Sarah Palin Sends Another Feminist to the Grassy Knoll
Those who observed me doing cardio at the gym last night must have thought I was watching something on Comedy Central. Instead, I was watching a performance by a feminist on Larry King Live that had it been cut and pasted into a Saturday Night Live sketch, it would not have seemed out of place.
Naomi Wolf was going on about some conspiracy theory linking Sarah Palin to Dick Cheney to Karl Rove to D.B. Cooper and the George H.W. Bush aide who wrecked the wedding of Ross Perot’s daughter while Mary Matalin (visible on a split screen) was doing her utmost to contain her amusement. Her lipstick likely covered up the bites on her lips.
Responding to Larry King’s request that she comment to this statement, “somebody said today that they don’t remember a vice presidential concession speech,” the feminist rambled on:
Yes, I personally have no idea whether it’s traditional or not. I don’t think tradition should matter that much. I think what’s more important is what I keep hearing — the refrain I keep hearing from people is, you know, oh, we should have rolled her out more narrowly, she’s genuine, I like her, she’s got all these kids, she speaks from the heart.
You know, all of those are lovely in a neighbor or in a co- worker. But what people have to remember is do we really want to hand our country over to consultants like — like my colleagues on other side of the aisle on this panel, with all due respect, who seem to want to roll her out like a product.
And let’s look at what she was fronting for. She wasn’t just doing what the McCain team wanted. She was carrying water for policies of Rove and Cheney and Bush, including policies on torture.
(LAUGHTER)
Bear with me.
And it — history has seen plenty of examples of a cabal — a group of people who get into power. And then she is a telegenic, charming, Evita-type front person to kind of lure the masses. . . . while the same old guys remain in power with some very dark and negative policies. . . that our country is still recovering from.
Wow, just wow. Her words read even stranger than they sounded last night. She’s fronting for Rove, Cheney and Bush with her (cue sinister music) with her dark and negative policies. Huh? Has Wolf read any of Palin’s campaign speeches or even studied her record?
Sarah Palin does seem to bring out the worst in her critics.
Let’s hope we have more Mary Matalins to take those critics to task:
I don’t know where my friend, Naomi, who was the third wave leading feminist and has turned into a Grassy Knoller. There is no Cheney/Rove cabal. . . .
WOLF: There’s no Cheney-Rove cabal, huh?
MATALIN: See, you’ve got — I don’t — this is why people think liberals are such fringies. I mean you — you run around saying that she’s such a dope, but you were all duped by the dope.
17 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Yeah, I was driving to band practice last night and accidentally ended up on the station carrying the LK show. I’m glad I’m not easily distracted when driving.
And need anyone be reminded, wasn’t Naomi Wolfe one of the advisors who badly botched the Gore campaign. You know, the whole “Alpha Male” thing. I never got this crowd. All the harping on Florida. You know if Gore would have but WIN HIS HOME STATE, Florida wouldn’t have mattered.
Comment by Sonicfrog — November 17, 2009 @ 3:51 pm - November 17, 2009
Just an aside… Isn’t a new world map from Nick in order after Obama bashed the United States in Japan (and probably in China as well)? Or had he already bashed us there?
Comment by American Elephant: Providing the Sources that ILC Can't — November 17, 2009 @ 5:27 pm - November 17, 2009
Good golly but Sarah has these libs sucking their shorts right up their rear wind tubes.
gillie and Tano better get here quick and give us the true blue view.
Comment by heliotrope — November 17, 2009 @ 5:45 pm - November 17, 2009
Hysterical, and truly pathetic.
In the past 2 days, at least 5 stand-alone posts on Sarah Palin. You’d think maybe in all that bloviating, one would find something of substance? Nope, all these posts are just one whine after another about how badly she’s been mistreated by the demonizing left-wing media. Why not take some time out to address some of the fact-based critiques of the claims she makes in her memoirs? You know, the real reason most people don’t trust her: her problems with the truth.
Perhaps the saddest (or most hilarious) part of your obsessive whining is this: she “needs to develop his substance.” I just love that. You’ve literally written a half-dozen posts about somebody in the past 2 days… that you finally admit HAS NO SUBSTANCE.
I can’t help but think this is satire.
Comment by william — November 17, 2009 @ 7:01 pm - November 17, 2009
Why not take some time out to address some of the fact-based critiques of the claims she makes in her memoirs?
We already did. You just ran away when it was revealed that your so-called “fact checking” involved just telling flat-out and obvious lies.
You would think that you wouldn’t be stupid enough to claim adherence to the facts when you were posting and spreading faked pictures of a person, william. But we have to remember that this is the Obama Party, who actually forged documents and tried to pass them off as true to discredit Bush. There is literally nothing the media and the leftist Obama Party that controls it won’t do, including just making things up — as you and they continue to demonstrate.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 17, 2009 @ 7:28 pm - November 17, 2009
Um, william, do you even read my posts? At least two of them (including this one) are anything but “whines,” instead they’re quite the opposite. I’m delighting in the fools some lefties make of themselves when they go after Sarah Palin.
