Ill-Informed Palin-haters
It is amazing how ill-formed so many supposedly well-informed people are about Sarah Palin. Perhaps, that’s what comes from getting yours news from the New York Times and the Big Three TV networks.
I keep running into friends, acquaintances and even family members who follow the news of the day on a regular basis and have no knowledge of the Alaska Governor’s reform record. But, they do know things about her that just aren’t true.
At the same time, when I press these people to name something significant their candidate accomplished, they fall silent.
At least, I can learn about Palin’s accomplishments by surfing the conservative web and searching Alaska papers. But, even Obama’s supporters can’t tell me what their man has done to merit the presidency.
36 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I think both the left and the right recognize that Palin has the potential to be the next Ronald Reagan… which is why it is imperative for the left… and for the country-club Republican elite … to destroy her.
Comment by V the K — October 14, 2008 @ 5:55 pm - October 14, 2008
What amazes me is how foaming-at-the-mouth-excited lefties can get over one hired partisan’s BIASED, SELF_CONTRADICTING and DEBUNKED report against Palin on Tasergate, yet they don’t give a hoot about Barack and Michelle’s Obama’s proven corruption with convicted felonTony Rezko, or with the corrupt earmarks at Michelle’s hospital.
Of course it comes down to 2 things:
- They don’t really know anything about Obama.
- They don’t want to know. It wouldn’t change their view or their vote, if they did know. They’re operating on pure emotion; reason and morality need not apply.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 14, 2008 @ 6:26 pm - October 14, 2008
What I wonder is, when Obama is president… and when he reveals himself to be as out-of-his-depth as we know he is, and his administration is as rife with incompetence and corruption as those of the Big City Democrat Mayors his politics most closely align with… will the Wall of Media be enough? Or, will Americans eventually see him for what he is?
Whoever unites the Republicans against Obamunism will be the 2012 front-runner. Palin definitely has the ‘It’ factor, and if she can show leadership at the national level through the vector of unifying the Republican party, who knows, we may have a real president for only the second time in my life.
Comment by V the K — October 14, 2008 @ 6:36 pm - October 14, 2008
That’s a nice thought V the K, but most Republicans I know don’t admit to the glaring incompetence of the Bush administration and no one I know seems to truly care about the glaring corruption in Congress, so I don’t think that Obama is going to be seen as some kind of pariah. I think it is more likely that when the Dali Bama reveals himself as the hard core liberal/socialist that he is, the Amurrican people will rebel against that. Palin’s best bet, if her ticket is defeated, is to go back to Alaska, keep doing the type of job she’s doing, get reelected and then kick some as in 2012. After four years of Obama and Biden, Palin is going to shine as the breath of fresh air that she is. I already designed a bumper sticker, “Caribou Barbie in oh12!”
Comment by Hunter — October 14, 2008 @ 6:46 pm - October 14, 2008
Actually, she and you should hope that the Repub ticket doesn’t get in. The mess those elected will inherit will not be cleaned up in 4 years and the people will vote out whoever it is. I suppose the hope of some is that McCain will kick off before the 4 years are up and Palin becomes the big Boss. Better she get voted in on her own merits, than that.
As far as the mythical left wing hate of Palin. If you can honestly say that the right didn’t/doesn’t abhor Hillary and have brutally attacked her both politically and personally then I will listen to your whines.
Comment by Dave — October 14, 2008 @ 6:59 pm - October 14, 2008
Dave-
The *extreme* right has attacked and hated Hillary. (though not remotely as brutally as the extreme left has attacked and hated President Bush…)
The difference is that the hatred and mockery of Palin extends all the way through the Democratic mainstream.
Heck, the derision of Palin extends to nominally conservative writers inside the beltway.
Also… the obsessive fantasies about McCain’s death even before he’s been elected are really, really creepy.
Comment by Clint — October 14, 2008 @ 7:16 pm - October 14, 2008
Obama ran a failed oil company and owned a baseball team and partied a lot. Woot!!
