Poor, Pitiful Palin
 

more

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091114/...Qvx5CYFsTgtY54

Palin’s book appears to be attempting to re-write history. Yet even the dumbest high school kid knows that history is written by the winners, not by the losers. It gets even worse when you are a loser who is writing self-aggrandizing propaganda and expecting us all to swallow it whole. Anyone around here have some antacid?
:headshake

She is dumb as a rock when it comes to politics on the national level. Will Tums work for ya?

Yet, many within the Republican social conservative base just love her!

I guess that makes them "dumb as a rock" as well.

Republican social consevatives are dumb as rocks? :eek: I would like to protest this slander on the behalf of rocks everywhere. RSC's are more closely akin to simple single celled organisms such as blue-green algae. Algal blooms can kill pets and even people. It is an example of a once benign organism gone haywire. Sign of the end times no. 983 - blue green algae take over the earth.

Go here if you want to worry about something today:

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/clmp-toxicalgae.html

I protest that post on behalf of anything on earth colored blue-green.

It's not just them, I think that a lot of people are so overwhelmed and disgusted with politics/politicians, they're attracted to her as someone they can identify with. Those people don't see her as being ineffectual in national/international politics, because of their own naivety in those areas.

I don't know anything about bugs or poisons, so I hired that exterminator because he's got a cool truck with a big bug on top. :haha:

I think that's true. Some see her as a straight-shooter, one of "us" the way Joe the Plumber was thought of by some.

Of course, I don't see her that way.

A few weeks ago I met someone who aspired to be the senator of Alaska and he thinks something big is going to happen with Sarah Palin. She will be able to rally her base whether she is running for office or not and depending how the next few years go, it may have some strong effects. From my opinion, it is one of the best short-term strategies the Republicans can have since she will have two to four years to practice speeches and interviews and show how much she has grown.

On the other hand, I think this is a very foolish long-term strategy. The demographics of the United States are changing quickly and if the Republicans want to have a chance in twenty years, they have to change their stance to socially liberal. Palin may be effective in the next decade but the Republicans need to start looking for young fiscally conservative socially liberal Republicans to build up or they will be in trouble in twenty to thirty years. It will probably happen naturally but the more they push Palin, and others like her, the more trouble they will have in the future.

Also people that don't like her speaking style and analogies probably would never vote her anyways so she doesn't have to take them into account. It will be interesting to see if she has changed for 2012 at all.

I've gotten very tired on trying to figure out what it is about Palin that would make ANYONE think she has what it takes to run ANYTHING.

From now on, all I have to say is "Sarah Palin...what a cunt!"

Amen, Shel. The woman hasn't one redeeming quality.

But, but, but, she's a hockey-mom. :rolleyes:

But she kills mooses .... and probably squirrels.

And she can see Fearless Leader, from her house.

I heard on NPR today that she might be thinking as far out as 2020. Maybe she'l look better in 10 years than she does now. I kind of doubt it though. In my experience age does not burnish character so much as it enhances what ever eccentricities that were there to begin with. At any rate, I can't imagine ever voting for her. She's cute on the talk radio circuit though. :rolleyes:

Oh, and I wish her daughter's baby daddy's 15 minutes would end soon. That kid is a puke!

But Joanie loves loved Chachi!:lovers::doit::sadsperm:

Nice taste in men. Does he remind her of her dad? (I know, she's young and probably didn't realize what an ass he was, but man he is a Grade A Asshat!)

I wonder how much truth there is in this?

AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check'


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ok-fact-check/

Consider the source. I'm always skeptical of Faux. :eyebrow:

Of course before they could run the story, Fox News had to call in an expert to explain this concept of 'fact checking' to them.:cool:

You mean like FOX news today showing a "crowd shot" and inferring that it was at a book signing when it fact it was from a campaign even last year?

From what I've seen on the net, those 11 AP reporters would be kept busy just answering the phone calls and emails, from former campaign staffers working for McCain and the Democrats, wanting to tell their side.

Wow. Frickin' Fox.

People, please. That's merely an anchor making a mistake about B-roll footage. It happens all the time.

There are several media-watching outlets on both sides, that monitor news 24x7, and breathlessly feature every single thing that could be interpreted as bias. They have a lot of source to work with and they re-tube everything.

They know it's an anchor making a mistake about B-roll footage, too. (No serious newshound could not understand.) They love it when you get all breathless over stuff like this, because it excites them to be a part of the professional wrestling side of politics. Too bad it's all fake.

