You Can Never Please A Palin Supporter

The same people who were complaining a week ago that the media was obsessed with Sarah Paln are now complaining that a media figure has suggested she doesn't deserve the coverage she gets.

As Dodd Harris noted last night, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank suggested a Sarah Palin-free February from the political media.

On the whole, it doesn’t sound like a bad idea, especially if Palin reciprocates by non Tweeting, Facebooking, or appearing before the unquestioning adoration of Sean Hannity or Greta Van Susterin. You’d also think it would make Sarah Palin’s supporters happy considering the numerous complaints they make over how the media is “obsessed” with Sarah Palin.

You could think that, but you’d be wrong.

Consider this:

Milbank’s call for a Palin boycott is reminiscent of  behind the scenes coordination by members of Journolist. In this case however, Milbank and The Post are making viral a campaign that has been wished for by others in the media who hate Palin and do not want to see her become president of the United States.

(…)

Katz said the anti-Palin Twitter campaign was “not an endorsement” by The Post. However, the campaign bears no disclaimer and The Post provides a direct link and anti-Palin message for forwarding via Twitter.

Katz said the Twitter campaign is part of The Post’s efforts to engage its readers in two-way communication.

Without a disclaimer though, the effort has the appearance of an anti-Palin campaign organized by The Washington Post.

Or this:

The Milbank column really is a window into the mind of mainstream media journalists and pundits.  To them, Palin is like the ticking of an out-of-reach wall clock in the middle of the night; they can’t get her out of their heads but they can’t seem to stop her no matter how many times they throw things at her.

If this were just another case of Palin Derangement Syndrome, it probably would not be worth a post

But as documented at Big Journalism (h/t Instapundit) WaPo is using its pages to promote Milbank’s other brilliant idea, a mainstream media boycott of Palin going beyond Milbank’s column.  WaPo has used its Twitter account and has run online polls in support of Milbank’s boycott.

Rarely do we get such a clear example of the bias of the mainstream media and the extent to which it fears and hates Sarah Palin.

So which is it Palin supporters, are people supposed to stop talking about Sarah Palin, or are they supposed to take down her every word and report on it?

Or, as I suspect, is it just that you only want people who are critical of Palin to shut up while her adoring fans continue writing everything they want?

FILED UNDER: Politicians, Sarah Palin, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Chris says:

    The reason why Milbank’s rhetorical suggestion is lunacy is because the MSM needs Palin like a bum needs change. The projection of all of their hate and insecurity is in one tidy package. Milbank’s request is the junkie’s last ditch effort to stay clean. They know they can’t, but hey, it makes good copy.

    The media is complicit in getting their stooge elected to a 2nd term. The narrative was simple during the Giffords shooting: RWNJs are to blame. Obama, the wise one, happily takes the middle road offered to him by the media. How charming! Except it’s a set up from the beginning. I have hope the American people take the NE Media Elite less seriously than you do.

    You offer a false choice to Palin supporters. I think most would be happy with fair and honest reporting. In fact, that might be enough to expose her weaknesses on issues. But instead, the media attempts to shame her and her supporters, which only hardens their resolve. I don’t blame them one bit. The press covers no one else this shamefully, their disdain not even hidden. Normally this is saved only for election time, but in Palin’s case, it’s open season every day.

    You offer a false choice to Palin supporters. There is no fair coverage of Palin’s words. Her press release in the Gifford’s case was clear, well-written and perfectly timed (even if she didn’t right it, being rich allows you to hire great writers. See our current president). However, to 20% of the country (and 90% of the press), the words don’t matter. It’s who it came from. Palin supporters would love to see her treated evenly, but the chances for that are long gone. As a conservative who is only lukewarm in his support for Palin, I find her fascinating, especially for her tendency to get the other side to project their hatred for all RWers onto her. Your analysis, above, fails to capture that by furthering blaming her supporters for the megaphone toters who despise her above all else.

  2. Hugh says:

    Is it too much to ask the press to report Ms. Palin’s comments when noteworthy and newsworthy, rather than to decide a priori that her comments aren’t?

  3. Janis Gore says:

    But there’s a mild piece in Politico this morning concerning her lack of on-the-ground presence in New Hampshire that isn’t particularly critical:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47986.html

    Commenters are saying it’s another Palin-bashing piece.

    What do you think?

  4. TG Chicago says:

    I have to say that the pro-Palin forces have a point here. It’s pretty creepy for journalists to pre-emptively decide what is going to be newsworthy next month. Suppose Palin announces she’s running for President. How can that *not* get covered?

    I think it would be more useful for journalists and pundits to look back at the Palin stuff they’ve covered in 2009 and 2010 and ask “Did that really need to get covered? Was that actually important?” Some stuff surely was, like when she quit her job as Governor. Some probably wasn’t, like anything relating to her daughter being on a dance show.

    If these people reflect upon what they’ve covered that wasn’t noteworthy, I think that would do more to help them make good decisions going forward. Just saying “NO PALIN IN FEBRUARY!” is dumb. It’s incredibly oversimplistic and allows people to pretend they’re doing something instead of doing the hard work to truly improve.

    Don’t force the pendulum to swing all the way in the other direction. Try to find the sweet spot in the middle. It’s tougher, but it’s the right thing to do.

  5. wr says:

    I think Chris sums it for for the Palinites: “There is no fair coverage of Palin’s words.”

    Because to them, the only “fair coverage” is for her every utterance to be reprinted on the front page of every newspaper, with the only “analysis” on the level of Smooth Jazz’s “oh, man, she’s so hot.”

  6. joscefi says:

    “On the whole, it doesn’t sound like a bad idea, especially if Palin reciprocates….”

    Sarah Palin doesn’t control what of “her every word” is reported on in the mainstream press, nor how it is interpreted. If all, or part, of the MSM decides she isn’t newsworthy, it’s entirely their decision to make, and I’d welcome it.

