Gay Patriot Header Image

On the failure of the legacy media to investigate Palin’s gubernatorial record as it failed to look into Obama’s campaign self-promotion

If, back in 2008, our legacy media had taken the time to look into Sarah Palin’s actual record in Alaska politics, three names of corrupt politicians would forever be associated with her, Frank Murkowski, Greg Renkes and Randy Ruedrich.  And the reason we would associate their names with hers was not because she turned a blind eye to their double-dealing, but because she exposed it.

She stood up against corruption in her own party.  Each of those men is a Republican.  As she put it in her post yesterday on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government:

Barack Obama and I both served in political office in states with a serious corruption problem. Though there is a big difference between serving as the CEO of a city, then a state, and regulating domestic energy resources, and being a liberal Community Organizer, bear with me on the comparison. The difference between my record and Barack Obama’s is that I fought the corrupt political machine my entire career (and I have twenty years of scars to prove it) on the local, state, and national level. But Obama didn’t fight the corruption he encountered. He went along with it to advance his career.

Read the whole thing.

And yet our friends in the legacy media bought into the claim that that career Chicago poll was some new kind of politician.  They neither asked nor looked for any evidence to buttress his claims.

Sarah Palin, by contrast, had a real record of reform.  It’s just that some journalists thought her tanning bed of greater interest.

But, we’ve been through this before.  That said, it serves as an important reminder about necessary battlefield preparation for the coming presidential contest.

NB:  Tweaked the title to make it less clunky

Share

89 Comments

  1. Funny, Snatchy, I’ve looked all over that first thread and there’s not a single mention of “branding” anywhere in it. Just an insult.

    1.Palin has gone from Fox News to Big Government. She really has thrown in the towel.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 16, 2012 @ 3:55 pm – March 16, 2012

    Of course, when that was pointed out, you then flipped to the “branding” argument — only to have it thrown back in your face that a person like yourself who had said that those accusing Palin of attempted murder in the Giffords shooting were “voices of reason” was a less than reliable source on Palin.

    As for Joe the Plumber, that then also blew up in your face when you were presented with examples of Barack Obama staffers and Barack Obama Party Congresspersons who were running around with back tax liens without a peep from you on their unfitness to serve.

    But now, since you seem hell-bent on pissing and screaming about supposedly misrepresenting yourself in order to make a political point, we can easily shut you up by showing how your Barack Obama ordered his delegates to dress up like doctors and misrepresent themselves as such at town halls for the health care bill.

    And, just to cap off the Joe the Plumber saga, we can point out how the Obama campaign ordered its minions to not only use state emails and resources to send them lists of potential donors, but to also illegally search databases and release private information to smear Joe the Plumber.

    Not a damn word from you anywhere in that process, either. You’re flipping out over Joe the Plumber supposedly “misrepresenting” himself when he was actually working for a plumbing contractor — while you’re dressing people as doctors who aren’t and pushing them out in front of the camera while behind the scenes you have your campaign supporters plowing through government and state databases looking for information to release publicly to smear people.

    Don’t you EVER come here and lecture about morals, you filth. We’ve seen what you and your friend rusty give “two snaps” to, and it’s not only completely hypocritical, it’s also illegal. You two truly will say and do anything to keep your grip on power — which makes you completely unsuited to ever be allowed anywhere near it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 19, 2012 @ 12:26 pm - March 19, 2012

  2. ILC, if you’re going to ignore the question I posted at the end of #42 first, which is merit-based, then, I can only surmise your questions in #50 are rhetorical.

    Have a great day. Enjoy playing in your pile.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:28 pm - March 19, 2012

  3. ND30 >> You read everything I write assuming it’s a conservative-attack. Of course, you think it’s an insult. It’s easier for you to assume it is, then actually seriously entertain the thought that I went into more detail in Post #3 and #30 and then rephrased the question in #42.