Comment by jimmy — October 14, 2008 @ 7:33 pm - October 14, 2008
“the obsessive fantasies about McCain’s death”
Let me make it clear, I don’t have those fantasies it was pure conjecture on my part. If the Repubs are to win I for sure what McCain to stick around the whole time, I don’t think Palin is appropriate for VP never mind the top dawg.
I guess it must be what you consider “extreme”
Comment by Dave — October 14, 2008 @ 7:43 pm - October 14, 2008
I think it is folly to think that if Obama is elected the media will eventually turn on him. They cannot do so. They are cemented into a relationship with him that will endure until he - and/or they - eventually fail.
ILoveCapitalism is right, I believe. It is an emotional commitment that defies reason. We will only see an attitude change in the national media when new media sources emerge, imo. And that may not occur very soon, given the economic atmosphere. Hard times ahead, I fear.
Comment by 49erDweet — October 14, 2008 @ 7:48 pm - October 14, 2008
Jimmy, unfortunately Obama doesn’t even have those experiences to his credit. And I have to agree with Dave, this mess is just going to get worse in the next few years, and the current clowns in Congress are a big part of how it all happened. I guess it is delusional to expect those same folks to clean things up. I’d love to see a big non-partisan mucking out in a few years. And, it sure would be better to have Palin win on her own, and I expect she could do that after being VP for the full McCain administration. The foregone conclusion that McCain is going to drop dead as President is kind of ridiculous. C’mon, 80 is the new 60!
Comment by Hunter — October 14, 2008 @ 7:49 pm - October 14, 2008
please… please WAKE UP to the DISASTER of McCAIN/PALIN and of the EIGHT HORRIBLE YEARS which the REPUBLICAN PARTY have INFLICTED ONTO THE REST OF THE WORLD. When we watch images of supporters of Palin and McCain at rallies you can’t realise how STUPID they appear to the rest of the world. I remember seeing supporters of Milosevic in 1999 looking equally deluded and disgusting. PLEASE wake up!
Comment by matty — October 14, 2008 @ 7:58 pm - October 14, 2008
As far as the mythical left wing hate of Palin
Mythical?
Comment by V the K — October 14, 2008 @ 8:01 pm - October 14, 2008
Mythical?
Comment by V the K — October 14, 2008 @ 8:09 pm - October 14, 2008
When we watch images of supporters of Palin and McCain at rallies you can’t realise how STUPID they appear to the rest of the world.
Well, when we find out how little the rest of the world actually knows about the United States, we don’t really care.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 14, 2008 @ 8:12 pm - October 14, 2008
Oh, I saw ‘Gay Patriot’ and figured it would be a website devoted to gay people who love their country. But it’s totally not! What a silly name y’all have chosen, gosh darn it! Why, it’s as if you think that liberals, like me (I guess) aren’t patriotic, just because we’re liberal! And here I thought the whole point of the U.S.A. was that it was a place where we RESPECT each others’ differences and don’t claim someone is less American than you because they don’t agree with you. Silly me!
But let’s get down to brass tacks. As a patriot, I want a leader who has the intelligence to navigate through some pretty tricky waters without drowning. Why? Because I love my country! Which ticket is obviously even-keeled and has stuck to a plan? Obama-Biden. Which ticket has been flailing like a drunken frat boy? Palin-McCain. I could go on.