    That doesn’t obligate her to cease “…Tweeting, Facebooking, or appearing before the unquestioning adoration of Sean Hannity or Greta Van Susterin…”, nor should it impell such a choice.

    Instead, those who seek a respite from ‘all the Sarah Palin news, everyday, all day’ can choose for themselves to avoid, ignore, and seek alternatives to her “…Tweeting, Facebooking, or appearing before the unquestioning adoration of Sean Hannity or Greta Van Susterin…”.

    I consider myself a Sarah Palin fan, to some degree, but I don’t follow her every utterance, I happily leave that to her detractors.

  7. Steve Plunk says:

    Restraint didn’t last long around here. BTW, is there anything newsworthy to talk about or just this nonsense? Did anyone notice the oil industry executive upping the Bakken reserve figures by a factor of five? Is some sort of state bankruptcy really in the cards? I heard the Iranians balked at limiting their nuclear ambitions. Will the NFL lockout be a financial plus for college football?

  8. Patrick T. McGuire says:

    “So which is it Palin supporters, are people supposed to stop talking about Sarah Palin, or are they supposed to take down her every word and report on it?”

    Personally, it doesn’t much matter to me. But the more the pundits and press attack Sarah Palin, the stronger she becomes so by all means, keep up the coverage.

  9. Smooth Jazz says:

    “Because to them, the only “fair coverage” is for her every utterance to be reprinted on the front page of every newspaper, with the only “analysis” on the level of Smooth Jazz’s “oh, man, she’s so hot.”

    WTF are you talking about??? I’ve never said she was hot, or cared about her looks. I just have a pet peeve that she should be allowed to make her case – without being told what to do by left wing blogs that are part of the DC/NY Lib speak vortex. And for those who claim this isn’t a left wing blog, just look at the commenter who mentioned me in this post.

    This blog is infested with left wing commenters who attack anything and anyone who doesn’t acquience to this lurch to the left that has taken place here at OTB. When the vast majority of your commenters are left wing zealots and loons who attack at will, your blog has joined the pantheon of well known Dem bloggers such as ThinkProgress, DailyKOS, DailyDish, FrumForum and this like.

    How dare this blogger opine that “You Can Never Please A Palin Supporter” when he has been against her from day one, and runs 3 or 4 posts a day trashing her until very recently. The epitome of hubris is when he tells Repub voters not to consider her from his Liberal perch. Hey Dude, I got news from you: Repub voters will make up their own minds and will not be lectured by folks in the beltway echo chamber.

  10. the more the pundits and press attack Sarah Palin, the stronger she becomes so by all means, keep up the coverage.

    That is pretty hilarious when you take this into account:

  11. Smooth Jazz,

    The epitome of hubris is when he tells Repub voters not to consider her from his Liberal perch.

    The fact that I don’t believe Sarah Palin is qualified for higher office and that her policy pronouncements usually amount to nonsense phrases and sound bytes doesn’t mean I’m a liberal

    Please try to get that simple fact through your head

  12. wr says:

    Smooth Dude — I am indeed on the left, a lifelong Berkeley liberal (although in exile for the last three decades or so). But I’m not part of this blog any more than you are. I read it, I leave comments. I’ve got no influence over any of the actual participants, and if I disappeared tomorrow I can’t imagine Doug or JJ or any of the others would notice.

    I do, however, get a great chuckle out of Palin-worshippers claiming to be objective observers who are simply offended that this woman — about whom they are completely indifferent — is treated so badly by the villains of the press. Every post you’ve left here has been the blog equivalent of that youtube kid wailing “Leave Britney alooooooone!!!!”

  13. ponce says:

    Palin reminds me of Aimee Semple McPherson.

    She needs a good publicity stunt to pull out of her approval rating death spiral.

  14. PJ says:

    What’s interesting about the Pollsters list of polls, is how seldom Rasmussen has done a poll on Palin’s Favorable Rating in the last two years. For a pollster who loves to churn out polls they only did one (1) in 2010 and two (2) in 2009. Maybe the result is part of the message they want?

    PPP, who identify themselves as (D), did 10 in 2010 and 11 in 2009.

  15. jwest says:

    Doug,

    “The fact that I don’t believe Sarah Palin is qualified for higher office…..”

    At some point, you should do an article that explains why you don’t believe she is qualified for higher office. Was it her upbringing that makes her unqualified? The fact that she didn’t attend an Ivy League school? Did she do something as Mayor that uncovered some disqualifying characteristic? Perhaps it was when she resigned from the Oil and Gas Commission to reveal conflicts of interest within her own party, showing that she wouldn’t “go along to get along”? How about her time spent as Governor?

    Try to write an honest evaluation. Sure, she quit the governor’s job, but see if you can figure out what other avenues she had available. Lay it all out and let the chips fall where they may.

    Use your critical thinking skills and deductive reasoning to assess the negative claims brought about since she was named as a VP candidate. Is it your considered opinion that she doesn’t know how to read? Are you still under the assumption that she and her family ran wild through the best stores in Manhattan shopping for clothes? Do you believe she said that she could “see Russia from her house” or that she didn’t know that Africa was a continent instead of a country?

    I would love to hear, along with other Palin supporters and those who are just on the side of honesty and fair play, exactly what it is that disqualifies her in your opinion. Maybe if you laid out your rationale without generalizations, we would better understand your position.

  16. @SJ

    And for those who claim this isn’t a left wing blog, just look at the commenter who mentioned me in this post.

    By that logic, this is also a radically pro-Palin blog because we have a lot of commenters who defend her tooth and nail. Since when is a blog defined by a specific sampling of its comments?

    And what in the world is the “DC/NY Lib speak vortex” (asks the guy who lives in Alabama?).

  17. andrew says:

    This is the most intellectually dishonest post yet on this blog, and that’s saying something.

  18. jwest,

    exactly what it is that disqualifies her in your opinion.

    Outside of being Mayor of a small town in Alaska, her only governing experience is 2 1/2 years of the least populated state in the Union. I don’t personally consider that sufficient political or even life experience for the highest office in the land.