    If I have credibility issues, then you should have no problem enlisting the moderators to ban me from this site, as that would mean I add nothing to the debate, as they practice removing irrelevant content. If you’re so confident in my “credibility issues,” be my guest and ask them to ban me from the site. (I think you have enough experience getting banned to know what it’s all about.) And, by the way, I’m still waiting for your email address, so I can show you proof of my monthly insurance payments as well as my parent’s long-form birth certificates. Do you remember what real proof is? Or does it have to come from the ND30 LOL (Library of Links) to qualify?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:35 pm - March 19, 2012

  4. smooches, ND30 xoxo

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:38 pm - March 19, 2012

  5. Special message for you ND30. Love you long time!

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:39 pm - March 19, 2012

  6. ILC, if you’re going to ignore the question I posted at the end of #42

    Imitation is flattery… or in your case, desperation. What’s wrong, Cinesnatch? Outmatched? Not as much fun, when somebody else gets in the key light of your closeup?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 12:40 pm - March 19, 2012

  7. And, if anyone doesn’t want to address the merit-based point I made at the very top of this thread and would prefer to prattle on about something else entirely (whether it be about church, from ND30’s LOL, a personal attack, etc.) unrelated, then be my guest and indulge your sense of narcissism.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:41 pm - March 19, 2012

  8. Case in point Post #56.

    When we’re ready to have a real conversation, feel free.

    Until then, keep insisting that you’re schooling me as you lie in your vile piles.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:44 pm - March 19, 2012

  9. Love you too ILC! xoxo

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:47 pm - March 19, 2012

  10. In post #56, by their own words, they’re insinuating that they’re desperate.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:48 pm - March 19, 2012

  11. ND30 >> You read everything I write assuming it’s a conservative-attack. Of course, you think it’s an insult. It’s easier for you to assume it is, then actually seriously entertain the thought that I went into more detail in Post #3 and #30 and then rephrased the question in #42.

    Went into more detail, no. Changed your story and started spinning, yes.

    If I have credibility issues, then you should have no problem enlisting the moderators to ban me from this site, as that would mean I add nothing to the debate, as they practice removing irrelevant content. If you’re so confident in my “credibility issues,” be my guest and ask them to ban me from the site. (I think you have enough experience getting banned to know what it’s all about.)

    One of the nice things about GayPatriot, Cinesnatch, is that the ban hammer is applied, not for disagreement, but for outright disagreeableness.

    Your problem is that the other sites you frequent confuse disagreeing with being disagreeable. That is not surprising; you regularly do the same here, insisting that those who disagree with you or provide facts to the contrary of your assertions are persecuting you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 19, 2012 @ 1:32 pm - March 19, 2012

  12. NDT, quite right. Cinesnatch indeed contributes nothing of value – only a strained, gray kind of entertainment with his mix of hostility (random insults), self-pity and forays into lying – and yet there is no reason why the blog owners should take notice of him, much less ban him. They are tolerant guys, and busy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 2:19 pm - March 19, 2012

  13. 57.And, if anyone doesn’t want to address the merit-based point I made at the very top of this thread and would prefer to prattle on about something else entirely (whether it be about church, from ND30′s LOL, a personal attack, etc.) unrelated, then be my guest and indulge your sense of narcissism.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 12:41 pm – March 19, 2012

    Your “point” has been addressed repeatedly, Cinesnatch.

    You simply refuse to acknowledge anything that is not complete and total agreement with you. You claim to demand facts and want discussion, yet deride links and facts that are shown to you and complain about people “judging” you if they disagree.

    This site is unusual and threatening to you because you’ve never seen a gay website where people are not only allowed, but encouraged to disagree with gay dogma and actually criticize gay and lesbian people who behave badly. You’re much more suited to websites like Truth Wins Out, Waking Up Now, or others that ensure that not a disparaging or different thought is ever posted.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 19, 2012 @ 2:24 pm - March 19, 2012

  14. 62.NDT, quite right. Cinesnatch indeed contributes nothing of value – only a strained, gray kind of entertainment with his mix of hostility (random insults), self-pity and forays into lying – and yet there is no reason why the blog owners should take notice of him, much less ban him. They are tolerant guys, and busy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 2:19 pm – March 19, 2012

    Exactly, ILC. Indeed, it’s kind of amusing that Cinesnatch uses whether or not one has been banned from a website as proof of the validity or relevance of one’s arguments — because it acknowledges that the other gay and lesbian websites that Cinesnatch frequent ban, not based on behavior, but whether or not they disagree with the arguments being presented.

