism’ with all the ingredients of present tabloid journalism was part of the British press scene from the 1880s.
Remember when that female jogger in Central Park was attacked—kicked and beaten, and left for dead. The press called it a “wilding.” Now the media are the ones delivering the wilding, against Sarah Palin. They won’t be content until she is kicked and beaten, and left for dead. Then they’ll claim she is unsuitable for office because of her injuries.
strangely rough . . . or slightly waxy!
Why does that engender a Monty Python feeling?
Perhaps it’s a response to the ludicrous amount of incontrollable data, and I want to respond with an absurdity, some ridiculous gesture to even out the incoming with the outgoing.
You watch! Pretty soon there’s going to be a movement that incorporates this need. Maybe something like the Rajneeshies of Oregon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneeshpuram
Message to Trump: We’re taking off the gloves.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-04-24/the-donald-trump-backlash-by-howard-kurtz/#
He still might be useful as a decoy?
Oldflyer, I am referring to the sometimes abusive reactions of some Palin supporters in response to libertarian/conservative reservations about her.
I have been called, among other things, a Marxist and a troll for saying Palin shouldn’t be President. The comments here is another example.
Such behavior is no way to build a coalition.
Now, excuse me, I must have the dinner I deferred to dig up that hyperlink.
gs,
with a little perspective you could admit you could have libertarian/conservative reservations about Palin or Reagan.
We’ve seen it a million times. Yes, Reagan raised taxes. Yes, Reagan did this and that non-conservative action.
Perspective.
none of it ads up to her being not presidential material.
we have a man in office who isn’t even a man in my eyes. No executive experience or private sector experience.
Yes it’d be GREAT to have “all of the above”.
Are you saying it has to be 100% conservative or you won’t support it?
All I hear is attacks on her without perspective. Period.
omg – she did a reality show. omg. she said the word God (Nyom). omg – she this she that.
If you look at the package in total – she has the economic prescription just like Paul Ryan, etc. We have in office the economic VIRUS.
Curtis, Trump has by far the biggest bag of negatives of any of the Rs. The divorces, the bankruptcies, the semi-ethical deals, and that’s just what is well known. Who knows what else they can find? What the other candidates need to pick up from him is his confident, combative style. That style is what Sarah Palin has in spades. It is a huge part of her appeal. However, the MSM has had 3 years to build their case against her. Flimsy though that case is, the MSM still has a megaphone that is heard by apathetic people who don’t think much for themselves.
I agree with whoever it was that said they don’t think the anti-Palin books will sell too well. Most of the innuendo and character assaults are already out there. The books will just be replowing the same heavily tilled terrain.
njcommuter was right about journalism in this country too. Up until WWII most publishers had an advertised political point of view. It was during and after WWII that the news organizations began to assume the mantle of objectivity. They now hold themselves out as objective purveyors of the news even though it is quite plain that most of the MSM have become an arm of the democratic party. I would prefer we go back to the old days where there was an advertised and well understood bias. When it is upfront and known, it causes people to seek both sides of arguments. At least that’s the way I see it.
Oldflyer says, “We are soft, and we are complacent. We are afraid of being labeled; pick your poison, there are many to choose from. We are letting our culture drift away. Hooray, for the Tea Party. We need something comparable to stand up for our culture.”
Oldflyer,
I agree that too many of us are soft and complacent. Too many are expecting a handout. Too many are content to ignore what is right in front of their nose as long as they can order a pizza & watch TV.
I see lots of silent fear in society. We are afraid of facing hard times although we will soon face very hard times and have to deal with it. Many will not handle it well, there will be social chaos. Yet, many others will rise to the challenge.
You are correct that many are afraid of being labeled. But my unsolicited advice is that you are already labeled. Just be yourself, you’ve earned it. 😉
“Well, personally I am old; but I do have a concealed carry permit.” You sound prepared to me. (I also carry concealed. I did so before concealed carry permits were allowed in my state and I do so now that permits are easy to obtain.)
“I don’t laugh at them any longer because we have caught up.”
In spades. Our culture has become rude and crass. Social politeness is becoming rare in many areas of the country… but not in Iowa. Hard times are coming, be prepared and keep your chin up. Conservatives make the best survivors.
gs says, “I am referring to the sometimes abusive reactions of some Palin supporters in response to libertarian/conservative reservations about her.”
gs,
I’m not going to be abusive, please bear with me…
I too have my doubts about Palin as a presidential candidate in 2012. Not because of Palin but because the well of ‘independent’ voters has been poisoned by the MSM. Those ‘independents’ are the key to taking away Obama’s key to the oval office.