    Beyond that, there is her simplistic, often incorrect, grasp of public policy issues which she reduces to mere sound bytes that she repeats over and over and over again. I don’t care how many advisers she surrounds herself with, if she did become President she would be the one making the decisions and I simply cannot see her coming up with an idea different from the ones her advisers spoon fed her. Critical thinking skills do not seem to be her strong suit.

    To be blunt about, I don’t want her to be my President. Why is that so hard to understand

  19. Alex Knapp says:

    Steve,

    Did anyone notice the oil industry executive upping the Bakken reserve figures by a factor of five?

    Well, an oil industry executive, at a meeting of investors claimed, without providing geologic evidence, that the reserve figures were much higher.

    If you’ve ever been invited to a meeting as a potential investor, then you know to take everything you’re presented with with a HUGE grain of salt….

  20. Ben Wolf says:

    Smooth Jazz,

    You could really improve your writing by going back and eliminating repetitive words and phrases before you hit the “Post Comment” button.

    Using the term “left wing” four times in two incomplete paragraphs just isn’t kosher.

  21. @SJ:

    This blog is infested with left wing commenters who attack anything and anyone who doesn’t acquience to this lurch to the left that has taken place here at OTB.

    If not wanting Palin to be the GOP nominee equals a “lurch to the left” then I have to wonder when Charles Krauthammer, George Will and their ilk are going to get fitted with their Che Guevara t-shirts…

  22. jwest says:

    I see this is going to take some effort to get it out of you.

    “…her simplistic, often incorrect, grasp of public policy issues…” – This would have been a good space for you to put some example of what you consider “simplistic”, or” incorrect”. That way, we could all see if what you’re referring to is real or imagined and if it has any merit.

    “Critical thinking skills do not seem to be her strong suit.” – Now, this is something I would like to hear explained. Perhaps I haven’t researched her as much as you have, but from what I’ve seen she seems to be able to hold her own in battles with big oil companies or entrenched political machines.

    Yes Doug, we all get the message that you don’t want her to be president. What we all want to know is if there is any rational validity to your objection to her.

  23. jwest,

    I have been writing off and on about the former Governor for two and a half years now and have detailed my problems with her in blog posts both here and at my personal blog, all of which are available for your reading pleasure at your convenience.

  24. Jay Tea says:

    One area where Palin absolutely not only outshines Obama but grinds him into the dust is in “standing up to and stopping corruption within their own party.” Obama came out of one of the most corrupt political machines in the country, was/is closely tied to several of the most vile of them, and never said “boo” to anything. Ayers, Blagojevich, Jarrett, Rezko, Daley, Wright, Schakowsky… the list goes on and on.

    Palin, on the other hand, took down the corrupt AG and governor — both Republicans.

    J.

  25. Steve Plunk says:

    Alex, My point is there are more newsworthy topics. I’m not trying to hijack the thread but the state of North Dakota has also raised it’s estimates.

    Businessmen are more likely to tell the truth than politicians BTW. They are held more accountable.

  26. jwest says:

    Doug,

    I’ve been reading, off and on, for those two years and if you had ever “detailed” any specific action of Palin to make your point, I don’t remember seeing it.

    You probably have your writings cataloged in some fashion, so it shouldn’t be asking too much to pull up one of your many articles that goes into some depth and specificity on this subject. I will read (or reread) whatever you link to and a rational conversation on the merits can ensue.

  27. jwest,

    Sorry but as I said to someone on Twitter yesterday. I am not a reference librarian.

    What I don’t understand is why you seem so determined to change my mind on this topic

  28. Tlaloc says:

    “I have to say that the pro-Palin forces have a point here. It’s pretty creepy for journalists to pre-emptively decide what is going to be newsworthy next month.”

    My wife once worked for an ambulance company. She said that in her time there there was one individual who so abused the system that they actually got blacklisted, as in if they called 911 an ambulance would not come for them. It got to that point because they were so flagrantly abusing the system that eventually the companies refused to help them anymore.

    I leave it to the reader to figure out how that might apply to the case of Palin and the media.

  29. steve says:

    “corrupt AG and governor — both Republicans.”

    She replaced the corrupt governor with herself. Many candidates, when they want to run for office, claim their opponent is corrupt. Sorry, but I dont see this as much of an accomplishment. If she had stayed and successfully managed Alaska in a depressed economy and not just when oil was over $100 a barrel, then she might be worth consideration. Otherwise, Alaska is such an atypical state that my 17 y/o could manage it when oil prices are high. She has never displayed much interest or knowledge on foreign affairs. Neither have governors like Daniels or Pawlenty or Johnson, but they have managed states during tougher times and have demonstrated a broader skill and knowledge set.

    Steve

  30. Tlaloc says:

    “What we all want to know is if there is any rational validity to your objection to her.”

    It takes a supreme act of self delusion to pretend that there aren’t incredibly well detailed explanations for the objections the majority have to Sarah Palin. This material was old by the time the 2008 elections rolled around. Very few human beings have had as much concerted scrutiny as the former half term governor has.

  31. Businessmen are more likely to tell the truth than politicians BTW. They are held more accountable

    While I can understand why one might want this to be the case, I am not sure it is true.

    One thing I have decided over time is that people are people and being in the private sector or the public sector really doesn’t change that.

    If human beings are prone to speak the true that they believe and is most advantageous to themselves, which I think is the case, I am not sure that it matters whether they are in government or in business.

  32. jwest says:

    Doug,

    I realize there is no chance of changing your mind about Palin.

    As a fan of basic fairness and the truth, I find most of the articles you write are intentional “hit pieces” filled with vague generalities, unresearched implications and poorly reasoned assumptions. Although you are settled in your hatred of Palin, there are a smattering of truly persuadable moderates that occasionally read this site. If people like JayTea and I were to let your ramblings go unchallenged, some of these moderates might mistake your thoughts as being rationally derived from fact. We certainly can’t let that happen.