Um, and, when did I say Palin had no substance? I did fault her for complaining too much about criticism, but in several of those posts, referenced her many accomplishments.
As to the supposedly fact-based critiques, well, others have done that and found such critiques to lack substance.
Oh, um, will you please acknowledge that misrepresented my posts and my tone?
Thanks.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 17, 2009 @ 7:52 pm - November 17, 2009
I put your quote about her lack of substance in quotes. You’ll find that I did not misquote you, or misrepresent your meaning, if you’ll take a look at the most recent of the half-dozen vapid Palin posts on this site. And as for any analysis of the fact-checking of her memoir, sorry, neither you nor nobody else here has done it, your drooling sychophant “North Dallas Thirty”’s link to an irrelevant post notwithstanding. Here is that link again:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_palin_book_fact_check
Read it, discuss its’ substance… or keep up with the stupid and go on mindlessly cheering for your beloved empty vessel, then froth that she’s some kind of victim. We haven’t heard that one enough.
Comment by william — November 17, 2009 @ 8:22 pm - November 17, 2009
william, here’s what you write, “You’ve literally written a half-dozen posts about somebody in the past 2 days… that you finally admit HAS NO SUBSTANCE.” Where did I “admit” she lacked substance?
If someone needs to develop his substance, it doesn’t mean he has no substance, but that he needs more.
And I’ll address the supposed AP fact check that you link above as soon as you address the points I raised in my initial response to your comment. And answer the question I posed above.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 17, 2009 @ 8:30 pm - November 17, 2009
oh and william, in the article where you claim I said Palin had no substance, I made quite clear that she did, referencing her accomplishments–and linking articles which detail them.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 17, 2009 @ 8:45 pm - November 17, 2009
Comment by V the K — November 17, 2009 @ 8:51 pm - November 17, 2009
your drooling sychophant “North Dallas Thirty”’s link to an irrelevant post
What? No honest analysis of why the so-called “fact checkers” in the media were posting fake “facts” about Palin?
Doesn’t your argument about Palin stand up to examination, william? Are you afraid to admit that you and your fellow leftists tell lies about her? Are you worried that your “fact checks” won’t pan out when it’s obvious to everyone that you lie about Palin constantly?
But then again, we should remember that dimwit william has to defend the lies of Barack Obama as fact, such as Barack Obama’s claims about “stimulus jobs” in Congressional districts that don’t exist. William and the rest of the media “fact checkers” simply have no concept of reality any more; they just repeat Obama talking points. Typical of the intellectual laziness and vapidity that characterizes liberals and the Obama Party.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 17, 2009 @ 9:52 pm - November 17, 2009
Oh, and here’s another example of how the puppet william and his “fact-checkers” are working.
I cannot claim to have completely read “Going Rogue” — I had to skim the last 150 pages (or more than one-third). I only got the thing into my hands late Monday afternoon with a deadline of early evening. It’s terrible, I know, but if I didn’t read it all, neither can Sarah Palin claim to have completely written it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 17, 2009 @ 10:20 pm - November 17, 2009
“And I’ll address the supposed AP fact check that you link above as soon as you address the points I raised in my initial response to your comment. And answer the question I posed above.”
Keep moving the goalposts, sweetheart. At some point, you’re going to have to do more for her than cheer.
Comment by william — November 17, 2009 @ 10:31 pm - November 17, 2009
william, go read my posts. I’ve done just that. And for well over a year now.
As to moving the goalposts, please note that you’re commenting to a post I wrote. And I accused you to defend your accusations and acknowledge your errors.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 18, 2009 @ 12:44 am - November 18, 2009
Poor William,
All I have to do is read the first one to know where the article stands. As the writers do not understand that often != always. They found one example.
Now if only we had a press that would have sent eleven(!) people to fact check on PResident Obama’s connections to terrorists, or to racist ministers.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 18, 2009 @ 6:50 am - November 18, 2009
Strange, isn’t it, that littleletterperson william shows up and gillie and Tano stay mum. They do all seem to make about the same non points and side step in the same shuffle pattern.
I will give william points for calling B. Daniel Blatt “sweetheart.” Somehow, though, I suspect that william is being a tad disingenuous. Maybe he uses “sweetheart” like a bouncer uses the word “pal.”
In any case, william’s trained eye and strong nose for political success cause him to give ample warning that Palin is a non-starter and not worth mentioning. So, shall conservatives table Palin and get on with trying to lure Specter back or should conservatives ignore william and allow Palin to soldier on?
Comment by heliotrope — November 18, 2009 @ 10:11 am - November 18, 2009
“And I accused you to defend your accusations and acknowledge your errors.” Your writing bears a bit of resemblance to Sarah Palin’s style of speaking: imprecise to the point of incomprehensible, wildly overblown, but devoid of any real content.
Comment by william — November 18, 2009 @ 6:45 pm - November 18, 2009