Personally, I take Palin at face value. I think the secret Palin is exactly the same as the public Palin. She loves her little Trig. She can take down a caribou at 400 yards. She has worked the salmon boat with her husband. She is tough. These are real attributes. Imagine Obama or Kerry or Clinton or Carter or Pelosi or Reid surviving in Alaska with nothing but a rifle to bring home the moose bacon.
I see no guile in Palin, instead I see sincerity. I see a woman with common sense and the right instincts. I admire her courage. I think she would make a great president in our current crisis. Yet, I do not think she can win the general election 2012. AND, I think Palin knows this and will not toss her scoped 30.06 loaded with 180 grain soft points into the ring.
All this dirt and slime of popular culture is the dark side of democracy. That is why a decent society needs also an aristocratic culture to keep a lid over vulgarity and crassitude of the masses. When British society was still an aristocratic, it could keep higher standards of decency. This all was ruined after WWII. There is a clear criterion of society decline: in a healthy society masses try to imitate upper classes, in a decadent one the upper classes try to imitate unwashed masses. When a plumber goes in a tail-coat to the theatre, the society is healthy. When a prime-minister goes into public event in jeans, the society is in decline.
We need to amp up the consequences for liberals. The Republicans are still too country-club polite. The libs call us haters anyway, so why not at least get the benefits?
Parker Says: gs, I’m not going to be abusive, please bear with me…
You’re not abusive and, I hope, neither am I. We disagree, that’s all.
Personally, I take Palin at face value.
I’m willing to take Palin the individual at face value; Palin the politician, no.
When Palin came to my attention in September 2007, I viewed her as a potential President. I was enthused by her convention speech but her campaign performance disappointed me. I granted that she had been thrust on the national stage before she was ready, and I looked for a Governor Palin, reelected by a greater margin than that by which she first won her office, to reassert herself, prepared, nationally. My support ended with her resignation.
My reaction to Romney is similar. When he returned to MA to run for governor, I hoped he would succeed and move on to run for President. I was extremely disappointed when he declined to run for reelection. Too clever by half, afaic. Had he overcome the odds and defeated an attractive black challenger in blue MA in the Democratic year 2006, he would have been the obvious choice to face Obama (or Hillary). IMO Romney would easily have defeated Obama when the financial crisis broke.
Since Palin and Romney were unwilling to let their home states validate their performance as governor, they are off my Presidential A-list.
With Palin the MSM is trying to pull off the equivalent of a jury strike to make her defacto disqualified. Because they know liberalism itself will be on trial in 2012 like it was in 2010 and they can ill afford conservatism’s staunchest attack dog a seat at the table.
Sadly we see that liberals aren’t the only ones swayed by MSM lies and propoganda in an attempt to shape and mold who even gets to run against Obama. This is exactly the process that gave us McCain in 08.
too bad “obama” is not held to the same standard!
GS, maybe you are visiting the wrong sites. Stay with Neo, Bookworm and others with similar qualities.
You did miss the whole issue with Palin’s resignation. I am convinced that it was an extremely rare and unselfish act for the good of her state. Most people have projected their aspirations, or fears, onto her by assuming that she desires to run. I do not assume anything. For some time I have hoped that she will not run; for the sake of her family and herself. She can deliver her message from any platform. The spotlight will always seek her out.
To me she is an American icon, and I will always admire her greatly, and yes, love her for what she represents and projects. It may be that some day, we will learn that she is not the genuine article so many believe her to be. If this should happen many will rejoice; and many will grieve.
DNW
The revision is ongoing. Public trust in the media has declined in the last 10 years. From the Gallup Poll :
Americans continue to express near-record-low confidence in newspapers and television news — with no more than 25% of Americans saying they have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in either. These views have hardly budged since falling more than 10 percentage points from 2003-2007.
What goes around, comes around.
I don’t know if Sarah Palin will run or not. (Personally, I hope she does, but as has been pointed out with most-welcome civility above, reasonable people do differ about this.)
