The Gift That Keeps on Giving…

It’s so much less painful to just watch one of these TPM mash-ups condensing the Sunday yak-shows into four and a half minutes, isn’t it, rather than actually having to endure hours of inane pundits and complete mental cases like Bill (“wrong about everything”) Kristol yammering about the fate of the soon-to-be-former governor of Alaska.

On a semi-related Palin note, over at The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby savagely tilts at the so-called “liberal” media establishment:

In September 2008, Sarah Palin became the worst nominee for president/vice president in modern political history. For starters, she was young and unprepared. Beyond that, she simply didn’t seem to be smart enough. And she was baldly dishonest.

On balance, Palin was a horrible candidate. But when it comes to dumb and dishonest, she can’t hold a candle to the upper-class poovs who cover her comings and goings.

How dumb is Todd Purdum, to cite one example? Purdum is so dumb—and dishonest—that he’s cited by Maureen Dowd!

Maureen Dowd you already know. Purdum is the gruesome husband of former Clinton aide Dee Dee Myers—and a star at Vanity Fair. Last July, he published one of the most repulsive political profiles we’ve ever seen—a supremely slick/slippery hatchet job aimed at the vile one, Bill Clinton. Among other things, Clinton called Purdum “a really dishonest reporter,” “a real slimy guy” and a “scumbag.” And uh-oh! Bill Clinton was right!

Currently, though, Purdum is a liberal hero, revered for his repeat-all-the-tropes-for-the-rubes-in-the-Hamptons pseudo-profile of Palin.

And it gets worse — incredibly more so.

27 Replies to “The Gift That Keeps on Giving…”

  1. And it gets worse — incredibly more so.

    If I pay any attention to it, *I* start drinking the Everclear.

    …what is that anyway? Lysol?

  2. You should haver heard the bizarre commentary on NPR. I listened to it with my jaw dropped and then had to dig around to find the transcript so that I could be sure I wasn’t dreaming. Their standards must be slipping (or maybe this is what happens when public radio turns into begging/pledge drive radio.)

    You can read it here:

    NPR: Palin’s Exit Challenges Ideas About Powerful Women

    To the question of whether Palin is going way the commenter wrote:

    Whether you shared her politics or not, Palin was somebody you wanted to see in the game, trying as she was to balance a very demanding job with the equally demanding job of raising five children and maintaining a decent relationship with her husband. She seemed to have so many attractive qualities. She seemed practical, honest, unfazed and down-to-earth, exactly the qualities people hope newcomers in general and hopefully women will bring to public life. And she is making no judgment at all about the whole campaign shopping spree thing, stylish, which I for one appreciate.

    It’s hard to believe I occupy the same planet with this people.

  3. It’s hard to believe I occupy the same planet with this people.

    You mean you don’t appreciate being instructed by the media on not just how to think, but how to *feel*?

    The whole “working mum” myth surrounding Sara Palin has been the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people and that’s saying a lot.

  4. NOI — Does this mean that Sarah is finally going away?

    Well I certainly hope so. The media’s unending and lurid fascination with this addle-brained twit is almost as horrible to imagine as the prospect of having to listen to her shocking ignorance and cringe-inducing blather poisoning the well of political discourse for years to come.

  5. Palin, quite simply, is the logical extention of preferential hiring policies.. taken to the second highest office in the land.

    Clearly fighting out of her weight class, she was elevated to her position as VP candidate BECAUSE she is a woman.

    Why the media, particularly those on the liberal side of the spectrum, were so incensed at this is somewhat ironic, really, as it’s going on every day in every state of the Union, not to mention here in Canada.

    The only distinction here is that because she was running for the Republican party, the media felt very open to critically attack a woman in a way they would not otherwise have done.. exposing the folly of putting gender before qualifications in perhaps the clearest manner since the onset of affirmative action.

    The message seems to be lost, however, as how can we ever hope to have women aspire to be President of the U.S.A., if we don’t just elect a few of them to start with, regardless of their lack of ability?

  6. You’re a real piece of work, Rob.

    Palin, quite simply, is the logical extention (sic) of preferential hiring policies.. taken to the second highest office in the land…

    Since when is opportunism and cynicism at the core of policies that are intended to remove artificial barriers to advancement?

    Oh, I see:

    Why the media, particularly those on the liberal side of the spectrum, were so incensed at this is somewhat ironic, really, as it’s going on every day in every state of the Union, not to mention here in Canada.

    When it’s useful to attack your adversaries.

    This complex form of lying should be beneath you. But, you’re an Alberta lawyer, so it’s likely a professional requirement.

  7. Rob — While there may well be a discussion to be had about various gender issues surrounding Palin’s meteoric rise and fall, I don’t think you’re approaching the issue in a very illuminating way by looking at it through the prism of “preferential hiring policies” that, for some peculiar reason, you seem to feel have run amok in recent years.

    The only distinction here is that because she was running for the Republican party, the media felt very open to critically attack a woman in a way they would not otherwise have done.