    I am also sure that in your mind, at some point, you made an argument that shows Palin to be unqualified for higher office. Much like Obama’s birth certificate, you just can’t find it right now. No problem.

    When you’re ready to show you have the capacity to make a rational, fact based stand on Palin’s unsuitability for the presidency, just write it up and hit the send button.

  33. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    jwest, if you are trying to get facts from Doug, forget it. I believe Doug hates Palin for reasons far more basic than policy. See, she meets the Constitutional requirements to be President, including having both parents being American Citizens at the time of her birth. Until Obama, there was never any question what the term “Natural Born Citzen” meant. Outside of the fact Palin believes in things foreign to Doug, like American exceptionalism and the Consititution. Palin is both attractive and sucessful both in private life and public. Something which Doug envies yet will never achieve. His diatribes against Palin, and I have read a good number of them are not based upon anything rational. When he says he is not a librarian for research, he knows there is no basis for his claim and will not be the first to open that can of worms which he created. Doug is left of Markos when it comes to Palin. Anyone who could be convinced of something by what this pretender wrote is pretty weak mentally.

  34. wr says:

    “Ayers, Blagojevich, Jarrett, Rezko, Daley, Wright, Schakowsky… the list goes on and on”

    If you mean the list of Glenn Beck boogymen, then it certainly does. But unless you’ve decided that “corrupt” now means “anyone Glenn Beck doesn’t like,” then this is no catalog of corruption.

    Blagojevich and Rezko, sure. But as even you like to point out, Obama stayed away from them. Somehow this is meant to suggest that Obama is dirty, when in fact he stayed away from the toxic elements in his own party.

    William Ayers is not corrupt. He was a violent political radical in his youth, and he might well have gone to jail, had the federal government not stomped so badly on his civil rights in trying to catch him that all charges had to be dismissed. This was when Obama was a child. By the time they met, Ayers was a respectable university professor. You may not like this fact, but that doesn’t make him “corrupt.”

    Wright is a preacher who gave a sermon you’ve heard two minutes of, and you find it offensive. Great. How is that corrupt?

    Daley? Which Daley? Which real corruption?

    And Jan Schakowsky? The only way you can call her corrupt if you decide that means “Democrat.”

    In other words, you’re making ludicrous charges out of nothings. It’s really amazing — with all the vitriol flowing against Obama, you can’t find a single, actual bit of corruption anywhere around him. You’re reduced to repeating these same right-wing fantasies.

  35. tom p says:

    Steve, sometimes I wonder…

    <<<>>

    Can anyone say “Goldman-Sachs”?????? AIG??????? Lehman Brothers?????????????

    Steve…. Never mind.

  36. Eric Florack says:

    @ Doug:

    How about the media simply reports?

  37. tom p says:

    And for the record, this is the quote that did not make it into my last post….

    >>>>Businessmen are more likely to tell the truth than politicians BTW. They are held more accountable.<<<

    To which I answered:

    Can anyone say “Goldman-Sachs”?????? AIG??????? Lehman Brothers?????????????

  38. Eric Florack says:

    It takes a supreme act of self delusion to pretend that there aren’t incredibly well detailed explanations for the objections the majority have to Sarah Palin.

    Noted that you’ve failed to list any, or to prove that they are the feelings of the majority.

  39. george says:

    “Is it too much to ask the press to report Ms. Palin’s comments when noteworthy and newsworthy, rather than to decide a priori that her comments aren’t?”

    I think Palin would make a lousy president. But I completely agree with this … its just common sense. A boycott is as silly as reporting every comment.

    As for the political leanings of this blog’s letter writers, they cover almost the whole political spectrum. Its pretty strange to speak of it as if that meant it had a single leaning, unless you believe a blog can be schizophrenic.

  40. TG Chicago says:

    wr said: “Daley? Which Daley? Which real corruption?”

    I think it’s fair to say that the current mayor Daley is overseeing a corrupt system. But Obama wasn’t a Daleyite. He didn’t do much to fight the corruption, true, but he wasn’t a part of it either.

  41. @Eric:

    Noted that you’ve failed to list any, or to prove that they are the feelings of the majority.

    You mean like this poll (which Doug blogged) showing her favorables at 27% and unfavorables at 49% (which is a rather healthy plurality, and just shy of a majority). Other polls show similar numbers. If the poll that Smooth Jazz was all excited about showing Palin within 10 points of Obama showed here having clear minority support.

    To state that this isn’t evidence of Doug’s basic assertion is to wish to have one’s own reality.

  42. Doug, not me.

  43. Herb says:

    “When you’re ready to show you have the capacity to make a rational, fact based stand on Palin’s unsuitability for the presidency, just write it up and hit the send button.”

    This is ridiculous. Why can’t you just accept the fact that opinions may vary? Why do you have to imply that something irrational and non-factual is going on?

  44. Jay Tea says:

    wr, I apologize. I had a brainfart. I didn’t mean Schakowsky, I meant Alexi Giannoulias. And Ayers wasn’t corrupt? I included him under the “vile” category, but how about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where he and Obama spent millions (a good chunk funneled to Ayers’ commie comrades) to achieve… well, nothing. Thanks for the correction.

    On the other hand, I get the feeling that Obama would have had no problem achieving a modus vivendi with guys like Randy Ruedrich and Gregg Renkes.

    Has Obama EVER stood against a fellow Democrat for any other reason than personal political gain? Taking out a current or future rival?

    J.

  45. wr says:

    Jay Tea — You accuse Obama of massive corruption, and when challenged fall back on “I get the feeling.”

    I know you hate his politics. For all I know you hate everything about him. But when you make up crap like this — “ooh, I say he’s corrupt because I just knows it!” — you just look foolish.

    You want to know why so many on the left think right-wing Obama-haters are racist? Because when they look through the list of reasons why you guys hate Obama, there’s nothing there. Nothing. It’s like this corruption nonsense. You hate Obama because he’s so corrupt, but can’t come up with a single credible accusation.