One last point. The U.S.A. was established, quite intentionally, as a democracy. We could quibble forever over whether or not the Founding Fathers REALLY wanted everyone to be able to vote (odds are that they were seriously uncomfortable with the prospect), but as it appeared evident that the franchise would only continue to get broader - poor white men, then black men, then women - it became increasingly clear as well that a democracy requires a well-educated and informed electorate. Yes, that’s right. It’s PATRIOTIC TO APPEAL TO OUR HIGHER INSTINCTS, TO ENCOURAGE US TO BE WELL-EDUCATED AND INFORMED. Who has the Palin-McCain ticked been really appealing to lately? People who think Obama is a terrorist because of his name. Wow. Where would they be in the polls right now if it weren’t for people who actually think that Obama isn’t a citizen? Shockingly, even lower. The Founding Fathers are turning in their graves. If conservative homos such as yourselves wish to align yourself with the wackos who have been attending the GOP rallies lately, go right ahead. I’m sure they’ll just love you.
Real Gay Patriots are voting Obama because they are voting with the best interest of all Americans, and the citizens of the rest of the world for that matter, in mind. Which leaves Palin-McCain supporters with only their narrow interests, whatever they may be, and their sad, all-consuming fears. Face it.
Comment by Matthew — October 14, 2008 @ 8:16 pm - October 14, 2008
Did he really say left-wing deranged hatred of Sarah Palin was Mythical?.
Sandra Bernhardt never wished for Sarah Palin to be gang-raped?
Left-wingers in Philadelphia didn’t say “Let’s stone her!”
No one hacked her email?
No one accused her of not being her baby’s mother?
No one is selling bumper stickers saying “Abort Sarah Palin?”
You’ve got to be kidding me. Mythical.
Comment by V the K — October 14, 2008 @ 8:33 pm - October 14, 2008
Thank you, Matthew in #15 for making my point.
You really do show how uniformed liberals are. Where do we even hint that liberals aren’t patriotic? Are you assuming that because we call ourselves patriotic, we contend others are not? We make no such assumptions.
In your post, you make a lot of allegations, but offer no facts.
If you’re going to take the time to comment to my post, at least address my point and it’s about the ignorance of those who disparage Sarah Palin. And without showing any familiarity with her record, you, by ignoring my point, made it. Even your point about GOP rallies. There’s less venom in an average GOP rally than in your comment.
So, thanks for commenting. It’s nice to know I was right to post this. All you succeeded in doing was show how ill-informed you are.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 14, 2008 @ 8:41 pm - October 14, 2008
The U.S.A. was established, quite intentionally, as a democracy.
Wrong. The USA was established, quite intentionally, as a representative Republic.
Comment by V the K — October 14, 2008 @ 8:42 pm - October 14, 2008
Actually, Matthew, it’s because we are informed that we choose not to support Obama.
Carruthers admits that Africans living in America have already been shaped by Western culture, yet compares this Americanization process to rape: “We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist….†In other words, American blacks (i.e. Africans) may have been forcibly exposed to American culture, but that doesn’t mean they need to accept it. The better option, says Carruthers, is to separate out and relearn the wisdom of Africa’s original Kemetic culture, embodied in the teachings of the ancient wise man, Ptahhotep (an historical figure traditionally identified as the author of a Fifth Dynasty wisdom book). Anything less than re-Africanization threatens the mental, and even physical, genocide of Africans living in an ineradicably white supremacist United States.
Carruthers is a defender of Leonard Jeffries, professor in the department of black studies at City College in Harlem, infamous for his black supremacist and anti-Semitic views. Jeffries sees whites as oppressive and violent “ice people,†in contrast to peaceful and mutually supportive black “sun people.†The divergence says Jeffries, is attributable to differing levels of melanin in the skin. Jeffries also blames Jews for financing the slave trade. Carruthers defends Jeffries and excoriates the prestigious black academics Carruthers views as traitorous for denouncing their African brother, Jeffries. Carruthers’s vision of the superior and peaceful Kemetic philosophy of Ptahhotep triumphing over Greco-Euro-American-white culture obviously parallels Jeffries’ opposition between ice people and sun people.
Remember, this is what Obama, as the head of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, was approving to be taught in public schools — and was shunting millions of dollars to people who were teaching this and endorsing it to children.