    That’s typical, though. Most gays and lesbians are like Cinesnatch — less interested in learning and discussing than they are having their preconceived notions validated as correct by others. After all, given that their value in their minds derives from their sexual orientation, anyone who would dare question their conclusions is doing so out of homophobia and hatred for gays and lesbians.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 19, 2012 @ 2:32 pm - March 19, 2012

  15. Your “point” has been addressed repeatedly, Cinesnatch. You simply refuse to acknowledge anything that is not complete and total agreement with you.

    Zakly.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 2:35 pm - March 19, 2012

  16. It’s amusing that you two keep prattling on about what you think of me as a person, when I couldn’t give two piles. I tried to steer the conversation back to something merit-based and you continue indulging your fascination with what you think about past exchanges. Try staying in the present and I will do my best in the future to do the same.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 2:47 pm - March 19, 2012

  17. 66.It’s amusing that you two keep prattling on about what you think of me as a person, when I couldn’t give two piles. I tried to steer the conversation back to something merit-based and you continue indulging your fascination with what you think about past exchanges. Try staying in the present and I will do my best in the future to do the same.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 2:47 pm – March 19, 2012

    Been there, done that.

    Your response was to whine about how we were judging you and then complain that if you weren’t credible we should be calling for your banning.

    Oh, and of course, when the links necessary for having a merit-based conversation were provided, you mocked and derided doing so.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 19, 2012 @ 3:02 pm - March 19, 2012

  18. kisses nd30

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 3:11 pm - March 19, 2012

  19. I tried to steer the conversation back to something merit-based

    Oh, my. Merit-based is the latest psychobabble, new age, indefinable, spinning goal post offered up to guide us toward truth, justice and the American Way. Would you like some geez with your whine?

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 19, 2012 @ 3:31 pm - March 19, 2012

  20. So you’re all in agreement that palin would have better served herself by hooking up with a more respected conservative media outlet. Sorry, it takes me a while to read between the lines. last time it took me over 100 posts to get that ILC couldn’t prove racism in the sherrOd video. At least, this time, it only took less than 70 posts. Thanks guys! And god bless you and have a great week! Xoxo

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 3:48 pm - March 19, 2012

  21. Pat,

    Perhaps you are familiar with the work of Lawrence Kohlberg who addressed “moral stages.”

    I hope you will look it over and understand that different people are at different levels of moral understanding.

    Your pork vs. homosexuality perhaps need some rethinking. Eating pork was prohibited. I would not choose the action of eating pork as parallel with the action of having sex in dead-end ways for the end result of satisfying lust.

    Producing children is not the highest moral order. If it were, I suspect the Bible would have encouraged men to impregnate as many women at hand as possible and as often as possible. The prohibition on pork and the prohibition of sowing your seed in useless places are not really too different in many respects. But they are vastly different in concept.

    However, your reference to pork becoming more acceptable and less of a moral stricture is useful. What you eat and do not eat is a strange sort of moral tenet. It is largely about how you, as a religious person, “do” religion rather than how you as a human interact with other humans.

    I suppose if eating pork or shell fish were really a big moral issue, we would find pork and shell fish wars fought between competing points of views throughout history. But, we don’t. (We do seem, however to have kept cannibalism high on the morality restrictions.)

    Can I respect a person who eats shell fish or pork? In many ways, but not if he professes to hold a faith that bans the action. It is not the pork, but the hypocrisy that is morally wrong.

    What is your understanding of why the sexual conduct of homosexuality is considered immoral by many? Why do you think so many prefer homosexuals to carry out their private life in their bedrooms and not confront the public square with actions of affection that draw attention to that with which the public square is not in full accord, let alone approval?

    In many respects, I do not understand why thoughtful, intelligent gays and lesbians do not create a positive religion for their specific minority needs and issues. Instead, there seems to be a lot of energy expended to try to reorganize existing religion to accommodate their wants.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 19, 2012 @ 4:09 pm - March 19, 2012

  22. My bad, Pat.

    Wrong thread1 (Again.)

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 19, 2012 @ 4:10 pm - March 19, 2012

  23. So you’re all in agreement that palin would have better served herself by hooking up with a more respected conservative media outlet. Sorry, it takes me a while to read between the lines. last time it took me over 100 posts to get that ILC couldn’t prove racism in the sherrOd video. At least, this time, it only took less than 70 posts. Thanks guys! And god bless you and have a great week! Xoxo

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 3:48 pm – March 19, 2012

    No, we’re not.