    Um, did you sleep through the last U.S. presidential election cycle? Maybe you missed the relentless attacks by the “liberal media” on Hillary Clinton — or for that matter the strident criticism coming from the so-called “nutroots” of the Democratic Party (dKos, et. al) who felt HRC was far too middle-of-the-road, beholden to corporate lobbyists, and closely associated with the establishment DLC faction of the party.

  8. I wish they’d just say what they really mean…”As with every bad thing that’s ever happened in the history of the World, Palin is all *your* fault, liberals!”…and save the rest of us the time.

  9. Ok, TG, we know.. like Pavlov’s dogs, every time I comment, you salivate and must attack the keyboard with a vengeance..

    And it is actually ironic, that a few moments ago, my wife was giving me the gears about my previous post, saying “I thought you were in favor of affirmative action?” – which I am, provided the candidate is qualified.. and there’s the rub..

    And as for my “lies” TG, no, I don’t actually see Palin as part of an actual “affirmative action” program, note the sarcasm at the end of my post.. what I do see, however, is someone elevated to a post of potentially great responsibility, that they weren’t qualified for.. for one reason. Gender.

    Now – does it make it any less wrong for the people to whom she owes that responsibility whether her elevation was out of noble intentions or out of political cynicism – capitalizing on dissatisfaction with Hillary Clinton’s loss in the Democratic primaries? I don’t think so..

    My point is – once the minimum qualifications are met, I think preferential hiring is actually a good thing. I have a daughter, and I am appreciative that her future could include the practice of law, or policing, or fire fighting.. but, putting people into positions for which they are not qualified (Supreme Court of Canada seems to be one of those sorts of jobs we should be concerned about qualifications for) does a disservice to the recipients of those services, and in the long run, diminishes those who you seek to elevate..

    What I do think is that the rise and fall of Sarah Palin allows us to consider this in a very obvious way.. which was the point of my post. Sarah Palin is the clearest and most obvious example of how we cannot seek to advance persons to positions they are not qualified for, simply because of their gender, or any other disadvantaged status..

  10. Try and make sense, would you? You claim at the beginning of your comment that Sara Palin is not a consequence of “affirmative action” (a term I hate, since it’s the American term and connotes their failure to break down entrenched barriers based on class and race) and then end up at the end claiming she is.

    The reason equal opportunity and employment equity have become such a hot button for me is because they are being challenged by the most transparently over-privileged mediocrities I’ve ever come across. That says a lot more about the psychology of those mounting the challenge than the pros and cons of such policies themselves and are really not relevant to public discussion.

  11. McCain chose her to neutralize Obama’s age (rich are old BTW, and illegal for me to be Senator or USA Prez yet legal for Alzheimer Reagan to hold such office, young are unemployed in recessions) as much as Hillary’s gender, but whatever.

    Yes Rob, MSM was so hard on her: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/16/terence-corcoran-the-skewering-of-sarah-palin-continues.aspx
    …NP ridiculed her “sophisticated” interpretation of the Bush Doctrine, didn’t they? Aspers made her sound like she had more foreign affairs life experience than Hillary, McCain and Obama combined.

  12. Listening to, and hearing about, Sarah Palin must indeed be as “painful” as you describe. So painful that you “hope” that she will “go away.” The proof of all this is that you (and others) continue to write about her.

    Fascinating. One can only speculate on the reasons for this.

  13. ““… affirmative action” (a term I hate, since it’s the American term ….” sputtered by Ti-Guy

    Poor Tiggy, pathetic and impotent Canadian.

    To help Tiggy and his ilk, America should institute an affirmative action program for obsessively anti-American Canadians. Perhaps America can provide seed capital to an international committee whose sole purpose is to edit English language dictionaries to protect the English-speaking world from Americanisms. It would likely break the national treasury, but it will help our friends in America’s Hat by channeling all that impotent rage into such useful endeavors as getting rid of words like “internet,” “personal computer,” “software,” “television,” “light bulb,” “phonograph,” “telegraph,” “telephone,” “superhero,” “to google,” “hot rod,” “hot dog,” “hot chick,” “OK,” “fubar,” “hello,” “movie,” “movie star,” “baseball,” (ha!) … *pant* *pant* ….

    .. or Red’s favorite, “asshat.”

    I think we should call it the “Global Committee to Reduce the English Language by At Least 50%.”

  14. I love how Americans freak the hell out every time you look at them cross-eyed.

    Osama Bin Laden really knew what he was doing, that’s for sure. It won’t take anything nearly as impressive as another 9/11 to finish them all off, that’s for sure.

  15. Pardon the inelegance of that last comment. Two “that’s for sure’s” in quick succession. Bad style.

  16. To close out this thread:

    It appears you wacky leftists now believe that Sarah Palin “has something to do with” Michael Jackson’s death, and that is why she has resigned.

    The good news is that the “Reverend” Al Sharpton is on the case and is putting the issue “out there.”

    Out there is right …

    … that’s for sure.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s