    Don’t get me wrong — I’m not saying it’s a race thing with you. But it is baffling. You hate this guy, you work yourself up into a lather over him… and you’ve got no reason at all.

  46. An Interested Party says:

    The comments here only prove how locked in opinions are of Palin…no one will really be convinced to change his/her opinion of her…if she does run and loses spectacularly, I guess we shall see the same tired arguments from her defenders…one thing that has become legendary about her is her victimhood status both with herself and among her supporters…

  47. anjin-san says:

    Still waiting to see examples of all the “hateful” things and “attacks” Doug and Steven are supposedly directing at Palin.

  48. Jay Tea says:

    No, wr, I make note of the astonishing number of vile people Obama has chosen to associate with over his career without ever once taking a stand against them on principle. Then I cited two very prominent, very powerful, and very corrupt people that Palin encountered who were in a position to advance her career… and she stood up to them. I don’t think that it’s too much of a speculation to say that Obama, who got along just fine with all those fine folks I cited above, would have also found a way to get along with Ruedrich and Renkes.

    And hate him? Work myself into a froth? Please. Just because I don’t choose to ignore the things about him you find inconvenient, and you don’t like it when they’re brought up, doesn’t mean I react like you do to the mere mention of Sarah Palin.

    J.

  49. sam says:

    @McGuire

    But the more the pundits and press attack Sarah Palin, the stronger she becomes so by all means, keep up the coverage.

    And that’s the nut. It’s why when folks like Smooth show up here, draped in yards of righteous indignation, hurling all-caps thunderbolts at unbelievers, I put it all down to a form of political theater. Palin thrives on negative criticism, and her thralls eat it up, all their protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Every “attack” on Palin is taken by the worshipful as one more proof of her essential rightness, and, by reference, one more validation of their own rightness. In her they see the personification of all the imagined hurts and slights they’ve suffered from the “elites” — She’s one of us! She’s their agent of payback. In the palinized version of the Sermon on the Mount, the culturally and educationally marginalized shall inherit the earth. And boy, you better watch out. It’s the politics of resentment, a politics that only grows stronger the more its adherents feel themselves under siege. Its defining emotion is anger, and with this anger comes a kind a gratification. Palin’s fans don’t really want the negative assaults, as they see them, to stop. That would stop the source of their anger, would dry up the source of their feelings of moral superiority. And the anger is so enjoyable.

  50. jwest says:

    Catching up with “Clarice’s Pieces” at the American Thinker produced this gem:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/allegory_of_the_cave_of_the_ma_1.html

    “Frontpage repeated a conversation about Sarah with a liberal woman, a conversation which sure sounded familiar to me and which I am sure mirrors experiences many of you have had.

    Today the conversation turned to Sarah Palin and my new acquaintance blurted out: “Oh I hate her.” Since she did not yet know my politics, and since we were in Los Angeles, it is clear that she expected to hear back what you usually hear back in this city: “Yeah, I hate her, too.” Instead, I asked her why.

    At this point I could have predicted her response because it’s the same response you get from Liberals no matter who on the Right you’re talking about, “Because she’s stupid.” I replied: “Being stupid is no reason to hate someone, but tell me, which one of her policies do you disagree with?” It wasn’t hard to predict her response: “All of them!”

    I continued to push. “Well, then, if it’s all of them, it should be easy for you to name one.” Her reply? “They’re too many to list.”

    “So don’t list them, just give me one,” I said.

    This went on for awhile until my new acquaintance finally admitted that she didn’t know any of Ms. Palin’s policies. Before she ran off – Democrats always run off when asked to provide facts behind their hatred for Republicans – I looked her in the eye and said, “If you don’t know any of her policies perhaps you should look into them.” She promised she would. She won’t. If there are two things you can count on with Democrats, they are filled with hate and empty of facts.”

    Is Doug actually a liberal woman living in LA?

  51. sam says:

    You know, the Allegory of the Cave is interesting for a number of reasons. But one of the things that’s not often remarked upon is this: Not only do the poor wretches only see the shadows cast on the wall, but they also only hear scattered fragments of the conversations between the folks carrying the statues, auditory shadows. This was probably Plato’s reference to the political speech in Athens, a clouded, fragmentary discourse that was nothing more that an verbal shadow of true political speech. Wonder what he would have made of a politician one of whose basic modes of communication is the 140-character Tweet?

  52. anjin-san says:

    > If there are two things you can count on with Democrats, they are filled with hate and empty of facts.”

    Funny, because I had almost the exact same conversation with a woman sitting next to me who said “He should die”, when Obama’s name came up at a dinner party a while back.

    Human nature jwest. You don’t get out too much, do you? Actually, that you think all Democrats are “full of hate and empty of facts” and that you appear to believe that this condition is unique to Democrats suggests that you are… full of hate and empty of facts.

  53. wr says:

    So your objection to Obama is that when he was starting out in politics he didn’t devote himself to waging a war on the established elites of his party, and that he knows people you find icky and yet somehow refuses to disassociate himself from them, even though a complete stranger writing under a pseudonym doesn’t like them? Again, it’s just weak.

  54. matt says:

    Jwest : Congratulations on discovering this thing called “human nature” which afflicts all sides of every debate…

  55. jwest says:

    Anjin-san,

    I don’t recognize where the “full of hate and empty of facts” quote came from, but I will take underserved credit for it with a few qualifiers.

    Yes, the far left is full of anger and hate. Any cursory examination of left-wing websites will attest to the fact that the vitriol and bitterness expressed by these people mimics their anger and envy of those who are happy and succeed in life. Nothing can be done to turn that around, but as long as their hate remains rhetorical and aimed at us on the right, I’m fine with it.