What I do know is that, if she does run, she has my support. Partly this is as a show of solidarity, after what she’s been through. And partly this is because, as Richard Aubrey said above, if they succeed in squashing Sarah Palin, they will have proved that this tactic works, and they will use it again and again.
We need to squeeze the venom out of our political debate NOW. Personally, I think that a Palin candidacy — with her traveling to every state, shaking hands with people and showing them face-to-face who she is — would be the most direct way to combat that. Let people see that they’ve been fighting a phantom, and that the Republic is poorer for it.
In re Donald Trump: the man is a gadfly. I wouldn’t want him as President; the man has nothing like the depth of character we need. But gadflies are useful, and we shouldn’t discount that. If he accomplishes nothing more than to make it fashionable (again) to discuss President Obama’s birth certificate, that will have been worthwhile.
Personally, I don’t think he’ll last a month once the Republican primaries truly begin. But I look forward to that month; the fireworks will be memorable. He’ll dig up plenty of dirt on Obama, representing the work our Journolists should have done but didn’t, and he’ll dare the Obama campaign to contradict him. Now he’s claiming, based on no evidence whatsoever, that Obama got bad grades in school. Trump can make that sort of charge stick if he wants. We’ll see what he comes up with next!
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Right now, Sarah Palin’s biggest obstacle is not the psychotic attackers on the left, but the “leadership” of the GOP who recoil in horror of anyone who is not a clone of he democrats.
–
I agree with newton earlier in the thread. I have to go with “evil”.
Oldflyer,
1. I hadn’t seen the Bookworm site. Thanks for the tip.
2. To me she is an American icon…
As long as she doesn’t seek the Oval Office, that’s fine with me.
3. At present the Massachusetts Republican party must be a minority. Unfortunately, it is all but nonexistent–in large part because Republican governors have used the party and their office as steppingstones and have shown little interest in building a political infrastructure. Mitt Romney is not the worst by any means: William Weld and Paul Cellucci come to mind.
Accordingly, well before Romney or Palin cane along, I was sensitized to the issue of governors not doing their job. I try to judge Palin by the criteria I apply to other politicians. Our discussion has reassured me that I’m not failing completely.
4. This post’s topic was Palinhate, not Palin herself. I repeat my conjecture that the Left will try personal destruction specially against any politician who forthrightly praises this country and what it stands for. Maybe the tactic would have been less effective against Palin if she’d been more proactive in building bridges to conservative/libertarian think tanks and the Right’s pundits (including RINOs).
For multiple reasons I suspect the Left will have less success discrediting Rubio than they’ve had with Palin.
GS, Palin could not build bridges to the establishment Republicans. She fought them tooth and nail in Alaska. To build a bridge, there must be a starting point, and there must be a receptive/prepared foundation at the other end. Between Palin and the people you are speaking of, there was neither.
McCain billed himself as a “Maverick”. Although I have my doubts about the validity of that claim, I presume he chose Palin because she had the same label. For better or worse, she is truly the maverick that McCain purports to be. By that I mean that she will always hunt as a lone wolf. She may lead a pack, but she will never blend with one.
Rubio is insulated in a couple of ways. First, his Hispanic name and heritage. Got to be careful not to alienate the Hispanic vote. Secondly, his smooth tongue. Well, there is more than that, but he does deliver his ideas very smoothly. He is very good. He could mature into a formidable political force. Or not. I hope we give him time to prove himself one way or the other before anointing him.
For better or worse, she is truly the maverick that McCain purports to be. By that I mean that she will always hunt as a lone wolf. She may lead a pack, but she will never blend with one.
I’ll go along with that.
Rubio…could mature into a formidable political force. Or not. I hope we give him time to prove himself one way or the other before anointing him.
I’ll go along with that too. So far I’m impressed, but (of course) I still have questions.
gs,
You are right, Palin has become an icon. However, unlike Obama, who is also an icon, Palin is a person of substance. As I understand it, her resignation of the governor’s office was prompted by 2 issues: 1.) She felt her legal problems (which were left wing harassment) were distracting her from performing her duties. 2.) She saw an opportunity to make big bucks for her family and carve out a niche as an outside the box leader of public opinion. She definitely succeeded at #2.
IMO we don’t need a ‘policy wonk’ or a petulant narcissist or a member of the entrenched GOP establishment to take on Obama. We need a straight shooter, with real world experience, who can arouse 70% of the ‘independent’ voters to go to the polls and join us in ousting BHO and lead the ticket with coattails that give the GOP a senate majority.