When the anchor says "These are some of the photos coming into us..." there is an intent to misrepresent. Other networks used real time videos at a mall book store...with relatively long lines and respectable crowds, but not screaming with enthusiasm for Sarah. FOX chose to misrepresent the video.

This was much like Hannity did recently with the rallly at the Capitol opposing health care reform....using video from an old rally with the intent to demonstrate inflated numbers. Its one thing to use stock footage of the Capitol when reporting a story about the Capitol. It is another to use footage with the intent to misrepresent the news.

They all do it? You have some examples from CNN, MSNBC?

Do they all misrepresent Rs as Ds when reporting on members of Congress involved in sex scandals? Unintentional mistakes by low level staffers?

Yes, they all do it. It happens all the time.

If you didn't know, I'm the Cellar's appointed cable news viewer, and although I don't do it any longer (preferring internet news sites), for several years I watched a good 10 hours/day, 7 days/week of all three cable news networks.

They all make these kinds of mistakes because it is very difficult to put together this amount of live news. It's tons of airtime to fill, and not enough good people to do it properly.

The silly thing is, it's much easier to spot real bias in the news, rather than these "gotcha" mistakes, but it's harder to build a narrative around that bias. If Think Progress examined which stories Fox covered, and how they covered them, it would be far more damning for serious thinkers... but far less damning for folks with low attention spans for it, who prefer that knee-jerking OMG FOUL BLOOD SPILLED REF KNOCKED OUT style. Folks like yourself!

They all display much, much more serious bias than merely getting the letter wrong. Getting the letter wrong is paper-thin fluff compared to what else goes on.

here's a solution :p

I like internet news sites as well....many are always good for a laugh.

Most recently on Newsmax:

Palin-Beck Ticket? Sarah Doesn't Rule it Out
The Dream Team..........for Democrats!

Here's what the righty version of Think Progress and Media Matters would say, if you want an example of 10-second excerpting of media bias.



But it doesn't really tell you anything.

Are you having trouble keeping up with Sarah? What is it about Sarah, what makes her tick? Do you want to know all of these things, but don't think you'll be able to schedule in a reading of her book?

Worry no more! Slate has compiled an index for Going Rogue so that you may find answers to the questions you are asking.

A sampling:

prayers
__answered
boyfriend, 33
job for Todd with British Petroleum, 50
__not answered
winning debate with Joe Biden, 295
winning 2008 election, 333

pregnancy
__descriptions of
"I porked up," 50
"ready to calve," 51
"more nauseated than usual," 171
"starving for king crab and scallops," 192
feeling contractions during Texas speech, 194
__reaction to own
"Holy geez!" 171
__reaction to Bristol's
"Truthfully, I was devastated," 207
campaign's advance knowledge of, 214
campaign's botched handling of, 234

science, inadequacy of to explain existence, 47

sentence, actual
"As the soles of my shoes hit the soft ground, I pushed past the tall cottonwood trees in a euphoric cadence, and meandered through willow branches that the moose munched on," 102


upbringing, hardscrabbleness of,
sewed own clothes, 16
baked own bread, 17
stacked own firewood, 17
unheated, unfurnished family room, 26
didn't ask for money from parents, 32

terrorists
Obama palling around with, 306
regret over inability to talk more about, 307

It's all about what people will watch/read, which generates income. It's a shame that people will pay more attention to showing what a train wreck Palin is. In the same way, it's a shame that her book is so popular.

I care as much about her as I do every other Gov. of Alaska whom I can't name and couldn't bother to waste a brain cell trying to remember.

D's keep bringing her up as a distraction and the extreme R's are trying to keep her in the media as something viable in the future.

She is a waste of space, time and money.

It's not a shame at all -it's recycling through re-use. she's all done as a politician so now let's use her as a source of entertainement. When she ceases to be amusing, we can watch in happy horror as the train wrech reaches it's inevitable conclusion and then we can use her to reignite the "why do we love to build them up and then enjoy their downfall" and "it's all the fault of the media" debates.

http://wonkette.com/412297/sarah-pal...refore-iraq-is

http://wonkette.com/412299/412299

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...aming-pile-sht

Sarah does a bit of media blaming herself. :p

media
--getting things wrong, 203, 233, 237, 238, 276, 342, 378
--getting things right, 246
--liberalness of, 270

:lol: I may have to read this book, if I can stomach it, just for some laughs.