    Where I do have a problem with the left is the “empty facts” aspect of their philosophy. By being incredibly naïve and willing to blindly accept any premise veiled in “science”, democrats cause untold amounts of harm to innocent lives. When Rachel Carson wrote “Silent Spring”, the pubescent environmental movement used it as a platform to demonize the chemical industry and succeeded in discontinuing its use. Over a million people die each year in Africa of malaria because of her mistaken assumptions, but liberals cling to myth because they can’t face the truth of what they have done.

    Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” doomed millions to generational dependency. Liberal machinations in the educational field replaced talent with tenure, again sentencing the same generations to poverty by ignorance. Global warming scam artists have labeled those who seek open scientific research as “deniers”, while bilking the government and uninformed masses out of billions. Ignorant politicians and celebrities endanger children by accepting ridiculous claims of autism connections to vaccinations….. and on and on.

    Liberals don’t hate the people they have pushed into poverty, misery and death. They are just too obtuse to see the harm that they cause.

  56. jwest says:

    Point of clarification:

    The “hate and empty facts” quote is a portion of the American Thinker article, not what I wrote.

  57. anjin-san says:

    > Yes, the far left is full of anger and hate.

    And the far right is not? Please.

    > The “hate and empty facts” quote is a portion of the American Thinker article, not what I wrote.

    You cited it. That suggest buy-in on your part.

    > Where I do have a problem with the left is the “empty facts” aspect of their philosophy.

    How do you feel about the millions or Republicans who believe Obama is not an American? That there is such as thing as “death panels”? I could go on for a while. It’s a door that swings both ways. Like I said, human nature – something that transcends political affiliation.

  58. anjin-san says:

    > Over a million people die each year in Africa of malaria because of her mistaken assumptions, but liberals cling to myth because they can’t face the truth of what they have done.

    And you are assuming that mosquitoes in Africa would not have developed a tolerance for DDT, rendering it ineffective/useless in the fight against malaria. Do a little reading on why bedbugs are currently such a huge problem in this country, right up to the beds in luxury hotels. Have you factored in the potential health consequences of continued DDT use to the world’s human population? Do you have a reasonable breakdown of risk/reward for DDT use that you can present?

    > because of her mistaken assumptions

    Present some proof that Carson’s “assumptions” were mistaken please. Something better than an American Thinker post.

  59. jwest says:

    “How do you feel about the millions or Republicans who believe Obama is not an American?”

    According to the polls, there are a good number of democrats who think the same thing. I doesn’t matter to me, he apparently had one parent who was a U.S. citizen, so in my mind he is a natural born citizen. Why he doesn’t release the original birth certificate is a mystery.

    “That there is such as thing as “death panels”?”

    Of course there are death panels. But they are not nearly as strong as they need to be, which is why I’m such a big supporter of single-payer, government run catastrophic health care. Government needs to do the things that only governments can do, and making life and death decisions for those who cannot afford to use all available means to preserve their life is one of those decisions.

    Right now, insurance industry executives and bureaucrats in Medicare and Medicaid compose their own “death panels” to decide if 84 year old alcoholics will receive liver transplants. It’s not a cruel thing to say no, because if we paid for every life prolonging procedure for every patient, there wouldn’t be money for anything else. Only government has the power to make a credible, semi-moral judgment and declaration as to where the lines are drawn.

    This is not to suggest I’ve gone full-tilt socialist on the subject. I firmly believe all regular health care should be transacted without any form of health insurance, directly between the patient and provider through individual health savings accounts. It is only when the illness falls into the “catastrophic” range would the single payer system kick in.

  60. anjin-san says:

    jwest. You raise some interesting points, though I think, given what savings rates are in this country, a fantasy to think most Americans will save enough to cover their health care costs. At least we have the basis for a reasonable discussion, and these days, that is something.

    Standing by for more info from you on DDT use…

  61. wr says:

    Anjin — Don’t hold your breath waiting for DDT info. This is one of those bizarre right-wing obsessions over a fifty year old piece of writing. (Not unlike Beck’s newfound hatred of a Nation article written in 1966 that is somehow going to destroy democracy.)

    One thing about the Right, they never give up their hatreds, and they’ve loathed Carson for decades. Now they can mount their assault, when no one on the other side is geared up for a battle that ended before disco. And if they keep pushing, the will rewrite history until Rachel Carson is a monster and her book that cause of millions of deaths. It’s just the same as that hack Amity Shlaes publishing her “book” claiming that the New Deal made the depression worse or Jonah Goldberg’s moronic screed insisting that Hitler was a liberal and thus all liberals are Hitler.

    What they will scrupulously ignore is that fact that even as DDT was being banned, mosquitos were already developing a tolerance for it. And since they can turn over thousands — millions? — of generations in the time it takes humans to cycle through one, they were going to develop that tolerance a hell of a lot faster than we would.

    Or that pelicans would. When I was a kid, those birds were approching oblivion, and the sight of one was a rare treat. Now they are all over Northern California, thriving. Every time I see one I silently thank Rachel Carson.

  62. jwest says:

    Concerning DDT, naturally a resistance is built up if the product is used continually in the same area, but that doesn’t mean that it becomes totally ineffective.

    The problem with Africa is that by the time the Malaria Eradication Program was ready to focus on it, the World Health Agency had succumbed to the anti-DDT propaganda of the environmentalists. Tens of millions have died over the decades due to the false premise that DDT was carcinogenic and harmful to the ecosystem. Although DDT made a comeback in the ‘90s, it was too localized to prevent reoccurrence, such as when South Africa sprayed and Mozambique didn’t.

    On health savings accounts, my support is for those that were outlined in the Bush plan that provided a tax free 401k style account for those who could afford it, and subsidized accounts for the poor.

  63. Jay Tea says:

    No, wr. Here’s a suggestion: read what I write, and don’t rewrite it.

    My point is simple: Obama has been around and associated with some very vile people. And in each opportunity, he has had to choose between rejecting them, or using them to advance himself politically. He has spent his entire career turning a blind eye to the wrongdoings of those around him. He has never demonstrated a commitment to ethics, and has no problem with corrupt/evil people as long as they will help him and/or his agenda.