    You simply are trying to win the argument by making a declaratory final statement and then stomping off.

    You didn’t. If anything you made yourself look worse with such actions.

    But that is quite beyond you to recognize.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 19, 2012 @ 4:17 pm - March 19, 2012

  24. Well you certainly haven’t bothered to weigh in on the issue, so what am I supposed to think until you do?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 4:41 pm - March 19, 2012

  25. And if you don’t want to, can we just end things here and move on?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 4:49 pm - March 19, 2012

  26. Vince,

    Are you still at it? Your credibility on what Palin should or should not do is weighed by your ability to draw flies against Palin’s ability to draw national attention.

    Even your barnyard draw for flies, great as it may be, does not begin to interest public notice for its numbers. Palin’s teenaged daughters gather more hatred from the left than you will ever accumulate “two snaps” from you clown friends in the Peanut Gallery on the left.

    This personal attack brought to you by your determined efforts to hog the limelight.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 19, 2012 @ 7:20 pm - March 19, 2012

  27. ILC couldn’t prove racism in the sherrOd video

    My claim was: The NAACP laughed with pleasure, as Sherrod explained her plan to discriminate against the white farmer.

    You posted comment after comment, documenting that exact thing for me. You only pretended you were somehow contradicting me, LOL 🙂

    Hate to intrude on your lies (to yourself?) with a bit of reality, Cinesnatch.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 7:45 pm - March 19, 2012

  28. If anything you made yourself look worse with such actions.

    Indeed. The simple facts are these.

    – Cinesnatch is the local equivalent of Westboro Baptist Church. They picket the funerals of good men, with slanders. Cinesnatch “determined to depict [Breitbart] as disingenous and lack [sic] integrity” and did so in a 170+ comment discussion, on a thread mourning Breitbart.

    – Only smear artists “determine to depict” others in a certain way. Cinesnatch must now live with the stench of his own narcissistic and vile indecency.

    – Unwilling to do so, he blames the stench of his vileness on us, bringing a pathetic mix of hostility, intellectual dishonesty and self-pity to each thread he participates in. Most recent exhibit: this thread.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 7:50 pm - March 19, 2012

  29. LOL … your continued belabored repetition on your perceptions of argument style and contributions at GP are not my trying to hog the limelight or fuel narcissism, as I’ve been accused.

    You have all made your points on what you think of me. You’ve said the same things 100 different ways.

    And, I ask you, again, was Palin’s decision to post on Big Hollywood instead of a more reputable conservative media site a step forward, back or sideways?

    And how is me asking this question trying to hog the limelight? If you don’t want to answer it, then, don’t, and leave it at that. Or here’s a novel idea: answer the question. By your very definitions, by just showing up at GP, I’m trying to hog the limelight. Believe me, if I wanted to get attention, I know where I can get it and in crowds much bigger than the 20 or so regular commenters at GP. Attention? You FLATTER YOURSELVES! Try answering the question. We already know how you feel about me and my debating skills. Now, get over yourselves and answer the question or just move on … (it’s not rocket science, folks) …

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 8:10 pm - March 19, 2012

  30. [Cinesnatch, speaking to ILC:] your continued –corrections of my own– belabored repetition on your–my mis–perceptions of –your– argument style and contributions at GP are not –are indeed– my trying to hog the limelight or–and– fuel [my] narcissism

    FIFY, champ.

    You brought up Sherrod, and that thread in which you were so disgraceful; I didn’t. But natch, it’s not your fault. It’s never your fault, right? The devil made you do it! LOL 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 8:20 pm - March 19, 2012

  31. And, I ask you, again, was Palin’s decision to post on Big Hollywood instead of a more reputable conservative media site a step forward, back or sideways?

    1.) Any Breitbart site is a reputable conservative site. Prove otherwise. Oh? You can’t? Then Big Hollywood not being a “reputable” conservative media site by your self-serving liberal over the top leftist opinion is just a bigoted judgement call.

    2.) You loony-tunes leftists went totally bat-sh*t crazy over Breitbart bringing it to you and making you own it.