(I won't buy it though...strictly a library thing.)

Kind of ironic that her book will be in libraries even though she's never been in one.

:D

I'll bet she's recommended burning or banning some library books, though.

Funny you should mention that. This is from when Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. From Wikepedia

:eyebrow:

We worked that issue at the time and found nothing there. Here's the deal:

When Palin was first announced, there was a media fishing expeditionfrenzy that moved to Wasilla for about three weeks, looking for garbage. They interviewed her political enemies. The library story was one of the things they came back with. It was a non-story, as no books were banned and nobody lost their job.

The non-story was widely played presenting Palin as a book-burner and unreasonable mayor. This information was somehow coupled with a bureaucratic approach where all city officials are fired and re-hired, and many people repeated the notion that the librarian refused to ban the books and was fired.

Why are liberals so afraid of her? Because she wrote a book?

It is quite the contrary.

I cant speak for all liberals, but I LOVE the character known as Sarah Palin. She brings a smile to my face every time I see her on the news or hear her speak.

It is a wildly entertaining show, knowing that she is the most visible and popular (and unpopular at the same time) Republican on the national scene.

It is the Republican establishment that is afraid that she wont go away.

Speaking for myself, I'm amazed and horrified that Bush 2 ever made it to the White House, and was reelected. If somebody like him is able to make it into the White House, then somebody like Palin can absolutely make it there too. I don't think she has the the right qualities to hold any position of authority, but she came fairly close to the most important position in the free world, and it's possible she will again.

Not afraid of "her". She would make a poor leader, and we're afraid stupid people will elect her.

Liberals love her as a punching bag.

After her departure from Alaska, we can dismiss any possibility that she would be on a national ticket. She is a highly divisive figure, either deeply loved or deeply hated; and furthermore she will remain a generally poor candidate, not cut out for a national campaign. This is now a cash run.

I agree with every thing except the thought that, " she came fairly close to the most important position in the free world." She never had a chance. But I have enjoyed all the frothing by the left as her new book has come out. It is like Kabuki Theater. :lol:

If they would ignore her she would be more marginalized. IMHO, the more attention they give her the more hard core right wings flock to her just to piss off the left. I think she may have a chance to get into the senate or house but that is about it.

I agree it is highly unlikely but not impossible.

With the way that Republican primaries are structured in many states -- winner take all the delegates (as opposed to the Democratic primaries with proportional delegates) --and with the right advisors and a shit-load of money (she is currently the best fund raiser for Republicans), she could win in some front end states with 30something% in a field of 4-5 primary candidates, build momentum and roll, baby roll to the convention!

It would never happen, no matter how much you would love it.

Liberals love her - she's worth millions of votes . . . for them.

I bet between now and 2012, we will see the Republican leaders urge the state parties to change to a proportional voting system for the primaries to prevent even the remotest possibility of such an outcome.

Why?

Simple...because proportional allocation of delegates prevents any one candidate, like a Palin or a Tea-Bagger, with the most and energized active base, winning all the delegates from states with only a plurality, but not a majority, of support from within their own party.

On a more general level, it also extends the primaries to give every state a voice...which, btw, was the reason the Democratic race between Hillary and Obama went to the very end.

I think Palin is high comedy. You can never lose, though, by betting on the stupidity of American voters. :rolleyes:

That is not necessary for the process to move forward fairly.

It is not necessary, but it provide more fairness.

Personally, I never understood the value of a winner-take-all system, that enables a candidate to win a state when the majority of the party voters in that state did not support that candidate.

But, hey, the party can chose what every system they like.

That is your opinion. Do you want to see us abandon the Electoral College as well?

Nope.

But the big difference between Palin and a punching bag is the punching bag doesn't run head first into the fist.

I think ut wants to marry her and have like ten thousand of her babies. ;)

:bolt:

There are still a lot of roles she can fulfill, depending on how split the Republican party is. She could be doing this for cash, as UT suggests, and then use her influence for support of a candidate she personally endorses. If she tells her base that "candidate X" is a good choice, there is a good chance her base will support that candidate. Another scenario is that she may make a presidential run solely to try to influence the race. Even if she will lose, she will have a large influence on the race and her political opponents will be forced to fill the voter vacuum when she drops out, making the winning candidate closer to her views then if she didn't run. She could also be delusional.