    J.

  64. anjin-san says:

    > false premise that DDT was carcinogenic and harmful to the ecosystem.

    You keep saying things like that, but so far you have provided zero support for your statements.

    > Bush plan that provided a tax free 401k style account for those who could afford it

    I am aware of these, and it is not a bad idea. Does not change the fact that Americans are, bye and large, terrible savers. A quality tool can be useless if it is in a tool box and people simply refuse to use is.

  65. george says:

    >> Yes, the far left is full of anger and hate.

    >And the far right is not? Please.

    Both are full of anger and hate. You need only scan the letters sections of sites like ‘free republic’ or ‘salon’ to see that. Not to mention absolutely certain that everyone who disagrees with them are stupid and/or evil – they share a feeling (differing on the details of course) that there is only one moral, sensible position (theirs).

    Its hard to avoid the feeling that they have more in common with each other than with moderates of either party; the details of the politics seems almost secondary to their absolute feeling of righteousness. Moderates of both wings tend to be much more uncertain and given to doubt.

  66. anjin-san says:

    > “How do you feel about the millions or Republicans who believe Obama is not an American?”

    According to the polls, there are a good number of democrats who think the same thing.

    Which polls?

    > Where I do have a problem with the left is the “empty facts” aspect of their philosophy.

    Yes, well we are still waiting for some actual facts showing Carson was wrong. As it is, you are accusing her of being responsible for millions of deaths, and you are backing that charge up with… nothing. Physician, heal thyself.

  67. jwest says:

    As to the Obama/citizenship poll: From CNN

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/04/rel10k1a.pdf

    15% of democrats believe he probably or definitely was born in a different country. Only 64% of democrats believe he was definitely born here.

    On DDT
    From Wikipedia:

    “DDT is suspected to cause cancer. The NTP classifies it as “reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen,” the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as a “possible” human carcinogen, and the EPA classifies DDT, DDE, and DDD as class B2 “probable” carcinogens. These evaluations are based mainly on the results of animal studies”

    So, in Liberal Land, it’s better to withhold an effective pesticide that eliminated malaria in the U.S., southern Europe, South and Central America from the African people (dying at a rate of 1 million per year) because of the slight chance that it may cause cancer

    Liberal hate science because true science uses logic, reasoning and facts.

  68. anjin-san says:

    > reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen

    > EPA classifies DDT, DDE, and DDD as class B2 “probable” carcinogens

    That does not sound “slight”, and “Liberals hate science” sounds kinda like the mindless partisan ranting you decry when coming from the far left.

    I note we have not even discussed the effect of DDT on wildlife.

    You still have not put forth a compelling risk/reward scenario for continued use of DDT. There is a pretty good chance DDT causes cancer, and you write if off as slight. You completely ignore the impact of DDT use on animals in the wild.

    You are interpreting an incomplete set of facts to support an ideological conclusion and calling it “science”, which is pretty much what the right accuses the left of doing in regards to global warming.

  69. wr says:

    Jwest — DDT may well be a carcinogen, but that’s not the reason it was banned. That was because of its hugely damaging effect on wildlife, particularly birds. It caused the shells of their eggs to become so thin and brittle they couldn’t sustain life.

    Did it ever occur to you to wonder why the book was called Silent Spring? It wasn’t because cancer bears some relation to a spring, noisy or otherwise. It suggested that if DDT use continued spring would be silent because there would be no birds left to sing.

    Do you ever actually think through anything you say, or do you just repeat what Rush told you?

  70. anjin-san says:

    > As to the Obama/citizenship poll: From CNN

    Interesting. I will take this as saying you find mainstream media polls credible.

    I wonder how CNN has Palin doing?

  71. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    She is doing much better then you ever will, Anjin. She has a sucessful business in the private sector, or rather her husband does. What do you produce beside hot air. I think you are an illegal CO2 emitter and should be contained in plastic.
    Doug, you can please Palin supporters by obsessing on something else. Why not use your powers of knowledge and wisdom to tell us the positive stuff about the socialist ideal Obama strives for? Better yet, explain how the service provided by a service provider ever became an entittlement? If healthcare is a right, how about legal representation? Do I have a right to own a Caddy or Lincoln? If not, why not?

  72. anjin-san says:

    > rather her husband does.

    I think his fishing business makes/made about 25k a year. No doubt you consider that to be great wealth.

    At any rate, there is no denying that after Palin walked away from her sworn duty in Alaska to cash in on her newfound status a celebrity, she did a good job of cashing in. She has always been a skillful opportunist.

    Since you bring up the private sector, it is amusing to note that Palin is on the record describing herself as having “experience as a CEO”. I wonder what fantasy that happened in…

  73. wr says:

    Zels, you lovable moron — Legal representation IS a right. Remember when the cops picked you up for threatening to murder some liberal, they told you that you have a right to a lawyer, and if you couldn’t afford one, a lawyer would be provided?

    Geeze, all these constitutional scholars who have absolutely no idea about how this country works. Of course Zels is the most clueless of all the idiots, but this is a new low even for him…

  74. Alex Knapp says:

    @Steve Plunk,

    Businessmen are more likely to tell the truth than politicians BTW. They are held more accountable.

    You’ve clearly never bought a used car or attended a shareholder’s meeting.

    @Jay Tea,

    One area where Palin absolutely not only outshines Obama but grinds him into the dust is in “standing up to and stopping corruption within their own party.” Obama came out of one of the most corrupt political machines in the country, was/is closely tied to several of the most vile of them, and never said “boo” to anything. Ayers, Blagojevich, Jarrett, Rezko, Daley, Wright, Schakowsky… the list goes on and on.

    Palin, on the other hand, took down the corrupt AG and governor — both Republicans.

    This is apples and oranges. When Palin filed ethics complains about the AG and Governor, it was her job. She was an Ethics Commissioner. Going against corruption was the entire point of her position. Not to mention the fact that she already had her eye on the governor’s seat — she’d run for Lt. Governor previously — so tagging the incumbents with corruption charges was in her political interest!