Now Matthew, do you believe that white people are inherently evil because they have different levels of melanin in their skin? Obama does, and Obama supports this being taught to schoolchildren with our tax dollars. Do you consider that action to be “patriotic”?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 14, 2008 @ 8:53 pm - October 14, 2008
“But, they do know things about her that just aren’t true.”
and which things may those be?
Her much applauded line in her nomination speech–repeated frequently thereafter–that she opposed “the bridge to nowhere” and told the feds no thanks for the money is a demonstrable lie. She supported it until it became a political liability and then kept the federal money. Not much different than any other governor would do, but hardly the maverick reformer she claims to be.
As for Palin and gays, many on the right claim she brought same sex benefits to state employees, but the undisputed fact is she wanted to veto the bill until she was told it was unconstitutional.
I won’t dispute that some of the criticism of Palin is misogynist, (Sarah Palin is a Cunt T-shirts are unbelievably offensive), but can you folks on the right wing admit that some of the portrayals of Obama are equally racially offensive?
Comment by Brendan — October 14, 2008 @ 9:48 pm - October 14, 2008
Oooooh! Where to begin? How about with this:
Find me ONE article suggesting that she should have aborted Chelsea and/or ONE article suggestiong that she shouldn’t be in Washington but should be at home taking care of Chelsea and I might give a crap about what you have to say.
Given the way you type, I have serious doubts that you’re old enough to remember. What happened to the fake fainters at the Comrade Obama rallies anyway?
More like because the leaders of your party have done everything they could, including 70+ bills to guarantee the defeat of the United States. Not to mention calling the commanding general a liar because his report didn’t fit in with your party’s narrative.
Or how liberals were for invading Iraq before they were against it when a Republican president actually had the cajones to do it. Which of course required the liberals to invest in the defeat of America and do everything in their power to undermine it for political reasons. I could go on, but you get the idea.
I, for one, welcome any liberals who truly love their country. However, I have no tolerance for those who believe they have to destroy it to prove it or liberals who vote for those who do.
I would guess that navigating tricky waters would be required getting to those other 7 states.
Nevermind that it’ll screw the country? Nevermind that it’s totally wrong? Nevermind that nobody’s allowed to ask questions about it? Nevermind that the candidate can’t explain it when asked about it?
Just because shit sticks to the wall when you throw it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a good thing.
But only if it’s the liberals doing the educating and informing, right?
I’ll remind you that the liberal left has pushed their fair share of attacks. Name a prominent Republican who has made that assertion. I can tell you who, on the left, has pushed the assertion that Obama isn’t a citizen, is a terrorist Muslim, is a drug dealing black guy. Are you sure you want to dance?
I wasn’t aware that real Americans support sending even more jobs overseas. One would think that Comrade Obama would have at least stopped long enough to piss on the gay media.
When it comes to one candidate promissing to increase taxes and spending by a few billion fold and one promissing to cut taxes and freeze spending, guess who this gay man is going for? When a political virgin promisses to give Ahmafucktard the time of day, real Americans should be quaking in their boots.
Oops! Missed one:
Now go back in time to that part of the 80s and find me a successful Texas oil company and I MIGHT be inclined to cede your point. As for the other, Dude! It’s the Rangers. Not to mention that he was NOT a sole owner.
Can you honestly say that Comrade Obama didn’t party a lot?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 15, 2008 @ 1:59 am - October 15, 2008
No, but Palin does have the ability to be the next John Edwards - a losing former Vice-Presidential candidate who then runs for President 4 years later and fails to secure her party’s nomination.
In this hyper media age, It’s one and done on the national stage.
Comment by Erik — October 15, 2008 @ 3:01 am - October 15, 2008
#22: “In this hyper media age, It’s one and done on the national stage.”
Erik, that’s only true in your party. There’s a long list of Democratic politicians that got to enjoy brief periods in the spotlight, but no group of animals devour their own like liberals once the “magic” is gone. Gore, Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, Hillary…One day, they are lauded as the nation’s last hope for survival. The next, well…look what happened when they discovered the Obamessiah. Then it was open season on even Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton himself.