    3.) Conservatives everywhere in this once great nation support the Breitbart sites in honor of the man and we will work to keep up the good work that Breitbart did in his tireless work to build the sites.

    4.) Your opinion and a two farts in an aqualung are just about worth a shattered clarinet reed mended with snail snot.

    5.) You strike poses as a great thinker and authority, like Cas, but you can’t even work up enough presence to cast a shadow.

    6.) Take your presumptuous insistence that we here need to pay you more respect and attention and see if you can get a good parking space at Wal-Mart in trade.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 19, 2012 @ 8:29 pm - March 19, 2012

  32. I declare retroactively that Heliotrope just spoke for me. Or as they say… “Dittos!”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 8:33 pm - March 19, 2012

  33. Um … did I not single out The Wall Street Journal and The National Review as reputable conservative sites?

    Why do I keep having to hold your hand to keep you on course, Helio?

    Or, are what you’re saying is that you view BH as having the pedigree of the aforementioned? For a non-moral relativist like yourself, I would have had you pegged as someone who leaned towards more time-tested tomes. Guess I was wrong …

    … Good authors too who once knew better words,
    Now only use four letter words
    Writing prose, ANYTHING GOES!

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 8:35 pm - March 19, 2012

  34. P.S. Breitbart’s book came today. I can’t wait to read it!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 8:36 pm - March 19, 2012

  35. Your opinion and a two farts in an aqualung are just about worth a shattered clarinet reed mended with snail snot.

    Thank you for listening to my complaint about overusing turd in the punchbowl. Not impressed, but I give you props for trying. Really, this is quite decadent and stream-of-consciousness. I never had you pegged as a connoisseur of David Lynch films. I wonder what your dreams are like at night.

    Take your presumptuous insistence that we here need to pay you more respect and attention

    Believe me, YOUR disrespect is worth the price of admission here at GP. And, I believe I already commented on the attention part. KEEP UP, Helio! Seriously, make that trip to Costco.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 8:44 pm - March 19, 2012

  36. P.S. Breitbart’s book came today. I can’t wait to read it!

    I hope they spell-checked it.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 8:49 pm - March 19, 2012

  37. BTW… Speaking of people who can never admit when they’re wrong…

    Rather than get into a hostile, oppositional, limelight-hogging, dig-the-hole-deeper thing in every thread, in which Cinesnatch obsessively brings up the past Breitbart thread even though no one else did i.e. he is first to do so in the new thread… wouldn’t it just be easier – and more honest/decent, etc. – for Cinesnatch to admit he was wrong to play the part of Westboro Baptist? That maybe, just maybe, the first thread after an admired individual dies isn’t the decent place for spewing crap all over them for a duration of 170+ comments?

    So again, when I see Cinesnatch complaining about people who can’t admit they’re wrong, I’m left chuckling “….project much?”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 9:09 pm - March 19, 2012

  38. As far as Breitbart, I know I’m mind-reading here, but I’m guessing the polemicist wouldn’t have wanted to be celebrated any other way than people participating in his favorite sport–unapologetically arguing over politics. For someone who spit on the grave of Ted Kennedy on the day of his death, I fear Breitbart would have accused me of playing in the little leagues with my tactics on Bruce’s Breitbart RIP thread.

    Otherwise, I have already privately apologized to those I needed to for my insensitivity, namely, Bruce and Dan.

    It takes two to tango, my friend. You could have just walked away. Kind of like what I’m going to do right now.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 19, 2012 @ 9:28 pm - March 19, 2012

  39. It takes two to tango, my friend.

    Looks like you didn’t read my comment, Cinesnatch. As usual. I’ll add emphasis this time – still knowing, of course, that it won’t sink in:

    wouldn’t it just be easier – and more honest/decent, etc. – for Cinesnatch to admit he was wrong to play *the part of Westboro Baptist*? That maybe, just maybe, the first thread after an admired individual dies isn’t the decent place for *spewing crap all over them* for a duration of 170+ comments?

    Breitbart deserved a defense from the likes of you. We provided it. Suck on it.

    Kind of like what I’m going to do right now.

    LOL 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 19, 2012 @ 11:14 pm - March 19, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.