Personally I like a Cain/West ticket. The MSM and run of the mill progressives will go epileptic if Cain debates Obama and West debates Biden. That would be tag team wrestling at its finest. 😉
1. Parker, I don’t begrudge Palin her #2 money–but afaic that money comes with tradeoffs. As for #1, her resignation speech acknowledged that the legal harassment was enabled by a law that she had “championed”.
Afaik she resigned without trying to rectify that law, especially its unintended consequences. Similarly, Romney did not seek reelection, thereby declining to oversee the implementation of his health care plan. I disapprove.
2. The Republicans that come to my mind are, in alphabetical order, Daniels, Pawlenty and Johnson. (Cain? VP or Secretary of Commerce.) Despite the ahem less than stellar records of the three Texan Presidents I’ve seen, it’s increasingly hard to leave out Perry. There’s also a promising contingent that isn’t ready for prime time but that, like Palin, could be considered if things get so bad that the normal rules don’t apply.
gs said: “[Palin] resigned without trying to rectify that law, especially its unintended consequences”.
The flawed ethics law was changed after Palin’s term. Would that change have occurred had Palin remained in office? I think not.
As long as she remained in office, recalcitrant Democrats allied with establishment Republicans would have continued with the existing law so they could continue to harass her. Remember, it was those same Democrats and establishment Republicans who wrote the clause that allowed the state to reimburse state legislators for legal costs but not the governor. As long as Sarah Palin remained Governor, they would not have changed that law. So by resigning, Sarah Palin removed herself as an obstable to reform by “depersonalizing” the issue.
Well gs, we just see things differently…
As I’ve said before, I like Daniels. He’s done well by Indiana. And, he’s willing to call a truce on social issues, which I think is a plus. But the 3 you mention, IMO, do not have the charisma to win. A significant number of voters cast their vote based upon what they perceive are the character traits of any given candidate.
IMO it is highly probable that by 11/12 we will be in an even deeper economic swamp than we are today. If that comes to pass, the uninformed will want a leader who comes across as an alpha male (or female) that offers a credible plan for draining the swamp. Perhaps I am reading things incorrectly, unlike Rush I am right only 74.3%; but I think it will take a candidate possessing a forceful personality to turn BHO into Humpty Dumpty.
“… if things get so bad that the normal rules don’t apply.”
We going to get past that point soon, but only 5% see the graffiti on the wall. Bursting bubbles, the credit bubble being the biggest of all, and bond vigilantes are approaching. 🙁
Sometimes I feel like Cassandra stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again; but unlike Cassandra, I am not alone:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=184997
1. CBDenver Says: The flawed ethics law was changed after Palin’s term. Would that change have occurred had Palin remained in office? I think not.
Worth knowing, CBDenver. Thanks.
However, according to this and this, the change was administrative (not legislative) and carried out by a Palin-appointed Attorney General.
Even though the new rules only took effect last December, I am more inclined than before to believe that Palin could have served out her term without financial ruin had she been determined to do so. However, the point is not cut and dried.
If you have links that override mine, please cite them.
2. Parker Says: Well gs, we just see things differently…
Apparently so. Just honest differences of opinion, afaic.
gs Says: The Republicans that come to my mind are, in alphabetical order, Daniels, Pawlenty and Johnson.
🙁
I wonder sometimes if the Left is blind to the fact that if they didn’t continually attack SP when she was Governor of Alaska, she would probably still be up there, relatively quiet, and just doing her job helping Alaska’s citizens.
We’d probably have Obamacare and more, a weaker TPM, less Republicans in the House and Senate, and a few RINOs running for the 2012 presidential nomination. Some who couldn’t even beat McCain in 2008.
But thanks to the Left, we have Sarah Palin in the national scene.
The Lord truly does work in mysterious ways.
Systematically fisking those who support Palin for president produces exactly the impression that you feel is unfair. Commenting negatively on pro-Palin or Palin sympathetic threads is no way to build a coalition, it is not neutral, it is repeating the behavior being critiqued in the body of the blog post. You are a troll.
How not to be a troll: Speak your peace, address criticism without non sequitors. If others persist in expressing opinions contrary to you own, let the matter rest.
Palin 2012