This is only Sarah Palin’s introduction to national politics. She’s just getting started.
Comment by Sean A — October 15, 2008 @ 3:42 am - October 15, 2008
In this hyper media age, It’s one and done on the national stage.
If that’s true, then Biden isn’t going anywhere and by extension…..
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 15, 2008 @ 4:42 am - October 15, 2008
There are certainly disgusting examples of hate speech on both sides. The difference, as I perceive it, is that only one side is actually INCITING that hate speech. Sandra Bernhard didn’t make her vile gang-rape “joke” at a Democratic rally, she made it during her one-woman show. That doesn’t excuse it, but it does mean that the Obama campaign can’t be held responsible for it. Conversely, the “Kill him!” and “terrorist!” comments are coming directly from Republican campaign rallies, and they directly follow statements from McCain and Palin themselves. McCain is not quite as egregious, although you’d think that after getting this kind of response from his “Who is Barack Obama?” comment, he might choose a different phrasing. Palin, on the other hand, appears to be deliberately whipping crowds up into a nationalistic frenzy that inspires a pretty dangerous attitude.
So, in sum, it’s hardly fair to paint this as an issue each side is guilty of. There are cranks and nutbags on the fringes of both parties, but only one party is openly pandering to its extremists and permitting that kind of conduct to take place at rallies and other officially-sanctioned events.
Comment by CB — October 15, 2008 @ 10:47 am - October 15, 2008
Speaking as a GOP moderate, I like Sarah Palin and what she’s been able to do for the Party. Her treatment by the MSM and conventional feminists has been disgusting. She’s taken repeated, undeserved roundhouse punches to the temple more than a few times this season.
But she needs an awful lot of work and seasoning before she’ll be ready for prime time anywhere other than Alaska. The comparisons of her to RR are a dishonor to that man’s memory and striking accomplishments; to paraphase Dem Veep Nominee Lloyd Bentsen, I knew Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan.
We can exchange the worshipful idols on the high altar later… but Palin’s portrait ain’t ever hanging inside the White House unless McCain and Palin win this year. If they don’t, the slime tossing inside the GOP will begin with the analysis of why in the heck did McCain pick Palin in the first place and it’ll go downhill from there. And it won’t be country clubbers asking da questions.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 15, 2008 @ 11:36 am - October 15, 2008
CB, in #25, once again, a critic makes my point, showing how ill-informed you are about what’s actually happening.
You address, in your words, “comments are coming directly from Republican campaign rallies” and claim the GOP “is openly pandering to its extremists and permitting that kind of conduct to take place at rallies and other officially sanctioned events.” The latter claim is just plain silly.
Permitting that type of conduct? What should they do, screen all participants to make sure they won’t say crazy stupid things at rallies?
Yeah, there are kooks on both sides, but the incidents at GOP rallies are isolated ones while the hate against the GOP is a widespread phenomenon on left-wing web-sites and among Democratic activists?
Do you have any examples of conservatives vandalizing Democratic Party Headquarters, stealing and/or burning Obama signs?
Seems your outrage is quite selective, based on the misreporting of what one or two angry activists have said at McCain rallies.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 15, 2008 @ 12:07 pm - October 15, 2008
MM:
I disagree, but what I find striking in that comment is that now you want to defend Reagan. What a difference a year makes, LOL
I agree. Here’s the thing, though: Obama needs even more. And he’s running for the #1 slot. As a Governor and former oil and gas regulator, she is actually a little bit more seasoned and qualified than Obama. It’s astounding, that the Dems are running him! And sexist, that they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge ‘the chick is more qualified’.
I’m confident you’ll do your best along those lines, and are prepping the battlespace.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 15, 2008 @ 12:58 pm - October 15, 2008
“Nevermind that it’ll screw the country?”