    Obama, on the other hand, was not in any kind of position and had no authority in the instances that you cite (and you haven’t really substantiated any corruption). Obama’s job as a legislator was to legislate–and that means dealing with the system in place to accomplish his goals.

    When Palin was governor she didn’t “stand up to corruption.” Hell, she appointed friends of hers to hold offices that they were manifestly unqualified to hold. She had her husband doing state work without any legal authority to do so. She conducted official business on a private email account in violation of state law. The list goes on….

  75. Jay Tea says:

    So, Alex, Obama wasn’t obligated to stand against corruption because it wasn’t specifically part of his job title? I kind of thought it was the duty of any public official, so ingrained that it didn’t have to be specifically written down.

    Then again, that’s not surprising. Obama couldn’t be bothered to do the actual jobs he did hold (all those “present” votes in the Illinois legislature, all those missed votes in the US Senate when he was running for president), so why would he do something extra?

    Palin was given the job as a political sop, a way to keep her happy and encourage her to go along to get along. She was not supposed to then turn around and actually enforce the rules against her patrons.

    Or would you like to make the argument that a failed lieutenant governor would find political advantage in challenging her state party chairman (and former AG) and the sitting governor, among others? That’s a hell of a long shot.

    And funny how pretty much all those ethics charges were dismissed…

    J.

  76. wr says:

    Yes, all those ethics charged were dropped — as soon as she fled from her office. Maybe that’s why she quit, eh? Oh, no, I forgot. She quit because freedom.

  77. Jay Tea says:

    wr, you’ve exceeded your Recommended Daily Allowance of Stupid. There were 18 official ethics complaints against Palin. One she essentially pleaded no contest — paying the travel expenses without admitting wrongdoing. (She said the legal bills would have exceeded the disputed amount.) At the time of he resignation, three were pending. And 14 had been dismissed.

    The three pending charges? Two weren’t even against her directly. From http://www.adn.com/2009/06/21/838912/ethics-complaints-filed-against.html:

    13. and 14. Jan. 26: Two complaints filed by McLeod alleged two of Palin’s top aides misused their official positions for Palin’s personal and political gain. The complaints said then-press secretary Bill McAllister and Kris Perry — director of the governor’s Anchorage office — worked on state time to benefit Palin’s interests during and after her vice presidential quest. Pending.

    18. April 27: Contends Palin is misusing the governor’s office for personal gain by securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust. The fund was recently established by supporters to help Palin pay off more than $500,000 in legal debts stemming from other ethics complaints, including troopergate. Complaint filed by Eagle River resident, Kim Chatman. Pending.

    Note the article is dated a month before her resignation.

    In her resignation statement, Palin specifically talked about how her opponents’ use of bullshit ethics charges was threatening to bankrupt her, her top aides, and costing the state millions. And hey, look! There are two of her aides with bullshit charges, 14 other charges that had been dismissed at that point, and a citation that defending against those bullshit charges had cost Palin half a million dollars thus far. Not mentioned were the legal bills of the staffers or the cost to the state.

    So, wr, the question here is, with your last comment, were you a lying partisan scumbag hack, or an astonishingly stupid partisan scumbag hack?

    I’ll vote C, all of the above.

    J.

  78. wr says:

    J — It’s nice to see the Palin worship continues. Of course she is the most wonderfullest, honestest, peachy-keenest, swell creature ever to walk on the earth, and none of us are good enough to breathe in her presence.

    You just keep thinking that.

  79. Jay Tea says:

    More of a fondness for the truth, wr, and an affection for busting lying sacks.

    So, who’s your current go-to source for lies, wr? Where do you go to stock up on them? DU? LGF? Kos?

    J.

  80. wr says:

    No, Jay, like you I know that the only Truth is that which is uttered by Sarah Palin. Doesn’t matter how much reality exists to contradict her, if she says it, it’s true. Because she is all knowing and all wise and should be our benevolent goddess dicatator.

    Hey, it’s fun being Jay Tea!

  81. Jay Tea says:

    Yes, all those ethics charged were dropped — as soon as she fled from her office.

    18 charges. One “fine, I did nothing wrong, but it would cost more to fight it, so here’s the money.” Two against her staff. 14 resolved in her favor. One outstanding.

    Make a deal with ya, wr — I’ll stop calling you a liar when you stop lying.

    Fair enough?

    J.

  82. anjin-san says:

    > I’ll stop calling you a liar when you stop lying.

    Pot, meet kettle.

  83. Eric Florack says:

    You mean like this poll (which Doug blogged) showing her favorables at 27% and unfavorables at 49% (which is a rather healthy plurality, and just shy of a majority).

    One poll? Hardly a trend. And the source (singular) is from what source and taken where, again? The same as the other polls you hint at, by chance? Would these be commissioned by the same folks so intent on downplaying her impact?

    So, Alex, Obama wasn’t obligated to stand against corruption because it wasn’t specifically part of his job title?

    Indeed. That “protect and uphold the constitution” thing apparently doesn’t include corruption. Or maybe it’s just a polite nothing since the left cares little for the damn thing anyway.

  84. Eric,

    You said:

    Noted that you’ve failed to list any, or to prove that they are the feelings of the majority.

    I said:

    You mean like this poll (which Doug blogged) showing her favorables at 27% and unfavorables at 49% (which is a rather healthy plurality, and just shy of a majority).

    To which you say:

    One poll? Hardly a trend.

    To which I would now say: in your original criticism you did not ask for a “trend” you stated “you’ve failed to list any” (emphasis mine).

    So, when I point out, in fact, he did list something, you then ask for a trend?

    That’s called moving the goalposts on your own claim.

    (And, for the record, the long-term trend for Palin has been high negatives and low positives).

  85. anjin-san says:

    > That’s called moving the goalposts on your own claim.

    Moving the goalposts is pretty much a full time job for bit.