America is screwed already. Bush and the Republican dinaosaur put it back 100 years. Sorry. You need a wake-up call dude.
Comment by grace — October 15, 2008 @ 1:56 pm - October 15, 2008
ILC, I agree with some of your points… and I’m glad to see you still like to “LOL” it up while getting in some well-natured jabs. Spots haven’t changed on your hide, eh? (wink)
Nothing can take away from RR’s accomplishments once he GOT into office, but the point I made earlier and you noted was about RR’s 1975-76 efforts to undercut the incumbent GOP Prez (Ford) and that resulted in JimmineyCricket’s election and 4 yrs of pain… and gave RR the platform to rebuild the Party’s central core… which led, in part to the Gingrich Revolution and the Delay Devolution.
Note the clarification: once RR got into office. And yes, I think Ford was still a better leader, better politician, better public servant than RR. But to compare Palin with RR is a stretch of immense proportions and one for which, having known RR, is a pretty presumptive thing to do.
Is Palin more prepped to be Prez than Obama? Yep. No pun, but in a heartbeat. Is she more prepped to be Prez than Biden? Yep, by a long shot. Is she the next Reagan? Surely, Shirley, you can’t be serious?
Besides, if McCain-Palin lose, this will be all academic, no? The liberal ideology will be in ascendance for 20-25 yrs and Obama will do for Democrats what RR did for conservatives and the GOP. There’s the closer analogy I think.
BTW, “I’m confident you’ll do your best along those lines, and are prepping the battlespace”, is high on contempt, short on logic. If McCain loses, I won’t be inside the Party structure –the purge of all the pragmatic, policy driven moderates will have been decided by the totality of voters… not just GOP primary voters. McCain is perceived within the Party as a moderate… by some even a RINO. The moderates are toast for a few years while the Party rambles around the desert in search of meaning and political efficacy. At least that’s what I think.
But this is off topic, right? We were talking about Palin haters; I’m not one of those.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 15, 2008 @ 10:33 pm - October 15, 2008
Oh, my gracious. For the record, this was the point you made in the old post, that I referred to at #28:
Skip the name-calling… the comment includes Ford’s time in office, thus Reagan’s and Carter’s. And regardless of all that, Ford was only “far” better than Carter in your book but “far, far” better than Reagan… a fascinating, back-handed way to put down Reagan. Well, whatever dude
If you simply misspoke, that’s cool, but the easiest thing would be to say “Oops, I misspoke” rather than further digging the hole.
…and yet you had changed the subject back at #26, to Palin herself and to Reagan. Fun.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 16, 2008 @ 12:26 am - October 16, 2008
NDT,
Thanks for that Telegraph article! good one i hadnt seen.
Comment by American Elephant — October 16, 2008 @ 2:22 am - October 16, 2008
Sarah Palin doesn’t need to be Ronald Reagan. She needs to be Sarah Palin. She’s an amazing politician, but she’s not Reagan. That doesn’t make her any less, only different.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 16, 2008 @ 3:08 am - October 16, 2008
The liberal ideology will be in ascendance for 20-25 yrs and Obama will do for Democrats what RR did for conservatives and the GOP.
You guys have so much more faith in socialism than I do. Conservatism did not succeed because of Reagan. Reagan succeeded because of conservatism.
Comment by V the K — October 16, 2008 @ 5:29 am - October 16, 2008
“You guys”?
True that (1) Socialism doesn’t work in reality. (2) Libertarian-conservatism does. (3) Reagan succeeded because of his willingness to voice, and to lead with, the principles of the latter. Palin is another Reagan IF, or to the extent that, she does the same over time.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 16, 2008 @ 9:27 am - October 16, 2008
[...] again I express amazement at what supposedly enlightened people know about Sarah [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Why Are Educated People So Ignorant about Sarah Palin? — October 17, 2008 @ 1:58 am - October 17, 2008